GENJIプログラム：VLBIモニター観測による電波銀河3C 84のsub-pcスケールジェットの運動
Koichiro HIURA (Hokkaido Univ.), H. NAGAI (NAOJ), K. SORAI (Hokkaido Univ.),
and GENJI program members
e-mail: hiura@astro1.sci.hokudai.ac.jp
ExpandingRadio Lobe of 3C 84
No. 2]

Expanding Radio Lobe of 3C263
84

What is C3?

263

22 GHz radio images(Nagai+2010)

Radio galaxy 3C 84 (FR I)
Distance: 75 Mpc!p "nFig. 1. (a) JVN image of 3C 84 at 8 GHz. The contours are plotted at the level of 86.2 mJy !
2 (n = "1, 0, 1, 2, 4, : : :, 128). The lowest contour
corresponds to three-times image noise r.m.s.. The beam size is 3.85 ! 2.14 mas at a position angle of "47ı , which is shown in the lower left corner ofthe image. (b)–(o) VERA images of 3C 84 at 22 GHz. All images are shifted in reference to the northern component (component C1). The contours
Theplotted
AstrophysicalJournal,746:140(9pp),16.72,
2012 February
Suzuki24.
et al.
areat levelsof 4.18,
8.36,
33.44,20and 66.88% of the peak intensity (4.989 Jy beam) on 2009 April
The restoring beam (1.1 ! 0.7 mas,ıposition angle of "60 ) was set to make images uniform. Table 3

Radio image(4.9 GHz)

Beama(mas × mas, deg)rms(mJy beam−1 )

Sc
(Jy)

Ipeak b(Jy beam−1 )Asada+2006

2002 Jan 7
8.5
0.31 × 0.19, −9.0
2002 Apr 5
6.6
0.25 × 0.14, −33.7
2003 Jan 12
10.6
0.39 × 0.16, 3.1
2003 Nov 20
23.7
0.53 × 0.18, 33.6
2004 Oct 2
13.0
0.49 × 0.14, −23.1
2005 Jan 25
12.8
0.29 × 0.17, −22.2
2005 Oct 4
18.8
0.17 × 0.46, −34.4
2006 Jan 7
39.8
0.27 × 0.19, −5.7
2006 Mar 22
17.3
0.20 × 0.33, −6.8
2006 Apr 7
68.4
0.52 × 0.18, 14.4
2006 May 8
45.3
0.26 × 0.43, −23.0
2006 May 26
13.4
0.48 × 0.17, −33.0
2006 Jul 26
36.3
0.44 × 0.23, −4.2
2006 Sep 1
15.5
0.16 × 0.48, −34.2
2006 Sep 22
34.2
0.25 × 0.19, −13.0
2007 Jan 4
38.7
0.28 × 0.19, −15.8
2007 May 24
20.6
0.22 × 0.19, −11.7
2007 Jun 15
39.4
0.26 × 0.55, 14.5
2007 Aug 7
45.00.51 × 0.23, 16.9
2007 Nov 2
39.2
0.18 × 0.53, −1.9
2008 Apr 3
33.7
0.14 × 0.47, −22.5
2008 Apr 16
14.4
0.45 × 0.19, −15.3
2008 May 8
41.0
0.49 × 0.14, −11.1
2008 May 23
37.8
0.46 × 0.15, 20.9
2008 Jul 31
46.5
0.51 × 0.15, −12.2
2008 Aug 27
34.3
0.54 ×!2 0.20, 27.3
Fig. 2. Pluses: 2008
Effelesberg
light
curve
of
3C
84
at
22
GHz.
Crosses:
Nov 1
57.1
0.53
× 0.18,−1.0
total CLEANed 2008
fluxNov
of VERAobservation
Asterisks:27
61.3 at 22.2 GHz.0.45
× 0.14, 7.6 The✤ Flux increase in 6 years

Similar behavior to “hot spot”

Radio core(C1)Asada+2006

L13

in radio lobe, not “jet knot”

1.07
3.48 ± 0.35
0.96
3.27 ± 0.33
1.00
4.07 ± 0.41
1.17
4.29 ± 0.43
1.59
4.42 ± 0.44
1.04
4.10 ± 0.41
1.49
4.60 ± 0.46
1.44
4.40 ± 0.44
1.18
3.72 ± 0.37
1.60
4.27 ± 0.43
1.75
5.07 ± 0.51
1.30
4.34 ± 0.43
1.58
4.20 ± 0.42
1.32
3.77 ± 0.38
1.45
4.94 ± 0.49
1.34
4.48 ± 0.45
0.99
3.93 ± 0.39
2.04
4.37 ± 0.44
1.73
5.43 ± 0.54
2.16
4.62 ± 0.46
Fig. 3. Plot of
separation between component C3 and compo1.85
5.82the± 0.581.93± 0.49nent C1. The4.93
error
bar is smaller than the size of each symbol. The
!p "n
2.00
5.97 ± 0.60
blue
solid
line
representsalinear
fit
to
the
data
from
2007/297
toFig. 1. (a) JVN image of 3C 84 at 8 GHz. The contours are plotted at the level of 86.2 mJy !
2 (n = "1, 0, 1, 2, 4, : : :, 128). The lowest contour
1.43
4.36 ± 0.44
2009/114.
The
green
brokenline
represents
that
from
2007/142
tocorresponds to three-times image noise r.m.s.. The beam size is 3.85 ! 2.14 mas at a position angle of "47ı , which is shown in the lower left corner of
2.02
6.33 ± 0.63
!3 are shifted in reference to the northern component (component C1). The contours
the image.
(b)–(o)images of 3C 84 at 22 GHz. All images
2.46
6.89 ± 0.69
2007/297, assumingthat component C3 was ejected
fromthe VERA
positionare plotted at levels of 4.18, 8.36, 16.72, 33.44, and 66.88% of the peak intensity (4.989 Jy beam) on 2009 April 24. The restoring beam (1.1 ! 0.7 mas,
2.85
9.19 ± 0.92
ofcomponent
C1
on
2007/142(see
subsection
4.2).
position angle of "60ı ) was set to make images uniform.
2.22
8.90 ± 0.89

Radio core

•Approach from kinematics

Radio core

5 pc

5 pc

Radio lobe

Radio lobe
light
curve of component
Open squares: The light
curve of compoChange
inC1.relative
separationfrom C1 to C3 2. Observation

20

1 pc

c Total CLEANed flux and its error for each image. We assumed that the flux calibration error is 10% of flux density.

0

2

∥

2

⊥

∥

⊥

−1

Table 2. Parameters of model fitting for the core.

−1

app

−2

Figure 5. Change of relative angular distance between C1 and C3 in x∥ and x⊥ coordinates as a function of time from 2003 November 1 in years. Red and blue points
show x∥ and x⊥ for each epoch. Orange and cyan lines are fitted functions.

”non-linear” motion !
a

a

b

maj

min

c

mod

to-noise ratio (SNR), such that "beam =SNR, where "beamis the beam size. This fit results in an apparent speed of
0.20˙0.01 mas yr"1 (projected speed of 0.23˙0.01c) towards
the south. This is approximately consistent with the jet speedsin the # -ray quiet phase (Dhawan et al. 1998). The directionof movement of the new component differs from the alignment of the components
C1 and C2 by # 40ı on the projected
http://veraserver.mtk.nao.ac.jp/system/index.html
plane. We note that we did not include the data on 2007/258 tothis fit because component C3 might have moved faster before
2007/297 (see section 4).

dWhat is the subsequent motion of C3?

Change in relative separation from C1 to C3
Linear motion ﬁt

Change in relative separation from C1 to C3
53500

54000

0

MJD

55500

c
e
c
e
e
c
e
56500
e
e
e
e
e
e
e

−0.55
−0.59
−0.84
−0.80
−0.95
−0.98
−1.06 56000
−1.09
−1.08
−1.07
−1.11
−1.11
−1.23
−1.27

0.29 × 0.29, 0.0
0.45 × 0.21, −61.5
0.22 × 0.22, 0.0
0.00 × 0.00, 0.0
0.55 × 0.29, 17.7
0.43 × 0.28, 45.0
0.34 × 0.27, −43.1
0.44 × 0.26, 25.7
0.34 × 0.15, 68.1
0.58 × 0.33, 16.2
0.72 × 0.34, 47.0
0.65 × 0.27, 8.5
0.58 × 0.44, 45.0
0.67 × 0.34, 43.1

1.58 ± 0.19
1.37 ± 0.21
0.88 ± 0.11
0.91 ± 0.09
1.89 ± 0.25
1.74 ± 0.27
1.55 ± 0.20
1.62 ± 0.18
1.61 ± 0.19
2.04 ± 0.31
2.91 ± 0.44
2.67 ± 0.32
3.76 ± 0.53
3.57 ± 0.58

6

7

-1

22 GHz0-0.5

22 GHz

-1

-1.5

53000

53500

54000

54500

Change in relative

55000

55500

56000

-2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Relative R.A.(mas)7

Wobbling motion of C3
0.5 pc

0.556500

22 GHzRadio core(C1)
0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

6RA 22GHz
6DEC 22GHz
0

2

4

6

8

10

-0.5

-1

22 GHz-1.5

Years from Nov 1, 2003 (year)•Average speed of C3：~0.3c (e.g. Nagai+2006)-2•Almost constant speed (Kawakatu & Kino 2006)-2

Similar behavior to hot spot in mini-radio-lobe-2.5

Change in relative
position of C3

6RA 22GHz
6DEC 22GHz
4

6

8

10

8

•
• ΔR.A.(t) = at + b• ΔDec.(t) = ct + d• (Periodic + linear) motion model• ΔR.A.(t) = a sin(b(t+c)) + dt + e• ΔDec.(t) = f sin(b(t+g)) + ht + i

0.5

BIC = (residual chi square) + (# of model parameters)ln(# of data points)

BIC generally penalizes free parameters more
• The
strongly than does the AIC.
REPORTS•Precession•Precession•Bardeen Petterson(BP) eﬀect•Bardeen Petterson eﬀect (Bardeen & Petterson 1975)(Bardeen & Petterson 1975)

The precessional period becomes shoter with time.

Acting at all times

107 yr @100 kpc-scale (Falceta-Gonçalves+2010)
2003MNRAS.344L..43F

Over the horizon and in the jet, U e 10 for
our thinner disk models and U e 17 for our
thick disk models (28). Also, for both thicknesses,(r/rg)aeff ~ 15 and roughly constant with radius,
and vr /vf ~ 1 near the horizon (28). So, at all distances, the jet’s EM forces lead to tEM/tLT ~ 2
for our thinner disk models and tEM/tLT > ~5 forour thick disk models. Hence, we expect EM forces
to dominate LT forces for both our thinner andthick disk models [including for small spins (33)].
EM alignment forces are effective when they
are larger than forces associated with the newly accreted rotatingplasma with torque per unit area of:tacc e Mvf =ð2prÞ. Therefore, tEM =tacc e U2 WF =
ð4rvf Þ, and when these torques are equal one
obtains an implicit equation for a “magneto-spinalignment” radius of
WF r2g U2
rmsa eð5Þ
4vf

Our self-consistent fully 3D general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations started with a disk around an untilted BH
where the BH spin axis, disk rotational axis, andemergent jet’s direction all pointed in the vertical(z) direction. As the simulation proceeded, themass and magnetic flux readily advected fromlarge distances onto the BH. The magnetic flux
versus radius saturated on the BH and within thedisk near the BH after magnetic forces balanced
the disk’s thermal + ram + gravitational forces.
Magnetic braking causes such disks to become
even more sub-Keplerian than weakly magnetized
thick disks (28), which means that the classicalthin disk innermost stable circular orbit positionis even less applicable than for weakly magnetized thick disks. The simulations were evolved
for a long time period so that the disk reached aquasi-stationary magnetically saturated state out
to about r ~ 40rg (28, 33).
Then, the BH spin axis was instantly tilted byan angle of qtilt,0 (see Table 1 for tilts used for
different spins and disk thicknesses). The tilted
disk-jet system underwent a violent rearrangement
for the larger tilts. The frame-dragging forces
caused the nearly split-monopole BH magnetosphere to align with the BH spin axis, as expected
because the misaligned angular momentum wasradiated away as part of the electromagnetic

Factor causing a wobbling motion of C3

Factor causing a wobbling motion of C3!

•Magneto-spin eﬀect~116 kpc

0:7F
U ≈ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ:
4pr2g Mc

(McKinney+2013)

r2g

Beyond BP eﬀect in a strong•Binary BH eﬀect

8pr2

:

MWF U2

53000

53500

54000

54500

55000

55500

56000

56500

0

0

-0.5

-1

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-1.5

-2

-2

6RA 22GHz
6DEC 22GHz
-2.5
0

2

4

6

8

-2.5

10

Years from Nov 1, 2003 (year)

Period: 5.6

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Relative R.A.(mas)

0.8 yr

Amplitude(R.A.): 0.013

Amplitude(Dec.): 0.028

0.003 pc
0.007pc

5. Conclusion
13•VERA monitoring of the sub-pc-scale jet in radiogalaxy 3C 84 over 6 years (80 epochs)•Almost constant speed(~0.3c) of C3
Hot spot in mini-radio-lobe•Possible periodic motion of sub-pc-scale lobe

ð1Þ

Need for additional monitoring

ð2Þ

Meanwhile, the LT torque per unit area is tLT ~ ΩLTL
with LT precession rate ΩLT ~ 2j/r3, disk angularmomentum per unit
: area L ~ Srvf , and disk surface density S e M=ð2prvr Þ. This gives

magnetic ﬁeld!

(with rg reintroduced), within which EM forces
can torque the accreting dense material. For sufficiently small values of U or j, no alignment canoccur. We obtain rmsa > ~30rg for our thinner andthick disk models that are sub-Keplerian by afactor of 0.5 to 0.1, respectively (28), althoughaccurate estimates require performing more simulations or accounting for more physics that could
lead to much different rmsa (33).

for magnetic flux F ~ 4pr2Br for B in Gaussianunits (rg and c reintroduced for dimensional
clarity) that is consistent with measurements in
our previous work (28). This gives
tEM e

-1.5

22 GHzmodel with the lower BIC value is the one to be• The
preferred.

11

-1

MJD

• Bayesian Information Criterion(BIC)of accreting BHs to show that near the BH, both
the disk angular momentum and jet direction
reorient and align with the BH’s spin axis. Our
simulations were designed so that the magnetic
field built up to a natural saturation strength with,
12the disk’s thermal + ram + gravitationalroughly,
forces balancing the disk’s and jet’s magnetic
forces such that the trapped large-scale magnetic
field threading the BH and disk became strong
relative to the disk’s turbulent field. The saturated
field strength has been shown to be (i) independent of the strength of the initial magnetic field
when the surrounding medium has a sufficient
supply of magnetic flux, (ii) weakly dependent on
BH spin, and (iii) proportionally dependent on disk
thickness (4, 28, 34). We considered various BH
spins (35), BH tilts, and disks with a quasi–
steady-state height/radius ratio (H/R) of ~0.6
for thick disks and ~0.3 for thinner disks. Numerical convergence of our results was determinedon the basis of convergence quality measures for
how well the MRI and turbulence were resolved(table S2) as well as by explicit convergence testing (33).
Let us motivate these MHD simulations by
estimating whether EM forces are expected todominate LT forces on the rotating heavy disk.
Imagine a toy model with a flat heavy disk tilted
and pushed up against the magnetized jet generated directly by the rotating BH. For a magnetic
field B bending on scale r, the EM torque per unit
area is tEM ~ rBrBf/4 (33) for a jet magnetic fieldthat has both radial (Br) and toroidal (Bf ~ rBr ΩF)
components and rotates with an angular frequency of ΩF [where rgΩF/c ~ j/8 for j ~ 1 (28)]. The
radial field is written in terms of a dimensionlessmagnetic flux given by

-0.5

0.5

• AIC = (residual chi square) + 2 (# of model parameters)
model with the lower AIC value is the one to be• The
preferred.
•

0

Change in relative separation from C1 to C3(Periodic + linear) motion ﬁt

F-testLinear motion model

0.5

10

Model selection•• Akaike Information Criterion(AIC)

1

Relative R.A.(mas)9Fitting functions

1.5

Relative Decl.(mas)20.5
22 GHz0:

jcrg2 Mvf
tLT e
pr3 vr

ð3Þ

The ratio of the EM to LT torques for j ~ 1 is thentEM =tLT e U2 rvr =ð64rg vf Þ, with rg reintroduced
for dimensional clarity. Far beyond the horizon," #tEM
1 2 raeff H 2
ð4Þ
U
e
tLT
rg
64
R

Acting when

for an effective viscosity aeff ≡ vr/[(H/R)2vf].

two BHs resides in the system
50

Fig. 1. 3D snapshot for an evolved model with j = 0.99, initial relative tilt qtilt,0 ≈ 90°, and disk thickness
H/R ~ 0.3. The rotating BH sits at the center of the box of size r = −40rg to r = +40rg in each dimension.
The snapshot shows the disk near the BH (yellow isosurface, which is mostly flat in the figure plane), thehighly magnetized jet region (blue isosurface, with magnetic energy per unit rest-mass energy equal toabout 70), the rotational axis of the disk both initially and at large distances (orange cylinder), outer disk
(green-yellow volume rendering, more aligned with disk rotational axis at large distances), magnetic field
vectors (like iron filings on that surface) for a cross section of the jet (cyan vectors), and jet magnetic fieldlines (white lines) that trace from the BH out to large distances. The disk and jet near the BH are alignedwith the BH spin axis and point mostly in and out of the figure plane, whereas at larger distances the jet
points roughly halfway between the BH spin axis and the disk’s rotational axis (pointing along the orange
cylinder).

4 JANUARY 2013

VOL 339SCIENCEwww.sciencemag.org

Relative Decl.(mas)0Years from Nov 1, 2003 (year)

•3.3

10

Radio core(C1)

0.5

-2.5

0

-2.5

-1.5

-2.5

8

position of C3

MJD
0.5

Notes.
a Relative R.A. and decl. angular distances between C1 and C3.
b Shape of component models: “e” is an elliptical Gaussian and “c” is a circle Gaussian function.
c Major axis, minor axis, and position angle of models. θ
maj and θmin are not defined for delta models. P.A. is not defined for circle and delta models.
d Flux and its error for models. Error is estimated as the addition of calibration error (typically 10% of component) and image rms of each epoch.

-0.5

4

4. Discussion

Relative Angular Separation from C1 to C3 (mas)Relative Angular Separation from C1 to C3 (mas)

0.5

0.11
0.04
0.15
0.17
0.13
0.06
550000.05
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.08

Relative Angular Separation from C1 to C3 (mas)53000

2006 Sep 222007 Jan 4
2007 May 24
2007 Jun 15
2007 Aug 72007 Nov 2
200854500
Apr 32008 Apr 16
2008 May 8
2008 May 23
2008 Jan 312008 Aug 27
2008 Nov 1
2008 Nov 27

2

2011 Oct 16

Table 6

1.98
0.00
Epoch
1.58
1.26

56500

0.5 pcRelative Decl.(mas)

D
C

56000

2

Relative Position from C1, Model Type, Size,app
and Flux of Fitted C3 Component·2007,· · Aug
1.46 findDsuch 0.82
3.6 epochs
2001
21cannot1.98
0.00· · · from 1.46
0.82
3.6
we
a
fast
motionat earlier
Relative R.A.
Relative Decl.
Modelθ × θ , P.A.
S and C3 was derived from a two-dimensional Gaussian fit in−162.60.52−36.8
C data.
1.58 we 1.26
−162.60.52−36.8
high-resolution
VLBA
Thus,
can
rule(mas
out
the
(mas)
(mas)
× mas,deg)exis(Jy)theinterferometric(u;v)-plane using the “modelfit” task in
Figure 4. Peak position of C3 for all epochs, superposed on 2002
the Jancontours
of
7
...
..
. . . 2.3 during 2006–2007.
...
...
tence
of relativistic .flow
with βapp ∼In
It is difficult to measure the positional error of
Aprtraces
5
...
...
...
...
. . Difmap.
.
43 GHz intensity distribution on 2008 November 27. The dashed2002
line
theFigure6,
thecurved
line
shows
the
constraint
on
the
jet
speed
2003
Jan
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
average positional change of C3. We set x∥ and x⊥ coordinates to evaluate thecomponent quantitatively from the interferometric data
2003 Nov 20
0.04 jet angle to the −0.12
c on the observed
0.13 × 0.13,
0.0
0.63 ±each
0.07◦ 4 fromandline of sight, based
projected
motion parallel and perpendicular to the initial position angle of 2004
C3, Oct
161.
2
0.09
−0.25
e
0.27 × 0.00, 66.3
1.14 ±in0.11 each epoch independently. We thus employed a method
speedof C3 (0.10c–0.47c),
togetherc with the jet
and jetC1.
2005 Jan 25
0.12
−0.24
0.05speed
× 0.05, 0.0
0.32 ± 0.03
2005 Oct 4
0.13
−0.46
e
0.23 × 0.09, 27.2
1.34 ±described
0.14
in Homan et al. (2001). We initially set the uncer2006 Jan 7
0.14
−0.47
c
0.13 × 0.13, 0.0
0.67 ± 0.07
55
for each data point equal to unity, and then we performed
2006 Mar 22
0.13
−0.50
c
0.23 × 0.23, 0.0
1.01 ±tainty
0.11
6
2006 Apr 7
0.14
−0.48
c
0.06 × 0.06, 0.0
0.81 ± 0.08
a linear fit to the data assuming motion with constant speed to2006 May 8
0.13
−0.50
c
0.23 × 0.23, 0.0
1.72 ± 0.19
2006 May 26
0.12
−0.52
e
0.43 × 0.23, 1.9
1.71 ±obtain
0.19
a preliminary !2 . Taking this preliminary !2 , we then2006 Jul 26
0.03
−0.45
c
0.20 × 0.20, 0.0
1.01 ± 0.12
rescaled the uncertainty of each data point, such
2006 Sep 1
0.12
−0.54
c
0.32 × 0.32, 0.0
1.18 ±uniformly
0.14

2001 Aug 21

55500

Change in relative separation from C1 to C3

Fig. 3. Plot of the separation between component C3 and component C1. The error bar is smaller than the size of each symbol. The
blue solid line represents a linear fit to the data from 2007/297 to2010 Feb 8
2009/114. The green broken line represents that from 2007/142 to
2007/297, assuming that component C3 was ejected from the positionof component C1 on 2007/142 (see subsection 4.2).

•

app

0

3. Results

Table 2. Parameters of model fitting for the core. Fig. 2. Pluses: Effelesberg light curve of 3C 84 at 22 GHz. Crosses:
total CLEANed flux of VERA observation at 22.2 GHz. Asterisks: The
light curve of component C1. Open squares: The light curve of compo−1
app
nent C2. Filled squares: The light curve of component C3.

55000

!4

Relative Decl.(mas)

⊥

MJD

54500

Years from Nov 1, 2003 (year)

√
√
−1 ,
Fig. 2. Contour images of the total intensities from the twoFig.
VSOP
observations.
Contours
are plottedat −1,
1, the2,two
2, .VSOP. . , 1024
× 2.46 mJy beam
2.
Contourimagesofthetotalintensities
fromobservations.
Contours
areplottedat−1,
1,
2, 2, . . . , 1024 × 2.46 mJy beam−1 ,The Astrophysical Journal, 746:140 (9pp), 2012 February 20
Suzuki et al.
which is three-times the residual rms noise in the second epoch
image.
The synthesized
beamrms
is 0.78
0.39
withepochthe major
axisTheat asynthesized
position angle
whichis three-times
the residual
noise×inthemassecondimage.
beam is 0.78 × 0.39 mas with the major axis at a position angle◦◦◦◦of −2. 11 for the first epoch, and 1.04 × 0.465 mas at −1. 85
inthesecondepoch.
of −2. 11 for the first epoch, and 1.04 × 0.465 mas at −1. 85 in the second epoch.
∥

54000

10

Newly ejected component(C3)

•
•
•
•

b Peak brightness for each image.

53500

5

VERA (VLBI Exploration of Radio Astronomy)@43 GHz (Suzuki et al.that2012)2
reduced-! to be unity. Finally, the positional error ofeach data point was estimated to be Frequency
0.013 mas. This error
isband：22
GHz(K-band)in consideration for the change in speed for each axis (Figure 5).
3 as a function of time. The position of components
C1of C3typicallythan asthat estimated from the signalThe positionin x and x two-times
coordinates islarger
parameterizednd C3 was derived from a two-dimensional Gaussian fit in to-noise ratio (SNR), such that "beam=SNR, where "beamBandwidth：176
MHz(16MHz 11IF)
x
(t)
=
at
+
bt
+
c,
(4)
An a priori amplitude calibration for each station
wasderivedfromtheantennagain
curve
information
instandard
files
and
An
a
prioriamplitude
calibrationfor
each
stationwasderivedfromtheantennagain
curve
information
instandard
files
and
e the
interferometric(u; v)-plane using the “modelfit”
task inis duringthebeam
size. FringeThis
fit wasresults
in anapparent
speed
of and delay-rate
system temperatures measured during observations.
Fringefitting wasmeasured
performed
usingobservations.
AIPS. After thedelay
and delay-rate
the systemtemperatures
fitting
performed
using
AIPS.
After
the
delay
ifmap.
It isdetermined,difficult thetodatameasurethesolutions
positional
error
ofthe
0.20˙0.01
yr"1(projected
speed
of 0.23˙0.01c)
towards
solutions were
were averaged
over 12weres in determined,each
IF andself-calibratedusingmas
Difmap.
Beforecorrecting
the ONsourcetime：~50
min./epoch
data
were
averagedoverandself-calibratedusing Difmap.
Beforecorrecting thex (t) = dt + et + f, 12 s in each IF (5)complexgain of HALCA,
we derived fromthe complex
gain ofgain
the groundradio
telescopes
using
only
visibilities
ongroundgroundradio
baselines.
ach
component
quantitatively
thecomplex
interferometric
data
of HALCA,
we
derivedthe complex
gainthetelescopes
using
onlythevisibilities
on ground baselines.
the south.
This
is of
approximately
consistentwithjet speeds
where
the
units
of
x
and
x
are
in
mas
and
t
is
the
time
from
After that
we fixed
the complex gain Weof thethus
groundradio
restoredthegainvisibilities
betweenradio
the groundtelescopes
Afterthattelescopes,
we fixed
thecomplexof thegroundtelescopes,
restoredandtheMaxvisibilities
betweenthe ground telescopes
and
each
epoch
independently.
employeda2003
method
in
the
#
-ray
quiet
phase
(Dhawanetal.
1998).
The
directionbaseline
length：~2300km
November1
inyears.
The
best-fit
parameters
area=
HALCA, and performed self-calibration for the HALCA,
HALCA data.
We then obtained
the finalfor
image.
In orderdata.
to keep
substantial
and performed
self-calibration
the HALCA
We athenobtained the final image. In order to keep a substantial(0.028± 0.006), ofb =movement(0.076 ± 0.030),c the= (0.147±component
0.046),
escribed
Homan
et al.we(2001).
Weweighting
initiallyset
theuncerofdiscussions
newdiffersfromthealign- in Hirabayashi
resolutioninwith
space VLBI,
used uniform
scalederrorsraisedtousedthe power
−0.5
(see
in
Hirabayashi
resolution
withby
space
VLBI,
we
uniform
weightingscaledbyerrorsraised
to
the
power
−0.5
(see
discussions
1 pc
d = (0.023 ± 0.005), e = (0.044 ± 0.028), and f =ıintyeach data point equal to unity, andthenwe
performed
et al.for2000).
mentofthecomponents
C1
and
C2
by
#
40
on
the
projected
Spatial resolution：~1.2 mas
et al. 2000).
(0.005 ± 0.039). The apparent speed and acceleration can befrom theseparameters.
The thatapparent
C3 include
islinear fit to the data assuming motion with constantcalculated
speed toplane.
We notewespeeddid ofnot
the data on 2007/258 tofrom 0.09 ± 0.04 mas yr to 0.41 ± 0.07 mas yr
wethenbtain a preliminary !2 . Taking this preliminary !2 ,changing
becauseC3 might have linear
moved faster
before : ~0.42 pc
scale(or β = 0.10 ±this
0.05 fit
to 0.47± 0.08)component
between 2003 November 20such
and2008
November27
withsectionan acceleration
rate ofniformly rescaled
eachRadiusdata point,
2007/297(see4).
Epoch the uncertainty
Component of
Flux
Theta
Major
axis
Axial ratio
Position
angle
Epoch
Component
Flux
RadiusTheta
Major axis Axial ratio Position angle
0.07 ± 0.01 mas yr (or β̇= 0.08 ± 0.02 yr ). The avObs. epoch：2007/Oct- 2013/Dec
[Jy]
[mas]
[deg]
[deg]
[mas]
[deg]
[deg]
eraged β [mas]of C3 from 2003 [Jy]November20
to 2007
Novem- [mas]2, when
C3 is D
not identified
I, is derived
that reduced-! to be unity. Finally, the positional error of1998 Aug 25
D
2.50
0.00
·ber
· · Aug
0.792.50in Paper
1998
25 1.59
0.0027.0· · · to be 1.59
0.79
27.0
(0.23 ± 0.06)c. AlthoughPaper
I discussed
thepossible deteceach data point was estimated to be 0.013 mas. This error is
speed:~0.3c(80
epochs)C
1.11
1.25 Average−171.10.281.11
−55.5
C
1.25
−171.1
0.28−55.5
tion of relativistic flow with β ∼ 2.3 during the
middle ofC3 as a function of time. The position of components C1 typically two-times larger than that estimated from the signalNotes.
nent C2. Filled squares:
The
light curve of component C3.
a Major axis,
minor axis, and position angle of synthesized beam.

53000

This work

15

C3 Flux Density (Jy)

Epoch

Chida+2014, ASJ Annual

Spring Meeting, S04a

RadioNo. 2]image(4.9 GHz)VLBI Monitoring of 3C 84 in Early Phase of the 2005 Outburst

Epoch, rms, Synthesized Beam Size, Peak Brightness, and Total CLEANed Flux for All Images•Approach from light curve
LETTER

1. Introduction
No. 2]

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

!14

Chandra X-ray image(0.3-1.5 keV)!
Fabian+2003!15

http://alma-intweb.mtk.nao.ac.jp/~iguchi/press_release/implication.html

-2.5
1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

Relative R.A.(mas)

-1

-1.5

!16