1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[]{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
5: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
6: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.0}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Physical Properties of the AXP 4U 0142+61 from X-ray Spectral Analysis}
11:
12: \author{Tolga G\"uver\altaffilmark{1}, Feryal \"Ozel\altaffilmark{2}
13: and Ersin G\"o\u{g}\"u\c{s}\altaffilmark{3}}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Istanbul University, Science Faculty, Astronomy \&
16: Space Sciences Department, Beyaz\i t, Istanbul, 34119}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Arizona, Department of Physics, 1118
18: E. 4th St., Tucson, AZ 85721}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Sabanc\i~University,
20: Faculty of Engineering Natural Sciences, 34956 Turkey}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23:
24: We analyze archival {\it Chandra} and XMM-{\it Newton} data of
25: 4U~0142$+$61 within the context of the Surface Thermal Emission and
26: Magnetospheric Scattering model. We show that 4U~0142$+$61 spectrum
27: can be fit very well with this physical model that contains only four
28: parameters. The system parameters can be tightly constrained from the
29: fits, yielding a surface magnetic field strength of $B=(4.75 \pm 0.02)
30: \times 10^{14}$~G, a surface temperature of $kT = 0.309 \pm 0.001$~keV
31: and a scattering optical depth of a few in the magnetosphere. These
32: values do not vary between observations due to the stability of the
33: source within the window of the observations. The detailed fits yield
34: $\chi^2$ values that are statistically much better than the
35: traditionally employed blackbody+power-law and two blackbody fits. The
36: spectroscopically measured surface magnetic field strength is higher
37: than, but within, the theoretical uncertainties of the value inferred
38: from the dipole spindown formula.
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{pulsars: individual (4U 0142+61) - stars: neutron-X-rays: stars}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) and Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs) are
47: thought to be the observational manifestations of a class of
48: ultramagnetic ($B \gtrsim 10^{14}$~G) neutron stars, also called
49: magnetars (see Woods \& Thompson 2006 and Kaspi 2006 for a detailed
50: review on AXPs and SGRs). The strong magnetic fields are believed to
51: power the X-ray emission of these neutron stars and give rise to high
52: spin-down rates ($ \dot{P} \sim 10^{-11}$~s~s$^{-1}$) (Thompson \&
53: Duncan 1996). Furthermore, the large reservoir of magnetic energy
54: associated with such fields leads to intense, super-Eddington (L
55: $\gtrsim$ L$_{\rm Edd}$), random bursts of X-rays or soft
56: gamma-rays. Indeed, observations of such powerful bursts that
57: typically last a fraction of a second and have been detected from all
58: four known SGRs and at least five out of the eight known AXPs lend
59: strong, albeit indirect, support for their identification as magnetars
60: (Gavriil \& Kaspi 2002; Kaspi et al. 2003; Woods et al. 2005).
61:
62: AXPs and SGRs are all observed as point X-ray sources with
63: luminosities of $10^{33-36}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. Their X-ray spectra, in the
64: $0.5-10.0$~keV photon energy range, have so far been described by
65: empirical functions such as a blackbody (kT $\sim$ 0.3$-$0.6 keV) plus
66: a power law (with photon index $\Gamma \sim$2.5$-$4) and, less
67: frequently, by a sum of two blackbody functions (see, e.g., Gotthelf
68: \& Halpern 2005; Kaspi 2006). Within the magnetar model, the blackbody
69: component is attributed to the emission from the neutron star surface
70: that is heated by the decay of the strong magnetic field (Thompson \&
71: Duncan 1996). The power law component, on the other hand, is thought
72: to be magnetospheric in origin and is widely used to obtain a better
73: representation of the X-ray spectra.
74:
75: We have recently developed a physical model of emission from a
76: magnetar that takes into account processes in its atmosphere as well
77: as in its magnetosphere. The Surface Thermal Emission and
78: Magnetospheric Scattering (STEMS) model is based on the radiative
79: equilibrium atmosphere calculations presented in \"Ozel (2003) but
80: also includes the effects of magnetospheric scattering of the surface
81: radiation as discussed in Thompson Lyutikov and Kulkarni (2002),
82: Lyutikov \& Gavriil (2006) and G\"uver, \"Ozel \& Lyutikov (2007). Our
83: models predict strong deviations from a Planckian spectrum, with a
84: hard excess that depends on the surface temperature as well as the
85: magnetic field strength (\"Ozel \& G\"uver 2007), and weak absorption
86: lines due to the proton cyclotron resonance. Both the atmospheric
87: processes and the magnetospheric scattering play a role in forming
88: these spectral features and especially in reducing the equivalent
89: widths of the cyclotron lines.
90:
91: With the first successful application of this model (G\"uver et al.\
92: 2007), we fit the spectrum of the AXP XTE J1810$-$197, a transient
93: source whose flux showed more than two orders of magnitude variation
94: during the three years it has been monitored (Gotthelf \& Halpern
95: 2006). In contrast, 4U~0142$+$61 is the brightest and historically a
96: stable AXP. Following its detection with {\it Uhuru}, an EXOSAT
97: campaign revealed its neutron star nature by the discovery of its 8.7
98: s periodicity (Israel et al. 1994). Multiple X-ray observations of
99: the source showed a long epoch of nearly constant flux levels as well
100: as a relatively hard X-ray spectrum (Juett et al. 2002; Patel et
101: al. 2003; G\"ohler, Wilms \& Staubert 2005). Recently, the source
102: exhibited SGR like bursts (Kaspi, Dib \& Gavriil 2006; Dib et
103: al. 2006; Gavriil et al. 2007) for the first time.
104:
105: 4U 0142$+$61 has also been detected in hard X-rays with INTEGRAL
106: (Kuiper et al. 2006, den Hartog et al. 2007). The hard X-ray spectral
107: component in the $20-230$~keV energy range is well described by a
108: power law model of index $0.79$ and the corresponding flux is $1.7
109: \times 10^{-10}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ (den Hartog et al. 2007),
110: which exceeds by a factor of $\sim$2 the unabsorbed 2-10 keV flux. It
111: is noteworthy that the extrapolation of the power-law component
112: towards lower photon energies yields flux levels that contribute
113: significantly to the soft X-ray flux at 7-10 keV range. Furthermore,
114: the fact that the hard X-ray component is pulsed and is in phase with
115: soft X-rays (Kuiper et al. 2006) points to a connection between the
116: hard and soft components. Rea et al. (2007) attempted to model the
117: combined soft and hard X-ray spectrum with a variety of empirical
118: functions and a model that treats resonant scattering in the
119: magnetosphere and showed that some of these empirical models were
120: feasible.
121:
122: Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006a) measured the galactic column density to
123: some of the AXPs, using the individual absorption edges of the
124: elements O, Fe, Ne, Mg, and Si. They found the column density to
125: 4U~0142$+$61 to be $(0.64 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{22}\; \rm{cm}^{-2}$, a factor of
126: 1.4 lower than the value inferred from the blackbody plus power-law
127: fits. Using the red clump stars (core-helium burning giants) in the
128: direction of the source to measure the variation of the reddening with
129: distance and extinction, Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006b) also
130: determined the distance of the source as 3.6~kpc.
131:
132: In this paper, we analyze archival {\it Chandra} and XMM-{\it Newton}
133: data of 4U~0142$+$61 within the context of the STEMS model and obtain
134: physical system parameters by performing detailed fits to the soft
135: X-ray spectra of this source. In the next section, we describe our
136: physical model. In Section 3, we present the data and the fit
137: results. We conclude in Section 4 with a discussion of our results and
138: their implications.
139:
140: \section{The Surface Thermal Emission and Magnetospheric Scattering
141: Model}
142:
143: The spectrum of a magnetar is molded by its atmosphere and its
144: magnetosphere. In the ionized, highly magnetic neutron star
145: atmospheres, polarization-mode dependent transport of radiation that
146: includes absorption, emission, and scattering processes determine the
147: continuum spectrum (see e.g. \"Ozel 2001, 2003; Lai \& Ho
148: 2003). Furthermore, the interaction of the photons with the protons in
149: the plasma gives rise to an absorption feature at the proton cyclotron
150: energy
151:
152: \begin{equation}
153: E_p = 6.3 \; \left(\frac{B}{10^{15}\;{\rm G}}\right) \; {\rm keV}.
154: \end{equation}
155:
156: This absorption feature is weakened by the vacuum polarization
157: resonance, which also leads to an enhanced conversion between photons
158: of different polarization modes as they propagate through the
159: atmosphere.
160:
161: In the magnetospheres, currents supporting the ultrastrong magnetic
162: fields can lead to enhanced charge densities (Thompson, Lyutikov, \&
163: Kulkarni 2002), which can reprocess the surface radiation through
164: resonant cyclotron scattering (Lyutikov \& Gavriil 2006; G\"uver,
165: \"Ozel, \& Lyutikov 2007). We calculate this effect using the Green's
166: function approach described in Lyutikov \& Gavriil (2006) assuming
167: that the magnetosphere is spherically symmetric and the field
168: strength follows a 1/$\rm{r}^{3}$ dependence.
169:
170: We have developed a spectral model that includes these relevant
171: mechanisms that take place on the magnetar surface and its
172: magnetosphere and depends only on four physical parameters. The first
173: two parameters, the surface magnetic field strength $B$ and
174: temperature $T$, describe the conditions found on the neutron star
175: surface. The third parameter denotes the average energy of the
176: charges $\beta = v_e/c$ in the magnetosphere, while the last parameter
177: is related to the density $N_e$ of such charges and indicates the
178: optical depth to resonant scattering by
179:
180: \begin{equation}
181: \tau = \sigma \int N_e dz.
182: \end{equation}
183:
184: Here, $\sigma$ is the cross-section for resonant cyclotron scattering.
185: We also assume a fixed value for the gravitational acceleration on the
186: neutron star surface of $1.9\times10^{14}$~cm~s$^{-2}$, obtained for
187: reasonable values of the neutron star mass and radius.
188:
189: We calculated model X-ray spectra (in the 0.05 - 9.8 keV range) by
190: varying model parameters in suitable ranges that are in line with the
191: physical processes we incorporated into the models: surface
192: temperature $T=0.1$ to $0.6$~keV, magnetic field $B=5\times10^{13}$ to
193: $3\times10^{15}$ G, electron velocity $\beta = 0.1$ to 0.5, and
194: optical depth in the magnetosphere $\tau =1$ to 10. From the set of
195: calculated spectra, we created a table model which we use within the
196: X-ray spectral analysis package XSPEC (Arnaud 1996) to model the X-ray
197: spectra of 4U~0142+61.
198:
199:
200: \section{Observations \& Data Analysis}
201:
202: In Table~\ref{obs}, we present the list of the archival pointed X-ray
203: observations of 4U~0142$+$61 that we analysed in this study. {\it
204: Chandra} observations were calibrated using
205: CIAO\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu} v.3.4 and CALDB 3.3.0.1. For
206: the XMM-Newton observations we used the Science Analysis Software
207: (SAS) v.7.0.0 and the latest available calibration files. The
208: XMM-Newton observation in 2002 was excluded from earlier studies
209: (G\"ohler, Wilms \& Staubert 2005) because it was partially affected
210: by the high energy particle background. We were able to eliminate the
211: segments with a high background, and were able to utilize an effective
212: exposure of 1.9 ks out of the $3.4$ ks. We used only EPIC-PN data of
213: each XMM-Newton observation.
214:
215: For the small window mode XMM-Newton observations, we extracted source
216: spectra from a circle centered on the source with a radius of
217: 32\arcsec and the background from a source free region with a radius
218: of 50\arcsec. We extracted the source region from the CC mode Chandra
219: observation using a rectangular region centered on the source with
220: sizes 8 $\times$ 2 \arcsec, and used as the background region from
221: this dataset a source-free region with similar sizes. For the
222: XMM-Newton observations in the fast-timing mode, we extracted the
223: source spectrum from a rectangular region of 9.5 pixels centered on
224: the source, and used a background spectrum with similar sizes from a
225: source-free region on the CCD. To create the response and anciallary
226: response files, we used mkacisrmf, mkarf and epproc tasks for Chandra
227: and XMM-Newton datasets, respectively. We rebinned XMM-{\it Newton}
228: spectra such that each energy bin contains at least 50 counts without
229: oversampling the energy resolution of the instrument. To account for
230: the calibration uncertainties we have also included a 2\% systematic
231: error in all fits.
232:
233: The spectral analysis was performed using the XSPEC 11.3.2.t (Arnaud
234: 1996). We assumed a fiducial gravitational redshift correction of 0.2,
235: which corresponds to a neutron star with mass 1.4 $M_{\sun}$ and $R =
236: 13.8$~km. We calculate the fluxes for the $0.5-8.0$~keV energy range
237: and quote errors for 90\% confidence level. For the calculation of
238: galactic column density, we have used Anders \& Grevesse (1989) solar
239: abundances.
240:
241: \subsection{Results of Spectral Modeling}
242:
243: In our analysis, we take into account the contribution of the hard
244: X-ray emission to the 0.5 - 8.0 keV spectra by adding a power-law
245: component with frozen parameters given by den Hartog et al. (2007). In
246: doing so, we assume that this hard power-law component extends down to
247: the soft X-ray band without a break and thus has a non-negligible
248: contribution to the overall flux above 6.5 keV. In addition, we take
249: into account the independent results of Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006a)
250: to evaluate the performance of the models at low energies.
251:
252: The spectral properties of 4U~0142$+$61 do not vary significantly
253: throughout the four years spanned by the observations. We, therefore,
254: first fit all XMM-Newton EPIC-PN spectra simultaneously in order to
255: better constrain model parameters. Note that we excluded Chandra
256: ACIS-S observation from the simultaneous fit to avoid any systematic
257: uncertainties due to different calibration schemes. We obtained an
258: excellent fit to data, $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ = 0.949 for 1534 degrees of
259: freedom (d.o.f.), with flat residuals. The data, best-fit model, and
260: the residuals are shown in Figure~1.
261:
262: The fit provides tight constrains on the model parameters: the surface
263: temperature, $kT = 0.309 \pm 0.001$~keV, the surface magnetic field
264: strength $B=(4.75 \pm 0.02) \times 10^{14}$~G, the optical depth to
265: scattering in the magnetosphere, $\tau = 3.57 \pm 0.03$, and a thermal
266: particle velocity in the magnetosphere $\beta = 0.417 \pm 0.002$.
267:
268: For the hydrogen column density, we obtain $N_{\rm{H}} = (0.566 \pm
269: 0.002) \times 10^{22} \rm{cm}^{-2}$, which is in good agreement with
270: the value (of $N_{\rm{H}}=0.64 \pm0.07 \times 10^{22}\ \rm{cm}^{-2}$)
271: found by Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006a). If we, instead, demand an
272: exact correspondence with the latter value by freezing the column
273: density at $0.64 \times 10^{22}\; \rm{cm}^{-2}$, we obtain a somewhat
274: poorer fit ($\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ = 1.361 for 1535 d.o.f.).
275:
276: We also fit each spectrum individually with the STEMS model. We find
277: that our model produces excellent fits to all individual spectra. In
278: Table \ref{restfl}, we present the results of the individual spectral
279: fits. The obtained values of the parameters are consistent with each
280: other within $1-\sigma$, as well as with the results of the
281: simultaneous fit.
282:
283: For comparison, we have also used the empirical blackbody plus
284: power-law model to fit all XMM-{\it Newton} data simultaneously (still
285: allowing for a contribution from the extension of the hard X-ray
286: power-law component). The result is acceptable within the context of
287: X-ray spectroscopy ($\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ of 1.349 for 1532 d.o.f.);
288: however, the residuals, at especially $\lesssim 2$ keV, are not flat
289: (see upper panel of Figure \ref{all_bbpl}) and do not capture the
290: characteristics of the spectrum. Correspondingly, the $\chi^2_{\nu}$
291: value is worse than that we obtain for our STEMS fits even though the
292: STEMS model has two fewer parameters than the blackbody plus power-law
293: model.\footnote{Note that to describe each data set, the blackbody
294: plus power-law model requires one fewer parameter than the STEMS
295: model. However, we allow the normalizations of the blackbody and the
296: power-law components to vary independently for the description of
297: each data set, resulting in a total of 11 free parameters in the
298: simultaneous fit to four data sets. On the other hand, the STEMS
299: model has 1 normalization per data set, which yields a total number
300: of 9 free parameters for the 4 data sets.} For the blackbody plus
301: power-law fit, we obtain model parameters of $N_{\rm H} = 1.001 \pm
302: 0.002 \times 10^{22} \; \rm{cm}^{-2}$, a blackbody temperature of
303: 0.431$\pm0.001$ keV and a photon index of 3.94$\pm0.01$ (see Figure
304: \ref{all_bbpl} upper panel). Note that the column density is 1.6 times
305: (92$\sigma$) higher than the value reported by (Durant \& van Kerkwijk
306: 2006a) through a different and spectral model-independent analysis.
307: Because it shows this large disagreement, we also tried a fit where
308: the column density is fixed at the latter value. The resulting fit is
309: unacceptable, with $\chi^2_{\nu}$ = 3.83 for 1533 d.o.f., ${\rm kT} =
310: 0.40\pm0.01$~keV, and photon index $\Gamma = 2.83\pm0.01$. We show
311: this fit in the lower panel of Figure \ref{all_bbpl}. The large
312: discrepancy between the column density value of the blackbody plus
313: power-law analysis and that of Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006a) is
314: likely to be due to the fact that the power-law component is
315: artificial and, because of steep photon index values, needs to be
316: attenuated significantly at low energies, requiring large $N_{\rm H}$
317: values.
318:
319: We have also attempted to fit the combined X-ray spectra of 4U~0142+61
320: with two blackbodies and the hard X-ray power-law. The resulting
321: statistics ($\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ = 1.19 for 1532 d.o.f.) are acceptable,
322: slightly better than blackbody plus power-law fits, but perform poorly
323: compared to the physical STEMS model ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 354.8,
324: $\Delta\nu$ = 2). These fits do better than the blackbody plus
325: power-law fits in obtaining $N_{\rm{H}}$ values (0.559$\pm0.004
326: \times10^{22} \rm{cm}^{-2}$) closer to those determined by Durant \&
327: van Kerkwijk (2006a). However, there are positive residuals that rise
328: systematically above 5.0~keV, indicating that the two blackbody fits
329: do not capture the observed hardness of the 4U~0142$+$61 spectra
330: fully, even with the contribution from the hard X-ray power-law
331: component. For these fits, we obtain parameter values at $kT_{1} =
332: 0.349 \pm0.002$ and $kT_{2} = 0.719 \pm 0.003$~keV, consistent with
333: those found by den Hartog et al. (2007).
334:
335: \section{Discussion}
336:
337: In this paper, we analyzed the archival XMM and {\it Chandra} data on
338: 4U~0142$+$61 and showed that the X-ray spectrum of this magnetar can
339: be fit very well with the Surface Thermal Emission and Magnetospheric
340: Scattering model. The model contains only four physical parameters,
341: which can be tightly constrained from the spectral fits. The residuals
342: are flat over the energy range of the observations, as shown in Figure
343: \ref{all}, indicating the ability of our model to capture the shape of
344: the continuum in the whole energy range.
345:
346: Our model also allows us to determine the physical properties of the
347: neutron star. We show in Figure~3 the confidence contours we obtain
348: for the surface magnetic field strength, temperature, the scattering
349: optical , the particle velocity in the magnetosphere and galactic
350: column density. We obtain tight constraints for these parameters. In
351: particular, the narrow contours for the magnetic field strength and
352: the temperature are because of the fact that they both cause small but
353: detectable variations in the X-ray spectra, which, combined with high
354: quality spectra and a large number of data points, pin down the values
355: of these parameters. The scattering optical depth contributes to both
356: the hardness of the model spectra and to attenuating proton cyclotron
357: features and is also well-constrained by the observations.
358:
359: The measured values of temperature, surface magnetic field strength,
360: and magnetospheric parameters remain constant within statistical
361: uncertainty for each data set because of the stability of the source
362: over the observed period. Figure~3 also shows that for most
363: parameters, the errors are uncorrelated.
364:
365: Comparison of the STEMS model to data also gives us the chance to
366: probe the magnetospheres of magnetars. The scattering optical depth of
367: 3.57 we obtain in our analysis corresponds to a charged particle
368: density in the magnetosphere that is approximately 3$\times10^{5}$
369: times higher than the Goldreich-Julian density for 4U 0142$+$61,
370: (using the inferred dipole magnetic field strength and the spin period
371: of the source). Note that the magnetospheric parameteres we report
372: here differ from those given in the resonant cyclotron scattering model
373: of Rea et al.\ (2007) both because that analysis fitted a different
374: power-law index for the hard X-ray component and because it does not
375: take into account the atmospheric effects but uses a canonical
376: blackbody.
377:
378: We have determined the surface magnetic field strength of 4U~0142$+$61
379: as $4.75\times10^{14}$~G. This value is quite close to the dipole
380: field strength $1.3\times10^{14}$~G (Gavriil \& Kaspi 2002), obtained
381: from the spindown rate of this source using the dipole spindown
382: formula but is not in exact agreement as in the case of XTE
383: J1810$-$197, where the two field strengths are equal (G\"uver et al.\
384: 2007). The small difference is likely due to the fact that our
385: spectroscopic measurements are sensitive to the field strength at the
386: surface of the neutron star, while the dipole spin-down method
387: measures the magnetic field strength at the light cylinder. In
388: addition, the dipole spindown formula assumes a fiducial angle between
389: the rotation and the magnetic axes that is not expected to be accurate
390: on a source-by-source basis. Finally, recent (see, e.g., Spitkovsky
391: 2006) numerical calculations on the structure of a rotating neutron
392: star magnetosphere show violations of the vacuum
393: assumption. Nevertheless, obtaining a surface field strength that is
394: close to the dipole strength is a further indication of the
395: reliability of the measurements and the magnetar strength fields
396: present in 4U~0142$+$61.
397:
398: Finally, we calculate the area of the emitting region, assuming a
399: gravitational redshift of 0.2, a distance of 3.6 kpc (Durant \& van
400: Kerkwijk 2006b), and using the flux and the spectroscopically
401: determined surface temperature. We obtain a radius of 10.8~km that
402: does not vary between observations. Such a radius indicates that the
403: emission arises from roughly three-quarters of the whole neutron star
404: surface. This large surface area is suggestive: interestingly, the
405: X-ray pulsed fraction (Woods \& Thompson 2006) of 4U 0142+61 is 3.6\%,
406: which is the least among all the AXPs and SGRs.
407:
408:
409: \acknowledgements
410:
411: We thank Dr. Keith Arnaud for his help during the creation of the
412: XSPEC table model. This work makes use of observations obtained with
413: XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions
414: directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA. F.\ \"O. acknowledges
415: support from NSF grant AST-0708640 and from a Turkish Science and
416: Technology Council Visiting Faculty fellowship. E.G. acknowledges
417: partial support from the Turkish Academy of Sciences through grant
418: E.G/T\"UBA-GEB\.IP/2004-11. T.G. and E.G. acknowledge EU FP6 Transfer
419: of Knowledge Project "Astrophysics of Neutron Stars"
420: (MTKD-CT-2006-042722).
421:
422:
423: \begin{thebibliography}{33}
424:
425: \bibitem[Arnaud (1996)]{a1996} Arnaud, K.A., 1996, Astronomical Data
426: Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., p17,
427: ASP Conf. Series volume 101.
428:
429: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse (1989)]{a1989} Anders, E. \& Grevesse, N.,
430: 1989, Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197.
431:
432: \bibitem[den Hartog et al. (2004)]{d2004} den Hartog P.R., Kuiper L.,
433: Hermsen W., et al., 2004, The Astronomers Telegram 293, 1
434:
435: \bibitem[den Hartog et al. (2007)]{d2007} den Hartog P.R., Kuiper, L.,
436: Hermsen, W., Rea, N., Durant, M., Stappers, B., Kaspi, V. M., Dib,
437: R., 2007, Ap\&SS, 308, 647
438:
439: \bibitem[Dib et al. (2006)]{di2006} Dib, R., Kaspi, V.M., Gavriil,
440: F.P., Woods, P.M., 2006, Atel, 845, 1
441:
442: \bibitem[Duncan \& Thompson (1992)]{d1992} Duncan, R.C. \& Thompson,
443: C., 1992, \apjl, 392, L9
444:
445: \bibitem[Durant \& van Kerwijk (2006a)]{d2006a} Durant, M. \& van
446: Kerkwijk, M. H., 2006, \apj, 650, 1082
447:
448: \bibitem[Durant \& van Kerwijk (2006b)]{d2006b} Durant, M. \& van
449: Kerkwijk, M. H., 2006, \apj, 650, 1070
450:
451: \bibitem[Gavriil \& Kaspi (2002)]{g2002} Gavriil, F.P., \& Kaspi,
452: V.M., 2002, \apj, 567, 1067
453:
454: \bibitem[Gavriil et al. (2007)]{ga2007} Gavriil, F.P., Dib, R., Kaspi,
455: V.M., Woods, P.M., 2007, ATel, 993, 1
456:
457: \bibitem[Gotthelf \& Halpern (2006)]{go2006} Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern,
458: J. P., 2006, in "Isolated Neutron Stars: From the Interior to the
459: Surface" eds. S. Zane, R. Turolla, D. Page; Astrophysics \& Space
460: Science in press (astro-ph/0608473)
461:
462: \bibitem[G\"ohler, Wilms \& Staubert (2005)]{g2005} G\"ohler, E.,
463: Wilms, J. \& Staubert, R., 2005, A\&A, 433, 1079
464:
465: \bibitem[G\"uver, \"Ozel \& Lyutikov (2006)]{g2006} G\"uver, T.,
466: \"Ozel, F., Lyutikov, M., 2006, \apj, submitted(astro-ph/0611405)
467:
468: \bibitem[G\"uver et al. (2007)]{g2007} G\"uver, T., \"Ozel, F.,
469: G\"{o}\u{g}\"{u}\c{s}, E., Kouveliotou, C. 2007, \apj, 667, L73
470:
471: \bibitem[Israel et al. (1994)]{i1994} Israel, G. L., Meregetti, S., \&
472: Stella, L., 1994, \apj, 433, L25
473:
474: \bibitem[Juett et al. (2002)]{j2002} Juett, A.M., Marshall,
475: H.L.,Chakrabarty, D., Schulz, N.S., 2002, \apjl 568, L31
476:
477: \bibitem[Kaspi et al. (2001)]{k2001} Kaspi, V.~M., Gavriil, F.~P.,
478: Chakrabarty, D., Lackey, J.~R., \& Muno, M.~P., 2001, \apj, 558, 253
479:
480: \bibitem[Kaspi et al. (2003)]{k2003} Kaspi, V.~M., Gavriil, F.~P.,
481: Woods, P.~M., Jensen, J.~B., Roberts, M.~S.~E., Chakrabarty, D.,
482: 2003, \apj, 588L, 93
483:
484: \bibitem[Kaspi (2006)]{k2006} Kaspi, V.~M., 2006, in "Isolated Neutron
485: Stars: From the Interior to the Surface" eds. S. Zane, R. Turolla,
486: D. Page; Astrophysics \& Space Science in press (astro-ph/0610304)
487:
488: \bibitem[Kaspi, Dib \& Gavriil (2006)]{k2006b} Kaspi, V., Dib, R.,
489: Gavriil, F., 2006, ATel, 794, 1
490:
491: \bibitem[Kuiper et al. (2006)]{ku2006} Kuiper L., Hermsen W., den
492: Hartog P. R., et al., 2006, ApJ, 645, 556
493:
494: \bibitem[Lai \& Ho (2003)]{h2001} Lai, D., Ho, W.~C.~G., 2003, \apj,
495: 588, 962
496:
497: \bibitem[Lyutikov \& Gavriil (2006)]{l2006} Lyutikov, M., \& Gavriil,
498: F.P., 2006, \mnras, 368, 690L
499:
500: \bibitem[Morii et al. (2003)]{m2003} Morii, M., Sato, R., Kataoka, J.,
501: Kawai, N., 2003, PASJ, 55, 45
502:
503: \bibitem[\"Ozel (2003)]{o2003} \"Ozel, F., 2003, \apj, 583, 402
504:
505: \bibitem[\"Ozel \& Guver (2007)]{og2007} \"Ozel, F.\ \& G\"uver, T.\
506: 2007, \apjl, 659, L141
507:
508: \bibitem[Patel et al. (2003)]{p2003} Patel S. K., et al., 2003, \apj,
509: 587, 367
510:
511: \bibitem[Rea et al. (2007)]{r2007a} Rea, N., Turolla, R., Zane, S.,
512: Tramacere, A., Stella, L., Israel, G.L., Campana, R., 2007, \apj,
513: 661, L65
514:
515: \bibitem[Spitkovksy (2006)]{s2006} Spitkovsky, A., 2006, \apj, 648, L51
516:
517: \bibitem[Thompson et al. (2002)]{t2002} Thompson C., Lyutikov M.,
518: Kulkarni S.R., 2002, \apj, 574, 332
519:
520: \bibitem[Thompson \& Duncan (1996)]{t1996} Thompson, C., Duncan, R.C.,
521: 1996, \apj, 473, 322
522:
523: \bibitem[White et al. (1996)]{w1996} White, N.E., Angelini, L.,
524: Ebisawa, K., Tanaka, Y., \& Ghosh, P., 1996, \apj, 463, L83
525:
526: \bibitem[ Woods et al. (2005)]{w2005} Woods Peter M., Kouveliotou, C.,
527: Gavriil, F. P. et al., 2005, \apj, 629, 985
528:
529: \bibitem[Woods \& Thompson (2006)]{w2006} Woods P.M., Thompson
530: C., 2006, In: Compact stellar X-ray sources. Edited by Walter Lewin
531: \& Michiel van der Klis. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
532: 547
533:
534: \end{thebibliography}
535:
536: \clearpage
537:
538:
539: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
540: \tablecolumns{6}
541: \tablewidth{475pt}
542: \tablecaption{Observations used for this study.}
543: \tablehead{Satellite & Detector & Mode & Exp. Time (ks) & Obs ID & Obs Date }
544: \startdata
545: Chandra & ACIS-S & CC & 5.94 & 724 & May 21 2000 \\
546: XMM-Newton & EPIC-PN & Small Window & 1.9 & 0112780301 & Feb 13 2002 \\
547: XMM-Newton & EPIC-PN & Small Window & 4.0 & 0112781101 & Jan 24 2003 \\
548: XMM-Newton & EPIC-PN & Fast Timing & 35.78 & 0206670101 & Mar 01 2004 \\
549: XMM-Newton & EPIC-PN & Fast Timing & 21.1 & 0206670201 & Jul 25 2004 \\
550: \enddata
551: \label{obs}
552: \end{deluxetable}
553:
554: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
555: \tablecolumns{8} \tablewidth{520pt} \tablecaption{Results of the
556: Surface Thermal Emission and Magnetospheric Scattering model. All
557: the errors are given with 90\% confidence.} \tablehead{
558: Obs. Date & $N_{\bf H}$ & Mag. Field & Temp. & $\beta$ & $\tau$ & Flux\tablenotemark{a} & $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$(d.o.f.) \\
559: &$(10^{22} \; \rm{cm}^{-2})$ & ($10^{14}$~G) & (keV) & (c) & & & }
560: \startdata
561: 05/21/2000 & 0.57$\pm$0.02 & 3.96$\pm$0.31 & 0.307$\pm$0.006 & 0.46$\pm$0.02 & 5.44$\pm$0.52 & 1.92$\pm$0.20 & 1.174 (283) \\
562: 02/13/2002 & 0.54$\pm$0.02 & 4.66$\pm$0.56 & 0.31$\pm$0.01 & 0.42$\pm$0.05 & 3.68$\pm$0.59 & 2.07$\pm$0.54 & 1.027 (310) \\
563: 01/24/2003 & 0.55$\pm$0.02 & 5.16$\pm$0.42 & 0.31$\pm$0.01 & 0.45$\pm$0.03 & 3.16$\pm$0.33 & 2.10$\pm$0.23 & 0.999 (345) \\
564: 03/01/2004 & 0.57$\pm$0.01 & 4.60$\pm$0.07 & 0.310$\pm$0.002 & 0.40$\pm$0.01 & 3.55$\pm$0.14 & 2.04$\pm$0.06 & 0.974 (402) \\
565: 07/25/2004 & 0.58$\pm$0.01 & 4.67$\pm$0.16 & 0.305$\pm$0.002 & 0.43$\pm$0.01 & 3.54$\pm$0.14 & 1.98$\pm$0.07 & 0.931 (462) \\
566: \enddata
567: \tablenotetext{a}{Unabsorbed 0.5-8.0 keV flux in units of $10^{-10}$ erg $\rm{cm}^{-2}\;\rm{s}^{-1}$}
568: \label{restfl}
569: \end{deluxetable}
570:
571: \clearpage
572:
573: \begin{figure*}
574: \centering
575: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.60]{f1a.ps}
576: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.60]{f1b.ps}
577: \caption{Simultaneous fit of the Surface Thermal Emission and
578: Magnetospheric Scattering model to the four data sets of the
579: X-ray spectra of 4U~0142$+$61 given in Table~1. In the lower
580: panel, the E$^{2}$F$_{E}$ spectra shows the effects of the extrapolated
581: hard X-ray component on the soft X-ray spectra.}
582: \label{all}
583: \end{figure*}
584:
585: \begin{figure*}
586: \centering
587: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.60]{f2a.ps}
588: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.60]{f2b.ps}
589: \caption{Simultaneous blackbody plus power-law model fit to the
590: X-ray spectra of 4U~0142$+$61. The upper panel shows the fit when
591: the hydrogen column density $N_{\rm H}$ is allowed to vary, while
592: the lower panel corresponds to $N_{\rm H}$ frozen at $0.64 \times
593: 10^{22} \; \rm{cm}^{-2}$, the value measured independently by
594: Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2006a). }
595: \label{all_bbpl}
596: \end{figure*}
597:
598:
599: \begin{figure*}
600: \centering
601: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{f3a.ps}
602: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{f3b.ps}
603: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{f3c.ps}
604: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{f3d.ps}
605: \caption{Confidence contour plots of different model parameters for
606: the fits shown in Figure~1. The three levels correspond to one-, two-,
607: and three-sigma confidence.}
608: \label{sim_conf}
609: \end{figure*}
610:
611:
612: \end{document}
613: