1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

4: 

5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

6: \usepackage{graphics}

7: 

8: 

9: %\begin{document}

10: \newcommand{\gae}{\mathrel{\raise .4ex\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower 1.2ex\hbox{$\sim$}

11: }

12: }}

13: 

14: 

15: \shorttitle{X-ray emission from GB~1508+5714}

16: 

17: \shortauthors{Siemiginowska  et al.}

18: 

19: 

20: 

21: \begin{document}

22: 

23: \title{An X-ray jet discovered by Chandra

24: in the z=4.3 radio-selected quasar GB~1508+5714}

25: 

26: 

27: \author{Aneta Siemiginowska$^1$, Randall K. Smith$^1$, Thomas

28: L. Aldcroft$^1$, D.A. Schwartz$^1$\\

29: Frederic Paerels$^2$ and Andreea O. Petric$^2$ }

30: 

31: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

32: Cambridge, MA}

33: \altaffiltext{2}{Columbia University, New York, NY}

34: 

35: \email{asiemiginowska@cfa.harvard.edu}

36: 

37: 

38: \begin{abstract}

39: 

40: We report the {\it Chandra} discovery of an X-ray jet associated with

41: the redshift 4.3 radio-loud quasar GB~1508+5714. The jet X-ray

42: emission peaks $\sim$2$\arcsec$ to the South-West of the quasar

43: core. We present archival HST WFPC2 data of the quasar field which

44: shows no optical emission at the location of the X-ray jet.  We

45: discuss possible emission mechanisms and give constraints to the

46: magnetic field and energy densities for synchrotron radiation or for

47: Compton scattering of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation as the

48: jet X-ray emission process.

49: 

50: 

51: 

52: \end{abstract}

53: 

54: \keywords{Quasars: individual (GB 1508+5714) -- galaxies: jets

55: -- X-rays: galaxies}

56: 

57: \section{Introduction}

58: 

59: 

60: 

61: X-ray jets associated with many quasars observed by the {\it Chandra}

62: X-ray Observatory are among the recent exciting discoveries in high

63: energy astrophysics.  The {\it Chandra} data strongly suggest that

64: jets propagate with high velocities to very large distances from the

65: quasars (Schwartz et al 2000, Chartas et al 2000, Cellotti et al 2001,

66: Tavecchio et al 2000, Siemiginowska et al 2002, 2003; Brunetti et al

67: 2002, Sambruna et al 2002).  One possible emission process for these

68: X-ray jets involves inverse Compton scattering of the Cosmic Microwave

69: Background (CMB) photons on the relativistic particles within the jet

70: (Tavecchio et al 2000, Celotti et al 2001). The energy density of the

71: CMB increases with redshift as $(1+z)^4$, which compensates for the

72: decrease of surface brightness so that resolved objects with the same

73: intrinsic properties (particle density, bulk motion, angle to our line

74: of sight) should be detectable anywhere in the distant universe

75: (Schwartz 2002a). Detecting X-rays from a sample of high redshift jets

76: may allow study of the CMB in the early universe.

77: 

78: 

79: The highest redshift ($z=2.012$) confirmed X-ray jet published to date

80: (Fabian et al 2003) is associated with the radio-loud quasar 3C~9.  In

81: this case the jet X-ray emission is likely due to either Compton

82: scattered CMB photons (Fabian et al 2003) or thermal emission from gas

83: heated by jet propagation shocks (Carilli et al 2002).  Schwartz

84: (2002b) has reported a possible detection of an X-ray jet at the

85: extreme redshift, $z=5.99$ with no apparent radio counterpart (Petric

86: et al 2003).  Although this detection needs to be confirmed it hints

87: at the possibility that at the highest redshifts, X-rays may be the

88: most efficient wave band to study jets.  Radio-loud quasars at high

89: redshift are the best candidates for detecting a jet in X-rays,

90: however, they are quite rare (Snellen et al 2002). There are only 5

91: redshift z$>$4 radio-loud quasars observed so far with {\it Chandra}.

92: 

93: 

94: Here we present a statistically highly significant discovery of an

95: X-ray jet (123.5$\pm 13.3$ counts) associated with $z=4.3$ radio-loud

96: flat spectrum quasar GB~1508+5714.  The quasar is X-ray luminous

97: (L(2-10~keV) = 2.8$\times 10^{46}$ ergs~s$^{-1}$) and Mathur \& Elvis

98: (1995) and Moran \& Helfand (1996) argue that this luminosity is

99: partially due to the beaming.  However, the source was not resolved in

100: radio VLBI observations and there is no detection of a miliarcsec

101: scale radio jet (Frey et al 1997). Also the published arcsec

102: resolution VLA radio data do not indicate any structure on the arcsec

103: scales (Moran \& Helfand 1996).  The peak of the X-ray jet emission is

104: located at $\sim2\arcsec$ from the quasar core and it is only $\sim

105: 3\%$ of the quasar luminosity.  Detection of the similar radio

106: emission requires high dynamic range observations not achieved in the

107: short 5 min exposures.  Here we present the X-ray data of the quasar

108: and the jet, and discuss the possible jet emission mechanisms.

109: 

110: 

111: Throughout this paper we use the cosmological parameters based on the

112: WMAP measurements (Spergel et al. 2003):

113: H$_0=$71~km~sec$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M = 0.27$, and $\Omega_{\rm

114: vac} = 0.73$. At $z= 4.3$, 1~arcsec corresponds to 6.871~kpc.

115: 

116: \section{Chandra Observations}

117: 

118: Q1508+5714 \ was observed with the {\it Chandra} Advanced CCD Imaging

119: Spectrometer (ACIS-S, Weisskopf et al 2002) on 2001 June 13 (ObsID

120: 2241).  The source was located on the S3 chip (BI) and offset by $\sim

121: 35\arcsec$ from the optical axes. The observation was made in the FAINT

122: mode with the 3.241~sec frame readout time of the full CCD.  The

123: source count rate of ~0.054 cts/sec is relatively low and the

124: observation is not affected by pileup. At this count rate we expect

125: only $\sim$5 counts in the readout streak.  Note that this {\it

126: Chandra} observation was first presented by Telis et al (2002) in the

127: context of X-ray dust halos.

128: 

129: We have reprocessed the archival data using the {\it Chandra} CALDB

130: version 2.22. We ran {\tt acis\_process\_events} to remove pixel

131: randomization to obtain the highest image resolution data. The X-ray

132: position of the quasar (J2000: 15 10 02.89, +57 02 43.32) agrees with

133: the radio position (Ma et al. 1998) to better than 0.05$\arcsec$,

134: (which is smaller than {\em{Chandra}}'s 90$\%$ pointing accuracy

135: of 0.6~arcsec\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/ASPECT/celmon/}), so

136: we have high confidence in the source identification.  We used CIAO

137: 3.0

138: \footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/} software to analyze the data.

139: The standard data filtering leaves the total exposure time at

140: $\sim$88.97~ksec.

141: 

142: 

143: 

144: 

145: 

146: \subsection{Image Analysis}

147: \label{image}

148: 

149: The binned ACIS-S data are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:acis}.  The

150: source has a clear extension to the South-West (PA $\sim-114^{o}$)

151: which is inconsistent with the HRMA (High Resolution Mirror Assembly)

152: point spread function (PSF).  

153: %Note that this direction is different

154: %from the readout direction (Fig.~\ref{fig:acis}).

155: 

156: \begin{figure}

157: %\centerline{

158: \resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}

159: %\resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{gb1508_grey_contours.ps}}

160: \caption{The observed {\it Chandra} ACIS-S image of

161: GB~1508+5714.  The spatial scale is indicated by a 2 arcsec arrow.

162: The readout direction is indicated by arrows in the upper right

163: corner.  The North is up and the East is left. The pixel size

164: corresponds to 0.148$\arcsec$. The image is in logarithmic scale and

165: contour levels are at 0.2, 0.5, 1.2, 1.8, 3.0 ,7.3, 23

166: counts/pixel. The maximum of 198 counts per pixel in the quasar core.}

167: \label{fig:acis}

168: \end{figure}

169: 

170: To determine if the extended emission could be due to a nearby point

171: source (e.g. a lensed image or binary quasar), we ran a ray trace

172: using CHART and then

173: MARX\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/chart/} to create a high S/N

174: simulation of two point sources separated by 2.0\arcsec.  (The

175: centroid of the extended emission is $\sim$2.0\arcsec\ from the quasar

176: core.)  We modeled both the quasar core and the extended emission as

177: point sources with energy spectra given by the fitting described in

178: Section~\ref{qso}. We then extracted a linear profile along the

179: direction of the extended emission, using 0.25\arcsec\ slices oriented

180: perpendicular to the direction of extent.  For the simulation we added

181: 7$\%$ errors to account for uncertainty in the raytrace model.  The

182: resultant profiles are shown in Fig~\ref{fig:sim} and clearly

183: illustrate that the observed extended emission (solid line) between

184: 1\arcsec\ to 3\arcsec\ is inconsistent with a point source (dashed

185: line).  Using $\chi^2$ statistics, the probability that the profiles

186: are consistent over that distance range is less than $10^{-10}$.

187: 

188: \begin{figure}

189: \centerline{

190: \resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}}

191: %\resizebox{3.2in}{!}{\includegraphics{obs_sim_profile_sys.ps}}}

192: \caption{Profile along the direction of extended emission for Chandra

193: observation of GB~1508+5714 (solid line) and for a simulated

194: observation using two point sources separated by 2\arcsec\ (dotted

195: line).  The central core emission matches well but the extended

196: emission (from 1\arcsec\ to 3\arcsec\ from core) is highly

197: inconsistent with a point source.}

198: \label{fig:sim}

199: \end{figure}

200: 

201: 

202: In Section~\ref{sec:hst} we present an HST image which rules out

203: gravitational lensing or a foreground galaxy. We conclude that the

204: quasar image is extended and that the South-West feature has a linear

205: extent which is most plausibly due to an X-ray jet.  The chance

206: probability of finding a source at the jet flux level within

207: 10$\arcsec$ of the quasar is very low, approximately 0.5$\%$.  This is

208: based on the Chandra Deep Field observations (Giacconi et al, 2001),

209: which give 200~sources~deg$^{-2}$ with flux above 5$\times

210: 10^{-15}$ergs~cm$^{-2}$sec$^{-1}$.

211: 

212: \vspace*{2em}

213: 

214: \subsection{Spectral Modeling of the Quasar}

215: \label{qso}

216: 

217: The quasar spectrum with a total of 5242 counts was extracted from a

218: 1.5\arcsec\ circle centered on the pixel (x,y)=(4022.06,4118.96)

219: (physical coordinates, see Fig.\ref{fig:acis-regions}).  Based on the

220: CHART simulations (Sec.~\ref{image}) we estimate that $\sim$95$\%$ of

221: the source counts lie within this source region.  

222: %a 1.5 arcsec radius

223: %circle.  

224: The background (annulus between 7.5$\arcsec$ and 15$\arcsec$)

225: intensity is low with only 8.8$\pm$0.4 counts expected in the

226: source regions.  The energy response of ACIS-S below 1~keV is affected

227: by a contamination

228: layer\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/caveats/}.  To account for

229: the contaminant we have applied a correction using {\tt apply\_acisabs

230: v.1.1-2}\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/sherpa\_acisabs/}.

231: Still there are uncertainties of order $\sim 15\%$ (for energies below

232: 1~keV) due to unknown properties of the

233: contaminant\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/}.

234: 

235: \begin{figure}

236: \resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}

237: \caption{ The ACIS-S data shows the quasar and the extension into 

238: the South-West. The quasar and jet spectrum extraction regions are

239: overlayed on the image. The pixel size corresponds to 0.148

240: arcsec. The spatial scale is indicated with the arrow. The image is in

241: logarithmic scale with the maximum of 198 counts within the core

242: pixel. The North is up and the East is left.}

243: \label{fig:acis-regions}

244: \end{figure}

245: 

246: We used {\it Sherpa} (Freeman et al 2001) to fit the quasar spectrum

247: (0.3-10.0~keV) with an absorbed power law model assuming Galactic

248: equivalent hydrogen column of N$^{gal}_H$= 1.46$\times 10^{20}$

249: atoms~cm$^{-2}$ (Stark et al 1992).  The best fit parameter values are

250: listed in Table~\ref{tab:xray-fits}.  The observed 2-10 keV quasar

251: flux based on this model is equal to

252: %1.71$\times 10^{-13}$ergs~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$ within 0.1-2~keV and

253: 3.45$\times 10^{-13}$ergs~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$ 

254: %within 2-10~keV. 

255: The rest frame 2-10~keV quasar luminosity is equal to 2.84$\times

256: 10^{46}$ ergs~cm$^{-2}$, while the total luminosity observed in

257: 0.2-10~keV (rest frame 1.6-53~keV) is equal to 2.32$\times 10^{47}$

258: ergs~cm$^{-2}$.

259: 

260: The observed photon index $\Gamma = 1.55\pm 0.05$ is consistent with

261: the first ASCA observation from March 1995 (Moran \& Helfand 1997)

262: while the normalization of the power law in the ASCA observation is

263: twice that obtained with ACIS-S. This agrees with the variability of

264: the source as claimed by Moran \& Helfand.

265: 

266: 

267: \subsection{Spectral Modeling of the X-ray Jet}

268: 

269: We extracted the jet ACIS-S spectrum from the elliptical region

270: centered on the pixel \break (x,y)=(4026.075,4117.125) (J2000: 15 10

271: 02.648, +57 02 42.39) as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:acis-regions}. The

272: total of 149 counts from that region were binned to have a minimum of

273: 10 counts per energy bin. We assume the background spectrum from an

274: annulus between 1.3$\arcsec$ and 3.3$\arcsec$ excluding an elliptical

275: jet region.  There are 123.5$\pm 13.3$ net counts detected in the jet

276: with a maximum energy of $\sim$5~keV ($\sim$26.5 keV in the rest

277: frame).

278: 

279: We fit the spectrum between 0.3-7.0~keV with an absorbed power law

280: model assuming the total N$_H$ column of 2.7$\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$

281: as determined by fitting the quasar spectrum.

282: %We obtained a power law

283: %photon index $\Gamma = 1.90\pm 0.36$ with 1.69$\pm0.32

284: %\times 10^{-6}$~photons~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$~keV$^{-1}$ (90$\%$ errors)

285: %normalization at 1~keV (see 

286: Table~\ref{tab:xray-fits} lists the best fit model parameters. The jet

287: photon index $\Gamma = 1.90\pm 0.36$ is steeper than the quasar one.

288: The model gives an observed 2-10 keV flux of 4.84$\times

289: 10^{-15}$ ergs~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$ and 3.86$\times

290: 10^{-15}$ergs~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$ (absorbed) within 0.1-2 keV.

291: Assuming isotropic emission we compute the jet 2-10~keV (rest frame)

292: luminosity of 7$\times 10^{44}$ ergs~sec$^{-1}$. This luminosity is

293: similar to the luminosity of the X-ray jets at lower redshifts. The

294: ratio of the quasar and the jet X-ray luminosities is similar to the

295: one found in lower redshift objects (Schwartz et al 2000, Sambruna et

296: al 2002, Siemiginowska et al 2002).

297: 

298: \subsection{HST Image.}

299: \label{sec:hst}

300: 

301: GB~1508+5718 was observed with HST/WFPC2 (F814W filter) for 

302: %four exposures, giving a total of 

303: 4800~s (four exposures) on 22-July-1995.  We retrieved the single

304: combined image and variance image created by the WFPC2 Associations

305: Pipeline\footnote{http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/wfpc2/about.html}.

306: Fig.~\ref{fig:hst} shows the X-ray contours overlayed on top of the

307: HST/WFPC2 image. Using aperture photometry with the same quasar and

308: jet regions given in the X-ray analysis section (also

309: Fig.~\ref{fig:acis-regions}), we derive the I-band magnitudes $I_{\it

310: quasar} = 19.2$ and $I_{\it jet} > 25.3$ (3-$\sigma$ limit).

311: 

312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 4

313: 

314: \begin{figure}

315: %\resizebox{3.2in}{!}{\includegraphics{hst_chandra_overlay.ps}}

316: \resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}}

317: \caption{HST WFPC2 image of the quasar field with the X-ray contours

318: overlayed. No source is present in the jet region.  The scale is

319: indicated with the arrow. The North is up and the East is left.}

320: \label{fig:hst}

321: \end{figure}

322: 

323: The large difference in brightness between the quasar and the optical

324: limit to the jet emission excludes the possibility that the X-ray

325: emission is due to gravitational lensing. The flux ratio between the

326: quasar and the jet is equal to 40 in the X-rays, while it is more than

327: $\sim$293 in the optical. 

328: 

329: 

330: \section{Discussion}

331: 

332: X-ray emission from jets is due to either the synchrotron process or

333: Compton scattering of seed photons (synchrotron, SSC or from outside

334: the jet, IC) off the relativistic particles in the jet (see Harris \&

335: Krawczynski 2002 for a review).  The IC scenario with CMB radiation as

336: a source of the external photons was proposed by Tavecchio et al

337: (2000) and Celotti et al (2001) for jets where the SSC model predicts

338: an X-ray flux which is too low to match the data. This model requires

339: the jet to move with a Lorentz factor, $\Gamma_{bulk}$, of

340: $\sim$3-10. Jet electrons with relatively low energy ($\gamma

341: \sim$ 100-1000) can then Compton scatter the CMB photons

342: into the X-ray band. Note that the synchrotron emission from these low

343: energy electrons may not be detectable in radio because it will be

344: emitted at very low frequencies.

345: 

346: Which process dominates the X-ray jet emission in GB~1508+5714?  The

347: HST optical limit is consistent with both synchrotron or Compton

348: scattering processes.  The X-ray jet is detected up to $\sim$26~keV

349: ($\nu _{max} \sim 6.5\times 10^{18}$~Hz) in the quasar frame and we

350: cannot constrain the high energy turn-over in the X-ray spectrum.  If

351: the break occurs at $\sim$26~keV then the synchrotron emitting

352: electrons have energies $\gamma \sim 10^9$.  The lifetime of such

353: electrons is short ($ < 10$ years for an equipartition magnetic field)

354: implying that they need to be accelerated very recently and in highly

355: efficient process if the X-rays are due to the synchrotron emission.

356: 

357: There is no reported detection of the radio jet (Frey et al 1997) and

358: the VLA observations are consistent with 95$\%$ of the 5~GHz flux

359: being emitted by the quasar (Moran \& Helfand 1997).  Assuming that

360: the X-ray emission is due to synchrotron process we can extrapolate

361: the X-ray spectrum into the radio band.  For the observed photon index

362: $\Gamma = 1.9$ and 1~keV flux density of 1.68$\times

363: 10^{-6}$~photons~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$~keV$^{-1}$ we estimate the 5~GHz

364: flux density to be $\sim$9~mJy.  This is about $6\%$ of the radio flux

365: from the quasar at this frequency, and is consistent with no radio

366: detection.

367: 

368: 

369: The projected size of the jet corresponds to $\sim$15~kpc.  The high

370: luminosity of the quasar core may be due to beaming (Mathur

371: \& Elvis 1995), so the viewing angle of the jet might be small and 

372: therefore the jet could be much longer (e.g. $\sim150$~kpc for

373: $\theta\sim6\deg$). Such scales compare well with lower redshift X-ray

374: jets where the IC/CMB process may dominate the jet X-ray emission

375: (Siemiginowska et al 2002, Sambruna et al 2002).  The energy density

376: of the CMB at redshift z=4.3 is 3.3$\times 10^{-10}$~ergs~cm$^{-3}$

377: (for the CMB radiation temperature at z=0 of 2.728~K,

378: %temperature of the CMB radiation at z=0 

379: Fixen et al 1996). At the quasar redshift the CMB energy density will

380: dominate magnetic fields of less than 91$\mu G$.

381: 

382: 

383: We can calculate the equipartition magnetic field assuming the radio

384: flux upper limit of 9 mJy at 5 GHz, and a uniform volume distribution

385: of fields and particles filling a cylindrical region (1.6$\arcsec$

386: long and 0.4$\arcsec$ in radius, volume of $\sim$7.7$\times 10^{66}$

387: cm$^3$).  This gives B$_{eq} \sim$ 268~$\mu$G.

388: %(Fig.~\ref{fig:tavec}). 

389: However, if the same electron population also

390: produces the observed X-ray flux via IC/CMB, then from Felten \&

391: Morrison (1966) we calculate B$_{IC} \sim$ 25~$\mu$G.  These two

392: values can be reconciled when we consider a relativistic jet with an

393: effective Doppler factor $\delta$ (Tavecchio et al. 2000, Celotti et

394: al. 2001)

395: %The solid lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:tavec} show that 

396: because B$_{eq}$ $\propto 1/\delta$ while B$_{IC}$ $\propto

397: \delta$, so 

398: %that there is 

399: we can find a self-consistent solution 

400: %where they 

401: %intersect 

402: at B=83~$\mu$G and $\delta$=3.2.  Because we used an upper limit to

403: the radio flux our number for the magnetic field is also an upper

404: limit, while the value of $\delta$ is a lower limit. These values have

405: an uncertainty due to the uncertain X-ray slope (the assumed radio

406: spectral index) giving the parameters range of ($B$=161$\mu$G,

407: $\delta$=2.6) and (B=37$\mu$G, $\delta=5.3$).

408: 

409: %Figure~\ref{fig:tavec} shows the sensitivity to the uncertain

410: %X-ray slope (the assumed radio spectral index).  Note that the upper

411: %limit to the magnetic field is consistent with the CMB energy density

412: %at the quasar redshift.

413: 

414: 

415: From the upper limit to the radio luminosity and the magnetic field

416: given above we estimate an upper limit on the photon density of the

417: synchrotron radiation of $\sim 2 \times 10^{-12}$ ergs~cm$^{-3}$ (for

418: %an assumed volume of 7.7$\times 10^{66}$ cm$^3$ for 

419: the cylindrical region)

420: %of 0.8$\arcsec$x1.6$\arcsec$).  

421: This is smaller than the energy density of the magnetic field and the

422: CMB radiation.  The energy density of the CMB radiation in the jet's

423: comoving frame is higher by a factor of $\Gamma_{bulk}^2$ and even for

424: moderate jet velocities ($\Gamma_{bulk}

425: \ge 1$): $u'_{CMB}=3.3\times 10^{-10} (\Gamma_{bulk}^2 - 0.25)$

426: (Harris \& Krawczynski 2001) which dominates synchrotron radiation

427: field.  The SSC emission will be too weak in comparison with the

428: IC/CMB to dominate the X-ray jet spectrum.

429: 

430: It is quite likely that the X-ray emission in the GB~1508+5714 jet is

431: due to the interaction between the CMB photons and the relativistic

432: jet particles. High quality radio data are necessary to constrain the

433: model and exclude the synchrotron possibility.

434: 

435: A sample of high-redshift X-ray jets may provide a way to study the

436: evolution of the CMB with redshift, which is a fundamental prediction of

437: standard Big Bang cosmology.  Only recently has the non-local CMB

438: temperature been measured (using quasars absorption lines) and shown to be

439: higher at redshift 2.33 than at z=0 (Srianand, Petitjean \& Ledoux 2000).  

440: Schwartz (2002a) argues that there should be many IC/CMB dominated X-ray

441: jets at high redshift.  A sample of such sources would allow us to

442: estimate the CMB intensity as a function of redshift.\\

443: 

444: %\section{Summary}

445: 

446: %We have presented the {\it Chandra} discovery of the X-ray jet

447: %associated with the redshift 4.3 quasar GB~1508+5714. We considered

448: %both synchrotron emission and inverse Compton scattering of CMB

449: %photons as two possible X-ray emission processes and determined that

450: %the jet is relativistically beamed.  A samle of high redshift jets may

451: %provide a new independent test for the evolution of the CMB in the

452: %universe.

453: 

454: 

455: \acknowledgements

456: 

457: We wish to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments which

458: substantially improved the paper. We thank Martin Elvis for

459: discussions.  This research is funded in part by NASA contracts

460: NAS8-39073 to the {\it Chandra} X-ray Center, and

461: %Partial

462: %support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and

463: %Space Administration 

464: part by NASA through Chandra Award Number GO2-3148A issued by

465: the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the

466: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under

467: contract NAS8-39073.

468: 

469: \begin{references}

470: 

471: %\bibitem[Andreani, Franceschini, \& Granato(1999)]{1999MNRAS.306..161A} 

472: \reference{} Andreani, P., Franceschini, A., \& Granato, G.\ 1999, \mnras, 306, 161 

473: 

474: \reference{} Brunetti, G., Bondi, M., Comastri, A., \& Setti, G.\ 2002, \aap, 3

475: 81, 795 

476: 

477: %\bibitem[Carilli et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...567..781C} 

478: \reference{}Carilli, C.~L., Harris, D.~E., Pentericci, L., R{\" o}ttgering, H.~J.~A., Miley, G.~K., Kurk, 

479: J.~D., \& van Breugel, W.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 781 

480: 

481: \reference{} Celotti,A., Ghisellini, G. \& Chiaberge, M. 2001, MNRAS,321,1

482: 

483: \reference{} Chartas, G.~et al.\  2000, \apj, 542, 655

484: 

485: 

486: %\bibitem[Fabian, Celotti, \& Johnstone(2003)]{2003MNRAS.338L...7F} 

487: \reference{}Fabian, A.~C., Celotti, A., \& Johnstone, R.~M.\ 2003, \mnras, 338, L7

488: 

489: \reference{} Felten, J.E., \& Morrison, P. 1966, \apj 146, 686

490: 

491: %\bibitem[Filho, Barthel, \& Ho(2000)]{2000ApJS..129...93F} 

492: \reference{} Filho, M.~E., Barthel, P.~D., \& Ho, L.~C.\ 2000, \apjs, 129, 93 

493: 

494: 

495: \reference{} Fixsen, D.~J., Cheng, 

496: E.~S., Gales, J.~M., Mather, J.~C., Shafer, R.~A., \& Wright, E.~L.\ 1996,

497: \apj, 473, 576 

498: 

499: %\bibitem[Freeman, Doe, \& Siemiginowska(2001)]{2001SPIE.4477...76F} 

500: \reference{} Freeman, P., Doe, S., \& Siemiginowska, A.\ 2001, \procspie, 4477, 76 

501: 

502: 

503: %\bibitem[Frey et al.(1997)]{1997A&A...325..511F} 

504: \reference{}Frey, S., Gurvits, L.~I., 

505: Kellermann, K.~I., Schilizzi, R.~T., \& Pauliny-Toth, I.~I.~K.\ 1997,

506: \aap, 325, 511

507: 

508: %\bibitem[Giacconi et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...551..624G} 

509: \reference{} Giacconi, R.~et al.\  2001, \apj, 551, 624 

510: 

511: \reference{}Harris, D.~E.~\&  Krawczynski, H.\ 2002, \apj, 565, 244 

512: 

513: %\bibitem[Hook et al.(1995)]{1995MNRAS.273L..63H} 

514: \reference{}Hook, I.~M., McMahon, 

515: R.~G., Patnaik, A.~R., Browne, I.~W.~A., Wilkinson, P.~N., Irwin, M.~J., \& 

516: Hazard, C.\ 1995, \mnras, 273, L63 

517: 

518: %\bibitem[Kaspi, Brandt, \& Schneider(2000)]{2000AJ....119.2031K} 

519: \reference{}Kaspi, S., 

520: Brandt, W.~N., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 2031 

521: 

522: %\bibitem[Ma et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....116..516M} 

523: 

524: Ma, C.~et al.\ 1998, \aj,  116, 516 

525: 

526: %\bibitem[Mathur \& Elvis(1995)]{1995AJ....110.1551M} 

527: \reference{}Mathur, S.~\& Elvis, M.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 1551 

528: 

529: %\bibitem[Moran \& Helfand(1997)]{1997ApJ...484L..95M} 

530: \reference{}Moran, E.~C.~\& 

531: Helfand, D.~J.\ 1997, \apjl, 484, L95 

532: 

533: %\bibitem[Petric et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126...15P} 

534: \reference{} Petric, A.~O. et al

535: %, Carilli, 

536: %C.~L., Bertoldi, F., Fan, X., Cox, P., Strauss, M.~A., Omont, A., \&

537: %Schneider, D.~P.

538: \ 2003, \aj, 126, 15

539: 

540: 

541: %\bibitem[Reeves \& Turner(2000)]{2000MNRAS.316..234R}

542: \reference{} Reeves, J.~N.~\& 

543: Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2000, \mnras, 316, 234 

544: 

545: \reference{} Sambruna, R.~M., 

546: Maraschi, L., Tavecchio, F., Urry, C.~M., Cheung, C.~C., Chartas, G.,

547: Scarpa, R., \& Gambill, J.~K.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 206

548: 

549: 

550: \reference{} Schwartz, D.A. et al 

551: %D.A, Marshall, H. L.;

552: %Lovell, J. E. J.; Piner, B. G.; Tingay, S. J.; Birkinshaw, M.;

553: %Chartas, G.; Elvis, M.; Feigelson, E. D.; Ghosh, K. K.; Harris, D. E.;

554: %Hirabayashi, H.; Hooper, E. J.; Jauncey, D. L.; Lanzetta, K. M.;

555: %Mathur, S.; Preston, R. A.; Tucker, W. H.; Virani, S.; Wilkes, B.;

556: %Worrall, D. M.,

557: 2000 ApJ, 540, 69

558: 

559: 

560: \reference{} Schwartz, D.A. 2002a, \apjl,  569, L23

561: 

562: %\bibitem[Schwartz(2002)]{2002ApJ...571L..71S} 

563: 

564: \reference{} Schwartz, D.~A.\ 2002b, \apjl,  571, L71 

565: 

566: 

567: \reference{} Siemiginowska,  A., Bechtold, J., Aldcroft, T.~L., Elvis, M., Harris, D.~E., \&

568: Dobrzycki, A.\ 2002, \apj, 570, 543

569:  

570: 

571: \reference{} Siemiginowska, A.~et al.\ 2003, Ap.J. in press (astro-ph/0306129)

572: 

573: %\bibitem[Snellen et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.325.1167S} 

574: \reference{}Snellen, I.~A.~G., 

575: McMahon, R.~G., Dennett-Thorpe, J., Jackson, N., Mack, K.-H., \&

576: Xanthopoulos, E.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 1167

577: 

578: \reference{} Spergel et al, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0302209))

579: 

580: %\bibitem[Srianand, Petitjean, \& Ledoux(2000)]{2000Natur.408..931S} 

581: \reference{}Srianand, R., Petitjean, P., \& Ledoux, C.\ 2000, \nat, 408, 931 

582: 

583: 

584: %\bibitem[Stark et al.(1992)]{1992ApJS...79...77S} 

585: \reference{}Stark, A.~A., Gammie, 

586: C.~F., Wilson, R.~W., Bally, J., Linke, R.~A., Heiles, C., \& Hurwitz,

587: M.\ 1992, \apjs, 79, 77

588: 

589: 

590: \reference{} Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Sambruna, R.M., Urry, M.C.,

591: 2000, ApJ, 544, L23

592: 

593: \reference{} Telis, Petric, Paerels \& Helfand 2002. AAS. 201, 7912

594: 

595: %\bibitem[Vignali et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.2143V} 

596: \reference{} Vignali, C., Brandt, 

597: W.~N., Fan, X., Gunn, J.~E., Kaspi, S., Schneider, D.~P., \& Strauss,

598: M.~A.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2143

599: 

600: %\reference{} Van Speybroeck, L.P, Jerius, D.,Edgar, R.J., Gaetz, T.J.,

601: %Zhao, P., Reid, P.B., 1997, in Proc. SPIE Vol. 3113, Grazing Incidence

602: %and Multilayer X-Ray Optical Systems, Richard B. Hoover; Arthur

603: %B. Walker; Eds. p. 89-104

604: 

605: \reference{} Weisskopf, M.~C., 

606: Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., Garmire, G., Murray, S., \& Van

607: Speybroeck, L.~P.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 1

608: 

609: \end{references}

610: 

611: 

612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Tables

613: 

614: \begin{table}[h]

615: \begin{scriptsize}

616: \begin{center}

617: \caption{Model Parameters}

618: \medskip

619: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}

620: \hline \hline \\

621:  Model & $z_{abs}$$^a$ &  N$_H$($z_{abs}$)$^b$ & $\Gamma$ & Norm$^c$ & $\chi ^2$(d.o.f.)$^d$ \\

622: \hline

623: GB~1508+5714      &  0        & 0.13$\pm 0.1$ & 1.55$\pm0.06$ & 6.76$\pm0.33$ &

624: 540.4 (660) \\

625: GB~1508+5714     &  4.3        & 5.5 $\pm 3.4$ & 1.56$\pm0.05$ &

626: 6.73$\pm0.25$ & 538.4 (660) \\

627: Jet      &  0     & 0.27$^e$  & 1.90$\pm0.36$ & 0.169$\pm0.03$ &

628: 27.8 (42) \\

629: \hline

630: \end{tabular}

631: 

632: \end{center}

633: 

634: Model: $N(E)= Norm \, E^{-\Gamma}*\rm exp[- N^{gal}_H \sigma (E) - N^{z_{abs}}_H

635: \sigma(E(1+z_{abs}))]$~photons~cm$^{-2}$~sec$^{-1}$~keV$^{-1}$;

636: N$^{gal}_H$ = 1.4$\times 10^{20}$atoms~cm$^{-2}$; $\sigma (E)$ and

637: $\sigma E(1+z_{abs})$ - absorption cross sections (Morrison \&

638: McCammon 1983, Wilms, Allen \& McCray 2000).  All errors are 90$\%$;

639: $^a$ redshift of the absorber; $^b$ equivalent Hydrogen absorbing

640: column in excess to the Galactic column in units of 10$^{21}$

641: atoms~cm$^{-2}$; $^c$ Normalization of the power law at 1keV in units

642: of 10$^{-5}$photons~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$; $^d$ $\chi^2$ calculated with

643: Primini method using {\it Sherpa}, degrees of freedom are given in the

644: bracket.$^e$ the assumed column is equal to a sum of Galactic column

645: and the excess column N$_H(z_{abs}=0)$ from the fit to the quasar

646: spectrum.

647: 

648: \label{tab:xray-fits}

649: \end{scriptsize}

650: 

651: \end{table}

652: 

653: 

654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 1 

655: 

656: 

657: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 2

658: 

659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 3

660: 

661: 

662: 

663: 

664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 5

665: 

666: %\begin{figure}

667: %\resizebox{2.8in}{!}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}}

668: %\caption{Allowed values of the magnetic field, B, and the Doppler beaming

669: %factor $\delta$ for a jet.  The filled points show the magnetic fields

670: %calculated on either the equipartition assumption, B$_{eq}$, or

671: %assuming that the radio electrons Compton scatter on CMB photons,

672: %B$_{IC}$, to produce X-rays for a non-relativistic jet. The solid

673: %lines indicate how these values transform if the jet is in

674: %relativistic motion, and their intersection gives a self-consistent

675: %solution for B and $\delta$.  The empty triangles and the dashed and

676: %dot-dashed lines indicate the uncertainty due to 90$\%$ errors on the

677: %X-ray slope. Since we have only an upper limit to the radio flux, any

678: %intersection gives an upper limit to the equipartition field and a

679: %lower limit to the Doppler factor.}

680: %\label{fig:tavec}

681: %\end{figure}

682: 

683: \end{document}

684: 

685: