1: \documentstyle[11pt, aaspp4, epsf, rotate]{article}
2:
3: %\def\lesssim{\lower4pt \hbox{$\buildrel < \over \sim$}}
4: %\def\gtrsim{\lower4pt \hbox{$\buildrel > \over \sim$}}
5: \def\gamav{$\langle \gamma - 1 \rangle$}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{An analytic function fit to Monte-Carlo X- and $\gamma$-ray spectra
10: from Thomson thick thermal/nonthermal hybrid plasmas}
11:
12: \author{M. B\"ottcher\altaffilmark{1,2}, R. Saxena\altaffilmark{3,4},
13: A. W. Crider\altaffilmark{1,5}, E. P. Liang\altaffilmark{1},
14: I. A. Smith\altaffilmark{1}, and M. Kusunose\altaffilmark{6}}
15:
16: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics and Astronomy Department, Rice University, MS 108,
17: 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Chandra Fellow}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Clements High School, Sugar Land, TX, USA}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{current address: UC Berkeley, College of Letters
21: and Science, Berkeley, CA 94720-2920, USA}
22: \altaffiltext{5}{Current address: American University, Washington, D.C.}
23: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, School of Science,
24: Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya 662-8501, Japan}
25:
26: \keywords{radiative transfer; radiation mechanisms: thermal;
27: radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}
28:
29: \centerline{\it Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal
30: Supplement Series}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: We suggest a simple fitting formula to represent Comptonized
34: X- and $\gamma$-ray spectra from a hot ($kT_e \gtrsim 10$~keV),
35: Thomson thick ($\tau_T \gtrsim 5$) hybrid thermal/nonthermal
36: plasma in spherical geometry with homogeneous soft-photon
37: injection throughout the Comptonizing region. We have used
38: this formula to fit a large data base of Monte-Carlo generated
39: photon spectra, and provide correlations between the physical
40: parameters of the plasma and the fit parameters of our analytic
41: fit function. These allow us to construct Thomson thick
42: Comptonization spectra without performing computer intensive
43: Monte Carlo simulations of the high-$\tau_{\rm T}$ hybrid-plasma
44: Comptonization problem. Our formulae can easily be used in data
45: analysis packages such as XSPEC, thus rendering rapid $\chi^2$
46: fitting of such spectra to real data feasible.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50: Compton upscattering of soft (optical, UV or soft X-ray) radiation
51: by hot ($kT_e \gtrsim 10$~keV) plasma is believed to play an important
52: role in the formation of high-energy (hard X-ray and $\gamma$-ray)
53: spectra of many astrophysical objects. Some examples are Galactic
54: X-ray binaries (for recent reviews see \cite{tl95,liang98}),
55: supernova remnants (e.g., \cite{hillas98,aharonian99}), Seyfert
56: galaxies (for recent reviews see \cite{mush93,zdz99}),
57: blazars (\cite{maraschi92,dermer92}), the intergalactic medium
58: (\cite{sz80,reph95}), and possibly also $\gamma$-ray bursts
59: (\cite{liang97,liang99}).
60:
61: Comptonization in purely thermal plasmas is fairly well
62: understood, and analytical solutions for the emerging hard X-ray and
63: $\gamma$-ray spectra for a wide range of Thomson depths and plasma
64: temperatures have been developed (\cite{st80,titarchuk94,tilu95,ht95}).
65: However, the currently known solutions can not be applied to
66: hybrid thermal/nonthermal or even purely nonthermal plasmas,
67: which are believed to be the primary source of hard X-ray
68: radiation in many astrophysical objects. For example, Li,
69: Kusunose, \& Liang (\markcite{li96}1996) have shown that
70: the high-energy spectrum of Cyg~X-1 can be plausibly reproduced
71: by Comptonization in a quasi-thermal plasma with a small fraction
72: of electrons in a nonthermal tail. Thermal/nonthermal hybrid models
73: have also been discussed in the context of the high-energy spectra
74: of Seyfert galaxies, e.g. NGC~4151 (\cite{zdz94,zdz96}).
75: The development of such nonthermal tails has been confirmed
76: by B\"ottcher \& Liang (\markcite{bl01}2001) by detailed
77: Monte-Carlo/Fokker-Planck simulations of radiation transport
78: and electron dynamics in magnetized hot plasmas, e.g. in
79: accretion flows onto compact objects.
80:
81: We need to point out that the combination of soft- to medium-energy
82: X-ray spectra (typically integrated over a few ksec) with hard X-ray
83: / soft $\gamma$-ray OSSE spectra (typically integrated over hundreds of
84: ksec or even several days) could introduce artificial spectral signatures
85: due to the superposition of thermal Comptonization spectra from different
86: emission regions, possibly at different times. However, the detailed
87: Fokker-Planck simulations of the dynamics of electron acceleration and
88: cooling in coronal plasmas in the vicinity of accreting compact objects
89: (e.g., \cite{li96,bl01}) clearly demonstrate that nonthermal tails
90: in the electron distributions are very likely to be produced in
91: such environments. It is thus desirable to have simple, analytical
92: expressions for the Comptonization spectra arising in this case.
93:
94: For the general case of arbitrary Thomson depth, average electron
95: energy (i.e. temperature), nonthermal fraction of electrons in the
96: hybrid plasma, and nonthermal electron spectral parameters, the
97: most reliable and often fastest method for computing Comptonization
98: spectra is the Monte-Carlo method (\cite{poz83}). However,
99: Monte-Carlo simulations of Comptonization problems become
100: extremely time consuming in the case of very high Thomson depth,
101: $\tau_{\rm T}$, since the number of scatterings that need to be simulated,
102: increases $\propto \tau_{\rm T}^2$. To date, there are no simple, analytic
103: approximations to the problem of optically thick Comptonization in hot,
104: thermal/nonthermal hybrid plasmas. This has made $\chi^2$ minimization
105: fitting of such models to real data infeasible until now.
106:
107: Using our linear Monte-Carlo Comptonization codes, we have built
108: up a data base of over 300 Comptonization spectra from hot, Thomson
109: thick, thermal/nonthermal hybrid plasmas with different Thomson
110: depths, temperatures, nonthermal electron fractions, spectral indices
111: and maximum electron energies of nonthermal electrons. In this paper,
112: we propose a simple analytic representation, consisting of an exponentially
113: cut-off power-law plus a smoothly connected double-power-law (\cite{band93})
114: to fit all individual spectra in our data base. We find correlations
115: between the physical parameters of the Monte-Carlo calculations and the
116: parameters of our analytical representation, which can be used to construct
117: Comptonization spectra of high-$\tau_{\rm T}$ plasmas with arbitrary
118: nonthermal electron fractions, without having to perform time-consuming
119: Monte-Carlo simulations. Our results are specifically optimized for
120: very high Thomson depths, $\tau_T \gtrsim 5$, and are valid for electron
121: temperatures $kT_e \gtrsim 10$~keV, since we assume the Comptonizing
122: plasma to be fully ionized. For lower temperatures, effects of photoelectric
123: absorption, recombination, and other atomic processes, which have been
124: neglected in the current work, must be included.
125:
126:
127: \section{Model setup and analytic representation of the Comptonization spectra}
128:
129: The physical scenario underlying the Comptonization problem at
130: hand, consists of a spherical, homogeneous region of hot ($kT_e
131: \gtrsim 10$~keV), thermal/nonthermal hybrid plasma with radial
132: Thomson depth $\tau_{\rm T}$. The thermal/nonthermal hybrid
133: distribution function of electron energies is given by
134:
135: \begin{equation}
136: f_e (\gamma) = \cases{ N_{\rm th} \, \gamma^2 \, \beta \; e^{- \gamma / \Theta_e}
137: & for $1 \le \gamma < \gamma_1$ \cr
138: N_{\rm nt} \, \gamma^{-p} & for $\gamma_1 \le \gamma \le \gamma_2$ \cr}
139: \label{el_distribution}
140: \end{equation}
141: Here, the normalization factors $N_{\rm th}$ and $N_{\rm nt}$ and the
142: transition energy $\gamma_1$ are determined by the normalization,
143: $\int_1^{\infty} f_e (\gamma) \, d\gamma = 1$, by the requirement of
144: continuity of the distribution function at $\gamma_1$, and by the
145: fraction $a_{\rm mxwl}$ of thermal particles, i. e. $\int_1^{\gamma_1}
146: f_e (\gamma) \, d\gamma = a_{\rm mxwl}$.
147:
148: Soft photons with characteristic energy $E_s \ll 1$~keV
149: are injected uniformly throughout the Comptonizing region
150: (we assume that they have a thermal blackbody spectrum with
151: $kT_r \ll 1$~keV; the specific shape of the soft photon
152: distribution is irrelevant for multiple-Compton-scattering
153: problems). The Comptonizing plasma is assumed to be fully
154: ionized. The Comptonization spectra are calculated with our
155: Monte-Carlo codes, which use the full Klein-Nishina cross
156: section for Compton scattering. $\gamma\gamma$ absorption,
157: pair production, and other induced processes (e.g.,
158: free-free absorption and induced Compton scattering events)
159: have been neglected in our Monte-Carlo simulations.
160:
161: We have created a data base of over 300 simulations, spanning values
162: of $\tau_{\rm T} \le 28$, $5 \, {\rm keV} \le kT_e \le 200$~keV, $0.2
163: \le a_{\rm mxwl} \le 1$, $2.5 \le p \le 6.5$, and $10 \le \gamma_2
164: \le 10^3$.
165:
166: We here propose a fit function to optically thick Comptonization
167: spectra from thermal/nonthermal hybrid plasmas as the sum of an
168: exponentially cut-off power-law plus a Band GRB function (defined
169: here, for convenience, in energy flux units to match the units of
170: the output spectra of our Monte-Carlo simulations):
171:
172: \begin{eqnarray}
173: F_{\rm E} (E)&=&N_{\rm PL} \, E^{- \Gamma} e^{-E / E_0} \cr\cr
174: &+&A \cdot
175: \cases{ E^{\delta} e^{-E / E_0} & for $E < (\delta - \epsilon) E_0$ \cr\cr
176: B \, E^{\epsilon} & for $E > (\delta - \epsilon) E_0$ \cr}
177: \label{f_definition}
178: \end{eqnarray}
179: with $B \equiv \bigl( [\delta - \epsilon] E_0 \bigr)^{\delta - \epsilon}
180: \, e^{\epsilon - \delta}$ and $E$ in keV. $F_{\rm E}$ is the energy flux
181: in units of ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~keV$^{-1}$.
182:
183: Apart from the overall normalization, there are 5 parameters in this
184: fit function: the spectral indices $\Gamma$, $\delta$, and $\epsilon$,
185: the turnover energy $E_0$ (corresponding to a $\nu F_{\nu}$ peak
186: energy of $E_{\rm pk} = [1 + \delta] \, E_0$), and the relative
187: normalization of the two components, $A / N_{\rm PL}$. We have developed
188: a code using a combination of a coarse grid in the 6-dimensional parameter
189: space with a $\chi^2$ forward folding method to fit this function to our
190: simulated Compton spectra. Fig. \ref{fit_example1} shows two typical examples
191: of the resulting fits.
192:
193: \section{Correlations between physical and fit parameters}
194:
195: We have fitted the function (\ref{f_definition}) to the energy
196: range $1 \, {\rm keV} \le E \le 10$~MeV of all simulated Comptonization
197: spectra in our data base. In order to be able to use our fit function
198: for physically meaningful fitting, one has to establish a unique
199: correlation between the physical parameters of the Monte-Carlo simulation
200: and the best-fit parameters of our fit function. First of all, we note
201: that in the low-energy range, dominated by the power-law part of the
202: spectrum, $F_{\rm E} \propto E^{- \Gamma}$, the influence of the nonthermal
203: population is negligible, and we can use the standard result for thermal
204: plasmas in spherical geometry in the case of homogeneous photon
205: injection throughout the Comptonizing region:
206:
207: \begin{equation}
208: \Gamma = - {3 \over 2} \left( 1 - \sqrt{1 + {4 \, \pi^2 \over 27 \,
209: \Theta_e \, (\tau_{\rm T} + 2/3)^2}} \right)
210: \label{Gamma}
211: \end{equation}
212: (\cite{st80}) where $\Theta_e = kT_e / (m_e c^2)$. This relation is
213: valid in the limit of high Thomson depth, $\tau_T \gtrsim 5$, and
214: moderate electron temperature, $kT_e \lesssim 250$~keV (\cite{st80,poz83}).
215: A fully analytical solution for the power-law index $\Gamma$ for all
216: values of $\tau_{\rm T}$ and $\Theta_e$ has been derived by Titarchuk
217: \& Ljubarskij (\markcite{tilu95}1995). In the parameter range in which
218: our analytical representation is applicable, the simple expression
219: (\ref{Gamma}) is sufficiently accurate.
220:
221: A second, obvious correlation exists between the $\nu F_{\nu}$ peak of an
222: optically thick Comptonization spectrum and the average particle energy.
223: In the thermal case, the Wien spectrum peaks at $E_{\rm pk} \approx 3 \,
224: kT_e$. However, near the $\nu F_{\nu}$ peak of the spectrum, the influence
225: of the nonthermal particle population can become important. Generalizing
226: the $E_{\rm pk}$ vs. $kT_e$ correlation, one would expect that $E_{\rm pk}
227: \approx 2 \langle \gamma - 1 \rangle \, m_e c^2$, where the brackets denote
228: the ensemble average. We find that this generally provides a reasonable
229: fit to the simulated $E_{\rm pk}$ values. However, in some cases
230: (especially for hard power-law tails, $p \lesssim 3$), the onset of
231: the nonthermal population (at $\gamma_1$) is at too high an energy
232: and the normalization of the nonthermal population is too small for
233: nonthermal electrons to make a strong contribution to photons scattered
234: into the Wien peak. We find significant deviations from the above
235: $E_{\rm pk}$ vs. \gamav\ correlation for values of $\gamma_1 >
236: 6 \, \Theta_e + 1$. An approximate correction for this effect can
237: be found in the following empirical correlation which provides
238: a reasonable description of the simulated $E_{\rm pk}$ values:
239:
240: \begin{equation}
241: E_{\rm pk} = \cases{ 1.022 \, \langle \gamma - 1 \rangle \; {\rm MeV}
242: & for $\gamma_1 < 6 \, \Theta_e + 1$ \cr\cr
243: {a_{\rm mxwl} \langle\gamma - 1\rangle_{\rm th} + (1 - a_{\rm mxwl})
244: \langle\gamma - 1\rangle_{\rm nt} \, 2^{-f/8} \over a_{\rm mxwl}
245: + (1 - a_{\rm mxwl}) \, 2^{-f/8}} \; {\rm MeV} & for $\gamma_1 \ge
246: 6 \, \Theta_e + 1$ \cr}
247: \label{Epk}
248: \end{equation}
249: where $f \equiv 2 (\gamma_1 - 1)/\Theta_e$. The terms \gamav$_{\rm th}$
250: and \gamav$_{\rm nt}$ denote the average kinetic energies (normalized to
251: $m_e c^2$) of electrons in the thermal and nonthermal portion of the
252: electron distribution, respectively. The $E_{\rm pk}$ vs. $\gamma - 1$
253: correlation for those cases with $\gamma_1 < 6 \, \Theta_e + 1$ is
254: illustrated in Fig. \ref{Epk_gminus1}. We note that in most physically
255: relevant cases, we expect the power-law index of nonthermal electrons
256: to be $p \gtrsim 3$ since we do not expect a positive $\nu F_{\nu}$
257: spectral slope at high energies due to the nonthermal portion of the
258: hybrid electron spectra. In the case $p \gtrsim 3$, the upper branch
259: of Eq. (\ref{Epk}) always yields satisfactory results.
260:
261: The value of \gamav\ depends on the temperature of the thermal population
262: and the parameters of the nonthermal population in a non-trivial way.
263: We find that \gamav\ can be parametrized rather accurately by the
264: fitting function
265:
266: \begin{equation}
267: \langle \gamma - 1 \rangle \approx K_1 \, \Theta_e^{\kappa_1} +
268: K_2 \, e^{\Theta_e / \kappa_2}.
269: \label{gamav_fit}
270: \end{equation}
271: To facilitate the use of our fitting formulae, we list in Table
272: \ref{gm1_table} the relevant fit parameters $K_1$, $K_2$, $\kappa_1$,
273: and $\kappa_2$ for a representative value of $\gamma_2 = 10^3$.
274: The dependence of \gamav\ on the thermal plasma temperature and
275: the nonthermal power-law index $p$ is illustrated in Fig.
276: \ref{gminus1_graph}.
277:
278: The connections of the remaining fit parameters, $\epsilon$,
279: $\delta$, and $A / N_{\rm PL}$ with the physical parameters
280: of the Comptonizing plasma, are less obvious, and the
281: correlations which we have found on the basis of the fit
282: results to our data base, are purely empirical. In an optically
283: thin ($\tau_{\rm T} \ll 1$), purely nonthermal plasma, the
284: high-energy spectral index $\epsilon$ would be related to
285: the non-thermal particle index $p$ through $\epsilon = -
286: (p - 1)/2$ (e.g., \cite{rl79}). However, the presence of
287: the thermal population as well as the effect of multiple
288: Compton scatterings lead to a systematic distortion of
289: this spectral shape. We find a correction to $\epsilon$ due
290: to these effects, which can be parametrized as
291:
292: \begin{equation}
293: \epsilon = - {p - 1 \over 2} - (a_{\epsilon} + b_{\epsilon} \Theta_e)
294: \label{beta}
295: \end{equation}
296: with
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: a_{\epsilon} &= &0.78 \, e^{-(1.49 \, a_{\rm mxwl})^3} \\
299: b_{\epsilon} &= &3.25 \, a_{\rm mxwl}^{-0.7}
300: \label{beta_params}
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: Two examples of the correlation (\ref{beta}) are shown in
303: Fig. \ref{epsilon_graph}.
304:
305: The low-energy power-law slope of the Wien hump, added to the
306: low-energy power-law (the $F_{\rm E} \propto E^{\delta}$ part
307: of our fitting function), approaches $\delta \to 2$ for very
308: high Thomson depth. We find that the correlation between $\delta$
309: and $\tau_{\rm T}$ can be well parametrized by a functional form
310:
311: \begin{equation}
312: \delta = 2 {\tau_{\rm T}^{\eta (\Theta_e)} \over
313: [\tau_0 (\Theta_e)]^{\eta (\Theta_e)}
314: + \tau_{\rm T}^{\eta (\Theta_e)}}
315: \label{alpha}
316: \end{equation}
317: which is virtually independent of $a_{\rm mxwl}$ and the
318: specifications of the nonthermal population. The parameters
319: in Eq. \ref{alpha} depend on the thermal electron temperature
320: as
321:
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: \tau_0 (\Theta_e) &= &5.6 \, \Theta_e^{0.13} \\
324: \eta (\Theta_e) &= &2 \, \left( \ln[200 \, \Theta_e] \right)^{1.7}
325: \label{alpha_params}
326: \end{eqnarray}
327:
328: Finally, we expect the ratio of power in the Wien hump (Band
329: function section of our fit function) to the power in the
330: low-energy power-law part of the Comptonization spectrum
331: to be positively correlated with the plasma temperature $\Theta_e$
332: and Thomson depth $\tau_{\rm T}$. The above mentioned power
333: ratio can be expressed as the term
334:
335: \begin{equation}
336: C_{A/N_{\rm PL}} \equiv (A /N_{\rm PL}) \, E_{\rm pk}^{\delta
337: + \Gamma} \, e^{- (\delta + 1)}.
338: \label{C_A_Npl_def}
339: \end{equation}
340: To first order, this power ratio should not strongly depend
341: on the specifications of the non-thermal component. Fig.
342: \ref{ANpl_graph} shows some examples of the correlation
343: between $C_{A/N_{\rm PL}}$ and $\tau_{\rm T}$ for various
344: plasma temperatures, where we have neglected any dependence
345: on $a_{\rm mxwl}$ and $p$. We find that this correlation
346: can be parametrized as
347:
348: \begin{equation}
349: {C'}_{A/N_{\rm PL}} = C_0 \, \left( {\tau_{\rm T} \over 20}
350: \right)^{a_C} + C_1
351: \label{C_A_Npl_corr}
352: \end{equation}
353: with
354:
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: C_0 &= &16 \, \Theta_e^{0.1} \\
357: C_1 &= &5 \\
358: a_C &= &\Theta_e^{0.05}
359: \label{C_A_Npl_params}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: However, comparing the analytic spectra calculated using
362: Eq. (\ref{C_A_Npl_corr}) with the Monte-Carlo generated spectra,
363: we do find significant $a_{\rm mxwl}$-dependent deviations from
364: the best-fit values of $A / N_{\rm PL}$. We thus introduce a
365: correction ${C''}_{A/N_{\rm PL}}$ such that
366:
367: \begin{equation}
368: C_{A/N_{\rm PL}} = {C'}_{A/N_{\rm PL}} \cdot {C''}_{A/N_{\rm PL}}
369: \label{ANpl_correction}
370: \end{equation}
371: and find this correction term as
372:
373: \begin{equation}
374: {C''}_{A/N_{\rm PL}} = (2.1 \cdot 10^{-3} \Theta_e^{-2.3} + 1.8) \,
375: a_{\rm mxwl}^{-2.1} \, \tau_T^{- \lambda (\Theta_e)}
376: \label{correctionterm}
377: \end{equation}
378: with
379: \begin{equation}
380: \lambda (\Theta_e) = 2.8 \cdot 10^{-2} \, \Theta_e^{-0.95}.
381: \label{lambda}
382: \end{equation}
383: Since we know $E_{\rm pk}$, $\delta$ and $\Gamma$ from Eqs.
384: (\ref{Epk}), (\ref{alpha}) and (\ref{Gamma}), we can easily
385: invert Eq. (\ref{C_A_Npl_def}) to find the fit parameter
386: $A / N_{\rm PL}$.
387:
388: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
389:
390: We have developed an analytical representation of Comptonization
391: spectra from optically thick, hot, thermal/nonthermal hybrid
392: plasmas in spherical geometry with homogeneous soft-photon
393: injection. Starting from the physical parameters of the problem
394: at hand, one can easily use Eqs. (\ref{Gamma}), (\ref{alpha}),
395: (\ref{beta}), (\ref{Epk}), and (\ref{C_A_Npl_corr}) to construct
396: the resulting photon spectrum. Thus, our representation can be
397: used in $\chi^2$ minimization software packages to scan through
398: the physical parameter space of the thermal/nonthermal hybrid
399: plasma and fit the emerging Comptonization spectra to observed
400: photon spectra. Fig. \ref{fit_example2} shows two representative
401: examples of the analytical spectra, using the correlations presented
402: in the previous section, and the output spectra from the corresponding
403: Monte-Carlo simulations.
404:
405: Our results are valid for electron temperatures $10 \, {\rm keV}
406: \lesssim kT_e \lesssim 150$~keV, Thomson depths $\tau_{\rm T} \gtrsim 5$,
407: Maxwellian electron fractions $0.5 \lesssim a_{\rm mxwl} \lesssim 0.95$
408: (for purely thermal plasmas, $a_{\rm mxwl} = 1$, the analytical
409: solutions of Hua \& Titarchuk [\markcite{ht95}1995] may be used),
410: nonthermal electron spectral indices $p \gtrsim 3$, and seed photon
411: energies $E_s \ll 1$~keV. The results have been obtained for
412: homogeneous photon injection in spherical geometry and should not
413: be used for other geometries.
414:
415: \section*{Acknowledgments}
416:
417: The work of M.B. is supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral
418: Fellowship Award Number PF~9-10007, issued by the Chandra X-ray
419: Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
420: for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS~8-39073. This work was
421: partially supported by NASA grant NAG~5-7980.
422:
423: \begin{thebibliography}{}
424:
425: \bibitem[Aharonian 1999]{aharonian99}
426: Aharonian, F. A., 1999, Astrop. Phys., 11, 225
427:
428: \bibitem[Band et al. 1993]{band93}
429: Band, D., et al., 1993, ApJ, 413, 281
430:
431: \bibitem[B\"ottcher \& Liang 2001]{bl01}
432: B\"ottcher, M., \& Liang, E. P., 2001, ApJ, 551, in press
433:
434: \bibitem[Dermer et al. 1992]{dermer92}
435: Dermer, C. D., Schlickeiser, R., \& Mastichiadis, A., 1992, A\&A, 256, L27
436:
437: \bibitem[Hillas et al. 1998]{hillas98}
438: Hillas, A. M., et al., 1998, ApJ, 503, 744
439:
440: \bibitem[Hua \& Titarchuk 1995]{ht95}
441: Hua, X.-M., \& Titarchuk, L., ApJ, 449, 188
442:
443: \bibitem[Li et al. 1996]{li96}
444: Li, H., Kusunose, M., \& Liang, E. P., 1996, ApJ, 460, L29
445:
446: \bibitem[Liang 1997]{liang97}
447: Liang, E. P., 1997, ApJ, 491, L15
448:
449: \bibitem[Liang 1998]{liang98}
450: Liang, E. P., 1998, Physics Reports, 302, 67
451:
452: \bibitem[Liang et al. 1999]{liang99}
453: Liang, E. P., et al., 1999, ApJ, 519, L21
454:
455: \bibitem[Maraschi et al. 1992]{maraschi92}
456: Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., \& Celotti, A., 1992, ApJ, 397, L5
457:
458: \bibitem[Mushotzky et al. 1993]{mush93}
459: Mushotzky, R. F., Done, C., \& Pounds, K. A., 1993, Ann. Rev. A\&A,
460: 31, 717
461:
462: \bibitem[Pozdnyakov et al. 1983]{poz83}
463: Pozdnyakov, L. A., Sobol, I. M., \& Sunyaev, R. A., 1983, Sovjet Scient.
464: Rev. Section E, Astrophysics and Space Physics Rev., 2, 189
465:
466: \bibitem[Rephaeli 1995]{reph95}
467: Rephaeli, Y., 1995, Ann. Rev. A\&A, 33, 541
468:
469: \bibitem[Rybicki \& Lightman 1979]{rl79}
470: Rybicki, G. B., \& Lightman, A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in
471: Astrophysics, John Wiley \& Sons, New York
472:
473: \bibitem[Sunyaev \& Titarchuk 1980]{st80}
474: Sunyaev, R. A., \& Titarchuk, L. G., 1980, A\&A, 86, 121
475:
476: \bibitem[Sunyaev \& Zeldovich 1980]{sz80}
477: Sunyaev, R. A., \& Zeldovich, Y. B., 1980, Ann. Rev. A\&A, 18, 537
478:
479: \bibitem[Tanaka \& Lewin 1995]{tl95}
480: Tanaka, Y., \& Lewin, W. H. G., 1995, in: Lewin, W. H. G., et al. (Eds.),
481: X-Ray Binaries, Cambridge, UK, p. 126
482:
483: \bibitem[Titarchuk 1994]{titarchuk94}
484: Titarchuk, L., 1994, ApJ, 434, 313
485:
486: \bibitem[Titarchuk \& Ljubarskij 1995]{tilu95}
487: Titarchuk, L., \& Ljubarskij, Y., 1995, ApJ, 450, 876
488:
489: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al. 1994]{zdz94}
490: Zdziarski, A. A., Fabian, A. C., Nandra, K., Celotti, A., Rees, M. J.,
491: Done, C., Coppi, P. S., Madejski, G. M., 1994, MNRAS, 269, L55
492:
493: \bibitem[Zdziarski, Johnson, \& Magdziarz 1996]{zdz96}
494: Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., \& Magdziarz, P., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 193
495:
496: \bibitem[Zdziarski 1999]{zdz99}
497: Zdziarski, A. A., 1999, in: Poutanen, J., \& Svensson, R. (Eds.),
498: High-Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes, ASP Conf. Ser.,
499: 161, p. 16
500:
501: \end{thebibliography}
502:
503: \newpage
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \centering
507: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
508: \epsffile{fig1.eps}
509: \caption{Two examples of fits of our model function (solid and dashed
510: curves) to the Monte-Carlo simulated energy spectrum (filled symbols).
511: Parameters for the Monte-Carlo simulation (filled circles) are:
512: $\tau_{\rm T} = 16$, $kT_e = 80$~keV, $a_{\rm mxwl} = 0.5$, $p = 3.5$,
513: $\gamma_2 = 10^3$, $kT_s = 0.5$~eV. Parameters of the analytic fit
514: (dashed curve) are: $\Gamma = -0.035$, $\delta = 1.98$, $\epsilon = -2.27$,
515: $E_0 = 196$~keV, $A/N_{pl} = 8.84\times 10^{-4}$. Parameters for the
516: second MC simulation (filled squares) are: $\tau_{\rm T} = 28$,
517: $kT_e = 40$~keV, $a_{\rm mxwl} = 0.7$, $p = 3.5$, $\gamma_2 = 10^3$,
518: $kT_s = 0.5$~eV. Parameters of the analytic fit (solid curve):
519: $\Gamma = -0.029$, $\delta = 2.01$, $\epsilon = -1.90$, $E_0 = 149$~keV,
520: $A/N_{pl} = 1.87\times 10^{-3}$.}
521: \label{fit_example1}
522: \end{figure}
523:
524: \newpage
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: \centering
528: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
529: \epsffile{fig2.eps}
530: \caption{Correlation between the average electron energy in the plasma,
531: \gamav, and the $\nu F_{\nu}$ peak energy, $E_{\rm pk}$, compared to the
532: expected correlation, $E_{\rm pk} = 1022 \langle \gamma - 1 \rangle$~keV
533: (solid line). The best-fit linear slope is $973$~keV (dot-dashed line).}
534: \label{Epk_gminus1}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537: \newpage
538:
539: \begin{figure}
540: \centering
541: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
542: \epsffile{fig3.eps}
543: \caption{Dependence of \gamav\ on plasma temperature and nonthermal
544: spectral index $p$; example for $a_{\rm mxwl} = 0.6$, $\gamma_2 =
545: 10^3$. From top to bottom, the nonthermal spectral indices are
546: $p = 2.1$, 2.23, 2.35, 2.48, 2.61, 2.73, 2.86, 3.11, 3.37, 3.62,
547: and 3.87.}
548: \label{gminus1_graph}
549: \end{figure}
550:
551: \newpage
552:
553: \begin{figure}
554: \centering
555: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
556: \epsffile{fig4.eps}
557: \caption{Correlation between the correction to the high-energy spectral
558: index $\epsilon$ and the plasma temperature for two different values of
559: the Maxwellian plasma fraction $a_{\rm mxwl}$.}
560: \label{epsilon_graph}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: \newpage
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \centering
567: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
568: \epsffile{fig5.eps}
569: \caption{Empirical correlation between the relative power in
570: the power-law to the Wien hump (Band function part of the photon
571: spectrum) and the Thomson depth $\tau_{\rm T}$ for various
572: electron temperatures (with various values of $a_{\rm mxwl}$
573: each, which does not appear to have a significant influence).
574: The lines are the best-fit power-laws.}
575: \label{ANpl_graph}
576: \end{figure}
577:
578: \newpage
579:
580: \begin{figure}
581: \centering
582: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
583: \epsffile{fig6.eps}
584: \caption{Two typical examples of the analytical representation
585: for Thomson thick Comptonization spectra, using Eqs. (\ref{Gamma}),
586: (\ref{alpha}), (\ref{beta}), (\ref{Epk}), and (\ref{C_A_Npl_corr})
587: (solid and dot-dashed curves), compared to the Monte-Carlo simulated
588: output spectra (symbols; same simulations as shownin Fig. \ref{fit_example1}).
589: In both simulations, $p = 3.5$ and $\gamma_2 = 10^3$ was used.}
590: \label{fit_example2}
591: \end{figure}
592:
593: \newpage
594:
595: \begin{table}
596: \begin{center}
597: \caption{Fit parameters to compute \gamav\ as a function of the plasma
598: parameters using Eq. \ref{gamav_fit}. $\gamma_2 = 10^3$ has
599: been used.}\vspace{1em}
600: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
601: \begin{tabular}[h]{cccccc}
602: \hline
603: $a_{\rm mxwl}$ & $p$ & $K_1$ & $\kappa_1$ & $K_2$ & $\kappa_2$ \\
604: \hline
605: 0.28 & 2.20 & 2.326 & 0.60 & 2.329 & 3.098 \\
606: 0.28 & 2.48 & 1.530 & 0.45 & 1.332 & 3.563 \\
607: 0.28 & 2.73 & 0.661 & 0.30 & 0.876 & 1.013 \\
608: 0.28 & 3.00 & 0.575 & 0.35 & 0.662 & 0.881 \\
609: 0.28 & 3.24 & 0.405 & 0.40 & 0.576 & 0.766 \\
610: 0.28 & 3.50 & 0.465 & 0.10 & 0.249 & 0.381 \\
611: 0.44 & 2.20 & 1.759 & 0.45 & 1.761 & 0.766 \\
612: 0.44 & 2.48 & 1.330 & 0.40 & 1.007 & 0.766 \\
613: 0.44 & 2.73 & 2.023 & 0.75 & 0.761 & 2.037 \\
614: 0.44 & 3.00 & 1.759 & 0.75 & 0.576 & 3.563 \\
615: 0.44 & 3.24 & 1.530 & 0.70 & 0.435 & 3.563 \\
616: 0.44 & 3.50 & 1.330 & 0.75 & 0.379 & 2.694 \\
617: 0.60 & 2.20 & 2.675 & 0.75 & 1.332 & 0.664 \\
618: 0.60 & 2.48 & 2.675 & 0.80 & 0.761 & 0.766 \\
619: 0.60 & 2.73 & 2.675 & 0.80 & 0.501 & 1.540 \\
620: 0.60 & 3.00 & 2.326 & 0.80 & 0.379 & 2.037 \\
621: 0.60 & 3.24 & 2.023 & 0.85 & 0.329 & 1.540 \\
622: 0.60 & 3.50 & 1.330 & 0.70 & 0.249 & 0.579 \\
623: 0.76 & 2.20 & 2.326 & 0.70 & 0.761 & 0.503 \\
624: 0.76 & 2.48 & 2.023 & 0.75 & 0.435 & 0.438 \\
625: 0.76 & 2.73 & 2.326 & 0.90 & 0.329 & 0.579 \\
626: 0.76 & 3.00 & 2.326 & 0.95 & 0.249 & 0.666 \\
627: 0.76 & 3.24 & 2.023 & 0.90 & 0.188 & 0.579 \\
628: 0.76 & 3.50 & 2.326 & 0.95 & 0.164 & 2.694 \\
629: 0.92 & 2.20 & 2.675 & 0.95 & 0.249 & 0.579 \\
630: 0.92 & 2.48 & 2.675 & 1.00 & 0.164 & 1.771 \\
631: 0.92 & 2.73 & 2.326 & 1.00 & 0.108 & 0.766 \\
632: 0.92 & 3.00 & 2.326 & 1.00 & 0.081 & 3.563 \\
633: 0.92 & 3.24 & 1.759 & 0.95 & 0.062 & 0.331 \\
634: 0.92 & 3.50 & 2.023 & 1.00 & 0.054 & 0.766 \\
635: \hline \\
636: \end{tabular}
637: \label{gm1_table}
638: \end{center}
639: \end{table}
640:
641: \end{document}
642:
643: