astro-ph0307404/ms.tex
1: %\documentclass{aastex}
2: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
3: %\documentclass{article}
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: 
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8: 
9: %\documentclass[preprint2, 12pt]{aastex}
10: 
11: 
12: 
13: %\received{}
14: %\accepted{}
15: %\journalid{}{}
16: %\articleid{}{}
17: 
18: \slugcomment{}
19: 
20: \shorttitle{Decelerating Flows in  TeV Blazars}
21: \shortauthors{Georganopoulos \& Kazanas}
22: 
23: 
24: \begin{document}
25: 
26: \title{Decelerating Flows in  TeV Blazars: A Resolution to the\\
27: BL Lac -- FR I Unification Problem}
28: 
29: \author{Markos Georganopoulos\altaffilmark{1}
30:  \& Demosthenes Kazanas\altaffilmark{2}}
31: \affil{Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 
32: Code 661, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.}
33: \altaffiltext{1}{Also NAS/NRC Research Associate; email:
34: markos@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}
35: \altaffiltext{2}{email: Demos.Kazanas-1@nasa.gov}
36: 
37: %\authoraddr{}
38: %\email{}
39: 
40: \begin{abstract}
41: 
42: TeV emission from BL Lacertae (BL) objects is commonly modeled as 
43: Synchrotron-Self Compton (SSC) radiation from relativistically 
44: moving homogeneous plasma blobs. In the context of these models, 
45: the blob Lorentz factors needed to reproduce the corrected for 
46: absorption by the diffuse IR background (DIRB) TeV emission are large ($\delta 
47: \gtrsim  50$). The main reason for this is that stronger beaming  
48: eases the problem of the lack of  $\sim$ IR-UV synchrotron seed 
49: photons needed to produce the de-absorbed $\sim $ few TeV peak 
50: of the spectral energy distribution (SED). However, such  high 
51: Doppler  factors are  in strong disagreement with the unified scheme, 
52: according to which  BLs are FR I radio galaxies with their jets 
53: closely aligned to the line of sight. Here, motivated by the 
54: detection of sub-luminal velocities in the sub-pc scale jets of 
55: the best studied TeV blazars, MKN 421 and MKN 501, we examine the 
56: possibility  that the relativistic flows in the TeV BLs decelerate. 
57: In this case, the problem of the missing seed photons is solved 
58: because of Upstream Compton (UC) scattering,  a process in which  
59: the upstream energetic electrons from the fast base of the flow `see' 
60: the synchrotron seed photons produced in the slow part of the flow 
61: relativistically beamed. Modest Lorentz factors ($\Gamma \sim 15$), 
62: decelerating down to  values compatible with the recent radio 
63: interferometric observations,  reproduce the  $\sim $ few TeV peak energy
64: of these sources. Furthermore, such  decelerating flows are shown 
65: to be in  agreement with the BL - FR I unification, naturally reproducing
66: the observed BL/FR I broad band luminosity ratios. 
67: \end{abstract}
68: 
69: \keywords{ galaxies: active --- quasars: general --- radiation mechanisms: 
70: nonthermal --- X-rays: galaxies}
71: 
72: 
73: \section{Introduction}
74: 
75: There is a small but growing family of blazars detected at TeV energies. 
76: These belong exclusively to the class of high peak frequency BLs, 
77: i.e. blazars whose synchrotron component peaks at X-ray energies.
78: TeV emitting BLs are  of particular interest because of the possibility of absorption of their TeV emission by the DIRB
79: \citep{nikisov62, gould66, stecker92}. Study 
80: of their spectra in the TeV range can  be used to probe the properties of 
81: DIRB as a function of redshift $z$ \citep{salamon98}, 
82: given that the magnitude of absorption 
83: depends on the redshift of the source and the, still elusive, DIRB spectrum  \citep{malkan01,primack01,aharonian02}. 
84: 
85: 
86: 
87: 
88: 
89: The absorption of the TeV photons of this blazar class  suggests that
90:  both  the  
91: intrinsic peak photon energy $E_p$ and peak luminosity $L_p$ of the high 
92: energy (TeV) component are higher than those observed. Even for the nearby 
93: ($z=0.031$) MKN 421, $E_p$ can increase by a factor of $\sim 10$ after 
94: de-absorption to $\sim 5-10 $ TeV \citep{dejager02}. The de-absorbed spectrum 
95: of   H1426+428 at z=0.129 is  even more extreme, characterized  by $E_p 
96: \gtrsim 10$  TeV \citep{aharonian02}. 
97: %
98: Modeling of these sources has been done in the framework of the homogeneous
99: SSC model  [e.g.  \cite{coppi92, mastichiadis97}], 
100: according to which a blob of energetic plasma is moving with a constant
101: Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ forming  a small angle $\theta$ to the line of sight.
102: Such models require high Doppler factors ($\delta =1/\Gamma(1-
103: \beta\cos\theta)\gtrsim 50$,  where $\beta$ is the dimensionless speed 
104: of the flow and $\theta$ its angle to the observer's line of sight) to 
105: reproduce the de-absorbed $E_p$  [e.g. \cite{krawczynski02}; 
106: see also next section]. However, even smaller values of 
107: $\delta (\simeq 10)$ are in conflict \citep{chiaberge00} with the unification 
108: scheme according to which BLs represent FR I radio galaxies viewed at small
109: $\theta \, (\simeq 1/\Gamma$) \citep{urry95}. Also, these high values of
110: $\delta$ are in disagreement with the small values of the apparent 
111: velocities observed in the sub-pc regions of the TeV BL Mkn 421 and Mkn 501
112: (e.g. \cite{marscher99}).
113: In this note we propose that the above issues can be resolved by postulating
114: that the TeV blazar emission originates in a relativistic but {\sl decelerating}
115: flow. In \S 2 we present a quantitative analysis and formulation of the above 
116: arguments, while in \S 3 we outline the basic notions behind our proposal 
117: and explain why and how they resolve the outstanding issues discussed in 
118: \S 2. Finally, in \S 4 we discuss some further issues. 
119: 
120: 
121: 
122: \section{Problems with Uniform Velocity TeV Blazar Models}  
123: 
124: 
125: {\bf The Blazar Spectra:} One of the characteristics of the synchrotron 
126: components of the TeV blazar spectra is a break at an energy $\epsilon_b 
127: \sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-6}$ (unprimed energies are in the observer frame while 
128: primed ones in the flow rest frame, all normalized to the rest mass of 
129: the electron $m_ec^2$), with most of the (comoving) 
130: synchrotron energy density above $\epsilon'_b$, a feature that significantly
131: affects their  TeV emission:  Because of the reduction in the inverse Compton
132: (IC) scattering cross section in the K-N regime and the break in the photon
133: energy density at $\epsilon' < \epsilon'_b$, electrons with energies
134: $\gamma \gtrsim 1/ \epsilon'_b$ will channel a decreasing fraction of 
135: their energy to IC scattering, leading to a peak in the IC luminosity at 
136: $\epsilon'_p \simeq 1/\epsilon'_b$ %(so that $\epsilon'_p \, \epsilon'_b \simeq 1$) 
137: even if the maximum electron energy is $\gamma_{max} \gg 1/\epsilon'_b$. 
138: For a source moving with a Doppler factor $\delta$ relative to the 
139: observer $\epsilon'_{b}$ and $\epsilon'_p$ will be $\epsilon_{b}=\delta
140: \epsilon'_{b}$ and $\epsilon_{p}=\delta\epsilon'_{p}$ yielding 
141: %
142: \begin{equation}
143: \delta^2 (\epsilon'_b \, \epsilon'_{p}) \simeq (\epsilon_b \, \epsilon_p)
144: ~~{\rm or}~~ \delta \simeq (\epsilon_{b}\, \epsilon_{p})^{1/2} =   40\;(\nu_{b,16} \;E_{p,\,10\,\rm TeV})^{1/2},  \label{d_constr}
145: \end{equation} 
146: %
147: where $\nu_{b,16}$ is the {\sl observed} synchrotron break frequency in units
148:  of $10^{16}$ Hz and $E_{p,\,10\,\rm TeV}$ is the energy of the {\sl 
149: de-absorbed} IC peak  in units of 10 TeV. De-absorbed $E_p$ values in excess 
150: of 10 TeV then imply relativistic flows in blazars with $\Gamma \gtrsim 40$.
151: The crucial point in the above argument, namely that the IC luminosity  
152: peaks at $\epsilon'_p\lesssim 1/ \epsilon'_b$, can be demonstrated explicitly
153: within the homogeneous SSC models: Assume, as customary, continuous injection 
154: of a power law electron distribution within a uniform source at a rate $Q(\gamma)
155: \propto \gamma^{-s}$, $\gamma \leq \gamma_{max}$.  The steady state electron 
156: distribution is then
157: %
158: \begin{equation}
159: n(\gamma)\propto\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
160:                   \gamma^{-s} & \mbox{for $\gamma < \gamma_b$}\\
161: 		  \gamma^{-(s+1)} & \mbox{for $ \gamma_b\leq \gamma \leq \gamma_{max}$,}
162: 		  \end{array}
163: 	\right.		\label{n(g)}
164: \end{equation}
165: %
166: with $\gamma_b$ the electron energy below which electrons escape from the
167: source faster than they radiatively cool. The corresponding comoving 
168: synchrotron  energy density distribution is
169: \begin{equation}
170: u(\epsilon')\propto\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
171:                   \epsilon'^{-(s-1)/2} & \mbox{for $\epsilon' < \epsilon'_b$}\\
172: 		  \epsilon'^{-s/2} & \mbox{for $ \epsilon'_b\leq \epsilon \leq \epsilon'_{max}$,}
173: 		  \end{array}
174: 	\right.	 \label{u(e)}	
175: \end{equation}
176: where $\epsilon'_b=b \gamma_b^2$,  $\epsilon'_{max}=b \gamma_{max}^2$,
177: and $b$ is the comoving magnetic field in units of its critical value 
178: $B_c=m_e^2c^3/e\hbar=4.4 \times 10^{13}$ G. Fits to the synchrotron
179: spectra of TeV blazars require $1 < s < 2$, with comoving peak synchrotron 
180: luminosity at $\epsilon'_{max}$. We now examine the energy $\epsilon'_p$ 
181: at which the IC luminosity peaks as a function of the maximum electron 
182: energy $\gamma_{max}$. The K-N influence on the cross section begins at 
183: $\gamma_{max} \simeq 1/\epsilon'_{max}$. Above that energy the electrons 
184: interact only with the fraction of the synchrotron spectrum at energies 
185: less than $\epsilon' \lesssim 1/\gamma$, while the maximum photon energy
186: resulting from the IC is $\epsilon'_M \approx \gamma_{max}$. If 
187: $L(\epsilon'_M)$ is the photon scattering rate to energy $\epsilon'_M$, 
188: the IC luminosity at this energy is
189: %
190: \begin{equation}
191: \epsilon'_M L(\epsilon'_M)\propto \epsilon'_M \; n(\gamma_{max})
192: \;  \epsilon'    u(\epsilon')   \; \gamma_{max}^2.  
193: \end{equation} 
194: %
195: Setting $\epsilon'=1/\gamma_{max}$ as the appropriate seed photons (photons
196: of larger energy are in the K-N regime, and photons of lower energy give lower
197:  $\epsilon'_{IC}$), and using eq. (\ref{n(g)}), (\ref{u(e)}) we obtain
198: %
199: \begin{equation}
200: \epsilon'_M L(\epsilon'_M)\propto
201: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
202:                   \epsilon'^{(2-s)/2}_M & \mbox{for $\epsilon'_M \lesssim 1/\epsilon'_b$}\\
203: \\
204: 		  \epsilon'^{(1-s)/2}_M & \mbox{for $\epsilon'_M \gtrsim 1/\epsilon'_b$}
205: 		  \end{array}
206: 	\right.
207: \end{equation} 
208: where we have also used  $\epsilon'_M=\gamma_{max}$. Therefore,
209: for $1<s<2$  the luminosity at 
210: maximum photon energy $\epsilon'_M L(\epsilon'_M)$ increases with 
211: $\gamma_{max}$ for $\epsilon'_M=\gamma_{max}\lesssim 1/\epsilon'_b$ and
212: decreases for $\epsilon'_M \gtrsim 1/\epsilon'_b$, achieving its peak
213: luminosity at energy $\epsilon'_p\approx 1/\epsilon'_b$.
214: 
215: 
216: {\bf Blazar Unification:} According to the unification scheme of radio 
217: loud active galaxies (e.g. Urry  \& Padovani 1995) BLs are  FR I 
218: radio  galaxies with their jets oriented close to the line of sight.
219: The average Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ of 
220: the jet flows, derived by matching the luminosity functions of  
221: BL and FR I samples, were estimated to be $\Gamma\sim3-5$ \citep{urry91,
222: hardcastle03}, in clear disagreement with the values of the Doppler factors 
223: required by the homogeneous SSC models for the TeV blazars. The high
224: Doppler factors estimated on the basis of homogeneous SSC models imply
225: that for $\Gamma \simeq \delta \simeq 50$, $\theta \approx 1/\Gamma\approx
226: 1^{\circ}$ requiring sources very well aligned to the line of sight, thus
227: grossly overpredicting the number of FR I galaxies above a given limiting
228: flux (this actually would be the case even with the much smaller value of 
229: $\Gamma \simeq 10$; \cite{hardcastle03}). 
230: 
231: In a different aspect of the same problem, Chiaberge et al. (2000) showed 
232: that the FR I nuclei are overluminous by a factor of $10-10^4$ compared 
233: to their luminosity should they have been misaligned BLs harboring flows with 
234: Lorentz factors $\Gamma \sim 15$. Applying to sub-pc scales the arguments
235: of Laing et al. (1999) concerning the structure of FR I kpc scale jets, 
236: they opted for jets with a high $\Gamma$ `spine' surrounded by lower 
237: $\Gamma$ sheath. For a source at a small angle to the line of sight the 
238: emission is dominated by the fast spine, while, at large angles this  
239: radiation is beamed out of the observer's direction and the observed
240: spectrum is dominated by the mildly beamed emission by the slower sheath.
241: %
242: 
243: However, recent VLBA \citep{marscher99}, VLBI \citep{edwards02}, 
244: and combined VSOP and VLBI \citep{piner99} studies do not detect any 
245: high velocity components in the jets of the two TeV sources MKN 421 
246: and MKN 501. These observations are compatible  with  subluminal
247: ($\beta_{app} \sim0.3-0.6$, Piner et al. 1999, Edwards et al. 2002) or
248: mildly relativistic ($\beta_{app}\sim 2$, Marscher 1999) sub-pc 
249: velocities.  A value of $\delta\sim 50$, as needed  in modeling the TeV
250: emission of these sources, could produce the observed velocities only
251: for $\theta \lesssim 0.1^{\circ}$. Rather than assuming such an 
252: extraordinary jet alignment for both sources, Marscher (1999) suggested 
253: that the flow in the sub-pc environment of these sources has already 
254: decelerated substantially.  Additional support for slow  flows in  sub-pc
255: scales comes from   \cite{jorstad01} that showed that in 
256: several cases VLBI components in BLs move with $\beta_{app}\sim 1-2$.
257: That low jet velocities at pc scales are real and not the result of 
258: projection effects is supported by the observation of subluminal velocities
259: at the jet of the FR I galaxy 3C 270 jets, which are thought to be at 
260: large angle to the observer's line of sight (Piner et al. 2001). 
261: 
262: 
263: 
264: \section{Decelerating flows and UC emission}
265: 
266: Motivated by the above issues,  we propose that 
267: in the  high energy emitting  region  of the  TeV BLs the plasma flow is 
268:  relativistic and {\sl decelerating} (a similar proposal was advanced to unify
269: the broadband properties of the hot spots of FR II radio 
270: galaxies and quasars \citep{georganopoulos03}).
271: Our proposed scheme for the BL flows involves the injection of a power law 
272: electron distribution at the base of a relativistic flow which decelerates
273: while at the same time the electron distribution cools radiatively. 
274: The highest synchrotron frequencies  originate 
275:  at fast base of the flow where the 
276: electrons are more energetic. As both 
277: the flow velocity and electron  energy drop with radius, the locally emitted 
278: synchrotron spectrum shifts to lower energies while its beaming pattern 
279: becomes wider. At small angles the observed spectrum is  dominated by emission 
280: from the higher $\Gamma$ base of flow, where the most energetic electrons
281: reside. At larger angles this emission from the inner, fast flow section 
282: is beamed away from the observer and the major contribution to the 
283: spectrum comes from its slower parts which contain less energetic
284: electrons, leading to softer spectra.   
285: 
286: The inverse Compton emission of such a flow behaves in a more involved
287: way: Electrons will upscatter the locally produced synchrotron seed photons,
288: giving rise to a local SSC emission with $\delta-$dependence similar to 
289:    that of synchrotron. However, the electrons of a given radius scatter 
290: will  also those synchrotron photons produced 
291: downstream in the flow. The energy density of the latter, will appear 
292: Doppler boosted in the fast (upstream) part of the flow by $\sim 
293: \Gamma_{rel}^2$ \citep{dermer95}, where $\Gamma_{rel}$ is the relative 
294: Lorentz factor between the fast and slow part of the flow. With their
295: maximum energy being lower (because of cooling) and their energy density
296: amplified they  contribute to the IC emission at energies higher 
297: than expected on the basis of uniform velocity models without the need of
298: invoking as large Doppler factors.
299: The beaming pattern of this UC radiation is also intermediate
300: between the  synchrotron/SSC pattern of $\delta^{2+\alpha}$ and the external
301: Compton pattern (EC) of  $\delta^{3+2\alpha}$  \citep{dermer95, georganopoulos01}, where $\alpha$ is
302:  the spectral index of the radiation. To demonstrate this consider
303: a two-zone flow, a fast part with Lorentz factor $\Gamma_1$ followed by a
304:  slower
305: part with Lorentz factor $\Gamma_2$. Consider also an observer
306: located at an angle $\theta$ such that  the  Doppler factors of the
307: two zones are $\delta_1 $, $ \delta_2$.  The beaming pattern of the UC 
308: radiation in the frame of the slow part of the flow will be 
309: $\delta_{1,2}^{3+2\alpha}$, where 
310: $\delta_{1,2}$ is the Doppler factor of the fast flow in the frame of the
311: slow flow. To convert this beaming pattern to the observer's frame
312: we need to boost it by $\delta_2^{2+\alpha}$. The beaming pattern is then
313: written as $\delta_{1,2}^{3+2\alpha}\,\delta_2^{2+\alpha}$. To write
314: $\delta_{1,2}$ as a function of $\delta_{1}$, $\delta_{2}$, we note that
315: a photon emitted in the fast part of the flow is seen by the observed
316: boosted in energy by a factor $\delta_1$. The same boosting can take place
317: is two stages: first going to the frame of the slow flow by being boosted 
318: by  $\delta_{1,2}$ and then going to the observer's frame by  being boosted 
319: by $\delta_2$. Because  the final photon energy in the observer's frame does
320: not depend on the intermediate transformations,  $\delta_{1,2}=\delta_{1}
321: /\delta_{2}$.  The beaming pattern of UC scattering is therefore 
322: $\delta_1^{3+2\alpha}/\delta_2^{1+\alpha}$.   Note that, as expected, 
323:  for $\delta_1=\delta_2$, we recover the beaming pattern of SSC, 
324: while for $\delta_2=1$, that of EC radiation. 
325: 
326: 
327: 
328: 
329: %\subsection{Applications to TeV Blazars}
330: 
331: To demonstrate the relevance of  decelerating flows in TeV blazars, we 
332: developed a simple model, based on an one dimensional kinematic flow 
333: description. An electron distribution $n(\gamma)\propto \gamma^{-2}$ is 
334: injected at the base of a decelerating relativistic flow  with velocity 
335: profile $\Gamma(z)=\Gamma_o (z/z_o)^{-2}$. Electrons cool radiatively
336: as they propagate downstream. We calculate their radiative losses along 
337: the flow and also their energy distribution as a function of $z$. We then 
338: calculate the synchrotron emissivity along $z$ and, performing the necessary 
339: beaming transformations and $z-$integration, the volume integrated synchrotron 
340: emission  as a function of observing angle $\theta$. Using the synchrotron 
341: emissivity  as a function of $z$ we calculate the SSC and UC emissivities
342: as a function of $z, \, \theta$. A final integral over $z$ then provides
343: the volume integrated  Compton emissivity as a function of $\theta$.
344: In fig. \ref{fig1} we plot the SED for a deceleratring flow for two different
345: observing angles. Note that at  $\theta=3^{\circ}$ this model 
346: achieves a peak energy for the high energy  component at $\sim 10$ TeV,
347:  using a modest Lorentz 
348: factor of $\Gamma_1=15$. Note also  the stronger angle dependence of
349: emission from the inner fast part of the flow which produces the
350: highest frequencies in each spectral component.
351: Finally, note that,
352:  in contrast 
353: to single velocity homogeneous SSC models,  the
354: Compton component is more sensitive to orientation than synchrotron,
355: as expected if  UC scattering dominates the $\sim $ TeV observed
356: luminosity.  
357: 
358: 
359: We now turn  to the problem of the unification of BLs with FR I
360: sources. \cite{chiaberge00} and \cite{trussoni03} compared  a sample of
361: FR I nuclei to BLs of similar extended radio power, which 
362: is believed to be non-beamed, and therefore orientation independent. 
363: They found that de-beaming 
364: the BL emission under the uniform velocity assumption by changing the 
365: observer's angle from $\theta = 1/\Gamma \simeq 4^{\circ}$ to $60^{\circ}$ 
366: leads to fluxes far smaller than those of FR Is.  In particular the average
367: BL to FR I nucleus luminosity ratio at radio, optical and X-ray bands
368: was found to be: $\log (L_{BL}/L_{FR\;I})_R \approx 2.4$,  $\log (L_{BL}/
369: L_{FR\;I})_{opt} \approx 3.9$,  $\log (L_{BL}/L_{FR\;I})_{X} \approx 3.5$.
370: In fig. \ref{fig2} we plot as vertical bars the luminosity separation of
371: BLs and FR Is according to  \cite{chiaberge00} and \cite{trussoni03}.
372: We also plot the SED of a decelerating flow with physical parameters similar 
373: to that in fig. 1, but with smaller value for $\gamma_{max}$ to
374: produce SED synchrotron peaks similar to those of the intermediate BLs 
375: that correspond in extended radio power to the FR Is \citep{chiaberge00,
376: trussoni03}. As can be seen, the luminosity change of the model 
377: SED at $\theta=60^{\circ}$ (FR I) and  $\theta=1/\Gamma$ (BL) reproduce 
378: relatively well the observed luminosity range.
379: 
380: 
381: 
382: \section{Discussion}
383: 
384: The need for additional seed photons in modeling the $\sim$ few TeV 
385: peak emission of the TeV blazars drives homogeneous SSC models to 
386: $\delta\gtrsim 50$, values in conflict with the presumed unification
387: between FR I's and BLs. 
388: The problem of the missing seed photons can be resolved if one considers 
389: a relativistic flow decelerating from $\Gamma_1\sim 15$ down to $\Gamma_2 
390: \sim $ a few: in this case UC  emission produces spectra that can easily  
391: provide the observed de-absorbed $E_p$ without the need to invoke 
392: values of $\delta$ greater than $\delta \simeq 15$.
393: Such decelerating flows 
394: are consistent with the low, possibly subluminal, speeds observed in the 
395: sub-pc scale jets of MKN 421 and MKN 501 without unreasonable alingment
396: requirements (for $\Gamma_2 =4$ and $\beta_{app} =1$ the corresponding value 
397: of the observing angle is $\theta = 2^{\circ}$). It also resolves the 
398: problem of FR I -- BL unification, which fails for flows with 
399: constant Lorentz factors even as low as $\Gamma \sim 10$.
400: 
401: 
402: 
403: The spatial separation of different frequencies seen in Fig. 1
404: has interesting consequences for the expected variability. 
405:  In homogeneous SSC   models
406:  a variation of the number
407:  of the injected  electrons produces a linear response in the
408:  synchrotron flux and a quadratic
409: one in the SSC flux. This is because  both the number 
410: of the electrons and the synchrotron energy density increase linerarly 
411: and  the SSC flux  increases
412: quadratically because  is proportional to their product.
413: For decelerating flows, fast variations 
414: (faster than the light crossing time of the separation between the  
415: X-ray emitting  region and the downstream 
416: region responsible for most of the  synchrotron seed
417: photons used to produce the TeV emission)  should result to 
418:  approximately linear variations of the TeV  relative to the X-ray flux.
419: This is because the freshly injected high energy electrons
420: UC scatter  mostly  synchrotron  photons 
421: produced  downstream before the injection, and  therefore
422: contribute an undisturbed photon  energy density. 
423: 
424: A physically plausible scenario for the flows we consider may be that 
425: suggested by Marscher (1999), according to which the energy dissipated
426: at the shock is converted into a non-thermal electron component,
427: whose radiative losses lead to the deceleration 
428: of the relativistic flow. In this case the deceleration length scale 
429: would be approximately equal to that of radiative losses, an assumption we 
430: have employed in our calculations. 
431: %
432: A similar scenario has been proposed for the hot spots 
433: of large scale jets, and it seems possible  that  relativistic and 
434: decelerating  flows  exist in different astrophysical environments
435: which exhibit similar characteristics, and in particular a stronger 
436: that anticipated high energy emission due to UC scattering.
437: 
438: 
439: 
440: 
441: 
442: \begin{thebibliography}{}
443: 
444: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. (2002)]{aharonian02} Aharonian, F. et al. 2002, \aap, 384, L23
445: 
446: \bibitem[Chiaberge et al.  (2000)]{chiaberge00} Chiaberge, M. Celotti, A., Capetti, A \& Ghisellini, G. 2000, \aap, 358, 104
447: 
448: 
449: \bibitem[Coppi (1992)]{coppi92} Coppi, P. S. 1992, \mnras, 258, 657
450: 
451: %\bibitem[Costamante et al. (2003)]{costamante03} Costamante, L., Aharonian, F., Ghisellini, G. \& Horns, D. to appear in the proceedings of the conference "Relativistic jets in the Chandra and XMM era", Bologna, 23-27 Sept. 2002, also in astro-ph/0301211
452: 
453: 
454: \bibitem[Dermer (1995)]{dermer95} Dermer, C. D.  1995, \apj, 446, L63
455: 
456: \bibitem[Edwards \& Piner (2002)]{edwards02} Edwards, P. G. \& Piner, B. G. 2002, \apj, 579, L67
457: 
458: \bibitem[Gould  \& Schr\'eder (1966)] {gould66} Gould, J. \&  Schr\'eder, G. 1966, \prl, 16, 252
459: 
460: 
461: \bibitem[Georganopoulos, Kirk \& Mastichiadis (2001)]{georganopoulos01} Georganopoulos, M., Kirk, J. G. \& Mastichiadis, A. 2001, \apj, 561, 111
462: 
463: \bibitem[Georganopoulos \& Kazanas (2003)]{georganopoulos03} Georganopoulos, M., Kazanas, D. 2003, \apj, 589, L5
464: 
465: \bibitem[Hardcastle et al. (2003)]{hardcastle03}
466: Hardcastle, M. J., Worrall, D. M., Birkinshaw, M., \&  Canosa, C. M. 2003,
467: \mnras, 338, 176
468: 
469: \bibitem[de Jager \& Stecker (2002)]{dejager02} de Jager, O. C., \& Stecker, F. W. 2002, \apj, 566, 738
470: 
471: \bibitem[Jorstad et al. (2001)]{jorstad01} Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Mattox, J. R., Wehrle, A. E., Bloom, S. D. \& Yurchenko, A. V. 2001, \apjs, 134, 181
472: 
473: 
474: \bibitem[Krawczynski, Coppi \& Aharonian (2002)]{krawczynski02} Krawczynski, H., Coppi, P. S.,  \& Aharonian, F. 2002, \mnras, 336, 721
475: 
476: 
477: \bibitem[Laing et al. (1999)]{laing99} Laing, R. A., Parma, P., de Ruitter, H. R. \& Fanti, R. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 513
478: 
479: 
480: \bibitem[Malkan \& Stecker (2001)]{malkan01} Malkan, M. A., Stecker, F. W. 2000, \apj, 555, 641
481: 
482: \bibitem[Marscher (1999)]{marscher99} Marscher, A. P. 1999, Astrop. Phys., 11, 19 
483: 
484: \bibitem[Mastichiadis \& Kirk (1997)]{mastichiadis97}Mastichiadis, A. \& Kirk, J. G. 1997,  \aap, 320, 19 
485: 
486: \bibitem[Nikisov (1962)]{nikisov62} Nikisov, A. I. 1962, Sov. JETP 14, 393
487: 
488: 
489: \bibitem[Piner et al. (1999)]{piner99}  Piner, B. G., Unwin, S. C., Wehrle, A. E., Edwards, P. G., Fey, A. L.\&  Kingham, K. A. 1999, \apj, 525, 176 
490: 
491: \bibitem[Piner et al. (2001)]{piner01}  Piner, B. G., Jones, D. L. \& Wehrle,
492: A. E. 2001, AJ, 122, 2954
493: 
494: \bibitem[Primack et al. (2001)]{primack01} Primack, J. R., Somerville, R. S., Bullock, J. S. \& Devriendt, J. E. G. 2001, in High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy: International   Symposium, AIP Conf. Proc., 558, 463
495: 
496: \bibitem[Salamon and Stecker (1998)]{salamon98}Salamon, M. H. \&  Stecker, F. W. 1998, \apj, 493, 547
497: 
498: %\bibitem{sikora96} Sikora, M., Sol, H., Begelman, M. C. \&  Madejski, G. M. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 781
499: 
500: 
501: \bibitem[Stecker, de Jager \&  Salamon (1992)]{stecker92} Stecker, F.W., De Jager, O. C., Salamon, M. H. 1992, \apj, 390, L49
502: 
503: \bibitem[Trussoni et al. (2003)]{trussoni03} Trussoni, E., Capetti, A., Celotti, A., Chiaberdge, M. \& Feretti, L. 2003, \aap, 403, 889
504: 
505: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani (1991)]{urry91}
506: Urry, C. M., \& Padovani, P. 1991, \apj, 371, 60
507: 
508: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani (1995)]{urry95}
509: Urry, C. M., \& Padovani, P. 1995, \pasp, 107, 803
510: 
511: 
512: \end{thebibliography}
513: 
514: \clearpage
515: 
516: \begin{figure}
517: \epsscale{0.7}
518: \plotone{f1.eps}
519: \caption{The synchrotron and inverse Compton emission from a decelerating
520:  relativistic flow under $\theta=3^o$ (thick solid line) 
521: and $\theta=6^o$ (thick broken line)
522:  observing angles. The flow decelerates from $\Gamma_1=15$ to $\Gamma_2=4$
523:  within a length  $Z=2\times 10^{16}$ cm. The radius of the cylindrical
524:  flow is set to $R=Z=2\times 10^{16}$ cm. 
525: A power law electron energy distribution,  $n(\gamma)\propto \gamma^{-2}$,
526: $\gamma \leq 3\times 10^7$ is injected at the base of the flow with
527: a  magnetic field $B=0.1$ G,  half  of the   equipartition value.
528: The thin solid and broken lines correspond to the emission due to the
529: fast inner $10 \%$  of the flow, while the dotted and dash-dotted thin lines
530: correspond to the rest of the flow. 
531: The shaded areas correspond approximately to the energy 
532: range of X-ray and TeV telescopes and the two vertical solid lines energies
533: to  1 and 10 TeV.}
534: \label{fig1}
535: \end{figure}
536: 
537: 
538: \begin{figure}
539: \epsscale{0.8}
540: \plotone{f2.eps}
541: \caption{The SED of a decelerating flow for a range of observing angles.
542:  The physical parameters are similar to the one shown in fig. \ref{fig1}, 
543: except from   the maximum electron energy which has been reduced to 
544: $\gamma_{max}=2\times 10^{5}$.
545: The shaded bars corresponds to the average luminosity difference
546: in radio, optical and X-rays, between the samples of Bls and FR I radio 
547: galaxies studied  by \cite{trussoni03}.}
548: \label{fig2}
549: \end{figure}
550: 
551: \end{document}
552: 
553: 
554: 
555: