1: \documentstyle{mn}
2:
3: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\cd}{$\cdots$}
7: \newcommand{\Alfven}{ Alfv\'{e}n }
8: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\nn}{\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} }
11: \title{Radio and X-ray Signatures of Merging Neutron Stars}
12: \author[B. M. S. Hansen \& M. Lyutikov]
13: {Brad M. S. Hansen\thanks{Current Address: Dept. of Astrophysical Sciences, \newline
14: Princeton University;
15: email:{\bf hansen@astro.princeton.edu}}
16: \& Maxim Lyutikov\thanks{email:{\bf lyutikov@cita.utoronto.ca}} \\
17: Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of
18: Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada}
19: \date{}
20:
21: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
22: \pubyear{1999}
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \maketitle
26: \label{firstpage}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We describe the possible electromagnetic signals expected from the magnetospheric
30: interactions of a neutron star binary prior to merger. We find that both radio and X-ray
31: signals of detectable strength are possible. We discuss possible links with the
32: phenomenon of gamma-ray bursts and describe the prospects for direct detection of these signals
33: in searches for radio and X-ray transients.
34: \end{abstract}
35: \begin{keywords}
36: gravitation -- stars: magnetic fields -- stars: neutron -- pulsars: general -- gamma-rays: bursts
37: -- X-rays: bursts
38: \end{keywords}
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42: The gravitational wave-induced merger of binary neutron stars has evoked considerable interest
43: in recent years due to their importance as a source of gravitational radiation
44: (Thorne 1987 and references therein) and potentially
45: also gamma-ray bursts (Blinnikov et al 1984; Paczynski 1986; Eichler et al 1989; Paczynski 1991).
46: %Recent work has perhaps cast some doubt
47: %(Janka \& Ruffert 1996; Ruffert \& Janka 1998) on the viability
48: %of some of the more popular mechanisms for generating the latter, but the
49: The goal of identifying electromagnetic signatures of the merger events
50: %remains
51: is an important one, even if
52: such manifestations are not gamma-ray bursts. Given the considerable information processing required
53: to infer the presence of a gravitational wave burst (Cutler et al 1993), the presence of another
54: signature will be invaluable.
55: % In this vein, Li \& Paczynski (1999) have presented models for the post-merger
56: %radiation from the explosive decompression of disrupted neutron star material.
57:
58: In this paper we examine the magnetospheric interactions in
59: merging neutron star binary systems
60: and describe their pre- and post-merger signatures. In particular, we consider systems containing
61: one low field $B_r \sim 10^{9-11} G$, rapidly
62: spinning ($P \sim 1-100 ms$) recycled pulsar and one high field ($B_m \sim 10^{12-15} G$), slowly spinning
63: ($P \sim 10-1000 s$) non-recycled pulsar, as expected on both empirical and evolutionary grounds.
64: We shall examine how energy is extracted from the spin and orbital motion of the pulsar and in what
65: manner it is radiated.
66: Aspects of this calculation have been considered before by Vietri (1996), who considered magnetospherically
67: induced gamma-ray bursts, and Lipunov \& Panchenko (1996), who
68: considered the the far-field dipolar and quadrupolar configurations of
69: a dipole merging with a superconducting sphere.
70: Our default estimates will be for systems in which the high field
71: pulsar has a field $\sim 10^{15}$~G (sometimes called a magnetar),
72: which has the potential for the strongest signal. Recent work
73: suggests that such pulsars may constitute $\sim 10\%$ of the young pulsar population (Kulkarni \& Thompson 1998).
74:
75: In section~\ref{Extract} we will describe the magnetospheric interactions that remove energy from the orbit
76: and which allow it to emerge in electromagnetic form. This section will draw heavily on concepts from pulsar
77: electrodynamics and also the field of satellite-magnetosphere electrodynamics, such as in the Io-Jupiter system.
78: One of the primary results is that much of the energy is released as a pair plasma into the
79: magnetosphere. Section~\ref{Cooling} describes the physical state and evolution of this plasma,
80: drawing on concepts developed to describe Soft Gamma Repeaters and section~\ref{Discuss} reviews the
81: state of the observations appropriate to this phenomenon.
82:
83: \section{The Extraction of Spin and Orbital Energy}
84: \label{Extract}
85: High magnetic field pulsars spin down rapidly, so that we consider the high field pulsar to be
86: essentially non-rotating. A corollary to this is that the light cylinder radius for the
87: magnetar magnetosphere (or `magnetarsphere'!) is $\sim c/\Omega \sim 5 \times 10^{11} {\rm cm}
88: (P/100{\rm s})$, so that all of our subsequent discussion concerns processes occurring deep within
89: the closed region of this magnetosphere. This will hold true right up to the point of merger
90: as tidal interactions cannot enforce synchronisation in a coalescing neutron star binary (Bildsten \&
91: Cutler 1992).
92:
93: The extraction of energy from the pulsar spin and orbital motion is driven by how the strongly
94: conducting neutron star interacts with the external magnetic field of the magnetar.
95: As a
96: model problem we consider perfectly conducting sphere moving through an externally imposed
97: uniform magnetic field ${\bf B}_0 $ with velocity $ {\bf v }$ and rotating with angular velocity
98: $\bf \Omega$.
99: Motion of a conducting sphere through
100: magnetic field is possible only if the resistivity of the sphere
101: (neutron star) is nonzero. But the neutron star crust is virtually a perfect conductor:
102: the magnetic diffusion
103: times for neutron stars are very long - in fact comparable to the age of the universe.
104: We argue that the required resistivity is due to the dissipation of the
105: induced magnetospheric currents far from the neutron star surface.
106: This is analogous to the case of isolated pulsars, where currents are dissipated in the
107: pulsar wind-ISM shocks more than $10^9$ light cylinder radii away.
108:
109: The electrodynamics of the low-field pulsar interaction with the magnetar
110: magnetic field is considered in appendix~\ref{AppA}. Qualitatively, this interaction
111: has several important ingredients. The
112: conducting neutron star excludes the external field from its interior. The induced magnetic field
113: has a dipole structure with the magnetic dipole directed against the external field.
114: The resultant magnetic field is
115: \be
116: {\bf B}_{tot} = {\bf B}_0 + \frac{R^3}{2 r^3}{\bf B}_0 - \frac{3 R^3 (\bf{B}_0 \cdot{\bf r}) {\bf r}}{2 r^5}
117: \label{Btot}
118: \ee
119: At the surface
120: the total magnetic field has only a tangential component, inside the star the magnetic field
121: is zero.
122: The orbital motion of the neutron star with respect to the external field
123: will induce surface charges with a dipole structure
124: and surface charge density
125: \be
126: \sigma _{orb} = { 1 \over 4 \pi c R_0} \left( {\bf B}_0 \cdot [ {\bf R}_0 \times {\bf v} ] \right)
127: \ee
128: where $R_0$ is the radius of the neutron star.
129: These surface charges will also produce electric fields which will have a component along the
130: total magnetic field. If the neutron star orbits in a vacuum,
131: this electric field will accelerate charges from the surface or surrounding region to relativistic energies.
132: If the internal magnetic field of the neutron star is exactly zero, the resulting
133: structure of the electric field will be of the "outer gap type" (Chen, Ho \& Ruderman 1986) - a region
134: in the magnetosphere with $E_{\parallel}$ which does not intersect the surface of the neutron star.
135: However, there is likely to be some small component of radial
136: magnetic field at the surface. This could result either from whatever intrinsic field the
137: recycled neutron star possesses or from a second-order induced field resulting
138: from rotation of the star (see below and appendix \ref{AppA}).
139: In this case the electric field will draw charges from the surface.
140:
141: Similarly to orbital motion, the rotation of the neutron star will produce a surface charge density
142: \be
143: \sigma_{rot} = \frac{3 R_0 \Omega B_0 \sin \psi \sin \theta}{8 \pi c}
144: \ee
145: where $\sin \psi = \cos \Omega t \cos \theta \sin \alpha - \sin \theta \cos \alpha$ and
146: ${\bf \Omega}=\Omega ( \sin \alpha, 0, \cos \alpha)$, i.e. $\psi$ is the polar angle
147: in the frame aligned with $\bf \Omega$ and rotating with the neutron star.
148: This charge density is stationary in the frame of the
149: neutron star while in the laboratory frame it yields an additional surface
150: current ${ \bf j = \sigma}_{rot} { \bf\Omega} \times {\bf r}$. The magnetic field due to this current
151: is of order $ (R \Omega/c)^2$ smaller than the external field ${\bf B}_0$, but has a radial
152: component at the surface.
153:
154:
155: Similarly to the case of the aligned rotator
156: studied by Goldreich \& Julian (1969), the
157: strong electric field produced by surface charges will accelerate charges
158: in an attempt
159: to short out the component of the electric field that lies parallel to the magnetic field.
160: The typical densities of the primary beam will be $n_{GJ} \sim \Omega B_0 / 2 \pi e c$
161: for acceleration by $\sigma_{rot}$ and $ \sim v B_0 / e c R$ for
162: acceleration by $\sigma _{orb}$.
163: After being accelerated to sufficient energies ($ \gamma \sim 10^6 $) the
164: initial primaries produce curvature photons and a dense population of secondary
165: electron-positron pairs that will screen the
166: induced electric field.
167: This
168: mechanism of energy extraction is essentially the same as in the classical pulsar case with
169: a couple of small but important differences. The first is that, unlike the case of the pulsar, the
170: near field energy density is dominated by the plasma, rather than Poynting flux (see appendix~\ref{AppA}).
171: Secondly, the field configuration defined
172: by (\ref{Btot}) contains no closed magnetosphere. In the traditional pulsar case, the `working surface' of
173: the energy extraction is limited to the polar cap, a fraction $\sim (r \Omega/c)^2$ of the the total surface
174: area, which is linked to the open field lines. In the case under discussion here, the polar cap
175: effectively encompasses the
176: entire star.
177:
178: The
179: energy extracted by accelerating primary particles is limited by the maximum energy that
180: primary particles can reach:
181: \be
182: L \sim 4 \pi R^2 n_{GJ} \gamma_{max} m_e c^3 \sim 3.1 \times 10^{36} {\rm ergs \, s^{-1}}.
183: \label{Lbeam}
184: \ee
185: However, the energy extraction from the orbital motion is likely to be significantly more
186: efficient than implied by (\ref{Lbeam}). Once the pair production cascade has loaded
187: the
188: external field lines with plasma, the spiraling neutron star emits \Alfven waves along the external
189: magnetic field (Drell, Foley \& Ruderman 1965; Barnett \& Olbert 1986;
190: Wright \& Southwood 1987), in much same way as Io interacting with Jupiter or various artificial satellites
191: in the earth's magnetosphere. In this case, the pair production front acts as a surface of finite resistivity,
192: allowing the neutron star to `cross field lines'\footnote{Even if the resistivity were considerably lower, a
193: similar level of energy extraction would occur via the screw-instability of strongly wound magnetic field
194: configurations (Low 1986; Aly 1991; Volwer, van Oss \& Kuijper 1993; Gruzinov 1999), given only the assumption
195: of sufficient ambient plasma to justify the force-free approximation.}
196: We assume that these waves are dissipated in the magnetar magnetosphere
197: by non-linear damping mechanisms similar to those invoked by Soft Gamma Repeater models (e.g. Thompson \& Duncan
198: 1995).
199: Thus we shall assume that the bulk of the energy extracted from the orbit is deposited into the magnetospheric
200: pair plasma, and is of order (Drell et al 1965)
201: \ba
202: L_{orb} \sim&& 4 \pi R^2 B_m^2 \left(\frac{R}{a}\right)^6 \frac{v^2}{c} \nonumber \\
203: \sim && 7.4 \times 10^{45} {\rm ergs \, s^{-1}} \left(\frac{B_m}{10^{15} {\rm G} }\right)^2
204: \left(\frac{a}{10^{7} {\rm cm}}\right)^{-7}. \label{Lorb}
205: \ea
206: Additional sources of energy are the Poynting losses due to the motion of the induced dipole
207: (Lipunov \& Panchenko 1996)
208: and the time varying component of the induced magnetic fields (see appendix \ref{AppA}),
209: though the corresponding luminosities
210: are much smaller than that given by Eq. (\ref{Lorb}).
211: Poynting fluxes will be in a form of low frequency electromagnetic waves.
212: Unlike the equivalent situation for pulsars, where the density of the secondary plasma is low,
213: these low frequency electromagnetic waves may not be able to propagate through the dense secondary
214: plasma present in the "magnetarsphere" - they will convert their
215: energy into plasma
216: (Asseo et al. 1978).
217: Thus, most of the energy lost by the neutron star will be converted into plasma in the near zone
218: and later
219: radiated - this is in contrast to normal pulsars where most of the losses within the light
220: cylinder are due to the
221: Poynting flux.
222:
223: Our situation also differs somewhat from that considered by
224: Vietri (1996), who addressed the problem of the merger of two high-field pulsars.
225: The consequently large radii of field line curvature implied
226: screening was ineffective and allowed efficient acceleration
227: of particles and high energy emission.
228: The fundamental difference in our case is that plasma screening occurs close to the low
229: field neutron star, where the radius of curvature is smaller. The result is efficient generation
230: of pair plasma and effective screening of parallel electric fields.
231: The pair plasma will then mediate the dominant energy extraction by \Alfven wave emission.
232:
233: \subsection{Radio Emission}
234:
235: In normal pulsars, the acceleration of particles by electric fields at the surface
236: yields coherent radiation observed
237: as radio emission. Thus, we might hope for similar signals in this instance. The lack of
238: a complete theory of pulsar radio emission forces us to adopt a simple parameterisation
239: based on what we know about pulsars.
240: We expect the radio emission to be associated with the primary beam only, whose
241: luminosity is given by Eq. (\ref{Lbeam}).
242: We shall adopt an efficiency
243: of $\epsilon \sim 0.1$ for the conversion of primary beam energy to radio luminosity, based
244: on the radio efficiencies of pulsars (see Taylor, Manchester \& Lyne 1993), assuming the pulsar
245: beam luminosity is
246: $\sim 10^{-3}$ of the spin-down luminosity (Kennel \& Coroniti 1984).
247: Then
248: an optimistic estimate for the radio flux at 400~MHz (chosen because it is at this frequency
249: that the pulsar fluxes are best estimated) is
250: \be
251: F_{\nu} \sim 2.1 \, {\rm mJy} \, \frac{\epsilon}{0.1} \left(\frac{D}{100 Mpc}\right)^{-2} B_{15}^{2/3} a_7^{-5/2}. \label{Radio}
252: \ee
253: This is within the range of the larger radio telescopes operating today, although somewhat less than the sensitivities
254: of current radio transient searches.
255:
256: There are several complications that may preclude generation of radio emission.
257: If the neutron star is moving through
258: a pre-existing plasma generated by the previous orbital cycles
259: the electric gaps may be quenched,
260: there will be no
261: need to accelerate further particles and the beam luminosity may drop to zero.
262: In addition, the formation of positronium in the magnetic fields exceeding
263: $\sim 4 \times 10^{12}~G$ (Usov \& Melrose 1996, Arons 1998) may also quench the radio emission.
264:
265: Furthermore, the generated radio emission may be absorbed in the magnetarsphere.
266: We expect that {\em nonresonant} Thomson
267: scattering of the low frequency ($\nu << \nu_B$) radio emission will not be important
268: due to the the strong suppression ($\sigma = \sigma_T ( \nu/\nu_B)^2$) of the scattering
269: cross-section by the magnetic field at low frequencies. Resonant cyclotron absorption may be
270: important in the outer regions of the magnetarsphere where the cyclotron frequency becomes
271: comparable to the radio wave frequency ($a \sim 10^{10} cm$). Nevertheless, such absorption does
272: not occur in the pulsar case, so we may reasonably expect the radio emission to escape the
273: magnetarsphere.
274:
275: Thus, the first electromagnetic signature we anticipate from a realistic merging neutron star
276: binary is a coherent radio burst, emitted $\sim$~seconds before the gravitational wave burst.
277: However, the effects of interstellar dispersion can cause delays of
278: hours, possibly allowing for radio follow-up observations at low frequencies
279: (Palmer 1993; Lipunova, Panchenko \& Lipunov 1997).
280:
281: \section{Evolution of the Magnetospheric Pair Plasma }
282: \label{Cooling}
283:
284: Most of the energy liberated by the strong electric fields of section~\ref{Extract} is not
285: radiated, but is rather released into the magnetosphere of the slowly-rotating magnetar
286: in the form of \Alfven waves and a dense pair plasma. The energy release (\ref{Lorb}) is a significant
287: fraction of
288: the local magnetic energy density. In such a case, a wind, driven either by hydromagnetic or plasma
289: pressure, is likely to result
290: (Paczynski 1986, 1990, Melia \& Fatuzzo 1995; Katz 1996) while some will remain trapped, in a fashion similar to that of the
291: Soft Gamma Repeater picture of a magnetically
292: confined pair plasma (Thompson \& Duncan 1995). We envisage that the plasma released into
293: regions of decreasing field strength powers the wind while plasma released into regions of increasing
294: field strength will be trapped. Figure~\ref{Drawing} shows a schematic version of our scenario.
295:
296: Let us consider first the case of the wind. A release of energy at the rate given by equation (\ref{Lorb})
297: results in a compactness parameter $\eta = L/a c \sim 10^7 B_{15}^2 a_{-7}$. Thus, this is the same situation
298: envisaged in cosmological models for gamma-ray bursts (Paczynski 1986; Goodman 1986), wherein the release of
299: a large quantity of pure energy within a small volume leads to a relativistically expanding fireball.
300: The energy release during the neutron star inspiral will drive a relativistically expanding wind of pairs
301: and photons.
302: Thermal
303: and statistical equilibrium between photons and pair plasma is maintained during the
304: expansion by pair production and comptonization
305: (Cavallo \& Rees 1978) until the
306: comoving temperature drops to $T \sim 3 \times 10^8$~K and pair production can no longer
307: maintain the necessary electron scattering optical
308: depth. At this point the radiation escapes, with an approximately thermal spectrum.
309: However, the relativistic boost increases the observed temperature by a factor $\gamma$, the original
310: Lorentz factor of the fireball and reduces the observed burst time by the same factor. Thus, the observed
311: energetic and temporal properties of the wind emission may be approximately described by thermal emission
312: at the appropriate initial temperatures and timescales, despite the fact that the true photosphere is on
313: scales much larger than the original volume.
314: Hence, we shall estimate the observed flux in this case as
315: \be
316: F_{wind} \sim \frac{\alpha L}{4 \pi a^2} \sim 3 \times 10^{30} \alpha {\rm ergs \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}} B_{15}^2 a_7^{-9},
317: \label{Fwind}
318: \ee
319: ($\alpha$ is the fraction of the energy release lost in the wind) yielding effective temperatures just before merger $\sim 1.5 {\rm MeV} B_{15}^{1/2}$.
320:
321: The case of the trapped plasma is somewhat more subtle. This plasma is
322: very optically thick (Svensson 1987; Thompson \& Duncan 1995)
323: and the
324: inspiral time $\sim 0.4 \, {\rm s} \, a_7^4$ is short. Hence, very little of the total energy contained
325: in the magnetosphere is radiated in this time. The emission that does occur is dominated by the region
326: just above the surface of the magnetar, where the strong magnetic field decreases the electron scattering
327: cross-section and thereby promotes a larger photon flux. At late times, the plasma temperature is high
328: enough that ablation of material from the surface of the star is likely to provide an Eddington limit
329: \be
330: F_{edd} \sim 4.14 \times 10^{26} {\rm ergs \, cm^{-2} s^{-1}} B_{15} a_7^3. \label{Fedd}
331: \ee
332: In the case of Eddington limited cooling, we see that the emission actually gets softer as
333: the inspiral proceeds (the opposite of the contribution (\ref{Fwind}) from the relativistic
334: wind) because the plasma temperature increases and acts to negate the magnetic suppression
335: of the electron scattering cross-section.
336:
337: Thus, our strongest prediction is the presence of an X-ray precursor to the neutron star
338: merger. This precursor should be dominated by approximately thermal emission from the wind component, which
339: progressively hardens as the binary approaches merger. For magnetars ($B_{15} \sim 1$), this
340: can approach energies $\sim$~1.5~MeV while binaries containing a normal pulsar
341: ($B_{15} \sim 10^{-3}$) will only get as hard as $\sim 50$~keV. In some cases these objects
342: may be accompanied by softer ($\sim$~1~keV) components associated with the cooling of
343: the trapped plasma.
344: The observed flux will be dominated by the harder wind component, with flux levels
345: $\sim 3 \times 10^{-9} {\rm ergs \, cm^{-2} s^{-1}} B_{15}^2 a_7^{-7}$ for a source
346: at 100~Mpc (the distance scale for which we expect a few neutron star mergers per year).
347:
348: \subsection{The Ultimate Fate of the Pair Plasma}
349:
350: Much of the energy released by the processes in section~\ref{Extract}
351: is retained in the magnetospheric plasma for timescales longer than the inspiral time, i.e.
352: the merger event will occur surrounded by a significant magnetospheric plasma.
353: This energy totals about
354: $E_{\rm plasma} \sim 2 \times 10^{47} {\rm ergs} B_{15}^2$. Vietri (1996) proposed that this
355: energy, most of which is released on the last few orbits, could power a Gamma-Ray Burst as it
356: escapes it's magnetic confinement.
357: Our estimate of the energy release is somewhat smaller than his (strictly speaking he calculated
358: the maximum energy a magnetosphere could contain, rather than the energy release itself).
359: Recent determinations of the distances (Metzger et al 1997; Kulkarni et al 1998; Djorgovski et al 1998)
360: to burst events suggest that much larger energy
361: releases are required to explain many gamma-ray bursts (modulo beaming considerations).
362:
363: A more intriguing possibility occurs if it is the magnetar which is disrupted to form a rapidly
364: rotating disk around the compact merger remnant (as might be expected from the non-recycled and
365: thus presumably lighter object). If the magnetic field footpoints remain tied to
366: the disrupted material the magnetosphere is forced to co-rotate with the
367: disk and the corotation radius must move rapidly inwards, converting closed field lines to
368: open ones and ejecting the magnetospheric plasma. This would allow the plasma to tap the much
369: larger reservoir of disk rotational energy to power the gamma-ray burst (as in many other
370: gamma ray burst models. See Hartmann 1996 for a review) and could also account
371: for significant collimation of the outflow.
372: Furthermore, the approximate equipartition between plasma energy
373: density and magnetic field energy is appropriate for the formation of an episodic jet (Ouyed \& Pudritz 1997),
374: which may contribute to burst temporal variability.
375: Finally, the magnetospheric origin of the pair plasma would also avoid
376: the baryonic loading problem encountered by mechanisms which propose to generate the pairs
377: by neutrino annihilation close to the merger product (Janka \& Ruffert 1996; Ruffert \& Janka 1998).
378:
379:
380: \section{Discussion}
381: \label{Discuss}
382: \subsection{Observations}
383: Our results predict the appearance of X-ray and Radio transients as precursors to gravitational
384: wave bursts and possibly also Gamma-Ray Bursts.
385:
386: Motivated by the search for X-ray counterparts to GRB, Gotthelf, Hamilton \& Helfand (1996)
387: and Greiner (1999) have searched the Einstein \& ROSAT databases, respectively, for brief
388: X-ray transients. The energy ranges searched are somewhat softer ($\sim 0.1-4$~keV) than we would predict for the
389: peak of the energy distribution. Nevertheless, both searches found classes of transients
390: of possible astronomical origin in sufficient abundance to encompass any reasonable estimate
391: of the event rate (Phinney 1991; Narayan, Piran \& Shemi 1991; Lipunov et al 1995,
392: Arzoumanian, Cordes \& Wasserman 1999). Searches for untriggered bursts in the BATSE catalogue
393: (Kommers et al 1997) proved even more interesting, revealing a class of bursts restricted to
394: the 25-50~keV channel. Most of these events are consistent with being intensity fluctuations in
395: Cygnus~X-1, but the remaining 10\% are consistent with the expectations of our model.
396:
397: If some neutron star mergers do yield GRB, then our results may provide an explanation for the
398: subset of GRB discovered to show X-ray precursors (Murakami et al 1992; Castro-Tirado et al 1993; in 'T Zand
399: et al 1999). These events show the characteristic soft-to-hard spectral evolution we anticipate, although
400: the spectrum in well-studied cases such as GB900126 (Murakami et al 1991), appears somewhat softer ($\sim 1.5$~keV)
401: than we would expect. The flux ($\sim 2 \times 10^{-9} {\rm ergs \, cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$), however, is
402: appropriate, suggesting perhaps that an analysis more sophisticated than the black-body assumption
403: is required.
404:
405: Perhaps the best candidate for our model is the unusual transient GB900129 observed by Ginga (Strohmayer et al 1995),
406: which yielded a thermal bremstrahlung temperature $\sim 20$~keV and duration 5-10~s. Strohmayer et al note
407: the similarity to the SGR spectral characteristics, which agrees with the magnetospheric origins in our
408: model as well. Figure~\ref{Xray} shows the comparison of the energetics of various observed transients with our models.
409:
410: Radio transients associated with GRB are a subject of growing interest and several searches (e.g. FLIRT and STARE)
411: are ongoing. However, radio searches for brief transients are particularly bedevilled by terrestrial
412: interference. Most limits lie in the 10-100~kJy range at 76~MHz (FLIRT; Balsano 1999) and 611~MHz (STARE;
413: Katz et al 1998). These don't particularly constrain our model, which anticipates signals $\sim$~mJy-Jy. One
414: radio transient uncovered by FLIRT does deserve mention. FLIRT (Balsano 1999) located a radio transient
415: apparantly associated with GRB~980329. The transient is unique in the database and occurred within 50~s of
416: the burst. The transient showed evidence for dispersion, with a DM$\sim 66 {\rm pc \, cm^{-3}}$. All these
417: argue that the association is real. However, the signal was very narrow band, indicative of terrestrial
418: interference. If one does choose to interpret this ambiguous transient as a real association, the dispersion
419: measure would rule out a truly cosmological burst. Furthermore, the $\sim$~kJy flux would suggest
420: distances $\sim$1~Mpc based on our luminosity estimates. All these would argue against the suggestion that
421: the event occurred at very high redshift (Fruchter 1999) and the red optical transient would most likely
422: arise from extinction (Reichart et al 1999).
423:
424: \subsection{Binaries with Black Holes}
425:
426: We have not yet discussed the signatures of mergers associated with binaries in which
427: one of the components is a black hole rather than a neutron star, although such binaries
428: may outnumber the double neutron star binaries (e.g. Bethe \& Brown 1998). If the black hole
429: is formed from a strongly magnetized object, then only open field lines remain. Thus, the
430: inspiral of a neutron star through this magnetosphere will still generate the relativistic
431: wind and it's associated X-ray signature\footnote{This precursor may also be cut off before the
432: merger if the open field lines are restricted to only a small polar cap, i.e. the
433: neutron star may eventually orbit in a field free zone.},
434: but there will be no trapped magnetospheric plasma.
435: We would then expect to see the same X-ray and radio precursor to the event, but no soft X-ray
436: component to the precursor or any post merger signature associated with the magnetospheric
437: pair plasma. For binaries in which the low field component is a black hole, the effective resistivity
438: of the event horizon (Thorne, Price \& Macdonald 1986) is considerably larger than that for a neutron star crust. Consequently the
439: distortion of the magnetic field due to the orbital motion is much smaller and the energy extraction
440: in observable energy is similarly reduced. Furthermore, one cannot extract charged particles from the event
441: horizon, although `outer gap' acceleration is still feasible. We expect such mergers to be (electromagnetically)
442: much
443: quieter.
444:
445: \section{Conclusion}
446:
447: If neutron star mergers are not associated with GRB, then any additional electromagnetic signatures
448: will be invaluable when the search begins in earnest for the gravitational wave signal. Li \& Paczynski (1999)
449: have suggested one such signature; namely a post-merger mini-supernova powered by radioactive decay of disrupted
450: neutron star material. We have demonstrated the possibility of additional {\em precursor} signals in the
451: radio and X-ray regimes, driven by the magnetospheric interactions of the neutron star and their magnetic fields.
452: Our results differ somewhat from those of Vietri (1996) who considered a related model. We ascribe this
453: to the much more localized interaction in our scenario, the result of a more realistic choice of parameters,
454: and to our more complete description of the electrodynamics of the accelerated plasma.
455:
456: To conclude we re-iterate the properties of what we would consider a prime candidate for an electromagnetic
457: counterpart to a neutron star merger. Estimates of the merger rate suggest that the events typically
458: observed would be at distances $\sim 100$~Mpc, suggesting X-ray fluxes $\sim 3 \times 10^{-9} {\rm ergs \, cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$
459: with effective temperatures progressing upwards through the 10-100~keV range preceding the gamma-ray event on timescales
460: of order seconds or less. Associated radio fluxes could be as much as $\sim 5$~Jy at this distance, although the
461: ability of the radio waves to propagate in the late-time plasma shroud is
462: rather uncertain. The coincidence of the radio signal could be influenced by dispersion in both the host galaxy and ours.
463: Dispersion in the inter-Galactic medium will be of the order of $\sim 1 {\rm cm^{-2} pc} (D/100 {\rm Mpc})$ for an ionized IGM mass fraction
464: $\sim 10^{-2}$ of the critical density and thus is unlikely to contribute significantly for any detectable events.
465: There are also several possible signatures of the
466: merger event itself, depending on how the orbital and binding energies of the binary and components is disbursed between
467: remnant and ejecta.
468:
469: We thank Steve Thorsett, Vicky Kaspii \& Jackie Hewitt for information regarding the FLIRT and STARE radio transient programs
470: and Vladimir Lipunov and Andrei Gruzinov for discussions.
471:
472: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
473: \bibitem{Aly} Aly, J. J., 1991, ApJ, 375, L61
474: \bibitem{Arons} Arons, J., 1998, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars, ed. N.Shibazaki et al,
475: Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 339
476: \bibitem{Asseo78} Asseo, E., Kennel, C.F. \& Pellat, R., 1978, A\&A, 65, 401
477: \bibitem{Bal99} Balsano, R. J., 1999, unpublished PHD thesis, Princeton University
478: \bibitem{BO} Barnett, A. \& Olbert, S., 1986, J. Geoph. Res., 91, 10117
479: \bibitem{BB98} Bethe, H. A. \& Brown, G. E., 1998, ApJ, 506, 780
480: \bibitem{BC} Bildsten, L. \& Cutler, C., 1992, ApJ, 400, 175
481: \bibitem{BZ} Blandford, R. D. \& Znajek, R., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433
482: \bibitem{Blinn} Blinnikov, S. I., Novikov, I. D., Perevodchikova, T. V. \&
483: Polnarev, A. G., 1984, Sov. Astr. Lett., 10, 177
484: \bibitem{CBL} Castro-Tirado, A. J., Brandt, S., Lund, N., Lapshov, I. Y., Terekhov, O., \&
485: Sunyaev, R. A., in AIP Conference Proceedings 307, `Gamma Ray Bursts', Huntsville, AL, ed. Fishman, G. J., Brainerd, J. J.
486: \& Hurley, K., p17
487: \bibitem{CR} Cavallo, G. \& Rees, M. J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 359
488: \bibitem{CHR} Chen, K., Ho ,C. \& Ruderman, M., 1986, ApJ, 300, 522
489: \bibitem{Cut} Cutler, C. et al, 1993, PRL, 70, 2984
490: \bibitem{Djor} Djorgovski, S. G., Kulkarni, S. R., Bloom, J. S., Goodrich, R., Frail, D. A.,
491: Piro, L. \& Palazzi, E., 1998, ApJ, 508, L17
492: \bibitem{DFR} Drell, S. D., Foley, H. M. \& Ruderman, M. A., 1965, J. Geoph. Res., 70, 3131
493: \bibitem{ELPS} Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T. \& Schramm, D. N., 1989, Nature, 340, 126
494: \bibitem{FAS} Fawley, W. M., Arons, J. \& Scharlemann, E. T., 1977, ApJ, 217, 227
495: \bibitem{F99} Fruchter, A. S., 1999, ApJ, 512, L1
496: \bibitem{JR} Janka, H.-T. \& Ruffert, M., 1996, A\&A, 307, L33
497: \bibitem{GJ} Goldreich, P. G. \& Julian, W. H., 1969, ApJ, 157, 869
498: %\bibitem{GLB} Goldreich, P. G. \& Lynden-Bell, D., 1969, ApJ, 156, 59
499: \bibitem{G86} Goodman, J., 1986, ApJ, 308, L47
500: \bibitem{GHH} Gotthelf, E., Hamilton, T. \& Helfand, D., 1996, ApJ, 466, 779
501: \bibitem{Green} Green, D. A., et al, 1995, ApSS, 231, 281
502: \bibitem{Gre} Greiner, J., 1999, astro-ph/9905272
503: \bibitem{Gruzi} Gruzinov, A., 1999, astro-ph/9908101
504: \bibitem{Han} Hanami, H., 1997, ApJ, 491, 687
505: \bibitem{Hart} Hartmann, D. H., 1996, A\&AS, 120, 31
506: \bibitem{IHVF} in~'t~Zand, J. J. M., Heise, J., van Paradijs, J. \& Fenimore, E. E., 1999, ApJ, 516, L57
507: \bibitem{Ktz} Katz, J. I., 1996, ApJ, 463, 305
508: \bibitem{KC} Kennel, C. F. \& Coroniti, F. V., 1984, ApJ, 283, 694
509: \bibitem{KT} Kulkarni, S. R. \& Thompson, C., 1998, Nature, 393, 215
510: \bibitem{Ketal} Kulkarni, S. R., et al, 1998, Nature, 393, 35
511: \bibitem{LiP} Li, L. \& Paczynski, B., 1998, ApJ, 507, L59
512: \bibitem{LPL} Lipunova, G. V., Panchenko, I. E. \& Lipunov, V. M., 1997, New Ast., 2, 555
513: \bibitem{LPPPJ} Lipunov, V. M., Postnov, K. A., Prokhorov, M. E., Panchenko, I. E.
514: \& Jorgensen, H. E., 1995, ApJ, 454, 593
515: \bibitem{LP} Lipunov, V. M., \& Panchenko, I. E., 1996, A\&A, 312, 937
516: \bibitem{Low} Low, B. C., 1986, ApJ, 307, 205
517: \bibitem{MM} Melatos, A. \& Melrose, D. B., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1168
518: \bibitem{MF} Melia, F. \& Fatuzzo, M., 1995, ApJ, 438, 904
519: \bibitem{MR92} Meszaros, P. \& Rees, M. J., 1992, ApJ, 397, 570
520: \bibitem{MR} Meszaros, P. \& Rees, M. J., 1997, ApJ, 482, L29
521: \bibitem{Met} Metzger, M. R., Djorgovski, S. G., Kulkarni, S. R., Steidel, C. C.,
522: Adelberger, K. L., Frail, D. A., Costa, E. \& Frontera, F., 1997, Nature, 387, 879
523: \bibitem{MINPFUY} Murakami, T., Inoue, H., Nishimura, J., van Paradijs, J., Fenimore, E. E.,
524: Ulmer, A. \& Yoshida, A., 1991, Nature, 350, 592
525: \bibitem{Murak} Murakami, T., Ogasaka, Y., Yoshida, A. \& Fenimore, E. E., 1992, in AIP
526: Conference Proc. 265, `Gamma Ray Bursts', Huntsville, AL, ed. Paciesas, W. S. \& Fishman, G. J., p28
527: \bibitem{NPS} Narayan, R., Piran, T. \& Shemi, A., 1991, ApJ, 379, L17
528: \bibitem{OP} Ouyed, R. \& Pudritz, R. E., 1997, ApJ, 484, 794
529: \bibitem{Pac86} Paczynski, B., 1986, ApJ, 308, L43
530: \bibitem{Pac90} Paczynski, B., 1990, ApJ, 363, 218
531: \bibitem{Pac91} Paczynski, B., 1991, Acta Astr., 41, 257
532: \bibitem{Pal} Palmer, D. M., 1993, ApJ, 417, L28
533: \bibitem{Ph} Phinney, E. S., 1991, ApJ, 380, L17
534: \bibitem{Reich} Reichart, D. E. et al, 1999, ApJ, 517, 692
535: \bibitem{RJ} Ruffert, M. \& Janka, H.-T., 1998, A\&A, 338, 535
536: \bibitem{SY} Silant'ev \& Yakovlev, 1980, Ap\& SS, 71, 45
537: \bibitem{SFMY} Strohmayer, T. E., Fenimore, E. E., Murakami, T. \& Yoshida, A., 1995, ApJ, 445, 731
538: \bibitem{TML} Taylor, J. H., Manchester, R. N. \& Lyne, A. G., 1993, ApJS, 88, 529
539: \bibitem{TD} Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255
540: \bibitem{Th} Thorne, K. S., 1987, in 300 Years of Gravitation, ed. S. W. Hawking \& W. Israel,
541: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 330
542: \bibitem{TMP} Thorne, K. S., Price, R. H. \& Macdonald, D. A., 1986, Black Holes: The Membrane
543: Paradigm, Yale University Press, New Haven
544: \bibitem{Uso} Usov, V. V., 1992, Nature, 357, 473
545: \bibitem{UM} Usov, V. V. \& Melrose, D. B., 1996, ApJ, 464, 306
546: \bibitem{Vietri} Vietri, M., 1996, ApJ, 471, L95
547: \bibitem{VvOK} Volwerk, M., van Oss, R. F., \& Kuijper, J., 1993, A\&A, 270, 265
548: \bibitem{WS} Wright, A. N., \& Southwood, D. J., 1987, J. Geoph. Res., 92, 1167
549: \end{thebibliography}
550:
551:
552: \clearpage
553:
554: \begin{appendix}
555:
556: \section{Electromagnetic interaction of a neutron star with external magnetic field}
557: \label{AppA}
558: Our problem concerns the electrodynamics of a low field neutron star orbiting in the field of a
559: high field neutron star. Although the intrinsic field of the neutron star will be important, let us
560: begin with the model problem of a spinning, conducting sphere
561: % moving with velocity ${\bf v}$ with respect to
562: in a uniform, externally imposed field.
563:
564:
565: Consider an unmagnetized conducting sphere in an external homogeneous magnetic field
566: ${\bf B_0} $.
567: The external field will induce
568: surface currents
569: \begin{equation}
570: {\bf g} = { c \over 4 \pi } { B_0} \sin \theta {\bf e}_ {\phi}
571: \end{equation}
572: flowing in the azimuthal direction ${\bf e}_ {\phi}$ about the ${\bf B_0}$ axis. These currents will
573: induce magnetic field with a dipole structure $ {\bf \mu} = - {\bf B_0} R_0^3 /2 $
574: so that the total field is
575: \be
576: {\bf B}_{tot}=
577: {\bf B_0} + {{{{R_0}^3}\,{\bf B_0}}\over {2\,{r^3}}} -
578: {{3\,{{R_0}^3}\, ({\bf B_0}\cdot{\bf r})\,{\bf r}}\over {2\,{r^5}}}
579: \ee
580: At the surface the radial component of the total magnetic field is zero.
581: Consider now the same sphere, moving with velocity $\bf v$ and rotating with angular
582: velocity $\Omega$.
583: Up to the relativistic correction of the order $v^2/c^2$ the magnetic field
584: is the same in the star's rest frame (which is moving and rotating with respect
585: to the laboratory frame).
586: In the star's rest frame the electric field is a sum of electric fields due to the uniform
587: motion and rotation. The electric field due to the rectilinear motion
588: is uniform, given by ${\bf E}_{orb} = {1\over c} \left[ {\bf v} \times {\bf B}_{0} \right]$, while
589: the electric field due to the rotation is
590: ${\bf E}_{rot} ={1\over c}\left[\left[ {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf r} \right] \times {\bf B}_{tot} \right]$.
591: ${\bf E}_{rot}$
592: has radial and meridional components:
593: \begin{eqnarray*}
594: E_{ rot,r} =
595: \frac{\left( 2\,{r^3} + {{R_0}^3} \right)}{2\,c\,{r^4}}
596: \left( {r^2}\, ({\bf B_{tot}} \cdot {\bf \Omega } ) -
597: ({\bf B_{tot}} \cdot{\bf r})\, ( {\bf \Omega } \cdot {\bf r}) \right)
598: \end{eqnarray*}
599: \be
600: E_{rot, \psi}=
601: \frac{{\left( {r^3} - {{R_0}^3} \right)}}{c\,{{r^5}}} ({\bf B_{tot}} \cdot {\bf r})\,
602: \left( -\left( {r^2}\, {\bf \Omega } \right) +
603: ( {\bf \Omega } \cdot {\bf r})\,{\bf r} \right)
604: \ee
605: where $\sin \psi= \left( \cos \phi \,\cos \theta \,\sin \alpha - \cos \alpha \,\sin \theta
606: \right)$
607: is the polar angle in the frame alinged with ${\bf \Omega}$
608: and we assumed that ${ \bf B}$ is antiparallel to $ { \bf z }$
609: and ${ \bf \Omega} = \Omega \{ \sin\alpha,0, \cos \alpha\}$.
610: There is also a non-inertial, spatially distributed
611: charge density associated with this electric field
612: (the Goldreich-Julian density)
613: \be
614: \rho = {1\over 4 \pi e} {\rm div} {\bf E} = { {\bf \Omega \cdot B_{tot} } \over 2 \pi e c}.
615: \ee
616:
617: The ample supply of charges inside the star will short out the total electric field
618: inside the star by
619: producing
620: surface charge density $\sigma= {1\over 4 \pi} E_r$:
621: \ba
622: \sigma _{orb} &=& { 1 \over 4 \pi c R_0 } \left( {\bf B_0} \cdot [ {\bf R}_0 \times {\bf v}] \right)
623: \nn
624: \sigma_{rot}&=&
625: {{3\,B_{tot}\, \Omega \,R_0\,\sin (\psi )\,\sin \theta }\over {8\,\pi c }}
626: \ea
627: The surface charge distribution $\sigma _{orb}$ has dipole structure with
628: ${\bf b} = { R_0^2 \over 8 \pi c } \left[ {\bf v} \times {\bf B_0} \right]$, while
629: $\sigma _{rot}$ has monopole (total charge
630: $Q_{rot}= -\,B _0\, \Omega \,{{R_0}^3}\,\cos \alpha /c$)
631: and quadrupole contributions.
632: Both types of
633: surface charges will produce
634: electric fields outside of the star with nonzero component
635: along the magnetic field line of the order
636: \ba
637: E_{\parallel, orb} &\approx& { {R_0}^3 \over c r^4}
638: \left( {\bf B} _0 \cdot \left[ {\bf r} \times {\bf v} \right] \right) \cos \theta
639: \nn
640: E_{\parallel, rot} &\approx& -{B_0\, \Omega \,{{R_0}^3}\,\cos \alpha \cos \theta \over c r^2}
641: \ea
642: These electric fields will accelerate the primary charges to relativistic energies.
643:
644: The surface charge distribution $\sigma _{orb}$ is stationary in the moving but non-rotating frame,
645: while surface charges $\sigma _{rot}$ are stationary in the neutron star frame (which is
646: moving and rotating with respect to the lab frame).
647: An observer in the neutron star frame will detect three types
648: of electric currents: due to rotation of $\sigma _{orb}$ and
649: inertial currents due to electric fields of the surface charges
650: ${\bf j} _{in}=\left[ ({\bf E}_{ \sigma _{orb}} + {\bf E} _{ \sigma _{rot}} )
651: \times {\bf \Omega } \right] /( 4 \pi)$.
652: Inertial current due to ${\bf E} _{ \sigma _{rot}}$ will
653: generate magnetic field of the order $ B _{rot} \approx B_0 ( \Omega \,R_0 /c )^2 $
654: with a component perpendicular to the surface of the millisecond pulsar.
655: Equivalently, in the laboratory frame the charges $\sigma _{rot}$ rotating with the star
656: will produce surface currents along the $\psi $ direction
657: ${\bf g}_{rot} = \sigma _{rot}
658: \left[{\bf \Omega \times r} \right]$
659: that will generate magnetic field $ B _{rot}$.
660:
661: The Poynting losses due to rotating dipole will be proportional to the
662: time varying component of the induced magnetic field
663: $ \propto B_0 ( \Omega \,R_0 /c )^2 \sin
664: \alpha \cos (\Omega t)$,
665: so that the resulting Poynting flux would be $ P \propto B^2 ( \Omega \,R_0 /c )^4 \sin ^2 \alpha$.
666: It is suppressed by a small factor $( \Omega \,R_0 /c )^4 \ll 1$ if compared with
667: the rotating dipole with the strength equal to the external magnetic field.
668:
669:
670: \end{appendix}
671:
672: \clearpage
673:
674: \begin{figure}
675: \caption{Schematic version of the energy extraction process. The motion of the companion
676: through the magnetar field induces a plasma flow from the companion into the magnetosphere.
677: The pressure of this flow will drive a relativistic wind in those regions where the
678: flow moves into a regime of weaker field, while the plasma remains trapped in the case when it
679: flows into a stronger field regime. The hot pair plasma will ablate some baryons off the surface
680: of the neutron star, providing a baryon-loaded sheath which regulates the cooling of the
681: trapped plasma.\label{Drawing}}
682: \end{figure}
683:
684: \begin{figure}
685: \caption[Tt.ps]{Here we show the expected evolution of the X-ray precursor signal
686: for binaries containing a recycled pulsar with either a normal field neutron star or a magnetar.
687: The solid lines
688: indicate the wind emission (the solid vertical line at the right indicates the luminosity)
689: while the dotted lines indicate the cooling emission of the trapped magnetospheric
690: plasma (also with appropriate luminosity scale). The dashed part of the $10^{15}$~G curve
691: indicates the region where bound positronium production may alter the plasma injection
692: mechanisms, possibly resulting in more nonthermal, high-energy emission.
693: The points show the various transients
694: discussed in the text (solid symbols are associated with GRB, open symbols are not).
695: The time error bars are determined from the quoted time resolution and rise times
696: of the signals. We see that the detected temperatures and time delays are broadly consistent
697: with the expected theoretical values.\label{Xray}}
698: \end{figure}
699:
700: %\clearpage
701: %\plotone{merge5.eps}
702: %\clearpage
703: %\plotone{Tt.ps}
704:
705: \end{document}
706: