1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,flushrt]{aastex}
2: \doublespace
3: %\twocolumn
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Bounds on Compactness for LMXB Neutron Stars from X-ray Burst
8: Oscillations}
9: \author{Nitya R. Nath\altaffilmark{1,2}, Tod E. Strohmayer \& Jean H. Swank}
10: \affil{Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics, NASA's Goddard Space Flight
11: Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771; stroh@clarence.gsfc.nasa.gov}
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Raytheon ITSS, Lanham, MD 20706}
13: \altaffiltext{2}{Currently with: Science Systems and Applications, Lanham, MD
14: 20706}
15: \email{stroh@clarence.gsfc.nasa.gov}
16: %\authoraddr{Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics, Mail Code 662, NASA/GSFC
17: %Greenbelt, MD 20771}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20:
21: We have modelled X-ray burst oscillations observed with the Rossi X-ray Timing
22: Explorer (RXTE) from two low mass X-ray binaries (LMXB): 4U 1636-53 with a
23: frequency of 580 Hz, and 4U 1728-34 at a frequency of 363 Hz. We have computed
24: least squares fits to the oscillations observed during the rising phase of
25: bursts using a model which includes emission from either a single circular hot
26: spot or a pair of circular antipodal hot spots on the surface of a neutron
27: star. We model the spreading of the thermonuclear hot spots by assuming that
28: the hot spot angular size grows linearly with time. We calculate the flux as a
29: function of rotational phase from the hot spots and take into account photon
30: deflection in the relativistic gravitational field of the neutron star
31: assuming the exterior space-time is the Schwarzschild metric. We find
32: acceptable fits with our model in a $\chi^2$ sense, and we use these to place
33: constraints on the compactness of the neutron stars in these sources. For
34: 4U 1636-53, in which detection of a 290 Hz sub-harmonic supports the two spot
35: model, we find that the compactness (i.e., mass/radius ratio) is constrained
36: to be $M/R < 0.163$ at 90 \% confidence ($G = c = 1$). This requires a
37: relatively stiff equation of state (EOS) for the stellar interior.
38: For example, if the neutron star has a mass of $1.4 M_{\odot}$ then its radius
39: must be $> 12.8$ km. Fits using a single hot spot model are not as highly
40: constraining. We discuss the implications of our findings for recent efforts
41: to calculate the EOS of dense nucleon matter and the structure of neutron
42: stars.
43:
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{structure of stars - equations of state - stars: individual
47: (4U 1636-53, 4U 1728-34) - stars: neutron - stars: oscillations -
48: X-rays: bursts}
49:
50: \newpage
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: X-ray brightness oscillations with frequencies in the 300 - 600 Hz range have
55: now been observed during thermonuclear X-ray bursts from 10 LMXB systems
56: (see Strohmayer 2001 for a recent review). Substantial evidence suggests
57: that rotational modulation of a localized hot spot or a pair of antipodal
58: spots is responsible for the observed oscillations, especially during the
59: rising phase (see for example Strohmayer, Zhang \& Swank 1997; Heise 2000).
60: As the mass to radius ratio, $M/R$ or ``compactness'', of a neutron star
61: increases, the deflection of photons by its relativistic gravitational field
62: becomes stronger and consequently a greater fraction of the stellar surface
63: is visible to an observer at any given time. This effect weakens the spin
64: modulation pulsations produced by a rotating hot spot on the neutron star
65: surface. Because of this effect, Strohmayer et al. (1997) suggested that
66: modelling of the burst oscillation amplitude could in principle provide a
67: constraint on the neutron star compactness. Strohmayer, Zhang \& Swank (1997)
68: investigated the temporal evolution of the amplitude of burst oscillations from
69: 4U 1728-34 and showed that a simple model of an expanding hot spot on a neutron
70: star was in qualitative agreement with the data.
71: Miller \& Lamb (1998) performed a study of the dependence of the
72: oscillation amplitude from a point-like hot spot on the stellar compactness,
73: the surface rotational velocity, and the spectrum of the surface emission,
74: and showed that if two antipodal spots are present, the resulting limits on
75: the compactness can be highly constraining. Weinberg, Miller, \& Lamb (2000)
76: have recently performed similar calculations but allow for hot spots of finite
77: size. Psaltis, Ozel, \& DeDeo (2001) have also recently investigated the
78: effects of relativistic photon deflection on the inferred properties of
79: thermally emitting neutron stars.
80:
81: Miller (1999) reported the detection of a 290 Hz sub-harmonic of the stronger
82: 580 Hz oscillation frequency in a study of 5 bursts from 4U 1636-53. This led
83: him to suggest that the neutron star spin frequency is actually 290 Hz in this
84: source and that two antipodal hot spots produce the 580 Hz modulation. The
85: observation of a pair of high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPO) with
86: a frequency separation of $\sim 251$ Hz in this source (Mendez, van der Klis,
87: \& van Paradijs 1998), has also been interpreted, in the context of a beat
88: frequency model for the high frequency QPO, as evidence for a neutron star spin
89: frequency of $\sim 290$ Hz rather than 580 Hz (see Miller, Lamb \& Psaltis
90: 1998). We note, however, that recent efforts to confirm the sub-harmonic
91: detection in subsequent bursts from 4U 1636-53 have not been successful
92: (Strohmayer 2001).
93:
94: Strohmayer et al. (1998a) reported very large amplitude oscillations at 580 Hz
95: during the rising phase of some bursts from 4U 1636-53. This combination of
96: large measured amplitudes near burst onset and the evidence that two hot spots
97: may produce the modulation, make 4U 1636-53 perhaps the best source currently
98: known in which to constrain the neutron star mass and radius based on the
99: properties of burst oscillations. Here we report on our efforts to
100: do this by detailed modelling of the burst oscillations observed during the
101: rising phase of bursts. We focus on 4U 1636-53 because if the two hot spot
102: conjecture is correct for this object then our results place strong constraints
103: on the neutron star compactness. However, we also summarize our results for
104: 4U 1728-34, a source which has also shown strong oscillations during the rising
105: phase of bursts. The plan of this paper is as follows. In \S 2 we discuss the
106: basic features and assumptions of our model. In \S 3 we outline the method of
107: calculation. In \S 4 we describe our model fitting procedures and our results
108: for both single and antipodal hot spot models. We also summarize the results
109: of fits to data from 4U 1636-53 and 4U 1728-34. In \S 5 we summarize our
110: results and discuss them in the context of recent efforts to constrain the EOS
111: of neutron star matter. We also discuss future steps we will take to improve
112: the hot spot model.
113:
114: \section{Model Assumptions}
115:
116: Both spectral and temporal evidence indicate that the X-ray emission near the
117: onset of at least some thermonuclear bursts is localized to a ``hot spot''
118: which spreads in some fashion until eventually encompassing all of the neutron
119: star surface (see for example Strohmayer, Zhang \& Swank 1997). This likelihood
120: was also recognized early on in theoretical studies of thermonuclear bursts
121: (Joss 1978). Motivated by this we model the burst rise by assuming that all the
122: burst emission comes from either one or a pair of circular hot spots which
123: expand linearly in angular size with time. The rest of the neutron star surface
124: is assumed dark. Photon trajectories are computed assuming the Schwarzschild
125: metric describes the space-time exterior to the star. This is a reasonable
126: approximation since the influence of the neutron star's rotation on the
127: space-time only affects the oscillation amplitude to second order (Miller \&
128: Lamb 1996). For the present work we shall only investigate bolometric
129: modulations across the full $\sim 2 - 90$ keV bandpass of the RXTE Proportional
130: Counter Array (PCA). We shall also ignore Doppler shifts and relativistic
131: aberration produced by the rotational motion of the hot spot (see for example
132: Miller 1999; Chen \& Shaham 1989). We discuss later the likely influence on our
133: results of this approximation.
134:
135: Our model is uniquely characterized by seven parameters: (1) an overall source
136: intensity or normalization, $S$, which can be thought of as the flux leaving
137: unit surface area of the neutron star. (2) neutron star compactness, $\beta =
138: M/R$, where $M$ and $R$ are the stellar mass and radius, respectively,
139: (3) initial angular size of the spot (half of the subtended angle),
140: $\alpha_0$, (4) angular growth rate of the hot spot, $\dot\alpha$, (5) initial
141: rotational phase, $\delta_0$, (6) latitude of the spot center, $\theta_s$,
142: measured from the rotational equator, and (7) latitude of the observers line of
143: sight, $\theta_{obs}$, also measured from the rotational equator.
144: One of our primary goals is to determine an upper bound on the compactness.
145: To do this within the context of our model we set the hot spot latitude
146: and observation latitude to zero. That is, both the hot spots and the line of
147: sight to the observer are centered on the rotational equator. This geometry
148: produces the largest possible modulation amplitude. Since any observed
149: modulation must be equal to or less than this limit, and since the modulation
150: amplitude decreases with increasing compactness, the upper limit follows.
151: For completeness, we also investigate the influence of moving the hot spot and
152: the line of sight off the rotational equator. The geometry of our model is
153: illustrated in Figure 1. Related hot spot models have been worked out by
154: Pechenick, Ftaclas, \& Cohen (1983) and Strohmayer (1992).
155:
156: \section{Method of Calculation}
157:
158: The geometry of a photon trajectory in relation to the observers line of sight
159: $\vec r_{obs}$ is shown in Figure 1. The figure is drawn with $\theta_s =
160: \theta_{obs} = 0$. For any single point on the hot spot with radius vector
161: $\vec r$, the path of a photon reaching the observer lies in the plane of
162: $\vec r$ and $\vec r_{obs}$, and is asymptotically parallel to $\vec r_{obs}$
163: with impact parameter $b$. The two angles, $\phi$ (between $\vec r$
164: and $\vec r_{obs}$) and $\psi$ (the emission angle with respect to the
165: surface normal), complete the description. For non-zero $\theta_s$ and
166: $\theta_{obs}$, the deflection geometry remains the same, only the plane in
167: which the desired trajectory lies (the plane of $\vec r$ and $\vec r_{obs}$)
168: changes. The angle $\phi$ can be expressed as,
169: \begin{equation}
170: \phi = \int_0^{\sin^{-1}(\hat b)} \left [ 1 - 2(M/R)(1-\sin^3 y / \hat b ) /
171: (1 - \sin^2 y) \right ] ^{-1/2} dy,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $\hat b = b/b_{max}$ is the reduced impact parameter, $b_{max} =
174: R(1-2(M/R))^{-1/2}$, and $M$ and $R$ are the stellar mass and radius
175: respectively. This form for the angle $\phi$ is somewhat non-standard compared
176: to previous work. More commonly $\phi$ is expressed as
177: \begin{equation}
178: \phi = \int_0^{M/R} \left [u_b^2 - (1-2u)u^2 \right ] ^{-1/2} du,
179: \end{equation}
180: where $u_b \equiv M/b$ (see for example, Pechenick, Ftaclas \& Cohen 1983;
181: Miller \& Lamb 1998). Our rationale for rewriting the integrand is twofold;
182: first, to explicitly show what parameters $\phi$ depends on, and second to
183: remove singular behavior of the integrand to facilitate numerical evaluation
184: of the integral. Changing variables in (2) to $u = (M/R) x$ results in the
185: following expression;
186: \begin{equation}
187: \phi = \int_0^1 \left [\hat b ^{-2} (1-\frac{2M}{R}) -
188: (1-\frac{2M}{R}x)x^2 \right ] ^{-1/2} dx.
189: \end{equation}
190: As $M/R$ becomes small this integral has the form,
191: \begin{equation}
192: \phi = \int_0^1 \left [\hat b ^{-2} - x^2 \right ] ^{-1/2} dx,
193: \end{equation}
194: which has singular behavior as $\hat b$ and $x$ approach unity. The second
195: change of variables to $y=sin^{-1}\hat b x$ is motivated by the form of
196: equation (4) above, whose solution corresponds to the inverse sine function.
197: With this final substitution we arrive at the
198: expression in equation (1), which explicitly shows the dependence of $\phi$
199: on $M/R$ and $\hat b$, and is well defined and non singular.
200: As $\hat b$ varies from 0 to 1, $\phi$ varies from 0 to $\phi_{max}$,
201: the maximum value of $\phi$, which is attained when a photon is emitted
202: tangentially to the stellar surface. We note several interesting limiting
203: cases; for $M/R = 0$, 0.284, 0.331, 0.33333, we have $\phi_{max} = \pi/2$,
204: $\pi$, $2\pi$, and $\infty$, respectively. The last case, $\phi_{max} =
205: \infty$, corresponds to the bound photon orbit at $M/R = 1/3$.
206:
207: To compute the flux as a function of rotational phase we first invert
208: $\phi\; (\hat b, M/R)$ numerically to obtain tables of $\hat b$ as a function
209: of $\phi$ and $M/R$. We use Gaussian quadratures to solve the integral
210: numerically. The method is fast and converges quickly.
211: For a given $M/R$ and each $\phi = \cos^{-1} (\vec r
212: \cdot \vec r_{obs})$ we then find $\hat b$ and compute $\cos\psi =
213: (1 - \hat b^2 )^{1/2}$.
214: The observed flux is then given by $\int I_{\nu} \cos\psi\; d\Omega$, where
215: $I_{\nu}$ is the local specific intensity at the surface of the neutron star,
216: and the integral is carried out over the hot spot or spots. For the specific
217: intensity we use both an isotropic emission function, $I_{\nu} = 1$ and an
218: angular dependent beaming function consistent with emission from a grey
219: scattering atmosphere, $I_{\nu} = 3/5 \cos\psi + 2/5$ (see Chandrasekhar 1960).
220: Such a function should be appropriate for bursting neutron star atmospheres
221: which are dominated by Thomson scattering (London, Taam, \& Howard 1986).
222: Figure 2 shows several examples of light-curves computed with our model using
223: one hot spot and different values of $M/R$. The decrease in modulation
224: amplitude with increasing compactness is clearly evident.
225:
226: \section{Data Analysis Procedures and Results}
227:
228: We searched the available RXTE data from 4U 1636-53 and 4U 1728-34 for bursts
229: and selected for analysis four from 4U 1636-53 and two from 4U 1728-34 which
230: showed particularly strong oscillations during the rising phase. The data are
231: in the form of X-ray event times recorded with 125 $\mu$s resolution across
232: the full 2 - 90 keV PCA bandpass.
233: In order to fit our model we first break up the rising interval from each burst
234: into a number, $n_{interval}$, of contiguous subintervals. Within each
235: subinterval we epoch fold the data into $n_{bin}$ phase bins using the
236: oscillation frequency determined from a power spectral analysis of the entire
237: rising interval. We then perform a $\chi^2$ minimization by computing
238: $\chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^N (O_i - M_i)^2 / \sigma^2 $. Here $O_i$ and $M_i$ are
239: the numbers of observed and predicted counts, respectively, in the
240: $i$$^{\rm th}$ data bin. For $\sigma^2$ we use the Poisson variance, which is
241: simply equal to the number of counts in the bin. In general we also add a
242: constant background level to the model as a way of modeling the pre-burst,
243: accretion driven flux, which we assume is not associated with the burst. This
244: also implies a tacit assumption that the accretion driven flux is not
245: significantly altered by the burst. This quantity is well determined by the
246: pre-burst data, so typically we do not treat it as a model parameter. In
247: general the total length of data that we fit does not extend all the way to
248: the peak of the burst for a number of reasons. The oscillation has usually
249: dropped below our detection threshold before the peak is reached and often
250: episodes of radius expansion also begin before the count rate reaches a
251: maximum. In general, our assumptions regarding the growth of the hot spot
252: should be most valid the closer we remain to the onset of the burst. This also
253: tends to maximize our signal to noise ratio in data from a given burst since
254: the modulation amplitude is largest near burst onset.
255:
256: We minimize $\chi^2$ using the Marquardt-Levenberg method and we can
257: simultaneously vary all seven model parameters. Our choice regarding the number
258: of data bins is a tradeoff between having sufficient counts in each bin and the
259: need to have enough time resolution to adequately model the rise of the burst
260: and hence constrain the hot spot spreading speed, $\dot\alpha$. In general we
261: found that $n_{region} = 8$ and $n_{bin} = 8$ gave the best results. With this
262: choice we have a total of 64 data bins. We also restrict $M/R \le 0.284$, the
263: limit beyond which photons from a given point on the stellar surface can reach
264: the observer along more than one unique path. In general we find acceptable
265: fits using both one and two hot spots for both sources. In the remainder we
266: will summarize our results and discuss the implications for neutron star
267: compactness, concentrating on the two spot fits for 4U 1636-53 for the reasons
268: outlined above.
269:
270: \subsection{Antipodal Hot Spot Models}
271:
272: Our best fitting models for bursts from 4U 1636-53 using two antipodal hot
273: spots and the grey atmosphere intensity function are summarized in Table 1,
274: where for each burst we give the observation date, the length of the time
275: interval in which we fit the data, the best fitting model parameters and the
276: minimum $\chi^2$. For these fits we have fixed to zero both the spot latitude,
277: $\theta_s$ and the observers latitude, $\theta_{obs}$, and we used 64 data
278: bins. With 5 free parameters we therefore have 59 degrees of freedom. Our
279: minimum $\chi^2$ values are all statistically acceptable, indicating that the
280: simple rotating hot spot model is consistent with the data. In Figure 3 we
281: show the two spot fits for each of the four bursts from 4U 1636-53. Each panel
282: shows the count rate in the PCA for the rising interval of a burst. The bursts
283: are labelled by date. The vertical dashed lines denote the region in which we
284: fit our model. The solid curve shows the best fitting model {\it extrapolated}
285: to the time at which the entire surface of the neutron star is covered by the
286: hot spots. The time resolution in these plots is not sufficient to
287: resolve the oscillations, rather, this figure is meant to give the reader an
288: assessment of how well the model does in describing the gross time evolution of
289: each burst. There are several things to note from Figure 3. First, the fits
290: {\it within} each interval are quite good, and they also extrapolate beyond
291: the fitting interval rather well over a limited portion of the burst rise.
292: The deviations at later times are not unexpected since in several of these
293: bursts episodes of photospheric radius expansion begin at about the same time
294: as the model begins to deviate from the burst rise. Indeed the burst on
295: 08/20/98 did not show radius expansion and in this case the model extrapolates
296: rather well for most of the rise. All the other bursts show radius expansion
297: near the time that the model deviates from the data. Second, the maximum count
298: rates inferred from our model for bursts 12/28/96 and 08/19/98 are quite
299: similar. Since these bursts were quite similar in their peak fluxes, the model
300: normalizations, which can be thought of as an averaged description of the
301: thermonuclear burning, should also be similar and indeed they are. Note that
302: though these two bursts have similar peak fluxes they do not have similar rise
303: times, and our model succesfully accounts for this difference.
304: Although the models are clearly inadequate to describe the details of the
305: {\it entire} burst rise, they do better the closer one stays to the burst
306: onset, and this behavior is the most relevant with regard to fitting the
307: oscillations and constraining $M/R$.
308:
309: Figure 4 graphically illustrates how well the model can fit the observed
310: oscillations by comparing the best fit model and data for several different
311: fits to the 12/28/96 burst from 4U 1636-53. Shown are the best fitting two
312: spot model with $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (solid); the best fitting one
313: spot model with $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (dashed); and the best fitting
314: one spot model with all parameters free to vary (dotted). Since fits to the
315: other bursts all look very similar we did not feel it was essential to show
316: similar plots for each individual burst.
317:
318: The derived best-fit compactness for the four bursts from 4U 1636-53 span a
319: rather tight range from $\beta = 0.075$ to $0.134$. In Figure 5 we show the
320: best-fit values of $M/R$ and their uncertainties. We fit a constant,
321: $\beta_{avg}$, to the four values and find they are consistent with a single
322: value for the compactness of $\beta_{avg} = 0.126$ (solid horizontal line in
323: Figure 5). The $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom for the fit was 0.2.
324: In order to derive a firm upper limit on the compactness we investigated
325: the confidence region for $\beta_{avg}$ and found the values
326: of $\beta$ which increased $\chi^2$ by 2.71 (for $90\%$ confidence) and 6.63
327: (for $99\%$ confidence). These values are also shown in Figure 5 as the
328: dashed ($90\%$) and dot-dashed ($99\%$) horizontal lines in Figure 5. The
329: derived upper limits are $\beta_{90\%} = 0.163$ and $\beta_{99\%} = 0.183$.
330:
331: Since we do not in general know the orientation of the binary systems in
332: which the neutron stars reside we performed the fitting under the assumption
333: that the hot spot and observer are both in the plane of the rotational equator.
334: This geometry gives the maximum rotational modulation. Thus each fitted value
335: for $\beta$ from a different burst gives a measure of the maximum allowable
336: compactness of the neutron star. However, each individual measurement has
337: associated with it a rather large uncertainty. Thus, our methodology in
338: deriving an upper limit on $\beta$ is to combine a number of these independent
339: measurements in order to reduce the overall uncertainty. In this way
340: $\beta_{avg}$ is our best estimate of how large the compactness of the neutron
341: star is, but this estimate too is not exact and has a confidence region
342: associated with it. It is the confidence region on $\beta_{avg}$ that we use
343: to determine a final upper limit. This may not be a unique statistical
344: methodology, but we feel it is reasonable given the nature of the other model
345: assumptions we have made. We will discuss the implications of our compactness
346: limits for the neutron star EOS in the next section.
347:
348: We also computed fits allowing the two angles $\theta_s$ and $\theta_{obs}$
349: to vary. As might be expected we find the inclusion of the additional
350: parameters improves the fits, but only marginally. With these parameters free
351: to vary we find that $M/R$ tends to decrease, and both $\theta_s$ and
352: $\theta_{obs}$ move off the rotational equator. We find, however, no
353: stationary solutions in $M/R$ with all seven parameters varying.
354: These results serve to illustrate the basic correlation between compactness and
355: the hot spot and viewing geometries. If the spot moves or is viewed away
356: from the rotational equator then the inferred value of $M/R$ must decrease in
357: order to make up for the loss of modulation amplitude produced by a less than
358: favorable geometry. Since realistic neutron star EOSs cannot support stars
359: with arbitrarily small $M/R$, if the two spot model is correct, then our
360: results suggest that the hot spots must be relatively near the rotational
361: equator in order to achieve the high observed amplitudes.
362: If the hot spots are linked to the poles of a magnetic field in 4U 1636-53
363: (see Miller 1999), then this would suggest that the magnetic axis would have
364: to be nearly perpendicular to the rotation axis. If we assume the surface
365: emission is isotropic, the fits for all the bursts are very similar, but the
366: $M/R$ values are systematically lower, with the weighted mean dropping to
367: $M/R = 0.05$. This is as expected, since isotropic emission produces a
368: lower amplitude than the grey atmosphere beaming function.
369:
370: Our results for 4U 1728-34 are quite similar to those derived for 4U 1636-53.
371: The results of the two spot fits for bursts from 4U 1728-34, with $\theta_s$
372: and $\theta_{obs}$ fixed at zero and with beamed emission are also shown in
373: Table 1. The weighted average of the two fits yields the value $M/R = 0.121$,
374: with $90\%$ and $99\%$ confidence upper limits of $0.171$ and $0.199$,
375: respectively. These are similar to the limits derived for 4U 1636-53.
376: Although no sub-harmonic has been detected for this source, the closeness of
377: the derived $M/R$ limits for the two sources is striking, and may be an
378: indication that, irrespective of the model, the actual compactness of the two
379: sources is similar.
380:
381: \subsection{One Spot Models}
382:
383: For one spot models we generally find there are no strong constraints on the
384: compactness for either source. This results from the fact that stars even as
385: compact as our computational limit, $M/R = 0.284$, can still produce a
386: sufficiently large modulation amplitude to match the data. For example, the
387: best fits for the 4U 1636-53 bursts with four parameters varying (ie., $M/R$
388: fixed at 0.284, $\theta_s$ and $\theta_{obs}$ fixed at zero), and with beamed
389: emission, give $\chi^2$ = 69.4, 66.2, 70.6, and 75.0, for each burst
390: respectively. These values are marginally higher than for the corresponding two
391: spot fits, however, from a statistical point of view they are still formally
392: acceptable. For the one spot fits we find that $\chi^2$ monotonically decreases
393: as $M/R$ increases from 0 to 0.284, but never reaches a minimum. In other words
394: we find no meaningful upper limit to the compactness, at least within the
395: confines of our model assumptions. A comparison of the $\chi^2$ values between
396: the two spot and one spot fits at first glance seems to suggest that the two
397: spot fits are better, however, this is misleading because the one spot fits are
398: not stationary in $M/R$, that is they have not converged to a minimum.
399:
400: \section{Discussion and Summary}
401:
402: We have shown that if two hot spots produce the observed modulation at 580 Hz
403: in 4U 1636-53 then the large amplitude of oscillations near burst onset
404: provide a strong constraint on the compactness. In Figure 6 we show in the
405: mass - radius plane our 90 and 99 \% confidence upper limits on the
406: compactness $\beta=M/R$ for 4U 1636-53 from our two hot spot fits. The shaded
407: region denotes the ranges of $M$ and $R$ which satisfy our compactness
408: constraint and have $M > 1.4 M_{\odot}$, which we take as a reasonable
409: estimate of the minimum mass of the neutron star in these old accreting
410: systems. We also show several theoretical neutron star EOSs which span a range
411: of stiffnesses based on current uncertainties in the exact composition
412: of neutron star matter and our incomplete knowledge of the nucleon - nucleon
413: interaction. Also shown in Figure 6 is our computational limit at
414: $M/R \le 0.284$ (solid diagonal line).
415:
416: As can be seen our results tend to favor moderately stiff to very stiff EOSs.
417: For example, our limits are comfortably consistent with EOS L
418: (Pandharipande \& Smith 1975). However, the most recent theoretical
419: calculations of neutron star EOSs which are consistent with the currently
420: available nucleon scattering data are generally not as stiff as this EOS
421: (see for example Akmal, Pandharipande \& Ravenhall 1998). For example, the best
422: EOS of Akmal, Pandharipande \& Ravenhall (1998), which is denoted APR in Figure
423: 6, is barely consistent with our $99\%$ limit. However,
424: these modern EOSs are still not rigorously self consistent, and become
425: ``superluminal'' (the sound speed exceeds the speed of light) above some
426: density. Modifications to the EOS can be made in an ad hoc manner by setting
427: the sound speed equal to the speed of light above some critical or ``matching''
428: density (see for example Heiselberg \& Hjorth-Jensen 1999) . This has the
429: effect of stiffening the EOS. Recently, Olson (2001) has
430: investigated changes to the high density EOS of neutron star matter required
431: by constraints derived from relativistic kinetic theory. In Figure 6 we show
432: two of these modifications to the APR EOS. The thick dashed lines show the
433: APR EOS modified by the kinetic theory constraints for two different matching
434: densities, 0.316 fm$^{-3}$ (APR-Kin1) and 0.270 fm$^{-3}$ (APR-Kin2)
435: (see Olson 2001 for a detailed discussion). With the kinetic theory
436: assumptions the APR EOS is now reasonably consistent with our limits.
437:
438: Recently, Lattimer \& Prakash (2000) have argued that measurements of the
439: neutron star radius to about $10\%$ precision should be sufficient to usefully
440: constrain the neutron star EOS. They showed that as long as extreme softening
441: of the EOS does not occur in the vicinity of
442: nuclear matter equilibrium density then the stellar radius is almost
443: independent of the mass. Since observed neutron star masses cluster rather
444: closely around 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ they argued that the more important quantity in
445: terms of constraining the EOS is the stellar radius. Since the neutron stars
446: in LMXBs are upwards of $10^8$ yr old and they have been accreting most of
447: their lifetime, it is very likely that they are at least more massive than the
448: $1.4 M_{\odot}$ typically found for younger neutron stars (Thorsett \&
449: Chakrabarty 1999). If this is the case, then our results place a rather firm
450: lower limit on $R$ of about 11.5 km. Such a limit is consistent with the notion
451: that extreme softening of the EOS, as can be produced by pion, kaon or other
452: hyperon condensates, does not occur in neutron star cores (see Lattimer \&
453: Prakash 2000). Since these inferences depend crucially on the two hot spot
454: hypothesis for the burst oscillations from 4U 1636-53, it is vital to try and
455: settle this issue in the near future.
456:
457: We have generally tried to employ the simplest assumptions consistent with
458: maintaining the essential physics of the model and the observed properties of
459: the bursts. For this work we have neglected the Doppler shifts and relativistic
460: aberration produced by the rapid motion of the hot spots. Although we do not
461: know the rotational velocity precisely because of our uncertainty in the
462: stellar radius and the number of hot spots, it is likely that the velocity on
463: the rotational equator is $\le 0.1\; c$. Miller \& Lamb (1998) investigated
464: the effects of the rotational velocity of a point spot on the bolometric and
465: energy dependent amplitude and showed that although such a velocity can have
466: important effects on the amplitude measured at particular photon energies,
467: they also showed that the effect on the bolometric amplitude of the rotational
468: velocity is very modest (see their Figure 1d; see also Weinberg, Miller \&
469: Lamb 2000). The calculations of Miller \& Lamb (1998) were for point-like spots
470: and hence represent upper limits to the size of any rotational effect. Since
471: our model uses spots of a finite and growing angular size, the rotational
472: effects, which represent an integral of the line of sight rotational velocity
473: over the hot spot, must be less than the estimates computed by Miller \& Lamb
474: (1998). The amplitude of higher harmonics is more sensitive to the rotational
475: velocity; however, the present RXTE data are not very sensitive to the shape
476: of the pulses, i.e., we do not detect any higher harmonics, nor do we know of
477: any published reports of significant harmonics of burst oscillations. Based on
478: this and because we only investigate the bolometric amplitude we believe we are
479: justified in neglecting the Doppler effects for the present work. However, by
480: not investigating the energy dependent effects we are indeed ignoring some
481: useful information which can eventually help provide more powerful constraints
482: on $M$ and $R$. We plan to improve our model by including these energy
483: dependent effects and will report the results from such a study in a sequel.
484:
485: Using our model we have also begun to investigate the constraints that can be
486: obtained with data of a higher statistical precision than presently available.
487: We have found that the present RXTE data is essentially insufficient for
488: constraining the hot spot and viewing geometry. However, if the count rate
489: were increased by a factor of 10 - 20 times the RXTE rate then our simulations
490: suggest that it will be possible to simultaneously constrain both the stellar
491: compactness and the hot spot and viewing geometries. Thus future large area
492: timing experiments, such as the proposed Timing of Extreme X-ray
493: Astrophysical Sources (TEXAS) experiment, will be extremely powerful tools for
494: probing the structure of neutron stars.
495:
496: \acknowledgements
497:
498: We thank Cole Miller, Craig Markwardt and Tim Olson for many helpful
499: discussions and comments on the manuscript. We thank Cole Miller for
500: providing some of the mass - radius relations for the equations of state
501: shown in Figure 6. We also thank Tim Olson for providing the mass radius
502: relations based on kinetic theory constraints to the APR equation of state.
503:
504: \vfill\eject
505:
506: \begin{thebibliography}
507:
508: \bibitem{APR}Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R. \& Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys.
509: Rev. C, 58, 1804
510: \bibitem{Chandra60}Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative Transfer (New York: Dover)
511: \bibitem{cs}Chen, K. \& Shaham, J. 1989, ApJ, 339, 279
512: \bibitem{Heise}Heise, J. et al. 2000, Talk presented at AAS HEAD meeting,
513: Honolulu, HI
514: \bibitem{HH}Heiselberg, H. \& Hjorth-Jensen, M. 1999, ApJ, 525, L45
515: \bibitem{Joss}Joss, P. C. 1978, ApJ, 225, L123
516: \bibitem{LP}Lattimer, J. M. \& Prakash, M. 2000, ApJ, in press,
517: (astro-ph/0002232)
518: \bibitem{LTH}London, R. A., Taam, R. E. \& Howard, W. M. 1986, ApJ, 306, 170
519: \bibitem{ML96}Miller, M. C. \& Lamb, F. K. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1033
520: \bibitem{ML98}Miller, M.C. \& Lamb, F.K. 1998, ApJ, 499, L37
521: \bibitem{Miller}Miller, M.C. 1999, ApJ, 515, L77
522: \bibitem{MLP}Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K. \& Psaltis, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 791
523: \bibitem{MVV}Mendez, M., van der Klis, M. \& van Paradijs, J. 1998, ApJ, 506,
524: L117
525: \bibitem{O01}Olson, T. S. 2001, Phys. Rev. C, 63, 015802
526: \bibitem{PSb}Pandharipande, V. R., \& Smith, R. A. 1975, Phys. Lett., 59B, 15
527: \bibitem{PFC}Pechenick, K. R., Ftaclas, C. \& Cohen, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 846
528: \bibitem{POD}Psaltis, D. Ozel, F. \& DeDeo, S. 2001, ApJ, in press,
529: (astro-ph/0004387)
530: \bibitem{stroh01}Strohmayer, T. E. 2001, Advances Sp. Res. submitted,
531: (astro-ph/0012516)
532: \bibitem{s98a}Strohmayer, T. E., Zhang, W., Swank, J. H., White, N. E. \&
533: Lapidus, I. 1998a, ApJ, 498, L135
534: \bibitem{SJGL}Strohmayer, T. E., Jahoda, K., Giles, A. B. \& Lee, U. 1997,
535: ApJ, 486, 355
536: \bibitem{SZS}Strohmayer, T.E., Zhang, W., \& Swank, J.H. 1997, ApJ, 487, L77
537: \bibitem[Strohmayer et al. (1996)]{Stroh96} Strohmayer, T. E., Zhang, W.,
538: Swank, J. H., Smale, A. P., Titarchuk, L., Day, C. \& Lee, U. 1996, ApJ, 469,
539: L9
540: \bibitem{S92}Strohmayer, T. E. 1992, ApJ, 388, 138
541: \bibitem{TC}Thorsett, S. E. \& Chakrabarty, D. 1999, ApJ, 512, 288
542: \bibitem{WML}Weinberg, N., Miller, M. C. \& Lamb, D. Q. 2000, ApJ, submitted,
543: (astro-ph/0001544)
544:
545: \end{thebibliography}
546:
547: \newpage
548: \section{Figure Captions}
549:
550: \figcaption[f1.ps]{Geometry for calculation of the flux from a hot
551: spot on a rotating neutron star. Here the hot spot is situated on the
552: rotational equator. See the text for a description of the relationship between
553: the angles $\phi$, $\psi$ and the impact parameter, $b$. \label{fig1}}
554:
555: \vskip 10pt
556:
557: \figcaption[f2.ps]{Light-curves generated with the
558: rotating hot spot model for different values of the neutron star compactness.
559: Notice the decrease in amplitude with increasing compactness. Note also the
560: decrease in amplitude and increase in flux as the hot spot spreads to encompass
561: the entire surface. These models were computed with one hot spot assuming
562: isotropic emission from the surface. The top three curves have been displaced
563: vertically for clarity. The qualitative behavior of the amplitude with
564: compactness, $M/R$, using the grey atmosphere beaming function is the same,
565: only the modulation amplitudes differ slightly. \label{fig2}}
566:
567: \vskip 10pt
568:
569: \figcaption[f3.ps]{Model fits to the bursts from 4U 1636-53. Each
570: panel shows the data (histogram) and model (thick solid curve) fit to the
571: rising portion of a burst. The dashed vertical lines denote the time interval
572: in which we fit the hot spot model. The extent of each model curve covers the
573: total time it takes for the hot spots to envelope the entire neutron star
574: surface. The bursts are labelled by date. \label{fig3}}
575:
576: \vskip 10pt
577:
578: \figcaption[f4.ps]{Data and best fit models for several
579: fits to the December 28th, 1996 burst from 4U 1636-53. Shown are fits using
580: two hot spots with $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (solid); one hot spot with
581: $M/R$ fixed at 0.284 and $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (dashed); and one hot
582: spot with $\theta_s$ and $\theta_{obs}$ free to vary (dotted). All the fits
583: shown were computed with the grey atmosphere beaming function. \label{fig4}}
584:
585: \vskip 10pt
586:
587: \figcaption[f5.ps]{Compactness constraints for the four bursts
588: from 4U 1636-53. The solid horizontal line is the best fitting constant value
589: of compactness, $\beta_{avg}$. The dashed and dot-dashed lines are the 90 and
590: $99\%$ confidence upper limits on $\beta_{avg}$. The burst number corresponds
591: to their position in Table 1. \label{fig5}}
592:
593: \vskip 10pt
594:
595: \figcaption[f6.ps]{Summary of mass radius constraints from
596: fits to bursts from 4U 1636-53 using the two spot model and the grey atmosphere
597: beaming function. The diagonal dashed lines show the 90 and 99 \% confidence
598: upper limits for $M/R$ from the four fits in Table 1 (see also Figure 5). The
599: shaded region is the allowed range of $M$ and $R$ which satisfies the
600: compactness constraints and has $M > 1.4 M_{\odot}$. The solid diagonal line
601: corresponds to our computational limit, $M/R = 0.284$.
602: The other curves show mass - radius relations for equations of state FPS
603: (Lorenz et al. 1993), L (Pandharipande \& Smith 1975b), and APR (Akmal,
604: Pandharipande \& Ravenhall 1998), which range from very soft (FPS) to very
605: stiff (L). We also show two different modifications to the APR EOS based on the
606: relativistic kinetic theory constraints of Olson (2001) (thick dashed curves).
607: The two curves correspond to the use of different matching densities for the
608: high density kinetic theory constraints (see \S 5 and Olson 2001). The results
609: favor stiffer equations of state with $R > 11.5$ km for a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$
610: neutron star. \label{fig6}}
611:
612: \newpage
613:
614: \begin{figure}
615: \begin{center}
616: \includegraphics[width=6in,height=7.2in]{f1.ps}
617: \end{center}
618:
619: Figure 1: Geometry for calculation of the flux from a hot
620: spot on a rotating neutron star. Here the hot spot is situated on the
621: rotational equator. See the text for a description of the relationship between
622: the angles $\phi$, $\psi$ and the impact parameter, $b$.
623: \end{figure}
624:
625: \clearpage
626:
627: \begin{figure}
628: \begin{center}
629: \includegraphics[width=6in, height=7in, angle=90]{f2.ps}
630: \end{center}
631:
632: Figure 2: Light-curves generated with the
633: rotating hot spot model for different values of the neutron star compactness.
634: Notice the decrease in amplitude with increasing compactness. Note also the
635: decrease in amplitude and increase in flux as the hot spot spreads to encompass
636: the entire surface. These models were computed with one hot spot assuming
637: isotropic emission from the surface. The top three curves have been displaced
638: vertically for clarity. The curves were computed using isotropic emission from
639: the surface, the qualitative behavior of the amplitude with compactness,
640: $M/R$, using the grey atmosphere beaming function is the same, only the
641: modulation amplitudes differ slightly.
642: \end{figure}
643:
644: \clearpage
645:
646: \begin{figure}
647: \begin{center}
648: \includegraphics[width=5in, height=6in]{f3.ps}
649: \end{center}
650: \vskip 10 pt
651: Figure 3: Model fits to the bursts from 4U 1636-53. Each
652: panel shows the data (histogram) and model (thick solid curve) fit to the
653: rising portion of a burst. The dashed vertical lines denote the time interval
654: in which we fit the hot spot model. The extent of each model curve covers the
655: total time it takes for the hot spots to envelope the entire neutron star
656: surface. The bursts are labelled by date.
657: \end{figure}
658:
659: \clearpage
660:
661: \begin{figure}
662: \begin{center}
663: \includegraphics[width=6in, height=6in,angle=90]{f4.ps}
664: \end{center}
665:
666: Figure 4: Data and best fit models for several
667: fits to the December 28th, 1996 burst from 4U 1636-53. Shown are fits using
668: two hot spots with $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (solid); one hot spot with
669: $M/R$ fixed at 0.284 and $\theta_s = \theta_{obs} = 0$ (dashed); and one hot
670: spot with $\theta_s$ and $\theta_{obs}$ free to vary (dotted). All the fits
671: shown were computed with the grey atmosphere beaming function.
672: \end{figure}
673:
674: \clearpage
675:
676: \begin{figure}
677: \begin{center}
678: \includegraphics[width=6in, height=5in]{f5.ps}
679: \end{center}
680: \vskip 10 pt
681:
682: Figure 5: Compactness constraints for the four bursts from 4U 1636-53. The
683: solid horizontal line is the best fitting constant value of compactness,
684: $\beta_{avg}$. The dashed and dot-dashed lines are the 90 and $99\%$
685: confidence upper limits on $\beta_{avg}$. The burst number corresponds
686: to their position in Table 1.
687: \end{figure}
688:
689: \clearpage
690:
691: \begin{figure}
692: \begin{center}
693: \includegraphics[width=6in, height=5in]{f6.ps}
694: \end{center}
695:
696: Figure 6: Summary of mass radius constraints from
697: fits to bursts from 4U 1636-53 using the two spot model and the grey atmosphere
698: beaming function. The diagonal dashed lines show the 90 and 99 \% confidence
699: upper limits for $M/R$ from the four fits in Table 1 (see also Figure 5). The
700: shaded region is the allowed range of $M$ and $R$ which satisfies the
701: compactness constraints and has $M > 1.4 M_{\odot}$. The solid diagonal line
702: corresponds to our computational limit, $M/R = 0.284$.
703: The other curves show mass - radius relations for equations of state FPS
704: (Lorenz et al. 1993), L (Pandharipande \& Smith 1975b), and APR (Akmal,
705: Pandharipande \& Ravenhall 1998), which range from very soft (FPS) to very
706: stiff (L). We also show two different modifications to the APR EOS based on the
707: relativistic kinetic theory constraints of Olson (2001) (thick dashed curves).
708: The two curves correspond to the use of different matching densities for the
709: high density kinetic theory constraints (see \S 5 and Olson 2001). The results
710: favor stiffer equations of state with $R > 11.5$ km for a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$
711: neutron star.
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: \clearpage
715:
716: \hoffset -55pt
717: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
718: \rotate
719: \tablecolumns{8}
720: \tablewidth{0pc}
721: \tablecaption{Summary of Fits to Burst Oscillations in 4U1636-53 and
722: 4U 1728-34\tablenotemark{a}}
723: \tablehead{\colhead{Epoch (UTC)} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{fit}$ (s)} &
724: \colhead{$\beta = M/R$} & \colhead{$S$ (cts s$^{-1}$ ster$^{-1}$)
725: \tablenotemark{c}} &
726: \colhead{$\alpha_0$ (deg)} & \colhead{$\dot\alpha$ (deg s$^{-1}$)} &
727: \colhead{$\delta_0$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\chi^2$} }
728: \startdata
729: \cutinhead{4U 1636-53}
730: 12/28/96 at 22:39:34 & 0.276 & $0.134\pm 0.037$ & $1641.6$ &
731: $6.41\pm 1.6$ & $222.9\pm 39.6$ & $116.7$ & 53.6 \\
732: 08/19/98 at 11:47:07 & 0.303 & $0.133\pm 0.056$ & $1716.1$ &
733: $14.38\pm 3.8$ & $130.7\pm 54.3$ & 81.0 & 63.7 \\
734: 08/20/98 at 05:16:35 & 0.496 & $0.075\pm 0.072$ & 882.1 &
735: $8.66\pm 3.0$ & $69.5\pm 36.0$ & -3.0 & 65.3 \\
736: 06/18/99 at 23:50:10 & 0.460 & $0.127\pm 0.037$ & 1272.3 &
737: $6.70\pm 1.4$ & $102.4\pm 22.2$ & 14.8 & 61.5 \\
738: \cutinhead{4U 1728-34}
739: 02/16/96 at 10:00:49 & 0.221 & $0.113\pm 0.042$ & 1238.7 &
740: $9.1\pm 2.2$ & $370.8\pm 39.6$ & 102.7 & 69.7 \\
741: 09/21/97 at 18:10:56 & 0.354 & $0.130\pm 0.043$ & 1001.9 &
742: $7.4\pm 2.0$ & $181.8\pm 32.4$ & 142.1 & 54.6 \\
743: \enddata
744: \tablenotetext{a}{All fits are for two hot spots assuming the grey
745: atmosphere beaming function, and have 59 degrees of freedom.}
746: \tablenotetext{b}{The initial phase is an azimuthal angle, measured with
747: respect to the observers direction, and counted positive in the
748: anti-clockwise rotational direction of the neutron star. It can be determined
749: to $\lesssim 1\%$.}
750: \tablenotetext{c}{The normalization $S$ is given in terms of the counting
751: rate per unit solid angle of the neutron star covered by the hot spot(s). For
752: example, the peak counting rate can be determined for a given burst by
753: multiplying $S$ by $4\pi$. The uncertainty in $S$ is typically about $30\%$.
754: This results from the fact that $S$ is strongly correlated with both
755: $\dot\alpha$ and $\beta$.}
756: \end{deluxetable}
757:
758: \end{document}
759:
760:
761:
762:
763: