 The work I've been doing has usually been done in collaboration with a bunch of people, the most, the major ones are listed there. So my plan is the following, I'll start with neutrinos trophies that won't take very long for reasons which you should understand. I get into then the astronomical counterparts of ice cream neutrinos, ice cream is the largest neutrinos detector in the world. And then I get to the, I guess the part which you are more interested in, the synergy with the very energy of species, of course, and the role of CTA. But as Roberta said, I work at ESO, and as you all know, the CTA South will be managed by ESO. This is where it's supposed to be. This is in the circle there. It's close to Cerro Paranal, where four Van Laaf telescopes are located. And also close to Cerro Masonics, where the extreme telescope, which is going to be the largest optical near different telescope in the world, is going to be. So it's here. It's on this plateau. This is a picture I took last time I was in Paranal on the road, going back up to the VLT. So this is where CTA, so there is a strong link already between ESO and the CTA. Just to make sure we are on the same wavelength, actually on the same frequency, I should say. I wrote here the classical notation I'm going to be using, EV, GV, terranetron volt, betanetron volt, and so forth. So I know you're familiar with it, but just to be on the safe side. So neutrinos, I guess most astronomers are not familiar with neutrinos, so I'll have a slide dedicated to those. First of all, neutrinos are Italian. The name neutrino was coined in Rome, actually by Varga Maldi last century. This is a picture of the famous ragazzi in the Pannisperna, the Pannisperna boys, where actually, you know, physics, there was a very important group doing top physics in Rome. The name was that popularized by Fermi, and it simply means the little neutral one, to be distinguished from the neutron, which was the big one. So it's tiny, that's why it's neutrino, because it's small. The latest upper limit was released last week, I think a couple of weeks ago, it's 0.8 electron volts. So that's about 640,000 times smaller than the mass of the electron, and I remind you what the value is that. So it's really, really, really small. It's neutral. It's a very weakly interacting elementary particle, and it comes in three types. The electron, the moon, and the tau neutrino, which to make our life complicated, they actually can switch between one flavor, as they're called, and the other. And the most important thing is that neutrinos are actually absolutely everywhere. When I give my public talks, people are shocked by this, but it's true. Every cubic centimeter of the universe contains about 340 cosmic neutrinos, with energy which is really, really small. This comes from the big bang, when everything was in equilibrium with neutrinos as well. We probably never be able to detect them, but they are there. And then every second, every square centimeter of our skin is crossed by about 10 to the 11 solar neutrinos, which means that every second we are crossed by 10 to the 14 neutrinos, with an energy slightly less than 1 megaethron volts. So they are really absolutely everywhere. So they could be the second most common particle in the universe, apart from that matter, but I still don't know what that matter is. Just to give a flavor, again, this comes from one of my public talks, but I think it gives you a nice idea. If I shoot one of these solar neutrinos in a pipe, this is the Los Angeles aqueduct. If I shoot a neutrino in the pipe, how long is it going to take for the neutrino to stop on average? The answer is 500 parsecs. This shows you how very little neutrinos interact with matter. If I shoot the proton with the same energy, after half a meter, the proton will stop. So these are really, really weak interacting particles. So a neutrino astronomy, as I said, is going to take very, very little because until recently we only knew two neutrino sources in the universe. The first one is the sun. This is a paper from the Boraxino collaboration, which highlights the classical fusion reaction which happens in the sun constantly. Four protons merge in a very complicated way. They become an atom of helium. They produce energy, of course, which is what astronomers love, but they also produce two protons and two electron neutrinos. And the energy of this neutrino, which comes to the so-called PP channel, as you can see here, it is about half of an electron volt. The second and last until recently, source was supernova itself. I was still a graduate student when a supernova, the closest supernova to Earth since many, many centuries, exploded in the night imaginary cloud. A few hours before the optical photons, three different unit vectors on Earth detected a bunch of neutrinos with energies between 20 to 40 mega-electron volts. How they are produced is the so-called reverse beta decay. In the core collapse, protons and electrons are squashed to death, and they produce a neutron and an electron neutrino, so totally different physics than the solar neutrinos. Enter ice cubes. Ice cube, in 2013, published the first paper on science saying that it detected a bunch of astrophysical neutrinos above 30-terra-electron volts. So this is already a million times higher than the energy of the supernova neutrinos. All these ice cubes, ice cubes, as I said, is the largest detector in the world. It's the South Pole. You don't see it because it's under the ice. It was built over seven summers by using boiling hot water to dig all these tunnels which were used to lower the detectors of ice cube, which go down to about 2,500 meters. They reach the bedrock underneath the ice. So what ice cube does, it doesn't actually see the neutrinos. It sees the interactions of particles produced by the interaction of neutrinos with the protons in the ice, which produce moons, which produce cherry cove blue light, a bit like a CTA will detect, and it detects this light thanks to these optical modules. So based on the way these modules flash, the ice cube physicists test the interaction and the energy of the neutrinos. This is one more recent result. This is now 2019. The level of detection has reached now 6.5 sigma, which I remind you for physicists is really great that this 5 sigma detection, which is really, really hard to get, but now there are 6.5 sigma. They are sure they detect these 2-physical neutrinos. And as of now, above this range of about 50 teritron volt, we are actually, we know that we are almost sure that the neutrinos are 2-physical because there are also some astro-atmospheric neutrinos produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. About this value, we can say that the ice cube has detected about a couple of hundred of astrophysical neutrinos. So now do we know that we've gone from 2-physical sources to 200, unfortunately not. And the reason is this is short gear. The error circles of these neutrinos is huge. These events come in two flavors, the showers, which actually can radiate up to 10, 15 degrees and trucks, which are actually better determined. These are the small circles here with areas of say, with radius about up to 1.5 degrees. So it's very hard to understand to know where they're coming from. But if you look at the distribution in galactic coordinates, you see that this is the galactic plane. They are all over the place. So they are not coming from the galaxy. Indeed, the majority of these neutrinos is coming from other galaxies. And this is a zoom in of the first association we shall discuss in a few minutes. So we know that they're coming from other galaxies. And another hint we can use to understand where they're coming from is the energies. As I said earlier, nuclear fusion produces neutrinos up to 1 in EV. Supernova explosion, reverse beta decay up to 10, 20 mega electron volts. The neutrinos seen by ice cube now reach 6-peta electron volts. That's a billion times higher than the neutrinos from the supernova explosion. So where are these coming from? We know it's due to protons, high energy protons, colliding with protons, or with photons, producing pions, which decay, produce muons, and also neutrinos. The same reaction produces pi zeros up here, which produces gamma rays. And the energy and the flux of the gamma rays and the neutrinos are the same within a factor of 2. So this is a very important point. All neutrinos sources have to be gamma-ray sources. Intristically, I say because the gamma rays could be absorbed. But intrinsically, they have to be gamma-ray sources. Of course, the opposite is not true. You can have gamma-ray sources producing different ways which are not in the source. But if you have neutrinos, you have to have high energy protons. You have to have gamma-rays. And this is one of the hints we've been using to try to make a way and understand what are the astronomical counterparts. So let's get to the first logical association. This goes back to September 2017. So now, four and a half years ago, Ice Cube releases, I mean, now and then, a surplus where they alert the community to interest in neutrinos and they give the position and the other circle. In this case, this happened as I said, September 2017. The energy was quite high, almost 300 teratomores. And what happened was that at the same time, firmly and magic, detected a counterpart which was a blazer flaring in the gamma rays. I'll tell you what the blazers are in a second. These are the light curves. You see the firmly gamma ray light curve closer to the event of the antenna, which is this red line. The source is starting to be in albos, also in the radio and in alabans. So how likely is it that you actually connect such a neutrino with a flaring blazer? So the calculation was done in the science paper by Ice Cube and all the many collaborations which were actually part of the paper. And the result was that based on various arguments, the p-value was between 3 and 3.5 sigma. This is post trial, of course, physicists use post trial values, which means that astronomers, they're starting to do it, but we normally don't do it. If you do 20 tests, you get by chance a two sigma result because one of the 20 is 0.05. So when you do many, many tests, your p-value has to multiply by the number of tests to correct for that. So this is corrective for that and already still it is 3 to 3.5 sigma. But there is more. The Ice Cube collaboration went back to the archive and they realized that it was a flare of neutrinos, about 30 neutrinos coming from the same region over 110 days at the end of October 2014. The energy range was, again, very high, 13th electron volt, 3.6th electron volt. And again, the p-value post trial of the coincidence was 3.5 sigma. So there were two sort of independent events. One was one neutrino and the other one was about 13 neutrinos, all coming from the same source. The source was very anonymous at the time. Now it's become very popular. It's Texas 0506, but 056. Texas means that it comes from the Texas survey, which is a radio catalogue. That's all it means. It was done with a telescope in Texas. This is an optical spectrum. As you can see, there is no much. If you screw the teleuric absorptions and interstellar bands, there are three tiny, very weak lines, which I zoomed in here. Oxygen 2, oxygen 3, and nitrogen 2. Based on this, the p-value that managed to get the redshift, which is 0.3365. The equivalent width, which in astronomy, we defined as the ratio between the line flux and the continual flux, was very, very small. 0.05 to 0.17 octotruses. For astronomers, this is really, really weak. So if I hadn't seen, I've seen only one line, I wouldn't trust the redshift, but they found three. So I'm very, very confident about the redshift, which is vital. If you want to do the physics, because then with the physics, you can do the powers, and you can actually model the sources. This is a point I get to in a minute when I talk about our own work. So this source was a blazer. What is a blazer? So I give you the big picture. We know about two trillion galaxies in the universe, more or less. We believe that most of them, the big ones, have black holes at the center. But in many cases, the black holes are absolutely nothing, like in our galaxy. Our galaxy, the black hole is dormant, is sitting there. There is no gas falling to it. Yeah, you can see it by other means, but it's really doing nothing. In about 10% of the cases, the nucleus at the center, you can see this is Nc41-51, becomes active. We call them active galactic nuclei or AGM. Why? Because much of what the black hole pulled in by the potential of the black hole, converts its gravitational energy into radiation, and a lot of power is emitted. In about, let's say, 10% of the cases, jets are developed. These are streams of particles moving close to the speed of light. When these jets are pointed towards us, and this is the famous picture that Roberto was referring to, which is now about 27 years old next month, and when the jet point towards us, we call the source a blazer. And by that, I mean within 10, 15 degrees. Due to the math, there's about one galaxy out of 100,000. It's a very, very rare class, but they are very, very powerful. So they are actually dominating some parts of the sky, including the radio and also the gamma ray, and the very energy gamma ray, the CTA, is going to be something. Why are bases important? Because they are, of course, sites of very energy phenomena. Again, this is very limited to the CTA. So far, we reach with detected photons up to 20 to 30 volts from them, and the speed of the jets reaches 0.9998C. That's the launch factor of 50. How do we know that? We know because we studied them in the radio, and we see these blocks moving with time. We know the distance. We can infer how fast they are moving. Turns out they are moving faster than light, which doesn't make any sense. It's a selection effect because the source is running after its own photons. Time is compressed. If you do the math properly and you put in the orientation angle, you can actually infer from the superluminal motion as we called it, the real motion, and it turns out to be up to launch factor of 50. So nothing is violating special activity here. There is also, as I said, based on this, we know that there is relativistic beaming, which means jets moving very fast. It has more land going with the line of sight. And thanks to this, there is amplification. And so the jets in place look much, much more brighter than they are because of this boosting, which turns out that it's produced by relativistic beaming. And it goes like over factor to some power. And this is very well known. My definition is that glaciers are nature's free accelerators. And they are very efficient. Free in the sense that it's cheaper to look at the blazer than to be in the larger line of the sun. So you actually can study accelerators by studying blazers, which explains why many physicists actually moved into blazer territories to be able to study these free accelerators. So 2017, as I said, it was four and a half years ago. What happens is then. I'm going to give you a summary because the literature is full of complicated claims. So I've done my own selection, very biased, because I've been working in the field. And I'm going to tell you what happens is then and what we know now about possible other new resources. First of all, there is a 2.9-sigma detection, so almost 3-sigma, from, guess what? A sigma 2. NGC 1068, totally different beast. It's a prototype sigma 2 galaxy, it's obscure. And apparently, although the physicists will say it's not infection, it's a hint. It's a 2.9-sigma. Then there is a 3.3-sigma combined access in the northern sky, which when you look carefully, it's due to four sources. One is, again, 1068, and then there are three blazers. One is our friend, 0506, and then there are two other anonymous blazers, 1424 and 1542. And then there is a 3.0-sigma time-dependent access now in the northern sky, again, due to, again, NGC 1068, again, 0506, another blazer, 1542, the same one there, and the M87, which is, Paolo and Tommy and I call it, almost a blazer, because it's jet, it's a very strong source. It's aligned within 17 degrees with the light of sight, I'd say 1720, so it's almost a blazer. How did the ice could get these values? What they do, they look for clustering of photons. This is a map, a sky map of their many events. They look for clusters and they look for access over the background, the two circles here show you the strongest northern and southern sources. Now, if I go back and highlight the names of the sources, you see blazers over the place. Apart from this 68, you see that there are three blazers here, two blazers here, and then there is a mid-circle, which I said is almost a blazer. So this is where it resides from ice to wind. Then there are other resides from the literature. One comes from our own group, a paper by Paolo Johnmi and myself and others. We found a 3.2 sigma correlation, post-triali game, for 47 gamma-ray blazers. I'll discuss this in a minute, but these were a particular type of blazers. We call them IVS and HPS. What is that? This is based on the frequency of the synchrotron peak. This is a classical blazer LCD. This is BLLAC, the prototype. As you can see, this is frequency, and this is dwarf nu or square DDE for the physicists. There is a first peak, which is due to synchrotron emission, and then there's a synchrotron peak, and another peak, sorry, high range is where, which we don't know what it's due to. And based on the frequency of the peak of the synchrotron emission, we call sources HPL, like Macaulay 501, which has a frequency reaching almost to the 20 when it gets in albus, or intermediate when the peak is about under 14. Why? We are interested mostly in the sources, especially HPL, because as you can see from Macaulay 501, when you shift the synchrotron peak, the whole LCDs get shifted to extremely high energy. So this is very relevant also to CTA. These are the sources the CTA is mostly going to detect. Then there is another result, a 2.9 SIMA correlation excess for the LPI selected NGF. These are sources which show a very strong radio core. The four bias associations again are all blazes, but they appear to be LBIS, so the peak is below under 14 hertz. Another 3.9 SIMA correlation excess for the same AGS sample, but for a different S2 sample, and then there is a 2.9 SIMA association in 5.9 SIMA by Antares, which is a northern detector in the military and sea, and an ice cube event, and they both appear to be linked to another blaze. So let me a few words about the John Newton site. What we did, we looked, we dissected and we set the regions around about 70 ice cube events. These are, this is their projection in Equatorial Coordinates. We only looked at the tracks. These are the ones which the most position is best determined, and in blue are the sources which included the red ones and in the galactic plane, which gets confusing, so we dropped them. This shows you how complicated this is. This is one of the good ones. This is one of the good Neutrino error ellipses, okay? So the size here is about slightly more than one degree. All these red dots are radio sources or the blue dots are X-ray sources. And there are, you know, hundreds of them inside. If you only look at the radio and the X-rays, you move to the right of the plot, and the numbers go down immensely. We're looking for non-thermal sources. Non-thermal sources emit in the radio, the X-rays, and also the gamma rays. So this is what we did. We looked for radio, X-ray, and gamma-ray sources within these individuals, and we got a bunch of associations, okay? We got about 47 of them. And the interesting part is that we did it for two class of erasers. We did it for the LBS. So, signal on peak, less than 10, 14 hertz. And then we did the, we did a match. We counted how many erasers we found with these 70 error ellipses. And then we, Paolo Giormi did an amazing work. He took a random number of regions in the sky and looked for the same type of sources, and he got the same numbers. You can see in the neutrino error region, we got 15, in the control sample, we got 14. In the year 17, year 20, 24, 26. But when you look at the IPL and HPL, so signal on peak above the 14 hertz, we got an excess. In the neutrino error region, we got more sources, significantly more, 3.2 sigma than in the control sample. Don't worry about the values numbers here. The point is that high school publishes a 90% error circle. But we know that there are systematic, so what we did, we increased this error circle by 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 to be sure that we are missing sources. Anyway, the bottom line is that we find an excess of about 15 gamma ray blazers on top of the background at the 3.2 sigma level. And some of them are like excesses of 506 in ways which I'll explain in a minute. So again, summarizing in these other results, not include with ice cube, you see blazers all over the place. Okay, other IPL and HPL like in our case or MDS, but blazers appear to come out as possible counter parts. Unfortunately, as you can see, it's still 2.9, 3.2, 3, we're still there. So physicists, again, are saying these are hints, they're not detections. So what is the take home messages? We're missing the magical five sigma, unfortunately, we have a bunch of three sigma associations. Blazers are all over the place. The rest are hints that only blazers are very rare. And rare blazers are classes are actually involved. And this comes most from our group. As I said, IPL or an HPL, so blazers, when the signal peak is above 10 to 14 parts, which actually makes sense because us and the ice cube group put an upper limit on the signal that they can explain, and the blazers can actually explain in terms of ice cube events. And it's about up to 15, 30%. So blazers, yes, are popping up all the time, but they cannot be explained all of the ice cube signal. There is something else going on there. So what are we doing now? I get to CTA in a minute. So we have 47 sources, which are detected possibly connected with neutrinos, about 15 of them should be detected. And so we started a project where actually, I work at ESO, my work was over energy, where ESO and the Grand Decar in this case have made ice cube. Why? Why? Because only thanks to optical telescope, this is our BLTs, a set of parallel, and this is the Grand Telescope of Analyst. Only by getting over the spectrum and getting reships, you can get the powers, you can actually get the physics of the sources, and you can understand what's going on. So most of the sources, selected by John Lethal, did have reships. So we started the project to actually get reships of the sources, published a bunch of papers, paper one, led by Simona Payano and her group, published a bunch of spectrum of the sources. And the good news is, for all the sources we looked at, this is the table for our paper, we either got reships with very good significance or lower limits. So we can actually tell you either the reships or a lower limit to the reships, which means we get the power of the source, gamma ray, neutrinos, whatever, or a lower limit to the power. So based on this, we actually launched in another paper, which appeared online last December, where we actually characterized all the sources, trying to look for features which were distinguished them from other blazers. And the answer at the moment is that they seem to be quite similar to other blazers, apart from one thing, which has to do with, again, our Texas 0506, which most of the sources are masquerading BLX and introduce what I mean in one second. So after the detection in 2017, the big question in the time was, why of the 5,000 blazers we know has ice cube possibly detected only this one? And so we and others started to understand if the source was special. And indeed it was, at least from our point of view, published a paper one year later, where we actually show that despite appearances, this source was not the BLX. What do I mean? I mean this, blazers come in two flavors, BLX on the left with optical spectra, which as you see from the original discovery spectrum of the source, they have nothing, they have very little lines or very weak emission lines. And then there are the flat spectrum blazers, which are crazy. So they have strong lines, like the first one we can discover, then the zealotry of these galaxies, very, very strong emission to HIFI and beta lines. According to me in power, John, there are fortunately, well, fortunately two types of BLX. There are the real BLX, where the lines are intrinsically weak. So the equivalent width, which is again the ratio between the line flux and the continuum is small, because the line flux is very weak. This BLX sits in so-called low-excitation galaxies, which are very inefficient accretions. This pitch accounts for mechamaland best. Then on the left, you see the standard view of AGM. You see the black hole, the accretion disk, clouds moving very fast close to the black hole and show this plane broad lines, some dusty material, for me it's like a torus, a jet. This is what with the AGM we know enough. On the right, you see these low-excitation things. We think there is something else going on. They don't have a standard Sakuya-Sunaya disk, that is called a version-dominated accretion flow, and there are no broad lines. So we believe the real BLX sits in low-excitation galaxies. Then there are the fake BLX, which we call mass-cremium BLX. This source is intrinsically at the spectrum, which is like a plasma, a fast-pattern equation. But the jet is so strong that the equivalent width, which is again the ratio between the line flux and the continuum is small because the denominator in this case is very large. So these are intrinsically fast-pattern equations, but the lines are strong. And the way this can happen is shown here. And by the way, so, and we show the text of the hypothesis is a mass-cremium BLX. So it's actually, it's a fast-pattern equation, but the lines are very weak because the jet is very, very strong. And this is why this happened. It can be shown in this simulation. It goes back to an old paper of mine, led by an exit of mine in Mineland. This shows you an elliptical galaxy, standard elliptical, on top of which we put a jet, a non-thermal jet. And this numbers here give you the ratio between the jet and the galaxy at 5,500 ohms. As you can see, already when the jet is three times higher or 10 times higher, the features are gone. By the time you are 15, 20, your features are gone. The same thing is happening here. We have a fast-pattern equation, very, very strong jet, which is washing out all the lines. And then that's why it's called a mass-cremium BLX. Many of the BLX in Palo Giormi's paper and others papers are masquerading. Why it is interesting, but the theories love this because remember how you get neutrinos in the saucer, you have protons mashing against other protons or photons. If you have a masquerading BLX on top of the photons in the jet, you have also the photons in the disk. So this in theory should be more efficient neutrino emitters. And we found more. And remember that this past 1424 and 1542, they were popping up in this list from ice cream all the time. There's a paper which appeared on an archive two weeks ago. We studied them and again, they are also masquerading. Okay, 1424, UPCs 1542, 1025s. So far, all three of the blazers which ice cream are indicated as possible in the emitters are masquerading. So this we think is meaning something. Okay, you don't work on neutrinos. So at this point, you are asking yourself, why should I care? But you should, especially UCCI people, you should because neutrinos are actually giving us a window where with them we are exploding an energy range which is and will always be inaccessible with photons at any range. Which means basically that neutrinos are giving us a new window on very high energy surfaces. Why is that? Because of the very famous EBL, extra-active background light. As you can see from here, you have a photon coming from a distant blazer. It interacts with this UV optical infrared photons which make up the extra-active background light. This is the sum of the emission from all the galaxy in the universe and it gets attenuated, photon-photon collision. So if you're nearby, you get a small attenuation. If you are distant, you are detonated a lot. But if you are of high energies, you are totally attenuated. And the cross-section is maximum. When the target of the energy goes like one over E gamma, E gamma is the energy of the gamma ray photon. So if you have a 100 TV gamma ray photon, of course, one which could be seen by CTA, it would interact with the photons in the infrared background will be completely destroyed. And this is a nice picture from one of the ice cube papers which shows you the photon horizon as a function of energy. So here we have tera-electron volt, peter-electron volt, x-electron volt. And as you can see, by the time you reach the tera-electron volt or more, you basically are bound to very, very small distances. One, you are at the peter-electron volt, you're basically bound to the galaxy. So the only way to study this high energy phenomena is through neutrinos. Conmic rays, as you can see them appear, they are related as well. So neutrinos are relevant for this mystery as well, but as conmic rays, they are not conmic rays at all. They are particles where this gamma by Victor has. Last century, by flying a balloon to very, very high altitudes they are the most energetic things we know in the universe. This is a plot where they are fluxes as a function of energy. So you've seen giga-electron volt, tera-electron volt, peter-electron volt, here you see CTA, here you see the Large Hadron-Nicolae, here you see ice cube. They reach into the exa-electron volt regime which is a thousand peter-electron volt. And the record load is actually 320 exa-electron volt. So these are particles, they are charged. They are nuclei of atoms or protons. And by studying the neutrinos in the Tesla 0506 source, now we know that we've seen that there's to be protons in the jet of the source in this region. So for the first time, you might associate some cosmic rays with an astronomical source in this region, not down here, unfortunately, but this year. So we are in the era, as we all know, of multi-messages for physics. So you have a jet which is shooting towards us and it shoots cosmic rays which are charged, unfortunately, so they are deflected by magnetic fields. And so they reach Earth coming from all different directions. So it's very, it's impossible to know where they're coming from or very hard, at least. You have the photons which above a certain energy they are totally absorbed, then the neutrinos. The neutrinos managed to come straight to us, unimpeded with the energy in the head. And so this is the only way it had energies to make sense for the sources. So what are the open issues? And then I get to the synergies. As I said, we still don't have a smoking gun, although I'm totally convinced that blazers have to do with the neutrinos from Ice Cube. Blazers have to be involved, as I said, but other classes actually should be as well. Another patient issue is that we still don't know after ingrate, so 30 or more years, what is produced in the gamma-ray emissions in blazers. And still we don't know, we don't have any hard evidence of energy problems in the sources. Why? Because there are too many ways to produce the gamma-ray photos which you all know and love. This is Makayla Foto-Wam, an ACD put together by Paolo Giorni. You see a very strong exibarabilia and you see a very high barabilia also in the very high energy ban. We still don't know which processes are produced in these photos. There are two options. One is to do with synchrotron radiation. As I said, in blazers, we know that the low energy, you have electrons moving in magnetic field, moving very fast, producing synchrotron radiation. The same electrons are pushing the photos they produce to very high energy through the so-called inverse component emission. These are called the tonic models because electrons are electrons. And then the other scenario, which again, I've shown you already, is proton-proton collision, proton-proton collision. In this case, the gammas come from the K of pi zeroes and these are called a tonic models. In this case, you have to have an interval. Why can't we know? The reason is that because you can fit the energy SCD of blazers with the two different models, equally well. These are SCDs. The data are these points in red here. They're different states, quiescent, half layer, soft layer. They are done in different ways. On the left, you have not the tonic models. On the right, you have proton synchrotron models. And this is for a blazer parcel of pi 15 zero two. And you can fit equally well with the two different scenarios what data actually you can see. And this is for one of your papers to take preparation, which shows again, inverse condom on the right. So let tonic scenario, which can explain the current data, which are the red points. And on the left, you have an adrenic scenario, which can explain equally well, the current data, which are the black points. So at present for this source, we cannot say, is it adrenic or is it a tonic? The red squares of course are CTA simulations. And there you can see that if it's adrenic, we have the CTA points. If it's electronic, we have the CTA points. And so there, given the high energy range, is more narrow, but there we'll be able to nail, absolutely the scenario behind the energy emission in blazers. And more will stand, why CTA 11 for blazers? Other reasons of course. At the moment, 89% of all extracurricular sources detected at TV are blazers for which I said earlier, because blazers are very good, high energy emitters. But the way these things have been detected is very, very strange and not very representative. What happens is that this magic has very, very strange things. So they look at the blazer only when they are in outburst. So there is a telegram saying that it's an outburst in the octagon, in the X-ray in blazer. Then they point the telescopes to the source and they see them in outburst. This gives us a very biased and patchy view of high energy emission in blazers. CTA will give us a systematic approach and the take times more blazers than we can do right now. And we apologize on me a couple of years ago, no, sorry, a few years ago, we actually did this. We simulated what CTA should be able to see based on our own model of blazers. And we know we publish tables and numbers and based on the type of survey, we know that CTA is going to see many, many blazers and give us throw light on high energy emission from these sources. I'm done, 48 minutes. So what are the points you need to take home? Number one, we are witnessing the birth of extra galactic and dinosaur. So it's a very special time until recently we only knew two, the dinosaurs in the universe, the sun and the supernova. Now we have many potential ones, but we still don't know what they are. There are various design associations, largely with blazers, we need by Sigma or more. We are working hard to test the blazer case because we know that the blazers have to be, well, we know. We think, we feel blazers are actually involved and we're doing using, you know, optical spectra with Israel and Antarctica. The other message to bring home is that we have a new window, a unique window of very high energies of physics and energy which will be forever accessible with photons. And then CTA actually is going to be invaluable to finally prove, disprove the existence of high energy protons. So I don't need processing blazers and also give us an unbiased view of their TV properties. And with this, I'm done. Thank you very much.