论文标题
Magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607爆发后的高振动观测和可变旋转行为
High-cadence observations and variable spin behaviour of magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 after its outburst
论文作者
论文摘要
我们报告了新的Magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607的多频无线电观察结果,随后又有一个月以上的节奏。该观察结果不到35小时,在注册的第一次爆发后开始。我们获得了时间,极化和光谱信息。 Swift J1818.0-1607对于无线电发射磁体具有异常陡峭的频谱,并且具有相对狭窄且简单的脉冲曲线。极化的位置角摆动在脉冲轮廓上是平坦的,可能表明我们的视线将掠过发射光束的边缘。这也可以解释陡峭的频谱。自旋进化显示出旋转速率的差异很大,与我们的观察过程中的四个不同的时序事件有关。这些事件可能与第二脉冲成分的外观和消失有关。第一个计时事件与我们的实际观察结果一致,而我们没有检测到发射特性的显着变化,这些变化可能会揭示进一步的磁层变化。从几个月中的时间测量中推断出的特征年龄几乎差不多。在大约100天内进行的长期旋转测量表明,特征年龄约为500年,比以前报道的大。尽管Swift J1818.0-1607仍然可能是迄今为止检测到的最年轻的中子恒星(和磁标)之一,但我们要用特征年龄作为真正的年龄指标,鉴于其计算后的警告。
We report on multi-frequency radio observations of the new magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607, following it for more than one month with high cadence. The observations commenced less than 35 hours after its registered first outburst. We obtained timing, polarisation and spectral information. Swift J1818.0-1607 has an unusually steep spectrum for a radio emitting magnetar and also has a relatively narrow and simple pulse profile. The position angle swing of the polarisation is flat over the pulse profile, possibly suggesting that our line-of-sight grazes the edge of the emission beam. This may also explain the steep spectrum. The spin evolution shows large variation in the spin-down rate, associated with four distinct timing events over the course of our observations. Those events may be related to the appearance and disappearance of a second pulse component. The first timing event coincides with our actual observations, while we did not detect significant changes in the emission properties which could reveal further magnetospheric changes. Characteristic ages inferred from the timing measurements over the course of months vary by nearly an order of magnitude. A longer-term spin-down measurement over approximately 100 days suggests an characteristic age of about 500 years, larger than previously reported. Though Swift J1818.0-1607 could still be one of the youngest neutron stars (and magnetars) detected so far, we caution using the characteristic age as a true-age indicator given the caveats behind its calculation.