1:
2: %% --------------------------------------------------------------------
3: %% Wed Apr 17 15:44:39 2002
4: %% This file was generated automagically from the files
5: %% Scint.bbl and Scint.tex using
6: %% /home/office/sord/cvshome/tex/papers/steve/LocalTex/nat2jour.pl
7: %% All citations have been inlined and dependencies on the natbib
8: %% package have been removed so that this file (together with
9: %% Scint-aas.bbl) should be suitable for submission to journals with
10: %% the citation styles of ApJ or MNRAS.
11: %% --------------------------------------------------------------------
12:
13: %% LyX 1.1 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
14: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
15: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
16: \usepackage{amsmath}
17: %\usepackage{natbib}
18: \setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
19: \usepackage{graphics}
20:
21: \makeatletter
22:
23: \shorttitle{The Scintillation Velocity of PSR~J1141--6545}
24: \shortauthors{Ord et al.}
25: \makeatother
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29:
30: \title{The Scintillation \\
31: Velocity of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR~J1141--6545}
32:
33:
34: \author{S. M. Ord, M. Bailes and W. van Straten}
35:
36:
37: \affil{Swinburne University of Technology, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing,
38: Mail 31, P. O. Box 218, VIC 3122, Australia}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41:
42: We report a dramatic orbital modulation in the scintillation timescale of the
43: relativistic binary pulsar J1141--6545 that both confirms
44: the validity of the scintillation speed methodology and
45: enables us to derive important physical parameters.
46: We have determined the space velocity,
47: the orbital inclination and even
48: the longitude of periastron of the binary system, which we find to be in
49: good agreement with that obtained from pulse timing measurements.
50: Our data permit two equally-significant physical interpretations
51: of the system. The system is either an edge-on binary with
52: a high space velocity ($\sim 115$~km~s$^{-1}$)
53: or is more face-on with a much slower
54: velocity ($\sim 45$~km~s$^{-1}$).
55: We favor the former, as it is more consistent with
56: pulse timing and the distribution of known neutron star masses.
57: Under this assumption, the runaway velocity of 115~km~s$^{-1}$
58: is much greater than
59: is expected if pulsars do not receive a natal kick at birth.
60: The derived inclination of the binary system is \( 76\pm 2.5^{\circ } \)
61: degrees, implying a companion mass of 1.01~\( \pm \)~0.02 M\( _{\odot } \)
62: and a pulsar mass of 1.29~\( \pm \)~0.02 M\( _{\odot } \).
63: Our derived physical parameters
64: indicate that this pulsar should prove to be an excellent laboratory for
65: tests of gravitational wave emission.
66:
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \keywords{pulsars:general -- pulsars:individual PSR~J1141--6545 -- pulsars:binary -- ISM:
70: scintillation}
71:
72:
73: \section{Introduction}
74:
75: The scintillation observed in the radio wavelength emission from
76: pulsars is considered to be a result of diffraction of the incident
77: wave front around small scale irregularities in the interstellar
78: medium (ISM) (Rickett 1969). The characteristic timescale for these
79: scintillation events can be hours, minutes, or even seconds and is
80: highly dependent upon a number of factors: the distance to the source;
81: the relative velocities of the source, observer and scattering
82: material; the observing frequency; and the structure and distribution
83: of the ISM (Cordes, Pidwerbetsky, \& Lovelace 1986; {Cordes} \& {Rickett} 1998). It has long been considered possible that
84: observations of binary pulsars would reveal a modulation in
85: scintillation velocity due to their orbital motion relative to the
86: scattering medium (Lyne \& Smith 1982). Such orbital modulation in the
87: scintillation velocity of a binary pulsar has been significantly
88: detected only in the circular binary PSR~B0655+64 (Lyne 1984).
89: Dewey {et~al.} (1988) have reported a weak orbital
90: modulation of scintillation velocity in observations of PSR~B1855+09 and PSR~B1913+16, but were
91: unable to constrain any system parameters.
92:
93: The ideal pulsar for such measurements would scintillate on timescales
94: much smaller than the orbital period and have enough flux to obtain
95: high signal-to-noise ratios within the scintillation timescale. In
96: addition, the orbital period should be much less than the timescale
97: for changes in the scintillation parameters due to macroscopic
98: variations in the structure of the ISM. Finally, the pulsar should
99: display large variations in its transverse orbital velocity.
100:
101: The relativistic binary pulsar, PSR~J1141--6545, was recently discovered in the
102: Parkes multibeam pulsar survey (Kaspi {et~al.} 2000). It has a spin period (\( P \))
103: of 394~ms, a very narrow (\( 0.01P \)) pulse, a dispersion measure of 116 pc~cm$^{-3}$ and is in an eccentric,
104: 4.7~hr orbit. It is thought to be a member of a new class of object
105: that has a young neutron star in an eccentric orbit with a massive $\sim$1 M$_{\odot}$\,
106: white dwarf companion. Kaspi {et~al.} (2000) found no evidence for
107: scintillation. We have searched specifically for short--timescale
108: scintillation and found that the pulsar scintillates on timescales of
109: minutes with a characteristic bandwidth of just $\sim$1 MHz at a central observing frequency of 1390~MHz. At the
110: Parkes 64\,m observatory it completes two orbits during its transit time,
111: changes velocity by over 200~km~s$^{-1}$, and has a short orbital
112: period. In every respect, this pulsar is an ideal target for
113: scintillation work. Recent neutral Hydrogen observations
114: (Ord, Bailes \& van Straten 2002)\nocite{obs02} place the binary
115: at least as distant as the Carina--Sagittarius spiral arm, which is 3.7~kpc
116: away in the direction of PSR~J1141--6545.
117:
118: Unlike their progenitors, the massive O and B stars, radio pulsars
119: have very large space velocities of up to 1000~km~s$^{-1}$
120: (Lyne, Anderson, \& Salter 1982; Bailes {et~al.} 1989; Harrison, Lyne, \& Anderson 1992). The origin of pulsar velocities is difficult to
121: ascertain as individual pulsars give little clues regarding the
122: responsible physical mechanism (Radhakrishnan \& Shukre 1986; Dewey \& Cordes 1987; Bailes 1989). Eccentric
123: binary pulsars, on the other hand, are fossil records of the state of
124: a binary before detonation of the pulsar progenitor. In the absence
125: of a natal kick, a binary pulsar has a well-defined relationship
126: between its eccentricity, the amount of mass ejected during the
127: formation of the neutron star, and the runaway
128: velocity (Radhakrishnan \& Shukre 1986). However, eccentric binary pulsars are rare and it
129: has not been possible to make a definitive statement about kicks from
130: an analysis of their space velocities and orbital
131: configurations (Cordes \& Wasserman 1984; Hughes \& Bailes 1999; Wex, Kalogera, \& Kramer 2000).
132: Kaspi {et~al.} (1996) have shown that the massive binary PSR
133: J0045--7319 has a precessing orbit consistent with the pulsar
134: receiving an impulsive kick at birth. In the case of PSR J1141--6545,
135: the space velocity, had the pulsar received no natal
136: kick, should be small as the eccentricity is low.
137: But evolutionary arguments concerning the minimum diameter
138: of the progenitor ({Tauris} \& {Sennels} 2000) suggest that its
139: runaway velocity should be at least 150~km~s$^{-1}$.
140:
141: In this paper, we present the detection of an orbital modulation of
142: the scintillation velocity in observations of PSR~J1141--6545. The
143: effect is very significant, permitting the determination of a number
144: of system parameters. Measurements have been obtained of the most
145: probable space velocity and inclination of this system, as well
146: as the longitude of periastron. As with the analysis of PSR~B0655+64 by
147: Lyne (1984), there is a clear degeneracy between two distinct
148: solutions of equal significance. In this case, however, the
149: degeneracy can be broken: one of the solutions indicates an
150: unreasonably low neutron star mass.
151: The structure of this paper is as follows: in section 2 we describe
152: our observations and methodology for determining the scintillation
153: parameters; section 3 describes the model and our fitted
154: results; finally, in section 4 we discuss the results and their
155: implications for future relativistic observables and the origin of
156: pulsar velocities.
157:
158: \section{The Observations and Data Reduction}
159:
160: PSR J1141--6545 was observed on the 27th of January 2002 for
161: approximately ten hours, using the Parkes 64\,m radio telescope. The
162: \( 512\times0 .5 \) MHz filterbank centred at 1390 MHz was used with
163: the centre element of the Parkes multi-beam receiver
164: (Staveley-Smith {et~al.} 1996). In each filterbank channel, the
165: power in both linear polarisations was detected and summed before
166: 1~bit sampling the total intensity every 250 $\mu$s. The results were
167: written to magnetic tape for offline processing.
168:
169: Average pulse profiles were produced by folding the raw data in each
170: 500 kHz frequency channel modulo the topocentric pulse period. An
171: integration time of 29 seconds provided sufficient resolution to
172: resolve the scintillation structure throughout the orbit. For each
173: profile, the mean level of the off-pulse region was subtracted from
174: that of the on-pulse region to produce a dynamic spectrum. Figure
175: \ref{dynamic} shows the clear orbital modulation of the dynamic
176: spectrum. In each orbital period, there is an obvious apparent
177: vertical ``blurring'' as the scintillation timescale varies.
178:
179: In order to model the physical parameters of the binary system, we
180: require estimates of the pulsar's velocity as a function of orbital
181: phase. Individual measurements of the transverse velocity were
182: obtained at different epochs throughout the observation by determining
183: the scintillation timescale and bandwidth. These were derived from
184: the two-dimensional auto-correlation function (ACF).
185:
186: Individual ACFs were calculated over a small region of the dataset
187: that spanned approximately 12 minutes in the time domain and 24 MHz in
188: the frequency domain. A two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (FFT)
189: was calculated and multiplied by its complex conjugate to form the
190: ACF. To improve the signal-to-noise ratio, a single ACF was formed at
191: each timestep by combining all the ACFs produced across the bandpass.
192: The scintillation timescale was defined to be the $1/e$ full width of a Gaussian
193: fit to the central peak of the ACF in the direction of increasing
194: time-lag. Following convention (Cordes~1986), the scintillation bandwidth was defined to be half the
195: width at half-height of a Gaussian fit across the frequency lags.
196:
197: By moving the ACF window through the dynamic spectrum with a timestep
198: of one time lag, or 29 seconds, scintillation parameters were assigned a
199: time corresponding to the central lag of the ACF. These values were
200: integrated into 32 binary phase bins using the ephemeris presented by
201: Kaspi {et~al.} (2000). The value of the scintillation velocity was
202: determined using the following relationship.
203:
204: \begin{equation}
205: \label{viss}
206: V_{\rm ISS}=2.53\times 10^{4}\frac{\left( D\Delta \nu _{\rm d}\right) ^{1/2}}{f\tau _{\rm d}}
207: \end{equation}
208:
209:
210: Equation \ref{viss} is after Cordes and Rickett (1998)\nocite{cr98}. \(V_{\rm
211: ISS} \) is the scintillation velocity, \( D \) is the
212: earth-pulsar distance in kpc, \( \Delta\nu _{\rm d} \) is the
213: scintillation bandwidth in MHz and \( \tau _{\rm d} \) is the
214: scintillation timescale in seconds. The constant multiplicative
215: factor is the value determined by Cordes and Rickett (1998) for
216: a uniform Kolmogorov scattering medium. The distance used was
217: 3.7~kpc (Ord, Bailes \& van Straten 2002)\nocite{obs02}. Any
218: uncertainty is incorporated into a scaling parameter within the
219: model.
220:
221:
222: %The
223: %best-fit value of this parameter can be used to infer the distance to
224: %the scattering screen in terms of the earth-pulsar distance.
225:
226: This process produced the scintillation velocity as a function of mean
227: orbital anomaly. The system is significantly eccentric ($e\sim0.17$)
228: and the model described in \S \ref{model} constructs the velocity as a
229: function of true, not mean, orbital anomaly. We therefore transform
230: the observed scintillation velocity into a function of eccentric
231: anomaly, $\eta$, by an iterative solution of Kepler's equation,
232: $\epsilon =\eta +e\sin {\eta }$, where \( \epsilon \) is the mean
233: anomaly. Eccentric anomaly is converted into true anomaly, $\theta$,
234: via a simple trigonometric relationship:
235: \begin{equation}
236: \label{trig}
237: \tan {\frac{{\theta }}{2}}=\sqrt{{{\frac{{1+e}}{1-e}}}}\tan {\frac{{\eta }}{2}}.
238: \end{equation}
239:
240: \section{The Model}
241:
242: \label{model} To determine the most probable runaway velocity and inclination
243: angle of this system, we constructed a model that calculated the
244: transverse velocity as a function of five free parameters. These were:
245: the components of the transverse velocity
246: along and perpendicular to the
247: \textit{line of nodes}, \( v_{\rm plane} \), and
248: \( v_{\rm per} \), respectively; the orbital inclination angle,
249: $i$; a scaling factor, $\kappa$; and the longitude of periastron, $\omega$.
250: The latter is accurately determined by pulse timing, and allows us
251: to confirm the validity of our results.
252:
253: The orbital velocity was calculated as a function of true orbital
254: anomaly \( (\theta ) \) and broken into a radial component directed
255: toward the focus of the orbital ellipse in the line of nodes (\( v_{\rm r}
256: \)), the second component was perpendicular to \( v_{\rm r} \) and in the
257: direction of the orbital motion, \( v_{\theta } \).
258:
259: In this framework, the space velocity as a function of true orbital anomaly
260: is given by:
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: \textstyle v_{\rm r} & = & \frac{{2\pi xc}}{\sin i(1-e^{2})^{1/2}P_{\rm b}}e\sin {\theta }\\
263: v_{\theta } & = & \frac{2{\pi }xc}{\sin i(1-e^{2})^{1/2}P_{\rm b}}(1+e\cos {\theta })
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: where the observable $x=(a/c) \sin i$ is the
266: projected semi-major axis in seconds,
267: \( a \) is the semi-major axis of orbit, \( i \)
268: is the inclination of the system, \( e \) is the orbital eccentricity and
269: \( P_{\rm b} \)
270: the binary period.
271:
272: After the construction of the binary model, the next stage
273: was to transform this orbital velocity into a predicted scintillation velocity.
274:
275: Assuming that the Earth had a near constant velocity throughout the observation
276: and that the interstellar medium velocity was small compared to that of the
277: pulsar, the model of the transverse velocity ($V_{\rm model}$) was described by
278: the following equations:
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: v^{\prime } & = & \left( \left( v_{r}\cos {\phi }-v_{\theta }\sin {\phi }\right) +v_{\rm plane}\right) ,\\
281: v^{\prime \prime } & = & \left( \left( v_{\theta }\cos {\phi }+v_{r}\sin {\phi }\right) \cos {i}+v_{\rm per}\right) ,\\
282: V_{\rm model} & = & \kappa \sqrt{v^{\prime 2}+v^{\prime \prime 2}}.
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: The angle \( \phi=\omega+\theta \) is the true anomaly measured with respect
285: to the line of nodes. The model parameter \( \kappa \) was included to
286: incorporate any errors introduced in the conversion of scintillation timescale
287: to velocity into the model. This accounts for errors in the distance to the
288: pulsar and the fact that the scattering medium is not uniform. The model was
289: then evaluated at the same 32 values of true anomaly presented by the dataset.
290: The best fit to the model was found by evaluating the chi-squared statistic
291: throughout a wide range of each of the model
292: parameters. This produced a chi-squared volume of 5 dimensions with a global
293: minimum representing the most probable values of the 5 parameters.
294:
295: A box-car smoothing operation was also
296: applied to the model in order to compensate for the averaging introduced by
297: the auto-correlation process. This
298: had little effect on the values of the fitted parameters
299: but did appreciably lower the chi-squared minimum.
300:
301: The relative errors in each binary phase bin were calculated by first
302: determining the scatter in each phase bin. The best fit to
303: the data was found by location of the global minimum in the
304: chi-squared space, and the error bars were normalised to ensure the reduced
305: chi-squared statistic was unity. This enabled errors to be placed upon the
306: estimates of the fitted parameters by examining the chi-squared
307: distribution. It should be noted that this method assumes
308: \textit{a priori} that the model was a valid description of the data.
309: A Monte Carlo analysis was then performed in order to ascertain the precision
310: of the fitted parameters. This analysis demonstrated that
311: the model described the observations particularly well and the range
312: of allowable parameter values was very narrow.
313:
314: Both the measured values of \( V_{\rm ISS} \) and the best-fit model velocity, \( V_{\rm model} \), are
315: plotted as a function of true anomaly in Fig \ref{figviss}.
316:
317:
318: \subsection{The effects of Refractive Interstellar Scintillation}
319:
320: The analysis described above would not have revealed any underlying systematic
321: error introduced by either random or long-term variations in
322: the scintillation timescale that are not associated with changes
323: in the velocity of the pulsar.
324: For example, the
325: interstellar scintillation effects detailed here are a result of
326: diffractive interstellar scintillation (DISS), but another regime of
327: scintillation is refractive interstellar scintillation (RISS). RISS,
328: which has a characteristic timescale generally much longer than
329: that of DISS, was considered by Romani, Narayan and Blandford
330: (1986)\nocite{rnb86} to be the explanation for the long term flux
331: variability in pulsars observed by Sieber
332: (1982)\nocite{sie82}. Although the effect of RISS is best
333: characterised via multiple flux measurements, it is possible to
334: estimate the RISS timescale, \( T_{\rm RISS} \), using the measured DISS
335: parameters:
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: T_{\rm RISS} & =150.6 & \left( \frac{D({\rm kpc})}{\Delta \nu
338: ({\rm kHz})V_{7}^{2}}\right) ^{1/2}{\rm days.}\label{Riss}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340:
341: Equation \ref{Riss} is after Blandford and Narayan
342: (1985)\nocite{bn85}. It assumes a uniform Kolmogorov medium and that
343: the pulsar is travelling at \( 100 V_{7} \)\,km~s\( ^{-1} \). In Equation \ref{Riss} \( D \)
344: represents distance and \( \Delta \nu \) is the scintillation
345: bandwidth. If the velocity of the source can be approximated by the
346: measured scintillation velocity, then \( T_{\rm RISS} \) is approximately
347: 7 days. It is therefore unlikely that a modulation of this nature was
348: present in the observation. Even if it was present, the modulation
349: would be weak as RISS effects are considerably weaker
350: than DISS events (Rickett 1990\nocite{ric90}). For these reasons, the
351: effect of RISS was discounted in this analysis. Future observations,
352: if they span multiple days,
353: may be prone to RISS effects that limit the precision of
354: derived parameters.
355:
356: \section{Results}
357:
358: \label{omega} As discussed by Lyne (1984)\nocite{lyn84}, analyses of this
359: nature can produce two indistinguishable solutions. The degeneracy arises as
360: the same apparent transverse velocity can be displayed by the pulsar in either
361: a comparatively face-on binary system with a low runaway velocity, or a more
362: edge-on system with a higher runaway velocity. An example of this can be seen
363: in the chi-squared projection presented in Figure \ref{surface}.
364: The values of the fit parameters for both solutions after the Monte Carlo error
365: analysis are presented in Table \ref{params}. The degeneracy between solutions
366: can be broken by a reasonable consideration of the mass function and other
367: timing parameters. Kaspi {et~al.} (2000) derive a value for the mass function,
368: \( f(M) \) = 0.176 M\(_{\odot } \), and an estimation of the sum of the system
369: component masses, \( M_{c}= \) 2.3 M\( _{\odot } \), from timing
370: measurements. Using these measurements, together with the system
371: inclination presented here, the component masses may be obtained. The
372: more edge-on solution indicates a pulsar and companion mass of 1.29 \(
373: \pm \) 0.02 M\( _{\odot } \) and 1.01 \( \pm \) 0.02
374: M\( _{\odot } \) respectively; whereas the more face-on
375: solution, suggests a pulsar mass of 1.17 \( \pm \) 0.02 M\( _{\odot } \) and a
376: companion mass of 1.13 \( \pm \) 0.02 M\( _{\odot } \). The edge-on solution
377: is more likely as the indicated pulsar mass is more consistent with the known
378: neutron star mass distribution, $1.35 \pm 0.04$~M$_{\odot}$ (Thorsett \& Chakrabarty 1999). The most
379: probable transverse velocity is therefore found to be of modulus 115~\( \pm
380: \)~15~km s\( ^{-1} \), and the most likely inclination angle is
381: 76~\( \pm \)~2.5\( ^{\circ } \) .
382:
383: In order to test the validity of the experimental method employed and the accuracy
384: of the binary model, we allowed the angle of periastron to vary as a free parameter
385: in the fit. The value of \( \omega \) is already precisely determined by timing
386: measurements and its value at the epoch of these observations is expected to
387: be approximately 55.13\( ^{\circ } \). The consistency of this with our measurement
388: of 58 \( \pm \)3.5\( ^{\circ } \) is very encouraging and
389: increases our confidence in the solution which
390: is extremely statistically significant.
391:
392: %The scaling, \( \kappa , \) is consistent with unity for both solutions. An
393: %examination of Equation \ref{viss} reveals that \( \kappa \) includes contributions
394: %from errors in more than one parameter: the distance used was only a lower limit;
395: %and the multiplicative factor assumes a uniform Kolmogorov medium, which may
396: %not be the case. However, as \( \kappa \) is approximately 1, the measured
397: %\( V_{ISS} \) is consistent with the inferred space velocity of the pulsar.
398: %This does not allow a firm confirmation of the assumptions of a uniform Kolmogorov
399: %medium and a distance to the pulsar of 3.7~kpc, but does imply that these assumptions
400: %are not greatly in error.
401:
402: %The scaling parameter, $\kappa$, can be used with equation \ref{viss} to calculate
403: %any error in the distance to the pulsar. If we assume the only discrepancy
404: %between $V_{\rm ISS}$ and the actual transverse velocity is due an error in the pulsar distance
405: %, then a scaling parameter of $0.55$ implies that the true distance to the pulsar is
406: %n distance is $0.89D$, where $D=3.7$~kpc.
407:
408: \section{Discussion}
409:
410: PSR J1141--6545 has been shown to have a transverse velocity of
411: modulus 115~\( \pm \)~15~km\,s\( ^{-1} \) and an inclination of 76 \( \pm
412: \) 2.5\( ^{\circ } \). The component masses inferred from these values
413: indicate, as first presented by Kaspi {et~al.} (2000),
414: that this system is most likely a near edge-on
415: neutron star--CO white dwarf binary, with the observed neutron star
416: having been formed most recently.
417:
418: Tauris and Sennels (2000)\nocite{ts00} have predicted, from
419: evolutionary arguments, that PSR~J1141--6545 would display a systemic
420: velocity in excess of 150~km\,s\( ^{-1} \). This velocity comes from
421: both the recoil of the binary due to the rapid ejection of the
422: exploding star's envelope, and an impulsive kick imparted to the
423: neutron star to leave it in an orbital configuration resembling the
424: current state of PSR~J1141--6545. The ``no-kick'' solution, suggests
425: a velocity nearer 40~km~s$^{-1}$. The measured transverse velocity is
426: only consistent with that predicted by Tauris \& Sennels (2000), if
427: the undetected radial velocity exceeds 96~km\,s\( ^{-1} \).
428: The simulations undertaken by Tauris \& Sennels (2000) suggested
429: that 150~km~s$^{-1}$ was the lower limit, and that PSR J1141--6545
430: would probably have a velocity much greater than this.
431: The low tranverse velocity indicates that, as with the other
432: eccentric binary pulsars, the kick was modest (Hughes \& Bailes 1999).
433:
434: It is also interesting to note that Ord, Bailes \& van Straten (2002)
435: give a lower distance limit to this system as the tangent point
436: distance, 3.7~kpc. At this distance, and with a transverse velocity
437: of 115~\( \pm \)~15~km~s\( ^{-1} \), the expected contribution to any
438: measured orbital period derivative due to proper motion and Galactic
439: kinematic effects is expected to be at the 1 percent level.
440: Furthermore, measurements of the range and shape of Shapiro delay,
441: advance of periastron, gravitational redshift parameter and
442: gravitational period derivative will over-determine the system
443: parameters. Together with the determination of the system inclination
444: presented here, estimates of these parameters will allow precise and
445: unique tests of the validity of General Relativity.
446:
447: This result suggests that long-term
448: monitoring of its scintillation properties throughout a year
449: may ultimately provide the orientation of the
450: proper motion vector on the sky. An independent
451: measure of the orbital period, eccentricity, longitude of
452: periastron and
453: inclination angle of the binary should also be obtained.
454:
455: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
456: \bibliography{}
457:
458: \clearpage
459:
460: \begin{thebibliography}{}
461:
462: \bibitem[Bailes 1989]{bai89}
463: Bailes, M. 1989, Astrophys. J., 342, 917
464:
465: \bibitem[Bailes, Manchester, Kesteven, Norris, \& Reynolds 1989]{bmk+89}
466: Bailes, M., Manchester, R.~N., Kesteven, M.~J., Norris, R.~P., \& Reynolds, J.~E. 1989, Astrophys. J., 343, L53
467:
468: \bibitem[Blandford \& Narayan 1985]{bn85}
469: Blandford, R.~D. \& Narayan, R. 1985, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 213, 591
470:
471: \bibitem[Cordes, Pidwerbetsky, \& Lovelace 1986]{cpl86}
472: Cordes, J.~M., Pidwerbetsky, A., \& Lovelace, R. V.~E. 1986, Astrophys. J., 310, 737
473:
474: \bibitem[{Cordes} \& {Rickett} 1998]{cr98}
475: {Cordes}, J.~M. \& {Rickett}, B.~J. 1998, \apj, 507, 846
476:
477: \bibitem[Cordes \& Wasserman 1984]{cw84}
478: Cordes, J.~M. \& Wasserman, I. 1984, Astrophys. J., 279, 798
479:
480: \bibitem[Dewey \& Cordes 1987]{dc87}
481: Dewey, R.~J. \& Cordes, J.~M. 1987, Astrophys. J., 321, 780
482:
483: \bibitem[Dewey, Cordes, Wolszczan, \& Weisberg 1988]{dcww88}
484: Dewey, R.~J., Cordes, J.~M., Wolszczan, A., \& Weisberg, J.~M. 1988, in Radio Wave Scattering in the Interstellar Medium ,{AIP} Conference Proceedings {N}o. 174, ed. J.~Cordes, B.~J. Rickett, \& D.~C. Backer (New York: American Institute of Physics), 217--221
485:
486: \bibitem[Harrison, Lyne, \& Anderson 1992]{hla92}
487: Harrison, P.~A., Lyne, A.~G., \& Anderson, B. 1992, in {X}-ray Binaries and Recycled Pulsars, ed. E.~P.~J. van~den Heuvel \& S.~A. Rappaport (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 155--160
488:
489: \bibitem[Hughes \& Bailes 1999]{hb99}
490: Hughes, A. \& Bailes, M. 1999, Astrophys. J., 522, 504
491:
492: \bibitem[Kaspi, Bailes, Manchester, Stappers, \& Bell 1996]{kbm+96}
493: Kaspi, V.~M., Bailes, M., Manchester, R.~N., Stappers, B.~W., \& Bell, J.~F. 1996, Nature, 381, 584
494:
495: \bibitem[Kaspi, Lyne, Manchester, Crawford, Camilo, Bell, D'Amico, Stairs, McKay, Morris, \& Possenti 2000]{klm+00a}
496: Kaspi, V.~M., Lyne, A.~G., Manchester, R.~N., Crawford, F., Camilo, F., Bell, J.~F., D'Amico, N., Stairs, I.~H., {et al.}, 2000, Astrophys. J., 543, 321
497:
498: \bibitem[Lyne 1984]{lyn84}
499: Lyne, A.~G. 1984, Nature, 310, 300
500:
501: \bibitem[Lyne, Anderson, \& Salter 1982]{las82}
502: Lyne, A.~G., Anderson, B., \& Salter, M.~J. 1982, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 201, 503
503:
504: \bibitem[Lyne \& Smith 1982]{ls82}
505: Lyne, A.~G. \& Smith, F.~G. 1982, Nature, 298, 825
506:
507: \bibitem[{Ord}, {Bailes}, \& {van Straten} 2002]{obs02}
508: {Ord}, S.~M., {Bailes}, M., \& {van Straten}, W. 2002, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., submitted
509:
510: \bibitem[Radhakrishnan \& Shukre 1986]{rs86}
511: Radhakrishnan, V. \& Shukre, C.~S. 1986, Astrophys. Space Sci., 118, 329
512:
513: \bibitem[Rickett 1969]{ric69}
514: Rickett, B.~J. 1969, Nature, 221, 158
515:
516: \bibitem[Rickett 1990]{ric90}
517: Rickett, B.~J. 1990, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 28, 561
518:
519: \bibitem[Romani, Narayan, \& Blandford 1986]{rnb86}
520: Romani, R.~W., Narayan, R., \& Blandford, R. 1986, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 220, 19
521:
522: \bibitem[Sieber 1982]{sie82}
523: Sieber, W. 1982, Astr. Astrophys., 113, 311
524:
525: \bibitem[Staveley-Smith, Wilson, Bird, Disney, Ekers, Freeman, Haynes, Sinclair, Vaile, Webster, \& Wright 1996]{swb+96}
526: Staveley-Smith, L., Wilson, W.~E., Bird, T.~S., Disney, M.~J., Ekers, R.~D., Freeman, K.~C., Haynes, R.~F., Sinclair, M.~W., {et al.}, 1996, Proc. Astr. Soc. Aust., 13, 243
527:
528: \bibitem[{Tauris} \& {Sennels} 2000]{ts00}
529: {Tauris}, T.~M. \& {Sennels}, T. 2000, Astr. Astrophys., 355, 236
530:
531: \bibitem[Thorsett \& Chakrabarty 1999]{tc99}
532: Thorsett, S.~E. \& Chakrabarty, D. 1999, Astrophys. J., 512, 288
533:
534: \bibitem[Wex, Kalogera, \& Kramer 2000]{wkk00}
535: Wex, N., Kalogera, V., \& Kramer, M. 2000, Astrophys. J., 528, 401
536:
537: \end{thebibliography}
538:
539: \clearpage
540:
541: \begin{table}
542: {\centering \begin{tabular}{ccc}
543: \hline
544: System Parameter&
545: Solution 1&
546: Solution 2\\
547: \hline
548: \hline
549: \( \kappa \) &
550: 1.55 \( \pm \) 0.025&
551: 1.55 \( \pm \) 0.025\\
552: \hline
553: \( v_{\rm plane} \) &
554: 15 \( \pm \) 10 km s\( ^{-1} \) &
555: 20 \( \pm \) 10 km s\( ^{-1} \) \\
556: \hline
557: \( v_{\rm per} \) &
558: 115 \( \pm \) 10 km s\( ^{-1} \)&
559: 40 \( \pm \) 10 km s\( ^{-1} \)\\
560: \hline
561: \( i \) &
562: 76 \( \pm \) 2.5\( ^{\circ } \) &
563: 60 \( \pm \) 2.5\( ^{\circ } \) \\
564: \hline
565: \( \omega \) &
566: 58 \( \pm \) 3.5\( ^{\circ } \) &
567: 58 \( \pm \) 3.5\( ^{\circ } \) \\
568: \hline
569: Pulsar mass&
570: 1.29 \( \pm \) 0.02 M\( _{\odot } \) &
571: 1.17 \( \pm \) 0.02 M\( _{\odot } \) \\
572: \hline
573: \end{tabular}\par}
574:
575: \caption{\label{params}The two degenerate best fits to the data.
576: Solution 1 is more
577: likely, as the pulsar mass is more consistent with the current
578: distribution of known
579: neutron star masses.}
580: \end{table}
581:
582: \clearpage
583:
584: \begin{figure}
585: {\par\centering \resizebox*{1\textwidth}{0.5\textheight}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}} \par}
586:
587: \caption{ The dynamic spectrum for PSR J1141--6545 represents the pulsar flux
588: as a function of time and radio frequency. The plot is presented as a
589: two level grey scale for emphasis. The vertical blurring
590: once per orbit is interpreted as a lower relative speed in the
591: plane of the sky. }
592: \label{dynamic}
593: \end{figure}
594:
595: \clearpage
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: {\par\centering \resizebox*{1\textwidth}{0.5\textheight}{\rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}} \par}
599:
600:
601: \caption{\label{figviss} -- A plot of scintillation velocity versus
602: true anomaly for the relativistic binary pulsar, PSR~J1141--6545. The
603: solid line represents the best-fit model. Velocity estimates are plotted with
604: their one sigma errors, as determined using a $\chi^2$ normalization technique.}
605: \end{figure}
606:
607: \clearpage
608:
609: \begin{figure}
610: {\par\centering \resizebox*{1\textwidth}{0.5\textheight}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{f3.eps}} \par}
611:
612: \caption{The projection of the delta-chi-squared volume into the dimensions of orbital inclination and transverse velocity.
613: The two distinct solutions are evident. }
614: \label{surface}
615: \end{figure}
616:
617:
618: \end{document}
619:
620:
621:
622: