1:
2: % aa.dem
3: % AA vers. 4.01, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
4: % demonstration file
5: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
6: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7: %
8: \documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
9: %
10: \usepackage{epsfig,deluxe}
11: %
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^>$}$_\sim$}}
15: \thesaurus{06; 19.63.1}
16: % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars}
17: % \thesaurus{06 % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars
18: % (03.11.1; % Cosmogony,
19: % 16.06.1; % Planets and satellites: general,
20: % 19.06.1; % Solar system: general,
21: % 19.37.1; % Stars: formation of,
22: % 19.53.1; % Stars: oscillations of,
23: % 19.63.1)} % Stars: structure of.
24: %
25: \title{Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters and Anomalous X-ray Pulsars:
26: Magnetars or Quark Stars?}
27: \author{Arnon Dar$^1$ and A. De R\'ujula$^2$}
28: \institute{1. Department of Physics, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel\\
29: 2. Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\}
30: \titlerunning{Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters ...}
31: \maketitle
32:
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: Recent measurements of the spin-down rates of soft gamma ray repeaters
37: (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) have been interpreted as
38: evidence that these objects are ``magnetars'': neutron stars spinning down
39: by magnetic dipole radiation, but with a magnetic field two orders of
40: magnitude larger than that of ordinary neutron stars. We discuss the
41: evidence disfavouring this interpretation. We argue that, instead, the
42: observations support the hypothesis that SGRs and AXPs are neutron stars
43: that have suffered a transition into a denser form of nuclear matter to
44: become, presumably, strange stars or quark stars.
45: %Their gravitational energy release
46: %while they are cooling and contracting can power both their quiescent
47: %X-ray emission and their star quakes which produce `soft' gamma ray
48: %bursts.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52: Consider a neutron star (NS) of radius R, with a magnetic field
53: ${\rm B_p}$ at the magnetic poles, spinning with a period P.
54: If the star's magnetic
55: moment is misaligned with the spin axis by an angle $\alpha$,
56: electromagnetic energy is emitted at a rate
57: (see, e.g., Shapiro \& Teukolsky 1983 and references therein.)
58: \begin {equation}
59: {\rm \dot E = -\,{B_p^2\, R^6\,\Omega^4 \, \sin^2\alpha\over 6\,c^3}}\; ,
60: \end{equation}
61: with $\Omega=2\pi/{\rm P}$ the angular velocity.
62: If the NS is observed as a pulsar, its period can be measured as
63: a function of time. Let the NS have a moment of inertia I and
64: let ${\rm \dot P}$ be the rate
65: at which its period decreases. The magnetic field required to explain
66: the slow-down rate by magnetic dipole radiation (MDR) is:
67: \begin{equation}
68: {\rm
69: B_p=\left({6\,c^3I\over 4\,\pi^2\,R^6\,
70: \sin^2\alpha}\right)^{1/2}~\sqrt{\dot P\,P}}\, .
71: \label{field}
72: \end{equation}
73: For a ``canonical'' NS,
74: ${\rm M\sim 1.4~M_\odot}$, R $\sim$ 10 km and
75: ${\rm I\sim 10^{45}~g~cm^2}$, so that
76: ${\rm B_p=6.4\times 10^{19}}$ ${\rm \sin^{-1}\alpha\,\sqrt{\dot P P_s}}$
77: Gauss, with ${\rm P_s}$ the period in seconds.
78: Young radio pulsars such as the Crab pulsar are fast-rotating NSs
79: with an estimated surface magnetic field ${\rm B_p\!\sim \!10^{13}}$
80: Gauss. They fit the picture whereby their observed slow-down rates
81: are due to the MDR of their rotational energy${^{^1}}$.
82:
83: All observed slowly-rotating pulsars, of period ${\rm P\!>\!5}$ s,
84: exhibit very peculiar
85: properties. Four of them are known to emit occasional short bursts
86: of radiation peaking at tens of keV energies,
87: and are classified as ``Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters'' (SGRs).
88: Six other ``Anomalous X-ray Pulsars'' (AXPs)
89: persistently emit X-rays, but they are quiet at radio wavelengths.
90: Some of these objects'
91: observational parameters
92: are listed in Tables I and II. Their rotational
93: energy loss ${\rm \dot E_{rot}=I~\Omega~\dot\Omega}$ is insufficient
94: to power
95: their observed radiation, suggesting the magnetic field energy
96: ${\rm E_m\sim B_p^2~R^3/12}$
97: as an alternative source.
98: Both SGRs and AXPs are located in directions close to those of
99: supernova remnants (e.g.,
100: Cline, et al. 1982; Kulkarni \& Frail 1993; Vasisht et al. 1994;
101: Hurley, K. et al. 1999;
102: Vasisht et al. 1997a; Vasisht et al. 1997b;
103: Gaensler, Gotthelf \& Vasisht 1999)
104: that are observable for
105: only tens of thousands of years. The association with SNRs
106: would imply that these peculiar stars are
107: too young to have spun-down by MDR to their
108: current periods, if they were born rotating as fast as
109: the Crab pulsar, the Vela pulsar or any other young
110: pulsar (the ones also associated with SNRs), and if they also have
111: characteristic radio-pulsar magnetic fields:
112: ${\rm B\!\sim\! 10^{13}}$ Gauss.
113:
114: The values of P and ${\rm \dot P}$ for SGR 1806$-$20 and SGR 1900+14 were
115: recently measured (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; Kouveliotou et al. 1999; Woods
116: et al. 1999) and are listed in Table I. They imply, by use of
117: Eq. 2, magnetic fields in excess of $10^{15}$ Gauss. With the
118: information displayed in Table II, similarly large fields can be deduced
119: for AXPs (e.g., Gotthelf et al. 1999; Israel et al. 1999). Magnetic fields
120: of this enormous intensity can explain the rapid slow-down of SGRs and
121: AXPs and can store enough energy to power their emissions during their
122: active lifetime (Duncan and Thompson 1992; Thompson and Duncan 1995;
123: Thompson and Duncan 1996). Not surprisingly, the discovery of SGRs and
124: AXPs with fast spin-down rates was reported as the observational discovery
125: (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; Kouveliotou et al. 1999) of hypermagnetized
126: neutron stars, or {\it magnetars} (Duncan and Thompson 1992; Thompson and
127: Duncan 1995; Thompson and Duncan 1996).
128:
129:
130: In this paper we discuss the observational evidence implying that SGRs and
131: AXPs are not magnetars (Dar 1999a; Marsden et al. 1999; Dar 1999b). We
132: contend that the mechanism producing their observed rapid slow-down is not
133: MDR, but relativistic particle emission along the magnetic axis, be it in
134: the form of jets (Dar 1999b) or of winds (Harding et al. 1999). We argue
135: that the locations and estimated ages of SGRs, when compared to those of
136: their associated SNRs, strongly suggest that ``something'' happened to
137: these NSs well after they were born. Their inferred X-ray emitting surface
138: areas, significantly smaller than those of a ``canonical'' neutron star,
139: point in the same direction. For the source of the emitted energy we do
140: not have an explicit model; we conjecture that the energy gained by steady
141: gravitational contraction can power both the quiescent X-ray emission and
142: the star quakes that produce ``soft'' gamma ray bursts (Ramaty et al.
143: 1980). A phase transition from a conventional neutron star into a strange
144: star or a quark star (Dar 1999a) can explain, we shall argue, all of the
145: properties of SGRs and AXPs.
146:
147:
148: \section{Critique of the magnetar model}
149:
150: The magnetar model of SGRs cannot explain their ages, locations
151: and occasional increases in spin-down rate (Dar 1999a, Marsden et al. 1999).
152: The ages of SGRs, if estimated from their magnetic spin-down rate, are
153: much smaller than the ages of the remnants of the supernovae in
154: which they were born: an {\it age crisis}. The location of SGRs relative to
155: the centre of their associated remnant implies that they move with
156: unacceptably
157: large peculiar velocities: a {\it separation crisis.} Sudden increases
158: in ${\rm \dot P}$
159: require inexplicable jumps in the energy stored by the magnetic field: an
160: {\it energy crisis.}
161:
162: A pulsar with initial spin period ${\rm P_i}$
163: and constant moment of inertia, whose
164: rotational kinetic energy ${\rm E_{rot} =I~\Omega^2/2}$
165: powers the MDR, has an age, t, shorter than the ``characteristic
166: age'', ${\rm \tau_s}$:
167: \begin{equation}
168: {\rm t = {P\over 2\,\dot P}\left(1-{P_i^2\over P^2}\right)
169: \leq \tau_s \equiv {P\over 2\,\dot P}}\; .
170: \label{age}
171: \end{equation}
172: An age estimate independent from the above ``magnetic braking'' age
173: is provided by the time elapsed since
174: the parent supernova event took place. The ejecta from
175: SNe expand freely to a radius ${\rm R_{SNR}\propto t}$, as long as the
176: mass of the swept-up ambient medium
177: is smaller than the mass of the ejecta. When they are comparable, the
178: SNR enters a ``Sedov-Taylor phase'' during which ${\rm R_{SNR}\propto
179: t^{2/5}}$. Finally, for a swept up mass superior to the ejected mass,
180: the SNR
181: cools radiatively and ${\rm R_{SNR}\propto t^{2/7}}$. The expansion
182: velocity and the size of SNRs, as well as their X-ray temperatures, are
183: commonly used to estimate their ages (see, e.g., Shapiro \& Teukolsky
184: 1983 and references therein.).
185:
186: In Table I we list the characteristic ages $\tau_s$
187: of SGRs, and the ages of the SNRs where they were presumably born.
188: For the two SGRs whose slow-down rate ${\rm \dot P}$ has been measured
189: (1806-20 and 1900+14), Eq.~\ref{age} results in $\tau_s\approx
190: 1400,~1300$
191: y, respectively. This upper limit is significantly smaller than the
192: estimated
193: age of their SNRs, which is larger than $5\times 10^3$ and $10^4$ y,
194: respectively. This age crisis of the magnetar model would recur
195: for SGR 0529-66 and 1627-41, if their slow-down rate is similar to
196: that of the other two known SGRs.
197:
198: The characteristic ages of SGR 1806-20 and 1900+14 also imply a separation
199: crisis. SGR 1806+20, if it was born at the centre of SNR G10.0-0.3
200: (Hurley et al. 1999b) and is less than ${\rm \tau_s\approx 1400~y}$ old,
201: must have travelled with a sky projected velocity larger than ${\rm
202: v_\perp\approx 5500~(D/14.5~kpc)~km~s^{-1}}$ to its present location
203: (Kulkarni et al. 1994). With its similar ${\rm \tau_s}$, SGR 1900+14, if
204: associated to SNR G42.8+0.6 (Vasisht et al. 1994), must have travelled at
205: ${\rm v_\perp\sim 27000~(D/7~kpc)~km~s^{-1}}$, or faster, to where it is
206: (Hurley et al. 1999c; Hurley et al. 1999d). The same argument, applied to
207: SGR 0526-66 and 1627-41 at their current locations (Cline et al. 1982;
208: Hurley et al. 1999a), would result in lower limits of ${\rm v_\perp\sim
209: 22000}$ and ${ \sim 4000}$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively, if their spin-down
210: rates and implied ages turned out to be akin to the measured ones. These
211: magnetar-model velocities are too large, compared to the mean observed
212: ${\rm v_\perp\sim 350\pm 70~km~s^{-1}}$ of pulsars (e.g., Lyne and Lorimer
213: 1994), and in particular of young pulsars such as the Crab pulsar
214: (${\rm v_\perp\approx 170~km~s^{-1}}$, Caraveo and Mignani 1999) and the
215: Vela pulsar (${\rm v_\perp\approx 70~km~s^{-1}}$, Nasuti et al. 1997).
216:
217:
218: In the magnetar model of SGRs the radiation-energy source
219: is the magnetic field energy
220: ${\rm E_M \sim B_p^2\,R^3/12}$ $\sim 10^{47}$ erg, for
221: ${\rm B_p\!=\!10^{15}}$ Gauss and ${\rm R\!=\!10}$ km.
222: Magnetic braking implies that the pulsar's surface field is
223: ${\rm B_p^2\propto \dot P}$, an increase in ${\rm \dot P}$ implies a
224: commensurate
225: increase in magnetic energy. The
226: spin-down rate of SGR 1900+14 roughly doubled from
227: ${\rm \dot P\sim 6\times 10^{-11}}$ to ${\rm \dot P\sim 13\times
228: 10^{-11}}$
229: around the time of its large flare on 27 August 1998
230: (Woods et al. 1999a, Marsden et al. 1999).
231: How to explain a sudden doubling of a huge magnetic energy?
232: This is the energy crisis. As the magnetic energy is consumed
233: and the field weakens, the pulsar's spin-down rate should decrease,
234: countrary to observation: yet another problem for the magnetar
235: scenario (Marsden et al. 1999).
236:
237: For AXPs the magnetar model faces similar difficulties. AXPs 1709-40 and
238: 1E 1048-5937 have spin-down ages (9 ky and 4.6 ky) shorter than the
239: estimated age of their associated SNRs (20 ky and 10 ky), hinting at an
240: age crisis. The projected sky velocities required to move these objects
241: from the centres of their associated SNRs (G346.6-0.2 and G287.8-0.5) to
242: their observed positions are 2100 km s$^{-1}$ and 2300 km s$^{-1}$, a
243: separation crisis. Observed jumps in the spin-down rate of AXPs
244: 1E1048.1-5937 and 1E2259+58, akin to the one in SGR 1900+14, entail an
245: energy crisis. For AXP 1E 2259+586 (Corbet et al. 1995), the
246: magnetic energy inferred from its spin-down rate, ${\rm E_B\approx 2\times
247: 10^{45}}$ erg, is insufficient to power its steady X-ray luminosity, ${\rm
248: L_X\approx 8\times 10^{34}~erg ~s^{-1}}$, over its characteristic age,
249: ${\rm \tau_s\sim 1.5\times 10^5~y}$. Also, a magnetic field this large
250: would be inconsistent with the absorption features observed by ASCA in its
251: X-ray spectrum (Corbet et al. 1995), if interpreted as cyclotron lines.
252:
253: The magnetar model of SGRs and AXPs is not successful: alternatives are
254: called for.
255:
256:
257:
258:
259: \section{Spin-Down by Relativistic Jets}
260:
261: There is evidence for the emission of relativistic particles
262: by SGRs.
263: In the case of SGR 1806-20, the
264: non-thermal quiescent X-ray emission and the highly suggestive radio
265: images (Vasisht et al. 1995; Frail et al. 1997) provide
266: compelling evidence for steady relativistic particle emission,
267: perhaps in the form of relativistic jets. A
268: fading radio source is seen within the
269: localization window of SGR 1900+14; it has
270: been interpreted as a short-lived nebula
271: powered by relativistic particles ejected during the intense high energy
272: activity in late August 1998 (Frail et al. 1999). The
273: emission of relativistic particles along the magnetic axis can be the
274: dominant mechanism for the braking of slowly-rotating
275: pulsars with normal magnetic fields (Dar 1999b, see also Harding et al.
276: 1999), for which magnetic braking is
277: inefficient. Magneto-hydrodynamic calculations
278: of pulsar braking by particle emission are a formidable task, but simple
279: estimates (Dar 1999b) will suffice here.
280:
281: Let L$_{\rm RP}$ be a pulsar's luminosity in the form of relativistic
282: particles escaping from the magnetic poles along the open
283: magnetic lines. The emitted particles co-rotate with the magnetic field
284: up to a radius ${\rm r_e \approx (3\,c\,B_p^2\,R^6/2\,L_{RP})^{1/4}}$,
285: at which
286: their pressure (${\rm L_{RP}/[12\pi\,c\,r^2}]$) becomes comparable to
287: the magnetic
288: pressure (${\rm B_p^2\,R^6/[8\pi\,r^6]}$ for a dipole field).
289: Beyond this point a particle
290: of mass m and Lorentz factor $\gamma$ is no longer entangled
291: in the magnetic field and it escapes, carrying away an angular momentum
292: ${\rm \gamma\,m\,\Omega\,r_e^2\,\sin^2\alpha}$. The resulting rate of
293: rotational energy loss is
294: \begin{equation}
295: {\rm \dot E_{rot}=I\,\Omega\,\dot\Omega
296: \approx -
297: \left( {3\,L_{RP}\over 2\,c^3}\right)^{1/2}\,B_p\,R^3\,\Omega^2
298: \,\sin^2\alpha},
299: \end{equation}
300: which yields an exponential
301: decline, ${\rm E_{rot}(t)=E_{rot}(0)\,exp(-t/\tau_s)}$, with a
302: characteristic time:
303: \begin{equation}
304: {\rm \tau_s={P\over 2\,\dot P}={I\over B_p\,R^3\,\
305: sin^2\alpha}\left({c^3\over
306: 6\,L_{RP}}\right)^{1/2}}.
307: \end{equation}
308: For a conventional ${\rm B_p=10^{13}}$ Gauss, ${\rm R=10}$ km,
309: ${\rm L_{RP}=10^{37}}$ erg s$^{-1}$,
310: and $\sin\alpha\approx 1$, the characteristic slow-down time is
311: ${\rm \tau_s\sim 2000~y}$, scaling as 1/R at fixed ${\rm B_p\,R^2}$,
312: and consistent with the characteristic slow-down times of SGRs and AXPs.
313:
314: Relativistic particle emission may also be the dominant spin-down mechanism
315: in pulsars rotating faster than SGRs and AXPs.
316: A comparison between Eq.4 and Eq.1 shows that slowing-down by relativistic
317: jets becomes faster than slowing-down by MDR when
318: \begin{equation}
319: {\rm P\geq {(4\pi^2\,B_p\,R^3)^{1/2}\over (54\,c^3\,L_{RP})^{1/4}}}.
320: \end{equation}
321: For ${\rm B_p=10^{13}}$ Gauss, ${\rm R=10}$ km,
322: and ${\rm L_{RP}=10^{37}}$ erg s$^{-1}$,
323: slowing-down by emission of relativistic jets is faster than by MDR if
324: ${\rm P> 60~ms}$. But, for
325: ${\rm B_p=10^{13}~ Gauss}$, ${\rm L_{RP}<10^{37}~erg}$,
326: and ${\rm P<100~ms}$,
327: ${\rm r_e\,\sin\alpha}$
328: becomes larger than the radius of the light cylinder, ${\rm r_c=c/\Omega}$,
329: and
330: relativistic particles of energy E that stop co-rotating with the pulsar
331: at ${\rm r_c}$ carry away an angular momentum ${\rm E/\Omega}$,
332: so that the total rate of angular momentum loss by particle emission is
333: ${\rm \dot L\approx L_{RP}/\Omega} $, i.e.,
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: {\rm \dot E_{rot}\approx L_{RP}, \qquad}
336: {\rm \tau_s\approx E_{rot}/L_{RP}}.
337: \end{eqnarray}
338: %and
339: %\begin{equation}
340: %{\rm \tau_s\approx E_{rot}/L_{RP}}.
341: %\end{equation}
342: The relation ${\rm \dot E_{rot}=L_{RP}}$ is well
343: satisfied, for instance, by the Crab pulsar, for which
344: ${\rm \dot E_{rot}=I\,\Omega\,\dot\Omega\approx}$ ${\rm 5\times
345: 10^{38}~erg~s^{-1}}$, coinciding exactly with the estimated energy
346: input to the Crab nebula (Manchester and Taylor 1997), presumably
347: supplied by relativistic particles from the pulsar.
348:
349: The gamma-ray bursts and radio flares of SGRs are presumably produced by
350: bursts of relativistic particles.
351: If relativistic particle emission induces
352: the observed spin-down, ${\rm \dot P}$ should increase during these periods
353: of activity. Indeed, the
354: spin-down rate of SGR 1900+14 doubled during its intensive burst
355: activity in 1998, after which it seems to resume
356: its ``quiescent'' long-term value (Woods et al. 1999a), as shown in
357: Fig.~1.
358:
359:
360: \section{What powers SGRs and AXPs?}
361:
362: If, unlike in the magnetar model, the energy reservoir of SGRs and AXP
363: is not magnetic, what can it be?
364: A NS whose internal heat, magnetic field and/or angular momentum
365: are diminishing as it radiates, may undergo a phase transition
366: (see, e.g., Shapiro \& Teukolsky 1983 and references therein)
367: and collapse to a strange star (SS) or a quark star (QS).
368: Gravitational energy release during the subsequent
369: slow contraction of the cooling and spinning-down star may
370: power SGRs and AXPs (Dar 1999a).
371: The equation of state of nuclear matter, or even that of quark matter at
372: supernuclear densities, has not yet been derived from first principles.
373: Yet, simple considerations indicate
374: that the possible phase transitions of NSs into SSs and QSs ought to
375: be taken
376: seriously.
377:
378: Naively approximate the pressure of cold nuclear matter at NS
379: densities by that
380: of a non-relativistic degenerate Fermi gas of nucleons. Ignoring
381: general-relativistic corrections, the radius and central
382: density ${\rho_c}$ of a self-gravitating gas of neutrons of
383: total baryonic mass M and zero angular momentum
384: are then given by the polytropic Emden-Lane solution of the
385: hydrostatic equation:
386: \begin{equation}
387: {\rm R\approx 15.1
388: \left({M\over M_\odot}\right)^{-1/3}~km},
389: \end{equation}
390: \begin{equation}
391: {\rm \rho_c\approx 6\,\bar\rho \approx 0.83\times 10^{15}
392: \left({M\over M_\odot}\right)^2~g~cm^{-3}}.
393: \end{equation}
394: In this simplest of models, low mass NSs should indeed be made of neutrons,
395: but as M is increased past ${\rm 1.27\,M_\odot}$,
396: ${\rm \rho_c}$ increases until the central Fermi energy
397: ${\rm E_F=(h^2/8\,m_n)(3\,\rho_c/\pi\, m_n)^{2/3}}$ exceeds
398: ${\rm (m_\Lambda-m_n)\,c^2}$. At this point, it is favourable for the
399: strangeness changing weak process ${\rm n\to\Lambda}$ (or ${\rm
400: ud\rightarrow su}$) to start transforming neutrons at the top of the
401: Fermi sea
402: into (initially pressureless) $\Lambda$'s at the bottom of the sea.
403: This reduces the pressure, causes contraction and increases ${\rho_c}$,
404: initiating a run-away reaction that stops only as the n and $\Lambda$
405: chemical potentials equalize, i.e.
406: until ${\rm E_F(n)-E_F(\Lambda)\approx}$
407: ${\rm c^2\,(m_{_\Lambda}-m_n)(1-GM(r)/r)}$,
408: where ${\rm M(r)}$ is the mass enclosed within r.
409:
410:
411: At the central densities of the strange stars of the previous paragraph,
412: the nucleons would be so snuggly packed that their ``individuality'' would
413: be in doubt.
414: But it has been argued (Alford et al. 1998; Berges et al. 1999
415: Rapp et al. 1999; Wilczek 1999; Li et al. 1999) that cold
416: nuclear matter,
417: compressed to high nuclear densities, converts into a much denser
418: superfluid and superconducting Bose-condensate of spin zero diquarks.
419: Cooper pairing of quarks
420: reduces their pressure and would trigger a gravitational collapse that,
421: if it does not proceed all the way to a black hole, would stop
422: only when the squeezed size of the pairs increases their internal
423: energy above their binding energy.
424:
425: A neutron star may be born with a temperature, a magnetic field and/or
426: an angular momentum that prevent its transition to a strange- or
427: quark-matter
428: state. As the star ages, it may reach a point at which a transition to
429: a denser state of matter is favourable. The collapse would
430: reheat the star to some extent; we conjecture that the gravitational energy
431: made available by its subsequent slow cooling and contraction
432: can power SGRs and AXPs (estimates of the effect are difficult, since
433: quantities
434: such as the heat conductivity are notoriously hard to predict).
435: For a pulsar which is mainly supported by the Fermi pressure of
436: non-relativistic degenerate fermions contraction can power a total
437: luminosity:
438: \begin{equation}
439: {\rm
440: L\approx {2\over 7}\left({G\,M^2\over R}\right) {\dot R\over R}
441: }\; .
442: \end{equation}
443: For a canonical pulsar mass ${\rm M=
444: 1.4~M_\odot}$ and a radius ${\rm R=10}$ km, a contraction rate of
445: ${\rm \dot
446: R \sim 20~\mu m~ y^{-1}}$ (a tiny ${\rm \dot R/R\sim 2\times
447: 10^{-9}~y^{-1}}$)
448: is sufficient to provide the inferred total luminosity of
449: SGRs and AXPs, ${\rm L \leq 10^{37}~erg~s^{-1}}$ .
450:
451: \section{Extra evidence and hints in favour of collapsed NSs}
452:
453: The gravitational collapse of
454: pulsars to strange or quark stars may offer explanations for some
455: puzzling observations: the anomalously small effective surfaces of AXPs,
456: the origin of short duration gamma-ray bursts, the shape of some SNRs
457: and the large peculiar velocities of old pulsars.
458:
459: The X-ray spectra of SGRs and AXPs in quiescent periods have
460: been interpreted as the Wein tail of black-body
461: radiation from their surface. The Stefan-Boltzman law, ${\rm L_X=4\pi\,
462: R^2\sigma\, T^4}$ (or ${\rm L_X \approx 1.3\times 10^{37}~erg~s^{-1}}$,
463: for ${\rm R=10}$ km and ${\rm T=1}$ keV)
464: yields effective surface areas significantly
465: smaller than expected for a NS, ${\rm A_{NS}\approx 4\pi\times 10^2~km^2}$.
466: The AXP data are summarized in Table II,
467: normalized to the measured distances (analysis of the corresponding
468: data for SGRs is complicated by their time variability and not well
469: determined temperatures).
470: All inferred areas are $\sim$20\%
471: of the expectation. It would be difficult to attribute this
472: systematic effect to errors in the observations.
473: Effective areas smaller than expected
474: may be due to non-uniform surface temperatures. But, more interestingly,
475: they can be real and reflect the small radii of SSs or QSs.
476:
477: Does the transition from a neutron star to a denser star
478: have directly observable signatures?
479: The answer
480: may be guided by analogies with observed phenomena,
481: a detailed model would be very hard to develop.
482: The gravitational binding energy release --of ${\cal O}(10^{53})$ ergs--
483: would be mainly emitted as a neutrino burst,
484: as in the Type II explosion that first begat the NS.
485: The collapse of a NS core
486: into a denser object should be accompanied by the ejection
487: of the outer layers, and be more similar to a Type I SN explosion
488: than to Type II, Ib or Ic events, for which the ejected mass is much
489: larger and consists mainly of light elements.
490: %A large fraction of the angular momentum of the original star may
491: %be carried away by the ejecta, so that the remnant would be left
492: %rotating at a slower rate.
493: The ejecta should be mildly relativistic and deposit their
494: energy in the interstellar medium at a fast rate, giving rise to a
495: short-lived
496: SNR, rich in Fe-group elements.
497: The collapsing material may, as in active galactic nuclei,
498: acquire an accreting toroidal structure and emit
499: highly relativistic and collimated jets. These jets, if they
500: point in our direction, may produce
501: %(short duration)
502: gamma-ray bursts (Dar 1999a; Dar and Plaga 1999)
503: %(the long duration ones may be produced by highly
504: %relativistic jets from the birth of black holes in gravitational collapse
505: %of NSs due to mass accretion onto the proto-neutron star in supernovae
506: %explosions, or onto NS in compact binary systems (Dar and DeR\'ujula,
507: %under preparation)).
508:
509: If collimated jets produce cosmological gamma-ray bursts,
510: their kinetic energy must be ${\rm E_k\sim 10^{52}~erg}$, i.e. comparable
511: to the kinetic energy of the SNR from the SN event in which the NS
512: was originally born. With that much energy, the jets may
513: distort the first SNR in a recognizable manner.
514: Radio observations expose a vast range of SNR shapes
515: (see, e.g., Whiteoak and Green 1996). While very
516: young SNRs have a simple expanding geometry, most older SNRs
517: have a distorted and
518: complicated appearance, which has been traditionally attributed
519: to their expansion into an inhomogeneous interstellar medium.
520: However, some SNRs have striking properties which require
521: explanation either in terms of jets
522: (Manchester 1987; Rozyczka 1993; Gaensler 1998) or --if not due to
523: accidental superpositions-- in terms of a second
524: explosion (Aschenbach 1998; Aschenbach et al. 1999; Gaensler 1999).
525: A second gravitational collapse, which produces
526: a second bang and emits relativistic jets along the rotation axis may
527: explain the puzzling morphology of many SNRs (Dar and De R\'ujula, in
528: preparation).
529:
530: In the collapse of a neutron star, an imbalance in the momenta of
531: oppositely ejected jets can impart a natal kick to the resulting SS or QS.
532: This may explain the large observed velocities of ``old'', slowly-rotating
533: pulsars. Millisecond pulsars and young pulsars have small velocities
534: (e.g., Toscano et al. 1999); their youth and large angular momentum may
535: have temporarily prevented their collapse (for millisecond pulsars this
536: may also be a selection effect: they are found in binary systems and only
537: with a small natal velocity could they remain bound and be spun up by mass
538: accretion).
539:
540:
541: %The gravitational collapse to a
542: %strange or a diquark star results in a mildly relativistic supernova-like
543: %explosion and, possibly, in the ejection of highly relativistic jets.
544:
545: \section{Outlook}
546:
547: We have contended that SGRs and AXPs do not have the anomalously large
548: magnetic fields postulated in the magnetar model to be the cause of
549: their fast spin-down and the energy reservoir
550: of their emitted radiation.
551: Instead, we argued that the spin-down
552: is caused by relativistic particle emission and we conjectured that
553: the power supply is the gravitational energy released by contraction,
554: resolving the conundrum associated with the large observed
555: jumps in spin-down rate.
556:
557: Independently of the strength of their magnetic field, the well
558: measured SGRs and AXPs are truly puzzling: their spin-down ages
559: are much smaller than the age of the SNRs with which they are
560: associated, and the distance they must have travelled during their
561: lifetime implies an unacceptable velocity. The hypothesis that these
562: neutron stars have suffered a delayed transition to a denser type of
563: constituency
564: resolves these problems: the measured spin-down ages date back only to the
565: stars' ``second birth''. This hypothesis also explains why the star's
566: surfaces,
567: as extracted from their X-ray emission, turn out to be smaller than expected
568: for a conventional NS, and why the morphology
569: of some of their associated
570: SNRs hints at a double bang.
571: If the second birth gives a new kick velocity to the NS, its direction
572: should be
573: uncorrelated to the centre of the SNR, as in the Vela pulsar.
574:
575: Most observed pulsars are not in binary systems and are not SGRs or AXPs.
576: These conventional pulsars have periods averaging to 1/2 s, significantly
577: shorter than the periods listed in Tables I and II. Their characteristic
578: spin-down ages, on the other hand, are longer, typically $10^7$ years.
579: With such long
580: lifetimes, and if a good fraction of the rate of core-collapse supernova
581: (roughly one per century in our galaxy) results in pulsars,
582: one would expect to detect some $10^5$ of these objects, while only
583: about $10^3$ are actually observed. But, if within some $10^5$ years
584: a good fraction of these NSs --depending on their mass, rotation period
585: and magnetic field-- were to suffer a transition into a denser object,
586: the observed numbers of supernovae, conventional pulsars, SGRs and
587: AXPs would fall into a consistent picture.
588: A star freshly reborn after a phase transition could be an SGR, whose
589: longer period
590: is explained by rapid spin-down. In turn, SGRs could
591: convert into AXPs after a period of bursting activity.
592: As the AXPs cool and spin down, they should become slowly
593: rotating, radio-quiet, X-ray-dim pulsars. Many
594: of these dim pulsars should still be present in the neighbourhood
595: of their SNRs. Very sensitive X-ray searches are required to discover
596: their
597: presence there.
598:
599:
600: \begin{acknowledgements}
601: {\bf This research was supported in part by the Fund For
602: Promotion Of Research At The Technion.}
603: \end{acknowledgements}
604: \begin{thebibliography}{}
605:
606:
607: \bibitem{Alford}
608: Alford, M. et al. 1998, Phys. Lett. B422, 247
609: \bibitem{Asaoka}
610: Asaoka, I., \& Aschenbach, B. 1994, A\&A 284, 573
611: \bibitem{Aschenbach}
612: Aschenbach, B. 1998, Nature 396, 141
613: \bibitem{Aschenbach2}
614: Aschenbach, B., Iyudin, A. F. \& Sch\"onfelder, V. 1999, astro-ph/9909415
615: \bibitem{Atteia}
616: Atteia, J. L. et al. 1987, ApJ. 320, L105
617: \bibitem{Berges}
618: Berges, J. \& Rajagopal. 1999, Nucl. Phys. B538, 215
619: \bibitem{Caraveo}
620: Caraveo, P. A. \& Mignani, R. P. 1999, A\&A 344, 367
621: \bibitem{Cline}
622: Cline, T. L. et al. 1982, ApJ 255, L45
623: \bibitem{Corbet2}
624: Corbet, R. H. D. \& Mihara, T. 1997, ApJ 475, L127
625: \bibitem{Corbet}
626: Corbet, R. H. D. et al. 1995, ApJ 443, 786
627: \bibitem{Dar}
628: Dar, A. 1999a, A\&A Suppl. 138, 505
629: \bibitem{Dar2}
630: Dar, A. 1999b, sub. to ApJ. astro-ph/9911473
631: \bibitem{Dar3}
632: Dar, A. and Plaga, R. 1999, A\&A {\bf 349}, 259
633: \bibitem{Duncan}
634: Duncan, R. C. \& Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ. 392, L9
635: \bibitem{Frail}
636: Frail, D. A., Vasisht, G. \& Kulkarni, S. R. 1997, ApJ. 480, L129
637: \bibitem{Frail2}
638: Frail, D. A. et al. 1999, Nature 398, 127
639: \bibitem{Gaensler3}
640: Gaensler, B. M. 1999, {\it Ph.D. Thesis,} Univ. of Sidney (unpublished)
641: \bibitem{Gaensler}
642: Gaensler, B. M., Gotthelf, E. V. \& Vasisht, G. 1999, ApJ 526, L37
643: \bibitem{Gaensler 2}
644: Gaensler, B. M., Green, A. J. \& Manchester, R. N. 1998,
645: M. N. R. A. S. 299, 812
646: \bibitem{Gotthelf2}
647: Gotthelf, E. V. \& Vasisht, G. 1998, New Astr. 3, 293
648: \bibitem{Gotthelf}
649: Gotthelf, E. V., Vashisht, G. \& Dotani, T. 1999, ApJ 522, L49
650: \bibitem{Harding}
651: Harding, A. K., Contopoulos, I. \& Kazanas, D. 1999, ApJ 525, L125
652: \bibitem{Hurley}
653: Hurley, K. et al. 1999a, ApJ 519, L143
654: \bibitem{Hurley0}
655: Hurley, K. et al. 1999b, ApJ 523, L37
656: \bibitem{Hurley3}
657: Hurley, K. et al. 1999c, ApJ 510, L111
658: \bibitem{Hurley2}
659: Hurley, K. et al. 1999d, ApJ. 510, L107
660: \bibitem{Israel}
661: Israel, G. L. et al. 1999, A\&A 346, 929
662: \bibitem{Iwasawa}
663: Iwasawa, K., Koyama, K. \& Halpern, J. P. 1992, PASJ 44, 9
664: \bibitem{Kulkarni}
665: Kulkarni, S. R. \& Frail, D. A. 1993, Nature 365, 33
666: \bibitem{Kulkarni2}
667: Kulkarni, S. R. et al. 1994, Nature 368, 129
668: \bibitem{Kouveliotou3}
669: Kouveliotou, C. et al. 1994, Nature 368, 125
670: \bibitem{Kouveliotou2}
671: Kouveliotou, C. et al. 1998, Nature 393, 235
672: \bibitem{Kouveliotou}
673: Kouveliotou, C. et al. 1999, ApJ 510, L115
674: \bibitem{Kouveliotou33}
675: Li, X. D., {\it et al.} 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3776
676: \bibitem{Lyne}
677: Lyne, A. G. \& Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature 369, 127
678: \bibitem{Manchester2}
679: Manchester, R. N. 1987, A\&A 171, 205
680: \bibitem{Manchester}
681: Manchester, R. N. \& Taylor J. H. 1997, {\it Pulsars,} Freeman Eds., San
682: Francisco, 1997
683: \bibitem{Marsdena}
684: Marsden, D. et al. 1996, ApJ. 470, 513
685: \bibitem{Marsden}
686: Marsden, D., Rothschild, R. E. \& Lingenfelter, R. E. 1999, ApJ 520, L107
687: \bibitem{Mazets}
688: Mazets, E. P. et al. 1979, Nature, 282, 587
689: \bibitem{Mereghetti}
690: Mereghetti, S., Belloni, T. \& Nasuti, F. P. 1997, A\&A 321, 835
691: \bibitem{Mereghetti2}
692: Mereghetti, S. \& Stella, L. 1995, ApJ. 442, L17
693: \bibitem{Murakami}
694: Murakami, T. et al. 1994 Nature, 368, 127
695: \bibitem{Nasuti}
696: Nasuti, F. P. et al. 1997, A\&A 323, 839
697: \bibitem{Oosterbroek}
698: Oosterbroek, T. et al. 1998, A\&A 334, 925
699: \bibitem{Parmar}
700: Parmar, A. et al. 1998, A\&A, 330, 175
701: \bibitem{Ramaty}
702: Ramaty, R. et al. 1980. Nature {\bf 287}, 122
703: \bibitem{Rapp}
704: Rapp, R. {\it et al.} 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 53
705: \bibitem{Rozyczka}
706: Rozyczka, M. et al. 1993, M.N.R.A.S. 261, 674
707: \bibitem{Shapiro}
708: Shapiro, S. L. \& Teukolsky, A. A. 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs
709: and Neutron Stars, {\it John Wiley \& Sons Inc. (1983)},
710: \bibitem{Sonobe}
711: Sonobe, T. et al. 1994, ApJ. 436, L23
712: \bibitem{Stella}
713: Stella, L., Israel, G. L. \& Mereghetti, S. 1998, Adv. Sp. Res. 22 1025
714: \bibitem{Sugizaki}
715: Sugizaki, M. et al. 1997, PASJ, 49, L25
716: \bibitem{Thompson}
717: Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R. C. 1995, M.N.R.A.S. 275, 255
718: \bibitem{Thompson2}
719: Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R. C. 1996, ApJ 473, 322
720: \bibitem{Torii}
721: Torii, K. et al. 1998, ApJ. 503, 843
722: \bibitem{Toscano}
723: Toscano, M. et al. 1999, M. N. R. A. S. 307, 925
724: \bibitem{Vasisht4}
725: Vasisht, G., Frail, D. A. \& Kulkarni, S. R. 1995, ApJ. 440, L65
726: \bibitem{Vasisht3}
727: Vasisht, G \& Gotthelf, E. V. 1997, ApJ 486, L129
728: \bibitem{Vasisht}
729: Vasisht, G. et al. 1994, ApJ 431, L35
730: \bibitem{Vasisht2}
731: Vasisht, G. et al. 1997, ApJ 476, L43
732: \bibitem{White}
733: White, N. E. et al. 1996, ApJ 463, L83
734: \bibitem{Whiteoak}
735: Whiteoak, J. B. Z. \& Green, A. J. 1996, A\&A Suppl. 118, 329
736: \bibitem{Woods}
737: Woods, P. M. et al. 1999a, ApJ 524, L55
738: \bibitem{Woods2}
739: Woods, P. M. et al. 1999b, ApJ 519, L139
740: \bibitem{wilczek}
741: Wilczek, F. 1998, Nature 395, 220
742:
743: \end{thebibliography}{}
744: %\end{document}
745:
746:
747: \newpage
748: \footnotesize
749: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
750: \tablefontsize{\tiny}
751: \tablecaption{Soft Gamma Ray Repeaters [SGRs]\vfill}
752: \label{tbl-1}
753: \tablehead{
754: \colhead{Pulsar} & \colhead{SNR} & \colhead{P} & \colhead{${\rm \dot P}$} &
755: \colhead{${\rm B_p}$} &
756: \colhead{${\rm \tau_s}$} &
757: \colhead{${\rm \tau_{_{SNR}}}$} &
758: \colhead{${\rm S_\perp}$}&\colhead{${\rm v_\perp}$} \nl
759: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(s)}
760: & \colhead{}
761: & \colhead{(Gauss)}
762: & \colhead{(ky)}
763: & \colhead{(ky)}
764: & \colhead{(pc)}
765: & \colhead{(${\rm km~s^{-1}}$)} }
766: \startdata
767: SGR 1806-20$^b$ & G10.0-0.1 & 7.47 &$8.3\times 10^{-11}$
768: & $1.6\times 10^{15}$ & 1.4 & $>5$
769: & $8.3\,{\rm d_{15}}$ & $5500\,{\rm d_{15}}$ \nl
770: SGR 1900+14$^c$ & G42.8+0.6 & 5.16 &$6.1\times 10^{-11}$
771: & $1.1\times 10^{15}$ & 1.3
772: &$>10$ & $36\,{\rm d_{7}}$ & $ 27000\,{\rm d_{7}}$ \nl
773: SGR 1627-41$^d$& G337.0-0.1 & 6.41 &\dots & \dots & \dots & $>5$
774: &$5.4\,{\rm d_{11}}$ &$5400\,{\rm d_{11}/\tau_3}$ \nl
775: SGR 0525-66$^e$ & N49 & $\sim 8$ &\dots & \dots
776: &\dots & $>5$ &$>22$ & $>22000/\tau_3$\nl
777: \enddata
778: \tablenotetext{a}
779: {${\rm B_p}$ values are for sin$\alpha=1.$ Distances
780: ${\rm d_x}$ are in units of x kpc. $\tau_3$ is
781: the age of the SGR in ky. \\
782: $^b$ Atteia et al. 1987; Kulkarni \& Frail 1993; Kouveliotou
783: et al. Ref. 1994; Kulkarni et al. 1994; Murakami et al.
784: 1994; Sonobe et al. 1994; Kouveliotou et al. 1998 and references therein.\\
785: $^c$ Kouveliotou et al. 1994; Vasisht et al 1994; Kouveliotou et al. 1999;
786: Woods et al. 1999a; Hurley et al. 1999d and
787: references therein.\\
788: $^d$ Woods et al. 1999b; Hurley et al. 1999a and
789: references therein.\\
790: $^e$ Mazets et al. 1979; Cline et al. 1982; Marsden et al. 1996 and
791: references therein.} \end{deluxetable}
792:
793: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
794: \tablefontsize{\tiny}
795: \tablecaption{Anomalous X-Ray Pulsars [AXPs] \vfill}
796: \label{tbl-2}
797: \tablehead{
798: \colhead{Pulsar}& \colhead{P} &
799: \colhead{${\rm \dot P}$} &
800: \colhead{${\rm B_p}$} &
801: \colhead{kT} &
802: \colhead{${\rm L_X}$}&\colhead{${\rm A_s}$} \nl
803: \colhead{}& \colhead{(s)}
804: & \colhead{}
805: & \colhead{(Gauss)}
806: & \colhead{(keV)}
807: & \colhead{(${\rm 10^{35}~erg~s^{-1}}$)}
808: & \colhead{(${\rm 4\pi\times 10^2 km^2}$)} }
809: \startdata
810: 1E 1841$-$045$^b$ & 11.76 & $4.1\times 10^{-11}$
811: & $1.4\times 10^{15}$
812: &0.55& $3\,{\rm d_{7}}^2$ & $0.25\,{\rm d_{7}^2}$ \nl
813: 1E 2259$+$586$^c$ & 6.98 & $\sim 5 \times 10^{-13}$
814: & $1.2\times 10^{14}$ &0.41
815: & $0.8 \,{\rm d_{4}^2}$ & $ 0.22\,{\rm d_{4}^2}$ \nl
816: 4U 0142$+$615$^d$ & 8.69 & $\sim 2\times 10^{-12}$
817: & $2.6\times 10^{14}$ & 0.39
818: & $0.7\,{\rm d_{4}^2}$ & $ 0.24\,{\rm d_{4}^2}$ \nl
819: 1E 1048$-$5937$^e$ & 6.44 & $1.5-4\times 10^{-11}$
820: & $>6.3\times 10^{14}$ & 0.64
821: & $5 \,{\rm d_{10}^2}$ & $ 0.23\,{\rm d_{10 }^2}$ & \nl
822: RX J170849$-$4009$^f$ & 11.00 & $2\times 10^{-11}$
823: & $9.5\times 10^{14}$ & 0.40
824: & $10 \,{\rm d_{10}^2}$ & $0.17\,{\rm d_{10}^2}$ \nl
825: PSR J1844-0258$^g$ & 6.97 & \dots
826: & \dots &0.64
827: & $3 \,{\rm d_{15}^2}$ & $ 0.15 \,{\rm d_{15}^2}$ \nl
828: \enddata
829: \tablenotetext{a}
830: {${\rm B_p}$ values are for sin$\alpha=1.$
831: All X-ray luminosities are in the $\sim 1-10$ keV energy band
832: as corrected for absorption by Gotthelf and Vasisht 1998.
833: The distances ${\rm d_x}$ are in units of x kpc. \\
834: $^b$ Vasisht \& Gotthelf 1997\\
835: $^c$ Iwasawa et al. 1992; Corbet et al. 1995; Parmar et al. 1998
836: and references therein.\\
837: $^d$ Mereghetti \& Stella 1995; White et al. 1996;
838: Israel et al 1999 and references therein.\\
839: $^e$ Oosterbroek et al. 1998; Mereghetti et al. 1997;
840: Corbet \& Mihara 1997 and references therein.\\
841: $^f$ Sugizaki et al. 1997\\
842: $^g$ Torii et al. 1998; Gaensler et al. 1999 and references therein.\\}
843: \end{deluxetable}
844:
845:
846:
847: \newpage
848: \begin{figure}
849: \begin{center}
850: %\vspace*{-1.6cm}
851: %\hspace*{-1cm}
852: \epsfig{file=sgr10.eps,width=14cm}
853: \caption{The period of SGR
854: 1900+14 as a function of time (Woods et al. 1999a), as measured by RXTE
855: (squares), BeppoSAX (triangles), ASCA (circles) and BSA (crosses). The
856: lines are linear fits to the X-ray periods of the SGR before June
857: 9, 1998 (${\rm \dot P=6.1\times 10^{-11}}$), between June 9 - August 27,
858: 1998 (${\rm \dot P=1.3\times 10^{-10}}$), and after August 27, 1998 (${\rm
859: \dot P=6.1\times 10^{-11}}$). Between June 9-August 28, the ``averaged''
860: spin-down rate has changed by a factor
861: $\sim 2.2$ as a result of a continuous or sudden braking.}
862: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
863: \end{center}
864: \end{figure}
865: \end{document}
866:
867:
868: