1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6:
7: \newcommand{\myemail}{enomoto@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
8: \newcommand{\order[1]}{$~\times 10^{#1}$}
9:
10: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ.}
11:
12: \shorttitle{Search for Gamma Rays from the Centaurus Region}
13: \shortauthors{Kabuki and Enomoto et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{CANGAROO-III Search for Gamma Rays from Centaurus~A and
18: the $\omega$~Centauri Region}
19:
20: %\input apj_authorlist.txt
21: \author{
22: S.~Kabuki\altaffilmark{1}
23: R.~Enomoto\altaffilmark{2}
24: G.~V.~Bicknell\altaffilmark{3}
25: R.~W.~Clay\altaffilmark{4}
26: P.~G.~Edwards\altaffilmark{5}
27: S.~Gunji\altaffilmark{6}
28: S.~Hara\altaffilmark{7}
29: T.~Hattori\altaffilmark{8}
30: S.~Hayashi\altaffilmark{9}
31: Y.~Higashi\altaffilmark{1}
32: R.~Inoue\altaffilmark{8}
33: C.~Itoh\altaffilmark{7}
34: F.~Kajino\altaffilmark{9}
35: H.~Katagiri\altaffilmark{10}
36: A.~Kawachi\altaffilmark{8}
37: S.~Kawasaki\altaffilmark{2}
38: T.~Kifune\altaffilmark{2}
39: R.~Kiuchi\altaffilmark{2}
40: K.~Konno\altaffilmark{6}
41: H.~Kubo\altaffilmark{1}
42: J.~Kushida\altaffilmark{8}
43: Y.~Matsubara\altaffilmark{11}
44: T.~Mizukami\altaffilmark{1}
45: R.~Mizuniwa\altaffilmark{8}
46: M.~Mori\altaffilmark{2}
47: H.~Muraishi\altaffilmark{12}
48: T.~Naito\altaffilmark{13}
49: T.~Nakamori\altaffilmark{1}
50: D.~Nishida\altaffilmark{1}
51: K.~Nishijima\altaffilmark{8}
52: M.~Ohishi\altaffilmark{2}
53: Y.~Sakamoto\altaffilmark{8}
54: V.~Stamatescu\altaffilmark{4}
55: S.~Suzuki\altaffilmark{14}
56: T.~Suzuki\altaffilmark{14}
57: D.~L.~Swaby\altaffilmark{4}
58: T.~Tanimori\altaffilmark{1}
59: G.~Thornton\altaffilmark{4}
60: F.~Tokanai\altaffilmark{6}
61: K.~Tsuchiya\altaffilmark{1}
62: S.~Watanabe\altaffilmark{1}
63: Y.~Yamada\altaffilmark{9}
64: M.~Yamazaki\altaffilmark{9}
65: S.~Yanagita\altaffilmark{14}
66: T.~Yoshida\altaffilmark{14}
67: T.~Yoshikoshi\altaffilmark{2}
68: M.~Yuasa\altaffilmark{2}
69: Y.~Yukawa\altaffilmark{2}
70: }
71:
72:
73: \altaffiltext{1}{ Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
74: \altaffiltext{2}{ Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}
75: \altaffiltext{3}{ Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, ACT 2611, Australia}
76: \altaffiltext{4}{ School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia}
77: \altaffiltext{5}{ Paul Wild Observatory, CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia}
78: \altaffiltext{6}{ Department of Physics, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan}
79: \altaffiltext{7}{ Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Ibaraki 300-0394, Japan}
80: \altaffiltext{8}{ Department of Physics, Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
81: \altaffiltext{9}{ Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan}
82: \altaffiltext{10}{ Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan}
83: \altaffiltext{11}{ Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
84: \altaffiltext{12}{ School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
85: \altaffiltext{13}{ Faculty of Management Information, Yamanashi Gakuin University, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan}
86: \altaffiltext{14}{ Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki 310-8512, Japan}
87:
88: \begin{abstract}
89:
90: We have observed the giant radio galaxy Centaurus~A
91: %(Cen~A)
92: and the globular cluster $\omega$~Centauri
93: %($\omega$~Cen)
94: in the TeV energy region using the CANGAROO-III stereoscopic system.
95: The system has been in operation since 2004 with
96: an array of four Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACT)
97: with $\sim$100-m spacings.
98: The observations were carried out in March and April 2004. In total,
99: approximately 10\,hours data were obtained for each target.
100: No statistically significant gamma-ray signal has been found
101: above 420\,GeV over a wide angular region (a one-degree radius from the
102: pointing center)
103: and we derive flux upper limits using all of the field of view.
104: Implications for the total energy of cosmic rays and the density
105: of the cold dark matter are considered.
106:
107: \end{abstract}
108:
109: \keywords{gamma rays: search --- galaxy: individual (Centaurus~A)
110: --- globular cluster: individual ($\omega$~Centauri)}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}
113:
114: Centaurus~A (Cen~A, NGC 5128, J1325$-$4301)
115: is one of the best examples of a radio-loud AGN.
116: Viewed at $\sim$60$^{\circ}$ from the jet
117: axis \citep{graham79,dufour79,jones96},
118: it has been classified as a ``misaligned" BL Lac
119: type AGN~\citep{morganti92}.
120: Estimates of the distance to Cen~A range from 2 to 8~Mpc.
121: In this paper, we adopt a value of 3.5\,Mpc~\citep{hui93}.
122: Due to its proximity and high luminosity,
123: Cen~A has long been considered
124: a good TeV gamma-ray candidate.
125: A detection of high energy gamma-rays from Cen~A was
126: reported in the 1970s,
127: however many subsequent attempts have not been successful.
128:
129: First, the Stellar Interferometer, located near Narrabri, reported
130: a positive detection with a flux of
131: $ I(>0.3~{\rm TeV})\sim (4.4\pm 1) \times 10^{-11}~
132: {\rm photon}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm sec}^{-1} $~\citep{grindlay75}.
133:
134: At higher energies, the Buckland Park array and the JANZOS Observatory
135: also reported the detection of gamma-rays.
136: The Buckland Park flux, measured between 1984 and 1989, was
137: $ I(>100 {\rm TeV})\sim (7.4 \pm 2.6) \times 10^{-12}~
138: {\rm photon}$ \citep{clay94}
139: and the JANZOS flux, during the period Apr--Jun 1990, was
140: $ I(>110 {\rm TeV})\sim (5.5 \pm 1.5) \times 10^{-12}~
141: {\rm photon\,{\rm cm}}^{-2}\,{\rm sec}^{-1} $~\citep{allen93}.
142: Given the significant attenuation expected in the
143: gamma-ray flux during interactions with the cosmic microwave background
144: at these energies, these measured fluxes imply much greater
145: intrinsic fluxes
146: \citep{pro86}.
147: %Centaurus~A was one of promising extragalactic
148: %sources radiating VHE gamma-rays.
149:
150: However, CANGAROO-I~\citep{rowell99},
151: JANZOS (long-term)~\citep{allen93,allen93b},
152: and Durham~\citep{carraminana} observed the Cen~A nuclear
153: region and set upper
154: limits on the emission in the VHE range.
155: Recently, the H.E.S.S.\ group observed Cen~A
156: for 4.2~hours in 2004~\citep{aharonian05}.
157: Their upper limit was
158: 5.68 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$
159: ${\rm photon}~{\rm cm^{-2}}~{\rm sec^{-1}}$ (1.9\% of the Crab flux)
160: at 190~GeV.
161: They only investigated the region close to the center of Cen~A,
162: i.e., the inner jet region.
163: Cen~A has a large structure
164: revealed by the radio observations, with inner lobes
165: extending over $\sim$10 arcmin, a middle lobe
166: extending over $\sim$1 degree, and outer lobes
167: extending over more than 5 degrees \citep{burns83}.
168: The fluxes obtained in those observations are plotted in
169: Fig. \ref{fintro}. The details of the observations are listed
170: in Table \ref{tintro}.
171: \begin{table*}[htbp]
172: \caption{Details of past observations.}
173: \label{tintro}
174: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
175: \hline\hline
176: mark\tablenotemark{a} & reference & epoch & threshold & significance & method \\
177: \hline
178: G & \cite{grindlay75} & 1972--1974 & 300 GeV & 4.5 $\sigma$ & Cherenkov\tablenotemark{b} \tablenotemark{c} \\
179: J3 & \cite{allen93} & Apr-Jun 1990 & 110 TeV & 2\%\tablenotemark{d} & Shower Array \\
180: J2 & \cite{allen93} & 1987--1992 & 110 TeV & 95\% CL. UL. & Shower Array \\
181: B & \cite{clay94} & 1984--1989 & 100 TeV & 99.4\% CL. & Shower Array \\
182: J1 & \cite{allen93b} & 1988 \& 1989 & 1 TeV & 95\% CL. UL. & Charenkov\tablenotemark{b} \\
183: D & \cite{carraminana} & 1987 \& 1988 & 300 GeV & 3 $\sigma$ UL. & Cherenkov\tablenotemark{b} \\
184: CI & \cite{rowell99} & Mar--Apr 1995 & 1.5 TeV & 3 $\sigma$ UL. & IACT \\
185: H & \cite{aharonian05} & Apr 2004 & 190 GeV & 99\% CL. UL. & stereoscopic IACT \\
186: \hline\hline
187: \tablenotetext{a}{Mark in Fig. \ref{fintro}.}
188: \tablenotetext{b}{No imaging Cherenkov telescope.}
189: \tablenotetext{c}{Spectral index consistent with $\gamma$=-1.7.}
190: \tablenotetext{d}{Chance probability.}
191: \end{tabular}
192: \end{table*}
193: \begin{figure}[htbp]
194: \plotone{f1.eps}
195: \caption{
196: Summary of the past observations. The filled marks are the positive
197: detection and the open upper limits. The details of these observations
198: were listed in Table \ref{tintro}. The dashed line is a spectrum proportional
199: to $E^{-1}$ with H.E.S.S.'s upper-limit level flux.
200: }
201: \label{fintro}
202: \end{figure}
203:
204: Cen~A has displayed pronounced variability at X-ray energies over
205: the last 35 years, with the Grindlay et al.\ detection coinciding
206: with the peak of the X-ray flux over this period
207: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{tur97}.
208: Data from the ROSAT All Sky Monitor \citep{asm},
209: indicate that in recent years, including the period of the H.E.S.S.\
210: observations, Cen~A has been near its historical minimum X-ray state
211: (MJD from 53111 to 53113).
212:
213: CANGAROO-III has data outside of this minimum period
214: (MJD from 530080 to 530107).
215: We also report the results over a wide region.
216: Part of the southern outer lobe of Cen~A was located within the field of
217: observations made of $\omega$~Centauri ($\omega$~Cen).
218: We, therefore, include the results of the latter observation
219: in this report.
220: Located at a distance of 4.9~kpc, $\omega$~Cen
221: is one of the oldest, heaviest globular clusters in our
222: Galaxy. As globular clusters have been found to contain
223: large numbers of millisecond pulsars, they are interesting objects
224: for high-energy gamma ray observations.
225:
226: \section{CANGAROO-III Stereoscopic System}
227:
228: The use of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (IACTs) was
229: established with the statistically unassailable
230: detection of the Crab nebula at TeV energies by the
231: Whipple group \citep{whipple}.
232: This technique enables TeV gamma-rays to be selected from the
233: huge background of cosmic rays with the use of the
234: ``image moments" of the shower images \citep{hillas}.
235: Stereoscopic observations, which allow the signal-to-noise ratio
236: to be significantly improved, were pioneered by the HEGRA group \citep{hegra}.
237: The H.E.S.S.\ group has recently reported the detection of
238: faint gamma-ray sources with an angular
239: resolution as fine as a few arc-minutes \citep{HESS_science}.
240:
241: CANGAROO-III is one of two major IACTs located in the southern
242: hemisphere.
243: The CANGAROO-III stereoscopic system consists of four imaging atmospheric
244: Cherenkov telescopes located near Woomera, South Australia (31$^\circ$S,
245: 137$^\circ$E).
246: Each telescope has a 10\,m diameter segmented reflector,
247: consisting of 114 spherical mirrors
248: made of FRP \citep{kawachi}, each of 80\,cm diameter,
249: mounted on a parabolic
250: frame with a focal length of 8\,m.
251: The total light collecting area is 57.3\,m$^2$.
252: The first telescope, T1, which was the CANGAROO-II telescope,
253: is not presently in use due to its smaller field of view
254: and higher energy threshold.
255: The second, third, and fourth telescopes (T2, T3, and T4) were used for the
256: observations described here.
257: The camera systems for T2, T3, and T4 are identical and their details
258: are given in \citet{kabuki}.
259: The telescopes are located at the
260: east (T1), west (T2), south (T3) and north (T4)
261: corners of a diamond
262: with sides of $\sim$100\,m \citep{enomoto_app}.
263:
264:
265: \section{Observations}
266:
267: The observations were carried out
268: in the period from 2004 March 16 to April 19
269: using ``wobble mode"
270: in which the pointing position of each telescope was
271: shifted in declination between $\pm$0.5 degree
272: every 20 minutes \citep{wobble}
273: from each target:
274: (RA, dec [J2000]) = (201.365$^\circ$, $-$43.019$^\circ$) for Cen~A,
275: (RA, dec [J2000]) = (201.691$^\circ$, $-$47.477$^\circ$) for $\omega$~Cen.
276: One of the reason why we took "wobble" observation is to enlarge
277: the effective FOV, the other is to average the responses of
278: individual pixels.
279: We, therefore, took LONG OFF source run of ''wobble" mode
280: for background subtractions in the later analysis.
281:
282: Data with GPS time stamps were recorded for T2, T3 and T4 individually when
283: more than four photomultiplier (PMT) signals
284: exceeded 7.6 photoelectrons (p.e.).
285: In the offline analysis stage we combine all these data when
286: the three telescope's GPS times coincide.
287: The typical trigger rate was 11\,Hz for three-fold coincidences.
288: Each night was divided into two or three periods, i.e., ON--OFF,
289: OFF--ON--OFF, or OFF--ON observations. ON-source observations were timed
290: to contain the meridian passage of the target.
291: On average the OFF source regions were located with an offset in RA of
292: +30$^\circ$ or $-$30$^\circ$ from
293: the target. The OFF-source observations were also made in
294: wobble mode.
295: One day was dedicated to ON and OFF source observations of one target,
296: with the following day dedicated to the other target.
297: The images in all three telescopes were required to have clusters
298: of at least five adjacent pixels exceeding a 5\,p.e.\ threshold
299: (three-fold coincidence).
300: The event rate was reduced to $\sim$7.5\,Hz by this criterion.
301: Looking at the time dependence of these rates, we can remove data
302: taken in cloudy
303: conditions. This procedure is the same as the ``cloud cut''
304: used in the CANGAROO-II analysis \citep{enomoto_nature}.
305: The effective observation times
306: for ON and OFF source observations were
307: 639.4 and 586.9~min for Cen~A, and
308: 600.8 and 429.4 min for $\omega$~Cen.
309: The mean zenith angles were 17.4$^\circ$
310: %for Cen~A
311: and 20.6$^\circ$,
312: %for $\omega$~Cen,
313: respectively.
314:
315: The light collecting efficiencies, including the reflectivity
316: of the segmented mirrors, the light guides, and the quantum efficiencies
317: of photomultiplier tubes were monitored by a muon-ring analysis
318: \citep{enomoto_vela} with the individual trigger data in the
319: same periods.
320: The light yield per unit arc-length is approximately proportional
321: to the light collecting efficiencies.
322: The average ratios of these at the observation period with respect to the
323: mirror production times (indicating the amount of deterioration)
324: were estimated to be 70, 70, and 80\% for
325: T2, T3, and T4, respectively. The measurement errors are considered to
326: be at less than the 5\% level.
327: Deterioration is mostly due to dirt and dust settling on the
328: mirrors.
329:
330: \section{Analysis}
331:
332: Most of the analysis procedures used are identical with those
333: described in \citet{enomoto_0852}.
334: As a full instrumental description was given in
335: \citet{enomoto_vela}, we omit a detailed discussion here.
336: There are some improvements in the analysis procedure
337: from that in the previous paper and so we concentrate
338: on those points here.
339:
340: At first, the image moments \citep{hillas}
341: were calculated for the three telescopes' images.
342: The gamma-ray's incident directions were determined by minimizing
343: the sum of squared widths ($\chi^2_0$: weighted by the photon yield)
344: of the three images seen from the assumed position (fitting parameter)
345: with a constraint on the distances from the intersection point to each
346: image center ($D_{IP}$).
347: The $D_{IP}$ can be estimated from the ratio $Length/Width$.
348: The prediction curve ($f$) and its error ($\sigma)$
349: were estimated using Monte-Carlo simulations.
350: The constraint is;
351: $$\chi^2_c=\frac{[D_{IP}-f(Length/Width)]^2}{\sigma^2}.$$
352: In order to balance dimensions between $\chi^2_0$ and $\chi^2_c$, we
353: need to multiply $n\cdot <Width^2>$ by $\chi^2_c$, where $n$ has the units of
354: number of photo-electrons (p.e.) and is optimized
355: by Monte-Carlo simulations ($n$=10 p.e.\ for this analysis).
356: Finally the minimizing variable is;
357: $$\chi^2~=~\chi^2_0~+~n\cdot <Width^2>\cdot \chi^2_c.$$
358: For large images, the former term dominates and for small images
359: (for example, events at large zenith angles),
360: the latter dominates. With this fit, we can improve uniformity
361: of $\theta^2$ resolution especially with respect to zenith angle.
362:
363: In order to derive the gamma-ray likeliness,
364: we used
365: the Fisher Discriminant (hereafter $FD$) \citep{fisher,enomoto_vela}.
366: Input parameters were
367: $$\vec{P}=(W2,W3,W4,L2,L3,L4),$$
368: where $W2,W3,W4,L2,L3,L4$ are energy corrected $Widths$ and $Lengths$ for the
369: T2, T3, and T4.
370: $FD$ has a small dependence on the zenith angle, i.e., as the zenith
371: becomes larger, images become smaller ($FD$ larger).
372: We corrected for this using Monte-Carlo simulations.
373:
374: We rejected events with any hits in the outermost layer of the cameras
375: (``edge cut"). These rejected events cause finite deformations especially
376: in the $Length$ distribution which results in deformations of the $FD$.
377: In this analysis, we allowed less energetic hit pixels on the "edge" layer
378: if their pulse heights were less than that of highest 15 pixels.
379: %(check?)
380: This cut was improved in order to increase acceptance.
381:
382: Since we have $FD$ distributions for OFF-source data and the
383: Monte-Carlo gamma-ray
384: events, we can assume these are background and signal events respectively.
385: Note that in the gamma-ray simulations we used a spectrum
386: proportional to $E^\gamma$ where $\gamma$=$-$2.1.
387: We can therefore fit the $FD$ distribution of ON
388: with the above emulated
389: signal and real background functions, to derive the number of signal events
390: passing the selection criteria.
391: With this fit, we can determine the gamma-ray excess without any positional
392: subtractions.
393: This is a one-parameter fitting with the constraint that
394: sum of signal and background events corresponds to the total number of events.
395: These coefficients can be derived exactly analytically.
396:
397: \section{Results}
398:
399: The morphology (significance map) is shown in Fig.~\ref{add}.
400: \begin{figure}[htbp]
401: \plotone{f2.eps}
402: \caption{Significance map.
403: The angular bins are 0.2\,$\times$\,0.2 degree$^2$
404: squares. This was obtained by the fitting procedure described in the
405: text. For the background function of the fit, the OFF region of a
406: 0.6\,$\times$\,0.6 deg$^2$
407: square centered on (but not including) the corresponding bin was used.
408: The smoothing was carried out averaging the neighboring bins.
409: The crosses are the pointing centers.
410: Events within one degree radius circles are plotted (the dot-dashed circle).
411: The point spread function (PSF) is shown by the dashed circle.
412: The solid contours are 4850\,MHz radio data of
413: the inner lobes and middle lobe and the dotted contours are 408\,MHz
414: observations of the outer lobes.
415: %(references?)
416: }
417: \label{add}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420: The FOV was binned to 0.2 degree\,$\times$\,0.2 degree squares.
421: The $FD$ distribution inside each bin was made. The signal
422: function (for gamma rays) was made using the Monte-Carlo simulation.
423: The background (for protons) function was made collecting OFF events
424: inside 0.6\,$\times$\,0.6 degree$^2$ centered around the corresponding
425: signal bin.
426: The one-parameter $\chi^2$ fit was carried out and the excess counts
427: were obtained inside a one-degree circle (the dot-dashed circle)
428: centered at the average pointing position.
429: The pointing centers are shown by the crosses. At one degree radius, the
430: acceptance decreases by 30\%.
431: There is, therefore, not any statistically significant excess anywhere.
432: The positive and negative fluctuations roughly agree
433: in the Cen~A field of view. In that of $\omega$~Cen
434: a positive offset was observed ($\sim$0.4 $\sigma$), however, it is
435: not statistically significant.
436: The peak located at north of $\omega$-Cen field and its significance
437: is 1.5 $\sigma$.
438: The point spread function (PSF) is shown by the dashed circle
439: at left-lower place.
440: The solid contours are obtained via \cite{skyview} and are the
441: GB6 radio data (4850\,MHz)
442: showing the inner lobes and middle lobe,
443: and the
444: dotted contours are 408\,MHz radio data, roughly
445: showing the outer lobes of Cen~A from Fig.\,11 of \cite{burns83}.
446:
447: In order to derive a UL for a point source, we choose
448: $\theta^2$=0.06 degree$^2$ from the center of Cen A for the cut position.
449: The 2$\sigma$ UL was obtained to be 39.8 events.
450: The energy threshold for this analysis was obtained to be 424\,GeV
451: by the Monte-Carlo simulation.
452: For $\omega$-Cen,
453: a 2$\sigma$ UL of 32.3 events was obtained.
454:
455: In order to derive flux ULs for the jet and lobes
456: of Cen~A, and $\omega$~Cen, we defined the search regions
457: as shown in Fig.~\ref{region}.
458: \begin{figure}[htbp]
459: \plotone{f3.eps}
460: \caption{Definition of search regions.
461: Region~1 contains the jet and inner lobes of Cen~A
462: and region~2 is $\omega$~Cen.
463: These sizes are identical to the PSF.
464: Region~3 is the middle lobe of Cen~A, centered at
465: (RA, dec [J2000]) = (201$^\circ$.95, $-$42$^\circ$.85).
466: The size is identical to the PSF.
467: Region~4 is within a one-degree circle from the center of Cen~A
468: not including regions 1 and 3: which contains portions of
469: the outer lobes of Cen~A close to the nucleus.
470: Region~5 is the overlap of two one-degree circles centered
471: at (RA, dec)=(205$^\circ$, $-$47$^\circ$) and $\omega$~Cen: the
472: southern extremity of the outer lobe
473: of Cen~A \citep{burns83}.
474: Region~6 is within one-degree circle from the center of $\omega$~Cen
475: not including regions 2 and 5.
476: }
477: \label{region}
478: \end{figure}
479: Region~1 contains the jet and inner lobes of Cen~A, region~3
480: contains the middle lobe, and
481: regions~4 and 5 contain portions of the outer lobes,
482: while region~2 contains $\omega$~Cen.
483: There is no high-energy astronomical counterpart in region~6
484: (although low level radio emission from the southern outer lobe of Cen~A
485: may extend into this region).
486: The flux upper limits for various regions were obtained from the
487: $FD$ distributions of the ON-source runs for corresponding areas.
488: The OFF-source runs were used for the background $FD$ functions
489: and the Monte-Carlo simulations for gamma rays for the signal.
490: We do not observe any statistically significant excesses
491: in any regions.
492:
493: Thus we can obtain flux ULs for region~1.
494: Those of Cen~A center region are summarized in Table~\ref{table_1}.
495: \begin{table}[htbp]
496: \caption{Flux Upper Limits above various energy thresholds for the Cen~A jet}
497: \label{table_1}
498: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
499: \hline\hline
500: Excess Upper Limit &Energy Threshold & Flux Upper Limit \\
501: Events &GeV & ${\rm cm}^{^2}{\rm s}^{-1}$\\
502: \hline
503: 39.8 & ~424 & 0.491\order[-11] \\
504: 12.6 & 2074 & 0.903\order[-12] \\
505: ~5.0 & 6202 & 0.485\order[-12] \\
506: \hline\hline
507: \end{tabular}
508: \end{table}
509: ULs are presented for three different energy thresholds.
510:
511: Exactly the same procedure was carried out for the $\omega$~Cen
512: region.
513: Again there is no statistically significant excesses.
514: The flux ULs for region~2 are summarized in Table~\ref{table_2}.
515: \begin{table}[htbp]
516: \caption{Flux Upper Limits above various energy thresholds for $\omega$~Cen}
517: \label{table_2}
518: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
519: \hline\hline
520: Excess Upper Limit &Energy Threshold & Flux Upper Limit \\
521: Events &GeV & ${\rm cm}^{^2}{\rm s}^{-1}$\\
522: \hline
523: 32.3 & ~471 & 0.355\order[-11] \\
524: ~7.9 & 2216 & 0.519\order[-12] \\
525: ~7.0 & 6518 & 0.602\order[-12] \\
526: \hline\hline
527: \end{tabular}
528: \end{table}
529: The flux ULs for the regions~3, 4, 5, and 6 are summarized in
530: Table~\ref{table_other}.
531: \begin{table}[htbp]
532: \caption{Flux Upper Limits for the Other Regions}
533: \label{table_other}
534: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
535: \hline\hline
536: Region&Excess Upper Limit &Energy Threshold & Flux Upper Limit \\
537: & Events &GeV & ${\rm cm}^{^2}{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm Sr}^{-1}$\\
538: \hline
539: 3& ~37.3& 424& 0.875\order[-7]\\
540: 4& 132.6& 424& 0.193\order[-7]\\
541: 5& 203.7& 471& 0.106\order[-6]\\
542: 6& 304.3& 471& 0.436\order[-7]\\
543: \hline\hline
544: \end{tabular}
545: \end{table}
546: Here, the ULs are divided by the solid angles
547: of the observations,
548: because the inner lobes, middle lobe, and outer lobes are candidates for
549: diffuse emission.
550:
551: \section{Discussion}
552:
553: First, our flux ULs together with that of H.E.S.S.\
554: are quite low compared to the past indications of TeV
555: gamma rays and also to the past UL measurements,
556: demonstrating the strength of the stereo-IACT technique.
557: %and must criticize feasibilities of the past measurement techniques
558: %again.
559:
560: Next we discuss the total cosmic-ray energy and the cold dark matter (CDM)
561: density for each corresponding astronomical object.
562: Here, we assumed distances of Cen~A and $\omega$~Cen to be
563: 3.5\,Mpc and 6\,kpc, respectively.
564: For the total energy of the cosmic rays, we assume that the
565: origin of the TeV gamma-rays is the inverse Compton (IC) scattering of
566: cosmic-ray electrons with the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
567: The electron/proton ratio of our Galaxy is thought to be 0.1$\sim$1\%.
568: Therefore, 10$^{52}$\,erg for the electron cosmic-ray component might be a
569: standard value for typical galaxies.
570: Here, we assumed the electron energy spectrum of $\propto E^{-2.1}
571: e^{-\frac{E}{E_{max}}}$.
572: We integrate the electron spectrum greater than 1\,GeV
573: in order to calculate the total energy of electron component.
574: The interstellar matter densities are not well measured in the
575: corresponding regions. The electron assumption is reasonable,
576: because the CMB density is well defined and can be considered to
577: a lower limit for ambient photon density.
578:
579: Cen~A is considered to be a low-energy peaked BL~Lac object (LBL) rather than
580: high-energy peaked object (HBL).
581: The spectral energy distribution (SED) is plotted in Fig.~\ref{sed_a}.
582: \begin{figure}[htbp]
583: \plotone{f4.eps}
584: \caption{
585: SED for the jet region of Cen~A.
586: The open circle is the prediction of \cite{bai01}.
587: The black square with the arrow is the H.E.S.S.\ upper
588: limit \citep{aharonian05}.
589: The open diamonds are our upper limits.
590: The expected gamma-ray yield with a total electron energy of
591: 10$^{54}$\,erg with a 100\,TeV cutoff energy is shown by the dashed
592: curve.
593: The details of the marked observations
594: were listed in Table \ref{tintro}.
595: }
596: \label{sed_a}
597: \end{figure}
598: Even if a cosmic ray flux similar to our Galaxy's exists,
599: there is no contradiction with any past measurements in the all wave
600: length region \citep{ned}.
601: This, therefore, is not denying higher energy component such as 100~TeV
602: even in the higher level compared to our Galaxy, for example 10$^{53}$\,erg
603: of electrons.
604: Actually, \cite{bai01} predicted a
605: time-dependent huge energy flow in the TeV energy region
606: which is shown by the open circle in Fig.~\ref{sed_a}.
607: The H.E.S.S.\ UL is shown by the open square with arrow
608: and our ULs by the open diamonds.
609: These are orders of magnitude lower than the predicted value.
610: However, as our measurement periods correspond to a quiet phase of
611: Cen~A (from ASM data), there is no direct contradiction of this idea.
612:
613: We rather concentrate ourselves to the quiet, stable, and average states
614: of Cen~A.
615: If a high energy component of electrons $\propto~E^{-2.1}e^{-\frac{E}
616: {100 {\rm TeV}}}$
617: exists at the level of the total energy of 10$^{54}$ erg which is
618: one-hundred times stronger than that of our galaxy,
619: the expected TeV gamma-ray flux is the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{sed_a}.
620: That is higher than our ULs, i.e, we can derive a meaningful UL
621: to the total electron densities.
622: The 2$\sigma$ ULs (the dotted curve) for the above assumption were derived
623: and shown in Fig.~\ref{ee_a}.
624: \begin{figure}[htbp]
625: \plotone{f5.eps}
626: \caption{One- and two-$\sigma$ upper limits to the total energy of
627: the electron cosmic ray flux inside the jet region of Cen~A
628: versus the maximum accelerated energy.
629: The one-$\sigma$ line is the solid curve and the two-$\sigma$ line is
630: dotted.}
631: \label{ee_a}
632: \end{figure}
633: The vertical scale is the logarithm of total electronic energy
634: normalized to 10$^{50}$~erg and the horizontal scale is the
635: maximum accelerated energy of the electron in TeV.
636: At 100\,TeV, the limit is 3$\times$10$^{53}$\,erg
637: which is thirty times bigger than that of our Galaxy.
638: Although Cen~A is highly active especially at radio,
639: IR, and MeV energies compared to our Galaxy,
640: any high energy cosmic-ray components are not detected;
641: Cen~A is a mysterious object.
642: If we assume that the target photons are of those IR temperature
643: blackbody radiation, the limits of the total energy
644: will be significantly reduced.
645: The future Cherenkov telescope array experiment (CTA) \citep{cta}
646: is promising to help resolve this, as it aims
647: to be two orders of magnitude more sensitive than
648: the present IACTs.
649: If CTA does not detect any signal from this region, we might
650: need to totally revise the idea of the cosmic-ray origin.
651:
652: According to the ASM data \citep{asm}, the X-ray activity of Cen~A
653: was at a minimum in the MJD range between 53111--53113.
654: The H.E.S.S.\ observation was completely coincident with this period,
655: and ours partially.
656: We, therefore, can divide the observational period into two,
657: i.e., coincident with the ASM minimum, and the remaining data.
658: The ULs for these two periods are summarized in Table \ref{table_time}.
659: \begin{table}[htbp]
660: \caption{Flux Upper Limits in two epochs for Cen~A jet}
661: \label{table_time}
662: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
663: \hline\hline
664: Excess Limit &Energy Threshold & Flux Limit & MJD-53000 \\
665: Events &GeV & ${\rm cm}^{^2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ & day\\
666: \hline
667: 57.6& 424& 0.128\order[-10]& 80, 82, 89, 91, 107\\
668: 26.7& 424& 0.737\order[-11]& 111, 113\\
669: \hline\hline
670: \end{tabular}
671: \end{table}
672: There is however no excess in the period of
673: the (slightly) higher state.
674:
675: $\omega$~Cen is the biggest and oldest globular cluster inside our
676: Galaxy.
677: There is no ionizing gas which is considered to be an origin of
678: cosmic rays.
679: We, therefore, do not expect any TeV radiation from this object.
680: However, to know the minimum level of cosmic-ray density is important.
681: There may be a lot of milli-second pulsars as has been found in other
682: globular clusters.
683: The object may still hold a CDM halo \citep{peebles},
684: as these are not clearly denied at the present level of measurements.
685: The ULs for the total energy of electron cosmic ray component is derived
686: in the same way as described previously.
687: Under the assumption of a maximum electron accelerated energy of 100\,TeV,
688: the total electron energy is less than 4 $\times$ 10$^{47}$ erg, i.e.,
689: less than one-supernova level, a surprisingly quiet object
690: considering its total mass of $\sim 5\times$10$^6$\,M$_\odot$
691: \citep{vandeven, meylan, richer}.
692:
693: Cen~A is a massive object and $\omega$~Cen a much higher density object
694: than our Galaxy as a whole.
695: The upper limit study of the CDM density would provide
696: meaningful information as to the mechanism of their formations.
697: However note that for the case of globular clusters, CDM was considered
698: to be stripped off via tidal force in the periodic motions
699: inside the parasite galaxy.
700: %Contrarily,
701: \cite{peebles} discussed the existence of the dark matter
702: in this kind of object.
703: The CDM search was carried out following the procedure of \cite{enomoto_cdm}.
704: Here we additionally used the EGRET UL at 189 MeV \citep{ned}.
705: This is effective around the sub-TeV CDM particle mass region.
706: Assuming the CDM particle mass of 1 TeV, the 2-$\sigma$ upper limit
707: for the CDM density is 1.2 $M_\odot$/pc$^3$.
708: These are quite high compared to our local density estimation of
709: CDM of 0.01M$_\odot$/pc$^3$.
710: The mass of Cen~A was estimated to be several $\times$10$^{11}$M$_\odot$
711: \citep{mathieu, peng1, peng2, karachentsev, woodley}.
712: In order to derive the total mass of the CDM, we multiply by a factor of
713: 1.42 $\times$ 10$^{13}$~pc$^3$ considering our angular resolution
714: of $\theta^2$=0.06~degree$^2$ with an assumption of the distance
715: of 3.5~Mpc \citep{hui93}.
716: Then the total CDM mass inside the volume is less than 2 $\times$
717: 10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$, i.e., a meaningless result.
718:
719: For $\omega$~Cen, we can carry out the same discussion
720: and the results are shown in Fig.~\ref{cdm_omega}.
721: \begin{figure}[htbp]
722: \plotone{f6.eps}
723: \caption{Upper limits of the CDM density versus particle
724: mass assumption for $\omega$~Cen.}
725: \label{cdm_omega}
726: \end{figure}
727: The result is one order of magnitude higher than that of Cen~A.
728: This is due to distance of 6\,kpc compared to that of Cen~A of 3.5\,Mpc
729: while the volumes are determined by the same angular resolution
730: of the observation.
731: However, multiplying the volume factor of 4$\times$10$^{4}$~pc$^3$,
732: then the most CDM-particle-mass region is under its total gravitational
733: mass of 5$\times$10$^6$~M$_\odot$.
734: In most regions of CDM particle mass between 100\,GeV and 10\,TeV,
735: we can reject the hypothesis that the gravitational mass is dominantly
736: occupied by the CDM particles, they might be absorbed by our Galaxy.
737: Presently, high energy physicists believe that the CDM particle mass
738: lies inside the above region.
739: The future CTA project \citep{cta} would reveal the fact in a wider mass
740: region, or the near-future LHC project might give a conclusive result
741: on this subject.
742: In cosmological life,
743: the larger eats the smaller but its core remains.
744:
745: \section{Conclusion}
746:
747: In this paper, we present the results of stereoscopic observations
748: of Centaurus~A and $\omega$~Centauri
749: with the CANGAROO-III telescopes.
750: The observation period was 2004 March 16 to April 19 and
751: the total observation times were 640 min for Cen~A and 600 min for
752: $\omega$~Cen.
753: The observation of Cen~A was carried out over a similar period
754: to that of H.E.S.S.
755: The $\omega$~Cen observations are the first reported
756: trial by Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes.
757: The analysis was carried out inside a one-degree (radius) circle from
758: the average pointing position.
759: We derived flux upper limits for regions containing
760: the jet and inner lobes, the middle lobe, and portions of the
761: outer lobes of Cen~A, and center of $\omega$~Cen.
762: The Cen~A upper limits are,
763: as with the H.E.S.S.\ limit, an order of magnitude lower than
764: previous measurements.
765:
766: The upper limits for the total energy of the electron components
767: of cosmic rays were calculated under the assumption of Inverse
768: Compton Scatterings on the cosmic microwave background, with limits of
769: 3$\times$10$^{53}$ and 4$\times$10$^{47}$~erg obtained for Cen~A and
770: $\omega$~Cen, respectively.
771:
772: Finally we gave upper limits to the density of Cold Dark Matter (CDM).
773: Around the TeV region, we obtained upper limits
774: of its density of 2~M$_\odot$pc$^{-3}$ for Cen~A and
775: 100~M$_\odot$pc$^{-3}$ for $\omega$~Cen.
776: The limit for Cen~A was greater than its gravitational mass,
777: however, that for $\omega$~Cen was less than it.
778:
779:
780: \acknowledgments
781: %\section*{Acknowledgments}
782:
783: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by
784: the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
785: the Australian Research Council, JSPS Research Fellowships,
786: and Inter-University Researches Program
787: by the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research.
788: We thank the Defense Support Center Woomera and BAE Systems.
789:
790: \begin{thebibliography}{}
791:
792:
793: \bibitem[Abe et al.(2001)]{abe}
794: Abe, K., et al. 2001, PRL, 87, 101801
795: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(1999)]{hegra}
796: Aharonian, F.~A., et al. 1999, A\&A, 349, 11
797: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005)]{HESS_science}
798: Aharonian, F.~A., et al. 2005, Science, 307, 1938
799: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. (2005c)]{aharonian05}
800: Aharonian, F et al., 2005c, A\&A, 441, 465
801: \bibitem[Allen et al (1993)]{allen93}
802: Allen, W.H. et al, 1993, Astropart.\ Phys., 1, 269
803: \bibitem[Allen et al (1993b)]{allen93b}
804: Allen, W.H. et al, 1993b, ApJ., 405, 554
805: \bibitem[ASM (2007)]{asm}
806: ROSAT All Sky Monitor (ASM), http://xte.mit.edu/ASM\_lc.html
807: \bibitem[Bai \& Lee, (2001)]{bai01}
808: Bai, J.~M. \& Lee, M. G., 2001, ApJ, 549, L173
809: \bibitem[Burns, Feigelson, \& Schreier (1983)]{burns83}
810: Burns, J.~O., Feigelson, E.~D., \& Schreier, E.~J., 1983, ApJ, 273, 128
811: \bibitem[Carrami\~nana et al. (1990)]{carraminana}
812: Carrami\~nana, A., et al., 1990, A\&A, 228, 327
813: \bibitem[Clay et al. (1994)]{clay94}
814: Clay, R.~W., Dawson, B.~R., Meyhandan, R. 1994, Astropart.\ Phys., 2, 347
815: \bibitem[CTA (2007)]{cta}
816: Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA), http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/htm/CTA/
817: \bibitem[Daum et al.(1997)]{wobble}
818: Daum, A., et al. 1997, Astropart.\ Phys., 8, 1
819: \bibitem[Dufour et al. (1979)]{dufour79}
820: Dufour R.~J., 1979, AJ, 84, 284
821: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002)]{enomoto_nature}
822: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002b, Nature, 416, 823
823: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002b)]{enomoto_app}
824: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002a, Astropart.\ Phys., 16, 235
825: \bibitem[Enomoto et al (2003)]{enomoto_cdm}
826: Enomoto, R. et al., 2003, ApJ, 596, 216
827: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006)]{enomoto_vela}
828: Enomoto, R., Tsuchiya, K., Adachi, Y., Kabuki, S., Edwards, P.~G., et al.
829: 2006, ApJ, 638, 397
830: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006b)]{enomoto_0852}
831: Enomoto, R., Watanabe, S., Tanimori, T., et al.
832: 2006, ApJ, 652, 1268
833: \bibitem[Fisher(1936)]{fisher}
834: Fisher, R.~A. 1936, Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179
835: \bibitem[Graham et al.(1979)]{graham79}
836: Graham J.~A., 1979, ApJ, 232, 60
837: \bibitem[Grindlay et al. (1975)]{grindlay75}
838: Grindlay, J.~E., Helmken, H.~F., Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., Allen, L.~R.
839: 1975, ApJ, 197 L9.
840: \bibitem[Hillas (1985)]{hillas}
841: Hillas, A.~M. Proc.\ 19th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (La Jolla) 3, 445
842: \bibitem[Hui et al. (1993)]{hui93}
843: Hui X., Ford H.~C., Ciardullo R., and Jacobi G.~H.
844: 1993, ApJ, 414, 463
845: \bibitem[Jones et al. (1996)]{jones96}
846: Jones D.~L. et al. 1996, ApJ. 466, L63
847: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2003)]{kabuki}
848: Kabuki, S., et al. 2003, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth., A500, 318
849: \bibitem[Karachentsev et al. (2007)]{karachentsev}
850: Karachentsev I.D. et al., 2007, AJ, 133, 504
851: \bibitem[Kawachi et al.(2001)]{kawachi}
852: Kawachi, A., et al. 2001, Astropart.\ Phys., 14, 261
853: \bibitem[Mathieu et al. (1996)]{mathieu}
854: Mathieu A., Dejonghe H., Hui X., 1996, A\&A, 309, 30
855: \bibitem[Meylan et al. (1995)]{meylan}
856: Meylan G., Mayor M., Duquennoy A., Dubath P., 1995,
857: A\&A, 303,761
858: \bibitem[Morganti et al.(1992)]{morganti92}
859: Morganti R., 1992, MNRAS, 256, 1p
860: \bibitem[NED (2007)]{ned}
861: NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/
862: \bibitem[Peebles (1984)]{peebles}
863: Peebles, P.J.E., 1984, ApJ, 186, 467
864: \bibitem[Peng et al. (2004a)]{peng1}
865: Peng E.W. et al., 2004, ApJ, 602, 685
866: \bibitem[Peng et al. (2004b)]{peng2}
867: Peng E.W. et al., 2004, ApJ, 602, 705
868: \bibitem[Protheroe(1986)]{pro86}
869: Protheroe, R.~J.\ 1986, \mnras, 221, 769
870: \bibitem[Richer et al. (1991)]{richer}
871: Richer H.B., Fahlman G.G., Buonanno R., Fusi Pecci F., Searle I.,
872: Thompson I.B., 1991, ApJ, 381, 147
873: \bibitem[Rowell et al. (1999)]{rowell99}
874: Rowell G.~P., 1999, Astropart.\ Phys., 11, 217
875: \bibitem[Skyview (2007)]{skyview}
876: SkyView, http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/
877: \bibitem[Tanimori et al.(2005)]{tanimori}
878: Tanimori, T., et al. 2005,
879: Proc.\ 29th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Pune), OG2.2, 215
880: \bibitem[Turner et al.(1997)]{tur97}
881: Turner, T.~J., George, I.~M., Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Nandra, K.\ 1997,
882: \apj, 475, 118
883: \bibitem[van de Ven et al (2006)]{vandeven}
884: van de Ven G., van den Bosch R.C.E., Verolme E.K., de Zeeuw P.T., 2006,
885: A\&A, 445, 513
886: \bibitem[Weekes et al.(1989)]{whipple}
887: Weekes, T.~C., et al. 1989, ApJ, 342, 379
888: \bibitem[Woodley (2006)]{woodley}
889: Woodley K., 2006, AJ, 132, 2424
890:
891: \end{thebibliography}
892:
893: \end{document}
894: