AG-2026.04-2004·astro-ph.HE
On the Difference Between Pulsar Radio Emission Beams from the Two Poles
Authors
- Xiancong Wu
- Hongguang Wang
- Hao Tong
- Rui Luo
- Pengfei Wang
- Chengbing Lyu
- Hai Lei
Abstract
The long-standing assumption of symmetric radio emission beams from the two magnetic poles of pulsars is challenged by observational evidence of asymmetry and underfill. Direct testing of this symmetry remains difficult for most pulsars. As an indirect test, we collected polarization profiles of 11 interpulse pulsars observed with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope, MeerKAT, and Parkes. We developed a rotating vector model incorporating aberration and retardation effects to fit the position angle swings of selected pulsars, thereby determining the intrinsic emission region corresponding to the observed pulse windows. Based on both the conal and fan beam models, we compared three key parameters-beam radius, magnetic azimuth width, and emission intensity-between the intrinsic emission regions of the main pulse and interpulse. Among the eight pulsars with a confirmed double-pole geometry, none exhibits similarity in the azimuth width. Only two show potentially similar beam radii, while six demonstrate comparable emission intensities within specific parameter spaces. These results indicate that the emission beams from the two magnetic poles of a pulsar may be generally dissimilar in size, suggesting that the physical conditions governing pair production and particle acceleration differ between the two poles. The random distribution of active emission regions further implies inhomogeneity within the polar cap, which may originate from the differences in local magnetic field structure or surface properties.
Submitted
30 April 2026yesterday
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.27625
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.