format: text

text:
# Broad-band Observations and Modeling of the Shell-Type Supernova Remnant G347.3-0.5

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The supernova remnant G347.3–0.5 (ROSAT catalog source name: RX J1713.7–3946) is one of a growing number of supernova remnants (SNRs) showing nonthermal X-ray emission attributed to shock accelerated electrons.111As of this writing, the list of SNRs with nonthermal X-ray emission associated with shock acceleration rather than, or in addition to, pulsar-powered emission includes: Tycho, Kepler, Cas A, SN1006, G266.2-1.2, G347.3-0.5, RCW 86, G156.2+5.7, and 3C397. In some cases, the nonthermal emission is evidenced by continuum emission extending to $``$10 keV or above, usually superimposed with weak lines, or, as with SN1006, G347.3-0.5, and G266.2-1.2, by a complete lack of line emission in the observed X-ray band.222SN1006 shows line emission from the central regions, but nearly featureless spectra from the bright rim (e.g., Koyama et al., 1995). In all cases where the emission is not associated with a compact object, the nonthermal X-rays have been interpreted as synchrotron emission from shock accelerated TeV electrons (e.g., Mastichiadis & de Jager, 1996; Allen et al., 1997; Tanimori et al., 1998; Reynolds & Keohane, 1999). If this is true, the existence of these TeV electrons has important implications, not only for the production of cosmic rays, but also for the thermal properties of the shock heated, X-ray emitting gas in SNRs.

Here we compare broad-band observations of G347.3–0.5 with results from a model combining hydrodynamic simulations of SNR evolution (e.g., Blondin & Ellison, 2001, and references therein) with nonlinear diffusive particle acceleration (e.g., Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring, 2000). The observations combine new radio data from the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) with existing X-ray (Slane et al., 1999) and $`\gamma `$-ray data (Muraishi et al., 2000). Our broad-band comparison of observations and model fits is a powerful way to constrain model parameters, but uncertainties from directly comparing radio, X-ray, and $`\gamma `$-ray observations are unavoidable and should be kept in mind. In an attempt to limit errors from uncertainties in emission volumes, we only consider observations from the northwest portion of G347.3$``$0.5 where the center of the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray response function coincides with the brightest radio and X-ray emission.

Previous work (e.g., Reynolds, 1998) indicates that the steepness of the nonthermal X-ray synchrotron spectrum in shell-like SNRs results because these photons are generated by electrons in the steeply falling, high-energy tail of the distribution. The actual maximum electron energy, however, depends on the magnetic field strength, $`B_2`$, in the emission region. If these electrons are accelerated by the first-order Fermi shock acceleration mechanism as we assume, it is almost certain that the same shocks accelerate ions, but no clear evidence of superthermal ions has yet been obtained (i.e., no pion-decay feature has been unambiguously identified at $`100`$ MeV in SNRs). Until a pion-decay feature is observed, all information on the energetic ions must be obtained through modeling. In shocks accelerating particles efficiently, the unseen ions dominate the shock dynamics and largely control the electron emission features (e.g., Drury, 1983; Jones & Ellison, 1991).

Our main results are: (i) A spherically symmetric, wind-shell model with efficient acceleration can produce broad-band continuum spectra in excellent agreement with the observations of G347.3-0.5; (ii) Test-particle models of G347.3$``$0.5 (i.e., ones where less than a few percent of the total energy ends up in relativistic particles) can be excluded with good confidence; (iii) The maximum electron energy in G347.3$``$0.5 is well below $`10^{14}`$ eV. Thus, G347.3$``$0.5 joins several other SNRs now known not to produce electrons above $`10^{14}`$ eV (e.g., Reynolds & Keohane, 1999), well below the so-called knee in the Galactic cosmic-ray spectrum at $`10^{15}`$ eV. The maximum proton energy depends somewhat on whether or not the ambient magnetic field is compressed by the shock. If the field is compressed as the density, the maximum proton energy is approximately the same as the electron $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$. In the other extreme, where no compression of the field occurs, we find that G347.3-0.5 could currently be producing protons to $`70`$ TeV and Fe+26 to $`10^{15}`$ eV. Unless substantial magnetic field amplification occurs, G347.3$``$0.5 will not produce higher energy protons as it ages; and (iv) Our main conclusions concerning maximum particle energies and acceleration efficiency, are relatively insensitive to uncertainties stemming from the morphology of G347.3$``$0.5.

There are strong arguments for a SNR origin of cosmic rays based mainly on ion composition (e.g., Ellison, Drury, & Meyer, 1997; Meyer, Drury, & Ellison, 1997) and total energy requirements (e.g., Axford, 1981; Blandford & Eichler, 1987; Drury, Markiewicz, & Völk, 1989). The observations of nonthermal X-ray emission showing that TeV electrons are produced in SNRs adds support for this argument. However, there is still no direct evidence that ions are generated in particular SNRs in a fashion consistent with cosmic-ray observations. The low maximum proton energy inferred for G347.3-0.5 may present a problem for the scenario that SNRs are the main sources of Galactic cosmic rays below the knee and suggest that the cosmic-ray proton component above $`10^{14}`$ eV might come from some subset of SNRs substantially different from G347.3$``$0.5. Alternatively, young SNRs which only produce $`10^{13}`$ eV particles when they are bright in X-rays, may somehow be able to produce higher energy particles at later times, perhaps by amplifying the magnetic field (e.g., Keohane, Gotthelf, & Petre, 1998; Jun & Jones, 1999; Lucek & Bell, 2000). We note that the high magnetic fields inferred for Cas A make it likely that this particular remnant does produce $`10^{15}`$ eV protons (e.g., Allen et al., 1997).

## 2 Observations

G347.3$``$0.5 was observed with the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA) on 1997 March 25 for a total of 50 ks using three pointings of 10 ks duration and one (in the fainter southeast region) of 20 ks duration (Slane et al., 1999). Unlike the line-dominated X-ray spectra typical of SNRs, the spectrum for G347.3$``$0.5 is observed to be featureless and to extend to at least 10 keV, where the ASCA effective area becomes very small. A power law spectrum provides an excellent fit to the X-ray data, with some indication that the spectral index varies between the brighter shell regions and the more diffuse interior and eastern regions. The brightest X-ray emission occurs along the northwest limb of the SNR (see Figure 1), where there is some indication that the remnant may be interacting with a molecular cloud or a stellar wind bubble shell, although the low inferred density for this region more likely indicates some density enhancement caused by a perturbation of the pre-SN wind. The unabsorbed flux density from this region of the remnant is $`F_x(0.510\text{keV})=1.6\times 10^{10}\text{erg cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ with a power law photon index of $`2.41_{0.04}^{+0.05}.`$

Described here are new radio observations of G347.3–0.5 made with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), a six-element synthesis telescope located near Narrabri, NSW, Australia. Observations at 1.36 GHz were carried out in January, March, and April 1998, in each case in a different array configuration to give maximal $`uv`$ coverage. The field was imaged in a 10-point mosaic, to ensure that the entire extent of the SNR, as well as nearby bright sources, were in the field-of-view. The interferometric visibilities were edited to remove corrupted data and interference. Calibrations were then applied to solve for the time-variable atmospheric gains above each antenna and for the polarization leakage in the receivers. An absolute flux density scale was applied to the data using observations of PKS B1934–638, for which a flux density of 15.0 Jy was assumed at a frequency of 1.4 GHz. The visibilities from all 10 pointings were then inverted to produce a single image, which was deconvolved using the mosaiced maximum entropy approach described by Sault, Staveley-Smith, & Brouw (1996). The final image was then produced by applying a Gaussian restoring beam of dimensions $`46^{\prime \prime }\times 36^{\prime \prime }`$. The sum of the flux from the two bright filaments in the northwest region of the remnant (indicated in Figure 1 and labeled as arc 1 and 2 in Slane et al., 1999), corresponding to that from which the X-ray flux above was measured, is $`S(1.36\text{GHz})=4\pm 1\text{Jy}`$. As noted in Slane et al. (1999), while arc 2 (the right-most arc in Figure 1) is askew from the perceived SNR shell, it does overlap an X-ray filament. Arcs 1 and 2 have approximately the same radio flux.

G347.3-0.5 has also been detected at TeV energies with the CANGAROO 3.8m atmospheric imaging Čerenkov telescope (Muraishi et al., 2000). As with the X-ray and radio observations, the $`5.6\sigma `$ detection is from the NW rim of the remnant (indicated with a circle in Figure 1) and has an estimated flux of $`5.3\pm 0.9\text{[statistical]}\pm 1.6\text{[systematic]}\times 10^{12}`$ photons cm-2 s-1 at energies $`1.8\pm 0.9`$ TeV.

The fluxes from these three detections are shown in Figures 3 and 4 where we have increased the observational error bars on the radio and TeV points by a factor of two (light-weight bars) to compensate for uncertainties in the relative emission volumes. In particular, the increased radio error bar will accommodate the possibility that arc 2 is not associated with the SNR shell and thus none of our results will change if this is the case.

## 3 Model

### 3.1 Nonlinear diffusive shock acceleration

Collisionless shocks are known to accelerate particles efficiently. In the heliosphere, where shocks are observed directly with spacecraft, there is clear evidence that the quasi-parallel earth bow shock (with a sonic Mach number, $`M_{\mathrm{S0}}<10`$) can place 10-30% of the solar wind kinetic energy flux into superthermal particles (e.g., Ellison, Möbius, & Paschmann, 1990). Interplanetary shocks (IPSs) also accelerate ambient particles but generally with lower efficiencies due to their lower Mach numbers (generally $`M_{\mathrm{S0}}3`$ for IPSs) (e.g., Baring et al., 1997). However, on at least two occasions, exceptionally strong IPSs have been observed to accelerate particles with high efficiency (Eichler, 1981; Terasawa et al., 1999). Hybrid plasma simulations showing direct injection and acceleration of ambient particles are consistent with these observations (e.g., Scholer, Trattner, & Kucharek, 1992), as are convection-diffusion models (e.g., Kang & Jones, 1997).

Compared to shocks in the heliosphere, it might be presumed that the strong forward and reverse shocks in young SNRs are much more efficient. As far as we can tell, there are no important differences in typical plasma parameters (i.e., density, magnetic field, temperature, composition) between the solar wind and the ambient ISM. The only real differences come from the much larger shock spatial and time scales and much higher flow speeds and Mach numbers in SNRs. In general, these factors should increase the acceleration efficiency substantially over heliospheric shocks, but some qualifications must be made.

At quasi-parallel shocks (those where the upstream magnetic field makes an angle, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{Bn}}`$, of less than about $`45^{}`$ with the shock normal), injection from the shocked heated plasma should occur easily and the fraction of incoming ram kinetic energy flux going into superthermal particles increases with Mach number and shock size and/or age (as measured in particle gyroradii or gyroperiods). If however, the fraction of shocked heated particles injected is small enough, high Mach number, test-particle solutions can result (see Berezhko & Ellison, 1999). In quasi-perpendicular shocks (ones where $`45<\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{Bn}}90^{}`$), injection and acceleration of shock heated thermal particles is suppressed above some Mach number unless strong turbulence is present (see Ellison, Baring, & Jones, 1996, for example). Highly oblique interplanetary shocks are observed to accelerate the ambient solar wind (even without pickup ions, Ellison, Jones, & Baring, 1999), but these are low Mach number shocks. As the Mach number increases, injection becomes more likely if the turbulence is strong enough for cross-field diffusion in the downstream plasma to be important.

While the shock obliquity will surely vary around a SNR and some portions of the shocks may be quasi-perpendicular with low injection rates, other regions should be parallel enough for efficient injection and acceleration to occur. Radio emission is a sure sign that relativistic electrons are present and flux levels, sharp radio edges, etc., show that these particles are locally accelerated in young SNRs rather than just compressed Galactic cosmic-ray electrons (e.g., Achterberg, Blandford, & Reynolds, 1994). The shock acceleration and evolutionary models we use here ignore effects from oblique magnetic fields, other than those that are mimicked by a low injection efficiency. We do assume, however, that the magnetic field responsible for synchrotron radiation can be compressed by the shock. For a recent discussion of how the injection efficiency may vary with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{Bn}}`$ in SNRs, see Völk (2001).

The nonlinear effects in efficient shock acceleration are of three basic kinds: (i) the self-generation of magnetic turbulence by accelerated particles, (ii) the modification (i.e., smoothing) of the shock structure by the backpressure of accelerated particles, and (iii) the increase in shock compression ratio as relativistic particles are produced and some high-energy particles escape from the system. Briefly, (i) occurs when counter-streaming accelerated particles produce turbulence in the upstream magnetic field which amplifies as it is convected through the shock. This amplified turbulence results in stronger scattering of the particles, and hence to more acceleration, quickly leading to saturated magnetic turbulence levels near $`\delta B/B1`$ in strong shocks. This is the so-called Bohm limit where the mean free path is of the order of the gyroradius, and in this limit, the distinction between parallel and oblique shocks blurs. The wave-particle interactions produce heating in the shock precursor which may be observable and which lowers the overall acceleration efficiency. Effect (ii) occurs because the accelerated population presses on the upstream plasma and slows it. An upstream precursor forms, in which the flow speed (in the shock frame and in the absence of instabilities) is monotonically decreasing. Since particle diffusion lengths are increasing functions of momentum, high momentum particles sample a broader portion of the flow velocity profile, and hence experience larger effective compression ratios than low momentum particles. Consequently, higher momentum particles have a flatter power-law index than those at lower momenta (producing a concave upward spectral curvature) and can dominate the pressure in a non-linear fashion. We call the ratio of densities spanning the entire upstream precursor the overall compression ratio, $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, to distinguish it from the small scale subshock compression ratio, $`r_{\mathrm{sub}}`$, where most of the shock heating occurs. For a more complete discussion of the nonlinear effects of diffusive shock acceleration, see Berezhko & Ellison (1999).

The conservation of mass, momentum, and energy fluxes, i.e., the Rankine-Hugoniot relations, yield the standard expression for the compression ratio in shocks where the magnetic field is not dynamically important and an insignificant fraction of energy is placed in superthermal particles (i.e., test-particle shocks):

$$r_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{(\gamma +1)M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2}{(\gamma 1)M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2+2},$$
(1)
where $`M_{\mathrm{S0}}=\sqrt{\rho _0V_{\mathrm{sk}}^2/(\gamma P_0)}`$ is the sonic Mach number, $`\gamma `$ is the ratio of specific heats, $`\rho _0`$ is the unshocked density, $`P_0`$ the unshocked pressure, and $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$ is the shock speed.333Here and elsewhere, the subscript ‘0’ indicates unshocked values and the subscript ‘2’ indicates shocked values. In test-particle shocks, $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}=r_{\mathrm{sub}}`$. The ratio of shocked to unshocked pressure follows:

$$\frac{P_2}{P_0}=\frac{2\gamma M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2(\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}.$$
(2)
If $`M_{\mathrm{S0}}1`$,

$$r_{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma 1},$$
(3)
and

$$P_2P_0\frac{2\gamma M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2}{\gamma +1}=\frac{2\rho _0V_{\mathrm{sk}}^2}{\gamma +1}.$$
(4)
For a electron-proton plasma where the downstream temperatures are equal, the post-shock proton temperature in this test-particle limit, $`T_{\mathrm{tp}}`$, is:

$$T_{\mathrm{tp}}\frac{1}{r_{\mathrm{tot}}}\frac{m_pV_{\mathrm{sk}}^2}{k(\gamma +1)},$$
(5)
where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`m_p`$ is the proton mass.

Young SNR shocks are expected to have high Mach numbers and if the test-particle situation is assumed with $`\gamma 5/3`$, we expect $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}4`$. However, when shocks accelerate particles the overall compression ratio increases above test-particle values (even in non-radiative shocks) for two reasons (effect iii above). First, as relativistic particles are produced and contribute significantly to the total pressure, their softer equation of state makes the shocked plasma more compressible ($`\gamma 4/3`$). Second, and most important, is that particles escape from strong shocks draining energy flux which must be compensated for by ramping up the overall compression ratio to conserve the fluxes.444As long as the speeds of the escaping particles are much greater than the shock speed, escaping momentum and mass fluxes can be neglected (Ellison, 1985).  Just as in radiative shocks, this is equivalent to $`\gamma 1`$. For strong injection, it can be shown (Berezhko & Ellison, 1999) that $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is an ever increasing function of Mach number, i.e.,

$$r_{\mathrm{tot}}\{\begin{array}{cc}1.3M_{\mathrm{S0}}^{3/4}\hfill & \text{if }1M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2M_{\mathrm{A0}}\text{ ;}\hfill \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 1.5M_{A0}^{3/8}\hfill & \text{if }1M_{\mathrm{A0}}<M_{\mathrm{S0}}^2\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`M_{\mathrm{A0}}`$ is the Alfvén Mach number (see also, Kazanas & Ellison, 1986; Malkov, 1997). Simultaneously with $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ increasing, the subshock compression ratio, $`r_{\mathrm{sub}}`$, which is mainly responsible for heating the gas, must drop below the test-particle value. Thus, high compression ratios are accompanied by low post-shock temperatures (in efficient shocks, the post-shock proton temperature can easily be $`1/10T_{\mathrm{tp}}`$).555 Hughes, Rakowski, & Decourchelle (2000) have used this effect to reconcile the high values of the shock speed determined from expansion measurements and the low post-shock electron temperature determined from X-ray line models in SNR E0102.2-7219. If injection is weak enough, however, equation (6) does not apply and high Mach number shocks do not accelerate enough particles to cause the total compression ratio to increase above $`4`$ (see Berezhko & Ellison, 1999, for the parameters describing this condition).

The most important parameters associated with nonlinear shock acceleration are the Mach numbers (i.e., the shock speed, $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$, pre-shock hydrogen number density, and preshock magnetic field, $`B_0`$), the injection efficiency, $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$ (i.e., the fraction of total protons which end up with superthermal energies), and the maximum proton energy produced, $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$. As described in Berezhko & Ellison (1999), our model includes Alfvén heating in the precursor which reduces the efficiency compared to adiabatic heating.

We refer the reader to Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring (2000) for a discussion of our treatment of electron injection and acceleration.

### 3.2 SNR Evolution and Model Parameters

Slane et al. (1999) suggest that the forward shock of G347.3$``$0.5 is still within the pre-SN stellar wind bubble with part of it interacting with denser material. We describe this evolution with a spherically symmetric, wind-shell model with a pre-SN density distribution as shown in the top panel of Figure 2. The initial density profile in the ejecta has a power law distribution, $`\rho r^n`$, with a constant density plateau at small radii, as described in Chevalier (1982a). Since we only consider the forward shock at fairly late stages in the SNR evolution, our results are insensitive to $`n`$ and the position of the plateau. They are also insensitive to whether a power-law or exponential ejecta mass density distribution (e.g., Dwarkadas & Chevalier, 1998) is assumed. For concreteness, we use $`n=9`$ in all of our models. As in Chevalier (1982b), the density of the pre-SN wind is given by

$$\rho _w=A_0r^2,$$
(7)
where $`A_0=dM_{\mathrm{loss}}/dt/(4\pi v_w)`$, $`dM_{\mathrm{loss}}/dt`$ is the pre-SN mass loss rate, and $`v_w`$ is the constant wind speed. At some distance from the explosion, we place a shell of uniform density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}=m_pn_{\mathrm{shell}}(1+4f_\alpha )`$ — our spherically symmetric representation of the density enhancement suggested by Slane et al. (1999). Here, $`f_\alpha =0.1`$ is the number fraction of helium and $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ is the proton number density in the shell. While the radio image of G347.3$``$0.5 suggests a shell with the strongest emission coming from the NW rim, the complex morphology makes an exact determination of the diameter somewhat ambiguous. Some radio and X-ray emission extends across $`60^{}`$, but a smaller $`30^{}`$ diameter ring-like structure is also present. As a compromise, we adopt an angular diameter of $`45^{}`$, and to further limit parameters, we perform all of our fits assuming a distance of $`D_{\mathrm{snr}}=6`$ kpc (Slane et al., 1999). With these assumptions, the outer shock is at a radius $`R_{\mathrm{sk}}40`$ pc and we take (somewhat arbitrarily) the inner radius of the shell to be $`R_{\mathrm{in}}34`$ pc, giving a shell thickness approximately equal to the thickness of radio arc 1, i.e., $`(R_{\mathrm{sk}}R_{\mathrm{in}})/R_{\mathrm{sk}}3^{}/22.5^{}`$. Fortunately, none of our conclusions depend critically on these particular values. Furthermore, as long as $`\rho _w(R_{\mathrm{in}})\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}`$, our results are insensitive to $`A_0`$ and we use $`A_0=6\times 10^{12}`$ gm cm-1 which is consistent with a wind extending to 34 pc.666For $`dM_{\mathrm{loss}}/dt=7\times 10^6`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 and $`v_w=60`$ km s-1 (giving $`A_0=6\times 10^{12}`$ gm cm-1), $`4M_{}`$ would exist in a spherical wind extending to 34 pc. With this $`v_w`$, the wind bubble would have taken $`6\times 10^5`$ yr to form and could still not have stagnated in a low density interstellar medium.

The evolution is calculated with the Virginia Hydrodynamics (VH-1) time-dependent hydrodynamic numerical code in one dimension where it is implicitly assumed that dynamic effects from magnetic fields are negligible. For a description of this code, see Blondin & Ellison (2001) and references therein. With the shock speed and other parameters obtained with the hydro code, we calculate the electron, proton, and helium spectra and with them the synchrotron, bremsstrahlung, inverse-Compton, and pion-decay photon continuum spectra. We then compare the photon emission to the observations and vary parameters until a satisfactory fit is obtained.

#### 3.2.1 Approximations of the wind-shell model

Of necessity, our model is approximate in some important ways. First, we assume the SNR is spherically symmetric when, in fact, the emission is strongest from one section of the rim where the shock is likely interacting with denser material. We compensate for this at the most basic level by defining the emission volume, $`V_{\mathrm{emis}}`$, as a fraction, $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}`$, of the shell volume encompassed by the forward shock, i.e.,

$$V_{\mathrm{emis}}=f_{\mathrm{vol}}\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}\right)\left(R_{\mathrm{sk}}^3R_{\mathrm{in}}^3\right).$$
(8)
From Figure 1 we estimate that $`0.05<f_{\mathrm{vol}}<0.25`$.

Second, we use a one-zone model where the particle spectra and photon emission are assumed to be generated by a shock of constant speed during the time the forward shock is in the shell. We ignore any evolution of the spectra or the shock during the time the shock is in the shell and the shock speed used for acceleration is the average speed in the shell as determined by the hydro code. Furthermore, we neglect any contributions from the reverse shock or reflected shocks which occur when the forward shock enters the shell. These should be excellent approximations since the forward shock speed doesn’t vary greatly while in the shell (middle panel Figure 2), particles produced earlier in the low density wind or ejecta have been reduced by adiabatic losses, and reflected shocks in the shell are weak compared to the forward shock.

The evolution of the SNR will be influenced by the acceleration process through the increased compression ratios of the forward and reverse shocks and by the escape of high energy cosmic rays. We have approximated this effect by performing our hydrodynamic calculations with values of the effective ratio of specific heats, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}5/3`$, as described in detail in Blondin & Ellison (2001). The effect on the forward shock speed is shown for typical parameters in the bottom panel of Figure 2. The solid curve is for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=5/3`$ ($`r_{\mathrm{tot}}4`$), the dashed curve is for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.4`$ ($`r_{\mathrm{tot}}6`$), and the dotted curve is for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.1`$ ($`r_{\mathrm{tot}}20`$). When $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=5/3`$, the shock reaches 40 pc after $`t_{\mathrm{snr}}1.3\times 10^4`$ yr, for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.4`$, it reaches 40 pc after $`1.45\times 10^4`$ yr, and for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.1`$, 40 pc is reached after $`1.8\times 10^4`$ yr. While globally changing $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ only approximates the effects of particle acceleration on the evolution (particle escape is not explicitly included and the evolution of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is not modeled, for example), we do not believe errors from this approximation are significant since all of the models we discuss below have compression ratios less than $`6`$ when the forward shock is in the shell. As indicated in Figure 2, at $`R_{\mathrm{sk}}=40`$ pc $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$ varies by less than 25% for $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}6`$. Despite this small change in $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$, the particle spectra produced by a shock with $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}=6`$ are still strongly nonlinear and differs importantly from test-particle spectra as shown in the fits below.

Finally, our model ignores X-ray line emission which, for a thermal plasma, can be much more intense than the pure bremsstrahlung component. For example, the 0.2–10 keV flux for a $`kT=0.2`$ keV Raymond-Smith model (Raymond & Smith, 1977) is $`20`$ times higher than for a thermal bremsstrahlung model with the same temperature and emission measure. This discrepancy decreases with temperature, dropping to $`4`$ at $`kT=1`$ keV and $`1.4`$ at $`kT=2.5`$ keV. If the featureless X-ray spectrum in G347.3$``$0.5 is synchrotron emission, the underlying bremsstrahlung continuum which we calculate must be low enough so lines, had they been calculated, would not appear.

#### 3.2.2 Model parameters

Most of the parameters used in our models are described in Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring (2000) and/or shown here in Table 1. Briefly: (i) The explosion energy, $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$, largely determines the overall dynamics and is typically assumed to be near $`10^{51}`$ erg. The ejecta mass, $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, is unimportant for the ages and parameters we consider as long as it is less than about 3 $`M_{}`$. If $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}3M_{}`$, the reflected shock produced when the forward shock enters the shell can interact with the density peak behind the reverse shock producing complicated flow structures. To avoid these complications, we limit consideration to $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}<3M_{}`$ and do not list this parameter in the Table. (ii) The magnetic field affects the particle acceleration and largely determines the shape of the broad-band photon emission through its influence on synchrotron emission. The field morphology is certain to be complex in any real SNR and will vary with location (see Jun & Jones, 1999, for an excellent 2-D MHD study of shock-cloud interactions). To consider a range of possibilities in our idealized, spherically symmetric model, we assume the downstream field, $`B_2`$, is either equal to the upstream (unshocked) field, i.e., $`B_2=B_0`$, or that $`B_2`$ is compressed along with the gas, i.e., $`B_2=r_{\mathrm{tot}}B_0`$. The actual situation should lie somewhere in between. We assume the unshocked proton temperature, $`T_{p0}=10^4\text{K}=T_{e0}=T_{\alpha 0}`$, where $`T_{e0}`$ $`(T_{\alpha 0})`$ is the upstream electron (helium) temperature. Our solutions are insensitive to the upstream temperature as long as it is below $`10^6`$ K. The shocked electron to proton temperature ratio, $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$, is a free parameter which has not yet been deduced from first principles for collisionless shocks. The electron temperature is an important parameter for thermal bremsstrahlung and X-ray line emission, but is not strongly constrained for G347.3$``$0.5 because no lines are seen. In any case, we assume $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}=1`$ in all of our models but note that if electron-proton equilibration timescales are long compared to dynamic timescales, $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$ could be considerably less than one, lowering the thermal bremsstrahlung to synchrotron ratio.777The combination of high post-shock density and low post-shock proton temperature means that electrons should equilibrate on a faster timescale in shocks undergoing efficient acceleration compared to those where little acceleration occurs (Decourchelle, Ellison, & Ballet, 2000).  (iii) The injection efficiency, $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$, is the fraction of thermal protons that end up as accelerated particles. This parameter influences the overall acceleration efficiency. (iv) The electron to proton ratio at relativistic energies, $`(e/p)_{\mathrm{rel}}`$, is an arbitrary parameter in our models but is expected to lie between 0.01 and 0.05 if $`(e/p)_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ in Galactic cosmic rays is typical of that produced by the strong shocks in young SNRs. This factor influences the normalization of the photon emission from electrons and is important for determining the pion-decay contribution to TeV $`\gamma `$-rays relative to inverse-Compton. The maximum energy cosmic rays obtain depends on the scattering mean free path, $`\lambda `$, which is assumed to be,

$$\lambda =\eta _{\mathrm{mfp}}r_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{max}}\left(r_\mathrm{g}/r_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{max}}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(9)
where $`\eta _{\mathrm{mfp}}`$ is a constant, $`r_\mathrm{g}=p/(qB)`$ is the gyroradius in SI units, $`r_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{max}}`$ is the gyroradius at the maximum momentum, $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and $`\alpha `$ is a constant parameter. Small values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{mfp}}`$ imply strong scattering and allow higher maximum proton energies in a given system. We use the Bohm limit ($`\eta _{\mathrm{mfp}}=1`$) in all of our models and note that while good fits to the observations can be obtained with larger $`\eta _{\mathrm{mfp}}`$, these models will have similar acceleration efficiencies with lower proton maximum energies than the models we show. (v) Finally, $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ is the proton number density in the shell which models the density enhancement presumed to exist in the NW rim. Slane et al. (1999) conclude, from the lack of thermal emission, that the mean density around the remnant is quite low. With large uncertainties, they estimate upper limits on the ambient density of $`0.014`$$`0.28(D_{\mathrm{snr}}/6\text{kpc})^{1/2}`$ cm-3, with a higher upper limit ($`<1(D_{\mathrm{snr}}/6\text{kpc})^{1/2}`$ cm-3) for the northwest rim.

The output values are also given in Table 1. The shock speed, $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$, is the average obtained from the hydro simulation over the shell thickness between $`R=34`$ and 40 pc. The age of G347.3$``$0.5 is unknown, but Slane et al. (1999) have used emission measures to estimate a range $`2000<t_{\mathrm{snr}}<40,000`$ yr. The value in the Table is that necessary to yield an outer shock radius of $`R_{\mathrm{sk}}40`$ pc consistent with an angular diameter $`45^{}`$ at a distance of 6 kpc. The time the shock spends between 34 pc and 40 pc is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. Given $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$ and the density, temperature, and magnetic field in the shell, the sonic and Alfvén Mach numbers are determined. The above parameters allow the nonlinear shock model to determine $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{sub}}`$, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, as well as the proton, electron, and helium spectra. Note that consistent values of $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are found by iterating the hydro simulation with the particle acceleration calculation. The shocked magnetic field is $`B_2`$, and the shocked proton temperature is $`T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$. The shocked proton temperature for the corresponding test-particle shock, $`T_{\mathrm{tp}}`$, is also given.

The particle momentum distributions, $`f(p)`$, are calculated as in Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring (2000) with the turnover at the highest energies described by:

$$f(p)f(p)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\frac{p}{p_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^\alpha \right].$$
(10)
Here, $`\alpha `$ is the same as in Eqn. (9) and $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is determined by setting the acceleration time equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, or by setting the diffusion length of the highest energy particles equal to 1/10 $`R_{\mathrm{sk}}`$, whichever gives the lowest $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (see Baring et al., 1999). It turns out that a relatively slow turnover (i.e., $`\alpha 0.5`$) is required to obtain the proper X-ray slope and to join the radio and X-ray observations. A similar effect was required to match the intensity and shape of the X-ray observations in SN1006 (Reynolds, 1998; Berezhko, Ksenofontov, & Petukhov, 1999; Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring, 2000), and we take $`\alpha =0.5`$ in all of our models. The electron and proton energies corresponding to $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{e}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$ respectively and are listed in the Table. The acceleration efficiency, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}`$, is defined as,

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{F_{\mathrm{rel}}+F_{\mathrm{esc}}}{(1/2)\rho _0V_{\mathrm{sk}}^3},$$
(11)
where $`F_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ are the fractions of energy flux in relativistic protons and escaping protons, respectively.

The spectral index at 2 GHz, where $`F_\nu \nu ^\sigma `$, is shown in the next to last row of Table 1. Radio data has been collected at 2.4 GHz from G347.3$``$0.5 but has not yet been analyzed. When the 2.4 GHz flux is combined with the existing 1.4 GHz flux, the inferred spectral index can be used as a check of our models and may help constrain parameters. Finally, the last row in the Table is the fraction of the shell volume, $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}`$, producing the emission seen from the NW limb. Based on equation (8), models with $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}>0.25`$ are unacceptable.

### 3.3 Fits to G347.3$``$0.5

The broad-band emission from G347.3$``$0.5 allows us to constrain the parameters of the shock model to fairly narrow ranges. In the top panel of Figure 3 (model $`A`$), we show a satisfactory fit to the broad-band observations with $`B_2=r_{\mathrm{tot}}B_0`$. The parameters for this model and two others discussed below are listed in Table 1. The four components of the emission are labeled and it’s clear that the synchrotron emission produces the radio and X-ray emission, while the TeV point is fit with inverse-Compton photons from electrons scattering off the 2.73 K background radiation. The value $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}=0.16`$ is consistent with the morphology and $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.015`$ cm-3 is consistent with the upper limit estimate of Slane et al. (1999). We note that using a lower $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ would force a smaller $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ and a larger $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}`$; $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}>1\times 10^{51}`$ erg is clearly favored.

Using model $`A`$ as a reference, we investigate how sensitive the fit is to particular parameters. In Figure 4 we show variations in $`B_0`$, $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$, $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$, and $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$. In each panel we keep all parameters except the one labeled fixed to the values used in model $`A`$. For all models, we have normalized the synchrotron emission to the flux in the X-ray band and plot the sum of the four photon components. The solid curve in each panel is model $`A`$. In the top panel, the dotted curve is for $`B_0=1`$ $`\mu `$G, the solid curve is for $`B_0=2.4`$ $`\mu `$G, and the dot-dashed curve is for $`B_0=7`$ $`\mu `$G. In all cases, the number in parentheses is $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}`$. The dependence on $`B_0`$ is quite strong and the shape of the broad-band emission clearly sets upper and lower limits on $`B_0`$. Furthermore, the $`B_0=1`$ $`\mu `$G result can be excluded because $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}4`$; a low $`B`$ produces too little flux.

The changes produced by varying $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ are shown in the second panel of Figure 4. The dotted curve is for $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.005`$ cm-3, the solid curve is for $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.015`$ cm-3, and the dot-dashed curve is for $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.04`$ cm-3. Clearly, the $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.005`$ cm-3 result is too flat in the X-ray band, while the $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.04`$ cm-3 result is somewhat too steep. The value $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}1.1`$ for $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.04`$ cm-3, shows that this high density example produces too little flux. This occurs because $`V_{\mathrm{sk}}`$ is low in this case (520 km s-1) producing a low $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{e}}`$ and forcing a higher normalization to match the high energy X-rays.

In the third panel, we vary $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ from $`0.5\times 10^{51}`$ erg (dotted curve) to $`2\times 10^{51}`$ erg (solid curve) to $`4\times 10^{51}`$ erg (dot-dashed curve). The low explosion energy gives an unacceptable fit because of the shape in the X-ray band and because $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}8`$. However, for $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=4\times 10^{51}`$ erg the shape is still reasonably good considering the uncertainties in the model and the normalization ($`f_{\mathrm{vol}}0.03`$) while low, cannot be excluded.

In the bottom panel of Figure 4 we show results varying the injection efficiency. The dotted curve is for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^5`$, the dot-dashed curve is for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^4`$, and the solid curve is model $`A`$ with $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^3`$. The shape of the sum of the emission is virtually identical for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^4`$ and $`10^3`$. However, the intensity of the emission varies with $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$ and for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^4`$, $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}0.3`$, while for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^3`$, $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}0.16`$. The constraint that the emission is only observed from a small fraction of the shell implies that $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}>10^4`$. This will be true unless $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ is considerably greater than $`2\times 10^{51}`$ erg. The $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=10^5`$ result, which is what would be expected if the shock did not accelerate particles efficiently, is unacceptable because of the overall shape and low emissivity (i.e., $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}10`$).

To further investigate the limits on the acceleration efficiency, we choose $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$ low enough so only a few percent of the total energy flux ends up in relativistic particles and freely adjust other parameters to obtain a fit. With $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}=5\times 10^6`$ (yielding $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}3\%`$) we are able to obtain an approximate match to the shape of the observed emission with Model $`B`$ in Figure 3 and Table 1. Note that this model requires $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=3\times 10^{51}`$ erg; lower energies give poorer fits. While the shape of the continuum emission is a reasonable match to the observations, the normalization requires $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}6.8`$, well above an acceptable value. Furthermore, the synchrotron emission from the test-particle shock is somewhat too steep to simultaneously match the radio and X-ray fluxes, and the ratio of synchrotron to bremsstrahlung continuum emission in the X-ray range is less than a factor of 3. If we further decrease $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$, the synchrotron to bremsstrahlung ratio will drop and at some point X-ray emission lines would stand above the continuum flux in conflict with the observations. This conclusion depends, of course, on $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$ and could be weakened by assuming $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}1`$. However, the relative acceleration efficiency of electrons and protons is also likely to scale as $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$ (Ellison, Berezhko, & Baring, 2000) making it difficult to produce the observed radio and TeV flux if $`T_{\mathrm{e2}}/T_{\mathrm{p2}}`$ is too small. Furthermore, if a flatter synchrotron slope is required to give a better match between the radio and X-rays (as in model $`A`$), this forces the shock to be more efficient (to produce a larger $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$) and implies a larger $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$. The overall flux, the lack of X-ray emission lines, and the radio to X-ray flux ratio all point toward efficient shock acceleration. Using this model we can get a firm lower limit on the acceleration efficiency by increasing $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}`$ until $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}0.25`$. We find $`f_{\mathrm{vol}}0.25`$ for $`\eta _{\mathrm{inj},\mathrm{p}}>3\times 10^5`$, yielding a lower limit $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}>0.25`$, i.e., even with $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=3\times 10^{51}`$ erg, the shock must place at least 25% of its kinetic energy flux in relativistic particles. Note that we took $`(e/p)_{\mathrm{rel}}=0.05`$ for this example. A lower $`(e/p)_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ would imply a higher acceleration efficiency.

In order to investigate the maximum proton energies that G347.3$``$0.5 can generate, we have produced Model $`C`$ (bottom panel of Figure 3) where we have chosen parameters (including taking $`B_2=B_0`$) with the intention of maximizing $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$. Very generally, diffusive shock acceleration yields the same maximum energy per charge for all particles (e.g., Drury, 1983; Baring et al., 1999), so the only way the proton and electron spectra can have different maximum energies is for losses (synchrotron and/or inverse-Compton) to be important for the electrons. Unless we have neglected an abundant supply of photons in addition to the 2.73 K background radiation, inverse-Compton losses are not important and only when the magnetic field is large can $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$ be much greater than $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{e}}`$. However, a large field produces a lower Alfvén Mach number which weakens the acceleration and, in order to fit the broad-band spectrum, a higher shock speed is required. This can be achieved with a larger $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ and/or a lower $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}`$, and we have taken $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=4\times 10^{51}`$ erg and $`n_{\mathrm{shell}}=0.008`$ cm-3 for Model $`C`$. The observed radio flux sets the strength of the magnetic field in the emission region combined with the relativistic electron density, i.e., the flux is loosely proportional888This is not a strict proportionality because changing either $`B`$ or the density produces changes in the acceleration model and/or the SNR evolution. to $`B_2^{3/2}n_e`$. Furthermore, the TeV inverse-Compton emission comes from the same electrons that produce the X-rays. Since the inverse-Compton emission is independent of $`B`$, it constrains the number of relativistic electrons. The combination of these constraints allows us to limit $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$ and we find in our most optimistic case that $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}70`$ TeV.

In Figure 5 we show the momentum distribution functions, $`f(p)`$, for models $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$, where we have plotted the dimensionless quantity, $`p^4f(p)/(m_pcn_{p0})`$, to emphasize the spectral curvature. In this representation, the test-particle result of $`f(p)p^4`$ is a horizontal line (model $`B`$). The concave shape of $`f(p)`$ (at superthermal energies and below the cutoff) is evident for models $`A`$ and $`C`$, as is the large difference between the relativistic particle populations in these shocks with efficient acceleration compared to the inefficient shock $`B`$. As noted above, a flat electron spectrum (at energies greater than $`m_pc^2`$) produced by a large $`r_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ ($`r_{\mathrm{tot}}6`$ in model $`A`$) allows a good match between the radio and X-ray observations.

The arrows in Figure 5 indicate the positions of $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{e}}`$ as determined from equation (10) with $`\alpha =0.5`$. In all cases, $`f(p)`$ starts to fall off exponentially at momenta less than $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and much below $`p=10^6m_pc`$. Furthermore, if G347.3-0.5 continues to evolve uniformly with no magnetic field amplification, it will not produce higher energy particles as it ages (for a more complete discussion of the time particles take to obtain their maximum energies, see Berezhko & Völk, 1997, 2000). Since the causes of magnetic field amplification are still uncertain, it remains possible that higher fields and therefore higher energy particles could be produced in the future. Magnetic field amplification apparently occurs in Cas A (e.g., Gull, 1975; Keohane, Gotthelf, & Petre, 1998) but if it is due to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities in this young remnant as commonly assumed, it is unlikely that this mechanism would occur in G347.3$``$0.5, which is much older.

## 4 Conclusions

G347.3-0.5 is one of a growing number of shell-type SNRs showing nonthermal X-rays believed produced by synchrotron emission from TeV electrons accelerated by the remnant shocks. In an attempt to have a consistent, broad-band spectrum, we have combined recent X-ray and TeV $`\gamma `$-ray observations of the remnant with new radio observations and have restricted all of the observations to the bright northwest rim of the shell. Comparing a spherically symmetric, wind-shell model of SNR evolution and efficient diffusive shock acceleration against the observations shows that the observed emission can be well fit across $`18`$ decades in energy with a single set of parameters all close to expected supernova and ISM values. The densities we find for the emission region ($`0.01`$ protons cm-3) are consistent with the upper limits found earlier by Slane et al. (1999), and are below those expected for either a molecular cloud or a swept-up shell produced as the pre-SN wind interacts with the interstellar medium (or with a slower red supergiant wind). This suggests the shock is still within the low density bubble but has encountered a density enhancement perhaps caused by perturbations in the pre-SN wind.

We put limits on the acceleration efficiency and find that G347.3$``$0.5 is currently putting at least $`25`$% (and more likely $`50`$%) of the forward shock ram energy flux into relativistic particles (i.e., cosmic rays). Recently, Hughes, Rakowski, & Decourchelle (2000) have inferred efficient shock acceleration in SNR E0102.2-7219 in the Small Magellanic Cloud from the shock speed, determined from expansion measurements, and the postshock electron temperature, determined from X-ray line models (unlike G347.3$``$0.5, lines are visible above the synchrotron continuum in the post-forward shock gas). They concluded that the extremely low postshock temperature can only be reconciled with the high shock speed if a sizable fraction ($`50`$%) of the shock energy goes into cosmic rays. Our results are fully consistent with this and with the important point that efficient particle acceleration causes a strong coupling between the broad-band emission from relativistic particles and the properties of the shocked heated X-ray emitting gas (see Decourchelle, Ellison, & Ballet, 2000). We have verified that Sedov models (not shown) with no density enhancement produce satisfactory nonlinear fits to the observed spectral shape with input parameters similar to those given here, but are inconsistent with the observed remnant diameter and distance.999In standard Sedov models, the relatively high shock speeds and ambient densities which produce acceptable fits to the observed shape occur at shock radii which are too small to be consistent with a remnant diameter of $`45^{}`$ (or even $`30^{}`$) at $`D_{\mathrm{snr}}6`$ kpc. Only if $`D_{\mathrm{snr}}<3`$ kpc could standard models produce acceptable fits. The wind-shell model allows the shock to propagate for large distances in the low density wind before encountering the higher density emission region. We conclude that the nonlinear aspects we infer, in particular the required high acceleration efficiency, do not depend significantly on the geometric details of the wind-shell model while the overall normalization does.

Furthermore, we find that the maximum energies of the cosmic-ray electrons and protons are well below $`10^{15}`$ eV. While it has been known for some time that SNRs emitting nonthermal X-rays do not produce electrons to energies near $`10^{15}`$ eV (e.g., Reynolds & Keohane, 1999), the nonlinear effects we model make it possible to infer the proton distribution from photons emitted by electrons. For no magnetic field compression in the shock and other parameters adjusted to produce the highest possible $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}`$ and still give a reasonable fit to the observations, we find a proton maximum energy $`70`$ TeV. More realistic parameters with magnetic field compression yield $`E_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{p}}20`$ TeV. However, SNR shocks will also accelerate heavier ion species such as He, C, O, and Fe, and the maximum energy in diffusive shock acceleration scales as charge. Therefore, this SNR could produce a power-law Fe+26 spectrum to $`10^{15}`$ eV. To illustrate, we have estimated the Fe+26 spectrum produced by our model $`C`$ and placed it in the bottom panel of Figure 5. The normalization is determined by the cosmic abundance of iron ($`3.1\times 10^5`$ iron nuclei for every proton) plus the enhancement expected because iron is injected and initially accelerated when it is trapped in dust grains. In fact, the normalization of iron relative to hydrogen in Figure 5 is just that shown in Figure 8 of Ellison, Drury, & Meyer (1997) at $`10^8`$ keV/nucleon. Cosmic-ray observations in the $`10^{14}10^{16}`$ eV range typically measure the total energy of the particles and have large uncertainties in differentiating individual ion species (e.g., Bernlöhr et al., 1998; Glasmacher et al., 1999; Swordy & Kieda, 2000). Nevertheless, a number of authors have produced models of this transition energy range adding together the fluxes from different ion species with cutoffs that scale as charge (e.g., Stanev, Biermann, & Gaisser, 1993; Erlykin & Wolfendale, 2000). Our high $`B_0`$ results are in general agreement with this work.

The authors thank J. Blondin and the referee A. Decourchelle for helpful comments. This work was supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through contract NAS8-39073 and grant NAG5-4803. The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. B.M.G. acknowledges the support of NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01107.01-98A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5–26555.


text:
# Low Voltage I-V Characteristics in Magnetic Tunnel Junctions

## Abstract

We show that elastic currents that take into account variations of the tunnel transmitivity with voltage and a large ratio of majority to minority spin densities of states of the $`s`$ band, can account for the low voltage current anomalies observed in magnet-oxide-magnet junctions. The anomalies can be positive, negative or have a mixed form, depending of the position of the Fermi level in the $`s`$ band, in agreement with observations. Magnon contribution is negligible small to account for the sharp drop of the magnetoresistance with the voltage bias.

Tunneling of electrons in metal-insulator-metal junctions is an old phenomenon studied from a long time ago. However, it is only quite recently that spin-dependent tunneling between two ferromagnetic metals has been shown to produce the magnetoresistance effect observed in those systems. In $`3d`$ ferromagnets, most of the spin polarization comes from the $`d`$ bands, while tunneling currents are dominated by $`s`$ band contributions. This is so, because $`d`$ wave functions are more localized and their effective tunneling barrier is higher. For $`Ni`$, it has been estimated that the tunneling probability of the $`s`$ electrons is of the order of $`1001000`$ times that of the $`d`$ electrons, thus leading to a positive spin polarization in $`Ni`$ field emission experiments. In the context of tunneling experiments, the large magnetoresistance effect (25-30 %) found in  is puzzling, since it points to a large polarization of the $`s`$ band, with a ratio of the densities of states for majority $`\left(N^{(M)}(E)\right)`$ and minority $`\left(N^{(m)}(E)\right)`$ electrons at the Fermi level $`\left(E_F\right)`$ of the order of

$$N^{(M)}(E_F)/N^{(m)}(E_F)2.02.5,$$
(1)
in apparent contradiction with energy band calculations for ferromagnetic metals.

In addition, a remarkable dependence of the junction conductance with the voltage bias $`\left(V\right)`$ has been observed at low voltages (of the order of a few hundred millivolts). As usual in magnetoresistance experiments, one compares the resistances for the cases where the magnetizations at the electrodes are anti-parallel (AP) and parallel (P). In several experiments reported in Ref., the junction resistance drops significantly with the applied voltage, with a peak at zero bias (called zero-bias anomaly) that is more pronounced for the AP alignment. The effect is also temperature dependent, the peak being less sharp at room temperature. Finally, it is found that the junction magnetoresistance (JMR) has a large decrease with voltages, up to 60% at 0.5 V in some cases. It has been argued that this effect can be attributed to the excitation of internal degrees of freedom by hot electrons (even at liquid He temperature). Scattering from surface magnons has been proposed as a mechanism to randomize the tunneling process and open the spin-flip channels that leads eventually to a sharp drop of the MR. However, this explanation is controversial, since magnon scattering cross sections are negligibly small to account for such a big drop of resistance and no spin-flip events have been observed in experiments with polarized injected electrons in tunnelling phenomena. Also, the theory given in Ref.  assumes tunneling transmitivities independent of the applied voltages, and uses a perturbation scheme only valid for voltages smaller than $`40`$ $`mV`$, while the data extend to $`400mV`$.

In the present Letter, we show that the variations of the conductance with the voltage bias can be simply accounted for by the lowering of the barrier height with voltages, as given by the Simmons’ tunneling theory. The structure at zero bias is obtained, when one properly takes into account variations of the density of states with the bias at both magnetic electrodes. Assuming that the tunneling current comes from the $`s`$ band, we formulate a simple model with a parabolic dispersion (free-electron like). We obtain different behaviors for the zero-bias anomaly, whether the Fermi level is located near the bottom (peak) or top of the band (dip). Fitting with the experiments can only be obtained if one assumes a large spin polarization corresponding to relation (1).

In order to develope our calculation, one has to rewrite Simmons’ formulae with the conductance current written in the form

$$J^{\left(C\right)}(V)=A\underset{\sigma ,\mu }{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑ET(E,\mathrm{\Delta }s,\varphi ,V)N_L^{(\sigma )}(E)N_R^{(\mu )}(E+V)\left[f_L\left(E\right)f_R(E+V)\right],$$
(2)
where $`T(E,\mathrm{\Delta }s,\varphi ,V)`$ is the transmitivity through the barrier for energy $`E`$, parametrized with the mean barrier height $`\varphi `$ and width $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$, the index $`C=P,AP`$ refers to the magnetic configuration (parallel or anti-parallel), and $`N_{L,R}`$ and $`f_{L,R}`$ are the densities of states and the Fermi distributions for the left and right electrodes, respectively. In ferromagnets, one has to distinguish between majority $`(M)`$ and minority $`(m)`$ spin bands and the super-indices in the densities of states and in the sum in expression (2) label the allowed processes for spin conserving tunneling, for both magnetic configuration, $`P`$ and $`AP`$. For parallel alignment, the factor of the densities of states that enter in (2) is

$$N_L^{(m)}(E)N_R^{(m)}(E+V)+N_L^{(M)}(E)N_R^{(M)}(E+V),$$
(3)
while for the anti-parallel configuration, where majority and minority are interchanged for the left and right electrodes, one has to consider

$$N_L^{(m)}(E)N_R^{(M)}(E+V)+N_L^{(M)}(E)N_R^{(m)}(E+V).$$
(4)
Concerning equation (2), several remarks are in order.

1. In his original treatment of the tunneling problem, Simmons considers the case of very flat conduction bands for the metal electrodes and takes the densities of states as constants. However, for $`s`$ bands the density of states varies as the square root of the energy, and for magnetic junctions this cannot be neglected, especially near the band edges, where the variation is bigger. Zero-bias anomalies in normal non-magnetic metals has been previously reported, in cases where the structure of the density of state is important.
2. Expression (2) involves an integral over all energies, but states that are deep in the band are cut off exponentially by the tunneling probability. As a net result, the conductance is dominated by electrons that are near the Fermi level, and (2) approximately factorizes in the form

$$J^{\left(C\right)}(V)\left(\underset{\sigma ,\mu =m,M}{\overset{C}{}}N^{(\sigma )}(E_F)N^{(\mu )}(E_F+V)\right)J^{\left(S\right)}(V)=D^{(C)}(E_F,V)J^{\left(S\right)}(V)$$
(5)
where $`J^{\left(S\right)}(V)`$ is the Simmons’ tunneling current as a function of the voltage bias and

$$D^{(C)}(E_F,V)=\underset{\sigma ,\mu =m,M}{\overset{C}{}}N^{(\sigma )}(E_F)N^{(\mu )}(E_F+V).$$
(6)
In (5), we are assuming that both electrodes are made from the same ferromagnetic metal. The term $`J^{\left(S\right)}(V)`$ is the Simmons’ contribution, is spin independent and carries all the information concerning the tunneling barrier. As shown in , it has no quadratic term in the voltage for small bias, and no zero-bias anomaly.

In Fig. 1, we show the variation with voltage of the Simmons resistance for typical barriers, with the resistance normalized at zero bias. A large variation is observed in all the examples, but the resistance has no peak or dip at zero voltage. Except for the structure at zero bias, the overall variation of the Simmons’ resistance is of the order of what is observed in experiments (or even may vary faster with voltage in some cases). Some experimental results are also shown for comparison.

Next, we introduce the factor $`D^{(C)}(E_F,V)`$, defined in (6), in the conductance calculation. We model the density of states of the $`s`$ bands with a parabolic dependence (free-electron like) in the form

$`N^{(\sigma )}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_e}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^{3/2}\sqrt{\pm \left(EE_\sigma \right)},\sigma =m,M,`$where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the sample (electrode), $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, and the $`\pm `$ sign refers to the cases where we are in the bottom or in the top of the conduction band, respectively. In formulating the Stoner model within a naive band theory, $`\left|E_mE_M\right|`$ should yield the exchange of the $`s`$ band. But Fermi surfaces of transition metals are very intricate, with contributions from electron and hole-like carriers and with different shapes for majority and minority spin sheets. In this context, $`E_m`$ and $`E_M`$ come from the band structure and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\left|E_mE_M\right|`$ may be very different from the true exchange of the band.

To parametrized our results, and denoting by $`E_F`$ the Fermi energy, we define

$`\begin{array}{c}E_F^M\left|E_FE_M\right|,\hfill \\ E_F^m\left|E_FE_m\right|,\hfill \\ E_F^M\lambda E_F^m,\lambda >1,\hfill \end{array}`$which includes both cases, bottom and top of the band. The ratio of the densities of states at the Fermi level is given by $`N_L^{(M)}(E_F)/N_L^{(m)}(E_F)=\sqrt{\lambda }`$. Several possibilities can be realized, wether majority and minority carriers are electrons or holes. When both are electrons or holes, the factors $`D^{(C)}(E_F,V)`$ can be expanded in series in $`V`$, yielding a linear term in $`V`$ that is responsible for the zero-bias anomaly:

$`\begin{array}{c}D_\pm ^{(P)}(V)\left(\left[N^{(m)}(E_F)\right]^2+\left[N^{(M)}(E_F)\right]^2\right)\left(1\pm p^{(P)}\left|V\right|\right),\hfill \\ \\ D_\pm ^{(AP)}(V)\left(2N^{(m)}(E_F)N^{(M)}(E_F)\right)\left(1\pm p^{(AP)}\left|V\right|\right),\hfill \end{array}`$where the $`\pm `$ sign labels the bottom and top cases respectively, with the slopes of the linear terms given by

$`\begin{array}{c}p^{(P)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_F^m\left(1+\lambda \right)}},\hfill \\ \\ p^{(AP)}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +1}{4\lambda E_F^m}}.\hfill \end{array}`$When we have a mixed case, i.e. one of the spin is electron-like and the other hole-like, no linear term appears in $`D^{(P)}(V)`$. On the other hand, for $`D^{(AP)}(V)`$, the slope of the linear term is given by

$`p^{(AP)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda 1}{4\lambda E_F^m}}\right),`$where the $``$ ($`+`$) sign applies when the majority carriers are electrons (holes). In Fig. 2, we display results of our calculation for examples of typical barriers. The value of the magnetoresistance at zero bias was taken from Ref. , with

$`N_L^{(M)}(E_F)/N_L^{(m)}(E_F)=\sqrt{\lambda }2.2.`$In Fig. 2 a), we show the case when the Fermi level is in the bottom of the $`s`$ band, with a linear decrease of the resistance with the voltage bias for both magnetic configurations ($`AP`$ and $`P`$). If the Fermi level is in the top of both spin bands, we initially get a linear increase of the resistance which, after some voltage value, is dominated by the Simmons’ term. This case is displayed in part c) of Fig. 2. In Fig. 2 b), we display the situation where the majority band ($``$) is almost filled (holes) and the minority ($``$) is almost empty (electrons). The resistance for the $`P`$ setup, exhibits no linear term. In Fig. 2 a), we also show experimental results taken from Ref. . We have not tried an optimum fitting with experiments, but it is clear that experimental results can only be explained assuming a large polarization of the $`s`$ band. Note that the insets in Fig. 2 a)-2 c) sketch the band configurations for both spins.

The change in tunnel resistance or magnetoresistance (MR) is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=\frac{R_{AP}R_P}{R_{AP}},$$
(7)
where again, $`AP`$ and $`P`$ refer to the magnetic configuration of the ferromagnetic electrodes. This ratio, as it is evident from relation (5), is almost independent of the Simmons’ term, not depending on details of the tunneling process. In Fig. 3 A), we display results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$ corresponding to the examples of Fig. 2. In B), we take different experimental results found in the literature. Note that when the Fermi level lies near the top of the band, there is an increase of the MR. Eventually, we may reach the minority spin band edge, with a vanishing density of states, for which

$`R_{AP}\mathrm{}.`$

Temperature $`(T)`$ effects can also be taken into account through relation (2), with the broadening of the Fermi distributions, but a rough estimation shows that the effect should be similar to that of an applied voltage $`V2T`$, with an effective lowering of the barrier height, a smaller resistance, and the softening of the zero-bias anomaly, in agreement with experiments.

From our calculations presented above the following conclusions are pertinent:

1. The overall variation of the tunnel current with voltage  can be explained by elastic tunneling using the well known Simmons’ formula and is due to the lowering of the barrier by the applied voltage. This is at variance with the calculations in Ref. , where they argue that this effect is negligible. Therefore, magnons are not needed to explain the experiments;
2. The anomalies in the currents and the magnetoresistances can be explained within this simple framework, provided that the ratio of majority spin to minority spin electrons is of the order of $`2.22.5`$, for the data of Ref.. If one is allowed to choose the adequate configuration of the s bands (see Fig.2), a maximum, a minimum or a mix of both can appear at the anomaly (as it has been observed in Ref.);
3. From band structures calculations , it is not clear to us that the above polarization of the $`s`$ band can be justified. There may be other oxidation states inside the metal, at the interface, and in the oxide layer, that contribute to the polarization of the current;
4. Alternatively, it may also happen, as it has been suggested in Ref., that the current is dominated by conduction paths that provide large values of magnetoresistance due to domain wall scattering, and then there is also contribution of $`d`$-electrons. In this case, the density of states will have mixed contributions from $`s`$ and $`d`$-electrons, with a variety of topologies in the MR;
5. The main conclusion is that the magnetoresistance is a mapping of the spin up and down densities of states in the metals and the barrier and cannot be assigned only to the bulk ferromagnetic metals, and many mixing possibilities exist for explaining the physical measurements.

Acknowledgments. GGC acknowledges partial support from Brazilian FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 Variation of the Simmons’ resistance with voltage for several tunnel barriers. Data is normalized at zero bias. Experimental results from  are also shown (solid triangles) as a reference.

Fig. 2 Resistance as a function of the voltage bias for the two configurations of the magnetic electrodes and for different $`s`$ band structures (they are shown in the insets). Parameters for the tunneling barriers are given in each figure. Spin $``$ is taken as the majority band in all cases. As a reference, experimental results take from  are shown in part a), where a good agreement with our calculation is obtained.

Fig. 3 Magnetoresistance, as defined in (7), for all the cases depicted in Fig. 2. Densities of states are adjusted at the zero bias value. In A), we compare with results from , while part B) compares with Ref..