text:
# Cluster temperature profiles and Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations

## 1 Introduction

Galaxy clusters have been known and studied for many years, and the radial dependence of cluster temperatures is becoming a testing ground for models of structure formation and for our understanding of gas dynamics. Galaxy clusters are not iso-thermal. Instead, the emerging temperature profile is one where the temperature is approximately flat or increases from the centre to some characteristic radius, and then decreases again for larger radii.

The central temperature decrement has been much discussed and the possibility of cooling flows has been explained in excellent reviews . Many clusters are well fit with a power law $`Tr^\tau `$ in the very central region , with a slope, $`\tau `$, between $`0.15`$ and $`0.45`$. Numerical simulations are only now beginning to see this central decrement (see Motl et al.  for references).

The outer temperature decrease is well established both observationally  and numerically (see Lin et al.  and references therein). The simulations have even started to provide estimates of the outer temperature decrement which are well fit with power laws in fair agreement with observations.

Such non-trivial temperature profiles also affect derived cosmological parameters like the Hubble parameter .

On the other hand, observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect are becoming increasingly accurate , however, most analyses of SZ observational data are made under the simplifying assumption of iso-thermality. Several groups have considered the ability of future SZ observations to extract cluster parameters , but always under the assumption of iso-thermality. We therefore set out to study the effect on the SZ derived parameters of non-trivial cluster temperature profiles.

In section 2 we show that the relevant quantities for SZ observations are Compton-averaged, in particular we emphasize the difference between the temperatures derived through X-ray and SZ observation for clusters which are not iso-thermal. In section 3 we use observed and simulated cluster profiles to show that the systematic shift in the derived peculiar velocity, $`v_p`$, is of the order $`1020\%`$. Finally we comment on the possibility of deprojection of SZ observed spectra in section 4.

## 2 The SZ effect

The SZ effect is dominated by the Compton parameter

$$y=\sigma _Tn_e\frac{kT_e}{m_ec^2}𝑑l,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`n_e,T_e`$ and $`m_e`$ are number density, temperature and mass of the electrons, and the integral is along the line of sight. If we extract the radial dependence of the parameters

$`n_e(r)`$ $`=`$ $`n_e^0f_{n_e}(r),`$
$`T_e(r)`$ $`=`$ $`T_e^0f_{T_e}(r),`$
then $`y`$ can be written as $`y=\kappa _yf_{n_e}f_{T_e}𝑑l`$, where the constant is $`\kappa _y=\sigma _Tn_e^0kT_e^0/(m_ec^2)`$. It will be convenient to introduce $`f_y=f_{n_e}f_{T_e}`$, in which case we have

$$y=\kappa _yf_y𝑑l.$$
(2)
Similarly, the optical depth is

$$\tau =\kappa _\tau f_{n_e}𝑑l,$$
(3)
with $`\kappa _\tau =\sigma _Tn_e^0`$, and one sees that for an iso-thermal cluster, where $`f_{T_e}(r)1`$, one has $`y\tau T_e^0`$.

For any cluster observation one receives information from an integral along the line of sight. Since the radial structures of clusters are non-trivial this implies that one may have to define averaged quantities. For X-ray observations the averaging procedure is often simplified to emission-weighted quantities, scaled by the emissivity which for large temperatures roughly scales  as $`ϵn^2T_e^{1/2}`$

$$𝒪_X=\frac{𝒪ϵ𝑑l}{ϵ𝑑l}.$$
(4)
For the SZ effect the relevant scale is not the emissivity, but instead the local Compton parameter, $`n_e(r)T_e(r)`$, and therefore the average of $`𝒪`$ is given by

$$𝒪_y=\frac{𝒪f_y𝑑l}{f_y𝑑l},$$
(5)
for instance, the average SZ temperature for a cluster is

$$T_e_y=\frac{T_ef_y𝑑l}{f_y𝑑l}=\frac{\kappa _yT_ef_y𝑑l}{y}.$$
(6)
We will hereafter only discuss Compton-averaged quantities, and hence omit the index on averages.

The SZ effect for an iso-thermal cluster is composed of several parts

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{I_0}=y\left(g(x)+T_e\delta (x,T_e)\right)\beta _p\tau a(x),$$
(7)
where $`\beta _p=v_p/c`$ is the bulk motion of the cluster referred to as the peculiar velocity. The spectral forms due to the thermal up-scattering, $`g(x)`$, and due to the overall cluster motion, $`a(x)`$, are well-known , and the spectral form of the relativistic corrections to the thermal up-scattering, $`\delta (x,T_e)`$, is easily calculated . To a very good approximation $`\delta (x,T_e)`$ can be taken as independent of temperature (see e.g. Diego et al. ), that is, for a given frequency, $`x`$, one can write $`\delta (x,T_e)=b_1(x)+b_2(x)T_e+𝒪(T_e^2)`$, where $`b_2`$ and higher order terms are subdominant. For the present discussion we can ignore a contribution to eq. (7) of the marginally detectable ultra-relativistic electrons , since our findings will not depend on them. For excellent reviews on the SZ effect see .

For a cluster with a non-trivial temperature profile eq. (7) is written as an integral along the line of sight

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{I_0}=\left[\kappa _yf_y\left(g(x)+T_e^0f_{T_e}\delta (x)\right)\beta _p\kappa _\tau f_{n_e}a(x)\right]𝑑l,$$
(8)
where the quantities $`f_{n_e}(r)`$ and $`f_{T_e}(r)`$ are the local quantities. Now, using the definition in eq. (5), this means

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{I_0}=y\left[g(x)+T_e\delta (x)\beta _p1/T_e\left(m_ec^2/k\right)a(x)\right].$$
(9)
For an iso-thermal cluster, where $`f_{T_e}1`$, one has $`1/T_e=1/T_e`$, but for a thermally non-trivial cluster there are really 4 independent variables, $`y,\beta _p,T_e`$ and $`1/T_e`$. Clearly, for such a cluster the X-ray derived temperature, $`T_X`$, may differ significantly from $`T_e`$ (as well as, $`1/T_X1/T_e`$), and hence the X-ray derived temperature should only be used with great caution in the study of SZ observations.

Most studies of SZ observations include up to 2 free parameters , for instance the Compton parameter and the peculiar velocity, and only very few have attempted studies with 3 parameters  with inclusion of the temperature. We will here consider the effect of neglecting the non-trivial radial temperature profile, and show that it induces a systematic error on the peculiar velocity of the order $`10\%`$.

## 3 Cluster profiles

As a specific example we use a simple cluster model, where the electron density profile follows a $`\beta `$-model

$$n_e(r)=n_e^0\left(1+\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\right)^{\beta 3/2},$$
(10)
where $`r_c`$ is a characteristic radius. Such broken power-law density profiles are often used to fit observations , and are possibly even understood theoretically , but may need slight modifications for non-isothermal clusters . The temperature profile may have the shape

$$T_e(r)=T_e^0\left(1+\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(11)
where we use results from recent numerically simulated clusters  with $`\alpha =0.56`$ and $`\beta =0.61`$. For cooling flow clusters the form is slightly more complicated, but an inclusion of the central decrement is straight forward. With these profiles one finds the average temperature from eq. (6) to be $`T_e=7.08`$ keV when the central temperature is $`10`$ keV, and $`1/T_eT_e=1.12`$ which indicates that one will find a peculiar velocity which is approximately $`12\%`$ systematically too large when using SZ observations to define the cluster parameters. We will now test these findings numerically, by constructing and analysing the true SZ signal from this cluster model.

With this cluster model, where we normalize the optical depth to $`\tau =0.01`$, we construct the SZ signal along the line of sight through the cluster centre. As a specific example we take an observation with 4 observing frequencies at $`90,150,220`$ and $`270`$ GHz, and assume a sensitivity of $`1\mu K`$ for each channel. We choose $`v_p=1000`$ km/sec. For optimal observing frequencies  the statistical error-bars can be reduced slightly (represented by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1`$ on figure 1), but the systematic shift (about $`12\%`$) will remain the same. The systematic shift is independent of the assumed sensitivity, which here is taken slightly optimistic (ACT expects a sensitivity of $`2\mu K`$).

One can now treat this constructed SZ signal (and corresponding error-bars) as a real observation, and derive the 3 cluster parameters, $`y,T_e,v_p`$ in the standard way. This is simply done by inputting the constructed SZ signal into the publicly available 111http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/~hansen/sz/
This SZ parameter extraction code uses the Monte Carlo like method of simulated annealing to derive the central SZ parameters and corresponding error-bars. SZ parameter extraction code sasz . The result is shown in figure 1, where we plot both peculiar velocity and temperature on the same figure. The solid (red) line is the relative error on the temperature, $`(T_e7.08)/7.08`$, and the dashed (blue) line is the relative error on the peculiar velocity, $`(v_p1000)/1000`$. As is clear, the average temperature is indeed very near the expected $`7`$ keV, whereas the peculiar velocity is shifted by $`1012\%`$.

The fact that the SZ determined temperature indeed turns out to be the “correct” Compton weighted temperature implies that accurate prior temperature knowledge (e.g. from X-ray observations) would not change the systematic shift of the peculiar velocity. Having both accurate temperature and electron density profiles from X-ray observations would allow one to calculate the systematic shift (ignoring the complications from an unknown clumping). However, peculiar velocities are most important when derived for a large sample of clusters (e.g. from an all-sky SZ survey), but detailed X-ray maps are observationally expensive and cannot be made for the large number of clusters expected in future all-sky SZ surveys.

The minimal deviation from the derived central value of the temperature arises because $`\delta (x)`$ in eq. (8) is not completely independent of the temperature, but this minor effect is not important for our discussion. Furthermore, if one imposes a “known” temperature of $`T_e=T_X=10`$ keV (from X-ray observations) then that would lead to a $`40\%`$ systematic shift of $`v_p`$, and even a “known” emission weighted temperature of $`T_X8`$ keV would give a $`20\%`$ systematic error on $`v_p`$. To be very explicit, this means that if one knows the exact temperature and electron density profiles from X-ray observations, and then uses the emission weighted temperature in the analysis of SZ observations, then one would overestimate the peculiar velocity with $`20\%`$ for this particular cluster. If a given observation only puts bounds on the peculiar velocity, then the corresponding error-bars are overestimated by the same amount. This shows, as mentioned earlier, that X-ray observed temperatures should be use with great caution in the study of SZ observations. If one does know the exact temperature and density profiles, then clearly one can calculate $`1/T_e`$, with which one can extract the peculiar velocity correctly.

We thus see that for this specific choice of temperature and electron density profiles the systematic shift in the derived peculiar velocity from SZ observations is $`1012\%`$. The question now arises: which range in systematic shift is expected for real clusters?

The density profiles of many clusters are well described by a $`\beta `$-model with $`\beta 0.67`$, however, numerical simulations show a rather large scatter in the numerical value for $`\beta `$. Fixing the temperature profile to the one in eq. (11) with $`\alpha =0.56`$, and letting $`\beta `$ vary from $`\beta =0.75`$ to $`\beta =0.46`$  leads to systematic shifts in the peculiar velocity of $`8\%`$ to $`20\%`$. One could instead fix the density slope to $`\beta =2/3`$, and use a polytropic equation of state

$$T_e=T_e^0\left(\frac{n_e}{n_e^0}\right)^{\gamma 1},$$
(12)
with $`\gamma `$ in the range $`1`$ to $`5/3`$. Even though the polytropic shape does not provide an excellent fit to observations , it is sufficient for estimating the magnitude of the systematic error. Fitting observations with eq. (12) gives $`\gamma =1.46\pm 0.06`$ for non-cooling flow clusters, and $`\gamma =1.20\pm 0.06`$ for cooling flow clusters . With $`\gamma =1.46`$ one gets a systematic shifts of the peculiar velocity of $`20\%`$ (for $`\gamma =1.20`$ one gets $`6\%`$), and for the theoretically extreme case of an adiabatic gas with $`\gamma =5/3`$ the error becomes about $`30\%`$. A simple fit to the error in percent of the peculiar velocity as a function of $`\gamma `$, which is accurate for $`\gamma >1.2`$, gives: error (in $`\%`$) $`=53(\gamma 1)5`$.

Cluster merging induces bulk motion within the cluster as large as $`500`$ km/sec (see e.g. Sunyaev et al. ), and the corresponding mis-estimate of the peculiar velocity is about $`10\%`$ , or up to about $`100`$ km/sec .

## 4 Onion peeling a SZ cluster

We have seen above that the SZ determined peculiar velocity of realistic galaxy clusters may be systematically wrong by $`1020\%`$, and that X-ray observations cannot be expected to solve this problem because they are observationally expensive. The natural question is then: what is the solution?

For X-ray observations the similar problem is solved by the technique of deprojection. This heuristically corresponds to peeling an onion. The outermost layer is observed and analysed. Then the next layer is analysed while subtracting the signal from the outer layer. The error-bars will increase for the inner layers, but for X-rays this turns out not to be disastrous. That is because the contribution from the outer layers is significantly smaller than the contribution from the inner layers, since the emission drops fast with radius $`ϵT^{1/2}n^2r^{\zeta _X}`$ with $`\zeta _X4.2`$.

Similarly, for SZ observations the relevant quantity is the local Compton parameter, which goes like $`n_eT_er^{\zeta _y}`$, with $`\zeta _y2.5`$. Thus, the error-bars should remain under control even when subtracting contribution to the intensity from outer layers. Naturally, the fact that $`2.5<4.2`$ is the reason why SZ observations are more suitable than X-ray observations for measuring the outer cluster region.

An advantage for SZ deprojection is that the peculiar velocity is the same for the entire cluster when we can ignore the local gas motion (see however Holder ). That means that while normally one would expect to have 3 SZ parameters ($`y,T_e,v_p`$) for each of the $`N`$ radial bins, giving $`3N`$ parameters, then we really only have $`2N+1`$ free parameters. This is important because the major parameter degeneracy for SZ observations is between the temperature and peculiar velocity. Thus, the deprojection itself may help reduce the error-bars on the derived parameters. It is worth mentioning that spatially resolved SZ observations will provide both temperature and electron density profiles, so combined with accurate X-ray observations one can directly measure the radial dependence of clumpiness, which is a non-trivial measure of the merger history.

Such SZ deprojection of the observed intensity clearly demands that the future SZ observations should both have good spectral coverage and good spatial resolution. That is a non-trivial observational challenge.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that due to the non-trivial temperature structure of galaxy clusters, the SZ derived peculiar velocity will be systematically shifted by $`1020\%`$. The Compton weighted electron temperature is, however, derived accurately. For future all-sky SZ surveys one cannot rely on the observationally expensive X-ray observations to remove this systematic error, but one should instead reach for sufficient angular resolution to perform a deprojection in the SZ spectra.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Philippe Jetzer for discussions, and Elia Battistelli for suggestions. The author thanks the Tomalla foundation for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Radio-optical flux behavior and spectral energy distribution of the intermediate blazar GC 0109+224

## 1 Introduction

The compact radio–loud source GC 0109+224 (S2 0109+22, TXS 0109+224, RX J0112.0+2244, EF B0109+2228, RGB J0112+227), belonging to the Green Bank radio survey list C, is a synchrotron source known for more than thirty years (Pauliny-Toth et al., 1972) and was optically identified few years later (Owen & Mufson, 1977). It is a strong radio-millimetre active galactic nucleus (AGN), with variable flux, polarisation degree and position angle, showing a flat average spectrum much like the classical BL Lac objects. Unfortunately it is poorly studied beyond optical frequencies. The milliarcsecond (pc) scale of GC 0109+224 reveals a compact core, and a secondary component with no additional diffuse emission, and less luminous and/or beamed than the 1-Jy sample sources (Bondi et al., 2001; Fey & Charlot, 2000). The kpc scale shows a faint one–sided collimated radio jet, about 2 arcsec long (Wilkinson et al., 1998), largely misaligned with the pc-scale inner region, as is frequently observed in high-luminosity and low-energy peaked BL Lac objects (LBLs, with the peak in infrared bands). This source is a member of the 200-mJy catalog (Marchã et al., 1996), a sample which seems to fill the gap between the high energy peaked BL Lacs (HBLs, with the peak in the UV, soft-X bands) and the LBLs, as expected by some current blazar unification pictures.

The historical optical light curve shows a behavior intermediate between the larger–amplitude variable BL Lacs, and the smaller–amplitude variable flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQs). Increased flare activity (rapid optical variations, peak superposition, rapid flux drops), is clearly shown after 1994 in the optical bands, thanks to the increased data sampling of the Perugia University Observatory, which has also recorded the larger and faster flares (Ciprini et al., 2003a). During seven years GC 0109+224 showed six main optical outbursts (weeks/month scale), and a variability mode placed between the flickering and the shot noise.

Rather achromatic long term optical behaviour , is accompanied by isolated outbursts with loop–like hysteresis of the spectral index, indicating that rapid optical variability is dominated by non-thermal cooling of a single electron population (Ciprini et al., 2003a). Both the optical flux and the polarization are known to be variable on different timescales, including intraday variability (Sitko et al., 1985; Mead et al., 1990; Valtaoja et al., 1991).

The relatively strong variable degree (up to 30%) and direction of the optical linear polarisation, is one of the most noticeable characteristics of this object (Takalo, 1991; Valtaoja et al., 1993), even if there is no clear correlation between the flux level and polarisation degree. The host galaxy of GC 0109+224 is still unresolved (Falomo, 1996; Wright et al., 1998), but a lower limit to the redshift $`z0.4`$ is suggested (Falomo, 1996). From the old IRAS data there is no evidence for a thermal component in the far–infrared (Impey & Neugebauer, 1988).

GC 0109+224 was detected in the past at X-ray bands by satellites Einstein, EXOSAT, ROSAT, and the source is a member of the RGB catalog (Laurent-Muehleisen et al., 1999), a list of intermediate blazars with properties smoothly distributed in a large range between the LBL and HBL subclasses. In the diagnostic diagram $`\alpha _{ro}`$-$`\alpha _{oX}`$ (Padovani & Giommi, 1995), GC 0109+224 appears close (Dennett-Thorpe et al., 2000) to a prototype of intermediate blazars like ON 231 (W Com, Tosti et al., 2002; Böttcher et al., 2002; Tagliaferri et al., 2000). The HBL and LBL subclasses exhibit systematically distinct properties (i.e. $`F_X/F_{rad}`$ flux densities ratio, degree of radio core dominance, optical polarization degree and variability, etc.). The so called “intermediate” blazars are critical to clarify the relationship between these subclasses, and to validate the unified schemes based on bolometric power. Intermediate blazars often peak in optical bands (thus are selected and monitored mainly by optical telescopes), and during some variability phases the break between the two overall spectral components occurs in the X-ray bands. In some cases their spectral energy distributions (SEDs) can be still described well with synchrotron-self-Compton (SSC) models (like for the HBLs), and this implies, by simple scaling arguments, a possible inverse Compton (IC) emission peaked in GeV gamma-ray bands (see, e.g. Stecker et al., 1996). In the case of GC 0109+224 EGRET did not detected any gamma-ray emission (phase 1, Fichtel et al., 1994), with a rather low upper limit of 0.01 nJy above 100 MeV.

GC 0109+224 is regularly monitored by the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory (UMRAO), USA (see, e.g. Aller et al., 1996) and by the Metsähovi Radio Observatory, Finland (see, e.g. Teräsranta et al., 1998). In order to search for time correlations between the optical and radio fluctuations at the various bands, in Section 2 the updated radio flux data of UMRAO and Metsähovi are compared with the available optical data (reported in Ciprini et al., 2003a). In Section 3 the temporal behavior of the radio light curves is investigated through well known methods suitable for unevenly data sets. In Section 4 we show the reconstruction of the SED, with the available multiwavelength data, and a first estimation of the bolometric energy and physical parameters using a pure SSC model.

## 2 Radio-optical correlations

The reconstructed optical flux history of GC 0109+224, and the last seven years of data collected mainly during the Perugia monitoring program, are compared with the updated radio flux observations, belong to the Metsähovi (37 GHz and 22 GHz data), and UMRAO (14.5 Ghz, 8 Ghz and 4.8 GHz data) radio observatories. At centimetre and millimetre bands (up to about 90 GHz) a monthly sampling for blazars is in most cases enough. The source was monitored at an appreciable rate especially at 22 GHz, and in a significant long-term period at 4.8, 8 and 14.5 GHz. Some essential properties of the centimetre emission of this blazar measured at UMRAO are outlined in (Aller et al., 1999). Metsähovi data up to 1998 were compared with few literature optical observations (only 1996-1998), finding a lag of about 400 days between optical and 22 GHz variations (Hanski et al., 2002).

The complete optical (Johnson B band) and radio light curves of GC 0109+224, are plotted in Fig. 1. Increased activity was observed after 1992 in all five radio bands. Available optical data are too few prior to 1995, to check the beginning of enhanced emission at this band. Since 1995 Perugia observations have increased the sampling density, recording also the larger (and faster) flares, showing well increased activity, rapid variations, and the same flares superposition which seems to characterise the radio flux. The flux history of the source, with millimetre data added, is plotted in Fig. 2 in more detail. Radio outbursts are clearly longer then the optical one, and show smaller amplitudes at lower frequencies. The peak frequency, in which the highest flux is observed during the flare, seems, at least for the outburst of March-April 2000 (2000.4, Fig. 2), to be around millimetre wavelengths (as an intense flux of $`3.13\pm 0.04`$ and $`3.31\pm 0.06`$ Jy at 250 GHz, was detected by the Mambo bolometer at IRAM on 29 March 2000, Bertoldi, 2002).

The 22 and 37 GHz curves of Fig. 2, show the faster features in the radio, and five main peaks: around 1996.7 (visible also at 14.5, 8 and 4.8 GHz), around 1997.5, another around 1998.0 (seen also at 8 GHz), still one before 1998.5 (seen also at 14.5 GHz, while the 37 GHz receiver was down), and another around 2000.4 (this is seen in all the bands). Other peaks are easily identifiable (Fig. 1) around 1993.0 (from 8 GHz to 37 GHz), and at the end of 1989 (from 4.8 GHz to 14.5 GHz). The more violent optical activity in these years (Fig. 2) is characterised by six main flares of much shorter duration (on the order of weeks-one month), with faster rise and decline.

The noticeable temporal structure in the radio flux curves, between the end of 1995 and mid–1999, looks like an underling emission bump spreading over 3.5 years, with four superposed main peaks, or a superposition of four flares departing from the base level. It’s difficult, even visually, to link this radio bump to a specific optical peak. The optical emission in this period, apart of an outburst in Oct. 1996, decreases to a ground level, with a few flickering low peaks until mid–1997, then rises almost monotonically with a flickering behaviour, up to beginning of 1998, and then displays another relevant flare only during November 1998 (Ciprini et al., 2003a). Another prominent radio outburst occurred in February-April 2000, and seems detected at all the seven mm-radio frequencies (from 4.8 to 250 GHz, Fig. 2), during the final slow decreasing phase.

Blazars usually exhibit shorter variability timescales, and more numerous flares in the optical, than in mm-radio bands, and the optical data are often heavily affected by empty gaps in the observations (seasonal interruptions, and weather conditions).

This is a problem in the search of correlations. The level of correlation can be investigated with the Discrete Correlation Function (DCF, Edelson & Krolik, 1988; Hufnagel & Bregman, 1992), and the Interpolated Correlation Function (ICF, Gaskell & Peterson, 1987), suitable for discrete unevenly sampled data sets. In the DCF the number of point per time bin can vary greatly, in the ICF instead, the interpolation may be unreliable if the curves are under-sampled. We applied a method that is more robust especially when the data are few, ensuring that there is a statistically meaningful number of points in each bin: the Fisher z-transformed DCF, (ZDCF, Alexander, 1997). This method build data bins by equal population rather than equal width, and uses Montecarlo estimations for peaks and uncertainties.

For a lag between 789 and 879 days (2.1-2.4 years), no peaks with large values were found in the optical–radio cross correlation curves (ZDCCF values from 0.50 to 0.62, Fig. 3). Other shorter radio-optical delays for which ZDCCF peaks are recognizable, are around the delay of 190 days (observed in both the correlations with the 37 and 22 GHz fluxes, but it is not meaningful because $`ZDCCF0.35`$), around a lag of 33 days ($`ZDCCF0.50`$) between optical-14.5 GHz curves, and around a lag of about 500 days ($`ZDCCF0.59`$) between optical-37 GHz fluxes. Interesting to note is that the cross–correlations, with a peak around the 2.1-2.4 years lag range (both positives, delays, and negatives, leads), are found in all the optical–radio (37, 22, 14.5 and 8 GHz) correlation curves, (Fig. 3). This also appears when applying the standard DCF method. Hints of optical–radio correlation around this lag timescale, is also present in the plots of (Hanski et al., 2002), while the 350 and 400 days lags cited in this work (based only on two years of optical data), was not confirmed by our data.

The optical–radio delays found around 2.1-2.4 years, do not represent strong evidence for a real physical correlation, because the timescales suggested are very long. Even though the coefficients are not low (0.5-0.6) and the correlations are found for all radio frequencies correlations. On the other hand shorter delays around 33, 190, 500 days are not significant, because they are found with low value correlations coefficients. To investigate better the radio–optical delays, it is necessary to increase data sampling in future optical monitoring programs.

## 3 Radio flux variability

The radio flux auto–correlation curves (ZDACF and DACF) of GC 0109+224 in various bands (Fig. 4), do not show very relevant feature, except for broad and weak ($`ZDACF0.6`$) peaks around the scale of 3.14-4.06 years in the 14.5 GHz curve, and around 3.53-4.60 years in the 37 GHz curve. From 37 GHz to 14.5 GHz the auto–correlation profile resembles shot noise, with a single bump in the correlation curve of semi–amplitude $``$ 2.7 years.

In Fig. 5 we plotted the first order structure functions (SFs) (e.g. Simonetti et al., 1985; Hughes et al., 1992) of the radio light curves. The SF works in the time domain instead of frequencies $`f`$. It measures of the mean difference in the data train as a function of the separation time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in the sampling. In log–log plots the SF of an ideal time series plus measurement noise, increases and shows an intermediate steep curve ($`SF(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^\beta `$). The slope $`\beta `$ depends on the nature of the intrinsic variability, and give the Fourier power law index of the spectrum, (say $`P(f)1/f^{\beta +1}`$, where f is the frequency). The values of $`\beta `$ for GC 0109+224 (Fig5), go from $`0.39\pm 0.16`$ to $`0.65\pm 0.08`$, meaning an intermediate variability mode, between the pure flickering (pink noise, $`\beta =0`$) and the shot noise (red/brown noise, $`\beta =1`$). Deep and steep drops in the SF plots means a little variance, and then a possible signature of characteristic time scales: it is apparent at about 3.4-3.8 years and 7.4-7.6 years. Other characteristic timescales are given by the turnover lag where the SF profile begin to flatten, and in the plots of Fig. 5 these are located around 1.1-1.8 years, even if in our data the flattening is recognizable only with difficulties.

In Fig. 6 are reported the Lomb–Scargle periodograms (Scargle, 1982; Horne & Baliunas, 1986) of the radio curves which present some features. This technique (calculated with a fast algorithm Press & Rybicki, 1989), analogous to the Fourier analysis for unevenly sampled data sets, useful to detect possible periodicity, and typical timescales. The components above the $`1\%`$ false alarm threshold, annotated in Fig. 6 (from 1.8 to 4.16 years), are not very significant, and not easily visually identifiable in the flux light curves.

The length of the data record, required to demonstrate a real recurrent timescale depends on signal–to–noise ratio, systematic errors, regularity in sampling, nature of the measurements, and the nature of the underlying variation. Even if the strength of the autocorrelations found is not high, from the beginning of 1990s our radio sampling is sufficient at all the five bands observed to consider this discovered hints of timescales, a starting point in the search for recurrent times with future observstions. As mentioned above, hints of a sort of periodicity (or at least of a typical timescale) around 3-4 years, are found by applying all three methods. Future radio flux data, with increased sampling and extended observing period, and VLBI observations may or may not confirm this timescale.

## 4 The Spectral Energy Distribution

GC 0109+224 is a bright X-ray point source ($`\nu F_\nu (1\text{ keV})10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1), known since the observation of HEAO-1 A2 experiment (Della Ceca et al., 1990) in Jan. 1978. The spectral energy distribution (SED) assembled with the available historical multiwavelength data, is shown in Fig. 7 (references for data in figure’s caption), and is compatible with a smooth continuum given by a pure synchrotron component, like the classical BL Lac objects. In Table 1 we summarize properties and available multiwavelength fluxes of GC 0109+224. The SED data profile in Fig. 7, points out a synchrotron peak in the frequency range around the near-infred, optical (and possibly near-UV) range. This strengthens the assumption that GC 0109+224 is an LBL or intermediate blazar, (as suggested for example in Laurent-Muehleisen et al., 1999; Dennett-Thorpe et al., 2000; Bondi et al., 2001).

Unfortunately, a part of one rather low EGRET upper limit, no data is available to check the presence of the inverse Compton (IC) emission bump (the few and old X-ray observations seems to have a synchrotron origin). The 1 keV flux, measured by ROSAT PSPC instrument in August 1990, is $`F_X=0.26\pm 0.08\mu `$Jy, with $`\alpha _X=1.96\pm 0.25`$ (Table 1 and Fig. 7). This suggests a decreasing soft-X trend, in the $`\nu F_\nu `$ representation. The 1 keV flux by EXOSAT CMA instrument in August 1984, is approximately the same ($`F_X=0.21\mu `$Jy), while the 2keV flux by Einstein Observatory (HEAO-2) IPC and MPC instruments in July 1979, is $`F_X=0.15\mu `$Jy. These detections seem to prove the highest energy synchrotron tail is emitted in the soft-X ray band (as is commonly found in intermediate blazars).

IRAS measured a flux density of 188 mJy at 60 $`\mu `$m and upper limits at the other its bands (Impey & Neugebauer, 1988). As cited above GC 0109+224 seems characterized by a very strong (2-3 Jy) millimetre flux (a part of calibration uncertainties). On March 29, 2000, the IRAM Mambo bolometer measured a flux of 3.13 and 3.31 Jy at 1.2 mm (250 GHz), (and all other few available measurements are above 1 Jy, Bertoldi, 2002). While on April 26, Metsähovi detected a flux above 2 Jy at 87 GHz (Fig. 2 and Tab. 1). No simultaneous optical data were available during this period in which the source is not visible on night, but February 2000 observations suggest a relevant high emission state (Fν(0.44 $`\mu `$m)$`16`$ mJy). According to (Valtaoja & Teräsranta, 1996; Jorstad et al., 2001), $`\gamma `$-ray flares are considered connected to the rising or high state of the blazar millimetre emission. GC 0109+224 seems on a rising phase during September 1992 as showed by the radio flux curves, but it was not detected in $`\gamma `$-rays by EGRET. This could contradict the cited hypothesis, or the $`\gamma `$-rays were of short duration, or again probably the sensitivity was inadequate. The integral flux density upper limit (u.l.) above 100 MeV is rather low: the limit given in the first EGRET catalog (phase 1, Apr. 1991 - Nov. 1992) is $`F_\gamma <6\times 10^8\text{photons}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$, approximatively equivalent to 1 nJy. The low optical brightness and the small radio fluxes (sub-Jansky), reported in Table 2, in correspondence with the EGRET viewing periods, point out a low or, in any case, non-flaring states. For details on the EGRET viewing periods pertaining to GC 0109+224, and corresponding available optical and radio fluxes, see Table 2.

We tentatively fitted the few available data with a pure one -zone homogeneous leptonic SSC model, in two representatives (low and high) states of the source (continuous lines in Fig. 7 for the August-October 1990 quiescent state, and the December 2000 flaring state). The multiwavelength SED data are grouped in epochs in Fig. 7 (but we remark that this is only a rough incongruent and temporally broad regroupment of the data). The applied model assumes a blob of dimension $`R`$ embedded in a tangled isotropic magnetic field of mean intensity $`B`$, subjected to a continuous injection of shocked relativistic electrons with a break power law energy distribution, exponentially damped: $`Q_{inj}(\gamma )=Q_0\gamma ^p\mathrm{exp}(\gamma /(k\gamma _{max}))`$ \[cm-3 s-1\], between the energies (Lorentz factors) $`\gamma _{min}`$ and $`\gamma _{max}`$. This emitting region moves in a relativistic jet, approximatively aligned with our line of sight and fed by an accreting supermassive black hole. The mechanism is described using a one–dimensional and time–dependent kinetic equation for the electron particle distribution, and the ensemble synchrotron spectrum is convolved with the calculated distribution. The IC spectrum results from the interaction of the distribution with the synchrotron photon field. The produced spectra were transformed to the frame of the observer (placed at an angle $`\theta `$ respect to jet direction), using the relativistic Doppler beaming bulk factor $`𝒟=\left((1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\right)^1`$. The model is described for example in (Ciprini & Tosti, 2003c; Ciprini, 2003d). The values of the parameters adopted for the two SED parameterisation of GC 0109+224, are reported in the figures caption. The steep injection ($`p>2`$) and the exponential damping, creates a few high energy electrons (important for the IC emission). Moreover the relatively high value of $`B`$ (0.45-1.6 G), means a stronger magnetic field energy density $`U_B=B^2/(8\pi )`$, and a smaller radiation to magnetic energy ratio $`U_{rad}/U_B=L_{IC}/L_{syn}`$, redicing the self-Compton flux. Indeed in our modelling (Fig. 7) the IC component appears depressed. The few multiwavelegth data available do not contain any hint of an high-energy spectral component. The values used for the physical parameters partially take in account radio flux data in the SED. For example lower values of $`\gamma _{min}`$ could fit better the lower frequency radio data, but the IC emission is further depressed. The synchrotron spectral shape indicated by the available data, appears also to be suitable for a fit with logarithmic parabolic functions (see, e.g. Giommi et al., 2002; Sambruna et al., 1996). Probably, as stated for the flux curves, the dynamics and the regions involved in the high energy emission are different from the radio ones. Anyway the usual neglect of the radio data points in blazar SED modelling is not ever justified.

SED data and modelling (Fig. 7), allude to a synchrotron peak ranging between the near-IR, for the quiescent states, and the optical (perhaps also near-UV) bands for the flaring states. This is consistent with the view of GC 0109+224, as a blazar at the border of the LBL and intermediate subclasses. As a classical BL Lac, the SED is represented well with our pure leptonic SSC model. Therefore, with simple scaling considerations, the IC emission can be seen as the synchrotron component upshifted by $`\gamma _{max}^2`$ (with $`\gamma _{max}10^5`$ in this case). The peak in the optical, in SSC descriptions, can predict a possible IC peak in GeV $`\gamma `$-ray energies through the following similarity relation: $`(\nu _{GeV}F_{GeV})/L_{IC}(\nu _{opt}F_{opt})/L_{syn}`$, (as the the synchrotron X-ray end tail is related to the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray tail in the HBLs (Stecker et al., 1996)). $`L_{syn}`$ and magnetic fields intensity might be high for this object, reducing the IC dominance. However the strong millimeter flux, the peak of the SED in near-IR-optical bands, and the brightness in X-ray frequencies, might suggest the possibility of $`\gamma `$-ray emission. This emission may be detectable by the next generation of $`\gamma `$-ray satellites with improved sensitivity (e.g. AGILE and GLAST). Moreover we note the possible correlation of GC 0109+224 with one of the highest energy cosmic-rays events ever detected, $`E=(1.72.6)\times 10^{20}`$eV, on Dec. 3, 1993 (Farrar & Biermann, 1998). In the scenario evading the GZK-cutoff, the primaries produced by particle acceleration in a blazar, should travel extragalactic distances not deflected, pointing directly to its source, and under this assumption the probability of a coincidental alignment of that event with GC 0109+224 was only $`0.5\%`$ (Farrar & Biermann, 1998).

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

In this work we have reported and analysed the largest amount of radio and optical data ever published on the BL Lac object GC 0109+224, collected over more than twenty years, and we have reconstructed also the most complete multiwavelength SED available. Some results are found, but also open questions are arisen. GC 0109+224 is an example of a blazar which can produce strong outburst at high radio frequencies (2-3 Jy at $`\nu 20`$ GHz), but can remain relatively quiet ($`0.3`$Jy GB6 survey) for long periods. The flux density variability is characterized by intermittent behaviour, with a not regular alternation of relatively large amplitude flares, and flickering phases, both in radio and optical regimes. The source varies over all timescales sampled (days, months, years). Optical flares are clearly much faster with respect to the radio-mm bands, and some particularly large optical outbursts do not have obvious counterparts at mm and radio wavelengths. This could suggest additional or different emitting components responsible for the radio and the optical emission, and/or more rapid cooling of the synchrotron particles at higher frequencies. Moreover radio flares, due to the longer duty cycles, can blend, inhibiting the identification of radio counterparts of the optical flares.

The radio light curves appear well correlated at the different frequencies, around the zero lag. The radio–optical cross–correlation peaks, found in all the bands around the lag of 2.1-2.4 years, are extended and have low values (ZDCCF $`<0.62`$). The complexity, spread and low values of the correlation peaks, the impossibility to visually recognize the lags in the light curves, the very different duty-cycles, and especially such long delays, suggest that there is not a real correlation, and no physical meaning in the two-year lag. Other shorter delays around 33, 190, and 500 days are not significant because they are found with very small correlation coefficients. Fig. 3 shows also that the signal is weak at zero time lag (between optical and 37-22 GHz curves). This means that strong events in the optical bands do not have a simultaneous recognizable counterpart in the radio bands. Maybe additional processes and/or different regions are responsible for the emission at different frequencies (optical photons could be generated into jet components of different size and dynamics, in correspondence to the radio emission). A certain level of confusion is undoubtedly created by induced causes (i.e. the large empty gaps in the optical light curve data). Only with continuous monitoring over longer periods, with reduced gaps, will clarify the existence of physical radio–optical delays in this source.

The DCF and SF shapes reflect the underlying nature of the process that created the radio variability. Both methods demonstrate, for GC 0109+224, a fluctuation mode between the flickering and the shot noise (i.e. $`P(f)1/f^\alpha `$), with $`1.39<\alpha <1.65`$. A similar behaviour was found also for the optical emission (Ciprini et al., 2003a, b) of this source. This power spectrum is characteristic of a random walk. In the case of the best sampled 22 GHz light curve, the value $`\alpha =1.65`$ found, is in strict agreement with the $`5/3`$ value of the fully develop turbulence in the scalar theory of Kolmogorov. Such variability could be related to fluctuations of the magnetic field, or of the bulk motion velocity of the emitting regions inside the jet.

There is no evidence from our data, for long term periodic variations with a fixed period, but typical timescales in the ranges of $`3.24.5`$ years are implied, with all the applied methods (DCF, SF, periodogram). The more rapid flickering synchrotron peaks, seem superimposed to long term trends in the radio. This could also be the result of flares blending with long cooling times, as mentioned above.

The increased activity and mean flux level, well observed in all the radio–optical bands, suggest that the same emission mechanism is responsible for radiation in both spectral regimes, i.e. the synchrotron radiation from shocked plasma into the jet, as seen also in the SED. Synchrotron emission in GC 0109+224 is probably dominant and powerful ($`L_{syn}/L_{IC}>1`$), as suggested by the high degree of the polarization, and by the absence of emission lines ($`z`$ is still undetermined). The relatively high degree of linear polarization observed could mean a weaker connection with the usual depolarization effects, which is a common affliction of blazars jets (like influence of a luminous host galaxy). The overall SED of GC 0109+224, shows a smooth synchrotron continuum peaked in the near-IR-optical range (as showed by intermediate blazars). Also our homogeneous SSC modelling suggests a relatively high magnetic field and synchrotron luminosity, diminishing the self-Compton radiation, even thought the multiwavelength data reported are insufficient to fully constrain the models. In particular GC 0109+224, suffers from substantial lack of data in millimetre sub-mm and infrared bands, to check the importance of a possible thermal emission component (and also the possibility of external-Compton contributions).

Despite of the common deficiency of infrared data, and difficulties for far and mid-IR blazar monitoring, we suggest at least millimetre observations, due to the intense radiation which GC 0109+224 seems produce at these frequencies. X-ray observations of this blazar are also strongly encouraged, to check the presence of the high energy component in the spectrum. The high energy predictions for an intermediate blazar suffer uncertainties that become relevant in high energy tails, even when only using leptonic models (Böttcher et al., 2002). Moreover the X-ray data are insufficient to permit any prediction about TeV gamma-rays from this object (due to the suggested $`z>0.4`$, TeV emission might be interesting for studies on the extragalactic background light by absorption cutoffs). However millimetre brightness, and synchrotron emission peaked at optical frequencies, could imply a GeV gamma-ray radiation detectable by the next-generation of gamma-ray space telescopes. An increased observing effort for this source, especially at X-ray bands and beyond (for example GC 0109+224 is just scheduled to be observed by Integral Pian, 2002)), together with a better monitoring in radio-mm-optical bands, will clarify some of the questions that have arisen in our data and analysis. In this view our data and work will be useful database.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Kyle Augustson for useful comments. The Mets hovi Radio Observatory is an institute of the Helsinki University of Technology, partially financed by the Academy of Finland. The UMRAO is supported by the US National Science Foundation, and by funds from the University of Michigan. The optical monitoring program of the Perugia University Observatory was partly supported by the Italian MIUR under grant Cofin2002. The European Institutes belonging also to the ENIGMA collaboration acknowledge EC funding under contract HPRN-CT-2002-00321. This research has made use also of: SIMBAD database (CDS, Strasbourg), NASA/IPAC NED database (JPL CalTech and NASA), HEASARC database (LHEA NASA/GSFC and SAO), NASA’s ADS digital library.


text:
# X-ray emission from Saturn

## 1 Introduction

X-ray emission from solar system objects has so far been detected from the Earth (Grader et al., 1968; Rugge et al., 1979; Fink et al., 1988), from the Moon (Gorenstein et al., 1974; Schmitt et al., 1991), from a number of comets (e.g., Lisse et al., 1996; Dennerl et al., 1997; Mumma et al., 1997), from Jupiter (Metzger et al., 1983), from the Galilean satellites Io and Europa (Elsner et al., 2002), from Venus (Dennerl et al., 2002), Mars (Dennerl, 2002), and marginally from Saturn (Ness & Schmitt, 2000). The observed X-ray emission appears to have different physical origins in the different objects. The principal X-ray production mechanism for Moon, Earth, Venus, and Mars is scattering of solar X-rays. Auroral X-ray emission has been found from the Earth and from Jupiter, and similar emission from the outer planets is anticipated.

Aurorae on Earth and Jupiter are generated by charged particles precipitating into the planetary atmosphere along the magnetic field lines. While at Earth the precipitating flux consists of solar wind electrons, Einstein observations were interpreted in a way that the Jovian X-rays are caused by heavy ion precipitation with oxygen and sulfur ions originating from the volcanically active moon Io (e.g., Metzger et al., 1983). Further support for this scenario came from a direct observation of heavy ions in Jupiter’s magnetosphere with the Voyager spacecraft and from a comparison of ROSAT observations in the soft X-ray spectrum with model-generated bremsstrahlung and line emission spectra (Waite et al., 1994). In an analysis of O i ($`\lambda `$1304) and S ii ($`\lambda `$1256) measured with HST, Trafton et al. (1998) found only upper limits, but they note that these upper limits were still consistent with the existence of sufficient heavy ions among the precipitating particles to explain the X-ray observations. However, a recent Chandra HRC observation of Jupiter carried out in December 2000 for an entire 10 hour rotation (Waite, 2002; Gladstone & Majeed, 2001) has put serious doubt on this theory. The X-ray emission in their high-resolution image is found to be concentrated near the magnetic poles, and a peculiar 45 minute pulsation similar to high-latitude radio pulsations previously detected by the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft was found. The production of X-ray emission concentrated so close to the poles cannot be explained by ions coming from near Io’s orbit. The polar emission was identified to be stronger at the north pole than in the south polar region (Waite et al., 1996). Also, equatorial emission was identified at a low level, probably originating from different scatter mechanisms of solar X-rays. An analysis of Chandra observations with ACIS from November 1999 also showed evidence for soft X-ray emission from the Galilean satellites Io and Europa, and probably Ganymede (Elsner et al., 2002). They interpret the emission as a result of bombardment of their surfaces by energetic ($`>10`$ keV) H, O, and S ions originating from the region of the Io Plasma Torus (IPT). The IPT itself was found to emit soft X-rays, which appears at the low end of the ACIS-S3 energy band, but Elsner et al. (2002) found an unresolved line or line complex indicative of oxygen.

### 1.1 Previous X-ray observations of Saturn

Saturn was observed with the Einstein Observatory IPC for about 10 ksec, but no X-ray emission was detected, leading Gilman et al. (1986) to the conclusion that instead of heavy ion precipitation, electron bremsstrahlung was the more likely X-ray production mechanism for Saturn. With this assumption they calculated a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit for the Saturnian X-ray flux at Earth of $`1.710^{13}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$, a value consistent with an expected energy flux at Earth of $`810^{16}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$, obtained from a model calculation by Gilman et al. (1986) based on UV observations (Sandel et al., 1982) and the assumption of thick-target bremsstrahlung at high latitudes.
A marginal X-ray detection of Saturn was obtained in a systematic analysis of ROSAT PSPC data on trans-Jovian planets by Ness & Schmitt (2000), although no detection was expected from auroral thick target bremsstrahlung models. In a 5349 seconds PSPC observation 22 counts were recorded in a box centered at the position of Saturn while only 7.6 counts were expected from background. The probability of measuring 22 counts or more with only 7.6 counts being expected is $`1.710^5`$, assuming Poisson statistics, hence the formal significance of the detection is quite high. The 14.4 counts, formally attributed to Saturn correspond to an energy flux of $`1.910^{14}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$ using a conversion factor of $`610^{12}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$. This value is significantly higher than the model calculation by Gilman et al. (1986) but it is not in contradiction to the upper limit estimated from the Einstein observation. In any case, Saturn is not as X-ray bright as Jupiter, and little could be inferred about the X-ray spectrum of Saturn, except that it should be very soft since no detection in the hard ROSAT band was obtained. Also, nothing could be derived about the spatial location of the Saturnian X-ray source because of the low counting statistics and the low angular resolution of the ROSAT PSPC. A recent observation of Saturn with XMM-Newton is presented by Ness et al. (2004) and their results compare very well with our Chandra observations.
We present a new observation of Saturn carried out with Chandra. With the high spatial resolution of the ACIS detectors, we choose an exposure time of $`70`$ ksec, sufficiently high to detect X-ray emission even if, in a worst case, the emission was randomly distributed over the planetary surface. The observation setup and data analysis is described in Sect. 2, the results are described in Sect. 3 and discussed in Sect. 4, and our conclusions are presented in Sect. 5.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

### 2.1 Observations

In April 2003, we obtained an X-ray observation of Saturn with ACIS-S3 aboard Chandra for a total of 71.5 ksec, but Saturn was actually only 65.5 ksec in the field of view (see Table 1). We used the back-illuminated S3 chip in order to take advantage of this CCD’s sensitivity to low energy X-rays. The primary concern of the observational setup was loading the CCD due to optical light from Saturn. Scaling from earlier observations of Jupiter, we expected an optical load of about 8 ADU/pixel per 3.2 second ACIS frame. While this is below the event split event definition and would not by itself create false events, it would strongly bias the data toward higher energies. We used the 1/4 subarray mode to reduce the frame time and thus lower the expected optical loading to about 2 ADU/pixel/frame. In order to measure and correct for the residual loading of the CCD due to optical light from Saturn we used the “Very Faint” (VF) telemetry format. The telemetry saturation limit in this mode is 68.8 events per second. We found on average 5 events per second and clearly lost no frames. The spacecraft was re-pointed after the first 35 ksec to follow the planet’s proper motion. Each pointing was oriented so that the planetary motion went from one extrema to the other of the subarray traveling along the CCD’s node one, perpendicular to the long axis of the subarray.

The observation setup was chosen to prevent optical loading. From the photon events (Fig. 1) no indication for the rings can be recognized, which would have shown up in the case of optical loading. We therefore conclude that the setup was successful. Nevertheless we applied an energy correction scheme “biasevt1.pl” developed by Peter G. Ford from MIT. This perl script corrects the nominal 3x3 event island by using information contained in the 5x5-pixel event island telemetered in the Very Faint Mode. The typical region of influence of an X-ray event is limited to a central pixel and adjacent pixels. Members of the event island separated from the central pixel by an intermediate pixel provide information on the local background. For each event, biasevt1.pl subtracts the mean PHA value calculated from the outer 16 pixels from the PHA of each of the inner nine pixels. Filters are applied to reject background which is contaminated by an X-ray event. This simulates what the PHA values would have been in the absence of optical loading. The mean shift per pixel in the 3x3 event island was 1.14 ADU, consistent with expectations. The data are then reprocessed with the CIAO tool acis\_process\_events to recalculate the event’s true total pulse height after Charge Transfer Inefficiency (CTI) corrections are made. Finally acis\_process\_events applied a gain correction to each event to determine the final energy. The pixel coordinates listed in the processed data file are converted into sky-centered RA and DEC positions using the CIAO dmcopy command. In order to test for the effects from the energy correction scheme, we compared the spectra obtained from the corrected dataset and from the non-corrected dataset. We found the two spectra to be practically identical as expected from the small ($`<`$ 2 ADU) spectral shift.

### 2.2 How to find Saturn’s X-ray photons

The photon positions on the original sky-centered image (in RA/DEC coordinates) show no trace of Saturn nor can any strong background sources be identified. We calculated an expected path using ephemeris data from the JPL/SSD ephemeris generator111http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eph and orbit data of the satellite provided in the orbit file (which is part of the ephemeris products delivered with the observation). The coordinates of Saturn at start and stop time of the observation are given in Table 1.

From the expected position of Saturn at any given time during the observation we calculate offset coordinates with respect to the center of Saturn from the RA and DEC coordinates for each individual photon222Since the RA axis increases from right to left we flipped the offset positions for a correct representation, yielding up=North and left=East. This transformation shifts all photons that potentially originate from Saturn to a central “saturnocentric” position. We verified our extraction procedures with the Chandra data on Jupiter, which is so strong, that all X-ray photons originating from Jupiter can be identified without any shifting. In Fig. 1 the transformed photon positions are shown in “saturnocentric” coordinates. The extraction regions for the source (circle with 17.5″ diameter at origin; see Table 1) and background (large boxes above and below the source) are overlaid. The effective exposure time is significantly smaller towards high offset values, an effect due to the transformation. We investigated this effect by constructing a rough exposure map consisting of nine vertical strips. For each strip we calculate the effective exposure time from the difference of photon arrival times of the first and last photon. We found the effective exposure time to vary significantly from the central strip to high offset values. For the background extraction we therefore choose the extraction regions near the RA position of the source and the offset mainly in DEC direction, i.e., above and below the source. The extraction regions are marked in Fig. 1 and the number of photons counted in each extraction region is given above the respective region.
With the chosen background method we neglect effects from background contributions from real X-rays from behind Saturn, which will show up in our extracted background, but are blocked by the planet in the source extraction region. This implies an overestimation of the instrumental background and thus an underestimation of the source flux. Background studies at high galactic latitudes were carried out by, e.g., Markevitch et al. (2003), indicating a low X-ray background contribution at sufficiently high galactic latitudes. From their wide-band fluxes we estimate the source flux for Saturn to be underestimated by at most 10%. For conservative analysis we apply no corrections on our instrumental background.

### 2.3 Lightcurve and Spectrum

For the analysis of the X-ray lightcurve and the X-ray spectrum of Saturn the photons within a circle of 10″ radius around its nominal position were used. This radius is somewhat larger than the 8.75″ radius of the Saturnian disk, to ensure that all photons from Saturn are collected, allowing for uncertainties in the absolute attitude reconstruction and some redistribution of the photons due to the PSF of the X-ray telescope. In order to avoid any effect from different exposure times along the x-axis, we choose the extraction regions for the background as vertical strips above and below the source, just as in Fig. 1. With this extraction radius we analyze 197 counts with an expectation of 72.4 counts from the background. We binned the arrival times and the photon energies with binsizes 4.6 ksec for the light curve and 50 eV energy bins for the spectrum. For the spectrum we used only photons below 2 keV (Fig. 6). We counted the photons assigned to Saturn and to the background separately (see Fig. 1) in each bin in order to obtain a spectrum and a lightcurve for the source and the background. The results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and are discussed in Sect. 3.
For the purpose of spectral modeling with XSPEC the raw spectrum of Saturn was adaptively rebinned so that each bin contains at least 15 photons. The spectral modification due to the contamination layer on ACIS was taken into account by a multiplicative term acisabs.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Identification of X-rays from Saturn

In Fig. 1 we show the result from our transformation procedure. The axes give the offset coordinates from the center of Saturn. From the circular extraction region centered on Saturn’s expected position we find 162 counts in the energy range 0.1–2 keV within the known optical extent of Saturn’s disk. We estimate the number of background photons (assuming of course a constant background level) contained in the source extraction region to be 56 counts. Obviously, this detection is highly significant. The probability of measuring 162 counts with 56 expected from the background is zero for all practical purposes. Therefore the ROSAT detection of Saturn reported by Ness & Schmitt (2000) is confirmed. With these numbers and the assumption of Poissonian statistics we calculate a net count rate of (106 $`\pm `$ 12.7 cts)/65.5 ksec $`=(1.6\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2})10^3`$ cts/s.

### 3.2 Spatial distribution of Saturnian X-ray emission

In order to identify Saturn as an X-ray source in our Chandra image we assumed a spatial extent identical to the apparent optical diameter of Saturn’s disk. Having found X-ray emission from Saturn we calculated the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal attributable to Saturn as a function of the radius of the chosen annular extraction region. We find a relatively broad maximum extending about 1″ beyond Saturn’s apparent optical radius, however, given the relatively small number statistics and the broad nature of the maximum, we conclude that there is at the moment no reason to assume an X-ray halo extending substantially above Saturn’s limb.

We next investigated the spatial distribution of the recorded photons on Saturn’s apparent disk. In Fig. 2 we plot the photons over an optical image333Provided by Bernd Flach-Wilken, April 14, 19h UT, with 300mm-Schiefspiegler Feff=6m, ST237, 18 $`\times `$ 0.1 sec + Philips ToUCam, 20 sec taken simultaneously with the Chandra observation. At the time of our observation the Saturnian rings covered the northern hemisphere potentially blocking X-ray emission originating from the northern polar region. The planet was inclined by $`27^{}`$. The geometrical equator is marked by a red line and the symbols representing the recorded X-ray photons are scaled with the respective photon energies. We identify a concentration of 500 eV and 800 eV photons on Saturn’s disk compared to the background. In order to investigate the homogeneity of the X-ray emission we divided Saturn’s apparent disk into three regions, a northern cap (NC) and southern (SC) polar cap with each 28.7 % of the total area, and an equatorial belt (EB) containing 42.6 % of the total area. Assuming an equal surface brightness disk we would expect 46.5, 69.0, and 46.5 counts in NC, EB, and SC, respectively, which has to be contrasted with 27, 93, and 42 counts actually recorded in NC, EB, and SC, respectively. The procedure is illustrated in Fig. 3. We carried out the same analysis with the much higher SNR data available for Jupiter and found a concentration in the polar caps compared to the equatorial belt. Obviously, the spatial distribution of the X-ray emission in Jupiter and Saturn is quite different. Saturn’s X-ray emission is indeed distributed inhomogeneously over its apparent disk. While for Jupiter there is a concentration towards the poles, there is a deficit of emission from Saturn’s northern polar region, which was occulted by the ring system at the time of our observations. However, the southern polar cap shows a deficit as well and there is definitely a detectable concentration of the X-ray emission towards the equator of the apparent disk. Testing the hypothesis of a uniform distribution over the disk excluding the northern cap we find an expected total number of uniformly distributed counts in EB and SC of 80.6 counts in EB and 54.4 counts in SC, which has to be contrasted with 93 and 42 counts, respectively. Under the assumption of Poissonian statistics we calculate a total (reduced) $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2=2.64`$. This value allows the hypothesis of a uniform distribution to be true with a probability of less than 10% ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2=2.99`$) but more than 5% ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2=2.3`$).
For a visual impression we constructed Voronoi areas comprising all points closer to each particular photon. Since from the 162 photons counted within the optical radius, 56 are statistically expected to belong to the background, we mark the 106 smallest Voronoi polygons with grey color in Fig. 3 in order to identify regions of high source intensity. The next 12 smallest areas are marked with a lighter grey to mark a 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level. It can be seen that the highest concentration is found in the center of the image. With the inclination angle of $`27^{}`$ all emission therefore originates from the southern hemisphere, but an enhancement of source emission towards the south pole cannot be identified. This effect is difficult to understand in terms of internal production mechanisms, but some scattering processes of solar X-rays (backscattering, fluorescent scattering) could be an explanation for the geometrical distribution of X-rays, if we assume that the rings have a much lower X-ray albedo than the planetary disk and that they attenuate any X-ray radiation from the planet below.

From close inspection of the individual X-ray photons overlayed over the optical image in Fig. 2 we identify some excess in X-rays coinciding with one edge of the ring system which cannot be seen on the other side of the rings. We marked this area by the smaller circle at x$``$-16″ and it is remarkable that the photons in this region have all roughly the same energy. In the same fashion as for Saturn (Sect. 2.2 and Fig. 1) we extract those photons within a circle of radius 4″ (and background from boxes above and below) and found 22 cts with 11 expected from the background. When doing the same extraction procedure only for photons within 200-900 eV, the significance is higher: still 22 cts but with only 6 cts expected from the background. Interestingly an extraction in the 10 ksec time interval 36 ksec to 46 ksec (thus right after the re-pointing) returns 10 cts with only 1.5 cts expected from the background. We checked the arrival times of these photons, but find a concentration at the time right after the re-pointing of the telescope at t$`35`$ ksec not significant. We are not aware of any consequences from the re-pointing that might lead to such a photon excess. From the statistical point of view the detection of 22 cts is significant, at least within the reduced energy interval 200-900 eV. We analyzed the original (non-transformed) chip in this energy range and searched for regions with 22 photons or more counted in circles with 4″ radius. The highest count number we found was 20 counts, but the count statistics suggests a Poissonian statistics with a peak at only 3.2 counts. With the same search repeated for the chip in transformed coordinates we detected the 22 counts at the edge of the ring system and only one further denser region with 20 counts at x$`=12.5`$″ and y$`=70`$″. After this exercise we regard the photon excess at the edge of the ring system as significant, but we have no suggestion for a production mechanism. It is not clear why this excess is seen on only one side of the ring system. We checked the moons, but none was near that particular position at any time during the observation444http://ringmaster.arc.nasa.gov. Also, a background source is improbable, because we did not find the source on the non-transformed detector coordinate system. The ”light curve” of these photons shows no significant anomaly, such that no instrumental effect can be held responsible.

### 3.3 Lightcurve

As described in Sect. 2 we extracted the lightcurve and the spectrum of the photons within 10″ around the apparent position of Saturn. We plot the lightcurve with a time binning of 4600 sec in Fig. 5. The dip at 35 ksec is due to the gap between the two consecutive observations with the Chandra spacecraft being repointed to follow Saturn’s apparent motion. For about 6 ksec Saturn was actually outside the field of view. The count statistics is obviously poor, however, there is a hint for two dips possibly caused by rotational modulation. We therefore generated a phased lightcurve using the known rotation period of Saturn (0.436 days=37.67 ksec) shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 5; for Fig. 5 a phase binsize of 0.1 was used; note that because of the exposure history and the rotation period of Saturn almost no coverage was obtained for the phase bin between 0.8 and 1.0. In the phased up light curve there appears to be a minimum between phases 0.35 – 0.50. In order to assess the statistical significance of this dip we generated random phased light curves with the same number of photons as recorded from our Saturn observation, uniformly distributed over the available phase space. We determined the number of photons recorded in a phase interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =00.15`$ such that the actual number of recorded photons is minimal. A comparison of those numerical experiments with the numbers obtained for Saturn shows that there is a chance of about 15% to obtain a phase dip of the same strength as recorded for Saturn in a data set with constant count rate. We therefore conclude that there is no evidence for a rotationally modulated signal and data covering far more than two rotation periods are required for statistically significant studies.

### 3.4 Spectrum

The spectrum of the photons centered on Saturn’s position is shown in Fig. 6. The emission feature at $`300`$ eV can be identified both in the source and in the background. The drop in counts just above 300 eV corresponds to the carbon K-edge in the optical blocking filter. The drop in counts at lower energies is also due to absorption in this filter. Additional emission features between 500 eV and 800 eV can only be identified for the source. We tested a number of spectral models, and in the bottom panel of Fig. 6 we show the rebinned spectrum with our best-fit model, but we point out that the number of photons is insufficient to arrive at firm statements from the spectral modeling alone.

As a first approach we tested models assuming several single production mechanisms (fluorescent scattering, solar wind charge exchange as observed in comets, a powerlaw spectrum, thermal bremsstrahlung, black body, and a MEKAL and Raymond-Smith spectrum, representing continuum plus line emission in thermal equilibrium). We found no convincing proof for any of these models to fully explain the X-ray emission from Saturn. Good fits were found with the black body model (kT=0.18 keV, $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2=0.7`$ for 10 dof), but it has no physical meaning. MEKAL and Raymond-Smith models yield only good fits with adjusted elemental abundances. However, the spectral resolution does not allow to claim abundance anomalies with high significance. If solar X-ray emission was involved, we would expect to see the incident solar X-ray spectrum with solar abundances.
In addition to single production mechanisms we considered a combination of two mechanisms and obtained a good fit with a MEKAL model with solar abundances combined with a single line from oxygen K-$`\alpha `$ ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2=0.9`$ for 9 dof). This fit is shown in Fig. 6. According to the best-fit we find fluxes (0.1–2 keV) of $`1.2610^{15}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$ to be contained in the fluorescence line and $`5.510^{15}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$ in the MEKAL model. The total flux in the energy interval 0.1–2 keV derived from the best fit is $`6.710^{15}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$, which is about 35% of the flux reported by Ness & Schmitt (2000).

## 4 Discussion

With our 65.5 ksec Chandra observation we clearly detect X-ray emission originating from Saturn. The high spatial resolution allows to resolve the spatial origin of the X-rays, the long exposure time covering two rotational periods allows to find temporal anomalies, and the energy resolution allows to extract a spectrum, but all analyses going beyond the pure detection are difficult given the small number of photons. Nevertheless we studied spatial, temporal, and spectral signatures to the extent of qualitative statements, but quantitative analysis requires more photons that can only be gathered with more observing time.

Our spectral modeling with XSPEC cannot give definitive answers for individual production mechanisms. Additional hints come from the spatial distribution and from comparison with other planets. We discuss potential production mechanisms in the following.

### 4.1 Single production scenarios

Auroral X-ray emission is expected to be concentrated towards the polar regions as was found for Jupiter, while for Saturn we found no such concentration in the southern polar region. However, this is required for auroral emission, because Saturn’s magnetic field is aligned with the rotation axis. Also, UV auroral emission was found to be concentrated towards Saturn’s poles (Trauger et al., 1997). However, a clear deficit of UV emission from the south pole is seen on recent HST observations taken one month before our observations (Karkoschka, 2003). The model calculations by Gilman et al. (1986) are based on thick target bremsstrahlung at high latitudes and their flux estimates are significantly below our measured flux level. If the X-ray emission from the south pole reflects the flux level predicted by Gilman et al. (1986), we would not be able to isolate the spectral signature from this emission in the spectrum. In our measurement auroral emission is therefore not detected, but it cannot be excluded that auroral X-ray emission originating only from the northern hemisphere was occulted by the ring system.
Interestingly a Black Body model with kT=0.18 keV yields a good spectral fit, but a physical meaning is difficult to find. The X-ray flux obtained with this model is $`f_X=4.410^{15}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$ in the energy interval 0.1–2 keV.
Fluorescent Scattering of solar X-rays in the upper atmosphere of Saturn, the dominant process for the X-ray radiation observed from Venus and Mars, would produce narrow emission lines from the most abundant elements in the atmosphere. Elemental abundances are given by (Cameron, 1982): helium (0.14 H2), oxygen ($`1.410^3`$ H2), carbon ($`810^4`$ H2), neon ($`210^4`$ H2), and nitrogen ($`1.810^4`$ H2). We found spectral models with up to four single (narrow) emission lines discrepant from the spectrum. The oxygen fluorescence flux measured for Mars was $`5.410^5\text{ ph\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$ (Dennerl, 2002). With the assumption of equal physical conditions we can scale this flux level to Saturn using the apparent diameter of Mars (20.3″) and the distance (1.446 AU). We thus expect fluorescent emission from Saturn a factor 50 lower than for Mars, thus $`10^6\text{ ph\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$. When compared to the Black-body photon flux ($`8.710^6\text{ ph\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$) this implies that only about 10% of the total flux can be caused by fluorescent scattering.
Power Law and Thermal Bremsstrahlung can be excluded from the spectral modeling and the expected spectrum from Solar Wind charge exchange is too soft to explain the measured spectrum.
Backscattering of solar X-rays, as suggestive from the spatial distribution, would result in an X-ray spectrum resembling the incident solar spectrum. Raymond-Smith and MEKAL models yield good fits, but only with adjusted abundances. When assuming the X-ray luminosity of the Sun to be $`L_X=210^{27}`$ erg/s (which is a high figure), an albedo for Saturn can be estimated from the measured X-ray flux from Saturn and the distance between the Sun and Saturn (9 AU; Table 1). With the flux obtained from the blackbody model, $`f_X=4.410^{15}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$, we find an albedo of $`>5.710^4`$, which appears to be quite high. Schmitt et al. (1991) measured X-ray emission from the Moon ($`L_X=7.310^{11}\text{ erg}\text{ s}^1`$), and they reported clear evidence for scattering of solar X-rays. The albedo of the moon is then calculated to $`10^5`$. Although elastic backscattering of solar X-rays is suggestive from the spatial distribution, it is not consistent with the solar spectrum, and the albedo would have to be significantly higher than for the moon.

### 4.2 Combination of scatter processes

Since no definitive results were obtained from considering isolated processes, we modeled the spectra of two possible scenarios operating in conjunction with each other. We modeled the spectrum resulting from backscattering (resulting in a MEKAL spectrum with solar abundance) and from fluorescence of the most abundant element besides H and He: oxygen (narrow emission line at 527 eV). The combined spectrum yields a good fit with a temperature of kT$`=0.39\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}`$ keV in the MEKAL model (Fig. 6, bottom). The formal photon flux in the fluorescence line is only 10% of the total flux ($`1.910^6\text{ ph\hspace{0.17em}cm}^2\text{ s}^1`$). This is consistent with the expected fluorescent flux level scaled from Mars, but the remaining 90% of the emission is yet to be explained.
From the combined spectral model we calculate an X-ray luminosity of $`8.710^{14}\text{ erg}\text{ s}^1`$. This can be compared to Jupiter’s equatorial emission reported to be $`3.610^{15}\text{ erg}\text{ s}^1`$ (Waite et al., 1996), a factor 4.1 higher than Saturn’s X-ray luminosity. When scaling for different distance and diameters (Jupiter’s distance 5.4 AU and diameter 143000 km and Saturn’s diameter 120500 km), we expect a factor 3.9 higher luminosity for Jupiter’s equatorial regions, which is consistent with our measured model flux. The similar luminosity levels suggest similar production mechanisms for Jupiter’s non-auroral emission and Saturn’s total emission. While Waite et al. (1997) explain the equatorial emission by heavy ion precipitation, Maurellis et al. (2000) modeled two alternative mechanisms for low-altitude X-rays and found solar photon scattering (90% elastic scattering and 10% fluorescent scattering) consistent with ROSAT measurements. However, their models predict non-auroral luminosities ($`310^7`$ W) about a factor 10 below the power output derived from the observations ($`3.610^8`$ W; Waite et al., 1996). This is in line with our considerations about the required albedo for scatter processes. It would be an interesting finding if the albedo of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn were so much higher than the albedo for the moon.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

X-ray emission from solar system objects has revealed a large variety of production mechanisms ranging from reflection of solar X-rays (Moon), solar wind charge exchange in comets, fluorescent scattering of solar X-rays in Venus and Mars to magnetically induced auroral emission in Earth and Jupiter. Since Saturn is a gas planet with a magnetic field and auroral UV emission (e.g., Ballester et al., 1985; Trauger et al., 1997; Bhardwaj & Gladstone, 2000), a certain level of X-ray emission has always been expected. We carried out a Chandra observation of Saturn with the intention to unambiguously detect X-ray emission from Saturn. A concentration towards the poles would have been easier to detect, but with our observation settings we were able to establish an unambiguous detection of X-ray emission from Saturn, although no strong spatial concentration of X-ray photons was found. A smoothed image of Saturn with a drawing of Saturn at the time of the observation is shown in Fig. 4. The production mechanism(s) for the detected X-ray emission cannot clearly be allocated from the available data. Possibly a combination of several processes must be considered, but due to the limited spectral signature we focused only on some possible scenarios as isolated cases. We essentially found no convincing case, but the combination of two scatter mechanisms, namely, elastic backscatter and fluorescent scattering of solar X-rays, yield good spectral fits, are consistent with the detected spatial distribution, but require an albedo a factor 50 higher than for the moon.

Clearly, the X-ray production mechanisms for Saturn are different from those for Jupiter. Not only the X-ray flux is significantly lower than Jupiter’s flux, but also the spatial distribution appears to be different. A concentration towards the poles as encountered for Jupiter suggests magnetic fields to play an important role, which is the case in most intrinsic X-ray production mechanisms as, e.g., the solar corona. From two ROSAT HRI observations of Jupiter in 1992 and 1994 more auroral X-ray emission from the northern hemisphere than from the south pole was found (Waite et al., 1996). This asymmetry is also seen in UV emission (Livengood, 1991). A correlation of auroral activity with infrared emission from H3+ was reported by Caldwell et al. (1980) for Jupiter and by Stallard et al. (1999) for Saturn with variable infrared fluxes from both poles. From our X-ray observation we have no evidence at all for auroral emission from Saturn, however, the northern polar region was occulted by the ring system. If the north-south asymmetry phenomenon found for Jupiter applies to Saturn as well, more emission with a soft signature is expected to be measured when the north pole is not eclipsed. Such a view was observed by ROSAT, but the detection was so marginal that additional observations with Chandra are necessary to make a better case.

We found our emission level consistent with equatorial emission from Jupiter reported by Waite et al. (1996), and since our X-ray emission is concentrated towards the central part of the apparent disk the same production mechanisms are anticipated. Bhardwaj et al. (2002) point out that elastic scattering ($`90`$%) in conjunction with other processes can easily account for Jupiter’s non-auroral emission and should not be underestimated. Our spectral models are consistent with this scenario and the spatial distribution is suggestive of scatter processes, but a high albedo is required for scatter scenarios both for Jupiter’s equatorial X-ray emission and for the detected X-ray emission from Saturn. We suspect more processes to operate in conjunction with scatter processes producing the high level of X-ray emission at low latitudes. Additional auroral emission at high northern latitudes cannot be ruled out from our observation, but could only be discovered when the northern hemisphere is not eclipsed.

###### Acknowledgements.

J.-U.N. acknowledges support from DLR under 50OR0105.