1: % This is to emulate the later appearance of the paper
2:
3: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
4:
5: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
6:
7: %% The command below calls the preprint style
8: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
9: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
10: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
11: %%
12:
13: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
14:
15: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
16:
17: %\usepackage{footnpag}
18:
19: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
20: %\documentclass{aastex}
21: \usepackage{graphicx}
22: \usepackage{epstopdf}
23:
24: %\setcounter{page}{1}
25: %
26: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#4}, {#1}, {#2}, #3}
27: % Some useful journal names
28: \def\NCA{Nuovo Cimento}
29: \def\NAT{Nature}
30: \def\AAA{A\\&A}
31: \def\ApJ{ApJ}
32: \def\AJ{Astronom. Journal}
33: \def\Aph{Astropart. Phys.}
34: \def\ApJS{ApJSS}
35: \def\ML{Machine Learning}
36: \def\MNRAS{MNRAS}
37: \def\NIM{Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
38: \def\NIMA{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A}
39: \def\NPB{Nucl. Phys. B}
40: \def\PLB{Phys. Lett. B}
41: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
42: \def\PRD{Phys. Rev. D}
43: \def\ZPC{Z. Phys. C}
44:
45: \def\HESS{\mbox{H.E.S.S. }}
46: %\hyphenation{UMRAO}
47:
48:
49: \begin{document}
50: \title{Discovery of a very high energy gamma-ray signal from the 3C~66A/B region}
51:
52: %\input{magic_members_ApJ}
53: % authors 13.10.2008 Format ApJ
54: %
55: \author{
56: E.~Aliu\altaffilmark{a},
57: H.~Anderhub\altaffilmark{b},
58: L.~A.~Antonelli\altaffilmark{c},
59: P.~Antoranz\altaffilmark{d},
60: M.~Backes\altaffilmark{e},
61: C.~Baixeras\altaffilmark{f},
62: S.~Balestra\altaffilmark{d},
63: J.~A.~Barrio\altaffilmark{d},
64: H.~Bartko\altaffilmark{g},
65: D.~Bastieri\altaffilmark{h},
66: J.~Becerra Gonz\'alez\altaffilmark{i},
67: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{e},
68: W.~Bednarek\altaffilmark{j},
69: K.~Berger\altaffilmark{j},
70: E.~Bernardini\altaffilmark{k},
71: A.~Biland\altaffilmark{b},
72: R.~K.~Bock\altaffilmark{g,}\altaffilmark{h},
73: G.~Bonnoli\altaffilmark{l},
74: P.~Bordas\altaffilmark{m},
75: D.~Borla Tridon\altaffilmark{g},
76: V.~Bosch-Ramon\altaffilmark{m},
77: T.~Bretz\altaffilmark{n},
78: I.~Britvitch\altaffilmark{b},
79: M.~Camara\altaffilmark{d},
80: E.~Carmona\altaffilmark{g},
81: A.~Chilingarian\altaffilmark{o},
82: S.~Commichau\altaffilmark{b},
83: J.~L.~Contreras\altaffilmark{d},
84: J.~Cortina\altaffilmark{a},
85: M.~T.~Costado\altaffilmark{i,}\altaffilmark{p},
86: S.~Covino\altaffilmark{c},
87: V.~Curtef\altaffilmark{e},
88: F.~Dazzi\altaffilmark{h},
89: A.~De Angelis\altaffilmark{q},
90: E.~De Cea del Pozo\altaffilmark{r},
91: R.~de los Reyes\altaffilmark{d},
92: B.~De Lotto\altaffilmark{q},
93: M.~De Maria\altaffilmark{q},
94: F.~De Sabata\altaffilmark{q},
95: C.~Delgado Mendez\altaffilmark{i},
96: A.~Dominguez\altaffilmark{s},
97: D.~Dorner\altaffilmark{b},
98: M.~Doro\altaffilmark{h},
99: D.~Elsaesser\altaffilmark{n},
100: M.~Errando\altaffilmark{a,}\altaffilmark{**},
101: D.~Ferenc\altaffilmark{t},
102: E.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{a},
103: R.~Firpo\altaffilmark{a},
104: M.~V.~Fonseca\altaffilmark{d},
105: L.~Font\altaffilmark{f},
106: N.~Galante\altaffilmark{g},
107: R.~J.~Garc\'{\i}a L\'opez\altaffilmark{i,}\altaffilmark{p},
108: M.~Garczarczyk\altaffilmark{g},
109: M.~Gaug\altaffilmark{i},
110: F.~Goebel\altaffilmark{g,}\altaffilmark{*},
111: D.~Hadasch\altaffilmark{e},
112: M.~Hayashida\altaffilmark{g},
113: A.~Herrero\altaffilmark{i,}\altaffilmark{p},
114: D.~H\"ohne-M\"onch\altaffilmark{n},
115: J.~Hose\altaffilmark{g},
116: C.~C.~Hsu\altaffilmark{g},
117: S.~Huber\altaffilmark{n},
118: T.~Jogler\altaffilmark{g},
119: D.~Kranich\altaffilmark{b},
120: A.~La Barbera\altaffilmark{c},
121: A.~Laille\altaffilmark{t},
122: E.~Leonardo\altaffilmark{l},
123: E.~Lindfors\altaffilmark{u,}\altaffilmark{**},
124: S.~Lombardi\altaffilmark{h},
125: F.~Longo\altaffilmark{q},
126: M.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{h},
127: E.~Lorenz\altaffilmark{b,}\altaffilmark{g},
128: P.~Majumdar\altaffilmark{k},
129: G.~Maneva\altaffilmark{v},
130: N.~Mankuzhiyil\altaffilmark{q},
131: K.~Mannheim\altaffilmark{n},
132: L.~Maraschi\altaffilmark{c},
133: M.~Mariotti\altaffilmark{h},
134: M.~Mart\'{\i}nez\altaffilmark{a},
135: D.~Mazin\altaffilmark{a,}\altaffilmark{**},
136: M.~Meucci\altaffilmark{l},
137: M.~Meyer\altaffilmark{n},
138: J.~M.~Miranda\altaffilmark{d},
139: R.~Mirzoyan\altaffilmark{g},
140: J.~Mold\'on\altaffilmark{m},
141: M.~Moles\altaffilmark{s},
142: A.~Moralejo\altaffilmark{a},
143: D.~Nieto\altaffilmark{d},
144: K.~Nilsson\altaffilmark{u},
145: J.~Ninkovic\altaffilmark{g},
146: N.~Otte\altaffilmark{g,}\altaffilmark{w,}\altaffilmark{aa},
147: I.~Oya\altaffilmark{d},
148: R.~Paoletti\altaffilmark{l},
149: J.~M.~Paredes\altaffilmark{m},
150: M.~Pasanen\altaffilmark{u},
151: D.~Pascoli\altaffilmark{h},
152: F.~Pauss\altaffilmark{b},
153: R.~G.~Pegna\altaffilmark{l},
154: M.~A.~Perez-Torres\altaffilmark{s},
155: M.~Persic\altaffilmark{q,}\altaffilmark{x},
156: L.~Peruzzo\altaffilmark{h},
157: F.~Prada\altaffilmark{s},
158: E.~Prandini\altaffilmark{h},
159: N.~Puchades\altaffilmark{a},
160: A.~Raymers\altaffilmark{o},
161: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{e},
162: M.~Rib\'o\altaffilmark{m},
163: J.~Rico\altaffilmark{y,}\altaffilmark{a},
164: M.~Rissi\altaffilmark{b},
165: A.~Robert\altaffilmark{f},
166: S.~R\"ugamer\altaffilmark{n},
167: A.~Saggion\altaffilmark{h},
168: T.~Y.~Saito\altaffilmark{g},
169: M.~Salvati\altaffilmark{c},
170: M.~Sanchez-Conde\altaffilmark{s},
171: P.~Sartori\altaffilmark{h},
172: K.~Satalecka\altaffilmark{k},
173: V.~Scalzotto\altaffilmark{h},
174: V.~Scapin\altaffilmark{q},
175: T.~Schweizer\altaffilmark{g},
176: M.~Shayduk\altaffilmark{g},
177: K.~Shinozaki\altaffilmark{g},
178: S.~N.~Shore\altaffilmark{z},
179: N.~Sidro\altaffilmark{a},
180: A.~Sierpowska-Bartosik\altaffilmark{r},
181: A.~Sillanp\"a\"a\altaffilmark{u},
182: J.~Sitarek\altaffilmark{g,}\altaffilmark{j},
183: D.~Sobczynska\altaffilmark{j},
184: F.~Spanier\altaffilmark{n},
185: A.~Stamerra\altaffilmark{l},
186: L.~S.~Stark\altaffilmark{b},
187: L.~Takalo\altaffilmark{u},
188: F.~Tavecchio\altaffilmark{c},
189: P.~Temnikov\altaffilmark{v},
190: D.~Tescaro\altaffilmark{a},
191: M.~Teshima\altaffilmark{g},
192: M.~Tluczykont\altaffilmark{k},
193: D.~F.~Torres\altaffilmark{y,}\altaffilmark{r},
194: N.~Turini\altaffilmark{l},
195: H.~Vankov\altaffilmark{v},
196: A.~Venturini\altaffilmark{h},
197: V.~Vitale\altaffilmark{q},
198: R.~M.~Wagner\altaffilmark{g},
199: W.~Wittek\altaffilmark{g},
200: V.~Zabalza\altaffilmark{m},
201: F.~Zandanel\altaffilmark{s},
202: R.~Zanin\altaffilmark{a},
203: J.~Zapatero\altaffilmark{f}
204: }
205: \altaffiltext{a} {IFAE, Edifici Cn., Campus UAB, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
206: \altaffiltext{b} {ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Switzerland}
207: \altaffiltext{c} {INAF National Institute for Astrophysics, I-00136 Rome, Italy}
208: \altaffiltext{d} {Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
209: \altaffiltext{e} {Technische Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
210: \altaffiltext{f} {Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
211: \altaffiltext{g} {Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
212: \altaffiltext{h} {Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy}
213: \altaffiltext{i} {Inst. de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
214: \altaffiltext{j} {University of \L\'od\'z, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland}
215: \altaffiltext{k} {Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany}
216: \altaffiltext{l} {Universit\`a di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy}
217: \altaffiltext{m} {Universitat de Barcelona (ICC/IEEC), E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
218: \altaffiltext{n} {Universit\"at W\"urzburg, D-97074 W\"urzburg, Germany}
219: \altaffiltext{o} {Yerevan Physics Institute, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
220: \altaffiltext{p} {Depto. de Astrofisica, Universidad, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
221: \altaffiltext{q} {Universit\`a di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy}
222: \altaffiltext{r} {Institut de Cienci\`es de l'Espai (IEEC-CSIC), E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
223: \altaffiltext{s} {Inst. de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Andalucia (CSIC), E-18080 Granada, Spain}
224: \altaffiltext{t} {University of California, Davis, CA-95616-8677, USA}
225: \altaffiltext{u} {Tuorla Observatory, Turku University, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
226: \altaffiltext{v} {Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
227: \altaffiltext{w} {Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
228: \altaffiltext{x} {INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico and INFN, I-34143 Trieste, Italy}
229: \altaffiltext{y} {ICREA, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain}
230: \altaffiltext{z} {Universit\`a di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}
231: \altaffiltext{aa} {now at: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA}
232: \altaffiltext{*} {deceased}
233: \altaffiltext{**} {Send offprint requests to M.Errando errando@ifae.es, E.Lindfors elilin@utu.fi, D.Mazin mazin@ifae.es}
234:
235: %% abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236:
237: \begin{abstract}
238:
239: The MAGIC telescope observed the region around the distant blazar 3C~66A for 54.2\,hr in 2007 August--December.
240: The observations resulted in the discovery of a $\gamma$-ray source
241: centered at celestial coordinates R.A. = $2^{\mathrm{h}} 23^{\mathrm{m}} 12^{\mathrm{s}}$ and decl.$=43^{\circ} 0.'7$ (MAGIC~J0223+430), coinciding with the nearby radio galaxy 3C~66B.
242: A possible association of the excess with the blazar 3C~66A is discussed.
243: The energy spectrum of MAGIC~J0223+430 follows a power law with a normalization of $\left(1.7\pm 0.3_{\mathrm{stat}} \pm 0.6_{\mathrm{syst}} \right)\times10^{-11}$
244: TeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 300\,GeV and a photon index $\Gamma = -3.10
245: \pm 0.31_{\mathrm{stat}} \pm 0.2_{\mathrm{syst}}$.
246: \end{abstract}
247:
248: \keywords{gamma rays: observations --- BL Lacertae objects: individual (3C~66A) --- galaxies: individual (3C~66B) --- ISM: individual (MAGIC~J0223+430)}
249:
250:
251: \section{Introduction}
252: \label{intro}
253:
254: As of today, there are 23 known extragalactic very high energy (VHE, defined here as $E>100$\,GeV)
255: $\gamma$-ray sources. All of them are active galactic nuclei
256: (AGNs) with relativistic jets. With the exception of the radio galaxy M~87
257: all detected sources are blazars, whose jets (characterized by a bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma \sim 20$) point, within a
258: small angle ($\theta \sim 1/\Gamma$), to the observer. The spectral energy
259: distribution (SED, logarithm of the observed energy density versus logarithm of the photon energy)
260: of AGNs shows typically a two-bump structure. The lower-energy
261: bump originates from synchrotron radiation of relativistic electrons
262: spiraling in the magnetic field of the jet. For the origin of the high-frequency bump,
263: various models have been
264: proposed, the most popular
265: invoking inverse Compton scattering of ambient photons. There have
266: been several suggestions for the origin of the low-frequency seed
267: photons that are up-scattered to $\gamma$-ray energies: they
268: may be produced within the jet by synchrotron radiation \citep[synchrotron self-Compton or SSC mechanism, e.g.][]{Maraschi,Bloom96} or come from outside the jet \citep[external Compton or EC mechanism, e.g.][]{Dermer}. Relativistic effects boost the observed emission
269: as the Doppler factor depends on the angle to the line of sight.
270: For sources with a large angle between the jet and the line of
271: sight (e.g., the radio galaxy M~87), these classic inverse Compton
272: scenarios cannot account for the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission.
273: In this case, models that depend less critically on beaming effects are needed
274: \citep[e.g.][]{Neronov, Tavecchio}. The VHE $\gamma$-ray emission
275: of AGNs might also be of hadronic origin through the emission from secondary electrons \citep[e.g.][]{Mannheim, Mucke}.
276:
277: 3C~66A and 3C~66B are two AGNs separated by just $6'$ in the sky.
278: 3C~66B is a large
279: Fanaroff--Riley-I-type (FRI)
280: %\citep[FRI,][]{FR}
281: radio galaxy, similar to M~87,
282: with a redshift of 0.0215 \citep{Stull}, whereas 3C~66A is a blazar
283: with uncertain redshift. The often referred redshift of 0.444
284: \citep{Miller} for 3C~66A is based on a single measurement of one emission
285: line only (and the authors were not certain on the realness of the
286: feature), while in later observations no lines in the
287: spectra of 3C~66A were reported \citep{Finke}. Based on the marginally resolved host
288: galaxy \citep{Wurtz}, a photometric redshift of $\sim 0.321$ was inferred.
289:
290: 3C~66A, a promising candidate for VHE $\gamma$-ray
291: emission, was observed several times with
292: satellite-borne and ground-based $\gamma$-ray detectors. The EGRET
293: source 3EG~J0222+4253 was associated with 3C~66A \citep{hartman}, but the
294: association was ambiguous because the error box is large enough to cover 3C~66B and the
295: nearby pulsar PSR~J0218+4232 \citep{Verbunt, Kuiper}. In
296: the TeV regime the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory's GT-48 imaging
297: atmospheric Cerenkov telescope has claimed repeated detections of this source above
298: 900\,GeV \citep{Neshpor, Stepanyan} with a flux as high as
299: $\left(3\pm 1\right) \times 10^{-11}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$. HEGRA and
300: WHIPPLE reported upper limits, $F\left(>630\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)<1.42\times 10^{-11}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$
301: \citep{hegra} and $F\left(>350\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)<0.59\times 10^{-11}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{whipple},
302: from non-simultaneous observations. The STACEE solar array also provided an upper limit of $F\left(>184\,\mathrm{GeV}\right)<1.2 \times 10^{-10}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{bramel}. In 2008 September, the Veritas collaboration reported a clear detection of 3C~66A~\citep{Atel1753} above 100\,GeV with an integral flux on the level of 10\% of the Crab Nebula flux.
303: Shortly after, a high state of 3C~66A was also reported by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope at energies above 20\,MeV \citep{fermiAtel}.
304:
305: In this paper we report the discovery of VHE $\gamma$-ray emission located $6.'1$ away from the blazar
306: 3C~66A and coinciding with the radio galaxy 3C~66B in 2007.
307: In Section 2, we describe the observations and the data analysis chain.
308: The results of the analysis are presented in Section 3 and discussed in Section 4.
309:
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311: %%%%%%% OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313:
314:
315: \section{Observations and Data Analysis}
316: \label{analysis}
317:
318: 3C~66A underwent an optical outburst in 2007 August, as monitored by the Tuorla
319: blazar monitoring program. The outburst triggered VHE $\gamma$-ray
320: observations of the source with the MAGIC telescope following the Target of Opportunity program,
321: which resulted in discoveries of new VHE $\gamma$-ray sources in the past
322: \citep{Albert06, Albert07a, magicS5}.
323:
324: MAGIC has a standard trigger threshold of 60\,GeV, an angular
325: resolution of $ \sim 0.^\circ 1$ and an energy resolution
326: above 150\,GeV of $\sim 25\%$ (see \citet{crab} for details).
327:
328: Data were taken in the false-source tracking (wobble) mode
329: \citep{Fomin1994} pointing alternatively to two different sky
330: directions, each at $24'$ distance from the 3C~66A catalog
331: position. The zenith distance distribution of the data extends from 13$^{\circ}$ to 35$^{\circ}$. Observations were made in 2007 August, September, and December and lasted 54.2\,hr, out of which 45.3\,hr passed the
332: quality cuts based on the event rate after image cleaning.
333: An additional cut removed the events with total charge
334: less than 150 photoelectrons (phe)
335: in order to assure a better background rejection.
336:
337: Just before the start of the observation campaign $\sim 5 \%$ of the mirrors on the telescope were replaced, worsening the optical point-spread function (PSF). As a consequence, a new calibration of the mirror alignment system became necessary, which took place within the observation campaign and improved the PSF again.
338: The sigma of the Gaussian PSF (40\% light containment) was measured to be $3.'0$ in 2007 August 12-14, $2.'6$ in 2007 August 15-26 and $2.'1$ in 2007 September and December.
339: To take this into account, data were analyzed separately for each period and the results were combined at the end of the analysis chain. However, the realignment resulted in a mispointing, which was taken care of by a new pointing model \citep{bdw} applied offline using starguider information \citep{bretz}. Considering the additional uncertainty caused by the offline corrections, we estimate the systematic uncertainty of the pointing accuracy to be $2'$ on average. Note that in the case of an optimal pointing model the systematic uncertainty is below $2'$, being $1'$ on average \citep{bdw,crab}.
340:
341: The data analysis consists of several steps.
342: Initially, a standard calibration of the data~\citep{NIMA} is performed. In the next step, an image cleaning procedure is applied
343: using the amplitude and timing information of the calibrated
344: signals. In particular, the arrival times of the photons in core
345: pixels ($>6$\,phe) are required to be within a time
346: window of 4.5\,ns and for boundary pixels ($>3$\,phe) within a time
347: window of 1.5\,ns from a neighboring core pixel.
348: For the surviving pixels of each event image parameters are calculated \citep{Hillas1985}.
349: Using the good time resolution of the recorded signals ($\sim 400$\,ps), unique to MAGIC, the time gradient along the main shower
350: axis and the time spread of the shower pixels are computed \citep{timing}. Hadronic background suppression is achieved
351: using the Random Forest (RF) method~\citep{Bock2007},
352: where for each event the so-called \textsc{Hadronness} parameter is
353: computed, based on the image and the time parameters.
354: Moreover, the RF method
355: is used for the energy estimation trained on a Monte Carlo simulated
356: $\gamma$-ray sample with the same zenith angle distribution as the data
357: sample.
358:
359: \begin{figure}[t]
360: \centering
361: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
362: %\plotone{f1.eps}
363: \caption{Significance map for $\gamma$-like events above 150\,GeV
364: in the observed sky region. The green cross
365: corresponds to the fitted maximum excess position of MAGIC~J0223+403.
366: The probability of the true source to be inside
367: the green circles is 68.2\%, 95.4\%, and 99.7\% for the inner,
368: middle, and outer contour, respectively.
369: The catalog positions
370: of 3C~66A and 3C~66B are indicated by a white square and a black dot, respectively.
371: }
372: \label{fig:skymap}
373:
374: \end{figure}
375:
376:
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
379: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
380:
381: \section{Results}
382: \label{results}
383:
384: Figure \ref{fig:skymap} shows a significance map produced from the signal and background maps,
385: both smoothed with a Gaussian of $\sigma=6'$
386: (corresponding to the $\gamma$-PSF), for photon energies between 150\,GeV and 1\,TeV.
387: %% Added sentence
388: For the background rejection a loose cut in the \textsc{Hadronness} parameter is applied to keep a large number of gamma-like events.
389: The center of gravity of the $\gamma$-ray emission is derived from Figure~\ref{fig:skymap} by fitting a bell-shaped function of the form
390: \begin{equation}
391: F(x,y) = A \cdot \exp \left[ -\frac{(x-\bar{x})^2+(y-\bar{y})^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]
392: \label{gaus}
393: \end{equation}
394: for which the distribution of the excess events is assumed to be rotationally symmetric, i.e., $\sigma_x=\sigma_y=\sigma$.
395: The fit yields reconstructed coordinates of the excess center of R.A. = $2^{\mathrm{h}} 23^{\mathrm{m}} 12^{\mathrm{s}}$ and decl.$=43^{\circ} 0.'7$.
396: The detected excess, which we name MAGIC~J0223+430, is $6.'1$ away from the catalog position of 3C~66A,
397: while the distance to 3C~66B is $1.'1$.
398:
399: In order to estimate the statistical uncertainty of the reconstructed position, we simulated $10^4$ sky maps with the same number
400: of background and excess events as in the data. The excess position in the sky maps was fitted and the distance to the simulated source position calculated.
401: From the histogram of the distances we obtained probabilities for an offset between the true source and the fit to the excess.
402: The probabilities shown in Figure~\ref{fig:skymap} by the green contours
403: correspond to 68.2\%, 95.4\%, and 99.7\% for the inner,
404: middle, and outer contour, respectively.
405: Using this study we find that the measured excess coincides with the catalog position of 3C~66B.
406: The origin of the emission from 3C~66A can be statistically excluded with a probability of 95.6\%.
407: Adding linearly the systematic uncertainty of the pointing of the data set ($2'$, see above), i.e.,\ shifting the excess position by $2'$ toward the catalog position of 3C~66A, the exclusion probability is 85.4\%.
408:
409: To calculate the significance of the detection,
410: an \textsc{$\mid$Alpha$\mid$} distribution was
411: produced, where \textsc{Alpha} is the angle between the major axis of the
412: shower image ellipse and the source position in the camera. For the calculation of the source-dependent image parameters we considered the fitted position of the excess.
413: Background rejection was
414: achieved by a cut in \textsc{Hadronness}, which was optimized
415: using Crab Nebula data taken in similar conditions and diluted to 5\% of its real flux. The cut in
416: \textsc{$\mid$Alpha$\mid$} that defines the signal region was also optimized in the same way.
417: The \textsc{$\mid$Alpha$\mid$} and \textsc{Hadronness} cuts together have an efficiency of 40\% in keeping Monte Carlo simulated $\gamma$ events, and result in an energy threshold of approximately 230\,GeV.
418: %% Added footnote
419: \footnote[1]{Defined as the peak of the distribution of Monte Carlo generated gamma-ray events after all cuts.}
420: A signal of $6.0\,\sigma$ significance (pre-trial) was found (see Figure~\ref{fig:alpha}).
421: We estimated the number of trials of the signal search by projecting the $\gamma$-ray acceptance of the camera into the field of view of the observations, and defined the search region where the $\gamma$-ray acceptance after cuts is larger than 50\%. In this way, we obtained an area of $2.18\, \mathrm{deg}^{2}$.
422: Given that the 68\% containment radius for $\gamma$-rays from a point-like source is $0.^{\circ}152$, we calculated the number of independent trials to be 30.
423: %Given that the $\gamma$-PSF of the analysis is $0.10^{\circ}$ (40\% containment radius) we calculated the number of independent trials to be 30.\footnote[2]{Defined as the area of the search region divided by the 68\% containment area of an individual point-like source.} Correcting for the number of trials we find a post-trial significance of the measured signal of $5.4\,\sigma$.
424:
425: Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve} shows the light curve of MAGIC~J0223+430 together with the flux of 3C~66A in optical wavelengths.
426: As we integrate over $\gamma$-ray events from a wide sky region ($\sim0.07\, \mathrm{deg}^2$), we cannot exclude that 3C~66A contributes to the measured signal.
427: The integral flux above 150\,GeV corresponds to $\left(7.3\pm 1.5\right) \times 10^{-12}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ (2.2\% of the Crab Nebula flux) and is the lowest ever detected by MAGIC.
428: The $\gamma$-ray light curve is consistent with a constant flux within statistical errors. These errors, however, are large, and some variability of the signal cannot be excluded.
429: %{\bf The $\gamma$-ray light curve shows no statistically significant variability, but due to large errorbars firm conclusion about the variability of the signal is not possible.}
430: %No significant variability in the $\gamma$-ray light curve was observed during the MAGIC observations whereas
431: %the blazar 3C~66A was in high optical state varying from 6\,mJy to 12\,mJy in the $R$-band (the baseline flux in the historical data being $\sim 6$\,mJy).
432: %In the same period the optical flux of 3C~66B remained constant, which is a typical behavior for large radio galaxies.
433: %THE OPTICAL VARIABILITY I MOVED TO CAPTION
434:
435: \begin{figure}[t]
436: \centering
437: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f2.eps}
438: %\plotone{f2.eps}
439: \caption{\textsc{$\mid$Alpha$\mid$} distribution after all cuts evaluated with respect to the position of MAGIC~J0223+430. A $\gamma$-ray excess with a significance of $6.0\,\sigma$ is found, which corresponds to a post-trial significance of $5.4\,\sigma$.}
440: \label{fig:alpha}
441: \end{figure}
442:
443: \begin{figure}[t]
444: \begin{center}
445: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f3.eps}
446: %\plotone{f3.eps}
447: \caption{Light curve of MAGIC~J0223+430. Upper panel: MAGIC integral flux above 150\,GeV in bins of 3 days (except for periods where the sampling was coarser). The gray dashed line indicates the average $\gamma$-ray flux. Lower panel: optical light curve of 3C~66A as measured by the KVA telescope.
448: During the MAGIC observations 3C~66A was very bright at optical
449: wavelengths varying from 6\,mJy to 12\,mJy in the $R$-band (the baseline flux in the historical data being $\sim 6$\,mJy).
450: In the same period the optical flux of 3C~66B remained constant, which is a typical behavior for large radio galaxies.}
451: \label{fig:lightcurve}
452: \end{center}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: For the energy spectrum of MAGIC~J0223+430, loose cuts are made to keep the $\gamma$-ray acceptance high. The differential energy
456: spectrum was unfolded using the Tikhonov unfolding technique \citep{tikhonov,unfolding} and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}. The spectrum can be well fitted by a power law
457: which gives a differential flux (TeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) of:
458: \begin{equation}
459: \frac{\mathrm {d}N}{\mathrm{d}E\, \mathrm {d}A\, \mathrm {d}t} = (1.7\pm 0.3)\times10^{-11}(E/300\,\mathrm {GeV})^{-3.1\pm0.3}
460: \end{equation}
461: The quoted errors are statistical only. The systematic uncertainty is
462: estimated to be 35\% in the flux level and 0.2 in the power law photon
463: index \citep{crab}.
464: As in the case of the light curve, we cannot exclude that 3C~66A contributes to the measured signal. Thus, the spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} represents a combined
465: $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the observed region.
466:
467:
468:
469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
470: % DISCUSSION
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472:
473: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
474: \label{conclusions}
475:
476: A new VHE $\gamma$-ray source MAGIC~J0223+430 was detected in 2007 August to December.
477: Given the position of the excess measured by MAGIC above 150\,GeV, the source of the $\gamma$-rays is most likely 3C~66B. The VHE $\gamma$-ray flux was found to be on the level of 2.2\% Crab Nebula flux and was constant during the observations.
478: The differential spectrum of MAGIC~J0223+430 has a photon spectral index of $\Gamma=3.10\pm 0.31$ and extends up to $\sim 2$\,TeV.
479: In view of the recent detection of 3C~66A at VHE $\gamma$-rays \citep{Atel1753}, we note
480: that if 3C~66A was emitting $\gamma$-rays in 2007 August to December then its flux
481: was at a significantly lower level than in 2008.
482: We also note that we cannot exclude the scenario suggested in a recent work by \citet{TavGhis}
483: that the observed spectrum would be a combination of emission from 3C~66B (dominating at energies above 150\,GeV)
484: and blazar 3C~66A (at lower energies).
485:
486: \begin{figure}[t]
487: \begin{center}
488: \includegraphics*[width=1.\columnwidth]{f4.eps}
489: %\plotone{f4.eps}
490: \caption{Differential energy spectrum of MAGIC~J0223+430. The fit to the data is shown by the solid gray line and the fit parameters are listed in the inset. No correction for the $\gamma-\gamma$ attenuation due to the EBL has been made. The Crab Nebula spectrum \citep{crab} is also shown as a reference (dashed gray line).}
491: \label{fig:spectrum}
492: \end{center}
493: \end{figure}
494:
495: In the unlikely case, excluded with probability 85.4\%, that the total signal
496: and observed spectrum presented in this paper originates from 3C~66A,
497: the redshift of the source is likely to be significantly lower than
498: previously assumed.
499: Due to the energy-dependent absorption of VHE $\gamma$-rays with low-energy photons of the extragalactic background
500: \citep[EBL,][]{gould}, the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux of distant sources is significantly suppressed.
501: We investigated the measured spectrum by MAGIC following the prescription
502: of \citet{mazin}, and derived a redshift upper limit of the source to be $z<0.17$ ($z<0.24$) under the
503: assumption that the intrinsic energy spectrum cannot be
504: harder than $\Gamma = 1.5$ ( $\Gamma = 0.666$).
505: %Indeed, due to the energy-dependent absorption of VHE
506: %$\gamma$-rays with low energy photons of the extragalactic background
507: %light \citep[EBL,][]{gould}, more than 99\% of $\gamma$-rays with
508: %energies above 1 TeV would be absorbed if $z>0.23$. This derived redshift limit is valid under
509: %the assumption that the intrinsic VHE $\gamma$-ray flux cannot be
510: %harder than $\Gamma = 1.5$ \citep[see][]{mazin}.
511: This assumption of $\Gamma > 1.5$ is based on particle acceleration
512: arguments \citep{AharonianEBL}, and the fact that none of the sources
513: in the EGRET energy band (not affected by the EBL) have shown a harder
514: spectrum. The latter assumption of $\Gamma > 0.666$ can be considered as an extreme case of the spectrum hardness,
515: suggesting a monochromatic spectrum of electrons when interacting with a soft photon target field \citep{katarzynski}.\footnote[2]{
516: See also \citet{stecker} for more detailed calculations.}
517: If $z>0.24$ for 3C~66A,
518: an alternative explanation for a hard
519: intrinsic spectrum at energies above 100\,GeV can be given if
520: $\gamma$-rays are passing through a narrow band of optical-infrared
521: photons in the vicinity of the blazar. Such narrow radiation fields
522: can produce arbitrarily hard intrinsic spectra by absorbing specific
523: energies of $\gamma$-rays \citep{aha_abs}. We also note that, in this
524: case, the intrinsic VHE luminosity of 3C~66A should exceed
525: $10^{47}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, which is an unusually large value for a BL~Lac
526: object \citep{robert}, also in view of its spectral characteristics \citep{persic}.
527:
528: \newcommand{\degree}{{}^{\circ}}
529:
530: 3C~66B is a FRI radio galaxy similar to M~87, which has been detected to
531: emit VHE $\gamma$-rays \citep{hegraM87,m87}.
532: Since the distance of 3C~66B is 85.5\,Mpc, its intrinsic VHE luminosity would be two to eight times
533: higher than the one of M~87 (22.5\,Mpc) given the reported variability of M~87 \citep{m87,MAGICm87}.
534:
535: As in the case of M~87, there would be several possibilities for the region responsible of
536: the TeV radiation in 3C~66B: the vicinity
537: of the supermassive black hole \citep{Neronov}, the unresolved base of the
538: jet \citep[in analogy with blazar emission models;][]{Tavecchio}
539: and the resolved jet. Unlike for M~87, we do not observe
540: significant variability in the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux and therefore we have
541: no constrains on the size of the emission region. However, as the
542: angle to line of sight is even larger than in M~87 (M~87: 19$\degree$,
543: \citet{Perlman}; 3C~66B: 45$\degree$, \citet{giovanni}) the resolved jet
544: seems an unlikely site of the emission. On the other hand, the unresolved base of the
545: jet seems a likely candidate for the emission site as
546: it could point with a smaller angle
547: to the line of sight.
548: If the viewing angle was small, blazar-like emission mechanisms cannot be
549: excluded. The orbital motion of 3C~66B shows evidence for a
550: supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB) with a period of
551: $1.05\pm0.03$ years \citep{sudou}. The SMBHB would likely cause the
552: jet to be helical, and the pointing direction of the unresolved jet could
553: differ significantly from the direction of the resolved jet.
554:
555: Given the likely association of MAGIC~J0223+430 with 3C~66B, our detection would
556: establish radio galaxies as a new class of VHE $\gamma$-ray emitting sources.
557: According to \cite{Ghisellini05}, there are eight FR I radio galaxies in the 3CR
558: catalog that should have a higher $\gamma$-ray flux at 100\,MeV than 3C 66B,
559: but possibly many of these
560: sources are rather weak in the VHE $\gamma$-ray band. Further observations
561: of radio galaxies with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope as well as by ground-based telescopes are needed
562: to further study the $\gamma$-ray emission properties of radio galaxies.
563:
564:
565: \vspace{0.1cm}
566:
567: We thank the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias for the excellent working conditions at the
568: Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The support of the German
569: BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN, and Spanish MCINN is gratefully
570: acknowledged. This work was also supported by ETH Research Grant
571: TH 34/043, by the Polish MNiSzW Grant N N203 390834, and by the YIP of the
572: Helmholtz Gemeinschaft.
573:
574:
575:
576: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
577:
578: \bibitem[Aharonian {et~al.}(2008)]{aha_abs}
579: Aharonian, F.A., Khangulyan, D., \& Costamante, L. 2008, \textit{MNRAS}, 387, 1206
580:
581: \bibitem[Aharonian {et al.}(2000)]{hegra}
582: {Aharonian}, F. {et~al.} 2000, \textit{A\&A}, 353, 847
583:
584: \bibitem[Aharonian {et al.}(2003)]{hegraM87}
585: {Aharonian}, F. {et~al.} 2003, \textit{A\&A}, 403, 1
586:
587: \bibitem[Aharonian {et~al.}(2006a)]{AharonianEBL}
588: {Aharonian}, F. {et~al.} 2006a, \textit{Nature}, 440, 1018
589:
590: \bibitem[Aharonian {et~al.}(2006b)]{m87}
591: {Aharonian}, F. {et~al.} 2006b, \textit{Science}, 314, 1424
592:
593: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Albert06}
594: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2006, \textit{ApJ}, 648, 105
595:
596: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2007a)}]{Albert07a}
597: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2007a, \textit{ApJ}, 667, 21
598:
599: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2007b)}]{unfolding}
600: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2007b, \textit{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A}, 583, 494
601:
602: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2008a)}]{crab}
603: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2008a, \textit{ApJ}, 674, 1037
604:
605: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2008b)}]{MAGICm87}
606: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2008b, \textit{ApJ}, 685, L23
607:
608: \bibitem[{{Albert} {et~al.}(2008c)}]{Bock2007}
609: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2008c, \textit{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A}, 588, 424
610:
611: \bibitem[{Albert} {et~al.}(2008d)]{NIMA}
612: {Albert}, J. {et~al.} 2008d, \textit{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A}, 594, 407
613:
614: \bibitem[{Aliu} {et~al.}(2009)]{timing}
615: {Aliu}, E. {et~al.} 2009, \textit{Astropart. Phys.}, 30, 293
616:
617: \bibitem[{Bloom \& Marscher (1996)}]{Bloom96}
618: Bloom, S. D. \& Marscher, A. P. 1996, \textit{ApJ}, 461, 657
619:
620: \bibitem[{Bramel {et~al.}(2005)}]{bramel}
621: Bramel, D. A. et al. 2005, \textit{ApJ}, 629, 108
622:
623: \bibitem[{Bretz} {et~al.}(2009)]{bdw}
624: Bretz, T., Dorner, D., Wagner, R.M \& Sawallisch, P. 2009, \textit{Astropart. Phys.}, in press (arXiv:0810.4593)
625:
626: \bibitem[{Dermer \& Schlickeiser (1993)}] {Dermer}
627: Dermer, C. \& Schlickeiser, R. 1993, \textit{ApJ}, 416, 458
628:
629: %\bibitem[{Fanaroff \& Riley(1974)}]{FR}
630: %Fanaroff, B. L. \& Riley, J. M. 1974, \textit{MNRAS}, 167, 31P
631:
632: \bibitem[{Finke {et~al.}(2008)}]{Finke}
633: Finke, J. D., Shileds, J. C., B\"ottcher, M. \& Basu, S. 2008, \textit{A\&A}, 477, 513
634:
635: \bibitem[{Fomin {et~al.}(1994)}]{Fomin1994}
636: Fomin, V.~P., Stepanian, A., Lamb, R.~C., Lewis, D.~A., Punch, M., \& Weekes, T.~C. 1994, \textit{Astropart. Phys.}, 2, 137
637:
638: \bibitem[{Ghisellini {et al.}(2005)}]{Ghisellini05}
639: Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F. \& Chiaberge, M. 2005, \textit{A\&A}, 432, 401
640:
641: \bibitem[{Giovannini {et~al.}(2001)}]{giovanni}
642: Giovannini, G., Cotton, W. D., Feretti, L., Lara, L. \& Venturi, T. 2001, \textit{ApJ}, 552, 508
643:
644: \bibitem[{Gould \& Schr{\'e}der (1967)}]{gould}
645: Gould, R.~J. \& Schr{\'e}der, G.~P. 1967, \textit{Phys. Rev.}, 155, 1408
646:
647: \bibitem[Hartman {et~al.}(1999)]{hartman}
648: Hartman, R.~C. et al. 1999, \textit{ApJS}, 123, 79
649:
650: \bibitem[{Hillas(1985)}]{Hillas1985}
651: Hillas, A.~M. 1985, Proc. of the 19th ICRC, La Jolla, 3, 445
652:
653: \bibitem[{Horan {et~al.}(2004)}]{whipple}
654: Horan, D. et al. 2004, \textit{ApJ}, 603, 51
655:
656: \bibitem[Katarzynski et al.(2006)]{katarzynski}
657: Katarzynski, K., Ghisellini, G., Mastichiadis, A., Tavecchio, F. \& Maraschi, L. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 52
658:
659: \bibitem[{Kuiper {et al.}(2000)}]{Kuiper}
660: Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., Verbunt, F., Thompson, D.J., Stairs, I.H., Lyne, A.J., Strickman, M.S. \& Cusumano, G. 2000, \textit{A\&A}, 359, 615
661:
662: %\bibitem[{Lenain {et al.}(2008)}]{Lenain}
663: %Lenain, J.-P., Boisson, C., Sol, H. \& Katarzynski, K. 2008, \textit{A\&A}, 478, 111
664:
665: \bibitem[{Mannheim(1993)}]{Mannheim}
666: Mannheim, K. 1993, \textit{A\&A}, 269, 67
667:
668: \bibitem[{Maraschi {et~al.}(1992)}]{Maraschi}
669: Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A. 1992, \textit{ApJ}, 397, 5
670:
671: \bibitem[Mazin \& Raue (2007)]{mazin}
672: Mazin, D. \& Raue, M. 2007 \textit{A\&A}, 471, 439
673:
674: \bibitem[{Miller {et al.}(1978)}]{Miller}
675: Miller, J. S., French, H. B. \& Hawley, S. A. 1978, in Pittsburgh Conf. on BL Lac Objects, ed. A. M. Wolfe (Pittsburgh: Univ. Pittsburgh), 176
676:
677: \bibitem[{M\"ucke {et~al.}(2003)}]{Mucke}
678: M\"ucke, A., Protheroe, R. J., Engel, R., Rachen, J. P. \& Stanev, T. 2003, \textit{Astropart. Phys.}, 18, 593
679:
680: \bibitem[{Neronov \& Aharonian (2007)}]{Neronov}
681: Neronov, A. \& Aharonian, F. 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 671, 85
682:
683: \bibitem[{Neshpor {et al.}(1998)}]{Neshpor}
684: Neshpor, Y.I., Stepanyan, A. A., Kalekin, O. P., Fomin, V. P., Chalenko, N. N. \& Shitov, V. G. 1998, \textit{Astron. Lett.}, 24, 134
685:
686: \bibitem[Persic \& De Angelis (2008)]{persic}
687: Persic, M. \& De Angelis, A. 2008, \textit{A\&A}, 483, 1
688:
689: \bibitem[{Perlman {et~al.}(2003)}]{Perlman}
690: Perlman, E. S., Harris, D. E., Biretta, J. A. 2003, \textit{ApJ}, 599, L65
691:
692: \bibitem[{Riegel} {et~al.}(2005)]{bretz}
693: Riegel, B., Bretz, T., Dorner, D. \& Wagner, R.M. 2005, proc. of the 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5, 219
694:
695: \bibitem[Stecker {et~al.}(2007)]{stecker}
696: Stecker, F.W., Baring, M.G. \& Summerlin, E.J. 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 667, L29
697:
698: \bibitem[{Stepanyan {et al.}(2002)}]{Stepanyan}
699: Stepanyan, A. A., Neshpor, Y. I., Andreeva, N. A., Kalekin, O. P., Zhogolev, N. A., Fomin, V. P.\& Shitov, V. G. 2002, \textit{Astron. Rep.}, 46, 634
700:
701: \bibitem[{Stull {et~al.}(1975)}]{Stull}
702: Stull, M. A. Price, K. M, Daddario, L. R. {et~al.} 1975, \textit{AJ}, 80, 559
703:
704: \bibitem[{Sudou {et al.}(2003)}]{sudou}
705: Sudou, H., Iguchi, S., Murata, Y. \& Taniguchi, Y. 2003, \textit{Science}, 300, 126
706:
707: \bibitem[Swordy (2008)]{Atel1753}
708: Swordy, S. 2008, Astron. Telegram, 1753, 1
709:
710: \bibitem[{Tavecchio \& Ghisellini (2008a)}]{Tavecchio}
711: Tavecchio, F. \& Ghisellini, G. 2008a, \textit{MNRAS}, 385, L98
712:
713: \bibitem[{Tavecchio \& Ghisellini (2008b)}]{TavGhis}
714: Tavecchio, F. \& Ghisellini, G. 2008b, \textit{MNRAS}, submitted (arXiv:0811.1883)
715:
716: \bibitem[Teshima (2008)]{magicS5}
717: Teshima, M. (2008), Astron. Telegram, 1500, 1
718:
719: \bibitem[{Tikhonov \& Arsenin (1979)}]{tikhonov}
720: Tikhonov A.N. \& Arsenin V. Ja. 1979 Methods of Solution of III-posed Problem - M (Moscow: Nauka)
721:
722: \bibitem[Tosti (2008)]{fermiAtel}
723: Tosti, G. {et~al.}, 2008, Astron. Telegram, 1759, 1
724:
725: \bibitem[{Verbunt {et~al.}(1996)}]{Verbunt}
726: Verbunt, F., Kuiper, L., Belloni, T. et al. 1996, \textit{A\&A}, 311, L9
727:
728: \bibitem[Wagner (2008)]{robert}
729: Wagner, R.M. 2008, \textit{MNRAS}, 385, 119
730:
731: \bibitem[{Wurtz {et~al.}(1996)}]{Wurtz}
732: Wurtz, R., Stocke, J. T. \& Yee, H. K. C. 1996, \textit{ApJS}, 103, 109
733:
734: \end{thebibliography}
735:
736:
737: \end{document}
738:
739: