1: %\documentclass[referee]{mn2e}
2: %\documentclass[]{mn2e}
3: \documentclass[twocolumn]{article}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx,color}
5: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{\label{#1} }
6:
7: %\title[X-ray Image of Crab Nebula]{On the X-ray Image of The Crab Nebula: Comparison with Chandra Observations}
8: \title{On the X-ray Image of The Crab Nebula: Comparison with Chandra Observations}
9:
10: %\author[Shibata et al.]{Shinpei SHIBATA$^{1}$, Haruhiko TOMATSURI$^{1}$,
11: \author{Shinpei SHIBATA $^{1}$, Haruhiko TOMATSURI$^{1}$, \\ Makiko SHIMANUKI$^{1}$, Kazuyuki SAITO$^{1}$, Koji MORI$^{2}$ \\ $^{1}$Department of Physics Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-8560, JAPAN, \\ $^{2}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory, \\ The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
12:
13: \newcommand{\bmath}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
14: \begin{document}
15: \date{in original form 2003 June 23, revised 5 August, accepted 25 August 2003 for MNRAS}
16: %\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2003}
17:
18:
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \label{firstpage}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: An axisymmetric model for the Crab Nebula is constructed to examine the
26: flow dynamics in the nebula. The model is based on that of Kennel and
27: Coroniti (1984), although we assume that the kinetic-energy-dominant
28: wind is confined in an equatorial region. The evolution of the
29: distribution function of the electron-positron plasma flowing out in the
30: nebula is calculated. Given viewing angles, we reproduce an image of
31: the nebula and compare it with Chandra observation.
32:
33: The reproduced image is not a ring-like but rather 'lip-shaped'. It is
34: found that the assumption of toroidal field does not reproduce the
35: Chandra image. We must assume that there is disordered magnetic field
36: with an amplitude as large as the mean toroidal field. In addition, the
37: brightness contrast between the front and back sides of the ring cannot
38: be reproduced if we assume that the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ is
39: as small as $\sim 10^{-3}$. The brightness profile along the semi-major
40: axis of the torus is also examined. The non-dissipative, ideal-MHD
41: approximation in the nebula appears to break down.
42:
43: We speculate that if the magnetic energy is released by some process
44: that produce turbulent field in the nebula flow and causes heating and
45: acceleration, e.g. by magnetic reconnection, then the present
46: difficulties may be resolved (i.e. we can reproduce a ring image, and a
47: higher brightness contrast). Thus, the magnetization parameter $\sigma$
48: can be larger than previously expected.
49:
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: %\begin{keywords}
53: stars: pulsars: general -- ISM: individual: Crab Nebula
54: %\end{keywords}
55:
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58:
59: A standard picture of the Crab Nebula was given by Kennel and Coroniti
60: (KC; 1984). According to their picture, a super-fast
61: magnetohydrodynamic wind, which is generated by the central pulsar,
62: terminates at a shock, with the nebula identified as a postshock flow
63: shining in synchrotron radiation. The central cavity of the nebula is
64: occupied by the unseen wind. The shock is supposed to occur at the
65: standing inner wisp.
66:
67: The KC model is very successful explaining the synchrotron luminosity,
68: spectrum and frequency-dependent size of the nebula. An important
69: conclusion of the KC model is that the energy of the wind is conveyed
70: mostly by kinetic energy in the bulk motion of the plasma. Because the
71: energy flux is in the form of an electromagnetic field at the base of
72: the wind, this means that the efficiency of the wind acceleration is
73: extremely high; KC found it to be 99.7\%.
74:
75: The principal parameters of the pulsar wind are (1) its luminosity
76: $L_w$, (2) the Lorentz factor $\gamma_w$ of the bulk flow and (3) the
77: ratio $\sigma$ of the electromagnetic energy flux to the kinetic energy
78: flux, which is referred to as the magnetization parameter. $L_w$ is
79: essentially the spin-down luminosity $\approx 5 \times 10^{38}$ erg
80: s$^{-1}$. The remaining two parameters, $\gamma_w$ and $\sigma$,
81: together with the nebula pressure $P_N$, or equivalently the
82: equipartition field $B_{eq} = \sqrt{4 \pi P_N}$, determine the overall
83: synchrotron spectrum. Conversely, the synchrotron spectrum tells us
84: about the parameters. Given the synchrotron luminosity of $2 \times
85: 10^{37}$erg s$^{-1}$, the nebula size of $\sim 1$~pc, and the peak and
86: turn-off synchrotron spectrum energies of 2~eV and $10^8$~eV,
87: respectively, one finds $\gamma_w =3.3 \times 10^6$, $\sigma = 3.8
88: \times 10^{-3}$, and $B_{eq} = 0.38$ mG. This result can be obtained
89: even with an order-of-magnitude estimate (Shibata, Kawai and Tamura
90: 1998). More rigorous fitting of the observed spectrum of the whole
91: nebula gave similar values (e.g., KC, Atoyan and Aharonian 1996). The
92: field strength has been confirmed by observations of inverse Compton
93: emission in the TeV band (Weekes et al. 1989; Hillas et al. 1998).
94: Thus, the dominance of the kinetic energy of the wind seems very firm.
95:
96: From a theoretical point of view, however, the smallness of $\sigma$, or
97: in other words dominance of the kinetic energy, is a mystery. No wind
98: theory has been able to explain how such a high efficiency of
99: acceleration is achieved.
100:
101: Chandra observation clearly shows a disk-jet structure and moving wisps
102: with seeds of $\sim 0.45 c$ (Mori 2002), where $c$ is the speed of
103: light. Because the KC model is spherically symmetric and steady, it may
104: seem insufficient to understand the highly structured and dynamical
105: nature seen by Chandra. However, the basic idea that a kinetic dominant
106: wind shocks and shines seems still firm and convincing. One may assume
107: that the equatorial wind has different parameters than the polar wind.
108: Such a latitude dependence of the wind parameters may suffice to explain
109: the apparent disk-jet structure although how such a latitude dependence
110: is made is not known.
111:
112: In this paper, we suggest that high spatial resolution of Chandra
113: affords a chance to examine the assumptions which were made in the KC model
114: but have yet to be checked. Among the assumptions, the ideal-MHD
115: condition (no dissipation) and toroidal field approximation are of
116: particular importance. If these assumptions are not adequate, the past
117: conclusion of small $\sigma$ may need to be reconsidered.
118:
119: We model the nebula in 3-dimensions based on the KC picture and
120: reproduce an image, which can be compared with the Chandra observation
121: (Mori 2002) is made. We shall show that a considerable change to the KC
122: picture is required to reproduce the Chandra image. In this paper, we
123: suggest that disordered magnetic field in the nebula is needed . Some
124: process which converts magnetic energy into thermal and kinetic energy,
125: such as magnetic reconnection, may take place in the nebula. In a
126: subsequent paper, spatially-resolved X-ray spectra will be described and
127: compared with Chandra results.
128:
129: \section{A 3D Model}
130:
131: We postulate that the nebula flow obeys the KC steady solution and do
132: not solve the dynamics. The properties of the KC flow are summarized as
133: follows. If $\sigma$ is much less than unity as was suggested, the
134: speed of the flow is $\sim (1/3)c$ just after the shock and decreases
135: rapidly with distance from the pulsar $R$ as $V \propto R^{-2}$; because
136: the flow is subsonic, the pressure and density $n$ are roughly uniform
137: as for adiabatic expansion such that the mass conservation, $nR^2V
138: \approx $const.(implying a decrease of the flow velocity). Due to
139: deceleration, the magnetic field accumulates and is amplified according
140: to the frozen-in condition, $B \propto r$. Once the magnetic field
141: grows as large as the equipartition field, the magnetic pressure becomes
142: important in the flow dynamics. As a result, the flow speed saturates.
143: This takes place where the nebula is brightest (at $\sim
144: (3\sqrt{\sigma})^{-1}$ shock radii). The smaller $\sigma$, the larger
145: and brighter the nebula. The smallness of $\sigma$ is then required to
146: explain the luminosity and the extent of the nebula. The indicated flow
147: speed is small if $\sigma$ is small: $V/c \sim 3 \sigma$. It is notable
148: here that the above flow dynamics depends on the assumption of the
149: ideal-MHD condition.
150:
151: The KC model is spherically symmetric and obviously inadequate to
152: account for the observed morphology. We therefore restricted ourselves
153: to an equatorial region of the KC spherical model with half width of
154: $\Theta_{eq} \sim 10^\circ$ and cut the intermediate latitude regions
155: out, such that the disk may be reproduced in an image (see Fig.~1).
156: Although we assume a polar flow by leaving the polar region with a
157: semi-opening angle of $\Theta_{pol} \sim 10^\circ$ for reproduction of
158: the jet image, this is just in an artist's spirit, and we do not provide
159: any analysis of the polar jets in this paper.
160:
161: \begin{figure}
162: \begin{center}
163: \includegraphics[height=13pc]{fig1.eps}
164: \end{center}
165: \caption{The three-dimensional structure we assumed for reproduction of image.
166: The spherical flow by Kennel and Coroniti (1984) is picked up for the disk
167: and polar flows.}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170: Our kinematic scheme to reproduce images of the nebula is made so that
171: different types of the flow dynamics can be applied in the future; i.e.,
172: for a given velocity field, we trace a fluid element and associated
173: particle distribution function according to the Lagrangian view of
174: fluid.
175:
176: Given the radial velocity field $V(t,R)$ as a function of time and
177: radial distance from the pulsar, the position of the fluid element, the
178: toroidal magnetic field, and the proper density are respectively
179: obtained from
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: {D R \over Dt} & = & V , \eq{rv}
182: \\
183: {D \over Dt} \left( \ln B \right) & = &
184: - \left( {V \over R} + {\partial V \over \partial R } \right) ,
185: \\
186: {D \over Dt} \left( \ln n \right) & = &
187: - {D \over Dt} \left( \ln \Gamma \right)
188: - \left( { 2 V \over R } + { \partial V \over \partial R } \right) ,
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: where $t$ is the observer's time and $\Gamma = (1-V^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$ is
191: the Lorentz factor of the flow. We use the KC solution, which is given
192: analytically, for the velocity field. Although the KC solution does not
193: include synchrotron losses, its effect on $V$ is supposed to be small
194: because synchrotron losses are about 10\% of the kinetic energy of the
195: flow.
196:
197: For the energy distribution of the particles, we again invoke the KC
198: picture: a power law distribution is built up immediately after the
199: shock, and the shock-accelerated particles simply lose their energy in
200: the postshock flow by adiabatic and synchrotron losses. We trace the
201: energy $\epsilon$ (normalized by $mc^2$) of each particle in a fluid
202: frame by
203: \begin{equation}
204: {D \over Dt^\prime} \left( \ln \epsilon \right) =
205: {1 \over 3} {D \over Dt^\prime} \left( \ln n \right)
206: + {1 \over \epsilon} \left( d \epsilon \over d t^\prime \right)_{\rm loss} ,
207: \eq{fele}
208: \end{equation}
209: where
210: \begin{equation}
211: - \left( d \epsilon \over d t^\prime \right)_{\rm loss} =
212: { 4 \over 3} \sigma_{\rm T} c \epsilon^2 U_{\rm mag} ,
213: \end{equation}
214: and the magnetic energy density, $U_{\rm mag} = B^2/8 \pi \Gamma^2$, is
215: measured in the proper frame, and $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson cross
216: section. The proper time $t^\prime$ is related to $t$ by $D t /
217: Dt^\prime = \Gamma$.
218:
219:
220: The distribution function is defined by
221: \begin{equation} \eq{deff}
222: dn = f(t, R; \epsilon , \theta) \sin \theta d \theta d \varphi d \epsilon,
223: \end{equation}
224: where $\theta$ is the pitch angle with respect to the local field and
225: $\varphi$ is the azimuth. Note that the distribution function is defined
226: in the flow proper frame. We assume that the postshock distribution
227: follows a power law with index $p$ ($\geq 1$) in between the minimum
228: energy $\epsilon_{\rm min}$ and the maximum energy $\epsilon_{\rm max}$,
229: and it is isotropic such that
230: \begin{equation} \eq{defff}
231: f_{\rm i} (\epsilon_{\rm i} )
232: = {K \over 4 \pi } n_{\rm i} \epsilon_{\rm i}^{-p},
233: \end{equation}
234: where the suffix `i' indicates `injection' at the postshock region,
235: and the normalization is given by
236: \begin{equation}
237: K= \left\{
238: \begin{array}{cc}
239: {\displaystyle { (p-1) \epsilon_{\rm min}^{(p-1)} \over
240: 1 - (\epsilon_{\rm min} / \epsilon_{\rm max} )^{p-1} }
241: }
242: &
243: p \neq 1
244: \\
245: {\displaystyle
246: { 1 \over \ln \left( \epsilon_{\rm max} / \epsilon_{\rm min} \right)}
247: }
248: &
249: p=1
250: \end{array}
251: \right.
252: \end{equation}
253: and $n_{\rm i} = \int\!\!\int\!\!\int f_{\rm i} ( \epsilon ) \sin \theta
254: d \theta d \varphi d \epsilon$ gives the postshock proper density.
255: $\epsilon_{\rm max}$ is assumed to be a maximum attainable value, $e B_2
256: R_{\rm s} / mc^2$, where $R_{\rm s}$ is the shock distance from the
257: pulsar, and $B_2$ is the postshock field. $\epsilon_{\rm min}$ is
258: determined so that the pressure calculated from $f_{\rm i}$ satisfies
259: the shock jump condition.
260:
261: We solve (\ref{fele}) numerically for a sample of particles
262: in a given fluid element, and thereby we obtain $\epsilon$
263: as a function of $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ and $t$.
264: Then we calculate distribution functions from
265: \begin{equation} \eq{evolf}
266: f(\epsilon (R))=
267: {n \over n_{\rm i} }
268: f_{\rm i} (\epsilon_{\rm i})
269: {d \epsilon_{\rm i} \over d \epsilon } .
270: \end{equation}
271: For steady state models, integration for a single
272: fluid element gives distribution functions in the whole nebula.
273:
274: It is obvious that the above kinematic scheme can be easily generalized
275: for non-steady and non-radial flow, which can be obtained by numerical
276: MHD simulations.
277:
278: \section{Reproduction of the Nebula Image}
279: \label{imageapp}
280:
281: \subsection{Synchrotron Specific Emissivity}
282:
283: Once the evolution equations (\ref{rv})-(\ref{fele}) are solved, and the
284: distribution function is obtained by (\ref{evolf}), it is straight
285: forward to get volume emissivity, which is integrated to give a nebula
286: image.
287:
288: Since the nebula flow is relativistic, a Lorentz transformation is
289: applied between the flow proper frame and the observer's frame (or
290: rather the pulsar frame, in which the pulsar is at rest). Let us denote
291: the 4-vector of a synchrotron photon by ($\omega / c$, $\bmath{k}$) in
292: the observer's frame and ($\omega^\prime / c$, $\bmath{k}^\prime$) in
293: the proper frame. If the ideal-MHD condition $\bmath{E} + \bmath{V}
294: \times \bmath{B}/c = 0$ holds in the nebula flow, the transformation of
295: the electromagnetic field is simpler:
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: \bmath{E}^\prime & = & 0, \\
298: \bmath{B}^\prime_\parallel & = & \bmath{B}_\parallel
299: = (\bmath{V} \cdot \bmath{B} ) \bmath{V} / V^2, \\
300: \bmath{B}^\prime_\perp & = & \bmath{B}_\perp / \Gamma
301: = (\bmath{B} - \bmath{B}_\parallel ) / \Gamma,
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: where the primes indicate the quantities in the flow frame and
304: $\parallel$ and $\perp$ are based on the directed of the flow velocity
305: $\bmath{V}$. There is no electric field in the plasma flow frame.
306:
307: The spectral power of a relativistic particle with pitch angle $\theta$
308: (the angle of the particle motion to the local magnetic field in the
309: proper frame) is
310: \begin{equation} \eq{Pows1}
311: {\cal P}_{\rm s1} ( \omega^\prime, \epsilon, \theta ) = 2 \sigma_{\rm T} c
312: U_{\rm mag} \epsilon^2 \sin^2 \theta \ {\cal S}(\omega^\prime ;
313: \omega_{\rm c}).
314: \end{equation}
315: For the monochromatic approximation, we use
316: ${\cal S}(\omega^\prime ; \omega_{\rm c}) = \delta (\omega^\prime -
317: \omega_{\rm c})$, and for the relativistic approximation,
318: \begin{equation}
319: {\cal S}(\omega^\prime ; \omega_{\rm c}) =
320: {9 \sqrt{3} \over 8 \pi \omega_{\rm c} }
321: F \left( \omega^\prime \over \omega_{\rm c} \right)
322: \end{equation}
323: where
324: $\displaystyle F(x)=x \int^\infty_x K_{5 \over 3} (\xi ) d\xi$, and
325: \begin{equation}
326: \omega_{\rm c} =
327: {3 e |\bmath{B}^\prime | \epsilon^2 \sin \theta \over 2 m c }
328: \end{equation}
329: is the critical frequency. The synchrotron power of a single particle
330: is strongly beamed within a width of $\sim \epsilon^{-1}$. Therefore,
331: the emission into a frequency interval $d \omega^\prime$ and in a solid
332: angle $d \Omega^\prime$ directed toward the observer is given by
333: \begin{equation} \eq{jomega}
334: j_{\omega^\prime} (\theta ) d \omega^\prime d \Omega^\prime =
335: \int_0^\infty {\cal P}_{\rm s 1} (\omega^\prime, \theta, \epsilon)
336: f(\epsilon, \theta) d \epsilon d \Omega^\prime d \omega^\prime ,
337: \end{equation}
338: where $\theta$ is given by $\cos \theta = \bmath{n}^\prime \cdot
339: \bmath{B}^\prime / |\bmath{B}^\prime |$, and $\bmath{n}^\prime$ is the
340: unit vector directing to the observer in the proper frame. Below,
341: $\bmath{n}$ indicates the observer's direction in the observer's frame.
342:
343:
344:
345: %\subsection{From Plasma Frame To Pulsar Frame}
346:
347: For the link between the proper frame and the observer's frame,
348: we include the Doppler effects,
349: \begin{equation} \eq{dopper}
350: \omega = { \omega^\prime \over \Gamma (1 - \beta \mu) } \ \ and \ \
351: \mu = { \mu^\prime + \beta \over 1 + \beta \mu^\prime },
352: \end{equation}
353: where $\mu = \bmath{n} \cdot \hat{\bmath{V}}$ and $\mu^\prime =
354: \bmath{n}^\prime \cdot \hat{\bmath{V}}$. The unit vector of the flow
355: direction is denoted by $\hat{\bmath{V}}$. The transformation between
356: the received power $d P_r$ and the emitted power $d P^\prime$ (Rybicki
357: \& Lightman 1979) is given by
358: \begin{equation}
359: {d P_r \over d \Omega d \omega} =
360: \Gamma^3 (1 + \beta \mu^\prime )^3
361: {d P^\prime \over d \Omega^\prime d \omega^\prime} =
362: {1 \over \Gamma^3 (1 - \beta \mu )^3}
363: {d P^\prime \over d \Omega^\prime d \omega^\prime}
364: \end{equation}
365: where the Doppler effect (\ref{dopper}) has been taken into account.
366: Finally the Lorentz contraction is $dN = \Gamma f(\epsilon, \theta ) d
367: \Omega^\prime d \epsilon$, where $N$ is the number density in the
368: observer's frame. Thus the emissivity in the observer's frame becomes
369: \begin{equation}
370: j_\omega( \bmath{n} ) =
371: C \int {\cal P}_{\rm s1} (\omega^\prime, \theta, \epsilon)
372: f(\epsilon, \theta)d \epsilon,
373: \end{equation}
374: where
375: \begin{equation}
376: C = \Gamma^4 ( 1+\beta \mu^\prime )^3=
377: {1 \over \Gamma^2(1 - \beta \mu)^3} .
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: \subsection{Viewing Angle}
381:
382: In order to specify the viewing angle of the observer, we relate the
383: `observer's coordinate' $\bmath{X}=$ ($X$, $Y$, $Z$), where $+X$
384: directed toward the observer and $+Z$ directed toward north on the sky,
385: to the `nebula coordinate' $\bmath{x}=$ ($x$, $y$, $z$), where the
386: $z$-axis coincides with the symmetry axis of the nebula which is
387: believed to be the rotation axis of the pulsar. We use 48$^\circ$ and
388: 28$^\circ$ as the position angle and the inclination angle of the
389: symmetry axis, respectively.
390:
391: An image of the nebula is obtained by
392: \begin{equation} \eq{imagint}
393: I_\omega (Y,Z) = \int_{- \infty}^\infty
394: j_\omega (X, Y, Z, \bmath{n}) \; d X.
395: \end{equation}
396:
397: \subsection{Summary of the procedure}
398:
399: For a given observation frequency, the integration (\ref{imagint}) is
400: done numerically for each `pixel' at ($Y$, $Z$). The integrand is
401: calculated as follows:
402: \begin{enumerate}
403: \item Given $\bmath{X}=(X, Y, Z)$ and $\omega$,
404: \item transformation from the observer's coordinates to
405: the nebula coordinates is done;
406: for the position, $(X,Y,Z) \ \rightarrow \ (x,y,z)$, and
407: also for the componets of the observer's direction,
408: $\bmath{n}=(1,0,0) \ \rightarrow \ \bmath{n}=(n_x,n_y,n_z)$.
409:
410: \item
411: The flow velocity $\bmath{V} (R)$ and the magnetic field $\bmath{B} (R)$
412: at the point
413: are obtained by using the KC solution. Note that the velocity and the magnetic
414: field are respectively radial and azimuthal in the 'nebula coordinate'.
415:
416: \item The observation frequency, the direction and the local magnetic field
417: are transformed into those in the flow frame:
418: $\omega \rightarrow \omega^\prime$,
419: $\bmath{n} \rightarrow \bmath{n}^\prime$,
420: $\bmath{B} \rightarrow \bmath{B}^\prime$.
421:
422: \item The pitch angle of the particles directed toward the
423: observer is obtained.
424:
425: \item Regarding the distribution function at ($x$, $y$, $z$), the
426: emissivity in the flow frame is calculated
427: (we use the monochromatic approximation).
428:
429: \item Finally, the emissivity is converted to the volume emissivity $j_\omega
430: (\bmath{n})$ at ($X$, $Y$, $Z$) in the observer's frame by multiplying
431: by the Doppler factor $C$.
432:
433: \end{enumerate}
434:
435: \section{Results}
436:
437:
438: One may expect a ring-like structure in the reproduced image, such as
439: observed with Chandra (see the top panel of Fig.~2), since we have
440: assumed that the flow is restricted within a disk. The expected radius
441: of the ring will be $\sim 1/3\sqrt{\sigma}$ (about 6 shock radii for
442: $\sigma = 0.003$), at which point the nebula brightens due to the
443: amplified magnetic field. However, what we have is not a ring-like but
444: is rather a 'lip-shaped' image shown in the bottom panel of Fig.~2. At
445: the north-east and south-west corners of the expected ellipse (ring),
446: the pitch angles of the particles directed toward us are small, and
447: therefore the surface brightness is reduced. This effect combined with
448: the central cavity yields an image which is 'lip-shaped'. The smallness
449: of pitch angle actually has two effects. One is that the single-particle
450: emissivity is proportional to $\sin^2 \theta$, which is small. The other
451: is due to number of contributing particles. For a given observation
452: frequency, the energy of the particles radiating at the frequency is
453: higher for smaller pitch angles, so that the number of particles
454: contributing to the frequency is smaller because of the negative slope
455: of the distribution function.
456:
457: \begin{figure}
458: \begin{center}
459: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{fig2t.ps} \\
460: \includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{fig2b.ps}
461: \end{center}
462: \caption{The Chandra image (top) and a reproduced image (bottom),
463: where we assume a postshock flow with $\sigma = 0.003$ by Kennel and
464: Coroniti (1984) but the flow is assumed to be restricted within an
465: equatorial region. For the bottom image, the gray scale is in units
466: of 0.016 erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ str eV. }
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: Another important point to consider is the intensity ratio between the
470: front and back sides of the ring. We obtain a value of 1.3, but
471: observed value is $\sim 5$ (Pelling et al. 1987, Willingale et al., 2001).
472: The weak contrast is caused by deceleration of the nebula flow (i.e. the
473: smallness of $\sigma$). Mori et al. (2003) suggest that the ratio is
474: about 3 with Chandra. This value is still incompatible with the KC
475: picture. As long as the intensity contrast is attributed to Doppler
476: boosting, such a weak contrast is unavoidable in the frame work of the
477: KC model.
478:
479: \begin{figure}
480: \begin{center}
481: \hspace*{3mm}
482: \includegraphics[width=14pc]{fig4t.ps} \\
483: \includegraphics[width=14pc]{fig4b.ps}
484: \end{center}
485: \caption{Surface brightness along the semi-major axis of the torus in
486: the north-east direction. The upper panel shows the calculation with
487: different $\sigma$'s while the lower panel is measured from the
488: Chandra observation (Mori 2002). The distance is in units of the
489: shock radius (which is supposed to be about $13^{\prime
490: \prime}-14^{\prime \prime}$) for the model, and in arc seconds for the
491: observation. The brightness is in units of $10^6$ erg s$^{-1}$
492: cm$^{-2}$ str$^{-1}$ eV$^{-1}$ for the model and in counts s$^{-1}$
493: arcsec$^{-2}$ for the observation. }
494: \end{figure}
495:
496: How surface brightness changes with distance from the shock depends on
497: $\sigma$. Mori (2002) also measured the surface brightness along the
498: semi-major axis of the torus, from which Doppler boosting should not
499: affect the brightness. This result (bottom panel of Fig.~3) is compared
500: with the present model (top panel of Fig.~3), for which we provide
501: curves of varying $\sigma$. The present model does not reproduce the
502: first peak in the observation, which corresponds to the inner
503: ring. However, it is notable that the brightness distribution of the
504: inner ring is similar to that for the $\sigma = 0.1$ model. The
505: location of synchrotron burn off is reproduced by the $\sigma =0.01$
506: model. Finally, we point out that the surface brightness decreases much
507: faster with distance in the observation than in the model.
508:
509:
510: %\begin{figure}[tb]
511: % \begin{center}
512: % \includegraphics[height=8pc]{sfig6.ps}
513: % \end{center}
514: % \caption{Spectral evolution in three X-ray bands
515: % along a line perpendicular to the rotation axis
516: % on the sky. Horizontal axis is the brightness and the vertical axis is
517: % the photon index.
518: % As the radius increases, the nebula brightens with constant photon
519: % index, and at some distance, the photon index begins to increase.}
520: %\end{figure}
521:
522: As indicated by the 'lip-shaped' image, the absolute value of the
523: surface brightness is much less than observed along the semi-major axis.
524: Because the reproduced image includes only the disk component, to which
525: we restricted ourselves (rather than assuming the spherical KC model),
526: the X-ray luminosity of the reproduced image is also smaller than the
527: observation. For the image in Fig.~2, we use parameters given by KC:
528: $L_{w} = 5 \times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $R_s = 3 \times 10^{17}$ cm,
529: $\gamma_w = 3 \times 10^6$, and $p = 3$. In this case, we have $\nu
530: L_\nu \sim 10^{36}$ erg~sec$^{-1}$ at 1 keV.
531:
532: \section{Discussion}
533:
534: Applying the KC model, we reconstruct an X-ray image which is found to
535: be inconsistent with the Chandra image. Owing to a pure toroidal field
536: and uniform pitch angle distribution, the reproduced image is not
537: ring-like but 'lip-shaped'. Furthermore, the surface brightness contrast
538: between the front and back sides of the ring is much less than the
539: observed. The weak contrast is simply due to the smallness of $\sigma$,
540: by which the postshock flow slows down quickly after the shock. The
541: assumptions of the toroidal field and the smallness of $\sigma$ are thus
542: found to be incompatible with the observation.
543:
544: If we assume isotropic emission in the proper frame such as is expected
545: in a turbulent field, then the ring-like structure is reproduced as
546: shown in Fig.~4. As would be expected, we find that such a turbulent
547: component must be at least comparable to the mean toroidal field in
548: order to reproduce the ring image. Although an another solution can be
549: to adopt a contrived pitch angle distribution, we think this is
550: unlikely. The image in Fig.~4 is produced in the following way: (1)
551: assume the magnetic field is random so that the emissivity is isotropic
552: in the proper frame; (2) set the flow velocity to be 0.2$c$ by hand,
553: ignoring the flow dynamics; (3) let the distribution function and the
554: field strength follow the KC model. Thus, the random field and the fast
555: flow are essential to reproduce the image.
556:
557: \begin{figure}
558: \begin{center}
559: \includegraphics[width=15pc]{fig3.ps}
560: \end{center}
561: \caption{An image reproduced with assumptions of
562: a turbulent field and a high speed flow.
563: See text in detail.}
564: \end{figure}
565:
566: With this practice, we suggest that the nebula field is far from pure
567: toroidal, but rather is disordered. Such a disordered field can be
568: produced by magnetic reconnection or some instability of the toroidal
569: flux tubes. If there is dissipation of the magnetic field, the flow
570: dynamics is importantly changed, as is the flow speed.
571: Even if the value of $\sigma$, which is defined in the wind, is not small,
572: dissipation in the nebula flow causes deceleration and
573: brightening. In this sence, $\sigma$ is effectively small so that
574: the luminosity of the nebula will be explained as the KC model.
575: But, such a simple heating may not always be good for explaining
576: the surface brightness contrast because of the deceleration.
577: Recently, Komissarov \& Lyubarsky (2003) provide an MHD simulation for
578: the Crab Nebula, suggesting a complicated flow pattern and
579: a high speed flow such that the brightness contrast can
580: be reproduced. Three dimensional motions associated with magnetic
581: energy conversion in the nebula will
582: considerably change the picture of the nebula.
583: Numerical simulations for the nebular flow
584: is of particluar importance in the future study.
585: As noted, the present image-production scheme will be easily extended
586: to combine with such mumerical results.
587:
588: A model explaining the Chandra observation may be constructed if we
589: assume a larger $\sigma$ and a subsequent magnetic energy conversion
590: into heat and plasma kinetic energy, such as magnetic reconnection,
591: in the nebula flow. Suppose $\sigma$ is rather
592: large, then the postshock flow must be faster. The inner ring is formed
593: at the shock. The brightness distribution will be similar to that of
594: $\sigma = 0.1$ in Fig.~3. As the flow proceeds outward, the magnetic
595: energy conversion takes place (accelerating and heating the flow).
596: This causes the second brightening.
597: Subsequently, the synchrotron burn-off provides the outer
598: boundary of the torus. The Doppler effect will cause a higher brightness
599: contrast. We note that the smallness of $\sigma$ is not obvious if
600: non-ideal-MHD is introduced in the nebula flow.
601:
602: The above hypothesis explains the disk formation. Obliqueness of the
603: pulsar causes a series of current sheets with an interval of the light
604: cylinder radius ($\sim 10^8$cm) in the equatorial region. If the
605: current sheets dissipate in the nebula, the synchrotron emission
606: brightening is restricted in the equatorial region, where reconnection
607: takes place. The appearance of pulsar nebulae should depend on
608: obliqueness of individual pulsars. High obliqueness results in a thick
609: disk and a high efficiency of synchrotron luminosity, while
610: near-alignment causes a faint nebulae.
611:
612: The possibility of a dissipative process in the nebula may be examined
613: more rigorously with spatially-resolved spectra, for which we will
614: compare the model and the observation in a subsequent paper.
615:
616: \section*{Acknowledgments}
617: The authors thank F. E. Bauer for careful review of the manuscript. This
618: work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (C), 15540227. K. M. is supported by
619: the JSPS postdoctoral fellowship for research abroad.
620:
621:
622: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
623:
624: \bibitem{aa} Atoyan, A. M. \& Aharonian, F. A. 1996, MNRAS 278 525
625:
626:
627: %\bibitem{BPT02} Burrows, D.~N., Pavlov, G.~G., \& Tsunemi, H.\ 2002, ASP Conf.~Ser.~271: Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, 157
628:
629: \bibitem{H98} Hillas A. M. et al., 1998, ApJ 503, 744
630:
631: \bibitem{KC84a} Kennel, C. F. \& Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ 283 694
632:
633: \bibitem{KC84b} Kennel, C. F. \& Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ 283 710
634:
635: \bibitem{KR} Komissarov S.S., Lyubarsky Y.E., 2003, astro-ph/0306162
636:
637: \bibitem{M02} Mori, K., 2002 PhD thesis, Osaka University
638:
639: \bibitem{M03} Mori,~K., Burrows D.~N., Hester, J.~J., Shibata,~S., Pavlov,~G., Tsunemi,~H., 2003, in preparation.
640:
641: \bibitem[Pelling et al.(1987)]{1987ApJ...319..416P} Pelling, R.~M.,
642: Paciesas, W.~S., Peterson, L.~E., Makishima, K., Oda, M., Ogawara, Y., \&
643: Miyamoto, S.\ 1987, ApJ, 319, 416
644:
645: \bibitem{RL} Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, Wiley \& Sons, New York
646:
647: \bibitem{SKT98} Shibata S., Kawai N., Tamura K., 1998, in "Neutron Stars and Pulsars", eds. N. Shibazaki, N. Kawai, S. Shibata, T. Kifune, Universal Academy Press, Tokyo Japan, p. 457
648:
649: \bibitem{W89} Weekes T. C., 1989, ApJ 342, 379
650:
651: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...365L.212W} Willingale, R., Aschenbach, B., Griffiths, R.~G., Sembay, S., Warwick, R.~S., Becker, W., Abbey, A.~F., \& Bonnet-Bidaud, J.-M.\ 2001, AA, 365, L212
652:
653: \end{thebibliography}
654:
655: \label{lastpage}
656: \end{document}
657:
658:
659:
660: ----Next_Part(Fri_Aug__1_15:53:31_2003_868)----
661:
662: