1: % Resubmitted to ApJ Letters on 25 October 2004
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \def\deg{^{\circ}}
8:
9: \title{PSR J1756$-$2251: a new relativistic double neutron
10: star system}
11: \author{ A.~J.Faulkner\altaffilmark{1}, M. Kramer\altaffilmark{1},
12: A.~G. Lyne\altaffilmark{1}, R.~N. Manchester\altaffilmark{2},
13: M.~A. McLaughlin\altaffilmark{1},\\
14: I.~H. Stairs\altaffilmark{3}, G. Hobbs\altaffilmark{2},
15: A. Possenti\altaffilmark{4}, D.~R. Lorimer\altaffilmark{1}, \\
16: N. D'Amico\altaffilmark{4,5}, F. Camilo\altaffilmark{6}
17: \& M. Burgay\altaffilmark{4}}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield,
20: Cheshire, SK11~9DL, UK}
21: \altaffiltext{2}{Australia Telescope National Facility, CSIRO,
22: P.O.~Box~76, Epping NSW~1710, Australia}
23: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of
24: British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada }
25: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari, Loc.
26: Poggio dei Pini, Strada 54, 09012, Capoterra (CA), Italy }
27: \altaffiltext{5}{Universita' degli Studi di Cagliari, Dipartimento di
28: Fisica, SP Monserrato-Sestu km 0,7, 90042, Monserrato (CA), Italy}
29: \altaffiltext{6}{Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia
30: University, 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY~10027, USA}
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: We report the discovery during the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey of
36: PSR J1756$-$2251, a 28.5~ms pulsar in a relativistic binary
37: system. Subsequent timing observations showed the pulsar to have an
38: orbital period of 7.67~hrs and an eccentricity of 0.18. They also
39: revealed a significant advance of periastron, $2.585 \pm 0.002$
40: deg. yr$^{-1}$. Assuming this is entirely due to general relativity
41: implies a total system mass (pulsar plus companion) of
42: 2.574$\pm$0.003~M$_{\odot}$. This mass and the significant orbital
43: eccentricity suggest that this is a double neutron star
44: system. Measurement of the gravitational redshift, $\gamma$, and an
45: evaluation of the Shapiro delay shape, $s$, indicate a low companion
46: mass of $<$1.25~$M_{\odot}$. The expected coalescence time due to
47: emission of gravitational waves is only $\sim$1.7~Gyr substantially
48: less than a Hubble time. We note an apparent correlation between spin
49: period and eccentricity for normally evolving double neutron star
50: systems.
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{
55: pulsars: general --- pulsars: individual PSR J1756$-$2251}
56:
57: \clearpage
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: Relativistic double neutron star (DNS) binary systems in tight orbits
62: are valuable physical laboratories, since their rapid evolution allows
63: stringent tests of gravitational theories in strong-field conditions
64: (e.g., Taylor \& Weisberg 1989\nocite{tw89}). They make a significant
65: contribution to estimated event rates for gravitational wave detectors
66: (e.g. Kim, Kalogera \& Lorimer 2002\nocite{kkl03}). DNS binaries are
67: rare since, even if the system survives the first supernova explosion,
68: the progenitor system will typically disrupt with the second supernova
69: explosion. Also, they are observationally selected against because of
70: the large orbital modulation of the pulsar period. In this {\it
71: Letter} we report the discovery of PSR J1756$-$2251, a 28.5~ms pulsar,
72: and present strong evidence which suggests that it is the 8th DNS
73: binary system known and the 5th which will coalesce in less than a
74: Hubble time. In \S 2 we describe the observations, \S 3 evaluates the
75: nature of the companion, while \S 4 discusses the search for a
76: possible pulsar companion. Finally, \S 5 considers some of the
77: implications of the discovery.
78:
79: \section{Observations}
80: \label{s:observations}
81:
82: PSR J1756$-$2251 was discovered in the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey
83: (PMPS; Manchester et al. 2001\nocite{mlc+01}). The PMPS is the most
84: successful survey for pulsars, with more than 700 pulsars discovered
85: so far. The survey used a sensitive 13-beam receiver at the Parkes
86: radio telescope to cover the Galactic plane $(|b|<5^{\circ}$,
87: $260^{\circ}<l<50^{\circ})$ with 35-min integrations at a centre
88: frequency of 1374~MHz, with 96 frequency channels covering 288~MHz
89: bandwidth, using 250~$\mu$s sampling.
90:
91: An initial search using standard Fourier techniques, as described in
92: Manchester et al. (2001)\nocite{mlc+01}, failed to detect PSR
93: J1756$-$2251. The data were subsequently re-analysed using an
94: efficient acceleration code (Faulkner et al. 2004\nocite{fsk+04}) and
95: PSR J1756$-$2251 was detected in three beams, with the best
96: signal-to-noise ratio of 19. The system was confirmed in June 2003 by
97: re-observation at Parkes, using the `gridding' technique described in
98: Morris et al. (2002\nocite{mhl+02}).
99:
100: PSR J1756$-$2251 has subsequently been observed regularly from Parkes
101: at 1374~MHz using 288~MHz bandwidth (BW) and 1390~MHz using 256~MHz BW
102: and 80 or 125~$\mu$s sampling time ($t_{\rm s}$), plus occasional
103: observations at 685~MHz (64~MHz BW, $t_{\rm s}$: 80~$\mu$s) and
104: 3030~MHz (768~MHz BW, $t_{\rm s}$: 80~$\mu$s); at Jodrell Bank
105: Observatory at 1396~MHz (64~MHz BW, $t_{\rm s}$: 371~$\mu$s) and
106: 610~MHz (4~MHz BW, $t_{\rm s}$: 555~$\mu$s) and the Green Bank
107: Telescope (GBT) at 1400~MHz (96~MHz BW, $t_{\rm s}$: 72~$\mu$s) using
108: the Berkley Caltech Pulsar Machine (Backer et
109: al. 1997\nocite{bdz+97}). Full orbit observations of $\sim$8~hrs have
110: been made at Parkes and the GBT. Figure \ref{f:profile} shows the
111: integrated pulse profile of PSR J1756$-$2251, at 1390~MHz with 512~kHz
112: frequency channels and 80~$\mu$s sampling; it is sharp but
113: featureless, with a pulse width of 2.7\% of the spin period. The 1998
114: observations, with 3~MHz frequency channels, have higher dispersion
115: smearing, however, the profile still appears similar. The profile at
116: 3030~MHz is also similar while there is broadening at 685~MHz. Given
117: that profile widths of recycled pulsars hardly evolve with frequency
118: (Kramer et al. 1999\nocite{kll+99}), this broadening is likely to be
119: due to scattering. There is no evidence of any emission at phase
120: 180$^{\circ}$ from the pulse.
121:
122: For regular coverage over the orbit, pulse time of arrivals (TOAs)
123: were made using 10~min sub-integrations from the Parkes
124: observations. Three survey observations, made 5 years before the
125: confirmation, were included. The bulk of the observations, including
126: 1189 of the 1382 timing points, were made at Jodrell Bank, each using
127: 5~min of integration each. The timing analysis used the \textsc{TEMPO}
128: program\footnote{See http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/tempo/}
129: and gave the timing parameters listed in Table \ref{t:parameters}. PSR
130: J1756$-$2251 is very close to the ecliptic plane, which has made the
131: determination of its declination using timing measurements relatively
132: imprecise.
133:
134: \section{Nature of the Companion}
135: \label{s:nat_comp}
136:
137: The masses of the pulsar and its companion cannot be measured
138: independently in purely Keplerian orbits. However, the `mass
139: function', $f_{\rm mass}={(m_2\ {\rm sin}\,i)^3}/{(m_1+m_2)^2}$, can be
140: found from the orbital period $P_{\rm b}$ and projected semi-major
141: axis, $x=a_1\ {\rm sin}\,i$, where $i$ is the orbital inclination. This
142: relates the masses of the pulsar, $m_1$, and the companion, $m_2$,
143: both in solar masses. Since we fit for $0^{\circ}\leq i \leq
144: 90^{\circ}$, clearly cos$\,i$ must be $>$0.
145:
146: We have measured the precession of the longitude of periastron,
147: $\dot\omega$, to be $2.585 \pm 0.002$~deg~yr$^{-1}$. This could be due
148: to a combination of tidal effects caused by a non-compact deformable
149: companion (Smarr \& Blandford 1976\nocite{sb76}), the effects of
150: relativistic gravitational interaction (Taylor \& Weisberg
151: 1989\nocite{tw89}) or spin orbit coupling (e.g. Masters \& Roberts
152: 1975)\nocite{mr75}. Although it would be possible for a hydrogen
153: main-sequence star to fit in the orbit, it would induce an
154: $\dot\omega$ of $\sim$1000 times the observed value (see Masters \&
155: Roberts 1975)\nocite{mr75}. Alternatively, the companion could be a
156: helium main-sequence star. Using the relationship between
157: $\dot\omega$, $m_{\rm 1}$ and $m_{\rm 2}$ due to tidal effects derived
158: in Roberts, Masters \& Arnett (1976)\nocite{rma76}, we find that the
159: required pulsar mass must be $<0.6$~$M_{\odot}$, which is very
160: unlikely. Furthermore, there is no evidence of occultations of the
161: pulsar, which is consistent with the companion's identification as a
162: compact object. Hence, the companion must be a compact object; either
163: a neutron star (NS) or white dwarf (WD). A fast rotating WD could
164: affect $\dot\omega$ by spin orbit coupling. Following Wex (1998)
165: \nocite{wex98}, we estimated the size of the contribution from a
166: derived upper limit on $\dot{x}/x$. While we do not know all relevant
167: angles in the system's geometry, we conclude that this effect is
168: insignificant, unless we observed the system under very specific
169: angles and/or at particular phases of the orbital precession. While we
170: consider this as unlikely, future observations will verify this
171: conclusion.
172:
173: Taking $\dot\omega$ to be entirely due to the effects of general
174: relativity, the total system mass can be derived (see Damour \& Taylor
175: 1992)\nocite{dt92}. We obtain a value of $2.574 \pm
176: 0.003$~$M_{\odot}$. Figure \ref{f:m2cosi} shows $\dot\omega$ as a
177: function of $m_2$ and cos$\,i$; the data were analysed using
178: the DD model of \textsc{TEMPO} (Damour \& Deruelle 1985,
179: 1986\nocite{dd85}\nocite{dd86}). The total system mass is remarkably
180: similar to that of the double pulsar system, J0737$-$3039
181: ($2.588$~M$_{\odot}$; Burgay et al. 2003\nocite{bdp+03}).
182:
183: The system mass, age of the pulsar and the significant eccentricity of
184: 0.18 make a WD companion unlikely, since any accretion from the WD
185: progenitor onto the NS would have circularised the orbit. If the
186: companion is a WD then it would be a CO type with a mass of
187: $\sim$1.2~$M_{\odot}$. At a distance of 2.5~kpc and assuming the
188: pulsar characteristic age of 443~Myr we expect it to be magnitude
189: $\lesssim$24 (e.g., Gar\'{c}ia-Berro et
190: al. 1996\nocite{ghi+96}). While it is probably too faint to be seen in
191: available optical surveys, we have, reviewed surveys and catalogues at
192: the Astrophysical Virtual
193: Observatory\footnote{http://www.euro-vo.org}, which includes objects
194: with a maximum magnitude of 22.5. No plausible optical counterpart was
195: found.
196:
197: Although not yet well constrained, we have measured the gravitational
198: redshift parameter, $\gamma$, (Damour \& Duerelle 1986) to be
199: $1.3\pm0.3$~ms. This puts further limits on the masses as shown in
200: Figure \ref{f:m2cosi}.
201:
202: Measurements of the Shapiro delay parameters: range $r$ and shape $s$,
203: can provide estimates of both $m_2$ and $i$ (e.g., Damour \& Taylor
204: 1992)\nocite{dt92}. It has not yet been possible to constrain $r$
205: well, but constraints on $s$ can be obtained by searching the $\chi^2$
206: hypersphere, obtained by running \textsc{TEMPO} over a range of
207: sin$\,i$ and $m_2$ values. This further constraint is plotted as
208: probability contours in Figure \ref{f:m2cosi}.
209:
210: To constrain the masses of the pulsar and companion further we can
211: assume that general relativity is correct and apply the DDGR
212: (Damour-Deruelle General Relativity) model (Taylor \& Weisberg
213: 1989\nocite{tw89}). We have explored the $\chi^2$ hypersphere of
214: $m_1+m_2$ and $m_2$ which are the only unknown parameters if the orbit
215: is completely described by general relativity. A contour plot, of
216: $m_1$ and $m_2$, is shown as an insert in Figure \ref{f:m2cosi}. This
217: indicates a light neutron star companion, possibly with a mass similar
218: to or lighter than that of PSR J0737$-$3039B (Lyne et
219: al. 2004\nocite{lbk+04}).
220:
221: The expected value of the gravitational wave damping of the orbit is
222: below our present detection limit. Assuming the pulsar has a mass
223: 1.35~$M_{\odot}$, general relativity predicts a value for $\dot
224: P_{\rm b}$ of $-2.2\times 10^{-15}$.
225:
226: \section{Companion Pulsar Search}
227: \label{s:comp_srch}
228:
229: PSR J1756$-$2251 probably followed a typical DNS evolution
230: (e.g. Phinney \& Kulkarni 1994\nocite{pk94}). Both stars would
231: initially have had masses $>8 M_{\odot}$. The pulsar was formed in a
232: supernova explosion of the more massive component. Subsequently, the
233: companion expanded in its red giant phase and the pulsar accreted
234: material, thus increasing its rotation rate. The two stars then
235: spiralled together in a common envelope to give a tight
236: orbit. Finally, the companion star exploded as a supernova.
237:
238: The possibility that the companion star is also a pulsar has been
239: explored. Any second pulsar would be highly accelerated, which would
240: normally have the effect of reducing search sensitivity due to pulse
241: smearing. However, we now know the precise orbital parameters and
242: dispersion measure of PSR J1756$-$2251, we also know the ephemeris for
243: a companion except for the projected semi-major axis, $a_2\ {\rm
244: sin}\,i$. This is dependent upon the ratio of the masses of
245: the two stars:
246: \begin{equation}
247: a_2\ {\rm sin}\,i=\frac{m_1}{m_2}a_1\ {\rm sin}\,i.
248: \end{equation}
249: We are, therefore, able to make a fully coherent search for a
250: companion pulsar using a series of values of $m_2$ appropriate to a
251: neutron star. For each search, a time series in the pulsar rest frame
252: was constructed by taking each time sample from the closest sample in
253: the observation time series. Corrected time series from two full
254: orbits of observations, at 1390~MHz from Parkes, were searched using
255: the standard approach for a solitary pulsar (e.g. Manchester et
256: al. 2001\nocite{mlc+01}). PSR J0737-3039B is only visible for short
257: periods at particular orbital phases (Lyne et al. 2004); consequently,
258: searches were also conducted throughout the observation with a range
259: of observation lengths from 10~min to the full orbit, with a limiting
260: flux density of $\sim$0.045~mJy. The process was repeated over a range
261: of masses: $0.73m_1<m_2<1.27m_1$. The searches were sensitive to
262: spin-periods from $~$1~ms up to 10~s.
263:
264: Unfortunately, no companion pulsar was detected with a luminosity
265: limit of $\sim$0.3~mJy kpc$^2$, below that of the faintest known
266: pulsar which has a luminosity of 0.5~mJy kpc$^2$ (Camilo
267: 2003\nocite{cam03}).
268:
269: \section{Discussion}
270: \label{s:discussion}
271:
272: Based on orbital damping due to emission of gravitational waves in
273: general relativity (Peters \& Mathews 1963\nocite{pm63}), the
274: coalescence time of PSR J1756$-$2251 is $\sim$1.7~Gyr. This is
275: substantially less than the age of the Universe and this system is
276: therefore important in the estimation of coalesence rates of DNS
277: systems.
278:
279: General relativity predicts that the merging of two neutron stars will
280: produce a burst of gravity waves (Misner, Thorne \& Wheeler
281: 1973\nocite{mtw73}) detectable over inter-galactic distances by
282: ground-based gravity-wave (GW) detectors. The pulsars predicted to
283: coalesce within 10~Gyr are listed in Table \ref{t:coalescing}.
284:
285: The rate of mergers observable by GW detectors has been discussed
286: extensively, see e.g. Phinney (1991)\nocite{phi91} and Kim et
287: al. (2003)\nocite{kkl03}. Following the discovery of PSR J0737-3039,
288: predicted NS--NS coalesce rates were substantially increased (Burgay
289: et al. 2003\nocite{bdp+03}, Kalogera et
290: al. 2004)\nocite{kkl+04}. However, these calculations use only three
291: systems, PSR's B1913+16, B1534+12 and J0737$-$3039A; PSR B2127+11C is
292: usually not included in the calculations since it is in a globular
293: cluster and probably formed by exchange interaction rather than binary
294: evolution (Prince et al. 1991\nocite{pakw91}). The predicted rate of
295: mergers is dominated by PSR J0737$-$3039A due to its proximity, short
296: time to coalesence and difficulty of discovery due to Doppler
297: smearing. Because its parameters are similar to those of known pulsars
298: and does not represent a new population, the addition of PSR
299: J1756$-$2251 is not expected to make a significant difference to the
300: predicted merger rate (Kalogera et al.~2004).
301:
302: As noted by McLaughlin et al.~(2004)\nocite{mlc+04}, for seven of the
303: DNS systems known, (excluding PSR B2127+11C, see above), there appears
304: to be a strong correlation between spin period, $P$, and eccentricity,
305: $e$, as shown by the dashed line in Figure \ref{f:correlation}. The
306: Pearson correlation coefficient, $r$, for these seven systems is
307: 0.97. A Monte Carlo simulation in which seven data points are drawn
308: from a flat distribution in $P$ and $e$ show that such high values of
309: $r$ occur by chance only 0.1\% of the time. This apparent correlation
310: shows the current state of the DNS systems. The basic relationship
311: between $P$ and $e$ was formed early in the system's history, with
312: some evolution over the actual, but uncertain, age of the
313: system.
314:
315: Qualitatively, this relationship may be due to a less massive
316: progenitor of the companion neutron star evolving through its giant
317: phase relatively slowly, leaving a longer time to spin-up the pulsar
318: by accretion, hence a shorter spin period. Prior to the supernova
319: explosion of the companion star the orbit is expected to have been
320: circularised due to accretion (e.g Bhattacharya \& van den Heuvel,
321: 1991)\nocite{bv91}. A less massive companion star will eject less mass
322: from the explosion, hence, using the simplest symmetric mass loss
323: model which ignores kick velocities, will result in a smaller recoil
324: (Phinney \& Kulkarni, 1994)\nocite{pk94}. Hence, a less massive
325: companion star will lead to a less eccentric DNS system as well as to
326: a shorter spin period. There is a similar correlation between spin
327: period and companion mass further supporting this mechanism. A more
328: detailed investigation of the various effects is clearly required.
329:
330: \section{Acknowledgements}
331:
332: We gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance with hardware and
333: software provided by Jodrell Bank Observatory, CSIRO ATNF,
334: Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari, Swinburne centre for
335: Astrophysics and Supercomputing. The Parkes radio telescope is part
336: of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of
337: Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. IHS
338: holds an NSERC UFA and is supported by a Discovery Grant. DRL is a
339: University Research Fellow funded by the Royal Society. FC
340: acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-02-05853 and a NRAO travel
341: grant. NDA, AP and MB received support from the Italian Ministry of
342: University and Research (MIUR) under the national program {\it Cofin
343: 2003}. We thank Thomas Driebe for calculations of white dwarf
344: luminosities.
345:
346: \clearpage
347:
348: \begin{thebibliography}{}
349:
350: \bibitem[Anderson {\rm et~al.}~{1990}]{agk+90}
351: Anderson~S.~B., Gorham~P.~W., Kulkarni~S.~R., Prince~T.~A., 1990, Nature, 346,
352: 42
353:
354: \bibitem[Backer {\rm et~al.}~{1997}]{bdz+97}
355: Backer~D.~C., Dexter~M.~R., Zepka~A., D.~N., Wertheimer~D.~J., Ray~P.~S.,
356: Foster~R.~S., 1997, PASP, 109, 61
357:
358: \bibitem[Bhattacharya \& {van den Heuvel}~{1991}]{bv91}
359: Bhattacharya~D., {van den Heuvel}~E. P.~J., 1991, Phys. Rep., 203, 1
360:
361: \bibitem[{Burgay} {\rm et~al.}~{2003}]{bdp+03}
362: {Burgay}~M. {\rm et~al.}, 2003, Nature, 426, 531
363:
364: \bibitem[Camilo~{2003}]{cam03}
365: Camilo~F., 2003, in Bailes~M., Nice~D.~J., Thorsett~S., eds, Radio Pulsars.
366: \newblock Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, p.~145
367:
368: \bibitem[{Cordes} \& {Lazio}~{2002}]{cl02a}
369: {Cordes}~J.~M., {Lazio}~T.~J.~W., 2002, ApJ, submitted {astro-ph/0207156}
370:
371: \bibitem[Damour \& Deruelle~{1985}]{dd85}
372: Damour~T., Deruelle~N., 1985, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e (Physique Th\'eorique),
373: 43, 107
374:
375: \bibitem[Damour \& Deruelle~{1986}]{dd86}
376: Damour~T., Deruelle~N., 1986, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e (Physique Th\'eorique),
377: 44, 263
378:
379: \bibitem[Damour \& Taylor~{1992}]{dt92}
380: Damour~T., Taylor~J.~H., 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 1840
381:
382: \bibitem[{Faulkner} {\rm et~al.}~{2004}]{fsk+04}
383: {Faulkner}~A.~J. {\rm et~al.}, 2004, MNRAS, , in press
384:
385: \bibitem[{Gar\'{c}ia-Berro} {\rm et~al.}~{}]{ghi+96}
386: {Gar\'{c}ia-Berro}~E., {Hernanz}~M., {Isern}~J., {Chabrier}~G., {Segretain}~L.,
387: {Mochkovitch}~R., A\&A
388:
389: \bibitem[Hulse \& Taylor~{1975}]{ht75a}
390: Hulse~R.~A., Taylor~J.~H., 1975, ApJ, 195, L51
391:
392: \bibitem[Johnston \& Kulkarni~{1991}]{jk91}
393: Johnston~H.~M., Kulkarni~S.~R., 1991, ApJ, 368, 504
394:
395: \bibitem[{Kalogera} {\rm et~al.}~{2004}]{kkl+04}
396: {Kalogera}~V. {\rm et~al.}, 2004, ApJ, 601, L179
397:
398: \bibitem[{Kaspi} {\rm et~al.}~{2000}]{klm+00a}
399: {Kaspi}~V.~M. {\rm et~al.}, 2000, ApJ, 543, 321
400:
401: \bibitem[Kim, Kalogera \& Lorimer~{2003}]{kkl03}
402: {Kim}~C., {Kalogera}~V., {Lorimer}~D.~R., 2003, ApJ, 584, 985
403:
404: \bibitem[{Kramer} {\rm et~al.}~{1999}]{kll+99}
405: {Kramer}~M. {\rm et~al.}, 1999, ApJ, 526, 957
406:
407: \bibitem[Lyne {\rm et~al.}~{2004}]{lbk+04}
408: Lyne~A.~G. {\rm et~al.}, 2004, Science, 303, 1153
409:
410: \bibitem[Manchester {\rm et~al.}~{2001}]{mlc+01}
411: Manchester~R.~N. {\rm et~al.}, 2001, MNRAS, 328, 17
412:
413: \bibitem[Masters \& Roberts~{1975}]{mr75}
414: Masters~A.~R., Roberts~D.~H., 1975, ApJ, 195, L107
415:
416: \bibitem[{McLaughlin} {\rm et~al.}~{2004}]{mlc+04}
417: {McLaughlin}~M.~A. {\rm et~al.}, 2004, in Rasio~F.~A., Stairs~I.~H., eds, ASP
418: Conf. Ser. tbd: Binary Radio Pulsars.
419: \newblock astro-ph/0404181
420:
421: \bibitem[Misner, Thorne \& Wheeler~{1973}]{mtw73}
422: Misner~C.~W., Thorne~K.~S., Wheeler~J.~A., 1973, Gravitation.
423: \newblock W. H. Freeman, San Francisco
424:
425: \bibitem[{Morris} {\rm et~al.}~{2002}]{mhl+02}
426: {Morris}~D.~J. {\rm et~al.}, 2002, MNRAS, 335, 275
427:
428: \bibitem[Peters \& Mathews~{1963}]{pm63}
429: Peters~P.~C., Mathews~J., 1963, Phys. Rev., 131, 435
430:
431: \bibitem[Phinney \& Kulkarni~{1994}]{pk94}
432: Phinney~E.~S., Kulkarni~S.~R., 1994, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 32, 591
433:
434: \bibitem[Phinney~{1991}]{phi91}
435: Phinney~E.~S., 1991, ApJ, 380, L17
436:
437: \bibitem[Prince {\rm et~al.}~{1991}]{pakw91}
438: Prince~T.~A., Anderson~S.~B., Kulkarni~S.~R., Wolszczan~W., 1991, ApJ, 374, L41
439:
440: \bibitem[Roberts, Masters \& Arnett~{1976}]{rma76}
441: Roberts~D.~H., Masters~A.~R., Arnett~W.~D., 1976, ApJ, 203, 196
442:
443: \bibitem[Smarr \& Blandford~{1976}]{sb76}
444: Smarr~L.~L., Blandford~R., 1976, ApJ, 207, 574
445:
446: \bibitem[Taylor \& Weisberg~{1989}]{tw89}
447: Taylor~J.~H., Weisberg~J.~M., 1989, ApJ, 345, 434
448:
449: \bibitem[Wex~{1998}]{wex98}
450: Wex~N., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 997
451:
452: \bibitem[Wolszczan~{1990}]{wol90a}
453: Wolszczan~A., 1990.
454: \newblock IAU Circ. No. 5073
455:
456: \end{thebibliography}
457:
458: \clearpage
459:
460: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
461: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
462: \tablewidth{0pt}
463: \tablecaption{Observed and derived characteristics of PSR J1756$-$2251.}
464: \tablehead{Parameter & Value}
465: \startdata
466: Right ascension (J2000) & $\rm 17^{\rm h} 56^{\rm m}46\fs6332(2)$\\
467: Declination (J2000) & $\rm -22^{\circ} 51' 59\farcs 4(2)$ \\
468:
469: Galactic longitude (deg) & 6.50 \\
470: Galactic latitude (deg) & +0.95 \\
471:
472: Ecliptic longitude (deg) & +269.31 \\
473: Ecliptic latitude (deg) & 0.57 \\
474: \\
475: Period, $P$ (ms) & 28.46158845494(2) \\
476: Period derivative $\dot{P}$ (x $10^{-18}$)
477: & 1.0171(2) \\
478:
479: Epoch (MJD) & 52086 \\
480: Dispersion Measure, DM (pc cm$^{-3}$)
481: & 121.18(2) \\
482: \\
483: Orbital Period, $P_b$ (days)
484: & 0.319633898(2) \\
485: Eccentricity, $e$ & 0.180567(2) \\
486: T$_0$ (MJD) & 52812.919653(1) \\
487: Longitude of periastron, $\omega$ (deg)
488: & 322.571(4) \\
489: Projected semimajor axis, $a_1$sin$\,i$ (lt-s)
490: & 2.7564(2) \\
491: Advance of periastron, $\dot \omega$ (deg yr$^{-1}$)
492: & 2.585(2) \\
493: Gravitational redshift, $\gamma$ (ms)
494: & 1.3(3) \\
495: %$s=$sin$i$
496: % & 0.939 (-79, +32) \\
497: \\
498: Number of TOAs & 1362 \\
499: Timing data span (MJD) & 50996 -- 53176 \\
500: RMS timing residual ($\mu s$)
501: & 42 \\
502: \\
503: Flux density at 1400MHz (mJy)
504: & 0.6(1) \\
505: Width of pulse at 50\%, $W_{50}$ (ms)
506: & 0.78 \\
507: Width of pulse at 10\%, $W_{10}$ (ms)
508: & 1.6 \\
509: \\
510: Characteristic Age, $\tau_c$ (Myr)
511: & 443 \\
512: Surface magnetic field, $B$ (Gauss)
513: & $5.4 \times 10^9$ \\
514: %Spin down luminosity, $\dot E$ (erg/s)
515: % & $1700 \times 10^{30}$ \\
516: %Mass function, $M_f$ ($M_{\odot}$)
517: % & 0.22008(5) \\
518: Total system mass, $m_1+m_2$ ($M_{\odot}$)
519: & 2.574(3) \\
520: Pulsar mass$^\dag$, $m_1$
521: & $1.40^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ \\
522: % high = 1.415; low = 1.370
523: Companion mass$^\dag$, $m_2$
524: & $1.18^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ \\
525: % high = 1.202; low = 1.155
526: Time to coalesence (Gyr)
527: & 1.69 \\
528: Distance (kpc) - NE2001 & 2.5 \\
529: $|z|$ (kpc) & 0.04 \\
530: \enddata
531: \label{t:parameters}
532: \tablecomments{Values in parenthesis are twice the nominal
533: \textsc{TEMPO} uncertainties in the least significant digits quoted,
534: obtained after scaling time of arrival (TOA) uncertainties to ensure
535: $\chi^2=1$. Distance estimated from the `NE2001' Galactic electron
536: density model (Cordes \& Lazio 2002)\nocite{cl02a}. $^\dag$Pulsar and
537: companion masses (1-$\sigma$ errors) are derived from the DDGR model and
538: are highly correlated.}
539: \end{deluxetable}
540:
541: \clearpage
542:
543: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrl}
544: \tablewidth{0pt}
545: \tablecaption{Binary systems containing radio pulsars which coalesce
546: in less than $10^{10}$~yr.}
547: \tablehead{
548: PSR & $P$ & $P_b$ & $e$ & Total Mass &$\tau_{\rm c}$&
549: $\tau_{\rm GW}$ & Reference\\
550: & (ms) & (hr) & & $M_{\odot}$ &(Myr) & (Myr) }
551:
552: \nocite{bdp+03} \nocite{lbk+04} \nocite{wol90a} \nocite{ht75a}
553: \nocite{agk+90} \nocite{klm+00a}
554: \startdata
555:
556: J0737$-$3039A & 22.70 & 2.45 & 0.088 & 2.58 & 210 & 87 &
557: Burgay et al. (2003)\\
558: J0737$-$3039B & 2773 & 2.45 & 0.088 & 2.58 & 50 & 87 &
559: Lyne et al. (2004) \\
560: B1534+12 & 37.90 & 10.10 & 0.274 & 2.75 & 248 & 2690 &
561: Wolszczan (1990) \\
562: J1756$-$2251 & 28.46 & 7.67 & 0.181 & 2.57 & 444 & 1690 &
563: This Letter \\
564: B1913+16 & 59.03 & 7.75 & 0.617 & 2.83 & 108 & 310 &
565: Hulse \& Taylor (1975)\\
566: B2127+11C & 30.53 & 8.04 & 0.681 & 2.71 & 969 & 220 &
567: Anderson et al. (1990 \\
568: J1141$-$6545$^{\dag}$ & 393.90 & 4.74 & 0.172 & 2.30 & 1.4 & 590 &
569: Kaspi et al. (2000) \\
570:
571: \enddata \tablecomments{One neutron star--white dwarf$^{\dag}$ and 5
572: DNS systems. PSR B2127+11C is in a globular cluster implying a
573: different formation history to the Galactic DNS systems. Here,
574: $\tau_{\rm c}$ is the pulsars' characteristic age and $\tau_{\rm GW}$
575: is the time remaining to coalesce due to emission of gravitational
576: radiation. The total coalescence time is $\tau_{\rm c}+\tau_{\rm
577: GW}$.}
578: \label{t:coalescing}
579: \end{deluxetable}
580:
581: \clearpage
582:
583: \begin{figure}
584: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f1.eps}
585: \caption{Average pulse profile of PSR J1756$-$2251 at 1390~MHz,
586: obtained by integrating 27.9 hours of observation at Parkes. The small
587: horizontal bar to the right of the pulse indicates the resolution of
588: the profile, including the effects of interstellar dispersion}
589: \label{f:profile}
590: \end{figure}
591:
592: \clearpage
593:
594: \begin{figure}
595: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f2.eps}
596: \caption{
597: \label{f:m2cosi}
598: The observational constraints, using the DD model, on the companion
599: mass and orbital inclination, $i$, shown as cos$\,i$. The value of
600: $\dot\omega$ is well constrained and the solid line shows both the
601: upper and lower limits of $\dot\omega$. The dotted lines show the much
602: wider limits imposed by $\gamma$. Both $\dot\omega$ and $\gamma$
603: errors are twice the formal \textsc{TEMPO} errors. The three contours
604: show the 1-$\sigma$, 2-$\sigma$ and 3-$\sigma$ ranges for a fixed
605: Shapiro $s$ parameter, and companion mass, with all other parameters
606: left free. The insert shows a contour plot, also 1-$\sigma$,
607: 2-$\sigma$ and 3-$\sigma$, of companion and pulsar masses using the
608: DDGR model: see text for details. The best fit companion mass found is
609: shown as a cross on the main plot.
610: }
611: \end{figure}
612:
613: \clearpage
614:
615: \begin{figure}
616: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f3.eps}
617: \caption{
618: \label{f:correlation}
619: Plot showing the strong relationship between eccentricity and spin
620: period of known DNSs. The dashed line is the best fit for all systems
621: except PSR B2127+11C (not shown) which is likely to have a non-typical
622: formation history.
623: }
624: \end{figure}
625:
626: \end{document}
627: