1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %\usepackage{afterpage}
35: \usepackage{apjfonts}
36: \usepackage{pdflscape}
37: \usepackage{afterpage}
38: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
39: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
40: %% the \begin{document} command.
41: %%
42: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
43: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
44: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
45: %% for information.
46:
47: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
48: %%\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
49:
50: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
51:
52: %%\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
53:
54: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
55: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
56: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
57: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
58: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
59: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
60:
61: \shorttitle{VHE $\gamma$-Ray Observation of the Crab Nebula and
62: Pulsar with MAGIC}
63:
64: \shortauthors{Albert et al.}
65:
66: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
67: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
68:
69:
70: \begin{document}
71:
72: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
73: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
74: %% you desire.
75:
76: \title{VHE $\gamma$-Ray Observation of the Crab Nebula and its Pulsar with the MAGIC Telescope}
77:
78: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
79: %% author and affiliation information.
80: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
81: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
82: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
83: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
84:
85: \author{
86: J.~Albert\altaffilmark{a},
87: E.~Aliu\altaffilmark{b},
88: H.~Anderhub\altaffilmark{c},
89: P.~Antoranz\altaffilmark{d},
90: A.~Armada\altaffilmark{b},
91: C.~Baixeras\altaffilmark{e},
92: J.~A.~Barrio\altaffilmark{d},
93: H.~Bartko\altaffilmark{f},
94: D.~Bastieri\altaffilmark{g},
95: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{h},
96: W.~Bednarek\altaffilmark{i},
97: K.~Berger\altaffilmark{a},
98: C.~Bigongiari\altaffilmark{g},
99: A.~Biland\altaffilmark{c},
100: R.~K.~Bock\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{g},
101: P.~Bordas\altaffilmark{j},
102: V.~Bosch-Ramon\altaffilmark{j},
103: T.~Bretz\altaffilmark{a},
104: I.~Britvitch\altaffilmark{c},
105: M.~Camara\altaffilmark{d},
106: E.~Carmona\altaffilmark{f},
107: A.~Chilingarian\altaffilmark{k},
108: J.~A.~Coarasa\altaffilmark{f},
109: S.~Commichau\altaffilmark{c},
110: J.~L.~Contreras\altaffilmark{d},
111: J.~Cortina\altaffilmark{b},
112: M.T.~Costado\altaffilmark{m},
113: V.~Curtef\altaffilmark{h},
114: V.~Danielyan\altaffilmark{k},
115: F.~Dazzi\altaffilmark{g},
116: A.~De Angelis\altaffilmark{n},\\
117: C.~Delgado\altaffilmark{m},
118: R.~de~los~Reyes\altaffilmark{d},
119: B.~De Lotto\altaffilmark{n},
120: E.~Domingo-Santamar\'\i a\altaffilmark{b},
121: D.~Dorner\altaffilmark{a},
122: M.~Doro\altaffilmark{g},\\
123: M.~Errando\altaffilmark{b},
124: M.~Fagiolini\altaffilmark{o},
125: D.~Ferenc\altaffilmark{p},
126: E.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{b},
127: R.~Firpo\altaffilmark{b},
128: J.~Flix\altaffilmark{b},
129: M.~V.~Fonseca\altaffilmark{d},\\
130: L.~Font\altaffilmark{e},
131: M.~Fuchs\altaffilmark{f},
132: N.~Galante\altaffilmark{f},
133: R.~Garc\'{\i}a-L\'opez\altaffilmark{m},
134: M.~Garczarczyk\altaffilmark{f},
135: M.~Gaug\altaffilmark{g},\\
136: M.~Giller\altaffilmark{i},
137: F.~Goebel\altaffilmark{f},
138: D.~Hakobyan\altaffilmark{k},
139: M.~Hayashida\altaffilmark{f},
140: T.~Hengstebeck\altaffilmark{q},\\
141: A.~Herrero\altaffilmark{m},
142: D.~H\"ohne\altaffilmark{a},
143: J.~Hose\altaffilmark{f},
144: C.~C.~Hsu\altaffilmark{f},
145: P.~Jacon\altaffilmark{i},
146: T.~Jogler\altaffilmark{f},
147: R.~Kosyra\altaffilmark{f},\\
148: D.~Kranich\altaffilmark{c},
149: R.~Kritzer\altaffilmark{a},
150: A.~Laille\altaffilmark{p},
151: E.~Lindfors\altaffilmark{l},
152: S.~Lombardi\altaffilmark{g},
153: F.~Longo\altaffilmark{n},\\
154: J.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{b},
155: M.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{d},
156: E.~Lorenz\altaffilmark{c,}\altaffilmark{f},
157: P.~Majumdar\altaffilmark{f},
158: G.~Maneva\altaffilmark{r},
159: K.~Mannheim\altaffilmark{a},\\
160: O.~Mansutti\altaffilmark{n},
161: M.~Mariotti\altaffilmark{g},
162: M.~Mart\'\i nez\altaffilmark{b},
163: D.~Mazin\altaffilmark{f},
164: C.~Merck\altaffilmark{f},
165: M.~Meucci\altaffilmark{o},\\
166: M.~Meyer\altaffilmark{a},
167: J.~M.~Miranda\altaffilmark{d},
168: R.~Mirzoyan\altaffilmark{f},
169: S.~Mizobuchi\altaffilmark{f},
170: A.~Moralejo\altaffilmark{b},
171: D.~Nieto\altaffilmark{d},\\
172: K.~Nilsson\altaffilmark{l},
173: J.~Ninkovic\altaffilmark{f},
174: E.~O\~na-Wilhelmi\altaffilmark{b},
175: N.~Otte\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{q,}\altaffilmark{v},
176: I.~Oya\altaffilmark{d},
177: D.~Paneque\altaffilmark{f},\\
178: M.~Panniello\altaffilmark{m},
179: R.~Paoletti\altaffilmark{o},
180: J.~M.~Paredes\altaffilmark{j},
181: M.~Pasanen\altaffilmark{l},
182: D.~Pascoli\altaffilmark{g},\\
183: F.~Pauss\altaffilmark{c},
184: R.~Pegna\altaffilmark{o},
185: M.~Persic\altaffilmark{n,}\altaffilmark{s},
186: L.~Peruzzo\altaffilmark{g},
187: A.~Piccioli\altaffilmark{o},
188: M.~Poller\altaffilmark{a},\\
189: E.~Prandini\altaffilmark{g},
190: N.~Puchades\altaffilmark{b},
191: A.~Raymers\altaffilmark{k},
192: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{h},
193: M.~Rib\'o\altaffilmark{j},
194: J.~Rico\altaffilmark{b},\\
195: M.~Rissi\altaffilmark{c},
196: A.~Robert\altaffilmark{e},
197: S.~R\"ugamer\altaffilmark{a},
198: A.~Saggion\altaffilmark{g},
199: A.~S\'anchez\altaffilmark{e},
200: P.~Sartori\altaffilmark{g},\\
201: V.~Scalzotto\altaffilmark{g},
202: V.~Scapin\altaffilmark{n},
203: R.~Schmitt\altaffilmark{a},
204: T.~Schweizer\altaffilmark{f},
205: M.~Shayduk\altaffilmark{q,}\altaffilmark{f},\\
206: K.~Shinozaki\altaffilmark{f},
207: S.~N.~Shore\altaffilmark{t},
208: N.~Sidro\altaffilmark{b},
209: A.~Sillanp\"a\"a\altaffilmark{l},\\
210: D.~Sobczynska\altaffilmark{i},
211: A.~Stamerra\altaffilmark{o},
212: L.~S.~Stark\altaffilmark{c},
213: L.~Takalo\altaffilmark{l},\\
214: P.~Temnikov\altaffilmark{r},
215: D.~Tescaro\altaffilmark{b},
216: M.~Teshima\altaffilmark{f},
217: N.~Tonello\altaffilmark{f},\\
218: D.~F.~Torres\altaffilmark{b,}\altaffilmark{u},
219: N.~Turini\altaffilmark{o},
220: H.~Vankov\altaffilmark{r},
221: V.~Vitale\altaffilmark{n},\\
222: R.~M.~Wagner\altaffilmark{f},
223: T.~Wibig\altaffilmark{i},
224: W.~Wittek\altaffilmark{f},\\
225: F.~Zandanel\altaffilmark{g},
226: R.~Zanin\altaffilmark{b},
227: J.~Zapatero\altaffilmark{e}
228: }
229: \altaffiltext{a} {Universit\"at W\"urzburg, D-97074 W\"urzburg, Germany}
230: \altaffiltext{b} {Institut de F\'\i sica d'Altes Energies, Edifici Cn., E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain}
231: \altaffiltext{c} {ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Switzerland}
232: \altaffiltext{d} {Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
233: \altaffiltext{e} {Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
234: \altaffiltext{f} {Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
235: \altaffiltext{g} {Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy}
236: \altaffiltext{h} {Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany}
237: \altaffiltext{i} {University of \L\'od\'z, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland}
238: \altaffiltext{j} {Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
239: \altaffiltext{k} {Yerevan Physics Institute, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
240: \altaffiltext{l} {Tuorla Observatory, Turku University, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
241: \altaffiltext{m} {Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38200, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
242: \altaffiltext{n} {Universit\`a di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy}
243: \altaffiltext{o} {Universit\`a di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy}
244: \altaffiltext{p} {University of California, Davis, CA-95616-8677, USA}
245: \altaffiltext{q} {Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
246: \altaffiltext{r} {Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
247: \altaffiltext{s} {INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico and INFN Trieste, I-34131 Trieste, Italy}
248: \altaffiltext{t} {Universit\`a di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}
249: \altaffiltext{u} {ICREA and Institut de Cienci\`es de l'Espai, IEEC-CSIC, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
250: \altaffiltext{v} {Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; nepomuk.otte@gmail.com}
251: \submitted{Received 2007 May 18; accepted 2007 October 31}
252: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal, 674:000-000, 2008
253: February 20}
254:
255: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
256: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
257: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
258: %% affiliation.
259:
260: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
261: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
262: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
263: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
264: %% editorial office after submission.
265:
266: \begin{abstract}
267: We report about very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray observations of
268: the Crab Nebula with the MAGIC
269: telescope. The $\gamma$-ray flux from the nebula was measured between
270: 60\,GeV and 9\,TeV. The energy spectrum can be described by a
271: curved power law ${\mathrm{d}F}/{\mathrm{d}E}=f_0\,
272: \left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)^{\left[a+b\log_{10}\left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)\right]}
273: $
274: with a flux normalization $f_0$ of
275: $(6.0\pm0.2_{\mathrm{stat}})\times10^{-10}\,$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$,
276: $a=-2.31\pm0.06_{\mathrm{stat}}$ and
277: $b=-0.26\pm0.07_{\mathrm{stat}}$. The peak in the spectral energy distribution is estimated at
278: $77\pm35\,$GeV. Within the observation time and the experimental
279: resolution of the telescope, the $\gamma$-ray emission is steady and pointlike.
280: The emission's center of gravity
281: coincides with the position of the pulsar. Pulsed $\gamma$-ray emission from the pulsar could not be detected.
282: We constrain the cutoff energy of the pulsed spectrum to
283: be less than 27\,GeV, assuming that the differential
284: energy spectrum has an exponential cutoff. For a super-exponential shape, the cutoff
285: energy can be as high as 60\,GeV.
286: \end{abstract}
287:
288: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
289: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
290: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
291: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
292:
293: \keywords{acceleration of
294: particles --- gamma rays:
295: observations --- pulsars: individual (PSR B0531+21) --- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}
296:
297: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
298: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
299: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
300: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
301: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
302: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
303: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
304: %% each reference.
305:
306:
307: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
308: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
309: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
310: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
311: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
312: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
313: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
314: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
315: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
316: %%
317: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
318: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
319: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
320: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
321:
322: \section{Introduction}
323:
324: The Crab Nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion that
325: occurred in AD 1054 \citep[e.g.][and references
326: therein]{1999PASP..111..871C} at a distance of $\sim2\,$kpc. It is
327: one of the best-studied non-thermal celestial objects in almost
328: all wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum from
329: $10^{-5}\,$eV (radio) to nearly $10^{14}$\,eV ($\gamma$-rays).
330: There is little doubt that the engine of the nebula is the pulsar
331: PSR B0531+21 (hereafter Crab pulsar) in its center.
332:
333:
334: In very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray astronomy
335: %\footnote{We refer
336: %to VHE as $\gamma$-rays with energies between 10\,GeV and
337: %100\,TeV}
338: the Crab Nebula was first detected with large significance at TeV
339: energies by the pioneering Whipple telescope
340: \citep{1989ApJ...342..379W}. The nebula turned out to be the
341: strongest source of steady VHE $\gamma$-ray emission in the
342: Galaxy. It is therefore used as the standard ``calibration
343: candle'' for ground-based $\gamma$-ray experiments. Apart from
344: testing the performance of $\gamma$-ray instruments another aim of
345: measuring the Crab Nebula is to increase the measurement precision
346: of the Crab Nebula flux and the energy range covered. These
347: continuous efforts provide insights necessary for the
348: understanding of the very details of the emission mechanisms of
349: VHE $\gamma$-rays in the Crab Nebula and pulsar. Important
350: questions remain to be answered concerning the emission mechanisms
351: of the nebula, of the pulsar at GeV energies, and of the nebula
352: around PeV energies. Since its discovery, detailed studies of the
353: VHE emission energy spectrum, ranging from several hundred GeV up
354: to 80 TeV, have been carried out
355: \citep[e.g.][]{1990ICRC....2..135A,1991ApJ...377..467V,
356: 1991ICRC....1..220B,1993A&A...270..401G,1996APh.....4..199H,1998ApJ...492L..33T,1998ApJ...503..744H,1999ApJ...525L..93A,
357: 2002majumdar, 2004ApJ...614..897A,2006A&A...457..899A}. Between
358: 10 and $\sim200\,$GeV, observations are sparse. A few
359: results are provided by converted solar concentrator arrays that
360: use the wave front sampling
361: technique~\citep{2001ApJ...547..949O,2002ApJ...566..343D,2002APh....17..293A,2006A&A...459..453S}.
362: However, the wave front sampling suffers from relatively large
363: uncertainties in the calculation of the effective area and of the
364: energy, as well as from poor $\gamma$/hadron discrimination,
365: which make it difficult to perform differential flux measurements.
366:
367: A good explanation of the nebular dynamics and the observed energy
368: spectrum below GeV energies can be obtained with the
369: magneto-hydrodynamic model suggested first by
370: \cite{1974MNRAS.167....1R} and developed further by
371: \cite{1984ApJ...283..694K,1984ApJ...283..710K}. In this framework,
372: the pulsar provides a continuous flow of charged particles (pulsar
373: wind) with Lorentz factors of $10^6-10^7$. A standing reverse
374: shock forms where the wind ram pressure balances the total
375: pressure of the nebula. Wind particles accelerate in the shock to
376: ultra-relativistic energies and subsequently lose their energy by
377: synchrotron emission. The presence of synchrotron emission up to
378: a few hundred MeV in conjunction with the observed $\gamma$-ray
379: spectrum at TeV energies shows that particle acceleration takes
380: place up to energies of $\sim10^{15}-10^{16}\,$eV. From the total
381: luminosity of the synchrotron emission, it can be inferred that
382: about 10\% of the pulsar's energy loss rate is converted into the
383: kinetic energy of particles.
384:
385: Above 1\,GeV the dominant source of $\gamma$-ray emission is most
386: likely inverse Compton (IC) scattering of synchrotron photons by
387: the synchrotron-emitting electrons in the shocked wind region
388: \citep[synchrotron self-Compton model \mbox{[}SSC\mbox{]};][]{1965PhRvL..15..577G,1989ApJ...342..379W,1992ApJ...396..161D}.
389: To explain the observed VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum, several other
390: seed photon fields are also believed to contribute to the inverse
391: Compton scattering, namely, far-infrared excess, cosmic microwave
392: background, and millimeter-photons~\citep[e.g.][]{2004ApJ...614..897A}.
393:
394: Although the IC-mechanism gives a good description of the observed
395: energy spectrum between 500 GeV and about 10 TeV, other processes
396: may contribute in part to the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission. It is
397: likely that a significant fraction of the mechanical energy lost
398: by the pulsar is taken away by a hadronic component in the wind.
399: Following interactions of this component with the interstellar
400: medium, VHE $\gamma$-rays are emitted by decaying $\pi^{0}$s,
401: which modify the energy spectrum at TeV energies and beyond
402: \citep{1996MNRAS.278..525A,1997PhRvL..79.2616B,2003A&A...405..689B,2003A&A...402..827A}.
403: \cite{1996MNRAS.278..525A} discuss the possibility of an
404: ``amplified'' bremsstrahlung flux at GeV-energies, which could
405: account for the discrepancy between the measured GeV $\gamma$-ray
406: flux and predictions within the SSC-framework
407: \citep{1996ApJ...457..253D}. If this is true, one should observe,
408: in good approximation, a power-law spectrum between 100\,GeV and
409: 10\,TeV with a spectral index 2.5-2.7. Another mechanism to be
410: mentioned is IC-scattering of relativistic electrons in the
411: unshocked pulsar wind. If the target photons are emitted by the
412: pulsar, a pulsed component could extend to $\gamma$-ray energies
413: of several 100\,GeV \citep{2000MNRAS.313..504B}. An independent
414: measurement in the intervening region between 60 and 400\,GeV
415: would constrain further the parameters of various models. The
416: MAGIC imaging atmospheric Cerenkov telescope (IACT) has a low-energy
417: trigger threshold ($\sim$50 GeV) and is currently the only
418: experiment capable of exploring this energy regime.
419:
420: The spatially resolved morphology of the nebula is of a complex
421: nature. Its size in optical bandwidths is about 4$^{'}$ $\times$
422: 6$^{'}$. Due to synchrotron losses, the high-energy electrons
423: will have shorter cooling times and only the lower energy
424: electrons will reach out farther into the nebula. Thus, the
425: effective source size is expected to shrink with increasing energy
426: of the radiation. The radio emission is expected to extend up to
427: and beyond the filaments optically visible, whereas X-ray and
428: multi-TeV $\gamma$-rays should be produced in the vicinity of the
429: shock. On the other hand, the expected source size would increase
430: if the presence of an ionic component is established. In a special
431: study the HEGRA collaboration concluded that the rms size of the
432: VHE $\gamma$-ray emission region is $<1.5$\arcmin~for energies
433: above $1\,$TeV \citep{2000A&A...361.1073A}. A similar study at
434: energies below 1\,TeV has not been performed up to now.
435:
436:
437: The Crab pulsar is a source of pulsed radiation and has been
438: detected up to GeV energies. The Crab pulsar has a period of
439: $33\,$ms and was first discovered in radio
440: \citep{1968Sci...162.1481S} and shortly afterwards as the first
441: pulsar in the optical domain \citep{1969Natur.221..525C}. Since
442: then, pulsed emission from the Crab pulsar has been detected at
443: all accessible energies up to $\gamma$--rays \citep[for a
444: compilation of the broad band emission see][]{1999ApJ...516..297T}.
445: EGRET detected the Crab pulsar in $\gamma$-rays up to energies of
446: $10\,$GeV with a hint of a cutoff in the energy spectrum in the
447: highest energy bin at $6\,$GeV \citep{1993ApJ...409..697N}.
448: Despite various efforts, observations from the ground at higher
449: energies have, so far, failed to detect pulsed emission
450: \citep[e.g.][]{1999ICRC....3..460M,1999A&A...346..913A,2000ApJ...531..942L,2002ApJ...566..343D,2004ApJ...614..897A}.
451: Some experiments reported episodic pulsed emission
452: \citep{1982Natur.296..833G,1986Natur.319..127B,1992A&A...258..412A}
453: and persistent pulsed emission over a 1 yr period
454: \citep{1984ApJ...286L..35D}, but these observations have not been
455: confirmed by other experiments.
456:
457: The high-energy emission from the pulsar is assumed to be due to
458: curvature and synchrotron radiation from relativistic charged
459: particles that are forced to move along magnetic field lines
460: inside the magnetosphere of the pulsar. The question of where the
461: particles are being accelerated is the subject of ongoing
462: theoretical activities. In the two most popular models, the
463: production of electrons and positrons and their acceleration take
464: place either above the polar cap of the neutron star
465: \citep[e.g.][]{1978ApJ...225..226H,1982ApJ...252..337D} or in
466: outer gaps in between the null surface and the light cylinder of
467: the magnetosphere
468: \citep[e.g.][]{1986ApJ...300..522C,1986ApJ...300..500C,1992ApJ...400..629C}.
469: We should not omit the slot-gap model, which places the
470: acceleration zone at the outer rim of the polar cap
471: \citep{1983ApJ...266..215A,2003ApJ...588..430M}. These models
472: differ in the predicted shape and cutoff of the energy spectrum at
473: the highest energies. A measurement of the turnover in the
474: spectrum would shed light on the possible sites of the particle
475: acceleration and can constrain models.
476:
477: In this paper we report about the observation of the Crab Nebula
478: and pulsar with the MAGIC telescope between 2005 October and
479: December. After describing the MAGIC telescope and the
480: performed observations in \S\S \ref{magic} and \ref{selectio}, we present the
481: analysis chain in \S \ref{chain}. In \S \ref{dc} we
482: present our results on the steady emission comprising the
483: differential flux between 60\,GeV and 9\,TeV, a study of the
484: morphology of the emission region, and the measured integral flux
485: above $150\,$GeV. In \S \ref{ac} we present the results of
486: our search for pulsed emission, and we close with a discussion of our
487: results in \S \ref{discussion}.
488:
489:
490: \section{The MAGIC Telescope}\label{magic}
491:
492: The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cerenkov) telescope
493: \citep[see][]{2004NewAR..48..339L} is located on the Canary
494: Island, La Palma (2200 m asl, $28.45^\circ$ north, $17.54^\circ$ west).
495: MAGIC is currently the largest single-dish IACT. It has a 17\,m diameter tessellated
496: reflector consisting of 964 $(0.5\times0.5)\,\mbox{m}^2$
497: diamond-milled aluminium mirrors, which are grouped onto support
498: panels in units of four. Depending on the elevation of the
499: telescope, the position of every panel is adjusted by
500: computer-controlled actuators of the so-called Active Mirror
501: Control, thus providing optimal focusing. About 80\% of the light
502: from a point source is focussed within a radius of $0.05^{\circ}$
503: in the focal plane. The MAGIC telescope is focused to a distance
504: of 10\,km---the most likely location of the shower maximum for
505: 50\,GeV $\gamma$-ray air showers at small zenith angles.
506:
507: The faint Cerenkov light flashes produced in air showers are
508: recorded by a camera comprising 577 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs).
509: The inner part of the camera (radius $\sim1.1^\circ$) is equipped
510: with 397 PMTs (type ET 9116A; 1\arcsec\,$\varnothing$ from Electron
511: Tubes Ltd [ET]) with a diameter of $0.1^\circ$ each . The outer
512: part of the camera is equipped with 180 PMTs (type ET 9117A;
513: 1.5\arcsec\,$\varnothing$) of a diameter of $0.2^\circ$. The
514: central PMT is modified for optical pulsar studies
515: \citep{2005ICRC....5..367L}. Hollow hexagonal non-imaging light
516: concentrators (often called light catchers) are placed in front of
517: all photomultipliers to compensate for the dead space between them
518: and in order to shrink the observation solid angle to the
519: reflector. The entrance window of the PMTs is coated with a
520: diffuse lacquer doped with a wavelength shifter \citep[WLS;][]{2003NIMPA.504..109P}. The combination of the
521: hemispherically shaped PMT, the light catcher, the diffuse coating
522: and the WLS results in a 15\%-25\% higher quantum efficiency
523: compared to flat window PMTs. For protection purposes (humidity,
524: dust) a thin entrance window made of Plexiglas (type UG-218, with
525: a UV cutoff around $290\,$nm) is placed in front of the camera.
526:
527: The PMTs have 6 dynodes and operate at a gain of roughly 30,000 to
528: slow down aging and damage from high currents by light during
529: observations close to the Galactic plane and during moonshine.
530: After amplification, the fast analogue signals are converted to
531: optical signals and transported by 160\,m long optical fibers to
532: the counting house. There the optical signal is converted back
533: and split. Part of the signal is routed to the trigger. The
534: current configuration of the MAGIC camera has a trigger region of
535: 2.0$^\circ$ in diameter \citep{2005ICRC....5..359C}. This provides
536: a $\gamma$-ray trigger collection area of the order of
537: $10^5\,$m$^2$ (at 200\,GeV for a source close to zenith).
538: Presently, the trigger energy range spans from 50-60 GeV (peak in
539: the differential trigger rates at small zenith angles for a
540: $\gamma$-ray source with a spectral slope of -2.6) up to tens of
541: TeV. An event is triggered if the signals in each of 4
542: neighbouring pixels exceed a threshold of $\sim7\,$photoelectrons (phe)
543: within a coincidence time window of $6\,$ns.
544:
545: Before being digitized by an 8-bit, 300 MSamples/s FADC system,
546: each signal is stretched to an FWHM of about 6\,ns. The FADC
547: continuously writes the digitized amplitude information into a
548: ring buffer. In case of a trigger the digitization stops and the
549: corresponding part of the ring buffer is written onto a disk. The
550: dead time introduced by the readout is 25 $\mu$s. In order to
551: expand the dynamic range to $\sim1000$, the signal of every PMT
552: is split into two branches, differing by a factor of 10 in gain.
553: The higher gain branch is read out for a $50\,$ns time interval.
554: When the signal amplitude exceeds a preset threshold, the delayed
555: lower gain is routed to the same FADC channel and recorded in the following
556: $50\,$ns. Otherwise, the signal from the high gain branch continues
557: to be recorded and is
558: used to determine the pedestal offset of each PMT channel.
559:
560:
561:
562: The accuracy in reconstructing the direction of incoming
563: $\gamma$-rays on an event-by-event basis, hereafter $\gamma$-ray
564: point spread function or $\gamma$-PSF, is about 0.1$^\circ$,
565: depending on the energy. With the information provided by a
566: starguider camera, mispointing is corrected to an absolute
567: precision of about 1\arcmin. A $\gamma$-ray source with an
568: absolute intensity of $\sim2$\% of the Crab Nebula and similar
569: spectrum can be detected with MAGIC within 50 hr at energies
570: $>200\,$GeV on a significance level of $5\,\sigma$.
571:
572: \section{Observations and Data Selection}\label{selectio}
573:
574: Observations of the Crab Nebula with MAGIC are conducted on a
575: regular basis, as a means to monitor the performance of the
576: telescope. In this report we restrict ourselves to the analysis of
577: data obtained in the first observation cycle of the MAGIC
578: telescope between 2005 October and December. The observations were
579: performed in the so-called ON/OFF mode. The telescope was pointed
580: towards the Crab pulsar (ON) for about 16 hr. An OFF source
581: position, a sky region where no $\gamma$-ray source is known, was
582: observed in the same range of zenith angles as the ON source. For
583: the background estimation we used OFF data collected for over 19
584: hr.
585:
586: One of the main objectives of this analysis was to explore the
587: lower energy range of accessible $\gamma$-ray energies. The energy
588: threshold of IACTs depends strongly on the zenith angle of
589: observation. Restriction to events with low zenith angles provides
590: the lowest possible energy threshold. Therefore, we select events
591: with zenith angles $\lesssim20^{\circ}$. For any given night the
592: data affected by technical problems or fluctuations in the data
593: rate in excess of $10\,$\% were rejected. The atmospheric
594: conditions were judged from the nightly averaged and publicly
595: available atmospheric extinction coefficients from the nearby
596: Carlsberg Meridian telescope\footnote{See http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~dwe/SRF/camc\_extinction.html}. Within the selected
597: nights, the atmospheric light transmission changed by less than
598: 5\%. The nights with data that survived all the selection
599: criteria, together with the corresponding observation times,
600: trigger rates, and zenith angle range, are listed in Table
601: \ref{datasummary}. The selected data sample comprises 14 nights
602: amounting to a total ON observation time of 955 minutes ($\sim16$
603: hr).
604: \begin{table}[tb]
605: \def\arraystretch{1.}
606: \centering
607: \caption{\label{datasummary}Data Selected for Analysis
608: }
609: \begin{tabular}{rrrr}\hline\hline
610: \multicolumn{1}{c}{\rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}Date} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Rates} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{On Time} &
611: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Zd--Range}\\
612: \multicolumn{1}{c}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}(MJD)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Hz)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(minutes)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(deg)} \\
613: \tableline
614: 53,648........................... & 130 &73 & $7-23$ \\
615: 53,655........................... & 115 & 100 & $7-19$\\
616: 53,671........................... & 122 & 105& $7-23$\\
617: 53,672........................... & 105 & 61 & $8-20$ \\
618: 53,679........................... & 115 & 51 & $7-20$\\
619: 53,684........................... & 95 & 50 & $7-20$ \\
620: 53,707........................... & 98 & 53 & $7-11$ \\
621: 53,709........................... & 105 & 48 & $7-10$ \\
622: 53,711........................... & 105 &48 & $7-10$ \\
623: 53,713........................... & 108 & 50 & $7-14$ \\
624: 53,727........................... & 92 &44 & $7-13$ \\
625: 53,729........................... & 97 &61 & $7-13$ \\
626: 53,731........................... & 100 &107& $7-14$ \\
627: 53,735........................... & 92 & 104& $7-15$ \\\tableline
628: \end{tabular}
629: \tablecomments{The second column lists the average event rate after tail cuts and a cut in SIZE$>100\,$phe (for the
630: definition of SIZE see text).}
631: \end{table}
632:
633:
634:
635:
636: \section{Data Analysis}\label{chain}
637:
638:
639:
640: The data analysis was carried out using the standard MAGIC
641: analysis and reconstruction software MARS \citep{2003ICRCMARS}.
642: After removing faulty and unstable camera channels, which amount
643: to 3\%--5\% of the total number of PMTs, the signal amplitudes,
644: extracted with the digital filtering method
645: \citep{magicextraction}, were converted to phe by
646: using the F-factor method~\citep{ffactororig}. Using calibration
647: events recorded interlaced to normal events
648: ~\citep{magiccalibration}, the conversion factors were updated
649: every 10~s. There is a 10\% systematic uncertainty in the
650: calibration that directly propagates to the uncertainty of the
651: event energy scale (point 7 in Table \ref{syserrors} below). Time
652: offsets between pixels are corrected with a precision of better
653: than $1\,$ns.
654:
655:
656: \begin{figure}[b]
657: \centering
658: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
659: \caption{Parameterization of a shower image with Hillas-parameters.}
660: \label{Hillas_par_fig}
661: \end{figure}
662:
663: After calibrating the data, pixels with faulty reconstructed
664: signal amplitudes and times were rejected and the corresponding
665: amplitude and time information was interpolated from the signals
666: and times of neighbouring pixels. Before image parametrization, a
667: tail-cut cleaning of the image was performed, requiring signals
668: higher than a pre-defined absolute amplitude level and time
669: coincidences (3.3\,ns) with neighbouring channels. The time
670: coincidence effectively suppresses pixels containing only a signal
671: from the night sky. For most of the analysis the minimum required
672: pixel content is 6\,phe for so-called core pixels and 4\,phe for
673: boundary pixels. For the morphology studies the minimum pixel
674: contents were raised to 10\,phe (core) and 8\,phe (boundary),
675: respectively, which improves the angular resolution, albeit at the
676: expense of an increased analysis threshold.
677:
678:
679:
680:
681:
682: Every cleaned event was parameterized by a principal
683: component analysis, commonly referred to as Hillas
684: parameterization~\citep{1985ICRC....3..445H}. The parametrization
685: was later used to separate between $\gamma$-ray event candidates
686: and background event candidates. The Hillas-parameters
687: DIST, LENGTH, WIDTH and also
688: ALPHA are illustrated for a recorded shower image in
689: Figure \ref{Hillas_par_fig}. Another useful parameter is the
690: SIZE of a shower image, the intensity of the image after
691: image cleaning in units of recorded photoelectrons. Note that
692: SIZE depends on the applied tail cuts. SIZE is a
693: good estimate of the primary particle energy, provided that the shower
694: impact distance to the telescope principal axis is below
695: $\sim120\,$m. An event pre-selection was performed by discarding
696: event candidates affected by noise and pick-up (e.g.~car flashes)
697: and event candidates with a low number of pixels (after tail-cuts
698: typically a minimum number of 5 core pixels were requested). In
699: addition, an image-SIZE of at least $\sim100\,$phe was
700: requested. Figure \ref{energy_distr} shows the energy distribution
701: of simulated $\gamma$-ray events with SIZE $>100\,$phe.
702: The distribution peaks at an energy of $75\,$GeV. The simulated
703: $\gamma$-ray source has a powerlaw spectrum with an index of
704: -2.6.
705:
706: \begin{figure}[t]
707: \centering
708: \includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{f2.eps}
709: \caption{Energy distribution of MC-$\gamma$-ray events with SIZE$>100$ phe for a simulated $\gamma$-ray source with spectral slope -2.6.}
710: \label{energy_distr}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713:
714: A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation properly describing data
715: is a necessary requisite for a ground-based $\gamma$-ray
716: experiment. In Figure \ref{MC_data_comparison} the image parameter
717: WIDTH is shown for simulated $\gamma$-rays and
718: $\gamma$-rays extracted from data. The four panels are for
719: consecutive bins in SIZE covering the entire range of
720: analyzed $\gamma$-ray energies. For an unbiased comparison, loose
721: cuts have been applied in the $\gamma$/hadron-separation
722: (explained in the next section). The $\gamma$-ray excess was
723: obtained by subtracting the scaled distribution of the OFF-data
724: sample from the distribution of the ON-data sample. The scaling
725: factor was found by normalizing the
726: $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-distributions of both samples between
727: $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$=30$^{\circ}$ and 70$^{\circ}$. The comparison
728: was done by selecting events with small $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$
729: (typically less than $10^{\circ}$). A small $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$ is
730: expected for $\gamma$-rays from the Crab Nebula, as
731: explained later. The agreement of the MC simulated
732: distributions and the distributions extracted from data is
733: acceptable in all four SIZE-bins. However, it is evident
734: from the figures that the agreement worsens at large
735: SIZE. In the analysis, a possible bias introduced by this
736: behavior is avoided by applying rather loose cuts at energies
737: above several TeV.
738:
739:
740: \begin{figure*}[t!]
741: \centering
742: \includegraphics*[width=1\columnwidth]{f3a.eps}
743: \includegraphics*[width=1\columnwidth]{f3b.eps}\\
744: \includegraphics*[width=1\columnwidth]{f3c.eps}
745: \includegraphics*[width=1\columnwidth]{f3d.eps}
746: \caption{Distribution of the image parameter WIDTH for
747: $\gamma$-ray events extracted from data
748: and for MC simulated $\gamma$-rays in four consecutive bins of
749: SIZE covering the full analyzed energy range.}
750: \label{MC_data_comparison}
751: \end{figure*}
752:
753:
754:
755: \subsection{Gamma Hadron Separation}
756:
757: Only a small fraction between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-4}$ of the
758: recorded data are $\gamma$-ray showers. The major fraction of the
759: recorded events are cosmic-rays of hadronic origin. This unwanted
760: background has to be suppressed offline. For this purpose we
761: applied a multivariate method, the random
762: forest~\citep{2001breiman,2004NIMPA.516..511B,magicrandomforest},
763: which uses the image-parameters to compute the HADRONNESS
764: of an event. The HADRONNESS of an event quantifies the
765: probability of an event to be ``$\gamma$-like'' or
766: ``hadron-like.'' The random forest is trained with MC
767: simulated $\gamma$-ray events and either with simulated hadronic
768: cosmic-ray events or, as in the present case, with background
769: events recorded by MAGIC. In this study, we used for the training
770: of the random forest the image parameters SIZE,
771: DIST, WIDTH and LENGTH, as well as the
772: third moment along the major axis of a shower image, and a
773: parameter describing the CONCENTRATION of a shower image.
774:
775: \begin{figure*}[t]
776: \centering
777: \includegraphics*[width=1.6\columnwidth]{f4.eps}
778: \caption{\emph{Top}: Distribution of the parameter
779: HADRONNESS vs.~SIZE. The background
780: events are marked blue
781: and the MC $\gamma$-ray events red. Note that below a
782: SIZE of 300\,phe most of the background events are
783: hidden behind the
784: simulated $\gamma$-ray events.
785: For bins in SIZE the
786: HADRONNESS cuts that yield
787: the highest quality factors (\emph{black stars}) are found.
788: The dashed line is a fit to the
789: HADRONNESS cut
790: values. The solid line is the fit shifted by a constant value and results in the
791: $\gamma$-ray signal from the Crab Nebula with the highest significance. \emph{Bottom}: Quality
792: factor for the HADRONNESS cut (\emph{stars}) in the top panel.}
793: \label{hadr_cut}
794: \end{figure*}
795:
796:
797:
798:
799: Figure \ref{hadr_cut} shows the HADRONNESS for MC simulated $\gamma$-ray showers (\emph{red}) and for recorded
800: background (\emph{blue}) as a function of SIZE. A clear
801: separation between both populations is visible for SIZE
802: $\gtrsim300\,$phe, corresponding to $\gamma$-ray energies
803: $\gtrsim150\,$GeV. Below 300\,phe both populations start to
804: overlap until, at $\sim200\,$phe ($\sim100\,$GeV), no more
805: separation is possible. The bottom panel in the figure shows the
806: maximum quality factor \emph{Q}
807: $(\epsilon_\gamma/\sqrt{\epsilon_\mathrm{B}})$ for each
808: SIZE interval obtained for an optimized
809: HADRONNESS cut. Parameter $\epsilon_\gamma$ is the fraction of
810: retained $\gamma$-ray events and $\epsilon_\mathrm{B}$ the
811: fraction of retained background events. The corresponding
812: HADRONNESS cut is shown by the stars in the top panel
813: of the figure.
814:
815:
816: \begin{figure*}[t]
817: \centering
818: \includegraphics*[bb = 140 53 574 716, angle=-90,
819: width=0.9\columnwidth]{f5a.ps}
820: \includegraphics*[bb = 140 38 551 740, angle=-90,width=1.05\columnwidth]{f5b.ps}
821: \caption{Distribution of the image parameter $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$
822: for the bin of reconstructed energy $80-100\,$GeV
823: in the left panel and for events with energies $>200\,$GeV
824: in the right panel. (\emph{black}: ON-data; \emph{red}: OFF-data)}
825: \label{crab:alphabelow100GeV}
826: \end{figure*}
827:
828: The random forest method is also used to estimate the energy of
829: each event~\citep{magicrandomforest}. An energy resolution of
830: $\sim25\%$ is achieved for events with energies $>200\,$GeV. The
831: energy resolution reduces to $\sim40$\% around $70\,$GeV.
832:
833:
834: \subsection{Signal Extraction}
835:
836:
837:
838: After $\gamma$/hadron-separation and energy estimation, the
839: $\gamma$-ray signal is extracted from an
840: $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-distribution. ALPHA is the angle
841: between the major axis of the recorded shower and the vector
842: connecting its center of gravity (CoG) with the source position in
843: the camera plane (cf. Figure \ref{Hillas_par_fig}). Shower images
844: of $\gamma$-rays from the source point with their major axes
845: toward the source position in the camera and appear as an excess
846: at small values in the $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-distribution. Figure
847: \ref{crab:alphabelow100GeV} shows two
848: $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-distributions from the data (\emph{black:} ON-data;
849: \emph{red}: OFF-data). The left panel in Figure
850: \ref{crab:alphabelow100GeV} shows the
851: $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-distribution of events with estimated energies
852: between 80 and $100\,$GeV; the right panel shows the
853: distribution of events with reconstructed energies above
854: $200\,$GeV. In both cases an excess of $\gamma$-ray events is
855: clearly visible. However, the significance of the $\gamma$-ray
856: signal at lower energies is considerably reduced compared to
857: higher energies because of the degradation of the background
858: suppression towards lower energy (cf.~Figure \ref{hadr_cut}).
859:
860: At the lowest energies ALPHA is currently the only means
861: by which it is possible to separate $\gamma$-rays and background
862: events. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{comb_q_factor}, which
863: shows the quality factor as a function of SIZE separate
864: for an optimized ALPHA cut and optimized
865: HADRONNESS cut, as well as the combination of both cuts.
866: Below SIZE 250\,phe a cut in HADRONNESS does not
867: improve $\gamma$/hadron-separation and reduces only statistics. On
868: the other hand, with ALPHA a quality factor of 2 is
869: still possible.
870:
871: \begin{figure}[t]
872: \centering
873: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{f6.eps}
874: \caption{Size dependence of the \emph{Q}-factor for optimized $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$ cut and
875: HADRONNESS cut, and the \emph{Q}-factor for the combination of $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$ cut and HADRONNESS cut.}
876: \label{comb_q_factor}
877: \end{figure}
878:
879: \subsection{Sensitivity}
880:
881: The highest integral sensitivity for $\gamma$-ray emission from
882: the Crab Nebula is obtained above $\sim250\,$GeV. The integral
883: sensitivities for energies above $250\,$GeV obtained on a daily
884: basis are listed in Table \ref{intesensi}. The sensitivities are
885: calculated in units of
886: $\sigma_\mathrm{LiMa}/(\mathrm{hours})^{1/2}$; the significance
887: $\sigma_\mathrm{LiMa}$ is calculated using equation 17 from
888: \cite{1983ApJ...272..317L}. In the last column of the table, the
889: sensitivity is expressed as the minimum flux, normalized to the
890: Crab flux that can be measured with 5 $\sigma$
891: significance\footnote{Note that in this case the significance is
892: calculated as\\ excess / (background)$^{1/2}$.} in a 50 hr
893: observation. The day-by-day sensitivities vary by about $10\%$,
894: indicating a stable telescope performance throughout the
895: observations.
896:
897:
898:
899:
900: The energy dependence of the sensitivity was studied by
901: calculating the integral sensitivity for several analysis
902: thresholds. The SIZE-dependent HADRONNESS cut
903: (Figure \ref{hadr_cut}, \emph{black solid line}) was used for
904: $\gamma$/hadron separation and the ALPHA cut was
905: tightened with increasing energy based on studies from
906: MC-simulations.
907: %shown in Figure \ref{alpha_cut}.
908: The integral sensitivity for a 50 hr observation is 13\% Crab
909: at 75\,GeV and improves continuously with increasing the analysis
910: threshold to about 2.2\% above $\sim250\,$GeV (see Table
911: \ref{int_sens_table}). Note that above $1.6\,$TeV the background
912: is estimated from only two events, which results in an uncertainty
913: of more than $70\%$ on the integral sensitivity.
914:
915: \begin{table}[htb]
916: \centering
917: \caption{\label{intesensi}MAGIC Integral Sensitivities
918: to $\gamma$-Ray Emission\\ from the Crab Nebula for $\gamma$-Ray Energies above
919: 250\,GeV}
920: \begin{tabular}{ccc}\hline\hline
921: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}{Date} &
922: {Sensitivity in}& {Sensitivity in}\\
923: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}\mbox{}(MJD) & [$\sigma_\mathrm{LiMa}/(\mbox{hours})^{1/2}$] & (\% Crab, 50 hr, 5$\sigma$)\\
924: \hline
925: 53,648................... & 18.1 & 2.4\\
926: 53,655................... & 19.6 & 2.1\\
927: 53,671................... & 19.9 & 2.1 \\
928: 53,672................... & 19.1 & 2.2\\
929: 53,679................... &19.4 & 2.2 \\
930: 53,684................... & 21.1 & 1.8 \\
931: 53,707................... &23.6 & 2.0 \\
932: 53,709................... & 16.1 & 2.7 \\
933: 53,711................... & 18.9 & 2.2 \\
934: 53,713................... & 18.7 & 2.2 \\
935: 53,727................... & 19.1 & 2.3 \\
936: 53,729................... & 17.5 & 2.3 \\
937: 53,731................... & 18.0 & 2.3 \\
938: 53,735................... & 18.7 & 2.1 \\
939: \hspace{5mm}Average.......... & $19.1\pm0.5$ (1.7)&$2.21\pm0.05$ (0.2)\\ \tableline
940: \end{tabular}
941: \tablecomments{Average values of each column are given in the last row with the corresponding RMS value in brackets. Note that different definitions of significance are used in the two columns.}
942: \end{table}
943:
944: \begin{table*}[t]
945: \centering
946: \caption{\label{int_sens_table} Integral Sensitivities of the MAGIC Telescope to the $\gamma$-Ray Emission\\ from the Crab Nebula for
947: Several Analysis Thresholds
948: }
949: \begin{tabular}{ccrrrc}\hline\hline
950: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}{Energy} & {$|\mbox{ALPHA}|$ Cut} &&&& {Sensitivity}\\
951: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}\mbox{(GeV)} & {(deg)} & {ON Events} & {OFF Events} & { Excess Events}&(\% Crab, 50 hrs, 5$\sigma$)\\
952: \tableline
953: $>75$......................... & $<10^\circ$ & 232505 & 221751 &10754 &13.0\\
954: $>110$....................... & $<10^\circ$ & 58600 & 49702 &8898 &7.5\\
955: $>200$....................... & $<10^\circ$ & 11399 & 4960 &6439 &3.3\\
956: $>400$....................... & $<7.5^\circ$ & 2866 & 348 &2518 &2.2\\
957: $>800$....................... & $<5^\circ$ & 613 & 20 &593 &2.3\\
958: $>1600$..................... & $<5^\circ$ & 43 & 2 & 41&1.0\\\tableline
959: \end{tabular}
960:
961: \end{table*}
962:
963:
964: \subsection{Systematic Uncertainties}
965:
966: Apart from statistical errors, many results in cosmic-ray
967: experiments are affected by rather large systematic errors. One of
968: the main problems is the lack of test beams that allow calibration
969: of the entire instrument in combination with the showering process
970: in the atmosphere. The standard replacement for a test beam
971: calibration is the use of MC simulation based on many
972: linked processes either using physical models (example: the
973: simulation of electromagnetic showers) or calibrating them in
974: separate measurements (example: the spectral mirror reflectivity).
975: In some cases one has to make reasonable guesses (example:
976: photoelectron collection efficiency in the PMT front-end volume).
977: The calibration of individual effects suffers partly from
978: cross-correlations, which are not always well understood.
979: Currently, the best approach is to estimate the systematic
980: uncertainties (commonly called systematic errors) of the various
981: parameters separately and to combine them to a global systematic
982: error. Here, we follow the general practice of adding these
983: individual errors in quadrature although this will result in a
984: slight underestimate of the total systematic error. Table
985: \ref{syserrors} lists the dominant systematic error contributions
986: ($\geq2\%$) for the spectral parameters (flux, slopes, cut-offs, etc.).
987: The systematic errors influence the spectrum in different ways.
988: Some (Nr 1-7, 10, 11) result in an uncertainty of the energy scale
989: and thus can enter as a large factor in the flux at a given energy
990: in case of steep spectra with slopes $<3$; others (Nr
991: 8, 9, 12-13, 15-17) linearly influence the flux normalization for the
992: spectrum.
993:
994:
995:
996: The most critical contributions to the
997: systematic error come from the uncertainties in the conversion of
998: photons to measurable photoelectrons (combined under item 7), the
999: so-called photon detection efficiency (PDE). The PDE is a
1000: combination of many small effects such as the reflectivity
1001: variation of the light catchers, tolerances in the light catcher
1002: geometry, angular effects on the PMT surface, non-uniformity of
1003: the diffuse lacquer coating, the QE-spread and cathode
1004: non-uniformity of the PMTs, the photoelectron collection
1005: efficiency in the PMT front-end volume, and gain variations of the
1006: first dynode. Also some contribution of the signal transmission to
1007: the DAQ is included.
1008:
1009: Fortunately, the PDE can normally be measured with a light source
1010: uniformly illuminating the camera with short blue or UV light
1011: pulses. Obviously, the light pulser itself introduces some
1012: systematic errors such as in the absolute light flux
1013: determination, small deviations from uniformity in the
1014: illumination, some (small) temperature drift, and amplitude jitter.
1015: Also, the used method of determining the number of detected
1016: photoelectrons, the above-mentioned so-called F-factor method,
1017: introduces some uncertainty.
1018:
1019: Another rather big uncertainty is the effective reflectivity of
1020: the mirrors defined as the light from a source at infinity being
1021: focused onto the area of a pixel. Comparing the measured
1022: brightness of a star and its image back-reflected by a high-quality diffuse reflector in the camera plane allows one to carry
1023: out a routine reflectivity measurement (see Figure \ref{reflect}),
1024: with an uncertainty of about 7\%. A similarly large error
1025: contribution was estimated for the event reconstruction. Again,
1026: many small effects contribute to the reconstruction losses or to
1027: the wrong assignment of events. In contrast to the procedure to
1028: limit the uncertainty as in the example of the PDE, no simple
1029: method to cross-check the error range of the reconstruction
1030: efficiency is possible and a reasonable guess had to be made.
1031:
1032: Effects that influence the slope of reconstructed $\gamma$-ray
1033: energy spectra (class C effects in Table \ref{syserrors}) are
1034: mostly dominating at the lowest and highest accessible energies.
1035: The estimate of the systematic slope error is rather difficult. In
1036: case of a power law or moderately curved power law we estimate an
1037: uncertainty on the slope of 0.2. We note that measurements by
1038: current second-generation telescopes of the spectral slope of the
1039: Crab Nebula agree better than 0.1 in the overlapping energy range.
1040:
1041: In summary, we obtain a systematic energy scale error of 16\%, a
1042: systematic error of 11\% on the flux normalization (without the
1043: energy scale error), and a systematic slope error of $\pm0.2$
1044: (which is a combination of error 13 and the other relevant class A
1045: errors averaged over the energy).
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049: \section{Analysis Results}\label{dc}
1050:
1051: \subsection{Differential Energy Spectrum of the Crab Nebula}
1052:
1053:
1054: By extracting the $\gamma$-ray signal in each bin of the
1055: reconstructed energy $E_\mathrm{rec}$, a spectrum $N_i$ of
1056: $\gamma$-rays in each $E_\mathrm{rec}$ bin $i$ can be constructed.
1057: The reconstructed energy is subject to a bias. Before determining
1058: a differential $\gamma$-ray flux in true energy $E_\mathrm{true}$
1059: bins, the spectrum $N_i$ has, therefore, to be converted into a
1060: spectrum $M_j$ of $\gamma$-rays in bins of $E_\mathrm{true}$. This
1061: is done by applying an unfolding procedure with regularization
1062: \citep{1991NIMPA.303..350A}. An essential input for the unfolding
1063: procedure is the migration matrix, which describes the migration
1064: of events from bin $i$ in $E_\mathrm{rec}$ into a bin $j$ of
1065: $E_\mathrm{true}$. The migration matrix is determined from MC
1066: simulated $\gamma$-ray showers. The unfolding is done
1067: independently for different regularization schemes
1068: \citep{Tikhonov79,Bertero88,1994NIMPA.340..400S,magicunfolding}.
1069: Figure \ref{crab:excess} shows one distribution of excess events
1070: from the Crab Nebula after unfolding by the method of
1071: \cite{Bertero88}. The integral rate of excess events is 0.4\,Hz.
1072: The differences between the unfolded points $M_j$ obtained with
1073: the different regularization schemes are used to estimate a
1074: systematic error due to the unfolding. Figure
1075: \ref{crab:diffspectr} shows the differential $\gamma$-ray flux,
1076: which was obtained with the regularization scheme proposed by
1077: \cite{Bertero88} and by normalizing the unfolded spectrum $M_j$,
1078: to the effective collection area (Figure \ref{collarea}), the
1079: effective observation time, and the bin width of $E_\mathrm{true}$
1080: (given by the horizontal bars at each flux point in the figure).
1081: The average differential flux for each energy bin is presented in
1082: Table \ref{diffpoints}.
1083:
1084: The influence of different choices for tail-cuts,
1085: HADRONNESS cuts, DIST cuts, and core-pixel cuts
1086: on the measured flux is indicated in Figure \ref{crab:diffspectr}
1087: by the shaded region and quoted as systematic uncertainty in Table
1088: \ref{diffpoints}. Due to analysis uncertainties, the band broadens
1089: at low energies, mostly because of limited $\gamma$/hadron
1090: discrimination power. It broadens at the highest energies due to
1091: low event statistics.
1092:
1093:
1094:
1095:
1096: The energy spectrum is parameterized with both a power-law and a
1097: curved power-law \emph{Ansatz}. The fit takes into account correlations
1098: between the spectral points that are introduced by the unfolding
1099: procedure. A correlated fit with a power-law
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}E}=f_0\,\left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)^{\Gamma}\quad,
1102: \end{equation}
1103: provides a flux normalization $f_0$ of
1104: $(5.7\pm0.2_{\mathrm{stat}})\times10^{-10}\,$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$
1105: and a spectral index $\Gamma$ of
1106: $-2.48\pm0.03_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm0.2_{\mathrm{syst}}$. The $\chi^2$
1107: of the fit is 24 for 8 degrees of freedom, which disfavors a pure
1108: power-law description of the spectrum. The energy spectrum is
1109: better described by a curved power-law \emph{Ansatz}
1110: \begin{equation}
1111: \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}E}=f_0\,
1112: \left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)^{\left[a+b\log_{10}\left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)\right]}
1113: \end{equation}
1114: yielding a flux normalization $f_0$ of
1115: $(6.0\pm0.2_{\mathrm{stat}})\times10^{-10}\,$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$,
1116: $a=-2.31\pm0.06_{\mathrm{stat}}$ and
1117: $b=-0.26\pm0.07_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm0.2_{\mathrm{syst}}$. The
1118: $\chi^2$ of the fit is 8 for 7 degrees of freedom.
1119:
1120:
1121:
1122:
1123: Figure \ref{Crab_sed_time} shows the differential flux
1124: measurements multiplied by the energy squared, i.e.~the spectral
1125: energy distribution (SED). In the figure we compare our
1126: measurement with those from other experiments. For energies above
1127: 400\,GeV the derived spectrum is in good agreement with
1128: measurements of other air Cerenkov telescopes
1129: \citep{1998ApJ...503..744H,2004ApJ...614..897A,1998ApJ...492L..33T,2006A&A...457..899A}.
1130: At energies $<400\,$GeV, below the threshold of previous
1131: measurements by IACTs, we compare our results with those obtained
1132: by CELESTE \citep{2002ApJ...566..343D,2006A&A...459..453S} and
1133: STACEE \citep{2001ApJ...547..949O}, i.e.~measurements performed by
1134: converted solar tower experiments. It should be noted that the
1135: integral flux values of these experiments had to be converted to
1136: differential ones by assuming a shape of the source spectrum,
1137: which causes an additional bias.
1138: \begin{figure}[t]
1139: \centering
1140: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{f7.eps}
1141: \caption{Measurement of the reflectivity of the main
1142: mirror; the effective mirror area is shown by the blue points \citep{garc07}. The measurements cover the
1143: Crab observation period from 2005 October to December.}
1144: \label{reflect}
1145: \end{figure}
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149: \begin{figure}[b]
1150: \centering
1151: \includegraphics*[angle=0,
1152: width=\columnwidth]{f8.eps}
1153: \caption{Unfolded distribution of excess events from the Crab Nebula.
1154: The integral rate of excess events is 0.4\,Hz.}
1155: \label{crab:excess}
1156: \end{figure}
1157:
1158: Above $1\,$TeV up to about 10\,TeV the measured energy spectrum is
1159: well described by a pure power-law
1160: \citep{1989ApJ...342..379W,2004ApJ...614..897A}. Going to lower
1161: energies, one expects a continuous hardening of the spectrum.
1162: However, this could not be demonstrated by earlier measurements.
1163: The change of the slope of the spectrum (spectral index)
1164: $\Gamma'$ was tested for various points of the measured spectrum
1165: $\Gamma'$.
1166: \begin{eqnarray}
1167: \Gamma'(E)&=&\frac{d\,\ln(F)}{d\,\ln(E)}\approx\frac{\Delta\,\ln(F)}{\Delta\,\ln(E)}\approx\frac{\ln F_i-\ln F_j}{\ln E_i-\ln E_j}\\
1168: E&=&\exp\left[0.5(\ln E_i + \ln E_j)\right],
1169: \end{eqnarray}
1170: where $F_{i,j}$ is the differential flux measured at $E_{i,j}$.
1171: The four derived spectral indices at $\sim150\,$GeV,
1172: $\sim300\,$GeV, $\sim1\,$TeV, and $\sim2.5\,$TeV shown in Figure
1173: \ref{photindex} indicate a clear softening of the spectrum with
1174: increasing energy. The spectral index $\Gamma'$ was also derived
1175: from the aforementioned results of the curved power-law fit,
1176: \begin{equation}\label{gamma_fit}
1177: \Gamma'=a+2\,b\,\log_{10}\left(E/300\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)
1178: \end{equation}
1179: and is shown by the solid black line, and the
1180: $\pm1\sigma$-confidence band is shown by the dashed black line. A
1181: systematic uncertainty on the slope can cause an additional
1182: vertical shift of the measurement by $\pm0.2$. Within
1183: uncertainties, the measured spectral index varies in good
1184: agreement with predictions by \cite{2004ApJ...614..897A} (\emph{blue line}), who, in addition to the IC-scattering on synchrotron
1185: photons, included several other soft photon fields such as
1186: millimeter-photons, CMB, and far-IR photons from dust and stars.
1187:
1188: The predicted GeV $\gamma$-ray emission has a peak in the
1189: SED-representation (see Figure \ref{Crab_sed_time}). If one
1190: assumes that the energy spectrum around the peak can be described
1191: with a curved power-law, the position of the peak can be
1192: determined from the measurement of the spectral index obtained
1193: from the result of the curved power-law fit. A necessary condition
1194: for the peak in the SED is that the spectral index $\Gamma'$ is
1195: $-2$. With this condition the peak is determined at
1196: $77\pm47_\mathrm{stat}{+107\atop -46}_\mathrm{syst}$\,GeV
1197: (Figure \ref{photindex}, \emph{triangle}).
1198:
1199:
1200: \begin{figure}[t]
1201: \centering
1202: \includegraphics*[angle=0,
1203: width=\columnwidth]{f9.eps}
1204: \caption{Collection area after image cleaning and after cuts for low zenith angle observations ($<20^\circ$).}
1205: \label{collarea}
1206: \end{figure}
1207:
1208: \begin{table}[b]
1209:
1210: \def\arraystretch{1.5}
1211: \centering
1212: \caption{\label{diffpoints}Mean Energy and Differential Flux of the Spectral Points Shown in Figure \ref{crab:diffspectr}}
1213: \begin{tabular}{cc}\hline\hline
1214: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}{Energy}{Mean Energy} & {Differential Flux}\\
1215:
1216: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}(GeV) & (cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$) \\
1217: \tableline
1218: 77........................................ & $(1.14\pm0.27_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.34_\mathrm{syst})10^{-8}$\\
1219: 127...................................... & $(3.65\pm0.38_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.55_\mathrm{syst})10^{-9}$\\
1220: 210...................................... & $(1.41\pm0.09_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.28_\mathrm{syst})10^{-9}$\\
1221: 346...................................... & $(4.37\pm0.23_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.87_\mathrm{syst})10^{-10}$\\
1222: 570...................................... & $(1.32\pm0.07_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.20_\mathrm{syst})10^{-10}$\\
1223: 940...................................... & $(3.55\pm0.23_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.18_\mathrm{syst})10^{-11}$\\
1224: 1550.................................... & $(9.88\pm0.74_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.49_\mathrm{syst})10^{-12}$\\
1225: 2554.................................... & $(2.69\pm0.29_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.27_\mathrm{syst})10^{-12}$\\
1226: 4212.................................... & $(6.80\pm1.10_\mathrm{stat}\pm1.00_\mathrm{syst})10^{-13}$\\
1227: 6943.................................... & $(1.15\pm0.53_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.12_\mathrm{syst})10^{-13}$\\\tableline
1228: \end{tabular}
1229: \tablecomments{The systematic errors are derived from different applied cuts and unfolding procedures.}
1230: \end{table}
1231:
1232:
1233: \begin{figure}[t]
1234: \centering
1235: \includegraphics*[angle=0,
1236: width=1.1\columnwidth]{f10.eps}
1237: \caption{Differential energy spectrum of the Crab Nebula. The spectrum was unfolded with the method
1238: of \cite{Bertero88}. The
1239: results of a fit of the spectrum with a
1240: power law and a broken power law are also shown.
1241: The
1242: bottom panel shows the relative residuals between
1243: the fit and the data points. See text for further discussion.}
1244: \label{crab:diffspectr}
1245: \end{figure}
1246:
1247:
1248: \begin{figure}[b]
1249: \centering
1250: \includegraphics*[width=1.1\columnwidth]{f11.eps}
1251: \caption{SED of the $\gamma$-ray emission
1252: of Crab Nebula. The measurements shown below 10\,GeV are by EGRET \citep{1996ApJ...457..253D}.
1253: In VHE $\gamma$-rays, measurements
1254: are from ground-based experiments. Above 400\,GeV our measurement is in agreement with measurements by other
1255: IACTs. The dashed line is a model
1256: prediction by \cite{2004ApJ...614..897A}.
1257: }
1258: \label{Crab_sed_time}
1259: \end{figure}
1260:
1261: \subsection{VHE $\gamma$-Ray Light Curve of the Nebula Emission}
1262:
1263:
1264: In the VHE $\gamma$-ray astronomy community it is assumed that the
1265: Crab Nebula is a constant and stable $\gamma$-ray source and can
1266: therefore be used as a standard candle. However, with more
1267: sensitive measurements it is necessary to check the stability of
1268: the $\gamma$-ray source. Below we present a time-resolved
1269: measurement of the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux, i.e.~the light curve for
1270: the Crab Nebula. Depending on the source strength and the analysis
1271: threshold, the time intervals can be as short as a few minutes.
1272:
1273: We calculated light curves in bins of 10 minutes from events with
1274: estimated energies above $200\,$GeV. The light curves of all 14
1275: selected nights are shown in Figure \ref{crab:lcbyday}. Note that
1276: the same loose cuts are used for the $\gamma$/hadron-separation as
1277: for the calculation of the energy spectrum, which reduces the
1278: sensitivity of the measurement. The probability that the light
1279: curve is described by a constant flux level is $>10\%$ in all
1280: nights except the first night, where the probability of the fit is
1281: $0.8\%$. The average statistical uncertainty of each flux
1282: measurement is $\sim20\%$. Figure \ref{crab:lcsummary} shows the
1283: average flux of each night. The dashed line in the figure denotes
1284: the average flux from all nights, and the shaded region shows the
1285: statistical error in the flux. The average integral mean flux
1286: $F_{>200\,\mathrm{GeV}}$ is
1287: \begin{equation}
1288: F_{>200\,\mathrm{GeV}}=(1.96\pm0.05_{\mathrm{stat}})\times
1289: 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}\quad.
1290: \end{equation}
1291: There is a probability of 67\% that the measured daily flux values
1292: are compatible with a constant flux. We can, therefore, conclude
1293: that the reconstructed flux of the Crab Nebula, within statistical
1294: uncertainties, was constant over the entire observation period.
1295:
1296: \begin{figure}[t]
1297: \centering
1298: \includegraphics*[width=1.08\columnwidth]{f12.eps}
1299: \caption{Measured spectral index derived from differential flux points (\emph{filled circles}) and from the curved power-law
1300: fit (\emph{black solid line}; the dashed line gives the $1\sigma$ confidence interval); Predictions
1301: by \cite{2004ApJ...614..897A} (\emph{blue line}),
1302: \cite{1996MNRAS.278..525A} (\emph{green line}), and
1303: \cite{1998nspt.conf..439A} (\emph{red line}) are also shown.
1304: }
1305: \label{photindex}
1306: \end{figure}
1307:
1308: \begin{figure*}[htb]
1309: \centering
1310: \includegraphics*[bb = 25 33 541 747, angle=0,
1311: width=0.78\textwidth]{f13.ps}
1312: \caption{ Light curves of the integral Flux above 200 GeV from the Crab Nebula for each night.}
1313: \label{crab:lcbyday}
1314: \end{figure*}
1315:
1316: \subsection{Morphology of the $\gamma$-Ray emitting Region}
1317:
1318: The morphology of the $\gamma$-ray emission was studied by
1319: generating sky-maps in three uncorrelated bins of SIZE.
1320: The reconstruction of the origin of a $\gamma$-ray event with a
1321: single telescope is possible with the so-called
1322: DISP-method
1323: \citep{1994APh.....2..137F,2001APh....15....1L}. For the studies
1324: presented here we used the following parameterization for
1325: DISP:
1326: \begin{equation}
1327: \mbox{DISP} =
1328: a\left(\mbox{SIZE}\right)+b\left(\mbox{SIZE}\right)\cdot\frac{\mbox{WIDTH}}
1329: {\mbox{LENGTH}}\quad,
1330: \end{equation}
1331: where $a$ and $b$ are second-order polynomials found by fitting
1332: MC simulated $\gamma$-ray showers
1333: \citep{2005ICRC....5..363D}. Strong tail cuts of 10 and 8
1334: phe were used in the image cleaning for core- and
1335: boundary-pixels, respectively, and a tight HADRONNESS cut
1336: $<0.1$ was applied, resulting in improved angular resolution.
1337:
1338: The reconstructed event origins were corrected for possible
1339: mispointing by using the information from the starguider camera.
1340: Two-dimensional (2D) histograms with bin sizes of $(0.057^\circ\times0.057^\circ)$
1341: were filled with the corrected event origins (events with energies
1342: $<500\,$GeV). A 4 times finer binning was chosen for the
1343: sky-map filled by events with energies above $500\,$GeV. Figure
1344: \ref{disp_skymaps} shows the background-subtracted sky-maps of
1345: excess events from the Crab Nebula for $\gamma$-ray energies
1346: $\sim160$, $\sim250$, and $>500\,$GeV.
1347:
1348: \begin{figure}[t]
1349: \centering
1350: \includegraphics*[bb = 53 41 415 701, angle=0,
1351: width=\columnwidth]{f14.ps}
1352: \caption{Nightly average flux from the Crab Nebula above 200GeV of each observed night.
1353: The dashed blue line gives the average flux of all
1354: nights
1355: and the blue shaded region gives the corresponding statistical error.}
1356: \label{crab:lcsummary}
1357: \end{figure}
1358:
1359:
1360: \subsubsection{Center of Gravity of the $\gamma$-Ray Emission}
1361:
1362: The CoG of the $\gamma$-ray emission was
1363: derived from the sky-maps of the excess events shown in Figure
1364: \ref{disp_skymaps} by fitting them with a 2D-Gaussian of the form
1365: \begin{equation}\label{2dgaus}
1366: F(x,y) =
1367: F_{\mathrm{res}}+a\cdot\exp\left[-\frac{(x-\bar{x})^2+(y-\bar{y})^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]\quad,
1368: \end{equation}
1369: where $F_{\mathrm{res}}$ is introduced to account for a possible
1370: constant offset of the background-subtracted sky-map. In this
1371: representation $\sigma$ defines the 39\% containment radius of the
1372: observed $\gamma$-ray emission. Here we assume that the
1373: distribution of excess events is rotationally symmetric,
1374: i.e.~$\sigma_x=\sigma_y=\sigma$. It is further assumed that
1375: $\sigma$ is the convolution of the response of the detector
1376: $\sigma_{\mathrm{psf}}$ (point-spread function) and the apparent
1377: size of the $\gamma$-ray emission region $\sigma_{\mathrm{src}}$,
1378: i.e.~$\sigma^2=\sigma_{\mathrm{psf}}^2+\sigma_{\mathrm{src}}^2$.
1379: Note that here it is assumed that the $\gamma$-ray emission region
1380: follows the shape described by Equation \ref{2dgaus}, which in
1381: reality is not necessarily the case.
1382:
1383: The CoGs obtained from the fitted $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$ are
1384: listed in Table \ref{crabpositions} and shown in Figure
1385: \ref{crabcomposite} superimposed on the composite image of
1386: optical, IR, and X-ray observations of the Crab Nebula. The three
1387: measured CoGs are compatible among each other and coincide with
1388: the position of the pulsar. Note that the systematic uncertainty
1389: of the position is $\sim1\arcmin$.
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394: \subsubsection{Extension of the $\gamma$-Ray Emission Region}
1395:
1396: The extension of the $\gamma$-ray emission region was studied by
1397: comparing the width of the excess event distribution with that
1398: obtained for a simulated $\gamma$-ray point-source. The simulated
1399: distributions were verified by comparing them to the distributions
1400: extracted from an observation of Mrk 421, an extragalactic
1401: $\gamma$-ray source that can be considered a point source for our
1402: purpose. The Mrk 421 data set is the same as in
1403: \cite{albert:2007:magic:mkn421}. The width of the $\gamma$-ray
1404: excess extracted from Mrk 421 and the simulated width for a point
1405: source agree within statistical uncertainties.
1406:
1407: In the following, the average position of the CoGs obtained from
1408: the three sky-maps is assumed as the $\gamma$-ray source position.
1409: The angular distance squared ($\theta^2$) between the
1410: reconstructed origin and the assumed source position is calculated
1411: for every event. The background subtracted
1412: $\theta^2$-distributions obtained for the three energy ranges are
1413: shown in Figure \ref{disp_theta2maps}. Data (\emph{black}) and MC (\emph{blue})
1414: are compatible within statistical uncertainties in all three
1415: $\theta^2$-distributions.
1416:
1417: An exponential function of the form
1418: \begin{equation}\label{theta2}
1419: F\left(\theta^2\right) = a \cdot
1420: \exp\left(-\frac{\theta^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)
1421: \end{equation}
1422: describes the expected $\theta^2$-distribution, where $a$ is a
1423: normalization and $\sigma$ is the same as in equation
1424: \ref{2dgaus}. Values for $\sigma^2$ and $\sigma^2_\mathrm{psf}$
1425: found by fitting the corresponding $\theta^2$-distributions with
1426: equation \ref{theta2} are shown in Table
1427: \ref{crabextensionexcess}. Upper limits on $\sigma_{\mathrm{src}}$
1428: were calculated with a confidence level of 95\% following the
1429: procedure outlined in \cite{PDBook} for one-sided confidence
1430: intervals and Gaussian errors. The results are presented in Table
1431: \ref{crabextensionexcess}. For energies above $500\,$GeV the limit
1432: is shown in Figure \ref{crabcomposite}. The limits obtained for
1433: $\gamma$-ray energies above $500\,$GeV and about $250\,$GeV
1434: constrain the $\gamma$-ray emission to a region within the optical
1435: synchrotron nebula.
1436:
1437:
1438:
1439:
1440: \subsection{Search for pulsed $\gamma$-Ray Emission}\label{ac}
1441:
1442: Among the most challenging tasks of ground-based $\gamma$-ray
1443: experiments is the detection of a pulsar. Several experiments have
1444: tried but failed. Currently MAGIC is the only ground-based
1445: detector with threshold settings below 100\,GeV that is
1446: appropriate for a search of pulsed $\gamma$-ray emission from the
1447: Crab pulsar. For the data a periodicity analysis was performed
1448: after $\gamma$/hadron-separation and selection of events with
1449: small $|\mbox{ALPHA}|$-value. The cuts were chosen by MC simulations to optimize the sensitivity of the analysis.
1450: After event selection, the event times\footnote{The time of each
1451: event was derived from the time signal of a GPS controlled
1452: rubidium clock with a precision of $\sim200$ ns.} were
1453: transformed to the barycenter of the solar system with the TEMPO
1454: timing package \citep[][\footnote{Available at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/tempo/.}]{tempo}. Then, the corresponding phase
1455: $\phi_j$ of the Crab pulsar was calculated for each transformed
1456: arrival time $t_j$:
1457: \begin{equation}
1458: \phi_j=\nu(t_j-t_0)+\frac 1 2 \dot{\nu}(t_j-t_0)^2\quad,
1459: \end{equation}
1460: where $\nu$, $\dot{\nu}$, and $t_0$ are values of contemporary
1461: ephemerides of the Crab pulsar provided by the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope\footnote{See http://www.jb.mac.ac.uk/pulsar/crab.html.}
1462: (see Table \ref{ephemeris}). We tested for periodicity with the
1463: \emph{H}-test \citep{1989A&A...221..180D}, the Pearson's $\chi^2$-test,
1464: and a test from \cite{1992ApJ...398..146G} that is based on
1465: Bayesian statistics.
1466:
1467: \begin{figure*}[t]
1468: \centering
1469: \mbox{}
1470: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f15a.eps}
1471: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f15b.eps}
1472: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f15c.eps}
1473: \caption{Sky-maps of excess events from the Crab Nebula for
1474: different $\gamma$-ray energies ($\sim160$, $\sim250$,
1475: and $>500\,$GeV). The position of the pulsar is marked by the
1476: black plus sign and the angular resolution is indicated by the
1477: circle.}
1478: \label{disp_skymaps}
1479: \end{figure*}
1480:
1481:
1482: \begin{table}[b]
1483: \centering
1484: \def\arraystretch{1.5}
1485: \caption{\label{crabpositions}Center of Gravity
1486: of the $\gamma$-Ray Emission of the Crab
1487: Nebula Obtained for Different Energies}
1488:
1489: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
1490: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}SIZE & Energy & Right
1491: Ascension & Declination\\
1492: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}\mbox{(phe)} & (GeV) & (hr) & (deg) \\\hline
1493: $200-300$&$160^{+80}_{-50}$ & $5.5766\pm0.0009$ & $22.019\pm0.011$ \\
1494: $300-700$&$250^{+130}_{-80}$ & $5.5758\pm0.0003$ & $22.019\pm0.004$ \\
1495: $>700$& $>500$ &$5.5759\pm0.0003$ & $22.022\pm0.003$\\
1496: Position of the pulsar: & \ldots & 5.5755 & 22.015 \\\hline
1497: \end{tabular}
1498: \tablecomments{In the first column the applied SIZE cut is stated.
1499: The second column
1500: shows the corresponding range of $\gamma$-ray energies covered (peak value and full width at half maximum of the
1501: distribution of MC $\gamma$-ray events). The last two columns give the fitted position of the
1502: CoG and the statistical uncertainty.}
1503: \end{table}
1504:
1505:
1506: The analysis chain was tested by optical observations of the Crab
1507: pulsar with the MAGIC telescope. Within this $12.5\,$hr
1508: observation, every time the readout of MAGIC was triggered by a
1509: cosmic-ray shower, the signal of the pixel in the center of the
1510: MAGIC camera was recorded by the MAGIC DAQ for 100\,ns. Along with
1511: an average trigger rate of 200\,Hz, the effective observation time
1512: was only about 1 s. Figure \ref{Crab_optical_light_curve}
1513: shows the reconstructed optical light curve of the Crab pulsar
1514: with the familiar main pulse and interpulse. For better readability
1515: the light curve is shown twice. The position of the main-pulse is
1516: shifted with respect to the position of the main-pulse in radio by
1517: $-252\pm64\mu$s, which is in agreement with the contemporary
1518: measurement of \cite{2006astro.ph..6146O}.
1519:
1520:
1521: \subsubsection{Search for pulsed Emission in Differential Bins of Energy}
1522:
1523:
1524: We searched for pulsed $\gamma$-ray emission in five bins of
1525: reconstructed energy between $60\,$GeV and $9\,$TeV. This search
1526: was motivated by a possible pulsed $\gamma$-ray component at TeV
1527: energies \citep{2001ApJ...549..495H,2007astro.ph..1676H}. However,
1528: no signature of periodicity was found in any of the tested energy
1529: intervals.
1530:
1531:
1532: \begin{figure}[t]
1533: \centering
1534: \includegraphics*[bb= 120 28 723 584, width=0.9\columnwidth]{f16.eps}
1535: \caption{Emission of the Crab Nebula in different
1536: energy bands. The position of the Crab pulsar is marked with a black star.
1537: The \emph{Chandra} X-ray image is shown in light blue,
1538: the \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} optical images are in green and
1539: dark blue, and the S\emph{pitzer Space Telescope}'s infrared image
1540: is in red \citep[picture from][]{chandra_crabcomp}.
1541: Overlaid are the CoG of the $\gamma$-ray emission at different energies
1542: (\emph{plus sign:} $>500\,$GeV; \emph{filled circle:} $\sim250\,$GeV;
1543: \emph{filled square:} $\sim160\,$GeV). The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty
1544: in the position of the CoG.
1545: Indicated by the dashed circle is the upper limit (95\% confidence level) on the 39\% containment radius of the $\gamma$-ray emission region that was derived from the
1546: $\theta^2$-distribution for $\gamma$-ray energies above
1547: 500\,GeV.}
1548: \label{crabcomposite}
1549: \end{figure}
1550:
1551:
1552: \begin{figure*}[t]
1553: \centering
1554: \includegraphics*[width=1.03\columnwidth]{f17a.eps}
1555: \includegraphics*[width=1.03\columnwidth]{f17b.eps}\\
1556: \includegraphics*[width=1.03\columnwidth]{f17c.eps}
1557: \caption{Background subtracted $\theta^2$-distributions for different
1558: energies. $\sim160\,$GeV \emph{(top left)}, $\sim250\,$GeV \emph{(top right)}, $>500\,$GeV \emph{(bottom)}
1559: }
1560: \label{disp_theta2maps}
1561: \end{figure*}
1562:
1563:
1564: \begin{table}[b]
1565: \centering
1566: \caption{\label{crabextensionexcess}Results of the fit of the
1567: $\theta^2$-distributions with an exponential ansatz and thereof derived
1568: upper limits on the extension of the emission region (39\% containment radius). }
1569: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
1570:
1571: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}Energy&Data $\sigma^2$&MC $\sigma_\mathrm{psf}^2$&95\% U.L. on Extension\\
1572: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}(GeV) & (deg$^2$)&
1573: (deg$^2$) &(arcmin)\\\hline
1574:
1575: $160^{+80}_{-50}$&$0.0148\pm0.0035$&$0.0113\pm0.0007$ &5.9\\
1576: $250^{+130}_{-80}$&$0.0100\pm0.0008$ &$0.0100\pm0.0003$& 2.4\\
1577: $>500$ &$0.0054\pm0.0006$ &$0.0051\pm0.0002$& 2.2 \\\tableline
1578: \end{tabular}
1579:
1580: \end{table}
1581: For each energy bin an upper limit on the number of excess events
1582: was calculated with a confidence level of 95\% in two different
1583: ways, first from the result of the \emph{H}-test as described by
1584: \cite{1994ApJ...436..239D}, and second from the pulse phase
1585: profile. In the calculation of the limit from the result of the
1586: \emph{H}-test, it is assumed that the duty cycle (FWHM) of the pulsed $\gamma$-emission is 20\%, similar to the
1587: duty cycle of the light curve measured by the EGRET detector
1588: above 100\,MeV \citep{1998ApJ...494..734F}. No assumption about
1589: the position of the emission in the pulse phase profile enters
1590: into the calculation.
1591:
1592: This additional constraint is applied,
1593: however, when the upper limit is directly derived from the pulse
1594: phase profile. As signal regions we chose the phase intervals
1595: where EGRET had observed pulsed emission above 100\,MeV,
1596: i.e.~$-0.06--0.04$ and $0.32--0.43$ (shaded region in
1597: Figure \ref{lcoptcuts} below). The background was estimated from the
1598: remaining phase intervals. Having defined the signal and
1599: background regions in this way, the upper limit on the number of
1600: excess events was obtained by the method of
1601: \cite{2005NIMPA.551..493R}. Because of the additional constraint
1602: made about the position of the expected pulsed emission, the
1603: limits obtained from the pulse phase profile are on average about
1604: a factor of 2 better than the limits obtained from the result of
1605: the \emph{H}-test.
1606:
1607: The upper limits derived from the pulse phase profiles were
1608: converted into flux limits. The collection area was calculated
1609: assuming a photon index of -2.6 for the $\gamma$-ray spectrum. The
1610: flux limits are shown in Figure \ref{Crab_pulsed_differential}
1611: together with the upper limit on the cutoff energy, which is
1612: derived in the following section.
1613:
1614:
1615: \begin{table}[t]
1616: \centering
1617: \caption{\label{ephemeris}Ephemerides of the Crab Pulsar from the Jodrell Bank Telescope
1618: Covering the Same Period of Time as the Analyzed Data}
1619: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
1620: & {${t}$} & {Frequency ($ \nu$)} & {Derivative ($\dot{\nu}$)}\\
1621: JD& (s)& (Hz) & ($10^{-15}$ Hz s$^{-1}$)\\\tableline
1622:
1623: 2,453,597.5............... & 0.029626 & 29.7798524524 & -372992.36 \\
1624: 2,453,628.5............... & 0.031767 & 29.7788534525 & -372972.07 \\
1625: 2,453,658.5............... & 0.022656 & 29.7778867428 & -372950.45 \\
1626: 2,453,689.5............... & 0.016803 & 29.7768878849 &-372924.54 \\
1627: 2,453,719.5............... & 0.026788 & 29.7759213143 &-372886.52 \\
1628: 2,453,750.5............... & 0.020341 & 29.7749226318 & -372854.62 \\
1629: 2,453,781.5............... & 0.006520 &29.7739240139 &-372823.70
1630: \\\tableline
1631:
1632: \end{tabular}
1633: \tablecomments{Given in JD is the reference day of the ephemeris, and $t$ is the time of appearance
1634: of the first main pulse on the reference day after midnight.}
1635: \end{table}
1636:
1637: \subsubsection{Upper Limit on the Cutoff Energy of the pulsed Emission}
1638:
1639: \begin{figure}[b]
1640: \centering
1641: \includegraphics*[bb = 200 52 560 720, angle=-90,width=1.\columnwidth]{f18.ps}
1642: \caption{Optical light curve of the Crab pulsar
1643: measured with MAGIC. The figure includes data from
1644: seven different observations between 2005 December and 2006 February.
1645: The total observation time was 12.5 hr.}
1646: \label{Crab_optical_light_curve}
1647: \end{figure}
1648:
1649:
1650: \begin{figure}[b]
1651: \centering
1652: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{f19.eps}
1653: \caption{Upper limits on the pulsed $\gamma$-ray flux from the Crab
1654: pulsar; upper limits in differential bins of energy are given
1655: by the blue points. The upper limit on the
1656: cutoff energy of the pulsed emission is
1657: indicated by the dashed line. The
1658: analysis threshold to derive the upper
1659: limit on the cutoff energy is indicated by the red arrow.
1660: }
1661: \label{Crab_pulsed_differential}
1662: \end{figure}
1663:
1664:
1665: Apart from the search for pulsed emission in bins of reconstructed
1666: energy, we performed a periodicity analysis, this time selecting
1667: events with SIZE$<300\,$phe ($\gamma$-ray energies
1668: $\lesssim180\,$GeV) and applying the same optimized SIZE-dependent HADRONNESS cuts and ALPHA cuts as
1669: above. Compared to the previously described analysis, this one is
1670: optimized for a search of pulsed emission close to the threshold
1671: of the experiment. The analysis threshold, defined as the peak of
1672: the energy-distribution of simulated $\gamma$-ray showers, is
1673: $60\,$GeV.
1674:
1675: Figure \ref{lcoptcuts} shows the pulse phase profile obtained for
1676: the selected events. For comparison the pulse phase profiles from
1677: EGRET observations above 100\,MeV and 5\,GeV
1678: \citep{2004ASSL..304..149T} are also shown. The EGRET pulse phase
1679: profile above 10\,GeV \citep{2005ApJS..157..324T} is not shown
1680: because it suffers from too low statistics. Shaded in the pulse
1681: phase profiles are the regions of the main and interpulse
1682: defined from EGRET observations above 100 MeV
1683: \citep{1993ApJ...409..697N}.
1684:
1685: The result of a Pearson's $\chi^2$-test is $13.1$ with 10 degrees
1686: of freedom, corresponding to a significance of $1.2\,\sigma$ for
1687: periodic emission. The result of the \emph{H}-test is 3.9, which is
1688: equivalent to a significance of $1.3\,\sigma$. The test by
1689: \cite{1992ApJ...398..146G} results in a probability of
1690: $4.1\cdot10^{-4}$ that pulsed emission is present in the data.
1691: These tests do not make an assumption about the position of the
1692: pulsed emission in the pulse phase profile. However, some evidence
1693: of an excess is visible at the position of the inter-pulse in the
1694: same phase range where EGRET detected pulsed emission above
1695: 100\,MeV. If the two phase regions defined by EGRET are used as
1696: the signal region and the remaining phase intervals as background
1697: region, the significance of the observed excess is $2.9\,\sigma$.
1698: Note that in this case the significance was not calculated from
1699: the binned pulse phase profile shown in Figure \ref{lcoptcuts}.
1700:
1701:
1702:
1703:
1704: The significance of the observed excess is not sufficient to claim
1705: the detection of a pulsed signal; therefore, upper limits on the
1706: number of excess events were calculated with a confidence level of
1707: 95\% (see Table \ref{crab300phe}). Note that because of the
1708: observed excess, the upper limit from the pulse phase profile is
1709: larger than the limit obtained from the \emph{H}-test. Using the
1710: different limits on the number of pulsed excess events, we
1711: constrain, in the following, the cutoff energy of the pulsar
1712: spectrum under the assumption that the break in the energy
1713: spectrum can be described with an exponential cutoff. In the
1714: procedure we use the parametrization of the measured pulsar
1715: spectrum below $10\,$GeV \citep{1998ApJ...494..734F}, extended
1716: with an exponential cutoff:
1717: \begin{eqnarray}\label{crabegret}
1718: F(E,E_\mathrm{
1719: Cutoff})&=&\left[7.0\cdot10^{-6}\left(\frac{E}{0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{-4.89}\right. \nonumber\\
1720: &&\left. +2.3\cdot10^{-5}\left(\frac{E}{0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{-2.05}
1721: \right]\nonumber\\
1722: &&\times\exp{\left(-\frac{E}{E_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1723: Cutoff}}}\right)}\,\mathrm{photons}\left(\mathrm{cm}^{2}\,\mbox{s}\,\mbox{GeV}\right)^{-1}.
1724: \end{eqnarray}
1725:
1726:
1727: \begin{table*}[t]
1728: \centering
1729: \caption{\label{crab300phe}Analysis Results for a Cut
1730: selecting Events with SIZE
1731: $<300\,\mathrm{phe}$}
1732: \begin{tabular}{ccc}\hline\hline
1733: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 6mm}{Method} & \emph{H}-Test & Rolke\\\hline
1734: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}{Test result}................................................................................................ & 3.92 &n.a.\\
1735: {Significance}............................................................................................. & $1.26\,\sigma$&n.a.\\
1736: {$ 2\sigma$ U.~L.~on excess events}....................................................................... & 1635 &3198\\
1737: {U.~L.~on the Cutoff energy (GeV)}........................................................... &27 &34\\
1738: {$ 2\sigma$ Integral flux limit above 60\,GeV (cm$^{-2}\,$s$^{-1}$)......................................} & $2.5\cdot10^{-11}$&$7.9\cdot10^{-11}$\\
1739: {$ 2\sigma$ Differential flux limit at 60\,GeV (cm$^{-2}\,$s$^{-1}\,$GeV$^{-1}$) }..........................&$4.5\cdot10^{-12}$&$8.9\cdot10^{-12}$\\
1740: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}{Peak Energy MC (GeV)}..........................................................................&{60}&60\\\tableline
1741: \end{tabular}
1742: \end{table*}
1743:
1744:
1745: \begin{figure}[b]
1746: \centering
1747: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{f20.eps}
1748: \caption{\label{lcoptcuts}Pulse phase profiles of the Crab pulsar.
1749: \emph{Bottom panel}: optical observations by MAGIC ($\sim1\,$s effective
1750: observation time); \emph{middle panels}: observations by EGRET from
1751: \cite{2004ASSL..304..149T}; \emph{top panel}: pulse phase profile
1752: obtained by MAGIC, analysis threshold 60\,GeV. The shaded regions
1753: indicate the EGRET measured positions of the peaks for
1754: $\gamma$-ray energies above 100\,MeV. Note that each pulse phase
1755: profile is shown twice for better visibility.}
1756: \end{figure}
1757:
1758: The spectrum with a given $E_\mathrm{Cutoff}$ is convoluted with
1759: the effective collection area after cuts. The collection area is
1760: derived from MC simulations, assuming the same $\gamma$-ray
1761: spectrum. The number of expected excess events for the assumed
1762: cutoff energy is obtained by multiplying the convoluted spectrum
1763: with the observation time. In an iterative algorithm
1764: $E_{\mathrm{Cutoff}}$ is changed until the number of expected
1765: excess events matches the upper limit on the number of excess
1766: events. In this way we derive an upper limit on the cutoff energy
1767: of $27\,$GeV from the result of the \emph{H}-test and 34\,GeV from the
1768: limit obtained from the pulse phase profile.
1769: Differential and integral upper limits on the flux were calculated
1770: and are shown in Table \ref{crab300phe}.
1771:
1772:
1773:
1774:
1775:
1776:
1777: \section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
1778:
1779: In this paper we report on the most detailed study to date of VHE
1780: $\gamma$-ray emission of the Crab Nebula below 500\,GeV. This
1781: study includes the following:
1782: \begin{itemize}
1783: \item{A measurement of the differential energy spectrum down to 60\,GeV.}
1784: \item{An estimate of the peak in the SED of the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission.}
1785: \item{The search for an extended source morphology.}
1786: \item{The calculation of a light curve of the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission from the nebula above 200\,GeV.}
1787: \item{A search for pulsed emission from the Crab pulsar in differential bins of energy and in an optimized low-energy analysis.}
1788: \end{itemize}
1789: Most of the aforementioned studies were done in this energy region
1790: for the first time; they were possible only because the imaging
1791: air shower Cerenkov technique was used. The wave front sampling
1792: technique, which, up to now, was the only experimental technique
1793: used in this energy domain, did, at best, allow one to arrange an
1794: integral flux measurement and to search for pulsed emission. The
1795: performance of MAGIC is superior even in the energy domain below
1796: $200\,$GeV, where a progressive degradation of the
1797: $\gamma$/hadron-separation power is observed. In this context
1798: studies for improving the suppression of background events by
1799: exploiting the intrinsic time structure of the recorded
1800: PMT-signals are ongoing. Further improvement is expected with the
1801: second MAGIC telescope currently under construction.
1802:
1803: The measured energy spectrum of the Crab Nebula in Figure
1804: \ref{crab:diffspectr} extends over two decades in energy and five
1805: decades in flux. The spectral shape deviates from a pure power-law
1806: behavior and is, within experimental uncertainties, in agreement
1807: with a curved power-law. The observation supports the generally
1808: accepted picture that the steady emission above a few tens of GeV
1809: and up to the highest measured energies can be described within
1810: the framework of the SSC-model
1811: \citep{1965PhRvL..15..577G,1992ApJ...396..161D,2004ApJ...614..897A}.
1812: Also the peak position of the inverse Compton emission of the
1813: tested predictions is in agreement with the estimated peak in the
1814: SED ($77\pm47_\mathrm{stat}{+107\atop
1815: -46}_\mathrm{syst}$\,GeV).
1816:
1817:
1818: At GeV energies EGRET observed a $\gamma$-ray flux, which was a
1819: factor of 5 above the flux predicted by the SSC-mechanism
1820: \citep{1996ApJ...457..253D}. \cite{1996MNRAS.278..525A} explain
1821: this $\gamma$-ray excess by an additional $\gamma$-ray component
1822: from bremsstrahlung of electrons that are partially captured in
1823: filaments of the nebula. Such an extra component can significantly
1824: change the spectral slope at several hundred GeV compared to a
1825: pure IC-scenario (cf.~\emph{blue and red lines} in Figure
1826: \ref{photindex}) and results in an almost pure power-law behavior
1827: of the energy spectrum between $\sim100\,$GeV and $10\,$TeV
1828: (constant $\Gamma$). At several hundred GeV, where the measurement
1829: is most sensitive, the measured slope (\emph{black line and data point})
1830: is considerably harder than predicted by
1831: \cite{1996MNRAS.278..525A}. It is, therefore, unlikely that the
1832: $\gamma$-ray excess at GeV energies can be explained by
1833: bremsstrahlung as proposed. Later predictions by
1834: \cite{1998nspt.conf..439A} that also include the mentioned
1835: bremsstrahlung mechanism, are in agreement with the presented
1836: measurement (\emph{red line}). However, all above-mentioned predictions
1837: agree with the measurement if the measured slope is shifted by 0.2
1838: to more negative values, which is within the range of the
1839: systematic uncertainty of the measurement. In the prediction by
1840: \cite{1998nspt.conf..439A} also a $\gamma$-ray component from
1841: $\pi^0$-decay is included, which results in a considerable harder
1842: spectrum above a few TeV compared to the pure IC-scenario
1843: (cf.~Figure \ref{photindex}). However, given the limited
1844: statistics above 1\,TeV of our measurement, one cannot exclude any
1845: such prediction from the measurement.
1846:
1847: Studies about the morphology of the $\gamma$-ray-emitting region
1848: of the Crab Nebula have been performed by
1849: \cite{2000A&A...361.1073A,2004ApJ...614..897A} for $\gamma$-ray
1850: energies above $1\,$TeV. In both cases it was found that within
1851: the resolution of the experiment the emission region is pointlike.
1852: They placed an upper limit on the source size of $\sim2\arcmin$ at
1853: energies between 1 and 10\,TeV. In the VHE domain, the morphology
1854: of the emission region has not yet been studied at energies below
1855: 1\,TeV. With the resolution of MAGIC it was possible to constrain
1856: the origin of the $\gamma$-ray emission to be within the optical
1857: synchrotron nebula (see Figure \ref{crabcomposite}). The upper
1858: limit on the size of the emission region is $\sim2\arcmin$, which
1859: is about 4 times larger than the predicted size of the inverse
1860: Compton surface brightness for $\gamma$-ray energies below
1861: 500\,GeV \citep{1992ApJ...396..161D}.
1862:
1863: X-ray observations indicate variabilities in the acceleration and
1864: cooling times of electrons on timescale of months
1865: \citep[e.g.][]{2002ApJ...577L..49H}. However, variations in
1866: $\gamma$-rays could not be detected so far. The sensitivity of
1867: MAGIC allowed us to study the variability of the $\gamma$-ray
1868: emission above $150\,$GeV on timescales as short as a few minutes
1869: up to months. We measured a flux that is within statistics
1870: compatible with steady emission. During the observation the
1871: stability of the integral flux was better than 10\% on all tested
1872: timescales.
1873:
1874: In a search for pulsed VHE $\gamma$-ray emission with MC optimized
1875: cuts in HADRONNESS and ALPHA an excess was found
1876: in the pulse phase profile at the same position where EGRET
1877: detected pulsed emission above 100\,MeV. The significance of the
1878: excess is $2.9\,\sigma$ if the phase regions where EGRET detected
1879: pulsed emission were chosen as signal regions and the remaining
1880: phase intervals are considered as background regions. The
1881: similarity of the distribution of excess events in the EGRET
1882: $>5\,$GeV and MAGIC data and the monotonic increase of the number
1883: of excess events with increasing upper SIZE cut are
1884: strong indications that the observed excess is not a random
1885: fluctuation.
1886:
1887: With the result of the \emph{H}-test an upper limit on the cutoff energy
1888: of 27\,GeV was derived, assuming that the power-law spectrum of
1889: the pulsar at GeV energies is attenuated by an exponential cutoff.
1890: However, if the cutoff of the spectrum has a super-exponential
1891: shape, a cutoff energy almost as high as the analysis threshold
1892: ($\sim60\,$GeV) cannot be excluded.
1893:
1894: With the derived upper limit we constrain not only the
1895: $\gamma$-ray emission from within the light cylinder but also the
1896: predicted pulsed $\gamma$-ray emission in the unshocked wind
1897: region \citep{2000MNRAS.313..504B}. The predicted $\gamma$-ray
1898: flux strongly depends (1) on the distance from the light cylinder
1899: where the kinetic energy-dominated wind forms and (2) on the
1900: wind's Lorentz factor. By comparing our observational limits on
1901: the pulsed emission with the predicted spectra by
1902: \cite{2000MNRAS.313..504B}, we can exclude the formation of a
1903: particle-dominated wind within a few light cylinder radii.
1904: Following the argumentation of the same authors, the particle-dominated pulsar wind must therefore be formed farther out, most
1905: likely at distances of more than 30 light cylinder radii.
1906:
1907: Also, no pulsed emission was detected for energies above 100 GeV,
1908: which could have its origin in IC-upscattering of IR photons
1909: within the light cylinder. Despite earlier claims of a strong
1910: component \citep{2001ApJ...558..216H}, latest models
1911: \citep{2007astro.ph..1676H} seem to disfavor a pulsed TeV
1912: component from the Crab pulsar due to dominant $\gamma$-$\gamma$
1913: absorption processes. In the future, detailed spectroscopic studies of
1914: the pulsed emission by, e.g., \emph{GLAST} and ground-based experiments
1915: with lower thresholds and higher sensitivities like MAGIC II
1916: (under construction) and CTA (projected) will hopefully resolve
1917: the long-standing question of the origin of the pulsed emission.
1918:
1919: \acknowledgements
1920:
1921: We are grateful for discussions with Kouichi Hirotani. We also
1922: would like to thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions
1923: at the ORM in La Palma. The support of the German BMBF and MPG,
1924: the Italian INFN, the Spanish CICYT, ETH research grant TH 34/04
1925: 3, and the Polish MNiI grant 1P03D01028 is gratefully
1926: acknowledged.
1927:
1928:
1929: \bibliographystyle{plainnat}
1930: %\bibliography{pulsars,crab,others,gamma_analysis}
1931: \bibliography{ms}
1932:
1933: \clearpage
1934: \begin{landscape}
1935: \begin{table}[h]
1936:
1937: \thispagestyle{empty}
1938: \caption{\label{syserrors} Contribution to the Systematic Uncertainties}
1939:
1940: \begin{tabular}{clccl}\hline\hline
1941: &&&Uncertainty&\\
1942: \rule[0mm]{0mm}{ 3mm}\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{ 0mm}{Item} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Source of Uncertainty} & {Class} &
1943: {(\%)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Comments}\\\hline
1944: 1........... & Parametrization of Atmosphere in MC-simulation & A & 3
1945: &
1946: \parbox[t]{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Deviations due to yearly and daily
1947: pressure changes, deviations of real density distribution
1948: and standard atmosphere model} \\
1949: 2........... & Atmospheric transmission losses due to Mie scattering & A, (C) & 5
1950: &
1951: Lack of good measurements; short term unpredictable changes possible \\
1952: 3...........& \parbox{5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Incorrect NSB simulation} & A &
1953: 3
1954: &
1955: \parbox[t]{9cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize MC assumes uniform NSB. Variations due to source location, air glow, variations due to manmade light. Stars in the FoV.} \\
1956:
1957: 4...........& \parbox{4cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Reflectivity of main mirror} & A & 7
1958: &
1959: \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize From measurements of reflected star images} \\
1960:
1961: 5........... & \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Variation of the useful mirror area} & A & 3
1962: &
1963: \parbox[t]{10.5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Malfunctions of active mirror control resulting in focussing losses} \\
1964:
1965: 6...........& \parbox{4cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Day to day reflectivity changes} & A & 2
1966: &
1967: \parbox{10.5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Due to dust deposit variations and occasional dew deposit } \\
1968: 7...........& \parbox{7.5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Photon detection efficiency of the PMT/lightcatcher system} & A, C & 10-12
1969: &
1970: \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize See text } \\
1971:
1972: 8...........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Unusable
1973: camera channels} & B & 3
1974: &
1975: \parbox{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Dead PMTs (5-10 channels), problems in calibration (5-10 channels)} \\
1976:
1977: 9...........& \parbox{4cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Trigger
1978: inefficiencies} & B, C & 4
1979: &
1980: \parbox{12.5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Due to discriminator dead-time, baseline shifts/drifts, level differences trigger branch and FADC branch etc.} \\
1981:
1982: 10..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Signal
1983: drift in camera due to temperature drifts} & A, C & 2
1984: &
1985: \parbox{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Combination of PMT QE change (small), amplifier and optical transmitter drifts} \\
1986:
1987: 11..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Camera
1988: flatfielding} & A,B & 2
1989: &
1990: \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Calibration problem} \\
1991:
1992: 12..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Signal
1993: extractor} & B & 5
1994: &
1995: \parbox[t]{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Complex effect due to trigger jitter
1996: (early pulses from PEs generated on 1st dynode) etc.; baseline jitter, shifts in FADCs} \\
1997:
1998: 13..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize cuts and
1999: methods used in the analysis} & B,C & 5-30
2000: &
2001: \parbox{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Energy dependent, see discussion of differential energy spectrum} \\
2002:
2003:
2004: 14..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Losses
2005: of events during reconstruction} & B(A) & 8
2006: &
2007: \parbox{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize
2008: Simplifications in MC simulation} \\
2009:
2010: 15..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Estimate
2011: of BG under source} & B(A) & 4
2012: &
2013: \parbox{12cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Camera nonuniformity not included in MC. Hadronic events not perfectly simulated in MC.} \\
2014:
2015: 16..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Small
2016: tracking instabilities} & B & 2
2017: &
2018: \parbox[t]{11.5cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Source jitters around nominal camera position due to small tracking errors, small camera oscillations due to gusts etc, resulting in a wider signal spread than predicted by MC}
2019: \\
2020: 17..........& \parbox{7cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize
2021: Nonlinearities in the analog signal chain (PMT--FADC} & C(A) &
2022: 3-10
2023: &
2024: \parbox{10cm}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\footnotesize Saturation and nonlinearities of electronic and opto-electronic components} \\\hline
2025:
2026:
2027: \end{tabular}
2028:
2029: \tablecomments{Class A: contributions to the uncertainty on the energy scale. Class B: contributions to the uncertainty in the event rate. Class B(A): error contributes more to the leading term. Some of the uncertainties are energy dependent and are averaged. Class C: contribution affecting the spectral slope.}
2030:
2031: \end{table}
2032: \clearpage
2033: \end{landscape}
2034:
2035:
2036: \end{document}