1: %\def\nfn{\nu F_{\nu}}

2: %\def\nfnsy{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm sy}}

3: %\def\nfnssc{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm SSC}}

4: %\def\nfnerc{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm ERC}}

5: %\def\nfnsyn{F_{{\rm sy}, -10}}

6: %\def\nfnsscn{F_{{\rm SSC}, -10}}

7: %\def\nfnercn{F_{{\rm ERC}, -10}}

8: %\def\esy{\epsilon_{\rm sy}}

9: %\def\essc{\epsilon_{\rm SSC}}

10: %\def\eerc{\epsilon_{\rm ERC}}

11: %\def\estar{\epsilon_{\ast}}

12: %\def\esyn{\epsilon_{{\rm sy}, -7}}

13: %\def\esscn{\epsilon_{{\rm SSC}, -1}}

14: %\def\eercn{\epsilon_{{\rm ERC}, 2}}

15: %\def\estarn{\epsilon_{\ast, -5}}

16: %\def\eb{\epsilon_B}

17: %\def\gcr{\gamma_{\rm cr}}

18: %\def\fsp{f_{\rm sp}}

19: %\def\fsy{f_{\rm sy}}

20: %\def\ferc{f_{\rm ERC}}

21: %\def\fssc{f_{\rm SSC}}

22: %\def\uext{u_{\rm ext}}

23: %\def\Bcr{B_{\rm cr}}

24: %\def\taur{\tau_{\rm repr}}

25: %\def\ls{\lower4pt\hbox{${\buildrel < \over \sim}$}}

26: %\def\gs{\lower4pt\hbox{${\buildrel > \over \sim}$}}

27: 

28: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}

29: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

30: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

31: 

32: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

33: \newcommand{\myemail}{joshi@helios.phy.ohiou.edu}

34: 

35: \slugcomment{Submitted to {\it The Astrophysical Journal}}

36: 

37: \shorttitle{Modeling the SED and Variability of 3C~66A in 2003 -- 2004}

38: \shortauthors{Joshi \& B\"ottcher}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \title{Modeling the Spectral Energy Distribution and Variability of 3C~66A 

43: during the WEBT campaign of 2003 -- 2004}

44: 

45: \author{M. Joshi\altaffilmark{1} and M. B\"ottcher\altaffilmark{1}}

46: 

47: \altaffiltext{1}{Astrophysical Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy,

48:  \\

49: Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA}

50: 

51: 

52: \begin{abstract}

53: The BL~Lac object 3C~66A was observed in an extensive multiwavelength 

54: monitoring campaign from July 2003 till April 2004. The spectral energy 

55: distribution (SED) was measured over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, with

56:  flux measurements from radio to X-ray frequencies and upper limits in the 

57: very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray regime. Here, we use a time-dependent 

58: leptonic jet model to reproduce the SED and optical spectral variability 

59: observed during our multiwavelength campaign. Our model simulations could 

60: successfully reproduce the observed SED and optical light curves and predict 

61: an intrinsic cutoff value for the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission at $\sim$ 4 GeV. 

62: The effect of the optical depth due to the intergalactic infrared background 

63: radiation (IIBR) on the peak of the high-energy component of 3C~66A was found 

64: to be negligible. Also, the presence of a broad line region (BLR) in the case 

65: of 3C~66A may play an important role in the emission of $\gamma$-ray photons 

66: when the emission region is very close to the central engine, but further out,

67:  the production mechanism of hard X-ray and $\gamma$-ray photons becomes 

68: rapidly dominated by synchrotron self-Compton emission. We further discuss the 

69: possibility of an observable X-ray spectral variability pattern. The simulated

70:  results do not predict observable hysteresis patterns in the optical or soft 

71: X-ray regimes for major flares on multi-day time scales. 

72: \end{abstract}

73: 

74: \keywords{galaxies: active --- BL Lacertae objects: individual (3C~66A) 

75: --- gamma-rays: theory --- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}  

76: 

77: \section{Introduction}

78: 

79: Blazars are the most extreme class of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) exhibiting 

80: rapid variability at all wavelengths and a high degree of linear polarization 

81: in the optical. They have been observed at all wavelengths, from radio through

82:  VHE $\gamma$-rays and are characterized by non-thermal continuum spectra and 

83: radio jets with individual components often exhibiting apparent superluminal 

84: motion. This class of AGNs is comprised of BL Lac objects and flat-spectrum 

85: radio quasars (FSRQs), which are distinguished primarily on the basis of the 

86: absence or presence of broad emission lines in their optical spectra.

87: 

88: The broadband spectra of blazars are associated with non-thermal emission and 

89: exhibit two broad spectral components. The low energy component is due to 

90: synchrotron emission from non-thermal electrons in a relativistic jet whereas 

91: the high energy component is attributed either to the Compton upscattering of 

92: low energy radiation by the synchrotron emitting electrons (for a recent 

93: review see, e.g., \cite{bo2006}) or the hadronic processes initiated by 

94: relativistic protons co-accelerated with the electrons \citep[]{mp2001, mp2003}

95: . Blazars are often known to exhibit variability at all wavelengths, varying 

96: on time scales from months, to a few days, to even less than an hour in some 

97: cases. The radio emission of blazars shows variability on a time scale of 

98: weeks to months whereas the optical emission for some blazars might vary on a 

99: time scale of around one and a half hours. At X-ray energies, some HBLs exhibit

100:  characteristic loop features when the photon energy spectral index, $\alpha$,

101:  is plotted against the X-ray flux. These plots are known as hardness-intensity

102:  diagrams (HIDs) and the loop structures are called spectral hysteresis. This 

103: spectral hysteresis can be interpreted as the signature of synchrotron 

104: radiation, due to the gradual injection and/or acceleration of 

105: ultrarelativistic electrons in the emitting region and their subsequent 

106: radiative cooling \citep[]{ki1998, gm1998, ka2000, ku2000, li2000, bc2002}.

107: 

108: 3C~66A is classified as a low-frequency peaked (or radio selected) BL~Lac 

109: object (LBL). The peak of the low-frequency component of LBLs generally lie in

110:  the IR or optical regime, whereas the high-energy component peak is 

111: located at several GeV, and the $\gamma$-ray output is typically comparable to

112:  or slightly higher than the spectral output of the synchrotron component. The

113:  redshift of 3C~66A has a relatively uncertain determination of $\rm z = 0.444$

114:  \citep{br2005}. It has exhibited rapid microvariability at optical and near 

115: infrared in the past and has been suggested as a promising candidate for 

116: detection by the new generation of atmospheric \v{C}erenkov telescope 

117: facilities like H.E.S.S., MAGIC, or VERITAS \citep{cg2002}. This object has 

118: been studied in radio, IR, optical, X-rays and $\gamma$-rays in the past. Its

119: low-frequency component is known to peak in the IR - UV regime whereas the 

120: high-frequency component generally peaks at multi MeV - GeV energies. The 

121: multiwavelength SED and correlated broadband spectral variability behaviour of

122:  3C~66A have been very poorly understood. For this reason, \cite{bh2005} 

123: organized an intensive multiwavelength campaign to observe this object from 

124: July 2003 through April 2004, with the core campaign period being Sept. - Dec.

125:  2003. 

126: 

127: As described in \cite{bh2005}, the object exhibited several outbursts in the 

128: optical. The variation was on the order of $\Delta$m $\sim$ 0.3-0.5 over a 

129: timescale of several days. The minimum variability timsecale of 2 hr provided 

130: an estimate for the size of the emitting region to be on the order of 

131: $10^{15}$~cm. The optical flares suggested the presence of an optical spectral

132:  hysteresis pattern with the B - R hardness peaking several days before the 

133: R- and B- band flux peaked. The RXTE PCA data indicated a transition between 

134: the synchrotron and the high-energy component at photon energies of 

135: $\gtrsim 10$~keV. The broadband SED of 3C~66A suggested that the synchrotron 

136: component peaked in the optical. In the VHE $\gamma$-ray regime, STACEE 

137: provided an upper limit at $E_{\gamma} \gtrsim 150$~GeV whereas an upper 

138: limit at $E_{\gamma} > 390$~GeV resulted from simultaneous Whipple 

139: observations. 

140: 

141: In this paper, we use a leptonic jet model to reproduce the broadband SED and 

142: the observed optical spectral variability patterns of 3C~66A and make 

143: predictions regarding observable X-ray spectral variability patterns and 

144: $\gamma$-ray emission. In \S \ref{model}, we describe the time-dependent 

145: leptonic jet model used to reproduce the observed SED and optical spectral 

146: variability patterns of 3C~66A. The parameters used to simulate the observed 

147: results are described in \S \ref{parameter}. The modeling results and VHE 

148: $\gamma$-ray predictions are discussed in \S \ref{results}. We summarize in 

149: \S \ref{summary}.  

150: 

151: Throughout this paper, we refer to $\alpha$ as the energy spectral index, 

152: $\rm F_{\nu}$~[Jy]~$\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$. A cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, 

153: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, and $\rm H_0 = 70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ is used. 

154: In this cosmology, and using the redshift of $\rm z = 0.444$, the luminosity 

155: distance of 3C~66A is $\rm d_L = 2.46$~Gpc. 

156: 

157: 

158: 

159: \section{\label{model}Model Description}

160: 

161: The SEDs and optical variability patterns of 3C~66A were modeled using a 

162: one-zone homogeneous leptonic jet model. The model assumes injection of a 

163: population of ultrarelativistic non-thermal electrons and positrons into a 

164: spherical emitting volume (the ``blob'') of comoving radius $R_{b}$ at a 

165: time-dependent rate. Since the positrons lose equal amount of energy as the 

166: electrons via the same radiative loss mechanisms so we do not distinguish 

167: between them throughout the paper. The injected electron population is 

168: described by a single power law distribution with a particle spectral index q, 

169: comoving injection density $Q^{\rm inj}_{e}(\gamma;t)$ ($\rm cm^{-3} s^{-1}$) 

170: and low- and high-energy cutoffs $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$, respectively, 

171: such that $Q^{\rm inj}_{e}(\gamma) = Q^{\rm inj}_{0}(t) \gamma^{-q}$ for 

172: $\gamma_{1}\leq\gamma\leq\gamma_{2}$, where $Q^{\rm inj}_{0}(t)$ is the 

173: injection function and is given by,

174: 

175: \begin{eqnarray}

176: \label{1}

177: Q^{\rm inj}_{0}(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

178:     {L_{\rm inj}(t) \over \rm V^{\prime}_{b}m_{e}c^{2}} {{2 - q} \over {\gamma^{2 - q}_{2} - \gamma^{2 - q}_{1}}} & \textrm{if $q \neq 2$}\\

179: \\

180:     L_{\rm inj}(t) \over \rm V^{\prime}_{b}m_{e}c^{2}ln(\gamma_{2}/ \gamma_{1}) & \textrm{if $q = 2$}

181:    \end{array} \right.

182: \end{eqnarray}

183: 

184: where $L_{\rm inj}$ specifies the power of the injected pair population and 

185: $\rm V^{\prime}_{b}$ is the blob volume in the comoving frame.

186: 

187: The randomly oriented magnetic field B has uniform strength throughout the 

188: blob and is determined by an equipartition parameter 

189: $\rm e_{B}$ $\equiv$ $\rm u_{B}$/$\rm u_{e}$ (in the comoving frame), where 

190: $\rm u_{B}$ is the magnetic field energy density and $\rm u_{e}$ is the 

191: electron energy density. We keep $\rm e_{B}$ constant so that the magnetic 

192: field value changes according to the evolving electron energy density value as

193:  determined by equation \ref{2}. The initial injection of the electron 

194: population into the blob takes place at a height $\rm z_{0}$ above 

195: the plane of the central accretion disk. The emitting region travels 

196: relativistically with a speed 

197: $\rm v/c = \beta_{\Gamma} = (1-1/\Gamma^2)^{1/2}$ along the jet. 

198: The jet is directed at an angle $\theta_{\rm obs}$ with respect to the line of

199:  sight. The Doppler boosting of the emission region with respect to the 

200: observer's frame is determined by the Doppler factor 

201: $\delta = [\Gamma(1 - \beta_{\Gamma} \cos\theta_{\rm obs})]^{-1}$, where 

202: $\Gamma$ is the bulk Lorentz factor.

203: 

204: As the emission region propagates in the jet, the electron population inside 

205: the blob continuously loses its energy due to synchrotron emission, Compton 

206: upscattering of synchrotron photons (SSC) and/or Compton upscattering of 

207: external photons (EC). The seed photons for the EC process include the UV soft

208:  X-ray emission from the disk entering the jet either directly 

209: \citep[]{dm1992, ds1993} or after getting reprocessed in the BLR or other 

210: circumnuclear material \citep[]{sr1994, ds1997}. The time-dependent evolution 

211: of the electron and photon population inside the emission region is governed, 

212: respectively, by, 

213: 

214: \begin{equation}

215: \label{2}

216: {\partial n_{e} (\gamma, t) \over \partial t} = -{\partial \over \partial \gamma} 

217: \left[\left({d\gamma \over dt}\right)_{loss} n_{e} (\gamma, t)\right] + Q_{e} (\gamma, t) 

218: - \frac{n_{e} (\gamma, t)}{t_{e,esc}}

219: \end{equation}

220: 

221: and

222: 

223: \begin{equation}

224: \label{3}

225: {\partial n_{ph} (\epsilon, t) \over \partial t} = \dot n_{ph,em} (\epsilon, t) - 

226: \dot n_{ph,abs} (\epsilon, t) - \frac{n_{ph} (\epsilon, t)}{t_{ph,esc}}

227: \end{equation}

228: 

229: Here, $(d\gamma/dt)_{\rm loss}$ is the radiative energy loss rate, due to 

230: synchrotron, SSC and/or EC emission, for the electrons. $Q_{e} (\gamma, t)$ is

231:  the sum of external injection and intrinsic $\gamma - \gamma$ pair production

232:  rate and $t_{\rm e,esc}$ is the electron escape time scale. 

233: $\dot n_{\rm ph,em} (\epsilon, t)$ and $\dot n_{\rm ph,abs} (\epsilon, t)$ are

234:  the photon emission and absorption rates corresponding to the electrons' 

235: radiative losses and, $t_{\rm ph,esc} = (3/4)R_{b}/c$ is the photon escape 

236: timescale. The time-dependent evolution of the electron and photon population 

237: inside the blob is followed and radiative energy loss rates as well as photon 

238: emissivities are calculated using the time-dependent radiation transfer code 

239: of \cite{bc2002}. 

240: 

241: The model only follows the evolution of the emission region out to sub-pc 

242: scales and as a result only the early phase of $\gamma$-ray production can 

243: be simulated. Since the radiative cooling is strongly dominant over adiabatic 

244: cooling during this phase and the emission region is highly optically thick 

245: out to GHz radio frequencies, the simulated radio flux is well below the 

246: actual radio data. We do not simulate the phase of the jet components in which

247:  they are expected to gradually become transparent to radio frequencies as 

248: that would require the introduction of several additional, poorly constrained 

249: parameters.

250: 

251: 

252: \section{\label{parameter}Model Parameters}

253: 

254: The model independent parameters that were estimated using the SED and

255:  optical intraday variability measurements \citep[see][]{bh2005} were used to 

256: develop an initial set of input parameters:

257: 

258: \begin{eqnarray}

259: \delta &\approx& 15 \hss \cr

260: R &\approx& 3.3 \times 10^{15} \; {\rm cm} \hss \cr

261: B &\approx& 2.9 \, \epsilon_B^{2/7} \; {\rm G} \hss \cr

262: \gamma_1 &\approx& 3.1 \times 10^3 \hss \cr

263: \gamma_2 &\approx& 1.5 \times 10^5 \hss \cr

264: p &\approx& 4 \hss 

265: \label{parameter_summary}

266: \end{eqnarray}

267: 

268: Here p is the equilibrium spectral index that determines the optical 

269: synchrotron spectrum and $p = q + 1$ for strongly cooled electrons. The 

270: initial set of parameters was modified to reproduce the quiescent as well as 

271: the flaring state of 3C~66A. Approximately 350 simulations were carried out to

272:  study the effects of variations of various parameters, such as $\gamma_{1}$, 

273: $\gamma_{2}$, q, B and $\Gamma$, on the resulting broadband spectra and light 

274: curves. The set of model parameters that provided a satisfactory fit to the 

275: quiescent state of 3C~66A involved a value of the Doppler factor, 

276: $\delta = \Gamma = 24$ and a viewing angle of $\theta_{\rm obs} = 2.4^{\rm o}$.

277:  These parameters were chosen on the basis of VLBA observations that provided 

278: the limits on the superluminal motion and indicated bending of the jet towards

279:  the line of sight thus resulting in a smaller viewing angle and a higher 

280: Doppler boosting of the emission region as compared to the values inferred from

281:  the superluminal measurements on larger scales \citep[]{jm2005, bh2005}. The 

282: fitting of the SED both in the quiescent as well as flaring state of 3C~66A was

283:  carried out such that the simulated quiescent state does not overpredict the 

284: X-ray photon flux as X-ray photons are expected to be dominated by the flaring

285:  episodes. On the other hand, the flaring state was simulated such that the 

286: resulting time-averaged spectrum passes through the observed time-averaged 

287: optical as well as X-ray data points. This was achieved by varying individual 

288: parameters, such as, $\gamma_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}$ and q between the values for 

289: quiescent and flaring states with time profiles as discussed in the next 

290: section. A value of $\gamma_{1} = 2.1 \times 10^{3}$, 

291: $\gamma_{2} = 4.5 \times 10^{4}$ and $q = 2.4$ provided a satisfactory fit to 

292: the flaring state. Also, during our multiwavelength campaign of 2003 - 2004, 

293: flux upper limits at multi-GeV - TeV energies could be obtained and as a 

294: result we could get upper limits on the respective parameters governing the EC

295:  component. The various model parameters used to simulate the two states of 

296: 3C~66A are listed in Table \ref{model_parameters}.

297:   

298: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccc}

299: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

300: \tablecaption{Model Parameters used to reproduce the quiescent and flaring 

301: state of 3C~66A as shown in Figures \ref{sed_plot190} and \ref{sed_plot344}, 

302: respectively. 

303: Note: $L_{\rm inj}$ is the luminosity with which electron population is 

304: injected into the blob. $\gamma_{1,2}$ are the low- and high-energy cutoffs of 

305: electron injection spectrum and q is the particle spectral index. Profile 

306: stands for the flare profile used to reproduce the optical variability pattern,

307:  $e_{B}$ is the equipartition parameter and magnetic field B is the 

308: equipartition value. $\Gamma$ is the bulk Lorentz factor, $R_{b}$ is the 

309: comoving radius of the blob, $\theta_{\rm obs}$ is the viewing angle and 

310: $\tau_{\rm T, BLR}$ is the radial Thomson depth of the BLR.}

311: \tablewidth{0pt}

312: \tablehead{

313: \colhead{Fit} & \colhead{$L_{inj}$ [$10^{41}$~ergs/s]} & \colhead{$\gamma_{1}$ [$10^{3}$]} & \colhead{$\gamma_{2}$ [$10^{4}$]} & \colhead{q} & \colhead{Profile} & \colhead{$e_{B}$} & \colhead{B [G]} & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{$R_{b}$ [$10^{15}$~cm]} & \colhead{$\theta_{obs}$ [deg]} & \colhead{$\tau_{\rm T, BLR}$}

314: }

315: \startdata

316: 1  &    2.7     &  1.8   &      3.0   &     3.1    &     --------   &  1    &   2.4   &  24   &  3.59   &   2.4    &    0\\

317: 2  &    8.0     &  2.1   &      4.5   &     2.4    &     Gaussian   &  1    &   2.8   &  24   &  3.59   &   2.4    &    0\\

318: 3  &	8.0	&  2.1   &      4.5   &     2.4    &     Gaussian   &  1    &   2.8   &  24   &  3.59   &   2.4    &    0.3\\

319: \enddata

320: \label{model_parameters}

321: \end{deluxetable}

322: 

323: Figures \ref{sed_plot190} and \ref{sed_plot344} respectively show the 

324: reproduction of the SED of 3C~66A, for both the quiescent and flaring state 

325: observed during the campaign period. The quiescent state is a reproduction of 

326: the state observed around 1st October 2003 whereas the flaring state is the 

327: reproduction of a generic 10 day flaring period corresponding to the timescale

328:  of several of the major outbursts that were observed during the campaign. The

329:  simulated time-averaged spectrum of 3C~66A in the flaring state is shown in 

330: Figure \ref{sed_timeav_344}. The simulations, corresponding to fits 1 and 2 of

331:  Table \ref{model_parameters}, were carried out for a pure SSC emission 

332: process by artificially setting $L_{D} = 0$, where $L_{D}$ is the bolometric 

333: disk luminosity. Fit 3 of Table \ref{model_parameters} refers to an EC+SSC 

334: case with $L_{D} = 1.0 \times 10^{45}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}}$ and is shown in 

335: Figure \ref{sed_plot348}. The value of $L_{D}$ was chosen such that it is more

336:  than the value of the jet luminosity used in the simulations and at the

337: same time does not produce a blue bump in the simulated SED. In order to 

338: assess the possible effect of EC emission in 3C66A, an upper limit to the 

339: optical depth of the BLR was first determined using XSTAR, which returns 

340: the ionization balance and temperature, opacity, and emitted line 

341: ($H_{\alpha}$, $H_{\beta}$) and continuum fluxes. The BLR was modeled as a 

342: spherical shell with $r_{\rm BLR, in} = 0.045$~pc and 

343: $r_{\rm BLR, out} = 0.050$~pc, where $r_{\rm BLR, in}$ and $r_{\rm BLR, out}$ 

344: stand for the inner and outer radii of the broad line region. A Thomson optical

345:  depth of 0.3 for the BLR was chosen as a reasonable upper limit such that the

346:  line emission is weak enough or absent to be consistent with the observed 

347: featureless continuum.  

348: 

349: \begin{figure}

350: \plotone{f1.eps}

351: \caption{Reproduction of the quiescent state of 3C~66A observed around October

352:  1st 2003. The simulation of this state was carried out using parameters that

353: do not overpredict the X-ray photon flux. The black colored solid line 

354: indicates the instantaneous spectrum generated by the simulation after the 

355: system (blob + injected electron population) attains equilibrium. The 

356: low-energy component peaks in the optical at $\nu_{\rm syn} \approx 4.8 \times

357:  10^{14}$~Hz whereas the high-energy SSC component peaks in the MeV regime at 

358: $\nu_{\rm SSC} \approx 1.6 \times 10^{21}$~Hz. The synchrotron cooling 

359: timescale in the observer's frame is $\approx$ 1.2 hours, which is on the 

360: order of observed minimum optical variability timescale of 2 hours. The

361:  diamond shaped STACEE upper limit is a new addition and is provided by 

362: \cite{li06}. All data that are indicated by dotted curves are archival data 

363: and are shown for comparison. The historical average of the 5 EGRET pointings 

364: is also included to provide a guideline for our simulated VHE emission.}

365: \label{sed_plot190}

366: \end{figure}

367: 

368: \begin{figure}

369: \plotone{f2.eps}

370: \caption{Simulation of the flaring state for a generic 10 day flare 

371: corresponding to the timescale of several major outbursts that were observed 

372: in the optical regime during our campaign. The various curves show the 

373: instantaneous spectral energy distribution of 3C~66A at several different 

374: times in the observer's frame: black (red in the online version) dotted line 

375: ($\sim$ 5th hour), gray (green) dashed line ($\sim$ 8th hour), black (blue) 

376: dot-dashed line ($\sim$ 14th hour), gray (yellow) long-dashed line 

377: ($\sim$ 20th hour), long-dashed black line ($\sim$ 8th day, highest state 

378: attained by the system during flaring), gray solid line ($\sim$ 9th day), 

379: dotted black (violet) line ($\sim$ 16th day), gray (cyan) colored solid line 

380: ($\sim$ 18th day), dashed black (magenta) colored line ($\sim$ 20th day) and 

381: black (red) solid line ($\sim$ 22nd day, equilibrium state reached by the 

382: system after the flaring episode is over). The synchrotron component of the 

383: flaring state peaks at $\nu_{\rm syn} \approx 1.1 \times 10^{15}$~Hz and the 

384: SSC component peaks at $\nu_{\rm SSC} \approx 2.7 \times 10^{22}$~Hz. The SSC 

385: component of this state cuts off at $\nu_{\rm SSC, cutoff} 

386: \approx 2.3 \times 10^{24}$~Hz. The synchrotron cooling timescale in the 

387: optical regime is $\approx$ 37 minutes for the flaring state.}

388: \label{sed_plot344}

389: \end{figure}

390: 

391: \section{\label{results}Results and Discussion}

392: 

393: As can be seen in Figure \ref{sed_timeav_344}, the time-averaged simulated 

394: spectrum passes through the time-averaged optical data points whereas the high

395:  energy end of the synchrotron component passes through the time averaged 

396: X-ray data indicating the dominance of synchrotron emission in the production 

397: of such photons in case of flaring. For X-ray photons with energy beyond 

398: 10-12 keV, the data is less reliable due to low count rates and possible source

399:  confusion with 3C~66B. The spectral upturn at $\geq$ 7 keV occurs due to the 

400: presence of the SSC component in the simulation. The presence of this component

401:  cannot be suppressed because in order to suppress it the population of seed 

402: photons would have to be diluted, which can be done by increasing the size of 

403: the emission region. But the size of the emission region cannot be increased 

404: any further due to the strict constraint on the maximum size of the blob that 

405: comes from the observed minimum variability timescale in the optical region, 

406: which is 2 hrs. Hence, the emission region size cannot exceed 

407: $3.6 \times 10^{15}~(D/24)$~cm. Thus, our model suggests that the harder X-ray

408:  photons come from the SSC and not the synchrotron mechanism with the expected

409:  spectral hardening taking place at $\sim$ 7 keV. The high energy component, 

410: due to the SSC emission, for the time-averaged spectrum (see Figure 

411: \ref{sed_timeav_344}) cuts off at $\sim 1.0 \times 10^{24}$~Hz or 4 GeV. From 

412: the simulated level of VHE emission we predict that the object is well within 

413: the observational range of MAGIC, VERITAS and, especially, GLAST (see Figure 

414: \ref{sed_timeav_344}) whose sensitivity limit is 50 times lower than that of 

415: EGRET at 100 MeV and even more at higher energies and its two year limit for 

416: source detection in an all-sky survey is 

417: $1.6 \times 10^{-9}~{\rm photons~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$ (at energies $> 100$~ MeV). 

418: Thus it will be possible to extract the spectral and variability information

419:  for this object at such high energies in future observations.

420: 

421: \begin{figure}

422: \plotone{f3.eps}

423: \caption{Time-averaged spectral energy distribution of 3C~66A for a period of 

424: 23 days around a flare as shown in Figure \ref{sed_plot344}. The filled 

425: black (colored in the online version) circles are the time-averaged 

426: optical and IR data points for the entire campaign period and the ``RXTE 2003''

427:  denotes the time-averaged X-ray data points. The dot-dashed black line is the

428:  contribution from the synchrotron component only whereas the long-dashed black

429:  line indicates the contribution of the SSC component only. The time-averaged 

430: synchrotron component peaks at $\nu_{\rm syn} \approx 7.2 \times 10^{14}$~Hz 

431: whereas the time-averaged SSC component peaks at 

432: $\nu_{\rm SSC} \approx 5.3 \times 10^{21}$~Hz. The synchrotron component cuts 

433: off near 7 keV whereas the SSC component cuts off at $\sim$ 4 GeV. The black 

434: colored dashed line indicates the attenuation due to the optical depth at VHE 

435: energies. The $\gamma\gamma$ absorption effect becomes significant at 

436: $\sim$ 200 GeV. The black (green, maroon and magenta) lines indicate 

437: the sensitivity limits for an observation time of 50 hours for MAGIC, VERITAS 

438: and MAGIC (Large Zenith Angle) and for GLAST for an observation time of 1 

439: month.}

440: \label{sed_timeav_344}

441: \end{figure}

442: 

443: Flaring above the quiescent state of 3C~66A was reproduced using a 

444: flaring profile for the electron injection power ($L_{\rm inj}(t)$) 

445: that was Gaussian in time (see Figure \ref{flare_profile}):

446: 

447: \begin{equation}

448: \label{5}

449: L_{\rm inj}(t) = L_{\rm inj}^{\rm qu}(t) + {(L_{\rm inj}^{\rm fl} - L_{\rm inj}^{\rm qu}) 

450: \over \exp{\left[ (\rm z - r_{c})^2 \over 2 \sigma^{2}\right]}}

451: \end{equation}

452: 

453: Here, qu and fl stand for the quiescent and flaring state respectively,

454:  z determines the position of the emission region in the jet at time t, 

455: $\rm r_{c}$ indicates the position of the center of the simulated 

456: flare and $\sigma$ stands for the Gaussian width of the flare.

457: 

458: The rest of the parameters such as $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$ and q were 

459: also changed accordingly. In order to simulate the observed optical flare, the

460:  system was first allowed to come to an equilibrium and after the equilibrium 

461: was set up the flare was introduced with a Gaussian width, $\sigma$ 

462: corresponding to 14 days in the observer's frame. Although the flare was 

463: introduced in order to simulate the observed major optical outbursts lasting 

464: for 10 days, the choice of 14 days for the Gaussian width was made such that 

465: the width of the simulated flare matches that of the observed flare, 

466: $\rm r_{c}$ was adjusted such that the centre of the simulated flare aligns 

467: with that of the observed one and the value of $L_{\rm inj}$ was varied such 

468: that the peak of the simulated flare matches that of the observed one.

469: 

470: The observed lightcurves did not agree well with a flaring profile that was 

471: top-hat or triangular in time as can be seen in the figure. The presence of a 

472: flare that is Gaussian in time might represent an initial injection of 

473: particles into the emission region at the base of the jet. The particles 

474: slowly get accelerated as a shock wave ploughs through the region and finally 

475: dies out in time. Crucial information on the dominant acceleration mechanism 

476: comes from the change in the shape of the particle injection spectral index 

477: with time, which might also indicate a possible change in the B-field 

478: orientation. According to the current understanding of acceleration mechanisms,

479:  parallel shocks generally produce electron spectra of 

480: $Q_{e}(\gamma)\propto \gamma^{-q}$ with $2.2\la q\la 2.3$ 

481: \citep[]{ac2001, ga1999}, whereas oblique shocks produce much softer injection

482:  spectral indices. On the other hand, 2nd order Fermi acceleration behind the 

483: shock front might give rise to a harder injection index of the order of 

484: $q \sim 1$ or beyond \citep{vv2005}. In order to reproduce the flaring state, 

485: the simulation first starts out in the quiescent state with quiescent state 

486: parameters and then the value of these parameters is changed to the flaring 

487: state parameters as the flaring is introduced in the simulation. Since, the 

488: value of q, in our simulations, changes from 3.1 (quiescent state) to 2.4 

489: (flaring state) it might indicate a possible change in the orientation of the 

490: B-field from oblique to parallel during the flaring episode or an interplay 

491: between the 1st and 2nd order Fermi acceleration thereby making the particle 

492: spectra harder. The contribution from such acceleration mechanisms and the 

493: shear acceleration \citep{rd2004} might play an important role in accelerating

494:  the particles to higher energies. 

495: 

496: \begin{figure}

497: \plotone{f4.eps}

498: \caption{The simulated lightcurves for various flaring profiles that have been

499:  superimposed on the observed R-band lightcurve (see Figure 7 of \cite{bh2005})

500:  for an outburst on $\sim$ November 1st 2003. The solid black line denotes a 

501: flaring profile that is Gaussian in time as used for the flare in Figure 

502: \ref{sed_plot344}, the dash-dotted black line is a trianglular flaring profile

503:  whereas the dashed black line is a flaring profile that is top-hat in time. As

504:  can be seen, the Gaussian flaring profile closely matches the width as well 

505: as the profile of the observed flare.}

506: \label{flare_profile}

507: \end{figure}

508: 

509: The simulated optical variability in the R band (0.55 mag) matches the observed

510:  value (0.3-0.5 mag) for a 10 day period outburst. The predicted 

511: variability in B is more than that of R by $\sim 0.15$ mag as also observed, 

512: which indicates that the spectrum is becoming harder (see Figure 

513: \ref{sed_344_lightcurve}) with the spectral upturn occuring at B-R $\approx$

514: 0.72 mag as shown in Figure \ref{B-RvsR}. Figure \ref{B-RvsR} is a hardness 

515: intensity graph that shows that the object follows a positive correlation of 

516: becoming harder in B-R while getting brighter in both the bands during the 

517: 10-day flare simulated in Figure \ref{sed_plot344}. This agrees well with the 

518: observed optical variability pattern. In this study, we are not 

519: addressing the variability that was observed on intraday timescales as that 

520: analysis would open up an even larger parameter space, which cannot be 

521: reasonably well constrained without any variability information in the X-ray 

522: regime.    

523:  

524: \begin{figure}

525: \plotone{f5.eps}

526: \caption{Simulated lightcurves for the optical, X-rays and $\gamma$-ray energy

527: regimes shown in the three panels respectively. The simulated variability in 

528: the R band is $\approx$ 0.55 mag as indicated by the arrows. The B band, 

529: denoted by the black dotted line exhibits a higher variability of $\approx$ 

530: 0.7 mag, in the simulation, than that in the R band, which is consistent with 

531: our observations. The simulated lightcurve at 1 keV is indicated by a black 

532: dashed curve and exhibits an amplitude variation of 

533: $\approx 1.4 \times 10^{12}$~Jy Hz. The 3, 10 and 15 keV lightcurves, denoted 

534: by the black solid line, black long-dashed line and the black dot-dashed 

535: curve, respectively, on the other hand do not exhibit much variability. In the

536: VHE regime, the 1 MeV lightcurve is denoted by a black solid line. The 100 MeV

537:  lightcurve is indicated by a black long-dashed curve and the simulated 

538: variability amplitude in this energy regime is on the order of $10^{12}$~Jy Hz.

539:  The black dot-dashed line indicates the lightcurve at 10 GeV.}   

540: \label{sed_344_lightcurve}

541: \end{figure}

542: 

543: \begin{figure}  

544: \plotone{f6.eps}

545: \caption{The simulated hardness-intensity diagram indicates a positive 

546: correlation between R- and B-band for an outburst lasting for $\sim$~10 days. 

547: The object becomes brighter in R and harder in B-R as shown by the arrows. The

548: spectral upturn takes place at B-R $\approx$ 0.72 mag where the flux in B 

549: equals that in R (corresponding to $\alpha_{\rm BR} = 0$).}

550: \label{B-RvsR}

551: \end{figure}

552: 

553: The flare declines faster as compared to the time taken by the flare to rise. 

554: This might indicate that the particles' synchrotron cooling timescale is less 

555: than or equal to the light crossing time. 

556: 

557: \begin{equation}

558: \label{6}

559: \tau_{\rm cool, sy}^{\rm obs} \approx 2.8 \times 10^3 \, \left( {\delta \over 15} \right)^{-1/2}

560: \, \left( {B \over 2.9 \, {\rm G}} \right)^{-3/2} \, \nu_{15}^{-1/2} \; {\rm s}

561: \label{tau_sy}

562: \end{equation}

563: 

564: We can calculate the observed synchrotron cooling timescale, 

565: $\tau_{\rm cool, syn}^{\rm obs}$ in the optical regime from equation 

566: \ref{tau_sy} \citep{bh2005} using $\delta = 24$, $B = 2.4~G$ and 

567: $\nu_{15} = 0.48$ for the quiescent state and $B = 2.8~G$ and $\nu_{15} = 1.1$

568:  for the flaring state (see Figures \ref{sed_plot190} and \ref{sed_plot344}), 

569: where $\nu_{15}$ is the characteristic synchrotron frequency in units of 

570: $10^{15}$~Hz. This yields a value of 

571: $\tau_{\rm cool, sy}^{\rm obs} \sim 1.2$~hours for the quiescent state whereas

572:  for the flaring state it reduces to 37 minutes. The observed minimum 

573: variability timescale of $\sim$~2 hours might therefore correspond to the 

574: observed dynamical timescale, where 

575: 

576: \begin{equation}

577: \label{7}

578: \tau_{\rm dyn}^{\rm obs} \approx \left( {R_{b} \over c} \right) \, \left( {{1+z} \over D} \right).

579: \label{tau_dyn}

580: \end{equation} 

581: 

582: This implies that it takes time to build up the electron population in the 

583: emission region through flaring but once built up the electrons lose their 

584: energy efficiently to produce synchrotron photons. This can be used to 

585: constrain the value of the magnetic field in the jet, which has been allowed 

586: to evolve in time keeping $e_{B} = 1$ and has an average value of 2.4 Gauss in 

587: the simulated quiescent state and 2.8 Gauss in the simulated flaring period. 

588: 

589: The crossover of X-ray lightcurves, in our simulations, is a result of the 

590: dominance of the SSC component in hard X-rays (see Figure 

591: \ref{sed_344_lightcurve}). The lightcurve of soft X-ray photons of energy 1 

592: keV exhibits a greater variability of $\sim 1.4 \times 10^{12}$~Jy Hz in its 

593: flux as compared to their optical counterpart. This is expected because the 

594: soft X-ray photons, during the flaring episode, are produced from synchrotron 

595: emission of electrons that are accelerated to very high energies and as a 

596: result have a very short cooling timescale and thus greater variability. In 

597: case of hard X-rays no significant variability is predicted. This is because 

598: such photons are produced from Compton upscattering of synchrotron photons off

599:  the low-energy electrons and as a result the cooling timescale is much longer

600:  as compared to the cooling timescale of their soft X-ray and optical 

601: counterparts. Hence, the variability information gets washed out. The predicted

602:  X-ray spectral variability pattern of large variability in the low X-ray 

603: energy band and negligible variability in the high X-ray energy band is 

604: similar to what has also been observed in BL Lacertae on several occasions 

605: \citep[see for e.g.,][]{ra2003, ra2002}. 

606:  

607: As can be seen in Figure \ref{hyst_combined1}, spectral hysteresis patterns 

608: are not predicted for optical as well as soft X-ray photons. This is expected 

609: because the cooling timescale of their parent electron population is so short 

610: that what is observed is the average effect of this cooling over the dynamical 

611: timescale and hence any hysteresis pattern gets smeared out. On the other hand,

612:  one expects to see these patterns at higher energies because as explained 

613: earlier, this photon population comes from Compton upscattering off low-energy

614:  electrons, which have a longer cooling timescale and as a result the photon 

615: population gradually builds up over time and then dies away giving rise to a 

616: hysteresis pattern (see Figure \ref{hyst_combined2}). The slight spectral 

617: softening at 10 keV seen in its hysteresis pattern (see Figure 

618: \ref{hyst_combined1}) for higher values of $\nu F_{\nu}$ indicates a small 

619: synchrotron contribution near the peak of the flare.

620: 

621: \begin{figure}

622: \plotone{f7.eps}

623: \caption{Simulated spectral hysteresis pattern in the R-band, 1 keV and 10 keV

624:  energy regimes, shown in the three panels respectively. As can be seen, the 

625: hysteresis pattern starts to show up in the 10 keV energy regime.}

626: \label{hyst_combined1}

627: \end{figure}

628: 

629: \begin{figure}

630: \plotone{f8.eps}

631: \caption{Simulated hysteresis pattern for 1 MeV, 100 MeV and 10 GeV energy 

632: regimes, shown in the three panels repectively. The hysteresis pattern is

633: prominent for the 1 MeV energy regime but starts to become absent at higher

634: energies.} 

635: \label{hyst_combined2}

636: \end{figure}

637: 

638: The simulated instantaneous SED, for a pure SSC model, shows a definite 

639: presence of $\gamma$-ray emission in 3C66A, in the quiescent as well as the 

640: flaring state (see Figure \ref{sed_plot190} and \ref{sed_plot344}). The 

641: intrinsic cutoff of VHE emission in the flaring state, according to the 

642: simulations, for the time averaged spectrum is $\sim 1.0 \times 10^{24}$~Hz or

643:  4 GeV. In our simulations, the emission of VHE $\gamma$-ray photons is 

644: produced by the SSC mechanism in the quiescent as well as the flaring state. 

645: Figure \ref{sed_344_lightcurve} shows the simulated lightcurves for VHE 

646: photons and as can be seen the $\nu F_{\nu}$ value changes by 

647: $\sim 4.17 \times 10^{12}$~Jy Hz at 100 MeV. The variability in VHE photons is

648:  expected as they are the result of Compton upscattering off the higher energy 

649: electrons and due to this the hysteresis pattern is not seen at such high 

650: energies as the cooling timescale of such high energy electrons is very short 

651: (see Figure \ref{hyst_combined2}).

652: 

653: From Figure \ref{sed_plot348}, it can be seen that the high-energy component of

654:  3C~66A, in the flaring state, could start out with a dominant contribution of

655:  the EC emission, shown by the red solid line. But as the blob travels further

656:  away and passes the outer edge of the broad line region, the EC contribution 

657: becomes less significant and the SSC emission takes over. This is indicated by

658:  the black long-dashed line in the figure. We might actually find that this 

659: maximum contribution would be just enough to explain the historical EGRET flux

660:  and that there could be GeV flaring due to early external Comptonization.  

661: 

662: \begin{figure}

663: \plotone{f9.eps}

664: \caption{Simulation of the effect of the BLR on the instantaneous spectral 

665: energy distribution of 3C~66A for the first 3 days of a simulation similar to 

666: Figure \ref{sed_plot344}. The curves in the figure denote the instantaneous 

667: spectra obtained from the simulation. The gray (red in the online version) 

668: solid line denotes one of the initial instantaneous spectrum at the 

669: beginning of the simulation whereas the black long-dashed line indicates the 

670: last spectrum obtained from the simulation.}

671: \label{sed_plot348}

672: \end{figure}

673: 

674: The effect of an optical depth due to the IIRB on the spectra of 3C~66A was 

675: also evaluated and was found to be insignificant in the energy range we are 

676: interested in as shown in Figure \ref{sed_timeav_344}. The optical depth due 

677: to the IIRB was determined using the analytic expression given in 

678: \cite{sm2006}. The $\gamma - \gamma$ absorption till $\sim 100$~GeV is 

679: negligible and becomes slightly observable at $\sim$ 200 GeV as the optical 

680: depth takes a value of, $\tau_{\gamma \gamma} \approx$ 2.9. Hence, the SSC 

681: emission cutoff value at $\sim$ 4 GeV is intrinsic. 

682: 

683: 

684: \section{\label{summary}Summary}

685: 

686: An extensive analysis of the data of 3C~66A, obtained from the multiwavelength

687:  monitoring campaign on 3C~66A from July 2003 to April 2004, was carried out 

688: using a time-dependent leptonic jet model. The analysis was targeted towards 

689: understanding the dominant radiation mechanism in the production of the 

690: high-energy component of the SED of 3C~66A in the quiescent as well as the 

691: flaring state. Our simulations yielded predictions regarding the observable 

692: variability patterns in the X-ray as well as the VHE energy regimes where such 

693: patterns could not be detected during the campaign. The object was well 

694: sampled in the optical, especially in the R-band, during the campaign. It had 

695: exhibited several major outbursts ($\sim$10 days) in this regime with a 

696: varibility of $\Delta$m $\sim$ 0.3-0.5. The X-ray data covered the 3-10 

697: keV range with the onset of the high-energy component expected at $\geq$~10 

698: keV photon energies. Only upper limits in the VHE regime had been obtained.

699: 

700: The simulations from our model could successfully reproduce the observed SED 

701: as well as the optical spectral variability patterns. The model suggests the 

702: dominance of the SSC mechanism in the production of hard X-ray as well as VHE 

703: photons. On the other hand, soft X-ray photons exhibit spectral softening 

704: during flaring indicating the onset of the synchrotron component in this energy

705:  range. According to the simulated time-averaged spectrum, the synchrotron 

706: component is expected to cut off near 7 keV whereas the SSC component cuts off

707:  at $\sim$ 4 GeV.

708: 

709: A flaring profile that was Gaussian in time could successfully reproduce the 

710: observed flaring profile for a timescale of $\sim$ 10 days. The simulated 

711: varibility in R ($\Delta$m $\sim$ 0.55) agreed well with the observed 

712: variability. According to the simulations, the object flares up in R and B 

713: simultaneoulsy with $\tau^{\rm obs}_{\rm cool, syn}$ (37 minutes) being less 

714: than or equal to the light crossing time (2 hours) during flaring. No 

715: significant variability is predicted in the hard X-ray regime. This is due to 

716: the production of such photons from Compton upscattering off low-energy

717:  electrons with cooling timescales much longer than the light crossing time, 

718: $3R_{b}/4c$. On the other hand, the simulated lightcurves of VHE 

719: $\gamma$-ray photons exhibit significant variability as such photons are

720: produced from the Compton upscattering off higher energy electrons with 

721: shorter cooling timescales than the light crossing time. 

722: 

723: The effect of the optical depth due to $\gamma - \gamma$ absorption by the 

724: IIBR on the SED of 3C~66A was also evaluated. The simulations do not predict a

725:  significant effect on the SED due to the optical depth. The SSC emission 

726: cutoff predicted to be at $\sim$ 4 GeV can be taken as the intrinsic SSC 

727: emission cutoff value for this object. We predict the object to be well 

728: within the observational range of MAGIC, VERITAS and GLAST. Finally, the EC 

729: emission for this object was also calculated and it appears that the EC 

730: emission could be dominant in the high-energy component initially, but as the 

731: emission region travels further away from the BLR, the EC contribution becomes

732:  less significant and the SSC emission takes over. It is highly probable that 

733: this maximum contribution of the EC component might explain the historical 

734: EGRET flux and that there could be GeV flaring due to early external 

735: Comptonization.

736: 

737: 

738: \acknowledgments

739: This work was partially supported through NRL BAA 76-03-01, contract no. 

740: N00173-05-P-2004.

741: 

742: \begin{thebibliography}{}

743: 

744: \bibitem[Achterberg et al.(2001)]{ac2001}

745: Achterberg, A., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 393

746: 

747: \bibitem[B\"{o}ttcher(2006)]{bo2006}

748: B\"{o}ttcher, M., 2006, in proc. ``The Multi-Messenger Approach to High-Energy Gamma-Ray Sources'', Barcelona, Spain, 2006, Astroph. \& Space Sci., in press 

749: 

750: \bibitem[B\"{o}ttcher et al.(2005)]{bh2005}

751: B\"{o}ttcher, M., et al., 2005, ApJ, 631, 169

752: 

753: \bibitem[B\"{o}ttcher \& Chiang(2002)]{bc2002}

754: B\"{o}ttcher, M., \& Chiang, J., 2002, ApJ, 581, 127

755: 

756: \bibitem[B\"{o}ttcher et al.(1997)]{bs1997}

757: B\"{o}ttcher, M., Mause, H., \& Schlickeiser, R., 1997, A\&A, 324, 395

758: 

759: \bibitem[Bramel et al.(2005)]{br2005}

760: Bramel, D. A., et al., 2005, ApJ, 629, 108

761: 

762: \bibitem[Costamante \& Ghisellini(2002)]{cg2002}

763: Costamante, L., \& Ghisellini, G., 2002, A\&A, 384, 56

764: 

765: \bibitem[Dermer et al.(1997)]{ds1997}

766: Dermer, C. D., Sturner, S. J., \& Schlickeiser, R., 1997, ApJS, 109, 103

767: 

768: \bibitem[Dermer \& Schlickeiser(1993)]{ds1993}

769: Dermer, C. D., \& Schlickeiser, R., 1993, ApJ, 416, 458

770: 

771: \bibitem[Dermer et al.(1992)]{dm1992}

772: Dermer, C. D., Schlickeiser, R., \& Mastichiadis, A., 1992, A\&A, 256, L27

773: 

774: \bibitem[Galant et al.(1999)]{ga1999} 

775: Gallant, Y. A., et al., 1999, A\&AS, 138, 549

776: 

777: \bibitem[Georganopoulos \& Marscher(1998)]{gm1998} 

778: Georganopoulos, M., \& Marscher,A. P., 1998, ApJ, 506, 621

779: 

780: \bibitem[Jorstad et al.(2005)]{jm2005}

781: Jorstad, S. G., et al., 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

782: 

783: \bibitem[Kataoka et al.(2000)]{ka2000} 

784: Kataoka, J., et al., 2000, ApJ, 528, 243

785: 

786: \bibitem[Kirk et al.(1998)]{ki1998}

787: Kirk, J. G., Rieger, F. M., \& Mastichiadis, A., 1998, A\&A, 333, 452

788: 

789: \bibitem[Kusunose et al.(2000)]{ku2000}

790: Kusunose, M., Takahara, F., \& Li, H., 2000, ApJ, 536, 299

791: 

792: \bibitem[Li \& Kusunose(2000)]{li2000}

793: Li, H., \& Kusunose, M., 2000, ApJ, 536, 729

794: 

795: \bibitem[Lindner (2006)]{li06}

796: Lindner, T., PhD thesis, McGill University, 2006

797: 

798: \bibitem[M\"{u}cke \& Pro\-the\-roe(2001)]{mp2001}

799: M\"{u}cke, A., \& Protheroe, R. J., 2001, Astropart. Phys., 15, 121

800: 

801: \bibitem[M\"{u}cke et al.(2003)]{mp2003}

802: M\"{u}cke, A., et al., 2003, Astropart. Phys., 18, 593

803: 

804: \bibitem[Ravasio et al.(2003)]{ra2003}

805: Ravasio, M., et al., 2003, A\&A, 408, 479

806: 

807: \bibitem[Ravasio et al.(2002)]{ra2002}

808: Ravasio, M., et al., 2002, A\&A, 383, 763

809: 

810: \bibitem[Rieger \& Duffy(2004)]{rd2004}

811: Rieger, F. M., \& Duffy, P., 2004, ApJ, 617, 155

812: 

813: \bibitem[Sikora et al.,(1994)]{sr1994}

814: Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., \& Rees, M. J., 1994, ApJ, 421, 153

815: 

816: \bibitem[Stecker et al.(2006)]{sm2006}

817: Stecker, F. W., Malkan, M. A., Scully, S. T., 2006, in press

818: 

819: \bibitem[Virtanen \& Vainio(2005)]{vv2005}

820: Virtanen, J. J. P., \& Vainio, R., 2005, ApJ, 621, 313

821: 

822: \end{thebibliography}

823: 

824: \end{document}

825:  

826: