1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ}
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{Diffusive Shock Acceleration with Non-Resonant Streaming Instability}
58: \shortauthors{V.N. Zirakashvili, and V.S.Ptuskin}
59:
60: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
61: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{Diffusive Shock Acceleration with Magnetic
70: Amplification by Non-resonant Streaming Instability in SNRs}
71:
72: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
73: %% author and affiliation information.
74: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
75: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
76: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
77: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
78:
79: \author{V.N.Zirakashvili}
80: \affil{Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and
81: Radiowave Propagation, 142190, Troitsk, Moscow Region, Russia}
82: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r\ Kernphysik, Postfach 103980,
83: 69029 Heidelberg, Germany}
84: %\email{zirak@mpimail.mpi-hd.mpg.de}
85: \and
86: \author{V.S.Ptuskin}
87: \affil{Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and
88: Radiowave Propagation, 142190, Troitsk, Moscow Region, Russia}
89:
90: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
91: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
92: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
93: %% affiliation.
94:
95: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
96: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
97: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
98: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
99: %% editorial office after submission.
100:
101: \begin{abstract}
102: We investigate the diffusive shock acceleration in the presence of
103: the non-resonant streaming instability introduced by Bell
104: \cite{bell04}. The numerical MHD simulations of the magnetic field
105: amplification combined with the analytical treatment of cosmic
106: ray acceleration permit us to calculate the maximum energy of
107: particles accelerated by high-velocity supernova shocks.
108: The estimates for Cas A, Kepler, SN1006, and Tycho historical
109: supernova remnants are given. We also found
110: that the amplified magnetic
111: field is preferentially oriented perpendicular to the shock
112: front downstream of the fast shock. This explains the origin of
113: the radial magnetic fields observed in young supernova remnants.
114: \end{abstract}
115:
116: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
117: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
118: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
119: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
120:
121: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
122: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
123: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
124: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
125: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
126: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
127: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
128: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
129: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
130: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
131: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
132: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
133:
134: \keywords{cosmic rays--
135: acceleration of particles--shock waves--supernova remnants--
136: instabilities}
137:
138: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
139: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
140: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
141: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
142: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
143: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
144: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
145: %% each reference.
146:
147: \section{Introduction}
148:
149: The instabilities produced by energetic particles are important
150: phenomena accompanying
151: the diffusive shock acceleration (Krymsky \cite{krymsky77}; Axford
152: et al. \cite{axford77}; Bell \cite{bell78}; Blandford and Ostriker
153: \cite{blandford78}) of cosmic rays in supernova remnants (SNRs). The
154: scattering of energetic particles both upstream and downstream of a supernova
155: shock is supplied by magnetic inhomogeneities existing
156: in the shock vicinity.
157: It was suggested
158: that this may be the result of a resonant streaming instability
159: that develops due to the presence of diffusive streaming of
160: accelerated particles (Bell \cite{bell78}). The total magnetic field
161: may be amplified if the energy of
162: unstable magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves becomes comparable with
163: the energy of the background magnetic field.
164:
165: Such an amplification seems quite possible because
166: quasilinear theory
167: of the resonant streaming instability allows it (see e.g.
168: McKenzie \& V\"olk \cite{mckenzie82}).
169:
170: The presence of amplified magnetic fields in young SNRs is
171: well established now. It was indicated by the
172: radio observations of SNRs and was attributed to the Rayleigh-Taylor
173: instability of the contact discontinuity between the gas
174: of supernova ejecta compressed at the
175: reverse shock and the circumstellar gas compressed at the
176: forward shock (Gull \cite{gull75}). The radial magnetic fields
177: inferred from measurements of the radio-polarization in young
178: shell type SNRs (see e.g. Milne \cite{milne87}) may appear as this
179: instability develops.
180:
181: However, the
182: discovery of thin X-ray filaments coinciding with the position of
183: the forward shock in young galactic SNRs (Gotthelf et
184: al. \cite{gotthelf01}, Hwang et al. \cite{hwang02}, Vink \&
185: Laming \cite{vink03}, Long et al. \cite{long03},
186: Bamba et al. \cite{bamba03}, Bamba et al.
187: \cite{bamba05}) has led to the conclusion that the magnetic field is
188: amplified just at the forward shock. This conclusion does not
189: depend on the nature of the mechanism which produces such filaments: the fast
190: synchrotron cooling of electrons accelerated at the forward shock
191: (see e.g. the analysis by Berezhko et al. \cite{berezhko02}), or
192: the dissipation of the MHD
193: turbulence and the corresponding decrease of the magnetic field, as was
194: suggested by Pohl et al. \cite{pohl05}.
195:
196: Recently Bell \cite{bell04}, using the dispersion relation for collisionless MHD waves derived
197: by Achterberg
198: \cite{achterberg83}, found a new regime of a non-resonant streaming
199: instability. In the presence of the strong electric current of accelerated particles
200: a non-oscillatory purely growing MHD mode appears at spatial
201: scales smaller than the
202: gyroradius of the particles. Bell \cite {bell04} performed MHD simulations and showed that
203: the magnetic field may be strongly amplified.
204:
205: This instability is investigated in more detail in our companion paper
206: (Zirakashvili et al. \cite{zirakashvili08}, Paper I) via numerical
207: MHD simulations.
208: Here we combine these simulations with the analytical treatment of
209: diffusive acceleration
210: at a plane steady-state shock.
211: It allows us to estimate the maximum energy of the accelerated particles and to
212: obtain the value of the amplified magnetic field.
213:
214: The paper is organized as follows. The analytical model of diffusive
215: acceleration at the plane shock is considered in Sect.2. The
216: MHD simulations are described in
217: Sect.3 and 4. The maximum energies of accelerated particles are estimated
218: in Sect.5. Sect. 6 contains the discussion of obtained results.
219: The summary is given in the last Sect.7.
220:
221: \section{Acceleration at the plane parallel shock}
222:
223: We shall consider the generation of MHD turbulence and the particle acceleration
224: in a simple one-dimensional case and assume a steady state in the reference frame
225: of the shock. The applications of our results to real three-dimensional
226: shocks are considered in the next Sections.
227:
228: The upstream plasma moves
229: with a velocity $u=u_1$ from $-\infty $ along the $z$ axis.
230: The plasma velocity downstream $u=u_2=u_1/\sigma $ drops by a factor of
231: $\sigma $ at the shock front located at $z=0$.
232: Here $\sigma $ is the shock compression ratio.
233: We shall consider a parallel shock; therefore
234: the mean magnetic field ${\bf B}_0$ is in $z$ direction.
235:
236: We shall also neglect the effects of the mean electric field
237: ${\bf E}_0$ directed along the mean magnetic field.
238: The electric field modifies the cosmic ray transport equation
239: (see Paper I). The isotropic part of the cosmic ray momentum distribution
240: $N(p,z)$ obeys the following cosmic ray transport equation
241: upstream and downstream of the shock:
242:
243: \begin{equation}
244: \frac \partial {\partial z}D_{\parallel }\frac {\partial N}{\partial z}-
245: u\frac {\partial N}{\partial z}=0 .
246: \end{equation}
247: Here $D_{\parallel }$ is the parallel diffusion coefficient of the
248: energetic particles.
249: The cosmic ray distribution $N(p)$ is normalized as $n_{cr}=\int 4\pi p^2N(p)$,
250: where $n_{cr}$ is the cosmic ray number density.
251:
252:
253: The function $N$ is continuous at the shock. The boundary condition of the cosmic
254: ray flux conservation
255: at the shock front, $z=0$, can be written as
256: \begin{equation}
257: u_1\frac p{\gamma _s}\frac {\partial N_0}{\partial p}= \left.
258: D_2\frac {\partial N}{\partial z}\right| _{z=+0}- \left. D_1\frac
259: {\partial N}{\partial z}\right| _{z=-0} \ ,
260: \end{equation}
261: where $\gamma _s=3\sigma /(\sigma -1)$, $N_0(p)$
262: is the distribution function at the shock, $D_1$ and $D_2$
263: are the parallel diffusion coefficients upstream and downstream of the
264: shock, respectively.
265:
266: We impose an additional boundary condition $N=0$ at $z=-L$. This qualitatively
267: describes the escape of the highest energy particles from
268: a SNR with the distance $L$
269: being of the order of the supernova shock radius $R$.
270:
271: The solution of Eq. (1) in the upstream region $z<0$ may be written as
272:
273: \begin{equation}
274: N(z,p)=N_0(p)\frac {1-\exp \int \limits ^z_{-L}u_1dz_1/D_1(z_1,p)}
275: {1-\exp \int \limits ^0_{-L}u_1dz_1/D_1(z_1,p)} .
276: \end{equation}
277:
278: \begin{figure}[t]
279: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f1.eps}
280: \caption{The momentum distribution $N_0(p)$ at the shock
281: (solid line) and the cosmic ray flux $J(p)$ (dashed line) at
282: the absorbing boundary at $z=-L$. The shock compression ratio is
283: $\sigma =4$. }
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: In the downstream region $z>0$ the solution is simply $N=N_0$. The
287: boundary condition (2) gives the ordinary differential equation for $N_0(p)$:
288:
289:
290: \begin{equation}
291: p\frac {\partial N_0(p)}{\partial p}=-\frac {\gamma _sN_0(p)}
292: {1-\exp \left( -\int \limits ^0_{-L}u_1dz/D_1(z,p)\right) } .
293: \end{equation}
294:
295: Since the non-resonant instability produces a random magnetic field with
296: scales smaller than the gyroradius of the particles, the small-scale approximation
297: of Dolginov and Toptygin \cite{dolginov67}
298: can be used for the calculation of the scattering
299: frequency $\nu $ which determines the diffusion coefficient,
300: see Paper I.
301: The corresponding mean free path $\Lambda =v/\nu $
302: is proportional to the square of the particle momentum.
303:
304: If particles are scattered by the small-scale isotropic field, the
305: scattering frequency does not depend on the pitch-angle $\theta $
306: and the diffusion coefficient along the mean magnetic field is
307: $D_\parallel =v^2/3\nu $. The scattering frequency $\nu =\frac
308: \pi 4\frac {q^2v}{p^2c^2}\int d^3k B_{\mathrm{isotr}}(k)/k$ (cf.
309: Paper I) is determined by the spectrum of the isotropic random
310: magnetic field $B_{\mathrm{isotr}}(k)$. It is normalized as
311: $\left< \delta B^2\right> =\int B_{\mathrm{isotr}}(k)d^3k$, where
312: $\left< \delta B^2\right> $ is the mean square of the random
313: magnetic field.
314:
315: The scattering frequency depends on
316: the pitch-angle $\theta $ in a more general case when the
317: random field is statistically isotropic in the plane that is
318: perpendicular to the mean field direction (see Appendix A).
319: Let us introduce the momentum
320: $p_m$ defined as:
321: \begin{equation}
322: p^2_m=\frac {3\pi }2\frac {q^2u_1}{c^3}\int \limits
323: ^0_{-L}dzb(z) ,
324: \end{equation}
325: where the function $b(z)$ is given by the expression
326: \begin{equation}
327: b(z)=\left[ \int \limits ^{\pi /2}_0\frac {(3/8)\sin ^3\theta d\theta }
328: {\int d^3kB_{yy}({\bf k},z)\delta (k_z\cos \theta +k_x\sin \theta )}
329: \right] ^{-1} .
330: \end{equation}
331: Here $B_{yy}({\bf k})$ is the spectrum of the $y$-component of the random
332: magnetic field.
333: For the isotropic random field this function is $b=\int
334: d^3kB_{\mathrm{isotr}}(k)/(2k)$. The solution of Eq.(4) can then
335: be written as
336: $N_0(p)\propto p^{-\gamma _s} n_0(p/p_m)$ where the function
337: $n_0(s)$ with the argument $s=p/p_m$ describes the shape of the spectrum in the cut-off region:
338:
339: \begin{equation}
340: n_0(s)=\exp \left( -\gamma _s\int \limits ^s_0\frac {ds_1/s_1}{\exp (s_1^{-2})-1}\right) .
341: \end{equation}
342:
343: %We shall consider further the shock with compression ratio $\sigma =4$ and $\gamma _s=4$.
344: It is convenient to write down the distribution $N_0(p)$ in terms of the
345: cosmic ray energy flux $F_E$ at the absorbing
346: boundary at $z=-L$. This is the energy flux of the
347: highest-energy particles escaping from a SNR (the so-called run-away particles).
348: %This normalization is useful, since it is
349: %important to describe the highest energy part of the spectrum accurately.
350: It may contain an essential part
351: $\eta _{esc}=2F_E/\rho u^3_1$ of the kinetic energy flux $\rho
352: u^3_1/2$, in particular when the acceleration is efficient and
353: the shock structure is modified by the pressure of accelerated
354: particles. Here $\rho $ is the plasma density.
355:
356: The momentum distribution at the shock front can then be written as
357:
358: \begin{equation}
359: N_0(p)=\frac {\eta _{esc} \rho u_1^2}{8\pi cp^{\gamma _s}
360: p^{4-\gamma _s}_mI}n_0(p/p_m) .
361: \end{equation}
362: Here $I=\int ^\infty _0dss^{3-\gamma _s}n_0(s)(\exp
363: s^{-2}-1)^{-1}$. The function $N_0(p)$ and the flux of run-away
364: particles at the absorbing boundary $J(p)=u_1N_0(p)/(\exp
365: (p^2_m/p^2)-1)$ are shown in Fig.1.
366:
367: We use such a normalization of the spectrum of accelerated particles mainly
368: because the parameter $\eta _{esc}$ is directly related to the number density
369: of accelerated particles in the cut-off region. The electric current of
370: these particles drives the non-resonant instability (see below). It is possible to
371: use other parameters instead of $\eta _{esc}$, e.g. an injection efficiency of
372: the thermal ions at the shock front, but since its relation with the high-energy
373: end of the
374: spectrum is not so straightforward, we prefer to use $\eta _{esc}$.
375:
376: In addition we have a physical reason to use this normalization.
377: Since generally the shock propagates in the medium with a very large
378: diffusion coefficient (e.g. it is higher than $10^{28}$
379: cm$^2$s$^{-1}$ in the interstellar medium, cf. Berezinskii et al.
380: \cite{berezinsky90}), the accelerated particles are effectively
381: scattered only near the shock front where the level of
382: the self-excited MHD turbulence is high. The accelerated particles
383: with the maximum energies run away from this region to the outer
384: space. Thus the acceleration at the plain shock with the absorbing
385: boundary considered in this paper simulates the real situation
386: when the acceleration by the three-dimensional supernova shock is
387: considered.
388:
389: The possible effect of the shock modification by the cosmic
390: ray pressure was not taken into account in Eq.(4).
391: The modification may strongly change the spectrum of
392: particles and make it concave at low energies (see e.g. Malkov \& Drury \cite{malkov01} for
393: a review). However, even in this case the
394: cut-off of the spectrum is described accurately by Eq. (7).
395: The total shock transition that
396: includes the precursor created by the pressure of accelerated particles and
397: the thermal sub-shock may be considered as a sharp
398: discontinuity for the cosmic ray particles with the highest energies.
399:
400: The calculation of the diffusive electric current of accelerated
401: particles with the use of Eq. (8) gives
402: \begin{equation}
403: j_d(z)=\frac {\eta _{esc} \rho u_1^3q}{2cp_mI} \int \limits ^\infty
404: _0dss^{2-\gamma _s} \frac {\exp \left( \frac
405: {a(z)}{s^2a(0)}\right) }{\exp (s^{-2})-1}n_0(s) ,
406: \end{equation}
407: where $a(z)=\int \limits ^z_{-L}dz_1b(z_1)$.
408:
409: We shall use the values $\gamma _s=4$ and $I=1/4$ below. This
410: corresponds to an unmodified strong shock. However, the accepted
411: value of $\gamma _s$
412: does not strongly differ from $\gamma _s\sim 3.7-3.8$, typical for
413: the moderately modified shocks.
414:
415: \begin{figure}[t]
416: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f2.eps}
417: \caption{The dependence of the normalized maximum momentum $p'_m$
418: on the normalized shock velocity $u'_1$. The results were obtained
419: using the resolution $64^3$ (crosses), $128^3$ (open circles) and
420: $256^3$ (stars). The analytical approximation and the upper limit
421: according to Eq. (19) are shown by the solid and dashed lines,
422: respectively. }
423: \end{figure}
424:
425: \section{Modeling of the non-resonant instability with diffusive shock acceleration}
426:
427: We can now model the magnetic field amplification in the vicinity of
428: the shock which accelerates particles. We shall seek the steady state
429: solution for the spectrum of accelerated particles and the time-averaged
430: MHD spectra.
431:
432: Since the shock velocity is much higher than the phase velocities
433: of MHD waves and the turbulent velocities of the plasma upstream of
434: the shock, we can model the dependence of the MHD spectra on the
435: distance from the shock front via the investigation of the temporal
436: evolution of the instability in the simulation box moving with the
437: gas flow in the
438: direction of the shock front. This strongly reduces the size of
439: the simulation box in the $z$-direction and permits to obtain the
440: numerical results with a good numerical resolution.
441: The computation time is also
442: significantly reduced.
443:
444: We shall assume that the shock propagates in a medium with the density
445: $\rho _0$, the gas pressure $P_0$ and the Alfv\'en velocity $V_a=B_0/\sqrt{4\pi \rho _0}$.
446:
447: The details of the numerical method were given in Paper I.
448:
449: The dimensionless time $\tilde{t}$, the space coordinate $\tilde{z}$ and
450: the velocity $\tilde{u}$ are determined as $\tilde{t}=tV_ak_0$,
451: $\tilde{z}=k_0z$, $\tilde{u}=u/V_a$. Here $k_0$ is the wavenumber
452: that corresponds to the real size $2\pi /k_0$ of the box. The
453: dimensionless density $\tilde{\rho }$ and the electric current $J$ can
454: be expressed via the magnetic field $B_0$ and the Alfv\'en velocity $V_a$ as
455: $\tilde{\rho }=4\pi \rho V_a^2/B_0^2$ and $J=4\pi j/ck_0B_0$.
456:
457: The real size of the simulation box is small in comparison with
458: the characteristic scale of the spatial distribution of the
459: accelerated particles upstream of the shock. At $\tilde{t}=0$ the
460: box is placed at $z=-L$, where the initial background random
461: magnetic field corresponding to the isotropically distributed
462: Alfv\'en waves with the one dimensional spectrum $\propto k^{-1}$
463: and the amplitude $\left< \delta B^2\right> ^{1/2}=0.09B_0$ is
464: preset. We use the gas adiabatic index $\gamma =5/3$ and the
465: parameter $\beta =1$. Here $\beta = 4\pi P_0/B_0^2$.
466:
467: The box moves with the mean flow speed $u_1$ towards the shock.
468: The MHD equations which include the Lorentz force produced by the
469: electric current of accelerated particles are solved numerically
470: in the three dimensions (see Paper I for detail).
471:
472: Let us fix the momentum $p_m$. At every
473: instant of time the diffusive electric current of accelerated particles,
474: that drives
475: the instability, is calculated according to Eq. (9). It may be
476: rewritten in dimensionless units as
477:
478: \begin{equation}
479: J(\tilde{t})=J_0 \int \limits ^\infty _0\frac {ds}{s^2} \frac
480: {\exp \left( gs^{-2}\int
481: ^{\tilde{t}}_0d\tilde{t}'b(\tilde{t}')\right) } {\exp
482: (s^{-2})-1}n_0(s) .
483: \end{equation}
484: Here $g$ is some arbitrary dimensionless constant. We change the
485: integration over $dz_1$ in Eq. (9) to the integration over time
486: $dt'=dz_1/u_1$ in Eq. (10). The dimensionless current $J_0$ can then be
487: written in terms of the physical parameters as
488:
489: \begin{equation}
490: J_0=\frac {2\eta _{esc} u_1^2}{V_a^2}\left( \frac {2gV_a}{3\pi
491: c}\right) ^{1/2}.
492: \end{equation}
493:
494: The simulation is performed up to the point in the dimensionless time
495: $\tilde{t}_m$ at which the value of the integral $\int
496: ^{\tilde{t}}_0d\tilde{t}'b(\tilde{t}')$ reaches $g^{-1}$. This
497: corresponds to the box arrival to the position of the shock.
498: It means that we have found
499: the size $L$ for
500: the given maximum momentum $p_m$. Or,
501: inversely, the momentum $p_m$ can be found from Eq. (5):
502:
503: \begin{equation}
504: \frac {p_m}{mc}=\tilde{t}_m^{-1}\left( \frac {3\pi
505: V_a}{2gc}\right) ^{1/2} \frac {qB_0L}{mc^2}.
506: \end{equation}
507:
508: Several runs were performed to scan the broad range of physical
509: parameters. We used the value $J_0=64$ and several values of $g>1$ and
510: $J_0=64g^{-1}$ for $g<1$. This choice limits the characteristic
511: wavenumber of the generated magnetic field to the value about 4
512: and therefore the characteristic scale of magnetic field is
513: smaller than the size of the box.
514:
515: \begin{figure}[t]
516: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f3.eps}
517: \caption{Dependence of the physical quantities on $z$. {\it Top}:
518: random magnetic field (solid line), turbulent velocity (dashed
519: line) and sonic velocity (dotted line). {\it Bottom}: momentum
520: distribution $N(p_m)$ (solid line), diffusive electric current $J$
521: (dashed line), scattering frequency $\nu (p_m)$ normalized to the
522: gyrofrequency $\Omega (p_m)=qB_0/p_m$ (dotted line) and the mean
523: electric field $E_0$ (thick solid line). The calculations were
524: performed for the normalized shock speed $u'_1=4900$ km s$^{-1}$.
525: }
526: \end{figure}
527: \begin{figure}[t]
528: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f4.eps}
529: \caption{The one-dimensional spectra of the perpendicular component of
530: the random magnetic field $B_\perp (k_z)$ (solid
531: line), turbulent velocity $U_\perp (k_z)$ (dashed line) and magnetic
532: helicity $H(k_z)$ (dotted line) at the shock front. The calculations
533: were performed for the normalized shock speed $u'_1=4900$ km
534: s$^{-1}$. All spectra are normalized to the mean square of the
535: perpendicular component of the random magnetic field. }
536: \end{figure}
537: \begin{figure}[t]
538: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f5.eps}
539: \caption{PDF of the magnetic field $P_B(B)$ (thin solid line),
540: turbulent velocity $P_U(u)$ (thin dashed line) and density
541: $P_{\rho }(\rho )$ (thin dotted line) at the shock front.
542: The numerical calculations were
543: performed for the normalized shock speed $u'_1=4900$ km s$^{-1}$.
544: }
545: \end{figure}
546:
547: It is convenient to present the numerical results in terms of
548: the normalized shock velocity $u'_1$ defined as
549:
550: \begin{equation}
551: u'_1=u_1\ \left( \frac {V_a}{\mbox{10 km s}^{-1}}\right) ^{-3/4}
552: \left( \frac {\eta _{esc}}{0.05}\right) ^{1/2}
553: \end{equation}
554: and the normalized maximum momentum $p'_m$, given by
555:
556: \begin{equation}
557: p'_m=p_m\ \left( \frac {V_a}{\mbox{10 km s}^{-1}}\right) ^{-1/2}
558: \left( \frac {L}{\mbox{1 pc}}\right) ^{-1} \left( \frac {B_0}{5\mu
559: \mbox{G}}\right) ^{-1}.
560: \end{equation}
561:
562: We normalize the shock velocity and maximum momentum using the
563: parameter value
564: $\eta _{esc}=0.05$. This value corresponds in particular to
565: the case when the energetic spectrum of CR particles at the shock front
566: is a power-law with the exponent $\gamma _s-2= 2$ and
567: the total CR pressure equals $0.5\rho _0u^2_1$.
568: The dependence of the normalized maximum momentum $p'_m$ on the
569: shock velocity $u'_1$ is shown in Fig.2.
570:
571: %\clearpage
572:
573: \begin{table*}[t]
574: \begin{center}
575: \caption{Results of the modeling of the non-resonant instability
576: with diffusive shock acceleration }
577: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
578: %\tableline\tableline
579: \tableline
580: %Star & Height & $d_{x}$ & $d_{y}$ & $n$ & $\chi^2$ & $R_{maj}$ & $R_{min}$ &
581: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$\tablenotemark{a}} & $P R_{maj}$ & $P R_{min}$ &
582: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Theta$\tablenotemark{b}} \\
583: %\tableline
584: $u_1',\ 10^3\ \mathrm{km/s}\tablenotemark{a}$& 1.55 & 2.76& 4.90& 8.25& 13.9& 23.3& 39.2\\
585: $p_m',\ \mathrm{TeV}/c \tablenotemark{b}$& 9.46 & 22.7& 56.4& 120 & 227 & 443 & 854 \\
586: $\left< \delta B^2\right> ^{1/2}/B_0 \tablenotemark{c}$& 1.36 & 4.68& 12.6& 24.2& 44.8& 87.3& 187 \\
587: $r_b \tablenotemark{d}$& 0.77 & 0.71& 0.77& 0.85& 0.85& 0.84& 0.82\\
588: $\left< \delta u ^2\right> ^{1/2}/V_a \tablenotemark{e}$& 5.15 & 23.6& 49.9& 94.1& 166 & 361 & 808 \\
589: $c_s/V_a \tablenotemark{f}$& 1.42 & 3.70& 11.9& 31.6& 68.4& 139 & 289 \\
590: $(V_a/10\ \mathrm{km}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1})^{1/4}(\eta
591: _{esc}/0.05)^{-1/2}\nu (p_m)/\Omega (p_m) \tablenotemark{g}$
592: & 1.44 & 2.63& 3.95& 4.96& 7.21& 12.6& 22.4\\
593: $10^2(V_a/10\ \mathrm{km}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1})^{-1}E_0/B_0
594: \tablenotemark{h}$
595: & 0.016& 0.14& 0.74& 2.86& 10.6& 43.7& 209 \\
596: $10^2(V_a/10\ \mathrm{km}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1})^{-1/2}q\phi /p_mc
597: \tablenotemark{i}$
598: & 0.348& 1.03& 2.03& 3.30& 5.00& 7.52& 11.0\\
599: $10^2D(p_m)/u_1L \tablenotemark{k}$& 9.2& 6.8& 6.3& 6.3& 4.9& 3.3& 2.1\\
600: $(V_a/10\ \mathrm{km}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1})^{-1/4}(\eta
601: _{esc}/0.05)^{1/2}k_0p_mc/qB_0 \tablenotemark{l}$
602: & 0.194& 1.09& 6.15& 14.6& 34.8& 82.7& 197 \\
603: \tableline
604: \end{tabular}
605:
606: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
607:
608: \tablenotetext{a}{Normalized shock velocity $u_1'$.}
609: \tablenotetext{b}{Normalized momentum $p_m'$ of accelerated
610: protons.} \tablenotetext{c}{Ratio of rms of the random magnetic
611: field to the mean magnetic field.} \tablenotetext{d}{ Ratio of rms
612: of the random parallel component $\left< (\delta B_z^2)\right>
613: ^{1/2}$ of the magnetic field to the corresponding perpendicular
614: component $\left< (\delta B^2_x+\delta B^2_y)/2\right> ^{1/2}$}
615: \tablenotetext{e}{Ratio of rms of the turbulent velocity to the
616: Alfv\'en velocity. } \tablenotetext{f}{Ratio of the sound velocity
617: to the Alfv\'en velocity.} \tablenotetext{g}{Ratio of the
618: scattering frequency $\nu (p_m)$ to the gyrofrequency $\Omega
619: (p_m)=qB_0/p_m$.} \tablenotetext{h}{Ratio of the mean electric
620: field to the mean magnetic field. } \tablenotetext{i}{ Ratio of
621: the potential energy of the particle $q\phi $ corresponding to the
622: electric potential $\phi $ to the energy $p_mc$. }
623: \tablenotetext{k}{Ratio of the diffusion length $D(p_m)/u_1$ and
624: $L$} \tablenotetext{l}{Product of the wavenumber $k_0$ and the
625: gyroradius $p_mc/qB_0$. The wavenumber determines the real size
626: $2\pi /k_0$ of the simulation box.} \tablecomments{All quantities
627: from the lines c-k are calculated at the shock front.}
628:
629:
630: %\tablenotetext{a}{Sample footnote for tabletilde\ref{tbl-2} that was
631: %generated with the \LaTeX\ table environment}
632: %\tablenotetext{b}{Yet another sample footnote for tabletilde\ref{tbl-2}}
633: %\tablenotetext{c}{Another sample footnote for tabletilde\ref{tbl-2}}
634: %\tablecomments{The physical quantities from the first column of
635: %the lines h-k may be obtained by the corresponding numbers in the
636: %table divided by 100. }
637: \end{center}
638: \end{table*}
639:
640: %In one run we investigated the evolution of the MHD turbulence downstream.
641: %The diffusive current was switched off.
642:
643: The spatial dependence of the random magnetic field, the turbulent
644: velocity, the sonic velocity, the momentum distribution $N(p_m)$,
645: the diffusive electric current, the scattering frequency $\nu (p_m)$
646: and the
647: mean electric field $E_0$
648: obtained for the normalized speed $u'_1=4900$ km s$^{-1}$ are shown in Fig.3.
649:
650: The spectra of the magnetic field, the plasma velocity and the magnetic
651: helicity at the shock front are shown in Fig.4.
652:
653: For physical applications it is useful
654: to know the probability distributions functions (PDFs) of different
655: physical quantities. The PDF of the random magnetic field, the turbulent velocity and the gas
656: density obtained in our simulations at the shock front are shown in Fig.5.
657:
658: As it is seen in Fig. 3 the diffusive electric current sharply increases near the shock.
659: As a result the perpendicular components of the turbulent velocity also increase
660: and the kinetic energy of the random motions just upstream of the
661: shock is an order of magnitude larger than the magnetic energy.
662:
663: It is important that the accelerated
664: particles are concentrated in the shock vicinity. This justifies
665: the use of the planar geometry even for real three-dimensional shocks.
666: The amplification of the MHD turbulence takes
667: place in the broader region where the diffusive electric current
668: of run-away particles is not small.
669:
670: On the whole our modeling corresponds to the following physical picture.
671: Let us consider a volume element at some distance from the
672: supernova. Shortly after the explosion the run-away particles
673: reach the volume and drive the streaming instability. Our numerical
674: modeling shows how the magnetic fluctuations are amplified in the
675: volume element. For simplicity we assumed that the electric
676: current was constant at all times after the explosion before the shock arrival.
677: This assumption is strictly valid for a steady state plane shock (see Fig.3) and only
678: qualitatively valid for three-dimensional shocks.
679: The dimensionless
680: time $\tilde{t}_m$ in our calculations corresponds to the supernova remnant age $T$.
681: If the shock radius $R$ increases as
682: $R\propto t^{m_0}$, where $m_0$ is the expansion parameter, then
683: $T=m_0R/u_1$ and we should use the relation $L=m_0R=u_1T$ for the
684: parameter $L$ in Eqs (12) and (14). Note, that
685: the electric current increases according to our plane shock modeling
686: when the shock comes close to
687: the volume element.
688:
689: A summary of the numerical results obtained for different normalized
690: shock velocities $u_1'$ is given in Table 1.
691:
692: \begin{figure}[t]
693: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f6.eps}
694: \caption{ Slices of the magnetic field strength (top) and
695: gas pressure (bottom) through the center of the box obtained at
696: $\tilde{t}=0.12$ in the shock transition region and downstream of
697: the shock. The scaling of the magnetic field strength is
698: logarithmic between $12.6B_0$ (black) and $126B_0$ (white). The
699: scaling of the gas pressure is also logarithmic between
700: $10^3B^2_0/4\pi $ (black) and $10^5B^2_0/4\pi $ (white). The
701: calculations were performed for a
702: shock propagating with a speed $u_1=3000$ km s$^{-1}$ in the medium with $V_a=10$ km s$^{-1}$. }
703: \end{figure}
704:
705: \section{MHD modeling in the shock transition region and downstream of the shock}
706:
707: The density fluctuations arising during the development of
708: the non-resonant instability, when the expanding magnetic
709: spirals collide each other (cf. Paper I), play a crucial role in the shock
710: transition region. It is well known, that the propagation of the
711: shock in the medium even with small density fluctuations is
712: accompanied by shock front distortions and the appearance of
713: vortex plasma motions downstream of the shock (see e.g.
714: Kontorovich \cite{kontorovich59}, McKenzie \& Westphal
715: \cite{mckenzie68}, Bykov \cite{bykov82}). These motions can
716: amplify the magnetic field downstream of the shock even in the
717: absence of accelerated particles. This effect was recently
718: observed by Giacalone \& Jokipii \cite{giacalone07} in their 2D MHD
719: numerical simulations. The results of low resolution three dimensional
720: calculations for the MHD evolution of an adiabatic supernova
721: remnant in a non-uniform and turbulent interstellar medium
722: were presented by Balsara et al. \cite{balsara01}.
723:
724: \begin{figure}
725: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f7.eps}
726: \caption{Dependence of the physical quantities on $z$ in the shock
727: transition region. {\it Top}: random $z$- and perpendicular
728: magnetic field components (normal solid and thin solid lines
729: respectively), $z$- and perpendicular components of the turbulent
730: velocity (thick and thin dashed lines respectively). {\it Bottom}:
731: sonic velocity (dotted line),
732: mean gas density (dashed line), mean gas velocity (solid line)
733: in $z$ direction . The calculations were performed for the
734: shock propagating with a speed $u_1=3000$ km s$^{-1}$ in the medium with $V_a=10$ km s$^{-1}$. }
735: \end{figure}
736:
737: We investigated this phenomenon and studied the evolution of MHD turbulence
738: in the downstream region. The simulation box with the size
739: $2\pi \times 2\pi \times 4\pi $, stretched in the $z$ direction was used.
740:
741: The gas flows with the shock velocity $u_1$ along the $z$-axis
742: into the box from its left boundary. At the initial moment of time
743: the flat shock front is located at $z=2\pi $. The plasma
744: compression and heating downstream are taken in accordance with
745: the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. During the simulation the plasma
746: magnetic field, density and pressure are prescribed at the left
747: boundary in accordance with the spatially periodic numerical
748: solution, found in the previous Section. The plasma leaves the
749: system at the right boundary, where the homogeneous boundary
750: conditions are prescribed. The periodic boundary conditions in the
751: perpendicular directions are used. We performed 3D MHD simulation
752: with $256^2\times 512$ cells using the numerical method described
753: in Sect.3. The electric current of accelerated particles was
754: switched off.
755:
756: \begin{figure}[t]
757: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f8.eps}
758: \caption{The one-dimensional spectra of the perpendicular component of
759: the random magnetic field $B_\perp (k_z)$ (solid
760: line), turbulent velocity $U_\perp (k_z)$ (dashed line) and magnetic
761: helicity $H(k_z)$ (dotted line) downstream of the shock.
762: The calculations were performed for a
763: shock propagating with a speed $u_1=3000$ km s$^{-1}$ in the medium
764: with $V_a=10$ km s$^{-1}$. All spectra are normalized to the mean square of the
765: perpendicular component of the random magnetic field. }
766: \end{figure}
767:
768: The obtained numerical results at the shock velocity $u_1=3000$ km s$^{-1}$
769: and the Alfv\'en velocity $V_A=10$ km s$^{-1}$ are shown in Fig.6
770: and Fig.7. We used the numerical solution with the normalized shock
771: velocity $u'_1=4900$ km s$^{-1}$ described in the previous
772: Section. The corresponding parameter $\eta _{esc}=0.14$.
773:
774: The real size of the
775: box in $z$ direction $L_z=4\pi /k_0$ is related to the distance to
776: the absorbing boundary $L$
777: as $L_z=4\pi LV_a/(u_1\tilde{t}_m)$. The value $\tilde{t}_m=1.02$
778: corresponds to the numerical solution with the normalized shock velocity
779: $u'_1=4900$ km s$^{-1}$ described in the previous Section.
780:
781: The slices
782: of the magnetic field strength and the gas pressure in the $YZ$ plane are shown in the
783: top and bottom panels of Fig.6 respectively. The strong
784: distortions of the shock front and the sonic waves propagating in the
785: downstream region are clearly seen in the bottom panel. The shock
786: front is shifted to the right due to the interaction with the fluid
787: elements which have the enhanced density. The magnetic structures
788: downstream are stretched along the direction of the flow (top
789: panel).
790:
791: The dependence of the
792: plasma parameters averaged in the perpendicular $XY$ plane on $z$-coordinate
793: is shown in Fig.7. Strong fluctuations of the plasma motions with amplitude of the order
794: of one third of the shock velocity $u_1$ exist downstream. It is
795: remarkable that these random
796: motions occur mainly in $z$ direction.
797: The magnetic field is also stretched in this direction.
798: The $z$-component of the random magnetic field is a factor of 1.4 larger than
799: the perpendicular components
800: downstream of the shock.
801:
802: \begin{figure}[t]
803: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f9.eps}
804: \caption{PDF of the magnetic field $P_B(B)$ (thin solid line),
805: turbulent velocity $P_U(u)$ (thin dashed line) and density
806: $P_{\rho }(\rho )$ (thin dotted line) downstream of the shock. The
807: analytical approximation for PDF of the magnetic field (23) (thick
808: dotted line) is also shown. The calculations were performed for a
809: shock propagating with a speed $u_1=3000$ km s$^{-1}$ in the medium
810: with $V_a=10$ km s$^{-1}$.
811: }
812: \end{figure}
813:
814:
815: The spectra of the magnetic field, the plasma velocity and the magnetic
816: helicity downstream of the shock are shown in Fig.8. Note, that the
817: magnetic helicity is not zero in this region.
818:
819: PDF distributions of the random magnetic field, turbulent velocity and plasma density
820: obtained downstream of the shock are shown in Fig.9.
821:
822: The numerically calculated magnetic compression ratio $\sigma _B$ is
823: about 3.0 in this simulation with the shock compression ratio $\sigma
824: $ close to 4. This value of $\sigma _B$ is close to one that is
825: expected if the isotropic random magnetic field is compressed at
826: the shock front: $\sigma _B=\sqrt{(2\sigma ^2+1)/3}$. Since in the
827: real situation the pressure of accelerated cosmic ray particles
828: should be taken into account, the shock compression will be
829: higher. We found that the use of the adiabatic index $\gamma =4/3$
830: with the corresponding shock compression ratio about 6 results in a
831: magnetic compression factor $\sigma _B$ close to 3.5, that is
832: smaller than the expected value $\sigma _B\sim 5$. Probably this is due to
833: the numerical dissipation of the field. It is
834: necessary to have a better numerical resolution in the last case
835: since the stronger compression of the field at the shock front
836: results in the stronger numerical dissipation. We obtained the
837: close value of $\sigma _B=2.6$ in the simulation
838: with $\gamma =5/3$ and the lower numerical resolution $256\times 128^2$. This
839: demonstrates that the resolution $512\times 256^2$ is good enough
840: for the simulation of the shock with the compression ratio 4. We found
841: that the corresponding values of $\sigma _B$
842: differ significantly from each other in the case of the higher shock compression ratio.
843:
844: \section{Analytical estimate of the maximum energy of accelerated particles
845: in SNR}
846:
847: Now we can estimate analytically the maximum particle energy
848: achieved in the process of acceleration. We shall use Eq. (5) and
849: assume that the random field is isotropic and concentrated at the
850: wavenumber $k$, so that $b=B_r^2/(2k)$ where the rms of the random
851: magnetic field $B_r=\left< \delta B^2\right> ^{1/2}$. Let us
852: change the integration on $dz$ to the integration on time
853: $dt=dz/u_1$ in Eq. (5). The evolution of the amplified magnetic
854: field can be approximately described as
855: \begin{equation}
856: B_r(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
857: B_{b}\exp (\gamma _{\max }t), \ t<t_1=\gamma _{\max }^{-1}\ln \frac {2B_0}{B_b} \\
858: 2B_0(1+\gamma _{\max }(t-t_1)), \ t>t_1 \end{array} \right.
859: \end{equation}
860: Here $B_b$ is the initial value of the amplified field. At the first
861: stage $t<t_1$ the field is amplified exponentially in time with
862: the maximum growth rate $\gamma _{\max}=j_dB_0/2c\rho _0V_a$ (cf. Paper I).
863: The
864: corresponding wavenumber $k$ is $k=2\pi j_d/cB_0$ at this stage.
865: At the second stage
866: $t>t_1$ the field is amplified linearly in time.
867: The wavenumber $k$ may be found from the expression $kB_r=4\pi
868: j_d/c$. This dependence of random magnetic field on time
869: is in a qualitative agreement with the simulations of
870: the non-resonant instability (cf. Paper I).
871:
872: The integration of Eq. (5) gives
873:
874: \begin{equation}
875: p_m^2=\frac {3\pi }{4}\frac {q^2u_1^2B_0^2V_a}{\gamma _{\max
876: }^2c^3}
877: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
878: B_r^2/(2B_0^2), \ t_m<t_1\\
879: 1+(1+\gamma _{\max }(t_m-t_1))^4 , \\
880: t_m>t_1.
881: \end{array} \right.
882: \end{equation}
883: Here $t_m=L/u_1$. The electric current $j_d$ that drives the
884: instability is constant over the whole region $-L<z<0$
885: except the narrow zone near the shock (see Fig.3). The input of
886: this zone was neglected in Eq. (16). This assumption
887: introduces a relatively small error into the calculation of $p_m$,
888: since Eq. (16) is an implicit equation for $p_m$. The growth rate
889: $\gamma _{\max }$ is inversely proportional to $p_m$ (see Eq. (17)
890: below). Thus $p_m$ remains in Eq. (16) only through $\gamma _{\max }$
891: after the parenthesis. This produces an error in the evaluation of
892: $t_m$ and $p_m$ that is not larger than 10 percent.
893:
894: Using Eq.
895: (9) we estimate $j_d=\eta _{esc}q\rho u_1^3/(2cp_m)$ and
896: \begin{equation}
897: \gamma _{\max }=\frac {\eta _{esc}}4\frac {qu_1^3B_0}{V_ac^2p_m}.
898: \end{equation}
899:
900: From these two equations we finally obtain the value of the amplified field
901:
902: \begin{equation}
903: B_r=2B_0
904: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
905: u_1^2/u_*^2, \ u_1<u_* \\
906: \left( 2\frac {u_1^4}{u_*^4}-1\right) ^{1/4}, \ u_1>u_*
907: \end{array} \right.
908: \end{equation}
909: and the maximum energy of accelerated particles
910: \begin{equation}
911: p_mc=\frac {\eta _{esc}qu_1^2B_0L}{4cV_a}
912: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
913: \ln ^{-1}\left( \frac {2B_0u_1^2}{B_bu_*^2}\right) , u_1<u_*\\
914: \left[ \ln \left( \frac {2B_0}{B_b}\right) -1 +\left( 2\frac
915: {u_1^4}{u_*^4}-1\right) ^{1/4} \right] ^{-1}, \\
916: u_1>u_*
917: \end{array} \right.
918: \end{equation}
919: where the velocity $u_*=(24\pi cV_a^3/\eta _{esc}^2)^{1/4}$.
920: %This
921: %expression is valid for the shock velocities $u_1>2^{1/4}u_*$.
922:
923: Using the first line of expression (19) for an arbitrary shock velocity
924: $u_1$ we obtain the upper limit of the maximum energy.
925: %It
926: %corresponds to the assumption that the magnetic field has enough
927: %time to grow
928: The growth rate (17) calculated with this maximum energy is high enough to
929: provide the considerable magnetic field growth during the age of
930: a supernova remnant
931: (to be compared with Bell \cite{bell04}). The upper
932: limit and the maximum energy (19) for $\ln \left(
933: 2B_0/B_b\right)=5$ are shown in Fig.2. We found that for
934: $u_1>>u_*$ Eq. (18) gives the amplified field a factor of 2
935: smaller than the numerical results (see Table 1). It is because we
936: neglected the growth of the diffusive current $j_d$ in the narrow zone
937: just adjacent to the
938: shock in our analytical estimates.
939: However, this does not influence the estimate of the
940: maximum energy (19).
941:
942: %\clearpage
943:
944: \begin{table*}[t]
945: \begin{center}
946: \caption{Maximum energies and amplified magnetic fields in historical SNRs. }
947: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccc}
948: \tableline\tableline
949: & $T\tablenotemark{a}$ &
950: $u_1\tablenotemark{b}$ & $n_H\tablenotemark{c}$
951: &$B_0\tablenotemark{d}$&$u_1'\tablenotemark{e}$
952: &$u_1'\tablenotemark{e}$&$u_1'\tablenotemark{e}$&$p_mc\tablenotemark{f}$&$p_mc\tablenotemark{f}$&
953: $p_mc\tablenotemark{f}$&
954: $B_d\tablenotemark{g}$&$B_d\tablenotemark{g}$
955: &$B_d\tablenotemark{g}$& $B_d^{obs}\tablenotemark{h}$ \\ \tableline
956: $\eta _{esc}$& & & & &0.01&$0.05$&$0.14$&0.01&$0.05$& $0.14$&0.01&$0.05$&$0.14$& \\
957: Tycho& 435 & 4500& 0.3 & 5.0 &1360&3040&5090&19&76& 170&21&110& 260 & 300\\
958: SN1006 &1000 &4300& 0.1 & 5.0 &860&1920&3220&22& 100&240 &8.4&43&120 & 140 \\
959: Kepler & 400 &5300& 0.35& 5.0 &1670&3800&6360&30&115&250&33&160 &350& 215 \\
960: Cas A& 330 &5200&3.0& 10.0&2220&4960&8300&63&230& 500 &120&510& 980& 485\\
961: \tableline
962: \end{tabular}
963:
964: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
965: \tablenotetext{a}{Age of SNR, yr} \tablenotetext{b}{
966: Forward shock velocity, km s$^{-1}$} \tablenotetext{c}{
967: Hydrogen number density of the circumstellar medium, cm$^{-3}$}
968: \tablenotetext{d}{Magnetic field strength in the circumstellar
969: medium, $\mu $G } \tablenotetext{e}{Normalized shock velocity,
970: km s$^{-1}$ } \tablenotetext{f}{Calculated maximum energy
971: $p_mc$, TeV} \tablenotetext{g}{Calculated downstream magnetic
972: random field strength, $\mu $G } \tablenotetext{h}{Downstream magnetic field
973: determined from the thickness of X-ray filaments, $\mu $G}
974: \tablecomments{The numbers from the columns $b,c$ are taken from Vink
975: \cite{vink06}, the numbers in the last column $h$ are according to
976: V\"olk et al. \cite{voelk05}}
977:
978: \end{center}
979: \end{table*}
980:
981: For the fast shocks $u_1>>u_*$ the amplified upstream magnetic
982: field may be estimated using the formula
983:
984: \begin{equation}
985: \frac {B^2}{4\pi }\sim 2\eta _{esc}\rho u_1^2\sqrt{\frac {V_a}{c}}.
986: \end{equation}
987:
988: For velocities $u_1>u_*$ Eq. (19) may be rewritten as
989:
990: \begin{equation}
991: \frac {p_mc}{Z}=21\ \mathrm{TeV}\ \frac {\frac {\eta _{esc}}{0.05}
992: \left( \frac {u_1}{1000\
993: \mbox{km s}^{-1}}\right) ^2 n_H^{1/2}L_{pc} } { \ln \left( \frac
994: {2B_0}{B_b}\right) -1 +\left( 2\frac {u_1'^4}{u_3^4}-1\right)
995: ^{1/4} } ,
996: \end{equation}
997: where $Z$ is the charge number of accelerated particles,
998: $u_3=1730$ km s$^{-1}$, $n_H$ is the hydrogen number density in cm$^{-3}$ and
999: $L_{pc}$ is the size $L$ in parsecs. Note that the denominator of this equation
1000: contains the normalized shock velocity (12).
1001:
1002: For three-dimensional shocks this equation may be considered
1003: as a rough estimate of the maximum energy of accelerated
1004: particles. Then the size $L$ is related to the shock radius $R$ and
1005: the remnant age $T$ as $L=m_0R=u_1T$.
1006:
1007: \section{Discussion}
1008:
1009: The initiation of the MHD streaming instability by
1010: accelerated particles in the shock precursor is an integral part of
1011: the efficient diffusive shock acceleration process. The instability is
1012: non-resonant if the electric current of accelerated particles is large
1013: enough, so that the normalized shock velocity exceeds some critical
1014: value
1015:
1016: \[
1017: u_1>(4cV_a^2/\eta _{esc})^{1/3}
1018: \]
1019: \begin{equation}=1340\ \mbox{km
1020: s}^{-1}\left( \frac {V_a}{\mbox{10 km s}^{-1}}\right) ^{2/3}
1021: \left( \frac {\eta _{esc}}{0.05}\right) ^{-1/3}.
1022: \end{equation}
1023: This equation is equivalent to Eq. (18) in Paper I.
1024:
1025: The non-resonant character of this instability means that the
1026: principal scale of the growing random magnetic field remains smaller
1027: than the gyroradius of particles with momentum close to its maximum
1028: value $p_m(t)$. The treatment of the non-magnetized particle scattering
1029: is relatively simple and it allowed us to fulfill the
1030: numerical simulation of the diffusive shock acceleration accompanied by
1031: the strong streaming instability and to make the corresponding analytical
1032: estimates. The calculated amplification of magnetic field in young SNR
1033: proved to be very significant. The maximum energy of accelerated
1034: particles is mainly limited by the finite time of the growth of
1035: magnetic disturbances. The analytical estimate of the maximum
1036: particle momentum is given by Eq. (19) and it is in agreement with our
1037: numerical results presented in Fig.2. The resulting maximum momentum is
1038: not as high as one may expect using the Bohm diffusion coefficient in
1039: the amplified field since the scattering by the small scale field is
1040: not so efficient.
1041:
1042: The small-scale field approximation is broken
1043: for particles with relatively low energies when
1044: their gyroradii in
1045: the amplified magnetic field are smaller than the principal scale
1046: of the field.
1047: Roughly it occurs when the scattering
1048: frequency of the particle is smaller than its gyrofrequency in the
1049: amplified field. The ratio of these quantities for particles with
1050: the maximum momentum $p_m$ is the ratio of the numbers from the 7th
1051: and 3rd lines of Table 1. This ratio is close to 1 for the smallest
1052: considered normalized velocity $u_1'=1550$ km s$^{-1}$ when the
1053: small-scale approximation is only marginally valid. The ratio decreases if the
1054: shock velocity increases. This ratio is close to 1/3
1055: for the normalized velocity $4900$
1056: km s$^{-1}$ that is the representative value for the young
1057: historical supernovae (see below) . This
1058: means that for this shock velocity the small-scale approximation
1059: is valid for particles with the normalized momentum larger than
1060: $p_m'/3$. For particles with smaller energies the amplified
1061: magnetic field can be considered as the mean large-scale field.
1062: These particles are resonantly scattered by the magnetic
1063: inhomogeneities from the inertial range of the magnetic spectrum
1064: (see Fig.4) or by the magnetic perturbations produced by the
1065: resonant streaming instability of these particles (cf. Pelletier et al.
1066: \cite{pelletier06}).
1067:
1068: It is interesting that formula (21) without the root in the
1069: denominator may be used to estimate the maximum energy of
1070: particles, accelerated at slow astrophysical shocks when the
1071: condition (22) is violated and the resonant streaming instability
1072: should be taken into account. The matter is that the expression
1073: for the increment of the non-resonant instability (17)
1074: differs
1075: from the increment of the resonant instability only by a factor
1076: of the order of unity (see e.g. Berezinskii et al. \cite{berezinsky90}).
1077: This is why the expression (21) may be also
1078: used for slow shocks provided that the wave damping does not quench the
1079: development of instability that is relatively slow in this case.
1080: It may be in a highly ionized medium where the
1081: damping of MHD waves on neutrals is negligible. Nonlinear damping
1082: of Alfv\'en waves may be also depressed in a plasma with $\beta
1083: >0.3$, since the presence of waves, propagating in the opposite to the cosmic
1084: ray streaming direction is necessary for this damping
1085: (Zirakashvili \cite{zirakashvili00}). Such waves may appear only
1086: in a collisionless low-$\beta $ plasma due to the nonlinear induced
1087: scattering (Livshits \& Tsytovich \cite{livshits70}), or due to
1088: the three-wave interactions in the framework of
1089: magnetohydrodynamics (Chin \&
1090: Wentzel \cite{chin72}).
1091:
1092: Because the particles at the end of the spectrum are scattered by
1093: the small-scale magnetic field,
1094: the spectrum has
1095: the universal shape in the cut-off region described by Eqs (7) and (8)
1096: in the case of high velocity shocks.
1097: This is important for
1098: the calculation of gamma-ray production by the nucleon component in SNRs.
1099:
1100: The comparison of the predicted values of amplified fields given in Table 1 with
1101: the values derived from the thickness of X-ray filaments of young
1102: SNRs (see e.g. V\"olk et al. \cite{voelk05}) shows reasonable
1103: agreement, if the acceleration efficiency is not low: $\eta
1104: _{esc}>0.05$.
1105:
1106: The calculated downstream magnetic fields and
1107: the maximum energies obtained for the historical SNRs with known
1108: ages are given in Table 2. We use the same supernova parameters as
1109: Vink \cite{vink06}. We
1110: assumed the standard interstellar value of the magnetic field
1111: $B_0=5\ \mu $G for SNRs Kepler, Tycho and SN1006. The accepted
1112: magnetic field strength $B_0=10\ \mu $G for Cas A supernova
1113: gives the value of the Alfv\'en velocity about 10 km s$^{-1}$ that
1114: is a reasonable number for the stellar wind produced at the Red Supergiant stage
1115: of the likely progenitor of this supernova. The
1116: magnetic field amplified upstream of the shock is determined by
1117: the value of the normalized shock velocity $u_1'$ and is given in
1118: the 3rd line of Table 1. This almost isotropic random magnetic
1119: field is further amplified by a magnetic compression factor $\sigma _B=4$ in the
1120: shock transition region.
1121:
1122: One of the key parameters in our calculations $\eta _{esc}$ is in
1123: principle determined by the injection efficiency of thermal particles
1124: in the process of acceleration and by the degree of shock
1125: modification by the cosmic ray pressure, see Berezhko and Ellison
1126: \cite{berezhko99} and Blasi et al. \cite{blasi05}.
1127: The value of $\eta _{esc}$ can not be
1128: calculated theoretically yet and we used different $\eta _{esc}$ in our
1129: estimates.
1130: The results
1131: obtained for three values $\eta _{esc}=0.01$, $\eta _{esc}=0.05$ and $\eta _{esc}=0.14$
1132: are shown
1133: in Table 2. The value $\eta _{esc}=0.14$ is realized for
1134: the plain cosmic ray modified shock with the compression ratio $\sigma =6$
1135: and the thermal sub-shock compression ratio $\sigma _s=2.5$. The second
1136: value $\eta _{esc}=0.05$ corresponds to the situation when due to some
1137: reason the shock modification is weaker. The value $\eta _{esc}=0.01$ corresponds
1138: to the non-modified shock with the cosmic ray pressure $P_{\mathrm{CR}}$ about
1139: ten percents of the ram pressure $\rho _0u_1^2$.
1140:
1141: The maximum energies of particles accelerated in Kepler, Tycho and SN1006 supernovae that all
1142: are of the Ia type are
1143: about $100\div 300$ $Z$ TeV. These maximum energies
1144: were not strongly different in the past during the free
1145: expansion stage of the remnant evolution
1146: since the higher
1147: shock velocity was almost compensated by the smaller shock radius in Eq. (21).
1148:
1149: The similar maximum energies are predicted for the core collapse
1150: IIP supernovae. They have large ejected masses about $M_{ej}\sim 10
1151: M_{\odot }$ and correspondingly relatively low expansion
1152: velocities of the order of $3000$ km s$^{-1}$ (see Chevalier \cite{chevalier05} for a review).
1153:
1154: The situation is different
1155: and the maximum particle energies can be higher
1156: in the case of the core collapse Ib/c and IIb supernovae. These
1157: supernovae have
1158: high initial velocities about $3\cdot 10^4$ km s$^{-1}$, small
1159: ejected masses $M_{ej}=1\div 3\ M_{\odot}$
1160: and the circumstellar medium corresponding to the dense red supergiant
1161: stellar wind (IIb supernovae ) or the interaction zone between
1162: the fast stellar wind of a Wolf-Rayet progenitor and the slow red supergiant wind (Ib/c supernovae)
1163: with strong magnetic fields (see Chevalier \cite{chevalier05} for a review).
1164: In the present paper we
1165: have considered the acceleration of
1166: particles and the generation of the MHD turbulence
1167: at the parallel shock and our theory can not be directly applied
1168: to this type of supernovae because the
1169: magnetic field in the stellar wind is azimuthal. However, it is possible
1170: that stellar winds contain
1171: significant random magnetic fluctuations and we may expect
1172: that some part of a SNR shock surface may be
1173: treated as a parallel shock.
1174: This also will provide the injection of thermal particles into the diffusive shock
1175: acceleration process since it is known that the injection of
1176: thermal ions occurs preferentially
1177: at the parallel shocks (see V\"olk et al. \cite{voelk03} for
1178: discussion of these topics).
1179:
1180: The Cas A is a Ib type supernova. The maximum energy was larger
1181: in the past because the small radius of the shock in Eq. (21) was
1182: compensated by the higher gas density of the stellar wind and
1183: the higher shock velocity. Thus the velocity
1184: $u_1=10^4$ km s$^{-1}$ gives the maximum energy $p_mc=1.2$ $Z$ PeV.
1185: Therefore such supernovae can accelerate cosmic ray protons up to PeV energies.
1186:
1187: Because the maximum momentum (21) decreases at the Sedov stage when the
1188: age of the remnant increases, the highest energy particles leave
1189: the remnant. The overall spectrum produced by the SNR is formed in
1190: this manner (Ptuskin \&
1191: Zirakashvili \cite{ptuskin05}) with the energy spectrum close to
1192: $E^{-2}$. At the earlier free expansion stage when only a small
1193: amount of the supernova ejecta energy is transferred to the
1194: supernova shock the steep high energy tail in the spectrum is
1195: formed ( Berezhko \& V\"olk \cite{berezhko04}, Ptuskin \&
1196: Zirakashvili \cite{ptuskin05}). This means that the particles from the end of the cosmic
1197: ray spectrum produced by the given supernovae are accelerated at
1198: the end of the free expansion stage when the shock velocity is of
1199: the order of the characteristic ejecta velocity. It is about
1200: $7000\div 10000$ km s$^{-1}$ for Ia/b/c and IIb supernovae.
1201:
1202: We should note that the shock velocities in Table 2 are based on radio and
1203: X-ray expansion measurements. If we use the lower shock velocities
1204: from V\"olk et al. \cite{voelk05}, the corresponding maximum energies
1205: are a factor of 2 smaller.
1206:
1207: It is clear from Fig.7 that the amplified magnetic field does not
1208: drop downstream of the shock. Its level is maintained by the turbulent
1209: motions produced by the interaction of density inhomogeneities with
1210: the shock front. However, the amplitude of these motions slowly
1211: decreases downstream of the shock. At some distance magnetic
1212: and kinetic energies will become equal to each other. At larger distances
1213: magnetic dissipation may occur. These distances are larger than $2\div 3L_z$
1214: according to Fig.7. We conclude that the dissipation length of the magnetic
1215: field downstream of the shock is not smaller than $0.1L$ in our numerical
1216: simulation.
1217:
1218: The interaction of the shock front with density disturbances results in the
1219: shock front deformation (see Fig.6). The thickness of X-ray rims produced
1220: by the synchrotron cooling of accelerated electrons should
1221: increase correspondingly up to the values about 0.01$L$ according to
1222: Fig.7 (a so-called projection effect is not taken into account here).
1223: Probably this is the reason for the relatively
1224: small value of the magnetic field $485$ $\mu $G in Cas A
1225: inferred from the width of X-ray filaments
1226: in comparison with the theoretical value expected at $\eta _{esc}>0.05$,
1227: see Table 2.
1228:
1229: The characteristic time of the random motions of the shock front
1230: is given by the ratio of the size of density inhomogeneities and the shock velocity.
1231: It is about one year for the size of density inhomogeneities $10^{16}$ cm
1232: in young historical SNRs. The value $L=0.5R=1.5$ pc was assumed for this estimate.
1233:
1234: PDF of the magnetic field downstream of the shock
1235: that is shown
1236: in Fig.9 is described with a good accuracy by the
1237: following function:
1238:
1239: \begin{equation}
1240: P_B(B)=\frac {\sqrt{6}B}{\left< B^2\right> }\exp
1241: {\left( -\sqrt{6}B/\left< B^2\right> ^{1/2}\right) }.
1242: \end{equation}
1243: The exponential tails of the magnetic PDF appear to be a fairly
1244: universal feature of turbulently amplified magnetic fields
1245: (Brandenburg et al. \cite{brandenburg96}, Schekochihin et al.
1246: \cite{schekochihin04}).
1247:
1248: As one can see from Table 1, the electric potential $\phi $ has rather
1249: large values for the fast shocks with velocities $u_1'>30000$
1250: km s$^{-1}$. The mean electric field is directed
1251: opposite to the direction of the diffusive electric current. This
1252: electric field drags the particles which produce the instability
1253: toward the shock. It may create the steepening of the spectrum
1254: of these particles. If there is a small amount of oppositely
1255: charged particles (electrons), their spectrum should be somewhat
1256: flatter.
1257:
1258: \section{Conclusion}
1259:
1260: We have investigated the acceleration of particles at the fast
1261: plane parallel shock. The generation of MHD turbulence by the
1262: non-resonant streaming instability (Bell \cite{bell04}) was taken
1263: into account. We solved this problem using only first
1264: principles and with a minimum of simplifying assumptions. We
1265: combined the analytical solution for the particle acceleration and
1266: the numerical MHD calculations for the evolution of the MHD turbulence.
1267: The following results were obtained:
1268:
1269: 1) For the relatively fast shocks when the condition (22) is satisfied,
1270: the particles at the high-energy end
1271: of the spectrum are scattered by small-scale random magnetic fields
1272: generated by the non-resonant streaming instability.
1273: Their spectrum has the universal shape given by Eq. (8).
1274:
1275: 2) The MHD turbulence is mainly generated by the streaming of run-away
1276: particles at large distance from the shock. The level of the MHD
1277: turbulence is the highest in the shock vicinity. The accelerated
1278: particles are concentrated in the same region. This means that the
1279: acceleration of particles can be considered in the one-dimensional approximation
1280: even for a three-dimensional system. The characteristic width of
1281: the particle distribution in our simulations is not larger than $0.1\ L $
1282: (see Fig.3 and 10th
1283: line of Table 1).
1284:
1285: 3) It is important, that the non-resonant instability produces
1286: strong density fluctuations upstream of the shock (see Sect.4 and Paper I).
1287: These fluctuations produce a strong deformation of the shock
1288: front and fast vortex motions downstream of the shock. That is
1289: why the magnetic amplification in the shock transition region is
1290: not reduced to a simple compression of the magnetic field in the
1291: direction perpendicular to the shock front. The magnetic field is
1292: also stretched by the flow motions in the direction perpendicular to the shock
1293: front. As a result, the magnetic field component which is
1294: perpendicular to the shock front is a factor of 1.4 larger than
1295: the parallel components downstream of the shock. This naturally
1296: explains the preferable radial orientation of magnetic fields in
1297: young SNRs.
1298:
1299: The characteristic time 1 year of the shock deformation and of the corresponding MHD
1300: fluctuations found here (see Sect.6) is of particular interest in
1301: the light of the last results on variability of X-ray emission
1302: observed in RXJ1713 SNR (Uchiyama et al. \cite{uchiyama07}).
1303:
1304: 4) The dissipation of the magnetic field downstream of the shock is
1305: relatively slow in our simulation. If so, the origin of X-ray filaments, observed
1306: in young SNRs, is related to the fast synchrotron cooling of accelerated
1307: electrons but not to the decay of the MHD turbulence.
1308:
1309: 5) The values of the calculated amplified magnetic field are similar to those,
1310: observed in historical SNRs, if the energy flux of the run-away
1311: particles is not low: $\eta _{esc}>0.05$ (see Table 2).
1312:
1313: 6) The magnetic field growth is only linear in time for the
1314: fast shocks with the normalized
1315: velocities higher
1316: than about ten thousand km s$^{-1}$.
1317: This reduces the maximum energy of accelerated particles
1318: compared to the case of the exponential growth.
1319: For these shocks the energy
1320: of the magnetic field amplified upstream is a small fraction $\sqrt{V_a/c}$ of
1321: the energy density of the highest energy particles (see Eq.(20)).
1322: The magnetic field
1323: amplification is relatively weak for slow shocks with the normalized
1324: velocities 1230 km s$^{-1}$ and smaller (see Eq.(18)).
1325:
1326: 7) We calculated numerically the maximum energy of accelerated particles
1327: (see Fig.2). This energy may be described by the analytical
1328: formula (19). The maximum energies of particles are higher than
1329: the energies obtained in the Bohm limit in the background magnetic field
1330: (see the 7th line of the Table 1) but lower than the energies
1331: obtained using the Bohm limit in the amplified field.
1332: The significantly long
1333: time of the random magnetic field growth
1334: is the main factor that limits the maximum energy of accelerated particles.
1335: We calculated the
1336: maximum energies for four historical SNRs (Table 2).
1337:
1338: 8) Using the last result we found that the maximum energy of
1339: cosmic ray protons accelerated by Ia and IIP supernovae is about
1340: $100\div 300$ TeV. Only Ib/c and presumably IIb supernovae may
1341: accelerate protons up to PeV energies. Since it is expected that
1342: the explosion rate is the highest for IIP supernovae, we should
1343: observe a change of the slope of the galactic cosmic ray
1344: spectrum at the energies of the order of 100 TeV.
1345:
1346: 9) The MHD turbulence generated by the non-resonant streaming
1347: instability has a non-zero magnetic helicity. The helical Lorentz
1348: force produces corresponding plasma motions and the mean electric
1349: field ${\bf E}_0$ that is in the opposite direction to the electric
1350: current of energetic particles. This electric field modifies the
1351: cosmic ray transport equation (see Paper I). This effect is
1352: significant for very fast shocks with velocities larger than 30
1353: thousands km s$^{-1}$. The presence of this field should result in the steepening of the
1354: spectrum of particles which produce the non-resonant instability
1355: (presumably nucleons) and the flattening of the spectrum of
1356: oppositely charged particles (presumably electrons).
1357:
1358: \begin{acknowledgements}
1359: We thank the anonymous referee for a number of valuable suggestions.
1360: We are grateful to Heinz V\"olk for many fruitful discussions of acceleration
1361: by astrophysical shocks.
1362: VNZ and VSP acknowledge the hospitality of the
1363: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, where this work was mainly carried
1364: out. The work was also supported by the RFBR grant in Troitsk.
1365:
1366: \end{acknowledgements}
1367: %
1368: \appendix
1369:
1370: \section{The dependence of scattering on pitch angle. }
1371:
1372: If the random field is not isotropic the same is true for the particle
1373: scattering. Let us
1374: assume that the random magnetic field is isotropic in the plane perpendicular to
1375: the mean magnetic field ${\bf B}_0$ and that the cosmic ray distribution $f_0$
1376: depends only on pitch
1377: angle $\theta $. Now the scattering operator described by the tensor $\nu _{ij}$ (cf. Paper I)
1378: can be written as
1379:
1380: \begin{equation}
1381: \frac \partial {\partial p_i}\nu _{ij}\frac {\partial f_0}{\partial p_j}=
1382: \frac {\partial }{\partial \mu }\frac {\nu _0(\mu )}{2}(1-\mu ^2)
1383: \frac {\partial f_0}{\partial \mu } ,
1384: \end{equation}
1385: where $\mu =\cos{\theta }$. The scattering frequency $\nu _0(\mu )$ can be expressed in terms of
1386: the spectrum of $y$-component of the random magnetic field
1387: (mean field is in $z$ direction):
1388:
1389: \begin{equation}
1390: \nu _0(\mu )=
1391: 2\pi \frac {q^2v}{p^2c^2}\int d^3k B_{yy}({\bf k})\delta (k_z\mu +k_x\sin{\theta }) .
1392: \end{equation}
1393: The parallel diffusion coefficient $D_{\parallel }$ can be
1394: written now as (see e.g. Berezinskii et al. \cite{berezinsky90})
1395: \begin{equation}
1396: D_{\parallel }=\frac {v^2}{2}\int \limits ^1_0d\mu \frac {1-\mu
1397: ^2}{\nu _0(\mu )}.
1398: \end{equation}
1399:
1400: %
1401: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1402:
1403: \bibitem[1983]{achterberg83} Achterberg, A., 1983, A\&A, 119, 274
1404:
1405: %\bibitem[2006]{amato06} Amato, E., \& Blasi, P., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1251
1406:
1407: \bibitem[1977]{axford77} Axford, W.I., Leer, E., Scadron, G., 1977, Proc. 15th Int. Cosmic
1408: Ray Conf., Plovdiv, 90, 937
1409:
1410: \bibitem[2001]{balsara01} Balsara, D., Benjiamin, R.A., \& Cox, D.P.,
1411: 2001, ApJ, 563, 800
1412:
1413: \bibitem[2003]{bamba03} Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., \& Koyama, K., 2003, ApJ, 589, 827
1414:
1415: \bibitem[2005]{bamba05} Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., \& Hiraga, J.S., 2005, ApJ, 632, 294
1416:
1417: \bibitem[1978]{bell78} Bell, A.R., 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147
1418:
1419: %\bibitem[2001]{bell01} Bell, A.R., \& Lucek, S.G., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 433
1420:
1421: \bibitem[2004]{bell04} Bell, A.R., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550
1422:
1423: \bibitem[2002]{berezhko02} Berezhko, E.G., Ksenofontov L.G., \& V\"olk, H.J. 2002,
1424: A\&A 395, 943
1425:
1426: \bibitem[2004]{berezhko04} Berezhko, E.G., \& V\"olk, H.J. 2004, A\&A 427, 525
1427:
1428: \bibitem[1999]{berezhko99} Berezhko, E.G., \& Ellison, D.C., 1999, ApJ 526, 385
1429:
1430: \bibitem[1990]{berezinsky90} Berezinskii V.S., Bulanov, S.V., Dogiel, V.A.,
1431: Ginzburg, V.L., \& Ptuskin, V.S., 1990, Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays, North Holland, NY
1432:
1433: \bibitem[1996]{brandenburg96} Brandenburg, A., Jennings, R.L., Nordlund, A.,
1434: Rieutord, M., Stein, R.F., \& Tuominen, 1996, J.Fluid Mech., 306, 325
1435:
1436: %\bibitem[2003]{biskamp03} Biskamp, D., 2003, {\it Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence},
1437: %Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press
1438:
1439: \bibitem[2005]{blasi05} Blasi, P., Gabici, S., \& Vannonoi, G., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 907
1440:
1441: \bibitem[1978]{blandford78} Blandford, R.D., \& Ostriker, J.P. 1978, ApJ, 221, L29
1442:
1443: \bibitem[1982]{bykov82} Bykov A.M., 1982, Soviet Astron. Letters, 8,596
1444:
1445: \bibitem[2005]{chevalier05} Chevalier, R., 2005, ApJ, 619, 839
1446:
1447: \bibitem[1972]{chin72} Chin, Y, \& Wentzel, D.G., 1972, Astrophys. and Space Sci. 16, 465
1448:
1449: \bibitem[2007]{giacalone07} Giacalone, J., \& Jokipii, J.R., 2007, ApJ 663, L41
1450:
1451: \bibitem[1967]{dolginov67} Dolginov, A.Z., \& Toptygin, I.N. 1967, JETP, 24, 1195
1452:
1453: \bibitem[2001]{gotthelf01} Gotthelf, E.V., Halpem, J.P., Camilo, F. et al. 2001, ApJ, 552,L125
1454:
1455: \bibitem[1975]{gull75} Gull, S.F., 1975, MNRAS, 171, 263
1456:
1457: \bibitem[2002]{hwang02} Hwang, U., Decourchelle, A., Holt, S.S., \& Petre, R., 2002, ApJ, 581, L101
1458:
1459: \bibitem[1959]{kontorovich59} Kontorovich V.M., 1959, Acoustic Journal 5, 314 (in Russian)
1460:
1461: \bibitem[1977]{krymsky77} Krymsky, G.F. 1977, Soviet Physics-Doklady, 22, 327
1462:
1463: %\bibitem[1983]{lagage83} Lagage, P.O., \& Cesarsky, C.J., 1983, A\&A, 118, 223
1464:
1465: %\bibitem[1967]{lerche67} Lerche I., 1967, ApJ, 147, 689
1466:
1467: \bibitem[1970]{livshits70} Livshits, L.M., \& Tsytovich, V.N., 1970, Nuclear Fusion 10, 240
1468:
1469: %\bibitem[2000]{lucek00} Lucek,S.G.,\& Bell, A.R., 2000, MNRAS, 314, L65
1470:
1471: \bibitem[2003]{long03} Long, K.S., Reynolds, S.P., Raymond, J.C., Winkler, P.F.,
1472: Dyer, K.K., \& Petre, R., 2003, ApJ, 586, 1162
1473:
1474: \bibitem[2001]{malkov01} Malkov, M.A., \& Drury, L.O'C, 2001, Reports on Progress in Physics, 64, 429
1475:
1476: \bibitem[1968]{mckenzie68} McKenzie, J.F., \& Westphal, K.O., 1968, Phys. Fluids, 11, 2350
1477:
1478: \bibitem[1982]{mckenzie82} McKenzie, J.F., \& V\"olk, H.J., 1982, A\&A, 116, 191
1479:
1480: \bibitem[1987]{milne87} Milne, D.K., 1987, Australian J.Phys., 40, 771
1481:
1482: \bibitem[2006]{pelletier06} Pelletier, G., Lemoine, M., \& Marcowith, A., 2006, A\&A, 453, 181
1483:
1484: %\bibitem[2003]{pen03} Pen, U.L., Arras, P., \& Wong, S.K., 2003, ApJSS, 149, 447
1485:
1486: \bibitem[2005]{pohl05} Pohl, M., Yan, H., \& Lazarian, A., 2005,
1487: ApJ, 626, L101
1488:
1489: %\bibitem[1984]{ptuskin84} Ptuskin, V.S., 1984, ZhETF, 86, 483 (In Russian)
1490:
1491: %\bibitem[2003]{ptuskin03} Ptuskin, V.S., \& Zirakashvili, V.N. 2003, A\&A, 403, 1
1492:
1493: \bibitem[2005]{ptuskin05} Ptuskin, V.S., \& Zirakashvili, V.N. 2005, A\&A, 429, 755
1494:
1495: \bibitem[2004]{schekochihin04} Schekochihin, A.A., Cowley, S.C., \& Taylor,
1496: S.F., 2004, ApJ, 612, 276
1497:
1498: \bibitem[2007]{uchiyama07} Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F.A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., \& Maeda, Y.,
1499: 2007, Nature, 499, 576
1500:
1501: \bibitem[2003]{vink03} Vink, J., \& Laming, J.M., 2003, ApJ, 584, 758
1502:
1503: \bibitem[2006]{vink06} Vink, J., 2006, Proceedings of the Symposium 'The X-ray Universe 2005',
1504: San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain, 26-30 September 2005, astro-ph/0601131
1505:
1506: %\bibitem[2006]{vladimirov06} Vladimirov, A., Ellison, D.C., \& Bykov, A., 2006, ApJ, 652, 1246
1507:
1508: \bibitem[2003]{voelk03} V\"olk, H.J., Berezhko, E.G., \& Ksenofontov, L.T., 2003, A\&A 409, 563
1509:
1510: \bibitem[2005]{voelk05} V\"olk, H.J., Berezhko, E.G., \& Ksenofontov, L.T., 2005, A\&A 433, 229
1511:
1512: %\bibitem[1974]{wentzel74} Wentzel, D.G. 1974, ARA\&A 12, 71--96
1513:
1514: \bibitem[2000]{zirakashvili00} Zirakashvili, V.N. 2000, JETP 90, 810
1515:
1516: \bibitem[2008]{zirakashvili08} Zirakashvili, V.N., Ptuskin, V.S., \& V\"olk, H.J., 2008, ApJ
1517: submitted (Paper I)
1518:
1519:
1520: \end{thebibliography}
1521: \end{document}
1522: