1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{amstext}

6: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: \usepackage{epsfig}

9: 

10: %------------------------------------------

11: % User-defined macros.

12:  

13: \usepackage{color}

14: \definecolor{myColor}{rgb}{0.9,0.9,0.9}    

15: 

16: 

17: %------------------------------------------

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: %\shorttitle{Origin of Short Dips in Sco X-1}

24: %\shortauthors{Jones et al. }

25: \submitted{Submitted to ApJ on September 28, 2007}

26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

27: \title{Production of Millisecond Dips in Sco X-1 Count Rates by

28:  Dead Time Effects}

29: 

30: \author{T. A. Jones\altaffilmark{1}, A. M. Levine \altaffilmark{2},

31:  E. H. Morgan \altaffilmark{2}, and S. Rappaport\altaffilmark{1}}   

32: 

33: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics

34:  and Space Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139; {\tt }}

35: 

36: \altaffiltext{2}{Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research,

37:  MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139; {\tt }}

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: 

40: %\setlength{\parskip}{8pt}

41: 

42: \begin{abstract}

43: 

44: \citet{chang06} reported millisecond duration dips in the X-ray

45: intensity of Sco X-1 and attributed them to occultations of the source

46: by small trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). We have found multiple lines

47: of evidence that these dips are not astronomical in origin, but rather

48: the result of high-energy charged particle events in the {\it RXTE}

49: PCA detectors. Our analysis of the {\it RXTE} data indicates that at

50: most 10\% of the observed dips in Sco X-1 could be due to occultations

51: by TNOs, and, furthermore, we find no positive or supporting evidence

52: for any of them being due to TNOs.  We therefore believe that it is a

53: mistake to conclude that any TNOs have been detected via occultation

54: of Sco X-1.

55: 

56: \end{abstract}

57: 

58: \keywords{X-rays: general, X-rays: individual (Sco X-1), solar system:

59: general, Kuiper Belt}

60: 

61: \section{Introduction}

62: \label{sec:intro}

63: 

64: \citet{chang06} found statistically significant 1-2 millisecond

65: duration dips in the count rate during X-ray observations of the

66: bright X-ray source Sco X-1 carried out with the Proportional Counter

67: Array (PCA) on the {\it Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer} ({\it RXTE}) and

68: attributed them to occultations of the source by small objects

69: orbiting the Sun beyond the orbit of Neptune, i.e., trans-Neptunian

70: objects (TNOs).  In all, \citet{chang06} found some 58 dips in

71: approximately 322 ks of Sco X-1 observations.  Given that the {\it

72: RXTE} spacecraft moves through the diffraction-widened shadows of any

73: TNOs at a velocity of $\sim30$ km s$^{-1}$, dips of $\sim$2 ms

74: duration should correspond to a TNO size of $\sim$60 m.  If the

75: identification of these dips with occultations by TNOs is correct, the

76: dips would provide extremely valuable information on the number and

77: distribution of solar system objects of $\sim20$-100 m in size.  We

78: have found evidence that these dips are produced by electronic

79: dead-time as a result of high-energy charged particle events in the

80: RXTE PCA detectors.  Preliminary reports of our results were given by

81: \citet{tajatel, tajast}; herein we give a more detailed and complete

82: report.

83: 

84: \section{Average Properties of Dips in the Sco X-1 Count Rates}

85: \label{sec:data}

86: 

87: Subsequent to the report by \citet{chang06}, we searched for dips of

88: the type they describe in the archival data obtained in $\sim 880$ ks

89: of {\it RXTE}/PCA observations of Sco X-1. These observations were

90: performed starting in early 1996 soon after the launch of the

91: spacecraft.  For the search we only used observations that provided

92: count rates of events with a time resolution of $\lesssim 0.25$ ms.

93: The total count rate depends on the strength of Sco X-1 at the time of

94: observation as well as on the number of Proportional Counter Units

95: (PCUs) that were operating and the location of the source within the

96: field of view; it ranges from below 40,000 cts s$^{-1}$ to nearly

97: 200,000 cts s$^{-1}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig_pcaexpos}).  

98: 

99: \begin{figure}[htb]

100: %\centering

101: %\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{pcaexpo.ps}

102: %\epsscale{0.7}

103: \plotone{f1.eps}

104: \caption{Cumulative distribution of exposure time as a function of PCA

105: count rate during observations of Sco X-1 which yielded high time

106: resolution data and were used for the present analysis.  The ordinate

107: gives the total exposure time at count rates greater than that of the

108: corresponding rate on the abscissa.  Two-LLD events have been included

109: in the count rates when available (see text).}

110: \label{fig_pcaexpos}

111: \end{figure}

112: 

113: Coincidences within a $\sim10$~$\mu$s window among two or more of the

114: measurement chains in a Proportional Counter Unit (PCU) are normally

115: used to identify charged particle events \citep[see][and references

116: therein, for technical information on the PCA]{pca06}.  However, the

117: intensity of Sco X-1 is so high that there is a substantial count rate

118: due to the detection of two X-ray photons in two distinct regions of

119: the detector serviced by different measurement chains within the

120: 10~$\mu$s window.  For most of the Sco X-1 observations, the rates of

121: such so-called two lower-level discriminator (``2-LLD'') events were

122: telemetered with sub-millisecond time resolution.  In those cases

123: where the 2-LLD event data are available, we add 2 counts for each

124: 2-LLD event to the counts of single LLD events.

125: 

126: In our search, we looked for instances when the number of counts in a

127: time ``window'' that is an integral multiple of 0.25 ms ($2^{-12}$~s

128: to be precise) was less than that reasonably expected to occur given

129: the mean count rate.  The search was performed for each of the seven

130: window intervals of 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 ms. The expected

131: number of counts in each window was determined from the running

132: average count rate in a time interval centered on the time window of

133: 128 ms for the 0.75 and 1 ms windows, 192 ms for the 1.5 ms window, or

134: 256 ms for the 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 ms windows.

135: 

136: Given $N$, the number of counts actually measured in the window, and

137: $N_{exp}$, the expected number of counts in that window based on the

138: running average, we computed $P(n \leq N|N_{exp})$, the probability

139: that $N$ or fewer counts would be detected based on the simplistic

140: assumption that the counts obey a Gaussian distribution with mean

141: $N_{exp}$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{N_{exp}}$.  We define the

142: detection of a dip as any instance in which we found $P(n \leq

143: N|N_{exp}) < 10^{-10}$.  In the search, the same dip could be found

144: multiple times, e.g., in contiguous intervals when it was longer than

145: the window interval or for different window intervals.  We generated a

146: list of 203 dips in which these duplications had been eliminated.  Of

147: these, 196 occur in data in which 2-LLD events had been taken into

148: account. All but three of the 58 dips of \citet{chang06} and all but

149: 14 of the 107 dips identified by \citet{chang07} were identified in

150: our search. Eight of the latter 14 dips were not found by us because

151: we did not search 5 orbits of data that \citet{chang07} searched, and

152: because 6 of the 14 did not meet our significance threshold (perhaps

153: because we included 2-LLD events).  We detected more dips than

154: \citet{chang07} because we included 2-LLD events, because our

155: significance threshold was slightly lower, and possibly because of

156: other minor differences in the searches.

157:  

158: The frequency of occurrence of dips was found to be a function of

159: count rate, and, as one should expect, tended to be higher at the

160: higher count rates.  Given our detection criteria, we found no dips at

161: count rates below 43,000 cts s$^{-1}$ and only three at count rates

162: below 55,000 cts s$^{-1}$.  We searched for dips in data which

163: included approximately 570 ks of observations in which the count rates

164: were above 55,000 cts s$^{-1}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig_pcaexpos}).  For each of

165: the seven window durations, we computed $N$ and $N_{exp}$ for window

166: intervals that started every 0.25 ms. Thus the number of independent

167: trials must be less than $7 \times 570,000/0.00025 \sim 1.6 \times

168: 10^{10}$.  If the actual probability of finding a dip due to a

169: statistical fluctuation in each trial is $\lesssim 10^{-10}$, then at

170: most a few of the 203 dips could be the result of statistical

171: fluctuations.

172: 

173: In every case, the actual probability of getting $N$ or fewer counts

174: differs from our computed value for at least two reasons.  First, the

175: Gaussian distribution we utilized overestimates the probabilities of

176: small numbers of counts by large factors when compared with a Poisson

177: distribution of the same mean.  Second, the intensity of Sco X-1 is

178: time variable, and there is some chance that the mean intensity at the

179: time of a dip was lower than that corresponding to $N_{exp}$.  If

180: source variability was important, our detection procedure would have

181: led to numerous spurious detections, particularly for the longer

182: window durations.  However, only four dip-like events were most

183: significantly detected when using either the 3 or 4 ms window

184: durations.  We further checked the effects of source variability by,

185: first, integrating properly normalized power density spectra of Sco

186: X-1 count rate data over the frequency range of 5-300 Hz, 4-250 Hz,

187: 4-200 Hz, 4-170 Hz, or 4-125 Hz for the 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 ms

188: window durations, respectively. The resulting root-mean-square

189: fractional amplitudes in the given frequency bands are typically

190: $\sim2.5$\% and are almost always less than $\sim4.5$\%.  These

191: variablity estimates for each of the five window durations were then

192: used together with the average count rates on an ({\it RXTE})

193: orbit-by-orbit basis to estimate the effects on the dip detection

194: probabilities.  The results are consistent with the paucity of dips

195: detected most significantly using the 3 ms and 4 ms window durations

196: and indicate that statistical fluctuations in the presence of source

197: variability did not produce more than $\sim5$ spurious detections.

198: 

199: In order to obtain estimates of dip widths and depths, we used the IDL

200: procedure {\it gaussfit} to fit each dip profile with a function

201: $f(t)$ representing a constant count rate plus a Gaussian shaped dip:

202: \begin{equation}

203: f(t) = A - B e^{-(t - t_0)^2/2 \sigma^2}

204: \end{equation}

205: where $A$, $B$, $t_0$, and $\sigma$ were the parameters to be

206: determined.  The values of the fitted widths as parameterized by the

207: values of $\sigma$, and of the fitted minimum normalized count rates,

208: i.e., the values of $1 - B/A$, of the $\sim 200$ dips are shown in

209: Figure~\ref{fig_realwd}.  The key features of this figure are the

210: relatively narrow range of widths and absence of long dips. Nearly all

211: of the events have $0.4 \leq \sigma \leq 0.8$ ms, and there is only

212: one dip with $\sigma > 1.1$ ms.  These aspects of the plot are

213: discussed below (see Section~\ref{sec:disc}).

214: 

215: \begin{figure}[t]

216: %\centering

217: %\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{real_widdep.ps}

218: %\epsscale{0.65}

219: \plotone{f2.eps}

220: \caption[Width and depths for detected dips]{Distribution of fitted

221:  RMS widths and minimum normalized count rates for 203 detected dip

222:  events.  The minimum normalized count rate is the value of the model

223:  count rate at the center of the fitted Gaussian divided by the

224:  average count rate away from the dip.}

225: \label{fig_realwd}

226: \end{figure}

227: 

228: If the counting rate dips are the result of occultations, then we

229: would expect that diffraction effects would produce small count rate

230: increases on either side of the dips. The sizes of these sidelobes and

231: indeed the other details of the dip profiles depend on a number of

232: factors including the sizes, shapes, distances, and velocities of the

233: occulting bodies, the impact parameters characterizing the occultation

234: events, and the velocities of the {\it RXTE} spacecraft at the times

235: the dips were observed.

236: 

237: To quantify our expectations of the average diffraction sidelobe size

238: and other typical properties of dips produced by occultations by TNOs,

239: we performed a Monte Carlo computer simulation of an ensemble of

240: occultation events in which the occulting bodies were assumed to be

241: opaque spheres, to have radii $s$ that follow a distribution

242: $\frac{dN}{ds} \sim s^{-4}$, and to follow prograde circular orbits at

243: a distance of 40 AU from the Sun.  Since the effects of diffraction

244: are wavelength dependent, we took the spectrum of detected X-rays to

245: be that of a typical pulse height spectrum of Sco X-1 measured with

246: the PCA.  The simulation was carried out for each of four cases in

247: which the relative velocity between the spacecraft and the shadows of

248: the occulting bodies was a fixed value, viz. 15, 25, 30, or 35 km

249: $s^{-1}$.

250: 

251: Simulated dip profiles were computed for a large number of

252: occultations with object size and occultation impact parameter chosen

253: at random according to the appropriate distributions. The profiles

254: were normalized to unity at times far from the occultation centers and

255: were then inserted into the real PCA count rate data by multiplying

256: the actual count rates by the dip profiles.  The dip center times were

257: chosen at random among the 880 ks of observations that were used for

258: the present analysis.  These data were then searched for dips using

259: the search algorithm described above.

260: 

261: We fit the detected model dips with the function given by eq. (1). The

262: light curves of the PCA data containing the detected simulated dips

263: were superposed after aligning the dip centroids and rescaling the

264: time scale of each light curve in order to normalize all of the fitted

265: widths to the value $\sigma = 0.85$ ms.  Interpolation of the rescaled

266: bin times to 0.25 ms time bins was required to superpose the rescaled

267: light curves, and, as a consequence, adjacent bins in the

268: superposition are not completely statistically independent.  The

269: results are shown in Figure~\ref{simprof}.

270: 

271: \begin{figure}[t]

272: %\centering

273: %\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{super_model.ps}

274: %\epsscale{0.65}

275: \plotone{f3.eps}

276: \caption[Average simulated inserted dip lightcurves]{Average profile

277: of the 2189 detected 25 km/s model population occultation events.  The

278: profiles are superposed after centering and stretching according to

279: the parameters of the fitted Gaussian curves and have been normalized

280: to the count rates at more than 0.007 s from the dip center.}

281: \label{simprof}

282: \end{figure}

283: 

284: The average profile of the real detected dips was similarly

285: constructed by superposing the PCA light curves of 202 of the 203

286: detected dips after alignment and stretching; the one dip with width

287: $\sigma \sim 2.3$ ms was excluded. The results are shown in

288: Figure~\ref{fig_superpos_202}.  To check this, we also superposed only

289: those 109 dips with fitted widths in a narrow range, i.e., with $0.55$

290: ms $ < \sigma < 0.75$ ms.  The light curves containing those 109 were

291: aligned and summed, but no stretching was done.  The results are shown in

292: Figure~\ref{fig_superpos_109}.

293: 

294: Per the results shown in Fig.~\ref{simprof}, we expected to see

295: sidelobes with intensities as high as $\sim$8\% above the mean count

296: rate determined substantially away from the superposed dips.  The

297: superposed light curves do not exhibit diffraction sidelobes as high

298: as those evident in the average profile of the simulated dips, despite

299: having statistics sufficient to reduce fluctuations to $\sim$1.6\%

300: (1~$\sigma$) of the mean count rate.  While the differences are not

301: sufficiently significant to be conclusive, they strongly suggest there

302: may be a problem with the occultation hypothesis. We elaborate on this

303: in the discussion section below.

304: 

305: \begin{figure}[t]

306: %\centering

307: %\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{super_202.ps}

308: %\epsscale{0.65}

309: \plotone{f4.eps}

310: \caption[Average lightcurve]{Average dip profile of 202 dip events,

311:  normalized to the mean count rate at more than 0.007 s from the dip

312:  center (dashed line). The standard deviation computed for these bins

313:  is 0.016 (1.6\% of the count rate).}

314: \label{fig_superpos_202}

315: \end{figure}

316: 

317: \begin{figure}[b]

318: %\centering

319: %\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{super_109.ps}

320: %\epsscale{0.65}

321: \plotone{f5.eps}

322: \caption[Superposition of 109 events of similar width]{Superposition

323:  of all 109 events with width parameters between 0.55 and 0.75 ms,

324:  with 0.25 ms time bins, normalized to the mean count rate at more

325:  than 0.007 s from the dip center (dashed line).}

326: \label{fig_superpos_109}

327: \end{figure}

328: 

329: Three additional potential problems with the occultation

330: interpretation are manifest from the dip profiles.  First, the summed

331: dip profile is distinctly asymmetric in shape as \citet{chang06}

332: suggested for many of the individual dips.  Second, the distribution

333: of dip widths is narrower than what one would expect from occultations

334: by bodies with a power-law size distribution of index -4, i.e., there

335: are fewer than expected statistically significant dips with Gaussian

336: FWHM widths greater than $\sim1$ ms.  Third, when diffraction effects

337: are taken into consideration, one would expect to see a correlation

338: between the fitted widths and the fitted minimum count rates, such

339: that longer dips tend to be deeper on average.  No such correlation is

340: seen in Figure~\ref{fig_realwd}.

341: 

342: \begin{figure*}   

343: %\centering

344: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{TNO_figure2.ps}

345: \epsscale{0.85}

346: %\plotone{std1simp4.eps}

347: \plotone{f6.eps}

348: \caption{Counts per 1/8-s time bin of different types of PCA detector

349: events superposed, i.e., averaged, around the times of 201 dips.  The

350: data used for this figure were recorded in Standard Mode 1.  The

351: superposition was accomplished such that the bin at $time = 0$~s

352: includes the identified dips.  The counts include events from all

353: (typically 3 to 5) of the operating PCUs. Top panel: good xenon

354: counting rate data. The decrease in counting rate due to the dips is

355: apparent.  The small ($\sim$0.7\%) drop in the counting rate is

356: explained in the text.  Middle panel: counting rate data of SM1-other

357: events that include multiple-LLD events (see text). A highly

358: significant enhancement in the vicinity of the dips is evident.

359: Bottom panel: VLE event rate data superposed around the dip times,

360: also showing a statistically significant peak.  Note that the peak in

361: the VLE event rate is approximately one VLE event per detector per dip

362: event (i.e., $\sim$4 excess events per dip).}

363: 

364: \label{fig:xraylc}

365: \end{figure*}

366:   

367: \section{Search for an Alternate Explanation}

368: \label{sec:expl}

369: 

370: These findings prompted us to further explore alternative explanations

371: for the dips. Only one hypothesis appeared to be worthwhile to pursue,

372: i.e., that the dips are caused by electronic dead time in response to

373: some type of charged particle shower in the spacecraft.

374: Unfortunately, no information with millisecond time resolution was

375: available on the non-X-ray background during the Sco X-1 observations.

376: Counts of good events, very large events (VLEs), propane-layer events,

377: and a catch-all category of other types of events (hereafter SM1-other

378: events) that includes multiple LLD events are available at 1/8 s time

379: resolution from Standard Mode 1; most other types of data are only

380: available with 16-s time resolution.

381: 

382: The VLE flag for a PCU is set when the electronics detect an event in

383: that PCU with energy greater than $\sim$100 keV; this can happen in

384: response to the ionization produced by a single charged particle or to

385: that produced by multiple charged particles which penetrate the

386: detector nearly simultaneously. Such a large event can produce ringing

387: in the front-end of an electronic measurement chain.  Therefore, in

388: response to the occurrence of a VLE, the digital logic shuts down the

389: electronic processing of events in that PCU for a fixed time period,

390: chosen to be 50 $\mu$s for almost all of these Sco X-1

391: observations. In addition, each of the 6 main xenon-layer measuring

392: chains is disabled until its charge drops to an acceptable level. In

393: order for the detector to be shut down for an extended period ($>$

394: 1~ms), an extraordinary amount of charge must be deposited on most of

395: the 6 main measuring chains; it is unclear, at present, whether this

396: can happen in response to a single charged particle.

397: 

398: Figure~\ref{fig:xraylc} shows counts of three different types of

399: events from Standard Mode 1 in 1/8-s time bins superposed around the

400: times of 201 dips.  In each panel, the centers of the dips have been

401: placed in the bin at $time = 0$.  The top panel shows the rates of

402: good events, i.e., those not identified as being due to charged

403: particles, in the main xenon layers of all operating PCUs, and clearly

404: shows the superposed dips; two-LLD events are not included in these

405: rates.  The counting rate drops by only $\sim$0.7\% because of the

406: dilution of a $\sim2$ ms dip within a 128 ms bin.  In contrast, the

407: middle panel shows the {\em enhancement} of the counting rate of

408: SM1-other events in the vicinity of the dips.  The peak is highly

409: significant ($\sim$38 $\sigma$).  The bottom panel corresponds to the

410: VLE event rate superposed around the dip times.  This peak is also

411: statistically very significant ($\sim$7 $\sigma$).  The increase in

412: the VLE rate is nearly so large as to be consistent with the detection

413: of $\sim$1 VLE per PCU per dip.  We discuss this further below.

414: 

415: The enhancements in the SM1-other event and VLE rates around the times

416: of the dips indicate that there is an increase in the rate of

417: detection of non-X-ray events.  We speculate that these non-X-ray

418: events interrupt normal event processing for 1-2 milliseconds in most

419: of the PCUs roughly once per hour due to the collection of very large

420: amounts of charge. Such an energetic event may be the consequence of a

421: particle shower produced by the collision of a high-energy cosmic ray

422: with a nucleus in the {\it RXTE} spacecraft. In any case, further

423: clarification of the causes of the observed dips would be of interest.

424: 

425: \section{Discussion}

426: \label{sec:disc}

427: 

428: The observed dips have widths and depths that are approximately what

429: one might expect to be produced by occultations by TNOs, even though

430: much wider dips would be detectable in principle (given appropriate

431: depths).  Thus we are obligated to seriously consider the hypothesis

432: that some or all of the observed dips are the product of TNO

433: occultations.  However, close examination of the {\em RXTE} PCA data

434: reveals six signatures that independently indicate that few and

435: possibly none of the observed dips are due to occultations by TNOs.

436: The signatures are (1) the numbers of SM1-other events during the

437: dips; (2) the numbers of VLE events during the dips; (3) the absence

438: of the expected diffraction sidelobes; (4) the temporal asymmetry of

439: the dips; (5) the almost total lack of dips longer than $\sim$1 ms;

440: and (6) the lack of correlation between dip duration and depth.  We

441: discuss each of these in turn.

442: 

443: (1) {\bf SM1-Other Events:} Fig.~\ref{fig:xraylc} shows that there is,

444: on average for 201 dips, a large excess of SM1-other events at or near

445: the times of the dips. On average, individual dips should show an

446: excess of SM1-other events at the $2.7\, \sigma$ level.  In

447: Fig.~\ref{fig:otherhist} we show a histogram of the number of

448: SM1-other events in the 1/8-s time bins corresponding to the dips

449: expressed in standard deviations from the mean.  The mean value

450: obtained from the histogram is $\sim2.7\, \sigma$, as expected.

451: 

452: If one makes the reasonable assumption that the numbers of SM1-other

453: events should not be affected by true occultations (other than by

454: negligible increases due to reductions in the electronic dead time),

455: then one may estimate the maximum fraction, $f_{\rm occ}$, of the observed

456: dips that represent genuine occultation events that is consistent with

457: this distribution of SM1-other events.  We constructed the following

458: simple function with which to fit the histogram, and thereby constrain

459: $f_{\rm occ}$:

460: %

461: \begin{equation}

462: {\rm probability} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}f_{\rm occ} 

463: e^{-C^2/2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma_{cr}^2}}(1-f_{\rm occ})e^{-(C- 

464: \overline{C}_{cr})^2/2\sigma_{cr}^2}

465: \end{equation}

466: %

467: where $C$ is the number of excess SM1-other counts (in units of

468: standard deviations of the counts per bin in each PCA light curve),

469: and $\overline{C}_{cr}$ is the mean of $C$ for those dips which are

470: not the results of occultation events and which we take to be

471: $\approx2.7/(1-f_{\rm occ})$.  The distribution of the numbers of excess

472: SM1-other counts is wider than what would be expected from a Poisson

473: distribution with a mean equal to the slightly increased (on average)

474: number of SM1-other events per bin; the width of this component of the

475: fitting function is adjusted by means of the parameter $\sigma_{cr}$.

476: Fits of the function to the histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:otherhist} were

477: carried out with $\chi^2$ fits using both Gaussian and Cash (1979)

478: statistics.  If we neglect the tail of the distribution at high

479: numbers of excess SM1-other events, i.e., at $>9\sigma$, we obtain

480: formally acceptable fits with values of $f_{\rm occ}$ in the range 0.0 to

481: 0.12 and values of $\sigma_{cr}$ in the range 1.85 to 2.35 (based on

482: Gaussian statistics; the limits represent the formal joint 95\%

483: confidence range). Using Cash statistics, we obtain formally

484: acceptable fits with values of $f_{\rm occ}$ in the range 0.0 to 0.11 and

485: values of $\sigma_{cr}$ in the range 1.65 to 2.15 (95\% confidence).

486: These results indicate that fewer than 11\% of the 203 dips might be

487: the product of TNO occultations.

488: 

489: \begin{figure*}   

490: %\centering

491: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{otherhist_fit.ps}

492: \epsscale{0.85}

493: %\plotone{otherhist_fit.ps}

494: \plotone{f7.eps}

495: \caption{Histogram of the numbers of excess SM1-other events in 1/8-s

496: time bins corresponding to the times of 201 of the 203 dips.  The

497: number of excess SM1-other events is given in terms of the square root of

498: the mean number of SM1-other events per bin away from the time of the

499: dip.  The solid smooth curve represents the best fit with $f_{\rm occ} =

500: 0$, $\sigma_{cr} = 2.1$ and the dashed curve represents a formally

501: {\em un}acceptable fit with $f_{\rm occ} = 0.24$, $\sigma_{cr} = 1.8$ (see

502: text). }

503: \label{fig:otherhist}

504: \end{figure*}

505: 

506: (2) {\bf VLE events:} Figure~\ref{fig:xraylc} also shows that there is

507: an excess of VLE events around the times of the dips.  The difference

508: between the background rate and that in the 1/8-s bin containing the

509: dips is very close to 4 (actually $3.9 \pm 0.5$) extra VLE events per

510: dip.  The peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:xraylc} is significant at the $7

511: \sigma$ level.  If there is precisely one VLE per operating PCU for

512: each non-TNO dip, then we would expect on average an excess of 4.67

513: VLEs per non-TNO dip. If only the non-TNO dips contribute to the

514: excess VLE events then there is an upper limit to $f_{\rm occ}$ that is

515: consistent with the observations.  If we further allow that the

516: statistical mean excess number of VLE events per dip may have been as

517: small as 2.9, then a simple calculation gives the limit $f_{\rm occ}

518: \lesssim 0.38$ (95\% confidence). This limit is weaker than for the

519: SM1-other events, and, furthermore, is compromised by the possibility

520: that more than one VLE event could be produced in a operating PCU in a

521: single cosmic-ray induced dip.

522: 

523: (3) {\bf Lack of diffraction sidelobes:} In Fig.~\ref{simprof} we

524: showed an average profile of simulated dips that had been inserted

525: into actual PCA data.  It should be compared to averages of the actual

526: measured dip profiles in Figs.~\ref{fig_superpos_202} and

527: \ref{fig_superpos_109}.  The average model dip profile shows a clear

528: bump of $\sim8$\% amplitude on either side of the dip due to

529: diffraction, whereas the averages of the actual profiles show no

530: significant evidence for diffraction sidelobes.  Thus, we conclude

531: that the fraction $f_{\rm occ}$ of legitimate TNO occultations can be no

532: larger than $\sim$30\%, otherwise diffraction sidelobes likely would

533: have been detected.  Again, while this is a clear strike against the

534: dips being due to TNOs, the limiting statistically significant

535: constraint that can be set due to the lack of diffraction sidelobes is

536: not as significant as for the SM1-other events.

537: 

538: (4) {\bf Asymmetry:} A comparison of the simulated with the actual dip

539: profiles (as in [3]) above, clearly shows a marked asymmetry for the

540: real dip events.  This is physically implausible if the dips are the

541: product of occultation events and therefore testifies against a TNO

542: origin for most of the dip events.  We estimate that the statistical

543: significance of the asymmetry is $\sim 6\,\sigma$.  Unfortunately,

544: there is no direct way to use this information to constrain the

545: fraction of legitimate TNO occultations.  The problem is that we do

546: not know, a priori, how large the asymmetry is, on average, for

547: non-TNO dips.  Therefore, we can not tell how `diluted' the non-TNO

548: events are by potentially real ones.  Nonethless, this marked

549: asymmetry is another solid indication that few of the dips are the

550: product of TNO occultations.

551: 

552: (5) {\bf Lack of dips longer than $\sim$1 ms:} From

553: Fig.~\ref{fig_realwd} we can see that all of the dips, except for a

554: single event, have RMS widths $\sigma < 1.1$ ms.  In

555: Section~\ref{sec:data} we described a computer simulation of the

556: production, detection, and analysis of dips caused by TNO

557: occultations.  For a relative speed between the {\it RXTE} satellite

558: and the shadows of the putative TNOs of $v_{\rm rel} = 25$ km s$^{-1}$ we

559: find that the fraction of recovered simulated dips with $\sigma > 1.1$

560: ms is $\sim$27\%.  For $v_{\rm rel} = 35$ km s$^{-1}$, $9$\% of the dips

561: have $\sigma > 1.1$ ms.  We estimate that the average relative

562: velocity between {\it RXTE} and the shadows of any TNOs was not higher

563: than $v_{\rm rel} \sim 30$ km s$^{-1}$.  For this speed, $16$\% of the

564: dips are characterized by $\sigma > 1.1$ ms.  Therefore, if {\em all}

565: of the dips are the result of TNO occultations the number of

566: longer-duration dips should be $\sim$30, whereas the observed number

567: is actually 1.  On the other hand, if only 15\% of the dips are due to

568: TNO occultations, then we would expect only $\sim 5$ dips with $\sigma

569: > 1.1$ ms.  This expected number is marginally statistically

570: consistent, i.e., at $\sim$5\% confidence, with the detection of one

571: dip with $\sigma > 1.1$ ms.  Therefore, we conclude that the lack of

572: longer dips allows an upper limit of 15\% to be set on the fraction,

573: $f_{\rm occ}$, of potentially real TNO occultations.

574: 

575: (6) {\bf Lack of correlation between width and depth:} If the dips

576: were due to TNO occultations of Sco X-1, we would expect a strong

577: correlation between the widths of the dips and their depths.  This

578: results from the fact that diffraction produces shallow occultations

579: for the smaller size occulters, while it produces deeper more

580: geometric-shadowing-like occultations for the larger occulters.  As

581: can be seen from the distribution of dip widths vs. depths in

582: Fig.~\ref{fig_realwd}, there is no such correlation, with almost all

583: of the dips confined to a narrow range of widths (between 0.4 and 0.8

584: ms) and depths that range all the way from 45\% to nearly 100\%.

585: Thus, the fact that the dips we detect include a significant number,

586: i.e., $\sim$20\%, that are both narrow ($\sigma < 0.7$ ms) and deep

587: (minimum normalized count rate below 0.2) whereas only $\sim2$\% of

588: the `detected' simulated dips (for $v_{\rm rel} \sim 30$ km s$^{-1}$)

589: are this narrow and deep, indicates that $\lesssim10$\% of the dips

590: might be due to TNO occultations.  Given the effects of statistical

591: fluctuations on the observed number of narrow deep dips and the fact

592: that the simulation is based upon somewhat uncertain parameters, it is

593: more reasonable to use these numbers to set an upper limit of

594: $\sim20$\%.

595: 

596: Summarizing the results from approaches (1) through (6) above, we find

597: limits on the fraction of valid TNOs to be $f_{\rm occ} <11\%$, $< 38\%$,

598: $< 30\%$, $< Q\%$, $<15\%$, $<20\%$, respectively, where ``Q'' denotes

599: that a formal limit could not be set, but the approach provides an

600: important independent indication that the dips are, for the most part,

601: not the result of TNO occultations.

602: 

603: We believe that the combined upper limit on $f_{\rm occ}$ due to the joint

604: application of all six approaches is simply the minimum value achieved

605: by the most sensitive of these, i.e., the constraints cannot be

606: combined.  The reason, in short, is that the effects we explore serve

607: only to statistically limit the number of events which could be due to

608: TNOs rather than to identify specific qualifying events.  Therefore,

609: our final limit is simply $f_{\rm occ} \lesssim 10\%$.

610: 

611: One might argue, as did \citet{chang07}, that since $\sim10$\% of the

612: observed dips cannot be formally eliminated as being due to TNOs, they

613: serve as viable potential candidates for TNO detections.  However, we

614: argue that if 90\% of the dips can be securely eliminated as TNO

615: occultations, and there are six different and independent indicators

616: that point in the direction of a common cause due to cosmic ray

617: interactions in the detector, then it is most plausible that {\em all}

618: of the dips have this common origin.

619: 

620: While our results cast serious doubt on whether any true occultation

621: events have been detected, one cannot yet conclude with a high degree

622: of confidence that no such events have been detected. Further

623: investigations of the dip phenomenon and its possible causes would be

624: of interest.  We are working to obtain a new measurement of, or upper

625: limit on, the rate of occurrence of occultations of Sco X-1 by

626: analyzing the data that are being obtained in a new series of {\it

627: RXTE} observations of Sco X-1 with high-time-resolution information on

628: VLE events.

629: 

630: \section{Implications for the Population of TNOs}

631: 

632: Given that we detected 203 dips in data that covered 570 ks of

633: observations with count rates $\gtrsim 55,000$ cts s$^{-1}$, our upper

634: limit on $f_{\rm occ}$ corresponds to an upper limit of $\lesssim20$

635: occultations in the 570 ks of observations.  If we adopt a model of

636: the TNO characteristics, this upper limit of detected TNO occultations

637: can be used to establish an upper limit on the abundance of small

638: TNOs.  For this purpose we use the assumptions and results of our

639: model TNO simulations described above in Section~\ref{sec:data}.

640: 

641: %

642: \begin{figure}[t]

643: %\centering

644: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{pop.ps}

645: %\epsscale{0.85}

646: \plotone{f8.eps}

647: \caption[Summary of measurements of the populations of small

648: TNOs]{Summary of measurements of the cumulative size distribution of

649: small TNOs including the upper limit determined herein from {\it RXTE}

650: PCA observations.  The {\it HST} and the ground-based optical

651: measurements to the right of the {\it HST} point have been adapted

652: from Table 2 of \citet{bern04} by converting limiting R magnitudes to

653: radii by simply scaling from the {\it HST} limiting magnitude which we

654: take to correspond to a radius of 10 km at a distance of 40 AU.  We

655: show error bars that give the ranges of values consistent with Poisson

656: statistics at confidence levels of 90\%. The measurements reported in

657: \citet{roq06} are shown as an upper limit. The line represents a

658: differential size distribution of $\frac{dN}{ds} \propto s^{-4}$.}

659: \label{fig_tno_pop}

660: \end{figure}

661: %

662: 

663: A TNO of radius $s$ appears to sweep out a solid angle per unit time

664: \begin{equation}

665:  \frac{d\Omega}{dt} = \frac{2(s + \delta) v_{\rm rel}}{D^2}

666: \end{equation}

667: where $s + \delta$ is the maximum impact parameter for which this body

668: may produce a detectable dip, $v_{\rm rel}$ is the apparent transverse

669: velocity of the TNO, and $D$ is the distance from Earth to the TNO.

670: We find from our simulations of occultations that, on account of

671: diffraction effects, $\delta \sim 7$ m for the model TNOs in the

672: relevant size range.  We use $v_{\rm rel} \sim 30$ km/s and $D \sim 40$

673: AU.  The solid angle swept out in time $\Delta t$ is

674: \begin{equation}

675:  \Omega_{sw} = \frac{d\Omega}{dt}\Delta t = \frac{2(s + \delta) v_{\rm rel}}{D^2}\,\Delta t .

676: \end{equation}

677: For an ensemble of TNOs of various sizes, the average solid angle

678: swept out per TNO of radius $s > s_{min}$ is then

679: \begin{eqnarray}

680:  \overline{\Omega}_{sw} & = & \frac{1}{N(s > s_{min})}

681:     \int_{s_{min}}^{\infty}\Omega_{sw}(s)\frac{dN}{ds}\,ds \\

682:     & = & \frac{2 v_{\rm rel}\Delta t}{D^2}\,(3 s_{min}/2 + \delta)

683: \end{eqnarray}

684: where we have assumed that the differential size distribution of TNOs

685: is given by $\frac{dN}{ds} \propto s^{-4}$ for $s \gtrsim s_{min}$.

686: In our simulations we find $s_{min} \sim 15$ m.  Using this and the

687: above values, one obtains

688: \begin{equation}

689:  \overline{\Omega}_{sw} \sim 2.8 \times 10^{-14}\, \mathrm{sr} 

690:                         \sim 9 \times 10^{-11}\, \mathrm{deg}^2 .

691: \end{equation}

692: Given that as many as 20 TNOs may have been detected, the upper limit

693: on the areal density of TNOs is then

694: \begin{equation}

695:  N(s \gtrsim 15\,\mathrm{m}) \lesssim \frac{20}{9 \times 10^{-11}\, \mathrm{deg}^2}

696:        \sim 2 \times 10^{11}\, \mathrm{deg}^{-2} .

697: \end{equation}

698: 

699: This upper limit may be compared to previous measurements of the size

700: distribution of TNOs at larger radii.  Figure~\ref{fig_tno_pop}

701: summarizes the results of surveys of TNOs smaller than 1000 km.

702: The smallest TNOs which have been securely detected were found in the

703: Hubble Space Telescope ACS survey reported by \citet{bern04}, in which

704: 3 TNOs of radius $s \gtrsim 10$ km were found in 0.019 square degrees

705: of sky. We also show the population estimates from ground-based surveys

706: that are summarized in Table 2 of \citet{bern04}.

707: 

708: \acknowledgments

709: 

710: We are grateful to Jean Swank for helpful discussions on the technical

711: aspects of the PCA and to Jim Elliot for a number of helpful

712: discussions.

713: 

714: \begin{thebibliography}{}

715: 

716: \bibitem[Bernstein et al.(2004)]{bern04} Bernstein, G.~M., 

717: Trilling, D.~E., Allen, R.~L., Brown, M.~E., Holman, M., \& Malhotra, R.\ 

718: 2004, \aj, 128, 1364 

719: 

720: \bibitem[Cash(1979)]{cash79}

721: Cash, W.\ 1979, \apj, 228, 939 

722: 

723: \bibitem[Chang et al.(2006)]{chang06} Chang, H.-K., King, 

724: S.-K., Liang, J.-S., Wu, P.-S., Lin, L.~C.-C., \& Chiu, J.-L.\ 2006, \nat, 

725: 442, 660 

726: 

727: %%\bibitem[]{}Chang et al. Nature, 442, 7103, 660, 2006. 

728: 

729: \bibitem[Chang et al.(2007)]{chang07} Chang, H.-K., Liang, 

730: J.-S., Liu, C.-Y., \& King, S.-K.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, 

731: arXiv:astro-ph/0701850 

732: 

733: \bibitem[Jahoda et al.(2006)]{pca06} Jahoda, K., Markwardt, 

734: C.~B., Radeva, Y., Rots, A.~H., Stark, M.~J., Swank, J.~H., Strohmayer, 

735: T.~E., \& Zhang, W.\ 2006, \apjs, 163, 401 

736: 

737: \bibitem[Jones et al.(2006)]{tajatel} Jones, T.~A., Levine, 

738: A.~M., Morgan, E.~H., \& Rappaport, S.\ 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, 

739: 949, 1 

740: 

741: \bibitem[Jones et al.(2007)]{tajast} Jones, T.~A., Levine, A.~M.,

742: Morgan, E.~H., \& Rappaport, S.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,

743: arXiv:astro-ph/0612129v2

744: 

745: \bibitem[Roques et al.(2006)]{roq06} Roques, F., et al.\ 

746: 2006, \aj, 132, 819 

747: 

748: %% TAOS

749: %\bibitem[Chen et al.(2007)]{2007IAUS..236...65C} Chen, W.~P., et al.\ 2007, 

750: %IAU Symposium, 236, 65 

751: 

752: \end{thebibliography}

753: 

754: 

755: \end{document}

756: