1: % paper
2: % uses AAS preprint style sheet, aasms4.sty
3: % AAS v.4 macros
4: % version
5:
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %\received{2000 September 26}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Detecting the Attenuation of Blazar Gamma-ray Emission
13: by Extragalactic Background Light with GLAST}
14:
15: \author{Andrew Chen}
16: \email{chen@mi.iasf.cnr.it}
17: \affil{Consorzio Interuniversitario per la Fiscia Spaziale, \\
18: Torino, Italy 10133}
19: \and
20: \affil{Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica, Sezione di Milano,\\
21: Milano, Italy 20133}
22:
23: \author{Luis C. Reyes}
24: \affil{University of Maryland at College Park,\\ College Park, MD 20742}
25: \and
26: \affil{Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics, NASA/Goddard Space
27: Flight Center,\\ Greenbelt, MD 20771}
28: \author{Steven Ritz}
29: \affil{Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics, NASA/Goddard Space
30: Flight Center,\\ Greenbelt, MD 20771}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33:
34: Gamma rays with energy above 10~GeV interact with optical-UV photons
35: resulting in pair production. Therefore, a large sample of high redshift
36: sources of these gamma rays can be used to probe the extragalactic
37: background starlight (EBL) by examining the redshift dependence of
38: the attenuation of the flux above 10~GeV. GLAST, the next generation
39: high-energy gamma-ray telescope, will have the unique capability to
40: detect thousands of gamma-ray blazars to redshifts of at least $z=4$,
41: with sufficient angular resolution to allow identification of a large
42: fraction of their optical counterparts. By combining established models
43: of the gamma-ray blazar luminosity function, two different calculations
44: of the high energy gamma-ray opacity due to EBL absorption, and the
45: expected GLAST instrument performance to produce simulated fluxes
46: and redshifts for the blazars that GLAST would detect, we demonstrate
47: that these gamma-ray blazars have the potential to be a highly effective
48: probe of the optical-UV EBL.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \keywords{gamma rays: observations -- intergalactic medium -- galaxies: active -- instrumentation: detectors}
51:
52:
53: %\keywords{gamma rays: observations -- intergalactic medium -- galaxies: active
54: %-- instrumentation: detectors}
55:
56: \section{Introduction \label{sec-1}}
57:
58: In the last few years the study of galaxy formation and evolution
59: has seen tremendous progress. Instruments at many different wavelengths
60: have begun to penetrate to the relevant redshifts. One important prediction
61: of models of galaxy formation and evolution is the nature of the radiation
62: field produced by star formation. One way to probe the resulting extragalactic
63: background light (EBL) is to measure the attenuation through pair
64: production of gamma rays from distant sources. However, without a
65: large sample of sources distributed across a wide redshift range,
66: it is difficult to distinguish between extragalactic absorption and
67: characteristics peculiar to individual sources. The Large Area
68: Telescope (LAT) instrument on The Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope
69: (GLAST) will observe gamma rays with energies
70: from 20~MeV to $>300$~GeV. The GLAST LAT will be the first instrument able
71: to probe the intergalactic radiation field by observing the absorption
72: of gamma rays from a large number of extragalactic point sources as
73: a function of redshift over a wide range. Ground-based telescopes
74: can measure the attenuation of TeV emission by intergalactic IR radiation
75: (Stecker, DeJager, \& Salamon 1992; Macminn \& Primack 1996; Madau
76: \& Phinney 1996). However, these telescopes will measure the spectra of
77: relatively small number of sources, making it more difficult to resolve
78: the question of whether differences between sources are due to
79: intergalactic attenuation or intrinsic peculiarities. Furthermore,
80: the high pair production opacity of the IR radiation limits TeV
81: probes of the EBL to a narrow, low-redshift range. GLAST, on the other
82: hand, will observe thousands of sources, and will measure less drastic
83: attenuation of GeV photons by optical and UV radiation. The energy range
84: and capabilities of GLAST are thus ideal for probing the EBL to
85: cosmological distances.
86:
87: This paper reports our first modeling of the ability of GLAST to measure
88: the extragalactic background light absorption. In order to do this,
89: we need 1) models of the intergalactic radiation field, 2) the luminosity
90: function of extragalactic gamma-ray sources, and 3) parameters of
91: the instrument. In Section 2.1 we briefly review models for the intergalactic
92: radiation field and the resulting gamma-ray opacity as a function
93: of redshift. In Section 2.2, we describe the two gamma-ray blazar
94: luminosity functions used. In Section 2.3 we describe the parameters
95: used to simulate GLAST. In Section 3 we discuss the simulation procedure,
96: including the two different models of blazar input spectra and the two
97: models for the intergalactic radiation field. In Section 4 we present our
98: results and conclusions.
99:
100: \section{Framework \label{sec-2}}
101:
102: \subsection{Extragalactic Background Light \label{sec-2.1}}
103:
104: Gamma rays with $E>10$~GeV traveling through intergalactic space
105: will interact through pair production with the extragalactic background
106: starlight (EBL) emitted by galaxies. The total center-of-mass energy
107: must be high enough to produce the electron-positron pair, and, for
108: a wide range of EBL models, the attenuation becomes significant only
109: above $\sim10$~GeV. The cross section is maximized when the EBL photon
110: energy $\epsilon_{EBL}\sim\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1000\rm~GeV}{E_{\gamma}})$
111: eV, with $E_{\gamma}$ in GeV (Stecker, DeJager \& Salamon 1992).
112: For 10~GeV to TeV gamma rays this corresponds to $\epsilon_{EBL}$
113: in the optical-UV range. Salamon \& Stecker (1998) calculated the
114: opacity of high energy gamma-rays to redshift $z=3$. To estimate
115: the stellar emissivity and spectral energy distributions vs. redshift
116: they adapted the analysis of Fall, Charlot, \& Pei (1996), consistent
117: with the Canada-France Redshift Survey, and included corrections for
118: metallicity evolution. They found that the stellar emissivity peaks
119: between $z=1$ and 2 before falling off, leading to a significant
120: redshift-dependent absorption below $z=3$. Other models, \textit{e.g.} by
121: Primack et al. (1999), provide for significant attenuation at even larger
122: redshifts. More recently, Bernstein, Freedman, \& Madore (2002a,b)
123: have made the first direct measurement of the optical-UV EBL integrated
124: over redshift. As shown in Section 3, our technique is a powerful discriminator among
125: models, giving information about the era of galaxy formation and evolution.
126:
127:
128: \subsection{Gamma-ray Blazars \label{sec-2.2}}
129:
130: \subsubsection{Blazar Luminosity Function \label{sec-2.2.1}}
131:
132: The Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) detected more
133: than 60 blazar-type quasars (Mukherjee et al. 1997) emitting gamma
134: rays with $E>100$~MeV. These sources are flat-spectrum radio-loud
135: quasars (FSRQs) and BL Lac objects, often exhibiting non-thermal radio
136: continuum spectra, violent optical variability and/or high optical
137: polarization. They are also highly variable and powerful gamma-ray
138: sources. The EGRET blazars whose optical redshifts have been measured
139: lie between $z=0.03$ and 2.28. The redshift distribution is consistent
140: with the observed distribution of FSRQs, which extends up to $z=3.8$.
141: However, since the luminosity function determines the statistical power of
142: our technique versus redshift, and since this function is still relatively
143: unconstrained, we use two different models for the blazar luminosity
144: function.
145:
146: The first model, by Salamon \& Stecker (1996), makes the assumption that
147: blazars seen in gamma-rays above 100 MeV are also seen in the radio
148: as FSRQs. This model assumes that the gamma and radio ray
149: luminosity functions are linearly related as\[
150: \rho_{\gamma}\left(L_{\gamma},z\right)=\eta\rho_{r}\left(L_{r},z\right)\]
151: where $\eta$ is a parameter of the model and \[
152: \rho_{r}\left(L_{r},z\right)=10^{-8.15}\left\{ \left(\frac{L_{r}}{L_{c}\left(z\right)}\right)^{0.83}+\left(\frac{L_{r}}{L_{c}\left(z\right)}\right)^{1.96}\right\} ^{-1}\]
153: with $\log_{10}L_{c}\left(z\right)=25.26+1.18z-0.28z^{2}$. The units
154: of the comoving density $\rho$ are Mpc$^{-3}\times\left(\right.$unit interval
155: of $\log_{10}L\left.\right)^{-1}$ and the units of $L$ are
156: W Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$. Using cosmological parameters $\Omega_M=1, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0,$
157: and $H_0 = 50$ km/s/Mpc, the model is constrained to predict the number of
158: blazars observed by EGRET.
159:
160: The number of sources with redshift in the interval $z+\Delta z$ seen at
161: Earth with a flux for $E > 100$ MeV in the interval $F+\Delta F$ is
162: given by (Salamon \&
163: Stecker 1996)\[\frac{dN}{dFdz}\Delta z\Delta F=4\pi R_{0}^{3}r^{2}\Delta r\rho_{\gamma}\Delta\left(\log_{10}L\right)\]
164: with $R_{0}r=\frac{2c}{H_{0}}\left(1-\left(1+z\right)^{-1/2}\right)$,
165: where $H_{0}$ is the Hubble expansion rate. Combining the choice of
166: parameters given by Salamon \& Stecker (1996)
167: with a GLAST flux sensitivity of $1.5\times10^{-9}$
168: photons cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, a number of $\sim9000$
169: blazars is expected to be observed with redshifts up to $z\sim4$.
170:
171: The second model, by Chiang \& Mukherjee (1998), does not assume a
172: correlation between luminosities at gamma ray energies and at other
173: wavelengths. This model parametrizes the luminosity function as
174: \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{dN}{dL_{0}dV}\propto\left(\frac{L_{0}}{L_{B}}\right)^{-\gamma_{1}} & , & L_{0}\leq L_{B}\\
175: \frac{dN}{dL_{0}dV}\propto\left(\frac{L_{0}}{L_{B}}\right)^{-2.2} & , & L_{0}>L_{B}\end{eqnarray*}
176: with de-evolved luminosity $L_{0}=L/\left(1+z\right)^{\beta}$ and
177: a maximum cutoff redshift of $z_{max}=5$. The energy range of this
178: integrated luminosity is $E > 100$ MeV. The best fit found for this
179: broken power law is parametrized by $\gamma_{1}\lesssim1.2$,
180: $L_{B}=1.1\times10^{46}$ erg/s
181: and $\beta=2.7$, with cosmological parameters $\Omega_M=1, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0,$
182: and $H_0 = 75$ km/s/Mpc. Each model was separately fit in a self-consistent
183: fashion to the EGRET data to produce the luminosity functions. More recent
184: cosmological data suggest a non-zero value for $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. The impact
185: on the luminosity function, however, is small; we therefore retain the original
186: model, along with the
187: fit to the data, for our calculations. Of course, one of the important goals
188: of the GLAST mission will be to constrain the luminosity function.
189:
190: \subsubsection{Blazar Spectra \label{sec-2.2.2}}
191:
192: The spectra of the blazars observed by EGRET are well characterized
193: in the $E > 100$~MeV range by power laws with an average photon spectral
194: index of $-2.15\pm0.04$ (Mukherjee et al. 1997). The spectra of some
195: individual blazars have a measured index significantly different from
196: the mean value, suggesting true scatter in the distribution of blazar
197: spectra, which our simulation takes into account as described below.
198: More importantly, most of the EGRET blazars have not been detected
199: by TeV telescopes; for many of these sources, this implies a spectral
200: break or rolloff at some energy between the EGRET and TeV energy ranges.
201: Intergalactic attenuation, the very effect explored in this paper,
202: would account for the lack of detection of high-redshift objects,
203: but there are relatively low-redshift blazars that are bright in the
204: EGRET range and undetected in the TeV range. More tellingly, most of
205: the TeV blazars belong to the same subset of blazars, the X-ray selected
206: BL Lac objects (XBLs). Since only a small fraction of the EGRET blazars
207: are XBLs, this implies that the non-XBL blazars may have spectra with
208: intrinsic rolloffs independent of any intergalactic attenuation effects.
209: Finally, blazars that have been detected in both the GeV and TeV ranges
210: have TeV fluxes that are lower than simple extrapolations of the EGRET
211: power laws would suggest. Of course, such an extrapolation over such
212: a wide range of energies is unreasonable. Most of the models for blazar
213: spectra attribute both the GeV and TeV emission to the same inverse
214: Compton component of the emission. However, with little observational
215: data in the 30-300 GeV range, no firm conclusions can be drawn about
216: the precise shape of the spectra. Indeed, this is one of the motivations
217: for the next generation of experiments.
218:
219: Our technique, as described in Section \ref{sec-3}, is to form the ratio
220: of the observed fluxes for $E\,>\,10\,$GeV and $E\,>\,1\,$GeV,
221: \[\frac{F\left(E\,>\,10\,\rm~GeV\right)}{F\left(E\,>\,1\,\rm~GeV\right)}\] This
222: ratio is simple, robust, and insensitive to rolloffs above $\sim50$~GeV
223: for most EBL models as shown in Section 3.1. We attempt to bracket the
224: range of possible spectra by first analyzing a sample of blazars whose
225: power law spectral indices are normally distributed around a mean of -2.15
226: with standard deviation 0.04, representing a situation where there is a
227: range of spectral indices but no intrinsic rolloff in this energy range.
228: To model intrinsic rolloffs, we then repeat the analysis with a sample of
229: blazars whose unredshifted spectra have a broken power law with mean index
230: -2.15 below 50~GeV and -3.15 above, again with a standard deviation of
231: 0.04 in each case.
232:
233:
234: \subsection{GLAST \label{sec-2.3}}
235:
236: The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) is under development
237: with a planned launch in 2006 (Michelson 2001). The
238: Large Area Telescope (LAT) of GLAST
239: will observe gamma rays with energies from 20~MeV to $>300$~GeV.
240: GLAST will have a much larger effective area than EGRET, especially
241: at higher energies (peak effective area $>8000$ cm$^{2}$ at $>1$~GeV),
242: a larger field of view, and sub-arcminute scale source localization.
243: GLAST should be able to reach a $5\sigma$ point source flux sensitivity
244: of less than $1.5\times10^{-9}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for
245: $E>100$~MeV within five years. As noted above, using the distribution of
246: blazars observed by EGRET and extrapolating to lower fluxes,
247: it is estimated that GLAST will detect thousands of blazars. Improved
248: angular resolution should allow a high percentage of optical identifications
249: and redshift measurements, depending on the available ground-based
250: resources. Improved high-energy performance should yield accurate
251: flux determinations above 10~GeV for many of these sources. Note
252: that our modeling is based on the generic parameters outlined in the
253: GLAST Science Requirements Document (Michelson 2001);
254: the performance of the flight instrument may be substantially better.
255:
256:
257: \section{Procedure \label{sec-3}}
258:
259: To simulate the gamma-ray sources observable by GLAST, we need a reasonable
260: extrapolation of the EGRET source distribution to the GLAST flux limit. We
261: used the two luminosity functions described in section \ref{sec-2.2.1}
262: for this purpose, but our main conclusions do not depend significantly
263: on this choice. We note that any predictions made now will be supplanted
264: by the data GLAST itself provides.
265:
266: Before any observational selection, according to the luminosity function
267: by Salamon \& Stecker (1996), $\sim12,000$
268: blazars in principle will have fluxes in the range detectable by GLAST.
269: Each one was assigned a random luminosity and redshift according to
270: this model.
271:
272: With the luminosity function by Chiang \& Mukherjee (1998) we generated
273: 10,000 blazars, between redshifts
274: 0 and 5 according to Figure 6 of their paper.
275:
276: For both samples, the flux of each blazar was then calculated according to
277: \[F=L\frac{(1+z)^{2-\alpha}}{4\pi d_{l}^{2}(z)},\]
278: where $\alpha$ is the photon spectral index and $d_{l}$ is the cosmological
279: luminosity distance $d_{l}=\frac{2c}{H_{0}}\left(1+z\right)\left[1-\left(1+z\right)^{-1/2}\right]$.
280:
281: Only blazars with observed flux greater than $1.5\times10^{-9}$
282: photons cm$^{-2}\, s^{-1}$
283: for $E>100\, MeV$ are allowed in the sample. The $E>10$~GeV flux of
284: each blazar was calculated by adding two effects. First, each blazar
285: was given a random, normally distributed spectral index, $-2.15\pm0.04$.
286: An index of -2.15 yields a flux ratio
287: $\frac{F\left(E\,>\,10\,\rm~GeV\right)}{F\left(E\,>\,1\,\rm~GeV\right)}$
288: of $\sim0.07$. Also included was the
289: redshift-dependent absorption above 10~GeV.
290: The form of the dependence was parameterized from Figure 6 of Salamon
291: \& Stecker (1998), with metallicity corrections. In this EBL model, $\Omega_M=1$,
292: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$, and the value of $H_0$ scales out. We set the absorption
293: for $z>3$ for this model equal to the absorption at $z=3$, both
294: because it is a conservative assumption and because it is physically
295: plausible (little stellar emissivity, and smaller scale and path lengths,
296: for $z>3$). To produce observed fluxes from these intrinsic fluxes,
297: each blazar was assigned a random position on the sky and, assuming
298: an exposure equivalent to two full years, Galactic and extragalactic
299: backgrounds were added. The Galactic backgrounds were derived from
300: the diffuse model used in EGRET analysis (Hunter et al. 1997). To
301: take into account the extragalactic background, we added a second,
302: fixed, background component, with intensity $4\times10^{-6}$ photons
303: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ for $E>100$~MeV and a power law
304: index of -2.15, under the assumption that GLAST may resolve a significant
305: fraction of the EGRET isotropic background (Stecker \& Salamon 1999).
306: This component represents the sum of the flux from unresolved blazars
307: and any truly diffuse background contribution. Any blazar within $10\arcdeg$
308: of the Galactic plane and any blazar whose observed flux was less
309: than $5\sigma$ above the background flux at $E>1$~GeV was removed
310: from the sample, leaving $\sim9100$ blazars (Stecker \&
311: Salamon 1996) or $\sim8200$ blazars (Chiang \& Mukherjee
312: 1998). Figure 1 shows a histogram of the number of blazars in each
313: 0.5 redshift bin. The model by Chiang \& Mukherjee (1998) predicts
314: a population of blazars that are intrinsically brighter when compared
315: to the model by Stecker \& Salamon (1996). In that case, GLAST would
316: detect more blazars at higher redshift as can be observed from the
317: graph. We note that, with no EBL attenuation, for $z>3$ and requiring more
318: than 5 detected photons $(E\,>\,10\,\rm~GeV)$, GLAST would see $\sim60$ blazars using the
319: Stecker \& Salamon luminosity function, or $\sim700$ blazars using the Chiang \&
320: Mukherjee luminosity function.
321:
322: \placefigure{fig1}
323:
324: \subsection{Calculating the flux ratios \label{sec-3.2}}
325:
326: The integrated fluxes of each blazar for $E>1$~GeV and $E>10$~GeV
327: were used to generate observed fluxes using Poisson distributions
328: equivalent to two full years of exposure. For each blazar, we calculated
329: the ratio between these fluxes. The error in each flux ratio was set
330: to
331: $\sigma_{ratio}=\frac{1}{F(E\,>\,1\,\rm~GeV)}\sqrt{{\sigma_{F(E\,>\,10\,\rm~GeV)}}^{2}+(\frac{F(E\,>\,10\,\rm~GeV)}{F(E\,>\,1\,\rm~GeV)}\sigma_{F(E\,>\,1\,\rm~GeV)})^{2}}$,
332: where $\sigma_{F}$ is the statistical error of the flux measurement
333: in each energy range. The crosses in Figure~\ref{fig2} show
334: the weighted mean ratio in each redshift bin. To avoid the bias of small
335: number Poisson statistics toward lower values, the flux ratio of each
336: source was weighted by the Poisson error of the $E>1$~GeV flux,
337: rather than the formal, propagated error of the flux ratio. The
338: diamonds show the same ratio when the intergalactic absorption is
339: removed from the observed blazar fluxes. In all cases the error bars
340: are statistical, obtained by computing the rms scatter within each redshift
341: bin and dividing by $\sqrt{N}$. The analytically derived flux ratio using
342: the opacity
343: model of Salamon \& Stecker is plotted as a solid curve. For comparison,
344: the dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig2} show the same results with no
345: intergalactic absorption.
346:
347: We repeated the entire analysis with the blazar spectra changed from
348: single power laws with mean index -2.15 to broken power laws with
349: mean index -2.15 below 50~GeV (at the source) and -3.15 above. The results
350: are plotted as crosses in Figure~\ref{fig3}. Although fewer blazars have
351: detected flux above 10~GeV, the effects of absorption are still apparent.
352: Note that sources with no detectable flux above 10~GeV (zero photons)
353: still provide important information; indeed, neglecting them introduces
354: a bias. The modified $\chi^{2}$ statistic used here (Mighell 1999)
355: accounts for these sources.
356:
357: The ratio obtained without EBL absorption is presented as diamonds, along with
358: the analytically derived flux ratio (dashed line). As can be easily seen, this
359: flux ratio is not constant as a function of redshift. This is a consequence of
360: defining the break in the index for a given energy at the source.
361:
362: \placefigure{fig2}
363: \placefigure{fig3}
364:
365: \subsection{Other EBL models \label{sec-3.3}}
366:
367: Primack and collaborators combined theoretical modeling
368: with observational data to develop semi-analytic models
369: of galaxy formation and evolution (Primack et al. 1999). Their models
370: permit a physical treatment of the processes of galaxy formation and
371: evolution in a cosmological framework, including gravitational collapse,
372: mergers, etc., rather than relying on pure luminosity evolution of
373: the galaxies existing today. We use their calculations
374: of opacities to gamma rays at redshifts up to $z=5$. The cosmological parameters used
375: are $\Omega_M=0.4$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.6$, and $H_0=60$ km/s/Mpc.
376: The luminosity functions use a different value for $H_0$, but for our
377: purposes this difference does not significantly affect the results; as
378: shown by Blanch and Martinez (2003), the gamma-ray horizon has a
379: relatively weak dependence on $H_0$. Note that these opacities, with their
380: different cosmological parameter sets, should not be thought of as
381: predictions, but rather as another set of reasonable values to illustrate
382: the discriminating power of our technique. The results are shown as triangles in Figure~\ref{fig2}
383: and Figure~\ref{fig3}, along with the lines representing the analytical
384: prediction. The fact that the flux seems to be more highly attenuated
385: is not important. What is more interesting is that the decrease in
386: flux ratio from $z=2.5$ to $z=5$ is observable. This indicates, assuming
387: the availability of gamma-ray sources and sufficient EBL density,
388: that EBL absorption can effectively probe galaxy formation at those
389: redshifts, a regime of intense theoretical interest.
390: More recently, Oh (2001) performed an independent calculation of the opacity of
391: gamma-ray blazar emission to pair production by UV photons as a function of
392: redshift. While not addressing the detectability of high-redshift blazars by
393: GLAST in detail, he obtains attenuation factors that vary strongly with
394: redshift in a manner roughly consistent with the calculations we have used.
395:
396: \section{Results and Conclusions \label{sec-4}}
397:
398: Extragalactic attenuation of gamma-rays by low-energy background photons
399: produces a distortion in the spectra of gamma-ray blazars that increases
400: with increasing redshift. Because we cannot distinguish the difference
401: between extragalactic attenuation and intrinsic effects in individual
402: blazar spectra, statistical analysis of a large sample of blazars
403: such as those presented in this paper is a powerful tool to study
404: EBL absorption. Although AGILE, the next GeV mission (Tavani et al. 2001),
405: will produce a significant
406: increase in the total number of blazars and therefore refine the blazar
407: luminosity function and evolution, GLAST will be the first mission to
408: observe a large sample of high redshift blazars with sufficient statistics
409: to separate intrinsic differences between blazars from redshift dependence
410: of EBL absorption. Our results indicate that the
411: redshift dependence of the attenuation should be easily detectable
412: by GLAST even when the diffuse background is taken into account and
413: possible high-energy intrinsic rolloffs are considered.
414:
415: Selection effects, both from GLAST itself and from optical coverage
416: of redshift determinations, will primarily affect sources with low
417: flux. These sources will have poorly measured flux ratios, and will
418: suffer from optical selection effects due to their more poorly determined
419: positions. Other biases include the locations of optical telescopes,
420: source clustering, and other effects. It will be important to catalog
421: these effects explicitly; in particular, insuring adequate optical
422: coverage may require active preparation and participation.
423:
424: GLAST will be able to measure the differences in blazar attenuation
425: in the cosmologically interesting range in redshift from $z=1$ up
426: to $z=5$. This is in contrast to ground-based observations of TeV
427: attenuation by IR radiation, which will only be able to measure
428: differences well below $z=1$, where the IR becomes opaque.
429: As the energy threshold of the ground based experiments
430: drops over time, their redshift range will increase, but will remain
431: limited to low redshifts except for exceptional, statistically
432: insignificant special cases, especially given their generally small
433: fields of view.
434: More than establishing that EBL attenuation occurs, GLAST will be
435: able to distinguish between different EBL models. This would validate
436: EBL attenuation as a direct cosmological probe.
437:
438: We emphasize that this analysis will require redshift determinations
439: of a large fraction of GLAST blazars. This is another example of the
440: importance of cross-wavelength studies: by using optical measurements
441: of blazar redshifts, gamma-ray measurements can uniquely probe the
442: optical-UV EBL. A redshift measurement for thousands of high-redshift
443: sources is not a trivial undertaking, but the effort will be well
444: rewarded.
445:
446: Even after observation of a redshift-dependent effect, the possibility
447: would remain that the spectral evolution of gamma-ray blazars might
448: coincidentally mimic redshift-dependent EBL absorption. For example,
449: if blazars that formed in the early universe suffered more internal
450: attenuation than blazars that formed later, the same effect could
451: be produced. Note that blazars are variable, and there are some indications
452: that their spectra can become harder when they flare (Sreekumar et
453: al. 1996). Evolution in flaring probability could produce the same
454: effect as actual spectral evolution from a statistical standpoint
455: (for example, a higher percentage of high-redshift blazars might be
456: observed in a quiescent phase), although one would expect the GLAST
457: flux limit to produce a selection effect in the opposite direction.
458: In any case, observation of a redshift-dependent spectral softening
459: will provide an important constraint. Theorists will have to decide
460: the likelihood of an evolutionary conspiracy.
461:
462:
463:
464:
465: \acknowledgments
466:
467: We acknowledge useful conversations with Bill Atwood, who first suggested using
468: the large statistics of GLAST AGNs to look for systematic effects of
469: extragalactic background light attenuation with redshift. We would also like to
470: thank David Thompson, Seth Digel, Floyd Stecker, and Mike Salamon
471: for their useful comments, and James Bullock and Joel Primack for providing
472: calculations from their models. We would like to thank the referees for
473: many useful comments, in particular drawing our attention to the
474: Blanch \& Martinez article on cosmological effects in emissivity
475: evolution.
476:
477: \clearpage
478:
479: \begin{references}
480:
481: \reference{1} Bernstein, R.A., Freedman, W.L., \& Madore, B.F. 2002a, ApJ,
482: 571, 56
483: \reference{1b} Bernstein, R.A., Freedman, W.L., \& Madore, B.F. 2002b, ApJ,
484: 571, 107
485: \reference{1c} Blanch, O., \& Martinez, M. 2001, astro-ph/0107582
486: \reference{2} Chiang, J., \& Mukherjee, R. 1998, ApJ, 496, 752
487: \reference{3} Chiang, J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 452, 156
488: \reference{4} Hunter, S.D., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 205
489: \reference{4a} Macminn, D. \& Primack, J.R. 1996, Space Sci. Rev. 75, 413
490: \reference{4b} Madau, P. \& Phinney, E.S. 1996, ApJ, 456, 124
491: \reference{4c} Michelson, P. 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc. 587,
492: $\gamma-$ray Astrophysics, eds. S. Ritz, N. Gehrels \& C.R. Schrader,
493: (Melville, N.Y.: AIP), 713, \url{http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/SRD}
494: \reference{5} Mighell, K.J. 1999, ApJ, 518, 380
495: \reference{6} Mukherjee, R., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 116
496: \reference{6aa} Oh, S.P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 25
497: \reference{6a} Primack, J.R., Bullock, J.S., Somerville, R.S., MacMinn, D. 1999,
498: APh, 11, 93
499: \reference{7} Salamon, M.H., \& Stecker, F.W. 1998, ApJ, 493, 547
500: \reference{7a} Sreekumar, P. et al. 1996, ApJ, 464, 628
501: \reference{7b} Stecker, F.W., \& Salamon, M.H. 1999, Astrophys. Space Sci. 261, 327
502: \reference{8} Stecker, F.W., \& Salamon, M.H. 1996, ApJ, 464, 600
503: \reference{9} Stecker, F.W., DeJager, O.C. \& Salamon, M.H. 1992, ApJ, 390, L49
504: \reference{10} Tavani, M., et al. 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc. 587,
505: $\gamma-$ray Astrophysics, eds. S. Ritz, N. Gehrels \& C.R. Schrader,
506: (Melville, N.Y.: AIP), 729
507:
508: \end{references}
509:
510: \clearpage
511:
512: \figcaption[f1.eps]{Number of detectable blazars in each redshift
513: interval. The solid curve is the population according to Stecker \& Salamon (1996),
514: the dotted line corresponds to the model by Chiang \& Mukherjee (1998).
515: The spectra of the blazars are power laws with index
516: \(-2.15 \pm 0.04\).
517: \label{fig1}}
518:
519: \figcaption[f2.ps]{Mean observed flux ratio, as described in the
520: text, using the luminosity function by
521: Salomon \& Stecker (a) and Chiang \& Mukherjee (b). Each cross is the mean observed
522: flux ratio in the corresponding redshift interval with fluxes attenuated by the EBL
523: of Salamon \& Stecker. The solid curve is the ratio calculated with the same model.
524: The triangles and the dash-dot-dotted line are the mean observed
525: and calculated flux ratios for blazars, with the EBL attenuation model of Primack
526: et al. Finally, the diamonds show the mean observed flux ratio with
527: no EBL attenuation and the dashed line is the corresponding calculated ratio.
528: \label{fig2}}
529:
530: \figcaption[f3.ps]{Mean observed flux ratio as described in the text
531: for blazars with broken spectral index at 50~GeV at the source. The
532: luminosity function is obtained from Stecker \& Salamon (a) and
533: Chiang \& Mukherjee (b). The EBL attenuation is given by either Salamon \& Stecker
534: (crosses) or Primack et al (triangles). The analytically calculated flux ratios for each
535: luminosity function are shown by the solid and dash-dot-dotted lines respectively. The dashed
536: line and the diamonds show the same results when there is no EBL attenuation.\label{fig3}}
537:
538: \clearpage
539:
540: \plotone{f1.eps}
541:
542: \epsscale{0.8}
543: \plotone{f2.eps}
544:
545: \epsscale{0.8}
546: \plotone{f3.eps}
547:
548:
549: \end{document}
550: