1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand\ie{{\it i.e.,}\ }
4: \newcommand\etal{{\it et al.}}
5: \newcommand\psr{PSR~B0656+14}
6: \newcommand\us{\ensuremath{\mu\rm{s}}}
7: \newcommand\e{\ensuremath{\rm{e}^-}}
8: \newcommand\hst{{\it HST}}
9:
10: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
11:
12: \shorttitle{Photopolarimetry of \psr}
13: \shortauthors{Kern, Martin, \& Halpern}
14:
15:
16: %\received{2003 January 24}
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Optical Pulse-Phased Photopolarimetry of \psr}
20:
21: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
22: %% author and affiliation information.
23: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
24: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
25: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
26: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
27:
28: \author{B. Kern, C. Martin, B. Mazin}
29: \affil{Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy, MS 405-47,
30: California Institute of Technology,
31: Pasadena, CA 91125}
32: \email{bdk@srl.caltech.edu}
33:
34: \and
35:
36: \author{J. P. Halpern}
37: \affil{Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University,
38: 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We have observed the optical pulse profile of PSR~B0656+14 in 10 phase bins
42: at a high
43: signal-to-noise ratio, and have measured the linear polarization
44: profile over 30\% of the pulsar period with some significance.
45: The pulse profile is double-peaked, with a bridge of emission between
46: the two peaks, similar
47: to gamma-ray profiles observed in other pulsars.
48: There is no detectable unpulsed flux, to a 1-$\sigma$ limit of 16\% of
49: the pulse-averaged flux.
50: The emission in the bridge is highly ($\sim$ 100\%) polarized, with a position
51: angle sweep in excellent agreement
52: with the prediction of the Rotating Vector Model
53: as determined from radio polarization observations.
54: We are able to account for the gross features of the optical
55: light curve (\ie the phase separation of the peaks) using both
56: polar cap and outer gap models.
57: Using the polar cap model, we are also able to estimate the
58: height of the optical emission regions.
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{pulsars: individual (\psr)---polarization---radiation
62: mechanisms: non-thermal}
63:
64: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
65: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
66: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
67: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
68: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
69: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
70: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
71: %% each reference.
72:
73: \section{Introduction}
74:
75: Radio pulsars, as their name implies, are well studied at radio
76: wavelengths.
77: High time-resolution pulse profiles and polarization profiles have
78: allowed determinations of the relative orientations of the rotation
79: axis, magnetic axis, and observer line-of-sight (LOS), based on
80: variations of the Rotating Vector Model (RVM), originally proposed
81: for the Vela pulsar by \citet{radhakrishnan_c1969}.
82: It is commonly believed that the radio emission is generated
83: near the surface of the neutron star \citep{kijak_g1997},
84: which simplifies the
85: interpretation of the radio data.
86: Studies by \citet{lyne_m1988}, \citet{rankin1990}, and
87: \citet{everett_w2001} use different methods
88: and assumptions to determine these angles, with a rough
89: agreement established between the methods.
90:
91: High-energy (infrared to gamma-ray) magnetospheric
92: emission from isolated, rotation-powered radio
93: pulsars presents a complex theoretical picture.
94: Two categories of theories have dominated the explanation of
95: the location of the emission region for high-energy photons.
96: Polar cap models \citep{daugherty_h1994,daugherty_h1996a}
97: claim that the emission region is close to the
98: neutron star surface, near the emission region for the observed
99: radio waves.
100: Outer gap models \citep{romani_y1995,romani1996}
101: place the high-energy emission regions farther out in the
102: magnetosphere, at significant fractions of the light-cylinder radius.
103: Part of the problem in distinguishing between these two models
104: lies in the small number of pulsars observed at high energies.
105: Pulsed gamma rays have been observed in seven radio pulsars
106: (counting Geminga as a radio pulsar for this argument),
107: with possible detections in another three \citep{thompson2001}.
108: Many more pulsars have been observed in X-rays \citep{becker_t1997},
109: with inconclusive impact on the question of emission model, possibly
110: because of a cyclotron resonance ``blanket'' confining
111: the X-rays \citep{wang_rhz1998}.
112: Optical pulsations have been convincingly observed in only
113: three radio pulsars, namely the Crab \citep{cocke_dt1969},
114: Vela \citep{wallace_1977}, and PSR~B0540-69 \citep{middleditch_p1985},
115: with marginal detections in PSR~B0656+14 \citep{shearer_1997} and
116: Geminga \citep{shearer_1998}.
117: Optical photopolarimetric measurements hold the best promise to
118: constrain the models for high-energy emission regions, until
119: such time that X-ray and gamma-ray polarimetry is available.
120:
121: \psr\ is a middle-aged pulsar, with period 0.385 s and
122: characteristic age 1.1$\times10^5$
123: years, considered a ``cooling neutron star'' because its
124: soft X-ray emission is believed to come from the
125: neutron star surface \citep{becker_t1997}.
126: There is a tentative detection of a
127: gamma-ray pulse \citep{ramanamurthy_fkst1996},
128: as well as a claim of optical pulsations \citep{shearer_1997}.
129: Optically, \psr\ is the second-brightest radio pulsar in the
130: Northern sky ($V$ = 25), after the Crab puslar.
131:
132: \section{Observations}
133:
134: We observed \psr\ on 2000 December 20--21 at the Palomar 5 m
135: telescope, with a
136: Phase-Binning CCD Camera.
137: Over the two nights, we obtained 38,000 s of integration time, with
138: an average FWHM of 1.3 arcsec under non-photometric conditions.
139: The phase-binning CCD used is a 512$\times$512-pixel back-illuminated
140: CCD, masked by a 100$\times$26-pixel (50$\times$13 arcsec) slit.
141: Intensity is binned on-chip into 10 phase intervals using a
142: periodic frame transfer of the CCD.
143: Between the slit and the CCD, an achromatic half-wave plate and two
144: broadband
145: polarizing beamsplitters form an imaging two-channel polarimeter,
146: measuring two orthogonal linear polarizations simultaneously.
147: The two polarized images are arranged side-by-side on the
148: CCD in two columns.
149: The half-wave plate is rotated between exposures to obtain
150: measurements of the linear Stokes parameters (we do not
151: measure $V$, the circular polarization).
152: All observations were through a Schott BG38 colored-glass filter,
153: which together with the
154: quantum efficiency of our CCD, defines a bandpass of approximately 400--600 nm.
155:
156: Every 1/10 of the period of \psr\ (known {\it a priori}),
157: the accumulated images (both polarizations)
158: are transferred away from the slit onto a
159: region of the CCD used for storage, but no pixels are read out of the
160: CCD.
161: At the end of 10 transfers (\ie 1 period of \psr), which alternate
162: between shifting
163: the accumulated charge both up and down on the CCD, the images accumulated
164: during the first phase interval are shifted back into the CCD region
165: illuminated
166: by the slit, and the images are re-illuminated.
167: At any time, there are 20 accumulated images residing on the CCD
168: (2 columns of linearly polarized images, 10 rows of
169: phase-binned images), two
170: of which are being illuminated.
171:
172: This illumination pattern is repeated for 120~s (311 cycles of \psr), at
173: which point the shutter is closed and the entire array is read out.
174: Timing of the exposures
175: is coordinated using a GPS receiver and time-code generator, which
176: delivers
177: %a disciplined 10 MHz oscillator signal and
178: start and stop signals
179: accurate to 1~\us.
180: An ephemeris for \psr\ from A. Lyne
181: (2000, private communication) was used,
182: with barycentric $f = 2.5980738005954 \ \rm{s}^{-1}$,
183: $\dot{f} = -3.71214\times 10^{-13} \ \rm{s}^{-2}$,
184: and $\ddot{f} = 8.33\times 10^{-25} \ \rm{s}^{-3}$ at 2451687.5 JD TDB,
185: and a radio pulse geocentric time-of-arrival 2451687.500000997 JD UTC.
186: The JPL DE200 solar system ephemeris was used to compute the
187: barycenter-geocenter and geocenter-topocenter corrections.
188: On each night, we observed the Crab Pulsar to verify our timing
189: and polarization optics.
190:
191: \section{Data Analysis}
192:
193: The integrated image, formed by adding all of the individual images to
194: eliminate phase and polarization information, is shown in Figure
195: \ref{imgtot}.
196: The total intensity images, formed by combining sets of polarized
197: images but retaining the 10 phase bins, are shown in
198: Figure \ref{pulseimg}.
199:
200:
201: A 3$\times$3-pixel (1.5$\times$1.5 arcsec) aperture was used
202: to extract the flux of \psr\ in each phase bin.
203: While absolute photometric measurements using a small
204: (and square) photometric aperture are difficult to calibrate,
205: the choice of aperture does not affect the
206: time-differential photometry, to first order.
207: The short pulse period (0.385 s) ensures that the point spread function
208: and image centroids are the same in all phase bins, to first order.
209: The total intensity of a bright nearby star, measured using the same
210: analysis routines and photometric aperture used to analyze \psr, is
211: measured to be constant to a signal-to-noise ratio exceeding 800.
212: Assuming the fractional photometric errors are constant, they
213: contribute no more than a $\sim$ 0.125\% error in the \psr\ measurements.
214: The individual polarized flux measurements from the nearby bright
215: star are constant to a similar level ($\sim$ 0.1\%).
216: Flat-fielding and bias subtraction are performed as described in detail
217: in \citet{kern2002}.
218:
219: \subsection{Background Subtracted Pulse Profile\label{background_sub}}
220:
221: A nearby extended object, which is visible in {\it Hubble Space Telescope}
222: WF/PC2 and NICMOS images
223: of the field around \psr\ \citep{koptsevich_2001}, when observed
224: from the ground contributes some light to the photometric aperture
225: used for \psr.
226: This object is labeled o2 by \citet{koptsevich_2001}.
227: The \hst\ WF/PC2 images were observed in the F555W filter, a similar bandpass
228: to that of our ground-based images.
229: We convolve the WF/PC2
230: images with a gaussian PSF whose FWHM equals our average ground-based
231: seeing FWHM (1.3 arcsec).
232: We find that in our 1.5 arcsec square photometric aperture,
233: the extended object
234: contributes 39\% $\pm$ 7\% of the pulse-averaged light in our
235: (ground-based) photometric aperture.
236:
237: We define $I_i$ as the background-subtracted intensity of \psr\ in
238: phase bin $i$, which is plotted in Figure \ref{pulse}, normalized
239: by the pulse-averaged flux, $\overline{I}$.
240: The uncertainties plotted in Figure \ref{pulse}\
241: are determined from the variations in the
242: measured intensities in each phase bin, and are only 5\% larger
243: than the expected Poissonian errors due to the background flux
244: surrounding \psr.
245: The phases of our observations are referenced to the peak of the
246: radio pulse, which arrives at phase 0.0.
247: The possible gamma-ray pulse \citep{ramanamurthy_fkst1996}
248: peaks at phase 0.2.
249: The soft X-ray pulse broadly peaks near phase 0.85,
250: with a minimum near phase 0.3 \citep{marshall_s2002}.
251:
252: The minimum of the normalized background-subtracted pulse profile,
253: $I_{\rm min}/\overline{I}$,
254: is -0.05.
255: While a negative intensity is clearly unphysical, the measurement
256: error in each bin ($\sigma_{I} / \overline{I} = 0.24$)
257: can account for this discrepancy.
258: Using all of the bins in a joint probability measurement, we find
259: a 1-$\sigma$ upper limit (two-tailed) to the true unpulsed flux to be
260: $I_{\rm unpulsed}/\overline{I} < 0.16$, accounting for both
261: measurement error in each bin and the uncertainty in the background
262: level.
263: The limited temporal resolution of these measurements causes
264: $I_{\rm unpulsed}$ to be overestimated, so this number is an upper limit.
265:
266: The pulse profile
267: we measure for \psr\ differs from that
268: measured by \citet{shearer_1997}.
269: Due to an ephemeris folding error
270: (A. Shearer 2002, private communication), the Shearer \etal\
271: published results must be shifted in phase so that the peak
272: arrives at phase 0.8 (relative to the radio peak at 0.0).
273: Shearer \etal\ measure a pulse with a broad single peak, similar
274: to the soft X-ray pulse profile \citep{marshall_s2002}, reaching
275: a maximum at phase 0.8, coincident with our Peak 2, but they
276: find a minimum near phase 0.2, coincident with our Peak 1.
277: Considering the errors in the flux levels ($\sim$ 80\% of the mean flux)
278: and the sky background
279: level ($\sim$ 40\%) published by Shearer \etal, along with our errors
280: (24\% flux, 7\% background),
281: the two curves (independently normalized to the measured mean fluxes)
282: disagree at the 97.5\% (two-tailed) level.
283: %Curiously, the Shearer \etal\ light curve without
284: %an ephemeris correction (\ie, the published light curve with a
285: %peak at phase 0.2) differs from ours at only the 77\% (two-tailed) level.
286: Some difference may be expected because the Shearer \etal\ results were
287: obtained through a $B$ filter, while ours were obtained through a wider
288: passband (400--600 nm).
289: The measured disagreement could be due to the pulse morphology changing over
290: the 5 years between the Shearer \etal\ observations and ours,
291: or simply due to measurements that sample the tail of the error
292: distribution.
293: The level of disagreement does not warrant serious discussion of variability
294: in the pulse morphology.
295:
296: \subsection{Linearly Polarized Flux\label{polfluxsection}}
297:
298: We compute the linearly polarized flux, $L_i$, and the
299: polarization position angle, $\theta_i$, from the measured
300: Stokes parameters $Q_i$ and $U_i$,
301: \begin{mathletters}
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: L_i & = & \sqrt{Q_i^2 + U_i^2}, \label{eqnpolflux} \\
304: \theta_i & = & \tan^{-1}(U_i/Q_i) / 2.
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: \end{mathletters}
307: Following the prescriptions in \citet{simmons_s1985}, we construct a
308: Wardle-Kronberg \citep{wardle_k1974} estimator for $L_i$, which we
309: denote $L^{\rm WK}_i$, to reduce bias in points with low
310: signal-to-noise ratios.
311: A plot of the linearly polarized flux (using the Wardle-Kronberg estimator),
312: normalized to the pulse-averaged
313: flux, is shown in Figure \ref{polflux}.
314: In phases 0.4 -- 0.7, the $L^{\rm WK}_i$ values differ
315: from zero at the 2--3-$\sigma$
316: level.
317:
318: We test the significance of the polarized flux measurements in
319: two ways.
320: In each test we use the simple estimator in Eqn.~\ref{eqnpolflux}
321: for $L_i$,
322: rather than $L^{\rm WK}_i$.
323: If the uncertainties in $Q_i$ and $U_i$ are distributed as
324: independent gaussian variables with variance $\sigma^2$, under the null
325: hypothesis that there
326: is no polarized flux, $\chi^2 = \sum_{i=0}^{9}L_i^2/\sigma^2$
327: should be distributed as $\chi^2$ with 20 degrees of freedom.
328: This first test gives
329: $\chi^2 = 50$, which has a cumulative probability of 94.5\%.
330:
331: The polarized flux measurements form a time series, in which the
332: ordering of the measurements is significant.
333: We test the randomness of the time series (\ie, the ordering)
334: with the Wald-Wolfowitz
335: test of serial correlation \citep{wald_w1943}.
336: The ordering of the polarization values measured violates the
337: null hypothesis, that the numbers are randomly chosen, at the 97\% level.
338:
339: The combination of these two tests, which are independent of one
340: another (the size of the measurements is independent of the ordering
341: of the measurements),
342: lends some credibility to the measured polarization flux values.
343: We combine the cumulative probabilities of the
344: two tests (94.5\% and 97\%) to derive a significance of 0.998
345: for the detection of pulsed polarized flux (a 3-$\sigma$ result).
346:
347: If the position angle changes by 90\arcdeg\ on timescales comparable
348: to the bin width, the measured linear polarization will be reduced.
349: Therefore, the measured linear polarization must be considered a lower limit.
350: The best estimate is then that the flux is $\sim$ 100\% polarized
351: from phase 0.4--0.7, and (linearly) unpolarized at other phases.
352:
353: \section{Emission Models}
354:
355: There are two dominant classes of models that attempt to explain
356: the origin of the optical emission.
357: These two classes are the polar cap models and the outer gap models.
358: In each of these two classes of models, the morphology and the
359: polarization of the optical light curve are determined by the
360: spin period, $P$, the angle between the rotation and magnetic axes, $\alpha$,
361: and the colatitude of the observer's line-of-sight, $\zeta$.
362: The geometry is shown diagrammatically in Fig.~\ref{geom}.
363: In addition, the polar cap model allows the height of the emission
364: region, $h$, to vary.
365:
366: The optical light curve of \psr\ is sharply double-peaked, unlike
367: either the radio \citep{gould_l1998} or the X-ray
368: \citep{marshall_s2002} light curves, which are both
369: single-peaked.
370: We separate the optical light curve (see Fig.~\ref{pulse})
371: into 4 phase intervals.
372: We define Peak 1 from phase 0.2--0.3, Bridge emission from phase 0.3--0.8,
373: Peak 2 from 0.8--0.9, and Off-pulse from 0.9--1.2.
374:
375: The radio pulse peaks at phase 0.0,
376: with FWHM 0.04--0.07 at frequencies from 0.2--1.6 GHz \citep{gould_l1998}.
377: The Rotating Vector Model (RVM) allows radio polarization profiles to
378: determine the geometry of the magnetic poles relative to the rotation axis
379: and the observer line-of-sight (LOS).
380: In the case of \psr, the deepest data (at 1.4 GHz) give
381: a measurement of $\alpha = 29\arcdeg \pm 23\arcdeg$, $\beta = 8.9\arcdeg \pm 6.1\arcdeg$ \citep{everett_w2001},
382: where $\beta$ is the angle of the closest approach of the observer LOS to the
383: magnetic axis, defined by $\beta = \zeta - \alpha$.
384: The uncertainties of these angles are highly (positively) correlated.
385: Two earlier studies investigated \psr, with \citet{lyne_m1988}
386: giving $\alpha$=8.2\arcdeg, $\beta$=8.2\arcdeg, and \citet{rankin1990}
387: giving $\alpha$=30\arcdeg\ (with no estimate of $\beta$.)
388: These earlier studies do not estimate errors, as they are fits
389: to empirical assumptions about the underlying geometry whose errors
390: are not easily estimated.
391:
392: \subsection{Polar cap model}
393:
394: The polar cap model assumes that the optical light is emitted
395: near the surface of the neutron star, at
396: radii small compared to the light cylinder radius.
397: The optical light curve and polarization information can be
398: tested against two predictions of the polar cap model.
399: First, the polarization position angles can be compared to the
400: predictions of the RVM, using geometric parameters determined
401: by radio polarization data.
402: Second, the phase separation between the peaks in the optical light
403: curve, combined with the geometric parameters determined by
404: the RVM, determines an emission height for the optical peaks.
405: If this emission height is too large to be consistent with
406: the polar cap model, then the model fails.
407:
408: The RVM is a simple model, which assumes that the polarization
409: position angle depends only on the projection of the magnetic
410: dipole axis on the sky.
411: Because the position angles predicted by the RVM have no dependence on
412: height above the neutron star surface,
413: we can reasonably assume that the radio and optical position angles
414: must follow the same fit, even if they are emitted in different regions.
415: The radio polarization data of \citet{everett_w2001} are not
416: calibrated with an absolute position angle, which leaves the
417: zero-point of radio position angles as a free parameter.
418: We take the RVM position angles predicted by the fits to the radio
419: polarization, degrade the temporal resolution to that of the
420: optical observations (10 resolution elements),
421: and add a constant position angle offset to best fit the optical polarization
422: measurements.
423: The best-fit RVM prediction, showing both the radio and optical
424: position angles, is shown in Figure \ref{rvm}.
425: The range of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ allowed by the radio fit
426: does not change the predicted position angle
427: by an amount comparable to the errors in our measurement
428: of $\theta_i$, so the optical data do not reduce
429: formal errors on $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ beyond those of the
430: radio polarization
431: data alone.
432: The fit of the optical position angles to the RVM prediction
433: is quite good, with a
434: measured $\chi^2$ of 2.3 for 2 degrees of freedom
435: (cumulative probability 0.69).
436: The optical position angle observations
437: greatly expand the phase coverage of the polarization
438: data, but the size of the optical error bars
439: and the lack of absolute calibration of the
440: radio data angles prevent significant improvement of
441: the RVM fit.
442: The fact that the optical data agree well with the
443: radio data, given that they are obtained by entirely
444: independent techniques, does lend credibility to the
445: RVM.
446: The conservative conclusion drawn from the the optical polarization
447: position angles
448: is that they are consistent with the assumption that the optical light is
449: emitted along dipolar field lines, without consideration
450: of relativistic aberration, light travel time, or retarded potentials.
451:
452: The polar cap model, by assuming that the light is emitted
453: near the neutron star surface (far from the light cylinder),
454: makes specific predictions
455: regarding the morphology of the light curves.
456: For the second test, the information contained in the optical
457: pulse profile is reduced to the separation between the peaks,
458: which are assumed to be emitted from a single height, $h_{\rm peak}$,
459: above the neutron star surface.
460: The last open field lines form a pseudo-cone near the surface of the
461: star, and the optical light is assumed to be emitted along the
462: surface of the cone (tangent to the field lines),
463: from some height $h_{\rm peak}$ above the surface.
464: Peaks in the optical light curve arise as the neutron star rotates
465: and the line-of-sight intersects the cone of emission at
466: $h_{\rm peak}$.
467: The sharp rise of Peak 1 and sharp fall of Peak 2 match the
468: prediction that the optical emission arises from a hollow cone
469: \citep{sturner_d1994},
470: with the radio pulse arriving in the center of the cone,
471: during the optical Off-pulse phase interval.
472:
473: Several theoretical attempts have been made to estimate the height of
474: the gamma-ray emission region.
475: %The Pair Formation Front (PFF) is the location above a polar
476: %cap where photons, either curvature radiation (CR) photons from electrons and
477: %positrons or thermal photons inverse Compton scattered (ICS) by
478: %electrons and positrons, produce pairs and, by shielding the
479: %electric field, end the acceleration region.
480: %Estimates of the height of the PFF in the case of \psr,
481: %in units of the NS radius above the polar
482: %cap, range from $\sim$ 0.005 for ICS \citep{harding_m2002}
483: %and 0.01 -- 0.02 for CR \citep{harding_m2001}, to
484: %Cascades of particles created by these processes
485: Recent studies have estimated that particle acceleration
486: begins at heights 0.5--1 times the neutron star radius,
487: $R_{\rm NS}$, above the poles
488: \citep{harding_m1998b}.
489: This particle acceleration results in radiation of curvature
490: photons or inverse Compton scattering of thermal photons,
491: which then produce pairs, resulting in cascades of photons
492: and particles.
493: The optical radiation is produced after some number of
494: generations of this cascade.
495: We are not aware of specific estimates of the height of the
496: optical emission regions with respect to the primary particle
497: acceleration regions, but it has been speculated that
498: the gamma-ray emission regions may extend to several
499: ($\sim$ 3--5) $R_{\rm NS}$ \citep{daugherty_h1996a},
500: motivated by the requirement that observed
501: gamma-ray pulsar statistics reflect random viewing angles of
502: pulsars.
503: We adopt the estimate that $h_{\rm peak} \lesssim 5 R_{\rm NS}$.
504:
505: The opening angle of the cone defined by the last open field lines
506: increases with increasing height, $h_{\rm peak}$, of the emission region
507: above the neutron star surface.
508: All else equal, larger values of $h_{\rm peak}$ result in more widely
509: separated peaks in the optical light curve.
510: Given values of the pulsar period, $P$, and the phase
511: separation between the optical peaks, $\Delta\varphi_{\rm peak}$,
512: $h_{\rm peak}$ is a function
513: of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$.
514: We calculate the relationship between these variables by
515: assuming the magnetic fields are described by an inclined
516: static dipole (defined by $\alpha$),
517: and define the last open field lines as those
518: which are tangent to the light cylinder (defined by $P$).
519: We do not consider plasma loading, inertial frame dragging,
520: or general relativistic photon propagation effects near the surface,
521: and do not distort the field lines for any near-surface plasma
522: effects.
523: These additional corrections, which we neglect, can increase
524: the opening angle of the near-surface field lines by a factor
525: of $\sim$ 2 \citep{daugherty_h1996a}.
526: The absence of these corrections results in conservative limits,
527: in the sense that the corrections would allow larger values of
528: $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ to produce the observed peak separation.
529: For given values of $h_{\rm peak}$ and $\zeta$,
530: we calculate the tangents to the last
531: open field lines, and find the values of $\varphi$ for which
532: the tangents to the last open field lines point toward the observer.
533: Because $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ are not uniquely determined
534: for \psr, estimates of $h_{\rm peak}$ depend on the range of $\alpha$
535: and $\zeta$ allowed by the RVM.
536: We do not use the standard small-angle approximations for the
537: dipole field lines, but calculate the full spherical trigonometric
538: relationships for all angles, which are valid for all values of
539: $\alpha$ and $\zeta$.
540:
541: By assuming that the optical emission forms a hollow cone
542: \citep{sturner_d1994},
543: with the radio pulse in the center of the cone, the separation
544: between the optical peaks becomes
545: $\Delta\varphi_{\rm peak} = 0.4$ (instead of 0.6).
546: A plot of $h_{\rm peak}$ versus $\alpha$ and $\zeta$, showing values
547: of $h_{\rm peak}$ comparable to
548: several $R_{\rm NS}$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{heightsmall}.
549: It must be recognized that the uncertainties in $h_{\rm peak}$ for
550: each $\alpha$ and $\zeta$
551: amount to several tens of percent, in the sense that the
552: plot is calculated for $\Delta\varphi_{\rm peak} = 0.4$, which is itself
553: uncertain by approximately $\pm0.1$.
554: If $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ are less than
555: $\sim 5^{\circ}$, $h_{\rm peak}$ is small
556: enough to be consistent with the intial
557: assumption of the polar cap model (that the emission region
558: is within a few NS radii) and the
559: constraints of the RVM.
560:
561: The data contained in Fig.~\ref{heightsmall}\ represent only
562: a consistency check based on the optical peak separation,
563: from a single height above the neutron star surface.
564: We propose an entirely empirical model to estimate the
565: relative emissivity versus height in the polar cap model,
566: for a range of heights.
567: For a single representative point in Fig.~\ref{heightsmall},
568: we calculate the emission height at all phases, defining the height as the
569: point at which the tangent to the last open field lines points to
570: the observer.
571: A plot of the emission height versus $\varphi$ for $\alpha = 3.5^\circ$,
572: $\zeta = 5^\circ$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{hvsphase}.
573: While this choice of $\alpha$ differs somewhat from the best-fit RVM estimate
574: of $29\pm23^\circ$ from radio data, it corresponds to
575: $h_{\rm peak} ~ 5 R_{\rm NS}$, which we choose as an upper limit.
576: For this analysis (but not in the following Outer gap model section),
577: we make use of the lag between the radio peak and the
578: transit of the magnetic pole, as determined from the radio
579: polarization data in \citet{everett_w2001}.
580: They find that the RVM estimates a lag of $14.9\pm0.9^\circ$ of the
581: magnetic pole with respect to the radio peak,
582: which we approximate as $\Delta\varphi$ = 0.05 (or 18$^\circ$).
583: We find this lag convenient, as it makes the interpretation of
584: the pulse profile (Fig.~\ref{pulse}) symmetric, in the sense
585: that the first peak arrives at $\varphi \sim 0.25$
586: (between 0.2 and 0.3 relative to the radio peak),
587: which is 0.2 revolutions after the magnetic
588: pole transit, and the second peak arrives at $\varphi \sim 0.85$,
589: which is 0.2 revolutions before the magnetic pole transit.
590: This should not be interpreted as an independent corroboration
591: of the estimated lag of the magnetic pole, as there
592: is no reason to believe the profile must be symmetric,
593: and because the effect is smaller than the optical temporal resolution.
594:
595: The emissivity at different heights above the polar caps
596: can be crudely estimated using the height profile shown
597: in Fig.~\ref{hvsphase}.
598: We again assume light is emitted along tangents to the last open
599: field lines.
600: Points on the two-dimensional surface of last open field lines emit light
601: that would be observed at different phases, $\varphi$, by observers
602: at different colatitudes, $\zeta$.
603: The transformation from two-dimensional area on the surface of
604: last open field lines to solid angle ($\varphi$, $\zeta$) on the sky into which
605: optical light is emitted defines
606: a Jacobian, which determines the relationship between
607: emissivity (emitted flux per unit surface area) and
608: the flux observed in a given phase interval (recognizing that
609: the observer defines a delta-function in $\zeta$).
610: At lower heights, the magnetic field lines diverge
611: more rapidly, which results in a lower observed flux for a given
612: emissivity (\ie, the flux is emitted into a larger solid angle).
613: Conversely, given an observed flux, the inferred emissivity is
614: greater at lower heights.
615:
616: A plot of the estimated emissivity versus height above the
617: neutron star surface is shown in Fig.~\ref{emissivity},
618: for $\alpha = 3.5^\circ$, $\zeta = 5^\circ$.
619: The points at small $h$ (less than $\sim 3 R_{\rm NS}$) come from
620: the Off-pulse interval, the peaks
621: in emissivity correspond to the optical peaks,
622: and the largest value of $h$ corresponds to
623: $\varphi$ = 0.5--0.6.
624: This plot clearly shows the errors implicit in Fig.~\ref{heightsmall},
625: based on the size of the horizontal bars (the range of heights that
626: contribute to each phase bin).
627: The heights and emissivities shown in Figs.~\ref{hvsphase} and
628: \ref{emissivity}\ depend on the
629: given geometry ($\alpha = 3.5^\circ$, $\zeta = 5^\circ$),
630: but the trends
631: in the plots remain the same for different geometries, with a
632: rapid rise of emissivity up to $h_{\rm peak}$, declining
633: at larger heights.
634: It must be emphasized that this emissivity model is purely empirical,
635: and is not based
636: on any understanding of the underlying pair cascade physics
637: or emission mechanisms.
638:
639: \subsection{Outer gap model}
640:
641: Outer gaps arise beyond null charge surfaces, where the
642: Goldreich-Julian charge density vanishes \citep{romani_y1995, romani1996}.
643: These gaps act as accelerators, which result in cascades of
644: high-energy particles and photons being emitted along the
645: magnetic field lines (in the rotating frame).
646: The gaps are ``closed'' some distance from the null charge surface,
647: where the cascades supply a sufficient
648: density of charged particles to end the acceleration.
649: In a broad interpretation, the regions responsible for the observed
650: optical emission
651: are bounded by the null charge surfaces, the last open field lines,
652: the light cylinder, and the upper edges of the gap (where the
653: cascades close the gap).
654: Individual models, applied to different pulsars, have assumed
655: that high-energy emission comes from some subset of the
656: potential emission region.
657:
658: The typical assumption used to model the observed emission
659: from an outer gap is that photons are emitted, in the rotating
660: frame, along magnetic field lines.
661: Calculating the resulting light curve entails
662: applying relativistic corrections and correcting for light
663: travel times, which means that the emission region observed
664: at a particular phase is generally not along the line-of-sight
665: connecting the observer to the surface of the neutron star.
666: In addition, calculating the magnetic field line trajectories
667: at radii comparable
668: to the light cylinder radius requires using retarded
669: potentials, such as those described by \citet{deutsch1955}.
670:
671: The parameters required to produce an individual light curve using
672: an outer gap model are $P$, $\alpha$, and $\zeta$, as in the polar
673: cap model, plus a width parameter $w$.
674: The width parameter, $w$, identifies a set of magnetic field
675: lines, based on the location at which they intersect the
676: surface of the neutron star.
677: The last open field lines are defined to lie at $w=0$, while
678: the magnetic pole defines $w=1$ \citep{romani_y1995}.
679: A given value of $w$ identifies a two-dimensional surface
680: (a pseudo-cone), that is the collection of all magnetic field lines
681: that strike the neutron star surface at the appropriate distance from
682: the magnetic pole.
683: We then assume that this surface emits
684: optical photons tangential to the local field lines,
685: directed inward, outward, or both,
686: with a constant flux per unit surface area.
687: More complex outer gap models may also include azimuthal
688: and radial limits on the emission region inside the outer gap,
689: or any arbitrary pattern of emission over the surfaces of
690: constant $w$.
691:
692: %While we use the outer gap model to predict the high-energy
693: %emission, we still insist that the radio emission arises near
694: %the neutron star surface.
695: %For a given set of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$,
696:
697: In our simplified approach, where we only determine emission
698: peaks for a given geometry, we adopt a simple technique for
699: identifying peaks.
700: For a given $\alpha$ and $w$, a skymap is constructed,
701: as described in \citet{yadigaroglu1997}.
702: A skymap shows the locus of points in the $\zeta$-$\varphi$ plane
703: (where $\varphi$ is phase) which correspond to observable emission
704: from the surface of magnetic field lines defined by $w$.
705: The skymap corresponding to $\alpha = 70^\circ$, $w = 0.2$ is
706: shown in Fig.~\ref{skymap}.
707: The transformation that maps the two-dimensional surface of magnetic
708: field lines at constant $w$ to the two-dimensional skymap ($\zeta$
709: vs.\ $\varphi$), combined with the assumption of constant emitted flux
710: per unit surface area, results in a map of observed flux per
711: unit $\zeta$-$\varphi$ area.
712: %The observer defines a $\delta$-function in the $\zeta$ dimension,
713: %which allows the skymap to be interpreted as a lightcurve
714: %(flux vs. $\varphi$).
715: The Jacobian of this transformation is large (high flux) where
716: $\zeta$ and $\varphi$ change little across or along magnetic field
717: lines.
718: This is most commonly the case at the envelope of the optical
719: emission regions, between regions of $\zeta$ and $\varphi$ where
720: there is observable emission and regions where there is none.
721: We then use the location of this boundary as an estimate of the
722: $\zeta$ and $\varphi$ at which the optical light curve peaks.
723: One motivation for this formulation is that for a given
724: $\zeta$, the lightcurve will be discontinuous at values of $\varphi$
725: which cross this boundary, as the flux is zero on one side of
726: the boundary.
727: While this quality does replicate part of the phenomenology
728: associated with a peak, by only reproducing the positions
729: of the optical peaks, we make no distinction between zero
730: emission off-peak and bridge emission.
731:
732: This simplified technique is prone to identify too many peaks.
733: There are configurations for which the outer gap models generate
734: broad, sinusoidal pulse profiles, whose peaks are not captured by
735: identifying boundary crossings.
736: In addition, there are low flux regions identified by
737: this technique that are insignificant in the overall
738: pulse profile.
739: Configurations with small values of $\alpha$, or large
740: values of $\zeta$ (near 90$^\circ$) tend to
741: produce more spurious peaks using this technique.
742:
743: Given the large number of pulse profiles that can be constructed
744: by varying the available parameters, we restrict the
745: observational features we try to match.
746: We reduce the contents of the
747: optical light curve to the peak positions,
748: specifically, Peak 1 occurs between phases 0.2--0.3 and
749: Peak 2 occurs between phases 0.8--0.9.
750: The radio pulse arrives at phase 0.0.
751: We model the emission from three classes of outer gap models, to match the
752: observations.
753: Class A restricts the emission region to single values of $w$, and
754: insists that the phases of the two optical peaks and the radio
755: peak all match the observations.
756: Class B allows emission from all values of $w$, and insists
757: that the phases of the radio and optical peaks match.
758: Class C allows emission from all values of $w$, but assumes
759: the optical peaks have no relationship to the radio peak.
760: For each of these classes, we determine the light curves
761: produced by only outward-going photons, only inward-going
762: photons, and a combination of inward- and outward-going photons.
763: For each of the nine resulting constraints, we determine
764: the values of $\alpha$, $\zeta$, and (for Class A) $w$ which
765: produce the observed phases of optical peaks.
766:
767: We calculate skymaps, and their corresponding envelopes, for
768: $\alpha$ = 5$^\circ$--85$^\circ$ at intervals of 5$^\circ$, and
769: for $w$ = 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.40, and 0.80.
770: From this grid of skymaps, we calculate peak positions for
771: values of $\zeta$ = 1$^\circ$--90$^\circ$ at intervals of 1$^\circ$.
772: The agreement of the models with the constraints corresponding to
773: each class, and inward- or outward-going emission, are
774: recorded and binned into 5$^\circ$-square bins in $\alpha$-$\zeta$
775: space.
776: The results of the agreement of the models is presented in
777: Fig.~\ref{outgap}.
778: We include the regions of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ which are
779: consistent with the RVM applied to the radio data in Fig.~\ref{outgap},
780: except in Class C, which ignores the radio data.
781:
782: Further work will be required to compare the observed polarization
783: profile to those predicted by the outer gap models under
784: different geometries, in an attempt to further constrain the
785: outer gap models.
786:
787: \section{Discussion}
788:
789: The double-peaked nature of the optical pulse profile can
790: be interpreted in light of both polar cap and outer gap models.
791: In the absence of a clear gamma-ray pulse profile for \psr,
792: and given that the soft X-rays observed for \psr\ are
793: commonly interpreted as thermal emission from the neutron star
794: surface,
795: the optical pulse profile is the only high-energy data available
796: to test these models.
797: The optical polarization data, while not of high signal-to-noise ratio,
798: allow a new set of diagnostics to be applied to these tests.
799:
800: Unlike the radio emission, which is probably coherent curvature
801: radiation, the optical emission mechanism is more likely
802: to be synchrotron radiation.
803: This is supported in the case of \psr\ by the close match between the optical
804: fluxes and the extrapolation of the non-thermal
805: X-ray power law component,
806: scaling as $\nu^{-0.45}$ \citep{koptsevich_2001}.
807: There are two immediate implications of this
808: inference.
809: First, the polarization position angle differs by
810: 90$^\circ$ between curvature and synchrotron radiation.
811: Curvature radiation in the normal mode is
812: polarized parallel to the $B$ field, while
813: the position angle of syncrotron radiation will be
814: perpendicular to the $B$ field.
815: We cannot test this prediction without
816: absolutely calibrated radio position angles.
817: Without absolutely calibrated position angles,
818: there is no orientation against which to compare
819: the measured optical position angles.
820: Second, if the optical light is synchrotron with a negative
821: power-law exponent, the
822: $B$ field at the location of emission must be low enough
823: that the synchrotron characteristic frequency is below
824: the optical frequency.
825: A critical frequency, $\nu_{\rm c}$, of $ \lesssim 10^{14}$ Hz corresponds to
826: $B \lesssim 10^{8}$ G, compared to the surface $B_0 = 5 \times 10^{12}$ G.
827: This constraint leads to a minimum height of the emission
828: region of $\gtrsim 35 R_{\rm NS}$ for the dipole field to drop to 10$^{8}$ G.
829:
830: The polar cap model can explain the morphology of the optical pulse
831: profile, with the light arising from an emission within
832: $\sim 5 R_{\rm NS}$, for $\alpha$, $\zeta \lesssim 5^\circ$,
833: as shown in Fig.~\ref{heightsmall}.
834: As is typical for polar cap models with widely separated
835: peaks \citep{sturner_d1994},
836: the predicted values of
837: $\alpha$ are small.
838: What is striking is that the polarization position angles
839: for the optical light curve agree very well with the sweep
840: predicted by the Rotating Vector Model, applied to the radio
841: polarizaion data of \citet{everett_w2001}.
842: While the agreement is quite good ($\chi^2$ = 2.3 for 2
843: degrees of freedom), it is based on only three data points,
844: which give only two degrees of freedom because the absolute position angles of
845: the radio data are not known.
846: The optical position angles do support the interpretation of
847: the radio data in \citet{everett_w2001}, which is encouraging,
848: as the fits to the RVM using radio data from a short phase interval
849: give estimates with a great deal of
850: covariance in the parameters.
851: The simple fact that the sweep of optical position angles agrees
852: at all with the radio position angles implies a new level of
853: confidence that the RVM applies to \psr, considering that the RVM
854: gives good fits to only a small fraction of pulsars with
855: high-quality radio polarization data.
856: It must be recognized that the radio polarization data are obtained
857: in only a small window of phase (see Fig.~\ref{rvm}),
858: while the optical position angles are taken from a wider range of
859: phase.
860: The optical data, when combined with the radio data, give a
861: more complete picture than is available for nearly any other
862: radio pulsar, except the Crab (which does not follow the RVM).
863: While the optical data do not directly confirm the
864: estimated lag between the radio peak and the magnetic pole
865: transit, the agreement of the optical data with the RVM fit
866: does bolster confidence that the RVM can be interpreted
867: quite literally in the case of \psr.
868: The optical position angles do not allow us to test if
869: the optical light is synchrotron while the radio
870: is curvature radiation, because the radio position angles are not
871: absolutely calibrated.
872: Regardless of the interpretation of the optical position
873: angles, the polar cap model can explain the general morphology
874: of the optical light curve (peak positions relative to the
875: radio peak, bridge emission between the peaks).
876: However, there may
877: be a problem with an unbroken synchrotron
878: power-law spectrum through optical frequencies requiring a larger
879: emission height ($\gtrsim 35 R_{\rm NS}$)
880: than is realistic under polar cap cascade scenarios ($\lesssim 5 R_{\rm NS}$).
881:
882: The outer gap models discussed here are somewhat restrictive,
883: in that we do not accomodate several dimensions of flexibility
884: available to outer gap models.
885: We assume a constant emitted flux per unit surface area across
886: the entire possible outer gap region.
887: This assumption ignores, for example, the flexibility allowed by instituting
888: azimuthal or radial limits to the optical emission region,
889: which could shift the location of the peaks in the optical light
890: curve.
891: We also reduce the optical light curve to its simplest observable
892: parameter, the location of the optical peaks.
893: We find that with these restrictions, we are able to find
894: agreement between the data and the outer gap models,
895: as summarized in Fig.~\ref{outgap}.
896: However, in examining only the presence of peaks at
897: the observed phases, we ignore the fact that most of these models
898: produce too many peaks.
899: For instance, the inclusion of both outward- and inward-going emission
900: produces four peaks for most geometries.
901: In addition, including many values of $w$ in the calculations
902: (which results in many geometries compatible with the observations)
903: would diffuse the peaks, without fine-tuning the models by
904: restricting the emission region in azimuth or radius.
905: The overly liberal approach we take in our modeling, which produces
906: as many peaks as possible, is intended
907: only to determine the ability to construct a model which produces
908: peaks at the right positions, with the assumption that the remaining
909: degrees of freedom could be used to fine-tune the model to better
910: fit the entire light curve observed.
911:
912: One conclusion that is not well represented
913: in Fig.~\ref{outgap} is that values of $w > 0.40$ do
914: not contribute significantly to the observed optical
915: peaks.
916: %This is not particularly surprising, as few magnetic fields
917: %with large $w$ cross the null-charge surface.
918: \citet{zhang_c1997} predict that because
919: \psr\ rotates slowly, 70\% of the volume of the outer
920: magnetosphere should be filled by the outer gap.
921: While this fractional volume is not directly comparable to
922: $w$, taken simplistically, it seems to imply that
923: the optical emission is being emitted well inside (\ie not filling)
924: the boundaries of the outer gap.
925:
926: The Crab Pulsar is the only other pulsar for which optical
927: polarization measurements are available.
928: The polarization pulse profile measured in \psr\ is
929: different in character than that measured in the Crab.
930: The Crab's linearly polarized {\it flux} is maximized at the
931: peaks and minimized in the bridge, while the
932: polarized {\it fraction} is maximized in the bridge and minimized at
933: the peaks \citep{smith_jdp1988}.
934: In \psr, the linearly polarized flux and polarized fraction are
935: both maximized in the bridge and both minimized at the peaks.
936: The low temporal resolution of our optical measurements will
937: lead to a decrease in the measured linearly polarized flux,
938: but our observations of the Crab at the same temporal resolution
939: show a much greater polarized flux at the peaks (where the
940: position angle swings rapidly) than in the bridge.
941: Under the RVM, this decrease in measured linearly polarized
942: flux would be small, as can be seen by noting that the
943: position angle sweep is not rapid at phases 0.2 and 0.8 in
944: Fig.~\ref{rvm}.
945: However, the RVM does not apply to the position angles measured
946: in the Crab (as the position angles execute a ``double sweep''),
947: so without a more detailed polarization model for
948: \psr, we cannot rule out the chance that rapid swings have
949: degraded our measured polarized flux.
950:
951: The 1-$\sigma$ upper limit on the unpulsed flux is 16\%, limiting
952: the contribution of thermal radiation to the observed flux.
953: As we are presenting only differential photometry in these
954: observations, we must rely on absolute photometry presented by
955: other authors, which almost certainly have different methods
956: of background subtraction (and treatment of the nearby extended
957: object).
958: As such, we note only that this limit on the thermal radiation
959: from \psr\ is not surprising, given realistic extrapolations of the
960: Rayleight-Jeans emission \citep{koptsevich_2001}.
961: The high pulsed fraction does, however, rule out models in
962: which the optical emission is due to a fallback disk
963: (Perna, Hernquist, \& Narayan 2000)\nocite{perna_hn2000}. %FIRST TIME 3-AUTHOR
964: A comparable pulsed / unpulsed measurement in the UV would
965: provide a much better constraint on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail
966: of the thermal emission from the surface of \psr.
967:
968: \acknowledgments
969:
970: We were greatly assisted by Stephen Kaye and the Palomar engineering
971: staff.
972: Thanks to J. Everett and A. Shearer for additional assistance, and
973: to J. Weisberg for encouraging and constructive comments.
974: This work was supported by NSF Grants AST-9618880, AST-9819762,
975: and AST-0096930.
976: This investigation made use of observations made with the
977: NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive
978: at the Space Telescope Science Institute.
979: STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for
980: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
981:
982: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
983: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
984: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
985: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
986: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
987: %%
988: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
989: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
990: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
991: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
992: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
993: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
994: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
995: %% place of the \cite commands.
996:
997: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
998: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
999: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
1000:
1001: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
1002: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
1003: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
1004: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
1005: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
1006:
1007: \bibliographystyle{astronbdk}
1008: \bibliography{/users/bdk/pcam/papers/bib/psr0656,/users/bdk/pcam/papers/bib/emissionmodels,/users/bdk/pcam/papers/bib/radiopol,psr0656}
1009:
1010: \clearpage
1011:
1012: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1013: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1014:
1015: \clearpage
1016:
1017: \begin{figure}
1018: \epsscale{1.0}
1019: %\plotone{singleimf.eps}
1020: \plotone{f1.eps}
1021: \caption{Average intensity image, eliminating all phase and polarization
1022: information.
1023: \psr\ is in the exact center of the image.
1024: Note the extended object which overlaps the pulsar
1025: (above the pulsar in this plot).
1026: The size of this image is 40$\times$10 arcsec (0.5 arcsec/pixel).
1027: \label{imgtot}}
1028: \end{figure}
1029:
1030: \begin{figure}
1031: \epsscale{1.0}
1032: %\plotone{pulseimgf.eps}
1033: \plotone{f2.eps}
1034: \caption{Phase-binned total intensity (\ie no polarization information)
1035: images of \psr.
1036: Each image is labeled by its phase bin index (0--9),
1037: with 0 corresponding to phase 0.0--0.1, 1 to phase 0.1--0.2, {\it etc}.
1038: \psr\ is in the exact center of each 40$\times$10 arcsec image.
1039: The intensity peaks in bins 2 and 8.
1040: The measured intensity of the bright star 14 arcsec NE of \psr\
1041: varies by less than 0.2\% over the phase bins.
1042: \label{pulseimg}}
1043: \end{figure}
1044:
1045: \begin{figure}
1046: \epsscale{1.0}
1047: %\plotone{pulsesubf.eps}
1048: \plotone{f3.eps}
1049: \caption{Total-intensity pulse profile of \psr.
1050: The intensity scale is normalized to the pulse-averaged intensity.
1051: Error bars are 1-$\sigma$ errors.
1052: Pulse is plotted twice for clarity.
1053: All intensities have been background-subtracted as described
1054: in Section~\ref{background_sub}.
1055: The radio pulse peaks at phase 0.0, and the possible gamma-ray
1056: peak \citep{ramanamurthy_fkst1996} is at phase 0.2.
1057: \label{pulse}}
1058: \end{figure}
1059:
1060: \begin{figure}
1061: \epsscale{1.0}
1062: %\plotone{polf.eps}
1063: \plotone{f4.eps}
1064: \caption{Linearly polarized flux.
1065: The filled circles are the Wardle-Kronberg estimates of the
1066: linearly polarized flux, $L^{\rm WK}_i$,
1067: with 1-$\sigma$ error bars, normalized
1068: to the pulse-averaged total intensity.
1069: The dotted line is the total-intensity pulse profile, on the
1070: same flux scale, duplicated from
1071: Fig.~\ref{pulse}.
1072: \label{polflux}}
1073: \end{figure}
1074:
1075: \begin{figure}
1076: \epsscale{1.0}
1077: %\plotone{geomidlf.eps}
1078: \plotone{f5.eps}
1079: \caption{Rotation geometry.
1080: $\Omega$ is the rotation axis, $\mu$ is the magnetic
1081: axis, $\alpha$ is the angle between $\Omega$ and $\mu$, and
1082: $\zeta$ is the angle between $\Omega$ and the observer's
1083: line-of-sight.
1084: \label{geom}}
1085: \end{figure}
1086:
1087: \begin{figure}
1088: \epsscale{1.0}
1089: %\plotone{rvmf.eps}
1090: \plotone{f6.eps}
1091: \caption{Linear polarization position angles, $\theta$.
1092: Diamonds are the optical position angles with 1-$\sigma$ error bars,
1093: dots are the radio polarization position angles from \citet{everett_w2001}.
1094: The radio position angles are not absolutely calibrated, and are shown
1095: with the best-fit zero-point offset.
1096: The radio position angles do not have error bars plotted.
1097: The radio position angle measurements made where the radio flux
1098: is low ($|\varphi| > 0.05$) have large uncertainties.
1099: The dotted line is the prediction from the Rotating Vector Model,
1100: using the radio data.
1101: The solid line is the same prediction, with temporal resolution
1102: reduced to equal that of
1103: the optical measurements.
1104: \label{rvm}}
1105: \end{figure}
1106:
1107: \begin{figure}
1108: \epsscale{1.0}
1109: %\plotone{rvmradlimits2af.eps}
1110: \plotone{f7.eps}
1111: \caption{Height at which optical peaks are emitted.
1112: Contours represent heights of the optical emission region,
1113: above the surface of the neutron star, that give the
1114: observed phase separation between peaks of 0.4.
1115: The heights are stated in multiples of
1116: $R_{\rm NS} = 10$ km.
1117: The hatched region is the 3-$\sigma$ confidence region for
1118: $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ (no dependence on $h_{\rm peak}$),
1119: applying the Rotating Vector Model
1120: to the radio data of \citet{everett_w2001}.
1121: The cross-hatched region denotes $h_{\rm peak} < 0$, for which there is
1122: no geometry giving the observed peak separation.
1123: This plot shows only values of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$
1124: corresponding to a range of $h_{\rm peak}$ comparable to
1125: the theoretically expected heights.
1126: \label{heightsmall}}
1127: \end{figure}
1128:
1129: \begin{figure}
1130: \epsscale{1.0}
1131: %\plotone{hf.eps}
1132: \plotone{f8.eps}
1133: \caption{Sample optical emission height profile in polar cap model.
1134: This plot is calculated for $\alpha = 3.5^\circ$, $\zeta = 5^\circ$
1135: (see Fig.~\ref{heightsmall}),
1136: assuming the magnetic pole transit lags the radio peak by 0.05 in phase.
1137: The height, $h$, at which the tangent to the last open field lines point
1138: to the observer, is plotted versus phase, $\varphi$, normalized to
1139: the neutron star radius, $R_{\rm NS}$ = 10 km.
1140: The vertical dotted lines correspond to the nominal locations of
1141: the optical peaks (during the phase intervals 0.2--0.3, and 0.8--0.9),
1142: and the hatched regions approximately mark the Off-pulse interval.
1143: \label{hvsphase}}
1144: \end{figure}
1145:
1146: \begin{figure}
1147: \epsscale{1.0}
1148: %\plotone{emissivityf.eps}
1149: \plotone{f9.eps}
1150: \caption{Sample areal emissivity versus height in polar cap model.
1151: The emissivity is calculated from the observed pulse profile
1152: (Fig.~\ref{pulse}) and
1153: the Jacobian of the transformation from area on the last closed
1154: field lines (at the emission location as defined in Fig.~\ref{hvsphase})
1155: to solid angle on the sky.
1156: The geometric assumptions are as in Fig.~\ref{hvsphase}, and
1157: the plotted values vary as $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ vary.
1158: Ten points are plotted, corresponding to the ten measured points
1159: in the pulse profile.
1160: The vertical error bars are the 1-$\sigma$ errors from Fig.~\ref{pulse},
1161: the horizontal bars denote the range of heights associated with
1162: the phase interval in each phase bin.
1163: \label{emissivity}}
1164: \end{figure}
1165:
1166: \begin{figure}
1167: \epsscale{1.0}
1168: %\plottwo{skymap_70_0.20f.eps}{skymapenv_70_0.20f.eps}
1169: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
1170: \caption{(a) Outward-going emission skymap for $\alpha=70^\circ$, $w = 0.20$.
1171: Each point in the plot represents the phase, $\varphi$, at which
1172: an observer at colatitude $\zeta$ would observe an outward-going
1173: photon emitted along magnetic field lines in the $w=0.20$
1174: surface.
1175: Only values of $\zeta < 90^\circ$ are in the outer gap (the
1176: null-charge surface corresponds to $\zeta=90^\circ$), where photons
1177: are produced.
1178: The small circles at $\zeta=70^\circ$,
1179: $\varphi=0$, 1, and 2 represent the magnetic pole
1180: responsible for the radio emission.
1181: (b) Envelope of outer gap emission region.
1182: The lines denote the boundary between areas with observable emission
1183: and those without.
1184: These lines include virtually all peaks in the light curves.
1185: The hatched regions show the locations of the optical peaks
1186: (relative to the radio peak at $\varphi=0$).
1187: The envelope does not intersect the region $\varphi$ = 0.8--0.9 for
1188: these parameters, implying that this geometry cannot produce
1189: the observed optical peaks.
1190: \label{skymap}}
1191: \end{figure}
1192:
1193: \begin{figure}
1194: \epsscale{0.8}
1195: %\plotone{outgapconstraintsf.eps}
1196: \plotone{f11.eps}
1197: \caption{Outer gap parameters which match observed optical properties.
1198: Each panel is marked at values of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ for which
1199: the outer gap models can produce a light curve with peaks at the
1200: observed phases.
1201: The (a) panels produce peaks at phases 0.2 and 0.8 relative to
1202: the radio peak at phase 0.0, from field lines at a single value of $w$.
1203: The (b) panels produce peaks at phases 0.2 and 0.8 relative to
1204: the radio peak at 0.0, from field lines at all values of $w$.
1205: The (c) panels produce peaks separated by 0.4 (or, equivaliently, 0.6)
1206: in phase, with no
1207: specified relationship to the radio peak, and from all $w$.
1208: The (1) panels show only outward-going emission,
1209: the (2) panels only inward-going emission,
1210: and the (3) panels both inward- and outward-going emission.
1211: In the (a) panels, the symbols represent the value of $w$
1212: satisfying the observations, with a diamond for 0.02,
1213: plus for 0.05, square for 0.10, cross for 0.20, and a circle for 0.40.
1214: No models with $w=0.80$ fall on this plot.
1215: The sole data point in panel (a1) is likely to be spurious.
1216: The region in the (a) and (b) panels
1217: marked by the dotted lines is the 3-$\sigma$ confidence
1218: interval determined from the RVM fits to radio data.
1219: \label{outgap}}
1220: \end{figure}
1221:
1222: \end{document}
1223: