text:
# The Skyrmion Model and the Dynamical Breakdown of Chiral Symmetry

## 1  Introduction

The description of processes involving strong interactions (mainly at low and intermediate energies) is very difficult in the frame of the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) due to its non abelian color and flavor structures and strong coupling constants. Thus effective models, like the Skyrme chiral soliton model (Skyrmion model), are constructed in such a way as to respect general properties from the more fundamental theory, such as chiral symmetry and its spontaneous breakdown .

The topological soliton model was formulated by Skyrme decades ago  possessing a conserved topological charge identified with the baryonic number. A deeper discussion about the real existence of minimum energy configurations in this model is found for example in . The model encompasses chiral symmetry and its spontaneous breakdown and has further deeper motivation based on the large $`N_c`$ QCD analysis . The quantization of the rotational collective coordinates endows the soliton with spin half. It strengthens the interpretation of this soliton as a nucleon as long as it is possible to obtain predictions for hadronic properties . An introductory study of the inclusion of quantum and thermal effects was done in .

Chiral spontaneous symmetry breaking is believed to be realized in the Nambu-Goldstone mode: the pion decay constant, $`f_\pi `$, is different from zero and the pion mass is small in the hadronic scale. $`f_\pi `$ can be seen as a “sigma condensate” of the linear sigma model. This sigma classical value is also identified to the chiral radius which is the constraint for the non linear realization of chiral symmetry as well. The non zero pion mass is usually assumed to break the chiral invariance of the Lagrangian explicitly, although only slightly. The vacuum is expected to be fulfilled with the scalar quark condensate ($`<\overline{q}q>`$) which is proportional to the pion decay constant. To the lowest order, the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation, which relates QCD to hadronic degrees of freedom, reads:

$$\begin{array}{cc}2<\overline{q}q>m_q=f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1)
The experimental value of the pion decay constant is nearly $`93`$ MeV. However, in the context of the Skyrmion model, it may reach very low values (such as $`54`$ MeV) as long as one takes as input the physical values of nucleon and delta masses. This may suggest by itself that $`f_\pi `$ can acquire different values inside and outside the nucleon. The constant value of the chiral radius is one trivial (homogeneous) solution of the linear sigma model. We show in this work that there are other non trivial (non homogeneous) solutions in the presence of a nucleon, i.e., it occurs the formation of a “hole” in the vacuum due to the presence of the nucleon in the frame of the Skyrmion model.

The coupling to QCD scalar degrees of freedom has already been envisaged in the frame of the Skyrmion model but in different approaches from that exploited here. Schechter and collaborators  and afterwards Waindzoch and Wambach  investigated such kind of effect by coupling a scalar field, representing a gluon degree of freedom. The value obtained for that “gluon condensate” inside the nucleon was much higher than in the vacuum, thus forming a kind of “bag”. This strengthens some qualitative theoretical basis of the so called Bag Models . In particular, for light glueballs, the bag was found to be very shallow . These results are in agreement with the stabilizing mechanism discussed in . However the QCD vacuum is very complex and it is expected to contain, as discussed above, the quark-antiquark scalar condensate which is a manifestation of the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry. Thus a more detailed investigation of the contribution of this complex system for the structure of the nucleon is needed as well as the opposite, i.e., the effect of the nucleon on the vacuum. A more complex system was considered in  where a scalar meson field was also included.

We have earlier considered the chiral radius in the presence of hadrons as a dynamical variable . In this work we consider a dynamical scalar degree of freedom associated with the scalar chiral condensate. This is effectively implemented by the coupling of the Skyrmion to a self interacting scalar field. As shown is sections II and III, the scalar condensate (“sigma condensate”) is constrained by the form of the potential which endows the model with the spontaneous symmetry breaking: in the vacuum it assumes the usual value of the pion decay constant, $`\eta _{vacuum}=93`$ MeV. In the next sections we show the Lagrangian density and equations of the fields of this extended Skyrmion model. There are two coupled differential equations: for the soliton profile function, $`F(r)`$, and for the scalar isoscalar field, $`\eta (r)`$. The numerical solutions are investigated for some cases and hadronic observables are calculated. We investigate the effect of the magnitude of the mass of this scalar field - the additional free parameter of our model - privileging values between $`560`$MeV and $`980`$MeV, which correspond respectively to the sigma (eventually the chiral partner of the pion)  and to the $`f_0(980)`$ meson . The latter is one of the lightest well known scalar isoscalar mesons. The analysis of stability of the equations by means of dimensional arguments is also discussed in the section IV (Derrick’s analysis). In section V we present our final comments, also discussing some ways of improving and extending the model.

## 2  Scalar field coupling

We do not describe the Skyrmion model at length since this is done extensively in the literature. One natural way of imposing a coupling of a scalar field (such as the chiral partner of the pion) to the skyrmion model is to consider the linear realization of the sigma model. The degree of freedom of the sigma may be replaced by a variable (dynamical) chiral radius, $`\eta (r)`$, which becomes the new dynamical degree of freedom:

$$f_\pi \eta =\sqrt{\pi ^2+\sigma ^2}=v+ϵ,$$

where $`v=f_\pi `$ is the classical value of the scalar field and $`ϵ`$ its fluctuation . However, the resulting coupled model (roughly the linear sigma model) has no stable solitonic solution with non trivial topology as discussed later in this paper. Thus we include, as it is usually done in the standard Skyrmion model, the fourth order stabilizing term for the pionic sector. The modified Skyrmion Lagrangian density reads:

$$=\frac{\eta (𝐫)^2}{4}Tr(_\mu U^{}^\mu U)+\frac{1}{32e^2}Tr\left([U^{}_\mu U,U^{}_\nu U]^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2f_\pi \eta (𝐫)\left(TrU+TrU^{}2\right)+_\eta ,$$
(2)
where the first term is the Lagrangian density of the linear sigma model and the second one is introduced in order to stabilize the soliton . While the first term becomes scale invariant with the quadratic coupling, the second one is scale invariant by itself and thus no such coupling has been considered in this work for this term 111As a matter of fact, it is possible to introduce a scale invariant coupling in such term.. $`\mu ^2`$ is the pion mass whose Lagrangian term breaks slightly the chiral symmetry and scale invariance as well, at least in this form. $`U`$ is a chiral invariant matrix parametrized in terms of the profile function $`F(𝐫)`$ within the Hedgehog ansatz (given by $`\widehat{𝝅}=\widehat{𝐫}`$):

$$U(𝐫)=\mathrm{cos}(F(𝐫))+i𝝉\widehat{𝝅}\mathrm{sin}(F(𝐫)).$$

Finally, the scalar field self interacting Lagrangian is chosen such that one recovers a classical value in the vacuum due to the (chiral) spontaneous symmetry breaking:

$$_\eta =\frac{1}{2}_\mu \eta (𝐫)^\mu \eta (𝐫)\frac{1}{2}m_\eta ^2\eta ^2(𝐫)\frac{1}{4}\lambda \eta ^4(𝐫).$$
(3)
The scalar field mass term breaks scale invariance but it is necessary for the consistency of the model. The bare scalar field mass parameter is $`m_\eta ^2`$, being related to the physical scalar field mass ($`m_ϵ^2`$) by the following relation:

$$m_\eta ^2=\frac{1}{2}(\mu ^2m_ϵ^2).$$
(4)
The value of the condensate in the vacuum is found by the minimization of its potential. As stated above we consider two different possibilities for the physical particle associated with the scalar field. The $`\eta `$ field is expected to correspond to the lightest scalar-isoscalar meson. It may be a very broad scalar resonance in the s-wave of low energy $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, with a mass in the range $`500800`$ MeV that seems to have been observed in other processes . In this case it would be associated to the chiral partner of the pion eventually corresponding to a Higgs field for Hadronic interactions 222 Its origin, on the other hand, lies on the chiral spontaneous symmetry breaking of QCD vacuum.. We consider two different values for the scalar-isoscalar particle mass in order to investigate its effects on nucleon properties. The coupling constant $`e`$ may be related to the pion-pion scattering coupling as done in , i.e., to a particular choice of the low energy constants (LECs) of some terms from the Chiral Perturbation Theory expansion . In the works just quoted above the authors obtained: $`e47`$. Large $`N_c`$ analysis with extrapolation to $`N_c=3`$ using sum rules of  leads to the approximated values: $`e(7.612)/\sqrt{N_c}.`$ These values are, in principle, independent of $`f_\pi `$.

The coupling to the quadratic Lagrangian term of the Skyrmion model, as described above, is uniquely defined by the linear implementation of chiral symmetry. It is scale invariant. It is consistent with the consideration that the chiral radius is directly and unambiguosly related to the quark-antiquark condensate of QCD and, besides, to the pion decay constant, at least in the vacuum and at the tree level. For the coupling of the quartic stabilizing Skyrme term to the scalar field we found no scale invariant form.

Along this work we basically assume the chiral radius to be a dynamical variable, being equivalent to the sigma field. In this case one is led to the following replacement for the quadratic Skyrmion Lagrangian term:

$$\begin{array}{cc}U(𝐫)\alpha (𝐫)U(𝐫),\text{with}\alpha (𝐫)=\frac{\eta (𝐫)}{f_\pi }.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5)
However, this replacement in the fourth order Skyrme term yields scale non-invariant Lagrangian terms and unstable solutions in the physical region for the parameters of the model. The lack of stability was also checked by the Derrick’s argument  discussed in section IV.

Finally, one can notice that the fourth order Skyrme term may be derived from the coupling of the sigma model with the vector meson, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu `$, as a hidden or massive gauge boson . The above prescription for the function $`U(𝐫)`$ may yield a $`\eta (𝐫)`$-dependent $`\rho `$ mass and $`e`$ coupling such that scale invariance is mantained. This will be developed elsewhere. Although this is a very interesting idea by itself, after the elimination of the $`\rho `$ degrees of freedom, the prescription seems to lead to other derivative and complicated terms which also may break scale invariance. At last it is interesting to preserve scale invariance in spite of the massive terms.

## 3  Calculations

In this section we investigate the solitonic solutions relative to equations of the fields of the model and afterwards their consequences for static nucleon observables. Adopting the usual hedgehog ansatz, $`\widehat{𝝅}=\widehat{𝐫}`$, the modified Lagrangian is written as:

$$L=4\pi 𝑑rr^2\left\{\frac{\eta ^2}{2}F^2\frac{sin^2(F)}{e^2r^2}F^2\frac{sin^2(F)}{r^2}\frac{sin^4(F)}{2e^2r^4}+\mu ^2\eta f_\pi cos(F)+_\eta \right\},$$
(6)
where $`F=F(r)`$, $`\eta =\eta (r)`$ and $`^{}`$ is the derivative with relation to the radial coordinate $`r`$.

The Euler-Lagrange equations for this system with the change of variable $`rrf_\pi `$ are given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}F^{\prime \prime }\left(r^2\eta ^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{e^2}\right)+2r\eta ^2F^{}+\frac{sin(2F)}{e^2}F^2\eta ^2sin(2F)\frac{4sin^3(F)cos(F)}{2e^2r^2}\{+\}\hfill & \\ \mu ^2\eta sin(F)r^2f_\pi +2r\eta \eta ^{}F^{}=0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
$$\eta ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2}{r}\eta ^{}\eta \left(F^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{r^2}+m_\eta ^2\right)+\mu ^2cos(F)f_\pi \lambda \eta ^3=0.$$
(8)
In the spatially homogeneous case of $`\eta (r)=f_\pi `$ (constant), the usual skyrmion equation and solutions are obtained for the first equation. That value for the sigma “condensate” (classical field) naturally emerges as a boundary solution in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, i.e., in the vacuum, far from the topological soliton for the solutions of interest. In the limit of $`m_\eta ^2\mathrm{}`$ the equations become uncoupled, what is verified numerically.

For the scalar field equation we consider the following conditions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\eta (r\mathrm{})=f_\pi ,\hfill & \\ \eta ^{}(r\mathrm{})=\eta ^{}(r=0)=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(9)
In this limit, in the vacuum, a constraint between the scalar field parameters is obtained. By minimizing the (homogeneous) scalar field potential from equation (8) we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\lambda =\frac{\mu ^2m_\eta ^2}{f_\pi ^2}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(10)
The corresponding solutions for the spatially non homogeneous case are presented later. Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking occurs as long as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda }{m_\eta ^2}<0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(11)
which provides a condition for the existence of the “sigma condensate” at the classical level. Quantum fluctuations may considerably change this . They will be investigated elsewhere.

For the equation of the profile function $`F(r)`$ the usual boundary conditions still hold, i.e., winding number $`n=1`$, for which one considers $`F(r=0)=\pi `$ and $`F(r\mathrm{})=0`$ . From expression (8) one sees that it is possible to define an effective mass parameter for the field $`\eta (r)`$. Namely:

$$m_{eff}^2=m_\eta ^2+F^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{r^2}.$$
(12)
Far from the nucleon this effective mass is just equal to $`m_\eta ^2`$, but inside the skyrmion and close to it the contributions from the two other terms may be relevant.

### 3.1  Numerical results

We are thus faced with two differential equations with two point-type boundary conditions. They are solved in an iterative way by the “shooting” method using fourth order Runge Kutta with the boundary conditions shown above.

The numerical solutions for the skyrmion profile function are presented in figure 1 and, in figure 2, the solutions for the condensate $`\eta (r)`$. Three different cases are shown considering $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV. The following values for the other input parameter were used for each solution:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1)m_ϵ=980\text{MeV}\text{and}e=4,\hfill & \\ (2)m_ϵ=980\text{MeV}\text{and}e=5,\hfill & \\ (3)m_ϵ=560\text{MeV}\text{and}e=4.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(13)
From figure 1 we notice that the skyrmion radius becomes a little smaller and that inside the topological soliton the scalar field tends to decrease, i.e., the nucleon “digs a hole” in the vacuum otherwise fulfilled with the condensate. For smaller (bigger) values of the scalar field mass the “hole” – which is in fact akin to the “bag” of other models – becomes deeper and wider (shallower and narrower). This is a mechanism for bag formation equal to those studied in . As a matter of fact, the Skyrmion model and the constituent quark model were shown to yield equivalent results in the large $`N_c`$ limit , thus the bag structure should be expected in both models.

In fact, we find that inside the topolotical soliton the effective mass given in expression (12) should be smaller in modulus, being even positive, thus violating condition (11) for the occurrence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. It can be seen as the restoration of the chiral symmetry inside the soliton (nucleon) for not high values of $`m_\eta ^2`$. Therefore there is a sort of a “critical value” for the scalar particle mass above which the chiral symmetry is restored inside the nucleon. This value depends on the other parameters of the model and on the level of approximation for the quantum fluctuations of the fields.

Although it is not clear whether it is physically meaningful we describe the following curious issue. We have also investigated the possibility that at the origin, i.e., inside the nucleon, the classical scalar field is larger than in the vacuum. For a very particular fine tuned value of $`\eta (r0)`$ \- which depends on $`e`$, $`m_\eta ^2`$ and $`\eta (r0)`$ \- we found a solution which goes asymptoticaly to $`f_\pi `$, as required and expected. We have obtained this only for large mass values. However this solution exhibits a sort of small amplitude oscillation, which decreases progressively with r, having large wavelength around the region of the topological soliton. It would correspond to a “stronger chiral symmetry breaking” inside the soliton. We leave the investigation of such solution for another work .

Strong and electromagnetic properties usually obtained for the skyrmion  were calculated considering the above scalar field coupling. The energy of the lightest baryons (nucleons) can be written as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}M=4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}drr^2\{\frac{\eta ^2}{2}(F^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{r^2})+(1cos(F))\mu ^2\eta f_\pi +\frac{\eta ^2}{2}+\frac{m_\eta ^2}{2}\eta ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\eta ^4+\hfill & \\ +\frac{1}{e^2}(\frac{sin^2(F)F^2}{r^2}+\frac{sin^4(F)}{2r^4})+\frac{1}{}E_{vac}\},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(14)
where $``$ is the moment of inertia  which now depends on $`\eta (r)`$ and $`E_{vac}`$ is the vacuum energy due to the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking to be subtracted:

$$E_{vac}=\left(\frac{m_\eta ^2}{4}\frac{3\mu ^2}{4}\right).$$
(15)
In table 1 we compare the values of observables obtained for the usual Skyrmion model, our model (for the three cases shown in figures 1 and 2) and experimental data. A higher value for $`e`$ ($`e=5`$) yield better values for the mass spectrum as it is well known. However almost all the other observables (mainly the electromagnetic properties) still present values in disagreement with the experimental ones. On the other hand, considering smaller values of the scalar field mass, $`m_ϵ=560MeV`$, a better agreement with the experimental values for most observables is obtained. The most remarkable exception is the behaviour of the axial coupling constant $`g_A`$. The $`g_A`$ coupling is calculated in two ways: 1) in the limit of zero momentum of the nucleon axial form factor and 2) by means of the Goldberger-Treiman relation  in which case all the parameters can be calculated from the resulting Skyrmion solutions. For $`g_A`$ and $`g_{\pi NN}`$ a smaller value of $`e`$ would be desirable, what would, in principle, make the values of the other observables to be in disagreement with experimental ones.

## 4  Derrick’s analysis of stability

We have also performed the Derrick’s analysis in order to verify the stability of the “finite sized” solutions of the differential equations . It consists in checking, by dimensional arguments (scale transformations), whether there is a scale in which the total energy of the system is finite yielding stable finite size solutions for the corresponding equations. One has to consider scale transformations for the spatial coordinate variable

$$rr^{}=\frac{r}{\alpha }$$

and for the dimensionful field

$$\eta (r)\beta \eta (r^{}).$$

In fact it is more suitable to do it for the shifted equivalent field: $`\theta (r)=f_\pi \eta (r)`$. Under the above transformations we verify whether the energy density has a stable minimum with relation to the scale transformation parameters, i.e.:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta M}{\delta \alpha }=0,\frac{\delta M}{\delta \beta }=0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta ^2M}{\delta \alpha ^2}>0,\frac{\delta ^2M}{\delta \beta ^2}>0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(17)
This analysis was performed for the following cases:

(i) Only the sigma model with the scalar field which has self interacting potential, i.e., no fourth order term for the pion field in the Lagrangian density (2);

(ii) The inclusion of the usual quartic Skyrme term exactly as it stands in expression (2);

(iii) The coupling of the scalar field in the fourth order Skyrme term, breaking the scale invariance, with the ansatz of expression (5). This modification yields, respectively, the following modified and additional Lagrangian density terms:

$$_4=\frac{1}{f_\pi ^4e^2}\left\{\eta ^4(r)\left(\frac{s^2F^2}{r^2}+\frac{s^4}{2r^4}\right)+\frac{\eta ^2\eta ^2s^2}{4r^2}\right\}.$$
(18)
In the first case (i) there are no stable solutions for the skyrmion profile function ($`\delta ^2M/\delta \alpha ^2<0`$). It becomes clear once again the importance of the higher order derivative terms in order to keep the soliton against collapse, in spite of the problems with the convergence of the derivative series .

Case (ii) is stable provided that the chiral symmetry breaking term is small (as always assumed) compared to the self interacting scalar field term as it can be seen from the second equation of (19) below. The conditions for stability are given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta ^2M}{\delta \alpha ^2}>0_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2𝑑r\frac{1}{ef_\pi }\left[2\left(2sin^2(F)\frac{(F^{})^2}{r^2}+\frac{sin^4(F)}{r^4}\right)\frac{\eta ^2}{4}\left((F^{})^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{4}(\eta ^{})^2\right]>0,\hfill & \\ \frac{\delta ^2M}{\delta \beta ^2}>0_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2𝑑r\left(\lambda \eta ^4+\mu ^2\eta f_\pi (cos(F)1)\right)>0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(19)
The first condition does not depend on $`e`$ neither on $`f_\pi `$. However the second one depends on the value of $`\lambda `$. This is found in numerical calculations where for very small values of $`\lambda `$ (and therefore of $`m_\eta `$) the solution for $`\eta (r)`$ becomes so stiffer that it makes the numerical calculations more unreliable and the solutions eventually inexistent for the boundary conditions we consider.

For case (iii) we have the following stability conditions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2M}{\alpha ^2}>0_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2𝑑r\left\{\frac{4}{f_\pi ^2}\left(2sin^2(F)\frac{(F^{})^2}{r^2}+\frac{sin^4(F)}{r^4}\right)\eta ^4\frac{\eta ^2}{4}\left((F^{})^2+\frac{2sin^2(F)}{r^2}\right)\frac{(\eta ^{})^2}{4}\right\}>0,\hfill & \\ \frac{\delta ^2M}{\delta \beta ^2}>0_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2𝑑r\left(2\lambda \eta ^4+16e^2\eta ^4\left(\frac{sin^2(F)(F^{})^2}{r^2}+\frac{sin^4(F)}{2r^2}\right)\mu ^2f_\pi \eta (1cos(F))\right)>0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(20)
The first of these equations depends on a scale ($`f_\pi `$ or $`e`$) for the stability and the second one depends on the relation between two parameters, $`\lambda `$ and $`e`$. This can be seen by means of an usual change of variable such as $`ref_\pi r`$.

With this analysis we see that the coupling of the scalar field to the fourth order Skyrme term as in prescription (5) is not suitable for the stability of the Skyrmion solution as it was argued before.

## 5  Summary and Conclusions

We have investigated the effect of coupling a classical scalar isoscalar field to the usual Skyrmion model as a degree of freedom whose corresponding quantum would be the chiral partner of the pion. The dependence of the observables on the values of the scalar field mass and on the fourth order coupling term $`e`$ were also considered. Smaller values of the $`\sigma `$ mass favor better agreement for most of the nucleon static properties, except $`g_A`$. Besides the expected solution of small values of the scalar condensate inside the nucleon, we found the possibility of a higher value for the classical field (and also for its mass) inside the nucleon, but for restricted values of the free parameters. This would be equivalent to a further, stronger, chiral symmetry breaking . This feature is not yet well understood and is being investigated .

This non trivial solution for the chiral radius (equivalently, for the sigma classical field) may suggest that the chiral symmetry is realized in the Wigner-Weyl mode inside the soliton instead of the Nambu-Goldstone mode, which is expected to hold in the vacuum. The scalar field mass is another free parameter that determines the form of the potential which presents (or not) the spontaneous symmetry breaking. The coupling to the nucleon allows the definition of an effective mass parameter, given by expression (12), which may be even positive inside the nucleon for the solutions shown in the figures while outside (in the vacuum) it becomes negative yielding the “mexican hat”-type potential for $`\eta `$.

In this work the pion mass term was considered to break explicitely chiral symmetry and to have the more standard form. However this form is not fully determined unless for the requirement of yielding the leading terms of the axial current divergence - PCAC. Furthermore its coupling to the scalar field is not at all uniquely determined and it may be expected to be related to the trace anomaly of QCD  and certainly to the chiral SSB. Alternative schemes for that will be shown elsewhere.

As discussed above there is a procedure for obtaining the fourth order stabilizing term from a coupling to the $`\rho `$ meson field (and also to its axial chiral partner $`A_1`$). It is based on the elimination of the vector meson degrees of freedom by performing the infinite mass limit and keeping the KSRF relation : $`m_\rho ^2=2g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2f_\pi ^2`$. However, we have consistently considered that inside the nucleon $`f_\pi `$ becomes a dynamical degree of freedom whose value may be seemingly reduced. Therefore the limit of large rho mass is not necessarily reliable anymore, thus imposing difficulties in order to relate one picture (with the $`\rho `$) to another (without it). This will be shown in detail elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by FAPESP, Brazil. The authors thank Dr. M. R. Robilotta for several discussions including the idea of prescription (5). I. P. C. also thanks Dr. F. F. da Souza Cruz Filho for several fruitful discussions, which have taken place in the Nuclear Theory Department of the University of Washington, Seattle, U.S.A. This author is thankful to Dr. Larry Wilets for their hospitality. F.L.B. thanks Dr. F.S. Navarra for motivating support and interest in the subject and interesting discussion.

Figure captions

Figure 1.

Profile function F(r) for uncoupled skyrmion (solid line) and taking into account the coupling to the condensate with input parameters: e=4 and $`m_ϵ=980`$ MeV (dashed line), e=5 and $`m_ϵ=980`$MeV (dotted-dashed line) and e=4 with $`m_ϵ=560`$MeV (dotted line).

Figure 2.

Condensate $`\eta (r)`$ in the presence of the soliton for the three cases with coupling of figure 1.


format: text

text:
# The Brightest Pulses in the Universe: Multifrequency Observations of the Crab Pulsar’s Giant Pulses

## 1 Introduction

Giant pulses from the Crab pulsar are long known (Staelin & Reifenstein 1968) but remain enigmatic tools for probing the pulsar emission mechanism. Recent work has established that giant-pulse fluctuations are most likely associated with changes in the coherence of the radio emission (Lundgren et al. 1995), that giant pulses are broadband (Sallmen et al. 1999), and that they are superpositions of extremely narrow nanosecond-duration structures (Hankins et al. 2003). Giant pulses from the Crab pulsar have the largest implied brightness temperature of any known astrophysical source. A simple estimate for the brightness temperature, based on the light-travel size and ignoring relativistic dilation, is

$`T_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_\nu }{2k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t}}\right)^2`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`10^{30.1}\mathrm{K}S_\nu (\mathrm{Jy})\left(\nu _{\mathrm{GHz}}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mu s}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^2,`$
where $`S_\nu `$ is the peak flux density at frequency $`\nu `$, $`D`$ is the distance, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the pulse width. For observed peak amplitudes and pulse widths (e.g. $`10^3`$ Jy at 5 GHz with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=2`$ ns; Hankins et al. 2003), $`T_b`$ ranges to as high as $`10^{37}`$ K.

In this paper we are concerned with the occurrence of giant pulses as a function of frequency and also where they occur as a function of pulse phase. We also establish the properties of the Crab pulsar’s emission in order that we can estimate the detectability of giant pulse emitters from other galaxies. Detections of such objects would enable studies of pulsar populations in those galaxies and use of the pulses to probe the interstellar medium (ISM) in those galaxies as well as the intervening intergalactic medium. In addition, the Crab pulsar may serve as a prototype of intense, coherent emission from other classes of high-energy objects which may share a similar physical configuration, namely a collimated flow of relativistic particles. As such, the Crab pulsar may signify the presence of other source classes in the transient radio universe that could be targets for proposed widefield telescopes such as LOFAR and the SKA.

In §2 we discuss the observations and issues pertaining to the strong background from the Crab Nebula and to the role of scintillation modulations associated with multipath propagation through the ISM and the Crab Nebula. Average profiles and giant-pulse profiles are discussed in §3 and timing and amplitude statistics in §4. Detectability of giant pulses in other galaxies is summarized in §6 and we conclude the paper in §7. In an Appendix, we discuss frequency structure caused by intrinsic pulse structure and by scintillation.

## 2 Observations

The Crab pulsar was observed at the Arecibo Observatory in January to March and May 2002 using receivers in the Gregorian optical path. Analog signals were analyzed with a fast-dump, real-time correlator system, the Wideband Arecibo Pulsar Processor (WAPP, `http://www.naic.edu/~wapp`), which outputs a data stream of correlation functions at specifiable time intervals. The number of correlation lags (and hence the number of channels across a choice of bandwidths after Fourier transformation) is selectable. The total bandwidth used was 100 MHz for all but 0.43 GHz, where we used 12.5 MHz. We optimized the time resolution by matching the dump time between correlations with the dispersion smearing time across individual channels, subject to a constraint on overall data rate that could be recorded, $`20`$ Mbyte s-1. Table 1 gives the observing parameters: observing frequency, $`\nu `$ (GHz); modified Julian date (MJD); total time, $`T`$ (hr), of acquired data; total bandwidth, $`B`$ (MHz); sample interval, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ ($`\mu s`$); channel bandwidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (MHz); dispersion smearing across a single channel, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{DM}}=8.3\mu \mathrm{s}\mathrm{DM}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \nu ^3`$; and the mean system noise, $`S_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, expressed in Jy. We used a dispersion measure, DM = 56.7910 pc cm-3, to dedisperse the data.

Processing consisted of (1) Fourier transforming the correlation functions for each of two polarization channels; (2) summing the resultant spectra for the two polarizations; (3) dedispersing by summing over frequency channels while taking into account time delays associated with plasma dispersion in the ISM; (4) averaging the time series synchronously with the pulsar period to form a standard intensity profile; (5) identifying individual giant pulses and their occurrence times by selecting intensity samples that exceeded the off-pulse mean by 5$`\sigma `$; (6) synchronously averaging the individual giant pulses to form a histogram of giant pulses vs. pulse phase; and (7) aligning average profiles and individual giant pulse profiles in pulse phase by using TEMPO and a spin model for the Crab pulsar. We also used TEMPO to perform an arrival-time analysis on individual giant pulses, as discussed in §4. For the TEMPO analysis, we used timing models from the Jodrell Bank timing program (`http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/crab.html`).

The procedure for finding giant pulses followed that of Cordes & McLaughlin (2003). The dedispersed time series was first analyzed with the original time resolution and then progressively smoothed and decimated by factors of two in order to approximately match filter to pulses with different widths. In the end, most pulses were optimally detected with no smoothing or only one level of smoothing, as is consistent with the known properties of giant pulses and average profiles (Moffett & Hankins 1996; Sallmen et al. 1999).

### 2.1 Importance of Nebular Background

The Crab Nebula, whose flux density $`955\nu ^{0.27}`$ Jy ($`\nu `$ in GHz) (Allen 1973; Bietenholz et al. 1997), dominates the system temperature if it is not resolved by the telescope. Define the system temperature in the absence of the Crab Nebula as $`T_{\mathrm{sys}_0}`$ and the contribution from the Crab Nebula as $`T_{\mathrm{CN}}`$. Expressing these in flux density units by dividing by the telescope ‘gain’ G (K Jy-1), the total system noise level is

$`S_{\mathrm{sys}}=S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}+S_{\mathrm{CN}}.`$ (2)
For the Crab pulsar and Nebula, the system temperature is strongly influenced by the Nebula if $`S_{\mathrm{CN}}>ϵS_{\mathrm{sys}_0}`$ with $`ϵ=0.1`$, say. For a single-dish telescope with typical system temperature $`S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}=50`$ K and 60% aperture efficiency, this condition is satisfied for antenna diameters that satisfy

$`d>17\mathrm{m}\nu ^{0.13}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵT_{\mathrm{sys}_0}}{50K}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (3)
For very large telecopes (either large single-dish antennas or arrays), the effective beam width can be smaller than the Crab Nebula, reducing its contribution to the system noise by a factor $`f_\nu =\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CN}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{A}`$ is the solid angle of the primary antenna beam, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ is the solid angle of the Crab Nebula. The total system noise level is then

$`S_{\mathrm{sys}}=S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}+f_\nu S_{\mathrm{CN}},`$ (4)
The characteristic diameter (geometric mean of the major and minor axes) of the Crab Nebula is approximately 5.5 arcmin. For the Arecibo telescope, our data at 0.43 GHz, with beam size equal to 11 arcmin (FWHM) include all of the flux density of the Crab Nebula, while higher frequencies resolve out some of the flux density. The last column of Table 1 indicates our estimate of the system noise including any dilution of the Crab Nebula’s contribution.

In the following, we express pulse amplitudes in terms of the mean system noise.

### 2.2 Scintillations

Diffractive interstellar scintillation (DISS) strongly influences the detectability of the pulsar at frequencies of 3 GHz and higher. There are three regimes that may be identified for scintillation modulations, depending on the size of the scintillation bandwidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}`$, relative to the total bandwidth $`B`$ and to the channel bandwidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, scintillations are essentially quenched because individual ‘scintles’ are averaged out. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}0.2B`$, scintillations are identifiable as frequency structure in the spectrum of a strong, individual pulse; the net modulation in the dedispersed time series depends on the number of scintles across $`B`$ and conforms roughly to a $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with $`0.4B/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}`$ degrees of freedom. Finally, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}0.2B`$, the dedispersed time series is fully modulated by DISS, with an amplitude modulation factor conforming to a one-sided exponential. The factor, $`0.2B`$, represents the approximate value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}`$ for which we would expect only one scintle within the total bandwidth, $`B`$. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\nu ^{4.4}`$, DISS becomes progressively more important in going to higher frequencies until the scattering becomes weak (in the sense of phase perturbations on the Fresnel scale becoming less than 1 radian; see, e.g., Rickett 1990).

We estimate the DISS bandwidth by using the relation $`2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\tau _d=C_1`$ (Cordes & Rickett 1998; hereafter CR98), where $`\tau _d`$ is the pulse-broadening time and $`C_1`$ is a constant dependent on the spectrum and spatial distribution of scattering irregularities; we adopt $`C_1=1.05`$, a value appropriate for a thin screen. The pulse-broadening time for the Crab pulsar is known to vary (e.g. Isaacman & Rankin 1975; Lyne & Thorne 1975; Backer et al. 1998; Lyne, Pritchard & Graham-Smith 2001; Backer et al. 2000), ranging from about 0.28 ms to 1.3 ms at 0.3 GHz (Sallmen et al. 1999). Adopting $`\tau _d(0.3\mathrm{GHz})=0.5`$ ms as a reference value, we estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}67\mathrm{kHz}\nu ^{4.4}[0.5\mathrm{ms}/\tau _d(0.3\mathrm{GHz})]`$, with $`\nu `$ in GHz. Using this expression, we expect that the dedispersed pulse will show fully modulated scintillations (i.e. after summing over the 100 MHz bandwidth) for $`\nu 3.6`$ GHz.

We found the mean pulsar flux density (averaged over a few minutes) to be heavily modulated on time scales as short as 5 minutes at frequencies $`3`$ GHz and nearly unchanging at lower frequencies. Such fluctuations are consistent with those expected from DISS, as we discuss in §5. We also saw epoch-to-epoch fluctuations (time scales of one day and longer) that are consistent with refractive interstellar scintillations (RISS), like those identified by Lundgren et al. (1995) at 0.8 GHz on time scales of a few days. The combination of RISS and DISS is particularly strong at 8.8 GHz where the pulsar is undetectable on many days but quite bright, in the mean, on occasional days with DISS fluctuations contributing on shorter time scales. We note that at 8.8 GHz, the diffraction bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}1`$ GHz (assuming the $`\nu ^{4.4}`$ scaling), implying that the strength of scattering (as defined in scintillation literature; see Rickett 1990) is not strong and that the DISS and RISS ‘branches’ are not as distinct as at lower frequencies (e.g. Narayan 1992).

## 3 Average Profiles

We calculated average profiles of the total intensity by summing partial-sum profiles (of 3 to 12 minutes duration, depending on frequency) in which the largest pulse component had a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) larger than five and which were unmarred by radio frequency interference (RFI). At frequencies higher than 0.43 GHz, typically only a minority of profiles were included owing to the effects of DISS or RFI. Likewise, profiles of giant pulse counts were calculated using data subsets corresponding to those included in the average intensity profiles.

Figure 1 shows average intensity and giant-pulse profiles for the ten frequencies journaled in Table 1. The top panel of the pair shown for each frequency is the total intensity profile and the bottom panel shows the giant-pulse histogram vs. pulse phase, i.e. the number of giant pulses in the given pulse phase bin that are above threshold ($`5\sigma `$). In some of the panels we designate features in the pulse profile, including low-frequency precursor pulse (P), main pulse (MP), interpulse (IP), an intermediate-frequency precursor component (P; referred to by Moffett & Hankins (1996) as a ‘low-frequency component’); a shifted interpulse component appearing at mid-to-high frequencies (IP); and two high-frequency components (HFC1 and HFC2) that were first identified by Moffett & Hankins (1996).

We point out the following features of the set of profiles:

1. The pulsar is more readily detectable in its single giant pulses than in the average pulse at all frequencies. This is manifest by the larger S/N in the histogram plots compared to the average profile plots in Figure 1.
2. There is strong evolution of the relative strength of MP and IP as a function of frequency. The ratio of peak IP to peak MP steadily declines from 0.43 to 2 GHz, stays low from 2.5 to 3.5 GHz, and rises at higher frequencies so that the IP is much stronger than the MP at 8.8 GHz.
3. At 4.15 GHz, IP appears approximately 0.03 cycles before the location of the lower frequency IP and becomes very strong relative to the MP at 8.8 GHz.
4. At frequencies of 3.5 GHz and higher two new components, HFC1 and HFC2, appear and persist up to the highest frequency we used (8.8 GHz).
5. It is unclear if the HFC1 and HFC2 components are present at 2.15, 2.33 and 2.85 GHz owing to the low S/N of those profiles, which derives from the short integration times and the effects of scintillations.
6. Giant pulses occur only in MP, IP and IP. For this reason we conclude that IP and IP are probably associated with the same physical emitting region or beam in the pulsar.
7. There is more scatter in the pulse phase of the interpulse at high frequencies, manifested in the broader width of the interpulse component. As discussed below in §4, at 8.8 GHz the phase residuals appear to show a two-component distribution, one centered on $`\varphi =0.38`$ cycles, the other representing giant pulses skewed toward smaller phases.

Table 2 gives the frequency and total time span used in our analysis in columns 1 and 2; column 3 gives the mean mainpulse-to-interpulse pulse-phase difference; column 4, the ratio of the numbers of detected interpulses and mainpulses; and the last column gives the detection rate for events found at $`8\sigma `$ or higher. At 0.43 GHz, about 1 in 10 pulses is detected above this level. We emphasize that the detection rate is epoch dependent owing to scintillation modulations. Slow, refractive scintillations affect the rates at all frequencies, while fast diffractive scintillations are particularly important at frequencies above 3 GHz. The 8.8 GHz results apply to a particular day when the scintillation modulation boosted intensities far above their normal level. The mainpulse to interpulse phase difference varies systematically with frequency, remaining constant with frequency (within errors) from 0.43 to 3.5 GHz and then declining with increasing frequency up to 8.8 GHz. This variation in calculated phase difference corresponds to the shift from IP to IP.

## 4 Amplitude and Timing Statistics of Giant Pulses

Figures 4 and 4 show histograms of signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) at 0.43 and 8.8 GHz for the main and interpulse components specified in Figure 1. We include only pulses with $`S/N>8`$ in order to provide consistency with the timing analysis discussed below, where we use an 8$`\sigma `$ threshold for the purpose of obtaining timing residuals minimally influenced by noise. Traditionally, giant-pulse amplitude distributions have been characterized as power laws (e.g. Argyle & Gower 1972; Lundgren et al. 1995). The histograms shown here have roughly power-law segments to their distributions but there are outlier pulses at especially high S/N at both frequencies. Roughly, a power law with slope $`2.3`$ can be drawn through the MP histogram at 0.43 GHz in Figure 4 and a slope $`2.9`$ at 8.8 GHz (Figure 4. These can be compared with slopes of approximately -2.5 at 0.146 GHz (Argyle & Gower 1972) and -3.6 at 0.812 GHz (Lundgren et al. 1995). Overall there thus appears to be steepening of the histogram in going from low to high frequencies. Remarkably, the largest pulse at 0.43 GHz has S/N $`1.1\times 10^4`$, which is inconsistent with the probability implied by the power law at lower S/N. We suggest that this pulse is an example of a supergiant pulse. The same is true at 8.8 GHz, where giant pulses in the interpulse region are dominant in number but the largest pulse appears in the main pulse component and is 10$`\times `$ larger than the largest interpulse giant pulse. Conceivably, the largest pulses seen at 0.43 and 8.8 GHz are statistical flukes. The extensive observations of Lundgren et al. (1995) at 0.8 GHz do not indicate the presence of a gap between the brightest and typical giant pulses.

The joint statistics of timing phase residuals and pulse amplitudes (expressed as S/N) are shown in Figures 4 and 4 for the mainpulse and interpulse separately. At the lower frequency (0.43 GHz), the mainpulse phase residuals show a skewed distribution toward larger phases. At 8.8 GHz, the distribution of phase residuals in the interpulse is much broader than in the mainpulse and in either component at 0.43 GHz. This trend is consistent with the appearance of the average profiles in Figure 1. At 8.8 GHz, the giant interpulses showing the most negative phase residuals tend to be weaker than the average. Otherwise, there is no evidence for a strong relationship between amplitude and phase residual.

## 5 Scintillations and Spectral Fluctuations

From the discussion in §2.2, we estimate that the scintillation bandwidth will range from about 2 kHz at 0.43 GHz to about 1 GHz at 8.8 GHz if we assume a scaling $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\nu ^{4.4}`$. Previous work also suggests that at any epoch the actual scintillation bandwidth could vary by a factor of a few about these values. Such variations are due to the stochastic nature of the process but also are caused by refractive modification of the diffraction parameters (e.g. Rickett 1990). At our lowest frequency, 0.43 GHz, the DISS bandwidth is about 1/10 the channel bandwidth (c.f. Table 1). Thus, the brightest features in the frequency-time data are expected to be diminished by the smoothing implied by the spectrometer resolution. At our highest frequency, 8.8 GHz, the predicted DISS bandwidth is a factor of eight smaller than the center frequency, signifying that scintillations are in the transition regime between strong and weak scattering. In the transition regime, we expect deep modulations as in the strong scattering regime, but with different statistics and, according to our estimate, they will be highly correlated across our 100 MHz bandwidth.

Of course, our predictions for DISS bandwidth require some caveats. First, our data were obtained over a 0.4 year period over which time the scattering strength undoubtedly varied, probably yielding an implied pulse-broadening time at 0.43 GHz different from the value we have assumed ($`100\mu s`$). Second, the scaling with frequency of the DISS quantities may depart from that which has been identified along other lines of sight in the ISM. The scaling with the 4.4 exponent has been established for pulsars with small DMs, while a few objects show a weaker scaling as $`\nu ^4`$. Recent work on high-DM pulsars (Löhmer et al. 2001; Bhat et al. 2003) indicates that the pulse broadening time may vary as weakly as $`\nu ^3`$ (and the scintillation bandwidth thus as $`\nu ^3`$). However, it is also clear from Bhat et al. (2003) that empirical determinations of the exponent are sensitive to assumptions about the form of the pulse-broadening function fitted to the data and how it interacts with the assumed intrinsic pulse shape of the pulsar. Nonetheless, despite these uncertainties, evidence suggests that the pulse broadening from the Crab pulsar is not only highly variable, but often exceeds the predictions based on lower frequencies using either of the strong scaling laws, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\nu ^4`$ or $`\nu ^{4.4}`$. Possible interpretations include contributions from scattering within the pulsar magnetosphere (Hankins & Moffett 1998) or from scattering regions within the Crab Nebula that are bounded spatially (Cordes & Lazio 2001). Spatially bounded scattering regions can generate scattering times that scale with frequency differently than with an exponent of 4 or 4.4.

In Figures 5.1 \- 5.1 we show plots of the pulsed flux for single giant pulses in the frequency-time plane, the pulse shape obtained by summing over frequency both with and without compensation for dispersion delays, and the spectrum of the pulse.

At 0.43 GHz, the pulse is easily detected even without dedispersion owing to the high S/N. Structure in the spectrum is quite spiky and is associated with individual scintles caused by DISS. This is so, in spite of the fact that the DISS bandwidth is substantially smaller than the channel bandwidth, because the spacing between scintles is quite large. DISS in the strong scattering regime is exponentially distributed and with an ensemble average mean modulation of unity. Consistent with the statistics is the estimate that the number of strong scintles within a bandwidth $`B`$ is

$`N_\nu 1+0.2B/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}.`$ (5)
As can be seen in the right-hand panel of Fig 5.1, the minimum spectral values away from the bandpass edges are well offset from zero, signifying that the overall modulation is less than the 100% expected from exponential DISS statistics, consistent with the smoothing of scintles that occurs in the process of channelizing the data.

By comparison, plots of giant pulses at 1.5 and 2.4 GHz (Figures 5.1 and 5.1) show minimum spectral values nearly equal to zero flux density, consistent with the larger, nearly-resolved or resolved scintillation structure expected at those frequencies. At 2.85 GHz, the minimum spectral values are well above zero, signifying that the DISS bandwidth is large enough that only one or two scintles are expected across the band. At 8.8 GHz (Figure 5.1), the modulation of the flux across the bandpass has a much different character, as expected if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}B`$, where $`B=100`$ MHz.

### 5.1 Scintillation Bandwidths

We estimate the scintillation bandwidth by calculating the intensity autocorrelation function, $`A(\delta \nu )=I(t,\nu )I(t,\nu +\delta \nu )`$ for the spectrum of each giant pulse and summing over giant pulses. For this analysis, we used giant pulses with signal to noise ratios S/N $`>20`$ in the dedispersed pulse. Scintillation structure is unresolved at frequencies below 2 GHz and is comparable to or larger than our receiver bandpass at frequencies larger than 4 GHz. Results are shown in Table 3 along with scintillation time scales, discussed in the next section, and the number of giant pulses used to estimate the parameters.

### 5.2 Scintillation Time Scale

The scintillation time scale is the time for features in the diffraction pattern to transport across the line of sight (LOS), combined with any reorganization of the diffraction pattern itself. These two contributions are determined by the velocities of the source and observer and any bulk motion of the intervening material, which change the sampling geometry of the diffraction pattern, combined with random velocities in the medium. Traditionally the scintillation time scale is calculated as the $`e^1`$ width along the time lag axis of the two dimensional intensity correlation function, $`C(\delta \nu ,\tau )=I(t,\nu )I(t+\tau ,\nu +\delta \nu )`$. For strong pulsars with steady pulse emission and scintillation time scales of minutes or longer, $`C(\delta \nu ,\tau )`$ can be calculated on a uniform grid of $`\delta \nu `$ and $`\tau `$. However, for the Crab pulsar, the giant pulses allow only sporadic sampling along the time-lag axis. At most of our observing frequencies, it is difficult to establish values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_\mathrm{d}`$ either because the DISS frequency structure is unresolved (e.g. at 0.43 GHz) or because we cannot find enough close pairs of giant pulses having adequate S/N to estimate reliably the correlation coefficient of the spectra. However, at 1.475 GHz and 2.33 GHz, detectable pulses allow us to estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_\mathrm{d}`$.

Figure 5.2 shows spectra for a close pair of high S/N pulses at 1.475 GHz. While some of the features in the spectra align, it is clear that the frequency structure has decorrelated significantly. The correlation coefficient is only 0.46. If scintillations were the only source of frequency structure, this would imply an exceedingly short decorrelation time. However some of the frequency structure is associated with the intrinsic noise of the pulsar signal. (Little structure is associated with additive radiometer noise owing to the high S/N of 66 and 82 for the dedispersed pulses.) The intrinsic frequency structure has a frequency scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _iW_A^1`$, where $`W_A`$ is the characteristic pulse width. With $`W_A100\mu `$s, the intrinsic structure is expected to show $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _i10`$ kHz, much narrower than the channel bandwidth of 0.78 MHz. However, substructure within the pulse envelope comprising short-duration pulses of duration $`1\mu s`$ or less would increase this scale to 1 MHz or more. Hankins et al. (2003) have identified substructure in giant pulses on these short time scales. We conclude that the intrinsic pulse structure is responsible primarily for the fast decorrelation between the pair of pulses. This conclusion is corroborated by a statistical study of a large number of pulse pairs.

Figure 5.2 shows the correlation coefficient $`C(0,\tau )`$ between a large number of pulse pairs plotted against time separation, $`\tau `$. We have used only those pulses with S/N $`>20`$ in the dedispersed pulse in order to reduce scatter in the correlation estimates from additive noise. The roll-off of the correlation coefficient at larger lags represents a correlation time, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_\mathrm{d}25\pm 5`$ sec at 1.475 MHz. From Appendix A, we expect the asymptotic correlation coefficient (at small lags) to be $`1/(2+d_\mathrm{p}^2)`$, in the mean, under the scintillating amplitude-modulated shot-noise (SAMPSN) model and where $`d_\mathrm{p}`$ is the degree of polarization ($`1)`$. This level is consistent with the level of correlation seen at lags $`\tau 1`$ sec if the pulses are typically highly polarized. Consistency of giant pulse spectral statistics with SAMPSN implies that, typically, pulses at 1.475 GHz are composed of a large number ($`5)`$ of individual shot pulses in order that the intrinsic fluctuations are Gaussian and thus contribute to the rapid decorrelation seen (see Appendix).

A similar analysis for 2.33 GHz data yields a somewhat longer time scale (Table 3). At still higher frequencies, there are insufficient pairs of strong pulses to establish the correlation time, though we are able to estimate the scintillation bandwidth up to 3.5 GHz. At 8.8 GHz, where the scintillation bandwidth is larger than the observation bandwidth, we expect spectral modulations to derive solely from amplitude-modulated noise statistics (combined with radiometer noise), implying that the modulation index $`m_I=\sigma _I/I=\sqrt{(1+d_\mathrm{p}^2)/2}`$ (after correction for any contribution from radiometer noise, which is negligible for the largest pulses). For the pulse displayed in Figure 5.1, the modulation index is only 0.29. A low modulation index suggests that the giant pulse of that figure is dominated by a single shot pulse with duration comparable to the reciprocal bandwidth, $`10`$ ns, or that the giant pulse comprises a cluster of shot pulses with a similar width. Such results are not inconsistent with those of Hankins et al. (2003), who found nanosecond structure within individual giant pulses at 5 GHz.

### 5.3 Scintillation Speed

The effective speed with which the intensity pattern caused by multipath propagation crosses the LOS can be estimated from the scintillation bandwidth and time scale. If we assume that electron density fluctuations have a Kolmogorov spectrum and fill the LOS uniformly, the pattern speed is (CR98)

$`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}=A_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{D\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}}}{\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t_\mathrm{d}}},`$ (6)
with $`A_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}=2.53\times 10^4`$ km s-1 for $`\nu `$ in GHz, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_\mathrm{d}`$ in s, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}`$ in MHz and $`D`$ in kpc. We evaluate $`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}`$ at 1.475 GHz by using the decorrelation time estimated in the previous section but by scaling the scintillation bandwidth from 2.33 GHz, since it is unresolved at 1.475 GHz. Scaling from 2.33 GHz using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}\nu ^{4.4}`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\mathrm{d}0.31\pm 0.05`$ MHz. Using $`D=2`$ kpc for the distance to the Crab Nebula, the scintillation speed is $`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}540`$ km s-1. Under the assumptions leading to this estimate, $`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}`$ should be approximately equal to the transverse pulsar speed, $`|𝐕_{\mathrm{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|171\pm 28`$ km s-1 from an HST proper motion measurement (Caraveo & Mignani 1999); instead, there is a factor of 3 discrepancy.

No element in the scattering geometry (pulsar, medium, or source) has a velocity as large as $`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}`$ and it is reasonable to conclude that the scattering medium is in fact not uniform along the LOS, receiving contributions from the Crab Nebula’s filaments. First, we ignore the effects of the general ISM and consider filamentary scattering screens at a distance $`D_\mathrm{s}1`$ pc from the pulsar. Then, using Equations 13-18 of CR98 to correct for the geometric leveraging effects of screen(s) near the pulsar, we obtain

$`V_{\mathrm{ISS}}`$ $`=`$ $`W_\mathrm{C}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(DD_\mathrm{s})}{D_\mathrm{s}}}\right]^{1/2}V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}`$
$``$ $`3.4\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{D/D_\mathrm{s}}{2000}}\right)\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,`$
where we have used $`W_\mathrm{C}1.05`$ (c.f. Figure 1 of CR98).

For a thin screen, the pattern speed is related physically to the velocities of the pulsar, observer, and medium as (CR98, equation 4) $`V_{\mathrm{ISS}}=(D/D_\mathrm{s})|𝐕_{\mathrm{eff},}|`$, or,

$`V_{\mathrm{ISS}}=\left|\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{D_\mathrm{s}}}1\right)𝐕_{\mathrm{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐕_{\mathrm{obs}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{D_\mathrm{s}}}\right)𝐕_{\mathrm{m}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right|,`$ (8)
where $`𝐕_{\mathrm{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐕_{\mathrm{obs}}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝐕_{\mathrm{m}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are the transverse velocities of the pulsar, observer and medium relative to the local standard of rest. The pulsar and medium’s velocities are “boosted” by the factor $`D/D_\mathrm{s}2000`$, so we may ignore the Earth’s motion in the following.

The LOS filament velocities are $`1500`$ km s-1 (Fesen & Kirshner 1982). To estimate the effective transverse velocity, we need to consider the symmetry of filament motions and how the geometry has changed since the supernova explosion. Figure 5.3 shows the geometry under the assumption of purely radial motion by wind material (which may represent a pre-supernova wind or blast-wave material). The present-day transverse velocity of the pulsar implies transverse filament velocities $`𝐕_{\mathrm{fil}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐕_{\mathrm{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (for filament segments along the present-day LOS to the pulsar) if filaments originally had strictly radial velocities (relative to the explosion center). In this case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐕_{\mathrm{pf}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐕_{\mathrm{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐕_{\mathrm{fil}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ vanishes and the effective transverse speed is merely the pulsar speed.

However, nonradial filament motions are expected because the pulsar’s progenitor star was rotating. Even with fairly slow rotation, nonradial filament speeds of a few km s-1 are boosted by the factor $`D_\mathrm{s}/D`$ to several thousand km s-1. Faster rotation yields accordingly faster transverse filament speeds today. Filaments may also have arisen from material in or deflected by a circumstellar disk around the progenitor (Fesen, Martin, & Shull 1992), again yielding large nonradial filament speeds today. Alternatively, the material responsible for scattering in the Crab Nebula could derive from the presupernova wind. In any case, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{pf}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is nonnegligible. It is not clear if nonradial filamentary motions have been detected directly or not in the Crab Nebula (MacAlpine et al. 1994; Schaller & Fesen 2002). However, indirect constraints (Trimble 1968; see also discussion in Backer, Wong & Valanju 2000) based on filament motions with respect to the explosion center allow nonradial motions $`70`$ km s-1.

By equating Eq. 5.3 and 8, we derive a constraint (independent of the distance to the Crab Nebula),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{pf}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}W_\mathrm{C}V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_\mathrm{s}}{D}}\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`18D_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1.`$
For pulsar-filament distances $`D_\mathrm{s}=1`$ pc, transverse filament speeds relative to the pulsar $`18`$ km s-1 are needed. We conclude that filaments that affect the pulsar’s radio emission possess modest nonradial motions relative to the explosion center.

Alternatively, we can consider the combined effects of filaments in the Crab Nebula and the general ISM. Calculating the weighting factor $`W_{\mathrm{D},\mathrm{ISS}}`$ that relates $`V_{\mathrm{ISS}}`$ to $`V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}`$ (c.f. Eq. 10-18 of CR98) while taking into account a uniform ISM combined with a thin screen, we find an expression analogous to that in Eq. 5.3,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{pf}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`(3/8)^{3/5}W_\mathrm{C}V_{\mathrm{ISS},5/3,\mathrm{u}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{ISM}}}{\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{CN}}}}\right)^{3/5},`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{ISM}}`$ and $`\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ are the scattering measures for the general ISM and the Crab Nebula, respectively, and we have assumed that $`(D_\mathrm{s}/D))\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{ISM}}\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{CN}}`$ but that $`\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{CN}}>\mathrm{SM}_{\mathrm{ISM}}`$. The scattering measure is the LOS integral of $`C_n^2`$, the spectral coefficient for electron density irregularities (e.g. Cordes & Lazio 2002). Using values inferred for the two scattering measures (from, e.g., the electron density model, NE2001, of Cordes & Lazio 2002 and from pulse broadening of the Crab Nebula), Eq. 10 yields an estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{pf}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}20`$ km s-1 similar to that using Eq. 5.3.

## 6 Detectability of Giant Pulses from Extragalactic Crab-like Pulsars

The pulses we have identified are sufficiently strong to be detected from other galaxies. If we were to place the Crab pulsar in another galaxy, the inverse square law would lessen pulse amplitudes but so too would it decrease the contribution to the system temperature from the Crab Nebula. Consider a Crab-like pulsar in a Crab-Nebula-like nebula at distance $`D_{\mathrm{Neb}}`$. The system noise level for this object is (assuming it to be unresolved)

$`S_{\mathrm{sys}}=S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{\mathrm{CN}}}{D_{\mathrm{Neb}}}}\right)^2S_{\mathrm{CN}}.`$ (11)
The nebular contribution to the system noise becomes less than the nominal system noise if $`S_{\mathrm{sys}}<(1+ϵ)S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}`$ or

$`D_{\mathrm{Neb}}>D_{\mathrm{CN}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{CN}}}{ϵS_{\mathrm{sys}_0}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (12)
Table 4 shows values of $`D_{\mathrm{Neb}}`$ that satisfy inequality 12 for the Arecibo Telescope, the Green Bank Telescope (GBT), the VLA (and the Extended VLA), the Allen Telescope Array, the Low-Frequency Array (LOFAR), and the Square Kilometer Array (SKA). In all cases, we assume the nebula is unresolved. For the VLA, the ATA, LOFAR and some designs for the SKA, this assumption will break down. For $`ϵ=1`$ (equal contributions to $`S_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ from the nebula and from receiver and background noise), the Nebula is unimportant for objects in the Magellanic Clouds for either of the existing telescopes. However, for the SKA, nebular noise is dominant for such objects. For the largest nearby spiral galaxies (M31 and M33), however, nebular noise is negligible for all existing and contemplated telescopes.

The optimal frequency can also be determined. If we assume that the spectrum is the same as that of the Crab pulsar, lower frequencies are favored unless propagation effects smear the pulse. For the Crab pulsar itself, 0.43 GHz is approximately the lowest frequency at which propagation effects are sufficiently small. For pulsars in M31 or M33, the dispersion measures expected given their respective Galactic latitudes and inclinations are approximately equal to the DM of the Crab pulsar. Similarly, the scattering is expected to be approximately the same. Consequently, we can use our 0.43-GHz results on the Crab pulsar to estimate the $`S/N`$ expected for extragalactic emitters of giant pulses.

The strongest pulse observed at 0.43 GHz has $`S/N_{\mathrm{max}}=1.1\times 10^4`$ even with the system noise dominated by the Crab Nebula. For objects in M31 ($`D0.8`$ Mpc) or further, the system noise is essentially unaffected by the nebular contribution. If the Crab pulsar were not embedded in its nebula, the S/N of our largest pulse would have been $`S_{\mathrm{CN}}/S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}300`$ times larger, or $`3.3\times 10^6`$. For this particular pulse, the maximum distance it could be detected at a specified signal-to-noise ratio, $`(S/N)_{\mathrm{det}}`$ is

$`D_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\mathrm{CN}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(S/N)_{\mathrm{max}}}{(S/N)_{\mathrm{det}}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{CN}}}{S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{CN}}}{S_{\mathrm{sys}_0}}}\right]^{1/2}`$ (13)
$``$ $`1.6\mathrm{Mpc}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(S/N)_{\mathrm{det}}}{5}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (14)
The largest 0.43 GHz pulse would thus be detectable from M33 ($`D0.93`$ Mpc) using the Arecibo telescope and our current spectrometer at $`S/N15`$. Using the GBT to observe M31 (since M31 is outside the declination range of Arecibo), our largest pulse would have $`S/N4.8`$. Thus, a convincing detection of giant pulses from M31 with the GBT would require longer dwell times than one hour in order that yet-stronger pulses could be detected. Detection of giant pulses is discussed in general in Cordes & Mclaughlin (2003) and in particular from nearby galaxies in McLaughlin & Cordes (2003).

LOFAR (the Low-frequency Array) would allow detection of a giant pulse at 0.2 GHz at the 5$`\sigma `$ level out to a distance of 1.5 Mpc for our largest pulse at 0.43 GHz, scaled to 0.2 GHz. The SKA would yield $`D_{\mathrm{max}}5.9`$ Mpc for a $`5\sigma `$ detection of our largest pulse at 0.43 GHz. There are approximately 16 galaxies (of M33’s size or larger) within this distance. If pulsars like the Crab pulsar persist in emitting giant pulses for a time of order the current age of the Crab ($`10^3`$ yr) and if the birth rate of pulsars scales as the ratio of a galaxy’s mass to the Milky Way’s mass, $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{psr}}10^2\mathrm{yr}^1M_{\mathrm{gal}}/M_{\mathrm{MW}}`$, we expect that there should be a few to about 20 such pulsars in each of these galaxies. Of course, giant-pulses are also emitted by millisecond pulsars whose magnetic fields at their light cylinders are comparable to that of the Crab pulsar (Cognard et al. 1996; Johnston & Romani 2002) so the numbers of detectable objects may be larger. At present, however, the Crab pulsar emits the most luminous giant pulses of any of these objects and best serves as a prototype for detectable objects from other galaxies.

## 7 Summary & Conclusions

We have shown that giant pulses from the Crab pulsar are restricted to only two of the pulse components seen in long-term average profiles. These components are the same as those detected at optical, X-ray and gamma-ray energies, suggesting that the mechanism for giant-pulse emission occurs high in the magnetosphere, where these emissions are expected to originate. The occurence of giant pulses is strongly frequency dependent. We find that giant pulses ‘follow’ the interpulse in pulse phase as it shifts to earlier phases above $`4`$ GHz. We therefore conclude that the same physical region produces both the low-frequency and the shifted, high-frequency interpulse. While the main pulse is dominant from 0.43 to 5.5 GHz, both in the average profiles and in the number of giant pulses, at 8.8 GHz, the interpulse is dominant. We have no clear interpretation of this trend other than the usual suspect processes: beaming and spectral dependence. It is our aim to analyze the profile shapes and giant-pulse occurrence histograms along with multiwavelength pulse profiles extending to $`>100`$ MeV gamma-rays in order to better constrain the roles of beaming and coherence mechanisms. This work will be deferred to another paper.

Epoch dependence of the giant-pulse rate derives from scintillation effects that appear to be strongly influenced by plasma in the Crab Nebula. Backer, Wong & Valanju (2000) demonstrate that multiple images occur owing to the passage across the line of sight of refracting plasma. We establish the scintillation time scale that is sufficiently short ($`25`$ s at 1.48 GHz) that plasma relatively near the pulsar (i.e. inside the Crab Nebula) is required. Our analysis on giant-pulse amplitudes suggests that, to the extent that the Crab pulsar serves as a prototype of giant-pulse emission, giant pulses from extragalactic pulsars should be detectable out to large distances $`1.6`$ Mpc at Arecibo with existing back-end spectrometers.

We thank Bill Sisk and Jeff Hagen for developing the WAPP system at the Arecibo Observatory, which was crucial for providing the data analyzed in this paper. We thank Mal Ruderman for helpful discussions. NDRB is supported by an MIT-CfA Postdoctoral Fellowship at Haystack Observatory. Work at Cornell University was supported by NSF grants AST 9819931 and 0206036. MAM was also supported by an NSF MPS-DRF Fellowship. This work was also supported by the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which operates the Arecibo Observatory under a cooperative agreement with the NSF. THH thanks NAIC for partial sabbatical leave support during this work.

## Appendix A A. Frequency Structure from Scintillating Amplitude-modulated, Polarized Shot Noise

Frequency structure in the radio spectrum of a single pulse is caused by both the statistical properties of the pulsed radiation at the time of emission and by the interference effects of multipath propagation. A model that suffices to describe many aspects of pulsar radiation is the amplitude modulated noise model (Rickett 1975) augmented to include polarized shot-noise statistics (Cordes 1976): the amplitude-modulated, polarized shot-noise (AMPSN) model. Frequency structure of single pulses was discussed by Cordes & Hankins (1979) in terms of the AMPSN model for B0950+08. Here we amplify on their treatment to show the interplay of intrinsic and interference effects on the frequency structure. We thus develop the scintillating amplitude-modulated-shot-noise model (SAMPSN).

Recent results (Hankins et al. 2003) imply that the Crab pulsar’s giant pulses are indeed comprised of individual shot nano-pulses, in conformance with the AMPSN model. Let $`ϵ_e(t)`$ be the complex, narrowband electric field emitted at the pulsar and selected by the receiving system and mixed to baseband (see, e.g., Rickett 1975; Cordes 1976). We consider, for now, just a single polarization channel. For an individual giant pulse, we describe $`ϵ_e`$ as an ensemble of $`N_s`$ shot pulses having individual amplitudes, $`a_j`$, but (for simplicity) identical shapes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$:

$`ϵ_e(t)={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}a_j\mathrm{\Delta }(tt_j).`$ (A1)
The width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is the reciprocal of the receiver bandwidth used to form $`ϵ(t)`$. The corresponding shot pulse at the original radio frequency has width $`\nu _{\mathrm{RF}}^10.1`$ to 2 ns for our data. Each shot pulse reaches the observer along $`N_p`$ paths owing to multipath propagation between the pulsar and Earth. Each path has an associated time delay, $`\delta t_p`$, and amplitude $`g_k`$. The set of paths changes on a time scale that we assume is much longer than a single spin period. Also, all propagation quantities ($`N_p,\delta t_p`$, and $`g_k`$) are strong functions of frequency because the refractive index is that for a cold plasma. Using the total propagation time, $`D/c+\delta t_p`$, the received electric field is

$`ϵ(t){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}a_j{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}g_k\mathrm{\Delta }(tt_jD/c\delta t_{p}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}).`$ (A2)
Here we have ignored delays from dispersive propagation through the ISM because they are deterministic and correctable. Denoting a Fourier transform with a tilde and using the shift theorem, we find that the instantaneous spectrum is

$`I(\nu )|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\nu )|^2|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\nu )|^2A(\nu )G(\nu ),`$ (A3)
where $`\nu `$ is the baseband frequency and

$`A(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}a_je^{2\pi i\nu t_j}\right|^2`$ (A4)
$`G(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}g_je^{2\pi i\nu \delta t_{p}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}}\right|^2.`$ (A5)
In the limit of large $`N_s`$ and $`N_p`$, we expect Gaussian statistics for the sums in the equations for $`A`$ and $`G`$. Consequently, $`A`$ and $`G`$ will both have exponential statistics, for which $`A^2/A^2=G^2/G^2=2`$. As is well known in the scintillation literature (e.g. Rickett 1990), scintillation fluctuations in the strong-scattering regime have exponential statistics for a point source if there is no bandwidth smoothing. Note that our formulation of amplitude-modulated noise differs from that of Rickett (1975) and Cordes (1976), who model the emitted signal as $`ϵ_e(t)=a(t)m(t)`$, where $`a(t)`$ is an envelope function that modulates the noise process $`m(t)`$. Instead, the envelope function is absorbed into the particular distribution of emission times, $`t_j`$.

To isolate the frequency structure of $`A(\nu )`$ from $`G(\nu )`$, one must take into account their characteristic time scales. It is reasonable to assume that the pattern of shot pulses in $`ϵ(t)`$ does not repeat. On a physical basis, such shot pulses may result from the sweeping of relativistic beams through the LOS or they may represent bona fide temporal modulations. Either way, on time scales $`P/2\pi `$ ($`P`$ is the pulsar period), we expect the relativistic plasma flow in the pulsar magnetosphere to have reorganized completely. The scintillation pattern, on the other hand, is sustained. It is usually true for pulsars that if the scintillation frequency structure is resolved by the spectrometer, it persists over time scales of seconds to hours, depending on the pulsar and frequency. For heavily scattered pulsars, the frequency structure is too fine to resolve and the scintillation time is accordingly short. Thus, for most pulsars, the frequency structure in $`G(\nu )`$, if resolved, is characterized by averaging $`I(\nu )`$ over many individual pulses and then performing a correlation analysis to determine the characteristic bandwidth.

For the Crab pulsar, which emits giant pulses only sporadically, it is more difficult to separate $`A(\nu )`$ from $`G(\nu )`$ and also estimate the scintillation time scale. For an individual giant pulse, $`A(\nu )`$ and $`G(\nu )`$ both contribute to the observed frequency structure and with similar statistics. However, the characteristic width of $`G(\nu )`$ scales strongly with frequency, as discussed above, while $`A(\nu )`$ is associated with the temporal widths of the giant pulses and may be less frequency dependent.

### A.1 Statistics for a Single Polarization Channel

Some useful statistics of the SAMPSN model are as follows. The modulation index of the spectrum $`I(\nu )`$ is $`\sigma _I/I=3`$ when $`A`$ and $`G`$ both have exponential statistics. For a pair of pulses for which $`A(\nu )`$ has decorrelated completely while $`G(\nu )`$ is perfectly correlated, we expect the cross correlation to be $`\rho _{12}=\delta I_1(\nu )\delta I_2(\nu )/\sigma _I^2=1/3`$. The correlation coefficient will decline to zero on a time lag between the pair of pulses determined by the characteristic scintillation time, defined as the lag at which the correlation coefficient is $`e^1`$ of its maximum value of 1/3.

The autocorrelation function (ACF) of the spectra for single pulses can be written in the form

$`R(\delta \nu )=I(\nu )I(\nu +\delta \nu )=R_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}(\delta \nu )R_A(\delta \nu )R_G(\delta \nu ).`$ (A6)
$`R_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}(\delta \nu )`$ is a broad function that is the ACF of the bandpass filter used to form $`ϵ(t)`$, while $`R_A`$ and $`R_G`$ can be much narrower and are of the form $`R_X(\delta \nu )=X^2[1+m_X^2\rho _X(\delta \nu )]`$, where $`m_X=1`$ for exponential statistics and $`\rho _X(0)=1`$. The intensity correlation function,

$`R(\delta \nu )=G^2A^2R_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}(\delta \nu )[1+m_A^2\rho _A(\delta \nu )][1+m_G^2\rho _G(\delta \nu )],`$ (A7)
will typically have a narrower component and a broader component associated with $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _G`$, respectively, or vice versa. The total squared-modulation index is $`m^2=\sigma _I^2/I^2=R(0)/G^2A^2R_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}(0)1=1+m_A^2+m_G^2=3`$. If the data are channelized with channel bandwidths larger than the characteristic bandwidth of $`A`$ of $`G`$, the modulation index will be reduced.

Some giant pulses comprise a small number of shot pulses, $`N_s`$ a few, in which case $`A(\nu )`$ will have non-exponential statistics. For example, for two equal-amplitude shot pulses separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}`$, $`A(\nu )(1\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu \mathrm{\Delta }t_{12})`$. If $`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}1`$, we would have $`m_A=2^{1/2}`$ and the spectral shape would be oscillatory. In the limit of a single shot pulse (or a cluster of shot pulses contained within an interval smaller than the reciprocal bandwidth), the modulation across the bandwidth would derive solely from $`G`$, the scintillation factor.

### A.2 Statistics for the Total Intensity

When two polarization channels are summed to yield the total intensity, as in the analysis of this paper, the statistics are altered. Scintillations are identical for the two polarizations while the frequency structure from the AMPSN will differ according to the degree of polarization. If the signal is 100% polarized, the total intensity will have the same statistics as that of a single polarization channel containing the signal, while for an unpolarized signal, the AMPSN spectral fluctuations will be reduced by $`\sqrt{2}`$.

Letting $`d_\mathrm{p}`$ equal the total degree of polarization (linear and circular), it may be shown (Cordes 1976) that the intensity modulation index is now (in the limit of Gaussian statistics for a single polarization channel)

$`m_I^2=m_G^2+(1+m_G^2)(1+d_\mathrm{p}^2)/2\stackrel{m_G=1}{=}2+d_\mathrm{p}^2,`$ (A8)
where the last equality holds for $`m_G=1`$. Now, when the total intensity spectra of pulse pairs are cross-correlated, we have

$`\rho _{12}=\delta I_1(\nu )\delta I_2(\nu )/\sigma _I^2={\displaystyle \frac{m_G^2}{m_G^2+(1+m_G^2)(1+d_\mathrm{p}^2)/2}}\stackrel{m_G=1}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2+d_\mathrm{p}^2}}.`$ (A9)