1701 00002 PDF
1701 00002 PDF
1701 00002 PDF
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE DETECTION OF THE MILLISECOND PULSAR J2124−3358 AND ITS
FAR-ULTRAVIOLET BOW SHOCK NEBULA
B. Rangelov1 , G. G. Pavlov2 , O. Kargaltsev1 , A. Reisenegger3 , S. Guillot3 , M. van Kerkwijk4 , and C. Reyes3
The Astrophysical Journal, in press
ABSTRACT
We observed a nearby millisecond pulsar J2124–3358 with the Hubble Space Telescope in broad
far-UV (FUV) and optical filters. The pulsar is detected in both bands with fluxes F (1250-2000 Å) =
(2.5 ± 0.3) × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 and F (3800 − 6000 Å) = (6.4 ± 0.4) × 10−17 erg s−1 cm−2 , which
arXiv:1701.00002v2 [astro-ph.HE] 4 Jan 2017
correspond to luminosities of ≈ 5.8 × 1027 and 1.4 × 1027 erg s−1 , for d = 410 pc and E(B − V ) = 0.03.
The optical-FUV spectrum can be described by a power-law model, fν ∝ ν α , with slope α = 0.18–
0.48 for a conservative range of color excess, E(B − V ) = 0.01–0.08. Since a spectral flux rising
with frequency is unusual for pulsar magnetospheric emission in this frequency range, it is possible
that the spectrum is predominantly magnetospheric (power law with α < 0) in the optical while it is
dominated by thermal emission from the neutron star surface in the FUV. For a neutron star radius
of 12 km, the surface temperature would be between 0.5 × 105 and 2.1 × 105 K, for α ranging from −1
to 0, E(B − V ) = 0.01–0.08, and d = 340–500 pc. In addition to the pulsar, the FUV images reveal
extended emission spatially coincident with the known Hα bow shock, making PSR J2124–3358 the
second pulsar (after PSR J0437−4715) with a bow shock detected in FUV.
Subject headings: pulsars: individual (PSR J2124−3358) — shock waves — ISM: jets and outflows —
ultraviolet: ISM, stars — X-rays: individual (PSR J2124−3358)
Figure 1. Smoothed HST F125LP (top left) and F140LP (top right) FUV images of the J2124 field (Gaussian smoothing with r = 0.00 2
kernel). J2124 position is marked by small white circle. The bow shock (middle region, labeled as “S”) and background (two outer regions,
labeled as “B”) extraction areas are shown in white in the top-right panel, while the pulsar motion is shown with a white arrow in the
top-left panel. The SOAR Hα (bottom right) image (obtained from the SOAR archive and described in detail by Brownsberger & Romani
2014), smoothed with r = 100 kernel, shows the bow shock emission (J2124 position is marked by the white cross). The bow shock extraction
region from the top-right panel is overploted. The bow shock is not visible in the F475X (bottom left) image. All images are to the same
scale. North and east are shown in the equatorial coordinate system.
images, were used in the alignment process. However, is a very viable candidate for the pulsar counterpart12 .
all three sources appear to be extended in both images
(likely, they are background galaxies). This hinders accu-
2.2. Pulsar Photometry
rate centroid determination leading to an uncertainty11
of ≈ 0.00 1 in aligning the SBC images with the UVIS im- To find the optimal aperture for the photometry in
age. SBC/F125LP image, we calculated the signal-to-noise
In the astrometry-corrected UVIS image we found (S/N ) ratio for a set of varying circular apertures cen-
a faint source located at α = 21:24:43.841(16) and tered on the source. The background was estimated from
δ = −33:58:45.01(18). These coordinates are offset by an annular region with rin = 20 and rout = 50 pixels
∆α cos δ = −0.00 01 ± 0.00 19 and ∆δ = −0.00 18 ± 0.00 18 from (0.00 64 and 1.00 6, respectively) centered on the source. We
the pulsar’s radio coordinates (α = 21:24:43.841662(24) found that the r = 5 pixels (0.00 16) aperture provides a
and δ = −33:58:45.1897(5)) expected at the epoch of maximum S/N ≈ 9. This aperture corresponds to about
the UVIS observation (MJD 56976). Since the offset is 64% of the encircled energy, according to ACS Instru-
within the alignment uncertainty, we conclude that this
12 We attempted to improve the astrometry by matching GSC
11 Note that CCMAP calculates a “perfect” (no error) astrometric v.2.3 stars with UCAC4 stars within one degree from the pulsar.
solution from three points (stars). The quoted uncertainty, ≈ 0.00 1, Using 370 matches for stars with magnitudes J ≤ 12, we found
was obtained by selecting different centroiding methods (brightness offsets 0.00 012 ± 0.00 111 and −0.00 001 ± 0.00 076 along R.A. and Decl.,
peak, weighted brightness center, brightest pixel), and selecting the respectively. Since these offsets are statistically insignificant, the
mean and standard deviation as the true center and astrometric GSC–UCAC4 matching does not improve the astrometry and does
solution uncertainty, respectively. not change our conclusion.
4 Rangelov et al. 2017
Table 2
Pulsar and bow shock photometry.
Filter As Ab Ct Cb Cs
arcsec2 arcsec2 cts s−1 cts s−1 cts s−1
Pulsar
F125LP 0.080 6.75 0.017 ± 0.002 0.213 ± 0.005 0.014 ± 0.002
F140LP 0.053 6.75 0.008 ± 0.002 0.198 ± 0.009 0.007 ± 0.002
F475X 0.045 0.42 0.147 ± 0.008 0.061 ± 0.005 0.136 ± 0.008
Bow shock
F125LP 52.1 80.5 2.96 ± 0.02 3.70 ± 0.02 0.56 ± 0.02
F140LP 52.1 80.5 2.99 ± 0.04 3.95 ± 0.04 0.43 ± 0.04
2.5 29
α = 0. 28 28
2.0
E(B − V) = 0. 03 0. 08
d = 410 pc U 27
0. 05
Log(fν ) [nJy]
V B
26
fν0 [nJy]
1.5
25 0. 03
F475X F125LP
1.0 24
23 E(B − V) = 0. 01
0.5 22
14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.4 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Log(ν) [Hz] α
Figure 4. Example of a single PL fit to the HST photometry Figure 5. Normalization fν0 at ν0 = 6.07 × 1014 Hz as a function
results for the J2124 pulsar (the measurement in F140LP is not of slope α for the single PL model fits at different values of E(B −
shown because its band is within the F125LP band). The blue V ).
dash-dot line shows the best-fit model spectrum at fixed d = 410
pc, reddened with E(B − V ) = 0.03. The downward arrows show
the VLT limits reported by Mignani & Becker (2004). The errors
for the F475X data point are comparable to the size of the dot. 20
The black horizontal lines show the filter widths at half maximum.
The photometric data in only 3 spectral bands (of 500 pc, α = − 1
which one, F140LP, is within the other, F125LP) can be
fitted with many spectral models. We first fit the data 15
T [104 K]
with an absorbed PL model, fν = fν0 (ν/ν0 )α ×10−0.4Aν ,
which is often used to describe magnetospheric emission
(Pavlov et al. 1997). We fit the PL slope α and nor- 10
malization fν0 at ν0 = 6.07 × 1014 Hz (corresponding to
the pivot wavelength of the F475X filter) for 4 fixed val-
ues of color excess: E(B − V ) = [0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.08].
5
340 pc, α = 0
An example of such a fit is shown in Figure 4, and
the PL parameters for the four E(B − V ) values are
given in Figure 5. The slope and normalization val- 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
ues on the E(B − V ) grid are α = [0.20 ± 0.02, 0.28 ± E(B-V)
0.02, 0.35 ± 0.02, 0.46 ± 0.02] and fν0 = [22.6 ± 0.2, 24.1 ±
0.3, 25.7 ± 0.3, 28.4 ± 0.3] nJy (at 6.07 × 1014 Hz), re- 26
spectively. Their dependences on color excess can be ap-
proximated by linear functions in this E(B − V ) range: 25
α ≈ 0.164+3.71 E(B−V ) and fν0 ≈ 21.6+82.9 E(B−V )
24
Log(fν0 ) [nJy]
2.5 2.5
T = 6. 9 × 10 4 K T = 11. 72 × 10 4 K
α=0 α= −1
2.0
E(B − V) = 0. 03 E(B − V) = 0. 03
d = 410 pc U 2.0 d = 410 pc U
Log(fν ) [nJy]
Log(fν ) [nJy]
1.5 V B 1.5 V B
F475X F125LP F475X F125LP
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.4 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.4
Log(ν) [Hz] Log(ν) [Hz]
Figure 7. Examples of the BB+PL fit to the HST photometry results for the J2124 pulsar, for two values of the PL slope, α = 0 and
−1, at d = 410 pc and E(B − V ) = 0.03. The red dashed lines and blue dash-dot lines show the BB and PL components, respectively,
while the black solid lines show their sums. The downward arrows are the VLT limits reported by Mignani & Becker (2004). The black
horizontal lines show the filter widths at half maximum.
A bow-shaped structure spatially coincident with the
known Hα bow shock (see Gaensler et al. 2002; Browns-
berger & Romani 2014) is clearly visible in the F125LP
image shown in Figure 1 (top left). The FUV bow shock
appears to be asymmetric, being thicker and brighter
east of the pulsar. We measure the apex distance (from
the pulsar to the leading edge of the bow shock) to
be ≈ 2.00 5, consistent with the Brownsberger & Romani
(2014); Gaensler et al. (2002) measurements in Hα.
To extract the bow shock flux, we define the source
and two background regions, “inside” and “outside” of
the bow shock, shown in Figure 1 (top right). The back-
ground regions were selected based on the F125LP im-
age, in which the bow shock was most clearly detected.
The regions are close to the bow shock extraction re-
gion to mitigate effects from the inhomogeneous detec-
tor background while excluding the pulsar. Due to the
larger apparent thickness of the east side of the bow
shock, more space was left between the bow shock ex- Figure 8. UVIS/F475X image with the bow shock extraction
traction region and the background regions. We take regions (the same as in Figure 1), used for the data analysis. The
pulsar and the direction of its proper motion are shown with a
into account the background variations by selecting back- circle and an arrow, respectively.
ground regions on both sides of the bow shock: one ?in-
side? and one ?outside? the bow shock. These regions ing the standard deviation from the mean value. The
were used for both F125LP and F140LP flux measure- areas of the background regions were equal to that of
ments. A combined background from the two regions the bow shock region used for FUV flux measurements.
was extracted. The net source count rate was calcu- The standard deviation can be considered as a conser-
lated similarly to the pulsar, with the area Ab being vative 1σ upper limit. The corresponding 3σ upper
the combined area of the “outside” and “inside” back- limit on the bow shock flux in the area of 52 arcsec2
ground regions. The F125LP and F140LP count rates is F (3750 − 6000 Å) ≈ 2.9 × 10−15 erg s−1 cm−2 , for a flat
and their uncertainties are given in Table 2. From fλ spectrum and E(B − V ) = 0.03.
the measured count rates we calculated the absorbed Similar to our analysis of the FUV bow shock around
fluxes in the F125LP and F140LP wavelength ranges: J0437 (Rangelov et al. 2016), we measured the ratio of
F (1250 − 2000 Å) = (8.1 ± 0.4) × 10−15 erg s−1 cm−2 and the count rates in F125LP and F140LP filters for the
F (1350 − 2000 Å) = (7.0 ± 0.7) × 10−15 erg s−1 cm−2 , for J2124 bow shock. We obtained a ratio of C125 /C140 =
a flat fλ spectrum. The unabsorbed luminosity can be 1.3 ± 0.2. It is smaller than C125 /C140 = 1.63 ± 0.08 for
estimated as L(1250 − 2000 Å) ≈ 1.9 × 1029 erg s−1 , for the J0437 bow shock, but the associated uncertainty is
E(B − V ) = 0.03, and d = 410 pc. large.
The bow shock is not detected in the F475X images
(see Figure 8). Because of the apparent non-uniformities 3. DISCUSSION
in the background, which significantly exceed the statis- 3.1. Spectrum of PSR J2124−3358
tical fluctuations, we chose to measure the upper limits The obtained photometric measurements can be used
by sampling the background counts from ten different to constrain the optical-FUV spectral energy distribution
regions in the vicinity of the bow shock and calculat- (SED) for J2124 and to look for thermal emission, similar
Optical-UV emission from pulsar J2124−3358 7
omy and Associated Technologies (CATA; PFB-06). We Gaensler, B. M., Jones, D. H., & Stappers, B. W. 2002, ApJ, 580,
thank Denis González-Caniulef for valuable help with the L137
preparation of the observing proposal. Gonzalez, D., & Reisenegger, A. 2010, A&A, 522, A16
Gusakov, M. E., Kantor, E. M., & Reisenegger, A. 2015, MNRAS,
HST(ACS), HST(WFC3) 453, L36
Gorenstein, P. 1975, ApJ, 198, 95
REFERENCES Güver, T., & Özel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050
Hui, C. Y., & Becker, W. 2006, A&A, 448, L13
Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17 Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., & Romani, R. W. 2004, ApJ, 602,
Alpar, M. A., Pines, D., Anderson, P. W., & Shaham, J. 1984, 327
ApJ, 276, 325 Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 287
Bailes, M., Johnston, S., Bell, J. F., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 386 Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in AIP Conf. Proc. 983, 171
Becker, W., & Trümper, J. 1999, A&A, 341, 803 Kouvaris, C., & Tinyakov, P. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 063531
Bogdanov, S., Grindlay, J. E., & Rybicki, G. B. 2008, ApJ, 689, Mignani, R. P., & Becker, W. 2004, Advances in Space Research,
407-415 33, 616
Brownsberger, S., & Romani, R. W. 2014, ApJ, 784, 154 Mignani, R. P. 2011, Advances in Space Research, 47, 1281
Bykov, A. M., Malkov, M. A., Raymond, J. C., Krassilchtchikov, Pavlov, G. G., Welty, A. D., & Córdova, F. A. 1997, ApJ, 489,
A. M., & Vladimirov, A. E. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 178, 599 L75
Chatterjee, S., Gaensler, B. M., Vigelius, M., et al. 2005, Bulletin Petrovich, C., & Reisenegger, A. 2010, A&A, 521, A77
of the American Astronomical Society, 37, 183.13 Rangelov, B., Pavlov, G. G., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2016, ApJ,
Cheng, K. S., Chau, W. Y., Zhang, J. L., & Chau, H. F. 1992, 831, 129
ApJ, 396, 135 Reardon, D. J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455,
Clayton, G. C., Wolff, M. J., Sofia, U. J., Gordon, K. D., & 1751
Misselt, K. A. 2003, ApJ, 588, 871 Reisenegger, A. 1995, ApJ, 442, 749
Danilenko, A., Kirichenko, A., Mennickent, R. E., et al. 2012, Shibazaki, N., & Lamb, F. K. 1989, ApJ, 346, 808
A&A, 540, A28 Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562
de Lavallaz, A., & Fairbairn, M. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 123521 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500,
Durant, M., Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 525
6 Yakovlev, D. G., & Pethick, C. J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 169
Durant, M., Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2014, ApJ, 783, L22 Zavlin, V. E. 2006, ApJ, 638, 951
Fernández, R., & Reisenegger, A. 2005, ApJ, 625, 291