4.7 Article

Very-high-energy gamma radiation associated with the unshocked wind of the Crab pulsar

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 313, Issue 3, Pages 504-514

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03250.x

Keywords

relativity; stars : individual : Crab pulsar; pulsars : general; pulsars : individual : Crab pulsar; ISM : individual : Crab Nebula; gamma-rays : observations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We show that the relativistic wind of the Crab pulsar, which is commonly thought to be invisible in the region upstream of the termination shock at r less than or equal to r(S)similar to 0.1 pc, in fact could be directly observed through its inverse Compton (IC) gamma-ray emission. This radiation is caused by illumination of the wind by low-frequency photons emitted by the pulsar, and consists of two, pulsed and unpulsed, components associated with the non-thermal (pulsed) and thermal (unpulsed) low-energy radiation of the pulsar, respectively. These two components of gamma-radiation have distinct spectral characteristics, which depend essentially on the site of formation of the kinetic-energy-dominated wind, as well as on the Lorentz factor and the geometry of propagation of the wind. Thus, the search for such specific radiation components in the spectrum of the Crab Nebula can provide unique information about the unshocked pulsar wind that is not accessible at other wavelengths. In particular, we show that the comparison of the calculated flux of the unpulsed IC emission with the measured gamma-ray flux of the Crab Nebula excludes the possibility of formation of a kinetic-energy-dominated wind within 5 light-cylinder radii of the pulsar, R(w)greater than or equal to 5R(L). The analysis of the pulsed IC emission, calculated under reasonable assumptions concerning the production site and angular distribution of the optical pulsed radiation, yields even tighter restrictions, namely R(w)greater than or equal to 30R(L).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available