text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of the stuctrures of Hg and Pb nuclei, in particular of the neutron-deficient isotopes, has been a puzzle and still remains a puzzle. A variety of structures have been proposed by different calculations, some questioning even the magicity of Z=82 shell for nuclei at the proton-drip line. Already in early 1970’s, based on the Hartree-Fock (HF) calculation using Skyrme force, a shape transition from oblate to prolate in the ground-state of neutron-deficient Hg isotopes was reported with the decrease of mass number . On the contrary, the later calculations based on the Strutinsky prescription with BCS pairing  predicted an oblate ground-state for neutron-deficient Hg nuclei, agreeing with the experimental data on first excited 2+ states.

The relativistic mean field (RMF) calculation for the neutron-deficient Hg and Pb nuclei was first made by one of us and collaborators in 1994 , using the NL1 parameter set with the pairing interaction in BCS formalism, of constant gap parameters as in . This calculation gave rather unexpected results. The ground-state shape of even-even 178,182,184,186Hg was predicted to be prolate, and that of 184-196Pb isotopes as deformed having co-existing prolate and oblate shapes. A further stricking result was the superdeformed (SD) ground-state in 180Hg. According to a critique by Heyde et al. , the above RMF results must be due to a particular choice of the force parameter and the very schematic treatment of pairing. In response to this comment, Takigawa et al.  showed that a reduction of the gap parameter for neutrons by a factor of two with NL1 force, or by changing the force to NL-SH set, the ground-state of 180Hg does indeed changes from the superdeformed to one of the normal deformation. Depending on the strength of pairing gap for neutrons, it shifts from oblate to prolate, the SD state always remaing an excited state. However, for other neutron-deficient Hg and Pb nuclei, the change of the parameter set from NL1 to NL-SH did not alter much the predictions of either the prolate deformed ground-states of Hg or the deformed structures for Pb nuclei. However, another RMF calculation using NL3 force with BCS pairing shows all the neutron-deficient Pb nuclei to be spherical . This means that the criticism of Heyde et al.  for the RMF predictions of Hg and Pb ground-state strutures is answered only partially and the question of checking the sensitivity of RMF calculations to the choice of force parameter and/or the strength of pairing force needed further investigation.

Some further effort has been made for understanding the role of pairing strength in RMF calculations. Yoshida and Takigawa  have shown that a constant strength of the pairing interaction G (which makes the gap parameters strongly deformation dependent), instead of constant gap parameters (independent of the deformations) with NL1 force itself reproduces the oblate shapes and charge radii of neutron-deficient Hg isotopes and restores the magicity of Z=82 shell for all the Pb isotopes. In addition, the isotope shifts of Pb isotopes are well reproduced. This makes one feel that the problem is settled once for all, if the results of this calculation will be independent of the choice of the force parameter set NL1 and the average gap patrameters used for solving the pairing interaction equations for G. Instead, these authors suggested that, for exotic nuclei, the alternative, deformed relativistic Hartree-Bugoliubov (RHB) approach is superior to the BCS theory used by them, since it gives a unified description of both the mean-field and pairing correlations. Such a study is also taken up very recently by Nikšić et al.  for the ground state properties of neutron-deficient Pt, Hg and Pb nuclei, using the NL3 parameter set with finite range Gogny interaction DIS . However, the results of this calculation opens up the problem once again, since they again predict 188-194Pb nuclei as oblate deformed in their ground-states. Thus, in order to keep the magicity of Z=82 shell, a new parametrization, NL-SC, is proposed which takes into account the sizes of spherical shell gaps, particularly at Z=82, and hence reproduces the experimental data on binging energies, radii and ground-state deformations of these nuclei. However, such an effective interaction could not be considered as general and may not describe accurately the ground-state shapes of nuclei in other regions of shape co-existence.

The puzzle on structures of Hg and Pb nuclei at the proton-drip line is further complicated by the most recent large-scale mass measurements of proton-rich nuclei around Z=82 . The reduction of two-proton separation energies \[rather, the differences between two-proton separation energies of adjacent even-even nuclei with the same neutron number, $`\delta _{2p}=S_{2p}(Z,N)S_{2p}(Z+2,N)`$\], for Pb nuclei with N$``$106 , combined with the systematics of older measurements of $`Q_\alpha `$-values and $`\alpha `$-reduced widths , suggests the weakening of the spherical Z=82 shell for neutron number in between N=82 and 126. Using the non-relativistic self-consistent mean-field theory with Skyrme interaction or the RMF model with NL3 and NL-Z2 parameter sets in BCS approximation of pairing, Bender et al.  show that the systematics of $`\delta _{2p}`$ could well be described quantitatively in terms of the deformed ground states of Hg and Po isotopes. Already, a tripple shape co-existence (spherical, oblate and prolate shapes of almost identical excitation energies) is observed in 186Pb . Also, the earlier calculations based on RMF approach show that the Z=N=28 looses its magicity for nuclei approaching the neutron dripline  and that for the valley of superheavy nuclei the sequence of magic numbers is different from the usual one . These results make us believe that we could still learn much from the standard RMF model calculations, using the BCS formalism for pairing interaction, provided a systematic attempt is made for a number of parameter sets. We do this here for the parameter sets NL1, NL3, NL-SH, NL-RA1 and TM1, for the pairing gap parameters still taken from Madland and Nix . This covers almost the entire range of the generally used force parameter sets for RMF model calculations. The case of zero pairing is also investigated. We find that some of the results do depend strongly on the choice of the parameter set. The already used parameter sets NL1, NL3 and NL-SH are also included here for the relative comparisons of the calculations made under similar conditions.

The paper is organised as follows: In section 2 we outline the essential formalism for the relativistic mean field Lagrangian. The results of our calculation for 170-200Hg and 178-208Pb nuclei are discussed in section 3. We look for the shape co-existence and possible deformation effects in this island of Z=80 and 82 nuclei. The ground-state and the first exited-state solutions are obtained for all the nuclei studied and the constrined potential energy sufaces (PES) are calculated for a few illustrative nuclei. For the deformation effects, the quadrupole deformation parameters and the single-particle energy spectra for both the spherical and deformed nuclei are analyzed. Finally a summary of our conclusions is added in section 4.

## 2 The formalism

In the last two decades, the RMF model has become known to be a very powerful tool to explain the properties of finite nuclei and infinite nuclear matter . The RMF method has the advantage that, with proper relativistic kinematics and with the mesons and their properties already known or fixed from the proprties of a few nuclei , the method gives excellent results for binding energies, root mean square (rms) radii, quadrupole and hexadecupole deformations and other nuclear properties, not only of spherical, but also of deformed nuclei. One of the major attractive features of the RMF formalism is that the spin-orbit strength and associated nuclear shell structure automatically arise from meson-nucleon interaction .

We start with the relativistic Lagrangian density for a nucleon-meson many-body system,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi _i}\{i\gamma ^\mu _\mu M\}\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_2\sigma ^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_3\sigma ^4g_s\overline{\psi _i}\psi _i\sigma `$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_w^2V^\mu V_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c_3(V_\mu V^\mu )^2g_w\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu \psi _iV_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{B}^{\mu \nu }.\stackrel{}{B}_{\mu \nu }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2\stackrel{}{R}^\mu .\stackrel{}{R}_\mu g_\rho \overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi _i.\stackrel{}{R^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }e\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\tau _{3i}\right)}{2}}\psi _iA_\mu .`$
The field for the $`\sigma `$-meson is denoted by $`\sigma `$, that for the $`\omega `$-meson by $`V_\mu `$ and for the isovector $`\rho `$-meson by $`\stackrel{}{R}_\mu `$. $`A^\mu `$ denotes the electromagnetic field. The $`\psi _i`$ are the Dirac spinors for the nucleons whose third component of isospin is denoted by $`\tau _{3i}`$. Here $`g_s`$, $`g_w`$, $`g_\rho `$ and $`\frac{e^2}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{137}`$ are the coupling constants for $`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$, $`\rho `$ mesons and photon, respectively. $`g_2`$, $`g_3`$ and $`c_3`$ are the parameters for the nonlinear terms of $`\sigma `$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons. M is the mass of the nucleon and $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$ and $`m_\rho `$ are the masses of the $`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$-mesons, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ are the field tensors for the $`V^\mu `$, $`\stackrel{}{R}^\mu `$ and the photon fields, respectively .

From the relativistic Lagrangian we get the field equations for the nucleons and mesons. These equations are solved by expanding the upper and lower components of Dirac spinors and the Boson fields in a deformed harmonic oscillator basis with an initial deformation. The set of coupled equations is solved numerically by a self-consistent iteration method. The centre-of-mass motion is estimated by the usual harmonic oscillator formula $`E_{c.m.}=\frac{3}{4}(41A^{1/3})`$. The quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ is evaluated from the resulting quadrupole moment  using the formula,

$`Q=Q_n+Q_p=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5\pi }}}AR^2\beta _2,`$ (2)
where $`R=1.2A^{1/3}`$. The total binding energy of the system is,

$`E_{total}=E_{part}+E_\sigma +E_\omega +E_\rho +E_c+E_{pair}+E_{c.m.},`$ (3)
where $`E_{part}`$ is the sum of the single-particle energies of the nucleons and $`E_\sigma `$, $`E_\omega `$, $`E_\rho `$, $`E_c`$ and $`E_{pair}`$ are the contributions of the mesons fields, the Coulomb field and the pairing energy, respectively. For the open shell nuclei, the effect of pairing interactions is added in the BCS formalism. The pairing gaps for proton $`\mathrm{}_p`$ and neutron $`\mathrm{}_n`$ are calculated from the relations ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ $`=`$ $`rb_sZ^{1/3}e^{(sItI^2)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`rb_sN^{1/3}e^{(sI+tI^2)}`$ (4)
where $`r=5.72MeV`$, $`s=0.118`$, $`t=8.12`$, $`b_s=1`$ and $`I=(NZ)/(N+Z)`$.

## 3 Results and Discussions

In this section, we discuss the results of our relativistic mean field calculations. The commonly used NL1 , NL$``$SH , NL3 , TM1  and the more recent NL$``$RA1  parameter sets are employed for the present calculations. For the NL3 parameter set, we have used the numerical data from , which is slightly different (in decimal places) from that given in their earlier work  and used in later work  mentioned in the Introduction; this rounding off of the numbers makes a difference of about 1 MeV in the total binding energy. We display our results in Table 1 for only some Hg and Pb isotopes, where the experimental data (on both the binding energy and deformation parameter) are available, and discuss the complete calculations for 170-200Hg and 178-208Pb nuclei in Figs. 1-5.

In Table 1, we notice that the calculated binding energies BE and quadrupole deformation parameters $`\beta _2`$, for both the cases of with and without pairing, are quite close to the experimental values, taken from Refs. . Also, interesting enough, all the parameter sets give almost similar results. A closer inspection of Table 1 shows that NL3 and NL-RA1 sets are somewhat better than the other parameter sets for predicting the experimental binding energies, NL3 being superior in some cases and NL-RA1 in some other cases. Note that the evaluation of quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ from the experimental B(E2)-value  gives only the absolute $`\beta _2`$-value and hence the comparison between the calculated $`\beta _2`$ and experimental $`\beta _2`$ is limited in this respect of the sign.

In Fig. 1, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the binding energies between the intrinsic ground-state and the intrinsic first excited-state (from here onwards, refered to simply as the ground-state and excited-state) is shown for Hg and Pb isotopes. The upper and lower panels show without and with pairing interaction, respectively. Almost all the Hg isotopes (without pairing, upper panel) show very small energy difference between the ground- and first excited-states, i.e. without pairing effects, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is within $``$1.5 MeV for almost all the Hg nuclei with all the parameter sets used. The main exception is 184Hg, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$3.5 MeV for almost all the parameter sets. The other notable cases are 186Hg for NL-SH, 194,196Hg for NL1 and 188Hg for TM1 force, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E>`$2 MeV. Hence, in general, for the Hg nuclei considered here, we could say that the first excited-state is not far from the ground-state, a result very much consistent with the earlier theoreticel predictions . Similarly, in the case of Pb isotopes (without pairing, upper panel), the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is also within $``$1.5 MeV for most of the nuclei, in particular for 178-192Pb and 200,202,206,208Pb nuclei for all the parameter sets. The noteable exception is the TM1 fore for 178,180Pb and 200-208Pb where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is much larger. For 178-188Pb and 206,208Pb, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is very small, $``$0.8 MeV or less. In 194,196Pb nuclei, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is more than 1.5 MeV for almost all the parameter sets. Thus, once again, with a few exceptions, the ground-states and the first excited-states for the Pb nuclei investigated here are nearly degenerate. In other words, with zero (or week) pairing there are low-lying excited-state solutions or shape co-existing states in the island of Hg and Pb nuclei.

In the lower panel we plot the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, but for including the pairing effects. A comparison between two (upper and lower) panels allows us to see the influence of pairing correlations (note the difference in the ordinate scales of the two panels). In general terms, we notice that the pairing interaction has very little effect on the ground- and excited-state energies in Hg and Pb nuclei. For example, 170-180,190,198,200Hg and nearly all Pb nuclei, for most of the forces, have the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ less than 1.5 MeV. The notable exceptions are 182-188Hg and 194-198Pb isotopes, which also have $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$2.7 MeV, for many parameter sets.

In order to get a better realization of the barrier between the ground- and excited-states, we have plotted the potential energy surfaces (PES) in Fig. 2 for two illustrative, strongly deformed nuclei, 180Hg and 186Pb. This is a constrained calculation where, instead of minimizing $`<H_0>`$, we have minimised $`<H\lambda Q>`$, with $`\lambda `$ as a Lagrange multiplier and Q, the quadrupole moment . This gives us the binding energy as a function of the quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$. In Fig. 2, we observe that there is a low-lying solution near to the ground-state for both 180Hg and 186Pb nuclei. The two solutions have about the same energy difference of $``$3 MeV for both 180Hg and 186Pb nuclei, and for all the parameter sets. Thus, the shape co-existence seems to be nearly independent of the chosen parameter sets. It may be noted that the (multiple) shape co-existence is a very well studied phenomenon in Pb nuclei  and, as already mentioned above, with 186Pb as the best studied case, having three differently shaped $`0^+`$ states observed recently . However, the present RMF calculations do not give the observed spherical solution for 186Pb nucleus.

Fig. 3 gives the variation of the quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ as a function of mass number A, for the two cases of, respectively, without and with (upper and lower panel) pairing interactions. In the upper panel (without pairing) for Hg-isotopes all forces show the same transition of shape with the mass number. This transition is nearly independent of adding the pairing strength (compare the upper and lower panels for Hg nuclei). Thus, for Hg nuclei, we notice no significant change for adding the pairing interaction, but for Pb nuclei, for all the parameter sets, we observe that the pairing has a very significant effect on their ground state structures. The oblate shape for 182-190Pb nuclei becomes prolate when pairing is added. This happens because the first excited-states are very close to the ground-states for these nuclei (see Fig. 1) and a small change in the input parameters, like for the pairing strength, can flip the ground-state solution into an excited-state or vice versa.

For Hg nuclei, almost independendent of pairing strength, the maximum (prolate) quadrupole deformation is for 184Hg ($`\beta _2`$=0.30-0.33 for the five parameter sets used), and for 170-176Hg, the the ground-state shape is spherical (near spherical) with all the forces. The change in shape from prolate to oblate takes place at mass number A=188 for NL1, at A=190 for the other three parameter sets, while TM1 shows this change a still further at A=192. In other words, the 178-188Hg nuclei are prolate deformed for all the parameter sets used. In the experiments , however, the estimated prolate-oblate energy differences for 184-188Hg nuclei allow these authors to conclude that the lower of the co-existence states is an oblate one and the other low-lying stable prolate solution is the excited state, supporting the earlier theoretical results of Bengtsson et al.  using Woods-Saxon potential and another RMF calculation  using the (older) NL3 parameter set of Ref. . Note, however, that we have used here the more recent NL3 parameter constants of Ref.  and, as already mentioned above, the results of two NL3 parameter sets (old and recent) could differ by about 1 MeV, which is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for some of these nuclei (see Fig. 1) and hence may change the prolate solution to oblate one. On the other hand, for Pb nuclei, with pairing effects included (lower panel), we notice a change from spherical to oblate deformation, right at the begining for 180Pb or 182Pb, depending on the parameter set used, and again from oblate to prolate region at 180Pb or 182Pb. The nuclei 182-190Pb are prolate for all sets. Alternatively, with pairing effects switched off (upper panel), almost all the Pb nuclei studied here are oblate deformed with $`\beta `$0.2. In particular, our predictions for 192,194Pb, e.g. $`\beta _2`$=-0.172 and -0.166 for NL3 set, are in excellent agreement with the experimental data ($`\beta _2`$=-0.18, -0.175 and -0.17 ) where the sign of $`\beta _2`$ is determined on the basis of a theoretical calculation . However, we consider the neutron deficient 182-190Pb as prolate deformed, advocating strong pairing correlations, since the neghbouring 178-188Hg nuclei are prolate deformed, independent of pairing as well as parameters of the forces used.

Next, Figs. 4 and 5 (with and without pairing, respectively) display the single-particle spectra for two illustrative nuclei 186Pb and 208Pb, i.e. the most deformed and the most spherical isotopes of the chosen series, for the representative NL1 and NL3 parameter sets. The results obtained for the other parameter sets NL$``$SH, NL$``$RA1 and TM1 are similar. From Fig. 4 (where pairing effects are included), we notice that the shell gap for the spherical nucleus 208Pb is well distinguished at Z=82 (and at N=126), which in the deformed nucleus 186Pb seems to have been reduced considerably, both for protons and neutrons (more so for protons). All the four parameter sets show almost the same result. We have also repeated our analysis for the case of not including the pairing interactions (Fig. 5) and found that there is no appreciable change in the shell gaps, except that for the deformed 186Pb nucleus the gap at Z=82 is now larger $``$2 MeV (for NL1 force), to be compared with $``$4 MeV for the spherical 208Pb nucleus. Thus, we can say that some light, neutron-deficient isotopes of Pb are deformed and show the signatures of gap reduction, as is observed in the experiments of Toth et al. . It may be noted here that if the single particle energy shell gap near the magic shell is larger than the two-nucleon interaction strength, then the shell gap at the closed shell has to be considered. On the other hand, for a shell gap smaller than the two-nucleon interaction matrix, the considered nucleon can jump from this shell to the higher orbits.

Finally, a few words about the co-existing SD state as the ground-state, predicted in Refs.  for 180Hg using NL1 parameter set with full BCS pairing gap parameter from Ref. . In order to verify this result, we have repeated this calculation by using NL1, NL-SH, NL3 and NL-RA1 parameter sets by increasing the oscilator shell number to $`N_F=N_B`$=16. The shapes of both the normal and super-deformed solutions are investigated, by taking the cases of both with and without pairing interactions into account. For the NL1 parameter set with pairing, the binding energy BE=1420.420 MeV (at $`\beta _2`$=0.569) for the SD solution, and the BE=1422.405 MeV for normal deformation ($`\beta _2=0.323`$). For the case of without pairing, the binding energy (and deformation parameter) for the normal and SD configurations are BE=1420.304 ($`\beta _2=0.328`$) and BE=1420.420 MeV ($`\beta _2=0.569`$), respectively. This means that in 180Hg for NL1 parameter set, the SD solution is very close to the ground-state and could be the ground-state solution itself, as was suggested by the earlier calculations  based on NL1 parameter set. However, for the other three parameter sets we notice in Table 2 that the normal and SD solutions are rather far apart. Hence, the NL1 parameter set seems to have the special feature of predicting a shape co-existing super-deformed state with the ground-state, contrary to other parameter sets NL-SH, NL3 and NL-RA1 studied here.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

In the present investigation we have calculated the binding energy, the single-particle energy spectrum and the quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ for some neutron-deficient Hg and Pb isotopes, using the deformed relativistic mean field formalism with the commonly employed parameter sets NL1, NL3, NL$``$SH, TM1 and NL$``$RA1. We find a low-lying excited-state in most of the chosen nuclei, for all the five parameter sets. Thus, the shape co-existance in neutron-deficient Hg and Pb nuclei is predicted to be nearly independent of the force parameters and pairing correlations. Also, clear deformed structures for the neutron-deficient 178-188Hg and 182-190Pb isotopes are noticed, irrespective of the chosen parameter set, due to melting away of the usual Z=82 shell closure.

For the binding energy comparisons with experiments, the NL3 and NL$``$RA1 parameters have a slight edge over the other parameter sets. The potential energy surfaces are investigated with all the five forces by taking the extremely deformed 180Hg and 186Pb nuclei as the representative cases. Both the nuclei show a similar behavior for each parameter set. The single-particle energy spectrum shows a large shell gap at Z=82 (and also at N=126) for the most spherical nucleus 208Pb, but the same is not true for the most deformed 186Pb. For the deformed nucleus the shell gap at Z=82 is reduced considerably.

Concluding, we emphasize that a bunch of Hg and Pb nuclei in the considered island of Hg and Pb nuclei are deformed and that the magic character at Z=82 is lost for the neutron-deficient deformed Pb nuclei. The discrepancy between the deformed RMF predictions and the experiments for the quadrupole deformation is due to the low-lying excited states (shape coexistence) obtained in these nuclei. Apparently, to reproduce the experimental data, it is essential to perform a more careful calculation.

Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. A. Ansari for a careful reading of the manuscript and for many valuable suggestions. One of us (RKG) is grateful to the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India for support of this research work in terms of a Sr. Research Scientistship to him. MSM and TKJ thank the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, for the kind hospitality during the completion of this work.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: The deformed RMF calculated difference between the ground- and first excited-state binding energies as a function of the mass number A for various Hg and Pb isotopes, without (upper panel) and with (lower panel) pairing interaction.

Figure 2: The deformed RMF calculated potential energy surfaces for the most deformed 180Hg and 186Pb nuclei, both with pairing (upper panel) and without pairing (lower panel), using five parameter sets.

Figure 3: The quadrupole deformation parameter as a function of the mass number A for Hg and Pb nuclei, calculated on deformed RMF model with pairing (upper panel) and without pairing (lower panel) interactions.

Figure 4: The single-particle energy spectra for the most spherical 208Pb and deformed 186Pb nuclei, calculated on deformed RMF model for NL1 and NL3 parameter sets. Pairing interaction is included here.

Figure 5: Same as for Fig. 4 but for without pairing interaction.


format: text

text:
# On Multiwavelength Emission of Large-Scale Quasar Jets

## 1 Introduction

Growing numbers of large-scale jets in powerful extragalactic radio sources are now being observed at optical and X-ray frequencies (see, e.g., Stawarz, 2004). New, and in many ways unexpected, results call for a wide discussion of the physical conditions within these objects, and in particular of the processes responsible for accelerating radiating particles to the required ultrarelativistic energies. Until now, few observations had gone beyond the integrated spectral properties of multiwavelength emission from large-scale jets. However, the high angular resolution of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) have given us the opportunity to analyze the morphological characteristics of jets at optical and X-ray photon energies, allowing for the comparison of jet morphology at different frequencies. Here we discuss the structure of large-scale quasar jets, in order to determine the origin of their X-ray radiation and the nature of the particle acceleration responsible for their multiwavelength emission.

CXO has detected about ten quasar jets with observed X-ray luminosities $`L_\mathrm{x}10^{43}10^{45}`$ erg s-1 and projected lengths ranging from a few tens up to a few hundred kpc111see the web page http://hea-www.harvard.edu/XJETS by D. Harris; see also Stawarz (2004). The X-ray emission is usually much too intense to be explained in terms of synchrotron radiation by the same, single-power-law electron energy distribution that produces the radio-to-optical emission. Nor can it be explained in terms of synchrotron-self Compton (SSC) radiation of a *homogeneous*, few-kpc-long knot region, *unless* the energy density is far above the equipartition value, which would imply extremely high jet powers (e.g., Chartas et al., 2000; Schwartz et al., 2000, for the case of PKS 0637-752). This led to the idea that the X-ray emission results from inverse-Compton up-scattering of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) photons — ‘external inverse-Compton’ (EIC) emission — by the low-energy part of the electron energy distribution (Tavecchio et al., 2000; Celotti et al., 2001; Harris & Krawczynski, 2002). Such a model, however, requires highly relativistic jet velocities at distances of a few hundred kpc from the active nuclei (bulk Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$), in apparent disagreement with radio observations (e.g., Wardle & Aaron, 1997). On the other hand, the EIC model was claimed to be additionally supported by energetic considerations (Ghisellini & Celotti, 2001). In this respect, discoveries of large-scale X-ray jets in the Gigahertz-peaked (GPS) objects PKS 1127-145 and B2 0738+313 (Siemiginowska et al., 2002, 2003a, respectively), as well as in the high-redshift source GB 1508+5714 ($`z=4.3`$, Siemiginowska et al., 2003b) are particularly interesting. X-ray emission of large-scale quasar jets, if due to the EIC process, has also cosmological implications, as pointed out by Schwartz (2002). Therefore, it is important to discuss whether Comptonization of the CMB within highly relativistic flow is really the most plausible explanation of the CXO quasar jet observations, and to look for possibilities of discriminating between this and other models (e.g., Aharonian, 2002; Dermer & Atoyan, 2002; Stawarz & Ostrowski, 2002). Analysis of the morphology of the emitting regions constitutes an interesting approach to this problem.

The most apparent characteristic of quasar jets is their knotty morphology with high knot-to-interknot brightness contrast, but also with distinct (in some cases) inter-knot diffuse emission. In addition, knot profiles seem to be frequency-independent, and knot extents are similar when observed at radio, optical and X-ray photon energies. Detailed observations of the 3C 273 jet (Jester et al., 2001) reveal also that spectral changes along the flow are not correlated with brightness changes — this may be a general characteristic of these objects. Finally, in some cases spatial offsets between the maxima of the X-ray and radio emission within the knot regions were noted (e.g., PKS 1127-145, Siemiginowska et al., 2002). It is not clear whether all of these features can be explained in a framework of models involving extended shock waves within continuous jet flow. In fact, we argue that the morphological characteristics cannot be explained in this way, and that substantial modifications of the standard picture are required. Such modifications are especially needed if the X-ray emission of quasar jets is due to the EIC process. We propose that at least some aspects of the HST and CXO observations can be understood in terms of intermittent (modulated) jet activity. In this context, we comment on both the external-Compton scenario of quasar jet X-ray emission, and on a model of boundary layer acceleration and resulting high-energy radiation (Stawarz & Ostrowski, 2002). In particular, in § 2 we emphasize the problems with modeling X-ray knots of quasar jets as stationary regions of particle acceleration. In § 3 we consider the possibility that the knots are moving sources of non-thermal radiation, propose a possible connection of this scenario to models of intermittent jet activity, and discuss the particle acceleration processes possibly involved in such a scenario. The discussion and final conclusions are presented in §§ 4 and 5, respectively.

## 2 Stationary knots

In the most common version of the EIC model, in which the knots are identified with strong stationary shocks through which the jet matter flows continuously, none of the morphological features mentioned in the introduction are straightforwardly expected. The knots appear to be localized along the jet, yet stationary shocks are likely to be highly oblique (with respect to the jet axis) and significantly elongated in the flow direction, if the jet is confined by external pressure (Sanders, 1983; Komissarov & Falle, 1997). Large-scale jets in powerful radio sources display approximately cylindrical geometry, and therefore it is thought that they must be confined. The nature of their confinement is unknown, but it has been shown that the low-density and high-pressure nonthermal medium of the radio lobe can be an efficient confinement agent (Begelman & Cioffi, 1989). If we are not seeing the shape of the shocks themselves, could the emissivity patterns give rise to the knot morphology? It seems unlikely, since the cooling time of low-energy electrons responsible for up-scattering CMB photons to the observed X-ray energies is extremely long when compared with the lifetime of electrons emitting synchrotron optical photons in an equipartition magnetic field. In addition, the EIC emission is not very sensitive to the magnetic field structure or slow adiabatic losses within the uniform, well-collimated flow. Therefore, in the case of the EIC model and a continuous jet with knot regions marking the positions of the stationary (e.g., reconfinement) shocks, one should rather expect extended X-ray knot emission, with approximately constant flux along the jet (if the jet bulk velocity is roughly constant on the large scales), and with knot profiles reflecting directly the large differences in radiative and adiabatic cooling times of electrons radiating in radio, optical and X-rays. This is in disagreement with observations, and hence modifications to the EIC model are required. One possibility is to assume an inhomogeneous structure of the emission regions, consisting of a number of small, far-from-equipartition and adiabatically expanding clumps of radiating plasma (Tavecchio et al., 2003).

### 2.1 EIC clumping model

The EIC model was claimed to be strongly supported by energetic arguments (Ghisellini & Celotti, 2001). Let us briefly re-discuss this issue in the context of the clumping scenario. If the jet is composed of a magnetic field of unknown intensity $`B`$ (measured in the comoving frame222Hereafter we use primes to denote quantities measured in the jet comoving frame, while unprimed quantities refer to the observer rest frame. However, we do not prime the magnetic field induction $`B`$ or electron Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$, noting instead that they always refer to the emitting plasma rest frame.), protons, and radiating electrons, one can find a value of the magnetic field that minimizes the total kinetic power of the emission regions for a given observed synchrotron luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}`$, observed volume of the emitting plasma $`V`$, ratio of proton-to-electron energy densities $`\eta u_\mathrm{p}^{}/u_\mathrm{e}^{}`$, spectral energy distribution of the radiating ultrarelativistic electrons, bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and jet inclination $`\theta `$. This is because the total jet power is $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}=L_\mathrm{B}+L_\mathrm{e}+L_\mathrm{p}`$, where the Poynting flux is $`L_\mathrm{B}B^2`$, the bulk kinetic power carried by the radiating electrons is $`L_\mathrm{e}u_\mathrm{e}^{}`$, and the bulk kinetic power due to the protons is $`L_\mathrm{p}u_\mathrm{p}^{}`$. As the electron energy density for a given total synchrotron luminosity is $`u_\mathrm{e}^{}B^2`$, one has also $`L_\mathrm{e}B^2`$ and hence $`L_\mathrm{p}\eta B^2`$. Setting

$$\left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{tot}}}{B}\right)_{B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}}=0,$$
(1)
one can find that the magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ minimizing $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the one for which $`L_\mathrm{B}=L_\mathrm{e}+L_\mathrm{p}`$. In other words, one gets condition for the equipartition between Ponting flux and the jet kinetic power carried by the particles (see Appendix A). It was shown (Ghisellini & Celotti, 2001) that this minimum power condition is consistent with X-ray observations of the large-scale jet associated with the quasar PKS 0637-752, if its X-ray flux is due to the EIC emission of a homogeneous knot region with radius $`R10^{22}`$ cm and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$. One should emphasize, however, that this agreement is obtained by invoking certain assumptions about the value of $`\eta `$ and details of the electron energy distribution. In addition, allowing for inhomogeneous structure of the emission region changes the energetic conclusions. In particular, the magnetic field that minimizes the total power for the uniform knot model, $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, does not coincide with the minimum energy field evaluated in the framework of the clumping scenario for the radiating plasma, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Instead, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{cr}}=f^{1/4}B_{\mathrm{cr}}$$
(2)
where $`f`$ is the filling factor of the clumps (see Appendix A). Hence, if the magnetic field estimated from the observed ratio of inverse-Compton to synchrotron luminosities agrees with the critical magnetic field computed for the homogeneous knot model, $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, then any strong clumping of the jet (i.e. $`f1`$) will cause large departures from the minimum power condition for the radiating plasma, $`B\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. In addition, in order to discuss energetics of the whole clumpy jet, one has to make some assumptions about the non-radiating matter between the clumps, which cannot be verified by observations. As a result, energetic arguments supporting the EIC model cannot be applied to the clumping scenario.

Losing a reliable diagnostic of jet energetics is the price one has to pay for explaining a rapid decrease of the X-ray flux outside the knots. In the expanding, radiating plasma, the magnetic field is expected to decrease in proportion to some power of the emitting region radius, $`Br^m`$, depending on the assumed magnetic field structure. Therefore, one has

$$\frac{L_{\mathrm{eic}}}{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}\frac{u_{\mathrm{cmb}}^{}}{u_\mathrm{B}^{}}r^{2m},$$
(3)
where $`L_{\mathrm{eic}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ are, respectively, the observed inverse-Compton and synchrotron luminosities, $`u_{\mathrm{cmb}}^{}`$ is the energy density of the CMB radiation in the comoving frame of the jet (which is constant along the flow if the bulk velocity of the expanding region is constant), and $`u_\mathrm{B}^{}B^2`$ is the energy density of the jet magnetic field. Hence, knot profiles in the EIC model with adiabatic expansion should always be different when observed at X-ray and radio frequencies (both produced by the low-energy part of the electron spectrum), unless very rapid expansion of the radiating plasma, i.e., strong clumping of the jet, is involved. In this case, however, the contribution from synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission cannot be ignored. Note that the main argument in favor of the EIC emission model over the SSC model was that the latter requires clumps and departures from equipartition, in order to explain the strong X-ray emission (Schwartz et al., 2000). The second problem attributed to the EIC-clumping model was that rapid expansion of the emitting clumps would inevitably create a large population of very low energy electrons. They should in turn produce optical emission via the EIC process, possibly exceeding the synchrotron radiation (and the observational limits) at these frequencies.

Energy losses of the low-energy electrons, radiating via synchrotron radiation in the radio band and via EIC emission in the X-ray domain, are dominated by adiabatic cooling, $`d\gamma /dr=A\gamma /r`$. This process leads to the decrease of the electron energy with linear size of the emitting region $`r`$ according to

$$\gamma r^A$$
(4)
and also to the decrease of the inverse-Compton luminosity at given observed frequency according to

$$L_{\mathrm{eic}}r^{A(s1)},$$
(5)
where $`s`$ is the spectral index of the electron energy distribution (Appendix B). For $`s=2.5`$ and two-dimensional expansion (i.e., $`A=2/3`$), one gets a linear decrease of the observed X-ray luminosity with $`r`$. In such a case, in order to reduce the X-ray flux by, say, one order of magnitude, one has to allow all the emitting clumps to expand within the single knot region by, at least, one order of magnitude in their linear sizes. Thus, electrons up-scattering CMB photons to the observed $``$ keV energies, $`\gamma \delta ^1(\nu _\mathrm{x}/\nu _{\mathrm{cmb}})^{1/2}1000\delta ^1`$, will end up at energies $`\gamma 200\delta ^1`$ after such expansion, giving rise to the observed EIC emission at $`\epsilon 50`$ eV (see Tavecchio et al., 2003). This possibility, although not completely excluded, contradicts the synchrotron origin of optical emission from quasar jets, which has been confirmed repeatedly by polarization measurements. Hence, the EIC model requires a very sharp cut-off in the injected electron energy distribution and/or relatively limited expansion of the clumps — both of which call for fine-tuning of the model parameters — in order not to overproduce optical inverse-Compton radiation.

Small sizes of the emitting plasma in the clumpy jet can also amplify the energy density of the synchrotron photons to a level leading to domination of the SSC component over the EIC one. Note that, for the electron energy spectrum usually considered in the EIC model, the photon energy range of the SSC emission corresponds roughly with the spectral range of the EIC radiation. The ratio of observed SSC to EIC luminosity is

$$\frac{L_{\mathrm{ssc}}}{L_{\mathrm{eic}}}\frac{1}{N(1+z)^4}\left(\frac{\delta }{10}\right)^6\left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}{10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}}\right)\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{c}}{10\mathrm{pc}}\right)^2,$$
(6)
where $`N`$ is the number of the emitting clumps with radius $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ per knot, $`z`$ is a redshift of the source and $`\delta =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mu )`$ is the jet Doppler factor for its bulk velocity $`\beta =(1\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)^{1/2}`$ and inclination $`\theta \mathrm{cos}^1\mu `$ (Appendix C). It is always possible to adjust the unknown parameters $`\delta `$, $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`N`$ in order to obtain $`L_{\mathrm{ssc}}>L_{\mathrm{eic}}`$. As a result, it is possible to model the observed X-ray emission of large-scale quasar jets by SSC emission, and hence there are no obvious constraints on the large-scale jet parameters from X-ray observations. In particular, the Doppler factor of the jet in the SSC model can be smaller than that required by the EIC model.

### 2.2 Synchrotron X-rays?

Modifications to the EIC model, which are required in the case of knots treated as stationary regions of energy dissipation, decrease the model’s attractiveness. Therefore, alternative scenarios postulating a synchrotron origin of the X-ray emission should be considered. However, in this case the X-ray photons would have to be produced by a different electron population than the one responsible for the radio-to-optical emission, as the X-ray flux is usually above the extrapolated radio-to-optical power-law continuum; or else deviations from a single power-law behavior in the electron energy distribution — high energy particle pile-up in particular — have to be invoked. Furthermore, to reconcile the observed flat X-ray spectral indices with strong cooling of the highly energetic electrons and large observed sizes of the emission regions (see discussion in Aharonian, 2002), one must have particle acceleration occurring over extended volumes. This can be illustrated by rewriting the observed propagation length of the electrons radiating synchrotron photons with frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}`$ in a form

$$l_{\mathrm{syn}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}\frac{10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3/2}B_4^{3/2}(1+z)^{1/2}}{1+10^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^2B_4^2(1+z)^4}\left(\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}}{10^{18}\mathrm{Hz}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{kpc},$$
(7)
where $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$ is the radiative loss time scale, $`B_4B/10^4`$ G, inverse-Compton radiative losses on the CMB are included and we put $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as appropriate for small jet viewing angles $`\theta `$ (Appendix D)333Let us mention that, as emphasized by Jester et al. (2001), the apparent discrepancy between this spatial scale for the optical synchrotron emission and the observed extent of the optical jet in 3C 273 cannot be resolved solely by invoking a sub-equipartition magnetic field and/or highly relativistic velocities..

The turbulent second-order Fermi acceleration process provides a plausible way of obtaining high-energy particle pile-up, if the time scale for particle escape from the acceleration region is much longer than the radiative loss time scale (other possibilities will be discussed in the later sections). This is because such a process favors the particle energy for which the acceleration time scale is equal to the radiative loss time scale. With steady injection of low-energy particles, turbulent acceleration piles up radiating particles at this critical energy. As discussed by Ostrowski (2000) and Stawarz & Ostrowski (2002), boundary shear layers of large-scale jets are ideal sites for such a process, as the inevitable flow instabilities very likely provide the required amount of turbulence, and a sheared magnetic field configuration does not enable radiating electrons to escape easily from the acceleration region. For conventional assumptions about the jet energetics (including energy equipartition between the magnetic field and radiating electrons), the time scales estimated by Stawarz & Ostrowski (2002) lead to sufficient pile-up of the high-energy electrons to produce synchrotron X-rays with a luminosity comparable to the observed values, without fine-tuning of the jet parameters. In addition, the continuous nature of such an acceleration process can explain the absence of cooling effects in the observed optical and X-ray continuum.

Boundary layer acceleration, as initially proposed to explain some aspects of the X-ray jet emission observed by CXO, cannot solely account for the morphological characteristics of quasar jets, and their knotty nature in particular. In this model the lifetime of the X-ray emitting electrons is extremely short, and hence the emitting region sizes are related to the extent of the particle acceleration sites and not to the spatial scales of the electron cooling, as in the EIC and SSC scenarios. Also, the interplay between localized shock acceleration and continuous, turbulent energization of the radiating electrons can result in offsets between the radio and X-ray emitting regions, while in the EIC and SSC models the maximum of the radio emission should have the same location within the knot as the maximum of the X-ray radiation. As mentioned in the introduction, spatial offsets between radio and X-ray knot maxima are observed in some large-scale quasar jets. However, a simple model of turbulent acceleration does not explain directly why the jets — being continuous flows — exhibit high knot-to-interknot brightness contrasts, although one can imagine some possible solutions. For example, it was suggested (Stawarz & Ostrowski, 2002) that the knots can form by the shock compression of the energetic electrons previously accelerated at the boundary layer upstream of the shock, in accordance with the discussion by Begelman & Kirk (1990).

### 2.3 Spectral constraints

Detailed spectral studies at optical frequencies could allow us to distinguish between an inverse-Compton and a synchrotron origin for the X-ray emission from large-scale quasar jets. For example, the presence of spectral cut-offs at infrared-to-optical photon energies would argue strongly for the EIC model, while spectral flattenings would support synchrotron models involving high-energy particle pile-ups. However, optical emission detected from a few quasar jets444see the web page http://home.fnal.gov/~jester/optjets by S. Jester; see also Stawarz (2004), which is most probably synchrotron in nature as indicated by polarization measurements, reveal a variety of spectral shapes, and hence no definitive statements can be made yet. In particular, optical spectral indices of the knots in powerful jets range from $`\alpha _\mathrm{o}0.5`$ in the brightest part of the 3C 273 jet (Jester et al., 2001) up to $`1.6`$ in 3C 279 (Cheung, 2002). Interestingly, spectral hardening at ultraviolet frequencies was noted for the 3C 273 jet (Jester et al., 2002). These observations indicate the presence of $`\gamma 10^510^6`$ electrons producing synchrotron infrared-to-optical photons, for an assumed equipartition magnetic field $`B10^5`$ G, but do not give tight constraints on their spectral distribution. The broad-band energy spectrum of the radiating electrons is usually modeled in the EIC scenario as a single power-law, $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )\gamma ^s`$, with spectral index $`s2.5`$ and sharp cut-offs at $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}10^2`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}10^510^6`$ (e.g., Sambruna et al., 2002). Except for its simplicity, however, such an assumption on a form of $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )`$ has neither theoretical nor observational justification. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the electron energy distribution $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )`$ extends up to very high energies, $`\gamma 10^8`$, as seems to be the case in a few kpc-scale FR I jets (see discussion in Stawarz, 2004). Another point is that the broad-band radio-to-X-ray spectra for some of the knots in the large-scale jets associated with quasars 3C 273 and PKS 1136-135 cannot be explained by the EIC model, indicating with little doubt the synchrotron origin of the X-rays (Marshall et al., 2001; Sambruna et al., 2002). Therefore, existing optical spectra of the knots in quasar jets cannot yet exclude different scenarios for modeling the radio-to-X-ray continua of these objects.

## 3 Moving knots

As we have discussed above, modeling knots of large-scale quasar jets as stationary regions of energy dissipation within the uniform and continuous jet flow leads to several problems in explaining the observed X-ray emission, especially in the framework of the EIC scenario. Below we explore another possibility, namely that the knots represent portions of a relativisticaly moving jet with excess kinetic power. Such a situation is expected if the activity of central engines in radio-loud AGNs is intermittent, or highly modulated. The frequency-independence of the knot sizes, as well as high knot-to-interknot brightness contrasts, can be understood if the radiating particles are present mainly within the separate portions of the jet flow — the knots — as compared with the interknot regions. This is true almost independently of the emission process involved, and in particular it applies also to the EIC model. In addition, in moving knot scenarios the brightness changes along the jet path do not have to correlate with the spectral changes, if they are controlled by distinct physical processes, i.e., if the former are due to changes in the kinetic energy of the flow resulting from intermittent or modulated jet activity, while the latter are determined by particle acceleration and cooling processes. These facts make the idea of intermittent jet activity promising for explaining the morphologies of CXO quasar jets.

### 3.1 Modulated jet activity

The idea of intermittent jet activity was presented in the context of ‘partial’ radio jets associated with the powerful radio galaxies 3C 219 (Bridle et al., 1986; Clarke et al., 1992) and 3C 288 (Bridle et al., 1989). It was also proposed that the restarting jet model can, in a natural way, reconcile the presence of the extended radio emission observed in a few GPS sources (e.g., 0108+388) with the inferred young ages of GPS compact radio structures, $`<10^4`$ yrs (Baum et al., 1990; Stanghellini et al., 1990). We note that extended radio emission around GPS objects can sometimes reach Mpc scales, as in the cases of B1144+352 (Schoenmakers et al., 1999) and B1245+676 (Marecki et al., 2003a). In addition, as discussed by Reynolds & Begelman (1997), intermittent jet activity can explain the general overabundance of compact radio objects when compared with the number of classical (extended) doubles. In particular, Reynolds & Begelman (1997) showed that the observed distribution of sizes for extragalactic radio sources can be explained in the framework of a simple evolution scenario if one assumes that the jet-like active period persists only over $`10^4`$ years, and refreshes on the time scale of $`10^5`$ years. Interestingly, similar time scales can be obtained in the thermal-viscous instability model for the accretion disk (Siemiginowska & Elvis, 1997; Janiuk et al., 2003). This suggests that the jet activity — and hence the whole evolution of the radio source — could be driven by unstable accretion disks surrounding supermassive black holes (see in this context Marecki et al., 2003b).

Non-steady jet activity, albeit on longer time scales than discussed above, was also suggested in order to explain some morphological features observed in the so-called Giant Radio Galaxies (linear sizes of the order of Mpc; Subrahmanyan et al., 1996). In a few sources belonging to this class, intermittent jet activity was confirmed directly by observations of double-double radio structure (Schoenmakers et al., 2000a). In particular, observations of B1834+620 (Schoenmakers et al., 2000b), J0116-473 (Saripalli et al., 2002), and B1545-321 (Saripalli et al., 2003) show a pair of ‘inner’ radio jets which propagate within a diffuse radio-emitting medium formed by previous jet activity, and which display FR II radio morphology. Such inner radio structures are characterized by lower radio luminosity, larger axis ratios of the lobes, and weaker hot-spots than classical doubles with similar sizes, in agreement with theoretical predictions for restarting bipolar jets (Clarke & Burns, 1991; Kaiser et al., 2000).

A restarting jet propagates not within the unperturbed intergalactic or intracluster medium of the active galaxy, but within the interior of the radio lobe created by the previous jet activity (e.g., Begelman & Cioffi, 1989). The number of double-double radio sources is small, probably because this kind of morphology can be formed only if the new pair of jets is created not earlier than $`10^710^8`$ yrs after the old ones, in order to allow for an increase in the density of the cold gas in the relict radio cocoon (Kaiser et al., 2000). Otherwise, the rarefied and mostly nonthermal medium formed during the previous period of jet activity prevents formation of new lobes and hot-spots555On the other hand, the time scale of the quiescent periods in double-double sources cannot be longer than $`10^8`$ yrs, because after this time the old lobe structure is not expected to remain visible (Komissarov & Gubanov, 1994).. For the quasar jets considered here, we require the time scale between the two subsequent jet active epochs to be not longer than $`10^5`$ yrs. This is because the linear sizes of the knot regions are consistent with a $`10^4`$-year duration of jet activity, while distances between subsequent knots are on average consistent with quiescent periods an order of magnitude longer. Therefore, we characterize the quasar jets in terms of modulation of the jet kinetic power, rather than in terms of restarting flows. This idea is strongly supported by radio observations of such structures (see, e.g., Bridle et al., 1994). The respective time scales for activity and quiescence can differ from object to object, but on average they seem to be in agreement with the ones postulated above. In some sources, however, they can be smaller than average, resulting in a more continuous flow (as in 3C 273?).

We also note that Galactic X-ray transients are known to produce radio emission which is widely modeled in terms of multiple jet-like ejection events (see review by Fender, 2003). Modulated jet activity of the large-scale jets considered here constitutes an interesting link between quasar and microquasar phenomena, although the physical processes controlling intermittent/highly modulated activity of the central engines in both types of sources can be different. As a result, the time scales for the active and quiescent periods in galactic and extragalactic jet sources do not have to scale in a simple way with the mass of the central compact object.

### 3.2 Energy dissipation and particle acceleration

The moving portions of the jet have to be sites of particle acceleration. Tavecchio et al. (2003) rejected this possibility, arguing that either continuous or episodic particle acceleration acting within moving knots cannot reproduce the required electron energy distribution. However, as the synchrotron spectrum at frequencies higher than the radio band is unknown in most large-scale quasar jets, such a statement is premature (see § 2.3). Note that Tavecchio et al. (2003) base their conclusions on the *assumed* electron energy distribution. In reality, many different processes can control the spectral behavior of radiating electrons, and it is not certain — from both observational and theoretical points of view — how well a single power-law describes the spectrum. In the framework of the intermittent jet activity model considered in this section, turbulent particle acceleration processes due to interaction of the jet with the surrounding medium are expected to lead to the formation of a piled-up distribution of energetic electrons radiating synchrotron X-rays. The formation of internal shocks within the relativistic, highly modulated jet flow is also very probable. In the latter case, one can expect the EIC process to dominate production of the X-rays, whereas the deominant radiation mechanism is less clear in the former. Realistically, the situation can be quite complex, involving an ensemble of multiple shocks (formed due to both velocity irregularities and propagation instabilities of the flow) as well as the interplay between coherent and stochastic particle acceleration processes.

#### 3.2.1 Internal shocks

The formation of shocks in extragalactic jets is most likely related to intrinsic velocity irregularities of the flow, caused by the non-steady operation of the central engine, as proposed by Rees (1978). Such internal shocks are not stationary, but instead are moving together with the radiating matter, possibly with highly relativistic bulk velocities. Internal shocks are typically characterized by a low efficiency of converting the beam kinetic energy to internal energy of radiating particles (see, e.g., Lazzati et al., 1999; Spada et al., 2001). This is a very convenient situation for the objects considered here, because their observed radiative luminosities, if corrected for Doppler beaming effects, are several orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated jet kinetic powers ($`L_\mathrm{j}10^{47}`$ erg s-1), and hence the fraction of the kinetic energy flux of the jet dissipated to the radiating particles can be small.

Let us consider the simplest situation, in which two colliding portions of the jet flow differ only in bulk velocity. Then, for respective bulk Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>\mathrm{\Gamma }_11`$, a double shock structure (symmetric in the comoving frame of the contact discontinuity for the same densities $`\rho _1=\rho _2`$) develops. The bulk Lorentz factor of the contact discontinuity, which is also the Lorentz factor of the shocked radiating plasma, is then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}.$$
(8)
Knowing solely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (and assuming an equation of state for the downstream matter), one can estimate velocities of the forward and reverse shocks from standard shock-jump conditions (Blandford & McKee, 1976, Appendix E). The extent of the shocked region along the jet, in the contact comoving frame denoted by primes, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}2c|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }t^{},$$
(9)
where $`|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|`$ is the velocity of the forward and reverse shock fronts and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ is the time since formation of the double-shock structure. Observations of the knots at the maximum synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ can give some constraints on the maximum value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}`$. This is because the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ cannot be larger than the radiative loss time scale for the most energetic electrons radiating at $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, in order to ensure activity of the whole shocked region at this frequency. Therefore, for a small viewing angle of the jet, the observed extent of the shocked region can be limited according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ll_{\mathrm{max}}2c|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}(\nu _{\mathrm{max}}),$$
(10)
where $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}=t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}(\nu _{\mathrm{max}})`$ is the radiative loss time scale for a given synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (Appendix D). Figures 1–3 show the parameter $`l_{\mathrm{max}}`$ as a function of the magnetic field strength in the radiating plasma, for $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=10^{15}`$ Hz and different bulk Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Note that, for a wide range of bulk Lorentz factors of the colliding portions of the jet, the extent of the double-shock structure in the observer frame cannot be larger than $`1`$ kpc, independent of the magnetic field intensity. This value, interestingly, is consistent with the observed lengths of the optical knots in quasar jets. Therefore, if dynamical time scales controlling the development of the double-shock structure ensure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }ll_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for the maximum synchrotron frequency occurring in the optical band, then the EIC/internal shock scenario can explain frequency-independent knot profiles.

However, there are two important problems with the model discussed above. The first is that radio polarization of the quasar jets indicates a magnetic field which is on average parallel to the jet axis. As an example we mention the jet in PKS 0637-752, where the X-ray emission as observed by CXO is strong only in the regions characterized by a longitudinal magnetic field (Schwartz et al., 2000). Such a situation is inconsistent with the internal shock model, because compression of the magnetic field should result in a transverse orientation (Laing 1980). The second problem is the fine-tuning required between the dynamical time scales controlling development of the double-shock structure, and the radiative loss time scales of the radiating particles, in order to obtain almost universal extents of the optical/X-ray knots, $`1`$ kpc.

#### 3.2.2 Multiple oblique shocks and turbulent acceleration

We now discuss particle acceleration processes related to ensembles of shocks which are not comoving with the radiating matter, i.e., have a different pattern velocity than the jet. Numerical simulations reveal the presence of such a structure at the jet boundary (e.g., Norman et al., 1982), although it is possible for these shocks to encompass the whole jet width. The particle acceleration process related to the ensemble of many shocks can be different from single shock acceleration. This issue was considered in the literature in different contexts starting from Blandford & Ostriker (1980), and discussed further by Spruit (1988); Achterberg (1990); Schneider (1993); Melrose & Pope (1993); Pope & Melrose (1994); Melrose & Crouch (1997); Marcowith & Kirk (1999) and Gieseler & Jones (2000). Physically, what distinguishes between single and multiple shock acceleration is that in the latter case, particles can change their momenta between subsequent shock events due to adiabatic and radiative losses, and can also escape from the regions between of the shocks, thus avoiding further acceleration. As shown by Schneider (1993) and Marcowith & Kirk (1999), the interplay between time scales representing radiative cooling, particle escape and advection can result in the formation of different particle energy spectra, with spectral flattenings, curvatures, cut-offs or high-energy bumps (spectral pile-ups).

Let us consider the appropriate time scales for multiple shock acceleration in the context of the knots in quasar jets. Following Schneider (1993), we assume that the time scale for acceleration and subsequent decompression at each shock is much shorter than the time scales connected with radiative losses, $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$, and particle escape from the region between subsequent shocks (i.e., the region where the nonthermal radiation is produced), $`t_{\mathrm{esc}}^{}`$, as well as the interval between the subsequent shock acceleration events, $`t_\mathrm{b}^{}`$. Then, the average particle energy distribution resulting from multiple (roughly identical) shock acceleration events depends on the ratios of these three characteristic time scales. Note first, that if particle escape is controlled by diffusion from the region between the shocks, which is characterized by a thickness $`D`$, then the condition $`t_{\mathrm{esc}}^{}>t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$ reads

$$D>0.04B_4^{3/2}\mathrm{pc}$$
(11)
for strong turbulence, where the particle mean free path is comparable to the particle gyroradius, and for inverse-Compton losses comparable to synchrotron losses (Appendix F). Thus, if $`D`$ is of order of the jet radius ($`1`$ kpc), then particle escape is inefficient compared to the radiative losses, independent of particle energy. Also, if the mean separation of the shocks is less than $`1`$ kpc, particles cannot escape before passing through many shocks, and therefore they experience multiple (and not single) shock acceleration. In such a case, as shown by the analysis of Schneider (1993), one should expect the formation of a flat power-law spectrum for particles satisfying $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}>t_\mathrm{b}^{}`$, a steep power-law spectrum (but not necessarily an exponential cut-off) for particles satisfying $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}<t_\mathrm{b}^{}`$, and a spectral pile-up at particle energies for which $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}t_\mathrm{b}^{}`$.

Now consider what the shock separation has to be in order to obtain a piled-up distribution of particles emitting the observed synchrotron keV photons. If the radiating plasma between the shocks is highly relativistic (with the respective bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$), then the condition $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}t_\mathrm{b}^{}`$ reads

$$d^{}ct_{\mathrm{rad}}^{},$$
(12)
where $`d^{}`$ is the shock separation as measured in the radiating plasma rest frame (Appendices D and F). The parameter $`d^{}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for the observed critical synchrotron photon energy $`h\nu _{\mathrm{cr}}1`$ keV and different magnetic field intensities, is shown on figure 4. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }310`$ and $`B10^510^4`$ G one gets $`d^{}10100`$ pc. For larger shock separations, pile-ups are expected to occur at lower energies of the synchrotron photons. However, these values should be considered as illustrative only, because the analysis above refers to a very simplified situation, in which we neglect the effects of turbulent second-order Fermi acceleration and assume identical properties for all the shocks. For reasonable large-scale jet parameters, however, an ensemble of shock waves present within the extended knot region can result in the formation of a flat power-law electron energy distribution followed by a high-energy pile-up announced by its X-ray synchrotron emission. This situation is similar to the model discussed by Stawarz & Ostrowski (2002), but here the time scale between subsequent shock events, and not the second-order Fermi acceleration time scale, $`t_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{II}}^{}`$, determines the critical electron energy. The ratio of these two time scales, for $`B_41`$ and electron Lorentz factor $`\gamma 10^8`$, can be rewritten as

$$\frac{t_\mathrm{b}^{}}{t_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{II}}^{}}\left(\frac{\beta _\mathrm{A}}{0.01}\right)^2\left(\frac{d^{}}{10\mathrm{pc}}\right)$$
(13)
where $`V_\mathrm{A}\beta _\mathrm{A}c`$ is the Alfven speed in the radiating plasma (Appendix F). Therefore, we conclude that an ensemble of oblique shock waves within the knot regions of large-scale quasar jets can act in the analogous way to second-order Fermi acceleration, as discussed by Stawarz & Ostrowski (2002). Both processes, which in a realistic situation can be hard to separate, are due to the interaction of the propagating jet with the surrounding medium. Both of them can result (for reasonable jet parameters) in a pile-up of high-energy electrons radiating X-ray synchrotron photons, and both are consistent with the observed longitudinal magnetic field.

## 4 Discussion

Inverse-Compton scattering of the CMB radiation field within a highly relativistic flow is commonly believed to explain relatively strong X-ray emission detected by CXO from large-scale quasar jets. This model, as initially proposed, is attractive because of its simplicity and energetic efficiency. On the other hand, it is inconsistent with morphological properties of these objects, namely with the frequency-independent knot profiles, *if* the jet flow is continuous and the knots are stationary (e.g., if they are manifestations of the reconfinement shocks through which the jet matter is flowing at a constant rate). It was proposed (Tavecchio et al., 2003) that the inconsistency can be resolved by assuming that the radiating jet region consists of small, adiabaticaly expanding clumps. However, as discussed in § 2.1, by invoking an inhomogeneous structure of the emitting regions, one loses the advantages of the EIC model over other models proposed in the literature. In particular, when clumps are incorporated into the EIC model, emitting regions generally have to be far from the minimum power condition. In this situation, it becomes much more difficult to arrange for the radiating particles to be confined to the required volumes. Also, knot profiles will be observed as almost frequency-independent only if the radiating regions expand very rapidly, starting from very compact clumps. Such a situation leads to the problem that contributions from the SSC process cannot be excluded anymore. Furthermore, fine-tuning of the parameters is required in order not to overproduce optical emission by the EIC process at the final stage of the clump evolution. One should emphasize that, if the X-rays from large-scale quasar jets — modeled as continuous flows with localized and stationary particle acceleration sites — are indeed inverse-Compton in origin, then clumping of the knot regions is unavoidable. In the case of the EIC scenario this is because strong adiabatic losses are required in order to obtain knots instead of uniform and continuous emission along the jet, while in the case of the SSC process it is because the energy density of synchrotron photons within the emitting regions is required to be larger than in the homogeneous case in order to provide the observed level of X-ray emission. Therefore, we consider the clumpy jet model (as proposed by Tavecchio et al. (2003)) as unlikely.

We note that complex substructure of the knots is suggested by the time variability of the kpc-scale jet in the FR I radio galaxy M 87 (e.g., Harris et al., 1997, 2003). In FR I sources, the X-ray emission observed by CXO is most probably synchrotron in origin. Also, detailed studies of the Centaurus A jet radio and X-ray radiation seem to indicate a spine-boundary layer morphology (Hardcastle et al., 2003). This can be taken as an indication that dissipation processes acting at the jet boundary can be crucial for understanding the high-energy radiative output of extragalactic large-scale jets, and their X-ray emission in particular (Stawarz & Ostrowski, 2002, § 2.2). We stress that the nature of the quasar jet clumps — as localized small sites of particle acceleration — is unknown. It was proposed (Tavecchio et al., 2003) that the clumpy structure can form when the jet crosses a region filled with small clouds of ambient medium, or that the clumps can be related to magnetic reconnection events.

Regardless of the specific mechanism of X-ray production, the morphological properties of quasar jets (inferred from multiwavelength observations) can be understood if the knots are not stationary regions of energy dissipation within the continuous jet flow, but instead are moving, separate portions of the jet matter. In § 3.1 we outlined the possible connection between this idea and highly modulated jet activity. In this case, a variety of particle acceleration processes (including reconnection, acting in a way analogous to second-order Fermi acceleration) can play a role. Unfortunately, optical observations, which could be crucial in discriminating among models, cannot give definitive answers at the moment. Therefore, detailed spectral and morphological studies are still needed. Let us mention in this context one especially interesting object, which could be a very promising target for such multiwavelength studies: the large-scale jet associated with the Seyfert galaxy 3C 120. In this object, intermittent jet activity seems to take place, while the X-ray emission of the knot seems to be exceptionally inconsistent with the EIC model.

3C 120 ($`z=0.033`$) displays large-scale radio structure, with a one-sided bending jet (observed up to roughly $`100`$ kpc from the core) and diffuse, amorphous radio emission extending in several directions up to $`>400`$ kpc (Walker et al., 1987). VLBI observations reveal complex jet structure with superluminal motions of some jet components at the $`1100`$ pc scale (e.g., Walker et al., 2001). This, together with the large bending of the flow at kpc-scales, indicate a small jet inclination to the line of sight. At $`23`$ kpc from the host galaxy, an elongated radio knot, oriented perpendicular to the flow axis, is observed. Long-term VLA monitoring (Walker, 1997) indicates that this knot is stationary (or moving only subluminally). Farther away the jet bends and fades, but is manifested again at $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ from the core as a bright, extended radio knot, oriented obliquely with respect to the jet path. The radio spectral index $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}0.65`$ remains constant along the flow, although brightness variations are large. Optical observations reveal polarized emission aligned with some parts of the radio jet in the first few kpc from the core, but with morphology not corresponding directly to the radio one (Hjorth et al., 1995). Surprisingly, the $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ knot turn out to possess an X-ray counterpart with a $`0.22`$ keV luminosity $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1, as shown by ROSAT observations (Harris et al., 1999). Optical upper limits (placed below the interpolated radio-to-X-ray continuum) allow one to estimate the optical-to-X-ray power-law slope for this region as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{o}\mathrm{x}}<0.35`$.

The EIC model applied to the X-ray knot of the 3C 120 jet gives an uncomfortably small viewing angle of the jet, $`\theta 1.5^0`$, and a very high bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }40`$ (Harris & Krawczynski, 2002). Note that, in such a case, the deprojected distance of the X-ray knot from the host galaxy is on the order of Mpc. On the other hand, radio observations together with optical upper limits exclude the possibility that the radio-to-X-ray continuum results from the synchrotron emission of a single power-law electron energy distribution. Also, if the X-ray emission is synchrotron radiation, for example due to an additional electron population as suggested by Harris et al. (1999), the flat spectral index and large extent of the knot call for continuous particle energization666Aharonian (2002) proposed an alternative explanation, involving synchrotron emission of very high energy protons.. We suggest that the X-ray emission of the knot in the 3C 120 jet is indeed synchrotron in origin, and is a manifestation of the pile-up of high-energy electrons by some particle acceleration process acting continuously within the radiating region. This region can be further identified with a separate portion of the jet matter, possibly moving with relativistic velocities (but not as high as required by the EIC model), ejected from the active nucleus some $`10^5`$ yrs ago. This is consistent with the morphology of the 3C 120 extended radio lobes, which also indicate intermittent jet activity.

## 5 Conclusions

We propose that the knots observed in large-scale quasar jets in radio, optical and X-rays represent portions of the jet with an excess of kinetic power due to intermittent high activity of the jet engine. The appropriate time scales for jet activity and quiescent epochs ($`10^4`$ yr and $`10^5`$ yr, respectively) are roughly consistent with the ones estimated in different contexts for powerful radio sources (Reynolds & Begelman, 1997; Siemiginowska & Elvis, 1997). The proposed scenario can explain some morphological properties of quasar jets, independently of the exact emission process responsible for production of X-rays. Indeed, the dominant emission process cannot be designated for certain yet. It is possible that the X-ray emission of quasar jets is due to inverse-Compton scattering of the CMB by low-energy electrons accelerated in internal shocks. On the other hand, it is also possible that the observed keV photons are synchrotron in origin, being a manifestation of high-energy electrons piled-up at the critical energy $`100`$ TeV due to the second-order Fermi process and/or multiple shock acceleration. The fact that an exceptionally high Doppler factor is required to explain the 3C 120 X-ray data in the framework of the EIC scenario, suggests that synchrotron emission is likely to be the dominant process in this object, at least. Whatever emission mechanism prevails in most large-scale quasar jets, intermittent jet activity assures, in a natural way, high knot-to-interknot brightness contrasts, frequency-independent knot profiles, and almost universal extents of the knots ($`1`$ kpc).

ŁS, MS and MO were supported by the grant PBZ-KBN-054/P03/2001. ŁS acknowledges also financial support from Fundacja Astronomii Polskiej. MCB acknowledges support from National Science Foundation grant AST-0307502. A part of this work was done during the stay of ŁS and MS at JILA, University of Colorado.

## Appendix A Minimum power condition

The total power of a cylindrical relativistic jet with bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>1`$ and radius $`R`$, consisting of magnetic field with comoving energy density $`u_\mathrm{B}^{}B^2/8\pi `$, radiating ultrarelativistic electrons with the comoving energy density $`u_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and protons with $`u_\mathrm{p}^{}\eta u_\mathrm{e}^{}`$, is

$$L_{\mathrm{tot}}=L_\mathrm{B}+L_\mathrm{e}+L_\mathrm{p}$$
(A1)
where the Poynting flux is

$$L_\mathrm{B}=\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2u_\mathrm{B}^{}$$
(A2)
and the power carried by electrons and protons is, respectively

$$L_\mathrm{e}=\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2u_\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{and}L_\mathrm{p}=\eta L_\mathrm{e}.$$
(A3)
For a given electron energy distribution (i.e., the respective moments $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^2`$), the electron energy density can be related to synchrotron luminosity of some radiating volume $`V^{}`$ by

$$L_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{c\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma }u_\mathrm{B}^{}V^{}u_\mathrm{e}^{}.$$
(A4)
Hence

$$L_\mathrm{e}=6\pi ^2\frac{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^2}\frac{R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{B^2}\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}}{V^{}}.$$
(A5)
For a radiating region modeled either as a moving or steady source, one has the transformation to the observer frame

$$\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}}{V^{}}=\frac{1}{\delta ^3}\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}{V}$$
(A6)
where the Doppler factor of the jet emission is $`\delta 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mu )`$ and $`\theta \mathrm{cos}^1\mu `$ is the jet viewing angle (see, e.g., Sikora et al., 1997). Note that, for small jet viewing angles ($`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$), the Poynting flux and the bulk power of radiating electrons do not behave in opposite ways with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`B`$, because $`L_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2B^2`$ while $`L_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B^2`$ (cf. Ghisellini & Celotti, 2001). Setting

$$\left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{tot}}}{B}\right)_{B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}}=0$$
(A7)
one can find that the magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ minimizing $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the one for which $`L_\mathrm{B}=L_\mathrm{e}+L_\mathrm{p}`$. This value is given by

$$B_{\mathrm{cr}}^4=36\pi ^2\frac{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}{c\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^2}\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}{\delta ^3V}(1+\eta ).$$
(A8)
Let us next consider a clumpy jet, consisting of $`N`$ identical clumps of radiating matter with comoving volumes $`V_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, which are present within the region of volume $`V^{}`$. The clump filling factor can be defined as

$$f\frac{NV_\mathrm{c}^{}}{V^{}}.$$
(A9)
Assuming that the jet velocity is uniform within the jet region under consideration, the Poynting flux for the radiating matter is then

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_\mathrm{B}=\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2f\stackrel{~}{u}_\mathrm{B}^{}.$$
(A10)
This follows from the fact that, given the magnetic energy of each clump $`E_{\mathrm{B},\mathrm{c}}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_\mathrm{B}^{}V_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, the total magnetic energy of the radiating matter flowing through the jet surface $`\pi R^2`$ is $`NE_{\mathrm{B},\mathrm{c}}^{}/V^{}=f\stackrel{~}{u}_\mathrm{B}^{}`$. Similarly, the bulk kinetic powers of the emitting electrons and protons (for an assumed $`\eta `$ the same as in the homogeneous knot model) are, respectively,

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_\mathrm{e}=\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2f\stackrel{~}{u}_\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{L}_\mathrm{p}=\eta \stackrel{~}{L}_\mathrm{e}.$$
(A11)
However, one has also

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_\mathrm{e}^{}\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn},\mathrm{c}}^{}}{V_\mathrm{c}^{}}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}}{fV^{}}$$
(A12)
where $`L_{\mathrm{syn},\mathrm{c}}^{}=L_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}/N`$ is the intrinsic synchrotron luminosity of each clump. As a result, the bulk kinetic energy of the particles computed for the radiating regions of the clumpy jet is the same as that computed for the homogeneous knot model. Hence, the magnetic field minimizing the total power of the radiating clumpy matter is

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{cr}}=f^{1/4}B_{\mathrm{cr}}.$$
(A13)
## Appendix B Adiabatic losses in the EIC model

Adiabatic losses of ultrarelativistic electrons with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$, within an expanding region of linear size $`r`$, obey

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dr}=A\frac{\gamma }{r}$$
(B1)
(where $`A=1`$ \[2/3\] for three-dimensional \[two-dimensional\] expansion), and lead to the evolution of the electron distribution according to

$$N^{}(\gamma ,r)=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^AN_0^{}(\gamma _0).$$
(B2)
Here $`N^{}(\gamma ,r)n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )V^{}`$, $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )\gamma ^s`$ is the electron energy distribution, $`N_0^{}(\gamma _0)`$ is the number of electrons injected impulsively at $`r=r_0`$ with initial energies $`\gamma _0`$, and

$$\gamma =\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^A\gamma _0$$
(B3)
(see, e.g., Atoyan & Aharonian, 1999).

The inverse-Compton luminosity due to electrons with given energy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}}`$ is

$$[\nu L_\nu (r)]_{\mathrm{eic}}n_\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}})V^{}=N^{}(\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}},r).$$
(B4)
Therefore, the adiabatic decrease of the EIC luminosity at a given frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{eic}}\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}}^2`$ is

$$\frac{[\nu L_\nu (r)]_{\mathrm{eic}}}{[\nu L_\nu (r_0)]_{\mathrm{eic}}}=\frac{N^{}(\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}},r)}{N_0^{}(\gamma _{\mathrm{eic}})}=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{A(s1)}.$$
(B5)
## Appendix C SSC emission in the clumping model

The ratio of the observed SSC luminosity to the observed EIC luminosity is

$$\frac{L_{\mathrm{ssc}}}{L_{\mathrm{eic}}}=\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1+\mu }\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\delta ^2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}}{u_{\mathrm{cmb}}^{}}$$
(C1)
(e.g., Stawarz et al., 2003). The comoving energy density of the CMB radiation at redshift $`z`$ is

$$u_{\mathrm{cmb}}^{}=\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2aT^4(1+z)^4$$
(C2)
where $`aT^44\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-3. The comoving energy density of the synchrotron emission in the clumpy jet, for clumps with radius $`R_\mathrm{c}`$, is

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{syn}}^{}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn},\mathrm{c}}^{}}{4\pi R_\mathrm{c}^2c}.$$
(C3)
The intrinsic synchrotron luminosity of each clump, $`L_{\mathrm{syn},\mathrm{c}}^{}`$, is related to the observed synchrotron luminosity of the whole knot region, $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}`$, by

$$L_{\mathrm{syn},\mathrm{c}}^{}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}{N\delta ^4}$$
(C4)
where $`N`$ is a number of identical clumps. Hence, one finally obtains

$$\frac{L_{\mathrm{ssc}}}{L_{\mathrm{eic}}}=\frac{(1+z)^4}{4\pi caT^4}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1+\mu }\right)^2\frac{L_{\mathrm{syn}}}{\delta ^6NR_\mathrm{c}^2}.$$
(C5)
## Appendix D Radiative energy losses

The time scale of radiative losses via synchrotron and inverse-Compton processes, where the latter is dominated by Comptonization of the CMB, as measured in the comoving frame of the radiating plasma is

$$t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}\frac{3m_\mathrm{e}c^2}{4c\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\frac{\gamma ^1}{u_\mathrm{B}^{}(1+X)}$$
(D1)
where $`Xu_{\mathrm{cmb}}^{}/u_\mathrm{B}^{}`$ (see Appendix C). The electron Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ is related to the observed frequency of the synchrotron emission, $`\nu `$, by

$$\nu =0.29\frac{3e}{4\pi m_\mathrm{e}c}\frac{\delta B}{(1+z)}\gamma ^2$$
(D2)
and therefore, for a given observed synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}`$, one obtains

$$t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}\frac{\sqrt{8\pi m_\mathrm{e}ce}}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\frac{\delta ^{1/2}B^{3/2}(1+z)^{1/2}}{1+\frac{32\pi }{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2aT^4B^2(1+z)^4}\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}^{1/2}.$$
(D3)
Due to inverse-Compton losses, for a given $`\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}`$ the propagation length of the synchrotron-emitting electrons as measured in the observer rest frame, $`l_{\mathrm{rad}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$, cannot be arbitrary large, and passes through a maximum as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`B`$ (Jester et al., 2001).

## Appendix E Internal shocks

If the colliding portions of the jet flow differ only in bulk velocities ($`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$, respectively), one can find the bulk velocity of the contact discontinuity from the energy and momentum conservation laws:

$$\beta _{\mathrm{ct}}=\frac{\beta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\beta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}$$
(E1)
(e.g., Komissarov & Falle, 1997). Hence, for highly relativistic velocities one has the contact discontinuity bulk Lorentz factor

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}.$$
(E2)
After the collision, a double-shock structure develops. This structure is symmetric in the comoving frame of the contact discontinuity (denoted by primes), and therefore the extent of the shocked region along the jet is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}=2c|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}$$
(E3)
where $`|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|`$ is the shock velocity in the contact frame and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ is the time since the collision. In order to find the shock velocity, one has to solve the shock-jump conditions between the upstream plasma, moving with velocity $`\beta _1`$, and the downstream plasma, moving with velocity $`\beta _{\mathrm{ct}}`$. This can be done conveniently in the comoving frame of the upstream plasma (denoted by $`(1)`$), to obtain the Lorentz factor of the shock

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}^{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}^{(1)}+1)[\widehat{\gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}^{(1)}1)+1]^2}{\widehat{\gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}(2\widehat{\gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}^{(1)}1)+2}}$$
(E4)
(Blandford & McKee, 1976). The constant $`\widehat{\gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ can be identified with the ratio of specific heats of the upstream matter (we assume $`\widehat{\gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}=5/3`$). Next, the shock velocity $`\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ in the contact frame can be found by transforming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}^{(1)}`$ to the downstream plasma frame. For large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|`$ is expected to be subrelativistic.

The shocked region is a moving radiating portion of the jet flow, and therefore its deprojected observed length is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l=\delta _{\mathrm{ct}}\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}$$
(E5)
With the requirement $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$, where $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$ is the lifetime of the radiatively cooling electrons in the downstream plasma moving with bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ (Appendix D), one can write

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l}{\delta _{\mathrm{ct}}}2c|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}$$
(E6)
to obtain for small jet inclinations (i.e., for $`\delta _{\mathrm{ct}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l2c|\beta _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}.$$
(E7)
## Appendix F Multiple shocks

The time scale for particles to escape from the region of the shock ensemble can be estimated as

$$t_{\mathrm{esc}}^{}\frac{D^2}{\kappa },$$
(F1)
where $`D`$ is the thickness of the considered region and $`\kappa \lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )c/3`$ is the diffusion coefficient of the electrons with mean free path $`\lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )`$ and Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. Assuming that $`\lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )`$ is comparable to the electron gyroradius,

$$\lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )r_\mathrm{g}=\frac{\gamma m_\mathrm{e}c^2}{eB},$$
(F2)
one obtains

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{esc}}^{}}{t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}}\frac{e\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{2\pi (m_\mathrm{e}c^2)^2}D^2B^3(1+X)$$
(F3)
where the radiative loss time scale $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}`$ is given in Appendix D.

The time scale between subsequent shocks can be estimated as

$$t_\mathrm{b}^{}\frac{d^{}}{c}$$
(F4)
where $`d^{}`$ is the mean separation of the shocks in the comoving frame of the radiating plasma between the shocks (moving with bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$). Second-order Fermi acceleration can be characterized by the time scale

$$t_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{II}}^{}\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )}{c}\left(\frac{c}{V_{\mathrm{sc}}}\right)^2,$$
(F5)
where the velocity of the scattering centers involved in the turbulent acceleration $`V_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ can be identified with the Alfven speed, $`V_\mathrm{A}`$, and the particle gyroradius can be taken for $`\lambda _\mathrm{e}(\gamma )`$ (Stawarz & Ostrowski, 2002). Hence, one obtains the ratio

$$\frac{t_\mathrm{b}^{}}{t_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{II}}^{}}\frac{d^{}}{r_\mathrm{g}}\beta _\mathrm{A}^2=\frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}d^{}B\beta _\mathrm{A}^2\gamma ^1$$
(F6)
where $`\beta _\mathrm{A}V_\mathrm{A}/c`$.