Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:51:41.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion and advection model for particle transport in young pulsar wind nebulae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2013

Xiaping Tang  and
Roger A. Chevalier
Xiaping Tang
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325; email: [email protected], [email protected]
Roger A. Chevalier
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325; email: [email protected], [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model for young pulsar wind nebulae (PWN) has been successful in reproducing many features of the nebulae. The model is characterized by a termination shock (TS) between the PWN and unshocked pulsar wind. Relativistic particles are injected at the TS and follow an advective flow to the outer boundary. However, toroidal structure of well studied young PWN like the Crab Nebula, 3C 58 and G21.5-0.9 is only present in the region close to the TS. In the outer parts of the nebulae, filamentary and loop-like structure is observed. Also, the radial variation of spectral index due to synchrotron losses is smoother than expected in the MHD flow model. We find that a pure diffusion model with energy independent diffusion and a transmitting boundary can reproduce the basic data on nebular size and spectral index variation for the Crab, 3C 58, and G21.5-0.9. Energy dependent diffusion is also discussed. Power law variations of the coefficient with energy are degenerate with variation in the input particle energy distribution index in the steady state case. Monte Carlo simulations of particle transport with both diffusion and advection for the Crab nebula and 3C 58 suggest a picture in which advection dominates the inner part of the PWN where toroidal structure is clearly present. Diffusion dominates the outer part of the PWN where filamentary and loop-like structure is observed. The source of the chaotic field is uncertain, but may be related to Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the outer boundary of young nebulae and/or the kink instability of the toroidal magnetic field.

Keywords

ISM: individual (Crab Nebula) —ISM: supernova remnants— pulsars: general — stars: windsoutflows
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 8 , Symposium S291: Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years , August 2012 , pp. 265 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Camus, N. F., Komissarov, S. S., Bucciantini, N., & Hughes, P. A. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1241Google Scholar
Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., & Bucciantini, N. 2004, A&A, 421, 1063Google Scholar
Del Zanna, L., Volpi, D., Amato, E., & Bucciantini, N. 2006, A&A, 453, 621Google Scholar
Gaensler, B. M. & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARAA, 44, 17Google Scholar
Gratton, L. 1972, Ap&SS, 16, 81Google Scholar
Kargaltsev, O. & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. Bassa, C. G., Wang, Z., Cumming, A., Kaspi, V. M. (Melville, NY: AIP), 171Google Scholar
Kennel, C. F. & Coroniti, F. V. 1984a, ApJ, 283, 694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennel, C. F. & Coroniti, F. V. 1984b, ApJ, 283, 710Google Scholar
Komissarov, S. S. & Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L93Google Scholar
Komissarov, S. S. & Lyutikov, M. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2017Google Scholar
Rees, M. J. & Gunn, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 1Google Scholar
Safi-Harb, S., Harrus, I. M., Petre, R., Pavlov, G. G., Koptsevich, A. B., & Sanwal, D. 2001, ApJ, 561, 308Google Scholar
Slane, P., Chen, Y., Schulz, N. S., Seward, F. D., Hughes, J. P., & Gaensler, B. M. 2000, ApJ, 533, L29Google Scholar
Slane, P., Helfand, D. J., Reynolds, S. P., Gaensler, B. M., Lemiere, A., & Wang, Z. 2008, ApJ, 676, L33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, X. & Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpi, D., Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., & Bucciantini, N. 2008, A&A, 485, 337Google Scholar
Wilson, A. S. 1972, MNRAS, 160, 355Google Scholar