1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Possible Optical Detection of the Anomalous X-ray Pulsar
7: CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134}
8: \author{Martin Durant and Marten H. van Kerkwijk}
9: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
10: Toronto\\ 60 St. George St, Toronto, ON\\ M5S 3H8, Canada }
11: \keywords{pulsars: individual (CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134)}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: Archival Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2
15: observations of the Small Magellanic Cloud serendipitously
16: reveal a possible counterpart to the Anomalous X-ray Pulsar
17: CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134. The candidate
18: is faint, but its location and strange colours make it an
19: interesting object. We estimate, that the
20: probability of such a detection being due to a non-physical
21: source is less than 1.5\%.
22: We have tried to confirm the identification with Gemini-South and Magellan,
23: but the conditions were insufficiently favourable.
24: If confirmed, the object will allow the first detailed studies of the
25: optical and ultraviolet emission of magnetars.
26: \end{abstract}
27: \maketitle
28:
29:
30: \section{Introduction}
31: The anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) are a class of neutron stars,
32: numbering about half a dozen, which are radio-quiet, with periods of
33: the order $\sim10$s and estimated ages of $10^3$ to $10^5$yr. Like the soft
34: gamma-ray repeaters, they
35: are thought to be {\em magnetars}, whose emission is powered by the decay
36: of a super-strong magnetic field ($\sim 10^{15}$G). See Woods \&
37: Thompson (2004) for a review of the known magnetars and their
38: properties.
39:
40: While energetically, the emission at X-ray energies dominates, optical
41: and infrared photometry of AXPs is giving interesting constraints on the
42: physical processes of the stellar magnetospheres. Particularly
43: intriguing is that for the brightest object, 4U~0142+61, the optical
44: spectral energy distribution is not just a power law. It shows, unique
45: among neutron stars, a spectral break between V and B (Hulleman et
46: al., 2004). Unfortunately, because of the
47: uncertainty in the high amount of reddening, the precise shape cannot
48: be measured.
49:
50: In the
51: magnetar model, the optical emission could be dues to ion cyclotron
52: emission. If so, the spectral break should be a general feature
53: (C. Thompson, 2004, priv comm.) due to the existence of a {\em cooling
54: radius} in the magnetar magnetosphere from within which ions do not
55: radiate (for a brief discussion, see Hulleman et al., 2004).
56: The $\sim5$ other AXPs known so far are, unfortunately, too highly
57: reddened to be detected
58: in V or B. Another prediction is that the spectra of different AXPs should be
59: similar, but again uncertainties in the reddening do not allow us
60: to test this (e.g. Durant \& van Kerkwijk, 2005). As an alternative
61: model, Eichler et al. (2002), considered the possibility of coherent
62: optical and infrared emission from the lower magnetosphere of a
63: magnetar, in analogy to some radio pulsar
64: models. Unfortunately, no clear predictions for the spectral shape
65: were made.
66:
67: For the purposes of investigating the optical spectra of AXPs, the
68: recent discovery of an AXP in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC),
69: CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134 (Lamb et al., 2002; Majid
70: et al., 2004) is particularly interesting.
71: It is the only AXP found so far, that is not confined to the disc of the Milky
72: Way. The reddening to this source is, therefore, much less than for
73: the other AXPs. Furthermore, its distance is relatively well known at 60.6(1.0)
74: kpc (e.g. Hilditch et al., 2005). It thus presents a unique opportunity to study
75: an AXP in the blue/UV.
76:
77: \section{Archival Observation and Analysis}
78:
79: Seeking imaging data on CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134, we searched all the
80: archives available t us. We found that the field
81: was observed on 20 April 2004 with
82: the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) on board the Hubble
83: Space Telescope (HST), as part of a snapshot programme for
84: three-colour photometry of several patches of the SMC (Tolstoy, 1999).
85: Single exposures were taken of 230s in the near-ultraviolet F300W,
86: 180s in the ``broad V'' F606W and 300s in Cousins I-like F814W filters.
87: The position of our object of interest is on
88: chip WF2 of the WFPC2 array.
89:
90: We determined an astrometric solution by matching sources off the WF2
91: image to objects in the USNO B1.0 catalogue (Monet et al., 2003), and
92: fitting for offset, rotation and scale. Eight stars were matched,
93: after rejecting 7 objects which had poorly measured positions or which
94: corresponded to multiple sources on the WF2 image. With these eight
95: sources, the uncertainty in the astrometric fit is $0\farcs19/\sqrt6 =
96: 0\farcs08$ in each co-ordinate for the F606W frame. The uncertainty in
97: applying the astrometry to the other two bands was negligible in
98: comparison. The systematic uncertainty in connecting the USNO
99: astrometry to the International Celestial Reference System is
100: $0\farcs2$ in each co-ordinate, and the
101: uncertainty in the {\em Chandra} position of CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134
102: is a radius $r=0\farcs6$ at 90\% confidence. Note that the latter is
103: from the nominal {\em Chandra} performance, despite being somewhat
104: off-axis (Lamb et al., 2002). The above numbers, combined in
105: quadrature, give a total uncertainty in the AXP's position on our images of
106: $r=0\farcs72$ at 90\% confidence. Photometry was performed using {\tt
107: HSTphot 1.1} (Dolphin, 2000).
108:
109: Figure \ref{field} shows the F606W image of the field immediately
110: around CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134, with the positional error circle
111: indicated. Stars X and Y have positions
112: consistent with that of the AXP, with Star Z being a nearby, much
113: brighter source. Their positions and magnitudes are listed in Table
114: \ref{phot}, and indicated in a
115: colour-magnitude diagramme of all stars detected in the WFPC2 images in Figure
116: \ref{CMD}.
117:
118: From the photometry, Star Y is consistent with being a G5V star
119: at the distance and reddening of the SMC, and Star Z an early
120: B-type star. The colours and magnitudes of Star X do not
121: correspond to any known stellar type, and make it a clear out-lier in Figure
122: \ref{CMD}, suggesting a very blue, possibly hot object. Based on its
123: position and
124: unusual colours, we therefore consider Star X a likely counterpart to
125: CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134.
126:
127: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
128: \tablecaption{Astrometry and photometry of stars near CXOU
129: J010043.1$-$721134 \label{phot}}
130: \tablewidth{0pt}
131: \tablehead{ \colhead{Star} & \colhead{R.A.$_{J2000}$} & \colhead{Dec$_{J2000}$} &
132: \colhead{$m_{300}$} & \colhead{$m_{606}$}
133: & \colhead{$m_{814}$} & \colhead{$m_{606}-m_{814}$} &
134: \colhead{$M_V$\tablenotemark{a}}}
135: \startdata
136: X\tablenotemark{b} & 01:00:43.109 & -72:11:33.77 & $>21.7$ & 24.19(15) & $>24.5$ & $<-0.3$ & 5.0 \\
137: Y & 01:00:43.187 & -72:11:34.14 & $>21.7$ & 24.40(15) & 23.61(14) & 0.8(2) & 5.2 \\
138: Z & 01:00:42.990 & -72:11:33.01 & 16.295(8) & 17.915(4) & 18.022(7) & -0.107(8) & -2.9 \\
139: \enddata
140: \tablecomments{~Limits are at the $3\sigma$ level.}
141: \tablenotetext{a}{Calculated using $(m-M)_0=18.9$ and $A_V=0.3$ (Hilditch et
142: al., 2004) and assuming $m_{606}\simeq V$}
143: \tablenotetext{b}{Proposed counterpart to CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134,
144: which has position $R.A.=01:00:43.14$, $dec=-72:11:33.8$}
145: \end{deluxetable}
146:
147: \begin{figure}
148: \begin{center}
149: \includegraphics[width=0.75\hsize,angle=270]{f1a.eps}
150: \parbox{0.45\hsize}{\includegraphics[width=\hsize,angle=270,clip=]{f1b.eps}}
151: \parbox{0.45\hsize}{\includegraphics[width=\hsize,angle=270,clip=]{f1c.eps}}
152: \caption{WFPC2 images of the field of CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134, in F606W
153: (top), F300W (bottom left) and F814W (bottom right). Star X is
154: the proposed counterpart, and Stars Y and Z its nearest
155: neighbours. The circle shows the uncertainty in the Chandra position at
156: 90\% confidence.}\label{field}
157: \end{center}
158: \end{figure}
159:
160: \begin{figure}
161: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{f2.eps}
162: \caption{Colour-magnitude diagramme of the field around CXOU
163: J010043.1$-$721134. Stars Y and Z are labelled, and Star X is shown as
164: a limit. The effect of one magnitude of visual reddening is shown by
165: the dashed line.}\label{CMD}
166: \end{figure}
167:
168: As a caveat, however , it should be remembered that this measurement is based on
169: a single F606W exposure. The source in Figure \ref{field} does not
170: appear like a cosmic ray hit, and the {\tt HSTphot} $\chi$ and $Sharp$
171: parameters are within reasonable limits for a point source: $\chi=1.18$
172: (goodness of fit parameter; reasonable values: $<2.5$) and
173: $Sharp=-0.425$ (where 0 corresponds to a stellar point spread
174: function, positive values to more peaked profiles and negative values
175: to more diffuse ones; reasonable values:
176: -0.5-- 0.5). There were no bad pixels within Star X's
177: profile.
178:
179: In order to test the robustness of this identification, we estimated
180: the likelihood of such a detection in an error circle of this size at
181: any point on this chip of the detector.
182: We searched the photometry for all objects in the F606W
183: image which are classified as stellar ($\chi<2.5$, $-0.5<sharp<0.5$), and
184: with $m_{606}-m_{814}<-0.3$, i.e. at least as blue as Star X.
185: Forty such objects are found on the same chip as
186: Star X (including those near Star X in Figure \ref{CMD}), giving the
187: probability of one falling within a circle of
188: radius $0\farcs72$ of $\approx1.5$\%. We note that the majority of
189: these are within 3 pixels of brighter sources in the F814W
190: image, and consequently were not detected in that band. Since this does not
191: apply to Star X, and there do not appear to be any artifacts close to
192: it (i.e. the location of Star X appears like
193: sky in the F814W image), the chance of it being a false detection is somewhat smaller,
194: but how much smaller is hard to quantify.
195:
196: We also calculated the likelihood of our putative detection being due to a
197: cosmic ray hit or instrumental effects. We searched for objects
198: which are classified as stars in terms of their
199: {\em Chi} and {\em Sharp} parameters as above, which were detected in
200: F300W but not in F606W. We find thirteen objects, which implies that the
201: probability of Star X being due to a cosmic rays hit or
202: purely instrumental effects is 0.4\% (after correcting for the difference in
203: exposure time between F300W and F606W).
204:
205: Seeking to confirm this detection, we searched other archives for
206: optical images. We found a V-band image from the Wide Field Imager
207: (WFI) on the 2.2m ESO telescope, La Silla, Chile. This demonstrated
208: that the area of sky
209: was very crowded, and extremely good seeing would be required to
210: separate and securely detect Star X. In this case, the seeing was
211: poor. We also obtained Gemini DDT observations
212: with GMOS-S (Crampton \& Murowinski, 2004) at Cerro Pachon,
213: Chile. Unfortunately, the seeing was also not good enough in these
214: images to distinguish between the sources in the crowded field. A
215: proposal was also accepted at Magellan, Las Campanas, Chile, but
216: conditions have not been good enough to obtain images so far.
217: Unfortunately, the presence of Star Z means that only the most
218: exceptional seeing conditions will allow further measurements of this
219: object from the ground.
220:
221: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
222: Taking Star X as the true optical counterpart, CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134
223: has an X-ray to optical flux ratio
224: $F_X/F_V=1.0\times10^{-13}/5.5\times10^{-15}=18$ (un-absorbed X-ray flux in the
225: 2--10keV range from Woods \& Thompson, 2004; visual $\nu F_\nu$ flux is
226: de-reddened using $A_V=0.3$ [Hilditch et al., 2005], and assumes
227: $m_{606}=V$). This compares with $F_X/F_V=460$ for 4U~0142$+$61 (for
228: $A_V=5.1$, the nominal reddening), the only
229: other AXP with an optical detection (Hulleman et al., 2004).
230: Clearly the two ratios are very different.
231:
232: It has been observed that infrared to X-ray flux ratios are similar
233: for those AXPs with secure measurements (4U~0142$+$61,
234: 1E~1048.1$-$5937 and 1E~2259$+$586; Durant
235: \& van Kerkwijk, 2005). Variations have, however, been observed to be
236: very large, of orders of magnitude in some cases. For example the {\em
237: transient AXP} XTE~J1810-197 (Ibrahim et
238: al, 2004) increased dramatically in both X-rays and infrared flux
239: before slowly dimming again.
240:
241: It is possible that the
242: difference in V-band to X-ray flux ratio above arises because the
243: measurements for CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134
244: were not simultaneous; the AXP could have been brighter by a large
245: factor at the time of the HST observation.
246: CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134 was observed to be $sim50$\% brighter in
247: X-rays by Majid et al. (2004) than Lamb et al. (2002), but they
248: attribute this to the different instruments used to make the
249: observations rather than genuine variability.
250: 4U~0142$+$61 has been the most stable of the AXPs in both X-ray and
251: optical flux (Hulleman et al., 2004).
252: This could, in principle, mean that the intrinsic spectra
253: of the two objects are very different, possibly indicating differing
254: magnetic field configurations.
255:
256: The limit in F814W already provides some constraints on the shape of
257: the optical spectrum. Whilst a Rayleigh-Jeans form $\nu F_\nu
258: \sim \nu^n$, $n=3$ is possible, a flat spectrum ($n=0$) is
259: excluded. The 90\% confidence limit is $n\geq2$. Since the spectrum
260: should not increase steeper than
261: Rayleigh-Jeans (in the absence of an emission feature), we predict
262: that the I-band magnitude is not much below the limit we have
263: established. The F300W limit is not constraining in this respect.
264:
265: In summary, we present Star X, with $m_{606}=24.19(15)$, as the probable optical
266: counterpart to CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134. It is at the right location and
267: has colours unlike normal stellar sources. Although based on a
268: detection in a single exposure, {\tt HSTphot} diagnostics point to it
269: being a real detection, with only a $\lesssim1.5$\% probability of a
270: false detection. If confirmed, this discovery will enable the measurement of AXP
271: properties in the blue and UV.
272:
273: \medskip\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:}
274: This work made use of archival observations made with the NASA/ESA
275: Hubble Space Telescope and with observations from ESO Telescopes at the La
276: Silla Observatories.
277: We thank Slavek Rucinski and the Gemini Observatories for
278: attempting follow-up observations. We thank an anonymous referee for
279: very useful comments which much improved the presentation of our
280: results. We acknowledge financial support from NSERC.
281:
282: \begin{thebibliography}{}
283: \bibitem{gmos}
284: Crampton, D. \& Murowinski, R., 2004, SPIE, 5492, 181
285: \bibitem{fish}
286: Dolphin, A., 2000, PASP, 112, 1383
287: \bibitem{me}
288: Durant, M., \& van Kerkwijk, M., 2005, ApJ, in press
289: \bibitem{cohere}
290: Eichler, D., Gedalin, M., Lyubarsky, Y., 2002, ApJ, 578, L121
291: \bibitem{xtedisc}
292: Ibrahim, A., Markwardt, C., Swank, J., Ransom, S., Roberts, M.,
293: Kaspi, V., Woods, P., Safi-Harb, S., Balman, S., Parke, W.,
294: Kouveliotou, C., Hurley, K., Cline, T., 2004, ApJ, 609, L21I
295: \bibitem{SMC}
296: Hilditch, R., Howarth, I., Harries, T., 2005, MNRAS, 357, 304
297: \bibitem{ferdi}
298: Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M., \& Kulkarni, S., 2004, A\&A, 416,
299: 1037
300: \bibitem{sheep}
301: Lamb, R, Fox, D., Macomb, D., Prince, T., 2002, ApJ, 574, L29
302: \bibitem{coords}
303: Majid, W., Lamb, R., Macomb, D., 2004, ApJ, 609, 133
304: \bibitem{mon}
305: Monet, D. et al., 2003, AJ, 416, 1037
306: \bibitem{PI}
307: Tolstoy, E., 1999, IAU Symposium 192, ASP, eds Whitelock, P. and
308: Cannon, R.
309: \bibitem{summ}
310: Woods, P., \& Thompson, C., 2004, in ``Compact Stellar X-ray
311: Sources'' eds Lewin W. and van der Klis, M.
312:
313: \end{thebibliography}
314:
315: \end{document}
316: