Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:46:04.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Gamma-ray Loud and Gamma-ray Quiet Radio Pulsars – A Unification Scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

Patrick Weltevrede
Patrick Weltevrede*
Affiliation:
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, The University of Manchester Alan Turing Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom email: [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.

A radio polarization study of gamma-ray-detected pulsars reveals a surprising tendency for the magnetic and rotation axes to be relatively aligned. This provides tension with gamma-ray models, which disfavour such alignment. The lack of correlation between these findings and those derived from the gamma-ray light curves suggests problems in the models. To make the data consistent with a random orientation of the magnetic field the emission regions could be assumed to extend outside what is traditionally thought to be the open-field-line region in a magnetic inclination angle dependent way. Both acceptance and rejection of this hypothesis has important consequences. Finally, a unification scheme is proposed to explain the observational differences between gamma-ray loud and gamma-ray quiet radio pulsars. This unification scheme takes the orientation of the line of sight and the magnetic inclination angle to be key parameters affecting both the radio and gamma-ray light-curve morphology.

Keywords

pulsars: generalgamma rays: observations
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 13 , Symposium S337: Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years , September 2017 , pp. 88 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2018 

References

Abdo, A. A., et al., 2013, ApJS, 208, 17Google Scholar
Rookyard, S. C., Weltevrede, P., & Johnston, S., 2015a, MNRAS, 446, 3367Google Scholar
Rookyard, S. C., Weltevrede, P., & Johnston, S., 2015b, MNRAS, 446, 3356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rookyard, S. C., Weltevrede, P., Johnston, S., & Kerr, M., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2018Google Scholar
Watters, K. P., Romani, R. W., Weltevrede, P., & Johnston, S., 2009, ApJ, 694, 1289Google Scholar
Weltevrede, P., 2016, A&A, 590, 109Google Scholar
Weltevrede, P., et al., 2010, Publications of the Astron. Soc. Australia, 27, 64Google Scholar
Weltevrede, P., & Johnston, S., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weltevrede, P., & Wright, G., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2117Google Scholar