1: \documentclass[10pt]{aa}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{natbib}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
6: \newcommand{\arcdeg}{^{\circ}}
7: \newcommand{\propsim}{\propto}
8: \usepackage[american]{babel}
9: \newcommand{\scrL}{\mathcal{L}}
10: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
11: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
12: \begin{document}
13: \title{Radio Lobe Dynamics and the Environment of Microquasars}
14: \author{Sebastian Heinz\inst{1}} \institute{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r
15: Astrophysik, D$-$85741 Garching, Germany,
16: \email{heinzs@mpa-garching.mpg.de}} \authorrunning{Heinz}
17: \titlerunning{Radio Lobe Dynamics and the Environment of Microquasars}
18: \date{11 March 2002}
19:
20: \abstract{We argue that, when compared to AGNs in dynamical terms,
21: microquasars are found in {\em low} density, {\em low} pressure
22: environments. Using a simple analytic model, we discuss radio lobe
23: dynamics and emission. Dynamical considerations for GRS 1915+105 and GRO
24: J1655$-$40 show that they are located in ISM densities well below the
25: canonical $n_{\rm ISM} \sim 1\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$ unless the jets are unusually
26: narrow or much more powerful than currently believed. \keywords{galaxies:
27: jets -- ISM: jets and outflows -- stars: individual: GRS 1915+105, GRO
28: J1655$-$40}} \maketitle
29:
30: \section{Introduction}
31: From the time of discovery of relativistic jets in Galactic X-ray binary
32: sources their morphological and physical similarity with AGN jets has been
33: stressed in the literature \citep[see][ for a review on the
34: subject]{mirabel:99}. This similarity has inspired comparison of Galactic
35: and extragalactic jets on a qualitative level.
36:
37: Such comparisons are a powerful tool to study the dependence of jets on the
38: input conditions, knowledge of which is crucial for understanding the
39: process of jet formation. While the central black holes in AGNs span a
40: range of 3 orders of magnitude in central mass $M$, with measurements of
41: $M$ often hampered by the lack of accurate indicators, Galactic compact
42: objects fall into a relatively narrow range in $M$, while extending the
43: mass scale to a range of over 9 orders of magnitude.
44:
45: So far, the comparison has focused mainly on the emission from the inner
46: jet, while large scale (lobe) emission has traditionally been difficult to
47: observe in Galactic jets and has thus not been considered much in the
48: literature. This {\em letter} presents arguments for the scaling expected
49: on large scales. Section 2, reviews the scaling relations of jet
50: parameters. In Sect. 3 we argue that, typically, microquasar jets are
51: located in low density environments compared to AGN jets, derive simple
52: scaling relations for radio lobes and put limits on the ISM density
53: surrounding GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$-$40. Section 4 summarizes.
54:
55: \section{Scaling of jet sources}
56: \label{sec:scaling}
57: The conditions in the inner disk around black holes are essentially
58: determined by three parameters: black hole mass $M$, spin $a$, and
59: accretion rate $\dot{m} = \dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ ($\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$
60: is the Eddington rate). Jet formation seems to be strongly dependent on
61: $\dot{m}$, with jet activity associated with a given range in $\dot{m}$,
62: while the influence of $a$ is still unclear. As we are interested in
63: powerful jets, we assume that $a$ and $\dot{m}$ take on their optimal value
64: for jet formation and consider only variations in $M$. Then, the kinetic
65: jet luminosity $L$ follows $L \propto M \psi(\dot{m},a)$, with some unknown
66: function $\psi$.
67:
68: We can write the scaling of physical quantities in the inner, radiation
69: pressure dominated disk as follows: all size and time scales relate
70: linearly to the fundamental length scale, the gravitational radius $r_{\rm
71: g}$ of the black hole: $r \propto \tau \propto r_{\rm g} \propto M$. It is
72: convenient to define natural units $\varpi \equiv r/r_{\rm g}$ and $T
73: \equiv c\,t/r_{\rm g}$. It follows from simple dimensional arguments, or
74: from standard accretion disk theory \citep{shakura:76}, that density and
75: pressure scale inversely with $M$: $n_{\rm disk} \propto p_{\rm disk}
76: \propto M^{-1}$. The magnetic pressure generated or transported by the
77: disk will be some fraction $\varphi$ of the gas pressure: $p_{\rm B} =
78: \varphi\, p_{\rm gas} \propto M^{-1}$, thus $B\propto M^{-1/2}$; $\varphi$
79: is arbitrary but should not depend on $M$. Since jets originate in the
80: inner disk, conditions in the inner jet should assume the same scaling: The
81: jet cross section $R_0$ at injection scales with $M$, $R_{\rm 0}\propto M$,
82: density and pressure scale like $M^{-1}$, and the jet power in a Poynting
83: flux dominated jet follows $L_{\rm kin} \propto R^2 B^2 \propto M$.
84:
85: While this simple scaling might suggest that all aspects of relativistic
86: jets should assume a simple $M$-dependence, this is not so. This can be
87: seen from the observed non-linear scaling of the radio flux of the inner
88: jet with $M$ that has been explained successfully using only the above
89: scaling relations and simple assumptions about jet geometry
90: \citep[][]{falcke:96}.
91:
92: In this {\em letter} we consider the large scale structure of jets, where
93: interaction with the environment is important. The scaling based only on
94: conditions in the inner disk will not hold, since parameters independent
95: from conditions in the disk enter: external density $\rho_{\rm x}$ and
96: pressure $p_{\rm x}$. Since ISM densities are typically larger than IGM
97: densities (with the canonical ISM value of $n_{\rm ISM} \sim 1\ {\rm
98: cm^{-3}}$), one might think that, compared to AGN jets, Galactic jets are
99: situated in high density environments. In the following section, we will
100: argue that this is a misconception and that the self-similarity in $M$,
101: which seems to be describing the inner jet rather well, is broken on large
102: scales.
103:
104: \section{Large scale evolution of radio sources}
105: \subsection{Radio lobe dynamics}
106: The large scale dynamics of an {\em active} source (i.e., still driven by
107: active jets) are governed by the dimensionless ratio $\eta_{\rho} \equiv
108: (\scrL/R^2\,c^3\,\rho_{\rm x})$, where $R$ is the characteristic size scale
109: (i.e., cross section) of the jet, and $\scrL$ is the mean kinetic
110: luminosity\footnote{The evolution time scales for AGN lobes are of order
111: $\tau \sim 10^7 - 10^8\,{\rm yrs}$. Variation in $L_{\rm kin}$ on much
112: shorter time scales will average out, making the large scale evolution
113: dependent only on the {\em mean} kinetic power $\scrL \equiv \langle L_{\rm
114: kin} \rangle$. Though the relation between $\scrL$ and $M$ is not known
115: (possibly depending on details like binary accretion) the giant flare
116: duration of order days observed in microquasars is only one or two orders
117: of magnitudes shorter than the estimated life times of extragalactic jets
118: when scaled by mass (of order $10^{6}-10^{8}\,{\rm yrs}$) and we will
119: assume that the duty cycles and typical time scales of jet activity scale
120: roughly linearly with $M$, and thus $\scrL \propto M$.}. Since typical
121: dimensions of the {\em jet} are set by the inner disk and should follow $R
122: \propto M$ (see Sect. \ref{sec:scaling}), and since $\scrL \propto M$, the
123: problem becomes scale invariant (i.e., the value of $\eta_{\rho}$
124: independent of $M$) if $\rho_{\rm x} \propto M^{-1}$.
125:
126: IGM densities fall into the range $10^{-5}\,{\rm cm^{-3}} \lesssim n_{\rm
127: IGM} \lesssim 10^{-2}\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$, while Galactic ISM densities span
128: the range of ${\rm few} \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm cm^{-3}} \lesssim n_{\rm ISM}
129: \lesssim 10^{4}\,{\rm cm^{4}}$ (the small value is valid for the hot ISM
130: phase and the halo, the upper limit for densities in molecular clouds).
131: Thus, the similarity condition $\rho_{\rm x} \propto M^{-1}$ could only be
132: satisfied for microquasars situated in molecular clouds. Most Galactic
133: jets are, however, located in {\em much} lower ISM densities. Thus,
134: compared to radio galaxies, microquasars are situated in {\em low} density
135: environments in a dynamical sense.
136:
137: Similarly, one can argue that microquasars are located in low {\em
138: pressure} environments: The terminal size $\varpi_{\rm t}$ of an {\em
139: inactive} radio lobe, when it has reached pressure equilibrium with its
140: environment, measured in natural units, will follow $\varpi_{\rm t} \sim
141: (M\,p_{\rm x})^{-1/3}$. The dynamical time in natural units will be $T
142: \propto \varpi_{\rm t}/c_{\rm s\,x} \propto (M^2\,\rho_{\rm x}\,p_{\rm
143: x})^{-1/2}$, where $c_{\rm s,x}$ is the external sound speed. Scale
144: invariance in $M$ (i.e., quantities expressed in natural units are
145: independent of $M$) would require $p_{\rm x}\propto M^{-1}$. Since IGM and
146: ISM pressures are comparable, microquasars are, in effect, located in low
147: pressure environments, relative to AGN jets, and the equilibrium size and
148: dynamical time scales are much larger than in AGNs when expressed in
149: natural units.
150:
151: Based on this premise, the dynamics of microquasar lobes might be
152: qualitatively different from AGN lobes. Because observations of
153: microquasar radio lobes are only just beginning to appear (partly due to
154: their low brightness), it is unclear how to describe the dynamics of these
155: sources. Numerical simulations and more radio observations are therefore
156: necessary. Meanwhile, we can use the existing framework of AGN radio lobes
157: for simple estimates. In turn, observations of microquasars can be used to
158: study the lobe evolution in low density environments.
159:
160: Once it has passed through the terminal shock, the spent jet fuel is
161: deposited in the vicinity of the jet head, inflating the radio lobes.
162: During the early (i.e., active) stage, the lobes expand supersonically into
163: the environment. Later they come into pressure equilibrium. For a
164: supersonic bubble expanding into a medium with a radial powerlaw density
165: profile $\rho_{\rm x} \equiv \rho_{\rm x,0}\, ({r}/{r_x})^{-\zeta}$, there
166: exists a well known self-similar solution \citep{castor:75,falle:91} for
167: the cocoon radius $r_{\rm c}$:
168: \begin{equation}
169: r_{\rm c} = A\, \left(\frac{\scrL t^3}{\rho_{\rm
170: x}(r)}\right)^{1/5} = A\, \left(\frac{\scrL t^3}{\rho_{\rm x,0}
171: r_{\rm x}^{\zeta}}\right)^{1/(5 - \zeta)}
172: \label{eq:bubble}
173: \end{equation}
174: with $A \equiv [\left(5-\zeta\right)^{3} [36\pi\,
175: \left(8-\zeta\right)^{\frac{1+\zeta}{3}}\,
176: \left(11-\zeta\right)^{\frac{2-\zeta}{3}})]^{-1}] ^{\frac{1}{5-\zeta}}$ of
177: order unity. This scaling is still appropriate if the cocoon is not
178: spherical and entirely sufficient for our purpose.
179:
180: The solution in eq.~(\ref{eq:bubble}) is Rayleigh-Taylor unstable for
181: $\zeta \geq 2$. However, the environments of AGNs and microquasars are
182: benign: microquasars are typically located in homogeneous media ($\zeta
183: \sim 0$), while AGNs are typically located in stratified atmospheres with
184: roughly uniform densities close in and steeper decline further out ($\zeta
185: \sim 1.5$).
186:
187: If the nuclear source turns off before the lobes reach pressure equilibrium
188: with their surroundings, a Sedov phase similar to a regular blast wave will
189: follow, though the lobe gas will be relativistic, thus expansion will only
190: be supersonic with respect to the external gas. If the source sits in a
191: stratified atmosphere the lobes will rise buoyantly and cool adiabatically,
192: once the expansion becomes sub-sonic (i.e., in pressure equilibrium with
193: the environment).
194:
195: \subsection{Scaling relations for emission from radio lobes}
196: Using eq.~(\ref{eq:bubble}) one can estimate the emission from the radio
197: lobes. For a powerlaw distribution $f(\gamma) = C \gamma^{-s}$ with
198: spectral index $s\sim 2$ this gives \citep[e.g.,][]{jarvis:01}:
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: L_{\nu}
201: & \propto & \rho_{\rm x}^{\frac{3+3s}{4(5-\zeta)}}r_{\rm
202: x}^{\frac{\zeta(3 + 3s)}{4(5-\zeta)}}\scrL^{\frac{12 + (5 + s)(2 -
203: \zeta)}{4(5-\zeta)}}t^{\frac{36-(5+s)(4+\zeta)}{4(5-\zeta)}}.
204: \label{eq:flux}
205: \end{eqnarray}
206:
207: Using eq.~(\ref{eq:flux}) we can determine the scaling of radio luminosity
208: with the fundamental source parameters. For active sources with the same
209: {\em absolute} age $t$, the radio flux will scale like $F_{\nu} \propto
210: \scrL^{1.3} \rho_{\rm x}(r)^{0.45} t^{0.4} \propto M^{1.3}\,\rho_{\rm
211: x}(r)^{0.45}$. Typically, however, one would expect the jet activity time
212: scale to be proportional to the disk time scales, i.e., proportional to
213: $M$. Comparing sources of the same {\em scaled} age $t/M$ gives $F_{\nu}
214: \propto \scrL^{1.3} \rho_{\rm x}^{0.45} M^{0.4} \tau^{0.4} \propto
215: M^{1.7}\,\rho_{\rm x}(r)^{0.45}$.
216:
217: Thus, for sources located in {\em uniform} environments, the scaling index
218: $\xi \equiv d\ln{F_{\nu}}/{d\ln{M}}$ will fall into the range $1.3 \leq \xi
219: \leq 1.7$, interestingly close to the scaling measured in AGNs
220: \citep[e.g.,][]{lacy:01}. This limit should be valid for Galactic sources
221: and for extragalactic sources which are still confined to the core of the
222: cluster potential (where $\zeta \sim 0$). In stratified atmospheres (i.e.,
223: for large AGN jets), the dependence of $F_{\nu}$ on $\rho_{\rm x}$ can lead
224: to a much weaker $M$ dependence: for the canonical value of $\zeta \sim
225: 1.5$, found in typical isothermal cluster atmospheres, \citet{jarvis:01}
226: find $\xi \sim 1.1$ for sources of the same age $t$, and for sources of the
227: same {\em scaled} age $\xi \sim 0.9$. Finally, a useful (since measurable)
228: comparison is for sources of the same absolute size $r_{\rm c}$, where $\xi
229: = (5+s)/6$, independent of $\zeta$.
230:
231: \subsection{Microquasar radio lobes}
232: \label{sec:microlobes}
233: Strictly speaking, eq.~(\ref{eq:bubble}) is valid only for lobes expanding
234: at sub-relativistic speeds. Since, as argued in this paper, microquasars
235: are located in under-dense environments, their expansion stays relativistic
236: much longer, measured in natural units $T\propto t/M$, which complicates
237: the dynamics significantly, partly because the lobes are no longer in
238: causal contact [which was the tacit assumption in deriving
239: eq.~(\ref{eq:bubble})]. An analytic treatment of the evolution of
240: relativistic lobes is beyond the scope of this {\em letter}. Instead, we
241: simply note that the following discussion applies only to microquasar lobes
242: old enough to have become sub-relativistic. For the moderate Lorentz
243: factors of $\Gamma_{\rm jet} \sim 5$ involved, relativistic corrections
244: should, in any case, stay within an order of magnitude, sufficient for the
245: purpose of the rough estimates presented here.
246:
247: We can then use eq.~(\ref{eq:flux}), taking a fiducial kinetic jet
248: luminosity of $\scrL \equiv 10^{39}\scrL_{39}\,{\rm ergs\ s^{-1}}$ (a
249: reasonable estimate during powerful flares like those observed in GRS
250: 1915+105 or GRO J1655$-$40) and a constant external density with $\zeta = 0$
251: to arrive at an estimate of the absolute flux from a microquasar at
252: distance $D = 10\, D_{10}\,{\rm kpc}$ of
253: \begin{equation}
254: F_{\nu} \sim 40\,{\rm mJy}\ n_{\rm
255: ISM}^{0.45}\,\scrL_{39}^{1.3}\,t^{0.4}\, \frac{\varphi^{3/4}}{1 +
256: \varphi}\, D_{10}^{-2}\, \nu_{\rm 5}^{-1/2}, \label{eq:microflux1}
257: \end{equation}
258: where $\nu_{5}$ is the observing frequency in units of 5 GHz.
259:
260: Since the lobe expansion will be supersonic for much longer than the
261: expected lifetime of the nuclear jet, a Sedov phase will follow the active
262: expansion phase, during which the lobe radius will roughly follow $R
263: \propto t^{2/5}$ and the luminosity will follow $L_{\nu} \propto t^{-0.9}$.
264: This phase will begin after the source switches off, at $t_{\rm s} =
265: 10^{5}\,{\rm s}\, E_{44}/\scrL_{39} \approx 1\,{\rm day}$, and it will last
266: until the source reaches pressure equilibrium with the surrounding medium
267: at $t_{\rm p}$.
268:
269: Since the luminosity during the Sedov phase is declining, the source flux
270: reaches a maximum at the beginning of the Sedov phase and will then follow
271: \begin{equation}
272: F_{\nu} \sim 4\ {\rm Jy}\ \frac{n_{\rm
273: ISM}^{0.45}\,\scrL_{39}^{0.3}\, E_{44}^{0.4}}{D_{10}^{-2}}\,
274: \frac{\varphi^{3/4}}{1 + \varphi}\,\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm
275: s}}\right)^{-0.9}\,\nu_{5}^{-1/2}\label{eq:microflux2}
276: \end{equation}
277: with a timescale of $t_{\rm s} \approx 1\,{\rm day}$. For ISM densities
278: appropriate for the hot phase, the flux should be rather dim to begin with
279: and fade quickly beyond detectability.
280:
281: For an external pressure of $p_{\rm x} \equiv 10^{-12}\,{\rm
282: ergs\,cm^{-3}}\ p_{-12}$, the lobe reaches pressure equilibrium with the
283: ISM when it has reached an equilibrium size of $r_{\rm e} \sim 1\,{\rm
284: pc}\, E_{44}^{1/3}\,p_{-12}^{-1/3}$ on a timescale of order $\tau_{\rm e}
285: \sim 2\,\times\,10^{4}\,{\rm yrs}\,E_{44}^{1/3}\,n_{\rm
286: x}^{1/2}\,p_{-12}^{-5/6}$. The radio flux is then $F_{\nu} \lesssim 3
287: \times 10^{-6}\,{\rm Jy} \,E_{44} \,p_{-12}^{7/4} \,D_{10}^{-2}
288: \,\nu_{5}^{-1/2}$ (the upper limit is set by equipartition), with surface
289: brightness $I_{\nu} \lesssim 10^{-5}\,{\rm Jy\,arcmin^{-2}}\,E_{44}^{1/3}
290: \,p_{-12}^{17/12}\,\nu_{5}^{-1/2}$, corresponding to a brightness
291: temperature of $T_{\rm B} \lesssim 2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm
292: K}\,p_{-12}^{17/12}\,E_{44}^{1/3}\,\nu_{5}^{-5/2}$.
293:
294: Multiple ejection events will lead to the accumulation of a faint radio
295: halo around the source, with the value for $E_{44}$ now reflecting the
296: total accumulated energy in the halo in the expressions for $F_{\nu}$ and
297: $I_{\nu}$. Strong radiative losses in the early Sedov phase (during which
298: no further injection of relativistic particles by the jet occurs) would
299: limit the detectability of this halo to very low frequencies.
300:
301: The lack of strong radio emission from lobes following the powerful
302: outbursts from microquasars like GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655$-$40 indicates
303: that the surrounding density should be lower than the canonical value of
304: $1\, {\rm cm^{-3}}$ [see eq.~(\ref{eq:microflux2}) and
305: Sect. \ref{sec:density}]. The detection of lobe emission from the neutron
306: star Sco X-1 (at a distance of $3.2\,{\rm kpc}$) at the $\sim 10\ {\rm
307: mJy}$ level and on timescales of order days \citep{fomalont:01} is also
308: roughly consistent with originating from the early Sedov phase. Persistent
309: radio structures on pc scales have been found in the sources 1E
310: 1740.7$-$2942 \citep{mirabel:99} and GRS 1758$-$258 \citep{marti:98}. The
311: lack of current jet activity, compared to the relatively strong emission
312: from the extended structure on $\rm 0.1 - 1\,mJy$ levels would argue for an
313: epoch of powerful jet activity in the recent past. The flux and surface
314: brightness of these sources indicate that they are either located in
315: regions of large pressure (which would be compatible with their position
316: close to the Galactic center) and/or that the emitting plasma has not yet
317: reached pressure equilibrium with the ISM.
318:
319: \subsection{The environment of GRS 1915 and GRO J1655}
320: \label{sec:density}
321: We shall now demonstrate that the best studied microquasars, GRS 1915+105
322: and GRO J1655$-$40, are indeed locate in low density gas. For the sake of
323: simplicity we assume that the bright knots in the jet of GRS 1915+105 are
324: discrete ejections. \citet{kaiser:00} have demonstrated how the physics of
325: the jet changes if the knots are internal shocks rather than blobs.
326: However, as long as we consider only the {\em total energy} $E$ contained
327: in the outflow, the internal jet structure is irrelevant for this argument.
328:
329: {\em VLBI} and {\em MERLIN} observations of the 1994 and 1997 events
330: \citep{mirabel:94,fender:99} show that the knots traveled out to a distance
331: of at least $0.04\ {\rm pc}$ (set by the detection limit, i.e., the knots
332: might well have traveled further). The observed velocity of the components
333: is {\em constant} out to at least this distance.
334:
335: The length of the jet is already an indication that the interaction with
336: the ISM must be much less efficient in this jet than it is in extragalactic
337: objects: When scaled by central mass, the length of $l \gtrsim 0.04\ {\rm
338: pc}$ observed in GRS 1915+105 would translate to a jet length of $l \gtrsim
339: 4\ {\rm Mpc}$ for a jet with a supermassive black hole at its center, like
340: M87 or Cyg A. This is longer than any observed AGN jets - even in giant
341: radio galaxies like NGC 315 \citep{bridle:76}, and this is only a lower
342: limit to the jet length!
343:
344: Based on equipartition arguments, the kinetic energy in the ejection is
345: roughly $E_{\rm kin} \sim 10^{44}\,E_{44}\,{\rm ergs}$
346: \citep{fender:99,rodriguez:99}. As it travels downstream, we assume that
347: the knot expands conically with an opening angle $\theta \equiv 5\arcdeg
348: \theta_5$ (i.e, a half-opening angle of $2.5\arcdeg$), and sweeps up (or
349: pushes aside) the ambient matter in its way \citep[e.g.,][]{heinz:99}. The
350: ejection will have been slowed down by the interaction with the external
351: matter once it has swept up a fraction of $1/\Gamma$ of its own mass.
352: Thus, for an external particle density of $n_{\rm x}$, the ejection will
353: slow down at a distance
354: \begin{equation}
355: d_{\rm slow} \sim 10^{16}\, {\rm cm}\, ({E_{44}}/{\Gamma_{5}^2\,
356: n_{\rm x}\, \theta_{5}^2})^{1/3},
357: \end{equation}
358: where $\Gamma_{5} \equiv \Gamma/5$ is the Lorentz factor of the jet.
359:
360: Comparing this with the observed distance of the ejections, $d_{\rm obs}
361: \gtrsim 1.3\times 10^{17}\,{\rm cm}\, D_{11}\,
362: \sin{(66\arcdeg)}/\sin{(\vartheta_{\rm LOS})}$ (where $D_{11}$ is the
363: distance to GRS 1915+105 in units of $11\ {\rm kpc}$ and $\vartheta_{\rm
364: LOS}$ the viewing angle of the jet), we arrive at the following upper limit
365: on the external density:
366: \begin{equation}
367: n_{\rm x} \lesssim 10^{-3}\,{\rm cm^{-3}} \frac{E_{44}
368: \sin{(\vartheta_{\rm LOS})}^3}{\Gamma_{5}^2{\theta_{5}}^2 D_{11}^3
369: \sin{(66\arcdeg)}^3}. \label{eq:nlimit}
370: \end{equation}
371: A similar analysis can be made for the GRO J1655$-$40 jet, which has also
372: been observed out to a distance of $\sim 0.04\ {\rm pc}$
373: \citep{hjellming:95}, giving the same limit. Thus, these jets must be
374: located in environments much less dense than the canonical $n_{\rm ISM}
375: \sim 1\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$, unless they are very narrow ($\theta \lesssim
376: 0.15\arcdeg$) or very energetic, ($E \gtrsim 10^{47}\,{\rm ergs}$).
377:
378: The simplest interpretation of this result is either ({\em a}) that GRS
379: 1915+105 and GRO J1655$-$40 are located in a region occupied by the hot ISM
380: phase, or ({\em b}) that previous activity of the jets has created an
381: evacuated bubble around them (i.e, the plasma halo mentioned in
382: Sect. \ref{sec:microlobes}), filled with relativistic plasma (in GRO
383: J1655$-$40, which is a HMXB, the companion could also produce such a bubble
384: via an outflow, while in the LMXB GRS 1915+105, a stellar origin of such a
385: bubble would have to be attributed to the stellar wind or SN explosion of
386: the progenitor). Since the energy requirements on such a bubble would only
387: be of order $10^{41}\,{\rm ergs}\,p_{-12}$, this is energetically easily
388: possible.
389:
390: The limit set in eq.~(\ref{eq:nlimit}) can only be avoided if the jet were
391: traveling down an evacuated channel, pre-existing to the outburst. The
392: stability of such a channel (without strong jet activity keeping it open,
393: which would be observable) inside a medium much more dense than the above
394: limits is questionable, given that there should be precession and
395: significant proper motion between outbursts.
396:
397: A very narrow opening angle would imply that the jet material is very cold
398: or very well confined. However, the pressure of the synchrotron emitting
399: electrons alone is already much larger than typical ISM pressures, and an
400: external confinement is therefore excluded. Thus, a very narrow opening
401: angle would imply that the jet material is cold. This, in turn, would
402: increase the energy requirements on the jet \citep{fender:99}. Energies
403: much larger than $10^{44}\,{\rm ergs}$, on the other hand, would require
404: the kinetic luminosity of the central engine to severely exceed the
405: Eddington limit $L_{\rm Edd} \sim 10^{39}\,{\rm ergs\,s^{-1}}$.
406:
407: However, even if we allow for conservative lower limits on $\theta_{5}$ and
408: generous energy estimates, eq.~(\ref{eq:nlimit}) still shows that the
409: density of the environment around the two best studies jets, GRS 1915+105
410: and GRO J1655$-$40, is much smaller than typical molecular cloud densities,
411: which would be needed for scale invariance with typical extragalactic
412: objects. These estimates show that measurements of the external density
413: and the stopping distance of the jets could be used to constrain important
414: parameters of the jet, such as the energy and the opening angle.
415:
416: \section{Conclusions}
417: We have demonstrated that microquasars are typically located in much less
418: dense environments than extragalactic in a dynamical sense. This results
419: in a reduction of the expected emission from extended radio lobes,
420: consistent with the rarity of such structures in powerful Galactic jet
421: sources. It also explains the observed length of the jets in GRS 1915+105
422: and GRO J1655$-$40, $l\gtrsim 0.04\ {\rm pc}$, which would correspond to a
423: jet length of $4\ {\rm Mpc}$ when scaled by $M$ to AGN conditions.
424: Estimates of the environmental density of these sources based on these
425: length measurements indicate that these sources are located in environments
426: much less dense than the canonical $1\,{\rm cm^{-1}}$, unless the jets are
427: very narrow or extremely energetic.
428:
429: \begin{acknowledgements}I would like to thank E.\ Chu\-ra\-zov,
430: T.\ En{\ss}\-lin, R.\ Sunyaev, and the referee M.\ Lacy for their comments.
431: \end{acknowledgements}
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}{16}
434: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
435:
436: \bibitem[{{Bridle} {et~al.}(1976){Bridle}, {Davis}, {Meloy}, {Fomalont},
437: {Strom}, \& {Willis}}]{bridle:76}
438: {Bridle}, A.~H., {Davis}, M.~M., {Meloy}, D.~A., {et~al.} 1976, \nat, 262, 179
439:
440: \bibitem[{{Castor} {et~al.}(1975){Castor}, {McCray}, \& {Weaver}}]{castor:75}
441: {Castor}, J., {McCray}, R., \& {Weaver}, R. 1975, \apjl, 200, L107
442:
443: \bibitem[{{Falcke} \& {Biermann}(1996)}]{falcke:96}
444: {Falcke}, H. \& {Biermann}, P.~L. 1996, \aap, 308, 321
445:
446: \bibitem[{{Falle}(1991)}]{falle:91}
447: {Falle}, S.~A.~E.~G. 1991, \mnras, 250, 581
448:
449: \bibitem[{{Fender} {et~al.}(1999){Fender}, {Garrington}, {McKay}, {Muxlow},
450: {Pooley}, {Spencer}, {Stirling}, \& {Waltman}}]{fender:99}
451: {Fender}, R.~P., {Garrington}, S.~T., {McKay}, D.~J., {et~al.} 1999, \mnras,
452: 304, 865
453:
454: \bibitem[{{Fomalont} {et~al.}(2001){Fomalont}, {Geldzahler}, \&
455: {Bradshaw}}]{fomalont:01}
456: {Fomalont}, E.~B., {Geldzahler}, B.~J., \& {Bradshaw}, C.~F. 2001, \apjl, 553,
457: L27
458:
459: \bibitem[{{Heinz} \& {Begelman}(1999)}]{heinz:99}
460: {Heinz}, S. \& {Begelman}, M.~C. 1999, \apjl, 527, L35
461:
462: \bibitem[{{Hjellming} \& {Rupen}(1995)}]{hjellming:95}
463: {Hjellming}, R.~M. \& {Rupen}, M.~P. 1995, \nat, 375, 464
464:
465: \bibitem[{{Jarvis} {et~al.}(2001){Jarvis}, {Rawlings}, {Lacy}, {Blundell},
466: {Bunker}, {Eales}, {Saunders}, {Spinrad}, {Stern}, \& {Willott}}]{jarvis:01}
467: {Jarvis}, M.~J., {Rawlings}, S., {Lacy}, M., {et~al.} 2001, \mnras, 326, 1563
468:
469: \bibitem[{{Kaiser} {et~al.}(2000){Kaiser}, {Sunyaev}, \& {Spruit}}]{kaiser:00}
470: {Kaiser}, C.~R., {Sunyaev}, R., \& {Spruit}, H.~C. 2000, \aap, 356, 975
471:
472: \bibitem[{{Lacy} {et~al.}(2001){Lacy}, {Laurent-Muehleisen}, {Ridgway},
473: {Becker}, \& {White}}]{lacy:01}
474: {Lacy}, M., {Laurent-Muehleisen}, S.~A., {Ridgway}, S.~E., {Becker}, R.~H., \&
475: {White}, R.~L. 2001, \apjl, 551, L17
476:
477: \bibitem[{{Mart\'{\i}} {et~al.}(1998){Mart\'{\i}}, {Mereghetti}, {Chaty},
478: {Mirabel}, {Goldoni}, \& {Rodr\'{\i}guez}}]{marti:98}
479: {Mart\'{\i}}, J., {Mereghetti}, S., {Chaty}, S., {et~al.} 1998, \aap, 338, L95
480:
481: \bibitem[{{Mirabel} \& {Rodr\'{\i}guez}(1994)}]{mirabel:94}
482: {Mirabel}, I.~F. \& {Rodr\'{\i}guez}, L.~F. 1994, \nat, 371, 46
483:
484: \bibitem[{{Mirabel} \& {Rodr\'{\i}guez}(1999)}]{mirabel:99}
485: ---. 1999, \araa, 37, 409
486:
487: \bibitem[{{Rodr\'{\i}guez} \& {Mirabel}(1999)}]{rodriguez:99}
488: {Rodr\'{\i}guez}, L.~F. \& {Mirabel}, I.~F. 1999, \apj, 511, 398
489:
490: \bibitem[{{Shakura} \& {Sunyaev}(1976)}]{shakura:76}
491: {Shakura}, N.~I. \& {Sunyaev}, R.~A. 1976, \mnras, 175, 613
492:
493: \end{thebibliography}
494:
495: \end{document}
496: \end
497: