1: \documentclass[a4]{emulateapj}
2:
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %%\usepackage{graphicx,amssymb,amsmath,times}
14: %\setcounter{page}{1}
15:
16: \shorttitle{MAGIC observations of the unidentified TeV $\gamma$-ray source TeV J2032+4130}
17: \shortauthors{Albert et al.}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{MAGIC observations of the unidentified $\gamma$-ray source TeV J2032+4130}
22: \author{
23: J.~Albert\altaffilmark{a},
24: E.~Aliu\altaffilmark{b},
25: H.~Anderhub\altaffilmark{c},
26: P.~Antoranz\altaffilmark{d},
27: C.~Baixeras\altaffilmark{e},
28: J.~A.~Barrio\altaffilmark{d},
29: H.~Bartko\altaffilmark{f},
30: D.~Bastieri\altaffilmark{g},
31: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{h},
32: W.~Bednarek\altaffilmark{i},
33: K.~Berger\altaffilmark{a},
34: C.~Bigongiari\altaffilmark{g},
35: A.~Biland\altaffilmark{c},
36: R.~K.~Bock\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{g},
37: G.~Bonnoli\altaffilmark{o},
38: P.~Bordas\altaffilmark{j},
39: V.~Bosch-Ramon\altaffilmark{j},
40: T.~Bretz\altaffilmark{a},
41: I.~Britvitch\altaffilmark{c},
42: M.~Camara\altaffilmark{d},
43: E.~Carmona\altaffilmark{f},
44: A.~Chilingarian\altaffilmark{k},
45: S.~Commichau\altaffilmark{c},
46: J.~L.~Contreras\altaffilmark{d},
47: J.~Cortina\altaffilmark{b}\altaffilmark{\dag},
48: M.T.~Costado\altaffilmark{m,}\altaffilmark{v},
49: V.~Curtef\altaffilmark{h},
50: F.~Dazzi\altaffilmark{g},
51: A.~De Angelis\altaffilmark{n},
52: C.~Delgado\altaffilmark{m},
53: R.~de~los~Reyes\altaffilmark{d},
54: E.~Domingo-Santamar\'\i a\altaffilmark{b},
55: B.~De Lotto\altaffilmark{n},
56: M.~De Maria\altaffilmark{n},
57: F.~De Sabata\altaffilmark{n},
58: D.~Dorner\altaffilmark{a},
59: M.~Doro\altaffilmark{g},
60: M.~Errando\altaffilmark{b},
61: M.~Fagiolini\altaffilmark{o},
62: D.~Ferenc\altaffilmark{p},
63: E.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{b},
64: R.~Firpo\altaffilmark{b},
65: M.~V.~Fonseca\altaffilmark{d},
66: L.~Font\altaffilmark{e},
67: N.~Galante\altaffilmark{f},
68: R.J.~Garc\'{\i}a-L\'opez\altaffilmark{m,}\altaffilmark{v},
69: M.~Garczarczyk\altaffilmark{f},
70: M.~Gaug\altaffilmark{m},
71: F.~Goebel\altaffilmark{f},
72: M.~Hayashida\altaffilmark{f},
73: A.~Herrero\altaffilmark{m,}\altaffilmark{v},
74: D.~H\"ohne\altaffilmark{a},
75: J.~Hose\altaffilmark{f},
76: C.~C.~Hsu\altaffilmark{f},
77: S.~Huber\altaffilmark{a},
78: T.~Jogler\altaffilmark{f},
79: R.~Kosyra\altaffilmark{f},
80: D.~Kranich\altaffilmark{c},
81: A.~Laille\altaffilmark{p},
82: E.~Leonardo\altaffilmark{o},
83: E.~Lindfors\altaffilmark{l},
84: S.~Lombardi\altaffilmark{g},
85: F.~Longo\altaffilmark{n},
86: M.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{d},
87: E.~Lorenz\altaffilmark{c,}\altaffilmark{f},
88: P.~Majumdar\altaffilmark{f},
89: G.~Maneva\altaffilmark{r},
90: N.~Mankuzhiyil\altaffilmark{n},
91: K.~Mannheim\altaffilmark{a},
92: M.~Mariotti\altaffilmark{g},
93: M.~Mart\'\i nez\altaffilmark{b},
94: D.~Mazin\altaffilmark{b},
95: C.~Merck\altaffilmark{f},
96: M.~Meucci\altaffilmark{o},
97: M.~Meyer\altaffilmark{a},
98: J.~M.~Miranda\altaffilmark{d},
99: R.~Mirzoyan\altaffilmark{f},
100: S.~Mizobuchi\altaffilmark{f},
101: A.~Moralejo\altaffilmark{b},
102: D.~Nieto\altaffilmark{d},
103: K.~Nilsson\altaffilmark{l},
104: J.~Ninkovic\altaffilmark{f},
105: E.~O\~na-Wilhelmi\altaffilmark{b}\altaffilmark{y}\altaffilmark{\dag},
106: N.~Otte\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{q},
107: I.~Oya\altaffilmark{d},
108: M.~Panniello\altaffilmark{m,}\altaffilmark{x},
109: R.~Paoletti\altaffilmark{o},
110: J.~M.~Paredes\altaffilmark{j},
111: M.~Pasanen\altaffilmark{l},
112: D.~Pascoli\altaffilmark{g},
113: F.~Pauss\altaffilmark{c},
114: R.~Pegna\altaffilmark{o},
115: M.~Persic\altaffilmark{n,}\altaffilmark{s},
116: L.~Peruzzo\altaffilmark{g},
117: A.~Piccioli\altaffilmark{o},
118: E.~Prandini\altaffilmark{g},
119: N.~Puchades\altaffilmark{b},
120: A.~Raymers\altaffilmark{k},
121: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{h},
122: M.~Rib\'o\altaffilmark{j},
123: J.~Rico\altaffilmark{b},
124: M.~Rissi\altaffilmark{c},
125: A.~Robert\altaffilmark{e},
126: S.~R\"ugamer\altaffilmark{a},
127: A.~Saggion\altaffilmark{g},
128: T.~Y.~Saito\altaffilmark{f},
129: A.~S\'anchez\altaffilmark{e},
130: P.~Sartori\altaffilmark{g},
131: V.~Scalzotto\altaffilmark{g},
132: V.~Scapin\altaffilmark{n},
133: R.~Schmitt\altaffilmark{a},
134: T.~Schweizer\altaffilmark{f},
135: M.~Shayduk\altaffilmark{q,}\altaffilmark{f},
136: K.~Shinozaki\altaffilmark{f},
137: S.~N.~Shore\altaffilmark{t},
138: N.~Sidro\altaffilmark{b},
139: A.~Sillanp\"a\"a\altaffilmark{l},
140: D.~Sobczynska\altaffilmark{i},
141: F.~Spanier\altaffilmark{a},
142: A.~Stamerra\altaffilmark{o},
143: L.~S.~Stark\altaffilmark{c},
144: L.~Takalo\altaffilmark{l},
145: P.~Temnikov\altaffilmark{r},
146: D.~Tescaro\altaffilmark{b},
147: M.~Teshima\altaffilmark{f},
148: D.~F.~Torres\altaffilmark{u}\altaffilmark{\dag},
149: N.~Turini\altaffilmark{o},
150: H.~Vankov\altaffilmark{r},
151: A.~Venturini\altaffilmark{g},
152: V.~Vitale\altaffilmark{n},
153: R.~M.~Wagner\altaffilmark{f},
154: W.~Wittek\altaffilmark{f},
155: F.~Zandanel\altaffilmark{g},
156: R.~Zanin\altaffilmark{b},
157: J.~Zapatero\altaffilmark{e}
158: }
159: \altaffiltext{A} {Universit\"at W\"urzburg, D-97074 W\"urzburg, Germany}
160: \altaffiltext{B} {IFAE, Edifici Cn., E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain}
161: \altaffiltext{C} {ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Switzerland}
162: \altaffiltext{D} {Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
163: \altaffiltext{E} {Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
164: \altaffiltext{F} {Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
165: \altaffiltext{G} {Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy}
166: \altaffiltext{H} {Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany}
167: \altaffiltext{I} {University of \L\'od\'z, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland}
168: \altaffiltext{J} {Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
169: \altaffiltext{K} {Yerevan Physics Institute, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
170: \altaffiltext{L} {Tuorla Observatory, Turku University, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
171: \altaffiltext{M} {Inst. de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38200, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
172: \altaffiltext{N} {Universit\`a di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy}
173: \altaffiltext{O} {Universit\`a di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy}
174: \altaffiltext{P} {University of California, Davis, CA-95616-8677, USA}
175: \altaffiltext{Q} {Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
176: \altaffiltext{R} {Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
177: \altaffiltext{S} {INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico and INFN, I-34131 Trieste, Italy}
178: \altaffiltext{T} {Universit\`a di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}
179: \altaffiltext{U} {ICREA \& Institut de Ci\`encies de l'Espai (IEEC-CSIC), 08193 Barcelona, Spain}
180: \altaffiltext{V} {Depto. de Astrofisica, Universidad, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
181: \altaffiltext{X} {deceased}
182: \altaffiltext{Y} {Present address: APC (CNRS) Paris, France}
183: \altaffiltext{\dag} {Corresponding authors}
184:
185:
186: \begin{abstract}
187: We observed the first known very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray
188: emitting unidentified source, TeV J2032+4130, for 94 hours with the
189: MAGIC telescope. The source was detected with a significance of
190: 5.6$\sigma$. The flux, position, and angular extension are compatible
191: with the previous ones measured by the HEGRA telescope system five
192: years ago. The integral flux amounts to (4.5$\pm$0.3$_{\rm
193: stat}\pm$0.35$_{\rm sys}$)$\times$10$^{-13}$ ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
194: above 1~TeV. The source energy spectrum, obtained with the lowest
195: energy threshold to date, is compatible with a single power law with a
196: hard photon index of $\Gamma$=-2.0$\pm$0.3$_{\rm stat}\pm$0.2$_{\rm
197: sys}$.
198: \end{abstract}
199:
200: \keywords{gamma rays: observations}
201:
202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
203: \section{Introduction}
204:
205: The TeV source J2032+4130 (Aharonian et al. 2002) was the first
206: unidentified very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray source, and also
207: the first discovered extended TeV source, likely to be Galactic.
208:
209: Intensive observational campaigns at different wavelengths have been
210: carried out on TeV J2032+4130. Butt et al. (2003) presented an
211: analysis of the CO, HI, and infrared emissions, together with first
212: observations by {\it Chandra} (5 ksec) and a reanalysis of VLA
213: data. These observations showed that the TeV source region is
214: positionally coincident with an outlying group of stars (from the
215: Cygnus OB2 core), although they failed to identify a
216: counterpart. Mukherjee et al. (2003) analyzed the same {\it Chandra}
217: data and provided optical follow-up observations of several of the
218: brightest X-ray sources, confirming that most were either O stars or
219: foreground late-type stars. A deeper {\it Chandra} observation (50
220: ksec, Butt et al. 2006), found hundreds of star-like sources and yet
221: no diffuse X-ray counterpart emission.
222:
223: A deep ($\sim$ 50~ksec) \textit{XMM-Newton} exposure has also been
224: obtained (Horns et al. 2007). After the subtraction of the
225: contribution of known sources from the data, an extended X-ray
226: emission region with a FWHM size of $\sim$~12 arcmin was reported. The
227: centroid of the emission is co-located with the position of TeV
228: J2032+4130 and was proposed as the counterpart of the TeV source. The
229: question whether the result reported by Horns et al. can be interpreted
230: as a truly diffuse background, or it could be a result of unresolved
231: X-ray sources, remains disputable.
232:
233:
234: Paredes et al. (2007) and Mart\'i et al. (2007) have provided deep
235: radio observations covering the TeV J2032+4130 vicinity using the
236: Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope and discovered a population of radio
237: sources, some in coincidence with X-ray detections by Butt et
238: al. (2006) and with optical/IR counterparts. At least three of these
239: sources are non-thermal, and one has a hard X-ray energy spectrum. They found
240: extended non-thermal diffuse emission in the radio band apparently
241: connecting with one or two radio sources. It is yet to be determined
242: if one or more of these sources is similar to some of the known
243: $\gamma$-ray binaries (e.g., Aharonian et al. 2006, Albert et
244: al. 2006a).
245:
246: Several theoretical explanations for the TeV emission from J2032+4130
247: have been given. Among them, those related with extragalactic
248: counterparts, e.g., a radiogalaxy (Butt et al. 2006) or a proton
249: blazar (Mukherjee et al. 2003), face the difficulty of explaining the
250: extended appearance of the source. Gamma-ray production in
251: hypothetical jet termination lobes of Cyg X-3 was explored (Aharonian
252: et al. 2002), but the putative northern lobe of Cyg X-3 (now
253: considered a mere thermal HII region, Mart\'i et al. 2006) is far from
254: the location of the TeV source. A yet unknown pulsar wind nebula (PWN)
255: was proposed by Bednarek (2003), although no clear PWN signal was
256: observed. A distant microquasar was proposed by Paredes et al. (2007),
257: perhaps related with one of the X-ray/radio sources they
258: discovered. If such an association is accepted, the extension of the
259: source could be explained by the diffusion of accelerated particles
260: into a hypothetical nearby molecular enhancement (see Bosch-Ramon et
261: al. 2005). Torres et al. (2004) and Domingo-Santamar\'ia \& Torres
262: (2006) studied the relationship between the TeV emission and the known
263: massive stars in the area, through the interaction of relativistic
264: protons with wind ions. The distribution of stars in the neighborhood
265: favors this interpretation (Butt et al. 2006). An explanation
266: involving the excitation of giant dipole resonances of relativistic
267: heavy nuclei in radiation dominated environments has also been
268: suggested (Anchordoqui et al. 2007).
269:
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: \section{Previous very high energy $\gamma$-ray observations }
272:
273: We start by making a brief summary of what has been claimed by other
274: experiments observing at the highest energies.
275:
276: %The Crimean
277: %Astrophysical Observatory group reported a significant excess
278: %($\sim$6.0$\sigma$ pre-trial) at about 0.7$^{\circ}$ north of Cygnus X-3
279: %from a two-dimensional study of data taken in 1993 (Neshpor et
280: %al. 1995). Assuming an integral photon index of $\Gamma$=-1.5, the
281: %flux of this source above 1 TeV was reported to be 3$\times$10$^{-11}$
282: %cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, or about 1.7 times the flux of the Crab Nebula.
283:
284: %Later,
285: The HEGRA IACT using four years of data (from 1999 to 2002) found a
286: source to the north of Cygnus X-3, steady in flux over the years,
287: extended, with radius 6.2$\pm$1.2$_{\rm stat}\pm$0.9$_{\rm
288: sys}$~arcmin, and exhibiting a hard energy spectrum with a photon
289: index of $\Gamma$=-1.9$\pm$ 0.1$_{\rm stat}\pm$0.3$_{\rm sys}$
290: (Aharonian et al. 2005). Its integral flux above 1~TeV amounts to
291: $\sim$5\% of the Crab Nebula, assuming a Gaussian profile for the
292: intrinsic source morphology. The center of the source position was
293: determined quite accurately at $\alpha_{\rm J2000}$=20$^{\rm h}$
294: 31$^{\rm m}$ 57$\fs0$ $\pm$ 6$\fs2_{\rm stat}$ $\pm$ 13$\fs7_{\rm
295: sys}$ and $\delta_{\rm J2000}$=41$\degr$29$\arcmin$56$\farcs$8$ \pm$
296: 1$\farcm1_{\rm stat}$ $\pm$ 1$\farcm0_{\rm sys}$.
297:
298: The Whipple collaboration reported an excess at the position of the
299: HEGRA unidentified source (3.3$\sigma$) in their archival data of 1989
300: and 1990 (Lang et al. 2004), with a flux level of $\sim$ 12\% of the
301: Crab Nebula for E$>$600 GeV. The detected flux is in conflict with the HEGRA
302: flux level and steady nature of the source, assuming they all have the
303: same origin. This large difference between the detected flux levels,
304: if physical, might suggest episodic emission (with low duty cycle) or
305: variability over timescale measured in years. Nevertheless, the
306: existence of $\gamma$-ray variability is difficult to reconcile with
307: the extended appearance of the source. Also the large difference might
308: be in part due to unspecified systematic errors on the flux
309: determination.
310: %
311: Recently, the Whipple collaboration reported new observations of this
312: field done with their 10-m telescope for 65.5 hours during 2003 and
313: 2005 (Konopelko et al. 2007). Their data is consistent with either a
314: point-like or an extended source with less than 6$^\prime$ angular
315: size. Regarding the position, the HEGRA and the latest Whipple data
316: are barely in agreement: Their centers of gravity are $\sim$9$^\prime$
317: apart, and only agree when adding up the spatial uncertainties in both
318: data sets in opposite directions. Konopelko et al. do not provide a
319: energy spectrum for this source, but give a 8\% Crab-level flux (although
320: with no energy threshold specified) under the assumption of a steep
321: (Crab-like) energy spectrum.
322:
323: The Cygnus region shows an excess in the Milagro data (Abdo et
324: al. 2006). The flux at 20~TeV in a 3x3 square degree region centered
325: at the HEGRA position is (9.8$\pm$2.9$_{\rm stat}\pm$2.7$_{\rm sys}$)
326: $\times$10$^{\rm -15}$ TeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ assuming a
327: differential energy spectrum E$^{\rm -2.6}$. This flux is three times
328: the HEGRA flux extrapolated at 20~TeV. The Tibet Air Shower detector
329: recently reported evidence for an excess also in their VHE
330: $\gamma$-ray candidate set from this region (Amenomori et al. 2006).
331:
332: In this rich observational and theoretical context we report here on
333: MAGIC telescope observations of TeV J2032+4130.
334:
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336: \section{MAGIC observations and results}
337:
338: The MAGIC single dish Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescope (see e.g.,
339: Cortina et al. 2005 for a detailed description) is located on the
340: Canary Island of La Palma.
341: %
342: Its angular (energy) resolution is approximately 0.09$^{\rm \circ}$
343: (20\%), and the trigger (analysis) threshold is 55 (60) GeV at zenith
344: in dark conditions (see Albert et al. 2007a). One of the unique
345: characteristics of MAGIC is its capability of observing under moderate
346: Moon light illumination (Albert et al. 2007b) albeit with a slightly
347: elevated threshold.
348: %
349:
350: The field of view of TeV~J2032+4130 was observed with MAGIC for more
351: than 100 hours distributed in 2005, 2006 and 2007, see
352: table~\ref{tab1}. During the first period in Summer 2005, the
353: observation was carried out in ON/OFF mode, that is, the source was
354: observed on-axis while observations from an empty, nearby field of
355: view were used to estimate the background. In Summer 2006 and 2007,
356: the data were taken in Wobble mode, using five positions around the
357: HEGRA position instead of the usual two symmetrical position in order
358: to monitor a wider field of view. Quality cuts based on the trigger
359: and after-cleaning rates were applied in order to remove bad weather
360: runs and data spoiled by car or satellite light flashes. After these
361: quality cuts the total observation time is 93.7~h. The energy range
362: for which we report these results is significantly above the
363: aforementioned trigger and analysis threshold energies due to the fact
364: that the observations were scheduled during moonlight and at
365: relatively high zenith angles (up to 44$^o$).
366:
367:
368:
369: The data analysis was carried out using the standard MAGIC analysis
370: and reconstruction software (Bretz \& Wagner 2003). It follows the
371: general stream explained in Albert et al. (2006b,c,d). After
372: calibration and two levels of image cleaning tail cuts (for image core
373: and boundary pixels, see Fegan 1997), the camera images are
374: parameterized by the so-called image parameters (Hillas 1985). The
375: Random Forest method was applied for the $\gamma$/hadron separation
376: (Albert et al. 2007c). Using this method a parameter, dubbed
377: hadronness (H), can be calculated for every event and which is a
378: measure of the probability that the event is not $\gamma$ like. The
379: $\gamma$ like sample is selected for images with a H below a specified
380: value, which is optimized using a sample of Crab Nebula data processed
381: with the same analysis stream. An independent sample of Monte Carlo
382: $\gamma$-showers was used to determine the cut efficiency.
383: %
384: Since part of our observations was recorded during partial moon-shine,
385: we have corrected the efficiency loss due to the increase of ambient
386: light following the procedure outlined in Albert et al. (2007b).
387: %
388:
389: The $\theta^2$-distribution was calculated, being $\theta$ the angular
390: distance between the source direction and the reconstructed arrival
391: direction of the showers. The reconstruction of individual
392: $\gamma$-ray arrival directions makes use of the DISP method
393: (Domingo-Santamaria et al. 2005). The expected number of background
394: events is calculated using five regions symmetrically placed for each
395: wobble position with respect to the center of the camera and refered
396: to as anti-sources. Figure \ref{fig1} shows the distribution of the
397: $\theta^2$ parameter for the excess observed from the direction of the
398: source, for a SIZE cut of 800 photoelectrons (pe). This relatively
399: high SIZE cut was selected in order to optimize the sensitivity for a
400: source with such a hard energy spectrum observed during
401: moonlight. Therefore, the total number of $\gamma$-like excesses after
402: Hillas cuts and applying a cut in $\theta^2<$0.05, is $N_{\rm
403: ex}=233$, for which a total significance of $5.6\sigma$ is
404: obtained. Table~\ref{tab2} shows the number of excesses above
405: background for the different observing periods.
406:
407: The excess is fitted to a Gaussian function folded with the telescope
408: PSF, as obtained from Monte Carlo simulations and validated with Crab
409: Nebula observations. The source is extended with respect to the MAGIC
410: PSF. Its intrinsic size assuming a Gaussian profile is $\sigma_{\rm
411: src}$ =5.0$\pm$1.7$_{\rm sta}\pm$0.6$_{\rm sys}$ arcmin. The exact
412: shape of the source, even if similar to the keV diffuse emission
413: reported by Horns et al. 2007, cannot be completely trusted due to
414: limited statistics and telescope pointing systematics.
415:
416: Figure \ref{fig2} shows the Gaussian-smoothed ($\sigma$=4') map
417: (0.65$^{o}\times$0.65$^{o}$) of $\gamma$-ray (background subtracted)
418: around TeV J2032+4130 for energies E $>$ 500~GeV. The position of a
419: few previously observed $\gamma$-ray source candidates are also shown,
420: namely Cyg X-3, the EGRET source 3EG~J2033+4118 (with its confidence
421: contour at 95$\%$), the Wolf Rayet star WR~146, and the Whipple and
422: HEGRA experimental positions. The regions around Cyg X-3, WR~146 and
423: 3EG~J2033+4118 have been further investigated by us and no detection
424: is obtained for a steady emission. The upper limit fluxes (Rolke et
425: al. 2005) for 95$\%$ confidence level, above 500 GeV for a point-like
426: source at these positions are given in table \ref{tab3}.
427:
428: To determine the best position of the MAGIC detection the excess map
429: was fitted to a 2D bell-shaped function. The result is shown in the
430: skymap with a black cross as well as by a circle indicating its
431: size. The best-fit coordinates are RA$_{\rm J2000}$=20$^{\rm h}$
432: 32$^{\rm m}$ 20$^{\rm s}$ $\pm$ 11$^{\rm s}_{\rm stat}$ $\pm $11$^{\rm
433: s}_{\rm sys}$ and DEC$_{\rm J2000}$=41$\degr$ 30$\arcmin$ 36$\farcs$0
434: $\pm$ 1$\farcm2_{\rm stat}$ $\pm$ 1$\farcm8_{\rm sys}$ (for more
435: details on the systematic uncertainties in the source position
436: determination, see Bretz et al. 2003). The position found is
437: compatible within errors with the one determined by HEGRA, and barely
438: compatible with the claims by Whipple mentioned above (in Konopelko et
439: al. 2007).
440:
441:
442: The TeV J2032+4130 energy spectrum was obtained using the Tikhonov
443: unfolding technique (Tikhonov $\&$ Arsenin 1979). It can be fitted
444: ($\chi^2/n.d.f=0.3$) by a power law function. The differential flux
445: (TeV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) is:
446: \begin{equation}
447: \frac{dN}{dE dA dt} = (4.5\pm 0.3)\times10^{-13}(E/1~TeV)^{-2.0\pm0.3}
448: \end{equation}
449: The errors quoted are only statistical. The systematic error is
450: estimated to be 35$\%$ in the flux level and 0.2 in the photon index
451: (see Albert et al. 2007a). The differential energy spectrum is shown
452: in Figure \ref{fig3}. The HEGRA TeV J2032+4130 and MAGIC Crab Nebula
453: measured spectra (in Albert et al. 2007a) are shown in blue solid line
454: and black dotted line, respectively. The MAGIC energy spectrum is
455: compatible both in flux level and photon index with the one measured
456: by HEGRA.
457:
458: Crab Nebula data from the same periods and zenith angle distributions
459: were studied with the same analysis chain to check for any systematic
460: deviation due to the long observation period. No indication of time
461: variability was observed: the source integral flux is constant within
462: errors, at 3$\%$ of the Crab Nebula flux. The relative systematic
463: uncertainty in the ratio of both fluxes was estimated to be less than
464: 10$\%$. This uncertainty comes mainly from the slightly different
465: atmospheric transmission conditions and differences in the detector
466: parameters during data taking of the source and the Crab Nebula.
467:
468: For illustrative purposes, the dotted lines in Figure \ref{fig3}
469: represent one-zone hadronic and leptonic models of the high energy
470: emission, both consistent with observations at lower energies in the
471: region. Under the hadronic scenario, the $\pi^0$ are obtained from a
472: proton parent population described by a power law (index $\Gamma=-2$)
473: with exponential cutoff at 100 TeV. The cutoff value was adopted to be
474: consistent with the upper limit at the highest energies coming from
475: the HEGRA spectrum. The inverse Compton spectrum is obtained from an
476: electron population with equal index and a 40 TeV exponential cutoff
477: scattering off the CMB photons. As in Aharonian et al. 2005, we do not
478: consider here the conditions under which particles are accelerated or
479: how they lose energy. Our leptonic fits (see also the quoted paper for
480: an SED representation) can only cope with the data if we are actually
481: looking at a Compton peak around the energy range of detection, which
482: is not fully discarded within errors. Both models are compatible with
483: the high energy emission. Confirming the reality of the diffuse
484: emission detected at lower energies is crucial to distinguish between
485: these and more complex models.
486:
487:
488:
489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
490:
491: \section{Concluding remarks}
492:
493:
494: MAGIC observations confirm the location of TeV J2032+4130 found by
495: HEGRA. The MAGIC observation shows an extended source with a
496: significance of 5.6$\sigma$. We find a steady flux with no significant
497: variability within the three year span of the observations (with the
498: flux being at a similar level of the HEGRA data of the period
499: 2002-2005). We also present the source energy spectrum obtained with
500: the lowest energy threshold to date, which, within errors, is
501: compatible with a single power law.
502:
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504:
505: \acknowledgements
506:
507: We thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the ORM. The
508: support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN, the Spanish
509: CICYT, the ETH Research Grant TH 34/04 3, and the Polish MNiI Grant
510: 1P03D01028 is gratefully acknowledged.
511:
512:
513: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
514:
515: \bibitem[]{590} Abdo, A.A. et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 33.
516:
517: \bibitem[]{592} Aharonian F. A. et al. (HEGRA collaboration) 2002, A\&A, 393, L37.
518:
519: \bibitem[]{594} Aharonian F. A. et al. (HEGRA collaboration) 2005, A\&A, 431, 197.
520:
521: \bibitem[]{596} Aharonian F. A. et al. (HESS collaboration) 2006, A\&A, 460, 743.
522:
523: \bibitem[]{598} Albert J. et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), 2006a, Science 312, 1771.
524:
525: \bibitem[]{600} Albert J. et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), 2006b, ApJ, 637, L41.
526:
527: \bibitem[]{602} Albert J. et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), 2006c, ApJ, 643, L56.
528:
529: \bibitem[]{604} Albert J. et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), 2006d, ApJ, 638, L101.
530:
531: \bibitem[]{606} Albert, J. et al. (MAGIC Collaboration), 2007a, ``VHE Gamma-Ray Observation of the Crab Nebula and Pulsar with MAGIC'' accepted by ApJ, arXiv:0705.3244.
532:
533: \bibitem[]{608} Albert J. et al. (MAGIC Collab.) 2007b, `` Very high energy gamma-ray observations during moonlight and twilight with the MAGIC telescope'' submitted to Astroparticle Physics, astro-ph/0702475.
534: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0702475;%%
535:
536: \bibitem[]{611} Albert J. et al. (MAGIC Collab.) 2007c, ``Implementation of the Random Forest Method for the Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope MAGIC'' submitted to Astroparticle Physics, arXiv:0709.3719.
537: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.3719;%%
538:
539: \bibitem[]{614} Amenomori M. et al. 2006, Science, 314, 439.
540:
541: \bibitem[]{616} Anchordoqui, L. A. et al. 2007, 2007, PhRvD, 75, 063001.
542:
543: \bibitem[]{618} Bednarek, W. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 847.
544:
545: \bibitem[]{620} Bosch-Ramon V., Aharonian F. \& Paredes J. M. 2005, A\&A 432, 609
546:
547: \bibitem[]{622} Bretz, T. \& Wagner, W. (MAGIC Collaboration) 2003, Proc. of 28th ICRC (Tsukuba), 2947.
548:
549: \bibitem[]{624} Butt Y. et al. 2003, ApJ 597, 494.
550: \bibitem[]{625} Butt Y. et al. 2006, ApJ 643, 238.
551:
552:
553: \bibitem[]{628} Cortina, J. et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), 2005, Proc. of the 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5-359, astro-ph/0508274.
554:
555: \bibitem[]{630} Domingo-Santamar\'ia, E. et al., 2005, Proc. of 29th ICRC (Pune) {5} 363.
556: \bibitem[]{631} Domingo-Santamar\'ia, E. \& Torres, D. F. 2006, A\&A 448, 613.
557: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0510769;%%
558:
559: \bibitem[]{634} Fegan, D.~J., 1997, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 23, 1013.
560:
561: \bibitem[]{636} Hillas A.~M., 1985, Proc. of the 19th ICRC, La Jolla, 3, 445.
562:
563: \bibitem[]{638} Horns D. et al. 2007, A\&A 469, L17.
564:
565: \bibitem[]{640} Lang M. J. et al. 2004 A\&A 423, 415.
566:
567: \bibitem[]{642} Mart\'i J. et al. 2006, A\&A 451, 1037.
568:
569: \bibitem[]{644} Mart\'i J. et al. 2007, A\&A 472, 557.
570:
571: \bibitem[]{646} Mukherjee R. et al. 2003, ApJ 589, 487.
572:
573: \bibitem[]{648} Konopelko A. et al. 2007, ApJ 658, 1062.
574:
575: \bibitem[]{652} Paredes J. M. et al. 2007 ApJ 654, L135.
576:
577: \bibitem[]{654} Rolke, W. A., L\'{o}pez, A. M.\& Conrad, J., 2005, Nucl. Instrum. and Meth. A551, 493.
578:
579: \bibitem[]{656} Tikhonov A. N. $\&$ Arsenin V. Ja. Methods of Solution of III-posed Problem - M (Nauka, 1979).
580:
581: \bibitem[]{658} Torres D. F., Domingo-Santamar\'{i}a E., \& Romero G. E. 2004, ApJ 601, L75.
582:
583: \end{thebibliography}
584:
585: \clearpage
586:
587: \begin{table}
588: \caption{Observing periods, zenith angle ranges and observation modes.}
589: \begin{center}
590: \vspace{-.45cm}
591: \begin{tabular}{llll}
592: \hline
593: \hline
594: Year & T[h] & Z.A.[deg] & Mode \\
595: \hline
596: 2005 & 18.1 & 13--30 & ON/OFF\\
597: 2006 & 60.1 & 11--44 & Wobble\\
598: 2007 & 15.5 & 11--30 & Wobble\\
599: \hline
600: \end{tabular}
601: \label{tab1}
602: \end{center}
603: \end{table}
604:
605: \clearpage
606:
607: \begin{table}
608: \caption{Events recorded above SIZE$>$ 800~pe. $N_{\rm on}$, $N_{\rm off}$ and $N_{\rm ex}$ refer to the number of events recorded in the direction of the source, the normalized background and the $\gamma$-ray excess respectively. The normalization ratio $f_{\rm norm}$ and significance $N_{\rm \sigma}$ are also shown.}
609: \begin{center}
610: \vspace{-.45cm}
611: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
612: \hline
613: Year & $N_{\rm on}$ & $N_{\rm off}$ & N$_{\rm ex}$ & $f_{\rm norm}$ &
614: $N_{\rm \sigma}$
615: \\
616: \hline
617: 2005 & 641 & 576 & 65 & 0.47 & 2.2\\
618: 2006 & 688 & 559 & 129 & 0.20 & 4.8\\
619: 2007 & 175 & 136 & 39 & 0.20 & 2.9 \\
620: Overall & 1504 & 1271 & 233 &0.27 & 5.6\\
621: \hline
622: \end{tabular}
623: \end{center}
624: \label{tab2}
625: \end{table}
626:
627: \clearpage
628:
629: \begin{table}[!t]
630: \caption{UL for sources in the FOV, above 500 GeV.}
631: \vspace{-.45cm}
632: \begin{center}
633: \begin{tabular}{ll}
634: \hline
635: \hline
636: Target Name & Flux (Crab Nebula) \\
637: \hline
638: Cyg X-3 & 0.011 \\
639: WR~146 & 0.010 \\
640: 3EG~J2033+4118 & 0.009 \\
641: \hline
642: \end{tabular}
643: \label{tab3}
644: \end{center}
645: \end{table}
646:
647: \clearpage
648:
649: \begin{figure}[!t]
650: \centering
651: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
652: \caption{Distribution of the $\theta^2$-parameter for events coming from the direction of TeV J2032+4130 (SIZE$>$800~pe), the background distribution subtracted (black points). A convolved radial Gaussian fit F=A$\times$exp(-0.5$\theta^2$/($\sigma_{psf}^2 +\sigma_{src}^2$)) is indicated by the solid black line with $\sigma_{src}=5.0$$\pm$1.7 arcmin. The $\sigma_{psf}$ was measured from MC simulation and validated with Crab Nebula observations to be $\sigma_{psf}$=5.2$\pm$0.1 arcmin (dashed black line).}
653: \label{fig1}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656: \begin{figure}[!t]
657: \centering
658: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{f2.eps}
659: \caption{Gaussian-smoothed ($\sigma$=4') map of $\gamma$-ray excess events
660: (background-subtracted) for energies above 500~GeV. The MAGIC position
661: is shown with a black cross. The surrounding black circle corresponds
662: to the measured 1$\sigma$ width. The last position reported by Whipple
663: is marked with a white cross while the HEGRA position is shown with a
664: blue cross in the center of the field of view. The error bars, in all
665: cases, correspond to the linear sum of the statistical and systematic
666: errors. The green crosses correspond to the positions of Cyg X-3,
667: WR~146 and the EGRET source 3EG~J2033+4118. The ellipse around the
668: EGRET source marks the 95$\%$ confidence contour.}
669: \label{fig2}
670: \end{figure}
671:
672:
673: \begin{figure}[!t]
674: \centering
675: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=\columnwidth]{f3.eps}
676: \caption{Differential energy spectrum from TeV J2032+4130 as measured by the MAGIC telescope in black solid line. The grey shadow shows the 1$\sigma$ error in the fitted energy spectrum. The flux observed by Whipple in 2005 and in the Milagro scan are marked with colored squares (blue and pink, respectively). The grey dotted line represents the Crab Nebula energy spectrum measured by MAGIC. The blue line shows the HEGRA energy spectrum. Theoretical one-zone model predictions are depicted with dashed lines.}
677: \label{fig3}
678: \end{figure}
679:
680:
681: \end{document}
682: