1: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
4: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
5: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.0}
6:
7: \def\ftd{F_{\rm TD}}
8: \def\ratio{(R_{\rm app}/D)^2}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{The Mass and Radius of the Neutron Star in EXO~1745$-$248}
13:
14: \author{Feryal \"Ozel\altaffilmark{1}, Tolga G\"uver and Dimitrios
15: Psaltis\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \affil{University of Arizona, Department of Astronomy, 933 N. Cherry
18: Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23:
24: Bursting X-ray binaries in globular clusters are ideal sources for
25: measuring neutron star masses and radii, and hence, for determining
26: the equation of state of cold, ultradense matter. We use
27: time-resolved spectroscopic data from EXO~1745$-$248 during
28: thermonuclear bursts that show strong evidence for photospheric radius
29: expansion to measure the Eddington flux and the apparent surface area
30: of the neutron star. We combine this with the recent measurement of
31: the distance to the globular cluster Terzan~5, where this source
32: resides, to measure the neutron star mass and radius. We find tightly
33: constrained pairs of values for the mass and radius, which are
34: centered around $M=1.4~M_\odot$ and $R=11$~km or around $M=1.7~M_\odot$
35: and $R=9$~km. These values favor nucleonic equations of state
36: with symmetry energy that is relatively low and has a weak dependence
37: on density.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{stars: neutron --- X-rays: individual (EXO 1745-248)}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44:
45: Accreting neutron stars that show thermonuclear X-ray bursts are
46: optimal sources for determining the equation of state of cold,
47: ultradense matter. They exhibit a number of spectroscopic phenomena
48: that depend on the neutron star mass and radius, which can be used to
49: measure these fundamental stellar properties. In particular, the
50: apparent surface area of thermal emission during the cooling tail of a
51: thermonuclear burst, as well as the peak flux achieved during strong,
52: so-called photospheric radius expansion bursts, which reach the
53: Eddington limit, provide two such observable quantities (van Paradijs
54: 1978, 1979; see also Lewin, van Paradijs, \& Taam 1993).
55:
56: The large collecting area and the systematic monitoring of a number of
57: X-ray bursters by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) has generated
58: a large database of high quality observations that we use in this
59: study. The peak flux achieved in numerous photospheric radius
60: expansion bursts from several sources has been shown to remain nearly
61: constant, within a range as narrow as a few percent in 4U~1728$-$34
62: (Galloway et al.\ 2003), and the apparent surface areas to be
63: reproducible between bursts (Galloway et al.\ 2008). This provides
64: observational justification to the theoretical expectation that, in
65: low magnetic field neutron stars, thermonuclear bursts not only
66: quickly engulf the entire stellar surface but also that strong bursts
67: reach an intrinsic limit associated with the Eddington luminosity.
68:
69: These two spectroscopic phenomena can be combined either with another
70: spectroscopic measurement, such as a surface redshift (Cottam,
71: Paerels, \& Mendez 2002; see also Cottam et al.\ 2008) or with an
72: accurate, independent distance to the neutron star, to break the
73: intrinsic degeneracies in the neutron star properties and determine
74: both the mass and the radius of the neutron star, independently
75: (\"Ozel 2006). X-ray bursters in globular clusters are unique in this
76: respect, since the distances to the clusters can be independently
77: measured. In this paper, we use the thermonuclear burst data of the
78: source EXO~1745$-$248 located in Terzan~5 to measure the mass and
79: radius of the neutron star.
80:
81: The low mass X-ray binary EXO~1745$-$248 was discovered with Hakucho
82: in August 1980 (Makishima et al.\ 1981). The source showed Type-I
83: X-ray bursts, with intervals as short as 8 min (Inoue et al.\ 1984).
84: It was again detected in 2000 during a RXTE/PCA scan of the galactic
85: bulge as a transient X-ray burster (Markwardt \& Swank 2000).
86: EXO~1745$-$248 was also observed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory in
87: 2000 and 2003. Heinke et al.\ (2003) used the Chandra and RXTE
88: observations to suggest that the source is an ultracompact binary and
89: also identified a possible infrared counterpart in the Hubble Space
90: Telescope (HST) images of the cluster. No burst oscillations have been
91: reported from this source (Galloway et al.\ 2008).
92:
93: Terzan 5 is one of the most metal rich globular cluster in the galaxy,
94: with a metallicity close to solar (Origlia et al.\ 2004). Recently,
95: Ortolani et al.\ (2007) revisited the distance measurements to
96: Terzan~5 using HST/NICMOS data. Using NICMOS instrumental magnitudes
97: and two separate reddening laws (Schlegel et al. 1998; Lee et al.\
98: 2001) to obtain the infrared extinction slope in the instrumental
99: bands, they measured a distance of 6.3~kpc to this cluster. The two
100: main sources of error in this measurement are related to uncertainties
101: in the color and magnitude measurements of the HB of the cluster, as
102: well as to metallicity uncertainties, while the slope of the reddening
103: law introduces a much smaller error. The combined error of 0.2 mag
104: corresponds to a distance uncertainty of about 10\%, which we will
105: adopt here. Note that Ortolani et al.\ (2007) also used two
106: calibrations for the conversion of the NICMOS to JHK magnitudes, which
107: resulted in different values for the distance. Due to the significant
108: width and the large displacement of the NICMOS F110W filter compared
109: to the ground-based J filter, the transformations between these bands
110: are color dependent and hence, suffer from systematic uncertainties
111: that are difficult to quantify. For this reason, we will only use the
112: distance measurement obtained from NICMOS instrumental magnitudes.
113:
114: In this paper, we combine the distance measurement to Terzan~5 with
115: the observations of radius expansion bursts obtained by RXTE to
116: determine the mass and the radius of the neutron star in
117: EXO~1745$-$248. In Section 2, we analyze the Eddington limited bursts
118: from this source. In Section 3, we use these observations to determine
119: the mass and radius of the neutron star and describe the formal method
120: for assessing the uncertainties in the measurements using this
121: technique. In Section 4, we discuss our results and compare them to
122: several equations of state for neutron star matter.
123:
124: \section{Spectral Analysis of X-ray Bursts}
125:
126: EXO~1745$-$248 has been observed with RXTE for 148~ks, during which
127: two Type-I X-ray bursts were discovered, with clear evidence for
128: photospheric radius expansion (Galloway et al.\ 2008). Note that,
129: while Galloway et al.\ (2008) identified 20 more candidate non-PRE
130: bursts that satisfied their trigger criteria, spectral analyses of
131: those bursts revealed that the distinctive cooling associated with
132: Type~I bursts did not occur in these events, strongly suggesting that
133: they are Type~II instead (Lewin et al.\ 1993).
134:
135: In order to analyze the PRE bursts, we extracted time resolved
136: 2.5$-$25.0 keV X-ray spectra using the ftool {\em seextrct} and
137: included the data from all the RXTE/PCA layers. We used the Science
138: Event mode data with the E\_125$\mu$s\_64M\_0\_1s configuration, which has
139: a nominal time resolution of 125~$\mu$s in 64 spectral channels. We
140: binned the X-ray spectra in 27 spectral channels and over 0.25~s (for
141: count rates above 6000 ct~s$^{-1}$) and over 0.5~s (for count rates
142: between 3000 and 6000 ct~s$^{-1}$) time intervals during each
143: burst. Following Galloway et al.\ (2008), we extracted a 16~s spectrum
144: prior to the burst and used it as background. We generated separate
145: response matrix files for each burst using the PCARSP version 10.1 and
146: took into account the offset pointing of the PCA during the creation
147: of the response matrix files.
148:
149: We fit the extracted spectra with a blackbody function, using the
150: hydrogen column density value of N$_{\rm H} = 1.4 \times
151: 10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ determined by Wijnands et al.\ (2005) from Chandra
152: observations. We used XSPEC v12 (Arnaud 1996) for our spectral
153: analysis. For each spectrum, we calculated bolometric fluxes using
154: equation~(3) of Galloway et al.\ (2008). Figure~1 shows an example
155: countrate spectrum as well as the best fit blackbody model. There are
156: no systematic residuals in the fit, and the addition of any other
157: spetcral components (e.g., a power-law model) is not statistically
158: significant.
159:
160: In Figure~2, we show the distribution of the $\chi^2$/d.o.f. values
161: that we obtained by fitting the X-ray spectra of the source during the
162: 2 PRE bursts and compare it to the expected distribution for 25
163: degrees of freedom. All fits with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.} < 1.5$ follow
164: the expected distribution and are, therefore, statistically
165: acceptable. However, the five spectra with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.} >
166: 1.5$ are outliers, which are likely to be dominated by systematic
167: uncertainties. We rejected these fits from the subsequent analyses.
168:
169: We show in Figure~3 the bolometric flux, the blackbody temperature,
170: and the normalization of the model spectra during the evolution of the
171: two PRE bursts. The characteristic decrease of the temperature and the
172: increase of the photospheric radius around the burst peak, as well as
173: the cooling of the burst emission at a constant photospheric radius
174: for both bursts can be seen in both bursts.
175:
176: In PRE bursts, the Eddington limit at the surface of the neutron star
177: is thought to correspond to the point in each burst when the
178: normalization of the blackbody gets its lowest value while the
179: temperature reaches its highest (Damen et al.\ 1990). The spectral
180: properties of the two PRE bursts during this so-called touchdown point
181: are consistent with each other, as demonstrated in
182: Figure~\ref{touchdown}. The combined best-fit value for the touchdown
183: flux between the two bursts is $(6.25 \pm 0.20) \times
184: 10^{-8}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$. Note that the ratios of the peak to
185: touchdown fluxes in these two bursts are well within the value
186: expected from the general relativistic effects alone, and therefore,
187: this source is not subject to the bias discussed in Galloway, \"Ozel,
188: \& Psaltis (2008).
189:
190: The second observational quantity that we determine from the spectral
191: fits is the apparent radius of the emitting region during the cooling
192: phase of the bursts. This is given directly by the normalization of
193: the blackbody function, $A \equiv (R_{\rm app}/D)^2$, where $R_{\rm
194: app}$ is the radius corresponding to the apparent emitting surface
195: area and $D$ is the distance to the source. We chose the intervals
196: 4.5$-$15~s in both bursts, during which the apparent radius is
197: constant. Fitting the cooling tails of these bursts individually
198: resulted in values for the ratio $A = 104.0 \pm 1.0$~km$^2$~kpc$^{-2}$
199: and $A = 130.0 \pm 1.0$~km$^2$~kpc$^{-2}$. Similar systematic
200: uncertainties have been observed in the Eddington fluxes from PRE
201: bursts from, e.g., 4U~1728$-$34 (Galloway et al.\ 2003) and have been
202: attributed to the variable reflection off of the accretion disk that
203: changes at a superorbital period. Such a phenomenon can introduce
204: systematic uncertainties in the apparent surface areas measured during
205: the cooling tails of bursts. Because the systematic errors dominate
206: over the statistical errors in this particular case, we will assume a
207: boxcar probability distribution over this quantity in the range $A =
208: 116 \pm 13$~km$^2$~kpc$^{-2}$.
209:
210: \section{Determination of the Neutron Star Mass and Radius}
211:
212: In an approach similar to \"Ozel (2006), we use the spectroscopic
213: measurements of the touchdown flux $\ftd$ and the ratio $A$ during the
214: cooling tails of the bursts, together with the measurement of the
215: distance $D$ to the source in order to determine the neutron star mass
216: $M$ and radius $R$. The observed spectroscopic quantities depend on
217: the stellar parameters according to the relations
218: \begin{equation}
219: \ftd=\frac{GMc}{k_{\rm es}D^2}\left(1-\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}\right)^{1/2}
220: \end{equation}
221: and
222: \begin{equation}
223: A=\frac{R^2}{D^2f_{\rm c}^4}\left(1-\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}\right)^{-1}\;,
224: \end{equation}
225: where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $c$ is the speed of light,
226: $k_{\rm es}$ is the opacity to electron scattering, and $f_{\rm c}$ is
227: the color correction factor.
228:
229: In the absence of errors in the determination of the observable
230: quantities, the last two equations can be solved for the mass and
231: radius of the neutron star. However, because of the particular
232: dependences of $\ftd$ and $A$ on the neutron star mass and radius (see
233: also Fig.~1 in \"Ozel 2006), the loci of mass-radius points that
234: correspond to each observable intersect, in general, at two distinct
235: positions. Moreover, the diverse nature of uncertainties associated to
236: each of the observables requires a formal assessment of the
237: propagation of errors, which we present here.
238:
239: We assign a probability distribution function to each of the
240: observable quantities and denote them by $P(D)dD$, $P(\ftd)d\ftd$, and
241: $P(A)dA$. Because the various measurements that lead to the
242: determination of the three observables are independent of each other,
243: the total probability density is simply given by the product
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: &&P(D,\ftd,A)dDd\ftd dA =\nonumber\\ &&\qquad \qquad
246: P(D)P(\ftd)P(A) dD d\ftd dA\;.
247: \label{eq:firstdistrib}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249:
250: Our goal is to convert this probability density into one over the
251: neutron-star mass, $M$, and radius, $R$. We will achieve this by
252: making a change of variables from the pair $(\ftd,A)$ to $(M,R)$ and
253: then by marginalizing over distance. Formally, this implies that
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: && P(D,M,R)dDdMdR =
256: \frac{1}{2} P(D)P[\ftd(M,R,D)]
257: \nonumber \\
258: && \qquad P[A(M,R,D)] J\left(\frac{\ftd,A}{M,R}\right) dD dMdR\;,
259: \label{eq:transform}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: where $J(\ftd,A/M,R)$ is the Jacobian of the transformation. It is
262: important to emphasize here that, given a distance D, not all pairs of
263: the observables $(\ftd,A)$ can be obtained with real values for the
264: neutron-star mass and radius. For this reason, the final distribution
265: will not be normalized, even if the three distributions of
266: equation~(\ref{eq:firstdistrib}) are. In addition, the factor $1/2$
267: appears in equation~(\ref{eq:transform}) because nearly all pairs of
268: the observables $(\ftd,A)$ correspond to two distinct pairs of
269: $(M,D)$. There is only a region of the parameter space for which the
270: pair of observables corresponds to a single pair of values for the
271: mass and radius. However, this region has zero volume and, therefore,
272: will not contribute to the final probability distribution after we
273: marginalize over distance.
274:
275: We can now use the above expressions to calculate the Jacobian of the
276: transformation
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: J\left(\frac{\ftd,A}{M,R}\right)&=&\frac{GcR}{f_{\rm c}^4 k_{\rm es}D^4}
279: \left[1-\frac{6GM}{Rc^2}+7\left(\frac{GM}{Rc^2}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
280: && \left(1-\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}\right)^{-5/2}\;.
281: \label{eq:Jac}
282: \end{eqnarray}
283:
284: For the source EXO~1745$-$248, the distance measurement is dominated by
285: systematic errors as discussed in \S1. We will, therefore, use a box-car
286: probability distribution over distance, with a mean of $D_0=6.3$~kpc and
287: a range of $\Delta D=0.1 D_0$, i.e.,
288: \begin{equation}
289: P(D)dD=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
290: \frac{1}{\Delta D} & {\rm if}\quad\vert D-D_0\vert \le \Delta D/2\\
291: & \\
292: 0 & {\rm otherwise}
293: \end{array}
294: \right.
295: \label{eq:PD}
296: \end{equation}
297:
298: The measurements of the touchdown flux is consistent between the two
299: radius-expansion bursts (see Fig.~\ref{touchdown}) and is, therefore,
300: dominated only by statistical uncertainties. We assign a Gaussian
301: probability distribution for this quantity with a mean and a standard
302: deviation that we estimate by fitting a Gaussian function to the
303: product of the probability distributions that correspond to the
304: confidence contours shown in Figure~\ref{touchdown}. The result is a
305: mean of $F_{\rm 0}=6.25\times 10^{-8}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ and a
306: standard deviation of $\sigma_{\rm F}=0.2\times
307: 10^{-8}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$, i.e.,
308: \begin{equation}
309: P(\ftd)d\ftd=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma_{\rm F}^2}}
310: \exp\left[-\frac{(\ftd-F_0)^2}{2\sigma_{\rm F}^2}\right]\;.
311: \label{eq:PF}
312: \end{equation}
313:
314: Finally, the measurement of the ratio $A\equiv\ratio$ between the two
315: bursts is dominated by systematic uncertainties. We, therefore, assign
316: to this ratio a box car probability distribution with a mean of
317: $A_0=116$ and a range of $\Delta A=26$, i.e.,
318: \begin{equation}
319: P(A)dA=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
320: \frac{1}{\Delta A} & {\rm if}\quad\vert A-A_0\vert \le \Delta A/2\\
321: & \\
322: 0 & {\rm otherwise}
323: \end{array}
324: \right.
325: \label{eq:PA}
326: \end{equation}
327:
328: The color correction factor that enters these expressions is
329: determined by models of burning neutron star atmospheres (e.g., Madej
330: et al.\ 2004). At the observed high temperatures of the bursts, as
331: well as in the absence of significant magnetic fields or heavy
332: elements (as evidenced by the lack of atomic transition lines in the
333: high resolution spectra), the Comptonized radiative equilibrium
334: atmosphere models can be reliably calculated. As discussed in \"Ozel
335: (2006), when the emerging flux is substantially sub-Eddington, as in
336: the case of the cooling tails of the bursts, the color correction
337: factor $f_{\infty}$ asymptotes to a value of $\simeq 1.4$, which we
338: adopt here. Finally, we use the electron scattering opacity
339: $\kappa_{es} = 0.20 (1+X)$~cm$^{2}$~g$^{-1}$, that depends on the
340: hydrogen mass fraction $X$.
341:
342: We obtain the final distribution over neutron-star mass and radius by
343: inserting equations~(\ref{eq:Jac})--(\ref{eq:PA}) into
344: equation~(\ref{eq:transform}) and integrating over distance.
345: Figure~\ref{mr} shows the 1- and $2-\sigma$ contours for the mass and
346: radius of the neutron star in EXO~1745$-$248, for a hydrogen mass
347: fraction $X=0$. For larger values of the hydrogen mass fraction ($X
348: \gtrsim 0.1$), the masses and radii inferred individually from the
349: Eddington limit and the apparent surface area become rapidly
350: inconsistent with each other. This result is in line with the
351: identification of EXO~1745$-$248 with an ultracompact binary by Heinke
352: et al.\ (2003). Note that there are two distinct regions in the
353: mass-radius plane that are consistent with the data because of the
354: particular dependence of $\ftd$ and $A$ on the stellar mass and
355: radius, as discussed above.
356:
357: \section{Discussion}
358:
359: We used time-resolved spectroscopic data from EXO~1745$-$248 during
360: thermonuclear bursts that show strong evidence for photospheric radius
361: expansion to measure the Eddington flux and the apparent surface area
362: of the neutron star. We combined this with the recent measurement of
363: the distance to the globular cluster Terzan~5 (Ortolani et al.\ 2007),
364: where this source resides, to measure the neutron star mass and
365: radius. We found tightly constrained pairs of values for the mass and
366: radius, which are centered around $M=1.4~M_\odot$ and $R=11$~km or
367: around $M=1.7~M_\odot$ and $R=9$~km.
368:
369: The confidence contours on the mass-radius plane (see Fig. 5) are in
370: best agreement with nucleonic equations of state without the presence
371: of condensates or strange matter. The leftmost family of mass-radius
372: relations is based on the assumption that the absolute ground state of
373: matter is made up of an approximately equal mixture of up, down, and
374: strange quarks. The primary difference between the other two families
375: of mass-radius relations is the symmetry properties of the equation of
376: state of neutron star matter. Moreover, the mass-radius relations with
377: deflection points are characteristic of calculations that incorporate
378: bosons that can condense and, thus, soften the equation of state at
379: high densities. The radius measurements presented here favor
380: relatively low values for the bulk symmetry energy with a weak density
381: dependence (see Lattimer \& Prakash 2001).
382:
383: The measurement of the mass and radius of a neutron star can
384: significantly constrain the range of possibilities for the equation of
385: state of ultradense matter, as discussed above. However, it cannot
386: uniquely pinpoint to a single equation of state because of both the
387: measurement errors and the uncertainties in the fundamental parameters
388: that enter the nuclear physics calculations, such as the symmetry
389: energy of nucleonic matter or the bag constant for strange stars.
390: Further, even tighter constraints on the equation of state can be
391: obtained by combining observations of neutron stars with different
392: masses that will distinguish between the slopes of the predicted
393: mass-radius relations, which are determined entirely by the physics of
394: the neutron star interior.
395:
396: A number of other constraints on neutron star radii have been obtained
397: to date using various methods. \"Ozel (2006) used spectroscopic
398: measurements of the Eddington limit and apparent surface area during
399: thermonuclear bursts, in conjuction with the detection of a redshifted
400: atomic line from the source EXO~0748$-$676, to determine a mass of $M
401: \ge 2.10 \pm 0.28~M_\odot$ and a radius $R \ge 13.8 \pm 1.8~{\rm km}$.
402: This radius measurement is consistent with the one presented in the
403: current paper to within 2$-\sigma$, and, therefore, several nucleonic
404: equations of state are consistent with both measurements.
405:
406: Radii have also been measured from globular cluster neutron stars in
407: binaries emitting thermally during quiescence, such as X7 in 47~Tuc
408: and others in $\omega$\ Cen, M~13, and NGC~2808 (Heinke et al.\ 2006;
409: Webb \& Barret 2007). (Note that we do not consider here isolated
410: neutron stars such as RX~J1856$-$3754 because of the unquantified
411: systematic uncertainties arising from the apparent temperature
412: anisotropies on the neutron star surfaces and their probable magnetic
413: nature; see Walter \& Lattimer 2002; Braje \& Romani 2002; Tiengo \&
414: Mereghetti 2007). These measurements have carved out large allowed
415: bands in the mass-radius plane, all of which are also consistent with
416: equations of state that predict neutron stars with radii $R \sim
417: 11$~km. Future tight constraints on the masses and radii of additional
418: neutron stars with these and other methods (see, e.g., Lattimer \&
419: Prakash 2007) will resolve this long-standing question of high energy
420: astrophysics.
421:
422: \acknowledgements
423:
424: We thank Rodger Thompson for his help with understanding the NICMOS
425: calibrations, Duncan Galloway for his help with burst analyses,
426: Adrienne Juett for bringing the source to our attention, Jim Lattimer
427: for sharing with us the mass-radius relations, and Martin
428: Elvis for useful conversations on constraining the neutron star
429: equation of state. We also thank an anonymous referee for useful
430: suggestions. F.\ \"O. acknowledges support from NSF grant
431: AST~07-08640. D.\ P. is supported by the NSF CAREER award NSF~0746549.
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}
434:
435: \bibitem[Arnaud(1996)]{1996ASPC..101...17A} Arnaud, K.~A.\ 1996,
436: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, 101, 17
437:
438: \bibitem[Braje \& Romani(2002)]{2002ApJ...580.1043B} Braje, T.~M., \&
439: Romani, R.~W.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 1043
440:
441: \bibitem[Cottam et al.(2002)]{2002Natur.420...51C} Cottam, J., Paerels, F.,
442: \& Mendez, M.\ 2002, \nat, 420, 51
443:
444: \bibitem[Cottam et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...672..504C} Cottam, J., Paerels, F.,
445: M{\'e}ndez, M., Boirin, L., Lewin, W.~H.~G., Kuulkers, E.,
446: \& Miller, J.~M.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 504
447:
448: \bibitem[Damen et al.(1990)]{1990A&A...237..103D} Damen, E., Magnier,
449: E., Lewin, W.~H.~G., Tan, J., Penninx, W., \& van Paradijs, J.\ 1990,
450: \aap, 237, 103
451:
452: \bibitem[Galloway et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...590..999G} Galloway, D.~K.,
453: Psaltis, D., Chakrabarty, D., \& Muno, M.~P.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 999
454:
455: \bibitem[Galloway et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..8259G} Galloway, D.~K.,
456: Muno, M.~P., Hartman, J.~M., Psaltis, D., \& Chakrabarty, D.\ 2006,
457: ApJ, in press (arXiv:astro-ph/0608259)
458:
459: \bibitem[Galloway et al.(2008)]{2008MNRAS.387..268G} Galloway, D.~K.,
460: {\"O}zel, F., \& Psaltis, D.\ 2008, \mnras, 387, 268
461:
462: \bibitem[Heinke et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...590..809H} Heinke, C.~O., Edmonds,
463: P.~D., Grindlay, J.~E., Lloyd, D.~A., Cohn, H.~N.,
464: \& Lugger, P.~M.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 809
465:
466: \bibitem[Heinke et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644.1090H} Heinke, C.~O., Rybicki,
467: G.~B., Narayan, R., \& Grindlay, J.~E.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 1090
468:
469: \bibitem[Inoue et al.(1984)]{1984PASJ...36..855I} Inoue, H., et al.\ 1984,
470: \pasj, 36, 855
471:
472: \bibitem[Lattimer \& Prakash(2001)]{2001ApJ...550..426L} Lattimer,
473: J.~M., \& Prakash, M.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 426
474:
475: \bibitem[Lattimer \& Prakash(2007)]{2007PhR...442..109L} Lattimer,
476: J.~M., \& Prakash, M.\ 2007, \physrep, 442, 109
477:
478: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.3136L} Lee, J.-W., Carney, B.~W.,
479: Fullton, L.~K., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 3136
480:
481: \bibitem[Lewin et al.(1993)]{1993SSRv...62..223L} Lewin, W.~H.~G., van
482: Paradijs, J., \& Taam, R.~E.\ 1993, Space Science Reviews, 62, 223
483:
484: \bibitem[Madej et al.(2004)]{madej} Madej, J., Joss, P.~C.,
485: R\'oza\'nska, A.\ 2004, \apj, 602, 904
486:
487: \bibitem[Makishima et al.(1981)]{1981ApJ...247L..23M} Makishima, K., et
488: al.\ 1981, \apjl, 247, L23
489:
490: \bibitem[Markwardt \& Swank(2000)]{2000IAUC.7454....1M} Markwardt,
491: C.~B., \& Swank, J.~H.\ 2000, \iaucirc, 7454, 1
492:
493: \bibitem[Origlia \& Rich(2004)]{2004AJ....127.3422O} Origlia, L., \&
494: Rich, R.~M.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3422
495:
496: \bibitem[Ortolani et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...470.1043O} Ortolani, S.,
497: Barbuy, B., Bica, E., Zoccali, M., \& Renzini, A.\ 2007, \aap, 470,
498: 1043
499:
500: \bibitem[{\"O}zel(2006)]{2006Natur.441.1115O} {\"O}zel, F.\ 2006, \nat,
501: 441, 1115
502:
503: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...500..525S} Schlegel, D.~J.,
504: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
505:
506: \bibitem[Tiengo \& Mereghetti(2007)]{2007ApJ...657L.101T} Tiengo, A.,
507: \& Mereghetti, S.\ 2007, \apjl, 657, L101
508:
509: \bibitem[van Paradijs(1978)]{1978Natur.274..650V} van Paradijs, J.\ 1978,
510: \nat, 274, 650
511:
512: \bibitem[van Paradijs(1979)]{1979ApJ...234..609V} van Paradijs, J.\ 1979,
513: \apj, 234, 609
514:
515: \bibitem[Walter \& Lattimer(2002)]{2002ApJ...576L.145W} Walter, F.~M.,
516: \& Lattimer, J.~M.\ 2002, \apjl, 576, L145
517:
518: \bibitem[Webb \& Barret(2007)]{2007ApJ...671..727W} Webb, N.~A., \&
519: Barret, D.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 727
520:
521: \bibitem[Wijnands et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...618..883W} Wijnands, R., Heinke,
522: C.~O., Pooley, D., Edmonds, P.~D., Lewin, W.~H.~G., Grindlay, J.~E.,
523: Jonker, P.~G., \& Miller, J.~M.\ 2005, \apj, 618, 883
524:
525: \end{thebibliography}
526:
527:
528: \begin{figure}
529: \centering
530: \includegraphics[scale=0.5, angle=-90]{f1.ps}
531: \caption{An example count rate spectrum of EXO~1745$-$248 together
532: with the best-fit blackbody model. The lower panel shows the residuals
533: of the fit, defined as $\chi = (x_i - x_m)/\sigma_i$, where $x_i$ and
534: $\sigma_i$ are the observed counts and uncertainty, respectively, in
535: the i-th spectral bin, and $x_m$ is the model prediction. This example
536: corresponds to the touchdown point of the burst shown in the left
537: panel of Figure~3.
538: }
539: \label{spectrum}
540: \end{figure}
541:
542: \begin{figure}
543: \centering
544: \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{f2.ps}
545: \caption{The histogram shows the distribution of $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$
546: values obtained by fitting the spectra during the evolution of the two
547: photospheric radius bursts of EXO~1745$-$248. the dashed line shows
548: the expected $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$ distribution for 25 degrees of
549: freedom. The five spectral fits with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.} > 1.5$ are
550: outliers and are excluded from the subsequent analyses. }
551: \label{chisq}
552: \end{figure}
553:
554: \begin{figure*}
555: \centering
556: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f3a.ps}
557: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f3b.ps}
558: \caption{The spectral evolution during the first 15 seconds of the two
559: Eddington limited thermonuclear bursts observed from EXO~1745$-$248 by
560: RXTE. The panels show the evolution of the flux, the blackbody
561: temperature and the apparent radius as observed at infinity, together
562: with their $1-\sigma$ statistical errors.} \label{evolution}
563: \end{figure*}
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \centering
567: \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{f4.ps}
568: \caption{The 1- and 2$-\sigma$ confidence contours of the
569: normalization and blackbody temperature obtained from fitting the two
570: PRE bursts during touchdown. The dashed lines show contours of
571: constant bolometric flux.}
572: \label{touchdown}
573: \end{figure}
574:
575: \begin{figure}
576: \centering
577: \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{f5.ps}
578: \caption{The $1-$ and $2-\sigma$ contours for the mass and radius of the
579: neutron star in EXO~1745$-$248, for a hydrogen mass fraction of
580: $X=0$, based on the spectroscopic data during thermonuclear bursts
581: combined with a distance measurement to the globular cluster. Neutron
582: star radii larger than $\sim 13$~km are inconsistent with the data.
583: The descriptions of the various equations of state and the corresponding
584: labels can be found in Lattimer \& Prakash (2001).
585: }
586: \label{mr}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589:
590:
591: \end{document}
592: