1: \makeatletter
2: \let\old@footnotetext=\@footnotetext
3: \makeatother
4: \documentclass{aastex}
5: \makeatletter
6: \let\@footnotetext=\old@footnotetext
7: \makeatother
8: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
10:
11: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
12:
13: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
14:
15: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
16:
17: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\it Chandra}}
18: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM-Newton}}
19: \newcommand{\EO}{{\it Einstein Observatory}}
20: \newcommand{\ginga}{{\it Ginga}}
21: \newcommand{\co}{CXOU~J112439.1$-$591620}
22: \newcommand{\gtwo}{G292.0+1.8}
23: \newcommand{\msh}{MSH~11$-$5{\sl 4}}
24: \newcommand{\psr}{PSR~J1124$-$5916}
25: \newcommand{\lsim}{\hbox{\raise.35ex\rlap{$<$}\lower.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\ }}
26: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\raise.35ex\rlap{$>$}\lower.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\ }}
27:
28: \shorttitle{X-Ray Pulsar in SNR \gtwo}
29: \shortauthors{Hughes \& Slane}
30:
31: \submitted{Received \underbar{~~~~~~~~~~~~}; accepted \underbar{~~~~~~~~~~~~}}
32: \accepted{Draft version of 20 May 2003}
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{An X-Ray Pulsar in the Oxygen-Rich Supernova Remnant \gtwo}
37:
38: \author{
39: John P.~Hughes\altaffilmark{1},
40: Patrick O.~Slane\altaffilmark{2},
41: Sangwook Park\altaffilmark{3},
42: Peter W. A. Roming\altaffilmark{3},
43: and
44: David N. Burrows\altaffilmark{3}
45: }
46: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers
47: University, 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019;
48: jph@physics.rutgers.edu}
49: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
50: Cambridge, MA 02138; slane@head-cfa.harvard.edu}
51: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State
52: University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA. 16802}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55:
56: We report the discovery of pulsed X-ray emission from the compact
57: object \co\ within the supernova remnant (SNR) \gtwo\ using the High
58: Resolution Camera on the {\it Chandra X-ray Observatory}. The X-ray
59: period ($P = 0.13530915$ s) is consistent with extrapolation of the
60: radio pulse period of \psr\ for a spindown rate of $\dot P = 7.6\times
61: 10^{-13}$ s/s. The X-ray pulse is single peaked and broad with a FWHM
62: width of 0.23$P$ (83$^\circ$). The pulse-averaged X-ray spectral
63: properties of the pulsar are well described by a featureless power law
64: model with an absorbing column density $N_{\rm H} = 3.1\times 10^{21}$
65: cm$^{-2}$, photon index $\Gamma = 1.6$, and unabsorbed 0.3--10 keV
66: band luminosity $L_X = 7.2\times 10^{32}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We plausibly
67: identify the location of the pulsar's termination shock. Pressure
68: balance between the pulsar wind and the larger synchrotron nebula, as
69: well as lifetime issues for the X-ray-emitting electrons, argues for a
70: particle-dominated PWN that is far from the minimum energy condition.
71: Upper limits on the surface temperature of the neutron star are at, or
72: slightly below, values expected from ``standard'' cooling
73: curves. There is no optical counterpart to the new pulsar; its optical
74: luminosity is at least a factor of 5 below that of the Crab pulsar.
75:
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \keywords{ ISM: individual (SNR \gtwo, \msh) -- pulsars: individual
79: (\psr) -- stars: neutron -- supernova remnants -- X-rays: individual
80: (\co) }
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83:
84: The composition of the ejecta seen in a supernova remnant (SNR) can be
85: used to constrain the nature of the supernova (e.g., core collapse or
86: thermonuclear) and, in the case of a core collapse SN, estimate a
87: range for the mass of the progenitor star (e.g., Hughes \& Singh
88: 1994). Recent studies of the SNR Cas A with \chandra\ and \xmm\ (e.g., Hughes
89: et al.~2000; Bleeker et al.~2001; Willingale et al.~2002) highlight
90: the great potential of the new observatories for such studies.
91: Unfortunately, most SNRs that harbor young pulsars are virtually
92: useless for such investigations: they do not show much evidence for
93: shocked ejecta (e.g., the Crab and 3C 58), are too distant for
94: detailed study (e.g., SNR E0540$-$69.3 and N157B), or are so evolved
95: that the ejecta cannot be easily distinguished from shocked
96: interstellar gas (e.g., Vela and W44). \gtwo\ differs from nearly all
97: other pulsar/SNR associations by virtue of showing spectacular
98: evidence for newly synthesized oxygen-, neon-, and magnesium-rich
99: ejecta (optical: Murdin \& Clark 1979; X-ray: Park et al.~2002);
100: having a dynamically determined age ($\sim$2000 yrs; Murdin \& Clark
101: 1979); and being relatively nearby ($\sim$6 kpc; Gaensler \& Wallace
102: 2003). With \gtwo\ we have the opportunity to tie information on the
103: progenitor star derived from nucleosynthesis (Park et al.~2003, in
104: prep.) to the origin and evolution of pulsars and their wind nebulae
105: (PWNe).
106:
107: Recently \chandra\ revealed an X-ray point source (\co) centered on a
108: diffuse synchrotron nebula in \gtwo\ (Hughes et al.~2001). In a
109: follow-up study Camilo et al.~(2002) discovered a 135-ms young pulsar
110: within or near \gtwo\ using the Parkes radio telescope that is almost
111: surely the counterpart to the \chandra\ point source. However the
112: large beam of the Parkes telescope ($\sim$14$^\prime$ FWHM) means that
113: the case is not ironclad. Here we report on high temporal and spatial
114: resolution X-ray observations in which we detect the pulsed signal
115: from \co, clearly identifying it as the compact remnant of the SN that
116: formed \gtwo.
117:
118: \section{X-ray Pulsar}
119:
120: We observed SNR \gtwo\ beginning on 14 July 2001 using the \chandra\
121: High Resolution Camera (HRC) in timing mode with the pulsar candidate
122: at the aimpoint (ObsID 1953). Timing mode observations utilize the
123: central portion of the HRC-S focal plane array which provides a field
124: of view roughly 6$^\prime$ by 30$^\prime$. Individual photons are time
125: tagged to an accuracy of about 16 $\mu$s; we corrected photon arrival
126: times to the solar-system barycenter using the position of the pulsar
127: candidate. Our observation was nearly continuous; the only
128: interruptions were 8 gaps of $\sim$2 s duration each, distributed
129: throughout the exposure. The livetime corrected exposure was 49578 s.
130:
131: % Figure 1:
132: \begin{figure*}[t]
133: \vspace{-0.5truein}
134: %\epsfxsize=0.98\textwidth \epsfbox{./plots/sm_radexp2.ps}
135: \begin{center}
136: \epsfxsize=6.5truein\epsfbox{./fig1.ps}
137: \end{center}
138: \vspace{-3.85truein}
139: \figcaption{
140: A portion of the \chandra\ high resolution
141: camera image centered on \co. In the left and middle
142: panels the grayscale is linear from 0 to 15 HRC counts per pixel
143: (0.1318$^{\prime\prime}$ square). In the right panel the linear
144: grayscale extends from -1.4 to 1.8 counts per pixel. This last image
145: was smoothed with a 1 pixel $\sigma$ gaussian kernel. Coordinates
146: are given in epoch J2000.
147: }
148: \end{figure*}
149:
150: Figure 1 (left panel) shows a roughly $6^{\prime\prime} \times
151: 6^{\prime\prime}$ portion of the HRC image containing the pulsar
152: candidate at position R.A.~=~11:24:39.1, decl.~=~$-$59:16:20 (J2000).
153: There is an unresolved source centered on a small, diffuse,
154: elliptically-shaped nebula. Within a radius of 2$^{\prime\prime}$ (15
155: HRC pixels) of the point source we detected 1324 X-ray photons. First
156: we carried out a blind search for pulsations on these events. Light
157: curves were constructed for the entire duration of the observation
158: using four different binsizes of 0.0237563 s, 0.0118781 s, 0.00593907
159: s, and 0.00296954 s corresponding to $2^{21}$, $2^{22}$, $2^{23}$, and
160: $2^{24}$ temporal bins. A coherent FFT of the entire light curve
161: showed no statistically significant pulsed signal for any of these
162: cases. The distribution of Fourier powers was consistent with noise
163: and the individual peak Fourier powers obtained were 30.4, 31.9, 32.9,
164: and 34.2 for the four cases, respectively, none of which are
165: statistically significant. As a verification of our methods and IDL
166: software we applied the same programs to the HRC data of PSR
167: B0540$-$69.3, observed on 22 June 2000 (ObsID 1745) using the same
168: configuration as our data. The pulsar was easily detected at a
169: frequency of 19.7941 Hz with a peak Fourier power of 50.3 (99.998\%
170: significance).
171:
172: A much more sensitive search for X-ray pulsations is possible by
173: narrowing the range of trial frequencies to be consistent with the
174: radio pulse and a reasonable range of $\dot P$ values. We employed the
175: $Z_n^2$ test (Buccheri et al.~1983) which applies a harmonic analysis
176: to the phases of photon arrival times for a given trial pulsation
177: frequency. One advantage of the method, compared to epoch-folding for
178: example, is that it requires no binning. Another is that, even for as
179: few as 100 detected photons, the statistic is distributed like $\chi^2$
180: with $2n$ degrees of freedom. In our searches we use $n=2$.
181:
182: We searched eleven trial frequencies spaced by $\Delta f = 1\times
183: 10^{-5}$ Hz (roughly the frequency resolution of our data) and
184: centered on the expected value based on extrapolating the radio
185: ephemeris to the midpoint of the HRC observation (MJD = 52105.18). The
186: peak $Z_2^2$ value was 22.6 corresponding to the 99.8\% significance
187: level. The search was refined by reducing $\Delta f$ to $2\times
188: 10^{-6}$ Hz and again searching eleven trial frequencies, this time
189: centered on the most likely previous pulsation frequency. This
190: iteration yielded a peak $Z_2^2$ value of 27.9 (99.97\% significant or
191: approximately 3.6 $\sigma$) at a period of 0.13530915 s. The period
192: error ($4\times 10^{-8}$ s, 1 $\sigma$) was determined using a
193: bootstrap algorithm. In Table 1 we quote observed properties of the
194: X-ray pulsar. By comparing our pulse period to the value obtained by
195: Camilo et al.~(2002) roughly two months later we derive a period
196: derivative of $\dot P = 7.62\pm0.06\times 10^{-13}$ s/s that differs
197: by $\sim$2.5 $\sigma$ from the value quoted in the radio discovery
198: paper. At present we do not know the relative X-ray and radio pulse
199: phases and, due to apparent rotational instabilities in the neutron
200: star, it is not possible to extrapolate the radio ephemeris from
201: September 2001 back to July 2001 accurately enough to measure relative
202: phases.
203:
204: As an additional check on the detection of pulsed X-ray emission, we
205: applied the last search iteration to the first and second halves of
206: the data set (split in time) independently. The pulse was detected in
207: each half at the appropriate $Z_2^2$ value and pulsation frequency and
208: with similar light curve shapes.
209:
210: \begin{center}
211: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
212: \epsfxsize=0.98\textwidth \epsfbox{./fig2.ps}
213: \figcaption{
214: Pulse phase light curve for \psr\ folded modulu the
215: best-fit period of 0.13530915 s. Two complete periods are shown. Note
216: the suppressed zero on the y-axis. Also plotted are the Fourier series
217: estimator (de Jager, Swanepoel, \& Raubenheimer 1986) of the light
218: curve (solid curve) and its 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty (dashed curves). }
219: \end{minipage}
220: \end{center}
221:
222: The pulse in the X-ray band is single peaked and symmetric (see
223: Fig.~2), similar to the radio pulse, although the X-ray pulse width
224: (FWHM $\sim 0.23P \sim 83^\circ$) is somewhat broader than the radio
225: one. The smooth curve in figure 2 is a Fourier series estimate (de
226: Jager, Swanepoel, \& Raubenheimer 1986) of the light curve employing
227: two harmonics. If we assume the pulse extends over phase bins
228: 0.43--0.90, we determine the fraction of pulsed X-rays in the
229: 2$^{\prime\prime}$ radius extraction region to be $11\pm1$\%. This
230: includes contribution from the diffuse compact nebula, which we
231: quantify next.
232:
233: {\parindent=0cm
234: \begin{small}
235: %\begin{minipage}[t]{83mm}
236: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
237: \begin{center}
238: {\noindent{TABLE 1}}\\
239: {\noindent{\sc Properties of X-ray \psr}}\\[6pt]
240: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
241: \hline\hline\\[-4pt]
242: Parameter & Value\\[4pt]
243: \hline\\[-4pt]
244: R.A. (J2000) & 11 24 39.1 \\[2pt]
245: Decl. (J2000) & $-$59 16 20 \\[2pt]
246: Period, $P$ (s) & 0.13530915(4) \\[2pt]
247: Epoch (MJD) & 52105.18 \\[2pt]
248: Observation span (hr) & 14.3 \\[2pt]
249: FWHM of pulse & $\sim$0.23$P$ \\[2pt]
250: Pulsed fraction (\%) & $91^{+\phantom{2}9}_{-24}$ \\[2pt]
251: HRC rate (s$^{-1}$) & 0.0032(8) \\[2pt]
252: Column density, $N_{\rm H}$ (cm$^{-2}$) & $3.1(4)\times 10^{21}$ \\[2pt]
253: Photon index, $\Gamma$ & 1.6(1) \\[2pt]
254: Luminosity, $L_X$(0.3--10 keV) (erg s$^{-1}$) & $7.2 \times 10^{32}\,
255: (D/6\,\rm kpc)^2$ \\[2pt]
256: \quad (Unabsorbed) & \\[2pt]
257: \hline\\[-8pt]
258: \end{tabular}
259: \end{center}
260: Note.---Numbers in parentheses represent 1 $\sigma$ uncertainties in
261: the least significant digits quoted.
262: \end{minipage}
263: \end{small}
264: }
265:
266: \section{Extended Compact Nebula}
267:
268: Shown in the middle panel of figure 1 is our best fit spatial model
269: for the HRC data: an unresolved point source (i.e., a gaussian whose
270: best-fit angular size is consistent with the \chandra\ PSF) and an
271: elliptical gaussian with a FWHM of 1.8$^{\prime\prime}$ (along the
272: major axis) and an axial ratio of 2. In this model the point source
273: contains $160\pm40$ X-ray events while the extended elliptical
274: component contains 1440 events. Compared to the number of pulsed
275: events we detect ($146\pm13$), it is clear that the point source
276: itself is highly pulsed with a pulsed fraction of $>$65\% in the
277: HRC band.
278:
279: The rightmost panel in Figure 1 shows the difference between the HRC
280: data and the best-fit image model. There is good evidence for excess
281: X-ray emission above that given by the model, to either side of the
282: point source and oriented generally in the SE-NW direction. One
283: possibility is that the excess emission comes from a pair of jets.
284: This feature is nearly aligned with the direction from the current
285: position of the point source back toward the center of the SNR (toward
286: the NW), which would indicate aligned spin axis and proper motion
287: directions for \psr, as seen in the Crab and Vela pulsars. On the
288: other hand, it is also possible that the excess emission arises from a
289: toroidal structure in the nebula (like the torus in the Crab Nebula)
290: seen in projection. In this scenario the torus would be nearly aligned
291: with the major axis of the compact nebula. By analogy to the Crab and
292: its pulsar, we would therefore expect that the spin axis to be
293: perpendicular to the long axis of the compact nebula (i.e., aligned
294: NE-SW). This would put the pulsar's spin axis nearly perpendicular to
295: its proper motion direction. The current \chandra\ data do not allow
296: us to discriminate between these possibilities.
297:
298: The extended compact nebula is the only emission feature in the PWN
299: within an arcmin or so of the pulsar and therefore is the only plausible
300: candidate for the pulsar wind termination shock. If we interpret the
301: edge of the nebula with the location of this shock, we can then
302: estimate the confining pressure (i.e., in the PWN) necessary to
303: balance the ram pressure of the wind, $P_{\rm w} = \dot E / 4\pi c
304: r_{\rm w}^2$, assuming spherical symmetry. The mean radius of the
305: compact nebula is $0.036\,d_6$ pc and the spin down energy loss of the
306: pulsar is $\dot E = 1.2\times 10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Camilo et al.~2002),
307: so the pressure is $P_{\rm w} = 2.6\times 10^{-9} \,d_6^{-2}$ erg
308: cm$^{-3}$.
309:
310: We estimate the pressure in the PWN from the properties of the radio
311: emission, which we take from Gaensler \& Wallace (2003), and the
312: theory of synchrotron emission (Longair 1994). Under the minimum
313: energy condition we find that $P_{\rm PWN,min} \sim 1.3\times
314: 10^{-10}\,d_6^{-4/7}$ erg cm$^{-3}$ assuming equal energy densities in
315: the protons and electrons and a volume filling factor of unity. The
316: average nebular magnetic field under these conditions is $B_{\rm min}
317: \sim 48 \,d_6^{-2/7}$ $\mu$G, which implies a very short synchrotron
318: lifetime, $t \sim 140\, d_6^{3/7}\, (h\nu/ 2 \,\rm keV)^{-1/2}$ yr,
319: for the electrons giving rise to the X-ray emission. Such a short
320: lifetime is inconsistent with the observation that the X-ray
321: synchrotron nebula covers as large an extent as the radio nebula does.
322:
323: A possible solution to these discrepancies lies in relaxing the
324: minimum energy condition. If we move in the direction of a smaller
325: mean nebular magnetic field we resolve the lifetime issue. A magnetic
326: field strength of $\lsim$8$\mu$G would ensure that the X-ray
327: synchrotron cooling time is $\gsim$2000 yr. In order that the
328: pressure in the synchrotron nebula be sufficiently strong to balance
329: the ram pressure of the pulsar's wind requires a value of $B\sim3$
330: $\mu$G. The total energy in the nebula would then be $\sim$$4\times
331: 10^{49}$ ergs, contained nearly entirely in particles. Since this
332: energy has come from the spin-down of the pulsar, it sets a constraint
333: on the initial spin period: $P_0 \sim 22$ ms for a canonical NS
334: momentum of inertia of $I \equiv 10^{45}$ g cm$^2$. This $P_0$ value
335: is considerably less than the value of $\sim$90 ms estimated by Camilo
336: et al.~(2002). The simplest way to accommodate our low value for the
337: initial spin period would be to increase the true age of the pulsar to
338: $\sim$2800 yr or more.
339:
340: It is important to note that neither the magnetic field nor the
341: pressure is expected to be uniform in PWNe, as we assumed in the
342: calculations above. In the Kennel \& Coroniti (1984) model for the
343: Crab Nebula the total pressure is greatest at the termination shock
344: and then falls by factors of 3--10 at larger radii. In addition,
345: equipartition between particles and fields is attained only at a
346: significant distance from the pulsar; near the termination shock the
347: magnetic field is low and the pressure is particle-dominated. Because
348: of the higher central pressure, we expect the volume-averaged magnetic
349: field under this model to be somewhat larger than that estimated
350: above, which would have the effect of relaxing the energetics
351: constraint on the pulsar's initial spin period. Our apparent need for
352: a particle-dominated PWN in \gtwo\ is suggestive of a low value for
353: the magnetization parameter in the context of this model. We note,
354: however, that interaction between the reverse shock and the PWN (which
355: has not yet been conclusively established) may offer an alternate
356: explanation for why the nebula is far from the minimum energy
357: condition. Further study of these issues, although beyond the scope
358: of our work here, is clearly warranted.
359:
360: \section{Neutron Star Cooling}
361:
362: The NS in \gtwo\ is quite young with a most likely age range of
363: $\sim$2000 yrs to $\sim$2900 yrs, corresponding to the free expansion
364: age of the O-rich knots and the pulsar characteristic age, respectively.
365: According to NS cooling models (e.g., Tsuruta 1998; Page 1998), the
366: surface temperature at this age should be high enough to produce
367: detectable X-ray emission. As
368: shown by Hughes et al.~(2001), the ACIS-S spectrum of the pulsar is fully
369: consistent with a single absorbed power-law. Here we determine the
370: upper limit to the intensity of an additional blackbody spectral
371: component as a function of its temperature, $T_{BB}$. We utilized two
372: independent spectra extracted from the CTI-corrected data (Park et
373: al.~2002): one from a 3$\times$3 pixel
374: (1.5$^{\prime\prime}$$\times$1.5$^{\prime\prime}$) region centered on
375: the pulsar, and another, comprising the diffuse nebula, from an ellipse
376: of size 7$\times$11 pixels (3.4$^{\prime\prime}$$\times$
377: 5.4$^{\prime\prime}$) excluding the central pulsar region. The pulsar
378: spectrum was fit to the sum of a blackbody and a power-law model
379: including absorption, while the nebular spectrum was fit to an
380: absorbed power-law model alone. This latter spectrum served as an
381: independent constraint on the column density, which was constrained to
382: be the same between the two spectra. For reference, table 1 lists pure
383: power-law spectral parameters for the pulsar.
384:
385: For a given fixed value of $T_{BB}$, the ACIS-S data set an upper
386: limit on the allowed normalization (or flux) of the blackbody
387: component. One can express the normalization limit in terms of the
388: square of the ratio of the blackbody emitter's radius to its distance.
389: The 3 $\sigma$ limit on this ratio as a function of $T_{BB}$ is
390: plotted in figure 3.
391:
392: \begin{center}
393: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
394: \epsfxsize=0.98\textwidth \epsfbox{./fig3.ps}
395: \figcaption{
396: Constraint on the normalization of a blackbody spectral
397: component vs.\ its temperature from fits to the time-averaged ACIS-S
398: spectrum of PSR J1124$-$5916 (thick solid curve). The thin solid
399: curve indicates the constraint based on the unpulsed HRC count rate of
400: the X-ray pulsar. The allowed region lies to the left and below the
401: curves shown. The dashed lines show the temperature constraint for
402: the nominal value of distance to \gtwo (6 kpc) and a 12 km radius NS.
403: The vertical dotted line shows the temperature expected for a standard
404: NS cooling curve.}
405: \end{minipage}
406: \end{center}
407:
408: Since the ACIS-S spectrum is consistent with an entirely nonthermal
409: origin, the pulsed emission seen in the HRC, which comprises
410: $>$65\% of the total HRC rate from the pulsar, therefore must be
411: dominated by nonthermal, i.e., magnetospheric, emission as well. The
412: unpulsed HRC emission, however, can be used to set another constraint
413: on the mean surface temperature of the NS. We convert the 3 $\sigma$
414: upper limit on the unpulsed HRC count rate ($2.8\times 10^{-3}$
415: s$^{-1}$), assuming the 3 $\sigma$ upper limit on the column density
416: to the pulsar ($N_{\rm H} = 4.75\times 10^{21}$ atom cm$^{-2}$, derived
417: from the nebular spectrum) to a constraint on the blackbody
418: normalization as a function of $T_{BB}$. This constraint, which is
419: fully consistent with the one from the ACIS-S spectral analysis,
420: is shown as the thin curve in figure 3.
421:
422: Recent work (Gaensler \& Wallace 2003) suggests that the distance to
423: \gtwo\ is $\sim$6 kpc. Using this value and assuming a 12 km radius for the
424: NS, we obtain a constraint of $T_{BB} < 1.18\times 10^6\,\rm K$ on the
425: surface temperature of the NS. The expected temperature, assuming
426: standard NS cooling models, is $1.28\times 10^6\,\rm K$ (Page
427: 1998). Although this is suggestive of the presence of exotic cooling
428: processes, systematic uncertainties make this result less secure than
429: the recent result on the apparent need for exotic cooling processes
430: for the NS in 3C 58 (Slane, Helfand, \& Murray 2002). The NS in
431: \gtwo\ would be consistent with standard cooling if it were as distant
432: as 7 kpc, or if the compact star's radius were as small as 10 km.
433: On the other hand pure blackbody spectral models tend to overpredict
434: (by factors of 1.5 or more) the effective temperature of NS surfaces
435: when light element atmospheres are included (Lloyd, Hernquist, \& Heyl
436: 2002).
437:
438: \section{Limits on an Optical Counterpart}
439:
440: Optical emission from isolated pulsars within supernova remnants has
441: currently been detected from only four objects: PSR B0531+21 (Crab),
442: PSR B0540$-$69.3 (in the LMC), PSR B1509$-$58 (G320.4$-$1.2), and PSR
443: B0833$-$45 (Vela) (see, for example, Nasuti et al.~1997 and references
444: therein). The first three are very young pulsars (1000--2000 years
445: old), while the pulsar in Vela is considerably older ($\sim$10,000
446: yrs), although it is still rather young compared to the average radio
447: pulsar. Across the optical band these pulsars show flat power-law
448: spectra ($\alpha \sim 0$ for $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$), although
449: their intrinsic luminosity densities (i.e., $L_\nu = 4\pi D^2F_\nu$)
450: span 5 orders of magnitude from 0.5--$2\times 10^{19} \, \rm erg\,
451: s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}$ (PSR B0531+21, PSR B0540$-$69.3, and PSR B1509$-$58)
452: to 3--$6\times 10^{14} \, \rm erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}$ (PSR
453: B0833$-$45). In terms of age and remnant optical properties (i.e., the
454: presence of high velocity, oxygen-rich optical emission), \gtwo\ most
455: closely resembles SNR 0540$-$69.3. However in terms of spin-down
456: energy loss ($\sim$$10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$), the pulsar in \gtwo\ is
457: more similar to PSR B0833$-$45 and PSR B1509$-$58.
458:
459: With \chandra\ we have localized the \gtwo\ pulsar to an absolute
460: position accuracy of $\sim$1$^{\prime\prime}$. Within double this
461: error circle there is no optical counterpart visible in the Digitized
462: Sky Survey. We have obtained an upper limit on optical emission from
463: the pulsar, $B \gtrsim 22$, based on a narrow-band blue continuum
464: image of \gtwo\ taken by P.F.\ Winkler and K.S.\ Long from the CTIO
465: 4-m in 1991. This corresponds to an intrinsic luminosity density of
466: $L_\nu < 3\times 10^{18} \, \rm erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}$ (assuming a
467: distance of 6 kpc and extinction of $A_{\rm B} \sim 2.3$). This is
468: about an order of magnitude less than the optical emission of the Crab
469: and SNR 0540$-$69.3 pulsars, but is only about a factor of two less
470: than the optical emission from PSR B1509$-$58 (Caraveo, Mereghetti, \&
471: Bignami 1994). A considerably fainter upper limit, based on data
472: acquired at CTIO in April 2002, will be the subject of a forthcoming
473: article.
474:
475: \acknowledgments
476:
477: We are grateful to Fernando Camilo and Bryan Gaensler for sharing
478: results or data prior to publication and to Frank Winkler for
479: supplying the optical image of \gtwo. Mike Juda gave us some helpful
480: advice regarding the HRC data. We thank Karen Lewis and John Nousek
481: for their help with the initial proposal for HRC time. We also thank
482: Simon Johnston for his useful comments as referee. Partial support
483: for this research was provided by \chandra\ grant GO1-2052X to JPH.
484:
485: \begin{references}
486: %
487: \reference{}
488: Buccheri, R., et al.~1983, A\&A, 128, 245
489: %
490: \reference{}
491: Camilo, F., Manchester, R.~N., Gaensler, B.~M., Lorimer, D.~R.,
492: Sarkissian, J.~2002, ApJ, 567, L71
493: %
494: \reference{}
495: Caraveo, P.~A., Mereghetti, S., \& Bignami, G.~F.~1994, ApJ, 423, L125
496: %
497: \reference{}
498: De Jager, O.~C., Swanepoel, J.~W.~H., \& Raubenheimer, B.~C.~1986, A\&A,
499: 170, 187
500: %
501: \reference{}
502: Gaensler, B.~M., \& Wallace, B.~J.~2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0305168)
503: %
504: \reference{}
505: Hughes, J.~P., Slane, P.~O., Burrows, D.~N., Garmire, G.~P., Nousek,
506: J.~A., Olbert, C.~M., \& Keohane, J.~W.~2001, ApJ, 559, L153
507: %
508: \reference{}
509: Kennel, C.~F., \& Coroniti, F.~V.~1984, ApJ, 283, 694
510: %
511: \reference{}
512: Longair, M.~S.~1994, High Energy Astrophysics, Vol 2, 2nd edition (Cambridge:
513: Cambridge University Press) p.~292ff
514: %
515: \reference{}
516: Murdin, P., \& Clark, D.~H.~1979, MNRAS, 189, 501
517: %
518: \reference{}
519: Nasuti, F.~P., Mignani, R., Caraveo, P.~A., \& Bignami, G.~F.~1997,
520: A\&A, 323, 839
521: %
522: \reference{}
523: Page, D.~1998, in The Many Faces of Neutron Stars, ed.~R.\ Buccheri,
524: J.~van Paradijs, \& M.~A.\ Alpar (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 539
525: %
526: \reference{}
527: Park, S., Roming, P.~W.~A., Hughes, J.~P., Slane, P.~O., Burrows,
528: D.~N., Garmire, G.~P., \& Nousek, J.~A.~2002, ApJL, 564, L39
529: %
530: \reference{}
531: Rees, M.~J., \& Gunn, J.~E.~1974, MNRAS, 167, 1
532: %
533: \reference{}
534: Slane, P.~O., Helfand, D.~J., \& Murray, S.~S.~2002, ApJ, 571, L45
535: %
536: \reference{}
537: Tsuruta 1998, Rev.~Mod.~Phys.
538: %
539: \end{references}
540:
541: \end{document}
542: