1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{epsfig,graphicx}
4:
5: \newcommand{\til}{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{\ensuremath{\tilde{\;}}}}
6: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
7: \newcommand{\expnt}[2]{\ensuremath{#1 \times 10^{#2}}} % scientific notation
8: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
9: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}
10: \newcommand{\chandra}{\textit{Chandra}}
11: \def\micron {\ensuremath{\mbox{ }\mu\mbox{{m}}}}
12: \newcommand{\um}{\micron}
13: \newcommand{\hr}{\ensuremath{^{\rm h}}}
14: \newcommand{\mn}{\ensuremath{^{\rm m}}}
15: \newcommand{\jhks}{\ensuremath{JHK_{\rm s}}}
16: \newcommand{\ks}{\ensuremath{K_{\rm s}}}
17: \newcommand{\ergs}{\ensuremath{{\rm ergs \; s^{-1}}}}
18: \newcommand{\ergcms}{\ensuremath{{\rm ergs \; cm^{-2} \; s^{-1}}}}
19: \newcommand{\nh}{\ensuremath{N_{\rm H}}}
20: \newcommand{\msol}{\ensuremath{M_{\odot}}}
21: \newcommand{\av}{\ensuremath{A_{V}}}
22: \newcommand{\te}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}
23: \newcommand{\cmsq}{\ensuremath{{\rm cm}^{-2}}}
24: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}
25: \newcommand{\masyr}{\ensuremath{\mbox{mas}\,\mbox{yr}^{-1}}}
26:
27: \newcommand{\hst}{\textit{HST}}
28:
29: \newcommand{\sgr}{SGR~1900+14}
30: \newcommand{\axp}{1E~2259+586}
31: \newcommand{\pup}{RX~J0822$-$4300}
32: \newcommand{\snr}{SNR~G42.8+0.6}
33:
34: \bibliographystyle{apj}
35:
36: \submitted{Accepted for publication in the Astronomical Journal}
37: \shortauthors{Kaplan et al.}
38: \shorttitle{Constraining the Proper Motions of Two Magnetars}
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \title{Constraining the Proper Motions of Two Magnetars}
43:
44: \author{D.~L.~Kaplan\altaffilmark{1,2}, S. Chatterjee\altaffilmark{3}, B.~M.~Gaensler\altaffilmark{3},
45: P.~O.~Slane\altaffilmark{4}, and C.~Hales\altaffilmark{3}}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{1}{Pappalardo Fellow and Hubble Fellow; Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space
48: Research and Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of
49: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Current address: KITP, Kohn Hall, UCSB, Santa
51: Barbara, CA 93106-4030; dkaplan@kitp.ucsb.edu.}
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW
53: 2006, Australia; schatterjee, bgaensler@usyd.edu.au, chales@physics.usyd.edu.au}
54: \altaffiltext{4}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138;
55: {slane@cfa.harvard.edu}.}
56:
57: \begin{abstract}
58: We attempt to measure the proper motions of two magnetars --- the
59: soft gamma-ray repeater \sgr\ and the anomalous X-ray pulsar \axp\ ---
60: using two epochs of \chandra\ observations separated by $\sim 5\,$yr. We perform extensive
61: tests using these data, archival data, and simulations to verify the
62: accuracy of our measurements and understand their limitations. We
63: find 90\% upper limits on the proper motions of $54\,\masyr$ (\sgr)
64: and $65\,\masyr$ (\axp), with the limits largely determined by the
65: accuracy with which we could register the two epochs of data and by
66: the inherent uncertainties on two-point proper motions.
67: We translate the proper motions limits into limits on the transverse
68: velocity using distances, and find $v_{\perp}<1300\,\kms$ (\sgr, for a
69: distance of 5$\,$kpc) and $v_{\perp}<930\,\kms$ (\axp, for a distance
70: of 3$\,$kpc) at 90\% confidence; the range of possible distances for
71: these objects makes a wide range of velocities possible, but it seems
72: that the magnetars do not have uniformly high space velocities of
73: $>3000\,\kms$. Unfortunately, our proper motions also cannot
74: significantly constrain the previously proposed origins of these
75: objects in nearby supernova remnants or star clusters, limited as much
76: by our ignorance of ages as by our proper motions.
77:
78: \end{abstract}
79:
80: \keywords{astrometry --- stars: pulsars: general --- stars:
81: individual: alphanumeric: (SGR~1900+14, 1E2259+58.6) --- stars:
82: neutron --- X-rays: stars}
83:
84:
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87: The sources known as magnetars (see \citealt{wt06} for a review),
88: comprised of the observational classes soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs)
89: and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs), are thought to be young neutron
90: stars with magnetic fields above $10^{14}$~G \citep{dt92,p92}. Why
91: some neutron stars are magnetars (having magnetic field decay as their
92: primary energy source and usually emitting no detectable radio
93: pulsations) while others are ordinary rotation-powered radio pulsars
94: (with comparatively little X-ray emission; \citealt{km05} and
95: references therein) is a fundamentally unresolved issue, especially
96: since some radio pulsars have been discovered with field strengths
97: comparable to those of magnetars \citep[e.g.,][also see
98: \citealt{ggg+08}]{km05}. The proposed explanations run the gamut from
99: evolutionary sequences \citep[e.g.,][]{lz04,kaa06} and quiescent
100: states \citep[e.g.,][]{wt06,ghbb04} to differences in progenitor mass
101: \citep{gmo+05} or magnetic field orientation and geometry
102: \citep{zh00,kkm+03}. \citet{dt92} have proposed that an initial short
103: birth period is responsible for the generation of the high magnetar
104: fields through an efficient large scale dynamo, and have also pointed
105: out that high magnetic fields can produce asymmetric neutrino emission
106: at birth, resulting in extreme space velocities ($>10^3\,{\rm
107: km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$; also see \citealt{td93,td95,lai01b}). Such large
108: velocities would also help explain the apparent offsets between some
109: SGRs and their putative natal supernova remnants
110: \citep[e.g.,][]{rkl94}. These results for magnetars, taken with the
111: extensive investigation of rotation-powered pulsars
112: \citep[e.g.,][]{nr07}, imply that the initial spin periods, surface
113: magnetic fields, and birth kick velocities of NS all originate in
114: supernova core collapse processes, and the physics of these phenomena
115: are tightly interwoven. {Magnetars, by virtue of their extreme
116: magnetic fields, may provide a direct probe of this interdependence.}
117: For example, if birth kicks are driven by asymmetric neutrino emission
118: mediated by high B-fields (a mechanism that may not be able to produce
119: the highest kick velocities; \citealt{lai01b}), then magnetars should have a
120: population velocity much higher than that of the radio pulsar
121: population. However, a more critical investigation of some of the
122: claimed SGR/supernova remnant associations led \citet{gsgv01} to doubt
123: many associations and to conclude that magnetars as a class had
124: velocities $<500\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$, comparable to the radio
125: pulsar population.
126:
127:
128:
129:
130: Such speculations were largely without concrete examination, as the
131: velocities of magnetars are difficult to measure. As a class, they lack radio counterparts and so
132: cannot be used for traditional Very Long Baseline Interferometry, and
133: their spin-down properties are too noisy for measurement of ``timing''
134: proper motions. This has changed recently, though. The first
135: measurement of the direct proper motion (and hence space velocity,
136: with an assumed distance) of a magnetar was the work of
137: \citet{hcb+07}, who found a proper motion of $13.5\pm1.0\,{\rm
138: mas}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ ($\approx 212\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ at a
139: distance of $3.5\,$kpc) for \object[XTE J1810-197]{XTE~J1810$-$197}. This was made
140: possible by the detection of a bright, transient radio
141: counterpart\footnote{\citet{hcb+07} also used infrared measurements of
142: XTE~J1810$-$197 to constrain the proper motion, and found a much
143: coarser but consistent result.}
144: \citep{hgb+05}.
145:
146: In this paper, we attempt to further address this issue by trying to
147: measure the proper motions of two magnetars, \object[SGR 1900+14]{\sgr}\ and \object[PSR J2301+5852]{\axp}. In the
148: absence of steady or widespread radio counterparts, we try to measure proper motions
149: in the X-rays: while \axp\ has an infrared counterpart \citep{htvk+01}
150: and would also be amenable to a measurement using data at those
151: wavelengths, we try to use a technique applicable to objects without
152: infrared counterparts, although we anticipate infrared data being used to
153: check our measurement \citep*{cbk08}.
154:
155: Not only can our data provide valuable constraints on the velocity
156: distribution of magnetars, but they can also potentially address
157: associations between the magnetars and other objects (supernova
158: remnants and massive star clusters). Such associations are valuable
159: for the constraints they can place on the ages, distances, and
160: progenitor masses of magnetars \citep[e.g.,][]{vhl+00,gsgv01,mcc+06}
161: We discuss this in more detail
162: below.
163:
164: The structure of this paper is as follows. First, in
165: \S~\ref{sec:sources} we discuss the two targets of this analysis,
166: \sgr\ and \axp. We then discuss the archival data and our new
167: \textit{Chandra X-ray Observatory} Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer
168: (ACIS; \citealt{gbf+03}) observations in \S~\ref{sec:obs}.
169: In \S~\ref{sec:xray}, we present a detailed analysis of those data,
170: along with archival data used to test our techniques and simulations.
171: We present our proper motion measurements in \S~\ref{sec:pm}, along
172: with comparison to other similar measurements and the prospects for
173: improvement. Finally, we give our discussion and conclusions in
174: \S~\ref{sec:disc}.
175:
176: \subsection{\sgr\ and \axp}
177: \label{sec:sources}
178: The third SGR discovered \citep*{mgg79}, \sgr\ was identified as a
179: persistent X-ray source by \citet{hlv+96}. Subsequent observations
180: identified the 5.2-s pulse period \citep{hlk+99} with
181: significant spin-down \citep{ksh+99} implying a large dipolar magnetic
182: field. The magnetar nature of this source was confirmed
183: by the giant flare detected on 1998~August~27
184: \citep{hcm+99,td95,td96}.
185:
186: \citet{vkfg94} and \citet{kfm+94} suggested that \sgr\ could be
187: associated with the nearby supernova remnant (SNR) G42.8+0.6, based
188: largely on position coincidence and the possible association of a
189: number of other AXPs and SGRs with SNRs. However, \citet{lx00} called
190: the association into question when they discovered a relatively young
191: ($10^4$--$10^5$~yr old) radio pulsar near both the SGR and the SNR,
192: and \citet{gsgv01} calculated a 4\% chance of random alignment between
193: the SGR and SNR. This chance is even greater if one accepts that
194: supernova explosions would naturally tend to be clustered, so \sgr\
195: appearing near \snr\ (and other SNRs; \citealt{kkfvk02}) is not
196: unlikely. If the association between \sgr\ and \snr\ were real, \sgr\
197: would need a significant transverse velocity to make it from the
198: explosion site to its current location outside the SNR's radio shell
199: \citep{hkw+99b}. \sgr\ is $\approx 15\arcmin$ from the center of the
200: SNR (at approximately $\alpha_{\rm J2000}=19^{\rm h}07^{\rm m}01^{\rm
201: s}$, $\delta_{\rm J2000}=+09\degr04\arcmin10\arcsec$ from
202: low-frequency radio images, with an uncertainty of $\pm30\arcsec$;
203: \citealt{kkfvk02}). This implies a proper motion of
204: $90\tau_{10}^{-1}\,\masyr$ or a transverse velocity
205: $v_{\perp}\approx 2100d_5 \tau_{10}^{-1}\,\kms$, where the distance to
206: the system is $5d_5$~kpc, and the age\footnote{Both the age and
207: distance of the \sgr\ are highly uncertain. The spin-down age
208: $P/2\dot P$ is about 1$\,$kyr, but the spin-down rates of magnetars
209: can easily vary by factors of several \citep{wt06}, thus making the
210: spin-down age an unreliable estimator of the true age. The distance
211: to \sgr\ itself is largely unconstrained.} is $10\tau_{10}$~kyr. This is a
212: large velocity for a neutron star \citep[e.g.,][]{hllk05}, but not
213: unheard of \citep{cvb+05}.
214:
215: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c l l c c c c}
216: \tablewidth{0pt}
217: \tablecaption{Summary of \chandra\ Observations \label{tab:obs}}
218: \tablehead{
219: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{Epoch} & \colhead{ObsID} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{MJD} & \colhead{Aimpoint}
220: & \colhead{Exposure} & \colhead{Rotation}\\
221: & & & & & & \colhead{(ksec)} & \colhead{(deg)}
222: }
223: \startdata
224: \sgr & 1 & \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/1954]{1954} &2001-Jun-17 & 52077 & ACIS-I & 29.8 & 148.6\\
225: & 2 & \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/6731]{6731} &2006-Jun-04 & 53891 & ACIS-I & 24.6 & 134.0\\
226: \axp & 1 &\dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/725]{\phn725}&2000-Jan-12 & 51555 & ACIS-S & 18.9 & 312.8\\
227: & 2 & \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/6730]{6730}&2006-May-09 & 53864 & ACIS-S & 24.8 & \phn73.7\\
228: \enddata
229: \tablecomments{The rotation given is the nominal roll angle of the
230: spacecraft, defined by the \texttt{ROLL\_NOM} header keyword.}
231: \end{deluxetable*}
232:
233:
234: An alternative association has been proposed for \sgr. \citet{vhl+00}
235: identified a cluster of massive stars, with several M supergiant
236: members and $>10$ other stars, about $12\arcsec$ away from the \sgr.
237: This has been viewed as a much more secure association for \sgr, since
238: such clusters are rarer and it is much closer on the sky, and
239: \citet{wrrd+08} claim that the infrared ring found around \sgr\ could
240: only be powered by the cluster stars. The possible inconsistency
241: between the extinction to \sgr\ and the cluster \citep{kkfvk02} may
242: not be significant, as demonstrated by \citet{wrrd+08}. This cluster
243: is at 12--15$\,$kpc, so if the association is real then \sgr\ is at a
244: distance of $d_5\approx 3$.
245:
246: The anomalous X-ray pulsar \axp\ was the first member of its class to
247: be discovered, when \citet{fg81} identified it as an X-ray point
248: source in the center of the SNR \object[CTB 109]{CTB~109} that had coherent $7$-s
249: pulsations. The association with the SNR seems secure \citep{gsgv01},
250: as the positional coincidence is very good ($<3\arcmin$) compared to
251: the local density of SNRs. Based on interactions between the SNR and
252: \ion{H}{2} regions with measured distances, \citet*{kuy02} find a
253: distance\footnote{There is some uncertainty about the association and
254: hence the distance to \axp. \citet{dvk06} find a distance to \axp\ of
255: $7.5\pm1.0\,$kpc using the ``red clump'' method. They argue that
256: CTB~109 could also plausibly be at this distance too, based on a
257: reinterpretation of radial velocity data, but there are uncertainties
258: associated with this analysis.} of $\approx
259: 3\,$kpc.
260:
261:
262: \section{Observations}
263: \label{sec:obs}
264: We examined the \chandra\ archive for suitable observations of
265: magnetars. We found data on \sgr\ and \axp\ that we used for the
266: first epochs of our proper motions studies. These data were taken with
267: the ACIS instrument in the full-frame mode and with no grating, in
268: contrast to many other observations of magnetars that use subarrays,
269: continuous clocking, or gratings to get better timing or spectral
270: resolution.
271:
272: We re-observed \sgr\ and \axp\ with \chandra, with the new data
273: serving as second epoch observations to try to measure or constrain
274: their proper motions. For the second epochs, we chose to generally
275: replicate the first epochs in detector choice, aimpoint, and exposure
276: time. One of the priorities was to detect as many other sources as
277: possible besides the \sgr/\axp: as discussed below, our accuracy is
278: limited by the number and quality of the reference sources.
279: In Table~\ref{tab:obs} we give
280: the details of both the archival observations and our new ones. Note
281: that the rotations of the new and old observations are in general
282: different. For \sgr, which used the square ACIS-I detector, this made
283: no difference, but for \axp\ the reference sources changed somewhat
284: between epochs, giving us a smaller set than we would have liked: see
285: discussion in \S~\ref{sec:axp}.
286:
287:
288: \section{X-ray Astrometry}
289: \label{sec:xray}
290: Our general analysis technique is to (1) measure the positions of a
291: number of field X-ray sources (``reference sources'') common to
292: both epochs; (2) measure the position of the object of interest (\sgr\
293: or \axp) in both epochs; (3) use the reference sources to determine a
294: transformation between the two observations; and (4) apply that
295: transformation to the object of interest, finding the position
296: difference (if any) between the two epochs that we can then convert to
297: a proper motion. This generally echoes the techniques of
298: \citet{hb06}, \citet{wp07}, and \citet{mphs07,mph+07}, although like
299: \citet{mphs07,mph+07} we prefer to use many reference sources and not
300: just a few.
301:
302: We must determine the best way to carry out each step, and assess the
303: uncertainties associated with each. For this reason, we discuss each
304: step at length below, in many cases using data from other observations
305: and/or simulations to assess accuracy.
306:
307:
308: In the discussion below, we work as much as possible in the sky pixel
309: $(x_{\rm sky},y_{\rm sky})$ frame. This is a frame constructed by the
310: \chandra\ event processing that rotates the detector $(x_{\rm
311: det},y_{\rm det})$ frame to have $y_{\rm sky}$ pointing north and
312: $x_{\rm sky}$ pointing west. While in general we prefer to stay in a
313: frame with as little processing as possible, which would argue for
314: retaining the detector frame, the continuous dither of \chandra\ (in a
315: Lissajous pattern with amplitude $\pm8\arcsec$ and periods of 707$\,$s
316: and 1000$\,$s along the two axes) makes that difficult. The
317: conversion from detector to sky frame involves correcting for that
318: dither, for the nominal orientation of the spacecraft, and for any
319: other position excursions, but this aspect reconstruction is of
320: sufficient quality that it does not limit our accuracy.
321:
322: \subsection{Reference Sources}
323: \label{sec:ref}
324: For our main position-finding algorithm, we chose the
325: CIAO task \texttt{wavdetect} \citep{fkrl02}, which uses a wavelet-based
326: detection algorithm. This echoes the choices made by such large X-ray
327: surveys as the \chandra\ Multiwavelength Plane (ChaMPlane) Survey
328: \citep{hvdbs+05} and the \chandra\ Multiwavelength Project (ChaMP;
329: \citealt{kkw+07}). In those cases the algorithm choice was
330: made for optimum source detection, with astrometry only as a
331: secondary goal, but they did find that \texttt{wavdetect} produced the
332: most reliable astrometry. We verified this choice by comparing the
333: results of \texttt{wavdetect}, the sliding-cell task
334: \texttt{celldetect}, and our own implementation of an interactive centroiding task
335: that operates on the raw event lists, and found that
336: \texttt{wavdetect} gave the smallest scatter in the various tests
337: described below.
338:
339: As we were not overly concerned with detecting every possible source
340: or measuring such source properties as count-rate, we ran
341: \texttt{wavdetect} on the raw level 2 event files returned from the
342: \chandra\ archive without any additional processing (e.g., exposure
343: map creation), using wavelet scales of $1,2,4,8$~pixels. We did test
344: whether removing sub-pixel randomization\footnote{See
345: \url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/acispixrand/}.} made a
346: difference in the positions, and we find no systematic difference.
347:
348:
349: However, the uncertainties reported by \texttt{wavdetect} are
350: systematically low, especially for off-axis sources. We therefore
351: investigated the uncertainty models used by the ChaMP and ChaMPlane
352: projects. Independent of the analyses of \citet{hvdbs+05} and
353: \citet{kkw+07}, which relied on \texttt{MARX} (Model of AXAF Response
354: to X-rays) and \texttt{SAOsac} (a raytracing code developed for
355: \chandra)
356: simulations of sources, we wished to see how reliable the position
357: measurement and uncertainty estimation of \texttt{wavdetect} are.
358: Therefore we took a number of relatively long ACIS-I exposures from
359: the archive with a large number of point sources. We then split those
360: exposures into two halves by time, effectively making two
361: sub-exposures that are otherwise identical, and processed each with
362: \texttt{wavdetect} in the same manner. This way we can examine how
363: the positions from the first half agree with those from the second
364: half: since the two sub-exposures are from the same observation, the
365: positions should agree. Of course the sources in each sub-exposure
366: with have fewer counts than the sources in the total exposure, but
367: there are still a range of count levels and off-axis angles.
368:
369:
370: We first did this comparing the results of \texttt{wavdetect} with
371: \texttt{celldetect} and an interative centroiding algorithm that we implemented,
372: and found \texttt{wavdetect} to have the lowest dispersion. We then
373: varied the energy range of our source extraction and found that
374: including event energies from 0.3~keV to 7~keV optimized the
375: signal-to-noise of the extraction.
376:
377: We then compared the position differences between the first and second
378: sub-exposures with the position uncertainties returned by
379: \texttt{wavdetect}. We found that \texttt{wavdetect} significantly
380: underestimated the uncertainties, especially at off-axis angles
381: $\theta>3.5\arcmin$. The comparison gave a reduced $\chi^2$ of 4.31
382: for 1450~degrees-of-freedom (DOF), and the shape of the distribution
383: is clearly broader than the expected distribution, with more points at
384: $>2\sigma$. In contrast, both the ChaMP and ChaMPlane models work
385: well, giving reduced $\chi^2$ values of $1.33$ and 1.02. The
386: uncertainty from the ChaMPlane model exceeds that from the ChaMP model slightly at large and small
387: off-axis angles, leading to the slightly lower $\chi^2$ for ChaMPlane.
388:
389:
390: Overall, both the ChaMP and ChaMPlane uncertainty models appear to work. Both are based on
391: simulations using \texttt{MARX}, and so
392: the agreement is not surprising, but since they agree with each other
393: and also agree with the actual data presented here (see
394: \S~\ref{sec:tform}) we feel comfortable using either. The functional
395: form of the ChaMP model is somewhat simpler and conforms more to the
396: expected relation between uncertainty $\sigma_{x,y}$ and
397: signal-to-noise ratio, with $\sigma_{x,y} \propto C^{-0.46}$ ($C$ is
398: the number of counts above the background) compared to the expected $\sigma_{x,y}
399: \propto C^{-0.5}$ (i.e.\ $\sigma_{x,y} \propto (S/N)^{-1/2}$). In
400: contrast, the ChaMPlane model is a more complicated function of $C$
401: involving powers of the logarithm of $C$. Therefore we will use the
402: ChaMP model (see eq.~14 of \citealt{kkw+07}):
403: \begin{equation}
404: \sigma_{x,y}=0.77\, C^{-0.46}\, 10^{0.11 \theta}\,\mbox{pixels}
405: \label{eqn:dposs}
406: \end{equation}
407: with $\sigma_{x,y}$ as the $x$ or $y$ uncertainty (converted from the
408: radial uncertainty in \citealt{kkw+07} by dividing by 1.515; see
409: \citealt*{lmb76}), and $\theta$ in arcminutes. Note that this is only
410: valid for low count levels ($C<131$) as is the case here but not for
411: \sgr\ or \axp.
412:
413:
414:
415: \subsection{\sgr}
416: \label{sec:magpos}
417: %\subsubsection{\sgr}
418: For \sgr, we are in a very different regime
419: than for the reference sources. Instead of relatively faint sources
420: at a variety of off-axis angles, we have a bright source at
421: $\theta<0.5\arcmin$. A different approach to position measurement and
422: uncertainties than that described in \S~\ref{sec:ref} is needed.
423:
424:
425: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c c c c c}
426: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
427: \tablewidth{0pt}
428: \tablecaption{Source Positions for \sgr\label{tab:ref}}
429: \tablehead{
430: \colhead{ID} & \mc{4}{c}{Epoch 1} && \mc{4}{c}{Epoch 2} \\ \cline{2-5} \cline{7-10}
431: & \colhead{$x_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{$y_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{Counts}
432: & \colhead{$\theta$ (arcmin)} & & \colhead{$x_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{$y_{\rm sky}$}& \colhead{Counts}
433: & \colhead{$\theta$ (arcmin)}
434: }
435: \startdata
436: % from murgle[~/magnetar_pm]% ./make_sgr1900table.pl > sgr1900_referencesources.tex
437: %\input{sgr1900_referencesources}
438: \phn X & $4075.5 \pm 0.0$& $4067.4 \pm 0.0$ & 5232.3 & 0.3 && $4109.7 \pm 0.0$& $4022.9 \pm 0.0$ & 3805.6 & 0.3 \\
439: \phn 1 & $3991.4 \pm 0.5$& $4425.6 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn 15.5 & 2.8 && $4025.8 \pm 0.5$& $4380.5 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn 11.7 & 2.8 \\
440: \phn 2 & $4080.5 \pm 0.4$& $4494.6 \pm 0.4$ & \phn\phn 30.5 & 3.3 && $4114.7 \pm 0.6$& $4448.8 \pm 0.6$ & \phn\phn 12.7 & 3.2 \\
441: \phn 3 & $4159.6 \pm 1.0$& $4707.2 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 10.5 & 5.0 && $4192.8 \pm 1.1$& $4662.8 \pm 1.1$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.1 & 5.0 \\
442: \phn 4 & $4385.9 \pm 0.4$& $4822.8 \pm 0.4$ & \phn 138.2 & 6.4 && $4419.6 \pm 0.5$& $4779.3 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn 95.3 & 6.4 \\
443: \phn 5 & $4409.6 \pm 0.7$& $4421.9 \pm 0.7$ & \phn\phn\phn 9.6 & 3.7 && $4442.6 \pm 1.3$& $4378.2 \pm 1.3$ & \phn\phn\phn 2.9 & 3.7 \\
444: \phn 6 & $4025.4 \pm 1.5$& $4785.1 \pm 1.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 6.3 & 5.7 && $4059.5 \pm 1.0$& $4743.5 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 15.8 & 5.7 \\
445: \phn 7 & $4383.0 \pm 1.7$& $4655.8 \pm 1.7$ & \phn\phn\phn 3.5 & 5.2 && $4418.8 \pm 1.4$& $4612.8 \pm 1.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 5.7 & 5.2 \\
446: \phn 8 & $4395.0 \pm 1.9$& $5093.7 \pm 1.9$ & \phn\phn 18.6 & 8.5 && $4425.4 \pm 2.3$& $5053.4 \pm 2.3$ & \phn\phn 12.5 & 8.6 \\
447: \phn 9 & $3638.7 \pm 0.6$& $4492.5 \pm 0.6$ & \phn\phn 29.0 & 5.0 && $3674.1 \pm 0.8$& $4446.7 \pm 0.8$ & \phn\phn 15.8 & 4.9 \\
448: 10 & $3997.8 \pm 0.5$& $4280.2 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 5.7 & 1.7 && $4032.3 \pm 0.5$& $4235.4 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 6.8 & 1.7 \\
449: 11 & $3055.8 \pm 1.9$& $4475.3 \pm 1.9$ & \phn\phn 23.9 & 9.1 && $3090.0 \pm 1.9$& $4426.7 \pm 1.9$ & \phn\phn 24.1 & 9.0 \\
450: 12 & $3112.3 \pm 1.0$& $4680.9 \pm 1.0$ & \phn 128.4 & 9.4 && $3148.0 \pm 2.0$& $4635.6 \pm 2.0$ & \phn\phn 24.8 & 9.3 \\
451: 13 & $3319.6 \pm 1.3$& $4314.9 \pm 1.3$ & \phn\phn 13.8 & 6.6 && $3355.5 \pm 1.2$& $4270.0 \pm 1.2$ & \phn\phn 16.7 & 6.5 \\
452: 14 & $4313.9 \pm 0.4$& $4043.5 \pm 0.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 9.7 & 1.8 && $4348.5 \pm 0.5$& $3999.2 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 7.7 & 1.9 \\
453: 15 & $4398.5 \pm 0.6$& $4043.0 \pm 0.6$ & \phn\phn\phn 7.7 & 2.5 && $4433.8 \pm 0.7$& $3998.2 \pm 0.7$ & \phn\phn\phn 5.8 & 2.6 \\
454: 16 & $4706.4 \pm 0.9$& $3894.6 \pm 0.9$ & \phn\phn 14.0 & 5.3 && $4739.4 \pm 1.1$& $3848.5 \pm 1.1$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.9 & 5.3 \\
455: 17 & $4781.0 \pm 0.7$& $3963.5 \pm 0.7$ & \phn\phn 35.0 & 5.7 && $4814.3 \pm 1.0$& $3918.2 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 15.3 & 5.8 \\
456: 18 & $4694.9 \pm 1.1$& $4248.4 \pm 1.1$ & \phn\phn\phn 9.1 & 5.1 && $4730.5 \pm 1.0$& $4200.2 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 10.1 & 5.1 \\
457: 19 & $3839.5 \pm 0.6$& $3917.6 \pm 0.6$ & \phn\phn\phn 7.7 & 2.6 && $3873.1 \pm 0.5$& $3872.6 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn 10.9 & 2.5 \\
458: 20 & $3931.1 \pm 0.5$& $3957.6 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.7 & 1.8 && $3965.4 \pm 0.4$& $3912.9 \pm 0.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 9.8 & 1.7 \\
459: 21 & $4005.7 \pm 0.4$& $3945.3 \pm 0.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.6 & 1.4 && $4040.1 \pm 0.4$& $3900.6 \pm 0.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.7 & 1.4 \\
460: 22 & $4046.3 \pm 0.3$& $3940.9 \pm 0.3$ & \phn\phn 13.6 & 1.3 && $4080.3 \pm 0.5$& $3896.7 \pm 0.5$ & \phn\phn\phn 5.8 & 1.3 \\
461: 23 & $3582.5 \pm 0.9$& $3748.2 \pm 0.9$ & \phn\phn 12.9 & 5.1 && $3617.3 \pm 1.0$& $3703.3 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 10.4 & 5.0 \\
462: 24 & $3925.2 \pm 1.1$& $3545.0 \pm 1.1$ & \phn\phn\phn 7.4 & 4.7 && $3958.9 \pm 0.8$& $3499.8 \pm 0.8$ & \phn\phn 13.9 & 4.7 \\
463: 25 & $4125.5 \pm 1.0$& $3069.3 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 72.4 & 8.4 && $4158.6 \pm 1.1$& $3024.0 \pm 1.1$ & \phn\phn 53.8 & 8.5 \\
464: 26 & $4207.8 \pm 1.4$& $3368.5 \pm 1.4$ & \phn\phn\phn 8.5 & 6.0 && $4241.9 \pm 1.0$& $3323.4 \pm 1.0$ & \phn\phn 16.3 & 6.1 \\
465: 27 & $4255.9 \pm 0.9$& $3715.3 \pm 0.9$ & \phn\phn\phn 4.8 & 3.4 && $4289.4 \pm 0.7$& $3670.6 \pm 0.7$ & \phn\phn\phn 7.8 & 3.4 \\
466:
467: \enddata
468: \tablecomments{Positions are in sky pixel coordinates, $\theta$ is the
469: off-axis angle, and source X is \sgr.}
470: \end{deluxetable*}
471:
472: The ACIS-I images of \sgr\ have the source at an off-axis angle of
473: $20\arcsec$, and with about 5000~counts. Technically, then, the ChaMP
474: uncertainty models do not apply (they are only valid for
475: $<2000$~counts). Even so, the ChaMP model for high numbers of counts
476: does not agree with what we would naively expect, with $\sigma_{x,y}
477: \propto C^{-0.2}$. We therefore did our own \texttt{SAOsac/MARX}
478: (using the \chandra\ Ray Tracer ChaRT as an interface to the SAOsac
479: raytracing code; \citealt{ckj+03}) simulations of this source.
480:
481: We simulated a bright point-source at the correct off-axis location
482: with the approximate spectrum of \sgr: a power-law with photon index
483: $\Gamma=1.9$ and absorption with $N_{\rm H}=\expnt{2}{22}\,\mbox{cm}^{-2}$ \citep{met+06}. We simulated a source with
484: 700,000$\,$counts, many more
485: counts than are actually detected in our exposures of \sgr, so that we could
486: divide this exposure into sub-exposures as above for comparison. We
487: made a series of sub-exposures, dividing the 700,000 total counts into
488: 12 sub-exposures with 56,000~counts, 25 sub-exposures with
489: 27,000~counts, and so on, down to 300 sub-exposures with 2200~counts.
490: We then ran \texttt{wavdetect} on each of the sub-exposures in a
491: series and compared all of the positions. In contrast to the
492: situation with the reference
493: sources, where the raw \texttt{wavdetect} uncertainties underpredicted
494: the uncertainties, here they did well. In all cases the comparisons
495: yielded reduced $\chi^2$ values consistent with 1.0. Fitting the
496: uncertainty as a function of number of counts, we find a relation
497: close to the expected one, with $\sigma_{x,y}\propto C^{-0.47}$.
498:
499: To confirm this, we also divided up the real exposures of \sgr\ into
500: 10 sub-exposures of $\approx 500$~counts each. Each position as
501: measured by \texttt{wavdetect} had an uncertainty of $0.04$~pixels,
502: and again the positions of the sub-exposures were all consistent with
503: each other within the uncertainties.
504:
505: A final concern is pileup. With a count-rate of $\sim 0.17\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$, the expected pileup fraction is $\sim 20$\%, with
506: $\sim0.5$~event expected in each 3.2~s frame. This means that
507: our data are affected by pileup such that spectral estimation will
508: not be robust, but at this pileup level the effect on astrometry is
509: minimal. The spatial
510: distribution of events is still largely consistent with the
511: point-spread function (Fig.~\ref{fig:rpsgr}). Our \texttt{MARX}
512: simulations here did not account for pileup, but even so they were
513: consistent with our examination of the sub-exposures of the real
514: data. Overall, then, \texttt{wavdetect} positions and uncertainties
515: seem sufficient for observations of \sgr.
516:
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: % plot_radprof.m
520: %\plotone{sgr1900_radprof.eps}
521: \plotone{f1.eps}
522: \caption{Radial profile of \sgr\ (points) compared to that of a
523: \texttt{MARX} simulation with 30 times the number of counts (solid
524: line) that does not include the effects of pileup. The agreement
525: between the data and the model illustrates the small effect of
526: pileup on the radial profile of \sgr.
527: }
528: \label{fig:rpsgr}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531:
532: \subsection{\axp}
533: For \axp, we could not use the results of \texttt{wavdetect}. The
534: pileup for this source is severe enough that the X-ray image has a
535: central hole, where so many X-ray photons landed that all were judged
536: to be cosmic rays. We also have issues at large radii: beyond a radius of $\approx 4\arcsec$, there is
537: extended emission from a combination of the SNR in which \axp\ is
538: embedded, as well as a halo from dust scattering \citep{pkw+01}.
539:
540: We initially tried doing simple centroids on the event data, where we
541: used events in an annulus whose inner radius varied from 0 to 5~pix
542: (to eliminate the central hole) and whose outer radius varied from
543: 15~pix to 100~pix. For data with no central hole, iterating this
544: process will converge on the correct center (this was one of the
545: methods we used in \S~\ref{sec:magpos}).
546: However, we found that this method gave results
547: that did not converge: changing the outer radius led to
548: systematic changes in the centroid position. This was partially due
549: to asymmetries in the extended X-ray emission, but more important were
550: the effects of non-uniform exposure over the ACIS CCDs. Together,
551: these effects led to variations (both smooth and discrete) of the
552: overall count level over the image, and when the annuli that we chose
553: included those portions, they skewed the resulting centroid.
554: Simulating
555: the data in \texttt{MARX}, where we used similar exposure maps,
556: reproduced the wandering centroid, although not to a high enough
557: precision that the \texttt{MARX} data would allow us to correct the
558: observations.
559:
560: \begin{figure}
561: % rprof_fit.m
562: %\plotone{1e2259_radprof.eps}
563: \plotone{f2.eps}
564: \caption{Radial profiles of \axp\ (squares and circles for epochs 1 and
565: 2) compared to that of a \texttt{MARX} simulation that includes
566: pileup (x's). We fit the data outside of a radius of $4\,$pix
567: (vertical dotted line) with a Gaussian (dashed line) multiplied by a
568: hole (dot-dashed line; the hole has the form $\tanh(r/r_0)^{10}$ with
569: $r_0=1.25\,$pix); the full model is the solid line. }
570: \label{fig:rpaxp}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573:
574: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c c c c c}
575: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
576: \tablewidth{0pt}
577: \tablecaption{Source Positions for \axp\label{tab:refaxp}}
578: \tablehead{
579: \colhead{ID} & \mc{4}{c}{Epoch 1} && \mc{4}{c}{Epoch 2} \\ \cline{2-5} \cline{7-10}
580: & \colhead{$x_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{$y_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{Counts}
581: & \colhead{$\theta$ (arcmin)} & & \colhead{$x_{\rm sky}$} & \colhead{$y_{\rm sky}$}& \colhead{Counts}
582: & \colhead{$\theta$ (arcmin)}
583: }
584: \startdata
585: % from murgle[~/magnetar_pm]% ./make_1e2259table.pl > 1e2259_referencesources.tex
586: Y & $4141.7\pm0.1$ & $4171.9\pm0.1$ &\nodata & 0.7 && $4117.0\pm0.1$ &
587: $4070.7\pm0.1$ & \nodata & 0.3\\
588: %\input{1e2259_referencesources}
589: 1 & $4093.8 \pm 0.4$& $3567.5 \pm 0.4$ & \phn 64.6 & 4.3 && $4069.9 \pm 0.3$& $3466.8 \pm 0.3$ & 157.7 & 5.2 \\
590: 2 & $4536.1 \pm 0.2$& $3899.2 \pm 0.2$ & 295.7 & 4.0 && $4510.9 \pm 0.5$& $3798.9 \pm 0.5$ & \phn 26.6 & 4.2 \\
591: 3 & $4159.5 \pm 0.3$& $3799.6 \pm 0.3$ & \phn 38.7 & 2.5 && $4135.0 \pm 0.4$& $3699.7 \pm 0.4$ & \phn 21.6 & 3.3 \\
592: 4 & $4270.1 \pm 0.2$& $4755.3 \pm 0.2$ & 330.9 & 5.6 && $4245.3 \pm 0.3$& $4654.4 \pm 0.3$ & 103.4 & 4.7 \\
593: 5 & $4350.6 \pm 0.4$& $4446.1 \pm 0.4$ & \phn 28.9 & 3.5 && $4326.3 \pm 0.3$& $4344.7 \pm 0.3$ & \phn 47.6 & 2.8 \\
594: 6 & $4273.3 \pm 1.2$& $4961.5 \pm 1.2$ & \phn 24.4 & 7.2 && $4246.7 \pm 1.0$& $4857.9 \pm 1.0$ & \phn 20.8 & 6.4 \\
595:
596: \enddata
597: \tablecomments{Positions are in sky pixel coordinates, $\theta$ is the
598: off-axis angle, and source Y is \axp.}
599: \end{deluxetable*}
600:
601: Instead, we followed \citet{htvk+01} and explicitly used a local,
602: symmetric function to find the position of \axp. This is similar to
603: what we did with \sgr, where \texttt{wavdetect} found the position
604: that maximized the overlap between the data and a wavelet function,
605: but for \axp\ we use our own kernel function and our own routines to
606: find the position. For the kernel we used a Gaussian function
607: multiplied by a hole, meant to mimic the shape of the piled-up image.
608: The function was radially symmetric. \citet{htvk+01} used a
609: hyperbolic tangent for their ``hole'' function: we found that this did
610: not decline quite quickly enough to match our data, and instead used
611: $\tanh(r/r_0)^{10}$, where $r_0$ is the radius scale and the exponent
612: serves to increase the sharpness of the hole; the results are not
613: sensitive to the exponent as long as it is $\gsim 4$. A fit to the
614: data from both epochs (averaged in azimuth), along with a
615: \texttt{MARX} simulation that includes pileup, is shown in
616: Figure~\ref{fig:rpaxp}. To make that fit, we fit the Gaussian to the
617: data, the \texttt{MARX} model with pileup, and the \texttt{MARX} model
618: without pileup, all for radii of $\geq4\,$pix. At those radii the
619: data and the two models all agree reasonably well. Within $4\,$pix
620: the effects of pileup become more severe, and the \texttt{MARX} model
621: is not able to accurately predict the data, but the agreement is
622: qualitatively reasonable. We found a hole radius $r_0\approx
623: 1.25\,$pix, but again the fit was not extremely sensitive to this
624: value. The goal of this model is to give a good qualitative
625: representation of the data, not to fit it in great detail.
626:
627: To actually find the position of \axp, instead of fitting the data,
628: which is sensitive to the details of the model as well, we prefer to
629: cross-correlate a fixed model with the data. Our fixed model is that
630: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rpaxp}:
631: \begin{equation}
632: F(r)=e^{-r^2/2\sigma^2} \tanh^{10}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)
633: \label{eqn:hole}
634: \end{equation}
635: where we found $\sigma=2.5\,$pixels and $r_0=1.25\,$pixels gave good results. This
636: function is radially symmetric, and by cross-correlating rather than
637: fitting we can ignore issues of normalization and the variations in
638: the wings of the radial profile. Above, we could
639: have just fit the data to a Gaussian function only for radii greater
640: than $4\,$pixels, but this would not have allowed the
641: cross-correlation. Using a Gaussian kernel function with no hole
642: but just excluding a portion of the data performed poorly, since the
643: sharp ``horns'' of the data outside of the hole can cause local maxima
644: in the cross correlation if the kernel function has a single peak like
645: a Gaussian.
646:
647:
648: \begin{figure}
649: % plot_xcorr.m
650: %\plotone{1e2259_e1_xcorr.eps}
651: \plotone{f3.eps}
652: \caption{Cross-correlation of the first epoch of data for \axp\ (black
653: solid contours) with the model from Eqn.~\ref{eqn:hole} (red dashed
654: contours). The model and data have been shifted to the origin based
655: on the result of the cross-correlation. The results for epoch 2 are
656: similar.}
657: \label{fig:xcorr}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660: We cross-correlated images of the filtered event files created
661: from both the data and the \texttt{MARX} simulations with the
662: model (Fig.~\ref{fig:xcorr}). The cross-correlation results were smooth and well-behaved,
663: and we interpolated between our grid points to find the best-fit offset.
664: We made sure that the fitted position did not depend on the
665: details of the cross-correlation: we varied the binning, the outer
666: radius, and the parameters of the model ($\sigma$ and $r_0$), and in
667: all cases the resulting variations in the position were $<0.05\,$pix.
668: As a further check, we shifted the event positions by random amounts of up to
669: $1\,$pix, and found that we were able to recover the shifts to an
670: accuracy of $<0.1\,$pix; this test also verified that our result did
671: not depend on the origin of the binning. Based on these tests, as
672: well as additional \texttt{MARX} simulations, we estimate that our
673: cross-correlation is accurate to $\pm0.1\,$pix in each coordinate.
674:
675: As another test, we also cross-correlated the binned images from
676: epochs 1 and 2 against each other, rather than against a smooth
677: kernel. In general the results of this test were similar, where we
678: could recover an input shift at a level of $<0.1\,$pix, and the
679: offsets agreed to a similar precision. We plot the results of all
680: cross-correlations (epoch 1 vs.\ model, epoch 2 vs.\ model, and epoch
681: 1 vs.\ epoch 2) in Figure~\ref{fig:xcorroffsets}, where we plot the
682: results relative to the best-fit positions given in
683: Table~\ref{tab:refaxp}. The cross-correlations that we plot do not
684: agree exactly with the positions in Table~\ref{tab:refaxp} as those
685: positions were derived using multiple cross-correlations with random
686: offsets used to eliminate the effects of binning, but the agreement is
687: better than the quoted $\pm0.1\,$pix uncertainty.
688:
689:
690: For a final check, we examined the position of the readout streak on
691: the two epochs. This streak comes about because the ACIS detector has
692: no shutter, so the CCDs receive photons even as the charge is being
693: clocked off. This gives rise to a one-dimensional streak centered on
694: each bright source which is aligned with the CCD row and column axes.
695: It ends up having $\sim 2$\% of the total number of events as the
696: original source\footnote{See
697: \url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Acis/Cal\_prods/xfer\_streak/index.html}.},
698: and can be used for both positional and spectral information. Here we
699: make use of only the former.
700:
701:
702: \begin{figure}
703: %\plotone{1e2259_xcorr_results.eps}
704: \plotone{f4.eps}
705: \caption{Cross-correlation results for \axp. We show one-dimensional
706: cuts through the peak of the cross-correlation surface, which we use
707: to identify the best-fit positions in $x$ (blue curves) and $y$ (red
708: curves). For each cross-correlation (epoch 1 vs.\ epoch 2:
709: dot-dashed line; epoch 1 vs.\ the model: solid line; epoch 2 vs.\
710: the model: dashed line; in all cases the model is from
711: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:hole}) we interpolated to find the maximum value of
712: the cross-correlation, which we identify as the best-fit position,
713: and the cross-correlations have been offset vertically for clarity.
714: The data plotted here have had our nominal positions subtracted,
715: giving offsets near 0. They are not quite at zero as the nominal
716: positions were the averages of cross-correlations done with a range
717: of random offsets added to mitigate the effects of binning, but the
718: differences are consistent with our claimed uncertainty of
719: 0.1$\,$pix (vertical dotted lines).}
720: \label{fig:xcorroffsets}
721: \end{figure}
722:
723: To use the streak, we took the event positions from the level-2 event
724: file. We then rotated by the \texttt{ROLL\_NOM} header keyword,
725: putting them into a frame where the CCD rows and columns were vertical
726: and horizontal (similar to the \texttt{CHIP} frame). The readout
727: streak, which is a line in the sky ($x$,$y$) frame not aligned with
728: either axis, is now
729: horizontal. We then stepped along the line, computing the median
730: event position in the vertical direction for bins of $50\,$pix width
731: in the horizontal direction: see Figure~\ref{fig:streak}. For both
732: epochs 1 and 2, we found streak positions that were consistent to $\pm
733: 0.02\,$pix with our best-fit positions of \axp\ from
734: Table~\ref{tab:refaxp}, albeit in one dimension. While not sufficient
735: to get a position for \axp\ alone, this provides additional
736: confirmation that our cross-correlation technique is accurate to the
737: claimed $0.1\,$pix.
738:
739:
740: \begin{figure}
741: %\plottwo{1e2259_e1_streak.eps}{1e2259_e2_streak.eps}
742: %\plotone{1e2259_streaks.eps}
743: \plotone{f5.eps}
744: \caption{Fits to the readout streak of \axp: epoch 1 (\textit{top})
745: and epoch 2 (\textit{bottom}). We rotated the event locations
746: according to the \texttt{ROLL\_NOM} header keyword, ending up in a
747: frame where the CCD readout streak was horizontal. The grayscales
748: are the binned images for each epoch; the bins appear rectangular in
749: this plot because of the drastically different scales for the
750: ordinates and abscissae. We then constructed 50 pixel wide bins
751: along the streak and computed the median event locations
752: perpendicular to the streak, which we show as the points. The
753: dashed lines are the averages of the median positions. We have
754: excluded events within a radius of $20\,$pix around \axp. }
755: \label{fig:streak}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758: \subsection{Frame Transformations}
759: \label{sec:tform}
760: We considered a number of ways to transform between the position
761: measurements at each stage. To test this, we used 13 ACIS-I
762: observations\footnote{We used ObsIDs:
763: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/2232]{2232},
764: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/2233]{2233},
765: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/2234]{2234},
766: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/2421]{2421},
767: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/2423]{2423},
768: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3293]{3293},
769: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3294]{3294},
770: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3388]{3388},
771: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3389]{3389},
772: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3390]{3390},
773: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3391]{3391},
774: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3408]{3408}, and
775: \dataset[ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/3409]{3409}.} of the Hubble Deep Field North
776: (HDF-N; \citealt{hbg+00} and subsequent papers). The observations
777: were between 50~ks and 140~ks in depth, and detected $>100$~sources.
778: Note that the observational setup here was, if anything, more taxing
779: that what we used for our proper motion observations. This was
780: because a number of the observations had a different aimpoint (off by
781: about half of an ACIS detector) and varying roll angles. We
782: identified 38 sources that were common to each exposure (note that
783: this was not a completely exhaustive search, but comprised those that
784: we could identify easily) and computed transformations between each
785: pair of observations. We used a number of different transformations
786: with different levels of complexity.
787: \begin{description}
788: \item[2-parameter]: A shift in $x$ and $y$.
789: \item[3-parameter]: A shift in $x$ and $y$, along with a rotation.
790: \item[4-parameter]: A shift in $x$ and $y$, along with a rotation and
791: an overall scaling.
792: \item[6-parameter]: A general linear transformation, involving a shift
793: and a separate rotation and scaling for each axis (e.g., see Eqn.~A5
794: in \citealt*{kvka07}).
795: \end{description}
796: We were transforming between $x$ and $y$ values in the \texttt{SKY}
797: frame, so the nominal position angle of \chandra\ was already taken
798: out. Any remaining rotation or scaling would account for imprecise
799: knowledge of the spacecraft's orientation and breathing of the ACIS-I
800: detector (changes in the plate-scale due to thermal variations), respectively.
801:
802: Overall we found that the 3-parameter transformation provided a
803: significant decrease in $\chi^2$ compared to the 2-parameter
804: transformation, with a mean $\Delta \chi^2$ of 23.8 going from 74 to
805: 73 DOF. This is extremely significant, with an F-test probability of
806: $<10^{-5}$ that this is due to chance. Therefore a non-zero rotation
807: is required between different observations, with a magnitude of
808: $\approx 0.05\degr$. Comparing sets of three observations, the
809: rotations $\phi$ fitted between all of them are consistent, with
810: (e.g.,) $\phi(1\rightarrow2) + \phi(2\rightarrow3) \approx
811: \phi(1\rightarrow3)$, indicating that the rotations can be physically
812: meaningful. With just the 3-parameter
813: transformation the reduced $\chi^2$ was consistent with 1.0, and the
814: distribution of position residuals was consistent with the expected
815: distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig:pdifftform}). This indicates that our
816: uncertainty model is reasonable: tests using the ChaMPlane model gave
817: similar results, while those using the raw \texttt{wavdetect}
818: uncertainties had reduced $\chi^2$ larger than 2.
819: Beyond this, the more
820: complicated transformations were not warranted, with a median $\Delta
821: \chi^2$ of only 4.2 between 3 parameters and 6.
822:
823: \section{Measuring Proper Motions}
824: \label{sec:pm}
825: \subsection{\sgr}
826: To actually measure the proper motion of \sgr, first we ran
827: \texttt{wavdetect} on both observations. The parameters were the same as those
828: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:xray}. We then identified sources common to
829: both epochs of the data, finding 27 sources in addition to \sgr.
830: These sources were on all four of the ACIS-I CCDs. It would be
831: preferable to have the \sgr\ centered on a single CCD, and to only use
832: sources on that detector. That way we would not have to worry about
833: inaccuracies in the relative positions of the detectors or shifts in
834: their positions with time affecting our astrometry. However, that
835: would severely restrict our field of view, and we felt that the gain
836: of additional reference sources outweighed the possibility of smaller
837: uncertainties for the detected sources.
838: The various tests and discussion in \S~\ref{sec:ref} seem to indicate
839: that using sources on different CCDs does not adversely affect our
840: astrometry, at least at the level considered here.
841:
842: With the source detections, we then updated the position uncertainties
843: of all of the sources except \sgr\ using Eqn.~\ref{eqn:dposs}.
844: Finally, we fit for the transformation between the two epochs of data,
845: using a 3-parameter fit (\S~\ref{sec:tform}).
846: The data gave a very good fit, with $\chi^2=37.7$ for 51 DOF (27
847: reference sources
848: and 3 parameters). There were no significant outliers in the data,
849: which is not really surprising since we only included sources that we
850: could match initially between the epochs. The magnitude of the
851: residuals is $\sim 100\,\masyr$, which is far larger than
852: the proper motion one would expect from random field stars (i.e., at
853: 1~kpc $100\,\masyr$ is $475\,\kms$, which is
854: much larger than the velocity dispersion of Galactic stars).
855: Therefore we can consider that we are measuring the motion of \sgr\
856: relative to reference stars that are at rest. Similarly, corrections
857: for Galactic rotation and Solar motion are too small to be considered.
858:
859:
860: \begin{figure}
861: % hdf_tforms.m
862: %\plotone{position_diff_tform.eps}
863: \plotone{f6.eps}
864: \caption{Position differences for 2964 sources compared between
865: different observations of the HDF-N (38 unique sources and 78 pairs
866: of observations), normalized by position
867: uncertainty (computed according to Eqn.~\ref{eqn:dposs}).
868: The data are the histogram, and we also show the expected
869: distribution with $N(r)\propto r e^{-r^2/2}$ for comparison.
870: }
871: \label{fig:pdifftform}
872: \end{figure}
873:
874: The fitted rotation here was consistent with 0. We therefore found
875: that a 2-parameter transformation was sufficient (with virtually no
876: change in $\chi^2$), and with the smaller number of free parameters
877: the resulting position difference had smaller uncertainties. While in
878: \S~\ref{sec:tform} we found that a rotation was necessary, here we do
879: not, although whether it is the simpler observational setup (both
880: observations had the same aimpoint, in contrast to \S~\ref{sec:tform})
881: or just the reduced accuracy from a smaller number of reference
882: sources that changed the situation we do not know. We plot the
883: residual position differences of the reference sources in
884: Figure~\ref{fig:refresids}.
885:
886: As a check on our transformation, we performed jackknife tests, where
887: we calculate the transformation for the data excluding a single
888: reference source (see, e.g., \citealt{et93}). This tests whether or
889: not the
890: transformation depends overly on a single reference source,
891: and indeed we find that it does not. We find that the means of the
892: jackknifed shifts are consistent with the value using all of the data,
893: and that the standard deviations are significantly less than our
894: estimated shift uncertainties.
895: We then performed a bootstrap test. Here we created 100 data
896: sets, each including a random subset chosen with replacement from the 27
897: reference sources. The resulting shifts are again distributed around
898: the proper values created from the actual data, and the standard
899: deviations are comparable to our uncertainties (they are actually
900: slightly smaller). Based on these two tests, we see that our
901: transformation calculation is reasonably robust to choices of the
902: input data.
903:
904:
905: \begin{figure*}
906: % pm_sgr1900.m pm_1e2259.m
907: %\plottwo{sgr1900_refshifts.eps}{1e2259_refshifts.eps}
908: \plottwo{f7a.eps}{f7b.eps}
909: \caption{Residual position differences between epochs 2 and 1
910: reference sources used to compute the transformation for \sgr\
911: (\textit{Left}, with 27 reference sources) and \axp\
912: (\textit{Right}, with 7 reference sources); the reference sources are
913: labeled according to Tables~\ref{tab:ref} and \ref{tab:refaxp}. The
914: differences plotted are the residuals left after fitting for
915: 2-parameter (i.e., shift only) transformations. The filled circles at
916: the centers show the uncertainty on the resulting transformations,
917: which in this case is the uncertainty on the mean of the residuals.}
918: \label{fig:refresids}
919: \end{figure*}
920:
921: With the 3-parameter transformation, we find that the position of
922: \sgr\ is consistent between the two epochs, moving by
923: $0.27\pm0.27$~pixels, implying no measurable proper motion. Note that
924: the bulk of this uncertainty comes from uncertainties in the fitted
925: transformation (uncertainties in each coordinate of the shift of
926: 0.26~pixels, and an uncertainty in the rotation of $0.03\degr$), since
927: the individual position measurements of \sgr\ had uncertainties of
928: $<0.02$~pixels. We also checked to see if the choice of
929: transformation (2, 3, 4, or 6 parameters), uncertainty model (ChaMP or
930: ChaMPlane), or level of processing (with or without ACIS
931: randomization) made a difference, and find that all of the results
932: were consistent. With the 2-parameter transformation, which as
933: discussed above is sufficient, we find a very similar shift but
934: smaller residuals: $(\Delta x,\Delta
935: y)=(0.02\pm0.19,0.26\pm0.19)$~pixels, or a magnitude
936: $0.27\pm0.19$~pixels for the 2-parameter fit. Again, the
937: uncertainties are dominated by the 0.18~pixel uncertainties in each
938: coordinate of the shift. We give the detailed fit results in
939: Table~\ref{tab:pm}.
940:
941:
942: The interval between the observations was $\Delta t=1813.3\,\mbox{days}=4.96\mbox{ yr}$, so we have a proper motion in pixels
943: $(\mu_x,\mu_y)=(2.4\pm18.4,26.3\pm18.4)\,\masyr$. The
944: celestial proper motion is $(\mu_\alpha,\mu_\delta)=0\farcs492(-\mu_x,\mu_y)$,
945: which is $(\mu_\alpha,\mu_\delta)=(-2.4\pm18.4,26.3\pm18.4)\,\masyr$. If we actually want to limit the speed of \sgr, we can look
946: at the distribution of the magnitude $\mu=\sqrt{\mu_x^2+\mu_y^2}$.
947: Our measurements were $\mu_x=\hat\mu_x\pm\sigma_{\mu,x}$ and
948: $\mu_y=\hat\mu_y\pm\sigma_{\mu,y}$, although
949: $\sigma_{\mu,x}=\sigma_{\mu,y}=\sigma_\mu$. If we look at the
950: magnitude of the proper motion $\mu=\hat\mu \pm \sigma_\mu$, where
951: $\hat \mu=\sqrt{\hat \mu_x^2+\hat \mu_y^2}$, the probability density
952: function for $\mu$ is:
953: \begin{equation}
954: f_{\mu}(\mu)=\left(\frac{\mu}{\sigma_\mu^2}\right) I_0\left(
955: \frac{\mu \hat{\mu}}{\sigma_\mu^2}\right) e^{-(\mu^2+\hat
956: \mu^2)/2\sigma_\mu^2},
957: \label{eqn:pm}
958: \end{equation}
959: where $I_0(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind
960: \citep[][p.\ 140]{papoulis91}.
961: From numerical integration, we find that the mean, mode, and median
962: are all close to each other. For \sgr, the mean is $33\,\masyr$ (vs.\ $\hat \mu=26\,\masyr$), and we find a 90\%
963: upper limit to $\mu$ to be $54\,\masyr$, or a transverse
964: velocity $v_{\perp} < 1300d_5\,\kms$.
965:
966:
967:
968: \begin{deluxetable*}{l c c c c c}
969: \tablecaption{Proper Motion Measurements for \sgr\ and \axp\label{tab:pm}}
970: \tablewidth{0pt}
971: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
972: \tablehead{
973: \colhead{Parameter} & \mc{2}{c}{\sgr} && \mc{2}{c}{\axp} \\
974: \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}
975: & \colhead{2-parameter} & \colhead{3-parameter} &&\colhead{2-parameter} & \colhead{3-parameter} \\
976: }
977: \startdata
978: Transform $\chi^2/{\rm DOF}$ & 37.8/52 & 37.7/51 && 14.1/10 & 13.1/9\\
979: $(\Delta x, \Delta y)$ (pixels)\tablenotemark{a} & $(0.02\pm0.19, 0.26\pm0.19)$& $(0.02\pm0.27, 0.26\pm0.27)$ && $(-0.14\pm0.25,
980: -0.45\pm0.25)$& $(-0.15\pm0.33, -0.39\pm0.34)$\\
981: $(\mu_x, \mu_y)$ $(\masyr)$\tablenotemark{b} & $(2\pm18, 26\pm18)$ & $(2\pm26, 26\pm26)$ &&
982: $(-11\pm20, -35\pm20)$&$(-11\pm26,-31\pm26)$\\
983: $\hat \mu$ $(\masyr)$\tablenotemark{c}& 26 & 26&& 36 & 32\\
984: $\langle\mu\rangle$ $(\masyr)$\tablenotemark{d} & 33 & 39&& 42 & 44\\
985: $\mu_{\rm 90}$ $(\masyr)$\tablenotemark{e} & 54 & 69& & 65 & 73\\
986: $\langle v_{\perp}\rangle$ $({\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1})$\tablenotemark{f}
987: & 780$d_5$ & 930$d_5$ && 600$d_{3}$& 630$d_{3}$\\
988: $v_{\perp,90}$ $({\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1})$\tablenotemark{g} & 1300$d_5$ & 1600$d_5$&&930$d_{3}$& 1000$d_{3}$\\
989: \enddata
990: \tablenotetext{a}{Shift in pixels between epochs.}
991: \tablenotetext{b}{Proper motion in the $(x_{\rm sky},y_{\rm sky})$ frame between epochs.}
992: \tablenotetext{c}{Magnitude of the proper motion, computed
993: from $\sqrt{\mu_x^2+\mu_y^2}$.}
994: \tablenotetext{d}{Mean of the magnitude of the proper motion, from
995: the distribution in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:pm}.}
996: \tablenotetext{e}{90\% upper limit to the magnitude of the proper motion, from
997: the distribution in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:pm}.}
998: \tablenotetext{f}{Transverse velocity corresponding to
999: $\langle\mu\rangle$, the mean of the magnitude of the proper motion, assuming a distance of $5d_5\,$kpc (\sgr) or
1000: $3d_{3}\,$kpc (\axp).}
1001: \tablenotetext{g}{Transverse velocity corresponding to the $\mu_{90}$,
1002: the 90\% upper
1003: limit on the proper motion, assuming a distance of $5d_5\,$kpc (\sgr) or
1004: $3d_{3}\,$kpc (\axp).}
1005: \end{deluxetable*}
1006:
1007:
1008:
1009: \begin{figure*}
1010: %\plottwo{SGR1900_radio.ps}{SGR1900_ir.ps}
1011: \plottwo{f8a.ps}{f8b.ps}
1012: \caption{\textit{Left:} Radio image of the field around \sgr\
1013: (\citealt*{fkb99}; marked with a diamond), showing \snr\ (to the
1014: south of \sgr). The image is a 332$\,$MHz
1015: image from \citet{kkfvk02}. The arrow shows the
1016: distance that \sgr\ has moved, starting 10$\,$kyr ago and projecting
1017: the same time into the future using our
1018: best-fit proper motion from Table~\ref{tab:pm}. We also show 1-, 2-, and
1019: 3-$\sigma$ error circles (68\%, 95\%, and 99.7\% confidence)
1020: on the position 10$\,$kyr ago. {Right:} the
1021: same but plotted on a near-infrared ($2.2\,\um$) image from the Two
1022: Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; \citealt{2mass}). The position of the cluster found by
1023: \citet[][]{vhl+00} is marked with a cross. The scale of this
1024: image is reduced by a factor of $\sim 10$ from the radio image (the
1025: box on the radio image is the field shown in the near-IR image), as the
1026: proper motion vector now only shows the distance that \sgr\ has moved/will
1027: move over 1$\,$kyr. There are scale bars in the lower left
1028: corners, and the images have north up and east to the left.}
1029: \label{fig:radiosgr}
1030: \end{figure*}
1031:
1032: \subsection{\axp}
1033: \label{sec:axp}
1034: We followed the same procedure as for \sgr\ above to find the
1035: reference sources for \axp. Here, though, we could only identify 6 sources
1036: common to both epochs (a seventh source was identified, but it is
1037: right near the gap between detectors and the positions disagreed by
1038: $\approx 3\,\sigma$ between the two epochs). While formally enough to
1039: determine a robust transformation, this is fewer than we might like to
1040: have. One problem here is that we are using ACIS-S, which has a
1041: smaller field of view. Here \axp\ is close to the center of a CCD
1042: (ACIS-S3), and we used sources from both ACIS-S3 and ACIS-S2. We
1043: chose to do the second epoch observation with ACIS-S as well, to best
1044: reproduce the first. There were some slight problems, though. As the
1045: roll angle changed by $121\degr$, the position of ACIS-S2 changed
1046: relative to the aim-point. Therefore, some of the reference sources
1047: detected in the first epoch were missed entirely by the detector in
1048: the second epoch, and vice versa. This also explains why some of the
1049: reference sources have such drastically different count-rates between
1050: the two epochs: some of them move from the front-illuminated (and
1051: hence less sensitive) ACIS-S2 to the back-illuminated ACIS-S3,
1052: although in other cases the difference in count-rate is intrinsic, and
1053: may reflect flare stars or other variable sources.
1054:
1055: We computed 2- and 3-parameter transformations. As with \sgr, the
1056: 3-parameter transformation did not provide any improvement. With the
1057: 2-parameter transformation, we find the position residuals in
1058: Figure~\ref{fig:refresids}. We also repeated the jackknife and
1059: bootstrap tests (\S~\ref{sec:pm}). The residuals in
1060: Figure~\ref{fig:refresids} show an outlier, but it is relatively minor
1061: and the jackknifed transformations are consistent with the mean.
1062:
1063: With the transformations from the six reference sources, we again find
1064: only an upper limit to a displacement between the two epochs:
1065: $\mu<65\,\masyr$ at 90\% confidence (translating to $v_{\perp} < 930
1066: d_{3}\,\kms$), with additional details given in Table~\ref{tab:pm}.
1067: Unlike \sgr, where the reduced $\chi^2$ for the 2-parameter
1068: transformation was less than 1.0, here it is 1.4. This appears
1069: slightly worrisome, and could indicate that we have underestimated our
1070: uncertainties, which would make the inferred proper motion less
1071: significant. However, the majority of the problem is caused by a
1072: single source, \#6 in Table~\ref{tab:refaxp}. This source deviates by
1073: $\approx 1.5\,\sigma$, and without it the reduced $\chi^2$ becomes
1074: 1.1. Including source \#6, it is still not impossible to get such a
1075: large reduced $\chi^2$ even with a proper description of the data: it
1076: should happen about 17\% of the time, so our result is not really
1077: surprising (also recall that our tests with the HDF-N observations
1078: gave a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.33 for 1450 DOF with the ChaMP model).
1079: Overall, the residuals for the remaining sources are reasonably well
1080: behaved, and given the tests for \sgr\ and those in \S~\ref{sec:ref},
1081: we believe that our uncertainties are on the whole reliable.
1082:
1083:
1084: \begin{figure}
1085: %\plotone{1E2259_radio.ps}
1086: \plotone{f9.ps}
1087: \caption{Radio image of the SNR CTB~109 at 1.4$\,$GHz, with the
1088: position of \axp\ marked. The image is from the Canadian Galactic
1089: Plane Survey (CGPS; \citealt{tgp+03}). The diamond shows the
1090: current position of \axp\ \citep{htvk+01}. The arrow shows the
1091: distance that \axp\ has moved, starting 10$\,$kyr ago and projecting
1092: the same time into the future using our
1093: best-fit proper motion from Table~\ref{tab:pm}. We also show 1-, 2-, and
1094: 3-$\sigma$ error circles (68\%, 95\%, and 99.7\% confidence)
1095: on the position 10$\,$kyr ago. The scale bar in the lower left
1096: indicates $6\arcmin$, and the image has north up and east to the left.}
1097: \label{fig:radioaxp}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: \subsection{Prospects for Improvement}
1101: Our result here is formally a non-detection of the proper motions of
1102: \sgr\ and \axp. However, the direction and magnitude of \sgr\ are
1103: suggestive, pointing as they do to a nearby SNR (see
1104: \S~\ref{sec:disc}). It would therefore be interesting to confirm or
1105: refute our measurements with newer data. Beyond this, one must always
1106: view 2-point proper motions with suspicion, as a line can always be
1107: fit to two points, and only with the inclusion of a third observation
1108: does one begin to gain confidence in the result. The biggest limiting
1109: factor is astrometry of the reference sources (this is similar to what
1110: was found by \citealt{mphs07,mph+07}): increasing the number or
1111: accuracy of those measurements would be ideal, but that would have to
1112: be done for all of the observations. Just improving the newest one
1113: would have little impact. If we assume similar observations to those
1114: presented here, we can achieve frame matching to a precision of
1115: $\approx 0.2$~pixels between a pair of observations. To measure a
1116: proper motion of the order of $\sim 26\,\masyr$, we would need to wait
1117: $>10$~yrs from the first observation for a statistically significant
1118: ($>3\,\sigma$) measurement. This is only considering the first and
1119: last data-sets, though: by analyzing all three observations together
1120: we can establish a more robust reference frame and confirm the
1121: measurement of displacement. Regardless, we would need to wait until
1122: 2010 or so before this will be possible. Observations at other
1123: wavelengths, possible for \axp\ at least, should be able to achieve
1124: higher precision \citep[][P.~B.~Cameron 2008, pers. comm.]{cbk08}.
1125:
1126: Another approach would be to use the High Resolution Camera (HRC;
1127: \citealt{m+97}) on \chandra. The pixel scale is almost factor of four
1128: smaller than that of ACIS, so the HRC has the potential for better
1129: spatial resolution. However, the effective resolution is $\approx
1130: 0\farcs5$, not that different from ACIS. It also does not suffer from
1131: pileup, so bright sources can be observed without penalty. The main
1132: drawback is that because of lower overall efficiency few, if any,
1133: reference sources are detected: \citet{hb06} and \citet{wp07} found
1134: only two and three sources, respectively. The accuracy of our present
1135: work is limited by the registration of the separate observations which
1136: depends on the reference sources. This was true even for \axp, where
1137: pileup limited the centroiding accuracy. Even so, \citet{wp07} found
1138: a significant proper motion of $165\pm25\,\masyr$ for RX~J0822$-$4300
1139: using three HRC observations (also see \citealt{hb06} for an earlier
1140: but consistent result).
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
1145: \label{sec:disc}
1146: Our proper motion limit can be used to limit the age of \sgr/\snr,
1147: assuming an association. From the 327-MHz radio data from
1148: \citet{kkfvk02}, we represent \snr\ as a ring centered at (J2000):
1149: $\alpha=19^{\rm h}06^{\rm m}59\fs4$,
1150: $\delta=+09\degr03\arcmin05\arcsec$, and with a radius of $\approx
1151: 9.5\arcmin$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:radiosgr}). \sgr\ would have needed $>16$~kyr to traverse the
1152: separation of $15\arcmin$, using the 90\% confidence upper limit on
1153: the proper motion. This is not a remarkably large age for a magnetar \citep{gsgv01,wt06}. Suggestively, the
1154: marginal proper motion that we find is directed to the north, and
1155: \sgr\ sits beyond the northern rim of \snr. However, our proper
1156: motion is so uncertain in both direction and magnitude that
1157: an association between \sgr\ and the cluster
1158: found by \citet{vhl+00} is also consistent with the data.
1159:
1160: For \axp, we find an upper limit to the proper motion.
1161: The SNR CTB~109 (see Fig.~\ref{fig:radioaxp}), with which \axp\ is
1162: generally taken to be associated, has a somewhat complicated
1163: morphology \citep{kuy02} with what may be multiple shells and seems to
1164: be interacting with a giant molecular cloud to the west
1165: \citep{tfi+90}. The site of the explosion is not particularly well
1166: defined, given the different shells and the impeded expansion to the
1167: west. However, there does not appear to be any suggestion that \axp\
1168: is displaced to the south relative to the explosion center, as our
1169: proper motion limit might suggest. The magnitude of the proper motion limit is not huge: for
1170: an age of $1000t_{3}\,{\rm yr}$, \axp\ would have moved $1
1171: t_{3}\,$arcmin, so it could have still had an origin within the
1172: current $\approx 30\arcmin$-diameter shell for ages up to $t_3\sim
1173: 10$. Therefore our data do not greatly constrain the association
1174: between \axp\ and CTB~109 (generally assumed to be secure).
1175:
1176:
1177: Taken together, we can try to use the velocities we measure/limit to
1178: understand if magnetars have a velocity distribution comparable to
1179: that of the radio pulsar population. The proper motion of
1180: XTE~J1810$-$197 \citep{hcb+07} and the velocity limits inferred by
1181: \citet{gsgv01} are less than $500\,\kms$. For the magnetars
1182: considered here, though our results are less constraining. This is
1183: made worse by the very uncertain distances to these objects. If we
1184: accept the association between \sgr\ and the massive star cluster of
1185: \citet[][also see \citealt{wrrd+08}]{vhl+00}, then we must also accept
1186: a distance to \sgr\ of $\approx 15\,$kpc. This means that our 90\%
1187: upper limit on the transverse velocity is 3800$\,{\rm km}\,{\rm
1188: s}^{-1}$, which encompasses the extreme range of velocities posited
1189: for the magnetars \citep[e.g.,][]{dt92,td93,td95}, but the fact of the
1190: association itself would imply a small proper motion on the order of
1191: $\sim 5\,\masyr$. For \axp, our transverse velocity limit is
1192: moderately constraining (although with the larger distance of
1193: \citealt{dvk06} it increases to almost 2500$\,{\rm km}\,{\rm
1194: s}^{-1}$).
1195:
1196: Future astrometric observations will help answer some of these
1197: questions. We now understand in detail what the limiting factors are,
1198: and a third epoch of data around 2010 should allow definitive measurement of the
1199: proper motions presented here. However, the velocity situation will
1200: remain more uncertain, owing to the factor of 3
1201: uncertainty in the distance to \sgr\ as well as unknown projection effects.
1202:
1203:
1204: \acknowledgements Support for this work was provided by the National
1205: Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra award GO6-7066X.
1206: Partial support for DLK was also provided by NASA through Hubble
1207: Fellowship grant \#01207.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science
1208: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
1209: Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.
1210: B.M.G. acknowledges the support of a Federation Fellowship from the
1211: Australian Research Council through grant FF0561298. Support for SC
1212: was provided by the University of Sydney Postdoctoral Fellowship
1213: program. POS also acknowledges support from NASA contract
1214: NAS8-201039073. The research presented in this paper has used data
1215: from the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey, a Canadian project with
1216: international partners, supported by the Natural Sciences and
1217: Engineering Research Council.
1218:
1219: %\bibliography{xray,myrefs,xrb,magrefs,casA,psrrefs,snrs,crab}
1220:
1221: %% --------------------------------------------------------------------
1222: %% Sun Sep 21 19:22:48 2008
1223: %% This file was generated automagically from the files
1224: %% ms.bbl and ms.tex using
1225: %% /Users/dlk//perl/nat2jour.pl
1226: %% This file should accompany ms-aas.tex.
1227: %% --------------------------------------------------------------------
1228:
1229: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1230:
1231: \bibitem[{Cameron} {et~al.}(2008){Cameron}, {Britton}, \& {Kulkarni}]{cbk08}
1232: {Cameron}, P.~B., {Britton}, M.~C., \& {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2008, \aj, submitted, arXiv:0805.2153
1233:
1234: \bibitem[{Carter} {et~al.}(2003){Carter}, {Karovska}, {Jerius}, {Glotfelty}, \& {Beikman}]{ckj+03}
1235: {Carter}, C., {Karovska}, M., {Jerius}, D., {Glotfelty}, K., \& {Beikman}, S. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H.~E. {Payne}, R.~I. {Jedrzejewski}, \& R.~N. {Hook} (San Francisco: ASP), 477
1236:
1237: \bibitem[{Chatterjee} {et~al.}(2005){Chatterjee}, {Vlemmings}, {Brisken}, {Lazio}, {Cordes}, {Goss}, {Thorsett}, {Fomalont}, {Lyne}, \& {Kramer}]{cvb+05}
1238: {Chatterjee}, S., {et al.} 2005, \apjl, 630, L61
1239:
1240: \bibitem[{Duncan} \& {Thompson}(1992){Duncan} \& {Thompson}]{dt92}
1241: {Duncan}, R.~C. \& {Thompson}, C. 1992, \apjl, 392, L9
1242:
1243: \bibitem[{Durant} \& {van Kerkwijk}(2006){Durant} \& {van Kerkwijk}]{dvk06}
1244: {Durant}, M. \& {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H. 2006, \apj, 650, 1070
1245:
1246: \bibitem[{Efron} \& {Tibshirani}(1993){Efron} \& {Tibshirani}]{et93}
1247: {Efron}, B. \& {Tibshirani}, R.~J. 1993, An Introduction to the Bootstrap (London: Chapman and Hall)
1248:
1249: \bibitem[{Fahlman} \& {Gregory}(1981){Fahlman} \& {Gregory}]{fg81}
1250: {Fahlman}, G.~G. \& {Gregory}, P.~C. 1981, \nat, 293, 202
1251:
1252: \bibitem[{Frail} {et~al.}(1999){Frail}, {Kulkarni}, \& {Bloom}]{fkb99}
1253: {Frail}, D.~A., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., \& {Bloom}, J.~S. 1999, \nat, 398, 127
1254:
1255: \bibitem[{Freeman} {et~al.}(2002){Freeman}, {Kashyap}, {Rosner}, \& {Lamb}]{fkrl02}
1256: {Freeman}, P.~E., {Kashyap}, V., {Rosner}, R., \& {Lamb}, D.~Q. 2002, \apjs, 138, 185
1257:
1258: \bibitem[{Gaensler} {et~al.}(2005){Gaensler}, {McClure-Griffiths}, {Oey}, {Haverkorn}, {Dickey}, \& {Green}]{gmo+05}
1259: {Gaensler}, B.~M., {McClure-Griffiths}, N.~M., {Oey}, M.~S., {Haverkorn}, M., {Dickey}, J.~M., \& {Green}, A.~J. 2005, \apjl, 620, L95
1260:
1261: \bibitem[{Gaensler} {et~al.}(2001){Gaensler}, {Slane}, {Gotthelf}, \& {Vasisht}]{gsgv01}
1262: {Gaensler}, B.~M., {Slane}, P.~O., {Gotthelf}, E.~V., \& {Vasisht}, G. 2001, \apj, 559, 963
1263:
1264: \bibitem[{Garmire} {et~al.}(2003){Garmire}, {Bautz}, {Ford}, {Nousek}, \& {Ricker}]{gbf+03}
1265: {Garmire}, G.~P., {Bautz}, M.~W., {Ford}, P.~G., {Nousek}, J.~A., \& {Ricker}, G.~R. 2003, \procspie, 4851, 28
1266:
1267: \bibitem[{Gavriil} {et~al.}(2008){Gavriil}, {Gonzalez}, {Gotthelf}, {Kaspi}, {Livingstone}, \& {Woods}]{ggg+08}
1268: {Gavriil}, F.~P., {Gonzalez}, M.~E., {Gotthelf}, E.~V., {Kaspi}, V.~M., {Livingstone}, M.~A., \& {Woods}, P.~M. 2008, Science, 319, 1802
1269:
1270: \bibitem[{Gotthelf} {et~al.}(2004){Gotthelf}, {Halpern}, {Buxton}, \& {Bailyn}]{ghbb04}
1271: {Gotthelf}, E.~V., {Halpern}, J.~P., {Buxton}, M., \& {Bailyn}, C. 2004, \apj, 605, 368
1272:
1273: \bibitem[{Halpern} {et~al.}(2005){Halpern}, {Gotthelf}, {Becker}, {Helfand}, \& {White}]{hgb+05}
1274: {Halpern}, J.~P., {Gotthelf}, E.~V., {Becker}, R.~H., {Helfand}, D.~J., \& {White}, R.~L. 2005, \apjl, 632, L29
1275:
1276: \bibitem[{Helfand} {et~al.}(2007){Helfand}, {Chatterjee}, {Brisken}, {Camilo}, {Reynolds}, {van Kerkwijk}, {Halpern}, \& {Ransom}]{hcb+07}
1277: {Helfand}, D.~J., {Chatterjee}, S., {Brisken}, W.~F., {Camilo}, F., {Reynolds}, J., {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H., {Halpern}, J.~P., \& {Ransom}, S.~M. 2007, \apj, 662, 1198
1278:
1279: \bibitem[{Hobbs} {et~al.}(2005){Hobbs}, {Lorimer}, {Lyne}, \& {Kramer}]{hllk05}
1280: {Hobbs}, G., {Lorimer}, D.~R., {Lyne}, A.~G., \& {Kramer}, M. 2005, \mnras, 360, 974
1281:
1282: \bibitem[{Hong} {et~al.}(2005){Hong}, {van den Berg}, {Schlegel}, {Grindlay}, {Koenig}, {Laycock}, \& {Zhao}]{hvdbs+05}
1283: {Hong}, J., {van den Berg}, M., {Schlegel}, E.~M., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Koenig}, X., {Laycock}, S., \& {Zhao}, P. 2005, \apj, 635, 907
1284:
1285: \bibitem[{Hornschemeier} {et~al.}(2000){Hornschemeier}, {Brandt}, {Garmire}, {Schneider}, {Broos}, {Townsley}, {Bautz}, {Burrows}, {Chartas}, {Feigelson}, {Griffiths}, {Lumb}, {Nousek}, \& {Sargent}]{hbg+00}
1286: {Hornschemeier}, A.~E., {et al.} 2000, \apj, 541, 49
1287:
1288: \bibitem[{Hui} \& {Becker}(2006){Hui} \& {Becker}]{hb06}
1289: {Hui}, C.~Y. \& {Becker}, W. 2006, \aap, 457, L33
1290:
1291: \bibitem[{Hulleman} {et~al.}(2001){Hulleman}, {Tennant}, {van Kerkwijk}, {Kulkarni}, {Kouveliotou}, \& {Patel}]{htvk+01}
1292: {Hulleman}, F., {Tennant}, A.~F., {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Kouveliotou}, C., \& {Patel}, S.~K. 2001, \apjl, 563, L49
1293:
1294: \bibitem[{Hurley} {et~al.}(1999a){Hurley}, {Cline}, {Mazets}, {Barthelmy}, {Butterworth}, {Marshall}, {Palmer}, {Aptekar}, {Golenetskii}, {Il'Inskii}, {Frederiks}, {McTiernan}, {Gold}, \& {Trombka}]{hcm+99}
1295: {Hurley}, K., {et al.} 1999a, \nat, 397, 41
1296:
1297: \bibitem[{Hurley} {et~al.}(1999b){Hurley}, {Kouveliotou}, {Woods}, {Cline}, {Butterworth}, {Mazets}, {Golenetskii}, \& {Frederics}]{hkw+99b}
1298: {Hurley}, K., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Woods}, P., {Cline}, T., {Butterworth}, P., {Mazets}, E., {Golenetskii}, S., \& {Frederics}, D. 1999b, \apjl, 510, L107
1299:
1300: \bibitem[{Hurley} {et~al.}(1999c){Hurley}, {Li}, {Kouveliotou}, {Murakami}, {Ando}, {Strohmayer}, {van Paradijs}, {Vrba}, {Luginbuhl}, {Yoshida}, \& {Smith}]{hlk+99}
1301: {Hurley}, K., {et al.} 1999c, \apjl, 510, L111
1302:
1303: \bibitem[{Hurley} {et~al.}(1996){Hurley}, {Li}, {Vrba}, {Luginbuhl}, {Hartmann}, {Kouveliotou}, {Meegan}, {Fishman}, {Kulkarni}, {Frail}, {Bowyer}, \& {Lampton}]{hlv+96}
1304: {Hurley}, K., {et al.} 1996, \apjl, 463, L13
1305:
1306: \bibitem[{Kaplan} {et~al.}(2002){Kaplan}, {Kulkarni}, {Frail}, \& {van Kerkwijk}]{kkfvk02}
1307: {Kaplan}, D.~L., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Frail}, D.~A., \& {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H. 2002, \apj, 566, 378
1308:
1309: \bibitem[{Kaplan} {et~al.}(2007){Kaplan}, {van Kerkwijk}, \& {Anderson}]{kvka07}
1310: {Kaplan}, D.~L., {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H., \& {Anderson}, J. 2007, \apj, 660, 1428
1311:
1312: \bibitem[{Kaspi} \& {McLaughlin}(2005){Kaspi} \& {McLaughlin}]{km05}
1313: {Kaspi}, V.~M. \& {McLaughlin}, M.~A. 2005, \apjl, 618, L41
1314:
1315: \bibitem[{Kasumov} {et~al.}(2006){Kasumov}, {Allakhverdiev}, \& {Asvarov}]{kaa06}
1316: {Kasumov}, F.~K., {Allakhverdiev}, A.~O., \& {Asvarov}, A.~I. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 308
1317:
1318: \bibitem[{Kim} {et~al.}(2007){Kim}, {Kim}, {Wilkes}, {Green}, {Kim}, {Anderson}, {Barkhouse}, {Evans}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Karovska}, {Kashyap}, {Lee}, {Maksym}, {Mossman}, {Silverman}, \& {Tananbaum}]{kkw+07}
1319: {Kim}, M., {et al.} 2007, \apjs, 169, 401
1320:
1321: \bibitem[{Kothes} {et~al.}(2002){Kothes}, {Uyaniker}, \& {Yar}]{kuy02}
1322: {Kothes}, R., {Uyaniker}, B., \& {Yar}, A. 2002, \apj, 576, 169
1323:
1324: \bibitem[{Kouveliotou} {et~al.}(1994){Kouveliotou}, {Fishman}, {Meegan}, {Paciesas}, {van Paradijs}, {Norris}, {Preece}, {Briggs}, {Horack}, {Pendleton}, \& {Green}]{kfm+94}
1325: {Kouveliotou}, C., {et al.} 1994, \nat, 368, 125
1326:
1327: \bibitem[{Kouveliotou} {et~al.}(1999){Kouveliotou}, {Strohmayer}, {Hurley}, {van~Paradijs}, {Finger}, {Dieters}, {Woods}, {Thompson}, \& {Duncan}]{ksh+99}
1328: {Kouveliotou}, C., {et al.} 1999, \apjl, 510, L115
1329:
1330: \bibitem[{Kulkarni} {et~al.}(2003){Kulkarni}, {Kaplan}, {Marshall}, {Frail}, {Murakami}, \& {Yonetoku}]{kkm+03}
1331: {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Kaplan}, D.~L., {Marshall}, H.~L., {Frail}, D.~A., {Murakami}, T., \& {Yonetoku}, D. 2003, \apj, 585, 948
1332:
1333: \bibitem[{Lai}(2001){Lai}]{lai01b}
1334: {Lai}, D. 2001, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 578, Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, ed. D.~{Blaschke}, N.~K. {Glendenning}, \& A.~{Sedrakian} (Berlin: Springer Verlag), 424
1335:
1336: \bibitem[{Lampton} {et~al.}(1976){Lampton}, {Margon}, \& {Bowyer}]{lmb76}
1337: {Lampton}, M., {Margon}, B., \& {Bowyer}, S. 1976, \apj, 208, 177
1338:
1339: \bibitem[{Lin} \& {Zhang}(2004){Lin} \& {Zhang}]{lz04}
1340: {Lin}, J.~R. \& {Zhang}, S.~N. 2004, \apjl, 615, L133
1341:
1342: \bibitem[{Lorimer} \& {Xilouris}(2000){Lorimer} \& {Xilouris}]{lx00}
1343: {Lorimer}, D.~R. \& {Xilouris}, K.~M. 2000, \apj, 545, 385
1344:
1345: \bibitem[{Mazets} {et~al.}(1979){Mazets}, {Golenetskij}, \& {Guryan}]{mgg79}
1346: {Mazets}, E.~P., {Golenetskij}, S.~V., \& {Guryan}, Y.~A. 1979, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 5, 343+
1347:
1348: \bibitem[{Mereghetti} {et~al.}(2006){Mereghetti}, {Esposito}, {Tiengo}, {Zane}, {Turolla}, {Stella}, {Israel}, {G{\"o}tz}, \& {Feroci}]{met+06}
1349: {Mereghetti}, S., {et al.} 2006, \apj, 653, 1423
1350:
1351: \bibitem[{Motch} {et~al.}(2007a){Motch}, {Pires}, {Haberl}, \& {Schwope}]{mphs07}
1352: {Motch}, C., {Pires}, A.~M., {Haberl}, F., \& {Schwope}, A. 2007a, \apss, 69
1353:
1354: \bibitem[{Motch} {et~al.}(2007b){Motch}, {Pires}, {Haberl}, {Schwope}, \& {Zavlin}]{mph+07}
1355: {Motch}, C., {Pires}, A.~M., {Haberl}, F., {Schwope}, A., \& {Zavlin}, V.~E. 2007b, in {40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More}, Vol. 712, arXiv:0712.0342
1356:
1357: \bibitem[{Muno} {et~al.}(2006){Muno}, {Clark}, {Crowther}, {Dougherty}, {de Grijs}, {Law}, {McMillan}, {Morris}, {Negueruela}, {Pooley}, {Portegies Zwart}, \& {Yusef-Zadeh}]{mcc+06}
1358: {Muno}, M.~P., {et al.} 2006, \apjl, 636, L41
1359:
1360: \bibitem[{Murray} {et~al.}(1997){Murray} {et~al.}]{m+97}
1361: {Murray}, S.~S. {et~al.} 1997, \procspie, 3114, 11
1362:
1363: \bibitem[{Ng} \& {Romani}(2007){Ng} \& {Romani}]{nr07}
1364: {Ng}, C.-Y. \& {Romani}, R.~W. 2007, \apj, 660, 1357
1365:
1366: \bibitem[Paczy\'{n}ski(1992)Paczy\'{n}ski]{p92}
1367: Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 1992, Acta Astronomica, 42, 145
1368:
1369: \bibitem[{Papoulis}(1991){Papoulis}]{papoulis91}
1370: {Papoulis}, A. 1991, {Probability, random variables and stochastic processes}, 3rd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill)
1371:
1372: \bibitem[{Patel} {et~al.}(2001){Patel}, {Kouveliotou}, {Woods}, {Tennant}, {Weisskopf}, {Finger}, {G{\" o}{\u g}{\" u}{\c s}}, {van der Klis}, \& {Belloni}]{pkw+01}
1373: {Patel}, S.~K., {et al.} 2001, \apjl, 563, L45
1374:
1375: \bibitem[{Rothschild} {et~al.}(1994){Rothschild}, {Kulkarni}, \& {Lingenfelter}]{rkl94}
1376: {Rothschild}, R.~E., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., \& {Lingenfelter}, R.~E. 1994, \nat, 368, 432
1377:
1378: \bibitem[{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006){Skrutskie}, {Cutri}, {Stiening}, {Weinberg}, {Schneider}, {Carpenter}, {Beichman}, {Capps}, {Chester}, {Elias}, {Huchra}, {Liebert}, {Lonsdale}, {Monet}, {Price}, {Seitzer}, {Jarrett}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Gizis}, {Howard}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Fullmer}, {Hurt}, {Light}, {Kopan}, {Marsh}, {McCallon}, {Tam}, {Van Dyk}, \& {Wheelock}]{2mass}
1379: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {et al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
1380:
1381: \bibitem[{Tatematsu} {et~al.}(1990){Tatematsu}, {Fukui}, {Iwata}, {Seward}, \& {Nakano}]{tfi+90}
1382: {Tatematsu}, K., {Fukui}, Y., {Iwata}, T., {Seward}, F.~D., \& {Nakano}, M. 1990, \apj, 351, 157
1383:
1384: \bibitem[{Taylor} {et~al.}(2003){Taylor}, {Gibson}, {Peracaula}, {Martin}, {Landecker}, {Brunt}, {Dewdney}, {Dougherty}, {Gray}, {Higgs}, {Kerton}, {Knee}, {Kothes}, {Purton}, {Uyaniker}, {Wallace}, {Willis}, \& {Durand}]{tgp+03}
1385: {Taylor}, A.~R., {et al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 3145
1386:
1387: \bibitem[{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(1993){Thompson} \& {Duncan}]{td93}
1388: {Thompson}, C. \& {Duncan}, R.~C. 1993, \apj, 408, 194
1389:
1390: \bibitem[{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(1995){Thompson} \& {Duncan}]{td95}
1391: ---. 1995, \mnras, 275, 255
1392:
1393: \bibitem[{Thompson} \& {Duncan}(1996){Thompson} \& {Duncan}]{td96}
1394: ---. 1996, \apj, 473, 322
1395:
1396: \bibitem[{Vasisht} {et~al.}(1994){Vasisht}, {Kulkarni}, {Frail}, \& {Greiner}]{vkfg94}
1397: {Vasisht}, G., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Frail}, D.~A., \& {Greiner}, J. 1994, \apjl, 431, L35
1398:
1399: \bibitem[{Vrba} {et~al.}(2000){Vrba}, {Henden}, {Luginbuhl}, {Guetter}, {Hartmann}, \& {Klose}]{vhl+00}
1400: {Vrba}, F.~J., {Henden}, A.~A., {Luginbuhl}, C.~B., {Guetter}, H.~H., {Hartmann}, D.~H., \& {Klose}, S. 2000, \apjl, 533, L17
1401:
1402: \bibitem[{Wachter} {et~al.}(2008){Wachter}, {Ramirez-Ruiz}, {Dwarkadas}, {Kouveliotou}, {Granot}, {Patel}, \& {Figer}]{wrrd+08}
1403: {Wachter}, S., {Ramirez-Ruiz}, E., {Dwarkadas}, V.~V., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Granot}, J., {Patel}, S.~K., \& {Figer}, D. 2008, \nat, 453, 626
1404:
1405: \bibitem[{Winkler} \& {Petre}(2007){Winkler} \& {Petre}]{wp07}
1406: {Winkler}, P.~F. \& {Petre}, R. 2007, \apj, 670, 635
1407:
1408: \bibitem[{Woods} \& {Thompson}(2006){Woods} \& {Thompson}]{wt06}
1409: {Woods}, P.~M. \& {Thompson}, C. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W.~{Lewin} \& M.~{van der Klis} (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 547
1410:
1411: \bibitem[{Zhang} \& {Harding}(2000){Zhang} \& {Harding}]{zh00}
1412: {Zhang}, B. \& {Harding}, A.~K. 2000, \apjl, 535, L51
1413:
1414: \end{thebibliography}
1415:
1416:
1417:
1418:
1419:
1420: \end{document}
1421: