1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
3: \begin {document}
4:
5: \title{The Magnetic Field Structure of the LMC 2 Supershell: NGC 2100}
6:
7: \author{John P. Wisniewski\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, Karen S. Bjorkman\altaffilmark{3,4},
8: Antonio M. Magalh\~aes\altaffilmark{3,5}, Antonio Pereyra\altaffilmark{5}}
9:
10:
11: \altaffiltext{1}{NASA GSFC Code 667, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA, jwisnie@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}
12:
13: \altaffiltext{2}{NPP Fellow}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{3}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{4}{Ritter Observatory, Department of Physics and Astronomy MS 113, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, karen.bjorkman@utoledo.edu}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{5}{IAG, Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, Caixa Postal 3386, S\~ao Paulo, SP 01060-970, Brazil, mario@astro.iag.usp.br, antonio@astro.iag.usp.br}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22:
23: We present U,B,V,R,I imaging polarimetry of NGC 2100 and its surrounding
24: environment, which comprise a part of the LMC 2 supershell. The morphology
25: of the observed position angle distribution provides a tracer
26: of the projected magnetic field in this environment. Our polarization
27: maps detail regions exhibiting similarly aligned polarization position angles,
28: as well as more complex position angle patterns. We observe regions of
29: coherent fields on spatial scales of 42 x 24 pc to 104 x 83 pc, and infer
30: projected field strengths of $\sim$14-30$\mu$G. We propose that the superposition of global
31: outflows from the LMC 2 environment, as well as outflows created within NGC 2100,
32: produce the unique field geometry in the region.
33:
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: \keywords{
37: ISM: bubbles --- ISM: magnetic fields --- Magellanic Clouds ---
38: open clusters and associations: individual (NGC 2100) ---
39: techniques: polarimetric --- stars: individual (HIP 21556)}
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Magnetic fields are known to align dust grains, hence influence astrophysical processes, in
44: a wide variety of environments (see e.g. \citealt{goo96,laz03}). The alignment of grains
45: in the diffuse interstellar medium of
46: the Milky Way \citep{ma70a} and the Magellanic Clouds \citep{ma70b} has long been known
47: from linear polarization studies, which measure the dichroic absorption of starlight. Similarly,
48: polarimetric observations indicate grains may also be aligned in environments such
49: as dark clouds \citep{laz97,hil99}, and the
50: circumstellar environments of young \citep{ait93,tam99} and old \citep{ait95} stars.
51: As reviewed within \citet{laz03}, a number of alignment mechanisms have been proposed
52: over the past sixty years, and it is likely that the local conditions of each
53: astrophysical environment will dictate the relative importance of each of these
54: proposed alignment mechanisms. Characterizing the typical polarimetric
55: behavior in each of these environments offers one avenue to constrain the relative
56: importance of these mechanisms in each environment.
57:
58: Massive stars in OB associations provide a rich source of
59: outflows from stellar winds and supernovae explosions; the interaction of
60: such outflows with the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM) is known to
61: create large supershells. Observations suggest that some of these shells
62: may be magnetized, with typical fields strengths of at least several to tens of $\mu$G
63: \citep{val93,val94,per07}, and it is expected that these fields can influence the
64: dynamical evolution of shells, including constraining their expansion
65: \citep{min93,tom98}. With a diameter of $\sim$ 900 pc,
66: LMC 2 was initially identified as a supershell based upon its
67: morphology \citep{mea80}. The
68: kinematics of the LMC 2 supershell has been a subject of some debate:
69: \citet{cau82} suggested that LMC 2 was expanding as a cohesive structure;
70: however, followup studies by \citet{mea87}, \citet{poi99} and \citet{amb04}
71: argue against a
72: global expansion, asserting the structure is a conglomeration of localized
73: expanding structures. Observed extended X-ray emission in the region led
74: \citet{wan91} to suggest that LMC 2 was formed as a result of a
75: superbubble breaking out from the plane of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC).
76:
77: The richest of the 29 stellar associations in the direction of LMC 2
78: identified by \citet{hod67} projected to lie interior
79: to LMC 2 is NGC 2100. Given its age, $\sim$15 Myr \citep{cas96},
80: \citet{poi99} has postulated that all of NGC 2100's O stars have exploded as
81: supernovae, implying that it has played an important role in shaping the
82: observed structure of LMC 2. \citet{poi99} and
83: \citet{amb04} observed complex H$\alpha$ velocity components which vary across
84: the extent of NGC 2100, suggesting the presence of a turbulent interstellar
85: environment. The interstellar polarization near NGC 2100 is also known to differ
86: from general behavior of the LMC (0.32 - 0.57\% at position angles of 28-45$^{\circ}$,
87: \citealt{wi05a,wi05b}); \citet{ma70b} observed a strong focusing of magnetic lines
88: around 30 Doradus (30 Dor), which is located $\sim$16$\farcm$ west of the LMC 2 supershell.
89:
90: In this paper, we present detailed polarization maps of NGC 2100 and its surrounding
91: environment, which reveal evidence of a complex magnetic field morphology. These
92: data provide diagnostics of the grain alignment mechanisms which likely dominate in
93: such dynamic astrophysical environments. In Section 2, we
94: describe our polarimetric observations. Polarization maps and estimates
95: of projected magnetic field strengths are presented in Section 3. In
96: Section 4, we present a discussion of these results and the clues they
97: may offer towards understanding the formation and evolution of the
98: LMC 2 supershell.
99:
100:
101: \section{Observations}
102:
103: Imaging polarimetry of NGC 2100 and its surrounding field were
104: obtained at the CTIO 1.5 m telescope, as summarized in Table 1. We used
105: the F/7.5 secondary configuration, yielding a 15$\farcm$0 field of view and
106: a 0$\farcs$44 pixel$^{-1}$ scale. Data were recorded with the telescope's
107: standard Cassegrain focus CCD (CFCCD), a 2048 x 2048 CCD which was
108: read out in dual amplifier mode. The standard telescope configuration was
109: modified by the addition of a rotatable half-wave plate, followed by a
110: dual calcite block (Savart plate) placed in the first filter wheel. This dual calcite
111: analyzer, whose optical axes were crossed to minimize astigmatism and color
112: effects, simultaneously produced two orthogonally polarized images of
113: all objects, allowing for the near complete cancellation of all background
114: sky polarization, as well as atmospheric transparency effects \citep{mag96}.
115: A small imperfection in the calcite
116: block was masked out, shrinking the effective field of view of the instrument
117: by 2$\farcm$0-3$\farcm$0 arcminutes in the southeast corner of the CCD and
118: by $\sim$1$\farcm$5 in the
119: northeast and northwest corners of the chip. Standard Johnson U, B, V, R,
120: and I filters
121: were housed in the second filter wheel. Images were taken at 8 wave-plate
122: positions, each separated by 22.5$^{\circ}$, allowing us to derive full
123: linear polarization measurements for NGC 2100. Additional information
124: regarding this instrument can be found in \citet{mag96}, \citet{mel01},
125: and \citet{per02}.
126:
127: Basic image processing was done in IRAF\footnote{IRAF
128: is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are
129: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
130: under contract with the National Science Foundation.} using standard
131: techniques. After deriving aperture photometry for our images, the least
132: squares solution of the 8 wave-plate positions, calculated with the
133: PCCDPACK polarimetric reduction package \citep{per00}, yielded linear
134: polarization measurements. The residuals at each wave-plate position, $\psi_{i}$, with
135: respect to the expected $\cos 4\psi_{i}$ curve constitute the uncertainties in
136: our data; these are consistent with the theoretically expected photon noise
137: errors \citep{mag84}.
138:
139: Instrumental polarization effects were determined from observations
140: of polarized and unpolarized standard stars, obtained nightly during our
141: ten day observing run in 2001. These data are self-consistent and
142: agree with observations obtained in a subsequent eleven day observing
143: run in 2002 \citep{wis03} using the same instrument, illustrating
144: its excellent stability. The instrumental polarization was measured to be within
145: 0.03\% (I filter) to 0.07\% (B filter), thus no correction was applied to
146: our data. Note that due to a lack of known faint unpolarized standard stars,
147: we used the M star HIP 21556 as an unpolarized standard star for the
148: B, V, R, and I filters. Given its nearby location (d=11 pc) and spectral type,
149: one would not expect such an object to exhibit significant
150: polarization \citep{tin82}.
151: Indeed, observations of this target during our 2001 and 2003 observing runs
152: showed it to be unpolarized.
153:
154: \section{Results}
155:
156: The polarization data we discuss represent the superposition of two components
157: of distinctly different origin, namely interstellar and intrinsic polarization.
158: Intrinsic polarization can arise from a variety of scattering mechanisms
159: within the circumstellar environment of a host star, while interstellar
160: polarization results from dichroic absorption of starlight by aligned
161: interstellar dust grains located along the line of sight.
162: Most of our targets should be normal main-sequence stars which are not characterized
163: by the presence of an extended (or asymmetrical) circumstellar envelope, hence
164: they will exhibit no intrinsic polarization at the precision level
165: of our measurements. The statistical analysis of the total polarization observed
166: for each of our targets should thus provide an accurate diagnostic of the interstellar
167: polarization along the line of sight \citep{mcl79,per02,wis03,wi05b}.
168: Furthermore, given the LMC's large distance of 50 kpc \citep{fea91}, any
169: spatial variability we detect in this interstellar polarization component must
170: be the result of a change in the magnetic field or interstellar dust grain
171: properties within the LMC, rather than a projection of Galactic interstellar
172: medium properties.
173:
174: \subsection{Polarization Maps}
175:
176: In Figures 1-5 we present the polarization in the U, B, V, R, and I filters
177: for NGC 2100 and its surrounding field. Polarization vectors are overplotted
178: on Digitized Sky Survey2 (DSS2) red (V, R, and I filters) and blue (U and B
179: filters) images which span 0.5 square degrees, allowing one to place the
180: polarization of NGC 2100 in the context of the LMC 2 supershell. A more
181: detailed image of LMC 2's nebulosity, including identification of the major OB
182: associations in the area, can be seen in Figure 1c of \citet{poi99}.
183: To exclude likely spurious detections, we have only plotted objects
184: with the following properties: $ 0.1\% <$ polarization $< 3.0\%$
185: and $p/\sigma_{p} > 3.0$.
186:
187: Numerous trends in the morphology of the polarization vectors in
188: each of the filters can immediately be seen. The magnitude of a typical
189: polarization vector is $\sim 1.5\%$, which is significantly higher than the
190: average polarization observed throughout the LMC \citep{wi05a,wi05b}.
191: While polarization position angles (PA) tend to be coherent
192: on small spatial scales, large-scale variability across the field of view
193: of the data set is immediately apparent. The patterns traced by this
194: large-scale variability are consistent across every filter, indicating the
195: phenomena represent real features.
196:
197: To further explore these large-scale position angle trends, we divided
198: our field of view into 5 smaller spatial scales which each seemed to possess
199: one unique, average position angle. We assign the arbitrary labels A-E
200: to these fields, and show these fields in the R filter in Figures 6-10. Note that we have
201: only plotted all objects with $ 0.1\% <$ polarization $< 3.0\%$
202: and $p/\sigma_{p} > 3.0$ in these figures.
203: The mean position angle, FHWM of gaussian
204: fits to the samples, standard deviation (in radians) of objects within the gaussian
205: fit for each area, and spatial extent of each area, assuming a distance of
206: 50 kpc, are tabulated in Table 2. The polarization position angle histograms used to
207: derive these parameters are also given in Figures 6-10.
208:
209: The position angle rotation to the north, west, and south of NGC 2100,
210: apparent by casual inspection of Figures 1-5,
211: is indeed real as we measure the mean PA to vary from
212: 76$^{\circ}$ to 122$^{\circ}$ to 94$^{\circ}$ in Figures 7-9 respectively.
213: Figure 10 depicts spatial area E, immediately west of NGC 2100, showing
214: PA alignment at 167$^{\circ}$. The dramatic curvature in the field pattern
215: traced out in areas B-E in the area west of NGC 2100
216: qualitatively matches a similar ``bubble-like'' pattern seen in the
217: H$\alpha$ image of the LMC 2 region of \citet{poi99}, e.g. their Figure 1a.
218:
219: Systematic alignment in the eastern portion
220: of our field of view is less dramatic, as seen in Figure 6 which depicts
221: area A. We find position angles in area A tend to be $< 90^{\circ}$,
222: and find suggestive evidence that the PA distribution in this spatial region
223: may be fit by two gaussians at 29$^{\circ}$ (FWHM = 25$^{\circ}$) and
224: 64$^{\circ}$ (FWHM = 22$^{\circ}$) respectively. The constituents of these
225: two possible gaussian
226: distributions occupy no unique spatial regions: it is possible that the
227: observed distributions originate at slightly different distances within the
228: LMC 2 neighborhood, projecting themselves onto common spatial regions.
229: Alternatively, it is possible that large-scale LMC-2 flows to the west of NGC 2100 are
230: interacting with velocity fields from within NGC 2100 to produce the observed apparent
231: superposition effects.
232:
233: The projected spatial extent of regions with definitive, coherent position
234: angle alignment varies from
235: 42 x 24 pc, associated with region E, to 104 x 83 pc, associated with region
236: B. We note the suggestive presence of smaller alignment trends within
237: and outside of some of these designated areas. Due to small number
238: statistics, it is unclear whether such features are real, hence illustrating
239: common alignment on finer scales, or whether they are the
240: result of small intrinsic
241: polarization components adding small scatter to the data set. Deeper
242: polarimetric mapping of the region would clarify the presence of small-scale
243: alignment by providing a larger statistical database. If our polarization
244: maps are indeed tracing some of the larger structures in the H$\alpha$ maps
245: of \citet{poi99}, then we would expect deeper polarization maps to trace
246: many of the finer nebulosity seen in such images.
247:
248:
249: \subsection{Estimating B Fields}
250:
251: A formalism for estimating magnetic field strengths from polarimetric
252: observations was developed by \citet{cha53}(C-F technique), and has been since modified
253: to account for various inadequacies
254: (see e.g. \citet{goo96,zwe96,hei01,cru04}). As summarized by \citet{hei01,hen01} and \citet{per07}, while the C-F method is a commonly used technique to estimate magnetic
255: field strengths, its use is dubious in cases of, amongst other
256: factors, large polarization position angle dispersions and large turbulent velocity
257: dispersions. We have used the description
258: provided by equation 7 of \citet{hei01}, \begin{equation}
259: B = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4 \pi \rho \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{\sigma(v_{los})^{2}}
260: {\sigma(tan \delta)^{2}} \end{array} \right)}
261: \end{equation}, where $\rho$ is the mean density, $\sigma(v_{los})$ is the
262: dispersion in the line-of-sight velocity, and $\sigma(tan \delta)$ is the dispersion in polarization position angles, i.e. the difference, within the distribution, between the
263: position angle of a given object and the average position angle. This
264: description was used as
265: it eliminates the small angle approximation present
266: in the original formalism; furthermore, it includes a factor of 1/2 to account for
267: the field overestimation provided
268: by the classical Chandrasekhar-Fermi method \citep{cru04}.
269:
270: We were able to measure position angle dispersions for regions B-E of our
271: dataset using PCCDPACK and tabulate the standard deviation of these values,
272: $\sigma(tan\delta)$ in Table 2. \citet{poi99} reported a
273: HI number density of 3-4 cm$^{-3}$: we assumed a number density of 4
274: cm$^{-3}$ in our calculations. We estimated the line of sight velocity for our
275: regions from the HI velocities reported by \citet{mea87} for their region 43,
276: corresponding to the approximate location of NGC 2100, $\sigma_{vlos}$ =
277: 52 km s$^{-1}$. This dispersion is consistent with the FWHM of H$\alpha$
278: velocities reported by \citet{poi99} across their E-I spectroscopic cut.
279: The resulting
280: magnetic field strengths for our fields range from 14-30 $\mu$G, as tabulated
281: in Table 2. We stress that these field values should only be considered
282: crude estimates: detailed measurements of the gas velocity dispersions and
283: densities corresponding to the specific spatial regions in which we observed
284: polarization position angle dispersions are needed to further refine these
285: field estimates. Nevertheless, our derived range of field strengths are consistent with the
286: strength of random field fluctuations in the LMC reported by \citet{gae05}, especially
287: those located nearby supernova remnants and wind bubbles, which were quoted to
288: be $\sim$8 $\mu$G by these authors.
289:
290:
291:
292: \section{Discussion}
293:
294: We now explore some of the implications of the polarization maps presented in
295: Section 3.1. Our polarization maps of NGC 2100 and its nearby environment
296: indicate the
297: presence of a sizable magnitude of interstellar polarization, $\sim1.5\%$
298: which experiences systematic position angle changes. We attribute this
299: position angle variability to changes in the orientation of the projected
300: magnetic field. It is equally likely that the third dimension of this
301: field also varies. The only effect such a variation would have on our data set
302: would be additional dispersion in the distribution of polarization levels.
303: While a wide distribution is observed,
304: other factors such as the presence of small intrinsic polarization components
305: in objects, small variability in the distance of objects within our
306: field of view,
307: and changes in the polarizing properties of the grains across the field of
308: view, i.e. changes in grain size, shape, or composition, also likely serve
309: to broaden the observed distribution. Additional observational tools,
310: such as that provided by atomic alignment \citep{yan06}, could be used
311: to provide an independent measure of the localized three-dimensional
312: magnetic field.
313:
314: \subsection{Origin of Position Angle Variations}
315:
316: We consider the origin of the position angle variability detailed
317: in Section 3.1. Given the dynamic nature of the region,
318: it seems plausible to expect the complex field patterns, which align grains to
319: produce the observed polarization, to be driven by the various outflows
320: present. Such a scenario is supported by the possible tracing of large
321: H$\alpha$ features by our data, as noted in Section 3.1. The morphological
322: details of Figures 1-5 suggest that the field patterns are not solely
323: guided by the stellar outflows and supernovae remnants of NGC 2100.
324: Studies of the interstellar polarization
325: surrounding other young LMC clusters and OB associations with similar hot
326: star contents do not illustrate these types of complex field
327: patterns \citep{wi05a,wi05b}. Within the LMC 2 environment, the western side of
328: NGC 2100 shows complex field patterns while the eastern side of the
329: cluster only displays moderate evidence of cohesive field alignment. No
330: asymmetry in the distribution of massive stars or their remnants in this
331: cluster has been observed, thus we don't expect winds or outflows from
332: NGC 2100's massive star population to be responsible for producing these
333: field patterns. Rather, we speculate that other large-scale flows might play a major role
334: in twisting field lines in the observed patterns.
335:
336: \citet{poi99} suggest that rather than being a cohesively expanding shell,
337: the geometry of LMC 2 is that of two HI sheets enclosing a region of hotter
338: gas. They suggest both
339: cavity material and the surface of the HI sheets are being swept eastward across
340: the complex by the outflows of material located on the western edge of the
341: region. We speculate that such general, large-scale flows, carrying
342: with them local magnetic field lines, might move past
343: the northern and southern boundaries of NGC 2100 and be impeded by the cluster
344: itself. Such a scenario could
345: account for the coherent position angle patterns located to the north and south
346: of NGC 2100, as well as the dramatic turnabout in the field immediately west
347: of the cluster. As the neighborhood due east of NGC 2100 would be partially
348: shielded from such flows, one would expect less coherent field patterns
349: in this environment, as is observed to the east of NGC 2100.
350: The 30 Dor complex, a rich site of powerful stellar outflows, is
351: located to the west of NGC 2100. From polarization measurements,
352: \citet{ma70b} noted strong magnetic
353: focusing in the 30 Dor region. Thus we suggest 30 Dor should be considered
354: as a possible source of outflows which influence LMC 2 and shape the
355: projected magnetic field patterns we observe.
356:
357: A number of grain alignment mechanisms have been postulated and, as summarized in
358: the review paper of \citet{laz03}, it is likely that different mechanisms may dominate in different astrophysical environments, depending upon the local conditions present.
359: Some of the proposed mechanisms include
360: the Davis-Greenstein process, in which paramagnetic dissipation by rotating
361: grains leads to alignment
362: \citep{dav51}, the Gold process, in which grains are mechanically aligned via
363: collisional interactions with a supersonic gas flow \citep{gol52,laz94,la97b},
364: and radiative torques, in which alignment is achieved via the spin-up of irregularly shaped grains which scatter left- and right-hand polarized light in a different way \citep{dol76,dra96,dra97}. The LMC-2 supershell itself, if it assumed to be a cohesively
365: expanding body (e.g. \citealt{cau82}), is only characterized by an expansion velocity of $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{cau82}, which is well below the supersonic gas velocity
366: required for the Gold mechanical alignment mechanism. However,
367: NGC 2100's proximity to both the 30 Dor region and the winds of massive stars within
368: NGC 2100 suggest that local grains might interact with a more dynamic gas flow than
369: that which characterizes the much larger LMC-2 region. As such, we suggest that
370: mechanical alignment might indeed play a partial role in constructing the observed
371: morphology of aligned grains in the NGC 2100 region; clearly detailed modeling of
372: the system would be advantageous to quantitatively constrain the various grain alignment
373: mechanisms which could be operating in this dynamic environment.
374:
375:
376: \subsection{Location of Polarizing Region}
377:
378: While we have interpreted the bulk of the magnetic field variability implied
379: by our observations to be tied to the dynamics of the inner layer of LMC 2,
380: we now consider the possible influence of the HI sheets which encompass
381: this layer in
382: the proposed 3-dimensional picture of \citet{poi99}. Based upon the
383: derived total line of sight reddening for NGC 2100, $E_{B-V}$ = 0.24 \citep{kel00}, the standard
384: relationship between polarization and extinction presented in \citet{ser75},
385: $P_{max} <$ 9 E$_{B-V}$, predicts an interstellar polarization of $< 2.2\%$, in
386: agreement with the average magnitude observed in our data set, $\sim1.5\%$.
387: \citet{poi99} report the thin (80-100 pc) HI sheets have
388: column densities of $\sim$1 x 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. This column density implies
389: a reddening value similar to that of \citet{kel00}, hence a similar predicted
390: maximum magnitude of interstellar polarization, based upon the relation
391: $N_{HI} / E_{B-V}$ = 5 x 10$^{21}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ \citep{sav72}.
392: Thus it appears that enough dichroic absorption by interstellar dust grains
393: could occur within the thin HI sheet positioned in front of NGC 2100 to
394: produce the level of observed polarization.
395:
396:
397: \subsection{Summary}
398:
399: We have presented polarization maps for a subsection of the LMC 2 supershell,
400: namely NGC 2100 and its surround field. These maps show regions of aligned
401: position angles on scales of 42 x 24 pc to 104 x 83 pc, attributable
402: to absorption by interstellar dust grains aligned by projected magnetic
403: fields. We estimate these projected fields to have strengths of 8-17
404: $\mu$G, and stress that more accurate field estimates may be achieved by
405: incorporating measurements which better reflect the interstellar medium
406: properties corresponding to our survey area. A plausible explanation for the
407: observed complex field patterns is that outflows present within LMC 2, modified by
408: velocity fields from NGC 2100, combine to produce the observed field patterns.
409: The observed asymmetrical field morphology suggests the
410: stellar sources in NGC 2100 are not the primary source of outflows shaping
411: the observed fields. Rather, we speculate that NGC 2100 may serve to
412: disrupt the path of large-scale flows moving eastward across LMC 2.
413: We suggest that the 30 Dor region, observed to be a source
414: of both massive outflows and strong magnetic fields, may be the source
415: powering the observed field patterns in LMC 2.
416:
417: Finally, we considered a proposed 3-dimensional picture of LMC 2 in which two
418: HI shells confine a region of hotter gas. We find the magnitude of observed
419: polarization could be produced by aligned dust grains within
420: one of these HI shells, noting that some mechanism must then impart the
421: complex field geometry produced within the inner gas layer to this thin outer
422: shell.
423:
424:
425: \acknowledgments
426:
427: We thank the anonymous referee whose comments helped to improve this
428: paper. This research was supported by NASA NPP and GSRP fellowships to JPW
429: (NNH06CC03B, NGT5-50469), a NASA LTSA grant (NAG5-8054) and a
430: Research Corporation Cottrell Scholar award to KSB, and a FAPESP grant
431: (02/12880-0) to AP. AMM also acknowledges support from the Brazillian
432: agencies FAPESP and CNPq. Polarimetry at the University of S\~ao Paulo (USP)
433: is supported by FAPESP. This
434: research has made use of NASA's Skyview virtual observatory, NASA ADS, and
435: the SIMBAD database.
436:
437:
438: \begin{thebibliography}{}
439:
440: \bibitem[Aitken et al.(1993)]{ait93} Aitken, D.K., Wright, C.M., Smith, C.H., \& Roche, P.F.
441: 1993, MNRAS, 262, 456
442:
443: \bibitem[Aitken et al.(1995)]{ait95} Aitken, D.K., Smith, C.H., Moore, T.J.T., \& Roche, P.F.
444: 1995, MNRAS, 273, 359
445:
446: \bibitem[Ambrocio-Cruz et al.(2004)]{amb04} Ambrocio-Cruz, P. et al. 2004,
447: AJ, 127, 2145
448:
449: \bibitem[Cassatella et al.(1996)]{cas96} Cassatella, A., Barbero, J.,
450: Brocato, E., Catellani, V., \& Geyer, E.H. 1996, A\&A, 306, 125
451:
452: \bibitem[Caulet et al.(1982)]{cau82} Caulet, A., Deharveng, L., Georgelin, Y.
453: P., \& Georgelin, Y.M. 1982, A\&A, 110, 185
454:
455: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar \& Fermi(1953)]{cha53} Chandrasekhar, S. \& Fermi, E.
456: 1953, ApJ, 118, 113
457:
458: \bibitem[Crutcher(2004)]{cru04} Crutcher, R.M. 2004, The Magnetized
459: Interstellar Medium, ed. B. Uyaniker, W. Reich, \& R. Wielebinski, 123
460:
461: \bibitem[Davis \& Greenstein(1951)]{dav51} Davis, L. \& Greenstein, J.L. 1951, ApJ, 114, 206
462:
463: \bibitem[Dolginov \& Mytrophanov(1976)]{dol76} Dolginov, A.Z. \& Mytrophanov, I.G. 1976,
464: Ap\&SS, 43, 291
465:
466: \bibitem[Draine \& Weingartner(1996)]{dra96} Draine, B.T. \& Weingartner, J.C. 1996, ApJ, 470, 551
467:
468: \bibitem[Draine \& weingartner(1997)]{dra97} Draine, B.T. \& Weingartner, J.C. 1997, ApJ,
469: 480, 633
470:
471: \bibitem[Feast(1991)]{fea91} Feast, M.W. 1991, in IAU Sump. 148, The
472: Magellanic Clouds, ed. R. Haynes, \& D. Milne (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 1
473:
474: \bibitem[Gaensler et al.(2005)]{gae05} Gaensler, B.M., Haverkorn, M., Staveley-Smith, L.,
475: Dickey, J.M., McClure-Griffiths, N.M., Dickel, J.R., \& Wolleben, M. 2005, Science,
476: 307, 1610
477:
478: \bibitem[Gold(1952)]{gol52} Gold, T. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 215
479:
480: \bibitem[Goodman(1996)]{goo96} Goodman, A.A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 97,
481: Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium, ed. W.G. Roberge \& D.C.B. Whittet
482: (San Francisco: ASP), 325
483:
484: \bibitem[Heitsch et al.(2001)]{hei01} Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E.G., Mac Low,
485: M.-M., Li, P., \& Norman, M.L. 2001, ApJ, 561, 800
486:
487: \bibitem[Henning et al.(2001)]{hen01} Henning, Th., Wolf, S., Launhardt, R., \&
488: Waters, R. 2001, ApJ, 561, 871
489:
490: \bibitem[Hildebrand et al.(1999)]{hil99} Hildebrand, R.H., Dotson, J.L., Dowell, C.D.,
491: Schleuning, D.A., \& Vaillancourt, J.E. 1999, ApJ, 516, 834
492:
493: \bibitem[Hodge \& Wright(1967)]{hod67} Hodge, P.W. \& Wright, F.W. 1967,
494: Smithsonian Pub. 4699, The Large Magellanic Cloud (Washington: Smithsonian
495: Press)
496:
497: \bibitem[Keller et al.(2000)]{kel00} Keller, S.C., Bessell, M.S., \& Da Costa,
498: G.S. 2000, AJ, 119, 1748
499:
500: \bibitem[Lazarian(1994)]{laz94} Lazarian, A. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 713
501:
502: \bibitem[Lazarian et al.(1997)]{laz97} Lazarian, A., Goodman, A.A., \& Myers, P.C.
503: 1997, ApJ, 490, 273
504:
505: \bibitem[Lazarian(1997)]{la97b} Lazarian, A. 1997, ApJ, 483, 296
506:
507: \bibitem[Lazarian(2003)]{laz03} Lazarian, A. 2003, JQSRT, 79, 881
508:
509: \bibitem[Magalh\~aes, Benedetti, \& Roland(1984)]{mag84} Magalh\~aes, A.M., Benedetti, E., \& Roland, E. 1984, PASP, 96, 384
510:
511: \bibitem[Magalh\~aes et al.(1996)]{mag96} Magalh\~aes, A.M, Rodrigues, C.V.,
512: Margoniner, V.E., \& Pereyra, A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 97, Polarimetry of the
513: Interstellar Medium, ed. W.G. Roberge \& D.C.B. Whittet (San Francisco: ASP),
514: 118
515:
516: \bibitem[Mathewson \& Ford(1970a)]{ma70a} Mathewson, D.S. \& Ford, V.L. 1970a,
517: MmRAS, 74, 139
518:
519: \bibitem[Mathewson \& Ford(1970b)]{ma70b} Mathewson, D.S. \& Ford, V.L. 1970b,
520: ApJ, 160L, 43
521:
522: \bibitem[McLean \& Clarke(1979)]{mcl79} McLean, I.S. \& Clarke, D. 1979, MNRAS,
523: 186, 245
524:
525: \bibitem[Meaburn(1980)]{mea80} Meaburn, J. 1980, MNRAS, 192, 365
526:
527: \bibitem[Meaburn et al.(1987)]{mea87} Meaburn, J., Marston, A.P., McGee, R.X.,
528: \& Newton, L.M. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 591
529:
530: \bibitem[Melgarejo et al.(2001)]{mel01} Melgarejo, R., Magalh\~aes, A.M., Carciofi, A.C., \& Rodrigues, C.V. 2001, A\&A, 377, 581
531:
532: \bibitem[Mineshige et al.(1993)]{min93} Mineshige, S., Shibata, K., \& Shapiro, P.R. 1993,
533: ApJ, 409, 663
534:
535: \bibitem[Pereyra(2000)]{per00} Pereyra, A. 2000, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. S\~ao
536: Paulo
537:
538: \bibitem[Pereyra \& Magalh\~aes(2002)]{per02} Pereyra, A. \& Magalh\~aes,
539: A.M. 2002, ApJS, 141, 469
540:
541: \bibitem[Pereyra \& Magalh\~aes(2007)]{per07} Pereyra, A. \& Magalh\~aes,
542: A.M. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0702550)
543:
544: \bibitem[Points et al.(1999)]{poi99} Points, S.D. et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 298
545:
546: \bibitem[Savage \& Jenkins(1972)]{sav72} Savage, B.D. \& Jenkins, E.B. 1972,
547: ApJ, 172, 491
548:
549: \bibitem[Serkowski et al.(1975)]{ser75} Serkowski, K., Mathewson, D.S.,
550: \& Ford, V.L. 1975, ApJ, 196, 261
551:
552: \bibitem[Tamura et al.(1999)]{tam99} Tamura, M., Hough, J.H., Greaves, J.S., Morino, J-I.,
553: Chrysostomou, A., Holland, W.S., \& Momose, M. 1999, ApJ, 525, 832
554:
555: \bibitem[Tinbergen(1982)]{tin82} Tinbergen, J. 1982, A\&A, 105, 35
556:
557: \bibitem[Tomisaka(1998)]{tom98} Tomisaka, K. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 797
558:
559: \bibitem[Vallee(1993)]{val93} Vallee, J.P. 1993, ApJ, 419, 670
560:
561: \bibitem[Vallee(1994)]{val94} Vallee, J.P. 1994, Ap\&SS, 220, 289
562:
563: \bibitem[Wang \& Helfand(1991)]{wan91} Wang, Q. \& Helfand, D.J. 1991, ApJ,
564: 379, 327
565:
566: \bibitem[Wisniewski et al.(2003)]{wis03} Wisniewski, J.P., Bjorkman, K.S.,
567: \& Magalh\~aes, A.M. 2003, ApJL, 598, 43
568:
569: \bibitem[Wisniewski(2005)]{wi05a} Wisniewski, J.P. 2005, Ph.D. thesis,
570: University of Toledo
571:
572: \bibitem[Wisniewski et al.(2007)]{wi05b} Wisniewski, J.P., Bjorkman, K.S.,
573: Magalh\~aes, A.M., Meade, M.R., \& Pereyra, A. 2007, ApJ, submitted
574:
575: \bibitem[Yan \& Lazarian(2006)]{yan06} Yan, H. \& Lazarian, A. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1292
576:
577: \bibitem[Zweibel(1996)]{zwe96} Zweibel, E.G. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 97,
578: Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium, ed. W.G. Roberge \& D.C.B. Whittet
579: (San Francisco: ASP), 486
580:
581:
582: \end{thebibliography}
583:
584: \clearpage
585: %\newpage
586: \begin{table}
587: \caption{Journal of NGC 2100 Observations}
588: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
589:
590: Filter & Obs. Date & Exposure Time \\
591:
592: \tableline
593:
594: U & 24 Nov. 2001 & 1200 sec. \\
595: B & 23 Nov. 2001 & 240 sec. \\
596: V & 23 Nov. 2001 & 180 sec. \\
597: R & 24 Nov. 2001 & 180 sec. \\
598: I & 23 Nov. 2001 & 180 sec. \\
599:
600: \tablecomments{Note that the listed exposure times
601: correspond to the total integration at each of 8 wave-plate positions.}
602:
603: \end{tabular}
604: \end{table}
605:
606:
607: \clearpage
608: %\newpage
609: \begin{table}
610: \caption{Summary of Magnetic Field Properties by Region}
611: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
612:
613: Region & \# Stars & Spatial Extent (pc) & Mean PA (deg) & FWHM (deg) & $\sigma(tan\delta)$ (rad) & B ($\mu$G) \\
614:
615: \tableline
616:
617: A & 105 & 73 x 177 & 0-90 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
618: B & 110 & 104 x 83 & 76 & 24 & 0.24 & 25 \\
619: C & 88 & 63 x 75 & 122 & 37 & 0.26 & 23 \\
620: D & 56 & 104 x 63 & 94 & 22 & 0.20 & 30 \\
621: E & 56 & 42 x 24 & 167 & 46 & 0.44 & 14 \\
622:
623: \tablecomments{Summary of the polarization position angle variability
624: across our field of view.}
625:
626:
627: \end{tabular}
628: \end{table}
629:
630:
631: \clearpage
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{newf1.eps}
635: \caption{U filter polarization of 462 targets which have
636: p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$ in the vicinity of NGC 2100. Polarization vectors
637: are overplotted on a 0.5 deg$^{2}$ DSS2 blue image.}
638: \end{figure}
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{newf2.eps}
642: \caption{B filter polarization of 592 targets which have
643: p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$ in the vicinity of NGC 2100. Polarization vectors
644: are overplotted on a 0.5 deg$^{2}$ DSS2 blue image.}
645: \end{figure}
646:
647: \begin{figure}
648: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{newf3.eps}
649: \caption{V filter polarization of 661 targets which have
650: p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$ in the vicinity of NGC 2100. Polarization vectors
651: are overplotted on a 0.5 deg$^{2}$ DSS2 red image.}
652: \end{figure}
653:
654: \begin{figure}
655: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{newf4.eps}
656: \caption{R filter polarization of 700 targets which have
657: p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$ in the vicinity of NGC 2100. Polarization vectors
658: are overplotted on a 0.5 deg$^{2}$ DSS2 red image.}
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: \begin{figure}
662: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{newf5.eps}
663: \caption{I filter polarization of 621 targets which have
664: p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$ in the vicinity of NGC 2100. Polarization vectors
665: are overplotted on a 0.5 deg$^{2}$ DSS2 red image.}
666: \end{figure}
667:
668: \begin{figure}
669: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{newf6a.eps}
670: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f6b.eps}
671: \caption{Section A of our field of view, showing the polarization of 105
672: objects with 0.1\% $<$ p $<$ 3.0\% and p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$. We find the
673: position angles in this region are concentrated at angles $<$ 90$^\circ$,
674: possibly following a bimodal distribution with centers at 29$^\circ$ and
675: 64$^\circ$.}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: \begin{figure}
679: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{newf7a.eps}
680: \includegraphics[scale=0.29]{f7b.eps}
681: \caption{Section B of our field of view, showing the polarization of 110
682: objects with 0.1\% $<$ p $<$ 3.0\% and p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$. The mean
683: polarization position angle of these stars, determined by a gaussian fit,
684: is 76$^{\circ}$.}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: \begin{figure}
688: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{newf8a.eps}
689: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f8b.eps}
690: \caption{Section C of our field of view, showing the polarization of 88
691: objects with 0.1\% $<$ p $<$ 3.0\% and p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$. The mean
692: polarization position angle of this region was determined to be 122$^{\circ}$.}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695: \begin{figure}
696: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{newf9a.eps}
697: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f9b.eps}
698: \caption{Section D of our field of view, showing the polarization of 56
699: objects with 0.1\% $<$ p $<$ 3.0\% and p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$. The mean
700: polarization position angle of this region was determined to be 94$^{\circ}$.}
701: \end{figure}
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{newf10a.eps}
705: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f10b.eps}
706: \caption{Section E of our field of view, showing the polarization of 56
707: objects with 0.1\% $<$ p $<$ 3.0\% and p$/\sigma_{p} > 3$. The mean
708: polarization position angle of this region was determined to be 167$^{\circ}$.}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711:
712:
713:
714:
715: \end{document}
716: