1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj} \usepackage{psfig} \usepackage{apjfonts}
3:
4: %\usepackage{psfig}
5:
6: \def\lta{\la}
7: \def\gta{\ga}
8: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
10: \def\rmmat#1{{\hbox{\rm #1}}}
11: \def\rmscr#1{\rmmat{\scriptsize #1}}
12:
13: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
14: \newcommand{\loe}{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
15: \newcommand{\goe}{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
16: \def\ROSAT{{\it ROSAT}}
17: \def\rosat{{\it ROSAT}}
18: \newcommand\chandra{{\it Chandra}}
19: \newcommand\Chandra{{\it Chandra}}
20: \newcommand\xmm{{\it XMM-Newton}}
21: \newcommand\XMM{{\it XMM-Newton}}
22: \def\taxp{\hbox{XTE~J1810$-$197}}
23:
24: \def\s{\phantom{1}}
25: \def\xray{\hbox{X-ray}}
26: \def\nh{\hbox{$N_{\rm H}$}}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \title{Constraints on the Emission and Viewing Geometry of \\ the Transient Anomalous X-ray Pulsar XTE J1810$-$197}
31:
32: \author{Rosalba Perna\altaffilmark{1} and E.~V.~Gotthelf\altaffilmark{2}}
33: \altaffiltext{1}{JILA and Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences,
34: University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309}
35: \altaffiltext{2}{Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: The temporal decay of the flux components of Transient Anomalous X-ray
39: Pulsar \taxp\ following its 2002 outburst presents a unique
40: opportunity to probe the emission geometry of a magnetar. Toward this
41: goal, we model the magnitude of the pulsar's modulation in narrow
42: spectral bands over time. Following previous work, we assume that the
43: post-outburst flux is produced in two distinct thermal components arising
44: from a hot spot and a warm concentric ring. We include general
45: relativistic effects on the blackbody spectra due to gravitational
46: redshift and light bending near the stellar surface, which strongly
47: depend on radius. This affects the model fits for the temperature and
48: size of the emission regions. For the hot spot, the observed temporal
49: and energy-dependent pulse modulation is found to require an
50: anisotropic, {pencil-beamed} radiation pattern. We are able to
51: constrain an allowed range for the angles that the line-of-sight
52: ($\psi$) and the hot spot pole ($\xi$) make with respect to the
53: spin-axis. Within errors, this is defined by the locus of points in
54: the $\xi-\psi$-plane that lie along the line
55: $(\xi+\beta(R))(\psi+\beta(R))\approx{\rm constant}$, where $\beta(R)$
56: is a function of the radius $R$ of the star. For a canonical value of
57: $R=12$~km, the viewing parameters range from $\psi=\xi=37^{\circ}$ to
58: $(\psi,\xi)=(85^{\circ},15^{\circ})$. We discuss our results in the
59: context of magnetar emission models.
60:
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \keywords{pulsars: individual (\taxp) --- stars: neutron --- X-rays: stars}
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) are peculiar high-energy pulsars whose
68: observed luminosity greatly exceeds that which can be supplied by
69: their rotational energy losses. These pulsars occupy a narrow range of
70: spin periods ($P\sim 2-12$ sec) and are spinning down rapidly compared
71: to the rotation-powered pulsars. For the vacuum dipole model, the
72: timing properties of these pulsars imply an enormous magnetic field,
73: $B\sim 10^{14}-10^{15}$ G. These relatively rare objects ($\sim 10$
74: compared to $\sim 1700$ catalogued radio pulsars), generally display
75: sinusoidal modulation in their pulsed flux, with a wide range of
76: amplitudes ($\sim 10-80\%$) and are likely young ($<10^4$~yrs), as more
77: than half are associated with supernova remnants (see Kaspi 2007 for a
78: recent review). AXPs can be understood within the context of the
79: magnetar model developed by Duncan \& Thompson (1992) to explain the
80: burst phenomenology of Soft $\gamma$-ray Repeaters (SGRs). The excess
81: emission from both AXPs and SGRs, collectively referred to as
82: magnetars, is powered by the decay of their extreme magnetic
83: fields. This is suggested by the relatively high temperatures of their
84: thermal emission ($kT \approx 0.4-0.7$~keV for blackbody fits), and
85: frequent rapid ($<0.1$~s) burst activity. The geometry and the
86: properties of the observed emission from the magnetars is of great
87: interest for understanding how this activity arises.
88:
89: The recent discovery of an AXP fading from a long duration outburst
90: offers the unique opportunity to probe the magnetar emission geometry
91: evolution during this event. The $P=5.54$~s Transient AXP (TAXP)
92: \taxp\ was discovered in January 2003 by Ibrahim et al. (2004) using
93: the {\em Rossi X-ray timing explorer} ({\it RXTE}) following a large
94: eruption. Subsequently its flux decayed exponentially ($\tau \approx
95: 900$~d) nearly back to a quiescent flux level as determined from
96: serendipitously archival X-ray observations (Gotthelf et
97: al. 2004). The earlier measurements indicate that the TAXPs $2-10$~keV
98: flux had increased by two orders of magnitude. However, of great
99: interest, the quiescent luminosity is 100 times lower than for the
100: well-established AXPs and SGRs, suggesting a large unidentified
101: population of neutron stars (Gotthelf \etal\ 2004). In contrast, the
102: magnetic field strength of \taxp, $B = 3\times 10^{14}$~G as inferred
103: from its spin-down properties, is typical of the magnetars.
104:
105: The flux and pulse evolution of \taxp\ were monitored with the \xmm\
106: X-ray observatory at roughly bi-yearly intervals starting Sept. 2003,
107: yielding a total of seven epochs through Mar. 2006. The complete set of
108: observations, together with their spectral modeling and
109: interpretation, is described in detail by Gotthelf \& Halpern (2007),
110: with the earlier observations reported in Gotthelf \& Halpern (2005)
111: and Halpern \& Gotthelf (2005). While analysis of phase-averaged
112: spectra alone cannot distinguish among competing models for the AXP
113: emission type and geometry, the addition of the steady change of the
114: spectrum and pulse modulation over time greatly increases the
115: diagnostic power.
116:
117: In this paper we present a detailed model for the energy dependent
118: pulse phase from \taxp. This model accounts for the viewing
119: geometry and surface emission distribution. We include the general
120: relativistic effects of light deflection and gravitational redshift
121: and allow for anisotropic emission. We apply this model to a set of
122: X-ray data acquired during the temporal evolution of the flux from
123: \taxp. This allows us to constrain the underlying emission
124: geometry and radiation properties of this transient magnetar.
125:
126: \section{Time-dependent Flux Modeling of \taxp}
127:
128: \subsection{Model Motivations}
129:
130: Since their discovery, spectra of magnetars have been fitted with a
131: variety of models, generally including two components, such as
132: blackbody plus power-law, atmosphere plus power-law (Perna et
133: al. 2001a; Skinner et al. 2006), or thermal plus resonant cyclotron scattering (Rea et
134: al. 2007), or more recently, a magnetized atmosphere model with the
135: inclusion of scattering (Guver et al. 2007). From the point of view
136: of phase-averaged spectral analysis alone, these models are generally
137: statistically acceptable, and therefore none can be ruled out {\it a
138: priori}.
139:
140: Phase-resolved modeling of the observed modulation, however, can
141: provide a much stronger constraint. This is particularly true for the
142: case of \taxp\ , given the wealth of data available at different
143: epochs, while the object is cooling. From the point of view of being
144: able to reproduce the observed time-dependent energy behavior of the
145: pulsed fractions, the double blackbody model (made up of a hot and a
146: warm component) put forward by Gotthelf \& Halpern (2005) is quite
147: promising, at least from a qualitative point of view. In fact, if, in
148: the same energy band, the warm component is less pulsed than the hot
149: one, then, as the hot component drops in flux faster than the warm one
150: (as found in their fitting), the pulse fraction will tend to decline,
151: as observed. Also, in their modeling, the area of the warm component,
152: which becomes more luminous than the hot component after the fourth
153: epoch, increases at later times.\footnote{This area increase might
154: either be real, or a result of the fact that the warm component cannot
155: be straightforwardly separated in the fits from the underlying surface
156: emission, to which it approaches at later times. Either way, the pulse
157: modulation in this model is expected to decrease with time, since the
158: surface emission of the neutron star, if its temperature distribution
159: traces that of a dipolar magnetic field, is not expected to be highly
160: modulated (DeDeo et al. 2001).} This, again, tends to produce a
161: decline in the pulse modulation and counteract the increase that would
162: otherwise have, due to the decreasing temperature.
163:
164: While it is tempting to model the thermal components with detailed
165: magnetized atmospheres (e.g. van Adelsberg \& Lai 2006), these models
166: might be problematic for the case of \taxp\ following its
167: outburst. Invoking dissipation of a twist in the magnetic field lines
168: (Beloborodov \& Thompson 2007), the field in the emitting region is
169: likely to have significant non-normal components. While the ``twist
170: model'' nicely predicts the timescale of the outburst decay, the
171: non-{ normal surface} magnetic fields ({ i.e. magnetic fields that
172: emerge from the star surface at oblique angles}) have yet to be fully
173: realized in the magnetized atmosphere models. Since the predicted
174: amplitude of the flux modulation strongly depends on the local
175: magnetic field direction, by assuming a magnetized atmosphere model
176: for the thermal components we would introduce an {\it a priori} bias
177: in our results.
178:
179: In this work, we prefer to take a more empirical approach by starting
180: with the distribution of the emitted radiation over the stellar
181: surface and allowing a degree of anisotropy (beaming factor) in the
182: thermal (blackbody) components (following the methods of Pechenick et
183: al. 1993; DeDeo et al. 2000; Perna et al. 2001b), and leaving the
184: beaming factor as one of the model parameters. This approach turns out
185: to be very valuable in that we can use the energy-dependency of
186: the pulsed fractions, together with their variation with time as the
187: emitting region cools, to constrain both the viewing geometry and the
188: beaming properties of the radiation simultaneously (\S 3). Our results
189: can therefore be used as a guide for further theoretical modeling
190: aimed at understanding the detailed mechanisms that produce the
191: observed thermal radiation.
192:
193:
194:
195: \subsection{The Emission Model}
196:
197: Our method for parameterizing the surface emission from \taxp\
198: follows the example developed by Pechenick et al. (1993) with some
199: generalizations. For our numerical modeling we consider emission from
200: a hot spot of temperature $T_h$ and angular radius $\beta_h$
201: surrounded by a warm ring of temperature $T_w$ and outer radius $\beta_w$
202:
203: %
204: % FIGURE 1
205: %
206:
207: \begin{figure}[t]
208: \plotone{f1.eps}
209: \caption{Emission geometry on the surface of the neutron star (NS) for
210: the model presented herein. A hot spot of temperature $T_h$ and
211: angular size $\beta_h$ is surrounded by a warm ring of temperature
212: $T_w$ with outer angular size $\beta_w$. As the neutron star (NS)
213: rotates with angular velocity $\Omega(t)$, the angle $\alpha(t)$ is a
214: function of the phase angle $\gamma(t)=\Omega(t)t$, and the angles
215: $\psi$ and $\xi$ between spin axis and viewing vector, and between
216: spin axis and emission pole, respectively. { Due to general relativistic effects,
217: a photon emitted at a colatitude $\theta$ on the star's surface
218: which reaches the observer must be emitted at an angle $\delta$ with respect to the star's normal
219: at that point.} }
220: \vspace{0.1in}
221: \label{fig:NS}
222: \end{figure}
223:
224: %
225:
226: We indicate with $\alpha$ the angle that the axis of the hot spot
227: makes with respect to the line of sight. This depends on the phase
228: angle $\gamma(t)=\Omega(t) t$, as the star rotates with
229: angular velocity $\Omega(t)$. If $\xi$ is the angle between the spot
230: axis and the rotation axis, and $\psi$ the angle between the
231: observer's direction and the rotation axis, then the angle $\alpha$ is
232: given by
233:
234: \beq
235: \alpha(t)=\arccos(\cos\psi\cos\xi+\sin\psi\sin\xi\cos\gamma(t))\;.
236: \label{eq:alpha}
237: \eeq
238:
239: The geometry is illustrated in Figure 1. The surface of the star is
240: described by the angular spherical coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$, and
241: the coordinate system is chosen so that the $z$ axis is in the
242: direction of the line of sight to the observer. {This is a natural
243: choice of coordinate system for our problem, since the observed flux
244: is produced by all the photons that reach the observer at $\infty$
245: along that axis (e.g. Pechenick et al. 1993; Page 1995). Note that,
246: if there were no general relativistic effects, a photon emitted at
247: colatitude $\theta$ on the star would only reach the observer if it
248: were emitted at an angle $\delta=\theta$ with the normal to the
249: surface of the star. Because of general relativistic effects, however,
250: a photon emitted at a colatitude $\theta$ will get to the observer
251: only if emitted at an angle $\delta$ with respect to the surface normal (see
252: Fig.1), where the relation between the two angles is given by the
253: ray-tracing function\footnote{To improve the computational efficiency
254: of the above equation we use the approximation presented in
255: Beloborodov (2002).} (Pechenick et al. 1993; Page 1995)} \beq
256: \theta(\delta)=\int_0^{R_s/2R}x\;du\left/\sqrt{\left(1-\frac{R_s}{R}\right)
257: \left(\frac{R_s}{2R}\right)^2-(1-2u)u^2 x^2}\right.\;,
258: \label{eq:teta}
259: \eeq
260: \noindent having defined $x\equiv\sin\delta$. Here, $R/R_s$ is the ratio of the
261: stellar to Schwarzschild radius, $R_s=2GM/c^2$ (we assume $M=1.4
262: M_\odot$).
263:
264: The hot spot is described by
265: the conditions:
266:
267: \beq
268: \theta\le\beta_h,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \rmmat{if}\;\;\; \alpha=0\;
269: \label{eq:con1}
270: \eeq
271: and
272: \beq
273: \left\{
274: \begin{array}{ll}
275: \alpha-\beta_h\le\theta\le\alpha+\beta_h \\
276: 2\pi-\phi_p^h\le\phi\le\phi_p^h \;\; \;\;\;\;\rmmat{if}
277: \;\;\;\alpha\ne 0\;\;\;\rmmat{and} \;\;\;\beta_h\le\alpha\\
278: \end{array}\right.\;
279: \label{eq:con2}
280: \eeq
281: where
282: \beq
283: \phi_p^h=\arccos\left[\frac{\cos\beta_h-\cos\alpha\cos\theta}{\sin\alpha\sin\theta}\right]\;.
284: \label{eq:phip}
285: \eeq
286:
287: On the other hand, it is identified through the condition
288:
289: \beq
290: \theta\le\theta^h_*(\alpha,\beta_h,\phi),\;\;\;\;\
291: \rmmat{if}\;\;\; \alpha\ne 0\;\;\;\rmmat{and}\;\;\;\beta_h > \alpha\;,
292: \label{eq:con3}
293: \eeq
294:
295: \noindent where the outer boundary $\theta^h_*(\alpha,\beta_h,\phi)$ of the spot is computed by numerical
296: solution of the equation
297:
298: \beq
299: \cos\beta_h = \sin\theta_*^h\sin\alpha\cos\phi + \cos\theta_*^h\cos\alpha\;.
300: \label{eq:t*}
301: \eeq
302:
303: Similarly, the warm ring is described on the star surface through the
304: conditions
305:
306: \beq
307: \beta_h < \theta\le\beta_w,\;\;\;\;\ \rmmat{if}\;\;\; \alpha=0\;
308: \label{eq:con1w}
309: \eeq
310:
311: and
312:
313: \beq
314: \left\{
315: \begin{array}{ll}
316: \alpha-\beta_w\le\theta\le\alpha+\beta_w \;\;\;\rmmat{and}
317: \;\;\;\alpha+\beta_h\le\theta\le\alpha-\beta_h\\
318: 2\pi-\phi_p^w\le\phi\le\phi_p^w \;\;\;\rmmat{and}
319: \;\;\;\phi_p^h\le\phi\le 2\pi - \phi_p^h \\
320: \end{array}\right.\;
321: \label{eq:con4}
322: \eeq
323:
324: \noindent if $\alpha\ne 0$ and $\beta_w\le\alpha$. In the above equation,
325: $\phi_p^w$ has the same functional form as $\phi_p^h$ in
326: Eq~(\ref{eq:phip}), except for the substitution
327: $\beta_h\rightarrow\beta_w$. Finally, if $\alpha\ne 0$ and $\beta_w >
328: \alpha$, the ring is identified by the condition
329:
330: \beq
331: \theta^h_*(\alpha,\beta_h,\phi)<
332: \theta\le\theta^w_*(\alpha,\beta_w,\phi),
333: \label{eq:t*w}
334: \eeq
335:
336: \noindent where, again, the outer boundary of the ring
337: $\theta^w_*(\alpha,\beta_w,\phi)$ is found by numerical solution of
338: Eq.~(\ref{eq:t*}), but with the replacement
339: $\beta_h\rightarrow\beta_w$.
340:
341: In the following we assume a blackbody emission model for both the hot
342: spot and warm ring, characterized by a uniform temperature ($T_h$ or
343: $T_w$, respectively) over their stellar surface. As discussed above,
344: we allow for the radiation from the two regions to be anisotropic, and
345: parameterize the beaming of their {local} emission through the
346: functions $f_{h}(\delta)\propto \cos^{n_h}(\delta)$ (hot spot) and
347: $f_{w}(\delta)\propto \cos^{n_w}(\delta)$ (warm ring). { This
348: choice was initially motivated by the consideration that the hot spots
349: are likely associated with regions of larger conductivity, where the
350: magnetic field lines would be close to perpendicular to the surface of the
351: star. This would produce an enhanced emissivity at small $\delta$. Our
352: analysis (\S3.2) then confirmed the validity of this choice by
353: demonstrating that the modulation of the hottest region does indeed
354: require a pencil-type anisotropic beaming pattern.}
355:
356: The observed spectrum as a function of phase angle $\gamma$ is then
357: obtained by integrating the local emission over the observable surface
358: of the star, accounting for the gravitational redshift of the
359: radiation (Page 1995)
360:
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: F(E_\infty,\gamma) =\frac{2 \pi}{c\,h^3}\frac{R_\infty^2}{D^2}\;E_\infty^2
363: e^{-N_{\rm H}\sigma(E_\infty)} \int_0^1 2xdx\nonumber \\
364: \times \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi}\;
365: I_0(\theta,\phi) \;n[E_\infty e^{-\Lambda_s};T(\theta,\phi)]\;,
366: \label{eq:flux}
367: \end{eqnarray}
368:
369: \noindent in units of photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$. In the above
370: equation, the radius and energy as observed at infinity are given by
371: $R_\infty= Re^{-\Lambda_s}$, and $E_{\infty}= E e^{\Lambda_s}$, where
372: $R$ is the star radius, $E$ is the energy emitted at the star surface,
373: and we have defined ${\Lambda_s}$ as,
374:
375: \beq
376: e^{\Lambda_s}\equiv\sqrt{1-{\frac{R_s}{R}}}.
377: \eeq
378:
379: For the spectral function, given by $n(E,T)=1/[\exp(E/kT)-1]$, the
380: temperature $T(\theta,\phi)$ is equal to $T_h$ if \{$\theta, \phi$\}
381: satisfy any of the conditions (\ref{eq:con1}) through (\ref{eq:t*}),
382: and it is given by $T(\theta,\phi)= T_w$ if any of the conditions
383: (\ref{eq:con1w}) through (\ref{eq:t*w}) holds true. Correspondingly,
384: the weighted intensity $I_0(\theta,\phi)$ is given by the functions
385: $f_h$ or $f_w$ depending on whether the variables \{$\theta,\phi$\}
386: are inside the hot or warm region, respectively.
387:
388: The phase-averaged flux is readily computed as $F_{\rm ave}(E_\infty)=
389: 1/2\pi\int_0^{2\pi}d\gamma F(E_\infty,\gamma)$. The phase dependence
390: $\gamma$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:flux}) comes from the viewing angles implicit
391: in $\alpha(t)$ and from the series of conditions (\ref{eq:con1})
392: through (\ref{eq:t*w}). {Note that, as the star rotates, the only
393: angle on which the flux depends is $\alpha(t)$, the angle that the
394: line of sight makes with the axis of the spots. Since, in the magnetar
395: model, the spots are likely to be correlated to regions with an
396: enhanced magnetic activity, the angle $\alpha(t)$ can also be
397: considered as the (phase-dependent) angle between the line of sight
398: and a magnetically active region on the star during and following the
399: outburst. When the star returns to quiescence, the temperature
400: distribution on the star will reflect the overall magnetic field
401: configuration. For most AXPs, the quiescent emission cannot be
402: produced by a temperature distribution following a dipolar magnetic
403: field (De Deo, Psaltis \& Narayan 2000); in the case of XTE~J1810-197,
404: a detailed study of the quiescent emission, once the contamination
405: from the heated regions has completely subsided, will be able to
406: determine the detailed structure of the surface temperature
407: distribution, and hence reconstruct the magnetic field structure in
408: quiescence. This study will be performed in a forthcoming
409: paper. However, a preliminary investigation of the softest energy band
410: in the latest data set (where the surface emission from the rest of
411: the star is likely to be dominant) shows that the maximum of the
412: pulsed emission remains in phase with the maximum in the hardest
413: energy band (still dominated by the heated region). This result shows
414: that the maximum of the quiescent emission comes from the region where
415: the outburst occurred. Therefore, the active region is likely to be
416: associated with an enhanced magnetic field strength in quiescence. If
417: the underlying $B$ field is dipolar (or close to such), then the spot
418: axis in our paper also represents the dipole magnetic field axis, and
419: therefore the angle $\alpha(t)$ with respect to the $z$-axis
420: (observer's viewing direction) would naturally be associated with the angle that
421: the magnetic axis forms with respect to our line of sight as the star rotates.}
422:
423:
424: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
425: \tablecolumns{8}
426: \tighten
427: \tablewidth{0.0pt}
428: %\rotate
429: %\normalsize
430: %\large
431: %\small
432: \tablecaption{\bf Spectral Results as a Function of the NS Radius - Model Fits for $\bf N_{\rm{H}}=6.8 \times 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$, $\bf D=3.3$~kpc, ${\bf \psi=\xi=\gamma=0^{\circ}}$ (see text for definitions)\label{tab:spectable}}
433: %\footnotesize
434: %\normalsize
435: \tablehead{
436: \colhead{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2003} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2004} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2005} & \colhead{2006}\\
437: \colhead{} & \colhead{Sep 8} & \colhead{Oct 12} & \colhead{Mar 11} & \colhead{Sep 18} & \colhead{Mar 18} & \colhead{Sep 20} & \colhead{Mar 12}
438: }
439: \startdata
440: %\noalign{}
441: %{\smallskip}
442: \cutinhead{$R=9$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu}(\rm{dof}) = 1.09(1914)$ }
443: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.65$~(fixed)\\
444: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.91\phantom{}$ & $0.95\phantom{}$ & $0.93\phantom{}$ & $0.91\phantom{}$ & $0.84\phantom{}$ & $0.71\phantom{}$ & $0.60\phantom{}$\\
445: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.32\phantom{}$ & $0.38\phantom{}$ & $0.35\phantom{}$ & $0.35\phantom{}$ & $0.31\phantom{}$ & $0.26\phantom{}$ & $0.23\phantom{}$\\
446: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $10.06 \phantom{}$ & $8.47\phantom{}$ & $6.69\phantom{}$ & $5.33\phantom{}$ & $3.81\phantom{}$ & $3.52\phantom{}$ & $4.08\phantom{}$ \\
447: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $56.3\phantom{}$ & $38.3\phantom{}$ & $39.3\phantom{}$ & $42.3\phantom{}$ & $42.3\phantom{}$ & $55.1\phantom{}$ & $82.1\phantom{}$ \\
448: \cutinhead{$R=10$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu}(\rm{dof}) = 1.11(1914)$}
449: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)\\
450: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.91\phantom{}$ & $0.95\phantom{}$ & $0.890\phantom{}$ & $0.91\phantom{}$ & $0.76\phantom{}$ & $0.67\phantom{}$ & $0.59\phantom{}$\\
451: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.36\phantom{}$ & $0.40\phantom{}$ & $0.33\phantom{}$ & $0.35\phantom{}$ & $0.27\phantom{}$ & $0.24\phantom{}$ & $0.22\phantom{}$\\
452: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $8.21 \phantom{}$ & $7.21\phantom{}$ & $5.83\phantom{}$ & $4.46\phantom{}$ & $4.03\phantom{}$ & $3.12\phantom{}$ & $3.11\phantom{}$ \\
453: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $35.8\phantom{}$ & $29.4\phantom{}$ & $34.6\phantom{}$ & $30.2\phantom{}$ & $43.8\phantom{}$ & $51.9\phantom{}$ & $66.5\phantom{}$ \\
454: \cutinhead{$R=11$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu} (\rm{dof}) = 1.15(1914)$}
455: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)\\
456: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.89\phantom{}$ & $0.90\phantom{}$ & $0.87\phantom{}$ & $0.83\phantom{}$ & $0.75\phantom{}$ & $0.67\phantom{}$ & $0.56\phantom{}$\\
457: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.35\phantom{}$ & $0.37\phantom{}$ & $0.32\phantom{}$ & $0.29\phantom{}$ & $0.27\phantom{}$ & $0.24\phantom{}$ & $0.21\phantom{}$\\
458: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $7.05 \phantom{}$ & $6.98\phantom{}$ & $5.25\phantom{}$ & $4.37\phantom{}$ & $3.44\phantom{}$ & $2.85\phantom{}$ & $3.27\phantom{}$ \\
459: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $31.3\phantom{}$ & $27.8\phantom{}$ & $31.5\phantom{}$ & $36.3\phantom{}$ & $37.1\phantom{}$ & $43.8\phantom{}$ & $61.3\phantom{}$ \\
460: \cutinhead{$R=12$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu} (\rm{dof}) = 1.09(1914)$}
461: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)\\
462: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.85\phantom{}$ & $0.86\phantom{}$ & $0.86\phantom{}$ & $0.82\phantom{}$ & $0.71\phantom{}$ & $0.63\phantom{}$ & $0.59\phantom{}$\\
463: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.32\phantom{}$ & $0.34\phantom{}$ & $0.32\phantom{}$ & $0.29\phantom{}$ & $0.25\phantom{}$ & $0.24\phantom{}$ & $0.22\phantom{}$\\
464: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $7.06 \phantom{}$ & $6.39\phantom{}$ & $5.01\phantom{}$ & $4.22\phantom{}$ & $3.45\phantom{}$ & $2.53\phantom{}$ & $2.27\phantom{}$\\
465: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $33.8\phantom{}$ & $28.1\phantom{}$ & $28.6\phantom{}$ & $32.1\phantom{}$ & $37.8\phantom{}$ & $41.2\phantom{}$ & $45.3\phantom{}$\\
466: \cutinhead{$R=13$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu} (\rm{dof}) = 1.10(1914)$}
467: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed)\\
468: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.83\phantom{}$ & $0.85\phantom{}$ & $0.82\phantom{}$ & $0.76\phantom{}$ & $0.69\phantom{}$ & $0.61\phantom{}$ & $0.53\phantom{}$\\
469: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.31\phantom{}$ & $0.33\phantom{}$ & $0.29\phantom{}$ & $0.26\phantom{}$ & $0.24\phantom{}$ & $0.23\phantom{}$ & $0.20\phantom{}$\\
470: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $6.35 \phantom{}$ & $5.84\phantom{}$ & $4.81\phantom{}$ & $4.14\phantom{}$ & $3.29\phantom{}$ & $2.44\phantom{}$ & $2.83\phantom{}$ \\
471: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $31.4\phantom{}$ & $26.5\phantom{}$ & $29.6\phantom{}$ & $36.7\phantom{}$ & $37.9\phantom{}$ & $39.2\phantom{}$ & $49.2\phantom{}$ \\
472: \cutinhead{$R=14$~km; $\chi^2_{\nu} (\rm{dof}) = 1.14(1914)$}
473: %$N_{\rm H}$~($10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)$^b$ & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed)& $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed) & $0.68$~(fixed)\\
474: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.80\phantom{}$ & $0.81\phantom{}$ & $0.79\phantom{}$ & $0.74\phantom{}$ & $0.67\phantom{}$ & $0.59\phantom{}$ & $0.52\phantom{}$\\
475: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.28\phantom{}$ & $0.30\phantom{}$ & $0.27\phantom{}$ & $0.23\phantom{}$ & $0.23\phantom{}$ & $0.22\phantom{}$ & $0.19\phantom{}$\\
476: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $6.16 \phantom{}$ & $5.79\phantom{}$ & $4.49\phantom{}$ & $4.07\phantom{}$ & $3.23\phantom{}$ & $2.40\phantom{}$ & $2.45\phantom{}$ \\
477: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $33.26\phantom{}$ & $28.9\phantom{}$ & $30.7\phantom{}$ & $43.5\phantom{}$ & $38.5\phantom{}$ & $38.1\phantom{}$ & $47.9\phantom{}$\\
478: \enddata
479: \tablecomments{Uncertainties on each spectral parameter are consistent with those reported for the fits in Table 3.}
480: %\vspace{-0.1in}
481: \end{deluxetable}
482:
483:
484:
485: \section{Modeling the Multi-epoch Modulation}
486:
487: The above model was coded in {\tt FORTRAN} and fully implemented as an
488: additive model with 10 parameters in the {\tt XSPEC} spectral fitting
489: software (Arnaud 1996). Specifically, these parameters are the
490: temperatures ($kT_h, kT_w$; keV) and subtended angular sizes
491: ($\beta_h, \beta_w$; degs) of the hot spot and warm ring,
492: respectively, the viewing ($\psi$) and hot spot ($\xi$) angles w.r.t
493: the spin-axis (in degrees), the rotation phase ($\gamma$; cycles), and
494: finally, the NS radius ($R$; km) and distance ($D$; kpc). The {\tt
495: XSPEC} normalization is set to unity so that the flux is fixed by the
496: distance and stellar radius, which implicitly takes into account all
497: relativistic effects previously noted in \S2. In the following
498: spectral fits the pulsar distance is set to $D=3.3$~kpc, based on
499: radio pulse dispersion (Camilo et al. 2006), and consistent with the
500: measurement derived from HI absorption (Minter et al. 2007).
501:
502: This model allows us to predict the energy dependent modulation, and
503: use it to determine the viewing geometry and beaming pattern of the
504: emitted radiation that best match the observations at different
505: epochs. We assume both to be temporal invariant, i.e. no noticeable
506: precession changes with time. In principle, the neutron star radius,
507: because of general relativistic effects, could be uniquely
508: determined; however, in practice the presence of noise does not allow
509: for this most interesting of constraints. In the following, we apply
510: this model to the data sets presented in Gotthelf \& Halpern (2007),
511: which fully described their preparation. We first present the spectral
512: fits (\S3.1) using the full model, assuming a face-on geometry
513: ($\alpha =0$), and then constrain the overall emission geometry of the
514: system (\S3.2) by modeling the observed pulse modulation in 6 energy
515: bands over time.
516:
517: All spectral fitting are done in the $0.7-10$~keV spectral band
518: assuming no beaming initially, as this is not an important effect
519: spectrally. However, some degree of anisotropy of the radiation is
520: found to be necessary in our model to reproduce the observed
521: modulation (\S3.2).
522:
523: \subsection{Spectral analysis}
524:
525: We started by fitting the phase-averaged \xmm\ spectra for the 7
526: epochs simultaneously using our model for the pulsar emission
527: geometry. Since the viewing geometry is not known {\it a priori}, we
528: assume the simplest choice, that we are looking directly down the
529: co-aligned rotation axis and magnetic pole ($\alpha=0$, see
530: Eq.~1). This has the practical benefit of allowing the model code to
531: run substantially faster since, for this special case of $\alpha=0$,
532: the integration is simpler and only one call to the routine is needed
533: for the computation of the phase-averaged spectrum. Across all epochs,
534: all parameters are linked with the exception of the set of 4 epoch
535: variable parameters ($kT_w, kT_h, \beta_w, \beta_h$). Initial fits
536: were used to determine the nominal column density of $N_{\rm
537: H}=6.8\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, which was subsequently fixed to this
538: value.
539:
540: An important technical issue for these fits is the degree of
541: degeneracy between the radius $R$ and the four epoch variable
542: parameters ($kT_w, kT_h, \beta_w, \beta_h$). These 5 parameters
543: over-determine the fit, unlike fits using a double blackbody model.
544: Without fixing the radius there is no unique solution, and thus we
545: consider a range of possible values between $9\le R \le 14$~km, in
546: 1~km increments. These results are presented in Table~1 and show a
547: similar trend to those reported by Gotthelf \& Halpern (2007) using
548: the double-blackbody model. In both cases, the hot components is found
549: to steadily decrease in size over time, while the warm component
550: increases (with the exception of the first data point).
551:
552: In our model, the radius of the star is not just a simple
553: normalization. This is due to the introduction of gravitational
554: redshift effects. Unlike for the non-relativistic case, the inferred
555: temperatures of the spots increase as the radius of the star becomes
556: smaller. Two counteracting effects, both due to flux conservation
557: influence the spot size -- gravitational redshift tends to decrease
558: the inferred emission area in the more relativistic (smaller) stars
559: (due to the higher inferred temperatures); on the other side, for a
560: fixed distance { between the star and the observer}, the spot
561: angular size increases on smaller stars. For the values of the fit
562: parameters here, the latter effect tends to dominate over the
563: former. Over the sampled range, we do not find evidence for a
564: preferred radius, based on the $\chi^2$ measurements.
565:
566: As discussed above, the results of our spectral fits using the above model show a similar
567: trend to those reported by Gotthelf \& Halpern (2007) using a
568: double-blackbody model. The hot components steadily decrease in size
569: over time, while the warm component increases (except for the first
570: data point). We are aware of the importance of a possible third
571: emission component from the rest of the NS surface, perhaps the
572: quiescent emission, initially masked by the significant extra flux
573: from the warm component activated by the outburst. However, we are
574: unable to resolve any additional component, which is not required by
575: the spectral fits. If the last few data sets are substantially
576: affected by this potential third component, our pulse profile modeling
577: of those data could be incomplete. Therefore, for the second part of
578: our analysis, we rely on the first 4 data sets alone, during which the
579: emission from the two components dominates over that from the NS
580: surface (whose quiescent level was measured with ROSAT prior to the
581: outburst).
582:
583:
584:
585: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
586: \tablecolumns{7}
587: \tighten
588: \tablewidth{0.0pt}
589: %\rotate
590: %\normalsize
591: %\large
592: %\small
593: \tablecaption{\bf Minimum $\chi^2_\nu$ as a Function of Beam Indices ({$\bf n_w,n_h$}) and NS Radius\label{tab:beamtable}}
594: %\footnotesize
595: %\normalsize
596: \tablehead{
597: \colhead{$n_w,n_h$} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Minimum $\chi^2_{\nu}$} \\
598: & \colhead{$R=$9~km} & \colhead{$R=$10~km} & \colhead{$R=$11~km} & \colhead{$R=$12~km} & \colhead{$R=$13~km} & \colhead{$R=$14~km}
599: }
600: \startdata
601: $0,0$ & 4.06 & 4.91 & 3.97 & 4.62 & 3.85 & 2.86\\
602: $0,1$ & 0.86 & 1.07 & 1.13 & 0.96 & 0.94 & 0.99\\
603: $0,2$ & 3.17 & 3.25 & 3.74 & 3.02 & 3.29 & 2.83\\
604: $1,1$ & 2.51 & 3.50 & 2.55 & 2.64 & 1.81 & 1.17
605: \enddata
606: \tablecomments{Minimum reduced
607: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ after comparing model and observed PFs over the
608: $\xi,\psi$-space, with the NS radius and beaming indices held fixed at
609: the given values. Only the first 4 epochs were included in this analysis.}
610: \end{deluxetable}
611:
612:
613:
614: \subsection{Modulation analysis}
615:
616: Starting with the best spectral fit model parameters presented in
617: Table~1, obtained for $\xi=\psi=0$, we now searched for the best
618: values of $\xi$ and $\psi$ needed to reproduce the observed magnitude
619: of the pulse modulation across the first 4 epochs, as measured by
620: Gotthelf \& Halpern (2007). Given the uncertainties in the data, we
621: limit our modeling to that of the pulse modulation, rather than the
622: full pulse profile. The pulsed fractions were determined in six energy
623: bands\footnote{\{0.5-1; 1-1.5; 1.5-2; 2-3; 3-5; 5-8\} keV.} at each
624: epoch. For each value of the NS radius ($R$) fitted for in \S3.1, we
625: computed the modulation (defined below) over the grid of angles
626: $\xi,\phi\le90$ deg, in 1 degree intervals. For each value on the
627: grid, the model predictions were compared with the data. Notice that
628: the flux depends on the angles $\xi$ and $\psi$ only through the
629: parameter $\alpha$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:alpha}), and therefore it is
630: symmetric with respect to an exchange of $\xi$ and $\psi$. The
631: magnitude of the model modulation is defined as
632:
633: \begin{equation}
634: PF=\frac{F_{\rm max}-F_{\rm min}}{F_{\rm max}+F_{\rm min}}.
635: \label{eq:pf}
636: \end{equation}
637: \noindent In the geometry that we are considering, the maximum and minimum
638: fluxes, $F_{\rm max}$ and $F_{\rm min}$, correspond to phases $\gamma=0$
639: and $\gamma=\pi$, respectively. Both fluxes are integrated over the given
640: energy bands.
641:
642: The results of these fits show that it is not possible to reproduce
643: the observed modulation if the emission pattern of both the hot and
644: warm component is isotropic. The introduction of General Relativity
645: effectively suppresses the modulation to below that observed, for any
646: reasonable assumed NS radius. We ascribe the observed modulation to
647: additional anisotropic emission from the thermal regions and test this
648: assumption using a simple model of cosine beaming described in \S2.
649: For each value of the radius, we ran through the ($\psi$,$\xi$) grid
650: of models for different combinations of the beaming parameters $n_w$
651: and $n_h$ of the warm and hot components, respectively. More
652: specifically, we varied $n_w,n_h$ between 0 and 2, in increments of
653: 0.5 (note that the softer component is less modulated than the harder
654: one). The fact that the warm component dominates in flux in the
655: softest energy band, while the hot component dominates in the hardest
656: energy band, allows us to constrain the degree of anisotropy of these
657: two components independently. For each set of angles $\psi$ and $\xi$
658: on the grid, we computed the reduced $\chi^2_\nu$ and kept track of its minimum.
659: Table~2 reports the minimum $\chi^2_\nu$ that was obtained for a few
660: representative values of the beaming parameters.
661:
662: With the introduction of beaming, we are able to identify a set of
663: model parameters that is able to reproduce the observed modulation in
664: the first 4 epochs. The main results from our modeling can be
665: summarized as follows:
666:
667: \begin{itemize}
668: \item[{\em i)}]
669: The modulation of the hot spectral component requires an anisotropic
670: radiation pattern. For a { $\cos^{n_h}\delta$} emission profile, the best
671: match to the data is obtained with $n_h\approx$~1.
672: \item[{\em ii)}]
673: No similar beaming is required to model the warm component modulation
674: (i.e. $n_w\sim 0$).
675: \item[{\em iii)}]
676: We constrain the emission geometry by identifying allowed and forbidden
677: regions in the $\psi$-$\xi$ parameter space.
678: \item[{\em iv)}]
679: No NS radius is strongly preferred by the data. However, the range
680: of most preferred values of $\psi$ and $\xi$ varies with the radius
681: of the star.
682: \end{itemize}
683:
684:
685:
686: \begin{figure}
687: %\epsscale{0.5}
688: %\psfig{file=chi2_cont.ps,width=1.0\linewidth,clip=}
689: \plotone{f2.eps}
690: \caption{Reduced chi-square ($\chi_{\nu}^2$) maps obtained by
691: comparing modulation data and model described in the text for a range
692: of viewing angles $\psi$ and $\xi$. The 68\%, 90\% and 99\% confidence
693: levels are shown for the best match to the observed pulsed fractions
694: using the beaming patterns $n_w = 0$, $n_h=1$, for $R=9$~km and $R=14$~km.
695: The results are clearly degenerate with respect to an interchange of
696: $(\xi,\psi)$. For the adopted model, the locus of minimum $\chi_{\nu}^2$
697: depends only on radius and lies along a line
698: $(\xi+\beta(R))(\psi+\beta(R))\approx{\rm constant}$ ({\em dashed lines}). The
699: minimum $\chi^2_\nu$ for each value of the radius is reported in
700: Table~2, and the angles ($\psi,\xi$) to which this minimum corresponds
701: vary slightly with radius.}
702: \vspace{0.1in}
703: \label{fig:contour}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706:
707:
708: For the optimal beaming parameters, $n_w=0$ and $n_h=1$, we plot the
709: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ map computed for the analysis of Table~2.
710: Figure~{\ref{fig:contour}} displays the 68\%, 90\% and 99\% confidence
711: levels drawn for the two extreme values of radii considered
712: ($R=9,14$~km). As described above, this map is produced by comparing
713: the model and observed modulation over a range of possible
714: ($\xi,\psi$) angle pairs, for our best fit spectral model
715: parameters. The range of allowed solutions defines a locus of points
716: in the $\xi-\psi$-plane along the line $(\xi+\beta(R))(\psi+\beta(R))=
717: c$, were $c$ is, {to zeroth order} a constant for the given model
718: {(it varies by $\la 9\%$ between the two extreme values of radii
719: considered here)}, while $\beta(R)$ contains the strong dependence on
720: the NS radius. { A linear regression fit yields the relations
721: $\beta=1.64\;R_{\rm km}-6.16$ and $c=40.65\;R_{\rm m} +1935$, where
722: $R_{\rm km}$ is the radius of the star in km. } The elongated shape of
723: the contour plots shows that the two angles $\psi$ and $\xi$ are
724: highly correlated in the fit. This is a result of the fact that the PF
725: depends on {a combination} of these two angles.
726:
727: The dependence on the NS radius is clearly seen in
728: Figure~{\ref{fig:contour}}. For each given value of $\psi$, the best
729: fit loci moves toward larger values of $\xi$ as the radius of the star gets
730: smaller. The contour levels for intervening values of the radii fall
731: in-between those shown. This trend with radius can be understood as
732: follows. As the radius decreases, the larger angular sizes and
733: temperatures conspire to decrease the PF for the same viewing angles
734: $\psi$ and $\xi$. In addition, the gravitational effect of light
735: bending reduces the modulation even further for small stars. In order
736: to reproduce the same observed PF for a given $\psi$,
737: a correspondingly larger $\xi$ is therefore needed for
738: smaller stars since, for any given value of each of these two angles,
739: a larger value of the other produces a larger modulation. This is the
740: reason for the shift of the confidence levels toward larger values of
741: $\xi$ for a given $\psi$, when the radius of the star gets smaller.
742:
743:
744:
745: \begin{figure*}
746: %\centerline{
747: \includegraphics[angle=270.0,width=1.0\linewidth,clip=]{f3.eps}
748: %}
749: %\epsscale{0.50}
750: %\plotone{f3.eps}
751: \caption{Comparison between the measured pulsed fraction (PF) and that
752: predicted by our model for one particular set of best-fit parameters
753: determined for a $R=12$~km neutron star. Results are shown for the
754: best fit model using all seven data sets (red line; $\psi=49^{\circ}$
755: and $\xi=24^{\circ}$) and for the first four data sets only (green
756: line; $\psi=53^{\circ}$ and $\xi=23^{\circ}$). At the later times,
757: the model is seen to deviate significantly from the data. A likely
758: explanation is the increased contribution of the unmodeled emission
759: from the stellar surface over time compared to the modeled flux. In
760: the first 4 data sets, the {\it dashed line} is to be compared to the
761: {\it green line}, showing the effect of using the face-on spectra
762: instead of the iterated spectra for the given viewing geometry (see
763: text for details). {Each data point is drawn in the middle of the corresponding
764: energy band, for those bins with sufficient photons. } }
765: \vspace{0.1in}
766: \label{fig:pf}
767: \end{figure*}
768:
769:
770:
771: Figure~{\ref{fig:pf}} compares the data and model modulation for the
772: ($\psi,\xi$) values that yield minimum $\chi^2_\nu$ for the case
773: $R=12$ km, $n_w=0$, $n_h=1$. We show the results for two cases, one
774: using all seven epoch data sets, and one for the case of the
775: first four data sets only. In the former case, the minimum corresponds
776: to $\psi=49^\circ$ and $\xi=24^\circ$, while in the latter, it occurs for
777: $\psi=53^\circ$ and $\xi=23^\circ$. We find excellent agreement between data
778: and model modulation for the first four observations alone; however,
779: the later data sets show increasing discrepancies, noticeably
780: increasing the overall contribution to $\chi^2$. This confirms the
781: suspicion that, at later times, the emitted radiation acquires an
782: unpulsed (or very mildly pulsed) contribution from the surface of the
783: star. Our spectral fits, as described above, do not resolve this
784: underlying stellar component, and therefore the spectral parameters
785: close to quiescence might not be as representative of the underlying
786: physical parameters of the system. However, the constraints on the
787: viewing and emission geometry that we derive using the first 4 data sets
788: alone (cfr. Table 2 and Fig.2) can be considered robust, since the early
789: data sets are basically unaffected by the presence of the star underlying
790: emission.
791:
792: As a final step in our analysis we consider the validity of our
793: initial method of assuming a face-on spectrum to derive the spectral
794: model parameters that are then used to compute the
795: modulation. As discussed in \S3.1, the original fits
796: were generated assuming $\psi=\xi=0$ for simplicity, prior to
797: determining the observational geometry of the pulsar system. We now
798: show that this is an excellent assumption by refitting to the data the spectrum
799: assuming the specific case of $\psi=53^{\circ}$ and $\xi=23^{\circ}$,
800: and then recomputing the modulations. The best fit spectral
801: parameters are reported in Table~3 and shown in
802: Figure~{\ref{fig:spectrum}}. For these spectral parameters the model
803: modulation is shown in Figure~{\ref{fig:pf}} as the dashed-line for
804: the case of the first four data sets. The results are identical within
805: the statistical uncertainty in the data.
806:
807: {Similarly, we performed a test in order to assess the validity of
808: our method of analysis which separated the spectral and timing studies
809: and used, as spectral parameters for the timing analysis, those
810: obtained from a phase-averaged fit to the spectrum. We again
811: considered the specific case of $\psi=53^{\circ}$ and
812: $\xi=23^{\circ}$, and extracted phase-resolved spectra by dividing the
813: observed spectrum into 5 equally spaced bins. We then fitted the
814: model to the two bins centered on the maximum and minimum of the flux,
815: respectively. We found that the temperature at flux minimum is lower than
816: the temperature at flux maximum by $ \la 10\%$ for all XMM epochs
817: with the exception of the first one, where the difference is $\sim
818: 20\%$. However, this difference is within one $\sigma$ of the combined
819: uncertainty in temperature for all epochs. Therefore, our adopted
820: method is quite robust within the statistical uncertainty of the
821: data.}
822:
823:
824:
825:
826: \begin{figure*}[t]
827: %\epsscale{0.75}
828: %\plotone{xte1810_spec_all_r_12_a1_53_a2_23.ps}
829: {\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f4.eps}}
830: %\plotone{f4.eps}
831: \caption{\xmm\ {phase-averaged} spectra of \taxp\ obtained at 7 epochs fitted with the
832: model presented in the text, for the specific case of $R=12$ km,
833: $\psi=53^\circ$ and $\xi=23^\circ$. The parameters for the best fit model
834: are reported in Table~3. The lower panel shows the collected
835: residuals to this fit for each spectrum.}
836: %\vspace{0.1in}
837: \label{fig:spectrum}
838: \end{figure*}
839:
840:
841:
842: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
843: \tablecolumns{8}
844: \tighten
845: \tablewidth{0.0pt}
846: %\rotate
847: %\normalsize
848: %\large
849: %\small
850: \tablecaption{\bf Spectral Results for Radius $\bf R=12$ km and Viewing Angles $\bf \psi=53$ deg, and $\bf \xi=23$ deg; $\bf D=3.3$~kpc, $\bf N_{\rm H}=6.8\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$\label{tab:specone}}
851: %\footnotesize
852: %\normalsize
853: \tablehead{
854: \colhead{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2003} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2004} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2005} & \colhead{2006}\\
855: \colhead{} & \colhead{Sep 8} & \colhead{Oct 12} & \colhead{Mar 11} & \colhead{Sep 18} & \colhead{Mar 18} & \colhead{Sep 20} & \colhead{Mar 12}
856: }
857: \startdata
858: $kT_h$ (keV) & $0.84^{+0.03}_{-0.02} $ & $0.87^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.85^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$& $0.82^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$& $0.73^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$& $0.63^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$& $0.53^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$\\
859: $kT_w$ (keV) & $0.30^{+0.68}_{-0.03}$ & $0.34^{+0.11}_{-0.06}$ & $0.31^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ &$0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$& $0.26^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$& $0.23^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$& $0.21^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$\\
860: $\beta_h$ (deg) & $8.0 ^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & $7.1^{+0.7}_{-0.2}$ & $5.5^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ & $4.52^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $3.8^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & $3.02^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ & $3.4^{+0.5}_{-0.8}$\\
861: $\beta_w$ (deg) & $39^{+2}_{-2}$ & $30^{+2}_{-3}$ & $31.0^{+0.7}_{-1.7}$ & $33.9^{+0.5}_{-1.0}$ & $37.7^{+0.7}_{-0.1}$ & $44^{+1}_{-3}$ & $60^{+5}_{-3}$
862: \enddata
863: \tablecomments{Uncertainties in spectral parameters are 90\% confidence for two interesting parameters. The $\chi^2_\nu$ of the fit is 1.08 for 1692 dof.}
864: \vspace{0.2in}
865: \end{deluxetable*}
866:
867:
868: \section{Discussion}
869:
870: The time-dependent spectrum and pulse modulation of the transient
871: magnetar \taxp\ provide a unique diagnostics of its emission
872: properties and geometry. Under the assumption that the post-burst
873: emission is described by two thermal components, as early analysis of
874: this object suggested, we have been able to extract information on
875: some of the physical properties of the star, through a detailed
876: modeling of the combined spectra and pulsed modulation together.
877:
878: We found that, while the phase-averaged spectral fits alone are
879: degenerate with respect to the emission pattern of the radiation,
880: including modeling of the energy-dependent pulsed flux allows us to
881: constrain the properties of the emission region. In particular, since the warm
882: component dominates in the lowest energy band, while the hot component
883: dominates in the highest energy band, the PFs are able to determine
884: the degree of anisotropy of these two components independently. We
885: found that the warm component is best described by an isotropic
886: emission pattern, while the hot component is well represented by an
887: emission pattern of pencil type, {$f(\delta)\propto \cos\delta$,
888: where $\delta$ is the angle that the emitted photons make with respect
889: to the normal to the surface of the star}. The different type of
890: radiation pattern required by the low and the high energy components
891: could be seen as an indirect confirmation of our assumption that the
892: contribution from these two energy bands does indeed come from
893: different components. Beaming of radiation in the direction of the
894: magnetic field is predicted by models of magnetized atmospheres in the
895: limit of high magnetic fields (e.g. van Adelsberg \& Lai 2006). Since
896: the hot spot is produced in a region much smaller than that of the
897: warm component, it is more likely to find a configuration with
898: parallel field lines in the hot region (and most likely perpendicular
899: to the surface, which favors the heat flow), than in the warm
900: region. The latter might rather encompass regions with different
901: orientations of the magnetic field, hence resulting in an overall more
902: homogeneous radiation pattern.
903:
904: The strongest constraints that we derived from our analysis are on the
905: geometry of the star. In particular, we determined the allowed regions
906: for the angle ($\xi$) between the spot axis and the rotation axis, and
907: the angle ($\psi$) between our line of sight and the
908: rotation axis. These two angles determine the minimum and maximum
909: angles between the line of sight and the spot axis, given respectively
910: by $\alpha_{\rm min}=\xi-\psi$ and $\alpha_{\rm max}=\xi+\psi$. We
911: find that, while the range of $\alpha_{\rm min}$ is compatible with
912: very small angles (including zero), however $\alpha_{\rm max}$ must
913: always be large, $\ga 60^\circ$ within 3$\sigma$ confidence level for
914: any value of the star radius. Being able to rule out to a high
915: confidence level small viewing angles $\alpha$ for the entire rotation
916: period of the star bears important implications for models of the
917: observed radio emission from this object. In fact, Camilo et
918: al. (2007a) showed that the peaks of the radio and the X-ray pulses
919: are aligned, suggesting that the footpoints of the active magnetic
920: field lines on which radio emission is generated are also the
921: locations of the concentrated heating that is responsible for the
922: enhanced X-ray emission, {This means that, even if the radio
923: emission is likely produced at much higher altitudes on the surface of
924: the star than the X-ray emission, however the axis where the two
925: emissions peak is the same (or very close).}
926:
927: Attempts to constrain the viewing angles of \taxp\ using radio
928: polarimetry were made by Camilo et al. (2007b). They found two
929: configurations likely, one with $\xi\sim 70^\circ$ and $\alpha_{\rm
930: min}\sim 20^\circ-25^\circ$, and another with $\xi\sim 4^\circ$ and
931: $\alpha_{\rm min}\sim 4^\circ$. Our fits rule out the second
932: configuration to a high significance level. The value of $\alpha_{\rm
933: min}\sim 20^\circ-25^\circ$ on the other hand is perfectly compatible
934: with our results, albeit it requires $\xi\sim 60^\circ$ if $R=9$~km
935: and $\xi\sim 50^\circ$ if $R=14$~km. Although our confidence levels
936: are close to one of the two solutions of Camilo et al. (2007b), we
937: cannot make a formal statistical comparison with their results, since
938: they do not have a reliable estimate of the parameter uncertainties
939: from their radio measurements (F. Camilo, priv. comm.).
940:
941: As discussed by Camilo et al. (2007b), the observed wide radio pulse
942: profile of $\approx 0.15\;P$ can be explained by either a model in
943: which the magnetic and rotation axes are almost aligned, or by a model
944: in which the emission height is very large. Our results strongly rule
945: out the first scenario, hence implying a large emission height. This,
946: in turn, implies a large opening angle of the beam (Gil et al. 1984),
947: comparable to that observed in young pulsars (Johnston \& Weisberg
948: 2006). These characteristics of the radio emission, if common in
949: magnetars, make more stringent the limits on the radio for the
950: greatest majority of the objects that have not been detected in this
951: waveband, and leave even more open the question of what is that makes
952: some magnetars different.
953:
954: \acknowledgements
955: We thank Jules Halpern, Andrei Beloborodov and
956: Fernando Camilo for stimulating discussions on several aspects of this
957: work. RP thanks Columbia University for the kind hospitality during
958: the several visits made while this work was carried out.
959: {We also thank the referee for his/her insightful and helpful comments
960: on our manuscript.}
961:
962: \begin{references}
963:
964: \reference{} Arnaud, K.A., 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software
965: and Systems V, eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., p17, ASP Conf. Series
966: volume 101
967: \reference{} Baring, M. G. \& Harding, A. K. 1998, ApJ, 507L, 55
968: \reference{} Beloborodov, A. 2002, ApJ, 566L, 85
969: \reference{} Beloborodov, A. M. \& Thompson, C. 2007, ApS\&S, 308, 631
970: \reference{} DeDeo, S., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R. 2001, ApJ, 559, 346
971: \reference{} Duncan, R. C. \& Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9
972: \reference{}Camilo, Fernando, Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., Reynolds, J.,
973: Helfand, D. J., Zimmerman, N., Sarkissian, J. 2006, Nat., 442, 892
974: \reference{} Camilo, F. et al. 2007a, ApJ, 663, 497
975: \reference{} Camilo, F., Reynolds, J., Johnston, S., Halpern, J. P.,
976: Ransom, S. M., van Straten, W. 2007b, ApJL, 659, 37
977: \reference{} Gil, J. A. Gronkowski, P. \& Rudnicki, W. 1984, A\&A, 132, 312
978: \reference{} Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P., Buxton, M., Bailyn, C.
979: 2004, ApJ, 605, 368
980: \reference{} Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P. 2005, ApJ, 632, 1075
981: \reference{} Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P. 2007, Ap\&SS, 308, 79
982: \reference{} Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P., Buxton, M. \& Bailyn, C.
983: 2004, ApJ, 605, 368
984: \reference{} Guver, T., Ozel, F., Gogus, E., \& Kouveliotou C. 2007,
985: ApJL, 676, 73
986: \reference{} Halpern, J. P.; Gotthelf, E. V. 2005, ApJ, 618, 874
987: \reference{} Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V., Becker, R. H.,
988: Helfand, D. J., White, R. L. 2005, ApJ, 632L, 29
989: \reference{} Ibrahim, A. I. et al. 2004, ApJ, 609L, 21
990: \reference{} Israel, G. et al. 2004, ApJ, 603L, 97
991: \reference{} Johnston, S., Weisberg, Joel M. 2006, MNRAS, 368,1856
992: \reference{} Kaspi, V. M. 2007, Ap\&SS, 308, 1
993: \reference{} Lyutikov, M. \& Gavriil, F. P. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 690
994: \reference{} Minter et al. 2007, ApJ, submitted
995: \reference{} Page, D. 1995, ApJ, 442, 273
996: \reference{} Pechenick, K. R., Ftaclas, C., Cohen, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 846
997: \reference{} Perna, R., Heyl, J. S., Hernquist, L. E., Juett, A. M.,
998: Chakrabarty, D. 2001a, ApJ, 557, 18
999: \reference{} Perna, R., Heyl, J., Hernquist, L. 2001b, ApJ, 553, 809
1000: \reference{} Rea, N., Zane, S., Lyutikov, M., Turolla, R. 2007, Ap\&SS, 308, 61
1001: \reference{} Skinner, S.L., Perna, R. \& Zhekov, S. A. 2006, ApJ, 653, 587
1002: \reference{} Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R. C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322
1003: \reference{} van Adelsberg, M., Lai, D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1495
1004:
1005: \end{references}
1006:
1007: \end{document}
1008: