1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6:
7: \newcommand{\myemail}{enomoto@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
8: \newcommand{\order[1]}{$~\times 10^{#1}$}
9:
10: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ August 20, 2008, v683n2.}
11:
12: \shorttitle{Search for Gamma-rays from Kepler's SNR}
13: \shortauthors{Enomoto et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{CANGAROO-III Search for Gamma Rays from Kepler's Supernova
18: Remnant}
19:
20: \author{
21: R.~Enomoto,\altaffilmark{1}
22: Y.~Higashi,\altaffilmark{2}
23: T.~Yoshida,\altaffilmark{3}
24: T.~Tanimori,\altaffilmark{2}
25: G.~V.~Bicknell,\altaffilmark{4}
26: R.~W.~Clay,\altaffilmark{5}
27: P.~G.~Edwards,\altaffilmark{6}
28: S.~Gunji,\altaffilmark{7}
29: S.~Hara,\altaffilmark{8}
30: T.~Hara,\altaffilmark{9}
31: T.~Hattori,\altaffilmark{10}
32: S.~Hayashi,\altaffilmark{11}
33: Y.~Hirai,\altaffilmark{3}
34: K.~Inoue,\altaffilmark{7}
35: S.~Kabuki,\altaffilmark{2}
36: F.~Kajino,\altaffilmark{11}
37: H.~Katagiri,\altaffilmark{12}
38: A.~Kawachi,\altaffilmark{10}
39: T.~Kifune,\altaffilmark{1}
40: R.~Kiuchi,\altaffilmark{1}
41: H.~Kubo,\altaffilmark{2}
42: J.~Kushida,\altaffilmark{10}
43: Y.~Matsubara,\altaffilmark{13}
44: T.~Mizukami,\altaffilmark{2}
45: Y.~Mizumoto,\altaffilmark{14}
46: R.~Mizuniwa,\altaffilmark{10}
47: M.~Mori,\altaffilmark{1}
48: H.~Muraishi,\altaffilmark{15}
49: Y.~Muraki,\altaffilmark{13}
50: T.~Naito,\altaffilmark{9}
51: T.~Nakamori,\altaffilmark{2}
52: S.~Nakano,\altaffilmark{2}
53: D.~Nishida,\altaffilmark{2}
54: K.~Nishijima,\altaffilmark{10}
55: M.~Ohishi,\altaffilmark{1}
56: Y.~Sakamoto,\altaffilmark{10}
57: A.~Seki,\altaffilmark{10}
58: V.~Stamatescu,\altaffilmark{5}
59: T.~Suzuki,\altaffilmark{3}
60: D.~L.~Swaby,\altaffilmark{5}
61: G.~Thornton,\altaffilmark{5}
62: F.~Tokanai,\altaffilmark{7}
63: K.~Tsuchiya,\altaffilmark{16}
64: S.~Watanabe,\altaffilmark{2}
65: Y.~Yamada,\altaffilmark{11}
66: E.~Yamazaki,\altaffilmark{10}
67: S.~Yanagita,\altaffilmark{3}
68: T.~Yoshikoshi,\altaffilmark{1} and
69: Y.~Yukawa\altaffilmark{1}
70: }
71:
72:
73: \altaffiltext{1}{ Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}
74: \altaffiltext{2}{ Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
75: \altaffiltext{3}{ Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki 310-8512, Japan}
76: \altaffiltext{4}{ Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, ACT 2611, Australia}
77: \altaffiltext{5}{ School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia}
78: \altaffiltext{6}{ CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia}
79: \altaffiltext{7}{ Department of Physics, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan}
80: \altaffiltext{8}{ Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Ibaraki 300-0394, Japan}
81: \altaffiltext{9}{ Faculty of Management Information, Yamanashi Gakuin University, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan}
82: \altaffiltext{10}{ Department of Physics, Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
83: \altaffiltext{11}{ Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan}
84: \altaffiltext{12}{ Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan}
85: \altaffiltext{13}{ Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
86: \altaffiltext{14}{ National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
87: \altaffiltext{15}{ School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
88: \altaffiltext{16}{ National Research Institute of Police Science, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-0882, Japan}
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91:
92: Kepler's supernova, discovered in October 1604, produced a remnant
93: that has been well studied observationally
94: in the radio, infrared, optical, and X-ray bands, and
95: theoretically.
96: Some models have predicted a TeV gamma-ray
97: flux that is detectable with current Imaging Cherenkov Atmospheric Telescopes.
98: We report on observations carried out
99: in 2005 April with the CANGAROO-III telescope.
100: No statistically significant
101: excess was observed, and limitations on
102: the allowed parameter range in the model
103: are discussed.
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \keywords{gamma rays: observation --- supernova: individual (Kepler's SNR) }
108:
109: \section{Introduction}
110:
111: Kepler's supernova remnant (SNR) (G4.5+6.8)
112: is 400 years old \citep[see for review]{blair} and provides an
113: unrivaled opportunity to verify the belief that
114: supernova remnants are the origin of Galactic cosmic rays.
115: Cas~A is younger (by $\sim$60 years)
116: and was detected at TeV $\gamma$-ray energies \citep{casa}, which
117: implies the acceleration of high-energy cosmic rays.
118: Older remnants, such as
119: RX J0852.0-4622 \citep{katagiri,hess0852,enomoto_0852} and
120: RX J1713.7-3946 \citep{enomoto_nature,hess1713}, both thought to
121: be 1,000$\sim$2,000 years old, have also been detected.
122: If SNR age was the dominant factor in for cosmic-ray acceleration,
123: one might expect similar levels of cosmic ray acceleration in Kepler's SNR.
124: Of course, other variables, such as SN type, local environment, and distance,
125: will certainly have some impact on the likelihood of TeV gamma-ray
126: detection from a SNR.
127:
128: Kepler's SN was considered to be a type Ia supernova (SN)
129: based on an interpretation of the
130: historical light curve \citep{baade}. It was later shown that the light
131: curve was also in agreement with a type II-L SN \citep{doggett}.
132: However, recent observations of thermal X-ray emission by {\it ASCA}
133: \citep{kinugasa}
134: and {\it Chandra} \citep{reynolds} demonstrated that the SNR
135: resulted from a thermonuclear supernova (type Ia), rather than the
136: core-collapse of massive star (type II), even though there is
137: evidence that the remnant is interacting with the progenitor star wind
138: material. It may be that a type Ia event took place in a more massive
139: progenitor star with a strong wind \citep{reynolds}.
140:
141: \cite{ksenofontov} have modeled Kepler's SNR
142: and predicted a detectable TeV gamma-ray flux
143: under various assumptions on distances and supernova kinetic
144: energies that had been previously discussed in the literature.
145: Their prediction can be probed by the
146: H.E.S.S.\,\footnote{See http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/htm/HESS/HESS.html}
147: and the future {\it GLAST}\,\footnote{See http://glast.gfsc.nasa.gov}
148: experiments. The CANGAROO-III
149: imaging Cherenkov atmospheric telescope is
150: less sensitive by a factor of 3--5 than H.E.S.S.; however,
151: it is able to study a specific
152: parameter range of the models, i.e., around the region of a supernova
153: explosion energy of 10$^{51}$\,erg and distance of 4.8\,kpc.
154: Here, we report on the result of the 2005 April observations.
155: As extensions to the
156: \cite{ksenofontov} theory have successfully explained
157: the gamma-ray fluxes from
158: other historical SNRs, it is important to investigate and
159: constrain the allowed parameter ranges in this model
160: with measurements of fluxes or upper limits.
161: %, even if we have only derived the upper
162: %limits of the fluxes.
163:
164: \section{CANGAROO-III Stereoscopic System}
165:
166: The CANGAROO-III stereoscopic system consists of four imaging atmospheric
167: Cherenkov telescopes located near Woomera, South Australia (31$^\circ$S,
168: 137$^\circ$E).
169: Each telescope has a 10\,m diameter segmented reflector,
170: consisting of 114 spherical mirrors
171: made of fiber-reinforced plastic \citep{kawachi}, each of 80\,cm diameter,
172: mounted on a parabolic
173: frame with a focal length of 8\,m.
174: The total light-collecting area is 57.3\,m$^2$.
175: The first telescope, T1, which was the CANGAROO-II telescope
176: \citep{enomoto_nature},
177: is not presently in use due to its smaller field of view
178: and higher energy threshold.
179: The second, third, and fourth telescopes (T2, T3, and T4) were operated for the
180: observations described here.
181: The camera systems for T2, T3, and T4 are identical and
182: are described in \citet{kabuki}.
183: The telescopes are located at the
184: eastern (T1), western (T2), southern (T3) and northern (T4)
185: corners of a diamond
186: with sides of $\sim$100\,m \citep{enomoto_app}.
187: The point-spread functions of these telescopes
188: %were estimated to be
189: are 0.$^\circ$24.
190:
191: \section{Observations}
192:
193: The observations were carried out
194: during the period from 2005 April 11 to 17 (UT)
195: using the ``wobble mode"
196: in which the pointing position of each telescope was
197: shifted in declination by $\pm$0.5 degree
198: every 20 minutes \citep{wobble}
199: from the target:
200: (RA, dec [J2000]) = (262.$^\circ$671, $-$21.$^\circ$486).
201: We made no OFF source runs, as the wobble mode enables OFF-source
202: regions to be observed simultaneously with the target regions.
203: The sensitive region in wobble mode observations
204: is considered as being within one degree
205: from the average pointing position.
206: This SNR is located 6.$^\circ$8 from the Galactic plane; therefore,
207: no significant diffuse gamma-ray background is
208: expected within the field of view.
209:
210: In the observations, the hardware trigger used to select any two telescope
211: hits was employed \citep{nishijima}.
212: The images in two out of three telescopes were required to have clusters
213: of at least five adjacent pixels exceeding a 5\,photoelectron threshold
214: (off-line two-fold coincidence).
215: To illustrate the effect of this criterion,
216: the event rate was reduced from 10$\sim$12 to
217: 6$\sim$8\,Hz for T3--T4 coincidences,
218: depending on the elevation angle.
219: Looking at the time dependence of these rates, we can remove data
220: taken under cloudy conditions.
221: The effective observation time was
222: 874 minutes, and the mean zenith angle was 15.$^\circ$2.
223:
224: The light-collecting efficiencies, including the reflectivity
225: of the segmented mirrors, the light guides, and the quantum efficiencies
226: of the photomultiplier tubes were monitored by a muon-ring analysis
227: \citep{enomoto_vela} with individual trigger data during the
228: same period.
229: The average light yield per unit arc-length of muon rings
230: is approximately proportional
231: to the light-collecting efficiencies.
232: Deterioration in these efficiencies is mostly due to dirt and dust
233: settling on the mirrors and light guides, which are
234: washed annually to improve their reflectivities.
235: In analyzing T2 data, we had some difficulties in detecting muon-rings
236: during this period; therefore, we did not use T2 in this analysis.
237: Unfortunately these observations were made shortly before
238: regular mirror washing.
239: Also we had some mis-setting of
240: the T2
241: ADC-gate width in this period.
242: This analysis, therefore, used only T3 and T4
243: two-fold coincidence data.
244:
245: \section{Analysis}
246:
247: The analysis procedures used here were identical to those
248: described in \citet{cena}, except for the point that these were two-fold
249: coincidence data.
250: More details can be found in \citet{enomoto_vela} and
251: \citet{enomoto_0852}.
252: Here, we briefly describe them.
253:
254: At first, the image moments of $Width$ and $Length$ \citep{hillas}
255: were calculated for the two
256: %three
257: telescopes.
258: The incident direction of the gamma-ray was determined by minimizing
259: the sum of the squared widths (weighted by the photon yield)
260: of the two images seen from the assumed position (fitting parameter)
261: with a constraint on the distances from the intersection point to each
262: image center.
263:
264: In order to derive the gamma-ray likeliness,
265: we used
266: the Fisher Discriminant (hereafter $FD$) \citep{fisher,enomoto_vela}.
267: The input parameters were
268: $$\vec{P}=(W3,W4,L3,L4),$$
269: where $W3,W4,L3,L4$ are energy-corrected $Widths$ and $Lengths$ for
270: T3 and T4.
271:
272: We rejected events with any hits in the outermost layer of the cameras
273: (``edge cut"). These rejected events were potentially
274: incompletely sampled, resulting in errors particularly
275: in the $Length$ distribution, which would have produced
276: deformations of the $FD$.
277:
278: Then $FD$ distributions were derived on a position-by-position basis.
279: Comparing those in the signal region and the control background
280: region with the Monte-Carlo expectation,
281: we can derive the number of gamma-ray--like events.
282: Here, we assume the $FD$ distribution of the gamma-ray signal to
283: be that derived from Monte-Carlo simulations.
284: In the gamma-ray simulations we used a spectrum
285: proportional to $E^\gamma$, where $\gamma$=$-$2.1$\pm$0.2.
286: Fits of the $FD$ distribution of the source position
287: with the above simulated
288: signal and control background functions were carried out
289: to derive the number of gamma-ray--like events.
290: This was a one-parameter fitting with the constraint that
291: the sum of the signal and the background events
292: corresponds to the total number of events, i.e.,
293: the fitted parameter can be derived exactly analytically.
294: %The main results presented below were obtained by a ``blind
295: %analysis", whose methods were described so far.
296:
297: \section{Results}
298:
299: Since the spatial size of Kepler's SNR (100$"$) is much less than our
300: angular resolution ($\sigma$ = 0.24$^\circ$),
301: we concentrate here on searching for
302: a point source near the target center.
303:
304: In order to determine whether or not there is a
305: gamma-ray excess around the SNR,
306: we made the
307: $FD$ distribution within the PSF ($\theta^2<0.06\simeq 0.24^2$)
308: and fitted it with
309: a background function derived
310: from the $FD$ distribution in the region $\theta^2$=(0.1--0.2),
311: and a signal function from Monte-Carlo simulations.
312: The fitting parameter is the ratio of gamma-rays to total number of events.
313: The fitting results are
314: shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
315: \begin{figure}
316: \plotone{f1.eps}
317: \caption{
318: $FD$ distribution for the region inside $\theta^2~<~0.06$ deg$^2$.
319: The black points with error bars are those for the above region,
320: the green histogram is for $\theta^2$ inside the (0.1--0.2) [deg$^2$]
321: region,
322: the blue points with error bars are subtracted data using
323: the results of the fit, that is,
324: ``gamma-ray--like" events, and the red histogram is the best-fit gamma-ray,
325: i.e., the gamma ray response function.
326: }
327: \label{fig1}
328: \end{figure}
329: The best-fit excess was 71$\pm$32 events,
330: where the uncertainty is the 1$\sigma$ statistical error.
331: The gamma-ray response function from the Monte-Carlo
332: simulation is shown by the red histogram.
333: The threshold of this analysis is estimated
334: from the Monte-Carlo simulation to be $\sim$500\,GeV.
335: The systematic error on the energy determination
336: is considered to be less than 15\%, with
337: the main factor being the
338: uncertainty in the light collection efficiency and atmospheric
339: conditions.
340:
341: We then made a radial distribution of gamma-ray--like events.
342: $FD$ distributions in various $\theta^2$ slices were made.
343: The control background region was again selected in the $\theta^2$ range of
344: between 0.1 and 0.2 deg$^2$.
345: The standard fitting procedure described above was carried out.
346: The fitted result is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}.
347: \begin{figure}
348: \plotone{f2.eps}
349: \caption{$\theta^2$ plot in the unit of deg$^2$.
350: The points with error bars are the result of fit, that is,
351: the ``gamma-ray--like" event
352: distribution as a function of $\theta^2$.
353: The dot-dashed line is the zero level.
354: The (light) dotted histogram is the best-fit for our point-spread function.
355: The (heavy) dashed histogram is the two-$\sigma$ upper limit for the
356: point-source assumption.}
357: \label{fig2}
358: \end{figure}
359: The reduced $\chi^2$ for a null assumption (the dot-dashed line)
360: is $\chi^2$/DOF\,=\,25.4/25 (where DOF is degrees of freedom).
361: The best fit with the point spread function (PSF) is shown by the
362: dashed histogram, where $\chi^2$/D.O.F\,=\,18.1/25.
363: The dashed histogram is the 2$\sigma$ upper limit
364: (135-event excess) for the PSF excess.
365:
366: In order to examine the morphology, we segmented the field of view into
367: 0.2\,$\times$\,0.2 degree$^2$ square bins. The $FD$ distributions
368: for corresponding bins were made and fitted. The control-background
369: region is defined as
370: the second-closest layer of 16 bins,
371: all of which are more than 0.3\,deg from the center of the target region,
372: i.e., larger than the 0.24 degree point-spread function (PSF).
373: The statistics of the
374: control-background are, therefore, sixteen times larger than that
375: of the signal bin.
376: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
377: \begin{figure}
378: \plotone{f3.eps}
379: \caption{
380: Significance map.
381: The average telescope pointing position is indicated by the
382: white cross at the center.
383: The dotted-white circle is the point-spread
384: function and the searched region. The dashed-white circle is the fiducial
385: region (1$^\circ$ radius). The thin-white contours are
386: the radio measurement at 4850\,MHz \citep{skyview} which are well inside
387: the searched region.
388: The color bar indicates the excess in standard deviations
389: over the background (see text for details).
390: }
391: \label{fig3}
392: \end{figure}
393: We smoothed the results by averaging the neighboring nine bins.
394: Our sensitivity falls off significantly beyond
395: one degree in radius from the center. The
396: PSF is the 0.24 degree radius circle
397: which fully contains
398: the radio observed SNR (the thin-white contours).
399: According to the Monte-Carlo simulations, 65\% of gamma-rays
400: from this SNR should be contained in this circle.
401: The PSF is not a Gaussian and has a broader tail component.
402: In order to contain 90\% of events, we need to broaden this cut
403: to 0.5 degree, resulting in a loss of sensitivity.
404: We, therefore, selected
405: the cut at 0.24 degree (1$\sigma$ region).
406: The significance distributions (excess divided by the statistical error
407: before smoothing)
408: are approximately normal (Gaussian) distributions with
409: a mean value of 0.21$\pm$0.13,
410: and a standard deviation of 1.19$\pm$0.12,
411: consistent with null assumption within systematic uncertainties.
412: The statistical significance of
413: the maximum located 0.$^\circ$35 west-north-west from the center
414: is
415: (before smoothing)
416: 3.3$\sigma$, and therefore not compelling.
417:
418: There is no statistically-significant excess that is consistent
419: with emission from Kepler's SNR convolved with the telescope PSF.
420: The derived upper limits (ULs) for
421: the gamma-ray flux are shown in Table~\ref{table1}.
422: \begin{table}
423: \caption{The 2$\sigma$ upper limits to the integral fluxes from
424: Kepler's SNR at five energy thresholds.
425: The spectral
426: index, $\gamma$, of the energy spectrum (E$^{-\gamma}$) is that used in the
427: Monte-Carlo gamma-ray simulations. Note that the gamma-ray acceptance
428: depends on $\gamma$.}
429: \label{table1}
430: \begin{center}
431: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
432: \hline\hline
433: $\gamma$ & Threshold [GeV]& Upper Limits [cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$]\\
434: \hline
435: 2.1 & 530 & 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
436: 2.1 & 680 & 1.1 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
437: 2.1 & 930 & 6.8 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
438: 2.1 &1300 & 1.5 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
439: 2.1 &2400 & 6.2 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ \\
440: 1.9 & 550 & 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
441: 1.9 & 700 & 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
442: 1.9 & 930 & 7.5 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
443: 1.9 &1300 & 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
444: 1.9 &2400 & 7.7 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ \\
445: 2.3 & 510 & 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
446: 2.3 & 650 & 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ \\
447: 2.3 & 930 & 6.5 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
448: 2.3 &1200 & 1.5 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ \\
449: 2.3 &2300 & 5.6 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ \\
450: \hline\hline
451: \end{tabular}
452: \end{center}
453: \end{table}
454: Here, we used a $E^{-2.1\pm 0.2}$ spectrum for the gamma-ray
455: simulation.
456: The ULs range between 10--30\% of the Crab nebula flux.
457: The statistically insignificant
458: excess near the center of the field of view,
459: shown in Figs.~\ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}, and \ref{fig3} only
460: appeared in the lower
461: energy regions. At higher energies,
462: we do not see any excess.
463: Therefore the ULs at lower energies were higher than that at higher energies.
464:
465: \section{Discussion}
466:
467: The upper limits given in Table \ref{table1} are plotted on
468: spectral energy distributions in
469: Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}.
470: \begin{figure}
471: \plotone{f4.eps}
472: \caption{
473: Spectral energy distributions for a fixed distance of 4.8\,kpc.
474: The black curves with arrows
475: at both ends are the upper limits obtained by these observations.
476: Three curves are obtained by different acceptance corrections
477: using three types of energy spectra in the Monte-Carlo
478: simulation (see the caption of Table~\ref{table1}).
479: The colored curves are the theoretical predictions, which are
480: as same as Fig.~3 of \cite{ksenofontov}.
481: }
482: \label{fig4}
483: \end{figure}
484: The vertical and horizontal units were fitted to Figs.~3 and 4 in
485: \cite{ksenofontov} in order to discuss the allowed parameter
486: ranges with respect to our observational upper limits.
487: This theory considered a reasonably wide range of possibilities for
488: the distance of this SNR (3.4--7\,kpc) and
489: the supernova explosion energy (0.5--2\,$\times$\,10$^{51}$\,erg).
490: %for details see discussion and references in that paper.
491: Other adopted parameters, such as the cosmic ray injection rate,
492: expansion rate, and electron-to-proton ratio, while plausible, are open to
493: debate. We do not review those details here but refer readers to
494: the discussion in \cite{ksenofontov}.
495: The black curve with arrows at both ends were
496: obtained from this observation.
497: Three types of the energy spectra
498: ($\propto~E^\gamma : \gamma=-1.9,~-2.1,~-2.3$)
499: were used for acceptance
500: correction using the Monte-Carlo simulation.
501: The uncertainty due to the assumption of the energy spectral index is
502: small on a logarithmic scale.
503: The colored curves were obtained from a theoretical prediction
504: by \cite{ksenofontov}.
505: In Fig.~\ref{fig4} the distance to the object was
506: fixed to be 4.8 kpc.
507: The red, green, blue, and yellow curves correspond to different
508: supernova explosion kinetic energies and corresponding number densities of
509: ambient circumstellar material, which came from fitting to the
510: observed shock radius and speed.
511: The most probable is the second one
512: (the green curve) and our upper limits
513: are (in part) below it, meaning that
514: for a distance of 4.8\,kpc the explosion energy
515: should be less than $\sim10^{51}$\,erg.
516: Although the green curve is close to a best estimation, a
517: large allowable range of parameter space remains.
518:
519: Fig.~\ref{fig5} is the case when the supernova explosion energy
520: is fixed at 10$^{51}$\,erg, and several distances
521: in the allowed range \citep{reynoso} are assumed.
522: \begin{figure}
523: \plotone{f5.eps}
524: \caption{
525: Spectral energy distributions
526: for a fixed supernova explosion energy
527: of 10$^{51}$\,erg. The black curve with arrows
528: at both ends are the upper limits obtained by this observation.
529: Three curves are obtained by different acceptance corrections
530: using three types of energy spectra in the Monte-Carlo
531: simulation (Table~\ref{table1}).
532: The colored curves are the theoretical predictions, which are
533: as same as Fig.~4 of \cite{ksenofontov}.
534: }
535: \label{fig5}
536: \end{figure}
537: Distances less than $\sim$5\,kpc are (for this fixed SN energy) not favored,
538: suggesting that this SNR
539: is marginally more distant than the best current observational estimations.
540: Of course, this conclusion also assumes that all other assumptions
541: in the model are
542: correct, for example, that the expansion is in Sedov phase, that the
543: supernova was Type Ia, that 10\% of kinetic energy is transferred to the
544: cosmic-ray energy, etc.
545:
546: The constraints on the parameters of the distance $d$ and the ambient
547: density $n_{\rm H}$ are illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig6}.
548: \begin{figure}
549: \plotone{f6.eps}
550: \caption{
551: The allowed region in the plane of the distance ($d$)
552: versus ambient density ($n_{\rm H}$), based
553: on the neutral pion decay $\gamma$-ray emission model where we assume
554: that the total number spectrum of protons is proportional to a power law
555: with an exponential cutoff and the value of the conversion efficiency from
556: the explosion energy to the cosmic-ray energy is 10\%.
557: The solid, dashed, and dotted lines indicate the upper limits obtained from
558: the observed 2$\sigma$ upper limits in Table \ref{table1}, compared with
559: the integral fluxes of the models for the power-law indices 2.1, 1.9, and 2.3,
560: respectively. The colors of the lines represent the cutoff energy of protons;
561: the black, red, and blue ones are obtained with
562: the values $10^{15}$, $10^{14}$, and
563: $10^{13}$ eV, respectively.
564: The allowed regions lie under these upper-limit lines.
565: The hatched region indicates the region which satisfies the
566: Sedov-Taylor solution of the apparent radius of the Kepler's SNR, 100$"$ at
567: 400 yr with the explosion energy $0.5\sim2\times 10^{51}$ erg.
568: The dot-dashed lines are obtained from the approximate analytic blast-wave
569: positions of the radius 100$"$, assuming
570: the solution of \cite{TrueloveMcKee}.
571: The red and blue ones are obtained
572: assuming the ejecta power-law index $n=6$ and $n=14$,
573: respectively,
574: with ejecta mass of 1.4$M_{\sun}$ with the explosion
575: energy $10^{51}$ erg.
576: }
577: \label{fig6}
578: \end{figure}
579: Here we assume that the total number spectrum of protons is proportional
580: to a power law with an exponential cutoff $E^{-p}\exp(-E/E_{max})$
581: and that the neutral pion decay $\gamma$-ray emission dominates.
582: If the conversion efficiency ($\epsilon$)
583: from the explosion energy $E_{\rm sn}$ to
584: the cosmic-ray energy is assumed to be 10\%
585: (i.e., $\epsilon=0.1$), the normalization factor
586: of the proton spectrum can be determined and the $\gamma$-ray fluxes
587: can be calculated \citep{Mori} on the assumption of the power-law index
588: $p$ and the cutoff energy $E_{\rm max}$.
589: Given the parameters of the $E_{\rm sn}$, $p$, and $E_{\rm max}$,
590: the upper limits of $n_{\rm H}/d\,^2$ are calculated from the observed
591: 2$\sigma$ upper limits in Table~\ref{table1}, compared with the integral
592: fluxes of the model, because the $\gamma$-ray fluxes
593: $F_{\gamma}$ are proportional to $\epsilon E_{\rm sn} n_{\rm H}/d\,^2$.
594: In Fig.~\ref{fig6}, we plotted the upper limits
595: for the power-law indices 2.1 (solid), 1.9 (dashed),
596: and 2.3 (dotted) and for the cutoff energies of protons $10^{15}$
597: (black), $10^{14}$ (red),
598: and $10^{13}$ eV (blue). We did not plot the case of $p=2.3$ and
599: $E_{\rm max}=10^{13}$\,eV, as the flux in the GeV energy region
600: exceeds the EGRET upper limit.
601:
602: The apparent radius $\theta$=100$"$ of the Kepler's SNR at $t_{\rm
603: age}$ gives another constraint. Here we consider two solutions on the
604: expansion law of the blast-wave shock. The first one is the Sedov-Taylor
605: solution :
606: $\theta d \propto (E _{\rm sn}/n_{\rm H})^{1/5} t_{\rm age}^{2/5}$.
607: Another one is the approximate analytic solutions \citep{TrueloveMcKee},
608: which can be applied from the ejecta-dominated phase to the
609: Sedov-Taylor phase. In the latter case, the extra parameters
610: of ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}$
611: and the ejecta power-law index $n$, are added to the explosion energy
612: $E _{\rm sn}$ and the ambient matter number density $n_{\rm H}$.
613: The region which is satisfied with the Sedov-Taylor
614: solution of the apparent radius of the Kepler's SNR, 100$"$ at 400 yr and
615: $E_{\rm sn}=0.5\sim2\times 10^{51}$ erg are shown as the hatched
616: one in Fig.\,6.
617: The dot-dashed lines are obtained from the approximate analytic
618: solution with ejecta mass of 1.4$M_{\sun}$ with the explosion energy
619: $10^{51}$ erg with two kinds of the ejecta power-law index $n=6$ and $n=14$.
620: In the case of $p=2.1$ and $E_{\rm max}=10^{14}$ eV, we note
621: that the CANGAROO-III upper limit implies that the Kepler's SNR is located
622: at a distance larger than about 4.5\,kpc. For the maximum upper limit in
623: the case of $p=2.1$ and $E_{\rm max}=10^{13}$ eV, this means
624: that the SNR is located at a distance larger than about 3.6\,kpc.
625:
626: The distance of a type Ia supernova can be estimated using the correlation
627: between the shape of the optical light curves and the intrinsic luminosity
628: of SNe. Before knowledge of this correlation, \cite{baade} studied the
629: historical light curve of the Kepler's SN and classified it as a type Ia,
630: and \cite{danziger} estimated the distance of $3.2 \pm 0.7$ kpc
631: using only the maximum luminosity. We can now fit Baade's data with the
632: improved light-curve template of a type Ia \citep{jha}: $d=4.0 \pm
633: 0.4$ kpc on the assumption of a visual extinction $3.27 \pm 0.14$ mag
634: \citep{schaefer}, although the fitted light curve after 100 days is
635: not a good fit.
636:
637: This value seems to be marginally consistent with our lower limit
638: obtained by this TeV $\gamma$-ray observations. On the other hand,
639: based on the study of H\,{\sc i} kinematics and the association of
640: H\,{\sc i} cloud with
641: the SNR, \cite{reynoso} put a lower limit of $d=4.8 \pm 1.4$\,kpc and an upper
642: limit of 6.4\,kpc on the distance. These estimations do not contradict our
643: lower limit.
644:
645: In any case, a part of the plausible region in parameter space
646: has been rejected, although a large allowed range remains.
647: Although we did not detect any signal in these 15 hours of observations,
648: future detections may strongly constrain the theory.
649: As found in Figs.\,3 \& 4 in
650: \cite{ksenofontov}, the sensitivity of H.E.S.S.\ is much
651: lower than the theoretical predictions.
652: The future GLAST mission will also enable the lower energy
653: range to be probed.
654: %In case there are no gamma rays, even observed via those two,
655: %we still need
656: Future large Cerenkov telescope arrays, such as CTA
657: \footnote{See http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/htm/CTA/}
658: will allow even more sensitive observations to be made.
659:
660:
661: \section{Conclusion}
662:
663: TeV gamma-ray observations toward
664: the 400 year old remnant of Kepler's SN
665: were made in 2005 April.
666: Although a measurable
667: flux of TeV-gamma rays had been predicted,
668: we did not observe any statistically significant
669: excess in this region, and the constraints on
670: the allowed parameter range have been discussed.
671: Although a region of parameter range has been rejected,
672: more sensitive measurements are required to
673: constrain the models further.
674:
675: \acknowledgments
676:
677: We thank Dr. L.T.\ Ksenofontov for various discussions on the
678: estimated gamma-ray flux from Kepler's SNR.
679: We thank Dr. N.\ Yasuda for discussions on the distance of this SNR.
680: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by
681: the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
682: the Australian Research Council, JSPS Research Fellowships,
683: and Inter-University Researches Program
684: by the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research.
685: We thank the Defense Support Center Woomera and BAE Systems.
686:
687: \begin{thebibliography}{}
688:
689: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2001)]{casa}
690: Aharonian, F., et al. 2001, A\&A, 370, 112
691: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2004)]{hess1713}
692: Aharonian, F., et al. 2004, Nature, 432, 75
693: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005)]{hess0852}
694: Aharonian, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 437, L7
695: \bibitem[Baade(1943)]{baade}
696: Baade, W. 1943, ApJ, 97, 119
697: \bibitem[Berezhko et al.(2006)]{ksenofontov}
698: Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., \& V\"olk, H. J.
699: 2006, A\&A, 452, 217
700: \bibitem[Blair(2005)]{blair}
701: Blair, W. P. 2005, in Supernovae as Cosmological Lighthouses,
702: ASP Conf. Ser., 342, 416
703: \bibitem[Daum et al.(1997)]{wobble}
704: Daum, A., et al. 1997, Astropart.\ Phys., 8, 1
705: \bibitem[Danziger \& Goss(1980)]{danziger}
706: Danziger, I.J., \& Goss, W.M. 1980, MNRAS, 190, 47
707: \bibitem[Doggett \& Branchi(1985)]{doggett}
708: Doggett, J. B., \& Branch, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 2303
709: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002a)]{enomoto_nature}
710: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002a, Nature, 416, 823
711: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002b)]{enomoto_app}
712: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002b, Astropart.\ Phys., 16, 235
713: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006a)]{enomoto_vela}
714: Enomoto, R., et al.
715: 2006a, ApJ, 638, 397
716: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006b)]{enomoto_0852}
717: Enomoto, R., et al.
718: 2006b, ApJ, 652, 1268
719: \bibitem[Fisher(1936)]{fisher}
720: Fisher, R.~A. 1936, Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179
721: \bibitem[Hillas(1985)]{hillas}
722: Hillas, A.~M. 1985, Proc.\ 19th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (La Jolla) 3, 445
723: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2003)]{kabuki}
724: Kabuki, S., et al. 2003, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth., A500, 318
725: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2007)]{cena}
726: Kabuki, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 968
727: \bibitem[Katagiri et al.(2005)]{katagiri}
728: Katagiri, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L163
729: \bibitem[Kawachi et al.(2001)]{kawachi}
730: Kawachi, A., et al. 2001, Astropart.\ Phys., 14, 261
731: \bibitem[Kinugasa \& Tsunemi(2007)]{kinugasa}
732: Kinugasa, K., \& Tsunemi, H. 1999, PASJ, 51, 239
733: \bibitem[Mori(1997)]{Mori}
734: Mori, M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 225
735: \bibitem[Jha et al.(2007)]{jha}
736: Jha, S., Riess, A.G., \& Kirshner, R.P., ApJ, 659, 122
737: \bibitem[Reynolds et al.(2007)]{reynolds}
738: Reynolds, S. P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, L135
739: \bibitem[Reynoso \& Goss(1999)]{reynoso}
740: Reynoso, E. M., \& Goss, W. M. 1999, AJ, 118, 926
741: \bibitem[SkyView(2007)]{skyview}
742: NASA, 2007, SkyView (Greenbelt: GFSC), http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov
743: \bibitem[Nishijima et al.(2005)]{nishijima}
744: Nishijima, K., et al. 2005, Proc.\ 29th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Pune),
745: OG2.7, 101
746: \bibitem[Schaefer(1996)]{schaefer}
747: Schaefer, B. E. 1996, ApJ, 459, 438
748: \bibitem[Truelove \& McKee(1999)]{TrueloveMcKee}
749: Truelove, J. K., \& McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299
750:
751:
752: \end{thebibliography}
753:
754: \end{document}
755: