1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
23: \usepackage{amssymb}
24: \usepackage{lscape}
25:
26: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
27:
28: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
29:
30: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
31: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
32: %% use the longabstract style option.
33:
34: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
35:
36: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
37: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
38: %% the \begin{document} command.
39: %%
40: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
41: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
42: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
43: %% for information.
44:
45: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
46: \newcommand{\myemail}{wpliu@shao.ac.cn}
47:
48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
49:
50: %\slugcomment{}
51:
52: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
53: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
54: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
55: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
56: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
57: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
58:
59: \shorttitle{MODIFIED SYNCHROTRON MODEL FOR KNOTS OF M87}
60: \shortauthors{Liu and Shen}
61:
62: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
63: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
68: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
69: %% you desire.
70:
71: \title{A MODIFIED SYNCHROTRON MODEL FOR KNOTS IN THE M87 JET}
72:
73: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
74: %% author and affiliation information.
75: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
76: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
77: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
78: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
79:
80: \author{Wen-Po ~Liu\altaffilmark{1,2}, Zhi-Qiang ~Shen\altaffilmark{1}}
81:
82:
83:
84: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
85: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
86: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
87: %% affiliation.
88:
89: \altaffiltext{1}{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Shanghai 200030,
90: P.R.China; wpliu@shao.ac.cn}
91: \altaffiltext{2}{The Graduate School of
92: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P.R.China}
93: %%\email{wpliu@shao.ac.cn}
94:
95: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
96: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
97: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
98: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
99: %% editorial office after submission.
100:
101: \begin{abstract}
102: For explaining the broadband spectral shape of knots in the M87
103: jet from radio through optical to X-ray, we propose a modified
104: synchrotron model that considers the integrated effect of particle
105: injection from different acceleration sources in the thin
106: acceleration region. This results in two break frequencies at two
107: sides of which the spectral index of knots in the M87 jet changes.
108: We discuss the possible implications of these results for the
109: physical properties in the M87 jet. The observed flux of the knots
110: in the M87 jet from radio to X-ray can be satisfactorily explained
111: by the model, and the predicted spectra from ultraviolet to X-ray
112: could be further tested by future observations. The model implies
113: that the knots D, E, F, A, B, and C1 are unlikely to be the
114: candidate for the TeV emission recently detected in M87.
115: \end{abstract}
116:
117: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
118: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
119: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
120: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
121:
122: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: individual (M87)
123: --- galaxies: jets --- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}
124:
125:
126:
127: \section{Introduction}
128:
129: The giant radio galaxy M87, situated nearly at the center of the
130: Virgo cluster at a distance of 16 Mpc (e.g. Macri et al. 1999),
131: has been studied extensively from the radio (e.g., Owen et al.
132: 1989 and references therein; Biretta et al. 1995; Sparks et al.
133: 1996), optical (e.g. Perlman et al. 2001a, hereafter P01; Biretta
134: et al. 1991), UV (Waters \& Zepf 2005, hearafter WZ05), to X-ray
135: (e.g., Marshall et al. 2002, hereafter M02; Wilson \& Yang 2002).
136: The predicted TeV gamma-ray (Bai \& Lee 2001) and the possible
137: position where the TeV emission from the M87 jet (Georganopoulos
138: et al. 2005; Cheung et al. 2007) have also been confirmed at a
139: high confidence level by the HESS observations (Aharonian et al.
140: 2003 $\&$ 2006). In particular, Perlman \& Wilson (2005, hereafter
141: PW05) analyzed diagnostics and physical interpretation of the
142: X-ray emissions from the M87 jet in detail. Many other
143: observations have also been done, such as photometric surveys of
144: the jet, polarimetry maps of the jet (Perlman et al. 1999).
145:
146: In the M87 jet, the Optical-X-ray spectral index $\alpha_{\rm ox}$
147: ($S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$) increases from $1.2-1.4$ at
148: $2''-7''$ from the nucleus (knots D and E) to $1.7-1.9$ at
149: $15''-18''$ from the nucleus (knots B and C1). The Chandra data
150: confirm steep X-ray spectra of the knots in the M87 jet
151: ($\alpha_{\rm x}>\alpha_{\rm r}$) and are thus consistent with a
152: synchrotron origin for the X-ray jet emission (M02; Wilson $\&$
153: Yang 2002; PW05). So far, there have been three standard
154: theoretical synchrotron models. The KP model (Kardashev 1962,
155: hereafter K62; Pacholczyk 1970) assumes that the source of the
156: emission is a single burst of energetic electrons with an
157: isotropic pitch-angle distribution and thus no scatters. Because
158: of the likely scattering of relativistic particles by
159: hydromagnetic waves (e.g., Wentzel 1977), the KP model is
160: physically unreasonable, and therefore will not be mentioned
161: further in this paper. The JP model (Jaffe \& Perola 1973) assumes
162: the same initial conditions as those of the KP model, but allows
163: scattering in the pitch-angle distribution so that it can maintain
164: an isotropic distribution all the time. The resulting spectrum is
165: an essentially exponential rollover above the synchrotron loss
166: break frequency. The continuous injection (CI) models (K62;
167: Heavens \& Meisenheimer 1987, hereafter HM87) assume that a power
168: law distribution of relativistic particles is being continuously
169: added to the emitting region, but the CI model of HM87 further
170: takes the advective transport of the accelerated electrons
171: downstream into account. The CI model of K62 has the similar
172: spectral shape to the one of HM87.
173:
174: But these synchrotron models also have some problems. As shown in
175: WZ05, considering the X-ray flux, the CI model is only applicable
176: for the inner knots (knots D and E), and explains the UV turnover
177: (Fig 1), but for other outer knots (such as knots F and A) this
178: model systematically over-predicts the observed UV turnover. And
179: PW05 also found that such a model cannot explain the spectral
180: index at X-ray. Without considering the X-ray data, the predicted
181: X-ray flux by the CI model is higher than the observed one, but
182: the exponential high-energy rollover of JP model underpredicts the
183: X-ray flux by many orders of magnitude and the slope at X-ray is
184: much larger than the observed. The two standard models can't fit
185: the X-ray flux and the spectral index at X-ray under the single
186: index of the electron energy spectrum at injection and single
187: emission process. We summarize the criteria for fitting the
188: spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the knots in the M87 jet
189: discussed in WZ05 and PW05$\colon$ firstly, the first break
190: frequency should be under the UV turnover (Fig 1), especially, for
191: knots D, A, and B; secondly, a steeper X-ray spectral index than
192: the optical is needed, so there may be a second break frequency
193: between UV data and X-ray data; finally, the best fitting model
194: should explain the flux and index of the X-ray data as well as the
195: ones of the radio, optical and UV data.
196:
197:
198: In $\S$ 2, we describe in detail our modified synchrotron model for
199: knots in the M87 jet. In $\S$ 3, we present and discuss the fitting
200: results of this model to the wide-band spectra of the knots D, E, F,
201: A, B, and C1. A summary is given in $\S$ 4.
202:
203:
204: \section{The Model}
205:
206: We suggest a synchrotron model which is a modified CI model of K62,
207: to explain the observed SEDs of the knots in the M87 jet. The
208: kinetic equation of the relativistic electrons in the CI model (K62)
209: is $\colon$
210:
211: \begin{equation}
212: \frac{\partial N}{\partial t}=\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial
213: E}(E^2N)+qE^{-p}, \end{equation}
214:
215: \noindent where $\beta=bB^2_{\perp}$, $b$ is a constant,
216: $B_{\perp}$ represents the component of the magnetic field
217: perpendicular to the velocity of the particle. The synchrotron
218: energy losses are $dE/dt=-\beta E^{2}$. The injection of a
219: constant spectrum $qE^{-p}$ in the CI model of K62 actually
220: implies that the acceleration region is the same as the main
221: emission region in the knots. However, this assumption may not be
222: true in general, especially for shocks acceleration mechanism
223: which may be the dominant mechanism of the particle acceleration
224: in jets. Based on the observational evidence of shocks in the M87
225: jet (Perlman et al. 1999; PW05; Harris \& Krawczynski 2006), a
226: more physical scenario would be that the acceleration region and
227: the main emission region are not strictly co-spatial in the M87
228: jet, and the accelerated injection electrons may be advected
229: downstream (this process is similar to the CI model of HM87). The
230: electrons advection throughout the jet and diffusion throughout
231: the jet's cross-section with the decrease of the synchrotron
232: lifetimes from low energies to high energies may result in
233: spatially stratified emission regions along the jet (M02) and the
234: consistent narrowing of the jet from radio to optical to X-ray
235: (PW05). For the acceleration region, a more complex but physical
236: scenario may be that there are many acceleration sources in a
237: compact acceleration region which is unresolved by the telescope
238: beam and each source has a power law distribution of injection
239: population of relativistic electrons. We assume that all the
240: sources accelerate electrons under the similar conditions (e.g.,
241: similar magnetic fields etc.) with the same mechanism which
242: results in a same spectral index $p$, similar electron number
243: density, the same maximum energy and fluid velocity for the
244: injection populations of relativistic electrons into the main
245: emission region. Before injecting into the main emission region,
246: the populations of relativistic electrons in the acceleration
247: region will experience a brief synchrotron loss process. But the
248: observed knot emission is dominated by the emission from the main
249: emission region. If the injection electrons into the main emission
250: region come from a very compact region, not resolved by the
251: observation, we need to integrate all the contributions of
252: populations from different locations of the acceleration region by
253: considering synchrotron losses. We assume that r is the distance
254: to the main emission region from a source of the acceleration
255: region. At low energies, the populations from different locations
256: of the acceleration region have the same spectral shape, so the
257: integrated injection spectrum of the electrons over the
258: acceleration region still scales as $E^{-p}$. At higher energies,
259: the electrons are advected a distance r to the main emission
260: region before losing a significant fraction of their energy to
261: synchrotron emission. As the loss time-scale scales as $E^{-1}$,
262: this distance scales as $E^{-1}$. Thus the integrated injection
263: spectrum at high energies would be proportional to $E^{-(p+1)}$.
264: There is a break energy $E_{b}$ between the low energies and the
265: high energies in the integrated injection spectrum. The integrated
266: injection spectrum exhibits a cut-off energy $E_{c}$. By adding up
267: the contributions from sources in the acceleration region, the
268: integrated injection spectrum as the source into the main emission
269: region from the acceleration region can be written as,
270: \begin{equation}
271: \left\{
272: \begin{array}{ll}
273: q_{1}E^{-p},&\mbox{~$E<E_{b}$~;}\\
274: q_{2}E^{-(p+1)},&\mbox{~$E_{c}>E>E_{b}$~;}\\
275: 0,&\mbox{~$E>E_{c}$~,}
276: \end{array}
277: \right. \end{equation}
278:
279: \noindent where, $q_{2}E^{-(p+1)}$ corresponds to the component of
280: the injection spectrum at high energies. The spectrum near the
281: break energy in fact is not a strict power law, and the equivalent
282: spectral index should be intermediate. But here we would simply
283: consider a power law form for the spectrum. The real distribution
284: of the electrons and the magnetic field in the M87 jet is very
285: complex (M02; Perlman et al. 1999; Perlman et al. 2001b), but we
286: simply assume that the distribution of the electrons is isotropic
287: and the large-scale equipartition magnetic field in the main
288: emission region is approximately symmetrical. The kinetic equation
289: is$\colon$
290:
291:
292: \begin{equation}
293: \frac{\partial N}{\partial t}=\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial
294: E}(E^2N)+\left\{
295: \begin{array}{ll}
296: q_{1}E^{-p},&\mbox{~$E<E_{b}$~;}\\
297: q_{2}E^{-(p+1)},&\mbox{~$E>E_{b}$~.}
298: \end{array}
299: \right. \end{equation}
300:
301: \noindent Then, we have
302:
303: \begin{equation}
304: N(E,\theta,t)=\left\{
305: \begin{array}{ll}
306: \frac{q_{1}E^{-(p+1)}}{\beta (p-1)}[1-(1-\beta Et)^{p-1}],&\mbox{~$E<\frac{1}{\beta t}$~;}\\
307: \frac{q_{1}E^{-(p+1)}}{\beta (p-1)},&\mbox{~$E_{b}>E>\frac{1}{\beta t}$~;}\\
308: \frac{q_{2}E^{-(p+2)}}{\beta p},&\mbox{~$E>E_{b}$~.}
309: \end{array}
310: \right. \end{equation}
311:
312: For isotropic distributions, we can derive the flux expression of
313: the modified synchrotron model
314:
315: \begin{equation}
316: I_{\nu}\propto\left\{
317: \begin{array}{ll}
318: \nu^{-(p-1)/2},&\mbox{~$\nu\ll \nu_{B1}$~;}\\
319: \nu^{-p/2},&\mbox{~$\nu_{B2}>\nu\gg \nu_{B1}$~;}\\
320: \nu^{-(p+1)/2},&\mbox{~$\nu>\nu_{B2}$~.}
321: \end{array}
322: \right. \end{equation}
323:
324:
325: $$\nu_{B1}=c_3t^{-2}, \nu_{B2}=c_3
326: \beta^2 E^2_{b}, c_{3}=3.4\times 10^8 B^{-3},$$
327:
328: \noindent where $t$ (in yr) is synchrotron lifetime, $\nu_{B1}$ and
329: $\nu_{B2}$ (in Hz) are the first and second break frequencies,
330: respectively.
331:
332: \section{Fitting Results and Discussion}
333: Now, we apply the above modified synchrotron model to the observed
334: knot emission in the M87 jet. These include knots D, E, F, A, B, and
335: C1 (as showed in Figure 1 of Harris \& Krawczynski 2006).
336:
337: The data we used are listed in Table 1. These include the
338: published radio to UV data (P01), UV data at $1.8\times10^{15}$ Hz
339: (WZ05) and X-ray data (PW05). There is another reported X-ray
340: measurement (M02) made 12 days before PW05 observation. M02 did
341: not use the same regions to integrate the fluxes for various
342: components as did P01. PW05, however, did use the same regions as
343: P01, so we use PW05 data points in our model fitting. There was no
344: X-ray measurement for the knot C1. So we estimated its flux
345: density using the measurements for the knot C and the ratio of
346: knots C1 to C from the optical observation at $1.0\times10^{15}$
347: Hz by assuming this ratio is the same at both optical
348: ($1.0\times10^{15}$ Hz) and X-ray. There were no error bars in the
349: X-ray data by PW05. The error bars for the PW05 X-ray data listed
350: in Table 1 were estimated by assuming the same relative precision
351: (the uncertainty in terms of a fraction of the value of the
352: result) in both PW05 and M02 data. We use the weighted least
353: square method to fit our model (Equation 5) to the wide-band data
354: in each knot, in this progress a power law form is chosen near the
355: break frequencies because we only need to concern the trend of the
356: break frequencies. There are two peak frequencies in our model,
357: but we don't know where they are when we fit our model to the
358: broadband data in each knot. So we first arbitrarily divide
359: broadband data into three groups to perform the least square
360: method, we could calculate the corresponding reduce chi square
361: ($\chi^2_{\nu}$) by changing the division. All the possible
362: combinations are considered before we obtain the best fit with a
363: minimal $\chi^2_{\nu}$ among them. These best-fit parameters for
364: each knot, are listed in Table 2. The SEDs for the knots in the
365: M87 jet and the best fits for our model are plotted in Fig 1.
366:
367:
368: Our model can well fit the radio, optical, UV, and X-ray data for
369: these knots with three segments except knot E which has two segments
370: implying that the second break frequency of knot E has exceeded the
371: X-ray band. It satisfies the aforementioned three constraints for
372: the SED of the knots of M87 jet (as shown in Fig 1 and Table 2). The
373: predicted spectra shape of knots from UV to X-ray (from $-p/2$ to
374: $-(p+1)/2$) could be tested by future telescope in the band. The
375: equivalent spectral index of the high energy electrons in the
376: acceleration region may not decay from $p$ to $p+1$, but is likely
377: to be between them (i.e. the high energy electrons may be near the
378: break energy). This results in an equivalent spectral index of the
379: photons possibly between $p/2$ and $(p+1)/2$ (e.g. knot D). Our
380: model is consistent with the spectral indexes of the knots E, F, A,
381: B, and C1 within their error bars.
382:
383:
384: The first break synchrotron frequencies ($\nu_{B1}$) of all the
385: knots (D, E, F, A, B, and C1) in the M87 jet are under $10^{15}$ Hz
386: (see Table 2). According to the unified scheme of AGNs and equation
387: (1) in Bai $\&$ Lee (2001), the Compton components from these knots
388: will peak at $0.01\sim1$ GeV, and their flux densities at TeV would
389: be undetectable (based on the synchrotron self-Compton model and the
390: equation (4) in Bai $\&$ Lee 2001). This implies that the knots D,
391: E, F, A, B, and C1 are unlikely to be the candidate for TeV emission
392: in the M87 detected by the HESS observations (Aharonian et al. 2003
393: $\&$ 2006). The possible candidate for the TeV emission in M87 is
394: related to the innnermost region of M87 like HST-1 or core itself
395: (Stawarz et al. 2006; Aharonian et al. 2006; Cheung et al. 2007).
396: HST-1, the knot closest to the core of M87, has been shown to have a
397: very dynamic light curve and flaring (Perlman et al. 2003; Harris et
398: al. 2003; Stawarz et al. 2006; Harris et al. 2006). Its mechanism
399: may be related to the core and thus more complicated.
400:
401: From Table 2, as a whole the second break frequency $\nu_{B2}$
402: decreases along the jet. This may imply that the synchrotron loss in
403: the acceleration region will increase along the jet.
404:
405:
406: We find that the value of the particle spectral index $p$ is about
407: $2.36$ on average, which agrees well with the latest expectations
408: from both diffusive shock acceleration theory (2.0-2.5, Kirk \&
409: Dendy 2001) and acceleration by relativistic shocks (2.23 in the
410: ultrarelativistic limit, Kirk 2002). Particle acceleration at shocks
411: (e.g., Blandford \& Ostriker 1978) through the first-order Fermi
412: process is generally believed to occur in jets.
413:
414:
415: PW05 proposed a possible phenomenological model to modify the CI
416: model. They suggest that the filling factor of the volume within
417: which particles are accelerated declines with increasing energy at
418: X-ray energy along the jet (not in the direction perpendicular to
419: the jet), but they can't explain the running mechanism of filling
420: factor. To explain the curved X-ray spectra of BL Lac objects,
421: Perlman et al. (2005) consider an episodic particle acceleration
422: model which assumes only a time-variable particle acceleration.
423: This results in a logarithmic curvature rather than a sudden break
424: and could be related to the broadband spectral shape too.
425: Fleishman (2006) suggests a very different model which explicitly
426: takes into account the effect of the small-scale random magnetic
427: field, probably present in the M87 jet. But the energy densities
428: contained in small-scale and large-scale magnetic fields may be
429: incomparable, we think that the electrons in the large-scale
430: magnetic field could also give rise to emission of the knots in
431: our model, especially at high frequencies. The idea of a secondary
432: population of the relativistic electrons that have different
433: spectral index from the first population is discussed by Jester et
434: al. (2005), which is partially similar to our model. But we
435: consider a lot of populations of relativistic electrons that have
436: the same spectral index in the acceleration region and discuss the
437: detailed process that may be responsible for the knots in the M87
438: jet.
439:
440: \section{Conclusion}
441:
442: We propose a modified CI model that considers a decay of spectral
443: index of injection electrons possibly due to the sum of the
444: injection spectrum from different acceleration sources with
445: synchrotron losses in the thin acceleration region, so there are
446: two break frequencies at two sides of which the spectral index
447: changes for the spectra of knots in the M87 jet. We consider that
448: the emission of the knot may be still emitted by the relativistic
449: electrons in the large-scale magnetic field at high frequencies as
450: well as the low frequencies, but not by the small-scale random
451: magnetic field (e.g., Fleishmann 2005). Our model gives a
452: satisfactory fit to the SEDs of knots in the M87 jet. Based on our
453: analysis, the knots D, E, F, A, B, and C1 are unlikely to be
454: responsible for the TeV emission detected in M87. The fitting
455: results from our model imply that the particles in M87 are
456: accelerated by shocks, and as a whole the second break frequencies
457: of knots decrease down the jet. We also predict the spectra of
458: knots from UV to X-ray, which could be tested by future
459: observations in the band.
460:
461: We thank C. Z. Waters for helpful communications and supplying his
462: code to us for reference. Many thanks are due to the referee for
463: the critical and constructive comments, which improved our work
464: greatly. This work was supported in part by the National Natural
465: Science Foundation of China (grants 10573029, 10625314, and
466: 10633010) and the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese
467: Academy of Sciences (Grant No. KJCX2-YW-T03), and sponsored by the
468: Program of Shanghai Subject Chief Scientist (06XD14024). Z.-Q.
469: Shen acknowledges the support by the One-Hundred-Talent Program of
470: the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
471:
472: \clearpage
473:
474: \begin{thebibliography}{}
475: \bibitem[]{509}
476: Aharonian, F. et al. 2003, A\&A, 403, L1
477: \bibitem[]{510}
478: Aharonian, F. et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1424
479: \bibitem[]{511}
480: Bai, J. M., \& Lee M. G. 2001, ApJ, 549, L173
481: \bibitem[]{513}
482: Biretta, J. A., Stern, C. P., \& Harris, D. E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1632
483: \bibitem[]{515}
484: Biretta, J. A., Zhou, F., \& Owen, F. N. 1995, ApJ, 447, 582
485: \bibitem[]{517}
486: Blandford, R. D., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJ, 221, L29
487: \bibitem[]{518}
488: Cheung, C. C., Harris, D. E., \& Stawarz, \L. 2007, ApJ, 663,
489: L65
490: \bibitem[]{519}
491: Fleishman, G. D. 2006, MNRAS, 365, L11
492: \bibitem[]{520}
493: Georganopoulos, M., Perlman, E. S., \& Kazanas, D. 2005, ApJ,
494: 634, L33
495: \bibitem[]{521}
496: Harris, D. E, Biretta, J. A., Junor, W., Perlman, E. S., Sparks,
497: W. B., \& Wilson, A. S. 2003, ApJ, 586, L41
498: \bibitem[]{524}
499: Harris, D. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 211
500: \bibitem[]{527}
501: Harris, D. E., \& Krawczynski, H. 2006, ARA\&A, 44, 463
502: \bibitem[]{529}
503: Heavens, A. F., \& Meisenheimer, K. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 335 (HM87)
504: \bibitem[]{531}
505: Jaffe, W. J., \& Perola, G. C. 1973, A\&A, 26, 423
506: \bibitem[]{532}
507: Jester, S., R\"{o}ser H.-J., Meisenheimer, K., Perley R. 2005,
508: A$\&$A, 431, 477
509: \bibitem[]{533}
510: Kardashev, N. S. 1962, SvA (AJ), 6, 317 (K62)
511: \bibitem[]{539}
512: Kirk, J. G., \& Dendy, R. O. 2001, J. Phys. G, 27, 1589
513: \bibitem[]{535}
514: Kirk, J. G. 2002, in ``Particles and Fields in Radio Galaxies'', ASP
515: Conference Series 250 (ASP: San Francisco), ed. R. A. Laing \& K.
516: M. Blundell, p. 41
517: \bibitem[]{541}
518: Macri, L. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 521, 155
519: \bibitem[]{543}
520: Marshall, H. L., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 683 (M02)
521: \bibitem[]{549}
522: Owen, F. N., Hardee, P. E., \& Cornwell, T. J. 1989, 340, 698
523: \bibitem[]{551}
524: Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio Astrophysics (San Francisco:
525: Freeman){}
526: \bibitem[]{554}
527: Perlman, E. S., Biretta, J. A., Zhou, F., Sparks, W. B., \&
528: Macchetto, F. D. 1999, AJ, 117, 2185
529: \bibitem[]{557}
530: Perlman, E. S., Biretta, J. A., Sparks, W. B., Macchetto, F. D.,
531: \& Leahy, J. P. 2001a, ApJ, 551, 206 (P01)
532: \bibitem[]{560}
533: Perlman, E. S., et al. 2001b, ApJ, 561, L51
534: \bibitem[]{563}
535: Perlman, E. S., Harris, D. E., Biretta, J. A., Sparks, W. B., \&
536: Macchetto, F. D. 2003, ApJ, 599, L65
537: \bibitem[]{564}
538: Perlman, E. S. et al. 2005, ApJ 625, 727
539: \bibitem[]{566}
540: Perlman,E. S., \& Wilson, A. S. 2005, ApJ, 627, 140 (PW05)
541: \bibitem[]{568}
542: Sparks, W. B., Biretta, J. A., \& Macchetto, F. 1996, ApJ, 473, 254
543: \bibitem[]{570}
544: Stawarz, \L., Aharonian, F., Kataoka, J., Ostrowski, M., Siemiginowska, A., \&
545: Sikora, M. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 981
546: \bibitem[]{573}
547: Riess, A. 2000, WFPC2 Instrument Sci. Rep. 00-04 (Baltimore:
548: STSci)
549: \bibitem[]{576}
550: Wilson, A. S., \& Yang, Y. 2002, ApJ, 568, 133
551: \bibitem[]{578}
552: Waters, C. Z., \& Zepf, S. E. 2005, ApJ, 624, 656 (WZ05)
553: \bibitem[]{580}
554: Wentzel, D. G. 1977, JGR, 82, 714
555: \end{thebibliography}
556:
557: \clearpage
558:
559: \begin{landscape}
560: \setlength{\headsep}{1cm}
561: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrrrrrr}
562: \tablecolumns{7} \tabletypesize{\footnotesize} \tablecaption{Flux
563: Densities of Knots in the M87 Jet\label{tbl-1}} \tablewidth{0pt}
564: \tablehead{ \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
565: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Flux Density}\\
566: \cline{2-7}\\
567: \colhead{Frequency} & \colhead{D} & \colhead{E} & \colhead{F} &
568: \colhead{A} & \colhead{B} & \colhead{C1}& \colhead{Observing} & \colhead{Reference}\\
569: \colhead{$\nu$ (Hz)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{} & \colhead{Date}}
570: \startdata
571: \colhead{{\it VLA} (mJy):}\\
572: $1.50\times10^{10}$ %% 2cm
573: & $161.54\pm1.92$ & $48.05\pm0.81$ & $144.90\pm1.86$ & $1218.00\pm12.00$ & $808.40\pm8.30$ & $544.70\pm5.60$ & 94 Feb 04& P01 \\
574: \colhead{{\it HST} ($\mu$Jy):}\\
575: $1.45\times10^{14}$ %% F205W
576: & $280\pm11$ & $71.4\pm3.0$ & $262\pm11$ & $2633\pm105$ & $1739\pm70$ & $971\pm39$& 98 Apr 04& P01 \\
577: $1.87\times10^{14}$ %% F160W
578: & $224\pm9$ & $67.2\pm2.0$ & $271\pm11$ & $2344\pm90$ & $1489\pm60$ & $797\pm32$ & 98 Feb 26& P01\\
579: $2.66\times10^{14}$ %% F110W
580: & $168\pm7$ & $42.9\pm2.3$ & $147\pm6$ & $1829\pm73$ & $1104\pm44$ & $606\pm24$ & 98 Feb 26& P01\\
581: $3.75\times10^{14}$ %% F814W
582: & $150\pm4$ & $42.3\pm1.3$ & $158\pm5$ & $1363\pm34$ & $811\pm20$ & $415\pm10$ & 98 Feb 25& P01\\
583: $4.50\times10^{14}$ %% F606W
584: & $117\pm3$ & $33.4\pm0.9$ & $123\pm3$ & $1086\pm27$ & $623\pm16$ & $310.7\pm7.8$ & 98 Feb 25& P01\\
585: $6.58\times10^{14}$ %% F450W
586: & $96.2\pm2.5$ & $28.0\pm0.8$ & $98.8\pm2.6$ & $904\pm23$ & $504\pm13$ & $241.0\pm6.1$ & 98 Feb 25& P01\\
587: $1.00\times10^{15}$ %% F300W
588: & $59.5\pm1.6$ & $16.2\pm0.6$ & $62.7\pm1.7$ & $586\pm15$ & $306.8\pm7.8$ & $135.9\pm3.5$ & 98 Feb 25& P01\\
589: $1.80\times10^{15}$ %% F170W
590: & $26.7\pm0.9$ & $10.0\pm0.9$ & $34.5\pm1.7$ & $275.2\pm12.7$ & $147.4\pm7.9$ & $80.8\pm12.9$ & 01 Feb 23& WZ05 \\
591: \colhead{{\it Chandra} (nJy):}\\
592: $2.42\times10^{17}$ %% 1keV
593: & $51.5\pm4.2$ & $32.2\pm6.5$ & $20.1\pm5.2$ & $156\pm8.8$ & $30.3\pm5.5$ & $14.6\tablenotemark{a}\pm5.2$& 00 Jul 29& PW05\tablenotemark{b}\\
594: \enddata
595: %%\tablecomments{}
596: \tablenotetext{a}{The X-ray flux density of knot C1 was estimated
597: by assuming the same flux ratio of the knot C1 to the knot C at
598: both optical ($1.00\times10^{15}$) Hz and X-ray band.}
599: \tablenotetext{b}{The error bars for the PW05 X-ray data were
600: estimated by assuming the same relative precision in both PW05 and
601: M02 data (see text).}
602: \end{deluxetable}
603: \end{landscape}
604:
605: \clearpage
606: \begin{figure}
607: \includegraphics[scale=1.5]{f1.eps}
608: \caption{Left panel: plot of the SEDs for the knots in the M87 jet
609: from radio through X-ray wavelengths. Right panel: plot zooming in
610: on the optical and UV region, where most of the data points are
611: and also where most of the curvature is. The data from radio to UV
612: are plotted as filled circles, the X-ray data from PW05 as filled
613: star. The solid lines display model fits that include the X-ray
614: data from PW05. The error bars of most measurements are too small
615: to be seen here. The best-fit parameters are listed in Table 2.}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618:
619: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
620: \tabletypesize{\small} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Parameters for
621: Model Fits for Radio through X-ray Data \label{tab:modelX}}
622: \tablehead{\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{$\nu_{B1}$($10^{14}$Hz)}
623: & \colhead{$\nu_{B2}$($10^{15}$Hz)} &
624: \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$\chi^2_{\nu}$}}
625: \startdata
626: knot D & $6.21$ & $97.5$ & $2.39$ & $2.34$\\
627: knot E & $6.97$ & $\cdots$ & $2.40$ & $3.73$ \\
628: knot F & $7.30$ & $10.1$ & $2.36$ & $9.33$\\
629: knot A & $6.35$ & $6.94$ & $2.34$ & $1.89$\\
630: knot B & $4.50$ & $1.69$ & $2.35$ & $4.39$\\
631: knot C1 & $3.00$ & $1.34$ & $2.38$ & $2.55$\\
632: \enddata
633: \tablecomments{Col. (1): Knot designation. Col. (2): First break
634: frequency in $10^{14}$ Hz. Col. (3): Second break frequency in
635: $10^{15}$ Hz. Col. (4): Spectral index of electrons. Col. (5):
636: Reduced chi square.}
637: \end{deluxetable}
638:
639: \end{document}
640:
641: