Forum Springer Astron. Astrophys.
Forum Whats New Search Orders

Astron. Astrophys. 364, 911-922 (2000)

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

4. Results for strong shocks

First we consider a strong shock with an initial Mach number of [FORMULA]. Unlike an ordinary hydrodynamic simulation, the simulation of the CR shock acceleration requires specification of three physical parameters, [FORMULA], [FORMULA], and the shock Mach number in addition to the diffusion coefficient. We adopted the following nominal physical scales for physical parameters: [FORMULA], [FORMULA], [FORMULA] s, [FORMULA] cm, [FORMULA]. We use [FORMULA] for the simulations presented here, and a magnetic field of [FORMULA]G. The initial conditions are specified as follows: [FORMULA], [FORMULA], and [FORMULA] in the upstream region, while [FORMULA], [FORMULA], [FORMULA] downstream. These values reflect the shock jump conditions in the rest-frame of the shock.

We define the diffusion length and time at a given momentum as [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]. For a proper convergence, the spatial grid size should be smaller than the diffusion length of the injection pool particles ([FORMULA] in upstream for [FORMULA]). On the other hand, the spatial region of the calculation in upstream and downstream should be larger than the diffusion length-scale of the particles with the highest energies reached at the end of our simulation period ([FORMULA] for [FORMULA]). So we used 51200 uniform grid zones for [FORMULA], with the shock initially at [FORMULA] and the grid size [FORMULA]. We use 128 uniform grid zones in [FORMULA] for [FORMULA]. We integrate the solutions until [FORMULA] which corresponds to [FORMULA] for [FORMULA], so the CR particles became only mildly relativistic by the end of our simulations.

4.1. Dynamical evolution

Fig. 4 shows the normalized gas density [FORMULA], gas pressure [FORMULA], plasma velocity [FORMULA] and the cosmic-ray pressure [FORMULA] over the spatial length x, for different times. This shows clearly the basic features of the shock modification by a diffusive component; that is, the adiabatic precursor compression and the sub-shock. The CR pressure [FORMULA] is responsible for the deceleration and compression of the plasma flow in the precursor region upstream of the sub-shock, which still remains strong. As a result, the gas is compressed to higher density downstream of the sub-shock.

[FIGURE] Fig. 4. Gas density [FORMULA], pressure [FORMULA], velocity [FORMULA], and cosmic-ray pressure [FORMULA], at times [FORMULA] (dotted), [FORMULA] (dashed) and [FORMULA] (solid line). The shock Mach number is [FORMULA], [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]. The initial upstream gas pressure is [FORMULA].

The cosmic-ray pressure immediately downstream of the sub-shock has not reached a steady state yet. The reason is that for a the non-thermal particles with a momentum distribution [FORMULA] with [FORMULA], the energy density is an increasing function of [FORMULA]. This applies even if the injection is shut down completely, like for an [FORMULA]-function type injection in time, as shown by Drury (1983). We expect that [FORMULA] will continue to increase after our integration time [FORMULA], which leads to a significant modification of the shock structure and to the steepening of the power-law distribution of suprathermal particles. The simulations of such non-linear evolution, however, require much greater spatial region and grid zones and also longer integration time than what we could afford in our simulations.

In real astrophysical shocks, the energy density is limited by radiation losses in the case of electrons or more generally by particle escape due to the finite extent of the acceleration region. For the maximum energy of particles ([FORMULA]) achieved by [FORMULA] in this simulation, neither effect is important, and, therefore, not included.

4.2. Energy distribution

The phase-space distribution [FORMULA] immediately (three zones) behind the sub-shock is shown in Fig. 5 for three different times. Initially this distribution is given by a Maxwell distribution, as shown by the dotted line. At the thermal part of the distribution the cooling of the postshock gas due to the energy flux into the CR particles is responsible for the shift of the Maxwellian distribution towards lower energies. We have also plotted the transparency function [FORMULA] at the same simulation times. According to Eq. (16) the injection rate into the non-thermal distribution depends on overlap of [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] that determines the injection pool. One can see that initially the injection rate is high and so the postshock gas cools quickly, resulting in narrowing down of the injection pool. This causes the injection rate to decrease. But then the transparency function also shifts toward lower momenta, because the downstream plasma velocity [FORMULA] decreases as the postshock gas cools. The combination of the shift of [FORMULA] toward lower momenta and the decrease of the particles in the Maxwellian tail due to the gas cooling leads to the self-regulation of the injection rate at a quite stable value. According to the plot of [FORMULA] at [FORMULA] and [FORMULA], the Maxwell distribution turns into a power-law at an almost constant "effective injection momentum" which determines the magnitude of the CR distribution function [FORMULA] at a stable value (about [FORMULA] of the thermal peak). The value of this constant effective injection momentum can be translated into the parameter [FORMULA] (where [FORMULA]) defined by Kang & Jones (1995). But this is somewhat larger than what they used ([FORMULA]).

[FIGURE] Fig. 5. Phase-space density [FORMULA] vs. proton momentum immediately downstream of the sub-shock. Also shown is the transparency function [FORMULA]. Both functions are presented for [FORMULA] (dotted), [FORMULA] (dot-dashed), [FORMULA] (dashed), and [FORMULA] (solid line). For the parameters used see Fig. 4 and corresponding text.

The narrow injection pool also leads to a rather sharp transition from the Maxwell distribution to the non-thermal part starting shortly above the effective injection momentum (see Fig. 5). The canonical result in the test particle limit, [FORMULA] constant, for a strong shock with [FORMULA] is reproduced very well in our simulations. The same energy spectrum is shown in Fig. 6 in the form of the omni-directional flux [FORMULA] vs. proton kinetic energy downstream of the shock normalized to [FORMULA]. At energies above the injection pool we expect, for the strong shock ([FORMULA]) simulated here, the result [FORMULA], with [FORMULA], which is reproduced with high accuracy.

[FIGURE] Fig. 6. Omni-directional flux vs. proton kinetic energy, for [FORMULA] (dotted), [FORMULA] (dot-dashed), [FORMULA] (dashed), and [FORMULA] (solid line). These distributions are identical to those shown in Fig. 5. For the parameters used see Fig. 4 and corresponding text.

In using the standard cosmic-ray transport equation, we have, of course, made use of the diffusion approximation, which may introduce an error especially for [FORMULA]. Using an eigenfunction method, Kirk & Schneider (1989) have explicitly calculated the angular distribution of accelerated particles and accounted for effects of a strong anisotropy especially at low particle velocities. They were able to calculate the injection efficiency without recourse to the diffusion approximation, and found always lower efficiencies compared to those in the diffusion approximation. Using the initial thermal distribution, we have estimated an effective injection momentum from the peak of the distribution function, [FORMULA]. For the shock parameters considered here and for [FORMULA] we get an effective initial injection velocity of about [FORMULA] (in the shock frame). For this injection velocity, [FORMULA] and [FORMULA], they estimate a reduction effect of [FORMULA], leaving the diffusion approximation as quite reasonable even in this regime.

4.3. Injection and acceleration efficiencies

To describe the injection efficiency often a parameter [FORMULA] is used for the fraction of the in-flowing plasma particles that are instantaneously accelerated to a fixed injection momentum [FORMULA] (e.g. Falle & Giddings 1987; Dorfi 1990; Jones & Kang 1990; Zank et al. 1993; Berezhko et al. 1994). The injection energy flux I transferred to CRs is then given by


where [FORMULA] is the upstream plasma velocity in the shock frame, and [FORMULA] is the upstream density. From the fact that the injected energy flux I must be equal to the spatial integral of the injection energy loss term [FORMULA], that is, [FORMULA] and by assuming momentarily a step function for the transparency [FORMULA], we get:


where [FORMULA] is the upstream number density. This is equivalent to the injection parameter used by Kang & Jones (1995). The so-defined injection parameter [FORMULA] is, however, not an exact measure of the number of particles contributing to the population of cosmic rays, because the acceleration process cannot be described by shifting particles instantaneous from thermal energies to an injection momentum [FORMULA]. Furthermore, [FORMULA] depends strongly on the chosen injection momentum [FORMULA], which is not a fixed single parameter in our numerical simulation.

A method to measure the injection efficiency without specifying the injection momentum, is to compare the number of particles in the CR part to the number of particles swept through the shock. According to our definition of the CR population we can write for the CR number density


The fraction of particles that has been swept through the shock after the time t, and then injected into the cosmic-ray distribution is then given by


The time development of this injection efficiency is plotted in Fig. 7 for three values of the inverse wave amplitude [FORMULA]. Recall that Malkov (1998) found [FORMULA]. In the very beginning of the simulation the injection does depend strongly on the wave-amplitude, because of the very steep dependence of the Maxwell distribution at the injection energies. However, as described above, a strong initial injection leads to a temperature decrease of the plasma, and to a shift of the Maxwell distribution, which balances this effect. Therefore at later times the fraction of injected particles, [FORMULA], does not depend strongly on the initial wave-amplitude. At time [FORMULA] (or [FORMULA]s) we get a fraction of injected particles of [FORMULA] for the interval [FORMULA].

[FIGURE] Fig. 7. Energy efficiency [FORMULA] and the fraction of cosmic-ray particles [FORMULA] for three values of the inverse wave-amplitude [FORMULA] at a strong, [FORMULA], shock. For the parameters used see Fig. 4 and corresponding text.

To measure the efficiency of the particle acceleration at a shock front, we compare the energy flux in cosmic rays to the total energy which is available from the downstream plasma flow. This energy consists of the sum of kinetic energy and the gas enthalpy. The fraction of this initial energy flux, which is transferred to CRs is given by


where [FORMULA] is the initial downstream plasma velocity in the upstream rest frame. The definition of the efficiency [FORMULA] is similar to the definition from Völk et al. (1984). However, Eq. (22) compares the energy flux in CRs not only to the kinetic energy flux of the gas, but also includes the gas enthalpy flux. We measure the CR pressure immediately downstream of the sub-shock, where it will first reach the constant downstream value, in case a steady state does exist (see below). The time dependent values are averaged over the interval [FORMULA] in the shock frame to avoid influence of small scale modifications of the cosmic-ray pressure and plasma velocity on the injection efficiency. When the quantities [FORMULA], [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] have reached steady-state distributions downstream of the sub-shock, [FORMULA] is also no longer time dependent.

The evolution of the energy efficiency, [FORMULA], is plotted in Fig. 7 for three different magnetic-field wave amplitudes. See Fig. 4 and the description in Sect. 4 for the corresponding parameters. The case [FORMULA] corresponds to the highest injection efficiency and therefore leads to the highest cosmic-ray pressure. To assure a vanishing value of the cosmic-ray pressure at the spatial grid boundaries at all times, the calculation for [FORMULA] was done on a somewhat larger grid with 60416 uniform zones for [FORMULA]. For the value [FORMULA], which was calculated by Malkov (1998), we see that about 20% of the available energy in this shock is transferred into the cosmic-ray population. The acceleration efficiency has, however, not reached a real steady state value, but is increasing with [FORMULA] with [FORMULA]. The acceleration efficiency achieved by this time is given by [FORMULA] for [FORMULA]. Thus a substantial amount of the initial energy flux at a shock front can be transferred to a high energy part of the distribution, during the relatively short time we have simulated here.

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000

Online publication: January 29, 2001