Outline Pulsar Glitch And Pulsar Timing My Project

Outline ● Pulsar , Glitch And Pulsar Timing ● My Project ● Summary

Pulsar ●Neutron stars: highly magnetized, rapidly rotating, emission pulses. ● Formation: supernova explosion, white dwarfs collapse. ● Mass: ~ 1. 4 Msun ● B: 10^8 ~10^15 G ● Density: 10^14 g / cm^3 ● Period: ~ 1. 4 ms-10 s ● Diameter: ~ 10 -15 km ● Population: at present, ~2700( ~ 300 MSP, most of MSP in binary) ● High precision timing：good probes of interstellar medium, magnetic field, and GW background.

Glitch Sudden jumps in rotational frequency(v=Ω/2π) PSR B 0833 -45, 1981. 10 (Mc. Culloch et al. 1983)

Pulsar Timing(Model & Steps) new. par file Fit proper motion Data Process Initial. par file Red noise model

Pulsar Timing ● A long time monitor for pulsars so as to obtain the TOAs. ● Compare pulse arrival times at an observatory with times predicted with a spindown model , obtained the timing residual. l Proper motion(Lorimer & Kramer, 2005)

Pulsar Timing ● The irregular period changes include two categories: glitch and timing noise. Glitch(C. M. Espinoza&A. G. Lyne 2011) Timing noise (G. Hobbs& A. G. Lyne 20 10）

My Project My project is to process timing data of 20 pulsars at Nan. Shan. (1)We have obtained their rotation parameters. (2) Make a discussion for small glitches.

My Project (1)We have found 57 new glitches of 20 pulsars, 7 pulsars were first to glitch. (1)We made a large sample ananlysis, after adding the glitch parameters of http: //www. jb. man. ac. uk/pulsar/glitches/g. Table. html.

Spin-down rate & Recoveries(Large glitches) PSR J 2337+61 51(J. P. Yu an et al. 2010) (by myself) PSR J 1718 3718(Man chester et al. 2011) PSR J 08354510(N. Wang et al. 2000)

My Project Divided 57 glitches into 3 categories according to the average spin-down rate and frenquency: 1, almost unchanged; 2, decrease; 3, increase. 1, almost unchanged J 0631+1036 55278(5) 6. 5(4) -0. 2(2) 1616. 228 J 1818 -1422 55834(14) 0. 39(3) 0. 1(1) 792. 780 J 1833 -0827 55487(26) 0. 64(2) 0. 06(1) 97. 024 J 2225+6535 55028(15) 1. 31(1) 0. 51(6) 47. 331

My Project Divided 57 glitches into 3 categories according to the average spin-down rate and frenquency: 1, almost unchanged; 2, decrease; 3, increase. 2, decrease J 0528+2200 54931. 0(5) 0. 2434(7) 1. 209(4) 2. 468 J 0846 -3533 55661(19) 0. 514(3) 1. 57(5) 723. 682 J 1847 -0402 52763(6) 0. 3(2) 0. 27(2) 56. 006 J 2225+6535 54668(5) 0. 30(1) 1. 57(7) 63. 626

My Project Divided 57 glitches into 3 categories according to average spin-down rate and frenquency: 1, almost unchanged; 2, decrease; 3, increase J 0215+6218 55623(10) 0. 082(6) -0. 2(1) 176. 614 J 0525+1115 56021(18) 0. 274(2) -4(3) 374. 914 J 1833 -0827 52555(14) 0. 27(2) -0. 01(1) 104. 270 J 1836 -1008 55755(39) 3. 5(2) -0. 9(2) 3592. 805

Summary ● 1. Detected 57 new glitches of 20 pulsars, for PSR J 0215+6218, PSR J 0525+1115, PSR J 0846 -3533, PSR J 1835 -1020, PSR J 1836 -1008, PSR J 1847 -0402 and PSR J 2219+4754 were first to glitch. ● 2. We obtained 57 glitch parameters for 20 pulsars, and made a large sample ananlysis(57+522=579 glitches) after adding the glitch parameters of http: //www. jb. man. ac. uk/pulsar/glitches/g. Table. html The distrition of glitches is bimodal, and the number of small glitches is larger than that of great glitches. ● 3. All observed relative glitch sizes range between 8. 0 E-11 and 7. 0 E-9, all pulsars with characteristic age between 44 kyr and 7. 6 Myr. The distribution of glitch size and age is very discrete. However, with the increase of age, small glitches are more likely to occur. ● 4. We divided 57 glitches into 3 categories according to average spin-down rate and frenquency: almost unchanged , decrease , increase. We found that small glitch also have discoveris and decay after-glitch. The kinetics of large and small glitches is very similar. ● 5. The negative value of were rare events in glitches, and it tends to occur in small glitches. However, in the small glitch events of increasing average spin-down rate, the value tends to be more negative.

　 References • J. P. Yuan. 2010. APJL. 719. L 111 -L 115 • R. N. MANCHESTAR, 1974, APJL, 189, L 119 -L 122 • G. Hobbs, A. G. Lyne, M. Kramer, 2010, 402, 1027 • J. P. Yuan, 2010, MNRAS, 404, 289 • M. Yu et al, 2013, MNRAS, 429, 688 • M. Yu et al, 2012, ar. Vix: 1211. 2035 vl • C. M. Espinoza et al, MNRAS, 414, 1679 • N. Wang et al, 2000, MNRAS, 317, 843 • I. H. Stairs, A. G. Lyne&S. L. Shemar，NATURE，2000，VOL 406 • M. J. Keith et al, 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3080 • Ruderman, M. 1969, Nuture, 223, 597 • Downs, G. S. 1982, Ap. J, 257, L 67 • Edwards, R. T, Hobbs, G. B. , &Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1549 • Zepka, A. , Cordes, J. M. , Wasserman, I. , &Lundgren, S. C 1996, Ap. J, 456, 305

Thanks ！