1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{psfig,natbib}
4: \shortauthors{Bower et al.}
5: \shorttitle{Intrinsic Size of Sagittarius A*}
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \newcommand\degd{\ifmmode^{\circ}\!\!\!.\,\else$^{\circ}\!\!\!.\,$\fi}
9: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\ }}
10: \newcommand{\uv}{(u,v)}
11: \newcommand{\rdm}{{\rm\ rad\ m^{-2}}}
12: \newcommand{\msuny}{{\rm\ M_{\sun}\ y^{-1}}}
13: \newcommand{\mylesssim}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle <}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
14: \newcommand{\sci}{Science}
15:
16: %\slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal}
17:
18:
19:
20: \title{The Intrinsic Size of Sagittarius A* from 0.35 cm to 6 cm}
21:
22: \author{Geoffrey C. Bower\altaffilmark{1}, W.M. Goss\altaffilmark{2}, Heino Falcke\altaffilmark{3}, Donald C. Backer\altaffilmark{1}, Yoram Lithwick\altaffilmark{4}}
23: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department \& Radio Astronomy Laboratory,
24: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; gbower,dbacker@astro.berkeley.edu}
25: \altaffiltext{2}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 0, Socorro NM
26: 87801, U.S.A. ; mgoss@nrao.edu}
27: \altaffiltext{3}{ASTRON, Postbus 2, 7990 AA Dwingeloo, The Netherlands and Department
28: of Astrophysics, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Postbus 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen,
29: The Netherlands ; falcke@astron.nl}
30: \altaffiltext{4}{CITA, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street,
31: Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8; yoram@cita.utoronto.ca}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: We present new high-resolution observations of Sagittarius A* at
36: wavelengths of 17.4 to 23.8 cm with the Very Large Array in A configuration
37: with the Pie Town Very Long Baseline Array antenna. We use the
38: measured sizes to calibrate the interstellar scattering law and find
39: that the major axis size of the scattering law is smaller by $\sim 6\%$
40: than previous estimates. Using
41: the new scattering law, we are able to determine the intrinsic size of
42: Sgr A* at wavelengths from 0.35 cm to 6 cm using existing results from
43: the VLBA. The new law increases the intrinsic size at 0.7 cm by $\sim 20\%$ and $< 5\%$ at
44: 0.35 cm. The intrinsic size is $13^{+7}_{-3}$ Schwarzschild radii at
45: 0.35 cm and is proportional to $\lambda^{\gamma}$, where $\gamma$ is in the
46: range 1.3 to 1.7.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49: \keywords{Galaxy: center --- galaxies: active --- techniques: interferometric --- scattering}
50:
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: Imaging the radio emitting region surrounding the massive black hole in the
55: Galactic Center, Sagittarius A*, has been a goal since its discovery
56: \citep{1974ApJ...194..265B}.
57: %(Balick \& Brown 1973).
58: Turbulent electrons along the line of sight to
59: Sgr A*, however, scatter radio wavelength photons and produce an image
60: that is an elliptical Gaussian with a major axis size of $\sim 0.5$ arcsec
61: at 20 cm and a $\lambda^2$ dependence
62: \citep{1978ApJ...222L...9B}. Separating the effects of the
63: small intrinsic source from the effects of scattering has required
64: observations at short wavelengths,
65: careful calibration, and the use of closure amplitude
66: techniques, which reduce
67: sensitivity but remove uncertainty due to calibration error
68: \citep[e.g.,][]{2004Sci...304..704,2005Natur.438...62S}. These
69: efforts have recently resulted in the first robust detections of
70: intrinsic structure in Sgr A* at wavelengths of 1.3 cm, 0.7 cm and 0.35 cm.
71: The intrinsic source has a size
72: that scales with $\lambda^{1.1}$ or $\lambda^{1.6}$
73: to a minimum of $\sim 10$ Schwarzschild
74: radii at 0.35 cm (assuming $M_{bh}=4 \times 10^6 M_\sun$ and $d=8$ kpc ;
75: \citet{2005ApJ...620..744G,2003ApJ...597L.121E}).
76:
77: These detections of the intrinsic size of Sgr A* have a number of consequences.
78: The brightness temperature of $10^{10}$ K strongly excludes advection
79: dominated accretion flows \citep[ADAFs;][]{1998ApJ...492..554N}
80: and Bondi-Hoyle accretion models \citep{1994ApJ...426..577M}. These size
81: measurements, however,
82: cannot differentiate between jet models \citep{1993A&A...278L...1F}, generic radiatively
83: inefficient accretion flows \citep{2000ApJ...539..809Q}, and hybrids of these models
84: \citep{2002A&A...383..854Y}. This limitation is
85: principally due to the limited sensitivity in the minor axis size of
86: the scattering ellipse. Coupled with measurements of the proper motion
87: of Sgr A* \citep{2004ApJ...616..872R}, the assumption that the
88: black hole is smaller than
89: the emission region implies a lower limit to the mass density of the black
90: hole $\sim 10^5 M_\sun {\rm AU^{-3}}$, which strongly excludes
91: alternative models for dark mass objects.
92:
93: The scattering medium itself is a system of intense interest
94: \citep{1998ApJ...505..715L,2001ApJ...558..127B,2006ApJ...640L.159G}.
95: The $\lambda^2$
96: size dependence of Sgr A* is a strict consequence
97: of the strong scattering and the short projected baselines at the
98: distances of the scattering medium
99: \citep{1989MNRAS.238..963N}.
100:
101:
102: We present here detailed measurements of the scattering properties at
103: wavelengths that range from 17.4 to 23.8 cm using the Very Large Array
104: and the Pie Town Very Long Baseline Array antenna (\S 2). The
105: addition of the PT antenna to the VLA A configuration improves the
106: East-West resolution by a factor of two.
107: The resulting scattering law is smaller by $\sim 6\%$ than previous estimates.
108: The independent estimate of the scattering law enables us to measure
109: the intrinsic size of Sgr A* at a wavelength
110: as long as 6 cm (\S 3). We discuss these results in (\S 4).
111:
112: We wish to clarify here the numerous axes and steps involved in translating
113: observations of Sgr A* into a measurement of the intrinsic size. VLA
114: observations of Sgr A* are obtained with a synthesized beam that is extended
115: North-South. Deconvolution of the observed image with the synthesized beam
116: gives the apparent, scatter-broadened image of Sgr A*. This image is
117: predominantly a two-dimensional Gaussian with the major axis oriented
118: $\sim 80$ degrees East of North. Throughout
119: this paper when we refer to the major and minor axes, we refer to
120: the orientation of the scattering Gaussian. Finally, to obtain the intrinsic
121: image, we deconvolve the apparent image with a model of the scatter-broadened
122: image, which is determined from long wavelength apparent sizes.
123:
124: \section{Observations and Analysis}
125:
126: We obtained new observations of Sgr A* with the Very Large Array plus the
127: Pie Town VLBA antenna. The VLA was in the A configuration. Observations
128: were made on 1 and 4 October 2004 in eight separate bands
129: centered at
130: %1190, 1259, 1291, 1365, 1435, 1516, 1665, and 1716 MHz.
131: 25.2, 23.8, 23.2, 21.9, 20.9, 19.8, 18.0, and 17.5 cm.
132: Each band had 12.5 MHz bandwidth with 15 channels. Results at
133: 25.2 and 21.9 cm
134: %1190 and 1365 MHz
135: were corrupted by interference and we do not consider
136: these data any further.
137:
138: We calibrated the absolute flux density with observations of 3C 286.
139: Corrections for atmospheric and instrumental amplitude and phase fluctuations
140: were made through self-calibration of frequent observations of the
141: compact source J1744-312. We imaged Sgr A* using baselines longer than
142: $50 k\lambda$ and uniform weighting to suppress large-scale structure
143: (Figure~\ref{fig:vlapt}).
144:
145:
146: The presence of a radio
147: transient with a flux density of $\sim 30 $ mJy and a resolved morphology
148: at a separation of 2.7\arcsec\ South of Sgr A* precluded modeling
149: in the visibility and closure amplitude domains %(Bower et al. 2005).
150: \citep{2005ApJ...633..218B}. We previously showed that fitting
151: in the image domain
152: provides results that are equivalent to fitting in the closure amplitude domain
153: at centimeter wavelengths, in the case where the difficulty of calibration
154: and poor telescope performance are less critical
155: \citep{2001ApJ...558..127B,2004Sci...304..704}. Long wavelength data
156: obtained from the VLA meet these criteria better than any other data.
157: Accordingly, we fit sizes to Sgr A* in the image plane with a region
158: that excluded most of the transient flux density. The effect of the transient
159: is primarily on the accuracy of
160: the size in the minor axis of the scattering angle.
161: The synthesized beam ranges from $1.69 \times 0.56$ arcsec at 17.5 cm
162: %1716 MHz
163: to $2.36 \times 0.98$ arcsec at 23.8 cm,
164: %1259 MHz,
165: oriented roughly North-South.
166: Measured sizes ranged from $1.71 \times 0.67$ arcsec at %1716 MHz
167: 17.5 cm and
168: $2.43\times 1.22$ arcsec at %1259 MHz.
169: 23.8 cm. Sgr A* is clearly resolved in both
170: axes but with considerably more accuracy in the East-West axis than an in
171: the North-South axis. Fitting a point source to the data produced very
172: poor quality fits, while fitting an elliptical Gaussian produced a residual image
173: with no obvious systematic errors and an rms $\sim 2.5$ mJy/beam (Figure~\ref{fig:vlapt}).
174: This rms is a few times the rms $\sim 0.9$ mJy/beam
175: determined far away from Sgr A*, possibly due to
176: the presence of confusing emission around Sgr A*.
177:
178: We deconvolved the measured Gaussian sizes with the synthesized beam sizes
179: to determine the true source parameters: total flux density,
180: major axis, minor axis, and position angle. We determined errors in
181: the parameters by calculating $\chi^2$ for a grid in the parameters
182: surrounding the best-fit value. These errors are the formal uncertainy
183: in the parameters and do not reflect the systematic errors, which
184: we discuss below. Results are tabulated in Table~1.
185:
186: In the case of the minor axis,
187: there is a clear trend of decreasing
188: size with decreasing wavelength, which indicates the
189: presence of systematic errors. Marginal resolution of Sgr A* in the
190: North-South axis and confusion from the presence of the radio transient
191: due South of Sgr A* are the likely causes of this effect.
192: The major axis size, however, is not affected by the transient and
193: only weakly distorted by changes in the position angle;
194: the best-fit solution for major axis size
195: changes by only 1\% with a $10^\circ$ change in position angle.
196: We conclude that the results determined from the VLA+PT result
197: are accurate in the major axis but not in the minor axis.
198:
199: We experimented with a range of imaging
200: parameters to explore systematic effects on the deconvolved size of Sgr A*.
201: Weighting with a robustness parameter of 0, using super-uniform weighting,
202: and changing the minimum $\uv$ distance from 40 to 100 $k\lambda$ changed
203: the deconvolved major axis size by no more than 3\%. Since the results are
204: strongly dependent on the PT antenna, we dropped random groups of
205: 5 baselines associated with PT, producing 1\% changes in the deconvolved size.
206: These errors are comparable to those found for other sources through VLA
207: observations \citep[e.g.,][]{1998ApJ...493..666T}.
208: Thus, our results are influenced by systematic imaging effects at a level
209: of a factor of no more than a few. As we discuss below, a factor of a few is
210: consistent with the scatter in the measurements.
211:
212: \section{The Scattering Size and The Intrinsic Size of Sgr A*}
213:
214: In Figure~\ref{fig:results}, we plot the measured size of Sgr A* from the VLA+PT observations
215: and from Very
216: Long Baseline Array results from %Bower et al. (2004)
217: \citet{2004Sci...304..704}
218: at wavelengths
219: of 6.01 cm to 0.67 cm. We also include the VLBA result from %Shen et al. (2005)
220: \citet{2005Natur.438...62S}
221: at 0.35 cm. The sizes are plotted normalized by wavelength squared.
222:
223: We fit a power law of the form $\lambda^2$ to the major axis
224: sizes using the new VLA+PT results at 17.4 to 23.8 cm wavelength. The
225: best-fit
226: value to the normalization of the scattering law is $1.309 \pm 0.017$
227: mas/cm$^2$. The errors in these values are
228: determined from the scatter in the measurements. The best-fit scattering
229: values are
230: plotted as a straight line in Figure~\ref{fig:results}.
231: The major axis normalization is $\sim 6\%$
232: smaller than previous estimates. None of our measurements are consistent with
233: the previously determined major axis normalization of 1.39 mas/cm$^2$.
234: The best estimates of the minor axis scattering size and position angle
235: remain the results determined previously from VLBA observations
236: at wavelengths between 2 cm and 6 cm \citep[$0.64^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ mas/cm$^2$
237: and $78^{+0.8}_{-1.0}$ deg;][]{2004Sci...304..704}.
238:
239:
240: The scatter in the VLA+PT
241: major axis sizes is much larger than the expectation of the statistical errors
242: for individual points. The reduced $\chi^2_\nu \approx 7$ for the major
243: axis, indicating that there are additional sources of error in the measurement of the
244: size that we are not including. Dropping either the two highest frequency or two
245: lowest frequency VLA+PT sizes did not significantly affect the reduced $\chi^2$ or the
246: best-fit scattering law. We also explored the effect of the inclusion of the shorter
247: wavelength VLBA results on the major axis scattering size. Inclusion of the 6 cm size
248: decreases the reduced $\chi^2_\nu$ slightly but does not affect the scattering size significantly.
249: Inclusion of VLBA results at wavelengths of 3.6 cm and shorter, however, leads to a significant
250: increase in $\chi^2_\nu$ to 18. That is, the major axis sizes at $\lambda <= 3.6$ cm
251: are not consistent with the longer wavelength sizes and a $\lambda^2$ scattering law.
252: This inconsistency holds if we scale the VLA+PT errors
253: by a factor as large as 5, which reveals $\chi^2_\nu=1.8$.
254:
255:
256:
257: The $\lambda^2$ dependence of the scattering law is strongly favored for
258: theoretical reasons. The maximum baseline length projected to the scattering
259: region is $b_{proj}=D_{scattering}/D_{SgrA} \times b_{max} \sim 1 km$,
260: where $D_{SgrA}=8$ kpc is the distance to Sgr A*, $D_{scattering}\approx 100$
261: pc is the distance of the scattering region from Sgr A*, and
262: $b_{max}\approx 70$ km is the maximum baseline between the VLA
263: and PT. $b_{proj}$ is substantially smaller than the expected and measured
264: inner scales ($b_{inner}$) for the power spectrum of turbulent
265: fluctuations ($10^2$ to $10^{5.5}$ km; \citet{1994MNRAS.269...67W}).
266: This result holds for the long VLBA baselines involved in imaging at
267: shorter wavelengths, as well, where $b_{proj} \sim 25$ km at 0.7 cm
268: wavelength. For the case of $b_{proj} << b_{inner}$, the resulting image
269: is very heavily averaged and must be Gaussian in shape with
270: size $\propto \lambda^2$
271: \citep{1989MNRAS.238..963N}.
272:
273: This expectation of strong scattering is supported
274: by previous measurements of the shape of the image of Sgr A*.
275: Bower et al. (2004) showed
276: that fitting the closure amplitudes of Sgr A* at 0.7 cm
277: with a functional form for
278: the visibilities of $\propto e^{-b^{(\beta-2)}}$, where
279: $b$ is the baseline length, revealed
280: $\beta=4.00 \pm 0.03$. That is, the best evidence
281: indicates that the image of Sgr A* is a Gaussian.
282: Following scattering theory,
283: where the size is proportional to $\lambda^\alpha$,
284: then $\alpha=\beta-2=2.00 \pm 0.03$
285: \citep{1989MNRAS.238..963N}. For the case of
286: the VLA+PT data, we find $\alpha=1.98 \pm 0.11$, which is consistent
287: with the expectation of $\alpha=2$.
288:
289: Nevertheless, if we
290: fit a single power-law to all of the VLA+PT and VLBA
291: data, we find $\alpha=1.96 \pm 0.01$ with a $\chi^2_\nu=5.5$.
292: So, without the constraint of a $\lambda^2$ size for the scattering
293: law at some wavelength, the evidence for resolving
294: an intrinsic size becomes marginal at any wavelength.
295: A fit of the size proportional to
296: $\sqrt{ a^2\lambda^4 + b^2\lambda^{2\gamma}}$
297: produces an apparent size very similar to that of the single index power-law
298: fit but is not sufficiently constrained to set reasonable limits
299: on the parameters. If we fix $\gamma$ and search for $a$ and $b$, we find
300: that $\chi^2$ for $\gamma=1$ is four times the value for $\gamma$ unconstrained, indicating
301: that $\gamma=1$ is strongly excluded. Without the
302: assumption that the second term is negligible for wavelengths longer than
303: 6 cm, therefore, we cannot determine the scattering law or the intrinsic
304: size of Sgr A*.
305:
306: A final caveat is required. The scattering medium is dynamic. The minimum
307: time scale for a change in the medium is the refractive time scale, which is
308: $0.5 y (v/100 km/s) (\lambda/1 cm)^2$ for Sgr A*, where $v$ is the velocity of
309: the scattering material relative to Sgr A* and the Sun
310: \citep{1989MNRAS.238..963N}. The data presented here were obtained in a
311: span of roughly a decade. The long-wavelength scattering properties
312: are very unlikely to change on this time scale. However,
313: at wavelengths as long as 4 cm, the refractive time scale is $<10$ year.
314: The many observations at 0.7 cm in this period, however, appear to produce a
315: source of stable size, despite a refractive time scale less than one year.
316: We conclude it is unlikely that the scattering size has changed significantly
317: over this period.
318:
319: With the assumption that the scattering law is determined accurately
320: at wavelengths longer than 17 cm, we can determine the intrinsic size.
321: We subtract in quadrature
322: the scattering law size from the measured size (Table~2,
323: Figure~\ref{fig:intrinsic}). We compute
324: the results for the best-fit major axis scattering law
325: ($b_{sc}=1.31 {\rm\ mas/cm^2}$),
326: and $\pm 3\sigma$ of
327: the best-fit value. For the best-fit case,
328: the intrinsic size is accurately determined from 0.35 cm to 3.6 cm.
329: Over this range, the intrinsic size is well-fit by a power-law
330: $\lambda^\gamma$, where $\gamma=1.6 \pm 0.1$. For the smaller scattering
331: size, we find a steeper power-law and measure the intrinsic size from 0.35 cm
332: to 6 cm. For the larger scattering size, we cannot measure the intrinsic size
333: at wavelengths longer than
334: 1.3 cm and find a shallower power-law index of $\gamma=1.3 \pm 0.2$.
335:
336: If the intrinsic size power-law extends to $\lambda\sim 20$ cm, the
337: contribution of the intrinsic size results in an increase of
338: the measured angular sizes by $\sim 1.5\%$. This is comparable to the
339: error in the major axis scattering law and, therefore, negligible.
340:
341:
342: \section{Discussion}
343:
344: We have measured the intrinsic size of Sgr A* from 0.35 to 3.6 cm.
345: At short wavelengths, the result is consistent with the conclusions
346: of recent efforts by %Bower et al. (2004) and Shen et al. (2005).
347: \citet{2004Sci...304..704} and \citet{2005Natur.438...62S}.
348: The
349: size of Sgr A* at 0.35 cm is 13.3$^{+6.7}_{-3.1} R_s$, where $R_s=1.2 \times 10^{12}$
350: cm
351: is the Schwarzschild radius for $M_{bh} = 4 \times 10^6 M_\sun$ and
352: the Galactic Center distance $d=8$ kpc. This compact size confirms
353: tight restrictions on accretion models and black hole alternatives
354: previously claimed and stated in \S 1.
355:
356: The wavelength dependence of the source size agrees with that found
357: by %Bower et al. (2004)
358: \citet{2004Sci...304..704}
359: and is steeper than that found by \citet{2005Natur.438...62S},
360: %Shen et al. (2005),
361: who found $\gamma\approx 1.1$. The steeper dependence indicates that
362: the brightness temperature decreases as $\lambda^{-1}$, assuming that
363: the size in the second dimension is proportional to the major axis size.
364: The peak brightness temperature at 0.35 cm is $\sim 10^{10}$ K for a
365: flux density of 1 Jy.
366: The power-law dependence of the size as a function of wavelength indicates
367: a stratified, smoothly varying emission region.
368:
369: Detailed jet models for Sgr A* predict $\gamma \approx 1$
370: \citep{2000A&A...362..113F}.
371: Generalized jet models, however, allow a range of $\gamma$, depending
372: on the details of the magnetic field and particle energy density
373: distributions %(e.g., Konigl 1981).
374: \citep[e.g.,][]{1981ApJ...243..700K}.
375: A jet with $B \propto r^{-1}$,
376: electron density decreasing as $r^{-1}$, and optically thin power-law
377: index of 1 will show a size $\propto \lambda^{1.4}$.
378:
379: %Yuan et al. (2006)
380: \citet{2006ApJ...642L..45Y}
381: model the size of Sgr A* for a radiatively inefficient
382: accretion flow. They fit sizes at 0.35 cm and 0.7 cm that are fit
383: with a power law of index $\gamma=1.1$. Variations in the
384: nonthermal electron distribution or deviations from equipartition, however,
385: could alter $\gamma$ in their model.
386:
387: The critical remaining observational goals for understanding the image
388: of the radio emission of Sgr A* are a measurement of the two-dimensional
389: size and detection of structural variability. The simple one-dimensional
390: deconvolution that we have performed here only gives schematic information
391: on the size of Sgr A*. With a more accurate
392: two-dimensional scattering model, future analysis will directly
393: compare the observed image with
394: non-Gaussian source models convolved with the imaging
395: and scattering constraints. Astrometric observations
396: may indicate a shift in the centroid of the image with frequency.
397: A heterogeneous jet will exhibit such a shift due to changing location
398: of the optically thick surface of the source
399: \citep{1981ApJ...243..700K}.
400:
401: At mm and submm wavelengths, the gravity of the
402: black hole will distort the image \citep{2000ApJ...528L..13F,2005MNRAS.363..353B}.
403: Detailed knowledge of the shape of the longer
404: wavelength image will permit a more accurate characterization of
405: light-bending effects in the actual image. Ultimately, these images
406: will provide one of the strongest tests of the existence and
407: characterization of black holes.
408:
409: \acknowledgements The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the
410: National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated
411: Universities, Inc.
412:
413: %\bibliographystyle{../apj}
414: %\bibliography{../../myrefs}
415:
416:
417: \begin{thebibliography}{24}
418: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
419:
420: \bibitem[{{Backer}(1978)}]{1978ApJ...222L...9B}
421: {Backer}, D.~C. 1978, \apjl, 222, L9
422:
423: \bibitem[{{Balick} \& {Brown}(1974)}]{1974ApJ...194..265B}
424: {Balick}, B. \& {Brown}, R.~L. 1974, \apj, 194, 265
425:
426: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2001){Bower}, {Backer}, \&
427: {Sramek}}]{2001ApJ...558..127B}
428: {Bower}, G.~C., {Backer}, D.~C., \& {Sramek}, R.~A. 2001, \apj, 558, 127
429:
430: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2004){Bower}, {Falcke}, {Herrnstein}, {Zhao},
431: {Goss}, \& {Backer}}]{2004Sci...304..704}
432: {Bower}, G.~C., {Falcke}, H., {Herrnstein}, R.~M., {Zhao}, J., {Goss}, W.~M.,
433: \& {Backer}, D.~C. 2004, \sci, 304, 704
434:
435: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2005){Bower}, {Roberts}, {Yusef-Zadeh}, {Backer},
436: {Cotton}, {Goss}, {Lang}, \& {Lithwick}}]{2005ApJ...633..218B}
437: {Bower}, G.~C., {Roberts}, D.~A., {Yusef-Zadeh}, F., {Backer}, D.~C., {Cotton},
438: W.~D., {Goss}, W.~M., {Lang}, C.~C., \& {Lithwick}, Y. 2005, \apj, 633, 218
439:
440: \bibitem[{{Broderick} \& {Loeb}(2005)}]{2005MNRAS.363..353B}
441: {Broderick}, A.~E. \& {Loeb}, A. 2005, \mnras, 363, 353
442:
443: \bibitem[{{Eisenhauer} {et~al.}(2003){Eisenhauer}, {Sch{\"o}del}, {Genzel},
444: {Ott}, {Tecza}, {Abuter}, {Eckart}, \& {Alexander}}]{2003ApJ...597L.121E}
445: {Eisenhauer}, F., {Sch{\"o}del}, R., {Genzel}, R., {Ott}, T., {Tecza}, M.,
446: {Abuter}, R., {Eckart}, A., \& {Alexander}, T. 2003, \apjl, 597, L121
447:
448: \bibitem[{{Falcke} {et~al.}(1993){Falcke}, {Mannheim}, \&
449: {Biermann}}]{1993A&A...278L...1F}
450: {Falcke}, H., {Mannheim}, K., \& {Biermann}, P.~L. 1993, \aap, 278, L1
451:
452: \bibitem[{{Falcke} \& {Markoff}(2000)}]{2000A&A...362..113F}
453: {Falcke}, H. \& {Markoff}, S. 2000, \aap, 362, 113
454:
455: \bibitem[{{Falcke} {et~al.}(2000){Falcke}, {Melia}, \&
456: {Agol}}]{2000ApJ...528L..13F}
457: {Falcke}, H., {Melia}, F., \& {Agol}, E. 2000, \apjl, 528, L13
458:
459: \bibitem[{{Ghez} {et~al.}(2005){Ghez}, {Salim}, {Hornstein}, {Tanner}, {Lu},
460: {Morris}, {Becklin}, \& {Duch{\^e}ne}}]{2005ApJ...620..744G}
461: {Ghez}, A.~M., {Salim}, S., {Hornstein}, S.~D., {Tanner}, A., {Lu}, J.~R.,
462: {Morris}, M., {Becklin}, E.~E., \& {Duch{\^e}ne}, G. 2005, \apj, 620, 744
463:
464: \bibitem[{{Goldreich} \& {Sridhar}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...640L.159G}
465: {Goldreich}, P. \& {Sridhar}, S. 2006, \apjl, 640, L159
466:
467: \bibitem[{{Konigl}(1981)}]{1981ApJ...243..700K}
468: {Konigl}, A. 1981, \apj, 243, 700
469:
470: \bibitem[{{Lazio} \& {Cordes}(1998)}]{1998ApJ...505..715L}
471: {Lazio}, T. J.~W. \& {Cordes}, J.~M. 1998, \apj, 505, 715
472:
473: \bibitem[{{Melia}(1994)}]{1994ApJ...426..577M}
474: {Melia}, F. 1994, \apj, 426, 577
475:
476: \bibitem[{{Narayan} \& {Goodman}(1989)}]{1989MNRAS.238..963N}
477: {Narayan}, R. \& {Goodman}, J. 1989, \mnras, 238, 963
478:
479: \bibitem[{{Narayan} {et~al.}(1998){Narayan}, {Mahadevan}, {Grindlay}, {Popham},
480: \& {Gammie}}]{1998ApJ...492..554N}
481: {Narayan}, R., {Mahadevan}, R., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Popham}, R.~G., \&
482: {Gammie}, C. 1998, \apj, 492, 554
483:
484: \bibitem[{{Quataert} \& {Gruzinov}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...539..809Q}
485: {Quataert}, E. \& {Gruzinov}, A. 2000, \apj, 539, 809
486:
487: \bibitem[{{Reid} \& {Brunthaler}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...616..872R}
488: {Reid}, M.~J. \& {Brunthaler}, A. 2004, \apj, 616, 872
489:
490: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(2005){Shen}, {Lo}, {Liang}, {Ho}, \&
491: {Zhao}}]{2005Natur.438...62S}
492: {Shen}, Z.-Q., {Lo}, K.~Y., {Liang}, M.-C., {Ho}, P.~T.~P., \& {Zhao}, J.-H.
493: 2005, \nat, 438, 62
494:
495: \bibitem[{{Trotter} {et~al.}(1998){Trotter}, {Moran}, \&
496: {Rodriguez}}]{1998ApJ...493..666T}
497: {Trotter}, A.~S., {Moran}, J.~M., \& {Rodriguez}, L.~F. 1998, \apj, 493, 666
498:
499: \bibitem[{{Wilkinson} {et~al.}(1994){Wilkinson}, {Narayan}, \&
500: {Spencer}}]{1994MNRAS.269...67W}
501: {Wilkinson}, P.~N., {Narayan}, R., \& {Spencer}, R.~E. 1994, \mnras, 269, 67
502:
503: \bibitem[{{Yuan} {et~al.}(2002){Yuan}, {Markoff}, \&
504: {Falcke}}]{2002A&A...383..854Y}
505: {Yuan}, F., {Markoff}, S., \& {Falcke}, H. 2002, \aap, 383, 854
506:
507: \bibitem[{{Yuan} {et~al.}(2006){Yuan}, {Shen}, \&
508: {Huang}}]{2006ApJ...642L..45Y}
509: {Yuan}, F., {Shen}, Z.-Q., \& {Huang}, L. 2006, \apjl, 642, L45
510:
511: \end{thebibliography}
512:
513: %\plotone{1715_NOLABEL.PS}
514: \plotone{f1a.eps}
515: \plotone{f1b.eps}
516: \plotone{f1c.eps}
517: \figcaption{({\em left}) Image of Sgr A* at 17.5 cm from the
518: VLA+PT observations. Sgr A* is the
519: bright source at the center of the image. The source to the South of Sgr A* is the transient.
520: The synthesized beam size is indicated in the lower part of the image.
521: Contours begin at 5 mJy/beam
522: and increase by factor of $\sqrt(2)$ to half the peak intensity of Sgr A*.
523: The synthesized beam size is $1.69 \times 0.56$ arcsec. ({\em center})
524: Residual image of Sgr A* after subtraction of best-fit point source. This
525: shows that the source is clearly resolved East-West and at best marginally
526: resolved North-South. ({\em right}) Residual image of Sgr A* after
527: subtraction of best-fit Gaussian source. The source is well-modeled
528: to an rms of 2.5 mJy/beam. \label{fig:vlapt}}
529:
530: %\plotone{results_all_lambda.eps}
531: \plotone{f2.eps}
532: \figcaption{Measured major axis size
533: as a function of wavelength. Triangles are VLBA measurements determined through closure
534: amplitude analysis from
535: \citet{2004Sci...304..704}
536: %Bower et al. (2004)
537: and
538: %Shen et al. (2005).
539: \citet{2005Natur.438...62S}.
540: Squares are the new VLA+PT measurements. The major axis sizes have
541: been normalized by $\lambda^2$. The solid red line is
542: the best-fit scattering value determined from the VLA+PT data alone. Dotted red lines are $\pm 3\sigma$
543: of the best-fit scattering law.
544: \label{fig:results}}
545:
546: %\plotone{intrinsic_majoronly.eps}
547: \plotone{f3.eps}
548: \figcaption{Intrinsic size in Schwarzschild radii for the East-West dimension
549: using three different estimates of the
550: major axis scattering law. We assume a $4\times 10^6 M_\sun$ black hole at a distance of 8 kpc. In the central panel, we show results for the best-fit
551: scattering law.
552: In the left and right panels, we show the results for the $-3\sigma$ and $+3\sigma$, respectively.
553: The solid red
554: lines are the best fit curves for size $\propto \lambda^\gamma$.
555: \label{fig:intrinsic}}
556:
557: \begin{deluxetable}{rlrrrrrrr}
558: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
559: \tablecaption{Apparent and Deconvolved Sizes of Sagittarius A* from VLA+PT Observations of October 2004
560: \label{tab:decon}}
561: \tablehead{
562: & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Apparent Size} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Deconvolved Size} & \\
563: \colhead{ $\lambda$ } & \colhead{Synth. Beam} & \colhead{ $b_{maj}$ } & \colhead{ $b_{min}$ } &\colhead{PA} & \colhead{ $b_{maj}$ } & \colhead{ $b_{min}$ } & \colhead{PA} & \colhead{$S$} \\
564: \colhead{ (cm) } & \colhead{(mas $\times$ mas,deg)} & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (deg) } & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (deg) } &\colhead{ (mJy)}}
565: \startdata
566: %\input results.tex
567: 23.8 & $2357 \times 979$, 0.1 & $2433.5^{+ 8.2}_{- 8.2}$ & $1222.6^{+ 5.2}_{- 3.1}$ & $ -0.21^{+ 0.14}_{- 0.14}$ & $734.7^{+ 8.7}_{- 5.9}$ & $602.4^{+ 36.0}_{- 29.9}$ & $97.7^{+ 1.1}_{- 7.5}$ & $471.9^{+ 1.6}_{- 1.6}$ \\
568: 23.2 & $2191 \times 714$, 4.8 & $2252.1^{+ 8.4}_{- 5.1}$ & $985.5^{+ 3.0}_{- 3.7}$ & $ 5.83^{+ 0.10}_{- 0.10}$ & $697.1^{+ 5.4}_{- 5.9}$ & $496.3^{+ 40.1}_{- 19.6}$ & $76.5^{+ 2.7}_{- 2.1}$ & $490.6^{+ 1.5}_{- 1.9}$ \\
569: 20.9 & $1996 \times 646$, 7.6 & $2049.4^{+ 6.1}_{- 6.1}$ & $849.2^{+ 2.5}_{- 2.5}$ & $ 9.06^{+ 0.07}_{- 0.07}$ & $601.8^{+ 6.0}_{- 8.6}$ & $397.3^{+ 27.2}_{- 19.1}$ & $66.1^{+ 3.9}_{- 2.9}$ & $432.1^{+ 1.3}_{- 1.3}$ \\
570: 19.8 & $1840 \times 581$, 10.4 & $1877.8^{+ 5.4}_{- 5.4}$ & $751.1^{+ 2.2}_{- 2.2}$ & $ 11.92^{+ 0.06}_{- 0.06}$ & $522.8^{+ 6.3}_{- 8.0}$ & $306.6^{+ 31.2}_{- 21.1}$ & $70.5^{+ 3.7}_{- 2.7}$ & $441.5^{+ 1.3}_{- 1.3}$ \\
571: 18.0 & $1737 \times 564$, 7.2 & $1758.6^{+ 2.5}_{- 2.5}$ & $695.9^{+ 1.0}_{- 1.0}$ & $ 8.23^{+ 0.06}_{- 0.06}$ & $430.8^{+ 1.9}_{- 2.8}$ & $236.7^{+ 18.6}_{- 14.4}$ & $74.9^{+ 1.8}_{- 1.3}$ & $505.0^{+ 0.7}_{- 0.7}$ \\
572: 17.5 & $1689 \times 556$, 6.8 & $1706.4^{+ 2.5}_{- 2.5}$ & $667.6^{+ 1.0}_{- 1.0}$ & $ 7.71^{+ 0.06}_{- 0.06}$ & $391.2^{+ 2.4}_{- 3.0}$ & $206.3^{+ 21.6}_{- 15.5}$ & $74.5^{+ 2.1}_{- 1.5}$ & $511.9^{+ 0.7}_{- 0.7}$ \\
573: \enddata
574: \tablecomments{The quoted errors in the peak flux density $S$ do not include the $\sim 10\%$
575: error in absolute flux density.}
576: \end{deluxetable}
577:
578: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}
579: \tablecaption{Intrinsic Size of Sagittarius A*
580: \label{tab:intrinsic}}
581: \tablehead{
582: & \colhead{$b_{sc}=1.26 {\rm\ mas/cm^2}$} &\colhead{$b_{sc}=1.31 {\rm\ mas/cm^2}$} &\colhead{$b_{sc}=1.36 {\rm\ mas/cm^2}$} \\
583: \colhead{ $\lambda$ } & \colhead{ Size } & \colhead{ Size } & \colhead{ Size } \\
584: \colhead{ (cm) } & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (mas) } & \colhead{ (mas) } }
585: \startdata
586: %\input IntrinsicMajorOnly.tex
587: 0.35 & $ 0.142^{+ 0.062}_{- 0.025}$ & $ 0.136^{+ 0.069}_{- 0.032}$& $ 0.128^{+ 0.076}_{- 0.040}$\\
588: 0.67 & $ 0.395^{+ 0.157}_{- 0.047}$ & $ 0.362^{+ 0.190}_{- 0.080}$& $ 0.324^{+ 0.228}_{- 0.118}$\\
589: 0.69 & $ 0.373^{+ 0.110}_{- 0.077}$ & $ 0.331^{+ 0.152}_{- 0.120}$& $ 0.280^{+ 0.203}_{- 0.170}$\\
590: 0.76 & $ 0.505^{+ 0.177}_{- 0.128}$ & $ 0.461^{+ 0.221}_{- 0.172}$& $ 0.410^{+ 0.272}_{- 0.223}$\\
591: 1.35 & $ 1.295^{+ 0.369}_{- 0.174}$ & $ 1.117^{+ 0.547}_{- 0.351}$& $ 0.897^{+ 0.767}_{- 0.571}$\\
592: 1.95 & $ 2.028^{+ 0.408}_{- 0.304}$ & $ 1.500^{+ 0.936}_{- 0.223}$& $ 0.563^{+ 1.873}_{- 0.562}$\\
593: 3.56 & $ 7.491^{+ 1.524}_{- 0.281}$ & $ 5.953^{+ 3.062}_{- 1.819}$& $ 3.735^{+ 5.280}_{- 3.732}$\\
594: 6.01 & $ 16.427^{+ 2.981}_{-16.410}$ & $ 10.094^{+ 9.314}_{-10.083}$& $ 0.000^{+19.408}_{- 0.000}$\\
595: \enddata
596: \tablecomments{The intrinsic size is computed for the best-fit value to the
597: major axis scattering size ($b_{sc}=1.31 {\rm\ mas/cm^2}$) and for
598: $\pm 3\sigma$ values.}
599: \end{deluxetable}
600:
601:
602: \end{document}
603: