Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:08:08.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

TeV γ-ray source MGRO J2019+37 : PWN or SNR?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

Lab Saha
Affiliation:
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata 700064, India email: lab.saha@saha.ac.in
Pijushpani Bhattacharjee
Affiliation:
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata 700064, India email: lab.saha@saha.ac.in
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.

Milagro has recently reported an extended TeV γ-ray source MGRO J2019+37 in the Cygnus region. It is the second brightest TeV source after Crab nebula in their source catalogue. No confirmed counterparts of this source are known although possible associations with several known sources have been suggested. We study leptonic as well as hadronic models of TeV emission within the context of Pulsar Wind Nebulae (PWN) and Supernova Remnant (SNR) type sources, using constraints from multi-wavelength data from observations made on sources around MGRO J2019+37. These include radio upper limit given by GMRT, GeV observations by Fermi-LAT, EGRET and AGILE and very high energy data taken from Milagro. We find that, within the PWN scenario, while both leptonic as well as hadronic models can explain the TeV flux from this source, the GMRT upper limit imposes a stringent upper limit on the size of the emission region in the case of leptonic model. In the SNR scenario, on the other hand, a purely leptonic origin of TeV flux is inconsistent with the GMRT upper limit. At the same time, a dominantly hadronic origin of the TeV flux is consistent with all observations, and the required hadronic energy budget is comparable to that of typical supernovae explosions.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Abdo, A. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, L33Google Scholar
Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 46Google Scholar
Roberts, M. S. E., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, L19Google Scholar
Paredes, J. M., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 241Google Scholar
Hartman, R. C., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 79Google Scholar
Halpern, J. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, L33Google Scholar
Bednarek, W. & Protheroe, R. J. 1997, PRL, 79, 2616Google Scholar
Bednarek, W. & Bartosik, M. 2003, A&A, 405, 689Google Scholar