1: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: % \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: % \documentclass[onecolumn]{emulateapj}
6: \usepackage{epsf}
7:
8: % \received{...}
9: % \revised{...}
10: % \accepted{...}
11: \shorttitle{Cosmological Shock Waves}
12: \shortauthors{Kang {\it et al.~}}
13: % \slugcomment{draft of \today}
14:
15: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
16: \def\eg{{\it e.g.,}}
17: \def\ie{{\it i.e.,~}}
18:
19: \def\kms{~{\rm km~s^{-1}}}
20: \def\cm3{~{\rm cm^{-3}}}
21: \def\yrs{~{\rm yrs}}
22: \def\Mpc{~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}
23: \def\kpc{~h^{-1}{\rm kpc}}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: \title{Cosmological Shock Waves in the Large Scale Structure
27: of the Universe: Non-gravitational Effects}
28:
29: \author{Hyesung Kang\altaffilmark{1},
30: Dongsu Ryu\altaffilmark{2},
31: Renyue Cen\altaffilmark{3},
32: and J. P. Ostriker\altaffilmark{3}}
33:
34: \altaffiltext{1}
35: {Department of Earth Sciences, Pusan National University, Pusan 609-735,
36: Korea:\\ kang@uju.es.pusan.ac.kr}
37: \altaffiltext{2}
38: {Department of Astronomy \& Space Science, Chungnam National University,
39: Daejeon 305-764, Korea:\\ ryu@canopus.cnu.ac.kr}
40: \altaffiltext{3}
41: {Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton,
42: NJ 08544-1001, USA:\\ cen@astro.pricenton.edu, jpo@astro.pricenton.edu}
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45:
46: Cosmological shock waves result from supersonic flow motions induced
47: by hierarchical clustering of nonlinear structures in the universe.
48: These shocks govern the nature of cosmic plasma through
49: thermalization of gas and acceleration of nonthermal, cosmic-ray (CR)
50: particles.
51: We study the statistics and energetics of shocks formed in
52: cosmological simulations of a concordance $\Lambda$CDM universe,
53: with a special emphasis on the effects of non-gravitational
54: processes such as radiative cooling, photoionization/heating, and
55: galactic superwind feedbacks.
56: Adopting an improved model for gas thermalization and CR acceleration
57: efficiencies based on nonlinear diffusive shock acceleration
58: calculations, we then estimate the gas thermal energy and the CR
59: energy dissipated at shocks through the history of the universe.
60: Since shocks can serve as sites for generation of vorticity,
61: we also examine the vorticity that should have been generated
62: mostly at curved shocks in cosmological simulations.
63: We find that the dynamics and energetics of shocks are governed
64: primarily by the gravity of matter, so other non-gravitational
65: processes do not affect significantly the global energy dissipation and
66: vorticity generation at cosmological shocks.
67: Our results reinforce scenarios in which the intracluster medium and
68: warm-hot intergalactic medium contain energetically significant
69: populations of nonthermal particles and turbulent flow motions.
70:
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \keywords{cosmic rays -- large-scale structure of universe --
74: methods: numerical -- shock waves -- turbulence}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: Astrophysical plasmas consist of both thermal particles and
79: nonthermal, cosmic-ray (CR) particles that are closely coupled with
80: permeating magnetic fields and underlying turbulent flows.
81: In the interstellar medium (ISM) of our Galaxy, for example,
82: an approximate energy equipartition among different components
83: seems to have been established,
84: \ie $\varepsilon_{therm} \sim \varepsilon_{CR} \sim \varepsilon_B
85: \sim \varepsilon _{turb} \sim 1\ {\rm eV\ cm^{-3}}$ \citep{long94}.
86: Understanding the complex network of physical interactions among
87: these components constitutes one of fundamental problems in
88: astrophysics.
89:
90: There is substantial observational evidence for the presence of
91: nonthermal particles and magnetic fields in the large scale structure
92: of the universe.
93: A fair fraction of X-ray clusters have been observed in diffuse
94: radio synchrotron emission, indicating the presence of GeV CR
95: electrons and $\mu$G fields in the intracluster medium
96: (ICM) \citep{gf00}.
97: Observations in EUV and hard X-ray have shown that some clusters
98: possess excess radiation compared to what is expected from the hot,
99: thermal X-ray emitting ICM, most likely produced by the inverse-Compton
100: scattering of cosmic background radiation (CBR) photons by CR electrons
101: \citep{fdfg99,bbk99,bbk00}.
102: Assuming energy equipartition between CR electrons and magnetic fields,
103: $\varepsilon_{CRe} \sim \varepsilon_B \sim 0.01-0.1 {\rm eV\ cm^{-3}}
104: \sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2} \varepsilon_{therm}$ can be inferred
105: in typical radio halos \citep{gf04}.
106: If some of those CR electrons have been energized at shocks and/or by
107: turbulence, the same process should have produced a greater CR proton
108: population.
109: Considering the ratio of proton to electron numbers, $K\sim 100$,
110: for Galactic CRs \citep{bk05}, one can expect
111: $\varepsilon_{CRp} \sim 0.01-0.1 \varepsilon_{therm}$ in radio halos.
112: However, CR protons in the ICM have yet to be confirmed by the
113: observation of $\gamma$-ray photons produced by inelastic collisions
114: between CR protons and thermal protons \citep{rpsm03}.
115: Magnetic fields have been also directly observed with Faraday rotation
116: measure (RM).
117: In clusters of galaxies strong fields of a few $\mu$G strength extending
118: from core to 500 kpc or further were inferred from RM observations
119: \citep{ckb01,clar04}.
120: An {\it upper limit} of $\la \mu$G was imposed on the magnetic
121: field strength in filaments and sheets, based the observed limit of
122: the RMs of quasars outside clusters \citep{kron94,rkb98}.
123:
124: Studies on turbulence and turbulent magnetic fields in the large scale
125: structure of the universe have been recently launched too.
126: XMM-Newton X-ray observations of the Coma cluster, which seems to be
127: in a post-merger stage, were analyzed in details to extract
128: clues on turbulence in the ICM \citep{sfmb04}.
129: By analyzing pressure fluctuations, it was shown that the turbulence
130: is likely subsonic and consistent with Kolmogoroff turbulence.
131: RM maps of clusters have been analyzed to find the power spectrum of
132: turbulent magnetic fields in a few clusters \citep{mgfg04,ve05}.
133: While \citet{mgfg04} reported a spectrum shallower than the Kolmogoroff
134: spectrum, \citet{ve05} argued that the spectrum could be consistent with
135: the Kolmogoroff spectrum if it is bended at a few kpc scale.
136: These studies suggest that as in the ISM, turbulence does exist in
137: the ICM and may constitute an energetically non-negligible component.
138:
139: In galaxy cluster environments there are several possible sources of
140: CRs, magnetic fields, and turbulence:
141: jets from active galaxies \citep{kcld04,llfl06},
142: termination shocks of galactic winds
143: driven by supernova explosions \citep{volk99},
144: merger shocks \citep{sarazin99,gb03,fujita03},
145: structure formation shocks \citep{lw00,mjkr01,mrkj01},
146: and motions of subcluster clumps and galaxies \citep{subramanian06}.
147: All of them have a potential to inject a similar amount of energies,
148: \ie $E \sim 10^{61}-10^{62}$ ergs into the ICM.
149: Here we focus on shock scenarios.
150:
151: Astrophysical shocks are collisionless shocks that form in tenuous
152: cosmic plasmas via collective electromagnetic interactions between
153: gas particles and magnetic fields.
154: They play key roles in governing the nature of cosmic plasmas: \ie
155: 1) shocks convert a part of the kinetic energy of bulk flow motions
156: into thermal energy,
157: 2) shocks accelerate CRs by diffusive shock acceleration (DSA)
158: \citep{bo78,be87,md01}, and amplify magnetic fields by streaming CRs
159: \citep{bell78,lucekbell00},
160: 3) shocks generate magnetic fields via the Biermann battery
161: mechanism \citep{biermann50,kulsrude97} and the Weibel instability
162: \citep{weibel59,medvedev06},
163: and 4) curved shocks generate vorticity and ensuing turbulent flows
164: \citep{binney74,davies00}.
165:
166: In \citet{rkhj03} (Paper I), the properties of {\it cosmological
167: shock waves} in the intergalactic medium (IGM) and the energy
168: dissipations into thermal and nonthermal components at those shocks
169: were studied in a high-resolution, adiabatic (non-radiative),
170: hydrodynamic simulation of a $\Lambda$CDM universe.
171: They found that internal shocks with low Mach numbers of $M \la 4$,
172: which formed in the hot, previously shocked gas inside nonlinear
173: structures, are responsible for most of the shock energy dissipation.
174: Adopting a nonlinear DSA model for CR protons, it was shown that about
175: $1/2$ of the gas thermal energy dissipated at cosmological shocks
176: through the history of the universe could be stored as CRs.
177: In a recent study, \citet{pfrommeretal06} identified shocks and
178: analyzed the statistics in smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH)
179: simulations of a $\Lambda$CDM universe, and found that their results
180: are in good agreement with those of Paper I.
181: While internal shocks with lower Mach numbers are energetically
182: dominant, external accretions shocks with higher Mach numbers can
183: serve as possible acceleration sites for high energy cosmic rays
184: \citep{krj96,krb97,ostrowski02}.
185: It was shown that CR ions could be accelerated up to
186: $\sim Z \times 10^{19}eV$ at cosmological shocks, where $Z$ is
187: the charge of ions \citep{isma07}.
188:
189: \citet{rkcd07} (Paper II) analyzed the distribution of vorticity,
190: which should have been generated mostly at cosmological shock waves,
191: in the same simulation of a $\Lambda$CDM universe as in
192: Paper I, and studied its implication on turbulence and turbulence dynamo.
193: Inside nonlinear structures, vorticity was found to be large enough
194: that the turn-over time, which is defined as the inverse of vorticity,
195: is shorter than the age of the universe.
196: Based on it \citet{rkcd07} argued that turbulence should have been
197: developed in those structures and estimated the strength of the magnetic
198: field grown by the turbulence.
199:
200: In this paper, we study cosmological shock waves in a new set of
201: hydrodynamic simulations of large structure formation in a
202: concordance $\Lambda$CDM universe:
203: an adiabatic (non-radiative) simulation which is similar to that
204: considered in Paper I, and two additional simulations which include
205: various non-gravitational processes (see the next section for details).
206: As in Papers I and II, the properties of cosmological shock waves are
207: analyzed, the energy dissipations to gas thermal energy and CR
208: energy are evaluated, and the vorticity distribution is analyzed.
209: We then compare the results for the three simulations to highlight
210: the {\it effects of non-gravitational processes} on the properties of
211: shocks and their roles on the cosmic plasmas in the large scale
212: structure of the universe.
213:
214: Simulations are described in \S2.
215: The main results of shock identification and properties, energy
216: dissipations, and vorticity distribution are described in \S3,
217: \S 4, and \S 5, respectively.
218: Summary and discussion are followed in \S 6.
219:
220: \section{Simulations}
221:
222: The results reported here are based on the simulations previously
223: presented in \citet{co06}.
224: The simulations included radiative processes of heating/cooling, and
225: the two simulations with and without galactic superwind (GSW) feedbacks
226: were compared in that paper.
227: Here an additional adiabatic (non-radiative) simulation
228: with otherwise the same setup was performed.
229: Hereafter these three simulations are referred as ``Adiabatic'',
230: ``NO GSW'', and ``GSW'' simulations, respectively.
231: Specifically, the WMAP1-normalized $\Lambda$CDM cosmology was employed
232: with the following parameters:
233: $\Omega_{b}=0.048$, $\Omega_{m}=0.31$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.69$,
234: $h \equiv H_0$/(100 km/s/Mpc) = 0.69, $\sigma_8 = 0.89$, and $n=0.97$.
235: A cubic box of comoving size $85\Mpc$ was simulated using $1024^3$
236: grid zones for gas and gravity and $512^3$ particles for dark matter.
237: It allows a uniform spatial resolution of $\Delta l = 83\kpc$.
238: In Papers I and II, an adiabatic simulation in a cubic box of comoving
239: size $100\Mpc$ with $1024^3$ grid zones and $512^3$ particles,
240: employing slightly different cosmological parameters, was used.
241: The simulations were performed using a PM/Eulerian
242: hydrodynamic cosmology code \citep{rokc93}.
243:
244: Detailed descriptions for input physical ingredients such as
245: non-equilibrium ionization/cooling, photoionization/heating,
246: star formation, and feedback processes can be found
247: in earlier papers \citep{co03,co06}.
248: Feedbacks from star formation were treated in three forms:
249: ionizing UV photons, GSWs, and metal enrichment.
250: GSWs were meant to represent cumulative supernova explosions, and
251: modeled as outflows of several hundred $\kms$.
252: The input of GSW energy for a given amount of star formation was
253: determined by matching the outflow velocities computed for star-burst
254: galaxies in the simulation with those observed in the real world
255: \citep{pebp02}\citep[see also][for details]{co06}.
256:
257: Figure 1 shows the gas mass distribution in the gas density-temperature
258: plane, $f_m(\rho_{gas}, T)$, and the gas mass fraction as a function of
259: gas temperature, $f_m(T)$, at $z=0$ for the three simulations.
260: The distributions are quite different, depending primarily on the
261: inclusion of radiative cooling and photoionization/heating.
262: GSW feedbacks increase the fraction of the WHIM with $10^5<T<10^7$K,
263: and at the same time affect the distribution of the warm/diffuse gas
264: with $T<10^5$.
265:
266: \section{Properties of Cosmological Shock Waves}
267:
268: We start to describe cosmological shocks by briefing the procedure
269: by which the shocks were identified in simulation data.
270: The details can be found in Paper I.
271: A zone was tagged as a {\it shock zone} currently experiencing shock
272: dissipation, whenever the following three criteria are met:
273: 1) the gradients of gas temperature and entropy have the same sign,
274: 2) the local flow is converging with ${\vec \nabla} \cdot {\vec v} < 0$,
275: and 3) $|\Delta \log T| \ge 0.11$ corresponding to the temperature
276: jump of a shock with $M \ge 1.3$.
277: Typically a shock is represented by a jump spread over $2-3$ tagged
278: zones.
279: Hence, a {\it shock center} was identified within the tagged zones,
280: where ${\vec \nabla} \cdot {\vec v}$ is minimum, and this center
281: was labeled as part of a shock surface.
282: The Mach number of the shock center, $M$, was calculated from the
283: temperature jump across the entire shock zones.
284: Finally to avoid confusion from complex flow patterns and shock surface
285: topologies associated with very weak shocks, only those portions of
286: shock surfaces with $M\ge1.5$ were kept and used for the analysis of
287: shocks properties.
288:
289: Figure 2 shows the locations of identified shocks in a two-dimensional
290: slice at $z=0$ in the GSW simulation.
291: The locations are color-coded according to shock speed.
292: As shown before in Paper I, {\it external} accretion shocks encompass
293: nonlinear structures and reveal, in addition to cluster complexes,
294: rich topology of filamentary and sheet-like structures in the large
295: scale structure.
296: Inside the nonlinear structures, there exist complex networks of
297: {\it internal} shocks that form by infall of previously shocked gas
298: to filaments and knots and during subclump mergers, as well as by
299: chaotic flow motions.
300: The shock heated gas around clusters extends out to $\sim 5 \Mpc$,
301: much further out than the observed X-ray emitting volume.
302:
303: In the GSW simulation, with several hundred $\kms$ for outflows,
304: the GSW feedbacks affected most greatly the gas around groups of
305: galaxies, while the impact on clusters with $kT \ga 1$ keV was minimal.
306: In Figure 3 we compare shock locations in a region around two groups
307: with $kT \sim 0.2-0.3$ keV in the three simulations.
308: It demonstrates that GSW feedbacks pushed the hot gas out of
309: groups with typical velocities of $\sim 100 \kms$ (green points).
310: In fact the prominent green balloons of shock surfaces around
311: groups in Figure 2 are due to GSW feedbacks
312: \citep[see also Figure 4 of][]{co06}.
313:
314: In the left panels of Figure 4 we compare the surface area of
315: identified shocks, normalized by the volume of the simulation box, per
316: logarithmic Mach number interval, $dS(M)/d\log M$ (top), and per
317: logarithmic shock speed interval, $dS(V_s)/d\log V_s$ (bottom),
318: at $z=0$ in the three simulations.
319: Here $S$ and $V_s$ are given in units of $(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})^{-1}$
320: and $\kms$.
321: The quantity $S$ provides a measure of shock frequency or the inverse
322: of the mean comoving distance between shock surfaces.
323: The distributions of $dS(M)/d\log M$ for the NO GSW and GSW simulations
324: are similar, while that for the Adiabatic simulation is different from
325: the other two.
326: This is mainly because the gas temperature outside nonlinear structures
327: is lower without photoionization/heating in the Adiabatic simulation.
328: As a result, external accretion shocks tend to have higher Mach number
329: due to colder preshock gas.
330: The distribution of $dS(V_s)/d\log V_s$, on the other hand, is similar
331: for all three simulations for $V_s> 15 \kms$.
332: For $V_s<15 \kms$, however, there are more shocks in the Adiabatic
333: simulation (black points in Figure 3).
334: Again this is because in the Adiabatic simulation the gas temperature
335: is colder in void regions, and so even shocks with low speeds of
336: $V_s<15 \kms$ were identified in these regions.
337: The GSW simulation shows slightly more shocks than the NO GSW simulation
338: around $V_s \sim 100\kms$, because GSW
339: feedbacks created balloon-shaped surfaces of shocks with typically
340: those speeds (green points in Figure 3).
341:
342: For identified shocks, we calculated the incident shock kinetic energy
343: flux, $F_{\phi}= (1/2) \rho_1 V_{s}^3$, where $\rho_1$ is the preshock
344: gas density.
345: We then calculated the kinetic energy flux through shock surfaces,
346: normalized by the volume of the simulation box, per logarithmic Mach
347: number interval, $dF_{\phi}(M)/d\log M$, and per logarithmic shock
348: speed interval, $dF_{\phi}(V_s)/d\log V_s$.
349: In the right panels of Figure 4, we compare the flux at $z=0$ in
350: the three simulations.
351: Once again, there are noticeable differences in $dF_{\phi}(M)/d\log M$
352: between the Adiabatic simulation and the other two simulations, which
353: can be interpreted as the result of ignoring photoionization/heating
354: in the gas outside nonlinear structures in the Adiabatic simulation.
355: GSW feedbacks enhance only slightly the shock kinetic energy flux for
356: $V_s \sim 100 - 300\kms$, as can be seen in the plot of
357: $dF_{\phi}(V_s)/d\log V_s$.
358: Yet, the total amount of the energy flux is expected to be quite similar
359: for all three simulations.
360: This implies that the overall energy dissipation at cosmological shocks
361: is governed mainly by the gravity of matter, and that the inclusion
362: of various non-gravitational processes such as radiative cooling,
363: photoionization/heating, and GSW feedbacks have rather minor, local
364: effects.
365:
366: We note that a {\it temperature floor} of $T_{\rm floor} = T_{\rm CBR}$
367: was used for the three simulations in this work, while
368: $T_{\rm floor} = 10^4$ K was set in paper I.
369: It was because in Paper I only an adiabatic simulation was considered
370: and the $10^4$ K temperature floor was enforced to mimic the effect of
371: photoionization/heating on the IGM.
372: However we found that when the same temperature floor is enforced, the
373: statistics of the current Adiabatic simulation agree excellently with
374: those of Paper I.
375: Specifically, the shock frequency and kinetic energy flux,
376: $dS(M)/d\log M$ and $dF_{\phi}(M)/d\log M$, for weak shocks with
377: $1.5 \le M \la 3$ are a bit higher in the current Adiabatic simulation,
378: because of higher spatial resolution.
379: But the total kinetic energy flux through shock surfaces,
380: $F_{\phi}(M>1.5)$, agrees within a few percent.
381: On the other hand, In Paper I we were able to reasonably distinguish
382: external and internal shocks according to the preshock temperature,
383: \ie external shocks if $T_1 \le T_{\rm floor}$ and internal shocks
384: if $T_1>T_{\rm floor}$.
385: We no longer made such distinction in this work, since the preshock
386: temperature alone cannot tell us whether the preshock gas is
387: inside nonlinear structures or not in the simulations with
388: radiative cooling.
389:
390: \section{Energy dissipation by Cosmological Shock Waves}
391:
392: The CR injection and acceleration rates at shocks depend in general
393: upon the shock Mach number, field obliquity angle, and the strength
394: of the Alfv\'en turbulence responsible for scattering.
395: At quasi-parallel shocks, in which the mean magnetic field is parallel
396: to the shock normal direction, small anisotropy in the particle
397: velocity distribution in the local fluid frame causes some particles
398: in the high energy tail of the Maxwellian distribution to stream
399: upstream \citep{gbse92}.
400: The streaming motions of the high energy particles against the
401: background fluid generate strong MHD Alfv\'en waves upstream of
402: the shock, which in turn scatter particles and amplify magnetic
403: fields \citep{bell78,lucekbell00}.
404: The scattered particles can then be accelerated further to higher
405: energies via Fermi first order process \citep{md01}.
406: These processes, \ie leakage of suprathermal particles into CRs,
407: self-excitation of Alfv\'en waves, amplification of magnetic fields,
408: and further acceleration of CRs, are all integral parts of collisionless
409: shock formation in astrophysical plasmas.
410: It was shown that at strong quasi-parallel shocks, $10^{-4} - 10^{-3}$
411: of the incoming particles can be injected into the CR population, up
412: to 60\% of the shock kinetic energy can be transferred into CR ions,
413: and at the same time substantial nonlinear feedbacks are exerted to
414: the underlying flow \citep{ber95,kj05}.
415:
416: At perpendicular shocks with weakly perturbed magnetic fields, on the
417: other hand, particles gain energy mainly by drifting along the shock
418: surface in the ${\vec v} \times {\vec B}$ electric field.
419: Such drift acceleration can be much more efficient than the acceleration
420: at parallel shocks \citep{jokipii87,krb97,ostrowski02}.
421: But the particle injection into the acceleration process is expected to
422: be inefficient at perpendicular shocks, since the transport of particles
423: normal to the average field direction is suppressed \citep{ellisonetal95}.
424: However, \citet{giacalone05} showed that the injection problem at
425: perpendicular shocks can be alleviated substantially in the presence
426: of fully turbulent fields owing to field line meandering.
427:
428: As in Paper I, the gas thermalization and CR acceleration
429: efficiencies are defined as $\delta(M) \equiv F_{th}/F_{\phi}$ and
430: $\eta(M) \equiv F_{CR}/F_{\phi}$, respectively,
431: where $F_{th}$ is the thermal energy flux generated
432: and $F_{CR}$ is the CR energy flux accelerated at shocks.
433: We note that for gasdynamical shocks without CRs, the gas
434: thermalization efficiency can be calculated from the Rankine-Hugoniot
435: jump condition, as follows:
436: \begin{equation}
437: \delta_0(M) = \left[e_{th,2} - e_{th,1} \left({\rho_2\over\rho_1}
438: \right)^{\gamma}\right]v_2 \Bigg/ \left({1\over2}\rho_1 v_1^2\right),
439: \end{equation}
440: where the subscripts 1 and 2 stand for preshock and postshock regions,
441: respectively.
442: The second term inside the brackets subtracts the effect of adiabatic
443: compression occurred at a shock too, not just the thermal energy flux
444: entering the shock, namely, $e_{th,1} v_1$.
445:
446: At CR modified shocks, however, the gas thermalization efficiency
447: can be much smaller than $\delta_0(M)$ for strong shocks
448: with large $M$, since a significant fraction of the shock
449: kinetic energy can be transferred to CRs.
450: %To quantify the gas thermal and CR energies dissipated at cosmological
451: %shock waves, in this study we adopt the results of DSA simulations where
452: %{\it quasi-parallel shocks} and Bohm diffusion were assumed.
453: The gas thermalization and CR acceleration efficiencies were estimated
454: using the results of DSA simulations of quasi-parallel shocks with
455: Bohm diffusion coefficient, self-consistent treatments of thermal
456: leakage injection, and Alfv\'en wave propagation \citep{kj07}.
457: The simulations were started with purely gasdynamical shocks in
458: one-dimensional, plane-parallel geometry, and CR acceleration was
459: followed by solving the diffusion-convection equation explicitly
460: with very high resolution.
461: Shocks with $V_s=150-4500$ km s$^{-1}$ propagating into media of
462: $T_1 = 10^4 - 10^6$ K were considered.
463: After a quick initial adjustment,
464: the postshock states reach time asymptotic values
465: and the CR modified shocks evolve in an approximately self-similar way with
466: the shock structure broadening linearly with time
467: \citep[refer][for details]{kj07}.
468: Given this self-similar nature of CR modified shocks, we calculated
469: time asymptotic values of $\delta(M)$ and $\eta(M)$ as the ratios of
470: increases in the gas thermal and CR energies at shocks to the kinetic
471: energy passed through the shocks at the termination time of the
472: DSA simulations.
473: As in Eq. (1), the increase of energies due to adiabatic compression
474: was subtracted.
475:
476: Figure 5 shows $\delta(M)$ and $\eta(M)$ estimated from DSA simulations and
477: their fittings for the cases with and without a preexisting CR component.
478: The fitting formulae are given in Appendix A.
479: Without a preexisting CR component, gas thermalization is more
480: efficient than CR acceleration at shocks with $M \la 5$.
481: However, it is likely that weak internal shocks propagate through
482: the IGM that contains CRs accelerated previously at earlier shocks.
483: In that case, shocks with preexisting CRs need to be considered.
484: Since the presence of preexisting CRs is equivalent to a higher
485: injection rate, CR acceleration is more efficient in that case,
486: especially at shocks with $M \la 5$ \citep{kj03}.
487: In the bottom panel the efficiencies for shocks with
488: $P_{CR}/P_{g} \sim 0.3$ in the preshock region are shown.
489: For comparison, $\delta_0(M)$ for shocks without CRs is also drawn.
490: Both $\delta(M)$ and $\eta(M)$ increase with Mach number, but
491: $\eta(M)$ asymptotes to $\sim 0.55$ while $\delta(M)$ to $\sim 0.30$
492: for strong shocks with $M \ga 30$.
493: So about twice more energy goes into CRs, compared to for gas heating,
494: at strong shocks.
495:
496: The efficiencies for the case without a preexisting CR component in
497: the upper panel of Figure 5 can be directly compared with the same
498: quantities presented in Figure 6 of Paper I.
499: In Paper I, however, the gas thermalization efficiency was not calculated
500: explicitly from DSA simulations, and hence $\delta_0(M)$ for gasdynamic
501: shocks was used.
502: It represents gas thermalization reasonably well for weak
503: shocks with $M \la 2.5$, but overestimates gas thermalization for
504: stronger CR modified shocks.
505: Our new estimate for $\eta(M)$ is close to that in Paper I, but a bit
506: smaller, especially for shocks with $M \la 30$.
507: This is because inclusion of Alfv\'en wave drift and dissipation in the
508: shock precursor reduces the effective velocity change experienced by
509: CRs in the new DSA simulations of \citet{kj07}.
510:
511: A note of caution for $\eta(M)$ should be in order.
512: As outlined above, CR injection is less efficient and so the CR
513: acceleration efficiency would be lower at perpendicular shocks,
514: compared to at quasi-parallel shocks.
515: CR injection and acceleration at oblique shocks are not well understood
516: quantitatively.
517: And the magnetic field directions at cosmological shocks are not known.
518: Considering these and other uncertainties involved in the adopted DSA
519: model, we did not attempt to make further improvements in estimating
520: $\delta(M)$ and $\eta(M)$ at general oblique shocks.
521: But we expect that an estimate at realistic shocks with chaotic magnetic
522: fields and random shock obliquity angles would give reduced values,
523: rather than increased values, for $\eta(M)$.
524: So $\eta(M)$ given in Figure 5 may be regarded as {\it upper limits}.
525:
526: By adopting the efficiencies in Figures 5, we calculated the thermal
527: and CR energy fluxes dissipated at cosmological shocks,
528: $dF_{th}(M)/d\log M$, $dF_{th}(V_s)/d\log V_s$, $dF_{CR}(M)/d\log M$
529: and $dF_{CR}(V_s)/d\log V_s$, using $F_{th}= F_{\phi}\delta(M)$ and
530: $F_{CR}=F_{\phi}\eta(M)$, in the same way we calculated
531: $dF_{\phi}(M)/d\log M$ and $dF_{\phi}(V_s)/d\log V_s$ in
532: the previous section.
533: We then integrated from $z=5$ to $z=0$ the shock kinetic energy
534: passed and the thermal and CR energies dissipated through shock
535: surfaces as follows:
536: \begin{equation}
537: {{d Y_i(X)} \over {d \log X}} = { 1 \over {\cal E}_{th,0}}
538: \int_{z=5}^{z=0} {{d F_i[X,z(t)]} \over {d \log X}} dt,
539: \end{equation}
540: where the subscript $i \equiv \phi,~ th,~{\rm or}~CR$ stands for
541: the kinetic, thermal, or CR energies fluxes, the variable $X$ is
542: either $M$ or $V_s$, and ${\cal E}_{th,0}$ is the total gas thermal
543: energy at $z=0$ inside the simulation box normalized by its volume.
544:
545: Figure 6 shows the resulting ${d Y_i(M)}/{d \log M}$ and
546: ${d Y_i(V_s)}/{d \log V_s}$ and their cumulative distributions,
547: $Y_i(>M)$ and $Y_i(>V_s)$, for the GSW simulation.
548: Weak shocks with $ M \la 4$ or fast shocks with $V_s\ga 500 \kms$ are
549: responsible most for shock dissipations, as already noted in Paper I.
550: While the thermal energy generation peaks at shocks in the range
551: $1.5 \la M \la 3$, the CR energy peaks in the range
552: $2,5 \la M \la 4$ if no preexisting CRs are included or in the range
553: $1.5 \la M \la 3$ if preexisting CRs of $P_{CR}/P_g \sim 0.3$ in the
554: preshock region are included.
555: With our adopted efficiencies, the total CR energy accelerated and
556: the total gas thermal energy dissipated at cosmological shocks
557: throughout the history of the universe are compared as
558: $Y_{CR}(M \ge 1.5) \sim 0.5 Y_{th}(M \ge 1.5)$, when no preexisting
559: CRs are present.
560: With preexisting CRs in the preshock region,
561: the CR acceleration becomes more efficient, so
562: $Y_{CR}(M \ge 1.5) \sim 1.7 Y_{th}(M \ge 1.5)$,
563: \ie the total CR energy accelerated at cosmological shocks is
564: estimated to be 1.7 times the total gas thermal energy dissipated.
565: We note here again that these are not meant to be very
566: accurate estimates of the CR energy in the IGM, considering the
567: difficulty of modeling shocks as well as the uncertainties
568: in the DSA model itself.
569: However, they imply that the IGM and the WHIM, which are bounded by
570: strong external shocks with high $M$ and filled with weak internal shocks
571: with low $M$, could contain a dynamically significant CR population.
572:
573: \section{Vorticity Generation at Cosmological Shock Waves}
574:
575: Cosmological shocks formed in the large scale structure of the
576: universe are by nature curved shocks, accompanying complex,
577: often chaotic flow patterns.
578: It is well known that vorticity,
579: ${\vec \omega}= \nabla \times {\vec v}$, is generated
580: at such curved oblique shocks \citep{binney74,davies00}.
581: In Paper II, the generation of vorticity behind cosmological shocks
582: and turbulence dynamo of magnetic fields in the IGM were studied in
583: an adiabatic $\Lambda$CDM simulation.
584: In this study we analyzed the distribution of vorticity
585: in the three simulations to assess quantitatively the effects of
586: non-gravitational processes.
587: Here we present the magnitude of vorticity with the vorticity
588: parameter
589: \begin{equation}
590: \tau({\vec r},z) \equiv t_{\rm age}(z) \omega({\vec r},z) =
591: {t_{\rm age}(z) \over t_{\rm eddy}({\vec r},z)},
592: \end{equation}
593: where $t_{\rm age}(z)$ is the age of the universe at redshift $z$.
594: With $t_{\rm eddy} = 1/\omega$ interpreted as local eddy turnover
595: time, $\tau$ represents the number of local eddy turnovers in the
596: age of the universe.
597: So if $\tau \gg 1$, we expect that turbulence has been fully
598: developed after many turnovers.
599:
600: Figure 7 shows fluid quantities and shock locations in a
601: two-dimensional slice of $(21.25 \Mpc)^2$, delineated by a solid box
602: in Figure 2, at $z=0$ in the GSW simulations.
603: The region contains two clusters with $kT \sim 1 - 2$ keV in
604: the process of merging.
605: Bottom right panel shows that vorticity increases sharply at shocks.
606: The postshock gas has a larger amount of vorticity than the preshock
607: gas, indicating that most, if not all, of the vorticity in the
608: simulation was produced at shocks.
609:
610: Figure 8 shows the gas mass distribution in the gas density-vorticity
611: parameter plane, $f_m(\rho_{gas},\tau)$, (upper panel) and the gas mass
612: fraction per logarithmic $\tau$ interval, $df_m(\tau)/d\log \tau$,
613: (bottom panel) for the three simulations.
614: The most noticeable point in the upper panel is that vorticity is higher
615: at the highest density regions with
616: $\tilde \rho \equiv \rho_{gas}/\langle \rho_{gas} \rangle \ga 10^3$
617: in the NO GSW and GSW simulations than in the Adiabatic simulation.
618: This is due to the additional flow motions induced by cooling.
619: Inclusion of GSW feedbacks, on the other hand, does not alter
620: significantly the overall distribution in the gas density-vorticity
621: parameter plane.
622: The bottom panel indicates that cooling increased the mass fraction
623: with large vorticity $\tau \ga 10$, while reduced the mass fraction
624: with $1 \la \tau \la 10$.
625: GSW feedbacks increased slightly the mass fraction with
626: $1\la \tau \la10$, which corresponds to the gas in the regions
627: outskirts of groups that expand further out due to GSWs
628: (\ie balloons around groups).
629: But overall we conclude that the non-gravitational processes
630: considered in this paper have limited effects on vorticity
631: in the large scale structure of the universe.
632:
633: We note that the highest density regions in the NO GSW and GSW
634: simulations have $\tau \sim 30$ on average.
635: As described in details in Paper II, such values of $\tau$ imply that local
636: eddies have turned over many times in the age of the universe, so
637: that the ICM gas there has had enough time to develop
638: magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence.
639: So in those regions, magnetic fields should have grown to have
640: the energy approaching to the turbulent energy.
641: On the other hand, the gas with $1 \la \tilde \rho \la 10^3$,
642: mostly in filamentary and sheet-like structures, has $0.1 \la \tau \la 10$.
643: MHD turbulence should not have been fully developed there
644: and turbulence growth of magnetic fields would be small.
645: Finally in the low density void regions with $\tilde \rho \la 1$,
646: vorticity is negligible with $\tau \la 0.1$ on average, as expected.
647:
648: \section{Summary}
649:
650: We identified cosmological shock waves and studied their roles on
651: cosmic plasmas in three cosmological N-body/hydro\-dynamic simulations
652: for a concordance
653: $\Lambda$CDM universe in a cubic box of comoving size $85\Mpc$:
654: 1) adiabatic simulation (Adiabatic), 2) simulation with
655: radiative cooling and photoionization/heating (NO GSW), and 3) same as
656: the second simulation but also with galactic superwind feedbacks (GSW).
657: The statistics and energetics of shocks in the adiabatic simulation
658: are in an excellent agreement with those of Paper I where an adiabatic
659: simulation with slightly different cosmological parameters in
660: a cubic box of comoving size $100\Mpc$ was analyzed.
661:
662: Photoionization/heating raised the gas temperature outside nonlinear
663: structures in the NO GSW and GSW simulations.
664: As a result, the number of identified shocks and their Mach numbers in
665: the NO GSW and GSW simulations were different from those in the Adiabatic
666: simulation.
667: GSW feedbacks pushed out gas most noticeably around groups, creating
668: balloon-shaped surfaces of shocks with speed $V_s \sim 100 \kms$ in
669: the GSW simulation.
670: However, those have minor effects on shock energetics.
671: The total kinetic energy passed through shock surfaces throughout the
672: history of the universe is very similar for all three simulations.
673: So we conclude that the energetics of cosmological shocks was governed
674: mostly by the gravity of matter, and the effects non-gravitational
675: processes, such as radiative cooling, photoionization/heating, and GSW
676: feedbacks, were rather minor and local.
677:
678: We estimated both the {\it improved} gas
679: thermalization efficiency, $\delta(M)$, and CR acceleration efficiency,
680: $\eta(M)$, as a function shock Mach number, from nonlinear diffusive
681: shock simulations for quasi-parallel shocks that
682: assumed Bohm diffusion for CR protons and
683: incorporated self-consistent treatments of
684: thermal leakage injection and Alfv\'en wave propagation \citep{kj07}.
685: The cases without and with a preexisting CR component of
686: $P_{CR}/P_g \sim 0.3$ in the preshock region were considered.
687: At strong shocks, both the injection and acceleration of CRs are
688: very efficient, and so the presence of a preexisting CR component
689: is not important.
690: At shocks with with $M \ga 30$, about 55 \% of the shock kinetic energy
691: goes into CRs, while about 30 \% becomes the thermal energy.
692: At weak shocks, on the other hand, without a preexisting CR component,
693: the gas thermalization is more efficient than the CR acceleration.
694: But the presence of a preexisting CR component is critical at weak shocks,
695: since it is equivalent to a higher injection rate and the CR acceleration
696: becomes more efficient with it.
697: As a result, $\eta(M)$ is higher than $\delta(M)$ even at shocks
698: with $M \la 5$.
699: However, at perpendicular shocks, the CR injection is suppressed, and
700: so the CR acceleration could be less efficient than at parallel shocks.
701: Thus our CR shock acceleration efficiency should be regarded as
702: an upper limit.
703:
704: With the adopted efficiencies, the total CR energy accelerated at
705: cosmological shocks throughout the history of the universe is estimated
706: to be $Y_{CR}(M \ge 1.5) \sim 0.5\ Y_{th}(M \ge 1.5)$, \ie 1/2 of the
707: total gas thermal energy dissipated, when no preexisting CRs are present.
708: With a preexisting CR component of $P_{CR}/P_g \sim 0.3$ in the preshock
709: region, $Y_{CR}(M \ge 1.5) \sim 1.7\ Y_{th}(M \ge 1.5)$, \ie the total
710: CR energy accelerated is estimate to be 1.7 times the total gas thermal
711: energy dissipated.
712: Although these are not meant to be very accurate estimates of the CR
713: energy in the ICM, they imply that the ICM could contain a dynamically
714: significant CR population.
715:
716: We also examined the distribution of vorticity inside the simulation box,
717: which should have been generated mostly at curved cosmological shocks.
718: In the ICM, the eddy turn-over time, $t_{eddy} = 1/\omega$, is about 1/30
719: of the age of the universe, \ie $\tau \equiv t_{age}/t_{eddy} \sim 30$.
720: In filamentary and sheet-like structures, $\tau \sim 0.1 -10$, while
721: $\tau \la 0.1$ in void regions.
722: Radiative cooling increased the fraction of gas mass with large vorticity
723: $\tau \ga 10$, while reduced the mass fraction with $1 \la \tau \la 10$.
724: GSW feedbacks increased slightly the mass fraction with $1\la \tau \la10$.
725: Although the effects of these non-gravitation effects are not negligible,
726: the overall distribution of vorticity are similar for the three simulations.
727: So we conclude that the non-gravitational processes considered in this
728: paper do not affect significantly the vorticity in the large scale
729: structure of the universe.
730:
731: \acknowledgements
732: HK was supported in part by KOSEF through Astrophysical Research
733: Center for the Structure and Evolution of Cosmos (ARCSEC).
734: DR was supported in part by a Korea Research Foundation grant
735: (KRF-2004-015-C00213).
736: RC was supported in part by NASA grant NNG05GK10G and NSF grant
737: AST-0507521.
738: The work of HK and DR was also supported in part by Korea
739: Foundation for International Cooperation of Science \& Technology
740: (KICOS) through the Cavendish-KAIST Research Cooperation Center.
741:
742: \appendix
743:
744: \section{Fitting Formulae for $\delta(M)$ and $\eta(M)$}
745:
746: The gas thermalization efficiency, $\delta(M)$, and the CR acceleration
747: efficiency, $\eta(M)$, for the case without a preexisting CR component
748: (in upper panel of Figure 5) are fitted as follows:\\
749: for $M \le 2$
750: \begin{equation}
751: \delta(M) = 0.92\ \delta_0
752: \end{equation}
753: \begin{equation}
754: \eta(M)= 1.96\times10^{-3} (M^2-1)
755: \end{equation}
756: for $M > 2$
757: \begin{equation}
758: \delta(M)= \sum_{n=0}^4 a_n {{(M-1)^n} \over M^4}
759: \end{equation}
760: \begin{equation}
761: a_0 = -4.25,~~~a_1 = 6.42,~~~a_2 = -1.34,~~~a_3 = 1.26,~~~a_4 = 0.275
762: \end{equation}
763: \begin{equation}
764: \eta(M)= \sum_{n=0}^4 b_n {{(M-1)^n} \over M^4}
765: \end{equation}
766: \begin{equation}
767: b_0 = 5.46,~~~b_1 = -9.78,~~~b_2 = 4.17,~~~b_3 =- 0.334,~~~b_4 = 0.570
768: \end{equation}
769:
770: The efficiencies for the case with a preexisting CR component (in bottom
771: panel of Figure 5) are fitted as follows:\\
772: for $M \le 1.5$
773: \begin{equation}
774: \delta(M) = 0.90\ \delta_0
775: \end{equation}
776: \begin{equation}
777: \eta(M) = 1.025\ \delta_0
778: \end{equation}
779: for $M > 1.5$
780: \begin{equation}
781: \delta(M)= \sum_{n=0}^4 a_n {{(M-1)^n} \over M^4}
782: \end{equation}
783: \begin{equation}
784: a_0 = -0.287,~~~a_1 = 0.837,~~~a_2 = -0.0467,~~~a_3 = 0.713,~~~a_4 = 0.289
785: \end{equation}
786: \begin{equation}
787: \eta(M)= \sum_{n=0}^4 b_n {{(M-1)^n} \over M^4}
788: \end{equation}
789: \begin{equation}
790: b_0 = 0.240,~~~b_1 = -1.56,~~~b_2 = 2.80,~~~b_3 = 0.512,~~~b_4 = 0.557
791: \end{equation}
792:
793: Here $\delta_0(M)$ is the gas thermalization efficiency at shocks without
794: CRs, which was calculated from the Rankine-Hugoniot jump condition,
795: (black solid line in Figure 5):
796: \begin{equation}
797: \delta_0 (M) = {2 \over \gamma (\gamma-1) M^2 R} \left[
798: {2\gamma M^2 - (\gamma-1) \over (\gamma+1)} - R^\gamma \right]
799: \end{equation}
800: \begin{equation}
801: R \equiv {\rho_2 \over \rho_1} = { {\gamma+1} \over {\gamma -1 + 2/M^2}}
802: \end{equation}
803:
804: \begin{thebibliography}{}
805:
806: \bibitem[Beck \& Kraus(2005)]{bk05}
807: Beck, R., \& Kraus, M.
808: 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414
809: % Revised equipartition and minimum energy formula for magnetic
810: % field strength estimates from radio synchrotron observations
811:
812: \bibitem[Bell(1978)]{bell78}
813: Bell A.R.
814: 1978, \mnras, 182, 147
815: % CR streaming
816:
817: \bibitem[Biermann(1950)]{biermann50}
818: Biermann, L.
819: 1950, Z. Naturforsch, A, 5, 65
820: % Biermann battery mechanism
821:
822: \bibitem[Berezhko \etal(1995)]{ber95}
823: Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., \& Yelshin, V. K.
824: 1995, Nucl. Phys. B, 39A, 171
825:
826: \bibitem[Bergh\"ofer \etal(2000)]{bbk00}
827: Bergh\"ofer, T. W., Bowyer, S., \& Korpela, E. J.
828: 2000, \apj, 535, 615
829: % EUV and Soft X-ray Emission in Clusters of Galaxies
830:
831: \bibitem[Binney(1974)]{binney74}
832: Binney, J.
833: 1974, \mnras, 168, 73
834: % vorticity generation at shocks
835:
836: \bibitem[Blandford \& Ostriker(1978)]{bo78}
837: Blandford, R. D. \& Ostriker, J. P.
838: 1978, \apj, 221, L29
839: % diffusive shock acceleration
840:
841: \bibitem[Blandford \& Eichler(1987)]{be87}
842: Blandford, R. D. \& Eichler, D.
843: 1987, \physrep, 154, 1
844: % diffusive shock acceleration
845:
846: \bibitem[Bowyer \etal(1999)]{bbk99}
847: Bowyer, S., Bergh\"ofer, T. W., \& Korpela, E. J.
848: 1999, \apj, 526, 592
849: % EUV and Soft X-ray Emission in Clusters of Galaxies
850:
851: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker(2006)]{co06}
852: Cen, R. \& Ostriker, J. P.
853: 2006, \apj, 650, 560
854: % simulations
855:
856: \bibitem[Cen \etal (2003)]{co03}
857: Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., \& Wolfe, A. M.
858: 2003, \apj, 598, 741
859: % feedback effects
860:
861: \bibitem[Clarke (2004)]{clar04}
862: Clarke, T. E.,
863: 2004, J. Korean Astron. Soc. 37, 337
864: % magnetic fields
865:
866: \bibitem[Clarke \etal(2001)]{ckb01}
867: Clarke, T. E., Kronberg, P. P., \& B\"ohringer, H.
868: 2001, \apjl, 547, L111
869: % magnetic fields
870:
871: \bibitem[Davies \& Widrow(2000)]{davies00}
872: Davies, G., \& Widrow, L. M.
873: 2000, \apj, 540, 755
874: % vorticity generation at shocks
875:
876: \bibitem[Ellison \etal(1995)]{ellisonetal95}
877: Ellison, D. C., Baring, M. G., \& Jones, F. C.
878: 1995, \apj, 453, 873
879: % acceleration and injection in oblique shocks
880:
881: \bibitem[Fujita \etal(2003)]{fujita03}
882: Fujita, Y., Takizawa, M., \& Sarazin, C. L.
883: 2003, \apj, 584, 190
884: % merger shocks
885:
886: \bibitem[Fusco-Femiano \etal(1999)]{fdfg99}
887: Fusco-Femiano, R., Dal Fiume, D., Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Grandi, P.,
888: Matt, G., Molendi, S., \& Santangelo, A.
889: 1999, \apj, 513, L21
890: % hard X-ray of inverse-Compton
891:
892: \bibitem[Gabici \& Blasi(2003)]{gb03}
893: Gabici, S. \& Blasi, P.
894: 2003, \apj, 583, 695
895: % merger shocks
896:
897: \bibitem[Giacalone \etal(1992)]{gbse92}
898: Giacalone, J., Burgess, D., Schwartz, S. J., \& Ellison, D. C.
899: 1992, \grl, 19, 433
900: % hybrid simulations of parallel collisionless shock
901:
902: \bibitem[Giacalone(2005)]{giacalone05}
903: Giacalone, J.,
904: 2005, \apj, 628, L37
905: % shock accelerarion
906:
907: \bibitem[Giovannini \& Feretti(2000)]{gf00}
908: Giovannini, G. \& Feretti, L.
909: 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 335
910: % radio halos and relics in Clusters of Galaxies
911:
912: \bibitem[Govoni \& Feretti(2004)]{gf04}
913: Govoni, F., \& Feretti, L.
914: 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549
915: %cluster magnetic fields: observations
916:
917: \bibitem[Inoue \etal(2007)]{isma07}
918: Inoue, S., Sigl, G., Miniati, F., \& Armengaud, E.
919: 2007, preprint (astro-ph/0701167)
920: % uhecrs
921:
922: \bibitem[Jokipii(1987)]{jokipii87}
923: Jokipii, J. R.
924: 1987, \apj, 313, 842
925: % shock accelerarion
926:
927: \bibitem[Kang \& Jones (2003)]{kj03}
928: Kang, H.,
929: 2003, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 36, 1
930:
931: \bibitem[Kang \& Jones(2005)]{kj05}
932: Kang, H. \& Jones, T. W.
933: 2005, \apj., 620, 44
934:
935: \bibitem[Kang \& Jones(2007)]{kj07}
936: Kang, H. \& Jones, T. W.
937: 2007, in preparation
938:
939: \bibitem[Kang \etal(1997)]{krb97}
940: Kang, H., Rachen, J. P., \& Biermann, P. L.
941: 1997, \mnras, 286, 257
942: % uhecrs
943:
944: \bibitem[Kang \etal(1996)]{krj96}
945: Kang, H., Ryu, D., \& Jones, T. W.
946: 1996, \apj, 456, 422
947: % uhecrs
948:
949: \bibitem[Kronberg(1994)]{kron94}
950: Kronberg, P. P.
951: 1994, Rep. Prog. Phys. 57, 325
952: % magnetic fields in lss
953:
954: \bibitem[Kronberg \etal(2004)]{kcld04}
955: Kronberg, P. P., Colgate, S. A., Li, H., \& Dufton, Q. W.
956: 2004, \apjl, 604, L77
957: % jets
958:
959: \bibitem[Kulsrud \etal(1997)] {kulsrude97}
960: Kulsrud, R. M., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., \& Ryu, D.
961: 1997, \apj, 480, 481
962: % Biermann battery mechanism
963:
964: \bibitem[Li \etal(2006)]{llfl06}
965: Li, H., Lapenta, G., Finn, J. M., Li, S., \& Colgate, S. A.
966: 2006, \apj, 643, 92
967: % jets
968:
969: \bibitem[Loeb \& Waxmann(2000)]{lw00}
970: Loeb, A. \& Waxmann, E.
971: 2000, \nat, 405, 156
972: % sturcture formation shocks
973:
974: \bibitem[Longair(1994)]{long94}
975: Longair, M. S.
976: 1994, High Energy Astrophysics, Volume 2 (London: Cambridge Univ. Press)
977: % energi equipartition in ism
978:
979: \bibitem[Lucek \& Bell(2000)]{lucekbell00}
980: Lucek, S. G. \& Bell, A. R.
981: 2000, \mnras, 314, 65
982: % CR streaming
983:
984: \bibitem[Malkov \& Drury(2001)]{md01}
985: Malkov M.A. \& Drury, L. O'C.
986: 2001, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 429
987: % diffusive shock acceleration
988:
989: \bibitem[Medvedev \etal(2006)] {medvedev06}
990: Medvedev, M. V., Silva, L. O., \& Kamionkowski, M.
991: 2006, \apj, 642, L1
992: % Weibel instability
993:
994: \bibitem[Miniati \etal(2001a)]{mjkr01}
995: Miniati, F., Jones, T. W., Kang, H., \& Ryu. D.
996: 2001a, \apj, 562, 233
997: % structure formation shocks
998:
999: \bibitem[Miniati \etal(2001b)]{mrkj01}
1000: Miniati, F., Ryu. D., Kang, H., \& Jones, T. W.
1001: 2001b, \apj, 559, 59
1002: % structure formation shocks
1003:
1004: \bibitem[Murgia \etal(2004)]{mgfg04}
1005: Murgia, M., Govoni, F., Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Dallacasa, D.,
1006: Fanti, R., Taylor, G. B., \& Dolag, K.
1007: 2004, \aap, 424, 429
1008: % turbulence magnetic field
1009:
1010: \bibitem[Ostrowski \& Siemieniec-Ozieblo(2002)] {ostrowski02}
1011: Ostrowski, M. \& Siemieniec-Ozieblo, G.
1012: 2002, A\&Ap, 386, 829
1013: % uhecrs
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Pettini \etal(2002)]{pebp02}
1016: Pettini, M., Ellison, S. L., Bergeron, J., \& Petitjean, P.
1017: 2002, \aap, 391, 21
1018: % feedback
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Pfrommer \etal(2006)]{pfrommeretal06}
1021: Pfrommer, C., Springel, V., En{\ss}lin, T. A., \& Jubelgas, M.
1022: 2006, \mnras, 367, 113
1023: % shocks in cosmological SPH simulations
1024:
1025: \bibitem[Reimer \etal(2003)]{rpsm03}
1026: Reimer, O., Pohl, M., Sreekumar, P., \& Mattox, J. R.
1027: 2003, \apj, 588, 155
1028: % gamma-ray observation
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Ryu \etal(1998)]{rkb98}
1031: Ryu, D., Kang, H., \& Biermann, P. L.
1032: 1998, \aap, 335, 19
1033: % magnetic fields in lss
1034:
1035: \bibitem[Ryu \etal(2007)]{rkcd07}
1036: Ryu, D., Kang, H., Cho, J., \& Das, S.
1037: 2007, in preparation (Paper II)
1038:
1039: \bibitem[Ryu \etal(2003)]{rkhj03}
1040: Ryu, D., Kang, H., Hallman, E., \& Jones, T. W.
1041: 2003, \apj, 593, 599 (Paper I)
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Ryu \etal(1993)]{rokc93}
1044: Ryu, D., Ostriker, J. P., Kang, H., \& Cen, R.
1045: 1993, \apj, 414, 1
1046:
1047: \bibitem[Sarazin(1999)]{sarazin99}
1048: Sarazin, C. L.
1049: 1999, \apj, 520, 529
1050: % merger shocks
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Schuecker \etal(2004)]{sfmb04}
1053: Schuecker, P., Finoguenov, A., Miniati, F., B\"ohringer, H.,
1054: \& Briel, U. G.
1055: 2004, \aap, 426, 387
1056: % turbulence in ICM
1057:
1058: \bibitem[Subramanian \etal(2006)]{subramanian06}
1059: Subramanian, K., Shukurov, A., \& Haugen, N. E. L.
1060: 2006, \mnras, 366, 1437
1061: % subcluster clumps
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Vogt \& En{\ss}lin(2005)]{ve05}
1064: Vogt, C. \& En{\ss}lin, T.
1065: 2005, \aap, 434, 67
1066: % turbulence magnetic field
1067:
1068: \bibitem[V\"ok \& Atoyan(1999)]{volk99}
1069: V\"olk, H. J. \& Atoyan, A. M.
1070: 1999, Astroparticle Phys., 11, 73
1071: % galactic wind shocks
1072:
1073: \bibitem[Weibel(1959)] {weibel59}
1074: Weibel, E. S.
1075: 1959, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2. 83
1076: % Weibel instability
1077:
1078: \end{thebibliography}
1079:
1080: \clearpage
1081:
1082: \begin{figure}
1083: \vspace{-1cm}
1084: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f1.eps}}
1085: \figcaption{ {\it Top panels:} Gas mass distribution in the gas
1086: density-temperature plane at $z=0$ for the Adiabatic, NO GSW, and
1087: GSW simulations.
1088: {\it Bottom panel:} Gas mass fraction as a function of gas
1089: temperature at $z=0$ for the three simulations.}
1090: \end{figure}
1091:
1092: \clearpage
1093:
1094: \begin{figure}
1095: \vspace{-1cm}
1096: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f2.eps}}
1097: \figcaption{Two-dimensional slice of $(85\Mpc)^2$ showing shock
1098: locations at $z=0$ in the GSW simulation, which are color-coded
1099: according to shock speed as follows:
1100: black for $V_s< 15\kms$, blue for $15 \le V_s< 65\kms$,
1101: green for $65 \le V_s< 250\kms$, red for $250 \le V_s< 1000\kms$,
1102: and magenta for $V_s \ge 1000\kms$.
1103: A blown-up image of the box (dashed line) in the upper right corner
1104: is shown in Figure 3, while a blown-up image of the box (solid line)
1105: around two merging clusters is shown in Figure 7.}
1106: \end{figure}
1107:
1108: \clearpage
1109:
1110: \begin{figure}
1111: \vspace{-1cm}
1112: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f3.eps}}
1113: \figcaption{Two-dimensional slice of $(21.25\Mpc)^2$ showing shock
1114: locations at $z=0$ in the Adiabatic, NO GSW and GSW simulations.
1115: The locations are color-coded according to shock speed.
1116: Two groups in the GSW simulation have $kT\sim 0.2-0.3$ keV.}
1117: \end{figure}
1118:
1119: \clearpage
1120:
1121: \begin{figure}
1122: \vspace{-1cm}
1123: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f4.eps}}
1124: \figcaption{{\it Left panels:} Inverse of the mean comoving distance
1125: between shock surfaces as a function of Mach number $M$ (top) and
1126: shock speed $V_s$ (bottom) at $z=0$ for the Adiabatic (solid line),
1127: NO GSW (dashed line), and GSW (dotted line) simulations.
1128: {\it Right panels:} Kinetic energy flux per comoving volume
1129: passing through shock surfaces in units of
1130: $10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ $(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})^{-3}$ as a function of
1131: $M$ (top) and $V_s$ (bottom).
1132: Note that the bottom two panels have different ranges of abscissa.}
1133: \end{figure}
1134:
1135: \clearpage
1136:
1137: \begin{figure}
1138: \vspace{-1cm}
1139: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f5.eps}}
1140: \figcaption{Gas thermalization efficiency, $\delta(M)$, and CR
1141: acceleration efficiency, $\eta(M)$, as a function of Mach number.
1142: Red and blue dots are the values estimated from numerical simulations
1143: based on a DSA model and red and blue lines are the fits.
1144: The top panel shows the case without preexisting CRs, while the bottom
1145: panel shows the case with preexisting CRs at a level of
1146: $P_{CR}/P_g \sim 0.3$ in the preshock region.
1147: Black solid line is for the gas thermalization efficiency for shocks
1148: without CRs.}
1149: \end{figure}
1150:
1151: \clearpage
1152: \begin{figure}
1153: \vspace{-1cm}
1154: \centerline{\epsfxsize=17cm\epsfbox{f6.eps}}
1155: \vspace{-1cm}
1156: \figcaption{{\it Left panels}: Shock kinetic energy passed, $dY_{\phi}$
1157: (dotted line), thermal energy dissipated, $dY_{th}$ (dashed line), and
1158: CR energy dissipated, $dY_{CR}$ (solid line), through surfaces of
1159: cosmological shocks with Mach number between $\log M$ and
1160: $\log M + d (\log M)$ (top) and through surfaces of cosmological
1161: shocks with shock speed between $\log V_s$ and $\log V_s + d (\log V_s)$
1162: (bottom), integrated from $z=5$ to $z=0$.
1163: Red and magenta lines are the CR energy for the cases without and with
1164: preexisting CRs, respectively.
1165: Blue and green lines are the thermal energy for the cases without and
1166: with preexisting CRs, respectively.
1167: The thermal energy expected to be dissipated at cosmological shocks
1168: without CRs (long dashed cyan line) is also plotted for comparison.
1169: {\it Right panels}: Cumulative energy distributions, $Y_i(>M)$ (top)
1170: and $Y_i(>V_s)$ (bottom), for Mach number greater than $M$ and
1171: for shock speed greater than $V_s$.
1172: The energies are normalized by the gas thermal energy at $z=0$
1173: inside the simulation box}
1174: \end{figure}
1175:
1176: \clearpage
1177:
1178: \begin{figure}
1179: \vspace{-1cm}
1180: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f7.eps}}
1181: \figcaption{Two-dimensional slice of $(21.25\Mpc)^2$ around two merging
1182: clusters with $kT \sim 1-2$ keV at $z=0$ in the GSW simulation.
1183: Distributions of gas density (top left), temperature (top right), shock
1184: locations (bottom left), and vorticity (bottom right) are shown.
1185: In the gas density, temperature, and vorticity distributions, back, blue
1186: and red contours represent regions of low, middle, and high values,
1187: respectively.}
1188: \end{figure}
1189:
1190: \clearpage
1191:
1192: \begin{figure}
1193: \vspace{-1cm}
1194: \centerline{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f8.eps}}
1195: \figcaption{{\it Top panels:} Gas mass distribution in the gas mass
1196: density-vorticity parameter plane at $z=0$ for the Adiabatic, NO GSW,
1197: and GSW simulations.
1198: The vorticity parameter is defined as $\tau = \omega t_{age}(z)$,
1199: where $\omega = |{\vec \nabla} \times {\vec v} |$ and $t_{age}(z)$ is
1200: the age of the universe at redshift $z$.
1201: {\it Bottom panel:} Gas mass fraction as a function of vorticity
1202: parameter at $z=0$ for the three simulations.}
1203: \end{figure}
1204:
1205: \end{document}
1206: