1: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \usepackage{color}
5:
6: \newcommand{\red}{\textcolor{red}} % DCE
7: \newcommand{\blue}{\textcolor{blue}} % DCE
8: \newcommand{\green}{\textcolor{green}} % DCE
9:
10:
11: \shorttitle{Nonthermal X-ray Emission from Cassiopeia A}
12: \shortauthors{Patnaude \& Fesen}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{Proper Motions and Brightness Variations of Nonthermal X-ray
17: Filaments in the Cassiopeia A Supernova Remnant}
18:
19: \author{Daniel J. Patnaude\altaffilmark{1} \& Robert A. Fesen\altaffilmark{2}}
20:
21: \altaffiltext{1}{Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA 02138}
22:
23: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, 6127 Wilder Lab,
24: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We present {\it Chandra} ACIS X-ray observations of the Galactic supernova
29: remnant Cassiopeia A taken in December 2007. Combining these data with previous
30: archival {\it Chandra} observations taken in 2000, 2002, and 2004, we estimate
31: the remnant's forward shock velocity at various points around the outermost
32: shell to range between 4200 and 5200 $\pm500 $ km s$^{-1}$. Using these
33: results together with previous analyses of Cas A's X-ray emission, we present a
34: model for the evolution of Cas A and find that it's expansion is well fit by a
35: $\rho_{ej} \propto r^{-(7-9)}$ ejecta profile running into a circumstellar
36: wind.
37: We further find that while the position of the reverse shock in this model is
38: consistent with that measured in the X-rays, in order to match the forward
39: shock velocity and radius we had to assume that $\sim$ 30\% of the explosion
40: energy has gone into accelerating cosmic rays at the forward shock. The new
41: X-ray images also show that brightness variations can occur for some forward
42: shock filaments like that seen for several nonthermal filaments seen projected
43: in the interior of the remnant. Spectral fits to exterior forward shock
44: filaments and interior nonthermal filaments show that they exhibit similar
45: spectra. This together with similar flux variations suggests that interior
46: nonthermal filaments might be simply forward shock filaments seen in
47: projection and not located at the reverse shock as has been recently proposed.
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{ISM: individual (Cassiopeia A) -- X-rays: nonthermal emission --
52: cosmic rays}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: Cassiopeia A (Cas A) is one of the youngest known Galactic supernova remnants
57: (SNR) with an estimated explosion date no earlier than $1681 \pm19$
58: \citep{fesen06}. Optical echoes of the supernova outburst have been recently
59: detected \citep{Rest08}, the spectra of which indicate Cas~A is the remnant of
60: a Type IIb supernova event \citep{Krause08} probably from a red supergiant in
61: the mass range of 15--25 M$_{\odot}$ that may have lost much its hydrogen envelope
62: to a binary interaction \citep{Young06}.
63:
64: Viewed in X-rays, the remnant consists of a line emitting shell arising from
65: reverse shocked ejecta rich in O, Si, Ar, Ca, and Fe
66: \citep{fabian80,markert83,vink96,hughes00,will02,will03,hwang03,laming03}.
67: Exterior to this shell are faint X-ray filaments which mark the current
68: position of the remnant's forward shock front. The emission found here is
69: nonthermal X-ray synchrotron radiation as well as faint line emission from
70: shocked circumstellar material (CSM).
71:
72: \citet{vink98} compared {\sl Einstein} HRI to {\sl ROSAT} HRI observations of
73: Cas A to measure the expansion of the bright shell, finding an expansion age of
74: $\sim$ 500 yr, considerably less than the $\sim$ 800 yr expansion age derived
75: from 1.5 and 5.0 GHz radio observations \citep{anderson95}, but similar to the
76: 400--500 yr expansion age found by \citet{agueros99} using data taken at 151 MHz. More
77: recently, \citet{delaney03} using {\sl Chandra} X-ray observations taken in 2000 and
78: 2002 presented the first proper motion measurements of the forward blastwave
79: velocity. Assuming a distance of 3.4 kpc \citep{reed95}, they
80: estimated a blast wave expansion velocity of $\approx$ 5000 km s$^{-1}$.
81:
82: Besides the outlying nonthermal emission filaments associated with the
83: forward shock, some filamentary nonthermal X-ray emission is also seen in
84: projection in the interior of the SNR \citep{delaney04a}. Whether these
85: interior filamentary emissions originate from a wrinkled forward shock seen in
86: projection or arises from nonthermal emission mechanisms in the interior of the
87: SNR is currently uncertain \citep{laming01,uchiyama08,helder08}.
88:
89: Comparisons of {\it Chandra} observations taken in 2000, 2002, and 2004
90: revealed secular changes in several X-ray thermal knots and in one nonthermal
91: filament projected in the remnant's interior \citep{patnaude07}.
92: \citet{uchiyama08} using the same multi-epoch {\it Chandra} observations
93: found evidence for rapid variability in many more interior nonthermal X-ray emission
94: filaments. Motivated by similar
95: changes seen in RX J1713-3946 \citep{uchiyama07}, they measured the time
96: variability of selected filaments to determine the local magnetic field
97: strength in the variable regions. Their results suggest that the magnetic
98: field in these regions is relatively high, B $\sim$ 1 mG.
99:
100: Such a high magnetic field strength would be consistent with equipartition field
101: strengths inferred in observations of bright radio knots in the remnant
102: \citep{longair94,wright99}. \citet{uchiyama08} argue that their result points
103: to a synchrotron origin for the emission coming from these knots, ruling out
104: nonthermal bremsstrahlung from $\sim$ 100 keV electrons \citep{laming01}, and
105: suggest that this is strong evidence for a hadronic origin to the TeV emission
106: observed in Cas A \citep{aharonian01,albert07}. Based on the location of the
107: synchrotron knots, Uchiyama \& Aharionian suggest that the emission is
108: located primarily at the reverse shock, and \citet{helder08} reach a similar
109: conclusion.
110:
111: Here we present forward shock velocity measurements using new {\it Chandra}
112: ACIS observations of Cas A taken in December 2007 and compare these results to
113: models for SNR evolution with and without efficient shock acceleration. The
114: new observations show that many nonthermal emission filaments and features have
115: undergone substantial brightness variations over the last four years. Model
116: fits to the nonthermal emission coming from both the forward shock and the
117: interior filaments indicate that they are quantitatively similar. We also
118: present evidence for fast variability in forward shock front filaments which
119: argues against the conclusion that rapid variability is a property restricted
120: to emission at the reverse shock.
121:
122:
123: \section{Observations}
124:
125: Cas A was observed with the ACIS-S3 chip on {\sl Chandra} in two 25 ksec
126: observations taken on 5 Dec 2007 (ObsID 09117) and 8 Dec 2007 (ObsID 09773).
127: The ACIS's $0\farcs492$ CCD pixel scale under-samples the telescope's $\simeq 0
128: \farcs5$ resolution. The data were reprocessed using CIAO 4.0.1 and the latest
129: version of the {\it Chandra} CalDB (Version 3.4.2). Figure~\ref{fig:casa07}
130: shows the combined, exposure corrected image coded by energy. Red corresponds
131: to 0.5--1.5 keV, green to 1.5--3.0 keV, and blue to 4.0--6.0 keV.
132:
133: For our analyses, we also made use of previous {\sl Chandra} ACIS
134: observations taken on 30 Jan 2000 (ObsID 00114; PI: Holt), 6 Feb 2002 (ObsID
135: 01952; PI: Rudnick), and 8 Feb 2004 (ObsID 05196; PI: Hwang). These archival
136: data were also reprocessed using the latest version of the CalDB and all four
137: ACIS images were projected to a common tangent point, chosen to be the
138: expansion center determined by \citet{thorstensen01}. Finally, the
139: images were registered against the central compact object (CCO).
140: Unregistered, the centroid of the Cas A CCO differs by $0 \farcs 08$ between
141: 2000 and 2002, and by $0 \farcs 33$ between 2000 and 2008. We have registered
142: the images against the year 2000 observations, though we note that when
143: performing the same analysis on the unregistered images, we found no significant
144: differences in our results.
145:
146: To avoid the problems with bad columns and node boundaries discussed by
147: \citet{delaney03}, exposure corrected images for the 2000 and 2007 observations
148: were created assuming a 1.85 keV source. We note that using a mono-energetic
149: correction results in an artificially higher surface brightness for the forward
150: shock filaments.
151:
152: \section{Results and Analysis}
153:
154: \subsection{Proper Motion of the Forward Shock Front}
155:
156: Using the ACIS 2000 and 2002 images, \citet{delaney03} estimated the proper
157: motions of several forward shock, nonthermal filaments around the SNR. Based on
158: their average estimated proper motion of $0 \farcs 30$ yr$^{-1}$, we expected
159: the filaments to have shifted by $\simeq 2 \farcs 4$ over 7.87 yr, or
160: approximately 5 ACIS pixels. In a follow-up to their work, we used the
161: locations of the forward shock X-ray filaments on our Dec 2007 ACIS images
162: compared with their positions on 2000, 2002, and 2004 ACIS images to obtain
163: improved estimates on the proper motion of the remnant's forward shock front.
164:
165: Figure~\ref{fig:casadiff} shows a Jan 2000 -- Dec 2007 ACIS difference image of
166: Cas A. The six labeled boxes correspond to regions where we measured the
167: proper motions of the remnant's forward shock filaments.
168: Figure~\ref{fig:profiles} shows brightness profile plots of four forward shock
169: filaments taken from the 2000.08 and 2007.95 ACIS images. As seen in
170: Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}, there are relatively large and well defined
171: positional separations between filament positions in the 2000 and 2007 data.
172:
173: As noted by \citet{delaney03}, a proper motion measurement using ACIS ideally
174: should be done using images taken at the same telescope roll angle, as the
175: telescope point spread function (PSF) varies as a function of azimuthal angle.
176: Unfortunately, the data taken in 2000 and 2007 are at different roll angles. To
177: determine the effect that a varying PSF might have on our measurements, we
178: modeled a 3 keV PSF at each of our chosen positions for the 2000 and 2007
179: observations. We found that at the average distance of 165$\arcsec$ from the
180: nominal aimpoint of the observations, the telescope PSF varies by $\leq$ $0
181: \farcs 05$, much less than an ACIS pixel and well below
182: the average separations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}.
183:
184: Filament positional shifts were measured two ways. We first fitted a Gaussian
185: plus background model to the filament profiles and then measured the difference
186: between the resulting Gaussian centroids. This method is not strictly accurate
187: because the profiles for nonthermal filaments are not necessarily Gaussian but
188: are shaped by the swept-up and compressed CSM/ISM magnetic field and vary as a
189: function of energy \citep{pohl05}. We also employed a cross-correlation
190: technique to calculate filament shifts between the two epochs. This technique
191: has been previously used in measuring proper motions of faint, thin
192: Balmer-dominated filaments in the Cygnus Loop (see \citealt{patnaude05} for details).
193:
194: Table~\ref{tab:pm} lists our results for the six selected filament regions
195: using both measurement techniques. Using the cross-correlation results, we
196: estimate proper motions over the nearly eight year time span of 2000.08 to
197: 2007.95 of $0 \farcs 26$ yr$^{-1}$ to $0 \farcs 32$ yr$^{-1}$ for the six
198: regions around the SNR, with a typical 1$\sigma$ error of $\pm 0 \farcs 03$
199: yr$^{-1}$.
200:
201: In Table~\ref{tab:pm}, we also list the 2000 -- 2002 proper motion estimates
202: reported by \citet{delaney03} along with our 2000 -- 2002 measurements but
203: using our measurement techniques. In general, we find smaller proper motions by
204: some 15\% -- 20\%. In view that their quoted errors are comparable or even
205: smaller than our measurements, we cannot easily account for these differences,
206: but it may be related to the difference in how their analysis was performed.
207: Since our results cover nearly four times the time span as their 2000.1 -- 2002.1
208: proper motion estimates, our results should be more robust.
209:
210: \subsection{Cas A's Expansion Velocity and Deceleration}
211:
212: At a distance of 3.4 kpc, our measured proper range of $0 \farcs 26$ yr$^{-1}$
213: to $0 \farcs 32$ yr$^{-1}$ corresponds to forward shock front expansion
214: velocities of 4200 to 5200 $\pm 500 $ km s$^{-1}$. The average expansion
215: velocity for the six regions listed in Table~\ref{tab:pm} is $\approx$ 4900 km
216: s$^{-1}$, in good agreement with the 5000 km s$^{-1}$ reported by
217: \citet{delaney03} for some two dozen regions.
218:
219: \citet{vink98} measured the expansion of Cas A's main shell in X-rays by
220: comparing ROSAT and Einstein HRI observations that were separated by 17 years.
221: They found an expansion time-scale of 501 $\pm$ 15 yr, considerably more than
222: the $\approx$325 yr optically derived age of Cas A
223: \citep{thorstensen01,fesen06}, but also much less than the reported $\sim$ 800
224: yr expansion age determined in the radio \citep{anderson95}, based on
225: 1.5 and 5.0 GHz observations. \citet{agueros99} found an expansion age similar
226: to \citet{vink98}, from 151 MHz observations.
227:
228: \citet{gotthelf01} measured the angular size of
229: Cas A to be 153$\arcsec$ $\pm$ 12$\arcsec$. \citet{thorstensen01} estimate an
230: undecelerated explosion convergence date of $1671 \pm 1$ based on proper motion
231: measurements on 17 outlying ejecta knots mainly using archival Palomar 5m
232: images dating as far back as 1951, while \citet{fesen06} estimated a
233: convergence date of $1681 \pm 19$ based on {\sl HST} images for 126 knots
234: covering a nine month period which appear to be among the least decelerated
235: ejecta. Based on these studies, we will adopt an explosion date of 1680, thus
236: making the remnant's current age to be 329 yr.
237:
238: This age yields a free expansion proper motion of $0 \farcs 465$ yr$^{-1}$, or,
239: assuming a distance of 3.4 kpc, a free expansion velocity of $\approx$ 7500 km
240: s$^{-1}$. We can thus calculate the deceleration parameter of the blastwave as
241: $m$ = (4900 km s$^{-1}$/7500 km s$^{-1}$) $\approx$ 0.65, or
242: equivalently, using Gotthelf et
243: al.'s angular remnant size in 2000,
244: $0 \farcs 30$ yr$^{-1}$/(153$\arcsec$ $\pm$ 12$\arcsec$ / 320 yr)
245: $\approx$ $0.58 - 0.68$.
246:
247: \subsection{Cas A Expansion Models}
248:
249: Our measurements of Cas A's forward shock proper motion and estimated
250: deceleration parameter can be used to model the SNR's evolution. In
251: ejecta--dominated remnants, the deceleration parameter is related to the
252: self-similar evolution by $m$ = $(n-3)/(n-s)$
253: \citep{chevalier82,truelove99,laming03}, where $n$ is the power-law index for
254: the ejecta density profile ($\rho_{ej} \propto r^{-n}$) and $s$ is the
255: power-law index for the ambient medium density profile ($\rho_{amb} \propto
256: r^{-s}$). Generally, $s=0$ corresponds to a constant density ambient medium,
257: while $s=2$ corresponds to an ambient medium shaped by a circumstellar wind.
258: For the progenitors of core-collapse SNe, such as Cas A, $s=2$.
259:
260: For remnants in the adiabatic (Sedov-Taylor) stage of expansion, the deceleration
261: parameter $m=0.67$. Many young remnants, such as Tycho, Kepler, SN~1006, and
262: Cas A, are believed to be currently transitioning between the ejecta--dominated
263: and Sedov stage. However, our calculated deceleration parameter of 0.65 is less
264: than that expected for Sedov-type expansion, and corresponds to an ejecta
265: power-law index of 4.85.
266:
267: However, \citet{laming03} estimated a much higher ejecta density profile for Cas A.
268: Using a Lagrangian hydrodynamics model coupled to a non-equilibrium ionization
269: code, they self-consistently modeled the density profile of Cas A's expanding
270: ejecta and found found that the ejecta density is well described by a power-law
271: of index $n=7-9$. This corresponds to a deceleration parameter of $m=0.8-0.86$,
272: considerably larger than our derived deceleration parameter of 0.65.
273:
274: \citet{truelove99} point out that for models for SNR evolution in which $3 < n
275: < 5$, the bulk of the mass is concentrated at lower velocities, while the bulk
276: of the energy is concentrated at higher velocities. Furthermore, the timescale
277: by which a SNR enters the Sedov-Taylor phase of its evolution is set by the
278: time that the reverse shock takes to travel through ejecta containing the bulk
279: of the energy. Thus, in models with mass-poor and energy rich envelopes, this
280: transition time can be very short. \citet{laming03} suggest that Cas A is
281: currently transitioning from the ejecta-dominated to the Sedov-Taylor phase, so
282: a power-law index as low as our estimated value of 4.85 seems unlikely.
283:
284: In order to understand this discrepancy, we have tried to model Cas A's
285: expansion. At an assumed distance of 3.4 kpc and a 320 yr age in 2000, Cas A's
286: average forward shock radius of 153$\arcsec$ translates to 2.5 pc in radius and
287: an average reverse shock radius $95'' \pm 10''$ corresponding to $1.6 \pm 0.2$
288: pc.
289:
290: We adopted \citet{laming03} estimated explosion energy of $2 \times$
291: 10$^{51}$ erg and ejecta mass of 2 M$_{\sun}$, assume that the SNR is
292: expanding into a red giant wind \citep{Krause08}, and choose $v_{wind}$
293: $\approx$ 10 km s$^{-1}$ and $\dot{M}$ $\approx$ 2 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$
294: M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$. The results of these adopted values, summarized in Model $1$ in
295: Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}, show that our estimated ejecta power-law index of
296: 4.85 does not reproduce the Cas A's measured parameters, producing a forward
297: shock radius of 2.93 pc and velocity of 6300 km s$^{-1}$ instead of the 2.5 pc
298: and $\simeq$5000 km s$^{-1}$ values actually observed assuming a distance of
299: 3.4 kpc.
300:
301: Given that our initial derived ejecta power-law index does not agree with that
302: derived from
303: spectral fits to the SNR ejecta, we explored models with ejecta profiles
304: consistent with Laming \& Hwang's fits (Models $2-7$ in
305: Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}). We note that a similar set of parameters were also
306: chosen by \citet{schure08} in the context of Cas A's jet evolution in a
307: Wolf-Rayet bubble, although their models do not consistently match both the
308: observed blastwave radius and velocity either (see their Table~1).
309:
310: As shown in Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}, while our Models $2-7$ may be
311: appropriate for the evolution of the SNR ejecta and the jet, they overestimate
312: the forward shock velocity regardless of choice of the power-law index of the
313: ejecta or progenitor wind structure. These models also do not fit the measured
314: expansion of Cas A, producing deceleration parameters of $m > 0.7$ and shock
315: velocities $v_{\mathrm{shock}} > 5500$ km s$^{-1}$.
316:
317: \subsection{Cosmic Ray Acceleration at the Forward Shock}
318:
319: As there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that shocks in SNRs
320: are efficient generators of cosmic rays \citep[e.g.,][]{warren05},
321: we then explored the inclusion of
322: cosmic ray modification of the forward shock as a possible solution to these
323: poor model fits.
324: A signature of shock generated cosmic rays are nonthermal
325: X-rays generated by synchrotron radiation due to shock-accelerated TeV
326: electrons. High energy photons at GeV--Tev energies, either inverse Compton
327: radiation from electrons or pion-decay emission from ions, have
328: been detected from some supernova remnants including Cas A
329: by HEGRA \citep{aharonian01} and MAGIC \citep{albert07}.
330:
331: In the production of cosmic rays, energy is removed from the SNR shock via
332: particle acceleration. In doing so, the shock slows and the post-shock gas
333: becomes more compressed. We therefore also modeled Cas A under this
334: assumption.
335:
336: The inclusion of efficient acceleration at the forward shock should not alter
337: the dynamics of the ejecta, and thus these models can be consistent with
338: \citet{laming03}. We also chose to only model shock acceleration at the
339: forward shock. Although there have been suggestions that the bulk of the
340: particle acceleration in Cas A might be occurring at the reverse shock
341: \citep{uchiyama08,helder08}, the degree to which particle acceleration at the
342: reverse shock is efficient remains an open question (see below).
343:
344: Starting with the parameter space explored by \citet{laming03}, we modeled Cas~A
345: assuming that some fraction of the explosion energy has gone into
346: accelerating cosmic rays. These models were set up as in \citet{ellison07}
347: where the nonlinear particle acceleration is tuned by an injection parameter
348: which determines the fraction of thermal particles that are injected into the
349: acceleration process thus determining how much of the energy of the SNR
350: goes into cosmic rays. These models are listed as Models 8--15 in
351: Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}. The particle injection is sensitive to parameters
352: such as the shock velocity and ambient density, so choosing a fixed injection
353: while varying the environmental parameters will naturally lead to varying
354: acceleration efficiencies, as seen in Models 14--15.
355:
356: As expected and shown in Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}, increasingly efficient
357: particle acceleration leads to lower shock velocities and smaller forward shock
358: radii, leading to smaller modeled expansion parameters. In Models 8--13, we
359: attempted to tune the acceleration efficiency so as to match the measured
360: forward shock expansion velocity and forward and reverse shock radii. We fixed
361: the ejecta density distribution as well as the explosion and pre-supernova wind
362: parameters, and in Models 11--13, we fixed the acceleration efficiency but
363: varied the ejecta power-law index.
364:
365: We found that Models 11--13, with power-law indices of $n=7-9$, a wind velocity
366: of $v_{\mathrm{wind}}$ of 10 km s$^{-1}$, and a progenitor pre-SN mass loss
367: rate of $\dot{M}$ $\approx$ 2 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ provide
368: a good fit to our observations, where $\gtrsim$ 30\% of the SN explosion energy
369: is lost in particle acceleration. This acceleration efficiency results in a
370: modeled forward shock velocity of $\sim$ 5000 km s$^{-1}$, forward and reverse
371: shock radii of $2.46$ pc and $1.67$ pc, and a deceleration parameter of $m$ = 0.66.
372: These values agree well with our measured deceleration parameter of
373: 0.65 and measured blastwave velocity of 4900 km s$^{-1}$, while also being
374: consistent with the spectral fits of \citet{laming03} and the measured forward
375: and reverse shock radii of $2.5$ pc and $1.6$ pc \citep{gotthelf01}.
376: We found that
377: varying the ejecta power-law index, has only a small effect on the final
378: parameters, seen as a difference in the blastwave velocity in Models 11--13.
379:
380: We also tried varying the pre-supernova wind parameters in Models 14--15 to
381: match those of \citet{schure08}. While these models result in similar
382: deceleration parameters and forward shock radii to Models 11--13, they
383: significantly overestimate the forward shock velocity.
384:
385: Finally, in order to see if our results could be fit by models that do not
386: include the effects of diffusive shock acceleration, we also explored a wider
387: parameter space in both the ejecta mass and explosion energy. These are listed
388: as Models $16 - 23$ in Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}, where in Models $16 - 21$ we
389: varied the explosion energy and ejecta mass between 1.0--2.0 $\times$ 10$^{51}$
390: erg and 1.0--2.0 M$_{\sun}$. In Models $22 - 23$, we only varied the explosion
391: energy, while fixing the other parameters as in Model 2.
392:
393: As seen in Table~\ref{tab:snrmodels}, varying the explosion energy and ejecta
394: mass does not allow for a simultaneous fit of both the forward shock radius and
395: velocity. For example, in Model 17 we find a suitable fit to the the forward
396: shock radius, but the reverse shock radius is too small and the forward shock
397: velocity is too high. Conversely, in Models 16 and 19 the forward shock
398: velocity is well fit, but the forward shock radius is too small. While it is
399: conceivable that one could design a model which can simultaneously fit the
400: forward shock radius and blastwave velocity, such a model might not be
401: consistent with other parameters derived from spectral fits to the ejecta.
402:
403: Although our modeling results suggest significant cosmic ray production at the forward
404: shock, it is uncertain whether efficient particle acceleration might also be
405: occurring at the reverse shock as well \citep{ellison05}. If efficient shock
406: acceleration were occurring at the reverse shock, other effects of this
407: acceleration would be directly observable, both in the dynamics of the reverse
408: shock and in the emitted thermal spectrum \citep{ellison05,ellison07}. Much
409: like in shock acceleration at the forward shock, the process removes energy
410: from the shock and softens the equation of state. If particle acceleration were
411: efficient, we would expect to observe the reverse shock to be closer to the
412: contact discontinuity (much like the forward shock is close to the contact
413: discontinuity in Tycho's SNR; \citealt{warren05}). The fact that our cosmic
414: ray models appear to predict with good accuracy the location of the reverse
415: shock suggests that efficient acceleration may not be present at significant
416: levels at the reverse shock. Furthermore,
417: the presence of of Fe-K emission at the reverse shock, seen in
418: equivalent width maps \citep{hwang00} suggests a high shock (and electron)
419: temperature at the reverse shock, suggesting that the reverse shock has not
420: lost much energy to cosmic ray acceleration.
421:
422: \subsection{Brightness Variations of Nonthermal X-ray
423: Filaments and their Origin}
424:
425: Rapid changes in the brightness of thin, nonthermal filaments in the interior
426: of Cas A have been noted previously via comparisons of the 2000--2004
427: observations \citep{patnaude07,uchiyama08}. A comparison of all four epoch
428: {\sl Chandra} ACIS images, covering nearly an eight year time span, highlights
429: and clarifies many of these changes in filament brightness and position. This
430: is most readily seen in an on-line movie where we show the evolution of Cas A's
431: X-ray emission between 2000 and 2007, of which Figure~\ref{fig:casa07} is but
432: one frame.
433:
434: A close-up view of many of the changes exhibited by interior nonthermal
435: emission features is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:center}, where we show the
436: east-central region of Cas A in each epoch in the 4.2--6.0 keV band. In these
437: images the remnant's global structure of continuum emission appears not unlike
438: that seen in the radio; that is, the emission is characterized by thin,
439: web-like and highly filamentary structures which often enclose patchy, faint
440: diffuse emission.
441:
442: A comparison of the four frames in Figure~\ref{fig:center} reveals several
443: regions where the continuum emission dramatically brightens or fades between
444: Jan 2000 and Dec 2007. Sections of some nonthermal filaments change so
445: substantially between images that they resemble apparent rapid proper motions
446: ($\simeq$ $0 \farcs 2 - 0 \farcs 3$ yr$^{-1}$) that are, in some places,
447: directed inward toward the remnant center or at some random, often non-radial
448: direction. In addition, apparent sequential brightening of small sections
449: of some filaments can give the appearance of motion along the filament.
450:
451: Whereas the bulk of the changes in the remnant's nonthermal emission appear to
452: come from knots and filaments which lie inside or projected onto the interior
453: of the SNR, a few outer forward shock front filaments can also show similar
454: changes in brightness. One filament associated with the forward shock, shown
455: in Figure~\ref{fig:ne}, shows evidence for substantial brightening between 2000
456: and 2007, with non-radial sequential changes seen along its length. This
457: filament had previously been identified by \citet{stage06} as a potential site
458: for efficient shock acceleration, and our new observations confirm that the
459: filament exhibits behavior consistent with the changes seen in the interior
460: filaments.
461:
462: \citet{uchiyama08} argue that emission flaring of nonthermal filaments is
463: evidence for electron acceleration while a decrease in flux corresponds to
464: synchrotron cooling. Using the {\sl Chandra} ACIS 2000--2004 data, they found
465: such emission flaring and fading was most apparent in interior filaments,
466: leading them to conclude that such particle acceleration and synchrotron
467: cooling was more likely to be occurring at the reverse shock, a
468: conclusion supported by the deprojected continuum images of Cas A
469: presented by \citet{helder08}.
470:
471: However, the addition of the new Dec 2007 observations which increases the
472: timespan from 4 to nearly 8 years shows clear evidence for brightness variations of
473: outer nonthermal filaments associated with the forward blastwave. As shown in
474: Figure~\ref{fig:ne} and listed in Table~\ref{tab:fits}, the northeast filament
475: brightens substantially between Jan 2004 and Dec 2007. Hence, rapid electron
476: acceleration would appear to be occurring in some forward shock filaments as
477: well.
478:
479: In cases of increasing X-ray flux, the acceleration time of an X-ray
480: emitting electron is given by $t_{acc} \sim 9 \eta B^{-3/2}_{\rm mG}
481: \varepsilon^{1/2}_{\rm keV} V^{-2}_{1000}$ yr, where $\eta \geq 1$ is the
482: electron gyro-factor, $V_{1000}$ is the shock velocity in units of 1000 km
483: s$^{-1}$, and $\varepsilon_{\rm keV}$ is the mean photon energy ($\approx$ 1
484: keV). As listed in Table~\ref{tab:pm}, the mean proper motion of this filament
485: is $\sim$ $0 \farcs 30$ yr$^{-1}$, which at a distance of 3.4 kpc corresponds
486: to $V_{1000}$ = 4.9.
487:
488: \citet{uchiyama08} have suggested that such brightness changes in the remnant's
489: interior nonthermal emission filaments originate at the remnant's reverse shock
490: (due to their projected interior position), a notion first suggested by
491: \citet{bleeker01} based on hardness ratios for interior and outer shock
492: filaments as measured from {\sl XMM--Newton} images. Support for the
493: interpretation that the exterior and interior nonthermal emission filaments
494: arise from different sources is the lack of radio emission associated with the
495: exterior X-ray forward shock filaments, in contrast to the fair correlation
496: that exists between interior radio and X-ray filaments \citep{delaney04b}.
497: \citet{helder08} have also concluded that the interior nonthermal filaments
498: originate from the reverse shock and not the forward shock.
499:
500: On the other hand, \citet{delaney04a} and \citet{delaney04b} have argued that
501: interior nonthermal filaments may merely be forward shock filaments seen in
502: projection against the face of Cas A. In this view, interior filamentary and
503: web-like structures arise as the forward shock interacts with a lumpy,
504: inhomogeneous CSM, with the observed brightness variations arising from line of
505: sight tangencies of the shock front as it progresses through and around small
506: CSM clouds and density variations.
507:
508: We note that a correlation between global X-ray and radio filaments is not
509: expected, thus undermining the meaning of any correlation of nonthermal radio
510: and X-ray emitting features. Both \citet{CC05} and \citet{ellison05b} showed
511: that in the remnants of core-collapse SNe interacting with a stellar wind,
512: the non-thermal X-ray emission is strongly peaked at the shock front while
513: radio emission will peak at the contact discontinuity. This can be seen in
514: Figure~8 of \citet{ellison05b} where the peak radio emissivity occurs well
515: inside of the X-ray (see Figure~4 of \citet{CC05} for another example).
516:
517: To investigate the question of whether the nonthermal filaments
518: projected in the interior of Cas A are associated with the reverse shock or the
519: forward shock, we extracted spectra for six exterior forward shock filaments
520: (including the NE filament marked in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ne}) and 23 interior
521: projected nonthermal filaments from our Dec 2007 observations using the CIAO
522: tool {\tt specextract}. We also extracted spectra for these same filaments
523: from the 2000, 2002, and 2004 data. These data were then fit with absorbed
524: power-laws. The results from these spectral fits for both exterior and interior
525: filaments are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fits} and plotted in
526: Figure~\ref{fig:fits}.
527:
528: Aside from obvious normalizations and differences in the absorbing column
529: affecting the flux at lower energies, the spectra for exterior and interior
530: nonthermal filaments are qualitatively quite similar (Fig.\ \ref{fig:fits}).
531: As shown in Table~\ref{tab:fits}, while the fitted spectral indices hardly
532: differ, interior filaments do appear to be marginally harder consistent
533: with the conclusion of \citet{bleeker01}.
534:
535: \subsection{Magnetic Field Strength}
536:
537: Lastly, we turn to the question of magnetic field strength in the filaments.
538: As noted above, the northeast filament shows evidence for
539: brightness changes over a nearly eight year timespan. If we adopt an
540: acceleration time $t_{acc}$ $\sim$ 2--8 yr, then this corresponds to a magnetic
541: field strength of $B_{\rm mG}$ $\sim$ 0.1--0.3, with the lower limit
542: corresponding to the upper limit on the acceleration time. Our results are
543: consistent with magnetic field strengths derived from previous observations
544: \citep{longair94,wright99,vink03,atoyan00,berezhko04} as well as the
545: recent results of \citet{uchiyama08}.
546:
547: Recently, \citet{bykov08} simulated the effects of magnetic field turbulence on
548: the observed synchrotron emission in young SNRs. They showed that the structure
549: and evolution of small clumps ($\sim$ 10$^{14}$ -- 10$^{16}$ cm) can change on
550: timescales $\sim$ 1 year. The angular size of the knots and filaments seen in
551: Figure~\ref{fig:center} is $\sim$ 5$\arcsec$ which corresponds to $\sim$ 2.5
552: $\times$ 10$^{17}$ cm at Cas A's estimated a distance of 3.4 kpc. Significant
553: flux variations on this spatial scale are seen to occur over the time period of
554: $\sim$ 4 yr, meaning that that yearly changes could occur over $\sim$ 6
555: $\times$ 10$^{16}$ cm.
556:
557: \citet{bykov08} argue that intensity variations on such spatial scales are
558: consistent with localized regions of high magnetic field ($\gtrsim$ 0.1 mG),
559: brought about by turbulence behind the shock. Furthermore, they point out
560: that the integrated line of sight emissivity of these knots and filaments is
561: what allows them to stand out against background emission. In \citet{bykov08},
562: the shock is propagating perpendicular to the line of sight, but similar
563: results are expected to be visible in face-on-shocks \citep{bykov09},
564: consistent with our observations of flux changes seen in both the
565: exterior and face--on filaments.
566:
567: \section{Conclusions}
568:
569: We have presented new {\it Chandra} ACIS observations of Cas A which were taken
570: in late 2007. These new observations, when combined with previous {\it Chandra}
571: data, allow us to constrain the velocity of the forward shock to be about 4900
572: km s$^{-1}$.
573:
574: Combined with results from previous analyses of Cas A's X-ray emission
575: \citep{laming03,gotthelf01}, we present several models for the evolution of Cas
576: A and find that it's expansion can be well modeled by an $n= 7 - 9$ ejecta profile
577: running into a circumstellar wind. We also find that the position of the
578: reverse shock in this model is consistent with that measured by
579: \citet{gotthelf01}. However, in order to match the radius of the forward shock,
580: we found that we must assume that the forward shock is efficiently accelerating
581: cosmic rays.
582:
583: Rapid changes in Cas A's synchrotron emission are seen for interior and
584: exterior projected filaments, with both showing similar nonthermal spectra as
585: well as inferred magnetic field strengths. Based on this and the simulations
586: presented by \citet{bykov08}, it is currently not clear whether the interior
587: filaments are in fact located at the reverse shock as recently argued by
588: \citet{uchiyama08} and \citet{helder08}.
589:
590: Instead, we propose that the interior
591: filaments might be forward shocks seen in projection \citep{delaney04b}. In
592: that case, the observed brightness variations might arise from wrinkles in
593: front-facing, forward shock as it moves through an inhomogeneous, local
594: circumstellar medium.
595:
596: Although we cannot rule out the possibility that interior nonthermal filaments
597: are associated with the reverse shock, the combination of similar spectra,
598: flaring timescale, and our fits to the remnant's dynamics are suggestive that
599: the observed synchrotron flaring for interior filaments arises from forward
600: shock filaments seen in projection toward Cas A's interior rather than at the
601: reverse shock as recently suggested. At the least, our new X-ray data of Cas A
602: shows that rapid brightness variations like those seen for interior nonthermal
603: filaments can also be exhibited by some outer, nonthermal forward shock
604: filaments.
605:
606: \acknowledgements
607:
608: We thank Don Ellison, Stephen Reynolds, and Martin Laming for many useful
609: discussions during the preparation of this paper. We also wish to thank the
610: anonymous referee whose many suggestions and corrections significantly
611: improved the
612: paper. This work was supported by NASA grant GO8-9065A which is administered
613: by the CXC at SAO. D.~J.~P. acknowledges support from NASA contract NAS8-39073.
614:
615: {\it Facilities:} \facility{CXO (ACIS)}.
616:
617: \begin{thebibliography}{}
618:
619: \bibitem[Ag{\"u}eros \& Green(1999)]{agueros99} Ag{\"u}eros, M.~A., \& Green,
620: D.~A.\ 1999, \mnras, 305, 957
621:
622: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2001)]{aharonian01} Aharonian, F.,
623: et al.\ 2001, \aap, 370, 112
624:
625: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2004)]{aharonian04} Aharonian, F.~A., et
626: al.\ 2004, \nat, 432, 75
627:
628: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2007)]{albert07} Albert, J., et al.\ 2007,
629: \aap, 474, 937
630:
631: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2007)]{allen07} Allen, G.~E., Stage,
632: M.~D., \& Houck, J.~C.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.4049
633:
634: \bibitem[Anderson \& Rudnick(1995)]{anderson95} Anderson, M.~C., \&
635: Rudnick, L.\ 1995, \apj, 441, 307
636:
637: \bibitem[Atoyan et al.(2000)]{atoyan00} Atoyan, A.~M., Tuffs, R.~J.,
638: Aharonian, F.~A., {V{\"o}lk}, H.~J.\ 2000, \aap, 354, 915
639:
640: \bibitem[Berezhko \& {V{\"o}lk}(2004)]{berezhko04} Berezhko, E.~G.,
641: \& {V{\"o}lk}, H.~J.\ 2004, \aap, 419, L27
642:
643: \bibitem[Bleeker et al.(2001)]{bleeker01} Bleeker, J.~A.~M., Willingale, R.,
644: van der Heyden, K., Dennerl, K., Kaastra, J.~S., Aschenbach, B.,
645: \& Vink, J.\ 2001, \aap, 365, L225
646:
647: \bibitem[Bykov et al.(2008)]{bykov08} Bykov, A.~M., Uvarov,
648: Y.~A., \& Ellison, D.~C.\ 2008, arXiv:0811.2498
649:
650: \bibitem[Bykov(2009)]{bykov09} Bykov, A.~M. 2009 private communication
651:
652: \bibitem[Cassam-Chena{\"i} et al.(2005)]{CC05} Cassam-Chena{\"i}, G.,
653: Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., \& Ellison, D.~C.\ 2005, \aap, 443, 955
654:
655: \bibitem[Chevalier(1982)]{chevalier82} Chevalier, R.~A.\ 1982,
656: \apj, 258, 790
657:
658: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Oishi(2003)]{chevalier03} Chevalier, R.~A.,
659: \& Oishi, J.\ 2003, \apjl, 593, L23
660:
661: \bibitem[DeLaney et al.(2004)]{delaney04a} DeLaney, T., Rudnick,
662: L., Fesen, R.~A., Jones, T.~W., Petre, R.,
663: \& Morse, J.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 343
664:
665: \bibitem[DeLaney(2004)]{delaney04b} DeLaney, T.~A.\ 2004, Ph.D.~Thesis
666:
667: \bibitem[DeLaney \& Rudnick(2003)]{delaney03} DeLaney, T., \&
668: Rudnick, L.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 818
669:
670: \bibitem[Ellison \& Cassam-Chena{\"i}(2005)]{ellison05b} Ellison, D.~C.,
671: \& Cassam-Chena{\"i}, G.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 920
672:
673: \bibitem[Ellison et al.(2005)]{ellison05} Ellison, D.~C.,
674: Decourchelle, A., \& Ballet, J.\ 2005, \aap, 429, 569
675:
676: \bibitem[Ellison et al.(2007)]{ellison07} Ellison, D.~C.,
677: Patnaude, D.~J., Slane, P., Blasi, P., \& Gabici, S.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 879
678:
679: \bibitem[Fabian et al.(1980)]{fabian80} Fabian, A.~C., Willingale, R.,
680: Pye, J.~P., Murray, S.~S., \& Fabbiano, G.\ 1980, \mnras, 193, 175
681:
682: \bibitem[Fesen et al.(2006)]{fesen06} Fesen, R.~A., et al.\
683: 2006, \apj, 645, 283
684:
685: \bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(2001)]{gotthelf01} Gotthelf, E.~V.,
686: Koralesky, B., Rudnick, L., Jones, T.~W., Hwang, U., \& Petre, R.\ 2001,
687: \apjl, 552, L39
688:
689: \bibitem[Helder \& Vink(2008)]{helder08} Helder, E.~A., \& Vink, J.\ 2008,
690: \apj, 686, 1094
691:
692: \bibitem[Hughes et al.(2000)]{hughes00} Hughes, J.~P., Rakowski,
693: C.~E., Burrows, D.~N., \& Slane, P.~O.\ 2000, \apjl, 528, L109
694:
695: \bibitem[Hwang et al.(2000)]{hwang00} Hwang, U., Holt, S.~S.,
696: \& Petre, R.\ 2000, \apjl, 537, L119
697:
698: \bibitem[Hwang \& Laming(2003)]{hwang03} Hwang, U., \& Laming,
699: J.~M.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 362
700:
701: \bibitem[Koyama et al.(1995)]{koyama95} Koyama, K., Petre, R.,
702: Gotthelf, E.~V., Hwang, U., Matsuura, M., Ozaki, M.,
703: \& Holt, S.~S.\ 1995, \nat, 378, 255
704:
705: \bibitem[Koyama et al.(1997)]{koyama97} Koyama, K., Kinugasa,
706: K., Matsuzaki, K., Nishiuchi, M., Sugizaki, M., Torii, K., Yamauchi, S.,
707: \& Aschenbach, B.\ 1997, \pasj, 49, L7
708:
709: \bibitem[Krause et al.(2008)]{Krause08} Krause, O., Birkmann, S.~M., Usuda, T.,
710: Hattori, T., Goto, M., Rieke, G.~H., \& Misselt, K.~A.\ 2008,
711: Science, 320, 1195
712:
713: \bibitem[Laming(2001)]{laming01} Laming, J.~M.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 828
714:
715: \bibitem[Laming \& Hwang(2003)]{laming03} Laming, J.~M., \&
716: Hwang, U.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 347
717:
718: \bibitem[Longair(1994)]{longair94} Longair, M.~S.\ 1994,
719: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, |c1994, 2nd ed.,
720:
721: \bibitem[Markert et al.(1983)]{markert83} Markert, T.~H., Clark, G.~W.,
722: Winkler, P.~F., \& Canizares, C.~R.\ 1983, \apj, 268, 134
723:
724: %%\bibitem[Morse et al.(2004)]{morse04} Morse, J.~A., Fesen,
725: %%R.~A., Chevalier, R.~A., Borkowski, K.~J., Gerardy, C.~L., Lawrence, S.~S.,
726: %%\& van den Bergh, S.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 727
727:
728: \bibitem[Parizot et al.(2006)]{parizot06} Parizot, E.,
729: Marcowith, A., Ballet, J., \& Gallant, Y.~A.\ 2006, \aap, 453, 387
730:
731: \bibitem[Patnaude \& Fesen(2005)]{patnaude05} Patnaude, D.~J.,
732: \& Fesen, R.~A.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 240
733:
734: \bibitem[Patnaude \& Fesen(2007)]{patnaude07} Patnaude, D.~J.,
735: \& Fesen, R.~A.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 147
736:
737: %\bibitem[Patnaude \& Ellison(2008)]{patnaude08} Patnaude, D.~J.,
738: %\& Ellison, D.~C.\ 2008, in preparation
739:
740: \bibitem[Pohl et al.(2005)]{pohl05} Pohl, M., Yan, H.,
741: \& Lazarian, A.\ 2005, \apjl, 626, L101
742:
743: \bibitem[Reed et al.(1995)]{reed95} Reed, J.~E., Hester,
744: J.~J., Fabian, A.~C., \& Winkler, P.~F.\ 1995, \apj, 440, 706
745:
746: \bibitem[Rest et al.(2008)]{Rest08} Rest, A., et al.\ 2008, \apjl, 681, L81
747:
748: \bibitem[Reynolds
749: \& Chevalier(1981)]{reynolds81} Reynolds, S.~P., \& Chevalier,
750: R.~A.\ 1981, \apj, 245, 912
751:
752: \bibitem[Schure et al.(2008)]{schure08} Schure, K.~M., Vink, J.,
753: Garc{\'{\i}}a Segura, G.,
754: \& Achterberg, A.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 806, arXiv:0806.4617
755:
756: \bibitem[Slane et al.(1999)]{slane99} Slane, P., Gaensler,
757: B.~M., Dame, T.~M., Hughes, J.~P., Plucinsky, P.~P.,
758: \& Green, A.\ 1999, \apj, 525, 357
759:
760: \bibitem[Stage et al.(2006)]{stage06} Stage, M.~D., Allen,
761: G.~E., Houck, J.~C., \& Davis, J.~E.\ 2006, Nature Physics, 2, 614
762:
763: \bibitem[Tanimori et al.(1998)]{tanimori98} Tanimori, T., et al.\
764: 1998, \apjl, 497, L25
765:
766: \bibitem[Thorstensen et al.(2001)]{thorstensen01} Thorstensen, J.~R.,
767: Fesen, R.~A., \& van den Bergh, S.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 297
768:
769: \bibitem[Truelove \& McKee(1999)]{truelove99} Truelove, J.~K., \&
770: McKee, C.~F.\ 1999, \apjs, 120, 299
771:
772: \bibitem[Uchiyama et al.(2007)]{uchiyama07} Uchiyama, Y.,
773: Aharonian, F.~A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., \& Maeda, Y.\ 2007
774: \nat, 449, 576
775:
776: \bibitem[Uchiyama \& Aharonian(2008)]{uchiyama08} Uchiyama, Y.,
777: \& Aharonian, F.~A.\ 2008, \apjl, 677, L105
778:
779: \bibitem[Vink et al.(2006)]{vink06} Vink, J., Bleeker, J., van
780: der Heyden, K., Bykov, A., Bamba, A.,
781: \& Yamazaki, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L33
782:
783: \bibitem[Vink et al.(1998)]{vink98} Vink, J., Bloemen, H.,
784: Kaastra, J.~S., \& Bleeker, J.~A.~M.\ 1998, \aap, 339, 201
785:
786: \bibitem[Vink \& Laming(2003)]{vink03} Vink, J., \& Laming, J.~M.\
787: 2003, \apj, 584, 758
788:
789: \bibitem[Vink et al.(1996)]{vink96} Vink, J., Kaastra, J.~S., \& Bleeker,
790: J.~A.~M.\ 1996, \aap, 307, L41
791:
792: \bibitem[Warren et al.(2005)]{warren05} Warren, J.~S., et al.\
793: 2005, \apj, 634, 376
794:
795: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2002)]{will02} Willingale, R., Bleeker, J.~A.~M.,
796: van der Heyden, K.~J., Kaastra, J.~S., \& Vink, J.\ 2002, \aap, 381, 1039
797:
798: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2003)]{will03} Willingale, R.,
799: Bleeker, J.~A.~M., van der Heyden, K.~J., \& Kaastra, J.~S.\ 2003, \aap,
800: 398, 1021
801:
802: \bibitem[Wright et al.(1999)]{wright99} Wright, M., Dickel, J.,
803: Koralesky, B., \& Rudnick, L.\ 1999, \apj, 518, 284
804:
805: \bibitem[Young et al.(2006)]{Young06} Young, P.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 891
806:
807: \end{thebibliography}
808:
809: \clearpage
810:
811: \begin{deluxetable}{rccccc}
812: \tablecolumns{6}
813: \tablewidth{0pc}
814: \tablecaption{Forward Shock Filament Proper Motions}
815: \tablehead{
816: \colhead{Region\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{DeLaney \& Rudnick (2003)\tablenotemark{b}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cross Correlation} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Profile Fits} \\
817: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{2000--2002} & \colhead{2000--2007} &
818: \colhead{2000--2002} & \colhead{2000--2007} \\
819: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\arcsec$ yr$^{-1}$}}
820: \startdata
821: Southeast & $0 \farcs 38 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 31 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 31 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 33 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 32 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ \\
822: East & $0 \farcs 38 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 30 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 31 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 30 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 32 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ \\
823: Northeast & $0 \farcs 41 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 34 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 31 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 30 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 30 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ \\
824: North & $0 \farcs 28 \pm 0 \farcs 01$ & $0 \farcs 29 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 26 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 28 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ & $0 \farcs 27 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ \\
825: Northwest & \nodata & $0 \farcs 25 \pm 0 \farcs 06$ & $0 \farcs 27 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 28 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 28 \pm 0 \farcs 03$ \\
826: South & \nodata & $0 \farcs 31 \pm 0 \farcs 02$ & $0 \farcs 32 \pm 0 \farcs 04$ & $0 \farcs 32 \pm 0 \farcs 05$ & $0 \farcs 34 \pm 0 \farcs 03$\\
827: \enddata
828: \tablenotetext{a}{The southeast, east, northeast, and north regions
829: correspond to Regions 26, 29, 2, and 14 respectively in \citet{delaney03}.}
830: \tablenotetext{b}{Filament velocities from Table~2 of \citet{delaney03}
831: and converted to proper motions assuming a distance of 3.4 kpc.}
832: \label{tab:pm}
833: \end{deluxetable}
834:
835: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccccccccc}
836: \tablecolumns{11}
837: \tablewidth{0pc}
838: \tablecaption{Cas A Evolutionary Models }
839: \tablehead{
840: \colhead{} & \colhead{M$_{ej}$} & \colhead{E$_{51}$} & \colhead{} &
841: \colhead{$v_{wind}$} &\colhead{$\dot{M}_{-5}$} & \colhead{E(CR)/E(SN)} &
842: \colhead{R$_{FS}$} & \colhead{R$_{RS}$} & \colhead{V$_{shock}$} &
843: \colhead{} \\
844: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{M$_{\sun}$} & \colhead{10$^{51}$ erg} &
845: \colhead{$n$} &
846: \colhead{km s$^{-1}$} & \colhead{10$^{-5}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$} &
847: \colhead{\%} &
848: \colhead{pc} & \colhead{pc} & \colhead{km s$^{-1}$} & \colhead{$m$}
849: }
850: \startdata
851: 1 & 2 & 2 & 4.85 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.93 & 1.61 & 6300 & 0.70 \\
852: 2 & 2.5 & 2 & 9 & 5 & 1.5 & 0 & 2.44 & 1.42 & 5500 & 0.73 \\
853: 3 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.79 & 1.65 & 6376 & 0.74 \\
854: 4 & 2 & 2 & 8 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.78 & 1.67 & 6379 & 0.74 \\
855: 5 & 2 & 2 & 7 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.78 & 1.67 & 6390 & 0.74 \\
856: 6 & 2 & 2 & 6 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.78 & 1.73 & 6352 & 0.74 \\
857: 7 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 5 & 1.5 & 0 & 2.56 & 1.42 & 5679 & 0.72 \\
858: 8 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 7 & 2.73 & 1.67 & 6178 & 0.73 \\
859: 9 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 50 & 2.22 & 1.67 & 4613 & 0.67 \\
860: 10 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 17 & 2.64 & 1.67 & 5826 & 0.72 \\
861: 11 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 34 & 2.46 & 1.67 & 5021 & 0.66 \\
862: 12 & 2 & 2 & 8 & 10 & 2 & 34 & 2.46 & 1.67 & 5023 & 0.66 \\
863: 13 & 2 & 2 & 7 & 10 & 2 & 34 & 2.46 & 1.67 & 5033 & 0.66 \\
864: 14 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 1.5 & 27 & 2.68 & 1.85 & 5594 & 0.68 \\
865: 15 & 2 & 2 & 9 & 5 & 1.5 & 27 & 2.68 & 1.85 & 5594 & 0.68 \\
866: 16 & 2 & 1 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.14 & 1.36 & 5010 & 0.77 \\
867: 17 & 2 & 1.5 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.50 & 1.54 & 5768 & 0.76 \\
868: 18 & 1 & 1 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.40 & 1.17 & 5215 & 0.71 \\
869: 19 & 1.5 & 1 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.26 & 1.30 & 5120 & 0.74 \\
870: 20 & 1 & 1.5 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.77 & 1.30 & 5989 & 0.71 \\
871: 21 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 0 & 2.63 & 1.48 & 5861 & 0.73 \\
872: 22 & 2.5 & 1 & 9 & 4.7 & 1.5 & 0 & 1.88 & 1.17 & 4348 & 0.76 \\
873: 23 & 2.5 & 1.5 & 9 & 4.7 & 1.5 & 0 & 2.20 & 1.30 & 4994 & 0.74 \\
874: \enddata
875: \label{tab:snrmodels}
876: \end{deluxetable}
877:
878:
879:
880: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccccc}
881: \tablecolumns{7}
882: \tablewidth{0pc}
883: \tablecaption{Nonthermal Filaments Spectral Fits}
884: \tablehead{
885: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Exterior Filaments\tablenotemark{a}}
886: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interior Filaments\tablenotemark{b}}
887: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Northeast Filament\tablenotemark{c}} \\
888: \colhead{Epoch} & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{1 keV Flux\tablenotemark{d}}
889: & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{1 keV Flux\tablenotemark{d}}
890: & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{1 keV Flux\tablenotemark{d}}}
891: \startdata
892: 2000 & 2.27$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 2.81$^{+0.31}_{-0.28}$ & 2.41$^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & 8.10$^{+0.81}_{-0.73}$ & 2.28$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 0.78$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$\\
893: 2002 & 2.27$^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & 3.31$^{+0.32}_{-0.29}$ & 2.41$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 8.59$^{+0.81}_{-0.73}$ & 2.39$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 0.96$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\\
894: 2004 & 2.31$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 4.03$^{+0.36}_{-0.33}$ & 2.41$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 8.94$^{+0.83}_{-0.75}$ & 2.31$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 1.01$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\\
895: 2007 & 2.35$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 5.15$^{+0.57}_{-0.51}$ & 2.36$^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & 10.1$^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ & 2.29$^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & 1.18$^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$\\
896: \enddata
897: \tablenotetext{a}{Galactic $N_H$ fit at 1.15 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.}
898: \tablenotetext{b}{Galactic $N_H$ fit at 2.01 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.}
899: \tablenotetext{c}{Galactic $N_H$ fit at 1.22 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.}
900: \tablenotetext{d}{in units of 10$^{-3}$ photons keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}
901: \label{tab:fits}
902: \end{deluxetable}
903:
904: \clearpage
905:
906: \begin{figure}
907: \plotone{f1.eps}
908: \caption{Exposure corrected RGB color December 2007 image of Cas A.
909: Red corresponds to
910: 0.5--1.5 keV, green to 1.5--3.0 keV, and blue to 4.0--6.0 keV.
911: This figure is available as part of an on-line animation
912: in the electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}, which
913: shows the dynamical and spectral evolution of Cassiopeia A from Jan 2000 to Dec 2007.}
914: \label{fig:casa07}
915: \end{figure}
916:
917: \begin{figure}
918: \plotone{f2.eps}
919: \caption{A difference image between 2000.08 and 2007.95 {\sl Chandra}
920: ACIS images. White correlates
921: with the direction of filament motion.
922: The boxes correspond to regions where we measured
923: the filament proper motion}
924: \label{fig:casadiff}
925: \end{figure}
926:
927: \begin{figure}
928: \plotone{f3.eps}
929: \caption{Nonthermal, forward shock filament emission profile plots are shown for
930: four selected regions. Filament profiles
931: from Jan 2000 and Dec 2007 are shown as solid and dashed lines, respectively. }
932: \label{fig:profiles}
933: \end{figure}
934:
935:
936: %\begin{figure}
937: %\includegraphics[width=3in, bb=221 114 584 708]{f4.eps}
938: %\plotone{f4.ps}
939: %\caption{Model simulations for the evolution of Cas A. Models were run with
940: %the following parameters: E$_{\rm SN}$ = 2$\times$10$^{51}$ erg, M$_{ej}$ =
941: %2 M$_{\sun}$, an ejecta profile of $n=7$ expanding into a power-law wind with
942: %$v_{wind}$ = 10 km s$^{-1}$ and $\dot{M}$ = 2$\times$10$^{-5}$
943: %M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$. The dashed curve represents the case without cosmic-ray
944: %acceleration,
945: %while the solid curve represents a cosmic ray modified shock where
946: %$\approx$ 20\% of the SN energy went into cosmic rays. The top panel
947: %represents the fluid velocity as a function of radius,
948: %and the bottom panel shows the reverse shock,
949: %contact discontinuity, and forward shock
950: %evolution as a function of time. The data points in the
951: %bottom panel represent the location of the forward and reverse shock
952: %at $t$ = 320 yr as measured by \citet{gotthelf01}. }
953: %\label{fig:hydro}
954: %\end{figure}
955:
956: \begin{figure}
957: \plotone{f4.eps}
958: \caption{The east-central region of Cas A in the 4.2--6.0 keV band.
959: The four frames
960: show the central region between 2000 and 2007. Boxes and the circle mark
961: knots and filaments which show brightness variations along the filament,
962: while arrows mark the location and direction of thin filaments which
963: show proper motions between 2000 and 2007. The central compact object (CCO)
964: is labeled for reference.}
965: \label{fig:center}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968: \begin{figure}
969: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
970: \caption{{\it left}: Exposure corrected 4.2--6.0 keV images of a
971: bright nonthermal filament (enclosed in the white box) in
972: the northeast corner of Cas A. {\it right}: Spectral fits the the spectrum
973: from this filament. The fit results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fits}.}
974: \label{fig:ne}
975: \end{figure}
976:
977: \begin{figure}
978: \includegraphics[width=3.5in, bb=221 114 584 708]{f6.eps}
979: \caption{Extracted spectra for forward shock and interior nonthermal
980: filaments.}
981: \label{fig:fits}
982: \end{figure}
983:
984: \end{document}
985: