Discovery of Delayed Spin-up Behavior Following Two Large Glitches in the Crab Pulsar, and the Statistics of Such Processes

Ge, Ming-Yu; Zhang, S. N.; Lu, Fangjun; Li, T. P.; Yuan, Jianping; Zheng, Xiaoping; Huang, Y.; Zheng, S.; Chen, Y. P.; Chang, Zhi; Tuo, Y. L.; Cheng, Quan; Güngör, Can; Song, L. M.; Xu, Y. P.; Cao, X. L.; Chen, Y.; Liu, C. Z.; Zhang, S.; Qu, J. L.; Bu, Q. C.; Cai, C.; Chen, G.; Chen, L.; Chen, M. Z.; Chen, T. X.; Chen, Y. B.; Cui, Wei; Cui, Weiwei; Deng, J. K.; Dong, Yongwei; Du, Yongzhai; Fu, M. X.; Gao, G. H.; Gao, He; Gao, Min; Gu, Y. D.; Guan, J.; Guo, Chengcheng; Han, Danxiang; Hao, Longfei; Jia, Haiqiang; Jia, S.; Jiang, Luhua; Jiang, Weichun; Jin, C.; Jin, J.; Jin, Yongjie; Kong, L. D.; Li, B.; Li, D.; Li, C. K.; Li, G.; Li, M. S.; Li, Wen Feng; Li, X.; Li, X. B.; Li, X. F.; Li, Y. G.; Li, Z. W.; Li, Z. X.; Liu, Z. Y.; Liang, X. H.; Liao, J. Y.; Liu, G. Q.; Liu, Han–Wen; Liu, X. J.; Liu, Y. N.; Lü, Bo; Lu, X. F.; Luo, Q.; Luo, T.; Ma, Xiang; Meng, Bin; Nang, Y.; Nie, J. Y.; Ou, G.; Sai, N.; Shang, R. C.; Song, X. Y.; Sun, Liang; Tan, Ying; Tao, Lian; Wang, C.; Wang, G. F.; Wang, J.; Wang, J. B.; Wang, M.; Wang, Ning; Wang, W. S.; Wang, Y. D.; Wang, Y. S.; Wen, Xiang-Yang; Wen, Z. G.; Wu, B. B.; Wu, Mei‐Hwan; Xiao, G. C.; Xiao, Shuo; Xiong, S. L.; Xu, Yiqing; Yan, W. M.; Yang, Jiawei; Yang, S.; Yang, Yanji; Yi, Q. B.; Yin, Q. Q.; You, Y.; Yue, Youling; Zhang, A. M.; Zhang, C. M.; Zhang, D. P.; Zhang, Faming; Zhang, H. M.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, W. C.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, W. Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. F.; Zhang, Y. J.; Zhang, Zhaojian; Zhang, Z. L.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, Xiaofan; Zheng, W.; Zhou, D. K.; Zhou, Jianfeng; Xiao-Hong, Zhou; Zhuang, R. L.; Zhu, Yajun

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8db6

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shaw et al (2018) compared the radio pulse profiles and X-ray fluxes of the Crab pulsar before and after the 2017 glitch, the largest one ever observed from this source, and no significant variation of the X-ray flux was detected with the monitoring observations by Swift/BAT and MAXI (Shaw et al 2018). However, the spin-down power inferred from the post-glitch rotation parameters is only about 0.7% higher than the pre-glitch value, and the persistent component is even much smaller, about 0.13% (Shaw et al 2018;Ge et al 2020). Neither the radio nor the X-ray flux measurement reported has been shown precise enough to examine such small differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Due to the large field of view (∼2π) of GBM and its relatively high count rate (∼30 cnts s −1 ) from the Crab pulsar, the GBM data can be used to monitor the long-term temporal properties of the Crab pulsar continuously. The specific data processing and TOA calculation could be found in Ge et al (2020).…”

Section: Data Reduction For Fermi/gbmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, where Δν di and τ i are the amplitude and timescale of the i th component (Lyne et al 1992;Wong et al 2001;Shaw et al 2018;Zhang et al 2018;Ge et al 2020). These post-glitch behaviors are ascribed to the gradual recoupling of the interior superfluid and the crust (Baym et al 1969).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Invariable X-Ray Profile and Flux of the Crab Pulsar during Its Two Glitches

Zhang

Ge²,

et al. 2022

ApJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare the X-ray profiles and fluxes of the Crab pulsar before and after the glitches in 2017 and 2019, using the data collected by the Insight-HXMT, NICER, and Fermi/GBM, to test whether there is any evidence for magnetosphere rearrangement after glitch. For the 2017 glitch, the profiles from Insight-HXMT (27–200 keV) and NICER (0.5–10 keV) remain unchanged within rms 0.47% and 0.28%, respectively, while the pulsed fluxes measured by these two detectors remain stable with 1σ uncertainty of 0.07% and 0.011%. Considering that the persistent offset of the spin-down rate post-glitch is 0.13% and the X-ray luminosity of the Crab pulsar is proportional to E ̇ 1.6 ± 0.3 , we find that the X-ray flux does not increase proportionally to the spin-down power at a significance of about 2.8σ by fitting the flux measurements with a Heaviside function, and thus the additional torque constantly braking the pulsar spin post-glitch is unlikely due to a global magnetosphere variation. For the 2019 glitch, after which a possible soft X-ray polarization variation was detected, the profiles remain unchanged within rms 2.02%, 0.35%, 0.90%, and 0.47% in 10–200, 0.5–10, 3–4.5, and 27–200 keV, respectively, suggesting that the geometry of the X-ray emitting region after the glitch is similar to the pre-glitch one. Therefore the possible polarization variation during the 2019 glitch is unlikely a consequence of the overall magnetosphere changes. The invariance of the pulse profiles is also verified by Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests and that of pulsed fluxes by Z-tests.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Data Reduction For Fermi/gbmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Invariable X-Ray Profile and Flux of the Crab Pulsar during Its Two Glitches

Zhang

Ge²,

et al. 2022

ApJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The third such resolved spin-up in the Vela pulsar was in 2016 (Palfreyman 2016) and was constrained to occur in less than 12.5 s by Ashton et al (2019). Larger glitches in the Crab pulsar have been shown to exhibit slow rises occurring on timescales up to ∼2 days (e.g., Shaw et al 2018;Basu et al 2019;Ge et al 2020;Shaw et al 2021). Such observations provide crucial information to the theoretical models (Graber et al 2018;Haskell et al 2018;Montoli et al 2020) and, together with precise measurements of the glitch parameters and recovery, advance our understanding of the micro-physics of the NS interior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Jodrell Bank Glitch Catalogue: 106 new rotational glitches in 70 pulsars

Basu,

Shaw,

Antonopoulou

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulsar glitches are rapid spin-up events that occur in the rotation of neutron stars, providing a valuable probe into the physics of the interiors of these objects. Long-term monitoring of a large number of pulsars facilitates the detection of glitches and the robust measurements of their parameters. The Jodrell Bank pulsar timing programme regularly monitors more than 800 radio pulsars and has accrued, in some cases, over 50 years of timing history on individual objects. In this paper we present 106 new glitches in 70 radio pulsars as observed up to the end of 2018. For 70% of these pulsars, the event we report is its only known glitch. For each new glitch we provide measurements of its epoch, amplitude and any detected changes to the spindown rate of the star. Combining these new glitches with those listed in the Jodrell Bank glitch catalogue we analyse a total sample of 543 glitches in 178 pulsars. We model the distribution of glitch amplitudes and spin-down rate changes using a mixture of two Gaussian components. We corroborate the known dependence of glitch rate and activity on pulsar spin-down rates and characteristic ages, and show that younger pulsars tend to exhibit larger glitches. Pulsars whose spin-down rates between 10 −14 Hz s −1 and 10 −10.5 Hz s −1 show a mean reversal of 1.8% of their spin-down as a consequence of glitches. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the superfluid vortex unpinning models of pulsar glitches.

show abstract

“…This is, in part due to the finite resources available to observatories coupled with the large numbers of pulsars which are monitored by pulsar timing campaigns, resulting in a low probability that a pulsar will glitch during an observation. However, due to our semi-continuous monitoring of the Crab pulsar at JBO, the rise times of the large glitches of 1989 (Lyne et al 1992), 1996(Wong et al 2001) 2004, 2011(Ge et al 2020) and 2017 (Shaw et al 2018a) were partially resolved in time. The most recent Crab pulsar glitch fortuitously occurred during an observation of the pulsar on 2019 July 23 and was initially reported in Shaw et al (2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The slow rise and recovery of the 2019 Crab pulsar glitch

Shaw,

Keith,

Lyne

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present updated measurements of the Crab pulsar glitch of 2019 July 23 using a dataset of pulse arrival times spanning ∼5 months. On MJD 58687, the pulsar underwent its seventh largest glitch observed to date, characterised by an instantaneous spin-up of ∼1 𝜇Hz. Following the glitch the pulsar's rotation frequency relaxed exponentially towards pre-glitch values over a timescale of approximately one week, resulting in a permanent frequency increment of ∼0.5 𝜇Hz. Due to our semi-continuous monitoring of the Crab pulsar, we were able to partially resolve a fraction of the total spin-up. This delayed spin-up occurred exponentially over a timescale of ∼18 hours. This is the sixth Crab pulsar glitch for which part of the initial rise was resolved in time and this phenomenon has not been observed in any other glitching pulsars, offering a unique opportunity to study the microphysical processes governing interactions between the neutron star interior and the crust.

show abstract

Discovery of Delayed Spin-up Behavior Following Two Large Glitches in the Crab Pulsar, and the Statistics of Such Processes

Cited by 15 publications

References 58 publications

Invariable X-Ray Profile and Flux of the Crab Pulsar during Its Two Glitches

Invariable X-Ray Profile and Flux of the Crab Pulsar during Its Two Glitches

The Jodrell Bank Glitch Catalogue: 106 new rotational glitches in 70 pulsars

The slow rise and recovery of the 2019 Crab pulsar glitch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About