1: 

2: % \documentclass{aastex}

3: 

4: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:

5: 

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

7: 

8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

9: 

10: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\sl Chandra}}

13: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}

14: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}

15: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}

16: \newcommand{\ltapprox}{\hbox{\raise0.5ex \hbox{$<$}

17:   \kern-1.1em \lower0.5ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}

18: \newcommand{\snr}{SN~1006}

19: 

20: \slugcomment{ApJ, accepted}

21: 

22: \shorttitle{A Curved Synchrotron Spectrum in \snr}

23: \shortauthors{}

24: 

25: \begin{document}

26: 

27: \title{Evidence of a Curved Synchrotron Spectrum in the Supernova Remnant

28: \snr}

29: 

30: \author{G.\ E.\ Allen and J.\ C.\ Houck}

31: \affil{MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge,

32: MA 02139; gea@space.mit.edu; houck@space.mit.edu} 

33: 

34: \and

35: 

36: \author{S.\ J.\ Sturner}

37: \affil{Astroparticle Physics Laboratory, Code 661, NASA Goddard Space Flight

38: Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771; sturner@swati.gsfc.nasa.gov}

39: 

40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

41: 

42: % 1. Abstract

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: 

46: A joint spectral analysis of some \chandra\ ACIS X-ray data and Molonglo

47: Observatory Synthesis Telescope radio data was performed for 13 small

48: regions along the bright northeastern rim of the supernova remnant \snr.

49: These data were fitted with a synchrotron radiation model.  The nonthermal

50: electron spectrum used to compute the photon emission spectra is the

51: traditional exponentially cut off power law, with one notable difference:

52: The power-law index is not a constant.  It is a linear function of the

53: logarithm of the momentum.  This functional form enables us to show, for the

54: first time, that the synchrotron spectrum of \snr\ seems to flatten with

55: increasing energy.  The effective power-law index of the electron spectrum

56: is 2.2 at 1~GeV (\ie, radio synchrotron--emitting momenta) and 2.0 at about

57: 10~TeV (\ie, X-ray synchrotron--emitting momenta). This amount of change in

58: the index is qualitatively consistent with theoretical models of the amount

59: of curvature in the proton spectrum of the remnant.  The evidence of

60: spectral curvature implies that cosmic rays are dynamically important

61: instead of being ``test'' particles. The spectral analysis also provides a

62: means of determining the critical frequency of the synchrotron spectrum

63: associated with the highest-energy electrons.  The critical frequency seems

64: to vary along the northeastern rim, with a maximum value of

65: $1.1^{+1.0}_{-0.5} \times 10^{17}$~Hz.  This value implies that the electron

66: diffusion coefficient can be no larger than a factor of $\sim$4.5--21 times

67: the Bohm diffusion coefficient if the velocity of the forward shock is in

68: the range 2300--5000~km~s$^{-1}$.  Since the coefficient is close to the

69: Bohm limit, electrons are accelerated nearly as fast as possible in the

70: regions where the critical frequency is about $10^{17}$~Hz.

71: 

72: \end{abstract}

73: 

74: \keywords{

75:    acceleration of particles ---

76:    cosmic rays ---

77:    ISM: individual (\snr) ---

78:    radiation mechanisms: nonthermal ---

79:    supernova remnants ---

80:    X-rays: general

81:    }

82: 

83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

84: 

85: % 2. Introduction

86: 

87: \section{Introduction}

88: \label{int}

89: 

90: Several observational and theoretical clues support the suggestion that

91: Galactic cosmic rays, up to an energy of 100~TeV \citep{lag83} or more

92: \citep{jok87,vol88,bel01}, are accelerated predominantly in the shocks of

93: supernova remnants.  If Galactic supernovae occur at an average rate of one

94: event every 30 years, then an average supernova remnant must transfer about

95: 10\% \citep{dru89} of the initial $10^{51}$~ergs of kinetic energy of the

96: ejecta to cosmic rays. In this case, the cosmic-ray energy density may be

97: large enough to affect the structure of the shock (\ie, cosmic rays may not

98: be mere ``test'' particles).

99: 

100: Three consequences of a large cosmic-ray pressure are potentially

101: observable.  One consequence is that the ambient material is slowed before

102: it crosses the subshock.  This effect reduces the temperature of the shocked

103: gas \citep{che83,ell00,dec00}. An upper limit on the temperature is provided

104: by the well-known relation between the shock speed $v_{s}$ and the postshock

105: temperature of a gas whose ratio of specific heats $\gamma = \frac{5}{3}$:

106: \begin{equation}

107: kT_{i}

108:   \le

109:   \frac{3}{16} m_{i} v_{s}^2,

110:   \label{eqn1}

111: \end{equation}

112: where $k$ is Boltzmann's constant and $m_{i}$ and $T_{i}$ are the mass and

113: immediate postshock temperature, respectively, of particle species $i$.

114: Since kinetic energy is transferred to cosmic rays at the expense of the

115: thermalization of the shocked gas, the equality is appropriate only in the

116: limit that the cosmic-ray energy density is negligible.  \cite{hug00}

117: analyzed the transverse motion of the X-ray--emitting material (mostly

118: reverse-shocked oxygen and neon) in the supernova remnant 1E~0102.2$-$7219

119: and inferred a forward-shock velocity $v_{s} =

120: 6200^{+1500}_{-1600}$~km~s$^{-1}$.  In this case, the temperature of the

121: shocked protons must be lower than the right-hand side of

122: equation~(\ref{eqn1}) or else the fitted electron temperature will be too

123: low to be explained by Coulomb heating \citep{hug00}.  However, the proton

124: temperature is sensitive to the shock velocity ($T \propto v_{s}^{2}$), and

125: a variety of speeds are reported for 1E~0102.2$-$7219. \cite{fla04} report

126: that the \chandra\ High Energy Transmission Grating \ion{Ne}{10} line

127: emission data are consistent with a model that includes radial \ion{Ne}{10}

128: velocities up to $1800 \pm 450$~km~s$^{-1}$. \citet{fin06} analyzed several

129: features in \ion{O}{3} images.  The mean transverse velocity of the features

130: is $2000 \pm 200$~km~s$^{-1}$. \citet{eri01} report that the motion of some

131: \ion{O}{3}--emitting material is best described by a radial \ion{O}{3}

132: velocity of about 1800~km~s$^{-1}$. Since these velocity results differ and

133: since none of the measurements provides a direct measure of the velocity of

134: the forward shock, the claim that a significant fraction of the internal

135: energy in 1E~0102.2$-$7219 has been transferred to cosmic rays requires

136: additional support.

137: 

138: A second consequence is that the total compression ratio is larger than 4

139: \citep{ell91,ber99}. Since cosmic rays slow the upstream material before it

140: crosses the subshock, the velocity of the shocked material relative to the

141: subshock is reduced.  As a result, the contact discontinuity is closer to

142: the subshock than it would be in the absence of a large cosmic-ray pressure.

143: \citet{war05} report that in Tycho's supernova remnant the mean ratio of the

144: radius of the contact discontinuity to the radius of the forward shock is

145: $0.93 \pm 0.02$. This separation corresponds to a total compression ratio $r

146: = 5.1_{-1.0}^{+1.9}$.  Similarly, \citet{cas08a} report that for the

147: southeastern rim of \snr\ the ratio varies from a value of

148: $0.91^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ (\ie, $r = 4.0^{+2.2}_{-0.5}$) between the bright

149: X-ray synchrotron--emitting filaments to a value of 1 (\ie, $r = \infty$)

150: along the filaments. The mean value between the filaments is $0.96 \pm 0.03$

151: (\ie, $r = 9.0^{+25}_{-3.6}$). These authors explore ways in which the

152: location of the contact discontinuity can approach the location of the

153: forward shock, but they cannot explain why these two features curiously

154: appear to be coincident with one another along the filaments.

155: \citet{kse05a}, who also studied \snr, infer a mean compression ratio $r =

156: 5.2$.

157: 

158: A third consequence of a large cosmic-ray pressure is that the shock

159: transition region is broadened or ``smeared out'' \citep{ell91,ber99}.  Only

160: the subshock has a short transition length.  In this case, low-energy cosmic

161: rays, which have relatively small diffusion lengths, experience only a

162: portion of the velocity gradient as they scatter back and forth across the

163: subshock. Higher energy particles, which have relatively large diffusion

164: lengths, experience a larger portion (or all) of the velocity jump. Since

165: the rate of energy gain increases as the velocity difference increases,

166: higher energy particles gain energy faster than lower energy particles. As a

167: result, cosmic-ray spectra do not have power-law distributions.  The spectra

168: flatten with increasing energy \citep{bel87,ell91,ber99}. \cite{jon03} and

169: \cite{vin06} report evidence of curvature in the synchrotron spectra of

170: Cas~A and RCW~86, respectively.  One possible explanation for such curvature

171: is that the cosmic-ray electrons producing the synchrotron emission have

172: curved spectra.

173: 

174: Here we describe the results of an analysis of some radio and X-ray

175: synchrotron data, which suggest that the synchrotron spectrum of \snr\ might

176: be curved.  The data, assumptions, and analysis techniques are described in

177: \S\ \ref{dat}. The results of the analysis are discussed in \S\ \ref{dis}.

178: Our conclusions are summarized in \S\ \ref{con}.

179: 

180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

181: 

182: % 3. Data and Analysis

183: 

184: \section{Data and analysis}

185: \label{dat}

186: 

187: X-ray spectra of the filaments along the northeastern rim of \snr\ were

188: obtained by analyzing 68~ks of data from the 2000 July 10--11 {\sl

189: Chandra}\footnote{For more information about the {\sl Chandra X-ray

190: Observatory} refer to the {\sl Chandra} Proposers' Observatory Guide, which

191: is available at http://asc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/index.html.} observation

192: of the source. The results of previous analyses of the data from this

193: observation were published by \citet{lon03} and \citet{bam03}. During the

194: observation, the telescope was pointed at a location near the middle of the

195: northeastern rim ($\alpha = 15^{\rm h} 03^{\rm m} 51.56^{\rm s}$, $\delta =

196: -41\arcdeg 51\arcmin 18.8\arcsec$; J2000). The X-rays were detected using

197: the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS), which includes a $2 \times 2$

198: (ACIS-I) and a $1 \times 6$ (ACIS-S) array of CCDs.  Six of these 10

199: detectors (ACIS-I2, -I3, -S1, -S2, -S3, and -S4) were used for the

200: observation. Each $1024\ {\rm pixel} \times 1024\ {\rm pixel}$ CCD has a

201: field of view of $8.4\arcmin \times 8.4\arcmin$. The angular resolution of

202: the {\sl Chandra} mirrors and ACIS varies over the observed portion of \snr\

203: from about $0.5\arcsec$ at the aim point to $20\arcsec$ for a region that is

204: $17.5\arcmin$ off-axis.  The on-axis effective area for the mirrors and

205: ACIS-S3 has a maximum of about 720~cm$^{2}$ at 1.5~keV and is greater than

206: 10\% of this value for energies between about 0.3 and 7.3~keV. The

207: fractional energy resolution (FWHM/$E$) between these energies ranges from

208: about 0.4 to 0.03, respectively.  The sensitive energy bands and energy

209: resolutions of the other five CCDs used for \snr\ are typically narrower and

210: worse, respectively, than the energy band and resolution of ACIS-S3.

211: 

212: The ACIS data were filtered to remove the events that (1) have ${\rm GRADE}

213: = 1$, 5, or 7, (2) have one or more of the STATUS bits set to 1 (except for

214: events that have only one or more of the four cosmic-ray ``afterglow'' bits

215: set), (3) occur on a bad pixel or column, (4) are part of a serial readout

216: streak on ACIS-S4, or (5) occur in the time interval during which the mean

217: background count rate was more than twice the nominal rate (\ie, frames

218: 20515--21294).  An image of the 66~ks of ``good'' data is displayed in

219: Figure~\ref{fig1}.  The 13, 100~pixel $\times$ 100~pixel ($49 \arcsec \times

220: 49 \arcsec$) boxes are the regions of the bright, northeastern filaments

221: used for the X-ray spectral analysis. The PHA spectra, ARFs, and RMFs for

222: each region were created using version 2.3 of the CIAO\footnote{For more

223: information about the CIAO analysis tools, refer to

224: http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao.} tools {\tt dmextract}, {\tt mkarf}, and {\tt

225: mkrmf}, respectively.

226: 

227: The X-ray analysis was performed using data in the energy band 2--7~keV. The

228: higher energy data were excluded because they are dominated by background

229: events.  The lower energy data were excluded for three reasons. First, a

230: small, but noticeable, amount of thermal emission is evident at the lower

231: energies.  Therefore, inclusion of the lower energy data requires a spectral

232: model that includes a thermal emission component.  The extra parameters

233: required to fit the thermal emission make the spectral fits unnecessarily

234: complicated.  By ignoring the data below 2~keV, nearly all of the thermal

235: emission is excluded \citep{bam03}.  As displayed in Figure~\ref{fig1} (and

236: as originally reported by Koyama et~al.\ 1995), the high-energy nonthermal

237: emission is concentrated along the rim. The second reason is that the ACIS

238: detectors are not well calibrated at energies below about 0.7~keV.  The last

239: reason is that the absorption column density can be frozen at some preferred

240: value to simplify the fitting process.  Our preferred value is $n_{\rm H} =

241: 6.0 \times 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$, which is consistent with the results of

242: \citet{sch96} and \cite{all01}.

243: 

244: The radio data used for the spectral analysis include the compilation of

245: flux density measurements listed in Table~\ref{tab1}.  These measurements

246: are based on analyses of the emission from the entire supernova remnant. In

247: the cases where no flux density uncertainties are reported, the

248: uncertainties are assumed to be 10\% of the reported flux densities.  The

249: results of the spectral analysis are insensitive to the actual fraction used

250: at least for fractions in the range 5\%--20\%.  The values listed in

251: Table~\ref{tab1} are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig2}.  The dashed line in this

252: figure is the result obtained when only the radio data are fitted with a

253: power-law model: $S(\nu) = 17.6^{+6.3}_{-4.8}[\nu/(1~{\rm

254: GHz})]^{-\alpha}$~Jy, where $\alpha = 0.60^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$. Note that the

255: uncertainties for the power-law index and normalization, which are quoted at

256: the 90\% confidence level, are not independent.  This result is an update of

257: and consistent with the result reported by \citet{all01}: $S(\nu) = 17.9 \pm

258: 1.1 [\nu / (1\ {\rm GHz})]^{-\alpha}$~Jy, where $\alpha = 0.57 \pm 0.06$.

259: The dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig2} is a power-law model with the

260: parameters reported by \citet{gre06}: $S(\nu) = 19[\nu/(1~{\rm

261: GHz})]^{-0.6}$~Jy.

262: 

263: The radio spectrum for the entire remnant is used to construct radio spectra

264: for each region because there is little evidence of radio spectral

265: variability.  For example, a comparison of the images of \citet{ste77} and

266: \citet{gar65} suggests that the slopes of the 0.408--2.7~GHz radio spectra

267: of the northeastern and southwestern rims are about the same. It is possible

268: that the slope may vary along each rim, in which case the best-fit amounts

269: of curvature for individual regions may be inaccurate, but the mean amount

270: of curvature for the 13 regions is relatively insensitive to such

271: variations. Two sets of radio data were used with each X-ray spectrum. Both

272: sets are obtained by multiplying the remnant-integrated flux densities and

273: uncertainties of Table~\ref{tab1} by scaling factors $\zeta$.  One set of

274: factors (Tables~\ref{tab2} and \ref{tab3}) is obtained by dividing the

275: 843~MHz flux densities for the 13 regions marked with black squares in

276: Figure~\ref{fig3}, from the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope (MOST),

277: by the 843~MHz flux density for the entire remnant.  These regions are the

278: same ones used to obtain the X-ray spectra (Fig.~\ref{fig1}).  The second

279: set of factors (Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab5}) is obtained in the same

280: way, except that the flux densities for the 13 red squares are used instead

281: of the flux densities for the black squares. The red squares are the regions

282: where the flux densities peak.  That is, the flux density along a line from

283: the center of the remnant through the center of a black square peaks at the

284: location of the center of the corresponding red square. Although both sets

285: of flux densities represent local averages because the half-power beamwidth

286: associated with the 843~MHz MOST image ($44'' \times 66''$; see

287: Fig.~\ref{fig3}) is comparable to the size of the regions ($49'' \times

288: 49''$), they are reasonable estimates of the minimum ({\sl black}) and

289: maximum ({\sl red}) flux densities for the 13 regions.  Therefore, using

290: these two sets of radio spectra provides a means of obtaining upper

291: (Table~\ref{tab2}) and lower (Table~\ref{tab4}) limits on the amount of

292: curvature for each region.

293: 

294: Version 1.4.8 of the spectral fitting package ISIS\footnote{For more

295: information about ISIS, see http://space.mit.edu/cxc/isis.} \citep{hou00}

296: was used to fit the data for each region with a model that includes a

297: synchrotron radiation component for the X-ray and radio data and an

298: interstellar absorption component for the X-ray data (the XSPEC model {\tt

299: wabs}, with the relative abundances of Anders \& Grevesse 1989). Since the

300: 2--7~keV emission is dominated by nonthermal emission, no thermal X-ray

301: component is included.

302: 

303: The synchrotron spectra are based on a nonthermal electron spectrum of the

304: form

305: \begin{equation}

306: \frac{dn}{dp}

307:   =

308:   A \left( \frac{p}{p_{0}} \right)^{-\Gamma + a \log

309:     \left( \frac{p}{p_{0}} \right)}

310:   {\rm exp} \left( \frac{p_{0} - p}{p_{m}} \right),

311:   \label{eqn2}

312: \end{equation}

313: where $n$ is the electron number density, $p = \gamma m v$ ($\gamma$, $m$,

314: and $v$ are the Lorentz factor, rest mass, and velocity of a particle,

315: respectively), $A$ is the number density at $p = p_{0}$ (in units of

316: $p_{0}^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$), $p_{0} = 1$~GeV~$c^{-1}$ ($c$ is the speed of

317: light), $\Gamma$ is the differential spectral index at $p = p_{0}$, $a$ is

318: the spectral ``curvature,'' the logarithm is base 10, and $p_{m}$ is the

319: exponential cutoff (or ``maximum'') momentum.  This form is the same as the

320: standard power law with an exponential cutoff, except for the term $a \log

321: \left( p / p_{0} \right)$.  Introduction of this term produces an effective

322: spectral index, $\Gamma_{\rm eff} = \Gamma - a \log \left( p / p_{0}

323: \right)$, that is a linear function of the logarithm of the momentum.  For

324: example, at momenta $p$ of $10^{0} p_{0}$, $10^{1} p_{0}$, $10^{2} p_{0}$,

325: and $10^{3} p_{0}$, the effective differential spectral indices are

326: $\Gamma$, $\Gamma - a$, $\Gamma - 2a$, and $\Gamma - 3a$, respectively. If

327: $a > 0$, then the spectrum flattens with increasing momentum.  If $a < 0$,

328: then the spectrum steepens with increasing momentum. If $a = 0$, then the

329: spectrum has no curvature and equation~(\ref{eqn2}) reduces to the standard

330: power law with an exponential cutoff.  An exponential cutoff is used in

331: equation~(\ref{eqn2}) for simplicity. Note that \citet{ell01},

332: \citet{uch03}, \citet{laz04}, and \cite{zir07a} use a more general form for

333: the cutoff (exp$[- \left( p / p_{m} \right)^{s} ]$, where $s = \case{1}{4}$,

334: $\case{1}{2}$, 1, or 2) and that \citet{pro04} performed a detailed study of

335: the shape of the cutoff for particles experiencing diffusive shock

336: acceleration.

337: 

338: The synchrotron spectrum is computed by evaluating the following integral

339: expression to obtain the differential photon flux\footnote{For more

340: information about this model, see \citet{hou06}.} (in SI units):

341: %

342: \begin{equation}

343: \frac{dF}{d(h\nu)}

344:   =

345:   \frac{V_{S}}{4 \pi d^{2}}

346:   \frac{\sqrt{3} e^{3} B}{2 \epsilon_{0} m c h^{2} \nu}

347:   \int dp \frac{dn}{dp}

348:   \int_{0}^{\pi} d\theta \sin^{2}\!\theta

349:   \frac{\nu}{\nu_{c}}

350:   \int_{\nu / \nu_{c}}^{\infty} dx K_{5/3}

351:     \left( x \right),

352:   \label{eqn02}

353: \end{equation}

354: %

355: where $V_{S}$ is the volume of the synchrotron-emitting region, $d$ is the

356: distance of the source from Earth, $e$ is the unit of electric charge, $B$

357: is the total magnetic field strength (not $B_{\perp}$), $\epsilon_{0}$ is

358: the permittivity of free space, $h$ is Planck's constant, $\nu$ is the

359: frequency of an emitted photon, $\theta$ is the pitch angle between the

360: electron momentum and magnetic field vectors, $K_{5/3}$ is an irregular

361: modified Bessel function of the second kind, and

362: %

363: \begin{equation}

364: \nu_{c}

365:   =

366:   \frac{3 e}{4 \pi m^{3} c^{4}}

367:   \left( p^{2}c^{2} + m^{2}c^{4} \right)

368:   B \sin \theta

369:   \label{eqn03}

370: \end{equation}

371: %

372: is the critical frequency of the synchrotron spectrum produced by an

373: electron with a momentum $p$. The frequency at which a synchrotron power

374: spectrum peaks is $\nu_{p} = 0.286 \nu_{c}$. Hereafter, only the critical

375: frequency $\nu_{c}$ is used.

376: 

377: We refer to the critical frequency associated with electrons that have a

378: momentum equal to $p_{m}$ as the ``cutoff critical frequency'' or just the

379: cutoff frequency to emphasize that it is associated with electrons at the

380: cutoff momentum of the electron spectrum [$\nu_{m} \equiv \nu_{c} (p =

381: p_{m})$].  The distribution of pitch angles $\theta$ is expected to be

382: nearly isotropic because the forward-shock speed (2300--5000~km~s$^{-1}$;

383: Laming \etal\ 1996; Dwarkadas \& Chevalier 1998; Ghavamian \etal\ 2002) is

384: much less than the speed of light.  In this case, the mean value of $\sin

385: \theta$ in equation~(\ref{eqn03}) is about $\pi / 4$,

386: \begin{equation}

387: \nu_{m}

388:   =

389:   1.26 \times 10^{17}

390:   \left( \frac{p_{m}}{10\ {\rm TeV}\ c^{-1}} \right)^{2}

391:   \left( \frac{B}{100\ \mu{\rm G}} \right)\ {\rm Hz},

392:   \label{eqn04}

393: \end{equation}

394: %

395: and

396: %

397: \begin{equation}

398: h \nu_{m}

399:   =

400:   0.522

401:   \left( \frac{p_{m}}{10\ {\rm TeV}\ c^{-1}} \right)^{2}

402:   \left( \frac{B}{100\ \mu{\rm G}} \right)\ {\rm keV}.

403:   \label{eqn05}

404: \end{equation}

405: 

406: During the spectral fitting process, the right-hand side of

407: equation~(\ref{eqn02}) is computed each time the spectral fitting program

408: changes the parameters of the model.  The complete set of spectral

409: parameters includes the spectral index $\Gamma$, the curvature parameter

410: $a$, the cutoff momentum $p_{m}$, the total magnetic field strength $B$, the

411: normalization constant $N_{S} = A V_{S} / 4 \pi d^{2}$, and the absorption

412: column density $n_{\rm H}$. The spectral index is determined by the radio

413: and X-ray data. The curvature is sensitive to the relative radio and X-ray

414: fluxes.  Since only two of the three parameters $p_{m}$, $B$, and $N_{S}$

415: are independent, $p_{m}$ was fixed and the cutoff frequency $\left( \nu_{m}

416: \propto p_{m}^{2} B;\ {\rm eq.~[\ref{eqn04}]} \right)$ is reported here

417: instead of the magnetic field strength. This frequency is sensitive to the

418: shape of the X-ray spectrum. The same normalization is used for both the

419: X-ray and radio data for a given region because the nonthermal X-ray and

420: radio emission from the region is assumed to be produced by a common

421: population of electrons.  The normalization $N_{S}$ is determined by the

422: radio data.  The absorption column density $n_{\rm H}$ was fixed at the

423: value $6.0 \times 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$ \citep{sch96,all01}.

424: 

425: Four spectral fits were performed for each region. The first pair are

426: identical to one another except that the curvature parameter is a free

427: parameter for one (Table~\ref{tab2}) and is fixed at a value of zero (\ie,

428: no spectral curvature) for the other (Table~\ref{tab3}).  In both cases, the

429: radio spectra are normalized to the flux densities in the regions that are

430: cospatial with the X-ray regions (\ie, the regions marked with black squares

431: in Fig.~\ref{fig3}).  Since the cospatial radio spectra represent lower

432: limits on the radio fluxes, the amounts of curvature listed in

433: Table~\ref{tab2} are upper limits. The second pair of fits

434: (Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab5}) is identical to the first pair except

435: that the radio spectra are normalized to the flux densities in the ``peak''

436: regions (\ie, the regions marked with red squares in Fig.~\ref{fig3})

437: instead of the cospatial regions. Since the peak radio spectra represent

438: upper limits on the radio fluxes, the amounts of curvature listed in

439: Table~\ref{tab4} are lower limits. For each of the four sets of fits, the

440: best-fit values of the spectral index vary little from region to region,

441: because the same radio spectral shape was used for each region.  The

442: best-fit model for region~6, the region with the largest number of counts,

443: is plotted in Figures~\ref{fig2} and \ref{fig4}.

444: 

445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

446: 

447: % 4. Discussion

448: 

449: \section{Discussion}

450: \label{dis}

451: 

452: It is not immediately obvious whether the cospatial or peak radio fluxes

453: yield results that are more accurate, because the X-ray and radio

454: synchrotron morphologies are not the same.  For example, along $49''$-wide

455: strips that pass through the 13 X-ray regions toward the center of the

456: remnant, one finds that the X-ray emission peaks at the locations of the

457: black boxes in Figure~\ref{fig3} and that the radio emission peaks at the

458: locations of the red boxes. There are at least three possible explanations

459: for this difference. One explanation is that the TeV electrons that produce

460: the X-ray synchrotron emission suffer significant synchrotron losses as they

461: diffuse downstream from the shock. These losses deplete the highest-energy

462: end of the electron spectrum, causing the X-ray synchrotron emission to

463: decline in the downstream region. As a result, the X-ray peak is relatively

464: narrow and confined to a region near the shock. Since synchrotron losses are

465: negligible for the GeV electrons that produce the radio emission, the radio

466: emission is not attenuated in the same manner. The radio peaks can be

467: broader and farther from the shock than the X-ray peaks. Nevertheless, there

468: is no reason, on these grounds, to use different radio and X-ray extraction

469: regions, because the radio and X-ray synchrotron emission for a region is

470: produced by the same population of electrons.  The radio emission is

471: produced by the GeV portion of the electron spectrum and the X-ray emission

472: is produced by the TeV segment. Synchrotron losses do not introduce a

473: spatial separation between the GeV and TeV electrons.

474: 

475: Another explanation for the different X-ray and radio morphologies does

476: involve an apparent (not actual) spatial separation. The X-ray and radio

477: instruments do not yield images that have the same spatial resolution. The

478: size of the spatially dependent point-spread function of the {\sl Chandra}

479: X-ray telescope is much smaller than the size of the $49\arcsec \times

480: 49\arcsec$ boxes and, hence, is neglected. However, the size of the

481: beamwidth for the MOST image ($44\arcsec \times 66\arcsec$) is not

482: negligible, because it is comparable to the size of the boxes. The

483: implications of the difference in the qualities of the X-ray and radio

484: images are illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig5}. The black histogram in the top

485: panel shows the radial X-ray profile for region~6. The red curve in this

486: panel is obtained by using a Gaussian function to smooth the histogram to

487: the beamwidth of the radio instrument.  Note that the peak of the red curve

488: is about $18\arcsec$ downstream from the peak of the histogram, which

489: suggests that the radio extraction region should be shifted toward the radio

490: peak by the same amount. Similarly small shifts are obtained for the other

491: 12 regions and for a simple model of a uniformly emitting spherical shell

492: (Fig.~\ref{fig5}, {\sl bottom}).

493: 

494: A third explanation is that the bright radio-emitting region has expanded in

495: the 17 intervening years between the time when the MOST data were obtained

496: and the time of the \chandra\ observation.  Using the mean radio expansion

497: result of $0.049{\rm \%} \pm 0.014$\%~yr$^{-1}$ \citep{mof93a} suggests that

498: the radio peak has shifted about $7.6'' \pm 2.2''$.  To compensate for this

499: expansion, the radio extraction region should be shifted toward the radio

500: peak by the same amount. Since this shift and the apparent shift described

501: above are small compared with the size of the extraction region, the

502: following discussion focuses primarily on the results obtained using the

503: cospatial radio fluxes.

504: 

505: \subsection{Curvature}

506: \label{curv}

507: 

508: While the values of $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom (dof) are acceptable

509: for each of the four sets of fits, a comparison of Tables~\ref{tab2} and

510: \ref{tab3} (and of Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab5}) reveals that the values

511: are uniformly lower when curvature is included as a free parameter. For

512: example, Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the 1, 2, and 3~$\sigma$ confidence

513: contours for region~6 in the parameter space defined by the electron

514: spectral index $\Gamma$ and the spectral curvature $a$.  If the cospatial

515: radio flux density is used, the results for this region suggest that an

516: uncurved spectrum (\ie, the dashed line at $a = 0 $) can be excluded at

517: about the 2.7~$\sigma$ confidence level.  Similar results, with varying

518: degrees of statistical significance, are obtained for the other 12 regions.

519: Table~\ref{tab2} lists the probability $P_{\Delta \chi^{2}}$ that the

520: reduction in the value of $\chi^{2}$ when curvature is included as a free

521: parameter is due to chance. The majority of the probabilities are less than

522: 1\%. Some are much less. The probabilities obtained using the F-test

523: ($P_{F}$) are within a factor of 2 of the values listed in Table~\ref{tab2},

524: except for regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, where $P_{F} = 0.058$, 0.0035, $9.9

525: \times 10^{-6}$, 0.0013, 0.0030, and 0.048, respectively. The relatively

526: large discrepancies between $P_{\Delta \chi^{2}}$ and $P_{F}$ for these

527: regions arise because the F-test depends on the value of $\chi^{2}/{\rm

528: dof}$ in addition to the value of $\Delta \chi^{2}$. Note that the values of

529: $\chi^{2}/{\rm dof}$ are significantly less than 1 for regions~1, 2, and 3

530: and that regions~5, 6, and 7 have the largest values of $\chi^{2}/{\rm

531: dof}$. Since the values of $P_{\Delta \chi^{2}}$ are typically larger (\ie,

532: less significant) than the values of $P_{F}$, only the values of $P_{\Delta

533: \chi^{2}}$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab2}. Collectively, these probabilities

534: show that the spectra are significantly better fitted by a curved

535: synchrotron model than an uncurved one.

536: 

537: The strength of this evidence depends on the location used to obtain the

538: radio flux density. The radio flux density for a region increases from the

539: cospatial location to the peak location. Since the appropriate location to

540: use lies between these two, the cospatial and peak flux densities represent

541: the lower and upper limits, respectively, on the radio flux density for the

542: region. The amount of curvature depends on the relative X-ray and radio

543: synchrotron fluxes.  Therefore, the relatively small cospatial flux density

544: yields an upper limit on the amount of curvature and the peak flux density

545: yields a lower limit.  Although the curvature values in Table~\ref{tab4} are

546: lower limits, even these results favor a curved synchrotron model.  Yet, as

547: noted above, the upper limit values in Table~\ref{tab2} are expected to be

548: closer to the actual amount of curvature because the appropriate location to

549: use for the radio flux density is much closer to the cospatial location than

550: the peak location.

551: 

552: The evidence of curvature cannot be attributed to an instrumental effect. It

553: must be associated with the synchrotron spectrum of the source.  For

554: example, the need for curvature could be eliminated if the effective area of

555: the X-ray detector system were too low, but the area would have to be in error

556: by an implausibly large factor of about 4.6. The use of a curved source

557: model is also compelling in the sense that the values of the best-fit

558: indices and curvature parameters are consistent with the expected values.

559: One expectation is that the best-fit index should be consistent with the

560: radio spectral index.  That is, the best-fit model should fit the radio

561: spectrum instead of simply intersecting it. The mean value of the index

562: $\Gamma = 2.221 \pm 0.013$ if curvature is included as a free parameter

563: (Table~\ref{tab2}). This value is consistent with the index obtained if only

564: the radio data are fitted with a power-law model ($\Gamma = 2 \alpha + 1 =

565: 2.20^{+ 0.16}_{- 0.18}$; Fig.~\ref{fig2}).  Yet this result is not

566: surprising, because the fitted value of the index is determined largely by

567: the shape of the radio spectrum. For comparison, the mean value of the index

568: $\Gamma = 2.031 \pm 0.017$ if an uncurved model is used (Table~\ref{tab3}).

569: This value differs significantly from 2.22 because the uncurved index,

570: unlike the curved index, is sensitive to the relative radio and X-ray

571: fluxes. While this result seems to be closer to the case of having the model

572: simply intersect the radio spectrum, an index of 2.03 is still marginally

573: consistent with the radio data because the radio data have relatively large

574: uncertainties. Otherwise, the radio data might provide a means of

575: discriminating between a curved and an uncurved model.

576: 

577: Another expectation is that the value of the curvature parameter should be

578: positive.  That is, the spectrum should flatten with increasing energy

579: \citep{bel87,ell91,ber99}.  The results in Table~\ref{tab2} show that the

580: best-fit values are greater than zero for all 13 regions.  If the spectra

581: are not curved, then the use of a curvature parameter may not be physically

582: meaningful and one might expect roughly half of the values to be negative.

583: If either sign is equally likely, then the chance probability that all 13

584: values have the same sign is 0.00024 $(2^{-12})$.

585: 

586: A third expectation is that the highest-energy electrons, the ones that

587: experience the full strength of the shock and that produce the X-ray

588: synchrotron emission, should have an effective spectral index of 2

589: \citep{ber02}. If equation~(\ref{eqn2}) is an accurate representation of the

590: shape of the electron spectrum, then the effective spectral index in the

591: X-ray band $\Gamma_{X} = \Gamma - a \log \left (p_{X} / p_{0} \right)$,

592: where $p_{X}$ is the flux-weighted mean momentum of the electrons that

593: produce the X-ray synchrotron radiation. To compute $p_{X}$ from the fitted

594: value of $\nu_{m}$ requires knowledge of the magnetic field strength

595: (eq.~[\ref{eqn04}]).  Since the results of our analysis do not yield an

596: estimate of the field strength, we assume that $p_{X} = 10$~${\rm TeV}\

597: c^{-1}$. (The results are rather insensitive to this assumption as long as

598: $p_{X}$ is within an order of magnitude of 10~${\rm TeV}\ c^{-1}$.) In this

599: case, $\Gamma_{X} = 2.005 \pm 0.027$. This index and the index obtained

600: using the uncurved model ($\Gamma = 2.031^{+0.017}_{-0.016}$) are both

601: consistent with the idea that the highest-energy electrons in \snr\ have a

602: spectral index of 2.0.

603: 

604: If the effective spectral index of the X-ray synchrotron--producing

605: electrons $\Gamma_{X} = 2$ (aside from the exponential cutoff), then the

606: expression for the effective spectral index can be inverted to obtain an

607: estimate of the expected amount of curvature as a linear function of the

608: spectral index $\Gamma_{r}$:

609: %

610: \begin{equation}

611: a_{\rm exp}

612:   =

613:   \frac{\Gamma_{r} - 2}{\log \left( p_{X} / p_{r} \right)}

614:   \label{eqn07}

615: \end{equation}

616: %

617: where $\Gamma_{r}$ is the effective spectral index in the radio band and

618: $p_{r}$ is the flux-weighted mean momentum of the electrons that produce the

619: radio synchrotron emission.  Although the value of $p_{X} / p_{r}$ is

620: unknown, $p_{X} / p_{r} = \left( \nu_{X} / \nu_{r} \right)^{1/2}$, where

621: $\nu_{X}$ and $\nu_{r}$ are the critical frequencies associated with $p_{X}$

622: and $p_{r}$, respectively. Since the X-ray data used here span the range

623: from 2 to 7~keV, $\nu_{X} \approx 9.0 \times 10^{17}$~Hz, the logarithmic

624: mid-point of this band. Similarly, $\nu_{r} \approx 660$~MHz, the

625: logarithmic mid-point of the range from 86~MHz to 5~GHz (Table~\ref{tab1}).

626: These estimates yield $\log \left( p_{X} / p_{r} \right) = 4.57$. This value

627: is rather insensitive to the uncertainties in $\nu_{X}$ and $\nu_{r}$. For

628: example, a change of a factor of 2 in the ratio $\nu_{X} / \nu_{r}$

629: corresponds to a change of only 3.3\% in $\log \left( p_{X} / p_{r}

630: \right)$. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig6} ({\sl dotted line}), a relation of

631: the form $a_{\rm exp} = \left( \Gamma_{r} - 2 \right) / 4.57$ is consistent

632: with the confidence contours for region~6.  This result is remarkable

633: because the contours in Figure~\ref{fig6} are sensitive to the relative

634: X-ray and radio fluxes, while equation~(\ref{eqn07}) has no such dependence.

635: Had the relative normalizations been significantly different, it is unlikely

636: that the contours in Figure~\ref{fig6} would have been consistent with the

637: dotted line. If $\Gamma_{r}$ is accurately represented by the best-fit index

638: (\ie, if $p_{r} \approx 1$~${\rm GeV}\ c^{-1}$) and if the cospatial radio

639: fluxes are used, then $a_{\rm exp} = (2.221 - 2) / 4.57 = 0.048$. This

640: expected value is consistent with the fitted value ($0.054 \pm 0.006$) at

641: the 90\% confidence level.  If the peak radio fluxes are used, then $a_{\rm

642: exp} = (2.198 - 2) / 4.57 = 0.043$, which is less consistent with the fitted

643: value ($0.033^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$). Like the expected radio flux, the

644: expected amount of curvature lies between the cospatial and peak values. If

645: the uncertainty associated with the radio flux leads to an uncertainty in

646: the amount of curvature comparable to the statistical uncertainty, then the

647: amount of curvature is most likely $0.05 \pm 0.01$.

648: 

649: Not only is the best-fit amount of curvature consistent with

650: equation~(\ref{eqn07}), it is also consistent with the amount of curvature

651: predicted for the proton (not electron) spectrum of \snr. For example,

652: Figure~\ref{fig7} shows the best-fit electron spectra for region~6. The

653: spectra are not curved below $p = 1\ {\rm GeV}\ c^{-1}$, which was true

654: during the fitting process, because the available data poorly constrain the

655: shape of the electron spectrum in this momentum range. The top pair of

656: dotted and dot-dashed curves are predictions described by \cite{ell00} for

657: the proton (not electron) spectrum of \snr. These spectra have been

658: normalized to match the solid black curve at $E = 0.9$~GeV. Since

659: \cite{ell00} computed their spectrum assuming a spectral index $\Gamma =

660: 2.0$, it is not appropriate to compare the solid curve with the upper pair

661: of dotted and dot-dashed curves. However, the lower pair of dotted and

662: dot-dashed curves have been multiplied by the energy-dependent factor $[E /

663: (0.9\ {\rm GeV})]^{-0.2}$ to match the best-fit spectral index $\Gamma =

664: 2.2$.  Aside from a possible difference in the assumed value of the cutoff

665: momentum, the lower pair of theoretical curves match the solid black curve

666: remarkably well.

667: 

668: The evidence of curvature is based on a set of assumptions.  One assumption

669: is that the electron spectrum has the form of equation~(\ref{eqn2}).  This

670: functional form excludes the effects of a synchrotron cooling break

671: \citep{vol05}.  If the magnetic field strength is as large as 150~$\mu$G,

672: then synchrotron cooling may significantly steepen the highest-energy end of

673: the electron spectrum \citep{kse05a}. Since the fits are sensitive only to

674: the net amount of curvature between radio and X-ray frequencies, inclusion

675: of a cooling break would require a larger amount of curvature (\ie, more

676: flattening than the amount of curvature reported here) to compensate for the

677: spectral steepening of the cooling break. Another assumption is that the

678: shape of the radio spectrum in each of the 13 regions is the same as the

679: shape of the radio spectrum of the entire remnant.  If this assumption is

680: invalid, then the best-fit values of the spectral index and curvature may be

681: inaccurate for any given region. Yet, the mean values of the index and

682: curvature are insensitive to such spatial variations.

683: %

684: A third assumption is that the shape of the synchrotron spectrum is uniform

685: inside each of the 13 regions.  Some young remnants, such as Cas~A

686: \citep{and96} and Kepler \citep{del02}, exhibit evidence of radio spectral

687: variations from one region to another. Therefore, the combination of the

688: synchrotron spectra of several small-scale features might naturally yield a

689: curved composite spectrum even if the synchrotron spectrum for each feature

690: is just a power law. Small extraction regions were used to minimize this

691: problem.

692: %

693: A fourth assumption is that our estimates of the fraction of the 843~MHz

694: flux from each region are accurate. As discussed above, the size of the

695: beamwidth leads to some uncertainty about the proper radio fluxes to use for

696: each region.  Yet, even the worst-case scenario, the results obtained using

697: the peak radio fluxes, requires some spectral curvature.

698: %

699: High-quality radio and X-ray spectra for many, small, spatially resolved

700: features in the remnant would eliminate the need for many of these

701: assumptions. Unfortunately, these kinds of data are not available for \snr.

702: 

703: Evidence of curvature in the synchrotron spectra of supernova remnants has

704: been reported previously. \citet{rey92} analyzed the remnant-integrated

705: radio spectra of Kepler, Tycho, and \snr.  They find hints of curvature for

706: Tycho and Kepler.  Unfortunately, a careful study of the radio emission from

707: Kepler \citep{del02} reveals intrinsic variations in the radio spectral

708: index from region to region.  Therefore, it is not possible to dismiss the

709: idea that the evidence of curvature in the remnant-integrated spectrum is

710: the result of the combination of several power-law spectra with different

711: spectral indices.  \citet{jon03} minimized this problem for Cas~A by

712: analyzing the radio-to-infrared synchrotron spectra of small, selected

713: features in the remnant.  The results of their analysis indicate that the

714: spectra of these regions flatten with increasing energy.  We find that their

715: spectra can be fitted with our curved spectral model if the curvature

716: parameter $a = 0.06 \pm 0.01$.  It is interesting that this value is

717: consistent with the mean amount of curvature for \snr\ ($0.05 \pm 0.01$).

718: Based on an analysis of X-ray data for a small feature on the northeastern

719: shell of RCW~86, \citet{vin06} report evidence of curvature in the

720: synchrotron spectrum of this remnant.  This claim would be strengthened if

721: the data were fitted with a model that includes the spectral index as a free

722: parameter and if there were similar evidence for more than one feature in

723: the remnant.

724: 

725: The evidence of curvature suggests that the pressure exerted by nonthermal

726: particles is large enough to modify the structure of the shock.  The

727: cosmic-ray pressure is most likely dominated by nuclei, not electrons. For

728: example, analyses of the synchrotron spectrum of \snr\ have been used to

729: estimate the total energy of the nonthermal electrons in the remnant.  These

730: estimates, which depend on the assumed value of the mean magnetic field

731: strength, include $5 \times 10^{47}$~ergs (for $B = 150$~$\mu$G; Berezhko

732: \etal\ 2002), $9 \times 10^{47}$~ergs (for $B = 40$~$\mu$G; Allen \etal\

733: 2001), and $7 \times 10^{48}$~ergs (for $B = 3$~$\mu$G; Dyer \etal\ 2001).

734: The remnant was recently observed with the H.E.S.S.\ gamma-ray telescope

735: \citep{aha05a}. If the upper limits on the TeV gamma-ray flux reported by

736: \citet{aha05a} are accurate (cf.\ Tanimori \etal\ 1998), then a combination

737: of these constraints and the measured synchrotron flux can be used to show

738: that the mean magnetic field strength must be at least 25~$\mu$G

739: \citep{aha05a}. In this case, the total energy in cosmic-ray electrons is

740: probably no larger than about $10^{48}$~ergs.  Since this energy is a small

741: fraction of the total internal energy ($\sim 10^{51}$~ergs), the nonthermal

742: electron pressure is most likely a small fraction of the ram pressure at the

743: shock. Yet, the total energy in cosmic-ray nuclei, which may be about 2

744: orders of magnitude larger than the total energy in cosmic-ray electrons,

745: could be large enough to modify the structure of the shock.

746: 

747: \subsection{Cutoff Frequency and Diffusion Coefficient}

748: 

749: In addition to providing evidence of curvature, fits to the synchrotron

750: spectral data provide a measure of the frequency at which the synchrotron

751: spectrum is cut off (eq.~[\ref{eqn04}]).  The results for the cutoff

752: critical frequency are listed in Tables~\ref{tab2}--\ref{tab5}.  A

753: comparison of Tables~\ref{tab2} and \ref{tab3} (and of Tables~\ref{tab4} and

754: \ref{tab5}) reveals that the frequencies for the curved spectra are somewhat

755: lower than the frequencies for the uncurved spectra because positive

756: curvature causes a synchrotron spectrum to flatten with increasing energy.

757: To compensate, the X-ray synchrotron spectrum is steepened by reducing the

758: cutoff frequency.  The solid and dashed black lines in Figure~\ref{fig7}

759: show that the two effects more or less offset one another to produce

760: electron (and, hence, synchrotron) spectra that have nearly the same shape

761: in the X-ray synchrotron--emitting band.

762: 

763: \citet{bam03}, \citet{rot04}, and \citet{bam08a} fitted X-ray spectra for

764: the bright rims of \snr\ with models that include the XSPEC synchrotron

765: component {\tt srcut}. Since {\tt srcut} does not include spectral

766: curvature, their results should be compared with the results listed in

767: Table~3.  To the extent that the regions used by \citet{bam03} and

768: \citet{rot04} are similar to the regions used here, this comparison reveals

769: that their cutoff frequencies are systematically higher than the frequencies

770: listed in Table~\ref{tab3}. This difference is due, in part, to a difference

771: in the spectral indices. Our best-fit spectral indices ($\Gamma =

772: 1.98$--2.12; Table~\ref{tab3}) are lower than the indices used by Bamba

773: \etal\ (2003; $\Gamma = 2.14$) and Rothenflug \etal\ (2004; $\Gamma = 2.2$).

774: While an index of about 2.2 is appropriate for the radio

775: synchrotron--emitting electrons (\ie, the electrons at momenta $p \sim

776: 1$~GeV~$c^{-1}$), an index of 2.0 seems to better describe the X-ray

777: synchrotron--emitting electrons (\ie, the electrons at momenta $p \sim

778: 10$~TeV~$c^{-1}$). For example, if the electron spectrum is not curved, then

779: the mean index is $2.031 \pm 0.017$ (Table~\ref{tab3}). If curvature is

780: included, then the effective mean index at 10~TeV is $2.005 \pm 0.027$ [\ie,

781: $2.221 \pm 0.013 - (0.054 \pm 0.006) \log(10~{\rm TeV}/1~{\rm GeV})$;

782: Table~\ref{tab2}].  In both cases, the results imply that the index near the

783: cutoff of the electron spectrum is about 2.0, which is consistent with the

784: model of \citet{ber02}. Berezhko \etal\ note that the electron spectrum is

785: steeper at radio synchrotron--emitting momenta than at X-ray

786: synchrotron--emitting momenta because GeV electrons sample only a portion of

787: the shock while the highest-energy electrons ``see'' the full strength of

788: the shock.  Although the same argument applies to the results of

789: \citet{bam08a}, who use a spectral index $\Gamma = 2.14$, their best-fit

790: break frequency for the entire northeastern rim is lower than the mean value

791: of $\nu_{m}$ in Table~\ref{tab3} [$\bar{\nu}_{m} = (9.07 \pm 0.98) \times

792: 10^{16}$~Hz]. If the normalization of the synchrotron spectrum is too high,

793: then the best-fit frequency may be reduced.  While the normalization

794: reported by Bamba \etal\ (2008; 7.72~Jy at 1~GHz) is approximately correct

795: for the entire northeastern rim, only the flux density of the portion of the

796: rim associated with the very narrow region in which the X-ray synchrotron

797: emission is produced should be used. For these reasons, we believe that the

798: cut-off frequencies reported here are relatively accurate.

799: 

800: The frequencies listed in Tables~\ref{tab2} and \ref{tab3} are plotted in

801: Figure~\ref{fig8} as a function of the position angles of the regions. This

802: angle is measured relative to the location of the center of the remnant

803: (Fig.~\ref{fig1}) and is expressed in degrees from north ($0\arcdeg$)

804: through east ($90\arcdeg$). As shown in Figure~\ref{fig8}, there may be an

805: azimuthal variation in the value of the cutoff frequency. A constant value

806: [\ie, the weighted mean value of $\left( 4.98 \pm 0.67 \right) \times

807: 10^{16}$~Hz, 90\% confidence level uncertainties] can be excluded at the

808: 2.5~$\sigma$ confidence level. \citet{rot04} also report evidence of an

809: azimuthal variation in the cutoff frequency.  Since the frequency $\nu_{m}

810: \propto p_{m}^{2} B$, these results imply that the cutoff momentum of the

811: electron spectrum and/or the magnetic field strength varies along the

812: northeastern rim.  Since it is not possible to independently determine both

813: $p_{m}$ and $B$ using the synchrotron spectral data alone, the present

814: analysis does not provide a means of identifying the cause of a variation in

815: the cutoff frequency.

816: 

817: As described in the Appendix, it is possible to use a fitted value

818: of the cutoff critical frequency to constrain the mean electron diffusion

819: coefficient $\bar{\kappa}$. The upper limit on $\bar{\kappa}$, as a fraction

820: of the mean Bohm diffusion coefficient $\bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$, depends on

821: the forward-shock velocity $u_{1}$, the cutoff critical frequency $\nu_{m}$,

822: and a function $f$ of the compression ratio $r$ and the ratio of the

823: upstream to downstream magnetic field strengths $B_{1} / B_{2}$

824: (eqs.~[\ref{eqna05}]--[\ref{eqna08}]).%

825: %

826: \footnote{The corresponding upper limit on the diffusion length $l_{m}

827: \approx \bar{\kappa} / u_{1}$ \citep{lag83}.  Using eqs.~(\ref{eqn03}) and

828: (\ref{eqna04}) yields $l_{m} \propto f u_{1} \nu_{m,2}^{-1/2} B_{2}^{-3/2}$.

829: If $f = 0.1875$, $u_{1} = 2300$--5000~km~s$^{-1}$, $\nu_{m,2} = 10^{17}$~Hz,

830: and $B_{2} > 25$~$\mu$G \citep{aha05a}, then $l_{m} < 0.17$--0.36~pc (\ie,

831: $l_{m} / d < 16''$--34$''$ if $d = 2.2$~kpc;

832: Winkler \etal\ 2003).}%

833: %

834: \ If $u_{1} = 2300$--5000~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{lam96,dwa98,gha02}, $\nu_{m} =

835: 1.1 \times 10^{17}$~Hz (Table~\ref{tab2}), and $f = 0.1875$ (\ie, $r = 4$

836: and $B_{1}/B_{2} \approx 0$), then $\bar{\kappa} \le (4.5$--$21)

837: \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$.  If the compression ratio is 5.2 \citep{kse05a}

838: instead of 4, then $f = 0.155$ and $\bar{\kappa} \le (3.7$--$18)

839: \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$.  If the cutoff frequency is about $10^{18}$~Hz

840: \citep{rot04} instead of $10^{17}$~Hz, then $\bar{\kappa} \le (0.5$--$2.3)

841: \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$. In each of these cases, the highest-energy electrons

842: have diffusion coefficients nearly as small as the Bohm coefficient (\ie,

843: are being accelerated about as fast as possible).

844: 

845: Similar results for the diffusion coefficient are reported by \citet{bam03},

846: \citet{yam04}, and \citet{par06}.  The latter two of these three use

847: equations similar to equation~(\ref{eqna05}) but obtain significantly

848: smaller limits for the diffusion coefficient because they use much larger

849: cutoff critical frequencies ($9.1 \times 10^{17}$ and $2.5 \times

850: 10^{18}$~Hz, respectively, instead of $1.1 \times 10^{17}$~Hz).

851: \citet{bam03} take a different approach.  They assume that the width

852: ($\psi_{1} d$) of the part of a filament that is in the upstream region is

853: determined by the diffusion length ($\kappa_{1} / u_{1}$) in this region. In

854: this case,

855: %

856: \begin{eqnarray}

857:   \frac{\kappa_{1}}{\kappa_{\rm B,1}}

858:     & =

859:     & \left( \frac{27 e^{3}}{4 \pi m^{3} c^{4}} \right)^{1/2}

860:       \left( \frac{B_{1}^{3} \sin \theta_{1}}{\nu_{m,1}} \right)^{1/2}

861:       \psi_{1} d u_{1}

862:       \label{eqn08}

863:     \\

864:     & =

865:     & 0.00262

866:       \left( \frac{B_{1}}{3\ \mu{\rm G}} \right)^{3/2}

867:       \left( \frac{\psi_{1}}{1\ {\rm arcsec}} \right)

868:       \left( \frac{d}{1\ {\rm kpc}} \right)

869:       \left( \frac{u_{1}}{10^{3}\ {\rm km}\ {\rm s}^{-1}} \right)

870:       \left( \frac{\nu_{m,1}}{10^{17}\ {\rm Hz}} \right)^{-1/2},

871:       \label{eqn09}

872: \end{eqnarray}

873: %

874: where $\kappa_{1}$, $\kappa_{B,1}$ [$= p c / (3 e B_{1})$], $B_{1}$,

875: $\nu_{m,1}$, and $\psi_{1}$ are the diffusion coefficient, Bohm diffusion

876: coefficient, mean magnetic field strength, cutoff critical frequency, and

877: filament width,%

878: %

879: \footnote{Here $\psi_{1}$ is the actual angular width, not the observed

880: angular width.}

881: %

882: respectively, in the upstream region and $u_{1}$ is the velocity of the

883: forward shock.  The numerical constant in equation~(\ref{eqn09}) was

884: computed assuming that the value of $\sin \theta_{1}$ is $\pi/4$, the

885: isotropic mean value. Like equation~(\ref{eqna05}), equation~(\ref{eqn09})

886: is valid only at the momentum $p = p_{m}$.  If the value of $B_{1}$ is

887: comparable to a typical interstellar field strength (\eg, 3~$\mu$G), then,

888: for reasonable values of $\psi_{1}$, $d$, $u_{1}$, and $\nu_{m,1}$,

889: $\kappa_{1}$ is uncomfortably small compared with the Bohm diffusion

890: coefficient.  There are at least three explanations for this apparent

891: dilemma.  One explanation is that, near the shock, $B_{1}$ may be amplified

892: by cosmic-ray streaming \citep{luc00,bel01,bel04}. For example,

893: equation~(15) of \citet{bel01} yields $B_{1} = 30$~$\mu$G (see Ksenofontov

894: \etal\ 2005) and, hence, $\kappa_{1} \sim \kappa_{\rm B,1}$, if the upstream

895: mass density $\rho_{1} = 2.4 \times 10^{-25}$~g~cm$^{-3}$ (\ie, $n_{1} =

896: 0.1$~cm$^{-3}$), the shock velocity $u_{1} = 2300$--5000~km~s$^{-1}$, and

897: the cosmic-ray pressure is about 30\%--14\% of the ram pressure,

898: respectively. Another explanation, which is mentioned by \cite{yam04}, is

899: that the rate of acceleration can exceed the Bohm limit (\ie, $\kappa_{1}$

900: can be less than $\kappa_{\rm B,1}$) if the magnetic field is parallel to

901: the shock (see Jokipii 1987). A third explanation is that the width of a

902: filament represents the size of the region in which the magnetic field is

903: strong \citep{poh05} instead of the diffusion length.  In this case,

904: equations~(\ref{eqn08}) and (\ref{eqn09}) are not useful because an

905: assumption upon which they are based is not valid.

906: 

907: Independent of the technique used to estimate or constrain the diffusion

908: length, it seems likely that the highest-energy electrons in \snr\ are

909: diffusing close to the Bohm limit. Otherwise, the rate of acceleration is

910: too low for electrons to reach energies high enough to produce the observed

911: X-ray synchrotron radiation. Yet, it is important to note that the limit on

912: the diffusion coefficient described in the Appendix (and the value obtained

913: using eqs.~[\ref{eqn08}] and [\ref{eqn09}]) is only an estimate, for the

914: following reasons:

915: 

916: 1. The fitted values of the cutoff frequency are sensitive to the assumed

917: shape of the electron spectrum at momenta near the cutoff in the electron

918: spectrum.  The actual functional form of the electron spectrum may be

919: significantly more complicated than equation~(\ref{eqn2}). As an example of

920: the extent to which differences in the shape of the electron spectrum can

921: affect the limit, consider the results obtained using the models with and

922: without curvature. If the curved model is used, then the maximum cut-off

923: critical frequency is $1.1 \times 10^{17}$~Hz (Table~\ref{tab2}) and

924: $\bar{\kappa} \le (4.5$--$21) \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$ (for $f = 0.1875$,

925: $B_{1}/B_{2} \approx 0$, and $u_{1} = 2300$--5000~km~s$^{-1}$).  If the

926: model does not include curvature, then $\nu_{m} = 3.0 \times 10^{17}$~Hz

927: (Table~\ref{tab3}) and $\bar{\kappa} \le (1.7$--$7.8) \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$.

928: 

929: 2. There is evidence that the cutoff frequency varies from one region to

930: another in \snr\ (Fig.~\ref{fig8}; Rothenflug \etal\ 2004). Here the

931: frequency used to compute the limit is the largest value in

932: Table~\ref{tab2}.  Therefore, our constraint on the diffusion coefficient of

933: \snr\ applies only to the region where the cutoff frequency is largest. The

934: limits for other regions of the remnant are larger.

935: 

936: 3. The limit is computed assuming that the electron momentum $p = p_{m}$.

937: Therefore, the limit only applies to electrons at the cutoff momentum [\ie,

938: $\bar{\kappa} = \bar{\kappa}(p = p_{m})$].  An advantage to using this

939: momentum is that the limit does not depend on the functional form of

940: $\bar{\kappa}(p)$.

941: 

942: 4. The limit is based on the assumption that the cutoff is due to

943: synchrotron losses.  If some other process, such as the escape of electrons

944: from the acceleration region or the length of time over which particles are

945: accelerated, determines the cutoff momentum, then the diffusion coefficient

946: is lower than the right-hand side of equation~(\ref{eqna05}).  If this

947: equation yields a limit close to 1, then the results indicate that

948: synchrotron losses are important for electrons that have momenta $p \ge

949: p_{m}$.

950: 

951: 5. The value of the function $f$ depends on the unknown compression ratio

952: and the unknown ratio of the upstream to downstream magnetic field strengths

953: (eq.~[\ref{eqna07}]).  A value of $f = 0.1875$ (\ie, $r = 4$ and $B_{1} /

954: B_{2} \approx 0$) is used here because the compression ratio is probably at

955: least as large as 4 \citep{blo01,kse05a,war05,cas08a}.  If $r > 4$, then $f

956: < 0.1875$ and our upper limit on the diffusion coefficient is overestimated.

957: Likewise, the upper limit is overestimated if $B_{1} / B_{2}$ is

958: significantly larger than zero.

959: 

960: 6. Equation~(\ref{eqna05}) was derived assuming an isotropic pitch-angle

961: distribution.  While such a distribution is expected if electrons diffuse in

962: the Bohm limit, the actual distribution may be different.

963: 

964: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

965: 

966: % 5. Conclusions

967: 

968: \section{Conclusions}

969: \label{con}

970: 

971: We have performed a joint spectral analysis of some {\sl Chandra} ACIS X-ray

972: data and MOST radio data for 13 small regions along the bright northeastern

973: rim of the supernova remnant \snr.  The data were fitted with a model that

974: includes a synchrotron emission component. This component is based on an

975: electron spectrum that has a momentum-dependent spectral index. The rate of

976: change in the index for each decade in momentum is a free parameter of the

977: fit. If the assumptions described in \S\ \ref{curv} are valid, then the

978: results of the spectral analysis, which show that the synchrotron spectra of

979: \snr\ are curved, can be interpreted as evidence of curvature in the

980: GeV-to-TeV electron spectra. The mean amount of curvature in the electron

981: spectra is qualitatively consistent with predictions of the amount of

982: curvature in the proton spectrum of \snr\ \citep{ell00}. The best-fit

983: power-law index at 1~GeV (\ie, at radio synchrotron--emitting momenta) is

984: $2.221^{+0.013}_{-0.012}$. Including the effect of curvature, the effective

985: spectral index at about 10~TeV (\ie, at X-ray synchrotron--emitting momenta)

986: is $2.005 \pm 0.027$ (90\% confidence level uncertainties).  This effective

987: index is consistent with the predictions of \citet{ber02}.

988: 

989: The evidence of curved electron spectra suggests that cosmic rays are not

990: ``test'' particles.  The cosmic-ray pressure at the shock is large enough to

991: modify the structure of the shock.  Since nonthermal electrons contain only

992: about 0.1\% (\ie, $10^{48}$~ergs) or less of the total internal energy, the

993: results provide indirect evidence of a much more energetic population of

994: cosmic-ray protons.  Collectively, the evidence of (1) spectral curvature in

995: Cas~A \citep{jon03}, RCW~86 \citep{vin06}, and \snr, (2) an unusually low

996: electron temperature in 1E~0102.2$-$7219 \citep{hug00}, and (3) a

997: compression ratio greater than 4 in Tycho \citep{war05} and \snr\

998: \citep{cas08a} suggests that efficient particle acceleration may be a common

999: feature of young, shell-type supernova remnants.

1000: 

1001: The results of the spectral analysis also determine the ``cutoff critical

1002: frequency'' $\nu_{m}$.  This frequency seems to vary from one region to

1003: another (see also Rothenflug \etal\ 2004), which implies that the

1004: exponential cutoff momentum of the electron spectrum and/or the strength of

1005: the magnetic field varies.  It is not possible to identify the cause of the

1006: variation using the synchrotron spectral data alone.

1007: 

1008: As described in the Appendix, the cutoff frequency can be used to set an

1009: upper limit on the mean diffusion coefficient $\bar{\kappa}$ of the

1010: highest-energy electrons.  Aside from the cutoff frequency, this limit

1011: depends (strongly) on the velocity of the forward shock $u_{1}$ and (weakly)

1012: on the compression ratio $r$ and the ratio of the upstream to downstream

1013: magnetic field strengths $B_{1} / B_{2}$.  If $\nu_{m} = 1.1 \times

1014: 10^{17}$~Hz, $u_{1} = 2300$--5000~km~s$^{-1}$, $r = 4$, and $B_{1} / B_{2}

1015: \approx 0$, then $\bar{\kappa} < (4.5$--$21) \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$, where

1016: $\bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}$ is the mean Bohm diffusion coefficient.  This result

1017: implies that at least some of the highest-energy electrons in \snr\ diffuse

1018: close to the Bohm limit (\ie, are accelerated about as fast as possible),

1019: which provides additional support for the idea that Galactic cosmic rays are

1020: predominantly accelerated by the shocks of supernova remnants.

1021: 

1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1023: 

1024: % 6. Acknowledgments

1025: 

1026: \acknowledgments

1027: 

1028: We gratefully acknowledge the guidance of Don Ellison.  This work grew out

1029: of discussions with him regarding the shape of cosmic-ray spectra.  We thank

1030: Chuck Dermer, whose encouragement led us to develop a synchrotron model for

1031: a curved electron spectrum.  This work benefited substantially from

1032: discussions with Tom Jones and Steve Reynolds and from comments by the

1033: anonymous referee. G.\ E.\ A.\ and J.\ C.\ H.\ are supported by contract

1034: SV3-73016 between MIT and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.  The

1035: Chandra X-Ray Center at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is

1036: operated on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.

1037: 

1038: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1039: 

1040: % 7. Appendix

1041: 

1042: \appendix

1043: 

1044: \section{Diffusion coefficient}

1045: \label{appa}

1046: 

1047: This appendix describes how measurements of or inferences about the shock

1048: velocity and cutoff frequency can be used to place an upper limit on the

1049: electron diffusion coefficient.  Since the mean rate of synchrotron losses

1050: cannot exceed the mean rate of energy gains at momenta below the cutoff of

1051: the electron spectrum,

1052: %

1053: \begin{equation}

1054:   \left( \frac{dE}{dt} \right)_{\rm acc}

1055:     \ge \

1056:     - \left( \frac{dE}{dt} \right)_{\rm sync}

1057:   \label{eqna01}

1058: \end{equation}

1059: %

1060: in this range.  The rate of acceleration at $p = p_{m} \gg mc$ is given

1061: by

1062: %

1063: \begin{equation}

1064:   \left( \frac{dE}{dt} \right)_{\rm acc}

1065:     =

1066:     \frac{p_{m} c}{3} \,

1067:     \left( \frac{\kappa_{1}}{u_{1}} + \frac{\kappa_{2}}{u_{2}} \right)^{-1}

1068:     \left( u_{1} - u_{2} \right)

1069:   \label{eqna02}

1070: \end{equation}

1071: %

1072: (Lagage \& Cesarsky 1983).  If the rates of synchrotron losses in the

1073: upstream and downstream regions are weighted by the mean residence times in

1074: these regions [$\Delta t_{1} = 4 \kappa_{1} / (u_{1} v)$ and $\Delta t_{2} =

1075: 4 \kappa_{2} / (u_{2} v)$; Webb \etal\ 1984], then

1076: %

1077: \begin{equation}

1078:   - \left( \frac{dE}{dt} \right)_{\rm sync}

1079:     =

1080:     \frac{e^{4}}{6 \pi \epsilon_{0} m^{4} c^{3}} \,

1081:     p_{m}^{2}

1082:     \left( \frac{\kappa_{1}}{u_{1}} B_{1}^{2} \sin^{2} \theta_{1} +

1083:       \frac{\kappa_{2}}{u_{2}} B_{2}^{2} \sin^{2} \theta_{2} \right)

1084:     \left( \frac{\kappa_{1}}{u_{1}} + \frac{\kappa_{2}}{u_{2}}\right)^{-1}

1085:   \label{eqna03}

1086: \end{equation}

1087: %

1088: (Blumenthal \& Gould 1970), where $\kappa_{1}$ and $\kappa_{2}$ are the

1089: upstream and downstream electron diffusion coefficients perpendicular to the

1090: shock, $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ are the speeds of the upstream and downstream

1091: material relative to the shock, $v$ is the velocity of a particle,

1092: $\epsilon_{0}$ is the permittivity of free space, $B_{1}$ and $B_{2}$ are

1093: the mean upstream and downstream magnetic field strengths, and $\theta_{1}$

1094: and $\theta_{2}$ are the pitch angles between the electron momentum and

1095: magnetic field vectors in the upstream and downstream regions, respectively.

1096: If $\sin \theta$ in equation~(\ref{eqn03}) is replaced by the isotropic mean

1097: value of $\pi / 4$ and if $\sin^{2} \theta_{1}$ and $\sin^{2} \theta_{2}$ in

1098: equation~(\ref{eqna03}) are replaced by the isotropic mean value of

1099: $\case{2}{3}$, then a combination of equations~(\ref{eqn03}),

1100: (\ref{eqna01}), (\ref{eqna02}), and (\ref{eqna03}) yields

1101: %

1102: \begin{eqnarray}

1103:   \frac{\bar{\kappa}}{\bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}}

1104:     & \le

1105:     & \frac{27 \pi \epsilon_{0} m c}{16 e^{2}}

1106:       \frac{f u_{1}^{2}}{\nu_{m,2}}

1107:     \label{eqna04}

1108:     \\

1109:     & \le

1110:     & 0.936

1111:       \left( \frac{f}{0.1875} \right)

1112:       \left( \frac{u_{1}}{10^{3}\ {\rm km}\ {\rm s}^{-1}} \right)^{2}

1113:       \left( \frac{\nu_{m,2}}{10^{17}\ {\rm Hz}} \right)^{-1},

1114:     \label{eqna05}

1115: \end{eqnarray}

1116: where

1117: %

1118: \begin{equation}

1119: \bar{\kappa}

1120:   =

1121:   \left( \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{u_{1}} \kappa_{1} +

1122:     \frac{B_{2}^{2}}{u_{2}} \kappa_{2} \right)

1123:   \left( \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{u_{1}} + \frac{B_{2}^{2}}{u_{2}} \right)^{-1},

1124:   \label{eqna06}

1125: \end{equation}

1126: %

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: \bar{\kappa}_{\rm B}

1129:   =

1130:   \left( \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{u_{1}} \kappa_{\rm B,1} +

1131:     \frac{B_{2}^{2}}{u_{2}} \kappa_{\rm B,2} \right)

1132:   \left( \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{u_{1}} + \frac{B_{2}^{2}}{u_{2}} \right)^{-1},

1133:   \label{eqna07}

1134: \end{equation}

1135: %

1136: the upstream and downstream Bohm diffusion coefficients $\kappa_{\rm B,1}$

1137: and $\kappa_{\rm B,2}$ are equal to $p_{m} c / (3 e B_{1})$ and $p_{m} c /

1138: (3 e B_{2})$, respectively, at a momentum $p = p_{m}$, $\nu_{m,2}$ is the

1139: critical frequency of an electron with this momentum in a magnetic field $B

1140: = B_{\rm 2}$,

1141: %

1142: \begin{equation}

1143:   f

1144:     =

1145:     \frac{r - 1}{r \left[ r + \left( B_{1} / B_{2} \right) \right]},

1146:   \label{eqna08}

1147: \end{equation}

1148: %

1149: and the compression ratio $r = u_{1} / u_{2}$.  The value of 0.1875 in

1150: equation~(\ref{eqna05}) was calculated assuming $r = 4$ and $B_{1} / B_{2}

1151: \approx 0$.  If the compression ratio is greater than 4 or $B_{1} / B_{2}$

1152: is significantly larger than zero, then $f < 0.1875$.  In no case can $f$ be

1153: larger than 0.25.  If $B_{1} = B_{2}$, then equation~(\ref{eqna05}) is

1154: identical to the analogous equation in \cite{sta06}. 

1155: Equation~(\ref{eqna05}) is similar to equation~(22) of \cite{aha99a},

1156: equation~(12) of \cite{laz04}, equation~(A.4) of \cite{yam04}, and

1157: equation~(22) of \cite{par06}, except these authors use the peak frequency

1158: instead of the critical frequency.  The latter three also use $\sin \theta =

1159: 1$ instead of $\pi / 4$.

1160: 

1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1162: 

1163: % 8. References

1164: 

1165: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Aharonian \etal(2005)]{aha05a}

1168:   Aharonian, F.\ A., \etal\

1169:   2005,

1170:   \aap,

1171:   437

1172:   135

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[Aharonian \& Atoyan(1999)]{aha99a}

1175:   Aharonian, F.\ A., \& Atoyan, A.\ M.\

1176:   1999,

1177:   \aap,

1178:   351,

1179:   330

1180: 

1181: \bibitem[Allen \etal(2001)]{all01}

1182:   Allen, G.\ E., Petre, R., \& Gotthelf, E.\ V.\

1183:   2001,

1184:   \apj,

1185:   558,

1186:   739

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{and89}

1189:   Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N.\ 1989, Geochim.\ Cosmochim.\ Acta, 53, 197

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[Anderson \& Rudnick(1996)]{and96}

1192:   Anderson, M.\ C., \& Rudnick, L.\

1193:   1996,

1194:   \apj,

1195:   456,

1196:   234

1197: 

1198: \bibitem[Bamba et~al.(2003)]{bam03}

1199:   Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., \& Koyama, K.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 827

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[Bamba et~al.(2008)]{bam08a}

1202:   Bamba, A., \etal\

1203:   2008,

1204:   \pasj,

1205:   60,

1206:   S153

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[Bell(1987)]{bel87}

1209:   Bell, A.\ R.\

1210:   1987,

1211:   \mnras,

1212:   225,

1213:   615

1214: 

1215: \bibitem[Bell(2004)]{bel04}

1216:   ---------.\

1217:   2004,

1218:   \mnras,

1219:   353,

1220:   550

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Bell \& Lucek(2001)]{bel01}

1223:   Bell, A.\ R., \& Lucek, S.\ G.\

1224:   2001,

1225:   MNRAS,

1226:   321,

1227:   433

1228: 

1229: \bibitem[Berezhko \& Ellison(1999)]{ber99}

1230:   Berezhko, E.\ G., \& Ellison, D.\ C.\

1231:   1999,

1232:   \apj,

1233:   526,

1234:   385

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[Berezhko \etal(2002)]{ber02}

1237:   Berezhko, E.\ G., Ksenofontov, L.\ T., \& V\"{o}lk, H.\ J.\

1238:   2002

1239:   \aap,

1240:   395,

1241:   943

1242: 

1243: \bibitem[Blondin \& Ellison(2001)]{blo01}

1244:   Blondin, J.\ M., \& Ellison, D.\ C.\

1245:   2001,

1246:   \apj,

1247:   560,

1248:   244

1249: 

1250: \bibitem[Blumenthal \& Gould(1970)]{blu70}

1251:   Blumenthal, G.\ R., \& Gould, R.\ J.\

1252:   1970,

1253:   Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.,

1254:   42,

1255:   237

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[Cassam-Chenai et~al.(2008)]{cas08a}

1258:   Cassam-Chenai, G., Hughes, J.\ P., Reynoso, E.\ M., Badenes, C., \&

1259:     Moffett, D.\

1260:   2008,

1261:   \apj,

1262:   680,

1263:   1180

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[Chevalier(1983)]{che83}

1266:   Chevalier, R.\ A.\

1267:   1983,

1268:   \apj,

1269:   272,

1270:   765

1271: 

1272: \bibitem[Decourchelle \etal(2000)]{dec00}

1273:   Decourchelle, A., Ellison, D.\ C., \& Ballet, J.\

1274:   2000,

1275:   \apj,

1276:   543,

1277:   L57

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[DeLaney \etal(2002)]{del02}

1280:   DeLaney, T., Koralesky, B., Rudnick, L., \& Dickel, J.\ R.\

1281:   2002,

1282:   \apj,

1283:   580,

1284:   914

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[Drury \etal(1989)]{dru89}

1287:   Drury, L.\ O'C., Markiewicz, W.\ J., \& V\"{o}lk, H.\ J.\

1288:   1989,

1289:   \aap,

1290:   225,

1291:   179

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[Dwarkadas \& Chevalier(1998)]{dwa98}

1294:   Dwarkadas, V.\ V., \& Chevalier, R.\ A.\

1295:   1998,

1296:   \apj,

1297:   497,

1298:   807

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[Dyer et~al.(2001)]{dye01}

1301:   Dyer, K.\ K., Reynolds, S.\ P., Borkowski, K.\ J., Allen, G.\ E., \&

1302:   Petre, R.\

1303:   2001,

1304:   \apj,

1305:   551,

1306:   439

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[Ellison \etal(2000)]{ell00}

1309:   Ellison, D.\ C., Berezhko, E.\ G., \& Baring, M.\ G.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 292

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[Ellison \& Reynolds(1991)]{ell91}

1312:   Ellison, D.\ C., \& Reynolds, S.\ P.\

1313:   1991,

1314:   \apj,

1315:   382,

1316:   242

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[Ellison \etal(2001)]{ell01}

1319:   Ellison, D.\ C., Slane, P., \& Gaensler, B.\ M.\

1320:   2001,

1321:   \apj,

1322:   563,

1323:   191

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[Eriksen \etal(2001)]{eri01}

1326:   Eriksen, K.\ A., Morse, J.\ A., Kirshner, R.\ P., \& Winkler, P.\ F.\

1327:   2001,

1328:   in AIP Conf.\ Proc.\

1329:   565,

1330:   Young Supernova Remnants,

1331:   ed.\ S.\ S.\ Holt \& U.\ Hwang

1332:   (Melville, NY: AIP),

1333:   193

1334: 

1335: \bibitem[Finkelstein \etal(2006)]{fin06}

1336:   Finkelstein, S.\ L., \etal\

1337:   2006,

1338:   \apj,

1339:   641,

1340:   919

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Flanagan \etal(2004)]{fla04}

1343:   Flanagan, K.~A, Canizares, C.~R., Dewey, D., Houck, J.~C., Fredericks,

1344:     A.~C., Schattenburg, M.~L.,	Markert, T.~H., \& Davis, D.~S.\

1345:   2004,

1346:   \apj,

1347:   605,

1348:   230

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[Gardner \& Milne(1965)]{gar65}

1351:   Gardner, F.\ F., \& Milne, D.\ K.\

1352:   1965,

1353:   AJ,

1354:   70,

1355:   754

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[Ghavamian \etal(2002)]{gha02}

1358:   Ghavamian, P., Winkler, P.\ F., Raymond, J.\ C., \& Long, K.\ S.\

1359:   2002,

1360:   \apj,

1361:   572,

1362:   888

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[Green(2006)]{gre06}

1365:   Green D.\ A.\

1366:   2006,

1367:   A Catalogue of Galactic Supernova Remnants (ver.\ 2006 April; Cambridge: 

1368:   Cavendish Lab.), http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[Houck \& Allen(2006)]{hou06}

1371:   Houck, J.\ C., \& Allen, G.\ E.\

1372:   2006,

1373:   \apjs,

1374:   167,

1375:   26%--39

1376: 

1377: \bibitem[Houck \& DeNicola(2000)]{hou00}

1378:   Houck, J.\ C., \& DeNicola, L.\ A.\

1379:   2000,

1380:   in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 216,

1381:   Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX,

1382:   ed.\ N.\ Manset, C.\ Veillet, \& D.\ Crabtree

1383:   (San Francisco: ASP),

1384:   591

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[Hughes \etal(2000)]{hug00}

1387:   Hughes, J.\ P., Rakowski, C.\ E., \& Decourchelle, A.\

1388:   2000,

1389:   \apjl,

1390:   543,

1391:   L61

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[Jokipii(1987)]{jok87}

1394:   Jokipii, J.\ R.\

1395:   1987,

1396:   \apj,

1397:   313,

1398:   842

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[Jones \etal(2003)]{jon03}

1401:   Jones, T.\ J., Rudnick, L., DeLaney, T., \& Bowden, J.\

1402:   2003,

1403:   \apj,

1404:   587,

1405:   227

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[Ksenofontov \etal(2005)]{kse05a}

1408:   Ksenofontov, L.\ T., Berezhko, E.\ G., \& V\"{o}lk, H.\ J.\

1409:   2005,

1410:   \aap,

1411:   443,

1412:   973

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[Koyama \etal(1995)]{koy95}

1415:   Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E.\ V., Hwang, U., Matsuura, M., Ozaki,

1416:     M., \& Holt, S.\ S.\

1417:   1995,

1418:   Nature,

1419:   378,

1420:   255

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[Kundu(1970)]{kun70}

1423:   Kundu, M.\ R.\

1424:   1970,

1425:   \apj,

1426:   162,

1427:   17

1428: 

1429: \bibitem[Lagage \& Cesarsky(1983)]{lag83}

1430:   Lagage, P.-O., \& Cesarsky, C.\ J.\

1431:   1983,

1432:   \aap,

1433:   125,

1434:   249

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[Laming \etal(1996)]{lam96}

1437:   Laming, J.\ M., Raymond, J.\ C., McLaughlin, B.\ M., \& Blair, W.\ P.\

1438:   1996,

1439:   \apj,

1440:   472,

1441:   267

1442: 

1443: \bibitem[Lazendic \etal(2004)]{laz04}

1444:   Lazendic, J.\ S., Slane, P.\ O., Gaensler, B.\ M., Reynolds, S.\ P.,

1445:   Plucinsky, P.\ P., \& Hughes, J.\ P.\

1446:   2004,

1447:   \apj,

1448:   602,

1449:   271

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[Long \etal(2003)]{lon03}

1452:   Long, K.\ S., Reynolds, S.\ P., Raymond, J.\ C., Winkler, P.\ F., Dyer,

1453:     K.\ K., Petre, R.\

1454:   2003,

1455:   \apj,

1456:   586,

1457:   1162

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[Lucek \& Bell(2000)]{luc00}

1460:   Lucek, S.\ G. \& Bell, A.\ R.\

1461:   2000,

1462:   \mnras,

1463:   314,

1464:   65

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[Milne(1971)]{mil71}

1467:   Milne, D.\ K.\ 1971, Australian.\ J.\ Phys., 24, 757

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[Milne \& Dickel(1975)]{mil75}

1470:   Milne, D.\ K., \& Dickel, J.\ R.\

1471:   1975,

1472:   Australian.\ J.\ Phys.,

1473:   28,

1474:   209

1475: 

1476: \bibitem[Moffett \etal(1993)]{mof93a}

1477:   Moffett, D.\ A., Goss, W.\ M., \& Reynolds, S.\ P.

1478:   1993,

1479:   \aj,

1480:   106,

1481:   1566

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[Parizot \etal(2006)]{par06}

1484:   Parizot, E., Marcowith, A., Ballet, J., \& Gallant, Y.\ A.\

1485:   2006,

1486:   \aap,

1487:   453,

1488:   387

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[Pohl \etal(2005)]{poh05}

1491:   Pohl, M., Yan, H., \& Lazarian, A.\

1492:   2005,

1493:   \apjl,

1494:   626,

1495:   L101

1496: 

1497: \bibitem[Protheroe(2004)]{pro04}

1498:   Protheroe, R.\ J.\

1499:   2004,

1500:   Astropart.\ Phys.,

1501:   21,

1502:   415

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[Reynolds \& Ellison(1992)]{rey92}

1505:   Reynolds, S.\ P., \& Ellison, D.\ C.\

1506:   1992,

1507:   \apjl,

1508:   399,

1509:   L75

1510: 

1511: \bibitem[Reynolds \& Gilmore(1986)]{rey86}

1512:   Reynolds, S.\ P., \& Gilmore, D.\ M.\ 1986, AJ, 92, 1138

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[Roger et~al.(1988)]{rog88}

1515:   Roger, R.\ S., Milne, D.\ K., Kesteven, M.\ J., Wellington, K.\ J., \&

1516:     Haynes, R.\ F.\

1517:   1988,

1518:   \apj,

1519:   332,

1520:   940

1521: 

1522: \bibitem[Rothenflug \etal(2004)]{rot04}

1523:   Rothenflug, R., Ballet, J., Dubner, G., Giacani, E., Decourchelle, A., \&

1524:     Ferrando, P.\

1525:   2004,

1526:   \aap,

1527:   425,

1528:   121

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[Schaefer(1996)]{sch96}

1531:   Schaefer, B.\ E.\

1532:   1996,

1533:   \apj,

1534:   459,

1535:   438

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[Stage \etal(2006)]{sta06}

1538:   Stage, M.\ D., Allen, G.\ E., Houck, J.\ C., \& Davis, J.\ E.\

1539:   2006,

1540:   Nature Phys.,

1541:   2,

1542:   614

1543: 

1544: \bibitem[Stephenson \etal(1977)]{ste77}

1545:   Stephenson, F.\ R., Clark, D.\ H., \& Crawford, D.\ F.\

1546:   1977,

1547:   \mnras,

1548:   180,

1549:   567

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[Tanimori \etal(1998)]{tan98}

1552:   Tanimori, T., \etal\

1553:   1998,

1554:   \apjl,

1555:   497,

1556:   L25

1557: 

1558: \bibitem[Uchiyama \etal(2003)]{uch03}

1559:   Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F.\ A., \& Takahashi, T.\

1560:   2003,

1561:   \aap,

1562:   400,

1563:   567

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[Vink \etal(2006)]{vin06}

1566:   Vink, J., Bleeker, J., van der Heyden, K., Bykov, A., Bamba, A., \

1567:   \& Yamazaki, R.\

1568:   2006,

1569:   \apjl,

1570:   648,

1571:   L33

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[V\"{o}lk \etal(2005)]{vol05}

1574:   V\"{o}lk, H.\ J., Berezhko, E.\ G., \& Ksenofontov, L.\ T.\

1575:   2005,

1576:   \aap,

1577:   433,

1578:   229

1579: 

1580: \bibitem[V\"{o}lk \& Biermann(1988)]{vol88}

1581:   V\"{o}lk, H.\ J., \& Biermann, P.\ L.\

1582:   1988,

1583:   \apjl,

1584:   333,

1585:   L65

1586: 

1587: \bibitem[Warren \etal(2005)]{war05}

1588:   Warren, J.\ S., \etal\

1589:   2005,

1590:   \apj,

1591:   634,

1592:   376

1593: 

1594: \bibitem[Webb \etal(1984)]{web84}

1595:   Webb, G.\ M., Drury, L.\ O'C., \& Biermann, P.\

1596:   1984,

1597:   \aap,

1598:   137,

1599:   185

1600: 

1601: \bibitem[Winkler \etal(2003)]{win03}

1602:   Winkler, P.\ F., Gupta, G., \& Long, K.\ S.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 324

1603: 

1604: \bibitem[Winkler \& Long(1997)]{win97}

1605:   Winkler, P.\ F., \& Long, K.\ S.\ 1997, \apj, 491, 829

1606: 

1607: \bibitem[Yamazaki \etal(2004)]{yam04}

1608:   Yamazaki, R., Yoshida, T., Terasawa, T., Bamba, A., \& Koyama, K.\

1609:   2004,

1610:   \aap,

1611:   416,

1612:   595

1613: 

1614: \bibitem[Zirakashvili \& Aharonian(2007)]{zir07a}

1615:   Zirakashvili, V.\ N., \& Aharonian, F.\

1616:   2007,

1617:   \aap,

1618:   465,

1619:   695

1620: 

1621: \end{thebibliography}

1622: 

1623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1624: 

1625: % 9. Figures

1626: 

1627: \plotone{f1b.eps}

1628: \figcaption[f1b.eps]{

1629: %

1630: Color-coded ACIS image of the northeastern rim of \snr. Red, green, and blue

1631: correspond to the energy bands 0.4--1, 1--2, and 2--7~keV, respectively.

1632: Most of the emission at energies greater than 1~keV is concentrated in the

1633: whitish filaments along the rim.  The edges of the six square CCDs used to

1634: observe the remnant are evident. The relatively high brightnesses of the CCD

1635: with the circle on it and the CCD in the lower left corner are due to

1636: enhanced low-energy sensitivities for these two devices. The circle at

1637: $\alpha = 15^{\rm h} 03^{\rm m} 51.56^{\rm s}$ and $\delta = -41\arcdeg

1638: 51\arcmin 18.8\arcsec$ (J2000) indicates the location of the nominal aim

1639: point of the telescope. The asterisk at $\alpha = 15^{\rm h} 02^{\rm m}

1640: 51.7^{\rm s}$ and $\delta = -41\arcdeg 56\arcmin 33.0\arcsec$ is the

1641: location of the center of the supernova remnant \citep{win97}.  The 13

1642: squares are the X-ray spectral extraction regions.

1643: %

1644: \label{fig1}}

1645: 

1646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1647: 

1648: \newpage

1649: 

1650: \plotone{f2.eps}

1651: \figcaption[f2.eps]{

1652: %

1653: Radio spectrum for the entire supernova remnant \snr.  {\sl Top}: The data

1654: points (Table~\ref{tab1}) and three models. The dashed line is the best-fit

1655: power law, $S(\nu) = 17.6^{+6.3}_{-4.8}[\nu/(1~{\rm GHz})]^{-\alpha}$~Jy,

1656: where $\alpha = 0.60^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$.  The dotted line is a power law using

1657: Green's (2006) spectral parameters [$S(\nu) = 19 [\nu/(1~{\rm

1658: GHz})]^{-0.6}$~Jy]. The solid line is the best-fit (curved) synchrotron

1659: model for region~6 divided by the factor 0.00175 (see Table~\ref{tab2}).

1660: {\sl Bottom}: Differences between the data points and the solid line,

1661: divided by the uncertainties in the data points.

1662: %

1663: \label{fig2}}

1664: 

1665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1666: 

1667: \plotone{f3.eps}

1668: \figcaption[f3.eps]{

1669: %

1670: An 843~MHz MOST image of \snr, courtesy of R.\ Roger \citep{rog88}. The

1671: ellipse at lower right indicates the half-power beamwidth.  The 13 black

1672: squares are the locations of the X-ray spectral extraction regions.  These

1673: regions were used to obtain the ``cospatial'' radio fluxes

1674: (Tables~\ref{tab2} and \ref{tab3}). The red squares are the locations used

1675: to obtain the peak radio fluxes (Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab5}). The

1676: ratios of the flux densities of the black and red regions to the total flux

1677: density are listed in the $\zeta$ columns of Tables~\ref{tab2}--\ref{tab5}.

1678: The bright spot at about $\alpha = 15^{\rm h} 04^{\rm m} 04^{s}$ and $\delta

1679: = -41\arcdeg 55\arcmin 48\arcsec$ is produced by an extragalactic source

1680: \citep{rey86}.

1681: %

1682: \label{fig3}}

1683: 

1684: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1685: 

1686: \plotone{f4.eps}

1687: \figcaption[f4.eps]{

1688: %

1689: ACIS spectrum for region~6 (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}) of the bright northeastern

1690: rim of \snr.  {\sl Top}: Sum of the source and background spectra ({\sl data

1691: points}) and the sum of the best-fit model and background spectra ({\sl

1692: solid line}).  The model displayed here includes spectral curvature as a

1693: free parameter (see Table~\ref{tab2}).  {\sl Bottom}: Differences between

1694: the data points and the solid line, divided by the uncertainties in the data

1695: points.

1696: %

1697: \label{fig4}}

1698: 

1699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1700: 

1701: \plotone{f5.eps}

1702: \figcaption[f5.eps]{

1703: %

1704: X-ray emission profiles along a $49 \arcsec$-wide strip passing through

1705: region~6 toward the center of \snr. The black histogram in the top panel is

1706: the 2--7~keV ACIS data. For comparison, the black line in the bottom panel

1707: is a model based on the assumption that the emission is produced in a

1708: uniformly emitting shell that is $6 \arcsec$ wide. The red curves are the

1709: data and model smoothed to the resolution of the MOST image. (The horizontal

1710: red bars are the 1~$\sigma$ widths of the Gaussian smoothing function.) The

1711: reduction in spatial resolution causes the peak to shift downstream, but the

1712: offset is small compared with the width of the extraction region. (The blue

1713: lines are the boundaries of region~6.) Therefore, it seems unlikely that the

1714: offsets between the X-ray and radio peaks (see Fig.~\ref{fig3} and

1715: Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab5}) are due to the different X-ray and radio

1716: resolutions.

1717: %

1718: \label{fig5}}

1719: 

1720: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1721: 

1722: \plotone{f6.eps}

1723: \figcaption[f6.eps]{

1724: %

1725: The 1, 2, and 3~$\sigma$ confidence contours for region~6 (see

1726: Fig.~\ref{fig1}) in the parameter space defined by the electron spectral

1727: index $\Gamma$ and electron spectral curvature $a$ (see eq.~[\ref{eqn2}]).

1728: The solid black and dashed red contours are the results obtained using the

1729: cospatial (Table~\ref{tab2}) and peak (Table~\ref{tab4}) radio fluxes,

1730: respectively. The plus signs indicate the best-fit values of the index and

1731: curvature.  The dotted black line is the expected relationship between

1732: $\Gamma$ and $a$ (eq.~[\ref{eqn07}]). The dashed black line is the line

1733: along which the electron spectrum is not curved (\ie, $a = 0$). For

1734: region~6, a positive curvature (\ie, a result above the dashed line) is

1735: favored at about the 2.7 and 1.6~$\sigma$ confidence levels for the black

1736: and red contours, respectively.

1737: % As described in the text, the black dotted line has the expected slope of

1738: % the linear relationship between the index and curvature parameters.

1739: %

1740: \label{fig6}}

1741: 

1742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1743: 

1744: \plotone{f7.eps}

1745: \figcaption[f7.eps]{

1746: %

1747: Best-fit electron number density spectra for region 6 (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}).

1748: The solid and dashed black lines are the curved (Table~\ref{tab2}) and

1749: uncurved (Table~\ref{tab3}) models, respectively, using the cospatial radio

1750: flux.  The solid red line is the curved model using the peak radio flux

1751: (Table~\ref{tab4}). The upper dotted and dot-dashed curves are the models

1752: for the proton (not electron) spectrum of \snr\ presented by \cite{ell00}.

1753: These lines are plotted only for momenta $p > mc$ (\ie, the range of momenta

1754: to which our fits are sensitive) and are normalized to the solid black line

1755: at a kinetic energy of 0.9~GeV.  As described in the text, the lower dotted

1756: and dot-dashed curves are the same pair of models multiplied by $[E / (0.9\

1757: {\rm GeV})]^{-0.2}$.  The amounts of spectral curvature in the solid lines

1758: are consistent with the amounts of curvature in the lower dotted and

1759: dot-dashed curves. From left to right, the three bracketed energy bands

1760: contain the electrons that are primarily responsible for the observed

1761: thermal bremsstrahlung, radio synchrotron, and X-ray synchrotron emission.

1762: %

1763: \label{fig7}}

1764: 

1765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1766: 

1767: \plotone{f8.eps}

1768: \figcaption[f8.eps]{

1769: %

1770: Cutoff frequency as a function of position angle (measured counterclockwise

1771: from north through east).  From right to left, the 13 pairs of points are

1772: for regions 1--13, respectively (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}). The black data points

1773: and 90\% confidence intervals are the results obtained using a curved

1774: electron spectrum and the cospatial radio fluxes (Table~\ref{tab2}).  The

1775: red data points, which have similar confidence intervals, are the results

1776: obtained using the peak radio fluxes (Table~\ref{tab4}). The dashed line is

1777: the weighted mean value ($4.98 \times 10^{16}$~Hz) of the black points.  The

1778: corresponding 90\% confidence level interval [(4.31--$5.65) \times

1779: 10^{16}$~Hz] lies between the two dotted lines. A constant value for the

1780: cutoff frequency can be excluded at the 2.5~$\sigma$ confidence level.

1781: %

1782: \label{fig8}}

1783: 

1784: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1785: 

1786: % 10. Tables

1787: 

1788: \clearpage

1789: \input{tab1.tex}

1790: 

1791: \clearpage

1792: \input{tab2.tex}

1793: 

1794: \clearpage

1795: \input{tab3.tex}

1796: 

1797: \clearpage

1798: \input{tab4.tex}

1799: 

1800: \clearpage

1801: \input{tab5.tex}

1802: 

1803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1804: 

1805: % 11. Finish

1806: 

1807: \end {document}

1808: 

1809: