AG-2026.04-2000·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: astro-ph.SR
A common four-beam geometry reveals altitude-stratified GeV pulses in canonical young pulsars
Authors
- Paul K. H. Yeung
- Takayuki Saito
Abstract
Despite the diversity and energy dependence of $γ$-ray pulse morphologies in Crab, Vela and Dragonfly, the phaseograms of these three canonical young pulsars can be organised within a single four-beam geometric template. Using \textit{Fermi} Large Area Telescope data, we fit the 60~MeV--3~GeV phaseograms with a mechanism-agnostic, geometry-first parametric model that incorporates phase-dependent Doppler shifts and constrains the three-dimensional locations and bulk motions of four emission sites. In each pulsar, the phaseogram admits a decomposition into two altitude-separated beam pairs. The lower-altitude pair is produced by plasma with bulk motion close to azimuthal corotation, sharpening the main peaks. The higher-altitude pair shows a radially outward bulk-motion component, suggestive of inertial effects in a toroidally dominated magnetic field, and contributes bridge/shoulder emission and ripple-like modulations overlapping the main peaks. As a posteriori, the lower-altitude pair is consistent with curvature-dominated outer-magnetospheric emission, while the higher-altitude pair is consistent with synchrotron-dominated emission from a current-sheet-like outflow. Higher-altitude site heights vary from $\simeq 0.7$ (Crab, $\approx 1$~kyr) to $\simeq 1.1$--$1.4$ light-cylinder radii (Vela and Dragonfly, $\approx 10$~kyr). This unified four-beam, observation-driven geometry maps an altitude-dependent azimuthal tilt of pulsed $γ$-ray emission, providing an observationally anchored framework amenable to systematic tests and readily extensible to other young pulsars.
Submitted
30 April 2026today
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.28000
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.