Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
D R . A N N A WAT T S , U N I V E R S I T Y O F A M S T E R D A M
N E U T R O N S TA R A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y W I T H M A G N E TA R B U R S T S
D A N I E L A H U P P E N K O T H E N L U C Y H E I L , A L E X A N D E R VA N D E R H O R S T, C H R I S E L E N B A A S , T H I J S VA N P U T T E N , C A R O L I N E D ’ A N G E L O , P H I L U T T L E Y, M I C H I E L VA N D E R K L I S ( U VA ) !C H R Y S S A K O U V E L I O T O U A N D T H E F E R M I G B M M A G N E TA R T E A M
G I A N T F L A R E A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
Giant flare QPOs: Israel et al. 2005, Strohmayer & Watts 2005,6, Watts & Strohmayer 2006
G I A N T F L A R E A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
Giant flare QPOs: Israel et al. 2005, Strohmayer & Watts 2005,6, Watts & Strohmayer 2006
18-1800 Hz Quasi-Periodic Oscillations (QPOs)
N E U T R O N S TA R C O M P O N E N T S
Watts 2013
S E I S M I C V I B R AT I O N M O D E L S
• Coupled magneto-torsional oscillations of crust/core.
• Alfven modes are continua: frequency drifts intrinsic.
• Frequencies depend on mass, radius, superfluidity, crust composition, magnetic field strength and geometry.
• Decay times important.
See for example: Gabler et al. 2013, 14;
Passamonti & Lander 2013, Huppenkothen, Watts & Levin 2014
S M A L L B U R S T A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
Fermi GBM bursts from SGR 0501+4516 (Huppenkothen et al. 2013)
S M A L L B U R S T A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
• QPO searches are complicated by the ‘burst envelope’.
• Traditional method (Monte Carlo simulations of lightcurves) fails in absence of simple functional model for emission.
Huppenkothen et al. 2013
S M A L L B U R S T A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
• We use a Bayesian procedure for modelling the periodogram, assuming a red noise process.
• Method is highly conservative.
S M A L L B U R S T A S T E R O S E I S M O L O G Y
• We use a Bayesian procedure for modelling the periodogram, assuming a red noise process.
• Method is highly conservative.
Unofficially known as the ‘Palin Method’
T H E S G R J 1 5 5 0 - 5 4 1 8 B U R S T S T O R M
Fermi GBM burst storm, January 2009 (Kaneko et al. 2010, van der Horst et al. 2012 )
T H E S G R J 1 5 5 0 - 5 4 1 8 B U R S T S T O R M
Huppenkothen et al. 2014a, b
• Stacking consecutive bursts in most active periods: Significant QPOs (final p < 0.001) in frequency range (93-127 Hz) found in giant flares.
• Similar signals in RXTE data of SGR 1806-20/SGR 1900+14 bursts.
• Global modes excited by burst storms? Excitation threshold?
T H E S G R J 1 5 5 0 - 5 4 1 8 B U R S T S T O R M
Huppenkothen et al. 2014a
• Single burst: Candidate (final p < 0.025) QPO at 260 Hz, different frequency range and broader than giant flare QPOs.
• Core damping? In line with theoretical predictions.
• Signature of trigger mechanism, similar to variability claimed in giant flare peaks?
L I G H T C U R V E M O D E L S
• Is there a simple empirical function that can generate magnetar burst light curves?
• Bayesian hierarchical models: can bursts can be fit as ‘spike cascades’? Yes.
• Testing predictions of simple cascade models for trigger mechanism, including SOC models.
Decompose light curves into superpositions of simple shapes (Huppenkothen et al. in prep).
L I G H T C U R V E M O D E L S
• Is there a simple empirical function that can generate magnetar burst light curves?
• Bayesian hierarchical models: can bursts can be fit as ‘spike cascades’? Yes.
• Testing predictions of simple cascade models for trigger mechanism, including SOC models.
Decompose light curves into superpositions of simple shapes (Huppenkothen et al. in prep).
S U M M A R Y
• Fermi GBM has given us the first robust detections of seismic vibrations in small magnetar bursts
• QPO pipeline ready for future burst storms and the next giant flare
• Can burst storms excite global vibrations?
• Probing time evolution and variability around the trigger point.