1: %astro-ph/0702043

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb,prl]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

6: 

7: \newcommand{\hii}{${\rm HII\ }$}

8: \newcommand{\heii}{${\rm HeII\ }$}

9: \newcommand{\la}{\lesssim}

10: \newcommand{\ga}{\gtrsim}

11: \newcommand{\sgra}{Sgr~A*~}

12: 

13: \def\etal{{\frenchspacing\it et al.}}

14: \def\bxh{{\bar x_H}}

15: 

16: %Bibliography

17: \def\apj{ApJ}

18: \def\apjs{ApJS}

19: \def\apjl{ApJ Lett.}

20: \def\mnras{MNRAS}

21: \def\prd{Phys. Rev. D}

22: \def\aj{AJ}

23: \def\physrep{Phys. Rep.}

24: \def\araa{ARA\& A}

25: \def\aap{A\& A}

26: \def\pasj{Pub. Astron. Soc. Japan}

27: 

28: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

29: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

30: 

31: 

32: 

33: \begin{document}

34: \input{epsf}

35: 

36: \title{Properties of the Radio-Emitting Gas Around SgrA*}

37: 

38: \author{Abraham Loeb$^{1,2}$ \& Eli Waxman$^3$}

39: 

40: \affiliation{$^1$ Astronomy Department, Harvard University, 60 Garden

41: Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}

42: 

43: \affiliation{$^2$ Einstein Minerva center, Weizmann Institute of Science, 

44: Rehovot 76100, Israel,}

45: 

46: \affiliation{$^3$Physics Faculty, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot

47: 76\ 100, Israel}

48: 

49: \begin{abstract}

50: 

51: We show that the radial profiles of the temperature and density of the

52: electrons as well as the magnetic field strength around the massive black

53: hole at the Galactic center, \sgra, may be constrained directly from

54: existing radio data without any need to make prior assumptions about the

55: dynamics of the emitting gas.  The observed spectrum and

56: wavelength-dependent angular size of \sgra indicate that the synchrotron

57: emission originates from an optically-thick plasma of quasi-thermal

58: electrons. We find that the electron temperature rises above the virial

59: temperature within tens of Schwarzschild radii from the black hole,

60: suggesting that the emitting plasma may be outflowing. Constraints on the

61: electron density profile are derived from polarization measurements. Our

62: best-fit results differ from expectations based on existing theoretical

63: models. However, these models cannot be ruled out as of yet due to

64: uncertainties in the source size measurements.  Our constraints could

65: tighten considerably with future improvements in the size determination and

66: simultaneous polarization measurements at multiple wavelengths.

67: 

68: \end{abstract}

69: 

70: %\paragraph*{Keywords:} Galaxies: Massive Black Holes

71: 

72: 

73: %\date{\today}

74: \maketitle

75: 

76: \section{I. Introduction}

77: 

78: The supermassive black hole at the Galactic center, \sgra, occupies the

79: largest angle on the sky among all known black holes.  Its extended image

80: provides an excellent opportunity to study the physics of low-luminosity

81: accretion flows.  

82: 

83: The bolometric luminosity of \sgra $\sim 10^{36}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ is $\sim

84: 8.5$ orders of magnitude smaller than the Eddington limit for its black

85: hole mass of $\sim 4\times 10^6M_\odot$.  Over the past decade various

86: theoretical models have been proposed to explain the low luminosity of

87: \sgra despite the large gas reservoir from stellar winds in its

88: vicinity. Among the early models invoked was an {\it Advection Dominated

89: Accretion Flow (ADAF)} involving hot protons and cold electrons with a low

90: radiative efficiency at the Bondi accretion rate of $\sim

91: 10^{-5}M_\odot~{\rm yr^{-1}}$ \cite{Narayan}.  Subsequently, the detection

92: of linear polarization was used to set an upper limit on the electron

93: density near the black hole, which ruled out the original ADAF proposal

94: \cite{QG00,Ago,Mac} and favored shallower density profiles with a lower

95: accretion rate such as in a {\it Convection Dominated Accretion Flow

96: (CDAF)} \cite{QG00b}.  Later variants of the ADAF model allowed for

97: outflows, namely mass loss from the inflowing gas \cite{BB}.  Most

98: recently, an improved {\it Radiatively Inefficient Accretion Flow (RIAF)}

99: model was proposed, involving substantial mass loss (although the

100: outflowing mass is ignored in calculating the radio emission), a

101: non-thermal component of electrons, and different electron and proton

102: temperatures.  Other models associated the radio emission with a jet

103: \cite{Jet} or a compact torus near the black hole \cite{Liu}.

104: 

105: In parallel to these modelling developments, the data on \sgra has improved

106: dramatically over the past few years. The latest observations include new

107: determinations of the size, spectral luminosity, polarization and rotation

108: measure of the source as a function of wavelength

109: \cite{Shen05,Krichbaum06,Marrone07,YUAN}.  With the rich data set that is

110: now available, it is timely to remove any theoretical prejudice and ask:

111: {\it what does the data alone tell us about the properties of the radiating

112: gas?}  In addressing this minimal question here, we deviate from past

113: practice of modelers who made assumptions about the dynamics of the

114: accreting gas before interpreting the observational data on \sgra. We avoid

115: dynamical assumptions and attempt to constrain the properties of the

116: radio-emitting gas directly from the data itself. 

117: 

118: As discussed in detail in \S~II below, the measurements of the source size

119: at different radio wavelengths provide crucial constraints on the

120: properties of the gas surrounding \sgra. Current size measurements are

121: unfortunately subject to large error bars, which in turn imply large

122: uncertainties in the inferred gas properties. Our analysis provides an

123: estimate of the spatial dependence of gas properties based on current

124: measurements, adopting a frequency dependent size $r\propto\nu^\alpha$ with

125: $\alpha=1\pm0.3$ \citep{Shen05,Krichbaum06}. Our methodology demonstrates

126: how more accurate measurements may be used to obtain better constraints

127: with no model-dependent assumptions about the dynamics of the gas.

128: 

129: In the different subsections of \S~II we apply our approach to various

130: aspects of the data on \sgra that are currently available. We compare our

131: results to previous work in \S~III. Finally, \S~IV summarizes our main

132: conclusions.

133: 

134: 

135: \section{II. Empirical Constraints}

136: 

137: \subsection{II.1. Radio Spectrum and Size: Data}

138: 

139: The spectral luminosity of SgrA* is time dependent.  As illustrated in

140: Fig.~\ref{fig:flux}, the observed specific luminosity $L_\nu$ per unit

141: frequency $\nu$ at the brighter emission epochs \cite{Falcke98,Zhao03} is

142: well described by a power-law form in the frequency range of 3--1000~GHz,

143: \begin{equation}\label{eq:L_nu}

144:     \nu L_\nu=1.7\times10^{34}\nu_{11}^{1.4}\,{\rm erg~s^{-1}}

145: \end{equation}

146: where $\nu_{11}\equiv (\nu/10^{11}~{\rm Hz})$.  Since the flux measured at

147: the times used for size determination is close to the brighter emission

148: values, we will use this power-law index in our phenomenological

149: discussion. 

150: 

151: We note that at low frequencies $<3$~GHz the observed flux somewhat exceeds

152: the flux given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:L_nu}) [equivalently, fitting a power-law

153: only to the data at $<10$~GHz would result in a fit that under-predicts the

154: flux at higher frequencies (as indicated by the dashed line in

155: Fig.~\ref{fig:flux}), i.e. in a "sub-mm excess"]. This deviation is of no

156: significance to the analysis below, which focuses on higher frequencies,

157: $>10$~GHz. It does imply, however, that in applying our simple analytic

158: results to the lowest observed frequencies, some minor quantitative

159: modifications would need to be introduced. As explained below, we argue

160: that the radio flux is dominated at different frequencies by plasma located

161: at different radii.  The deviation from Eq.~(\ref{eq:L_nu}) below $3$~GHz

162: implies therefore that the gas temperature and magnetic field strength at

163: large radii, $\gtrsim10^{14.5}$~cm, differ slightly from those obtained

164: using our simple power-law scalings, which are based on

165: Eq.~(\ref{eq:L_nu}).

166: 

167: \begin{figure}[htbp]

168: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig1.eps}

169: \caption{Specific luminosity of SgrA* from simultaneous multi-frequency

170: data of \citet[][filled circles]{Falcke98}, and \citet[][up/down triangles

171: representing the flux at different times, close to the times of

172: maximum/minimum in the 1~mm flux]{Zhao03}. Diamonds denote flux

173: measurements by \citet[][666~GHz]{Zylka95} and

174: \citet[][850~GHz]{Serabyn97}.  Squares denote the flux densities derived

175: from the data used for size determination, given in

176: \citet{Krichbaum98,Krichbaum06} (for 1.4~mm and 3.4~mm) and in

177: \citet{Shen05} (for 7~mm). The solid line shows the power-law relation

178: $\nu L_\nu=1.7\times10^{34}\nu_{11}^{1.4}{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$, and the dashed

179: line is $0.7\times10^{34}\nu_{11}^{1.2}{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. The assumed

180: distance to \sgra is 8kpc.}

181: \label{fig:flux}

182: \end{figure}

183: 

184: As demonstrated in \S~II.2 below, measurements of the size of \sgra at

185: various radio wavelengths provide important constraints on the emitting gas

186: \cite{Shen05,Bower,Krichbaum06}. For a black hole mass of $M=4\times

187: 10^6M_\odot$ \cite{Genzel}, the radial scale is set by the Schwarzschild

188: radius of $R_s=1.2\times 10^{12}~{\rm cm}$, which corresponds to an angle

189: of 0.01 mas on the sky at our adopted distance of $8$ kpc.  Table~I

190: presents the latest data from \citet{Krichbaum06} and compares the inferred

191: brightness temperature $T_b$ to the virial temperature~\footnote{For an

192: optically thick source with a top-hat intensity distribution, the

193: full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of a Gaussian which contains the same

194: flux fraction as the top-hat within the FWHM size is

195: $\sqrt{2/\pi}\int_0^{\sqrt{2\log2}}dx\exp(-x^2/2)=0.76$ times the source

196: diameter. We use this result when interprating the values quoted by

197: \citet{Krichbaum06} for the geometric mean of FWHM of the major and minor

198: axes of the image of \sgra.}.  The brightness

199: temperature~\footnote{Throughout the paper, we set Boltzmann's constant

200: $k_B$ to unity and express temperatures in energy units.} at a radius $r$

201: from \sgra where the emissivity at an observed frequency $\nu$ peaks, is

202: defined through the relation

203: \begin{equation}

204: \nu L_\nu=4\pi

205: r^2(\nu)\times f_g\times{2\nu^3\over {c^2}}T_b(\nu), 

206: \label{eq:Lnu}

207: \end{equation}

208: where the geometric coefficient $f_g\le1$ is the ratio between the emission

209: surface area and the area of a sphere of radius $r$ ($f_g=1$ for a sphere

210: and $f_g=0.5$ for a two-sided disk with the same radius).   We

211: conservatively assume that the surface area scales as $r^2$ since this

212: provides the lowest brightness temperature (which, as we will show, is

213: already above the virial temperature at large radii).  We define the virial

214: temperature $T_v$ by equating the thermal kinetic energy of the plasma to

215: half of the gravitational potential energy per proton,

216: \begin{equation}

217: 2\times \frac{3}{2}T_v={GMm_p\over 2r},

218: \end{equation}

219: where $m_p$ is the proton mass. (Note that the ``escape temperature'' at

220: which the thermal kinetic energy of the plasma exceeds its gravitational

221: potential energy is $2T_v$.)  Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:L_nu}) and

222: $M=4\times10^6 M_\odot$ we obtain

223: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Tb}

224:     T_b=7.6 (2f_g)^{-1}\nu_{11}^{-1.6}r_{13}^{-2}\,{\rm MeV},

225: \end{equation}

226: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Tv}

227:     T_v=9.5r_{13}^{-1}\,{\rm MeV},

228: \end{equation}

229: where $r_{13}\equiv (r/10^{13}~{\rm cm})$.  Table I shows that $T_b$ must

230: be close to $T_v$ at $r_{13}=1$, and that there is preliminary evidence 

231: that $T_b/T_v$ increases with radius.

232: 

233: \citet{Shen05} infer a power-law dependence of the intrinsic size of \sgra

234: on wavelength $\lambda$ of $r\propto\lambda^\beta$, with

235: $\beta=1.09\pm0.33$. For our phenomenological analysis we use

236: \begin{equation}\label{eq:size}

237:     r_{13}=1.0\nu_{11}^{-1/\alpha},\quad \nu_{11}=1.0 r_{13}^{-\alpha}

238: \end{equation}

239: with $\alpha\equiv \beta^{-1}\approx 1\pm0.3$, implying

240: \begin{equation}\label{eq:TbTv}

241:     2f_g{T_b\over T_v}= 0.8r_{13}^{1.6\alpha-1}.

242: \end{equation}

243: 

244: \begin{table}[hdtp]

245: \caption{Measured size and brightness temperature of \sgra. The listed

246: radii are related to the FWHM intrinsic sizes of \citet{Krichbaum06} by

247: $r=0.5\times{\rm FWHM}/0.76$ (see footnote [36]).} 

248: %A distance $d=8$~kpc assumed.

249: 

250: \begin{center}

251: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c||}

252: \hline\hline

253: {$\lambda$ [mm]} &

254: {$\nu_{11}$} & {$r_{13}$} & {$2f_gT_b$ [MeV]} &

255: {$T_v$ [MeV]} & {$2f_gT_b/T_v$} \\ \hline

256:  & & & & & \\

257:  1.4 & 2.1 &

258: $0.86\pm0.47$ & $2.4^{+9}_{-1.4}$ & $11$ 

259: & $0.2^{+0.2}_{-0.08}$ \\ 3.4 & 0.88 & $1.2\pm0.23$ &

260: $7.2^{+4}_{-2.2}$ & $8.0$ & $0.8^{+0.2}_{-0.14}$ \\ 7 & 0.43 &

261: $2.0\pm0.55$ & $4.8^{+4.4}_{-1.8}$ & $4.8$ & $1.0^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ \\

262: \hline \hline

263: \end{tabular}

264: \end{center}

265: \label{table1}

266: \end{table}

267: 

268: 

269: \subsection{II.2. Radio Spectrum and Size: Implications}

270: 

271: The observed radio luminosity originates most likely from synchrotron

272: emission by relativistic electrons \cite{Goldston}. The frequency

273: dependence of source size implies that the emission cannot originate from

274: an optically-thin plasma. To see this, consider the electrons at $r$

275: dominating the emission at a frequency $\nu(r)$. If the optical depth is

276: small, then these electrons would produce a spectrum $\nu L_\nu\propto

277: \nu^{4/3}$ at $\nu<\nu(r)$, close to the observed spectrum at these

278: frequencies. This implies that the emission at $\nu<\nu(r)$ would be

279: dominated by electrons at $r$, which is inconsistent with the frequency

280: dependence of source size. We therefore conclude that the optical depth for

281: synchrotron self-absorption satisfies $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\ge1$. For a

282: similar reason, the characteristic synchrotron emission frequency

283: $\nu_c(r)=\langle \gamma_e^2\rangle (eB/2\pi m_ec)$ of the electrons at $r$

284: [dominating the emission at a frequency $\nu(r)$] must satisfy

285: $\nu_c(r)\approx\nu(r)$.  If $\nu_c(r)\gg\nu(r)$ then for

286: $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\gg1$ these electrons would produce a flux $\nu

287: L_\nu\propto \nu^{3}$ at $\nu>\nu(r)$, inconsistent with the observed

288: spectrum, and for $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]=1$ these electrons would produce a

289: flux $\nu L_\nu\propto \nu^{4/3}$ at $\nu>\nu(r)$, dominating the emission

290: at $\nu>\nu(r)$ in conflict with the frequency dependence of source size.

291:     

292: We therefore conclude that radiation at different radii $r$ is dominated by

293: electrons with $\nu_c(r)\approx\nu(r)$ and that $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\ge1$.

294: Next, we argue that the electron energy distribution may be characterized

295: by a single energy or an effective temperature $T_e$. That is, we show that

296: the energy distribution of electrons cannot be highly

297: non-thermal. Consider, for example, a power-law distribution of electron

298: energies, $dn_e/d\gamma_e\propto\gamma_e^{-p}$. Such a distribution would

299: be consistent with observations provided that $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\approx1$

300: (rather than $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\gg1$), since otherwise the flux emitted by

301: electrons at $r$ would extend beyond $\nu(r)$ as $\nu

302: L_\nu\propto\nu^{7/2}$, exceeding the observed flux. For

303: $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\approx1$, $\nu L_\nu\propto\nu^{(3-p)/2}$ at

304: $\nu>\nu(r)$, and the value of $p$ is constrained by the ratio between the

305: far-infrared luminosity, $\simeq3\times 10^{34}$~erg/s at a frequency $\sim

306: 10^{14}$~Hz \cite{Genzel03,Ghez04}, and the radio luminosity,

307: $\simeq5\times10^{35}$~erg/s at $\sim 10^{12}$~Hz, to be $p\ge4.3$.  This

308: large power-law index implies that only a small fraction of the total

309: energy can be carried by electrons of energy exceeding that of the

310: electrons dominating the radio emission. Moreover, we will show in \S~II.3

311: that the extension of such a power-law to electron energies much below that

312: of the electrons dominating the radio emission would imply a very large

313: rotation measure, inconsistent with observations~\footnote{One may

314: postulate, of course, a power-law distribution with $p<4.3$, which cuts off

315: just above the energy of the electrons we observe (so as to avoid over

316: producing the $10^{14}$~Hz flux). However, such a cut-off would be

317: physically unnatural.}. These constraints are satisfied by recent RIAF

318: models \cite{YQN04,YUAN} which associate only a small fraction of the total

319: electron energy with a power-law component. However, our simple analysis

320: shows that if thermal emission at different frequencies originates at

321: different radii to account for the observed spectrum and size measurements,

322: then there is no need for an ad-hoc non-thermal component.

323: 

324: Since the emission originates from an optically thick plasma, the

325: characteristic temperature (energy) $T_e$ of the electrons dominating the

326: radiation is

327: \begin{equation}\label{eq:TeTb}

328: T_e(r)\approx T_b(r)\approx7.6 (2f_g)^{-1}r_{13}^{1.6\alpha-2}\,{\rm MeV}.     

329: \end{equation}

330: The electron temperature has to satisfy 

331: \begin{equation}

332: \nu_c(r)=12\left({T_e(r)\over m_e c^2}\right)^2\times

333: 0.3{eB(r)\over 2\pi m_e c}=\nu(r),

334: \end{equation}

335: where $m_e$ is the electron mass and we used the relation

336: $\langle\gamma_e^2\rangle=12[T_e(r)/m_e c^2]^2$ in which angular brackets

337: denote an average over a relativistic Maxwellian of temperature

338: $T_e$. Based on Eqs.~(\ref{eq:size}) and (\ref{eq:Tv}) this requirement

339: implies

340: \begin{equation}\label{eq:nu_c}

341:     \left[\frac{T_e(r)}{T_v(r)}\right]^2 B = 27 r_{13}^{2-\alpha}\,{\rm G}.

342: \end{equation}

343: In deriving this result we have not used the inferred source size but only

344: the fact that it is frequency dependent. Using the size estimate in

345: Eq.~(\ref{eq:TbTv}) and $T_e\approx T_b$, we then get

346: \begin{equation}\label{eq:B}

347:     B=27(2f_g)^{2}r_{13}^{4-4.2\alpha}\,{\rm G}.

348: \end{equation} 

349: 

350: The $\nu(r)\propto r^{-\alpha}$ scaling of the observed radiation frequency

351: on emission radius implies $T_e\approx

352: T_b=5\nu_{11}^{-1.6+2/\alpha}$~MeV. In order for the synchrotron model to

353: hold down to $\sim1$~GHz, the electrons must remain relativistic, i.e. the

354: condition $5\times10^{-2(-1.6+2/\alpha)}>1$ must hold, implying

355: $1/\alpha\le1$ or $\alpha\ge 1$. It therefore appears that the value

356: $1/\alpha\approx1$ of \citet{Shen05} is preferred over the alternative

357: suggestion for higher values $1/\alpha\approx1.5\pm0.2$ \cite{Bower}.

358: 

359: The results in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:TbTv}), (\ref{eq:TeTb}) and (\ref{eq:B}) have

360: several important implications. First, $T_e$ is close to $T_v$ at

361: $r_{13}\sim1$, and $T_e/T_v$ increases with radius approximately as

362: $r^{1/2}$ for $\beta\sim 1.1$ \footnote{Note that for $\alpha=1/1.6=0.625$,

363: which might still be consistent with observations \cite{Bower},

364: $T_e/T_v=const$, but then $B^2\propto r^{2.75}$ which is physically

365: implausible.}. This implies that the gas cannot be confined to a thin disk

366: and the flow geometry must be quasi-spherical.  Moreover the radio-emitting

367: gas is not likely to be flowing in but rather flowing out since its thermal

368: kinetic energy exceeds the gravitational binding energy beyond a radius of

369: a few tens of Schwarzschild radii ($r_{13}\ga 2$). Our conclusions

370: would only be strengthened if the emitting plasma follows

371: a jet geometry for which the surface area scales as $r^\delta$

372: with $\delta<2$ [see the discussion following Eq. (\ref{eq:Lnu})].

373: 

374: %For $\tau_\nu[\nu(r),r]\gg1$, a power-law extension of the electron energy

375: %distribution to energies $\gg T_e$ is inconsistent with observations

376: %since it will produce a spectrum harder than the observed $\nu^{4/3}$. Such

377: %a power-law extension may exist, of course, provided it contains only a

378: %negligible fraction of the energy.

379: 

380: %In our discussion the emission originates from a thermal plasma that is

381: %optically-thick to synchrotron self-absorption.  

382: Finally, we note that the plasma under consideration is collisionless as

383: the Coulomb collision time is much longer than the dynamical time of the

384: gas $2\pi{\sqrt{r^3/GM}}=0.9\times 10^4 r_{13}^{3/2}$s. However, collective

385: plasma effects should operate \cite{Sharma} since the inverse of the plasma

386: frequency or electron gyro-frequency are much shorter than the dynamical

387: time.  We use the term ``temperature'' in our discussion to characterize

388: the typical electron energy even if the electron distribution function

389: happens to be non-Maxwellian.

390: 

391: \subsection{II.3. Density constraints: Opacity, Rotation Measure and Circular Polarization}

392: 

393: The optical depth to synchrotron self-absorption is

394: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tau}

395:     \tau[\nu(r),r]=\alpha_\nu r j_\nu=\frac{c^2}{2\nu^2

396:     T_e(r)}r\frac{n_e e^3 B}{m_e c^2} \propto n_e r^{7-3.8\alpha},

397: \end{equation}

398: giving

399: \begin{equation}\label{eq:nB}

400:     n_e B= 2.0\times10^5 (2f_g)^{-1}\tau(r) r_{13}^{-3-0.4\alpha}\,{\rm

401:     G~cm^{-3}},

402: \end{equation}

403: and

404: \begin{equation}\label{eq:n}

405:     n_e= 5.6\times10^3 (2f_g)^{-3}\tau(r)r_{13}^{3.8\alpha-7}\,{\rm

406:     cm}^{-3},

407: \end{equation}

408: For $\alpha\approx 1$ the optical depth increases with radius,

409: $\tau\propto n_e r^{3}$. In order to ensure that $\tau(r)>1$, it is

410: sufficient to require that this condition will hold at $r_{13}=1$, implying

411: $n_e(r_{13}=1)>10^3{\rm cm}^{-3}$.

412: 

413: The relativistic rotation measure of a fluid of electrons with a thermal

414: Lorentz factor $\gamma_e$ and density $n_e$ threaded by a coherent magnetic

415: field ${\bf B}$, is given by $RRM=8\times10^5(n_e/{\rm cm}^{-3})(B/{\rm

416: G})(r/{\rm pc})\langle \gamma_e^{-2}\rangle \,{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$

417: \cite{QG00}.  As long as ${\bf B}$ is coherent, we may express this

418: rotation measure in terms of $\tau$ as

419: \begin{eqnarray}

420:     RRM&\approx& 2.5\times10^3 (2f_g)\tau(r)r_{13}^{2-3.6\alpha}\,{\rm

421:     rad~m^{-2}} \label{eq:RRM1}

422:     \\ &=&5\times10^5 (2f_g)^4 n_{e,6}

423:     r_{13}^{9-7.4\alpha}\,{\rm rad~m^{-2}},

424: \label{eq:RRM}

425: \end{eqnarray}

426: where we substituted $\langle \gamma^{-2}\rangle \approx (m_ec^2/T)^2$.

427: For $\alpha\approx1.1$, the rotation measure scales as $RRM\propto n_e r$

428: and may be either decreasing or increasing with $r$. In the latter case,

429: the rotation measure is dominated at all frequencies by the same outermost

430: electron shell, while in the former case it is dominated by electrons near

431: the radius where radiation is emitted (and so it is expected to be larger

432: for higher frequencies or smaller radii). The observed rotation measure of

433: $\sim 6\times10^5\,{\rm rad/m^2}$ at a frequency of $\sim2\times10^{11}$~Hz

434: \citep[Ref.][and references therein]{Marrone07}, implies for a coherent

435: ${\bf B}$-field that

436: \begin{equation}\label{eq:n_max}

437:     n_e\le10^6 (2f_g)^{-4}r_{13}^{7.4\alpha-9}{\rm cm}^{-3}.

438: \end{equation}

439: \citet{Marrone07} report measurements at $2.3\times10^{11}$~Hz and

440: $3.5\times10^{11}$~Hz. While there is an indication that the rotation

441: measure is higher at the higher frequency by a factor of few (see their

442: Table I) the observations at the two frequencies are not simultaneous, and

443: since the source is variable the differences may be due to variability. If

444: the rotation measure differences are real and not due to the temporal

445: variability, Eq.~(\ref{eq:RRM}) requires

446: \begin{equation}\label{eq:n13}

447:     n_e(r_{13}=1)\sim10^{6}(2f_g)^{-4}{\rm cm}^{-3} ,

448: \end{equation}

449: with the density decreasing with $r$ at least as steeply as

450: $r^{-9+7.4\alpha}$. For this density (and $f_g\sim1/2$), the magnetic field

451: and thermal energy densities are comparable at $r_{13}=1$ and

452: $\tau(r_{13}=1)\sim10^2$.  A turbulent magnetic field would generate a

453: random walk in the net rotation measure and so the electron density

454: inferred from the $RRM$ observations would increase by the square-root of

455: the number of field reversals (coherent ${\bf B}$ patches) along the region

456: where the $RRM$ originates. The large linear polarization observed at

457: frequencies $\nu >10^2$GHz for \sgra implies that the inferred magnetic

458: field is not highly tangled in the innermost region. The low level of

459: linear polarization at lower frequencies is consistent with the notion that

460: the emission at different frequencies originates from different radii.

461: 

462: For $\alpha\approx1$ the electrons become mildly relativistic at

463: $r\sim10^{15}$~cm, where the emission is predicted to peak around

464: $\sim1$~GHz. This may account for the circular polarization observed at

465: these low frequencies \cite{Bower99,Sault99,BowerC}.

466: 

467: Finally, we note that (as mentioned in \S~II.2) the observed $RRM$ excludes

468: a power-law extension of the electron energy distribution,

469: $dn_e/d\gamma_e\propto\gamma_e^{-p}$ with $p\ge4.3$, down to energies

470: significantly lower than $T_e$. The contribution of lower energy electrons

471: to the rotation measure is proportional to $n_e/\gamma_e^2\propto \gamma_e

472: (dn_e/d\gamma_e)/\gamma_e^2 \propto \gamma_e^{-p-1}$. Using

473: Eq.~(\ref{eq:RRM1}) and denoting by $\gamma_m$ the minimum electron Lorentz

474: factor we have $RRM\approx2.5\times10^3\tau(T_e/\gamma_m m_e c^2)^{-p-1}

475: \,{\rm rad/m^2}$, which implies for $p>4.3$ that the rotation measure would

476: exceed the observed value of $\simeq5\times10^5\,{\rm rad/m^2}$ for

477: $\gamma_m m_e c^2/T_e\le1/2$.

478:  

479: 

480: \subsection{II.4. Equipartition and Entropy}

481: 

482: The equipartition ratio between the magnetic energy density and the thermal

483: energy density of the electrons scales as

484: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ep}

485:     \frac{B^2/8\pi}{{3\over 2}n_eT_e}\propto

486:     \frac{r^{10(1-\alpha)}}{n_e},

487: \end{equation}

488: and the entropy scales as

489: \begin{equation}\label{eq:s}

490:     \frac{T_e^3}{n_e}\propto\frac{r^{4.8\alpha-6}}{n_e}.

491: \end{equation}

492: Requiring uniform entropy and equipartition fraction gives

493: $\alpha=16/14.8=1.08$ which is surprisingly within the range inferred by

494: \citet{Shen05}. This special value yields the scalings $T_e\propto

495: r^{-0.27}$, $n_e\propto r^{-0.82}$, and $B\propto r^{-0.54}$.  Substituting

496: these power-law scalings in Eq. (\ref{eq:RRM}) implies that the rotation

497: measure $RRM$ is nearly independent of emission radius or observed

498: frequency. This result can be tested by future observations that would

499: monitor the time dependence of $RRM$ at different frequencies \cite{Mar}.

500: A similar time dependence at different frequencies would imply that the

501: rotation measure is dominated by a common outer shell.

502: 

503: \section{III. Comparison with earlier work}

504: 

505: The RIAF models generically predict that the radio emission is dominated by

506: thermal electrons near the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) in the

507: central region of the accretion disk \citep{YQN03}. The radio spectrum

508: produced in this model by the thermal electrons is inconsistent with the

509: observed spectrum, which is well described by the power-law form in

510: Eq.~(\ref{eq:L_nu}). A power-law electron component is therefore added to

511: the thermal RIAF component in an ad-hoc manner, where the spectral index

512: and normalization of the power-law component are tailored to match the low

513: frequency radio data \cite{YQN04,YUAN}.  We have pointed out in \S~II.2

514: that the size measurements indicate that the source size is frequency

515: dependent, implying that the radiation is dominated at different

516: frequencies by electrons at different locations. This in turn suggests that

517: the observed spectrum reflects the spatial dependence of electron

518: temperature rather than the energy distribution of the electrons at a

519: single radius.

520: 

521: Since the emission of radiation in RIAF models is dominated by the

522: innermost region of the disk, at $r\sim 3R_s=3.6\times10^{12}$~cm, the

523: observed size is dominated in these models by foreground interstellar

524: scattering at all frequencies. The addition of a power-law electron

525: component to these models increases slightly the intrinsic source size

526: \cite{Yuan06}, but does not change the requirement that the measured source

527: size will be dominated at all frequencies by interstellar medium

528: scattering. These results appear to be at odds with the latest size

529: measurements which indicate that the intrinsic size is resolved well beyond

530: the expected level of interstellar image broadening at $\lambda\le3.5$~mm

531: \cite{Krichbaum06} and that the intrinsic size is smaller at higher

532: frequencies.

533: 

534: As mentioned in the Introduction, existing size measurements are subject to

535: large uncertainties. While our best-fit profiles disfavor existing models,

536: such models cannot be ruled out based on current data. Future, more

537: accurate, measurements will allow us to draw more decisive conclusions.

538: Our current analysis underlines the importance of future improvements in

539: the size measurements, and provides a methodology for interpreting future

540: results.

541: 

542: 

543: \section{IV. Summary}

544: 

545: We have shown in \S~II.2 that measurements of the spectrum and of the

546: wavelength-dependent size of the radio emission from \sgra indicate that

547: this emission is dominated by optically-thick quasi-thermal plasma, and

548: that the observed spectrum reflects the spatial dependence of the electron

549: temperature (rather than the energy distribution of electrons at some

550: particular radius). We have derived the electron temperature and magnetic

551: field profiles [Eqs.~(\ref{eq:TeTb}) and~(\ref{eq:B})], and found that the

552: electron temperature increases above the virial temperature beyond a

553: distance of a few tens of Schwarzschild radii from the black hole.  The

554: observed rotation measure was then used to constrain the density profile

555: [Eqs.~(\ref{eq:n_max}) and~(\ref{eq:n13})].  The low density inferred for

556: the gas near \sgra could in principle be accounted for by winds from the

557: innermost S-stars \cite{Loeb}.  Although we have not proposed a dynamical

558: model for the plasma, we have pointed out in \S~II.4 that observations are

559: consistent with an isentropic gas profile and equipartition magnetic field.

560: 

561: Our results imply that the radio emitting gas cannot be confined to a thin

562: disk and the flow geometry must be geometrically thick. Moreover, the

563: radio-emitting gas is not likely to be inflowing but rather outflowing,

564: since its thermal kinetic energy exceeds the gravitational binding energy

565: beyond a radius of a few tens of Schwarzschild radii [$r_{13}\ga 2$, see

566: Table I and Eq.~(\ref{eq:TbTv})]. There may also be a colder accreting

567: component that is sub-dominant in terms of its synchrotron emission.  Such

568: a component would likely be confined to a thinner disk geometry that would

569: have only a limited effect on the rotation measure of the radiation emitted

570: by the hot outflowing atmosphere above it. (However, if the cold component

571: is optically-thick then it would make the image of SgrA* asymmetric at a

572: level that would depend on the inclination of the disk. The resulting

573: frequency dependence of the image centroid location could be constrained by

574: observations.) An electron temperature profile which does not decline with

575: increasing radius as fast as the virial temperature does, would be

576: consistent with an adiabatic outflow in which the electrons are hotter than

577: the protons because their relativistic temperature declines with decreasing

578: density as $T \propto n^{\Gamma-1}$ with an adiabatic index ($\Gamma=4/3$)

579: that is smaller than that of the protons (5/3). Heat conduction could also

580: help to flatten the electron temperature profile \cite{Menou}.

581: 

582: The large uncertainty in the inferred source size, reflected by the large

583: uncertainty in the index $\alpha=1\pm0.3$ of the relation

584: $r\propto\nu^\alpha$, translates to a large uncertainty in the temperature

585: and magnetic field profiles, as implied by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:B})

586: and~(\ref{eq:TeTb}).  Our preliminary conclusions from existing data differ

587: from current theoretical models \cite{YUAN}, although not at a

588: statistically robust level. These potential discrepancies provide added

589: incentive to obtain better data through future observations. 

590: 

591: Finally, we note that the uncertainty in the determination of the density

592: profiles is related not only to uncertainties in the source size

593: measurements, but also to the lack of simultaneous multi-frequency

594: measurements of the rotation measure (\S~II.3). An accurate determination

595: of the density profile would require therefore not only accurate size

596: measurements, but also simultaneous multi-frequency measurements of the

597: rotation measure. Ultimately, direct imaging of \sgra with a Very Large

598: Baseline Array at sub-mm wavelengths \cite{Falcke,Broderick,Shen-VLBI}

599: would resolve the accretion flow near the black hole ISCO and unravel

600: unambiguously the properties of the emitting gas there.

601: 

602: \bigskip

603: \bigskip

604: \bigskip

605: \bigskip

606: 

607: \paragraph*{Acknowledgments}

608: 

609: We thank Avery Broderick, Dan Marrone, and an anonymous referee for useful

610: comments on the manuscript. A.L. thanks the Weizmann Institute for its kind

611: hospitality when this work was conducted. This work was supported in part

612: by ISF and Minerva grants (E. W.) and the BSF foundation (A. L.).

613: 

614: \begin{references}

615: 

616: \bibitem[Agol(2000)]{Ago} Agol, E.\ 2000, \apjl, 538, L121 

617: 

618: %\bibitem[Baganoff et al.(2003)]{Chandra} 

619: %  Baganoff, F.~K., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 891 

620: 

621: \bibitem[Blandford \& Begelman(1999)]{BB} Blandford, R.~D., \& Begelman,

622: M.~C.\ 1999, \mnras, 303, L1

623: 

624: \bibitem[Bower et al.(1999)]{Bower99} Bower, G.~C., Falcke, H., 

625: \& Backer, D.~C.\ 1999, \apjl, 523, L29 

626: 

627: \bibitem[Bower(2003)]{BowerC} Bower, G.~C.\ 2003, Astrophys. \& Space Sci.,

628: 288, 69

629: 

630: \bibitem[Bower(2006)]{Bower} Bower, G.~C.\ 2006, Journal of Physics

631: Conference Series, 54, 370; Bower, G.~C., Goss, W.~M., Falcke, H., Backer,

632: D.~C., \& Lithwick, Y.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L127

633: 

634: \bibitem[Broderick \& Loeb(2006)]{Broderick} Broderick, A.~E., \& Loeb, A.\

635: 2006, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 54, 448 [astro-ph/0607279];

636: 2006, \mnras, 367, 905 

637: 

638: \bibitem[Eckart et al.(2004)]{Genzel} Eckart, A., Genzel, R., 

639: \& Sch{\"o}del, R.\ 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 

640: 159 

641: 

642: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(1998)]{Falcke98} Falcke, H., Goss, W.~M., Matsuo,

643: H., Teuben, P., Zhao, J.-H., \& Zylka, R.\ 1998, \apj, 499, 731

644: 

645: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(2000)]{Falcke} Falcke, H., Melia, F., \& Agol, E.\

646: 2000, \apjl, 528, L13

647: 

648: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2003)]{Genzel03} 

649:   Genzel, R., Sch{\"o}del, R., Ott, T., Eckart, A., Alexander, T., Lacombe, 

650:   F., Rouan, D., \& Aschenbach, B.\ 2003, \nat, 425, 934 

651: 

652: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2004)]{Ghez04} 

653:   Ghez, A.~M., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L159 

654: 

655: \bibitem[Goldston et al.(2005)]{Goldston} Goldston, J.~E., 

656: Quataert, E., \& Igumenshchev, I.~V.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 785 

657: 

658: \bibitem[Krichbaum et al.(1998)]{Krichbaum98}

659:   Krichbaum, T.~P., et al.\ 1998, \aap, 335, L106

660: 

661: \bibitem[Krichbaum et al.(2006)]{Krichbaum06} 

662:   Krichbaum, T.~P., Graham, D.~A., Bremer, M., Alef, W., Witzel, A., Zensus, J.~A., \& Eckart, A.\ 2006, 

663:   Journal of Physics Conference Series, 54, 328 [astro-ph/0607072]

664: 

665: \bibitem[Liu \& Melia(2003)]{Liu} Liu, S., \& Melia, F.\ 2003,

666: Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 475

667: 

668: \bibitem[Loeb(2004)]{Loeb} Loeb, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 725

669: 

670: \bibitem[Macquart et al.(2006)]{Mac} Macquart, J.-P., Bower, G.~C., Wright,

671: M.~C.~H., Backer, D.~C., \& Falcke, H.\ 2006, \apjl, 646, L111

672: 

673: \bibitem[Marrone et al.(2007)]{Marrone07} 

674:   Marrone, D.~P., Moran, J.~M., Zhao, J.-H., \& Rao, R.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L57 

675: 

676: \bibitem[Marrone(2007)]{Mar} Marrone, D.~P.\ 2007, private communication

677: 

678: \bibitem[Tanaka \& Menou(2006)]{Menou} Gruzinov, A. 2008, preprint

679: astro-ph/9809265; Tanaka, T., \& Menou, K.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 345

680: 

681: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1998)]{Narayan} Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., \&

682: Quataert, E.\ 1998, Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, 148; Quataert,

683: E., Narayan, R., \& Reid, M.~J.\ 1999, \apjl, 517, L101

684: 

685: \bibitem[Quataert \& Gruzinov(2000a)]{QG00} Quataert, E., \& Gruzinov, A.\

686: 2000, \apj, 545, 842

687: 

688: \bibitem[Quataert \& Gruzinov(2000b)]{QG00b} Quataert, E., \& Gruzinov, A.\

689: 2000, \apj, 539, 809; Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I.~V., \& Abramowicz,

690: M.~A.\ 2000, \apj, 539, 798

691: 

692: \bibitem[Sault \& Macquart(1999)]{Sault99} Sault, R.~J., \& 

693: Macquart, J.-P.\ 1999, \apjl, 526, L85 

694: 

695: 

696: \bibitem[Serabyn et al.(1997)]{Serabyn97} 

697:   Serabyn, E., Carlstrom, J., Lay, O., Lis, D.~C., Hunter, T.~R., \& Lacy, J.~H.\ 1997, \apjl, 490, L77 

698: 

699: \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2006)]{Sharma} Sharma, P., Hammett, G.~W., Quataert,

700: E., \& Stone, J.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 637, 952

701: 

702: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2005)]{Shen05} 

703:   Shen, Z.-Q., Lo, K.~Y., Liang, M.-C., Ho, P.~T.~P., \& Zhao, J.-H.\ 2005, \nat, 438, 62 

704: 

705: \bibitem[Shen(2005)]{Shen-VLBI} Shen, Z.-Q.\ 2005, Journal of 

706: Korean Astronomical Society, 38, 261 

707: 

708: \bibitem[Yuan(2006)]{YUAN} Yuan, F. 2006, Journal of Physics Conference

709: Series, 54, 427 [astro-ph/0607123]

710: 

711: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2002)]{Jet} Yuan, F., Markoff, S., \& Falcke, H.\

712: 2002, \aap, 383, 854; Falcke, H.\ \& Markoff, S. 2000, Astron. \&

713: Astrophys., 362, 113

714: 

715: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2003)]{YQN03} 

716:   Yuan, F., Quataert, E., \& Narayan, R.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 301 

717: 

718: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2004)]{YQN04} 

719:   Yuan, F., Quataert, E., \& Narayan, R.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 894 

720: 

721: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2006)]{Yuan06} 

722:   Yuan, F., Shen, Z.-Q., \& Huang, L.\ 2006, \apjl, 642, L45  

723: 

724: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2003)]{Zhao03} Zhao, J.-H., Young, K.~H., Herrnstein,

725: R.~M., Ho, P.~T.~P., Tsutsumi, T., Lo, K.~Y., Goss, W.~M., \& Bower, G.~C.\

726: 2003, \apjl, 586, L29

727: 

728: \bibitem[Zylka et al.(1995)]{Zylka95} 

729:   Zylka, R., Mezger, P.~G., Ward-Thompson, D., Duschl, W.~J., \& Lesch, H.\ 1995, \aap, 297, 83 

730: 

731: 

732: 

733: 

734: 

735: \end{references} 

736: 

737: 

738: \end{document}

739: 

740: 

741: 

742: