1: % mn2eguide.tex
2: % v2.1 released 03/05/2002
3: %
4: % Adapted from mnguide.tex
5: % v1.3 released 14th September 1995
6: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
7: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
8: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
9:
10: % The journal style files and macros, with guides on their use, are
11: % available by anonymous FTP on the Internet from the Comprehensive
12: % TeX Archive Network (CTAN) sites ftp.tex.ac.uk and ftp.dante.de.
13: % The files are in the directories
14: % /tex-archive/macros/plain/contrib/mnras and
15: % /tex-archive/macros/latex209/contrib/mnras for the TeX and LaTeX
16: % files respectively.
17:
18: %\documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,referee]{mn2e}
19: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
20:
21:
22: \usepackage{epsfig}
23: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
24:
25:
26: \title[Polarization of the Crab Nebula]
27: {Polarization of the Crab Nebula with disordered magnetic components}
28:
29: \author[Y.~Nakamura, S.~Shibata]
30: {Y.~Nakamura,$^1$\thanks{yuji@ksirius.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp}
31: S.~Shibata,$^2$\thanks{shibata@sci.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp} \\
32: $^1$Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Yamagata University, Yamagata
33: 990-8560, Japan\\
34: $^2$Department of Physics, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan }
35:
36: \date{Accepted 2007 June 28. Received 2007 June 21; in original form 2007 February 6}
37:
38: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
39:
40: \def\LaTeX{L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{a}\kern-.15em
41: T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}
42:
43: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
44:
45: \begin{document}
46: \label{firstpage}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: In this paper, we present an expanding disc model to derive polarization properties of the Crab nebula.
52: The distribution function of the plasma and the energy density of the magnetic field are prescribed
53: as function of the distance from the pulsar
54: by using the model by Kennel and Coroniti (1984) with $\sigma = 0.003$,
55: where $\sigma$ is the ratio of Poynting flux to the kinetic energy flux
56: in the bulk motion just before the termination shock.
57: Unlike previous models, we introduce disordered magnetic field,
58: which is parameterized by the fractional energy density of the disordered component.
59: Flow dynamics is not solved. The mean field is toroidal.
60:
61: Averaged polarization degree over the disc is obtained as a function
62: of inclination angle and fractional energy density of the disordered magnetic field.
63: It is found for the Crab that the disordered component has about $60$ percent of the magnetic field energy.
64: This value is also supported by the facts
65: that the disc appears not `lip-shape' but as `rings' in the intensity map as was observed,
66: and that the highest polarization degree of $\sim 40$ percent is reproduced for rings,
67: being consistent with the observation.
68:
69: We suggest that because the disordered field contributes rather pressure than tension,
70: the pinch force may be over-estimated in previous relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations.
71: Disruption of the toroidal magnetic field with alternating direction,
72: which is proposed by Lyubarski (2003), may actually takes place.
73: The relativistic flow speed,
74: which is indicated by the front-back contrast,
75: can be detected in asymmetry in distributions of the position angle and depolarization.
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \begin{keywords}
79: pulsars: general -- ISM: individual: Crab nebula -- supernova remnants -- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal -- polarization.
80: \end{keywords}
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83: \label{intro}
84: It is well established that the Crab Nebula shines in synchrotron radiation.
85: However the origin of the high energy particles has been a long-standing problem.
86: The pulsar wind from the central pulsar is certainly the source of the particles and the magnetic fields.
87: We nevertheless do not know what fraction of the wind energy
88: is in magnetic field and in plasma kinetic energy.
89: We sometimes introduce the $\sigma$-parameter, which is the ratio of
90: the magnetic energy flux to the kinetic one of the wind bulk motion just before the termination shock.
91:
92: Kennel and Coroniti (KC) (1984a, 1984b) proposed a simple model in which
93: the nebula is expanding hot plasmas after the termination shock
94: of the wind. In their model, the kinetic energy of the wind bulk motion
95: converts into heat with non-thermal components.
96: This picture results in a small value of $\sigma$, i.e., dominance of the kinetic energy, to explain the observed
97: synchrotron luminosity and the presumed expansion velocity of $\sim 2000 \ {\rm km} \; {\rm s}^{-1}$.
98: One finds it difficult to reproduce the kinetic energy dominated wind by means of
99: the axisymmetric ideal-MHD model (Michel 1969, Bogovalov 1998, Begelman \& Li 1994, Tomimatsu 1994),
100: although some possibilities for the small $\sigma$
101: have been pointed out (Okamoto 2002, Vlahakis 2004).
102: This is referred to as the $\sigma$-problem.
103:
104: Because the magnetic axis inclines to the rotation axis,
105: the magnetic
106: neutral sheet in the equator is folded for each rotation to produce
107: a series of current sheets flowing out with the wind.
108: Some authors attempt to solve the $\sigma$-problem by introducing
109: dissipation of the magnetic field in such current sheets
110: (Coroniti 1990, Kirk \& Skjaeraasen 2003).
111:
112: Lyubarski (2003) has proposed that conversion of the magnetic energy to
113: heat takes place when the current sheets come into the termination shock.
114: With this picture, Poynting energy directly changes to plasma heat and
115: non-thermal particles, so that
116: the pulsar wind should not always be kinetic energy dominant, i.e.,
117: the $\sigma$-problem may not be a problem.
118:
119: Magnetic field of the wind is essentially toroidal far beyond the light cylinder owing to rotation.
120: The nebula field convected from the wind is also believed to be toroidal,
121: indicated by highly axisymmetric structures in the Crab Nebula.
122: However, if disruption of the numerous current sheets takes place at or after the termination shock,
123: one may expect that the nebula field is not pure toroidal
124: but it has strong disordered components.
125: Thus, the disordered magnetic field may be a good indicator for energy conversion
126: from the toroidal magnetic field to plasmas.
127: To diagnose disruptive processes of the magnetic field,
128: it must be very much helpful to measure magnitude of the disordered field.
129:
130: Disordered magnetic field can be detected by image analysis and by polarization analysis.
131: Shibata et al. (2003; Paper I) calculated images by use of the KC model and compared with the Chandra observations.
132: If the nebula field is pure toroidal, intensity along the major axis of the torus should be reduced,
133: and the images look like `lips' rather than rings.
134: The X-ray images, which appear as rings, indicate
135: that disordered field may be comparable to the mean field.
136:
137: Polarization observation of the nebula provides the mean field structure and degree of randomness of the field.
138: The polarization of the Crab Nebula is observed in radio bands (Wilson 1972, Velusamy 1985),
139: in optical bands (Oort \& Walraven 1956, Schdmidt et al. 1979, Hickson \& van der Bergh 1990, and Michel et al. 1991),
140: and in X-ray bands (Weisskopf et al. 1978).
141: The X-ray polarization is not spatially-resolved but a mean polarization is obtained to be $\sim 20 \%$.
142: Almost the same value is obtained also in optical bands (Oort \& Walraven 1956).
143:
144: In this paper, we calculate polarization properties of a nebula which expands with relativistic speeds
145: and with disordered magnetic field as well as mean toroidal fields.
146: We then compare the results with the Crab observations,
147: so that the magnitude of the disordered magnetic field is estimated.
148:
149: \section{Polarization model}
150: \subsection{Polarization from a medium in relativistic motion}
151: \label{uniB}
152: Let us consider synchrotron radiation from a relativistic plasma moving relative to the observer at the velocity \vec{V}.
153: The volume emissivities in terms of the Stokes parameters
154: in the `flow frame' comoving with the plasma may be given by (Rybicki \& Lightman 1979)
155: \begin{eqnarray}
156: \left(
157: \begin{array}{c}
158: d I^\prime / d s \\
159: d Q^\prime / d s \\
160: d U^\prime / d s \\
161: d V^\prime / d s
162: \end{array}
163: \right)
164: &=&
165: \left(
166: \begin{array}{c}
167: j^\prime_{tot} \\
168: j^\prime_{pol} \\
169: 0 \\
170: 0
171: \end{array}
172: \right) \nonumber \\
173: &=&
174: \left(
175: \begin{array}{c}
176: \frac{p+7/3}{p+1} ~ \Phi(\omega^\prime,p) ~ (B^\prime \sin{\theta^\prime})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\\
177: \Phi(\omega^\prime,p) ~ (B^\prime \sin{\theta^\prime})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\\
178: 0\\
179: 0
180: \end{array}
181: \right), \label{Stok_0}
182: \end{eqnarray}
183: where
184: \begin{eqnarray}
185: \Phi(\omega^\prime,p) = \frac{\sqrt{3} e^3 K}{8 \pi m c^2} \left( \frac{3 e}{m c \omega^\prime} \right)^{\frac{p-1}{2}} \Gamma \left( \frac{p}{4} + \frac{7}{12} \right) \Gamma \left( \frac{p}{4} - \frac{1}{12} \right),
186: \end{eqnarray}
187: $B^\prime=|\vec{B}^\prime|$ is the magnetic field strength,
188: $\Gamma$ is the gamma function,
189: $-e, m$ are the charge and the rest mass of an electron, and $c$ is the speed of light.
190: Here, we have assumed for a given volume element in which
191: the magnetic field $\vec{B}^\prime$ is uniform,
192: and the relativistic electrons and positrons have a power-law energy distribution,
193: $f(\gamma) = K \gamma^{-p}$, where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the particles;
194: $p$ and $K$ are functions of position.
195: The pitch angle distribution is assumed to be uniform.
196: In the flow frame, the magnetic field $\vec{B}^\prime$ and the unit vector toward the observer $\vec{n}^\prime$ make the angle $\theta^\prime$,
197: and the angular frequency of the radiation observed at $\omega$ is Doppler-shifted to $\omega^\prime$.
198:
199: If the ideal-MHD condition \vec{E} $+$ \vec{\beta} $\times$ \vec{B} = \vec{0} holds,
200: where \vec{E} and \vec{B} are the electric and magnetic fields in the `observers frame',
201: and \vec{\beta} $=$ \vec{V} $/c$,
202: then the external electric field in the flow frame disappears.
203: In this case, we can use the argument by Bj\"{o}rnson (1982) that
204: `the observed position angles' $\xi$
205: in the flow frame and the observer frame are the same (see Fig.~\ref{flow_obs}).
206: The Stokes parameters for the observer follow
207: (Blandford \& K\"{o}nigl 1979, Bj\"{o}rnson 1982, Lyutikov et al. 2003)
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \left(
210: \begin{array}{c}
211: d I_\omega / d s \\
212: d Q_\omega / d s \\
213: d U_\omega / d s \\
214: d V_\omega / d s
215: \end{array}
216: \right)
217: =
218: {\mathcal D}^2
219: \left(
220: \begin{array}{c}
221: j^\prime_{tot} \\
222: - \cos{2 (\chi_0 - \xi)} ~ j^\prime_{pol} \\
223: - \sin{2 (\chi_0 - \xi)} ~ j^\prime_{pol} \\
224: 0
225: \end{array}
226: \right) \label{Stok},
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: where $\Gamma_f = (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}$ and ${\mathcal D} = \Gamma^{-1}_f (1-\beta \cos{\alpha})^{-1}$
229: are the Lorentz factor and the beam factor of the flow,
230: respectively,
231: $\alpha$ is the angle between the direction of the observer \vec{n}
232: and the flow velocity \vec{V}, $\chi_0$ is the offset caused by the practical position angle which is measured from the north
233: on the sky for a given observer,
234: and $\omega^\prime = \omega / {\mathcal D}$.
235: Numerical integration along the line of sight will be done by using grid cells constracted in the observer's frame (see Section 2.2).
236: Quantities in (3) such as ${\mathcal D}$, $\chi_0$, $\xi$ and $\omega^\prime$ are
237: different in each grid cell because flow velocities are different cell by cell.
238: Suitable transformations are applied for each cell.
239: To each cell, the orthogonal coordinates are constructed by the unit vectors
240: $ \hat{\vec{V}} \equiv \vec{V}/|\vec{V}|$ in the $x$-direction,
241: $ \vec{n}^\prime \times \hat{\vec{V}}$ in the $y$-direction and
242: $ \hat{\vec{V}} $ $\times$ ( $ \vec{n}^\prime \times \hat{\vec{V}} $ ) in the $z$-direction, respectively.
243: The observed position angle $\xi$ is measured from the projected $z$-axis on the sky, i.e.,
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \tan{\xi} = - \frac{B^\prime_{z}}{B^\prime_{y}} \cos{\alpha^\prime} + \frac{B^\prime_{x}}{B^\prime_{y}} \sin{\alpha^\prime} ,
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: where $B^\prime_x$, $B^\prime_y$, $B^\prime_z$ are the magnetic field components in the flow frame.
248: The offset angle $\chi_0$ is defined by the equation $\chi_0 \equiv -\cos^{-1}{(\hat{\mathbf Z} \cdot \hat{\mathbf z}^{\prime\prime})}$,
249: where $\hat{\mathbf z}^{\prime\prime}=-\sin{\alpha} \hat{\mathbf V} + \cos{\alpha} \hat{\mathbf z}$ and $\hat{\mathbf Z}$
250: is the unit vector of the north direction on the sky.
251: In Paper I, we used the transformation of the volume emissivity with the factor $\Gamma_f {\mathcal D}^3$,
252: and this is not correct.
253: The factor ${\mathcal D}^2$ should be used.
254: Fig. 2(bottom) of Paper I may be replaced by Fig.~\ref{resultKC}(a) of the present paper.
255: However, there is no apparent difference between them; the lip shape persists.
256:
257: \begin{figure}
258: \begin{center}
259: \includegraphics[clip,width=8.4cm]{figure1a.eps}
260: \includegraphics[clip,width=8.4cm]{figure1b.eps}
261: \end{center}
262: \caption{ \label{flow_obs}
263: (a) and (b) show the flow frame and the observer frame, respectively.
264: The position angle $\xi$ is an invariant.
265: The unit vectors of the flow velocity, the observer's direction and the electric vector of the linearly polarized wave are indicated by $\hat{\vec{V}}$, $\vec{n}$ and $\vec{e}$, respectively.}
266: \end{figure}
267:
268: \subsection{Construction of polarization map}
269: \label{const}
270: If the nebula is optically thin, it is straightforward to obtain
271: the observed Stokes parameters, simply by integration of (\ref{Stok}) along the line of sight.
272: We use the observer's frame ($X$,$Y$,$Z$) such that
273: the observer locates at $X=+ \infty$,
274: the $YZ$ plane defines the sky with the north in $Z$-direction,
275: and the nebula center (pulsar) is located at the origin.
276: The volume emissivities of (\ref{Stok}) are functions of $X$,$Y$,$Z$ and \vec{n},
277: so that maps of the stokes parameters are given by
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: \begin{array}{l}
280: I_{\omega} (Y,Z) = \displaystyle{\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty} \frac{dI_{\omega} (X,Y,Z,\vec{n})}{dX} dX},\\
281: Q_{\omega} (Y,Z) = \displaystyle{\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty} \frac{dQ_{\omega} (X,Y,Z,\vec{n})}{dX} dX},\\
282: U_{\omega} (Y,Z) = \displaystyle{\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty} \frac{dU_{\omega} (X,Y,Z,\vec{n})}{dX} dX}.
283: \end{array}\label{INT}
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: We construct grid points on the plane of sky ($Y_i$,$Z_j$) for polarization maps,
286: and on the line of sight $X_k$ for integration (\ref{INT}) with increment of $\Delta s$.
287: The Stokes parameters as the whole nebula are obtained by
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \begin{array}{l}
290: I_{t} = \displaystyle \sum_{i} \displaystyle \sum_{j} I(Y_i,Z_j),\\
291: Q_{t} = \displaystyle \sum_{i} \displaystyle \sum_{j} Q(Y_i,Z_j),\\
292: U_{t} = \displaystyle \sum_{i} \displaystyle \sum_{j} U(Y_i,Z_j),
293: \end{array}
294: \end{eqnarray}
295: with which the mean polarization degree $\bar{P}$ and position angle (P.A.), $\bar{\chi}$,
296: are obtained by
297: $\bar{P} = \sqrt{{Q_t}^2 + {U_t}^2}/I_t$ and
298: $\bar{\chi} = (1/2) \tan^{-1} \left( U_t/Q_t \right)$, respectively.
299:
300: \subsection{Crab Nebula model}
301: \label{model}
302: We start our calculation with a simple disc model with pure toroidal magnetic field (Paper I).
303: The disc represents the post shock flow with an inner radius $R_s$ located at the shock
304: and with a constant semi-opening angle $\theta_0$.
305: The flow is based on KC:
306: the radial flow velocity $V(R)$ is given (KC),
307: where $R=(X^2+Y^2+Z^2)^{1/2}$.
308: The post shock flow is characterized
309: by the $\sigma$ parameter which is the ratio of Poynting flux
310: to the kinetic energy flux just before the shock.
311: The nebula flow suffers adiabatic and synchrotron losses.
312: In Paper I,
313: we calculate the evolution of distribution function.
314: The parameters $K$ and $p$ in (\ref{Stok_0})
315: are determined as functions of $R$
316: so as to fit the distribution function obtained
317: in Paper I at each point in the nebula.
318: The magnetic field distribution $B_{KC} (R)$ is also given by the KC model.
319: We use following a parameter set:
320: $\sigma=0.003$,
321: the wind luminosity $L_w=5 \times 10^{38}$ erg~s$^{-1}$,
322: the wind Lorentz factor $\gamma_w = 3 \times 10^6$,
323: the shock distance $R_s = 3 \times 10^{17}$ cm,
324: the power-law index at the shock $p_s = 3$,
325: and the thickness of the disc $\theta_0 = \pm 10^\circ$ degree.
326: The inclination angle of the axis of the disc to the observer is $i = 28^\circ$ (Weisskopf et al. 2000).
327:
328: \subsection{The case of disordered toroidal field}
329: \label{disB}
330: It has been suggested in Paper I that the nebula field is not
331: `pure toroidal' but may be dominated by disordered fields.
332: Scale length of the randomness (turbulent spectrum) is not known;
333: it can be microscopic or just below the resolution of observation.
334: In this section, let us consider the case of disordered magnetic field.
335:
336: In general, the magnetic field can be decomposed to the mean field $\vec{B}^\prime_0$
337: and the random field $\vec{B}^\prime_1$.
338: The degree of randomness may be characterized by
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: b= \frac{<{\vec{B}^\prime_1}^2>}{{B^\prime_0}^2+<{\vec{B}^\prime_1}^2>},
341: \end{eqnarray}
342: where $< >$ indicates the spatial average in a scale below the observational resolution
343: and the primes indicate that $b$ is evaluated in the flow frame ($<{\vec{B}^\prime_1}^2>$ is still a function of position).
344: The synchrotron radiation for such cases is studied by Korchakov \& Syrovat-skii (KS) (1962).
345: From (3), including relativistic motion of the flow,
346: we have the observed Stokes parameters:
347: \begin{eqnarray}
348: \left(
349: \begin{array}{c}
350: d I_\omega / d s \\
351: d Q_\omega / d s \\
352: d U_\omega / d s \\
353: d V_\omega / d s
354: \end{array}
355: \right)
356: =
357: {\mathcal D}^2
358: \left(
359: \begin{array}{c}
360: j^\prime_{tot} \\
361: - \cos{2 (\chi_0 - \xi_0)} ~ j^\prime_{pol} \\
362: - \sin{2 (\chi_0 - \xi_0)} ~ j^\prime_{pol} \\
363: 0
364: \end{array}
365: \right), \label{Stok_random}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where
368: \begin{eqnarray}
369: \begin{array}{l}
370: j^\prime_{tot} = \displaystyle{\frac{p+7/3}{p+1} \Phi(\omega^\prime, p)} \\
371: \quad \times \displaystyle{\frac{1}{\Delta s} \int^{s+ \Delta s}_{s} \textstyle{\left( B^\prime \sqrt{1-\left(\vec{n}^\prime \cdot \frac{\vec{B}^\prime}{\displaystyle{B^\prime}}\right)^2} \right)}^{\frac{p+1}{2}} ds^\prime}, \label{j_prime_tot_random}\\
372: \end{array}
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: \begin{array}{l}
376: j^\prime_{pol} = \displaystyle{\Phi(\omega^\prime, p)} \\
377: \quad \times \displaystyle{\frac{1}{\Delta s} \int^{s+ \Delta s}_{s} \textstyle{\left( B^\prime \sqrt{1-\left(\vec{n}^\prime \cdot \frac{\vec{B}^\prime}{\displaystyle{B^\prime}}\right)^2} \right)}^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \cos{2 \chi} ~ds^\prime}, \label{j_prime_pol_random}\\
378: \end{array}
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: \begin{array}{l}
382: B^\prime = \displaystyle{\sqrt{ | \vec{B}^\prime |^2} = \sqrt{ {B^\prime_0}^2 + 2 \vec{B}^\prime_{0} \cdot \vec{B}^\prime_{1} + {B^\prime_{1}}^2 } },
383: \end{array}
384: \end{eqnarray}
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: \begin{array}{l}
387: \cos{2 \chi} = \displaystyle{2 \left( \frac{ \vec{B}^\prime_{0} \times \vec{n}^\prime}{|\vec{B}^\prime_0 \times \vec{n}^\prime|} \cdot \frac{ \vec{B}^\prime \times \vec{n}^\prime}{|\vec{B}^\prime \times \vec{n}^\prime|} \right)^2 -1 } \label{cos2chi}.
388: \end{array}
389: \end{eqnarray}
390: The volume emissivities (\ref{Stok_random}) are obtained for each grid cell
391: and are integrated numerically according to (\ref{INT}).
392: Given by a nebula model,
393: macroscopic quantities such as $\vec{V}$ and $\vec{B}_0$
394: are assumed to be constant in a given grid cell,
395: but gradually change cell by cell.
396: In each cell, averaging for the random field (\ref{j_prime_tot_random}) and (\ref{j_prime_pol_random}) is done by Monte Carlo method.
397: KS use the special coordinate in which $U$ vanishes.
398: By using this coordinate, only $Q$ remains,
399: and Monte Carlo integration can be only one time;
400: the factor $\cos{2 \chi}$ appears in (\ref{j_prime_pol_random}),
401: but does not $\sin{2 \chi}$,
402: where $\chi$ is defined by (\ref{cos2chi}) and represents the angle
403: between the polarization E-vector and the projected magnetic field.
404: The value of $\chi$ varies place by place within the cells.
405: Redistribution of the Stokes parameters for the observers coordinate can be done by (\ref{Stok_random})
406: by using the angle $\xi_0$ defined by the projected mean field:
407: \begin{eqnarray}
408: \tan{\xi_0} = - \frac{B^\prime_{0z}}{B^\prime_{0y}} \cos{\alpha^\prime} + \frac{B^\prime_{0x}}{B^\prime_{0y}} \sin{\alpha^\prime}.
409: \end{eqnarray}
410:
411: As stated above,
412: integration along the line of sight has been done in use of Monte Carlo method with randomly distributed $\vec{B}^\prime_1$'s.
413: In the present calculation,
414: we assume for comparison purposes that the energy density
415: of the nebula field is equal to the KC value $B^2_{KC}$,
416: i.e.,
417: ${B^\prime_0}^2 + <{\vec{B}^\prime_1}^2> = B^2_{KC}/\Gamma^2_f$,
418: and that the plasma's distribution functions are the same as Paper I.
419: It is obvious that the disordered fields change flow dynamics:
420: (i) the disordered fields contribute to the magnetic pressure rather than magnetic tension,
421: (ii) formation of the disordered fields must be associated by heating,
422: and (iii) the distribution function must be changed.
423: These issues are postponed to subsequent papers.
424:
425: Apart from the disordered field, it is also suggested by
426: some authors (Hester et al. 2002, Mori et al. 2004, Ng \& Romani 2004, and Paper I)
427: that if the front-back (north-west to south-east)
428: intensity contrast is due to Doppler boost,
429: the flow velocity is much faster than the KC flow ($\sim 2000 \ {\rm km} \; {\rm s}^{-1}$) and
430: will be $\sim 0.2 c$.
431: Therefore, we also calculate the case with much faster flows.
432:
433: In summary, we calculate three cases;
434: Case KC, in which plasma properties follows the KC model (see Section 2.3 in detail);
435: Case D, in which we include the disordered field with $b$ (the degree of randomness).
436: For comparison purposes the total magnetic energy density and
437: flow speed are left unchanged;
438: Case DR, in which, in addition to Case D
439: we change the flow velocity to be $0.2 c$ through out the whole nebula
440: by hand (we ignore the flow dynamics).
441:
442:
443: \section{Results}
444: \subsection{Case of Pure Toroidal Field}
445: \label{RuniB}
446: \begin{figure}
447: \begin{center}
448: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
449: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure2a.eps}
450: \end{minipage}
451: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
452: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure2b.eps}
453: \end{minipage}
454: \\[5mm]
455: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
456: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure2c.eps}
457: \end{minipage}
458: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
459: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure2d.eps}
460: \end{minipage}
461: \end{center}
462: \caption{ \label{resultKC}
463: Polarization properties of the pulsar disc nebula for Case KC,
464: observed at $5.2$ keV.
465: (a)Intensity map.
466: The unit length is a shock radius and the unit of the intensity is 0.016 erg~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~str$^{-1}$~eV$^{-1}$.
467: (b)Polarization degree map
468: drawn only for the regions where the intensity is strong enough, regarding calculation errors.
469: (c)P.A. map (E-vector).
470: (d)Polarization degree as a function
471: of the azimuthal angle along an ellipse with the
472: semi-major axis of $2.5 R_s$ and semi-minor axis of $1.5 R_s$.
473: The labels `SW', `NE' and `SW' below the horizontal axis
474: indicate south-west, north-east and south-west, respectively.
475: }
476: \end{figure}
477: Fig.~\ref{resultKC} shows the results of Case KC.
478: The observation energy is assumed to be $5.2$ keV.
479: The intensity map (Fig.~\ref{resultKC}(a))
480: shows a lip-shaped nebula,
481: as was pointed out in Paper I.
482: On the major axis (NE-SW) of the ring (perpendicular to the rotation axis of the pulsar) and its vicinity,
483: the pitch angles of the particles radiating toward the observer are small,
484: and as a result synchrotron emissivity is decreased.
485: The dimness is cased not only by decrease of single-particle emissivity
486: but also by decrease of number of the particles emitting to the observing bands.
487: Fig.~\ref{resultKC}(b) shows the polarization degree.
488: In Fig.~\ref{resultKC}(d), the polarization degree
489: is plotted as an azimuthal function along the ring.
490: On the minor axis (rotational axis of the pulsar),
491: the polarization degree reaches the maximum value of $\sim 75\% $.
492: There is depolarized regions along the major axis,
493: where the polarization degree decreases to $\sim 55\%$.
494:
495: In Case KC,
496: the mean polarization degree as the whole nebula is $52.3 \%$,
497: and P.A. is found to be $132^\circ$ at $5.2$ keV.
498: This polarization degree is much larger than the observed value ($\sim 20 \%$) in X-ray (Weisskopf et al. 1978).
499: Although we calculate also for optical bands,
500: the results are hardly changed so that they are not shown in figures.
501: Since the mean polarization in optical is $\sim 19 \%$ (Oort and Walraven 1956),
502: the calculated polarization degree in optical is again much higher than the observed.
503: \begin{figure}
504: \begin{center}
505: \includegraphics[clip,width=8.4cm]{figure3.eps}
506: \end{center}
507: \caption{ \label{Pofbi}
508: Polarization of the entire nebula as functions
509: of the inclination angle $i$ between the axis of the disc and the line of sight for $b=0.0$, $0.2$, $0.4$, $0.6$ and $0.8$.
510: The empirical curves $\bar{P} = 75.8 (1-b) (\cos{i})^{2.84}$ are overlaid.
511: }
512: \end{figure}
513:
514: \subsection{Effects of Disordered Field and Relativistic Motion}
515: \label{RdisB}
516: In Case D,
517: we change the parameter $b$ to find the value which reproduces the observed polarization degree.
518: Fig.~\ref{Pofbi} shows how the mean polarization behaves
519: as a function of $b$ and the inclination angle $i$,
520: the angle of the symmetry axis of the nebula from \vec{n} (the line of sight).
521: The result can be fitted by an empirical relation,
522: $\bar{P} = 75.8 \times (1-b) \times (\cos{i})^{2.84}$.
523: For the Crab Nebula, the inclination angle is known to be $i = 28^\circ$ (Weisskopf et al. 2000),
524: and therefore the observed polarization degree can be reproduced if $b=0.6$.
525:
526: Polarization properties for Case D with $b=0.6$ are summarized
527: in Fig.~\ref{resultD} at the observation energy of $5.2$ keV.
528: As has been mentioned in Section 1,
529: almost the same polarization degrees are observed both in X-ray and optical bands.
530: The calculated polarization properties for the optical bands are hardly different from those for the $5.2$ keV band.
531: This is thus consistent with the observation.
532: The polarization degree takes the maximum value of $\sim 40 \%$
533: on the northwest side and the southeast side of the ring.
534: This also agrees with the observation in optical bands
535: (Schmidt et al. 1979, Hickson \& van der Bergh 1990, Michel et al. 1991).
536:
537: Case D is favored by at least two observational facts
538: that (1) the intensity map appears in a ring (not lip-shaped),
539: and that (2) the polarization degree is $\sim 40 \%$
540: at the highest and $\sim 20 \%$ on average.
541: This indicates that the disordered magnetic component is $60 \%$ of the total.
542:
543: The front-back contrast in Case D is smaller
544: than the observed value $3.4$ (Mori et al. 2004)
545: because the model follows the KC flow.
546: In Case DR,
547: the flow velocity is assumed to be $0.2 c$ in the whole nebula,
548: and thereby front-back contrast becomes $3.1$ (Fig.~\ref{resultDR}).
549: The average polarization of Case DR is increased only by $0.14 \%$ as compared with Case D.
550: This increase is caused by the high polarization degree
551: at the north-west region weighted by Doppler boosting.
552: Relativistic effects is rather prominent in distribution of the depolarization.
553: When the nebula flow is non-relativistic as seen in Case KC and Case D,
554: the depolarization takes place along the major axis symmetrically,
555: but in Case DR the depolarized regions shift slightly to the northwest side
556: which expands toward us (Fig.~\ref{resultDR}(b) and (d)).
557: The electric field vectors of the synchrotron radiation shown in Fig.~\ref{resultDR}(c) is no longer vertical
558: to the projected magnetic field on the sky as the flow becomes relativistic.
559: These relativistic effect is difficult to see in the complex optical polarization maps.
560: However,
561: it might be verified if spatially-resolved polarization in X-ray bands is performed
562: because the ring structure has a better symmetry in X-ray,
563: and obscuring by filaments is less.
564: After all,
565: the relativistic effect does not change the estimate of the disordered magnetic field.
566:
567: We reproduced the maps of Stokes parameters,
568: Q-map and U-map in Fig.~\ref{resultQU},
569: which are compared with the observation (Michel et al. 1991).
570: Because interaction of the filaments and the nebula flow changes
571: the direction of the magnetic field,
572: comparison may be limited within the area of $1^\prime$ around the pulsar.
573: The shape of hourglass (Michel et al. 1991) is well reproduced in our Q map.
574: It follows from this fact that the average magnetic field is toroidal.
575: Because depolarization occurs along the major axis on which U has positive value,
576: the absolute value of U is small (see Fig.~\ref{resultQU}).
577: Therefore, U-map is easy to be influenced by disturbances,
578: and therefore comparison of the observations to the model is difficult to make.
579: \begin{figure}
580: \begin{center}
581: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
582: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure4a.eps}
583: \end{minipage}
584: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
585: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure4b.eps}
586: \end{minipage}
587: \\[5mm]
588: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
589: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure4c.eps}
590: \end{minipage}
591: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
592: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure4d.eps}
593: \end{minipage}
594: \end{center}
595: \caption{ \label{resultD}
596: Same as Figure \ref{resultKC} but for Case D with $b=0.6$.
597: }
598: \end{figure}
599: \begin{figure}
600: \begin{center}
601: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
602: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure5a.eps}
603: \end{minipage}
604: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
605: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure5b.eps}
606: \end{minipage}
607: \\[5mm]
608: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
609: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure5c.eps}
610: \end{minipage}
611: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
612: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure5d.eps}
613: \end{minipage}
614: \end{center}
615: \caption{ \label{resultDR}
616: Same as Figure \ref{resultKC} but for Case DR with $b=0.6$, $v_r=0.2c$.
617: (d) shows the comparison between the polarization degree of Case D (solid line)
618: and that of Case DR (dotted line).
619: }
620: \end{figure}
621:
622: \section{Summary and Discussion}
623: \label{discus}
624: We calculate the synchrotron polarization properties from a relativistically expanding disk
625: which has both the toroidal mean field component and the disordered component.
626: We compared our results with observations of the Crab Nebula.
627: The distribution function of plasma particles
628: and the total magnetic energy density
629: $(B^2_0+B^2_1) / 8 \pi$ in the disk are given as a function of the distance $R$,
630: according the KC flow with $\sigma = 0.003$.
631: The best fit model reproducing the observed polarization
632: indicates that the disordered magnetic field contributes $60 \%$
633: of the total magnetic energy.
634: This result is also supported by the fact that
635: if the magnetic field is pure toroidal,
636: then the nebula image becomes lip-shaped,
637: while if there is such a disordered magnetic field,
638: it becomes ring-shaped as observed.
639: We also attempt to reproduce the front-back contrast of the ring by changing the flow velocity.
640: The estimate of disordered field is not changed even if a high speed flow of $0.2c$ is introduced.
641: It is shown that relativistic motion of the expanding nebula can be detected as asymmetry in P.A. and in distribution of depolarized regions.
642:
643: Nothing is known about wavelengths of the disordered magnetic field according to our study.
644: It is pointed out that series of magnetic neutral sheets
645: in the wind can be collapsed at the shock (Lyubarsky 2003).
646: If it is so, the disordered magnetic field may be formed
647: in the process of magnetic reconnection.
648: The scale lengths of the disordered field is thought of
649: as $c/\Omega \approx 1.6 \times 10^8$ or less.
650:
651: Recently, relativistic magneto-hydrodynamic (RMHD) simulations
652: are done for the flow after the termination shock of the pulsar wind,
653: and formation mechanism of the disk and the jets is discussed
654: (Komissarov \& Lyubarsky 2003, Del Zanna et al. 2004).
655: Because of the axisymmetry, the magnetic field is assumed to be pure toroidal in those simulations.
656: Therefore, even though vortex is formed in the meridional plane,
657: it does not cause significant depolarization (Bucciantini et al. 2005, Del Zanna et al. 2006).
658:
659: \begin{figure}
660: \begin{center}
661: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
662: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure6a.eps}
663: \end{minipage}
664: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
665: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure6b.eps}
666: \end{minipage}
667: \\[5mm]
668: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
669: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure6c.eps}
670: \end{minipage}
671: \begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
672: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\linewidth]{figure6d.eps}
673: \end{minipage}
674: \end{center}
675: \caption{ \label{resultQU}
676: The comparison between the $Q$, $U$ maps observed in optical bands (Michel et al. 1991)
677: and those of Case DR ($b=0.6$, $\beta=0.2$).
678: The upper row is an observation, and the lower is the model.
679: The $Q$ map (left) is N/S polarized light minus E/W polarized light,
680: the $U$ map (right) is NW/SE polarized light
681: minus NE/SW polarized light.
682: }
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: It is notable that if the disordered field dominates,
686: then the magnetic field contributes more as pressure than tension in the flow dynamics,
687: as compared with the case of pure toroidal field,
688: which is assumed in the previous RMHD simulations.
689: As a result, magnetic pinch effect may be overestimated
690: in the previous simulations.
691: If the disordered magnetic field is taken into account,
692: the jets may be weaken,
693: and magnetic pressure may cause acceleration of the disk flow.
694:
695: Hickson (1990) finds highest polarization of $\sim 60 \%$
696: in a region $1^\prime.8$ apart from the pulsar in a south-south-east direction
697: and the eastern bay.
698: For these regions, very ordered magnetic field is expected.
699: However, polarization degrees of $35 \%$ for the wisp1, $23 \%$ for the wisp3 (Hickson 1990),
700: and $\sim 30 \%$ of the wisp3 (Scargle 1971) seem to be consistent with $b \sim 0.6$.
701:
702: For a future possibility,
703: we simulated change of polarization for the entire Crab Nebula
704: through a lunar occultation.
705: Fig.~\ref{enpei1} shows the results when the nebula is
706: gradually hidden,
707: while Fig.~\ref{enpei2} shows a recovery phase.
708: The direction of the occultation can be seen in the images of the figures.
709: In the disappearance phase (Fig.~\ref{enpei1}),
710: the total polarization degree decreases at first
711: because of hiding highly polarized parts,
712: and then it is minimized and increases.
713: The late phase will not be observed
714: because the south-east part of the ring is dim,
715: and the radiation from the jet will dominate.
716: In the reappearance phase,
717: the polarization degree start with a very high state
718: $\sim 40 \%$ and gradually recovers.
719: There will be no significant change of position angle.
720:
721: \begin{figure}
722: \begin{center}
723: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{figure7a.eps}\\
724: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{figure7b.eps}
725: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{figure7c.eps}
726: \end{center}
727: \caption{ \label{enpei1}
728: Polarization at a lunar occultation of the Crab Nebula (disappearance phase).
729: We use Case DR, $b=0.6$, $\beta=0.2$.
730: (a)Appearance of luna occultation from the northwest to the southeast along symmetrical axis of the nebula.
731: (b)Change of averaged polarization degree.
732: (c)Change of P.A.
733: The labels 0$\sim$7 of the horizontal axis of panel (b) and (c)
734: correspond to eight figures from on the upper left to lower right of sub-panels in (a).
735: }
736: \end{figure}
737:
738: \begin{figure}
739: \begin{center}
740: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{figure8a.eps}\\
741: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{figure8b.eps}
742: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{figure8c.eps}
743: \end{center}
744: \caption{ \label{enpei2}
745: The same as Fig.~\ref{enpei1}, but for the appearance phase.
746: The labels 1$\sim$8 of the horizontal axis of panel (b) and (c)
747: correspond to eight figures from on the upper left to lower right of sub-panels in (a).
748: }
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: \section*{Acknowledgments}
752: We would like to thank Dr. S. Gunji, Dr. H. Sakurai, Dr. K. Mori, and Dr. K. Ioka for fruitful discussions.
753: This work was supported Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
754: from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (15540227).
755:
756: \begin{thebibliography}{}
757: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bj\"{o}rnsson}{1982}]{Bj}
758: Bj\"{o}rnsson, C.-I., 1982, ApJ, 260, 855
759: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blandford \& K\"{o}nigl}{1979}]{BK}
760: Blandford, R.D., \& K\"{o}nigl, A., 1979, ApJ, 232, 34
761: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Begelman \& Li}{1994}]{BLi}
762: Begelman, M. C., \& Li, Z.-Y., 1994, ApJ, 426, 269
763: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bogovalov}{1998}]{Bog}
764: Bogovalov S. V., 1998, Astronomy Letters, 24, 321-331
765: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bucciantini, Del Zanna, Amato \& Volpi}{2005}]{BDAV}
766: Bucciantini, N., Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., \& Volpi, D., 2005, A \& A, 443, 519B
767: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coroniti}{1990}]{Cor}
768: Coroniti, F.V., 1990, ApJ, 349, 538
769: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Del Zanna, Amato \& Bucciantini}{2004}]{DAB}
770: Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., \& Bucciantini, N., 2004, A \& A, 421, 1063
771: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Del Zanna, Volpi, Amato \& Bucciantini}{2006}]{DVAB}
772: Del Zanna, L., Volpi, D., Amato, E., \& Bucciantini, N., 2006, A \& A, 453, 621D
773: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hester, Mori, Burrows, Gallagher, Graham, Halverson, Kader, Michel \& Scowen}{2002}]{He}
774: Hester, J. J., Mori, K., Burrows, D., Gallagher, J. S., Graham, J. R., Halverson, M., Kader, A., Michel, F. C., Scowen, P., 2002, ApJ, 577, 49
775: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hickson \& van der Bergh}{1990}]{HvdB}
776: Hickson, P., \& van der Bergh, S., 1990, ApJ, 365, 224
777: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kennel \& Coroniti}{1984}]{KCa}
778: Kennel, C.F., \& Coroniti, F.V., 1984a, ApJ, 283, 694
779: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kennel \& Coroniti}{1984}]{KCb}
780: Kennel, C.F., \& Coroniti, F.V., 1984b, ApJ, 283, 710
781: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kirk \& Skjaeraasen}{2003}]{KiSk}
782: Kirk J.G., \& Skjaeraasen O., 2003, ApJ, 591, 366
783: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Komissarov \& Lyubarsky}{2003}]{KL1}
784: Komissarov, S.S., \& Lyubarsky, Y.E., 2003, MNRAS, 344, L93
785: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Korchakov \& Syrovat-skii}{1962}]{KS}
786: Korchakov, A.A., \& Syrovat-skii, S.I., 1962, SvA, 5, 678
787: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyutikov, Pariev \& Blandford}{2003}]{LPB}
788: Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V.I., \& Blandford, R.D., 2003, ApJ, 597, 998
789: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lyuvarsky}{2003}]{Lyu}
790: Lyuvarsky, Y. E., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 153-160
791: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Michel}{1969}]{Mic}
792: Michel, F. C., 1969, ApJ, 158, 727
793: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Michel, Scowen, Dufour \& Hester}{1991}]{MSDH}
794: Michel, F.C., Scowen, P.A., Dufour, R.J., \& Hester, J.J., 1991, ApJ, 368, 463
795: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mori, Burrows, Hester, Pavlov, Shibata \& Tsunemi}{2004}]{Mo}
796: Mori, K., Burrows, D. N., Hester, J. J., Pavlov, G. G., Shibata, S., \& Tsunemi, H., 2004, ApJ, 609, 186
797: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ng \& Romani}{2004}]{NgR}
798: Ng, C. -Y., \& Romani, R. W., 2004, ApJ, 601, 479
799: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Okamoto}{2002}]{Ok}
800: Okamoto, I., 2002, ApJ, 573, L31
801: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oort \& Walraven}{1956}]{OW}
802: Oort, J. H., \& Walraven, T., 1956, Bull. Astr. Inst. Netherlands, 12, 285
803: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rybicki \& Lightman}{1979}]{RL}
804: Rybicki, G.B., \& Lightman, A.P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, Wiley, New York
805: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Scargle}{1971}]{Sc}
806: Scargle, J.D., 1971, Nature Phys. Sci., 230, 37
807: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schmidt, Angel \& Beaver}{1979}]{SAB}
808: Schmidt, G.D., Angel, J.R.P., \& Beaver, E.A., 1979, ApJ, 227, 106
809: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shibata, Tomatsuri, Shimanuki, Saito \& Mori}{2003}]{STSSM}
810: Shibata, S., Tomatsuri, H., Shimanuki, M., Saito, K., \& Mori, K., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 841
811: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tomimatsu}{1994}]{Tomi}
812: Tomimatsu A., 1994, PASJ, 46 123
813: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Velusamy}{1985}]{Ve}
814: Velusamy, T., 1985, MNRAS, 212, 359
815: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vlahakis}{2004}]{Vl}
816: Vlahakis, N., 2004, ApJ, 600, 324
817: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weisskopf, Silver, Kestenbaum, Long \& Novick}{1978}]{We1}
818: Weisskopf, M. C., Kestenbaum, H. L., Long, K. S., Novick, R., Silver, E. H., 1978, ApJ, 220, 117
819: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weisskopf, Hester, Tennant, Elsner, Schulz, Marshall, Karovska, Nichols, Swartz, Kolodziejczak \& O'Dell}{2000}]{We2}
820: Weisskopf, M. C., Hester, J. J., Tennant, A. F., Elsner, R. F., Schulz, N. S., Marshall, H. L., Karovska, M., Nichols, J. S., Swartz, D. A., Kolodziejczak, J. J., \& O'Dell, S. L., 2000, ApJ, 536, 81
821: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wilson}{1972}]{Wil}
822: Wilson, A. S., 1972, MNRAS, 157, 229
823: \end{thebibliography}
824:
825:
826: \label{lastpage}
827: \end{document}