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:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
24: %\usepackage{natbib}
25: \bibliographystyle{apj}
26:
27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
28:
29: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
30:
31: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
32: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
33: %% use the longabstract style option.
34:
35: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
36:
37: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
38: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
39: %% the \begin{document} command.
40: %%
41: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
42: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
43: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
44: %% for information.
45:
46: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
47: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
48:
49: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
50:
51: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
52:
53: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
54: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
55: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
56: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
57: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
58: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
59:
60: \shorttitle{The initial spikes of SGR giant flares}
61: \shortauthors{Tanaka et al.}
62:
63: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
64: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
65:
66: \begin{document}
67:
68: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
69: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
70: %% you desire.
71:
72: %\title{The initial spike of the 1998 August 27 giant flare from SGR 1900+14:\\
73: % A comparative study of \textit{GEOTAIL} observations}
74: \title{Comparative study of the inial spikes of SGR giant flares\\
75: in 1998 and 2004 observed with GEOTAIL:\\
76: Do magnetospheric instabilities trigger large scale fracturing
77: of magnetar's crust?}
78:
79: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
80: %% author and affiliation information.
81: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
82: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
83: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
84: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
85:
86: \author{Y. T. Tanaka\altaffilmark{1}, T. Terasawa\altaffilmark{2},
87: N. Kawai\altaffilmark{2}, A. Yoshida\altaffilmark{3},
88: I. Yoshikawa\altaffilmark{1}, Y. Saito\altaffilmark{4},\\
89: T. Takashima\altaffilmark{4}, and T. Mukai\altaffilmark{4} }
90: %\affil{Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Tokyo, Japan}
91: \email{yasuyuki@eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
92:
93: %\author{T. Terasawa\altaffilmark{2}, N. Kawai\altaffilmark{2}}
94: %\affil{Department of Physics,
95: %Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan}
96:
97: %\author{A. Yoshida\altaffilmark{3}}
98: %\affil{Department of Physics and Mathematics,
99: % Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan}
100:
101: %\author{I. Yoshikawa\altaffilmark{1}, K. Yoshioka\altaffilmark{1}}
102: %\affil{Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Tokyo, Japan}
103:
104: %\and
105:
106: %\author{Y. Saito\altaffilmark{4}, T. Takashima\altaffilmark{4}, T. Mukai\altaffilmark{4}}
107: %\affil{Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Japan}
108:
109: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
110: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
111: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
112: %% affiliation.
113:
114: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
115: University of Tokyo, Japan}
116: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan}
117: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Mathematics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan}
118: \altaffiltext{4}{Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Japan}
119: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
120:
121: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
122: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
123: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
124: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
125: %% editorial office after submission.
126:
127: \begin{abstract}
128: We present the unsaturated peak profile of SGR 1900+14
129: giant flare on 1998 August 27. This was obtained by
130: particle counters of the Low Energy Particle instrument
131: onboard the GEOTAIL spacecraft.
132: The observed peak profile revealed four characteristic structures:
133: initial steep rise, intermediate rise to the peak, exponential decay
134: and small hump in the decay phase.
135: From this light curve, we found that the isotropic peak luminosity
136: was $2.3\times10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and the total energy was
137: $4.3 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ ($E\gtrsim$ 50 keV),
138: assuming that the distance to SGR 1900+14 is 15 kpc and that the spectrum
139: is optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung with $kT =$ 240 keV.
140: These are consistent with the previously reported lower limits derived from
141: Ulysses and Konus-Wind observations. A comparative study of the initial spikes
142: of SGR 1900+14 giant flare in 1998 and
143: SGR 1806-20 in 2004 is also presented.
144: The timescale of the initial steep rise shows the magnetospheric origin,
145: while the timescale of the intermediate rise to the peak
146: indicates that it originates from the crustal fracturing.
147: Finally, we argue that the four structures and their corresponding
148: timescales provide a clue to identify extragalactic
149: SGR giant flares among short GRBs.
150:
151: \end{abstract}
152:
153: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
154: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
155: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
156: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
157:
158: \keywords{gamma rays: observation - stars:
159: individual(SGR 1900+14) - stars: individual(SGR 1806-20) - stars: neutron -
160: stars: magnetic fields - gamma rays: bursts}
161:
162: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
163: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
164: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
165: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
166: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
167: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
168: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
169: %% each reference.
170:
171:
172: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
173: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
174: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
175: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
176: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
177: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
178: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
179: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
180: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
181: %%
182: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
183: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
184: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
185: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
186:
187: \section{Introduction}
188:
189: Soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) were first discovered
190: as high-energy burst sources in the late 1970's \citep{Mazets1981}.
191: Once SGRs enter burst active phases,
192: they produce a lot of short-duration ($\sim$0.1 s) energetic ($\sim10^{41}$
193: erg) soft gamma-ray bursts. These bursts were distinguished
194: from cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)
195: by the soft spectra and the repeated activities.
196: Furthermore, as rare events, SGRs emit extremely bright giant flares
197: (GFs). A GF lasts for several hundred seconds and
198: its isotropic total energy amounts to 10$^{44}-10^{46}$ erg.
199: %Furthermore, one of the most striking features
200: %To date, four SGRs are confirmed to exist.
201: So far, only three have been recorded. On 1979 March 5,
202: the first GF was detected from SGR 0526-66 by Venela spacecraft
203: \citep{Mazets1979}. The second GF was observed
204: from SGR 1900+14 on 27 August 1998 \citep{Hurley1999,Mazets1999,Feroci2001}.
205: Recently SGR 1806-20 emitted the third GF on 27 December 2004
206: \citep{terasawa2005,Hurley2005,Palmer2005,Mereghetti2005,Schwartz2005}.
207: The overall time profile of each GF is characterized
208: by a very intense spectrally hard initial spike
209: whose duration is $\lesssim$ 0.5 s,
210: and a subsequent pulsating tail which has a softer spectrum and lasts for
211: some hundred seconds. After the GFs, radio afterglows were observed
212: from SGR 1900+14 \citep{Frail1999}
213: and from SGR 1806-20 \citep{Gaensler2005,Cameron2005}.
214: %Since then two giant flares occurred
215: %from SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806-20 on 27 August 1998
216: %and 27 December 2004, respectively.
217: %To date, four soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are known: SGR 0526-66 in
218: %the Large Magellanic Clouds (LMC), SGR 1627-41, SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14
219: %in our Galaxy.
220:
221: %Soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) recurrently emit
222: %short ($<$1 s) and energetic ($\sim$10$^{41}$ erg) soft gamma-ray bursts.
223: %In addition, SGRs occasionally provide giant flares,
224: %whose energy amounts to 10$^3$-10$^5$ times of
225: %those of repeated bursts.
226: %The first giant flare was discovered
227: %on 5 March 1979 as a sudden increase of soft gamma ray photon fluxes
228: %from SGR 0525-66 in the Large Magellanic Clouds,
229: %a galaxy neighboring to our Galaxy \citep{Mazets1979}.
230: %Since then two giant flares occurred within our Galaxy
231: %from SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806-20 on 27 August 1998
232: %and 27 December 2004, respectively.
233:
234: %The initial spike is so intense that it saturates almost all X-ray or
235: %gamma-ray detectors. However
236: %%While practically all gamma-ray detectors on any satellites
237: %%were saturated during the first $\sim$500 ms interval after the onset
238: %%of the 2004 giant flare \citep[e.g.,][]{Hurley2005,Palmer2005,Mereghetti2005},
239: %a few particle detectors were not saturated and provided
240: %important information on the initial very intense spike
241: %\citep{Terasawa2005,Schwartz2005}.
242: %Note that these detectors do not have energy resolutions.
243: %Therefore we cannot obtain the spectrum information.
244: %From the plasma particle detectors on the GEOTAIL spacecraft
245: %the peak photon energy flux (integrated above 50 keV)
246: %was estimated to be
247: %the order of 10$^7$ photons sec$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$,
248: %the peak energy flux
249: %$\sim$20 erg sec$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ \citep{Terasawa2005}.
250:
251: SGRs show the slow spin periods ($5-8$ s) and
252: rapid spin-down rates ($10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$)
253: \citep{Kouveliotou1998,Kouveliotou1999}.
254: Assuming magnetic dipole radiation,
255: %From observations of slow spin periods ($5-8$ s) and
256: %rapid spin-down rates ($10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$),
257: we can estimate the magnetic fields of SGRs to be $10^{14}-10^{15}$ G
258: and SGRs are recognized
259: as magnetars \citep{Duncan1992,Thompson1995,Thompson1996}.
260: According to the magnetar model,
261: the energy source of both recurrent bursts and GFs is the
262: ultrastrong magnetic field:
263: stored magnetic energy inside a magnetar is suddenly released
264: via cracking of a magnetar's crust, and the large scale crustal
265: fracturing produces GFs.
266: %both recurrent bursts and giant flares result from the crack of
267: %the neutron star crust produced by magnetic stresses.
268: Similar to earthquakes, the power-law distribution
269: of the radiated energy of the repeated burst and the lognormal distribution
270: of waiting times between successive bursts are reported \citep{Cheng1996,
271: Gogus2000}. These observations also support the idea
272: that SGR bursts originate from the starquakes.
273: %The energy source of
274: %the quiescent X-ray emission of $\sim10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$
275: %is also the magnetic field, because
276: %the rotational energy loss is insufficient by several orders of magnitude.
277: %The decay of the magnetic field inside the neutron star heats the surface
278: %and persistent thermal soft X-rays are emitted.
279:
280: %It is widely recognized that SGRs are magnetars
281: %\citep{Duncan1992,Thompson1995,Thompson1996},
282: %slowly rotating ($5-8$ s) neutron stars with ultrastrong magnetic fields of
283: %$10^{14}-10^{15}$ G.
284: %Detection of a
285: %rapid spin down also confirm this theory.
286: %While this flare is observed by Ulysses and Konus-Wind spacecraft, particle
287: %detectors onboard GEOTAIL satellite determined the peak profile.
288: %We also show the total emitted energy of the giant flare.
289:
290: In this paper, first, we focus on the SGR 1900+14 GF on 1998 August 27.
291: This flare was detected by gamma-ray instruments on the
292: Ulysses, Konus-Winds and BeppoSAX satellites
293: \citep{Hurley1999,Mazets1999,Feroci2001}.
294: However the flare was so intense that these instruments
295: underwent severe dead-time or pulse pile-up problems.
296: Consequently, the time profile during the most intense period
297: was not obtained and only the
298: lower limits of the peak flux intensity and fluence were reported
299: \citep{Hurley1999,Mazets1999}.
300: Here we present the clear peak profile of the SGR 1900+14 GF on 1998 August 27.
301: The profile was recorded by the Low Energy Particle instrument (hereafter LEP)
302: \citep{Mukai1994} onboard the GEOTAIL spacecraft, whose principal
303: objective is to study the Earth's magnetosphere.
304: The light curve for the first 350 ms of the GF
305: is unsaturated and has a high time resolution
306: of 5.58 ms. We also show the energetics of the flare.
307:
308: Second, we present a comparative study of the initial spikes of
309: SGR GFs in 1998 and 2004, the latter of which was also detected by the same
310: instrument \citep{terasawa2005}. From both of the light curves,
311: we extract the characteristics of the initial spikes of SGR GFs,
312: focusing on the timescales discovered during the initial spikes.
313: Finally we argue that the observed timescales may provide a clue to
314: identify extragalactic SGR giant flares among short GRBs.
315: %In this paper we present observations of the initial spike of the giant
316: %flare from SGR 1900+14. This phase was recorded by the Low Energy
317: %Particle instrument (hereafter LEP) \citep{Mukai1994} onboard the GEOTAIL
318: %spacecraft, designed to study the earth's magnetosphere.
319:
320: %The magnetar model \citep{Duncan1992,Thompson1995}
321: %is generally accepted
322: %to explain the nature of SGRs,
323: %where neutron stars having ultrastrong magnetic field
324: %of the order of 10$^{14}-$10$^{15}$ G
325: %eventually release the magnetic energy to keep repeating soft gamma activity
326: %as well as to cause giant flares.
327: %It is noted that in spite of its success in SGR energetics
328: %the magnetar model still includes hypothetical parts:
329: %For example, the magnetic reconnection process in magnetars' magnetospheres
330: % is invoked to explain the energy conversion from magnetic fields
331: % to relativistic pair plasmas at the onset of bursts/giant flares.
332: %Where and how such reconnection process occurs is yet to be studied
333: %both theoretically and observationally.
334: %We expect the data of the initial phase of giant flares should
335: %play an essential role in such studies.
336:
337: %Particle counters are much less sensitive
338: %to gamma-rays than commonly-used gamma-ray detectors.
339: %We present the GEOTAIL data
340: %which detected the initial 300 ms peak profile of
341: %the 1998 August 27 GF from SGR 1900+14.
342: %Here we present the clear peak profile of the SGR 1900+14 GF on 1998 August 27.
343: %The profile was recorded by the Low Energy Particle instrument (hereafter LEP)
344: %\citep{Mukai1994} onboard the GEOTAIL spacecraft, whose principal
345: %objective is to study the Earth's magnetosphere.
346: %The light curve for the first 350 ms of the GF
347: %is unsaturated and has a high time resolution
348: %of 5.58 ms. We also show the energetics of the flare.
349:
350: %Second, we present a comparative study of SGR GFs in 1998 and 2004.
351: %By comparing the light curve with
352: %that of the SGR 1806-20 GF on 2004 December 27,
353: %we extract the characteristics of the initial spikes of the SGR GFs,
354: %focusing on the timescales discovered during the initial spikes.
355:
356: \section{Instrumentation and Observation}
357:
358: %The data was drawn from the LEP onboard the GEOTAIL spacecraft.
359: The LEP is designed to measure three-dimensional velocity distributions
360: of the Earth's magnetospheric ions and electrons.
361: %It has a uniform field of view over 140$^{\circ}$ in a meridian plane
362: %relative to the spacecraft spin axis. Since the spacecraft rotates
363: %every $\sim$3 s, the LEP covers all azimuthal directions.
364: %The LEP has been described in detail
365: %(see \citet{Mukai1994} for the details of the instrument), so we will
366: %only summarize here its most relevant characteristics.
367: It consists of two nested sets of quadspherical electrostatic
368: analyzers; one analyzer to select ions, and the other to select electrons.
369: At the receving end of the ion and electron optics,
370: seven microchannel plate detectors (MCPs) and seven channel electron
371: multipliers (CEMs) are used, respectively.
372: During the SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004, the peak flux was so intense that
373: the MCPs were saturated during the first 150 ms.
374: Alternatively the peak profile was derived from the CEMs, because
375: the CEMs are much less sensitive to gamma-rays than
376: the MCPs. After the most intense period, the MCPs recovered from the saturation
377: and observed the decay profile clearly.
378: On the other hand, during the SGR 1900+14 GF in 1998,
379: we obtained the peak profile from the MCPs. The peak flux of
380: the 1998 GF was about one-tenth of that of the 2004 GF (see below),
381: and hence the MCPs did not suffer the severe saturation problem.
382: The CEMs showed count increases ($\lesssim$ 20) corresponding to
383: those of the MCPs. However, since the background electron counts
384: for CEMs were high ($\sim$50$-$80), we do not use the CEM data for the
385: analysis of the SGR 1900+14 GF.
386:
387: %The spacecraft rotates with a period of $\sim$3 s.
388: %and the spin axis is nearly perpendicular to the elliptic plane.
389: The LEP records the data every 15/8192 of the spacecraft
390: spin period over 32 sequences,
391: followed by a gap of 1/256 of the spin period. The spacecraft
392: spin period was 3.046 s on 1998 August 27, leading to
393: $3.046 \times \left( 15/8192 \right) = 5.58\times10^{-3}$ s $= 5.58$ ms
394: time resolution.
395: %Gamma-rays from the GF directly stimulate the MCP detectors.
396: %The LEP record the counts in the following way.
397: %It azimuth angle
398: %This leads to a 5.58 ms time resolution.
399: This is slightly different compared to a 5.48 ms time resolution
400: of SGR 1806-20 GF observation in 2004, during which the spin period
401: was 2.993 s.
402:
403: In this report, we use the LEP calibration that the effective energy range
404: and the detection efficiency are $>\sim$ 50 keV and $\sim$1\% against
405: incident photons, respectively. Since the LEP was not designed to
406: measure gamma-rays, this calibration was made after the launch of the GEOTAIL
407: spacecraft through the analyses of solar flare photons for which
408: the Hard X-ray Telescope onboard the Yohkoh satellite \citep{Kosugi1991}
409: provided photon energy spectra and intensities.
410: Recently we have made (i) GEANT4 simulations based on the detailed mass model
411: of the LEP, satellite structure and other instruments, and
412: (ii) the laboratory measurements
413: of the detection efficiency of the MCP \citep{Tanaka2007}, both of which have
414: successfully reproduced what were obtained from the solar flare
415: photon analyses. In addition, we found from the GEANT4 simulations that
416: the effect of the rotation of the spacecraft was negligibly small
417: around the spin phase angles corresponding to the two GFs.
418:
419: %\section{Observation: SGR 1900+14 giant flare on 27 August 1998}
420:
421: %Gamma-rays from the giant flare from SGR 1900+14 triggered the LEP
422: %at 10:22:15 UT of 1998 August 27. At that time, GEOTAIL
423: %was in the earth's magnetosphere and the LEP is measuring the
424: %magnetospheric ions and electrons routinely.
425: Fig. 1 shows the first 350 ms unsaturated peak profile
426: of the GF from SGR 1900+14 on 27 August 1998.
427: %The time resolution is 5.58 ms.
428: %The energy of the detected photons is above $\sim$50 keV,
429: %which is confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations based on the Geant4.
430: %The photon energy is above $\sim$50 keV.
431: Dead time and saturation effects are negligible for the count rates
432: smaller than $\sim$1000 counts per 5.58 ms:
433: only the peak count at $t$=5.58 ms was dead-time corrected.
434: The shaded bars in Fig. 1 indicate the instrumental data gaps of 12 ms.
435: The onset time ($t$=0) was 10:22:15.47 UT, which coincided with the
436: expected arrival time at the GEOTAIL position.
437: Before the onset, the count was less than 25 counts per 5.58 ms (shown
438: by a black arrow in Fig. 1(b)), i.e. the background level.
439: Then it increased to 792 counts within 5.58 ms, and this rapid increase
440: provided the upper
441: limit of the e-folding time of the initial rise as 1.6 ms.
442: After the onset, it reached a very sharp peak of 4776 counts
443: at $t$=5.58 ms. This increase yielded the e-folding time of
444: the intermediate rise time to the peak as $3.1^{+0.9}_{-2.0}$ ms.
445: Following the peak, it decayed rapidly. The exponential decay time was
446: calculated as 2.9$\pm$0.2 ms from the counts for $t$=5.6$-$22 ms.
447: Note that the timing of the dip at $t$=22 ms corresponds to
448: the timing of the temporal count recovery from the total shut down
449: of the Konus-Wind instrument (see Fig. 6 of \citet{Mazets1999}).
450: After that, it increased again with e-folding time of 16$\pm$2.5 ms
451: for $t$=22$-$50 ms and reached a flat-top second peak during 60$-$120 ms.
452: %Then, the photon counts again increased and reached the flat-top second peak
453: %during 60$-$120 ms.
454: Finally the exponential decay was clearly observed and the decay
455: time was obtained as 23$\pm$1.6 ms during $t$=120$-$160 ms.
456: Note that a small hump was seen around 310 ms, which was
457: also observed with the Konus-Wind instrument (Fig.6 of \citet{Mazets1999}).
458:
459: To convert physical quantities such as an energy flux
460: from the observed count rates, we need an
461: assumption on the photon energy spectrum, because the LEP detected
462: integrated photon numbers above 50 keV. We assume $kT$=240 keV
463: optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung (OTTB) spectrum which was
464: obtained from Ulysses observation \citep{Hurley1999}.
465: %and (ii) $kT$=230 keV Blackbody spectrum which was observed during
466: %the initial spike of the SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004 \citep{Boggs2006}.
467: Resultant physical quantities are tabulated in Table 1, combined with
468: Venela observation of the SGR 0526-66 GF in 1979 \citep{Mazets1999}
469: and GEOTAIL observation of the SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004 \citep{terasawa2005}.
470: We found that the peak luminosity and the total emitted energy
471: are $2.3\times10^{46} d^2_{15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and
472: $4.3\times10^{44} d^2_{15}$ erg ($E \gtrsim$ 50 keV), respectively.
473: Here we assume that the distance to SGR 1900+14 is 15 kpc
474: \citep{Vrba2000} and $d_{15}=\left( d/15 \mathrm{kpc} \right)$.
475: %If we take the blackbody spectrum, the peak luminosity is
476: %$6.4\times10^{46} d^2_{15}$ erg s$^{-1}$
477: %and the total emitted energy is $1.2\times10^{45} d^2_{15}$ erg.
478: %In Table 2, we compare the energetics of the initial spikes of
479: %the ever recorded three GFs, combined with
480: %Venela observation of the SGR 0526-66 GF in 1979 \citep{Mazets1999}
481: %and GEOTAIL observation of the SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004 \citep{terasawa2005}.
482: We also found that the total energy of this GF is about 130 times smaller than
483: that of the 2004 December 27 GF from SGR 1806-20,
484: although it is reported that the energy emitted during the pusating tail
485: in each GF is comparable ($E_{\rm tail} \sim 10^{44}$ erg, see Table 1).
486: \citep{Hurley2005,Palmer2005,Mazets1999}. Note that this difference
487: by a factor of 130 is the same order of the radio observations:
488: the radio afterglow of the SGR 1900+14 GF is approximately 500 times
489: fainter than that of the SGR 1806-20 GF
490: \citep{Frail1999,Gaensler2005,Cameron2005}.
491:
492:
493: %Is the dip during $t$=15$-$45 ms real?
494: %By comparing the time profile observed by the konus-Wind satellite,
495: %We confirm that the dip is real.
496:
497: %% In a manner similar to \objectname authors can provide links to dataset
498: %% hosted at participating data centers via the \dataset{} command. The
499: %% second curly bracket argument is printed in the text while the first
500: %% parentheses argument serves as the valid data set identifier. Large
501: %% lists of data set are best provided in a table (see Table 3 for an example).
502: %% Valid data set identifiers should be obtained from the data center that
503: %% is currently hosting the data.
504: %%
505: %% Note that AASTeX interprets everything between the curly braces in the
506: %% macro as regular text, so any special characters, e.g. "#" or "_," must be
507: %% preceded by a backslash. Otherwise, you will get a LaTeX error when you
508: %% compile your manuscript. Special characters do not
509: %% need to be escaped in the optional, square-bracket argument.
510:
511:
512:
513: %% In this section, we use the \subsection command to set off
514: %% a subsection. \footnote is used to insert a footnote to the text.
515:
516: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
517: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
518: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
519: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
520: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
521: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
522: %% automatically renumber them.
523:
524: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments
525: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.
526:
527: \section{Discussion}
528: %\subsection{Blackbody radius of the initial spike of the SGR 1900+14 GF}
529: %The spectrum observed during the initial spike of the SGR 1900+14 GF
530: %was optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung with $kT$ = 240 keV
531: %\citep{Hurley1999}. However, due to the similarity of the spectral shape,
532: %here we assume $kT$= 80 keV blackbody spectrum.
533: %The temperature is determined as 80 keV,
534: %since the blackbody spectrum reaches its peak at $\sim$ 3$kT$ and
535: %above which it decays similarly to OTTB.
536: %We define the averaged luminosity during the initial spike $L_{\rm ave}$
537: %by dividing the total energy
538: %$E_{\rm total} = 4.3 \times 10^{44}$ erg by the duration of $\sim$0.2 s.
539: %Then we derive the blackbody radius
540: %$R=\left( L_{\rm ave}/4 \pi \sigma T^4 \right)^{1/2}$ = 20 km,
541: %nearly coincides with the magnetar's radius.
542: %Note that the blackbody radius of 18 km is obtained
543: %from the main peak of the SGR 1806-20 GF \citep{Boggs2006}.
544:
545: %\subsection{Comparative study of the initial spikes}
546:
547: We observed two SGR GFs out of ever recorded three:
548: from SGR 1900+14 in 1998 and
549: SGR 1806-20 in 2004. Here we present a comparative study and
550: extract characteristics of the initial spikes of the SGR GFs.
551: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show the light curves of the initial spikes of
552: SGR 1900+14 GF and SGR 1806-20 GF, respectively.
553: Fig. 3 shows the detailed initial rise profiles of both GFs.
554: From these light curves, we identify four common features:
555: (1) initial steep rise (2) intermediate rise to the peak
556: (3) exponential decay (4) small hump in the decay phase.
557: The calculated e-folding times corresponding to the structures
558: of (1)-(3) and the timing when we observed the structure (4)
559: are tabulated in Table 1.
560: %The observed timescales are tabulated in Table 1.
561: %, combined with the Konus observation of SGR 0526-66.
562:
563: First, we focus on (1) initial steep rise. The observed initial rise time
564: of SGR 1900+14 GF is $\le1.6$ ms. This is comparable to the
565: initial rise time of $\le1.3$ ms observed in the SGR 1806-20 GF,
566: implying the same physical mechanism producing the initial rapid
567: energy release of these two GFs. Note that
568: in the leading edge of the initial spike of SGR 1806-20 GF,
569: Swift and Rhessi observed the similar timescale
570: (Swift: $\sim$ 0.3 ms, Rhessi: $0.38\pm0.04$ ms) \citep{Palmer2005,Boggs2006}.
571: These correspond to our observation of $\le1.3$ ms initial rise time.
572: %These time scale corresponds
573: %to SWIFT and RHESSI observations.
574: %Note that SWIFT and RHESSI also observed the similar timescale
575: %in the leading edge of the initial spike of SGR 1806-20 giant flare
576: %(SWIFT: $\sim$ 0.3 ms, RHESSI: $0.38\pm0.04$ ms)
577: %\citep{Palmer2005,Boggs2006}.
578: %This similarity meaning the same physical
579: %mechanism producing the rapid energy release.
580: %Note that similar timescale was also observed in the SGR 1806-20 by RHESSI
581: %and SWIFT \citep{Hurley2005,Palmer2005,Boggs2006}.
582: %The initial rise time of $\le1.5$ ms corresonds to the timescale
583: %observed with RHESSI and SWIFT \citep{Hurley2005,Palmer2005,Boggs2006}.
584: According to
585: the reconnection model of GFs \citep{Thompson1995,Duncan2004},
586: %the Alfven crossing time within the magnetosphere of a magnetar
587: %$\tau_{\rm mag}$ is comparable to the light-crossing time of the star
588: %$\tau_{\rm mag} \sim R/c \sim 0.03$ ms, where $R\sim10$ km and
589: %$c$ is the speed of light. However,
590: reconnection typically occurs
591: at a fraction of the Alfven velocity \citep{Thompson1995,Duncan2004},
592: and this interpretation leads to
593: $\tau_{\rm mag} \sim L/0.1V_{\rm A} \sim 0.3 \left( L / 10 \rm km \right)$ ms,
594: where $L$ is the scale of the reconnection-unstable zone, and
595: $V_{\rm A} \sim c$ is the Alfven velocity in the magnetosphere.
596: %This timescale corresponds to the Alfven crossing time within the
597: %magnetosphere of a magnetar $\tau_{\rm grow} \sim R/0.1V_{\rm A} \sim 0.3$ ms,
598: %where $R\sim10$ km and $V_{\rm A} \sim c$ is the Alfven velocity
599: %in the magnetosphere and $c$ is the speed of light.
600: This theoretical timescale $\tau_{\rm mag}$ seems consistent with the
601: observation of the initial rise time.
602:
603: Next, we consider (2) intermediate rise to the peak.
604: The observed e-folding rise time of the SGR 1900+14
605: GF is 3.1 ms, which is shorter than the 9.4 ms rise time
606: observed in the SGR 1806-20 GF by factor of about 3.0.
607: If this timescale is limited by the propagation of a fracture,
608: we can infer the fracture size $l$ as
609: $l\sim 4 \mathrm{km} \left( t_{\mathrm{rise}}/
610: 4 \mathrm{ms} \right)$ \citep{Thompson2001}.
611: %we can estimate the fracture size on the basis of this timescale.
612: Using this, the fracture size of the SGR 1900+14
613: is estimated as $\sim$ 3.1 km, and that of the SGR 1806-20
614: is as $\sim9.4$ km. It should be noted that our 9.4 ms rise time
615: observed in the SGR 1806-20 GF differs by factor of $\sim$2 from
616: 4.9 ms derived from the CLUSTER spacecraft observation of the
617: same GF \citep{Schwartz2005}. The origin of the difference between
618: these time scales is not understood, but could possibly attribute
619: to the different energy coverages of the detectors.
620: Unfortunately, since the energy response of the CLUSTER detectors
621: against incoming X-ray and gamma-ray photons was not calibrated,
622: further quantitative comparison between GEOTAIL and CLUSTER
623: is not possible.
624:
625: %We speculate that the total emitted energy $E_{\rm total}$ of each GF
626: %is proportional to the magnetic energy stored in the patch size $l^2$
627: %of the SGR's crust. ($E_{\rm total} \propto B_{\rm crust}^2 l^2$).
628: %this difference of the fracture size $l$
629: %as well as the magnetic field strength $B$ reflects
630: %the difference of the total emitted energy $E_{\rm total}$.
631: %Since $E_{\rm total}$ and $l$ differs by a factor of 130 and
632: %3.0 between the SGR 1900+14 GF and SGR 1806-20 GF, we infer that
633: %the magnetic field strength of the crust of the SGR 1806-20
634: %is 3.6 times stronger than that of the SGR 1900+14.
635: %This is slightly different compared to the surface magnetic field strength
636: %estimated from observations of the period and the period derivative
637: %(SGR 1806-20: $7.8 \times 10^{14}$ G, and SGR 1900+14: $5.7 \times 10^{14}$ G
638: %\citep{Woods2004}).
639: %we obtain a relation of $E_{\rm total} \propto l^{4.4}$,
640: %whose power-law index significantly differs from the natural assumption
641: %that $E_{\rm total}$ is proportional to the fracture size $l^2$
642: %\citep{Thompson1995,Harding2006}.
643:
644: In the initial spike of the SGR 1900+14 GF in 1998, we found a deep dip
645: and rebrightening following a sharp peak (Fig. 1).
646: We propose that this dip explains the temporal recovery of the counter
647: of the Konus-Wind \citep{Mazets1999}, since the dip and the recovery
648: occurred nearly simultaneously.
649: Note that Swift and Rhessi also detected a dip and rebrightening
650: in the leading edge of the initial spike of
651: the SGR 1806-20 GF \citep{Palmer2005,Boggs2006}, which could not be resolved
652: by the GEOTAIL observation.
653: This association implies that the dip and rebrightening are common features
654: of the initial spikes of the SGR GFs, although theoretical interpretation
655: is unclear.
656:
657: Then, we concentrate on (3) exponential decay.
658: %The physical mechanism of the exponential decay is unknown so far.
659: The decay time of the SGR 1900+14 GF is 23 ms.
660: This is shorter than the 66 ms decay time
661: of the SGR 1806-20 GF by factor of 2.9,
662: which roughly coincides with the factor 3.0
663: %while that of the SGR 1806-20 GF is 66 ms.
664: found in the intermediate rise times.
665: From this similarity, we infer that the decay time is also
666: proportional to the fracture size of a magnetar's crust.
667:
668: Finally, we focus on (4) small hump in the decay phase. Small humps are
669: observed nearly at the same timing; $\sim$310 ms in 1998 and $\sim$430 ms
670: in 2004 (note that the hump in 2004 GF was also observed with Swift
671: satellite \citep{Palmer2005}), although the total emitted energy
672: differs by a factor of 130.
673: This implies that the hump is caused by the continuing energy
674: injections rather than the environmental interactions of the flare ejecta.
675:
676: To conclude, the observed initial rise times imply that
677: the onsets of both of the GFs result from magnetospheric instabilities.
678: The intermediate rise times, on the other hand,
679: are consistent with the idea that main energy release
680: mechanism of the GFs is the large scale crustal fracturing.
681: For this interpretation to be valid, magnetospheric instabilities
682: should trigger the cracking of a magnetar's crust.
683: Further theoretical study is needed.
684:
685: %\subsection{SGR giant flares and short GRBs}
686:
687: The above four structures discovered in the initial spikes
688: may provide a clue to identify extragalactic SGR GFs among short GRBs.
689: Recently, a possible detection of an extragalactic SGR GF
690: is reported \citep{2005GCN}. Bright short GRB 051103 was localized
691: %Recently the bright short GRB 051103 was localized
692: near the M81/M82 galaxy group by the interplanetary network.
693: This association implies that the GRB 051103 is the SGR GF
694: outside the local group. Furthermore, if the GRB 051103 is emitted from
695: a SGR in M81, the isotropic total energy amounts to
696: $\sim 7 \times 10^{46}$ erg, which
697: is the same order of the energy of SGR 1806-20 GF \citep{Frederiks2006}.
698: Not only existence of star forming regions
699: inside the IPN error quadrilateral of GRB 051103
700: but also no detection of optical and radio afterglow support
701: the SGR hypothesis \citep{Ofek2006a}.
702: Here we investigate the hypothesis from the viewpoint of its light curve.
703:
704: (1) The light curve of GRB 051103 observed by Konus-Wind
705: showed a steep rise and the timescale is reported as $\leq$ 6 ms
706: \citep{Frederiks2006}. This nearly corresponds to the
707: %This is the same order of magnitude as the
708: intermediate rise time of a galactic SGR GF presented above,
709: although we do not know whether the timescale observed by Konus-Wind
710: represents an initial rise time or an intermediate rise time.
711: Furthermore,(2) quasi-exponential decay was seen and the
712: decay time is $\sim$ 55 ms \citep{Frederiks2006}.
713: This timescale is also the same order of magnitude as
714: the decay times presented above.
715: These two similarities found in the light curves
716: also support the SGR hypothesis.
717: A hump in a decay phase was not seen in the light curve of
718: GRB 051103. This is explicable in terms of the detector's
719: detection limit, because the flux of the humps, if exists, are expected
720: to be about one hundredth of the peak flux.
721: %This is possibly due to below the detector's detection limit,
722: %because the flux of the hump is about one hundredth smaller
723: %than the peak flux.
724:
725: %Although it is unclear that this timescale
726: %means initial rise time or intermediate rise time,
727: %This timescale nearly corresponds to the intermediate rise time.
728: % consistent with our observation of SGR giant flare.
729:
730: %The flux of the small hump is about one two hundredth, if we assume that
731: %spectrum is steady during the initial spike.
732: %This is consistent with the
733: %the lack of the small hump in the light curve of GRB 051103.
734: %Furthermore, the sharp peak is similar to the peak profile shown in Fig. 1.
735: %similar between them. As shown by \citet{Ofek2006a}, star forming regions
736: %associated with M81 inside the IPN error quadrilateral of GRB 051103
737: %also support the idea that GRB 051103 is an extragalactic SGR giant flare.
738: %We can confirm in this way by another method other than \citet{Ofek2006a}
739:
740: %Below we confirm the SGR hypothesis in light of GEOTAIL observations.
741:
742: %The $\sim$ 6 ms steep rise is consistent with our observations.
743: %The quasi-exponential decay of $\sim$ 55 ms is also consistent.
744: %However the small hump is not observed. One reason is that
745: %the flux of the small hump is about one hundredth of the most intense
746: %period, therefore it may be below the detectors detection limit.
747:
748: %In summary, we observed the initial spike of SGR 1900+14 giant flare
749: %in 1998. The total energy are obtained.
750:
751: %Konus-Wind observed the time profile and it showed the steep rise
752: %and exponential decay.
753: %a possible extragalactic SGR giant flare was discovered
754: %citep{Federiks2006}.
755:
756: %The steep rise gives way to a slower increase. This is also observed in
757: %the initial spike of the 2004 December 27 event
758: %\citep{Terasawa2005,Schwartz2005}. However the profile of the
759: %initial spike of the 1998 August 27 event is a little different.
760: %It consists of a sharp peak. This is a
761:
762: %\subsection{SGR giant flares and short GRBs}
763:
764: %Although the SGR giant flares are.
765: %We calculated the BATSE sampling depth on the basis of GEOTAIL
766: %observations. We take the SGR 1806-20 giant flare as prototype.
767: %Since the duration of the SGR giant flare is about 30 ms, we adopt
768: %the 50\% trigger-efficiency flux for 32 ms timescale is 2.0
769: %photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{nemiroff1998}.
770:
771:
772:
773: %\section{Summary}
774:
775:
776: %% The equation environment wil produce a numbered display equation.
777:
778:
779:
780: %% The \notetoeditor{TEXT} command allows the author to communicate
781: %% information to the copy editor. This information will appear as a
782: %% footnote on the printed copy for the manuscript style file. Nothing will
783: %% appear on the printed copy if the preprint or
784: %% preprint2 style files are used.
785:
786: %% The eqnarray environment produces multi-line display math. The end of
787: %% each line is marked with a \\. Lines will be numbered unless the \\
788: %% is preceded by a \nonumber command.
789: %% Alignment points are marked by ampersands (&). There should be two
790: %% ampersands (&) per line.
791:
792:
793: %% Putting eqnarrays or equations inside the mathletters environment groups
794: %% the enclosed equations by letter. For instance, the eqnarray below, instead
795: %% of being numbered, say, (4) and (5), would be numbered (4a) and (4b).
796: %% LaTeX the paper and look at the output to see the results.
797:
798:
799:
800: %% This section contains more display math examples, including unnumbered
801: %% equations (displaymath environment). The last paragraph includes some
802: %% examples of in-line math featuring a couple of the AASTeX symbol macros.
803:
804:
805: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
806: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
807: %% command.
808:
809: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
810: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
811: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
812: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
813: %% text to be printed in the second.
814:
815: \acknowledgments
816:
817: We thank R. Yamazaki for valuable comments and discussions. We are also
818: grateful to all the members of GEOTAIL team for their collaboration.
819: Y.T.T. is receiving a financial support from JSPS.
820:
821: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
822: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
823: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
824: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
825: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
826: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
827: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
828: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
829:
830: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
831: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
832: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
833: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
834: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
835:
836:
837: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
838: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
839: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
840:
841: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
842: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
843: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
844:
845:
846: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
847: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
848: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
849: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
850: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
851: %%
852: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
853: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
854: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
855: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
856: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
857: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
858: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
859: %% place of the \cite commands.
860:
861: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
862: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
863: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
864:
865: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
866: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
867: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
868: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
869: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
870:
871: %\bibliography{draft}
872:
873: \begin{thebibliography}{31}
874: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
875:
876: \bibitem[{{Boggs} {et~al.}(2006){Boggs}, {Zoglauer}, {Bellm}, {Hurley}, {Lin},
877: {Smith}, {Wigger}, \& {Hajdas}}]{Boggs2006}
878: {Boggs} {et~al.} 2006, astro-ph/0611318
879:
880: \bibitem[{{Cameron} {et~al.}(2005){Cameron}, {Chandra}, {Ray}, {Kulkarni},
881: {Frail}, {Wieringa}, {Nakar}, {Phinney}, {Miyazaki}, {Tsuboi}, {Okumura},
882: {Kawai}, {Menten}, \& {Bertoldi}}]{Cameron2005}
883: {Cameron} {et~al.} 2005,
884: \nat, 434, 1112
885:
886: \bibitem[{{Cheng} {et~al.}(1996){Cheng}, {Epstein}, {Guyer}, \&
887: {Young}}]{Cheng1996}
888: {Cheng} {et~al.} 1996, \nat, 382,
889: 518
890:
891: \bibitem[{{Duncan}(2004)}]{Duncan2004}
892: {Duncan}, R.~C. 2004, in Cosmic explosions in three dimensions, ed.
893: P.~{H{\"o}flich}, P.~{Kumar}, \& J.~C. {Wheeler}, 285--+
894:
895: \bibitem[{{Duncan} \& {Thompson}(1992)}]{Duncan1992}
896: {Duncan}, R.~C., \& {Thompson}, C. 1992, \apjl, 392, L9
897:
898: \bibitem[{{Feroci} {et~al.}(2001){Feroci}, {Hurley}, {Duncan}, \&
899: {Thompson}}]{Feroci2001}
900: {Feroci} {et~al.} 2001, \apj, 549,
901: 1021
902:
903: \bibitem[{{Frail} {et~al.}(1999){Frail}, {Kulkarni}, \& {Bloom}}]{Frail1999}
904: {Frail} {et~al.} 1999, \nat, 398, 127
905:
906: \bibitem[{{Frederiks} {et~al.}(2006){Frederiks}, {Pal'shin}, {Aptekar'},
907: {Golenetskii}, {Cline}, \& {Mazets}}]{Frederiks2006}
908: {Frederiks} {et~al.} 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 19
909:
910: \bibitem[{{Gaensler} {et~al.}(2005){Gaensler}, {Kouveliotou}, {Gelfand},
911: {Taylor}, {Eichler}, {Wijers}, {Granot}, {Ramirez-Ruiz}, {Lyubarsky},
912: {Hunstead}, {Campbell-Wilson}, {van der Horst}, {McLaughlin}, {Fender},
913: {Garrett}, {Newton-McGee}, {Palmer}, {Gehrels}, \& {Woods}}]{Gaensler2005}
914: {Gaensler} {et~al.} 2005, \nat, 434, 1104
915:
916: \bibitem[{{Golenetskii} {et~al.}(2005){Golenetskii}, {Aptekar}, {Mazets},
917: {Pal'Shin}, {Frederiks}, {Cline}, {Barthelmy}, {Cummings}, {Gehrels},
918: {Hurley}, {Cline}, {Mitrofanov}, {Kozyrev}, {Litvak}, {Sanin}, {Tret'yakov},
919: {Parshukov}, {Boynton}, {Fellows}, {Harshman}, {Shinohara}, {Starr}, {Smith},
920: {Lin}, {McTiernan}, {Schwartz}, {Wigger}, {Hajdas}, {Zehnder}, {Atteia},
921: {Graziani}, \& {Vanderspek}}]{2005GCN}
922: {Golenetskii} {et~al.} 2005, GRB Coordinates Network,
923: 4197, 1
924:
925: \bibitem[{{G{\"o}{\u g}{\"u}{\c s}} {et~al.}(2000){G{\"o}{\u g}{\"u}{\c s}},
926: {Woods}, {Kouveliotou}, {van Paradijs}, {Briggs}, {Duncan}, \&
927: {Thompson}}]{Gogus2000}
928: {G{\"o}{\u g}{\"u}{\c s}} {et~al.} 2000,
929: \apjl, 532, L121
930:
931: \bibitem[{{Hurley} {et~al.}(2005){Hurley}, {Boggs}, {Smith}, {Duncan}, {Lin},
932: {Zoglauer}, {Krucker}, {Hurford}, {Hudson}, {Wigger}, {Hajdas}, {Thompson},
933: {Mitrofanov}, {Sanin}, {Boynton}, {Fellows}, {von Kienlin}, {Lichti}, {Rau},
934: \& {Cline}}]{Hurley2005}
935: {Hurley} {et~al.} 2005, \nat, 434, 1098
936:
937: \bibitem[{{Hurley} {et~al.}(1999){Hurley}, {Cline}, {Mazets}, {Barthelmy},
938: {Butterworth}, {Marshall}, {Palmer}, {Aptekar}, {Golenetskii}, {Il'Inskii},
939: {Frederiks}, {McTiernan}, {Gold}, \& {Trombka}}]{Hurley1999}
940: {Hurley} {et~al.} 1999, \nat, 397, 41
941:
942: \bibitem[{{Kosugi} {et~al.}(1991){Kosugi}, {Masuda}, {Makishima}, {Inda},
943: {Murakami}, {Dotani}, {Ogawara}, {Sakao}, {Kai}, \& {Nakajima}}]{Kosugi1991}
944: {Kosugi} {et~al.} 1991,
945: \solphys, 136, 17
946:
947: \bibitem[{{Kouveliotou} {et~al.}(1998){Kouveliotou}, {Dieters}, {Strohmayer},
948: {van Paradijs}, {Fishman}, {Meegan}, {Hurley}, {Kommers}, {Smith}, {Frail},
949: \& {Murakami}}]{Kouveliotou1998}
950: {Kouveliotou} {et~al.} 1998, \nat, 393, 235
951:
952: \bibitem[{{Kouveliotou} {et~al.}(1999){Kouveliotou}, {Strohmayer}, {Hurley},
953: {van Paradijs}, {Finger}, {Dieters}, {Woods}, {Thompson}, \&
954: {Duncan}}]{Kouveliotou1999}
955: {Kouveliotou} {et~al.} 1999, \apjl, 510, L115
956:
957: \bibitem[{{Mazets} {et~al.}(1999){Mazets}, {Cline}, {Aptekar'}, {Butterworth},
958: {Frederiks}, {Golenetskii}, {Il'Inskii}, \& {Pal'Shin}}]{Mazets1999}
959: {Mazets} {et~al.} 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 635
960:
961: \bibitem[{{Mazets} \& {Golenetskii}(1981)}]{Mazets1981}
962: {Mazets}, E.~P., \& {Golenetskii}, S.~V. 1981, \apss, 75, 47
963:
964: \bibitem[{{Mazets} {et~al.}(1979){Mazets}, {Golentskii}, {Ilinskii}, {Aptekar},
965: \& {Guryan}}]{Mazets1979}
966: {Mazets} {et~al.} 1979, \nat, 282, 587
967:
968: \bibitem[{{Mereghetti} {et~al.}(2005){Mereghetti}, {G{\"o}tz}, {von Kienlin},
969: {Rau}, {Lichti}, {Weidenspointner}, \& {Jean}}]{Mereghetti2005}
970: {Mereghetti} {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 624, L105
971:
972: \bibitem[{Mukai {et~al.}(1994)Mukai, Machida, Saito, Hirahara, Terasawa, Kaya,
973: Obara, Ejiri, \& Nishida}]{Mukai1994}
974: {Mukai} {et~al.} 1994, J.\ Geomag. \ Geoelectr., 46, 669
975:
976: \bibitem[{{Ofek} {et~al.}(2006){Ofek}, {Kulkarni}, {Nakar}, {Cenko}, {Cameron},
977: {Frail}, {Gal-Yam}, {Soderberg}, \& {Fox}}]{Ofek2006a}
978: {Ofek} {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 652, 507
979:
980: \bibitem[{{Palmer} {et~al.}(2005){Palmer}, {Barthelmy}, {Gehrels}, {Kippen},
981: {Cayton}, {Kouveliotou}, {Eichler}, {Wijers}, {Woods}, {Granot}, {Lyubarsky},
982: {Ramirez-Ruiz}, {Barbier}, {Chester}, {Cummings}, {Fenimore}, {Finger},
983: {Gaensler}, {Hullinger}, {Krimm}, {Markwardt}, {Nousek}, {Parsons}, {Patel},
984: {Sakamoto}, {Sato}, {Suzuki}, \& {Tueller}}]{Palmer2005}
985: {Palmer} {et~al.} 2005, \nat, 434, 1107
986:
987: \bibitem[{{Schwartz} {et~al.}(2005){Schwartz}, {Zane}, {Wilson}, {Pijpers},
988: {Moore}, {Kataria}, {Horbury}, {Fazakerley}, \& {Cargill}}]{Schwartz2005}
989: {Schwartz} {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 627, 129
990:
991: \bibitem[{{Tanaka} {et~al.}(2007){Tanaka}, {Yoshikawa}, {Yoshioka}, {Terasawa},
992: {Saito}, \& {Mukai}}]{Tanaka2007}
993: {Tanaka} {et~al.} 2007, Review of Scientific Instruments, 78, 034501
994:
995: \bibitem[{{Terasawa} {et~al.}(2005){Terasawa}, {Tanaka}, {Takei}, {Kawai},
996: {Yoshida}, {Nomoto}, {Yoshikawa}, {Saito}, {Kasaba}, {Takashima}, {Mukai},
997: {Noda}, {Murakami}, {Watanabe}, {Muraki}, {Yokoyama}, \&
998: {Hoshino}}]{terasawa2005}
999: {Terasawa} {et~al.} 2005, \nat, 434, 1110
1000:
1001: \bibitem[{{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(1995)}]{Thompson1995}
1002: {Thompson}, C., \& {Duncan}, R.~C. 1995, \mnras, 275, 255
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(1996)}]{Thompson1996}
1005: ---. 1996, \apj, 473, 322
1006:
1007: \bibitem[{{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(2001)}]{Thompson2001}
1008: ---. 2001, \apj, 561, 980
1009:
1010: \bibitem[{{Vrba} {et~al.}(2000){Vrba}, {Henden}, {Luginbuhl}, {Guetter},
1011: {Hartmann}, \& {Klose}}]{Vrba2000}
1012: {Vrba} {et~al.} 2000, \apjl, 533, L17
1013:
1014: \bibitem[{{Woods} \& {Thompson}(2004)}]{Woods2004}
1015: {Woods}, P.~M., \& {Thompson}, C. 2004, astro-ph/0406133
1016:
1017: \end{thebibliography}
1018:
1019: \clearpage
1020:
1021: \begin{table}
1022: \begin{center}
1023: \caption{Comparison of three SGR giant flares}
1024: \begin{tabular}{lrrr}
1025: \tableline\tableline
1026: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SGR 1900+14} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SGR 1806-20}
1027: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SGR 0526-66} \\
1028: \tableline
1029: \tableline
1030: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Initial Spike} & & & \\
1031: E-folding initial rise time [ms] & $<1.6$ & $<1.3$ & $<2$ \\
1032: E-folding intermediate rise time [ms] & $3.1^{+0.9}_{-2.0}$ & 9.4$\pm$1.1 & - \\
1033: Exponential decay time [ms] & 23$\pm$1.6 & 66$\pm$12 & $\sim40$ \\
1034: Timing of Small hump [ms] & $\sim$310 & $\sim$430 & - \\
1035: \tableline
1036: Peak photon flux [photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $\left(3.2_{-1.1}^{+4.0}\right)\times10^6$ & $\left(2.5_{-0.6}^{+1.1}\right)\times10^7$ & - \\
1037: Peak flux [erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $0.85_{-0.30}^{+1.0}$ & $19_{-4}^{+9}$ & $1\times10^{-3}$ \\
1038: Peak luminosity [erg s$^{-1}$] & $\left(2.3_{-0.8}^{+2.7}\right)\times10^{46}d_{15}^2$ & $\left(5.1_{-1.2}^{+2.3}\right)\times10^{47} d_{15}^2$ & $3.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1039: Fluence [erg cm$^{-2}$] & $\left(1.6_{-0.6}^{+2.0}\right)\times10^{-2}$ & $2.0_{-0.5}^{+0.9}$ & $4.5\times10^{-4}$ \\
1040: Total Energy [erg] & $\left(4.3_{-1.5}^{+5.3}\right)\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$ & $\left(5.4_{-1.3}^{+2.4}\right)\times10^{46} d_{15}^2$ & $1.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1041: Energy range & $E$$\gtrsim$50 keV & $E$$\gtrsim$50 keV & $E$$>$30 keV\\
1042: \tableline
1043: \tableline
1044: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Pulsating Tail} & & & \\
1045: Tail Energy [erg] & $1.2\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$ & $1.2\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$ & $3.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1046: Energy range & $E$$>$15 keV& 3$<$$E$$<$100 keV & $E$$>$30 keV\\
1047: \tableline\tableline
1048: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Reference} & 1 & 2, 3 & 1 \\
1049: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{Reference} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1}
1050: %& \multicolumn{1}{c}{2, 3} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1} \\
1051: \tableline
1052: \end{tabular}
1053: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1054: \tablerefs{(1) Mazets et al. 1999; (2) Terasawa et al. 2005;
1055: (3) Hurley et al. 2005}
1056: \end{center}
1057: \end{table}
1058:
1059:
1060: \clearpage
1061:
1062: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1063: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1064: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1065: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1066: %% \includegraphics commands
1067: %%
1068: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1069: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1070: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1071: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1072: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1073: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1074: %%
1075: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1076: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1077: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1078: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1079: %% journal to journal.
1080:
1081: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1082: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1083: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1084: %% available in the electronic journal.
1085:
1086: \begin{figure}
1087: \epsscale{.8}
1088: \plotone{f1.eps}
1089: \caption{The first 350 ms unsaturated peak profile
1090: of the SGR 1900+14 GF observed with GEOTAIL (a) linear scale,
1091: and (b) log scale. The time resolution is 5.58 ms
1092: and the energy range is $E\gtrsim 50$ keV. Shaded bars indicate
1093: the instrumental data gaps of 12 ms.
1094: \label{SGR1900}}
1095: \end{figure}
1096:
1097: \clearpage
1098:
1099: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1100: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1101: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1102: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1103: %%
1104:
1105: %\begin{figure}
1106: %\epsscale{1.0}
1107: %\plottwo{Fig2_1.eps}{Fig2_2_resize_New.eps}
1108: %\caption{Comparison of the peak profile of the initial spike of
1109: %SGR giant flare. (a) SGR 1900+14 GF in 1998 (b) SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004.}
1110: %\end{figure}
1111:
1112: \begin{figure}
1113: \epsscale{.8}
1114: \plotone{f2.eps}
1115: \caption{
1116: The $E\gtrsim 50$ keV gamma-ray time profile
1117: of the initial spike of SGR 1806-20 GF
1118: on 2004 December 27 observed with GEOTAIL (a) linear scale, and
1119: (b) log scale \citep{terasawa2005}. The time resolution is 5.48 ms.
1120: Shaded bars indicate the instrumental data gaps of 12 ms.
1121: \label{SGR1806}}
1122: \end{figure}
1123:
1124: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame
1125: %% for an mpeg animation.
1126:
1127: %\begin{figure}
1128: %\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.50]{f3.eps}
1129: %\caption{Animation still frame taken from \citet{kim03}.
1130: %This figure is also available as an mpeg
1131: %animation in the electronic edition of the
1132: %{\it Astrophysical Journal}.}
1133: %\end{figure}
1134:
1135: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
1136: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
1137: %% User Guide for details.
1138: %%
1139: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1140: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1141: %% after every seventh one.
1142:
1143: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1144: %% each one.
1145:
1146: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1147: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1148: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1149: %%
1150:
1151: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1152: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1153:
1154: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1155: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1156: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1157: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1158: %% reduced font size.
1159: %%
1160: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1161: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1162:
1163: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1164: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1165: %% edition.
1166:
1167: %\clearpage
1168:
1169: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1170: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1171: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1172: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1173:
1174: %\clearpage
1175:
1176: %\begin{table}
1177: %\begin{center}
1178: %\caption{More terribly relevant tabular information.\label{tbl-2}}
1179: %\begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrrrrr}
1180: %\tableline\tableline
1181: %Star & Height & $d_{x}$ & $d_{y}$ & $n$ & $\chi^2$ & $R_{maj}$ & $R_{min}$ &
1182: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$\tablenotemark{a}} & $P R_{maj}$ & $P R_{min}$ &
1183: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Theta$\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1184: %\tableline
1185: %1 &33472.5 &-0.1 &0.4 &53 &27.4 &2.065 &1.940 &3.900 &68.3 &116.2 &-27.639\\
1186: %2 &27802.4 &-0.3 &-0.2 &60 &3.7 &1.628 &1.510 &2.156 &6.8 &7.5 &-26.764\\
1187: %3 &29210.6 &0.9 &0.3 &60 &3.4 &1.622 &1.551 &2.159 &6.7 &7.3 &-40.272\\
1188: %4 &32733.8 &-1.2\tablenotemark{c} &-0.5 &41 &54.8 &2.282 &2.156 &4.313 &117.4 &78.2 &-35.847\\
1189: %5 & 9607.4 &-0.4 &-0.4 &60 &1.4 &1.669\tablenotemark{c} &1.574 &2.343 &8.0 &8.9 &-33.417\\
1190: %6 &31638.6 &1.6 &0.1 &39 &315.2 & 3.433 &3.075 &7.488 &92.1 &25.3 &-12.052\\
1191: %\tableline
1192: %\end{tabular}
1193: %%% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1194: %\tablenotetext{a}{Sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2} that was
1195: %generated with the \LaTeX\ table environment}
1196: %\tablenotetext{b}{Yet another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2}}
1197: %\tablenotetext{c}{Another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-2}}
1198: %\tablecomments{We can also attach a long-ish paragraph of explanatory
1199: %material to a table.}
1200: %\end{center}
1201: %\end{table}
1202:
1203: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
1204: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
1205: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
1206: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
1207: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
1208: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
1209: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
1210: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
1211:
1212: %% The \dataset{} macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to
1213: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.
1214:
1215: \clearpage
1216:
1217: \begin{figure}
1218: %\epsscale{.5}
1219: \plotone{f3.eps}
1220: \caption{Detailed initial rise profiles of the initial spikes
1221: of (a) SGR 1900+14 GF in 1998, and (b) SGR 1806-20 GF in 2004.
1222: The vertical axes are log scale. Two different e-folding rise times
1223: are clearly seen in both of the initial spikes. The arrow shows the
1224: upper limit of photon counts before the onset.
1225: \label{Initial}}
1226: \end{figure}
1227:
1228: %\clearpage
1229:
1230: %\begin{table}
1231: %\begin{center}
1232: %\caption{Estimation of the physical quantities ($E \gtrsim$ 50 keV)
1233: %of the SGR 1900+14 GF for the two spectral shapes}
1234: %\begin{tabular}{lrr}
1235: %\tableline\tableline
1236: % & OTTB ($kT$=240 keV)\tablenotemark{a} &
1237: %Blackbody ($kT$=230 keV)\tablenotemark{b} \\
1238: %\tableline
1239: % Peak photon flux [photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $\left(3.2_{-1.1}^{+4.0}\right)\times10^6$ & $\left(2.4_{-0.9}^{+2.7}\right)\times10^6$ \\
1240: % Peak flux [erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $0.85_{-0.30}^{+1.0}$
1241: %& $2.4_{-0.9}^{+2.8}$\\
1242: % Peak luminosity [erg s$^{-1}$] & $\left(2.3_{-0.8}^{+2.7}\right)\times10^{46}d_{15}^2$ & $\left(6.4_{-1.2}^{+2.3}\right)\times10^{46} d_{15}^2$ \\
1243: % Fluence [erg cm$^{-2}$] & $\left(1.6_{-0.6}^{+2.0}\right)\times10^{-2}$ &
1244: %$\left(4.5_{-1.6}^{+5.3}\right)\times10^{-2}$ \\
1245: % Total Energy [erg] & $\left(4.3_{-1.5}^{+5.3}\right)\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$ & $\left(1.2_{-0.4}^{+1.4}\right)\times10^{45} d_{15}^2$ \\
1246: %\tableline
1247: %\end{tabular}
1248: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1249: %\tablenotetext{a}{\citet{Hurley1999}}
1250: %\tablenotetext{b}{\citet{Boggs2006}}
1251: %\tablecomments{We can also attach a long-ish paragraph of explanatory
1252: %material to a table.}
1253: %\end{center}
1254: %\end{table}
1255:
1256: \clearpage
1257:
1258: %\begin{table}
1259: %\begin{center}
1260: %\caption{Comparison of the initial spikes of three SGR giant flares}
1261: %\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
1262: %\tableline\tableline
1263: % & SGR 1900+14 &
1264: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{SGR 1806-20\tablenotemark{a}} &
1265: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{SGR 0526-66\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1266: %\tableline
1267: %E-folding initial rise time [ms] & $<1.6$ & $<1.3$ & $<2$ \\
1268: %E-folding intermediate rise time [ms] & $3.1^{+0.9}_{-2.0}$ & 9.4$\pm$1.1 & - \\
1269: %Exponential decay time [ms] & 23$\pm$1.6 & 66$\pm$12 & $\sim40$ \\
1270: %Timing of Small hump [ms] & $\sim$310 & $\sim$430 & - \\
1271: %\tableline
1272: % Peak photon flux [photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $\left(3.2_{-1.1}^{+4.0}\right)\times10^6$ & $\left(2.5_{-0.6}^{+1.1}\right)\times10^7$ & - \\
1273: % Peak flux [erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & $0.85_{-0.30}^{+1.0}$ & $19_{-4}^{+9}$ & $1\times10^{-3}$ \\
1274: % Peak luminosity [erg s$^{-1}$] & $\left(2.3_{-0.8}^{+2.7}\right)\times10^{46}d_{15}^2$ & $\left(5.1_{-1.2}^{+2.3}\right)\times10^{47} d_{15}^2$ & $3.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1275: % Fluence [erg cm$^{-2}$] & $\left(1.6_{-0.6}^{+2.0}\right)\times10^{-2}$ & $2.0_{-0.5}^{+0.9}$ & $4.5\times10^{-4}$ \\
1276: % Total Energy [erg] & $\left(4.3_{-1.5}^{+5.3}\right)\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$ & $\left(5.4_{-1.3}^{+2.4}\right)\times10^{46} d_{15}^2$ & $1.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1277: %\tableline
1278: %Tail Energy [erg] & $7.8\times10^{43} d_{15}^2$\tablenotemark{b} & $1.2\times10^{44} d_{15}^2$\tablenotemark{c} & $3.6\times10^{44} d_{55}^2$ \\
1279: %\tableline
1280: %\end{tabular}
1281: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1282: %\tablenotetext{a}{\citet{terasawa2005}}
1283: %\tablenotetext{b}{\citet{Mazets1999}}
1284: %\tablenotetext{c}{\citet{Hurley2005}}
1285: %\tablecomments{We can also attach a long-ish paragraph of explanatory
1286: %material to a table.}
1287: %\end{center}
1288: %\end{table}
1289:
1290:
1291: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
1292: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
1293: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
1294: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
1295: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
1296: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
1297: %% to include it in this document.)
1298:
1299: %\input{tab1}
1300:
1301: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1302: %% that appears after it.
1303:
1304: \end{document}
1305:
1306: %%
1307: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1308: