1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{rotating,colordvi}
5: \DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `basename #1 .tif`.png}
6: \newcommand \ltw{\>\hbox{\lower.25em\hbox{$\buildrel <\over\sim$}}\>}
7: \shorttitle{Radio Emission Signatures in the Crab Pulsar}
8: \shortauthors{Hankins, Eilek}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{RADIO EMISSION SIGNATURES IN THE CRAB PULSAR}
12: \author{T. H. Hankins\altaffilmark{1}}
13: \author{J. A. Eilek\altaffilmark{1}}
14: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Department, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801}
15: \email{thankins@aoc.nrao.edu}
16: \email{jeilek@aoc.nrao.edu}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19:
20:
21: Our high time resolution observations of individual pulses from
22: the Crab pulsar show that both the time and frequency signatures of
23: the interpulse are distinctly different from those of the main pulse.
24: Main pulses can occasionally be resolved into short-lived,
25: relatively narrow-band nanoshots. We believe these nanoshots are
26: produced by soliton collapse in strong plasma turbulence. Interpulses
27: at centimeter wavelengths are very different. Their
28: dynamic spectrum contains regular, microsecond-long emission bands. We
29: have detected these bands, proportionately spaced in frequency, from
30: 4.5 to 10.5 GHz.
31: The bands cannot easily be explained by any current theory of pulsar
32: radio emission; we speculate on possible new models.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \keywords{pulsars: individual (Crab Nebula pulsar) --- radiation
36: mechanisms: non-thermal}
37:
38: \section{INTRODUCTION}
39:
40: \label{section_Introduction}
41:
42: What is the pulsar radio emission mechanism? Does the same mechanism
43: always operate, in all stars or throughout the magnetosphere of one
44: star? What are the physical conditions in the magnetosphere
45: that allow the emission to happen? Despite forty years
46: of effort, these questions still have not been answered
47: conclusively.
48:
49: Most models of pulsar radio emission fall into three groups. These are
50: (1) antenna-type emission from coherent charge bunches; (2) strong plasma
51: turbulence (SPT), in which nonlinear effects convert plasma waves to
52: electromagnetic waves which can escape the plasma; and (3) several
53: variants of maser emission. In Hankins \emph{et al.}\ (2003; ``HKWE'') we
54: suggested these different emission mechanisms can be differentiated by
55: their time signatures, because the characteristic variability
56: timescales of each model differ. To test this idea, we designed and
57: developed data acquisition systems to probe the radio emission
58: signatures at the highest possible time resolutions. At low radio
59: frequencies scattering by electron density inhomogeneities in the
60: Crab Nebula and the interstellar medium mask the highest time and frequency
61: resolution structure of the pulsar emission. The observations we
62: describe here were made at high enough frequencies to avoid the
63: pulse broadening, due to multipath propagation through the
64: interstellar medium, which occurs at lower frequencies.
65:
66: \subsection{The Crab Pulsar}
67:
68:
69: We have focused on the Crab pulsar because its occasional very strong
70: ``giant'' pulses are ideally suited to our data acquisition
71: systems. The mean profile of this star is dominated by a Main Pulse
72: (MP) and an Interpulse (IP), as shown in Figure
73: \ref{fig_mean_profiles}. Although the relative amplitudes and detailed
74: profiles of these features change with frequency, they can be
75: identified from low radio frequencies ($\ltw 300$ MHz) up to the
76: optical and hard X-ray bands. The similarity of the mean profile
77: across this broad frequency range suggests that the radio emission and
78: high-energy emission arise from the same regions of the magnetosphere
79: in this star.
80:
81: Several geometrical models have been proposed for the origin of the MP
82: and IP emission in pulsars. Traditional radio-pulsar models ascribe
83: MP/IP pairs to
84: low-altitude emission (a few to a few tens of stellar radii) from
85: highly relativistic outflows above the star's two
86: magnetic poles. Some models of high-energy pulsed emission also
87: locate the emission regions at low altitudes (\emph{e.g.}, Daugherty
88: \& Harding 1996).
89: If this is the case, the magnetic axis of the Crab pulsar must be
90: nearly orthogonal to its rotation axis in order
91: to see the highly beamed emission from both poles.
92: Alternatively, some authors have suggested that the magnetic and rotation
93: axes are nearly aligned, and the MP and IP emission comes from a wide
94: emission cone (\emph{e.g.}, Manchester and Lyne 1977).
95: Still other models relax constraints on the angle between the rotation
96: and magnetic axes, and locate both radio and high-energy emission sites in
97: the outer magnetosphere,
98: possibly at the outer gap described by Cheng and Ruderman (1977).
99: Yet another variant is the caustic model of Dyks \emph{et al.}\
100: (2004), in which emission extends over a wide range of altitudes, from
101: the star's surface nearly to the light cylinder. (The Dyks \emph{et
102: al.}\ model suggests
103: IP emission comes from higher altitudes than MP
104: emission, as does one of the models discussed by Hankins and Cordes
105: 1981).
106:
107:
108: We do not know which, if any, of these models are correct, but
109: most of them suggest physical conditions in the two emission
110: regions should be similar. One would expect the same radio emission
111: mechanism to be active in the IP and the MP.
112: We were quite surprised,
113: therefore, to find that the IP and MP have very different properties
114: at high radio frequencies (5-10 GHz), as we report in this paper.
115:
116:
117: \subsection{Observations and Post-processing}
118: In 2002 we captured strong, individual Crab pulses at the
119: Arecibo Observatory\footnote{The Arecibo Observatory is part of the
120: National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which is operated by
121: Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National
122: Science Foundation.} at 2-ns time resolution, from $1.4\!-\!5$ GHz,
123: as reported in HKWE. For our new observations, reported here, we went
124: to higher frequencies, $6\!-\!8.5$ GHz and $8\!-\!10.5$ GHz, in order
125: to obtain 2.5-GHz
126: bandwidth and consequent 0.4-ns time resolution. For pulses that
127: exceeded a preset
128: threshold the received voltages from both polarizations were digitized
129: with 8-bit resolution and stored for off-line coherent dedispersion.
130: This allowed us to reach intrinsic time resolutions down to the limit
131: imposed by the inverse of the receiver bandwidth, 0.4 ns. In \S2 and
132: \S3 we show dedispersed individual pulses and their dynamic
133: spectra\footnote{The dynamic spectrum is computed from the dedispersed
134: voltage time series. It shows how the received pulse intensity is
135: distributed in time and radio frequency.} recorded at 8-10.5 GHz for all of our
136: figures; the results at 6-8.5 GHz are similar in all
137: characteristics.
138:
139: After capturing a pulse our data acquisition system requires more than
140: a pulse period to store the data and be reset to capture another
141: pulse. Therefore we record only pulses which exceed a preset
142: threshold, which we set high enough to trigger the data acquisition
143: system only for the brightest individual pulses. The trigger detector
144: bandwidth was typically 0.5 GHz, centered on the 2.5-GHz sampled
145: bandwidth.
146:
147:
148: The pulses we record coincide with the high-flux power law tail
149: of the number-{\it vs.}-flux histogram for single pulses, as seen by Argyle
150: and Gower (1972) and Lundgren \emph{et al.}\ (1995) at lower
151: frequencies; thus they might be
152: loosely called ``giant'' pulses. However, it is not yet clear whether these
153: high-flux pulses are physically similar to, or different from, the
154: more common ``weak'' pulses; we are not aware of any compelling
155: evidence for either case. In what follows we do not attempt to
156: distinguish between the two, but just discuss MPs or IPs.
157:
158: At the high time resolution we achieve, details of the pulses are
159: sensitive to the exact value of the dispersion measure (DM) used for
160: the coherent dedispersion operation. We generally started with the DM
161: value given by the Jodrell Bank Crab Pulsar
162: Monthly Ephemeris\footnote{www.jb.man.ac.uk/$\sim$pulsar/crab.html} for our
163: observing epochs. However, we found evidence in the dynamic spectra that
164: individual pulses could be more or less dispersed than the tabulated
165: value, and that IPs are systematically more dispersed than MPs, as
166: discussed in \S\ref{section_The_Interpulse}. We then attempted to
167: find the ``optimum'' DM for most of the pulses we show in this
168: paper. For a narrow pulse, such as most components of a MP, we used
169: the DM value which maximized the peak intensity and the intensity
170: variance, minimized the width, and aligned the arrival times of
171: emission throughout our bandwidth. As shown in
172: \S\ref{section_The_Interpulse} and Figures \ref{typical_IP_1},
173: \ref{typical_IP_2} and \ref{typical_IP_3}
174: the typical IPs are broader than the MPs; alignment of the dynamic
175: spectra provided more reliable DM estimates for the IPs. We found it
176: necessary to refine our optimum DM to a resolution of $10^{-5}$
177: pc-cm$^{-3}$.
178:
179:
180: In the remainder of this paper we present our observations of the main
181: pulse in \S\ref{section_The_Main_Pulse}, then the interpulse and its
182: narrow emission bands in \S\ref{section_The_Interpulse}. In
183: \S\ref{Emission_Band_models} we discuss some
184: possible causes of the interpulse emission bands and model
185: limitations, and summarize our results in
186: \S\ref{Conclusions}.
187:
188: \section{THE MAIN PULSE}
189:
190: \label{section_The_Main_Pulse}
191: In our first high time resolution observations of the Crab pulsar
192: (reported in HKWE), we concentrated on the MP, because it is
193: brighter at low frequencies, and strong pulses are more common at the
194: phase of the MP (Cordes \emph{et al.}\ 2004). Our new observations at
195: higher frequencies, 6-8.5 GHz and 8-10.5 GHz at Arecibo, confirm and
196: extend our original results on the MP.
197:
198: \subsection{Microbursts and Nanoshots}
199:
200: Most MPs consist of one to several ``microbursts''; the
201: brightest microburst in an MP can occur anywhere
202: within the pulse average envelope. The microbursts can often be resolved into
203: overlapping, short-lived ``nanoshots''.
204: Figures \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}
205: shows typical examples of MPs; other examples are shown in
206: Sallmen \emph{et al.}\ (1999) and Kern (2004).
207:
208:
209:
210: The dynamic spectrum of the microbursts is broadband, filling our
211: entire observing bandwidth. The emission is sometimes, but not always,
212: slightly weaker toward the high frequency edge of the receiver band
213: (as illustrated in Figures \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}).
214: This is unlikely to be due to instrumental or interstellar
215: effects. We normalized our system gain, as a function of frequency,
216: by the Crab Nebula background which dominates the off-pulse system temperature.
217: The nebular spectrum is quite flat (proportional to $\nu^{-0.26}$ at
218: these frequencies; Baars \& Hartsuijker 1972). The correlation
219: bandwidth due to interstellar scintillation (ISS) is predicted to be $\sim
220: 1-2$ GHz at 8-10 GHz, and scales approximately as $\nu^4$ (Cordes
221: \emph{et al.}\ 2004, Kern 2004).
222: We might expect interstellar effects occasionally to be seen in the
223: dynamic spectrum, but such effects should be equally likely to be
224: seen at the lower edge of the passband, as at the high edge. We
225: therefore conclude that the high-frequency fading sometimes seen in the dynamic
226: spectrum of the MP is intrinsic to the MP emission mechanism. This is
227: consistent with the known steep radio spectrum of the Crab pulsar
228: ($\nu^{-3.1}$; Manchester, \emph{et al}. 2005).
229:
230:
231: While most MPs resemble the examples in Figures \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}
232: and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}, occasionally the nanoshots are sufficiently
233: sparse to be seen
234: individually. Figure \ref{fig_sparse} shows one example. When this
235: is the case, some of the nanoshots turn out to be relatively narrow-band. We
236: believe these new data support our argument, in HKWE, that each MP
237: microburst is a collection of short-lived nanoshots. When the
238: time resolution is high enough, and the nanoshots are well separated
239: in time, the individual shots can be resolved. We note that this picture is
240: consistent with previous modeling of pulsar emission as
241: amplitude-modulated noise, produced by the ensemble of a large number
242: of randomly occurring nanoshot pulses, modulated by a more slowly
243: varying amplitude function (Rickett 1975).
244:
245:
246:
247: \subsection{Our Interpretation: Strong Plasma Turbulence }
248: \label{SPT theory}
249:
250: We argued in HKWE that the nanoshots represent the fundamental
251: emission mechanism in MPs. In that paper we compared the
252: nanoshots to predictions of the three competing
253: theoretical models of the radio emission mechanism.
254: We found that the short durations and narrow bandwidths of
255: the nanoshots are consistent \emph{only}\/ with
256: predictions of the SPT model. They are not consistent with
257: predictions of scaling arguments describing emission
258: from masers or from coherent charge bunches (both of which predict
259: longer characteristic times). In particular, Weatherall (1998)
260: modeled SPT and predicted narrow-band radiation,
261: $\delta \nu / \nu \sim 0.1-0.2$, centered on the co-moving plasma
262: frequency. He also predicted a distinctive time signature, arising
263: from the coupling of the electromagnetic modes to the turbulence:
264: $\nu \delta t \sim O(10)$. The relatively narrow-band spectra of the
265: nanoshots revealed by our new observations match Weatherall's models
266: well. We thus confirm our suggestion, in HKWE, that coherent radio
267: emission in MPs is plasma emission produced by collapsing
268: solitons in strong plasma turbulence.
269:
270: We note, however, that the SPT model makes no predictions on the spectrum
271: of a collection of nanoshots. The spectral steepening we sometimes
272: see in the MP dynamic spectrum could be due either to fewer nanoshots
273: within a high-frequency microburst, or to less energy released in a
274: single high-frequency nanoshot, or both.
275:
276:
277: This model does make one important prediction: plasma flow in the radio
278: emission region is likely to be unsteady. The plasma
279: flow will be smooth only if the local charge density is
280: exactly the Goldreich-Julian (1969; ``GJ'') value, $\rho_{\rm GJ} \simeq
281: \Omega B / 2
282: \pi c$ (for a rotation rate $\Omega$), so that the rotation-induced
283: electric field is fully shielded. If the charge density
284: differs from $\rho_{\rm GJ}$,
285: the emitting plasma feels an unshielded electric field, and
286: feeds back on that field as its charge density fluctuates, leading to
287: unsteady plasma flow (and consequently unsteady
288: radio emission).
289:
290: For the Crab pulsar, making the usual assumption that its spindown is
291: due to magnetic dipole radiation, we estimate a field $B(r) \simeq {4}
292: \times 10^{12} $ G, and a GJ density $n_{\rm GJ}(r) = \rho_{\rm GJ}(r)
293: /e \simeq {8} \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, close to the star's surface.
294: At the light cylinder, $\sim 160 r_*$, the field drops to $\sim 1
295: \times 10^6$ G and the GJ density to $\sim 2 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$.
296: Current pair cascade models predict that the (neutral) pair density
297: exceeds the primary beam (GJ) density by a factor $\lambda \sim
298: 10^2\!-\! 10^3$ (Arendt \& Eilek 2002).
299: Now, if SPT is the emission mechanism, we can determine the plasma density
300: directly, because SPT emission is centered on the comoving plasma
301: frequency ($\nu_p \propto \sqrt{\gamma_b n}$, for bulk Lorentz factor
302: $\gamma_b$). Thus, emission at frequency $\nu$ comes from plasma
303: density $n \gamma_b \simeq 1.2 \times 10^{10} \nu_{\rm GHz}^2$
304: cm$^{-3}$. Noting that current models predict $\gamma_b \sim
305: 10^2-10^3$ ({\it e.g.}, Arendt \& Eilek), and using $\lambda$ to
306: convert from plasma density to charge density, our SPT argument
307: predicts that $1$-GHz emission comes from a region with number density
308: of excess charge $\sim 10^4 - 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, and $9.5$-GHz emission
309: comes from $ \sim 10^6 - 10^8$ cm$^{-3}$. The higher density values
310: may be consistent with GJ conditions at moderate to high altitudes;
311: the lower values are very unlikely to satisfy GJ conditions anywhere
312: in the magnetosphere. We therefore suggest the highly unsteady, bursty
313: MP emission we see from 1 to 10 GHz reflects unsteady plasma flow due
314: to sub-GJ charge densities in the emission region (\emph{cf.}\ also
315: Kunzl \emph{et al.}\ 1998, who drew the same conclusion from a
316: somewhat different argument).
317:
318:
319: \subsection{Extreme Nanoshots}
320:
321:
322: The nanoshots can occasionally be extremely intense. In Figure
323: \ref{fig_2MJy_pulse} we show a single MP which exceeds 2 MJy, and
324: has an unresolved duration of less than 0.4 ns.
325: If we ignore relativistic effects (following, \emph{e.g.}, Cordes
326: \emph{et al.}\ 2004), we estimate a light-travel size $c \delta t \simeq 12$ cm.
327: From this we find an implied brightness temperature $2 \times 10^{41}$K,
328: which we believe is the highest ever reported for pulsar emission.
329: Alternatively, we might assume the emitting structure is moving
330: outwards with Lorentz factor $\gamma_b \sim 10^2 - 10^3$.
331: If this is the case, our size estimate increases to $10^3 - 10^5$ cm,
332: and the brightness temperature decreases to $10^{35} - 10^{37}$K.
333:
334: The extremity of this pulse can also be demonstrated in terms of
335: local quantities. If the pulse is emitted from a structure moving at
336: $\gamma_b$, its energy density is $u_{\rm rad} \sim 4 \times
337: 10^{23} / \gamma_b^4$ erg cm$^{-3}$. This high energy density can be
338: compared to the plasma energy density, $u_{\rm pl} = \gamma_b n m
339: c^2$, which we can estimate either from our assumption of SPT
340: emission (which gives a lower density), or by assuming that GJ
341: conditions hold (which gives a higher density). In either case, we
342: find $u_{\rm rad} \gg u_{\rm pl}$, unless $\gamma_b$ is extremely
343: large. As noted in HKWE, this
344: emphasizes the need for a collective emission process.
345: For another comparison, we can convert the energy density in the
346: radiation pulse to an equivalent electric field, $E \sim 3.2 \times
347: 10^{12}/ \gamma_b^2 $G, giving a wave-strength parameter $e E / 2\pi m_e
348: c \nu \gg 1$. It follows that magnetospheric propagation of such
349: strong nanoshots will be complex and nonlinear (\emph{e.g.}, Chian \&
350: Kennel 1983).
351:
352:
353:
354: \section{THE INTERPULSE}
355: \label{section_The_Interpulse}
356: In order to test our hypothesis that strong plasma turbulence governs
357: the emission physics in the Crab pulsar, we went to higher
358: frequencies to get a larger bandwidth and shorter time resolution.
359: In addition to the MP, we observed single pulses from the IP, because
360: at high frequencies strong pulses are far more common at the
361: rotation phase of the IP. When we
362: observed IPs and MPs with a broad bandwidth, from 6-8 or
363: 8-10.5 GHz, we were astonished to find that IPs have very different
364: properties from MPs.
365:
366:
367: \subsection{Characteristics}
368:
369: We recorded about 220 individual MPs, and about 150
370: individual IPs, between
371: 4.5 and 10.5 GHz, during 20 observing days from 2004 to 2006.
372: Together with our earlier results (Moffett \& Hankins 1999), these
373: data reveal that the high-frequency IP differs from the MP in
374: intensity, time signature, polarization, dispersion and spectrum. In
375: this subsection we discuss the first four properties; we defer
376: discussion of the spectrum to the next subsection. We illustrate our
377: discussion with Figures \ref{typical_IP_1}, \ref{typical_IP_2}
378: and \ref{typical_IP_3} which show three typical IPs.
379:
380: \subsubsection{Intensity} Strong IPs are at least an order of
381: magnitude more frequent than strong MPs at 9 GHz, but the MPs
382: can be considerably stronger than the IPs
383: when they occur. This can be seen in the examples shown in this
384: paper, as well as in the the signal-to-noise-ratio histograms of
385: Figure 3 of Cordes \emph{et
386: al.}\ (2004) and the scatter plots of their Figure 5 (where the
387: signal-to-noise-ratio of MPs and IPs are shown as a function of pulse
388: phase).
389:
390: \subsubsection{Polarization}
391: High-frequency IPs are more strongly
392: polarized than MPs. Moffett \& Hankins (1999) showed that the IP is strongly
393: linearly polarized, 50-100\% at 4.9 GHz, while the MP is only weakly polarized.
394: We showed in HKWE that individual nanoshots in the MP
395: can be strongly polarized, but the polarization changes dramatically
396: from one nanoshot to the next. This leads to to weak MP polarization when
397: the nanoshot density is high or the pulse is smoothed to $\sim 1 \mu$s.
398:
399: \subsubsection{Time signature} IP emission is not broken up into the
400: short-lived microbursts that characterize the MP. Instead, it is more
401: continuous in time, spread out over a few microseconds. When
402: optimally dedispersed, IPs usually have a very rapid onset, followed
403: by a slower decay and often similar secondary bursts.
404: To quantify the time duration of the IPs, we used the equivalent width of
405: the intensity autocorrelation function to estimate the IP duration.
406: In Figure \ref{IP_widths} we show the distribution of equivalent widths for all
407: of the IPs we recorded at and above 6 GHz. This figure shows that IPs
408: typically last several microseconds at 6-8 GHz, and become shorter at higher
409: frequencies.
410:
411: Because the temporal behavior of MPs is much more complex
412: (as we discussed in \S \ref{section_The_Main_Pulse}; {\it cf.}
413: Figures \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}), the question
414: ``what is the characteristic time signature of an individual MP'' is
415: difficult to answer. We discuss MP time scales in a
416: forthcoming paper.
417:
418:
419: \subsubsection{Dispersion}
420: IPs are more dispersed than MPs measured at the same time.
421: As an example, the IP in Figure
422: \ref{typical_IP_1} was observed 12 minutes after the MP shown
423: in Figure \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}, and processed identically. The dynamic
424: spectrum of the IP shows that lower frequencies arrive later than high
425: frequencies; we take this as evidence for extra dispersion in the IP.
426: Because we consistently found IPs more dispersed than
427: MPs observed on the same day, we conclude this extra dispersion must
428: occur {\emph{in the pulsar's magnetosphere}}.
429:
430: It is hard to compare the data to predictions of magnetospheric
431: dispersion, because we do not know the correct dispersion relation
432: for the magnetospheric plasma. As a simple example, consider
433: dispersion from a cold, unmagnetized plasma. The $0.65$-$\mu$s
434: delay between 8.4 and 10.4 GHz, for the pulse shown in Figure
435: \ref{typical_IP_1}, would correspond to an excess dispersion
436: measure, $\sim 0.032$ pc-cm$^{-3}$ ($\sim 10^{-3}$ of the total DM
437: measured by Jodrell Bank). If the magnetosphere were filled with
438: cold plasma at the GJ density, it would have a column density $\sim
439: 1.3$ pc-cm$^{-3}$, far more than enough to account for the excess DM
440: of the IP. But this estimate is naive. Most of the magnetosphere
441: is strongly magnetized, and at low altitudes charges are constrained
442: to move only along field lines. A more realistic dispersion law is
443: needed, but without knowing conditions through which the pulse
444: propagates it is not clear which law to choose.
445:
446:
447: We discuss these complex issues more fully in a separate paper (Crossley
448: \emph{et al.}\ 2007).
449:
450:
451:
452: \subsection{Emission Bands}
453: \label{Emission_Bands}
454: The most striking difference between the interpulse and the main pulse
455: is found in the dynamic spectrum. An IP contains microsecond-long
456: trains of {\em emission bands}, as illustrated in Figures
457: \ref{typical_IP_1}, \ref{typical_IP_2} and \ref{typical_IP_3}.
458: \emph{Every}\/ IP we have recorded
459: displays these emission bands. However, MPs recorded during
460: the same observing sessions and processed identically do not show the bands.
461: The bands are, therefore, not due to instrumental or interstellar
462: effects, but are intrinsic to the star.
463:
464: \subsubsection{Properties of the Emission Bands}
465:
466:
467: The emission bands are grouped into regular ``sets''; 2 or 3 band sets,
468: regularly spaced, can usually be identified in a given IP. Individual
469: band sets last no more than a few microseconds. All bands in a
470: particular set appear almost simultaneously, certainly to within
471: $\Delta t_{\rm start} < 100$ ns for optimally dedispersed pulses. This
472: requires that all of the bands must originate from a region no more
473: than $d=c\Delta t_{\rm start} < 30$ m in size.
474:
475: The IPs show a sharp onset, which is often associated with a very
476: short-lived ($\leq 100$ ns) band set. Additional band sets often turn
477: on part way through the pulse, producing secondary bursts of
478: total intensity which also show the characteristic
479: fast-rise-slow-decay time signature. Band sets that begin
480: later tend to last longer, up to the few-microsecond duration of the
481: total pulse.
482:
483:
484: At first glance the bands appear to be uniformly spaced. However,
485: closer inspection of our data shows that the bands are
486: \emph{proportionally spaced}. Figure \ref{fig_band_freqs} shows
487: that the spacing between two adjacent bands depends on the mean
488: frequency, as $\Delta \nu/ \nu \simeq 0.06$. Thus, two bands near 6
489: GHz are spaced by $\sim 360$ MHz; two bands
490: near 10 GHz are spaced by $\sim 600$ MHz. This proportional
491: spacing is robust; a set of emission bands can drift in frequency
492: (usually upwards, as in Figures \ref{typical_IP_1}, \ref{typical_IP_2}
493: and \ref{typical_IP_3}), but
494: their frequency spacing stays constant. We note that the
495: least-squares fitted line in Figure \ref{fig_band_freqs} is
496: consistent with zero spacing at zero frequency; however we do not
497: think that the bands continue to very low frequencies (as we discuss in
498: the next section).
499:
500: The frequency profile of a given band tends to be peaked about a
501: central frequency, \emph{i.e.} closer to Gaussian than to rectangular or
502: impulsive. The frequency width of an emission band, estimated by eye
503: as a half power width, is typically 10-20\% of the spacing between
504: bands. Within a single IP the center frequency of an emission band
505: often remains steady until the band disappears. In some instances,
506: however, the center frequency drifts upwards during the band duration,
507: by no more than 20-30\% of the band spacing. We have occasionally
508: seen bands that appear to drift slightly downward in frequency, but
509: this is rare. Bands sets that begin later in the pulse tend to start
510: at frequencies slightly higher than the early bands, but againw the
511: frequency shift is less than the spacing between bands. These
512: features are all illustrated in Figures \ref{typical_IP_1},
513: \ref{typical_IP_2} and \ref{typical_IP_3}. We note that quantitative
514: analysis of the structure of a single band is limited by the frequency
515: resolution we can achieve for short-lived bands, by signal-to-noise
516: limits and the overlap of separate band sets.
517:
518:
519: \subsubsection{Frequency Extent of the Bands}
520:
521: We suspect the bands extend over at least a 5-6 GHz bandwidth in
522: a single IP, but do not occur below $\sim 4$ GHz. While we have not
523: been able to observe more than 2.2 GHz simultaneously, we have seen no
524: evidence that a given band set cuts off within our observable
525: bandwidth. The characteristics of the bands (proportional spacing,
526: duration, onset relative to total intensity microbursts) are unchanged
527: from 5 to 10 GHz.
528:
529: We have captured a few IPs between 4 and 5 GHz, but the bands are
530: unclear in all of them. We suspect the dynamic spectrum in this
531: frequency range has been corrupted by ISS, for which the correlation
532: bandwidth is predicted to be $\sim 100$ MHz at these frequencies,
533: somewhat less than the band spacing projected from Figure
534: \ref{fig_band_freqs}. Technical limitations, involving
535: terrestrial radio interference and the high-speed memory capacity of
536: our data acquisition system, kept us from observing with
537: enough bandwidth to investigate the existence of bands
538: below $\sim 4$ GHz. We note, however, that mean profiles suggest the
539: nature of the IP changes between 1 and 4 GHz. From Figure 1 (also
540: Cordes \emph{et al.} 2004) we see that the IP between 4 and 8 GHz
541: appears at an earlier phase than at $\leq 1.4$ GHz, and there is no IP
542: at all around 3 GHz. This leads us to believe that the low and high
543: radio frequency IPs are unrelated; we therefore expect no IP band
544: emission below 4 GHz.
545:
546: Unlike the MPs, there is no indication in our data
547: that the band intensity is weaker at high frequencies. From this we
548: infer that the IP spectrum is flatter than the MP spectrum. The IP
549: spectrum may, in fact, be atypical of radio emission from the general
550: pulsar population, which is known to be steep spectrum.
551:
552:
553: We reiterate that the emission bands in the IP cannot be due to ISS.
554: Their clear regularity, the fact that they exist only in the IP and
555: not in MPs observed at the same time, and their $\Delta \nu \propto
556: \nu$ spacing, all disagree with known properties of ISS, and point to
557: an origin intrinsic to the IP.
558:
559: \section{POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE EMISSION BANDS}
560:
561: \label{Emission_Band_models}
562: The dynamic spectrum of the interpulses does not match any of the
563: three types of emission models described in
564: \S\ref{section_Introduction}. Because each of the models predicts
565: narrow-band emission at the plasma frequency, \emph{none of them can
566: explain the dynamic spectrum of the IP}. A new approach is
567: required here, which may ``push the envelope'' of pulsar radio
568: emission models.
569:
570: While we remain perplexed by the dramatic dynamic spectrum of the
571: interpulse, we have explored possible models. This exercise is made
572: particularly difficult by the fact that the emission bands are not
573: regularly spaced. Because of this, models that initially seemed
574: attractive must be rejected. As an example, if the emission bands
575: were uniformly spaced they could be the spectral representation of a
576: regular emission pulse train. Many authors have invoked regularly
577: spaced plasma structures (sparks or filaments), whose passage across
578: the line of sight could create such a pulse train. Alternatively,
579: strong plasma waves with a characteristic frequency will also create
580: a regular emission pulse train. The dynamic spectrum of either of
581: these models would contain emission bands at constant spacing; the
582: \emph{proportional}\/ spacing we observe disproves both of these
583: hypotheses.
584:
585: We looked to solar physics for insight. We initially considered split
586: bands in the dynamic spectra of Type II solar flares, which are
587: thought to be plasma emission from low and high density regions
588: associated with a shock propagating through the solar corona. This
589: does not seem to be helpful for the Crab pulsar emission bands,
590: because the radio-loud plasma would have to contain 10 or 15 different
591: density stratifications, which seems unlikely. However, ``zebra
592: bands'' seen in Type IV solar flares may be germane. These are
593: parallel, drifting, narrow emission bands seen in the dynamic spectra
594: of Type IV flares. Band sets containing from a few up to $\sim 30$
595: bands have been reported, with fractional spacing $\Delta \nu / \nu
596: \sim .01 - .03$ (\emph{e.g.}, Chernov \emph{et al.}\ 2005; Sawant
597: \emph{et al.}\ 2005). While zebra bands have not yet been
598: satisfactorily explained, two classes of models have been proposed,
599: namely resonant plasma emission and geometrical effects. It may be
600: that these models will provide clues to understanding the emission
601: bands in the Crab pulsar.
602:
603: \subsection{Resonant cyclotron emission}
604:
605:
606: One possibility is plasma emission at the cyclotron resonance, $\omega
607: - k_{\parallel} v_{\parallel} - s \Omega_0 / \gamma = 0$ (where
608: $\gamma$ is the particle Lorentz factor, $\Omega_0 = e B / m c$, and
609: $s$ is the integer harmonic number). Kazbegi \emph{et al.}\ (1991)
610: proposed that this resonance operates at high altitudes in the pulsar
611: magnetosphere, possibly generating both X-mode waves (which can escape
612: the plasma directly) and O-mode waves; a related model is being
613: applied to the Crab emission bands by Lyutikov (2007, private
614: communication). Alternatively, double resonant cyclotron emission at
615: the plasma resonant frequency has been proposed for zebra bands in
616: solar flares (\emph{e.g.}, Winglee \& Dulk 1986). In solar
617: conditions, this resonance generates O-mode waves, which must mode
618: convert in order to escape the plasma. The emission frequency in
619: these models is determined by local conditions where the resonance is
620: satisfied; the band separation is $\Delta \nu \simeq \Omega_0 / 2 \pi
621: \gamma$. It is not clear how the specific, proportional band spacing
622: can be explained in such models; perhaps a local gradient in the
623: magnetic field can be invoked.
624:
625: Such models face several additional challenges before they can be
626: considered successful. The emission must occur at high altitudes, in
627: order to bring the resonant (cyclotron) frequency down to the radio
628: band. Close to the light cylinder, where $B \sim 10^6$ G, particle
629: energies $\gamma \sim 500 - 1000$ could radiate at 5 - 10 GHz. In
630: addition, such models must be developed by means of specific
631: calculations which address the fundamental plasma modes and their
632: stability, under conditions likely to exist at high altitudes in the
633: pulsar's magnetosphere.
634:
635:
636:
637: \subsection{Geometrical models}
638: Alternatively, the striking regularity of the bands calls to mind a
639: special geometry. If some mechanism splits the emission beam
640: coherently, so that it interferes with itself, the bands could be
641: interference fringes. For instance, a downwards beam which reflects
642: off a high density region could return and interfere with its
643: upwards counterpart on the way back up (\emph{e.g.}, Ledenev
644: \emph{et al.}\ 2001 for solar zebra bands). Simple geometry
645: suggests that fringes occur if the two paths differ in length by
646: only $c / \Delta \nu \ltw 1$ m. Another geometrical possibility is
647: that cavities form in the plasma and trap some of the emitted
648: radiation, imposing a discrete frequency structure on the escaping
649: radiation (\emph{e.g.}, LaBelle \emph{et al.}\ 2003). The
650: scales required here are also small; the cavity scale must be
651: some multiple of the wavelength, \emph{i.e.}, several centimeters.
652:
653:
654: Geometrical models need an underlying broad-band radiation source,
655: with at least 5-GHz bandwidth, in order to produce the emission bands
656: we observe. Because standard pulsar radio emission mechanisms lead to
657: relatively narrow-band radiation, at the local plasma frequency, they
658: seem unlikely to work here. A double layer might be the radiation
659: source; charges accelerated within the layer should radiate broadband,
660: up to $\nu \sim L / 2 \pi c$, if $L$ is the thickness of the double
661: layer (\emph{e.g.}, Kuijpers 1990; Volwerk 1993). This is
662: also a small-scale effect; emission at 10 GHz requires $L \sim 1$ cm.
663: This may be consistent with the thickness of a relativistic, lepton
664: double layer, which we estimate as several times $c / 2 \pi \nu_p$
665: (following, \emph{e.g.}, Carlqvist 1982).
666:
667: Geometrical models also face several challenges before they can be
668: considered successful. The basic geometry is a challenge: what
669: long-lived plasma structures can lead to the necessary interference or
670: wave trapping? Once again, it is not clear how the proportional band
671: spacing can be explained; perhaps a variable index of refraction in
672: the interference or trapping region can be invoked.
673:
674: \section{Summary and conclusions}
675: \label{Conclusions}
676: We have observed individual pulses from the Crab pulsar with 2.2-GHz
677: bandwidth and 0.4-ns time resolution. We observed both the main pulse
678: (MP) and the interpulse (IP), at high radio frequencies ($5\!-\!10$
679: GHz). We were very surprised when our observations revealed that the
680: MP and the IP are strikingly different.
681: At these frequencies, MPs consist of many short-lived, relatively
682: narrow-band, nanoshots. Both the time and frequency signatures of
683: the nanoshots are consistent with predictions of one current model of
684: pulsar radio emission, namely, coherent emission from strong plasma
685: turbulence.
686:
687: IPs, however, differ from MPs in their time, polarization,
688: dispersion and spectral signatures. It seems that the MP and the IP
689: differ in their emission mechanisms and their propagation within the
690: magnetosphere. The dynamic spectrum of the IP contains regularly
691: spaced emission bands, which do not match the predictions of
692: any current model. Our result is especially surprising because
693: magnetospheric models generally ascribe the MP and the IP to
694: physically similar regions, which simply happen to be on opposite
695: sides of the star. One would therefore expect the MP and the IP to
696: have similar characteristics, which is exactly \emph{not} what we find.
697:
698: The work of Moffett \& Hankins (1996) may provide an important
699: clue. They discovered new components in the mean profile at 5 and 8
700: GHz, which appear at offset rotation phases, and only at high radio
701: frequencies. They also found that the IP at high radio frequencies
702: appears at an earlier rotation phase than its counterpart at both
703: lower (radio below 2 GHz) and higher (optical to X-ray) frequencies.
704: It is just this high-radio-frequency IP which we discuss in this
705: paper. We speculate that this IP, and the other high-radio-frequency
706: components Moffett \& Hankins found, originate in an unexpected part
707: of the star's magnetosphere, where different physical conditions
708: produce quite different radiation signatures.
709:
710:
711: \begin{acknowledgements}
712:
713: We appreciate helpful conversations with Joe Borovsky, Alice Harding,
714: Axel Jessner, Jan Kuijpers, Maxim Lyutikov, and the members of the
715: Socorro pulsar group. We thank our referee for constructive comments
716: which improved the paper. We particularly thank our students, Jared
717: Crossley, Eric Plum and James Sheckard for their help with
718: observations. This work was partially supported by the National
719: Science Foundation, through grants AST0139641 and AST0607492.
720: \end{acknowledgements}
721:
722: \begin{thebibliography}{}
723:
724: \bibitem{AE2002} Arendt, P.N. Jr. \& Eilek, J.A., 2002, ApJ, 581, 451
725:
726: \bibitem[Argyle \& Gower(1972)]{1972ApJ...175L..89A} Argyle, E., \& Gower,
727: J.F.R.\ 1972, \apjl, 175, L89
728:
729: \bibitem{BH1972}Baars, J.W.M. \& Hartsuijker, A.P., 1972, A\&A, 17, 172
730:
731: \bibitem{Car1982} Carlqvist, P., 1982, ApSS, 87, 21
732:
733: \bibitem{CR1977}Cheng, A.F. \& Ruderman, M.A., 1977, ApJ, 216, 865
734:
735: \bibitem{CK1982} Chian, A.C.-L.\& Kennel, C.F., 1982, Ap\&SS, 97, 9
736:
737: \bibitem{CYFT2005} Chernov, G.P., Yan, Y.H., Fu, Q.J. \& Tah, Ch.M., 2005,
738: A\&A, 437, 1047
739:
740: \bibitem{CBH+2004} Cordes, J.M., Bhat, N.D.R., Hankins, T.H., McLaughlin,
741: M.A. \& Kern, J., 2004, ApJ, 612, 375
742:
743: \bibitem{CHE2007} Crossley, J.M., Hankins, T.H. \& Eilek, J.A., 2007, in
744: preparation
745:
746: \bibitem{DH1996} Daugherty, J.K. \& Harding, A.K., 1996, ApJ, 300, 500
747:
748: \bibitem{DHR2004} Dyks, J., Harding, A.K. \& Rudak, B., 2004, ApJ, 606, 1125
749:
750: \bibitem{GJ1969} Goldreich, P. \& Julian, W.H., 1969, ApJ, 157, 869
751:
752: \bibitem[Goodman \& Narayan(1985)]{1985MNRAS.214..519G} Goodman, J., \&
753: Narayan, R.\ 1985, \mnras, 214, 519
754:
755: \bibitem{HC1981} Hankins, T.H., \& Cordes, J.M., 1981, ApJ, 249, 241
756:
757: \bibitem{HKWE2003} Hankins, T.H., Kern, J.S., Weatherall, J.C. \& Eilek, J.A.,
758: 2003, Nature, 422, 141
759:
760: \bibitem[Isaacman \& Rankin(1977)]{1977ApJ...214..214I} Isaacman, R., \&
761: Rankin, J.~M.\ 1977, \apj, 214, 214
762:
763: \bibitem{KMM1991} Kazbegi, A.Z., Machabeli, G.Z. \& Melikidze, G.I., 1991,
764: MNRAS, 253, 377
765:
766: \bibitem{Kern2004} Kern, J., 2004, Ph.D. thesis, New Mexico Tech
767:
768: \bibitem{Kui1990} Kuijpers, J., 1990, in \emph{Plasma Phenomena in the Solar
769: Atmosphere}, eds. M. Dubois, F. Bely-Dubau \& D. Gresillon (Editions
770: de Physique, France), p. 17
771:
772: \bibitem{KLJH1998} Kunzl, T., Lesch, H., Jessner, A. \& von Hoensbroech, A.,
773: 1998, ApJ, 505, L139
774:
775: \bibitem{LTYK2003} LaBelle, J., Treumann, R.A., Yoon, P.H. \& Karlicky, M.,
776: 2003, ApJ, 593, 1195
777:
778: \bibitem{LKYF2001} Ledenev, V.G., Karlick\'y, M., Yan, \& Fu, Q., 2001,
779: Sol Phys., 202, 72
780:
781: \bibitem[Lundgren et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...453..433L} Lundgren, S.C.,
782: Cordes, J.M., Ulmer, M., Matz, S.M., Lomatch, S., Foster, R.S., \&
783: Hankins, T.\ 1995, \apj, 453, 433
784:
785: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.1993M} Manchester, R.N.,
786: Hobbs, G.B., Teoh, A., \& Hobbs, M.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1993
787:
788: \bibitem{MH1996} Moffett, D.A. \& Hankins, T.H., 1996, ApJ, 468, 779
789:
790: \bibitem{ML1977} Manchester, R.N. \& Lyne, A.G., 1977, MNRAS, 181, 761
791:
792: \bibitem{MH1999} Moffett, D.A. \& Hankins, T.H., 1999, ApJ, 522, 1046
793:
794: \bibitem{Rick1975} Rickett, B.J., 1975, ApJ, 197, 185
795:
796: \bibitem[Sallmen et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...517..460S} Sallmen, S., Backer,
797: D.C., Hankins, T.H., Moffett, D., \& Lundgren, S.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 460
798:
799: \bibitem{SKFC2002} Sawant, H.S., Karlick\'y, M., Fernandes, F.C.R. \&
800: Cecatto, J.R., 2002, AA, 396, 1015
801:
802: \bibitem{Vol1993} Volwerk, 1993, J Phys D, 26, 1192
803:
804: \bibitem{Wea1998} Weatherall, J.C., 1998, ApJ, 506, 341
805:
806: \bibitem{WD1986} Winglee, R.M. \& Dulk, G.A., 1986, ApJ, 307, 808
807:
808: \end{thebibliography}
809:
810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figures and Captions %%%%%%%%%%%%
811: \begin{figure}[htb]
812: \begin{center}
813: % Original bounding box: 72 72 540 720
814: %\includegraphics[width=1.20\columnwidth,viewport=54 0 540
815: % 640,clip]{f1}
816: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f1.eps}
817: %\figurenum{1}
818: \epsscale{0.74}
819: \plotone{f1.eps}
820: \caption{The mean profile of the Crab pulsar, over a wide range of
821: frequencies (from Moffett \& Hankins 1996). The main pulse and
822: interpulse, shown by dashed lines at pulse phases $70^{\circ}$ and
823: $215^{\circ}$, persist from radio to hard X-ray bands. However,
824: between 4.7 and 8.4 GHz the interpulse is offset from the interpulse
825: at lower and higher frequencies, and new components appear (labeled HFC1 and
826: HFC2). These intermediate-frequency components may have a different
827: origin from the lower and higher frequency interpulse and main pulse.}
828: \label{fig_mean_profiles}
829: \end{center}
830: \end{figure}
831:
832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
833: \begin{figure}[htb] % This is figure 2 (21 Oct 2006)
834: \begin{center}
835: \rotatebox{-90}{
836: %\includegraphics*[width=0.66\textwidth,viewport=0 0 501 765]{f2.ps}}
837: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f2.eps}}
838: \caption{An example of a ``normal'' main pulse, processed with
839: optimal dispersion measure, plotted with total intensity
840: time resolution 6.4 ns, and dynamic spectrum resolution 51.2 ns,
841: 19.5 MHz. The pulse seen in total intensity (upper panel) consists
842: of several short-lived microbursts, which themselves contain
843: shorter-duration nanoshots. The dynamic spectrum (lower
844: panel) reveals that the microbursts are broad-band, spanning the
845: 2.2-GHz receiver bandwidth. The lack of emission at the lower band
846: edge is because the 2.5-GHz sampled bandwidth is slightly larger
847: than the receiver passband; the high-$\nu$ fading is intrinsic to
848: the star. The spectrum contour levels are 50, 100, 200, 500, and
849: 1000 Jy.
850: }
851: \label{fig_normal_MP_1}
852: \end{center}
853: \vspace{-2ex}
854: \end{figure}
855:
856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
857: \begin{figure}[htb] %
858: \begin{center}
859: \rotatebox{-90}{
860: %\includegraphics*[width=0.66\textwidth,viewport=0 0 501 765]{f2.ps}}
861: % This is X20050809121338dynspec.0027-0027.ps
862: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f3.eps}}
863: \caption{ Another example of a ``normal'' main pulse, also processed with
864: optimal dispersion measure. Similarly to the example in Figure
865: \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}, this pulse contains several short-lived
866: microbursts, each of which contains shorter-duration nanoshots.
867: This pulse differs from that in Figure \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} in
868: that its dynamic spectrum does not fade to high frequencies. Total
869: intensity time resolution 6.4 ns; dynamic spectrum resolution
870: 51.2 ns, 19.5 MHz. Spectrum contour levels are 20, 50, 100, and
871: 200 Jy.
872: }
873: \label{fig_normal_MP_2}
874: \end{center}
875: \vspace{-2ex}
876: \end{figure}
877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
878:
879: \begin{figure}[htb]
880: \begin{center}
881: \rotatebox{-90}{
882: %\includegraphics[width=.66\textwidth,viewport=0 0 501 765]{figs/X20050808131254dynspec.0011-0011.ps}}
883: %\includegraphics[width=.66\textwidth,viewport=0 0 501 765]{f3.ps}}
884: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f4.eps}}
885: \caption{An example of a sparse main pulse at 9.25 GHz. The pulse is plotted
886: with the same total intensity and dynamic spectrum resolution as the
887: pulse in Figures \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}.
888: Occasionally nanobursts are
889: sufficiently sparse that individual bursts with relatively narrow
890: bandwidths can be identified, as seen here. The spectrum contour
891: levels are 20, 50, 100, and 200 Jy.}
892: \label{fig_sparse}
893: \end{center}
894: \vspace{-2ex}
895: \end{figure}
896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
897:
898: \begin{figure}[htb]
899: \begin{center}
900: \rotatebox{-90}{
901: %\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{figs/X20060313221800ms_Ivst.0000-0000.ps}}
902: \includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{f5.eps}}
903: \caption{A single main pulse recorded at 9.25-GHz center frequency over a
904: 2.2-GHz bandwidth and optimally dedispersed. The nanopulse shown is
905: unresolved with the 0.4-ns time resolution afforded by our
906: system. Despite the high peak intensity of this pulse, it is
907: unlikely that it saturated the data acquisition system. The
908: dispersion sweep time across the bandwidth is about 1.5 ms, so as
909: sampled by our data acquisition system, the dispersed pulse energy
910: is spread over $\approx 7.5\times 10^6$ samples. }
911: \label{fig_2MJy_pulse}
912: \end{center}
913: \end{figure}
914: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
915:
916: \begin{figure}[htb]
917: \begin{center}
918: \rotatebox{-90}{
919: %\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figs/X20060314230050dynspec.0000-0000.ps}
920: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f6.eps}}
921: \caption{A typical interpulse, observed 12 minutes after
922: the main pulse shown in Figure \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}, and processed
923: identically. The later arrival of bands at lower frequency implies
924: that this pulse is more dispersed than the main pulse in Figure
925: \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}. The spectrum contour levels are 20, 50, 100,
926: 200, 500 Jy. Total intensity time resolution is 51.2 ns; dynamic spectrum
927: resolution is 51.2 ns, 19.5 MHz.}
928: \label{typical_IP_1}
929: \end{center}
930: \end{figure}
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
932:
933:
934: \begin{figure}[htb]
935: \begin{center}
936: \rotatebox{-90}{
937: %\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figs/X20040531165520dynspec.0010-0010.ps}
938: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f7.eps}
939: }
940: \caption{Another interpulse, processed with the ``optimum'' dispersion
941: measure. All three of
942: the pulses shown in Figures \ref{typical_IP_1},
943: \ref{typical_IP_2} and \ref{typical_IP_3} show the emission bands we
944: discovered in the dynamic spectrum of the interpulse. As these examples
945: show, several band sets can be identified within an interpulse. The interpulse
946: usually starts with a short-lived band set, and continues with
947: longer-lived sets, which either start at slightly higher frequencies
948: or drift upwards in frequency. The onset of later band sets often
949: coincides with a second burst in total intensity. As in Figures
950: \ref{fig_normal_MP_1} and \ref{fig_normal_MP_2}, the apparent lack of
951: low-$\nu$ mission is
952: because the sampled bandwidth is slightly larger than the receiver
953: bandwidth. Unlike the main pulse in Figure \ref{fig_normal_MP_1}, however, the
954: band intensity does not fade toward high frequencies. Here and in
955: Figure \ref{typical_IP_3}, the spectrum contour levels are 10, 20, 50, 100,
956: 200 Jy. Total intensity time resolution is 51.2 ns; dynamic
957: spectrum resolution is 51.2 ns, 19.5 MHz.
958: }
959: \label{typical_IP_2}
960: \end{center}
961: \end{figure}
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963:
964:
965: \begin{figure}[htb]
966: \begin{center}
967: \rotatebox{-90}{
968: %\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figs/X20050105031353dynspec.0001-0001.ps}
969: \includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{f8.eps}
970: }
971:
972: \caption{Another example of an interpulse, also processed with ``optimum'' DM
973: and the same time and spectral resolution as in Figures
974: \ref{typical_IP_1} and \ref{typical_IP_2}. }
975: \label{typical_IP_3}
976: \end{center}
977: \end{figure}
978: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
979:
980: \begin{figure}[htb]
981: \begin{center}
982: \rotatebox{-90}{
983: %\includegraphics[width=0.725\columnwidth]{histogram1.ps}
984: \includegraphics[width=0.725\columnwidth]{f9.eps}
985: }
986: \caption{The distribution of time durations of our interpulses, as
987: measured by the equivalent width of the autocorrelation
988: function. Nearly all of the interpulses captured at frequencies between 6 and 8
989: GHz were recorded with a 1-GHz bandwidth; for these pulses we used
990: the full bandwidth in computing the autocorrelation width. These
991: pulses are labeled as 7 GHz in the figure. All of the interpulses between 8
992: and 10.5 GHz were recorded with a 2.5-GHz bandwidth. For these we
993: divided the full band into high and low half-bands, each 1.25-GHz
994: wide, centered at 8.625 and 9.875 GHz, and computed the autocorrelation width
995: separately for each half-band. From the
996: distribution of time durations it is clearly seen that the interpulse
997: autocorrelation equivalent width is frequency dependent. The mean
998: widths are 4.2, 3.0, and 2.7 $\mu$s for 7, 8.6 and 9.9 GHz, respectively.
999: }
1000: \label{IP_widths}
1001: \end{center}
1002: \end{figure}
1003: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1004:
1005: \begin{figure}[htb]
1006: \begin{center}
1007: \rotatebox{-90}{
1008: %\includegraphics[width=0.725\columnwidth]{figs/band_freqsV1.2.ps}}
1009: \includegraphics[width=0.725\columnwidth]{f10.eps}}
1010: \caption{The emission band spacing, measured for 460 band sets in 105
1011: pulses recorded on 20 observing days, is shown as a function of
1012: center frequency. The line is fitted to all of the points, and has
1013: the form $\Delta \nu = 0.058(\pm 0.001)\nu - 0.007 (\pm 0.011)$. }
1014: \label{fig_band_freqs}
1015: \end{center}
1016: \end{figure}
1017:
1018:
1019: \end{document}
1020:
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: