1: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

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

3: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

4: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\chandra}{\textit{Chandra}}

7: \newcommand{\integral}{\textit{Integral}}

8: \newcommand{\cerenkov}{{\v C}erenkov}

9: \newcommand{\sgra}{Sgr A*}

10: \newcommand{\grs}{$\gamma$-rays}

11: 

12: %\usepackage{graphicx}

13: %\usepackage{amsmath}

14: %\usepackage{epstopdf}

15: 

16: %\usepackage{epsfig} %<-----------------not revtex standard - added by RMC

17: 

18: \newcommand{\gev}{\textrm{GeV}}

19: \newcommand{\ghz}{\textrm{GHz}}

20: \newcommand{\mhz}{\textrm{MHz}}

21: \newcommand{\pos}{e^{+}}

22: \newcommand{\elec}{e^{-}}

23: \newcommand{\epm}{e^{\pm}}

24: \newcommand{\degree}{^{\circ}}

25: \newcommand{\etal}{\emph{et al.}}

26: \newcommand{\spectralIndex}{S_{\nu}\propto\nu^{\alpha}}

27: \newcommand{\solarmass}{M_{\odot}}

28: \newcommand{\cang}{CANGAROO}

29: \newcommand{\gam}{$\gamma$}

30: %\newcommand{\p0}{$\pi^0$}

31: \def\3EG{{3EG J1746-2851}}

32: \def\p0{{$\pi^0$}}

33: \def\1018{{$10^{18}$}}

34: \def\cry{{cosmic ray}}

35: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

36: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

37: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

38: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

39: \newcommand{\bmu}{\begin{multline}}

40: \newcommand{\emu}{\end{multline}}

41: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

42: \newcommand{\V}{\vert}

43: \newcommand{\delslash}{/\!\!\!\partial}

44: \newcommand{\sae}{Sgr A East\,}

45: \def\MES{{mass eigenstate}}

46: \def\neu{{neutrino}}

47: \def\dm{{$\delta m^2  $}}

48: \def\dmatm{{$\delta m^2_{\small{ATM}}  $}}

49: \def\dmsun{{$\delta m^2_{\odot}  $}}

50: \def\dmsub{{$\delta m^2_{\small{SUB}}  $}}

51: \def\numu{{$\nu_\mu  $}}

52: \def\nue{{$\nu_e  $}}

53: \def\nutau{{$\nu_\tau  $}}

54: \def\nus{{$\nu_s  $}}

55: \def\RX{{SNR RXJ1713.7-3946}}

56: \def\msun{{\,M_\odot}}

57: \def\lsun{{\,L_\odot}}

58: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

59: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

60: \def\um{{\,\mu\rm m}}

61: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}

62: \def\km{{\rm\,km}}

63: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}

64: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}

65: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}

66: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}

67: \def\sec{{\rm\,s}}

68: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}

69: \def\gm{{\rm\,g}}

70: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}

71: \def\mdot{{\rm\,\msun\,yr^{-1}}}

72: \def\gms{{\rm\,g\,s^{-1}}}

73: \def\gcm3{{\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}}}

74: \def\ncm3{{\rm\,cm^{-3}}}

75: \def\kelvin{{\rm\,K}}

76: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}}

77: \def\kev{{\rm\,keV}}

78: \def\ev{{\rm\,eV}}

79: \def\hz{{\rm\,Hz}}

80: \def\>{$>$}

81: \def\<{$<$}

82: 

83: 

84: 

85: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

86: %\slugcomment{Accepted to ApJ Letters}

87: 

88: \shorttitle{Synchrotron from Secondary Leptons near Sgr A*}

89: \shortauthors{Crocker \etal}

90: 

91: %\usepackage{onecolfloat5}

92: %\usepackage{times}

93: %\usepackage{graphicx}

94: 

95: \begin{document}

96: 

97: \title{Radio Synchrotron Emission from Secondary Leptons in the Vicinity of Sgr A*}

98: 

99: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

100: %% author and affiliation information.

101: 

102: \author{Roland M. Crocker\altaffilmark{1}, David Jones\altaffilmark{1,2}, David R. Ballantyne\altaffilmark{3},

103: and Fulvio Melia\altaffilmark{3,4,5}}

104: 

105: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Chemistry and Physics, The University of

106:   Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005 Australia;

107:   roland.crocker,david.jones@adelaide.edu.au}

108: \altaffiltext{2}{Australia Telescope National Facility, Marsfield,2122, Australia}

109: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, The University of Arizona, 1118 East 4th

110:   Street, Tucson, AZ 85721; drb, melia@physics.arizona.edu}

111: \altaffiltext{4}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, 933

112:   N. Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}

113: \altaffiltext{5}{Sir Thomas Lyle Fellow and Miegunyah Fellow.}

114: 

115: \begin{abstract}

116: 

117: A point-like source of $\sim$TeV \grs\ has recently been seen towards the

118: Galactic center by

119: HESS and other air \ \cerenkov\ telescopes.

120: In recent work \citep{Ballantyne2007}, we demonstrated that these \grs\

121: can be attributed to high-energy protons

122: that (i) are accelerated

123: close to the event horizon

124: of the central black hole, \sgra , (ii) diffuse out to

125: $\sim$ pc scales, and (iii) finally 

126: interact to produce \grs.

127: The same hadronic collision processes will necessarily lead to the creation of 

128: electrons and positrons.

129: Here

130: we calculate the synchrotron emissivity of these

131: secondary leptons in the same magnetic field configuration

132: through which the initiating protons have been propagated in our model.

133: We compare this emission with the observed $\sim$ GHz radio spectrum of the

134: inner few pc region which we have assembled from

135: archival data and new measurements

136: we have made with the

137: Australia Telescope Compact Array.

138: We find that our model predicts secondary synchrotron emission

139: with a steep slope consistent with the observations but with an overall normalization

140: that is too large by a factor of $\sim$ 2.

141: If we further constrain our theoretical $\gamma$-ray curve

142: to obey the implict EGRET upper limit on emission from this region

143: we predict radio emission that is consistent with

144: observations, i.e., the hadronic model

145: of gamma ray emission can, simultaneously and 

146: without fine-tuning, also explain essentially all the diffuse radio emission 

147: detected from the inner few pc of the Galaxy.

148: \end{abstract}

149: 

150: \keywords{%acceleration of particles --- 

151: Galaxy: center --- radiation

152: mechanisms: nonthermal --- gamma rays: theory}

153: 

154: \section{Introduction}

155: \label{sect:Introduction}

156: The Galactic center (GC), at an assumed distance of 7.9 kpc, 

157: is a complex region containing

158: many compact and

159: diffuse high-energy astrophysical sources

160:  (see \citealt{Melia2007} for a

161: recent review).

162: The dynamics of the central few lightyears is dominated by what is

163: believed to be a supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*).

164: 

165: The GC has been identified as a point-like source of TeV \grs\ by

166: a number of air

167: \cerenkov\ telescopes.

168: In our work

169: we concentrate exclusively on the

170: data from

171: HESS \citep{Aharonian2004,Aharonian2006b}

172: as these provide the best constraints on the source

173: properties.

174: The GC signal 

175: %was detected by HESS

176: %in

177: %observations conducted over two epochs (June-August 2003 and

178: %March-September 2004; \citealt{Aharonian2004,Aharonian2006b})

179: %with a combined

180: %$\sim38\sigma$ excess above the background

181: %and 

182: is coincident within $\sim 30\arcsec$ of \sgra, though with a

183: centroid displaced roughly $7\arcsec$ ($\sim 0.4$~pc) to the East of

184: the GC \citep{Aharonian2004,Aharonian2006b}.

185: The

186: spectrum is a pure power law with photon index

187: $2.25\pm0.10$, and the total flux above 1~TeV is $(1.87 \pm 0.30)

188: \times 10^{-8}$~m$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ \citep{Aharonian2006b}.

189: 

190: In a recent paper \citep{Ballantyne2007}, we examined a hadronic scenario

191: for the creation of the $\sim$TeV \grs:

192: a power-law population of protons 

193: is accelerated close to Sgr A*, perhaps

194: through the process of stochastic acceleration on the turbulent magnetic fields expected to pervade this inner

195: region.

196: These then

197: diffuse outwards 

198: through the 

199: strong magnetic fields of the largely evacuated stellar-wind region

200: surrounding Sgr A* before, finally,

201: colliding with gas in the high molecular density clumps that make up the circumnuclear disk (CND).

202: Such collisions (assumed to be exclusively proton on proton for simplicity) generate

203: neutral mesons that then decay into the \grs \ which, by construction, we detect here at Earth.

204: 

205: In the current work we self-consistently calculate the synchrotron emissivity of the

206: secondary leptons that must also be produced

207: in our scenario. 

208: These come from the decay of the charged mesons created

209: in the same p-p collisions that we posit explain

210: the $\gamma$-ray emission -- though, in constrast

211: to the case for $\gamma$-ray emission, we find that, because of the extremely strong

212: magnetic fields there (and despite the relatively low ambient densities)

213: radio emission from the wind region is  more important than that from the CND.

214: Finally, we compare our predictions 

215: for radio emission with archival and new radio data on the region we have assembled.

216: 

217: 

218: \section{Proton Propagation}

219: \label{sect:Calculations}

220: 

221: We firstly summarize the results obtained by \citet{Ballantyne2007}.

222: In our calculation we employed a realistic model

223: of the density of matter through the GC arrived at by \citet{Rockefeller2004}.

224: These authors computed the density distribution in

225: this region caused by the interactions of stellar winds from the

226: young stars surrounding \sgra .

227: %The model

228: %simulates $10^6$ equally spaced cells

229: %within

230: %a $6\times 6\times 6$ pc$^3$

231: %cube  centered on the

232: %GC.

233: In addition to the stellar wind gas, the

234: volume also contains a high-density torus of molecular gas

235: with an inner radius of

236: 1.2~pc and a thickness of 1~pc representing the observed

237: CND.

238: 

239: The average

240: density in the model stellar-wind gas (taken

241: to be any region where $n_{\mathrm{H}} < 3\times 10^3$~cm$^{-3}$) is $\left <

242: n_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{sw}} \right > = 121$~cm$^{-3}$, while it is

243: $\left < n_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{mt}} \right > =$ 233,222~cm$^{-3}$ within

244: the model molecular torus. Taking $kT=1.3$~keV as the average temperature of the

245: stellar-wind gas \citep{Baganoff2003,Rockefeller2004}, 100~K for the temperature of

246: the molecular torus (\citealt{Rockefeller2004} and references therein), and

247: assuming equipartition, the average field intensity is $3$~mG

248: in the stellar-wind region and $0.35$~mG within the torus.

249: In any particular cell the 

250: magnetic field was assumed to be generated 

251: with an intensity that satisfies $|B| = 1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ Gauss $n_H/10^4$ cm$^{-3}$

252: for the CND region and $|B| = 2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ Gauss $n_H/10^2$ cm$^{-3}$

253: in the stellar-wind gas.

254: %As explained below, however, we can and do extrapolate our calculations to cover

255: %different scalings between magnetic field intensity and hydrogen number density.

256: Our procedure for determining

257: a physical

258: description of the field direction at any position in the computational grid

259: is described in \citet{Ballantyne2007}.

260: 

261: %we assumed a static, Kolmogorov spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations

262: %and then added together fluctuations spanning 200 wavelengths,

263: %ranging from 0.1 $v_0/\Omega_0$ to 10 $v_0/\Omega_0$, where $\Omega_0$

264: %is the proton gyrofrequency at $B_0$.

265: 

266: %With the above ingredients, the trajectory of each proton can be

267: %calculated exactly as, once released from

268: %the origin with initial velocity ${\bf v}_0$ in a random direction,

269: %its acceleration is given solely by the Lorentz force.

270: %:

271: %${d{\bf v}/dt}=\left({\bf v} \times {\bf \Omega} \right)/\gamma$,

272: %where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor for a proton with velocity ${\bf

273: %v}$ and ${\bf \Omega} \equiv e{\bf B}/mc$ is the gyrofrequency for a

274: %particle with charge $e$ and mass $m$ under the influence of a magnetic

275: %field ${\bf B}$. Note here that

276: %as there is no net electric field, the magnitude of the

277: %velocity $v_0$ remains constant.

278: %The

279: %calculation of an individual trajectory -- determined solely by the Lorentz force --

280: %was assumed complete once the proton left the computational

281: %domain. 

282: Computational resources limited our modeling to proton

283: energies between $1$ and $100$~TeV. 

284: A total of 222,617 proton

285: trajectories was calculated with energies uniformly distributed in

286: this range.

287: These trajectories were split into $21$ energy bins

288: ($\log (E/\mathrm{eV}) = [12.0-12.1], \ldots, [13.9-14.0]$).

289: From these data the steady state distribution of protons (given in cm$^{-3}$ eV $^{-1}$) in 

290: each of the 7500 computational cells of the CND and

291: the 7022 cells of the stellar-wind region

292: %(as determined by

293: %\citet{Rockefeller2004}) 

294: could be inferred.

295: %In passing, note that without fine-tuning the propagation model arrives at

296: %a close-to equipartition situation in the CND ($6.8 \times 10^{47}$ erg in the 

297: %non-thermal proton distribution over the whole region, cf. $3.9 \times 10^{47}$ erg

298: %in the magnetic fields in this region and, by construction, the same energy in thermal motion of the gas), 

299: %though the wind region proton population is considerably sub-equipartition.

300: 

301: As a proton random-walks its way 

302: through the the turbulent magnetic field of the GC it may collide

303: with a low-energy proton in the ambient medium and produce pions via the

304: reaction $p  +  p \rightarrow p  +  h  +  N_0 \pi^0  +  N_\pm \pi^\pm$. Here

305: $h$, denoting hadron, is a proton or, if charge exchange occurs, a neutron and

306: variable

307: and energy-dependent multiplicities of

308: neutral ($N_0$) and charged ($N_\pm$) pions are, in general, produced

309: but electric charge must be conserved overall.

310: (In our calculations we also account for the sub-dominant

311: contribution from charged and neutral kaons.)

312: Neutral pions will subsequently decay

313: into two photons and charged pions to electrons, positrons, and neutrinos.

314: 

315: %\citet{Ballantyne2007} give an exact description of the calculation of the $\gamma$-ray emissivity of the propagated

316: %protons.

317: %It was determined by these authors that the best-fit

318: %(to the HESS $\gamma$-ray data)

319: %spectral index

320: %for the proton population that is being {\it injected} at the center of the computational volume

321: %is very hard, viz. -0.75.

322: %The propagation process itself, then, is acting to

323: %significantly steepen this injection spectral index to an overall proton

324: %distribution $\sim E_p^{-2.3}$ at the distance of the CND.

325: In this Letter we adopt

326: the steady-state proton distributions within

327: each modeled clump of CND and stellar-wind region gas arrived at by \citet{Ballantyne2007}.

328: We then use the techniques outlined at length in

329: \citet{Crocker2007a} to calculate -- on the basis of (i) these steady state $p$

330: distributions, (ii) the ambient hydrogen number density, and (iii) clump

331: magnetic fields -- the steady state (processed) distributions of

332: secondary leptons within each clump and the resulting

333: synchrotron emission from each clump.

334: %Firstly, however, we describe the radio data against which

335: %our theoretical model will be tested.

336: 

337: \section{Data}

338: \label{sect:Data}

339: 

340: To test our theoretical model we have obtained $\sim$GHz radio fluxes covering the region of the CND defined by a $2' \times 1'$

341: rectangle with sides parallel to Galactic longitude/latitude and with Sgr A* at the center.

342: Where possible,

343: %for the cases where we have analysed radio data to produce our own flux estimates,

344: we have chosen

345: interferometry data obtained with an array configuration that results in a beam smaller than this region

346: of interest to ameliorate the problem of confusion with nearby strong radio sources 

347: (Sgr A East in particular).

348: On the other hand, to ensure that the diffuse flux through this region that we are interested in --

349: present on scales up to the size of the region -- is not integrated out, we also demand

350: that the array configuration possess some antenna spacings that are suitably small.

351: 

352: For the reasons just given

353: we make use in our analysis of

354: medium resolution ($\sim43''$; \cite{LaRosa2000})

355: 330 MHz VLA\footnote{The Very Large Array (VLA), as part of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory,

356: is operated

357: by Associated Universities, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}

358: data, similar resolution SUMSS\footnote{The Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope (MOST)

359: is operated by the University of Sydney} 843 MHz data, and serendipitous

360: ATCA\footnote{The Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) is operated by the Australia Telescope National Facility,

361: CSIRO, as a National Research Facility.} observations of the GC at 1384 MHz and 2368 MHz.

362: These latter data were obtained with a somewhat lower resolution

363: ($\sim 1'\times 2'$ at 1384 MHz, and $\sim 0.5'\times 1'$ at 2368 MHz.)

364: which is nevertheless sensitive to emission on the size scales of the CND.

365: %Full details of the data reduction and radio maps will be presented in \cite{Jones2007}).

366: 

367: For each radio image, 

368: we used a number of independent methods to obtain

369: the flux inside the region of interest (see  \cite{Jones2007} for details).

370: %was obtained by

371: %(i) smearing the beam to $2'\times1'$ resolution, and reading the peak flux;

372: %(ii) using the MIRIAD task \emph{histo} to obtain the image

373: %statistics in the region bounded by the $2'\times1'$ box

374: %then measuring the flux via determination of the total number of beams in the region and multiplying

375: %the mean flux per beam by this number; and (iii) using the statistics

376: %option in the data visualisation package, \emph{KARMA}.

377: %(Method (i) was not employed in the case of the 1384 MHz data as the beam already

378: %roughly matches the size of the

379: %region of interest).

380: To obtain a conservative estimate on the error

381: in the flux determinations, the standard deviation between

382: all flux estimates at a particular frequency was taken to be the RMS error on the final flux quoted.

383: (Errors due to gain and to image noise make a negligible contribution).

384: The quoted central value for the flux at a given frequency is obtained

385: from smearing the beam to $2'\times1'$ resolution, and reading the peak flux 

386: which provides the most reliable determination.

387: 

388: Flux determinations are:

389: $46 \pm 12$ Jy at 330 MHz, $37 \pm 5$ Jy at 843 MHz, $20 \pm 6$ Jy at 1384 MHz, and

390: $11 \pm 2$ Jy at 2368 MHz.

391: %presented in Table \ref{table:GCfluxes}

392: These data are shown as the lower frequency data points in Figure \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (b).

393: The data points at 843, 1384, and 2368 MHz define a non-thermal, power-law spectrum

394: in frequency $\propto \nu^{-1.2}$, indicating a steep, synchrotron-radiating

395: electron population (whether primary or secondary) of $\propto

396: E_e^{-3.4}$. 

397: The presence of non-thermal emission near Sgr A West was first discussed by

398: \citet{Gopal-Krishna1976} and was subsequently extensively investigated by

399: \citet{Ekers1983}. 

400: We note that the spectrum we determined for the region is steeper than that 

401: found by these latter authors though the overall normalization at 1384 MHz is compatible.

402: Our datum at 330 MHz falls below the $E_e^{-3.4}$ power law; this, however, is as expected

403: as Sgr A Complex radio emission

404: is strongly attenuated at around this frequency

405: %(cf. Figures \ref{fig:CNDRadioMap} (a) and (b) in which the contours clearly show that

406: %Sgr A*, in the centre of this image, is the low point in the image)

407: and below because of

408: free-free absorption by thermal gas associated with the Sgr A West structure

409: as established by \citet{Pedlar1989}.

410: It is interesting to note that, according to these authors (see also \cite{Fatuzzo2003}), the 

411: spectral index pertaining to Sgr A East as a whole is approximately 1 with a corresponding average flux density 

412: at 1384 MHz of approximately 0.014 Jy/arcsec$^2$.

413: This is roughly half of the flux density we measure from the CND region.

414: 

415: At frequencies higher than 2368 MHz, 

416: we have obtained snapshot observations 

417: with ATCA

418: at 4800 and 8640 MHz. We measure 22 and 21 Jy at 4800 and 8640 MHz

419: over the same solid angle as for the lower frequency observations

420: and

421: compatible with the results obtained by \citet{Brown1981} at 4.9 GHz.  

422: Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (b), 

423: we also show fluxes measured by 

424: \citet{Salter1988} at 84 and 230 GHz,

425: \citet{Sofue1986} at 43.25 GHz,

426: and \citet{Tsuboi1988} at 91 GHz.  

427: These latter measurements are not perfectly matched in solid angle to the region of concern and should be taken as indicative only.  

428: Overall, they show that the spectrum of the CND region has become dominated by thermal emission 

429: from Sgr A West at $\gtrsim$ 4 GHz and do not provide a strong constraint on our secondary synchrotron emission model.

430: 

431: \section{Results and Discussion}

432: \label{sect:Discussion}

433: 

434: From the modeling described in \citet{Ballantyne2007},

435: we have simulated data describing the steady-state proton distribution for

436: the clumps of matter

437: that make up the CND 

438: and the stellar-wind region

439: (each of varying density, magnetic field strength, and position).

440: 

441: Synchrotron radiation in the GHz range by secondary leptons in the mean magnetic field of the CND, 0.35 mG,

442: requires initiating parent $p$'s of energy $\sim 6 \times 10^{10}$ eV 

443: and only $\sim 2 \times 10^{10}$ eV in the 3 mG mean field of the wind region

444: (assuming a power-law $p$ spectrum of spectral index 2.3).

445: Such energies 

446: are unfortunately well below the 1 TeV threshold 

447: of our proton propagation modeling.

448: We assume, then, that the steady-state proton distribution

449: of any given computational cell is a pure power law (in momentum)

450: with such power law fitted to match our modeled 1-100 TeV proton spectra.

451: %(given in terms of 21 1/10 decade energy bins introduced above).

452: 

453: Despite our simulating more than $2 \times 10^5$ proton trajectories,

454: we must deal (in our power-law fitting) with 

455: empty energy bins in many clumps.

456: %(this what not an issue in \citet{Ballantyne2007} because the $\gamma$-ray emission

457: %of the CND was collectively evaluated -- here, because of varying molecular hydrogen number density and magnetic field stregth

458: %between clumps we must evaluate radio synchrotron emission on a clump-by-clump basis),

459: We address this issue by producing (on the basis of our modeled, {\it overall} clump spectra)

460: parameterizations of the TeV proton flux and fitted spectral index in terms of the

461: clump radial separation from Sgr A* and magnetic field strength.

462: With these parameterizations in hand we can determine, for any clump at given

463: radius and with given magnetic field, the {\it expected}

464: value for the $p$ flux in a given 10$^\mathrm{ th}$-decade energy bin.

465: For a zero-entry bin, we replace the zero with this expected value divided by 

466: the free parameter $X$.

467: We then use a MATHEMATICA routine to perform a $\chi^2$ fit in the parameter $X$ of

468: the overall CND TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum to the HESS data

469: (the $\gamma$-ray emission by cells in the wind region only contributes at the $\sim$ 0.1\% level

470: and is ignored here).

471: 

472: We find a minimum reduced

473: $\chi^2$ value of 1.2 (for 32 degrees of freedom) at $X = 1.69$.

474: Extension of individual clump spectra below TeV

475: using the power-law assumption

476: then allows us to also

477: make a prediction for the synchrotron radio emission due to secondary leptons

478: in each CND clump and, using the same $X$ value, in each cell of the wind region too

479: (our procedure here

480: takes into account cooling by the ionization, bremsstrahlung and synchrotron

481: processes to arrive at

482: the steady-state electron and positron distributions within each clump; 

483: see \citet{Crocker2007a} for details).

484: The same extension -- to still lower proton energies --

485: allows us to also predict the lower-energy $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the CND

486: (and also the wind region).

487: The total $\gamma$-ray and synchrotron radio

488: emission curves for all cells in the CND

489: are shown as the solid (blue)

490: curves in Figures \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (a) and (b), respectively.

491: Gamma-ray and radio emission by cells in the wind region is shown

492: by the long-dashed (purple) curves in the same figures.

493: As may be seen, the $\gamma$-ray normalized secondary synchrotron radio flux

494: from the CND directly 

495: accounts for $\sim$ 10 \% of the observed GHz radio emission but with a rather flatter spectrum

496: than the observation data suggest.

497: In contrast,

498: the wind region is modeled to produce a radio spectrum consistent with observation

499: but with

500: around twice the observed normalization.

501: Given that this determination involves absolutely no fine tuning and is predicated on

502: a fit of theoretical $\gamma$-ray emission {\it from a separate region} (i.e., the CND clumps) 

503: to the TeV HESS data, 

504: this is a remarkable level of agreement and we conclude that our 

505: secondary emission model can self-consistently account for both the $\gamma$-ray emission

506: seen from the direction of the GC and the total radio emission from the wind and CND regions

507: (i.e., a $2 \times 1'$ region centered in Sgr A*).

508: 

509: 

510: In Figure \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (a) one notes that

511: the CND $\gamma$-ray emission for the scenario above

512: is roughly consistent with the level of emission seen from the

513: EGRET source 3EG~J1746-2851 \citep{Mayer-Hasselwander1998}

514: at the two lowest energy data points around 70 MeV.

515: We do not claim, however, that the CND emission explains the origin of

516: the observed \grs .

517: In fact, recent studies have shown that the EGRET source excludes the GC

518: at the $99.9\%$ confidence level \citep{Hooper2002,Pohl2005}.

519: On the other hand, the position of the {\it predicted}

520: CND emission was certainly inside the wide field of view

521: of the EGRET instrument's GC pointings.

522: The spectrum of 3EG~J1746-2851 serves, then,

523: as an upper limit to the allowed emission from the CND.

524: The (blue) solid curve would seem to be just excluded.

525: A fit to the HESS data with the additional constraint that the extrapolated $\gamma$-ray emission

526: obey the constraint that it be unobserved by EGRET

527: (which we translate to the requirement that the predicted low energy gamma ray curve 

528: pass 2$\sigma$ below the most constraining EGRET datum near 70 MeV)

529: requires $X \simeq 0.8$ and the radio spectrum obtained in this case, 

530: shown as the (red) short-dashed curve in 

531: \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (b), is statistically compatible with the radio data.

532: The reduced $\chi^2$ for this case is rather bad, however: 2.2 for 32 degrees of freedom.

533: The CND $\gamma$-ray spectrum for this case is shown as the (red) short-dashed curve in 

534: \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (a).

535: 

536: Also shown in Figures \ref{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum} (a) and (b)

537: are (yellow) dot-dash curves that show, respectively,

538: the predicted gamma-ray and radio emission for a single zone model

539: that assumes a single power-law $p$ population ($\sim E^{-2.3}$)

540: tuned to match the HESS emission.

541: With such a model one notes that, as first determined by

542: \citet{Crocker2005}, the low energy $\gamma$-ray curve passes well below the EGRET

543: points. 

544: But the model predicts far too little synchrotron when compared with

545: our full calculations that sum emission over each clump of the CND and wind regions with its own

546: $p$ spectrum, magnetic field and ambient hydrogen number density.

547: %We discuss the causes of this failure in the conclusion.

548: This underestimation probably arises from the assumption of a `mean' 

549: $B$ field within the single zone model that implictly neglects the (i) 

550: relative accumulation of protons into clumps of higher magnetic field strength

551: (where they are more strongly trapped than elsewhere) and (ii) the greater

552: synchrotron emissivity of secondaries created in such clumps.

553: 

554: 

555: 

556: %\section{Constraints at Other Wavelengths}

557: %\label{sect:Constraints}

558: 

559: Finally,

560: we have reviewed data available from observations of the GC and the CND and wind regions at other wavelengths

561: to see whether these

562: offer any further constraint on our model.

563: 

564: Given the steady-state positron production rate in our scenario we 

565: predict a 511 keV $\gamma$-ray production rate from 

566: electron-positron annihilation of $\sim 6 \times 10^{46}$ yr$^{-1}$, well

567: inside the limit from INTEGRAL observations ($\sim 10^{50}$ yr$^{-1}$ out to an angular radius of 8$^\circ$: 

568: \cite{Knodlseder2003}

569: %,Jean2003}).

570: 

571: Another possible constraint is offered by hard X-ray/soft $\gamma$-ray observations. 

572: Our model predicts diffuse secondary emission at energies of

573: 10$^{4-5}$ eV

574: due to both the bremsstrahlung

575: and, dominantly, synchrotron processes. 

576: We have modeled such emission

577: to compare it against the spectrum, at a comparable energy, of the INTEGRAL/IBIS source

578: IGRJ17456-2901 \citep{Belanger2004}; we find ourselves well below the level of flux from this source.

579: 

580: %In summary, the $\sim$GHz radio observations together with the $\sim$GeV and $\sim$TeV scale $\gamma$-ray

581: %observations offer the most severe constraints on the hadronic scenario investigated in \citet{Ballantyne2007}

582: %and here.

583: 

584: \section{Conclusions}

585: \label{sect:Conclusions}

586: 

587: There are several major conclusions we can draw from this study:

588: 

589: \noindent

590: (1) The pre-existing data were not sufficient for a tight constraint on

591: our predictions. New data were acquired for this project. The compilation

592: of data demonstrates that the black hole-induced hadronic model for the

593: TeV gamma rays 

594: introduced in \citet{Ballantyne2007}

595: is certainly consistent with the broadband emission from

596: this process at other wavelengths.

597: 

598: \noindent

599: (2) In fact, more strongly, we have also shown that, {\it without fine-tuning, 

600: the hadronic process may actually explain essentially all the diffuse 

601: radio emission observed from the inner few pc of the Galaxy}.

602: 

603: %\noindent

604: %(3) A hadronic model necessarily involves significant numbers of debris

605: %particles, secondary electrons and positrons being of particular importance. 

606: %As such,

607: %the collateral emission at other wavelengths, particularly radio, can provide tight

608: %constraints on whether a hadronic scenario is

609: %viable.

610: 

611: %(2) As with our previous work on related systems, the gamma-ray

612: %normalization directly affects the system emissivity at other

613: %wavelengths. Thus, the results to not depend critically on the

614: %(imprecisely-known) absolute physical conditions in the ISM surrounding

615: %the black hole.

616: %****I've removed this because the synch emission is very sensitive to the assumed

617: %mag field which we do NOT know from the gamma rays

618: 

619: \noindent

620: (3) The fact that in this model the protons energized by the black hole

621: and ejected into the ISM accumulate in the magnetic fields of the CND, 

622: provides a spatial

623: definition for where the secondaries will be active unlike, say, the

624: primary lepton model, in which the electrons may be accelerated wherever

625: shock fragments form in an expanding shell.

626: 

627: %(5) Several important consequences follow from this work. One of them

628: %is that the more we learn about the hadronic model, the more confidence

629: %it provides us that we understand what is going on within 20 or so 

630: %Schwarzschild radii of the black hole.

631: 

632: %(6) This picture only works because of the radiative inefficiency of

633: %the gas accreting in Sgr A*, and the relatively tenuous environment in this

634: %region. As such, this work builds on previous work showing that the

635: %medium surrounding Sgr A* may be sufficiently transparent to permit

636: %imaging the event horizon at mm wavelengths with the future global

637: %mm-VLBA.

638: 

639: \noindent

640: (4) The propagation calculation of \citet{Ballantyne2007} 

641: showed that diffusion processing by the GC magnetic field leads 

642: to a considerable spectral steepening of the injection spectrum, $\sim E^{1.5}$

643: requiring in turn, that the  spectrum of protons injected 

644: close to Sgr A* must be very flat, $\sim~E^{-0.75}$, 

645: in order to supply the requisite $\sim~E^{-2.25}$ spectrum of $\gamma$-rays.

646: This is much flatter than the $E^{-(2.1 \to 2.4)}$ spectrum expected from 

647: first-order Fermi acceleration. 

648: Such a  hard spectrum might be created via 

649: the (second-order Fermi) stochastic acceleration mechanism. 

650: For instance, as determined by \citet{Liu2006} stochastic acceleration in a 

651: magnetically-dominated funnel close to the black hole 

652: could accelerate protons into a distribution as flat as $E^{-1}$, 

653: approaching the requisite hardness. 

654: The stochastic acceleration mechanism

655: investigated by \citet{Becker2006} may

656: also be able to produce the required spectrum. 

657: The question of whether a stochastic acceleration can be made to work in this context 

658: will be addressed elsewhere by the current 

659: authors.

660: 

661: \noindent

662: (5) Finally, the hadronic scenario we have explored here 

663: may be a test bed of what is actually happening near the base of

664: relativistic jets in more powerful sources, such as AGNs and quasars.

665: There we would have a more difficult time discerning the various

666: processes, because the environment is dense and chaotic. But in Sgr A*,

667: the environment is much more sedate, with lower density, and less

668: activity. Sgr A* does not itself produce relativistic jets that we

669: can see. But that may simply be a consequence of the relative 

670: weakness of this process in this particular source. It may be that

671: something like the proton injection/acceleration scenario 

672: (with

673: subsequent propagation out to relatively large scales before final interaction)

674: posited in our earlier paper -- and whose phenomenological consequences we have explored here --

675: is happening on a much bigger scale in the more

676: powerful AGNs.

677: 

678: \acknowledgments

679: 

680: The authors thank Todor Stanev for producing the simulated

681: secondary particle spectra from pp collisions exploited in this paper

682: and Anne Green for providing the SUMSS GC 843 MHz data in numerical form.

683: DRB is supported by the University of Arizona Theoretical Astrophysics

684: Program Prize Postdoctoral Fellowship.

685: RMC gratefully acknowledges advice and assistance from Ray Protheroe.

686: RMC is supported at the University of Adelaide by Ray Protheroe

687: and Ron Ekers'

688: Australian Research Council's Discovery funding scheme grant

689: (project number

690: DP0559991). 

691: This work was funded, in part, at the University of Arizona

692: by NSF grant AST-0402502.

693: The work has made use

694: of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.

695: FM is

696: grateful to the University of Melbourne for its support (through a Sir

697: Thomas Lyle Fellowship and a Miegunyah Fellowship).

698: 

699: \begin{thebibliography}{}

700: 

701: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Aharonian \& Neronov}{2005}]{Aharonian2005}

702: %  Aharonian, F.A. \& Neronov, A. 2005, \apss, 300, 255

703: 

704: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Aharonian \etal}{2004}]{Aharonian2004}

705:   Aharonian, F.A. \etal, 2004, \aap, 425, 13

706: 

707: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Aharonian \etal}{2006a}]{Aharonian2006}

708:   Aharonian, F.A. \etal, 2006a, Nature, 439, 695

709: 

710: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Aharonian \etal}{2006b}]{Aharonian2006b}

711:   Aharonian, F.A. \etal, 2006b, \prl, 97, 221102

712: 

713: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Albert \etal}{2006}]{Albert2006} Albert,

714: %  J. \etal, 2006, \apj, 638, L101

715: 

716: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Atoyan \& Dermer}{2004}]{ad04}

717: %  Atoyan, A. \& Dermer, C.D., 2004, \apj, 617, L123

718: 

719: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baganoff \etal}{2003}]{Baganoff2003}

720:   Baganoff, F.K. \etal, 2003, \apj, 591, 891

721: 

722: \bibitem[Ballantyne \etal (2007)]{Ballantyne2007} Ballantyne, D.~R.,

723: Melia, F., Liu, S., \& Crocker, R.~M.\ 2007, \apjl, 657, L13

724: 

725: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Becker \etal}{2006}]{Becker2006} Becker,

726:   P.A., Le, T. \& Dermer, C.D., 2006, \apj, 647, 539

727: 

728: \bibitem[Belanger \etal (2004)]{Belanger2004} Belanger, G.,

729: \etal \ 2004, \apjl, 601, L163

730: 

731: %\bibitem[Bock \etal (1999)]{Bock1999} Bock, D.~C.-J., Large,

732: %M.~I., \& Sadler, E.~M.\ 1999, AJ, 117, 1578

733: 

734: \bibitem[Brogan \etal (2003)]{Brogan2003} Brogan, C., \etal, 2003,

735: Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 17

736: 

737: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1981)]{Brown1981} Brown, R.~L., Johnston,

738: K.~J., \& Lo, K.~Y.\ 1981, \apj, 250, 155

739: 

740: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crocker \etal}{2005}]{Crocker2005}

741:   Crocker, R.M., Fatuzzo, M., Jokipii, J.R., Melia, F. \& Volkas,

742:   R.R. 2005, \apj, 622, 892

743: 

744: \bibitem[Crocker \etal(2007a)]{Crocker2007a}Crocker, R.M., \etal, 2007a \apj \ {\it in press},

745: (astro-ph/0702045).

746: 

747: %\bibitem[Crocker \etal(2007b)]{Crocker2007b}Crocker, R.M., \etal, 2007b {\it in preparation} 

748: 

749: \bibitem[Crutcher(1999)]{Crutcher1999} {Crutcher}, R.~M.\ 1999, \apj, 520, 706

750: 

751: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eidelman \etal}{2004}]{eid04}

752: %  Eidelman, S. \etal, 2004, Phys. Lett. B., 592, 1

753: 

754: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eisenhauer \etal}{2003}]{eis03}

755: %  Eisenhauer, F., Sch\"{o}del, R., Genzel, R., Ott, T., Tecza, M.,

756: %  Abuter, R., Eckart, A. \& Alexander, T., \apj, 597, L121

757: 

758: \bibitem[Ekers et al.(1983)]{Ekers1983} Ekers, R.~D., van Gorkom, 

759: J.~H., Schwarz, U.~J., \& Goss, W.~M.\ 1983, \aap, 122, 143 

760: 

761: \bibitem[Fatuzzo \& Melia(2003)]{Fatuzzo2003} Fatuzzo, M., \& 

762: Melia, F.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 1035 

763: 

764: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giacalone \& Jokipii}{1994}]{gj94}

765: %  Giacalone, J., \& Jokipii, J.R. 1994, \apj, 430, L137

766: 

767: \bibitem[Gopal-Krishna \& Swarup(1976)]{Gopal-Krishna1976} Gopal-Krishna, 

768: \& Swarup, G.\ 1976, \aplett, 17, 45 

769: 

770: %\bibitem[Green, A. (2007)]{Green2007}Green, A., priv. comm.

771: 

772: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hinton \& Aharonian}{2006}]{Hinton2006}

773: %  Hinton, J.A. \& Aharonian, F.A., 2006, \apj, in press

774: %  (astro-ph/0607557)

775: 

776: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hooper \& Dingus}{2002}]{Hooper2002}

777:   Hooper, D. \& Dingus, B. 2002, in the proceedings of the 34th COSPAR

778:   Scientific Assembly (astro-ph/0212509)

779: 

780: %\bibitem[Jean \etal (2003)]{Jean2003} Jean, P., \etal \ 2003, 

781: %\aap, 407, L55 

782: 

783: \bibitem[Jones \etal (2007)]{Jones2007} Jones, D.I., \etal , in prep., 2007.

784: 

785: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Katagiri \etal}{2005}]{kat05}

786: %  Katagiri, H. \etal, 2005, \apj, 619, L163

787: 

788: \bibitem[Kn{\"o}dlseder et al.(2003)]{Knodlseder2003} Kn{\"o}dlseder, 

789: J., et al.\ 2003, \aap, 411, L457 

790: 

791: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kosack \etal}{2004}]{kos04} Kosack,

792: %  K. \etal, 2004, \apj, 608, L97

793: 

794: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kowalenko \& Melia}{2000}]{km00}

795: %  Kowalenko, V., \& Melia, F. 2000, \mnras, 310, 1053

796: 

797: \bibitem[LaRosa \etal (2000)]{LaRosa2000} LaRosa, T., \etal, AJ, 119, 107, 2000.

798: 

799: %\bibitem[Latvakoski et al.(1999)]{Latvakoski1999} Latvakoski, H.~M.,

800: %Stacey, G.~J., Gull, G.~E., \& Hayward, T.~L.\ 1999, \apj, 511, 761

801: 

802: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Liu \etal}{2004}]{lpm04} Liu, S.,

803: %  Petrosian, V., \& Melia, F. 2004, \apj, 611, L101

804: 

805: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Liu \etal}{2006}]{Liu2006} Liu, S.,

806:   Melia, F., Petrosian, V. \& Fatuzzo, M. 2006, \apj, 647, 1099

807: 

808: \bibitem[Mayer-Hasselwander \etal(1998)]{Mayer-Hasselwander1998}

809: Mayer-Hasselwander, H.~A., \etal\ 1998, \aap, 335, 161

810: 

811: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Melia}{2007}]{Melia2007} Melia, F., 2007,

812:   The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole, Princeton University Press

813: 

814: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Melia \& Falcke}{2001}]{Melia2001} Melia,

815: %  F. \& Falcke, H. 2001, \araa, 39, 309

816: 

817: %\bibitem[Nord \etal (2004)]{Nord2004} Nord, M., \etal, astro-ph/0407178, 2004.

818: 

819: \bibitem[Pedlar \etal (1989)]{Pedlar1989} Pedlar, A.,

820: Anantharamaiah, K.~R., Ekers, R.~D., Goss, W.~M., van Gorkom, J.~H.,

821: Schwarz, U.~J., \& Zhao, J.-H.\ 1989, \apj, 342, 769

822: 

823: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pohl}{2005}]{Pohl2005} Pohl, M. 2005,

824:   \apj, 626, 174

825: 

826: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Quataert \& Loeb}{2005}]{Quataert2005}

827: %  Quataert, E. \& Loeb, A., 2005, \apj, 635, L45

828: 

829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rockefeller \etal}{2004}]{Rockefeller2004}

830:   Rockefeller, G., Fryer, C. L., Melia, F. \& Warren, M. S. 2004,

831:   \apj, 604, 662

832: 

833: \bibitem[Salter \etal (1988)]{Salter1988} Salter, C.~J., Sinha,

834: R.~P., Stobie, E.~B., Kerr, F.~J., \& Hobbs, R.~W.\ 1988, \mnras, 232, 407

835: 

836: %\bibitem[Seiradakis et al.(1989)]{Seiradakis1989} Seiradakis, J.~H.,

837: %Reich, W., Wielebinski, R., Lasenby, A.~N., \& Yusef-Zadeh, F.\ 1989,

838: %\aaps, 81, 291

839: 

840: \bibitem[Sofue \etal (1986)]{Sofue1986} Sofue, Y., Inoue, M.,

841: Handa, T., Tsuboi, M., Hirabayashi, H., Morimoto, M., \& Akabane, K.\ 1986,

842: \pasj, 38, 475

843: 

844: \bibitem[Tsuboi \etal (1988)]{Tsuboi1988} Tsuboi, M., Handa, T.,

845: Inoue, M., Ukita, N., \& Takano, T.\ 1988, \pasj, 40, 665

846: 

847: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tsuchiya \etal}{2004}]{ts04}

848: %  Tsuchiya, K. \etal, 2004, \apj, 606, L115

849: 

850: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wang \etal}{2006}]{Wang2006} Wang, Q.D.,

851: %  Lu, F.J. \& Gotthelf, E.V., 2006, \mnras, 367, 937

852: 

853: %\bibitem[Yusef-Zadeh, \etal (2004)]{Yusef-Zadeh2004}Yusef-Zadeh, F., \etal, ApJS, 155, 421, 2004.

854: 

855: \end{thebibliography}{}

856: 

857: \clearpage

858: 

859: \begin{figure}

860: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f1a.eps}

861: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f1b.eps}

862: \caption{{\bf a.} ({\bf left}) Observed $\gamma$-ray flux data points for the GC region with 

863: theoretical spectral curves.

864: The data points in the $\sim$ TeV range show the HESS source coincident with Sgr A*.

865: The five lower energy data points are from the EGRET source 3EG J1746-2851.

866: The

867: theoretical curves are:

868: (blue) {\bf solid}:

869: $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the entire CND 

870: after $\chi^2$ fitting to the $X$ parameter {\it to the HESS data only};

871: (red) {\bf short dashed}:

872: $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the entire CND 

873: after $\chi^2$ fitting of the $X$ parameter to the HESS data

874: {\it with the additional constraint that the EGRET upper limit is obeyed};

875: (purple) {\bf long dashed}: 

876: $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the wind region clumps assuming the same $X$ value;

877: (yellow) {\bf dot-dash}: $\gamma$-ray

878: spectrum for the case of a single zone (with $B = 0.35$ mG

879: and $n_H \simeq 2.3 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$) model and

880: a single, power-law proton population;

881: (green) {\bf dot-dot-dash}: projected

882: GLAST sensitivity for a 5 $\sigma$ detection of a point-source with a $\propto E^2$ spectrum

883: (see the GLAST website: http://www-glast.stanford.edu).

884: {\bf b.} ({\bf right}) Observed radio fluxes from the CND and wind regions together

885: with theoretical predictions for radio emission.

886: %Attributions for the radio data are given in the text.

887: The theoretical radio curves are: 

888: (blue) {\bf solid}: radio emission from the {\bf CND} region

889: for the case that the theoretical CND $\gamma$-ray emission is optimized in $X$ to the HESS data;

890: (purple) {\bf long dashed}: radio emission from the {\bf wind} region

891: assuming the same $X$ value;

892: (red) {\bf short dashed}:

893: radio emission from the {\bf wind} region

894: for the case that the theoretical CND $\gamma$-ray emission is optimized in $X$ to the HESS data

895: {\it with the additional constraint that the EGRET upper limit is obeyed};

896: (green) {\bf dotted} curve:

897: simple power law fit to 843, 1384, and 2368 MHz flux

898: points.}

899: \label{fig:CNDRadioSpectrum}

900: \end{figure}

901: 

902: \end{document}

903: 

904: 

905: 

906: 

907: 

908: 

909: 

910: