1: \def\nfn{\nu F_{\nu}}
2: \def\nfnsy{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm sy}}
3: \def\nfnssc{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm SSC}}
4: \def\nfnerc{\left( \nfn \right)_{\rm ERC}}
5: \def\nfnsyn{F_{{\rm sy}, -10}}
6: \def\nfnsscn{F_{{\rm SSC}, -10}}
7: \def\nfnercn{F_{{\rm ERC}, -10}}
8: \def\esy{\epsilon_{\rm sy}}
9: \def\essc{\epsilon_{\rm SSC}}
10: \def\eerc{\epsilon_{\rm ERC}}
11: \def\estar{\epsilon_{\ast}}
12: \def\esyn{\epsilon_{{\rm sy}, -7}}
13: \def\esscn{\epsilon_{{\rm SSC}, -1}}
14: \def\eercn{\epsilon_{{\rm ERC}, 2}}
15: \def\estarn{\epsilon_{\ast, -5}}
16: \def\eb{\epsilon_B}
17: \def\gcr{\gamma_{\rm cr}}
18: \def\fsp{f_{\rm sp}}
19: \def\fsy{f_{\rm sy}}
20: \def\ferc{f_{\rm ERC}}
21: \def\fssc{f_{\rm SSC}}
22: \def\uext{u_{\rm ext}}
23: \def\Bcr{B_{\rm cr}}
24: \def\taur{\tau_{\rm repr}}
25: \def\ls{\lower4pt\hbox{${\buildrel < \over \sim}$}}
26: \def\gs{\lower4pt\hbox{${\buildrel > \over \sim}$}}
27:
28: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
29: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
30: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
31:
32: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
33: \newcommand{\myemail}{mboett@helios.phy.ohiou.edu}
34:
35: \slugcomment{Accepted for Publication in {\it The Astrophysical Journal}}
36:
37: \shorttitle{On the VHE Detection of 3C279}
38: \shortauthors{B\"ottcher et al.}
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \title{Implications of the VHE Gamma-Ray Detection of the Quasar 3C279}
43:
44: \author{M. B\"ottcher\altaffilmark{1} \and A. Reimer\altaffilmark{2}
45: \and A. P. Marscher\altaffilmark{3}
46: }
47:
48: \altaffiltext{1}{Astrophysical Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy, \\
49: Clippinger 339, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA}
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Stanford University, HEPL/KIPAC, Stanford, CA 94305, USA}
51: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Astrophysical Research, Boston University, \\
52: 725 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: The MAGIC very-high-energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray astronomy collaboration
56: recently reported the detection of the quasar 3C279 at $> 100$~GeV
57: $\gamma$-ray energies. Here we present simultaneous optical (BVRI)
58: and X-ray ({\it RXTE PCA}) data from the day of the VHE detection and
59: discuss the implications of the snap-shot spectral energy distribution
60: for jet models of blazars. A one-zone synchrotron-self-Compton origin
61: of the entire SED, including the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission is highly
62: problematic as it would require an unrealistically low magnetic field.
63: The measured level of VHE emission could, in principle, be
64: interpreted as Compton upscattering of external radiation (e.g., from
65: the broad-line regions). However, such an interpretation would require
66: either an unusually low magnetic field of $B \sim 0.03$~G, or (in order
67: to achieve approximate equipartition between magnetic field at $B \sim
68: 0.25$~G and relativistic electrons) an unrealistically high Doppler
69: factor of $\Gamma \sim 140$. In addition, such a model fails to reproduce
70: the observed X-ray flux. Furthermore, both versions of leptonic
71: one-zone models produce intrinsic VHE $\gamma$-ray spectra steeper
72: than measured, even in the case of the lowest plausible extragalactic
73: $\gamma\gamma$ absorption.
74: We therefore
75: conclude that a simple one-zone, homogeneous leptonic jet model is
76: not able to plausibly reproduce the SED of 3C279 including the recently
77: detected VHE $\gamma$-ray emission. This as well as the lack of correlated
78: variability in the optical with the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission and the
79: substantial $\gamma\gamma$ opacity of the BLR radiation field to VHE
80: $\gamma$-rays suggests a multi-zone model in which the optical emission
81: is produced in a different region than the VHE $\gamma$-ray
82: emission. In particular, an SSC model with an emission region far outside
83: the BLR reproduces the simultaneous X-ray --- VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum
84: of 3C279. Alternatively, a hadronic model is capable of reproducing
85: the observed SED of 3C279 reasonably well, both in scenarios in which
86: only the internal synchrotron field serves as targets for $p\gamma$
87: pion production, and with a substantial contribution from external
88: photons, e.g., from the BLR. However, either version of the hadronic
89: model requires a rather extreme jet power of
90: up to
91: $L_j \sim 10^{49}$~erg~s$^{-1}$,
92: compared to a requirement of $L_j \sim 2 \times 10^{47}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for
93: a multi-zone leptonic model.
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: \keywords{galaxies: active --- Quasars: individual (3C~279)
97: --- gamma-rays: theory --- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}
98:
99: \section{Introduction}
100:
101: Flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) and BL~Lac objects are
102: active galactic nuclei (AGNs) commonly unified in the class
103: of blazars. They exhibit some of the most violent high-energy
104: phenomena observed in AGNs to date. Their spectral energy
105: distributions (SEDs) are characterized by non-thermal continuum
106: spectra with a broad low-frequency component in the radio -- UV
107: or X-ray frequency range and a high-frequency component from
108: X-rays to $\gamma$-rays.
109: In the framework of relativistic jet models, the low-frequency (radio
110: -- optical/UV) emission from blazars is interpreted as synchrotron
111: emission from nonthermal electrons in a relativistic jet. The
112: high-frequency (X-ray -- $\gamma$-ray) emission could either be
113: produced via Compton upscattering of low frequency radiation by the
114: same electrons responsible for the synchrotron emission \citep[leptonic
115: jet models; for a recent review see, e.g.,][]{boettcher07a}, or
116: due to hadronic processes initiated by relativistic protons
117: co-accelerated with the electrons \citep[hadronic models, for
118: a recent discussion see, e.g.,][]{muecke01,muecke03}.
119:
120: The quasar 3C279 ($z = 0.536$) is one of the best-observed flat
121: spectrum radio quasars, in part because of its prominent
122: $\gamma$-ray flare shortly after the launch of the {\it Compton
123: Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO)} in 1991. It was persistently
124: detected by the {\it Energetic Gamma-ray Experiment Telescope
125: (EGRET)} on board {\it CGRO} each time it was observed, even in
126: its very low quiescent states, e.g., in the winter of 1992 -- 1993,
127: and is known to vary in $\gamma$-ray flux by roughly two orders
128: of magnitude \citep{maraschi94,wehrle98}. It has been monitored
129: intensively at radio, optical, and more recently also X-ray
130: frequencies, and has been the subject of intensive multiwavelength
131: campaigns \citep[e.g.,][]{maraschi94,hartman96,wehrle98}.
132: Observations with the {\it International Ultraviolet Explorer}
133: in the very low activity state of the source in December
134: 1992 -- January 1993 revealed the existence of a thermal
135: emission component, possibly related to an accretion disk
136: \citep{pian99}.
137:
138: A complete compilation and modeling of all available SEDs simultaneous
139: with the 11 {\it EGRET} observing epochs has been presented in \cite{hartman01}.
140: The modeling was done using the time-dependent leptonic synchrotron
141: self-Compton (SSC) + External Compton (EC) model of \cite{bms97,bb00}
142: and yielded quite satisfactory fits for all epochs. The results were
143: consistent with other model fitting works
144: \citep[e.g.,][]{bednarek98,sikora01,moderski03} concluding that the
145: X-ray -- soft $\gamma$-ray portion of the SED might be dominated by
146: SSC emission, while the {\it EGRET} emission might require an additional
147: component, most likely external-Compton emission.
148:
149: During a recent observing campaign by the Whole Earth Blazar Telescope
150: (WEBT) collaboration \citep{boettcher07b} in the spring of 2006, intensive
151: monitoring by the Major Atmospheric Gamma-Ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope
152: (MAGIC) yielded a positive detection at $> 100$~GeV on February 23, 2006
153: \citep{albert08}. This makes 3C279 the first quasar and (as of April 2009)
154: the most distant object detected in VHE $\gamma$-rays. In this paper, we
155: present the optical (BVRI) and X-ray ({\it RXTE}) data taken simultaneously
156: with the MAGIC detection, and discuss the implications of this detection
157: for current standard blazar jet models.
158:
159: Throughout this paper, we refer to $\alpha$ as the energy
160: spectral index, $F_{\nu}$~[Jy]~$\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$. A
161: cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$,
162: and $H_0 = 70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ is used. In this cosmology
163: the luminosity distance of 3C~279 at a redshift of $z = 0.536$
164: is $d_L = 3.08$~Gpc.
165:
166: \begin{figure}
167: \plotone{f1.eps}
168: \caption{Light curves at radio (bottom), optical (center), and X-ray
169: frequencies over the course of the WEBT campaign in the spring of 2006.
170: The red points (right axis labels) indicate the energy spectral
171: index in the 2 -- 10~keV range. The vertical dashed line marks the day
172: of the MAGIC VHE $\gamma$-ray detection.}
173: \label{lightcurves}
174: \end{figure}
175:
176: \section{\label{observations}Observations and results}
177:
178: 3C~279 was observed in a WEBT campaign at radio, near-IR, and optical
179: frequencies, throughout the spring of 2006. Details of the observations,
180: data analysis, and implications of the optical variability patterns
181: observed during that campaign have been published in \cite{boettcher07b}.
182: The source was simultaneously monitored with 3 pointings per week with
183: the {\it Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)} Proportional Counter Array
184: (PCA). We obtained the X-ray flux measurements with the PCA detector PCU2,
185: using typical exposure times of 2~ks for each pointing. The data reduction
186: is described in \cite{chat08}.
187:
188: Fig. \ref{lightcurves} shows the radio, optical and X-ray light curves
189: of 3C279 during spring 2006, along with the 2 -- 10~keV energy
190: spectral index as a function of time. The dashed vertical line marks
191: the day of the MAGIC $> 100$~GeV $\gamma$-ray detection. While the
192: source was overall in an extended optical high state ($R \sim 14.5$),
193: no extraordinary variability in any optical (BVRI) band was observed at the
194: time of the MAGIC detection.
195:
196: During most of December 2005 and January 2006, the X-ray flux of 3C279
197: was in a low state, near its historical minimum. Around Jan. 25, however,
198: the source made a transition to a higher X-ray flux state with substantial
199: variability in flux and spectral index on a characteristic time scale of
200: $\sim 10$~days. The average flux increased to about a factor $\sim 2$
201: -- 3 compared to the low state. In the high state, there is a clear
202: correlation between X-ray flux and spectral hardness, with the spectrum
203: becoming harder as the flux increases. Statistical uncertainties preclude
204: any conclusions about a flux-hardness correlation in the low X-ray state.
205: The VHE flare observed by MAGIC precedes an X-ray outburst with the
206: highest X-ray flux measured since the major optical/X-ray outburst in
207: 2001 \citep[see, e.g.][]{chat08}, by $\sim 5$ -- 7~days.
208:
209: \begin{figure}
210: \plotone{f2.eps}
211: \caption{Compilation of broadband spectral energy distributions of
212: 3C279, including the day of the MAGIC VHE detection, February 23, 2006.
213: Data for P1 and P2 are from \cite{hartman01}, 2003 data are from
214: \cite{collmar04}, and 2006 data are from \cite{collmar07} and
215: \cite{boettcher07b}. }
216: \label{SED}
217: \end{figure}
218:
219: Fig. \ref{SED} compares several historical SEDs of 3C279 to the one
220: measured on February 23, 2006, along with the MAGIC VHE detection.
221: The X-ray flux is comparable to the one observed during the major
222: EGRET-detected $\gamma$-ray outburst in June 1991. The
223: MAGIC data points show the measured flux, corrected for intergalactic
224: $\gamma\gamma$ absorption, using the lowest plausible level of
225: extragalactic background light (EBL) cosmic infrared light,
226: according to the model of \cite{primack05}. As discussed in
227: \cite{albert08}, this yields a best-fit energy index to the
228: corrected VHE spectrum of $\alpha_{\rm VHE} = 1.9 \pm 0.9_{\rm stat}
229: \pm 0.5_{\rm syst}$. Other currently discussed EBL models would
230: predict a higher intrinsic VHE $\gamma$-ray flux and substantially
231: harder spectrum. In particular, a high-EBL model \citep{stecker06}
232: would lead to an intrinsic VHE spectral index of $\alpha_{\rm VHE} =
233: -0.5 \pm 1.2_{\rm stat} \pm 0.5_{\rm syst}$. As we will discuss below,
234: the VHE spectrum corrected with the \cite{primack05} model already
235: poses severe constraints on currently discussed blazar models.
236: Those constraints would be even more restrictive and problematic
237: for a higher EBL model. In particular, the high-EBL spectral index
238: quoted above would locate the high-energy peak of the SED of 3C~279
239: at TeV energies, which would lead to even more unrealistic parameter
240: choices for the leptonic models considered in the following section.
241: We will therefore restrict our more detailed discussion to the VHE
242: spectrum corrected by the low EBL model.
243: The optical spectrum, while clearly in an elevated state, shows
244: about the same, steep spectral index $\alpha_{\rm opt} \sim 1.7$
245: as during lower optical flux states, indicating an underlying
246: nonthermal electron spectral index of $p = 4.4$.
247:
248: The slopes of the radio and optical spectra indicate that the
249: synchrotron peak was in the usual range where it has been observed
250: in many previous observing campaigns, i.e., in the infrared regime,
251: around $\nu_{\rm sy} \sim 5 \times 10^{13}$~Hz, corresponding to a
252: dimensionless photon energy $\epsilon_{\rm sy} \equiv h \nu_{\rm sy}
253: / (m_e c^2) \sim 4 \times 10^{-7}$. This is consistent with the location
254: of the synchrotron peak in a compilation of simultaneous multiwavelength
255: data in mid-2006, shown by \cite{marscher08}, which included infrared
256: coverage by the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}. For the purpose of a
257: quantitative analysis, the synchrotron peak flux may be estimated to
258: be of the order of $\nu F_{\nu}^{\rm sy} \sim 10^{13}$~Jy~Hz. Equally,
259: the X-ray spectrum shows a quite typical shape as observed in previous
260: high states of 3C~279, in particular the P1 SED shown in Figs. \ref{SED}
261: and \ref{fit}. This suggests that the X-ray -- GeV $\gamma$-ray
262: spectrum is similar to previously observed high states during the EGRET
263: era.
264:
265: If a one-zone leptonic jet model (as discussed in the following section)
266: applies, the VHE spectrum is expected to be at least as steep as
267: the optical (synchrotron) flux. The spectral indices are expected to
268: be similar if the $\gamma$-ray emission is produced by Compton scattering
269: in the Thomson regime. If Klein-Nishina effects are important in the
270: production of VHE $\gamma$-rays, the resulting VHE spectrum would be
271: even steeper than the synchrotron spectrum. As already indicated above,
272: this would be in direct conflict with the observed relatively hard
273: intrinsic VHE spectrum, even when corrected with a low EBL model.
274: Therefore, in order not to predict a
275: GeV $\gamma$-ray flux greatly in excess of any archival EGRET flux, it
276: is reasonable to assume a $\gamma$-ray peak
277: at $\nu_{\gamma} \sim 10^{24}$ -- $10^{25}$~Hz,
278: corresponding to $\epsilon_{\gamma} \sim 10^5$. The $\gamma$-ray
279: peak flux is then $\nu F_{\nu}^{\gamma} \sim 5 \times 10^{13}$~Jy~Hz.
280: Previous modeling works of the SEDs of 3C~279 placed the peak
281: of the high-energy component typically at frequencies around
282: $\nu_{\gamma} \sim 10^{23}$~Hz, i.e., about 1 -- 2 orders of magnitude
283: lower than our new estimate, taking the MAGIC results into account.
284: It is this shift of the inferred high-energy peak which will lead to
285: quite dramatically different model implications for both leptonic and
286: hadronic models compared to previous modeling efforts.
287:
288: From the spectral upturn in the UV in the P2-spectrum in
289: Fig. \ref{SED}, we can estimate a thermal (external) photon
290: source with a luminosity of $L_D \sim 2 \times 10^{45}$~erg~s$^{-1}$,
291: peaking at $\nu_D \sim 10^{15}$~Hz ($\epsilon_D \sim 10^{-5}$).
292:
293:
294: \section{\label{leptonic}Implications for Leptonic Jet Models}
295:
296: In this section, we consider whether a one-zone leptonic blazar
297: jet model can account for the February 23, 2006, SED of 3C279.
298: We consider a scenario in which a nonthermal population of ultrarelativistic
299: electrons produces, at the same time, the synchrotron emission from
300: radio through UV and the $\gamma$-ray emission via Compton scattering
301: of soft photons off the relativistic electrons. In general, we will
302: assume that electrons are accelerated into a power-law distribution
303: in electron energy, $Q(\gamma) = Q_0 \, \gamma^{-q}$, in the range
304: $\gamma_1 \le \gamma \le \gamma_2$. The emission region has a radius
305: $R_B \equiv 10^{16} \, R_{16}$~cm. We define an escape time scale
306: parameter $\eta_{\rm esc}$ such that the escape time scale for
307: relativistic electrons is $\tau_{\rm esc} \equiv \eta_{\rm esc}
308: \, R_B/c$. The interplay between radiative
309: cooling and escape leads to the development of a spectral break in
310: the electron spectrum at a Lorentz factor $\gamma_b$, where the
311: radiative cooling time scale equals the escape time scale. If the
312: primarily injected electron distribution has a low-energy cutoff
313: below the break Lorentz factor $\gamma_b$ (the slow cooling regime),
314: the spectral index of the electron distribution at $\gamma < \gamma_b$
315: is $p = q$, while above it the spectrum is steepened to $p = q + 1$.
316: However, given the steep spectral index of the optical spectrum,
317: implying $p = 4.4$ in the electron energy range synchrotron-radiating
318: in the optical regime, a spectral break from $p = 3.4$ to $p = 4.4$
319: would not produce a peak in the $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectrum at the
320: characteristic synchrotron frequency corresponding to $\gamma_b$.
321: Therefore, it is more likely that the injected electron distribution
322: has a high low-energy cutoff at $\gamma_1 > \gamma_b$. In this case,
323: particles at energies $\gamma < \gamma_1$ result only from radiative
324: cooling from higher energies, resulting in an electron spectrum with
325: a spectral index $p = 2$ in the range $\gamma_b \le \gamma \le \gamma_1$,
326: while above $\gamma_1$, we have $p = q + 1$, as in the slow cooling
327: case.
328:
329: \subsection{\label{SSC}SSC model}
330:
331: In the past, VHE emission has only been observed in high-frequency
332: peaked BL Lac objects. In that case, a model interpreting the
333: $\gamma$-ray emission as synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission
334: has proven to be very successful, although recent observations of
335: rapid variability on time scales of a few minutes (\cite{aharonian07}
336: for PKS 2155-304, and \cite{albert07} for Mrk 501) are posing serious
337: challenges to this interpretation \citep[e.g.][]{finke08}, and the
338: VHE emission of the intermediate BL~Lac object W Comae, recently
339: detected by VERITAS \citep{beilicke08} is more plausibly explained
340: by Comptonization of an external radiation field.
341: We point out that previous modeling efforts on 3C279, prior
342: to the MAGIC detection, have concluded that an EC component is
343: strongly preferred to explain the GeV $\gamma$-ray detection
344: \citep{hartman01,bednarek98,sikora01,moderski03}. However, since the MAGIC
345: points provide a yet unexplored new constraint on blazar models for
346: 3C279, it is worthwhile to revisit the SSC hypothesis in this paper.
347:
348: Given the synchrotron origin of the low-frequency peak at $\epsilon_{\rm sy}
349: \sim 4 \times 10^{-7}$ and the SSC origin of the $\gamma$-ray peak
350: at $\epsilon_{\gamma} \sim 10^5$, the Lorentz factor of electrons $\gamma_p$
351: radiating at the synchrotron and SSC peaks, can be estimated from
352:
353: \begin{equation}
354: \gamma_p = \sqrt{\epsilon_{\gamma} \over \epsilon_{\rm sy}} \sim
355: 1.6 \times 10^5.
356: \label{gp}
357: \end{equation}
358:
359: At the same time, the synchrotron peak frequency is given by
360:
361: \begin{equation}
362: \nu_{sy} = 4.2 \times 10^6 \, \gamma_p^2 \, B_G \, D / (1 + z) \; {\rm Hz}
363: \label{nusy}
364: \end{equation}
365: where $B_G$ is the (co-moving) magnetic field in Gauss, and
366: $D \equiv 10 \, D_1 = (\Gamma [ 1 - \beta_{\Gamma}
367: \cos\theta_{\rm obs}])^{-1}$ is the Doppler enhancement
368: factor. This yields an estimate of the magnetic field and
369: the Doppler factor of
370:
371: \begin{equation}
372: B_G \, D_1 \sim 7 \times 10^{-5}.
373: \label{BD}
374: \end{equation}
375: This indicates that such a scenario would imply unrealistically
376: low magnetic fields compared to standard values of $\sim 1$~G found
377: from SED modeling of 3C279 in other states, as well as other blazar-type
378: quasars.
379: Even other known TeV blazars, whose SEDs can usually be well
380: represented with SSC models, typically require magnetic fields of
381: $B \gtrsim 0.1$~G, several orders of magnitude above the estimate
382: found here for 3C279. We therefore conclude that a one-zone SSC model
383: for the SED of 3C279 on February 23, 2006, including the VHE $\gamma$-ray
384: emission is very problematic.
385:
386:
387: \subsection{\label{EC}External Compton}
388:
389: The leptonic external-Compton scenario is based on the assumption that
390: photons from an external, quasi-isotropic radiation field with dimensionless
391: photon energy $\epsilon_s$ are Compton-upscattered to the observed
392: $\gamma$-ray photon energies. As mentioned earlier, if Klein-Nishina
393: effects become important in the production of the VHE emission, the
394: resulting VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum would be even steeper than the
395: observed synchrotron spectrum, in contradiction with the observed
396: VHE spectrum, even when corrected for the lowest plausible level
397: of EBL $\gamma\gamma$ absorption. We therefore consider here only
398: the possibility that the VHE $\gamma$-rays in a leptonic scenario
399: are produced by Thomson scattering.
400: Soft photons can be upscattered effectively in the Thomson regime
401: at most up to energies $\epsilon_{\gamma} = 1 / \epsilon_s$. This
402: indicates that a photon field with a characteristic
403: photon energy of the accretion disk field at $\epsilon_D \sim 10^{-5}$
404: can effectively serve as the seed photon field for upscattering to
405: the observed $> 100$~GeV $\gamma$-rays. We assume that a fraction
406: $\tau_{BLR} \equiv 10^{-1} \tau_{-1}$ of the accretion disk radiation
407: is reprocessed in the broad line region, which is located at an average
408: distance $R_{\rm BLR} \equiv 0.1 \, R_{\rm BLR, -1}$~pc from the central
409: engine. HST near-UV spectroscopy \citep{pian05} indicates that the total
410: luminosity of the BLR in 3C279 is $L_{\rm BLR} \sim \tau_{\rm BLR} \, L_D
411: \sim 2 \times 10^{44}$~erg/s, motivating the above scaling in terms of
412: $\tau_{-1}$. In the co-moving frame, the external photons will thus have
413: a characteristic energy of ${\epsilon'}_s = \Gamma \, \epsilon_s$. In
414: addition to Eq. (\ref{nusy}), we now have an independent estimate for
415: $\gamma_p$, namely
416:
417: \begin{equation}
418: \gamma_p = \sqrt{\epsilon_{\gamma} \over \Gamma^2 \epsilon_D} \sim 10^4
419: \Gamma_1^{-1}.
420: \label{gpec}
421: \end{equation}
422:
423: We can use Eq. (\ref{nusy}) to obtain an estimate for the magnetic
424: field:
425:
426: \begin{equation}
427: B_G = 1.8 \times 10^{-2} \, \Gamma_1^2 \, D_1^{-1}.
428: \label{Bsy}
429: \end{equation}
430:
431: The energy density of external photons in the co-moving frame can be
432: expressed as
433:
434: \begin{equation}
435: {u'}_{\rm ext} \sim {L_D \, \tau_{\rm BLR} \, \Gamma^2 \over
436: 4 \pi R_{\rm BLR}^2
437: \, c}.
438: \label{uext}
439: \end{equation}
440:
441: From the $\gamma$-ray dominance, $L_{\gamma} / L_{\rm sy} \sim {u'}_{\rm ext}
442: / {u'}_B \sim 5$, we can then obtain an independent estimate of the magnetic
443: field of
444:
445: \begin{equation}
446: B_G = 1.0 \, \tau_{-1}^{1/2} \, \Gamma_1 \, R_{\rm BLR, -1}^{-1}.
447: \label{Bgamma}
448: \end{equation}
449: Combining the magnetic field estimates (\ref{Bsy}) and (\ref{Bgamma}),
450: we find
451:
452: \begin{equation}
453: R_{\rm BLR, -1} = 57 \, \tau_{-1}^{1/2}
454: \label{RBLR_B}
455: \end{equation}
456: which is in drastic contrast to the estimate of \cite{pian05} of
457: $R_{\rm BLR} \sim 3 \times 10^{-2}$~pc.
458:
459: Considering the peak level of the synchrotron flux, we can use
460: Eq. (8) of \cite{boettcher03} to relate the magnetic field in the
461: emission region with the equipartition fraction $e_B \equiv {u'}_B
462: / {u'_e}$, i.e., the ratio of co-moving energy densities in the
463: magnetic field and the nonrelativistic electron population:
464:
465: \begin{equation}
466: B_{e_B} = 1.25 \, D_1^{-1} \left({d_{27}^4 \, f_{-10}^2 \, e_B^2 \over
467: [1 + z]^4 \, \epsilon_{\rm sy, -6} \, R_{16}^6 \, [p - 2]} \right)^{1/7}.
468: \label{BeB}
469: \end{equation}
470: Setting this equal to the magnetic-field estimate (\ref{Bsy}) yields
471:
472: \begin{equation}
473: e_B = 9.7 \times 10^{-9} \, R_{16}^3 \, \Gamma_1^7.
474: \label{eB}
475: \end{equation}
476: Consequently, if we choose a conventional value of the Lorentz factor
477: $\Gamma \sim 15$, we find an uncomfortably low magnetic field of $B \sim
478: 0.03$~G, corresponding to $e_B \sim 1.7 \times 10^{-7} \, R_{16}^3$, i.e.,
479: a far sub-equipartition magnetic field. Such a situation would make jet
480: confinement very problematic, and is in contradiction with model results
481: for 3C279 in other observing epochs and for other quasar-type blazars in
482: general, where magnetic fields of typically $B \sim 1$ -- a few G are
483: inferred, in approximate equipartition with the relativistic electron
484: population.
485:
486: Alternatively, forcing the system to attain approximate equipartition
487: would require us to assume an uncomfortably high Lorentz factor of
488: $\Gamma \sim 140 \, R_{16}^{-3/7}$. This choice of a bulk Lorentz
489: (and Doppler) factor would imply $B \sim 0.25$~G, and a low-energy
490: cut-off of the injected electron population at $\gamma_1 = \gamma_p
491: \sim 710 \, R_{16}^{3/7}$. Apart from the fact that this is an
492: order of magnitude larger than bulk Lorentz factors inferred from
493: superluminal motion, it would require an implausibly close alignment
494: of the jet with our line of sight, $\theta_{\rm obs} \sim 0.4^o$.
495: We note that the magnetic-field estimate of Eq. (\ref{Bsy}) carries
496: a proportionality $B \propto (\epsilon_s / \epsilon_{\gamma})$.
497: Since our choice of $\epsilon_s \sim 10^{-5}$ is already close
498: to the largest possible value to allow Thomson scattering to
499: TeV $\gamma$-rays, the assumption of a different soft photon
500: source (necessarily with a smaller $\epsilon_s$) would worsen
501: the problem of the unusually small inferred magnetic field.
502:
503: \begin{figure}
504: \plotone{f3.eps}
505: \caption{Opacity for VHE $\gamma$-ray photons due to $\gamma\gamma$ absorption
506: on the BLR radiation field. The labels denote the location of the $\gamma$-ray
507: emitting region. Other parameters: $L_D = 2 \times 10^{45}$~erg/s, $\Theta_D =
508: 10^{-5}$, $\tau_{\rm BLR} = 0.1$. Heavy (black) curves refer to the value of
509: $R_{\rm BLR, in} = 0.03$~pc as inferred by \cite{pian05} with the outer edge
510: of the BLR, $R_{\rm BLR, out} = 0.031$~pc; light (blue) curves refer to
511: $R_{\rm BLR, in} = 5.7$~pc as inferred from Eq. \ref{RBLR_B} and $R_{\rm BLR, out}
512: = 5.8$~pc. The photon energy $E$ is in the stationary AGN rest frame. }
513: \label{taugg}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: It has been noted by several authors that the $\gamma\gamma$ absorption
517: of VHE $\gamma$-ray photons by the radiation field of the BLR may present
518: another problem for a model of VHE $\gamma$-ray emission inside the BLR of
519: luminous quasars in general \citep[e.g.][]{dp03,reimer07} and 3C279 in particular
520: \citep{liu08,sb08}. We therefore need to investigate the effects of $\gamma\gamma$
521: absorption in the BLR radiation field for the parameters we inferred
522: above. In \cite{bd95}, the time-dependent $\gamma\gamma$ absorption
523: signatures of an accretion disk flare (reflected by BLR clouds) on
524: VHE $\gamma$-ray emission were investigated. We have modified their
525: approach for our purposes, adopting non-variable accretion-disk
526: emission. The standard optically-thick accretion-disk spectrum is
527: approximated by a spectral shape $F_{\epsilon} \propto
528: \epsilon^{1/3} \, e^{-\epsilon / \Theta_D}$, where $\Theta_D \sim 10^{-5}$
529: is the dimensionless inner disk temperature, $\Theta_D = kT_{\rm D, in} /
530: (m_e c^2)$. Fig. \ref{taugg} illustrates the dependence of the $\gamma\gamma$
531: absorption depth as a function of the dimensionless photon energy $\epsilon$
532: and location of the $\gamma$-ray production site. Our results confirm the
533: findings of \cite{liu08}: With standard values of the BLR parameters ,
534: $\tau_{\rm BLR} \sim 0.1$, $R_{\rm BLR} \sim 0.03$~pc, as inferred by
535: \cite{pian05}, VHE $\gamma$-rays produced within the BLR of 3C279 suffer
536: severe $\gamma\gamma$ absorption by the same photon field that would
537: serve as seed photon field for Compton scattering in a leptonic model.
538: For the extreme parameters of $\Gamma \sim 140$, requiring $R_{\rm BLR}
539: \sim 5.7$~pc, $\tau_{\rm BLR} \sim 0.1$, $\gamma\gamma$ absorption would
540: hardly be a problem even out to multi-TeV $\gamma$-ray energies, if the
541: $\gamma$-rays are produced close to the inner boundary of the BLR.
542: Any level of $\gamma\gamma$ absorption in the BLR radiation field
543: would imply an even higher level of intrinsic VHE $\gamma$-ray emission
544: and therefore make the requirements for jet parameters in a one-zone leptonic
545: model even more extreme.
546:
547: \begin{figure}
548: \plotone{f4.eps}
549: \caption{Spectral fits to the SED of 3C279 on February 23, 2006:
550: (solid [red]) using a leptonic External-Compton model with parameters
551: similar to those derived in \S \ref{EC}; (short-dashed [red]) leptonic
552: SSC model fit only to the X-ray -- $\gamma$-ray spectrum. Relevant
553: parameters: $\gamma_1 = 10^4$, $\gamma_2 = 10^6$, $q = 2.3$, $L_{\rm j, e}
554: = 2.2 \times 10^{47}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, $\eta_{\rm esc} = 80$, $R_B =
555: 6 \times 10^{15}$~cm, $\Gamma = D = 20$, $B = 0.2$~G; (dot-dashed
556: [maroon]) fit with the hadronic synchrotron-proton blazar model
557: with internal (synchyrotron) photons only as targets for p$\gamma$
558: pion production, and (long-dashed [maroon]) with synchrotron +
559: external (BLR) photons as targets for p$\gamma$ pion production.
560: See table \ref{SPBparameters} for parameters.}
561: \label{fit}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: The red, solid curve in Fig. \ref{fit} shows a leptonic model
565: calculation with parameters similar to the quasi-equipartition
566: case outlined above. We used an equilibrium version of the
567: time-dependent SSC + EC model of \cite{bc02}. While the
568: optical (synchrotron) spectrum and the level of the VHE $\gamma$-ray
569: flux can be reproduced reasonably well, it is obvious that the X-ray
570: flux is grossly underproduced. This is a consequence of the required,
571: rather large low-energy cutoff at $\gamma_1 \sim 700$. The choice
572: of a substantially lower $\gamma_1$ would extend both the synchrotron
573: and the $\gamma$-ray spectra towards lower frequencies along the slopes
574: of the optical and VHE $\gamma$-ray spectra and would therefore produce
575: unreasonably large infrared and MeV -- GeV $\gamma$-ray fluxes. In
576: addition, it would require a larger jet power and therefore drive
577: the system further out of equipartition (towards far sub-equipartition
578: magnetic fields). Also, even though most of the $> 100$~GeV flux is produced by
579: Compton scattering in the Thomson regime, the resulting VHE $\gamma$-ray
580: spectrum appears to be steeper than the observed one, even with
581: correction for the low EBL level according to \cite{primack05}.
582:
583: We therefore conclude that both the SSC and the external-Compton
584: scenario for a one-zone, homogeneous jet model face severe problems
585: representing the simultaneous SED of 3C279 on February 23, 2006,
586: including the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission.
587:
588: As noted earlier, the VHE $\gamma$-ray flare was not accompanied
589: by any remarkable optical variability. This may be another hint
590: that in 3C279 the optical and VHE $\gamma$-ray fluxes may be produced
591: in separate emission regions. However, the calculation of the
592: $\gamma\gamma$ opacity above indicates that even an inhomogeneous
593: leptonic jet model would face severe problems in an external-Compton
594: scenario. The dashed red curve in Fig. \ref{fit} indicates that
595: an SSC model can successfully reproduce the X-ray -- VHE $\gamma$-ray
596: spectrum with reasonable parameters, but fails to reproduce the
597: optical spectrum. This may indicate support for a multi-zone leptonic
598: model. This would require that the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission is
599: produced far outside the BLR, possibly in an internal shock scenario
600: \citep{spada01,sokolov04}.
601: This is indicated both by the $\gamma\gamma$ opacity argument as well
602: as the low required magnetic field for the SSC fit presented in Fig.
603: \ref{fit}. Such a model would imply that the X-ray emission is produced
604: by low-energy electrons which have undergone substantial radiative
605: cooling. One would therefore predict a delay of X-rays with respect
606: to $\gamma$-rays on the order of the electron cooling time scale,
607:
608: \begin{equation}
609: \tau_{\rm cool, SSC}^{\rm obs} \sim {m_e c^2 \over D \, (4/3) \, c \,
610: \sigma_T \, {u'}_B \, (L_{\rm SSC}/L_{\rm sy}) \, \gamma}.
611: \label{taussc}
612: \end{equation}
613: Using the value of $B = 0.2$~G used for the model shown in Fig. \ref{fit},
614: and scaling the electron energy $\gamma \equiv 10^3 \, \gamma_3$, we find
615: the expected $\gamma$-ray vs. X-ray delay as $\tau \sim 27 \, \gamma_3^{-1}$~hr.
616: We note, however, that an intensive search for inter-band time delays between
617: optical, X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission of 3C279 during the EGRET era by
618: \cite{hartman01b} did not find any evidence for systematic $\gamma$-ray vs.
619: X-ray delays.
620:
621:
622: \section{\label{hadronic}Hadronic Models}
623:
624: If relativistic protons at energies above the threshold for p$\gamma$
625: pion production are present in the jet of 3C~279, hadronic interactions
626: must be considered in blazar emission models. For the present modeling
627: we use the hadronic Synchrotron-Proton Blazar (SPB) model of
628: \cite{muecke01,muecke03}. In its original version, this model was
629: best suited for X-ray selected BL~Lac objects with very weak or
630: absent external radiation fields. However, the quasar 3C~279 is known
631: to have strong accretion disk and BLR line emission (see \S \ref{EC}).
632: We therefore extend the (one-zone) SPB model to account also for target
633: photon fields external to the jet.
634:
635: Relativistic electrons (e) and protons (p) with a power law index
636: $q_e = q_p$ are injected instantaneously into a spherical
637: emission region, or blob, which is moving with relativistic
638: velocity along the jet axis. In the strongly magnetized (with field
639: strength $B =$~const.) blob, the primary electrons lose their energy
640: predominantly through the synchrotron channel. The resulting synchrotron
641: radiation generally dominates the low energy component of the blazar SED,
642: and serves as target photon field for proton-photon interactions and
643: pair (synchrotron) cascading. In our extension of the SPB model we add
644: the photon field from the BLR, simplified as an isotropic distribution
645: in the jet frame \citep[see][for a discussion of this approximation]{reimer05}
646: as an additional target for particle-photon interactions and cascading.
647: We properly take into account the Doppler boost of the average
648: photon energy and photon energy density of the external photon field.
649: In the present work we use the approximation
650: advocated by \cite{tg08} for the BLR radiation field: In the co-moving
651: jet frame a blackbody spectrum with temperature $T' \propto \Gamma
652: \nu_{Ly\alpha}$ ($\nu_{Ly\alpha}$ the Ly$\alpha$ line frequency) is
653: used to approximate the boosted BLR emission from the stationary AGN
654: to the blob frame. Local absorption of $\gamma$-rays \citep{reimer07}
655: external to the emission region is taken into account as well.
656: The injected relativistic protons suffer energy losses from photomeson
657: production, Bethe-Heitler pair production, synchrotron radiation and
658: adiabatic expansion. Charged particles produced as secondaries in the
659: photomeson production channel may suffer synchrotron losses as well
660: prior to their decay. This is particularly relevant for charged
661: pions and muons (henceforth named $\mu$-synchrotron radiation). All
662: high energy photons may initiate pair cascades, which redistributes a
663: fraction of the photon power from high to lower energies where the
664: photons can eventually escape the emission region.
665:
666: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
667: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
668: \tablecaption{Parameters for the hadronic synchrotron-proton blazar
669: model fits to 3C279 (Figs. \ref{fit} and \ref{hfit}) for (2nd col.) internal synchrotron
670: photons only, and (3rd col.) internal synchrotron + external (BLR) photons
671: as targets for p$\gamma$ pion production. }
672: \tablewidth{0pt}
673: \tablehead{
674: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{symbol} & \colhead{SPB (sy.)} & \colhead{SPB (sy. + ext.)} }
675: \startdata
676: Jet power & $L_j$ [erg $s^{-1}$] & $1 \times 10^{49}$ & 6.6 $\times 10^{48}$ \\
677: Doppler factor & $D$ & 12 & 12 \\
678: Blob radius & $R_b$ & $3 \times 10^{16}$~cm & $3 \times 10^{16}$~cm \\
679: Maximum proton energy & $E_{\rm p, max}$ & 5 $\times 10^9$~GeV & $4.5 \times 10^9$~GeV \\
680: Magnetic field & $B$ & 40~G & 60~G \\
681: Particle spectral index & $q_p = q_e$ & 2.2 & 2.2 \\
682: Proton energy density & $u_p$ [erg cm$^{-3}$] & $1.2 \times 10^3$ & 540 \\
683: Electron/proton density ratio & $n_e/n_p$ & $2 \times 10^{-3}$ & $3 \times 10^{-3}$\\
684: Temperature of BLR emission & $kT_{\rm BLR} $ & --- & 3 eV \\
685: BLR photon energy density & $u_{\rm BLR}$ & --- & $10^{-3}$~ergs~cm$^{-3}$ \\
686: BLR radius & $R_{\rm in, BLR}$ & --- & 0.1~pc \\
687: Location of emission region & $R_{\rm em}$ & --- & 0.18~pc \\
688: \enddata
689: \label{SPBparameters}
690: \end{deluxetable}
691:
692: \begin{figure}
693: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
694: \caption{Hadronic fits to the SED of 3C279. Left: Pure synchrotron-proton
695: blazar model with only intrinsic synchrotron photons as targets for
696: p$\gamma$ pion production; right: synchrotron proton blazar model
697: including external photon field from the BLR. See table \ref{SPBparameters}
698: for parameters. Individual radiation components are: dashed: proton
699: synchrotron and cascade; triple-dot-dashed: $\mu$ synchrotron and
700: cascade; dotted: $\pi^0$ cascade; dot-dashed: $\pi^{\pm}$ cascade.}
701: \label{hfit}
702: \end{figure}
703:
704: In the framework of the hadronic SPB model the injection electron
705: spectrum is primarily constrained by the optical and radio data. For
706: $q_e = 2.1$ -- $2.2$ the primary electron synchrotron spectrum
707: above the synchrotron self-absorption turnover shows a rather flat
708: spectrum from the injected particle spectrum, modified by synchrotron
709: losses, followed by a steep tail due to the cutoff of the electron
710: distribution at particle Lorentz factors $\sim 10^3$. The high energy
711: component of the SED of 3C~279 is constrained by the RXTE and MAGIC data.
712: In the SPB model the RXTE data can in general be explained by either
713: proton synchrotron radiation, or a reprocessed/cascade component. The
714: former suggests, however, extremely long loss time scales (of order years
715: for typical field strengths and Doppler factors in the SPB model), which
716: is difficult to reconcile with the observed day-scale variability. We
717: therefore concentrate on the second option of reprocessed radiation dominating
718: the X-ray band. This picture is also strengthened by the softness of the
719: X-ray spectrum, which may indicate the appearance of reprocessed
720: (through $\gamma\gamma$ pair production) radiation in this energy range.
721:
722: The left panel in Fig.~\ref{hfit} shows a typical model fit to the SED
723: of 3C~279 of February 23, 2006, for the case of a negligible external
724: photon field at the location of the $\gamma$-ray emission region. While
725: radiation in the $\gamma$-ray band is dominated by proton and $\mu$
726: synchrotron emission, reprocessed proton synchrotron radiation
727: determines the photon emission in the X-ray band. For the required bulk
728: Doppler factors $D = 10$ -- $14$, and assuming a size of the emission
729: region of order $\sim 10^{16}$~cm, the energy density of the internal jet
730: target photon field amounts to ${u'}_{\rm sy} \sim$ a few $10^{10}$ --
731: $10^{11}$~eV~cm$^{-3}$. With these values, a delay between the TeV and
732: X-ray band of a few days may be explainable. The strong magnetic field
733: strengths of 40 -- 60~G imply losses due to proton synchrotron
734: radiation in the TeV band on hour time scales. Interestingly, all
735: models representing the simultaneous data of February 23, 2006, reasonably
736: well require a cutoff of the injected proton spectrum at a few $10^9$~GeV,
737: which is significantly lower than what is needed for HBL-like TeV-blazars.
738: The injected proton energy density ${u'}_p$ is of the order $10^2-10^3$~erg~cm$^{-3}$,
739: not too far from the equipartition value $u'_{\rm p, equi}$ (here ${u'}_p \approx 2$
740: -- $17 u'_{\rm p, equi}$), and a total jet luminosity (as measured in the galaxy
741: rest frame) of order $10^{48-49}$~erg~s$^{-1}$.
742:
743: If the gamma-ray emission region is rather close to the BLR, the external
744: photon field has to be taken into account as an additional target for
745: particle-photon interactions and pair cascading. The observed line and
746: disk luminosity of 3C~279 implies $\tau_{BLR} \equiv L_{BLR}/L_D
747: \approx 0.08$. The additional target photon field in the optical/UV band
748: leads to enhanced reprocessing in the hadronic model, further softening
749: the spectrum in the X-ray band. Signatures of $\gamma$-ray absorption
750: due to the additional narrow-banded external photon field are clearly
751: visible in the MAGIC energy range. The right panel in Fig. \ref{hfit}
752: shows an example of a model fit representing again the February 23, 2006,
753: data. Proton synchrotron radiation dominates in the $\gamma$-ray band.
754: The reprocessed component is more pronounced here than for the
755: case of internal target photon fields only, which yields a more appropriate
756: description of a potentially steep X-ray spectrum. $\gamma\gamma$
757: absorption of VHE $\gamma$-ray photons in the external radiation field
758: inevitably leads to a steepening of the VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum. The
759: fit shown in Fig. \ref{hfit}b presents an acceptable representation of
760: the MAGIC spectrum. Should a higher EBL level imply a harder intrinsic
761: VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum, this fit could be modified by choosing a lower
762: energy density of the external radiation.
763: Parameter values for
764: hadronic model fits are given in Table \ref{SPBparameters}. For the
765: fit with external photons, the injected proton energy densities are at
766: most a factor 4 above the equipartition value and the required total jet
767: luminosity of $\sim (1$ -- $7) \times 10^{48}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ is somewhat
768: lower than for the case of internal target photon fields only.
769:
770:
771: \section{\label{summary}Summary}
772:
773: We have presented simultaneous optical and X-ray spectral information
774: to the recent MAGIC detection of the quasar-type blazar 3C279 in
775: February 2006. The source was shown to be in an elevated optical
776: state, but showed no substantial optical variability and a rather
777: steep optical spectrum during the MAGIC detection. The GeV -- TeV
778: flare preceded an X-ray flare by about 5 -- 7 days. We have presented
779: the simultaneous broadband (optical - X-ray - VHE $\gamma$-rays)
780: SED of 3C279 and discuss its implication for one-zone leptonic
781: jet models. We found that an SSC model is extremely problematic
782: as it would imply unreasonably low magnetic fields. Also an
783: external-Compton interpretation has problems with an unusually
784: low magnetic field of $B \sim 0.03$~G, implying an equipartition
785: ratio of $e_B \sim 10^{-8}$. Alternatively, approximate
786: equipartition can be achieved with a bulk Lorentz factor
787: of $\Gamma \sim 140 \, R_{16}^{-3/7}$, which appears equally
788: unlikely. These constraints have been inferred for a correction of the
789: VHE spectrum for $\gamma\gamma$ absorption by the lowest plausible
790: EBL model and without taking into account internal $\gamma\gamma$
791: absorption by photons from the accretion disk or the broad-line
792: region. Any higher EBL level or a substantial amount of internal
793: $\gamma\gamma$ absorption would lead to even more extreme
794: constraints.
795:
796: We therefore conclude that a simple homogeneous, one-zone leptonic
797: jet model has serious problems reproducing the SED of 3C279 on
798: February 23, 2006, which includes the recent VHE $\gamma$-ray
799: detection by MAGIC. The lack of correlated optical -- $\gamma$-ray
800: variability suggests, instead, a multi-zone model in which the
801: optical and $\gamma$-ray fluxes are produced in separate regions
802: along the jet. We have shown that a leptonic SSC fit to the X-ray
803: --- VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum alone can be achieved with parameters
804: quite typical for quasar-type blazars.
805:
806: Alternatively, the hadronic synchrotron-proton blazar model is
807: able to provide an acceptable fit to the SED of 3C279. Both a pure
808: synchrotron-proton blazar model (without external photons as targets
809: for p$\gamma$ pion production) and a model with a substantial contribution
810: from external target photons can reproduce the observed SED up to
811: VHE $\gamma$-ray energies very well. If no external photon field is
812: included in the model, the relevant proton synchrotron energy loss
813: time scale is of the order of years and would therefore be inconsistent
814: with the observed day-scale variability if proton synchrotron radiation
815: was dominant in the X-ray regime. This model therefore requires a high
816: internal radiation energy density in order for proton-synchrotron
817: induced cascades to dominate the X-ray emission. Alternatively, an
818: additional target photon contribution from external sources (in particular,
819: the BLR) is able to overcome this problem, and such a model seems to
820: provide an appropriate fit to the observed SED of 3C279 from optical
821: to VHE $\gamma$-rays. However, both versions of the hadronic synchrotron
822: proton blazar model require a rather extreme jet power of
823: $L_j \sim 10^{49}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. For comparison, a multi-zone leptonic
824: model requires a jet power in leptons alone of $L_{\rm j, e} \sim 2.2 \times
825: 10^{47}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. When including an equal number of cold protons,
826: the total jet power requirement increases to $L_{\rm j, tot} \sim 2.6 \times
827: 10^{47}$~erg~s$^{-1}$.
828:
829: We point out that our conclusions are based on rather incomplete
830: frequency coverage during the MAGIC detection, and rely on the apparent
831: similarity of the SED, at least from radio through X-rays, with previously
832: observed high states of 3C279 during the EGRET era. Future simultaneous
833: Fermi LAT and TeV $\gamma$-ray observations (with a detection at $> 100$~GeV
834: $\gamma$-rays) would provide crucial tests to our conjectures put forth in
835: this paper.
836:
837: \acknowledgments
838: The work of M. B\"ottcher and was partially supported by
839: NASA through XMM-Newton GO grant awards NNX07AR88G and
840: NNX08AD67G. The work of A. Marscher was funded in part by
841: the National Science Foundation through grant AST-0406865 and by NASA
842: through RXTE Guest Investigator grant NNX06AG86G and Astrophysical Data
843: Analysis Program grant NNX08AJ64G.
844:
845: \begin{thebibliography}{}
846:
847: \bibitem[Acciari et al.(2008)]{beilicke08}Acciari, V. A., et al., 2008,
848: ApJ, 684, L73
849:
850: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2007)]{aharonian07}Aharonian, F. A., et al.,
851: 2007, ApJ, 664, L71
852:
853: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2007)]{albert07}Albert, J., et al., 2007, ApJ, 669, 862
854:
855: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2008)]{albert08}Albert, J., et al., 2008, Science,
856: vol. 320, no. 5884, p. 1752
857:
858: \bibitem[Bednarek(1998)]{bednarek98}Bednarek, W., 1998, A\&A, 336, 123
859:
860: \bibitem[B\"ottcher \& Dermer(1995)]{bd95}B\"ottcher, M., \& Dermer, C. D., 1995,
861: A\&A, 302, 37
862:
863: \bibitem[B\"ottcher, Mause, \& Schlickeiser(1997)]{bms97}B\"ottcher, M.,
864: Mause, H., \& Schlickeiser, R., 1997, A\&A, 324, 395
865:
866: \bibitem[B\"ottcher \& Bloom(2000)]{bb00}B\"ottcher, M., \& Bloom, S. D., 2000,
867: AJ, 119, 469
868:
869: \bibitem[B\"ottcher \& Chiang(2002)]{bc02}B\"ottcher, M., \& Chiang, J.,
870: 2002, ApJ, 581, 127
871:
872: \bibitem[B\"ottcher et al.(2003)]{boettcher03}B\"ottcher, M., et al., 2003, ApJ,
873: 596, 847
874:
875: \bibitem[B\"ottcher(2007a)]{boettcher07a}B\"ottcher, M., 2007a, in proc.
876: ``The Multimessenger Approach to Gamma-Ray Sources'', ApSS, 309, 95
877:
878: \bibitem[B\"ottcher et al.(2007b)]{boettcher07b}B\"ottcher, M., et al., 2007, ApJ,
879: 670, 970
880:
881: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2008)]{chat08}Chatterjee, R., et al., 2008, ApJ, 689, in
882: press (arXiv:0808.2194)
883:
884: \bibitem[Collmar et al.(2004)]{collmar04}Collmar, W., et al., 2004, in proc.
885: ``The INTEGRAL Universe'', Eds. G. Lichti, V. Sch\"onfelder, \& C. Winkler,
886: ESA-SP 552, p. 555
887:
888: \bibitem[Collmar et al.(2007)]{collmar07}Collmar, W., et al., 2007, in proc.
889: ``The Obscured Universe'', Eds. S. Grebenev, R. Sunyaev, \& C. Winkler,
890: ESA-SP 662, p. 207
891:
892: \bibitem[Donea \& Protheroe(2003)]{dp03}Donea, A.-C., \& Protheroe, R. J.,
893: 2003, Astrop. Phys., vol. 18, Issue 4, p. 377
894:
895: \bibitem[Finke, Dermer \& B\"ottcher(2008)]{finke08}Finke, J. D.,
896: Dermer, C. D., \& B\"ottcher, M., 2008, ApJ, 686, 181
897:
898: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(1996)]{hartman96}Hartman, R. C., et al.,
899: 1996, ApJ, 461, 698
900:
901: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(1999)]{hartman99}Hartman, R. C., et al.,
902: 1999, ApJS, 123, 79
903:
904: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(2001a)]{hartman01}Hartman, R. C., et al.,
905: 2001a, ApJ, 553, 683
906:
907: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(2001b)]{hartman01b}Hartman, R. C., et al.,
908: 2001b, ApJ, 558, 583
909:
910: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2008)]{liu08}Liu, H. T., Bai, J. M., \& Ma, L., 2008,
911: ApJ, in press (arXiv:0807.3133)
912:
913: \bibitem[Marscher(2008)]{marscher08}Marscher, A. P., in proc. of ``Workshop
914: on Blazar Variability across the Electromagnetic Spectrum'', Palaiseau, France,
915: 2008, in press
916:
917: \bibitem[Maraschi et al.(1994)]{maraschi94}Maraschi, L., et al., 1994,
918: ApJ, 435, L91
919:
920: \bibitem[Moderski et al.(2003)]{moderski03}Moderski, R., Sikora, M.,
921: Blazejowski, M., 2003, A\&A, 406, 855
922:
923: \bibitem[M\"ucke \& Protheroe(2001)]{muecke01}M\"ucke, A., \& Protheroe, R. J.,
924: 2001, Astropart. Phys., 15, 121
925:
926: \bibitem[M\"ucke et al.(2003)]{muecke03}M\"ucke, A., Protheroe, R. J.,
927: Engel, R., Rachen, J. P., \& Stanev, T., 2003, Astropart. Phys.,
928: 18, 593
929:
930: \bibitem[Pian et al.(1999)]{pian99}Pian, E., et al., 1999, ApJ, 521, 112
931:
932: \bibitem[Pian et al.(2005)]{pian05}Pian, E., Falomo, R., \& Treves, A.,
933: 2005, MNRAS, 361, 919
934:
935: \bibitem[Primack et al.(2005)]{primack05}Primack, J. R., Bullock, J. S.,
936: \& Somerville, R. S., in ``High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy'', AIP Conf.
937: Series, F. Aharonian, H. Voelk, D. Horns, Eds. (AIP, Heidelberg, 2005),
938: vol. 745, p. 23
939:
940: \bibitem[Reimer, B\"ottcher \& Postnikov(2005)]{reimer05}Reimer, A.,
941: B\"ottcher, M., \& Postnikov, S., 2005, ApJ, 630, 186
942:
943: \bibitem[Reimer(2007)]{reimer07}Reimer, A., 2007, ApJ, 665, 1023
944:
945: \bibitem[Sikora et al.(2001)]{sikora01}Sikora, M., Blazejowski, M.,
946: Begelman, M. C., \& Moderski, R., 2001, ApJ, 554, 1;
947: Erratum: ApJ, 561, 1154 (2001)
948:
949: \bibitem[Sitarek \& Bednarek(2008)]{sb08}Sitarek, J., \& Bednarek, W.,
950: 2008, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:0807.4228)
951:
952: \bibitem[Sokolov, Marscher \& McHardy(2004)]{sokolov04}Sokolov, A.,
953: Marscher, A. P., \& McHardy, I. M., 2004, ApJ, 613, 725
954:
955: \bibitem[Spada et al.(2001)]{spada01}Spada, M., Ghisellini, G.,
956: Lazzati, D., \& Celotti, A., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559
957:
958: \bibitem[Stecker, Malkan, \& Scully(2006)]{stecker06}Stecker, F. W.,
959: Malkan, M. A., \& Scully, S. T., 2006, ApJ, 648, 774
960:
961: \bibitem[Tavecchio \& Ghisellini(2008)]{tg08}Tavecchio, F., \& Ghisellini, G.,
962: 2008, MNRAS, 385, L98
963:
964: \bibitem[Wehrle et al.(1998)]{wehrle98}Wehrle, A. E., et al., 1998, ApJ,
965: 497, 178
966:
967:
968: \end{thebibliography}
969:
970: \end{document}
971:
972: