1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %TEST !!!
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5:
6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %\documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
10: \documentclass{emulateapj}
11: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
12:
13: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
14:
15: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
16: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
17: %% use the longabstract style option.
18:
19: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
20:
21: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
22: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
23: %% the \begin{document} command.
24: %%
25: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
26: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
27: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
28: %% for information.
29:
30: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
31: \newcommand{\HESS}{H.E.S.S.\,}
32: \newcommand{\gr}{$\gamma$-ray}
33: \newcommand{\grs}{$\gamma$-rays}
34: \newcommand{\vhe}{V\textsc{HE}}
35: \newcommand{\dg}{\ensuremath{^\circ}}
36:
37: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
38: \usepackage{caption}
39:
40: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
41:
42: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
43: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
44: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
45: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
46: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
47: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
48:
49: \shorttitle{Discovery of gamma-ray emission from the SNR RCW~86 with H.E.S.S.}
50: \shortauthors{F.~A. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration)}
51:
52: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
53: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
54:
55: \begin{document}
56:
57: \sloppy
58:
59: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
60: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
61: %% you desire.
62:
63: \title{Discovery of gamma-ray emission from the shell-type supernova remnant RCW 86 with H.E.S.S.}
64:
65: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
66: %% author and affiliation information.
67: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
68: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
69: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
70: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
71:
72: \author{F. Aharonian~\altaffilmark{1,13},
73: A.G.~Akhperjanian~\altaffilmark{2},
74: U.~Barres de Almeida~\altaffilmark{8,a},
75: A.R.~Bazer-Bachi~\altaffilmark{3},
76: B.~Behera~\altaffilmark{14},
77: M.~Beilicke~\altaffilmark{4},
78: W.~Benbow~\altaffilmark{1},
79: % D.~Berge~\altaffilmark{1}, \thanks{now at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland},
80: K.~Bernl\"ohr~\altaffilmark{1,5},
81: C.~Boisson~\altaffilmark{6},
82: A.~Bochow~\altaffilmark{1},
83: V.~Borrel~\altaffilmark{3},
84: I.~Braun~\altaffilmark{1},
85: E.~Brion~\altaffilmark{7},
86: J.~Brucker~\altaffilmark{16},
87: R.~B\"uhler~\altaffilmark{1},
88: T.~Bulik~\altaffilmark{24},
89: I.~B\"usching~\altaffilmark{9},
90: T.~Boutelier~\altaffilmark{17},
91: S.~Carrigan~\altaffilmark{1},
92: P.M.~Chadwick~\altaffilmark{8},
93: A.~Charbonnier~\altaffilmark{19},
94: R.C.G.~Chaves~\altaffilmark{1},
95: L.-M.~Chounet~\altaffilmark{10},
96: A.C.~Clapson~\altaffilmark{1},
97: G.~Coignet~\altaffilmark{11},
98: L.~Costamante~\altaffilmark{1,29},
99: M. Dalton~\altaffilmark{5},
100: B.~Degrange~\altaffilmark{10},
101: H.J.~Dickinson~\altaffilmark{8},
102: A.~Djannati-Ata\"i~\altaffilmark{12},
103: W.~Domainko~\altaffilmark{1},
104: L.O'C.~Drury~\altaffilmark{13},
105: F.~Dubois~\altaffilmark{11},
106: G.~Dubus~\altaffilmark{17},
107: J.~Dyks~\altaffilmark{24},
108: K.~Egberts~\altaffilmark{1},
109: D.~Emmanoulopoulos~\altaffilmark{14},
110: P.~Espigat~\altaffilmark{12},
111: C.~Farnier~\altaffilmark{15},
112: F.~Feinstein~\altaffilmark{15},
113: A.~Fiasson~\altaffilmark{15},
114: A.~F\"orster~\altaffilmark{1},
115: G.~Fontaine~\altaffilmark{10},
116: % Seb.~Funk~\altaffilmark{5},
117: M.~F\"u{\ss}ling~\altaffilmark{5},
118: S.~Gabici~\altaffilmark{13},
119: Y.A.~Gallant~\altaffilmark{15},
120: L.~G\'erard~\altaffilmark{12},
121: B.~Giebels~\altaffilmark{10},
122: J.F.~Glicenstein~\altaffilmark{7},
123: B.~Gl\"uck~\altaffilmark{16},
124: P.~Goret~\altaffilmark{7},
125: C.~Hadjichristidis~\altaffilmark{8},
126: D.~Hauser~\altaffilmark{14},
127: M.~Hauser~\altaffilmark{14},
128: G.~Heinzelmann~\altaffilmark{4},
129: G.~Henri~\altaffilmark{17},
130: G.~Hermann~\altaffilmark{1},
131: J.A.~Hinton~\altaffilmark{25},
132: A.~Hoffmann~\altaffilmark{18},
133: W.~Hofmann~\altaffilmark{1},
134: M.~Holleran~\altaffilmark{9},
135: S.~Hoppe~\altaffilmark{1},
136: D.~Horns~\altaffilmark{4},
137: A.~Jacholkowska~\altaffilmark{19},
138: O.C.~de~Jager~\altaffilmark{9},
139: I.~Jung~\altaffilmark{16},
140: K.~Katarzy{\'n}ski~\altaffilmark{27},
141: S.~Kaufmann~\altaffilmark{14},
142: E.~Kendziorra~\altaffilmark{18},
143: M.~Kerschhaggl~\altaffilmark{5},
144: D.~Khangulyan~\altaffilmark{1}
145: B.~Kh\'elifi~\altaffilmark{10},
146: D.~Keogh~\altaffilmark{8},
147: Nu.~Komin~\altaffilmark{15},
148: K.~Kosack~\altaffilmark{1},
149: G.~Lamanna~\altaffilmark{11},
150: I.J.~Latham~\altaffilmark{8},
151: M.~Lemoine-Goumard~\altaffilmark{b},
152: J.-P.~Lenain~\altaffilmark{6},
153: T.~Lohse~\altaffilmark{5},
154: V.~Marandon~\altaffilmark{12},
155: J.M.~Martin~\altaffilmark{6},
156: O.~Martineau-Huynh~\altaffilmark{19},
157: A.~Marcowith~\altaffilmark{15},
158: C.~Masterson~\altaffilmark{13},
159: D.~Maurin~\altaffilmark{19},
160: T.J.L.~McComb~\altaffilmark{8},
161: C.~Medina~\altaffilmark{6},
162: R.~Moderski~\altaffilmark{24},
163: E.~Moulin~\altaffilmark{7},
164: M.~Naumann-Godo~\altaffilmark{10},
165: M.~de~Naurois~\altaffilmark{19},
166: D.~Nedbal~\altaffilmark{20},
167: D.~Nekrassov~\altaffilmark{1},
168: J.~Niemiec~\altaffilmark{28},
169: S.J.~Nolan~\altaffilmark{8},
170: S.~Ohm~\altaffilmark{1},
171: J-F.~Olive~\altaffilmark{3},
172: E.~de~O\~{n}a Wilhelmi~\altaffilmark{12,29},
173: K.J.~Orford~\altaffilmark{8},
174: J.L.~Osborne~\altaffilmark{8},
175: M.~Ostrowski~\altaffilmark{23},
176: M.~Panter~\altaffilmark{1},
177: G.~Pedaletti~\altaffilmark{14},
178: G.~Pelletier~\altaffilmark{17},
179: P.-O.~Petrucci~\altaffilmark{17},
180: S.~Pita~\altaffilmark{12},
181: G.~P\"uhlhofer~\altaffilmark{14},
182: M.~Punch~\altaffilmark{12},
183: A.~Quirrenbach~\altaffilmark{14},
184: B.C.~Raubenheimer~\altaffilmark{9},
185: M.~Raue~\altaffilmark{1,29},
186: S.M.~Rayner~\altaffilmark{8},
187: M.~Renaud~\altaffilmark{1},
188: F.~Rieger~\altaffilmark{1,29}
189: J.~Ripken~\altaffilmark{4},
190: L.~Rob~\altaffilmark{20},
191: S.~Rosier-Lees~\altaffilmark{11},
192: G.~Rowell~\altaffilmark{26},
193: B.~Rudak~\altaffilmark{24},
194: J.~Ruppel~\altaffilmark{21},
195: V.~Sahakian~\altaffilmark{2},
196: A.~Santangelo~\altaffilmark{18},
197: R.~Schlickeiser~\altaffilmark{21},
198: F.M.~Sch\"ock~\altaffilmark{16},
199: R.~Schr\"oder~\altaffilmark{21},
200: U.~Schwanke~\altaffilmark{5},
201: S.~Schwarzburg ~\altaffilmark{18},
202: S.~Schwemmer~\altaffilmark{14},
203: A.~Shalchi~\altaffilmark{21},
204: J.L.~Skilton~\altaffilmark{25},
205: H.~Sol~\altaffilmark{6},
206: D.~Spangler~\altaffilmark{8},
207: {\L}.~Stawarz~\altaffilmark{23},
208: R.~Steenkamp~\altaffilmark{22},
209: C.~Stegmann~\altaffilmark{16},
210: G.~Superina~\altaffilmark{10},
211: P.H.~Tam~\altaffilmark{14},
212: J.-P.~Tavernet~\altaffilmark{19},
213: R.~Terrier~\altaffilmark{12},
214: O.~Tibolla~\altaffilmark{14},
215: C.~van~Eldik~\altaffilmark{1},
216: G.~Vasileiadis~\altaffilmark{15},
217: C.~Venter~\altaffilmark{9},
218: J.P.~Vialle~\altaffilmark{11},
219: P.~Vincent~\altaffilmark{19},
220: J.~Vink~\altaffilmark{30},
221: M.~Vivier~\altaffilmark{7},
222: H.J.~V\"olk~\altaffilmark{1},
223: F.~Volpe~\altaffilmark{10,29},
224: S.J.~Wagner~\altaffilmark{14},
225: M.~Ward~\altaffilmark{8},
226: A.A.~Zdziarski~\altaffilmark{24},
227: A.~Zech~\altaffilmark{6}
228: }
229:
230: \altaffiltext{*}{Correspondence and request for material should be
231: sent to stefan.hoppe@mpi-hd.mpg.de \, \& \, lemoine@cenbg.in2p3.fr }
232: \altaffiltext{1}{
233: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, P.O. Box 103980, D 69029
234: Heidelberg, Germany}
235: \altaffiltext{2}{
236: Yerevan Physics Institute, 2 Alikhanian Brothers St., 375036 Yerevan,
237: Armenia}
238: \altaffiltext{3}{
239: Centre d'Etude Spatiale des Rayonnements, CNRS/UPS, 9 av. du Colonel Roche, BP
240: 4346, F-31029 Toulouse Cedex 4, France}
241: \altaffiltext{4}{
242: Universit\"at Hamburg, Institut f\"ur Experimentalphysik, Luruper Chaussee
243: 149, D 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
244: \altaffiltext{5}{
245: Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, Newtonstr. 15,
246: D 12489 Berlin, Germany}
247: \altaffiltext{6}{
248: LUTH, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, Universit\'e Paris Diderot, 5 Place Jules Janssen, 92190 Meudon,
249: France}
250: \altaffiltext{7}{
251: IRFU/DSM/CEA, CE Saclay, F-91191
252: Gif-sur-Yvette, Cedex, France}
253: \altaffiltext{8}{
254: University of Durham, Department of Physics, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE,
255: U.K.}
256: \altaffiltext{9}{
257: Unit for Space Physics, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520,
258: South Africa}
259: \altaffiltext{10}{
260: Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3,
261: F-91128 Palaiseau, France}
262: \altaffiltext{11}{
263: Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3,
264: 9 Chemin de Bellevue - BP 110 F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux Cedex, France}
265: \altaffiltext{12}{
266: Astroparticule et Cosmologie (APC), CNRS, Universite Paris 7 Denis Diderot,
267: 10, rue Alice Domon et Leonie Duquet, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France}
268: \altaffiltext{13}{
269: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 5 Merrion Square, Dublin 2,
270: Ireland}
271: \altaffiltext{14}{
272: Landessternwarte, Universit\"at Heidelberg, K\"onigstuhl, D 69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
273: \altaffiltext{15}{
274: Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique et Astroparticules, CNRS/IN2P3,
275: Universit\'e Montpellier II, CC 70, Place Eug\`ene Bataillon, F-34095
276: Montpellier Cedex 5, France}
277: \altaffiltext{16}{
278: Universit\"at Erlangen-N\"urnberg, Physikalisches Institut, Erwin-Rommel-Str. 1,
279: D 91058 Erlangen, Germany}
280: \altaffiltext{17}{
281: Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Grenoble, INSU/CNRS, Universit\'e Joseph Fourier, BP
282: 53, F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France }
283: \altaffiltext{18}{
284: Institut f\"ur Astronomie und Astrophysik, Universit\"at T\"ubingen,
285: Sand 1, D 72076 T\"ubingen, Germany}
286: \altaffiltext{19}{
287: LPNHE, Universit\'e Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Universit\'e Denis Diderot
288: Paris 7, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 Place Jussieu, F-75252, Paris Cedex 5, France}
289: \altaffiltext{20}{
290: Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics, Charles University,
291: V Holesovickach 2, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic}
292: \altaffiltext{21}{
293: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Lehrstuhl IV: Weltraum und
294: Astrophysik,
295: Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, D 44780 Bochum, Germany}
296: \altaffiltext{22}{
297: University of Namibia, Private Bag 13301, Windhoek, Namibia}
298: \altaffiltext{23}{
299: Obserwatorium Astronomiczne, Uniwersytet Jagiello\'nski, Krak\'ow,
300: Poland}
301: \altaffiltext{24}{
302: Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, ul. Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland}
303: \altaffiltext{25}{
304: School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK}
305: \altaffiltext{26}{
306: School of Chemistry \& Physics,
307: University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia}
308: \altaffiltext{27}{
309: Toru{\'n} Centre for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul.
310: Gagarina 11, 87-100 Toru{\'n}, Poland}
311: \altaffiltext{28}{
312: Instytut Fizyki J\c{a}drowej PAN, ul. Radzikowskiego 152, 31-342 Krak{\'o}w,
313: Poland
314: }
315: \altaffiltext{29}{
316: European Associated Laboratory for Gamma-Ray Astronomy, jointly
317: supported by CNRS and MPG}
318: \altaffiltext{30}{
319: Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University, PO Box 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands}
320: \altaffiltext{a}{supported by CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil}
321: \altaffiltext{b}{M.~Lemoine-Goumard, Universit\'e Bordeaux I, CNRS/IN2P3, Centre d'Etudes nucl\'eaires de Bordeaux Gradignan, UMR 5797,
322: Chemin du Solarium, 33175 Gradignan, France}
323: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
324: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
325: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
326: %% affiliation.
327:
328:
329: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
330: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
331: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
332: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
333: %% editorial office after submission.
334:
335: \begin{abstract}
336: The shell-type supernova remnant (SNR) RCW 86, possibly associated
337: with the historical supernova SN 185, with its relatively large size
338: (about 40' in diameter) and the presence of non-thermal X-rays is a
339: promising target for $\gamma$-ray observations. The high sensitivity,
340: good angular resolution of a few arc minutes and the large field of view
341: of the High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) make it ideally suited for
342: the study of the $\gamma$-ray morphology of such extended sources.
343: H.E.S.S. observations have indeed led to the
344: discovery of the SNR RCW~86 in very high energy (VHE; $\rm{E} > 100$~GeV)
345: $\gamma$-rays. With 31 hours of observation time, the source is
346: detected with a statistical significance of $8.5 \sigma$ and
347: is significantly more extended than the H.E.S.S. point spread function. Morphological
348: studies have been performed and show that the $\gamma$-ray flux does not correlate
349: perfectly with the X-ray emission. The flux from the
350: remnant is $\sim$10\% of the flux from the Crab nebula, with a similar
351: photon index of about 2.5. Possible origins of the very high
352: energy gamma-ray emission, via either Inverse Compton scattering by electrons or
353: the decay of neutral pions produced by proton interactions,
354: are discussed on the basis of spectral features obtained both in the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray regimes.
355: \end{abstract}
356:
357: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
358: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
359: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
360: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
361:
362: \keywords{
363: gamma-rays: observations --
364: supernova remnants: general--
365: supernova remnants: individual RCW 86 --
366: H.E.S.S.
367: }
368:
369: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
370: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
371: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
372: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
373: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
374: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
375: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
376: %% each reference.
377:
378:
379: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
380: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
381: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
382: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
383: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
384: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
385: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
386: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
387: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
388:
389: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
390: % 1. Introduction
391: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
392: \sloppy
393:
394: \section{Introduction}
395: Shell-type supernova remnants (SNR) are widely believed to be the prime
396: candidates for accelerating cosmic ray protons and nuclei up to $10^{15}$eV. A promising
397: way of proving the existence of high energy hadrons
398: accelerated in SNR shells is the detection of very high energy (VHE; E $> 100$~GeV)
399: $\gamma$-rays produced in nucleonic interactions with ambient matter.
400: VHE $\gamma$-ray emission has been detected recently in several shell-type SNRs, especially
401: from Cassiopeia~A~(\cite{casa1}, \cite{casa}), RX~J1713.7-3946~\citep{HESSRXJ3} and RX~J0852.0-4622~\citep{HESSVelaJr}. These two latest sources both show an extended morphology highly correlated
402: with the structures seen in non-thermal X-rays. Although a hadronic origin is
403: probable in the above cases \citep{rxjberezhko}, a leptonic origin can not be ruled out \citep{porter}.\\
404: Another young shell-type SNR is RCW~86 (also known as
405: G315.4-2.3 and MSH~$14-6{\it 3}$). It has a complete shell in
406: radio~\citep{kesteven}, optical~\citep{smith} and
407: X-rays~\citep{pisarski}, with a nearly circular shape of $40$'
408: diameter. It received substantial attention because of its possible
409: association with SN~185, the first historical Galactic
410: supernova~\citep{clarck}. However, conclusive evidence for this connection is still
411: missing: using optical observations,~\cite{rosado} found
412: an apparent kinematic distance of 2.8~kpc and an age of $\sim10\,000$ years,
413: whereas recent observations of the North-East part of the remnant with
414: the Chandra and XMM-Newton satellites strengthen the case that the
415: event recorded by the Chinese in 185~AD was a supernova and that RCW 86 is its
416: remnant~\citep{vink}. In this case, a distance to the SNR of $\sim1$~kpc
417: can be estimated for a standard Sedov evolution scenario~\citep{bocchino}.
418: The X-ray spectrum obtained with the Einstein satellite was first
419: represented by a two-temperature
420: plasma model~\citep{winkler}. Then, RXTE~\citep{petre} and ASCA observations
421: (\cite{bamba}, \cite{borkowski}), with a wider spectral coverage, were used to resolve
422: a non-thermal component in the X-ray spectrum which can be well described by a
423: soft power-law with a photon index of $\sim3$.
424: %X-ray observations also reveal that the North-East region of RCW 86 has
425: %properties resembling the already established TeV emitting SNRs
426: %mentioned above: weak radio emission and X-ray emission of dominantly
427: %non-thermal origin, which could result from a high velocity shock expanding
428: %into a low density region. However, in contrast
429: %to RX~J1713.7-3946 and RX~J0852.0-4622, RCW~86 also shows significant
430: %thermal X-ray emission dominantly in the South-West~\citep{bocchino}.
431: The large-scale density gradient across RCW~86 (\cite{pisarski} and \cite{claas}) possibly
432: suggests that the northern part could be the shocked half of a very low-density wind bubble
433: plus dense shell from the progenitor star, and to this extent it could well be similar to
434: RX~J1713.7-3946 and RX~J0852.0-4622. In its southern part, RCW~86 contains an HII region. Apparently,
435: the gas density in this HII region is rather high and spatially extended. Therefore, the SNR shock
436: has swept over an extended high density region in the South, with consequent high radio
437: and thermal X-ray emissions~\citep{bocchino}.
438: With a diameter of about 40', RCW~86 is one of the very few non-thermal X-ray emitting
439: SNRs resolvable in VHE $\gamma$-rays. H.E.S.S., with its high sensitivity, its good angular resolution
440: and its large field of view is ideally
441: suited for morphology studies of such an extended object.\\
442: Evidence for $\gamma$-ray emission from RCW 86 was found using the
443: CANGAROO-II instrument, but no firm detection was claimed~\citep{cangaroo}.
444: Here, we present data on RCW~86 obtained
445: with the full H.E.S.S. array between 2004 and 2007.
446:
447: \section{H.E.S.S. observations and analysis methods}
448: H.E.S.S. is an array of four imaging Cherenkov telescopes located
449: 1800~m above sea level in the Khomas Highland in
450: Namibia~\citep{HESS}. Each telescope has a tesselated mirror with an
451: area of $107 \, \rm{m^{2}}$~\citep{HESSOptics} and is equipped with a camera
452: comprising 960 photomultipliers~\citep{HESSCamera} covering a field of
453: view of 5$^{\circ}$ in diameter. Due to the effective rejection of
454: hadronic air showers with the stereoscopic imaging technique, the
455: H.E.S.S. telescope system can detect point sources near zenith at
456: flux levels of about 1\% of the Crab nebula flux with a
457: statistical significance of 5~$\sigma$ standard deviation in 25 hours of observation
458: ~\citep{HESSCrab}. \\
459: The shell-type SNR RCW~86 was observed between 2004 and 2007 with the
460: complete H.E.S.S. array. After standard data quality selection and dead time
461: correction, the resulting live time is 31 hours. The observations have
462: been carried out at zenith angles ranging from $38^{\circ}$
463: to $53^{\circ}$. The data were taken using the wobble mode where the source is offset from the centre
464: of the field of view, alternating between 28 minute runs in the
465: positive and negative declination or right ascension directions;
466: the mean offset angle of the data set used in this analysis is $0.7^{\circ}$.
467: The energy threshold of the system increases with zenith angle: for the observations presented
468: here, the average threshold was 480 GeV.\\
469: The data were calibrated using standard H.E.S.S. calibration
470: procedures, as discussed by \cite{HESSCalib}. The data were analyzed
471: using a Hillas parameter based method as described in \cite{HESSHillas} with
472: \emph{standard} cuts, which include a minimum requirement of 80 photo
473: electrons in each camera image. Two different background estimation
474: procedures were used, as described in \cite{Davidbackground}. For 2D image
475: generation and morphology studies, the \emph{ring background} method was
476: applied with a mean ring radius of $0.7^{\circ}$. As this method uses an energy
477: averaged radial acceptance correction, the \emph{reflected-region background}
478: method was applied for spectral studies. In
479: this second background subtraction procedure, OFF events were selected from
480: the same field of view and in the same runs as the ON events by
481: selecting the region symmetric to the ON region with respect to the
482: camera centre. As a cross-check, a second analysis chain, sharing
483: only the raw data and using the ``Combined Model'' analysis \citep{denaurois},
484: was also applied to the data. The two analysis methods yield consistent results.
485:
486: \section{Results}
487: A clear VHE $\gamma$-ray signal of $8.5 \sigma$ standard deviation and $1546 \pm 183$
488: excess $\gamma$-rays is detected from a circular region of $0.45^{\circ}$
489: radius, centered on ($\alpha_{J2000}$ = 14$^h$42$^m$43$^s$,
490: $\delta_{J2000}$ = $-62^\circ28'48''$). This integration region was chosen
491: a priori on the basis of the X-ray data obtained with the ROSAT satellite and fully
492: encompasses the SNR. Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86} shows the VHE
493: $\gamma$-ray excess map of the $1.6^{\circ} \times 1.6^{\circ}$ region around RCW~86.
494: The map has been smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with a $\sigma$ of $4.8'$ to
495: suppress statistical fluctuations on scales smaller than the
496: H.E.S.S. point-spread function (PSF).
497: The VHE $\gamma$-ray excess from RCW~86 is significantly extended beyond the
498: PSF of the instrument, which is illustrated in the bottom left corner of Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86}.
499: Contours of constant significance are superimposed in white at the 4, 5 and 6$\sigma$ levels.
500: An excess map has also been produced with the so-called ``hard cuts'' for better gamma hadron separation,
501: which includes a stricter cut of 200 photo electrons on the image size compared to the ``standard cuts'',
502: and was found to be compatible with Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86}. The VHE emission shown in Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86}
503: is suggestive of a shell-like morphology. To test this hypothesis, the brightness profile of a thick shell
504: projected along the line of sight and folded with the H.E.S.S. point-spread
505: function was fit to the unsmoothed excess map. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86},
506: the best fit ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 233.1/220) is obtained with an outer radius of $24.43' \pm 1.79'_{\rm stat}$,
507: a width of $12.39' \pm 4.22'_{\rm stat}$
508: and a centre of the shell at ($\alpha_{J2000}$ = 14$^h$42$^m$42.96$^s \pm 14.1^s_{\rm stat}$,
509: $\delta_{J2000}$ = $-62^{\circ}26'41.6'' \pm 66.5''_{\rm stat}$).
510:
511: \begin{figure}[ht]
512: %\epsscale{0.95}
513: \plotone{f1.eps}
514: \caption{H.E.S.S. $\gamma$-ray image of RCW~86. The map was smoothed with a Gaussian function with a $\sigma_{\rm{smooth}}=4.8'$ to reduce the effect of statistical fluctuations. The linear color scale is in units of excess counts per arcmin$^{2}$. White contours correspond to 4, 5, 6 $\sigma$ significance,
515: obtained by counting gamma rays within 0.14$^{\circ}$ from each given location. The image inset in the bottom left
516: corner indicates the size of a point source as seen by H.E.S.S., for an equivalent analysis, smoothing and zenith angles. The centre of
517: the fitted shell, as discussed in the text, is marked by a black cross. The two solid green circles correspond to the inner and outer radii of this shell.
518: \label{fig::rcw86}}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: Figure~\ref{fig::radprof} shows the radial profile of the VHE excess
522: relative to the fitted centre. The fit of the radial profiles to the data points results in a
523: chi-square per degree of freedom of $\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 2.85/7 for a projected shell (determined by outer ring radius,
524: ring width and absolute normalization) which is not significantly
525: better than the fit of a projected uniformly-emitting sphere characterized by a ring radius and
526: a normalization factor ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 5.43/8).
527: Also visible in Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86} is an apparent deficit of $\gamma$-rays at the western part of the SNR.
528: However, the azimuthal profile in Figure~\ref{fig::azprof} is consistent with a constant and reveals
529: that this dip is not significant ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 1.47/5).\\
530:
531: \begin{figure}[ht]
532: %\epsscale{.99}
533: \plotone{f2.eps}
534: \caption{\textbf{Upper panel:} H.E.S.S. radial profiles around the fitted centre of the SNR ($\alpha_{J2000}$ = 14$^h$42$^m$43$^s$,
535: $\delta_{J2000}$ = $-62^\circ$26'42''). The solid line shows the result of a projected uniformly-emitting sphere smoothed with the H.E.S.S. point-spread function and fitted to the H.E.S.S. data. The dashed line corresponds to a projection of a thick and spherically symmetric shell. The dotted vertical line illustrates the extent of the region used for the azimuthal profile and for the spectral analysis. \textbf{Lower panel:} Radial profiles of the X-ray data (3-6 keV) from XMM-Newton. These data are background subtracted and smoothed to match the H.E.S.S. angular resolution. Additionally, the obtained excess profile was normalized.}
536: \label{fig::radprof}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539: \begin{figure}[ht]
540: %\epsscale{.99}
541: \plotone{f3.eps}
542: \caption{\textbf{Upper panel:} H.E.S.S. azimuthal profile integrated over a region of $0.5^{\circ}$ radius covering the SNR RCW~86. The azimuthal angle is calculated with respect to the fitted shell centre. $0^{\circ}$ corresponds to the North part of the source and $90^{\circ}$ to the East. The solid line shows the result of a fit of the data to a constant which yields a chi-square of 1.47 for 5 degrees of freedom. \textbf{Lower panel:} Azimuthal profiles of the X-ray data (3-6 keV) from XMM-Newton. These data are background subtracted and smoothed to match the H.E.S.S. angular resolution. Additionally, the obtained excess profile was normalized.}
543: \label{fig::azprof}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546: Figure~\ref{fig::xmm} shows the 3-6 keV X-ray map of RCW~86 obtained using six observations of the remnant
547: carried out by the XMM-Newton satellite in 2006~\citep{vink} and additional observations taken in 2007.
548: The energy range was selected to avoid as much as possible contamination from line emission from the, in general,
549: cool plasma ($<$ 1 keV) of RCW 86. Potentially, the 3 - 4 keV range could contain some contamination from Ar and Ca
550: lines, but no such line emission is seen in the available Chandra, XMM-Newton~\citep{vink} or Suzaku
551: spectra~\citep{ueno}. This map was obtained by first automatically cleaning the observations of
552: $> 3 \sigma$ excursions to the mean count rate, thus minimizing the background of the maps.
553: Then, for each observation and for each of the three detectors (MOS1, MOS2, and PN), a background count rate in
554: the 3-6 keV band was determined using a relatively empty region of the field of view.
555: In the final stage, the background image was subtracted from the count rate image, and then corrected using the
556: exposure maps obtained with the standard XMM-Newton SAS 7.1.0 software (which includes vignetting correction),
557: in order to obtain the background corrected map displayed in Figure~\ref{fig::xmm}.
558: An overall positional agreement with the H.E.S.S. contours derived from
559: Figure~\ref{fig::rcw86} as well as a good compatibility between the outer radius of the
560: $\gamma$-ray emission ($24.43' \pm 1.79'_{\rm stat}$) and the extension of the X-ray emission can be observed.
561: However, the emission peak apparent in the X-ray azimuthal profile is not visible in $\gamma$-rays
562: (Figure~\ref{fig::azprof}). Furthermore, the dip in surface brightness at
563: the center of the remnant seems more pronounced in the X-ray radial profiles (Figure~\ref{fig::radprof}).
564: A more detailed comparison of the
565: $\gamma$-ray and X-ray morphologies would require higher statistics than presently available, and hence
566: will have to await future longer observations.\\
567:
568: \begin{figure}[htbp]
569: %\epsscale{.98}
570: \plotone{f4.eps}
571: \caption{Excess contours of $\gamma$-ray emission (0.55, 0.8, 1.05 $\gamma$-rays per arcmin$^{2}$ Gaussian smoothed with $\sigma_{\rm{smooth}}=4.8'$) superimposed on the background subtracted XMM-Newton EPIC (MOS/PN) 3-6 keV X-ray image of the remnant.
572: \label{fig::xmm}}
573: \end{figure}
574:
575: For the spectral analysis, the source region (ON region) is defined by
576: a circle of $0.5^{\circ}$ radius centered on the best fit
577: position of the shell, chosen to fully enclose the whole source. The
578: radius of the extraction region is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig::radprof}.
579: The spectrum obtained (see Figure~\ref{fig::spec}) is well described
580: by a power-law with a photon index of $2.54 \pm 0.12_{\rm{stat}} \pm 0.20_{\rm{sys}}$ and a
581: flux normalisation at 1 TeV of $(3.72 \pm
582: 0.50_{\rm{stat}} \pm 0.8_{\rm{sys}}) \times 10^{-12} \mathrm{cm^{-2}} \mathrm{s^{-1}}
583: \mathrm{TeV^{-1}}$ ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 6.30/4). The integral flux in the energy range 1 - 10 TeV
584: is $(2.34 \pm 0.3_{\rm{stat}} \pm 0.5_{\rm{sys}}) \times 10^{-12} \, \mathrm{cm^{-2}} \mathrm{s^{-1}}$,
585: which corresponds to $\sim$ 10\% of the integrated flux of the Crab nebula in
586: the same energy interval. No significant improvement is obtained by fitting a power-law with an exponential
587: cut-off ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 2.96/3). If the fit range is
588: restricted to energies below 10 TeV, a photon index of $2.41 \pm 0.16_{\rm{stat}} \pm 0.20_{\rm{sys}}$ and a flux
589: normalisation at 1 TeV of $(3.57 \pm 0.5_{\rm{stat}} \pm 0.8_{\rm{sys}}) \times 10^{-12}
590: \mathrm{cm^{-2}} \mathrm{s^{-1}} \mathrm{TeV^{-1}}$ are determined ($\chi^2/\rm{ndf}$ = 0.68/2), compatible with the fit of the SNR in the whole energy range. \\
591:
592:
593: \begin{figure}[htbp]
594: %\epsscale{.99}
595: \plotone{f5.eps}
596: \caption{Differential energy spectrum of RCW~86, extracted from a
597: circular region of $0.5^{\circ}$ radius around the position ($\alpha_{J2000}$ = 14$^h$42$^m$43$^s$,
598: $\delta_{J2000}$ = $-62^\circ$26'42'') adjusted to the H.E.S.S. data
599: to enclose the whole source. The solid line shows the result of a pure power-law fit. The error bars denote 1$\sigma$ statistical
600: errors; the upper limit (arrow) is estimated at the $2\sigma$ level. The bottom panel shows the residuals to the power-law fit. Events with energies between 600 GeV and 60 TeV were used in the determination of the spectrum.
601: \label{fig::spec}}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604: \newpage
605:
606: \section{Discussion}
607: There are two commonly invoked mechanisms for VHE $\gamma$-ray production in young
608: supernova remnants, inverse Compton (IC) scattering of high energy
609: electrons off ambient photons (leptonic scenario) and $\pi^0$ meson
610: production in inelastic interactions of accelerated protons with ambient
611: gas (hadronic scenario). In such a hadronic scenario, a comparison between the expected thermal X-ray
612: emission and the actually measured thermal emission has to await deeper observations in which one can better
613: determined whether the TeV emission traces the denser, thermal X-ray emitting parts of the SNR, or is more
614: closely correlated with the X-ray synchrotron emission from the remnant.\\
615: The measured $\gamma$-ray spectrum from RCW~86, restricted to energies below 10 TeV,
616: translates into an energy flux between 1 and 10 TeV of $8.6 \times 10^{-12} \, \rm erg \, cm^{-2} \,
617: s^{-1}$. The X-ray spectrum of the whole remnant is mixed between thermal and non-thermal emission.
618: Assuming that the hard X-ray continuum originates from non-thermal synchrotron emission as reported by~\cite{rho},
619: \cite{vink} and \cite{ueno}, the measurement made by~\cite{petre} using RXTE data provides an estimate of the
620: total amount of non-thermal flux from RCW~86. They find that the spectrum is well fitted by a power-law of
621: index $\sim3$ and a flux normalization at 10 keV of $10^{-4} \, \rm cm^{-2} \, s^{-1} \, keV^{-1}$,
622: which extrapolated down to the 0.7 to 10 keV band leads to an integral flux of
623: $2.1 \times 10^{-10} \, \rm erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$.
624: In a leptonic scenario, assuming that the $\gamma$-ray emission
625: is entirely due to the IC process on cosmic microwave background photons,
626: the ratio of the synchrotron power and IC power radiated
627: %$\frac{P_{S}}{P_{IC}} = \frac{U_B}{U_{ph}}$, where $U_{ph}$ and $U_B$ are respectively
628: %the energy density of the photon field and the energy density of the magnetic field,
629: is often used to constrain the magnetic field.
630: For a power-law distribution of electron energies, $K\gamma^{-p}$, the general equation relating the
631: synchrotron power ($P_S$) produced by electrons with Lorentz factors between $\gamma_{1,X}$ and $\gamma_{2,X}$
632: and the IC power ($P_{IC}$) radiated between $\gamma_{1,IC}$ and $\gamma_{2,IC}$ can be expressed as follow:
633: \begin{eqnarray}
634: \frac{P_S}{P_{IC}} = \frac{U_B}{U_{ph}} \frac{(\gamma_{2,X}^{3-p} - \gamma_{1,X}^{3-p})}{(\gamma_{2,IC}^{3-p}
635: - \gamma_{1,IC}^{3-p})}
636: \label{eq1}
637: \end{eqnarray}
638: where $U_{ph}$ and $U_B$ are the energy density of the photon field and the energy
639: density of the magnetic field, respectively. It should be noted here that, for a fixed X-ray energy,
640: $\gamma_{1,X}$ and $\gamma_{2,X}$ are inversely proportional to the square root of the magnetic field.
641: If X-rays and $\gamma$-rays probe the same region of the electron spectrum, one finds the
642: standard relation between the synchrotron and IC power $\frac{P_{S}}{P_{IC}} = \frac{U_B}{U_{ph}}$.
643: Assuming that the target photon field is the cosmic microwave background,
644: %the characteristic energies of
645: %synchrotron, $E_X$, and IC, $E_{\gamma}$, photons produced by the same electrons is connected
646: %by the relation $E_{X} \simeq 0.07(E_{\gamma}/1 \, \rm{TeV}) (B/10 \, \mu G) \, \rm{keV}$~\citep{kifune}.
647: %Finally, assuming that the X-ray spectrum can be extrapolated down to hundreds of eV and that the
648: %energy of synchrotron photons can be obtained with $E_X \simeq 1.9 (B/10 \, \mu G)(E_e/1 \, TeV)^2 \, \rm{eV}$~\citep{kifune},
649: a magnetic field of $30 \, \mu \rm G$ can be estimated using Equation~\ref{eq1} and the
650: synchrotron photon index of $\sim 3$,
651: independent of the distance and age of the SNR. This estimate is compatible with that of~\cite{vink}
652: based on thin filaments resolved by Chandra (assuming a distance of 2.5~kpc) in which the authors also
653: deduce a high speed of the blast wave ($\sim 2700 \, \rm km \, s^{-1}$); their estimated value would
654: increase to $\sim 50 \, \mu \rm G$ for a distance of 1~kpc. However, it is
655: still a factor of 2 lower than the maximum field strength determined by~\cite{volk} using a lower
656: shock velocity of $800 \, \rm km \, s^{-1}$ as suggested by
657: optical data in the Southern region of the SNR~\citep{rosado}. The difference between the
658: field amplification estimated by~\cite{vink} and that of~\cite{volk} lies in the fact that V\"olk et al.
659: obtained a higher result when they de-projected the measured filament width, as for an ideal spherical shock,
660: whereas Vink et al. did not. Without de-projection the two results remarkably agree, even though they were
661: obtained for the southern side and the northern side, respectively. A
662: discussion of de-projection for RCW~86 is given in~\cite{volk}. With similar data,~\cite{bamba2}
663: deduced a significantly lower magnetic field strength of $\sim 4-12 \, \mu \rm{G}$. However, their
664: analysis is based on rather different assumptions on the nature of filament formation.\\
665: In a hadronic scenario, one can estimate the total energy in accelerated
666: protons $W_p$ in the range $10 - 100$~TeV required to produce the
667: $\gamma$-ray luminosity $L_{\gamma}$ observed by H.E.S.S. using the
668: relation $W_p (10 - 100 \, \rm{TeV}) \approx \tau_{\gamma} \times L_{\gamma}(1
669: - 10 \, \rm{TeV})$, in which $\tau_{\gamma} \approx 4.9 \times 10^{15} \left(\frac{n}{1 \,
670: \mathrm{cm^{-3}}} \right)^{-1} \, \rm{s}$ is the characteristic
671: cooling time of protons through the $\pi^0$ production channel~\citep{kelner}.
672: The total energy injected in protons is calculated by
673: extrapolating the proton spectrum down to 1 GeV.
674: Because of this extrapolation over 4 decades in energy, the uncertainty of the estimate can be as
675: large as a factor of 10. Assuming that the relatively steep slope of the proton spectrum (as
676: inferred from the observed $\gamma$-ray spectrum)
677: is the result of an energy cut-off (somewhere around several tens of TeV in proton energy), and that at
678: lower energies the proton spectrum has a $E^{-2}$ type spectrum representative of those predicted
679: by the diffusive shock acceleration theory, the total energy budget in all protons for
680: the distance of 2.5 kpc and the ambient gas density between $0.3 \, \rm cm^{-3}$ and
681: $0.7 \, \rm cm^{-3}$~\citep{bocchino}, would be $(2-4) \times 10^{50} \, \rm
682: erg$. This estimate is in reasonable agreement with theoretical expectations that a
683: significant fraction of the explosion energy of $10^{51} \, \rm erg$ is released in
684: relativistic protons. On the other hand, if the power-law spectrum of protons continues
685: to GeV energies with the spectral index $\Gamma=2.4$ (i.e. similar to the gamma-ray spectrum below 10 TeV),
686: the total budget in protons would
687: exceed a few times $10^{51}$ erg for a distance of 2.5~kpc. This would exclude the hadronic origin of TeV $\gamma$-rays,
688: unless the SNR is nearby ($\sim 1$ kpc), or the $\gamma$-rays are produced in very dense regions.
689: Indeed, \cite{pisarski} and \cite{claas} reported that there is a large density contrast across the remnant,
690: e.g. in the South, where the density could be as high as $10 \, \rm cm^{-3}$; with such a dense medium, a larger distance
691: for the remnant could still be compatible with the observed $\gamma$-ray flux.
692:
693: \section{Conclusions}
694: H.E.S.S. observations have led to the discovery of the shell-type SNR
695: RCW~86 in VHE $\gamma$-rays. The $\gamma$-ray signal is significantly more extended
696: than the H.E.S.S. point-spread function. The possibility of a
697: shell-like morphology was addressed, but cannot be settled on the
698: basis of the limited statistics available at the moment. The flux from
699: the remnant is $\sim$10\% of that from the Crab nebula, with a
700: photon index of about 2.5. The question of
701: the nature of the particles producing the $\gamma$-ray signal observed
702: by H.E.S.S. is also discussed.\\
703: In a leptonic scenario, assuming that the
704: $\gamma$-ray emission is entirely due to the IC process on cosmic microwave
705: background photons and that the synchrotron and IC photons are produced by
706: the same electrons, the ratio of the $\gamma$-ray energy flux and the
707: X-ray flux determines the magnetic field to be close to $30 \, \mu \rm G$.\\
708: In the hadronic scenario, the lack of information about the low-energy $\gamma$-ray spectrum
709: results in large uncertainties on the total energy budget in protons. If below several tens of TeV,
710: the proton spectrum has a $E^{-2}$ type spectrum, the total energy
711: in protons would be in reasonable agreement with theoretical expectations.
712: On the other hand, if we assume that the proton spectrum continues down
713: to GeV energies with the observed spectral index $\Gamma = 2.4$, energetics
714: would rule out a hadronic origin for the TeV $\gamma$-rays unless the SNR
715: is nearby, or if the $\gamma$-rays are produced in a very dense medium as
716: reported in the southern part of the remnant.
717:
718: \acknowledgments
719: The support of the Namibian authorities and of the University of Namibia
720: in facilitating the construction and operation of H.E.S.S. is gratefully
721: acknowledged, as is the support by the German Ministry for Education and
722: Research (BMBF), the Max Planck Society, the French Ministry for Research,
723: the CNRS-IN2P3 and the Astroparticle Interdisciplinary Programme of the
724: CNRS, the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC),
725: the IPNP of the Charles University, the Polish Ministry of Science and
726: Higher Education, the South African Department of
727: Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, and by the
728: University of Namibia. We appreciate the excellent work of the technical
729: support staff in Berlin, Durham, Hamburg, Heidelberg, Palaiseau, Paris,
730: Saclay, and in Namibia in the construction and operation of the
731: equipment.
732:
733: \begin{thebibliography}{}
734: %\bibitem[Aharonian, Atoyan \& Kifune (1997)]{kifune} Aharonian, F. A., Atoyan, A. M., Kifune, T.,
735: %1997, MNRAS, 291, 162
736: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2001)]{casa1} Aharonian, F., 2001, A\&A, 112, 307
737: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2004)]{HESSCalib} Aharonian, F.,
738: ({\it H.E.S.S. Collaboration}) 2004, APh, 22, 109
739: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005)]{HESSHillas} Aharonian, F., et al.
740: ({\it H.E.S.S. Collaboration}) 2005, A\&A, 430, 865
741: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2006)]{HESSCrab} Aharonian, F., et al.
742: ({\it H.E.S.S. Collaboration}) 2006, A\&A, 457, 899
743: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2007a)]{HESSRXJ3} Aharonian, F., et al.
744: ({\it H.E.S.S. Collaboration}) 2007a, A\&A, 464, 235
745: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2007b)]{HESSVelaJr} Aharonian, F., et al.
746: ({\it H.E.S.S. Collaboration}) 2007b, A\&A, 661, 236
747: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2007)]{casa} Albert, J., et al. 2007, A\&A, 474, 937
748: \bibitem[Bamba et al.(2000)]{bamba} Bamba, A., Koyama, K., \& Tomida, H., 2000, PASJ, 52, 1157
749: \bibitem[Bamba et al.(2005)]{bamba2} Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Yoshida, T., Terasawa, T., \& Koyama, K., 2005,
750: ApJ, 621, 793
751: \bibitem[Berge et al.(2007)]{Davidbackground} Berge, D., Funk, S., \& Hinton, J.,
752: 2007, A\&A, 466, 1219
753: \bibitem[e.g. Berezhko \& V\"olk (2006)]{rxjberezhko} Berezhko, E. G., \& V\"olk, H. J., 2006, A\&A, 451, 981
754: \bibitem[Bernl\"ohr et al.(2003)]{HESSOptics} Bernl\"ohr, K., et al., 2003, APh, 20, 111
755: \bibitem[Bocchino et al.(2000)]{bocchino} Bocchino, F., Vink, J., Favata, F., Maggio, A., \& Sciortino, S., 2000,
756: A\&A, 360, 671
757: \bibitem[Borkowski et al.(2001)]{borkowski} Borkowski, K. J., Arnaud, K. A., Dorman, B., Hughes, J. P., Sarazin, C. L., \& Smith, R. A., 2001, ApJ, 550, 334
758: \bibitem[Claas et al.(1989)]{claas} Claas, J.J., Kaastra, J. S., Smith, A., Peacock, A., \& de Korte, P. A. J., 1989, ApJ, 337, 399
759: \bibitem[Clark \& Stephenson (1977)]{clarck} Clark, D., \& Stephenson, F., 1977, The Historical Supernovae (Oxford: Pergamon Press), 83
760: \bibitem[Hinton (2004)]{HESS} Hinton, J. A., 2004, NewAR, 48, 331
761: \bibitem[Kelner et al.(2006)]{kelner} Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., \& Bugayov, V. V., 2006, Physical Review D, 74, 3
762: \bibitem[Kesteven \& Caswell (1987)]{kesteven} Kesteven, M. J., \& Caswell, J. L., 1987, A\&A, 183, 118
763: \bibitem[de Naurois et al.(2005)]{denaurois} de Naurois, M. et al. 2005,
764: in Proceedings of the conference ``Towards a Network of Atmospheric Cherenkov Detectors VII'', ed. B. Degrange \& G. Fontaine (Palaiseau: Ecole Polytechnique), 173
765: \bibitem[Petre et al.(1999)]{petre} Petre, R., Allen, G. E., \& Hwang, U., 1999,
766: Astron. Nachr., 320, 199
767: \bibitem[Pisarski et al.(1984)]{pisarski} Pisarski, P. L., Helfand, D. J., \& Kahn, S. M., 1984,
768: ApJ, 277, 710
769: \bibitem[e.g. Porter et al.(2006)]{porter} Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V., \& Strong, A. W. 2006, ApJ, 648, L29
770: \bibitem[Rho et al.(2002)]{rho} Rho, J., Dyer, K. K., Borkowski, K. J., \& Reynolds, S. P., 2002, ApJ, 581, 1116
771: \bibitem[Rosado et al.(1996)]{rosado} Rosado, M., Ambrocio-Cruz, P., Le Coarer, E., \& Marcelin, M., 1996,
772: A\&A, 315, 243
773: \bibitem[Smith (1997)]{smith} Smith, R. C., 1997,
774: AJ, 114, 2664
775: \bibitem[Ueno et al.(2007)]{ueno} Ueno, M., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 171
776: \bibitem[Vincent et al.(2003)]{HESSCamera} Vincent, P., et al. 2003, in
777: Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference,
778: T. Kajita et al., Eds. (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 2003), 2887
779: \bibitem[Vink et al.(2006)]{vink} Vink, J., Bleeker, J., Van Der Heyden, K., Bykov, A., Bamba, A., \& Yamazaki, R., 2006,
780: ApJL, 648, 33
781: \bibitem[V\"olk et al.(2005)]{volk} V\"olk, H. J., Berezhko, E. G., \& Ksenofontov, L. T., 2005,
782: A\&A, 433, 229
783: \bibitem[Watanabe et al.(2003)]{cangaroo} Watanabe, S., et al. ({\it CANGAROO Collaboration}) 2003, in
784: Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference, IUPAP, Eds: T. Kajita et al., 2397
785: \bibitem[Winkler (1978)]{winkler} Winkler Jr., P. F., 1978, ApJ, 221, 220
786: \end{thebibliography}
787:
788:
789: \end{document}
790:
791:
792: