1: % \documentclass{aastex}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: % \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

4: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}

5: % preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

7: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: 

11: \def\fluxthres{\hat f_{\bar \e}}

12: \def\fluxeps{f_{_{\rm \epsilon}}}

13: \def\zmin{z_{\rm min}}

14: \def\zmax{z_{\rm max}}

15: \def\xmin{x_{\rm min}}

16: \def\xmax{x_{\rm max}}

17: \def\Estar{{\cal E}_*}

18: \def\Estarg{{\cal E}_{*\gamma}}

19: \def\Estargo{{\cal E}_{*\gamma 0}}

20: \def\Swift{\emph{Swift}}

21: 

22: \newcommand{\begeq}{\begin{equation}}

23: \newcommand{\fineq}{\end{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\begfig}{\begin{figure}}

25: \newcommand{\finfig}{\end{figure}}

26: \newcommand{\begeqarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\fineqarray}{\end{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}

29: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon^\prime}

30: \newcommand{\tp}{t^\prime}

31: \newcommand{\rb}{r_b^\prime}

32: \newcommand{\et}{\epsilon_T}

33: \newcommand{\dD}{\delta_{\rm D}}

34: \newcommand{\mup}{\mu^\prime}

35: 

36: 

37: %\slugcomment{to be submitted to \apj}

38: 

39: \shorttitle{GRB Predictions} \shortauthors{Dermer, Ramirez-Ruiz, \& Le}

40: 

41: \title{Correlation of Photon and Neutrino Fluxes in 

42: Blazars and Gamma Ray Bursts}

43: \shorttitle{Neutrinos from GRBs and Blazars}

44: 

45: \author{Charles D. Dermer\altaffilmark{1}, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz\altaffilmark{2}, \& Truong Le\altaffilmark{1} }

46: 

47: \altaffiltext{1}{Code 7653, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5352; dermer@gamma.nrl.navy.mil, 

48: tle@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil}

49: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; 

50: enrico@ucolick.org}

51: 

52: \begin{abstract}

53: Relativistic black-hole jet sources are leading candidates for high

54: energy ($\gg $ TeV) neutrino production. The relations defining (a)

55: efficient photopion losses of cosmic-ray protons on target photons and

56: (b) $\gamma\gamma$ opacity of $\gamma$ rays through that same target

57: photon field imply clear multiwavelength predictions for when and at

58: what energies blazars and GRBs should be most neutrino bright and

59: $\gamma$-ray dim. The use of multiwavelength observations to test 

60: the standard relativistic jet model for these source is illustrated.

61: \end{abstract}

62: 

63: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts---neutrinos---theory }

64: 

65: \section{INTRODUCTION}

66: 

67: Multiwavelength observations provide important information about

68: radiation processes and properties of astrophysical sources that

69: cannot be obtained by observations in a narrow waveband.  The opening

70: of the high-energy neutrino window \citep[for review, see][]{lm00}

71: will provide a new channel of information that, in conjunction with

72: photon observations, will test models of these sources.  The km-scale

73: IceCube \citep{ahr04} reaches a total exposure of $\sim 1$ km$^3$-yr

74: in 2009 and its design sensitivity in 2011. Plans are also being made

75: for a northern hemisphere KM3NeT neutrino telescope in the

76: Mediterranean Sea.\footnote{For IceCube, see icecube.wisc.edu, and for

77: KM3NeT, see www.km3net.org.}

78: 

79: Because of their rapid variability, large luminosity, and relativistic

80: outflows, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and blazars have been considered as

81: the most likely sources of ultra-high energy cosmic rays and neutrinos

82: \citep{wb97,vie98,rm98,ahh00}.  The expected low neutrino-induced muon

83: event rate, even for the brightest $\gamma$-ray blazars

84: \citep{ad01,ns02} and GRBs \citep{da03,gue04}, and the increasing

85: importance of the cosmic-ray induced neutrino background at lower

86: energies \citep{kar03,ghs95}, means that event detection is greatly

87: improved by choosing appropriate time windows during periods of

88: highest neutrino luminosity.  The important time windows for neutrino

89: detection from blazars might be thought to be during $\gamma$-ray

90: flaring states and, for GRBs, around the $t_{90}$ time or during some

91: hours around the burst trigger, as suggested by the extended 100 MeV

92: -- GeV emission for GRB 940217 \citep{hur94} and delayed anomalous

93: $\gamma$-ray emission components in GRB 941017 and a few other GRBs

94: \citep{gon03,gon05}, because that is when energetic particle

95: acceleration is most vigorous.  But photopion production is enhanced

96: in conditions of high internal photon target density, so that times of

97: most favorable neutrino detection could also be argued to take place

98: during periods of low $\gamma$-ray flux as a result of attenuation by

99: the dense internal photon gas.

100: 

101: Here we explore this issue, considering how to use multiwavelength

102: observations (at optical, X-ray, and $\gamma$-ray energies for

103: blazars, and at X-ray and $\gamma$-ray energies for GRBs) to define

104: the most favorable conditions for efficient neutrino production.

105: Violation of these predictions will call into questions the underlying

106: assumptions currently used in models of GRBs and blazars.

107: 

108: \section{Analysis}

109: 

110: Blazars and GRBs are widely thought to be black-hole jet sources

111: powered ultimately by accretion onto a black hole, or by the spin

112: energy of the black hole. In both cases, observations show that

113: collimated outflows of highly relativistic plasma are ejected by

114: processes taking place from compact regions. In the internal shock

115: model \citep{mes06,pir05}, collisions between faster and slower shells

116: dissipate directed kinetic energy in the form of field energy and

117: accelerated particles that radiate.  After the collision, the

118: energized shocked fluid shell expands on the light-crossing time scale

119: $\rb/c$ or longer, where $\rb$ is the characteristic size of the

120: radiating fluid element in the comoving frame, assumed spherical and

121: isotropic in the comoving frame.  The causality constraint implies

122: that the size scale of the emitting region $\rb \lesssim c\dD

123: t_{var}/(1+z),$ where the

124: measured variability timescale $t_{var}= 10^\tau t_{\tau}$ s,

125:  and $\dD$ is the Doppler factor.

126: 

127: Within this geometry, the relation between the measured $\nu F_\nu$

128: flux $f_\e$ and the target photon emissivity

129: $j^\prime(\ep,\Omega^\prime) =d{\cal E}^\prime/dV^\prime dt^\prime

130: d\Omega^\prime d\ep$ is $f_\e \cong \dD^4 V_b^\prime \ep

131: j^\prime(\ep,\Omega^\prime)/d_L^2$, where $\e \equiv h\nu/m_e c^2$,

132: primes refer to comoving quantities, and unprimed quantities to

133: measured values.  The luminosity distance $d_L = 10^{\ell}d_{\ell}$ cm,

134:  can be calculated for the standard $\Lambda$CDM

135: universe ($h = 0.72$, $\Omega_m = 0.27$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.73$) for

136: a source at redshift $z$, $\ep j^\prime(\ep,\Omega^\prime) \cong c

137: u^\prime_{\epsilon^\prime}/4\pi\rb$ for radiation emitted

138: isotropically in the comoving frame, and $u^\prime_{\epsilon^\prime} =

139: m_ec^2 \e^{\prime 2} n^\prime(\ep )$ is the spectral energy density of

140: the radiation field.

141: 

142: We write the $\nu F_\nu$ flux as $f_\e = f_{\e_{pk}}S(x)$, where

143: $S(x)$ is a spectral function of the variable $x = \ep/\ep_{pk} =

144: \e/\e_{pk}$.  Here $\e_{pk}\equiv 10^j$ is the measured photon energy

145: (in units of $m_ec^2$) of the peak of the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum with

146: peak flux $f_{\e_{pk}} = 10^\eta f_{\eta} $ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. 

147: Thus $\ep n^\prime(\ep) \cong

148: {3d_L^2 f_{\e_{pk}}S(x)/ (c r_b^{\prime 2} \dD^4 m_ec^2 \ep)}.$ The

149: rate at which protons lose energy through photohadronic processes is

150: $t_{\phi\pi}^{\prime-1} \cong \ep n^\prime(\ep)\hat\sigma c$, where

151: $\hat\sigma \cong 70~\mu$b is the product of the $\gamma p$

152: photohadronic cross section and inelasticity \citep{ad03}, and the

153: threshold condition $2\gamma_p^\prime \ep \gtrsim \ep_{thr} \cong 400$

154: relates the proper frame proton Lorentz factor $\gamma_p^\prime$ and

155: the internal photon energy.

156: 

157: The target comoving photon spectral energy distribution (SED) from

158: quasi-isotropic emissions, whether it is the synchrotron and

159: synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) fields or a cascade radiation field, is

160: approximated as a broken power law $S(x) = x^a H(1-x) + x^b H(x-1)$

161: with $\nu F_\nu$ indices $a$ and $b$ (see Fig.\ 1; more general

162: spectral forms can easily be treated). Here the Heaviside function

163: $H(x) = 1$ for $x>0$ and $H(x) = 0$ for $x <0$.  The photopion

164: energy-loss rate of ultrarelativistic protons with Lorentz factor

165: $\gamma_p^\prime$ interacting with photons with energy $\ep_{pk}$ near

166: the peak of the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum is, from the proceeding

167: considerations,

168: \begin{equation}

169: \rho_{\phi\pi} =  {3\hat \sigma d_L^2 f_{\e_{pk}}

170: (1+z)\over m_ec^4 \dD^5 t_{var}^2 \e_{pk}}\;.

171: \label{rhophipi}

172: \end{equation}

173: 

174: 

175: For the model target photon spectrum with $0< a < 3$, $b < 0$,

176: \begin{equation}

177: t_{\phi\pi}^{\prime-1}(\gamma_p^\prime) \cong\rho_{\phi\pi}

178: \cases{ 2y^{b-1}/ [(1-b)(3-b)],  & $y \gg 1$  \cr

179:  2y^{a-1}/ [(1-a)(3-a)],  & $y\ll 1$, $0 < a \lesssim 1$ \cr

180:  (a-b)/ [(a-1)(1-b)],  & $y\ll 1$, $1 \lesssim a < 3\;$ \cr}\;

181: \label{tphipi}

182: \end{equation}

183: \citep{der07}, where $y \equiv \ep_{thr}/2\gamma_p^\prime 

184: \ep_{pk} \cong \dD^2 \ep_{thr}/2\gamma_p (1+z)\e_{pk},$

185: and the Lorentz factor $\gamma_p = E_p/m_pc^2$ of an escaping proton

186: as measured by a local observer is $\gamma_p \cong

187: \dD\gamma^\prime_p$.  The condition $y=1$ for protons with energy $E_p

188: = E_p^{\phi\pi}$ interacting with photons with energy $\e_{pk}$

189: implies that

190: \begin{equation}

191: E_p^{\phi\pi} \cong {m_pc^2 \dD^2\ep_{thr}\over 2(1+z) \e_{pk} }\cong 

192:  {1.9\times 10^{14} \dD^2 \over (1+z) \e_{pk}({\rm keV}) }\;{\rm eV}\;.

193: \label{Epk}

194: \end{equation}

195: 

196: The radiating fluid element will expand explosively following its

197: rapid energization through shell collisions, or through external

198: shocks formed when the outflow sweeps through the surrounding

199: medium. Photopion processes can be certain to be efficient---assuming

200: of course that ultrarelativistic protons are accelerated in black-hole

201: jets---if the photopion energy-loss rate $\rho_{\phi\pi}$, eq.\

202: (\ref{rhophipi}), is greater than the inverse of the light travel

203: timescale, $(1+z)/\dD t_{var}$. An energetic cosmic ray will therefore

204: lose a large fraction of its energy into electromagnetic and neutrino

205: radiations through photopion production when the jet Doppler factor

206: \begin{equation}

207: %\big( {3\hat \sigma \over m_ec^4 }\big)^{1/4}

208: \dD < \delta_{\phi\pi}  \equiv \;\big({3\hat\sigma d_L^2 

209: f_{\e_{pk}}\over m_ec^4 t_{var} \e_{pk}}\big)^{1/4} =

210: 10^{-10.64+(2\ell + \eta - \tau - j)/4} 

211: %\cong 2.3\times 10^{-11}  10^{(2\ell + \eta - \tau - j)/4} 

212: \cong 7.3 d_{28}^{1/2}\;\big({f_{-10}\over t_0 \e_{pk}}\big)^{1/4}\;.

213: \label{Epk1}

214: \end{equation}

215: 

216: The same radiation field that functions as a target for photomeson

217: processes is a source of $\gamma\gamma$ opacity.  The photoabsorption

218: optical depth for a $\gamma$-ray photon with energy $\e_1$ in a

219: quasi-isotropic radiation field with spectral photon density

220: $n^\prime(\ep) $ is $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\ep_1)

221: \cong r_b^\prime \int_0^\infty d\ep \; \sigma_{\gamma\gamma }

222: (\ep,\ep_1)n^\prime(\ep ).$ Using a $\delta$-function approximation 

223: $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}(\ep,\ep_1) \cong \sigma_{\rm T} \ep

224: \delta(\ep - 2/\ep_1)/3$ for the $\gamma\gamma$ pair production 

225: cross section $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ 

226: \citep{zl85} gives 

227: \begin{equation}

228: \tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\e_1) \cong \tau_{\gamma\gamma}^{pk}\;

229: [({\e_1\over \e_1^{pk}})^{1-b}H(\e_1^{pk}-\e_1) + 

230: ({\e_1\over \e_1^{pk}})^{1-a}H(\e_1-\e_1^{pk})]\;

231: \label{tauggap}

232: \end{equation}

233: \citep{der05} \citep[see also][]{ls01,bar06},

234: where

235: \begin{equation}

236: \tau_{\gamma\gamma}^{pk}= {\sigma_{\rm T} 

237: d_L^2 f_{\e_{pk}}\over 4 m_ec^4 t_{v} \dD^4 

238: \e_{pk}}\;

239: \label{tgge1}

240: \end{equation}

241: and

242: \begin{equation}

243: \e_1^{pk} = 

244: {2\dD^2\over (1+z)^2 \e_{pk}}\;.

245: \label{egge1}

246: \end{equation}

247: Fig.\ 1 compares the $\delta$-function approximation given by the

248: above equations with accurate calculations using the results of

249: \citet{gs67} \citep[see][for corrections]{bmg73}.

250: 

251: At the Doppler factor $\delta_{\rm D} = \delta_{\phi\pi} $ that allows

252: for efficient photopion production, the $\gamma\gamma$ optical depth

253: at photon energy $\e_1^{pk}$ is, after substituting eq.\ (\ref{Epk1})

254: into eq.\ (\ref{tgge1}),

255: \begin{equation}

256: \tau_{\gamma\gamma}^{\phi\pi} = {\sigma_{\rm T}\over 12 

257: \hat \sigma} \cong 800\;. 

258: \label{tauggpp}

259: \end{equation}

260: Whenever photopion production is important, $\gamma$ rays with

261: energies given by eq.\ (\ref{egge1}) have to be highly extincted by

262: $\gamma\gamma$ processes when interacting with peak target photons

263: with energy $\sim \e_{pk}$, making it impossible to detect $\gamma$

264: rays at these energies.  This energy is $$E_{\gamma}^{\gamma\gamma}=

265: {2m_ec^2\delta_{\phi\pi}^2\over (1+z)^2 \e_{pk}} = {2 m_e c^2

266: \;d_L\over (1+z)^2\e_{pk}^{3/2}}\;\sqrt{{3\hat \sigma f_{\e_{pk}}\over

267: m_ec^4 t_{var}}}

268: \cong

269: $$

270: \begin{equation}

271: {10^{-24.26 + \ell +(\eta-\tau -3j)/2}\;{\rm GeV}\over (1+z)^2}

272:  \cong 

273: {0.055 \;d_{28} f_{-10}^{1/2}\over (1+z)^2 t_0^{1/2}

274:  \e_{pk}^{3/2}}\;{\rm ~GeV}\;.

275: \label{epk2}

276: \end{equation}

277: The energy of protons that interact most strongly with peak target

278: photons through photopion processes under conditions when photopion

279: processes must be important is, from eq.\ (\ref{Epk}),

280: \begin{equation}

281:  E_p^{\phi\pi} = {m_pc^2 \delta_{\phi\pi}^2

282:  \e^\prime_{thr}\over 2 (1+z) \e_{pk}}

283: \cong 10^{-10 + \ell + (\eta -\tau -3j )/2}\;{\rm eV}\;

284: \cong 1.0\times 10^{13} d_{28} \; \sqrt{{f_{-10}\over 

285: t_0 \e_{pk}^3}}\;{\rm ~eV}\;.\label{eppk}

286: \end{equation}

287: 

288: \section{Results}

289: 

290: Table 1 lists the important quantities derived in this paper. The

291: quantity $\delta_{\phi\pi}$ is the jet Doppler factor where photopion

292: losses are guaranteed to be important for protons of escaping energy

293: $E_p^{\phi\pi}$. Protons with this energy undergo photopion

294: interactions primarily with peak target photons with energy $\sim

295: \e_{pk}$.  $E^{\gamma\gamma}_\gamma $ is the energy of $\gamma$ rays

296: that are attenuated through $\gamma\gamma$ pair production primarily

297: by peak target photons.

298: 

299: Consider the target photon variability time for the following source

300: classes: flat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) and GRBs, both known

301: sources of GeV radiation, and X-ray selected BL Lac objects (XBLs), of

302: which over a dozen are known TeV sources.  We define the variability

303: time scale $t_{var}$ as the measured time over which the absolute flux

304: varies by a factor of 2; if a source varies by $N$\% over time $\Delta

305: t$, then $t_{var} = 100\Delta t/N$, keeping in mind that this is a

306: conservative assumption for temporal variability given that quiescent

307: or unrelated emissions can add a separate slowly or nonvarying

308: background. R-band optical and RXTE PCA ($\approx 2$ -- 60 keV)

309: observations of 3C 279 and PKS 0528+134 show that day timescale optical and

310: X-ray variability can be expected for FSRQs \citep{har01,muk99}.  Day

311: timescale optical/UV and X-ray variability is also observed for TeV BL Lac objects

312: \citep{pia97,bla05}.

313: 

314: For canonical FSRQ values taken from observations of 3C 279 or PKS

315: 0528+134, Table 1 shows that photopion production is already important

316: at Doppler factors of $\sim 9$ -- 16 during times of day-scale optical

317: flaring, and these optical photons effectively extinguish all $\gamma$

318: rays with energies $\gtrsim E^{\gamma\gamma}_\gamma/800^{1/(1-b)} $

319: (Fig.\ 1), which would certainly include all $\gtrsim 100$ GeV -- TeV

320: photons. Unfortunately, TeV telescopes have not so far been successful

321: in detecting FSRQs, but monitoring of an FSRQ during an optical flare

322: with low-energy threshold air Cherenkov telescope such as MAGIC would

323: identify periods of likely neutrino emission. Photohadronic neutrino

324: secondaries have energies $E_\nu\approx E_p^{\phi\pi}/20$ and so would

325: be produced at $\sim 10^{17}$ -- $10^{18}$ eV, providing possible

326: sources for ANITA \citep{bar06}, though outside IceCube's optimal energy

327: range.

328: 

329: For guaranteed importance of photohadronic production implied by

330: day-scale X-ray variability, the Doppler factors of FSRQs and TeV BL

331: Lac objects like Mrk 421 have to be unexpectedly small, $\lesssim

332: 3$. If the X-ray flaring timescale of FSRQs were hourly rather than

333: daily, then $\delta_{\phi\pi}$ would more nearly correspond to Doppler

334: factors $\sim 5$ -- 10 inferred from unification studies and

335: superluminal motion observations of blazars \citep{vc94,up95}. During

336: episodes of highly variable X-ray flux, such sources should be

337: invisible to GLAST, and $\gg$ TeV neutrinos should be created if FSRQs

338: are sources of ultra-high energy cosmic rays. For the XBL estimate, a

339: 15 minute X-ray flaring timescale has already been assumed. Thus FSRQs

340: are more likely than BL Lac objects to be high-energy neutrino sources

341: for IceCube, which also follows if, as is likely, the external

342: radiation field plays a strong role in neutrino production

343: \citep{bp99,ad01,ad03}.

344: 

345: The outcome of this analysis to identify periods of high-energy

346: neutrino production is best for bright GRBs with peak fluxes of

347: $\approx 10^{-6}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and peak photon energy in

348: the range 50 keV -- 0.5 MeV that show $\lesssim 1$ s spikes of

349: emission. The bulk factors, $\approx 100$, are consistent with widely

350: considered outflow speeds in GRBs \citep[see, e.g.,][who also treat

351: $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation in GRBs]{rmz04}. Perhaps 100 MeV photons

352: could be observed, but the GLAST LAT should see no $\gtrsim $ GeV

353: photons if $\dD \lesssim \delta_{\phi\pi}$, which is the most

354: favorable time for detecting 100 TeV -- PeV neutrinos and is at an

355: optimal energy for detection with km-scale neutrino telescopes. Bright

356: X-ray flares with durations $\sim 10^2$ s observed hundreds to

357: thousands of seconds after the GRB trigger, like those discovered with

358: Swift \citep{obr06,bur07,mn06}, with blast wave Doppler factors

359: $\approx 50$, are also promising times to look for neutrinos and a

360: $\gamma$-ray spectrum attenuated above $\sim 100$ GeV $\gamma$ rays.

361: 

362: The condition $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\e_1)< 1$ for 

363: detected $\gamma$ rays with energy $\e_1$ 

364: gives a minimum Doppler factor

365: \begin{equation}

366: \dD^{min}= [ {\sigma_{\rm T} d_L^2 f_{\e_{pk}}\over 

367: 4 m_ec^4 t_{v} \e_{pk}^A}\bigl({(1+z)^2 \e_1\over 2}

368: \bigr)^{1-A}\;]^{1/(6-2A)}\;

369: \label{delta}

370: \end{equation}

371: \citep{der05}, with $A =b$ if $\e_1 < \e_1^{pk}$, and $A = a$ if

372: $\e_1> \e_1^{pk}$. If $\dD^{min}\gtrsim \delta_{\phi\pi}$, we should

373: not expect GRBs to be neutrino bright.  Synchro-Compton analysis of

374: high-quality radio and gamma-ray blazar SED data with resolved VLBI

375: cores and self-absorption frequencies give the Doppler factor

376: directly, provided the synchrotron self-Compton component can be

377: identified and separated from external Compton and photohadronic

378: emission components. Should high-energy neutrinos be detectected when

379: the Doppler factor inferred from these tests is greater than

380: $\delta_{\phi\pi}$, then this would call into question our

381: understanding of the structure of black-hole jets, for example, the

382: assumption of isotropy of target photon distributions in the comoving

383: jet frame.

384: 

385: 

386: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

387: 

388: We have presented a detailed treatment of combined photomeson and

389: gamma-ray opacity, which is a crucial problem that unites the neutrino

390: particle physics and the electromagnetic worlds. This problem has been

391: numerically treated for GRBs \citep{da03}, but no detailed analytical

392: treatment is present in the scientific literature.  GLAST observations

393: will reveal if $\gamma$-ray spectra of FSRQ blazars and GRBs show

394: evidence for strong $\gamma$-ray absorption during periods of variable

395: target photon emissions, signifying favorable conditions for

396: high-energy neutrino production.

397: 

398: To illustrate the use of these results, suppose that a blazar or GRB with measured

399: redshift $z$ is monitored at optical, X-ray, or soft $\gamma$-ray energies, giving a light curve $f_\e(t)$

400: at photon energy $\e(t)$. The structure of the light curve implies $t_{var}(t)$.

401: From these observables, the Doppler factor $\delta_{\phi\pi}(t)$ for guaranteed importance of

402: photomeson production is derived from eq.\ (\ref{Epk1}). If high-energy 

403: neutrinos are detected, then the source must be opaque at $\gamma$-ray energies 

404: given by eq.\ (\ref{epk2}). If $\gamma$ rays are detected at these energies, 

405: then the basic relativistic jet model 

406: must be wrong. Suppose instead that $\gamma$ rays at some energy $\e_1$ are detected. In this case, 

407: the minimum Doppler factor $\dD^{min}(t)$can be inferred from eq.\ (\ref{delta})

408: to define times when these sources can and cannot be neutrino bright.

409: 

410: Times and locations of bright, variable MeV $\gamma$-ray and extincted

411: GeV fluxes from GRBs can be done exclusively with the GLAST GBM and

412: LAT, whereas other tests for $\gamma$-ray/multiwavelength correlations

413: giving the most favorable times for high-energy neutrino detection in

414: blazars require collaboration and coordination of separate facilities.

415: The necessary organization is already underway between GLAST and the

416: ground-based $\gamma$-ray telescopes, e.g., HESS and VERITAS, but

417: blazar observations with, e.g., Swift, Suzaku, and RXTE correlated

418: with GLAST, AGILE, and ground-based high-energy $\gamma$-ray

419: telescopes will be crucial for neutrino discovery science and testing

420: models of relativistic jet sources.

421: 

422: 

423: \acknowledgements 

424: We thank Armen Atoyan for discussions. The work of CD is supported by

425: the Office of Naval Research and a GLAST Interdisciplinary Scientist

426: Grant. TL's research is supported by the GLAST grant and a Swift Guest

427: Investigator Grant.

428: 

429: 

430: \begin{thebibliography}{}

431: 

432: %\bibitem[Achterberg et al.(2001)]{ach01} Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y.~A., Kirk, J.~G., \& Guthmann, A.~W.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 393 

433: 

434: %\bibitem[Achterberg \& Blandford(1986)]{ab86} Achterberg, A., \& Blandford, R.~D.\ 1986, \mnras, 218, 551 

435: 

436: 

437: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2004)]{ahr04} Ahrens, J., et al.\  2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 507 

438: 

439: \bibitem[Alvarez-Mu\'niz et al.(2000)]{ahh00} 

440: Alvarez-Mu\'niz, J., Halzen, F., \& Hooper, D.~W.\ 2000, \prd, 62, 093015 

441: 

442: 

443: \bibitem[Atoyan \& Dermer(2001)]{ad01} Atoyan, A., \&  Dermer, C.~D.\ 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 221102 

444: 

445: \bibitem[Atoyan \& Dermer(2003)]{ad03} Atoyan, A.~M., \&  Dermer, C.~D.\ 2003, \apj, 586, 79 

446: 

447: \bibitem[Baring(2006)]{bar06} Baring, M.~G.\ 2006, \apj, 650,  1004 

448: 

449: \bibitem[Barwick et al.(2006)]{bar06} Barwick, S.~W., et al.\ 

450: 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 171101 

451: 

452: 

453: \bibitem[Bednarek \& Protheroe(1999)]{bp99} Bednarek, W., \& 

454: Protheroe, R.~J.\ 1999, \mnras, 302, 373 

455: 

456: \bibitem[B{\l}a{\.z}ejowski et al.(2005)]{bla05} 

457: B{\l}a{\.z}ejowski, M., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 130 

458: 

459: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{bur07} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 

460: 2007, astro-ph/0701046 

461: 

462: 

463: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1973)]{bmg73} Brown, R.~W., Mikaelian, 

464: K.~O., \& Gould, R.~J.\ 1973, \aplett, 14, 203 

465: 

466: 

467: \bibitem[Dermer \& Atoyan(2003)]{da03} Dermer, C.~D., \& 

468: Atoyan, A.\ 2003, Physical Review Letters, 91, 071102 

469: 

470: 

471: \bibitem[Dermer(2007)]{der07} Dermer, C.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 

472: in press (astro-ph/0606320)

473: 

474: \bibitem[Dermer(2005)]{der05} Dermer, C.~D.\ 2005, The Tenth 

475: Marcel Grossman Meeting, 1385 (astro-ph/0402438)

476: 

477: \bibitem[Gaisser et al.(1995)]{ghs95} Gaisser, T.~K., Halzen, 

478: F., \& Stanev, T.\ 1995, \physrep, 258, 173 

479: 

480: \bibitem[Gonz{\'a}lez et al.(2003)]{gon03} Gonz{\'a}lez, 

481: M.~M., Dingus, B.~L., Kaneko, Y., Preece, R.~D., Dermer, C.~D., \& Briggs, 

482: M.~S.\ 2003, \nat, 424, 749 

483: 

484: 

485: \bibitem[Gonz{\'a}lez (2005)]{gon05} Gonz{\'a}lez, 

486: M.~M.,  PhD Thesis, U.\ Wisconsin (2005)

487: 

488: \bibitem[Gould \& Schr{\'e}der(1967)]{gs67} Gould, R.~J., \& 

489: Schr{\'e}der, G.~P.\ 1967, Physical Review , 155, 1404 

490: 

491: 

492: \bibitem[Guetta et al.(2004)]{gue04} Guetta, D., Hooper, D., 

493: Alvarez-Mun\~{}Iz, J., Halzen, F., \& Reuveni, E.\ 2004, Astroparticle 

494: Physics, 20, 429 

495: 

496: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(2001)]{har01} Hartman, R.~C., et al.\ 

497: 2001, \apj, 558, 583 

498: 

499: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(1994)]{hur94} Hurley, K., et al.\ 

500: 1994, \nat, 372, 652 

501: 

502: \bibitem[Karle et al.(2003)]{kar03} Karle, A., et al.\ 2003, 

503: Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 118, 388 

504: 

505: \bibitem[Learned \& Mannheim(2000)]{lm00} Learned, J.~G., \& 

506: Mannheim, K.\ 2000, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 50, 679 

507: 

508: \bibitem[Lithwick \& Sari(2001)]{ls01} Lithwick, Y., \& 

509: Sari, R.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 540 

510: 

511: 

512: \bibitem[Neronov \& Semikoz(2002)]{ns02} Neronov, A.~Y., \& 

513: Semikoz, D.~V.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 123003 

514: 

515: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros(2006)]{mes06} M\'esz\'aros, P.\ 2006, Reports 

516: of Progress in Physics, 69, 2259 

517: 

518: 

519: \bibitem[Mukherjee et al.(1999)]{muk99} Mukherjee, R., et 

520: al.\ 1999, \apj, 527, 132 

521: \bibitem[Murase \& Nagataki(2006)]{mn06} Murase, K., \& 

522: Nagataki, S.\ 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 051101 

523: 

524: \bibitem[O'Brien et al.(2006)]{obr06} O'Brien, P.~T., et al.\ 

525: 2006, \apj, 647, 1213 

526: 

527: \bibitem[Pian et al.(1997)]{pia97} Pian, E., et al.\ 1997, 

528: \apj, 486, 784 

529: 

530: 

531: \bibitem[Piran(2005)]{pir05} Piran, T.\ 2005, Reviews of 

532: Modern Physics, 76, 1143 

533: 

534: \bibitem[Rachen \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros(1998)]{rm98} Rachen, 

535: J.~P., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1998, \prd, 58, 123005 

536: 

537: \bibitem[Razzaque et al.(2004)]{rmz04} Razzaque, S., 

538: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Zhang, B.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 1072 

539: 

540: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani(1995)]{up95} Urry, C.~M., \& 

541: Padovani, P.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 803 

542: 

543: \bibitem[Vermeulen \& Cohen(1994)]{vc94} Vermeulen, R.~C., 

544: \& Cohen, M.~H.\ 1994, \apj, 430, 467 

545: 

546: \bibitem[Vietri(1998)]{vie98} Vietri, M.\ 1998, Physical 

547: Review Letters, 80, 3690 

548: 

549: 

550: \bibitem[Waxman \& Bahcall(1997)]{wb97} Waxman, E., \&  Bahcall, J.\ 1997, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2292 

551: 

552: \bibitem[Zdziarski \& Lightman(1985)]{zl85} Zdziarski, 

553: A.~A., \& Lightman, A.~P.\ 1985, \apjl, 294, L79 

554: 

555: 

556: 

557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

558: \end{thebibliography}{}

559: 

560: \clearpage

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: %\vskip-2.5in

564: {\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f1.eps}}

565: %\vskip-0.35in

566: \caption[]{

567: Target photon SED, $\gamma\gamma$ opacity $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\e_1)$,

568: and normalized photopion energy-loss rate $t^{\prime

569: -1}_{\phi\pi}/\rho_{\phi\pi}$ are shown as a function of photon or

570: neutrino energy for parameters of (a) optically flaring FSRQ and (b)

571: rapidly varying prompt GRB emission, using parameters from Table 1.

572: The target photon SED is approximated as a broken power law with $\nu

573: F_\nu$ flux peaking at $\e_{pk}$.  When photopion processes are

574: certain to be important for protons with energy $E_p^{\phi\pi}$ that

575: interact with peak target photons with energy $\approx \e_{pk}$, then

576: the $\gamma\gamma$ opacity of $\gamma$ rays with energy

577: $E_\gamma^{\gamma\gamma}$ is $\approx 800$. The $\gamma\gamma$ opacity

578: is less than unity at photon energies $\lesssim

579: E_\gamma^{\gamma\gamma}/800^{1/(1-b)}$. Heavy and light curves for

580: $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\e_1)$ are accurate numerical integrations

581: \citep{gs67} and $\delta$-function approximations \citep{der05},

582: respectively.}  \label{f1}

583: \end{figure} 

584: 

585: \clearpage

586: 

587: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

588: \tablecaption{Doppler Factor $\delta_{\phi\pi}$,

589: $\gamma$-Ray Photon Energy $E^{\gamma\gamma}_{\gamma} $, 

590: and Cosmic Ray Energy

591: $ E_p^{\phi\pi}$\label{table1}}

592: \tablehead{     &

593: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\ell$\tablenotemark{a}} ~~& 

594: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\eta$}&

595: $\tau$ & 

596: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$j$  }  &

597: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta_{\phi\pi}$ } &

598: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$E_\gamma^{\gamma\gamma}({\rm GeV}) $  } &

599: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$ E_p^{\phi\pi}({\rm eV})$} 

600: }

601: \startdata

602: \tableline

603: \tableline

604: FSRQ& 28.7 & -11 & 5 &-5 (5 eV)& 9 & 92 & $5\times 10^{17}$ \\

605: $^{{\rm IR/optical}}$&  &  &  & -6 (0.5 eV)

606: & 16 & $30\times 10^3$ & $1.6\times 10^{19}$  \\

607: FSRQ& 28.7 & -11 & 5 &-2 (5 keV)& 1.6 & 0.03  & $1.6\times 10^{13}$  \\

608: $^{{\rm X-ray}}$&  &  &  & -3 (0.5 keV)

609: & 2.8 & 0.92 & $5\times 10^{14}$  \\

610: XBL & 27 & -10 & 3 &-2 (5 keV)& 1.3 & 0.14 & $3\times 10^{13}$  \\

611: $^{{\rm X-ray}}$&  &  &  & -3 (0.5 keV)

612: & 2.3 &4.7 & $9\times 10^{14}$  \\

613: GRB& 28.7 & -6 & 0 &0 (511 keV)& 160 & 2.9 & $ 2\times 10^{15}$  \\

614: $^{\gamma~{\rm ray}}$&  &  & &-1 (51 keV)& 280 & 92 & $5\times 10^{16}$  \\

615: $^{\rm X-ray~flare}$&  & -9 & 2&-3 (0.5 keV)& 50 & 290 & $1.6\times 10^{17}$ \\

616: \tableline

617: \enddata

618: %\end{tabular}

619: \tablenotetext{a}{Sources at $z = 2$ except for XBLs, at 

620: $z \approx 0.08$, $d_L = 10^{27}$ cm.}

621: \end{deluxetable}

622: 

623: \end{document}