1: % Updated SC 20070815

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

3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

4: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

5: 

6: 

7: \documentclass{mn2e}

8: %\documentclass[referee]{mn2e}

9: 

10: 

11: \usepackage{psfig}

12:   

13: \def\lta{\la}

14: \def\gta{\ga}

15: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}

16: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}

17: \def\cha{\em Chandra}

18: \def\sw{\em Swift}

19: \def\xmm{\em XMM}

20: 

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: \setlength\topmargin{-3.3pc}

25:  

26: \title[How rapidly do neutron stars spin at birth?]{How rapidly do

27: neutron stars spin at birth? Constraints from archival X-ray observations

28: of extragalactic supernovae}

29: 

30: \author[Perna et al.]

31: {Rosalba Perna$^{1}$, 

32: Roberto Soria$^{2}$,

33: Dave Pooley$^{3}$,

34: Luigi Stella$^{4}$\\

35: $^1$ {\sl JILA and Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University

36: of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309}\\

37: $^2$ {\sl MSSL, University College London, Holmbury St mary, Dorking RH5 6NT, UK }\\

38: $^3$ {\sl Astronomy Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison

39: 475 North Charter st., Madison, WI 53706, USA }\\

40: $^4$ {\sl INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via Frascati 33, I-00040 Rome, Italy}\\}

41: 

42: \maketitle

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: 

46: Traditionally, studies aimed at inferring the distribution of birth

47: periods of neutron stars are based on radio surveys.  Here we propose

48: an independent method to constrain the pulsar spin periods at birth

49: based on their X-ray luminosities.  In particular, the observed

50: luminosity distribution of supernovae poses a constraint on the

51: initial rotational energy of the embedded pulsars, via the

52: $L_X-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ correlation found for radio pulsars, and under

53: the assumption that this relation continues to hold beyond the

54: observed range.  We have extracted X-ray luminosities (or limits) for

55: a large sample of historical SNe observed with {\em Chandra}, {\em

56: XMM} and {\em Swift}, that have been firmly classified as

57: core-collapse supernovae. We have then compared these observational

58: limits with the results of Monte Carlo simulations of the pulsar X-ray

59: luminosity distribution, for a range of values of the birth

60: parameters. We find that a pulsar population dominated by millisecond

61: periods at birth is ruled out by the data.

62: 

63: \end{abstract}

64: 

65: 

66: \section{Introduction}

67: 

68: 

69: Modeling the observed properties of the Galactic population of radio

70: pulsars, with the purpose of inferring their intrinsic properties, has

71: been the subject of extensive investigation for several decades

72: (e.g. Gunn \& Ostriker 1970; Phinney \& Blandford 1981; Lyne et

73: al. 1985; Stollman 1987; Emmering \& Chevalier 1989; Narayan \&

74: Ostriker 1990; Lorimer et al. 1993; Hartman et al. 1997; Cordes \&

75: Chernoff 1998; Arzoumanian, Cordes \& Chernoff 2002; Vranesevic et al

76: 2004; Faucher-Giguere \& Kaspi 2006; Ferrario \& Wickramasinghe 2006).

77: Since the fraction of pulsars that can be detected close to their

78: birth constitutes a negligible fraction of the total sample, these

79: studies generally use the {\em present day} observed properties of

80: pulsars (namely their period $P$ and period derivative $\dot{P}$),

81: together with some assumptions about their time evolution, to

82: reconstruct the birth distribution of periods and magnetic fields for

83: the pulsar population. These analyses also need to make

84: assumptions about pulsar properties and their evolution (such as, for example,

85: the exact shape of the radio beam and its dependence on the period),

86: as well as overcome a number of selection effects.  Results from

87: various investigations have often been conflicting, with some studies

88: favoring initial periods in the millisecond range (e.g. Arzoumanian

89: et al. 2002), and others instead finding more likely periods in the

90: range of several tens to several hundreds of milliseconds

91: (e.g. Faucher-Giguere \& Kaspi 2006). The efforts put over the

92: years into this area of research stem from the fact that the birth

93: properties of neutron stars (NSs) are intimately related to the

94: physical processes occurring during the supernova (SN) explosion and in the

95: proto-neutron star. As such, they bear crucial information on the

96: physics of core-collapse SNe, in which most are thought to be formed.  

97: 

98: Besides the inferences on the birth parameters from the radio

99: population discussed above, we show here that constraints can be

100: derived also from the X-rays.  Young, fast rotating neutron stars are

101: indeed expected to be very bright in the X-rays. In fact,

102: observationally there appears to be a correlation between the

103: rotational energy loss of the star, $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, and its X-ray

104: luminosity, $L_x$. This correlation was noticed by Verbunt et

105: al. (1996), Becker \& Trumper (1997), Seward \& Wang (1988), Saito

106: (1998) for a small sample of objects, and later studied by Possenti et

107: al. (2002; P02 in the following) for the largest sample of pulsars

108: known to date.

109: 

110: Combining the birth parameters derived from the radio (which determine

111: the birth distribution of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ for the pulsars), with

112: the empirical $L_x - \dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ correlation, the distribution

113: of X-ray luminosity can be predicted for a sample of pulsars with a

114: certain age distribution.  The above calculation was performed by

115: Perna \& Stella (2004). They found that the birth parameters derived

116: by Arzoumanian et al. (2002), together with the $L_x - \dot{E}_{\rm

117: rot}$ correlation derived by P02, yield a sizable fraction of sources

118: with luminosities $\ga 10^{39}$ erg/s, which could hence constitute

119: potential contributors to the observed population of ultra luminous

120: X-ray sources (ULXs) observed in nearby galaxies (e.g. Fabbiano \&

121: White 2003; Ptak \& Colbert 2004). Obviously, these predictions were

122: heavily dependent on the assumed initial birth parameters (the periods

123: especially) of the pulsar population.

124: 

125: In this paper, we propose a new, independent method to constrain the

126: pulsar spin periods at birth from X-ray observations, and hence also

127: assess the contribution of young, fast rotating NSs to the population

128: of bright X-ray sources.  Since neutron stars are born in supernova

129: explosions, and very young pulsars are still embedded in their

130: supernovae, the X-ray luminosity of the SNe provides an upper limit to

131: the luminosity of the embedded pulsars.  We have analyzed an extensive

132: sample of historical SNe whose position has been observed by {\em

133: Chandra}, {\em XMM} or {\em Swift}, and studied their X-ray

134: counterparts. We measured their X-ray luminosities, or derived a limit

135: on them in the cases of no detection.  A comparison between these

136: limits and the theoretical predictions for the distribution of pulsar

137: X-ray luminosities shows that, if the assumed initial spins are in the

138: millisecond range, the predicted distribution of pulsar X-ray

139: luminosities via the $L_x - \dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ correlation is highly

140: inconsistent with the SN data.  Our analysis hence suggests that a

141: substantial fraction of pulsars cannot be born with millisecond

142: periods.

143: 

144: The paper is organized as follows: in \S2, we describe the method by

145: which the SN X-ray flux measurements and limits are extracted, while

146: in \S3 we describe the theoretical model for the distribution of the

147: X-ray luminosity of young pulsars.  A comparison between the

148: theoretical predictions and the data is performed in \S4, while the

149: results are summarized and discussed in \S5.

150: 

151: \section{X-ray analysis of historical Supernovae observed by {\em Chandra},

152: {\em XMM} and {\em Swift}}

153: 

154: 

155: We compared and combined the CfA List of

156: Supernovae\footnote{http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html,

157: compiled by The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams at the

158: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.}, the Padova-Asiago

159: Catalogue\footnote{http://web.pd.astro.it/supern/snean.txt}, the

160: Sternberg Catalogue\footnote{VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/256}

161: (Tsvetkov et al. 2004), and Michael Richmond's Supernova

162: Page\footnote{http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/sne/sn.list}, to

163: create a list of unambiguosly identified core-collapse SNe (updated to

164: 2007 April). We cross-correlated the SN positions with the catalogues

165: of {\it Chandra}/ACIS, {\it XMM-Newton}/EPIC and {\it Swift}/XRT

166: observations\footnote{Search form at http://heasarc.nasa.gov}, to

167: determine which SN fields have been observed by recent X-ray missions

168: ({\it ASCA} was excluded because of its low spatial resolution, and

169: {\it ROSAT} because of its lack of 2--10 keV sensitivity). For the

170: {\it Chandra} ACIS-S data, we limited our search to the S3 chip.  We

171: obtained a list of $\sim 200$ core-collapse SNe whose positions

172: happened to be in a field observed at least once after the event.

173: From the list, we then selected for this paper all the core collapse

174: SNe with unambiguos subtype classification (Type Ib/c, Type IIn, IIL,

175: and IIP and IIb).  That is about half of the total sample.  We leave

176: the analysis of the other $\sim 100$ SNe (classified generically as

177: Type II) to a follow-up paper.

178: 

179: 

180: \setcounter{table}{0}

181: \begin{table*}

182: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}

183: SN & Host galaxy & Type & Age (yr) & $L_{2-10\;keV} (\rm erg/s)$ & Instrument & Observation date\\

184: \hline

185: 1923A & N5236 &IIP&77.3& $<6.0\times 10^{35}$ & ACIS & 2000-04-29, 2001-09-04\\

186: 1926A & N4303 &IIP&75.3& $<1.4\times 10^{37}$ & ACIS & 2001-08-07 \\

187: 1937A & N4157 &IIP&67.3& $<1.3\times 10^{37}$ & EPIC  & 2004-05-16\\

188: 1937F & N3184 &IIP&62.1& $<2.7\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2000-01-08, 2000-02-03\\

189: 1940A & N5907 &IIL&63.0& $<1.0 \times 10^{37}$ & EPIC & 2003-02-20, 2003-02-28\\

190: 1940B & N4725 &IIP&62.6& $<8.6\times 10^{36}$ & ACIS & 2002-12-02\\

191: 1941A & N4559 &IIL&60.2& $<5.5\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2001-01-14, 2001-06-04, 2002-03-14\\

192: 1948B & N6946 &IIP&55.1& $<4.7\times 10^{35}$& ACIS & 2001-09-07, 2002-11-25, 2004-10-22, 2004-11-06, 2004-12-03\\

193: 1954A & N4214 &Ib & 48.9& $<1.6 \times 10^{35}$& ACIS & 2003-03-09\\

194: 1959D & N7331 &IIL&41.6& $<2.2\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2001-01-27\\

195: 1961V & N1058 &IIn&38.3& $<6.1\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-03-20\\

196: 1962L & N1073 &Ic &41.2& $< 4.7 \times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2004-02-09\\

197: 1962M & N1313 &IIP&40.3& $<3.7\times 10^{35}$& ACIS & 2002-10-13, 2002-11-09, 2003-10-02, 2004-02-22\\

198: 1965H & N4666 &IIP&37.7& $<1.5\times 10^{38}$ & ACIS & 2003-02-14\\

199: 1965L & N3631 &IIP&37.8& $<5.7\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2003-07-05\\

200: 1968L & N5236 &IIP&32.0& $< 1.5\times 10^{36}$ & ACIS & 2000-04-29, 2001-09-04\\ 

201: 1969B & N3556 &IIP&32.6& $<3.8\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2001-09-08\\

202: 1969L & N1058 &IIP&30.3& $<4.8\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-03-20\\

203: 1970G & N5457 &IIL&33.9& $<4.9\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2004-07-05, 2004-07-11\\

204: 1972Q & N4254 &IIP&30.5& $<3.0\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2003-06-29\\

205: 1972R & N2841 &Ib &31.9& $< 7.3\times 10^{35}$& EPIC & 2004-11-09\\

206: 1973R & N3627 &IIP&25.9& $<7.7\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 1999-11-03\\

207: %1975B &Ib/Ic &27 & $< 3.8\times 10^{38}$\\ 

208: 1976B & N4402 &Ib& 26.2& $<8.9\times 10^{37}$& EPIC & 2002-07-01\\

209: 1979C & N4321 &IIL&26.8& $2.7^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2006-02-18\\

210: 1980K & N6946 &IIL&24.0& $<6.5\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2004-10-22, 2004-11-06, 2004-12-03\\

211: 1982F & N4490 &IIP&22.6& $<1.1\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2004-07-29, 2004-11-20\\

212: 1983E & N3044 &IIL&19.0& $<4.6\times 10^{37}$& EPIC & 2001-11-24, 2002-05-10\\

213: 1983I & N4051 &Ic &17.8 & $< 1.7\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2001-02-06\\

214: 1983N & N5236 &Ib &16.8& $< 5.5\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2000-04-29\\

215: 1983V & N1365 &Ic &19.1& $< 7.0\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2002-12-24\\

216: 1985L & N5033 &IIL&14.9& $<8.1\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-04-28\\

217: 1986E & N4302 &IIL&19.6& $1.4^{+0.5}_{-0.5}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2005-12-05\\

218: 1986I & N4254 &IIP&17.1& $<3.0\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2003-06-29\\

219: 1986J & N891  &IIn&21.2 & $8.5^{+0.5}_{-0.5}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2003-12-10\\

220: 1986L & N1559 &IIL&18.9& $<1.4\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2005-08-10, 2005-10-12\\

221: 1987B & N5850 &IIn&14.1& $< 1.5\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2001-01-25, 2001-08-26\\

222: 1988A & N4579 &IIP&12.3& $<2.4\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-05-02\\

223: 1988Z & MCG+03-28-22 &IIn&15.5& $2.9^{+0.5}_{-0.5}\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2004-06-29\\

224: 1990U & N7479 & Ic & 10.9 & $1.1^{+0.6}_{-0.5}\times 10^{39}$& EPIC & 2001-06-19\\

225: 1991N & N3310 &Ib/Ic &11.8& $<4.2\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2003-01-25\\

226: 1993J & N3031 & IIb & 8.1 & $< 1.0 \times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2001-04-22\\

227: 1994I & N5194& Ic & 8.2 & $8.0^{+0.3}_{-0.7}\times 10^{36}$& ACIS & 2000-06-20, 2001-06-23, 2003-08-07\\

228: 1994ak & N2782 &IIn&7.4& $< 3.7\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2002-05-17\\

229: 1995N & MCG-02-38-17 &IIn&8.9& $4.3^{+1.0}_{-1.0}\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2004-03-27\\

230: 1996ae & N5775 &IIn&5.9& $< 6.1\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2002-04-05\\

231: 1996bu & N3631 &IIn&6.6& $<2.1\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2003-07-05\\

232: 1996cr & ESO97-G13 &IIn&4.2& $1.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2000-03-14\\

233: 1997X & N4691 &Ic&6.1& $< 2.2\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2003-03-08\\

234: 1997bs & N3627 &IIn&2.5& $<2.9\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 1999-11-03\\

235: 1998S & N3877 &IIn&3.6& $3.8^{+0.5}_{-0.5}\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2001-10-17\\

236: 1998T & N3690 &Ib&5.2& $< 2.0\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2003-04-30\\

237: 1998bw & ESO184-G82 & Ic & 3.5 & $4.0^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2001-10-27\\

238: 1999dn & N7714 &Ib&4.4& $<5.9\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2004-01-25\\

239: 1999ec & N2207 &Ib& 5.9& $3.1^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times 10^{39}$& EPIC & 2005-08-31\\

240: 1999el & N6951 &IIn&5.6& $< 5.6\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2005-04-30, 2005-06-05\\

241: 1999em & N1637 &IIP&1.0& $<1.4 \times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-10-30\\

242: 1999gi & N3184 &IIP&0.10& $2.6^{+0.6}_{-0.6}\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2000-01-08, 2000-02-03\\

243: 2000P & N4965 &IIn&7.2& $< 1.2\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2007-05-16\\

244: 2000bg & N6240 &IIn&1.3& $<1.4\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2001-07-29\\

245: 2001ci & N3079 &Ic &2.5& $< 5.0\times 10^{37}$& EPIC & 2003-10-14\\

246: 2001du & N1365 &IIP&1.3& $<3.8\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2002-12-24\\

247: 2001em & UGC11794 &Ib/Ic & 4.7 & $5.8^{+1.2}_{-1.2}\times 10^{40}$& EPIC & 2006-06-14\\

248: 2001gd & N5033 & IIb&1.1 & $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.3}\times 10^{39}$& EPIC & 2002-12-18\\

249: 2001ig & N7424 &IIb&0.50 &$3.5^{+2.0}_{-2.0}\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2002-06-11\\

250: 

251: \end{tabular}

252: \end{table*}

253: 

254: 

255: \begin{table*}

256: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}

257: SN & Host galaxy & Type & Age (yr) & $L_{2-10\;keV} (\rm erg/s)$& Instrument & Observation date\\

258: \hline

259: 2002ap & N628 &Ic&0.92& $< 3.1\times 10^{36}$& EPIC & 2003-01-07\\

260: 2002fj & N2642 &IIn&4.7& $<1.3\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2007-05-11\\

261: 2002hf & MCG-05-3-20 &Ic&3.1& $<7.6\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2005-12-19\\

262: 2003L & N3506 &Ic&0.08 &$7.7^{+1.5}_{-1.5}\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2003-02-10\\

263: 2003ao & N2993 &IIP&0.016& $5.6^{+1.2}_{-1.2}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2003-02-16\\

264: 2003bg & MCG-05-10-15 &Ic/IIb&0.33 & $5.3^{+1.3}_{-0.8}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2003-06-22\\

265: 2003dh & Anon. &Ic &0.71& $< 5.0 \times 10^{40}$& EPIC & 2003-12-12\\

266: 2003jd & MCG-01-59-21 &Ic &0.041& $< 3.0 \times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2003-11-10\\

267: 2003lw & Anon. &Ic&0.34& $7.0^{+3}_{-3}\times 10^{40}$& ACIS & 2004-04-18\\

268: 2004C & N3683 &Ic &3.1& $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2007-01-31\\

269: 2004dj & N2403 &IIP&0.34& $1.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}\times 10^{37}$& ACIS & 2004-12-22\\

270: 2004dk & N6118 &Ib& 0.030& $1.5^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times 10^{39}$& EPIC & 2004-08-12\\

271: 2004et & N6946 & IIP & 0.18 & $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2004-10-22, 2004-11-06, 2004-12-03\\  

272: 2005N & N5420 &Ib/Ic &0.50 & $< 1.0\times 10^{40}$& XRT & 2005-07-17\\

273: 2005U & Anon. &IIb &0.041& $< 1.1 \times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2005-02-14\\

274: 2005at & N6744 &Ic&1.7& $< 3.0\times 10^{38}$& XRT & 2006-10-31\\

275: 2005bf & MCG+00-27-5 &Ib&0.58& $< 6.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2005-11-07\\

276: 2005bx & MCG+12-13-19 &IIn&0.25& $<1.0\times 10^{39}$& ACIS & 2005-07-30\\

277: 2005da & UGC11301 &Ic&0.098& $<5.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2005-08-23\\

278: 2005db & N214 &IIn&0.036& $<2.0\times 10^{39}$&EPIC & 2005-08-01\\

279: 2005ek & UGC2526 &Ic &0.041& $< 4.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2005-10-07\\

280: 2005gl & N266 &IIn&1.6& $<3.4\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2007-06-01\\

281: 2005kd & Anon. &IIn&1.2& $2.6^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times 10^{41}$& ACIS & 2007-01-24\\

282: 2006T & N3054 &IIb &0.0082& $< 6.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2006-02-02\\

283: 2006aj & Anon. &Ic & 0.43& $< 7.0 \times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2006-07-25\\

284: 2006bp & N3953 &IIP&0.058& $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}\times 10^{38}$& EPIC & 2006-04-30\\  

285: 2006bv & UGC7848 &IIn&0.0082& $<1.2\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2006-05-01\\

286: 2006dn & UGC12188 &Ib&0.033& $< 2.5\times 10^{40}$& XRT & 2006-07-17\\

287: 2006gy & N1260 &IIn&0.16& $<2.0\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2006-11-15\\

288: 2006jc & UGC4904 &Ib&0.068& $2.1^{+0.6}_{-0.6}\times 10^{38}$& ACIS & 2006-11-04\\

289: 2006lc & N7364 &Ib/Ic &0.016& $< 2.0\times 10^{40}$& XRT & 2006-10-27\\

290: 2006lt & Anon. &Ib&0.068& $< 4.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2006-11-05\\

291: 2007C & N4981 &Ib &0.022& $<3.0\times 10^{40}$& XRT & 2007-01-15\\

292: 2007D & UGC2653 &Ic &0.025& $< 3.0\times 10^{40}$& XRT & 2007-01-18\\

293: 2007I & Anon. &Ic &0.016& $< 9.0\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2007-01-20\\

294: 2007bb & UGC3627 &IIn&0.022& $<4.4\times 10^{39}$& XRT & 2007-04-10\\

295: 

296: \hline

297: 

298: \end{tabular}

299: \caption{X-ray measurements and upper limits for our sample of

300:   historical supernovae. When more than one observation was used 

301: for a given source, the age is an average of three epochs weighted 

302: by their exposure lengths. The instrument ACIS is on-board {\em Chandra}, EPIC on {\em XMM-Newton}

303: and XRT on {\em Swift}.}

304: \end{table*}

305: 

306: 

307: We retrieved the relevant X-ray datasets from the public archives of

308: those three missions. The optical position of each SN in our sample is

309: well known, to better than $1\arcsec$: this makes it easier to

310: determine whether a SN is detected in the X-ray band (in particular

311: for {\it Chandra}), even with a very low number of counts, at a level

312: that would not be considered significant for source detection in a

313: blind search. For the {\it Chandra} observations, we applied standard

314: data analysis routines within the Chandra Interactive Analysis of

315: Observations ({\small CIAO}) software

316: package\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao} version 3.4.  Starting

317: from the level-2 event files, we defined a source region (radius

318: $2\farcs5$, comprising $\approx 95\%$ of the source counts at 2 keV,

319: on axis, and proportionally larger extraction radii for off-axis

320: sources) and suitable background regions not contaminated by other

321: sources and at similar distances from the host galaxy's nucleus. For

322: each SN, we extracted source and background counts in the $0.3$--$8$

323: keV band with {\it dmextract}.  In most cases, we are dealing with a

324: very small number of counts (e.g., 2 or 3, inside the source

325: extraction region) and there is no excess of counts at the position of

326: the SN with respect to the local background. In these cases, we

327: calculated the 90\% upper limit to the number of net counts with the

328: Bayesian method of Kraft et al. (1991). We then converted this net

329: count-rate upper limit to a flux upper limit with

330: WebPimms\footnote{http://heasarc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html and

331: http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp  },

332: assuming a power-law spectral model with photon index $\Gamma = 2$ and

333: line-of-sight Galactic column density.  The choice of a power-law

334: spectral model is motivated by our search for X-ray emission from an

335: underlying pulsars rather than from the SN shock wave. In a few cases,

336: there is a small excess of counts at the SN position: we then also

337: built response and auxiliary response functions (applying {\it

338: psextract} in {\small CIAO}), and used them to estimate a flux,

339: assuming the same spectral model. When possible, for sources with

340: $\approx 20$--$100$ net counts, we determined the count rates

341: separately in the soft ($0.3$--$1$ keV), medium ($1$--$2$ keV) and

342: hard ($2$--$8$ keV) bands, and used the hard-band rates (essentially

343: uncontaminated by soft thermal-plasma emission, and unaffected by the

344: uncertainty in the column density and by the degradation of the ACIS-S

345: sensitivity) alone to obtain a more stringent value or upper limit to

346: the non-thermal power-law emission. Very few sources have enough

347: counts for a two-component spectral fit (mekal thermal plasma plus

348: power-law): in those cases, we used the 2-10 keV flux from the

349: power-law component alone in the best-fitting spectral model. For those

350: spectral fits, we used the {\small XSPEC} version 12 software package

351: (Arnaud 1996).

352: 

353: When we had to rely on {\it XMM-Newton}/EPIC data, we followed

354: essentially the same scheme: we estimated source and background count

355: rates (this time, using a source extraction circle with a $20\arcsec$

356: radius) in the full EPIC pn and MOS bands ($0.3$--$12$ keV) and, when

357: possible, directly in the $2$--$10$ keV band. The count rate to flux

358: conversion was obtained with WebPimms (with a $\Gamma=2$ power-law

359: model absorbed by line-of-sight column density) or through full

360: spectral analysis for sources with enough counts.  We used standard

361: data analysis tasks within the Science Analysis System ({\small SAS})

362: version 7.0.0 (for example, {\it xmmselect} for source extraction).

363: All three EPIC detectors were properly combined, both when we

364: estimated count rates, and when we did spectral fitting, to increase

365: the signal-to-noise ratio.  In fact, in almost all cases in which a

366: source position had been observed by both {\it Chandra} and {\it

367: XMM-Newton}, {\it Chandra} provided a stronger constraint to the flux,

368: because of its much narrower point-spread function and lower

369: background noise. The {\it Swift} data were analyzed using the Swift

370: Software version 2.3 tools and latest calibration products. Source

371: counts were extracted from a circular region with an aperture of

372: $20\arcsec$ radius centered at the optical positions of the SNe.  In

373: some cases, Swift observations referred to a Gamma ray burst (GRB)

374: associated to a core-collapse SN: we did not obviously consider the

375: GRB flux for our population analysis. Instead, for those cases, we

376: considered the most recent {\it Swift} observation after the GRB had

377: faded, and used that to determine an upper limit to a possible pulsar

378: emission. We only considered {\it Swift} observations deep enough to

379: detect or constrain the residual luminosity to $\la 10^{40}$ erg

380: s$^{-1}$.

381: 

382: In some cases, two or more {\it Chandra} or {\it XMM-Newton}

383: observations of the same SN target were found in the archive.  If they

384: were separated by a short interval in time (much shorter than the time

385: elapsed from the SN explosion), we merged them together, to increase

386: the detection threshold. The reason we can do this is that we do not

387: expect the underlying pulsar luminosity to change significantly

388: between those observations. However, when the time elapsed between

389: observations was comparable to the age of the SN, we attributed

390: greater weight to the later observations, for our flux

391: estimates.  The reason is that the thermal X-ray emission from the

392: shocked gas tends to decline more rapidly (over a few months or years)

393: than the non-thermal pulsar emission (timescale $\ga$ tens of

394: years). More details about the data analysis and the luminosity and

395: color/spectral properties of individual SNe in our sample will be

396: presented elsewhere (Pooley et al. 2008, in preparation). Here, we are

397: mainly interested in a population study to constrain the possible

398: presence and luminosity of high-energy pulsars detectable in the

399: $2$--$10$ keV band.

400: 

401: While this is, to the best of our knowledge, the first X-ray

402: search for pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) in extragalactic SNe, and the first work that uses

403: these data to set statistical constraints on the properties of the

404: embedded pulsars, it should be noted that the possibility of

405: observing pulsars in young SNe (a few years old) was originally

406: discussed, from a theoretical point of view, by Chevalier \& Fransson

407: (1992).  Furthermore, searches for PWNe in extragalactic SNe have been

408: performed in the radio (Reynolds \& Fix 1987; Bartel \& Bietenholz

409: 2005).  Observationally, however, clear evidence for pulsar activity

410: in SNe has been lacking.  The radio emission detected in some SNe,

411: although initially ascribed to pulsar activity (Bandiera, Pacini \&

412: Salvati 1984), was later shown to be well described as the result of

413: circumstellar interaction (Lundqvist \& Fransson 1988). There is

414: however a notable exception, that is SN 1986J, for which the observed

415: temporal decline of the H$_\alpha$ luminosity (Rupen et al. 1987) has

416: been considered suggestive of a pulsar energy input (Chevalier 1987).

417: As noted by Chevalier (1989), a possible reason for the apparent

418: low-energy input in some cases could be the fact that the embedded

419: neutron stars were born with a relatively long period. The present

420: work allows us to make a quantitative assessment on the typical

421: minimum periods allowed for the bulk of the NS population.

422: The list of SNe, their measured fluxes and their ages (at the time

423: of observation) are reported in Table~1. 

424: 

425: \section{Theoretical expectations for the X-ray luminosity of young pulsars}

426: 

427: Most isolated neutron stars are X-ray emitters throughout all their

428: life: at early times, their X-ray luminosity is powered by rotation

429: (e.g. Michel 1991; Becker \& Trumper 1997); after an age of $\sim 10^3

430: - 10^4$ yr, when the star has slowed down sufficiently, the main X-ray

431: source becomes the internal heat of the star\footnote{In the case

432: of magnetars, this internal heat is provided by magnetic field decay,

433: which dominates over all other energy losses.}, and finally, when this

434: is exhausted, the only possible source of X-ray luminosity would be

435: accretion by the interstellar medium, although to a very low

436: luminosity level, especially for the fastest stars (e.g. Blaes \&

437: Madau 1993; Popov et al. 2000; Perna et al. 2003).  Another possible

438: source of X-ray luminosity that has often been discussed in the

439: context of NSs is accretion from a fallback disk (Colgate 1971; Michel

440: \& Dressler 1981; Chevalier 1989; Yusifov et al. 1995; Chatterjee et

441: al. 2000; Alpar 2001; Perna et al. 2000).  Under these circumstances,

442: accretion would turn off magnetospheric emission, and X-ray radiation

443: would be produced as the result of accretion onto the surface of the

444: star. For a disk to be able to interfere with the magnetosphere and

445: accrete, the magnetospheric radius $R_m\sim 6.6\times 10^7

446: B_{12}^{4/7} \dot{m}^{-2/7}$~cm (with $\dot{m}^{-2/7}$ being the

447: accretion rate in Eddington units, and $B_{12}\equiv B/(10^{12} {\rm

448: G})$) must be smaller than the corotation radius $R_{\rm cor}\sim

449: 1.5\times 10^8 P^{2/3} (M/M_\odot)^{1/3}$ cm.  If, on the other hand,

450: the magnetospheric radius resides outside of the corotation radius,

451: the propeller effect (Illarionov \& Sunyaev 1975) takes over and

452: inhibits the penetration of material inside the magnetosphere, and

453: accretion is (at least largely) suppressed.  For a typical pulsar

454: magnetic field $B_{12}\sim 5$, the magnetospheric radius becomes

455: comparable to the corotation radius for a period $P\sim 1$ s and an

456: Eddington accretion rate. If the infalling material does not possess

457: sufficient angular momentum, however, a disk will not form, but infall

458: of the bound material from the envelope is still likely to proceed,

459: albeit in a more spherical fashion. The accretion rate during the

460: early phase depends on the details of the (yet unclear) explosion

461: mechanism. Estimates by Chevalier (1989) yield values in the range

462: $3\times 10^{-4}$--$2\times 10^2 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$.  In order for the

463: pulsar mechanism to be able to operate, the pressure of the pulsar

464: magnetic field must overcome that of the spherical infall. For the

465: accretion rates expected at early times, however, the pressure of the

466: accreting material dominates over the pulsar pressure even at the

467: neutron star surface.  Chevalier (1989) estimates that, for accretion

468: rates $\dot{M}\ga 3\times 10^{-4}M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, the photon

469: luminosity is trapped by the inflow and the effects of a central

470: neutron star are hidden.  Once the accretion rate drops below that

471: value, photons begin to diffuse out from the shocked envelope; from

472: that point on, the accretion rate drops rapidly, and the pulsar

473: mechanism can turn on. Chevalier (1989) estimates that this occurs at

474: an age of about 7 months.  Therefore, even if fallback plays a major

475: role in the initial phase of the SN and NS lives, its effects are not

476: expected to be relevant at the timescales of interest for the

477: conclusions of this work.

478: 

479: For the purpose of our analysis, we are especially interested in the

480: X-ray luminosity at times long enough so that accretion is

481: unimportant, but short enough that rotation is still the main source

482: of energy.  During a Crab-like phase, relativistic particles

483: accelerated in the pulsar magnetosphere are fed to a synchrotron

484: emitting nebula, the emission of which is characterized by a powerlaw

485: spectrum. Another important contribution is the pulsed X-ray

486: luminosity (about 10\% of the total in the case of the Crab)

487: originating directly from the pulsar magnetosphere. It should be noted

488: that one important assumption of our analysis is that all (or at least

489: the greatest majority) of neutron stars goes through an early time

490: phase during which their magnetosphere is active and converts a

491: fraction of the rotational energy into X-rays.  However, there is

492: observational evidence that there are objects, known as Central

493: Compact Objects\footnote{Examples are central source in Cas A and in

494: Puppis A (e.g. Petre et al. 1996; Pavlov et al. 2000).} (CCOs), for

495: which no pulsar wind nebulae are detected.  Since no pulsations are

496: detected for these stars, it is possible that they are simply objects

497: born slowly rotating and which hence have a low value of $\dot{E}_{\rm

498: rot}$.  In this case, they would not affect any of our considerations,

499: since the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ correlation appears to hold all the

500: way down to the lowest measured values of $L_x$ and $\dot{E}_{\rm

501: rot}$.  However, if the CCOs are NSs with a high $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$,

502: but for which there exists some new physical mechanism that suppresses

503: the magnetospheric activity (and hence the X-ray luminosity) to values

504: much below what allowed by the scatter in the pulsar $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm

505: rot}$ relation, then these stars would affect the limits that we

506: derive. Since at this stage their nature is uncertain, we treat the

507: all sample of NSs on the same footing, although keeping this in mind

508: as a caveat should future work demonstrate the different intrinsic

509: nature of the CCOs with respect to the conversion of rotational energy

510: into X-ray luminosity.

511: 

512: As discussed in \S1, for all the neutron stars for which both the

513: rotational energy loss, $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, and the X-ray luminosity,

514: $L_x$, have been measured, there appears to be a correlation between

515: these two quantities.  This correlation appears to hold over a wide

516: range of rotational energy losses, including different emission

517: mechanisms of the pulsar. Since in the high $L_x$ regime (young

518: pulsars) of interest here the X-ray luminosity is dominated by

519: rotational energy losses, the most appropriate energy band for our

520: study is above $\sim 2$ keV, where the contribution of surface

521: emission due to the internal energy of the star is small. The

522: correlation between $L_x$ and $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ in the 2-10 keV band

523: was first examined by Saito et al. (1997) for a small sample of

524: pulsars, and a more comprehensive investigation with the largest

525: sample up to date was later performed by P02.  They found, for a

526: sample of 39 pulsars, that the best fit is described by the relation

527: \beq 

528: \log L_{x,[2-10]}= 1.34\,\log \dot{E}_{\rm rot} -15.34\;,

529: \label{eq:Lx}

530: \eeq with $1\sigma$ uncertainty intervals on the parameters $a=1.34$

531: and $b=15.34$ given by $\sigma_a=0.03$ and $\sigma_b=1.11$,

532: respectively.  A similar analysis on a subsample of 30 pulsars with

533: ages $\tau < 10^6$ yr by Guseinov et al. (2004) yielded a best fit with

534: parameters $a=1.56$, $b=23.4$, and corresponding uncertainties

535: $\sigma_a=0.12$ and $\sigma_b=4.44$. The slope of this latter fit is a

536: bit steeper than that of P02; as a result, the model by Guseinov et

537: al. predicts a larger fraction of high luminosity pulsars from the

538: population of fast rotating young stars with respect to the best fit

539: of P02.  In order to be on the conservative side for the predicted

540: number of high-$L_x$ pulsars, we will use as our working model the one

541: by P02.  It is interesting to note, however, that both groups

542: find that the efficiency $\eta_x\equiv L_x/\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ is an

543: increasing function of the rotational energy loss $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$

544: of the star. Furthermore, the analysis by Guseinov et al. shows that,

545: for a given $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, pulsars with larger $B$ field have a

546: systematically larger efficiency $\eta_x$ of conversion of rotational

547: energy into X-rays.  An increase of $\eta_x$ with $\dot{E}_{\rm

548: rot}$ was found also in the investigation by Cheng, Taam \& Wang

549: (2004). They considered a sample of 23 pulsars and studied the trend

550: with $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ of the pulsed and non-pulsed components

551: separately. Their best-fit yielded $L_x^{\rm pul}\propto\dot{E}_{\rm

552: rot}^{1.2\pm 0.08}$ for the pulsed component, and $L_x^{\rm

553: npul}\propto\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{1.4\pm 0.1}$ for the non-pulsed

554: one. They noticed how the former is consistent with the theoretical

555: X-ray magnetospheric emission model by Cheng \& Zhang (1999), while

556: the latter is consistent with a PWN model in which $ L_x^{\rm

557: npul}\propto\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{p/2}$, where $p\sim 2-3$ is the

558: powerlaw index of the electron energy distribution. Their best fit for

559: the total X-ray luminosity (pulsed plus unpulsed components) yielded

560: $L_x\propto\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{1.35\pm 0.2}$, fully consistent with

561: the best-fit slope of P02.  Along similar lines, recently Li et

562: al. (2007) presented another statistical study in which, using {\em

563: Chandra} and {\em XMM} data of galactic sources, they were able to

564: resolve the component of the X-ray luminosity due to the pulsar from

565: that due to the PWN. Their results were very

566: similar to those of Cheng et al. (2004), with a best fit for the

567: pulsar component $L_x^{\rm psr}\propto\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{1\pm 0.1}$,

568: and a best fit for the PWN (representing the unpulsed contribution)

569: $L_x^{\rm PWN}\propto\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{1.4\pm 0.2}$. They found that

570: the main contribution to the total luminosity generally comes from the

571: unpulsed PWN, hence yielding the steepening of the $L_X-\dot{E}_{\rm

572: rot}$ correlation with $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, consistently with the P02

573: relation, where the contribution from the pulsar and the PWN are not

574: distinguished. For our purposes, we consider the sum of both

575: contributions, since we cannot resolve the two components in the

576: observed sample of historical SNe.\footnote{For typical distances $\ga$

577: a few Mpc, the ACIS spatial resolution is $\ga 20$ pc, while 

578: PWN sizes are on the order of a fraction of a pc to a few pc.}

579: 

580: It should be noted that, despite the general agreement among the

581: various studies on the trend of $L_x$ with $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, and

582: the support from theory that the correlation is expected to steepen

583: with $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, there must be a point of saturation in order

584: to always satisfy the condition $L_x \le \dot{E}_{\rm rot}$. While in

585: our simulations we impose the extra condition that $\eta_x\le 1$, it

586: is clear that, until the correlation can be calibrated through direct

587: measurements of objects with high values of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, there

588: remains an uncertainty on how precisely the saturation occurs, and

589: this uncertainty is unavoidably reflected in the precise details of

590: our predictions.  However, unless there is, for some reason, a

591: point of turnover above the observed range where the efficiency of

592: conversion of rotational energy into X-rays turns back into $\eta_x\ll

593: 1$, then our general conclusions can be considered robust.

594: In our analysis, in order to quantify the uncertainty associated

595: with the above, we will also explore the consequences of a break in

596: $\eta_x$ just above the observed range (to be mostly conservative).

597: 

598: Another point to note is that one implicit assumption that we make in

599: applying the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ relation to very young objects is

600: that the synchrotron cooling time $t_{\rm synch}$ in X-rays is much

601: smaller than the age of the source, so that the X-ray luminosity is

602: essentially an instantaneous tracer of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$. In order

603: to check the validity of this assumption, we have made some rough

604: estimates based on measurements in known sources.  For example, let's

605: consider the case of the PWN in SN 1986J. Although the field in the

606: PWN has not been directly measured, we can use radio equipartition and

607: scale it from that of the Crab Nebula.  The Crab's radio synchrotron

608: emission has a minimum energy of $\sim 6\times 10^{48}$ ergs (see

609: e.g. Chevalier 2005), and a volume of $\sim 5\times 10^{56}$

610: cm$^3$. The average magnetic field is then $\sim 550$ $\mu$G.  We can

611: then scale to the PWN in SN 1986J, using the fact that the radio

612: luminosity is related to that of the Crab by $L_{\rm r, 1986J} \sim

613: 200 L_{\rm r,Crab}$, while its size is about 0.01 times that of the

614: Crab. According to equipartition, $B_{\rm min} \sim ({\rm

615: size})^{-6/7} L_r^{2/7}$ (e.g. Willott et al. 1999), so this very

616: crude approach suggests that the magnetic field in the PWN of SN 1986J

617: is $B_{\rm min} \sim 235 B_{\rm Crab} \sim 120$ mG. This yields a very

618: short cooling time in X-rays, $t_{\rm synch}\sim 5$ hr (assuming a

619: Lorentz factor for the electrons of $\sim 10^6$), so that, if we scale

620: from the Crab nebula, the use of $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ at early

621: times appears reasonable.  If, on the other hand, initial periods are

622: generally slower than for the Crab, then the equipartition energy

623: could be much smaller and the corresponding lifetimes much

624: longer. Let's then consider a $10^{12}$ G pulsar with an initial

625: period of 60 ms (the pulsar produced in SN 386 is such a source). We

626: then have $\dot{E}_{\rm rot} \sim 3\times 10^{36}$ erg/s, so that

627: (ignoring expansion losses), the energy deposited in the PWN over 20

628: years would be $\sim 2\times 10^{45}$ ergs. For a volume similar to

629: that for SN 1986J above, the equipartition magnetic field would be

630: $\sim10$ mG, corresponding to a lifetime at 2 keV of about 10

631: days. This is still a short enough lifetime for our purposes.

632: Alternatively, for $P_0\sim 5$ ms and $B \sim 10^{12}$ G, we have

633: $\dot{E}_{\rm rot} \sim 6\times 10^{40}$ erg/s, and over 20 years,

634: this yields $E_{\rm tot} \sim 4\times 10^{49}$ ergs.  This implies $B

635: > 1$~ G, so that $t_{\rm synch} \sim 15$ minutes.  Therefore, we

636: conclude that, overall, the magnetic fields in young PWNe are likely

637: strong enough to justify the use of the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$

638: relation even for the youngest objects in our sample.

639: 

640: One further point to notice with respect to the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm

641: rot}$ correlation is the fact that it is based on a diversity of

642: objects. The low end range of the relation, in particular, is

643: populated with Millisecond Pulsars (MSPs), which are spun up neutron

644: stars. It is possible that this class of objects might bias the

645: correlation of the youngest, isolated pulsars in the sample.

646: Generally speaking, once they are spun up, the MSPs form PWNe again

647: (e.g. Cheng et al. 2006), and the conversion of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$

648: into $L_x$, which is practically an instantaneous relationship (as

649: compared to the ages under consideration), should not be dependent on

650: the history of the system. The magnetic field of the objects (lower

651: for the MSPs than for the young, isolated pulsars), however, might

652: influence the conversion efficiency (Guseinov et al. 2004), hence

653: biasing the overall slope of the correlation. Overall, in our analysis

654: a steeper slope would lead to tighter limits on the NS spin birth

655: distribution, and viceversa for a shallower slope. What would be

656: affected the most by a slope change is the high $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$

657: tail of the population.  Hence, in \S4, besides deriving results using

658: the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ for all the pulsars, we will also examine

659: the effects of a change of slope for the fastest pulsars.

660: 

661: The rotational energy loss of the star, under the assumption that it is dominated

662: by magnetic dipole losses, is given by

663: \begin{equation}

664: \dot{E}_{\rm rot}= \frac{B^2\sin^2\theta\,\Omega^4\,R^6}{6c^3}\;,

665: \label{eq:Edot}

666: \end{equation}

667: 

668: where $R$ is the NS radius, which we take to be 10 km, 

669: $B$ the NS magnetic field, $\Omega=2\pi/P$ the star angular velocity, and 

670: $\theta$ the angle between the magnetic and spin axes. We take $\sin\theta=1$

671: for consistency with what generally assumed in pulsar radio studies.

672:   With $\sin\theta=1$ and a

673: constant $B$ field, the spin evolution of the pulsars is simply given

674: by

675: \beq P(t) = \left[P_0^2 + \left(\frac{16\pi^2 R^6

676: B^2}{3Ic^3}\right)t\right]^{1/2}\;,

677: \label{eq:spin} 

678: \eeq 

679: where $I\approx 10^{45} {\rm g}\, {\rm cm}^2$ is the moment of

680: inertia of the star, and $P_0$ is its initial spin period.  The

681: X-ray luminosity of the pulsar at time $t$ (which traces $\dot{E}_{\rm

682: rot}$) correspondingly declines as $ L_x=L_{x,0}(1+t/t_0)^{-2}$, where

683: $t_0\equiv 3Ic^3P_0^2/B^2R^6(2\pi)^2 \sim 6500\, {\rm

684: yr}\;I_{45}B^{-2}_{12}R_{10}^{-6}P^2_{0,10}$, having defined

685: $I_{45}\equiv I/(10^{45}$~g~cm$^2$), $R_{10}\equiv R/(10\; {\rm km})$,

686: $P_{0,10}\equiv P_0/(10\;{\rm ms})$.  For $t\la t_0$ the flux does not

687: vary significantly.  Since the ages $t_{\rm SN}$ of the SNe in our

688: sample are all $\la 77$ yr, we deduce that, for typical pulsar fields, $t_{\rm SN}\ll

689: t_0$. The luminosities of the

690: pulsars associated with the SNe in our sample are therefore expected to be

691: still in the plateau region, and thus they directly probe the initial birth

692: parameters, before evolution affects the periods appreciably.

693: 

694: In order to compute the X-ray luminosity distribution of a population

695: of young pulsars, the magnetic fields and the initial periods of the

696: pulsars need to be known.  As discussed in \S1, a number of

697: investigations have been made over the last few decades in order to

698: infer the birth parameters of NSs, and in particular the distribution

699: of initial periods and magnetic fields. Here, we begin our study by

700: comparing the SN data with the results of a pulsar population

701: calculation that assumes one of such distributions, and 

702: specifically one that makes predictions for birth periods in the

703: millisecond range.  After establishing that the SN data are highly

704: inconsistent with such short initial spins, we then generalize our

705: analysis by inverting the problem, and performing a parametric study

706: aimed at finding the minimum values of the birth periods that result

707: in predicted X-ray luminosities consistent with the SN X-ray data.

708: 

709: \section{Observational constraints on the pulsar X-ray luminosities from 

710: comparison with historical SNe}

711: 

712: As a starting point to constrain pulsar birth parameters, we consider

713: the results of one of the most recent and comprehensive radio studies,

714: based on large-scale radio pulsar surveys, that is the one carried out

715: by Arzoumanian et al. (2002; ACC in the following). They find that, if

716: spin down is dominated by dipole radiation losses (i.e. braking index

717: equal to 3), and the magnetic field does not appreciably decay, the

718: magnetic field strength (taken as Gaussian in log) has a mean $\langle

719: \log B_0[G] \rangle =12.35$ and a standard deviation of $0.4$, while

720: the initial birth period distribution (also taken as a log-Gaussian),

721: is found to have a mean $\langle \log P_0(s) \rangle =-2.3$ with a

722: standard deviation $\sigma_{P_0}> 0.2$ (within the searched range of

723: $0.1-0.7$).  In the first part of our paper, as a specific example of

724: a distribution that predicts a large fraction of pulsars to be born

725: with millisecond periods, we use their inferred parameters described

726: above.  Since in their model the standard deviation for the initial

727: period distribution is constrained only by the lower limit

728: $\sigma_{P_0}>0.2$, here we adopt $\sigma_{P_0}=0.3$. As the width of

729: the velocity dispersion increases, the predicted X-ray luminosity

730: distribution becomes more and more heavily weighed towards higher

731: luminosities (see Figure 1 in Perna \& Stella 2004). Therefore, the

732: limits that we derive in this section would be even stronger if

733: $\sigma_{P_0}$ were larger than what we assume.  We then assume that

734: the $L_X-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ correlation is described by the P02 best

735: fit with the corresponding scatter.

736: 

737: In order to test the resulting theoretical predictions for the pulsar

738: distribution of X-ray luminosities against the limits of the SNe, we

739: perform $10^6$ Monte Carlo realizations of the compact object remnant

740: population. Each realization is made up of $N_{\rm obj}=N_{\rm

741: SN}=100$, with ages equal to the ages of the SNe in our sample. The

742: fraction of massive stars that leave behind a black hole (BH) has been

743: theoretically estimated in the simulations by Heger et al. (2003).

744: For a solar metallicity and a Salpeter IMF, they find that this

745: fraction is about 13\% of the total.  However we need to remark that

746: while, following their predictions, in our Monte Carlo

747: simulations we assign a 0.13 probability for a remnant to contain a

748: BH, the precise BH fraction is, in reality, subject to a certain

749: degree of uncertainty.  Even taking rigorously the results of Heger et

750: al. (2003), one needs to note that their NS vs BH fraction (cfr. their

751: fig.5) was computed assuming a fraction of about 17\% of Type Ib/c

752: SNe, and 87\% of Type II. Our sample, on the other hand, contains

753: about 40\% of Type Ib/c and 60\% of Type II SNe. How the remnant

754: fraction would change in this case is difficult to predict.  Heger et

755: al. point out how normal Type Ib/c SNe are not produced by single

756: stars until the metallicity is well above solar. In this case, the

757: remnants would be all NSs. At lower metallicities, on the other hand,

758: most Type Ib/c SNe are produced in binary systems where the binary

759: companion helps in removing the hydrogen envelope of the collapsing

760: star.  Given these uncertainties, while adopting for our simulations

761: the BH/NS fraction estimated by Heger et al. for solar metallicity, we

762: also discuss how results would vary for different values of the BH and

763: NS components.

764: 

765: If an object is a BH, a low level of X-ray luminosity ($<10^{35}$

766: erg/s, i.e. smaller than the lowest measurement/limit in our SN data

767: set) is assigned to it. This is the most conservative assumption that

768: we can make in order to derive constraints on the luminosity

769: distribution of the NS component.  If an object is a NS, then its

770: birth period and magnetic field is drawn from the ACC distribution as

771: described above, and it is evolved to its current age (equal to the

772: age of the corresponding SN at the time of the observation) with

773: Eq.(\ref{eq:spin}).  The corresponding X-ray luminosity is then drawn

774: from a log-Gaussian distribution with mean given by the P02 relation,

775: and dispersion $\sigma_{L_x}=\sqrt{\sigma_a^2[\log\dot{E}_{\rm rot}]^2

776: + \sigma_b^2}$.

777: 

778: Figure 1 (top panel) shows the predicted distribution of the most

779: frequent value\footnote{For each (binned) value of the pulsar

780: luminosity, we determined the corresponding probability distribution

781: resulting from the Monte Carlo simulations. The maximum of that

782: distribution is what we indicated as the ``most frequent'' value for

783: each bin.} of the pulsar luminosity over all the Monte Carlo

784: realizations of the entire sample of Table~1. The shaded region

785: indicates the $1\sigma$ dispersion in the model. This has been

786: determined by computing the most compact region containing 68\% of the

787: random realizations of the sample.  Also shown is the distribution of

788: the X-ray luminosity (both detections and upper limits) of the SNe

789: (cfr. Table~1).  Since the measured X-ray luminosity of each object is

790: the sum of that of the SN itself and that of the putative pulsar

791: embedded in it, for the purpose of this work X-ray detections are also

792: treated as upper limits on the pulsar luminosities.  This is indicated

793: by the arrows in Figure~1.

794: 

795: 

796: \begin{figure}

797: \psfig{file=fig1a.ps,width=0.38\textwidth}

798: \vspace{-0.05in}

799: \psfig{file=fig1b.ps,width=0.38\textwidth}

800: \vspace{-0.05in}

801: \psfig{file=fig1c.ps,width=0.38\textwidth}

802: \vspace{-0.07in}

803: \caption{The dashed line shows the distribution of 2-10 keV luminosities

804: (either measurements or upper limits) for the entire sample of 100 SNe

805: analyzed {\em (upper panel)}, for the subsample of SNe with ages $>10$

806: yr {\em (middle panel)}, and with ages $>30$ yr {\em (lower panel)}.

807: The measured SN luminosities are also treated as upper limits on the

808: luminosities of the embedded pulsars.  The solid line shows the

809: prediction for the X-ray luminosity distribution of pulsars born

810: inside those SNe, according to the ACC birth parameters and the

811: $L_X-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ P02 relation.  The shaded regions indicate the

812: $1$-$\sigma$ confidence level of the model, derived from $10^6$ random

813: realizations of the sample. Independently of the SN sample considered,

814: the pulsar luminosity distribution is highly inconsistent with the

815: corresponding SN X-ray limits.}

816: \end{figure}

817: 

818: 

819: Our X-ray analysis, in all those cases where a measurement was

820: possible, never revealed column densities high enough to affect the

821: observed 2-10 keV flux significantly.  However, if a large fraction of

822: the X-ray luminosity (when not due to the pulsar) does not come from

823: the innermost region of the remnant, then the inferred $N_{\rm H}$

824: would be underestimated with respect to the total column density to

825: the pulsar.  The total optical depth to the center of the SN as

826: a function of the SN age depends on a number of parameters, the most

827: important of which are the ejected mass and its radial

828: distribution. The density profile of the gas in the newly born SN is

829: determined by the initial stellar structure, as modified by the

830: explosion. Numerical simulations of supernova explosions produce

831: density distributions that, during the free expansion phase, can be

832: approximated by the functional form $\rho_{\rm SN}=f(v)t^{-3}$ (see

833: e.g.  Chevalier \& Fransson 1994 and references therein). The function

834: $f(v)$ can in turn be represented by a power-law in velocity,

835: $f(v)\propto v^{-n}$.  To date, the best studied case is that of SN

836: 1987A. Modeling by Arnett (1988) and Shigeyama \& Nomoto (1990)

837: yield an almost flat inner powerlaw region, surrounded by a very

838: steep outer powerlaw profile, $n\sim 9-10$. For normal abundances and

839: at energies below\footnote{Above 10 keV, the opacity is dominated by

840: electron scattering, which is energy independent.} 10 keV, Chevalier

841: \& Fransson (1994) estimate the optical depth at energy $E_{10}\equiv

842: E/(10\;{\rm keV})$ to the center of a supernova with a flat inner

843: density profile to be $\tau=\tau_s E_{10}^{-8/3}\; E_{\rm SN,

844: 51}^{-3/2}\; M_{\rm ej, 10}^{5/2} t_{\rm yr}^{-2}$, where $E_{\rm SN,

845: 51}$ is the supernova energy in units of $10^{51}$ erg, and $M_{\rm

846: ej,10}$ is the mass of the ejecta in units of 10 $M_\odot$.  The

847: constant $\tau_s$ is found to be 5.2 for a density profile with $n=7$

848: in the outer parts, and 4.7 for $n=12$. From these simple estimates,

849: it can be seen that the SN would have to wait a decade or so before

850: starting to become optically thin at the energies of interest.  These

851: estimates however do not account for the fact that, if the SN harbors

852: an energetic pulsar in its center, the pulsar itself will ionize a

853: substantial fraction of the surrounding neutral material. Calculations

854: of the ionization front of a pulsar in the interior of a young SN were

855: performed by Chevalier \& Fransson (1992). In the case of a flat

856: density profile in the inner region, and an outer density profile with

857: powerlaw $n=9$, they estimate that the ionization front reaches the

858: edge of the constant density region after a time $t_{\rm yr}=10\;t_0

859: f_i^{-1/3} \dot{E}_{\rm rot, 41}^{-1/3}\;M_{\rm ej, 10}^{7/6}\;E_{\rm

860: SN, 51}^{-1/2}$, where $\dot{E}_{\rm rot, 41}\equiv\dot{E}_{\rm

861: rot}/10^{41}\;{\rm erg}\;{\rm s^{-1}}$, and $f_i$ is the fraction of

862: the total rotational power that is converted in the form of ionizing

863: radiation with a mean free path that is small compared to the

864: supernova size. The constant $t_0$ depends of the composition of the

865: core. For a hydrogen-dominated core, $t_0=1.64$, for a

866: helium-dominated core, $t_0=0.69$, and for an oxygen-dominated core

867: $t_0=0.28$. Once the ionization front has reached the edge of the

868: constant density region, the steep outer power-law part of the

869: density profile is rapidly ionized.  Therefore, depending on the

870: composition and total mass of the ejecta, an energetic pulsar can

871: ionize the entire mass of the ejecta on a timescale between a few

872: years and a few tens of years. This would clearly reduce the optical

873: depth to the center of the remnant estimated above.

874: 

875: Given these considerations, in order to make predictions that are

876: not as likely to be affected by opacity effects, we also performed a

877: Monte Carlo simulation of the compact remnant population for all the

878: SNe with ages $t>10$ yr, and another for all the SNe with ages $t>30$~yr.

879: Since the opacity scales as $t^{-2}$, these subsets of objects

880: are expected to be substantially less affected by high optical depths

881: to their inner regions. The subsample of SNe with ages $t>10$~yr

882: contains 40 objects, while the subsample with ages $t>30$~yr contains

883: 21 SNe. The corresponding luminosity distributions (both measurements

884: and limits) are shown in Figure~1 (middle and bottom panel

885: respectively), together with the predictions of the adopted model (ACC

886: initial period distribution and P02 $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$

887: correlation) for the luminosities of the pulsars associated with those

888: SN samples. Given the uncertainties in the early-time optical depth,

889: we consider the constraints derived from these subsamples (and

890: especially the one with $t>30$ yr) more reliable.  Furthermore, even

891: independently of optical depth effects that can bias the youngest

892: members of the total sample, the subsamples of older SNe have on average

893: lower luminosities, hence making the constraints on the model

894: predictions more stringent. In the following, when generalizing our

895: study to derive limits on the allowed initial period distribution, we

896: will use for our analysis only the subsets of older SNe.

897: 

898: In all three panels of Figure~1, the low luminosity tail of the

899: simulation, accounting for $\sim 15\%$ of the population, is dominated

900: by the fraction of SNe whose compact remnants are black holes, and for

901: which we have assumed a luminosity lower than the lowest SN

902: measurement/limit ($\sim 10^{35}$ erg/s).  While it is possible that

903: newly born BHs could be accreting from a fallback disk and hence have

904: luminosities as high as a few $\times 10^{38}$ erg/s, our assumption

905: of low luminosity for them is the most conservative one for the

906: analysis that we are performing, in that it allows us to derive the

907: most stringent limits on the luminosity of the remaining remnant

908: population of neutron stars.  For these, the high-luminosity tail is

909: dominated by the fastest pulsars, those born with periods of a few

910: ms. The magnetic fields, on the other hand, are in the bulk range of

911: $10^{12}-10^{13}$ G.  The low-$B$ field tail produces lower

912: luminosities at birth, while the high-$B$ field tail will cause the

913: pulsars to slow down on a timescale smaller than the typical ages of

914: the SNe in the sample.  Therefore, it is essentially the initial

915: periods which play a crucial role in determining the extent of the

916: high-luminosity tail of the distribution.  With the birth parameter

917: distribution used here, we find that, out of the $10^6$ Monte Carlo

918: realizations of the sample (for each of the three cases of Fig.1),

919: none of them  predicts pulsar luminosities compatible with the SN

920: X-ray limits.\footnote{We need to point out that, in the

921: study presented here, we refrain from performing detailed probability

922: analysis. This is because, given the observational uncertainties of

923: some of the input elements needed for our study (as discussed  both

924: above and in the following), precise probability numbers would not be

925: especially meaningful at this stage.}

926: 

927: These results point in the direction of initial periods of the pulsar

928: population to be slower than the ms periods derived from some

929: population synthesis studies in the radio. A number of other

930: investigations in the last few years, based on different methods of

931: analysis of the radio sample with respect to ACC, have indeed come up

932: to conclusions similar to ours.  The population synthesis studies of

933: Faucher-Giguere \& Kaspi (2005) yielded a good fit to the data with

934: the birth period described by a Gaussian with a mean period of 0.3 s

935: and a spread of 0.15 sec.  Similarly, the analysis by Ferrario \&

936: Wickramasinghe (2006) yielded a mean period of 0.23 sec for a magnetic

937: field of $10^{12}$ G.  We performed Monte Carlo simulations of the

938: X-ray pulsar population using the birth parameters derived in those

939: studies above, and found them to be consistent with the SNe X-ray

940: limits shown in Figure~1.

941: 

942: In order to generalize our analysis beyond the testing of known

943: distributions, we performed a number of Monte Carlo simulations with

944: different initial spin period distributions and a mean magnetic field

945: given by the optimal model of Faucher-Giguere \& Kaspi (2006).  This

946: is a log-Gaussian with mean $\left<\log(B/{\rm G})\right>=12.65$ and

947: dispersion $\sigma_{\log B}=0.55$.\footnote{The inferred values of the

948: magnetic field in different studies are all generally in this range,

949: even for very different inferred spin birth parameters. Furthermore,

950: Ferrario \& Wickramasinghe (2006) note that the pulsar birth period

951: that they infer is almost independent of the field value in the range

952: $\log B({\rm G})=10-13$, where the vast majority of isolated radio

953: pulsar lie.}.

954: 

955: 

956: \begin{figure}

957: \psfig{file=fig2a.ps,width=0.48\textwidth}

958: \psfig{file=fig2b.ps,width=0.48\textwidth}

959: \caption{Fraction $f_{sim}^c$ of Monte Carlo realizations of the SN

960: sample for which the 2-10 keV luminosities of the pulsars are below

961: the limits of the corresponding SNe. This is shown for different

962: distributions of the initial spin periods, described by Gaussians of

963: mean $P_0$ and dispersion $\sigma_{P_0}$. In the upper panel, the

964: sample includes only the SNe of ages $>10$ yr (cfr. Fig.1, middle

965: panel), while in the lower panel only the SNe with ages $>30$ yr

966: (cfr. Fig.1, lower panel) are included for the montecarlo simulations.

967: Independently of the sample considered, initial periods $P_0\la 40$ ms

968: are inconsistent with the SN data.}

969: \end{figure}

970: 

971: 

972: Figure 2 shows the fraction $f_{sim}^c$ of the montecarlo simulations

973: of the SN sample for which the luminosity of each pulsar is found

974: below that of the corresponding SN. The sample of SNe selected is

975: either the one with ages $>10$ yr (top panel), or the one with ages $>

976: 30$ yr (bottom panel), which allow tighter constraints while

977: minimizing optical depth effects.  Monte Carlo realizations of the

978: samples have been run for 50 Gaussian distributions of the period with

979: mean in the range $20-100\;$ms, and, for each of them, 4 values of

980: the dispersion\footnote{The dependences with $\sigma_{P_0}$ should be

981: taken as representative of the general trend, since it is likely that

982: $\sigma_{P_0}$ and $P_0$ might be correlated. But since no such

983: correlations have been studied and reported, we took as illustrative

984: example the simplest case of a constant $\sigma_{P_0}$ for a range of

985: $P_0$.}  $\sigma_{P_0}$ between 1 and $50\;$ms.  For each value of the

986: period, we performed 100,000 random realizations\footnote{The number

987: of random realizations is smaller here with respect to Fig.1 for

988: computational reasons since, while each panel of Fig.1 displays a

989: Monte Carlo simulation for one set of parameters only, each panel of

990: Fig. 2 is the results of 200 different Monte Carlo realizations. For a

991: few cases, however, we verified that the results were statistically

992: consistent with those obtained with a larger number of random

993: realizations.}.  Details of the results vary a bit between the

994: two age-limited subsamples.  This is not surprising since the extent

995: to which we can draw limits on the pulsar periods depends on the

996: measurements/limits of the X-ray luminosities of the SNe in the

997: sample. In a large fraction of the cases, we have only upper limits,

998: and therefore our analysis is dependent on the sensitivity at which

999: each object has been observed.  Independently of the sample, however,

1000: we find that, for initial periods $P_0\la 35-40$ ms, the distribution

1001: of pulsar luminosities is highly inconsistent with the SN data for any

1002: value of the assumed width of the period distribution.

1003: 

1004: We need to emphasize that the specific value of $f_{sim}^c$ as a

1005: function of $P_0$ should be taken as representative. Various authors

1006: have come up with slightly different fits for the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm

1007: rot}$ correlation.  If, for example, instead of the fit by Possenti et

1008: al. (2002) we had used the fit derived by Guseinov et al. (2004), then

1009: the limits on the period would have been more stringent.  On the

1010: other hand, if, for some reason, the efficiency $\eta_x$ of conversion

1011: of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ into $L_x$ becomes low at high $\dot{E}_{\rm

1012: rot}$, then our results would be less constraining. In order to assess

1013: the robustness of our results with respect to changes in $\eta_x$, we

1014: ran simulations of the pulsar population assuming that, for

1015: $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}>\dot{E}_{\rm rot} ^{\rm max, obs}\sim 10^{39}$ erg

1016: s$^{-1}$ (where $\dot{E}_{\rm rot} ^{\rm max, obs}$ is the maximum

1017: observed $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$), the efficiency becomes

1018: $\eta_x^{\prime}=\epsilon \eta_x$, and we tried with a range of values of

1019: $\epsilon <1$. This test also addresses the issue of a bias in our

1020: results deriving from a possible shallower slope for the youngest

1021: pulsars of the population, as discussed in \S3. We ran Monte Carlo

1022: simulations for the ACC birth parameters, and decreased $\epsilon$ by

1023: increments of 0.02. We found that, only for the very low value

1024: $\epsilon\sim 10^{-4}$, a sizable fraction of $\sim 5\%$ of the

1025: simulations predicts pulsar X-ray luminosities that are fully consistent

1026: with the SN data. Therefore, we conclude that our results on the millisecond

1027: birth periods of pulsars are reasonably robust with respect to uncertainty

1028: in the $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ for the youngest members of the

1029: population.

1030: 

1031: Another systematic that might in principle affect our results would arise

1032: if a fraction of neutron stars is born with a non-active

1033: magnetosphere so that their X-ray luminosity at high $\dot{E}_{\rm

1034: rot}$ is much smaller than for the active pulsars, then the limits on

1035: the initial periods of the ``active'' pulsars would be less stringent.

1036: An example of non-active neutron stars could be that of the CCOs

1037: discussed in \S3. However, until the fraction of these stars becomes

1038: well constrained by the observations and an independent

1039: $L_x-\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ is established for them, it is not possible to

1040: include them quantitatively in our population studies.  Similarly, the

1041: precise fraction of BHs versus NSs in the remnant population plays a

1042: role in our results. A larger fraction of BHs would alleviate our

1043: constraints on the initial spin periods, while a smaller fraction

1044: would, obviously, make them tighter. If a fraction of those BHs had a

1045: luminosity larger than the maximum assumed upper limit in our

1046: simulations (due to e.g. accretion from a fallback disk as discussed

1047: above), then our results would again be more constraining.  While our

1048: work is the first of its kind in performing the type of analysis that

1049: we present, future studies will be able to improve upon our results,

1050: once the possible systematics discussed above are better constrained,

1051: and deeper limits are available for the full SN sample.

1052: 

1053: \section{Summary}

1054: 

1055: In this paper we have proposed a new method for probing the birth

1056: parameters and energetics of young neutron stars.  The idea is simply

1057: based on the fact that the X-ray measurements of young supernovae

1058: provide upper limits to the luminosity of the young pulsars embedded

1059: in them. The pulsar X-ray luminosity on the other hand, being directly

1060: related to its energy loss, provides a direct probe of the pulsar spin

1061: and magnetic field.  Whereas pulsar birth parameters are generally

1062: inferred through the properties of the radio population, the X-ray

1063: properties of the youngest members of the population provide tight and

1064: independent constraints on those birth parameters, and, as we

1065: discussed, especially on the spins.

1066: 

1067: The statistical comparison between theoretical predictions and the

1068: distribution of X-ray luminosity limits that we have performed in this

1069: work has demonstrated that the two are highly inconsistent if the bulk

1070: of pulsars is born with periods in the millisecond range.  Whereas we

1071: cannot exclude that the efficiency $\eta_x$ of conversion of

1072: rotational energy into X-ray luminosity could have a turnover and drop

1073: at high values of $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$ to become $\eta_x\ll 1$, the

1074: 2-10 keV pulsar data in the currently observed range of $\dot{E}_{\rm

1075: rot}$ do not point in this direction (but rather point to an increase

1076: of $\eta_x$ with $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$), and there is no theoretical

1077: reason for hypothesizing such a turn over.  However, even if such

1078: a turnover were to exist just above the observed range of

1079: $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}$, we found that only by taking an efficiency

1080: $\eta_x^{\prime}\sim 10^{-4}\eta_x$ above $\dot{E}_{\rm rot}^{\rm

1081: max,obs}$, our results would lose their constraining value for the ms

1082: spin birth distributions. Therefore, we can robustly interpret our

1083: results as an indication that there must be a sizable fraction of

1084: pulsars born with spin periods slower than what has been derived by a

1085: number of radio population studies as well as by hydrodynamic

1086: simulations of SN core-collapse (e.g. Ott et al 2006).  Our findings

1087: go along the lines of a few direct measurements of initial periods of

1088: pulsars in SNRs (see e.g. Table 2 in Migliazzo et al. 2002), as well

1089: as some other population synthesis studies (Faucher-Gigure \& Kaspi

1090: 2006; Ferrario \& Wickramasinghe 2006; Lorimer et al. 2006).  Our

1091: results for the bulk of the pulsar population, however, do not exclude

1092: that the subpopulation of magnetars could be born with very fast

1093: spins, as needed in order to create the dynamo action responsible for

1094: the $B$-field amplification required in these objects (Thompson \&

1095: Duncan 1993).  Because of their very short spin-down times, the energy

1096: output of magnetars can be dominated by the spin down luminosity only

1097: up to timescales of a fraction of year, during which the SN is still

1098: too optically thick to let the pulsar luminosity go

1099: through. Therefore, our analysis cannot place meaningful constraints

1100: on this class of objects.

1101: 

1102: Finally, our results also bear implications on the contribution of

1103: young pulsars to the population of the Ultra Luminous X-ray sources

1104: (ULXs) observed in nearby galaxies. The model in \S3 predicts that a

1105: sizable fraction of that population could indeed be made up of young,

1106: fast rotating pulsars (Perna \& Stella 2004).  However, the analysis

1107: performed here shows that the contribution from this component,

1108: although expected from the tail of the population, cannot be as large

1109: as current models predict.

1110:  

1111: The extent to which we could perform our current analysis has been

1112: limited by the size of the SNe sample, and, especially, by the

1113: available X-ray measurements.  The fact that, in a large fraction of

1114: the sample, we have limits rather than detections, means that a large

1115: improvement can be made with deeper limits from longer observations.

1116: The deeper the limits, the tighter the constraints that can be derived

1117: on the spin period distribution of the pulsars.  The analysis proposed

1118: and performed here is completely uncorrelated from what done in radio

1119: studies, and therefore it provides an independent and complementary

1120: probe of the pulsar spin distribution at birth (or shortly

1121: thereafter); our results provide stronger constraints on theoretical

1122: models of stellar core collapse and early neutron star evolution,

1123: making it even more necessary to explain why neutron stars spin down

1124: so rapidly immediately after birth (see also Thompson, Chang \&

1125: Quataert 2004; Metzger, Thompson \& Quataert 2007).

1126: 

1127: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1128: 

1129: We thank Roger Chevalier, John Raymond and Stefan Immler for very

1130: useful discussions on several aspects of this project. We are

1131: especially grateful to Bryan Gaensler and Shami Chatterjee for their

1132: careful reading of our manuscript and detailed comments.  We also

1133: thank the referee for his/her insightful suggestions.  RP and RS thank

1134: the University of Sydney for the partial support and the kind

1135: hospitality during the initial phase of this project.

1136: 

1137: 

1138: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1139: 

1140: \bibitem{} Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in ``Astronomical Data Analysis Software and

1141: Systems V'', A.S.P. Conference Series, Vol. 101, 1996, George H. Jacoby

1142: and Jeannette Barnes, eds., p. 17

1143: \bibitem{} Arnett, W. D. 1988, ApJ, 331, 377

1144: \bibitem{} Arzoumanian, Z., Cordes, J. M., \& Chernoff, D. F. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289 (ACC)

1145: \bibitem{} Bandiera, R., Pacini, F. \& Salvati, M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 134

1146: \bibitem{} Bartel, N. \& Bietenholz, M. 2005, Adv. Space Res., 35, 1057

1147: \bibitem{} Becker, W. \& Trumper, J. 1997, A\&A, 326, 682

1148: \bibitem{} Blaes, O. \& Madau, P. 1993, ApJ, 403, 690

1149: \bibitem{} Chatterjee, P., Hernquist, L., \& Narayan, R. 2000, ApJ, 534, 373

1150: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. 1987, Nature, 329, 611

1151: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 847

1152: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. A. 1995, ApJ, 619, 839

1153: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. \& Fransson, C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 540

1154: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. \& Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268

1155: \bibitem{} Cheng, K. S. \& Zhang, L. 1999, ApJ, 515, 337

1156: \bibitem{} Cheng, K. S., Taam, R. E. \& Wang, W. 2004, ApJ, 617, 480 

1157: \bibitem{} Cheng, K. S., Taam, R. E. \& Wang, W. 2006, ApJ, 641, 427

1158: \bibitem{} Colgate, S. A. 1971, ApJ, 163, 221

1159: \bibitem{} Cordes, J. M. \& Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315

1160: \bibitem{} Dall'Osso, S. \& Stella, L. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science, 308, 119

1161: \bibitem{} Emmering, R. T. \& Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 345, 931

1162: \bibitem{} Fabbiano, G. \& White, N. 2003, in ``Compact Stellar

1163: X-ray Sources'', Cambridge University Press (eds. W. Lewin \& M. van der Klis)

1164: \bibitem{} Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., \& Kaspi, V. 2006, ApJ, 643, 355

1165: \bibitem{} Ferrario, L. \& Wickramasinghe, D. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1323 

1166: \bibitem{} Gunn, J. E. \& Ostriker, J. P. 1970, ApJ, 160, 979

1167: \bibitem{} Guseinov, O. H., Ankay, A., Tagieva, S. O., Taskin, M. O. 2004, IJMPD, 13, 197

1168: \bibitem{} Hartman, J. W., Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R., \& Verbunt, F. 1997, A\&A, 322, 477

1169: \bibitem{} Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosely, S. E., Langer, N., Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288  

1170: \bibitem{} Illarionov, A. F.\& Sunyaev, R. A. 1975, A\&A, 39, 185

1171: \bibitem{} Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N.  \& Nousek, J. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 344

1172: \bibitem{} Li, X.-H., Lu, F.-J.\& Li, Z. 2007, ApJ submitted, preprint astro-ph/0707.4279

1173: \bibitem{} Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., Dewey, R. J., Harrison, P. A.

1174: 1993, MNRAS, 263, 403

1175: \bibitem{} Lorimer, D. R. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 77

1176: \bibitem{} Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N. \& Taylor, J. H. 1985,

1177: MNRAS, 213, 613

1178: \bibitem{} Lundqvist, P. \& Fransson, C. 1988, A\&A, 192, 221

1179: \bibitem{} Metzger, B. D, Thompson, T. A. \& Quataert, E. 2007, ApJ, 659, 561

1180: \bibitem{} Michel, F. C. 1991, in ``Theory of Neutron Star

1181: Magnetosphere'', University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

1182: \bibitem{} Michel, F. C., \& Dessler, A. J. 1981, ApJ, 251, 654

1183: \bibitem{} Migliazzo, J. M., Gaensler, B. M., Backer, D. C., Stappers, B. W., van der Swaluw, E., Strom, R. G.

1184: 2002, ApJ, 657L, 41

1185: \bibitem{} Narayan, R. \& Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222

1186: \bibitem{} Ott C. D., Burrows, A. Thompson, T. A., Livne, E., Walder, R.  2006, ApJS, 164, 130

1187: \bibitem{} Pavlov, G. G. Zavlin, V. E., Aschenbach, B., Trümper,J. \& D. Sanwal, D. 2000, ApJ, 531L, 53

1188: \bibitem{} Perna, R. \& Stella, L. 2004, ApJ, 615, 222

1189: \bibitem{} Perna, R., Hernquist, L., \& Narayan, R. 2000, ApJ, 541, 344

1190: \bibitem{} Perna, R., Narayan, R., Rybibki, G., Stella, L. \& Treves, A. 2003, ApJ, 594, 936

1191: \bibitem{} Petre, R., Becker, M.,Winkler, P. F. 1996, ApJ, 465L, 43 

1192: \bibitem{} Phinney, E. S. \& Blandford, R. D. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 137

1193: \bibitem{}  Popov, S.B., Colpi, M., Treves, A., Lipunov, V. M., Prokhrov, M .E. 2000, ApJ, 530, 896 

1194: \bibitem{}  Possenti, A., Cerutti, R., Colpi, M. \& Mereghetti, S.

1195: 2002, A\&A, 387, 993

1196: \bibitem{} Ptak, A. \& Colbert, E. 2004, ApJ in press, astro-ph/0401525

1197: \bibitem{} Reynolds, S. P. \& Fix, J. D. 1987, ApJ, 322, 673

1198: \bibitem{} Rupen, M. P., van Gorkom, J. H., Knapp, G. R., Gunn, J. E., Schneider, D. P. 1987, AJ, 94, 61 

1199: \bibitem{} Saito, Y., Kawai, N., Kamae, T., Shibata, S. 1997, in ``Proceedings

1200: of the Fourth Compton Symposium, Editors Charles D. Dermer, Mark

1201: S. Strickman, and James D. Kurfess, Williamsburg, VA April 1997: AIP

1202: Conference Proceedings 410, p. 628''

1203: \bibitem{} Seward, F. D. \& Wang, Z. 1988, ApJ, 332, 1999

1204: \bibitem{} Shigeyama, T. \& Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ, 360, 242

1205: \bibitem{} Stollman, G.M. 1987, A\&A, 171, 152

1206: \bibitem{} Thompson, T. A., Chang, P. \& Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 611, 380

1207: \bibitem{} Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R. C. 1993, ApJ, 408, 194

1208: \bibitem{} Tsvetkov, D. Yu., Pavlyuk, N. N., Bartunov, O. S.  2004, AstL, 30, 729

1209: \bibitem{} Verbunt, F., Kuiper, L., Belloni, T., Johnston, H. M., de Bruyn, A. G., 

1210: Hermsen, W., van der Klis, M.  1996, A\&A, 311, L9

1211: \bibitem{} Vranesevic, N. et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L139

1212: \bibitem{} Willott, C. J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., Lacy, M. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1017

1213: \bibitem{} Yusifov, I. M., Alpar, M. A., Gok, F., \& Huseyinov,

1214: O. H. 1995, in The Lives of the Neutron Stars, ed. M. A. Alpar,

1215: U. Kiziloglu, \& J. van Paradijs (NATO ASI Ser. C, 450; Dordrecht:

1216: Kluwer), 201

1217: 

1218: \end{thebibliography}{}

1219: 

1220: \end{document}

1221: 

1222: