1: % AA vers. 6.1, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
2: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
3: % revised by EDP Sciences
4: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5: %
6: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
7: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{aa} % for a paper on 1 column
8: %\documentclass[longauth]{aa} % for the long lists of affiliations
9: %\documentclass[rnote]{aa} % for the research notes
10: \documentclass[letter]{aa} % for the letters
11: %
12: %\documentclass{aa}
13: %
14: \usepackage{graphicx}
15: \newcommand{\md}{\mbox{d}}
16: \newcommand{\pad}{\partial}
17: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\lppr}{\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
22: \newcommand{\gppr}{\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \usepackage{txfonts}
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: %
28: \begin{document}
29: %
30: \title{Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from non-blazar AGNs}
31:
32:
33: \author{F.M. Rieger
34: \inst{1,2}
35: \and
36: F.A. Aharonian\inst{1,3}}
37:
38: \offprints{F.M. Rieger}
39:
40: \institute{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik,
41: Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany;
42: \email{frank.rieger@mpi-hd.mpg.de}
43: \and European Associated Laboratory for Gamma-Ray Astronomy,
44: jointly supported by CNRS and MPG
45: \and Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 31 Fitzwilliam
46: Place, Dublin 4, Ireland}
47:
48: \date{Received ...2007; accepted ...}
49:
50: % \abstract{}{}{}{}{}
51:
52: \abstract
53: % context heading (optional)
54: % {} leave it empty if necessary
55: {The observation of rapidly variable very high energy (VHE) gamma-rays
56: from non-aligned active galactic nuclei (AGNs), as reported from M87,
57: proves challenging for conventional theoretical acceleration and
58: emission models.}
59: % aims heading (mandatory)
60: {Motivated by recent work on pulsar-type particle acceleration in M87
61: (Neronov \& Aharonian~2007), we re-examine the centrifugal acceleration
62: of particles by rotating jet magnetospheres in the vicinity of accreting
63: supermassive black hole systems and analyze the energy constraints
64: imposed for highly underluminous systems.}
65: % methods heading (mandatory)
66: {The maximum Lorentz factor for centrifugally accelerated electrons
67: in the presence of inverse Compton losses, and the associated
68: characteristic variability time scale, are determined. Applications
69: are presented for conditions expected to be present in the radio
70: galaxy M87, assuming accretion onto the central black hole to occur
71: in an advection-dominated (ADAF) mode.}
72: % results heading (mandatory)
73: {We show that for a highly underluminous source like M87,
74: centrifugally accelerated electrons may reach Lorentz factors up
75: to $\gamma \sim (10^7-10^8)$, allowing inverse Compton (Thomson)
76: upscattering of sub-mm disk photons to the TeV regime.
77: Upscattering of Comptonized disk photons results in a flat TeV
78: spectrum $L_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-\alpha_c}$ with spectral index
79: $\alpha_c \simeq 1.2$.
80: The characteristic variability time scale is of the order $r_{\rm L}
81: /c$, which in the case of M87 corresponds to $\simeq 1.7$ d for a
82: typical light cylinder radius of $r_{\rm L} \simeq 5\,r_{\rm s}$.}
83: % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary
84: {Centrifugal acceleration could provide a natural explanation for the
85: challenging VHE emission features in M87. Our results suggest that
86: some advection-dominated accreting (non-blazar) AGNs could well be
87: observable VHE emitting sources.}
88:
89: \keywords{galaxies: active -- galaxies: jets -- radiation mechanism:
90: nonthermal -- gamma rays: theory -- individual: M87}
91:
92: \maketitle
93: %
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96: The rapidly varying VHE gamma-ray flux, on time scales of days or
97: less, observed in several AGNs implies a very compact VHE emission
98: region of at most $R \leq c\,\Delta t\,\delta = 2.6 \times
99: 10^{15} (\Delta t/1\,\mathrm{d})\,\delta$ cm, where $\delta$ is the
100: bulk Doppler factor of the VHE emitting region. For blazar sources
101: with their jets pointing almost directly towards us (i.e., $\delta
102: \sim \Gamma_b \sim 15$), VHE variability on time scales of several
103: hours may, in principle, be successfully accounted for by internal
104: shock acceleration of electrons and inverse Compton upscattering of
105: soft photons (e.g., Mastichiadis \& Kirk~2002). Yet, the fastest
106: observed VHE blazar variations, on time scales of minutes (Gaidos et
107: al.~1996; Aharonian et al. 2007; Albert et al. 2007), are
108: generally difficult to understand within standard jet VHE emission
109: models and are likely to require non-standard geometrical set-ups
110: for their explanations (e.g., Salvati et al.~1998; Rieger~2004).
111: In the case of non-aligned AGNs with $\delta \sim 1$, little can be
112: gained from jet boosting, and it remains to be shown whether
113: conventional, single homogeneous SSC models may be flexible enough
114: to reproduce the VHE characteristics, including variability on
115: time scales $\Delta t \lppr 2$ day, as observed in the radio galaxy
116: M87 (Aharonian et al.~2006).
117: Here we explore the possibility that centrifugal acceleration of
118: electrons, occurring in the vicinity of a sub-Eddington accreting
119: black hole system, could via inverse Compton processes lead to variable
120: VHE gamma-ray emission. Centrifugal acceleration of plasma flows by
121: rotating magnetospheres has been widely discussed, both in the context
122: of pulsar emission models (e.g., Gold~1969; Machabeli \& Rogava~1994;
123: Chedia et al.~1996; Gangadhara~1996; Bogovalov~1997; Contopolous et
124: al.~1999; Machabeli et al. 2005; Thomas \& Gangadhara 2007) and in the
125: context of relativistic jet formation (e.g., Blandford
126: \& Payne~1982; Fendt~1997; Camenzind~1999; Meier et al.~2001). Detailed
127: MHD simulations, for example, indicate that centrifugally-driven outflows
128: from AGNs could reach bulk Lorentz factors $\Gamma_b \sim 10$. It has
129: been realized for almost a decade that the generated MHD jet topology
130: could also allow efficient centrifugal acceleration of relativistic
131: charged test particles to very high energies in sub-Eddington accreting
132: black hole systems (Gangadhara \& Lesch~1997; Rieger \& Mannheim 2000,
133: henceforth RM00; Xu~2002; Osmanov et al.~2007). Here we examine this
134: issue in more depth for parameters relevant to the radio galaxy M87.
135:
136:
137: \section{Centrifugal acceleration of test particles}
138: \subsection{Particle energization and acceleration efficiency}
139: \label{centrifugal}
140: We consider an idealized two-dimensional model topology where the
141: magnetic field is assumed to rotate rigidly with a fraction of the
142: rotational velocity of the black hole (e.g., Fendt~1997), and where
143: the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field line is
144: screened by the magnetospheric jet plasma. A charged test particle,
145: injected at the base and corotating with the field line (bead-on-wire
146: motion), will then experience the centrifugal force and gain rotational
147: energy while moving outward along the field (Machabeli \& Rogava~1994;
148: Machabeli et al.~1996; Gangadhara \& Lesch~1997; RM00).
149: The radial particle motion can be most conveniently analyzed in the
150: framework of Hamiltonian dynamics (RM00) by noting that the Hamiltonian
151: $H$ for a particle (rest mass $m_0$) on a relativistically rotating wire
152: is a constant of motion, and is given by $H=\gamma\,m_0\,c^2 (1-\Omega^2
153: r^2/c^2)$, where $\gamma =1/(1-\Omega^2 r^2/c^2 -\dot{r}^2/c^2)^{1/2}$
154: is the Lorentz factor, $\Omega=c/r_{\rm L}$ the angular velocity of the
155: field line and $r_{\rm L}$ the light cylinder radius. The resultant
156: equation of motion
157: \beq\label{eq_motion}
158: \gamma\,\frac{\pad^2 r}{\pad t^2}+\frac{\pad r}{\pad t}
159: \frac{\pad \gamma}{\pad t}=\gamma\,\Omega^2\,r\,,
160: \eeq can be solved analytically yielding (Machabeli \& Rogava~1994;
161: RM00)
162: \beq
163: r(t) = r_{\rm L}\,\mathrm{cn}(\lambda_0-\Omega\,t)
164: \eeq
165: for the time-dependence of the radial coordinate $r$, assuming a
166: particle to be injected at $r_0$ with Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$, where
167: $\mathrm{cn}$ is the Jacobian elliptic cosine and $\lambda_0$ is a
168: Legendre elliptic integral of the first kind, and
169: \beq\label{gamma}
170: \gamma(r(t)) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tilde{m}}\,(1-\Omega^2 r^2(t)/c^2)}\,,
171: \eeq when expressed in terms of $r(t)$, with $\tilde{m}=1/(\gamma_0
172: [1-\Omega^2 r_0^2/c^2])^2 \leq 1$. If we neglect, for a moment, radiative
173: losses and the breakdown of the bead-on-the-wire approximation, a
174: particle would reach the light cylinder $r_{\rm L}$ within a time
175: $t_v = \lambda_0/\Omega \leq r_{\rm L}/c$, where, as a consequence of
176: the reversal of the centrifugal acceleration, it would change direction
177: and move inward again (Machabeli \& Rogava~1994). Knowing the
178: dependence of $\gamma$ on $r$, we can easily determine the local
179: acceleration time scale (RM00)
180: \beq\label{tacc}
181: t_{\rm acc}=\frac{\gamma}{\dot{\gamma}}
182: = \frac{c\,\sqrt{1-\Omega^2 r^2/c^2}}{2\,\Omega^2\,r
183: \sqrt{1-\tilde{m}\,[1-\Omega^2 r^2/c^2]}}\,,
184: \eeq which for large $\gamma$ approaches $t_{\rm acc}^{\rm asy}
185: = 1/(2\,\Omega\,\tilde{m}^{1/4} \gamma^{1/2}) \simeq 16.6\,
186: \tilde{m}^{-1/4}\,(10^6/\gamma)^{1/2}\,(r_{\rm L}/10^{15}\mathrm{cm})$
187: [s]. The (local) acceleration time scale thus decreases with increasing
188: $\gamma$. Equation~(\ref{gamma}) implies that the particle Lorentz factor
189: increases dramatically as a particle approaches the light cylinder.
190: Therefore, in many cases the characteristic linear size of our region
191: of interest is much smaller than the light cylinder and the curvature
192: radius of the field, a fact that may qualify the presumed straight
193: field line approach.
194:
195: \subsection{Efficiency constraints and maximum particle energy}
196: In reality, unlimited growth will be prohibited by radiative energy
197: losses, the breakdown of the bead-on-the-wire approximation or the
198: bending of the field line with increasing inertia (Gangadhara \&
199: Lesch~1997; RM00). Inverse Compton upscattering of accretion disk
200: photons, for example, leads to an energy loss of the particle
201: characterized by a time scale $t_{\rm cool} \propto 1/\gamma$ that
202: decreases faster than $t_{\rm acc}$ and so introduces a natural
203: limitation. Indeed, only for highly underluminous AGN sources will
204: centrifugal acceleration be sufficiently efficient to accelerate
205: electrons well beyond Lorentz factors of one hundred (RM00; Xu~2002).
206: Assuming the inverse Compton scattering process to be approximately
207: describable by the Thomson limit for a quasi-isotropic photon
208: distribution with energy density $U_{\rm ph}$ [erg/cm$^3$], we have
209: $t_{\rm cool} \simeq 3 \cdot 10^7/[\gamma\,U_{\rm ph}]$ s. Balancing
210: acceleration by cooling ($t_{\rm acc} = t_{\rm cool}$) for electrons
211: thus gives a maximum electron Lorentz factor (see also Osmanov et
212: al.~2007)
213: \beq\label{compton}
214: \gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC} \simeq 3.2 \times 10^6\,
215: \frac{\sqrt{\tilde{m}}}{U_{\rm ph}^2}
216: \left(\frac{10^{15}\mathrm{cm}}{r_{\rm L}}\right)^2\,.
217: \eeq provided that the corotation condition can be satisfied for such
218: a range of Lorentz factors. The latter qualification seems important,
219: as it may well happen that the particle motion becomes so perturbed
220: by radiation recoil that the bead-on-the-wire approximation is no
221: longer a useful concept. For highly underluminous AGN sources with,
222: e.g. $U_{\rm ph} \lppr 0.01$ erg/cm$^3$ and $r_{\rm L}\simeq 5
223: \times 10^{15}$ cm (see below, \S\ref{m87}), for which
224: Eq.~(\ref{compton}) would otherwise imply $\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC}
225: \gppr 1.3 \times 10^9 \tilde{m}^{1/2}$, this may in fact be the case.
226: Indeed, from the bead-on-wire requirement that the radiation reaction
227: force that results from inverse Compton scattering, i.e., $F_{\rm rad}
228: \simeq P_{\rm IC}/c$ (with $P_{\rm IC}$ the single particle Thomson
229: power) should be (much) smaller than the Lorentz force $F_{\rm L}$,
230: one finds that achievable electron Lorentz factors should be (much)
231: smaller than
232: \beq\label{reaction}
233: \gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm RR} \simeq 7.3 \times 10^8
234: \left(\frac{B(r_{\rm L})}{10\,\mathrm{G}}\right)^{1/2}
235: \left(\frac{0.01}{U_{\rm ph}}\right)^{1/2}\,,
236: \eeq where $B(r_{\rm L})$ is the magnetic field strength at the
237: light cylinder radius.
238: Yet, even for cases where radiative losses might be neglected, the
239: breakdown of the bead-on-the-wire approximation (roughly occurring
240: when the Coriolis force exceeds the Lorentz force) will prevent a
241: particle from achieving infinite energies (RM00). In the simplest
242: case, this restricts achievable particle energies to Lorentz
243: factors below \footnote{We are grateful to Osmanov et al.~(2007) for
244: making us aware of an incorrect conclusion in RM00.
245: Although formula (19) in RM00 is correct, an inconsistent set of
246: parameters has been used to estimate $\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm BB}$ for
247: the applications presented. This becomes relevant for highly underluminous
248: sources, where achievable Lorentz factors can be much higher
249: than previously concluded in RM00.}
250: \beq\label{breakdown}
251: \gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm BB} \simeq 2.0 \times 10^8\,\tilde{m}^{-1/6}\,
252: \left(\frac{B(r_{\rm L})}{10\,\mathrm{G}}\right)^{2/3}
253: \left(\frac{m_e}{m_0}\right)^{2/3}
254: \left(\frac{r_{\rm L}}{10^{15}\mathrm{cm}}\right)^{2/3}\,,
255: \eeq which implies lower Lorentz factors for protons than for electrons.
256: In any case, once the Lorentz factors become too high, the inertia of the
257: particles overcomes the tension in the field line, so that the line is
258: swept back opposite to the sense of rotation, slowing down acceleration
259: and introducing curvature radiative losses, thus ultimately preventing
260: infinite energy growth. In what follows, it is assumed that achievable
261: Lorentz factors $\gamma$ always satisfy the relation $\gamma
262: <\mathrm{min}\{\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC},\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm RR},\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm BB}\}$.
263:
264:
265: \section{Application to the radio galaxy M87}\label{m87}
266: \subsection{Phenomenological background}
267: The nearby (distance $\sim$ 16 Mpc) giant elliptical galaxy M87
268: hosts one of the most massive black holes $M_{\rm BH} \simeq 3
269: \times 10^9\,M_{\odot}$ (e.g., Marconi et al.~1997), with
270: Schwarzschild radius $r_s=2 G M_{\rm BH}/c^2 \simeq
271: 8.9 \times 10^{14}$ cm, and a prominent one-sided (kpc-scale) jet
272: visible from radio to X-ray wavelengths (e.g., Marshall et al.
273: 2002; see Ly et al. 2007 for a possible radio counter-jet detection).
274: HST observations have revealed superluminal motion of jet components
275: at $\sim 0.5$ kpc from the central black hole, indicative of
276: bulk flow Lorentz factors $\Gamma_b \sim 6$ and a jet orientation of
277: $\theta \sim 19^{\circ}$ to the line of sight (Biretta et al. 1999;
278: but see also Ly et al. 2007 for larger radio $\theta$), suggesting
279: that M87 is a non-blazar jet source, characterized by only moderate
280: Doppler factors. Superluminal radio features have also been
281: detected in HST-1 located at around 100 pc (Cheung et al. 2007),
282: although no superluminal motion has been found on small scales
283: (Kovalev et al. 2007). HESS observations have recently shown
284: M87 to be a rapidly variable (observed time scale of $\sim 2$ days)
285: TeV emitting source, yet with a relatively low (isotropic) TeV
286: luminosity of several times $10^{40}$ erg/s (Aharonian et al. 2006).
287: The total nuclear (disk and jet) bolometric luminosity of M87 has
288: been estimated to be of order $L_{\rm bol} \sim 10^{42}$ erg/s or
289: less (Reynolds et al. 1996; Owen et al. 2000), indicating that M87
290: is a highly underluminous source with $l_e \leq 3 \times 10^{-6}$,
291: where $l_e = L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ and $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the
292: Eddington luminosity. This has led to the proposal that M87 is
293: a prototype galaxy, where accretion occurs in a two-temperature,
294: advective-dominated (ADAF) mode characterized by an intrinsically
295: low radiative efficiency (Reynolds et al. 1996; Camenzind~1999; Di
296: Matteo et al. 2003). Magnetic flux dragged inwards may then build up
297: a rigidly rotating, dipolar magnetosphere, along which disk plasma
298: can be centrifugally accelerated to (bulk) outflow Lorentz factors
299: of $\Gamma_b \simeq (5-10)$. The generated light cylinder scale
300: is likely to be of order $r_{\rm L} \sim 5\,r_s$ (Camenzind \&
301: Krockenberger~1992; Fendt 1997; Camenzind~1999; cf. also Fendt \&
302: Memola~2001 for higher $r_{\rm L}$ if differential rotation is
303: important). The magnetic field lines in global (quasi force-free)
304: MHD wind solutions are radial near the black hole horizon, but
305: asymptotically collimated into a cylindrical structure beyond the
306: light cylinder, typically on radial scales $\sim 10\,r_{\rm L}$.
307: This seems consistent with high frequency VLBI observations in M87,
308: indicating a jet that forms with opening angles $\gppr 60^{\circ}$
309: at the jet base (Ly et al. 2007), as expected in MHD models, and
310: a jet radius of $\sim50\,r_s$ close to the origin (Krichbaum et
311: al.~2006). It has been proposed recently that efficient pulsar-type
312: particle acceleration may occur in such an environment (Neronov \&
313: Aharonian~2007, henceforth NA07).
314:
315: \subsection{Implications for particle acceleration}
316: Let us consider the implications of these findings for the
317: centrifugal acceleration of particles in M87:
318:
319: (1) Firstly, even for the most limiting case where all of the observed
320: bolometric luminosity is assumed to originate within a region $r_{\rm L}$,
321: so that the energy density of the radiation field may be approximated
322: by $U_{\rm ph} = L_{\rm bol}/(4 \pi r_{\rm L}^2 c)$, Eq.~(\ref{compton})
323: would imply that Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC} \simeq 10^7
324: \tilde{m}^{1/2}$ can be achieved, allowing Thomson upscattering of
325: infrared ($\geq 0.01$ eV) photons to the TeV regime. In reality, this
326: case is certainly over-restrictive, as it assumes that neither the
327: observed jet nor the disk regions beyond $r_{\rm L}$ make a significant
328: contribution to the bolometric luminosity output, which we consider
329: unlikely. Indeed, if the relevant luminosity is an order of magnitude or
330: more smaller, as expected in the ADAF scenario (see estimate $L_R$ below),
331: the maximum Lorentz factors implied by Eq.~(\ref{compton}) will be at
332: least two orders of magnitude higher. This suggests that electron
333: Lorentz factors up to $\gamma \sim (10^7-10^8)$ may be well possible
334: (cf. Eqs.~[\ref{compton}]-[\ref{reaction}]).
335:
336: (2) If accretion in M87 indeed occurs in an ADAF mode, the emitted
337: disk spectrum will range from the radio up to the X-ray
338: regime and beyond: the radio part is produced by synchro-cyclotron
339: emission of thermal electrons ($T_e \simeq 5 \times 10^9$ K), the
340: optical/UV/X-rays arise via inverse Compton scattering of radio soft
341: photons, and the hard X-rays are due to bremsstrahlung and multiple
342: Compton scattering (Mahadevan 1997; Narayan et al. 1998; Yi~1999).
343: The ADAF equipartition magnetic field for M87 is of order $B_{\rm eq}
344: \sim 2.5 \times 10^4 \dot{m}^{1/2}(r/r_s)^{-5/4}$ G, where $\dot{m}$ is
345: the accretion rate in units of the Eddington rate (cf. Yi~1999). For
346: the inferred Bondi accretion rate $\dot{m}=\dot{m}_b \sim 1.6 \times
347: 10^{-3}$ (Di Matteo et al. 2003) this gives $B(r_s) \sim 10^3$ G,
348: suggesting possible (radial) jet magnetic field strengths close to the
349: light cylinder of $B(r_{\rm L})\sim (10-50)$ G. The highest radio
350: emission in an ADAF is generally produced in the innermost region of
351: the accretion flow. For M87, the characteristic synchrotron (peak)
352: frequency becomes
353: \beq
354: \nu_s(r) \simeq 4 \times 10^{13}\, \dot{m}_b^{1/2}
355: \left(\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^{-5/4}
356: \left(\frac{T_e}{5 \times 10^9 \mathrm{K}}\right)^2
357: \;\,\mathrm{Hz}\,,
358: \eeq and the associated radio luminosity $L_R \sim \nu_s L_{\nu}^s$
359: is given by
360: \beq
361: L_R \simeq 10^{42}\,\dot{m}_b^{4/5}
362: \left(\frac{x_M}{10^3}\right)^{8/5}
363: \left(\frac{T_e}{5 \times 10^9 \mathrm{K}}\right)^{21/5}
364: \left(\frac{\nu}{10^{11} \mathrm{Hz}}\right)^{7/5}
365: \;\,\mathrm{erg/s}\,,
366: \eeq where $(x_M/10^3)\sim 1$ denotes the dimensionless synchrotron
367: self-absorption frequency (Yi \& Boughn~1998). On the light cylinder scale
368: ($r_{\rm L} \simeq 5 r_s$) this implies a peak frequency $\nu_s(r_{\rm L})
369: \simeq 2 \times 10^{11}$ Hz and a luminosity $L_R \sim 2 \times
370: 10^{40}$ erg/s. Thomson upscattering ($\nu \sim \gamma^2 \nu_s$) of
371: these mm soft photons by centrifugally accelerated electrons with
372: $\gamma$ up to $\sim (10^7-10^8)$ will thus, in principle, lead to VHE
373: photons with energies up to $\sim (0.1-10)$ TeV. Comptonization of
374: cyclosynchrotron soft photons adds a power law tail to the disk spectrum
375: above $\nu_s$, i.e., $L_{\nu} \simeq L_{\nu_s}(\nu/\nu_s)^{-\alpha_c}$
376: with power index $\alpha_c = -\ln{\tau_{\rm es}}/\ln{A}$ (Mahadevan~1997).
377: For M87 with $\dot{m}_b=1.6 \times 10^{-3}$, viscosity parameter
378: $\alpha=0.3$ and $T_e=5 \times 10^9$ K, we obtain an electron scattering
379: depth $\tau_{\rm es} \simeq 0.04$ and an amplification factor $A \simeq
380: 15.7$, so that $\alpha_c \simeq 1.2$.
381:
382: (3) Suppose that during an active state, test particles are injected
383: with $\gamma_0 \gppr 2$ at a constant rate $Q$ and accelerated up to a
384: threshold $\gamma_{\rm b} < \gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm RR} < \gamma_{\rm
385: max}^{\rm IC}$, above which they are considered to leave the centrifugal
386: acceleration process due to the breakdown of corotation. The
387: differential particle energy distribution $n(\gamma)$ along a field
388: line would satisfy the simplified transport equation
389: \beq
390: \frac{\pad n}{\pad t} + \frac{\pad}{\pad \gamma}
391: \left(\left[\frac{\gamma}{t_{\rm acc}}-\frac{\gamma}{t_{\rm cool}}
392: \right]\,n\right) - \frac{n}{\tau_{\rm esc}}\,
393: \delta(\gamma_{\rm b}-\gamma)
394: =Q\, \delta(\gamma-\gamma_0)\,,
395: \eeq with $t_{\rm cool} \propto \gamma^{-1}$ and $t_{\rm acc} \propto
396: \gamma^{-1/2}$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{tacc})]. Above injection, the steady-state
397: distribution in the acceleration region thus becomes
398: \beq\label{diff}
399: n(\gamma) \propto
400: \left(1-\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC}}}\right)^{-1}
401: \gamma^{-3/2}\,H(\gamma_b-\gamma)\,,
402: \eeq i.e., a power law distribution with index $-3/2$ for $\gamma_{\rm
403: b} \ll \gamma_{\rm max}^{\rm IC}$. The emergent (singly scattered,
404: Thomson) inverse Compton spectrum $j_{\rm IC}(\nu)$ from such a hard
405: electron distribution would follow a power law $j_{\rm IC}(\nu) \propto
406: \nu^{-\alpha}$ with index $\alpha =0.25$ for $\nu \ll 4\,\gamma_{\rm
407: b}^2 \nu_s$. Integrating Eq.~(\ref{diff}) over $\gamma$ gives the number
408: of particles along a field line $N\simeq Q/\Omega$. Electrons, escaping
409: quasi-monoenergetically with $\gamma_b \sim 10^7$ from the
410: acceleration mechanism and encountering the Comptonized disk photons
411: ($\nu >\nu_s$), can Thomson upscatter them to the TeV regime, producing
412: a power law-like energy distribution above $4 \gamma_{\rm b}^2 \nu_s$ with
413: index $\alpha_c \sim 1.2$, consistent with the value $1.22 \pm 0.15$
414: derived for the HESS 2005 observations of M87 (Aharonian et al. 2006).
415:
416: (4) The number of escaping particles per unit time is $n_e \sim
417: n(\gamma_b)\gamma_b/\tau_{\rm esc}$. Thus, within some time smaller
418: than the cooling time ($\Delta t=\rho\,t_{\rm cool}, \rho<1$), we
419: accumulate $N_b \sim n_e \Delta t$ particles that can IC upscatter
420: Comptonized disk photons. We can roughly estimate the associated
421: TeV luminosity from $L_{\rm IC} \sim N_b\,P_{\rm IC}$, where
422: $P_{\rm IC}=1.3 \sigma_T c \gamma_b^2 U_{\rm ph}$ is the single
423: particle Compton power per unit volume. This gives
424: \beq
425: L_{\rm IC} \sim 10^{40} \,\rho\,
426: \left(\frac{\gamma_{\rm b}}{5 \times 10^7}\right)^{2}
427: \left(\frac{N}{10^{36}}\right)
428: \left(\frac{5 r_s}{r_{\rm L}}\right)\;\,
429: \mathrm{erg/s}\,.
430: \eeq To achieve a Compton luminosity comparable to the observed TeV
431: luminosity of $L_{\rm TeV} \simeq 3 \times 10^{40}$ erg/s (Aharonian
432: et al. 2006), we thus need $N \sim 3 \times 10^{36}/\rho$ particles
433: along field lines. Denoting the relevant acceleration volume by
434: $\Delta V \sim \eta\,r_{\rm L}^2\,\Delta r$, with characteristic length
435: scale $\Delta r =|\gamma/(\pad\gamma/\pad r)| \sim (\gamma_0/\gamma_b)\,
436: r_{\rm L}$ and $\eta < 1$, the corresponding kinetic energy density
437: $n(\gamma_b)\gamma_b^2 m_e\,c^2/\Delta V$ (for $\rho\,\eta \gppr
438: 10^{-5}$) is still well below the energy density $B^2/(8 \pi)$ of the
439: magnetic field, suggesting that the presumed (quasi force-free) MHD
440: field structure is still a valid approximation (cf. also Osmanov et
441: al.~2007).
442:
443: (5) In principle, TeV gamma-rays can be strongly attenuated due to
444: photon-photon pair production in the background disk photon field.
445: The narrow dependence of the cross-section $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$
446: on the product of photon energies implies that VHE photons of energy
447: $E$ interact most efficiently with infrared background photons of
448: energy $\epsilon_{\rm IR}\simeq (1 \mathrm{TeV}/E)$ eV. The optical
449: depth $\tau$ for a $\gamma$-ray photon in a background field of
450: infrared luminosity $L_{\rm IR}$ and size $R_{\rm IR}$ thus becomes
451: (cf. NA07)
452: \beq
453: \tau(E,R_{\rm IR}) = \frac{L_{\rm IR}\sigma_{\gamma \gamma}}{4
454: \pi R_{\rm IR} \epsilon_{\rm IR}}
455: \simeq 0.2 \left(\frac{L_{\rm IR}}{10^{41}
456: \mathrm{erg/s}}\right)
457: \left(\frac{r_{\rm l}}{R_{\rm IR}}\right)
458: \left(\frac{E}{1 \mathrm{TeV}}\right)\,,
459: \eeq indicating that due to its low bolometric luminosity M87 could be
460: well transparent to VHE gamma-rays, even if almost all of the observed
461: infrared luminosity $L_{\rm IR} \simeq 10^{41}$ erg/s (Whysong \&
462: Antonucci~2004) is (somewhat unrealistically) taken to be produced on
463: a scale $R_{\rm IR} \sim r_{\rm l}\sim 60\,r_s$. Note that even if $\tau$
464: would become larger than one, $\gamma$-rays from the last transparent
465: layer are still able to escape, so that the VHE flux would not simply
466: decrease exponentially by $\exp(-\tau)$, but only by a factor of
467: $\sim \tau$ (NA07).
468:
469: (6) The number of electrons escaping quasi-monoenergetically from the
470: acceleration mechanism in the vicinity of the light cylinder is of
471: order $N_b$. Once these energetic particles encounter non-vanishing
472: perpendicular and/or the turbulent plasma magnetic fields, they can
473: produce synchrotron emission arising as $L_{\nu} \propto \nu^{1/3}$
474: below, and decaying exponentially above the peak frequency $\nu_{\rm
475: syn} \sim 50 \,(\gamma_b/5\times10^7)^2 (B\,\sin\alpha/1\,
476: \mathrm{G})$ MeV with a total luminosity of order $L_{\rm syn} \sim
477: P_{\rm syn}\,N_b \sim 0.06\,L_{\rm IC}\, (B \sin\alpha)^2$, where
478: $P_{\rm syn}$ is the single particle synchrotron power. In order to
479: satisfy the restrictions imposed by the existing (yet non-contemporaneous)
480: upper limit on the M87 flux in the EGRET energy band above 100 MeV
481: (e.g., Reimer et al. 2003), the effectively encountered fields should
482: be smaller than $\sim 1$ Gauss. This seems consistent with independent
483: estimates suggesting a strength of the random field component close
484: to the black hole of below one Gauss (NA07).
485: The overall spectral energy distribution in M87 is then likely to
486: consist of a number of different contributions, involving also other
487: leptonic (Georganopoulos et al. 2003; NA07) and perhaps even hadronic
488: (Reimer et al. 2004) processes. If so, then no straighforward X-ray--TeV
489: correlation might be expected.
490:
491: (7) As shown above, accelerating particles up to the light cylinder
492: typically takes a time $r_{\rm L}/c$, suggesting a characteristic
493: variability time scale for M87 of $t_v \simeq \frac{r_{\rm L}}{c}
494: \sim \frac{5\,r_s}{c} \simeq 1.7$ days, well consistent with the
495: observed TeV time scale of $\Delta t \sim 2$ days, a fact that
496: may further validate the assumptions of the presented model.
497:
498:
499: \section{Conclusions}
500: VHE radiation from low-luminous, non-blazar AGN jet sources like M87
501: could provide an ideal test laboratory for the analysis of particle
502: acceleration processes close to the supermassive black hole event
503: horizon. In blazars with their relativistic jets pointing towards us,
504: most of these traces are likely to be masked by strong relativistic
505: beaming effects, while for luminous quasars internal absorption of
506: gamma-rays becomes dominant. Based on a simple toy model we have
507: shown that efficient centrifugal acceleration of electrons in the
508: vicinity of the light cylinder could provide a natural explanation
509: for variable (time scale of one day) VHE emission with a hard
510: inverse Compton spectrum as observed in M87. Our models fits
511: well with other evidence for advection-dominated accretion in M87
512: and may indeed be regarded as providing some further corroboration
513: for the presence of such modes in highly underluminous AGNs.\\
514: As always, there are a number of subtleties whose impact on the
515: presented results need to be explored in more details including
516: general relativistic effects, anisotropic scattering modifications,
517: quasi rigid rotation and plasma instabilities. The extent to which
518: our conclusions might be affected may require fully relativistic
519: modelling. Yet, given the demonstrated potential of centrifugal
520: acceleration and our current understanding of relativistic jet
521: formation, this may represent a program worth pursuing.
522:
523: \begin{acknowledgements}
524: Discussion with and comments by John Kirk, Christian Fendt and
525: Karl Mannheim are gratefully acknowledged.
526: \end{acknowledgements}
527:
528: \begin{thebibliography}{}
529:
530: \bibitem[2006]{aha06}
531: Aharonian, F., et al. (HESS collaboration) 2006, Science 314, 1424
532:
533: \bibitem[2007]{aha07}
534: Aharonian, F., et al. (HESS collaboration) 2007, ApJL 664, L71
535:
536: \bibitem[2007]{alb07}
537: Albert, J., et al. (MAGIC collaboration) 2007, ApJ 669, 862
538:
539: \bibitem[1999]{bir99}
540: Biretta, J.A., Sparks, W.B., Macchetto, F. 1999, ApJ 520, 621
541:
542: \bibitem[1982]{bla82}
543: Blandford, R.D., Payne, D.G. 1982, MNRAS 199,883
544:
545: \bibitem[1997]{bog97}
546: Bogovalov, S.V. 1997, A\&A 327, 662
547:
548: \bibitem[1992]{cam92}
549: Camenzind, M., Krockenberger, M. 1992, A\&A 255, 59
550:
551: \bibitem[1999]{cam99}
552: Camenzind, M. 1999, in: The radio galaxy Messier 87, eds.
553: H.-J. R\"oser \& K. Meisenheimer, LNP 530, p. 252
554:
555: \bibitem[1996]{che96}
556: Chedia, O.V., Kahniashvili, T.A., et al. 1996, Ap\&SS 239, 57
557:
558: \bibitem[2007]{che07}
559: Cheung, C.C., Harris, D.E., Stawarz, L. 2007, ApJL 663, L65
560:
561: \bibitem[1999]{con99}
562: Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., Fendt, C. 1999, ApJ 511, 351
563:
564: \bibitem[2003]{dim03}
565: Di Matteo, T. et al. 2003, ApJ 582, 133
566:
567: \bibitem[1997]{fen97}
568: Fendt, C. 1997, A\&A 319, 1025
569:
570: \bibitem[2001]{fen01}
571: Fendt, C., Memola, E. 2001, A\&A 365, 631
572:
573: \bibitem[1996]{gai96}
574: Gaidos, J.A., et al. (Whipple collaboration) 1996, Nature 383, 319
575:
576: \bibitem[1996]{gan96}
577: Gangadhara, R.T. 1996, A\&A 314, 853
578:
579: \bibitem[1997]{gan97}
580: Gangadhara, R.T., Lesch, H. 1997, A\&A 323, L45
581:
582: \bibitem[2003]{geo03}
583: Georganopoulos, M., Perlman, E.S., Kazanas, D. 2003, ApJL 634, L33
584:
585: \bibitem[1969]{gol69}
586: Gold, T. 1969, Nature 221, 25
587:
588: \bibitem[2006]{kri06}
589: Krichbaum, T.P. et al. 2006, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 54, 328
590:
591: \bibitem[2000]{kov07}
592: Kovalev Y.Y., et al. 2007, ApJL 668, L27
593:
594: \bibitem[2007]{ly07}
595: Ly, C., Walker, R.C., Junor, W. 2007, ApJ 660, 200
596:
597: \bibitem[1994]{mac94}
598: Machabeli, G.Z., Rogava, A.D. 1994, Phys. Rev. A 50, 98
599:
600: \bibitem[1996]{mac96}
601: Machabeli, G.Z., Nanobashvili, I.S., Rogava, A.D. 1996,
602: Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics 39, 26
603:
604: \bibitem[2005]{mac05}
605: Machabeli, G.Z., Osmanov, Z.N., Mahajan, S.M. 2005, PhPL
606: 12, 2901
607:
608: \bibitem[1997]{mah97}
609: Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ 477, 585
610:
611: \bibitem[2007]{mar07}
612: Marconi, A. et al. 1997, MNRAS 289, L21
613:
614: \bibitem[2002]{mar02}
615: Marshall, H.L., et al. 2002, MNRAS 564, 683
616:
617: \bibitem[2002]{mas02}
618: Mastichiadis, A., Kirk, J.G. 2002, PASA 19, 138
619:
620: \bibitem[2001]{mei01}
621: Meier, D.L., Koide, S., Uchida, Y. 2001, Science 291, 84
622:
623: \bibitem[1998]{nar98}
624: Narayan, R., Mahadevan R., Quataert, E. 1998, in:
625: Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, eds. M.A. Abramowicz et al.,
626: Cambridge, p. 148
627:
628: \bibitem[2007]{ner07}
629: Neronov, A., Aharonian, F.A. 2007, ApJ 671, 85 (NA07)
630:
631: \bibitem[2007]{osm07}
632: Osmanov, Z., Rogava, A., Bodo, G. 2007, A\&A 470, 395
633:
634: \bibitem[2000]{owe00}
635: Owen, F.N., Eilek, J.A., Kassim, N.E. 2000, ApJ 543, 611
636:
637: \bibitem[2004]{rei04}
638: Reimer, A., Protheroe, R.J., Donea, A.-C. 2004, A\&A 419, 89
639:
640: \bibitem[2003]{rei03}
641: Reimer, O., Pohl, M., Sreekumar, P., Mattox, J.R. 2003, ApJ 588, 155
642:
643: \bibitem[1996]{rey96}
644: Reynolds, C.S. et al. 1996, MNRAS 283, L111
645:
646: \bibitem[2004]{rie04}
647: Rieger, F.M. 2004, ApJL 615, L5
648:
649: \bibitem[2000]{rie00}
650: Rieger, F.M., Mannheim, K. 2000, A\&A 353, 473 (RM00)
651:
652: \bibitem[1998]{sal98}
653: Salvati, M., Spada, M., Pacini, F. 1998, ApJL 495, L19
654:
655: \bibitem[2007]{tho07}
656: Thomas, R.M.C., Gangadhara, R.T. 2007, A\&A 467, 911
657:
658: \bibitem[2004]{why04}
659: Whysong, D., Antonucci, R. 2004, ApJ 602, 116
660:
661: \bibitem[2002]{xu02}
662: Xu, Y.D. 2002, A\&A 381, 357
663:
664: \bibitem[1999]{yi99}
665: Yi, I. 1999, in: Astrophysical Disks, ASP Conf. Ser. 160,
666: eds. J.A. Sellwood, J. Goodman, p.~279
667:
668: \bibitem[1998]{yi1998}
669: Yi, I., Boughn, S.P. 1998, ApJ 499, 198
670:
671: \end{thebibliography}
672:
673: \end{document}
674:
675: