1: %&latex
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}
4: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Spectrum of two component flows around a super-massive black hole: an application to M87}
9:
10: \author {Samir Mandal\altaffilmark{1} and Sandip K. Chakrabarti\altaffilmark{2,1}}%$^{2,1}$}
11:
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Indian Centre for Space Physics, Chalantika 43, Garia Station Rd.,\\
13: Garia, Kolkata, 700084, e-mail: samir@csp.res.in}%\\
14: \altaffiltext{2}{ S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,\\
15: JD Block, Salt Lake, Sector III, Kolkata 700098, e-mail: chakraba@bose.res.in}%\\
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We calculate the spectra of two-component accretion flows around black holes of
19: various masses, from quasars to nano-quasars.
20: Specifically, we fit the observational data of
21: M87 very satisfactorily using our model and find that the
22: spectrum may be well fitted by a sub-Keplerian component alone, and
23: there is little need of any Keplerian component. The non-thermal distribution of
24: electrons produced by their acceleration across the standing shock in the sub-Keplerian
25: component is enough to produce the observed flat spectrum through the synchrotron radiation.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \keywords{Black hole Physics -- shock waves -- hydrodynamics -- accretion, accretion disks
29: --- acceleration of particles -- Galaxies: Individual: Messier Number: M87}
30:
31: \section{Introduction}
32: The general view of the physics of the quasars and active galactic nuclei (AGN) is that their energy output is due to
33: accretion of matter on to a massive black hole (e.g., Blandford 1991; Antonucci 1993 and references therein).
34: Analysis of the spectrum is very important in understanding the physical nature of the underlying flow.
35: The observed spectral and timing properties of galactic black holes indicate that the accretion
36: flow around a black hole may have two components (Smith et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2002; Choudhury \& Rao 2004;
37: Pottschmidt et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2007):
38: an optically thick and geometrically thin Keplerian accretion disk (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973) on
39: the equatorial plane and an optically thin sub-Keplerian flow (Chakrabarti \& Titarchuk 1995;
40: Chakrabarti \& Mandal 2006) sandwiching the Keplerian disk. The Keplerian disk produces a
41: multi-colour black body spectrum and the soft photons from the Keplerian disk are inverse Comptonized
42: by a hot electron cloud close to the black hole. In the literature many proposals have been put forward
43: for the Comptonizing region (Sunyaev \& Titarchuk 1980; Sunyaev \& Titarchuk 1985; Haardt 1994;
44: Poutanen \& Svensson 1996) which are
45: ranging from hot Compton cloud to corona above accretion Keplerian disks.
46: In a departure from this approach, Chakrabarti \& Titarchuk (1995) proposed that both the so-called
47: Compton cloud and soft-photon supplier are in fact dynamically important components.
48: This model has a hot region produced due to a shock transition in presence of the centrifugal force
49: in the sub-Keplerian flow and is known as the CENBOL (CENtrifugal pressure
50: supported BOundary Layer). In the present model, the CENBOL is responsible for producing the high-energy
51: spectrum from an accretion disk. This two-component nature of the accretion disk can be treated as a general
52: model where the accretion rates of both the components can be varied
53: independently and the model should be applicable for all the black hole candidates
54: (belonging to the usual quasars and AGNs to nano-quasars or stellar mass black holes).
55: It is well known that the big-blue bump in an AGN spectrum is
56: the signature of the Keplerian disk and a number of spectra from the core of AGNs have been
57: successfully fitted (Sun \& Malkan 1989) by a standard disk model.
58: On the other hand, an object such as M87 does not seem to have the big-blue bump in its spectrum and one
59: should require only a hot electron component, such as a sub-Keplerian flow, to interpret the observed spectrum.
60: Fortunately, the same CENBOL component is capable of launching an outflow (Chakrabarti, 1999) which manifests
61: itself as a strong jet coming out of a region from within a few tens of Schwarzschild radii
62: (Junor, Biretta \& Livio, 1999). The predicted profiles of the lines emitted
63: from the sub-Keplerian component also seem to agree with observed profiles from HST (Chakrabarti, 1995).
64:
65: In this {\it Letter}, we calculate the spectra of two-component accretion disks around
66: stellar mass to super-massive black holes. This helps us to
67: understand the basic functions of the components of the flow from an unifying view by varying only the mass.
68: We then apply our model to the case of M87 by considering a purely sub-Keplerian disk around it.
69: The paper is organized in the following way: In \S 2, we describe the model properties
70: and the general nature of the spectrum. In \S 3, we explain the spectrum of M87 and finally,
71: in \S 4, we present our concluding remarks.
72:
73: \section{Model properties and the general nature of the spectrum from a two-component flow}
74:
75: We consider a vertically averaged two-component flow around a Schwarzschild black hole.
76: The black hole geometry is described by a pseudo-Newtonian potential (Paczy\'nski \& Wiita 1980) and the
77: vertical height of the accretion disk at any radial distance has been calculated by balancing the vertical component of
78: gravitational force with the gas pressure (Chakrabarti 1989). The radial distance is measured in units of the
79: Schwarzschild radius ($r_g=2GM/c^2$), where $G$ is gravitational constant, $M$ is mass of the black hole
80: and $c$ is speed of light. The parameters of our model are: the shock location ($x_s$), the compression ratio ($R$)
81: of the shock (i.e., the ratio of the post-shock to pre-shock densities),
82: the fraction of electrons having non-thermal distribution of energy ($\xi$) and the accretion rates
83: of the Keplerian (${\dot m}_d$) and the sub-Keplerian halo (${\dot m}_h$) components.
84: The accretion rates are measured in units of the Eddington rates ($0.2 M_\odot/year$ for $10^8 M_\odot$ black hole).
85: In the absence of a satisfactory description of magnetic fields inside the accretion disk,
86: we consider the presence of only stochastic fields and use the
87: ratio of the magnetic field energy density to the gravitational energy density to be a parameter ($\beta$). We have taken
88: $\beta=1.0$ throughout this paper.
89: The condition of the plasma at the outer boundary of the accretion disk is uncertain
90: because the processes of feeding a black hole are not well-known. It depends on the type of the donor star
91: (Bath \& Shaviv 1976) supplying matter in a compact binary or the condition of the ISM for AGN.
92: We have fixed the outer boundary at
93: $x_{in}=10^6 r_g$. The injection temperatures of the electron and proton for stellar-mass black hole
94: are given by the adiabatic Bondi (1952) solution i.e., $T_{in}=1.6\times10^6 K$ which is consistent with the value found in the
95: literature (Tavani \& Brookshaw 1995). However, for AGNs, the outer
96: boundary of the accretion disk could be cooler than that around a stellar-mass
97: black hole as it contains the molecular or partially ionized gas. The temperature
98: of the ionized gas lies in the range $(1.0 - 1.7)\times10^4 K$ (Wilson \& Storchi-Bergmann 1997).
99: As a example, we have taken the temperature at the outer boundary for a super-massive black hole as $T_{in}=1.6\times10^4 K$.
100: In the case of M87, the existence of an ionized disk has been discussed in the literature (Ford et al. 1994; Harms et al. 1994).
101: In our model, we consider all the radiation processes, namely bremsstrahlung, synchrotron and Compton scattering.
102: Since the shocks are the natural outcome of a sub-Keplerian flow,
103: we consider that the pre-shock electrons follow a pure thermal distribution while the post-shock flow is a
104: mixture of thermal and non-thermal electrons. This is because some electrons would be accelerated due to
105: usual back and forth diffusion and compression across the shock (see, Mandal \& Chakrabarti 2005 and references therein).
106: The slope ($p=\frac{R+2}{R-1})$ of the non-thermal distribution depends on the compression ratio
107: ($R$) and it produces a synchrotron spectrum of power-law
108: index [$\alpha=(1-p)/2$] with a sharp cut-off determined by the Lorentz factor ($\gamma$) of the accelerated electrons.
109: We have taken this effect also in calculating the spectrum from the accretion disk.
110:
111: AGNs are known to have very strong jets and in the core/nuclear region these jets are not separable from
112: the accretion disk. So, the spectrum from the core will always have some contribution from the jet.
113: There could be several hot regions which emit radio, optical and x-ray radiation along the jet but these regions are
114: separable from the nucleus. Understanding these high energy emissions require separate physical processes
115: which are outside the scope of the present work.
116: In our present calculation we are mainly interested the spectrum from the nucleus and have used a simplified
117: model for the jet and added this contribution to the spectrum from the accretion disk.
118: We have assumed that 10\% of matter from the accretion disk is launched from the
119: location of the CENBOL as jet with the same temperature as that of CENBOL. We have taken a cylindrical jet and solve the
120: energy equations along the jet. The jet is assumed to cool down due to synchrotron emission.
121:
122: In Fig. 1 we show a typical accretion disk spectrum for a stellar
123: mass black hole (the so-called nano-quasar) to a super-massive black hole (quasar) with all the
124: components computed from our model. The parameters are: $x_s=20.0, R=2.5, \xi=0.01, \gamma=2.7\times10^2,
125: {\dot m}_d=0.5, {\dot m}_h=0.1$.
126: The contribution from the bremsstrahlung radiation is negligible for a stellar-mass black hole but it is significant
127: for a super-massive black hole due to a lower temperature and larger emitting volume of the accretion disk. The
128: pre-shock synchrotron radiation is huge for a stellar-mass black hole due to the large injection temperature whereas
129: it is insignificant for a super-massive black hole. The Comptonized spectrum of the black body
130: photons gets harder as the black hole mass increases.
131: This is due to fact that for the same value of accretion rate (in Eddington unit) the density of the flow goes down
132: with the mass and hence the optical depth of the flow decreases. But the Comptonized spectrum of the synchrotron photons
133: becomes softer with the increase of the black hole mass. The ratio ($\epsilon$) of the photon energy density to the
134: magnetic energy density represents the relative contribution of the inverse-Compton process.
135: We find that for the stellar mass black hole $\epsilon=0.26$ whereas for the super-massive case $\epsilon=0.01$ only.
136: The jet, which is emitted from CENBOL,
137: can have a big contribution in the radio range for the super-massive case due to its large volume.
138: So, the radio emission from the nucleus of the AGN will be contributed by the jets.
139: We also note a frequency shift towards the lower end as the potential energy release itself decreases with increasing
140: mass. Though generally speaking, the spectrum of a super-massive black hole will have all the components of that of
141: a stellar mass black hole, we show below that M87 could be fitted by considering a pure sub-Keplerian flow as
142: it does not seem to have a so-called Big Blue Bump. This was also noted by Perlman et al. (2001).
143:
144: \section{Application to M87}
145:
146: The elliptical galaxy M87 contains a super-massive black hole of mass $M = (3.2 \pm 0.9)\times 10^9 M_\odot $
147: (Macchetto et al. 1997) at the centre and the inclination angle of the accretion disk with the line of sight is
148: $ i= (42 \pm 5)^\circ$ (Ford et al. 1994; Chakrabarti, 1995). It is a low luminosity AGN located in the Virgo cluster
149: at a distance of $ D = (16 \pm 1.2) Mpc $ (Tonry et al. 2001) having a prominent one-sided jet.
150: The central luminosity of the accretion disk is $\sim 10^{42}$ ergs/s (Biretta, Stern \& Harris, 1991)
151: which is at least two orders of magnitude below the luminosity expected for a standard thin
152: accretion disk accreting at the Bondi rate $\dot M_B = 0.1 M_\odot \ yr^{-1}$
153: (Di Matteo et al. 2003). In the literature, different explanations for the low luminosity of M87 have been given.
154: %The plasma micro-instabilities can reduce any large temperature gradient between the electrons and ions
155: %producing a cool disk.
156: The wave-particle resonance can efficiently couple the electrons and
157: ions (Begelman \& Chiueh 1988; Bisnovatyi-Kogan \& Lovelace 2000; Quataert 1998; Quataert \&
158: Gruzinov 1999; Blackman 1999) to produce a geometrically thin cool disk.
159: Jolley \& Kuncic (2007) argued that this low luminosity is due to a thin cool disk accreting matter in a
160: very low rate. On the other hand, if the coupling between electrons and ions are unable to equilibrate
161: them within the infall time-scale and if the ions are preferentially heated by viscous dissipation,
162: the accreting matter cannot radiate its internal energy before reaching the black hole. This leads to
163: a Radiatively Inefficient Accretion Flow (RIAF) (Narayan \& Yi 1994). According to this model the low
164: luminosity is due to low radiative efficiency (Di Matteo et al. 2000) rather than a low mass accretion rate.
165: But our approach is different from the above two in the sense that our accretion disk is neither a cool Keplerian
166: disk because the observation data shows a flat spectrum rather than a blue bump nor a RIAF. Ours is
167: simply a sub-Keplerian transonic flow (Chakrabarti, 1990) which is equipped with a standing shock wave.
168: This is fundamentally inefficient as the infall time is too short.
169: The observed luminosity from the nucleus is likely to be less
170: than the total accretion power because most of the energy is carried inside the
171: black hole (In fact, a perfectly stable solution will exist even if the energy loss is zero.)
172: and rest is used to power the jet. In the case of M87 the total kinetic power of the jet
173: is estimated to be $\sim 2 \times 10^{43}$ ergs/s (Reynolds et al. 1996).
174: Also, the jet is produced from a central region not more than a few tens of $r_g$ (Junor, Biretta \& Livio 1999)
175: which is expected from our CENBOL paradigm for the origin of jet (Chakrabarti, 1999).
176: There are several works in the literature which favor the sub-Keplerian flow scenario.
177: For example, it is believed that the low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions
178: (LINER) of M87 are produced due to the shock excitation in a dissipative accretion (Dopita et al. 1997).
179: Chakrabarti (1995) calculated the velocity field of the ionized disk using a spiral shock solution and comparing the
180: shapes of the line profiles expected from various regions of the ionized disk with the HST observation data, the
181: mass of the central object of M87 was found to be $M = (4.0 \pm 0.2)\times 10^9 M_\odot$ which is consistent
182: with the presently accepted value.
183:
184: We have collected the broadband (radio, optical to x-ray) data from several previous works (Ho, 1999; Reimer et al. 2004)
185: in the literature. The details are given in Table 1. In Fig. 2, we fitted these data by our model.
186: We chose the parameters to be $M = 3.2\times 10^9 M_\odot, x_s= 10.0, R=2.5, \gamma=2.7\times10^2,
187: \xi=0.006, {\dot m}_h=0.3$ to fit the data. The upper limit of the Keplerian disk rate is found to be
188: ${\dot m}_d = 0.001$ for any decent fit. This indicates that the Keplerian disk is not important for M87
189: and the bulk motion Comptonization effect is negligible due to the small accretion rate required.
190: The jet has a large contribution in the radio range due to high electron temperature and large volume.
191: The low energy data are well fitted by the thermal synchrotron radiation from the jet and the synchrotron emission
192: produced by the cool pre-shock flow is insignificant. But the radio data (open triangles)
193: which have a very high spatial resolution are very close to the pre-shock synchrotron spectrum. This radio contribution
194: may be due to the accretion disk or it may be due the different observation epoch when the radio activity in the jet
195: is very dim. The bremsstrahlung radiation has a small contribution only in the soft x-ray range.
196: A shock of compression ratio $R=2.5$ produces a non-thermal synchrotron spectrum of slope ($\alpha+1$) which explains
197: the flat part ($\alpha+1=0$ for $R=2.5$) of the observed spectrum.
198: This is consistent with the previous finding that at this $R$, the outflow rate is also most significant (Chakrabarti, 1999).
199: The sharp cut-off in the synchrotron spectrum is due to cut-off in the non-thermal distribution of electrons
200: and it is determined by the value of $\gamma$ mentioned above.
201: The synchrotron self-Comptonized spectrum due to non-thermal electrons matches with the Chandra data which measures the
202: core luminosity very accurately. We find the total bolometric luminosity of the nucleus as $9\times10^{42}$ ergs/sec.
203: Most of the model of M87 are based on the emission from the jet only but we have shown that the spectrum from the nucleus
204: can be understood by an accretion disk model with a contribution from the jet in the radio range. The acceleration
205: of electrons to a relativistic energy and the role of the relativistic electrons in producing the high energy emission
206: from the jet may be important to study the spectra from the knots.
207:
208: \section{Concluding remarks}
209:
210: In the {\it Letter}, we calculated the spectra from generalized two-component advective accretion disks
211: located around stellar mass and super-massive black holes. Specifically, we applied our method for the AGN M87,
212: perhaps the most massive black hole candidate known. We find that only the sub-Keplerian
213: component is enough to describe the black hole spectrum very satisfactorily.
214: In a sub-Keplerian disk, the flow is almost freely falling and the infall time
215: scale for M87 in the CENBOL region ($\sim$ tens of $r_g$) is order of few months. Not surprisingly, the observed
216: variability of the core of M87 in optical/X-ray wavelength is reported to be of the order of a few months
217: (Perlman et al. 2003; Harris, Biretta \& Junor 1997), supporting our view. For a Keplerian disk
218: the viscous time scale would be a few orders of magnitude higher. Out fit
219: with a sub-Keplerian flow alone is excellent. What
220: is more, since the shocks are produced in sub-Keplerian flows, the shock-acceleration provides a natural explanation
221: for the flat spectrum. The jets which are produced from CENBOL also contribute to the radio emission.
222: The non-thermal tail due to Comptonization of the synchrotron photons fits the Chandra data and we
223: believe that it extends at least a few tens of MeV. At higher energies, one may have to consider the hadronic
224: interactions which is beyond the scope of the present {\it Letter}.
225:
226: \acknowledgments
227: We are thankful to an anonymous referee for making very constructive comments.
228: This work is supported by the DST Fast Track Young Scientist Project (SR/FTP/PS-21/2006).
229:
230: \begin{thebibliography}{}
231: \bibitem[]{172}Antonucci, R. 1993, ARAbiA, 31, 473
232: \bibitem[]{172}Bath, G.T., \& Shaviv, G. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 305
233: \bibitem[]{173}B\"{a}\"{a}th, L.B., et al. 1992, A\&A, 257, 31
234: \bibitem[]{173}Begelman, M.C., \& Chiueh, T. 1988, ApJ, 332, 872
235: \bibitem[]{174}Biretta, J.A., Stern, C.P., \& Harris, D.E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1632
236: \bibitem[]{175}Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G.S., \& Lovelace, R.V.E. 2000, ApJ, 529, 978
237: \bibitem[]{176}Blackman, E.G. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 723
238: \bibitem[]{177}Blandford, R.D. 1991, Physics of AGN, Proceedings of Heidelberg Conference, Springer-Verlag,
239: eds. W. J. Duschl and S. J. Wagner, p. 3
240: \bibitem[]{176}Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195
241: \bibitem[]{179}Chakrabarti, S.K. 1989, ApJ, 347, 365
242: \bibitem[]{179}Chakrabarti, S.K. 1990, Theory of Transonic Astrophysical Flows, World Scientific, Singapore
243: \bibitem[]{180}Chakrabarti, S.K. 1995, ApJ, 441, 576
244: \bibitem[]{181}Chakrabarti, S.K. 1999, A\&A, 351, 185
245: \bibitem[]{182}Chakrabarti, S.K., \& Mandal, S. 2006, ApJ, 642, L49
246: \bibitem[]{183}Chakrabarti, S.K., \& Titarchuk, L.G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 623
247: \bibitem[]{184}Choudhury, M., \& Rao, A.R. 2004, 616, L143
248: \bibitem[]{186}Di Matteo, T., Quataert, E., Allen, S.W., Narayan, R., \& Fabian, A.C. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 507
249: \bibitem[]{185}Di Matteo, T. et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, 133
250: \bibitem[]{187}Dopita, M.A. et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 202
251: \bibitem[]{188}Ford et al. 1994, ApJ, 435, 27
252: \bibitem[]{189}Haardt, F. 1994, PhD, SISSA, Trieste
253: \bibitem[]{189}Harms, R.J. et al. 1994, ApJ, 435, L35
254: \bibitem[]{189}Harris, D.E., Biretta, J.A., \& Junor, W. 1997, MNRAS, 284, L21
255: \bibitem[]{189}Ho, L.C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 672
256: \bibitem[]{190}Jolley, E.J.D., \& Kuncic, Z. 2007, Astrophysics \& Space Science, 311, 257
257: \bibitem[]{191}Junor, W., Biretta, J.A., \& Livio, M. 1999, Nature, 401, 891
258: \bibitem[]{192}Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D.J., Capetti, A., Sparks, W., \& Crane, P. 1997, ApJ, 489, 579
259: \bibitem[]{193}Mandal, S., \& Chakrabarti, S.K. 2005, A\&A, 434, 839
260: \bibitem[]{193}Maoz, D., Nagar, N. M., Falcke, H., \& Wilson, A. S. 2005, ApJ, 625, 699
261: \bibitem[]{193}Maoz, D., Filippenko, A.V., Ho, L.c., Macchetto, F.D., Rix, H.W., \& Schneider, D.P. 1996, ApJS, 107, 215
262: \bibitem[]{194}Narayan R., \& Yi I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13
263: \bibitem[]{195}Paczy\'nski, B., \& Wiita, P.J. 1980, A \& A 88, 23
264: \bibitem[]{196}Perlman, E.s., Harris, D.E., Biretta, J.A., Sparks, W.B., \& Macchetto, F.D. 2003, ApJ, 599, L65
265: \bibitem[]{197}Perlman, E.S., Sparks, W.B., Radomski, J., Packham, C., Fisher, R.S., Pi\~na, R., \& Biretta, J.A.
266: 2001, ApJ, 561, L51
267: \bibitem[]{196}Perlman, E.s., \& Wilson, A.S. 2005, ApJ, 627, 140
268: \bibitem[]{198}Pottschmidt, K., Chernyakova, M., Zdziarski, A.A., Lubi\'nski, P., Smith, D.M., \& Bezayiff, N. 2006,
269: A\&A, 452, 285
270: \bibitem[]{198}Poutanen, J. \& Svensson, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249
271: \bibitem[]{200}Quataert, E. 1998, ApJ, 500, 978
272: \bibitem[]{199}Quataert, E., \& Gruzinov, A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 248
273: \bibitem[]{202}Reid, M.J., Biretta, J.A. Junor, W. Muxlow, T.W.B., \& Spencer, R.E. 1989, ApJ, 336, 112
274: \bibitem[]{202}Reimer, A., Protheroe, R.J., \& Donea, A.-C. 2004, A\&A, 419, 89
275: \bibitem[]{201}Reynolds, C.S. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 873
276: \bibitem[]{203}Shakura, N.I., \& Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337
277: \bibitem[]{204}Smith, D.M., Dawson, D.M., \& Swank, J.H. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1138
278: \bibitem[]{205}Smith, D.M., Heindl, W.A., Marketed, C.B., \& Swank, J.H. 2001, ApJ, 554, 41
279: \bibitem[]{206}Smith, D.M., Heindl, W.A., \& Swank, J.H. 2002, ApJ, 569, 362,
280: \bibitem[]{206}Sparks, W.B., Biretta, J.A., \& Macchetto, F. 1996, ApJ, 473, 254
281: \bibitem[]{206}Spencer, R.E., \& Junor, W. 1986, Nature, 321, 753
282: \bibitem[]{206}Stiavelli, M., Peletier, R.F., \& Carollo, C.M. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 181
283: \bibitem[]{207}Sun, W.H., \& Malkan, M.A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 68
284: \bibitem[]{208}Sunyaev, R.A., \& Titarchuk, L.G. 1980 A\&A, 86, 121
285: \bibitem[]{209}Sunyaev, R.A., \& Titarchuk, L.G. 1985 A\&A, 143, 374
286: \bibitem[]{208}Tavani, M., \& Brookshaw, L. 1995, ASP Conf. Series, 72, 139
287: \bibitem[]{208}Tonry, J.L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681
288: \bibitem[]{208}Wilson, A.S., Binette, L., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1997, ApJ, 482, L131
289:
290: \end{thebibliography}{}
291:
292: \clearpage
293: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
294: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Data for the Nucleus of M87. \label{tbl -1}}
295: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead {\colhead{$\nu$} & \colhead{$\nu F_{\nu}$}
296: & \colhead{Resolution} & \colhead{Instrument} & \colhead{Observation Year} & \colhead{Reference$^d$}\\
297: Log(Hz) & Log(Jy Hz) & (\arcsec) }
298: \startdata
299: %\cutinhead{}
300: 9.166 & $9.732\pm 0.016$ & 1.2 &VLA &1985 March 1 & 1\\
301: 9.22 & $9.217^a$ & 0.005 &VLBI &1984 April 6 & 2,3\\
302: 9.689 & $10.22\pm 0.01$ & 1.2 &VLA &1982 March 2 & 1\\
303: 10.17 & $10.65\pm 0.01$ & 1.2 &VLA &1982 March 2 & 1\\
304: 10.34 & $9.681^a$ & 0.00015&VLBI & 1986 & 2,4\\
305: 11.0 & $10.94^a$ & 0.0001 & VLBI &1989 March 23 & 2,5 \\
306: 13.44 & $11.67\pm 0.02$ & 0.5 & Gemini &2001 May 3 & 6\\
307: 14.13 & $11.49\pm 0.1$ & 0.291 &UKIRT &1994 June 4 & 7\\
308: 14.378 & $11.767\pm 0.103$ & 0.27 &ESO/MPI &1993 May 31 & 7\\
309: 14.78 & $11.79\pm 0.08^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
310: 14.91 & $11.57\pm 0.08^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
311: 14.958 & $11.204\pm 0.004$ & 0.0284 &ACS, HST &2003 March 31 & 9\\
312: 15.07 & $11.146\pm 0.003$ & 0.0284 &ACS, HST &2003 March 31 & 9\\
313: 15.11 & $11.31\pm 0.08^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
314: 15.11 & $11.48^a$ & 0.05 & FOC, HST &1991 April 5 & 2,10 \\
315: 15.28 & $11.11\pm 0.079^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
316: 15.30 & $11.21\pm 0.079^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
317: 15.38 & $11.59\pm 0.079^b$ & 0.022 &FOC, HST & 1991 & 8\\
318: 16.68 & $10.53\pm 0.06^c$ & 0.54 &Chandra &2000 July 20 & 11\\
319: 17.38 & $10.92\pm 0.04$ & 4.0 &HRI, Einstein Observatory &1979 July 5 & 1\\
320: %17.38 & $10.411^b$ & 0.54 & Chandra &2000 July 20 & 8\\
321: 18.38 & $10.24\pm 0.08^c$ & 0.54 &Chandra &2000 July 20 & 11\\
322: \enddata
323: \tablenotetext{a}{Reanalyzed flux densities (ref. 2) from the data given in corresponding cross references
324: (ref. 3, 4, 5, 10 respectively) and no mention of error-bars.}
325: \tablenotetext{b}{The formal flux uncertainty of 20\% has been converted into error-bar.}
326: \tablenotetext{c}{The flux in the frequency range ($4.8\times10^{16}-2.4\times10^{18}$) Hz has been calculated from the
327: flux ($1.07\times10^{-7}$ Jy) at 1 Kev with a slope $\alpha=1.23 \pm 0.11$.}
328: \tablenotetext{d}{References:- (1) Biretta et a. 1991. (2) Ho 1999. (3) Reid et al. 1989 (4) Spencer \& Junor 1986.
329: (5) B\"{a}\"{a}th et al. 1992. (6) Perlman et al. 2001. (7) Stiavelli et al. 1997. (8) Sparks et al. 1996.
330: (9) Maoz et al. 2005. (10) Maoz et al. 1996. (11) Perlman et al. 2005.}
331:
332: \end{deluxetable}
333:
334: \clearpage
335:
336: %\newpage
337: \vfil\eject
338: \begin{figure}
339: \plotone{f1.eps}
340: \caption{The general nature of the two-component advective disk spectrum.
341: The curves are drawn for different black hole masses (marked) with a same set of flow
342: parameters. The value of the flow parameters are given in the text. The meaning of the curves are:
343: 1 (dotted) - synchrotron radiation from the pre-shock flow,
344: 2 (long dashed) - bremsstrahlung radiation from the pre-shock flow,
345: 3 (solid) - synchrotron radiation from non-thermal electrons in the CENBOL,
346: 4 (dot-dashed) - black body radiation from the Keplerian disk,
347: 5 (small dashed) \& 6 (dot-long dashed) - Comptonization of the synchrotron soft photons emitted by the
348: thermal and non-thermal electrons respectively,
349: 7 (short and long dashed) - Comptonization of intercepted black body photons by CENBOL,
350: 8 (long dashed) - synchrotron emission from the jet,
351: 9 (solid) - the total spectrum.}
352: \end{figure}
353:
354: \vfil\eject
355: \begin{figure}
356: \plotone{f2.eps}
357: \caption{Fitting the spectrum of M87 nucleus using the shock solution of sub-Keplerian flow.
358: The observational data are taken from: Biretta et al. 1991--(filled triangles); Ho 1999 --(open triangles);
359: Perlman et al. 2001--(open circle); Stiavelli et al. 1997--(filled squares); Sparks et al. 1996--(filled circles);
360: Maoz et. al 2005--(open squares); Perlman 2005--(Chandra). The dotted line (1) represents
361: the pre-shock synchrotron contribution while the dot-long-dashed line (2) represents the bremsstrahlung
362: contribution from the pre-shock flow. The short-dashed line (3) is due to post-shock synchrotron
363: contribution from non-thermal electrons. The long-dashed (4) and dot-dashed line (5) represents the synchrotron
364: self-comptonized spectrum due to thermal and non-thermal electrons in the CENBOL.
365: The long-short-dashed line (6) represents the synchrotron contribution from the jet.}
366: \end{figure}
367:
368:
369: \end{document}
370: %\noindent Fig. 1: The general nature of the two-component advective disk spectrum is presented in this figure.
371: %The curves are drawn for different black hole masses (indicated in the figure) with a same set of flow
372: %parameters. The value of the flow parameters and the meaning of different curves are explained in the text.
373: %
374: %\noindent Fig. 2: Fitting the spectrum of M87 nucleus using the shock solution of sub-Keplerian flow.
375: %The solid dots are the observational (Reimer et. al, 2004) data points. The dotted line represents
376: %the pre-shock synchrotron contribution while the small dashed line is due to post-shock synchrotron
377: %contribution from non-thermal electrons. The long-dashed and dot-dashed line represents the synchrotron
378: %self-comptonized spectrum due to thermal and non-thermal electrons in the CENBOL.
379: %The solid line represents the total contribution from the accretion disk.
380: %
381: %\end{document}
382:
383: