4.7 Article

Ultra-high-energy Gamma-Ray Radiation from the Crab Pulsar Wind Nebula

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 924, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac348d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2018YFA0404204]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC U1931113, U1738211]
  3. Foundations of Yunnan Province [2018FY001(-003)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the high-energy radiation from the Crab Nebula and finds that the pure leptonic model partly agrees with some experimental data, while the contribution of hadronic processes is less constrained. It is suggested that higher energy signals from the Crab Nebula could be observed in the future.
It has been long debated whether the high-energy gamma-ray radiation from the Crab Nebula stems from leptonic or hadronic processes. In this work, we investigate the multiband nonthermal radiation from the Crab pulsar wind nebula with the leptonic and leptonic-hadronic hybrid models, respectively. Then we use the Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling technology and method of sampling trace to study the stability and reasonability of the model parameters according to the recently observed results and obtain the best-fitting values of parameters. Finally, we calculate different radiative components generated by the electrons and protons in the Crab Nebula. The modeling results indicate that the pure leptonic origin model with the one-zone only can partly agree with some segments of the data from various experiments (including the PeV gamma-ray emission reported by the LHAASO and the other radiation ranging from the radio to very-high-energy gamma-ray wave band), and the contribution of hadronic interaction is hardly constrained. However, we find that the hadronic process may also contribute, especially in the energy range exceeding the PeV. In addition, it can be inferred that the higher energy signals from the Crab Nebula could be observed in the future.

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