1: \documentstyle[11pt,newpasp,twoside,epsf]{article}
2: \markboth{V. Kalogera, C. Kim, D. R. Lorimer, M. Ihm \& K. Belczynski}{APS Conf. Ser. Style}
3: \pagestyle{myheadings}
4: \nofiles
5:
6: % Some definitions I use in these instructions.
7:
8: \def\emphasize#1{{\sl#1\/}}
9: \def\arg#1{{\it#1\/}}
10: \def\rate{{\cal R}}
11: \let\prog=\arg
12:
13: \def\edcomment#1{\iffalse\marginpar{\raggedright\sl#1\/}\else\relax\fi}
14: \marginparwidth 1.25in
15: \marginparsep .125in
16: \marginparpush .25in
17: \reversemarginpar
18:
19: \newcommand{\nswd}{NS$-$WD}
20: \newcommand{\rb}{${\cal R}_{\rm b}$}
21: \newcommand{\rpeak}{${\cal R}_{\rm peak}$}
22: \newcommand{\ntot}{$N_{\rm tot}$}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \title{The Galactic Formation Rate of Eccentric Neutron Star --
26: White Dwarf Binaries}
27: \author{V. Kalogera$^1$, C. Kim$^1$, D. R. Lorimer$^2$, M. Ihm$^1$, K. Belczynski$^{1,3}$}
28: \affil{$^1$Northwestern University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2145 Sheridan Rd. Evanston, IL, 60201, USA}
29: \affil{$^2$University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield,
30: Cheshire, SK11 9DL, UK}
31: \affil{$^{3}$Northwestern Lindheimer Fellow}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: In this paper we consider the population of eccentric binaries with a
35: neutron star and a white dwarf that has been revealed in our galaxy
36: in recent years through binary pulsar observations. We apply our
37: statistical analysis method (Kim, Kalogera, \& Lorimer 2003)
38: and calculate the Galactic formation rate of these binaries
39: empirically. We then compare our results with rate predictions based
40: on binary population synthesis from various research groups and for
41: various ranges of model input parameters.
42: For our reference moel, we find the Galactic formation rate of these
43: eccentric systems to be $\sim$ 7~Myr$^{-1}$, about an order of
44: magnitude smaller than results from binary evolution
45: estimations. However, the empirical estimates are calculated with no
46: correction for pulsar beaming, and therefore they should be taken as
47: lower limits. Despite uncertainties that exceed an order of magnitude,
48: there is significant overlap of the various rate calculations. This
49: consistency lends confidence that our current understanding of the
50: formation of these eccentric \nswd~binaries is reasonable.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: Binary pulsars with white dwarf companions (\nswd~binaries) in {\it
56: eccentric} orbits have been revealed with binary pulsar and optical
57: observations in recent years. This sub-population is considered to be
58: rather special because, based on our standard understanding of binary
59: evolution, \nswd~binaries are expected to be circular: a neutron star
60: forms first from the original binary primary and the white dwarf
61: formation follows mass transfer episodes that are expected to
62: circularize the binary orbit. For a review of this scenario,
63: see Lorimer (2001). The neutron star produced by this evolutionary path is
64: expected to be `recycled', i.e.~spun-up by mass accretion from its
65: companion. However, the existence of eccentric \nswd~binaries such as
66: PSR~B2303+46 (Stokes, Taylor, \& Dewey 1985; van Kerkwijk \& Kulkarni
67: 1999) and PSR~J1141--6545 (Kaspi et al.~2000; Bailes et al.~2003) implies
68: that a different evolutionary path from the standard scenario is also
69: be possible (Tutukov \& Yungelson 1993; Portgies Zwart \& Yungelson
70: 1999; Tauris \& Sennels 2000; Nelemans, Yungelson, \& Portegies Zwart
71: 2001; Brown et al.~2001; Davies, Ritter, \& King 2002). The non-zero
72: eccentricity of the binary orbit is introduced by a supernova (SN)
73: explosion of the secondary companion that occurs after the original
74: primary has already evolved into a white dwarf.
75:
76: Our motivation for this study is to estimate the Galactic formation
77: rate of eccentric binaries based on the observed pulsars. We apply our
78: statistical analysis developed to estimate the Galactic
79: double-neutron-star (DNS) merger rate (Kim, Kalogera, \& Lorimer 2003)
80: and derive a probability density function (PDF) of the Galactic formation
81: rate for eccentric \nswd~binaries. This method provides us with rate
82: estimates that are independent from those obtained using binary
83: evolution calculations. We compare our empirical rate estimates to
84: results from population synthesis calculations and conclude that,
85: despite the large uncertainties, the results are indeed consistent.
86:
87: \section{Formation of eccentric \nswd~binaries}
88:
89: In our classical understanding of binary evolution, we expect that the
90: formation process of \nswd~binaries in close orbits involves the
91: circularization of the binary orbit, even for systems with massive
92: white dwarfs: the neutron star forms first and possibly induces an
93: eccentricity, but subsequent mass transfer from the white-dwarf
94: progenitor is expected to circularize the orbit (Verbunt \& Phinney
95: 1995). Indeed PSR~J0751+1807 (Lundgren, Zepka, \& Cordes 1995; Nice,
96: Splaver, \& Stairs 2004) and PSR~J1757$-$5322 (Edwards \& Bailes
97: 2001) have very small eccentricities ($e \le 10^{-4}$). However, the
98: discovery of the white dwarf companion to PSR~B2303+46 (van Kerkwijk
99: \& Kulkarni 1999) led various groups to consider a different
100: evolutionary path that could explain the observed eccentricity of
101: $e=0.658$ (Portgies Zwart \& Yungelson 1999; Tauris \& Sennels 2000;
102: Nelemans, Yungelson, \& Portegies Zwart 2001; Brown et al.\ 2001;
103: Davies, Ritter, \& King 2002).
104:
105: In these modified scenarios,
106: the original primary star, which is
107: massive enough to form a white dwarf but not a neutron star, evolves
108: first and transfers its mass to the secondary star. After the primary
109: star loses its envelope it becomes a white dwarf, while the secondary
110: continues its evolution but at a higher mass than its initial mass
111: (high enough to form a neutron star) due to the mass transfer phase
112: from the original primary. The primary eventually fills its Roche lobe and a
113: common envelope phase ensues: the white dwarf and the helium core of
114: the secondary spiral together as the common envelope of the two stars
115: is ejected from the system. The outcome is a tight binary with a white
116: dwarf and a helium star that is massive enough to explode in a
117: supernova. This introduces an eccentricity to the orbit of the
118: \nswd~binary that forms. Hence eccentric \nswd~binaries are formed
119: because of two main facts relevant to the early evolution of the
120: binary progenitor: (1) the initial binary components are both massive
121: enough to form only a white dwarf, but still close to being massive
122: enough to form a neutron star; (2) the initial mass transfer phase
123: from the primary to the secondary increases the mass of the secondary
124: enough that it can now form a neutron star eventually, but only after
125: the initial primary ends its evolution as a white dwarf.
126:
127: %%%% table1
128: \begin{table}[t]\small
129: \begin{center}
130: \caption{\footnotesize Observational properties of eccentric
131: NS--WD binaries. The columns indicate the
132: pulsar name, spin period $P$, spin-down rate $\dot{P}$, orbital
133: period $P_b$, the estimated mass of the WD companion $m_c$,
134: orbital eccentricity $e$, characteristic age $\tau_c$, time to
135: reach the death line $\tau_d$.
136: }
137:
138: \vskip20pt
139: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccr}
140: \tableline
141: PSRs & $P$ & $\dot{P}$ & $P_{\rm b}$ & m$_{\rm c}$ & $e$ & $\tau_{\rm c}$ & $\tau_{\rm d}$ \\
142: \tableline
143: {} & (ms) & (s~s$^{-1}$) & (hr) & (M$_{\rm \odot}$) & {} & (Myr) & (Gyr) \\
144: \tableline
145: J1141$-$6545 & 393.9 & 4.29$\times 10^{-15}$ & 4.744 & 0.986 & 0.172 & 1.45 & 0.104 \\
146: B2303+46 & 1066 & 5.69$\times 10^{-16}$ & 296.2 & 1.24 & 0.658 & 29.7 & 0.140 \\
147: \tableline
148: \end{tabular}
149: \end{center}
150: \end{table}
151:
152:
153: \section{Empirical \nswd~formation rate estimates}
154:
155: In KKL, we introduced a statistical method to calculate a PDF of the
156: rate estimates for Galactic close DNS systems. This method can be
157: applied to any type of pulsar population of interest.
158:
159: Here, we consider eccentric \nswd~binaries. In order to calculate
160: their Galactic formation rate \rb, we need to estimate: (1) the number
161: $N_{\rm tot}$ of Galactic pulsar populations with pulse and orbital
162: characteristics {\it similar\/} to those in the observed sample of
163: eccentric \nswd~(i.e.\ J1141--6545 or B2303+46); (2) the lifetime
164: $\tau_{\rm life}$ of each observed system; (3) an upward
165: correction factor $f_{\rm b}$ for pulsar beaming.
166:
167: We calculate $N_{\rm tot}$ by modeling in detail the pulsar survey
168: selection effects associated with the discovery of these systems for a
169: number of parent pulsar population models described in KKL. The model
170: assumptions for the pulsar luminosity function dominate the systematic
171: uncertainties of our overall calculation.
172:
173: For our reference model (model 6 in KKL), we obtain the most likely
174: value of $N_{\rm tot}$ for PSRs J1141-6545 and B2303+46 to be $N_{\rm
175: 1141}\simeq$370 and $N_{\rm 2303}\simeq$240, respectively.
176:
177:
178: \begin{figure}
179: \plotfiddle{fig1.eps}{5.9cm}{0}{30}{27}{-100}{-15}
180: \caption{The PDF of Galactic formation rate estimates for eccentric
181: \nswd~binaries (solid line) for our reference model. Dashed and
182: dot-dashed lines represent the individual PDFs of the formation rates
183: for sub-population of binaries similar to either PSR B2303+46 or
184: J1141$-$6545. No corrections for pulsar beaming have been applied.}
185: \end{figure}
186:
187: The lifetime of the system is defined as $\tau_{\rm life} \equiv
188: \tau_{\rm c} + \tau_{\rm d}$, where $\tau_{\rm c}$ is the
189: characteristic age. $\tau_{\rm d}$ is the time which a pulsar will
190: reach the ``death line'' (Ruderman \& Sutherland 1975). We calculated
191: $\tau_{\rm d}$ following (Chen \& Ruderman 1993; eq.~(9) in their
192: paper). The calculated PDF of the formation rate is dominated by PSR
193: J1141-6545-like population due to both the shorter lifetime and
194: number abundance of this population (Fig.\ 1). The estimated formation rate
195: for our reference model is
196: \rb$=6.8^{+5.6}_{-3.5}$$^{+13.7}_{-5.6}\,$Myr$^{-1}$ at 68\% and 95\%
197: confidence limits, respectively. The most likely values of \rb~lie in
198: the range $0.5-16\,$Myr$^{-1}$ for all the PSR population models we
199: consider (see Table 2 for the rate estimates for a number of
200: models with different pulsar luminosity functions). In the absence of
201: observational constraints on the geometry of both pulsars, we decided
202: to not include any such upward correction for
203: pulsar-beaming. Therefore, our estimated rates should be considered as
204: lower limits. We can also compare these estimates with those for
205: the Galactic DNS rate. The most likely values of DNS rates are found
206: in the range $4-224$ Myr$^{-1}$ for the models considered with pulsar beaming correction.
207: (see contribution by Kim et al.\ in these proceedings and Kalogera et al. (2004)). Since the beaming correction factor for young pulsars is presumably larger than those for recycled pulsars, the true Galactic formation rate for eccentric \nswd~binaries are expected to be comparable to that of DNS systems we estimated.
208:
209:
210:
211: Population synthesis calculations have been widely used to study the
212: formation of various types of compact object binaries including
213: eccentric \nswd~binaries. The range of details in the evolutionary
214: calculations as well as the extent (if any) of the parameter studies
215: vary significantly. In this section we summarize the main results from
216: theoretical studies in literature and compare them to the empirical
217: rates derived in the previous section.
218:
219: Portegies Zwart \& Yungelson (1999) obtained a formation rate for
220: eccentric \nswd~binaries comparable, but somewhat larger than that of
221: DNS systems (\rb$=$44 and 34 Myr$^{-1}$ for eccentric \nswd~and DNS
222: systems respectively). Tauris \& Sennels (2000) presented similar
223: results (\rb$\sim57$ Myr$^{-1}$) and concluded that the formation rate of eccentric
224: \nswd~binaries is $\sim$18 times higher than that of DNS
225: systems. Davies, Ritter, \& King (2002) estimated the Galactic
226: formation rate of systems like J1141$-$6545 or B2303+46. They
227: obtained formation rates in the wide range of $\sim10^{-5}-10^{-3}$
228: yr$^{-1}$ when considering both J1141$-$6545$-$like and B2303+46$-$like systems
229: with different evolutionary histories. Finally, Nelemans, Yungelson, \& Portegies Zwart (2001) derived 240 Myr$^{-1}$ for the formation rate of all types of \nswd~binaries, which is comparable
230: to other studies. We consider this rate to be an upper limit of
231: eccentric \nswd~ (shown as an open square with a downward arrow
232: in Fig.~2).
233:
234: In addition to the above results from then literature, we have performed
235: population synthesis calculations using the {\tt StarTrack} population
236: synthesis code (Belczynski, Kalogera, \& Bulik 2002; Belczynski et al.\ 2004). We
237: have explored a selection of models (more than any of the other
238: studies) that promise to give us the widest variations of rate
239: estimates. We derive a range $\sim30-100$ Myr$^{-1}$
240: (using an absolute
241: normalization of models based on empirical supernova rate estimates
242: for our Galaxy; Cappellaro, Evans, \& Turatto 1999).
243:
244: %%%% table2
245: \begin{table}[t]\small
246: \begin{center}
247: \caption{\footnotesize The estimated Glactic formation rate and the most likely value of $N_{\rm tot}$ of eccentric NS--WD binaries for models with different pulsar luminosity functions. Model number is same with KKL. We show the most likely value of $R_{\rm b}$ at 68\% and 95\% confidence limits.
248: }
249: \vskip20pt
250: \begin{tabular}{lrllrr}
251: \tableline
252: Model &$R_{\rm b}$ & (Myr$^{-1}$) & {} & $N_{\rm 1141}$ & $N_{\rm 2303}$\\
253: \tableline
254: {} & peak& 68\% & 95\% & {} & {}\\
255: \tableline
256: 1 & 2.1 & $^{+1.7}_{-1.0}$ & $^{+4.0}_{-1.6}$ & 110 & 70\\
257: {\bf 6} & 6.8 & $^{+5.6}_{-3.5}$ & $^{+13.7}_{-5.4}$ & 370 & 240\\
258: 9 & 0.7 & $^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ & $^{+1.4}_{-0.6}$ & 40 & 30\\
259: 10 & 2.6 & $^{+2.1}_{-1.3}$ & $^{+5.1}_{-2.0}$ & 140 & 90\\
260: 12 & 1.0 & $^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ & $^{+1.9}_{-0.8}$ & 50 & 40\\
261: 14 & 0.5 & $^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & $^{+0.8}_{-0.4}$ & 20 & 20\\
262: 15 & 15.7 & $^{+13.1}_{-8.1}$ & $^{+31.9}_{-12.4}$& 870 & 530\\
263: 17 & 3.9 & $^{+3.3}_{-2.0}$ & $^{+8.1}_{-3.1}$ & 220 & 130\\
264: 19 & 1.1 & $^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ & $^{+2.3}_{-0.9}$ & 60 & 40\\
265: 20 & 8.3 & $^{+7.2}_{-4.3}$ & $^{+17.7}_{-6.6}$ & 490 & 260\\
266: \tableline
267: \end{tabular}
268: \end{center}
269: \end{table}
270: %%%%
271:
272:
273: The different results from various population studies are mainly
274: attributed to varying assumptions about the initial mass function, the
275: initial mass-transfer process, the assumed star-formation or supernova
276: rate used as a normalization factor, the initial binary fraction, and
277: NS kicks. We also note that the lifetime of the system is a free
278: parameter in the theoretical rate estimation, which is attributed to
279: at least an order of magnitude of the uncertainty in the calculation.
280:
281: \begin{figure}
282: \plotfiddle{fig2.eps}{5.9cm}{0}{30}{27}{-100}{-15}
283: \caption{Comparison between the empirical and theoretical rate
284: estimates. Error bars with filled triangles indicate results from {\tt StarTrack}, open squares and a solid line are adapted from the literature, and filled circles with error bars are obtained in this work (see text for details).}
285: \label{fig:birth}
286: \end{figure}
287: \section{Comparison with rates from binary evolution}
288: In Fig.~2, we overlap the empirical formation rate estimates for
289: eccentric \nswd~ binaries (filled circles with error bars labed by KKL) with
290: previous studied (open squares and a think solid line labeled by N01 (Nelemans, Yungelson, \& Portegies Zwart 2001), TS00 (Tauris, \& Sennels 2000), and PZY99 (Portgies Zwart \& Yungelson 1999), and D02 (Davies, Ritter, \& King 2002), respectively) as well as results from {\tt StarTrack} (thin solid lines with filled triangles).
291: It is encouraging
292: that the overall rate estimates from different methods appear to be
293: consistent with one another. If we consider the most likely values of
294: the empirical rate estimates (filled circles), they are somewhat
295: smaller than the theoretical values. However, at a 95\% confidence
296: interval, the empirical and theoretical estimates become
297: comparable. We also emphasize that the {\em upward} correction for
298: pulsar-beaming has not been applied, and therefore the empirical rate
299: estimates should be considered as lower limits.
300:
301: In conclusion, we find that our empirical estimates for the Galactic
302: formation rate of eccentric \nswd~binaries are overall consistent with
303: the estimates derived based on binary population synthesis
304: models. Despite the large uncertainties we consider this consistency
305: as evidence that our current theoretical understanding for the
306: formation of eccentric \nswd~is reasonable. However, the extent of
307: the range covered by the empirical estimates and the population
308: synthesis studies that attempt even a minimal parameter study (e.g.,
309: Davies, Ritter, \& King (2002) and our results from {\tt StarTrack})
310: indicates once again the necessity for careful parameter studies of
311: rate calculations. It also indicates that the empirical rates could in
312: principle be used to constrain binary evolution calculations.
313:
314: \acknowledgments
315: We thank the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality. This
316: research is partially supported by NSF grant 0121420, and a Packard
317: Foundation Fellowship in Science and Engineering to VK. DRL is a
318: University Research Fellow supported by the Royal Society. He also
319: thanks the Theoretical Astrophysics Vistors' fund for support.
320: KB is a Lindheimer Fellow at Northwestern University and
321: also acknowledges support from grant PBZ-KBN-054/p03/2001.
322:
323:
324: \begin{references}
325: \reference Bailes, M., Ord, S.M., Knight, H.S., \& Hotan, A.W. 2003, ApJ, 595, L49
326: \reference Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., \& Bulik, T. 2002, ApJ, 572, 407
327: \reference Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F.A., \& Taam, R.E. 2004, ApJ, submitted
328: \reference Brown, G.E., Lee, C.-H., Portegies Zwart, S.F., \& Bethe, H.A. 2001, ApJ, 547, 345
329: \reference Cappellaro, E., Evans, R., \& Turatto, M. 1999, ApJ, 351, 459
330: \reference Chen, K. \& Ruderman, M. 1993, ApJ, 402, 264
331: \reference Davies, M.B., Ritter, \& H., King, A. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 369
332: \reference Edwards, R.T. \& Bailes, M. 2001, ApJ, 547, L37
333: \reference Kalogera, V., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, L179
334: \reference Kaspi, V.M. et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 321
335: \reference Kim, C., Kalogera, V., \& Lorimer, D. 2003, ApJ, 584, 985 (KKL)
336: \reference Lorimer, D.R. 2001, Living Rev. in Relativity, 4, 5 \\ (http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-5lorimer/)
337: \reference Lundgren, S.C., Zepka, A.F., \& Cordes, J.M. 1995, ApJ, 453, 419
338: \reference Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L.R., \& Portegies Zwart, S.F. 2001, A\&A, 375, 890
339: \reference Nice, D.J., Splaver, E.M., \& Stairs, I.H. 2004, IAU 218, 49
340: \reference Ruderman, M.A. \& Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51
341: \reference Portgies Zwart, S.F., \& Yungelson, L.R. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 26
342: \reference Stokes, G.H., Taylor, J.H., \& Dewey, R.J. 1985, ApJ, 294, L21
343: \reference Tauris, T.M., \& Sennels, T. 2000, A\&A, 355, 236
344: \reference Tutukov, A.V., \& Yungelson, L.R. 1993, Astronomy Reports, 37, 411
345: \reference van Kerkwijk, M.H. \& Kulkarni, S.R. 1999, ApJ, 516, L25
346: \reference Verbunt, F. \& Phinney, E.S. 1995, A\&A, 296, 709
347: \end{references}
348: \end{document}
349: