1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
14: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
15:
16: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
17:
18: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ.}
19:
20: \shorttitle{Formation Channel to PSR J1903$+$0327} \shortauthors{Liu
21: et al.}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25:
26:
27: \title{A Fallback Disk Accretion-Involved Formation Channel to
28: PSR J1903$+$0327}
29:
30: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
31: %% author and affiliation information.
32: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
33: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
34: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
35: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
36:
37: \author{Xi-Wei Liu\altaffilmark{1} and Xiang-Dong Li\altaffilmark{2}}
38:
39: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Astrophysics, Huazhong Normal
40: University, Wuhan 430079, China} \altaffiltext{2}{Department of
41: Astronomy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China}
42:
43: \email{liuxw@phy.ccnu.edu.cn; lixd@nju.edu.cn}
44:
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: The discovery of the eccentric binary and millisecond pulsar PSR
48: J1903$+$03273 has raised interesting questions about the formation
49: mechanisms of this peculiar system. Here we present a born-fast
50: scenario for PSR J1903$+$03273. We assume that during the supernova
51: (SN) explosion that produced the pulsar, a fallback disk was formed
52: around and accreted onto the newborn neutron star. Mass accretion
53: could accelerate the neutron star's spin to milliseconds, and
54: decrease its magnetic field to $\sim 10^8-10^9$ G, provided that
55: there was sufficient mass ($\sim 0.1 M_{\sun}$) in the fallback
56: disk. The neutron star became a millisecond pulsar after mass
57: accretion terminated. In the meanwhile the binary orbit has kept to
58: be eccentric (due to the SN explosion) for $\sim 10^{9}$ yr. We have
59: performed population synthesis calculations of the evolutions of
60: neutron stars with a fallback disk, and found that there might be
61: tens to hundreds of PSR J1903$+$03273-like systems in the Galaxy.
62: This scenario also suggests that some fraction of isolated
63: millisecond pulsars in the Galactic disk could be formed through the
64: same channel.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
68: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
69: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
70: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
71:
72: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- pulsars: general ---
73: pulsars: individual (PSR J1903+0327) --- stars: neutron
74: }
75:
76: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
77: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
78: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
79: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
80: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
81: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
82: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
83: %% each reference.
84:
85:
86: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
87: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
88: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
89: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
90: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
91: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
92: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
93: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
94: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
95: %%
96: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
97: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
98: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
99: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: There are now around 100 binary and millisecond pulsars (BMPSRs)
104: known in the Galaxy. Most of them are characterized by short spin
105: periods ($P\la 15$ ms), weak magnetic fields ($B\sim 10^8-10^9$ G),
106: and circular orbits with companions of mass $\sim 0.15 M_{\sun}-0.45
107: M_{\sun}$. In the recycling scenario, these systems are thought to
108: be the descendants of low-mass X-ray binaries (Bhattacharya \& van
109: den Heuvel 1991; Tauris \& van den Heuvel 2006). The evolutionary
110: path is briefly described as follows. A high-field ($B\sim
111: 10^{12}-10^{13}$ G), rapidly rotating neutron star (NS) is born in a
112: binary with a low-mass ($\sim 1 M_{\sun}$) main-sequence (MS)
113: companion star. During the supernova (SN) that produces the NS, mass
114: loss and a kick imparted on the NS cause the orbit to be eccentric.
115: The NS spins down as a radio pulsar for $\sim 10^6-10^7$ yr until
116: passing by the so-called ``death line" in the magnetic field - spin
117: period ($B-P$) diagram \citep{ruderman75}. When the companion
118: evolves to overflow its Roche lobe, mass transfer occurs by way of
119: an accretion disk, and tidal friction serves to circularize the
120: orbit. Mass accretion onto the NS gives rise to X-ray emission,
121: induces magnetic field decay (the mechanisms for the field decay
122: induced by accretion are, however, not well understood), and
123: accelerates the NS up to short (millisecond) period. When the
124: companion loses almost all of its envelope and mass transfer ceases,
125: the endpoint of the evolution is a circular binary containing an NS
126: visible as a low-field, millisecond radio pulsar, and a He or CO
127: white dwarf (WD), the remaining core of the companion. A
128: fast-growing population of eccentric ($e>0.1$) BMPSRs have been
129: recently revealed in globular clusters (GCs) \citep{freire07}. These
130: high eccentricities are likely to be attributed to the dynamical
131: interactions in the central regions of GCs.
132:
133: Most recently \citet{champion08} reported the discovery of an
134: eccentric BMPSR PSR J1903$+$0327 in the Galactic plane. With a spin
135: period of 2.15\,ms, the pulsar lies in an eccentric ($e=0.44$),
136: 95-day orbit around a $\sim 1 M_{\sun}$ companion. The mass of the
137: pulsar was estimated to be $1.74\pm0.04\,M_{\sun}$, about $30\%$
138: larger than that of other binary NSs in the Galactic disk. Infrared
139: observations identified a possible MS companion star. Preferred
140: formation scenarios may include \citep[cf.][]{heuvel08,champion08}:
141: (1) the pulsar was recycled in a GC, then the original donor star
142: was replaced by the present MS companion via one or more exchange
143: interactions, and the binary was displaced from the GC due to either
144: ejection or the disruption of the GC; (2) the pulsar is part of a
145: primordial hierarchical triple system, recycled by accretion from
146: the progenitor of a massive ($\sim 0.9-1.1\,M_{\odot}$) WD which is
147: seen in the timing measurement, while the detected infrared
148: counterpart, the third star, is in a much wider and highly inclined
149: orbit around the inner binary. The eccentricity of the inner binary
150: is caused by the perturbation of the outer MS star; (3) in an
151: alternative triple-star model, the WD in the inner binary system was
152: evaporated by the pulsar's energy flux, or coalesced with it, such
153: that the present binary remained.
154:
155: % 4) The companion
156: %star is a pulsar, though its radio pulsation is not detected due
157: %to either unfavorably beaming away from our line of sight or
158: %rotating too slowly to be observed.
159:
160: Since there is no strong evidence for the GC or triple star origin
161: of PSR J1903$+$0327, in this paper, we seek an alternative,
162: born-fast scenario for PSR J1903$+$0327 which was already mentioned
163: by \citet{champion08}. These authors argued that the pulsar was not
164: likely to be formed spinning rapidly at the time of SN with a small
165: magnetic field, due to the following reasons: (1) there are no
166: pulsars like PSR J1903$+$0327 in any of the $>50$ young supernova
167: remnants in which an NS has been inferred or detected directly; (2)
168: the 18 isolated MPSRs detected in the Galactic disk have spin
169: distributions, space velocities, and energetics indistinguishable
170: from those of recycled BMPRSs and their space velocities and scale
171: heights do not match those of non-recycled pulsars; (3) magnetic
172: fields in young pulsars is unlikely to be less than $10^{10}$ G.
173: However, as we shown below, if experienced accretion from a SN
174: fallback disk, the newborn pulsar could be accelerated to a period
175: of several milliseconds, together with the magnetic field decayed to
176: $\sim 10^{8}$\,G from an initial value, say $\sim 10^{12}$ G. When
177: the disk becomes neutral after $\sim 10^{3}-10^{4}$\,yr
178: \citep{menou01} and accretion ceases, the NS becomes an MPSR. The
179: orbit, if not being disrupted by the SN explosion, will remain
180: eccentric for $> 10^{10}$\,yr before it is circularized
181: \citep[cf.][]{hurley02}. The binary consists of a recycled pulsar
182: and a MS companion in an eccentric orbit, just like PSR
183: J1903$+$0327. Hence this scenario could produce a population of
184: eccentric BMPSRs as well as isolated MPSRs.
185:
186: %In the next section we examine whether the fallback model can
187: %reproduce the properties of PSR J1903+0327. In section 3 we
188: %calculate the statistical properties of this kind of FDAI MPSRs.
189: %Conclusions and discussions are given in the last section.
190:
191:
192:
193: \section{Spin Evolution of An NS with A Fallback Disk}
194:
195: %% In a manner similar to \objectname authors can provide links to dataset
196: %% hosted at participating data centers via the \dataset{} command. The
197: %% second curly bracket argument is printed in the text while the first
198: %% parentheses argument serves as the valid data set identifier. Large
199: %% lists of data set are best provided in a table (see Table 3 for an example).
200: %% Valid data set identifiers should be obtained from the data center that
201: %% is currently hosting the data.
202: %%
203: %% Note that AASTeX interprets everything between the curly braces in the
204: %% macro as regular text, so any special characters, e.g. "#" or "_," must be
205: %% preceded by a backslash. Otherwise, you will get a LaTeX error when you
206: %% compile your manuscript. Special characters do not
207: %% need to be escaped in the optional, square-bracket argument.
208:
209: Following the formation of an NS through the core collapse of its
210: progenitor, a small amount of mass could fall back onto the compact
211: object \citep{colgate71,chevalier89,lin91}. Some of the fallback
212: material may carry sufficient angular momentum and to form an
213: accretion disk of mass M$_{d}$ around the NS. The initial transient
214: phase lasts for a local viscous timescale $t_{0}\approx
215: 6.6\times10^{-5}(T_{c,6})^{-1}R_{d,8}^{1/2}(t_{0})$\,yr, on which a
216: thin disk forms \citep{cannizzo90,menou01}. Here $T_{c,6}$ is the
217: typical temperature in the outermost disk annulus during this early
218: phase, in units of $10^{6}$\,K, and $R_{d,8}(t_{0})$ is the initial
219: disk radius in units of $10^{8}$\,cm. We set $T_{c,6}=1$ throughout
220: this paper. The subsequent evolution of the disk obeys the
221: self-similar solution \citep{cannizzo90}, i.e.,
222: \begin{equation}
223: \dot{M}_{d}(t) =\left\{
224: \begin{array}{ll}
225: \dot{M}_{d}(t_{0}), & 0<t<t_{0}, \nonumber \\
226: \dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})\left(\frac{t}{t_{0}}\right)^{-p}, &
227: t\geq t_{0},
228: \end{array}\right.
229: \end{equation}
230: where the power index $p=1.25$ \citep{fran02},
231: $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})$ is a constant, which we normalize to the
232: total mass of the disk $M_{d}=\int^{\infty}_{0}\dot{M}_{d}dt$, by
233: $M_{d}/(5t_{0})$ \citep{chatterjee00a}.
234:
235: The subsequent evolution of the NS can be divided into three phases:
236:
237: 1. The {\it accretor} phase - When the magnetosphere radius
238: $R_{m}\simeq 1.6\times10^{8}B_{12}^{4/7}\dot{M}_{18}^{-2/7}$\,cm is
239: less than the corotation radius defined by
240: $R_{c}=(GM/\Omega)^{1/3}$, the fallback matter is allowed to be
241: accreted onto the surface of the NS. Here $B_{12}=B/10^{12}$ G,
242: $\dot{M}_{18}=\dot{M}/10^{18}$ gs$^{-1}$, and $\Omega$ is the
243: angular velocity of the NS. To evaluate the accretion torque, we
244: divide this phase further into two sub-phases: a) If $R_{m}\leq$ the
245: NS radius $R_{NS}$, the torque exerted on the star is assumed to be
246: $\dot{J}=\dot{M}R_{NS}^{2}\Omega_{K}(R_{NS})$, where $\Omega_{K}(R)$
247: is the Keplerian velocity at $R$; b) if $R_{NS}<R_{m}\leq R_{c}$,
248: the accretion torque is given by
249: $\dot{J}=2\dot{M}R_{m}^{2}\Omega_{K}(R_{m})[1-\Omega/\Omega_{K}(R_{m})]$.
250:
251: The accretion rate $\dot{M}$ of the NS is assumed to be limited by
252: the Eddington accretion rate $\dot{M}_{E}\simeq
253: 1\times10^{18}$\,g\,s$^{-1}$ for a $1.4\,M_{\sun}$ NS. However,
254: during the early phase of accretion, the accretion rate may be so
255: high that the radiation is trapped in the flow and neutrino losses
256: are important close to the NS surface \citep{colgate71,chevalier89}.
257: The gravitational energy generated by infalling matter is mainly
258: released by neutrino losses. Hence the Eddington limit does not
259: work in this phase. According to \citet{chevalier89}, when the
260: accretion rate drops to about $3\times10^{-4}\,M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$,
261: the reverse shock reaches the radiation trapping radius so that the
262: photons can begin to diffuse out from the shocked envelope. A
263: luminosity of Eddington limit is expected now, and this luminosity
264: can reduce or even reverse the inflow outside the shocked envelope.
265: Hence we adopt the Eddington limited accretion only when
266: $\dot{M}<3\times10^{-4}\,M_{\odot}$\,yr$^{-1}$. Otherwise we assume
267: all the mass is accreted by the NS.
268:
269: Along with mass accretion, we assume that the magnetic field
270: evolution follows the relation, $B=B_{0}(1+\Delta M/M_{0})$, where
271: $B_0$ is the initial magnetic field strength, and $M_{0}$ is a
272: parameter that determines the rate of decay with its typical value
273: of $\sim 10^{-5}-10^{-4}M_{\odot}$
274: \citep{taam86,shibazaki89,romani90}.
275:
276: 2. The {\it propeller} phase - This phase begins when $\dot{M}$
277: decreases so that $R_{c}<R_{m}$. The infalling matter is assumed to
278: be accelerated outward owing to the centrifugal barrier, taking away
279: the angular momentum of the NS \citep{illarinov75}. In this phase
280: we use the same formula as in the {\it accretor} phase b) to
281: estimate the propeller spin-down torque.
282:
283: 3. The {\it radio pulsar} phase - As $\dot{M}$ decreases further,
284: $R_{m}$ exceeds the light cylinder radius $R_{lc}=c/\Omega$, or
285: the disk becomes neutral, the accretion ceases and the NS becomes
286: a radio pulsar. The neutral timescale of a fallback disc is
287: $t_{n}=[R_{d,10}^{3}(t_{0})\times10^{16}\mathrm{g\,s}^{-1}/\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})]^{-1/2.75}t_{0}$
288: \citep{menou01}, where $R_{d,10}$ is the disk radius in units of
289: $10^{10}$\,cm. In this work, when either $R_{m}>R_{lc}$ or
290: $t>t_{n}$, we assume that the radio pulsar phase turns on and the
291: subsequent NS spin evolution follows the magnetic dipole radiation
292: prescription, until the NS crosses the "death line", i.e.
293: $B_{12}/P^{2}<0.17$.
294:
295: In Fig.~1 we show several examples of the calculated evolutions of
296: the NS spin and magnetic field under typical conditions according
297: the scheme described above. The model parameters are listed in
298: Table 1. For the spin evolution, the thick solid, solid, and dotted
299: lines represent the {\it accretor}, {\it propeller}, and {\it radio
300: pulsar} phases, respectively. In case 1 we adopt the initial
301: parameters as $M_{d}=0.28\,M_{\odot}$, $P_{0}=14$\,ms,
302: $B_{0}=3\times10^{12}$\,G, $M_{0}=10^{-5}\,M_{\odot}$, and
303: $R_{d}=10^{9}$\,cm. The NS is found to be spun-up to a period of
304: 2.88\,ms in 72\,yr, when the disk becomes neutral\footnote{The
305: neutral time is given by
306: $t_{n}\propto[R_{d}^{-3}\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})]^{1/2.75}\times
307: R_{d}^{0.5}$ \citep{menou01}. The value $t_{n}=72$\,yr used here is
308: much less than that ($\sim 10^{3}\sim10^{4}$\,yr) in
309: \citet{menou01}. This is because (1) we calculated
310: $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})$ by normalizing it to the total disk mass, while
311: \citet{menou01} estimated it by assuming
312: $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})=M_{d}/t_{0}$, which gives a larger value of
313: $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})$ than ours; (2) the adopted value of
314: $R_{d}=10^9$ cm is larger than the value in \citet{menou01}.}.
315: In the meanwhile, the magnetic
316: field decreases dramatically to $4.2\times10^{8}$\,G. This is a
317: strongly spun-up pulsar, demonstrating a possible way for the
318: formation of PSR J1903+0327. In case 2 we lower the initial disk
319: mass $M_d$ to $0.02M_{\odot}$, while keeping all the other
320: parameters same as in case 1. This leads to a lower
321: $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})$, so that the spinning-up efficiency also
322: becomes lower. The NS enters the {\it radio pulsar} phase with a
323: relatively longer period of 11.26\,ms and a higher magnetic field of
324: $6.8\times10^{9}$\,G. In case 3 we lower the initial disk radius
325: $R_d$ by a factor of 10 compared with in case 1. This gives a lower
326: value of $t_{0}$ and a higher value of $\dot{M}_{d}(t_{0})$, and the
327: NS is spun-up to a period of 3.63\,ms. In case 4 we choose a slower
328: decay of the magnetic field than in case 1 by setting a higher value
329: of $M_{0}=10^{-4}\,M_{\sun}$. It is shown that the period evolution
330: remains almost unchanged, but the magnetic field decays to
331: $4.2\times10^{9}$\,G, about 10 times of that in case 1. A similar
332: feature can be seen in case 5, if we increase the initial magnetic
333: field to be $B=1\times10^{13}$\,G. Finally in case 6 $M_{d}$ is
334: further decreased to be $0.01\,M_{\odot}$, now the NS is spun-up to
335: a period of 11.82\,ms during the first 39 yr and then spun-down
336: during the {\it propeller} phase to a period of 11.92\,ms during the
337: subsequent 88\,yr. After that time the disk becomes neutral and the
338: {\it radio pulsar} phase begins. In the meanwhile the magnetic
339: field decays to $6.6\times10^{10}$\,G. This is a mildly spun-up
340: pulsar.
341:
342:
343: %% In this section, we use the \subsection command to set off
344: %% a subsection. \footnote is used to insert a footnote to the text.
345:
346: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
347: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
348: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
349: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
350: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
351: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
352: %% automatically renumber them.
353:
354: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments
355: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.
356:
357:
358:
359: \section{Population synthesis}
360:
361: Based on the analysis in the above section, now we try to estimate
362: the statistical properties (e.g. the birth rate, total number,
363: orbital period and eccentricity distributions) of RSR
364: J1903+0327-like pulsars formed through the fallback disk accretion
365: involved (FDAI) channel in the Galaxy, by using an evolutionary
366: population synthesis (EPS) method based on the rapid binary stellar
367: evolution (BSE) code developed by \citet{hurley00} and
368: \citet{hurley02}. This code incorporates the evolution of single
369: stars with binary-star interactions, such as mass transfer, mass
370: accretion, common-envelope (CE) evolution, SN kick, tidal friction,
371: and angular momentum loss mechanisms (e.g. magnetic braking and
372: gravitational radiation).
373:
374: We assume all stars are born in binary systems. The initial mass
375: function (IMF) of \citet{kroupa93} is adopted for the primary's mass
376: ($M_{1}$) distribution. For the secondary stars ($M_{2}$) we assume
377: a uniform distribution of the mass ratio $M_{2}/M_{1}$ between 0 and
378: 1. A uniform distribution of $\ln a$ is adopted for the binary
379: separation $a$. The star formation rate parameter is taken to be
380: $S=7.6085$\,yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to a rate of
381: $\sim 0.02$\,yr$^{-1}$ for core-collapse SNe in our Galaxy, assume
382: all the stars with masses $>8\,M_{\odot}$ die through SN
383: explosions.
384:
385: It is known that a velocity kick is imparted to newborn NSs during
386: core-collapse SNe, and a Maxwellian SN kick distribution with
387: dispersion $V_{\sigma}\sim 200-400$ km\,s$^{-1}$ is usually adopted
388: \citep[e.g.][]{lyne94,hobbs05}. However, there is mounting evidence
389: that some NSs may have received relatively small velocity kicks, of
390: order less than 50\,km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{pfahl02a,pfahl02b,pod04}. A
391: probable mechanism that causes small kicks is the electron capture
392: (EC) SNe \citep{miyaji80,nomoto84}. The explosion energies of such
393: SNe are significantly lower than those of normal SNe
394: \citep{dessart06,kitaura06,jiang07}, so that the nascent NSs receive
395: a small kick velocity. It has been suggested that the initial
396: masses of stars that explode via the EC SN mechanism may range in
397: $\sim 6-12\,M_{\odot}$ \citep{pod04,kitaura06,poe08}. Alternatively,
398: core-collapse SN would be sub-energetic if the initial mass of its
399: progenitor is greater than $\sim 18\,M_{\odot}$. Simulations for a
400: range of progenitor masses and different input physics suggest that
401: the explosion energy decreases with increasing progenitor mass,
402: whereas the binding energy of the star increases with increasing
403: mass. This leads to a transition mass range of $\sim
404: 18-25\,M_{\odot}$ above which the SN explosion is so
405: energy-deficient that fallback accretion would be important
406: \citep{fryer99}. For the aforementioned reasons, we assume a
407: Maxwellian kick distribution with $V_{\sigma}=20$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for
408: the progenitor stars with initial masses of $8\leq
409: M\leq12\,M_{\odot}$ and $M\geq 18\,M_{\odot}$, otherwise we take
410: $V_{\sigma}=265$ km\,s$^{-1}$.
411:
412: The fallback disk mass $M_{d}$ is poorly known, but various
413: arguments suggest that $M_{d}\la 0.1\,M_{\odot}$ may not be
414: unreasonable \citep{chevalier89,lin91}. There should exist a
415: relation between the disk mass and the properties of the
416: progenitors. Unfortunately, there are big uncertainties in some key
417: factors in the SN models, including the neutrino energy and
418: transport, equation of state of gas at nuclear densities,
419: convection, rotation, neutrino emission asymmetry, etc
420: \citep{monchmeyer91,yamada95,fryer99}, each of which could strongly
421: affect the SN energy and hence the mass of fallback. So we do not
422: attempt to find a empirical formula to depict this kind of relation.
423: Instead, we adopt simplified assumptions that sub-energetic SNe
424: generally produce more massive fallback disks, i.e., the logarithm
425: of the disk mass $\log (M_{d}/M_{\odot})$ is distributed uniformly
426: between $-5$ and $-1$ for stars of masses $8\leq M\leq12\,M_{\odot}$
427: or $M\geq 18\,M_{\odot}$, and between $-6$ to $-2$ in other cases.
428:
429: The initial magnetic fields are chosen so that $\log B$ is
430: distributed normally with a mean of 12.4 and a standard deviation of
431: 0.4. The magnetic field decay parameter $M_{0}$ is set to be
432: $10^{-5}-10^{-4}\,M_{\odot}$, and the disk radius $R_{d}\sim
433: 10^7-10^{8}$\,cm. The initial $P_{0}$ is chosen to be distributed
434: uniformly between 10 and 100\,ms. In this work an MPSR is defined
435: as a radio pulsar with spin period less than 10\,ms, and we {\it
436: only} take the FDAI MPSRs (either in binaries or isolation) into
437: account. In the case of BMPSRs, if the companion star fills its
438: Roche lobe before the pulsar passes the death line, we take the
439: elapsed time before this moment as the upper limit for the lifetime
440: of the pulsar.
441:
442: We divide the binary FDAI MPSRs into several categories according to
443: their formation channels and the properties of the companion stars
444: described as follows. The first case is that the pulsar is formed by
445: core collapse of the primary star, and has an MS binary companion.
446: Since the pulsar evolution can be strongly influenced by the stellar
447: winds from the companion, which are intensive for massive stars, we
448: only consider the MPSR-low-mass main sequence (MPSR-LMS) binaries,
449: in which the companion star has a mass less than $1.5\,M_{\odot}$.
450: Alternatively the pulsar is formed by core collapse of the
451: secondary, and already has an NS/BH binary companion. They are
452: called NS/BH-MPSRs binaries. Finally, a single MPSR could form
453: during either the first or the second SN that disrupts the binary.
454: %In this case, the velocity of the post-SN single MPSR would be same
455: %as the pre-SN orbital velocity of its progenitor, i.e. of tens of
456: %km\,s$^{-1}$, which is consistent with that of the disk MPSRs
457: %\citep{toscano99}. Moreover, SN kicks imparted on nascent NSs would
458: %aggravate disruptions. If a binary is disrupted by a large kick
459: %($V_{\sigma}=265$\,km\,s$^{-1}$), the resultant single MPSR would
460: %In these casses, if the pulsar has a velocity greater than
461: %200\,km\,s$^{-1}$, we name it a ``fast" single MPSR; otherwise it is
462: %``slow".
463:
464: To investigate the influence of the model parameters on the final
465: results, we design nine models by changing the values of the CE
466: parameter $\alpha_{CE}$\footnote{The CE parameter $\alpha_{CE}$ is
467: defined as the ratio of total binding energy of the envelope
468: $E_{bind,i}$, and the difference between the initial and final
469: orbital energies of the cores, i.e.,
470: $\alpha_{CE}=E_{bind,i}/(E_{orb,f}-E_{orb,i})$, where $E_{orb,f}$
471: and $E_{orb,i}$ are the final and initial binding energy of the
472: cores, respectively (see Hurley, Tout \& Pols 2002 for details).},
473: the field decay parameter $M_0$, the lower and upper limit of the
474: fallback disk mass $M_{d,low}$, $M_{d,upp}$ in case of sub-energetic
475: SNe, and the disk radius $R_{d}$ (listed in Table 2). The calculated
476: numbers and formation rates of various types of binary and single
477: MPSRs in our Galaxy are listed in Table 3, and briefly described as
478: follows.
479:
480: In model A (regarded as our control model) we adopt
481: $\alpha_{CE}=1.0$, $M_{0}=10^{-5}\,M_{\odot}$,
482: $M_{d}=10^{-5}-0.1\,M_{\odot}$, and $R_{d}=10^{8}$\,cm. It is
483: predicted that in the Galaxy there are $\sim 200$ MPSR-LMS (PSR
484: J1903$+$0327 may be one of them) and ten times more NS/BH-MPSR
485: systems. Moreover, $\sim 10^{5}$ single MPSRs are produced. This
486: number is comparable with estimated from observations
487: \citep[e.g.][]{lorimer95}, suggesting that some fraction of the
488: single MPSRs might form from the fallback disk accretion rather the
489: traditional recycling channel in binary systems. Since their
490: formation rate is 100 times lower than normal pulsars, it is not
491: surprising that no MPSRs have been detected in young SN remnants.
492: %shown that the number and birth rate of
493: %MPSR-WD binaries is always less than that of MPSR-LMS binaries. The
494: %reason is that for our definition of the FDAI MPSR, once the
495: %companion star fills its Roche lobe and thus begins to transfer mass
496: %to the MPSR, the active radio lifetime terminates. Although the
497: %pulsar might enter another radio phase after the mass-transfer ends,
498: %we ascribe that second radio phase to a conventional recycling
499: %process, and do not take it into account. Hence, for producing the
500: %MPSR-WD binaries, it is necessary not only the WD itself does not
501: %fill the Roche lobe, but also all the evolutionary progenitors of
502: %the WD (including the MS progenitor of the WD) do not fill their
503: %corresponding Roche lobes. In one word, if it produces a MPSR-WD
504: %binary it must have produced a MPSR-MS binary, but {\it not} vice
505: %versa.
506: %The large number and birth rate of NS/BH-MPSR binaries is always
507: %larger than that of MPSR-LMS binaries. This is because: 1) when the
508: %primary star explodes, the companion star is a massive star
509: %($\geq8$\,M$_{\odot}$), thus the possibility of binary disruption is
510: %lower than that in the case of the primary star exploding with a
511: %low-mass companion; 2) due to the high mass ratio, the survived
512: %binary may evolve through a CE phase when the massive companion
513: %fills its Roche lobe, thus further emerges as a NS/BH-Helium star
514: %binary. When that Helium star explodes, the possibility of binary
515: %disruption is lower than that in the case of the companion star
516: %collapsing as a massive supergiant. If the newly born NS can be
517: %spun-up to a period of a few milliseconds via accreting from its
518: %fallback disk, a MPSR-NS/BH system would form.
519: %
520: %The number and average lifetime ($\sim$number/birth rate) of the
521: %fast single MPSRs are much lower than that of the slow single
522: %MPSRs. The reason is that, 1) for the initial stellar masses of
523: %12\,M$_{\odot}<M<$18\,M$_{\odot}$, which can produce the fast
524: %single MPSRs, we adopt an order of magnitude lower range of
525: %fallback disk masses than that for the initial stellar masses of
526: %$8\leq M\leq12$\,M$_{\odot}$ or $M\geq 18$\,M$_{\odot}$, which can
527: %produce the slow single MPSRs. This lower value of disk mass will
528: %reduce the fraction of the newly born pulsars which can be spun-up
529: %to periods of less than 10\,ms (compare the curves of P1 and P2 in
530: %Figure 1). Moreover, the lower disk mass leads the fast single
531: %MPSRs to have longer periods than that of the slow single MPSRs.
532: %For example, in model A all the fast single MPSRs have periods
533: %between 9 and 10\,ms, while the slow single MPSRs have periods
534: %between 5 and 10\,ms. This means that the fast single MPSRs will
535: %have much shorter lifetime than their slow counterparts; 2) due to
536: %the IMF slope, the birth rate of fast pulsars which are the
537: %descendants of stars with masses 12\,M$_{\odot}<M<$18\,M$_{\odot}$
538: %is lower than that of slow pulsars which are the descendants of
539: %stars with masses $8\leq M\leq12$\,M$_{\odot}$ or $M\geq
540: %18$\,M$_{\odot}$.
541:
542: In model B we increase the $\alpha_{CE}$ to 3.0, and find that
543: higher $\alpha_{CE}$ produces more MPSR-LMS binaries. This is
544: because binaries with a higher $\alpha_{CE}$ tend to survive during
545: the CE evolution, especially for low-mass, close binaries which are
546: more likely to be subject to coalescence during CE evolution.
547: %For a single MPSR, its progenitor binary with wider
548: %post-CE orbit would be more likely to be disrupted by the SN
549: %explosion.
550: For the same reason, lower $\alpha_{CE}$ (model C) leads to fewer
551: MPSRs \citep[see][for more detailed discussions]{liu06}. In model D
552: we adopt a slower magnetic field decay, resulting in a shorter
553: duration of the {\it accretor} phase, hence significantly reducing
554: the numbers of all three types of MPSRs. In model E we choose a
555: lower value of $R_{d}$ than in model A. As mentioned in \S 2, this
556: will cause longer final periods of the pulsars (compare the curves
557: of P1 and P3 in Fig.~1), and produce fewer MPSRs. In model F the
558: lower limit of the fallback disk masses is increased by a factor of
559: 3, but the numbers of MPSRs change little, since MPSRs are produced
560: only in the case of heavy disk accretion. This effect can also be
561: illustrated in model G: when the upper limit of disk masses become
562: half in model A, the numbers of MPSRs decrease by a factor of 10. To
563: constrain the possible ranges of MPSR numbers, models H and I
564: represent two extremely favorable and unfavorable cases for the
565: production of MPSRs, respectively. It is found that the number of
566: MPSR-LMS binaries may range from less than one to nearly one
567: thousand in the Galaxy.
568:
569: We plot the eccentricity vs. orbital period distributions of the
570: MPSR-LMS binaries for models A, B, and C in Figure 2. The
571: distributions of the other three models are similar as that of model
572: A. It is seen that in both models A and C most MPSR-LMS binaries
573: are in wide orbits ($P_{orb}>10^{3}$\,days) with eccentricities
574: $e>0.3$. For model B, the binary population seems to be distributed
575: into two groups. One is similar as that in models A and C, the other
576: stretches across large ranges of $e$ ($\sim 0-1$) and $P_{orb}$
577: ($\sim1-10^{3}$\,day) with a tendency of larger $e$ accompanied with
578: larger $P_{orb}$.
579:
580: %% This section contains more display math examples, including unnumbered
581: %% equations (displaymath environment). The last paragraph includes some
582: %% examples of in-line math featuring a couple of the AASTeX symbol macros.
583:
584: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
585:
586: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as
587: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered
588: %% by LaTeX.
589: In this paper we suggest a born-fast formation channel for MPSRs in
590: the Galaxy. In this scenario, a newborn NS may experience
591: spinning-up and field decay phase via accretion from a fossil disk,
592: established as a result of fallback following a SN explosion. For
593: appropriate choices of initial parameters, the NS could become a low
594: field MPSR within $<10^3$ yr. In particular, this scenario can
595: naturally explain the properties (millisecond spin and eccentric
596: orbit) of the recently discovered BMPSR PSR J1903$+$0327, without
597: invoking stellar interactions within a GC or peculiar triple system.
598:
599: Our population synthesis calculations also suggest a population of
600: single FDAI MPSRs in the Galaxy. The formation of single MPSRs has
601: not been well understood, especially how the pulsar has lost its
602: binary companion after mass transfer. The conventional explanation
603: is that the pulsar was recycled in a binary located in a GC, and
604: then ejected out due to stellar encounters, or the high-energy
605: radiation from the pulsar has evaporated its companion
606: \citep[e.g.][]{ruderman89}. The latter explanation may also require
607: a GC origin of the binary \citep{king05}. Although the fraction of
608: BMPSRs and LMXBs in GCs is much larger with respect to the fraction
609: in the Galactic field, it seems unlikely that all single MPSRs have
610: originated from GCs. The fallback disk accretion scenario might
611: provide a possible way for the formation of not only single MSPs
612: \citep{miller01} but also planetary systems around them
613: \citep{lin91}.
614:
615: Obviously the formation scenario proposed in this work is subject to
616: many uncertainties, so the results in Table 3 should be regarded as
617: the optimistic cases. One of the biggest issues is to determine how
618: much fallback material would have enough angular momentum at the
619: time of collapse to allow the formation of a disk. Our population
620: synthesis calculations suggest that there may be tens to hundreds of
621: MPSR-LMS binaries lurking in our Galaxy. For PSR J1903$+$0327, a
622: relatively large amount of fallback disk mass ($\ga 0.1\,M_{\odot}$)
623: is required to produce the very short period ($<3$\,ms), implying
624: that the progenitor star may have experienced an unusual SN-fallback
625: history. It is interesting to note that the large mass ($\sim
626: 1.74\,M_{\odot}$) of the pulsar may suggest a massive ($\ga
627: 18\,M_{\sun}$) progenitor star \citep{zhang08} and probably
628: intensive fallback during the SN explosion. To form a centrifugally
629: supported accretion disk around the NS, the specific angular
630: momentum of the fallback matter should be larger than that needed
631: for a circular orbit at the NS radius
632: $(GM_{NS}R_{NS})^{1/2}\sim1.4\times10^{16}$\,cm$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$.
633: Modern stellar evolution calculations suggest, however, that the
634: majority of massive stars lose angular momentum via magnetic
635: processes very efficiently. \citet{heger05} found that magnetic
636: torques decrease the final rotation rate of the collapsing iron core
637: by about a factor of $30-50$ compared with the nonmagnetic
638: counterparts. In their magnetic models there is a small amount of
639: matter ($\sim 0.5\,M_{\odot}$ for a $15\,M_{\odot}$ star and
640: $\sim1.0\,M_{\odot}$ for a $25\,M_{\odot}$ star) that has specific
641: angular momentum greater than $10^{16}$\,cm$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$ in the
642: envelope of the pre-SN progenitor star. The realistic amount of
643: fallback matter would be significantly less than these values
644: because material with high specific angular momentum materials lies
645: in the envelope of the progenitor star rather than in its inner
646: core. Solutions of the problem of having enough rotation may involve
647: tidal interactions in close binaries. If either star in the binary
648: fills its Roche lobe, the spin-orbit coupling tidal torques would
649: corotate the spins of two components with the orbital rotation, so
650: that the progenitor star of the NS could be spun-up enough to allow
651: the formation of the fallback disk. If this is true the realistic
652: number of FDAI MPSRs should be less than our calculation, because
653: not all the progenitors of the FDAI MPSRs have experienced the close
654: binary evolution phases.
655:
656: %Modern stellar
657: %evolution models predict that pulsars derived from more massive
658: %stars rotate faster \citep{heger05}, so it is possible that PSR
659: %J1903$+$0327 was born spinning fast (i. e. $<10$\,ms) considering
660: %its unusually high mass.
661:
662: Other uncertainties include accretion from the SN fallback disk and
663: magnetic field decay induced by accretion. The rate at which
664: material falls back on the accretion disk depends on both the
665: density profile of the star and on its angular velocity profile.
666: Numerical calculations have been carried for a few mass and angular
667: momentum configurations of massive stars \citep[cf.][and references
668: therein]{woosley06}, which generally suggest highly super-Eddington
669: accretion with a short time. Still lack is a comprehensive picture
670: of the conditions for fallback disk formation after SN explosions of
671: massive stars. Highly super-Eddington accretion in a short period of
672: $\sim100$\,yr in a radiation-trapped regime plays a key role in the
673: formation of FDAI MPSRs. This distinguishes our model from the
674: standard type of accretion expected in the recycling scenario, which
675: lasts for $\sim10^{8}-10^{10}$\,yr. In the standard pulsar recycling
676: theory, the so called ``spin-up line" in the $B-P$ diagram shows the
677: minimum period to which the NS can be spun-up in Eddington-limited
678: accretion. This line is defined by the equilibrium period assuming
679: the spin-up proceeding at the Eddington accretion rate. Although
680: the pulsars in our scenario have experienced the highly
681: super-Eddington accretion, since the mass accretion rate declines
682: rapidly, the equilibrium period is never attained, unlike in the
683: case of accreting NS in LMXBs. Thus our model does not necessarily
684: predict any MPSRs sitting above the spin-up line.
685:
686: Nor is known how accretion-induced field decay occurs in NSs. One
687: possible way is via ohmic dissipation of the accreting NSs crustal
688: currents, due to the heating of the crust which in turn increases
689: the resistance in the crust \citep{romani90,geppert94,konar97}.
690: Alternative scenarios consist of screening or burying the magnetic
691: field with the accreted material \citep{bisnov74,taam86,cumming01},
692: or outward moving vortices in the superfluid and superconducting
693: core pushing magnetic fluxoids into the crust during pulsar's
694: spin-down \citep{srinivasan90,konar99}. In this work we require a
695: fast field decay during the hyper-accretion phase (within $\la
696: 10^3-10^4$ yr). Screening or burying the magnetic field with the
697: accreted material may be more appropriate for this scenario.
698:
699: Finally we move to the uncertainties is the CE evolution. We have
700: used a constant CE parameter $\alpha_{CE}$ to compute the orbital
701: evolution during the spiral-in process, which is, however, very
702: likely to change with the properties and evolutionary state of stars
703: \citep{iben93,taam00}. From Fig.~2 we find that model B with
704: $\alpha_{CE}=3$ seems to be preferred for the formation of PSR
705: J1903. This value is be compatible with other estimates by, e.g.,
706: \citet{heuvel94}, \citet{portegies98} and \citet{kalogera99}, but in
707: contradiction with \citet{taam96}, \citet{sandquist98, sandquist00},
708: and \citet{oshau08}. Here the controversial issue is that there are
709: no strict criteria for defining binding energy of stellar envelopes
710: and there is no clear understanding whether sources other than
711: gravitational energy may contribute to unbinding common envelopes
712: \citep{han95}.
713:
714: A distinct feature of the born-fast scenario is that the companion
715: star of PSR J1903$+$0327 is predicted to be a ``young" ($\la
716: 1-2\times 10^9$ yr, i.e. within the characteristic age of the
717: pulsar) MS star. Future optical, IR, and radio observations could
718: present strong constraints on the nature of the optical counterpart,
719: and thus verify or falsify the born-fast scenario.
720:
721:
722: \acknowledgments
723:
724: We thank X. -P. Zheng, H. -L. Dai and Z. -Y. Zuo for helpful
725: discussions, and J. R. Hurley for providing the BSE code. It is
726: grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her insightful comments
727: that help improving the original manuscript. This work was
728: supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under grant
729: numbers 10573010 and and 10221001. XWL thanks Huazhong Normal
730: University for a postdoctoral fellowship.
731:
732:
733:
734: \begin{thebibliography}{}
735: %\bibitem[Aggarwal \& Oberbeck(1974)]{aggarwal74} Aggarwal, H. R.,
736: %\& Oberbeck, V. R. 1974, \apj, 191, 577
737: %
738: %\bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2008)]{belczynski08} Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., Taam, R. E.,
739: %Zezas, A., Bulik, T., Maccarone, T. J., Ivanova, N. 2008, \apjs,
740: %174, 223
741:
742: \bibitem[Bhattacharya \& van den
743: Heuvel(1991)]{bhattacharya91}Bhattacharya, D., \& van den Heuvel,
744: E. P. J. 1991, Phys. Rep., 203, 1
745:
746: %\bibitem[Bhattacharya et al.(1992)]{bhattacharya92}Bhattacharya,
747: %D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Hartman, J. W., Verbunt, F. 1992, \apj,
748: %254, 198
749:
750: \bibitem[Bisnovatyi-Kogan \& Komberg(1974)]{bisnov74}
751: Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. \& Komberg, B.V. 1974, SvA, 18, 217
752:
753: \bibitem[Cannizzo, Lee \& Goodman(1990)]{cannizzo90} Cannizzo, J.
754: K., Lee, H. M., \& Goodman, J. 1990, \apj, 351, 38
755:
756: \bibitem[Champion et al.(2008)]{champion08} Champion, D. J., Ransom, S. M.,
757: Lazarus, P., Camilo, F., Bassa, C. et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1309
758:
759: \bibitem[Chatterjee, Hernquist \& Narayan(2000)]{chatterjee00a}
760: Chatterjee, P., Hernquist, L., \& Narayan, R. 2000, \apj, 534, 373
761:
762: %\bibitem[Chatterjee \& Hernquist(2000)]{chatterjee00b}
763: %Chatterjee, P., \& Hernquist, L. 2000, \apj, 543, 368
764:
765: \bibitem[Chevalier(1989)]{chevalier89} Chevalier, R. A. 1989, \apj,
766: 346, 847
767:
768: \bibitem[Colgate(1971)]{colgate71} Colgate, S. A. 1971, \apj, 163,
769: 221
770:
771: \bibitem[Cumming et al.(2001)]{cumming01}
772: Cumming, A., Zweibel, E., \& Bildsten, L. 2001, ApJ, 557, 958
773:
774: \bibitem[Dessart et al.(2006)]{dessart06} Dessart, L., Burrows,
775: A., Ott, C. D., Livne, E., Yoon, S, -C., \& Langer, N. 2006, \apj,
776: 644, 1063
777:
778: \bibitem[Francischelli \& Wijers(2002)]{fran02}Francischelli, G. J., \& Wijers, R. A. M. J. 2002, ApJ,
779:
780: \bibitem[Freire, Ransom \& Gupta(2007) and the references
781: therein]{freire07}Freire, P. C. C., Ransom, S. M., \& Gupta, Y.
782: 2007, in the proceedings of "40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond
783: Pulsars, Magnetars, and More", August 12-17, 2007, McGill
784: University, Montreal, Canada, [arXiv:0711.1883]
785:
786: \bibitem[Fryer(1999)]{fryer99} Fryer, C. L. 1999, \apj, 522, 413
787:
788: \bibitem[Geppert \& Urpin(1994)]{geppert94} Geppert, U. \& Urpin, V. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 490
789:
790: \bibitem[Han, Podsiadlowski \& Eggleton(1995)]{han95} Han, Z. W.,
791: Podsiadlowski, P., \& Eggletion, P. P. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 800
792:
793: \bibitem[Heger, Woosley \& Spruit(2005)]{heger05} Heger, A., Woosley, S.
794: E., \& Spruit, H. C. 2005, \apj, 626, 350
795:
796: \bibitem[Hobbs et al.(2005)]{hobbs05} Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R.,
797: Lyne, A. G., \& Kramer, M. 2005, \mnras, 360, 974
798:
799: \bibitem[Hurley, Pols \& Tout(2000)]{hurley00} Hurley, J. R.,
800: Pols, O. R., \& Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543
801:
802: \bibitem[Hurley, Tout \& Pols(2002)]{hurley02} Hurley, J. R.,
803: Tout, C. A., \& Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897
804:
805: \bibitem[Iben \& Livio(1993)]{iben93} Iben, I. Jr. \& Livio, M. 1993, \pasp, 105, 1373
806:
807: \bibitem[Illarinov \& Sunyaev(1975)]{illarinov75} Illarinov, A.
808: F., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 1975, \aap, 39, 185
809:
810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
811: %\bibitem[Ivanova \& Taam(2003)]{ivanova03} Ivanova, N., \& Taam, R.
812: %E. 2003, \apj, 599, 516
813: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
814:
815: \bibitem[Jiang, Chen \& Wang(2007)]{jiang07} Jiang, B., Chen, Y., \& Wang, Q. D.
816: 2007, \apj, 670, 1142
817:
818: \bibitem[Jiang & Li(2005)]{jiang05} Jiang, Z. -B., Li, X. -D. 2005, ChJAA, 5, 487
819:
820: %\bibitem[Joss \& Rappaport(1983)]{joss83} Joss, P. C., \&
821: %Rappaport, S. A. 2000, \nat, 304, 419
822:
823:
824: \bibitem[Kalogera(1999)]{kalogera99} Kalogera, V. 1999, ApJ, 521, 723
825:
826: %\bibitem[Kiel et al.(2008)]{kiel08} Kiel, P. D., Hurley, J. R.,
827: %Bailes, M., \& Murray, J. R. 2008, \mnras, accepted,
828: %[arXiv:0805.0059]
829:
830:
831: \bibitem[King et al.(2005)]{king05}
832: King, A. R., Beer, M. E., Rolfe, D. J., Schenker, K., \& Skipp, J.
833: M. 2005, \mnras, 358, 1501
834:
835: \bibitem[Kitaura, Janka \& Hillebrandt(2006)]{kitaura06} Kitaura,
836: F. S., Janka, S. T, \& Hillebrandt, W. 2006, \aap, 450, 345
837:
838: \bibitem[Konar \& Bhaattacharya(1997)]{konar97}
839: Konar, S. \& Bhaattacharya, D., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 311
840:
841: \bibitem[Konar \& Bhaattacharya(1999)]{konar99}
842: Konar, S. \& Bhattacharya, D. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 795
843:
844: \bibitem[Kroupa, Tout \& Gilmore(1993)]{kroupa93}
845: Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., \& Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS,
846: 262, 545
847:
848: \bibitem[Li(2002)]{li02} Li, X. -D. 2002, \apj, 579, L37
849:
850: \bibitem[Lin, Woosley \& Bodenheimer(1991)]{lin91} Lin, D. N. C.,
851: Woosley, S. E., \& Bodenheimer, P. H. 1991, \nat, 353, 827
852:
853: \bibitem[Liu \& Li(2006)]{liu06} Liu, X. -W. \& Li, X. -D. 2006, \aap,
854: 449, 135
855:
856: \bibitem[Lorimer(1995)]{lorimer95} Lorimer, D. R. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 300
857:
858: \bibitem[Lyne \& Lorimer(1994)]{lyne94} Lyne, A. G., \& Lorimer,
859: D. R. 1994, \nat, 369, 127
860:
861: \bibitem[Menou, Perna \& Hernquist(2001)]{menou01} Menou, K.,
862: Perna, R., \& Hernquist 2001, \apj, 559, 1032
863:
864: \bibitem[Miller \& Hamilton(2001)]{miller01} Miller, M. C. \& Hamilton,
865: D. P. 2001, \apj, 550, 863
866:
867: \bibitem[Miyaji et al.(1980)]{miyaji80} Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K.,
868: Yokoi, K., \& Sugimoto, D. 1980, \pasj, 32, 303
869:
870: \bibitem[M\"{o}nchmeyer(1991)]{monchmeyer91} M\"{o}nchmeyer, R. 1991,
871: in {\it Supernovae}, The Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy
872: and Astrophysics, ed. Woosley, S. E., 358
873:
874: \bibitem[Nomoto(1984)]{nomoto84} Nomoto, K. 1984, \apj, 277, 791
875:
876: \bibitem[O'Shaughnessy(2008)]{oshau08} O'Shaughnessy, R., Kim, C., Kalogera, V., \& Belczynski, K. 2008,
877: ApJ, 672, 479
878:
879: %\bibitem[Paczynski(1983)]{paczynski83} Paczynski, B. 1983, \nat,
880: %304, 421
881:
882: \bibitem[Pfahl, Rappaport \& Podsiadlowski(2002)]{pfahl02a} Pfahl, E., Rappaport,
883: S., \& Podsiadlowski, P. 2002, \apj, 571, 37
884:
885: \bibitem[Pfahl et al.(2002)]{pfahl02b} Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S.,
886: Podsiadlowski, P., \& Spruit, H. 2002, \apj, 574, 364
887:
888: \bibitem[Podsiadlowski et al.(2004)]{pod04} Podsiadlowski, P.,
889: Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., Rappaport, S., Heger, A., Pfahl,
890: E. 2004, \apj, 612, 1044
891:
892: %\bibitem[Podsiadlowski \& Rappaport(2000)]{pod00} Podsiadlowski,
893: %P., \& Rappaport, S. A. 2000, \apj, 529, 946
894:
895: \bibitem[Poelarends et al.(2008)]{poe08} Poelarends, A. J. T., Herwig, F., Langer, N., \& Heger,
896: A. 2008, \apj, 675, 614
897:
898: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart \& Yungelson(1998)]{portegies98}
899: Portegies Zwart, S. F. \& Yungelson, L. R. 1998, A\&A, 332, 173
900:
901: \bibitem[Romani(1990)]{romani90}Romani, R. W. 1990, \nat, 347, 741
902:
903: \bibitem[Ruderman, Shaham, \& Tavani(1989)]{ruderman89}
904: Ruderman,M., Shaham, J., \& Tavani, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 507
905:
906: \bibitem[Ruderman \& Sutherland(1975)]{ruderman75}Ruderman, M., \&
907: Sutherland P. G. 1975, \apj, 196, 51
908:
909: \bibitem[Sandquist et al.(2000)]{sandquist00}
910: Sandquist, E. L., Taam, R. E., \& Burkert, A. 2000, \apj, 533, 984
911:
912: \bibitem[Sandquist et al.(1998)]{sandquist98}
913: Sandquist, E. L., Taam, R. E., Chen, X., Bodenheimer, P., \&
914: Burkert, A. 1998, \apj 500, 909
915:
916: %\bibitem[Savonije(1983)]{savonije83} Savonije, G. J. 1983, \nat,
917: %304, 442
918:
919: \bibitem[Shibazaki et al.(1989)]{shibazaki89}Shibazaki, N.,
920: Murakami, T., Shaham, J., Nomoto, K. 1989, \nat, 342, 656
921:
922: \bibitem[Srinivasan et al.(1990)]{srinivasan90}
923: Srinivasan, G., Bhattacharya, D., Muslimov, A. G., \& Tsygan, A. J.
924: 1990, Current Science, 59, 3
925:
926: \bibitem[Taam(1996)]{taam96}Taam, R. E. 1996. In Compact Stars in Binaries,
927: eds. J. van Paradijs, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, E. Kuulkers
928: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 3
929:
930: \bibitem[Taam \& Sandquist(2000)]{taam00}
931: Taam, R. E., \& Sandquist, E. L. 2000, \araa, 38, 113
932:
933: \bibitem[Taam \& van den Heuvel(1986)]{taam86} Taam, R. E., \& van
934: den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1986, \apj, 305, 235
935:
936: bibitem[Tauris \& van den Heuvel(2006)]{tauris06} Tauris, T. M.,
937: \& van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006 in {\it Compact stellar X-ray
938: sources}. Edited by Walter Lewin \& Michiel van der Klis.
939: Cambridge Astrophysics Series, No. 39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
940: University Press, p.623
941:
942: %\bibitem[Toscano et al.(1999)]{toscano99} Toscano, M., Sandhu, J.
943: %S., Bailes, M., Manchester, R. N., Britton, M. C., Kulkarni, S.
944: %R., Anderson, S. B., \& Stappers, B. W. 1999, \mnras, 307, 925
945:
946: \bibitem[van den Heuvel(1994)]{heuvel94} van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1994, A\&A, 291, L39
947:
948: \bibitem[van den Heuvel(2008)]{heuvel08} van den Heuvel, E. P. J.
949: 2008, Science, 320, 1298
950:
951: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{woosley06}
952: Woosley, S. E. \& Bloom, J. S. 2006, \araa, 44, 507
953:
954: \bibitem[Yamada \& Sato(1995)]{yamada95} Yamada, S., \& Sato, K.
955: 1995, \apj, 434, 268
956:
957: %\bibitem[Yungelson \& Lasota(2008)]{yungelson08}
958: %Yungelson, L. \& Lasota,J.-P. 2008, New Astronomy Reviews, 51, 860
959:
960: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2008)]{zhang08}
961: Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., \& Heger, A. 2008, \apj, 679, 639
962:
963: \end{thebibliography}
964:
965: \clearpage
966:
967: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
968: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
969: %% To embed the sample graphics in
970: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
971: %% \includegraphics commands
972: %%
973: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
974: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
975: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
976: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
977: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
978: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
979: %%
980: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
981: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
982: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
983: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
984: %% journal to journal.
985:
986: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
987: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
988: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
989: %% available in the electronic journal.
990:
991: \begin{figure}
992: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Period (bottom-left axes)
993: and magnetic field (top-right axes) evolution of an NS with initial
994: parameters list in Table 1. The curves labeled P1 - P6 and B1 - B6
995: represent the evolutions of period and magnetic field, respectively.
996: Numbers are suffixed to indicate the corresponding models. In the
997: $P-t$ plot, the thick solid lines, solid lines, and dotted lines
998: represent the {\it accretor}, the {\it propeller}, and the {\it
999: radio pulsar} phases, respectively. The magnetic field evolution is
1000: plotted until the {\it radio pulsar} phase begins. \label{fig1}}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003: \clearpage
1004:
1005: \begin{figure}
1006: %\epsscale{.80}
1007: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{Orbital period and eccentricity
1008: probability distribution of the MPSR-LMS binaries for model A, B,
1009: and C, from left to right, respectively. The distributions for the
1010: other six models (D-G, H, and I) are very similar to those for
1011: models A, B, and C.\label{fig2}}
1012: \end{figure}
1013:
1014: %\clearpage
1015:
1016: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1017: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1018: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1019: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1020: %%
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame
1025: %% for an mpeg animation.
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
1030: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
1031: %% User Guide for details.
1032: %%
1033: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1034: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1035: %% after every seventh one.
1036:
1037: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1038: %% each one.
1039:
1040: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1041: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1042: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1043: %%
1044:
1045: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1046: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1047:
1048: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1049: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1050: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1051: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1052: %% reduced font size.
1053: %%
1054: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1055: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1056:
1057: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1058: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1059: %% edition.
1060:
1061: \clearpage
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1066: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1067: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1068: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1069:
1070: \begin{table}
1071: \begin{center}
1072: \caption{Initial model parameters for the NS-disk
1073: systems.\label{tbl-2}}
1074: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
1075: \tableline\tableline Model No. & $M_{d}$\,(M$_{\odot}$) &
1076: $R_{d,10}$ & $P_{0}$\,(ms) &
1077: $B_{0}$\,($10^{12}$G) & $M_{0}$\,($10^{-5}$M$_{\odot}$) \\
1078: \tableline
1079: 1 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 14 & 3 & 1 \\
1080: 2 & 0.02 & 0.1 & 14 & 3 & 1 \\
1081: 3 & 0.28 & 0.01 & 14 & 3 & 1 \\
1082: 4 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 14 & 3 & 10 \\
1083: 5 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 14 & 10 & 1 \\
1084: 6 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 14 & 10 & 1 \\
1085:
1086: \tableline
1087: \end{tabular}
1088: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1089:
1090: \end{center}
1091: \end{table}
1092:
1093:
1094: \begin{table}
1095: \begin{center}
1096: \caption{Model parameters for binary population
1097: synthesis.\label{tbl-2}}
1098: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
1099: \tableline\tableline Model & $\alpha_{CE}$ & $M_{0}$
1100: ($10^{-5}$\,M$_{\odot}$) & $R_{d,8}$ & $M_{d,low}$ ($10^{-5}$\,M$_{\odot}$) & $M_{d,upp}$ ($0.1$\,M$_{\odot}$)\\
1101: \tableline
1102: A & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1103: B & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1104: C & 0.5 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1105: D & 1 & 10 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1106: E & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 1 & 1\\
1107: F & 1 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1\\
1108: G & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.5\\
1109: H & 3 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1\\
1110: I & 0.5 & 10 & 0.1 & 1 & 0.5\\
1111: \tableline
1112: \end{tabular}
1113: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1114: %\tablenotetext{a}{The lower limit of the fallback disk mass of the
1115: %weak SN explosions, i.e. for initial stellar masses of $8\leq
1116: %M\leq12$\,M$_{\odot}$ or $M\geq 18$\,M$_{\odot}$}
1117: \end{center}
1118: \end{table}
1119:
1120: \begin{table}
1121: \begin{center}
1122: \caption{Predicted numbers and formation rates in our Galaxy of
1123: various types of FDAI MPSR systems.\label{tbl-2}}
1124: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1125: \tableline\tableline Model & item & MPSR-LMS
1126: & NS/BH-MPSR & Single MPSR \\
1127: \tableline
1128: A & number & 203 & $3.3\times10^{3}$ & $1.5\times10^{5}$\\
1129: & rate & $6.0\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.1\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.1\times 10^{-4}$\\
1130: \tableline
1131:
1132: B & number & 751 & $3.7\times10^{3}$ & $1.6\times10^{5}$\\
1133: & rate & $1.3\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.0\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1134: \tableline
1135:
1136:
1137: C & number & 192 & $3.1\times10^{3}$ & $1.5\times10^{5}$\\\
1138: & rate & $6.5\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.0\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.1\times 10^{-4}$\\
1139: \tableline
1140:
1141: D & number & 8 & $1.4\times10^{2}$ & $1.2\times10^{3}$\\
1142: & rate & $6.2\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.3\times 10^{-6}$ & $2.7\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1143: \tableline
1144:
1145: E & number & 83 & $1.3\times10^{3}$ & $4.9\times10^{4}$ \\
1146: & rate & $3.9\times 10^{-7}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.9\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1147: \tableline
1148:
1149: F & number & 232 & $3.7\times10^{3}$ & $1.7\times10^{5}$ \\
1150: & rate & $6.9\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1151: \tableline
1152:
1153: G & number & 28 & $4.5\times10^{2}$ & $1.2\times10^{4}$ \\
1154: & rate & $3.5\times 10^{-7}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-6}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1155: \tableline
1156:
1157: H & number & 856 & $4.2\times10^{3}$ & $1.8\times10^{5}$ \\
1158: & rate & $1.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.6\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1159: \tableline
1160:
1161: I & number & 0.3 & 7 & 38 \\
1162: & rate & $9.9\times 10^{-8}$ & $4.6\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.9\times 10^{-5}$ \\
1163: \tableline
1164:
1165: \end{tabular}
1166: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1167:
1168: \end{center}
1169: \end{table}
1170:
1171: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
1172: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
1173: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
1174: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
1175: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
1176: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
1177: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
1178: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
1179:
1180: %% The \dataset{} macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to
1181: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.
1182:
1183: \clearpage
1184:
1185:
1186:
1187: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
1188: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
1189: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
1190: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
1191: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
1192: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
1193: %% to include it in this document.)
1194:
1195: %% \input{table}
1196:
1197: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1198: %% that appears after it.
1199:
1200: \end{document}
1201:
1202: %%
1203: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1204: