Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T17:10:15.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic Field Decay, or Just Period-Dependent Beaming?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2016

Joeri van Leeuwen  and
Frank Verbunt
Joeri van Leeuwen
Affiliation:
Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University, PO Box 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Frank Verbunt
Affiliation:
Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University, PO Box 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands

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.

Several recent papers conclude that radio-pulsar magnetic fields decay on a time-scale of 10 Myr, apparently contradicting earlier results. We have implemented the methods of these papers in our code and show that this preference for rapid field decay is caused by the assumption that the beaming fraction does not depend on the period. When we do include this dependence, we find that the observed pulsar properties are reproduced best when the modeled field does not decay. When we assume that magnetic fields of new-born neutron stars are from a distribution sufficiently wide to explain magnetars, the magnetic field and period distributions we predict for radio are pulsars wider than observed. Finally we find that the observed velocities overestimate the intrinsic velocity distribution.

Type
Part 1: Neutron Star Formation and Evolution
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 218: Young Neutrons Stars and their Environments , 2004 , pp. 41 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2004 

References

Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, D., & Verbunt, F. 1991, A&A, 242, 128.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Hartman, J. W., & Verbunt, F. 1992, A&A, 254, 198.Google Scholar
Cordes, J. M., & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315.Google Scholar
Gonthier, P. L., Ouellette, M. S., Berrier, J., O'Brien, S., & Harding, A. K. 2002, ApJ, 565, 482.Google Scholar
Hansen, B., & Phinney, E. S. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, J. W., Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R., & Verbunt, F. 1997, A&A, 322, 477.Google Scholar
Helfand, D. J., & Tademaru, E. 1977, ApJ, 216, 842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyne, A. G., & Manchester, R. N. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 477.Google Scholar
Makishima, K., Mihara, T., Nagase, F., & Tanaka, Y. 1999, ApJ, 525, 978.Google Scholar
Narayan, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, J., & Verbunt, F. 2004, A&A, in preparation.Google Scholar
Vivekanand, M., & Narayan, R. 1981, J. Astrophys. Astr., 2, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar