1: %\documentclass[preprint2,11pt]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[manuscript,11pt]{aastex}

3: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}  %--original for ApJ

4: 

5: %\usepackage{natbib}

6: \def\cm{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-1} \else cm$^{-1}$ \fi}

7: \def\s{\ifmmode {\rm s}^{-1} \else s$^{-1}$ \fi}

8: \def\cc{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-3} \else cm$^{-3}$ \fi}

9: \def\cs{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-2} \else cm$^{-2}$ \fi}

10: \def\g{\ifmmode \gamma \else $\gamma$\fi}

11: \def\G{\ifmmode \Gamma \else $\Gamma$\fi}

12: \def\Gs{\ifmmode \Gamma~ \else $\Gamma~$\fi}

13: \def\Ka{K$\alpha$~}

14: \def\Kaa{K$\alpha$}

15: 

16: \def\gc{\ifmmode \gamma_{\rm c} \else $\gamma_{\rm c}$ \fi}

17: \def\sw{Schwarzschild~}

18: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu

19:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

20: 

21: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu

22:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

23: 

24: \def\simless{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

25:      {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}   %< or of order

26: \def\simmore{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

27:      {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}   %> or of order

28: \def\Msun{M_\odot}                                % solar masses

29: \def\4u{4U 1728--34}

30: 

31: \received{} \accepted{}

32: %\journalid{337}{15 January 1989}

33: %\articleid{11}{14}

34: \slugcomment{Resubmitted to ApJ, June 27, 2007}

35: 

36: \lefthead{et al.} \righthead{\4u}

37: 

38: \shorttitle{Shock-Driven Outflows from Hot Accretion Flows}

39: \shortauthors{Fukumura \& Kazanas}

40: 

41: \begin{document}

42: 

43: \title{Mass Outflows from Dissipative Shocks in Hot Accretion Flows }

44: 

45: %\date{\today}

46: 

47: %

48: % author list tbd - include nikolai IF we use the Gamma-QPO correlation

49: %

50: \author{Keigo Fukumura \& Demosthenes Kazanas}

51: \affil{Astrophysics Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight

52: Center, Code 663, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

53: %\email{fukumura@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}

54: \email{fukumura@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov, Demos.Kazanas-1@nasa.gov}

55: %

56: %\and

57: %

58: %\author{P. Reig and I. E. Papadakis}

59: %\affil{IESL, Foundation for Research and Technology,

60: %711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece}

61: %\affil{Physics Department, University of

62: %Crete, PO Box 2208, 710 03 Heraklion, Crete, Greece}

63: %\email{pau@physics.uoc.gr,jhep@physics.uoc.gr}

64: %

65: %

66: %

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69: 

70: \baselineskip=15pt

71: 

72: We consider stationary, axisymmetric hydrodynamic accretion flows in

73: Kerr geometry. As a plausible means of efficiently separating a

74: small population of nonthermal particles from the bulk accretion

75: flows, we investigate the formation of standing dissipative shocks,

76: i.e. shocks at which fraction of the energy, angular momentum and

77: mass fluxes do not participate in the shock transition of the flow

78: that accretes onto the compact object but are lost into collimated

79: (jets) or uncollimated (winds) outflows.

80: 

81: The mass loss fraction (at a shock front) is found to vary over a

82: wide range ($0\% - 95\%$) depending on flow's angular momentum and

83: energy. On the other hand, the associated energy loss fraction

84: appears to be relatively low ($\lesssim 1\%$) for a flow onto a

85: non-rotating black hole case, whereas the fraction could be an order

86: of magnitude higher ($\lesssim 10\%$) for a flow onto a

87: rapidly-rotating black hole. By estimating the escape velocity of

88: the outflowing particles with a mass-accretion rate relevant for

89: typical active galactic nuclei, we find that nearly 10\% of the

90: accreting mass could escape to form an outflow in a disk around a

91: non-rotating black hole, while as much as 50\% of the matter may

92: contribute to outflows in a disk around a rapidly-rotating black

93: hole. In the context of disk-jet paradigm, our model suggests that

94: shock-driven outflows from accretion can occur in regions not too

95: far from a central engine.

96: %

97: %(within 2-40 gravitational radii). Radial density profile for upstream flow

98: %is found to be $\sim r^{-3/2}$ while that for downstream flow can be as

99: %steep as $r^{-3/2}$ to $r^{-3}$.

100: %

101: 

102: Our results imply that a shock front under some conditions could

103: serve as a plausible site where (nonthermal) seed particles of the

104: outflows (jets/winds) are efficiently decoupled from bulk accretion.

105: 

106: 

107: 

108: 

109: \end{abstract}

110: 

111: 

112: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- black hole physics ---

113: hydrodynamics --- shock waves --- galaxies: jets }

114: 

115: \baselineskip=15pt

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: 

119: 

120: %It has been widely known that the solutions to inviscid accreting

121: %gas around black holes may exhibit both continuous (shock-free) and

122: %discontinuous (shock-included) flows simultaneously.

123: 

124: It has been established by now that a large body of astrophysical

125: objects hosting supermassive black holes (e.g.,

126: quasars, galactic black hole candidates or microquasars) exhibit

127: collimated, powerful jets/winds \citep[e.g.,][for

128: review]{BBR84,Livio99}. In particular, strong outflows generally

129: occur in the radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs). It is now

130: widely accepted that the outflows observed from a large class of

131: objects as jets or winds have their origin in accretion flows, which

132: at the same time power the radiation emission associated with these

133: objects \citep[e.g.,][]{BP82,Fender04}. Many astrophysical

134: systems apparently manage to transfer the energy from inflowing

135: accretion flows to outflowing jets/winds of a small population of

136: nonthermal particles. For instance, \cite{Junor99} in radio

137: observations of the nearby active galaxy M87 found a remarkably

138: broad jet with strong collimation occurring already at $\sim 30

139: -100$ \sw radii from a central engine. Recently, \citet{Kataoka07}

140: discussed the disk-jet connection of the radio galaxy 3C~120

141: observed with {\it Suzaku}. Such a population of relativistic

142: outflowing particles is thought to produce a subsequent synchrotron

143: emission that is observed in several sources

144: \citep[e.g.,][]{Mirabel99}. This issue clearly points to the

145: importance of investigating a fundamental connection between the

146: accreting flows and outflows in regions not too far from the central

147: engines -- presumably within $\sim 100$ \sw radii.

148: %

149: Because the emission of radiation requires the dissipation of the

150: kinetic energy of the accretion flow, it is not unreasonable to

151: suggest that the two phenomena, i.e. the dissipation/emission of

152: radiation and the presence of outflows, are related to the same

153: generic process, which manifests itself with different guises at the

154: diverse sites that these phenomena are observed.

155: 

156: Given that an accretion flow may very well become turbulent or, at a

157: very minimum hot due to adiabatic compression, it is not surprising

158: to anticipate such a flow to emit radiation, with luminosity and

159: spectrum depending strongly on the specific character of the

160: accretion process (e.g. quasi-spherical or disk). However, the

161: ubiquitous presence of outflows in the same objects presents a

162: different problem altogether: An outflow requires that a fraction of

163: the accreted matter be endowed with velocity higher than the escape

164: velocity associated with the specific radius at which the outflow is

165: launched. Given that the only free energy available to the accreting

166: gas is that of the gravitational field, hydrodynamic dissipation of

167: the accretion kinetic energy can never produce an outflow since this

168: process simply converts the kinetic energy of a gravitationally

169: bound flow into thermal, with the energy per unit mass (thermal plus

170: kinetic) never higher than that of the local gravitational

171: potential.

172: 

173: The launch of an outflow such as those observed requires the

174: presence of an ``engine", i.e. a mechanism that expends mechanical

175: work (i.e. low entropy energy) to transfer a fraction of the

176: available energy to an even smaller fraction of the available mass,

177: thereby imparting to it specific energy greater than the local

178: gravitational potential; it is then expected that in its further

179: evolution the excess energy will be converted into directed motion

180: and the fraction of the mass will escape to infinity in a collimated

181: (jet) or uncollimated (wind) outflow.

182: 

183: The well known models of outflows, usually involving the action of

184: magnetic fields such as the magnetocentrigual jet models

185: \citep[e.g.,][]{BP82,Contopoulos94,Konigl94,Vlahakis00}, are

186: specific examples as to what may constitute such an engine. These

187: models assume the presence of a thin Keplerian disk ``threaded" by a

188: poloidal magnetic field; the Keplerian rotation of the magnetic

189: field line footpoints and the magnetic tension transfer energy and

190: angular momentum to the disk plasma which can escape to infinity.

191: These models are consistent in that they solve simultaneously for

192: the poloidal field geometry and the flow velocity (under certain

193: simplifying assumptions, i.e. the self-similarity of the solutions).

194: \citet{Pelletier92} further developed the general theory of

195: non-self-similar solutions of hydromagnetic disk winds. In these

196: models the transfer of excess energy to the escaping particles is

197: made at the expense of the rotational energy of the matter in the

198: disk and it is mediated by the magnetic field.

199: 

200: 

201: While this type of model gained popularity, the issue of jet/outlfow

202: formation took a different turn with the introduction of

203: advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF)

204: \citep[e.g.,][]{Narayan94,Manmoto97}. These radiatively inefficient

205: accretion flows (RIAF) were found to have positive Bernoulli

206: integral of the flow and could therefore fulfill the condition

207: necessary for the launching of jet/wind outflows; as such they

208: present potentially interesting sites for the origin of such

209: outflows. The positivity of the Bernoulli integral has been

210: discussed and analysed by \citet{BB99} who pointed out that it is

211: due to the combination of energy transfer by the viscous torques

212: from the inner to the outer sections of the flow (the gas of the

213: flow becomes bounded at its inner edge) and the local dissipation of

214: the flow's azimuthal kinetic energy which is not radiated away but

215: stored in the fluid to increase its internal energy. The latter

216: authors then argued that the excess energy can be carried away to

217: infinity (along with some fraction of the accreting mass and angular

218: momentum) to produce continuous outflows from all radii to infinity

219: while leaving the remaining flow with negative Bernoulli constant to

220: naturally accrete onto the compact object: advection-dominated

221: inflow-outflow solution (ADIOS). In this case, while the necessary

222: excess energy is transferred by the viscous torques from the flow's

223: more highly bound inner section, the necessary separation of mass to

224: components with positive and negative total energy is still left

225: unspecified.

226: 

227: An altogether different model that offers a simplified picture of

228: such a separation was presented by \citet{Subramanian99} who

229: proposed that in the tenuous, collisionless plasma of an ADAF

230: particles (protons) could be accelerated via a second-order Fermi

231: acceleration by the shear motions of the underlying quasi-Keplerian

232: azimuthal flow. They then argued that if sufficiently large pressure

233: is built in the accelerated particle proton population (the

234: electrons generally lose energy on time scales short compared to

235: their transit time through the system and cannot build an energy

236: density that could be dynamically important) and for favorable

237: geometries of the disk magnetic field (large scale poloidal loops

238: that open up above the disk) the relativistic particle population

239: could naturally (through the action of the gravitational field)

240: segregate itself from the non-relativistic one, carrying off to

241: infinity only the accelerated ($E \gsim m_pc^2$) portion of the disk

242: plasma. In this case the engine is a combination of the particle

243: acceleration and the action of the gravitational field.

244: 

245: Finally, a model along the same lines was proposed by

246: \citet{Contopoulos95} who suggested that even in the case of a

247: completely turbulent magnetic field, a separation of the

248: relativistic and non-relativistic particle populations is possible

249: through the production of relativistic neutrons in the collisions of

250: the relativistic protons with the ambient plasma and the ensuing

251: production of relativistic neutrons. The subsequent decay of

252: neutrons back into protons produces then a proton fluid in regions

253: of space devoid of inertia whose energy-to-mass ratio (and hence its

254: asymptotic Lorentz factor) depends only on the ratio $R/c \tau_{\rm

255: n}$, where $R$ is the size of the system and $\tau_{\rm n}$ the

256: neutron life time and can lead to highly relativistic flows for

257: black hole masses $M \gsim 10^8 \Msun$.

258: 

259: In the present note we follow a similar simplified view to study

260: outflows in objects powered by accretion: We consider the presence

261: of (2-dimensional) shocks as a means of dissipation of the accretion

262: kinetic energy in a fashion similar to that considered by

263: \citet{Cha90} and collaborators. That is we consider the transonic

264: accretion of matter with the proper angular momentum to produce a

265: standing shock at a radius close to the horizon, which, subsequently

266: accretes onto the black hole after passing through a downstream

267: sonic point. Previous steady-state analysis found that it is

268: possible to judiciously choose the specific angular momentum of the

269: flow, so that the outer transonic one could be connected through a

270: shock transition to an inner transonic one which, passing through an

271: inner sonic point, accretes onto the black hole. The location of the

272: shock in this situation is determined by finding a radial position

273: at which the density and velocity of the two flow sections were

274: those demanded by the dissipative Rankine-Hugoniot conditions across

275: a shock. So far, the formation of standing shocks in hydrodynamic

276: accretion has been extensively studied by a number of authors for

277: both inviscid flows

278: \citep[e.g.,][]{Cha90,Sponholz94,Cha96,Lu98,FT04} and viscous flows

279: \citep[e.g.,][]{Cha90,Lu99,Cha04}, considering either dissipative or

280: non-dissipative shock jump conditions. Recently, standing shocks in

281: the presence of poloidal magnetic fields [i.e., magnetohydrodynamic

282: (MHD) shocks] around a black hole was also studied for various

283: parameter dependence (see Das \& Chakrabarti 2007 for

284: pseudo-Newtonian geometry; Takahashi et al. 2002, Fukumura et al.

285: 2007 for Kerr geometry). In the context of the particle acceleration

286: via the first-order Fermi mechanism across a shock front, the

287: production of shock-accelerated relativistic protons were discussed

288: in spherical accretion \citep[][]{Kazanas83,Kazanas86}, while other

289: authors have explored the relativistic outflows in ADAF with shocks

290: \citep[][]{Becker04,Becker05}. Similar attempts have been made to

291: make physical connections between the shocked-accretion and

292: outflows. For instance, mass outflow rate were estimated from

293: adiabatic shocked-flow region in Newtonian gravity

294: \citep[e.g.,][]{Cha99,Das00}. \citet{Das99} took a similar approach

295: to study the shock-generated outflows with little energy dissipation

296: in pseudo-Newtonian geometry. Independently, from general

297: relativistic MHD simulations, the formation of jets

298: (magnetically-driven and gas-pressure driven jets) is found in the

299: high pressure regions due to the shock/adiabatic compression

300: \citep[e.g.,][]{Koide99,Nishikawa05}. They concluded that the jets

301: are mainly produced by the gas-pressure gradient which is greatly

302: enhanced by the shock front at around $r \sim 6$ gravitational radii

303: (note that this feature was not seen in the Newtonian calculations).

304: These studies also suggest an essential connection between the

305: shocked accretion flows and the jets; i.e., the shock front may

306: serve as a base of the outflows.

307: 

308: 

309: The novelty of our approach lies in considering the possibility of

310: shock formation (i.e. obeying the general relativistic, dissipative

311: Rankine-Hugoniot conditions at a shock front) in which part of the

312: mass, angular momentum and energy fluxes escape in the z-direction

313: and do not participate in the shock transition. We then examine the

314: energy per unit mass of the escaping matter which we compare to the

315: escape velocity at the shock radius; if it is greater than the

316: latter we conclude that this scenario can produce an outflow with

317: its outflow rate $\dot m$ and luminosity that are calculable and can

318: be compared to those of the entire accretion to obtain a measure of

319: the efficiency of our ``engine" in producing outflows. Some

320: population of energetic nonthermal particles, produced via a shock

321: acceleration, may then be well separated from the equatorial

322: accretion flows (which consists primarily of thermal particles).

323: 

324: 

325: %

326: %In particular, in order to understand the underluminous systems such

327: %as our Galactic center source (Sgr A$^\ast$), an advection-dominated

328: %accretion flow (ADAF) appears to be a very promising model in which

329: %most of the viscously dissipated energy is advected inward with the

330: %flow \citep[e.g.,][]{Narayan95,Manmoto97}.

331: %

332: 

333: 

334: %Although the exact processes triggering strong outflows from the

335: %surface of an accretion disk are still not completely understood,

336: %some theoretical models have been proposed. \citet{BB99} proposed an

337: %advection-dominated inflow-outflow solution (ADIOS), which is a

338: %modified version of an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF)

339: %model \citep[e.g.,][]{Narayan94,Manmoto97}. In the ADIOS model, some

340: %fraction of the accreting gas (including energy, mass and angular

341: %momentum) is dissipated away from the flow as strong winds before

342: %reaching the black hole horizon such that the leftover gas possesses

343: %a negative Bernoulli parameter, thus gravitationally bound. Their

344: %model therefore naturally explains a physical necessity of powerful

345: %outflows. \citet{Becker01} extended the original ADIOS model to

346: %incorporate a pseudo-Newtonian gravity which modifies the dynamics

347: %of the flow in the inner region of ADIOS.

348: 

349: 

350: %

351: %The ADIOS model, when applied to Sgr A$\ast$ data with {\it

352: %Chandra}, also seems to produce a better predicted spectrum compared

353: %with that by ADAF model \citep{Yuan02}.

354: %

355: 

356: %It is also discussed, as another plausible mechanisms for producing

357: %relativistic outflowing particles, that the formation of shocks is

358: %physically relevant for accelerating the electrons up to

359: %relativistic regime \citep[e.g.,][]{Blandford78,Becker04,Becker05}.

360: 

361: 

362: More specifically, since we are interested in the formation of

363: outflows through shocks in the inner disk region relatively close to

364: a presumably rotating black hole at a center (say, $r \lesssim 30$

365: gravitational radii), it is important to include the strong gravity

366: and  frame-dragging effects described by general relativity.

367: %Importantly, due to the fact that many black holes at the center of

368: %the astrophysical systems have been considered to be rotating and

369: %that shocks can occur in the innermost accretion disk (say, within

370: %ten gravitational radii), it is also important to accurately

371: %describe the relativistic dynamics of the accreting gas.

372: To the best of our knowledge, no relevant work in the literature

373: incorporates such mass and energy loss in the shock jump conditions.

374: %

375: %

376: %However, no explicit work has been done in the literature, in this

377: %perspective, on incorporating mass and energy loss at dissipative

378: %shocks in the jump conditions.

379: %

380: In the framework of our model presented here, mass loss is coupled

381: to energy loss via the shock jump conditions, and therefore it must

382: be considered simultaneously. It is this point that motivates us to

383: explore, for the first time, the formation of outflowing particles

384: as a consequence of the formation of dissipative standing shocks in

385: accretion in a fully relativistic treatment. The formalism of our

386: current model is partly based on the previous works

387: \citep[][]{Yang95,Lu98,FT04}. Our main objective in this study is

388: therefore to explore in details a possibility that the formation of

389: outflows (jets/winds) can occur at a dissipative shock front in

390: transonic accreting flows: i.e., a connection between

391: shocked-accreting gas and the outflowing particles.

392: 

393: 

394: The structure of this paper is as follows. In \S 2 we review and

395: explain our simplified model that simultaneously considers both

396: shocks and outflows with appropriate jump conditions. Main parameter

397: dependence of the shock-outflow solutions is explored in \S 3, where

398: we show the nature of the shock-outflow solutions and the

399: corresponding global accretion solutions. Our primary goal in these

400: analysis is to examine the coupling between the shock-outflow

401: solutions. In \S 4 we discuss our results and make some observation

402: implications. Brief summary and concluding remarks are given there

403: as well.

404: 

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: \section{Model Assumptions \& Basic Equations}

409: 

410: In black hole accretion, accreting gas must be transonic. After

411: passing through a first sonic radius, the gas is slowed down, and a

412: shock may develop. For causality, the shocked gas must become

413: supersonic again before crossing the event horizon. Below, we will

414: explain the details of our simplified model.

415: 

416: \subsection{Accreting Flows around a Black Hole}

417: 

418: We consider a steady-state, axisymmetric accreting flows in Kerr

419: geometry. The spacetime metric is expressed by the Boyer-Lindquist

420: coordinates as

421: \begin{eqnarray}

422: ds^2 &=& -\left(1-\frac{2 m r}{\Sigma}\right) dt^2 - \frac{4 m r a

423: \sin^2 \theta}{\Sigma} dt d\phi \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{A \sin^2

424: \theta}{\Sigma} d\phi^2 + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta} dr^2 + \Sigma

425: d\theta^2 \ , \label{eq:BL}

426: \end{eqnarray}

427: where $\Delta \equiv r^2-2mr+a^2$, $\Sigma \equiv r^2+a^2 \cos^2

428: \theta$, $A \equiv (r^2+a^2)^2-a^2 \Delta \sin^2 \theta$. $m$ and

429: $a$ are mass and specific angular momentum (or Kerr parameter) of a

430: black hole. Following the standard geometrized units, we have taken

431: $G=c=1$ in equation~(\ref{eq:BL}). Thus, the length (distance) $r$

432: and $a$ are measured in units of $m$. Since we are interested in the

433: equatorial flows, we set $\theta=\pi/2$ throughout this paper. The

434: black hole horizon is then expressed by $r_{\rm{H}} \equiv

435: m+\sqrt{m^2-a^2}$. The self-gravity of the flow is ignored, and we

436: do not include the effects of magnetic fields for simplicity.

437: 

438: 

439: 

440: We follow the earlier works on relativistic shock formation as

441: follows; accretion time is assumed to be shorter than that of energy

442: diffusion, thus treating the flows as adiabatic except at a shock

443: front where a fraction of fluid energy, angular momentum, and mass

444: are dissipated. To prescribe thermodynamic quantities we adopt a

445: polytropic form as

446: \begin{eqnarray}

447: P = K \rho_0^{1+1/N} \ , \label{eq:polytropic}

448: \end{eqnarray}

449: where $P$ and $\rho_0$ are the thermal pressure and rest-mass

450: density of the flow, which are locally measured in the fluid frame.

451: Here, $N$ denotes the polytropic index. The entropy of the fluid is

452: characterized by $K$ which is related to the entropy $S$ by $S

453: \equiv c_v \log K$ where $c_v$ denotes a specific volume heat of the

454: flow. Because of stationarity ($\partial t=0$) and axial symmetry

455: ($\partial \phi=0$), there exist two conserved quantities along a

456: fluid stream line; namely, specific energy $E$ and axial angular

457: momentum $L$ of the fluid, defined by

458: \begin{eqnarray}

459: E &\equiv& -\mu u_t \ , \label{eq:energy}

460: \\

461: L &\equiv& \mu u_\phi \ , \label{eq:L}

462: \end{eqnarray}

463: where $\mu = (P+\rho)/\rho_0$ is the relativistic enthalpy of the

464: fluid, and $\rho = \rho_0 + N P$ is the net baryon mass-energy

465: density (including internal energy $N P$). The number density of the

466: constituent baryon $n$ is given by $\rho_0 \equiv n m_p$ where $m_p$

467: is the baryon mass in the flow. We assume that energy $E$ and

468: angular momentum $L$ are both conserved along the flow except at a

469: shock location ($r=r_{\rm{sh}}$) where they are partially dissipated

470: (will be explained in detail in the next section).

471: 

472: 

473: From the four-velocity normalization of the flow ($u_\alpha u^\alpha

474: =-1$), we get

475: \begin{eqnarray}

476: 1+u_r u^r + (u^t)^2 V_{\rm{eff}}(r,\lambda)=0 \ , \label{eq:V}

477: \end{eqnarray}

478: where the effective potential has been introduced by

479: $V_{\rm{eff}}(r,\lambda) \equiv g^{tt}- 2\lambda g^{t

480: \phi}+\lambda^2 g^{\phi\phi}$ with $g^{\alpha \beta}$ being the

481: inverse metric components for $g_{\alpha \beta}$ in

482: equation~(\ref{eq:BL}). Here, the specific angular momentum of the

483: flow $\lambda$ is defined by

484: \begin{eqnarray}

485: \lambda \equiv \frac{L}{E} = -\frac{u_\phi}{u_t} \ , \label{eq:ell}

486: \end{eqnarray}

487: which is assumed to be conserved along the whole flow in our model.

488: %This assumption in general does not have to be imposed, and in fact

489: %it may not always valid in the actual astrophysical accretion.

490: %However, our main purpose of this work is to systematically explore

491: %a characteristic nature of the energy and mass loss associated with

492: %the shock formation. Without the above assumption,

493: From equation~(\ref{eq:V}) we obtain

494: \begin{eqnarray}

495: u_t(r,\lambda) = \left[\frac{1+u_r u^r}{-V_{\rm

496: eff}(r,\lambda)}\right]^{1/2} \ . \label{eq:ut}

497: \end{eqnarray}

498: 

499: 

500: From the definition of enthalpy and the polytropic relation given by

501: equation~(\ref{eq:polytropic}) we can rewrite the enthalpy as

502: \begin{eqnarray}

503: \mu = 1+(N+1)K \rho_0^{1/N} \ . \label{eq:mu}

504: \end{eqnarray}

505: Local adiabatic sound speed $c_s$ is defined as

506: \begin{eqnarray}

507: c_s^2 \equiv \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial \rho}\right)_{\rm{ad}}

508: = \frac{(1+1/N) P}{\mu \rho_0} \ . \label{eq:sound}

509: \end{eqnarray}

510: %We define flow's Mach number as

511: %\begin{eqnarray}

512: %{\cal{M}} \equiv \frac{v_{\rm CRF}}{c_s} \ , \label{eq:Mach}

513: %\end{eqnarray}

514: %where $v_{\rm CRF} \equiv (u_r u^r)/(1+u_r u^r)$ is the flow speed

515: %measured in the corotating reference frame (CRF).

516: Combining the equations~(\ref{eq:polytropic}), (\ref{eq:mu}) and

517: (\ref{eq:sound}) we can express $\mu$ in terms of the sound speed

518: $c_s$ as

519: \begin{eqnarray}

520: \mu = \frac{1}{1-N c_s^2} \ . \label{eq:mu2}

521: \end{eqnarray}

522: Accordingly, the energy of the flow $E$ in

523: equation~(\ref{eq:energy}) can be explicitly rewritten as a function

524: of $c_s$

525: \begin{eqnarray}

526: E = \left(\frac{1+u_r u^r}{-V_{\rm eff}}\right)^{1/2} / \left(1-N

527: c_s^2\right) \ , \label{eq:energy2}

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: which is conserved along the flow except at a shock front. That is,

530: across a shock front, the energy $E$ and the angular momentum $L$

531: will both decrease in such a way that the ratio $\lambda \equiv L/E$

532: is continuous across the shock. Using equation~(\ref{eq:mu}) and

533: (\ref{eq:mu2}) the baryon rest-mass density can be rewritten as

534: \begin{eqnarray}

535: \rho_0 = \left[\frac{c_s^2}{\left(1+1/N\right)\left(1-N

536: c_s^2\right)}\right]^N \frac{1}{K^N} \ . \label{eq:rho}

537: \end{eqnarray}

538: We define the mass-accretion rate $\dot{M}$ as

539: \begin{eqnarray}

540: \dot{M} \equiv -4\pi r H u^r \rho_0 \ , \label{eq:mdot1}

541: \end{eqnarray}

542: where $H$ represents the vertical scale-height of the flow defined

543: as

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: H \equiv \frac{c_s}{\Omega_K} \ , \label{eq:H}

546: \end{eqnarray}

547: from the conventional hydrostatic equilibrium assumption. Here,

548: $\Omega_K(r) \equiv m^{1/2}/(r^{3/2}+a m^{1/2})$ is the Keplerian

549: angular velocity. Note that for accretion we have $u^r<0$. As often

550: assumed, we only consider a constant mass-accretion rate in this

551: paper, although a variable accretion rate has been discussed in the

552: literature \citep[e.g.,][]{BB99}. Eliminating $\rho_0$ from

553: equations~(\ref{eq:rho}) and (\ref{eq:mdot1}) we rewrite $\dot{M}$

554: as

555: \begin{eqnarray} \dot{M} = -4\pi r

556: m^{1/2} \left(r^3/2+a m^{1/2}\right) u^r

557: \left[\frac{c_s^{2N+1}}{(1+1/N)(1-N c_s^2)^N}\right] \frac{1}{K^N} \

558: . \label{eq:mdot2}

559: \end{eqnarray}

560: Similarly to $E$ and $L$, the mass-accretion rate $\dot{M}$ is also

561: conserved along the flow except at a shock location. After defining

562: all the physical quantities necessary to solve for black hole

563: accretion, we will describe below the transonic properties of the

564: physical accretion solutions.

565: 

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: \subsection{Regularity Conditions}

570: 

571: For accretion to continue on to the event horizon, it is required

572: that the accreting flows become supersonic at a sonic radius. After

573: taking the derivatives of the equations~(\ref{eq:energy2}) and

574: (\ref{eq:mdot2}) with respect to $r$ (note that $E$ and $\dot{M}$

575: are both constants), $dc_s/dr$ can be eliminated. Finally we obtain

576: \begin{eqnarray}

577: \frac{du^r}{dr} = \frac{\cal{N}}{\cal{D}} \ , \label{eq:critical}

578: \end{eqnarray}

579: where

580: \begin{eqnarray}

581: {\cal{D}} &\equiv& 2N c_s^2 + u_r u^r \left\{N \left(3c_s^2-2

582: \right)-1 \right\} \ , \label{eq:D}

583: \\

584: {\cal{N}} &\equiv& \zeta \left(1+u_r u^r \right) \left(r^{3/2}+a

585: m^{1/2}\right) \frac{dV_{\rm eff}}{dr} \nonumber \\ & & - \left[a

586: \left(4Nc_s^2+\eta \right)+r^{3/2} \left\{2Nc_s^2

587: \left(5+3g_{rr}\right)+\eta \right\} \right] V_{\rm eff} \ ,

588: \label{eq:N}

589: \end{eqnarray}

590: and

591: \begin{eqnarray}

592: \eta &\equiv& 4N g_{rr} c_s^2 + \zeta (u^r)^2 \frac{d g_{rr}}{dr} \

593: . \label{eq:eta}

594: \\

595: \zeta &\equiv& r \left\{N \left(c_s^2-2 \right)-1 \right\} \ .

596: \label{eq:zeta}

597: \end{eqnarray}

598: In equation~(\ref{eq:critical}), the fact that the velocity gradient

599: $du^r/dr$ is finite at $r=r_c$ requires that ${\cal{D}}(r=r_c)=0$

600: and ${\cal{N}}(r=r_c)=0$ simultaneously (i.e., regularity

601: conditions), which will allow us to find the critical radius $r_c$

602: for a given parameter set. A physically valid accretion solution,

603: therefore, must pass through a critical point at $r=r_c$ before

604: reaching the horizon whether or not the shock formation is possible.

605: In the presence of a shock, a global shock-included accretion

606: solution must go through a critical point on both sides of the shock

607: location (i.e., before and after the shock forms). This fact

608: requires multiple critical points. It is widely known that multiple

609: critical points (up to three at most) can exist in general for a

610: certain flow parameter space. Much work has been done on examining

611: the topological behaviors (i.e., saddle, node, center and spiral

612: points) of the critical points \citep[e.g.,][]{Cha90}, thus we will

613: not repeat this. Because our main goal of this paper is to explore a

614: possibility of outflows that are coupled to the shocks in the global

615: accretion flows, we will only investigate the upstream flows passing

616: through the outer critical points $r_c^{\rm out}$ while the

617: downstream flows passing through the inner critical points $r_c^{\rm

618: in}$ (the middle one is known to be unphysical).

619: 

620: 

621: 

622: So far, for a specified flow parameter set, one can obtain accretion

623: solutions. Next, let us impose the shock conditions that connects

624: one solution (i.e. upstream flow) to another (i.e. downstream flow),

625: taking into account energy, angular momentum, and mass loss at a

626: shock location.

627: 

628: 

629: 

630: 

631: \subsection{Shock Formation with Energy and Mass Loss}

632: 

633: Accreting flows around a black hole are generally subject to a

634: number of ``invisible'' obstacles that can decelerate the flow: (1)

635: centrifugal barrier due to the fluid's angular momentum, (2) gas

636: pressure-gradient, (3) radiation pressure-gradient, and (4) magnetic

637: forces (i.e., pressure-gradient and/or tension force). Although our

638: model is purely adiabatic and hydrodynamic [thus (3) and (4) are

639: absent], flows are still under the influence of the deceleration

640: mechanisms (1) and (2).

641: 

642: 

643: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~1

644:     \centering

645:     \epsscale{0.5}

646:     \includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.5in]{f1.eps}

647:     \caption{Schematic picture of mass outflows originating from a standing shock front

648:     in hydrodynamic accretion. $\bigotimes$ indicates azimuthal motion of the flow.

649:     At the shock, a fraction of the accreting gas is lost

650:     carrying energy $\Delta E$, angular momentum $\Delta L$ and mass

651:     outflow rate

652:     $\Delta \dot{M}$.

653:     } \label{fig:schematic}

654: \end{figure} %-----------------------------------------------

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: Following the previous works \citep[see][]{Yang95,Lu98}, let us

659: assume jump conditions that allow energy, angular momentum and mass

660: loss at a standing shock front. Figure~\ref{fig:schematic}

661: illustrates a schematic description of our model. From

662: equation~(\ref{eq:energy2}) we have

663: \begin{eqnarray}

664: E_1 &=& \left[\frac{1+g_{rr} (u_1^r)^2}{-V_{\rm eff}}\right]^{1/2} /

665: \left(1-N c_{s1}\right) \ , \label{eq:E1}

666: \\

667: E_2 &=& \left[\frac{1+g_{rr} (u_2^r)^2}{-V_{\rm eff}}\right]^{1/2} /

668: \left(1-N c_{s2}\right) \ , \label{eq:E2}

669: \end{eqnarray}

670: where the subscripts ``1'' and ``2'' denote the quantities for

671: upstream and downstream flows evaluated at a shock location

672: ($r=r_{\rm sh}$), respectively. We require $E_1 > E_2$ and define

673: the energy dissipation and its fraction as

674: \begin{eqnarray}

675: \Delta E \equiv E_1 - E_2  ~~~~  {\rm and} ~~~~ f_E \equiv

676: \frac{\Delta E}{E_1} \ , \label{eq:DeltaE}

677: \end{eqnarray}

678: where $0 < f_E < 1$. The associated angular momentum carried by the

679: outflows is then given by $\Delta L \equiv L_1 - L_2 = \lambda

680: \Delta E$.

681: 

682: 

683: In the baryon mass conservation across the shock front, we also

684: consider some mass loss (equivalently the loss of mass-accretion

685: rate) associated with the outflows that are blown away as

686: winds/jets. From equation~(\ref{eq:mdot2}) we have

687: \begin{eqnarray}

688: \dot{M}_1 = -4\pi r_{\rm{sh}} \left(r_{\rm{sh}}^3/2+a m^{1/2}\right)

689: u_1^r \left[\frac{c_{s1}^{2N+1}}{(1+1/N)\left(1-N

690: c_{s1}^2\right)^N}\right] \frac{1}{K_1^N} \ , \label{eq:Mdot1}

691: \\

692: \dot{M}_2 = -4\pi r_{\rm{sh}} \left(r_{\rm{sh}}^3/2+a m^{1/2}\right)

693: u_2^r \left[\frac{c_{s2}^{2N+1}}{(1+1/N)(1-N c_{s2}^2)^N}\right]

694: \frac{1}{K_2^N} \ . \label{eq:Mdot2}

695: \end{eqnarray}

696: Clearly, the mass-accretion rate depends on the measurement of

697: entropy $K$ which must increase across the shock because of the heat

698: generated (second law of thermodynamics). However, in the presence

699: of both energy dissipation and mass loss at the shock front, a

700: fraction of total energy (including mass and thermal energies) can

701: be released from the flow surface, quickly reducing the rise of $K$.

702: This hypothesis is justifiable when cooling processes are very

703: efficient, although it is beyond the scope of this work to discuss

704: the details of these mechanisms. Hence, for simplicity, we assume

705: that the entropy will roughly remain unchanged at the shock front as

706: a result from partial heat loss of the shocked flow. Thus, we set

707: $K_1 = K_1 \equiv K_0$ and require $\dot{M}_1 \ge \dot{M}_2$.

708: Similarly to energy dissipation, let us define the mass loss and its

709: fraction as

710: \begin{eqnarray}

711: \Delta \dot{M} \equiv \dot{M}_1 - \dot{M}_2 ~~~~  {\rm and} ~~~~

712: f_{\dot{M}} \equiv \frac{\Delta \dot{M}} {\dot{M}_1} \ ,

713: \label{eq:DeltaMdot}

714: \end{eqnarray}

715: where $0 \le f_{\dot{M}} < 1$. That is, $f_{\dot{M}}=0$ corresponds

716: to no mass outflows from shocks.

717: 

718: 

719: The momentum flux density $T^{\alpha \beta}$ for an ideal fluid is

720: given by

721: \begin{eqnarray}

722: T^{\alpha \beta} = (\rho+P)u^{\alpha}u^{\beta} + P g^{\alpha \beta}

723: \ . \label{eq:momentum}

724: \end{eqnarray}

725: Therefore, the radial component $T^{rr}$ is

726: \begin{eqnarray}

727: T^{rr} = \rho_0 \mu u^r \left[u^r+\frac{c_s^2}{(1+1/N)u_r}\right] \

728: . \label{eq:Trr}

729: \end{eqnarray}

730: From the mass and momentum conservations in radial direction, we

731: finally obtain

732: \begin{eqnarray}

733: \mu_1 c_{s2} \left[u_1^r + \frac{c_{s1}^2}{(1+1/N)g_{rr}

734: u_1^r}\right] = \mu_2 c_{s1} \left(1-f_{\dot{M}}\right) \left[u_2^r

735: + \frac{c_{s2}^2}{(1+1/N)g_{rr} u_2^r}\right] \ ,

736: \label{eq:mom-cons}

737: \end{eqnarray}

738: which completes a series of our dissipative shock conditions.

739: 

740: The strength of shocks is measured by the local compression ratio of

741: the flow, $n_2/n_1$, which is expressed as

742: \begin{eqnarray}

743: \frac{n_2}{n_1} = \frac{u^r_1}{u^r_2} \frac{c_{s1}}{c_{s2}}

744: (1-f_{\dot{M}}) = \left[ \left(\frac{c_{s2}}{c_{s1}}\right)^2

745: \left(\frac{1-N c_{s1}^2}{1-N c_{s2}^2}\right) \right]^N \ .

746: \label{eq:n12}

747: \end{eqnarray}

748: Hence, in the absence of mass loss ($f_{\dot{M}}=0$), the

749: compression ratio must be greater than unity when shocks occur.

750: However, in the presence of mass loss ($0 < f_{\dot{M}} <1$), the

751: compression ratio becomes a product of the velocity ratio and the

752: mass loss fraction. Therefore, there can be a case where rarefaction

753: or decompression with $n_2/n_1 \le 1$ might take place even if the

754: fluid velocity (and sound speed) abruptly decreases across a very

755: strong shock. To avoid further complications, we will focus our

756: attention on compression shock waves only.

757: 

758: 

759: \subsection{Dynamical Stability of Shocks}

760: 

761: In terms of the radial momentum balance across the shock front, some

762: standing shocks can be dynamically unstable. That is, the shock may

763: decay away (either radially inward or outward) as a result of a

764: small (radial) perturbation of its position. In order to examine the

765: stability of the obtained shock solutions, we perturb the radial

766: momentum flux density $T^{rr}$ (equivalent to pressure) by invoking

767: an infinitesimally small variation of the shock location $\delta

768: r_{\rm sh}$. If a shock front shifts back to its original location

769: to retain the momentum equilibrium there, it is dynamically stable.

770: The criteria is expressed as

771: \begin{eqnarray}

772: \left(\delta T^{rr}_2 - \delta T^{rr}_1\right)_{\rm sh} =

773: \left(\frac{d T^{rr}_2}{dr} - \frac{d T^{rr}_1}{dr}\right)_{\rm sh}

774: \delta r_{\rm sh} \equiv \kappa(r_{\rm sh}) \delta r_{\rm sh} \ ,

775: \label{eq:stability}

776: \end{eqnarray}

777: where $\kappa(r_{\rm sh})$ is a function of $r_{\rm sh}$ alone, thus

778: possible to be numerically evaluated. In our calculations we take

779: advantage of the known fact that $\kappa(r_{\rm sh})<0$ always

780: guarantees the stable standing shocks

781: \citep[see][]{Yang95,Lu98,FT04}.

782: 

783: 

784: \section{Numerical Results}

785: 

786: Following the formalism outlined above we calculate the fractions of

787: energy and mass losses for various model parameters. There are

788: essentially three primary variables ($E_1,\lambda;r_{\rm sh}$) that

789: determine the solutions for a given geometry ($a,\theta$). In this

790: paper, we restrict ourselves to the flows corotating with the black

791: hole ($a \lambda > 0$) at the equator ($\theta=\pi/2$).

792: 

793: 

794: The topology of the accreting solutions is normally classified as

795: ``x-type" or ``$\alpha$-type" depending on whether the shock-free

796: solution is global or not \citep[e.g., see][for definition]{Lu98}.

797: Although this is also one of the important aspects of the studies of

798: standing shocks, we do not consider the distinction here since it is

799: not crucial to our current investigations.

800: 

801: 

802: In our calculations we set $N=3$ and choose several representative

803: values of the upstream flow energy: $E_1=1.003,1.004,1.005$ for

804: $a/m=0$ (\sw case) and $0.99$ (Kerr case) to illustrate the

805: frame-dragging effect.

806: %We

807: %have explored the parameter space that allows both dissipative

808: %shocks and mass loss, from which the values have been chosen in our

809: %calculations.

810: 

811: %It should be noted that for a given $\lambda$ there exists the

812: %degeneracy of shock-outflow solutions: i.e., for a single value of

813: %angular momentum $\lambda$ there allowed a finite range of the

814: %possible shock locations $r^{min}_{sh} < r_{\rm sh} < r_{\rm sh}^{\rm max}$

815: %corresponding to respective outflows $f_{\dot{M}}^{min} \le

816: %f_{\dot{M}} \le f_{\dot{M}}^{max}$ where the indices ``min" and

817: %``max" denote minimum and maximum values, respectively.

818: %

819: %

820: %In the context of our model, one can not uniquely remove this

821: %degeneracy, although it should be removed by additional physical

822: %conditions (e.g., viscosity, magnetic fields, for instance).

823: %

824: 

825: 

826: \subsection{Dependence of Energy and Mass Loss}

827: 

828: We first present in Figures~\ref{fig:rsh-a0} and \ref{fig:rsh-a099}

829: the mass loss fraction $f_{\dot{M}}$ as a function of shock location

830: $r_{\rm sh}$ for (a) $E_1=1.003$, (b) 1.004, and (c) 1.005, with

831: $a/m=0$ (Figure~\ref{fig:rsh-a0}) and $0.99$

832: (Figure~\ref{fig:rsh-a099}). Stable shocks are represented by solid

833: curves while (dynamically) unstable shocks are represented by dotted

834: curves. Stable standing shocks, according to the criterion of

835: equation~(\ref{eq:stability}), can form in most cases in regions

836: relatively close to the black hole ($r_{\rm sh}/m \lesssim 80$). For

837: a rotating black hole case, the shock location can be considerably

838: closer to the hole ($r_{\rm sh}/m \gtrsim 2-3$), results similar to

839: no mass loss cases \citep[e.g.,][]{Sponholz94,Lu98}, due to the fact

840: that the horizon shifts more inward. There appears to be a smooth

841: transition between the stable and unstable ones. Filled circles

842: denote the {\it maximum} stable shock location, also corresponding

843: to the {\it weakest} shock (i.e., smallest $n_2/n_1$), while open

844: circles denote the {\it minimum} stable shock location, also

845: corresponding to the {\it strongest} shocks (i.e., largest

846: $n_2/n_1$). In other words, the stronger dissipative shocks can

847: develop at smaller radii, in agreement with the previous result in

848: the absence of mass loss \citep[e.g.,][in which

849: $f_{\dot{M}}=0$]{Lu98,FT04}. Unstable shocks start to develop from

850: where stable shocks become strongest. At both ends of the solution

851: the curves are restricted by the dissipative shock conditions

852: [equations~(\ref{eq:E1}), (\ref{eq:E2}), (\ref{eq:Mdot1}),

853: (\ref{eq:Mdot2}), (\ref{eq:mom-cons})] and the transonic properties

854: [equation~(\ref{eq:critical})]. It is seen that smaller angular

855: momentum is required for shock (and accretion) to take place when

856: the fluid energy is larger, also consistent with previous studies of

857: standing shocks \citep[][]{Cha96,Lu97,Lu98,FT04}. Only stable shocks

858: alone are allowed when angular momentum becomes sufficiently large

859: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rsh-a0}c and Fig.~\ref{fig:rsh-a099}). To

860: simplify our discussion, we will focus primarily on stable shocks

861: alone from this point. As the angular momentum of the flow $\lambda$

862: increases, the shock location tends to (but not always) shift

863: radially outward for a given energy $E_1$ as expected because the

864: centrifugal force correspondingly increases at a given radius.

865: Hence, accreting flow subject to more outward force must decelerate

866: at larger distance, forcing the shock location to shift outward, as

867: seen in our results. This trend appears to be more clear for the

868: $a/m=0.99$ case. It is also noted that in these figures larger

869: angular momentum can allow for a larger mass outflow fraction

870: $f_{\dot{M}}$.

871: 

872: In our model, mass loss fraction $f_{\dot{M}}$ can vary over a wide

873: range ($0\% \lesssim f_{\dot{M}} \lesssim 95\%$) depending on the

874: shock location and angular momentum. That is, mass outflows are not

875: suppressed by relativistic effects and energy dissipation \citep[for

876: comparion with psuredo-Newtonian case with no energy dissipation,

877: see, e.g.][]{Das99}. For a fixed angular momentum, on the other

878: hand, a higher value of $f_{\dot{M}}$ is expected from stronger

879: shocks occurring in the inner regions, and this seems to be the case

880: more in rotating black hole cases (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rsh-a099}). We

881: shall explain the shaded regions in these figures in the Discussion

882: section.

883: 

884: 

885: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~2

886: \epsscale{0.3} \plotone{f2a.eps}\plotone{f2b.eps}\plotone{f2c.eps}

887: \caption{$f_{\dot{M}}$ vs. $r_{\rm sh}$ for various flow energies

888: (a) $E_1=1.003$, (b) 1.004, and (c) 1.005 with $a/m=0$. Stable

889: (unstable) shocks are denoted by solid (dotted) curves. In each

890: branch, filled circles denote the maximum stable shock location also

891: corresponding to the weakest shock (smallest $n_2/n_1$), while open

892: circles denote the minimum stable shock location also corresponding

893: to the strongest shocks (largest $n_2/n_1$). A labeled value of

894: angular momentum $\lambda$ is fixed for each curve. Unbound outflow

895: solutions are indicated by shaded boxes. } \label{fig:rsh-a0}

896: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~3

901: \epsscale{0.3} \plotone{f3a.eps}\plotone{f3b.eps}\plotone{f3c.eps}

902: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:rsh-a0} but for $a/m=0.99$ case.}

903: \label{fig:rsh-a099}

904: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

905: 

906: 

907: 

908: 

909: Figures~\ref{fig:E-a0} ($a/m=0$) and \ref{fig:E-a099} ($a/m=0.99$)

910: display the same mass loss fraction $f_{\dot{M}}$ as a function of

911: the energy loss fraction $f_E$, corresponding to the solutions in

912: Figure~\ref{fig:rsh-a0} and \ref{fig:rsh-a099}, respectively. At a

913: first glance, there is an explicit positive correlation between

914: $f_E$ and $f_{\dot{M}}$. As the angular momentum increases, maximum

915: value of $f_E$ is clearly reduced. In these figures the upper left

916: portion corresponds to the outflow solutions with larger

917: $f_{\dot{M}}$ and smaller $f_E$ (i.e., less energetic outflows)

918: while the lower right portion represents the solutions with smaller

919: $f_{\dot{M}}$ and larger $f_E$ (i.e., more energetic outflows).

920: Therefore, the results above suggest that more energetic outflowing

921: particles may be separated from a shock front when the upstream flow

922: possesses smaller angular momentum regardless of black hole spin

923: $a$. Mass loss fraction $f_{\dot{M}}$ can become as high as

924: $\lesssim 95\%$ for both $a/m=0$ and $a/m=0.99$ cases regardless of

925: energy $E_1$, whereas energy loss fraction is only $f_E < 1\%$ for

926: $a/m=0$ case but $f_E \lesssim 10\%$ for $a/m=0.99$ case. By direct

927: comparison of these figures, we note that rotation of a black hole

928: $a$ is also effective such that $d f_E / d f_{\dot{M}}(a/m=0.99) > d

929: f_E / d f_{\dot{M}}(a/m=0)$, i.e. an increase in mass loss would

930: allow more energy loss for $a/m=0.99$ case. Therefore, more

931: energetic outflows can be expected from a shock around a rotating

932: black hole.

933: %

934: %Lastly, we note that more input energy $E_1$ consistently yields

935: %smaller energy loss $f_E$ but larger mass loss $f_{\dot{M}}$; i.e.,

936: %less energetic outflows.

937: 

938: 

939: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~4

940: \epsscale{0.3} \plotone{f4a.eps}\plotone{f4b.eps}\plotone{f4c.eps}

941: \caption{$f_{\dot{M}}$ vs. $f_E$ corresponding to the solutions in

942: Fig.~\ref{fig:rsh-a0} for $a/m=0$ case. } \label{fig:E-a0}

943: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

944: 

945: 

946: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~5

947: \epsscale{0.3} \plotone{f5a.eps}\plotone{f5b.eps}\plotone{f5c.eps}

948: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:E-a0} but for $a/m=0.99$ case.}

949: \label{fig:E-a099}

950: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

951: 

952: 

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: 

957: The upstream flow energy $E_1$ also affects the mass loss fraction.

958: It is noted that the energy-dependence of $f_{\dot{M}}$ is strong;

959: higher energy $E_1$ can lead to larger mass outflow fraction for a

960: given angular momentum $\lambda$ and a shock location $r_{\rm sh}$.

961: For instance, with $\lambda = 3.5$ for $a/m=0$ case (in

962: Fig.~\ref{fig:E-a0}), $f_{\dot{M}} < 20\%$ when $E_1=1.003$, $20-30

963: \%$ when $E_1=1.004$ and as large as $\sim 40\%$ when $E_1=1.005$.

964: With $\lambda=2.16$ for $a/m=0.99$ (in Fig.~\ref{fig:E-a099}),

965: $f_{\dot{M}} \sim 20-85 \%$ when $E_1=1.003$, $40-85\%$ when

966: $E_1=1.004$, and it is as high as $60-85\%$ when $E_1=1.005$. As a

967: reference, we also examine the energy-dependence of the shock

968: strength in Figure~\ref{fig:n12} where the (local) compression ratio

969: $n_2/n_1$ is plotted against $r_{\rm sh}$ for different energies:

970: $E_1=1.003,~1.004$ and $1.005$ as used before. Angular momentum

971: $\lambda$ is fixed in each case to see energy-dependence alone

972: (although different values of $\lambda$ for different spin $a$ must

973: be chosen to obtain the solutions). We find that our dissipative

974: shocks (coupled to mass loss) become stronger with decreasing

975: energy, a behavior similar to the typical types of shock formation

976: (e.g., see Lu et al. 1997 for adiabatic shocks; Lu \& Yuan 1998,

977: Fukumura \& Tsuruta 2004 for isothermal shocks).

978: 

979: 

980: 

981: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~6

982: \epsscale{1}\plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps} \caption{$n_2/n_1$ vs.

983: $r_{\rm sh}$ for (a) $a/m=0$ and (b) $0.99$ cases. We choose

984: $E_1=1.003,~1.004,~1.005$ from top to bottoms curves. Other

985: notations are the same as before. } \label{fig:n12}

986: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: To exclusively illustrate the black hole spin dependence $a$ of the

991: mass loss efficiency $f_{\dot{M}}$ we fix all other parameters

992: ($E_1, \lambda, r_{\rm sh}$) except for $a$. Figure~\ref{fig:spin}

993: shows $f_{\dot{M}}$ against $a$ and $f_E$ for $\lambda=3.45$ and

994: $r_{\rm sh}/m=30$. As seen in the earlier results, black hole

995: rotation alone can clearly enhance the efficiency of mass outflows

996: $f_{\dot{M}}$ from $\sim 3\%$ (for $a/m=0$) up to $\sim 95\%$ (for

997: $a/m=0.35$). On the other hand, the corresponding energy loss

998: efficiency $f_E$ remains as low as $\sim 0.02 - 0.1\%$. Note here

999: that $\lambda$ would have to be properly adjusted in order to obtain

1000: the solutions for higher black hole spin $a$.

1001: 

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~7

1006: \epsscale{0.5} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Mass loss efficiency

1007: $f_{\dot{M}}$ as a function of black hole spin $a$ and energy loss

1008: efficiency $f_E$ for a set of fixed parameters. We choose

1009: $\lambda=3.45$ and $r_{\rm sh}/m=30$. Solution curve is projected on

1010: each plane as shown. } \label{fig:spin}

1011: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: 

1017: We have chosen above some representative values for the flow energy

1018: for parametric purpose. Weakly viscous/inviscid accretion in general

1019: is a good model for some limited specific cases, like our Galactic

1020: center, for example. For such specific cases, the realistic choice

1021: of energy should be very small. From this perspective we examine to

1022: see whether low energy flows can still produce shock-driven

1023: outflows. Figure~\ref{fig:low-E} shows mass loss efficiency

1024: $f_{\dot{M}}$ as a function of $r_{\rm sh}$ for $a/m=0$. We set

1025: $E_1=1.000001$ and $\lambda=3.73$. Mass outflows can indeed be

1026: produced with $f_{\dot{M}}$ ranging from $\sim 1\%$ up to $\sim

1027: 65\%$. Both unstable and stable shocks are present as in the earlier

1028: cases but not continuously connected (no shock regions between the

1029: two). The range of shock location is much narrower in radius in this

1030: case, over which the mass loss efficiency can significantly change

1031: as mentioned above. We will discuss this more in the Discussion

1032: section.

1033: 

1034: 

1035: \begin{figure}[t]% ------------------------------------- Figure~8

1036: \epsscale{0.5} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{Mass loss efficiency

1037: $f_{\dot{M}}$ vs. $r_{\rm sh}$ for $a/m=0$. We set $E_1=1.000001$

1038: and $\lambda=3.73$. Notations are the same as in

1039: Figure~\ref{fig:rsh-a0}. } \label{fig:low-E}

1040: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

1041: 

1042: 

1043: 

1044: The major correlations we find among the primary parameters are

1045: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:tbl-1}. Table~\ref{tab:tbl-2} shows

1046: various correlations with shock strength. Compression ratio

1047: $n_2/n_1$ is strongly correlated with ($r_{\rm sh}, f_E,

1048: f_{\dot{M}}$); stronger shocks are expected in regions very close to

1049: the central engine particularly around a rotating black hole. Strong

1050: shocks in principle are accompanied by high energy and mass loss

1051: fractions.

1052: 

1053: 

1054: \begin{deluxetable}{c|cccc}%[h]% ------------------------------- Table~1

1055: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Correlation among primary

1056: quantities. \label{tab:tbl-1}} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{Parameter

1057: & $r_{\rm sh}$ & $f_E$ & $f_{\dot{M}}$ & $n_2/n_1$ } \startdata

1058:           $\lambda$  & $+$ & $--$ & $++$  & $\leftrightarrow$   \\

1059:           $E_1$ & $\leftrightarrow$ & $--$ & $+$  & $--$  \\

1060: \enddata

1061: \tablecomments{Strong positive (negative) correlation is denoted by

1062: $++$ ($--$) while relatively weak positive (negative) correlation is

1063: denoted by $+$ ($-$). No significant correlation is shown by

1064: $\leftrightarrow$.}

1065: \end{deluxetable}

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: \begin{deluxetable}{c|ccc}%[h]% ------------------------------- Table~2

1070: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Correlation with shock

1071: strength $n_2/n_1$ among primary quantities. \label{tab:tbl-2}}

1072: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{Parameter & $r_{\rm sh}$ & $f_E$ &

1073: $f_{\dot{M}}$  } \startdata

1074:           $n_2/n_1$  & $--$ & $++$ & $++$   \\

1075: \enddata

1076: \tablecomments{Notations are the same as in Table~\ref{tab:tbl-1}.}

1077: \end{deluxetable}

1078: 

1079: 

1080: To sum up, our results show that strongest stable shocks generally

1081: develop at the smallest radii (closer to the black hole),

1082: accompanied by the largest mass loss $f_{\dot{M}}$ (and the largest

1083: energy loss $f_E$ as well). The rotation of the black hole

1084: apparently amplifies the shock strength by more than a factor of

1085: two, also extending the outflowing site significantly inward (i.e.,

1086: $r_{\rm sh}/m \gtrsim 2-3$ when $a/m=0.99$ while $r_{\rm sh}/m

1087: \gtrsim 12$ when $a/m=0$). We will make some implications of the

1088: obtained shock-outflow solutions in the last section, \S 4.

1089: 

1090: 

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \subsection{Global Accreting Flows}

1094: 

1095: Samples of the global run of the physical parameters of accretion

1096: flows that include shocks are given in Figures~\ref{fig:global-1}

1097: ($a/m=0$) and \ref{fig:global-2} ($a/m=0.99$). In

1098: Tables~\ref{tab:tbl-3} and \ref{tab:tbl-4} we provide the specifics

1099: of the shocks associated respectively with the flows of

1100: Figures~\ref{fig:global-1} and \ref{fig:global-2}. These plots have

1101: been made assuming that all flows accrete at 1\% of the Eddington

1102: rate, i.e. $\dot{m} \equiv \dot{M} / \dot{M}_{\rm Edd} = 0.01$ and

1103: that the black hole mass is $m = 10^7 \Msun$, typical of Seyfert

1104: nuclei. Each panel shows (a) the radial velocity $|u^r|$, (b) the

1105: angular velocity $\Omega$, (c) the electron scattering optical depth

1106: defined by $\tau \equiv n \sigma_T H$, (d) flow temperature $T$ [K],

1107: (e) the density $\rho_0$ [g~cm$^{-3}$], and (f) the ratio of the

1108: vertical scale-height to the radius $H/r$. Vertical lines denote the

1109: positions of shocks connecting the upstream and downstream values of

1110: the corresponding quantities of each flow. Dotted curve in panel (b)

1111: shows the Keplerian angular velocity $\Omega_{K}$. Note that for

1112: clarity purposes we only show three of the representative shock

1113: solutions obtained, although the shock can occur at any radius

1114: between the outermost and innermost solutions (with different values

1115: of $f_{\dot{M}}$ and $f_E$).

1116: %

1117: %

1118: %Sample solutions for shock-included, global accreting flows are

1119: %displayed in Figures~\ref{fig:global-1} and \ref{fig:global-2}.

1120: %

1121: %\assume the radiative efficiency to be 1\% {\sf ???}[i.e.,

1122: %$\eta_{\rm eff} \equiv L_{Edd}/(m_p c^2) = 0.01$ where $L_{Edd}$ is

1123: %the Eddington luminosity]. We also take dimensionless mass-accretion

1124: %rate to be $\dot{m} \equiv \dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd} = 0.01$,

1125: %relevant for typical Seyfert nuclei.

1126: %

1127: %

1128: %Figure~\ref{fig:global-1} shows a global solution for the $a/m=0$

1129: %case with $E_1=1.003, \ell=3.5$. We find $r_{sh}/m=21$ and

1130: %$f_{\dot{M}}=0.064$. Each panel shows (a) the radial speed

1131: %$|v^r/c|$, (b) the angular velocity $\Omega$, (c) the scattering

1132: %optical depth $\tau \equiv n \sigma_T H$, (d) teh flow temperature

1133: %$\log T$ [K], (e) the number density $\log n$ [cm$^{-3}$], and (f)

1134: %the normalized vertical scale-height $H/r$. Vertical line denote a

1135: %shock connecting upstream and downstream flows. Dotted curves

1136: %represent the sound speed in panel (a) while Keplerian angular

1137: %velocity $\Omega_K$ in panel (b).

1138: 

1139: %[Demos: modified below by KF as of 3/21]

1140: 

1141: We find that in both the non-rotating (Fig.~\ref{fig:global-1}) and

1142: rotating (Fig.~\ref{fig:global-2}) cases the upstream flow density

1143: scales as $\rho_{0,1}(r) \sim r^{-3/2}$, as in the ADAF self-similar

1144: solution. On the other hand, as we explain below, the downstream

1145: flow density generally has a slightly steeper power-law slope,

1146: $\rho_{0,2}(r) \sim r^{-3/2} - r^{-3}$ unless the shock location is

1147: too close to the horizon. As seen in Figures~\ref{fig:global-1}a and

1148: \ref{fig:global-2}a, this is primarily because of the decreasing

1149: (radial) downstream flow speed $|u^r_2(r)|$, whose feature is more

1150: obvious around a rotating black hole. After the shock transition,

1151: frame-dragging of the rotating black hole forces the accreting flow

1152: to accelerate more in the toroidal direction (i.e., corotate) rather

1153: than radial direction. Under adiabatic assumption, at the same time,

1154: the flow temperature continues to rise (Fig.~\ref{fig:global-1}d and

1155: \ref{fig:global-2}d) due to $p dV$ compression of the flow. Since

1156: $c_s \propto T^{1/2}$, sound speed also increases. The resulting

1157: (thermal) pressure gradient ($dP/dr<0$) prevents the incoming flow

1158: from speeding up and in fact decelerate the downstream flow (for a

1159: while) until the flow falls deep inside the gravitational potential

1160: well to radially speed up again. Consequently, the fluid motion is

1161: governed mainly by increasing toroidal velocity rather than radial

1162: one (compare Fig.~\ref{fig:global-1}a with

1163: Fig.~\ref{fig:global-2}a). This results in a larger radial velocity

1164: gradient $d |u^r_2| / dr>0$ in Figure~\ref{fig:global-2}a.

1165: 

1166: 

1167: In differentially-rotating flows, the Keplerian frequency increases

1168: with decreasing $r$ even more rapidly than the sound speed, leading

1169: to a decreasing scale-height $H$ [see equation~(\ref{eq:H})]. The

1170: dependence of these two quantities, $\Omega_K$ and $c_s$, on the

1171: radius in the downstream flow could lead to geometrically slim/thick

1172: all the way to the horizon [see, e.g., $H/r \gtrsim 0.2 - 0.3$ in

1173: Figs.~\ref{fig:global-1}f and \ref{fig:global-2}f].

1174: 

1175: 

1176: Recalling $\rho_0 \propto 1 /(r H |u^r|)$ from

1177: equation~(\ref{eq:mdot1}), the above fact that both $|u^r_2|$ and

1178: $H$ decrease allows a very steep downstream density profile

1179: $\rho_{0,2}(r)$ after the shock transition (and this is more so in a

1180: rotating black hole case because of larger drop in $|u^r_2|$ as

1181: mentioned earlier). The downstream flows become slightly more opaque

1182: to electron scattering because of the shock compression, yet they

1183: continue to remain optically-thin ($\tau < 1$).

1184: %

1185: %

1186: %{\sf [ Keigo the explanation you give does not quite work. The

1187: %dependence of the density on the radius has more do to with the

1188: %radial velocity which you do not show in the figs. the speed of

1189: %sound is proportional to the square root of the temperature which

1190: %increases with $r$ as expected. However the radial velocity

1191: %DECREASES for a while after the shock and that is the gives rise to

1192: %the much steeper density profile. This seems to be the case mainly

1193: %in the $a=0.99$ case. We need to rephrase this section. the velocity

1194: %presumably decreases because of the increase in the temperature due

1195: %to pdV compression of the flow. Also the geometric cross section of

1196: %the flow maybe different than spherical near the horizon]}.

1197: %

1198: %

1199: %Because the radial speed (equivalent to Mach number {\sf [not

1200: %really; as i pointed out above, the sound speed also increases

1201: %inward so that the decrease in the Mach number is partly due to the

1202: %increase in the temperature. it is this that apparently chokes the

1203: %flow and slows it down until eventually the infinite grav. potential

1204: %of the BH wins over and sucks the fluid in}]) after the shock tends

1205: %to decrease (for a while) whereas Keplerian angular velocity keeps

1206: %rising, density profile can be significantly steep in the downstream

1207: %region (sound speed only slightly increases).

1208: %

1209: %

1210: 

1211: 

1212: \begin{deluxetable}{c|cccc}%[h]% ------------------------------- Table~3

1213: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Sets of Parameters for the

1214: Global Solutions in Figure~\ref{fig:global-1}. \label{tab:tbl-3}}

1215: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{Model & $r_{\rm sh}/m$ & $n_2/n_1$ &

1216: $f_E$ (\%) & $f_{\dot{M}}$ (\%) } \startdata

1217: (1) & $15$ & $4.2$ & $0.319$ & $52.4$   \\

1218: (2) & $31$ & $3.8$ & $0.136$ & $47.3$   \\

1219: (3) & $54$ & $3.1$ & $0.00253$ & $43.4$   \\

1220: \enddata

1221: \tablecomments{Note that $a/m=0,~E_1=1.003,~\lambda=3.6$.}

1222: \end{deluxetable}

1223: 

1224: 

1225: 

1226: \begin{deluxetable}{c|cccc}%[h]% ------------------------------- Table~4

1227: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Sets of Parameters for the

1228: Global Solutions in Figure~\ref{fig:global-2}. \label{tab:tbl-4}}

1229: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{Model & $r_{\rm sh}/m$ & $n_2/n_1$ &

1230: $f_E$ (\%) & $f_{\dot{M}}$ (\%) } \startdata

1231: (4) & $2.4$ & $10.2$ & $8.3$ & $89$   \\

1232: (5) & $10$ & $7.9$ & $2.6$ & $51.0$   \\

1233: (6) & $78$ & $2.73$ & $0.002$ & $17.6$   \\

1234: \enddata

1235: \tablecomments{Note that $a/m=0.99,~E_1=1.003,~\lambda=2.16$.}

1236: \end{deluxetable}

1237: 

1238: 

1239: \begin{figure}[h]% ------------------------------------- Figure~9

1240: \epsscale{1}\plotone{f9.eps} \caption{Global shock-included

1241: solutions, (1)-(3), for $a/m=0$ case. See Table~\ref{tab:tbl-3} for

1242: the parameters. (a) radial velocity $|u^r|$, (b) angular velocity

1243: $\Omega$, (c) scattering optical depth $\tau$, (d) temperature $T$,

1244: (e) density $\rho_0$, and (f) aspect ratio $H/r$. Vertical lines

1245: denote shocks while filled circles indicate outer/inner critical

1246: radii. In (b) Keplerian profile $\Omega_{K}$ is denoted by a dotted

1247: curve. In (e) dotted gray lines show the slopes of $-3/2$ and $-3$.

1248: } \label{fig:global-1}

1249: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

1250: 

1251: 

1252: 

1253: \begin{figure}[h]% ------------------------------------- Figure~10

1254: \epsscale{1}\plotone{f10.eps} \caption{Same as

1255: Figure~\ref{fig:global-1} but $a/m=0.99$ case. See

1256: Table~\ref{tab:tbl-4} for the parameters.} \label{fig:global-2}

1257: \end{figure} % -------------------------------------

1258: 

1259: 

1260: \section{Discussion \& Conclusions}

1261: 

1262: In this work we have examined the structure of accretion flows that

1263: includes shocks of more general character than those discussed so

1264: far in the literature \citep[e.g.,][]{Cha90}. In particular we have

1265: examined whether it is possible to have flows with shocks at which

1266: part of the mass and/or energy fluxes are lost and do not

1267: participate in the shock transition (this maybe the case in

1268: multidimensional shocks or in shocks that involve acceleration of

1269: particles that escape from the shock region). Such generalized

1270: shocks obey jump conditions more general than those of

1271: Rankine-Hugoniot and it is not {\it a priori} certain if accretion

1272: flows can allow for such shocks. We have also examined the degree of

1273: mass and energy loss allowed that are at the same time consistent

1274: with the continuation of the downstream flow through another sonic

1275: transition onto the black hole. In this respect we have focused our

1276: study on shocks in which the energy per particle for those escaping

1277: the shock transition is greater than that of the local gravitational

1278: potential. In such a case one can argue that these particles can

1279: escape to infinity producing the jets/winds observed in many

1280: accretion-powered systems. We have found that there are indeed flows

1281: with global parameters (i.e. $\lambda$ and $E$) that allow for such

1282: shocks. On the other hand, we have also obtained solutions at which

1283: the energy per particle of the escaping matter is smaller than the

1284: local gravitational potential, indicating that in all likelihood

1285: these particles will stagnate and eventually join the rest of the

1286: flow onto the compact object.

1287: %

1288: %{\sl \{KF: We examined the mass loss efficiency that are coupled to

1289: %the shock solutions for various flows. Most importantly, in order

1290: %for the outflowing particles to leave the shocked flow surface, it

1291: %must posses sufficiently large kinetic energy exceeding some

1292: %threshold which is determined by equating outward force against

1293: %inward gravitational pull. Otherwise, the released particles might

1294: %stagnate around the shocked flow surface or is advected with the

1295: %downstream flow, not being ejected away\}}.

1296: %

1297: However, a deeper understanding of the precise mechanisms that can

1298: lead to the particles that do not participate in the shock

1299: transition, as we conjectured above, requires the knowledge of the

1300: detailed microphysics of the shock (i.e. the acceleration

1301: efficiency, the fraction of energy put into relativistic particles

1302: at the shock and their transport in and around the shock geometry);

1303: these are beyond the scope of the present paper.

1304: 

1305: 

1306: To get a crude estimate of the energetics of these outflowing

1307: particles, we compute a threshold energy of the escaping particles

1308: under a set of assumed parameters. The total energy flux carried by

1309: the escaping particles (of energy $\Delta E$) is given by $\Delta E

1310: \times 4\pi r_{\rm sh} \bar{H} \bar{n} \bar{u}^r$ [erg~s$^{-1}$]

1311: where $\bar{H} \equiv (H_1+H_2)/2, \bar{n} \equiv (n_1+n_2)/2$ and

1312: $\bar{u}^r \equiv (u^r_1+u^r_2)/2$ are evaluated at the shock

1313: location ($r=r_{\rm sh}$). The minimum kinetic energy necessary for

1314: the separated particles (of mass outflow rate $\Delta \dot{M}$) to

1315: escape the bulk flow is given by $\Delta \dot{M} v_{c}^2 /2$

1316: [erg~s$^{-1}$] where $v_{c}$, to be determined below, is the

1317: required critical velocity of the particles. By equating these, we

1318: solve for $v_{c}$ to obtain

1319: \begin{eqnarray}

1320: v^2_{c} \sim 8 \pi r_{\rm sh} \bar{H} \bar{n} \bar{u}^r m_p c^2

1321: \Delta E / \Delta \dot{M} \ .

1322: \end{eqnarray}

1323: For the outflowing particles to be effectively decoupled from the

1324: bulk flow, kinetic energy associated with this critical velocity

1325: should exceed or be at least comparable to the corresponding

1326: gravitational binding energy at the shock location. This condition

1327: reads

1328: \begin{eqnarray}

1329: \frac{1}{2} v_c^2 \gtrsim \frac{G m}{r_{\rm sh}} \ ,

1330: \label{eq:condition-1}

1331: \end{eqnarray}

1332: or

1333: \begin{eqnarray}

1334: \Delta E \gtrsim E_c \ , \label{eq:condition-2}

1335: \end{eqnarray}

1336: where $E_c \equiv G m \Delta \dot{M} / (4 \pi r_{\rm sh}^2 \bar{H}

1337: \bar{n} \bar{u}^r m_p c^2)$.

1338: %

1339: %

1340: %The energy flux carried with the escaping particles is given by

1341: %$\Delta E \times 4\pi r_{\rm sh} \bar{H} \bar{n} \bar{u}^r$

1342: %erg~s$^{-1}$ where $\bar{H} \equiv (H_1+H_2)/2, \bar{n} \equiv

1343: %(n_1+n_2)/2$ and $\bar{u}^r \equiv (u^r_1+u^r_2)/2$ are evaluated at

1344: %the shock location $r_{\rm sh}$. The corresponding mass-energy flux

1345: %of the escaping particles is $\Delta \dot{M} v^2_{esc}$ erg~s$^{-1}$

1346: %where $v_{esc}$ is the escape velocity of the particles. By equating

1347: %these, we obtain

1348: %%

1349: %\begin{eqnarray}

1350: %v^2_{esc} \sim 4\pi r_{\rm sh} \bar{H} \bar{n} \bar{u}^r m_p c^2

1351: %\Delta E / \Delta \dot{M} \ .

1352: %\end{eqnarray}

1353: %

1354: %{\sf Then the condition for these particles to escape reads}

1355: %

1356: %\begin{eqnarray}

1357: %\Delta E \gtrsim E_c \ ,

1358: %\end{eqnarray}

1359: %%

1360: %where $E_c \equiv G m \Delta \dot{M} / (2\pi r_{\rm sh}^2 \bar{H}

1361: %\bar{n} \bar{u}^r m_p c^2)$.

1362: %

1363: %

1364: Since all these parameters ($\bar{H}, \bar{n}, \bar{u}^r$) are

1365: functions of shock location $r_{\rm sh}$ which depends on

1366: $f_{\dot{M}}$, $E_c$ is obtained once we specify $f_{\dot{M}}$. Now,

1367: we can review the shock solutions obtained earlier from this new

1368: perspective: In Figures~\ref{fig:rsh-a0}-\ref{fig:E-a099} the

1369: allowed shock solutions satisfying $\Delta E \ge E_c$, which is

1370: relevant for outflows that may escape the shocked flow, are

1371: displayed by shaded regions, while the rest of the solutions

1372: correspond to the outflows presumably bound to the bulk flow.

1373: According to these estimates, an outflow that expels a certain

1374: amount of the preshock accreting matter is possible, over a rather

1375: broad range of radii in the vicinity of the central object;

1376: %

1377: %{\sl \{ In this estimate certain degrees of outflows could be

1378: %possible over a wide range of radius not too far from the central

1379: %engine\} }

1380: %

1381: up to nearly 10\% of matter may participate in producing seed

1382: particles for jets/winds within $\sim 20 - 40$ gravitational radii

1383: around a non-rotating black hole, while as much as 50\% of preshock

1384: matter could contribute to forming jets/winds within $\sim 2 - 30$

1385: gravitational radii around a rapidly-rotating black hole. More

1386: interestingly, our solutions also allow for dissipative shocks ($f_E

1387: \ne 0$) with negligible mass loss ($f_{\dot{M}} \sim 0$). Such

1388: solutions that involve the loss of infinitesimal mass and finite

1389: amount of energy can lead to relativistic outflows from the

1390: corresponding shocks.

1391: %

1392: %{\sl \{ lost and These solutions correspond to a case where all the

1393: %liberated energy is transferred to a small population of nonthermal

1394: %particles \} }.

1395: %

1396: Perhaps, outflows via this type of shocks may produce kinematically

1397: strong jets (with high Lorentz factor) rather than moderate velocity

1398: winds. Thus, shock-driven outflows may provide clues on the origin

1399: of the jets/winds from the inner accretion regions, for instance, in

1400: some active galaxies, e.g., M87 and 3C120.

1401: 

1402: %\hspace{10in}

1403: 

1404: In this simple model, shocks in principle could drive axisymmetric

1405: outflowing matter.

1406: %

1407: Near the base of the outflow, as illustrated in

1408: Figure~\ref{fig:schematic}, its shape would be that of a hollow

1409: cone. However, as it propagates to longer distances we do not expect

1410: that this shape would be preserved all the way.

1411: %

1412: %Because we treat the thickness of a shock as infinitesimally small

1413: %(i.e. mathematical discontinuity), it is difficult to discuss the

1414: %actual (particle) acceleration mechanisms at a shock front,

1415: %necessary for constraining the geometry of the outflow.

1416: %

1417: Within the framework of our current scenario it can be speculated

1418: that the most of the outflows discussed here could be in a diffuse

1419: form, while some strong outflows with low $f_{\dot{M}}$ and high

1420: $f_E$ might possess a relatively more collimated geometry (perhaps

1421: in the poloidal direction) due to its high Lorentz factor. In the

1422: presence of large-scale magnetic fields the dissipated plasma would

1423: stream along the field lines, producing collimated outflows.

1424: However, it is beyond the scope of our model to further discuss the

1425: exact geometry of the outflows.

1426: 

1427: %When efficient shock acceleration is in operation at a shock front,

1428: %the estimated velocity $\bar{u}^r$ above could be much larger. In

1429: %that case, the kinetic energy of the outflows would easily exceed

1430: %the threshold value in the present estimate. Thus our estimate here

1431: %may put a tighter constraint on the allowed shock-related quantities

1432: %presented in Figures~\ref{fig:rsh-a0}-\ref{fig:E-a099}.

1433: 

1434: 

1435: It should be noted that for a given $\lambda$ there exists the

1436: degeneracy of shock-outflow solutions: i.e., for a single value of

1437: angular momentum $\lambda$ there is a finite range of possible shock

1438: locations allowed ($r^{\rm min}_{\rm sh} < r_{\rm sh} < r_{\rm

1439: sh}^{\rm max}$) that corresponds respectively to outflows with

1440: $f_{\dot{M}}^{\rm min} \le f_{\dot{M}} \le f_{\dot{M}}^{\rm max}$

1441: where the indices ``min" and ``max" denote minimum and maximum

1442: values, respectively. In the context of our model, one can predict

1443: the shock location $r_{\rm sh}$ by the (observational) knowledge of

1444: $(\lambda, E_1, f_{\dot{M}})$, although the obtained parameter space

1445: can be altered by additional physical ingredients (e.g., viscosity,

1446: magnetic fields, for instance).

1447: 

1448: 

1449: Another issue to be addressed is the fact that in general critical

1450: points are not necessarily equivalent to sonic points depending on

1451: the flow geometry and equation of state used

1452: \citep[e.g.,][]{Das07b}. That is, there could be a potential danger

1453: that a false shock could occur in subsonic region between a critical

1454: radius and an actual sonic radius, in which case the obtained shock

1455: would be unphysical. To ensure that a physically valid shock forms

1456: in supersonic regions, we have checked the validity of our shock

1457: solutions by computing a three-velocity component of the flow

1458: measured by a suitable local observer at the shock location. We

1459: calculated the (radial) flow velocity $v^r$ measured by a locally

1460: stationary observer in the corotating reference frame

1461: \citep[e.g.,][]{Lu86, Lu98}

1462: \begin{eqnarray}

1463: v^r \equiv \frac{u_r u^r}{1+u_r u^r} \ , \label{eq:vr}

1464: \end{eqnarray}

1465: and compared this velocity to the local sound velocity $c_s$ given

1466: by equation~(\ref{eq:sound}). All the shock solutions presented here

1467: are found to form in supersonic regions (i.e., $|v^r| > c_s$ at

1468: $r=r_{\rm sh}$).

1469: 

1470: 

1471: 

1472: We showed that low energy flows can still produce mass outflows with

1473: suitable angular momenta. Although continuous accreting solutions

1474: (i.e. shock-free solutions) are persistently present even for

1475: smaller energy $E_1$ (as expected), we do not find shocked flow

1476: solutions (or perhaps they are present but in much narrower

1477: parameter space). It can be speculated that maybe by prohibiting our

1478: jump condition in energy (energy dissipation at a shock front) we

1479: may obtain shock-driven outflows for smaller flow energy $E_1$,

1480: which could be a case similar to \citet{Das99} where they considered

1481: little energy loss and found mass outflows in pseudo-Newtonian

1482: geometry. However, powerful outflows should carry away a significant

1483: amount of (kinetic) energy. Hence, outflow solutions should in

1484: principle be coupled to energy dissipation as treated here.

1485: 

1486: 

1487: We have explored a coupling between shock solutions in accretion and

1488: mass/energy losses (fractions) under a scenario that the

1489: shock-driven outflowing particles may participate in forming a base

1490: of jets/winds. For various flow parameters with a given black hole

1491: spin, we have shown, by steady-state, axisymmetric hydrodynamic

1492: calculations, that the dissipative shock front could be a plausible

1493: site where a fraction of the accreting matter can be decoupled as

1494: jets/winds from the bulk accretion flows.

1495: 

1496: 

1497: 

1498: \acknowledgments

1499: 

1500: K.F. thanks John Cannizzo for his useful comments. We are also

1501: grateful to the anonymous referee for several useful suggestions and

1502: comments that clarified the manuscript. This research was supported

1503: in part by an appointment to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the

1504: Goddard Space Flight Center, administered by Oak Ridge Associated

1505: Universities through a contract with NASA.

1506: 

1507: 

1508: 

1509: %\clearpage

1510: 

1511: 

1512: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1513: %\bibitem[Becker et al.(2001)]{Becker01} Becker, P. A., \& Subramanian, P., \& Kazanas,

1514: %D. 2001, \apj, 552, 209

1515: \bibitem[Begelman et al.(1984)]{BBR84} Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., \& Rees, M. J. 1984, Rev. Mod.

1516: Phys., 56, 255

1517: \bibitem[Blandford \& Begelman(1999)]{BB99} Blandford, R. D., \& Begelman, M. C. 1999, \mnras, 303,

1518: L1

1519: %\bibitem[Blandford \& Ostriker(1978)]{Blandford78} Blandford, R. D., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1978,

1520: %\apj, 221, L29

1521: \bibitem[Blandford \& Payne(1982)]{BP82} Blandford, R. D., \& Payne, D. G. 1982, \mnras, 199,

1522: 883

1523: \bibitem[Chakrabarti(1990)]{Cha90} Chakrabarti, S. K. 1990, Theory of Transonic Astrophysical Flows (World Scientific,

1524: Singapore)

1525: \bibitem[Chakrabarti(1996)]{Cha96} Chakrabarti, S. K. 1996, \mnras, 283, 325

1526: \bibitem[Chakrabarti(1999)]{Cha99} Chakrabarti, S. K. 1999, \mnras, 351, 185

1527: \bibitem[Chakrabarti \& Das(2004)]{Cha04} Chakrabarti, S. K., \& Das, S. 2004, \mnras, 349, 649

1528: 

1529: \bibitem[Contopoulos \& Lovelace(1994)]{Contopoulos94} Contopoulos, J., \& Lovelace, R. V. E. 1994, \apj, 429,

1530: 139

1531: \bibitem[Contopoulos \& Kazanas(1995)]{Contopoulos95} Contopoulos, J., \& Kazanas, D. 1995, \apj, 441, 521

1532: \bibitem[Das \& Chakrabarti(1999)]{Das99} Das, T. K., \& Chakrabarti, S. K. 1999, Classical

1533: Quantum Gravity, 16, 3879

1534: \bibitem[Das(2000)]{Das00} Das, T. K. 2000, \mnras, 318, 294

1535: \bibitem[Das \& Chakrabarti(2007)]{Das07} Das, T. K., \& Chakrabarti, S. K. 2007, \mnras, 374,

1536: 729

1537: \bibitem[Das(2007)]{Das07b} Das, T. K. 2007 (astro-ph/0704.3618)

1538: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2004)]{Fender04} Fender, R. P., Belloni, T. M., \& Gallo, E.

1539: 2004 , \mnras, 355, 1105

1540: \bibitem[Fukumura \& Tsuruta(2004)]{FT04} Fukumura, K., \& Tsuruta, S. 2004, \apj, 611, 964

1541: \bibitem[Fukumura et al.(2007)]{Fukumura07} Fukumura, K., Takahashi, M., \& Tsuruta, S. 2007,

1542: \apj, 657, 415

1543: \bibitem[Junor et al.(1999)]{Junor99} Junor, W., Biretta, J. A., \& Livio, M. 1999, Nature, 401, 891

1544: \bibitem[Kataoka et al.(2007)]{Kataoka07} Kataoka et al., 2007, (astro-ph/0612754)

1545: \bibitem[Protheroe \& Kazanas(1983)]{Kazanas83} Protheroe, R. J., \& Kazanas, D. 1983, \apj, 265,

1546: 620

1547: \bibitem[Kazanas \& Ellison(1986)]{Kazanas86} Kazanas, D., \& Ellison, D. C. 1986, \apj, 304, 178

1548: \bibitem[Koide et al.(1999)]{Koide99} Koide, S., Shibata, K., \& Kudoh, T. 1999, \apj, 522,

1549: 727

1550: \bibitem[K\"{o}nigl \& Kartje(1994)]{Konigl94} K\"{o}nigl, A., \& Kartje, J. F. 1994, \apj, 434, 446

1551: \bibitem[Le \& Becker(2004)]{Becker04} Le, T., \& Becker, P. A. 2004, \apj, 617,

1552: L25

1553: \bibitem[Le \& Becker(2005)]{Becker05} Le, T., \& Becker, P. A. 2005, \apj, 632, 476

1554: \bibitem[Livio(1999)]{Livio99} Livio, M. 1999, Phys. Rep., 311, 225

1555: \bibitem[Lu et al.(1997)]{Lu97} Lu, J.-F., Yu, K. N., Yuan, F., \&

1556: Young, E. C. M. 1997, \aap, 321, 665

1557: \bibitem[Lu(1986)]{Lu86} Lu, J.-F. 1986, General Relativity and Gravitation,

1558: 18,?

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[Lu \& Yuan(1998)]{Lu98} Lu, J.-F., \& Yuan, F. 1998, \mnras, 295, 66

1561: \bibitem[Lu et al.(1999)]{Lu99} Lu, J.-F., Gu, W.-M., \& Yuan, F. 1999, \apj, 523, 340

1562: \bibitem[Mirabel et al.(1999)]{Mirabel99} Mirabel, I. F., \& Rodriguez, L. F. 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 409

1563: \bibitem[Manmoto et al.(1997)]{Manmoto97} Manmoto, T., Mineshige, S., \& Kusunose, M.

1564: 1997, \apj, 476, 49

1565: \bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1994)]{Narayan94} Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1994, \apj, 428, L13

1566: \bibitem[Nishikawa et al.(2005)]{Nishikawa05} Nishikawa, K.-I., Richardson, G., Koide, S.,

1567: S hibata, K., Kudoh, T., Hardee, P., \& Fishman, G. J. 2005, \apj,

1568: 625, 60

1569: 

1570: \bibitem[Pelletier \& Pudritz(1992)]{Pelletier92} Pelletier, G., \& Pudritz, R. E. 1992, \apj, 394, 117

1571: 

1572: \bibitem[Subramanian et al.(1999)]{Subramanian99} Subramanian, P., Becker, P. A., \& Kazanas, D. 1999,

1573: \apj, 523, 203

1574: \bibitem[Sponholz \& Molteni(1994)]{Sponholz94} Sponholz, H., \& Molteni, D.

1575: 1994, \mnras, 271, 233

1576: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(2002)]{Takahashi02} Takahashi, M., Rilett, D., Fukumura, K., \& Tsuruta, S. 2002, \apj, 572,

1577: 950

1578: \bibitem[Vlahakis et al.(2000)]{Vlahakis00} Vlahakis, N., Tsinganos, K., Sauty, C., \& Trussoni, E.

1579: 2000, \mnras, 318, 417

1580: \bibitem[Yang \& Kafatos(1995)]{Yang95} Yang, R., \& Kafatos, M. 1995, \aap, 295, 238

1581: \end{thebibliography}

1582: 

1583: 

1584: 

1585: 

1586: 

1587: \end{document}

1588: