1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \shorttitle{CANGAROO-III observations of HESS J1804$-$216}
5: \shortauthors{Higashi et al.}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Observation of Very High Energy gamma rays from HESS J1804$-$216 with CANGAROO-III Telescopes}
9: \author{
10: Y.~Higashi,\altaffilmark{1}
11: H.~Kubo,\altaffilmark{1}
12: T.~Yoshida,\altaffilmark{2}
13: R.~Enomoto,\altaffilmark{3}
14: T.~Tanimori,\altaffilmark{1}
15: P.~G.~Edwards,\altaffilmark{6}
16: T.~Naito,\altaffilmark{9}
17: G.~V.~Bicknell,\altaffilmark{4}
18: R.~W.~Clay,\altaffilmark{5}
19: S.~Gunji,\altaffilmark{7}
20: S.~Hara,\altaffilmark{8}
21: T.~Hara,\altaffilmark{9}
22: T.~Hattori,\altaffilmark{10}
23: S.~Hayashi,\altaffilmark{11}
24: Y.~Hirai,\altaffilmark{2}
25: K.~Inoue,\altaffilmark{7}
26: S.~Kabuki,\altaffilmark{1}
27: F.~Kajino,\altaffilmark{11}
28: H.~Katagiri,\altaffilmark{12}
29: A.~Kawachi,\altaffilmark{10}
30: T.~Kifune,\altaffilmark{3}
31: R.~Kiuchi,\altaffilmark{3}
32: J.~Kushida,\altaffilmark{10}
33: Y.~Matsubara,\altaffilmark{13}
34: T.~Mizukami,\altaffilmark{1}
35: Y.~Mizumoto,\altaffilmark{14}
36: R.~Mizuniwa,\altaffilmark{10}
37: M.~Mori,\altaffilmark{3}
38: H.~Muraishi,\altaffilmark{15}
39: Y.~Muraki,\altaffilmark{13}
40: T.~Nakamori,\altaffilmark{1}
41: S.~Nakano,\altaffilmark{1}
42: D.~Nishida,\altaffilmark{1}
43: K.~Nishijima,\altaffilmark{10}
44: M.~Ohishi,\altaffilmark{3}
45: Y.~Sakamoto,\altaffilmark{10}
46: A.~Seki,\altaffilmark{10}
47: V.~Stamatescu,\altaffilmark{5}
48: T.~Suzuki,\altaffilmark{2}
49: D.~L.~Swaby,\altaffilmark{5}
50: G.~Thornton,\altaffilmark{5}
51: F.~Tokanai,\altaffilmark{7}
52: K.~Tsuchiya,\altaffilmark{1}
53: S.~Watanabe,\altaffilmark{1}
54: Y.~Yamada,\altaffilmark{11}
55: E.~Yamazaki,\altaffilmark{10}
56: S.~Yanagita,\altaffilmark{2}
57: T.~Yoshikoshi,\altaffilmark{3} and
58: Y.~Yukawa\altaffilmark{3}
59: }
60: \email{higashi@cr.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{1}{ Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
63: \altaffiltext{2}{ Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki 310-8512, Japan}
64: \altaffiltext{3}{ Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}
65: \altaffiltext{4}{ Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, ACT 2611, Australia}
66: \altaffiltext{5}{ School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia}
67: \altaffiltext{6}{ CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia}
68: \altaffiltext{7}{ Department of Physics, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan}
69: \altaffiltext{8}{ Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Ibaraki 300-0394, Japan}
70: \altaffiltext{9}{ Faculty of Management Information, Yamanashi Gakuin University, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan}
71: \altaffiltext{10}{ Department of Physics, Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
72: \altaffiltext{11}{ Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan}
73: \altaffiltext{12}{ Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan}
74: \altaffiltext{13}{ Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
75: \altaffiltext{14}{ National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
76: \altaffiltext{15}{ School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
77: %
78: %
79: %
80: %
81: %
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: We observed the unidentified TeV gamma-ray source HESS J1804$-$216 with the CANGAROO-III atmospheric Cerenkov telescopes from May to July in 2006.
85: We detected very high energy gamma rays above 600 GeV at the $10\sigma$ level in an effective exposure of 76 hr.
86: We obtained a differential flux of $(5.0\pm 1.5_{\rm stat}\pm 1.6_{\rm sys}) \times 10^{-12}$(E/1\ TeV)$^{-\alpha}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$ with a photon index $\alpha$ of $2.69 \pm 0.30_{\rm stat} \pm 0.34_{\rm sys}$, which is consistent with that of the H.E.S.S. observation in 2004.
87: We also confirm the extended morphology of the source.
88: By combining our result with multi-wavelength observations, we discuss the possible counterparts of HESS J1804$-$216 and the radiation mechanism based on leptonic and hadronic processes for a supernova remnant and a pulsar wind nebula.
89: \end{abstract}
90: %
91: \keywords{gamma rays: observations
92: --- ISM: individual(HESS J1804$-$216, G8.7$-$0.1)
93: --- pulsars: individual(PSR B1800$-$21)
94: --- X-rays: individual(Suzaku J1804$-$2142, Suzaku J1804$-$2140)}
95: %
96: \section{Introduction}
97: A Galactic plane survey was performed in 2004 by the H.E.S.S.\
98: imaging atmospheric Cerenkov telescope (IACT) with a flux sensitivity
99: of 0.02~crab for
100: gamma rays above 200\,GeV \citep{aha05a,aha06a}. Fourteen new
101: gamma-ray sources were detected at significance levels above 4$\sigma$, and
102: 11 of the sources either have no counterpart or
103: possible counterparts with significant positional offsets.
104: HESS J1804$-$216 is one of the brightest, and its
105: spectrum is softest in this survey; the flux is about 0.25~crab above
106: 200\,GeV with a photon index of $2.72\pm0.06$. In addition, with
107: a size of $\sim 22$~arcmin, it is one of the most extended TeV gamma-ray sources.
108: The H.E.S.S.\
109: collaboration proposed two possible counterparts: the supernova remnant
110: (SNR) G8.7$-$0.1 and the young Vela-like pulsar B1800$-$21. However,
111: the TeV gamma-ray source does not coincide exactly with either of these.
112: G8.7$-$0.1 appears as a larger circular
113: region with a diameter of $\sim 50$~arcmin, and the geometric center
114: \citep{kas90b} has a large offset, $\sim11$ arcmin, from the centroid of
115: HESS J1804$-$216 to the northeast, while PSR B1800$-$21 has an
116: $\sim11$ arcmin offset to the west.
117:
118: After the detection of HESS J1804$-$216, an SNR, G8.31$-$0.09, was discovered
119: at radio wavelengths \citep{bro06} to be located within the error circle of
120: HESS J1804$-$216, but with a smaller size, $5'\times4'$. {\it Suzaku} deep
121: observations discovered two new X-ray sources, Suzaku J1804$-$2142
122: (hereafter Src1) and Suzaku J1804$-$2140 (hereafter Src2), that are near the center
123: of HESS J1804$-$216 \citep{bam07}. {\it Chandra} also detected these sources
124: \citep{kar07b}. {\it SWIFT} found three faint X-ray sources in the region of HESS
125: J1804$-$216 \citep{lan06}. One of them is positionally coincident with a
126: bright star, and another could also be associated with a star close to the
127: boundary of the XRT error circle. The other positionally coincides with
128: Suzaku Src2. So, there remain 5 possible counterparts: SNR G8.7$-$0.1, PSR
129: B1800$-$21, SNR G8.31$-$0.09, Suzaku Src1, and Suzaku Src2. We briefly
130: describe these sources in the following paragraphs.
131:
132: SNR G8.7$-$0.1:
133: G8.7$-$0.1 is associated with the W30 complex, which comprises
134: extended radio emission with a number of superposed smaller discrete
135: emission regions \citep{alt78, rei84, han87}. Radio recombination-line
136: observations have been used to identify discrete sources as H\,$\mathrm{II}$
137: regions, and CO observations also show molecular gas to be associated with
138: W30 \citep{bli82}. \citet{oje02} reported that massive star formation
139: may be occurring in molecular clouds in W30.
140: \citet{ode86} and \citet{kas90b} clearly established that G8.7$-$0.1 was an
141: SNR by the detection of a nonthermal extended radio emission. A {\it ROSAT}
142: observation revealed diffuse X-ray emission only from the northern half of
143: the remnant in the 0.1--2.4\,keV band \citep{fin94}. The distance to
144: G8.7$-$0.1 was estimated using several methods. Based on kinematical
145: distances to the H\,$\mathrm{II}$ regions associated with the SNR, the
146: distance was estimated to be $6 \pm 1$\,kpc \citep{kas90b}.
147: \citet{fin94} pointed out that more recent galactic rotation models applied
148: to the H\,$\mathrm{II}$ regions suggest a near kinematical distance of about
149: 4.8\,kpc. They also estimated the distance based on a Sedov solution
150: \citep{sed59, ham83} from the observed X-ray temperature and the angular
151: radius to derive 3.2\,kpc\,$\le d \le$\,4.3\,kpc for
152: an assumed initial energy of $10^{51}$ ergs. In this paper, we adopt $d =
153: 4.8$\,kpc. They also estimated the age of the SNR, based on a Sedov solution
154: from the X-ray observation, to be 1.5--2.8\,$\times10^4$ years under the
155: assumption of an initial energy of $10^{51}$ ergs, and 2.7--3.9\,$\times10^4$
156: years under the assumption of a distance of 6\,kpc. Similarly, we estimated
157: an age of 2.2--3.1\,$\times10^4$ years under the assumption of a distance of
158: 4.8\,kpc.
159: \citet{ode86} represented an age of $1.5\times10^4$ years from the relation
160: between the age and the surface brightness in the radio band.
161:
162: PSR B1800$-$21:
163: The young Vela-like pulsar B1800$-$21 was found in a radio observation \citep{clif86}.
164: The offset from the centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 is $\sim$11~arcmin.
165: The spin period, the spin period derivative, and the characteristic age are
166: $P = 133.6$\,ms, $\dot{P}= 1.34\times10^{-13}$\,s/s, and
167: $\tau _c=P/2\dot{P}= 15.8$\,kyears, respectively \citep{bri06}.
168: The resulting spin-down luminosity is
169: $\dot{E} = 4\pi ^2 I \dot{P}/P^3 = 2.2\times10^{36}(I / 10^{45})$
170: ergs\,s$^{-1}$, where $I$ is the moment of inertia in units of g\,cm$^2$. The
171: distance was estimated to be 3.9\,kpc from the pulsar's dispersion measure of
172: $233.99$\,pc\,cm$^{-3}$ \citep{tay93}. The newer Cordes \& Lazio NE2001
173: model \citep{cor02} gives a similar distance of 3.84$_{-0.45}^{+0.39}$\,kpc.
174: We adopt $d = 3.84$\,kpc throughout this paper. The association between PSR
175: B1800$-$21 and G8.7$-$0.1 has been discussed in several papers
176: \citep[e.g.][]{fin94,fra94,kas90a}. However, a recent proper-motion
177: measurement \citep{bri06} has shown that the pulsar was born outside the
178: currently observed SNR, and that is moving more nearly toward the center of
179: G8.7$-$0.1, rather than away from it, which makes their association very
180: unlikely. Based on a 10\,ks observation with the {\it ROSAT} PSPC, Finley \&
181: \"{O}gelman (1994) reported a faint X-ray source near the radio pulsar
182: position, and attributed this emission to PSR B1800$-$21. Recently,
183: \citet{kar07a} and \citet{cui06} reported that an X-ray nebula around the
184: pulsar was detected with {\it Chandra}. Additionally, \citet{kar07a} reported that
185: the X-ray nebula has two structures: a brighter compact ($\sim 7'' \times
186: 4''$) component (the inner pulsar wind nebula (PWN)) and an extended
187: ($\sim12'' $) fainter emission component (the outer PWN). These are
188: asymmetric to the pulsar position and extended toward HESS J1804$-$216.
189:
190: SNR G8.31$-$0.09:
191: SNR G8.31$-$0.09 was found in a 90\,cm multi-configuration
192: Very Large Array survey of the Galactic plane. The size is $5'\times4'$, and
193: the offset from the centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 is 7~arcmin. The morphology
194: is shell-like and the spectral index is $\alpha_r = -0.6$ for $F_\nu \propto
195: \nu ^{\alpha_r}$ (Brogan et al.\ 2006).
196:
197: Suzaku Src1: The offset from the centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 is 3~arcmin.
198: \citet{bam07} reported that Src1 is point-like or compact compared to
199: the spatial resolution of {\it Suzaku} with a half-power diameter of about
200: 2~arcmin. However, Kargaltsev et al.\ (2007b) reported that Src1 is extended or
201: multiple ($1.5'-2'$) with a {\it Chandra} observation. The {\it Suzaku} spectrum was
202: fitted with an absorbed power-law model \citep{bam07}. The best-fit
203: absorbing column is consistent with the Galactic hydrogen column in that
204: direction. Since the photon index of $-0.3 \pm0.5$ is very flat, \citet{bam07}
205: suggest that this source is likely to be a high-mass X-ray binary (HMXB). In
206: the {\it Chandra} observation \citep{kar07b}, no spectral fitting
207: was able to be performed because of the low signal-to-noise ratio. The unabsorbed
208: flux, which was estimated from the {\it Chandra} observation using the best-fit
209: parameters reported by \citet{bam07}, is a factor of $\approx$ 1.7 smaller
210: than that reported with the {\it Suzaku} observation of \citet{bam07}. The
211: difference could be due to unaccounted systematic errors, or the variability
212: of the source, which supports the HMXB interpretation \citep{kar07b}.
213:
214: Suzaku Src2: The offset from the centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 is 1.8~arcmin.
215: Though \citet{bam07} reported that Src2 is extended or multiple, based on the
216: {\it Suzaku} observation, \citet{kar07b} reported that Src2 is point-like in
217: a {\it Chandra} observation. This could mean that the more sensitive {\it Suzaku}
218: observations have detected a fainter extended PWN component. The {\it Suzaku}
219: spectrum was fitted with an absorbed power-law model \citep{bam07},
220: and the best-fit absorbing column is about an order-of-magnitude higher than
221: the expected Galactic column.
222: This implies that Src2 is embedded in dense gas. The {\it Chandra} spectrum was
223: also well-fitted with an absorbed power-law model, and the obtained
224: absorbing column density is a factor of 2--3 larger than the Galactic column
225: \citep{kar07b}. \citet{kar07b} stated that the large absorption suggests
226: that Src2 is located within (or even beyond) the Galactic Bulge, or it shows
227: an intrinsic absorption, which is often seen in the X-ray spectra of HMXBs.
228: \citet{kar07b} also reported a marginal pulsation of 106~s in Src2, which
229: supports an HMXB interpretation. On the other hand, \citet{bam07}
230: suggested that Src2 is a PWN or a shell-like SNR because of the extended
231: morphology observed with {\it Suzaku} and the best-fit photon index of 1.7
232: (0.7--3.1).
233:
234: None of the above five sources morphologically match HESS
235: J1804$-$216. The counterpart is therefore still unknown. In this paper, we
236: present TeV gamma-ray observations of HESS J1804$-$216 with the CANGAROO-III
237: telescopes and discuss the radiation mechanism and the counterpart by
238: combining our result with multi-wavelength observations.
239: %
240: %
241: \section{CANGAROO-III Observations}
242: CANGAROO-III is an array of four IACTs,
243: located near Woomera,
244: South Australia (136$^{\circ}47'$E, $31^{\circ}06'$S, 160\,m a.s.l.).
245: Each telescope has a 10\,m diameter reflector
246: made up of 114 segmented FRP spherical mirrors
247: mounted on a parabolic frame \citep{kaw01}.
248: The telescopes are situated at the corners of a diamond
249: with sides of $\sim$100\,m \citep{eno02}.
250: The oldest telescope, T1, which was the CANGAROO-II telescope,
251: was not used due to its smaller FOV and higher energy threshold.
252: The imaging camera systems on the other three telescopes (T2, T3 and T4)
253: are identical, with 427 PMTs and a FOV of 4.0$^{\circ}$ \citep{kab03}.
254: The PMT signals were recorded by charge ADCs and multi-hit TDCs \citep{kub01}.
255: %
256: The observations of HESS J1804$-$216 were made from May to July, 2006,
257: using the `wobble' mode in which the pointing position of each
258: telescope was shifted in declination by $\pm$0.5$^{\circ}$ from the centroid
259: of HESS J1804$-$216. The mean zenith angle of the observation was 21$^{\circ}$,
260: and the total observation time was 86.8 hr. We used the 3-fold
261: coincidence data taken at zenith angles of less than 40$^{\circ}$. To
262: trigger data recording, an individual telescope was required to have more
263: than four pixels receiving over 7.6 photoelectrons within 100\,ns (local
264: trigger), with a global trigger system to determine the coincidence of any
265: two of the three telescopes \citep{c3trig}. We rejected data taken under
266: bad weather conditions in which the shower event rate was less than 6\,Hz.
267: %which is depending on the mean zenith angle and mirror reflectivity.
268: Taking into account the DAQ dead-time, the effective live time was
269: calculated to be 76 hr.
270: %
271: %
272: %
273: %
274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
275: %
276: % analysis
277: %
278: %
279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
280: \section{Data reduction and Analysis}
281: The basic analysis procedures are described in detail in \citet{eno06a} and
282: \citet{kab07}. Using calibration data taken daily with LEDs, the recorded
283: charges of each pixel in the camera were converted to the number of
284: photoelectrons. At this step we found 7 bad pixels out of 427 pixels for T2,
285: 5 for T3, and 1 for T4, due to their higher or lower ADC conversion factors
286: in these observations. These bad pixels were removed from this analysis, which
287: was also reflected in the Monte Carlo simulations. After that, every shower
288: image was cleaned through the following CANGAROO-III standard criteria. Only
289: pixels that received $\ge$5.0 photoelectrons were used as ``hit pixels''.
290: Then, five or more adjacent hit pixels, with arrival times of within
291: 30\,ns from the average hit time of all pixels, were recognized as a
292: shower cluster.
293:
294: Before calculating image moments
295: --- the ``Hillas parameters" \citep{hil85} ---
296: we applied the ``edge cut'' described in \citet{eno06b}. We rejected events
297: with any hits in the outer-most layer of the camera. The orientation angles
298: were determined by minimizing the sum of the squared widths with a
299: constraint given by the distance predicted by Monte Carlo
300: simulations.
301:
302: We then applied the Fisher Discriminant method \citep{fis36,eno06a}
303: with a multi-parameter set of $\vec{P} = (W_2,W_3,W_4,L_2,L_3,L_4)$,
304: where $W$ and $L$ are the energy corrected width and length,
305: and the suffixes represent the telescope IDs.
306: The Fisher Discriminant (FD) is defined
307: as $FD \equiv \vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{P}$,
308: where $\vec{\alpha}$ is a set of coefficients mathematically determined
309: in order to maximize the separation between two FDs for gamma rays and hadrons.
310:
311: For a background study we selected a ring region around the target, $0.3\le
312: \theta ^2 \le0.5 $\,deg$^2$, where $\theta$ is the angular distance to the
313: centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 reported by the H.E.S.S.\ group \citep{aha06a},
314: and obtained the FD distributions
315: for the background, $F_{b}$, and Monte Carlo gamma rays, $F_g$.
316: Finally, we could fit the FD distributions of the events from the target
317: with a liner combination of these two components.
318: The observed FD distributions, $F$, should be represented as
319: $F = \alpha F_g + (1-\alpha)F_b$,
320: where $\alpha$ is the ratio of gamma-ray events to the total number of events.
321: Here, only $\alpha$ was optimized.
322: This analysis method was verified
323: by an analysis of the Crab nebula data taken in December, 2005.
324:
325: The reflectivities of each telescope, which were used in the Monte Carlo
326: simulations, were monitored every month by a muon ring analysis of a
327: calibration run taken individually by each telescope. We obtained relative
328: light-collecting efficiencies with respect to the original mirror production
329: times of 0.60, 0.60 and 0.65 for T2, T3 and T4, respectively. Throughout
330: this analysis, we used the Monte Carlo simulations for gamma rays assuming a
331: point-source.
332: %
333: \section{Results}
334: The obtained $\theta ^2$ plot is shown in Fig.\,\ref{theta}
335: with the point spread function (PSF) of our telescopes,
336: $0.23^{\circ}$ (68\% containment radius).
337: The numbers of excess events that we detected above 600\,GeV were $512 \pm61$
338: within $\theta ^2 <0.06$ deg$^2$, based on the assumption that it was a
339: point source, $977 \pm 94$ within $\theta ^2 <0.17$ deg$^2$, which
340: corresponds to that used in the spectral analysis by H.E.S.S.\ (and
341: taking into account the difference between our PSF and that of H.E.S.S.), and
342: $1389 \pm 126$ within $\theta ^2 < 0.3$ deg$^2$.
343: %
344: %
345: The TeV gamma-ray emission is extended, and the morphology of gamma-ray--like
346: events, derived with boxcar smoothing with each pixel replaced by the average of its
347: square neighborhood, is shown in Fig.\,\ref{map}. The number of excess
348: events was individually estimated by the FD-fitting method in each
349: $0.2^\circ \times 0.2^\circ$ sky bin. When we evaluated the outer regions
350: ($\theta ^2>0.6$ deg$^2$), we had to consider gradual deformations of the FD
351: distributions at larger angular distances from the target. Therefore, we
352: selected an annulus with radii $0.2^{\circ} < r < 0.4^{\circ}$ centered on the
353: evaluated region as the background. For the inner regions, $\theta ^2 <0.6$
354: deg$^2$, the events in $0.3\le \theta ^2 \le 0.5 $\,deg$^2$, excluding the
355: evaluated region, were adopted as a background.
356: %
357: %
358: The intrinsic extent of the TeV gamma-ray emission was estimated by a 2D
359: Gaussian fit on our unsmoothed excess map. The intrinsic deviations along
360: the Right Ascension and Declination axes were calculated to be
361: $0.160^\circ\pm 0.005^\circ$ and $0.274^\circ\pm 0.011^\circ$, respectively.
362: The best-fit centroid position was obtained (R.A, dec [J2000])$ =
363: $(271.079$^\circ$, -21.727$^\circ$). The offset from the best-fit position
364: reported by H.E.S.S.\ \citep{aha06a} is ($\Delta$R.A, $\Delta$dec)$ =
365: $($-0.053^\circ\pm0.007^\circ$, $-0.026^\circ\pm 0.013^\circ$). The offset is not significant given our PSF.
366:
367: Figure \ref{flux} represents a reconstructed VHE gamma-ray differential spectrum
368: compatible with a single power-law: $(5.0\pm 1.5_{\rm stat}\pm 1.6_{\rm sys}) \times 10^{-12}$(E/1\ TeV)$^{-\alpha}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$ with a photon index $\alpha$ of $2.69 \pm 0.30_{\rm stat} \pm 0.34_{\rm sys}$.
369: To obtain the spectrum, we used a cut of $\theta ^2 < 0.17$ deg$^2$. The
370: relevant systematic errors are due to the atmospheric transparency, night
371: sky background fluctuations, uniformity of camera pixels, and
372: light-collecting efficiencies.
373: In addition, the signal integrating region
374: was changed from $\theta ^2 \le 0.17$ deg$^2$ to 0.3 deg$^2$,
375: and the difference in fluxes was incorporated in the systematic errors.
376: The TeV gamma-ray extension and the flux obtained by
377: CANGAROO-III were consistent with those by H.E.S.S. Our result indicates
378: that the TeV gamma-ray emission was unchanged between the H.E.S.S.\
379: observations in 2004 and ours in 2006.
380: \begin{figure}
381: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f1.eps}
382: \epsscale{}
383: \plotone{f1.eps}
384: \caption{
385: Number of excess events as a function of the squared angular distance. Here,
386: 0$^{\circ}$ corresponds to the centroid of HESS J1804$-$216 reported by the
387: H.E.S.S.\ group \citep{aha06a}. The squares show the CANGAROO-III data
388: points. The circles show the normalized H.E.S.S.\ data points. The hatched
389: histogram represents our PSF for a comparison.}
390: \label{theta}
391: \end{figure}
392: %
393: \begin{figure}
394: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f2.eps}
395: \epsscale{}
396: \plotone{f2.eps}
397: \caption{
398: Smoothed morphology of gamma-ray--like events with our PSF of 0.23$^\circ$
399: radius. Dashed contours show the VHE gamma-ray emission seen by H.E.S.S.\
400: \citep{aha06a}. The thick solid contours (green) show the 20\,cm radio emission from
401: G8.7$-$0.1 recorded by the VLA \citep{whi05}. The thin solid contours (white) show the
402: X-ray emission detected by the {\it ROSAT} satellite \citep{fin94}. The solid circle indicates the position of G8.31$-$0.09 \citep{bro06}. The cross
403: indicates the PSR B1800$-$21 position \citep{bri06}. The triangle and
404: the square indicate the position of Suzaku Src1 and Suzaku Src2,
405: respectively.}
406: \label{map}
407: \end{figure}
408: %
409: %
410: %
411: \begin{figure}
412: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f3.eps}
413: \epsscale{}
414: \plotone{f3.eps}
415: \caption{Differential flux. The squares and circles show the CANGAROO-III
416: and the H.E.S.S.\ data points, respectively. The best-fit power-law is also
417: shown by the solid and dashed line from this work and from H.E.S.S., respectively.
418: }
419: \label{flux}
420: \end{figure}
421: %\clearpage
422: %
423: \section{Discussion}
424: As described in \S\,1, there are 5 possible counterparts: SNR G8.7$-$0.1,
425: PSR B1800$-$21, SNR G8.31$-$0.09, Suzaku Src1, and Suzaku Src2.
426: Figures~\ref{Sed_allplot} and~\ref{Sed_xray} show the spectral energy
427: distribution (SED) of these counterparts and HESS J1804$-$216 including the
428: results of this work. We extend the introductions to these sources given in
429: \S\,1 with a more detailed summary of the sources
430: and their characteristics in the following paragraphs.
431:
432: \citet{bam07} state that Suzaku Src1 and Src2 are physically associated
433: with HESS J1804$-$216. They suggested that X-rays and TeV gamma-ray emission
434: could come from an SNR shock, based on a model proposed by \citet{yam06}; in
435: an old SNR with an age of $\sim 10^5$ years, primary electrons have already
436: lost most of their energy, and only nucleonic cosmic rays remain.
437: Additionally, the old SNR shock colliding with a giant molecular cloud (GMC)
438: can emit
439: hard nonthermal X-rays from secondary electrons and strong TeV gamma rays
440: from shock accelerated protons through $\pi^0$ decay. This model can explain
441: the observed large ratio of the TeV gamma-ray to X-ray flux (factors of
442: $\sim$100). The large X-ray absorption of Src2 also supports this scenario.
443:
444: \citet{kar07b} suggested that a PWN is the source of HESS J1804$-$216, like
445: HESS J1825$-$137 or Vela~X. HESS J1825$-$137 is likely to be associated with
446: the PWN G18.0$-$0.7 around the Vela-like pulsar B1823$-$13. The TeV gamma-ray
447: emission detected with H.E.S.S.\ covers a much larger area than the X-ray
448: emission from G18.0$-$0.7, extending up to 1$^\circ$ southward from the
449: pulsar \citep{aha05b}. However, both the TeV gamma-ray and the
450: low surface-brightness X-ray emission have similarly asymmetric shapes, and
451: they are offset in the same direction with respect to the pulsar position. A
452: similar picture is observed around the Vela pulsar \citep{aha06b}. These
453: phenomena can be explained by the ``crushed PWN'' hypothesis \citep{blo01}: on
454: a time scale of $\sim 10^4$ years, the reverse SNR shock front propagates
455: toward the center of the remnant, where it crushes the PWN, and asymmetries in the
456: surrounding interstellar medium give rise to an asymmetric shape and offset
457: of the PWN relative to the pulsar and explosion site.
458:
459: \citet{kar07b} considered the possibility that Suzaku Src1 or Src2 are a
460: PWN powering HESS J1804$-$216. However, the 3.24~s time resolution of the
461: {\it Chandra} ACIS observation precludes a search for the subsecond pulse
462: periods
463: expected for a young pulsar. Therefore, there is no strong evidence to
464: support it at this point. They also suggested that PSR B1800$-$21
465: is associated with HESS J1804$-$216. Its asymmetric PWN component extending
466: toward HESS J1804$-$216, detected by {\it Chandra} \citep{kar07a}, shows a hint of
467: the association, but the sensitivity of the {\it Chandra} observation was possibly
468: insufficient to detect the PWN beyond 15$''$--20$''$ from the pulsar.
469: Additionally, they pointed out that the extended morphology of HESS
470: J1804$-$216 argues against the HMXB interpretation because of the weak
471: observational evidence for HMXBs producing extended TeV gamma-ray
472: emission.
473:
474: \citet{fat06} concluded that PSR B1800$-$21 cannot account for the spectrum
475: of HESS J1804$-$216, and G8.7$-$0.1 is probably the source of the TeV gamma
476: rays. However, they considered only a pion-decay model without any
477: consideration of the inverse Compton process, and for PSR B1800$-$21 they
478: only considered the acceleration of charged particles across voltage drops
479: in the relativistic winds near the light cylinder. Additionally, they did not
480: take into account the possibility of other sources besides PSR
481: B1800$-$21 and G8.7$-$0.1.
482:
483: Based on the above discussions and the SED, we now discuss the radiation
484: mechanism of HESS J1804$-$216 and its counterpart. For Suzaku Src1,
485: \citet{bam07} reported a very hard photon index of $-0.3\pm0.5$, which
486: corresponds to the power-law index of electrons of $-1.6\pm1.0$.
487: This unusual value indicates that
488: the X-ray emission is not synchrotron radiation. Therefore, we do not discuss the SED
489: of Src1.
490: \citet{bam07} suggested that Src1 might be an HMXB. If it were, the
491: association between Src1 and HESS J1804$-$216 would be unlikely as discussed
492: in \citet{kar07b}. The results of independent observations of the H.E.S.S.\
493: and CANGAROO-III telescopes show that HESS J1804$-$216 is quite extended
494: ($\sim0.4^{\circ}$). This precludes the possibility that HESS J1804$-$216 is an
495: Active Galactic Nucleus. The plausible candidates seem to be an SNR or a
496: PWN.
497: %
498: %
499: %\clearpage
500: \begin{figure}[t]
501: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4.eps}
502: \epsscale{}
503: \plotone{f4.eps}
504: \caption{Spectral energy distribution (SED) of HESS J1804$-$216, SNR G8.7$-$0.1,
505: SNR G8.31$-$0.09, PWN of PSR B1800$-$21, Suzaku Src1, and Suzaku Src2 in all
506: energy bands. The data points derived from this work are represented by
507: filled squares and references to others are given in Table~\ref{seddata}.
508: }
509: \label{Sed_allplot}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512: \begin{figure}[t]
513: % \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f5.eps}
514: \epsscale{}
515: \plotone{f5.eps}
516: \caption{SED in the X-ray band. The dashed and dotted arrows show the
517: upper limits for the diffuse source obtained by {\it Suzaku} and
518: {\it Chandra},
519: respectively. The dashed, dot-and-short-dashed, dot-and-long-dashed, and
520: solid closed regions show the error regions of Suzaku Src1, Suzaku Src2
521: with {\it Suzaku} telescope, Suzaku Src2 with {\it Chandra} telescope, and PWN of PSR
522: B1800$-$21 with {\it Chandra} telescope, respectively.
523: }
524: \label{Sed_xray}
525: \end{figure}
526: %\clearpage
527: %
528: %
529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530: %
531: \subsection{SNR origin}
532: The SNR candidates associated with HESS J1804$-$216 are SNR G8.7$-$0.1, SNR
533: G8.31$-$0.09, and Suzaku Src2.
534:
535: \
536:
537: \noindent
538: {\bf SNR G8.7$-$0.1:}
539: We discuss the association between HESS J1804$-$216
540: and SNR G8.7$-$0.1. Figure~\ref{Sed_diffuse} shows the leptonic model curves
541: used to fit the TeV gamma-ray spectra obtained by H.E.S.S.\ and CANGAROO-III.
542: We examined plausible inverse Compton (IC) model curves on the assumption
543: that the electron spectrum is a single power-law with an exponential cutoff,
544: \begin{equation}
545: \frac{dN_e}{dE_e} = K_eE _e
546: ^{-\Gamma_e}\exp{(-E_e/E_{max\_e})} \ ,
547: \label{singlepl_el}
548: \end{equation}
549: where $K_e$ is the normalization factor, $E_e$ is the electron energy,
550: $\Gamma_e$ is the spectral index of the injected electrons,
551: and $E_{max\_e}$ is the maximum electron energy. In this paper, we do not
552: consider hard spectra of electrons with $\Gamma_e < 1$.
553:
554: To obtain the entire IC model curve, we used IR and optical (starlight)
555: photon fields for the target photons in addition to the cosmic microwave
556: background (CMB) field density. Here, we used an interstellar radiation
557: field (ISRF) derived from the latest (v50p) GALPROP package
558: \citep{por05,gal06}.
559: The ISRF was given for three components (CMB, IR from dust, and optical
560: starlight) as a function of the distance from the Galactic center, $R$ (in
561: kpc), and the distance from the Galactic plane, $z$ (in kpc). We extracted
562: the spectra at $(R,z)=(3.8, -0.01)$ at the SNR G8.7$-$0.1 position, as shown
563: in Fig.~\ref{isrf}. The X-ray upper limits for diffuse emission constrained
564: $\Gamma_e$ to be less than 2.5 for the IC model curves. We obtained
565: $E_{max\_e}$ to fit the IC model curves to the TeV gamma-ray spectra for
566: each fixed spectral index $\Gamma_e$ (Table~\ref{sum_ic}).
567:
568:
569: The electrons causing the IC scattering also emit synchrotron radiation. In
570: the radio band, the spectrum of the whole region of G8.7$-$0.1 is regarded
571: as the upper limits. Here, the upper limits in the near-infrared (NIR) band,
572: in Fig.~\ref{Sed_allplot}, are neglected because they are for point sources.
573: The magnetic field is constrained by the radio upper limits and the X-ray
574: upper limits for diffuse emission. Table~\ref{sum_ic} lists the upper
575: limits of the magnetic field, maximum electron energy, and the total energy
576: of electrons above 0.51\ MeV,
577: \begin{equation}
578: W_e =\int^\infty _{0.51\ MeV} E_e\frac{dN_e}{dE_e}\ dE_e \ ,
579: \end{equation}
580: at $d=4.8$\,kpc for each electron spectral index $\Gamma_e$.
581: $W_e$ is estimated to be less than $\sim 10^{50}$ ergs for $\Gamma_e\le2.5$.
582: Although the total explosion energy of some supernovae are much higher, for
583: example, the total energy of SN2003lw, a type Ic supernova, is estimated to be
584: $\sim 6\times 10^{52}$\,ergs \citep{maz06}, the typical total energy of a
585: supernova explosion is estimated to be $\sim 10^{51}$\,ergs. If the
586: efficiency of the energy to accelerate the electrons is 10\%, the obtained $W_e$
587: can satisfy the SNR origin scenario.
588:
589: Additionally, the hadronic scenario can also explain the TeV gamma-ray spectrum for G8.7$-$0.1.
590: In Fig.~\ref{Sed_pion}, we show the $\pi^0$ decay model curves with
591: the assumption that the proton spectrum is a single power-law with an exponential cutoff,
592: \begin{equation}
593: \frac{dN_p}{dE_p} = K_p E_p
594: ^{-\Gamma_p}\exp{(-E_p/E_{max\_p})} \ ,
595: \label{singlepl_pro}
596: \end{equation}
597: where $K_p$ is the normalization factor, $E_p$ is the proton energy,
598: $\Gamma_p$ is the spectral index of the injected protons,
599: and $E_{max\_p}$ is the maximum proton energy. In this paper, we do not
600: consider hard proton spectra with $\Gamma_p < 1$. The EGRET upper
601: limit \citep{kar07b,hart99} constrained $\Gamma_p$ to be less than 2.3. We
602: obtained $E_{max\_p}$ to fit the $\pi^0$ decay model curves to the TeV gamma-ray spectra for each fixed spectral index $\Gamma_p$.
603: Table~\ref{summary} lists the fitting parameters and the total energy of protons
604: above 1\,GeV,
605: \begin{equation}
606: W_p =\int^\infty _{1\ GeV} E_p\frac{dN_p}{dE_p}\ dE_p \ ,
607: \end{equation}
608: at a distance for SNR G8.7$-$0.1 of 4.8 kpc with the assumption that the
609: interstellar medium (ISM) density is $n = 1$ cm$^{-3}$.
610:
611: The total energy of protons, $W_p$, is $9.3\times10^{51}(d/4.8 $
612: kpc)$^{2}(n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$\,ergs with $\Gamma_p = 2.3$. For a typical total
613: supernova explosion energy of $\sim 10^{51}$\,ergs,
614: if the efficiency of the energy to accelerate the protons is 10\%, the
615: ISM density should be $n\sim10^2$\,cm$^{-3}$. With the assumption of $\Gamma_p
616: =1.0 $, $W_p$ is $9.6\times10^{50}(d/4.8 $ kpc)$^{2}(n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$
617: ergs, and the ISM density should be $n\sim10$ cm$^{-3}$ for an efficiency of
618: 10\%. However, \citet{fin94} derived the electron density $n_e$ to be
619: $(0.1-0.2)(d/6 $ kpc)$^{-1/2}$ cm$^{-3}$ for an X-ray emitting gas in the
620: remnant, based on the {\it ROSAT} observation. In addition, the lack of the X-ray
621: emission in the TeV gamma-ray emission region, shown in Fig.~\ref{map},
622: indicates that the ambient density at the region is lower than that at the
623: X-ray emitting region, that is, $n < 0.1-0.2 $\,cm$^{-3}$. If it were, the
624: hadronic scenario would be unlikely. On the other hand, a GMC, SRBY3, is near (in projection) to HESS J1804$-$216. The
625: offset, the angular radius, the distance, and the mass of the cloud are
626: $\sim 0.1^\circ$, $\sim 0.2^\circ$, 5.3 kpc, $55.6\times 10^4 M_{\odot}$,
627: respectively
628: \citep{cra02}. The mean number density is calculated to be $\sim 4.5 \times
629: 10^2$\,cm$^{-3}$ under the assumption that it is spherical symmetry. If it
630: is associated with HESS J1804$-$216, there can be a high-density medium, and
631: the hadronic scenario can be satisfied.
632:
633: Additionally, we estimated $K_{pe}$, the number ratio of protons to primary electrons.
634: Under the assumption that the spectral indices of the protons and primary electrons are the same, $\Gamma_p = \Gamma_e$, $K_{pe}$ is derived from eqs.(\ref{singlepl_el})(\ref{singlepl_pro}) as $K_{pe} = K_{p}/K_{e}$.
635: Generally the maximum electron energy $E_{max\_e}$ is the same as $E_{max\_p}$, or $E_{max\_e}$ is lower than $E_{max\_p}$ due to a cooling effect, that is, $E_{max\_e} \le E_{max\_p}$.
636: In Fig.~\ref{Sed_pion}, we show the leptonic model curves with the assumption of $K_{pe}\sim 10^5 (n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$, B\ =\ 3 $\mu$G, $\Gamma_e = 2.0$, and $E_{max\_e} = E_{max\_p} = 16$ TeV. The leptonic model curves move up with the lower $K_{pe}$.
637: With the assumption of B\ =\ 3$\mu$G, $K_{pe}$ is constrained to be
638: $K_{pe} \ge 10^4 (n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$, because the IC model curve cannot exceed the TeV gamma-ray spectrum.
639: If a GMC is associated with HESS J1804$-$216, and $n\sim10^2$ cm$^{-3}$, the obtained $K_{pe}$ is consistent with that of the average cosmic rays in our Galaxy, $K_{pe}\sim 10^{2}$.
640: On the other hand, for a high $K_{pe}n$ of $\sim10^4$, we need to consider the contribution of the emission from secondary electrons produced by charged pions \citep{yam06,pfr04}. However, a detailed discussion about secondary electrons is beyond the scope of this paper.
641:
642: \
643:
644: \noindent
645: {\bf Suzaku Src2:} For Suzaku Src2, we used the overlapping error region
646: obtained by {\it Suzaku} and {\it Chandra}. In Fig.~\ref{Sed_point}, we examined
647: plausible synchrotron model curve within the error of the unabsorbed X-ray
648: flux on the same assumption as eq.~(\ref{singlepl_el}) with adopting
649: $B$=3\,$\mu$G and $\Gamma_e = 2.0$. The obtained IC model curves for the same
650: electron spectrum cannot reproduce the TeV gamma-ray spectrum. Even if the
651: higher IR energy density than that in GALPROP is adopted, the cutoff energy of
652: the models does not change from $\sim10$ TeV, while the observed cutoff
653: energy should be $\le0.3$ TeV; such a low cutoff energy is due to the soft
654: spectrum of HESS J1804$-$216. A stronger magnetic field can reduce the
655: cutoff energy of the IC model curves. In order to make the cutoff energy of
656: 0.3\,TeV for Suzaku Src2, the magnetic field should be more than 7\,mG, and to
657: fit the TeV gamma-ray spectrum with the magnetic field the IR energy density
658: should be $\sim 10^6$ times higher than that in GALPROP. These values are
659: unlikely. We therefore conclude that the TeV gamma-ray spectra are not
660: produced by the IC model curves for the electron spectrum.
661:
662: We also examined the bremsstrahlung emission for the same electron spectrum. To fit
663: the TeV gamma-ray spectrum, the ISM density should be more than
664: $\sim 10^8$\,cm$^{-3}$, and the magnetic field should be stronger than 1.8\,mG for Suzaku
665: Src2. Due to such incredibly high values of the ISM density and the magnetic
666: field, we also reject the scenario that the bremsstrahlung
667: radiation produces the TeV gamma-ray spectrum.
668:
669: A simple solution to explain the observed TeV gamma-ray spectrum is that
670: accelerated protons produce the gamma rays, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Sed_point}. Therefore, the TeV gamma rays
671: and the X-rays could be produced by accelerated protons and electrons,
672: respectively.
673: Assuming the spectral index, $\Gamma_p = \Gamma_e = 2.0$, the
674: maximum electron energy is $E_{max\_e} \le E_{max\_p} = 16$\,TeV
675: (Table~\ref{summary}), and this maximum energy makes the lower limit of the
676: magnetic field of $B \ge 130$\,$\mu$G to fit the X-ray data. With the
677: magnetic field, we calculated the lower limit of
678: $K_{pe} \ge 6.6 \times 10^7 (n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$.
679: This value is much higher than that of the average cosmic rays in our
680: Galaxy, $K_{pe}\sim 10^{2}$.
681:
682: \
683:
684: \noindent
685: {\bf G8.31$-$0.09:} We consider the possibility that HESS J1804$-$216 is
686: associated with G8.31$-$0.09. For the leptonic scenario, it is difficult to
687: explain the fact that the size of G8.31$-$0.09 in the radio band is much smaller than
688: that in the TeV emission region. On the other hand, if the accelerated
689: protons produced the TeV gamma rays, the difference in the size could be
690: explained due to the difference of the diffusion length between protons and
691: primary electrons. However, we need additional information, either on the distance
692: or from other wavelengths, to discuss the energetics or $K_{pe}$.
693: %\clearpage
694: \begin{figure}[t]
695: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f6.eps}
696: \epsscale{}
697: \plotone{f6.eps}
698: \caption{Leptonic scenario for SNR G8.7$-$0.1.
699: The thick solid curves show the synchrotron emissions, and the thin solid
700: curves show the total IC spectra with fixed spectral indices of $\Gamma_e =
701: 1.0$ (a), $\Gamma_e = 2.0$ (b), and $\Gamma_e = 2.5$ (c), and with
702: $B$ of 50\,$\mu$G, 8\,$\mu$G, 3\,$\mu$G, respectively. The dotted, dot-dashed, and
703: dashed curves show the IC spectra (a) on each of CMB, IR and starlight,
704: shown in Fig.~\ref{isrf}, respectively. The dash-dot-dotted curve shows the
705: 1 year, 5$\sigma$ sensitivity for the {\it GLAST} LAT taking into account the
706: diffuse background at the position of HESS J1804$-$216 \citep{ritz07}.
707: }
708: \label{Sed_diffuse}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711:
712: \begin{figure}[t]
713: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f7.eps}
714: \epsscale{}
715: \plotone{f7.eps}
716: \caption{
717: Interstellar radiation field from the GALPROP package (v50p) at
718: $(R,z)=(3.8, -0.01)$ kpc for G8.7$-$0.1. From lower frequencies, CMB
719: (dotted), IR emission from interstellar dust (dot-dashed), and optical
720: photons from stars (dashed) are shown. The solid line represents the sum
721: of the three components.
722: }
723: \label{isrf}
724: \end{figure}
725: %
726: \begin{figure}[t]
727: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f8.eps}
728: \epsscale{}
729: \plotone{f8.eps}
730: \caption{Hadronic scenario for SNR G8.7$-$0.1.
731: The thin solid curves show the $\pi^0$ decay model curves with fixed
732: spectral indices of $\Gamma_p = 2.3$, $\Gamma_p = 2.0$, and $\Gamma_p =
733: 1.0$, respectively. The thick solid curve shows the total IC spectra, and
734: the dot-and-long dashed curve shows the synchrotron emissions from the primary electrons with the
735: assumption of $\Gamma_e = 2.0$, $B=3$\,$\mu$G, and $K_{pe}=10^5(n/1$\ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$. The dotted, dot-dashed, and
736: dashed curves show the IC spectra on each of CMB, IR and starlight, shown
737: in Fig.~\ref{isrf}, respectively.
738: }
739: \label{Sed_pion}
740: \end{figure}
741: %
742: \begin{figure}[t]
743: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f9.eps}
744: \epsscale{}
745: \plotone{f9.eps}
746: \caption{SED with leptonic model curves to fit Suzaku Src2 and $\pi^0$ decay
747: model curves to fit TeV gamma rays. The thick solid curve shows the total IC spectra, and
748: the dot-and-long dashed curve shows the synchrotron emissions to fit Src2
749: with the assumption of a spectral index of $\Gamma_e = 2.0$ and
750: $B=3$\,$\mu$G. The dotted, dot-dashed, and dashed curves show the IC spectra
751: on each of CMB, IR and starlight, shown in Fig.~\ref{isrf}, respectively.
752: The long dashed curve shows the bremsstrahlung for the same electron spectrum
753: with the assumption of $n=1.0$\,cm$^{-3}$. The thin solid curves show the
754: $\pi^0$ decay model curves with fixed spectral indices of $\Gamma_p =
755: 2.3$, $\Gamma_p = 2.0$, and $\Gamma_p = 1.0$, respectively.
756: }
757: \label{Sed_point}
758: \end{figure}
759: %\clearpage
760:
761: \subsection{PWN origin}
762: \begin{figure}[t]
763: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f10.eps}
764: \epsscale{}
765: \plotone{f10.eps}
766: \caption{
767: SED and the leptonic model curves for the PWN of PSR B1800$-$21 with a
768: time-dependent rate of electrons-injection with $\tau = 16$ kyears, $\tau_0
769: =700$ years, a braking index of $n_{br} \sim 1.6$, $\Gamma_e = 1.5$, and
770: $B = 8$\,$\mu$G. The right-hand curves show the IC component, and the left-hand
771: curves show the synchrotron emissions. The dot-dashed curves show the spectra
772: produced by old electrons ($t < 1000$ years), and the dotted curves show the
773: spectra produced by young electrons ($t > 15000$ years). The thin solid
774: curves represent their medium per 1000 years ($1000< t < 15000$ years), and
775: the thick solid curves show their total.
776: }
777: \label{Sed_pwnall}
778: \end{figure}
779:
780: \begin{figure}[t]
781: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f11.eps}
782: \epsscale{}
783: \plotone{f11.eps}
784: \caption{
785: SED and the leptonic model curves for Suzaku Src2 with a time-dependent rate
786: of electrons-injection with $\tau = 16$ kyears, $\tau_0 =700$ years, a
787: braking index of $n_{br} \sim 1.8$, $\Gamma_e = 1.5$, and $B = 8$\,$\mu$G. The
788: model curves are the same as in Fig.~\ref{Sed_pwnall}.
789: }
790: \label{Sed_src2}
791: \end{figure}
792: %
793: \begin{figure}[t]
794: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f12.eps}
795: \epsscale{}
796: \plotone{f12.eps}
797: \caption{
798: Hadronic scenario for PWN of PSR B1800$-$21\ (a) and Suzaku Src2\ (b). The
799: thin solid curves show the $\pi^0$ decay model curves with fixed
800: spectral indices of $\Gamma_p = 2.3$, $\Gamma_p = 2.0$, and $\Gamma_p =
801: 1.5$, respectively. The thick solid curves show the total IC spectra, and
802: the dashed curves show the total synchrotron emissions from primary electrons with $\tau = 16$
803: kyears, $\tau_0 =700$ years, a braking index of $n_{br} \sim 1.6$, $\Gamma_e
804: = 1.5$, $B = 4$\,mG for PWN of PSR B1800$-$21~(a), and $B = 600$\,$\mu$G for
805: Src2~(b).
806: }
807: \label{Sed_hadronpwn}
808: \end{figure}
809:
810: At the present time, PWNe are the largest population of identified TeV
811: galactic sources, and the number of TeV gamma-ray sources that are located near a
812: plausible pulsar candidate
813: are increasing \citep{hin07}. Therefore, it is very important to consider
814: the PWN origin. The PWN candidates associated with HESS J1804$-$216 are the
815: PWN of PSR B1800$-$21, and Suzaku Src2.
816:
817: \
818:
819: \noindent
820: {\bf PWN of PSR B1800$-$21:}
821: To estimate the total energy supplied from a pulsar, we should consider any
822: braking effects for spin-down luminosity. If a pulsar spins down from an
823: initial spin period of $P_0$ according to $\dot{\Omega} = -k \Omega
824: ^{n_{br}}$ assuming both $n_{br}$ and $k$ are constant, where $n_{br}$ is
825: the
826: braking index of the pulsar, the spin-down luminosity, $\dot{E}(t)$, is
827: given as
828: \begin{equation}
829: \dot{E}(t) = \dot{E_0}\Bigl(1+\frac{t}{\tau _0}\Bigr)^{-\alpha},
830: \>\> \alpha = \frac{n_{br}+1}{n_{br}-1} \>,
831: \end{equation}
832: \begin{equation}
833: \tau _0 \equiv \frac{P_0}{(n_{br}-1)\dot{P_0}} = \frac{P(t)}{(n_{br}-1)\dot{P}(t)} -t \>,
834: \label{eqtau0}
835: \end{equation}
836: where $\tau_0$ is the initial spin-down timescale \citep{paci73}.
837: Therefore, the total energy that the pulsar has lost over its age, $\tau$, is
838: \begin{equation}
839: E_{\rm pwn} =\int _0 ^{\tau}\dot{E}(t)dt= \frac{\dot{E_0}\tau _0}{1-\alpha}\Bigl[\Bigl(1+\frac{\tau}{\tau _0}\Bigr)^{1-\alpha} -1\Bigr].
840: \label{etot}
841: \end{equation}
842: For the Crab pulsar, produced in the supernova of 1054,
843: a $\tau_0$ of $\sim 700$ years is derived
844: from eq.~(\ref{eqtau0}), and the total energy is derived as $E_{\rm pwn} =
845: 3.8\times10^{49}$\,ergs with a braking index of $n_{br} = 2.5$ from
846: eq.~(\ref{etot}) \citep{liv06}. For PSR B1800$-$21, the braking index and
847: the true age are unknown. The measured braking indices of other pulsars fall
848: in the range of $1.4\le n_{br} < 3$ \citep{liv06}. Therefore, we estimated
849: the total energies for several braking indices with $\dot{E}(\tau) =
850: 2.2\times10^{36}$ ergs/s, an age of $\tau = 15.8$\,kyears (the same value as the
851: characteristic age), and $\tau_0 = 700$ years (the same as the Crab pulsar),
852: which are listed in Table~\ref{bindex}.
853:
854: For the leptonic model, we assumed that the
855: rate of electrons-injection, $K_e'(t)$, proportionally decreases with
856: $\dot{E}(t)$, that is, $K_e'(t)\propto\dot{E}(t)$, and we considered the cooling effect due to
857: synchrotron and IC energy losses \citep{funk07}. The old electrons that were
858: injected with high-power initial spin-down luminosity have been cooled. On
859: the other hand the young electrons have less time to be cooled.
860: Figure~\ref{Sed_pwnall} shows the SED with the leptonic model curves with a
861: time-dependent rate of electrons-injection with $\tau_0 = 700$\,years, a
862: braking index of $n_{br} \sim 1.6$, an age of $\tau = 16$\,kyears, $\Gamma_e
863: = 1.5$, and $B=$8\,$\mu$G: To obtain the model curves, we used the broken
864: energy due to synchrotron cooling and IC cooling, $E_{br}(t) \sim
865: 3m_e^2c^3/(4\sigma_T(\tau-t)( B^2/(8\pi) +W_{ph} ))$, where $\sigma_T$ is
866: the Thomson cross-section and $W_{ph}$ is the total energy density of the
867: photon field. For the PWN of PSR B1800$-$21, we used the error region for
868: the entire PWN (inner + outer) obtained by {\it Chandra} \citep{kar07a}. The old
869: electrons are responsible for the TeV gamma-ray emission, and the young
870: electrons are responsible for the X-ray emission. This picture may also
871: explain the size difference between the TeV gamma-ray and the X-ray emission
872: regions, because the old electrons can extend further than the young ones.
873: To calculate the total energy of electrons, $W_e$, for the PWN origin scenario,
874: we substituted $E_{br}(t)$ for $E_{max\_e}$.
875: Then, $W_e$ is estimated to be $\sim 1.7\times 10 ^{48}$\,ergs for the above
876: parameters. An $E_{\rm pwn}$ of $1.3\times10 ^{52}$\,ergs for the same parameters
877: can easily explain the amount of electron energy, and the efficiency of the
878: energy to accelerate electrons is $\sim1.3\times10^{-2}$\%. Note that the
879: above parameters are not unique, and other combinations of a $\tau_0$ and a
880: braking index are possible. If we adopt $\tau_0 = 30$ years, acceptable
881: model curves can be derived with a braking index of $n_{br} \sim 2.2$, an
882: age of $\tau = 16$ kyears, $\Gamma_e = 1.5$, and $B = 8$\,$\mu$G. For the latter parameters, $E_{\rm pwn}$ is estimated to be $2.3\times 10^{52}$\,ergs, and $W_e$
883: is $\sim 1.7\times 10^{48}$\,ergs. The efficiency of the energy to
884: accelerate the electrons is $\sim7.4\times10^{-3}$\%. In either case, a
885: quite high value for the total energy, $E_{\rm pwn}$, that the pulsar has lost
886: is required to explain the observed spectra.
887:
888: We consider the hadronic model given in Fig.~\ref{Sed_hadronpwn}. Table~\ref{summary} lists the fitting parameters and the total energy of protons $W_p$ at a distance for PSR B1800$-$21 of 3.84 kpc with the assumption that the ISM density is $n = 1$ cm$^{-3}$. $W_p$ with $\Gamma_p$ of 2.3 is estimated to be
889: $5.9\times10^{51}(d/3.84 $ kpc)$^{2}(n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$\,ergs. With
890: a $\Gamma_p$ of 1.0, $W_p$ is estimated to be $6.1\times10^{50}(d/3.84 $
891: kpc)$^{2}(n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$\,ergs. The magnetic field is constrained to be
892: $B \ge 4$\,mG with the assumption of $\Gamma_p = 1.5$ and the constraint of
893: $E_{max\_e} \le E_{max\_p} = 7.9$\,TeV (Table~\ref{summary}). The magnetic
894: field is very high.
895: $K_{pe}$ is estimated to be more than $1.6 \times 10^4(n/1 $cm$^{-3})^{-1}$.
896: If a GMC is associated with HESS J1804$-$216, and $n\sim10^2$ cm$^{-3}$, the obtained $K_{pe}$ is consistent with that of the average cosmic rays in our Galaxy, $K_{pe}\sim 10^{2}$.
897: However, the lower limit of the magnetic field is much higher than the typical interstellar magnetic field, and there is no evidence supporting such a high magnetic field in this position.
898:
899: \
900:
901: \noindent
902: {\bf Suzaku Src2:}
903: For the leptonic model, a similar scenario as that for PWN of PSR B1800$-$21
904: can be considered for Suzaku Src2. However, because we have no information
905: about the age and the spin-down luminosity of Suzaku Src2, we assume the
906: same age and spin-down luminosity as that of PSR B1800$-$21.
907: Figure~\ref{Sed_src2} shows leptonic model curves for Suzaku Src2 with $\tau_0 =
908: 700$ years, a braking index of $n_{br} \sim 1.8$, an age of $\tau = 16$
909: kyears, $\Gamma_e = 1.5$, and B = 8 $\mu$G.
910: The total energy of the electrons is calculated to be $W_e = 1.8\times
911: 10^{48}(d/3.84$ kpc)$^2$\,ergs, and $E_{\rm pwn}$ is $1.2\times 10^{51}$\,ergs.
912: This $E_{\rm pwn}$ would be proportionally reduced if $\dot{E}(\tau)$ is lower
913: than that of PSR B1800$-$21. For example, $E_{\rm pwn}$ is estimated to be $\sim
914: 10^{50}$ ergs with the assumption of $\dot{E}(\tau) \sim 10^{35}$
915: ergs\,s$^{-1}$.
916: Radio and X-ray observations with higher time resolutions might be able to
917: detect a sub-second pulse period from this source, and further observations in the
918: IR to UV band for a diffuse source in the extended region of HESS
919: J1804$-$216 could contribute to a tighter solution for the leptonic models.
920:
921: We consider the hadronic model as given in Fig.~\ref{Sed_hadronpwn}. The
922: magnetic field is constrained to be $B \ge 600$\,$\mu$G with the assumption
923: of $\Gamma_p = 1.5$ and the constraint of
924: $E_{max\_e} \le E_{max\_p} = 7.9$\,TeV (Table~\ref{summary}).
925: $K_{pe}$ is estimated to be more than $1.5 \times 10^3(n/1 $cm$^{-3})^{-1}$. The lower limit of the magnetic field is much higher than the typical interstellar magnetic field.
926: %
927: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllc}
928: \tablewidth{0pt}
929: %\rotate
930: \tablecaption{Summary of data used in the SED analysis.
931: \label{seddata}}
932: \tablehead{
933: \colhead{Instrument}&
934: \colhead{Source name}&
935: \colhead{Symbol}&
936: \colhead{Reference}
937: }
938: \startdata
939: VLA and other radio & G8.7$-$0.1 & filled circle & (1) \\
940: VLA & G8.31$-$0.09 & open circle & (2) \\
941: {\it Suzaku} XIS & Suzaku Src1 & closed region (dashed) & (3) \\
942: {\it Suzaku} XIS & Suzaku Src2 & closed region (dot-and-short dashed)&(3) \\
943: {\it Suzaku} XIS & diffuse UL (90\% C.L.) & arrow (dashed) & (3) \\
944: {\it Chandra} ACIS & Suzaku Src2 & closed region (dot-and-long dashed)&(4) \\
945: {\it Chandra} ACIS & PWN of PSR B1800$-$21 & closed region (solid)&(5) \\
946: {\it Chandra} ACIS & diffuse UL & arrow (dotted) & (4) \\
947: {\it INTEGRAL} IBIS & Upper limit & arrow (cross) & (4) \\
948: {\it EGRET} & Upper limit & arrow (solid) & (4)(6) \\
949: {\it GLAST} & 1 year sensitivity & dash-dot-dotted line & (7) \\
950: 2MASS & NIR point UL & triangle & (8) \\
951: H.E.S.S. & HESS J1804$-$216 & open square & (9) \\
952: CANGAROO-III & HESS J1804$-$216 & filled square & this work
953: \enddata
954: \tablerefs{
955: (1) Kassim \& Weiler 1990b;
956: (2) Brogan et al.\ 2006;
957: (3) Bamba et al.\ 2007;\\
958: (4) Kargaltsev et al.\ 2007b;
959: (5) Kargaltsev et al.\ 2007a;
960: (6) Hartman et al.\ 1999;\\
961: (7) {\it GLAST} LAT 2007;
962: (8) Skrutskie et al.\ 2006;
963: (9) Aharonian et al.\ 2006a
964: }
965: %\end{deluxetable}
966: \end{deluxetable*}
967: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
968: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
969: \tablewidth{0pt}
970: \tablecaption{Summary of parameters used in the leptonic model shown in Fig.~\ref{Sed_diffuse}.
971: }
972: \tablehead{
973: \colhead{$\Gamma_e$} &
974: \colhead{2.5} &
975: \colhead{2.0} &
976: \colhead{1.0}
977: }
978: \startdata
979: $E_{max\_e}$ [TeV] & 3.6 & 2.3 & 1.3 \\
980: $W_e$ [$10^{48}\rm ergs $] &330 & 17 & 1.4\\
981: Upper limit of B [ $\mu$G ] & 1 & 8 & 50
982: \enddata
983: \label{sum_ic}
984: \end{deluxetable}
985:
986: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
987: \tablewidth{0pt}
988: \tablecaption{Summary of parameters used in the hadronic model.
989: \label{summary}}
990: \tablehead{
991: \colhead{$\Gamma_p$} &
992: \colhead{2.3} &
993: \colhead{2.0} &
994: \colhead{1.5} &
995: \colhead{1.0}
996: }
997: \startdata
998: $E_{max\_p}$ [TeV] & 30 & 16 & 7.9 &5.4\\
999: $W_p$\protect{\tablenotemark{a}}[$10^{51}\rm ergs$] & 9.3 &3.1 & 1.3 & 0.96\\
1000: $W_p$\protect{\tablenotemark{b}}[$10^{51}\rm ergs$] & 5.9 &2.0 & 0.84 & 0.61
1001: \enddata
1002: \tablenotetext{a}{For SNR G8.7$-$0.1, $d=4.8$ kpc.}
1003: \tablenotetext{b}{For PSR B1800$-$21, $d=3.84$ kpc.}
1004: \end{deluxetable}
1005: %
1006: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
1007: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1008: \tablewidth{0pt}
1009: \tablecaption{Braking index dependence of the parameters.
1010: \label{bindex}}
1011: \tablehead{
1012: \colhead{braking index} &
1013: \colhead{$E_{\rm pwn}$ [ergs]} &
1014: \colhead{$P_0$ [ms]}
1015: }
1016: \startdata
1017: 3& $2.6\times 10 ^{49}$ & 210\\
1018: 2.5& $5.8\times 10 ^{49}$ & 120\\
1019: 2.2& $1.3\times 10 ^{50}$ & 72\\
1020: 1.8& $1.2\times 10 ^{51}$ & 19\\
1021: 1.6& $1.3\times 10 ^{52}$ & 5.2\\
1022: 1.4& $1.7\times 10 ^{54}$ & 0.37
1023: \enddata
1024: \end{deluxetable}
1025:
1026: \section{Conclusions}
1027: CANGAROO-III observed HESS J1804$-$216, and detected gamma rays above
1028: 600\,GeV at the $10\sigma$ level during an effective exposure of 76 hr. The
1029: obtained differential flux is consistent with the previous H.E.S.S.\ result,
1030: and the obtained morphology shows extended emission compared to our Point
1031: Spread Function. We have discussed the radiation mechanism and considered
1032: the proposed counterparts to the TeV gamma-ray source.
1033: For the SNR scenario, the most plausible counterpart
1034: %of HESS J1804$-$216
1035: is the SNR G8.7$-$0.1, and both hadronic and leptonic processes
1036: can produce the observed TeV gamma-ray spectrum. We obtained upper limits of
1037: spectral indices, $\Gamma_e \le 2.5$ for leptonic scenario, and $\Gamma_p
1038: \le 2.3$ for hadronic scenario. The total energy of the primary
1039: electrons, $W_e$, is
1040: estimated to be $3.3\times10^{50}(d/4.8 $ kpc)$^{2}$ ergs with $\Gamma_e =
1041: 2.5$. The total energy of the protons, $W_p$, is estimated to be
1042: $9.3\times10^{51}(d/4.8 $ kpc)$^{2}(n/1$ cm$^{-3})^{-1}$\,ergs with $\Gamma_p
1043: = 2.3$. The obtained $W_p$ indicates that a molecular cloud might be associated
1044: to satisfy the hadronic scenario for the energetics. Extending this to include an estimation of the emission from secondary electrons will provide a tighter
1045: solution for hadronic scenario.
1046: For the PWN scenario, we discussed both leptonic and hadronic processes. We confirmed that the leptonic model with a time-dependent rate of
1047: electron-injection while considering the braking effect for the spin-down
1048: luminosity and the cooling effect due to synchrotron and IC energy losses
1049: could explain both the high TeV gamma-ray flux and the low X-ray flux.
1050: However, a quite high value for the total energy that the pulsar has lost is
1051: required for PSR B1800$-$21 in this model, $E_{\rm pwn} \sim 10^{52}$\,ergs.
1052: For Suzaku Src2, we could obtain an acceptable model curve, and $E_{\rm pwn}$ was
1053: estimated to be $\sim 10^{50}$\,ergs with the assumption of $\dot{E}(\tau)
1054: \sim 10^{35}$\,ergs\,s$^{-1}$.
1055: However, we need radio or X-rays observations to determine whether or not
1056: there is a pulse period in order to discuss the energetics further.
1057:
1058: The model curves that are given in this paper indicate that {\it GLAST} could
1059: determine the spectral index of the accelerated particles, and further
1060: observations in the IR to UV band for a diffuse source could give a solution
1061: of the counterpart and the radiation mechanism.
1062:
1063: \acknowledgements
1064: The authors would like to thank B.\ Lott for providing us the data of {\it GLAST} LAT sensitivity.
1065: We also thank H.\ Yamaguchi for discussions on SNRs.
1066: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by
1067: the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
1068: Technology (MEXT), the Australian Research Council,
1069: and the Inter-University Research Program of the
1070: Institute for Cosmic Ray Research.
1071: The work is also supported by
1072: a Grant-in-Aid for the 21st century center of excellence programs
1073: ``Center for Diversity and Universality in Physics''
1074: and ``Quantum Extreme Systems and their Symmetries''
1075: from MEXT of Japan.
1076: We thank the Defense Support Center
1077: Woomera and BAE systems, and acknowledge all of the developers and
1078: collaborators on the GALPROP project.
1079: Y.\ Higashi and T.\ Nakamori were supported by
1080: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Research Fellowships
1081: for Young Scientists.
1082: %\clearpage
1083: %
1084:
1085: %\clearpage
1086: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1087: %
1088: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1089: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005a)]{aha05a}
1090: Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2005a, Science, 307, 1938
1091: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005b)]{aha05b}
1092: Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2005b, A\&A, 442, L25
1093: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2006a)]{aha06a}
1094: Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 636, 777
1095: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2006b)]{aha06b}
1096: Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2006b, A\&A, 448, 43
1097: \bibitem[Altenhoff et al.(1978)]{alt78}
1098: Altenhoff, W. J., Downes, D., Pauls, T., \& Schraml, J. 1978, A\&AS, 35, 23
1099: \bibitem[Bamba et al.(2007)]{bam07}
1100: Bamba, A., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S209
1101: \bibitem[Blitz et al.(1982)]{bli82}
1102: Blitz, L., Fich, M., \& Stark, A. A. 1982, ApJS, 49, 183
1103: \bibitem[Blondin et al.(2001)]{blo01}
1104: Blondin, J., Chevalier, R., \& Frierson, D. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806
1105: \bibitem[Brisken et al.(2006)]{bri06}
1106: Brisken, W. F., Carrillo-Baragan, M., Kurtz, S., \& Finley, J. P. 2006, ApJ, 652, 554
1107: \bibitem[Brogan et al.(2006)]{bro06}
1108: Brogan, C. L., Gelfand, J. D., Gaensler, B. M., Kassim, N. E., \& Lazio, T. J. 2006, ApJL, 639, L25
1109: \bibitem[Clifton \& Lyne(1986)]{clif86}
1110: Clifton, T. R., \& Lyne, A. G. 1986, Nature, 320, 43
1111: \bibitem[Cordes \& Lazio(2002)]{cor02}
1112: Cordes, J. M., \& Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, astro-ph/0207156
1113: \bibitem[Cramphorn \& Sunyaev(2002)]{cra02}
1114: Cramphorn, C. K., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2002, A\&A, 389, 252
1115: \bibitem[Cui \& Konopelko(2006)]{cui06}
1116: Cui, W., \& Konopelko, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, L109 (erratum 2007, ApJ, 665, L83)
1117: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002)]{eno02}
1118: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002, Astropart. Phys., 16, 235
1119: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006a)]{eno06a}
1120: Enomoto, R., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 638, 397
1121: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006b)]{eno06b}
1122: Enomoto, R., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 652, 1268
1123: \bibitem[Fatuzzo et al.(2006)]{fat06}
1124: Fatuzzo, M., Melia, F., \& Crocker, R. M. 2006, astro-ph/0602330
1125: \bibitem[Finley \& \"{O}gelman(1994)]{fin94}
1126: Finley, J. P., \& \"{O}gelman, H. 1994, ApJ, 434, L25
1127: \bibitem[Fisher(1936)]{fis36}
1128: Fisher, R. A. 1936, Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179
1129: \bibitem[Frail et al.(1994)]{fra94}
1130: Frail, D. A., Kassim, N. E., \& Weiler, K. W. 1994, AJ, 107, 1120
1131: \bibitem[Funk et al.(2007)]{funk07}
1132: Funk, S., Hinton, J. A., P\"{u}hlhofer, G., Aharonian, F. A., Hofmann, W., Reimer, O., \& Wagner, S. 2007, ApJ, 662, 517
1133: \bibitem[{\it GLAST}\ LAT(2007)]{ritz07}
1134: {\it GLAST}\ LAT\ Performance 2007,\\ http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/software/IS/glast\_lat\_performance.htm
1135: \bibitem[Hamilton et al.(1983)]{ham83}
1136: Hamilton, A. J. S., Chevalier, R. A., \& Sarazin, C. L. 1983, ApJS, 51, 115
1137: \bibitem[Handa et al.(1987)]{han87}
1138: Handa, T., Sofue, Y., Nakai, N., Hirabayashi, H., \& Inoue, M. 1987, PASJ, 39, 709
1139: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(1999)]{hart99}
1140: Hartman, R. C., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 79
1141: \bibitem[Hillas(1985)]{hil85}
1142: Hillas, A. M. 1985, Proc.\ 19th ICRC(La Jolla), 3, 445
1143: \bibitem[Hinton(2007)]{hin07}
1144: Hinton, J. 2007, arXiv.0712.3352
1145: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2003)]{kab03}
1146: Kabuki, S., et al. 2003, Nucl.Inst.Meth., A500, 318
1147: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2007)]{kab07}
1148: Kabuki, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 968
1149: \bibitem[Kargaltsev et al.(2007a)]{kar07a}
1150: Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., \& Garmire, G. P. 2007a, ApJ, 660, 1413
1151: \bibitem[Kargaltsev et al.(2007b)]{kar07b}
1152: Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., \& Garmire, G. P. 2007b, ApJ, 670, 643
1153: \bibitem[Kassim \& Weiler(1990a)]{kas90a}
1154: Kassim, N. E., \& Weiler, K. W. 1990a, Nature, 343, 146
1155: \bibitem[Kassim \& Weiler(1990b)]{kas90b}
1156: Kassim, N. E., \& Weiler, K. W. 1990b, ApJ,360,184
1157: \bibitem[Kawachi et al.(2001)]{kaw01}
1158: Kawachi, A., et al. 2001, Astropart. Phys., 14, 261
1159: \bibitem[Kubo et al.(2001)]{kub01}
1160: Kubo, H., et al. 2001, Proc.\ 27th ICRC(Hamburg), 2900
1161: \bibitem[Landi et al.(2006)]{lan06}
1162: Landi, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 190
1163: \bibitem[Livingstone et al.(2006)]{liv06}
1164: Livingstone, M. A., Kaspi, V. M., Gotthelf, E. V., \& Kuiper, L. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1286
1165: \bibitem[Mazzali et al.(2006)]{maz06}
1166: Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1323
1167: \bibitem[Nishijima et al.(2005)]{c3trig}
1168: Nishijima, K., et al. 2005, Proc.\ 29th ICRC(Pune), 5, 327
1169: \bibitem[Odegard(1986)]{ode86}
1170: Odegard, N. 1986, AJ, 92, 1372
1171: \bibitem[Ojeda-May et al.(2002)]{oje02}
1172: Ojeda-May, P., Kurts, S. E., Rodr\'{i}guez, L. F., Arthur, S. J., \& Vel\'azquez, P. F. 2002, Rev.Mexicana.Astrofis., 38, 111
1173: \bibitem[Pacini \& Salvati(1973)]{paci73}
1174: Pacini, F., \& Salvati, M. 1973, ApJ, 186, 249
1175: \bibitem[Pfrommer \& En{\ss}lin(2004)]{pfr04}
1176: Pfrommer, C., En{\ss}lin, T. A., 2004, A\&A, 413, 17
1177: \bibitem[Porter \& Strong(2005)]{por05}
1178: Porter, T. A., \& Strong, A. W. 2005, Proc.\ 29th ICRC(Pune), 4, 77
1179: \bibitem[Reich et al.(1984)]{rei84}
1180: Reich, W., F\"{u}rst, E., Steffen, P., Reif, K., \& Haslam, C. G. T. 1984, A\&AS, 58, 197
1181: \bibitem[Sedov(1959)]{sed59}
1182: Sedov, L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics, New York; Academic Press
1183: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{skr06}
1184: Skrutskie et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
1185: \bibitem[Strong \& Moskalenko(2006)]{gal06}
1186: Strong, W. S., \& Moskalenko, I. V. 2006, GALPROP project, http://galprop.stanford.edu/web\_galprop/galprop\_home.html
1187: \bibitem[Tayler \& Cordes(1993)]{tay93}
1188: Taylor, J. H., \& Cordes, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 411, 674
1189: \bibitem[White et al.(2005)]{whi05}
1190: White, R. L., Becker, R. H., \& Helfand, D. J. 2005, AJ, 130, 586
1191: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2006)]{yam06}
1192: Yamazaki, R., Kohri, K., Bamba, A., Yoshida, T., Tsuribe, T., \& Takahara, F. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1975
1193: \end{thebibliography}
1194: %\clearpage
1195: %\begin{deluxetable}{lllc}
1196: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1197: %\clearpage
1198:
1199: \end{document}
1200: