All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=5.8cm,clip]{slope_z.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: Observed TeV slope vs. redshift for known TeV blazars. Bars denote statistical uncertainties as quoted in the original papers.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \vspace{7.5cm} \par\special{psfile=z_slope2_em.ps hoffset=0 voffs... ...pe_Lradio.ps hoffset=388 voffset=-45 hscale=28. vscale=28. angle=0} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Parameter trends for the TeV blazars in Table 1. (i) IBL-corrected VHE slope vs. redshift. The spectral slopes have been corrected for IBL absorption according to the ``fast evolution'' a) and ``baseline'' b) IBL models of Stecker et al. (2006) as parameterized by Stecker & Scully (2006). (ii) VHE to 2-10 keV luminosity ratio versus redshift c), and 2-10 keV luminosity versus redshift d). Given the modest redshifts encompassed by the current sample of TeV blazars, distances have been computed according to D(z) = cz/H₀ (with H₀ = 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1), and luminosities have not been k-corrected. The VHE luminosities are IBL-corrected using the baseline model of Stecker & Scully (2006). In panel d), the filled dots represent X-ray data taken simultaneously with the TeV measurements, whereas the empty squares represent historical low flux states; the thin dotted curve represents the ``visibility function'' for a 2-10 keV instrumental sensitivity of 7 $\times$ 10^-12 erg cm^-2 s^-1 ( $\sim$ 0.3 mCrab). (iii) TeV luminosity versus redshift e) and versus TeV spectral slope f). Luminosities and slopes are IBL-corrected using the baseline model of Stecker & Scully (2006). (iv) Intrinsic g) and observed h) TeV slopes versus 5 GHz monochromatic radio luminosities.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=5.8cm,clip]{slope_z.ps}\end{figure}$	Figure 1: Observed TeV slope vs. redshift for known TeV blazars. Bars denote statistical uncertainties as quoted in the original papers.
Open with DEXTER