1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication by the Astrophysical
4: Journal} \received{13 December 2006} \accepted{22 March 2007}
5: \usepackage{graphicx,times}
6: %\setcounter{page}{1}
7: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#4}, {#1}, {#2}, #3}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Observation of very high energy $\gamma$-rays from the AGN 1ES\,2344+514 in a
11: low emission state with the MAGIC telescope}
12: \shorttitle{Observation of VHE $\gamma$-rays from 1ES\,2344+514}
13: \shortauthors{J. Albert et~al.}
14:
15: % authors 09 January 2007 Format ApJ (rkb)
16: %
17: \author{
18: J.~Albert\altaffilmark{a},
19: E.~Aliu\altaffilmark{b},
20: H.~Anderhub\altaffilmark{c},
21: P.~Antoranz\altaffilmark{d},
22: A.~Armada\altaffilmark{b},
23: C.~Baixeras\altaffilmark{e},
24: J.~A.~Barrio\altaffilmark{d},
25: H.~Bartko\altaffilmark{f},
26: D.~Bastieri\altaffilmark{g},
27: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{h},
28: W.~Bednarek\altaffilmark{i},
29: K.~Berger\altaffilmark{a},
30: C.~Bigongiari\altaffilmark{g},
31: A.~Biland\altaffilmark{c},
32: R.~K.~Bock\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{g},
33: P.~Bordas\altaffilmark{j},
34: V.~Bosch-Ramon\altaffilmark{j},
35: T.~Bretz\altaffilmark{a},
36: I.~Britvitch\altaffilmark{c},
37: M.~Camara\altaffilmark{d},
38: E.~Carmona\altaffilmark{f},
39: A.~Chilingarian\altaffilmark{k},
40: S.~Ciprini\altaffilmark{l},
41: J.~A.~Coarasa\altaffilmark{f},
42: S.~Commichau\altaffilmark{c},
43: J.~L.~Contreras\altaffilmark{d},
44: J.~Cortina\altaffilmark{b},
45: M.T.~Costado\altaffilmark{m},
46: V.~Curtef\altaffilmark{h},
47: V.~Danielyan\altaffilmark{k},
48: F.~Dazzi\altaffilmark{g},
49: A.~De Angelis\altaffilmark{n},
50: C.~Delgado\altaffilmark{m},
51: R.~de~los~Reyes\altaffilmark{d},
52: B.~De Lotto\altaffilmark{n},
53: E.~Domingo-Santamar\'\i a\altaffilmark{b},
54: D.~Dorner\altaffilmark{a},
55: M.~Doro\altaffilmark{g},
56: M.~Errando\altaffilmark{b},
57: M.~Fagiolini\altaffilmark{o},
58: D.~Ferenc\altaffilmark{p},
59: E.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{b},
60: R.~Firpo\altaffilmark{b},
61: J.~Flix\altaffilmark{b},
62: M.~V.~Fonseca\altaffilmark{d},
63: L.~Font\altaffilmark{e},
64: M.~Fuchs\altaffilmark{f},
65: N.~Galante\altaffilmark{f},
66: R.~Garc\'{\i}a-L\'opez\altaffilmark{m},
67: M.~Garczarczyk\altaffilmark{f},
68: M.~Gaug\altaffilmark{g},
69: M.~Giller\altaffilmark{i},
70: F.~Goebel\altaffilmark{f},
71: D.~Hakobyan\altaffilmark{k},
72: M.~Hayashida\altaffilmark{f},
73: T.~Hengstebeck\altaffilmark{q},
74: A.~Herrero\altaffilmark{m},
75: D.~H\"ohne\altaffilmark{a},
76: J.~Hose\altaffilmark{f},
77: C.~C.~Hsu\altaffilmark{f},
78: P.~Jacon\altaffilmark{i},
79: T.~Jogler\altaffilmark{f},
80: O.~Kalekin\altaffilmark{q},
81: R.~Kosyra\altaffilmark{f},
82: D.~Kranich\altaffilmark{c},
83: R.~Kritzer\altaffilmark{a},
84: A.~Laille\altaffilmark{p},
85: P.~Liebing\altaffilmark{f},
86: E.~Lindfors\altaffilmark{l},
87: S.~Lombardi\altaffilmark{g},
88: F.~Longo\altaffilmark{n},
89: J.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{b},
90: M.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{d},
91: E.~Lorenz\altaffilmark{c,}\altaffilmark{f},
92: P.~Majumdar\altaffilmark{f},
93: G.~Maneva\altaffilmark{r},
94: K.~Mannheim\altaffilmark{a},
95: O.~Mansutti\altaffilmark{n},
96: M.~Mariotti\altaffilmark{g},
97: M.~Mart\'\i nez\altaffilmark{b},
98: D.~Mazin\altaffilmark{f},
99: C.~Merck\altaffilmark{f},
100: M.~Meucci\altaffilmark{o},
101: M.~Meyer\altaffilmark{a},
102: J.~M.~Miranda\altaffilmark{d},
103: R.~Mirzoyan\altaffilmark{f},
104: S.~Mizobuchi\altaffilmark{f},
105: A.~Moralejo\altaffilmark{b},
106: K.~Nilsson\altaffilmark{l},
107: J.~Ninkovic\altaffilmark{f},
108: E.~O\~na-Wilhelmi\altaffilmark{b},
109: N.~Otte\altaffilmark{f},
110: I.~Oya\altaffilmark{d},
111: D.~Paneque\altaffilmark{f},
112: M.~Panniello\altaffilmark{m},
113: R.~Paoletti\altaffilmark{o},
114: J.~M.~Paredes\altaffilmark{j},
115: M.~Pasanen\altaffilmark{l},
116: D.~Pascoli\altaffilmark{g},
117: F.~Pauss\altaffilmark{c},
118: R.~Pegna\altaffilmark{o},
119: M.~Persic\altaffilmark{n,}\altaffilmark{s},
120: L.~Peruzzo\altaffilmark{g},
121: A.~Piccioli\altaffilmark{o},
122: M.~Poller\altaffilmark{a},
123: E.~Prandini\altaffilmark{g},
124: N.~Puchades\altaffilmark{b},
125: A.~Raymers\altaffilmark{k},
126: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{h},
127: M.~Rib\'o\altaffilmark{j},
128: J.~Rico\altaffilmark{b},
129: M.~Rissi\altaffilmark{c},
130: A.~Robert\altaffilmark{e},
131: S.~R\"ugamer\altaffilmark{a},
132: A.~Saggion\altaffilmark{g},
133: A.~S\'anchez\altaffilmark{e},
134: P.~Sartori\altaffilmark{g},
135: V.~Scalzotto\altaffilmark{g},
136: V.~Scapin\altaffilmark{n},
137: R.~Schmitt\altaffilmark{a},
138: T.~Schweizer\altaffilmark{f},
139: M.~Shayduk\altaffilmark{q,}\altaffilmark{f},
140: K.~Shinozaki\altaffilmark{f},
141: S.~N.~Shore\altaffilmark{t},
142: N.~Sidro\altaffilmark{b},
143: A.~Sillanp\"a\"a\altaffilmark{l},
144: D.~Sobczynska\altaffilmark{i},
145: A.~Stamerra\altaffilmark{o},
146: L.~S.~Stark\altaffilmark{c},
147: L.~Takalo\altaffilmark{l},
148: P.~Temnikov\altaffilmark{r},
149: D.~Tescaro\altaffilmark{b},
150: M.~Teshima\altaffilmark{f},
151: N.~Tonello\altaffilmark{f},
152: D.~F.~Torres\altaffilmark{b,}\altaffilmark{u},
153: N.~Turini\altaffilmark{o},
154: H.~Vankov\altaffilmark{r},
155: V.~Vitale\altaffilmark{n},
156: R.~M.~Wagner\altaffilmark{f,}\altaffilmark{*},
157: T.~Wibig\altaffilmark{i},
158: W.~Wittek\altaffilmark{f},
159: F.~Zandanel\altaffilmark{g},
160: R.~Zanin\altaffilmark{b},
161: J.~Zapatero\altaffilmark{e}
162: }
163: \altaffiltext{a}{Universit\"at W\"urzburg, D-97074 W\"urzburg, Germany}
164: \altaffiltext{b}{Institut de F\'\i sica d'Altes Energies, Edifici Cn., E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain}
165: \altaffiltext{c}{ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Switzerland}
166: \altaffiltext{d}{Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
167: \altaffiltext{e}{Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
168: \altaffiltext{f}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
169: \altaffiltext{g}{Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy}
170: \altaffiltext{h}{Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany}
171: \altaffiltext{i}{University of \L\'od\'z, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland}
172: \altaffiltext{j}{Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
173: \altaffiltext{k}{Yerevan Physics Institute, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
174: \altaffiltext{l}{Tuorla Observatory, Turku University, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
175: \altaffiltext{m}{Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38200, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
176: \altaffiltext{n}{Universit\`a di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy}
177: \altaffiltext{o}{Universit\`a di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy}
178: \altaffiltext{p}{University of California, Davis, CA-95616-8677, USA}
179: \altaffiltext{q}{Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
180: \altaffiltext{r}{Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
181: \altaffiltext{s}{INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico and INFN Trieste, I-34131 Trieste, Italy}
182: \altaffiltext{t}{Universit\`a di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}
183: \altaffiltext{u}{ICREA and Institut de Cienci\`es de l'Espai, IEEC-CSIC, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
184: \altaffiltext{*}{Correspondence: robert.wagner@mppmu.mpg.de (R. M. Wagner)}
185:
186:
187: \begin{abstract}
188:
189: The MAGIC collaboration has observed very high energy gamma ray
190: emission from the AGN 1ES\,2344+514. A gamma-ray signal
191: corresponding to an $11\sigma$ excess and an integral flux of
192: $(2.38\pm{0.30_\mathrm{stat}}\pm{0.70_\mathrm{syst}})\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
193: above 200 GeV has been obtained from 23.1 hours of data taking
194: between 2005 August 3 and 2006 January 1. The data confirm the
195: previously detected gamma-ray emission from this object during a
196: flare seen by the Whipple collaboration in 1995 and the evidence
197: (below $5 \sigma$ significance level) from long-term observations
198: conducted by the Whipple and HEGRA groups. The MAGIC observations
199: show a relatively steep differential photon spectrum that can be
200: described by a power law with a photon index of $\alpha=-2.95 \pm
201: 0.12_{\mathrm{stat}} \pm 0.2_{\mathrm{syst}}$ between 140 GeV and
202: 5.4 TeV. The observations reveal a low flux state, about six times
203: below the 1995 flare seen by Whipple and comparable with the
204: previous Whipple and HEGRA long-term measurements. During the
205: MAGIC observations no significant time variability was observed.
206: \end{abstract}
207:
208: \keywords{gamma rays: observations, BL Lacertae objects:
209: individual (1ES 2344+514)}
210:
211: \section{Introduction}
212:
213: All but one of the detected extragalactic very high energy (VHE)
214: gamma ($\gamma$) ray sources so far are active galactic nuclei
215: (AGN) of the BL~Lac type. These objects are characterized by a
216: highly variable electromagnetic emission ranging from radio to
217: $\gamma$-rays, and by continuum spectra dominated by non-thermal
218: emission that consist of two distinct broad components. While the
219: low energy bump is thought to arise dominantly from synchrotron
220: emission of electrons, the origin of the high-energy bump is still
221: debated. Leptonic models ascribe it to inverse Compton processes
222: that either up-scatter synchrotron photons (synchrotron-self
223: Compton [SSC] models, Marscher \& Gear 1985, Maraschi et al.
224: 1992), or to external photons that originate from the accretion
225: disk \citep{DermerSchlickeiser}, from nearby massive stars, or are
226: reflected into the jet by surrounding material
227: \citep{SikoraBegelmanRees}.
228: %
229: In hadronic models, interactions of a highly relativistic jet
230: outflow with ambient matter \citep{DarLaor,Bednarek1993},
231: proton-induced cascades \citep{PIC}, synchrotron radiation off
232: protons (proton synchrotron blazar; Aharonian 2000; M\"ucke
233: \& Protheroe 2001), or curvature radiation, are responsible for
234: the high energy photons.
235: %
236: The prime scientific interest in BL~Lac objects is twofold: (1) to
237: understand the VHE $\gamma$-ray production mechanisms, assumed to
238: be linked to the massive black hole in the center of the AGN, and
239: (2) to use the VHE $\gamma$-rays as a probe of the extragalactic
240: background light (EBL) spectrum between about $0.3$
241: to $30~\mu\rm m$ wavelength. In the past, most of the VHE
242: $\gamma$-ray emitting AGN were discovered during phases of high
243: activity, biasing our current observational record towards high
244: emission states. Although these sources also show variability in
245: the X-ray, optical, and radio domain, the VHE variability is
246: observed to often be the most intense and violent one. While
247: fast variability on the timescale of 10 minutes has been observed
248: for Mkn~501 in the X-ray domain \citep{XueCui}, flux doubling
249: times well below 5 minutes were recently also found in the VHE
250: domain \citep{Gaidos,David}. Many of the observed AGN are
251: presumably visible only during a state of high activity. It still
252: remains an open question whether these sources are only
253: temporarily active and are completely inactive between times of
254: flaring, or if there also exists a state of low but
255: continuous $\gamma$-ray emission. In addition, the temporal and
256: spectral properties of such a low VHE $\gamma$-ray emission state
257: is mostly elusive as of to date. It is quite conceivable that,
258: compared to a low state, the flare emission state is either due to
259: a different population of accelerated particles or originates from
260: a different region in the AGN, or both.
261:
262: In the first year of operation of the Major Atmospheric Gamma
263: Imaging Cerenkov (MAGIC) Telescope a program has been started to
264: search for new low and medium redshift blazars emitting at VHE
265: $\gamma$-rays (Albert et al. 2006b; 2006c; 2007a). In addition, known VHE AGNs
266: were monitored in order to study common features of their
267: $\gamma$-ray emission, as well as the properties of the low-emission state (Albert et al. 2006a; 2007b; 2007c).
268:
269: A good candidate for detailed studies is 1ES\,2344+514. This AGN
270: belongs to a type of blazars in which the synchrotron emission
271: peaks at UV/X-ray frequencies (the so-called high-energy peak BL
272: Lacs [HBLs] e.g. Urry \& Padovani 1995), as opposed to the blazars
273: with the synchrotron peak located at IR/visible frequencies.
274: %
275: Along with Mkn\,501 and H\,1426+428, it represents extreme BL Lac
276: objects, in which the synchrotron peak energy exceeds 10~keV, in
277: particular during strong flares \citep{Costamante}. 1ES\,2344+514
278: was detected during the {\it Einstein} Slew Survey \citep{Elvis}
279: in the energy range between 0.2 and 4 keV. It was identified as a
280: BL~Lac object by \citet{Perlman}, who also determined a redshift
281: of $z = 0.044$. Its black hole mass was estimated to be
282: $10^{(8.80\pm0.16)} M_\mathrm{sun}$ \citep{Barth}. Early {\it
283: BeppoSAX} observations \citep{Giommi} revealed a large 0.1$-$10
284: keV flux variability on timescales of a few hours. Follow-up
285: observations in 1998 found the object in a very low state with the
286: synchrotron peak shifted by a factor of 20 towards lower energies
287: and the corresponding integral flux decreased by a factor of 4.5.
288: \citet{Giommi} interpreted the observations with one electron
289: population being responsible for the steady low energy synchrotron
290: emission and another electron component producing higher energy
291: X-rays with high time variability. The latter component should be
292: responsible for VHE $\gamma$-ray emission via inverse Compton (IC)
293: scattering. EGRET did not detect any signal from 1ES\,2344+514,
294: giving an upper limit of
295: %
296: $3.4\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
297: at its peak response energy of 300~MeV \citep{Fichtel}. During the
298: winter of 1995/1996, the Whipple collaboration reported a $5.8\sigma$
299: excess signal from 1ES\,2344+514 above 350 GeV from 20.5 hours
300: observation time \citep{Catanese}. The observed flux was highly
301: variable, with the most significant signal occurring during a
302: flare on 1995 December 20, while all the remaining data combined
303: led to an only marginal ($4\sigma$) excess, i.e. below the
304: canonical detection limit used in ground-based VHE $\gamma$-ray
305: astronomy. The 0.8$-$12.6 TeV differential spectrum measured by
306: the Whipple collaboration during the flare had a power-law index
307: of $-2.54\pm{0.17_\mathrm{stat}}\pm0.07_{\mathrm{syst}}$
308: \citep{Schroedter}. One year later another search did not reveal
309: any VHE $\gamma$-ray emission. The HEGRA collaboration also
310: searched for VHE $\gamma$-ray emission above 800 GeV. A deep
311: exposure of 72.5~h indicated a signal at a significance level of
312: $4.4\sigma$ \citep{Tluczykont}.
313:
314: Here we present MAGIC telescope observations of 1ES\,2344+514. We
315: briefly discuss the observational technique used and the
316: implemented data analysis procedure, derive a VHE $\gamma$-ray
317: spectrum of the source, and put the results into perspective with
318: other VHE $\gamma$-ray observations of this AGN. An SSC model is
319: used to describe the wide-range spectral energy distribution
320: (SED).
321:
322: \section{Observations}
323: %
324: The observations were performed between 2005 August 3 and 2005
325: September 29, and between 2005 November 11 and 2006 January 1,
326: using the MAGIC Telescope on the Canary island of La Palma
327: ($28.8^\circ$N, $17.8^\circ$W, 2200~m above sea level), from where
328: 1ES\,2344+514 can be observed at zenith distances above
329: $24^\circ$. The essential parameters of the currently largest air
330: Cherenkov telescope are a 17~m~\o\ segmented mirror of parabolic
331: shape, an $f/D$ of 1.05 and a hexagonally shaped camera with a
332: field of view (FOV) of $\approx3.5^\circ$ mean diameter. The
333: camera comprises 576 pixels composed of hemispherical, six dynode
334: photomultipliers augmented in sensitivity by a diffuse lacquer
335: doped with a wavelength shifter \citep{Paneque} and by so-called
336: light catchers. In separate measurements a total gain of 2 has
337: been determined. 180 pixels of $0.2^\circ$~\o\ surround the inner
338: section of the camera, which consists of 394 pixels of
339: $0.1^\circ$~\o\ ($= 2.2^\circ$~\o\ FOV). The trigger is formed by
340: a coincidence of $\geq 4$ neighboring pixels.
341: %
342: The overall Cherenkov photon ($300-650$~nm) to photoelectron
343: conversion ratio is $0.15\pm0.02$. % according to calculations from
344: The point spread function (PSF) of the main mirror is
345: $\sigma\approx 0.04^\circ$, while 90\% of the light of a source at
346: infinity is focussed onto a disk with $0.1^\circ$~\o. Further
347: details of the telescope parameters and performance can be found
348: in \citet{MAGIC-commissioning,CortinaICRC}.
349:
350: 1ES\,2344+514 was observed for 32 hours in total, distributed over
351: 27 days between 2005 August and the first days of 2006 January at
352: zenith angles ranging from $23^\circ$ to $38^\circ$. The
353: observations were carried out in wobble mode \citep{Fomin}, i.e.
354: by alternatingly tracking two positions at $0.4^\circ$ offset from
355: the camera center. This observation mode allows a reliable
356: background estimation for point sources.
357:
358: Simultaneous $R$-band observations of 1ES\,2344+514 were conducted
359: in the framework of the Tuorla Observatory blazar monitoring
360: program\footnote{See http://users.utu.fi/kani/1m/.} with the KVA
361: 35~cm telescope\footnote{See http://tur3.tur.iac.es/.} on La Palma
362: and the 1.03~m telescope at Tuorla Observatory, Finland.
363:
364: \section{Data Analysis}
365:
366: The data analysis was carried out using the standard MAGIC
367: analysis and reconstruction software \citep{Magic-software}. After
368: calibration \citep{MAGIC_calibration}, the images were cleaned by
369: requiring a minimum number of seven photoelectrons (core pixels) and five
370: photoelectrons (boundary pixels), see e.g. \citet{Fegan1997}.
371: These tail cuts are scaled accordingly for the larger size of the
372: outer pixels of the MAGIC camera. The data were filtered by
373: rejecting trivial background events, such as accidental noise
374: triggers, triggers from nearby muons or data taken
375: %
376: during adverse conditions (low atmospheric transmission, car light
377: flashes etc.). Light clusters, either from large angle shower
378: particles or from the night sky light background (stars), well
379: separated from the main image, were removed from the images. For
380: the events included in the analysis, the mean trigger rate was
381: required to be constant within $\approx 20\%$. In order to improve
382: the comparability of the two data sets from summer and winter 2005
383: we restricted the maximum zenith angle to $\leq 34^\circ$.
384: %
385: From the remaining events, corresponding to 23.1 h observation
386: time, image parameters were calculated \citep{Hillas_parameters}
387: such as WIDTH, LENGTH, SIZE, CONC, and M3LONG, the third moment of
388: the light distribution along the major image axis. For the
389: $\gamma$/hadron separation a multidimensional classification
390: procedure based on the random forest method was employed
391: \citep{Breiman,Bock}. The separation procedure was trained using a
392: sample of Monte Carlo (MC) generated $\gamma$-ray shower images
393: \citep{Knapp,Majumdar} on the one hand and about 1\% randomly
394: selected events from the measured wobble data representing the
395: hadronic background on the other hand. The MC $\gamma$-ray showers
396: were generated between zenith angles of 24$^\circ$ and 34$^\circ$
397: with energies between 10~GeV and 30~TeV. Every event was assigned
398: a parameter called hadronness ($h$), which is a measure for the
399: probability that it is a hadronic (background) event. The final
400: separation was achieved by a cut in $h$. The same cut procedure
401: was applied to the final 1ES\,2344+514 sample. The arrival
402: directions of the showers in equatorial coordinates were
403: calculated using the DISP method
404: \citep{Fomin,Lessard2001,MAGIC_disp}. The energy of the primary
405: $\gamma$-ray was reconstructed from the image parameters again
406: using the random forest method and taking into account the full
407: instrumental energy resolution.
408:
409: \begin{figure}[!h]
410: \begin{center}
411: \includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{f1.eps}
412: \end{center}
413: \caption{Sky map for 1ES\,2344+514 produced with a DISP analysis:
414: The figure shows the (background-subtracted, see e.g. Rowell 2003)
415: excess events above 300 photoelectrons, corresponding to a
416: $\gamma$-ray energy of $\approx 180$ GeV.
417: %, that were selected by imposing a hadronness cut of $h<0.1$.
418: The sky map has been smoothed using a two dimensional Gaussian
419: with $\sigma=0.1^\circ$, roughly corresponding to the $\gamma$ PSF
420: of the MAGIC telescope for point sources (indicated by the white
421: circle). The colors encode the number of excess events in units of
422: $10^{-5} \mathrm{sr}^{-1}$. The black cross marks the expected
423: source position.} \label{fig:skymap}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: \begin{figure}[!h]
427: \begin{center}
428: \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{f2.eps}
429: \end{center}
430: \caption{$\theta^2$ plot for the 1ES\,2344+514 observations.
431: On-source events are given as black symbols, while red symbols
432: represent off-source background. A cut at $\theta^2 \leq
433: 0.04\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ selects 528 $\gamma$ events at a
434: significance level of $11\sigma$. The plot has been prepared for
435: SIZE~$>300$ photoelectrons, corresponding to $\approx 180$ GeV.}
436: \label{fig:t2}
437: \end{figure}
438:
439: Fig.~\ref{fig:skymap} shows a $\approx 1.8^\circ \times 1.8^\circ$
440: section of the sky around the 1ES\,2344+514 position. The nominal
441: source position is marked by a cross. A clear excess is visible in
442: the data, the maximum of which is located at
443: (RA,Dec)=$(23^{\mathrm h}46^{\mathrm m}\pm 0\fm4,
444: 51^{\circ}42\farcm6 \pm 1\farcm2)$ (the errors only include the
445: determination accuracy of the position). The extension of the
446: excess and the small deviation from the nominal position are
447: consistent with the PSF and the tracking error of $\approx 1\fm5$
448: of the telescope \citep{MAGIC_drive}, respectively. To calculate
449: the significance of the observed $\gamma$-ray excess, the squared
450: angular distance $\theta^2$ between the reconstructed shower
451: direction and the object position ($\theta^2=0$) as shown in
452: Fig.~\ref{fig:t2} is used. In this representation, the background
453: is expected to be flat for the case of a very large diameter
454: camera. In the analysis, three background regions of the same size
455: chosen symmetrically with the source position around the camera
456: center were used for a simultaneous determination of the
457: background. The background control data sample was normalized to
458: the on-source sample between
459: $0.12\,\mathrm{deg}^2<\theta^2<0.24\,\mathrm{deg}^2$. The
460: %
461: reason of the slow but steady drop in the background is the drop
462: in acceptance towards the camera boundary.
463: The observed excess signal %after a fixed cut of $h<0.1$
464: of 528 events below $\theta^2<0.04\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ corresponds to
465: an $11\sigma$ excess according to eq. 17 in \citet{LiMa}. An
466: independent analysis using other cuts, a different reconstruction
467: algorithm and a different $\gamma$/hadron optimization procedure,
468: revealed a comparable (within statistics) significance. While for
469: the sky map and the $\theta^2$ plot a fixed, tight $h$ cut was
470: applied, the final separation for the spectral analysis and the
471: light curve was done using a looser, energy-dependent cut in $h$,
472: requiring that about 60\% of the MC $\gamma$ events survive.
473:
474: As the analyzed data comprise 21 observation nights, it is
475: possible to check the light curve for possible flux variability.
476: On a diurnal basis, the $\geq$~200~GeV light curve
477: (Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}) shows small changes and trends beyond those
478: expected from statistical fluctuations. The structure observed
479: during MJD 53580$-$53600 is compatible with a constant-flux ansatz
480: ($\chi^2/$dof$=6.1/6$), while from MJD 53726.82$-$53726.90 a flux
481: of $2.4\sigma$ above the average flux inferred from the
482: surrounding days MJD 53720$-$53740, $(1.8\pm0.6)\cdot10^{-11}
483: \mathrm{cm}^{-2} \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ ($\chi^2/$dof=4.9/7), was found.
484: Note that the probability for finding such an excess in the 21
485: observation nights is around $34.4\%$. No significant variability
486: within this observation night, encompassing 1.13 hours of
487: effective observation time, can be claimed.
488: %
489:
490: \begin{figure}
491: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f3.eps} \caption{VHE ($E>200
492: \mathrm{GeV}$) light curve (upper panel) and simultaneous optical
493: ($R$-band) light curve for 1ES\,2344+514. The dashed line in the
494: VHE light curve indicates the average flux level of
495: $(2.38\pm0.30)\times10^{-11} \mathrm{cm}^{-2} \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
496: ($\chi^2_\mathrm{red}=21.2/20$). Note that the contribution of the
497: host galaxy to the optical brightness is non-negligible and given
498: as 3.7 mJy \citep{KariO}.} \label{fig:lc}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501: The observation time can be split into three observation periods
502: (Table~\ref{tab:lc}). Together with the VHE $\gamma$-ray light
503: curve, an $R$-band optical light curve is shown. Simultaneous
504: X-ray data are only available from the ASM
505: instrument\footnote{Data available at http://xte.mit.edu/.}
506: \citep{Levine} on board the {\it Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer}, the
507: sensitivity of which, however, would be hardly sufficient to
508: resolve the expected $2-10$ keV flux even during flaring states of
509: 1ES\,2344+514, like those observed with {\it BeppoSAX}
510: \citep{Giommi}.
511:
512: \begin{table}
513: \begin{center}
514: \begin{tabular}{llcc}
515: \hline
516: Period & Obs. time & $F_{>200\mathrm{GeV}}$ & $\chi^2/$ndf \\
517: (MJD) & & ($10^{-11}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) & \\
518: \hline
519: $53585-53597 $ & \phantom{0}6.37~h & $3.02\pm0.50$ & $6.1/6$ \\
520: $53610-53642 $ & \phantom{0}8.06~h & $1.87\pm0.52$ & $0.4/3$ \\
521: $53700-53736 $ & \phantom{0}8.66~h & $2.20\pm0.51$ & $12.0/9$ \\
522: \hline
523: Combined & 23.09~h & $2.38\pm0.30$ & $21.2/20$ \\
524: \hline
525: \end{tabular}
526: \end{center}
527: \caption{Integral fluxes above 200 GeV in the individual
528: observation periods and reduced $\chi^2$/dof of a fit with a
529: constant-flux ansatz in the respective observation periods. The
530: given errors are statistical errors only.} \label{tab:lc}
531: \end{table}
532:
533: Summing up all the data we determined an integral flux above 200
534: GeV of
535: %
536: \begin{displaymath}
537: F(E>200 \mathrm{GeV}) = (2.38 \pm {0.30_{\mathrm{stat}}} \pm
538: 0.70_{\mathrm{syst}}) \times 10^{-11} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}
539: \mathrm{s}^{-1}.
540: \end{displaymath}
541: %
542: The relatively large systematic error is a consequence of the
543: steep spectral slope (see below). The main contributions to the
544: systematic error are the uncertainties in the atmospheric
545: transmission, the reflectivity (including stray-light losses) of
546: the main mirror and the light catchers, the photon to
547: photoelectron conversion calibration, and the photoelectron
548: collection efficiency in the photomultiplier front end. Also, MC
549: uncertainties and systematic errors from the analysis methods
550: contribute significantly to the error. The above quoted flux
551: corresponds to $(10\pm1)\%$ of the integral Crab Nebula flux in
552: the same energy range.
553: %(the error of the ratio is smaller as most
554: %systematic errors cancel out).
555: %
556:
557: During our observations we also checked the optical variability.
558: When correcting for the contribution of the host galaxy of 3.7~mJy
559: \citep{KariO}, variations in the optical light curve around the
560: average brightness of $\approx 15\%$ are seen, which are
561: significant given the small errors ($\lesssim 5\%$) of the data
562: points. Possible VHE $\gamma$-ray variations on a comparable level
563: are below the sensitivity of MAGIC on the given timescale.
564: %
565:
566: For each of the three observation periods photon spectra were
567: determined. These are well described by simple power laws between
568: 140 GeV and at least 1.0 TeV and are, within errors, compatible
569: with no change in the spectral index.
570: %
571: Finally, all data were combined for the calculation of a
572: differential photon spectrum (Table \ref{tab:spd}). The
573: reconstructed spectrum after unfolding with the instrumental
574: energy resolution \citep{Anykeev1991,Mizobuchi} is shown in
575: Figure~\ref{fig:spectrum}. A simple power law fit to the data
576: between 140 GeV and 5.4 TeV yields
577: %
578: \begin{displaymath}
579: \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}E} =
580: \frac{(1.2\pm0.1_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm{0.5_\mathrm{syst}}) \cdot
581: 10^{-11}} {\mathrm{TeV}\,\mathrm{cm}^2\,\mathrm{s}} \frac{E}{500\,
582: \mathrm{GeV}}^{-2.95\pm{0.12_\mathrm{stat}}\pm{0.2_\mathrm{syst}}}
583: \end{displaymath}
584: %
585: with a reduced $\chi^2$/dof of 8.56/5, indicating a
586: reasonable description of the data by the fit. For comparison, the
587: Whipple measurement of the 1ES\,2344+514 spectrum during the flare
588: of 1995 December 20 \citep{Schroedter} and the Crab Nebula spectrum
589: \citep{Crab_MAGIC} as obtained with MAGIC are also shown in
590: Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}. Note that the integral flux
591: $F(E>970\,\mathrm{GeV})=(0.82\pm0.09)
592: \times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ is in very good
593: agreement with the HEGRA measurements from 1998 to 2002
594: \citep{Tluczykont}.
595: %
596:
597: \begin{table}
598: \begin{center}
599: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
600: \hline
601: Mean energy & Bin Width & Flux & Stat. Error & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Syst. Error} \\
602: $E$ [GeV] & [GeV] & \multicolumn{4}{c}{[TeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$]} \\
603: \hline
604: \phantom{0}186 & \phantom{00}93 & $\phantom{<}2.0$E-10 & 4.2E-11 & +7.0E-11 & -7.0E-11 \\
605: \phantom{0}310 & \phantom{0}155 & $\phantom{<}7.0$E-11 & 1.4E-11 & +3.8E-11 & -2.4E-11 \\
606: \phantom{0}516 & \phantom{0}259 & $\phantom{<}1.8$E-11 & 3.2E-12 & +6.4E-12 & -6.4E-12 \\
607: \phantom{0}861 & \phantom{0}431 & $\phantom{<}2.4$E-12 & 8.6E-13 & +8.4E-13 & -8.4E-13 \\
608: 1437 & \phantom{0}720 & $\phantom{<}2.7$E-13 & 2.2E-13 & +9.4E-14 & -7.1E-13 \\
609: 2397 & 1201 & $\phantom{<}1.2$E-13 & 6.8E-14 & +4.1E-14 & -1.6E-13 \\
610: 3999 & 2003 & $\phantom{<}3.5$E-14 & 3.2E-14 & +1.2E-14 & -1.3E-13 \\
611: 6670 & 3341 & $<8.4$E-15 & \multicolumn{3}{l}{(95\% C. L.)} \\
612: \hline
613: \end{tabular}
614: \end{center}
615: \caption{Differential flux of 1ES\,2344+514 along with statistical
616: and systematical errors.} \label{tab:spd}
617: \end{table}
618:
619: \begin{figure}[h]
620: \begin{center}
621: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4.eps}
622: \end{center}
623: \caption{Differential photon spectrum for 1ES\,2344+514 as
624: measured with MAGIC (solid curve). The gray band represents
625: systematic errors coming from varying the $\gamma$ efficiency in
626: the determination of the spectrum. The Crab nebula spectrum as
627: measured with MAGIC is also shown (gray dotted curve; small gray
628: numbers indicate the fraction of Crab nebula flux for the
629: 1ES\,2344+514 flux points) and the Whipple flare spectrum (dashed
630: curve) as reported by \citet{Schroedter}.} \label{fig:spectrum}
631: \end{figure}
632:
633:
634: \begin{figure*}
635: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f5.eps}
636: \caption{Overall VHE light curve for 1ES\,2344+514. Data for
637: 1996-2002 were collected from
638: \citet{Catanese,2001ICRC....7.2892B,Tluczykont}. The 1995 December
639: 20 flare has been excluded for clarity. Due to the different
640: energy thresholds of the included observations, integral fluxes
641: $\geq 350$~GeV were considered and the data were normalized to
642: Crab flux units, extrapolating data points with higher flux levels
643: assuming 1ES\,2344+514 was observed in a quiescent state; the
644: spectral behavior found in this paper was used for this purpose.}
645: \label{fig:lccom}
646: \end{figure*}
647:
648: \section{Discussion}
649:
650: We observed a highly significant VHE $\gamma$-ray emission from
651: the blazar 1ES\,2344+514. % during a state of low X-ray activity.
652: The flux exhibited no significant variations on a timescale of
653: days, with one night showing a higher flux level (by a factor of
654: 2) as compared to the surrounding nights; such a variation is
655: statistically expected to occur with a 34.4\% probability in 21
656: observation nights. The observed flux was lower by a factor of
657: $\approx6$ than the one observed by the Whipple collaboration
658: during a flare on 1995 December 20. The spectrum is softer than
659: the Crab Nebula spectrum and also softer than the flare spectrum
660: observed by the Whipple collaboration.
661:
662: \subsection{Long-term VHE Light Curve}
663:
664: In Fig.~\ref{fig:lccom} we show a light curve including all
665: reported VHE $\gamma$-ray measurements and upper limits for
666: 1ES\,2344+514. These data have been normalized to an integral Crab
667: flux $F(E>350\,\mathrm{GeV})$; the fluxes given in the literature
668: were extrapolated, if necessary, using the spectral index found in
669: this paper (in the following, ``Crab units'' refer to this energy
670: threshold). Except for the 1995 December 20 flare and the MAGIC
671: data, all these measurements are on the sensitivity level of the
672: respective instruments. Therefore, none of the latter data points
673: exceeds a significance of $4.3\sigma$. All reported observations
674: with significances below $2.0\sigma$ ($\approx$95\% probability)
675: were converted to $99\%$ upper flux limits.
676:
677: In 1995/1996, Whipple discovered 1ES\,2344+514 at a flux level of
678: $(0.11\pm0.05)$ Crab units at $E>350$~GeV, except for the 1995 December
679: flare, when $(0.63\pm0.15)$ Crab units were obtained
680: \citep{Catanese}. Follow-up observations by Whipple and HEGRA in
681: 1996-1998 yielded upper limits of $0.08$ and $0.12$ Crab
682: units, respectively. In 1998 and 2002, the object was observed for
683: almost 60~h by HEGRA resulting, when combined, in a flux of
684: $(0.042\pm0.012)$ Crab units at $E>930$~GeV \citep{MartinPhd},
685: which translates to $(0.053\pm0.015)$ Crab units when
686: extrapolating to $E\geq350$~GeV. From observations of
687: 1ES\,2344+514 in 2002, the Whipple group could infer a low flux
688: level of $\lesssim0.03$ Crab units with a marginal significance of
689: $3.1\sigma$ \citep{2001ICRC....7.2892B} at $E\gtrsim400$~GeV.
690:
691: While the Whipple and HEGRA measurements allowed to conclude on a
692: emission level of $\leq 11\%$ Crab units only after long
693: observation times, the MAGIC observations obtained in this paper
694: are the first time-resolved measurements at this emission
695: level for 1ES\,2344+514. We find the flux of 1ES\,2344+514 to be
696: $(0.054\pm0.006)$ Crab units for $E>350$~GeV, which is well in
697: line with the HEGRA 1997-2002 evidence.
698:
699: In previous observations of 1ES\,2344+514 it was not possible
700: to infer temporal characteristics of the found VHE $\gamma$-ray
701: emission level. With MAGIC, this level can be detected with only a
702: few hours of observations, enabling studies of the VHE
703: $\gamma$-ray variability properties of this object over a
704: significant part of its dynamical range. Thus, 1ES\,2344+514 adds
705: to the small group of blazars for which such studies are now
706: possible on a diurnal basis---Mkn 421 \citep{Daniel}, Mkn 501
707: \citep{David}, and PKS 2155-304 \citep{2155}.
708:
709: \subsection{Intrinsic Energy Spectrum}
710: %
711: Having to traverse a cosmological distance corresponding to a
712: redshift of $z=0.044$, the $\gamma$-rays emitted by 1ES\,2344+514
713: interact with the low energy photons of the EBL (see, e.g., Nikishov 1962;
714: Gould \& Schr\'eder 1966; Hauser \& Dwek 2001). The predominant reaction $
715: \gamma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{\,VHE}}} + \gamma_{\mbox{\scriptsize
716: EBL}} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}^{+}\,\mathrm{e}^{-}$ leads to an
717: attenuation of the intrinsic spectrum
718: $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{intr}$ that can be described by
719: \begin{equation}
720: \mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{obs} \,=\,
721: \mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{intr} \cdot
722: \exp[-\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(E,\,z)]
723: \end{equation}
724: with the observed spectrum $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{obs}$,
725: and the energy-dependent optical depth
726: $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(E,\,z)$.
727: %
728: Here we use the ``best-fit'' model of \citet{kneiske}, which
729: yields an EBL spectrum that agrees with alternative models, e.g.
730: \citet{stecker}.
731: %
732: Using this EBL spectrum and a state-of-the-art cosmology (flat
733: universe, Hubble constant $H_0=72\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,
734: \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, matter density $\Omega_\mathrm{m}=0.3$, and dark
735: energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$), we calculate the optical
736: depth $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the distance of 1ES\,2344+514.
737: Thereby we use the numerical integration given by eq.~2 in
738: \citet{dwek}.
739: %
740: The reconstructed intrinsic source spectrum is shown along with
741: the measured spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrumdeabs}. The
742: intrinsic source spectrum can be described by a simple power law
743: of the form
744: %
745: \begin{displaymath}
746: \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}E}_\mathrm{intr} = \frac{
747: (2.1\pm{1.2_\mathrm{stat}}\pm{0.5_\mathrm{syst}})\cdot10^{-11}}{
748: \mathrm{TeV}\,\mathrm{cm}^2\,\mathrm{s}} \times \frac{E}{500\,
749: \mathrm{GeV}}^{-2.66\pm{0.50_\mathrm{stat}}\pm{0.20_\mathrm{syst}}}
750: \end{displaymath}
751: %
752: between 140 GeV and 5.4 TeV ($\chi^2_{\mathrm{dof}} = 0.68/5$).
753: The spectrum shows a tendency to flatten towards low energies. A
754: fit with a logarithmic curvature term, which corresponds to a
755: parabolic law in a $\log(E^2 \mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E)$ vs. $\log
756: E$ representation (power law index $\alpha \rightarrow a + 2b \log
757: (E/E_a)$; Massaro et al. 2004), shows a clear curvature and
758: enables locating the peak at $E_{\rm peak} = E_a \cdot
759: 10^{(2-a)/(2b)}=(202\pm174)$ GeV. The peak is obviously badly
760: determined as the turnover of the spectrum, presumably around
761: $200$ GeV, is not observed unambiguously.
762:
763: \begin{figure}
764: \begin{center}
765: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f6.eps}
766: \end{center}
767: \caption{Measured and intrinsic differential photon spectrum of
768: 1ES\,2344+514. Simple power law fits are given by the dot-dashed
769: and dashed lines, while the fit with a logarithmic curvature term
770: is given by the dotted curve.} \label{fig:spectrumdeabs}
771: \end{figure}
772:
773: \subsection{Spectral Energy Distribution}
774:
775: \begin{figure*}
776: \begin{center}
777: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f7.eps}
778: \end{center}
779: \caption{Overall SED for 1ES\,2344+514. Gray symbols: Archival
780: (radio, optical, X-ray) data taken from \citet{BSASDC,Schroedter}.
781: The two {\it BeppoSAX} data sets represent a quiescent state and
782: data taken simultaneously with Whipple observations: BS96---{\it
783: BeppoSAX} 1996 December 05; BS98---{\it BeppoSAX} 1998 June 28.
784: Wh95---Whipple flare spectrum; Wh96---Whipple upper limit
785: corresponding to the BS96 measurement \citep{Schroedter}.
786: Eg94---{\it EGRET} upper limit \citep{hartman}. HEGRA 1998-2002
787: flux point \citep{Tluczykont}; MAGIC---this paper; data taken
788: simultaneously with the MAGIC measurements: KVA: Optical flux,
789: host galaxy contribution subtracted; ASM: RXTE--ASM upper limit.
790: The solid curves were obtained using the model given in
791: \citet{Krawczynski1es1959-2004} and describe the synchrotron and
792: IC emission. The corresponding intrinsic (EBL de-absorbed) spectra
793: are indicated by the dashed curves. The solid lines model the
794: flare state of 1995 and the low state as seen by MAGIC in 2005.
795: The dotted curve is to describe the BS96/Wh96 observation and only
796: differs in a lower Doppler factor ($\delta=13.2$) from the Whipple
797: flare model. } \label{fig:wsed}
798: \end{figure*}
799:
800: The spectral energy distribution for 1ES\,2344+514 is shown in
801: Fig.~\ref{fig:wsed}. Apart from the VHE $\gamma$-ray observations
802: by MAGIC, Whipple, and HEGRA, the X-ray measurements performed by
803: {\it Einstein}, {\it ROSAT}, and {\it BeppoSAX} and an upper
804: limit from {\it EGRET} are the most relevant measurements for
805: modeling the SED. The figure also includes optical and radio
806: measurements. The latter however cannot be described by the
807: homogeneous one-zone SSC model provided by
808: \citet{Krawczynski1es1959-2004} that was used here, as the radio emission
809: is thought to arise from a larger volume in the jet than the VHE $\gamma$-ray
810: emission and as self-absorption effects are not accounted for.
811:
812: Two {\it BeppoSAX} data sets are shown: one was obtained
813: simultaneously with Whipple observations on 1996 December 5. The
814: second set was taken during a quiescent period of 1ES\,2344+514,
815: and represents a rather low X-ray emission state of the object,
816: although it might not necessarily correspond to its state during
817: the MAGIC measurements. It should be emphasized that most of the
818: data points shown in the SED were not measured simultaneously,
819: which makes the SED modeling very difficult.
820: %
821: The input parameters of the homogeneous SSC model are the radius
822: of the spherically assumed emission region $R$, the Doppler factor
823: $\delta$, the magnetic field strength $B$ in the acceleration
824: region, the density $\rho$ of the electrons responsible for the
825: $\gamma$-ray emission as well as two spectral slopes and a
826: spectral cutoff of the electron spectrum.
827: %
828: %The starting point for the modeling is the assumption that the
829: %maximum observed energies in the VHE region are due to the
830: %endpoint of the electron acceleration due to synchrotron energy
831: %losses. A flare thus can be modeled by a slight decrease of the
832: %magnetic field strength in the acceleration region and a
833: %simultaneous increase of the Doppler factor. This results in the
834: %acceleration of electrons to higher energies without creating a
835: %strong synchrotron flare, since the energy losses of electrons
836: %with higher energies are compensated by the drop in the magnetic
837: %field strength.
838: %
839: The size of the emission region $R$ was chosen such that it can
840: account for day-scale variability along with the Doppler factor
841: $\delta$ chosen, $R \leq \delta_{-1} \times t_{\mathrm{d}} \times
842: 2.48 \times 10^{16} \mathrm{cm}$ with $\delta_{-1}=\delta / 10$ and
843: $t_\mathrm{d}$ in units of days.
844: %
845: The parameters used here are specified in Table~\ref{tab:wsedp}.
846:
847: \begin{table}
848: \begin{center}
849: \begin{tabular}{lll}
850: \hline
851: SSC model input & Low state & Flare SED \\
852: parameter & SED (MAGIC) & \\
853: \hline
854: Doppler factor $\delta$ & 8.4 & 15.2 \\
855: Magnetic field strength $B$ & 0.095 G & 0.075 G \\
856: Emission region radius $R$ & $10^{16}$~cm & $10^{16}$~cm \\
857: Electron density $\rho$ & 0.025 erg cm$^{-3}$ & 0.025 erg cm$^{-3}$ \\
858: ${E_{\mathrm{min}}} [\log E({\rm eV})]$ & 9.1 & 8.9 \\
859: ${E_{\mathrm{max}}} [\log E({\rm eV})]$ & 11.6 & 11.9 \\
860: ${E_{\mathrm{br}}} [\log E({\rm eV})]$ & 10.9 & 10.9 \\
861: $n(E_\mathrm{min}<E\leq {E_{\mathrm{br}}})$ & -2.2 & -2.2 \\
862: $n(E_\mathrm{br}<E\leq {E_{\mathrm{max}}})$ & -3.2 & -3.2 \\
863: \hline
864: \end{tabular}
865: \caption{Model input parameters used with the SSC model provided
866: by \citet{Krawczynski1es1959-2004} for describing the MAGIC low
867: emission state and the 1995 Whipple flare emission state as
868: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:wsed}.} \label{tab:wsedp}
869: \end{center}
870: \end{table}
871:
872: The two models shown are to represent both the flare state of 1995
873: and the MAGIC observations in 2005. They differ in the following
874: model input parameters: (1) in the Doppler factor, (2) in the
875: magnetic field strength, and (3) the minimum and maximum electron
876: energy. In addition, the form of the electron spectrum differs for
877: the two flux states. The radius of the emission region was kept
878: constant at $10^{14}$~m.
879: %
880: While most of the model parameters are compatible with the
881: parameter space spanned by other models for blazars (e.g. Kino et
882: al. 2002; Giommi et al. 2002), the magnetic field strength found
883: here is rather low.
884:
885: In conclusion, we note that the presented SED models are rather
886: speculative, given the non-simultaneity of the currently available
887: data. Future multiwavelength campaigns on 1ES\,2344+514,
888: exploiting the enhanced sensitivity of the new imaging air
889: Cherenkov telescope installations, will hopefully improve this
890: situation.
891:
892: \acknowledgements
893:
894: We thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the
895: Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The support
896: of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and the Spanish CICYT
897: is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by ETH
898: Research Grant TH~34/04~3 and the Polish MNiI Grant 1P03D01028.
899:
900:
901: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
902: \bibitem[Aharonian(2000)]{AhaCur}Aharonian, F. A., \newblock 2000, NewA, 5, 377
903: \bibitem[Aharonian et~al.(2004)]{Tluczykont}Aharonian, F. A., et al. (HEGRA Collab.), \newblock 2004, A\&A, 421, 529
904: \bibitem[Aharonian et~al.(2005)]{2155} Aharonian, F. A., et al. (H.E.S.S. Collab.), \newblock 2005, A\&A, 442, 895
905: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2006a)]{Nadia} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2006a, ApJ, 639, 761
906: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2006b)]{1218} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2006b, ApJL, 642, 119
907: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2006c)]{Daniel} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2006c, ApJL, 648, 105
908: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2007a)]{1553} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2007a, ApJL, 654, 119
909: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2007b)]{421} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2007b, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0603478
910: \bibitem[Albert et~al.(2007c)]{David} Albert, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2007c, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0702008
911: \bibitem[Anykeyev et~al.(1991)]{Anykeev1991} Anykeyev, V.~B., Spiridonov, A.~A. \& Zhigunov, V.B., \newblock 1991, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A303, 350
912: \bibitem[Badran \& Weekes(2001)]{2001ICRC....7.2892B} Badran, H. M. \& Weekes, T. C., \newblock 2001, Proc. 27th ICRC, Hamburg, 2653
913: \bibitem[Baixeras et~al.(2004)]{MAGIC-commissioning} Baixeras, C., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2004, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A518, 188
914: \bibitem[Barth et~al.(2003)]{Barth} Barth, A.~J., et~al., \newblock 2003, ApJ, 583, 134
915: \bibitem[Bednarek(1993)]{Bednarek1993} Bednarek, W., \newblock 1993, ApJ, 402, L29
916: \bibitem[Bock et~al.(2004)]{Bock} Bock, R.~K., et~al., \newblock 2004, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A516, 511
917: \bibitem[Breiman(2001)]{Breiman} Breiman, L., \newblock 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5
918: \bibitem[Bretz et~al.(2003)]{MAGIC_drive} Bretz, T., Dorner, D. \& Wagner, R. M., \newblock 2003, Proc. 28th ICRC, Tsukuba, Japan, 2943
919: \bibitem[Bretz \& Wagner(2003)]{Magic-software} Bretz, T. \& Wagner, R. M., \newblock 2003, Proc. 28th ICRC, Tsukuba, Japan, 2947
920: \bibitem[Catanese et~al.(1998)]{Catanese} Catanese, M., et~al. (Whipple Collab.), \newblock 1998, ApJ, 501, 616
921: \bibitem[Cortina et~al.(2005)]{CortinaICRC} Cortina, J., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5, 359, astro-ph/0508274
922: \bibitem[Costamante et~al.(2001)]{Costamante} Costamante, L., et~al., \newblock 2001, A\&A, 371, 512
923: \bibitem[Domingo-Santamar\'\i a et~al.(2005)]{MAGIC_disp} Domingo-Santamar\'\i a, E., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 4, 51, astro-ph/0508274
924: \bibitem[Dar \& Laor(1997)]{DarLaor} Dar, A. \& Laor, A., \newblock \Journal{ApJ}{478}{L5}{1997}
925: \bibitem[Dermer \& Schlickeiser(1993)]{DermerSchlickeiser} Dermer, C. D. \& Schlickeiser, R., \newblock \Journal{ApJ}{416}{458}{1993}
926: \bibitem[Dwek \& Krennrich(2005)]{dwek}Dwek, E. $\&$ Krennrich, F., \newblock \Journal{ApJ}{618}{657}{2005}
927: \bibitem[Elvis et~al.(1992)]{Elvis} Elvis, M., et~al., \newblock 1992, ApJS, 80, 257
928: \bibitem[Fegan(1997)]{Fegan1997} Fegan, D.~J., \newblock 1997, J. Phys. G, 23, 1013
929: \bibitem[Fichtel et~al.(1994)]{Fichtel} Fichtel, C.~E., et~al., \newblock 1994, ApJS, 94, 551
930: \bibitem[Fomin et~al.(1994)]{Fomin} Fomin, V.~P., et~al., \newblock 1994, APh, 2, 137
931: \bibitem[Gaug et~al.(2005)]{MAGIC_calibration} Gaug, M., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5, 375, astro-ph/0508274
932: \bibitem[Gaidos et~al.(1996)]{Gaidos} Gaidos, J.~A., et~al. (Whipple Collab.), \newblock 1996, Nature, 383, 319
933: \bibitem[Giommi et~al.(2000)]{Giommi} Giommi, P., et~al., \newblock 2000, MNRAS, 317, 743
934: \bibitem[Giommi et~al.(2002)]{BSASDC} Giommi, P., et~al., \newblock 2002, in Proc. Blazar Astrophysics with {\it BeppoSAX} and Other Observatories, Rome, 63, astro-ph/0209596
935: \bibitem[Gould \& Schr\'eder(1966)]{gould}Gould, R.~J. $\&$ Schr\'eder, \newblock 1966, {Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 16, 252
936: \bibitem[Hartman et~al.(1999)]{hartman}Hartman, R.~C., et al., \newblock 1999, ApJS, 123, 79
937: \bibitem[Hauser \& Dwek(2001)]{HauserDwek} Hauser, M.~G. $\&$ Dwek, E., \newblock 2001, {ARA\&A}, 39, 249
938: \bibitem[Heck et~al.(1998)]{Knapp} Heck, D., et al., \newblock 1998, FZK Report FZKA~6019
939: \bibitem[Hillas(1985)]{Hillas_parameters} Hillas, A.~M., \newblock 1985, Proc. 19th ICRC, La Jolla, 3, 445
940: \bibitem[Kino et~al.(2002)]{Kino} Kino, M., Takahara, F. \& Kusunose, M., \newblock 2002, ApJ, 564, 97
941: \bibitem[Kneiske et~al.(2004)]{kneiske}Kneiske, T. M., et al., \newblock \Journal{A\&A}{413}{807}{2004}
942: \bibitem[Krawczynski et~al.(2004)]{Krawczynski1es1959-2004}Krawczynski, H., et al., \newblock 2004, ApJ, 601, 151
943: \bibitem[Lessard et~al.(2001)]{Lessard2001} Lessard, R.~W., et~al., \newblock 2001, APh, 15, 1
944: \bibitem[Levine et~al.(1996)]{Levine} Levine, A.~M., et~al., \newblock 1996, ApJL, 469, L33
945: \bibitem[Li \& Ma(1983)]{LiMa} Li, T.-P. \& Ma, Y.-Q., \newblock 1983, ApJ, 272, 317
946: \bibitem[Majumdar et~al.(2005)]{Majumdar} Majumdar, P., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5, 203, astro-ph/0508274
947: \bibitem[Mannheim(1993)]{PIC} Mannheim, K., \newblock 1993, A\&A, 269, 76
948: \bibitem[Maraschi et~al.(1992)]{Maraschi} Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., \& Celotti, A., \newblock 1992, ApJ, 397, L5
949: \bibitem[Marscher \& Gear(1985)]{Marscher} Marscher, A. P. \& Gear, W. K., \newblock 1985, ApJ, 298, 11
950: \bibitem[Massaro et~al.(2004)]{Massaro} Massaro, E., et~al., \newblock 2004, A\&A, 413, 489
951: \bibitem[Mizobuchi et~al.(2005)]{Mizobuchi} Mizobuchi, S., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 5, 323, astro-ph/0508274
952: \bibitem[M\"ucke \& Protheroe(2001)]{SPB} M\"ucke, A. \& Protheroe, R. J., \newblock 2001, APh, 15, 121
953: \bibitem[Nilsson et~al.(2006)]{KariO} Nilsson, K., et~al., \newblock 2006, in preparation
954: \bibitem[Nikishov(1962)]{nikishov}Nikishov, A.~I., \newblock 1962, {Sov. Phys. JETP}, 14, 393
955: \bibitem[Paneque et al.(2004)]{Paneque}Paneque, D., et al., \newblock \Journal{NIM}{A518}{619}{2004}
956: \bibitem[Perlman et~al.(1996)]{Perlman} Perlman, E.~S., et~al., \newblock 1996, ApJS, 104, 251
957: \bibitem[Rowell(2003)]{Rowell2003} Rowell, G.~P., \newblock 2003, A\&A, 410, 398
958: \bibitem[Schroedter et~al.(2005)]{Schroedter} Schroedter, M., et~al. (Whipple Collab.), \newblock 2005, ApJ, 634, 947
959: \bibitem[Sikora et al.(1994)]{SikoraBegelmanRees} Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C, \& Rees, M. J., \newblock 1994, ApJ, 421, 153
960: \bibitem[Stecker et~al.(2006)]{stecker}Stecker, F. W., Malkan, M. A. \& Scully, S. T., \newblock 2006, ApJ, 648, 774
961: \bibitem[Tluczykont(2003)]{MartinPhd} Tluczykont, M. \newblock 2003, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hamburg
962: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani(1995)]{UP} Urry, C. M. \& Padovani, P. \newblock 1995, PASP, 107, 803
963: \bibitem[Wagner et~al.(2005)]{Crab_MAGIC} Wagner, R.~M., et~al. (MAGIC Collab.), \newblock 2005, Proc. 29th ICRC, Pune, India, 4, 163, astro-ph/0508244
964: \bibitem[Xue \& Cui(2005)]{XueCui} Xue, Y. \& Cui, W., \newblock 2005, ApJ, 622, 160
965: \end{thebibliography}
966:
967: \clearpage
968:
969:
970: \clearpage
971:
972:
973: \clearpage
974:
975:
976:
977:
978: \clearpage
979:
980:
981:
982: \clearpage
983:
984: \end{document}
985: