4.7 Article

IS SGR 0418+5729 INDEED A WANING MAGNETAR?

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 740, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/105

关键词

pulsars: individual (SGR 0418+5729); stars: magnetic field; stars: neutron

资金

  1. Ramon y Cajal Fellowship
  2. Autonomous Region of Sardinia [FSE 2007-2013, L.R. 7/2007]
  3. [AAE I/088/06/0]
  4. [AYA 2010-21097-C03-02]
  5. [GVPROMETE-02009-103]
  6. [AYA2009-07391]
  7. [SGR2009-811]
  8. [TW2010005]
  9. STFC [ST/H00260X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H00260X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SGR0418+5729 is a transient soft gamma-ray repeater which underwent a major outburst in 2009 June, during which the emission of short bursts was observed. Its properties appeared quite typical of other sources of the same class until long-term X-ray monitoring failed to detect any period derivative. The present upper limit on (P) over dot implies that the surface dipole field is B-p less than or similar to 7.5 x 10(12) G, well below those measured in other soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) and in the Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs), a group of similar sources. Both SGRs and AXPs are currently believed to be powered by ultra-magnetized neutron stars (magnetars, B-p approximate to 10(14)-10(15) G). SGR 0418+5729 hardly seems to fit in such a picture. We show that the magneto-rotational properties of SGR 0418+5729 can be reproduced if this is an aged magnetar, approximate to 1 Myr old, which experienced substantial field decay. The large initial toroidal component of the internal field required to match the observed properties of SGR 0418+5729 ensures that crustal fractures, and hence bursting activity, can still occur at the present time. The thermal spectrum observed during the outburst decay is compatible with the predictions of a resonant Compton scattering model (as in other SGRs/AXPs) if the field is low and the magnetospheric twist is moderate.

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