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

2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

3: %%\documentclass[A4, referee]{aa}

4: %\usepackage{psfig}

5: %\usepackage{rotating} 

6: %\usepackage{txfonts}

7: %%\usepackage{graphicx}

8: %\usepackage{natbib}

9: %

10: \def\M21{\hbox{Mrk\,421} } 

11: \def\xmm{\hbox{$XMM-Newton$}} 

12: \def\etal{et al.} 

13: \def\ie{i.e., } 

14: \def\me{m_{\rm e}} 

15: \def\flux{erg\,cm$^{-2}\,s^{-1}$}

16: \def\mlum{$erg\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}$}

17: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$} 

18: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}} % < over ~

19: %

20: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}

21: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}} % > over ~

22: %

23: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.,\ }

24: %

25: \newcommand{\eqref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

26: \newcommand{\dsfrac}[2]{\displaystyle{\frac{#1}{#2}}} \def\difd{{\rm

27:     d}} \def\zb{z_{\rm b}} \def\zf{z_{\rm f}} \def\yb{y_{\rm b}}

28: %

29: \newcommand{\SF}[2]{{\bf S}#1-{\bf F}#2}

30: \def\pmag{p_{\rm mag}} 

31: \def\epsth{\epsilon_{\rm th}} 

32: \def\epsmag{\epsilon_{\rm mag}} 

33: \def\gad{\gamma_{\rm ad}}

34: \def\BP{B^{\prime}}

35: %

36: \newcommand{\BG}[1]{{\bf B}#1} 

37: \newcommand{\TG}[1]{{\bf T}#1}

38: 

39: 

40:                                            

41: \shorttitle{Annomalous shear layers in relativistic jets}

42: \shortauthors{Aloy \& Mimica}

43: 

44: 

45: \begin{document}

46: 

47: \title{Observational Effects of Anomalous Boundary Layers in

48:   Relativistic Jets}

49: 

50: \author{M.A.\,Aloy\altaffilmark{1} %, J.\,Ferrand\altaffilmark{1}

51:   and P.\,Mimica\altaffilmark{1}}

52: %

53: %\offprints{MAA, e-mail: Miguel.A.Aloy@uv.es}

54: \affil{Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica, 

55:            Universidad de Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain}

56: \email{MAA, e-mail: Miguel.A.Aloy@uv.es}

57: %

58: \begin{abstract}

59: %

60:   Recent theoretical work has pointed out that the transition layer

61:   between a jet an the medium surrounding it may be more complex than

62:   previously thought. Under physically realizable conditions, the

63:   transverse profile of the Lorentz factor in the boundary layer can

64:   be non-monotonic, displaying the absolute maximum where the flow is

65:   faster than at the jet spine, followed by an steep fall

66:   off. Likewise, the rest-mass density, reaches an absolute minimum

67:   (coincident with the maximum in Lorentz factor) and then grows until

68:   it reaches the external medium value. Such a behaviour is in

69:   contrast to the standard monotonic decline of the Lorentz factor

70:   (from a maximum value at the jet central spine) and the

71:   corresponding increase of the rest-mass density (from the minimum

72:   reached at the jet core).  We study the emission properties of the

73:   aforementioned anomalous shear layer structures in kiloparsec-scale

74:   jets aiming to show observable differences with respect to

75:   conventional monotonic and smooth boundary layers.

76: %

77: \end{abstract}

78: %

79:     \keywords{galaxies: jets: general; X-rays: general ---

80:               radiation mechanisms: non-thermal; acceleration of

81:               particles --- methods: numerical; MHD}

82: 

83: %\titlerunning{Annomalous shear layers}

84: %\authorrunning{Ferrand, Mimica \& Aloy}

85: %\maketitle 

86: 

87: 

88: %--------------------------------------------------------

89: \section{Introduction} 

90:   \label{sec:intro}

91: %--------------------------------------------------------

92: 

93:   The interaction of extragalactic jets with their environment leads,

94:   under rather general circumstances, to the stratification of the

95:   beam of the jet in the direction normal to its velocity. The

96:   morphology of FR I sources (e.g., M87, \citealp{owe89}; 3C 31,

97:   \citealp{lai96}; 3C 296, \citealp{hac97}) has been explained in

98:   terms of a jet whose dynamics is dominated by a boundary shear

99:   layer. In such layers the emissivity in radio and optical maps peaks

100:   and, in some cases (e.g., Mrk 501; \citealp{caw93}), the spectrum is

101:   rather flat, suggesting that the acceleration of non-thermal

102:   particles takes place right at the boundary region.  Further

103:   evidence in favor of such stratification is provided by radio

104:   polarization measurements, which indicate that, towards the jet

105:   boundary, the magnetic field is highly ordered and parallel to the

106:   jet axis \citep{per99}.

107: 

108:   A radial stratification of jets in FR~II radio galaxies has also

109:   been observed \citep{SBB98,caw93}.  The edge brightening found in

110:   3C353 has been interpreted by \cite{SBB98} as due to the Doppler

111:   hiding of the emission of the central spine of the jet,

112:   suggesting that most of the observed radiation comes from the jet

113:   boundary layer. On the other hand, the {\it rails of low

114:     polarization} found by \cite{SBB98} close the the jet boundary

115:   indicate that the magnetic field in the layer is either axial or

116:   toroidal but not radial. Even at parsec scale, the FR~II radio jet

117:   of 1055+018 exhibits a transverse structure consistent with a {\it

118:     spine - shear boundary layer} jet morphology \citep{ARW99}.

119: 

120:   Also sources which are in the borderline dividing FR~I and FR~II

121:   sources show evidences of radial jet stratification. A couple of

122:   examples of such sources are 3C~15 and Cen~A.  In the first case the

123:   jet is generally narrower in the optical than in the radio

124:   \citep{Dulwichetal07}, and simple spine-sheath model may account for

125:   the polarization angle differences seen in the optical and radio

126:   data. For Cen~A, the recent X-ray data \citep{Kataokaetal06} can

127:   also be properly explained by a stratified jet model with a radially

128:   decreasing velocity field.

129: 

130:   The aforementioned observational evidence along with some others

131:   (e.g., \citealp{chi00}), suggests that the velocity in some jet

132:   boundary layers is smaller (but still relativistic) than the

133:   velocity of the beam itself. On the other hand, laboratory

134:   experiments show that, almost unavoidably, turbulent interaction

135:   layers may develop as jets propagate into a viscous medium (e.g.,

136:   \citealt{BR74}). These laboratory shear layers display a radial

137:   velocity profile roughly monotonic in which the velocity of the jet

138:   core smoothly decreases until it vanishes at the external medium.

139: 

140:   From a theoretical point of view, the Reynolds number of the jet

141:   flow may reach values of $\sim 10^{23}$ and, hence, it seems

142:   unquestionable that such flows will quickly develop a turbulent

143:   boundary layer which spreads into the flow and leads to the

144:   entrainment and acceleration of ambient gas

145:   \citep{DeYoung93}. However, the nature and the amount of viscosity

146:   in relativistic jets is still largely unknown. Most probably, the

147:   effective viscosity in the lateral interaction between the jet an

148:   the external medium is a mixture of the turbulent eddy viscosity,

149:   magnetic viscosity (based on the finite size of the Larmor radius;

150:   see, e.g., \citealp{Baan80}) and {\it cosmic-ray} viscosity (i.e.,

151:   the viscosity originated due to the diffusion of the momentum

152:   carried by energetic particles; see, e.g., \citealp{EJM88}).

153:   Whichever the origin of the viscosity is, the boundary layer itself

154:   results from the nonlinear growth of Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH)

155:   instabilities on the jet surface. The fact that relativistic jets

156:   are prone to these instabilities was demonstrated theoretically in

157:   the pioneer work of \cite{TS76}. Later, many other papers have

158:   explored the stability of relativistic jets with respect to KH

159:   instabilities in the vortex-sheet approximation (e.g.,

160:   \citealt{FTZ78,Hardee79}). \cite{FTZ82} and \citet{bir91} presented

161:   the first attempts to study (in the linear regime) the influence of

162:   a finite thickness shear layer in classical and relativistic jets,

163:   respectively. Very recently, \cite{Hardee07} has also considered the

164:   stability properties (in the linear regime) of spine-sheath

165:   magnetized, relativistic jets in which the magnetic field is

166:   parallel to the flow velocity. The development of KH modes in

167:   sheared relativistic (slab) flows from the linear (analytic) regime

168:   to the non-linear regime by means of relativistic hydrodynamic

169:   simulations has been carried forward by

170:   \cite{Peruchoetal07}. Alternative approaches to the linear analysis

171:   of the stability of stratified relativistic jets and sheared

172:   relativistic jets have been performed by \cite{HS96}, \cite{Urpin02}

173:   \cite{alo02} and \cite{MK07}, respectively.

174: 

175:   Further support in favor of radial jet stratification as a

176:   consequence of the interaction between a jet and its environment is

177:   provided by three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of

178:   relativistic, large scale jets \citep{alo99a,alo99b,alo99c,alo00}

179:   and two-dimensional simulations of relativistic magnetized jets

180:   \citep{LA05}. These simulations show that radially stratified jets

181:   are developed out of initially uniform beams. These numerical works

182:   display also a rather smooth transition layer with decreasing

183:   transverse velocity towards the jet boundary and high specific

184:   internal energy. It must be noted that the viscosity in such

185:   simulations is of numerical origin, and mimics only qualitatively

186:   actual viscous flows.

187: 

188:   In addition to the existence of {\it environmental} reasons to

189:   produce a radial flow stratification in astrophysical jets, this

190:   effect can also be a natural consequence of the jet formation

191:   process. Jet launching from accretion disks may directly lead to a

192:   certain mass flux profile and/or magnetic flux profile within the

193:   jet. This possibility has been verified by means of axisymmetric MHD

194:   simulations both in the classical \citep{PCO06,Fendt06}, as well as

195:   in the general relativistic \citep{MN07} regime. 

196: 

197: 

198:   \cite{AR06} show that, under physically plausible conditions (see

199:   Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}), the lateral structure of the

200:   interaction layer of a relativistic flow can be richer than

201:   previously thought. This is also the case in relativistic magnetized

202:   jets \citep{Mizuetal08}. Due to a purely relativistic phenomenon

203:   (the conversion of specific enthalpy into bulk Lorentz factor across

204:   a flow discontinuity), the jet velocity may increase right at the

205:   contact discontinuity (CD) separating the jet and the external

206:   medium. Beyond the CD the velocity decreases steeply to zero in the

207:   radial direction. The growth of the velocity or, equivalently, of

208:   the Lorentz factor of the beam is associated to the development of a

209:   rarefaction wave that emerges form the CD where the density and the

210:   pressure decrease with respect to their corresponding values at the

211:   jet spine. The profiles exhibited by the hydrodynamic variables in

212:   these layers are non-monotonic, in contrast with the smooth

213:   monotonic profiles that have been typically discussed in the

214:   literature. Thereby, we will refer to them as {\it anomalous} or

215:   {\it AR} shear layers.

216: 

217:   As mentioned above, jet shear layers, represent natural sites for

218:   particle acceleration, providing high-energy cosmic rays and

219:   influencing the dynamics of relativistic jets in extragalactic radio

220:   sources by forming cosmic-ray cocoons \citep{ost00}. The efficiency

221:   of the acceleration process in these turbulent shear layers depends

222:   on the particle mean free path and on the velocity

223:   structure. \citeauthor{SO02} (2002; SO02 hereafter) performed a

224:   through study of both the acceleration processes acting at jet

225:   boundaries and the resulting observational effects.  They former

226:   authors considered the possibility that turbulent standard boundary

227:   layers of kiloparsec scale jets may substantially contribute to the

228:   radiative output of the jet. In the present work we will closely

229:   follow SO02 working hypothesis, however we will replace the

230:   monotonic shear layer kinematic structure they assumed by an

231:   anomalous one as suggested by \cite{AR06}. The aim being to show

232:   whether AR-shear layers imprint any distinctive feature in the

233:   radiation produced by the jet as compared with standard boundary

234:   layers. We show in this paper that, indeed, the radiative output of

235:   jets bound by anomalous shear layers significantly differs from that

236:   of ordinary boundary layers. Thus observations may confirm or rule

237:   out the existence of such anomalous shear layers in kiloparsec scale

238:   jets and, consistently, this may be used to constrain hardly known

239:   physical parameters in these regions.

240: 

241:   The plan of the paper is to first show [\S~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}] the

242:   influence of magnetic fields in the profiles of the physical

243:   variables in anomalous boundary layers. In this way we extend the

244:   results of \cite{AR06} and \cite{Mizuetal08} to the adequate

245:   parameter range.  In Sect.~\ref{sec:model} we summarize the basic

246:   model developed by SO02 and adapt it to account for the kinematic

247:   differences when applied to anomalous shear layers whose profiles

248:   will be discussed in

249:   Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}. Section~\ref{sec:SED} provides the

250:   spectral energy distribution obtained for the different models of

251:   kinematic shear layers shown in the previous section. We discuss our

252:   results in Sect.~\ref{sec:discussion} and sum them up in

253:   Sect.~\ref{sec:summary}.

254: 

255: 

256: 

257: %--------------------------------------------------------

258:   \section{Magnetohydrodynamic boosting in relativistic jet boundary

259:     layers}

260: \label{sec:RMHD_boost}

261: %--------------------------------------------------------

262: 

263: The dynamics of a relativistic magnetohydrodynamic jet in an external

264: medium can be treated as the motion of two fluids, one of which (the

265: jet) is much hotter and at higher (or equal) pressure than the other

266: one (the external medium), and is moving with a large tangential

267: velocity with respect to the cold, slowly moving fluid. Furthermore,

268: the jet can be magnetized while the external medium magnetic field is

269: much smaller than that of the jet. \cite{AR06} found that if the

270: specific enthalpy of the jet is sufficiently large, a net conversion

271: of internal to kinetic energy can be produced through a purely

272: relativistic channel. The reason for its exclusively relativistic

273: character is that, the evolution of contact or tangential

274: discontinuities (like, e.g., the one that separates laterally the jet

275: from the external medium), is governed by a genuine coupling between

276: the specific enthalpy and the Lorentz factor at both sides of the

277: discontinuity which does not exist in Newtonian

278: (magneto-)hydrodynamics. Such mechanism yields a substantial

279: hydrodynamic boost along the boundary layer between the jet and the

280: external medium. Basically, the boost along the jet lateral boundaries

281: is due to the work done by the external medium on an overpressured,

282: relativistic jet. \cite{Mizuetal08} extended the validity of the

283: results of \cite{AR06} to the case in which the jet is magnetized and

284: conclude that the presence of a jet magnetic field (either poloidal or

285: toroidal) enlarges the boost that might be obtained by purely

286: hydrodynamic means.  The magnetohydrodynamic boost is larger for jets

287: carrying toroidal than poloidal magnetic fields.

288: 

289: The present analysis is aimed to show what is the qualitative

290: variation of the Lorentz factor and of the magnetic field across a

291: jet boundary layer. Therefore, following \cite{AR06}, we model the

292: interaction between the jet and the external medium as a one

293: dimensional Riemann problem in Cartesian coordinates. Furthermore, we

294: restrict to the case in which the magnetic field is perpendicular to

295: the flow speed in the jet. As demonstrated by \cite{AR06} and

296: \cite{Mizuetal08} this simple model retains the basic features of the

297: phenomenon. Certainly, a more detailed model would require three

298: dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations. 

299: 

300: We solve exactly the Riemann problem set by the jump in the conditions

301: between the jet and the external medium assuming that the magnetic

302: field is perpendicular to the velocity field. For this purpose we use

303: the method devised by \cite{Romeroetal05}. The two uniform ``left''

304: (jet) and ``right'' (external medium) states which set the proposed

305: Riemann problems possess different and discontinuous

306: magnetohydrodynamical properties: the rest-mass density $\rho$, the

307: total pressure $p=p_{\rm mag}+p_{\rm gas}$ ($p_{\rm mag}$ and $p_{\rm

308:   gas}$ being the magnetic and the gas pressure, respectively), the

309: components of the velocity normal $v^{\rm n}$ and tangential $v^{\rm

310:   t}$ to the initial discontinuity, and the magnetization ${\tilde

311:   \beta}:=p_{\rm mag}/p_{\rm gas}$. In the following, we will use for

312: the quantities in the jet and in the external medium the subscripts

313: ``L'' and ``R'', respectively.

314: 

315: Like in the purely hydrodynamic case, depending on the conditions of

316: the left and right states two qualitatively and quantitatively

317: different solutions develop (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure_magnetic}). On

318: the one hand, a pattern of waves can be formed, which we indicate as

319: ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!S C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ (Fig.\@

320: \ref{fig:sl_structure_magnetic} left panel), where ${\cal

321:   _{\leftarrow}\!S}$ refers to the shock propagating towards the left

322: sweeping up the jet, ${\cal S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ to the shock moving

323: towards the right crossing the external medium and ${\cal C}$ to the

324: contact discontinuity between the two. On the other hand, the pattern

325: can change for sufficiently large velocities parallel to the jet axis

326: (tangential) and in this case the inward-moving shock is replaced by a

327: rarefaction wave thus producing a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C

328:   S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ pattern (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure_magnetic}

329: right panel). Once again, we point out that the change in the wave

330: pattern does only happen in relativistic (magneto-)hydrodynamics. Only

331: in the relativistic regime the evolution of a Riemann problem depends

332: upon the components of the velocity parallel to the initial

333: discontinuity or, equivalently, upon the Lorentz factor at both sides

334: of the initial discontinuity. Furthermore, only in the relativistic

335: regime there is a coupling between the momentum and energy fluxes that

336: depends upon the specific enthalpy of initial left and right states.

337: 

338: We notice that the variation of the magnetization in the intermediate

339: left state is less than a few percent when a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C

340:   S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ solution forms (see

341: Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure_magnetic} right panel). In case a ${\cal

342:   _{\leftarrow}\!S C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ pattern develops, the

343: magnetization in the shocked left intermediate state ${\tilde \beta}^*_{_{\rm

344:     L}}$ grows due to the shock compression, but, in any case,

345: ${\tilde \beta}^*_{_{\rm L}} \simlt (2 - 3)\times{\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}}$.

346: 

347: 

348: Although \cite{Mizuetal08} have already explored the influence of a

349: dynamically relevant magnetic field in the jet on the aforementioned

350: boost, they restricted their study to only four cases and to extremely

351: hot jets ($p_{_{\rm gas,L}}/\rho_{_{\rm L}} \ge 10^5$), which is

352: appropriate for gamma-ray burst jets (see, e.g.,

353: \citealt{alo00b,Alo05,AO07,Birkletal07}). Here we consider a parameter

354: space more adequate for kiloparsec scale jets. More precisely, we

355: consider {\it warm} or {\it cold} jets with a ratio $p_{\rm

356:   gas,L}/\rho_{_{\rm L}} \le 10^2$ and a magnetization ${\tilde

357:   \beta}_{_{\rm L}}$, which is varied between $0.1$ (slightly

358: magnetized jet) and $10^4$ (Poynting flux dominated jet)\footnote{In

359:   \cite{Mizuetal08} a maximum value of ${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}}=1.8$

360:   is considered in their model MHDB.}.  The left state will have

361: comparable but larger total pressure than the external medium

362: $p_{_{_{\rm L}}} = 10 p_{_{\rm R}}$, will be under dense $\rho_{_{\rm

363:     L}} / \rho_{_{\rm R}} = 10^{-5}$, with a fixed bulk Lorentz factor

364: $\Gamma_{_{\rm L}} \equiv [1 - (v^t_{_{\rm L}})^2 - (v^n_{_{\rm

365:     L}})^2]^{-1/2}=10$. We choose to fix the external medium (right

366: state) to be cold ($p_{_{\rm R}}/\rho_{_{\rm R}} \simeq 10^{-4}$),

367: non-magnetized and non-moving. Precisely, we take for the external

368: medium $p_{_{\rm R}}=10^{-6}/\rho_{_{\rm ext}} c^2$, $\rho_{_{\rm R}}

369: = 10^{-2}\rho_{_{\rm ext}}$, $v^n_{_{\rm R}} = v^t_{_{\rm R}} =

370: {\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}} = 0$, where $\rho_{_{\rm ext}}$ is a

371: normalization constant which allows us to be scale-free. We point out

372: that with this parametrization we provide physically plausible

373: conditions for both the jet and the external medium.  For convenience,

374: hereafter we will assume $c = \rho_{_{\rm ext}} = 1$, unless stated

375: otherwise.

376: 

377: We explore the resulting Riemann solution as we vary the component of

378: the jet velocity normal to the shear layer\footnote{For a relativistic

379:   jet it is expected that such a component is $v^n_{_{\rm L}} \simeq 0

380:   \ll v^t_{_{\rm L}} \sim 1$.} and the jet magnetization ${\tilde

381:   \beta}_{_{\rm L}}$. We point out that models with ${\tilde \beta}

382: \ge 100$ are actually rather cold, since $p_{\rm gas,L}/\rho_{_{\rm

383:     L}} \ll 1$ (e.g., for ${\tilde \beta} \ge 10^4$, $p_{\rm

384:   gas,L}/\rho_{_{\rm L}} \simeq 10^{-2}$). According to the most

385: broadly accepted view, even MHD-generated jets may become matter

386: dominated at kiloparsec scale (e.g., \citealp{BL94,FO04}). However,

387: there are others who advocate jet models which are basically

388: electromagnetic entities at such large scales (e.g.,

389: \citealp{Blandford02,Blandford03}). In view of these two possible

390: extremes, we have covered the ${\tilde \beta}$-parameter space with

391: jet models which are both matter dominated and Poyinting-flux

392: dominated at kiloparsec scale. In Fig.~\ref{fig:betal_dep} we show the

393: value of the Lorentz factor reached at the state left to the contact

394: discontinuity $\Gamma^*_{_{\rm L}}$. This intermediate state is made

395: out of boosted or deboosted jet matter depending respectively on

396: whether a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ or a ${\cal

397:   _{\leftarrow}\!S C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ solution develops.

398: 

399: Figure~\ref{fig:betal_dep} illustrates how a magnetohydrodynamic

400: boost, where $\Gamma^*_{_{\rm L}} > \Gamma_{_{\rm L}}$, exists below

401: a critical value of the normal velocity ($v^n_{_{\rm L}}\simeq 0.026$

402: in the case considered here) whereby a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C

403:   S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ solution develops. The critical value of

404: $v^n_{_{\rm L}}$ is independent of the jet magnetization (note the

405: crossing of all the solutions at the point where $\Gamma^*_{_{\rm L}}

406: = \Gamma_{_{\rm L}}=10$). 

407: 

408: The magnetohydrodynamic boost is larger if the magnetization of the

409: jet is increased: while for a poorly magnetized jet (${\tilde

410:   \beta}_{_{\rm L}}=0.1$) the boost may increase the bulk Lorentz

411: factor of the layer by $\sim 10\% - 50\%$, for a strongly magnetized

412: jet (${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}}\ge 10^2$) the Lorentz factor increase

413: can be $\ge 100\%$. Increasing the magnetization beyond ${\tilde

414:   \beta}_{_{\rm L}}\ge 10^4$ does not produce larger boosts (the

415: effect saturates). Below ${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}} < 0.1$ the results

416: are almost indistinguishable from the case ${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm

417:     L}}=0.1$ and we have decided not to include more lines in the

418: Fig.~\ref{fig:betal_dep} for the sake of readability.

419: 

420: The bottom line of this parametric study is that for conditions

421: realizable in kiloparsec scale jets, one may find an increase of the

422: Lorentz factor in the transition layer between the jet and the

423: external medium ranging from $(1.5 - 2) \times\Gamma_{_{\rm L}}$,

424: while the magnetization in that layer is basically the same as in the

425: jet if a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ pattern

426: occurs. Furthermore, since only the strength of the

427: magnetohydrodynamic boost, but not its existence, depends on the

428: topology of the field (see \citealt{Mizuetal08}), we point out that it

429: also happens in the presence of randomly oriented magnetic fields.

430: 

431: 

432: %--------------------------------------------------------

433: \section{The physical model} 

434: \label{sec:model}

435: %--------------------------------------------------------

436: 

437: Our model follows very closely that devised by SO02. We assume that

438: non-thermal particles can be accelerated at the boundary layers of

439: relativistic jets (e.g., \citealp{ost90,ost98,ost00,RD04}), thereby

440: producing high-energy cosmic rays. As mentioned in

441: Sect.~\ref{sec:intro}, the main goal of this paper is to replace the

442: prototype shear layer assumed in SO02 by an anomalous shear layer of

443: the type suggested by \cite{AR06} and whose basic features have been

444: outlined in Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}. At the most basic level, this

445: means to replace the kinematic shear layer structure assumed by SO02,

446: namely, a jet sheath where the bulk Lorentz factor ($\Gamma$)

447: decreases monotonically (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure}a), by a boundary

448: layer where the Lorentz factor develops a spike in which it is larger

449: than at the jet core (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure}b). We shall assume

450: that the magnetic field is uniform in the whole shear layer, which is

451: compatible with the results of our previous section and a reasonable

452: assumption in our simple model.

453: 

454: The working hypothesis made by SO02 are also valid in our case since,

455: the only difference between monotonic and anomalous layers is simply

456: kinematic (see Sect.~\ref{sec:kinematic}). Thus, following SO02, the

457: maximum electron Lorentz factor which can be obtained by the

458: combination of acceleration of particles along the shear layer and the

459: radiative cooling of such particles is

460: \begin{equation}

461: \gamma_{\rm eq} \approx 4 \cdot 10^{8} \, V_{8} \, B_{\mu G}^{-1 / 2} , 

462: \label{eq:gamma_eq}

463: \end{equation}

464: where $B_{\mu G}$ is the magnetic field in microgauss and $V_8\equiv

465: V_{\rm A}/10^8\,$cm\,s$^{-1}$ is the Alfv\'en speed $V_{\rm A}$ in

466: units of $10^8\,$cm\,s$^{-1}$. For kiloparsec scale jets, typical

467: values of these two parameters are $V_8\simeq 1$ and $B_{\mu G}\sim

468: 10$, which yields $\gamma_{\rm eq} \simeq 10^8$.

469: 

470: We assume that the resulting spectral energy distribution of the

471: electrons accelerated at the layer consists of a low energy power law

472: $n_{\rm e}(\gamma) \propto \gamma^{-\sigma}$, with $\sigma = 2$,

473: finished with a high-energy component modeled as a nearly mono

474: energetic peak at $\gamma = \gamma_{eq}$ due to the pile-up of

475: accelerated particles caused by losses (see Fig.~1 of SO02). In terms

476: of the Dirac delta function, $\delta$, at energies above the injection

477: energy, $\gamma > \gamma_0$, the considered quasy-stationary, averaged

478: spectrum of electrons can be cast in the form

479: \begin{equation}

480: n_{\rm e}( \gamma) = a \, \gamma^{- \sigma} \, \exp( - \gamma / \gamma_{\rm eq}) + b \, \delta( \gamma - \gamma_{\rm eq}) , 

481: \label{eq:n(gamma)}

482: \end{equation}

483: where $a$ and $b$ are normalization parameters whose values ($a\simeq

484: 10^{-7}\,$cm$^{-3}$, $b \simeq 10^{-14}\,$cm$^{-3}$) result from

485: assuming equipartition between the magnetic field energy density

486: $u_{_{\rm B}} \equiv B^2We / 8 \, \pi$ and the energy densities of both

487: electron spectral components:

488: %

489: \begin{equation}

490: \int_{\gamma_0}^\infty (\gamma \, mc^2) \, a \, \gamma^{-2} \, \exp(

491: - \gamma / \gamma_{\rm eq})  \, d \gamma = \int_{\gamma_0}^\infty  (\gamma

492: \, mc^2) \, b \, \delta( \gamma - \gamma_{\rm eq}) \, d \gamma = {1 \over

493:   2} \, u_{_{\rm B}} . 

494: \label{eq:normalization}

495: \end{equation}

496: 

497: We point out that in SO02, the power-law part of the electron spectrum

498: was also endowed with an exponential cut-off instead of with a

499: Heaviside $\Theta$ function in spite of their Eqs.~6 and 7. The

500: $\Theta$ function was used in their work only to compute analytic

501: estimates, not for the numerical integrations necessary to calculate

502: their spectral energy distributions \citep{Stawarz}.

503: 

504: Assuming equipartition between the particle and magnetic field energy

505: in relativistic sheared jets has been proved to be a rather solid

506: theoretical assumption (see, e.g., \citealt{Urpin06}). However, in

507: some cases the values of $a$ and $b$ derived from

508: Eq.~\ref{eq:normalization} and based on equipartition arguments may

509: yield only lower bounds of the true values. \cite{KS05} argue that

510: powerful jets in quasars and FR II objects can be far from the minimum

511: energy condition, and the field strength very likely exceeds the

512: equipartition value. On the other hand, upper limits to the inverse

513: Compton radiation of the jet in M\,87 imposed by HESS and HEGRA

514: Cerenkov Telescopes also indicate that the magnetic field cannot be

515: weaker than the equipartition value \citep{Stawarzetal05}.

516: 

517: %--------------------------------------------------------

518: \subsection{Radiative processes in boundary layers of kpc-scale jets}

519: \label{sec:radiation}

520: %--------------------------------------------------------

521: %

522: %   Synchrotron radiation

523: %

524: 

525: The relevant radiative processes taking place at the boundary layer of

526: a relativistic, kpc-scale jet are, on the one hand, the synchrotron

527: (syn) emission of the spectral family represented by

528: Eq.~\ref{eq:n(gamma)} and, on the other hand, their inverse Compton

529: (IC) cooling due to the interaction with the previously produced

530: synchrotron photons (synchrotron self Compton -SSC-) or with seed

531: photons of the cosmic microwave background (external Compton

532: -EC-). These radiative processes are the dominant for large scale

533: relativistic ($\Gamma>2$) jets at distances from the galactic nucleus

534: $z> 10\,$kpc.

535: 

536: Following SO02, we assume that the magnetic field is randomly oriented

537: in the shear layer\footnote{Note that anomalous layers can also form

538:   if the magnetic field is randomly oriented, see

539:   Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}.}. Additionally, we neglect synchrotron

540: self-absorption and, therefore, we limit the computation of the

541: resulting spectra to frequencies $\nu\geq 10^{10}\,$Hz.

542: 

543: Restricted to the case of an isotropic electron distribution

544: $n_{\rm e}(\gamma)$ the synchrotron emissivity averaged over a randomly

545: oriented magnetic field $B$ can be computed from

546: %

547: \begin{equation}

548:   j_{\rm syn}(\nu) = { \sqrt{3} e^{3} B \over mc^{2}} \int R \left( {\nu

549:       \over c_{1} \gamma^{2}} \right) \, {n_{e}(\gamma) \over 4 \pi}

550:   \, d\gamma , 

551: \label{eq:j_syn}

552: \end{equation}

553: %

554: where $c_1 = 3 e B \, / \, 4 \pi m c$ and $R(x)$ is a combination of

555: the modified second order Bessel functions \citep{cru86} as

556: %

557: \begin{equation}

558:   R(x) = {x^2 \over 2} \, K_{4/3} \left({x \over 2} \right) \, K_{1/3}

559:   \left({x \over 2} \right) - 0.3 \, {x^3 \over 2} \left[ K_{4/3}^2

560:     \left({x \over 2} \right) - K_{1/3}^2 \left({x \over 2} \right)

561:   \right] . 

562:   \label{eq:R(x)}

563: \end{equation}

564: 

565: %

566: %   IC (SSC) radiation

567: %

568: The IC photon emissivity in the source frame%

569: %

570: \footnote{In our case the source frame is a cylindrical layer of the

571:   boundary region where $\Gamma$ is assumed to be uniform.},

572: $\dot{n}_{\rm ic} (\epsilon, \Omega)$, at a certain photon energy

573: $\epsilon$ (in units of the electron rest mass, $m_{\rm e}c^2$,

574: $\epsilon \equiv h \nu / m_{\rm e}c^2$) and scattering direction

575: $\Omega$, is given by

576: %

577: \begin{equation}

578:   \dot{n}_{\rm ic}(\epsilon,\Omega) = c \int d\epsilon_i \oint d\Omega_i

579:   \int d\gamma \oint d\Omega_{\rm e} \, (1- \beta \, \cos \psi) \, \sigma \,

580:   n_i(\epsilon_i,\Omega_i) \, n_{\rm e}(\gamma,\Omega_{\rm e}) , 

581: \label{eq:n_ic}

582: \end{equation}

583: %

584: where $n_i (\epsilon_i, \Omega_i)$ is the seed photon number density

585: as a function of the incident photon energy $\epsilon_i$ and the

586: photon direction $\Omega_i$,

587: %(where the subscripts $i, ic$ are replaced

588: %by $i=syn$, $ic = ssc$ for SSC emission, and $i=cmb$, $ic = ec$, for

589: %EC emission) 

590: $n_{\rm e} (\epsilon_{\rm e}, \Omega_{\rm e})$ is the electron energy

591: distribution, $\psi$ is the angle between the electron and the

592: incident photon directions, $\gamma=(1-\beta)^{1/2}$ is the electron

593: Lorentz factor corresponding to a velocity $v_{\rm e}=\beta c$ and

594: $\Omega_{\rm e}=(\cos^{-1}{\mu_{\rm e}}, \phi_{\rm e})$ its direction

595: in the plasma source frame (e.g., \citealt{der95}). The rest-frame

596: emissivity in CGS units is $j_{\rm ic}(\nu,\Omega) = h \, \epsilon \,

597: \dot{n}_{\rm ic} (\epsilon, \Omega)$.

598: 

599: In the calculation of the emissivity due to IC process (SSC or EC), we

600: limit ourselves to the Thompson regime, in which the scattering cross

601: section $\sigma \equiv \sigma_{_{\rm T}}=6.65\times 10^{-25}\,$cm$^2$ is

602: independent of the seed photon energy, which is an adequate

603: approximation in the regime $\gamma \epsilon_i < 1$. 

604: 

605: Following \cite{der95}, the scattered photons will be beamed along the

606: direction of the electron motion (i.e. $\Omega\approx\Omega_{\rm e}$)

607: and will emerge after scattering with an average final energy

608: $\epsilon\approx\frac{4}{3}\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm syn}$. We assume as

609: SO02 that the synchrotron radiation and the electron distribution are

610: isotropic and, therefore, $n_i(\epsilon_i,\Omega_i) = n_{\rm

611:   syn}(\epsilon_{\rm syn})/4\pi$ and $n_{\rm e}(\gamma,\Omega_{\rm e})

612: = n_{\rm e}(\gamma)/4\pi$. Then, in Eq.~\ref{eq:n_ic} one can use

613: $\sigma = \sigma_{_{\rm T}} \delta(\Omega-\Omega_{\rm e}) \delta

614: \left(\epsilon-(4/3)\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm syn}\right)$ in order to

615: obtain the following expression of $\dot{n}_{_{\rm

616:     SSC}}(\epsilon,\Omega)$:

617: %

618: \begin{equation}

619:   \dot{n}_{_{\rm SSC}}(\epsilon,\Omega) =

620:   \frac{c\sigma_{_{\rm T}}}{4\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} {d\epsilon_{\rm

621:       syn}}\int_{\gamma_0}^{\infty} {d\gamma}n_{\rm syn}(\epsilon_{\rm

622:     syn}) n_{\rm

623:     e}(\gamma)\delta\left(\epsilon-\frac{4}{3}\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm syn}\right).

624: \label{eq:n_ssc}

625: \end{equation}

626: %

627: Using Eqs.~\ref{eq:n(gamma)},~\ref{eq:n_ssc}, the relation $j_{_{\rm

628:     SSC}}(\nu,\Omega) = h\epsilon \dot{n}_{_{\rm

629:     SSC}}(\epsilon,\Omega)$ and the optically thin synchrotron

630: intensity $I_{\rm syn}(\nu_{\rm syn})\equiv j_{\rm

631:   syn}l=(ch/4\pi)\epsilon_{\rm syn}n_{\rm syn}(\epsilon_{\rm syn})$,

632: where $l$ is the emitting region linear size, the integral form of the

633: synchrotron self-Compton emissivity $j_{_{\rm SSC}}(\nu)$ is written

634: as

635: %

636: \begin{equation}

637:   j_{_{\rm SSC}}(\nu)=\sigma_{_{\rm T}} \int_{\gamma_{_{\rm low}}}^{\infty} {j_{\rm syn}\left(\frac{3\nu}{4\gamma^2}\right)l\frac{4\gamma^2}{3}n_{\rm e}(\gamma)d\gamma},

638: \label{eq:j_ssc}

639: \end{equation}

640: \noindent

641: where $\gamma_{_{\rm low}}={\rm max}(\gamma_0, \frac{3}{4}\epsilon)$ is

642: the lower limit imposed by the restriction $\gamma \epsilon_{\rm

643:   syn}<1$, which guaranties that we stay within the Thompson regime.

644: 

645: %

646: %   CMB radiation

647: %

648: The CMB radiation is strongly anisotropic in the source frame which is

649: moving at a bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, providing an external source

650: of seed photons which move opposite to the jet direction, i.e., $\psi

651: \simeq \pi$. Thereby, $(1-\beta \cos \psi)=(1+\mu_{\rm e})$, where

652: $\Omega_{\rm e}=(\cos^{-1}{\mu_{\rm e}}, \phi_{\rm e})$ is the

653: direction of the colliding electron in the comoving frame of the shear

654: layer, similarly to what we made for the case of SSC radiation. In the

655: Thomson regime $\sigma=\sigma_{_{\rm T}}\delta(\Omega-\Omega_{\rm

656:   e})\delta \left[ \epsilon-\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm cmb}(1+\mu_{\rm

657:     e})\right]$, since the scattered photon energy is

658: $\epsilon=\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm cmb}(1+\mu_{\rm e})$, where

659: $\epsilon_{\rm cmb}$ is the energy of the incident CMB photon in units

660: of the electron rest-mass.  Hence, Eq.~\ref{eq:n_ic} can be cast as

661: \begin{equation}

662:   \dot{n}_{_{\rm EC}}(\epsilon,\Omega)=\frac{c\sigma_{_{\rm T}}}{4\pi}(1+\mu)\int_{0}^{\infty}

663:   {d\epsilon_{\rm cmb}}\int_{\gamma_0}^{\infty}

664:   {d\gamma}n_{\rm cmb}(\epsilon_{\rm cmb})n_{\rm e}(\gamma)\delta\left[\epsilon-\gamma^2\epsilon_{\rm cmb}(1+\mu)\right]\  .

665: \label{eq:n_ec}

666: \end{equation}

667: 

668: %

669: In order to compute the EC emissivity produced by the interaction of

670: CMB photons with the power-law part of the electron distribution, we

671: model the CMB field as a monochromatic radiation with photon energies

672: equal to the average value of a thermal black body spectrum

673: \citep{BG70} but blue-shifted by a factor $\Gamma$, i.e.,

674: $\epsilon_{\rm cmb} = \Gamma \langle \epsilon_{\rm cmb}^{\ast} \rangle \equiv 2.7

675: \times \Gamma \, k \, T^{\ast} / \me c^2$, and a number density

676: $n_{\rm cmb} = \Gamma \, u_{\rm cmb}^{\ast} / (\langle \epsilon_{\rm

677:   cmb}^{\ast} \rangle \me c^2)$. The value that we adopt for the energy

678: density of the CMB radiation in the rest frame of the CMB is $u_{\rm

679:   cmb}^{\ast}=4\cdot 10^{-13}\,$erg\,cm$^{-3}$. With these

680: approximations, the EC emissivity associated to the power-law part of

681: the electron distribution can be computed analytically 

682: %

683: \begin{eqnarray}

684:   j_{_{{\rm EC},1}}(\nu) &=&

685:         \displaystyle{\frac{c \sigma_{_{\rm T}} a}{8\pi} u_{\rm cmb}^{\ast}

686:           \left(\frac{h}{2.7kT^\ast} \right)^{1/2}

687:           [(1+\mu)\Gamma]^{3/2}

688:           \exp{\left[-\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\Gamma (1+\mu) 

689:            \langle \epsilon_{\rm cmb}^\ast \rangle \gamma_{\rm eq}^2} \right)^{1/2}

690:            \right]}\nu^{-1/2}\:\:} \nonumber \\ 

691: & &\mbox{if } 

692:         \gamma_0^2 \le \displaystyle{

693:           \frac{h\nu}{2.7kT^\ast\Gamma(1+\mu)}}\, . 

694: \label{eq:j_ec_1}

695: \end{eqnarray}

696: 

697: For the monoenergetic electron peak component, we use the exact black

698: body spectrum transformed to the source frame. In this case, the

699: expression of $n_{\rm cmb}(\epsilon_{\rm cmb})$ in the boundary layer

700: comoving frame is (see Eq.~2.58 of \citealp{BG70})

701: %

702: \begin{equation}

703:   n_{\rm cmb}(\epsilon_{\rm cmb})=8\pi \me 

704:   \left(

705:     \frac{\me c^2\epsilon_{\rm cmb}}{h}

706:   \right)^2

707:   \left[ \exp{ \left( \displaystyle\frac{\Gamma \me c^2\epsilon_{\rm cmb}}{kT^*}

708:       \right) } - 1

709:   \right]^{-1}\, ,

710: \label{eq:n_cmb}

711: \end{equation}

712: where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. Substituting Eq.~\ref{eq:n_cmb}

713: and $n_{\rm e}(\gamma) = b\delta(\gamma - \gamma_{\rm eq})$ into

714: Eq.\ref{eq:n_ec}, taking into account that $j_{_{\rm

715:     EC}}(\nu,\Omega)=h\epsilon \dot{n}_{_{\rm EC}}(\epsilon,\Omega)$

716: and the restriction imposed by the Thompson regime ($\epsilon_{\rm

717:   cmb} \gamma_{\rm eq} < 1$), one obtains

718: \begin{eqnarray}

719:   j_{_{{\rm EC},2}}(\nu)&=&

720:   \displaystyle{\frac{2 h \sigma_{_{\rm T}} b}

721:     {(1+\mu)^2 c^2 \gamma_{\rm eq}^6} 

722:     \left(\exp{\left(\frac{\Gamma h \nu}{(1+\mu)kT^\ast}\right)}-1 \right)^{-1}

723:     \nu^3} \nonumber \\

724:   & & \mbox{ if } 

725:   \nu \le \displaystyle{

726:     \frac{(1+\mu) \gamma_{\rm eq} m_{\rm e} c^2}{h} }\, .

727: \label{eq:j_ec_2}

728: \end{eqnarray}

729: 

730: The total EC emissivity is the sum of Eqs.~\ref{eq:j_ec_1} and

731: \ref{eq:j_ec_2}, i.e.,

732: \begin{equation}

733:   j_{_{\rm EC}}(\nu) = j_{_{{\rm EC},1}}(\nu) + j_{_{{\rm EC},2}}(\nu)\, .

734: \label{eq:j_ec}

735: \end{equation}

736: 

737: %--------------------------------------------------------

738: \subsection{Kinematic model of the shear layer}

739: \label{sec:kinematic}

740: %--------------------------------------------------------

741: 

742: We model a large scale jet as a uniform cylindrical spine of radius

743: $R_{\rm c}$ with a Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm c}$ followed by a

744: transition layer where the Lorentz factor changes linearly with radius

745: until $r=R_{\rm j}$, where the flow velocity either becomes zero

746: (similar to the SO02 model) or reaches a maximum from which it

747: abruptly decreases to zero (Figs.~\ref{fig:sl_structure},

748: \ref{fig:scheme}). For completeness, we also consider a boundary layer

749: where the Lorentz factor is uniform. More explicitly

750: %

751: \begin{equation}

752:   \Gamma_{i}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

753:       \Gamma_{\rm c} &\mbox{$r \leq R_{\rm c}$} \\

754:       \Gamma_{{\rm j}, i} + (\Gamma_{\rm c} - \Gamma_{{\rm j}, i}) 

755:       \frac{R_{\rm j} - r}{R_{\rm j} - R_{\rm c}} &\mbox{$R_{\rm c} < r

756:         \leq R_{\rm j}$} \\

757:       1 &\mbox{$r>R_{\rm j}$}

758:        \end{array} \right.  , 

759: \label{eq:Gamma}

760: \end{equation}

761: %

762: where we take $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ for our reference models. The

763: subscript $i=1$ labels the case of a monotonic shear layer

764: ($\Gamma_{{\rm j},1}=1$), $i=2$ represents the case of an anomalous

765: shear layer ($\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}=15$) and $i=3$ denotes the case of a

766: jet where the boundary layer is uniform and has the same Lorentz

767: factor as the core ($\Gamma_{{\rm j},3}=10$). The kinematic

768: idealization of the case corresponding to an anomalous layer is a

769: rough prototype of the structure displayed by the Lorentz factor when

770: a ${\cal _{\leftarrow}\!R C S_{\!\rightarrow}}$ solution develops

771: (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_structure_magnetic}). We neglect the variation of

772: the magnetic field across the boundary layer because it is rather

773: small (see Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}) and we assume that the magnetic

774: field is uniform and equal to $10\,\mu$G.

775: 

776: In order to properly normalize the emissivity properties of the

777: different jet models, we choose that all the shear layers transport

778: the same kinetic power as the monotonically decreasing one with a jet

779: radius $R_{{\rm j},1} = 2\,$kpc and a density and pressure equal to

780: the values chosen for the left state of the models shown in

781: Sect.~\ref{sec:RMHD_boost}. This means that we adjust the external jet

782: radius of the other two cases to $R_{{\rm j},2} = 1.25\,$kpc and

783: $R_{{\rm j},3} = 1.38\,$kpc. Since, typically, for extragalactic jets,

784: $\rho_{_{\rm ext}}\sim 10^{-27}-10^{-24}\,$g\,cm$^{-3}$

785: \citep{Ferrari98}, the fluxes of mass and of magnetic field in the jet

786: axial direction are

787: \begin{eqnarray}

788:   \Phi &=& 3\cdot 10^{38} \left(\frac{B}{10^{-4}\,{\rm G}}\right) 

789:     \left(\frac{R_{\rm j}}{1\,{\rm kpc}}\right)^2 \,{\rm G\,cm}^{-2} \\

790:     {\dot M} &=& 9\cdot10^{25}\left(\frac{R_{\rm c}}{1\,{\rm

791:           kpc}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{\rho_{_{\rm ext}}}{10^{-24}\,{\rm

792:           g\,cm}^{-3}}\right)\, {\rm g\,s}^{-1}\, .

793: \end{eqnarray}

794: 

795: For each cylindrical shell in the shear layer of radius $r$ and moving

796: with a bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma(r)$, we compute the local source

797: frame emissivities for the radiative processes considered in

798: Sect.~\ref{sec:model} (Eqs.~\ref{eq:j_syn}, \ref{eq:j_ssc} and

799: \ref{eq:j_ec}). Under the assumption that the radiating electrons are

800: distributed uniformly in the boundary layer (for a comoving observer),

801: the emissivity of the sub-layer at the distance $r$ from the jet axis

802: can be computed as

803: %

804: \begin{equation}

805:   j^{\ast}_I (\nu^{\ast}, \theta^{\ast}, r) =

806:   {\cal D}^2(r,\theta^{\ast}) \, j_I\left( \nu = {\nu^{\ast} \over

807:       {\cal D}(r,\theta^{\ast} )}, \, \mu = { \mu^{\ast} - \beta(r)

808:       \over 1 - \beta(r) \, \mu^{\ast}} \right) , 

809: \label{eq:j^ast}

810: \end{equation} 

811: %

812: where ${\cal D}(r, \theta^{\ast}) \equiv \left[ \Gamma(r) (1 -

813:   \beta(r) \, \mu^{\ast})\right]^{-1}$ is the Doppler factor

814: associated to a sub-layer moving with the Lorentz factor $\Gamma(r) =

815: \left[ 1 - \beta^{2}(r) \right]^{-1/2}$ at an angle $\theta^{\ast}

816: \equiv \cos^{-1} \mu^{\ast}$ with respect to the line of sight. The

817: subscript $I =$ syn, SSC or EC specifies the radiative process.

818: 

819: The observed flux density from the boundary layer volume $V^{\ast}$

820: appropriately modified by the flow-beaming patterns is

821: %

822: \begin{equation}

823:   S^{\ast} (\nu^{\ast}, \theta^{\ast}) = 

824:           d^{-2} \int_{R_{\rm c,i}}^{R_{\rm j,i}} dV^{\ast} \, j^{\ast}(\nu^{\ast}, \theta^{\ast},

825:           r),

826: \label{eq:S(nu,theta)}

827: \end{equation}

828: %

829: $d$ being the distance to the observer (we take $d=10\,$Mpc unless

830: stated otherwise). $dV^{\ast}=2\pi \Delta_{\rm z}r dr$ corresponds to a

831: volume element of the shear layer with an observed length $\Delta_{\rm

832:   z}$, which we assume to be $\Delta_{\rm z}=1\,$kpc.  The integrals

833: involved in the evaluation of Eq.~\ref{eq:S(nu,theta)} are performed

834: numerically and, in order to compute the SSC contribution to the flux

835: density, we estimate the SSC emissivity (Eq.~\ref{eq:j_ssc}) by taking

836: $l=(R_{{\rm j},i} - R_{{\rm c},i})/\sin{\theta^{\ast}}$.

837: 

838: 

839: %--------------------------------------------------------

840: \section{Spectral energy distribution of different models of boundary

841:   layers for kpc-scale jets}

842: \label{sec:SED}

843: %--------------------------------------------------------

844: 

845: Our main goal is to outline the observational differences between the

846: emission of large-scale jets laterally endowed by different types of

847: shear layer.  The observed spectral energy distribution of the

848: radiation emitted by different kinematic boundary layers in a

849: prototype kpc-scale jet is show in Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO} for two

850: different viewing angles $\theta^\ast = 1^\circ$ and $\theta^\ast =

851: 60^\circ$. We neglect both the absorption of very high energy (VHE)

852: gamma-rays during the propagation to the observer and any contribution

853: from a separate non-thermal electron population accelerated at shocks

854: happening at the jet core. The choice of a small and large viewing

855: angle is motivated by the fact that for small viewing angles,

856: $\theta^\ast \simlt 4 \simeq 1/\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}$, the larger Doppler

857: boosting provided to the emitted radiation by the larger Lorentz

858: factor in AR layers than in monotonic layers makes the total flux

859: density of the former case also slightly larger

860: (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO} left panel). The differences in the total

861: flux density are smaller in the synchrotron dominated part of the

862: spectrum than in the EC dominated one.  At larger angles

863: (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO} right panel), the flux density predicted for

864: standard layers is 2 to 5 orders of magnitude larger than for uniform

865: or AR layers due to the Doppler hiding of the later two cases. The

866: differences are very important in the EC dominated part of the

867: spectrum (i.e., in the gamma-ray regime).

868: 

869: Both, anomalous and uniform boundary layers generate a rather similar

870: spectral pattern, particularly at small viewing angles. As we observe

871: the jet at larger values of $\theta^\ast$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO}

872: right panel) the smallest Lorentz factor of the uniform case provides

873: a smaller Doppler hiding which results into a larger flux density

874: than in case of AR layers.

875: 

876: Considering specifically the flux density produced by anomalous layers

877: (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-thetas}), we note two main differences with the

878: standard case studied by SO02. First, the separation of the SSC and EC

879: peaks corresponding to IC emission of the power-law distribution of

880: the electrons (Eq.~\ref{eq:n(gamma)}) is larger in the former case.

881: For jets with AR layers the frequency separation between the EC1 and

882: SSC1 peaks grows with increasing viewing angle from less than one

883: order of magnitude ($\theta^\ast\sim 5^\circ$) to more than two orders

884: ($\theta^\ast\sim 90^\circ$). In case of jets endowed by standard

885: layers (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_uniform-thetas}), the frequency separation

886: between the EC1 and SSC1 peaks also grows with the viewing angle, but

887: much less than in the previous case: the frequency separation between

888: the two peaks is smaller than a factor 8 at $\theta^\ast=90^\circ$. If

889: a sufficiently large number of TeV photons were detected, this

890: difference could be used to distinguish between jets with standard and

891: anomalous layers. However, we repeat here the cautionary note of SO02:

892: the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) computed in this paper

893: correspond to the most optimistic scenario, with a highly relativistic

894: jet spine and very efficient acceleration creating electrons with

895: large Lorentz factors up to $\gamma_{\rm eq}\sim 10^8$. Either smaller

896: values of $\Gamma_{\rm c}$ or $\gamma_{\rm eq}$ would reduce the

897: observed very high energy gamma-ray flux and shift the corresponding

898: peaks to lower energies.

899: 

900: The second most important difference between AR and standard radiating

901: boundary layers is that the exponential decay of the synchrotron spectrum

902: is shifted towards smaller frequencies (delving deeper into the very

903: soft X-ray regime). This has a big impact in the effective X-ray

904: spectral index as we will discuss below.

905: 

906: %

907: % Jet to counter jet brightness ratio.

908: %

909: As noted by \cite{kom90} and confirmed by SO02, extragalactic jets

910: with a monotonic boundary layer may show a jet-to-counterjet

911: radio-to-optical brightness ratio ($S^{\ast}_{\rm syn} (\theta^{\ast})

912: / S^{\ast}_{\rm syn} (\pi - \theta^{\ast})$) which is smaller than if

913: the jet were uniform. We find that such an assertion has to be

914: modified for jets limited by AR-boundary layers. In the latter case,

915: at small viewing angles (namely, $\theta^\ast\simlt 5^\circ$ for the

916: considered parametrization) the jet/counterjet asymmetry is $\sim 2 -

917: 3$ times larger than the one corresponding to a uniform jet with the

918: same kinetic power (Fig.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet}). At larger viewing

919: angles, the brightness asymmetry turns out to be almost

920: indistinguishable from the case of an equivalent uniform jet (see in

921: Fig.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet} how the solid and dashed lines

922: practically overlap each other for $\theta^\ast \simgt 20^\circ$ if

923: $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ or for $\theta^\ast \simgt 50^\circ$ in case

924: $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$). Certainly, since the brightness asymmetry is a

925: result of the Doppler boosting (hiding) of the jet (counterjet), the

926: smaller is the value of the maximum Lorentz factor in the anomalous

927: shear layer ($\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}$), the smaller will be the maximum

928: asymmetry at small $\theta^\ast$. If the Lorentz factor of the jet

929: spine is small, the jet-to-counterjet brightness ratio reduces in

930: absolute value (see the grey lines corresponding to $\Gamma_{\rm

931:   c}=3$, in Fig.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet}).%

932: %

933: \footnote{The relative increase of the Lorentz factor in an anomalous

934:   shear layer is rather independent on the Lorentz factor of the jet

935:   (left state). Therefore, since we have chosen a parametrization for

936:   our prototype jet in which $\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}/\Gamma_{\rm c}=1.5$,

937:   for the case of $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$ we take $\Gamma_{{\rm

938:       j},2}=4.5$.}

939: %

940: However, even for the relatively small value of $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$ the

941: jet-to-counterjet brightness ratio of the anomalous shear layer case

942: is larger than the one corresponding to the standard case at

943: $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ independent of the viewing angle (e.g., at

944: $\theta^\ast=0^\circ$, $\log{\left[S^{\ast}_{\rm syn} (0) /

945:     S^{\ast}_{\rm syn} (\pi)\right]} \simeq 4.35$ for the AR model,

946: while $\log{\left[S^{\ast}_{\rm syn} (0) / S^{\ast}_{\rm syn}

947:     (\pi)\right]} \simeq 4.25$). If there were a handle on the value

948: of the Lorentz factor of the jet, this difference might allow us to

949: discriminate observationally between jets with anomalous and standard

950: shear layers. However, given the similarity of the jet-to-counterjet

951: brightness ratio between jets with anomalous layers and jets with {\it

952:   top-hat} profiles (uniform), it might be practically impossible to

953: disentangle from this unique value whether the jet is shielded by an

954: anomalous layer or by no layer at all.

955: 

956: Considering the results obtained for standard boundary layers, SO02

957: concluded that the mildly relativistic velocities inferred from the

958: observed brightness asymmetries at tens of kiloparsec scales, may

959: correspond to a slower boundary layer and not necessarily to the faster

960: jet core, which might be highly relativistic at the observed

961: distances. If anomalous shear layers may happen in actual jets,

962: slower spines are preferred and relatively moderate maximum shear

963: layer Lorentz factors might also be invoked to explain the observed

964: jet-to-counterjet asymmetries.

965: 

966: %

967: % X-ray bumb emission

968: %

969: In our models, the X-ray radiated power of kpc-scale jets bounded by

970: standard layers is dominated by the high-energy electron bump spectral

971: component, implying that the resulting synchrotron X-ray flux lies

972: above the extrapolated radio-to-optical continuum (see SO02 and

973: Figs.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO}, \ref{fig:SED_uniform-thetas}). This is also

974: true for jets endowed by anomalous boundary layers (see

975: Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-thetas} at $\nu^\ast \simeq 10^{17}\,$Hz). For

976: both types of layers, the spectral slope at X-ray frequencies may be

977: rather different from that of the power-law at radio-to-optical

978: frequencies, and the difference depends also on the viewing

979: angle. This implies that the effective X-ray spectral index

980: $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}(\theta^\ast)$ computed between $h\nu^\ast_1 =

981: 1\,$keV and $h\nu^\ast_2 = 5\,$keV as

982: %

983: \begin{equation}

984:   \alpha_{\rm X, eff}(\theta^{\ast}) = { \log \left[ S^{\ast}_{\rm X}

985:       (\nu^{\ast}_1, \theta^{\ast}) \, / \, S^{\ast}_{\rm X} (\nu^{\ast}_2,

986:       \theta^{\ast}) \right] \over \log \left[ \nu^{\ast}_2 \, / \,

987:       \nu^{\ast}_1 \right] } ,

988: \label{eq:alphaX}

989: \end{equation}

990: %

991: can be significantly distinct. We point out that $S^\ast_{\rm

992:   X}(\nu^{\ast}, \theta^{\ast})$ is computed in this paper as the

993: value of the flux density calculated using Eq.~\ref{eq:S(nu,theta)}

994: instead of SO02 who only take $S^\ast_{\rm X}(\nu^{\ast},

995: \theta^{\ast}) \propto \int r dr {\cal D}^2(r,\theta^\ast)

996: R(x^\ast_{\rm eq})$, with $R(x^\ast_{\rm eq})$ given by

997: Eq.~\ref{eq:R(x)}, and $x^\ast_{\rm eq}= \nu^\ast/c_1\gamma^2_{\rm eq}

998: {\cal D}(r,\theta^\ast)$.

999: 

1000: For highly relativistic jet cores ($\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$),

1001: Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX} (black lines) shows that the most noticeable

1002: difference between jets with anomalous or uniform shear layers and

1003: jets with standard limiting boundaries, is the fact that the effective

1004: X-ray spectral index of the jet $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j}$ is

1005: larger than the corresponding to the counterjet $\alpha_{\rm X,

1006:   eff}^{\rm cj}$ for jet inclinations $\theta^\ast \simgt

1007: 65^\circ$. For standard boundary layer jets $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm

1008:   j} \leq \alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm cj}$, $\forall \theta^\ast$ holds

1009: (i.e., the counter jet has a steeper X-ray continuum as compared to

1010: the jet spectrum). Furthermore, jets with uniform and AR layers show a

1011: much larger%

1012: %

1013: \footnote{Particularly, in the range $\theta^\ast \in

1014:   [60^\circ,90^\circ]$, $\alpha_{\rm X, eff, (Uniform, AR)}^{\rm j}$

1015:   is 6 to 7 times larger than $\alpha_{\rm X, eff, standard}^{\rm

1016:     j}$.}

1017: %

1018: jet and counter jet effective X-ray spectral index than jets with

1019: standard layers if the inclination is $\theta^\ast \simgt 30^\circ$.

1020: Indeed, $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j}$ in the former two types of

1021: boundary layers is even larger than the $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm cj}$

1022: corresponding to jets with monotonic layers for viewing angles

1023: $\theta^\ast \simgt 30^\circ$.

1024: 

1025: The large values of the effective X-ray spectral index in jets with

1026: uniform and AR layers is due to the fact that the decay of the

1027: spectrum after the synchrotron peak crosses the X-ray band and moves

1028: towards optical frequencies for inclinations $\theta^\ast \simgt

1029: 60^\circ$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-thetas}). Consistently, the flux

1030: density at 5\,keV decays abruptly and, thus $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}$

1031: grows.

1032: 

1033: In case of jets with more moderate spine velocities ($\Gamma_{\rm

1034:   c}=3$; Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX}, grey lines), there is no viewing angle

1035: for which $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j} > \alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm

1036:   cj}$, independent on the shear layer model. However, it remains true

1037: that the counterjet X-ray spectral index of jets bearing uniform or AR

1038: layers is much larger than the one corresponding to standard boundary

1039: layer jets (there is a factor of 2 to 4 difference between them). 

1040: 

1041: Taking together the results for models with jet spines flowing at

1042: $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$ and 10, it turns out that the range of variability

1043: of both $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j}$ and $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm

1044:   cj}$ is larger for jets flanked by uniform and AR layers than for

1045: jets with standard boundary layers. Interestingly, the large-scale

1046: X-ray emission observed from several radio-loud AGNs exhibits rather

1047: different spectral characteristics. For instance, X-ray spectra of the

1048: known jets in quasars are very flat (e.g., $\alpha_{\rm X} \sim 0.23$

1049: for 3C 207, \citealp{bru01}; $\alpha_{\rm X} \sim 0.5$ for PKS 1127,

1050: \citealp{sie02}; $\alpha_{\rm X} \sim 0.8$ for 3C 273 and PKS

1051: 0637). The low effective spectral index is consistent with small jet

1052: inclinations (c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX}, inset) independent of the

1053: shear layer model adopted. On the other hand, jets in radio galaxies

1054: tend to display relatively steep X-ray spectra, $\alpha_{\rm X}>1.0 -

1055: 1.5$ (\citealt{hac01} for 3C 66B, \citealt{wor01} for B2 0206 and B2

1056: 0755).  These values correspond to large inclination angles on

1057: Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX}, and/or lower jet Lorentz factors for jets with

1058: standard boundary layers. But, if uniform or AR emitting layers are

1059: considered, the viewing angles needed to account for such values of

1060: the X-ray spectral index are smaller ($\theta^\ast \in [20^\circ,

1061: 25^\circ]$ if $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$, or $\theta^\ast \in [40^\circ,

1062: 55^\circ]$ if $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$). Very recently, \cite{hac07} have

1063: reported values of the X-ray spectral index $\alpha_{\rm X}>2.5$ at

1064: distances of $\simeq 4\,$kpc from the nucleus in Cen A. These large

1065: values of $\alpha_{\rm X}$ are not within reach of jet models flanked

1066: by standard layers (the maximum of $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j}$ is

1067: 1.84 at $\theta^\ast=90^\circ$ for the model with $\Gamma_{\rm

1068:   c}=10$). Nonetheless, jets with uniform or AR boundaries may yield

1069: $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j}>2.5$ for $\theta^\ast>32^\circ$

1070: ($\theta^\ast>59^\circ$) if $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ ($\Gamma_{\rm

1071:   c}=3$). Indeed, considering that the inclination of Cen A is $\sim

1072: 60^\circ - 70^\circ$ \citep{SDK94}, our results suggest that, if a

1073: uniform or an AR emitting boundary layer were responsible for the

1074: emission of Cen A at distances from the nucleus $\simgt 4\,$kpc, small

1075: values of the spine Lorentz factor ($\Gamma_{\rm c}\simeq 3$) are

1076: preferred to explain the large values of $\alpha_{\rm X}$ observed at

1077: such scales.

1078: 

1079: % counterjet X-ray spectral index

1080: Although very recently deep {\it Chandra} of observations of Cen A

1081: \citep{hac07} have provided us with spectra of some counterjet X-ray

1082: features, this is not the usual case for large scale

1083: counterjets. There are, however, some estimates of the lower limit of

1084: the X-ray brightness asymmetry, like e.g., for the 3C 66B ($> 25$,

1085: \citealt{hac01}), Pictor A ($> 15$, \citealt{wil01}; $6^{+12}_{-2}$

1086: \citealt{HC05}), or PKS 1127-145 ($> 5$, \citealt{sie02}).  Our model

1087: of AR or uniform radiating boundary layer tends to favor larger X-ray

1088: brightness asymmetries between the jet and the counterjet. The reason

1089: being that the X-ray emission of the jet is dominated by the

1090: synchrotron radiation from the monoenergetic, hard ($\gamma=10^8$)

1091: electron component, while the counterjet emission is dominated by the

1092: EC radiation of the power-law part of the electron spectrum.

1093: 

1094: 

1095: %--------------------------------------------------------

1096: \section{Discussion}

1097: \label{sec:discussion}

1098: %--------------------------------------------------------

1099: 

1100: SO02 chose the parameters of their radiating boundary layers such that

1101: they exhibit clearly the main characteristics of their model. We do

1102: not repeat here their discussion. Instead, we focus on the discussion

1103: of the choice of the new parameters of our model.

1104: 

1105: SO02 anticipated that the form of the $\Gamma(r)$ radial profile and

1106: of the related spatial variation of the acceleration efficiency can

1107: significantly influence the beaming pattern and the intensity of the

1108: boundary layer emission. We actually have confirmed this point by

1109: replacing the monotonically decaying profile of $\Gamma(r)$ by an

1110: idealization of the Lorentz factor profile that results from AR

1111: boundaries. This results in a different relative normalization of the

1112: SSC and EC components presented in

1113: Figs.~\ref{fig:SED_AR-SO}-\ref{fig:SED_uniform-thetas}.

1114: 

1115: The uniform layer model could be considered as a limiting case of AR

1116: layers when $\Gamma_{\rm j,i} \rightarrow \Gamma_{\rm c}$. Thus, when

1117: looking at the plots of the jet-to-counterjet ratio

1118: (Fig.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet}) or the X-ray effective spectral index

1119: (Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX}), any model including an AR layer with

1120: $\Gamma_{\rm j,i} \in [10,15]$ (if $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$; black lines in

1121: Figs.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet} and \ref{fig:alphaX}) or $\Gamma_{\rm

1122:   j,i} \in [3,4.5]$ (if $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$; grey lines in

1123: Figs.~\ref{fig:jet2counterjet} and \ref{fig:alphaX}), would display a

1124: graph located between the boundaries set by the solid and dashed lines

1125: of the corresponding figures. Since the area enclosed by these two

1126: line types (solid and dashed) is rather small, it turns out that our

1127: choice of the value of $\Gamma_{\rm j,i}=1.5\Gamma_{\rm c}$ does not

1128: significantly influence the results. More precisely, if for the

1129: considered values of $\Gamma_{\rm c}$ (3 or 10) we would have picked

1130: up any other value of $\Gamma_{\rm j,i} \in [\Gamma_{\rm c},

1131: 1.5\Gamma_{\rm c}]$, neither the value of the jet-to-counterjet

1132: brightness ratio, nor $\alpha_{\rm X}$, nor even the spectrum would

1133: have changed appreciably. Since, keeping all other physical conditions

1134: fixed, a decrease of ${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}}$ yields smaller values of

1135: $\Gamma_{\rm j,i}$, the results we obtain shall be qualitatively valid

1136: both for magnetized or non-magnetized jets.

1137: 

1138: The jet-to-counterjet effective X-ray spectral index asymmetry and its

1139: angular dependence (Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaX}) depends on which of the two

1140: spectral components at X-ray frequencies dominates: synchrotron

1141: radiation of the monoenergetic, high-energy electron component or the

1142: EC radiation from low energy electrons ($\gamma \sim 100$). In its

1143: turn, the dominance of any of these two processes depends on the exact

1144: shape of the electron spectrum at the highest energies, on the viewing

1145: angle, on the jet Lorentz factor and on

1146: $\Gamma(r)$. Figure~\ref{fig:alphaX} serves as an example of the

1147: comparative behavior of different boundary layer models (in which all

1148: the parameters are the same except $\Gamma(r)$).

1149: 

1150: 

1151: %--------------------------------------------------------

1152: \subsection{Summary}

1153: \label{sec:summary}

1154: %--------------------------------------------------------

1155: 

1156: In this work, we compare the observational signatures imprinted by

1157: different kinematic models of shear layers of kiloparsec scale jets on

1158: the radiation of ultrarelativistic electrons accelerated at such

1159: boundary layers. The (simple) radiative model of a jet boundary layer

1160: follows that of SO02. Alternative (more sophisticated) models to

1161: compute the boundary layer radiation from multizone models (see, e.g.,

1162: \citealt{MA04,MA05,MA07}) will be considered elsewhere. The most

1163: important difference among distinct kinematic models is the radial

1164: profile of the Lorentz factor $\Gamma(r)$ across the shear layer.  We

1165: have considered three different profiles. The first one is the usually

1166: assumed for large scale jets, namely, a monotonically decaying Lorentz

1167: factor profile (as in SO02). The second one is motivated by the

1168: results of \cite{AR06} and \cite{Mizuetal08}, namely, a non-monotonic

1169: profile where the Lorentz factor reaches a maximum at the limit

1170: between the jet and the external medium (AR layer). For completeness,

1171: the case of a uniform jet with a sharp edge is considered. The last

1172: case can be regarded as a limit of the AR profile when the maximum

1173: Lorentz factor in the boundary layer equals the Lorentz factor of the

1174: jet spine. Along the way, we have conveniently developed the results

1175: of \cite{AR06} and \cite{Mizuetal08} to include the effects of

1176: dynamically important magnetic fields in the parameter range which is

1177: adequate for large scale jets. From such development we have obtained

1178: and idealized kinematic model of anomalous boundary layers in

1179: magnetized extragalactic jets.

1180: 

1181: Not surprisingly, we find that the jet-to-counter jet brightness ratio

1182: at radio frequencies is larger for jets flanked by AR layers than for

1183: uniform or standard layers with the same jet core Lorentz factor. This

1184: results from the fact that the differences in the radial profile of

1185: the velocity field determine the beaming pattern of the boundary layer

1186: emission. Thereby, this effect has to be taken into account when the

1187: jet bulk Lorentz factor is inferred from the jet-to-counterjet

1188: brightness asymmetry.

1189: 

1190: The differences between AR and uniform boundary layer jets are small

1191: in the framework of our simple model. In practice, these small

1192: differences might render their observational distinction very

1193: difficult. Comparing these two models with standard radiating boundary

1194: layers the differences are much larger. Several independent clues can

1195: be used to distinguish (observationally) among them:

1196: %

1197: \begin{enumerate}

1198: \item If a sufficiently large number of TeV photons were detected, it

1199:   would be possible to distinguish between jets with standard and

1200:   anomalous layers by looking at the separation of the SSC and EC

1201:   peaks. The separation between the two peaks is larger for jets with

1202:   AR or uniform layers.

1203: %

1204: \item A large jet-to-counter jet brightness ratio (about two orders of

1205:   magnitude larger than in standard boundary layer jets) is expected

1206:   for jets bounded by AR or uniform layers.

1207: %

1208: \item For large viewing angles the effective X-ray spectral index is much

1209:   larger for AR or uniform jets than for jets with standard boundary

1210:   layers. 

1211:  %

1212: \item There can exist an inversion of the jet and counterjet X-ray

1213:   spectral indices for jets seen at large viewing angles. However, for

1214:   most inclination angles and moderate bulk Lorentz factors of the jet

1215:   core, the effective X-ray spectral index of the jet is much smaller

1216:   than that of the counterjet. Indeed, if there is a hint on the bulk

1217:   Lorentz factor of the jet (e.g., because superluminal proper motions

1218:   are detected), the jet-to-counterjet spectral X-ray index ratio may

1219:   tell us whether the radiating layer is uniform, standard or AR. We

1220:   note that for large Lorentz factors of the jet core ($\Gamma_{\rm c}

1221:   \simlt 8$), the largest ratio $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j} /

1222:   \alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm cj}$ corresponds to jets with uniform

1223:   layers, whilst the smaller one should be identified with standard

1224:   boundary layers. For more moderate core Lorentz factor, the ratio

1225:   $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm j} / \alpha_{\rm X, eff}^{\rm cj}$ is

1226:   larger for jets flanked by AR layers than for jets with uniform or

1227:   standard layers. In spite of these facts, the differences in the

1228:   effective spectral X-ray index between models with uniform and with

1229:   AR layers are rather small and, they might render their

1230:   observational distinction very difficult unless a very careful

1231:   analysis of the observational data is performed.

1232: %   

1233: \end{enumerate}

1234: 

1235: 

1236: \acknowledgements

1237:   We kindly acknowledge the work of Jerome Ferrand during his

1238:   internship at the Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a y

1239:   Astrof\'{\i}sica.  We also thank L. Stawarz for very useful

1240:   discussions and helpful hints. MAA is a Ram\'on y Cajal Fellow of

1241:   the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. He also acknowledges

1242:   partial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science

1243:   (AYA2004-08067-C03-C01, AYA2007-67626-C03-01, CSD2007-00050). PM is

1244:   at the University of Valencia with a European Union Marie Curie

1245:   Incoming International Fellowship (MEIF-CT-2005-021603). The authors

1246:   thankfully acknowledge the computer resources, technical expertise

1247:   and assistance provided by the Barcelona Supercomputing Center -

1248:   Centro Nacional de Supercomputaci\'on.

1249: 

1250: 

1251: %\appendix

1252: 

1253: 

1254: 

1255: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1256: %

1257: \bibitem[Aloy \etal(1999a)]{alo99a} Aloy, M.A., Ib\'a\~nez, J.M.,  Mart\'{\i},

1258:   J.M., M\"uller, E. 1999, \apj\, Supl. Ser., 122, 151

1259: %

1260: \bibitem[Aloy \etal(1999b)]{alo99b} Aloy, M.A., Ib\'a\~nez, J.M.,

1261:   Mart\'{\i}, J.M., G\'omez, J.L., \& M\"uller, E. 1999, \apjl, 523,

1262:   L125

1263: %

1264: \bibitem[Aloy \etal(1999c)]{alo99c} Aloy, M.A., Pons, J.A.,

1265:   Ib\'a\~nez, J.M. 1999, Comp. Phys. Comm., 120, 115

1266: %

1267: \bibitem[Aloy \etal(2000a)]{alo00} Aloy, M.A., G\'omez, J.L.,

1268:   Ib\'a\~nez, J.M., Mart\'{\i}, J.M., \& M\"uller, E. 2000, \apjl,

1269:   528, L85

1270: %

1271: \bibitem[Aloy, \etal(2000b)]{alo00b} Aloy, M.A., M\"uller, E., 

1272:   Ib\'a\~nez, J.M., Mart\'{\i}, J.M., \& MacFadyen, A. 2000, \apjl,

1273:   531, L119

1274: %

1275: \bibitem[Aloy, \etal(2002)]{alo02} Aloy, M.A., Ib\'a\~nez, J.M.,

1276:   Miralles, J.A., \& Urpin, V. 2002, \aap, 396, 693

1277: %

1278: \bibitem[Aloy, \etal(2003)]{alo03} Aloy, M.A., Mart\'{\i}, J.M.,

1279:   G\'omez, J.L., Agudo, I., M\"uller, E., \& Ib\'a\~nez, J.M. 2003,

1280:   \apjl, 585, L109

1281: %

1282: \bibitem[Aloy, Janka \& M{\"u}ller (2005)]{Alo05} {Aloy} M.~A.,

1283:   {Janka} H.-T., {M{\"u}ller} E., 2005, A\&A, 436, 273

1284: %

1285: \bibitem[Aloy \& Rezzolla(2006)]{AR06} Aloy, M.A., \& Rezzolla,

1286:   L. 2006, \apjl, 640, L115

1287: %

1288: \bibitem[Aloy \& Obergaulinger (2007)]{AO07} {Aloy} M.~A.,

1289:   Obergaulinger, M., 2007, Revista Mexicana de Astronom\'{\i}a y

1290:   Astrof\'{\i}sica, 30, 96

1291: %

1292: \bibitem[{{Attridge}, {Roberts} \& {Wardle}(1999)}]{ARW99}

1293:       Attridge, J.M., Roberts, D.H., \& Wardle, J.F.C. 1999, \apjl,

1294:       518, L87

1295: %

1296: \bibitem[Baan(1980)]{Baan80} Baan, W.A. 1980, \apj, 239, 433

1297: %

1298: \bibitem[Begelman \& Li(1994)]{BL94} Begelman, M.C., Li, Z.-Y. 1994,

1299:   \apj, 426, 269

1300: % 

1301: \bibitem[Birkinshaw(1991)]{bir91} Birkinshaw, M. 1991, \mnras, 252, 505

1302: %

1303: \bibitem[{Birkl} et~al.(2007)]{Birkletal07} {Birkl}, R., {Aloy},

1304:   M.~A., {Janka}, H.~-Th., \& {Mueller}, E. 2007, \aap, 463, 51

1305: %

1306: \bibitem[Blandford(2002)]{Blandford02} Blandford, R.G. 2002, in ESO

1307:   Astrophysics Symposia. Eds. M. Gilfanov, R. Sunyaev, \&

1308:   E. Churazov. Springer-Verlag, p. 381

1309: %

1310: \bibitem[Blandford(2003)]{Blandford03} Blandford, R. 2003, Ap\&SS,

1311:   288, 155

1312: %

1313: \bibitem[Blumenthal \& Gould(1970)]{BG70} Blumenthal, G.R., Gould,

1314:   R.J. 1970, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237

1315: %

1316: \bibitem[{{Brown} \& {Roshko}(1974)}]{BR74}

1317:     Brown, G.~L. \& Roshko, A. 1974, J. Fluid Mech., 64(4), 775

1318: %

1319: \bibitem[Brunetti et al.(2001)]{bru01} Brunetti, G., Bondi, M.,

1320:     Comastri, A., Setti, G. 2001, \aap, 381, 795

1321: %

1322: \bibitem[Cawthorne, \etal(1993)]{caw93} Cawthorne, T.V., Wardle,

1323:   J.F.C., Roberts, D.H., \& Gabuzda, D.C. 1993, \apj, 416, 519

1324: %

1325: \bibitem[Chiaberge et al.(2000)]{chi00} Chiaberge, M., Celotti, A.,

1326:   Capetti, A., \& Ghisellini, G. 2000, \aap, 358, 104

1327: %

1328: \bibitem[Crusius \& Schlickeiser(1986)]{cru86} Crusius, A., \&

1329:   Schlickeiser, R. 1986, \aap, 164, L16

1330: %

1331: \bibitem[Dermer(1995)]{der95} Dermer, C.D. 1995, \apjl, 446, L63

1332: %

1333: \bibitem[De Young(1993)]{DeYoung93} De Young, D.~S. 1993,

1334: \apj, 405, L13

1335: %

1336: \bibitem[Dulwich, \etal(2007)]{Dulwichetal07} Dulwich, F., Worrall,

1337:   D.M., Birkinshaw, M., Padgett, C.A., Perlman, E.S. 2007, \mnras,

1338:   374, 1216

1339: %

1340: \bibitem[Earl, Jokipii \& Morfill(1988)]{EJM88} Earl, J.A., Jokipii,

1341:     J.R., Morfill, G. 1988, \apjl, 331, L91

1342: %

1343: \bibitem[Fendt(2006)]{Fendt06} Fendt, C. 2006, \apj, 651, 272

1344: %

1345: \bibitem[Fendt \& Ouyed(2004)]{FO04} Fendt, C., Ouyed, R. 2004, \apj,

1346:   608, 378

1347: %

1348: \bibitem[Ferrari(1998)]{Ferrari98} Ferrari, A. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 539

1349: %

1350: \bibitem[Ferrari, Trussoni \& Zaninetti(1978)]{FTZ78} Ferrari, A.,

1351:   Trussoni, E., \& Zaninetti, L. 1978, \aap, 64, 43

1352: %

1353: \bibitem[Ferrari, Trussoni \& Zaninetti(1982)]{FTZ82} Ferrari, A.,

1354:   Trussoni, E., \& Zaninetti, L. 1982, \mnras, 198, 1065

1355: %

1356: \bibitem[Hanasz \& Sol(1996)]{HS96} Hanasz, M., \& Sol, H. 1996,

1357:   \aap, 315, 355

1358: %

1359: \bibitem[Hardcastle, \etal(1997)]{hac97} Hardcastle, M.J., Alex\&er,

1360:   P., Pooley, G.G., \& Riley, J.M. 1997, \mnras, 288, L1

1361: %

1362: \bibitem[Hardcastle et al.(2001)]{hac01} Hardcastle, M.J., Birkinshaw,

1363:   M., \& Worrall, D.M. 2001, \mnras, 326, 1499

1364: %

1365: \bibitem[Hardcastle \& Croston(2005)]{HC05} Hardcastle, M.J., Croston,

1366:   J.H. 2005, \mnras, 363, 649

1367: %

1368: \bibitem[Hardcastle et al.(2007)]{hac07} Hardcastle, M.J., Kraft,

1369:   R.P., Sivakoff, G.R., et al. 2007, \apj, 670, L81

1370: %

1371: \bibitem[Hardee(1979)]{Hardee79} Hardee, P.E. 1979, \apj, 234, 47

1372: %

1373: \bibitem[Hardee(2007)]{Hardee07} Hardee, P.E. 2007, \apj, 664, 26

1374: %

1375: \bibitem[Kataoka \& Stawarz(2005)]{KS05} Kataoka, J., \& Stawarz,

1376:   L. 2005, \apj, 622, 797

1377: %

1378: \bibitem[Kataoka, \etal(2006)]{Kataokaetal06} Kataoka, J., \& Stawarz,

1379:   L., Aharonian, F., Takahara, F., Ostrowski, M., Edwards, P.G. 2006,

1380:   \apj, 641, 158

1381: %

1382: \bibitem[Komissarov(1990)]{kom90} Komissarov, S.S. 1990, SvAL, 16, 284

1383: %

1384: \bibitem[Laing(1996)]{lai96} Laing, R.A. 1996, in {\it `Energy

1385:     Transport in Radio Galaxies \& Quasars', ASP Conference Series

1386:     vol. 100}, eds. P.E. Hardee, A.H. Bridle \& J.A. Zensus, San

1387:   Francisco

1388: %

1389: \bibitem[Leismann \etal(2005)]{LA05} Leismann, T., Ant\'on, L., Aloy, M. A.,

1390:   M\"uller, E., Mart\'i, J. M., Miralles, J. A., Ib\'a\~nez, J. M.

1391:   2005, A\&A, 436, 503

1392: %

1393: \bibitem[McKinney \& Narayan(2007)]{MN07} McKinney, J.C., Narayan,

1394:   R. (2007), \mnras, 375, 513

1395: %

1396: \bibitem[Meliani \& Keppens(2007)]{MK07} Melinani, Z., Keppens,

1397:   R. 2007, \aap, 475, 785

1398: %

1399: \bibitem[Mimica \etal(2004)]{MA04} Mimica P., Aloy M-A., M\"uller E.,

1400: Brinkmann W. 2004, A\&A, 418, 947

1401: %

1402: \bibitem[Mimica \etal(2005)]{MA05} Mimica P., Aloy M-A., M\"uller E.,

1403: Brinkmann W. 2005, A\&A, 441, 103

1404: %	

1405: \bibitem[Mimica \etal(2007)]{MA07} Mimica P., Aloy M-A., M\"uller

1406:   E. 2007, A\&A, 466, 93

1407: %	

1408: \bibitem[Mizuno et al.(2008)]{Mizuetal08} Mizuno, Y., Hardee,

1409:   P.,  Hartmann, D.H., Nishikawa, K.-I., \& Zhang, B. 2008, \apj, 672, 72

1410: %

1411: \bibitem[Ostrowski(1990)]{ost90} Ostrowski, M. 1990, \aap, 238, 435

1412: %

1413: \bibitem[Ostrowski(1998)]{ost98} Ostrowski, M. 1998, \aap, 335, 134

1414: %

1415: \bibitem[Ostrowski(2000)]{ost00} Ostrowski, M. 2000, \mnras, 312, 579

1416: %

1417: \bibitem[Owen, Hardee \& Cornwell(1989)]{owe89} Owen, F.N., Hardee,

1418:   P.E., \& Cornwell, T.J. 1989, \apj, 340, 698

1419: %

1420: \bibitem[Perlman, \etal(1999)]{per99} Perlman, E.S., Biretta, J.A.,

1421:   Fang, Z., Sparks, W.B., \& Macchetto, F.D. 1999, \aj, 117, 2185

1422: %

1423: \bibitem[Perucho, \etal(2007)]{Peruchoetal07} {Perucho}, M., {Hanasz}, M.,

1424:   {Mart{\'{\i}}}, J.~M., \& {Miralles}, J.~A. 2007, Phys. Rev. E, 75, 056312

1425: %

1426: \bibitem[Pudridtz, Rogers \& Ouyed(2006)]{PCO06} Pudridtz, R.E., Rogers,

1427:   C.S., Ouyed, R. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1131

1428: %

1429: \bibitem[Rieger \& Duffy(2004)]{RD04} Rieger, F.~M., \& Duffy,

1430: P. 2004, \apj, 617, 155

1431: %

1432: \bibitem[Romero et al.(2005)]{Romeroetal05} Romero, R., Mart\'{\i},

1433:   J.M., Pons, J.A., Ib\'a\~nez, J.M., Miralles, J.A. (2005),  J. Fluid

1434:   Mech. 544, 323

1435: %

1436: \bibitem[Siemiginowska et al.(2002)]{sie02} Siemiginowska, A.,

1437:   Bechtold, J., Aldcroft, T.L., Elvis, M., Harris, D.A., Dobrzycki,

1438:   A. 2002, \apj, 570, 543

1439: %

1440: \bibitem[Skibo, Dermer \& Kinzer(1994)]{SDK94} Skibo, J.B., Dermer,

1441:   C.D., Kinzer, R.L. 1994, ApJ, 426, L23

1442: %

1443: \bibitem[Stawarz \& Ostrowski(2002)]{SO02} Stawarz, \L ., \&

1444:   Ostrowski, M. 2002, \apj, 578, 763 (SO02)

1445: %

1446: \bibitem[Stawarz et al.(2005)]{Stawarzetal05} Stawarz, \L .,

1447:   Siemiginowska, A., Ostrowski, M., \& Sikora, M. 2005, \apj, 626, 120

1448: %

1449: \bibitem[Stawarz(2007)]{Stawarz} Stawarz, \L . 2007, private

1450:   communication.

1451: %

1452: \bibitem[Swain, Bridle \& Baum(1998)]{SBB98} Swain, M.R., Bridle,

1453:   A.H., \& Baum, S.A. 1998, \apjl, 507, L29

1454: %

1455: \bibitem[Turland \& Scheuer(1976)]{TS76} Turland, B.~D., \& Scheuer,

1456: P.~A.~G. 1976, \mnras, 176, 421

1457: %

1458: \bibitem[Urpin(2002)]{Urpin02} Urpin, V. 2002, \aap, 385, 14

1459: %

1460: \bibitem[Urpin(2006)]{Urpin06} Urpin, V. 2006, \aap, 455, 779

1461: %

1462: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2001)]{wil01} Wilson, A.S., Young, A.J.,

1463:   Shopbell, P.L. 2001, \apj, 547, 740

1464: %

1465: \bibitem[Worrall et al.(2001)]{wor01} Worrall, D.M., Birkinshaw, M.,

1466:   \& Hardcastle, M.J. 2001, \mnras, 326, L7

1467: %

1468: \end{thebibliography}

1469:  

1470: \clearpage

1471: \begin{figure}

1472: \plotone{f1.eps}

1473: \caption{{\it Left panel:} Profiles of the Lorentz factor (solid line)

1474:   and of the laboratory frame magnetic field (dashed line) resulting

1475:   from a prototypical Riemann problem yielding a $_{\leftarrow}{\cal

1476:     SCS}_{\rightarrow}$ pattern. The initial left and right states are

1477:   $(p_{_{\rm L}},\rho_{L},v^n_{_{\rm L}},\Gamma_{_{\rm L}},{\tilde \beta}_{\rm

1478:     L})=(10^{-5},10^{-7},0.9,10,0.1)$ and $(p_{\rm

1479:     R},\rho_{R},v^n_{\rm R},\Gamma_{\rm R},{\tilde \beta}_{\rm

1480:     R})=(10^{-6},10^{-2},0,1,0.1)$, respectively. Note that no boost

1481:   is produced to the left of the contact discontinuity located at

1482:   $r\simeq 1.147$. {\it Right panel:} Same as the left panel, but for

1483:   a prototype $_{\leftarrow}{\cal RCS}_{\rightarrow}$ pattern. The

1484:   initial left and right states are $(p_{_{\rm L}},\rho_{L},v^n_{_{\rm

1485:       L}},\Gamma_{_{\rm L}},{\tilde \beta}_{\rm L})=(10^{-5},10^{-7},0,10,100)$

1486:   and $(p_{\rm R},\rho_{R},v^n_{\rm R},\Gamma_{\rm R},{\tilde \beta}_{\rm

1487:     R})=(10^{-6},10^{-2},0,1,0.1)$, respectively. Note the boost (i.e., $\Gamma^*_{_{\rm L}} > \Gamma_{_{\rm L}}$)

1488:   reached by the rarefied jet to the left of the contact discontinuity

1489:   at $r\simeq 1.003$. In both cases the initial discontinuity is set

1490:   at $r=1$ and the solution is shown after an arbitrary amount of time

1491:   (we recall that the solution of the Riemann problem is

1492:   self-similar).

1493:   \label{fig:sl_structure_magnetic}}

1494: \end{figure} 

1495: 

1496: \clearpage

1497: \begin{figure}

1498: \epsscale{0.82}

1499: \plotone{f2.eps}

1500:   \caption{Lorentz factor reached at the uniform state left to the

1501:     contact discontinuity $\Gamma^*_{_{\rm L}}$ as a function of the

1502:     normal velocity in the left state $v^n_{_{\rm L}}$. The right

1503:     state is held fixed and is given by $(p_{_{\rm R}}, \rho_{_{\rm

1504:         R}}, v^n_{_{\rm R}}, \Gamma_{_{\rm R}},{\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm R}}) =

1505:     (10^{-6}, 10^{-2}, 0, 1, 0.1)$. The left state has fixed values in

1506:     the total pressure, the rest-mass density and the Lorentz Factor

1507:     $(p_{_{\rm L}}, \rho_{_{\rm L}}, \Gamma_{_{\rm L}})=(10^{-5},

1508:     10^{-7}, 10)$, while the magnetization ${\tilde \beta}_{_{\rm L}}$ is

1509:     varied for each curve as indicated by the different labels (see

1510:     inset). The solid lines refer to the $_{\leftarrow}{\cal

1511:       RCS}_{\rightarrow}$ pattern, and the dashed lines refer to a

1512:     $_{\leftarrow}{\cal SCS}_{\rightarrow}$ pattern. The inset shows a

1513:     zoom of the solutions for very small values of $v^n_{_{\rm L}}$,

1514:     which are the most expected ones for {\it standard} jet flows.

1515:     \label{fig:betal_dep}}

1516: \end{figure} 

1517: 

1518: \clearpage

1519: 

1520: \begin{figure}

1521: \plotone{f3.eps}

1522: \caption{Radial profile of the Lorentz factor across the jet showing

1523:   the kinematic difference in the structure of an standard, monotonic

1524:   shear layer (panel a) and an anomalous shear layer structure (panel

1525:   b).

1526: \label{fig:sl_structure}}

1527: \end{figure} 

1528: 

1529: \clearpage

1530: 

1531: \begin{figure}

1532: \epsscale{0.45}

1533: \plotone{f4.eps}

1534: \caption{Schematic view of the jet model.

1535:   \label{fig:scheme}}

1536: \end{figure} 

1537: 

1538: \clearpage

1539: \begin{figure}

1540: \plotone{f5.eps}

1541: \caption{Predicted spectral energy distributions of the radiation

1542:   generated in several boundary layers of a kpc-scale jet at

1543:   $\theta^\ast=1^\circ$ and $\theta^\ast=60^\circ$ assuming

1544:   $\gamma_{\rm eq}=10^8$. The blue lines corresponds to the same

1545:   monotonic shear layer profile as in SO02, the black lines to a

1546:   uniform boundary layer and the red lines to an anomalous one (see

1547:   Sect.~\ref{sec:kinematic}). The different contributions to the

1548:   spectrum are labeled above the corresponding lines. The labels 1 and

1549:   2 refer to the components associated to the power-law and to the

1550:   monoenergetic parts of the electron distribution

1551:   (Eq.~\ref{eq:n(gamma)}), respectively.

1552:     \label{fig:SED_AR-SO}}

1553: \end{figure} 

1554: 

1555: \clearpage

1556: \begin{figure}

1557: \plotone{f6.eps}

1558:   \caption{Predicted spectral energy distributions of the radiation

1559:     generated by an AR boundary layer ($\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$,

1560:     $\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}=20$) of a kpc-scale jet assuming $\gamma_{\rm

1561:       eq}=10^8$, for observing angles

1562:     $\theta^\ast=5^\circ, 30^\circ, 60^\circ$ and $90^\circ$. Indices

1563:     1 and 2 denote the spectral components associated to the power-law

1564:     isotropic energy distribution and to the monoenergetic part,

1565:     respectively. Absorption of VHE gamma-rays during the propagation

1566:     to the observer is neglected.

1567:     \label{fig:SED_AR-thetas}}

1568: \end{figure} 

1569: 

1570: \clearpage

1571: \begin{figure}

1572: \plotone{f7.eps}

1573:   \caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig:SED_AR-thetas} but for a standard

1574:     boundary layer ($\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$, $\Gamma_{{\rm j},1}=1$).

1575:     \label{fig:SED_uniform-thetas}}

1576: \end{figure} 

1577: 

1578: \clearpage

1579: 

1580: \begin{figure}

1581: \plotone{f8.eps}

1582: \caption{Jet-to-counterjet flux density ratio,

1583:   $S^{\ast}(\theta^{\ast}) / S^{\ast}(\pi - \theta^{\ast})$ at radio

1584:   frequencies, as a function of the viewing angle

1585:   $\theta^{\ast}$. Black and grey lines correspond to values

1586:   $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ and $\Gamma_{\rm c}=3$, respectively --the

1587:   values of $\Gamma_{\rm c}$ are provided near the respective

1588:   curves--. The black (grey) solid line corresponds to the radiation

1589:   from an anomalous boundary shear layer with the radial profile of

1590:   Eq.~\ref{eq:Gamma} and $\Gamma_{{\rm j},1}=15$ ($\Gamma_{{\rm

1591:       j},1}=4.5$). The dashed-doted line corresponds to the radiation

1592:   from a monotonic boundary layer with the radial profile of

1593:   Eq.~\ref{eq:Gamma} and $\Gamma_{{\rm j},2}=1$. The dashed line

1594:   corresponds to the model with a uniform boundary layer with a

1595:   Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{{\rm j},3}=10$. \label{fig:jet2counterjet}}

1596: \end{figure} 

1597: 

1598: \clearpage

1599: 

1600: \begin{figure}

1601: \epsscale{0.85}

1602: \plotone{f9.eps}

1603: \caption{Expected effective X-ray spectral index of a jet (j) and of a

1604:   counterjet (cj) boundary layer emission, $\alpha_{\rm X,

1605:     eff}(\theta^\ast)$, as a function of the viewing angle

1606:   $\theta^\ast$. Solid, dash-dotted and dashed lines correspond to

1607:   jets with anomalous, standard and uniform shear layers, respectively

1608:   (Eq.~\ref{eq:Gamma}). Black (grey) lines correspond to jets whose

1609:   core moves with a Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm c}=10$ ($\Gamma_{\rm

1610:     c}=3$). The inset shows a zoom of the jet $\alpha_{\rm X, eff}$

1611:   for the smallest viewing angles $\theta^\ast$. \label{fig:alphaX}}

1612: \end{figure} 

1613: %

1614: \end{document}

1615: