1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5: %
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7: \usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{mathptm}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11: \usepackage{psfrag}
12: \usepackage{natbib}
13: %\usepackage{aas_macros}
14: \usepackage{longtable}
15: \begin{document}
16: \newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}}
17: \def\dhead#1{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \title[Observed properties of FRII quasars and radio galaxies at $z < 1.0$]{Observed properties of FRII quasars and radio galaxies at $z < 1.0$}
20: \author[L. M. Mullin, J. M. Riley and M. J. Hardcastle]{L. M. Mullin$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:
21: mullin@extragalactic.info (LMM)}, J. M. Riley$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: julia@mrao.cam.ac.uk (JMR)} and M. J. Hardcastle$^{2}$\thanks{m.j.hardcastle@herts.ac.uk (MJH)}\\
22: %$^{1}$Centre of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity, University of Bremen, D-28359 Bremen, Germany\\
23: $^{1}$Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE\\
24: $^{2}$School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AB}
25: %
26:
27: \date{}
28:
29: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
30:
31: \maketitle
32:
33: \label{firstpage}
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: %
37: In a long-term observing project we have imaged a complete sample of
38: FRII quasars and radio galaxies with $z < 1.0$ at high resolution and
39: high sensitivity with the VLA and MERLIN. This sample of 98 sources
40: includes 15 quasars, 11 broad line radio galaxies and 57 narrow line
41: radio galaxies, allowing unification to be considered in terms of
42: source morphological properties. Radio maps of all the targets have
43: been presented in earlier papers. Here we carry out a systematic
44: analysis of the properties of the jets, cores, lobes and hotspots of
45: objects in the sample. The majority of the tests that we perform show
46: that the data are consistent with a model in which quasars and
47: broad-line radio galaxies are unified with narrow-line objects.
48: Relativistic beaming is the main effect that determines the properties
49: of kiloparsec-scale jets, and it may also have some effect on
50: hotspots. However, some properties of the sample are difficult to
51: account for in simple unified models.
52: %
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \begin{keywords}
56: galaxies:active - galaxies:jets - radio continuum: galaxies
57: \end{keywords}
58: %
59: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60: %--------------------------INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------
61: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62: %
63: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
64: %
65: Fanaroff \& Riley (1974) type II radio sources (hereafter FRIIs) are
66: powerful sources associated with bipolar outflows that extend great
67: distances from the central engine, remaining highly collimated as they
68: do so. They can be divided into different classes based on features of
69: their optical spectra: radio-loud quasars (Qs), broad line radio
70: galaxies (BLRGs), narrow line radio galaxies (NLRGs) and low
71: excitation radio galaxies (LERGs) can all be FRIIs. A principal
72: defining characteristic is the presence, or absence, of broad line
73: emission, with the Qs and BLRGs having both broad and narrow line
74: emission lines, the NLRGs having narrow line emission only and the
75: LERGs lacking strong high-excitation lines of either type (Hine \&
76: Longair 1979; Laing et al. 1994).
77:
78: The current standard unification scheme proposes that the Qs, BLRGs
79: and (at least some of) the NLRGs are intrinsically part of the same
80: population (Scheuer 1987; Barthel 1987, 1989). In this model, the
81: broad emission line region lies close to the very compact central
82: engine and is surrounded by a dusty torus, whereas the narrow line
83: emission region lies further out. Sources that are viewed along or
84: close to the axis of the torus show both broad and narrow line
85: emission -- these are the Qs and BLRGs, which we refer to collectively
86: as broad-line objects -- but the broad line emission
87: region is obscured for those that are oriented closer to the plane
88: of the sky, the NLRGs. Thus differences in the orientation of the source
89: axis to the observer's line of sight are the origin of the three
90: spectral classes. The LERGs lie outside of this scheme; it has been
91: suggested (e.g. Barthel 1994) that LERGs form part of the parent
92: population of BL Lac objects rather than core-dominated Qs and should
93: not show broad line emission at any angle to the line-of-sight, a
94: model consistent with their nuclear properties at other wavebands
95: (Chiaberge, Capetti \& Celotti 2002; Hardcastle, Evans \& Croston 2006).
96:
97: An important detail of the model arises from the fact that the
98: observed luminosity distributions of Qs and BLRGs are not the same. Qs
99: are more powerful and found at higher redshifts (or, equivalently in a
100: flux-limited sample, higher radio luminosities) than the BLRGs; for
101: example, in the 3CR sample (Bennett 1962) Qs are found only with $z \gtrsim 0.3$,
102: while BLRGs are found with $z \lesssim 0.3$. It has been suggested
103: that BLRGs may be the low-luminosity equivalents of Qs, or that they lie
104: near the critical angle dividing the quasars and radio galaxies
105: (Barthel 1989; Hardcastle et al. 1998, hereafter H98). While some
106: high-luminosity BLRGs may indeed be intermediate objects, it is clear
107: that at low luminosity, where there are no Qs, BLRGs are the only
108: candidate for the aligned counterpart of the population of
109: low-luminosity NLRGs.
110:
111: Often FRIIs exhibit a bright linear feature called a jet that extends
112: at least some of the distance between the central feature, the core,
113: and the bright hotspot at the end of the lobe. The jets in most FRIIs
114: are one-sided: either no counterjet is seen or it is much fainter than
115: the feature that is identified as the jet. Relativistic beaming of the
116: jet emission is invoked to explain this asymmetry, as the large scale
117: lobe morphology appears otherwise roughly symmetric. The jet detection
118: rate is higher for Qs and BLRGs than for NLRGs; this can be explained
119: in unified models, since for the broad-line objects the beamed jet is
120: aligned closer to the line of sight and appears brighter. The jet
121: detection rate for LERGs is the highest of all classes (e.g. Mullin,
122: Hardcastle \& Riley 2006) which may be related to systematic
123: environmental differences between some of the LERGs and the other
124: emission-line types (Hardcastle 2004).
125:
126: Further evidence in support of relativistic beaming in jets is
127: provided by the Laing-Garrington effect (Laing 1988; Garrington et al.
128: 1988), which is the association of the jet side with the less
129: depolarized lobe. High-resolution multi-frequency observations
130: indicate that the depolarization occurs in an external Faraday
131: screen, so that the less depolarized lobe is expected to be the lobe
132: closer to us; any tendency for the (brighter) jet to be associated
133: with this lobe then implies that beaming is an important factor in jet
134: detection (Scheuer 1987).
135:
136: While various aspects of the unification and beaming model have been
137: tested and discussed in the literature, there has been little work
138: using complete samples of radio sources free from orientation bias
139: that include sufficient numbers of objects of all spectral classes to
140: give statistically significant results. Good quality observations of
141: such a sample, with both high resolution and sensitivity, are
142: therefore vital, and this has been the rationale behind a long-term
143: observational project in which we have mapped a complete sample of the
144: brightest FRII radio sources with $z<1.0$. The sample, which is
145: defined in section \ref{sec:data}, includes 98 sources. Maps of these
146: have been presented in a series of papers: Black et al. (1992), Leahy
147: et al. (1997), Hardcastle et al. (1997), Gilbert et al. (2004) and
148: Mullin, Hardcastle \& Riley (2006). These maps are available
149: online\footnote{See http://zl1.extragalactic.info/} along with a
150: database of all measurements analysed and discussed in this paper. The
151: sample includes 15 Qs, 11 BLRGs and 57 NLRGs, thus enabling aspects of
152: unification to be tested along with trends in source properties over
153: the wide redshift and luminosity range spanned by the data. In section \ref{sec:data} we also define a number of morphological and
154: flux parameters corresponding to the observed source properties and
155: describe our measurement methods.
156:
157: We examine the properties of the lobes, cores and jets and hotspots in
158: sections \ref{sec:lobes}, \ref{sec:cores_jets} and \ref{sec:hotspots}
159: respectively. For each feature, observational effects are considered
160: as well as trends across the power, redshift and source size range of
161: the sample and we quantify these where appropriate with statistical
162: tests. The significance of linear correlation is tested for using
163: Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. For the core and jet
164: prominence data, however, this is not possible as only upper limits on
165: these parameters are available for some sources: in statistical
166: terminology, the data are censored. Instead, a modified Kendall's
167: $\tau$ rank correlation coefficient as implemented in the
168: survival-analysis package {\sc asurv} (LaValley, Isobe \& Feigelson
169: 1992) is used for these data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (hereafter K-S)
170: test determines if it is the case that the culmulative distribution
171: function of two samples differ and is used to address the question of
172: whether some property of two subsamples of the data (that is,
173: subsamples defined by power, redshift and size cutoffs or by spectral
174: class) differ significantly. It is sensitive to differences in both
175: location and shape of the functions. No modification of the K-S test
176: to take account of censoring is available to us, and so we do not use
177: it in situations where censoring is important. The
178: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (hereafter W-M-W) test is also used to determine
179: if two defined subsamples differ, but in this case the null hypothesis
180: tested is that the probability of an observation of one population
181: exceeding an observation from the second is 0.5. Thus the W-M-W test
182: is used to determine whether there is a significant difference in the
183: magnitude of the quantity of interest between the two subsamples, that
184: is, if one dataset has significantly smaller or larger values than the
185: other. In order to treat censored data correctly when testing for such
186: differences, a generalized W-M-W test is used, the Peto-Prentice test,
187: which is implemented in {\sc asurv}. Finally, the binomial test is
188: used to determine the statistical significance of any correlation with
189: jet or longer lobe side for a number of properties. The significance
190: of all test results is discussed in the text and the results are
191: tabulated. We take a result to be significant enough to be discussed
192: if the null hypothesis is rejected at better than the 95 per cent confidence level.
193:
194: The interpretation of the observed properties of our sample sources,
195: and the evidence for and against unified models, is discussed in
196: section \ref{sec:discussion}. The quantitative implications of our
197: results for beaming in the cores and jets of powerful radio galaxies
198: will be discussed in a separate paper.
199:
200: The spectral index, $\alpha$, is defined throughout the paper in the sense that
201: $S = v^{-\alpha}$ (where $S$ is the flux and $v$ denotes the frequency) and we
202: assume that $H_{0} = 70\ {\rm kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{\rm
203: m}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
204:
205: %
206: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
207: %------------------------------DATA-------------------------------------------------------
208: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
209: %
210: \section{The Data}\label{sec:data}
211: %
212: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214: %
215: \subsection{The Sample}\label{sec:sample}
216: %
217: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
218: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
219: %
220: The sample is selected from the complete flux-limited sample of
221: Laing, Riley \& Longair (1983, hereafter LRL), which is itself based on the
222: 3CR survey. The LRL sample includes all the sources with total source flux densities measured at 178 MHz $S_{178} > 10.9$ Jy (on the scale
223: of Baars et al. 1977) with $\rm dec > 10^\circ$ and $ |b| >
224: 10^\circ$. At this low frequency the source flux is dominated by the
225: emission from the large-scale lobe structure, so that little
226: contribution should be made by Doppler-boosted components, which
227: should ensure the sample is as free as possible from orientation bias. There are 173 LRL sources in total, including 29 FRI and
228: 125 FRII objects. All 98 FRII radio galaxies and
229: quasars with $z < 1.0$ are listed in Table \ref{tab:the_sample}, which includes references to all the radio maps from which the data analysed in this paper have been obtained.
230: %
231: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
232: %
233: \input{tables/sample}
234: %
235: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236: %
237: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
239: %
240: \subsection{Parameter definitions and measurement methods}\label{sec:definitions}
241: %
242: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
243: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
244: %
245: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
246: %
247: \subsubsection{Lobe size}\label{sec:def_lobe_size}
248: %
249: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250: %
251: Since many sources show distortion and bending in the jet and lobe
252: features, there is no obvious single definition of source size. Shocks
253: associated with the deceleration of the outflow are often assumed to
254: produce the observed hotspot features, in which case the core-hotspot
255: separation should represent a measure of the beam length; however,
256: multiple hotspots are commonly found so the core-hotspot separation as
257: a parametrization of beam length is not without ambiguity. The same
258: ambiguity will affect the lobe size measured along the core-hotspot
259: axis, which could represent the extent of the post-shock flow of beam
260: material along the beam axis. Finally, the largest angular size of the
261: lobe does not always lie along the core-hotspot axis or the apparent
262: flow direction, as a few sources appear distorted with considerable
263: lateral extension in the lobes.
264:
265: Accordingly, three source length measurements have been made. The
266: angular core-hotspot separation is the angular distance between the
267: core and primary hotspot (defined in section \ref{sec:def_hotspots})
268: within a lobe, $\Theta_{c-hs}$, and is measured using the hotspot
269: positions obtained from the highest resolution map available for
270: the source. $\Theta_{l}$, the angular lobe length, is defined as the
271: maximum angular lobe size measured from the core along the
272: core-primary hotspot axis. The largest angular size of the lobe,
273: $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$, is the maximum angular distance of the lobe
274: edge from the core. $\Theta_{l}$ and $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$ are
275: measured from the core to the $3\sigma$ contour (where $\sigma$ is
276: the off-source root mean square noise level) from the lowest
277: resolution map available for the source. This criterion was chosen to
278: give a consistent measure across the sample.
279:
280: The procedure above introduces a potential source of bias, as the
281: position of the $3\sigma$ contour will be dependent on observing
282: resolution. Taking size measurements from the highest resolution map
283: available would minimize this effect but, as the low level emission
284: from the lobes is often resolved out at high resolution, the extent of
285: the large scale structure might be underestimated if this approach
286: were taken. The $\Theta_{l}$ and $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$ measurements
287: have therefore all been made from the lowest resolution map available
288: and a correction factor has been applied to compensate for resolution
289: dependent beam-width smearing. The correction is that used by Gilbert \& Riley (1999, hereafter G99). The
290: maximum intensity, $m$, within two half-power beam widths of the
291: apparent lobe edge (measured at the $3\sigma$ contour level) is
292: found on the relevant axis. The half-width at the $3 \sigma$ level of
293: a Gaussian, of height $m$ and with a half-power beam width equal to
294: that of the restoring beam, can then be determined and subtracted from
295: the apparent lobe length to correct for the effect of finite beam
296: width.
297:
298: All angular size measurements, $\Theta_{c-hs}$, $\Theta_{l}$ and $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$, are converted
299: respectively to linear sizes, $c-hs$, $l$ and $LLS_{\rm l}$. The resolution correction factor is first subtracted
300: from $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$ and $\Theta_{l}$; that is, $l$ and
301: $LLS_{\rm l}$ are quoted with the factor applied. (For this conversion the proper distance, $R$, is calculated
302: using the {\sc angsiz} code\footnote{http://ascl.net/angsiz.html}.)
303:
304: Although $l$ and $LLS_{\rm l}$ are not always the same within a lobe,
305: as the core-hotspot axis may differ from that of the largest angular
306: extent of the lobe from the core, in practice the difference between these two parameters is usually small, as
307: illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:l_LLS}. In the following analysis
308: $LLS_{\rm l}$ is therefore used as the lobe size measurement and in the evaluation of the lobe axial ratio and lobe size asymmetry, both of which
309: are discussed below in sections \ref{sec:def_axialratio} and
310: \ref{sec:def_lobeasym} respectively. The total linear source size,
311: $LLS_{\rm s}$, is defined as the sum of $LLS_{\rm l}$ of both lobes.
312:
313: In order to consider jet detectability (see section
314: \ref{sec:obscoresjets}) we define the fractional observed lobe length, $f_{\rm
315: l}$, as the ratio of the observed extent of the
316: lobe emission measured along the $LLS_{\rm l}$ axis from the inner
317: lobe edge at the $3\sigma$ contour to the lobe extremity, to
318: $LLS_{\rm l}$.
319: %
320: %--------------------------------figure:l-LLS-histogram----------------------------------------
321: %
322: \begin{figure}
323: %
324: %
325: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/histogram_LLS_l.ps,width=8cm}}
326: %
327: \caption{\label{fig:l_LLS}Histogram of ($LLS_{\rm l}-l)/LLS_{\rm l}$, for the entire sample.}
328: %
329: \end{figure}
330: %
331: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
332: %
333: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334: %
335: \subsubsection{Lobe axial ratio}\label{sec:def_axialratio}
336: %
337: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
338: %
339: The definition of the lobe width, $\Theta_{\rm w}$, is problematic as
340: the morphologies of the lobes, both within individual sources and from
341: source to source, are often very different. As $\Theta_{\rm w}$ is to
342: be used to determine the lobe axial ratio, a measurement representing
343: the width at a set distance from the core, relative to the lobe
344: extent, is appropriate. Not all sources have lobes extending back to
345: the core but lobe emission is detected at least 2/3 along the
346: core-hotspot axis from the core in all but 6 lobes. $\Theta_{\rm w}$
347: has therefore been defined as the width of the lobe perpendicular to
348: the core-primary hotspot axis as measured from the core at the point
349: two-thirds along this axis. The $3\sigma$ contour is used to determine
350: the lobe edge and measurements are made from the lowest resolution map
351: available. This definition of lobe width was found to allow
352: greater consistency in the measurement of $\Theta_{\rm w}$ across the
353: sample than other definitions that have sometimes been used in the
354: literature, such as the Gaussian FWHM (e.g., Leahy \& Williams, 1994),
355: given that the data here are high-resolution 8-GHz maps often with
356: many beam widths across the lobes. While a Gaussian distribution
357: represents a reasonable model of a slice taken through many lobes in
358: the sample, a significant number would require multiple components to
359: be fitted, as structure is detected in the lobe, which reduces the
360: usefulness of this definition of width for our data.
361:
362: The linear lobe width, $w$, is obtained from $\Theta_{\rm w}$ and the lobe axial ratio, $R_{\rm ax}$, is defined as $LLS_{\rm l}$ over $w$.
363: %
364: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
365: %
366: \subsubsection{Lobe size asymmetry}\label{sec:def_lobeasym}
367: %
368: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
369: %
370: The lobe size asymmetry is defined by the fractional separation
371: difference, $x$, as defined by Banhatti (1980):
372: %
373: %-----------------equation:-fractional-separation-difference------------------------------------
374: %
375: \begin{equation}
376: %
377: x = \frac{D_{1} - D_{2}}{D_{1} + D_{2}}
378: %
379: \end{equation}
380: %
381: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
382: %
383: where $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ are the two lobe sizes. $D_{1}$ may be taken
384: as the longer lobe, giving $x_{\rm lobe}$, or as the jet-side lobe
385: if a jet is detected, giving $x_{\rm jet}$. Previous
386: studies have argued that using $LLS_{\rm l}$ to define $x_{\rm lobe}$
387: and $x_{\rm jet}$ is preferable to $c-hs$ as from observations of
388: multiple hotspots, hotspots are inferred to be transient features in
389: the lobe (Scheuer 1995; Arshakian \& Longair 2000, hereafter AL00).
390: At the very least the physical region of the source to which hotspots
391: correspond is ambiguous. Therefore, $LLS_{\rm l}$ is used throughout
392: to define $x_{\rm lobe}$ and $x_{\rm jet}$.
393: %
394: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
395: %
396: \subsubsection{Cores}\label{sec:def_cores}
397: %
398: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
399: %
400: The core measurements were obtained using the {\sc aips} task JMFIT,
401: which fits an elliptical gaussian model of between one and four
402: components to a feature. One component was fitted and the peak
403: intensity was taken as the core flux. As most cores in the
404: sample were unresolved at all resolutions such a model fitted the data
405: well; three measurements were made in this way (with different
406: starting parameters) and averaged to give the final value. A
407: corresponding error was obtained from the square root of the average of the squared
408: formal errors returned from the fitting procedure. For around two
409: thirds of the sample this error is less than 2 per cent of the core
410: flux, so the calibration error (expected to be 2-3 per cent) will
411: dominate. Errors quoted therefore correspond to 3 per cent of the core
412: flux measurement, unless the formal error from JMFIT is greater, in
413: which case the latter is quoted.
414:
415: Core measurements have been taken from the highest resolution
416: multi-array maps available for each source. For 7 sources, the core
417: feature was either not detected or not well defined in the map and a $3 \sigma$
418: upper limit for the core flux based on the local r.m.s. noise level was
419: obtained. A few sources had variable cores -- in these cases the core
420: flux quoted is the lowest value measured. For details, see the papers in which the observations are
421: presented as referenced in Table \ref{tab:the_sample}.
422: %
423: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
424: %
425: \subsubsection{Jets}\label{sec:def_jets}
426: %
427: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
428: %
429: A jet feature is defined by criteria based on those of Bridle \& Perley (1984). Thus, a jet is any feature that is
430: %
431: \begin{enumerate}
432: %
433: \item at least four times as long as it is wide;
434: %
435: \item separable at high resolution from other extended structures (if
436: any), either by brightness contrast or spatially (e.g. it should be a
437: narrow ridge running through more diffuse emission, or a
438: narrow feature in the inner part of the source entering
439: more extended emission in the outer part).
440: %
441: \end{enumerate}
442: %
443: In some sources jets appear to bend, in particular as they reach the
444: hotspot region. As discussed by Bridle et al.\ (1994), this could have
445: consequences for beaming model analysis. Thus, following H98, we also
446: define the straight jet, which fits the above criteria (i) and (ii)
447: but also must be aligned with the compact radio core where it is
448: closest to it (and is measured from the end closest the core along its
449: length only while the deviation from a straight line is less than the
450: jet radius), and the total jet, which fits the above criteria (i) and
451: (ii) and has no alignment restriction (and includes the entire feature
452: that is visible).
453:
454: The method of measurement for both features is the same as that
455: adopted by H98. The straight jet was measured using the {\sc aips}
456: task TVSTAT to find the integrated flux within the region containing
457: the apparent jet emission, $F_{\rm obs}$. A background flux correction
458: was made by integrating two regions identical in size to the initial
459: jet measurement on either side of the feature. The average of these,
460: $B_{\rm obs}$, was then subtracted from the jet measurement to give
461: the observed jet flux, $J_{\rm obs} = F_{\rm obs} - B_{\rm obs}$. In
462: order to get the best estimate of $J_{\rm obs}$, three values of jet
463: flux were taken this way and averaged. The error in $J_{\rm obs}$ is
464: almost always dominated by the ambiguity in defining the jet emission
465: itself and so the errors quoted are half the measured maximum
466: range of the three jet measurements made.
467:
468: For the total jet TVSTAT is used to measure the integrated flux of the
469: entire jet feature in the manner described for the straight jet, usually in straight sections that are then
470: combined to give the total jet measurement. There are only 4 sources for which the more prominent feature defined by the straight jet criteria is not in the same lobe as that defined by the total jet criteria. Otherwise, the total jet measurement is often the same as the straight
471: measurement (37 out of 65 sources with at least one possible or definite jet detection) or simply includes some further extension beyond a bend in the jet. In a few sources, the detected jet appears misaligned
472: with the source axis such that the feature is thought to be associated
473: with the flow downstream from some presumed bend in the beam. For
474: these sources, the total jet measurement then corresponds to this
475: feature.
476:
477: Apparent jet-like features that fail the jet criteria are classified
478: as possible jets and the fluxes of these are measured in the same way
479: as definite jets. Typically these are features that are not prominent
480: enough to be definite jets, though several fail on the length
481: criterion. For those sources with a visible jet on both sides of the
482: core, the brighter feature is defined as the jet, while the other jet
483: is referred to as the counterjet. Where no jet emission is detected,
484: an upper limit on the jet flux is estimated by measuring the
485: integrated flux of a region $\sim 2$ restoring beam widths across
486: the entire distance between the core and hotspot region. Background
487: flux is corrected for in the same manner as for the definite and
488: possible jets by taking two further integrated flux measurements
489: either side of the initial region. However, if the flux associated
490: with the central region is not the highest of the three, then the
491: upper limit estimate is the positive difference between the central
492: measure and the lower of the other two.
493:
494: The straight jet measurement is used for considering beaming models
495: and is used to define the jet side for parameters such as $x_{\rm
496: jet}$ and hotspot ratios (defined in section \ref{sec:def_hotspots}).
497: The total jet is used when jet morphology is considered. This is
498: parametrized in the following way. The angular total jet length is
499: defined to be the angular length of the feature identified as the
500: total jet. The corresponding angular jet position and jet termination
501: are the angular separation of the base of the jet (that end of the
502: feature nearest the core) and the tip of the jet (the end of the jet
503: furthest from the core) from the core. The
504: fractional jet length, $f_{\rm j_{l}}$, fractional jet position,
505: $f_{\rm j_{p}}$ and fractional jet termination, $f_{\rm j_{t}}$ are
506: respectively the ratio of the linear jet length, position and
507: termination to the lobe length, $l$. Note that the jet axis is not
508: always the same as that along which the lobe length has been measured,
509: giving a source of scatter in all three parameters.
510: %
511: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
512: %
513: \subsubsection{Hotspots}\label{sec:def_hotspots}
514: %
515: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
516: %
517: Following H98, the hotspot is defined as any feature that is not part
518: of a jet and that has a largest dimension smaller than 10 per cent of
519: the main axis of the source as well as having a peak brightness
520: greater than ten times the off-source noise. It must be separated from
521: nearby peaks by a minimum falling to two-thirds or less of the
522: brightness of the fainter peak. Where more than one such feature is
523: observed, the most compact component is the primary hotspot while the
524: remaining components are secondary hotspots.
525:
526: Measurements of the hotspots were taken from the highest resolution
527: multi-array map available for each source. The {\sc aips} task JMFIT
528: was used to give an integrated flux value as well as the major and
529: minor axes, $\Theta_{\rm maj}$ and $\Theta_{\rm min}$, the half-widths
530: of the fitted Gaussian. The angular hotspot size, $\Theta_{\rm h}$, was then
531: defined as the arithmetic mean of $\Theta_{\rm maj}$ and $\Theta_{\rm min}$.
532: The average angular hotspot size, $\Theta_{\rm h_{av}}$, is defined as the
533: arithmetic mean of the sizes of the primary hotspots in both lobes.
534:
535: Fitting was carried out several times for each feature with varying
536: starting parameters and similar results were generally obtained.
537: However, for some of the most highly resolved features at lower
538: redshift this was not the case and an alternative to JMFIT was used. If the feature was too resolved, or convergence could not be
539: achieved in flux within a factor of 1.5 either way, a manual
540: measurement was made. Fluxes were estimated by integration from the
541: maps with TVSTAT; background emission was taken into account by
542: integrating over a surrounding region, normalising the flux to an area
543: equivalent to that of the hotspot and subtracting. In order to make
544: size measurements, the FWHM was estimated from slices taken through
545: the feature. Errors have not been quoted for hotspot flux density or size
546: since the parameters are subjective: the dominant error will
547: derive from the ambiguity in determining the hotspot region.
548:
549: The linear hotspot size, $h$, is obtained from $\Theta_{\rm h}$ and the fractional hotspot size, $f_{\rm h}$, is the ratio of $h$ to $LLS_{\l}$.
550: %
551: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
552: %
553: \subsubsection{Hotspot recession}\label{sec:def_hotspotrec}
554: %
555: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
556: %
557: Three recession parameters are defined, $\eta,\ \zeta$ and $\Delta$. $\eta$ is the lobe hotspot recession: the ratio of $c-hs$ to
558: $LLS_{\rm l}$ for each lobe. $\zeta$ is the source hotspot recession: the ratio of the sum
559: of $c-hs$ for the two lobes to the total source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$. $\Delta$ quantifies
560: the recession asymmetry in a single source and is defined as the ratio
561: of the smaller to the larger value of $\eta$.
562: %
563: %The resolution correction factor described above ensures that
564: %unresolved hotspots at the lobe tips will have $\eta=1$.
565: %
566: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
568: %
569: \subsection{Observing frequency and prominence}\label{sec:obsfreqprom}
570: %
571: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
572: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
573: %
574: The total source flux observed at 178~MHz is
575: K-corrected using the corresponding low frequency spectral index (both
576: parameters are taken from LRL), giving $S_{\rm total}$ at
577: 178~MHz. $S_{\rm total}$ is used to obtain the source luminosity, $P_{178}$, using the relation
578: %
579: %------------------equation:-luminosity-------------------------------------------------------
580: %
581: \begin{equation}
582: %
583: P_{178}=R^{2}(1+z)^{2}S_{\rm total}
584: %
585: \label{lumin}
586: \end{equation}
587: %
588: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
589: %
590: (where $R$ is the proper distance).
591: The source luminosity is determined from the low-frequency source flux as this ought to be dominated by the steep-spectrum, unbeamed emission
592: associated with the lobes, so that little contribution should be
593: made by any relativistic beaming.
594:
595: All the flux densities of compact features of the sources discussed
596: above are extrapolated from the observed flux density to a common frequency of 8.4~GHz
597: %
598: %-----------------equation:--extrapolating-8.4-K-correction-----------------------------------
599: %
600: \begin{equation}
601: %
602: S_{8.4} = S_{\nu_{\rm obs}} \left(\frac{\nu_{\rm obs}}{8.4} \right)^{\alpha}
603: %
604: \end{equation}
605: %
606: and then K-corrected to an emitted frequency
607: %
608: \begin{equation}
609: %
610: S = S_{8.4} (1+z)^{\alpha - 1}
611: %
612: \end{equation}
613: %
614: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
615: %
616: where $\nu_{\rm obs}$ is the observing frequency in GHz and $\alpha$ the
617: spectral index, assumed to be 0 for core features and 0.5 for jet and
618: hotspot features. These flux densities are converted to luminosities using equation (\ref{lumin}).
619:
620: The source luminosity is used as a normalization factor for these core, hotspot and jet luminosities to define prominence
621: parameters. The core, hotspot and straight jet prominence
622: ($p_{\rm c},\ p_{\rm h},\ p_{\rm j}$) are respectively the ratio of
623: the core, hotspot and straight jet luminosity to $P_{178}$. (Note that
624: this normalization factor is different from that used by H98, so that our
625: prominences are different from theirs.)
626:
627: A glossary of all parameters that
628: have been defined in this section (along with others that will be
629: defined subsequently) is given in Table \ref{tab:glossary}.
630: %
631: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
632: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
633: %
634: \subsection{Effective observing resolution}\label{sec:effobsres}
635: %
636: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
637: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
638: %
639: The sample extends to a redshift of 1. While the aim of the observing
640: program was to obtain data of a consistent quality across the sample,
641: there are inevitably instrumentational limits in achieving this. At
642: increasing redshift the angular resolution relative to the source size
643: must decrease for a fixed beam width, so that more distant sources are
644: observed at increasing linear scales for a given source size.
645: One key parameter here is the number of restoring beams across the
646: source, which we refer to throughout the paper as the effective
647: observing resolution. The high-resolution effective observing
648: resolution is defined as the ratio of the restoring beam size of the highest-resolution map for each source to $LLS_{\rm
649: s}$; the low-resolution effective observing resolution is defined similarly but using the restoring beam size from the lowest-resolution map.
650:
651: In Fig. \ref{fig:size_res} the
652: linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$, is plotted against the {\it high-resolution} effective observing
653: resolution for the sample, to highlight the
654: range in this quantity that corresponds to the
655: sample's high-resolution maps, since this is the more
656: important quantity as regards source properties. It can be seen that
657: there is a range of effective observing resolutions associated with
658: the sources; this may have consequences, in particular, for the
659: consideration of jet and hotspot properties. In the following
660: sections, in which we discuss the lobe, core, jet and hotspot
661: properties, we consider the limitations imposed by our observing
662: strategy as well as trends with power, redshift and size.
663: %
664: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
665: %
666: \begin{figure}
667: %
668: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LLS_obsres.ps,width=8cm}}
669: %
670: \caption{\label{fig:size_res} The largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$, plotted against the high-resolution effective observing resolution. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
671: %
672: \end{figure}
673: %
674: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
675: %
676: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
677: %
678: \input{tables/glossary}
679: %
680: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
681: %
682: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
683: %------------------------------------LOBES-----------------------------------------------------
684: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
685: %
686: \section{Lobes}\label{sec:lobes}
687: %
688: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
689: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
690: %
691: \subsection{Lobe size}
692: %
693: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
694: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
695: %
696: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
697: %
698: \subsubsection{Observational effects}\label{sec:lobesizobs}
699: %
700: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
701: %
702: Observational effects in lobe properties may be introduced by using
703: the $3\sigma$ contour as the criterion for defining $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm
704: l}}$ and $\Theta_{l}$ and this is addressed by the application of a
705: correction factor, as described in section \ref{sec:def_lobe_size}.
706: %
707: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
708: %
709: \subsubsection{Trends with $P_{178}$ and $z$}\label{sec:size_trends}
710: %
711: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
712: %
713: There is no straightforward physical correlation to be expected
714: between the beam kinetic power, the lobe size and $P_{178}$, although
715: sources are believed to decrease in luminosity as they expand and age
716: (Fanti et al., 1995; Kaiser \& Alexander, 1997; Kaiser, Dennett-Thorpe \& Alexander, 1997;
717: Blundell, Rawlings \& Willott, 1999). The higher-luminosity sources may be
718: observed at an earlier stage in their lifecycle as sources fall below
719: the sample flux limit as they move through the luminosity-source
720: linear size ($P-D$) diagram; statistically, therefore, they may be
721: expected to be smaller. In a flux-limited sample there is a $P-z$
722: degeneracy, so any tendency for $LLS_{\rm s}$ to decrease with
723: increasing $P_{178}$ may also be seen as a trend in redshift.
724:
725: In Fig. \ref{fig:LLS_P} it can be seen that $LLS_{\rm s}$ tends to be
726: smaller for the higher luminosity sources; a similar but weaker effect
727: is shown in the plot of $LLS_{\rm s}$ against redshift in Fig.
728: \ref{fig:LLS_z}. Spearman rank correlation tests give $r_{\rm s} =
729: -0.31$ and $-0.29$ respectively for these two trends, implying a
730: correlation significant at better than the 99 per cent confidence level.
731: However, comparing subsamples of sources defined with a 178-MHz
732: luminosity cutoff, $P_{\rm c}=5 \times 10^{26}\ \rm{W\ Hz^{-1}\
733: sr^{-1}}$, inclusive of all spectral classes, a W-M-W test does not
734: show a significant difference in size between the high and low
735: luminosity populations; we can conclude that any trends with source
736: size found in other parameters for the sample should not then be
737: systematically biased across the power or redshift range.
738:
739: The value of 178-MHz luminosity, $P_{\rm c}$, chosen above gives the
740: minimum overlap between the quasar and BLRG populations: these can be
741: seen from Figs \ref{fig:LLS_P} and \ref{fig:LLS_z} to occupy different
742: ranges of luminosity and redshift, with the
743: higher-luminosity quasar population found at higher redshift.
744: Throughout the paper we therefore make comparisons between the NLRG
745: and the BLRG, Q and LERG classes by dividing the NLRG data into low-
746: and high-luminosity samples at $P_{\rm c}$. This gives a low-luminosity
747: and high-luminosity NLRG subsample of 19 and 38 sources respectively:
748: the low-luminosity sample is very similar in luminosity to (and
749: contains many of the same sources as) the $z<0.3$ 3CRR/3CR sample used
750: by H98.
751: %
752: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
753: %
754: \subsubsection{Unification}\label{sec:size_unif}
755: %
756: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
757: %
758: Considering only those classes included in the standard FRII
759: unification scheme (BLRGs, NLRGs and Qs) the BLRGs constitute $31\pm11$ per cent of the sample at low luminosity and the Qs $26\pm7$
760: per cent of the sample at high luminosity (assuming errors of
761: $\sqrt{N}$), so the proportions are not significantly different for
762: the two subsamples. This lends support to a model in which the BLRGs
763: and Qs are equivalent populations and also implies no significant
764: variation in the opening angle of the torus.
765:
766: The opening angle of the torus can be estimated from the number counts
767: of the Qs, BLRGs and NLRGs, assuming that the source axis must be
768: viewed at an angle less than the torus angle for the broad line
769: emission to be detected. For the simple unification model, this gives
770: $\theta_{\rm c}$ as a parameter that divides the classes, with
771: $\theta\le\theta_{\rm c}$ for the Qs and BLRGs and $\theta >
772: \theta_{\rm c}$ for the NLRGs, where $\theta$ is the angle the source
773: axis makes with the observer's line-of-sight. The expected fraction of
774: broad emission line objects detected is $\rm {P}(\le\theta_{\rm
775: c})=1-\cos\theta_{\rm c}$. This implies that for the lower luminosity
776: bin $\theta_{\rm c}\sim51^{\circ}$, while for the higher luminosity bin
777: $\theta_{\rm c}~\sim~45^{\circ}$, consistent with the findings of
778: Barthel (1989). An average value $\theta_{\rm c}=48^{\circ}$ will be
779: used hereafter.
780:
781: According to the unification scheme, the Q and BLRG sources should be
782: orientated closer to the observer's line-of-sight than the NLRG
783: sources. Evidence consistent with this hypothesis would be a
784: difference in the size distributions of the spectral classes of the
785: Qs, BLRGs and NLRGs consistent with projection effects. The LERGs are believed to be randomly orientated with respect
786: to the observer.
787:
788: The relation between the true physical size, $LLS'_{\rm s}$, and observed source lengths, $LLS_{\rm s}$, is given by
789: %
790: %-----------------------equation:-LLS-orientation-----------------------------------
791: %
792: \begin{equation}
793: %
794: LLS_{\rm s} \approx LLS'_{\rm s} \sin\theta\label{eq:LLS_theta}
795: %
796: \end{equation}
797: %
798: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
799: %
800: (the relation is not exact as the sum of the two lobes does not necessarily give a common axis). The ratio of the expected median size for the broad and narrow line
801: sources can be predicted from the ratio of
802: the median $\theta$,
803: %
804: %---------------------------equation:-medians---------------------------------------------------
805: %
806: \begin{equation}
807: %
808: \frac{<LLS_{\rm s,Q,B}>}{<LLS_{\rm s,N}>}=\frac{\sin(<\theta_{\rm Q,B}>)}{\sin(<\theta_{\rm N}>)}
809: %
810: \end{equation}
811: %
812: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
813: %
814: where $<X>$ denotes the median value of parameter $X$ and $<\theta>$ is evaluated by integrating over the
815: appropriate $\theta$ range. Using $\theta_{\rm c}=48^{\circ}$, $<\theta_{\rm Q,B}>=33^{\circ}$ and
816: $<\theta_{\rm N}>=70^{\circ}$, a predicted value of $<LLS_{\rm s,Q,B}>/<LLS_{\rm s,N}>=0.57$ is obtained. The
817: $<LLS_{\rm s}>$ values for the Qs, BLRGs and NLRGs are given in Table \ref{tab:LLS_median}; the data for the LERGs are included for comparison. The ratios of Q and BLRG median values to those of
818: the NLRGs in the respective luminosity bins is 0.73 and 0.70; if
819: we take all the objects together without binning by luminosity the ratio is 0.70. A W-M-W test does not show that this is statistically significant. According to the model, LERG sources are randomly
820: orientated so there is no predicted difference between them and the
821: low luminosity NLRG and BLRG population, that is, $<LLS_{\rm s,B,N}>/<LLS_{\rm s,E}>=1$ assuming that they have the same physical
822: size distribution. A ratio of 0.93 is found in the data, but a W-M-W test does not suggest that the LERGs are significantly smaller. (This is in contrast to the finding in H98 that LERGs were
823: significantly smaller than the BLRGs and NLRGs in the low redshift
824: sample they studied. That sample included those sources of this paper's sample
825: with $z<0.3$ along with a number of others. The difference may well
826: arise from the definition of source size used; H98 used the largest
827: linear source size as obtained from the largest angular source size,
828: whereas here $LLS_{\rm s}$ is used, the sum of the largest linear lobe
829: size for both lobes. For a good proportion of the sources in this sample with $z<0.3$ the largest angular source size is greater than
830: $LLS_{\rm s}$. In addition, the sample of H98 excluded a number of
831: giant sources that we include here.)
832:
833: Whilst these results are in the sense expected in the
834: unification scheme, the effect is weaker than expected and no statistically significant difference in source size
835: between the Qs, BLRGs and NLRGs is found.
836: %
837: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
838: %
839: \begin{figure}
840: %
841: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LLS_P.ps,width=8cm}}
842: %
843: \caption{\label{fig:LLS_P}The largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$, plotted against the source luminosity as measured at 178~MHz, $P_{178}$.}
844: %
845: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LLS_z.ps,width=8cm}}
846: %
847: \caption{\label{fig:LLS_z}The largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$, plotted against redshift, $z$.}
848: %
849: \end{figure}
850: %
851: \begin{table}
852: %
853: \scriptsize
854: %
855: \centering
856: %
857: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
858: %
859: \caption{\label{tab:LLS_median}The median largest linear source size, $<LLS_{\rm s}>$, for each of the spectral class distributions.}
860: %
861: \begin{tabular}{lclcc} \hline
862: %
863: Spectral class & $<LLS_{\rm s}>$ &Spectral class & $<LLS_{\rm s}>$ &$<LLS_{\rm s}>$ ratio\\ \hline
864: %
865: \input{tables/LLS_median}
866: %
867: \end{tabular}
868: %
869: \end{minipage}
870: %
871: \end{table}
872: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
873: %
874: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
875: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
876: %
877: \subsection{Lobe axial ratio}
878: %
879: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
880: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
881: %
882: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
883: %
884: \subsubsection{Observational effects}\label{sec:obsaxialratio}
885: %
886: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
887: %
888: Both $\Theta_{\rm w}$ and $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$ are taken from the
889: lowest resolution map available with the lobe edge determined by the
890: $3\sigma$ contour. However, as discussed in section
891: \ref{sec:lobesizobs}, this will be affected by observing resolution
892: and sensitivity. In the case of $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$ a correction factor was
893: applied in an attempt to compensate for any systematic bias introduced
894: by observing resolution effects. Whilst this factor is necessarily only
895: an order-of-magnitude correction, we felt that, as in almost all
896: sources the lobe extremity is associated with a bright emission peak,
897: the effect of beam-width smearing on the source structure is large
898: enough that the application of the correction factor as defined is
899: useful.
900:
901: In the case of $\Theta_{\rm w}$, however, the emission at the lobe edges is usually at a low level and the validity of such a correction is less
902: clear. For example, orientation effects could affect the observed lobe width, with those sources observed with their axes closer to our line-of-sight having more extensive lobes if source
903: viewing angle allows a greater depth of emission to be detected near
904: the lobe edges. This effect, if it is significant, cannot be
905: compensated for by the correction factor in the way that we have
906: defined it for the lobe lengths. Accordingly, we have chosen not to
907: apply any correction factor to $\Theta_{\rm w}$.
908:
909: In Fig. \ref{fig:LAS_W_RES} we plot the angular lobe width against the
910: resolution-corrected angular largest lobe size, binned by {\it
911: low-resolution} effective observing
912: resolution. There is a tendency for those sources observed at relatively low resolution, that is with $\le 40$
913: restoring beams across the source, to have wider lobes. Dividing the
914: lobe width data points into two subsamples based on observing resolution, using a cutoff of 40
915: low-resolution restoring beams across the source, a W-M-W test
916: suggests this is significant above the 99.9 per cent confidence level. Furthermore, when we consider the
917: $R_{\rm ax}$ values themselves and divide them into two samples in the
918: same way, a W-M-W test shows that $R_{\rm ax}$ is significantly
919: higher in sources observed at high resolution compared to those observed
920: with an effective observing resolution of 40 or less, at above the 99.9 per
921: cent confidence level. The $R_{\rm ax}$ data, therefore, seem to be affected by observing resolution.
922: %
923: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
924: %
925: \begin{figure}
926: %
927: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LAS_W.ps,width=8cm}}
928: %
929: \caption{\label{fig:LAS_W_RES} The angular lobe width, $\Theta_{w}$,
930: plotted against the resolution-corrected angular lobe size,
931: $\Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$, binned by low-resolution effective observing
932: resolution. Circled points: low-resolution effective observing resolution $\le 40$. The dotted line is the line of $\Theta_{w} = \Theta_{LAS_{\rm l}}$.}
933: %
934: \end{figure}
935: %
936: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
937: %
938: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
939: %
940: \subsubsection{Trends with $P_{178}$, $z$ and size}\label{sec:trendaxialratio}
941: %
942: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
943: %
944: A greater proportion of sources observed at low resolution are found
945: at high redshift, so that the high redshift sample may have a
946: systematic bias toward lower $R_{\rm ax}$ values. Another effect to
947: consider is the known correlation between spectral index and radio
948: power or redshift; the hotspots and lobes in higher-redshift
949: higher-power sources have steeper spectra, particularly at high
950: frequencies (e.g., Laing \& Peacock 1980; Blundell, Rawlings \&
951: Willott 1999). This correlation would mean that for high-redshift sources the low brightness lobe emission is harder to detect, resulting in smaller
952: $w$ values (and hence higher corresponding $R_{\rm ax}$) for
953: luminous sources. Dividing the $R_{\rm ax}$ distribution by $P_{178}$
954: (using $P_{\rm c}$) and $z$ (using a cutoff of 0.5), a
955: K-S test showed
956: no significant differences in the distribution of $R_{\rm ax}$ across
957: the power and redshift range. In Figs \ref{fig:aspect_z} and
958: \ref{fig:aspect_P} we plot $R_{\rm ax}$ (for each lobe) against
959: redshift and source luminosity respectively.
960:
961: The plot of $R_{\rm ax}$ against $LLS_{\rm l}$ in Fig.
962: \ref{fig:aspect_LLS} shows that there is a trend with source size. The
963: distribution appears to change at $LLS_{\rm l}\sim100$ kpc, with a
964: much larger range in $R_{\rm ax}$ found above this size. A W-M-W test
965: shows that $R_{\rm ax}$ is significantly smaller in lobes with
966: $LLS_{\rm l}<100$ kpc at above the 99.9 per cent confidence level, for
967: sources of all spectral classes.
968:
969: In a self-similar expansion model in which all sources in a sample are
970: subject to self-similar growth throughout their lifetime, $R_{\rm ax}$
971: should be independent of the lobe size. This is clearly not borne out
972: by the data. In fact it is possible that a source only grows
973: self-similarly in its early phases, on scale sizes of the order of
974: that of the associated galaxy or its hot-gas halo (e.g.\ Hardcastle \&
975: Worrall 2000); the data here lend support to this picture.
976: %
977: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
978: %
979: \subsubsection{Unification}\label{sec:Rax_uni}
980: %
981: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
982: %
983: The observed $R_{\rm ax}$ should be lower than the true physical value
984: due to the projection of the source length in the plane of the sky,
985: while the width should be less affected, notwithstanding any
986: orientation effects on lobe detectability as discussed in section
987: \ref{sec:obsaxialratio}. Assuming $w$ is unaffected by
988: orientation, the effect of projection on $R_{\rm ax}$ is the same form
989: as that for $LLS_{\rm s}$ (equation \ref{eq:LLS_theta}), that is
990: %
991: %-------------------------equation:-R-orientation---------------------------------------------------
992: %
993: \begin{equation}
994: %
995: R_{\rm ax} = R^{'}_{\rm ax} \sin{\theta},\label{eq:R}
996: %
997: \end{equation}
998: %
999: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000: %
1001: where the prime indicates the true physical value of the parameters
1002: and $\theta$ is the
1003: angle subtended by the $LLS_{\rm s}$ axis with the observer's
1004: line-of-sight.
1005:
1006: The median $R_{\rm ax}$, $<R_{\rm ax}>$, is given for the different
1007: spectral classes in Table \ref{tab:axialratio_median}. Unification
1008: predicts the same ratio ($\sim0.6$) between the broad and narrow line
1009: spectral classes as for $<LLS_{\rm s}>$ (given the model in equation (\ref{eq:R}) and ignoring scatter introduced by deviation of the lobes
1010: from the common axis). For the sample data, $<R_{\rm ax_{Q}}>/<R_{\rm
1011: ax_{N}}>=0.69$, while $<R_{\rm ax_{B}}>/<R_{\rm ax_{N}}>=0.75$.
1012:
1013: The difference in $R_{\rm ax}$ between the Qs and high luminosity
1014: NLRGs is statistically significant (at the 99.6 per cent confidence
1015: level with a W-M-W test) whilst that between the BLRGs and low
1016: luminosity NLRGs is not, though the difference between the low-power spectral classes is in the sense expected for unification. So are there intrinsic differences between
1017: the Qs and high power NLRGs that have no correspondence in the low
1018: luminosity sources? This may not be the case if some effect leads to
1019: an observational bias that masks significant differences in $R_{\rm
1020: ax}$ between the BLRGs and low-power NLRGs -- for
1021: example, if lobes were more difficult to detect in these
1022: low-power sources compared with high-power ones. However, despite the evidence that observing resolution does affect $R_{\rm ax}$ (section \ref{sec:obsaxialratio}), we concluded in section \ref{sec:trendaxialratio} that there was no evidence that this results in a systematic bias in lobe detectability across the power range.
1023:
1024: While the tendency for Qs to have lower $R_{\rm ax}$ than high-power NLRGs is
1025: consistent with projection effects, the orientation arguments predict
1026: that this should be the case {\it as a result of} their lower values of $LLS_{\rm l}$. In fact we found no significant difference in lobe
1027: length between the Qs and high luminosity NLRGs, which might suggest
1028: that the Qs are associated with lower $R_{\rm ax}$ because they have
1029: intrinsically broader lobes. A W-M-W test does not confirm that this is the case, however.
1030:
1031: In Fig. \ref{fig:LLS_W_CLASS} we
1032: plot $w$ against $LLS_{\rm l}$ for the different spectral classes. From this plot it would appear that there is a tendency for the points corresponding to the broad line objects to lie to the left of those of the narrow line objects -- in other words, there is a tendency for Qs and BLRGs to have smaller $LLS_{\rm l}$ with respect to NLRGs of a similar $w$. This would suggest that differences are {\it consistent} with projection effects, although the $LLS_{\rm l}$ values in Qs and BLRGs are not significantly
1033: lower than those in NLRGs. Our interpretation is therefore that the statistically lower $R_{\rm ax}$ found in Qs is consistent
1034: with projection effects; the lack of a corresponding trend for BLRGs is not accounted for, though it is not strong evidence against unification in the lower-power subsample. Fig. \ref{fig:LLS_W_BN} shows that a number of the low-power sources with low effective observing resolution correspond to
1035: either particularly small or particularly large sources and it is possible that the effects of observing resolution are more important for the BLRGs, though this is not clearly so.
1036:
1037: As for the lobe size, we would predict no significant difference in
1038: $R_{\rm ax}$ between the LERGs and low luminosity NLRGs and
1039: BLRGs, if LERGs have the same intrinsic $R_{\rm ax}$ distribution. A
1040: K-S test finds no significant difference between the $R_{\rm ax}$
1041: distributions of the LERG and combined BLRG and low power NLRG
1042: populations.
1043: %
1044: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1045: %
1046: \begin{figure}
1047: %
1048: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/R_z.ps,width=8cm}}
1049: %
1050: \caption{\label{fig:aspect_z} The lobe axial ratio, $R_{\rm ax}$, plotted against redshift, $z$ (two points per source).}
1051: %
1052: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/R_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1053: %
1054: \caption{\label{fig:aspect_P}The lobe axial ratio, $R_{\rm ax}$, plotted against source
1055: luminosity at 178 MHz, $P_{178}$, (two points per source).}
1056: %
1057: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/R_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1058: %
1059: \caption{\label{fig:aspect_LLS}The lobe axial ratio, $R_{\rm ax}$, plotted against
1060: the largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm l}$, (two points per source).}
1061: %
1062: \end{figure}
1063: %
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: %
1066: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LAS_W_CLASS.ps,width=8cm}}
1067: %
1068: \caption{\label{fig:LLS_W_CLASS}The linear lobe width, $w$, plotted
1069: against the largest linear lobe size, $LLS_{\rm l}$. The dotted line is the line of $w =
1070: LLS_{\rm l}$.}
1071: %
1072: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/LAS_W_BN.ps,width=8cm}}
1073: %
1074: \caption{\label{fig:LLS_W_BN}The linear lobe width, $w$, plotted
1075: against the largest linear lobe size, $LLS_{\rm l}$, for the low
1076: power subsample. Circled points: low-resolution effective observing resolution $\le 40$. The dotted line is the line of $w =
1077: LLS_{\rm l}$.}
1078: %
1079: \end{figure}
1080: %
1081: \begin{table}
1082: %
1083: \scriptsize
1084: %
1085: \centering
1086: %
1087: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
1088: %
1089: \caption{\label{tab:axialratio_median}The median lobe axial ratio, $<R_{\rm ax}>$, for each of the spectral class distributions.}
1090: %
1091: \begin{tabular}{lclcc} \hline
1092: %
1093: Spectral class & $<R_{\rm ax}>$ &Spectral class & $<R_{\rm ax}>$ &$<R_{\rm ax}>$ ratio\\ \hline
1094: %
1095: \input{tables/axialratio_median}
1096: %
1097: \end{tabular}
1098: %
1099: \end{minipage}
1100: %
1101: \end{table}
1102: %
1103: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1104: %
1105: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1106: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1107: %
1108: \subsection{Lobe size asymmetry}
1109: %
1110: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1111: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1112: %
1113: %
1114: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1115: %
1116: \subsubsection{Trends with $P_{178}$, $z$ and size}\label{sec:trendxlobe}
1117: %
1118: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1119: %
1120: The resolution correction factor applied to the $LLS_{\rm l}$ data, as
1121: discussed in section \ref{sec:lobesizobs}, should compensate for
1122: systematic bias in lobe size asymmetry that might be introduced by observing
1123: resolution. The fractional separation difference defined in terms of the
1124: longer lobe, $x_{\rm lobe}$, is plotted as a function of redshift,
1125: luminosity and source size in Figs \ref{fig:xlobe_z},
1126: \ref{fig:xlobe_P} and \ref{fig:xlobe_LLS} respectively. There is no
1127: trend in $x_{\rm lobe}$ with redshift but there is a tendency for the
1128: high luminosity and smaller sources to have greater asymmetries.
1129:
1130: A trend in $x_{\rm lobe}$ with redshift might have suggested
1131: environmental differences at different epochs; a tendency for
1132: greater asymmetries in higher power/smaller sources only could be
1133: consistent with asymmetries being imposed by environmental
1134: differences early in the source's development, if these sources are
1135: expected to be generally younger. That is, if relative environmental
1136: differences are not so great further out from the central engine the
1137: source's perceived asymmetry may be dominated by effects introduced
1138: while the source is still small; in this case the fractional asymmetry may decrease as the source expands, as any asymmetry represents a decreasing fraction of the source size.
1139:
1140: Broad-band studies of radio galaxies have demonstrated that in many
1141: cases the the detected optical and/or infrared continuum emission from
1142: the host galaxy is aligned with the radio axis (Chambers, Miley \& van
1143: Breugel, 1987; McCarthy et al., 1987), a phenomenon known as the
1144: `alignment effect'. This effect has been shown to be strong in sources
1145: at redshifts $\gtrsim 0.6$, but less so for lower redshift samples. The
1146: main processes implicated in the creation of the alignment effect are
1147: photoionization from the central AGN and shock ionization from the
1148: passage of the jet or lobes. Spectroscopic studies have suggested that
1149: the photoionization mechanism dominates in more evolved, larger
1150: sources but in smaller sources (especially those for which the radio
1151: size of the sources is comparable to the emission line region) the
1152: shock mechanism becomes important. This implies that source age is a
1153: key factor when considering the extent to which the radio source will
1154: affect its environment, with younger, less-evolved sources expanding
1155: out through the host galaxy and gas environment and directly affecting
1156: their kinematics (e.g., Inskip et al. 2002; Privon et al. 2008). But
1157: the study of Inskip et al., which was made using multiple flux-limited
1158: samples in order to break the redshift-luminosity degeneracy, has
1159: suggested that the alignment depends on redshift as well as power,
1160: implying that environmental differences at different epochs do
1161: contribute to the overall picture.
1162:
1163: The present sample cannot directly inform these latter results, as the redshift-luminosity degeneracy is not broken here. In fact, the tendency for asymmetry to be greater for higher power, smaller sources in this sample is not a result that contradicts or confirms any study of the alignment effect; binning the entire sample data by luminosity (using $P_{\rm
1164: c}$) and source size (taking a cutoff of 200 kpc, corresponding to 100 kpc in lobe size, a somewhat arbitrary
1165: choice based on the result of a trend in $R_{\rm ax}$ with lobe size
1166: discussed in section \ref{sec:trendaxialratio}), K-S tests indicate
1167: that the differences in the distributions of $x_{\rm lobe}$ across both
1168: the luminosity and size ranges are not significant.
1169: %
1170: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1171: %
1172: \subsubsection{Unification and beaming}\label{sec:x_lobe_beamin}
1173: %
1174: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1175: %
1176: The median $x_{\rm lobe}$ for the different spectral classes, $<x_{\rm
1177: lobe}>$, are given in Table \ref{tab:xlobe_median}. It can be seen that
1178: the Qs are more asymmetric than the high luminosity NLRGs; a W-M-W
1179: test shows that the difference is significant at the 99.7 per cent
1180: confidence level. The $<x_{\rm lobe}>$ of the BLRGs and the low
1181: luminosity NLRGs are not significantly different statistically and a K-S
1182: test does not show any difference in the distribution of the
1183: combined population of BLRGs and low-power NLRGs with respect to that of the LERGs. These findings
1184: are generally consistent with those of H98 (with respect to the low
1185: luminosity sources) and Best et al. (1995; with respect
1186: to the high luminosity subsample), though both these studies defined $x_{\rm lobe}$
1187: using $c-hs$.
1188:
1189: In the case of the former result, Best et al. suggested that
1190: relativistic effects might contribute to the greater asymmetry of Qs
1191: relative to the corresponding NLRGs. If this were the case, we would
1192: expect that the jet side would correlate with the longer lobe side.
1193: The fractional separation difference defined by jet side, $x_{\rm
1194: jet}$, uses the value of $LLS_{\rm l}$ on the straight jet side as $D_{1}$ and
1195: $LLS_{\rm l}$ on the counterjet side as $D_{2}$. AL00 have studied
1196: the observed distribution of $x_{\rm jet}$ for a sample of 3CR FRII
1197: sources that includes the sources in this sample in addition to a
1198: number of objects at $z>1$. They introduce an asymmetry parameter,
1199: $\epsilon$, which is used to quantify the degree to which relativistic
1200: effects contribute to the observed distribution of $x_{\rm jet}$ as
1201: opposed to intrinsic and/or environmental effects. The asymmetry
1202: parameter is defined as
1203: %
1204: %-------------------equation:-asymmetry-parameter-----------------------------------------
1205: %
1206: \begin{equation}
1207: %
1208: \epsilon= 1-2 \frac{N(-FRII)}{N(+FRII)}
1209: %
1210: \end{equation}
1211: %
1212: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1213: %
1214: where $N(-FRII)$ and $N(+FRII)$ are the numbers of sources with
1215: positive and negative $x_{\rm jet}$ values. AL00 argued that an even
1216: distribution of positive and negative $x_{\rm jet}$ about zero, giving
1217: $\epsilon=-1$, implies that relativistic effects are not a significant
1218: factor in the distribution. Where around 2/3 of the sample objects have
1219: positive $x_{\rm jet}$ values, $\epsilon \sim 0$, which implies that
1220: relativistic effects are as significant as intrinsic/environmental
1221: ones. As relativistic effects become more important $\epsilon$ would
1222: become increasingly positive. For their sample AL00 found an asymmetry
1223: parameter of $-0.07 \pm 0.22$, for all the sources. For the radio
1224: galaxies the result was $-0.3 \pm 0.32$ and for quasars, $0.33 \pm
1225: 0.36$. They concluded that the effects of relativistic motion on the
1226: observed lobe size asymmetry distribution were not negligible and
1227: that they were more important to the observed quasar asymmetries than
1228: to the radio galaxies, consistent with unification models.
1229:
1230: Here the sample is essentially the same as that of AL00 except for the
1231: exclusion of those objects at $z>1$. The data have been reconsidered,
1232: however, using only the jet-side information obtainable from the
1233: sample maps. Where a definite or possible straight jet is detected, this is
1234: taken as the jet side and no other information such as the
1235: depolarization asymmetry associated with the source is used.
1236: When determining $x_{\rm jet}$ in this way, it must be borne in mind that
1237: the exclusion of those sources with no jet detections may bias the
1238: data.
1239:
1240: $x_{\rm jet}$ is plotted against $P_{178}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:xjet_P}.
1241: Considering all sample sources with at least one definite or possible
1242: straight jet, regardless of spectral class, the jet-side lobe is the
1243: longer lobe in 49 per cent of the sources (using $LLS_{l}$). BLRGs
1244: show the strongest apparent correlation of jet side and the longer
1245: lobe with 7 out of 8 sources having positive $x_{\rm jet}$ values; a
1246: marginally significant tendency at the 96.5 per cent confidence level.
1247: Qs, NLRGs and LERGs do not have any significant tendency for positive
1248: $x_{\rm jet}$ values. The distribution corresponds to an asymmetry
1249: parameter of $\epsilon=-1.06$ for the combined Qs, BLRGs and NLRGs
1250: sample, $\epsilon=0.08$ for the combined quasar and BLRG population
1251: and $\epsilon=-1.86$ for the NLRGs, suggesting that relativistic
1252: effects make a greater contribution to the observed asymmetry for Qs
1253: and BLRGs than for NLRGs, which is in line with the prediction of
1254: unification. This is consistent with the results of AL00, although the
1255: evidence for relativistic effects making a significant contribution to
1256: the $x_{\rm jet}$ distribution overall is weaker for this sample.
1257:
1258: In Fig. \ref{fig:xjet_LLS}, $x_{\rm jet}$ is plotted against $LLS_{\rm
1259: s}$. There is an apparent difference in the $x_{\rm jet}$ distribution
1260: for smaller sources, ($LLS_{\rm s}\lesssim 200$ kpc), with fewer
1261: negative values: $x_{\rm jet}$ is positive in 57 per cent of sources
1262: with $LLS_{\rm s}\leq 200$ kpc; a
1263: binomial test shows the tendency for $x_{\rm jet}$ to be positive in
1264: the smaller sources is only weakly significant (although it can be noted that only one broad-line source has a negative value). A K-S test shows no significant difference between the large and small source $x_{\rm jet}$
1265: distribution.
1266: %
1267: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1268: %
1269: \begin{figure}
1270: %
1271: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/xlobe_z.ps,width=8cm}}
1272: %
1273: \caption{\label{fig:xlobe_z} The fractional separation difference as defined by the longer lobe side, $x_{\rm lobe}$, plotted against redshift, $z$.}
1274: %
1275: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/xlobe_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1276: %
1277: \caption{\label{fig:xlobe_P} The fractional separation difference as defined by the longer lobe side, $x_{\rm lobe}$, plotted against source luminosity at 178 MHz, $P_{178}$.}
1278: %
1279: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/xlobe_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1280: %
1281: \caption{\label{fig:xlobe_LLS} The fractional separation difference as defined by the longer lobe side, $x_{\rm lobe}$, plotted against the largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$.}
1282: %
1283: \end{figure}
1284: %
1285: \begin{figure}
1286: %
1287: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/xjet_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1288: %
1289: \caption{\label{fig:xjet_P} The fractional separation difference as
1290: defined by the straight jet side, $x_{\rm jet}$, plotted against source
1291: luminosity at 178 MHz, $P_{178}$. The dotted line
1292: shows a fractional separation difference of zero.}
1293: %
1294: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/xjet_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1295: %
1296: \caption{\label{fig:xjet_LLS}The fractional separation difference as
1297: defined by the straight jet side, $x_{\rm jet}$, plotted against the largest
1298: linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$. The dotted line
1299: shows a fractional separation difference of zero.}
1300: %
1301: \end{figure}
1302: %
1303: \begin{table}
1304: %
1305: \scriptsize
1306: %
1307: \centering
1308: %
1309: \begin{minipage}{9cm}
1310: %
1311: \caption{\label{tab:xlobe_median}The median fractional separation difference as defined by lobe size, $<x_{\rm lobe}>$, for each of the spectral class distributions}
1312: %
1313: \begin{tabular}{lclc} \hline
1314: %
1315: Spectral class & $<x_{\rm lobe}>$ & Spectral class & $<x_{\rm lobe}>$\\ \hline
1316: %
1317: \input{tables/xlobe_median}
1318: \hline
1319: %
1320: \end{tabular}
1321: %
1322: \end{minipage}
1323: %
1324: \end{table}
1325: %
1326: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1327: %
1328: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1329: %
1330: \begin{table*}
1331: %
1332: \caption{Summary of jet and hotspot detections for the sample \label{tab:summary}}
1333:
1334: \begin{center}
1335: %
1336: \scriptsize
1337: %
1338: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllllllllll} \hline
1339: %
1340: Source &Class& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Straight jets} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Hotspots} & Source &Class& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Straight jets} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Hotspots} & Source &Class& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Straight jets} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Hotspots} \\
1341: & & N lobe & S lobe & N lobe & S lobe & & & N lobe & S lobe & N lobe & S lobe & & & N lobe & S lobe & N lobe & S lobe \\\hline
1342: %
1343: \input{tables/summary}
1344: %
1345: \end{tabular}\\
1346: %
1347: \end{center}
1348:
1349: Column [1]:3CR catalogue source name. Column [2]: Spectral class. L: low excitation galaxies, Q: quasars, B and N: broad and narrow line radio galaxies respectively. Column [3] \& [4]: Jet detections for north and south lobes respectively. J: definite jet, PJ: possible jet, CJ: counterjet, PCJ: possible counterjet. Column [5] \& [6]: Number of hotspots in the north and south lobe respectively. Columns [7] to [12] and columns [13] to [18] as for columns [1] to [6].\\
1350: %
1351: \end{table*}
1352: %
1353: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1354: %
1355: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1356: %--------------------------------CORES-AND-JETS------------------------------------------------
1357: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1358: %
1359: \section{Cores and Jets}\label{sec:cores_jets}
1360: %
1361: %
1362: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1363: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1364: %
1365: \subsection{Observing effects}\label{sec:obscoresjets}
1366: %
1367: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1368: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1369: %
1370: The effects of varying observing resolution should introduce little
1371: bias into the core measurements as they are bright features that are
1372: typically unresolved. For the jets, however, observing resolution will
1373: have an effect on detectability, which we now consider for the case of the total jet features.
1374:
1375: 30 per cent of sources in the sample have a definite jet, and a further 34
1376: per cent have a possible jet; a summary of straight jet detections for the
1377: entire sample is given in Table \ref{tab:summary}, with the detection
1378: rate broken down by spectral class in Table
1379: \ref{tab:jet_detection_class}. The total jet classifications are the same as for the straight jets but for the following three exceptions: the definite total jet is in the northern lobe in source 3C171 with a definite total counterjet detected in the southern lobe, a possible total counterjet is detected in the southern lobe of 3C20 and a definite total counterjet is detected in the southern lobe of 3C438.
1380:
1381: The appearance of the jet features
1382: varies from source to source, and many of the detected jets do not
1383: cover the entire length from the core to the hotspot feature.
1384: Observing resolution and sensitivity should be an
1385: important factor in jet detectability; however, the nature of any
1386: dependence on observational constraints is difficult to evaluate. The
1387: variation of observing resolution across the sample is potentially a
1388: source of observational bias, more so as this is accompanied by a
1389: variation in observing sensitivity.
1390:
1391: To investigate the effect on total jet detectability, in Fig. \ref{fig:dyn_res} we plot the dynamic range (defined as the ratio
1392: of the maximum intensity to the off-source root mean square noise)
1393: against the effective observing resolution corresponding to the
1394: highest-resolution map for all the sample sources, binning by jet status. Sources lacking total jet features entirely
1395: are observed across the resolution and sensitivity range; thus there is
1396: no simple trend for those sources observed with relatively high
1397: resolution and high dynamic range to be associated with jet features.
1398:
1399: Fig. \ref{fig:flob_dyn_jet} plots the fractional observed lobe length,
1400: $f_{\rm l}$, against dynamic range, with data binned by total jet detection
1401: status. It might be expected that if the detected lobe emission in a source is more extensive (with $f_{\rm l}$ values closer to 1), it would be more difficult to detect a jet feature, but this does not seem to be the case. Definite and possible jet features are detected across the range in $f_{\rm l}$. An additional aspect of jet detectability that can be considered is
1402: the jet location within the lobe. As mentioned previously, while in
1403: some sources a bright jet is observed to extend from the core to the
1404: lobe extremity, in many sources the jet is detected along a fraction
1405: of this length only. In Fig. \ref{fig:histjetpos}, a histogram shows
1406: the distribution of the fractional jet position, $f_{\rm j_{p}}$, for the definite and possible
1407: jets; 69 per cent of these of objects have a jet that is traced from
1408: near the core, having $f_{\rm j_{p}} < 0.1$. In order to examine the
1409: possibility that the jets are systematically becoming obscured as they
1410: progress through the lobe, the jet termination, $f_{\rm j_{t}}$, is
1411: considered alongside $f_{\rm j_{p}}$. $f_{\rm j_{p}}$ and $f_{\rm
1412: j_{t}}$ are plotted against the fractional lobe length, $f_{l}$, in
1413: Fig. \ref{fig:jetpos_flobs}. The dashed line represents $f_{\rm
1414: j_{t}}$, corresponding to a given $f_{l}$, that would be obtained if
1415: the observed total jet terminated on reaching the inner edge of the
1416: lobe. As there is no tendency for the $f_{\rm j_{t}}$ data to crowd
1417: toward this line, jets are generally observed to extend into the lobe.
1418:
1419: If the emitting material in the beam decelerated as it progresses from
1420: the core, and if the jet were detected more easily as this happens,
1421: then it might be expected that once the jet becomes detectable it could
1422: be traced to the hotspot region or the lobe extremity. This would be
1423: consistent with an anticorrelation between jet length and jet position. In
1424: Fig. \ref{fig:length_position} $f_{\rm j_{l}}$ is plotted against
1425: $f_{\rm j_{p}}$ and the dashed line shows the jet length corresponding
1426: to a given jet position that would indicate that the jet is observed
1427: continously from its base to the lobe extremity. As there is no
1428: crowding toward this line, there is no strong tendency for this to be
1429: the case.
1430:
1431: We conclude that, although the observing resolution should affect jet
1432: detectability, there is no obvious systematic bias in the sample that
1433: can be simply compensated for. The jet is not obviously less easily
1434: detected in sources with extensive lobes and the lack of jet detection
1435: does not appear to be a result of high lobe detectability.
1436: %
1437: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1438: %
1439: \begin{table*}
1440: %
1441: \centering
1442: %
1443:
1444: \caption{\label{tab:jet_detection_class}The jet detection data for the sample based on spectral class}
1445: %
1446: \begin{tabular}{llclclclc} \hline
1447: %
1448: Spectral class &\multicolumn{2}{c}{jet features}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{definite jets}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{possible jets}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{null detection}\\ \hline
1449: %
1450: \input{tables/jet_detection_class}
1451: \hline
1452: \end{tabular}
1453: %
1454: \end{table*}
1455: %
1456: \begin{figure}
1457: %
1458: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/dynrange_obsres_jetstat.ps,width=8cm}}
1459: %
1460: \caption{\label{fig:dyn_res} The dynamic range plotted against the
1461: high-resolution effective observing resolution, binned by total jet status. Filled circles: at least one
1462: definite jet detected, open circles: no definite jet detected but at
1463: least one possible jet, diagonal cross: no jet feature detected. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version). The
1464: dotted line shows a high-resolution effective observing resolution of 40.}
1465: %
1466: \end{figure}
1467: %
1468: \begin{figure}
1469: %
1470: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/fl_dynrange_jetstat.ps,width=8cm}}
1471: %
1472: \caption{\label{fig:flob_dyn_jet} The fractional observed lobe length, $f_{\rm l}$, plotted against the dynamic range, binned by total jet status. Filled circles: at least one definite jet detected, open circles: no definite jet detected but at least one possible jet, diagonal cross: no jet feature detected. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1473: %
1474: \end{figure}
1475: %
1476: \begin{figure}
1477: %
1478: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/fjp_hist.ps,width=8cm}}
1479: %
1480: \caption{\label{fig:histjetpos} Histogram of the fractional jet position, $f_{\rm j_{p}}$, for the sample.}
1481: %
1482: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/jetpos_flobs.ps,width=8cm}}
1483: %
1484: \caption{\label{fig:jetpos_flobs} The fractional jet position, $f_{\rm j_{p}}$, and fractional jet termination, $f_{\rm j_{t}}$, plotted against the fractional observed lobe length, $f_{\rm l}$, of the corresponding lobe. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version). The dotted line is the line of $f_{\rm j_{t}}=1-f_{\rm l}$.}
1485: %
1486: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/length_position.ps,width=8cm}}
1487: %
1488: \caption{\label{fig:length_position} The fractional jet length, $f_{\rm j_{l}}$, plotted against the fractional jet position, $f_{\rm j_{p}}$, of the corresponding lobe. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version). The dotted line is the line of $f_{\rm j_{l}}=1-f_{\rm j_{p}}$.}
1489: %
1490: \end{figure}
1491: %
1492: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1493: %
1494: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1495: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1496: %
1497: \subsection{Trends with $P_{178}$, $z$ and size}
1498: %
1499: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1501: %
1502: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1503: %
1504: \subsubsection{Cores}\label{sec:cores}
1505: %
1506: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1507: %
1508: The core prominence distribution is plotted as a function of redshift
1509: in Fig. \ref{fig:coreprom_z} and as a function of luminosity in Fig.
1510: \ref{fig:coreprom_P}. Any trend with redshift is weak but there is a tendency for the core prominence to decrease with
1511: increasing source luminosity and there is a lack of low-luminosity
1512: sources with faint cores. A Peto-Prentice test in which the sample objects
1513: (inclusive of all spectral classes) are divided by source luminosity
1514: at $P_{\rm c}$ shows that the trend for lower core prominence in higher-power sources is
1515: significant at the 99.5 per cent confidence level.
1516:
1517: From Fig. \ref{fig:coreprom_LLS} it can be seen that there is a
1518: tendency for smaller sources in general to be associated with lower
1519: core prominence. Binning the sample data by size, including all
1520: classes, a Peto-Prentice test between sources above and below
1521: $LLS_{\rm s}=200$ kpc shows no significant difference. (The 200-kpc
1522: size criterion was chosen as evidence was found for morphological
1523: differences in lobe sizes above and below $\sim 100$ kpc; see Section
1524: \ref{sec:trendaxialratio}.) However, if the sources are divided by
1525: spectral class, there is a significant tendency (at the 96.5 per cent
1526: confidence level) on a Peto-Prentice test for the smaller NLRGs to have
1527: lower core prominences: this was also noted by H98. It is not clear
1528: whether this is simply a result of the core-prominence/luminosity
1529: inverse correlation noted above in combination with the known luminosity/size
1530: inverse correlation, or whether (as suggested by H98) it is a genuine
1531: physical effect that is masked in other spectral types by beaming effects.
1532: %
1533: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1534: %
1535: \subsubsection{Jets}\label{sec:jets}
1536: %
1537: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1538: %
1539: In Figs \ref{fig:jetprom_z} and \ref{fig:jetprom_P} the straight jet
1540: prominence is plotted against redshift and luminosity; there is no
1541: trend in the distribution with either parameter. A slightly broader
1542: range is found at $z\lesssim 0.3$; there is a marginally significant
1543: (93.7 per cent confidence level) difference between these low redshift
1544: sources and those with $z>0.3$ on a K-S test. However, taking into
1545: account the upper limits in the data, a Peto-Prentice test does not
1546: suggest any significant difference in the distribution of $p_{\rm j}$
1547: between the high and low luminosity sources, nor is any trend found
1548: with respect to redshift or source size. The many limits in the
1549: $p_{\rm j}$ data (around one third of the sample sources) may mask any
1550: trend.
1551: %
1552: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1553: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1554: %
1555: \subsection{Unification and beaming}\label{sec:coresjetsuni}
1556: %
1557: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1558: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1559: %
1560: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1561: %
1562: \subsubsection{Cores}\label{sec:cores2}
1563: %
1564: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1565: %
1566: The median core prominences for the different spectral classes are
1567: given in Table \ref{tab:coreprom_median}. The core prominence
1568: distribution of the Qs and BLRGs was compared with that of the NLRGs
1569: using a Peto-Prentice test. The difference in the distributions of Qs and high-luminosity NLRGs is significant above the 99.9 per cent
1570: confidence level, whilst that between the
1571: BLRGs and low power NLRGs is significant at the 97.4 per cent level. We find no significant difference between the $p_{\rm c}$
1572: distributions of the LERGs and the BLRGs and low power NLRGs on a
1573: Peto-Prentice test.
1574:
1575: In section \ref{sec:cores} it was shown that there is evidence that the higher-power sources are associated with lower core prominence. Considering the spectral classes separately, Peto-Prentice tests show that the high-power BLRGs and NLRGs are significantly lower than the corresponding low-power BLRGs and NLRGs (note that there are only 2 sources in the high-power BLRG subsample), but there is no significant trend in the Qs or LERGs. The core prominence data are consistent with the idea that higher
1576: luminosity sources have higher Lorentz factors. The
1577: beaming factor is $\propto \gamma(1-\beta\cos\theta)^{-2}$ (Scheuer \&
1578: Readhead 1979, assuming the spectral index for the core features to be
1579: 0), and the range in this factor increases with $\gamma$. For a given
1580: $\gamma$, above a certain threshold angle of orientation with respect to the
1581: observer's line-of-sight, $\theta_{\rm t}$, the emission will be Doppler suppressed and the observed core
1582: prominence will be lower than the intrinsic value. As $\gamma$
1583: increases, $\theta_{\rm t}$ decreases and the suppression of parsec
1584: scale jet emission at large $\theta$ becomes strong. In Qs, VLBI
1585: observations have reported $\gamma\sim 5$--$10$ for some sources (e.g., Zensus 1997; Hough et al. 2002). This would result in Doppler-boosted cores in broad-line objects and
1586: Doppler-suppressed cores for the equivalent NLRGs, assuming
1587: $\theta_{\rm c}\approx40-50^{\circ}$. If sources of lower luminosity
1588: were associated with lower $\gamma$, the core prominence of BLRG
1589: sources would not be as strongly boosted as the Qs (though there is no
1590: significant difference between the core prominence of Qs and BLRGs) and also the Doppler
1591: suppression of the NLRG cores would be less strong. This latter point could lead to generally lower core prominence being found in {\it higher}-luminosity NLRGs.
1592: %
1593: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1594: %
1595: \begin{figure}
1596: %
1597: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/coreprom_z.ps,width=8cm}}
1598: %
1599: \caption{\label{fig:coreprom_z}The core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, plotted against redshift, $z$. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits.}
1600: %
1601: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/coreprom_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1602: %
1603: \caption{\label{fig:coreprom_P}The core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, plotted against the source luminosity at 178~MHz, $P_{178}$. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits.}
1604: %
1605: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/coreprom_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1606: %
1607: \caption{\label{fig:coreprom_LLS}The core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, plotted against the largest linear source size, $LLS_{\rm s}$. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits.}
1608: %
1609: \end{figure}
1610: %
1611: \begin{table}
1612: %
1613: \scriptsize
1614: %
1615: \centering
1616: %
1617: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
1618: %
1619: \caption{\label{tab:coreprom_median}The median core prominence, $<p_{\rm c}>$, for the different spectral classes.}
1620: %
1621: \begin{tabular}{lclc} \hline
1622: %
1623: Spectral class & $<p_{\rm c}> / 10^{-3}$ &Spectral class & $<p_{\rm c}> / 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
1624: %
1625: \input{tables/core_median}
1626: %
1627: \end{tabular}
1628: %
1629: \end{minipage}
1630: %
1631: \end{table}
1632: %
1633: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1634: %
1635: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1636: %
1637: \subsubsection{Jets}\label{sec:jets-asurv}
1638: %
1639: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1640: %
1641: The one-sidedness of FRII jets is difficult
1642: to account for without beaming. There are very few counterjets
1643: detected in the sample but the general symmetry of the
1644: extended structure requires there to be bi-polar beams emanating from
1645: the central engine. The fact that so few counterjets are detected at
1646: all suggests that kiloparsec scale jet emission is beamed.
1647:
1648: The straight jet detection statistics indicate a difference with spectral class
1649: that is consistent with beaming models (see Table
1650: \ref{tab:jet_detection_class}, previously discussed in section
1651: \ref{sec:obscoresjets}). The Qs and BLRG sources have a similarly high
1652: jet-feature detection rate ($\sim73$ per cent), with definite jets
1653: detected in $\sim53$ per cent of the sources. (The Q sources with no
1654: jet detected are observed at relatively low resolution, $\lesssim 40$
1655: beams across the source in the high-resolution map; this is not true for the BLRGs). For the NLRG
1656: class, jet features are found in 60 per cent of sources, with only 28
1657: per cent of NLRGs having a definite jet detected. The upper limits of
1658: the NLRG and LERG sources are distributed across the range in
1659: observing resolution.
1660:
1661: The median straight jet prominence {\it for detected jets only} for
1662: each of the spectral classes is shown in Table
1663: \ref{tab:jetprom_median}. When we compare the
1664: straight jet prominences of the broad-line objects (Q and BLRG) to the
1665: NLRG with a Peto-Prentice test, taking upper limits into account, we find a difference that is
1666: significant at the 99.6 per cent confidence limit in the sense that the
1667: median prominence of the broad-line objects is significantly higher.
1668: This confirms the earlier result of H98. The difference in jet prominence is still
1669: significant if the sample is divided into low-luminosity and
1670: high-luminosity sub-samples, at the 98.7 per cent and 94.4 per cent
1671: confidence levels respectively -- the marginal significance in the
1672: high-luminosity bin presumably arises from the large fraction of upper
1673: limits in the NLRG in this sample. There is no significant difference
1674: between the LERG and other (NLRG/BLRG/Q) straight jet prominence
1675: distributions. These differences in prominence are consistent with the
1676: expectations from unified models and beaming.
1677:
1678: In addition, the Laing-Garrington effect (as discussed
1679: in section \ref{sec:intro}), in which the jet occurs in the
1680: lobe that shows less depolarization, can be considered. Depolarization data were available in the literature (Table \ref{tab:depol}) for 60 of the sample sources, 41 of which have detected jets (possible
1681: and definite). Of these 41 sources, 30 have the jet on the less
1682: depolarized side (73 per cent). On a binomial test this is a
1683: significant trend at the 99.8 per cent confidence limit. The effect
1684: would be expected to be stronger for broad line sources and there were
1685: depolarization data available for 16 of the 26 Qs and BLRGs: 75 per
1686: cent of these showed correlation between the jet-side lobe and the
1687: less depolarized lobe (marginally significant at the 96 per cent level
1688: on a binomial test). Given that other properties of the sources and
1689: their environments are known to affect source depolarization, and that
1690: our data are necessarily heterogeneous, these results also seem to be
1691: in good agreement with the expectation from beaming models.
1692: %
1693: \input{tables/depol}
1694: %
1695: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1696: %
1697: \subsubsection{Correlation between core and straight jet prominence}\label{sec:core_jet}
1698: %
1699: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1700: %
1701: Considering all the data, including upper limits, the
1702: correlation between jet prominence and core prominence is significant, at the 99.9 per cent confidence level, on a modified
1703: Kendall's $\tau$ test as implemented in {\sc asurv}. This result is consistent with the
1704: correlation found by H98 in a sample with substantially fewer upper limits.
1705:
1706: In Figs \ref{fig:coreprom_P_jetstat} and
1707: \ref{fig:coreprom_P_Njetstat} we plot the core prominence data against source
1708: luminosity for both the entire sample and the NLRG class respectively,
1709: binning the data according to the straight jet detection status indicated as
1710: before. For the sample as a whole (Fig. \ref{fig:coreprom_P_jetstat})
1711: those sources with at least one jet detection have higher core
1712: prominence. As Qs and BLRGs are generally observed to have
1713: brighter jets this is to be expected and is further illustrated in Fig.
1714: \ref{fig:core_jet_prom}. However, even when considering the NLRG population
1715: separately (Fig. \ref{fig:coreprom_P_Njetstat}) it is clear that the NLRGs with definite jet detections are also associated with relatively
1716: higher core prominence. A Peto-Prentice test applied to the core prominence
1717: data between all sources with at least one definite or possible straight jet
1718: and those with no detection indicates the jetted sources have higher core prominence, significant at the 99.9 per cent confidence level.
1719: %
1720: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1721: %
1722: \begin{figure}
1723: %
1724: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/jetprom_z.ps,width=8cm}}
1725: %
1726: \caption{\label{fig:jetprom_z}The straight jet prominence, $p_{\rm j}$, plotted against $z$. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits.}
1727: %
1728: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/jetprom_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1729: %
1730: \caption{\label{fig:jetprom_P} The straight jet prominence, $p_{\rm j}$, plotted against the source luminosity at 178~MHz, $P_{178}$. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits.}
1731: %
1732: \end{figure}
1733: %
1734: \begin{figure}
1735: %
1736: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/core_all_jetstat.ps,width=8cm}}
1737: %
1738: \caption{\label{fig:coreprom_P_jetstat}The core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, for the entire
1739: sample plotted against the source luminosity at 178~MHz, $P_{178}$, binned by straight jet detection status. Filled circles: at least one definite jet detected, open circles: no definite jet detected but at least one possible jet, diagonal cross: no jet feature detected. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1740: %
1741: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/core_NLRG_jetstat.ps,width=8cm}}
1742: %
1743: \caption{\label{fig:coreprom_P_Njetstat}The core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, for the NLRGs
1744: plotted against the source luminosity at 178~MHz, $P_{178}$, binned by straight jet detection status. Filled circles: at least one definite jet detected, open circles: no definite jet detected but at least one possible jet, diagonal cross: no jet feature detected. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1745: %
1746: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/core_jet.ps,width=8cm}}
1747: %
1748: \caption{\label{fig:core_jet_prom}Jet prominence of definite and
1749: possible straight jets, $p_{\rm j}$, plotted against core prominence, $p_{\rm c}$, for all spectral classes. Vertical bars indicate errors, arrows indicate upper limits. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1750: %
1751: \end{figure}
1752: %
1753: \begin{table}
1754: %
1755: \scriptsize
1756: %
1757: \centering
1758: %
1759: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
1760: %
1761: \caption{\label{tab:jetprom_median}The median straight jet prominence for detected jets only, $<p_{\rm j}>$, for each of the spectral class distributions.}
1762: %
1763: \begin{tabular}{lclc} \hline
1764: %
1765: Spectral class & $<p_{\rm j}> / 10^{-3}$ &Spectral class & $<p_{\rm j}> / 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
1766: %
1767: \input{tables/jetprom_median}
1768: %
1769: \end{tabular}
1770: %
1771: \end{minipage}
1772: %
1773: \end{table}
1774: %
1775: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1776: %
1777:
1778: %
1779: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1780: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1781: %
1782: \section{Hotspots}\label{sec:hotspots}
1783: %
1784: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1785: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1786: %
1787: \subsection{Hotspot prominence and size}
1788: %
1789: \subsubsection{Observing effects}
1790: %
1791: A summary of hotspot detections in the sample (as defined by the
1792: hotspot criteria in section \ref{sec:def_hotspots}) is given in Table
1793: \ref{tab:summary}. From this table it can be seen that 58 per cent of sources have one hotspot per lobe and 34 per cent have
1794: at least one lobe with more than one hotspot feature. Only 9 sources have one lobe that lacks a hotspot, and only 1 source
1795: of the 98 lacks hotspots entirely. Observations of sources with a single
1796: bright, compact hotspot had led to the suggestion that hotspots
1797: corresponded to enhanced emission associated with the beam termination
1798: shock, but as multiple features are often detected at high resolution,
1799: this interpretation is too simplistic. However, it is still thought
1800: that the hotspots correspond to shocks at or near the beam
1801: termination, although the exact relation between the observed emission and the
1802: physical structure is not understood.
1803:
1804: From the sample
1805: sources mapped at more than one resolution, it can be seen that
1806: hotspot features generally appear more diffuse at the lower
1807: resolution, with a larger size fitted by JMFIT. This effect of
1808: observing resolution on apparent hotspot size can be quantitatively
1809: considered by making use of the fractional hotspot size, $f_{\rm h}$,
1810: defined in section \ref{sec:def_hotspots}. In Fig.
1811: \ref{fig:fhtsz_beams} we plot $f_{\rm h}$ against the effective
1812: observing resolution for all sources in the sample; from this figure
1813: it can be seen that relatively smaller hotspots are indeed associated
1814: with sources observed at relatively higher resolution.
1815:
1816: The larger the region that is identified as the hotspot (that is, the higher $f_{\rm h}$ is) the greater the hotspot
1817: prominence may potentially be, as more flux is included in the hotspot
1818: flux measurement. If low observing resolution results in larger hotspots, this may cause a bias for more prominent hotspots, if more lobe emission is included in the hotspot measurement. Fig.
1819: \ref{fig:htprom_fhtsz} plots hotspot prominence against $f_{\rm
1820: h}$, and it can be seen that sources with larger $f_{\rm h}$ correspond with higher prominence; very approximately $p_{\rm h} \propto f_{\rm h}^{2}$, though for
1821: $f_{\rm h} < 0.1$ there is little correlation between the two
1822: quantities.
1823:
1824: We conclude that hotspot properties are strongly affected by observing
1825: resolution and that this is difficult to compensate for. This should be
1826: borne in mind when considering the following results.
1827: %
1828: \subsubsection{Trends with $P_{178}$, $z$ and size}\label{sec:trendhotspot}
1829: %
1830: No apparent trends in the sample can be seen in the plots of hotspot prominence, binned by high-resolution effective observing resolution,
1831: against $z$, $P_{178}$ and $LLS_{\rm s}$ in Figs \ref{fig:htprom_z} to
1832: \ref{fig:htprom_LLS} respectively. Various authors, including H98 and Kharb et al. (2008), have found a significant correlation between lobe linear size
1833: and hotspot size, which is also apparent in our data (Fig.
1834: \ref{fig:hth_LLS}). The correlation seen here as determined by Kendall's $\tau$ coefficient is significant above the 99.9 per cent confidence limit.
1835:
1836: However, it can be noted that there are serious
1837: potential biases in the hotspot-size lobe-size correlation result, given that the observing resolution
1838: used is also strongly correlated with source angular size. One way of
1839: circumventing this is to compare hotspot data from a single map. In
1840: Fig. \ref{fig:fh_NS} we plot the {\it fractional} sizes ($f_{\rm h}$)
1841: of the primary hotspot in each lobe against each other. If the two
1842: fractional hotspot sizes were uncorrelated, this would suggest that
1843: there is no tendency for the hotspots to `know about' the linear size
1844: of the source, while a strong correlation would be consistent with the
1845: notion that the hotspot size is proportional to lobe size and support
1846: the hypothesis of self-similarity in the lobe. We find that the
1847: Kendall's $\tau$ test shows a correlation significant above
1848: the 99.9 per cent confidence level. Thus there is some support in the
1849: data for a real physical correlation between hotspot and lobe size. We
1850: also note that the hotspot size-linear size correlation is still
1851: highly significant if we consider only the subsample of objects
1852: (approximately half of the total) that are observed with more than 100
1853: restoring beams across the source. A correlation between hotspot and lobe size supports models of self-similarity in which the beam's working surface maintains pressure balance as it extends (Carvalho \& O'Dea, 2002).
1854:
1855: In section \ref{sec:trendaxialratio} we
1856: suggested that there was some evidence that the $R_{\rm ax}$
1857: distribution is consistent with self-similar source expansion on
1858: smaller scales. Considering the sample by binning with respect to
1859: size, using a cutoff of $LLS_{\rm s}=200$ kpc as before, there is
1860: a difference in the $f_{\rm h}$ distributions of the small and large sources significant above the 99.9 per cent confidence level on a K-S test. Binning
1861: using luminosity (with cutoff $P_{\rm c}$) gives evidence of a difference in
1862: the high and low power sources also as a K-S test suggests that they are
1863: different at the 93 per cent confidence level. The difference appears
1864: to be in the sense that the more powerful/smaller sources have a broader
1865: distribution of hotspot fractional size. This may well simply be an
1866: observational effect: many of the sources with the largest fractional
1867: hotspot size are a) small, b) powerful and c) observed at low
1868: effective resolution. We cannot draw strong conclusions about
1869: self-similarity from these results.
1870:
1871: %
1872: \subsubsection{Beaming and unification}
1873: %
1874: If beaming affects the observed hotspot prominence then the brighter
1875: hotspot might be expected to be correlated with the straight jet side. The most
1876: compact feature may also show such a correlation, if the approaching
1877: and receding hotspot emission corresponds to a different physical
1878: region within the flow. Laing (1989) suggested such a model, whereby
1879: the approaching hotspot emission originated in a region of higher
1880: $\beta$ flow, closer to the core of the beam. The model predicted that the
1881: most compact hotspot would be correlated with the jet side.
1882:
1883: In our analysis we consider the ratio of $f_{\rm h}$ in each lobe rather than the
1884: hotspot size alone and both this ratio and the corresponding flux
1885: ratio are defined by taking the ratio of the straight jet-side measurement to
1886: that of the counterjet. The hotspot size ratio will therefore be less
1887: than one if the most relatively compact hotspot is on the jet side and
1888: the hotspot flux ratio will be more than one if the more prominent
1889: hotspot is on the jet side. The hotspot flux and $f_{\rm h}$ ratios as
1890: defined by jet side are plotted against source size in Fig. \ref{fig:htfl_LLS} and
1891: \ref{fig:htsz_LLS}. As not all sources have a straight jet detection this introduces a bias when we consider the data quantitatively and this should be borne in mind.
1892:
1893: We find that there are no significant tendencies for brighter hotspots
1894: to be found on the jet side, for any spectral class. However, the
1895: $f_{\rm h}$ data suggest that the more relatively compact hotspot is
1896: correlated with the jet side in quasars: 10/11 jetted Qs have the more
1897: compact hotspot on the jet side, a result significant at the 99.4 per
1898: cent level on a binomial test.
1899: %
1900: \subsection{Hotspot recession}
1901: %
1902: \subsubsection{Observing resolution}
1903: %
1904: The effect of observing resolution on the measured hotspot recession
1905: has been addressed by the application of a resolution-correction
1906: factor (G99) as discussed in section \ref{sec:def_lobe_size}. This correction
1907: factor should ensure that the hotspot recession parameter $\eta$ will
1908: be 1 for hotspots located at the lobe extremity.
1909: %
1910: \subsubsection{Trends with $P_{178}$, $z$ and size}
1911: %
1912: $\zeta$, the source hotspot recession parameter (defined in section
1913: \ref{sec:def_hotspotrec}), is plotted against redshift, source
1914: luminosity and size in Figs \ref{fig:zeta_z} to \ref{fig:zeta_LLS}
1915: respectively. There is no significant tendency for higher-luminosity sources to be more recessed, but a K-S test binning the sample using a divide of 200 kpc does indicate that smaller sources are more recessed with significance at the 99.7 per cent confidence level.
1916: %
1917: \subsubsection{Unification}\label{sec:zeta}
1918: %
1919: For sources not lying close to the plane of the sky geometric effects may cause a hotspot that is intrinsically positioned
1920: near the lobe edge to appear set back in the lobe. Thus orientation
1921: effects may contribute to the observed range in $\zeta$. Gilbert (2001) considered hotspot recession for the sub-sample of sources with $z \le
1922: 0.5$. Sources were modelled as an expanding ellipse with a Gaussian emission
1923: density, which was rotated with respect to the observer's
1924: line-of-sight. Taking different expansion speeds (into the
1925: relativistic regime) and different orientations the model was compared
1926: to the data by predicting number counts for recessed sources. Gilbert concluded that effects other than simple geometric effects contributed
1927: to the observed recession distribution. Around 15 per cent of sources
1928: were expected to have $\zeta < 0.9$ from the model when in fact 26 per
1929: cent of his sample were observed to have this degree of recession.
1930: Furthermore, only around 3 per cent of sources were predicted to show
1931: strong recession, with $\zeta < 0.8$, whereas close to 13 per cent does. When we consider our
1932: current sample, 32 per cent of sources (including all spectral
1933: classes) have $\zeta < 0.9$ while 10 per cent have $\zeta < 0.8$. The
1934: conclusion that effects other than
1935: simple geometric effects from source orientation contribute to the observed hotspot recession is thus valid
1936: for our sample too.
1937:
1938: A W-M-W test comparing the Qs and high-luminosity NLRGs shows that the
1939: difference in median $\zeta$ between the spectral classes is not
1940: significant, although a K-S test shows a difference in the
1941: distributions for the samples at the 94.5 per cent level, consistent
1942: with the observed broader spread of the Qs (Figs \ref{fig:zeta_z} to
1943: \ref{fig:zeta_LLS}) but formally not significant. There are no
1944: significant differences between the low luminosity spectral classes
1945: and there is no significant tendency for the straight jet side to be
1946: any more or less recessed than that of the counterjet.
1947:
1948: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1949: %
1950: \begin{figure}
1951: %
1952: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/fhtsz_beams.ps,width=8cm}}
1953: %
1954: \caption{\label{fig:fhtsz_beams}The fractional hotspot size, $f_{\rm h}$, plotted against the corresponding high-resolution effective observing resolution.}
1955: %
1956: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htprom_fhtsz.ps,width=8cm}}
1957: %
1958: \caption{\label{fig:htprom_fhtsz} The hotspot prominence, $p_{\rm h}$ plotted against the fractional hotspot size, $f_{\rm h}$.}
1959: %
1960: \end{figure}
1961: %
1962: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963: %
1964: \begin{figure}
1965: %
1966: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htprom_z.ps,width=8cm}}
1967: %
1968: \caption{\label{fig:htprom_z}The hotspot prominence, $p_{\rm h}$, of the primary hotspot plotted against $z$, binned by high-resolution effective observing resolution. Diagonal cross: effective observing resolution $>100$, vertical cross: effective observing resolution $\le 100$. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1969: %
1970: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htprom_P.ps,width=8cm}}
1971: %
1972: \caption{\label{fig:htprom_P}The hotspot prominence, $p_{\rm h}$, of the primary hotspot plotted against the source luminosity, binned by high-resolution effective observing resolution. Diagonal cross: effective observing resolution $>100$, vertical cross: effective observing resolution $\le 100$. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1973: %
1974: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htprom_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1975: %
1976: \caption{\label{fig:htprom_LLS}The hotspot prominence, $p_{\rm h}$, of the primary hotspot plotted against the lobe size, binned by high-resolution effective observing resolution. Diagonal cross: effective observing resolution $>100$, vertical cross: effective observing resolution $\le 100$. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version).}
1977: %
1978: \end{figure}
1979: %
1980: \begin{figure}
1981: %
1982: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/hth_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
1983: \caption{\label{fig:hth_LLS}The linear hotspot size, $h$, plotted against
1984: the largest linear size of the lobe, $LLS_{\rm l}$. The dotted line
1985: has slope unity.}
1986: \end{figure}
1987:
1988: \begin{figure}
1989: %
1990: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/fh_NS.ps,width=8cm}}
1991: %
1992: \caption{\label{fig:fh_NS}The S lobe fractional hotspot size, $f_{\rm
1993: h_{S}}$, plotted against the N lobe fractional hotspot size,
1994: $f_{\rm h_{N}}$. Green: low excitation radio galaxies, blue: narrow line radio galaxies, magenta: broad line radio galaxies and red: quasars (on-line colour version). The dotted line indicates $f_{\rm
1995: h_{S}}=f_{\rm h_{N}}$.}
1996: %
1997: \end{figure}
1998: %
1999: \begin{figure}
2000: %
2001: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htfl_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
2002: %
2003: \caption{\label{fig:htfl_LLS}The hotspot flux ratio as defined by
2004: jet side plotted against the largest linear lobe size, $LLS_{\rm
2005: s}$. The dotted line shows a ratio of unity.}
2006: %
2007: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/htsz_LLS.ps,width=8cm}}
2008: %
2009: \caption{\label{fig:htsz_LLS}The ratio of the fractional hotspot size,
2010: $f_{\rm h}$, for the primary hotspot in each lobe as defined by jet side, plotted against the largest linear lobe size, $LLS_{\rm s}$. The dotted line shows a ratio of unity.}
2011: %
2012: \end{figure}
2013: %
2014: \begin{figure}
2015: %
2016: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/zeta_z.ps,width=8cm}}
2017: %
2018: \caption{\label{fig:zeta_z}The source hotspot recession coefficient, $\zeta$, plotted against $z$.}
2019: %
2020: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/zeta_P.ps,width=8cm}}
2021: %
2022: \caption{\label{fig:zeta_P}The source hotspot recession coefficient, $\zeta$, plotted against $P_{178}$.}
2023: %
2024: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figures/zeta_LLSs.ps,width=8cm}}
2025: %
2026: \caption{\label{fig:zeta_LLS}The source hotspot recession coefficient, $\zeta$, plotted against $LLS_{\rm s}$.}
2027: %
2028: \end{figure}
2029: %
2030: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2031: %
2032: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
2033: %
2034: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035: %summary of results found in data
2036: %
2037: \subsection{Summary of results}
2038: %
2039: Table \ref{tab:resultssum} contains a summary of all statistical
2040: results from the preceding sections. The consequences of these for
2041: physical models of FRII sources are discussed in the following sections.
2042: %
2043: \input{tables/test_summary}
2044: %
2045: \input{tables/test_summary_cont1}
2046: %
2047: \input{tables/test_summary_cont2}
2048: %
2049: \subsection{Jets and evidence for beaming on kiloparsec scales}\label{sec:beaming}
2050: %
2051: On kiloparsec scales, jets have been detected in 30 per cent of
2052: sources, with a further 34 per cent having a feature that is
2053: classified as a possible jet. While observing resolution and
2054: sensitivity are clearly factors in jet detectability, we found that
2055: jets are more commonly detected in Qs and BLRGs, with more
2056: definite jets associated with these classes than for the NLRGs of any
2057: luminosity. This is consistent with the expectations from unification
2058: and beaming models. Statistical tests taking into account the large
2059: number of upper limits on jet prominence show that the broad-line and
2060: narrow-line objects have jet prominences that differ in the sense
2061: expected from beaming if the broad-line objects make smaller angles to
2062: the line of sight.
2063:
2064: Further evidence in support of beaming in the kpc-scale jets is the
2065: correlation between core and jet prominence; we showed that there are
2066: significantly more prominent cores in those sources with a detected
2067: kpc-scale jet feature, while core prominence and jet prominence are
2068: correlated in our data even in the presence of upper limits. Since we
2069: know beaming is important in the cores from VLBI observations of
2070: apparent superluminal motion (e.g., Zensus 1997; Hough et al.
2071: 2002), these results require beaming to be important in the
2072: kiloparsec-scale jets as well. In addition, we found that the
2073: Laing-Garrington effect, in which the less depolarized lobe is
2074: correlated with the approaching (jet-side) lobe, is detected in the
2075: sample for all jetted sources for which depolarization data were
2076: available. This was the case for 41 sources, 30 of which had the jet
2077: side corresponding to the less depolarized lobe, significant on a
2078: binomial test at the 99.8 per cent confidence level.
2079:
2080: Thus the data strongly support the idea that
2081: the jets remain relativistic on kpc scales. We will explore the
2082: implications of our measurements for bulk speeds in the jets and cores
2083: in a future paper.
2084:
2085: Some evidence was found for beaming effects in the hotspot data, in
2086: that there was a tendency for the most compact hotspot to be on the
2087: same side as the jet feature in quasars (parametrizing hotspot
2088: compactness by the fractional hotspot size), consistent with the
2089: results of Bridle et al.\ (1994). However, no corresponding correlation
2090: between the jet side and the brighter hotspot was found in any
2091: emission-line class, which is inconsistent with the results of Laing
2092: (1989). The data thus provide only limited support to the idea that
2093: relativistic beaming plays an important role in the appearance of
2094: hotspots: most likely the varied appearance of these features is
2095: dominated by the local conditions, with beaming playing a secondary role.
2096: %
2097: \subsection{Source morphology}
2098: %
2099: A significant trend in $R_{\rm ax}$ with source size is found across
2100: the sample (Section \ref{sec:trendaxialratio}). The observed range in
2101: $R_{\rm ax}$ is much greater for sources larger than $\approx 200$
2102: kpc. While observational effects were found to be a source of bias in
2103: the $R_{\rm ax}$ data, with lower $R_{\rm ax}$ values in sources
2104: observed at lower resolution, we concluded that the trend with source
2105: size does not result from such a bias but represents a real physical
2106: trend.
2107:
2108: Early work on source expansion models assumed that the cocoon
2109: would remain overpressured as the source evolved, which would result
2110: in self-similar expansion (e.g., Begelman \& Cioffi, 1989),
2111: but subsequently it was demonstrated that this would only be the
2112: case for sources in an ambient medium with a decreasing density
2113: profile (e.g., Falle 1991; Kaiser \& Alexander 1997).
2114: However, numerical simulation has showed that the lateral expansion
2115: of the source will slow as the cocoon comes into pressure balance
2116: with the ambient medium and that this will occur in a typical source
2117: before it has grown to any considerable size (e.g., Carvalho
2118: \& O'Dea 2002), a result consistent with the known X-ray
2119: properties of the environments of FRIIs (e.g. Hardcastle \& Worrall
2120: 2000). The $R_{\rm ax}$ data are consistent with the idea that
2121: radio sources in general go through an early self-similar expansion
2122: phase where $R_{\rm ax}$ is approximately constant on size scales of
2123: the order of the size of the host galaxy, after which lateral
2124: expansion slows and $R_{\rm ax}$ will increase as the source
2125: continues to expand linearly.
2126:
2127: We also found that Qs are significantly more asymmetric than NLRGs.
2128: The data suggest environmental factors are a predominant cause as
2129: there was no strong evidence for a contribution from relativistic effects, in contrast to the findings of AL00. However, stronger support for relativistic contributions to the BLRG $x_{\rm jet}$ distribution despite the finding that the BLRGs are not significantly more asymmetric than the low-power NLRGs. The implications for unification are discussed below.
2130: %
2131: \subsection{Unification}\label{sec:diss_uni}
2132: %
2133: %\subsubsection{Predictions of unification}
2134: %
2135: We begin by noting that the classification of the sources into the
2136: broad and narrow line types is dependent on high-quality spectra. For
2137: example, Laing et al. (1994) have shown that the classifications may
2138: change significantly with improved observations. The classifications
2139: that we use are the best possible with the available data, but
2140: incorrect identification of some sources may introduce a bias that is
2141: difficult to estimate.
2142:
2143: The unification model for Qs, NLRGs and BLRGs makes a number of simple
2144: predictions. We expect Qs and BLRGs to be seen at smaller angles to
2145: the line of sight; this means that they should be more commonly
2146: associated with brighter, one-sided jets and brighter cores and should
2147: be statistically smaller, with lower $R_{\rm ax}$ as a consequence. There
2148: is no expectation that lobe size asymmetries should be significantly
2149: different from class to class, unless source expansion speeds are relativistic in which case the Qs and BLRGs would be expected to appear more asymmetrical.
2150: %
2151: %\subsubsection{Evidence consistent with unification}
2152: %
2153:
2154: As discussed in Section \ref{sec:beaming}, Qs and BLRGs do have higher
2155: detection rates for kpc-scale jets, consistent with the expectation
2156: from unification. On the other hand, there is no significant trend for either spectral
2157: class to have quantitatively brighter jets than those in the NLRG, but
2158: the effects of observing resolution and sensitivity are not negligible
2159: and are difficult to account for.
2160:
2161: The core prominence is found to be statistically higher in Qs than in
2162: high power NLRGs (Section \ref{sec:cores2}) though the results for the
2163: much smaller sample of BLRGs and low-power NLRGs were less clear-cut.
2164: In fact, we found that the core prominence in NLRGs decreased with
2165: increasing source luminosity, which explains the quantitative
2166: difference between the high-luminosity spectral classes and the lack
2167: of it between those at low luminosity. This trend in the NLRG core
2168: prominence data is not obviously predicted from unification. However, we argued
2169: in Section \ref{sec:cores2} that this is evidence that the
2170: higher-luminosity sources may have higher nuclear bulk Lorentz factors
2171: ($\gamma$), leading to greater Doppler suppression of core emission:
2172: if the parsec-scale bulk-flow speeds of the emitting material are
2173: greater in the higher luminosity sources, the cores of a greater
2174: proportion of the NLRGs could be Doppler suppressed, as the
2175: angle to the observer's line-of-sight needed to detect
2176: beamed emission would be smaller. This would represent a minor
2177: modification to the standard unification picture.
2178:
2179: Considering source morphology, we found the Qs to have significantly
2180: lower $R_{\rm ax}$ values than the NLRGs (Section \ref{sec:Rax_uni}).
2181: However, in unified models we expect this to be a result of
2182: projection effects giving systematically lower source linear sizes. We
2183: found no evidence that either Qs or BLRGs are significantly smaller
2184: than the NLRGs. Although this could indicate that the statistically
2185: lower $R_{\rm ax}$ values in Qs are a result of relatively broader
2186: lobes (unexpected in the unified model), this does not appear to be the case and we concluded in section
2187: \ref{sec:Rax_uni} that the difference in $R_{\rm ax}$ between the Qs
2188: and NLRGs was not inconsistent with projection effects, with smaller
2189: lobe sizes in Qs for a similar lobe width (Fig. \ref{fig:LLS_W_CLASS}).
2190: The fact that we did not obtain a similar result for the
2191: low-luminosity spectral classes might indicate a real difference between
2192: the high and low luminosity classes, although there was no trend in
2193: $R_{\rm ax}$ across the luminosity or redshift range and we found that the low power distribution is possibly more strongly affected by observational effects, with data from a few particularly small and large sources observed at low resolution (Fig. \ref{fig:LLS_W_BN}).
2194:
2195: On the other hand, evidence for real differences in the Q environments
2196: is provided by the distribution of the fractional separation
2197: difference as defined by the longer lobe, $x_{\rm lobe}$ (Section \ref{sec:x_lobe_beamin}). These data
2198: show that Qs are significantly more asymmetric than the high power
2199: NLRGs. This is not expected from unification directly. It could be
2200: consistent with the scheme if relativistic effects were contributing
2201: to the observed lobe size asymmetry, which would require relativistic
2202: source advance speeds; however, assuming that the kpc-scale jet
2203: indicates the approaching lobe and re-defining the fractional
2204: separation in terms of the jet-side lobe, $x_{\rm jet}$, no
2205: significant differences were found between any of the spectral
2206: classes, so that there is no evidence for the hypothesis that the greater asymmetry of the quasars is due to relativistic effects. This then suggests that the effect is environmental, though of course, as not all sources have jets, the $x_{\rm jet}$ data do not include all sample sources and so will be biased.
2207: %
2208: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2209: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2210: %
2211: \section{Summary and Conclusion}
2212: %
2213: A large complete sample of FRII type radio sources has been studied
2214: with high sensitivity, high resolution observations, allowing standard
2215: models of unification and relativistic beaming to be tested. The
2216: sample consists of 98 sources from the 3CRR sample with $z<1$,
2217: including 15 Qs, 11 BLRGs and 57 NLRGs, as well as 15 LERGs, and
2218: covers a large range in source luminosity (from $5 \times 10^{24}$ to
2219: $2 \times 10^{28}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ at 178 MHz). The high
2220: quality of the maps has allowed a comprehensive search for trends and
2221: correlations between source observables, with source sizes, axial
2222: ratios, core, jet and hotspot properties measured from the same
2223: observed data.
2224:
2225: We have searched for differences in the distributions of the various
2226: source observables with respect to the sample's range in power,
2227: redshift and source size, and carried out tests of the predictions of
2228: the standard model of unification and relativistic beaming. These
2229: predictions are that Qs and BLRGs will be statistically smaller, with
2230: higher jet detection rates and brighter jets and cores. In addition, there is some weaker evidence that hotspot properties, such as
2231: compactness, may be correlated with the jet side, which implies
2232: that there is continued relativistic flow in the hotspot regions.
2233:
2234: Some evidence for differences in the sample as a function of
2235: luminosity were found:
2236: %
2237: \begin{itemize}
2238: \item core prominence was found to decrease with source luminosity. We proposed that a greater proportion of higher luminosity
2239: sources have higher parsec-scale bulk flow speeds and experience
2240: stronger Doppler suppression: this can be accommodated as a
2241: modification to standard unified models.
2242:
2243: \item Qs are found to be more asymmetric than the high power NLRGs and
2244: the evidence is that this is not due to relativistic effects; also
2245: no such difference is found between BLRGs and NLRGs. This is
2246: possible evidence that there is a systematic difference between the
2247: environments of Qs and NLRGs at high radio luminosities, which would
2248: not be consistent with simple
2249: unification models.
2250: \end{itemize}
2251: %
2252: The principal conclusions {\it consistent} with the predictions of the standard model can be summarized as follows.
2253: %
2254: \begin{itemize}
2255: \item evidence for beaming on kiloparsec scales was found across the
2256: sample; jet detection rates as a function of source class,
2257: correlation between core and jet prominence and detections of the
2258: Laing-Garrington effect were all consistent with relativistic speeds
2259: in the kpc-scale jets.
2260: \item cores were found to be statistically brighter in Qs and BLRGs than in the corresponding NLRGs, consistent with
2261: expectations.
2262: \item $R_{\rm ax}$ values were found to be lower in Qs (although not
2263: BLRGs) than those in the corresponding population of NLRG,
2264: consistent with the expected projection effects.
2265: \end{itemize}
2266: %
2267: A further result somewhat independent from the expectations of the standard model was that
2268: %
2269: \begin{itemize}
2270: \item there is evidence from the distribution of $R_{\rm ax}$ that source development has an initial phase where expansion is self-similar or close to being so, possibly on the scale of the host galaxy, before lateral expansion slows or ceases while the expansion along the source axis continues.
2271: \end{itemize}
2272: %
2273: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2274: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2275: %
2276:
2277: We will consider the implications of our measurements for quantitative
2278: estimates of the relativistic bulk speeds in cores and jets in a
2279: future paper (Mullin \& Hardcastle, in prep.).
2280:
2281: \section{Acknowledgments}
2282: LMM thanks PPARC for a research studentship that supported the early
2283: parts of this work. MJH thanks the Royal Society for a research fellowship.
2284: %
2285: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2286: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2287: %
2288: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2289: %
2290: Akujor, C.~E., Garrington, S.~T., 1995, 112, 235\\
2291: %
2292: Arshakian, T.~G., Longair, M.~S., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 846 (AL00)\\
2293: %
2294: Baars, J. W. M., Genzel, R., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., Witzel, A., 1977, A\&A, 61, 99\\
2295: %
2296: Banhatti, D.~G., 1980, A\&A, 84, 112\\
2297: %
2298: Barthel, P.~D., 1987, In {\it Superluminal Radio Sources}, p 148\\
2299: %
2300: Barthel, P.~D., 1989, ApJ, 336, 606\\
2301: %
2302: Barthel, P.~D., 1994, In {\it ASP Conf. Ser. 54: The Physics of Active Galaxies}, p 175\\
2303: %
2304: Begelman, M. C., Cioffi, D. F., 1989, 345, L21\\
2305: %
2306: Bennett, A.~S., 1962, MmRAS, 68, 163\\
2307: %
2308: Best, P. N., Bailer, D. M., Longair, M. S., Riley, J. M., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 1171\\
2309: %
2310: Black, A.~R.~S., Baum, S.~A., Leahy, J.~P., Perley, R.~A., Riley, J.~M., Scheuer, P.~A.~G., 1992, MNRAS, 256, 186\\
2311: %
2312: Blundell, K. M., Rawlings, S., Willott, C. J., 1999, AJ, 117, 677\\
2313: %
2314: Bridle, A.~H., Hough, D.~H., Lonsdale, C.~J., Burns, O.~J., Laing, R.~A., 1994, AJ, 108, 766\\
2315: %
2316: Bridle, A.~H., Perley, R.~A., 1984, ARA\&A, 22, 319\\
2317: %
2318: %Burch, S.~F., 1979, MNRAS, 186, 519\\
2319: %
2320: Carvalho, J. C., O'Dea, C. P., 2002, ApJS, 141, 371\\
2321: %
2322: Chambers, K. C., Miley, G. K., van Breugel, W., 1987, Nature, 329, 604\\
2323: %
2324: Chiaberge, M., Capetti, A., Celotti, A., 2002, A\&A, 394, 791\\
2325: %
2326: Clarke, D.~A., Bridle, A.~H., Burns, J.~O., Perley, R.~A., Norman, M.~L., 1992, ApJ, 385, 173\\
2327: %
2328: Conway, R.~G., Birch, P., Davis, R.~J., Jones. L.~R., Kerr, A.~J., Stannard, D., 1983, MNRAS, 202, 813\\
2329: %
2330: Dennett-Thorpe, J., Barthel, P.~D., van Bemmel, I.~M., 2000, A \& A, 364, 501\\
2331: %
2332: Dennett-Thorpe, J., Bridle, A.~H., Laing, R.~A., Scheuer, P.~A.~G., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 271\\
2333: %
2334: Falle, S. A. E. G., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 581\\
2335: %
2336: Fanaroff, B.~L., Riley, J.~M., 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31\\
2337: %
2338: Fanti, C., Fanti, R., Dallacasa, D., Schilizzi, R.T., Spencer, R.E., Stanghellini, C., 1995, A \& A, 302, 317\\
2339: %
2340: Fernini, I., 2001, AJ, 122, 83\\
2341: %
2342: Fernini, I., Burns, J.~O., Bridle, A.~H., Perley, R.~A., 1993, AJ, 105, 1690\\
2343: %
2344: Fernini, I., Burns, J.~O., Perley, R.~A., 1997, AJ, 114, 2292\\
2345: %
2346: Fernini, I., Leahy, J.~P., Burns, J.~O., Basart, J.~P., 1991, AJ, 381, 63\\
2347: %
2348: Garrington, S.~T., Conway, R.G., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 198\\
2349: %
2350: Garrington, S.~T., Conway, R.G., Leahy, J.~P., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 171\\
2351: %
2352: Garrington, S.~T., Leahy, J.~P., Conway, R.~G., Laing, R.~A., 1988, Nature, 331, 147\\
2353: %
2354: Gilbert, G.~M., Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2001\\
2355: %
2356: Gilbert, G.~M., Riley, J.~M., 1999, MNRAS, 309, 681 (G99)\\
2357: %
2358: Gilbert, G.~M., Riley, J.~M., Hardcastle, M.~J., Croston, J.~H., Pooley, G.~G., Alexander, P., 2004, MNRAS, 351, 845\\
2359: %
2360: Goodlet, J.~A., Kaiser, C.~R., Best, P.~N., Dennett-Thorpe, J., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 508\\
2361: %
2362: Hardcastle, M.J., 2004, A\&A, 414, 927\\
2363: %
2364: Hardcastle, M.~J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G.~G., Riley, J.~M., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 859\\
2365: %
2366: Hardcastle, M.~J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G.~G., Riley, J.~M., 1998, MNRAS, 296, 445 (H98)\\
2367: %
2368: Hardcastle, M.~J., Evans, D.~A., Croston, J.~H., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1893\\
2369: %
2370: Hardcastle, M.~J., Worrall, D.~M., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 562\\
2371: %
2372: Hine, R.~G., Longair, M.~S., 1979, MNRAS, 188, 111, 130\\
2373: %
2374: Hough, D.~H., Wing, N., Linick, J.~P., Escobedo, S.~M., Legal, K.~E., Lester, W.~R., 2002, AAS, 200, 0507\\
2375: %
2376: Inskip, K. J., Best, P. N., R\"ottgering, H. J. A., Rawlings, S., Cotter, G., Longair, M. S., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1407\\
2377: %
2378: %J\"agers, W.~J., 1987, A\&AS, 71, 75\\
2379: %
2380: Johnson, R.~A., Leahy, J.~P., Garrington, S.~T., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 877\\
2381: %
2382: Kaiser, C.R., Alexander, P., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 215\\
2383: %
2384: Kaiser C. R., Dennett-Thorpe, J., Alexander, P., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 723\\
2385: %
2386: Katz-Stone, D.~M., Rudnick, L., 1997, ApJ, 479, 258\\
2387: %
2388: Kharb, P., O'Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Daly, R. A., Mory, M. P., Donahue, M., Guerra, E. J.,\\
2389: %
2390: Laing, R.~A., 1988, Nature, 331, 149\\
2391: %
2392: Laing, R.~A., Peacock, J.~A., 1980, MNRAS, 190, 903\\
2393: %
2394: Laing, R.~A., Riley, J.~M. and Longair, M.~S., 1983, MNRAS, 204, 151 (LRL)\\
2395: %
2396: Laing, R.~A., 1989, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 327:27-43\\
2397: %
2398: Laing, R.~A., Jenkins, C.~R., Wall, J.~V., Unger, S.~W., 1994, In {\it ASP Conf. Ser. 54: The Physics of Active Galaxies}, p 201\\
2399: %
2400: LaValley M., Isobe T., Feigelson E.D., 1992, BAAS, 24, 839\\
2401: %
2402: Leahy, J.~P., Black, A.~R.~S., Dennett-Thorpe, J., Hardcastle, M.~J., Komissarov, S., Perley, R.~A., Riley, J.~M., Scheuer, P.~A.~G., 1997, MNRAS, 291, 20\\
2403: %
2404: Leahy, J.~P., Perley, R.~A., 1991, ApJ, 102, 2\\
2405: %
2406: Leahy, J.~P., Williams, A.~G., 1994, MNRAS, 210, 929\\
2407: %
2408: Lui, R., Pooley, G., 1991, 249, 343\\
2409: %
2410: McCarthy, P. J., van Breugel, W., Spinrad. H., Djorgovski, S., 1987, ApJ, 321, L29\\
2411: %
2412: Mullin, L. M., Hardcastle, M. J., Riley, J.~M., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 113\\
2413: %
2414: Pedalty, J.~A., Rudnick, L., McCarthy, P,~J., Spinrad, H., 1989, 97, 647\\
2415: %
2416: Privon, G. C., O'Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Axon, D. J., Kharb, P., Buchanan, C. L., Sparks, W., Chiaberge, M., 2008, ApJS, 175, 473\\
2417: %
2418: Roettiger, K., Burns, J.~O., Clarke, D.~A., Christiansen, W.~A., 1994, ApJ, 421, L23\\
2419: %
2420: Rudnick, L., 1988, ApJ, 325, 189\\
2421: %
2422: Rudnick, L., Anderson, M., 1990, ApJ, 355, 427\\
2423: %
2424: Scheuer, P.~A.~G., 1987, In {\it Superluminal Radio Sources}, p 104\\
2425: %
2426: Scheuer, P.~A.~G., 1995, MNRAS, 277, 33\\
2427: %
2428: Scheuer, P.~A.~G., Readhead, A.~C.~S., 1979, Nature, 277, 182\\
2429: %
2430: Taylor, G.~B., Jingping, G., O'Dea, C.~P., 1995, AJ, 110, 522\\
2431: %
2432: van Breugel, W.~J., Dey, A., 1993, ApJ, 414, 563\\
2433: %
2434: Wright, M.~C.~H., 1979, ApJ, 228, 34\\
2435: %
2436: Zensus, J.~A., 1997, ARA\&A, 35, 607
2437: %
2438: \end{thebibliography}
2439: %
2440: \onecolumn % required for longtable to work ... but this is OK.
2441: \begin{longtable}{lrrrrrrrrrrr}
2442: \caption{Core and jet properties}\\
2443: \hline
2444: Source&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Core prominence}&Jet
2445: side&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Jet prominence}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{C'jet
2446: prominence}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Fractional jet}\\
2447: name&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$(\times 1000)$}&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$(\times
2448: 1000)$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$(\times 1000)$}&position&length&termination\\
2449: &value&error&&value&error&value&error\\
2450: \hline\endhead
2451: \input{tables/core-jet.tex}
2452: \hline
2453: \end{longtable}
2454: \clearpage
2455:
2456: \begin{longtable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
2457: \caption{Hotspot properties}\\
2458: \hline
2459: Source&\multicolumn{4}{c}{N hotspot properties}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{S
2460: hotspot properties}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Recession properties}\\
2461: &prominence&size&frac. size&$\eta$&prominence&size&frac. size&$\eta$&$\zeta$&$\delta$\\
2462: &$(\times 1000)$&(arcsec)&&&$(\times 1000)$&(arcsec)\\
2463: \hline\endhead
2464: \input{tables/hotspot.tex}
2465: \hline
2466: \end{longtable}
2467:
2468: \clearpage
2469:
2470: \begin{longtable}{lrrrrrrrrrrr}
2471: \caption{Lobe properties}\\
2472: \hline
2473: Source&\multicolumn{5}{c}{North lobe}&\multicolumn{5}{c}{South
2474: lobe}&$x_{\rm lobe}$\\
2475: &$LLS_{\rm l}$&$l$&RC&$f_{\rm l}$&$R_{\rm ax}$&$LLS_{\rm
2476: l}$&$l$&RC&$f_{\rm l}$&$R_{\rm ax}$\\
2477: &(kpc)&(kpc)&(kpc)&&&(kpc)&(kpc)&(kpc)\\
2478: \hline\endhead
2479: \input{tables/sizes.tex}
2480: \hline
2481: \end{longtable}
2482:
2483: \label{lastpage}
2484:
2485: \end{document}
2486: