text:
# Internal shocks in the jets of radio–loud quasars

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments in the blazar field, mainly stimulated by the discovery that these sources are strong $`\gamma `$–ray emitters, are offering new and important clues for understanding relativistic jets. All blazar spectral energy distributions (SED) are characterized by two broad emission peaks e.g. \[Fossati et al. 1998\], strongly variable on different timescales (Wagner & Witzel 1995; Maraschi et al. 1994; Hartman et al. 1996). The location of these peaks (their frequency, relative and absolute flux) and their variability behavior are a strong diagnostic tools to discriminate among theoretical models and find the intrinsic physical parameters of the source. The broad band spectrum from the far infrared upwards can be explained by a “single-zone” model, where the two peaks are respectively due to synchrotron and inverse Compton scattering from the same relativistic electron population (Maraschi, Ghisellini & Celotti 1992; Sikora, Begelman & Rees 1994). Since the radiative cooling time is much shorter than the dynamical one, the emitting particles must be accelerated in situ all along the jet, by means of a process not yet univocally determined.

The high energy flux varies generally on a timescale of the order of a day, and the bulk Lorentz factor (BLF) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the jet is estimated around $`10`$ \[Ghisellini et al. 1993\], leading to an upper limit for the source dimension of the order of $`R10^{17}`$ cm. Furthermore, the required transparency for $`\gamma `$–rays to the process of photon–photon pair production, sets a lower limit in the most powerful sources, of order $`10^{17}`$ cm, to the typical distance where the bulk of the radiative dissipation occurs.

Blazars are also characterized by strong radio emission, with a flat spectrum \[$`F(\nu )\nu ^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha `$ between $`0.5`$ and $`0.5`$\] and variability time scales of the order of weeks, months (see e.g. Ulrich, Maraschi & Urry, 1997). While the emission at frequencies from the far infrared upwards can be consistently due to a single population of electrons in the inner parts of the jet, the emission in the radio band has to be generated – in order not to be self–absorbed – on the outer, parsec scales where the plasma properties are expected to be different. The bulk motion is still relativistic at such distances, with BLFs similar to those inferred on the sub–parsec scales, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$ \[Zensus et al. 1997\].

The existing models, both homogeneous (e.g. Sikora, Begelman & Rees 1994; Inoue & Takahara 1996) and inhomogeneous ones (e.g. Celotti, Maraschi & Treves 1991; Ghisellini & Maraschi 1989), estimate the jet plasma properties, the magnetic field $`B`$ and the random Lorentz factors (RLF) of the electrons emitting at the peak of the spectra, $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$, by fitting the observed SED. In the inner jet $`B1`$ G and $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ varies from $``$ 102 to 106 depending on the power of the source \[Ghisellini et al. 1998\]: for the powerful OVV quasars – with bolometric luminosity of the order of $`L10^{47}10^{48}`$ erg s-1 – the synchrotron peak is at infrared-optical frequencies and $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ is estimated around 102-3, while for the less powerful sources, like the weak BL Lacs – with $`L10^{44}10^{45}`$erg s-1 – the synchrotron emission peaks in the UV–X-ray range and the RLFs of the electrons must be higher, $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ 104-6. This trend of decreasing peak energy with increasing source power appears to be systematic and can be accounted for by a corresponding increase in the intensity of a photon field external to the jet, which enhances the inverse Compton cooling losses (Fossati et al. 1998; Ghisellini et al. 1998). In the parsec scale jet the observed (radio) emission is believed to be synchrotron and the corresponding magnetic field and electrons RLF are estimated to be $`B10^3`$ G and $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}100`$, leading to particle cooling timescales much longer than the dynamical one.

Although these studies have allowed us to consistently derive the physical parameters in the emitting region, many aspects in the understanding of relativistic jets remain open, most notably the jet energetics and particle acceleration. In order to explore these issues and their relationship we consider a scenario where the plasma characteristics are not treated as free parameters, but are the result of the jet dynamics, thus relating the observed emission properties to the transport of energy along the jet. We achieve that by quantitatively considering a general scenario for the interpretation of blazars analogous to the standard scenario proposed to explain gamma–ray bursts, which was actually originally proposed for blazars more than two decades ago (Rees 1978).

The most important assumption in this scenario is that the central power engine produces energy which is channeled into jets in an intermittent way, though such a time dependent process cannot be easily inferred from first principles.

If the physical conditions determining the energy deposition are not steady, the distribution of BLFs and masses is non-uniform within the ejecta: faster portions of the flow would then catch up with slower ones leading to the development of relativistic shocks. The shocks would plausibly heat the expanding ejecta, generate/amplify a tangled magnetic field and accelerate leptons to relativistic energies, in turn causing synchrotron and inverse Compton emission. In this scenario – named internal shock model (e.g. Rees & Meszaros 1994; Lazzati, Ghisellini & Celotti 1999, Panaitescu, Spada & Meszaros 1999) – the following observational characteristics can be naturally explained:

* Efficiency – The radiative output of radio sources in general, and blazars in particular, has to be a small fraction of the energy transported by the jet (less than 10%): extended radio structures require in fact a power input exceeding what is emitted (e.g. Rawlings & Saunders 1991; Celotti & Fabian 1993). Low efficiency is indeed a characteristic of the internal shock model, as the range of the BLFs of the colliding shells can be only small (say the ratio of the maximum and minimum ones $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}3`$) in order to have a resulting jet bulk motion on larger scale with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$.
* Minimum distance for dissipation – As mentioned in the Introduction, there is a minimum dimension for the $`\gamma `$-ray source and the bulk of the observed power must be produced at some distance from the jet apex, i.e. from the accretion disk. In other words, the emitting zone must be far away from $`X`$-rays sources and not extremely compact itself otherwise, quite inevitably, the high energy $`\gamma `$–rays are absorbed by the dense radiation fields. The electron–positron pairs generated by such photon–photon interaction would then re-process the $`\gamma `$–ray power into softer (especially X–ray) radiation, which is not observed (Ghisellini & Madau 1996). In the internal shock model the jet becomes radiative on scales much larger than the central source dimension ($`R_010^{14}`$cm for a black hole of $`M=10^9M_{}`$) since all the velocities are close to $`c`$ and therefore the shells propagate for a significant distance before collisions can start. The expected minimum distance for the $`\gamma `$-rays emission is of the order of $`RR_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^210^{16}10^{17}`$cm, where $`R_0/c`$ measures the time interval between two consecutive shell ejections.
* Variability – Clearly the observed large amplitude variability must be explained by a non steady–state model: we believe that the shell–shell collision scenario studied here is the simplest among them.
* Continuous energy deposition along the jet – Dissipation is observed to occur along the whole jet, from the inner to the parsec scales with decreasing luminosity and typical photon frequency. The dynamical evolution of a wind in the internal shock model can indeed reproduce such behavior: shell–shell collisions take place along the whole jet, leading to a continuous conversion of bulk energy into internal one over a large range of distances. Due to the averaging of the shell BLFs during the expansion, the collisions become progressively less efficient as the distance increases, thus progressively reducing the released internal energy, the electron RLF, and the magnetic field.

As this scenario allows to predict a general and fairly complete description of the entire radiative jet, we believe that it can be a powerful tool to understand blazar spectra, their variability and the possible correlations between observed quantities on different scales. While we plan to fully explore the large potentialities of this model in a forthcoming work, in this paper we present the basic assumptions and the general set up of the model. For illustration purposes (i.e. not aiming to determine precise values of the physical quantities) we also consider the case of a specific well studied blazar, specifically 3C 279. Section 2 therefore describes the dynamics of the wind and the shocks forming from shell collisions, while in Section 3 the radiative properties of the shocked plasma are presented. The numerical simulations for the time dependent evolution of the system are described in Section 4, while the results and the specific case of 3C 279 are the subject of Section 5. In the final Section 6 we discuss our findings.

## 2 Hierarchical internal shocks

The entire jet emission is simulated by adding pulses radiated in a series of internal shocks that occur in a unstable relativistic wind (Daigne & Mochkovitch 1998; Spada, Panaitescu & Meszaros 2000). After (parametrically) setting the dynamics of the wind ejection, we calculate the radii where the shells collide. For each collision we study the hydrodynamics, in order to determine the shock velocity, the compression ratio and the internal energy $`E_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ of the shocked fluid. Assuming a given partition of $`E_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ among protons, electrons and magnetic field we calculate the relevant physical parameters in the shocked fluid, and finally the features of the emitted radiation.

### 2.1 Ejection features

The wind is discretized as a sequence of $`N=t_\mathrm{w}/t_\mathrm{v}`$ shells, where $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ is the duration time of the wind ejection from the central source and $`t_\mathrm{v}t_\mathrm{w}`$ is the average interval between consecutive ejections. Each shell is characterized by a mass $`M_j`$, a bulk Lorenz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ and an ejection time $`t_j`$: at $`t=t_j`$ the j-th shell is at a distance $`R_j=R_0`$, where $`R_0`$ is the central source dimension ($`R_0=10^{14}`$cm).

The shell BLFs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ are chosen randomly from a uniform distribution between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}`$, and the shell masses are also randomly picked up from a uniform distribution with an average value $`M_\mathrm{t}/N`$, where the total mass in the wind $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ is determined by the requirement:

$$\underset{\mathrm{j}=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_jc^2=L_\mathrm{w}t_\mathrm{w}$$
(1)
where $`L_\mathrm{w}`$ is the wind luminosity. The time interval between the ejection of a couple of consecutive shells is assumed to mimic a scenario in which the inner engine behaves as an accumulation mechanism: the quiescent time between the ejection of the $`j^{th}`$ and the $`(j+1)^{th}`$ shells is proportional to the total energy in the $`(j+1)^{th}`$ shell.

The ejected shell width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ is of the same order of the central source dimension $`R_0`$ and the shell internal energy $`U_j`$ is negligible (all the energy is stored as bulk kinetic energy).

### 2.2 Wind dynamics

The dynamics of the wind expansion is characterized by a series of two-shell collisions in which the faster shells catch up with the slower ones in the outer parts of the ejecta. The calculation of the collision radii follows the procedure of Kobayashi, Piran & Sari (1998). Given the wind configuration after the $`i`$-th collision, i.e. shell radius $`R^i(j)`$, shell velocity $`\beta ^i(j)`$, shell width $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(j)`$ and expansion velocity of the shell $`\beta _\mathrm{e}^i(j)`$, we calculate the minimum value among all the collision times between pairs of shells ($`j,j1`$) with $`\beta _{j1}>\beta _j`$.

$$\delta t_{i+1}=\mathrm{min}(t_{j,j1})$$
(2)
$$t_{j,j1}=\frac{R(j)R(j1)0.5(\mathrm{\Delta }(j)+\mathrm{\Delta }(j1))}{\beta (j1)\beta (j)+0.5(\beta _\mathrm{e}(j)+\beta _\mathrm{e}(j1))}.$$
(3)
The radius of the $`(i+1)`$-th collision represents the position of the two shells colliding after $`\delta t_{i+1}`$. This procedure is iterated for a wind described by an up-dated configuration, with a merged shell instead of the two colliding ones.

Regarding the two-shell interaction as an inelastic collision, the momentum and energy conservation laws yield the physical properties of the merged shell. If ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, $`M_i`$, $`\eta _i`$) and ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}`$, $`M_\mathrm{o}`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{o}`$) are the BLFs, rest masses and internal energies of the fast (inner) and slow (outer) shell with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i>\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}`$, the merged shell has a rest mass $`M_\mathrm{m}=M_i+M_\mathrm{o}`$, a BLF given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}=\left(\frac{\mu _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\mu _\mathrm{o}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}}{\mu _i/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\mu _\mathrm{o}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(4)
where $`\mu _i=M_i+\eta _i/c^2`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{o}=M_\mathrm{o}+\eta _\mathrm{o}/c^2`$. The total internal energy of the merged shell will then be:

$$E_{\mathrm{in}}=\eta _i+\eta _\mathrm{o}+\mu _ic^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m})+\mu _\mathrm{o}c^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}).$$
(5)
The dynamical efficiency, namely the newly generated internal energy over the total energy, is given by:

$$ϵ_\mathrm{d}=\frac{\mu _i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m})+\mu _\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mu _i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}\mu _\mathrm{o}}.$$
(6)
This efficiency decreases with the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}`$ and is maximized for $`\mu _\mathrm{o}=\mu _i`$.

The width of the shells spreads between two consecutive collisions with a velocity:

$$\beta _\mathrm{e}=\frac{2\beta _\mathrm{s}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\frac{1}{1(\beta \beta _\mathrm{s}^{})^2},$$
(7)
as measured in the observer’s frame, where $`\beta _\mathrm{s}^{}c=v_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ is the sound velocity of the plasma in the shell co–moving frame:

$$v_\mathrm{s}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\frac{E_{\mathrm{th}}^{}}{M_{\mathrm{sh}}}}.$$
(8)
During the free expansion between two subsequent collisions, each shell loses internal energy for adiabatic losses, while the BLF is held constant. The magnetic field, on the contrary, is generated at each collision without keeping memory of the field generated in precedent collisions (if any). The plasma thermal energy $`E_{\mathrm{th}}`$ increases in each collision – by the fraction of $`E_{\mathrm{in}}`$ which is not used to either accelerate electrons to a power–law energy distribution and/or generate/amplify magnetic field – leading to an increase in the plasma sound velocity $`v_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ during the wind expansion.

Since during each collision the propagation of the shocks through the two shells compresses the width of the merged shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{m}`$, the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{m}`$ itself requires a hydrodynamic treatment of the interaction, that is presented in the next section.

### 2.3 Hydrodynamic of the two–shell interaction

Let us consider the dynamics of the interaction between two shells. Here it will be assumed that the presence any magnetic field is negligible from the dynamics point of view. During the collision two shocks are formed, separated by a contact discontinuity: a forward shock (FS) that propagates in the external slow shell and a reverse shock (RS) that propagates backward in the faster shell (see Figure 1).

The calculation of the shocked plasma BLF, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, in the lab frame can be done applying the following conditions \[Panaitescu & Mészáros 1999\]:

* The Blandford–McKee (1976) jump equations for the FS and RS. For the FS the energy and particle number conservation yield:

$$\left(\frac{e_{\mathrm{sh}}}{n_{\mathrm{sh}}}\right)_\mathrm{o}=m_\mathrm{p}c^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh},o}1)$$
(9)
$$\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{sh}}}{n}\right)_\mathrm{o}=\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh},o}+1}{\widehat{\gamma }1},$$
(10)
where $`e_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ are the internal energy and the numerical baryon density of the shocked plasma, respectively, and $`n`$ is the pre–shocked numerical density. All these quantities are measured in the fluid co-moving frame. $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is the adiabatic index and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{o}}`$ is the BLF of the shocked plasma in the frame of the outer shell. A similar set of equations holds for the RS. The shocked plasma pressure $`p=(\widehat{\gamma }1)u`$ is calculated through Eqs. (9) and (10): $`(p_{\mathrm{sh}})_{o(i)}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{i})}1)(\widehat{\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{i})}+1)\rho _{o(i)}c^2`$, with $`\rho _{o(i)}`$ being the co–moving matter density of the shells before the collision.
* The condition of equal pressure for the shocked fluids around the contact discontinuity (CD) $`(p_{\mathrm{sh}})_\mathrm{o}=(p_{\mathrm{sh}})_i`$, and the condition of equal velocity around the CD yield a quartic equation for the lab–frame BLF $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}`$:

$`\widehat{\gamma }(g^4Y)x^4+2(\widehat{\gamma }1)g(Yg^2)x^3+2(2\widehat{\gamma })g^2(Y1)x^2`$
$`+2(\widehat{\gamma }1)g(g^2Y1)x+\widehat{\gamma }(1g^4Y)=0,`$ (11)
where:

$$x=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}},g=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}}}\left(\frac{1}{g}<x<g\right),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are the initial BLFs of the two shells and $`Y`$ is the ratio of the pre–shocks densities of the slow and fast shells. Eq.(11) is solved numerically. In the range of interest and for any physical choice of parameters Eq.(11) yields only one solution.

Once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is known we can evaluate:

* The shell widths after the shocks. The compression ratio $`\rho /\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is obtained by the jump conditions (9) and (10) (assuming a value for the adiabatic index $`\widehat{\gamma }=4/3`$) and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{sh,i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_i\left(\frac{\rho _i}{\rho _{sh,i}}\right)_{\mathrm{lab}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{sh,o}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{o}\left(\frac{\rho _\mathrm{o}}{\rho _{sh,o}}\right)_{\mathrm{lab}},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{o}`$ are the pre-shock values.
* The internal energies $`E_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{FS}}`$ for the RS and FS. The equality of the two shocks velocities and of the comoving internal energy densities yields (in the lab frame) to:

$$\frac{E_{\mathrm{RS}}}{E_{\mathrm{FS}}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sh},i}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{o}}}=R.$$
(14)
Thus the energy in the RS is $`E_{\mathrm{RS}}=R/(1+R)\times E_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and in the FS is $`E_{\mathrm{FS}}=1/(1+R)\times E_{\mathrm{in}}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the total internal energy generated during the collision (eq. 5).
* Knowing the shell width and the shock velocity we can then estimate the shell crossing time of the shock $`\delta t_{\mathrm{cr}}=\mathrm{\Delta }/|v_{\mathrm{sh}}v_0|`$ where $`v_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`v_0`$ are the post-shock and pre-shock material velocity, respectively.

### 2.4 Shocked fluid parameters

The parameters determining the synchrotron and inverse Compton emission are the magnetic field strength $`B`$ and the electron energy distribution in the shocked fluid.

Given the uncertainty in determining these quantities directly from the physics of relativistic shocks, these are parametrized by dimensionless parameters defined as: $`ϵ_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{e}`$, which measure the fraction of the co-moving internal energy density $`U_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ stored in magnetic field $`U_\mathrm{B}^{}`$ and in electrons $`U_\mathrm{e}^{}`$, respectively (the apex indicates quantities measured in the co-moving frame).

The co-moving magnetic field is then defined by $`B^2/(8\pi )=ϵ_\mathrm{B}U_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$:

$$B^{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}}\sqrt{\frac{2ϵ_\mathrm{B}E_{\mathrm{sh}}}{R^2\mathrm{\Delta }}},$$
(15)
and is assumed to be randomly oriented in space.

Following the results on non-relativistic shocks, and the recent results on relativistic ones (Bednarz & Ostrowski 1998; Kirk et al. 2000), we also postulate that the electrons are accelerated (instantaneously) behind the shock as a power law $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$ with $`\gamma >\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$, and $`p>2`$. For an equal number of protons and electrons, the number density of non–thermal electrons is: $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}=\zeta _\mathrm{e}\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}/m_\mathrm{p}`$, where $`\zeta _\mathrm{e}`$ is the fraction of electrons effectively accelerated. Since $`U_\mathrm{e}^{}=ϵ_\mathrm{e}U_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, the minimum RLF $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ corresponds to:

$$\gamma _\mathrm{b}=\frac{p2}{p1}\left(1+\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{e}}{\zeta _\mathrm{e}}\frac{U_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}}{\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}^{}}\frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{e}}\right)1837\frac{p2}{p1}\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{e}}{\zeta _\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}.$$
(16)
In conclusion, by studying the wind dynamics and shock hydrodynamics we can determine for each collision the energy density in non–thermal electrons and in magnetic field and estimate the minimum RLFs $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ of the electron energy distribution injected by the shocks.

## 3 The spectrum

Having estimated such quantities, we can therefore calculate the spectrum of the radiation emitted during each collision. In order to achieve that we adopt some simplifications:

* The emitting zone is assumed to be homogeneous, and the plasma is embedded in a tangled magnetic field. Its comoving volume is $`V=\pi \psi ^2R^2\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}`$, where $`\psi `$ is the half-opening angle of the jet, assumed conical.
* The relativistic particles are treated as having the same energy distribution throughout the entire emitting region. In a more realistic approach, the particles would be accelerated at the shock front, where most of the energetic electrons would be located, while cooled particles would be progressively more distant from the shock front. However, as we are interested in the “average” spectrum, we assume to collect radiation emitted by the entire shell. Clearly such simplification does not allow to consider changes in spectral details occurring on a timescale faster than the light crossing time of a single shell.
* There is a source of soft photons external to the jet. We identify it with the emission reprocessed in the broad line region (BLR). Therefore we consider a luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{ext}}=aL_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ is produced within $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, corresponding to a radiation energy density (as measured in the frame comoving with the shell) given by (e.g. Ghisellini & Madau 1996):

$$U_{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{17}{12}\frac{aL_{\mathrm{disk}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\pi R_{\mathrm{BLR}}^2c}$$
(17)
For simplicity, this seed photon component is considered to abruptly vanish beyond $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$.
* We assume that the particle distribution results from the continuous injection and cooling processes, where particles are injected with a power law energy distribution of index $`s=(p1)`$ between $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (as measured in the comoving frame). The corresponding power injected in the form of relativistic particles is $`L_\mathrm{e}`$. The equilibrium particle distribution $`N(\gamma )`$ is then found through the following procedure.

We calculate the (comoving) random RLF $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$ of those particles with a cooling time comparable with the shock crossing time $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$ and above $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$ the distribution is taken as a power law of index $`p`$. Below $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$ there are two cases:

i) if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}>\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$, we assume that $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^s`$ between $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$, and $`N(\gamma )=0`$ for $`\gamma <\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$;

ii) if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}<\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$, $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^2`$ between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$, and $`N(\gamma )=0`$ for $`\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$.

The normalization of $`N(\gamma )`$ is determined according to whether particles with $`\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ can or cannot cool in the timescale $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$:

a) if most of the power injected in relativistic particles is radiated in a short timescale ($`<t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$, this is equivalent to demand $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}>\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}`$) we apply a luminosity balance condition:

$$L_\mathrm{e}=Vm_\mathrm{e}c^2\dot{\gamma }N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma ,$$
(18)
where $`V`$ is the emitting volume and $`\dot{\gamma }`$ is the total radiative cooling rate, which includes synchrotron, synchrotron self–Compton (SSC) and external Compton (EC) losses. In order to allow for the possibility of having multiple Compton scatterings, especially when $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ is not very large, we first calculate how many scattering orders $`n_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ can take place before the Klein–Nishina limit is reached (we consider up to 10 orders of scatterings). Taking $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ as the relevant energy, the number of scatering orders in the Thomson regime are

$$n_{\mathrm{IC}}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\gamma _\mathrm{b}/x_\mathrm{B})}{\mathrm{ln}(4\gamma _\mathrm{b}^2/3)}1$$
(19)
where $`x_\mathrm{B}h\nu _\mathrm{B}/(m_\mathrm{e}c^2)`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{B}=eB/(2\pi m_\mathrm{e}c)`$ is the (non–relativistic) Larmor frequency. We define $`U_\mathrm{e}L_\mathrm{e}/(\pi R^2c)`$ and introduce the Comptonization parameter $`y`$ as:

$$y\frac{3}{4}\sigma _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}\gamma ^2N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma .$$
(20)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}`$ is the thickness of the shell at the time of the collision. For semplicitly, we neglect its further expansion while it is radiating. With this definition of $`y`$, Eq. (18) can be re–written as:

$$U_\mathrm{e}=yU_\mathrm{B}(1+\frac{U_{\mathrm{ext}}}{U_\mathrm{B}}+y+y^2+\mathrm{}.y^{n_{\mathrm{IC}}}).$$
(21)
b) if most of the power is not radiated in $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$, the electrons retain their energy and

$$E_\mathrm{e}=L_\mathrm{e}t_{\mathrm{cross}}=m_\mathrm{e}c^2VN(\gamma )\gamma 𝑑\gamma .$$
(22)
Assuming the same broken power–law shape for $`N(\gamma )`$ we can then determine its normalization.

### 3.1 Synchrotron emission

To calculate the synchrotron emission we adopt the pitch angle averaged synchrotron emissivity for a single electron given in, e.g., Ghisellini & Svensson (1991):

$`j(\gamma ,\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}cU_\mathrm{B}}{\nu _\mathrm{B}}}t^2\times `$ (23)
$`\left\{K_{4/3}(t)K_{1/3}(t){\displaystyle \frac{3t}{5}}\left[K_{4/3}^2(t)K_{1/3}^2(t)\right]\right\}.`$
Here $`t\nu /(3\gamma ^2\nu _\mathrm{B})`$ and $`K_\mathrm{b}`$ is the modified Bessel function of order $`b`$. The total monochromatic synchrotron luminosity (in the comoving frame) is then found by integrating $`j(\gamma ,\nu )`$ over the particle distribution and the source volume.

### 3.2 Synchrotron self–absorption

The synchrotron self absorption spectrum produced by a power law energy particle distribution with a low energy cut–off is $`F(\nu )\nu ^2`$ instead of the familiar $`\nu ^{5/2}`$. The type of distribution can result from the injection of particles above some minimum energy and slow cooling (with respect to $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$). This case is therefore relevant to us. Here we treat synchrotron self–absorption exactly, making use of the concept of “synchrotron cross section” $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}(\gamma ,\nu )`$ given in Eq. (2.17) of Ghisellini & Svensson (1991), which we report for completeness:

$$\sigma _\mathrm{s}(\gamma ,\nu )=\frac{8\sqrt{3}\pi ^2}{15}\frac{e}{B}\frac{t}{\gamma ^5}\left[K_{4/3}^2(t)K_{1/3}^2(t)\right],$$
(24)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge and a tangled magnetic field and an isotropic distribution of pitch angles are assumed. The synchrotron absorption optical depth is then given by

$$\tau _\nu ^s=\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}\sigma _\mathrm{s}(\gamma ,\nu )N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma .$$
(25)
Note that in this formalism the optical depth can be determined also when $`N(\gamma `$) has abrupt cut–offs.

The resulting monochromatic synchrotron luminosity is isotropic in the comoving frame and is calculated according to the usual radiation transfer equation:

$$L_\mathrm{s}(\nu )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi V\left[j(\gamma ,\nu )N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma \right]\frac{1e^{\tau _\nu ^s}}{\tau _\nu ^s}.$$
(26)
### 3.3 Inverse Compton emission

We calculate the inverse Compton emission if it occurs in the Thomson regime, while neglect the Klein–Nishina regime by adopting a scattering cross section equal to the Thomson one for $`\gamma x<3/4`$ and zero otherwise. $`x=h\nu /(m_\mathrm{e}c^2)`$ is the dimensionless energy of the incoming photon. The $`\delta `$–function approximation for the single particle spectrum is adopted, i.e. it is assumed that the particle emission is peaked at $`x_\mathrm{c}=(4/3)\gamma ^2x`$. With these simplifications the resulting emitted monochromatic power is

$$L_\mathrm{c}(x_\mathrm{c})=\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}cVm_\mathrm{e}c^2}{2}N(\gamma )\gamma n(x)𝑑x;\gamma =\left(\frac{3x_\mathrm{c}}{4x}\right)^{1/2}$$
(27)
where $`n(x)`$ is the density of seed photons. Eq. (27) is calculated for each order of Compton scattering. To calculate $`L_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}(x_\mathrm{c})`$ of the Compton order $`n`$ we must then use the photon density produced by the previous order, $`n(x)_{\mathrm{n}1}`$. For the first order, the seed photons are the sum of the locally produced synchrotron and the externally produced photons. The spectrum of the external seed photons (in the comoving frame) is assumed to have a blackbody shape peaking at frequency $`x_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }x_{\mathrm{line}}`$, where we always assume $`\nu _{\mathrm{line}}=10^{15}`$ Hz.

As high energy $`\gamma `$–rays can interact with softer photons producing electron–positron pairs, we take into account the absorption effects due to this process. However in general this is found to be unimportant because no large compactenesses are involved.

### 3.4 Beaming

Finally let us consider the effect of relativistic beaming on the observed radiation. The emitting plasma is moving at a BLF $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, intermediate between the original BLF of the two colliding shells, computed according to the details given in Section 2. The radiation produced by each colliding shell is then received by the observer as

$$L^{\mathrm{obs}}(\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}})=\delta ^3L(\nu ^{\mathrm{obs}}/\delta ),$$
(28)
where $`\delta =[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }^21)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta ]^1`$ is the Doppler (or beaming) factor and $`\theta `$ is the viewing angle (with respect to the jet axis). The luminosity thus calculated corresponds to what the observer would estimate assuming isotropic emission.

## 4 Numerical simulations

In this section we analyze the general properties of the macro– and micro–physics of the plasma during the jet evolution. Numerical simulations are mandatory in order to test the model, given the difficulty in understanding and disentangle the effect of each parameter on the global properties of the flow and the produced radiation.

The number of parameters that sets the kinematical and radiative evolution of the jet flow is relatively small. More precisely, the range of BLFs ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}÷\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}`$), the average kinetic luminosity of the inner engine $`L_\mathrm{w}`$ and the time variability timescale $`t_\mathrm{v}`$ define the kinematical evolution, while the equipartition parameters $`ϵ_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{B}`$ and the fraction of accelerated electrons $`\zeta _\mathrm{e}`$ control the radiative properties of the plasma. The former ones are reasonably constrained, since $`10\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{<}{}25`$ and $`L_\mathrm{w}10^{48}`$ erg s-1 are observationally inferred and the variability time can be estimated as $`t_\mathrm{v}R_0/c10^4`$ s. On the other hand, it is more difficult to quantify the latter ones and they can be basically considered as free parameters. In the simulations presented in this paper, they have been specifically adjusted in order to reproduce the general observed behavior of the OVV source 3C 279, as: $`ϵ_\mathrm{e}=0.5`$, $`ϵ_\mathrm{B}=0.004`$ and $`\zeta _\mathrm{e}=0.04`$.

Finally, the external radiation field (see above) is constrained by the radius of the BLR, $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}=5\times 10^{17}`$cm, and by the luminosity of the disk and corona radiative components assumed to be $`L=10^{45}`$ erg s-1.

In order to illustrate the difficulty in predicting the results of changes in the above parameters, let us consider, as an example, the effect of variations (decrease) in the lower BLF $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}`$. On one side as the average speed of the shells is smaller, they must be more massive to maintain the same wind luminosity. This implies that the energy per baryon generated in each collision is lower and thus a smaller $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ is expected. On the contrary, the dynamical efficiency increases thanks to the larger ratios of the BLFs of the involved shells, leading in turn to larger internal energy, in direct competition with the former effect. Moreover, a smaller $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}`$ causes the collisions to start earlier, when the shell volume is smaller, with the consequent creation/amplification of a larger magnetic field. In summary, even a limited change in a single parameter causes several (often competing) effects in the kinematical and radiative evolution of the flow. Therefore in the following we will examine such consequences through numerical simulations of the flow evolution.

### 4.1 Output parameters

A first key quantity calculated through the simulations is the distribution of collision radii: this in fact controls the average value of the magnetic field strength (which depends on the shell volume, i.e. on the shock distance), and the number of collisions occurring inside the BLR, which in turns determines the relative importance of the radio–optical to $`\gamma `$–ray flux.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of radii at which collisions take place. The limit at small distances directly follows from the choice of the injection parameters, and its typical value can be approximated as:

$$R_{\mathrm{min}}\frac{2\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{(\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^21)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}^2ct_\mathrm{v}7\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm},\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}}$$
(29)
for an average time between two ejections $`t_\mathrm{v}=10^4`$s, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}=25`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}=10`$. The merged shells collide again and again at larger distances up to $`10^{20}`$ cm, where the differences among the shell velocities are completely smoothed out and the wind can be considered uniform.

The overall duration of the simulation ($`t_\mathrm{w}=10^8`$s, corresponding to 3$`\times 10^4`$ shells) has been chosen in order to reach a virtually steady state for the wind, i.e. with collisions taking place at all radii smaller than $`10^{20}`$ cm. As shown in Fig. 2, in the inner part ($`R<10^{18}`$ cm) the collisions are mostly between shells which have never collided before, while shells colliding at larger radii ($`10^{18}`$$`10^{19}`$cm) are the result of previous mergings. About 50 per cent of the shocks occur inside the BLR (for $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}=5\times 10^{17}`$ cm), while only 7.2 per cent take place at radii $`R>10^{19}`$ cm.

The net amount of internal energy $`E_{\mathrm{in}}`$ released in each interaction depends on the dynamical efficiency and on the total kinetic energy of the shells available before the collision. As illustrated in the upper panel of Figure 3 the shell BLFs tend to average out during the wind expansion, leading to a strong attenuation of the dynamical efficiency: this can be as high as 10 per cent for the inner collisions but decreases to less then 0.1 per cent at the largest radii. However, the outer shocks involve larger kinetic energies, as the shells are much more massive – being the result of many previous collisions. As a consequence, the average net amount of internal energy generated by each interaction is roughly constant with radius, although as few shells are left in the large scale wind, their rate of collisions is low.

As discussed in the previous section, the internal energy $`E_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is shared among protons, electrons and magnetic field. The central panel of Fig. 3 shows the value of the minimum RLF of the accelerated electrons, $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$, while the lower panel of Fig. 3 represents the magnetic field strength $`B`$ for the same collisions. In some cases, the efficiency of the collision is so small that the minimum Lorentz factor of the accelerated electrons is lower than 2. Also the magnetic field is usually small in these cases. These collisions are not considered in the radiative part of the code, since the cooling time of the electrons is so long that adiabatic losses are overwhelming. In any case, the minimum Lorentz factor of the electrons always excedes the thermal motion of the fraction of non accelerated ones. Since $`E_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is approximately constant with radius, the value of $`B`$ strongly anti–correlates with the collision distance approximately as $`BR^{1.5}`$, being inversely proportional to the square root of the volume.

We can calculate what fraction of the energy produced at each location of the jet is used to accelerate electrons to relativistic energy. In the absence of non–radiative losses, this energy will be eventually entirely radiated. We then call this quantity, which is independent of the specific radiation mechanism and the timescales involved, the “differential radiative efficiency”. The logarithmic differential efficiency, i.e. the efficiency per unit logarithmic radius, is shown in Fig. 4, where we can see that the most radiatively efficient region is the inner jet (between $`10^{16.5}`$ and $`10^{18}`$ cm), where the collision rate is the highest.

The corresponding integrated efficiency, i.e. the fraction of $`L_\mathrm{w}`$ radiated from the beginning of the jet up to a given radius, is shown in Fig. 4: it saturates at $`R10^{19}`$ cm at a value of $``$ 6 per cent. Such value can in principle depend on the input parameters, but an efficiency of a few per cent is a robust result unless a very broad distribution of the initial BLFs is involved \[Beloborodov 2000\]. Note that the finite duration of the computation does not affect the efficiency estimate, since the differential value approaches zero at radii $`10^{19}`$ cm, much smaller than the maximum radius reached in the simulation.

From the micro–physical properties of the plasma shown in Fig. 3 it is also possible to compute the typical frequencies of the emitted photons. For the inner collisions ($`R<R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$) synchrotron, SSC and EC are responsible for the observed radiation. At larger radii, external to the photon bath provided by the BLR re-processing, the first two mechanisms dominate the emission. The evolution of the peak frequencies corresponding to the three radiative processes along the jet is shown in Fig. 5, where their values at each radius have been obtained by averaging over all of the collisions occurring at that radius. The synchrotron peak frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}\gamma _\mathrm{b}^2B`$ decreases from $`10^{15}`$ Hz for the initial collisions to $``$ 1 GHz at pc scale. The SSC peak frequency, given by $`\nu _{\mathrm{SSC}}\gamma _\mathrm{b}^2\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}`$, varies from $`10^{20}`$ to $`10^{16}`$ Hz, for $`R`$ increasing from $`3\times 10^{16}`$ to $`10^{18}`$ cm. Finally the EC typical frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{EC}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}^2\gamma _\mathrm{b}^2\nu _{\mathrm{line}}10^{23}`$Hz (for $`\nu _{\mathrm{line}}=10^{15}`$ Hz).

Let us now consider the evolution of the effective radiative efficiency, which is estimated by comparing the radiative time scales $`\delta t_\gamma `$ of relativistic electrons (corresponding to the cooling due to the three above processes) with the time a shock takes to cross the shell width (i.e. the energy injection time) $`\delta t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and the angular spread time, $`\delta t_\theta `$ (see Fig. 6). $`\delta t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ increases from a few hr at $`5\times 10^{16}`$ cm to $``$ a week at $`10^{18}`$ cm, because of both the increase in the shell width and the slowing down of the shock velocity during the expansion. The angular spread time reflects the different distances traveled by photons propagating along different directions. Since the observed radiation is beamed in a solid angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\delta t_\theta `$ corresponds to the delay in the arrival time of photons emitted at an angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to those propagating along the line of sight: $`\delta t_\theta R/2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. This varies from a few hr to $``$ a week, analogously to the shell crossing time–scale. The cooling time $`\delta t_\gamma `$ is determined by the most efficient process among synchrotron, SSC and EC. Inside the BLR the latter dominates, with a cooling time of less than a hr, over the $``$ 1 day time scale of synchrotron and SSC emission. Outside the BLR, the synchrotron process dominates the emission, with strongly radial dependent cooling times $`t_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ 1 yr 111Clearly the synchrotron and SSC cooling times increase with radius, since $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`B`$ decrease during the expansion.. Note that inside the BLR the cooling is so efficient that electrons emit most of their energy immediately after being accelerated and the pulse duration is due to a combination of the shock crossing time and geometrical effects. At these radii, the radiation is mostly emitted (via EC) at high frequencies, $`10^{22}10^{24}`$Hz. Outside the BLR instead electrons cool on a time scale much longer than $`\delta t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and thus the pulse duration is set by the synchrotron cooling time and the peak frequency is in the mm range.

## 5 Results

Via the numerical simulations the full time–resolved spectral behavior of the source can be determined. In this section, we directly perform comparisons of the model output quantities with observational data relative to 3C 279, by decomposing the information into (snapshots or time averaged) spectra and light curves. The full time–dependent behavior of the simulated source can be also examined through animations (see http://www.merate.mi.astro.it/$``$lazzati/3C279/) in which the temporal and spectral evolutions are simultaneously shown.

The first step of the simulations (see the previous section) determines a set of physical parameters for every collision. In a second step these are then used to produce the Spectral Energy Distributions (SED) emitted in each collision (one SED for the forward and an independent SED for the reverse shock) as described in Section 3. Different spectra are generated in different collisions, but general behaviors which describe the overall shape of the SED as a function of radius can be found. As already stressed the most important condition that affects the SED shape is whether the collision occurs inside or outside the BLR. In Figure 7 we show the averaged spectra of collisions taking place within a given range of radii. Shocks inside the BLR produce spectra dominated by the EC process, through the scattering of electrons with energy $`\gamma _\mathrm{b}m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$ on BLR photons. The synchrotron peak, due to the same electrons, is located in the near infrared. A minimum occurs in the optical–UV range, while the X–ray band is characterized by a power–law spectrum. Outside the BLR (lacking the EC component) the SED becomes more and more dominated by the synchrotron process: immediately outside the BLR the Compton parameter $`y`$ unity and the spectrum is the sum of the synchrotron and the first two Compton orders; as the radius increases, both the relativistic particle density and their average (squared) energy decrease, leading to progressively smaller values of $`y`$ (if only radiative losses are considered). At the same time the synchrotron self–absorption frequency decreases with radius.

### 5.1 The observed spectrum

We have so far examined the role of the various emission mechanisms at different distances along the jet. The observed spectrum is the convolution of the emission of all photons arriving at the observer simultaneously: since these are produced at different distances, it is necessary to take into account the different light propagations times when summing them up. In other words, the resulting spectrum is the sum of all the spectra produced by shocks simultaneously active in the observer frame, taking into account the radius at which each collision is occurring and the travel path of photons to reach the observer.

We therefore associate to each spectrum a photon pulse, with a start time (the time at which the collision begins) and a duration (set by the combination of the timescales discussed in Section 4). The shape of such pulse is triangular if its duration is determined by geometrical effects and/or by the shock crossing time (with a FWHM equal to the timescale shown in Fig. 6): these are generally associated to collisions inside the BLR. If the pulse duration is instead set by cooling the pulse rises linearly, as in the previous case, but after the maximum it decays exponentially \[$`\mathrm{exp}(t/3t_{\mathrm{cool}}(\gamma _\mathrm{b}))`$\]: in this case the rise and decay times can be very different.

### 5.2 The spectrum of 3C 279

Examples of the resulting spectra are compared to data from three different simultaneous multiwavelength campaigns of 3C279 in Figure 8. Note the remarkable variability, especially at $`\gamma `$–ray energies.

Within the model examined here the source high state corresponds to a time interval in which at least one of the active regions is inside the BLR. The lower line shows the SED in a quiescent state of the source, i.e. when all of the active collisions are located outside the BLR. The difference between the two spectra manifests itself mainly in the high frequency range, where the internal collisions, that have a shorter pulse duration, mostly contribute. Although the number of external collisions is almost equal to the number of the inner ones, the former produce longer pulses: it follows that the number of those simultaneously active is higher and hence the statistical variability is suppressed.

A different way to examine the results is to determine light curves in given energy bands: Figure 9 shows the flux temporal behavior in the $`\gamma `$–ray, X–ray, optical and millimeter ranges. The high frequency fluxes (down to optical energies) are highly variable (again since they are produced mainly by the inner collisions), while the millimeter flux comes from outer shocks and thus the corresponding light curve is much smoother.

In order to study the presence of delays in the variability at different wavelengths, we added “secular” variations in the kinetic luminosity injected by the inner engine. In particular, this is modulated as a sinusoidal function with period $``$ 1 year, spanning a factor of five in luminosity (between the minimum and the maximum). Figure 10 illustrates the results of the cross correlations between the $`\gamma `$–ray and the other frequencies light curves. Once again the plot shows that $`\gamma `$–ray, X–ray and optical photons are produced in the same region (being closely correlated, with no time delay), while the IR emission lags by $`40`$ days, as the shells that produce high frequency photons inside the BLR have to travel to larger radii ($`R10^{19}`$ cm) to produce IR emission. The expected observed delay is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}38.5\mathrm{\Delta }R_{19}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2\mathrm{days},$$
(30)
which indeed well describes the results of the simulations.

Finally note that time delays of the order of $``$ hr might occur between $`\gamma `$–ray and X–ray/optical peaks even if they are produced in the same region. However, the study of such delays would require to take into account the different light travel paths within a single region (Chiaberge & Ghisellini 1999), and a time dependent treatment of the shell emission, taking into account the variations in the magnetic field and electron distribution during the cooling. Such a treatment is beyond the scope of the present work and will be examined in future developments of the model.

## 6 Discussion

Highly relativistic flows dominate the dynamics and emission in both Gamma–Ray Bursts and blazars. It has been proposed that internal shocks, produced by the interaction of flow components injected with different bulk speeds, can be responsible for the observed emission and variability in both classes of sources (Rees 1978; Rees & Meszaros 1994).

Here we have considered in some details this ‘internal shock’ scenario in the context of AGN jets, self–consistently accounting for the dynamics and the radiative properties of the flow. After describing the kinematic and radiative assumptions of the model, we have examined the results of numerical simulations which allow us to study the predicted energy deposition on different jet scales, the relevant timescales, the corresponding dominating emission processes, the spectral evolution and predicted variability, the correlations among the emission at different frequencies.

The key interesting features of this scenario are the relatively low radiative efficiency (of order of a few per cent) which well accounts for the dissipation of kinetic energy in blazars, as higher dissipation rates would create major energetic problems (in order to carry sufficient power up to the large scale lobe structures). Furthermore, although the radiative dissipation occurs on all jet scales, as indeed observed, the bulk of it is localized at tenths of a pc, on the BLR scale, in agreement with the requirements of fast variability and transparency to $`\gamma `$–rays.

The results of the simulations, based on input parameters suitable to qualitatively reproduce the observations of a powerful radio–loud quasar, such as 3C 279, are indeed satisfactory. As expected the plasma in the inner part of the jet cools predominantly via EC emission, while on larger scales synchrotron cooling dominates. Qualitative agreement is also obtained in terms of light curves, and correlations among different spectral bands are predicted. Also, an asymptotic value of the bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }15`$ is achieved at distances $``$ pc.

While this paper has been aimed at presenting the model and study its general applicability to blazar jets, the final goal is to determine which initial parameters/conditions are required in order to produce the whole of the blazar phenomenology and energetics. In particular, the model significantly constrains the typical Lorentz factors (and their distribution) achieved through acceleration on the inner scales, and the typical timescale of plasma injection. In this respect, also the determination of the duty cycle of the $`\gamma `$–ray emission in blazars is of chief importance, as it can be used to constrain the rate and Lorentz factor distribution of the injection of energy/plasma in the relativistic flow. Note that although more accurate measures of $`\gamma `$–ray spectra and the detection of a much larger number of $`\gamma `$–ray loud sources will require the capabilities of GLAST, tight constraints on the duty cycles will be available much sooner thanks to the launch of AGILE. The model presented here will provide (for the first time) the possibility of directly modelling the time dependent broad band spectral evolution of these sources following the (time dependent) energy injection. The relationship between flares at high energies and the birth of superluminal radio knots and/or radio flares will be also explored.

Therefore issues associated with the jet energy content and the relative conversion of bulk energy into internal (particle and field) energy at relativistic shocks can be also constrained by the comparison of the model predictions with observations.

A further aspect we intend to examine is the propagation and dissipation of jets on larger scales, where however uncertainties are large. On the $``$ pc–scales, significant entrainment might occur, possibly leading to the formation of external shocks and the development of slower outer layers around jets. Another issues is the relative importance of creation vs amplification of an existing seed magnetic field: if the latter process prevails, it will probably lead to larger magnetic fields on the kpc scale jet, and consequently to faster synchrotron cooling. Inverse Compton cooling at kpc scales is instead enhanced, with respect to what calculated here, by the interaction of with the cosmic background radiation, which is seen relativistically boosted in the rest frame of the fast moving parts of the jets (e.g. Celotti, Ghisellini & Chiaberge, 2000).

We finally stress that it is of primary importance, for the understanding of the flow injection and its connection with the central accreting engine, to determine the key parameters which regulate the observed spectral and luminosity trend, from high power, low energy peaked, flat spectrum radio quasars, to weak high energy peaked BL Lacs (Fossati et al. 1998). This will be the content of a forthcoming paper.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the anonymous referee for his/her constructive and careful comments. The Italian MURST is acknowledged for financial support (AC).


format: text

text:
# Locus of Indeterminacy of the Prym Map

## 0. Introduction

This paper is intended to be an appendix to the \[ABH\] and here we are using notations and results of \[ABH\] .

The extended Prym map is a rational map from the moduli space $`\overline{R_g}`$ of stable curves $`C`$ of genus $`2g1`$ with an involution $`i`$, where the only base points of $`i`$ are nodes and the involution does not exchange branches at that node, to the space $`\overline{A}_{g1}^{vor}`$, the toroidal compactification of $`A_{g1}`$ for the 2nd Voronoi fan. On the dense open subset in $`\overline{R}_g`$ corresponding to smooth curves it is given by associating to a pair $`(C,i)`$ its Prym variety $`P(C,i)`$. Locus of indeterminacy of this map was described in \[ABH\] by a condition (\*) using the combinatorial data of the dual graph of a curve with an involution. This paper gives an easier description for the indeterminacy locus.

###### Theorem 0.1.

A curve with an involution is in the indeterminacy locus of the extended Prym map if and only if the curve is a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with the number of edges 4 or greater.

Recall that the Friedman-Smith example with $`2n`$ edges is a curve $`(C,i)\overline{R_g}`$, such that the curve $`C=C_1C_2`$ is the union of two irreducible components, both invariant under the involution, intersecting in $`2n`$ points, so that the involution is base point free and interchanges these $`2n`$ nodes.

For $`n2`$ the closure of the Friedman-Smith locus with $`2n`$ edges contains $`[\frac{gn+1}{2}]+1`$ irreducible components. Curve $`C^{}=C/i`$ is the union $`C^{}=C_1^{}C_2^{}`$ of two irreducible curves of genuses $`g_1^{}`$ and $`g_2^{}`$, where $`g_1^{}+g_2^{}=gn+1`$. Irreducible components of the Friedman-Smith locus correspond to cases when $`g_1^{}`$ and $`g_2^{}`$ are $`(0,gn+1),(1,gn),\mathrm{},([\frac{gn+1}{2}],[\frac{gn+2}{2}])`$.

Note that in our space $`\overline{R_g}`$ there are no stable curves having double points with the 2 branches exchanged by the involution (called the nodes of type (2) in \[ABH\]).

###### Acknowledgments.

The author would like to thank Professor V.Alexeev for numerous helpful discussions and Professor K.Hulek for valuable comments on the preliminary version of this paper.

## 1. Preliminary results

We will call a vertex of the dual graph a bold vertex if the corresponding component of the curve is fixed by the involution and we will call an edge a bold edge if the corresponding node is a node of type (1), see \[ABH\] for definition. We will call all other vertices and edges ordinary. Note that if we have a bold edge then its beginning and the end are bold vertices. Therefore, the union of bold vertices and edges forms a subgraph of the dual graph. We will denote this subgraph by $`B(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Proof of one direction for the Theorem 0.1 is immediate.

###### Proposition 1.1.

If the curve is a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with at least 4 edges, then the curve is in the indeterminacy locus of the Prym map.

###### Proof.

Prym map is not defined for the Friedman-Smith examples, see \[FS\] or \[ABH\] Section 4.2.3. The indeterminacy locus for every rational map is closed, therefore degenerations of the Friedman-Smith examples are also in the indeterminacy locus. ∎

Let us consider the dual graphs which are not degenerations of Friedman-Smith examples with the number of edges at least 4.

###### Lemma 1.2.

If the dual graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of a stable curve $`C`$ with an involution contains two disjoint connected equivariant subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ which are connected by at least 4 ordinary edges (so that the beginnings of these edges are in one subgraph and the ends are in the other), but are not connected by any bold path then this curve is a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with at least 4 edges.

###### Proof.

We will construct two disjoint equivariant subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ such that together they contain all vertices of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and every edge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ either belongs to one of the subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ or is an ordinary edge which begins at one subgraph and ends at the other.

To find these $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ we will take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and start adding to them vertices and edges until we will get required $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$.

First let us consider connected components of the bold subgraph $`B(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Each bold component cannot intersect with both subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, otherwise we have a bold path connecting these subgraphs. We will change each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ by the union of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and all components of $`B(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ which has non empty intersection with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. It is easy to see that the new $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ still satisfy all the conditions from the statement of the Lemma. In addition, the compliment $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ is attached to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ through the ordinary edges only.

Next let us consider the following topological space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$. Connected components of this space can be of three different types:

1) components attached to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ only,

2) components attached to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ only,

3) components attached to both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

We will change $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ by the union $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\text{all components of type 1})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\text{all components of type 2})`$. Again, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ still satisfy all the conditions from the statement of the Lemma.

Now, to get desired $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$, we can take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ to be equal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. For vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ we will take all vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which are not from subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and for edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ we will take all edges whose beginning and ends are vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$.

Note that the number of edges connecting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}`$ is at least the same as the number of edges connecting original $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, which is not less then 4.

Consider decomposition of the curve $`C=C_1C_2`$ where each $`C_i`$ correspond to subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}`$. Each part $`C_i`$ is invariant with respect to involution and can be obtained as a degeneration of smooth curves with involution. Then the whole curve $`C`$ is a degeneration of the Friedman-Smith example and as we have noticed the number of nodes is at least 4. ∎

## 2. Condition (\*)

Let us fix an orientation on the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is compatible with the involution $`i`$. Following \[ABH\] edges $`e_j`$ give coordinate functions on $`C_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$. We have three possibilities:

1. $`z_j`$ is identically zero on $`X^{}`$.

2. Image $`z_j(X^{})=`$.

3. Image $`z_j(X^{})=\frac{1}{2}`$.

From \[ABH\] we have the following combinatorial condition

(\*) The linear functions $`m_jz_j`$ define a dicing of the lattice $`X^{}`$.

In this dicing we are not using functions of type 1, $`m_j=1`$ for the functions $`z_j`$ of type 2 and $`m_j=2`$ for the functions $`z_j`$ of type 3.

Another characterization of possibilities 2 and 3 for image $`z_j(X^{})`$ is as follows. Image $`z_j(X^{})=`$ if for every simple oriented cycle $`\omega H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$ in the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_j}\omega =1`$ implies $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{i(j)}}\omega =1`$. Image $`z_j(X^{})=\frac{1}{2}`$ if there exists a simple oriented cycle $`\omega H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_j}\omega =1`$ but $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{i(j)}}\omega =0`$.

Let $`d`$ be the dimension of the space $`X^{}`$. Then condition (\*) is equivalent to the following:

If the intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is 0-dimensional (i.e. a point), then it is in the lattice $`X^{}`$.

It is enough to check this condition for the sets of $`\{n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ where all except one $`n_{j_k}`$ are 0 and the remaining $`n_{j_k}`$ is 1. If the intersections of hyperplanes corresponding to these sets $`\{n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ are in the lattice $`X^{}`$ then, since all other $`\{n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ are integer linear combinations of those sets, their corresponding intersections of the hyperplanes are integer linear combinations of elements from $`X^{}`$, and therefore belong to $`X^{}`$.

We can reprove Proposition 1.1 without using the geometrical meaning of condition (\*).

###### Proof.

Let curve $`C`$ be a degeneration of the Friedman-Smith example with $`2n`$ edges with $`n2`$. Thus curve $`C`$ is a union $`C_1C_2`$ where each $`C_j`$ is a degeneration of a family of smooth curves and intersection $`C_1C_2`$ consists of $`n`$ pairs of exchanged nodes. Then in the dual graph for $`C`$ there are two equivariant subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ corresponding to $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ and these subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are connected by the $`n`$ pairs of exchanging edges. We will denote them $`e_1,e_1^{}=i(e_1),\mathrm{},e_n,e_n^{}=i(e_n)`$. It is clear that these edges are of type 3. In definition of condition (\*) all $`m_j`$ corresponding to $`e_1,e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_n,e_n^{}`$ equal 2.

Now if we have an arbitrary simple cycle $`\omega `$ then either it does not contain any of the edges $`e_1,e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_n,e_n^{}`$ or it passes through even number of them. With counting multiplicities the sum $`\omega i(\omega )`$ passes through $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ the same even number of times. All the elements of the lattice $`X^{}`$ are of the form $`\frac{1i}{2}(\underset{l}{}k_l\omega _l)`$ where $`k_l`$ and $`\omega _l`$ are simple oriented cycles. Therefore for any element of $`X^{}`$ we have $`\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{mult}_{e_m}\left(\frac{1i}{2}(\underset{l}{}k_l\omega _l)\right)`$ is an integer. We can choose some $`dn`$ edges $`e_{j_{n+1}},\mathrm{},e_{j_d}`$ with the functions $`z_{j_{n+1}},\mathrm{},z_{j_d}`$ so that the intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{2z_1=1,2z_2=0,\mathrm{},2z_n=0,m_{j_{n+1}}z_{j_{n+1}}=0,\mathrm{},m_{j_d}z_{j_d}=0\}`$ is 0-dimensional. But the point of intersection $`x`$ cannot be an element of $`X^{}`$ since $`\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{mult}_{e_m}(x)=\frac{1}{2}`$ is not an integer. Condition (\*) fails. ∎

To finish the proof of Theorem 0.1, let us prove the other direction in its statement.

Let us compare functions $`z_j`$ and $`z_{i(j)}`$ when restricted to $`X^{}`$. Elements of $`X^{}`$ are of the form $`\frac{1i}{2}(\underset{l}{}k_l\omega _l)`$ where $`k_l`$ and $`\omega _l`$ are simple oriented cycles. If $`\omega _l=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{length}_{\omega _l}}{}}e_{l_m}`$ then

$$\frac{1i}{2}\left[\underset{l}{}k_l\omega _l\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left[\underset{l}{}k_l\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{length}_{\omega _l}}{}}e_{l_m}\right)\underset{l}{}k_l\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{length}_{\omega _l}}{}}i(e_{l_m})\right)\right].$$

Since the orientation of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is compatible with the involution $`i`$ we have $`i(e_{l_m})=+e_{i(l_m)}`$ and thus $`z_j=z_{i(j)}`$ when restricted on $`X^{}`$.

Intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is 0-dimensional if and only if the intersection of $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=0,k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is $`0X^{}R`$. The later is equivalent to $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=0,m_{j_k}z_{i(j_k)}=0,k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ having intersection $`0X^{}R`$. Note that $`z_j(\omega )=z_{i(j)}(\omega )=0`$ for an element $`\omega X^{}`$ is equivalent to the fact that $`\omega `$ can be represented as $`\frac{1i}{2}\left(\underset{l}{}k_l\omega _l\right)`$ where all $`\omega _l`$ are simple cycles in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ not passing through $`e_j`$ or $`e_{i(j)}`$. Therefore intersection of $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=0,m_{j_k}z_{i(j_k)}=0,k=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ consist of the elements of $`X^{}`$ of the form $`\frac{1i}{2}\left(\underset{l}{}\omega _l\right)`$ with $`\omega _lH^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (e_{j_1}e_{i(j_1)}\mathrm{}e_{j_n}e_{i(j_n)}),)`$. Finally, intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is 0-dimensional if and only if for the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (e_{j_1}e_{i(j_1)}\mathrm{}e_{j_n}e_{i(j_n)})`$ all elements $`\omega H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},)`$ are invariant with respect to $`i`$.

In the case of 0-dimensional intersection let us look closely at the subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. It may have more than one connected component. But it is impossible that two of these components are exchanged by the involution. Indeed, for connected curve with involution dimension of the corresponding $`X^{}`$ can be computed as $`n_ec_e`$ where $`2n_e`$ is the number of exchanged under the involution nodes (nodes of type (3)) (or the number of ordinary edges in the dual graph) and $`2c_e`$ is the number of exchanged components (or the number of ordinary vertices). For the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have $`n_ec_e=d`$. Subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ was obtained by erasing $`2d`$ ordinary edges, thus for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ we have $`n_ec_e=0`$. Now $`X^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is 0, so for every invariant under the involution connected component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ we must have $`n_ec_e=0`$. Components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ exchanged by $`i`$ consist of ordinary vertices and ordinary edges only. To have $`X^{}=0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ all exchanged components should have no cycles. Then they are trees and for each of them $`n_ec_e=1`$. If the exchanged components present in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ then for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ $`n_ec_e`$ would be negative. All connected components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are fixed under $`i`$.

Now consider the point of intersection for the hyperplanes $`\{m_{j_1}z_{j_1}=1,m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=0,k=2,\mathrm{},d\}`$.

If the edge $`e_{j_1}`$ has the beginning $`v_{j_1}`$ and the end $`v_{j_1}^{}`$ at the same connected component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ then there is a path $`t`$ inside of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ which starts at $`v_{j_1}^{}`$ and ends at $`v_{j_1}`$. Cycle $`\omega =t+e_{j_1}`$ has $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{j_1}}\omega =1`$ but $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{i(j_1)}}\omega =0`$ which means that $`m_{j_1}=2`$. Now the element $`x^{}=\frac{1i}{2}(\omega )X^{}`$ satisfies $`\{m_{j_1}z_{j_1}(x^{})=1,m_{j_k}z_{j_k}(x^{})=0,k=2,\mathrm{},d\}`$. The point of intersection of the hyperplanes is in $`X^{}`$.

If the edge $`e_{j_1}`$ has the beginning $`v_{j_1}`$ and the end $`v_{j_1}^{}`$ in different components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ then the edges $`e_{j_1}`$ and $`e_{i(j_1)}`$ start (resp. end) at the same component. There is a path $`t`$ inside of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ which starts at $`v_{j_1}`$ and ends at $`i(v_{j_1})`$. Similarly, there is a path $`t^{}`$ inside of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ which starts at $`v_{j_1}^{}`$ and ends at $`i(v_{j_1}^{})`$. $`\omega =e_{j_1}+t^{}e_{i(j_1)}t`$ is a cycle in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Element $`x^{}=\frac{1i}{2}(\omega )X^{}`$ satisfies $`\{z_{j_1}(x^{})=1,z_{j_k}(x^{})=0,k=2,\mathrm{},d\}`$. To see that $`x^{}`$ is the point of intersection for the hyperplanes $`\{m_{j_1}z_{j_1}=1,m_{j_k}z_{j_k}=0,k=2,\mathrm{},d\}`$ we need to show that $`m_{j_1}=1`$.

We will show that if there exists a simple oriented cycle $`\omega H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{j_1}}\omega =1`$ but $`\mathrm{mult}_{i(e_{j_1})}\omega =0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a degeneration of Friedman-Smith example with at least 4 edges. Cycle $`\omega `$ goes along some of the edges $`e_{j_k}`$ and $`e_{i(j_k)}`$ and passes through some connected components $`C_1,\mathrm{}C_l`$ of the subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. We can assume that the edge $`e_{j_1}`$ starts at $`C_1`$ and ends at $`C_2`$. Cycle $`\omega `$ is simple so it cannot reenter $`C_1`$ along $`e_{j_1}`$. $`\mathrm{mult}_{i(e_{j_1})}\omega =0`$, so $`\omega `$ cannot reenter $`C_1`$ along $`i(e_{j_1})`$. There is another edge $`e^{}`$ through which $`\omega `$ reenters $`C_1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=C_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}=(C_2\mathrm{}C_l)(\omega \backslash (C_1e_{j_1}e^{}))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{})`$. Subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are connected by at least 4 ordinary edges: $`e_{j_k}`$, $`e_{i(j_k})`$, $`e^{}`$ and $`i(e^{})`$. Therefore, they satisfy the assumptions of the Lemma 1.2 and graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a degeneration of Friedman-Smith example with at least 4 edges.

This proves Theorem 0.1.

## 3. Condition (\**)

In this section we will discuss condition (\**) of \[ABH\] which is stronger than condition (\*). When condition (\*) holds but (\**) fails we have a Prym variety corresponding to the double cover of stable curves but this Prym cannot be canonically embedded into the Jacobian of the covering curve.

From \[ABH\] we have the following definition of combinatorial condition (\**)

(\**) $`[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}]`$ is a dicing with respect to the lattice $`2X^{}`$.

In the notations of the previous section this condition (\**) is equivalent to the following:

If the intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is 0-dimencional (i.e. a point), then it is in the lattice $`2X^{}`$.

The first condition of the following theorem gives an easier description for (\**).

###### Theorem 3.1.

The following three conditions are equivalent

(i) Curve is not a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with the number of edges 2 or greater.

(ii) Condition (\*) holds and there are no functions $`z_j`$ of type (2).

(iii) Condition (\**) holds.

###### Proof.

(i) implies (ii). If (\*) does not hold then (\**) does not hold either. We only need to show that if (\*) holds but the graph has an edge $`e_j`$ with the corresponding function $`z_j`$ of type (2) then the graph is a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with 2 edges.

Let $`v_j`$ be the beginning of $`e_j`$ and $`v_j^{}`$ be the end of $`e_j`$. Let us consider connected components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (e_je_{i(j)})`$. The number of components is at most 3. If there is only one component in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ then there is a path $`t`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ connecting $`v_j`$ and $`v_j^{}`$. Thus for the simple cycle $`\omega =e_jt`$ me have $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_j}\omega =1`$ and $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_{i(j)}}\omega =0`$ which is impossible since $`e_j`$ is an edge of type 2. If there were three components in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ then edges $`e_j`$ and $`e_{i(j)}`$ would have been of type 1. The only possibility is when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ has two components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j1}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j2}^{}`$. Since for every simple cycle $`\omega `$ we have $`\mathrm{mult}_{e_j}\omega =\mathrm{mult}_{e_{i(j)}}\omega `$ then beginnings $`v_j`$ and $`v_j^{}`$ belong to the same component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$, say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j1}^{}`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j1}^{}`$ is invariant with respect of involution $`i`$ and so is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i2}^{}`$. Now consider decomposition of the curve $`C=C_1C_2`$ where each $`C_k`$ correspond to subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{}`$. Each part $`C_k`$ is invariant with respect to involution and can be obtained as a degeneration of smooth curves with involution. Then the whole curve $`C`$ is a degeneration of the Friedman-Smith example with the number of edges 2.

(ii) implies (i). Assume that (i) fails. The curve $`C`$ is a degeneration of a Friedman-Smith example with 2 edges. Thus curve $`C`$ is a union $`C_1C_2`$ where each $`C_j`$ is a degeneration of a smooth curve and intersection $`C_1C_2`$ consists of two exchanged nodes. Then in the dual graph for $`C`$ there are two equivariant subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ corresponding to $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ and these subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are connected by the pair of exchanging edges. It is clear that these edges are of type 2.

(ii) implies (iii). Since there are no edges of type 2 then in definition of condition (\*) all $`m_j`$ equal 2. Condition (\*) holds, so if the intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{2z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is 0-dimensional, then it is in the lattice $`X^{}`$. Thus intersection of $`\{2z_{j_k}=2n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ is in $`2X^{}`$, but this is the same point as intersection of $`\{z_{j_k}=n_{j_k},n_{j_k},k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$. Therefore condition (\**) holds.

(iii) implies (ii). Let us take an arbitrary edge $`e_j`$ and the corresponding function $`z_j`$. If $`z_j`$ is nontrivial (i.e. not of type 1) then we can choose some $`d1`$ edges $`e_{j_2},\mathrm{},e_{j_d}`$ with the functions $`z_{j_2},\mathrm{},z_{j_d}`$ so that the intersection of $`d`$ hyperplanes $`\{z_j=1,z_{j_2}=0,\mathrm{},z_{j_d}=0\}`$ is 0-dimensional and by condition (\**) is some point $`2x^{}2X^{}`$. Now $`x^{}X^{}`$ and $`z_j(x^{})=\frac{1}{2}`$. Thus edge $`e_j`$ and the corresponding function $`z_j`$ are of type 3 and not of type 2.