Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T09:33:39.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The X-ray Properties of Supernova Remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Knox S. Long*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Johns Hopkins University

Extract

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.

There are at least 25 supernova remnants (SNR) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) with X-ray luminosities exceeding 2 × 1035 erg s−1. As many as 25 other SNR may be contained in the X-ray survey conducted with the Einstein Observatory of the LMC. The X-ray spectra of the 6 SNR observed with the Solid State Spectrometer (SSS) resemble their galactic counterparts; two SNR, N157B and 0540–69.3, may emit X-rays primarily by synchrotron radiation. The density of the medium in which SNR are expanding inferred from the X-ray data appears to decrease with SNR diameter; the density of the ISM inferred from the Balmer lines of 4 new SNR in the LMC is much lower than that inferred from X-ray observations. The apparent thermal energy content of LMC SNR evolves with diameter, peaking at ∼5 × 1050 ergs. The ratio of the densities of the X-ray and [SII] emitting plasmas is consistent with their being in pressure equilibrium. The SN rate in the LMC is ∼1 per 100–200 years. This is the number of SN expected from other considerations. The number diameter relation of LMC SNR is consistent with free expansion. The X-ray data are difficult to understand in terms of traditional Sedov models on SNR evolution; probably ejecta and multiphase ISM are required to explain the X-ray properties of LMC SNR.

Type
VI. Supernova Remnants in Other Galaxies
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1983 

References

Becker, RH, Holt, SS, Smith, BW, White, NE, Boldt, EA, Mushotsky, RF and Serlemitsos, PF 1980A, ApJ (Letters) 235, L5.Google Scholar
Becker, RH, Szymkowiak, AE, Boldt, EA, Holt, SS and Serlemitsos, PJ 1980B, ApJ (Letters) 240, L33.Google Scholar
Blair, WP, Kirshner, RP, and Chevalier, RA 1981, ApJ 247, 879.Google Scholar
Clark, DH, Tuohy, IR, Long, KS, Syzmkowiak, AE, Dopita, MA, Mathewson, DS, Culhane, JL 1982, ApJ 255, 440.Google Scholar
Davies, RD, Eliot, KH and Meaburn, J 1976, MNRAS 81, 89.Google Scholar
Dopita, MA 1979, ApJ Suppl 40, 456.Google Scholar
Fabian, AC, Willingale, R, Pye, JP, Murray, SS and Fabbiano, G 1980, MNRAS 193, 175.Google Scholar
Gronenschild, EHBM and Mewe, R 1982, Astr Ap Suppl 48, 305.Google Scholar
Lasker, BM 1977, PASP 89, 474.Google Scholar
Long, KS, Dopita, MA and Tuohy, IR 1982, ApJ 260, 202.Google Scholar
Long, KS and Helfand, DJ 1979, ApJ (Letters) 234, L77.Google Scholar
Long, KS, Helfand, DJ and Grabelsky, DA 1981, ApJ 248, 925.Google Scholar
Mathewson, DS and Clarke, JN 1973, ApJ 180, 725.Google Scholar
Mathewson, DS, Ford, VL, Dopita, MA, Tuohy, IR, Long, KS, and Helfand, DJ 1983, ApJ Suppl, in press.Google Scholar
McKee, CF and Ostriker, JP 1977, ApJ 218, 148.Google Scholar
Mills, BY 1983, this volume, p. 563.Google Scholar
Raymond, JC and Smith, BW 1977, ApJ Suppl 35, 419.Google Scholar
Seward, F, Gorenstein, P, and Tucker, W 1982, ApJ submitted.Google Scholar
Tuohy, IR, Dopita, MA, Mathewson, DS, Long, KS and Helfand, DJ 1982, ApJ, in press.Google Scholar
White, RL and Long, KS 1983, ApJ, in press.Google Scholar