4.7 Article

The birthplace and age of the isolated neutron star RX J1856.5-3754

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sts627

关键词

stars: neutron

资金

  1. ASI/INAF [I/009/10/0]
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H00260X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. STFC [ST/H00260X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-ray observations unveiled various types of radio-silent isolated neutron stars (INSs), phenomenologically very diverse, e.g. the similar to Myr old X-ray-dim INSs (XDINSs) and the similar to kyr old magnetars. Although their phenomenology is much diverse, the similar periods (P = 2-10 s) and magnetic fields (approximate to 10(14) G) suggest that XDINSs are evolved magnetars, possibly born from similar populations of supermassive stars. One way to test this hypothesis is to identify their parental star clusters by extrapolating backwards the NS velocity vector in the Galactic potential. By using the information on the age and space velocity of the XDINS RXJ1856.5-3754, we computed backwards its orbit in the Galactic potential and searched for its parental stellar cluster by means of a closest approach criterion. We found a very likely association with the Upper Scorpius OB association, for a NS age of 0.42 +/- 0.08 Myr, a radial velocity V-r(NS) = 67 +/- 13 km s(-1), and a present-time parallactic distance d(pi)(NS) = 123(-15)(+11) pc. Our result confirms that the 'true' NS age is much lower than the spin-down age (tau(sd) = 3.8 Myr), and is in good agreement with the cooling age, as computed within standard cooling scenarios. The mismatch between the spin-down and the dynamical/cooling age would require either an anomalously large breaking index (n similar to 20) or a decaying magnetic field with initial value B-0 approximate to 10(14) G. Unfortunately, owing to the uncertainty on the age of the Upper Scorpius OB association and the masses of its members, we cannot yet draw firm conclusions on the estimated mass of the RXJ1856.5-3754 progenitor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据