Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:09:42.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surrounded by spiders! New black widows and redbacks in the Galactic field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2013

Mallory S. E. Roberts
Mallory S. E. Roberts*
Affiliation:
Eureka Scientific, 2452 Delmer Street, Suite 100, Oakland, CA 94602-3017, USADepartment of Physics, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA email: malloryr@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Over the last few years, the number of known eclipsing radio millisecond pulsar systems in the Galactic field has dramatically increased, with many being associated with Fermi gamma-ray sources. All are in tight binaries (orbital period < 24 hr) with many being classical “black widows” which have very low mass companions (companion mass Mc ≪ 0.1 M⊙) but some are “redbacks” with low mass (Mc ~ 0.2-0.4 M⊙) companions which are probably non-degenerate. These latter are systems where the mass transfer process may have only temporarily halted, and so are transitional systems between low mass X-ray binaries and ordinary binary millisecond pulsars. Here we review the new discoveries and their multi-wavelength properties, and briefly discuss models of shock emission, mass determinations, and evolutionary scenarios.

Keywords

binaries: closepulsars: generalbinaries: eclipsingshock wavesgamma rays: observationsacceleration of particlesaccretionequation of statepulsars: individual (PSR J2129-0429)X-rays: binaries
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 8 , Symposium S291: Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years , August 2012 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Abdo, A. A.et al. 2011, ApJL, 736, L11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpar, M. A., Cheng, A. F., Ruderman, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1982, Nature, 300, 728Google Scholar
Archibald, A. M., et al. 2009, Science 324, 1411Google Scholar
Archibald, A. M., Archibald, A. M., Kaspi, V. M., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 88Google Scholar
Arons, J. & Tavani, M. 1993, ApJ 403, 249Google Scholar
Barr, E. D.et al. 2012, MNRAS in prep.Google Scholar
Bates, S. D., Bailes, M., Bhat, N. D. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharyya, B.et al. 2012 in prep.Google Scholar
Bogdanov, S., Archibald, A. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyles, J., Lorimer, D. R., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2011, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1357, 32Google Scholar
Breton, R. P.et al. 2012 in prep.Google Scholar
Burgay, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS 368, 283Google Scholar
Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0207156Google Scholar
Crawford III, F., et al. 2010, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 42, 604.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. 2005, Binary Radio Pulsars, 328, 311Google Scholar
Deller, A. T., Archibald, A. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L25Google Scholar
Fruchter, A. S., Stinebring, D. R., & Taylor, J. H. 1988, Nature 333, 237Google Scholar
Fruchter, A. S., et al. 1990, ApJ 351, 642Google Scholar
Gentile, P.et al. 2012 this proceedingsGoogle Scholar
Hessels, J. W. T., Roberts, M. S. E., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2011, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1357, 40Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. L., Stovall, K., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 174Google Scholar
Keith, M. J., Johnston, S., Bailes, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, M. J., Johnston, S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, M. J., et al. 2012, in prep.Google Scholar
Kong, A. K. H., Huang, R. H. H., Cheng, K. S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L3Google Scholar
Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993Google Scholar
Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107Google Scholar
Ransom, S. M., Ray, P. S., Camilo, F., et al. 2011, ApJL, 727, L16Google Scholar
Ray, P. S., Abdo, A. A., Parent, D., et al. 2012, arXiv:1205.3089Google Scholar
Romani, R. W. & Shaw, M. S. 2011, ApJL, 743, L26Google Scholar
Stappers, B. W., et al. 1996, ApJL 465, L119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stappers, B. W., et al. 2003, Science 299, 1372Google Scholar
Steeghs, D. & Casares, J. 2002, ApJ, 568, 273Google Scholar
Tauris, T. M. & Savonije, G. J. 1999, A&A, 350, 928Google Scholar
Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2130Google Scholar
van Kerkwijk, M. H., Breton, R. P., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2011, ApJ, 728, 95Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Archibald, A. M., Thorstensen, J. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2017Google Scholar