Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T18:23:14.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The distance indicators in gamma-ray pulsars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2013

Wei Wang*
Affiliation:
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China email: wangwei@bao.ac.cn
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.

Distance measurements of gamma-ray pulsars are challenging questions in present pulsar studies. The Large Area Telescope (LAT) aboard the Fermi gamma-ray observatory discovered more than 100 gamma-ray pulsars, including 34 new gamma-selected pulsars which nearly have no distance information. We study the relation between gamma-ray emission efficiency (η=Lγ/Ė) and pulsar parameters, for young radio-selected gamma-ray pulsars with known distance information. We have introduced three generation order parameters to describe gamma-ray emission properties of pulsars, and find a strong correlation between η and ζ3, the generation order parameter which reflects γ-ray photon generations in pair cascade processes induced by magnetic field absorption in pulsar magnetosphere. A good correlation between η and BLC, the magnetic field at the light cylinder radius, is also found. These correlations can serve as distance indicators in gamma-ray pulsars, to evaluate distances for gamma-selected pulsars. Distances of 35 gamma-selected pulsars are estimated, which could be tested by other distance measurement methods. The physical origin of the correlations may be also interesting for pulsar studies.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Abdo, A. A.et al. 2010, ApJS, 187, 460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camilo, F., et al. 2009 ApJ 705, 1Google Scholar
Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, astro-ph/0207156Google Scholar
Faherty, J., Walter, F. M., & Anderson, J. 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 225Google Scholar
Gotthelf, E. V. 2003, ApJ, 591, 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, T. L., Roger, R. S., & Higgs, L. A. 1980, A&AS, 39, 133Google Scholar
Ng, C.-Y., Roberts, M. S. E., & Romani, R. W. 2005, ApJ, 627, 904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, T.et al. 1999, ApJ, 526, 764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineault, S.et al. 1993, AJ, 105, 1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. & Zhang, Y. 2004, ApJ, 601, 1038Google Scholar
Wang, W., Jiang, Z. J., Pun, C. S. J., & Cheng, K. S. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. 2009, RAA, 9, 1241Google Scholar
Wang, W. 2011, RAA, 11, 824Google Scholar