1: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

2: 

3: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

4: 

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

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

7: 

8: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}

9: \newcommand{\rsun}{R_\odot}

10: 

11: \catcode`\@=11

12: \newcommand{\gapprox}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim>}}

13: \newcommand{\lapprox}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<}}

14: \newcommand{\propapprox}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim\propto}}

15: \newcommand{\@versim}[2]

16:   {\lower3.1truept\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip0.5truept

17: \ialign{$\m@th#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

18: \catcode`\@=12

19: 

20: \shorttitle{IR Observations of PWN 0540-69}

21: \shortauthors{WILLIAMS ET AL.}

22: 

23: \begin{document}

24: 

25: 

26: \title{Ejecta, Dust, and Synchrotron Radiation in B0540-69.3: A More

27: Crab-like Remnant than the Crab}

28: 

29: 

30: \author{Brian J. Williams,\altaffilmark{1}

31: Kazimierz J. Borkowski,\altaffilmark{1}

32: Stephen P. Reynolds,\altaffilmark{1}

33: John C. Raymond,\altaffilmark{2}

34: Knox S. Long,\altaffilmark{3}

35: Jon Morse,\altaffilmark{4}

36: William P. Blair,\altaffilmark{5}

37: Parviz Ghavamian,\altaffilmark{5}

38: Ravi Sankrit,\altaffilmark{6}

39: Sean P. Hendrick,\altaffilmark{7}

40: R. Chris Smith,\altaffilmark{8}

41: Sean Points,\altaffilmark{8}

42: \& P. Frank Winkler\altaffilmark{9}

43: }

44: 

45: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Dept., North Carolina State University., Raleigh, NC

46:     27695-8202; bjwilli2@ncsu.edu} 

47: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

48:     Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138;}

49: \altaffiltext{3}{STScI, 3700

50:     San Martin Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218;}

51: \altaffiltext{4}{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 665, Greenbelt, 

52:     MD, 20771} 

53: \altaffiltext{5}{Dept. of Physics

54:     and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD

55:     21218-2686;} 

56: \altaffiltext{6}{Space Sciences Laboratory,

57:     University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720-7450;}

58: \altaffiltext{7}{Physics Dept., Millersville University, PO

59:     Box 1002, Millersville, PA 17551;} 

60: \altaffiltext{8}{CTIO, Cailla 603, La Serena, Chile;} 

61: \altaffiltext{9}{Dept. of Physics, Middlebury College,

62:     Middlebury, VT 05753;}

63: 

64: 

65: \begin{abstract}

66: 

67: We present near and mid-infrared observations of the pulsar-wind

68: nebula (PWN) B0540-69.3 and its associated supernova remnant made with

69: the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}. We report detections of the PWN

70: with all four IRAC bands, the 24 $\mu$m band of MIPS, and the Infrared

71: Spectrograph (IRS).  We find no evidence of IR emission from the

72: X-ray/radio shell surrounding the PWN resulting from the forward shock

73: of the supernova blast wave. The flux of the PWN itself is dominated

74: by synchrotron emission at shorter (IRAC) wavelengths, with a warm

75: dust component longward of 20 $\mu$m. We show that this dust continuum

76: can be explained by a small amount ($\sim 1-3 \times 10^{-3} \msun$)

77: of dust at a temperature of $\sim 50-65$ K, heated by the shock wave

78: generated by the PWN being driven into the inner edge of the ejecta.

79: This is evidently dust synthesized in the supernova.  We also report

80: the detection of several lines in the spectrum of the PWN, and present

81: kinematic information about the PWN as determined from these

82: lines. Kinematics are consistent with previous optical studies of this

83: object. Line strengths are also broadly consistent with what one

84: expects from optical line strengths. We find that lines arise from

85: slow ($\sim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) shocks driven into oxygen-rich clumps in

86: the shell swept-up by an iron-nickel bubble, which have a density

87: contrast of $\sim 100-200$ relative to the bulk of the ejecta, and

88: that faster shocks ($\sim 250$ km s$^{-1}$) in the hydrogen envelope

89: are required to heat dust grains to observed temperatures. We infer

90: from estimates of heavy-element ejecta abundances that the progenitor

91: star was likely in the range of 20-25 $M_\odot$.

92: 

93: \end{abstract}

94: 

95: \keywords{

96: interstellar medium: dust ---

97: Magellanic Clouds ---

98: pulsars: individual (0540-69.3) ---

99: supernova remnants

100: }

101: 

102: \section{Introduction}

103: \label{intro}

104: 

105: Many core-collapse supernovae (SNe) leave behind a neutron star as a

106: compact remnant.  Some of these neutron stars are active pulsars which

107: inflate a bubble of relativistic particles and magnetic fields

108: confined by the ejecta or interstellar medium (ISM), known as a

109: pulsar-wind nebula.  The combination of a shell supernova remnant

110: (SNR) and associated pulsar-wind nebula can allow the investigation of

111: various issues of importance in supernova and pulsar physics,

112: including pulsar kicks, ejecta structure and composition, and particle

113: acceleration at relativistic shocks.  Pulsar-wind nebulae serve as

114: calorimeters for pulsar spindown energy loss, and as test systems to

115: study the behavior of relativistic shocks where the pulsar wind is

116: thermalized. We know of few cases of a ``normal'' radio and X-ray

117: shell supernova remnant containing an active pulsar and synchrotron

118: nebula.  Probably the best known such ideal case is the Large

119: Magellanic Cloud remnant B0540-69.3 (or ``0540'' for short). 0540 is

120: also one of a highly exclusive group of ``oxygen-rich'' SNRs, a group

121: that includes Cas A, Puppis A, G292+1.8, 1E0102-72.3, and N132D.

122: 

123: Theoretical studies of PWNe have either concentrated on the gross

124: evolution, assuming a homogeneous nebula

125: \citep{rees74,pacini73,reynolds84} or the detailed spatial structure,

126: neglecting evolution \citep{kennel84}.  Since the advent of the

127: new generation of X-ray observatories, the study of PWNe has

128: accelerated, with the identification of many new objects and more

129: detailed information on known ones (see Gaensler \& Slane 2006 for a

130: recent review).  \cite{chevalier05} modeled PWNe for different

131: assumptions about the ejecta profiles into which they expand, to

132: relate properties of supernovae to those of the PWNe.

133:  

134: PWNe produce extremely broad-band spectral-energy distributions

135: (SEDs), well described in various frequency regimes with power laws.

136: Most PWNe are observed in radio and X-rays; only a few are detected

137: optically (here as in many other ways the Crab Nebula is an

138: exception), and almost nothing is known about infrared or ultraviolet

139: spectra.  Typical radio spectra are featureless, and are well described by

140: power-laws with spectral indices $\alpha < 0.3$ ($S_\nu \propto

141: \nu^{-\alpha}$), with X-ray indices steeper by 0.5 -- 1.3 (see data in

142: Chevalier 2005).  Since simple models of synchrotron losses predict a

143: steepening of exactly 0.5, they lack some essential physics, which may

144: be constrained if the complete spectrum is known.  Galactic PWNe are

145: all found close to the Galactic plane, where they suffer from

146: extinction in optical and UV and confusion in IR.  Filling in the SED

147: between radio and X-rays can best be done with a high-latitude object.

148: For this reason as for many others, 0540 is an interesting target.

149: 

150: 0540 was first catalogued as a radio source of unknown nature, a minor

151: feature on a 408 MHz map of the 30 Dor region made with the Molonglo

152: telescope \citep{lemarne68}.  \cite{mathewson73} first classified it

153: as a supernova remnant on the basis of its steep radio spectrum, although

154: their optical survey did not detect it.  Early reports associated 0540 with 

155: the H$\alpha$ emission nebula N 158A 

156: \citep{henize56}, though that object is $3'$ from the centroid of the

157: early radio positions (which could be localized to better than

158: $10''$).  The absence of strong H$\alpha$ emission from 0540 further

159: demonstrates that the association with N 158A is erroneous.

160: %described there as having an optical diameter of $53'' \times 47''$.  

161: Subsequent radio observations \citep{milne80} gave an improved

162: spectral index of $-0.44$, typical for a shell supernova remnant.  The

163: first indication of something unusual was the X-ray detection

164: \citep{long79} with the {\sl Einstein} Observatory, in which 0540 was

165: the third brightest X-ray remnant in the LMC.  The X-ray spectrum was

166: shown to be featureless by \cite{clark82} with the {\sl Einstein}

167: Solid-State Spectrometer.  The first optical detection was reported by

168: Mathewson et al.~(1980), motivated by pre-publication reports of the

169: observations of Clark et al~(1982).  Mathewson et al.~did not see

170: H$\alpha$ but instead a spectacular ring in [O III] of $8''$ diameter,

171: with a smaller ring in fainter [N II] emission ($4''$ diameter) and no

172: appreciable Balmer emission. In addition to classifying 0540 as an

173: ``oxygen-rich'' SNR, \cite{mathewson80} also reported spectroscopic

174: observations indicating expansion speeds of order 1500 km s$^{-1}$.

175: The discovery of the 50 ms X-ray pulsar \citep{seward84} and optical

176: synchrotron nebula \citep{chanan84} added to the complexity and

177: interest of the system.  The optical emission was shown definitively

178: to be synchrotron by the discovery of polarization \citep{chanan90}.

179: The pulsar spindown timescale $P/2 {\dot P}$ is about 1660 yr

180: \citep{seward84}, somewhat longer than the kinematic age estimate

181: resulting from dividing the radius ($4'' = 1$ pc at our assumed

182: distance of 50 kpc) by the expansion speed of about 1500 km s$^{-1}$,

183: which yields a value of $\sim 700$ yr.  The pulsar spindown luminosity

184: is $1.5 \times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$.

185: 

186: \cite{reynolds85} modeled 0540 with the formalism of

187: \cite{reynolds84}, with the pulsar driving an accelerating synchrotron

188: nebula into the inner edge of expanding ejecta.  At that time, there

189: were no more than hints of extended structure that could be identified

190: with the outer blast wave.  \cite{reynolds85} found that the current

191: radio, optical, and X-ray observations could be explained without

192: requiring extreme values for the pulsar initial energy or other

193: parameters.  He deduced an initial pulsar period of about $30 \pm 8$

194: ms, that is, relatively slow, and concluded that the true age of 0540

195: was between 800 and 1100 yr, somewhat longer than the kinematic age

196: due to the pulsar-driven acceleration.

197: 

198: Up to this time, all observations were consistent with 0540 being a

199: standard Crab-like remnant (i.e., a nonthermal center-brightened radio

200: and X-ray nebula surrounding a pulsar), except for the hint of

201: larger-scale structure from radio images and from X-ray observations

202: \citep{seward84}.  Definitive information on the structure came from

203: higher-resolution radio observations with the Australia Telescope

204: \citep{manchester93} which showed a clear radio shell with diameter

205: about $65''$ surrounding a radio nebula with size (about $5''$ FWHM)

206: comparable to the bright X-ray nebula and [O III] ring.  The shell has

207: a radio spectral index $\alpha$ of about $-0.4$, while the central

208: nebula has $\alpha = -0.25$.  At this point it was clear that 0540 is

209: even more Crab-like than the Crab, as it possesses a clear outer blast

210: wave interacting with surrounding material, so that we could be sure

211: that the interior PWN is interacting with the inner SN ejecta as in

212: Reynolds \& Chevalier (1984).  X-ray emission from the blast wave was

213: confirmed with {\it Chandra} observations \citep{hwang01}; the

214: emission is brightest in the W and SW, like the radio.  Spectral fits

215: indicated abundances typical of the LMC, with a temperature of order 4

216: keV (for a Sedov blast wave model) and ionization timescale $\tau

217: \equiv n_e t = 3.7 \times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ s, though spectral

218: differences are apparent in different regions, and a hard component

219: may be called for.

220: 

221: The most thorough optical spectroscopic study to date was reported by

222: \cite{kirshner89}.  They confirmed the high velocities (FWZI $\sim

223: 2800$ km s$^{-1}$), and reported weak H$\alpha$ emission.  The average

224: centroid of SNR lines (as opposed to narrower lines from a nearby H II

225: region) was shifted by $+370$ km s$^{-1}$.  No [Ne III] was reported ($<

226: 1.5$ \% of [O III]); they concluded that this was a real abundance

227: deficit rather than a temperature or density effect.  A detailed study

228: by \cite{serafimovich04}, focusing on the optical nonthermal

229: continuum, revised the reddening and optical slope to give a power-law

230: index in the optical of $\alpha_o = -1.07.$ Recent observations by

231: \cite{morse06} report the discovery of faint [O III] emission

232: extending to a radius of $8''$, with a velocity of 1650 km s$^{-1}$.

233: They find the centroid of this velocity component to be the same as

234: that of the LMC, so that a large peculiar velocity of the system is

235: not required.

236: 

237: \cite{chevalier05} modeled 0540, along with several other PWNe, with

238: the goal of learning more about the SN explosion.  He obtained several

239: results for a simple dynamical model of a PWN expanding into ejecta of

240: various density profiles driven by a pulsar of given power. He

241: interpreted 0540 as the result of a SN Ib/c, an exploding Wolf-Rayet

242: star, with the prediction of a lack of significant emission from

243: hydrogen. However, recent optical observations by

244: \citet{serafimovich04} and \citet{morse06} have detected hydrogen. In

245: light of this, it is now believed \citep{chevalier06} that 0540 is the

246: result of a type IIP supernova.

247: 

248: The infrared observations of 0540, which was detected by the {\it

249: Infrared Space Observatory} (ISO) \citep{gallant99}, presented in this

250: paper promise to advance our understanding on several fronts. The

251: outline of our paper is as follows: In section 2, we describe the

252: observations and data reduction, and results are given in section

253: 3. In section 4.1, we discuss a general picture of the PWN, and

254: sections 4.2 and 4.3 discuss in detail the line emission and dust

255: continuum emission, respectively. In section 4.4, we discuss the

256: origin of the O-rich clumps, whose existence we posit in section

257: 4.2. Section 5 serves as a summary of our findings.

258: 

259: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

260: \label{obs}

261: 

262: During Cycle 1 of {\it Spitzer} observations, we obtained pointed

263: observations of 0540 with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) and the

264: Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) as part of a survey of

265: $\sim 40$ known supernova remnants in the Large and Small Magellanic

266: Clouds \citep{borkowski06,williams06}. Our IRAC observations (28

267: November 2004) consisted of a dither pattern of 5 pointings with a

268: frame time of 30 seconds for each frame. This pattern was used for all

269: 4 IRAC channels. Our MIPS observations (7 March 2005) differed based

270: on the module used. At 24 $\mu$m, we mapped the region with 42

271: overlapping pointings of 10 seconds each. At 70 $\mu$m, we mapped the

272: remnant with 94 pointings of 10 seconds each. At 160 $\mu$m, we mapped

273: the region with 252 pointings of 3.15 seconds. Since 0540 was not

274: detected at 160 $\mu$m, we do not discuss 160 $\mu$m data here. Both

275: the Basic Calibrated Data (BCD) and Post-BCD products were processed

276: with version S14.4 of the PBCD pipeline. We then used the {\it Spitzer

277: Science Center} (SSC) contributed software package MOPEX to ``clean

278: up'' the images, although the improvements were minimal. MOPEX was

279: able to remove some of the streaks caused by bright stars in the IRAC

280: images of the region.

281: 

282: Our images of the source are shown in Figure~\ref{images}. With a

283: radius of $\sim 4''$, the PWN is resolved by {\it Spitzer}, and it

284: clearly stands out from the background in IRAC and MIPS 24 $\mu$m

285: bands. In IRAC ch. 3 \& 4 (5.8 \& 8.0 $\mu$m), as well as MIPS 24

286: $\mu$m, there is a hint of a shell around the nebula, at approximately

287: $30''$. We considered the possibility that this shell is related to the

288: SNR, perhaps the collisionally heated dust from the outer blast wave,

289: as we have observed in several other SNRs. However, the morphology of

290: the IR shell does not correspond with any features in the X-ray or

291: radio shell. Spectroscopy of the shell shows it to be virtually

292: identical to the surrounding background unrelated to the remnant, so we

293: are forced to conclude that its apparent relation to the SNR is

294: coincidental.

295: 

296: In Cycle 2, we obtained spectroscopic pointings for 0540 using all

297: four instruments of the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS). Our observations

298: were done between 8-10 July 2005. We used the spectral mapping mode

299: for the low-resolution modules, and staring mode for the

300: high-resolution echelle modules. Figure ~\ref{coverage} shows our

301: coverage of the PWN with IRS overlaid on our MIPS 24 $\mu$m image. For

302: the short-wavelength, low-resolution module (SL) we obtained 5

303: parallel pointings with each of the two orders, with a step direction

304: of $3.5"$ perpendicular to the dispersion direction of the slit. A

305: total of 480 seconds (2 cycles of 240 s) was obtained for each slit

306: position. For the long-wavelength, low-resolution (LL) module, we

307: obtained 3 parallel pointings for each order with a step direction of

308: $10.5"$ perpendicular to the dispersion direction. A single cycle of

309: 120 seconds was used for LL. Since we are primarily interested in

310: determining the shape of the continuum from the low resolution

311: spectra, it was important to obtain spectra of the local background as

312: well as the source. Figure~\ref{images} illustrates the complex nature

313: of the local background and the difficulty of accurate background

314: subtraction. Because our source is only $\sim 8''$ in diameter, we

315: were able to extract background spectra from not only the parallel

316: slit pointings, but also from different parts of the slit containing

317: the source. We downloaded the Post-BCD data, pipeline version S15,

318: from the SSC. We used the Spitzer IRS Custom Extraction (SPICE)

319: software provided by the SSC to extract our spectra. Although the PWN

320: is slightly extended, it is close enough to a point source, especially

321: at longer wavelengths, to use the point source extraction mode in

322: SPICE.

323: 

324: In order to determine line profiles and strengths from the source

325: itself, we also obtained pointings with both the short-wavelength,

326: high-resolution (SH) and long-wavelength, high-resolution (LH) modules

327: in staring mode.  For these pointings, we centered the echelle

328: spectrographs only on the source, without a dedicated

329: background pointing. Since staring mode automatically provides 2 nod

330: positions for each pointing, we averaged the two to obtain a single

331: spectrum for SH and a single spectrum for LH. For SH, we used 3 ramp

332: cycles of 480 seconds each, for a total of 1440 s. The same total

333: integration time was obtained for LH, but was broken up into 6 cycles

334: of 240 s each.

335: 

336: 

337: \section{Results}

338: \label{results}

339: 

340: \subsection{Flux Extraction}

341: 

342: 0540-69.3 is located close to the 30 Doradus region of the LMC, and

343: thus is in a region of high infrared background. For our IRAC and MIPS

344: images, we simply used an annular background region to subtract off

345: the background flux from the PWN. Because the nebula is only about $4''$

346: in radius, we used an on-source region of $\sim 6''$ radius to be sure

347: to capture all of the flux from the object, and a background annulus

348: between $6''$ and $10''$ radius. At 70 $\mu$m, we derive an upper limit to the

349: flux that could be contained in the region based purely on error

350: analysis of the pixels. Our results, with a 3$\sigma$ upper limit at

351: 70 $\mu$m, are given in Table~\ref{fluxtable}.

352: 

353: \subsection{Spectral Extraction}

354: 

355: For each of the SL orders, our procedure was as follows. First, we

356: extracted spectra from three different, non-overlapping positions on

357: each of the 5 slits. The positions corresponded to the middle and the

358: ends of each slit. This gave us a total of 15 different spectra. Given

359: the spatially varying background in the vicinity of the PWN, we

360: elected to use only the background regions that were closest to the

361: source. Thus, we excluded the 4 ``corner" regions, leaving us with 11

362: total regions. We considered the middle 3 regions to be our

363: ``on-source" region (since flux from the PWN was extended into all 3)

364: and added them together. We then used the remaining regions as

365: background. As a check of this method, we integrated the background

366: subtracted spectra over the appropriate wavelengths corresponding to

367: the 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m IRAC channels, factoring in the spectral

368: response curves. Within errors, we obtained the same flux here as we

369: did using aperture photometry on the IRAC images. In

370: Figure~\ref{sltotal}, we show the short-low spectrum of the PWN with

371: the both the original source spectrum and background spectrum

372: overlaid.

373: 

374: For the LL slits, we followed a similar procedure. Because we only had

375: 3 parallel slit positions, we had 9 total spectra extracted from

376: spatially different areas. Because the LL slit is wider than SL (about

377: $10.5''$), we only considered the middle region of the middle slit

378: to be the on-source region. In keeping with our policy of only using

379: the closest background regions, we again excluded the 4 corner

380: regions, and only used the 4 regions corresponding to the 2 middle

381: regions of the parallel slit pointings, and the 2 extractions from the

382: ends of the middle slit. We then averaged the 4 background spectra and

383: subtracted the result from the on source spectrum to get a background

384: subtracted spectrum. Again, as a check on this method, we integrated

385: the resulting spectrum over the appropriate wavelengths, and with the

386: appropriate spectral response curves, calculated a 24 $\mu$m flux

387: that could be compared with that derived from aperture photometry on

388: the MIPS image. Within errors, there was excellent agreement between

389: these two methods. Figure~\ref{lltotal} shows the long-low spectrum of

390: the PWN.

391: 

392: In order to examine the shape of the synchrotron continuum from the

393: low-resolution data, it was necessary to remove the lines from the

394: spectra, as well as artifacts produced by obviously bad

395: pixels. Although we detected the PWN at all wavelengths, the spatially

396: varying background made our background subtraction procedure somewhat

397: uncertain. Using different background subtraction regions does produce

398: different results for the final spectrum, mainly due to the steep

399: north-south gradient in the infrared background in the region of 0540

400: (see Figure~\ref{coverage}). We believe our approach of defining an

401: ``annulus'' region and averaging the backgrounds around the source is

402: the best solution to this problem. However, it is not without

403: significant uncertainties. We tried several variations of different

404: background regions to see what the effects were. The largest

405: differences came in comparing the two same-slit background positions

406: with the two parallel slit background positions. We found variations

407: in the absolute flux level between these two choices to be on the

408: order of 40\%. Because we have no reason to favor one over the other,

409: we averaged them together with equal weights, thus creating our

410: annulus. Because of this, we have used caution in interpreting the

411: results of the extraction of the continuum. We also considered the

412: possibility that a large number of weak lines could be interpreted as

413: continuum. We reject this hypothesis for two reasons. First, there are

414: only a handful of IR lines predicted in this wavelength range, and

415: with the exception of [Ar III] at 8.99 $\mu$m, none of them even come

416: close to the detection limit based on our line models. Second, we have

417: high-resolution spectra of this region, and there is no evidence of

418: lines that would be unresolved in the low-resolution data.

419: 

420: \subsection{Line Fitting}

421: 

422: We used SPICE to extract spectra from the high-resolution data as

423: well. In order to fit the lines, we used the open-source software

424: Peak-O-Mat, which runs on SciPy (Scientific Python) and is available

425: from http://lorentz.sourceforge.net/. Peak-O-Mat is an interactive

426: program that is designed to fit curves using a least-squares algorithm

427: to a user-specified function. Because our extraction region contains

428: not only the entire expanding shell of the PWN, but also the

429: foreground and background emission from the surrounding ISM, we

430: expected to see both broad and narrow components for most of the lines

431: detected, as has been seen in optical spectroscopy of the nebula. We

432: assumed Gaussian profiles for both the broad and narrow components,

433: and fit these on top of a linear background. We manually removed

434: artifacts that were clearly caused by bad pixels, as determined by

435: examining the 2-D dispersed image. We also clipped bad pixels from the

436: backgrounds in the vicinity of each line, in order to make the fitting

437: of the actual lines easier with a longer tail for the Gaussian. We did

438: not remove or alter any of the pixels that were contained in the line

439: itself, except in the case of the [Ne II] line at 12.8 $\mu$m. There

440: was an obvious bad pixel that was contaminating the line structure at

441: around 12.86 $\mu$m. In order to correct for this, we interpolated the

442: strength of that pixel based on the strengths of neighboring

443: wavelength pixels.  Line profiles and strengths are discussed in

444: section~\ref{disc}. The complete high-resolution spectrum of the PWN

445: is shown in Figure~\ref{hightotal}.

446: 

447: We find that nearly all of the lines in the spectrum have a

448: two-component nature, with a narrow component we attribute to the

449: surrounding H II region, and a broad component coming from the

450: PWN. Figure~\ref{neIIIline} shows an example of a two-component fit to

451: a line, in this case [Ne III], at 15.5 $\mu$m. The spectral resolution

452: of both SH and LH is $\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ $\sim 600$, which

453: corresponds to a minimum FWHM of 500 km s$^{-1}$. Since we do not expect the

454: narrow component widths to be wider than this, we fixed the narrow

455: component widths to this value. Furthermore, the LMC has an overall

456: recession velocity relative to the Sun of +270 km s$^{-1}$, so all narrow

457: components should be redshifted by this amount. However, when we fixed

458: the centroid of the Gaussian for the narrow component to this

459: velocity, the fits were unacceptably poor. According to the { \it

460: Spitzer Observer's Manual}, the wavelength calibration in IRS is 1/5

461: of a resolution element, which for the high-resolution module

462: corresponds to 0.003-0.011 $\mu$m, or 100 km s$^{-1}$. Since we found that

463: all the narrow components seem to be off by a comparable systematic

464: shift, we believe that the uncertainties in wavelength calibration are

465: responsible. Thus, we measured the shift for each narrow component and

466: averaged them to obtain a value to which we would fix each narrow

467: component. We considered SH and LH separately, and calculated that

468: each narrow component was redshifted on average (relative to its rest

469: wavelength) 171 km s$^{-1}$ for SH and 230.5 km s$^{-1}$ for LH. Fixing the

470: centroids of the narrow components to these values returned much more

471: acceptable fits.

472: 

473: After we used Peak-O-Mat to determine the best values for the

474: parameters of either one or two Gaussians, we then used our own

475: least-squares algorithm to obtain errors. The errors listed on the

476: parameters in Table~\ref{linetable} are 90\% confidence limits,

477: corresponding to a rise in $\chi^{2}$ of 2.706 from its minimum

478: value. This procedure was repeated for each parameter

479: separately. Errors on line fluxes were obtained through the standard

480: error propagation formula.

481: 

482: \section{Discussion}

483: \label{disc}

484: 

485: \subsection{General Picture}

486: 

487: We aim at a self-consistent, semi-quantitative picture of the PWN that

488: accounts for the presence of lines (optical and IR), the extent of the

489: synchrotron nebula, and the source of the [O III] emission at $8''$

490: radius. We find it useful to first point out some contrasts between

491: 0540 and the most widely-known object of its class, the Crab

492: Nebula. Although 0540 has been referred to as ``The Crab's Twin,'' the

493: two differ in some important ways. The most obvious difference is the

494: lack of an outer shell in the Crab, while 0540's $30''$ shell has been

495: seen in both radio and X-ray observations. For the purposes of this

496: paper, however, the important differences lie in the PWN. In the Crab,

497: the size of the nebula decreases with increasing frequency, so that

498: the radio nebula is larger than the optical, which is larger than the

499: X-ray, etc. In 0540, the synchrotron nebula is approximately identical

500: in extent throughout all wavelengths, around $5''$. The other

501: fundamental difference is the presence in 0540 of emission located

502: beyond the synchrotron nebula (the [O III] halo). There is nothing

503: like this seen in the Crab, where the radio synchrotron emission

504: extends to the outer boundary of anything known to be associated with

505: the nebula.

506: 

507: In modeling the Crab Nebula, \cite{sankrit97} considered two models,

508: one a pure shock model and the other a pure photoionization model to

509: explain the optical emission. They concluded that shocks from an

510: expanding shell were more likely. In the case of 0540, however, a pure

511: shock model cannot reproduce the [O III] extended emission. We

512: therefore propose an extension to their models that incorporates both

513: a global shock {\it and} photoionization. The specifics of our model

514: will be described more fully in the sections below, but our general

515: picture of the nebula is as follows.  It is based on the dynamical

516: picture of Chevalier (2005; C05).

517: 

518: Approximately a millenium ago, a star exploded via the core-collapse

519: mechanism, leaving behind a pulsar, and sending a shock wave out into

520: the interstellar medium. The outer boundary of this forward shock is

521: now about 8 pc (angular distance of about $30''$) from the pulsar, and

522: the reverse shock into the ejecta is somewhere between $10'' - 30''$,

523: having not yet reached back to the inner ejecta. The pulsar has since

524: formed a pulsar-wind nebula, which itself is driving a shock into the

525: inner edge of the surrounding ejecta, which are in free expansion. The

526: shock wave heats the inner ejecta and sweeps them into a thin

527: shell. Since the shell of material is being continuously injected with

528: energy from the pulsar, it is accelerating and overtaking less dense

529: material as it expands. The shock speed relative to upstream material,

530: however, reaches a maximum and then begins to drop since the

531: free-expansion speed of the ejecta material is also higher at larger

532: radii. There is no reason, however, to expect the ejecta to be

533: completely homogeneous. The $^{56}$Ni synthesized in the explosion

534: will have heated the central ejecta by radioactive decay, causing them

535: to expand in an ``iron-nickel bubble'' \citep{li93}, and compressing

536: intermediate-mass ejecta into a denser surrounding shell.

537: 

538: We propose that the PWN shock has reached a radius of about 1.2 pc

539: from the pulsar, which corresponds to a size of $\sim 5''$, the size

540: of the nebula as determined by X-ray observations. The layer of

541: shocked ejecta is geometrically thin, bounded on the inside by a

542: contact discontinuity separating it from the the PWN proper, which is

543: the shocked pulsar wind. The shock has already encountered and

544: propagated through the low-density iron-nickel bubble and its

545: surrounding shell. That shell is likely to be highly clumpy

546: \citep{basko94}; shocks driven into the clumps of heavy-element ejecta

547: will be slow. Finally, at a sub-arcsecond radius we expect the

548: inward-facing pulsar wind shock where the relativistic pulsar wind is

549: thermalized. Interior to the shock driven into the ejecta, emission in

550: optical/IR is both thermal and non-thermal, with the dominant

551: component being synchrotron continuum emission from the relativistic

552: electrons.  However, multiple emission lines are clearly detected from

553: dense clumps and filaments of thermal gas.  In addition to this, we

554: identify a rising continuum in the mid-infrared above the synchrotron

555: continuum that we interpret as a small amount of warm dust,

556: collisionally heated by electrons heated by the shock. Most lines seen

557: in optical and infrared then come from dense clumps of ejecta, where

558: the shock wave has slowed significantly and become highly radiative.

559: 

560: What remains is to explain the faint [O III] emission seen at

561: $8''$. We propose that this is material that is still in free

562: expansion, i.e. unshocked, that has been photoionized by ultraviolet

563: photons emitted from the shockwave. The source of photoionization is

564: two-fold; ultraviolet photons from the synchrotron nebula and those

565: produced in fast radiative shocks both contribute appreciable amounts

566: of ionizing radiation. We show below that to within a factor of 2,

567: there are enough ionizing photons produced to account for the [O III]

568: halo at $8''$.

569: 

570: We have included, in Figure~\ref{cartoon}, a cartoon sketch of this

571: picture, which will be further discussed in the following sections. A

572: factor of a few is all we expect to be able to accomplish in modeling

573: the nebula, due to the large uncertainties involved.  These

574: uncertainties include, but are not limited to; nature of the

575: progenitor star (which affects the post-explosion density distribution

576: of the ejecta), heavy element abundances in the ejecta, degree of

577: clumping of the ejecta, etc. We have endeavored in the following

578: sections to point out places where uncertainties arise, and where

579: possible, to assign quantitative values to them.

580: 

581: \subsubsection{PWN Model}

582: 

583: C05 discusses a model, based on a thin-shell approximation, for a

584: pulsar wind nebula interacting with an inner supernova ejecta density

585: profile. We have used this model along with our observations to

586: determine various quantities about 0540, including how much hot gas

587: should be present. Observable quantities for the pulsar include period

588: ($P$), period derivative ($\dot P$), luminosity ($\dot E$) and for the

589: nebula, size ($R$) and shell velocity ($V_{sh}$). While the quantities

590: for the pulsar are fairly well established by previous observations,

591: those for the PWN are much more uncertain. Previous optical studies of

592: the remnant \citep{mathewson80, kirshner89}, as well as radio

593: observations \citep{dickel02} interpreted the PWN as a bubble of

594: radius $\sim 4''$, and the optical observations gave expansion

595: velocities less than 1400 km s$^{-1}$. Based on {\it Chandra}

596: observations, \citet{petre07} concluded the nebula was slightly

597: larger, with a radius of $\sim 5''$. We shall adopt $5''$ (1.2 pc) as

598: an estimate of the location of the ejecta shock.

599: 

600: However, \citet{morse06} detected faint [O III] emission in images

601: extending out to a radius of $\sim 8''$. Based on similarities to the

602: Crab Nebula, they interpreted this [O III] halo as being the outer

603: edge of the shock from the pulsar wind overtaking the slower moving

604: ejecta. Here we present an alternative interpretation of this [O III]

605: halo emission. We propose that it is undecelerated ejecta that have

606: been photoionized, rather than shock-ionized. The FWZI of the [O III]

607: emission from Morse et al. was 3300 km s$^{-1}$, which, given the

608: extent of 1.8 pc and our interpretation of this as undecelerated

609: ejecta, provides the remnant age of 1140 years. While this is somewhat

610: longer than the favored model of \citet{reynolds85}, it is at least

611: reasonable given other age estimates made by previous studies of the

612: object. Photoionization calculations are discussed in Appendix A.

613: 

614: As a first attempt to model the observations, we considered the case

615: of a spherically symmetric shock wave driven by the energy input from

616: the pulsar expanding into a medium with density profile described by

617: $\rho_{SN} = At^{-3}(r/t)^{-m}$. We considered different values of the

618: parameter $m$, as dynamical mixing between the ejecta and surrounding

619: medium would produce a complicated density structure. The swept-up

620: mass does not exceed $1 \msun$ in this model. Although this model did

621: a reasonably good job at producing shock speeds high enough to account

622: for the necessary dust grain heating rate, a spherically symmetric

623: model does not adequately reproduce line radiation observed in both

624: optical and IR. A slow shock into dense material is required to

625: explain these lines, and the spherical model cannot account for this,

626: since presence of lines requires a departure from the overall

627: homogeneous density profile. We present the spherically symmetric

628: calculations in Appendix B. A more robust model is required to explain

629: both the slow shocks required for lines and the faster shocks required

630: for dust emission. We will return to this picture at the end of the

631: following section, but we must first describe our line observations in

632: detail.

633: 

634: \subsection{Lines}

635: \label{lines}

636: 

637: Eight emission lines are detected in the Spitzer spectrum.  They

638: provide constraints on the density and temperature of the emitting

639: gas, and perhaps more importantly on the elemental abundances.  They

640: complement the optical spectra published by \citet{kirshner89} (K89),

641: \citet{morse06} (M06) and \citet{serafimovich05} (S05). We first

642: summarize the implications of the optical spectra, then consider shock

643: wave models for the combined optical and IR emission.

644: 

645: Several temperature estimates are available from the optical spectra.

646: The [O III] line ratio I(4363)/I(5007) gives temperatures of about

647: 24,000 K according to S05 or 34,000 K (K89).  According to the CHIANTI

648: database \citep{landi06}, the ratio given by K89 corresponds to 50,000

649: K, while that given in M06 implies 24,000 K.  K89 also find

650: temperatures $>$30,000 K from the [O II] I(7325)/I(3727) ratio and

651: $<$10,000 K from [S II] I(4072)/I(6723).  The [S II] ratio of M06

652: implies $T$ = 14,000 K.  Assuming a temperature of 10,000 K, S05 find

653: a density of 1400 -- 4300 $\rm cm^{-3}$, and at 14,000 K the range

654: would be 1700 -- 5000 $\rm cm^{-3}$.  The differences among the

655: various temperature estimates may result partly from different

656: reddening corrections and different slit positions, but it is clear

657: that the [O III] lines are formed in hotter gas than the [S II] lines.

658: The Spitzer data include only one pair of lines from a single ion, [Fe

659: II] I(17.9$\mu$)/I(26.0$\mu$), which is constrained to be larger than

660: 1.13.  Again using CHIANTI, this requires a density above about 5000

661: $\rm cm^{-3}$ and a temperature above 4000 K.  However, the ratio

662: depends upon the deblending of the [Fe II] and [O IV] lines at

663: 26$\mu$m, and the uncertainty may be larger than the formal value.

664: The density contrast between the optically emitting material and the

665: mean post-shock density from the global model indicates that as in the

666: Crab Nebula, optically emitting material is concentrated in dense

667: knots and/or filaments.

668: 

669: The next step in interpreting the spectra and constructing models is

670: to estimate the relative importance of photoionization and shock

671: heating.  In the Crab nebula, photoionization dominates, though shocks

672: are important for the UV lines produced at higher temperatures and for

673: compressing the gas to increase the optical emissivity

674: \citep{sankrit97}.  In the oxygen-rich SNRs, such as N132D and

675: 1E0102-7219, shock heating dominates \citep{blair00}.  0540

676: shows both synchrotron emission reminiscent of the Crab and extreme

677: heavy element enhancement.  A pure photoionization model with strongly

678: enhanced abundances and the observed density gives too low a

679: temperature to account for the [O II], [O III] and [S II] line ratios,

680: while shock models cool so rapidly that they produce little [O I] or

681: [S II] unless they produce no [O III] at all. Therefore, it seems

682: likely that a model of a shock including the PWN ionizing radiation is

683: needed.

684: 

685: We have computed models with the shock model described in

686: \citet{blair00} illuminated by the power law continuum described by

687: \citet{serafimovich04}.  Briefly, the code is similar to that of

688: \citet{raymond79} and \citet{cox85}, but it has been modified to

689: describe SNR ejecta with little or no hydrogen.  The most important

690: difference is that the cooling rate is enormous, so that the electron

691: temperature is well below the ion temperature in the hotter parts of

692: the flow.  The model is similar to those of \citet{itoh81} and

693: \citet{sutherland95}.  Unlike those models, we do not include the

694: photoionization precursor of the shock, because the ionizing emission

695: from the shock is considerably weaker than the ambient synchrotron

696: radiation.  In comparison with the spectra of Cas A, N123D and

697: 1E0102-7219, shock models have the problems that no single shock model

698: produces the observed range of ionization states, and that they tend

699: to predict too much emission in the O I 7774 \AA\/ recombination line

700: unless the cooling region is somewhat arbitrarily truncated (Itoh

701: 1988).  However, they do predict reasonable relative intensities from

702: the UV to the near IR for O III and O II. Below, we attribute the

703: truncation to mixing with hotter, lower density gas.

704: 

705: We assume a 20 $\rm km~s^{-1}$ shock with a pre-shock density of 30

706: $\rm cm^{-3}$, which produces a density of around 5000 $\rm cm^{-3}$

707: where the [S II] lines are formed.  The elemental abundances are O:

708: Ne: Mg: Si: S: Ar: Ca: Fe = 1: 0.2: 0.1: 0.1: 0.1: 0.1: 0.1: 0.1 by

709: number.  H, He and N are not included in the model, because it seems

710: likely that the lines from these elements arise in some other gas,

711: like either the quasi-stationary flocculi or the outer shell of ejecta

712: seen as very fast knots in Cas A \citep{kirshner77,fesen01}.  The

713: normalization of the power law flux assumes that the shocked gas is 1

714: pc from the center of the PWN.

715: 

716: The list of caveats is long.  There is undoubtedly a range of shock

717: speeds and pre-shock densities.  The shocked gas is unlikely to be a

718: uniform mixture of the various elements, and large variations in the

719: composition among different clumps, as observed in Cas A, are likely.

720: There may well be a significant contribution from unshocked

721: photoionized gas for some lines \citep[e.g.,][]{blair89}, as we shall

722: argue below for the [O III] halo.  The shock models are plane

723: parallel, with the power law illumination incident from the PWN,

724: while the X-rays are more likely to illuminate the shocked gas from

725: behind.  The models terminate somewhat arbitrarily at 250 K because of

726: numerical limitations.  This will affect the IR lines and the O I

727: recombination line at 7774 \AA .  Also, as a compromise between energy

728: resolution and energy range of the ionizing radiation, the power law

729: only extends to 2 keV.  This means that the inner shell ionization and

730: Auger ionization of S and Fe is not included.  Finally, the atomic

731: data in the code are somewhat out of date and need to be updated.

732: Nevertheless, the code gives a reasonable idea of the relative line

733: intensities.

734: 

735: To compare this model with our observed IR spectra, we must place the

736: Spitzer spectrum on the same scale as the optical spectra.  We

737: normalize the IR lines to [O III] 5007 = 100 by dividing the Spitzer

738: intensities by 4 times the [O III] 5007 intensity given by M06.  The

739: factor of 4 is meant to account for the fact that the $2''$ slit used

740: by M06 covers only about 1/4 of the remnant.  This is obviously not a

741: very accurate correction, but it is probably good to a factor of 2.

742: Since the relative fluxes of many optical lines differ by a factor of

743: 2 between M06 and K89, this is unfortunately the best we can do until

744: an optical spectrum of the entire remnant becomes available.

745: 

746: The result is shown in Table 3.  Overall, the agreement is

747: astonishingly good for such a simple model.  Several of the low

748: ionization lines, [O I], [Ne II] and [Si II] are underpredicted,

749: though the [Si II] line could be increased simply by increasing the

750: silicon abundance.  The ratio of the [S IV] to [S III] IR lines is too

751: low, but inclusion of the harder part of the power law spectrum would

752: improve that.  Inclusion of the harder X-rays would also increase the

753: intensity of the [Fe VII] line, though a lower pre-shock density or a

754: higher shock speed would have the same effect. The oxygen column

755: density of the model is only about $10^{14}~\rm cm^{-2}$, and the

756: thickness of the emitting region is only $6 \times 10^{11}$ cm.  If

757: the thickness were large enough to allow the remaining O$^+$ to

758: recombine, the predicted O I recombination line, which is comfortably

759: lower than the weakest detected lines, would increase to about 4 times

760: the apparent detection limit of K89.  The agreement would improve if

761: the argon abundance were cut in half, but otherwise the abundances

762: appear to match the observations.

763: 

764: The shock model shown in Table 2 produces $1.1 \times 10^{-14} ~\rm

765: erg~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$ in the [Ne III] 15.5 micron emission line, so the

766: flux shown in Table 1 would come from a region with surface area of $2

767: \times 10^{38}$ cm$^{2}$. This area is roughly equal to the area of a

768: sphere of $5''$ radius but the emission could come from many smaller

769: volumes with a total filling fraction of a few percent. Heavy-element

770: ejecta enter these slow shocks at a rate of $\sim 0.01 \msun$

771: yr$^{-1}$.

772: 

773: We conclude that, as in the Crab \citep{sankrit97}, the observations

774: can be explained by shocks that heat and compress the gas in the

775: radiation field of the PWN.  The shock heating seems needed to reach

776: the high temperatures seen in some line ratios and to provide the high

777: densities observed, while the photoionization heating strengthens the

778: low and moderate ionization lines.  Oxygen is about ten times as

779: abundant as the other elements.  The shock speed and pre-shock density

780: are not very well constrained, but a shock as fast as 80 $\rm

781: km~s^{-1}$ requires a low pre-shock density to match the observed

782: density, and that in turn implies a very high pre-shock ionization

783: state, overly strong [O IV] and overly weak [O II] emission.

784: 

785: In the last 100 years alone, about 1 $\msun$ of heavy-element ejecta

786: have been shocked, more than the total mass of the swept-up ejecta in

787: the global model described in Appendix B. This casts some doubt on the

788: validity of the global, spherically symmetric model, where density

789: within freely expanding ejecta was assumed to be a smooth

790: power-law. It is possible that the innermost ejecta have been swept-up

791: by an iron-nickel bubble, as inferred for SN 1987A by \cite{li93} and

792: modeled by \cite{basko94} and \cite{wang05} (see also brief

793: discussion in C05). We explored the possibility that the global shock

794: could be contained within the shell swept-up by the iron-nickel

795: bubble. In this one-dimensional picture, the shock passed through the

796: inner, low-density region in $\sim 50$ years, and has since been

797: contained within the high-density ($n \sim 30$ cm$^{-3}$) bubble

798: wall. We varied parameters of the model until the shock speed in the

799: bubble was approximately 20 km s$^{-1}$, as required by line

800: models. We find, however, that the mass flux of material entering the

801: shock throughout the remnant's entire lifetime has been unreasonably

802: high for this model, approximately $0.01 (t/1140$ yr$)^{-1/2} \msun$

803: yr$^{-1}$. In addition, a 20 km s$^{-1}$ shock, even at such density,

804: would not adequately heat dust grains to temperatures observed. Dust

805: heating is discussed in more detail in section~\ref{grains}.

806: 

807: We are forced to consider inhomogeneous ejecta with a fast global

808: shock to heat dust to observed temperatures, and slower shocks

809: producing observed line emission. We propose the following picture:

810: The shock swept through the low-density iron-nickel bubble interior

811: early in the life of the SNR. It then encountered the dense, clumpy

812: shell of the bubble, slowing down and further fragmenting the shell

813: into dense clumps, which are still being overrun by slow shocks,

814: currently 20 km s$^{-1}$. The global shock has now exited the

815: iron-nickel bubble shell, and is propagating through the ejecta with

816: relatively low ambient density. The speed of this shock is not well

817: known, but 250 km s$^{-1}$ would be sufficient to heat the dust to the

818: observed temperature of around 50 K (see below). Assuming pressure

819: equilibrium between the dense clumps and the ambient ejecta, we derive

820: a density contrast, given the difference in shock velocities, of $\sim

821: 150$. Support for this model can be inferred from {\it HST} images of

822: the nebula, as seen in Figure~\ref{hstimage}, which shows [O III]

823: filaments in the interior, not just in a shell. [O III] line profiles

824: (M06) also do not match the shape that would be expected from a

825: spherically symmetric expanding shell, i.e. a flat top. The slow

826: shocks driven into the dense clumps are in rough pressure equilibrium

827: with the fast shock driven into the less dense ejecta.

828: 

829: \subsubsection{Progenitor Mass}

830: \label{progenitor}

831: 

832: We have compared the abundances of heavy elements listed in

833: section~\ref{lines} with the predicted abundances of \cite{woosley95},

834: who consider abundance yields from core-collapse SNe ranging in mass

835: from 11-40 $M_\odot$ and metallicities between zero and solar. We

836: consider models with both solar and 0.1 solar metallicity, as this

837: range is most likely to reflect a massive star in the LMC. Our

838: abundances listed are somewhat uncertain, and result from fits to

839: optical and infrared line strengths. We considered the ratios of O to

840: Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe. The data do not single out a particular model from

841: \cite{woosley95}, but ratios of heavy elements to oxygen do favor a

842: low-to-medium-mass progenitor. High-mass progenitors ($\gapprox$ 30

843: $M_\odot$) are less favored, since they produce larger amounts of

844: oxygen relative to other elements. This interpretation is consistent

845: with that of \cite{chevalier06}, who favored a type IIP explosion for

846: this object based on observations of hydrogen in the spectrum. This is

847: also consistent with the idea that type IIP SNe should result from the

848: explosion of a single star of 8-25 $M_\odot$ \citep{woosley02}.

849: 

850: It is possible to quantify these results even further. If we assume a

851: constant heavy-element mass flux through the radiative shocks for

852: $10^{3}$ yr of 0.01 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ with our abundances listed

853: above, we get a total ejected mass in oxygen of $\sim 3.5 M_\odot$,

854: though this number should only be considered accurate to a factor of a

855: few, and is likely an upper limit. When compared with predictions from

856: models, this value favors stars in the range of 20-25

857: $M_\odot$. \cite{maeder92} gives slightly different abundance yields

858: for SNe, with lower overall oxygen abundances produced. In his model,

859: high-mass stars ($\gapprox 25 M_\odot$) actually produce less oxygen

860: than their lower-mass counterparts, due to mass-loss of outer layers

861: and inability to synthesize O from He and C. However, these massive

862: stars would be Wolf-Rayet stars, and can be ruled out based on the

863: detection of hydrogen in optical spectra.

864: 

865: 

866: \subsection{Dust}

867: 

868: One of the more obvious features of the continuum in 0540 as seen in

869: Figure~\ref{ll_sync} is the excess of emission above the extrapolated

870: radio synchrotron spectrum at longer wavelengths. A similar excess has

871: been observed in the Crab \citep{temim06}, and has been attributed to

872: warm dust. We have inferred the temperature and the amount of dust

873: present, and have examined several possible mechanisms for grain

874: heating.

875: 

876: In order to fit the long-wavelength excess above the continuum, it was

877: necessary to remove contributions from emission lines and the

878: underlying synchrotron continuum. The flux contributed by the lines is

879: negligible, but their presence makes fitting of a model dust spectrum

880: more difficult. We have thus clipped obvious emission lines and bad

881: pixels out of the spectrum for this analysis.

882: 

883: \subsubsection{Synchrotron Component}

884: 

885: In order to subtract the synchrotron component, it was necessary to

886: produce a model synchrotron spectrum that includes the break in

887: power-law indices from optical to radio. The synchrotron model used

888: here is one of a class of simple outflow models in which various quantities

889: are allowed to have power-law dependencies on radius: flow-tube width,

890: flow velocity, gas density (where mass loading might allow a range of

891: possibilities), and magnetic-field strength (Reynolds, in

892: preparation).  Such models can produce synchrotron-loss steepening in

893: spectral index both steeper and flatter than the homogeneous-source

894: value 0.5 \citep{reynolds06}.  Here the model, used for illustrative

895: purposes, invokes a simple outflow geometry with conical flow tubes

896: (width $w \propto r$), mass increasing as radius (due presumably to

897: mass loading), flow velocity decreasing as $r^{-2}$ roughly, and

898: magnetic field as $r^{-1}$.  The initial magnetic field at the

899: injection radius is $B_0 = 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$ G.  This model predicts

900: a decrease in size with frequency as $\theta \propto \nu^{-0.34}$,

901: which might be slow enough to be consistent with observations,

902: especially as it might take place along the line of sight.  While this

903: is not meant as a definitive model for 0540, it describes the data

904: well as shown on Figure~\ref{bbspectrum} and was used to estimate the

905: synchrotron contribution. 

906: 

907: The result of radiative losses on electrons above the break energy in

908: a flat ($N(E) \propto E^{-s}$ with $s < 2$) energy distribution is for

909: such electrons to move to just below the break energy, where they can

910: produce a perceptible ``bump''.  However, the ``bump'' is almost

911: undetectable unless $s$ is very close to 0; for the 0540 value $s =

912: 1.5$, there is almost no departure from the power-law below the break

913: frequency.  The model in Figure~\ref{bbspectrum} was calculated

914: including the redistribution of electron energies, and it can be seen

915: that the excess we observe below 24 $\mu$m cannot be attributed to

916: this cause.

917: 

918: \subsubsection{Fitting the Dust Component}

919: 

920: This left us with a residual rising continuum that we then fit with a

921: model dust spectrum. Since we presume that the dust present in 0540

922: would be newly formed ejecta dust, as seen in SN 1987A

923: \citep{ercolano07}, we have little {\it a priori} knowledge about the

924: grain-size distribution. However, since the wavelength of IR radiation

925: is much larger than typical ISM grain sizes, we adopt a model with a

926: single grain size, arbitrarily chosen to be $a=0.05$ $\mu$m in

927: radius. In any case, in the limit of $a$ $\ll \lambda$, the results

928: are independent of the choice of grain radius. We also do not know the

929: grain composition, as general results from the LMC should not apply to

930: ejecta dust. We thus consider two models; a graphite dust model and

931: the ``astronomical silicates'' model of \citet{draine84}. We calculate

932: the dust grain absorption cross section for both as a function of

933: wavelength. We then fit a simple modified blackbody model

934: (incorporating the grain absorption cross-section) to the data using a

935: least-squares algorithm designed for this model. We obtain a dust mass

936: of $\sim 3 \times 10^{-3}$ $\msun$ at a temperature of $50 \pm 8$ K

937: for silicate dust, while the resulting fit to the temperature with

938: graphite grains was slightly higher, $\sim 65$ K, and the required

939: dust mass was lower, $\sim 1 \times 10^{-3}$. 

940: 

941: The errors on the dust temperature are estimates based on using

942: different methods of removing lines and subtracting the background and

943: the underlying synchrotron spectrum. The resultant dust spectrum is

944: sensitive to these details. The dust mass should be considered

945: uncertain, and is probably only accurate to within a factor of a few,

946: as evidenced by the difference between derived masses for graphite and

947: silicate grains. Our data do not allow us to distinguish between

948: various dust compositions. It should also be noted that we are only

949: sensitive to dust that has been warmed by the shock wave from the

950: pulsar wind, and that there could be more dust that has not yet been

951: shocked, and is still too cool to be detected. Thus, our mass estimate

952: should be considered a lower limit.

953: 

954: \subsubsection{Grain Heating Mechanisms}

955: \label{grains}

956: 

957: We now turn our attention to heating mechanisms for this dust. We

958: first consider heating by the synchrotron radiation field from the

959: PWN. Since the spectrum of the synchrotron radiation is known in the

960: optical/UV portion of the spectrum and grain absorption cross-sections

961: can be calculated as a function of wavelength, it is possible to

962: estimate whether there is enough radiation to heat the dust to

963: temperatures observed. We calculate the optical depth of the dust

964: around the PWN, and integrate over all wavelengths from radio up 1

965: keV. Although the flux from the PWN is higher at longer wavelengths,

966: most of the absorption occurs in the optical/UV portion of the

967: spectrum, due to the steeply rising absorption cross-sections in this

968: regime. We compare this number to the luminosity in dust derived from

969: our dust model, $\sim 5 \times 10^{35}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. A simple

970: calculation showed that the radiation available falls short by several

971: orders of magnitude of what is necessary.

972: 

973: However, this method tells us nothing about the total amount of dust

974: that could be present to absorb the synchrotron radiation. Thus, to

975: further test this hypothesis, we calculated the temperature to which

976: dust would be heated if it were exposed to such an ultraviolet

977: radiation field. We find that dust would only be heated to $\sim{20}$

978: K. If this were the source of the emission seen in IRS, it would

979: predict a 70 $\mu$m flux that is several orders of magnitude higher

980: than the upper limit we have placed on emission there. Given that

981: these order of magnitude estimates are drastically inconsistent with

982: our observations, we consider heating by photons from the PWN to be

983: ruled out.

984: 

985: We then considered the somewhat more exotic possibility of the

986: observed excess arising from a protoplanetary disk around the pulsar,

987: unassociated with the nebula. It has long been known that planets can

988: form around pulsars \citep{wolszczan92}, and the supposition has been

989: that these planets arise from a protoplanetary disk around the pulsar,

990: the source of which has been attributed to several mechnisms

991: \citep{bryden06}. Various surveys of known pulsars have been made in

992: infrared and submillimeter wavelengths, but for the most part these

993: surveys have only produced upper limits on the dust emission present.

994: 

995: However, \citet{wang06} conducted a survey of neutron stars with IRAC

996: and found a debris disk around the young isolated neutron star 4U

997: 0142+61. The authors suggest that the age of the debris disk compared

998: to the spin-down age of the pulsar favors a supernova fallback

999: origin. The IRAC observations combined with K-band Keck-I observations

1000: suggest a multi-temperature thermal model with temperatures ranging

1001: from 700-1200 K, where the disk has inner and outer radii of 2.9 and

1002: 9.7 $\rsun$, respectively. Using the same model the authors use

1003: \citep{vrtilek90}, we calculate the necessary radius to reproduce

1004: observed fluxes for 0540 for a disk with temperature $\sim{50}$ K to

1005: be on the order of $10^{4}$ $\rsun$. A survey of disks around

1006: Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) \citep{durant05} found several

1007: candidates for fallback disks which consistently had IR(K-band)/X-ray

1008: flux ratios of order $10^{-4}$. Although we were not able to find any

1009: archival near-infrared observations of the PWN, we can make an

1010: estimate of this ratio by looking at the overall spectrum of the IRAC

1011: and optical points. An estimate of $5 \times 10^{-2}$ is reasonable

1012: for this ratio in 0540, significantly different than that found in the

1013: AXPs.  Additionally, \citet{wang07} observed 3 known AXPs with

1014: Spitzer, and found no mid-IR counterpart to any of them. Given these

1015: discrepancies between these cases and that of 0540, we do not believe

1016: that a protoplanetary disk around the pulsar is the origin of the

1017: far-IR excess.

1018: 

1019: What then is the cause? Collisional heating by hot gas heated by

1020: shocks driven into the ejecta can provide both a qualitative and

1021: quantitative explanation for the dust present. Grain heating

1022: rate, $\cal{H}$, goes as

1023: 

1024: \begin{equation}

1025: \mathcal{H} \propto n_ev_{e}T_{e} \propto PT_{e}^{1/2},

1026: \end{equation}

1027: %

1028: where $n_{e}$, $v_{e}$, and $T_{e}$ are electron density, velocity,

1029: and temperature, and $P$ is the pressure, $nT$. In the PWN, P

1030: is constant throughout the bubble, so that grain heating is more

1031: efficient in hotter gas. We find that the slow, radiative shocks are

1032: incapable of heating dust grains to temperatures much above $\sim 25$

1033: K. Faster shocks, and thus higher temperatures, are required to heat

1034: grains to observed temperatures.

1035: 

1036: To determine whether this is plausible, given the conditions in the

1037: object, it is necessary to make an estimate of the amount of gas that

1038: is still hot, i.e. capable of heating dust grains through collisions

1039: with electrons. The shock cooling time \citep{mckee87} is

1040: 

1041: \begin{equation}

1042: t_{cool} = 2.5 \times 10^{10} v^{3}_{s7}/\alpha \rho_{0},

1043: \end{equation}

1044: %

1045: where $v_{s7}$ is the shock speed in units of $10^{7}$ cm s$^{-1}$,

1046: $\rho_{0}$ is the pre-shock density in amu cm$^{-3}$, and $\alpha \ge

1047: 1$ is a parameter for the enhancement of cooling due to higher metal

1048: content. We find that a shock with velocity $\sim 250$ km s$^{-1}$

1049: would effectively heat dust to 50 K, with a pre-shock density of $\sim

1050: 8$ amu cm$^{-3}$, assuming the same pressure as in slow shocks. If the

1051: dust component is composed of graphite grains at $\sim 65$ K, a

1052: slightly faster shock of 325 km s$^{-1}$ is required. Using the above

1053: equation, we find that the amount of hot gas is on the order of a few

1054: tenths of a solar mass. This yields dust-to-gas ratios of a few

1055: percent. Given the unknown dust content within the inner ejecta of a

1056: supernova, we believe this is a reasonable explanation.

1057: 

1058: As a check on the constraints of such a fast shock, we calculated the

1059: expected X-ray emission from such a shock, and found it to be below

1060: the upper limits of thermal X-ray emission observed from the PWN,

1061: except for very metal-rich ejecta.

1062: 

1063: \subsection{Origin of O-rich Clumps}

1064: \label{clumps}

1065: 

1066: \cite{matzner99} considered a spherically-symmetric explosion of a 15

1067: $M_\odot$ RSG, and found that its He core and heavy element ejecta

1068: formed an approximately constant density, freely expanding ejecta

1069: core.  C05 rescaled their results to other values of ejecta mass

1070: $M_{ej}$ and kinetic energy $E_{51}$, arriving at the core density of

1071: 

1072: \begin{equation}

1073: \rho_ct^{3} = 2.4 \times 10^{9} (M_{ej}/15 M_\odot)^{5/2}

1074: E_{51}^{-3/2} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}\ s^{3}}.

1075: \end{equation}

1076: %

1077: An additional compression is expected from the iron-nickel bubble

1078: effect. For the centrally-located Ni with mass $M_{Ni}$, the adjacent

1079: ejecta are expected to be swept up into a shell with velocity 

1080: 

1081: \begin{equation}

1082: V_1 = 975 (M_{Ni}/0.1 M_\odot)^{1/5} (\rho_c t^{3}/10^{9} {\rm g\

1083: cm}^{-3}\ {\rm s}^{3})^{-1/5} {\rm km\ s^{-1}}.

1084: \end{equation}

1085: %

1086: The compression within the Fe-Ni bubble shell is at least by a factor

1087: of 7, expected in strong, radiation dominated shocks with $\gamma =

1088: 4/3$. The shell density increases inward from a shock front to a

1089: contact discontinuity separating the shocked ejecta from the Fe-Ni

1090: bubble. In one dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, Wang (2005)

1091: finds an average shell compression by a factor of 20. The average

1092: shell density is then 

1093: 

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \rho_1 t^{3} = 4.8 \times 10^{10} (M_{ej}/15 M_\odot)^{5/2}

1096: E_{51}^{-3/2} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}\ s^3}.

1097: \end{equation}

1098: %

1099: (Diffusion of radiation might reduce this compression by a modest

1100: factor of $\le 2$ -- Wang 2005.) At the current remnant's age of 1140

1101: yr, the shell density is 

1102: 

1103: \begin{equation}

1104: \rho_1 = 1.0 \times 10^{-21} (M_{ej}/15 M_\odot)^{5/2}

1105: E_{51}^{-3/2} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}}.

1106: \end{equation}

1107: %

1108: Because the dense iron-nickel bubble shell has been accelerated by

1109: low-density gas within the bubble, the shell is subjected to the

1110: Rayleigh-Taylor instability, and we expect it to fragment into

1111: clumps. Within a factor of 2, their expected density is equal to the

1112: preshock density for the O-rich clumps in 0540. We conclude that these

1113: clumps are remnants of the iron-nickel bubble shell.

1114: 

1115: \cite{matzner99} found a sharp density drop by a factor of 10

1116: at the interface between the He core and the H envelope, with an

1117: approximately constant density through much of the H envelope. The

1118: envelope density $\rho_{env}$ is then 

1119: 

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: \rho_{env} t^{3} = 2.4 \times 10^{8} (M_{ej}/15 M_\odot)^{5/2}

1122: E_{51}^{-3/2} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}\ s^3},

1123: \end{equation}

1124: %

1125: 200 times less dense than the iron-nickel bubble shell. This density

1126: contrast is similar to the density contrast inferred between the

1127: O-rich clumps and the more tenuous inter-clump gas. It is likely that

1128: the PWN nebula expands now into the H envelope. Because the dense He

1129: core has been decelerated by the less dense H envelope during the SN

1130: explosion, the ensuing Rayleigh-Taylor instability led to a

1131: large-scale macroscopic mixing between them. As a result, we expect a

1132: two-phase medium ahead of the PWN shell, consisting of more tenuous

1133: H-rich gas and denser He-rich gas. It is possible that shocks driven

1134: into the He-rich gas became radiative; that could explain the presence

1135: of H and He recombination lines in optical spectra of 0540.

1136: 

1137: The dense iron-nickel bubble shell should contain not only O-rich

1138: ejecta, substantial amounts of He-rich gas are also expected. Slow (20

1139: km s$^{-1}$) shocks driven into the dense He-rich gas may also become

1140: radiative; if so, they could produce strong lines of low ionization

1141: species. This could explain excess emission seen in optical and IR

1142: spectra for low ionization species (see discussion in \S~4.2). More

1143: detailed shock models are necessary to determine whether or not our

1144: picture is consistent with observations.

1145: 

1146: The identification of dense O-rich clumps in 0540 with a compressed

1147: and fragmented shell swept up by the iron-nickel bubble has important

1148: implications for ejecta detection in SNRs. Dense O-rich clumps are

1149: expected to produce strong optical or X-ray emission, once shocked and

1150: heated by the reverse shock. The optical emission should be most

1151: prominent for remnants with a particularly dense ambient medium,

1152: either of circumstellar (e.g., Cas A) or interstellar (N132D)

1153: origin. The entire class of optically emitting O-rich remnants may owe

1154: its existence to the iron-nickel bubble effect. For ejecta expanding

1155: into less dense ambient medium, X-ray emission is expected instead

1156: since clumps will be reverse-shocked much later when their densities

1157: dropped significantly because of free expansion. The O-rich clumps

1158: such as seen in 0540, even when shocked to X-ray emitting temperatures

1159: 10,000 yr after the explosion, will have substantial ($\sim 1$

1160: cm$^{-3}$) electron densities and emission measures. Even old remnants

1161: should show O-rich ejecta in their interiors, in agreement with the

1162: accumulating evidence gathered by modern X-ray satellites. A good

1163: example is a 14,000 yr old SNR 0049 $-$73.6 in the SMC, where {\it

1164: Chandra} imaging and spectroscopy revealed the presence of a clumpy

1165: O-rich ring in its interior \citep{hendrick05}. Hendrick et

1166: al. interpreted this ring as the shell swept up by the iron-nickel

1167: bubble, based on mostly theoretical arguments. Observational evidence

1168: for the iron-nickel bubble effect in 0540 strengthens this

1169: interpretation for 0049$-$73.6, and possibly for many more mature SNRs

1170: with detected ejecta emission in their interiors.

1171: 

1172: Dust formation is most likely to occur where ejecta density is the

1173: highest. The dense O-rich clumps likely contain dust; this dust may

1174: survive the passage through the radiative shock. If it were mixed into

1175: the much hotter ambient medium, this surviving dust may be the source

1176: of the observed infrared emission.

1177: 

1178: \section{Summary}

1179: \label{concls}

1180: 

1181: We have observed the supernova remnant B0540-69.3 with all three

1182: instruments aboard the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}. We detected the

1183: PWN in all 4 IRAC bands, as well as the 24 $\mu$m MIPS band. We did

1184: not detect any emission from the PWN at 70 $\mu$m, though the upper

1185: limit is rather unconstraining. We found no hint of detection at any

1186: wavelength of the $\sim 30''$ shell surrounding the PWN, as seen in

1187: X-rays and radio. Both the IRAC and the MIPS 24 $\mu$m photometric

1188: fluxes are consistent with the emission being primarily dominated by

1189: synchrotron emission, as synchrotron models extended both down from

1190: the radio and up from optical wavelengths roughly reproduce the flux

1191: seen in infrared. There is a change in slope of the overall

1192: synchrotron spectrum taking place in mid-infrared wavelengths, as is

1193: required to match the radio synchrotron power-law with the optical

1194: power-law.

1195: 

1196: The IRS spectra in the 10-37 $\mu$m region show a clear excess of

1197: infrared emission that cannot reasonably be attributed to any

1198: synchrotron radiation. We conclude that this excess emission is coming

1199: from a small amount ($\sim 1-3 \times 10^{-3} \msun$) of warm dust that

1200: has been formed in the expanding ejecta from the SN. We consider

1201: multiple heating mechanisms for this dust, ruling out both a fallback

1202: disk around the neutron star and heating by the synchrotron radiation

1203: from the PWN itself. We conclude that the dust is being heated by

1204: shocks being driven into the ejecta by the energy input from the

1205: pulsar. We derive a dust-to-gas mass ratio of the order of a few

1206: percent, which is reasonable given how little is known about dust

1207: content in the inner ejecta of SNe.

1208: 

1209: We consider the extended ($8''$ in radius) [O III] emission discovered

1210: by Morse et al. in HST images of the nebula, and attribute this to

1211: undecelerated ejecta that have been photoionized by photons from both

1212: the radiative pulsar wind shocks and the synchrotron radiation from

1213: the nebula. While there are not enough ionizing photons to do this

1214: assuming solar abundances, we show that realistic assumptions about

1215: the heavy element abundances in the ejecta, which are almost certainly

1216: not solar, provide a plausible explanation of the [O III] halo.

1217: 

1218: We also detect a number of lines coming from both the ejecta in the

1219: PWN and the background/foreground H II region. Most of the line

1220: structures contained both a broad and a narrow component, blended

1221: together due to the modest spectral resolution of the instrument. We

1222: performed multi-gaussian fits to the line structures to identify both

1223: of these components separately. The widths of the lines, as well as

1224: their redshift from their rest wavelength, are broadly consistent with

1225: previous line studies done in optical wavelengths. We find line widths

1226: of order 1000-1300 km s$^{-1}$, and shifts between broad and narrow

1227: components of lines of order 300-400 km s$^{-1}$. We model these

1228: lines, as well as those found in optical wavelengths, and conclude

1229: that slow ($\sim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) shocks driven into dense ($\sim 30$

1230: cm$^{-3}$), O-rich clumps of material provide the most satisfactory

1231: agreement with measured intensities. We find a preshock density

1232: contrast of $\sim 100$ between the dense, optically-emitting clumps

1233: and the rarefied gas behind the global shock, assuming rough pressure

1234: balance between the two phases.

1235: 

1236: Our global picture of the pulsar-wind nebula consists of several

1237: elements. An expanding, accelerating shell of material is driven into

1238: the inner ejecta from the supernova, passing through the iron-nickel

1239: bubble and the dense, clumpy shell, into which shocks are being driven

1240: at 20 km s$^{-1}$. The fast, global shock has exited the bubble walls,

1241: and has now reached a radius of about 1.2 pc. Beyond this shock, out

1242: to a radius of 1.9 pc, material has been photoionized by UV photons

1243: from both the shock and the synchrotron nebula, and this photoionized

1244: material is observed in the form of an [O III] halo. This picture is

1245: able to account for observations in the broad wavelength range from

1246: radio to X-rays.

1247: 

1248: Future, high-resolution observations of this object in infrared

1249: wavelengths, such as those which will be possible with the {\it James

1250: Webb Space Telescope}, will serve to further its understanding. Just a

1251: few of the possibilities that could be studied with such observations

1252: are: spatial identification of the location of infrared lines, further

1253: search for an infrared shell at $30''$ corresponding morphologically

1254: with the X-ray shell, and identification of the spatial location of

1255: the dust in the PWN. Further spectroscopy on the warm dust component

1256: could potentially constrain the composition of dust formed out of

1257: ejecta. The global shock is just one possible location for the hot gas

1258: capable of heating dust grains, it is also possible that the shocked

1259: and dusty heavy-element ejecta have been reheated in the turbulent and

1260: hot PWN interior. The order of magnitude increase in the spatial

1261: resolution of JWST can shed light on our hypothesis of the global

1262: picture of the PWN. In addition, deep ground-based spectra of the [O

1263: III] halo can confirm or refute the photoionization origin we have

1264: suggested here.

1265: 

1266: 

1267: \acknowledgments

1268: 

1269: We thank the referee for useful comments, and gratefully acknowledge

1270: support through Spitzer Guest Observer grant RSA 170640.

1271: 

1272: \newpage

1273: 

1274: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1275: 

1276: \bibitem[Basko(1994)]{basko94}

1277: Basko, M. 1994, ApJ, 425, 264

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[Blair et al.(1989)]{blair89}

1280: Blair, W.P., Raymond, J.C., Danziger, J. \& Mateucci, F. 1989,  ApJ, 338, 812

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[Blair et al.(2000)]{blair00}

1283: Blair, W.P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 667

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[Borkowski et al.(2006)]{borkowski06}

1286: Borkowski, K.J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L141

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[Bryden et al.(2006) and references therein]{bryden06}

1289: Bryden, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1038

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[Chanan \& Helfand(1990)]{chanan90}

1292: Chanan, G.A., \& Helfand, D.J. 1990, ApJ, 352, 167

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[Chanan, Helfand, \& Reynolds(1990)]{chanan84}

1295: Chanan, G.A., Helfand, D.J., \& Reynolds, S.P.

1296: 1984, ApJ, 287, L23

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Fransson(1992)]{chevalier92}

1299: Chevalier, R.A., \& Fransson, C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 540

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[Chevalier(2005), hereinafter C05]{chevalier05}

1302: Chevalier, R.A. 2005, ApJ, 619, 839

1303: 

1304: \bibitem[Chevalier(2006)]{chevalier06} 

1305: Chevalier, R.A. 2006, Proceedings of 2006 STScI May 

1306: Symposium on Massive Stars, astro-ph/0607422

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[Clark et al.(1982)]{clark82}

1309: Clark, D.H., Tuohy, I.R., Long, K.S., Szymkowiak, A.E.,

1310: Dopita, M.A., Mathewson, D.S., \& Culhane, J.L.

1311: 1982, ApJ, 255, 440

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[Cox \& Raymond(1985)]{cox85}

1314: Cox, D.P. \& Raymond, J.C. 1985, ApJ, 298, 651

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[Dickel et al.(2002)]{dickel02}

1317: Dickel, J.R., et al. 2002, ASPC, 271, 195

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[Draine \& Lee(1984)]{draine84}

1320: Draine, B.T., \& Lee, H.M. 1984, ApJ, 285,89

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[Durant \& van Kerkwijk(2005)]{durant05}

1323: Durant, M. \& van Kerkwijk, M.H. 2005, ApJ, 627, 376

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[Ercolano et al.(2007)]{ercolano07} 

1326: Ercolano, B., Barlow,M.J., \& Sugerman, B.E.K. 2007, 

1327: MNRAS, 375, 753

1328: 

1329: \bibitem[Fesen(2001)]{fesen01}

1330: Fesen, R.A. 2001, ApJS, 133, 161

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[Gaensler \& Slane(2006)]{gaensler06}

1333: Gaensler, B.M., \& Slane, P.O.

1334: 2006, ARA\&A, 44, 17

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[Gallant \& Tuffs(1999)]{gallant99} 

1337: Gallant, Y.A., \& Tuffs, R.J. 1999, ESASP, 427, 313

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[Hendrick, Reynolds, \& Borkowski(2005)]{hendrick05}

1340: Hendrick, S.P., Reynolds, S.P., \& Borkowski, K.J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 117

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Henize(1956)]{henize56}

1343: Henize, K. G. 1956, ApJS, 2, 315

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[Hwang et al.(2001)]{hwang01}

1346: Hwang, U., Petre, R., Holt, S.S., \& Szymkowiak, A.E.

1347: 2001, ApJ, 560, 742

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[Itoh(1981)]{itoh81}

1350: Itoh, H. 1981, PASJ, 33, 5211

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[Itoh(1988)]{itoh88}

1353: Itoh, H. 1988, PASJ, 40, 673

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[Kaaret et al.(2001)]{kaaret01}

1356: Kaaret, P., et al. 

1357: 2001, ApJ, 546, 1159

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[Kennel \& Coroniti(1984)]{kennel84}

1360: Kennel, C.F., \& Coroniti, F.V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 710

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[Kirshner \& Chevalier(1977)]{kirshner77}

1363: Kirshner, R.P. \& Chevalier, R.A. 1977, ApJ, 218, 142

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[Kirshner et al.(1989)]{kirshner89}

1366: Kirshner, R.P., Morse, J.A., Winkler, P.F., \& Blair, W.P.

1367: 1989, ApJ, 342, 260

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[Landi et al.(2006)]{landi06}

1370: Landi, E., Del Zanna, G., Young, P.R., Dere, K.P., Mason, H.E. \& Landini, M.

1371: 2006, ApJS, 162, 261

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[Le Marne(1968)]{lemarne68}

1374: Le Marne, A.E. 1968, MNRAS, 139, 461

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[Li, McCray, \& Sunyaev(1993)]{li93}

1377: Li, H., McCray, R., \& Sunyaev, R.A. 1993, ApJ 419, 824

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[Livingstone et al.(2005)]{livingstone05}

1380: Livingstone, M.A., Kaspi, V.M., \& Gabriil, F.P. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1095

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[Long \& Helfand(1979)]{long79}

1383: Long, K.S.,  \& Helfand, D.J. 1979, ApJ, 234, L77

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[Maeder(1992)]{maeder92}

1386: Maeder, A. 1992, A \& A, 264, 105

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[Manchester, Staveley-Smith, \& Kesteven(1993)]{manchester93}

1389: Manchester, R.N., Staveley-Smith, L., \& Kesteven, M.J.

1390: 1993, ApJ, 411, 756

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[Mathewson \& Clarke(1973)]{mathewson73}

1393: Mathewson, D.S., \& Clarke, J.N.

1394: 1973, ApJ, 180, 725

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[Mathewson et al.(1980)]{mathewson80}

1397: Mathewson, D.S., Dopita, M.A., Tuohy, I.R., Ford, V.L., 1980, ApJ, 242, L73

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[Matzner \& McKee(1999)]{matzner99}

1400: Matzner, C.D., \& McKee, C.F., 1999, ApJ, 510, 379

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[McKee(1987)]{mckee87}

1403: McKee, C.F., 1987, in Spectroscopy of Astrophysical Plasmas, edited by 

1404: A. Dalgarno and D. Layzer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), p. 226

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[Mills, Turtle, \& Watkinson(1978)]{mills78}

1407: Mills, B.Y., Turtle, A.J., \& Watkinson, A. 

1408: 1978, MNRAS, 185, 263

1409: 

1410: \bibitem[Milne, Caswell, \& Haynes(1980)]{milne80}

1411: Milne, J.K., Caswell, J.L., \& Haynes, R.F.

1412: 1980, MNRAS, 191, 469

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[Morse et al.(2006)]{morse06} 

1415: Morse, J.A., Smith, N., Blair, W.P., Kirshner, R.P., Winkler, P.F. 

1416: \& Hughes, J.P., 2006, ApJ, 644,188

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[Pacini \& Salvati(1973)]{pacini73}

1419: Pacini, F., \& Salvati, M. 1983, ApJ, 186, 249

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[Petre et al.(2007)]{petre07}

1422: Petre, R., Hwang, U., Holt, S.S., Safi-Harb, S., Williams, R., 2007,

1423:  ApJ, 662, 988

1424: 

1425: \bibitem[Pun et al.(2002)]{pun02}

1426: Pun, C.S.J. et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 906

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[Raymond(1979)]{raymond79}

1429: Raymond, J. 1979, ApJS, 39, 1

1430: 

1431: \bibitem[Raymond, Cox, \& Smith(1976)]{raymond76}

1432: Raymond, J.C., Cox, D.P., \& Smith, B.W.

1433: 1976, ApJ, 204, 290

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[Rees \& Gunn(1974)]{rees74}

1436: Rees, M.J., \& Gunn, J.E. 

1437: 1974, MNRAS, 161, 1

1438: 

1439: \bibitem[Reynolds(2006)]{reynolds06}

1440: Reynolds, S.P. 2006, BAAS, 38, 343

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[Reynolds(1985)]{reynolds85}

1443: Reynolds, S.P. 1985, ApJ, 291, 152

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[Reynolds \& Chevalier(1984)]{reynolds84}

1446: Reynolds, S.P., Chevalier, R.A. 1984, ApJ, 278, 630

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[Sankrit \& Hester(1997)]{sankrit97}

1449: Sankrit, R. \& Hester, J.J. 1997, ApJ, 491, 796

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[Serafimovich et al.(2004)]{serafimovich04}

1452: Serafimovich, N.I., Shibanov, Yu.A., Lundqvist, P., \& Sollerman, J.	

1453: %''The young pulsar PSR B0540-69.3 and its synchrotron nebula in the 

1454: %optical and X-rays.''

1455: 2004, A\&A, 425, 1041	

1456: 

1457: \bibitem[Serafimovich et al(2005)]{serafimovich05}

1458: Serafimovich, N.I., Lundqvist, P., Shibanov, Yu.A., \& Sollerman, J 2005,

1459: Ad. Sp. Res., 35, 1106

1460: 

1461: \bibitem[Seward, Harnden, \& Helfand(1984)]{seward84}

1462: Seward, F.D., Harnden, F.R., \& Helfand, D.J.

1463: 1984, ApJ, 287, L19

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[Shull \& McKee(1979)]{shull79}

1466: Shull, J.M., McKee, C.F. 1979, ApJ, 227, 131

1467: 

1468: \bibitem[Sutherland \& Dopita(1995)]{sutherland95}

1469: Sutherland \& Dopita 1995 ApJ 439, 381

1470: 

1471: \bibitem[Temim et al.(2006)]{temim06}

1472: Temim, T., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1610

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[Vrtilek et al.(1990)]{vrtilek90}

1475: Vrtilek, S.D. et al. 1990, A\&A, 235, 162

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[Wang(2005)]{wang05}

1478: Wang, C., 2005, ApJ, 626, 183

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[Wang et al. (2006)]{wang06}

1481: Wang, Z., Chakrabarty, D., \& Kaplan, D. 2006, Nature, 440, 772

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2007)]{wang07}

1484: Wang, Z., Kaspi, V.M., \& Higdon, S.J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1292

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2006)]{williams06}

1487: Williams, B.J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, L33

1488: 

1489: \bibitem[Wolszczan \& Frail(1992)]{wolszczan92}

1490: Wolszczan, A. \& Frail, D.A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145

1491: 

1492: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{woosley95}

1493: Woosley, S.E. \& Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181

1494: 

1495: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(2002)]{woosley02}

1496: Woosley, S.E., Heger A., \& Weaver, T.A. 2002, Rev. of Mod. Phys., 74, 1015

1497: 

1498: \end{thebibliography}

1499: 

1500: \clearpage

1501: 

1502: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}

1503: 

1504: \tablecolumns{2}

1505: \tablewidth{0pc}

1506: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1507: \tablecaption{Measured Fluxes}

1508: \tablehead{

1509: \colhead{Channel} & Flux}

1510: 

1511: \startdata

1512: IRAC Ch.1 (3.6 $\mu$m) & 1.77 $\pm${0.23}\\

1513: IRAC Ch.2 (4.5 $\mu$m) & 2.19 $\pm${0.27}\\

1514: IRAC Ch.3 (5.8 $\mu$m) & 3.61 $\pm${0.46}\\

1515: IRAC Ch.4 (8.0 $\mu$m) & 5.10 $\pm${0.74}\\

1516: MIPS Ch.1 (24 $\mu$m) & 13.19 $\pm${3.95}\\

1517: MIPS Ch.2 (70 $\mu$m) & $<366$\\

1518: 

1519: \enddata

1520: 

1521: \tablenotetext{a}{All fluxes given in milliJanskys}

1522: 

1523: \label{fluxtable}

1524: \end{deluxetable}

1525: 

1526: 

1527: \def\res#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}

1528: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}

1529: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1530: \rotate

1531: \tablecaption{Line Fits\label{linetable}}

1532: \tablewidth{0pt}

1533: \tablehead{\colhead{}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Narrow Component} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Broad Component} \\

1534: 

1535: \colhead{Line} & $\lambda$ ($\mu$m) & Flux\tablenotemark{a} &

1536: FWHM\tablenotemark{b} ($\mu$m) & $\lambda$ ($\mu$m) &

1537: Flux\tablenotemark{a} & FWHM\tablenotemark{b} & FWHM (km s$^{-1}$) & Shift

1538: (km s$^{-1}$)}

1539: 

1540: \startdata

1541: 

1542: [S IV] (10.5105) & 10.5165 & \res{2.12}{0.53}{0.53} & 1.75 & \res{10.5261}{0.0017}{0.0015} & \res{7.32}{1.0}{1.0} & \res{3.89}{0.32}{0.21} & \res{1110}{91}{60} & \res{+274}{49}{43} \\

1543: 

1544: [Ne II] (12.8135) & 12.8208 & \res{5.86}{0.50}{0.50} & 2.14 & \res{12.8436}{0.0036}{0.0034} & \res{4.98}{0.85}{0.85} & \res{4.28}{0.61}{0.66} & \res{1000}{72}{154} & \res{+534}{84}{80} \\

1545: 

1546: [Ne III] (15.5551) & 15.5639 & \res{4.59}{0.29}{0.29} & 2.59 & \res{15.5823}{0.0018}{0.0019} & \res{7.29}{0.56}{0.56} & \res{6.86}{0.31}{0.32} & \res{1320}{62}{62} & \res{+354}{35}{37} \\

1547: 

1548: [Fe II] (17.9359) & - & - & - & \res{17.9663}{0.0025}{0.0025} & \res{3.01}{0.38}{0.38} & \res{6.84}{0.54}{0.65} & \res{1140}{90}{109} & - \\

1549: 

1550: [S III] (18.7130) & 18.7236 & \res{2.22}{0.40}{0.40} & 3.12 & \res{18.7407}{0.0012}{0.0011} & \res{10.18}{0.59}{0.59} & \res{6.07}{0.18}{0.16} & \res{972}{28}{26} & \res{+274}{19}{19} \\

1551: 

1552: [O IV] (25.8903) & - & - & - & \res{25.9454}{0.025}{0.0062} & \res{5.32}{1.7}{1.7} & \res{13.39}{3.8}{1.4} & \res{1650}{300}{180} & - \\

1553: 

1554: [Fe II] (25.9883) & - & - & - & 26.0375 & \res{1.71}{0.61}{1.7} & 10.03 & 1140 & - \\

1555: 

1556: [Si II] (34.8152) & 34.8419 & \res{5.13}{0.27}{0.27} & 5.81 & \res{34.8875}{0.0018}{0.0061} & \res{2.75}{0.31}{0.31} & \res{8.42}{0.25}{0.79} & \res{724}{22}{68} & \res{393}{16}{53} \\

1557: 

1558: \enddata

1559: 

1560: \tablenotetext{a}{Flux in units of 10$^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}

1561: \tablenotetext{b}{FWHM in units of 10$^{-2} \mu$m}

1562: 

1563: \tablecomments{Centroid position and FWHM of narrow components fixed

1564: to values specified in the text. [Fe II] at 26 $\mu$m fixed to

1565: redshift and FWHM of [Fe II] 17.9 $\mu$m. Col. (9): Shift of broad

1566: line relative to narrow line.}

1567: 

1568: \end{deluxetable}

1569: 

1570: \begin{table}

1571: \begin{center}

1572: \centerline{Table 3}

1573: 

1574: \vspace*{2mm}

1575: \centerline{Normalized Emission Line Fluxes}

1576: 

1577: 

1578: \vspace{4mm}

1579: \begin{tabular}{| lrrrr |}

1580: 

1581: \hline \hline

1582: Line            & M06  & K89   & Spitzer & Model \\

1583: \hline

1584:  O II  3727     & 46.  & 39.   & - & 52.8  \\ 

1585:  Ne III  3869   &  7.2 & $<$1.5 & - &  9.3 \\

1586:  S II    4072   &  3.6 &  3.   & - & 4.9  \\

1587:  O III   4363   &  3.3 &  7.   & - & 4.2 \\

1588:  O III   5007   & 100. & 100.  & - & 100. \\

1589:  Fe VII  6085   &  -   &  2.:  & - & 0.02 \\

1590:  O I     6303   &  3.3 &  5.   & - & 0.9 \\

1591:  S II    6722   & 33.8 & 67.   & - & 36.1 \\

1592:  Ar III  7136   &  -   &  8.   & - & 19.2 \\

1593:  Ca II   7291   &  -   &$<$2.  & - & 0.6 \\

1594:  O II    7325   &  -   &  6.   & - & 3.6 \\

1595:  Fe II   8617   &  -   &  2.   & - & 5.7 \\

1596:  S III   9532   &  -   &  34.  & - & 30.0 \\

1597:  O I     7774   &  -   &  -    & - & 0.01 \\

1598:  S IV    10$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 26. & 7.4 \\

1599:  Ne II   12$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 31. & 3.2 \\

1600:  Ne III  15$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 33. & 29.0 \\

1601:  Fe II   17$\mu$m&  -   &  -    &  8.4&  7.6 \\

1602:  S III   18$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 35. & 20.5 \\

1603:  O IV    26$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 15. & 11.6 \\

1604:  Fe II   26$\mu$m&  -   &  -    &  4.8& 12.8 \\

1605:  Si II   35$\mu$m&  -   &  -    & 22. & 7.9 \\

1606: \hline

1607: %  O III out front

1608: 

1609: \end{tabular}

1610: \label{linemodel}

1611: \end{center}

1612: 

1613: \end{table}

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \begin{figure}

1617: \plotone{f1.eps}

1618: \caption{Images of PWN 0540-69.3. Each image is approximately 100

1619: arcseconds across. Left to Right, Top to Bottom: IRAC Chs. 1-4 (3.6,

1620: 4.5, 5.6, and 8.0 $\mu$m, respectively), MIPS 24 $\mu$m, {\it Chandra}

1621: broadband X-ray image. The location of the PWN is marked with a circle

1622: in the IRAC Ch.1 image, and X-ray contours are overlaid on the IRAC

1623: Ch.4 image.}

1624: \label{images}

1625: 

1626: \end{figure}

1627: 

1628: \begin{figure}

1629: \plotone{f2.eps}

1630: \caption{Coverage of IRS slits overlaid on MIPS 24 $\mu$m image.}

1631: \label{coverage}

1632: 

1633: \end{figure}

1634: 

1635: \begin{figure}

1636: \plotone{f3.eps}

1637: \caption{The short-wavelength, low-resolution spectrum of the

1638: PWN. Local background has been subtracted as described in the

1639: text. Dashed line is source $+$ background; dotted line is background;

1640: solid line is the spectrum of the source only.}

1641: \label{sltotal}

1642: \end{figure}

1643: 

1644: \begin{figure}

1645: \plotone{f4.eps}

1646: \caption{The long-wavelength, low-resolution spectrum of the

1647: PWN. Lines are the same as in Figure 3.}

1648: \label{lltotal}

1649: \end{figure}

1650: 

1651: \begin{figure}

1652: \plotone{f5.eps}

1653: \caption{The high-resolution spectrum of the PWN, with no background

1654: subtraction. Measured lines are marked, along with a dust feature at

1655: ${\sim 11} \mu$m.}

1656: \label{hightotal}

1657: \end{figure}

1658: 

1659: \begin{figure}

1660: \plotone{f6.eps}

1661: \caption{An example of our two-component fit to the lines identified

1662: in the high-resolution spectrum of the PWN. [Ne III] is clearly seen

1663: to have two components. Noisy pixels were clipped out for the fitting,

1664: but were left in this image to show their relative level of

1665: contribution.}

1666: \label{neIIIline}

1667: \end{figure}

1668: 

1669: \begin{figure}

1670: \plotone{f7.eps}

1671: \caption{A cartoon sketch of our general picture discussed in section

1672:   4.1. Not to scale. FS refers to the forward shock from the SN blast

1673:   wave, at a radius of $\sim 30''$. RS refers to the reverse shock,

1674:   which has not yet been observed, and is at an unknown position

1675:   between 10 and 30$''$ from the pulsar. [O III] refers to the extent

1676:   of the halo of material that has been photoionized, and is seen in

1677:   optical images to extend to 8$''$. PWN refers to the edge of the

1678:   shock driven by the pulsar wind, and is located at a radius of

1679:   5$''$. Interior to this shock, ejecta material has fragmented into

1680:   clumps. The PWN as a whole is observed to have a redshifted velocity

1681:   as reported in previous optical observations, possibly resulting

1682:   from a pulsar kick. This is also the region where relativistic

1683:   particles from the pulsar create observed synchrotron emission; see

1684:   discussion in text.}

1685: \label{cartoon}

1686: \end{figure}

1687: 

1688: \begin{figure}

1689: \plotone{f8.eps}

1690: \caption{{\it Hubble Space Telescope} WFPC2 image of PWN 0540-69.3, from

1691: \cite{morse06}. Colors are: Blue - F791W continuum; Green - F502N [O

1692: III]; Red - F673N [S II]}

1693: \label{hstimage}

1694: \end{figure}

1695: 

1696: \begin{figure}

1697: \plotone{f9.eps}

1698: \caption{The background-subtracted low-resolution spectrum of the PWN

1699: is plotted as the solid line, with the radio synchrotron component shown as

1700: a dashed line. A clear rising excess can be seen longward of 20 $\mu$m.}

1701: \label{ll_sync}

1702: \end{figure}

1703: 

1704: \begin{figure}

1705: \plotone{f10.eps}

1706: \caption{Broadband spectrum of 0540.  Radio points (diamonds):

1707: Manchester et al.~(1993).  IR points (triangles): our MIPS and IRAC fluxes.

1708: Optical points (circles): Serafimovich et al.  ~(2004).  X-rays (solid line):

1709: {\it Chandra} (Kaaret et al.~2001).  Dashed line: model described in

1710: text.}

1711: \label{bbspectrum}

1712: \end{figure}

1713: 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: \clearpage

1717: 

1718: \appendix

1719: 

1720: \section{PHOTOIONIZATION CALCULATION}

1721: 

1722: There are two sources of ionizing photons that can pre-ionize the

1723: material ahead of the shock; ionizing photons produced behind

1724: radiative shocks, and those produced by relativistic electrons in the

1725: form of synchrotron radiation. We examine each of these in

1726: turn. Detailed photoionization calculations would require modeling

1727: that is beyond the scope of this paper, and we present calculations

1728: that are only intended to be rough estimates. Since we do not have a

1729: detailed, multi-dimensional model that provides the shock dynamics

1730: after it encounters the iron-nickel bubble, we here detail the

1731: calculations done in the absence of the bubble, assuming the models of

1732: C05 describe the global shock encountering the inner ejecta. We intend

1733: only for this rough calculation to show that photoionization is a

1734: plausible mechanism for ionizing material out to $8''$.

1735: 

1736: First, it is necessary to determine the amount of ionizing radiation

1737: emergent from behind the shock. \citet{shull79} give emergent photon

1738: number fluxes per incoming hydrogen atom as a function of shock

1739: speed. Since we know both the density and the shock speed in 0540 as a

1740: function of time for a given density profile, we are able to calculate

1741: the number of ionizing photons emerging from the shock over the

1742: lifetime of the remnant. Here we consider the $m=1.06$ case. We count

1743: all photons with energies above 13.6 eV as ionizing. However, Shull \&

1744: McKee only considered shocks up to 130 km s$^{-1}$. By calculating the

1745: cooling time from equation (2), we see that shocks in 0540 are

1746: radiative up to speeds of over 150 km s$^{-1}$. In order to

1747: extrapolate the numbers given in Shull \& McKee, we use figure 13 of

1748: \citet{pun02}, and assume a single constant factor as the relationship

1749: between the total number of H$\alpha$ photons and the total number of

1750: ionizing photons. We then simply integrate the total number of

1751: ionizing photons throughout the lifetime of the nebula.  We exclude

1752: early times when densities were high enough that recombination times

1753: were shorter than the age of the remnant (about the first 450

1754: years). Using the same conditions as were used above for modeling the

1755: nebula, we find that photoionization from radiative shocks can ionize

1756: 0.53 $\msun$.

1757: 

1758: Next, we calculated the ionizing flux from the synchrotron nebula

1759: itself. We used the optically determined synchrotron power-law of

1760: $\alpha = -1.1$, and considered photons from the Lyman alpha limit up

1761: to 1 keV, though the choice of the upper limit has little effect due

1762: to the steep drop of the synchrotron spectrum. In order to integrate

1763: the luminosity of the nebula over time, it was necessary to use the

1764: time evolution power-law index of $l=0.325$ \citep{reynolds84}. We

1765: considered the emission from the nebula from after the time that

1766: recombinations were important up through the presumed age of the

1767: remnant (450-1140 yrs.) We find enough ionizing photons to ionize 0.21

1768: $\msun$.

1769: 

1770: We then calculated how far out the ionization front would extend, to

1771: see if this could account for the [O III] emission at $8''$ observed

1772: by Morse et al. Using $m=1.06$ as the power-law index for the ejecta

1773: density profile, the relation between the mass and radius of the

1774: ionization front to that of the shock front can be written as

1775: 

1776: \begin{equation}

1777: ({M_{if}\over M_{sh}})^{0.515} = {R_{if}\over R_{sh}},

1778: \end{equation}

1779: %

1780: 

1781: where $M_{if}$ is the mass ionized by both mechanisms, plus the mass

1782: swept up during the early stages of the remnant when recombinations

1783: were occuring, and $M_{sh}$ is the mass swept by the shock, given

1784: above as 0.75 $\msun$. With $M_{if} = 1.25 \msun$ and $M_{sh} = 0.75

1785: \msun$, we find a ratio of $R_{if}$ to $R_{sh}$ of 1.3. While this is

1786: not quite enough to account for the observed [O III] emission at 1.8

1787: pc, this is almost certainly an underestimate of the amount of

1788: photoionized material.

1789: 

1790: The same calculations for the case of a flat density profile yield the

1791: following values. UV photons from the radiative shocks can photoionize

1792: 0.83 $\msun$, while the synchrotron photons from the nebula can ionize

1793: 0.18 $\msun$ (the difference in this number is due to the fact that

1794: the recombination timescale is slightly longer for the higher

1795: densities involved in this case, thus fewer photons are included in

1796: the final photon count). The shock itself sweeps up 0.95 $\msun$, and

1797: the relation between the mass interior to the ionization front and the

1798: mass interior to the shock front is given by 

1799: 

1800: \begin{equation}

1801: ({M_{if}\over M_{sh}})^{1/3} ={R_{if}\over R_{sh}}. 

1802: \end{equation}

1803: 

1804: We find that the ionization front is 1.2 times

1805: farther out than the shock front. Again, while this is not enough to

1806: account for what is observed, it can be considered a lower limit.

1807: 

1808: As a possible resolution to this, we return to the issue of heavy

1809: element abundances. The calculations above assume standard solar

1810: abundances, but, one would clearly expect the shock encountering the

1811: ejecta to be overtaking material that is higher in metallicity than

1812: solar. If the ejecta that the shock is running into is enriched in

1813: helium and other heavier elements, more mass can be ionized per

1814: ionizing photon (differences in ionization potential

1815: notwithstanding). Since, for the case of $m=1.06$, a modest factor of

1816: ${\sim 2}$ in the amount of shock ionized mass would account for the

1817: emission seen at $8''$, this is an entirely plausible explanation.

1818: 

1819: 

1820: \section{SPHERICAL MODEL}

1821: 

1822: We include here the results from our spherically symmetric

1823: model. Although these results indicate that such a model is not able to

1824: account for line emission, it was nonetheless an important starting

1825: point for our more complete models.

1826: 

1827: In order to model the PWN, it is necessary to determine the inner

1828: ejecta density profile. \cite{matzner99} examined the relationship

1829: between the progenitor of a core-collapse supernova and the resulting

1830: density distribution of the ejecta. They find that core-collapse SNe

1831: lead to density profiles that are best fit by two components, an inner

1832: component that is relatively flat, and an outer component that is

1833: extremely steeply dropping. In the case of a red supergiant (RSG), the

1834: flat inner ejecta correspond to the mass contained in the helium core

1835: of the progenitor star, a few solar masses of material. In

1836: approximating these results for the cases of type Ib/c and type IIP

1837: supernovae, C05 uses the expression $\rho_{SN} = At^{-3}(r/t)^{-m}$,

1838: where $m=0.0$ and $1.06$ for the inner ejecta of type IIP and type

1839: Ib/c SNe, respectively. He concludes that 0540 is the result of an

1840: explosion of a Wolf-Rayet star, and thus should have little or no H in

1841: the inner ejecta. However, in light of recent optical observations

1842: that have detected H lines in the inner ejecta

1843: \citep{serafimovich04,morse06}, it is now believed \citep{chevalier06}

1844: that 0540 is a type IIP, the result of a red supergiant.

1845: 

1846: However, the power-law approximations of C05 do not take into account

1847: any mixing of ejecta. Even if the progenitor star did explode as a

1848: type IIP, any mixing of ejecta would steepen the power-law index from

1849: a flat distribution to one that declines as a function of radius. We

1850: therefore consider values of $m$ of both 0 and 1.06 here.

1851: 

1852: We assume the standard picture of a pulsar emitting magnetic-dipole

1853: radiation at the spin frequency, slowing down with a constant

1854: braking index, $n$, defined by ${\dot \Omega}

1855: \propto -\Omega^{n}$.  Then the total pulsar energy loss ${\dot E}(t)$

1856: is given by

1857: 

1858: \begin{equation}

1859: {\dot E(t)} = {{\dot E}_0 \over (1 + {t\over \tau})^{(n+1)/(n-1)}}

1860: \label{edot}

1861: \end{equation}

1862: %

1863: 

1864: where $\tau$ is a slowdown timescale related to the characteristic

1865: time $t_{\rm ch} \equiv P/2{\dot P}$ by 

1866: 

1867: \begin{equation}

1868: \tau = {2t_{\rm ch}\over n-1} -t.

1869: \end{equation}

1870: %

1871: 

1872: Several different values for the braking index have been reported in

1873: recent years; we adopt the most recent measurement of $n=2.14$

1874: \citep{livingstone05}. Assuming an age of $t= 1140$ yr, $P=50$ ms,

1875: ${\dot P}=4.8 \times 10^{-13}$ s s$^{-1}$, and characteristic time

1876: $t_{\rm ch} = 1655$ yr, we find $\tau = 1770$ yr.  We assume a current

1877: pulsar spindown energy input of ${\dot E}=1.5 \times 10^{38}$ ergs

1878: s$^{-1}$. From this we can calculate ${\dot E_{0}}$ according to

1879: Equation~\ref{edot}.

1880: 

1881: Using the X-ray determined radius of $5''$, or approximately 1.2 pc,

1882: we apply the model of C05 for the accelerating PWN bubble driven into

1883: the cold ejecta. We first consider a model with a perfectly flat inner

1884: ejecta density profile, i.e. $m=0$. The model yields a shell velocity

1885: $V_{\rm shell}$ that is currently 1170 km s$^{-1}$, with a shock

1886: velocity $V_{\rm shock}$ (that is, the difference in the shell

1887: velocity and the free-expansion velocity of the ejecta) of 150 km

1888: s$^{-1}$. The current pre-shock density of the ejecta, $\rho_{0}$, is

1889: $9.2 \times 10^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and the shock has swept up a total

1890: mass in gas, $M_{\rm swept},$ of 0.95 $\msun$. For the $m=1.06$ case,

1891: we find a somewhat higher shell and shock velocity, as would be

1892: expected since the shell is encountering less dense material as it

1893: expands, relative to $m=0$. We find $V_{\rm shell} = 1200$ km s$^{-1}$

1894: and $V_{\rm shock} = 190$ km s$^{-1}$, with $\rho_{0} = 4.7 \times

1895: 10^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and $M_{swept} = 0.75$ $\msun$.

1896: 

1897: As we will show, the data favor the case of $m=1.06$, and in fact

1898: argue for an even steeper density profile. A flat distribution would

1899: overpredict certain optical lines, as discussed below. In addition, we

1900: show in Appendix B a rough estimate of the amount of ionizing

1901: radiation available (both thermal and synchrotron) 

1902: to produce the [O III] halo seen out to $8''$. 

1903: %We did this by

1904: %counting the number of ionizing photons emerging from the shock

1905: %front. 

1906: For the case of $m=0$, we need nearly 5 times more ionizing

1907: photons to account for the material seen at $8''$. For $m=1.06$, we

1908: only need a factor of $\sim 2$. 

1909: %This is a much easier result to

1910: %swallow, and in fact could argue for an even steeper density profile.

1911: While our estimates are probably only good to a factor of 2, the models

1912: clearly prefer steeper density profiles.

1913: 

1914: Line strengths can also help distinguish between ejecta density

1915: profiles. \citet{chevalier92} investigated the cooling time of the

1916: post-shock gas in an SNR. For the case of $m=0.0$, the density ahead

1917: of the shock is high enough that the cooling times for the remnant are

1918: short compared with the age of the remnant. Enhancements in heavy

1919: element abundances shorten the cooling times further. Because of this,

1920: the shock quickly becomes radiative, and a fast ($\sim 150$ km

1921: s$^{-1}$), radiative shock will significantly overpredict several

1922: lines, including [O III] and [Fe VII]. It is possible that Fe is over

1923: abundant, but then the observed [Fe II] IR line would have to come

1924: from somewhere else.

1925: 

1926: As a resolution to this problem, we explore the effect of different

1927: density profiles on the power radiated in lines behind the shock from

1928: shocked gas in the process of cooling. Assuming \citep[as

1929: in][]{mckee87} that the cooling curves of \cite{raymond76} can be

1930: approximated as $\Lambda \propto T^{-1/2}$, we use the following

1931: expression for the radiated power from the cooling layer behind the

1932: shock:

1933: 

1934: \begin{equation}

1935: P \propto \int_{shell} \rho_e \rho_H \Lambda(T) dV.

1936: \end{equation}

1937: 

1938: Since the models of C05 give the density of material entering the

1939: shock, we were able to numerically integrate the radiated power over

1940: the thickness of the cooling layer, where we define the limits of

1941: integration of the cooling layer as the thickness of the layer in

1942: which the gas cools from its immediate post-shock temperature down to

1943: 10$^{4}$ K. In terms of relative power, the $m=1.06$ model radiated

1944: about 45\% less power. We also ran a model with $m=2.0$, and found a

1945: factor of about 3.5 less energy radiated. We do not use this model to

1946: favor a particular value of $m$, only to demonstrate that any mixing of

1947: the inner ejecta, which would likely lead to a value of $m$ for the

1948: average density greater than 0, would reduce the amount of emission

1949: radiated in lines. 

1950: 

1951: The spherically symmetric model is thus insufficient to describe the

1952: data in two ways. Densities are not high enough to account for

1953: observed optical and IR lines, and fast radiative shocks would

1954: overpredict lines that are not seen, such as [O III] and [Fe VII]. Our

1955: model discussed in the main text provides a potential solution to both

1956: problems in the form of an iron-nickel bubble in the inner

1957: ejecta. Because the fast shock initially propagated through the

1958: low-density medium of the bubble, [O III] and [Fe VII] lines should

1959: not be strong, and the passage of the shock through the high-density

1960: bubble wall would provide the dense environment necessary for lines

1961: that are observed.

1962: 

1963: \end{document}

1964: 

1965: