1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Correlated Infrared and X-ray Flux Changes Following the 2002
7: June Outburst of the Anomalous X-ray Pulsar 1E~2259+586}
8:
9: \author{Cindy R. Tam, Victoria M. Kaspi}
10:
11: \affil{Department of Physics, Ernest Rutherford Physics Building,
12: McGill University, 3600 University Street, Montreal, QC,
13: H3A 2T8, Canada; tamc@physics.mcgill.ca, vkaspi@physics.mcgill.ca}
14:
15: \author{Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Martin Durant}
16:
17: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Toronto,
18: 60 Saint George Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P4, Canada;
19: mhvk@astro.utoronto.ca, durant@astro.utoronto.ca}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We present the results of a near-infrared monitoring program of the
23: Anomalous X-ray Pulsar 1E~2259+586, performed at the Gemini
24: Observatory. This program began three days after the pulsar's 2002
25: June outburst, and spans $\sim$1.5 years. We find that after an
26: initial increase associated with the outburst, the near-infrared flux
27: decreased continually and reached the pre-burst quiescent level after
28: about one year. We compare both the near-infrared flux enhancement and
29: its decay to those of the X-ray afterglow, and find them to be
30: remarkably consistent. Fitting simple power laws to the \textit{RXTE}
31: pulsed flux and near-infrared data for $t>1$~day post-burst, we find
32: the following decay indices: $\alpha =-0.21\pm0.01$ (X-ray),
33: $\alpha=-0.21\pm0.02$ (near-infrared), where flux is a function of
34: time such that $F \propto t^{\alpha}$.
35: This suggests that the enhanced infrared and X-ray fluxes have
36: a physical link post-outburst, most likely from the neutron-star
37: magnetosphere.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{pulsars: individual (1E 2259+586) --- pulsars: general
41: --- infrared: stars --- stars: neutron --- stars: magnetic fields}
42:
43: \section{INTRODUCTION}
44:
45: The origin of the optical and infrared (IR) emission in Anomalous
46: X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) is currently uncertain. To date, possible
47: IR counterparts have been identified for 5 (of 6) known
48: AXPs [1E~2259+586: \citet{htv+01,kgw+03}, 1E~1048.1$-$5937:
49: \citet{wc02,ics+02}, 1RXS~J170849$-$400910: \citet{icp+03},
50: 4U~0142+61: \citet{hvk04} and XTE~J1810$-$197: \citet{irm+04}]. In
51: one case, 4U~0142+61, optical emission has been detected \citep{hvk00}
52: and was seen to pulse at the same period as the X-ray
53: pulsar \citep{km02}. All of these sources show excess
54: optical/IR emission when compared to the prediction of a simple
55: blackbody model extrapolated from X-ray energies (assuming the
56: 2-component model consisting of a power-law plus blackbody component
57: for the X-ray emission). The extrapolation of the power-law component
58: greatly overpredicts the optical/IR flux, however.
59:
60: On 2002 June 18, 1E~2259+586 exhibited an outburst that included,
61: apart from the $>$80 bright, short-lived X-ray bursts, a large and
62: long-lived X-ray flux enhancement with subsequent decay
63: \citep{kgw+03,wkt+04,gkw04}, as well as a significant near-IR flux
64: enhancement, demonstrated with Gemini-North Target of Opportunity
65: observations made 3 and 10 days after the outburst \citep{kgw+03}.
66: This was the first demonstration of IR variability in an AXP, and
67: subsequently the first example of an associations between X-ray and IR
68: activity. Since
69: then, IR variability has also been reported in 1E~1048.1$-$5937
70: \citep{wc02,ics+02,dvh04} and 4U~0142+61 \citep{hvk04} without
71: evidence for a correlation with X-ray outbursts, though sparsity in
72: X-ray observations do not preclude this.
73: Recently, \citet{rti+04} reported that a second near-IR observation of
74: the proposed counterpart to XTE~J1810$-$197 showed variablity possibly
75: linked to X-ray flux decay.
76:
77: In order to verify that the enhancement in IR flux seen post-outburst
78: in 1E~2259+586 was genuinely related to the outburst, as well as to
79: characterize its decay, we monitored the source using the Gemini North
80: telescope. Here we report on this program, demonstrating conclusively
81: that the IR enhancement reported by \citet{kgw+03} was associated with
82: the outburst. We also find that the post-outburst IR and X-ray
83: radiation properties are correlated. In \S\ref{sec:disc}, we
84: compare our results with expectations from different models and other
85: AXPs.
86:
87: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
88:
89: Images in the near-IR $K_s$ band ($\lambda=2.15~\mu$m, $\Delta
90: \lambda=0.31~\mu$m) were obtained with the Near-InfraRed Imager (NIRI;
91: f/6 camera; Aladdin InSb detector array; $1024\times1024$ pixels;
92: $0\farcs1171$ pixel size) at the 8-m Gemini North Observatory. For a
93: description of the observing parameters and conditions, see
94: Table~\ref{tab:obs}. The detector array was read several times in
95: order to reduce read-out noise. This was done both before and after
96: each exposure, and the difference was recorded in the data files. Each
97: target frame consisted of 4 coadded exposures of 15-s integrations.
98: Two earlier observations of
99: 1E~2259+586, which took place 3 and 10 days after the X-ray burst in
100: June 2002 as part of a Target of Opporunity (ToO) program, were
101: described in \citet{kgw+03} and are also included in this analysis.
102: All data were reduced using the Gemini IRAF package for NIRI data.
103: Each frame was divided by a normalized flat field constructed from the
104: lamp flat frames obtained with the Gemini standard calibration unit.
105: The sky background image was derived
106: from the data frames themselves with the objects
107: masked out, taking advantage of the 9-point dither pattern applied
108: during the observation: this was subtracted from all data frames.
109: Finally, all data from a single night were coadded into one image.
110:
111: Photometry was performed using standard procedures within the
112: DAOPHOT package \citep{ste87} as implemented in IRAF. To calibrate
113: the instrumental magnitudes found by DAOPHOT, we tied our measurements
114: directly to stars in the 1E~2259+586 field \citep{htv+01}. The eight
115: nearest neighbours that were bright, isolated and not varying
116: \citep[stars A, B, B$'$, D, F, G, K and N under the numbering system
117: of][]{htv+01} were used to measure the mean offset between the
118: instrumental and published $K_s$ band magnitudes. To verify
119: non-variability, we chose only stars that fell within a standard
120: devation of $\sigma < 0.03$~mag from the weighted mean.
121: The advantage of this procedure was that it gave much more precise
122: \textit{relative} fluxes than would have been possible by using the
123: single standard star observed during each night.
124:
125: Measured $K_s$ band magnitudes of 1E~2259+586 are listed in
126: Table~\ref{tab:obs}. We analytically estimated magnitude errors
127: from the standard deviation of the sky background, under the
128: assumption that an aperture with a radius equal to the PSF FWHM
129: contains 70\% of a star's flux: this was added in quadrature to the
130: uncertainty in the photometric tie to produce final uncertainties in
131: Table~\ref{tab:obs}. Our careful re-analysis of the ToO data (the
132: first two points) gave results consistent
133: with \citet{kgw+03} well within uncertainties: the differences in
134: $K_s$ magnitude between the two analyses were $0.05 \pm 0.17$
135: (Jun. 21) and $0.18 \pm 0.25$ (Jun. 28). The third data point was
136: observed with the Canada France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) by
137: \citet{isc+04}: we have assumed $K'=K_s$ in our magnitude to flux
138: conversion. From Table~\ref{tab:obs}, one sees that $\sim$400~days
139: post-burst, the source appears to have returned to its pre-burst
140: brightness of $K_s=21.7 \pm 0.2$~mag \citep{htv+01}.
141:
142: \section{RESULTS}
143:
144: The post-outburst evolution of the X-ray pulsed flux of 1E~2259+586
145: is described by \citet{wkt+04} in terms of a model with two power laws
146: in time, where $F \propto t^{\alpha}$, with $F$ the unabsorbed
147: 2$-$10~keV pulsed flux, $t$ the time since the glitch epoch $t_g =
148: 52443.13~$MJD, and $\alpha$ the power-law index. Immediately after
149: the outburst ($<$1~day) the decay appears to follow a much steeper
150: power-law index
151: than it does over the following year. We compare the near-IR flux
152: enhancement and decay to those of the second, slower X-ray segment
153: consisting of flux from $>$1~day post-burst, for which \citet{wkt+04}
154: find a temporal decay index of $\alpha=-0.22 \pm 0.01$.
155:
156: To the near-IR data, we first apply an extinction correction of
157: $A_{K_s} = 0.56 \pm 0.01$, which is inferred from $A_V = N_H/(1.79
158: \times 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2})=5.2$~mag \citep{ps95} where $N_H=9.3 \pm 0.3
159: \times 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$ \citep{pkw+01}. Magnitudes are then
160: converted to $\nu F_{\nu}$ (see Table~\ref{tab:obs} and
161: Figure~\ref{fig:decay}).
162:
163: We fit a simple power-law function, $F=k(t/100)^{\alpha}$, to the
164: X-ray and IR flux using a numerical $\chi^2$ fitting program that
165: directly searches over parameter space, where $k$ is a constant with
166: dimensions erg/s/cm$^2$, $t$ is time in days since the glitch, and the
167: choice of the factor of 100
168: roughly minimizes the covariance between $k$ and $\alpha$. Note
169: also that $F$ represents both X-ray flux and near-IR $\nu F_{\nu}$,
170: depending on the case, in erg/s/cm$^2$. Table~\ref{tab:fit} contains
171: our best-fit parameter values and 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. Fitting
172: the \textit{RXTE} pulsed-flux data only, we confirm the index $\alpha$
173: reported by \citet{wkt+04}\footnote{The small discrepancy can be
174: explained by noting that \citet{wkt+04} perform a $\chi^2$ fit on
175: log-log data to a linear function, which neglects to account for
176: asymmetric uncertainties, unlike our numerical method.}. Comparing
177: the long-term decay of near-IR and X-ray afterglow, we find the simple
178: power-law indices remarkably consistent: $\alpha =-0.21 \pm 0.01$
179: (X-ray) and $-0.21\pm 0.02$ (IR).
180:
181: Interestingly, the X-ray and IR enhancements also appear to be offset
182: from their respective quiescent levels $F_q$ at $t= 1$ by nearly
183: the same amount and, as a result, decay back to $F_q$ on similar time
184: scales. To quantify this, we perform a $\chi^2$ fit to a
185: second function consisting of a power-law with an excess offset
186: $F=F_q(1+f(t/t_0)^{\alpha})$, where $t_0=3.5$~days is the time since
187: the glitch of the first IR
188: observation, $f=(F_0 - F_q)/F_q$ is the flux excess, and $F_0$ is
189: the flux enhancement at $t_0$. Data from $t<0$ are included to
190: determine $F_q$. If the offsets are correlated, then we would expect
191: the best-fit $f$ from X-ray and $K_s$ data to be consistent: this is
192: in fact what we find in the latter part of Table~\ref{tab:fit}. We
193: note that larger errors and a small number of near-IR data points
194: result in $\chi^2/\nu <1$ and large uncertainties on $f$ and $\alpha$
195: when all three parameters are fit to the near-IR data. To confirm
196: that the shapes of the decay curves of the X-ray and $K_s$ data are
197: consistent statistically, we re-fit the $K_s$ data to the excess model
198: with $\alpha$ and $f$ fixed at the X-ray excess best-fit values. The
199: effect of holding two parameters constant is a reasonable increase in
200: $\chi^2/\nu$ to $5.7/5 \approx 1.1$, showing that the two shapes are
201: indeed consistent with each other at the 1$\sigma$ level. In
202: Figure~\ref{fig:decay}, we plot the best-fit power laws as modelled on
203: the X-ray and $K_s$ data (dashed lines); overplotted is the power-law
204: plus excess model where $\alpha =-0.44$ and $f=2.14$ (dot-dashed
205: lines), and the corresponding $F_q$ best-fit value (dotted lines), for
206: comparison.
207:
208: Thus, we find that the $>$1~day IR and X-ray initial enhancements and
209: subsequent decays after the 2002 outburst are correlated.
210:
211: \section{DISCUSSION}
212: \label{sec:disc}
213:
214: In this section, we compare our results with other AXPs and discuss
215: them in the context of various models.
216:
217: AXP optical/IR emission has been argued as originating from a fossil
218: disk around the neutron star \citep[e.g.][]{chn00,ea03b}. The
219: exceptionally high X-ray to optical/IR flux ratio seen in AXP
220: 1E~2259+586 rendered this model problematic \citep{hvvk00,htv+01}.
221: Moreover,
222: the SGR-like bursting phenomena, observed in the 2002 outburst of
223: 1E~2259+586 \citep{kgw+03,gkw04,wkt+04}, and from 1E~1048.1$-$5937 in
224: 2001 \citep{gkw02} and very recently in 2004 \citep{kgwc04}, as well
225: as the high optical pulsed fraction seen in AXP 4U~0142+61
226: \citep{km02}, simply cannot be explained by such disks. \citet{ec04}
227: argue that the high optical pulsed fraction can be reproduced in a
228: disk-dynamo model, although whether this could produce the observed
229: bursts is unclear.
230:
231: ``Hybrid'' fallback disk models, in which the disk surrounds a
232: magnetar, have recently been proposed to attempt to explain all AXP
233: properties \citep{ea03b}. In this case, the quiescent pulsed X-ray
234: emission arises from accretion from the disk while optical pulsations
235: and bursts are magnetar magnetospheric emission. \citet{ea03a} argue,
236: in the context of such a hybrid model, that enhanced X-ray emission,
237: following an SGR-like flare, is released from the inner disk which has
238: been pushed back by the burst itself. For 1E~2259+586, however, no
239: such SGR-like flare was detected prior to the observed enhanced X-ray
240: emission, with upper limit 3 orders of magnitude below the total
241: observed energy release \citep{wkt+04}. Furthermore, one AXP shows
242: uncorrelated torque and X-ray flux variations, contrary to the
243: predictions of any fallback disk model \citep{gk04}. It is true that
244: one natural prediction of fallback disk models is some form of
245: correlation between the IR and X-ray emission \citep[see][and
246: references therein]{rti+04}. Nevertheless, in the absence of
247: solutions to the problematic aspects of these models as listed above,
248: we do not find the observed IR/X-ray correlation to render fallback
249: disk models particularly compelling.
250:
251: By contrast, the magnetar model accounts very well for the bulk of AXP
252: properties, especially bursts \citep{td96a}, and qualitatively can
253: explain optical/IR properties as well. In the magnetar model, thermal
254: surface emission is ruled out as the energy source for AXP optical/IR
255: emission because of the impossibly high implied brightness
256: temperature; hence, optical/IR emission must originate in the
257: stellar magnetosphere, regardless of what powers it. Recently,
258: \citet{egl02} and \citet{oze04} argued that electron/positron
259: radiation in the magnetosphere of a magnetar, produced in analogy
260: with that in rotation-powered pulsars, could explain the observed
261: optical/IR properties of AXPs. The strong correlation between IR and
262: X-ray flux decay that we have observed in the afterglow of the 2002
263: outburst of 1E~2259+586 argues for a physical link between the
264: origins of both types of radiation. The X-ray emission is far too
265: luminous \citep[$L_X \sim 10^{35}$ in 1$-$10~keV at a distance
266: $\sim$4~kpc,][]{mcis02} to be rotation-powered; it follows that the
267: IR emission is likely not either. Though \citet{oze04} argued that
268: the IR emission from an energetics standpoint could be
269: rotation-powered, the large implied efficiency \citep[$\nu
270: F_{\nu,V}/\nu F_{\nu,rot} \sim 0.6$, from Figure~1 of][]{oze04} of
271: conversion from spin-down flux into IR emission in 4U~0142+61, if the
272: latter is rotation-powered, also argues against (though does not
273: disprove) this hypothesis.
274:
275: The post-outburst correlation does clarify, however, the origin of the
276: X-ray afterglow following the 2002 outburst, because of the following
277: reasoning. \citet{wkt+04} identified two possible mechanisms to
278: produce the X-ray afterglow. The first was a genuine afterglow,
279: i.e. thermal emission from the surface, a result of an impulsive heat
280: injection to the crust from the magnetosphere. Such a thermal
281: afterglow mechanism has been invoked in SGRs, in which the impulse,
282: namely a bright soft gamma-ray flare, was clearly observed
283: \citep{hcm+99}. For 1E~2259+586, however, no such flare was seen
284: \citep{wkt+04}. An alternative to this thermal afterglow model is
285: that the enhanced X-rays are a result of a twisting of the
286: magnetospheric field, perhaps as a result of the twisting of its
287: footpoints following a signficant surface restructuring. Such an
288: event is consistent with the coincidental rotational glitch that was
289: observed \citep{kgw+03,wkt+04}, since the latter clearly implies a
290: major disturbance in the crustal superfluid. Such a twisting could
291: naturally result in enhanced X-rays \citep{tlk02}, with subsequent
292: field relaxation accounting for the decay. Given that the IR
293: enhancement cannot be from surface thermal emission, the correlation
294: with the X-ray decay strongly favors the twisting model, as it is
295: difficult to understand how surface thermal X-ray emission could be so
296: closely correlated
297: with magnetospheric radiation. Moreover, the IR enhancement being a
298: result of a decaying magnetospheric disturbance is consistent with the
299: picture suggested by \citet{egl02} and \citet{oze04} in which the IR
300: emission is radiation from magnetospheric pairs. It would be
301: interesting to see, in future outbursts, whether the IR emission is
302: pulsed and/or polarized, and if so, whether the pulse morphology is
303: similar, and changes in concert with any X-ray pulse morphological
304: changes, as this would strongly support this scenario.
305:
306: IR variability over long time periods has been seen in three other
307: AXPs. In the case of 1E~1048.1$-$5937, $K_s$-band variability has
308: been detected \citep{wc02,ics+02}. However, no variation in X-ray
309: flux was seen between the different epochs. Moreover, a more recent
310: observation \citep{dvh04} found that the IR flux was consistent with
311: the fainter of the two previous measurements, even though the X-ray
312: flux was significantly larger \citep{gk04}. Despite showing no
313: evidence of X-ray activity \citep[and unpublished work]{gk02},
314: 4U~0142+61 also appears to vary in $K_s$ \citep{hvk04}. This suggests
315: that the physical mechanism responsible for the IR emission is
316: distinct from that responsible for the \textit{quiescent} X-rays, even
317: during the broad X-ray flaring reported by \citet{gk04}. This is in
318: contrast to the post-outburst behavior we have seen in
319: 1E~2259+586. That AXP IR and X-ray emission is generally correlated
320: following an AXP outburst is further supported by the recent report of
321: IR decay in data from the transient AXP candidate XTE J1810$-$197
322: \citep{rit+04} following its X-ray brightening and fading in 2004
323: \citep{ims+04}.
324:
325: \acknowledgments
326: This work was based on observations obtained at the Gemini
327: Observatory (Program IDs GN-2002A-DD-6, GN-2003A-Q-71, GN-2003B-Q-22),
328: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
329: Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf
330: of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United
331: States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United
332: Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the
333: Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET
334: (Argentina). It was also supported by NSERC Discovery Grant
335: 228738-03, NSERC Steacie Supplement 268264-03, a Canada Foundation for
336: Innovation New Opportunities Grant, and FQRNT Team and Centre Grants.
337: V.~M.~K. is a Canada Research Chair and Steacie Fellow.
338:
339: \bibliographystyle{apj}
340: %\bibliography{journals1,modrefs,psrrefs,crossrefs}
341: \begin{thebibliography}{36}
342: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
343:
344: \bibitem[{{Chatterjee} {et~al.}(2000){Chatterjee}, {Hernquist}, \&
345: {Narayan}}]{chn00}
346: {Chatterjee}, P., {Hernquist}, L., \& {Narayan}, R. 2000, ApJ, 534, 373
347:
348: \bibitem[{{Cox}(2000)}]{cox00}
349: {Cox}, A.~N., ed. 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities, 4th ed. (New York:
350: AIP Press; Springer)
351:
352: \bibitem[{Durant {et~al.}(2004)Durant, van Kerkwijk, \& Hulleman}]{dvh04}
353: Durant, M., van Kerkwijk, M.~H., \& Hulleman, F. 2004, in Young Neutron Stars
354: and Their Environments, {IAU} Symposium 218, ed. B.~Gaensler \& F.~Camilo
355: (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), in press
356: (astro-ph/0309801)
357:
358: \bibitem[{{Eichler} {et~al.}(2002){Eichler}, {Gedalin}, \& {Lyubarsky}}]{egl02}
359: {Eichler}, D., {Gedalin}, M., \& {Lyubarsky}, Y. 2002, \apj, 578, L121
360:
361: \bibitem[{{Ek{\c s}{\i}} \& {Alpar}(2003)}]{ea03b}
362: {Ek{\c s}{\i}}, K.~Y. \& {Alpar}, M.~A. 2003, ApJ, 599, 450
363:
364: \bibitem[{{Ertan} \& {Alpar}(2003)}]{ea03a}
365: {Ertan}, {\" U}. \& {Alpar}, M.~A. 2003, \apjl, 593, L93
366:
367: \bibitem[{{Ertan} \& {Cheng}(2004)}]{ec04}
368: {Ertan}, {\" U}. \& {Cheng}, K.~S. 2004, \apj, 605, 840
369:
370: \bibitem[{Gaensler \& Camilo(2004)}]{gc04}
371: Gaensler, B. \& Camilo, F., eds. 2004, Young Neutron Stars and Their
372: Environments, {IAU} Symposium 218 (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the
373: Pacific)
374:
375: \bibitem[{{Gavriil} \& {Kaspi}(2002)}]{gk02}
376: {Gavriil}, F.~P. \& {Kaspi}, V.~M. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1067
377:
378: \bibitem[{Gavriil \& Kaspi(2004)}]{gk04}
379: Gavriil, F.~P. \& Kaspi, V.~M. 2004, ApJ, 609, L67
380:
381: \bibitem[{Gavriil {et~al.}(2002)Gavriil, Kaspi, \& Woods}]{gkw02}
382: Gavriil, F.~P., Kaspi, V.~M., \& Woods, P.~M. 2002, Nature, 419, 142
383:
384: \bibitem[{Gavriil {et~al.}(2004)Gavriil, Kaspi, \& Woods}]{gkw04}
385: ---. 2004, ApJ, 607, 959
386:
387: \bibitem[{{Hulleman} {et~al.}(2001){Hulleman}, {Tennant}, {van Kerkwijk},
388: {Kulkarni}, {Kouveliotou}, \& {Patel}}]{htv+01}
389: {Hulleman}, F., {Tennant}, A.~F., {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H., {Kulkarni}, S.~R.,
390: {Kouveliotou}, C., \& {Patel}, S.~K. 2001, ApJ, 563, L49
391:
392: \bibitem[{Hulleman {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}})Hulleman, van Kerkwijk, \&
393: Kulkarni}]{hvk00}
394: Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M.~H., \& Kulkarni, S.~R. 2000{\natexlab{a}},
395: Nature, 408, 689
396:
397: \bibitem[{{Hulleman} {et~al.}(2004){Hulleman}, {van Kerkwijk}, \&
398: {Kulkarni}}]{hvk04}
399: {Hulleman}, F., {van Kerkwijk}, M.~H., \& {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2004, A\&A, 416,
400: 1037
401:
402: \bibitem[{Hulleman {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}})Hulleman, van Kerkwijk, Verbunt,
403: \& Kulkarni}]{hvvk00}
404: Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M.~H., Verbunt, F. W.~M., \& Kulkarni, S.~R.
405: 2000{\natexlab{b}}, A\&A, 358, 605
406:
407: \bibitem[{Hurley {et~al.}(1999)Hurley, Cline, Mazets, Barthelmy, Butterworth,
408: Marshall, Palmer, Aptekar, Golenetskii, Ill'lnskii, Frederiks, McTiernan,
409: Gold, \& Trombka}]{hcm+99}
410: Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., Barthelmy, S., Butterworth, P., Marshall,
411: F., Palmer, D., Aptekar, R., Golenetskii, S., Ill'lnskii, V., Frederiks, D.,
412: McTiernan, J., Gold, R., \& Trombka, T. 1999, Nature, 397, 41
413:
414: \bibitem[{{Ibrahim} {et~al.}(2004){Ibrahim}, {Markwardt}, {Swank}, {Ransom},
415: {Roberts}, {Kaspi}, {Woods}, {Safi-Harb}, {Balman}, {Parke}, {Kouveliotou},
416: {Hurley}, \& {Cline}}]{ims+04}
417: {Ibrahim}, A.~I., {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Swank}, J.~H., {Ransom}, S., {Roberts},
418: M., {Kaspi}, V., {Woods}, P.~M., {Safi-Harb}, S., {Balman}, S., {Parke},
419: W.~C., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Hurley}, K., \& {Cline}, T. 2004, \apjl, 609, L21
420:
421: \bibitem[{{Israel} {et~al.}(2003){Israel}, {Covino}, {Perna}, {Mignani},
422: {Stella}, {Campana}, {Marconi}, {Bono}, {Mereghetti}, {Motch}, {Negueruela},
423: {Oosterbroek}, \& {Angelini}}]{icp+03}
424: {Israel}, G.~L., {Covino}, S., {Perna}, R., {Mignani}, R., {Stella}, L.,
425: {Campana}, S., {Marconi}, G., {Bono}, G., {Mereghetti}, S., {Motch}, C.,
426: {Negueruela}, I., {Oosterbroek}, T., \& {Angelini}, L. 2003, ApJ, 589, L93
427:
428: \bibitem[{{Israel} {et~al.}(2002){Israel}, {Covino}, {Stella}, {Campana},
429: {Marconi}, {Mereghetti}, {Mignani}, {Negueruela}, {Oosterbroek}, {Parmar},
430: {Burderi}, \& {Angelini}}]{ics+02}
431: {Israel}, G.~L., {Covino}, S., {Stella}, L., {Campana}, S., {Marconi}, G.,
432: {Mereghetti}, S., {Mignani}, R., {Negueruela}, I., {Oosterbroek}, T.,
433: {Parmar}, A.~N., {Burderi}, L., \& {Angelini}, L. 2002, ApJ, 580, L143
434:
435: \bibitem[{{Israel} {et~al.}(2004){Israel}, {Rea}, {Mangano}, {Testa}, {Perna},
436: {Hummel}, {Mignani}, {Ageorges}, {Lo~Curto}, {Marco}, {Angelini}, {Campana},
437: {Covino}, {Marconi}, {Mereghetti}, \& {Stella}}]{irm+04}
438: {Israel}, G.~L., {Rea}, N., {Mangano}, V., {Testa}, V., {Perna}, R., {Hummel},
439: W., {Mignani}, R., {Ageorges}, N., {Lo~Curto}, G., {Marco}, O., {Angelini},
440: L., {Campana}, S., {Covino}, S., {Marconi}, G., {Mereghetti}, S., \&
441: {Stella}, L. 2004, \apjl, 603, L97
442:
443: \bibitem[{Israel {et~al.}(2004)Israel, Stella, Covino, Campana, Angelini,
444: Mignani, Mereghetti, Marconi, \& Perna}]{isc+04}
445: Israel, G.~L., Stella, L., Covino, S., Campana, S., Angelini, L., Mignani, R.,
446: Mereghetti, S., Marconi, G., \& Perna, R. 2004, in Young Neutron Stars and
447: Their Environments, {IAU} Symposium 218, ed. B.~Gaensler \& F.~Camilo (San
448: Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), in press (astro-ph/0310482)
449:
450: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2004){Kaspi}, {Gavriil}, {Woods}, \&
451: {Chakrabarty}}]{kgwc04}
452: {Kaspi}, V., {Gavriil}, F., {Woods}, P., \& {Chakrabarty}, D. 2004, The
453: Astronomer's Telegram, 298, 1
454:
455: \bibitem[{Kaspi {et~al.}(2003)Kaspi, Gavriil, Woods, Jensen, Roberts, \&
456: Chakrabarty}]{kgw+03}
457: Kaspi, V.~M., Gavriil, F.~P., Woods, P.~M., Jensen, J.~B., Roberts, M. S.~E.,
458: \& Chakrabarty, D. 2003, ApJ, 588, L93
459:
460: \bibitem[{Kern \& Martin(2002)}]{km02}
461: Kern, B. \& Martin, C. 2002, Nature, 415, 527
462:
463: \bibitem[{Mereghetti {et~al.}(2002)Mereghetti, Chiarlone, Israel, \&
464: Stella}]{mcis02}
465: Mereghetti, S., Chiarlone, L., Israel, G.~L., \& Stella, L. 2002, in Neutron
466: Stars, Pulsars and Supernova Remnants, ed. W.~Becker, H.~Lesch, \&
467: J.~Tr\"{u}mper, 29
468:
469: \bibitem[{\"Ozel(2004)}]{oze04}
470: \"Ozel, F. 2004, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0404144)
471:
472: \bibitem[{{Patel} {et~al.}(2001){Patel}, {Kouveliotou}, {Woods}, {Tennant},
473: {Weisskopf}, {Finger}, {G{\" o}{\u g}{\" u}{\c s}}, {van der Klis}, \&
474: {Belloni}}]{pkw+01}
475: {Patel}, S.~K., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Woods}, P.~M., {Tennant}, A.~F.,
476: {Weisskopf}, M.~C., {Finger}, M.~H., {G{\" o}{\u g}{\" u}{\c s}}, E., {van
477: der Klis}, M., \& {Belloni}, T. 2001, ApJ, 563, L45
478:
479: \bibitem[{{Predehl} \& {Schmitt}(1995)}]{ps95}
480: {Predehl}, P. \& {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M. 1995, \aap, 293, 889
481:
482: \bibitem[{{Rea} {et~al.}(2004){Rea}, {Israel}, {Testa}, {Stella}, {Mereghetti},
483: {Tiengo}, {Oosterbroek}, {Mangano}, {Campana}, {Covino}, {Curto}, \&
484: {Perna}}]{rit+04}
485: {Rea}, N., {Israel}, G.~L., {Testa}, V., {Stella}, L., {Mereghetti}, S.,
486: {Tiengo}, A., {Oosterbroek}, T., {Mangano}, V., {Campana}, S., {Covino}, S.,
487: {Curto}, G.~L., \& {Perna}, R. 2004, The Astronomer's Telegram, 284
488:
489: \bibitem[{Rea {et~al.}(2004)Rea, Testa, Israel, Mereghetti, Perna, Stella,
490: Tiengo, Mangano, Oosterbroek, Mignani, Curto, Campana, \& Covino}]{rti+04}
491: Rea, N., Testa, V., Israel, G.~L., Mereghetti, S., Perna, R., Stella, L.,
492: Tiengo, A., Mangano, V., Oosterbroek, T., Mignani, R., Curto, G.~L., Campana,
493: S., \& Covino, S. 2004, A\&A, in press
494:
495: \bibitem[{{Stetson}(1987)}]{ste87}
496: {Stetson}, P.~B. 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
497:
498: \bibitem[{Thompson \& Duncan(1996)}]{td96a}
499: Thompson, C. \& Duncan, R.~C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322
500:
501: \bibitem[{Thompson {et~al.}(2002)Thompson, Lyutikov, \& Kulkarni}]{tlk02}
502: Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M., \& Kulkarni, S.~R. 2002, ApJ, 574, 332
503:
504: \bibitem[{{Wang} \& {Chakrabarty}(2002)}]{wc02}
505: {Wang}, Z. \& {Chakrabarty}, D. 2002, ApJ, 579, L33
506:
507: \bibitem[{{Woods} {et~al.}(2004){Woods}, {Kaspi}, {Thompson}, {Gavriil},
508: {Marshall}, {Chakrabarty}, {Flanagan}, {Heyl}, \& {Hernquist}}]{wkt+04}
509: {Woods}, P.~M., {Kaspi}, V.~M., {Thompson}, C., {Gavriil}, F.~P., {Marshall},
510: H.~L., {Chakrabarty}, D., {Flanagan}, K., {Heyl}, J., \& {Hernquist}, L.
511: 2004, \apj, 605, 378
512:
513: \end{thebibliography}
514:
515: \clearpage
516:
517: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccc}
518: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
519: \tablecaption{Near-IR observing parameters and measured results
520: \label{tab:obs} }
521: \tablehead{
522: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{Instrument} & \colhead{Exposure} &
523: \colhead{Seeing} & \colhead{Band} & \colhead{Absorbed} &
524: \colhead{Unabsorbed $\nu F_{\nu}$\tablenotemark{a}}\\
525: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(min)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
526: \colhead{magnitude} & \colhead{($10^{-15}$~erg/s/cm$^2$)} }
527: \startdata
528: 2002 Jun. 21 & Gemini/NIRI & 19 & $0\farcs7$ & $K_s$ & 20.41(7) & $10.7\pm0.7$\\
529: 2002 Jun. 28 & Gemini/NIRI & 12 & $0\farcs5$ & $K_s$ & 20.96(14) & $6.4\pm0.8$\\
530: 2002 Aug. 18 & CFHT/AOB/KIR & 122 & $0\farcs2$ & $K'$ & 21.31(24) & $4.6\pm1.0$\\
531: 2003 Aug. 11 & Gemini/NIRI & 58 & $0\farcs5$ & $K_s$ & 21.66(11) & $3.4\pm0.3$\\
532: 2003 Nov. 5 & Gemini/NIRI & 49 & $0\farcs3$ & $K_s$ & 21.54(5) & $3.8\pm0.2$
533: \enddata
534: \tablenotetext{a}{$\nu F_{\nu} = 9.28 \times 10^{-7}$~erg/s/cm$^2$ for
535: absorbed $K_s = 0$ \citep[Chapter~7 of][]{cox00}.}
536: \end{deluxetable}
537:
538: %\clearpage
539:
540: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
541: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
542: \tablecaption{Results of power-law and excess function fitting
543: \label{tab:fit} }
544: \tablehead{
545: \colhead{Function} & \colhead{$F_q$ (erg/s/cm$^2$)} & \colhead{$k$
546: (erg/s/cm$^2$)} & \colhead{$f$} & \colhead{$\alpha$} &
547: \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{$\chi^2/\nu$} }
548: \startdata
549: X-ray PL & \nodata & $(2.35 \pm 0.02)\times 10^{-11}$ & \nodata & $-0.21 \pm 0.01$ & 37.1\tablenotemark{a} & 1.0\\
550: IR PL & \nodata & $(5.02 \pm 0.25)\times 10^{-15}$ & \nodata & $-0.21 \pm 0.02$ & 7.1\tablenotemark{a} & 1.0\\
551: X-ray excess & $(1.56 \pm 0.03)\times 10^{-11}$ & \nodata & $2.14 \pm 0.14$ & $-0.44^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & 97.3\tablenotemark{a} & 1.0\\
552: IR excess & $(3.49^{+0.22}_{-0.37})\times 10^{-15}$ & \nodata & $2.05^{+0.34}_{-0.25}$ & $-0.75^{+0.22}_{-0.33}$ & 1.4 & 0.5
553: % & $(3.04 \pm 0.09)\times 10^{-15}$ & 2.14 (fixed) & $-0.44$ (fixed) & 5.7 & 1.1
554: \enddata
555: \tablenotetext{a}{Errors scaled to infer uncertainties on the
556: parameters. $\chi^2$ values reflect those before rescaling.}
557: \end{deluxetable}
558:
559: \clearpage
560:
561: \begin{figure}
562: \epsscale{1.0}
563: \plotone{f1.eps}
564: \figcaption[f1.eps]{Unabsorbed X-ray flux and near-IR $\nu F_{\nu}$
565: decay of 1E~2259+586 as a function of time. \textit{RXTE}
566: pulsed flux data \citep[from][Figure~13]{wkt+04} are represented by
567: circles and refer to
568: the left axis, Gemini and CFHT data (Table~\ref{tab:obs}) are
569: represented by squares and
570: refer to the right axis. Best-fit power laws to the X-ray and
571: near-IR data are shown in dashed lines. The power-law plus excess
572: model with $\alpha$ and $f$ fixed at best-fit X-ray values is shown
573: in dot-dashed lines; the dotted lines denotes the flux levels
574: during quiescence as determined by the excess
575: fit. \label{fig:decay}}
576: \end{figure}
577:
578:
579: \end{document}
580: