Relativistic Doppler beaming and misalignments in AGN jets
aa r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . GA ] M a y RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER BEAMING ANDMISALIGNMENTS IN AGN JETS
ASHOK K. SINGAL
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS DIVISION, PHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD - 380 009, INDIA; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Radio maps of AGNs often show linear features, called jets, both on pc as well as kpc scales.These jets supposedly possess relativistic motion and are oriented close to the line of sight ofthe observer and accordingly the relativistic Doppler beaming makes them look much brighterthan they really are in their respective rest-frames. The flux boosting due to the relativisticbeaming is a very sensitive factor of the jet orientation angle, as seen by the observer. Quiteoften large bends are seen in these jets, with misalignments being 90 ◦ or more and might imply achange in the orientation angle that could cause a large change in the relativistic beaming factor.Such large bends should show high contrasts in the brightness of the jets, before and after themisalignments, if relativistic beaming does play an important role in these jets. It needs to bekept in mind that sometimes a small intrinsic change in the jet angle might appear as a muchlarger misalignment due to the geometrical projection effects, especially when seen close to theline of sight. Of course what really matters is the final orientation angle of the jet with respectto the observer’s line of sight. Taking the geometrical projection effects properly into account,we calculate the consequences of the presumed relativistic beaming and demonstrate that thereought to be large brightness ratios in jets before and after the observed misalignments. Subject headings: galaxies: active — radiation mechanisms: non-thermal — radio continuum: general— relativistic processes
1. INTRODUCTION
Radio galaxies and quasars, belonging to thegenus Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), often showlinear features called jets, which presumably arethe channels of relativistic plasma through whichenergy is continually transported to outer parts ofthese AGNs. There is evidence enough that thesejets are relativistic, at least in quasars and radiogalaxies of type FR II (Fanaroff & Riley 1974) andrelativistic Doppler beaming could be an impor-tant factor in their appearance to the observer.The Lorentz factors could be high, γ ∼ − T b ) inferred from the short period vari- ability. The estimated T b values exceed the theo-retical limit of ∼ , initially thought to be setby the large inverse Compton losses at still higher T b (Kellermann & Pauliny-Toth 1969), thereforecalled in literature for long as an inverse Comp-ton limit, though of late a somewhat stricter limit ∼ . has instead been shown to be set by thediamagnetic effects in a synchrotron source whichlead to the condition of equipartition among ra-diating charges and the magnetic field and whichis also the configuration of minimum energy forthe source (Singal 1986; 2009). But much largerbrightness temperatures, violating the above inco-herent brightness temperature limit, have been in-ferred for the centimeter variable sources. This ex-cess in brightness temperatures has been explainedin terms of a bulk relativistic motion of the emit-ting component (Rees 1966; Blandford & K¨onigl1979). The relativistic Doppler factors requiredto explain the excessively high temperatures upto ∼ K (Quirrenbach et al. 1992; Wag-ner & Witzel 1995) for the intra-day variables are δ > ∼ . Thus the evidence for relativistic flowsand relativistic beaming in AGNs is quite strong.The flux boosting due to relativistic beaming isa very sensitive factor of the orientation angle θ of the jet with respect to the line of sight to theobserver. A slight change in θ could cause a verylarge change in the observed flux density. The one-sidedness of jets seen in many AGNs is explainedby the difference in the relativistic beaming on thetwo sides because of their different orientationswith respect to the observer’s line of sight.Now what appears mysterious is that quite of-ten large bends are seen in these jets, with mis-alignments being 90 ◦ or even more (Pearson &Readhead 1988; Conway & Murphy 1993; Applet al. 1996; Kharb et al. 2010) and might imply achange in the orientation angle, which would causea large change in the relativistic beaming factor.At least in many cases these large bends are notaccompanied by high contrasts in the brightnessof the jets before and after the bends. Someexamples are: 3C309.1 (Wilkinson et al. 1986),1823+568 (O’dea et al. 1988), 3c66A, 0528+134,1803+784, BL LAC (Jorstad et al. 2005) and S50716+714 (Rani et al. 2015). These all may notbe consistent with the relativistic beaming models.However, no systematic statistical study has beendone about the brightness changes in the jet aftera misalignment to make an unambiguous state-ment. In fact there is no statistically unbiasedstudy available about the absolute frequency ofoccurrence of bending in a complete sample.It needs, however, to be kept in mind that some-times a small bending angle might appear as amuch larger misalignment due to the geometricalprojection effects, especially when seen close to theline of sight. The argument goes like this. Let θ be the angle that the jet initially makes with theline of sight and let η be the misalignment an-gle as seen by the observer in the sky plane (per-pendicular to the line of sight). Then the mis-alignment must have a component perpendicularto the initial direction of the jet (if not then nomisalignment would be noticed in the jet). If ζ is the change in angle at the source, then due toforeshortening of the parallel component by sin θ when projected in the sky plane, we gettan η = tan ζ/ sin θ ∼ γ tan ζ, (1)for sin θ ∼ /γ (assuming a relativistic beamingwith γ as the Lorentz factor). Thus the misalign-ment of the jets will appear enhanced by a factor1 / sin θ ∼ γ in relativistic beaming cases. As anexample, a 3 ◦ bend could appear as a 30 ◦ mis-alignment for a γ = 10 case. However, as muchlarger misalignments ( η > ∼ ◦ ) have been seen,then one would still need reasonably large ζ inorder to explain the observations (unless θ ∼ θ of the jet with respect to the ob-server’s line of sight. For that, one has to evaluatethe projection effects in a more precise and rigor-ous manner and we shall endeavor to do so here.Accordingly, we shall explore the question whatrelativistic beaming models predict about the ex-pected contrast in the jet brightness before andafter the observed misalignments, taking into ac-count proper geometrical projection effects.
2. GEOMETRY OF THE JET BENDING
Following Conway & Murphy (1993), we as-sume a simple jet bending model where there isa change only in the direction of the jet motion(for simplicity we take the bending to be a suddendiscontinuous change and not a gradual turning ofthe jet). Speed of the jet material is assumed toremain constant during the bending and we fur-ther assume that there is no change in the intrin-sic properties (in particular the intrinsic intensityof the jet material) before and after the bending.This is for the number of free variables requiredto explain the observations to be kept at a min-imum. A change in the jet speed, with a corre-sponding change in the relativistic Lorentz factor,alone would not cause any change in the apparentdirection of the jet seen by the observer, thoughthe brightness could change substantially depend-ing upon the change in the jet speed. A change inthe direction of jet motion is a must to show upas a misalignment in the jet direction, projectedin the sky plane, as seen by the observer.Figure 1 shows the geometry of the bend in thejet. Originally the jet is along OA, lying in theplane ZOX, making an angle θ to the observer’sline of sight, assumed to be along OZ. The sky2ig. 1.— The geometry of the bending in the jetplane is defined by YOX. The jet undergoes a bendat point A and is moving thereafter along AB mak-ing an angle ζ to the original direction OAC. Theplane ABC is defined by the azimuth angle φ withrespect to the plane ZOC (which is the same asthe plane ZOX). Our goal here is to determine θ ,the angle between AP and AB, as it is θ thatwould determine the relativistic beaming factor ofthe jet after the bending.To the observer, the original direction of thejet in the sky plane YOX will appear to be alongOX. The misalignment ζ will be the angle that theprojection of vector AB on the sky-plane makeswith OX. Vector AB is broken into a component oflength d cos ζ along AC and a perpendicular com-ponent along BC of length d sin ζ , the latter inturn giving components d sin ζ cos φ along CL and d sin ζ sin φ along BL. The component of AB alongOX therefore is d (cos ζ sin θ + sin ζ cos φ cos θ )while that along OY is d sin ζ sin φ . Thereforethe misalignment in the jet direction, as seen bythe observer (with line of sight along PA) is givenby, tan η = sin ζ sin φ cos ζ sin θ + sin ζ cos φ cos θ . (2)This expression for jet misalignment is the sameas derived by Conway & Murphy (1993). Of course what decides the jet brightness is theorientation angle θ between the observer’s line ofsight and the intrinsic direction of jet motion afterthe misalignment. From Fig. 1, we need to deter-mine projection of AB along AP. The two compo-nents along AC and CL give projection along APas d cos ζ cos θ and − d sin ζ cos φ sin θ respectively.Thus angle θ as a function of ζ, φ and θ is givenby the expression,cos θ = cos ζ cos θ − sin ζ cos φ sin θ. (3)From Eq. (2) we can express the intrinsic bendingangle ζ in terms of η, θ and φ as,tan ζ = tan η sin θ sin φ − tan η cos φ cos θ . (4)Then using Eq. (3), one can compute the corre-sponding θ for this bending angle.
3. BRIGHTNESS CHANGES WITH ORI-ENTATION ANGLE
A relativistic jet with a velocity v = βc (anda corresponding Lorentz factor γ = 1 / p − β ),moving along an orientation angle θ (with re-spect to the line of sight in the observer’s frame),has a beaming δ n + α with Doppler factor δ =1 / ( γ (1 − β cos θ )) and α the spectral index definedas I ν ∝ ν − α . Beaming becomes large as θ be-comes small; δ = γ when sin θ = 1 /γ . As for theindex n , one should use n = 2 if one is consider-ing the integrated jet emission. This is becausedue to the time compression for the approachingcomponent, a life time τ in the intrinsic frame willhave a shorter duration τ /δ in observer’s frame.Thus with a lesser number of components visibleat any time, the integrated emission will also beless. However if one is considering the jet bright-ness (i.e. flux density per unit solid angle), thenone should use n = 3 in the beaming formula, aswe shall be doing here.It is to be noted that the beaming factor be-comes unity when sin θ = p / (1 + γ ), and in factfor still larger θ it becomes less than unity, with δ = 1 /γ for θ = π/
2. Therefore for say, γ = 10,the brightness will be reduced for observers seeingthe jet at right angles by a factor 10 n + α . Thusrelativistic jets lying in the sky plane, the ob-served jet brightness may be many orders of mag-nitude weaker than its intrinsic brightness in therest frame.3f a jet is observed as heavily beamed then, be-ing close to line of sight (sin θ ≈ /γ ), we do notnormally expect it to show large changes in the ori-entation angle θ as that would change the beamingby a large factor, causing a large drop in the jetbrightness. Therefore, if anything, large changesin θ should appear more like gaps in the jet. Herewe are neither going into the physics of jet for-mation nor entertaining the question what mightcause such large bends in a highly relativistic flow(see Appl et al. 1996); we are only examining ex-pected changes in its apparent brightness if suchlarge misalignments do take place. For brightnesscomparison it does not matter whether the bend issharp or gradual, what matter are the initial andfinal orientation angle values ( θ versus θ ).If bending makes the orientation of the jet to adifferent value θ , then the Doppler beaming fac-tor would change to δ α where δ is the Dopplerfactor corresponding to θ , i.e., δ = 1 / ( γ (1 − β cos θ )). That means the observed brightness ofthe jet will change by a factor ( δ /δ ) α . Actuallythe observed brightness of the jet would changeby another factor, sin θ/ sin θ , which is a pure ge-ometric projection effect. This projection factoris not accounted for in the relativistic beamingformula and is independent of the motion of thejet. The assumption here is that the jet is an op-tically thin linear feature, and when observed atan angle θ , due to geometric projection the lengthperceived will be foreshortened by a factor sin θ ,therefore its apparent brightness will be higher bya factor 1 / sin θ . The ratio of the jet brightness af-ter the misalignment to that before is then givenby, B = (cid:20) − β cos θ − β cos θ (cid:21) α sin θ sin θ . (5)Now the brightness ratio is unity ( B = 1), if θ = θ , which from Eq. (3) will happen whentan( ζ/
2) = − tan θ cos φ. (6)
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pearson & Readhead (1988) noted that thedistribution of misalignment angles in a core-dominated sample is bimodal with one peak near0 ◦ (aligned sources) while another peak around90 ◦ (misaligned or orthogonal sources). Conway& Murphy (1993) as well as Appl et al. (1996) also found the distribution of misalignment angles tobe bimodal with the secondary peak again around90 ◦ . More recently Kharb et al. (2010) in anindependent sample found the distribution to bea smooth one with only a marginal peak around90 ◦ . In any case misalignments of 60 ◦ or largerare found in ∼ −
50% of all these cases, andthese large misalignments are often seen withoutany large changes in jet brightness.Could such misalignments appear large purelyas a result of projection effects? The prevalent no-tion in the literature is that even though we seelarge misalignments in the jets, actual bendings( ζ ) may be small and because of observer’s line ofsight being at small angle to the jet (a prerequisitefor large relativistic beaming), even small intrin-sic bending may appear as large misalignment dueto the geometry of projection (cf. Eq. (1)). It isthought that since actual bending of the jets arevery small, any changes in the relativistic beam-ing effects may also be small and large brightnesschanges do not occur. We shall show the fallacy ofthis notion. For one thing, arguments leading toEq. (1) are true only for a specific case of φ = 90 ◦ ,but in reality φ has equal probability of being anyvalue between 0 and 180 ◦ . Even otherwise, whatreally decides the beamed intensity is the orienta-tion angle θ that the misaligned part of the jetmakes with the line of sight of the observer, whereeven a small change from the erstwhile orienta-tion angle θ could make huge difference in the jetbrightness.The problem is actually two-folds. Firstly, it isdifficult to get a population that will give a peak inthe misalignment angle η at around ∼ ◦ . Con-way and Murphy (1993) showed that if φ is ran-domly distributed (as it should be because it is theangle between two completely independent planes)for no distribution of ζ, θ, γ one could get a peak inthe misalignment angle η ∼ ◦ . Thus observedmisalignments are difficult to obtain. Secondly,even if we ignore the difficulty of getting the ob-served distribution from any viable statistical dis-tribution, and concentrate on individual cases oflarge misalignment angles (which after all can beobtained for some specific chosen values of ζ, φ, θ etc.), then we may still have to match the observedrelative brightness of the jets before and after thebending with the values expected from relativisticboosting, and this might be an equally daunting4 ζ (deg)050100150 A z i m u t h ang l e φ ( deg ) B = . ° ° η = ° ° ° η = θ ° Fig. 2.— Tracks of various misalignment angles( η ) in the ζ, φ plane. The dashed curve representsno change in the brightness ( B = 1) after a mis-alignment, while dotted curves mark the bound-ary where brightness changes by a factor of two.The initial orientation angle θ of the jet with re-spect to observer’s line of sight is assumed to besin − (1 /γ ), with γ = 10.task.The bending geometry is particularly simple fora misalignment η = 90 ◦ , where the distributionshows a second peak. From Eq. (4) we can write,tan ζ = − tan θ/ cos φ , the negative sign implying φ > ◦ since θ and ζ are presumably small. Thenfrom Eq. (3) we get a simple relation, cos θ =cos ζ/ cos θ . If ζ c denotes the critical value of thebending angle where B = 1 (or θ = θ ), then for η = 90 ◦ , we get ζ c ≈ √ θ (for a small θ ). Thusfor γ = 10, θ ≈ ◦ · ζ c ≈ ◦ fora 90 ◦ misalignment. Even for a small change inbending, e.g., ζ ≈ ◦ , it can be easily calculatedfrom Eq. (5) that the jet would brighten by morethan two orders of magnitude ( B ≈ . ). Asmaller ζ does not necessarily imply no change inthe jet brightness.In a more general case, assuming the jet has aninitial orientation θ with respect to the observer’sline of sight, any particular misalignment seen bythe observer is determined by a set of ( ζ, φ ) pairs inthe ζ − φ plane. Figure 2 shows such a diagram foran orientation angle θ = sin − (1 /γ ) with γ = 10.Different solid curves plotted are for different mis-alignment angles ( η ). The dashed curve represents ζ (deg)050100150 A z i m u t h ang l e φ ( deg ) B = . ° ° η = ° ° ° η = θ ° Fig. 3.— The same as Fig. 2 but with γ = 20.no change in brightness after a misalignment (i.e., B = 1 or θ = θ ), and its intersection with anygiven misalignment curve gives the critical bend-ing angles ( ζ c , φ c ) corresponding to no change inbrightness after that misalignment. Any depar-tures from the critical ( ζ c , φ c ) values, would im-ply θ = θ and could result in large brightnesschanges (Eq. (5)) after the misalignment. Alsoplotted in Fig. 2 are two dotted curves showinga change in brightness by a factor of two after amisalignment. The idea in the literature that theintrinsic bending angle ζ may be small does notnecessarily imply that there might be no appre-ciable change in the ensuing jet brightness. Wealso repeated this exercise with θ = sin − (1 /γ )but with γ = 20 (Fig. 3). We find that it resultedin a scaled up version of Fig. 2, with ζ expandedby a factor of 2 (ratio of θ ≈ /γ with γ changingfrom 10 to 20), and except for a minor change inthe η = θ curve, there were almost no percepti-ble changes for any of the plotted curves in Fig. 3from what is seen in Fig. 2. To get an idea ofthe possible changes in brightness, we have plot-ted in Fig. 4 the brightness change B against ζ fordifferent misalignments, all again for our chosencase of sin θ = 1 /γ with γ = 10. Except for in avery narrow range around ζ c (i.e., between dottedlines in Fig. 4), we get large changes in the bright-ness. The whole scenario of large misalignmentswith no accompanying change in brightness is veryunlikely to happen.It is not possible to calculate the exact proba-5 ζ (deg)−3−2−10123 l og B ( B oo s t i ng f a c t o r a ft e r j e t m i s a li gn m en t ) ° ° η = ° ° ° η = θ ° Fig. 4.— The change expected in the jet bright-ness after different misalignment values ( η ), asa function of the intrinsic jet bending angle ζ .The initial orientation angle θ of the jet with re-spect to observer’s line of sight is assumed to besin − (1 /γ ), with γ = 10. The dashed line rep-resents no change in the brightness while dottedlines mark the boundary where brightness changesby a factor of two.bilities as we have no idea about the values ζ ina jet could take. However, from observed η onecan get some constraints on the possible values of ζ . From Figs. 2 and 3 it can be seen that for ζ ≪ θ , there will hardly be any change in thebrightness, due actually to a very small changein the orientation angle θ ≈ θ . But then themisalignment angle seen in the jet also cannot belarge, i.e., η < ∼ θ . However with large misalign-ments ( η ∼ ◦ or higher) often seen in jets, thebending angle ζ ≥ θ , as also noted by Conway &Murphy (1993). From Figs. 2 and 3 we see thatthe brightness ratio of the jet could be much belowunity ( B ≪
1) for large bending angles ( ζ > θ ),and which could very well happen as ζ and θ arequantities completely independent of each other.As for the azimuth angle φ , we can be sure that φ is a random variable between 0 and π as it is anangle between two independent planes, one deter-mined by the intrinsic bending of the jet and theother determined by the observer’s line of sight.A small range of φ between the two dotted linesin Figs. 2 and 3 means that only a small percentof the cases one expects to see brightness changes Table 1: Bending angles ( ζ ) for various misalign-ment angles ( η ), and the corresponding fraction ofthe azimuth angle (∆ φ/ π ) for 0 . ≤ B ≤ η ζ ∆ φ/ π (1) (2) (3) < ∼ θ < ∼ θ/ > ∼ . ◦ > ∼ θ/ ∼ . ◦ > ∼ θ/ ∼ . ◦ > ∼ θ/ ∼ . ≥ ◦ > θ ∼ . − . N ( | B | > /N ( | B | < ζ ∆ φ/ π N ( | B | > /N ( | B | < ζ ≪ θ > ∼ . < . θ < ∼ ζ < θ ∼ . − . ∼ − θ < ∼ ζ < ∼ θ ∼ . − . ∼ − ζ > θ < . > within a factor of two, and that in rest of the casesbrightness changes after the misalignments wouldbe much larger, even if we assume ζ range to bethe most favorable, i.e., ζ does not go beyond 2 θ .The results are summarized in Table 1, whichis organized in the following manner: (1) Mis-alignment angle ( η ). (2) Bending angle ( ζ ). (3)The fraction of the azimuth angle (∆ φ/ π ) for0 . ≤ B ≤
2. We may point out that most en-tries are approximate numbers, to indicate trends.Although we have no inkling of the distribution ofpossible values ζ might take, yet it is still possi-ble to get some idea of ( N ( | B | > /N ( | B | < θ , irrespective of the mis-alignments η . Table 2 shows that, which is or-ganized in the following manner: (1) Bendingangle ( ζ ). (2) The fraction of the azimuth an-gle (∆ φ/ π ) for 0 . ≤ B ≤
2. (3) Number ofsources with brightness contrast larger than two,as compared to those with contrast smaller thantwo ( N ( | B | > /N ( | B | < ζ and θ are other-wise completely independent quantities, while ζ is6 ζ (deg)−6−4−202 l og B ( B oo s t i ng f a c t o r a ft e r j e t m i s a li gn m en t ) η = ° η = ° γ = Fig. 5.— The change expected in the jet bright-ness after an observed misalignment as a functionof the intrinsic jet bending angle ζ , for various γ values. The initial orientation angle θ of the jetwith respect to observer’s line of sight is assumedto be sin − (1 /γ ). The family of curves plottedare for two different misalignment angles, η = 90 ◦ – solid curves, η = 60 ◦ – dot-dash curves. Thehorizontal dashed line represents no change in thebrightness while the horizontal dotted lines markthe boundary where brightness changes by a factorof two.something intrinsic to the jet and its value mayget determined by the jet physics or local circum-stances near the location of the bend, θ is a purechance value decided by line of sight of the ob-server and the jet axis.Figure 5 shows a plot of brightness change as afunction of ζ for the misalignment angle η = 90 ◦ and η = 60 ◦ , θ = sin − (1 /γ ) for various γ values.What one again sees is that a small change in thebending angle (from ζ c to ζ ≈ θ ), can make thejet after the bending brighter by many orders ofmagnitude. Figure 6 shows a plot of beaming fac-tor against azimuth angle φ for the misalignmentangle η = 90 ◦ and η = 60 ◦ , for θ = sin − (1 /γ ) forvarious γ values. We see that while critical valueof φ does depend upon the misalignment angle, itis more or less independent of the Lorentz factor γ of the jet motion and we see that our overall con-clusions do not change for different but still largemisalignment angles, i.e. for η ≫ θ .Of course, we assumed no change in the intrin-
80 100 120 140 160Azimuth angle φ (deg)−3−2−10123 l og B ( B oo s t i ng f a c t o r a ft e r j e t m i s a li gn m en t ) γ = γ = γ = γ = η = ° η = ° Fig. 6.— The same as Fig. 5, but now the changeexpected in the jet brightness after an observedmisalignment plotted as a function of the azimuthangle φ , for various γ values.sic brightness and we also assumed no change inthe speed of the jet material, only change assumedis in the direction of the jet. This was done tokeep the problem simple and the number of freeparameters to be a minimum. Even otherwise, toassume just right amount of changes in the intrin-sic properties of the jet or in its relativistic speedso as to cancel neatly any variation in the rela-tivistic beaming factor due to the change in theorientation angle, for it to appear as a result withthe same brightness after the bending as it wasbefore, would be a rather contrived scenario.The question of observed jet brightness com-parison on either side of misalignments has notbeen systematically explored in the literature. Aquantitative comparison of the flux ratios on ei-ther side of the bend may, however, need to becorrected for numerous selection effects. As wediscussed above, there would be many more largemisalignments with large flux ratios than could bemissed because of difficulties in measuring flux ra-tios of jets differing in brightness by more thanan order of magnitude because of dynamic rangelimitations. In a proper, carefully selected sampleof bending angles, observed with sufficiently goodsesitivity, the distributions of the brightness ratioson either side of the bends would need to be consis-tent with the predictions made here, if relativisticbeaming is true. Presently such data are either7ot yet available or not in a form to directly testor resolve the issues raised here. We may point outthat there are independent arguments in the liter-ature (Bell 2012) that Doppler boosting may haveplayed no significant role in the finding surveys ofradio-loud quasars.
5. CONCLUSIONS
We have shown that the relativistic beamingmodels along with the observed large misalign-ments seen in the jets of active galactic nuclei,predict large contrasts in the brightness observedbefore and after the misalignments. It was alsoshown that for every large misalignment ( ζ > ∼ ◦ ) detected, there might be an order of magni-tude larger number of similar misalignments whichmight not have been seen because of high bright-ness ratios. That would also imply that largemisalignments occur an order of magnitude ormore than what have been inferred observation-ally. Carefully selected samples of jet misalign-ments, with measured brightness ratios of the jetbrightness on either side of the bends, would beneeded to test the consistency of the relativisticbeaming hypothesis observationally. REFERENCES
Appl, S., Sol, H., & Vicente, L. 1996, A&A, 310,419Bell, M. B. 2012, IJAA, 2, 52, DOI:10.4236/ijaa.2012.21008Blandford, R. D., & K¨onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34Cohen, M. H. et al. 1977, Nature, 268, 405Conway, J. E., & Murphy, D. W. 1993. ApJ, 411,89Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MN-RAS.167P, 31Jorstad, S. G. et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418Kellermann, K. I., & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969,ApJ, 155, L71Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2003, in High energyblazar astronomy, ed. L. O. Takalo & E. Val-taoja, ASP Conf. Series, 299, 117 Kharb, P., Lister, M. L., & Cooper, N. J. 2010,ApJ, 710, 764Marscher, A. P. 2006 in Relativistic jets, ed. P. A.Huges & J. N. Bregman, AIP Conf. Proc., 856,1O’Dea, C. P., Barvainis, R., Challis, P. M. 1988,AJ, 96, 435Pearson, T. J., & Readhead, A. C. S. 1988, ApJ,328, 114Quirrenbach, A., et al. 1992, A&A, 258, 279Rani, B. et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.04219Rees, M. J. 1966, Nature, 211, 468Singal, A. K. 1986, A&A, 155, 242Singal, A. K. 2009, ApJ, 703, L109Wagner, S. J., & Witzel, A. 1995, ARA&A, 33,163Wilkinson, P. N., Kus, A. J., Pearson, T. J., Read-head, A. C. S., & Cornwell, T. J. 1986, in IAUSymp. 119, Quasars, ed. G. Swarup & V, K,Kapahi (Dordrecht: Reidel), 165