text:
# NEW PULSARS FROM AN ARECIBO DRIFT SCAN SEARCH

## 1 Introduction

Pulsar searches work toward completion of the Galactic inventory of active neutron stars, and provide new tests of both the validity and robustness of emission models and ideas concerning the origin of pulsars. During the time of the Gregorian Dome upgrade at the Arecibo Observatory, a joint effort by several collaborations was aimed at surveying the sky visible from Arecibo (declination range roughly $``$1$`^{}`$to 39$`^{}`$) in search of new pulsars. A total of 44 pulsars including 5 MSPs have been discovered so far by the other institutions (Foster et al. 1995; Camilo et al. 1996; Ray et al. 1996b). The Berkeley/Cornell effort was divided into two independent areas of the sky, in which a total of 5 more pulsars have been discovered: 2 are reported by McLaughlin, Arzoumanian, & Cordes (2000), and 3 are reported here.

This paper presents the discovery of the 9th isolated millisecond pulsar (MSP111By convention ‘MSP’ refers to an object having both a millisecond period (P $`<`$ 100 ms) and a low period derivative ($`\dot{P}10^{19}`$ s s-1). Young pulsars with periods of tens of milliseconds are therefore excluded.) in the disk of the Galaxy and two additional slow pulsars. We investigate the new pulsars in terms of the Rotating Vector Model (RVM) (Radhakrishnan & Cooke 1969) and models of core vs. cone emission (Rankin 1983). The new isolated MSP adds to the 8 other known objects in this category that require disruption of their companions if they achieved millisecond periods through accretion of matter and angular momentum from a companion star (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel 1991; Phinney & Kulkarni 1994; van den Heuvel & Bitzaraki 1995).

We present the details of the search in §2, the confirmation process in §3, and our observations and the resulting new pulsar timing models in §4. In §5 we present both intensity and polarization profiles of the new objects and use the results for a detailed study of the magnetospheric geometry of PSR J0030+0451. In §6 we summarize the results and briefly discuss MSP evolution.

## 2 Arecibo Drift Search for Pulsars

For the purposes of the joint search effort, the sky was divided into declination strips of 1. The Berkeley/Cornell team was assigned the declinations centered at $`0.5^{}`$, $`4.5^{}`$, $`9.5^{}`$, $`14.5^{}`$, $`19.5^{}`$, $`24.5^{}`$, $`29.5^{}`$ and $`34.5^{}`$. We are reporting here on a total of 470 square degrees of these strips that were successfully surveyed with a manageable level of radio frequency interference (RFI) between 1994 October and 1995 February.

During the upgrade construction the azimuth arm was fixed, but observations were still possible as the sky drifted past the parked receiver. We used the 430-MHz line feed receiver with 8 MHz bandwidth which was divided by analog filters into 32 channels. The detected powers from orthogonally polarized channels were summed and Nyquist sampled at a 4-kHz rate using the ADAGIO data acquisition system. The observations consisted of long integrations taken with the telescope at a fixed azimuth and elevation. Because a pulsar transits the telescope beam ($`10^{}`$ half-power width) in about 30 seconds, we analyzed the data in blocks of $`2^{17}`$ time samples ($`32`$s) with each block sensitive to roughly a $`8^{}\times 10^{}`$ region of the sky.

In the first column of Table 1 we list in square degrees the total sky area that was relatively RFI-free for each declination strip. We obtained no data for strips centered at $`14.5^{}`$ and $`19.5^{}`$. About 41% of the area covered was observed more than once. The area observed in each declination strip is given in the second column of Table 1. In parentheses are the percentages corresponding to the fraction of the strip covered in our survey, and the area observed more than once is given in column 3. There was an abundance of data taken at 9$`^{}`$declination as a result of the telescope being essentially fixed there during the final days before telescope operations were completely halted for the upgrade.

We processed the data using essentially the same well-tested software from previous pulsar searches performed with the same instrumentation (Zepka et al. 1996). Our analysis used clusters of workstations at Berkeley and Cornell. We discarded pulsar candidates from observations in which strong RFI was detected. The discarded fraction was nearly $`30\%`$ of the total.

The off-line data processing, which is described more fully in Zepka et al. (1996), consists of removing trial dispersive delays followed by fast Fourier transforming and harmonic summing to look for maxima in frequency. The harmonic summing (up to 8 harmonics per candidate) increases the sensitivity of the search more for long period pulsars, so the sensitivity limit to the shortest period MSPs will be higher than the 1 mJy we have quoted. See Foster et al. 1995, Ray et al. 1995, and Camilo, Nice, & Taylor 1996 for curves showing typical sensitivity vs. pulse period.

Three candidate pulsars were confirmed in the analysis of the drift scan data. All three were detected at the same Dispersion Measure (DM) and position on at least 3 days and with a similar profile on each of the days. In addition to these 3 pulsars we selected the top 22 candidates detected by the search code which had a significance at least 6$`\sigma `$ above the noise and which were also promising candidates based on either the cleanliness of the data (amount of RFI present) or their detection on multiple days. These 25 candidates were reobserved in targeted searches during the confirmation run described in §3.

A rough estimate of the sensitivity of the search is obtained by using the following expression which gives the minimum detectable flux at 10$`\sigma `$ for a pulsar at high Galactic latitude and at the beam center for zero zenith angle:

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{10T_{\mathrm{sys}}}{G\sqrt{n\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \tau }}\sqrt{\frac{W}{PW}}=0.6\mathrm{mJy},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`G=17`$ K Jy-1 is the effective gain of the Arecibo telescope at $`430\mathrm{MHz}`$, $`n=2`$ is the number of polarizations summed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =8\mathrm{MHz}`$ is the total observing bandwidth, $`T_{\mathrm{sys}}=70K`$ is the system temperature, $`\tau =32`$s is the integration time, $`P`$ is the period of the pulsar and $`W=0.1P`$ is a typical pulsar duty cycle, including effects of dispersion smearing within the channel bandwidth and scattering. The minimum flux increases monotonically with zenith angle, which means that for declinations away from $`18^{}`$ (the latitude of the Arecibo Observatory) the search is less sensitive (see Camilo, Nice, & Taylor 1996 for gain vs. zenith angle at the Arecibo Observatory using the 430-MHz linefeed). The maximum detectable period of the search was set by software to 5s. We estimate the overall sensitivity of the search to be approximately 1 mJy. There is a large uncertainty in the completeness of the search at the 1 mJy limit owing to the “clean” candidate selection process, the favoritism given to multiply observed candidates and to high numbers of harmonics, and the systematic effects related to zenith angle.

In addition, we detected the previously known pulsars J0621+1002 (28ms), B0626+24 (0.48s), J1022+1001 (16ms), B1541+09 (0.75s), B1633+24 (0.49s), B1726$``$00 (0.38s) and J2222+2923 (0.28s), the first 6 of which have flux densities of 7, 27, 14, 54, 9, and 10 mJy respectively, while the flux of J2222+2923 is unknown. The following pulsars were missed, i.e. their positions are in a region that was searched at least once and we did not detect them: J0051+04 (0.36s), J0533+04 (0.96s), J1834$``$0010 (0.52s), J1913+0935 (1.2s), and J1926+0431 (1.1s). The fluxes of the last three are 5, 22, and 3 mJy, respectively, while those of the first two are unknown. The new pulsars have flux densities of 2 to 8 mJy as reported below.

One measure of the sensitivity of a search is the total number of pulsars, new and previously known, detected per area. Our search has similar sensitivity to the 3 other declination strip surveys (Ray et al. 1996a; Foster et al. 1995; Camilo et al. 1996), which had a detection rate ranging from 1 pulsar per 36 to 46 sq. deg., with an average detection rate of 1 pulsar per 41 sq. deg. We detected 1 pulsar per 47 sq. deg.

## 3 Confirmation of Pulsar Candidates

In 1997 December the Arecibo Observatory was just seeing first light after the upgrade. Our initial observation made use of the 430-MHz line-feed receiver on Carriage House 1, the same system used in the drift search. The entire platform was higher than normal which led to a pointing uncertainty of about 0.5 and a shift in the center frequency of the 430-MHz line-feed to 433 MHz. With the telescope in this state we made our confirmation run of the 25 candidates from our search. For each of the 25 candidates we took a 30-minute time-series data set using the Penn State Pulsar Machine which has 128 channels covering 8 MHz of bandwidth and uses a sample time of 80 $`\mu `$s (Foster et al. 1995).

Of the 25 candidate pulsars gleaned from our search, only the ones detected on multiple days were confirmed: J0030+0451 (4.8ms), J0711+0931 (2.4s), and J1313+0933 (0.85s). PSR J0030+0451 was also detected independently by D’Amico (2000). A fourth candidate which had been seen on multiple days of the search (J0814+09, 0.65s) was not confirmed in the 1997 December observations discussed, and has not been confirmed thus far. We looked for each of the remaining candidates on at least one other night, and in most cases two nights, without detecting any additional pulsars.

## 4 Timing Models for the New Pulsars

Follow up observations of the 3 new pulsars were conducted over a period of 2.3 years from 1997 December through 2000 March at the Arecibo Observatory using the Arecibo-Berkeley Pulsar Processor. This signal processor provides coherent dispersion removal within each of 32 channels; see Backer et al. (1997) for a partial technical description. The dispersion removal is done via complex convolution of voltage samples in the time domain, using up to 1024 time samples for each channel for channel bandwidths less than or equal to 1 MHz. For intensity data one can use up to 3.6-MHz bandwidth per channel, making available 112-MHz overall bandwidth. Full Stokes parameters can be acquired for channel bandwidths up to 0.875 MHz.

The timing data were cross correlated with a template, and the resulting TOAs analyzed using the TEMPO software package222http://pulsar.princeton.edu/tempo. Table 2 provides spin, astrometric and other parameters for each of the 3 new pulsars. Finding the timing solution was challenging. Though we have more than 2 years of data on each pulsar, the time series are sparsely sampled. For PSR J0711+0931 we have 7 independent epochs of data, for J1313+0931 we have 5, and for PSR J0030+0451 we have 9, an epoch being defined by data separated from other data by two weeks or more. However, there are several epochs for each object, in which we have three or more days of data spread over a week. These epochs were critical for finding an overall timing solution because we obtain a phase connected solution within the epoch, i.e. a period, $`P`$, and apparent period derivative for that epoch, $`\dot{P}^{}`$. $`\dot{P}^{}`$ differs from the intrinsic period derivative owing primarily to $`1^{}`$ position errors. Connecting the $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}^{}`$ from different epochs then required finding this position offset, a simple task of fitting a sine wave to $`P`$ vs. epoch, whose derivative must be $`\dot{P}^{}`$ vs. epoch. Having found the position in this manner to within $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, we were then able to phase connect the entire data set and fit for the timing parameters shown in Table 2.

The root mean square (RMS) of the timing residuals quoted in Table 2 are from fits to the combined 430-MHz and 1.4-GHz data sets. The uncertainties in Right Ascension, Declination, $`P`$, and $`\dot{P}`$, are estimated by doubling the errors given by TEMPO, an ad hoc procedure that attempts to account for timing noise, if any, and other nonrandom sources of error in the fits.

The $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ for PSR J0030+0451, 4.8 ms and 1 $`\times 10^{20}`$ s s-1 respectively, are near the “death line”333See, e.g., Lorimer (1999) and Zhang, Harding, & Muslimov (2000) for discussions on the pulsar death line. of the MSP distribution (see §6 for further discussion). The $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ of the two slow pulsars fall centrally in the distribution of slow pulsars. PSR J0711+0931 is close to the plane of the Galaxy, while the other two are out of the plane. The 430-MHz luminosity of PSR J0030+0451 contends with two other pulsars for the lowest luminosity of the known MSPs: PSRs J1744-1134 and J2124-3358 at 0.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2 mJy kpc2 (Bailes et al. 1997).

PSR J0030+0451 is the 4th closest known MSP, and is potentially one of the most observable MSPs as an X-ray source. There is evidence that X-ray flux scales as $`\frac{\dot{E}}{D^2}\frac{\dot{P}}{P^3D^2}`$, where $`\dot{E}`$ is the energy loss rate, and $`D`$ is the distance to the pulsar (Becker & Truemper 1997). By this relation PSR J0030+0451 is expected to be the second brightest MSP in X-rays. Becker et al. (2000) report an X-ray detection using ROSAT. PSR J0030+0451 is the 11th MSP detected in X-rays and displays an X-ray profile similar to the radio profile.

We were able to fit for the proper motion of PSR J0030+0451 ( $`\mu _\alpha =20\pm 13`$ mas yr-1 and $`\mu _\delta =32\pm 31`$ mas yr-1), but this has limited significance owing to the two remaining degrees of freedom (9 epochs minus 7 free parameters including phase). The fit is actually more meaningful for the upper limit of 70 mas yr-1 that it places on the proper motion. Additionally, the measured $`\dot{P}`$ places an upper limit on the transverse velocity of the pulsar via the Shklovskii effect (Shklovskii 1970; Camilo, Thorsett, & Kulkarni 1994). In the case of PSR J0030+0451 the Shklovskii limit is 60 mas yr-1, similar to the upper limit from the proper motion fit. A typical space velocity for a recycled pulsar is 80 km s-1 (Cordes & Chernoff 1997), which corresponds to about 75 mas yr-1 for PSR J0030+0451 at a distance of 230 pc. Therefore most of the pulsar’s apparent $`\dot{P}`$ may be due to its proper motion.

## 5 Profiles: Intensity and Polarization

In addition to total intensity measurements of pulse profiles at 430-MHz and 1.4-GHz obtained during timing programs, polarization observations were made in 1998 June at the Arecibo Observatory with the 430 MHz line-feed receiver on Carriage House 1. See Sallmen (1998) for information on techniques employed. The data were not corrected for instrumental polarization, which would at worst convert 10% of linear power into circular power (Weisberg, Sellgren, & Rankin 1979; Stinebring et al. 1984). Relative phase between the two circular polarizations was measured by injecting a linearly polarized noise source into the receiver after the feed. The raw polarization data (orthogonal circular polarizations) were converted to absolute flux units using the standard bootstrap calibration method of determining the flux of a pulsed noise source by comparison with an unpolarized standard continuum source, and then calibrating the pulsar flux using the flux of the pulsed noise source. For standard flux calibrators at 430 MHz and 1.4 GHz we used nearby sources PKS 0829+18 (0.71 Jy at 410 MHz, Wright & Otrupcek 1990) and J0149+0555 (0.91 Jy at 1420 MHz, Condon et al. 1998).

### 5.1 PSR J0711+0531

PSR J0711+0931 is a slow pulsar with P=1.2 s that is close to the Galactic plane ($`b=`$8.8) and at a distance of $``$ 2.5 kpc which is calculated from the DM using the model of Taylor & Cordes (1993). At 430 MHz this pulsar displays two components, while at 1.4 GHz there is a single component (Fig. 1). The bifurcation of component structure as frequency is decreased is indicative of “conal” emission (Rankin 1983). However our data are not sufficient to determine whether the peak actually bifurcates, or whether a new component becomes visible at lower frequencies. Better frequency coverage between 430 MHz and 1.4 GHz is required to make this determination. The DM quoted in Table 2 is calculated by lining up the single peak of the 1.4-GHz template profile with the main peak of the 430-MHz template profile. The small dip in intensity just before the peak is a real-time signal processing error that appeared in our data around the time these data were taken. This dip is also visible in Figure 2 (PSR J1313+0931), and does not represent any phenomenon intrinsic to the pulsar.

The polarization position angle swing in PSR J0711+0931 is fit well by the rotating vector model (RVM), but due to the limited extent of significant polarization in this profile, there is no unique determination of $`\alpha `$, the dipole magnetic field inclination angle with respect to the rotation axis, and $`\beta `$, the separation of the line of sight with respect to the magnetic axis at closest approach. We show a likely RVM in Figure 1 that results from setting $`\alpha =60.0^{}`$, the a priori most likely inclination angle, and then finding the best-fit value of $`\beta `$ which is $`7.2^{}\pm 2.0^{}`$. The data are fit equally well with any $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with equivalent $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )/\mathrm{sin}(\beta )`$, the steepest slope of the PPA swing. The center of symmetry of the fitted RVM falls between the two 430-MHz peaks, but mostly by virtue of that being the center of the available polarization data. This pulsar falls on the long-period, small spin-down end of the pulsar population, which is where most of the conal-profile (single and double) pulsars are found (Rankin 1983).

### 5.2 PSR J1313+0931

PSR J1313+0931 is a single-peaked pulsar with P=0.85 s. The pulse peak is asymmetric, with a FWHM of approximately 6$`^{}`$at both 1.4 GHz and 430 MHz . The polarization data show a clear position angle sweep through the main pulse peak (Fig. 2) with a $`90^{}`$ discontinuous transition, indicative of an “orthogonal mode” (suggested rotation shown with open circles). Setting $`\alpha `$to $`60.0^{}`$, $`\beta `$ fits to $`9.5^{}\pm 3.0^{}`$ as shown in the figure, but the data are fit equally well with any $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ where the slope $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )/\mathrm{sin}(\beta )`$ is the same.

We note that in addition to the presence of extended emission on the trailing side of the pulse, the center of the polarized emission falls toward the trailing edge of the main pulse. These characteristics imply that this profile in fact represents a double-peak with the second peak suppressed in intensity compared to the first. Lyne & Manchester (1988) note a tendency for the leading component to be the stronger of the two, and suggest that the emission process is somehow more effective at the leading edge of the polar cap. We see this effect in PSR J0711+0931 and possibly PSR J0030+0451 as well (see §5.1 and §5.4).

### 5.3 Millisecond Pulsar J0030+0451

The pulse profiles of PSR J0030+0451 at 430 MHz and 1.4 GHz are presented in Figure 3 to show the evolution of the pulse profile with frequency. A pulsar displaying an interpulse like PSR J0030+0451 has two distinct possible geometries: nearly aligned, with the interpulse resulting from the second crossing of a wide-angle hollow “cone” of radiation, or orthogonal with the two emission regions coming from opposite poles (Rankin 1983; Lyne & Manchester 1988). The question of the basic geometry of interpulse pulsars has been debated extensively (Rankin 1983; Lyne & Manchester 1988), with most interpulse MSPs exhibiting qualities of both orthogonal and aligned rotators (see, e.g. Xilouris et al. 1998). Knowing which model was correct for each pulsar would greatly enhance our knowledge of the geometry of the underlying emission geometry. The simplest test of geometry is that if the pulse-interpulse separation changes with frequency we suspect we are seeing a single cone of emission, with a frequency dependent emission height. Unfortunately this test is not possible with PSR J0030+0451 because both the pulse and interpulse are made of at least two components whose positions in frequency cannot be identified using our two-frequency data due to the complexity of the pulse shape.

In an attempt to quantify the evolution of the profile with frequency, we fitted the 1.4-GHz average profile to a 6-Gaussian-component model using the software of Kramer et al. (1994) and Kramer (1994). The Gaussian parameters of these components are given in Table 3. The amplitude of component 2 has been set to 1.0 arbitrarily and all other component amplitudes are measured relative to component 2. The components chosen are not uniquely determined by the data, but are chosen in order to study the dependence of profile shape on frequency. For example, there is a small “bump” of emission beginning at a phase of $``$ 350$`^{}`$in Figure 3a, which we did not address in this fitting process. After fitting the 1.4-GHz profile we fit the 430-MHz profile (shown in Fig. 3b) by holding the positions and widths of each of these 1.4-GHz components constant and varying only amplitudes. Some features of the 430-MHz profile are left unmodeled under this scheme. The largest discrepancy is at the edge of the main peak located at $``$ 70. This discrepancy could be eliminated by shifting the position of component 1 earlier in phase. This apparent spreading out of the components as we go to lower frequency suggests that some of this emission may be “conal”.

MSPs are thought to have possibly complex magnetic field topologies from their history of accretion (Ruderman 1991). Furthermore the work of Xilouris et al. (1998) suggests that pulsars with compact light cylinders are more likely to exhibit abnormal profile evolution with respect to the Rankin (1983) model. PSR J0030+0451 does indeed have a relatively small light cylinder radius ($``$ 230 km) and a complex field topology even among MSPs as measured by the total number of Gaussian components required to model its profile. PSR J0030+0451 requires 6 components compared to the average for MSPs, $`4.2\pm 0.4`$, measured by Kramer et al. (1998), hereafter K98.

We also calculate the 10% and 50% widths of the main pulse for comparison with the table of pulse widths for MSPs from K98. Note that we let all 18 parameters vary at both 430 MHz and 1.4 GHz in order to do this calculation. The 10% and 50% widths at 1.4 GHz are $`64^{}\pm 1^{}`$ and $`48^{}\pm 1^{}`$ respectively. These numbers fall in the middle of the distribution for MSPs shown in K98. At 430 MHz the 10% and 50% widths are $`74^{}\pm 5^{}`$ and $`54^{}\pm 5^{}`$ respectively.

### 5.4 Polarimetry and Geometry of MSP J0030+0451

The large duty cycle of PSR J0030+0451 with both main pulse and interpulse emission is a common characteristic of MSPs. The availability of polarization information over a wide range of phases (see Fig. 4) in theory allows an accurate determination of the magnetic field inclination angle $`\alpha `$. Of particular interest is the measurable polarization position angle (PPA) at the trailing edge of the interpulse (from $``$4.0 ms to about $``$4.4 ms in phase in Fig. 4b) in a region where emission is at its minimum. (Note that a constant offset, equal to the level of emission from 4.5 to 4.9 and 0.0 to 0.2 ms of phase, has been subtracted from these data in each of the 4 Stokes parameters) Either the emission from this region is nearly 100% linearly polarized or in subtracting a constant offset from our data we have subtracted off what is significant baseline emission from this pulsar.

Using polarimetric information, it is possible in some cases to determine whether observed emission is ‘core’ or ‘cone’ emission, thereby giving additional clues about the geometry. Rankin (1983) (also see Rankin 1993) identifies several properties of core emission that are present in component 3: (1) the steepest (either positive or negative) slope in polarization position angle is at the phase of components 3 and 4; (2) component 3 is significantly linearly polarized; and (3) the circular polarization, although very weak, changes sign underneath component 3. In the following paragraphs we look to RVM fits to the observed PPA profile for further information.

Two possible RVMs are shown in Figure 4, the first with $`\alpha `$=8$`^{}`$and the second with $`\alpha `$=62. The first thing to note is that neither case is particularly appealing. Moreover there is no RVM that would fit the jaggedness of the PPA sweep near the main pulse peak. We consider the nearly aligned case first, shown with parameters $`\alpha `$=8$`^{}`$and $`\beta `$=1$`^{}`$. Actually fitting to the data returns a range of parameters which depend on initial values, so this is not a fit to the data but rather an example of a plausible model. From this model we expect the emission to be primarily conal and thus the center of symmetry actually should be at a flux minimum. We therefore place the center of symmetry of the model, which represents the magnetic pole, in between the pulse and interpulse. The pulse and the interpulse represent two crossings of a single very wide “cone” of emission, and therefore we expect that all the components will display properties of conal emission, which they do not (see preceding paragraph).

In the second case we attempted to make $`\alpha `$ as large as possible while still providing a reasonable fit to the data. The model shown has $`\alpha `$=62$`^{}`$and $`\beta `$=10$`^{}`$(see Fig. 4). This model places the center of symmetry of the RVM at the trailing edge of the main pulse near to, but not coincident with, peaks 3 and 4. This is consistent with the RVM’s prediction of core emission from this location. Specifically we expect the center of symmetry of the PPA is at the phase of the core emission with any cone emission falling on either side of it in phase. We in fact only see emission on the leading edge of this core emission (i.e. we see no emission to the right of component 4, only to the left). Perhaps we only see one-half of the “cone”, a situation discussed earlier in the case of PSR J1313+0931 (see §5.2). Alternatively Hibschman & Arons (2000) show that corrections to the simple RVM, resulting from the effects of a Goldreich-Julian current on the magnetic field and aberration, will produce various asymmetries in the polarization sweep that we could be seeing.

We conclude that the polarimetry data suggest a large $`\alpha `$ and that we are likely seeing two poles.

### 5.5 MSP J0030+0451 and the Local ISM

This pulsar allows new measurements of the physical state of the ionized component of the local ISM. PSR J0030+0451 lies roughly in the middle of the quadrant of the Galaxy from $`l=90^{}`$ to $`l=180^{}`$ which is devoid of any pulsars with independent distance estimates. Ultimately we will able to determine the mean density using the trigonometric parallax derived from ongoing timing measurements. The result can be compared with that from other pulsars within 1 kpc of the sun (Toscano et al. 1999 and references therein) to improve the 3D map of the local ionized gas.

The diffractive scintillation parameters for J0030+0451 provide an estimate of the turbulent state of the local ISM on scales of $`10^{10}`$ cm which can be compared to results of recent studies of nearby pulsars (Bhat, Gupta, & Rao 1998; Phillips & Clegg 1992; Rickett, Coles, & Markkanen 2000). We expect that J0030+0451 will exhibit weak scattering at 1.4 GHz given its low DM of 4.3328 $`\pm `$ 0.0002 cm-3pc. Backer (1975) estimates the critical frequency at which the scintillation modulation index drops below unity to be 2.4 GHz for this DM, although there are significant variations along different paths through comparable column densities. Our observations indicate that J0030+0451 is indeed weakly scattered at 1.4 GHz. In order to measure the scintillation modulation index we inspect the variation from epoch to epoch of the signal to noise ratio (S/N) of our 1.4-GHz profiles. This is a reliable measure of the modulation index owing to the stability of the 1.4-GHz receiver and observing conditions. Our dominant concern in using S/N as a measure of flux variability is the possible correlation of S/N with zenith angle. However, a plot of S/N vs zenith angle for all of the 3-minute average profiles shows no correlation, and indeed the documents characterizing the latest Arecibo upgrade show that the system temperature is expected to be nearly constant for zenith angle $`19\mathrm{deg}`$ (Taylor & Davis 1986) and the gain is expected to decrease by 2% going from 15$`^{}`$to 20$`^{}`$in zenith angle 444also http://www.naic.edu/techinfo/teltech/statisti.htm. We see the signal to noise ratio (S/N) vary from 4 to 13, with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 2.5, yielding an estimate of 0.25 for the scintillation modulation index. Flux measurements at both the Arecibo Observatory and the VLA are consistent with this value. At the VLA we obtained two one-hour observations on 1998 February 23 and 26 at 1.4 GHz. Flux transfer from primary and secondary calibrators yielded fluxes of $`1.0\pm 0.1`$ mJy and $`0.7\pm 0.1`$ mJy. The typical flux we obtain from the Arecibo observations is $`0.6\pm 0.1`$ mJy at 1.4 GHz. The range of these three values is consistent with our measured scintillation modulation index of 0.25. This value of the modulation index leads to an estimate of the amplitude of the electron-density power spectrum, $`C_n^21.5\times 10^4`$m-20/3, using relation C2 in Rickett, Coles, & Markkanen (2000).

At 430-MHz we looked for scintillation effects across the 10-MHz band which is divided into 32 channels. In some scans we see a variation by as much as a factor of 3 across the band, but always monotonically changing across the bandpass. We conclude that the scintillation bandwidth is greater than, but on the order of 10 MHz. We use this lower bound on the scintillation bandwidth to estimate an upper bound on $`C_n^27\times 10^5`$ m-20/3 using relation C3 in Rickett, Coles, & Markkanen (2000). $`C_n^2`$ depends on the pulsar’s distance to the $`11/6`$ power which leads to an uncertainty in $`C_n^2`$ of a factor of 4 in either direction given variations in the local electron density reported by Toscano et al. (1999). We conclude that $`C_n^2`$ along the path the PSR J0030+0451 is probably in the range between the low values reported by Rickett, Coles, & Markkanen (2000) and Phillips & Clegg (1992) toward B0809+74 and B09050+08 and the higher values reported by Bhat, Gupta, & Rao (1998) toward a dozen different objects.

Temporal variations of the DM inform us about perturbations on larger scales of $`10^{14}`$ cm. Our multifrequency timing observations (4 days of dual frequency observations) allow us to place an upper limit on the DM gradient of 0.0003 cm-3pc yr-1. This small value is consistent with the relationship of DM gradient to DM suggested by Backer et al. (1993).

## 6 Discussion

We have confirmed three new pulsars in a search of the Arecibo sky covering 470 square degrees with a sensitivity of 1 mJy. The objects are solitary pulsars.

Our polarimetric study of PSR J0030+0451 suggests an orthogonal or nearly orthogonal model with a large $`\alpha `$ . Multi-frequency (as opposed to dual-frequency) observations of PSR J0030+0451 are needed to fully assess the component evolution and thereby determine whether it is an orthogonal or an aligned rotator.

PSR J0030+0451 provides a useful new probe of the plasma in the local interstellar medium.

Of the approximately dozen MSPs which display interpulses PSRs B1012+5307, B1855+09, and J2322+2057 (Nicastro et al. 1995; Segelstein et al. 1986; Nice, Taylor, & Fruchter 1993; Xilouris et al. 1998) bear striking resemblance to PSR J0030+0451: Pulse periods are between 4.8 ms and 5.4 ms and the magnetic fields are between 2.2 $`\times 10^8`$ G and 3.2 $`\times 10^8`$ G. Each one is thought to be an orthogonal rotator, and in each case the interpulse increases in amplitude compared to the main pulse at higher frequency. Xilouris et al. (1998) suggests that the interesting properties of this group of pulsars are due to a quadrupolar moment of the magnetic field becoming important, and that outer-gap emission also is visible.

Of the 56 known MSPs in the disk of the Galaxy (Camilo 1999; Edwards 2000; Lyne et al. 2000; Manchester et al. 2000) PSR J0030+0451 is the 9th solitary MSP (i.e., it is not in a binary system). These objects present particular requirements on the standard evolutionary scenario of MSPs. If the neutron star is spun up via accretion by mass transfer from a companion star, the companion must somehow be obliterated. Various solutions have been proposed such as a common envelope evolution whereby during the accretion phase, the core of the companion and the neutron star spiral in and finally collapse into a single star (van den Heuvel & Bitzaraki 1995). Alternatively the new MSP may evaporate or ablate its companion as is suggested in observations of PSR B1957+20 (Fruchter et al. 1991; Arzoumanian, Fruchter, & Taylor 1994), and PSR B1744$``$24A (Lyne et al. 1990). Neither of these solutions is manifest in observations, and the evolutionary history of solitary MSPs remains an unsolved problem.

We wish to thank Michael Kramer for the use of his Gaussian fitting program, and Christophe Lange for his TOA uncertainty code. We also thank Shauna Sallmen for her expertise in polarimetry measurements and for use of her software. We are grateful to the Arecibo telescope operators for running the search observations and for their assistance in the follow-up timing observations. We thank Alex Wolszczan for use of the Penn State Pulsar Processor, Fernando Camilo for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, and Duncan Lorimer and Dan Stinebring for assistance in observations. Lastly we thank Dick Manchester, the referee, whose comments significantly improved the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# References

International Journal of Modern Physics A,
c World Scientific Publishing Company

QUINTESSENCE MODEL AND COSMIC

MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

PAUL H. FRAMPTON

Institute of Field Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy,

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255

A particular kind of quintessence is considered, with equation of motion $`p_Q/\rho _Q=1`$, corresponding to a cosmological term with time-dependence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)(R(t_0)/R(t))^P`$ and we examine how values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depend on $`P`$.

In this talk I summarize the paper?. We shall investigate the position of the first Doppler peak in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) analysis using results published earlier?.

The combination of the information about the first Doppler peak and the complementary analysis of the deceleration parameter derived from observations of the high-red-shift supernovae leads to fairly precise values for the cosmic parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We shall therefore also investigate the effect of quintessence on the values of these parameters.

To introduce our quintessence model as a time-dependent cosmological term, we start from the Einstein equation:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)g_{\mu \nu }+8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G𝒯_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ depends on time as will be specified later and $`T_\nu ^\mu =\mathrm{diag}(\rho ,p,p,p)`$. Using the Robertson-Walker metric, the ‘00’ component of Eq.(1) is

$$\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2+\frac{k}{R^2}=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(2)
while the ‘ii’ component is

$$2\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}+\frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2}+\frac{k}{R^2}=8\pi Gp+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(3)
Energy-momentum conservation follows from Eqs.(2,3) because of the Bianchi identity $`D^\mu (R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu })=D^\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+8\pi GT_{\mu \nu })=D^\mu 𝒯_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

Note that the separation of $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ into two terms, one involving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$, as in Eq(1), is not meaningful except in a phenomenological sense because of energy conservation.

In the present cosmic era, denoted by the subscript ‘0’, Eqs.(2,3) become respectively:

$$\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho _0=H_0^2+\frac{k}{R_0^2}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0$$
(4)
$$8\pi Gp_0=2q_0H_0^2+H_0^2+\frac{k}{R_0^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0$$
(5)
where we have used $`q_0=\frac{\ddot{R}_0}{R_0H_0^2}`$ and $`H_0=\frac{\dot{R}_0}{R_0}`$.

For the present era, $`p_0\rho _0`$ for cold matter and then Eq.(5) becomes:

$$q_0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{8\pi G\rho _0}{3H_0^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{3H_0^2}`$.

Now we can introduce the form of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ we shall assume by writing

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=bR(t)^P$$
(7)
where $`b`$ is a constant and the exponent $`P`$ we shall study for the range $`0P<3`$. This motivates the introduction of the new variables

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M=\mathrm{\Omega }_M\frac{P}{3P}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3}{3P}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(8)
It is unnecessary to redefine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ because $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The equation for the first Doppler peak incorporating the possibility of non-zero $`P`$ is found to be the following modification for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=0`$

$$l_1=\pi \left(\frac{R_t}{R_0}\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M\left(\frac{R_0}{R_t}\right)^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{R_0}{R_t}\right)^P\right]^{1/2}_1^{\frac{R_0}{R_t}}\frac{dw}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Mw^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }w^P}}$$
(9)
The dependence of $`l_1`$ on $`P`$ is illustrated graphically by figures in ?. Further discussion of the dependence of $`l_1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$, using the formulas of ?, is given in ?.

We have introduced $`P`$ as a parameter which is real and with $`0P<3`$. For $`P0`$ we regain the standard cosmological model. But now we must investigate other restrictions already necessary for $`P`$ before precision cosmological measurements restrict its range even further.

Only for certain $`P`$ is it possible to extrapolate the cosmology consistently for all $`0<w=(R_0/R)<\mathrm{}`$. For example, in the flat case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=0`$ which our universe seems to approximate, the formula for the expansion rate is

$$\frac{1}{H_0^2}\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Mw^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }w^P$$
(10)
This is consistent as a cosmology only if the right-hand side has no zero for a real positive $`w=\widehat{w}`$. The root $`\widehat{w}`$ is

$$\widehat{w}=\left(\frac{3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)}{P3\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{\frac{1}{3P}}$$
(11)
If $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_M<1`$, consistency requires that $`P<3\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$.

Another constraint on the cosmological model is provided by nucleosynthesis which requires that the rate of expansion for very large $`w`$ does not differ too much from that of the standard model.

The expansion rate for $`P=0`$ coincides for large $`w`$ with that of the standard model so it is sufficient to study the ratio:

$`(\dot{R}/R)_P^2/(\dot{R}/R)_{P=0}^2`$ $`\stackrel{w\mathrm{}}{}`$ $`(3\mathrm{\Omega }_MP)/((3P)\mathrm{\Omega }_M)`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{w\mathrm{}}{}`$ $`(4\mathrm{\Omega }_RP)/((4P)\mathrm{\Omega }_R)`$ (13)
where the first limit is for matter-domination and the second is for radiation-domination (the subscript R refers to radiation).

The constraints of avoiding a bounce ($`\dot{R}=0`$) in the past, and then requiring consistency with BBN leads to $`0<P<0.2`$.

Clearly, from the point of view of inflationary cosmology, the precise vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=0`$ is a crucial test and its confirmation will be facilitated by comparison models such as the present one.


text:
# Cosmic Microwave Background constraint on residual annihilations of relic particles

## I INTRODUCTION

Newly proposed particles, especially dark matter candidates, must evade an ever growing array of empirical constraints, ranging from bounds obtained in terrestrial laboratory experiments (e.g., reference ), to limits on new cooling sources in stars in our galaxy , to constraints on the expansion rate of the universe during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), when the universe was only a few minutes old . In this paper we add another constraint to the list, based on the effect of annihilations of relic particles on the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

The CMB energy spectrum provides a direct probe of the early Universe at redshifts as high as $`z2\times 10^6`$. Below this redshift, distortions of the spectrum generally cannot be thermalized and are observable today. The FIRAS (Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer) instrument on the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite measured the spectrum and found it to have a Planck distribution to within a few hundredths of a percent . This measurement places strong upper bounds on any energy injection into the CMB after the thermalization redshift (e.g., references ).

Decays of relic particles have been considered as a source of CMB distortions , but particle annihilations have not. Annihilations are typically ignored because the classic WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) dark matter candidates have mass $`m_X\mathrm{GeV}`$ and their annihilations “freeze out” at $`T_Fm_X/2050\mathrm{MeV}`$ , long before the time when the CMB becomes vulnerable to distortion (at $`T0.5\mathrm{KeV}`$). Freezeout is defined as the time when annihilations cease to change significantly the number density of the particle; however, annihilations continue eternally at some small rate and their products can distort the CMB spectrum if they interact electromagnetically.

The effects of residual annihilations have been considered in a few other contexts: Reno and Seckel , Hagelin, Parker, and Hankey , and Frieman, Kolb, and Turner  computed the effect of annihilation products on the primordial element abundances. Cline and Gao  and Gao, Stecker, and Cline  considered the possibility of observing directly the photons from annihilations at cosmological distances. Bergstrom and Snellman , Rudaz , and Rudaz and Stecker  discuss the detectability of a line source from annihilations to photons within the Milky Way halo. Jungman, Kamionkowski, and Griest  conclude that halo annihilations into particles other than photons probably cannot be used to place general constraints on particle candidates because of astrophysical uncertainties.

In this paper we compute the energy injected into the CMB by annihilating particles as a function of their mass and annihilation rate (i.e., the product of cross section and abundance squared). We derive constraints on the particle properties by comparison with the observed limits on chemical potential ($`\mu `$) distortions, and Compton-$`y`$ distortions (§II). We compare these constraints to similar constraints obtained from the production of deuterium by photodissociation of primordial helium (§III.A), and from the diffuse photon background produced after recombination by extragalactic annihilations (§III.B), and annihilations in the Milky Way halo (§III.C).

## II DISTORTIONS OF THE CMB ENERGY SPECTRUM

We consider first the effect of annihilation products on the CMB energy spectrum. The distortion of the spectrum takes place in two steps: first the high energy annihilation products rapidly dissipate their energy into the background photons and electrons, and then the low energy background evolves more slowly in an effort to restore the Planck spectrum. The permanence of distortions produced after $`z10^6`$ is simple to understand in the following way: A Planck spectrum with a given photon number density must have a specific energy density. For $`z10^6`$, photon nonconserving processes (double Compton scattering and bremsstrahlung) are inefficient in the background plasma. Therefore, if energy is injected into the CMB but not the the correct number of photons, a Planck spectrum cannot be restored. We now discuss in more detail the form of the distortions produced in different redshift intervals.

Down to recombination at $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}1100`$, photons with $`E_\gamma 5\mathrm{KeV}`$ quickly cool and produce heated electrons by Compton scattering ($`\gamma e\gamma e`$) or pair production on ions ($`\gamma NNe^+e^{}`$) (all photons with $`E_\gamma >1\mathrm{KeV}`$ can cool if $`z3500`$). The heated electrons quickly dissipate their energy by inverse Compton scattering on the huge number of CMB photons. This process produces a distorted spectrum with phase-space distribution

$$f(x,y)f(x,0)+y\frac{xe^x}{\left(e^x1\right)^2}\left[\frac{x}{\mathrm{tanh}(x/2)}4\right],$$
(1)
where $`f(x,0)=1/(e^x1)`$ is the Planck distribution, $`x=E/T`$, and the Compton-$`y`$ parameter is assumed to satisfy $`y<<1`$ . In our case, where there is ample time for all of the input energy to be transferred to the CMB, the relation between $`y`$ and the input energy can be found by integrating Equation (1) to find the energy density as a function of $`y`$. The result is $`4y=\delta \rho _\gamma /\rho _\gamma `$, where $`\delta \rho _\gamma `$ is the injected energy and $`\rho _\gamma `$ is the energy of the CMB photons (see reference  for a general review of CMB distortions or reference  for a more detailed discussion of the Compton-$`y`$ distortion). Analysis of the COBE FIRAS data set gives $`\left|y\right|<1.5\times 10^5`$ .

The Compton-$`y`$ distortion will be preserved to the present time if it is produced after $`z_\mathrm{C}5.4\times 10^4\omega _B^{1/2}`$ (where $`\omega _B\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2/0.02`$), the redshift above which elastic Compton scattering would effectively redistribute energy between CMB photons, converting a Compton-$`y`$ distorted spectrum into a Bose-Einstein spectrum with distribution

$$f(x,\mu )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(x+\mu )1},$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Assuming the input number of photons is negligible, which will always be true in this paper, the chemical potential is $`\mu =1.4\delta \rho _\gamma /\rho _\gamma `$ . The FIRAS limit on this type of distortion is $`\left|\mu \right|<9\times 10^5`$ .

Equation (2) describes the equilibrium distribution for a fixed total number of photons and amount of energy. For $`zz_{\mathrm{DC}}2.1\times 10^6\omega _B^{2/5}`$, photons are produced effectively by double Compton scattering ($`e\gamma e\gamma \gamma `$) so a Planck spectrum ($`\mu =0`$) can be restored for arbitrary energy input . Production of photons by bremsstrahlung is already ineffective at $`zz_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ (for the observed baryon density).

To summarize: annihilations occurring at $`z2.1\times 10^6`$ will be unobservable, annihilations in the range $`5.4\times 10^4z2.1\times 10^6`$ will produce a Bose-Einstein spectrum with chemical potential $`\mu `$, and annihilations in the range $`1100z5.4\times 10^4`$ will produce a Compton-$`y`$ distortion. Annihilations at $`z<z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ will not significantly affect the CMB energy spectrum, but can be observable in the diffuse photon background.

We now compute the fractional energy injection $`\delta \rho _\gamma /\rho _\gamma `$ (where $`\rho _\gamma `$ is the energy density of the CMB) from annihilations of particle species $`X`$. We will assume throughout this paper that particle $`X`$ and antiparticle $`\overline{X}`$ are not identical (we discuss below how our final constraints are strengthened in the case where the particle is its own antiparticle). We also assume that $`n_Xn_{\overline{X}}`$, where $`n_X`$ ($`n_{\overline{X}}`$) is the number density of $`X`$ ($`\overline{X}`$) (if there is a significant asymmetry the relic density of the less numerous particle will usually be negligibly small ). The energy produced per annihilating particle is

$$E_afm_X,$$
(3)
where $`m_X`$ is the mass of the particle and $`f1`$ is the mean fraction of the annihilation energy that interacts electromagnetically, and the rate of annihilations per unit volume is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\sigma _a\left|v\right|n_Xn_{\overline{X}},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _a\left|v\right|`$ is the cross section. A useful parameterization for the cross section is $`\sigma _a\left|v\right|\sigma _0(T/m_X)^n`$, where $`n=0`$ for s-wave annihilation (e.g., Dirac neutrinos) and $`n=1`$ for p-wave annihilation (e.g., Majorana particles annihilating into much lighter fermions, see reference ). We integrate the energy injection rate from time $`t_1`$ to $`t_2`$ as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{ann}}}{\rho _\gamma }}𝑑t={\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a}{\rho _{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4}}𝑑t`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E_a}{\rho _{\gamma 0}}}{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\sigma _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{m_X}}\right)^nn_{X0}^2(1+z)^2𝑑t`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4t_{}E_a\sigma _0n_{X0}^2}{\rho _{\gamma 0}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{m_X}}\right)^n{\displaystyle _{z_2}^{z_1}}\left(1+z\right)^{n1}𝑑z,`$ (7)
where $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{ann}}=2E_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is the rate of energy injection by annihilations, $`\rho _{\gamma 0}`$ is the present energy density in the CMB, $`T_0`$ is the present CMB temperature, $`n_{X0}n_X\left(z\right)(1+z)^3`$, and $`t_{}2.4\times 10^{19}`$s. We have assumed the universe is radiation dominated (this assumption will be accurate enough at the redshifts relevant to our calculation) so that $`t0.301g_{}^{1/2}m_{Pl}T^2t_{}(1+z)^2`$, where $`m_{Pl}`$ is the Planck mass, $`g_{}=3.36`$ is the number of effectively massless degrees of freedom at $`T<<\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`t_{}`$ is fixed by the CMB temperature measured at $`z=0`$. The result for $`n=0`$ is

$$\frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }=A\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right),$$
(8)
and for $`n=1`$

$$\frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }=A\frac{T_1T_2}{m_X},$$
(9)
where

$$A\frac{4t_{}E_a\sigma _0n_{X0}^2}{\rho _{\gamma 0}},$$
(10)
and $`T_iT(z_i)`$.

We use $`z_1=z_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ and $`z_2=z_\mathrm{C}`$ to find the chemical potential $`\mu =1.4\delta \rho _\gamma /\rho _\gamma `$ (this assumes a negligible increase in the number of photons, which is valid even in the case of an electromagnetic cascade), with the results:

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`5.1A=2.9\times 10^4f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^1`$ (12)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right](\mathrm{for}n=0),`$
and

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2.0\times 10^6A{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{m_X}}=2.7\times 10^8f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^2`$ (14)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right](\mathrm{for}n=1),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2=94\left(m_X/\mathrm{MeV}\right)\left(n_{X0}+n_{\overline{X}0}\right)/\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

Observationally $`\left|\mu \right|<9\times 10^5`$  so, for $`n=0`$, we have the bound

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (15)
$`<0.3.`$ (16)
Similarly, for $`n=1`$ we find

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (17)
$`<3.3\times 10^3.`$ (18)
We have chosen to scale the cross section as $`(\sigma _0/6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1)`$ because this is approximately the value at which a non-relativistic particle will have relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2=1`$ if it freezes out as a result of its annihilations while in thermal equilibrium. The reader should keep in mind that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is not necessarily the contribution of $`X`$ to the present energy density if, for example, the particle decays subsequent to distorting the CMB.

Note that the constraint for $`n=1`$ is roughly $`m_X/T_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ times weaker than the constraint for $`n=0`$, where $`T_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ is the temperature at $`z_{\mathrm{DC}}`$. Constraints on $`n=1`$ particles that fall out of kinetic equilibrium at $`T_K>T_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ can be roughly estimated from the given $`n=1`$ constraints by multiplying by a factor $`T_K/T_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ (see reference ).

The Compton-$`y`$ distortion can be obtained by changing the limits of integration in Equation (7) from $`z_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ and $`z_\mathrm{C}`$ to $`z_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$. For simplicity, we replace the lower limit $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ by the redshift of matter-radiation equality, $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}2.5\times 10^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the present density in matter), and we ignore deviations from $`tT^2`$. The precise value of this lower limit is not important (because of the log dependence) so we assume $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}=3200`$.

For $`n=0`$,

$$y\frac{\mu }{1.4}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(z_\mathrm{C}/z_{\mathrm{eq}}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(z_{\mathrm{DC}}/z_\mathrm{C}\right)}=0.15\mu ,$$
(19)
while the observational bound is $`\left|y\right|<1.5\times 10^5`$ , giving a bound essentially identical to Equation (16). For $`n=1`$, $`y0.005\mu `$, so the bound will be significantly weaker than Equation (18).

In the case of $`n=0`$, we predict that the $`\mu `$ and $`y`$ distortions will always appear together, with the relationship $`y0.15\mu `$. Fixsen et al.  do not give joint constraints on $`\mu `$ and $`y`$ so we perform our own linear fit to the data in their Table 4, using the formula

$`I_0(\nu )B_\nu (T_0)G_0g(\nu )=\mathrm{\Delta }T{\displaystyle \frac{B_\nu }{T}}+G_1g(\nu )+`$ (20)
$`1.4{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_c}{\mu }}+0.15{\displaystyle \frac{S_c}{y}}\right),`$ (21)
where $`I_0(\nu )B_\nu (T_0)G_0g(\nu )`$ is taken from reference  (along with the necessary error bars), $`g(\nu )=\nu ^2B_\nu (9K)`$ is the galactic contamination model used by , and $`S_c/p`$ is the deviation from a blackbody as parameter $`p`$ is varied. We constrain jointly the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, $`G_1`$, and $`\delta \rho /\rho `$. Based only on statistical errors, the 95% confidence upper bound on the energy injection is $`\delta \rho /\rho <1.6\times 10^5`$. Our analysis is complicated by the significant systematic errors, $`1\times 10^5`$ and $`4\times 10^6`$, quoted by  for $`\mu `$ and $`y`$, respectively. It is not clear how these should be combined with the statistical error, so we choose arbitrarily to add the two systematic errors linearly, and then add the result in quadrature to the statistical error, to find a final 95% confidence upper bound $`\delta \rho /\rho <4.1\times 10^5`$. We finally obtain the bound

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (22)
$`<0.2.`$ (23)
The combined constraints are plotted as the solid lines in Fig. 1 (for $`n=1`$ we just use the $`\mu `$ constraint).

We truncated Fig. 1 at $`m_X=1\mathrm{GeV}`$, where hadronic interactions become important; however, the CMB bound should continue to apply at higher energies, as long as $`f`$ is computed to account for non-interacting annihilation products. Even neutral annihilation products can contribute to the CMB distortion if they are coupled to the plasma in any way, for example, if they heat the background protons through hadronic interactions (see references  for discussions of hadronic interactions during this epoch). This is not generally true for the other constraints that we review in §III.

These constraints apply to a particle that is distinct from its antiparticle; however, to convert to the case where particle and antiparticle are equivalent, it is only necessary to make the substitutions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$, and $`\sigma _0/6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1\sigma _0/3\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1`$. The change in cross section normalization cancels the increase in the annihilation rate at fixed total contribution to the critical density (i.e., for the inequivalent case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_an_Xn_{\overline{X}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}^2/4`$, but for the equivalent case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_an_X^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2/2`$). The scale $`3\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the cross section is natural also because it gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Xh^21`$. The same substitutions can be used to convert any of the constraints in §III.

## III COMPARISON WITH OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON RESIDUAL ANNIHILATIONS

In this section we compute bounds, in a form similar to Equation (16), from the production of deuterium by photodissociation of 4He (§III.A), from the diffuse photon background produced by extragalactic annihilations at $`z<z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ (§III.B), and from the diffuse photon background produced by annihilations in our galaxy (§III.C). We restrict our attention to $`n=0`$ because the $`n=1`$ bound is very weak in all cases.

### A Photodissociation of 4He

At roughly the same time that the CMB energy spectrum becomes vulnerable to distortion by energy injection, primordially produced 4He nuclei become vulnerable to photodissociation by high energy annihilation products. At earlier times the nuclei were protected from destruction because photons with high enough energy ($`E_\gamma 20\mathrm{MeV}`$) to destroy nuclei instead pair produce or elastic scatter on the CMB photons ($`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$, or $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$). This shielding is effective for $`E_\gamma m_e^2/44T`$, where the numerical factor accounts for the fact that photons in the high energy tail of the CMB spectrum are still very numerous (see reference , and references therein, for a full discussion). Once $`m_e^2/44T20\mathrm{MeV}`$, annihilation products can dissociate 4He , either directly, or indirectly through a cascade when $`m_Xm_e^2/44T`$.

Bounds on energy injection can be derived by considering the 3He or the D produced when 4He nuclei are dissociated, and requiring that the amount created is not greater than the observationally inferred primordial abundances. (bounds from direct photodissociation of deuterium extend to slightly lower annihilation energy but are significantly weaker ). Previous analyses  used 3He+D because the upper limit on the primordial abundance of D was poorly known; however, there is considerable uncertainty in the post-big bang production and destruction of 3He so we will use D because its abundance is now more robustly measured in QSO absorption systems , with a very conservative upper bound $`n_D/n_HD/H<3\times 10^4`$ (high D) , or, more probably, $`D/H<4\times 10^5`$ (low D) .

Protheroe, Stanev, and Berezinsky  presented a detailed computation of the (redshift dependent) quantity of D produced for a given amount of injected energy, $`N_D(z)`$. With this input, the ratio $`D/H`$ is given by

$$\frac{D}{H}=\frac{N_D(z)2E_a\sigma _a\left|v\right|n_X^2}{n_H}𝑑t.$$
(24)
For $`n=0`$ this is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`2E_a{\displaystyle \frac{N_D(z)\sigma _0n_{X0}^2(1+z)^6}{n_{H0}(1+z)^3}\frac{2t_{}}{(1+z)^3}𝑑z}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4t_{}E_a\sigma _0n_{X0}^2}{n_{H0}}}{\displaystyle N_D(z)𝑑z}={\displaystyle \frac{9800t_{}E_a\sigma _0n_{X0}^2}{n_{H0}}},`$ (26)
where we have used the results in  and evaluated the integral numerically. The constraint on annihilations of particles with $`m_X26\mathrm{MeV}`$ (the energy needed to dissociate 4He into D) is

$`f\omega _B^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (27)
$`<1.3(\mathrm{high}\mathrm{D}),\mathrm{or}`$ (28)
$`<0.2(\mathrm{low}\mathrm{D}),`$ (29)
weaker than the CMB bound if the high deuterium abundance is used, but similar for the low deuterium abundance (recall $`\omega _B=\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2/0.021`$). These constraints are plotted as the long-dashed lines in Fig. 1.

This calculation is not exactly correct unless $`m_X>>26\mathrm{MeV}`$ because our use of the results in  assumes that the annihilation products are energetic enough to produce a cascade. A more careful calculation would weaken the bound slightly for $`m_X26\mathrm{MeV}`$ .

Our constraint appears to be several orders of magnitude stronger than the constraint described by Equation (9) in reference . They used the observational bound $`(^3He+D)/H1.1\times 10^4`$, which, considering that 3He is produced $`24`$ times more efficiently than D , should give a bound somewhat stronger than our Equation (29). We believe that the discrepancy is the result of a numerical error in their calculation. Our result for the $`(^3He+D)/H`$ calculation agrees with ; however, we do not use this result for our annihilation constraint because the deuterium constraint should be more reliable .

### B Extragalactic $`\gamma `$ Background

Recently, Kribs and Rothstein  used the observed $`\gamma `$-ray background to constrain late decaying particles. Gao, Stecker, and Cline  computed the expected $`\gamma `$-ray flux from annihilations of a possible lightest supersymmetric particle. Here we generalize this annihilation calculation to match the form of the constraint derived from the CMB. Unlike the previous constraints, the constraint we compute now only applies to annihilations directly to two photons, which typically will be sub-dominant for particles with mass greater than the electron mass (assuming particle $`X`$ does not couple directly to photons). Therefore, we will only calculate the constraint for $`m_X<0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ (constraints for general annihilation products would be strongly model dependent).

Temporarily ignoring the possibility that photons produced after recombination (at $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}1100`$) are absorbed on their way to the observer, the observed energy flux at present from extragalactic annihilations to photons is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ}{dEd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{z_{rec}}}𝑑tf_\gamma m_X\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(z)`$ (31)
$`\times \delta \left[E_o\left(1+z\right)m_X\right](1+z)^3,`$
where $`f_\gamma `$ is the fraction of annihilations that produce a pair of photons with $`E_\gamma =m_X`$. Using $`dt/da=3t_0a^{1/2}/2=H_0^1a^{1/2}`$ for an Einstein-de Sitter universe, and $`\delta \left(E_oa^1m_X\right)=a^2\delta \left(aE_o/m_X\right)E_o^1`$, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ}{dEd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{4\pi H_0}}f_\gamma \sigma _0n_{X0}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{E_o}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3.9\times 10^4}{\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sr}}}f_\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{E_o}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (34)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right],`$
where we have taken $`n=0`$. The photons we are considering, with energy $`E_\gamma <0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$, will in fact lose most of their energy by Compton scattering if they are produced at $`z200`$ (see reference ), so the maximum redshift factor is $`m_X/E_o=200`$.

We derive a bound on annihilations by requiring that the predicted photon background is not greater than the observed one. After considering observations of the photon background at all relevant energies (see references ), we find that the ASCA data in the energy range $`0.8\mathrm{KeV}E_o2.5\mathrm{KeV}`$ provides the best constraint on the annihilating particles that we consider. The background in this range is conservatively bounded by $`dJ/dEd\mathrm{\Omega }<0.36\left(E_o/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^{0.58}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ .

For $`160\mathrm{KeV}m_X<500\mathrm{KeV}`$, the best constraint is derived from photons produced at $`z200`$. Setting $`E_o=m_X/200`$, we obtain the bound

$`f_\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^{1.42}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (35)
$`7.6.`$ (36)
The best bound for lower annihilation energies comes from observations at $`E_o0.8\mathrm{KeV}`$:

$`f_\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^{1/2}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]`$ (37)
$`1.3.`$ (38)
Figure 1 shows these constraints as the dashed line.

### C Annihilations in the Milky Way Halo

The observability of annihilations to photons in our own galaxy has been discussed in many papers, including . In this subsection we combine the latest observational limits on the photon background with the calculation by Kamionkowski  and Jungman, Kamionkowski, and Griest  of the flux expected from halo annihilations to derive a bound in the form of Equation (16). As discussed in the previous subsection, we only consider annihilations to two photons of particles with $`m_X<0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Jungman, Kamionkowski, and Griest  assume the model

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\frac{R^2+a^2}{r^2+a^2}$$
(39)
for the dark matter density distribution in the Galaxy, where $`R`$ is the distance of the Sun from the galactic center, $`a`$ is the core radius, and $`r`$ is the distance from the center of the galaxy. Note that simulations of cold dark matter models predict central cusps instead of a core , which could lead to enhanced annihilation signals toward the center of the Galaxy; however, we want to be conservative so we do not assume a cusp. Re-writing Equation (10.1) of reference  to include the possibility that the particle X does not make up all the dark matter, we find that the energy flux at $`E_o=m_X`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ}{dEd\mathrm{\Omega }}}f_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{3.0}{\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sr}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _D^{0.4}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Dh^2}}\right)^2I(\psi )`$ (40)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right],`$ (41)
where $`I(\psi )1`$ depends on the observation angle $`\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}`$ is the contribution to the critical density from all kinds of dark matter, and $`\rho _D^{0.4}1`$ is the density of dark matter near the solar radius, in units of $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. We have assumed $`\rho _X(r)\rho _D(r)`$, and used the detector energy resolution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E0.2`$, appropriate for the energy bins in Fig. 10 of reference .

The relevant energy range for the halo annihilations we are considering, $`1500\mathrm{KeV}`$, corresponds to a “bump” in the observed spectrum (see ). To be conservative, we construct a simple bound by comparison with the single power law $`dJ/dEd\mathrm{\Omega }0.022\left(E_o/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^{1.2}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$, which is an upper bound on the energy flux in the full range $`1\mathrm{KeV}E_o100\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Since annihilations to two photons produce a line source at $`E_o=m_X`$, we have the bound

$`f_\gamma `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^{0.8}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Dh^2\right)^2`$ (43)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{6\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\overline{X}}h^2\right)^2\right]<0.008,`$
which we show in Fig. 1 (the observationally favored value for the total mass density is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Dh^20.15`$ , but we use 0.3 as a more conservative upper bound). For particles that survive to the present, this bound is generally stronger than the bound from distortions of the CMB. Note that our calculation is a somewhat rough estimate because the observational bounds are considerably lower at some energies than the power law we adopted , the energy bin width $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ is approximate, and we used $`I(\psi )=1`$ when its value can be higher for observation angles near the galactic center .

For particles with $`m_X>0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ we might consider the observation of annihilation products other than photons (e.g., positrons); however, reference  concludes that these signals cannot be used to conclusively rule out dark matter candidates because of astrophysical uncertainties.

## IV DISCUSSION

Some of the parameter space that can be constrained by residual annihilations is covered already by other kinds of constraints. To put the annihilation constraints in perspective we review the primary astrophysical ones.

BBN gives limits on the expansion rate of the universe at $`T1\mathrm{MeV}`$ (sometimes described as a limit on the effective number of light neutrinos, e.g., reference ). The expansion rate would be affected by an additional particle with mass in the range where our CMB bound is most constraining ($`m_X\mathrm{MeV}`$), if the particle’s number density at the time of BBN is equal to the thermal equilibrium value. Therefore, the annihilation bound on particles with $`m_X\mathrm{MeV}`$ is only nonredundant for particles that were not in thermal equilibrium at the time of nucleosynthesis.

Particles with $`m_X5\mathrm{MeV}`$ are only constrained by our bound if their density, extrapolated by $`(1+z)^3`$ from the time they influence the CMB to the present, is substantially greater than the present critical density, or if their cross section is very large but their number density is somehow higher than the density obtained from freezeout of their annihilations (see Fig. 1). The first case would require that the particle decays invisibly or otherwise disappears between $`z10^6`$ and the present, and the second requires that the particle was formed by decays of a heavier particle (or some other mechanism) after the freezeout temperature for its annihilations.

New particles that can be created in stars (e.g., by plasmon decay, $`\gamma X\overline{X}`$) are constrained by their action as additional sources of cooling. Constraints from observations of globular cluster stars apply for $`m_X10\mathrm{KeV}`$ . Similarly, cooling in supernovae, specifically SN1987A, can be influenced by the creation of new particles with mass $`m_X30\mathrm{MeV}`$; however, these constraints depend on the details of the particle interactions in the plasma (e.g., reference ).

In summary, the bound from distortions of the CMB energy spectrum probably cannot be a useful constraint on annihilations of light ($`m_X0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$) dark matter particles (e.g., warm dark matter) to photons, because the bound from annihilations in our Galaxy is always stronger. It is most interesting as a constraint on dark matter particles in the mass range $`0.5m_X5\mathrm{MeV}`$, and any particle that decays invisibly between $`z10^6`$ and the present, although in either case the particle must also evade the bound from the expansion rate of the universe during BBN. Finally, although we have not discussed in this paper the case of annihilations of particles with cross sections that increase with decreasing temperature (e.g., ), it seems likely that they can be very tightly constrained by the kinds of tests we have discussed.

###### Acknowledgements.

RJS and TPW were supported by the Department of Energy (DE-FG02-91ER40690).