## 3. Oblique shocks and non-collinearity of the radio structure of 3C 275.13C 275.1 (S(178 MHz)=11.4 Jy) exhibits significant non-collinearity of the radio structure (bending angle ) and belongs to the "dog-leg" QSOs. It has a straight steep spectrum between 0.02 and 15 GHz with and no sign of a low frequency turnover (see Fig. 2). The flux densities designated by stars in Appendix A are taken from "A Catalogue of Radio Sources" by Kühr et al. (1979). They are on the absolute scale of Baars et al. (1977). The others are taken from papers quoted in Appendix A. The first radio observations with the Ryle 5 km radio telescope at 5 and 15 GHz (Jenkins et al. 1977, Riley and Pooley 1978) indicate that at 15 GHz 3C 275.1 consists of three components, namely a compact one, which coincides with the QSO, the slightly extended southern one at and an unresolved component north-west of the QSO, while at 5 GHz one component coincides with the north-west (NW) lobe and another one intermediate between the core and the south-east (SE) lobe.
VLA observations at 6 and 20 cm by Stocke et al. (1985) show a disturbed "bridge" extended back from the edge brightened SE lobe toward a core as well as a hot spot midway through the NW lobe and off axis with respect to emission preceding and following it. There is less depolarization on the (NW) jet side (Garrington et al., 1988). 3C 275.1, the FRII-type quasar having LAS= at 5GHz, is variable in radio and optical spectral regions. The SE lobe is brighter than NW one at low frequencies and fainter at high ones (Stocke et al., 1985), while the NW lobe is more distant from the core than the SE one. ## 3.1. Jet velocity and orientationThe ratio of the distances between the radio core and the brightest feature in each radio lobe is defined by: . At 5 GHz it is equal to 1.50. We adopt a kinematical model of the radio source, in which two plasma streams are ejected from the active core with velocities in two opposite directions at angle to the line of sight. Then, the ratio Q is given by: . The value of Q=1.5 implies . The relation between jet velocity and the angle to the line of sight for the observed Q is shown in Fig. 3 (lower line).
It is worth noting that 3C 275.1 is observed at
for ejection velocities larger than 0.3 c. In
general, the jet and counter-jet might be ejected with different
velocities and at different angles to the line of sight, although the
probability is quite low (Saikia, 1991). In this case, we have:
. If we assume that the non-collinearity of the
radio structure of 3C 275.1 is due to different ejection angles, then
the - relation will have
a minimum for at
(upper line in Fig. 3). However, it seems more probable that the
deflection of the SE lobe (of about ) is due to
local density or pressure enhancement than motion of the radio galaxy
through the intergalactic or intra-cluster medium (see the Table -
) (Parma et al., 1993). The candidate for
localized deflectors might be the gaseous halo and/or the interstellar
medium of galaxies in the immediate vicinity of the QSO. If the
non-collinearity of the radio structure of 3C 275.1 results from
asymmetry of the density of ISM/ICM gas then ;
where and are the
radio luminosities of radio lobes; and
- the ISM/ICM gas densities in the vicinity of
radio lobes. Putting
and as given by Strom
and Conway (1985) one estimates the ratio of the ISM/ICM gas densities
equal to 11.5. We consider that the jet plasma ejected from the core
toward the SE lobe exhibits an oblique shock at the interface with the
halo of the neighbouring galaxy (galaxy "381" in Table 1) leading to
the observed non-collinearity. Furthermore, the observed ratio
On the other hand, non-visibility of the counter-jet implies
. Putting one derives
slightly larger values of for the given angle
. In general, our limitation upon
calculated from Q has been confirmed by the
ratio We have analysed if the drag force due to the motion of the host
galaxy of 3C 275.1 with velocity of through
ICM could cause the bending of the radio jet. We derived the pressure
gradient as a sum of the buoyancy pressure
gradient of the ICM gas and the dynamic
pressure gradient caused by slow galaxy motion
, namely . We have: , ,
, have been defined in
Sect. 2. is the velocity of host galaxy
in respect to the mean velocity of the cluster. For
one might take the size of the host galaxy or
the size of the tail or lobe. We have considered both these cases. In
the first case we assumed , while in the second
one , which corresponds to the size of the SE
lobe. We discussed two following cases: ## 3.2. Non-relativistic oblique shockThe solid angle as seen from the core of 3C 275.1 covered by the companion galaxy with a gaseous halo of radius , which is located at a distance from the core is: . The radius of the gaseous halo of a galaxy depends on morphological type and evolutionary effects such as cannibalism and stripping. Hence, the magnitude of is highly uncertain. Putting the radius of the R-image of galaxy "381" - and (see Table 1), we derive sr. On the other hand, the solid angle occupied by the SE radio lobe is , where is the radius of the SE radio lobe, i.e. and is the distance of the SE radio lobe from the compact component, namely . Hence, sr. Therefore, the size of the solid angle seen from the core over which deflection by the companion galaxy "381" can occur is sr. Accordingly, the inelastic collision of the radio jet with the halo of neighbouring galaxy may occur. However, the true distances can differ significally from the projected ones. One might derive the luminosity distances, the comoving distances and the angular diameter distances. We used the last ones "R" to estimate the projection angles. For the projection angle , the real distance of the galaxy from the quasar core is , while the radius of the spherical galaxy does not change. Taking the distances "R" and " " given in Table 1, we obtain that the projection angle might change from 50 to . The accuracy of derived projection angle is about (50-60) %. Thereafter, for one calculates , i.e. 38.59 arcsec or about kpc and 34.55 arcsec or about kpc for the distances of galaxy 381 and SE lobe respectively. For , we have , i.e. 10.45 arcsec (78 kpc) and 9.36 arcsec (70 kpc) respectively. Putting these values into above expressions we obtain smaller solid angles. For projection angle , we have sr (for ), sr, sr and the probability of interaction of about 5 %.. For larger projection angles the solid angles are even smaller and the probability of the interaction of the galaxy and the plasma jet is very low. However, the projected positions of the discussed galaxies (see PA in Table 1) are contained within one hemisphere. If we take the impact parameter of about 0.5 Mpc, three galaxies might interact with the radio plasma and probability increases to about 15 %. The other possibility is that the knots emitting narrow-emission lines might be deflectors. Then, the deflected SE lobe is seen closer to the core because its outward velocity is reduced by deflection. Moreover, its transverse radius is greater than that of the undeflected NW lobe due to internal heating from shock, as observed in 3C 275.1. Therefore, the plasma jet characterized by the jet velocity , density , Mach number exhibits the oblique internal shock at the interface with the halo of the neighbouring galaxy or knots emitting narrow lines characterized by density and pressure . Taking the radius of galaxy "381" equal to 22 kpc () and mass , one derives the average density , while for knots the critical density calculated in previous section is about . We shall consider classical and relativistic oblique internal shocks since the discussion of the relativistic bulk motion of the emitting plasma in the nuclei of about one hundred radio sources by Ghisellini et al. (1993) indicates that the lobe-dominated QSOs have small Doppler factors (), Lorentz factors of the order of 10 and average viewing angles of (). Firstly, we shall discuss the non-relativistic shock of the initially supersonic jet (). The jet exhibits an oblique shock at the interface to the halo of the neighbouring galaxy " and bends (see Fig. 4). Subscripts '1' and '2' denote the state of gas upstream of and following the shock (downstream) respectively.
Let be the deflection angle or the angle by
which the velocity vector turns after passage through the shock front
and the angle that the shock front makes with
respect to the velocity in the flow plane.
Neglecting projection effects is equal to
about . The pressure balance is maintained
across the bend (shock) interface and the bend moves in the direction
of the initial jet velocity with velocity ## 3.3. Relativistic oblique shockWe assumed the structure of the shock, as follows: the x-axis is normal to the shock and the y-axis is in the plane of the shock. The particle acceleration and field amplification occur at the shock. Hence, the emission is dominated by the post-shock region. In general, for the oblique shock the components of the magnetic field are not vanishing. Hence, we have considered the magnetic field in the momentum and energy conservation equations. We assume that the motion is planar and the velocity and the magnetic field are in plane (x,y) on either side of the discontinuity. The tangential components of velocity are continuous at the surface of discontinuity, i.e. . Moreover, we take such a coordinate system that the components of the electric field vanish. We consider two cases: i) the magnetic field is parallel to flow velocities in both upstream and downstream flows. We have: and . Such assumption gives the relations: and . Since the parallel components of shock velocity are preserved, we have . It gives the relation: . ii) the magnetic field of the upstream flow is parallel to the
velocity flow, i.e. , while that of the
downstream flow is perpendicular, namely .
Since the polarization observations of 3C 275.1 by Liu and Pooley
(1990) indicate that the magnetic field of the SE lobe is most
probably perpendicular or complex, this case seems to be more
realistic one. Then one has . In both above
discussed cases, the number density of particle
is conserved. Hence, one has:
To derive the conservation equations we used
the energy-momentum tensor given by: . Here
is the relativistic enthalpy, We have derived in Appendix B expressions for the velocity components of the gas in the observer's frame as well as for the angles of upstream and downstream flow velocities for the ultrarelativistic equation of state, i.e. . Knowing the ratio "a" and "b" one might derive the values of other physical parameters for different shock and different angles between fluid and shock normal. However, it is seen in Fig. 4, that the angle is equal to in the projection on the (x,y) plane. Here corresponds to the deflection angle. Hence, and . Therefore, from the above relation one derives the changes of the angle with the ratios of the gas "a" and of magnetic field " " pressures for values of from to and of from to . We realized that the values of change only slightly with the value of upstream magnetic pressure and the ratios of magnetic pressures " ". On the other hand, the angle depends significantly upon the values of the ratio of gas pressures "a". It changes from about up to for "a" from 1.1 to 1.9 and for , and . For an example the changes of with "a" and " " are shown in Fig. 5.
There is a serious problem, how one might determine the ratios of the magnetic field pressures and of the gas (plasma) ones in upstream and downstream flows. There are a few possibilities for estimation of the gas pressure ratio. We used the following methods: i) the minimum pressures, i.e. , calculated from radio observations of NW lobe and SE lobe, correspond to and respectively. We put and (Strom and Conway, 1985). Hence, . ii) the gas pressure of intra-cluster medium (see Sect. 2).
There is no reliable estimations of the magnetic field in 3C 275.1. Basing upon the MERLIN observations of polarization at 18 cm Liu and Pooley (1990) have given the general discussion of the magnetic field. According to Strom and Conway (1985) the strengths of observed magnetic field are and for NW and SE lobes respectively. Hence, the magnetic pressures given by are equal to and for and respectively. They consist only a few percent of gas pressures. However, they are stronger in the parsec scale jets. On the other hand, Liu and Riley (1992) have determined the strengths of magnetic fields as equal to and . Hence, we have . For , and the angle between the direction of upstream velocity and the surface normal to the shock changes from about up to for "a" from 1.7 to 1.1. Assuming roughly we calculated from the expression given in Appendix B the angle between observer and shock surface . Putting the observed values of parameters, i.e. a=1.6, , and , we obtain from the formula for velocities given in Appendix B, and . Thereafter, we have and . In summary, one should include the magnetic pressure into the considerations of oblique shock in spite that in kiloparsec jets it consists only a few percent of gas pressures. © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1998 Online publication: May 15, 1998 |