1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-psr.tex',
3: %% modified from AIP's template-8d.tex.
4: %%
5: %% The layout is 8.5x11 in, double-column. Please note that 10 pt font
6: %% is used for text in this aipproc class; other size options such
7: %% as 11pt or 12pt will be ignored but produce a warning.
8: %%
9: %% The compliant BibTex styles are aipproc.bst (for use with natbib) or
10: %% aipprocl.bst (if natbib is missing at the site).
11: %%
12: %% The original source files were:
13: %%
14: %% template.raw (with options: `8d')
15: %%
16: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
17: %%
18: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
19: %% All rights reserved
20: %%
21: %%
22: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.12 2005/07/06 19:22:14 frank Exp $
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %%
25: %% For details of the aipproc latex class, see aipquide.pdf
26: %% at: ftp://ftp.aip.org/ems/tex/macros/proceedings/8.5x11-2/aipguide-8d.pdf
27: %%
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: %%
30: %% You may enable the "aipcheck" code line below to check the LaTex
31: %% installation for possible problems.
32: %%
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: %%
35: %% \input{aipcheck}
36: %%
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: %% THE LAYOUT
39: %%
40: %% Please DO NOT change the "layoutstyle"
41: %%
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: %% CITATION MODE
44: %%
45: %% The default is numerical style. For example,
46: %% \citet{jon90} => Jones et al. [21]
47: %% \citep{jon90} => [21]
48: %%
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \documentclass[
52: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
53: %% ,draft % you may use draft while you are working on the paper
54: ]
55: {aipproc}
56:
57: \layoutstyle{8x11double}
58:
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: %% FRONTMATTER
61: %%
62: %% This part includes the title, classification, keyword, author, address,
63: %% and abstract (see below). Note if one author has two addresses, specify
64: %% the primary address in the "address" key and the secondary address in
65: %% the "altaddress" key. More than two addresses are not supported.
66: %%
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: %%
69: %% For this layout, "classification" and "keyword" are required.
70: %%
71: %% Keywords should describe the main topics of the research, with
72: %% 3-8 keywords typically being sufficient. Very general terms are
73: %% not necessary (e.g., "physics" or "astronomy"); keywords should
74: %% instead describe specific topics and thus help someone searching
75: %% for articles in these subject areas.
76: %%
77: %%%%%%%%%%
78: %% For PACS codes, generally, the first code is reserved for
79: %% the main topic of the paper. Select as many codes as are necessary
80: %% to classify the paper; two-four codes are generally sufficient.
81: %% A few PACS code examples are listed here:
82: %% 97.10.Gz Accretion and accretion disks
83: %% 97.60.Bw Supernovae
84: %% 97.60.Gb Pulsars
85: %% 97.60.Jd Neutron stars (see 26.60.+c Nuclear matter aspects of
86: %% neutron stars in nuclear physics)
87: %% 97.80.-d Binary and multiple stars
88: %% 97.80.Jp X-ray binaries
89: %% 97.82.Jw Infrared excess; debris disks; protoplanetary disks
90: %% 98.38.-j Interstellar medium (ISM) and nebulae in Milky Way
91: %% 98.38.Mz Supernova remnants
92: %% 98.70.Qy X-ray sources; X-ray bursts
93: %% 98.70.Rz Gamma-ray sources; gamma-ray bursts
94: %%
95: %% The complete list of the PACS codes can be found at
96: %% http://www.aip.org/pacs/index.html.
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: %%
99: %% Multiple authors:
100: %%
101: %% Multiple authors are entered by specifying one \author command per author.
102: %% When specifying shared adresses, they have to be ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL,
103: %% so that they will be recognized and merged as one address.
104: %%
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106:
107: \begin{document}
108:
109: \title{Central Compact Objects in Supernova Remnants}
110:
111: \classification{97.60.Jd, 97.60.Gb, 98.38.Mz}
112: \keywords {Isolated Neutron stars; Supernova Remnants}
113:
114: \author{Andrea De Luca}{
115: address={IASF/INAF Milano, Via Bassini 15, 20133 Milano, Italy}
116: ,altaddress={IUSS Pavia, V.le Lungo Ticino Sforza 56, 27100 Pavia, Italy} % additional visiting address
117: }
118:
119: \begin{abstract}
120: Central Compact Objects (CCOs) are a handful of soft X-ray sources
121: located close to the centers of Supernova Remnants and supposed to
122: be young, radio-quiet Isolated Neutron Stars (INSs). A clear understanding of their
123: physics would be crucial in order to complete our view of the birth properties
124: of INSs. We will review the phenomenologies of CCOs, underlining the most
125: important, recent results, and we will discuss the possible relationships of
126: such sources with other classes of INSs.
127: \end{abstract}
128:
129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130: %%
131: %% The below \maketitle command inserts the actual front matter data.
132: %% It has to follow the above declarations.
133: %%
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135:
136: \maketitle
137:
138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
139: %% MAINMATTER
140: %%
141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
142: %% Headings:
143: %%
144: %% The aipproc supports three heading levels, i.e., \section,
145: %% \subsection, and \subsubsection.
146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
147: %% Cross-references:
148: %%
149: %% Page numbers (\pageref) and headings can NOT be referenced in the class,
150: %% since before being produced, no page numbers are determined.
151: %%
152: %% Tables, figures, and equeations can be referenced by using the LaTex
153: %% commands \label and \ref. For references to equation numbers, \eqref
154: %% can be used, which will print "(1)" (while \ref will result in "1").
155: %%
156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
157: %% Lists:
158: %%
159: %% Standard "itemize", "enumerate", etc. list environments are supported.
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: %% Urls:
162: %%
163: %% \url{} command is provided for documenting URLs.
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165: \section{CCOs \& the many species of INSs}
166: Recent X-ray observations radically changed the classic
167: idea that all Isolated Neutron Stars (INSs) are born as fast spinning radio
168: pulsars. A rich phenomenology emerged, which led to the classification
169: of INSs into different species. Radio-loud species include rotation-powered
170: radio PSRs
171: and Rotating Radio Transients (RRaTs, \citep{mclaughlin06}).
172: The other species are generally
173: radio-quiet and include Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs, Woods,
174: these proceedings; see also \citep{woods06}), Soft Gamma
175: Repeaters (SGRs, Woods, these proceedings; see also
176: \citep{woods06}), Central Compact Objects (CCOs, discussed
177: here; see also \citep{pavlov02,pavlov04}) at the center of Supernova
178: Remnants (SNRs) and
179: X-ray Dim Isolated Neutron Stars (XDINSs, Kaplan, these proceedings;
180: see also \citep{haberl06}).
181:
182: The differences among the INSs' species
183: are certainly related to different
184: properties of their magnetic fields. For instance,
185: AXPs and SGRs are supposed to be close relatives, different
186: from standard radio PSRs owing to their huge
187: magnetic field (hence named ``magnetars'').
188: Unifying the rich phenomenological diversity in a coherent physical scenario
189: is one of the most urgent tasks in INS astronomy.
190: A clear picture, including evolutionary paths,
191: possibly connecting different species, is still lacking.
192:
193: To this aim, understanding the birth properties of INSs would be crucial.
194: %to draw a big picture for such class of sources.
195: Indeed,
196: the least understood members of the INSs family are the youngest ones,
197: i.e. the CCOs.
198:
199: CCOs (see Table 1 for a list of the seven members of the class)
200: are a handful of sources characterized by (i) position close to the
201: center of a young SNR; (ii) lack of radio/IR/optical counterparts,
202: as well as of surrounding diffuse, non-thermal nebulae;
203: (iii) constant, unpulsed X-ray emission ($L_X\sim10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
204: with thermal-like spectrum characterized by high temperatures
205: (0.2-0.4 keV) over a very small emitting area (few \% of the expected
206: NS surface).
207: %(iii) thermal-like X-ray spectrum, with very hot temperatures
208: %(0.2-0.4 keV), very small emitting areas (few \% of the expected
209: %NS surface) and generally steady and unpulsed emission (luminosity of
210: %$\sim10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$).
211: Thus, while point (ii) implies that CCOs are not standard
212: young radio PSRs, point (iii) separates them from ``standard'' AXPs and
213: SGRs. The classification of a source as a CCO has been in some way a process
214: by elimination, in the lack of a clear physical understanding of such sources.
215:
216: We are not even sure that all CCOs be INSs. We only know for sure that they
217: are young and that
218: %The only secure information about them is that
219: %such objects are young, as well as that
220: their formation in supernova explosions
221: must be a rather common event. Indeed, inspecting all known SNRs within 5 kpc
222: of the solar system, we find 14 radio PSRs (3 are beamed away from us, revealed
223: by bright non-thermal nebulae), 6 CCOs and 1 AXP. New candidate
224: CCOs are also being discovered at the centers of more distant SNRs.
225:
226: Recently, results on specific sources shed light on their nature.
227: We will review such new results
228: and we will exam possible classification schemes.
229: %check the phenomenology of other CCOs against possible
230: %classification pictures.
231:
232: \begin{table}
233: %\begin{center}
234: \begin{tabular}{c c c | c c c c c}
235: \hline \hline
236: SNR & Age & Distance & Observed flux & Luminosity & Variability &
237: Period & Pulsed fraction \\
238: & (ky) & (kpc) & $10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ & $10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$ &
239: & & \\
240: \hline
241: RCW103 & $2$ & $3.3$ & 0.8-60 & 1.1-80 & factor 100 & 6.67 hour & 12-50\% \\
242: G296.5+10.0 & $7$ & $2.2$ & 2. & 1.2 & $<5\%$ & 424 ms & $\sim10\%$ \\
243: Kes 79 & $7$ & $7.1$ & 0.2 & 3 & $<15\%$ & 105 ms &
244: $\sim80\%$\\
245: Cas A & 0.3 & $3.4$ & 2. & 2 & Flares? & ... & $<13\%$ \\
246: Puppis A & $3.7$ & $2.2$ & 4.8 & 5 & $<5\%$ & ... & $5\%
247: ?\,\,(<7\%)$ \\
248: G347.3-0.5 & $2$ & $1.3$ & 3. & 0.6 & $<5\%$ & ... & $<7\%$ \\
249: VelaJr. & $1$ & $1$ & 1.3 & 0.25 & $<5\%$ & ... & $<7\%$ \\
250: \hline
251: \end{tabular}
252: %\end{center}
253: \caption{List of the seven ``confirmed'' CCOs and of their basic X-ray
254: properties. Flux is in the 0.5-8 keV energy range; the bolometric luminosity
255: is computed for a purely thermal model (either single or double blackbody).
256: See text for references.}
257: \end{table}
258:
259:
260:
261: \section{Searching for a CCO template}
262: %of weakly magnetized INS.
263: \subsection{1) A very peculiar magnetar}
264: 1E 161348-5055 (1E 1613) was discovered with the Einstein satellite
265: \citep{tuohy80}
266: very close to the geometrical center of the young \citep[2,000 yr, ][]{carter97}
267: supernova remnant RCW103, located at a distance of $\sim3.3$ kpc
268: \citep{reynoso04}.
269:
270: Historically, it was the first radio-quiet neutron star candidate
271: found inside a SNR.
272: While 1E 1613 was considered to be most probably
273: a young, off-beamed pulsar, the lack of a surrounding, diffuse non-thermal
274: nebula \citep{tuohy80} made it very different from the Crab, the prototypical young pulsar.
275: % - likely a young, off-beamed pulsar, but clearly
276: %different with respect to the prototypical Crab, because of the
277: %lack of a surrounding, diffuse non-thermal nebula \citep{tuohy80}.
278: Such an interpretation was supported by
279: its soft X-ray spectrum, pointing to the first
280: detection of thermal radiation from the surface
281: of a NS, as well as by the lack of a radio or
282: optical counterpart \citep{tuohy83,gotthelf97}.
283:
284: However, X-ray observations of 1E 1613 over the following years
285: %1E not to behave as expected for a normal
286: %isolated neutron star, because of
287: unveiled a puzzling temporal behaviour.
288: \citet{gotthelf99},
289: %based on the analysis of
290: using
291: ASCA, ROSAT and Einstein data, found evidence for a factor 10
292: variability in flux on the few year time scale. More recently,
293: such a variability was confirmed thanks to Chandra observations.
294: \citet{garmire00} discovered a large brightening (about two orders
295: of magnitude) between September 1999 and March 2000, while two years
296: later \citet{sanwal02}
297: (with Chandra) as well as \citet{becker02} (with XMM-Newton) observed 1E 1613
298: at an intermediate flux level. Moreover, the first Chandra observation
299: of 1E 1613 in its low state
300: hinted a possible periodicity at $\sim6$ hours \citep{garmire00b}.
301: The subsequent observations of the source in active state
302: could not conclusively solve the issue, the periodicity was not detected
303: in the very high state of early 2000, but was possibly seen again in 2002 by
304: \citet{sanwal02}, while \citet{becker02} did not find any
305: periodicity, but observed a complex light curve including a
306: possible ``partial eclipse''.
307:
308: A long (90 ks) observation
309: with XMM-Newton, performed in 2005, caught 1E 1613 in a low state
310: and yielded unambiguous evidence for a strong, nearly sinusoidal
311: modulation at P=6.67$\pm$0.03
312: hours, with a 50\% pulsed fraction \citep{deluca06}.
313: The source spectrum,
314: well described by an absorbed double blackbody model, varies
315: significantly
316: as a function of the 6.67 hour cycle and appears harder
317: at the peak. The same 6.67 hour periodicity was
318: then recognized also in the older XMM-Newton dataset, with a much lower
319: pulsed fraction ($\sim10\%$) and a remarkably different light curve,
320: including two narrow minima (``dips'') per period. Such an
321: ``active state'' was also characterized by a factor 6 higher flux
322: and a harder spectrum.
323: No faster pulsations are seen in the two XMM-Newton observations
324: down to P=12 ms,
325: with an upper limit of 10\% to the pulsed fraction (at 99\% c.l.).
326:
327: Monitoring with Swift/XRT shows that the source (as of August, 2007)
328: is still fading, although at a somewhat slower rate. A long
329: observation with Chandra/HRC,
330: performed in 2007, July by our group, shows again the nearly sinusoidal
331: modulation at 6.67 hours, with a pulsed fraction as high as $\sim55\%$
332: in 0.1-10 keV.
333:
334: On the optical/IR side, VLT/ISAAC and HST/NICMOS images
335: collected in 2001 and in 2002, respectively, unveiled
336: a very crowded field, with a few objects possibly consistent
337: with the X-ray position of 1E 1613 \citep{sanwal02,mignani04,pavlov04}.
338: Deep observations with the VLT/NACO instrument were performed in 2006
339: (during the low state of 1E 1613) with the aim to search for 6.67 hours
340: modulation of the four possible counterparts (Ks$\sim18-20$)
341: lying within the $3\sigma$ error region (Mignani et al., these proceedings;
342: \citep{deluca07a}). None was found.
343: %do not show a
344: %6.67 hour modulation for any of the four potential counterparts (Ks$\sim18-20$)
345: %lying within the $3\sigma$ error region (Mignani et al., these proceedings; \citep{deluca07a}).
346: Comparison with the HST/NICMOS
347: images does not show a clear variability correlated to the factor 3.5 fading
348: of 1E 1613 during the same time span. Moreover, the possible counterparts do not
349: stand out for peculiar colors with respect to the bulk of the very red
350: (H-K$\sim2$, requiring A$_V\sim20-25$) stellar background population.
351: Thus, there are no compelling reasons to associate any of them to 1E 1613, which
352: remains undetected in the IR down to Ks$\sim22.1$. A search for
353: a counterpart with Spitzer was also performed, with negative results \citep{wang07}.
354:
355: \begin{table}
356: %\begin{center}
357: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
358: \hline \hline
359: CCO & optical/IR counterpart & optical/IR upper limit\\
360: & (mag) & (mag) \\
361: \hline
362: 1E 1613 in RCW103 & H$\sim21.4\,(?)$, K$\sim19.2\,(?)$ & I$>25$, Ks$>22.1$ \\
363: 1E 1207 in G296.5+10.0 & J$\sim21.7$, H$\sim21.2$, K$\sim20.7$ & R$>27.1$, J$>23.5$, H$>22.4$, K$>22.0$ \\
364: CXOU J1852 in Kes 79 & ... & R$>24.9$ \\
365: CXOU J2323 in Cas A & ... & R$>27.8$, J$>26.2$, H$>24.6$, K$>21.2$ \\
366: RX J0822 in Puppis A & ... & B$>26.5$, R$>26.0$, J$>21.7$, H$>20.6$, Ks$>20.1$ \\
367: 1WGA J1713 in G347.3-0.5 & H$\sim19.4\,(?)$, Ks$\sim18.3\,(?)$ & I$>24.6$, H$>22$, Ks$>20.5$ \\
368: CXOU J0853 in VelaJr. & H$\sim21.6\,(?)$, Ks$\sim21.4\,(?)$ & R$>25.6$, J$>22.6$, H$>22.5$, Ks$>21.8$ \\
369: \hline
370: \end{tabular}
371: %\end{center}
372: \caption{Optical/infrared results for the seven confirmed CCOs.
373: In the case of 1E 1207 we give
374: the magnitudes of an M dwarf located close to the Chandra position; updated
375: astrometry questioned its possible association to 1E 1207 \citep{fesen06,wang07}.
376: A few IR
377: sources have been found inside the Chandra error circle for the CCOs in
378: the RCW103 and G347.3-0.5 SNRs. In such cases, the magnitudes refer to the
379: source closest to the X-ray position, even if there are not
380: compelling reasons to associate the IR sources to the
381: X-ray ones.
382: See text for references.}
383: \end{table}
384:
385:
386: \subsubsection{Is 1E1613 a ``braked magnetar''?}
387:
388: The unique combination of 6.67 hour periodicity, dramatic long-term
389: variability, young age and underluminous IR counterpart makes 1E 1613 a unique
390: source among all compact objects.
391:
392: Association of 1E 1613 to RCW103 seems very robust, based on several
393: arguments. The point source lies within 15 arcsec of the apparent
394: center of the 10 arcmin wide SNR. Moreover, the two system have
395: consistent distances, as apparent by the same interstellar X-ray
396: absorption \citep{deluca06}, as well as by neutral H studies in radio,
397: which also support the association on a morphological basis \citep{reynoso04}.
398:
399: As discussed by \citet{deluca06}, 1E 1613
400: could be a binary system featuring a compact object, born in the
401: supernova event which generated RCW103, and a very small companion star.
402: In such a frame, the 6.67 hour modulation could be ``naturally''
403: interpreted as the orbital period of the system. However, 1E 1613 is
404: dramatically different from any known Low-Mass X-ray Binary (LMXB) system,
405: because of its low luminosity ($10^{33}-10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$),
406: purely thermal spectrum, large spectral evolution
407: along the 6.67 hour cycle, long-term variability in pulse shape
408: and fraction, very long time scale for the recovery from the outburst.
409: \citet{deluca06} proposed that a peculiar ``double accretion'' (wind + disc)
410: scenario could be at work in a very young LMXB, driven by a
411: significant orbital eccentricity, expected on theoretical basis \citep{kalogera96}.
412: The recent IR results do not support such a picture \citep{deluca07a}.
413: None of the potential
414: counterparts is consistent with a small star at the distance of 1E 1613.
415: The upper limits leave room only for a very low-mass
416: star (M6-M8), which seems unable to power via its wind the observed
417: pulsed luminosity (an accretion rate of $\sim10^{-13}\,M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}$
418: would be required).
419: %Survival of a LMXB system with such an extreme
420: %mass ratio to the supernova explosion seems also unlikely.
421: Moreover, it seems unlikely that a LMXB with such an extreme
422: mass ratio could survive the supernova explosion.
423: Such difficulties\footnote{A different binary picture for 1E 1613, suggesting
424: the system to be an analog of Cataclysmic Variables of the Polar
425: or Intermediate Polar classes, originally proposed by \citet{popov07}, has been studied
426: by \citet{pizzolato07}. Such a scenario, which could possibly avoid same of our
427: drawbacks, features a magnetar in a
428: binary system with a low-mass star. Magnetic and material interaction
429: could have slowed down the NS rotation to P=6.67 hours, synchronous
430: (as in Polars) or quasi-synchronous (as in Intermediate Polars) to
431: the orbital period.} lead us to consider an alternative picture of 1E 1613
432: as a very peculiar isolated compact object \citep{deluca06}.
433: Within such a frame, the picture best fitting to the unique phenomenology of
434: 1E 1613
435: is the one of a ``braked magnetar'', spinning at 6.67 hours.
436: Indeed, most aspects of 1E 1613's phenomenology easily fit in a magnetar scenario:
437: spectrum, luminosity, long term variabilities are very similar to the ones
438: shown by Anomalous X-ray Pulsars \citep{woods06}.
439: However, all known AXPs spin in the 2-12 s range, i.e. thousands of times faster
440: than 1E 1613. A very efficient braking mechanism is required to slow down 1E 1613 in
441: 2000 yr from its presumably much faster spin rate at birth. \citet{deluca06} show
442: that propeller effect on the material of a fallback disc could provide such
443: a mechanism, provided that the NS was born with a very high magnetic field
444: ($\sim5\times10^{15}$ G) and with a rather slow period ($\sim300$ ms) to avoid an
445: early ``ejector'' phase which could have pushed away any surrounding
446: material. Recently, \citet{li07}, using a different model for
447: the interaction between the rotating INS's magnetosphere and the
448: surrounding fallback disc, showed that initial conditions may be
449: relaxed and birth period down to a few ms could be allowed.
450: Thus, 1E 1613 would be the first known example of a new class of very
451: slowly rotating magnetars, whose spin down history is completely
452: dominated by the role of fallback material.
453:
454: \subsection{2) Weakly magnetized INSs}
455: \subsubsection{1E 1207.4-5209 in G296.5+10.0}
456: 1E 1207.4-5209 (1E 1207) was detected with the Einstein satellite close
457: to the center of the $\sim7$ kyr old SNR G296.5+10.0
458: \citep{roger88}, located at
459: a distance of $\sim2$ kpc
460: \citep{giacani00}, quite high to the Galactic Plane (b$\sim10^{\circ}$).
461: It was the
462: second thermally-emitting radio-quiet INS candidate found inside a SNR.
463: Pulsations from 1E 1207 were discovered with the Chandra satellite
464: \citep{zavlin00}, proving the source to be an INS.
465:
466: %As a complication to this
467: %picture, the measured period evolution yielded a NS characteristic age
468: %of $\sim350$ ky \citep{pavlov02b,mereghetti02},
469: %at odds with the age of the SNR, setting up an ``age problem''.
470: %Chandra data collected in 2003 hinted at a possible non-monotonous
471: %spin period evolution, pointing to glitching activity, or to Doppler modulation
472: %in a binary system
473: %\citep{zavlin04}. Supporting the binary hypothesis, a faint
474: %source (possibly an M dwarf) was found close to the Chandra
475: %coordinates, but updated
476: %astrometry questioned its possible association to 1E 1207 \citep{fesen06,wang07}.
477: %Possible evidence for a peculiar short-term spin
478: %evolution was also reported by \citet{woods07}, based on a new set of
479: %XMM-Newton observations.
480:
481: Early timing investigations hinted a non-monotonous period
482: evolution of 1E 1207, suggesting that the source could be a
483: peculiar binary system
484: \citep{zavlin04,woods07}.
485: %The binary scenario for 1E 1207 turned out to be a ``blind alley''.
486:
487: However, very recently, \citet{gotthelf07}, using at once
488: all available X-ray data, provided conclusive evidence that
489: 1E 1207 is a very stable rotator, with essentially no measurable
490: period evolution
491: (see also Gotthelf \& Halpern, these proceedings).
492: The upper limit to the period derivative
493: ($\dot{P}<2.5\times10^{-16}$ s s$^{-1}$ at 2$\sigma$) yields
494: an INS carachteristic age $\tau_c>27$ Myr, exceeding by 3 orders of magnitude
495: the age of the SNR, and a very small dipole magnetic field,
496: B$<3.3\times10^{11}$ G. Such results point to a
497: weakly magnetized INS, born with a spin period very close to the current one.
498:
499:
500:
501: \subsubsection{CXOU J185238.6+004020 in Kes 79}
502:
503: A very similar picture emerged for another member of the CCO class.
504: The source CXOU J185238.6+004020 (CXOU J1852)
505: was discovered with a Chandra observation
506: by \citet{seward03}
507: at the center of Kes 79 SNR, a 5.5-7.5 kyr old SNR \citep{sun04},
508: located at $\sim7$ kpc.
509: A follow-up observation with XMM-Newton allowed \citet{gotthelf05}
510: to discover a 105 ms pulsation from the source. Further observations
511: with XMM-Newton and Chandra did not show a significant change in the
512: period of CXOU J1852. \citet{halpern07} set a 2$\sigma$ upper limit
513: to the period derivative $\dot{P}<2.0\times10^{-16}$ s s$^{-1}$,
514: yielding a characteristic age $\tau_c>8$ My and a dipole magnetic
515: field B$<1.5\times10^{11}$ G.
516:
517: \subsubsection{Half-brothers or twins$?$}
518: Judging on the basis of their very similar spin
519: parameters,
520: 1E 1207 and CXOU J1852 should be close relatives. However, their
521: spectra, as well as their phase-resolved behaviour, are very
522: different.
523:
524: 1E 1207 stands out among CCOs because of its unique spectrum.
525: Two large absorption features superimposed to the thermal spectrum,
526: centered at 0.7 keV and at 1.4 keV,
527: were discovered thanks to Chandra and XMM-Newton observations
528: \citep{sanwal02,mereghetti02}.
529: Such features vary as a function of the rotational
530: phase \citep{mereghetti02}.
531: This was the first detection of spectral features in the X-ray
532: spectrum of an INS,
533: making 1E 1207 an outstanding source among all compact objects.
534: A very deep (250 ks) observation performed with XMM-Newton in 2002
535: unveiled the presence of
536: a third absorption feature at 2.1 keV and possibly of a fourth one at
537: 2.8 keV \citep{bignami03,deluca04}. The actual significance of the third
538: and fourth lines has been questioned by \citet{mori05} who
539: evaluated the dependence of such two features' equivalent width on the
540: underlying continuum model.
541: The very deep XMM dataset of 2002 showed that
542: the 424 ms $\sim7\%$ pulsation is almost entirely due to phase variation of the
543: absorption features (with a $\sim12\%$ variation), while the continuum
544: has a much less pronounced modulation ($\sim3\%$). Such
545: a behaviour is unique among all INSs.
546:
547: The nature of the spectral features of 1E 1207 has been debated since
548: their discovery, possible interpretations being atomic transition
549: lines in the NS atmosphere or cyclotron features in the plasma
550: surrounding the star \citep{sanwal02,mereghetti02}. The cyclotron
551: interpretation was strongly supported by the detection of
552: the third and of the possible fourth line \citep{bignami03,deluca04},
553: since the four features have central energies in the harmonic ratio 1:2:3:4
554: and show a significant dependence on the NS rotational
555: phase. Assuming the 0.7 keV feature to be the fundamental cyclotron line
556: yields a measure of the magnetic field of $8\times10^{10}$ G, or
557: $1.6\times10^{14}$ G, in case electron or protons be responsible
558: for the absorption, respectively.
559: %A difficulty in such a scenario was due to the value
560: %of the magnetic field estimated from the energy of the first feature,
561: %assumed to be the fundamental cyclotron line, of order
562: %$8\times10^{10}$ G and $1.6\times10^{14}$ G in the case of electron
563: %and proton absorption, respectively. Both values were clashing with
564: %the estimate from the NS spin down
565: %(B$\sim2\times10^{12}$ G), mostly depending,
566: %at that epoch, on the first Chandra period measurement.
567: %Such a ``B-field'' problem does not exist within the
568: The scenario of 1E 1207 as a weakly magnetized neutron star
569: is fully consistent with the electron cyclotron
570: interpretation of the features. A difficulty with the cyclotron
571: scenario is posited by the similar equivalent widths
572: observed for the first and second harmonic, at odds with theoretical expectations,
573: since the oscillator strength of the second harmonic should be
574: a factor $\sim2,000$ lower than the one of the first harmonic.
575: A possible solution to such a problem was proposed by \citet{liu06},
576: who suggested the magnetized plasma responsible for the absorption
577: to be optically thick at the frequency of the first harmonic (so that
578: a saturation absorption is achieved, independent on the particle density),
579: but optically thin for the second and higher harmonics. Such a model
580: requires a rather high particle column density in the surroundings of
581: the NS, which could possibly be sustained by accretion of fallback material.
582: Alternative interpretation for the lines are also proposed (Ho et al.,
583: these proceedings).
584:
585:
586: CXOU J1852, on the other side, has a thermal spectrum with no features
587: %(altough the available photon statistics is much smaller than for 1E 1207),
588: within the statistics available, which is far less abundant than that for 1E 1207.
589: %very similar to the one of all other CCOs.
590: However,
591: CXOU J1852 has a striking peculiarity, i.e. it has
592: a very large pulsed fraction, as high as $\sim80\%$. Such a value
593: makes CXOU J1852 an outstanding source among all thermally emitting INS.
594: Such a phenomenology would point to the picture of a small hot
595: region on the NS surface, coming into view or being hidden as
596: a function of the star rotation. However, this is quite at odds
597: with the picture of CXOU J1852 as a weakly magnetized NS.
598: First, the small magnetic field inferred from
599: timing does not seem able to generate such a large surface
600: temperature anisotropy (either due to anisotropic thermal conduction
601: from the stellar interior, or due to surface bombardment by magnetospheric
602: particles). Moreover, gravitational bending of the trajectories of photons
603: escaping from the surface should significantly suppress the modulation.
604: Indeed, \citet{psaltis00} showed that a pulsation larger than $\sim35\%$
605: cannot be expected even for an extremely small hot spot with a very
606: large temperature contrast with respect to the surface. Beaming due to
607: radiative transfer effects in a strongly magnetized plasma could explain
608: the modulation, but would require presence of large multipole components
609: in the magnetic field, in order to be consistent with the observed small
610: spin-down. Alternatively, such problems could be solved in a picture
611: invoking accretion of fallback material. Emission coming from a region
612: related to an accretion column, possibly located at some heigth from the star surface,
613: could account for both the small emitting area and the high modulation.
614: %Detailed modelling is required to test such ideas and assess if such
615: %different phenomenologies may be explained within the same scenario
616:
617: \subsection{3) A dormant magnetar ($?$)}
618: %\section{The central source in Cas A}
619: With an age of $\sim330$ yr, as estimated with a HST study
620: of the expansion of high-velocity debris \citep{fesen06},
621: Cas A is the remnant of the last supernova explosion occurred in our Galaxy.
622: Detection of O and Si-group abundances in the ejecta supports the picture of
623: Cas A as the remnant of a massive star \citep{chevalier78}.
624: The central X-ray source, CXOU J232327.9+584843 (CXOU J2323)
625: was discovered in the Chandra First-light image
626: \citep{tananbaum99} and identified a posteriori in ROSAT and Einstein images.
627: It lies $\sim7$ arcsec off the apparent SNR expansion center \citep{fesen06},
628: implying a (projected) velocity of order 350 km s$^{-1}$.
629: Extensive multiwavelength observations of both the CCO and the SNR have been
630: performed \citep{pavlov00,chakrabarty01,mereghetti02b,fesen06} and
631: different hypotheses (either an INS, or an iolated black hole) have
632: been considered to explain the CCO.
633:
634: A very interesting result was obtained by \citet{krause05} who
635: discovered in multi-epoch Spitzer images (at 24 $\mu \,m$), spanning a 1 year time interval,
636: fast moving features ($10-20$ arcsec yr$^{-1}$) located in the outskirts of the
637: SNR. At the SNR distance, such proper motion corresponds to a velocity close to c.
638: The most likely interpretation of such features is that they are infrared
639: echoes from interstellar dust, heated by a travelling pulse of light. This points
640: to a large flare from CXOU J2323, occurred around A.D. 1953, with an almost
641: orthogonal beaming with respect to the line of sight,
642: with a luminosity
643: of $\sim2\times10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$), which is comparable to the energetics
644: of giant flares from SGRs.
645: If such an interpretation is correct, CXOU J2323 could be a dormant magnetar.
646: The spectrum and luminosity are consistent with that of of transient AXPs
647: in quiescence, as well as with SGRs observed in low-luminosity state
648: \citep{mereghetti06}.
649: Current upper limits to long-term variability and pulsations in the soft X-ray
650: band \citep{mereghetti02b,fesen06b},
651: as well as upper limits to an IR counterpart \citep{fesen06b,wang07} are consistent
652: with such an hypothesis.
653:
654: \section{Other CCOs: more of the same$?$}
655: \subsection{The central source in Puppis A}
656: Puppis A is the remnant of the explosion of a very massive star
657: \citep{canizares81}, occurred $\sim3,700$ years ago \citep{winkler88},
658: at a distance of $\sim2.2$ kpc \citep{reynoso03}.
659: The central X-ray source RX J0852.0-4622 (RX J0852), hinted in Einstein images
660: \citep{petre82} and later identified with ROSAT \citep{petre96}, is
661: located $\sim6.1$ arcmin off the geometrical center
662: of the SNR. Association of RX J0852 to the SNR is supported by consistent
663: distance estimates and HI morphological studies in radio
664: \citep{reynoso03}. Deep radio observations set very stringent upper
665: limits to a radio nebula associated to RX J0852 \citep{gaensler00}.
666: The large offset between RX J0852 and the SNR center
667: requires a high space velocity for
668: the compact object, inherited from a natal kick during the supernova
669: explosion. Indeed, evidence for a large proper motion in good
670: agreement with the expected one (both in direction and in magnitude)
671: has been reported, based on the analysis of multi-epoch Chandra images
672: \citep{hui06,winkler07}.
673:
674: Analysis of two XMM-Newton datasets did not confirm
675: a pulsation at 75 ms hinted in ROSAT data \citep{pavlov99} -
676: excluded also by Chandra data \citep{pavlov02} -
677: but yielded some evidence for a candidate periodicity around 220
678: ms \citep{hui06b}, with a pulsed fraction of $\sim5\%$.
679: However, the significance of such a pulsation in each dataset is
680: rather low, and the corresponding periods at the two epochs
681: are rather different, which would imply a very large
682: period derivative ($\sim2\times10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$),
683: among the largest ever observed for an INS,
684: only comparable to the upper side of the values measured for an
685: extreme object such as SGR 1806-20 \citep{woods06}. The resulting characteristic
686: age of $\sim17$ yr
687: would also require a non-steady spin down for the source.
688: %Altough such a picture cannot be excluded,
689: %the possibility of a false signal, for the moment,
690: %should also be considered
691: %(it seems favored by Occam's razor).
692: New observations are needed to confirm (or to rule out)
693: such a peculiar periodicity.
694: We estimate that the currently available photon statistics
695: should allow to detect at 99\% confidence level any
696: modulation with a pulsed fraction higher than 7\% and
697: period in the range 12 ms - 20 s. Such a value (computed
698: assuming a sinusoidal modulation and accounting for the
699: number of trials)
700: may be assumed as an upper limit to any undetected pulsation.
701:
702: Spectrum and luminosity of the CCO, as seen by XMM-Newton,
703: are fully comparable to those of the other members of the family
704: \citep{hui06b}. No variability is apparent on the few month time scale,
705: with an upper limit of order 5\%. Upper limits to an optical/IR
706: counterpart leave room for a faint dwarf star as well as for
707: a fallback disc \citep{wang07}.
708:
709: \subsection{The central source in G347.3-0.5}
710:
711: The supernova remnant G347.3-0.5 is the prototype of the
712: peculiar class of ``non-thermal'' SNRs.
713: Very faint in radio, and dominated, in the soft X-ray
714: band, by non-thermal emission \citep{koyama97,slane99},
715: the SNR is very bright
716: at TeV energies, where it has been beautifully resolved in HESS images
717: \citep{aharonian04}. The distance and age of the remnant are debated.
718: A distance of order 6 kpc has been assumed in the past, based on a possible
719: association of the SNR with surrounding molecular clouds and HII region
720: \citep{slane99}. Such a distance would imply an age of a few $10^4$ yr,
721: assuming Sedov evolution. However, more recently, studies with XMM-Newton,
722: coupled to new CO mm-wave high-resolution observations,
723: unveiled a possible interaction of the SNR shock with molecular gas,
724: pointing to a distance of $1.3\pm0.4$ kpc \citep{cassim04,cassim04b,fukui03}. The
725: revised distance implies a much younger age for the SNR (few thousands yr),
726: in agreement with the idea that G347.3-0.5 could be the remnant
727: of the supernova recorded in A.D. 393 \cite{wang97}.
728:
729: The central X-ray source 1WGA J1713.4-3949 (1WGA J1713)
730: was observed by ROSAT \citep{pfefferman96,slane99}
731: and ASCA \citep{slane99}.
732: XMM-Newton and Chandra observations confirmed its similarity
733: to other CCOs, on the basis of its thermal-like spectrum and
734: of the lack of any counterpart \citep{lazendic03,cassim04b}.
735: At the revised SNR distance, the luminosity of 1WGA J1713 is
736: fully consistent with that of other members of the CCO class.
737:
738: Our analysis of multi-epoch XMM-Newton observations does not show
739: any long-term flux variability larger than
740: $\sim5\%$ on years time scale, nor pulsations with pulsed fraction larger than
741: $\sim7\%$ in the 12 ms - 6 s range (at 99\% confidence level, taking
742: into account the number of trials).
743: %or $\sim4\%$ in the 6 s - 100 s \citep{lazendic03}.
744:
745: In the optical/IR range, observations with VLT/NACO have been performed
746: in the H and K band (Mignani et al., these proceedings; \cite{mignani07}).
747: A few faint sources ($Ks\sim18-19$) in a very crowded field are
748: possibly consistent with the Chandra position; however, no firm
749: conclusions may be drawn about their association with 1WGA J1713.
750:
751: \subsection{The central source in Vela Jr.}
752:
753: The supernova remnant was discovered in ROSAT data, superimposed to
754: the large Vela SNR and emerging at energies above $\sim1$ keV \citep{aschenbach98}.
755: It is dubbed ``Vela Jr.'' because of its supposedly younger age
756: than the surrounding Vela remnant.
757: Indeed, the age and distance of the Vela Jr. SNR are a matter of controversy.
758: Possible detection with Comptel
759: of $\gamma$-ray line emission at 1.157 MeV - originating
760: from the decay of $^{44}$Ti produced in the SN explosion - suggested
761: a very young age ($<700$ yr) and small distance ($\sim200$ pc)
762: for the remnant \citep{iyudin98}. However, reanalysis of Comptel data questioned the
763: significance of the 1.157 MeV feature \citep{schonfelder00}.
764: A possible emission feature
765: at 4.4 keV, detected at rather low significance ($\sim4\sigma$) in XMM-Newton data
766: \citep{iyudin05} and hinted in ASCA data \citep{tsunemi00} (but see also
767: \citep{slane01}), possibly due to $^{44}$Sc and $^{44}$Ti
768: fluorescence,
769: supported the picture of a very young and nearby system.
770:
771: On the other side, the
772: observed X-ray interstellar absorption is a factor $\sim6$ larger than
773: the one observed towards the Vela SNR,
774: arguing for a significantly larger distance
775: %(and thus a larger age, too)
776: for Vela Jr. \citep{slane01}. Considering all uncertainties,
777: a distance in the range 0.5-1.5 kpc and
778: an age in the range 1000-3000 yr seem reasonable estimates.
779: Vela Jr. is another member of the class of non-thermal SNRs.
780: It has a purely non-thermal soft X-ray emission
781: \citep{tsunemi00,slane01}, and it
782: has been detected at TeV energies \citep{aharonian05}.
783: Thus, it appears very similar to G347.3-0.5,
784: %one more shared peculiarity is
785: considering the fact that both sport
786: %the presence of
787: a CCO close to their center.
788:
789: The central source, hinted by ROSAT images \citep{aschenbach98},
790: was observed in BeppoSAX data \citep{mereghetti01} and was finally
791: localized with high accuracy with Chandra \citep{pavlov01}.
792: The lack of an optical counterpart points to an
793: INS nature. The CCO, CXOU J085201.4-461753 (CXOU J0852),
794: is located $\sim4$ arcmin North wrt. the geometrical center of the
795: SNR. The region is rather complex and radio observations
796: yield evidence for a diffuse source (possibly a planetary
797: nebula) very close (in projection) to the position of CXOU J0852
798: \citep{reynoso06}.
799:
800: CXOU J0852 has been repeatedly observed with XMM-Newton \citep{becker06}
801: and Chandra \citep{pavlov01,kargaltsev02}. It has a thermal featureless spectrum
802: and a luminosity of $\sim2.5\times10^{32}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (at 1 kpc), the smaller among
803: the CCO group.
804: Our analysis of the entire XMM
805: dataset allows to set an upper limit of 5\% to any long-term variability,
806: as well as an upper limit of 7\% to the pulsed fraction of
807: any undetected pulsation in the range 12 ms - 20 s (at 99\% confidence level, taking
808: into account the number of trials).
809:
810: A small H$\alpha$ nebula has been discovered at a position fully consistent
811: with the coordinates of CXOU J0852 \citep{pellizzoni02}. Such a nebula, if
812: physically related to the CCO, could either be a velocity-driven bow-shock
813: (which would imply that CXOU J0852 is powering a relativistic particle wind), or a
814: photo-ionization nebula. Existence of such a diffuse structure was
815: confirmed by ESO/VLT observations \citep{mignani07}, which also unveiled
816: the presence of a faint IR source (Ks$\sim21.4$) close to the position of CXOU J0852.
817: However, no firm conclusion about the nature of such source, nor on its
818: possible association with the CCO, could be drawn. Planned HST observations
819: in the H$\alpha$ band will shed light on the nature of the diffuse structure.
820:
821: \subsection{``Candidate'' CCOs}
822:
823: Few more X-ray sources have been observed inside supernova
824: remnants, with a phenomenology pointing to a classification
825: as CCOs.
826:
827: Chandra images have unveiled a possible CCO at the center of
828: the $\sim3000$ yr old SNR G330.2+1.0 \citep{park06}, a member
829: of the class of non-thermal supernova remnants \citep{torii06},
830: located at 5-10 kpc, very similar to G347.3-0.5 and Vela Jr.
831: Such a point source ($\sim600$ counts) shows spectrum and
832: luminosity very similar
833: to other CCOs; a marginal evidence for pulsations at 7.5 s
834: has also been obtained.
835:
836: A possible CCO has been discovered with Chandra
837: close to the center of the
838: very young (1000-3000 yr) shell-type
839: SNR G15.9+0.2, located at $\sim8.5$ kpc.
840: The spectrum and luminosity of the point source,
841: highly absorbed, together with the lack
842: of radio or optical counterpart,
843: seem typical for a CCO, altough a very
844: small statistics is available ($\sim100$ counts).
845:
846: Chandra images unveiled an X-ray source
847: close to the center of the
848: G349.7+0.2, a $\sim4000$ yr old SNR located at $\sim22$ kpc
849: \citep{lazendic05}. The small number of photons ($\sim30$ counts)
850: %prevents from drawing conclusions,
851: hampers any further consideration. However,
852: if the source
853: is associated to the SNR, its luminosity would point to
854: a CCO interpretation.
855:
856: RX J0002+6245, an X-ray source located close to the CTA1
857: supernova remnant, was proposed by \citet{hailey95} to be an
858: INS, on the basis of the thermal-like spectrum and possible pulsation
859: at 242 ms. Faint surrounding diffuse emission
860: was proposed to be a previously unknown SNR, associated to the
861: INS. XMM-Newton observations do not confirm such a picture and
862: clearly show that RX J0002+6245 is a normal F-type star \citep{esposito07}.
863:
864: \section{Conclusions}
865:
866: Sensitive multiwavelength observations point to the picture of CCOs
867: as an heterogeneous sample of intrinsically different objects.
868: We are pretty sure that 1E1207 and CXOU J1852 are neutron stars
869: with a weak magnetic dipole field. On the other side, 1E 1613 is possibly a very
870: peculiar magnetar, and the central source in Cas A could also be
871: a magnetar in a long-lasting quiescent phase.
872: What could the remaining CCOs be? The birth rate of
873: objects like 1E 1613 (be it a braked magnetar,
874: or a young binary) is expected to be very low, thus it seems unlikely
875: to find similar sources hidden (in quiescence?) behind other CCOs.
876: %Weakly magnetized INSs as well as dormant magnetars seem
877: %two more promising templates to explain other CCOs.
878: Most probably, CCOs include both
879: weakly magnetized INSs and dormant magnetars.
880: Thus, they represent the
881: two wings of the distribution of newborn neutron stars as a function
882: of their magnetic fields, bracketing the radio pulsars which account for
883: the bulk of the population.
884: %by radio PSRs.
885: Ironically, our current view
886: of the CCO phenomenology in several cases prevents us
887: from distinguishing
888: % for individual sources we are not able to distinguish
889: between
890: two alternative scenarios requiring totally different
891: physical properties.
892:
893: The scenario of weakly magnetized INSs
894: is based on the link between slow rotation of the
895: proto-neutron star, inefficient magnetic field generation and
896: accretion of fallback material,
897: which would quench standard ``radio PSR'' emission.
898: A sort of unified picture, in which the evolution
899: of an INS depends on initial spin/magnetic field properties,
900: driving the star's interaction with fallback material, could be
901: considered (as suggested a few years ago by \citep{alpar01}).
902: The biggest problem within
903: the weakly magnetized INSs scenario is accounting for
904: the details of the X-ray emission, explaining
905: the rich phenomenologies of the
906: prototypes 1E 1207 and CXOU J1852 and
907: the less spectacular properties of the other candidates.
908: Why do we see
909: multiple spectral features in 1E 1207 only? How can the pulsed fraction
910: in CXOU J1852 be so high? Why the pulsed fraction
911: of the other sources is so low?
912: Where are X-rays ultimately produced?
913: Are we seeing the neutron star surface?
914:
915: A lot of theoretical
916: work will be needed. Other interesting issues are the birth rate
917: of such weakly magnetized INSs, and their ``fate''. After the
918: host SNR fades away, such sources,
919: which were found during observations
920: devoted to the study of their SNRs, could quickly become much harder
921: to detect, replenishing
922: the large expected (but not observed)
923: Galactic population of INSs. Or, alternatively, could
924: they begin at a later stage a radio PSR activity? Sensitive searches
925: for radio pulsations from 1E 1207 and CXOU J1852 would be very interesting,
926: especially in view of the possible detection of 1E 1207 as a radio PSR
927: from Parkes \citep{camilo03}.
928: %as well as of the evidence
929: %that several young pulsars such as PSR J0205+6449
930: %in 3C 58 \citep{camilo02} and PSR J1833-1034 in G21.5-0.9 \citep{camilo06}
931: %are faint in radio, with a very steep spectral shape.
932:
933: The picture of dormant magnetars is also a viable possibility.
934: % since
935: %the properties of the unidentified CCOs are very similar to
936: %the (quiescent) ones of the possible dormant magnetar prototype in Cas A.
937: Assessing a magnetar nature for
938: one or more CCOs would have important consequences on our estimate
939: of the Galactic population of magnetars (many more could hide in a long-lasting
940: quiescent state) and of the birth rate of such sources.
941:
942: Sensitive X-ray (and radio) searches for pulsations and for
943: long-term variability,
944: coupled to deep observations in the infrared (to search for a possible
945: debris disc - current upper
946: limits are not constraining) will be crucial to address the nature of CCOs.
947: It will be a rewarding investment, since it will
948: complete our view of the birth properties of neutron stars. This will be a
949: fundamental piece of information in order to
950: derive a coherent, unified scenario for
951: different species of INSs, elucidating
952: which differences are related to the objects' nature (birth properties)
953: and which ones are related to the objects' evolution.
954: %The Crab pulsar, the AXP in Kes 73
955: %\citep[see e.g.][]{woods06} and the CCO in Kes 79 have a similar age
956: %($\sim1000$) and
957: %we may be pretty sure that they are different since birth.
958: Indeed, as noted by Woods (these proceedings), the combination of the
959: estimated birth rates for different INSs species \citep[see, e.g.][for radio
960: PSRs, magnetars, RRaTs and XDINSs, respectively]{faucher05,gill07,popov06}
961: exceeds the overall estimated
962: Galactic core-collapse supernova rate \citep{diehl06}. Although
963: such estimates should be taken with caution, this suggests the possibility of
964: an evolutionary path linking at least few INSs species. We could also
965: expect at least few
966: Galactic SNRs to host an Isolated Black Hole (IBH) and thus
967: we cannot exclude that some IBH be hidden
968: among CCOs (as it was considered for the source in Cas A
969: \citep{pavlov00,chakrabarty01}). Such an hypothesis seems rather
970: unlikely because there are no IBH emission models able to fit the
971: observed X-ray emission properties \citep{chakrabarty01}. Furthermore,
972: we would be facing some sort of conspiracy, rendering undistinguishable
973: the phenomenologies of astrophysical objects as diverse
974: as weakly magnetized neutron stars, dormant magnetars and IBHs.
975:
976: %%
977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
978: %% BACKMATTER
979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
980:
981: \begin{theacknowledgments}
982: I warmly thank the organizers of the conference ``40 years of
983: Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and more'' for the invitation.
984: I thank P.A.Caraveo and P.Esposito for a critical reading of the manuscript,
985: and S.Mereghetti, R.P.Mignani, A.Pellizzoni,
986: A.Tiengo and G.F.Bignami for many useful discussions.
987: My research work on the topic of the manuscript is supported by
988: the Italian Space Agency (ASI).
989: \end{theacknowledgments}
990:
991: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
992: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
993: %% manually.
994: %%
995: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. Compliant BibTex styles
996: %% are aipproc (for use with natbib) and aipprocl (if natbib is missing
997: %% at the site).
998: %%
999: %% Please run "bibtex \jobname" to obtain the bibliography and
1000: %% then re-run LaTeX twice to fix the references!
1001: %%
1002: %% When referring to citations in the text, in quare brackets [] show
1003: %% the number in order of appearance. References in the References
1004: %% section are listed in the same numerical order.
1005: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1006:
1007: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
1008: %\bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing
1009:
1010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1011: %% You probably want to use your own bibtex database here
1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1013:
1014: %\bibliography{sample}
1015:
1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1017: %% If the bibliography is
1018: %% produced without BibTeX, comment out the above lines, use
1019: %% \begin{thebibliography}{widest-label} environment to hold
1020: %% the list of references and
1021: %% \bibitem{label} command to start a bibliographical entry having
1022: %% the "label" for use in \cite commands.
1023: %%
1024: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
1025: %% after the \end{document}
1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1027:
1028: \begin{thebibliography}{15}
1029: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2004)]{aharonian04} Aharonian, F.A., Akhperjanian,
1030: A.G., Aye, K.-M., et al., 2004, Nature 432, 75
1031: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005)]{aharonian05} Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian,
1032: A.G., Bazer-Bachi, a.R., et al., 2005, A\&A 437, L7
1033: \bibitem[Alpar(2001)]{alpar01} Alpar, M.A., 2001, ApJ 554, 1245
1034: \bibitem[Aschenbach(1998)]{aschenbach98} Aschenbach, B., 1998, Nature 396, 141
1035: \bibitem[Becker \& Aschenbach(2002)]{becker02} Becker, W. \& Aschenbach, B.,
1036: 2002, in Proceedings of the We-Heraeus Seminar on Neutron Stars, Pulsars and
1037: Supernova Remnants, ed. W.Becker, H.Lesch and J.Truemper, MPE Report 278, 64
1038: \bibitem[Becker et al.(2006)]{becker06} Becker, W., Hui, C.Y., Aschenbach, B.,
1039: Iyudin, A., 2006, submitted to A\&A, astro-ph/0607081
1040: \bibitem[Bignami et al.(2003)]{bignami03} Bignami, G.F., Caraveo, P.A., De
1041: Luca, A., Mereghetti, S., 2003, Nature 423, 725
1042: %\bibitem[Camilo et al.(2006)]{camilo06} Camilo, F., Ransom, S.M., Gaensler,
1043: % B.M., et al., 2006, ApJ 637, 456
1044: \bibitem[Camilo et al.(2003)]{camilo03} Camilo, F., 2003, in ``Radio
1045: Pulsars'', ASP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 302. Ed. by M. Bailes, D.J. Nice
1046: and S.E. Thorsett. San Francisco: ASP, p.145 %, astro-ph/0210620
1047: %\bibitem[Camilo et al.(2002)]{camilo02} Camilo, F., Stairs, I.H., Lorimer,
1048: % D.R., et al., 2002, ApJ 571, L41
1049: \bibitem[Canizares \& Winkler(1981)]{canizares81} Canizares, C.R. \& Winkler,
1050: P.F. Jr., 1981, ApJ 246, L33
1051: \bibitem[Carter et al.(1997)]{carter97} Carter, L.M., Dickel, J.R., Bomans, D.J., 1997, PASP 109, 990
1052: \bibitem[Cassam-Chenai et al.(2004)]{cassim04} Cassam-Chenai, G.,
1053: Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., et al., 2004, A\&A 427, 199
1054: \bibitem[Cassam-Chenai et al.(2004b)]{cassim04b} Cassam-Chenaï, G.,
1055: Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., Sauvageot, P., Dubner, G. 2004b, in Young Neutron Stars and
1056: Their Environments, ed. F. Camilo, \& B. M. Gaensler, San Francisco, CA:
1057: ASP, p.73
1058: \bibitem[Chakrabarty et al.(2001)]{chakrabarty01} Chackrabarty,
1059: D. Pivovaroff, M.J., Hernquist, L.E., Heil, J.S., Narayan, R., 2001, ApJ
1060: 548, 800
1061: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Kirshner(1978)]{chevalier78} Chevalier, R.A., Kirshner,
1062: R.P., 1978, ApJ 219, 931
1063: \bibitem[De Luca et al.(2004)]{deluca04} De Luca, A., Mereghetti, S., Caraveo,
1064: P.A., at al., 2004, A\&A 418, 625
1065: \bibitem[De Luca et al.(2006)]{deluca06} De Luca, A., Caraveo, P.A.,
1066: Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A., Bignami, G.F., 2006, Science 313, 814
1067: \bibitem[De Luca et al.(2007a)]{deluca07a} De Luca, A., Mignani, R.P., Zaggia,
1068: S., et al., 2007, submitted to ApJ
1069: \bibitem[Diehl et al.(2006)]{diehl06} Diehl, R., Halloin, H., Kretschmer, K.,
1070: et al., 2006, Nature 439, 45
1071: \bibitem[Esposito et al.(2007)]{esposito07} Esposito, P., De Luca, A., Tiengo,
1072: A., et al., 2007, MNRAS in press, arXiv:0711.0827
1073: \bibitem[Faucher-Gigu\`ere \& Kaspi(2006)]{faucher05} Faucher-Giguère, C.A.,
1074: Kaspi, V.M., 2006, ApJ 643, 332
1075: \bibitem[Fesen et al.(2006)]{fesen06} Fesen, R.A., Hammell, M.C., Morse, J.,
1076: et al., 2006, ApJ 645, 283
1077: \bibitem[Fesen et al.(2006b)]{fesen06b} Fesen, R.A., Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal, D.,
1078: 2006b, ApJ 636, 848
1079: \bibitem[Fukui et al.(2003)]{fukui03} Fukui, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Tamura, K., et
1080: al., 2003, PASJ 55, L61
1081: \bibitem[Gaensler et al.(2000)]{gaensler00} Gaensler, B.M., Bock, D.C.-J.,
1082: Stappers, B.W., 2000, ApJ 537, L35
1083: \bibitem[Garmire et al.(2000)]{garmire00} Garmire, G.P., Garmire, A.B.,
1084: Pavlov, G.G., Burrows, D.N., 2000, HEAD 5, 3211
1085: \bibitem[Garmire et al.(2000b)]{garmire00b} Garmire, G.P., Pavlov, G.G.,
1086: Garmire, A.B., Zavlin, V.E., 2000b, IAU Circ. 7350
1087: \bibitem[Giacani et al.(2000)]{giacani00} Giacani, E.B., Dubner, G.M., Green,
1088: A.J., Goss, W.M., Gaensler, B.M., 2000, AJ 119, 281
1089: \bibitem[Gill \& Heyl(2007)]{gill07} Gill, R., Heyl, J., 2007, MNRAS 381, 52
1090: \bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(1997)]{gotthelf97} Gotthelf, E.V., Petre, R., Hwang,
1091: U., 1997, ApJ 487, L175
1092: \bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(1999)]{gotthelf99} Gotthelf, E.V., Petre, R.,
1093: Vasisht, G., 1999, ApJ 514, L107
1094: \bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(2005)]{gotthelf05} Gotthelf, E.V., Halpern, J.P.,
1095: Seward, F.D., 2005, ApJ 627, 390
1096: \bibitem[Gotthelf \& Halpern(2007)]{gotthelf07} Gotthelf, E.V. \& Halpern,
1097: J.P., 2007, ApJ 664, L35
1098: \bibitem[Haberl(2006)]{haberl06} Haberl, F., 2007, Ap\&SS 308, 181
1099: \bibitem[Hailey \& Craig(1995)]{hailey95} Hailey, C.J., Craig, W.W., 1995, ApJ
1100: 455, L151
1101: \bibitem[Halpern et al.(2007)]{halpern07} Halpern, J.P, Gotthelf, E.V.,
1102: Camilo, F., Seward, F.D., 2007, ApJ
1103: \bibitem[Hui \& Becker(2006)]{hui06} Hui, C.Y. \& Becker, W., 2006, A\&A 457, L33
1104: \bibitem[Hui \& Becker(2006b)]{hui06b} Hui, C.Y. \& Becker, W., 2006b, A\&A 454, 543
1105: \bibitem[Iyudin et al.(1998)]{iyudin98} Iyudin, A., Schoenfelder, V., Bennet,
1106: K., et al., 1998, Nature 396, 142
1107: \bibitem[Iyudin et al.(2005)]{iyudin05} Iyudin, A., Aschenbach, B., Becker,
1108: W., Dennerl, K., Haberl, F., 2005, A\&A 429, 225
1109: \bibitem[Kalogera(1996)]{kalogera96} Kalogera, V., 1996, ApJ 471, 352
1110: \bibitem[Kargaltsev at al.(2002)]{kargaltsev02} Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G.G.,
1111: Sanwal, D., Garmire, G:, 2002, ApJ 580, 1060
1112: \bibitem[Koyama et al.(1997)]{koyama97} Koyama, K., Kinugasa, K., Matsuzaki,
1113: K., et al., 1997, PASJ 49, L7
1114: \bibitem[Krause at el.(2005)]{krause05} Krause, O., Rieke, G.H., Birkmann,
1115: S.M. et al., 2005, Science 308, 1604
1116: \bibitem[Lazendic et al.(2003)]{lazendic03} Lazendic, J.S., Slane, P.O.,
1117: Gaensler, B.M., et al., 2003, ApJ 593, L27
1118: \bibitem[Lazendic et al.(2005)]{lazendic05} Lazendic, J.S., Slane, P.O.,
1119: Hughes, J.P., Chen, Y., Dame, T.M., 2005, ApJ 618, 733
1120: \bibitem[Li(2007)]{li07} Li, X.-D., 2007, ApJ 666, L81
1121: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2006)]{liu06} Liu, D.B., Yuan, A.F., Chen, L., You, H.,
1122: 2006, ApJ 644, 439
1123: \bibitem[McLaughlin et al.(2006)]{mclaughlin06} McLaughlin, M.A., Lyne, A.G.,
1124: Lorimer, D.R., et al., 2006, Nature 439, 817
1125: \bibitem[Mereghetti(2001)]{mereghetti01} Mereghetti, S., 2001, ApJ 548, L213
1126: \bibitem[Mereghetti et al.(2002)]{mereghetti02} Mereghetti, S., De Luca, A.,
1127: Caraveo, P.A., et al., 2002, ApJ 581, 1280
1128: \bibitem[Mereghetti et al.(2002b)]{mereghetti02b} Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A.,
1129: Israel, G.L., 2002b, ApJ 569, 275
1130: \bibitem[Mereghetti et al.(2006)]{mereghetti06} Mereghetti, S., Esposito, P.,
1131: Tiengo, A., et al., 2006, A\&A 450, 759
1132: \bibitem[Mignani et al.(2004)]{mignani04} Mignani, R.P., De Luca, A., Caraveo,
1133: P.A., in Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, ed. F. Camilo and
1134: B.M. Gaensler San Francisco, CA: ASP, p.391
1135: \bibitem[Mignani et al.(2007)]{mignani07} Mignani, R.P., Zaggia, S., De Luca,
1136: A., et al., 2007, submitted to A\&A
1137: \bibitem[Mignani et al.(2007b)]{mignani07b} Mignani, R.P., De Luca, A., Zaggia,
1138: S., et al., 2007, A\&A 473, 883
1139: \bibitem[Mori et al.(2005)]{mori05} Mori, K., Chonko, J.C., Hailey, C.J.,
1140: 2005, ApJ 631, 1082
1141: \bibitem[Pavlov et al.(1999)]{pavlov99} Pavlov, G.G., Zavlin, V.E., Truemper,
1142: J., 1999, ApJ 511, L45
1143: \bibitem[Pavlov et al.(2000)]{pavlov00} Pavlov, G.G., Zavlin, V.E.,
1144: Aschenbach, B., Truemper, J., Sanwal, D., 2000, ApJ 531, L53
1145: \bibitem[Pavlov et al.(2001)]{pavlov01} Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal, D., Kiziltan,
1146: B., Garmire, G., 2000, ApJ 559, 131
1147: \bibitem[Pavlov et al.(2002)]{pavlov02} Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal, D., Garmire, G.P., Zavlin, V.E., 2002, in Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ASP Conf.Ser. 271, Ed. P.O. Slane, B.M. Gaensler. San Francisco: ASP, p.247
1148: %\bibitem[Pavlov et al.(2002b)]{pavlov02b} Pavlov, G.G., Zavlin, V.E., Sanwal,
1149: % D., Truemper, J., 2002b, ApJ 569, L95
1150: \bibitem[Pavlov et al.(2004)]{pavlov04} Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal, D., Teter, M.A., 2004, in Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, Ed. F. Camilo, B.M. Gaensler. San Francisco, CA: ASP, p.239
1151: \bibitem[Park et al.(2006)]{park06} Park, S., Mori, K., Kargaltsev, O., et
1152: al., 2006, ApJ 653, L37
1153: \bibitem[Pellizzoni et al.(2002)]{pellizzoni02} Pellizzoni, A., Mereghetti,
1154: S., De Luca, A., 2002, A\&A 393, L65
1155: \bibitem[Petre et al.(1982)]{petre82} Petre, R., Canizares, C.R., Kriss, G.A.,
1156: Winkler, P.F. Jr., 1982, 1982, ApJ 258, 22
1157: \bibitem[Petre et al.(1996)]{petre96} Petre, R., Becker, C.M., Winkler, P.F.,
1158: 1996, ApJ 465, L43
1159: \bibitem[Pfeffermann \& Aschenbach(1996)]{pfefferman96} Pfeffermann, E. \&
1160: Aschenbach, B., 1996, in Roentgenstrahlung from the Universe,
1161: ed. H.H. Zimmermann, J.Truemper, H.Yorke, MPE Report 263, 267
1162: \bibitem[Pizzolato et al.(2007)]{pizzolato07} Pizzolato, F., Colpi, M., De
1163: Luca, A., et al., 2007, submitted to ApJ
1164: \bibitem[Popov et al.(2006)]{popov06} Popov, S.B., Turolla, R., Possenti, A.,
1165: 2006, MNRAS 369, L23
1166: \bibitem[Popov(2007)]{popov07} Popov, S.B., 2006, Phys. Particles Nuclei
1167: Lett., in press (astro-ph/0610593)
1168: \bibitem[Psaltis et al.(2000)]{psaltis00} Psaltis, D., Oezel, F., DeDeo, S. 2000, ApJ 544, 390
1169: \bibitem[Reynolds et al.(2006)]{reynolds06} Reynolds, S.,P., Borkowski, K.J.,
1170: Hwang, U., et al., 2006, ApJ 652, L45
1171: \bibitem[Reynoso et al.(2003)]{reynoso03} Reynoso, E.M., Green, A.J.,
1172: Johnston, S., 2003, MNRAS 345, 671
1173: \bibitem[Reynoso et al.(2004)]{reynoso04} Reynoso, E.M., Green, A.J.,
1174: Johnston, S., et al., 2004, PASA 21, 82
1175: \bibitem[Reynoso et al.(2006)]{reynoso06} Reynoso, E.M., Dubner, G., Giacani,
1176: E., Johnston, S., Green, A.J., 2006, A\&A 449, 243
1177: \bibitem[Roger et al.(1988)]{roger88} Roger, R.S., Milne, D.K., Kesteven,
1178: M.J., Wellington, K.J., Haynes, R.F., 1988, ApJ 332, 940
1179: \bibitem[Schoenfelder et al.(2000)]{schonfelder00} Schoenfelder, V., Bloemen,
1180: H., Collmar, W., et al., 2000, AIP Conf.Proc., AIP, 510, 54
1181: \bibitem[Sanwal et al.(2002)]{sanwal02} Sanwal, D., Garmire, G.P., Garmire,
1182: A., Pavlov, G.G., Mignani, R.P., 2002, AAS Meeting, 200, 72.01
1183: \bibitem[Seward et al.(2003)]{seward03} Seward, F.D., Slane, P.O., Smith,
1184: R.K., Sun, M., 2003, ApJ 584, 414
1185: \bibitem[Slane et al.(1999)]{slane99} Slane, P., Gaensler,B.M., Dame, et al.,
1186: 1999, ApJ 525, 357
1187: \bibitem[Slane et al.(2001)]{slane01} Slane, P., Hughes, J.P., Edgar, J., et
1188: al., 2001, ApJ 548, 814
1189: \bibitem[Sun et al.(2004)]{sun04} Sun, M., Seward, F.D., Smith, R.K., Slane,
1190: P.O., 2004, ApJ 605, 742
1191: \bibitem[Tananbaum et al.(1999)]{tananbaum99} Tananbaum, H., 1999, IAU Circ.7246
1192: \bibitem[Torii et al.(2006)]{torii06} Torii, K., Uchida, H., Hasuike, K.,
1193: 2006, PASJ 58, L11
1194: \bibitem[Tsunemi et al.(2000)]{tsunemi00} Tsunemi, H., Miyata, E., Aschenbach,
1195: B., Hiraga, J:, Akutsu, D., 2000, PASJ 52, 887
1196: \bibitem[Tuohy \& Garmire(1980)]{tuohy80} Tuohy, I., Garmire, G.P., 1980, ApJ
1197: 239, L107
1198: \bibitem[Tuohy et al.(1983)]{tuohy83} Tuohy, I., Dopita, M.A., Garmire,
1199: G.P., Manchester, R.N., 1983, ApJ 268, 778
1200: \bibitem[Wang et al.(1997)]{wang97} Wang, Z.-R., Qu, Q.-Y., Chen, Y., 1997,
1201: A\&A 318, L59
1202: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2007)]{wang07} Wang, Z., Kaplan, D.L., Chakrabarty, D.,
1203: 2007, ApJ 655, 261
1204: \bibitem[Winkler et al.(1988)]{winkler88} Winkler, P.F., Tuttle, J.H.,
1205: Kirshner, R.P., Irwin, M.J., 1988, in Supernova Remnants and the
1206: Interstellar Medium, ed. R.S.Roger, T.Landecker, CUP, 65
1207: \bibitem[Winkler \& Petre(2007)]{winkler07} Winkler, P.F. \& Petre, R., 2007,
1208: ApJ in press, astro-ph/0608205
1209: \bibitem[Woods \& Thompson(2006)]{woods06} Woods, P.M., Thompson, C., 2006,
1210: in Compact stellar X-ray sources, Cambridge University Press, p.547
1211: \bibitem[Woods et al.(2007)]{woods07} Woods, P.M., Zavlin, V.E., Pavlov, G.G.,
1212: 2007, Ap\&SS 308, 239
1213: \bibitem[Zavlin et al.(2000)]{zavlin00} Zavlin, V.E., Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal,
1214: D., Truemper, J., 2000, ApJ 540, L25
1215: \bibitem[Zavlin et al.(2004)]{zavlin04} Zavlin, V.E., Pavlov, G.G., Sanwal,
1216: D., 2004, ApJ 606, 444
1217:
1218: \end{thebibliography}
1219:
1220:
1221: \end{document}
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225: 1. Cassam-Chenai, G., et al., 2004, A\&A 427, 199 \\
1226: 2. De Luca, A., et al., 2006, Science 313, 814 \\
1227: 3. De Luca, A., et al., 2004, A\&A 418, 625 \\
1228: 4. Gotthelf, E.V., Halpern, J.P., 2007, ApJ 664, L35 \\
1229: 5. Haberl, F., 2007, Ap\&SS 308, 181 \\
1230: 6. Halpern, J.P., et al., 2007, ApJ 665, 1304 \\
1231: 7. Hui, C.Y. \& Becker, W., 2006, A\&A 454, 543 \\
1232: %\bibitem{kaspi06} Kaspi, V. et al., in Compact stellar X-ray sources,
1233: %Cambridge University Press, p.279
1234: 8. Krause, O., et al., 2005, Science 308, 1604 \\
1235: 9. mcLaughlin, M., et al., 2006, Nature 439, 817 \\
1236: 10. Park, S., et al., 2006, ApJ 653, L37 \\
1237: 11. Pavlov, G.G., et al., 2002, ASP Conf.Ser.271, 247 \\
1238: 12. Tiengo, A., Mereghetti, S., 2007, ApJ 657, L101 \\
1239: 13. Woods, P.M., Thompson, C., 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources,
1240: Cambridge University Press, p.547 \\
1241:
1242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1243: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
1244: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
1245: %% of the above.
1246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1247:
1248: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1249:
1250: \bibitem{Brown2000}
1251: M.~P. Brown, and K.~Austin, \emph{The New Physique}, Publisher Name,
1252: Publisher City, 2000, pp. 212--213.
1253:
1254: \bibitem{BrownAustin:2000}
1255: M.~P. Brown, and K.~Austin, \emph{Appl. Phys. Letters} \textbf{85},
1256: 2503--2504 (2000).
1257:
1258: \bibitem{Wang}
1259: R.~Wang, ``Title of Chapter,'' in \emph{Classic Physiques}, edited by
1260: R.~B. Hamil, Publisher Name, Publisher City, 2000, pp. 212--213.
1261:
1262: \bibitem{SJ:1999}
1263: C.~D.~Smith and E.~F.~Jones, ``Load-Cycling in Cubic Press,'' in
1264: \emph{Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1999}, edited by M.~D.~F. et~al.,
1265: AIP Conference Proceedings 505, American Institute of Physics, New York,
1266: 1999, pp. 651--654.
1267:
1268: \end{thebibliography}
1269:
1270: \endinput
1271: %%
1272: %% End of file `template-psr.tex'.
1273:
1274:
1275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1276: %%
1277: %% Graphics support:
1278: %%
1279: %% Support for including and manipulating graphics is provided
1280: %% as the standard LaTex graphicx package is automatically loaded
1281: %% by the aipproc class.
1282: %%
1283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1284: %%
1285: %% Figures:
1286: %%
1287: %% The environment figure* is not supported. Figures that need to
1288: %% span both columns are **automatically** recognized in two column mode.
1289: %%
1290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1291: %% Sample figure:
1292: %%
1293: %% The option [height=...] scales the picture to the given height,
1294: %% without it it would be printed at its nominal size
1295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1296:
1297: \begin{figure}
1298: \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{golfer}
1299: \caption{Picture to fixed height}
1300: \end{figure}
1301:
1302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1303: %% TABLES:
1304: %%
1305: %% 1. \begin{table}[pos], the optional pos argument can be used to specify
1306: %% which float areas this float is allowed to migrate (default is tbp).
1307: %%
1308: %% 2. \tablehead command is provided, used as
1309: %% \tablehead{cols}{h-pos}{v-pos}{heading text}, with
1310: %% cols specifying the numbers of columns the heading text should span,
1311: %% h-pos defining the horizontal positioning of the text of
1312: %% the column(s), e.g., l, r, c, or p{...},
1313: %% v-pos containing either t, c, or b to denote the vertical placement
1314: %% of the text in relation to other cells of that row (this is
1315: %% only relevant if the heading text consists of more than one
1316: %% line.
1317: %%
1318: %% 3. Heading text can be split vertically by using "\\" to denote the
1319: %% the line breaks.
1320: %%
1321: %% 4. \tablenote{text} command produce a note to a table with text
1322: %% appearing below the table.
1323: %%
1324: %% 5. The environment table* is not supported. Tables that need to
1325: %% span both columns are **automatically** recognized in two column mode.
1326: %%
1327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1328: %% SAMPLE TABLE
1329: %%
1330: %% Shows the use of \tablehead and \tablenote
1331: %% macros
1332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1333:
1334: \begin{table}
1335: \begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
1336: \hline
1337: & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
1338: & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
1339: & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
1340: & \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
1341: \hline
1342: 1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
1343: 1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
1344: 1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
1345: 1998\tablenote{predicted} & 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
1346: \hline
1347: \end{tabular}
1348: \caption{Average turnover per shop: by type
1349: of retail organisation}
1350: \label{tab:a}
1351: \end{table}
1352:
1353: \begin{enumerate}
1354: \item
1355: An item \cite{Liang:1983}
1356: \item
1357: Another item with sub entries
1358: \begin{enumerate}
1359: \item
1360: A sub entry \cite{Wang}
1361: \item
1362: Second sub entry
1363: \end{enumerate}
1364: \item
1365: The final item with normal label.
1366: \end{enumerate}
1367: Infandum, regina, iubes renovare dolorem, Troianas ut opes et
1368: lamentabile regnum cruerint Danai; quaeque ipse miserrima vidi, et
1369: quorum pars magna fui. Quis talia fando Myrmidonum Dolopumve aut duri
1370: miles Ulixi temperet a lacrimis?
1371: \begin{description}
1372: \item[Infandum]
1373: regina, iubes renovare dolorem, Troianas ut opes et lamentabile
1374: regnum cruerint Danai.
1375: \item[Sed]
1376: si tantus amor casus cognoscere nostros et breviter Troiae supremum
1377: audire laborem, quamquam animus meminisse horret, luctuque refugit,
1378: incipiam.
1379: \item[Lamentabile] regnum cruerint Danai; quaeque ipse miserrima vidi, et
1380: quorum pars magna fui. Quis talia fando Myrmidonum Dolopumve aut duri
1381: miles Ulixi temperet a lacrimis?
1382: \end{description}
1383:
1384: