1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\al} {$^{26}$Al}
3: \newcommand{\uthree} {$\times 10^{-3}$ ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$}
4: \newcommand{\ufour} {$\times 10^{-4}$ ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$}
5: \newcommand{\ctwo} {$\times 10^{-2}$ counts~s$^{-1}$}
6: \newcommand{\e} {1809~keV}
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{The \it Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager \rm observation of the 1809~keV Line from Galactic $^{26}$Al}
10:
11: \author{D. M. Smith\altaffilmark{1}}
12:
13: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California Berkeley,
14: Berkeley, CA 94720}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17:
18: Observations of the central radian of the Galaxy by the \it Reuven
19: Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopy Imager (RHESSI) \rm have yielded
20: a high-resolution measurement of the \e\ line from \al, detected at
21: 11$\sigma$ significance in nine months of data. The \it RHESSI \rm
22: result for the width of the cosmic line is $(2.03 ^{+0.78}_{-1.21})$~keV
23: FWHM. The best fit line width of 5.4~keV FWHM reported by
24: \citet{Na96} using the Gamma-Ray Imaging Spectrometer (GRIS) balloon
25: instrument is rejected with high confidence.
26:
27: \end{abstract}
28:
29: \keywords{nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances ---
30: line:profiles --- gamma rays:observations}
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33:
34: The \e\ line of \al\ was the first astronomical gamma-ray line from
35: radioactive decay discovered in the Galaxy \citep{Ma84}, confirming
36: a prediction made by \citet{Ra77} and \citet{Ar77}. It is the
37: brightest Galactic line after the line from positron annihilation at
38: 511 keV. This first result was from \it HEAO~3\rm, which used
39: high-resolution germanium detectors.
40: \citet{Ma84} found that the line
41: width was consistent with their instrumental resolution of about
42: 3~keV, but the statistical significance of the result was low
43: (4.8~$\sigma$).
44:
45: This isotope is thought to be produced by proton capture on magnesium, and
46: therefore can occur in any site of nucleosynthesis where these two
47: components are abundant \citep{Pr96}. Environments suggested for its
48: creation and release into the interstellar medium
49: include type-II supernovae, novae,
50: and the winds of Wolf-Rayet and Asymptotic Giant Branch
51: stars. Because its half-life is
52: around 10$^{6}$ yr, much shorter than scales of Galactic evolution,
53: its distribution on the sky reflects the current Galactic distribution
54: of the relevant parent events. Maps of the Galactic \e\ emission
55: \citep[][and references therein]{Kn99}
56: were made with the COMPTEL instrument on the \it Compton Gamma-Ray
57: Observatory \rm and have given
58: us the first detailed look at where the emission is concentrated. The
59: maps correlate better with early than late stellar populations,
60: suggesting that supernovae and/or Wolf-Rayet stars are likely to be
61: the primary contributors.
62:
63: Many other observations of this line, with high- and low-resolution
64: balloon instruments and with low-resolution satellite instruments,
65: have occurred since \it HEAO~3 \rm (see \citet{Pr96} for a
66: comprehensive review). Only one high-resolution measurement has had a
67: statistical significance comparable to the \it HEAO~3 \rm data and thus
68: been able to further advance our understanding of the shape of the
69: line. This was performed by the Gamma-Ray Imaging Spectrometer (GRIS)
70: balloon \citep{Na96}. The authors found the line to be significantly
71: broadened, with an intrinsic width of $(5.4 ^{+1.4}_{-1.3})$~keV derived
72: from a measured width of $(6.4 ^{+1.2}_{-1.1})$~keV by subtracting their
73: instrumental width of $(3.4 \pm 0.1)$~keV in quadrature. The
74: significance of their overall detection was $6.8\sigma$, slightly
75: higher than that of \it HEAO~3\rm.
76:
77: This Doppler broadening corresponds to isotropic velocities of
78: 540~km~s$^{-1}$ or a temperature of $\sim 4.5 \times 10^{8}$K
79: \citep{St99}, and there is no model for how either could be maintained
80: by a gas in the interstellar medium for anything approaching the
81: lifetime of the isotope. This result has stimulated interesting
82: theoretical work centered on concentrating the \al\ in grains, which
83: can maintain their birth velocities much longer than gaseous material
84: and even be re-accelerated in supernova shocks
85: \citep{Ch97,El97,Li98,St99}.
86:
87: \section{The instrument and analysis technique}
88:
89: The \it Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI)
90: \rm is a NASA Small Explorer satellite in a nearly circular $\sim$600~km
91: orbit (96--minute period) with inclination $\sim$38$^{\rm{o}}$. Its
92: primary mission is to make high-resolution images and spectra of solar
93: flares in the range from 3~keV to 17~MeV \citep{Li02, Li03}. Its
94: detector array is a set of nine high-purity coaxial germanium detectors
95: cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature by a Stirling-cycle refrigerator
96: \citep{Sm02}. Each of \it RHESSI\rm's detectors is segmented into a
97: thin front segment facing the Sun (to stop hard x-rays) and a much
98: thicker rear segment meant to record solar gamma-rays that penetrate
99: the front segment. Because the front segments have little effective
100: area at \e\ for any incident angle, I did not use them for this
101: analysis. One of the nine detectors operates in an unsegmented mode
102: with poor energy resolution, and is excluded as well. The spacecraft
103: rotates at close to 15~rpm about the axis pointing at the Sun.
104:
105: Because the array is unshielded and the spacecraft is very light, the
106: effective area of the array to highly penetrating \e\ photons is
107: nearly independent of the direction of incidence, either in azimuth or
108: zenith angle with respect to the spacecraft axis.
109: This has been verified with Monte Carlo
110: simulations using the GEANT3 package with a highly detailed model of
111: the spacecraft, which show a maximum deviation of $\pm$10\% at
112: any angle from the mean effective area averaged over all angles.
113: Thus the annual rotation of the spacecraft with
114: respect to the stars cannot be used to modulate the Galactic signal as
115: was done with data from the \it Solar Maximum
116: Mission \rm Gamma-Ray Spectrometer \citep{Ha90}.
117: As an additional complication, there is a background line in the
118: instrument at \e\ due to cosmic-ray interactions with aluminum in the
119: spacecraft. This must be understood and subtracted before the
120: Galactic line can be studied.
121:
122: The lack of directionality and strong background line can be overcome
123: by using the Earth as an occulter. To begin the analysis, I divided
124: nine months of RHESSI data (1 March 2002 to 2 December 2002) into
125: one-minute (and therefore spin-averaged) intervals. I defined the
126: ``inner Galaxy'' as a box running from $\pm 30^{\rm{o}}$ in Galactic
127: longitude and $\pm 5^{\rm{o}}$ in Galactic latitude. ``Source''
128: intervals were times when this entire box was unocculted by the Earth,
129: and ``background'' intervals were defined as times when it was
130: entirely occulted. The rest of the data were discarded. Because the
131: Earth subtends less than half the sky, the set of source pointings is
132: larger. The total amount of time accumulated in the source spectra
133: is 75.0 dy, and the total accumulation of background data
134: is 33.7 dy. Data contaminated by the precipitation of magnetospheric
135: electrons were identified with the onboard particle detector and
136: were removed from consideration, as were data taken during the
137: X4.8 solar flare of 23 July, the only flare observed so far with
138: emission at energies approaching 1809~keV.
139:
140: The background subtraction algorithm is adapted from one
141: used to derive the most precise value to date for the flux
142: of positron-annihilation radiation from the Galactic Center region:
143: $(1.49 \pm 0.02)$\uthree\ \citep{Sm97}. In that case the instrument
144: was the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on the \it
145: Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO)\rm. The principle is to sort the
146: background spectra into a two-dimensional library based on the two
147: most important parameters that control the background. For each
148: source spectrum, a background spectrum is generated by selecting among
149: the library spectra using the values of the controlling parameters for
150: that source spectrum. The computer code tracks the repeated
151: contributions of each original raw background spectrum in order to
152: propagate statistical errors correctly.
153:
154: All background lines with half-lives less than a few hours are fairly
155: well controlled by choosing two particular parameters on which to sort
156: the library: the longitude of the ascending node (LAN) of the current
157: orbit, and the orbital phase since the ascending node (PAN). These
158: parameters define a particular spot on the Earth, so that the
159: cosmic-ray flux (which is controlled primarily by geomagnetic
160: latitude) is reproduced. The lines with half-lives of seconds or less
161: are proportional to the instantaneous cosmic-ray flux: this includes
162: the \e\ background line due to cosmic-ray production of $^{26*}$Mg in
163: aluminum, which decays with a 0.49~ps half-life \citep{Wh89}. Unlike
164: simple geographic or geomagnetic coordinates, however, LAN and PAN
165: also contain a memory of the recent history of the spacecraft
166: trajectory -- most usefully, how recently and how deeply the
167: spacecraft passed through the SAA. Thus matching LAN and PAN also
168: produces a good match for the SAA-induced background lines, which have
169: half-lives from minutes to hours. We see such a line around 1811~keV
170: that blends with the \e\ line. The only candidate in the gamma-ray
171: tables of \citet{Ch99} is the 1810.77~keV line of $^{56}$Mn (half-life
172: 2.6~hr), presumably created by interactions of SAA protons with iron
173: near the detectors. This line was suggested as a contributor to the
174: background of the germanium spectrometer on the \it Wind \rm
175: spacecraft \citep{We02}, and the published \e\ background line from
176: \it HEAO~3 \rm \citep{Ma84} shows an excess in the blue wing that is
177: consistent with the $^{56}$Mn line appearing at a low level. There is
178: no very long-lived background line (such as the 1275~keV line from
179: $^{22}$Na) near \e. Such a line would require a background-selection
180: system which is cognizant of the total time since the start of the
181: mission, rather than relying entirely on LAN and PAN.
182:
183: \section{Results}
184:
185: \begin{figure}
186: \epsscale{1.}
187: \plottwo{f1.eps}{f2.eps}
188: \caption{ Inner-Galaxy spectra in the vicinity of
189: the 1809~keV line (left) and the background line at 1014~keV (right).
190: In each plot, the lower curve is the
191: \it RHESSI \rm background-subtracted count spectrum and the upper
192: curve is 3\% of the average
193: background spectrum during this period. The bins shown are 1~keV wide
194: and the instrumental resolution at 1809~keV is $(4.10 \pm 0.07)$~keV
195: (see text).}
196: \end{figure}
197:
198: Figure~1 (left) shows the RHESSI background-subtracted spectrum of the
199: Galactic \al\ line. The smooth curve shown is 3\% of the average
200: background for comparison. Fitting the spectrum from 1790--1825~keV
201: to a Gaussian plus a linear background, I find a center energy of
202: $(1808.87 \pm 0.18)$~keV, 1.2$\sigma$ from the expected rest energy of
203: the line at 1808.65~keV \citep{Ch99}.
204: The area of the line is $(1.17 \pm 0.11)$\ctwo\
205: (11$\sigma$), which is 12.9\% of the background line (averaged
206: over the entire set of background spectra interpolated from
207: the background library).
208: Its FWHM, which includes instrumental
209: broadening, is $(4.58 \pm 0.44)$~keV. The fit is good
210: ($\chi^2$ = 26.7 with 30 degrees of freedom).
211:
212: By fitting seven narrow background lines ranging from 186~keV to 2243~keV,
213: I interpolate the intrinsic instrumental resolution to its value
214: at \e\ and find $(4.10 \pm 0.07)$~keV. I avoid the instrumental
215: background line at \e\ itself because of the blend with the line
216: at 1811~keV, which makes it much broader than the interpolation
217: ($(4.86 \pm 0.08)$~keV FWHM) and raises its center energy to
218: $(1809.34 \pm 0.03)$~keV. Subtracting the instrumental resolution
219: in quadrature from the Galactic line gives an intrinsic width
220: of $(2.03 ^{+0.78}_{-1.21})$~keV, corresponding to velocities
221: of $\sim$200~km/s or a temperature of $1.7 \times 10^{8}$K.
222:
223: To demonstrate the quality of the background subtraction, I show in
224: Figure~1 (right) the region around a background line at 1014~keV. This line,
225: like the background line at \e, is due to the prompt decay of a
226: short-lived isomer created by cosmic-ray interactions in aluminum.
227: Thus, if it subtracts well, one should be able to assume that the \e\
228: background line does also. The figure demonstrates subtraction better than
229: the 3\% shown for comparison. There is a hint of a residual 1014~keV
230: line which, when fit with a Gaussian, gives a flux of $(1.2 \pm
231: 0.5)$\% of the background line. The averaged cosmic-ray count rate in
232: the detectors over all the periods used for source pointings is 0.46\%
233: higher than the same average over the background periods. This is
234: consistent with the slight undersubtraction hinted at in
235: Figure~1 (right). I
236: find that subtracting out an extra 0.46\% or 1.2\% of the \e\
237: background line has no significant effect on the Galactic \e\ line
238: width, whether I use the natural form of the background spectrum
239: (which includes the 1811~keV line) or whether I substitute an
240: artificial single Gaussian line at exactly 1808.65~keV with the instrumental
241: resolution. Since the Galactic line flux is 12.9\% of the average
242: background, these extra subtractions would reduce its value by 4\% and
243: 9\%, respectively.
244:
245: To further demonstrate that the cosmic-ray-induced background line is
246: well-subtracted, I divided the data set into two roughly equal parts
247: by the value of the cosmic-ray count rate during each one-minute
248: spectrum. The rate averaged 158 counts s$^{-1}$ for the lower data
249: set and 237 counts s$^{-1}$ for the higher data set, for a ratio of
250: 1.50. The count rate in the total, unsubtracted \e\ line had a
251: similar ratio of 1.42, with 8.00\ctwo\ and 11.36\ctwo\ in the two sets,
252: respectively. Once the backgrounds were subtracted, however, the
253: values for the residual (Galactic) line were $(1.13 \pm 0.15)$\ctwo\
254: and $(1.23 \pm 0.15)$\ctwo, respectively, a ratio of only 1.09 and
255: well within statistical agreement. The derived Galactic signal thus
256: appears to be independent of the intensity of the background line.
257:
258: The conversion of the count rate in the Galactic line to a total
259: Galactic flux is strongly dependent on the assumed Galactic
260: distribution. The effective area of the eight rear segments used,
261: calculated at \e\ using the distribution of angles of incidence over the
262: observation period assuming the source is concentrated at the Galactic
263: center, is 20.5~cm$^{2}$. The incident flux is then $(5.71 \pm
264: 0.54)$\ufour\ for the artificial case of a point source. Since the
265: effective area of the instrument is nearly independent of angle, the
266: model distribution is important in determining the flux only because
267: of occultation of parts of the distribution by the Earth. As noted
268: above, I required the inner 60$^{\rm{o}}$ of Galactic longitude to be
269: visible in each pointing, but on average a considerable additional
270: amount of the plane is also included. A certain amount of this
271: high-longitude plane emission also appears in the background
272: intervals, however, and is subtracted off.
273:
274: \section{Discussion}
275:
276: Adding the GRIS best-fit value of 5.4~keV for the Galactic line width
277: in quadrature with \it RHESSI\rm's instrumental resolution would give
278: a 6.78~keV width. Fixing the width at that value for the fit from
279: 1790--1825~keV causes $\chi^{2}$ to increase by 17.3 to 44.0 (now with
280: 31 degrees of freedom). The probability of \it RHESSI\rm's result
281: being consistent with the GRIS best fit is then 4$\times 10^{-5}$ for
282: one parameter of interest.
283:
284: The \it RHESSI \rm value for the Galactic line's width is only
285: marginally consistent with zero. It is expected, however, that the
286: interstellar \al\ will share in Galactic rotation and display
287: appropriate Doppler shifts \citep{Sk91,Ge96}. \citet{Ge96} combined a
288: three-dimensional model \al\ distribution derived from COMPTEL data
289: with a Galactic rotation model to produce a map of the radial velocity
290: versus Galactic longitude (integrated over Galactic latitude and line
291: of sight). This map has a Galactic bulge component with velocities up
292: to $\sim$75 km/s and spiral arm components with velocities up to
293: $\sim$150 km/s. Although an integration of this map over the inner
294: Galaxy has not been published, from the slices shown at different
295: longitudes it appears that a integrated FWHM of not more than 150 km/s
296: or about 0.9~keV would be obtained. This is within 1$\sigma$
297: of our result. Additional broadening due to more
298: local motions of the \al-bearing gas or dust is possible, and of
299: course the most recently-created portion of the \al\ can be traveling
300: near its birth velocity in supernovae, etc., even if this portion is
301: small.
302:
303: \it RHESSI\rm's flux value of $(5.71 \pm 0.54)$\ufour\ is comparable
304: to previous measurements. A value of $\sim 4$\ufour\ rad$^{-1}$ was
305: considered consistent with the existing ensemble of data sets at the
306: time by \citet{Di97}. For a uniform distribution in the plane, this
307: would imply about 1.4~rad for \it RHESSI\rm's effective field of view
308: (including the effect of subtracted flux in the background pointings).
309: Realistic distributions fall off with longitude, however, and would
310: require an even larger effective field of view. \citet{Na98},
311: however, using the GRIS data, found higher fluxes per radian, with the
312: value depending on the model used and ranging up to $(5.48 \pm
313: 0.78)$\ufour\ rad$^{-1}$ assuming the COMPTEL distribution available
314: at that time. They suggested that COMPTEL, which subtracts background
315: by imaging with the Compton telescope technique, would be insensitive
316: to a spatially diffuse component that the large, integrating field of
317: view of GRIS would accept. At first glance the \it RHESSI \rm result
318: seems to support this higher value, since the effective field of view
319: required to match the GRIS data, 1.04 radians, is identical to the
320: region I required to be visible for the source intervals. In future
321: work, these \it RHESSI \rm source and background fields of view, with
322: the addition of data from those times in which the central radian is
323: partially occulted, will be convolved with different model
324: distributions to provide a normalization for each distribution and to
325: help choose among them. Comparison with upcoming results from
326: INTEGRAL/SPI, which has a smaller field of view, will allow us to test
327: for the existence of very large-scale diffuse emission.
328:
329: \acknowledgements
330:
331: I would like to thank the rest of the \it RHESSI \rm team for
332: making this work possible, particularly those who worked on
333: the spectrometer and the data-analysis software.
334: G. H. Share made valuable suggestions related to this analysis,
335: and R. P. Lin and H. Hudson thoughtfully reviewed the manuscript.
336: This work was supported by NASA contract NAS5-98033.
337:
338: \begin{thebibliography}{}
339:
340: \bibitem[Arnett(1977)]{Ar77}
341: Arnett, D. W. 1977, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 302, 90
342:
343: \bibitem[Chen et al.(1997)]{Ch97}
344: Chen, W., et al. 1997, in Proc. 2nd INTEGRAL Workshop,
345: The Transparent Universe, ed. C. Winkler,
346: T. J.-L. Courvoisier, \& Ph. Durouchoux
347: (ESA SP-382; Noordwijk: ESA), 105
348:
349: \bibitem[Chu, Ekstr\"{o}m \& Firestone(1999)]{Ch99}
350: Chu, S. Y. F., Ekstr\"{o}m, L. P., \& Firestone, R. B. 1999,
351: WWW Table of Radioactive Isotopes, database version 2/28/1999 from URL
352: http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/nucleardata/toi/
353:
354: \bibitem[Diehl \& Timmes(1997)]{Di97}
355: Diehl, R. \& Timmes, F. X. 1997, in AIP Conf. Proc. 410, Fourth
356: Compton Symposium, ed. C. D. Dermer, M. S. Strickman, \&
357: J. D. Kurfess, (New York:AIP), 218
358:
359: \bibitem[Ellison, Drury, \& Meyer(1997)]{El97}
360: Ellison, D. C., Drury, L. O'C., \& Meyer, J.-P. 1997, \apj, 487, 197
361:
362: \bibitem[Gehrels \& Chen(1996)]{Ge96}
363: Gehrels, N., \& Chen, W. 1996, A\&AS, 120, 331
364:
365: \bibitem[Harris et al.(1990)]{Ha90}
366: Harris, M. J., Share, G. H., Leising, M. D., Kinzer, R. L., \&
367: Messina, D. C. 1990, \apj, 362, 135
368:
369: \bibitem[Kn\"{o}dlseder et al.(1999)]{Kn99}
370: Kn\"{o}dlseder, J. et al. 1999, \aap, 344, 68
371:
372: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2002)]{Li02}
373: Lin, R. P. et al. 2002, Solar Physics, 210, 3
374:
375: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2003)]{Li03}
376: Lin, R. P. et al. 2003, \apjl, in press
377:
378: \bibitem[Lingenfelter, Ramaty \& Kozlovsky(1998)]{Li98}
379: Lingenfelter, R. E., Ramaty, R., \& Kozlovsky, B. 1998, \apjl, 500, L153
380:
381: \bibitem[Naya et al.(1996)]{Na96}
382: Naya, J. E. et al. 1996, Nature, 384, 44
383:
384: \bibitem[Naya et al.(1998)]{Na98}
385: Naya, J. E., Barthelmy, S. D., Bartlett, L. M., Gehrels, N., Parsons, A., Teegarden, B. J., Tueller, J.,
386: \& Leventhal, M. 1998, \apjl, 499, L169
387:
388: \bibitem[Mahoney et al.(1984)]{Ma84}
389: Mahoney, W. A., Ling, J. C., Wheaton, W. A., \& Jacobson, A. S. 1984,
390: \apj, 286, 578
391:
392: \bibitem[Prantzos \& Diehl(1996)]{Pr96}
393: Prantzos, N. \& Diehl, R. 1996, Phys. Rep., 267, 1
394:
395: \bibitem[Ramaty \& Lingenfelter(1977)]{Ra77} Ramaty, R. \& Lingenfelter, R. E.
396: 1977, \apjl, 213, L5
397:
398: \bibitem[Skibo \& Ramaty(1991)]{Sk91}
399: Skibo, J. \& Ramaty, R. 1991, in AIP Conf. Proc. 232, Gamma-Ray Line
400: Astrophysics, ed. P. Durouchoux \& N. Prantzos, (New York:AIP), 123
401:
402: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1997)]{Sm97}
403: Smith, D. M., Cheng, L. X., Leventhal, M.,
404: Tueller, J., Gehrels, N., \& Fishman, J. 1997, in AIP Conf. Proc. 410, Fourth
405: Compton Symposium, ed. C. D. Dermer, M. S. Strickman, \&
406: J. D. Kurfess, (New York:AIP), 1012
407:
408: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{Sm02}
409: Smith, D. M. et al. 2002, Solar Physics, 210, 33
410:
411: \bibitem[Sturner \& Naya(1999)]{St99}
412: Sturner, S. J., \& Naya, J. E. 1999, \apj, 526, 200
413:
414: \bibitem[Weidenspointner et al.(2001)]{We02}
415: Weidenspointner, G., Harris, M. J., Jean, P., \& Diallo, N. 2002,
416: New Ast. Rev., 46, 625
417:
418: \bibitem[Wheaton et al.(1989)]{Wh89}
419: Wheaton, W. A., Jacobson, A. S., Ling, J. C., Mahoney, W. A.,
420: \& Varnell, L. S. 1989, in AIP Conf. Proc. 186,
421: High-Energy Radiation Background
422: in Space, ed. A. Rester, Jr. \& J. I. Trombka, (New York:AIP), 304
423:
424: \end{thebibliography}
425: \end{document}
426:
427: