1: %% The command below calls the preprint style

2: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

3: 

4: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

6: %%\documentclass[12pt,manuscript]{aastex}

7: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

8: %%\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

9: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

12: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

13: 

14: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

15: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

16: %% use the longabstract style option.

17: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

18: 

19: %%\usepackage{ulem}

20: %%\usepackage{color}

21: 

22: \newcount\listnorom

23: \listnorom=0

24: \newcommand\listromanDE{\global\advance \listnorom by 1

25: {\lowercase\expandafter{(\romannumeral\listnorom)}\ }}

26: \newcommand\newlistroman{\listnorom=0}

27: %

28: 

29: \newcommand{\Tgp}{\tau_\mathrm{gp}}

30: \newcommand{\Eth}{E_\mathrm{th}}

31: \newcommand{\xx}[1]{\!\times\!10^{#1}}

32: \newcommand{\red}{\textcolor{red}}

33: \newcommand{\blue}{\textcolor{blue}}

34: \newcommand{\green}{\textcolor{green}}

35: \newcommand{\FP}{Analytic Precursor Approximation}

36: \newcommand{\FPshort}{APA}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\Lcell}{L_\mathrm{cell}}

39: \newcommand{\tstep}{t_\mathrm{step}}

40: \newcommand{\Vsk}{v_\mathrm{sk}}

41: \newcommand{\IonPlasmafreq}{\omega_{pi}}

42: \newcommand{\ElPlasmafreq}{\omega_{pe}}

43: \newcommand{\plasmafreq}{\omega_{pi}}

44: \newcommand{\protongyrofreq}{\omega_{\mathrm{cp}}}

45: \newcommand{\MFA}{magnetic field amplification}

46: \newcommand{\rel}{relativistic}

47: \newcommand{\NL}{nonlinear}

48: \newcommand{\CR}{cosmic ray}

49: \newcommand{\CRs}{cosmic rays}

50: \newcommand{\nonrel}{non\-rel\-a\-tiv\-is\-tic}

51: \newcommand{\transrel}{trans-rel\-a\-tiv\-is\-tic}

52: \newcommand{\ultrarel}{ul\-tra-rel\-a\-tiv\-is\-tic}

53: \newcommand{\mc}{Monte Carlo}

54: \newcommand{\MC}{Monte Carlo}

55: \newcommand{\syn}{synchrotron}

56: \newcommand{\synch}{synchrotron}

57: \newcommand{\pion}{pion-decay}

58: \newcommand{\IC}{inverse-Compton}

59: \newcommand{\kmps}{km s$^{-1}$}

60: \newcommand{\pcc}{cm$^{-3}$}

61: \newcommand{\muG}{$\mu$G}

62: 

63: \newcommand{\SC}{self-consistent}

64: \newcommand{\SCly}{self-consistently}

65: \newcommand{\Pcr}{P_\mathrm{cr}}

66: \newcommand{\Pcrtwo}{P_\mathrm{cr2}}

67: \newcommand{\Pcrhat}{P_\mathrm{cr}}

68: \newcommand{\Pth}{P_\mathrm{th}}

69: \newcommand{\Pthzero}{P_\mathrm{th0}}

70: \newcommand{\Pwzero}{P_\mathrm{w0}}

71: \newcommand{\Pwone}{P_\mathrm{w1}}

72: \newcommand{\Pwtwo}{P_\mathrm{w2}}

73: \newcommand{\Fwzero}{F_\mathrm{w0}}

74: \newcommand{\Fwone}{F_\mathrm{w1}}

75: \newcommand{\Fwtwo}{F_\mathrm{w2}}

76: \newcommand{\Ppzero}{P_\mathrm{p0}}

77: \newcommand{\Ppone}{P_\mathrm{p1}}

78: \newcommand{\Pptwo}{P_\mathrm{p2}}

79: \newcommand{\wpzero}{w_\mathrm{p0}}

80: \newcommand{\wpone}{w_\mathrm{p1}}

81: \newcommand{\wptwo}{w_\mathrm{p2}}

82: \newcommand{\Rtot}{r_\mathrm{tot}}

83: \newcommand{\rtot}{r_\mathrm{tot}}

84: \newcommand{\Rsub}{r_\mathrm{sub}}

85: \newcommand{\rsub}{r_\mathrm{sub}}

86: \newcommand{\Mazero}{M_\mathrm{A0}}

87: \newcommand{\Mszero}{M_\mathrm{s0}}

88: \newcommand{\Msone}{M_\mathrm{s1}}

89: \newcommand{\vth}{v_\mathrm{th}}

90: \newcommand{\vwt}{v_\mathrm{wt}}

91: \newcommand{\vazero}{v_\mathrm{A0}}

92: \newcommand{\xFEB}{x_\mathrm{FEB}}

93: \newcommand{\xFP}{x_\mathrm{APA}}

94: \newcommand{\xtr}{x_\mathrm{tr}}

95: \newcommand{\fcr}{f_\mathrm{cr}}

96: \newcommand{\AccEff}{{\cal E}_\mathrm{cr}}

97: \newcommand{\xicr}{\xi_\mathrm{cr}}

98: \newcommand{\pmax}{p_\mathrm{max}}

99: \newcommand{\Emax}{E_\mathrm{max}}

100: \newcommand{\rgTeV}{r_\mathrm{g}(\mathrm{TeV})}

101: \newcommand{\rgzero}{r_\mathrm{g0}}

102: \newcommand{\tacc}{\tau_\mathrm{acc}}

103: \newcommand{\fAlf}{f_\mathrm{Alf}}

104: \newcommand{\Beff}{B_\mathrm{eff}}

105: \newcommand{\Bism}{B_\mathrm{eff}}

106: \newcommand{\Befftwo}{B_\mathrm{eff2}}

107: \newcommand{\Btrend}{B_\mathrm{trend}}

108: \newcommand{\Qesc}{Q_\mathrm{esc}}

109: \newcommand{\qesc}{q_\mathrm{esc}}

110: \newcommand{\taucoll}{\tau_\mathrm{coll}}

111: \newcommand{\taucomp}{\tau_\mathrm{comp}}

112: \newcommand{\momentumflux}{\Phi_P}

113: \newcommand{\upstreammomentumflux}{\Phi_\mathrm{P0}}

114: \newcommand{\downstreammomentumflux}{\Phi_\mathrm{P2}}

115: \newcommand{\energyflux}{\Phi_E}

116: \newcommand{\upstreamenergyflux}{\Phi_\mathrm{E0}}

117: \newcommand{\downstreamenergyflux}{\Phi_\mathrm{E2}}

118: \newcommand{\gammabar}{\bar{\gamma}}

119: \newcommand{\deltabar}{\bar{\delta}}

120: \newcommand{\pvector}{{\bf p}}

121: \newcommand{\vvector}{{\bf v}}

122: 

123: \newcommand{\coldism}{cold ISM ($T_0=10^4$~K)}

124: \newcommand{\hotism}{hot ISM ($T_0=10^6$~K)}

125: \newcommand{\coldismNoT}{cold ISM}

126: \newcommand{\hotismNoT}{hot ISM}

127: 

128: 

129: \newcommand{\avemail}{avladim@ncsu.edu}

130: \newcommand{\abemail}{byk@astro.ioffe.ru}

131: \newcommand{\deemail}{don\_ellison@ncsu.edu}

132: \newcommand{\heatpar}{\alpha_H}

133: \newcommand{\Alf}{Alfv\'{e}n}

134: \newcommand{\Lbar}{L}

135: 

136: \shorttitle{Turbulence Dissipation in DSA}

137: \shortauthors{Vladimirov, Bykov, \& Ellison}

138: 

139: \begin{document}

140: 

141: \title{Turbulence Dissipation and Particle Injection in Non-Linear

142:   Diffusive Shock Acceleration with Magnetic Field Amplification}

143: 

144: \author{Andrey E. Vladimirov} \affil{Physics Department, North Carolina

145: State University, Box 8202, Raleigh, NC 27695; \avemail}

146: 

147: \author{Andrei M. Bykov} \affil{Department of Theoretical Astrophysics,

148: Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia; \abemail}

149: 

150: \and

151: 

152: \author{Donald C. Ellison} \affil{Physics Department, North Carolina

153: State University, Box 8202, Raleigh, NC 27695; \deemail}

154: 

155: 

156: \begin{abstract}

157: 

158: The highly amplified magnetic fields suggested by observations of some

159: supernova remnant (SNR) shells are most likely an intrinsic part of

160: efficient particle acceleration by shocks.

161: %

162: This strong turbulence, which may result from cosmic ray driven instabilities,

163: both resonant and non-resonant, in the shock precursor, is certain to

164: play a critical role in \SC, \NL\ models of strong, \CR\ modified shocks.

165: %

166: Here we present a Monte Carlo model of nonlinear diffusive shock

167: acceleration (DSA) accounting for magnetic field amplification through

168: resonant instabilities induced by accelerated particles, and including

169: the effects of dissipation of

170: turbulence upstream of a shock and the subsequent precursor plasma

171: heating.  Feedback effects between the plasma heating due to

172: turbulence dissipation and particle injection are strong, adding to the

173: \NL\ nature of efficient DSA.

174: %

175: Describing the turbulence damping in a parameterized way, we reach two

176: important results: first, for conditions

177: typical of supernova remnant shocks, even a small

178: amount of dissipated turbulence energy ($\sim 10\%$) is sufficient to

179: significantly heat the precursor plasma, and second,

180: the heating upstream of the shock leads to an increase in the

181: injection of thermal particles at the subshock by a factor

182: of several.

183: In our results, the response of the non-linear shock

184: structure to the boost in particle injection prevented

185: the efficiency of particle acceleration and magnetic

186: field amplification from increasing.

187: We argue, however, that more advanced (possibly, non-resonant) models

188: of turbulence generation and dissipation may lead to

189: a scenario in which particle injection boost due

190: to turbulence dissipation results in more efficient

191: acceleration and even stronger amplified magnetic fields than

192: without the dissipation.

193: 

194: \end{abstract}

195: 

196: \keywords{acceleration of particles -- cosmic rays -- supernova remnants

197: -- magnetic fields -- turbulence -- shock waves}

198: 

199: 

200: \section{Introduction}

201: Observations of young supernova remnants (SNRs) suggest that strong

202: collisionless shocks can simultaneously

203: %

204: place a large fraction of the shock ram kinetic energy into \rel\ protons

205: %

206: \citep[e.g.,][]{BE87,MD2001, WarrenEtal2005}

207: %

208: and amplify the ambient turbulent magnetic field by large factors

209: %

210: \citep[e.g.,][]{Cowsik80, RE92, BambaEtal2003, BKV2003, VL2003,

211: UA2008}.

212: %

213: This coupling of diffusive shock acceleration (DSA) and magnetic field

214: amplification (MFA) is critically important because the self-generated

215: magnetic field largely determines the efficiency of DSA, the maximum

216: particle energy a given shock can produce, and the \syn\ emission from

217: radiating electrons.

218: 

219: The generation and dissipation of strong MHD turbulence in

220: collisionless, multi-fluid plasmas is a complex process.

221: %

222: Different \NL\ approaches to the modeling of the large scale

223: structure of a shock undergoing  efficient cosmic ray acceleration

224: \citep[e.g.,][]{MV82,AB86,BL2001,AB2006,VEB2006,PLM2006,ZPV2008} have

225: predicted the presence of strong MHD turbulence in the shock

226: precursor.

227: %

228: However, an exact modeling of the shock structure in a turbulent medium,

229: including nonthermal particle injection and acceleration, requires a

230: nonperturbative, self-consistent description of a multi-component and

231: multi-scale system including the strong MHD-turbulence dynamics.

232: %

233: While a number of analytic models describing resonant and non-resonant

234: amplification and damping of magnetic fluctuations have been proposed,

235: these generally rely on the quasi-linear approximation that the

236: fluctuations are small compared to the background magnetic field, i.e.,

237: $\Delta B \ll B_0$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Wentzel74,BT2005,Kulsrud2005}.

238: %

239: No consistent analytic description of magnetic turbulence generation

240: with $\Delta B \gtrsim B_0$ exists. For these reasons, numerical models

241: with varying ranges of applicability have been proposed which offer a

242: compromise between completeness and speed

243: \citep[e.g.,][]{Bell2004,AB2006,VEB2006,ZPV2008}.

244: 

245: In principle, the problem can be solved completely with few assumptions

246: and approximations with particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations

247: \citep[e.g.,][]{Bell2004,Spitkovsky2008,NPS2008}

248: or, in the assumption that electrons are not dynamically

249: important, by hybrid models \citep[e.g.,][]{WO1996, Giacalone2004}.

250: %

251: However, modeling the \NL\ generation of \rel\ particles and strong

252: magnetic turbulence in collisionless shocks is

253: computationally challenging and PIC simulations will not be able

254: to fully address this problem in \nonrel\ shocks for some years to come

255: even though they can provide critical information on the plasma

256: processes producing injection that can be obtained in no other way. In

257: Appendix~\ref{estimatesforpic} we outline the requirements that a

258: PIC simulation must fulfill in order to tackle the problem of efficient

259: DSA with non-linear MFA in SNR shocks.

260: 

261: In the \mc\ approximation we use here, the plasma interactions are

262: parameterized allowing us to study coupled \NL\ effects between the

263: extended shock precursor and the gas subshock. In particular, we

264: investigate the \NL\ effects caused by upstream plasma heating due to

265: magnetic field dissipation.

266: 

267: The importance of the dissipation of turbulence in the shock precursor

268: can be illustrated by the following estimate. Suppose that in a shock

269: wave of speed $u_0$, the turbulence is generated by the

270: resonant cosmic ray (CR) streaming instability, so the energy density of

271: the turbulence, $U_w$, evolves approximately as

272: $u_0\,dU_w(x)/dx=v_A\,d\Pcr(x)/dx$ \citep[e.g.,][]{BL2001}, where

273: $\Pcr(x)$ is the CR pressure at position $x$ and $v_A$ is the

274: \Alf\ speed.

275: %

276: Ignoring all non-linear effects, the turbulence energy density at

277: the shock positioned at $x=0$ is $U_w(0)=\rho_0 u_0 \vazero \cdot

278: \Pcr(0)/(\rho_0 u_0^2)$.

279: %

280: The ratio $\AccEff=\Pcr(0)/(\rho_0 u_0^2)$ characterizes the

281: efficiency of acceleration and is typically assumed to be on the

282: order of ten percent or more.

283: %

284: In the above, $\rho$ is the fluid density and the subscript ``0''

285: always indicates far upstream values.

286: %

287: Suppose a fraction, $\heatpar$, of this energy goes into heating of the

288: thermal gas in the shock precursor so the energy density of the thermal

289: plasma increases by $\Delta U_{H}(0) = \heatpar U_w(0)$ at $x=0$.

290: %

291: Comparing $\Delta U_{H}(0)$ with the internal energy density of the far

292: upstream plasma, $\epsilon_0$, we find

293: %

294: \begin{equation}

295: \label{upsilonequation} \eta_H\ = \frac{\Delta U_H(0)}{\epsilon_0}

296: \approx

297:    \heatpar \AccEff \frac{M_s^2}{M_A}

298: \ ,

299: \end{equation}

300: %

301: where $M_s$ is the sonic, and $M_A$ the \Alf, Mach number. If

302: $\eta_H$ is large, the thermal gas in the shock precursor is

303: strongly heated and this influences the subshock strength and the

304: particle injection efficiency. In a non-linearly modified shock, a

305: change in the injection efficiency causes the whole shock structure

306: to change.

307: For typical supernova remnant (SNR) parameters (e.g., $u_0 \sim

308: 3000$ \kmps, $T_0 \sim 10^4$ K, $n_0 \sim 0.3$ \pcc, and $B_0 \sim

309: 3$ \muG),

310: the ratio $M_s^2/M_A \approx 250$, and values of $\heatpar$ as low

311: as a few to ten percent may be important.

312: 

313: Because existing analytical descriptions of MHD wave damping

314: rely on the quasi-linear approximation $\Delta B \ll B_0$, which is

315: inapplicable for strong turbulence,

316: and because an exact description of this process

317: in the framework of non-linear DSA is currently impossible

318: (see Appendix~\ref{estimatesforpic}), we propose a

319: parameterization of the turbulence damping rate.

320: In doing this, we are pursuing two goals.

321: First, we make some predictions connecting cosmic

322: ray spectra, turbulent magnetic fields

323: and plasma temperatures, which, in principle, can be tested

324: against high resolution X-ray observations in order to estimate the

325: heating of the thermal gas by turbulence dissipation.

326: And second, once heating is included in our simulation in a

327: parameterized fashion, we will be ready to implement more realistic

328: models of turbulence generation and dissipation as they are developed.

329: 

330: Our \mc\ simulation can be briefly summarized as follows \citep[see][ and

331: references therein for more complete details]{EJR90,JE91,VEB2006}.

332: We describe particle transport in a plane shock by Bohm diffusion in a

333: plasma flowing in the $x$-direction with speed $u(x)$.

334: %

335: Particles move in small time steps as their local plasma frame momenta

336: are `scattered' at each step in a random walk process on a sphere in

337: momentum space.

338: %

339: Some shock heated thermal particles are injected into the

340: acceleration process when their history of random scatterings in the

341: downstream region takes them back upstream.  These particles gain

342: energy and some continue to be accelerated in the first-order Fermi

343: mechanism. This form of injection is generally called `thermal

344: leakage' and was first used in the context of DSA in \citet{EJE1981}

345: \citep[see also][]{Ellison82}.

346: 

347: The magnetic field determining the random walk properties

348: through the diffusion coefficient

349: is the `seed' (interstellar) magnetic field after it has been amplified

350: by a large factor by the CR streaming instability and compressed and

351: advected downstream with the flow.  The streaming instability in the

352: non-linear regime ($\Delta B \gg B_0$) is described by the traditional

353: quasi-linear equations, where the instability driving term is the CR

354: pressure gradient.

355: %

356: These quasi-linear equations are extrapolated into the non-linear regime

357: in a parameterized fashion for lack of a more complete analytic

358: description. The magnetic turbulence generated by the instability is

359: assumed to dissipate at a rate proportional to the turbulence generation

360: rate, and the dissipated energy is pumped directly into the thermal

361: particle pool.  An iterative scheme is employed to ensure the

362: conservation of mass, momentum, and energy fluxes, thus producing a

363: self-consistent solution of a steady-state, plane shock, with particle

364: injection and acceleration coupled to the bulk plasma flow

365: modification and to the magnetic field amplification and damping.

366: 

367: 

368: Our results show that even a small rate of turbulence dissipation

369: can significantly increase the precursor temperature and that this, in

370: turn, can increase the rate of injection of thermal particles. The

371: \NL\ feedback of these changes on the shock structure, however, tend

372: to cancel so that the spectrum of high energy particles is only

373: modestly affected.

374: 

375: \section{Model}

376: %

377: The \mc\ simulation used here contains all of the elements of the code

378: used in \citet{VEB2006}, and previously by Ellison and co-workers, i.e.,

379: it iteratively determines a \SC, steady-state shock solution with

380: resonant \MFA. The present code, however, has been completely re-written

381: and optimized for the problem of DSA with MFA in nonrelativistic, plane

382: shocks. Besides including dissipation, the new code has been written for

383: parallel processing and can model acceleration, in a reasonable time, to

384: PeV energies\footnote{The ability of the Monte Carlo code to

385: accelerate particles to PeV energies was shown in \citet{EV2008}. The

386: results we are interested in here do not require such high energies and

387: we use a smaller dynamic range (see the note on dynamic range at the end

388: of Section~\ref{nlresults}).}.

389: %

390: The

391: particle transport is briefly described in Section

392: \ref{particletransport}, the amplification and dissipation of turbulence

393: are described in Section~\ref{amplificationanddamping}, the effects of

394: turbulence damping on the thermal plasma are described in

395: Section~\ref{plasmaheating}, and the iterative procedure used to reach a

396: self-consistent solution is given in Section~\ref{iterativeprocedure}.

397: 

398: \subsection{Particle Transport and Injection in the Monte Carlo Code}

399: \label{particletransport}

400: %

401: Given a flow speed profile $u(x)$ and a diffusion coefficient $D(x,p)$

402: (which are obtained as explained below), the Monte Carlo code generates

403: a thermal distribution of particles far upstream (or close to the shock,

404: as described in Section \ref{plasmaheating} and Appendix~\ref{fastpush}),

405: and propagates them by small time steps,

406: $\delta t$, scattering their momenta with the `pitch-angle scattering'

407: scheme described in detail in \citet{EJR90}.

408: %

409: Since we assume strong turbulence ($\Delta B \gg B_0$), the concept of

410: `pitch-angle' as an angle measured with respect to the average magnetic

411: field direction loses it meaning. Instead, we define the `pitch-angle'

412: as the angle that a particle's plasma frame momentum makes with the

413: direction of the bulk flow.  Each scattering is elastic and

414: isotropic in the local plasma frame, which moves at speed $u(x)$ with

415: respect to the viscous subshock located at $x=0$, and the angle of

416: scattering is random, but its maximal value is determined by $\delta t$

417: and by $D(x,p)$ \citep[see][]{EJR90}. When particles cross the subshock,

418: or move in any compressive flow, the elastic scattering in the plasma

419: frame makes them gain energy in the shock frame (see also

420: Section~\ref{mcadiabatic}).

421: 

422: Injection of particles into the acceleration process occurs in the Monte

423: Carlo simulation when a formerly thermal particle first crosses the

424: viscous subshock backwards, i.e., going against the flow.

425: %

426: The number of particles that do this, and the energy they gain, are

427: determined only by the random particle histories; no parameterization of

428: the injection process is made other than the assumption of the diffusion

429: coefficient value at various particle energies.\footnote{As in previous

430: implementations of our \mc\ model, the subshock is assumed to be

431: transparent to all particles, including thermal ones, and possibly

432: important plasma effects such as a cross-shock potential or large

433: amplitude magnetic structures in the subshock layer are ignored.}

434: 

435: Since microscopic plasma modeling of particle injection processes in

436: non-relativistic subshocks with an appropriate 3-D PIC code is not

437: yet available, all the models dealing with particle acceleration by

438: shocks must assume  some prescription of the injection process. We

439: favor the present model for two reasons. First, our injection rate

440: is set by the scattering prescription and doesn't require any

441: additional assumptions. Second and even more important, our

442: model was shown to agree well with spacecraft observations of the

443: Earth's bow shock \citep[][]{EM87, EMP90}, interplanetary shocks

444: \citep[][]{BOEF97}, and with 1-D hybrid PIC simulations

445: \citep[][]{EGBS93}. We are aware of alternative models of particle

446: injection, such as that used by \citet{BGV2005}, in which the shock is assumed

447: transparent only to particles exceeding the thermal gyroradius by a

448: certain factor. It is possible to simulate the injection with the

449: \citet{BGV2005} recipe in the Monte Carlo code, which was done by

450: \citet{EBG2005}, but it should be noted that an injection threshold

451: may be inconsistent with the bow shock observations reported in

452: \citet{EMP90}. Our thermal injection model is also simultaneously

453: consistent with the bow shock helium and CNO observations with no

454: additional parameters or assumptions. A comparative analysis of the

455: different injection recipes is beyond the scope of our present study.

456: 

457: A peculiarity of our approach is that in order to separate the CR

458: particles from the thermal ones we use their history, and not their

459: energy.  By our definition, a thermal particle is one that we had

460: introduced into the simulation upstream with a random thermal energy and

461: that may have crossed the subshock going downstream, but has never crossed

462: it back. Once a particle crosses the subshock (the coordinate $x=0$, to

463: be more precise) in the upstream direction, it by our definition

464: is injected and becomes a CR particle

465: (see also Appendix~\ref{special_th_vs_cr}).

466: 

467: As particles are propagated and scattered, their contributions to fluxes

468: of mass, momentum, and energy are calculated at select positions.  We

469: also calculate the pressure produced by the thermal particles $\Pth(x)$

470: and the spectrum of pressure of the CR particles $\Pcrhat(x,p)$.

471: (see details in Appendix~\ref{fastpush}). The latter is

472: related to the total CR pressure $\Pcr(x)$ as

473: %

474: \begin{equation}

475: \Pcr(x) = \int\limits_0^{\infty}{\Pcrhat(x,p)dp}

476: \ ,\end{equation}

477: %

478: and $\Pcrhat(x,p)$ is then used to calculate the magnetic field

479: amplification and dissipation, as described in Section

480: \ref{amplificationanddamping}.\footnote{We note that notation has

481: changed slightly from that used in \citet{VEB2006}. The subscript `tot'

482: indicating integral quantities has been eliminated, and these quantities

483: are now denoted as $\Pcr(x)$, $L(x)$, etc. The quantities representing

484: spectral densities of pressure, flux, etc., are denoted with the same

485: letters, but a different set of arguments: $\Pcr(x,p)$, $L(x,k)$. To

486: avoid ambiguity, explicit definitions relating the spectral densities to

487: the integral densities are provided throughout the text. We

488: also dropped the bar above the dissipation rate term $L(x)$

489: for simplicity.}

490: 

491: We assume in this paper that the acceleration is size-limited, and model

492: the finite size of the shock with a free escape boundary (FEB), located

493: at position $\xFEB<0$ far upstream of the shock. All CR particles

494: crossing the boundary escape freely from the system. The maximal

495: particle momentum, $\pmax$, is thus determined when

496: the upstream diffusion length becomes comparable to $|\xFEB|$. For a

497: spherical SNR blast wave, $|\xFEB|$ is on the order of the radius of the

498: remnant.

499: 

500: 

501: \subsection{Turbulence Amplification and Dissipation}

502: 

503: \label{amplificationanddamping}

504: 

505: We assume that far upstream there exists a uniform magnetic field,

506: $B_0$, parallel to the flow direction which is perturbed by transverse

507: \Alf ic fluctuations with a power law energy spectrum. It is further

508: assumed that these fluctuations produce Bohm diffusion for particles

509: of all energies.

510: %

511: Closer to the shock, where a population of accelerated particles

512: drifting upstream is present, this seed turbulence is amplified by the

513: CR streaming instability and additionally strengthened by the plasma

514: compression. Once amplification begins, the spectrum of turbulence is no

515: longer restricted to any particular form\footnote{We assumed

516: $U_{\pm}\propto k^{-1}$ for the seed turbulence.  The choice of the seed

517: turbulence spectrum does not significantly affect our results

518: for two reasons. First, the diffusion coefficient assumed here only

519: depends on the total power in the turbulence and is insensitive to the

520: shape of the spectrum, and second, the rapidly growing fluctuations due

521: to the streaming instability quickly overpower the seed

522: spectrum. Despite our using the Bohm diffusion coefficient, we still

523: keep track of the turbulence spectrum in the simulation since this

524: will be used in future work where the diffusion coefficient is

525: determined self-consistently from the wave spectrum.}.

526: Assuming that the turbulence is described by the

527: quantities $U_-(x,k)$ and $U_+(x,k)$ ($k$ is the wavenumber of

528: turbulence harmonics, $U_-$ and $U_+$ are the spectra of energy

529: density of structures propagating in the upstream and the downstream

530: directions with respect to the thermal plasma, respectively), we model

531: the evolution of the turbulence, as it is being advected with the plasma

532: and amplified, with the following equations:

533: %

534: \begin{equation}

535: \label{ampeq}

536: E_{\pm}[U] = (1-\heatpar)G_{\pm}[U] + I_{\pm}[U].

537: \end{equation}

538: %

539: Here, for readability, we abbreviated as $E$ the evolution operator,

540: as $G$ the growth operator and as $I$ the wave-wave interactions

541: operator, acting on the spectrum of turbulence energy density

542: $U=\{U_-(x,k), U_+(x,k)\}$. These quantities are defined as follows:

543: %

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: \nonumber

546:   E_{\pm}[U] & = &

547:      \left(u \pm V_G\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial x} U_{\pm} + \qquad \\

548:      && \qquad U_{\pm}\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac32 u \pm V_G\right), \\

549: \nonumber

550:   G_{\pm}[U] & = &

551:      \mp\frac{U_\pm}{U_+ + U_-} V_G \times \qquad \\

552:      && \qquad \frac{\partial \Pcrhat(x,p)}{\partial x}

553:      \left| \frac{dp}{dk} \right|, \\

554:   I_{\pm}[U] & = &

555:      {\pm} \frac{V_G}{\rgzero}\left(U_- - U_+\right).

556: \end{eqnarray}

557: %

558: Here and throughout the paper, $\rgzero=m_p u_0 c / (eB_0)$ -- the

559: gyroradius of a particle with a plasma frama speed equal to $u_0$

560: in the far upstream magnetic field $B_0$.

561: The parameter $\heatpar$ describes the turbulence dissipation rate, and

562: for $\heatpar=0$, equation~(\ref{ampeq}) is exactly

563: what was used in \citet{VEB2006}, except there it was

564: assumed that $V_G\ll u(x)$.  Keeping $V_G$ relative to $u(x)$ results in

565: a slightly greater amplification of magnetic field.

566: %

567: In this system $u=u(x)$ is the flow speed and

568: $V_G=V_G(x)$ is the parameter defining the turbulence growth rate

569: and the wave speed\footnote{As explained in \citet{VEB2006},

570: in the quasilinear case, $\Delta B \ll B_0$,

571: the wave speed and the speed determining turbulence growth rate are

572: both equal to the \Alf\ speed,

573: $V_G (x) = v_A = B_0 / \sqrt{4 \pi \rho(x)}$.

574: In the case of strong turbulence, $\Delta B \gtrsim B_0$,

575: we hypothesise that the resonant streaming instability can

576: still be described by equations~(\ref{ampeq}) with $V_G$

577: being a free parameter ranging from $B_0 / \sqrt{4 \pi \rho(x)}$

578: to $\Beff / \sqrt{4 \pi \rho(x)}$.}.

579: %

580: 

581: For simplicity, we assume $V_G (x) = B_0 /\sqrt{4 \pi \rho(x)}$,

582: in the present work, corresponding to $\fAlf=0$ in \citet{VEB2006},

583: and emphasize that the use of equation~(\ref{ampeq}) to

584: describe the streaming instability when $\Delta B \gtrsim B_0$ is only a

585: parameterization.

586: %

587: 

588: The growth operator $G$, which describes the turbulence amplification by

589: the CR streaming instability, is proportional to the gradient of

590: $\Pcr(x,p)$, the latter being the spectrum of pressure of the CR

591: particles driving the instability.  $\Pcr(x,p)$ is

592: computed in the Monte Carlo simulation from the trajectories of

593: particles, and the momentum $p$ at which it is taken in (\ref{ampeq}) is

594: the momentum resonant with the turbulent structures with wavenumber

595: $k$. The resonance condition assumed is

596: %

597: \begin{equation}

598: k \frac{c p}{e B_0} = 1.

599: \end{equation}

600: %

601: 

602: The parameter  $\heatpar$ enters the

603: equations of turbulence evolution (\ref{ampeq}) through the factor

604: $(1-\heatpar)$, by which the term $G$ describing the magnetic field

605: amplification by the CR streaming is reduced (it is assumed that $0 \leq

606: \heatpar \leq 1$). By writing this, we assumed simply that at all

607: wavelengths only a fraction $(1 -\heatpar)$ of the

608: instability growth rate goes into the magnetic turbulence, and the

609: remaining fraction $\heatpar$ is lost in the dissipation process.

610: %

611: The factor $(1-\heatpar)$ in (\ref{ampeq}) can also be understood in the

612: following way: \citet{VEB2006} derived their equations~(11) and (12) from

613: equation (3) by assuming that the loss term $L=0$ ($L$ here is $\bar{L}$ in

614: their notation), but now we

615: are assuming that

616: \begin{equation}

617: \label{dampingparameterization_spc}

618:   L=- \heatpar \cdot v_\mathrm{a, x}\frac{\partial \Pcr}{\partial x} .

619: \end{equation}

620: For $\heatpar=0$ no dissipation occurs, and the

621: CR streaming instability pumps the energy of the accelerated particles

622: into the magnetic turbulence, amplifying the effective magnetic field

623: most efficiently.  For $\heatpar=1$

624: the additional turbulence energy produced by the instability is assumed

625: to immediately dissipate, and the scattering in the shock is assumed to

626: be provided only by the seed turbulence slightly increased by the plasma

627: compression.

628: 

629: The energy dissipation rate at all wavelengths is then

630: %

631: \begin{equation}

632: \label{dampingparameterization}

633: L(x)=\int\limits_0^{\infty} L(x,k)\: dk = \heatpar \cdot V_G \frac{d

634: \Pcr(x)}{dx},

635: \end{equation}

636: %

637: and we assume that all this energy goes directly into heating

638: thermal particles. The

639: modeling of the thermal plasma heating is covered in detail in Section

640: \ref{plasmaheating}.

641: 

642: When equation~(\ref{ampeq}) is solved, the resulting

643: $U_{\pm}(x,k)$ are used to calculate the amplified effective magnetic

644: field

645: \begin{eqnarray}

646: \nonumber

647: \Beff(x) &=& \left[ 4 \pi \int\limits_0^{\infty} U_-(x,k)\:dk +\qquad \right. \\

648: \label{beffdef}

649: && \left. 4\pi \int\limits_0^{\infty} U_+(x,k) \: dk \right]^{1/2},

650: \end{eqnarray}

651: the turbulence pressure

652: \begin{equation}

653: \label{pwdef}

654: P_w(x) = \frac{\Beff^2(x)}{8 \pi}

655: \end{equation}

656: and the turbulence energy flux

657: \begin{eqnarray}

658: \nonumber

659: F_w(x) &=& \left( \frac32 u - V_G \right) \int\limits_0^{\infty}U_-(x,k)\:dk+\qquad\\

660: \label{fwdef}

661: &&\left( \frac32 u + V_G \right) \int\limits_0^{\infty}U_+(x,k)\:dk

662: \end{eqnarray}

663: (see equations (15), (18) and (19) in \citet{VEB2006}), which are then

664: used in the derivation of a self-consistent solution, as discussed in

665: Section~\ref{iterativeprocedure} below. In the present paper we do

666: not neglect $V_G$ in the sum with $u$, which results in a slightly lower

667: compression ratio $\rtot$ than in the case $3/2 u \pm V_G \approx 3/2

668: u$, that was adopted in \citet{VEB2006}. Note that the factor

669: $3/2$ is valid for \Alf\ wave-like modes, which is implicitly assumed 

670: by our using the system of equations (\ref{ampeq}).

671: 

672: As mentioned by \citet{CBAV2008}, effects from the transmission and

673: reflection of \Alf\ waves at the subshock could be important, and

674: accounting for these effects may further lower the compression ratio

675: $\rtot$.

676: %

677: We do not account for reflection and linear transformations of \Alf\

678: waves to other MHD modes (magnetosonic, entropy, etc.) at the subshock

679: (see McKenzie and Westphal 1970) in the present paper, because a correct

680: description of these effects on the subshock in highly turbulent media

681: must contain simultaneously some other comparable effects.

682: %

683: Indeed, MHD waves interacting with a shock produce stochastic ripples in

684: the shock surface and these ripples produce an effective broadening of

685: the shock spatial structure determined by the turbulence spectrum

686: \citep[see][]{Bykov1982}.

687: %

688: Moreover, as we argue in Appendix~\ref{special_th_vs_cr}, accounting for

689: suprathermal particles modifies the standard Rankine-Hugoniot relations

690: at the subshock and these effects could make it impossible to identify

691: the subshock as a plane discontinuity, as assumed in all existing

692: semi-analytic models.

693: %

694: Clearly, these phenomena are important and require further investigation

695: but they are beyond the scope of our simplified description of

696: MFA. Nevertheless, we believe our predictions regarding the turbulence

697: dissipation in the shock precursor are qualitatively correct.

698: 

699: 

700: 

701: \subsection{Heating of Thermal Plasma}

702: \label{plasmaheating}

703: %

704: Repeating the derivation of equation (9) in \citet{MV82}, one

705: obtains for a steady-state shock:

706: %

707: \begin{equation}

708: \label{pressuregrowth}

709: \frac{ u\rho^{\gamma}}{\gamma-1}

710: \frac{d}{dx}\left(\Pth \rho^{-\gamma} \right) = \Lbar(x)

711: \ .

712: \end{equation}

713: %

714: Here and elsewhere, $\rho=\rho(x)$, $u=u(x)$, and $\Pth=\Pth(x)$.

715: The quantity $\Lbar(x)$ is the dissipation rate defined in

716: (\ref{dampingparameterization}), and the ratio of specific

717: heats of an ideal nonrelativistic gas is $\gamma=5/3$.

718: %

719: For $\Lbar(x)=0$, equation (\ref{pressuregrowth})

720: reduces to the adiabatic heating law,

721: $\Pth \sim \rho^{\gamma}$ and, for a non-zero $\Lbar(x)$, it describes

722: the heating of the thermal plasma in the shock precursor due to the

723: dissipation of magnetic turbulence.

724: %

725: The fluid description of heating given by

726: equation~(\ref{pressuregrowth}), while it doesn't include details of

727: individual particle scattering, can be used in the \mc\ simulation to

728: replace particle scattering and

729: determine heating in the shock precursor.  This merging of analytic and

730: \mc\ techniques, or \FP\ (\FPshort), is described in detail

731: in Appendix \ref{fastpush}.

732: 

733: The \FPshort\ only affects our treatment of thermal

734: (i.e., not injected)

735: particles in the precursor and involves two steps. The first is to

736: introduce thermal

737: particles into the simulation, not far upstream as we did before, but at

738: some position $\xFP < 0$ close to the subshock and with a temperature

739: equal to what Eq.~(\ref{pressuregrowth}) and the ideal gas law

740: suggest:

741: %

742: \begin{equation}

743: \label{idealgaslaw}

744: T(x)=\frac{\Pth(x)}{k_B n_0 (u_0/u(x))},

745: \end{equation}

746: %

747: where all quantities are taken at $x=\xFP$ and $\Pth$ is calculated from

748: (\ref{pressuregrowth}) ($n_0$ and $u_0$ are the far upstream number

749: density and shock speed, and $k_B$ is

750: Boltzmann's constant).  The second step is to calculate the

751: thermal gas pressure throughout the precursor (at $x<\xFP$) using

752: (\ref{pressuregrowth}) instead of tracing particle motions.

753: 

754: The main effects of turbulence dissipation in our model are:

755: %

756: \newlistroman\listromanDE a decrease in the value of the amplified field

757: $\Beff(x)$, which determines the diffusion coefficient, $D(x,p)$;

758: %

759: \listromanDE an increase in the temperature of particles just upstream of

760: the subshock, which influences the injection of particles into the

761: acceleration process, and

762: %

763: \listromanDE

764: an increase in the thermal particle pressure $\Pth(x<0)$,

765: and a decrease in the turbulence pressure $P_w(x)$,

766: which enter the conservation equations

767: described in Section \ref{iterativeprocedure}.

768: Since all of these processes are coupled, a change in dissipation

769: influences the overall structure of the shock.

770: 

771: \subsection{Closure of the Model}

772: \label{iterativeprocedure}

773: %

774: Typically, we begin our simulation by propagating particles, with a

775: pre-set diffusion coefficient $D(x,p)$, in an unmodified shock, where the

776: flow speed jumps discontinuously from $u_0$ to $u_2$, that is,

777: $u(x)=u_0$ for $x<0$ and $u(x)=u_2$ for $x>0$.\footnote{Everywhere in

778: the text, unless otherwise noted,

779: the subscript `0' indicates a far upstream value, `1'

780: indicates a value just upstream of the subshock, and `2' indicates a

781: downstream value. For example, $u_0=u(x=-\infty)$, $u_1=u(\xtr)$, and

782: $u_2=u(x>0)$. See Appendix~\ref{mcadiabatic} for definition of $\xtr$.}

783: This allows us to calculate the various fluxes and other quantities,

784: such as the CR pressure spectrum $\Pcrhat(x,p)$, at any position $x$.

785: The latter is used to solve Eq.~(\ref{ampeq}), which yields the

786: turbulence spectra $U_{\pm}(x,k)$ and, subsequently, the amplified

787: effective field $\Beff(x)$ and the pressure of the magnetic

788: turbulence $P_w(x)$. The spectrum $\Pcrhat(x,p)$ also provides

789: the turbulence dissipation rate (\ref{dampingparameterization})

790: and the resulting pressure of the turbulence-heated gas

791: (\ref{pressuregrowth}).

792: 

793: The equations for the conservation of mass and momentum fluxes are:

794: %

795: \begin{equation}

796: \label{fluxmass}

797: \rho(x) u(x) = \rho_0 u_0

798: \end{equation}

799: %

800: ($\rho$ and $u$ are the mass density and the flow speed) and

801: %

802: \begin{equation}

803: \label{fluxmomentum}

804: \momentumflux(x) =  \upstreammomentumflux,

805: \end{equation}

806: %

807: where

808: $\momentumflux(x)$ is the flux of the $x$-component of momentum in the

809: $x$-direction including the contributions from particles and turbulence,

810: and $\upstreammomentumflux$ is the far upstream value of momentum flux, i.e.,

811: \begin{equation}

812: \upstreammomentumflux  =

813:    \rho_0 u_0^2 + \Pthzero + \Pwzero

814: \ .

815: \end{equation}

816: The quantity $\momentumflux$ is defined as

817: \begin{equation}

818:   \label{mfasmoment}

819:   \momentumflux(x) = \int p_x v_x f(x, \pvector) d^3p + P_w(x),

820: \end{equation}

821: (here $p_x$ and $v_x$ are the $x$-components of momentum and

822: velocity of particles, and $f(\pvector)$ is their distribution

823: function, all measured in the shock frame),

824: and in the simulation it is calculated by summing the contributions

825: of the particles crossing a grid location and adding the turbulence

826: pressure $P_w$ defined in (\ref{pwdef}). See details of this computation in

827: Appendix~\ref{fastpush}.

828: 

829: Initially, in our simulation, the shock doesn't have a \SC\

830: structure because we start with an unmodified shock and

831: $\momentumflux(x)$ is overestimated at all locations where

832: accelerated particles are present.

833: The next step is to use the calculated macroscopic quantities to find a

834: new $u(x)$ that reduces the mismatch between the local momentum

835: flux and the far upstream value of it $\upstreammomentumflux$

836: for $x<0$. We do this by calculating

837: \begin{eqnarray}

838: \label{iteration}

839:   u'(x)=u(x) + s \cdot \frac{\momentumflux(x) - \upstreammomentumflux}{\rho_0 u_0},

840: \end{eqnarray}

841: where $u'(x)$ is the predicted flow speed for the

842: next iteration, and $s$ is a small positive number (typically around

843: 0.1), characterizing the pace of the iterative procedure. At this

844: point we also refine our

845: estimate for the particle diffusion coefficient which, as in

846: \citet{VEB2006}, is assumed to be Bohm diffusion such that the particle

847: mean free path is equal to its gyroradius in the effective, amplified

848: field $\Beff(x)$:

849: %

850: \begin{equation}

851: \label{bohm}

852: D(x,p)=\frac{v\lambda}{3} = \frac{vcp}{3e\Beff(x)},

853: \end{equation}

854: %

855: where $\Beff(x)$ is defined in (\ref{beffdef}).

856: %

857: 

858: The predicted $u(x)$ and $D(x,p)$ are then used in a new iteration where

859: particles are injected and propagated. The calculated CR pressure, momentum

860: flux, etc. are then used to refine the guesses for $u(x)$ and $D(x,p)$

861: for the next iteration, and so on. This procedure is continued until all

862: quantities converge.

863: 

864: In order to conserve momentum and energy, the compression ratio,

865: $\rtot=u_0/u_2$, must be determined self-consistently with the

866: shock structure. To determine $\rtot$ we use the condition of the

867: conservation of energy flux given by:

868: %

869: \begin{equation}

870: \label{fluxenergy}

871: \energyflux(x) + \Qesc(x) = \upstreamenergyflux,

872: \end{equation}

873: %

874: where $\energyflux(x)$ is the energy flux of particles and turbulence in

875: the $x$-direction, $\Qesc$ is the energy flux of escaping particles

876: at the FEB,\footnote{Particle escape at an upstream FEB also

877: causes the mass and momentum fluxes to change but these changes are

878: negligible as long as $u_0 \ll c$ \citep[][]{Ellison85}.} and the far

879: upstream value of the energy flux is

880: \begin{equation}

881: \upstreamenergyflux = \frac{1}{2} \rho_0 u_0^3 +

882: \frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}\Pthzero u_0  + \Fwzero.

883: \end{equation}

884: The quantity $\energyflux(x)$ is defined as

885: \begin{equation}

886: \label{efasmoment}

887: \energyflux(x) = \int K v_x f(x,\pvector) d^3 p + F_w(x),

888: \end{equation}

889: $K$ being the kinetic energy of a particle with momentum $p$ measured in

890: the shock frame, and $F_w$ is the energy flux of the turbulence

891: defined in (\ref{fwdef}). The details of calculating

892: $\energyflux(x)$ in the simulation are given

893: in Appendix~\ref{fastpush}, and the explanation of

894: how $\energyflux(x)$ is used in an iterative procedure converging to a

895: consistent $\rtot$ is given in Appendix \ref{compressionratio}.

896: 

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: 

901: \section{Results}

902: %

903: \subsection{Particle Injection in Unmodified Shocks (Subshock Modeling)}

904: \label{injectionvsdissipation}

905: 

906: In order to isolate the effects of plasma heating on particle injection,

907: we first show results for unmodified shocks, i.e., $u(x<0)=u_0$ and

908: $u(x>0)=u_0/\rtot$, with fixed $\rtot$. In these models particle

909: acceleration, \MFA\ and turbulence damping are included consistently

910: with each other, but we do not obtain fully \SC\ solutions

911: conserving momentum and energy, since this requires the shock

912: to be smoothed, while we intentionally fix $u(x)$.

913: 

914: %\clearpage

915: \begin{figure}

916: \epsscale{1.0}

917: \plotone{f1.eps}

918: \caption{Dependence of magnetic field amplification and particle

919:   injection on the rate of magnetic turbulence dissipation in unmodified

920:   shocks.  Results for shocks with compression ratios $\rtot$=3.0, 3.2,

921:   3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 are represented by the thin solid, dotted, dashed,

922:   dash-dotted and thick solid lines, respectively. The $x$-axis variable

923:   is the turbulence dissipation rate $\heatpar$ (constant throughout a

924:   shock), and the plotted quantities are the amplified downstream

925:   effective magnetic field $\Befftwo$, the subshock sonic Mach number

926:   $\Msone$, the fraction of simulation particles

927:   injected into the acceleration process $\fcr$, and the ratio of

928:   amplified field to $\Btrend$ downstream from the shock.

929:   \label{fig_unmod_inj}}

930: \end{figure}

931: %\clearpage

932: 

933: In Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj} we show results where the compression ratio is

934: varied between $\Rtot=3$ and $3.6$ as indicated. In all models, $u_0 =

935: 3000$ \kmps, $T_0 = 10^4$ K, $n_0 = 0.3$\,\pcc\ and $B_0 = 3$\,\muG\

936: (the corresponding sonic and \Alf\ Mach numbers are $\Mszero \approx

937: \Mazero \approx 250$). The FEB was set at $\xFEB = -3\cdot 10^4\:

938: \rgzero$ (our spatial scale unit $\rgzero=m_p u_0 c / (eB_0)$),

939: and for each $\Rtot$ we obtained results for different values

940: of $\heatpar$ between 0 and 1. The values plotted in the

941: top three panels of Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj}

942: are the amplified magnetic field downstream, $\Befftwo$, the Mach number

943: right before the shock, $\Msone$ (this is not equal to $\Mszero$ because

944: of the plasma heating due to turbulence dissipation), and the fraction

945: of thermal particles in the simulation that crossed the shock in the

946: upstream direction at least once (i.e., got injected), $\fcr$. The bottom

947: panel shows the ratio of the calculated downstream effective magnetic

948: field $\Befftwo$ to trend values $\Btrend(\heatpar)$;

949: what is meant by ``trend'' is explained below.

950: 

951: Looking at the curve for $\Befftwo$ in the $\rtot=3.0$ model, one sees

952: an easy to explain behavior: as the magnetic turbulence dissipation rate

953: increases, the value of the amplified magnetic field decreases, going

954: down to $B_0 \rtot^{3/4}$ (the upstream field compressed at the shock)

955: for $\heatpar=1$. Increasing $\heatpar$ simply causes more energy to be

956: removed from magnetic turbulence and put into thermal particles, thus

957: decreasing the value of $\Befftwo$.\footnote{We use this result, with

958: well understood behavior, to test the implementation of turbulence

959: dissipation in our simulation.}

960: %

961: In our model, the amount of dissipated turbulence energy scales linearly

962: with $\heatpar$. Therefore, the trend of $\Befftwo$ changing with

963: $\heatpar$ under the assumption that the total efficiency of the

964: streaming instability is unchanged, but the energy is channelled

965: from magnetic turbulence to thermal particles, can be described as

966: \begin{eqnarray}

967:   \label{btrend}

968:   \nonumber

969:   \Btrend^2(\heatpar) &=&

970:      \left(B_0 \rtot^{3/4}\right)^2 + (1-\heatpar) \times \qquad\quad\\

971:   \label{btwotrend}

972:   &&

973:   \left[ \left. \Befftwo^2 \Big.\right|_{\heatpar=0}

974:     - \left(B_0 \rtot^{3/4}\right)^2 \right],

975: \end{eqnarray}

976: where the first term on the right hand side is the $B_0$

977: compressed at the shock \citep[the compression factor $\rtot^{3/4}$

978: is explained by equation (13) in][]{VEB2006}, and the

979: second term is proportional to the amount of the magnetic

980: turbulence energy density generated by the instability for $\heatpar=0$,

981: reduced by the factor $(1-\heatpar)$.  Neglecting $B_0$,

982: Eq.~(\ref{btwotrend}) predicts $\Btrend \propto

983: \sqrt{1-\heatpar}$. The comparison of $\Befftwo$ with

984: $\Btrend(\heatpar)$ from (\ref{btwotrend}) is shown in the bottom panel

985: of Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj}. It is clear that the

986: above trend matches the calculations very well for $\rtot=3.0$.

987: %

988: One also can see that the sonic Mach

989: number in this simulation decreased from the upstream value of $250$ to

990: approximately $20$, and that the fraction of injected particles remained

991: almost constant as $\heatpar$ was varied.

992: 

993: The curves for $\rtot=3.2$ demonstrate the same behavior, and the shape

994: of the $\Befftwo$ curve is similar to the one for $\rtot=3.0$, with the

995: higher compression ratio producing a higher value of the amplified

996: magnetic field due to a greater number of particles getting

997: injected. The calculated $\Befftwo$ deviates from the trend

998: $\Btrend(\heatpar)$ more than in the $\rtot=3.0$ case, and this

999: deviation marks the emergence of an effect that becomes more

1000: pronounced as $\rtot$increases.

1001: 

1002: The plots for $\rtot \gtrsim 3.4$ present a

1003: qualitatively different behavior from those with $\rtot \lesssim

1004: 3.2$. The downstream magnetic field $\Befftwo$ does

1005: decrease with increasing $\heatpar$, but not as rapidly as in the

1006: previous two cases, and there is a switching point at $\heatpar \approx

1007: 0.95$ in the curves for $\Msone$ and $\fcr$.  The bottom panel of

1008: Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj} shows a deviation of $\Befftwo$ from the trend

1009: (\ref{btwotrend}) by a large factor in the $\rtot = 3.4$ case.  This

1010: effect becomes even more dramatic for $\rtot=3.5$ and $\rtot=3.6$ where

1011: $\Befftwo$, contrary to expectations, increases with $\heatpar$ before

1012: $\heatpar\rightarrow 1$.  The fact that the final energy in turbulence

1013: can increase as more energy is transferred from the turbulence to heat

1014: indicates the \NL\ behavior of the system and shows how sensitive the

1015: acceleration is to precursor heating.

1016: 

1017: Indeed, if the upstream plasma is not heated sufficiently (as in the

1018: $\rtot < 3.4$ cases), then the thermal particles first reaching the

1019: shock are cold ($T_1 \sim T_0$), and just upstream of the subshock

1020: the sonic Mach number $\Msone$ has a large value (much greater than $10$

1021: for any $\heatpar$).  As these thermal particles cross the shock, their

1022: momenta in the downstream plasma frame lie in a very narrow cone opening

1023: in the downstream direction, with the opening angle around $\theta \sim

1024: \Msone^{-1}$, making it equally difficult for most particles to turn

1025: around, cross the subshock backwards and get injected into the

1026: acceleration process.  As long as $\theta$ is small (or $\Msone$ is

1027: large enough), the number of injected particles is insensitive to the

1028: exact opening angle and $\fcr$ stays relatively constant, as seen in the

1029: third panel of Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj} for the $\rtot=3.0$ case.

1030: 

1031: The injection rate increases with $\Rtot$ and for $\Rtot=3.6$, even with

1032: $\heatpar$ as low as 0.1, the CR-generated turbulence heats the thermal

1033: plasma through dissipation enough to lower $\Msone$ to $\sim 10$.

1034: Increasing $\heatpar$ further lowers $\Msone$ even more, quickly

1035: increasing the probability that a downstream thermal particle will

1036: return upstream, thus boosting the injection rate ($\fcr$ rapidly goes

1037: up with $\heatpar$ in the $\rtot \geq 3.4$ cases). It turns out that

1038: this effect overcomes the reduction of $\Befftwo$ due to damping, and

1039: $\Befftwo$ starts increasing with $\heatpar$.

1040: 

1041: For any $\rtot$, at some high enough value of $\heatpar$ (near $0.90$),

1042: the decrease in magnetic turbulence due to dissipation dominates the

1043: increase in injection and the magnetic field drops. As $\heatpar

1044: \rightarrow 1$, and $\Befftwo$ becomes small enough, the efficiency of

1045: particle acceleration reduces sufficiently to cut down the total energy

1046: put into magnetic turbulence and the corresponding fraction of this energy

1047: dissipated into the thermal particles. This causes $\Msone$ to turn up

1048: and $\fcr$ to turn down at about $\heatpar=0.95$,

1049: as shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj}.

1050: 

1051: It is worth mentioning that the observed increase of particle

1052: injection due to the precursor plasma heating is a consequence of the

1053: thermal leakage model of particle injection adopted here. In this model,

1054: a downstream particle, thermal or otherwise, with plasma frame speed

1055: $v>u_2$, has a probability to return upstream which increases with $v$

1056: \citep[see][for a discussion of the probability of returning

1057: particles]{Bell78a}. That is, we assume that the subshock is transparent

1058: to all particles with $v>u_2$, but only some of these particles get

1059: injected, depending on their random histories. Particles that don't get

1060: injected are convected far downstream out of the system. An alternative

1061: model of injection \citep[see, for example,][]{BGV2005} is one where

1062: only particles with a gyroradius greater than the shock thickness can

1063: get injected. The assumption with this threshold injection model is that

1064: the subshock thickness is comparable to the gyroradius of a downstream

1065: thermal particle and only those particles with speeds $v > \xi

1066: v_\mathrm{th}$ can be injected. Particles with $v < \xi v_\mathrm{th}$

1067: are somehow blocked by the subshock.  Here, $v_\mathrm{th}$ is the

1068: downstream thermal speed and $\xi$ is a free parameter, typically taken

1069: to be between 2 and 4.

1070: 

1071: Despite being similar, it can be expected that these injection models

1072: will react differently to precursor heating.

1073: Namely, in the \citet{BGV2005} model the fraction of

1074: injected particles may be insensitive to the precursor heating if $\xi$

1075: is fixed\footnote{\citet{AB2006}, who performed a brief analysis of the

1076: impact of the turbulence dissipation on the \NL\ shock structure in a

1077: way similar to ours, did not report an influence of heating on the

1078: injection rate.}, because the same particle injection rate occurs

1079: regardless of the pre-subshock temperature $T_1$ and downstream

1080: temperature $T_2$.

1081: %

1082: While both models are highly simplified

1083: descriptions of the complex subshock

1084: \citep[see, e.g.][]{Malkov98, GE2000}, they offer two scenarios for

1085: grasping a qualitatively correct behavior of a shock where

1086: particle injection and acceleration are coupled

1087: to turbulence generation and flow modification.  Hopefully, a

1088: clearer view of particle injection by self-generated turbulence in a

1089: strongly magnetized subshock will become available when

1090: relevant full particle PIC or hybrid

1091: simulations are performed.

1092: 

1093: With the general trends observed here in mind,

1094: we now show how \NL\ effects modify the effect dissipation has

1095: on injection and MFA.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: \subsection{Fully Nonlinear Model}

1099: 

1100: \label{nlresults}

1101: 

1102: In this section we demonstrate the results of the fully nonlinear

1103: models, in which the flow structure, compression ratio, magnetic

1104: turbulence, and particle distribution are all determined \SCly, so

1105: that the fluxes of mass, momentum and energy are conserved across the

1106: shock.

1107: 

1108: We use two sets of parameters, one with the far upstream gas

1109: temperature $T_0=10^4$~K and the far upstream particle density $n_0 =

1110: 0.3$~\pcc, typical of the cold interstellar medium (ISM), and one with

1111: $T_0=10^6$ K and $n_0=0.003$ \pcc, typical of the hot ISM.

1112: %

1113: In both cases we assumed the shock speed $u_0 = 5000$ \kmps, and the

1114: initial magnetic field $B_0 = 3$ \muG\ (giving an equipartition of

1115: magnetic and thermal energy far upstream, $n_0 k_B T_0 \approx

1116: B_0^2/(8\pi)$). The corresponding sonic and \Alf\ Mach numbers are $M_s

1117: \approx M_A \approx 400$ in both cases).  The size of the shocks

1118: was limited by a FEB located at $\xFEB = -10^5 \rgzero\approx -3 \cdot

1119: 10^{-4}$ pc.

1120: %

1121: For both cases, we ran seven

1122: simulations with different values of the dissipation rate $\heatpar$,

1123: namely $\heatpar \in \{ 0; 0.1; 0.25; 0.5; 0.75; 0.9;

1124: 1.0\}$. Also, for the \hotism\ case we ran a

1125: simulation neglecting the streaming instability effects, i.e., keeping

1126: the magnetic field constant throughout the shock and assuming that the

1127: precursor plasma is heated only by adiabatic compression (this model

1128: will be referred to as the `no MFA case').

1129: 

1130: \clearpage

1131: \begin{deluxetable}{ lrrrrrrr }

1132: \tabletypesize{\small}

1133: \tablecaption{Summary of Non-linear Simulation in a Cold ISM \label{sumnl_cold}}

1134: \tablewidth{0pt}

1135: \tablehead{

1136: $\heatpar$         & 0.00  & 0.10  & 0.25  & 0.50  & 0.75  & 0.95  & 1.00

1137: }

1138: \startdata

1139: $\rtot$            & 16.0  & 16.2  & 14.5  & 14.6  & 14.0  & 13.2  & 13.0  \\

1140: $\rsub$            & 2.95  & 2.83  & 2.75  & 2.59  & 2.50  & 2.50  & 2.51  \\

1141: $\Befftwo$, \muG   & 345   & 323   & 284   & 232   & 158   & 71    & 21    \\

1142: $\Btrend$, \muG    & 345   & 327   & 299   & 245   & 174   & 80    & 21    \\

1143: $\left<T(x<0)\right>$, $10^4$ K

1144:                    & 1.06  & 4.3   & 9.0   & 17    & 26    & 37    & 56    \\

1145: $T_1$, $10^4$ K    & 3.3   & 68    & 160   & 330   & 490   & 610   & 650   \\

1146: $T_2$, $10^4$ K    & 1400  & 1500  & 1600  & 1600  & 1800  & 2000  & 2200  \\

1147: $\Msone$           & 44    & 9.5   & 6.3   & 4.2   & 3.5   & 3.3   & 3.2   \\

1148: $\fcr$, \%         & 1.0   & 1.2   & 1.6   & 2.1   & 2.6   & 3.1   & 3.2   \\

1149: $\pmax / m_pc$     & 500   & 450   & 400   & 350   & 250   & 150   & 80    \\

1150: $\left<\gamma(x<0)\right>$

1151:                    & 1.33  & 1.33  & 1.33  & 1.33  & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.34  \\

1152: $\gamma_2$         & 1.38  & 1.38  & 1.38  & 1.39  & 1.39  & 1.40  & 1.41  \\

1153: $\xtr  / \rgzero$  & -0.005&-0.001 & -0.001& -0.001&-0.002 & -0.004& -0.02 \\

1154: $\xFP  / \rgzero$  & -0.04 &-0.06  & -0.06 & -0.09 & -0.23 &-0.57  & -2.1  \\

1155: \enddata

1156: \footnotesize\tablecomments{Here $\heatpar$, the fraction of dissipated energy, is the

1157:   model input parameter, and the rest are results of the self-consistent

1158:   simulation, as follows: $\rtot=u_0/u_2$ is the total shock compression ratio,

1159:   $\rsub=u_1/u_2$ is the subshock compression, $\Befftwo$ is the amplified

1160:   effective magnetic field downstream, $\Btrend$ is the trend value

1161:   calculated from Eq.~(\ref{btrend}), $\left<T(x<0)\right>$ is the temperature

1162:   of the precursor averaged over the volume from $x=\xFEB$ to $x=0$,

1163:   $T_1$ is the temperature at $x=\xtr$, $T_2$ is the volume-averaged

1164:   temperature at $x>0$ (all temperatures are calculated from the ideal

1165:   gas law~(\ref{idealgaslaw})), $\Msone$ is the sonic Mach number at $x=\xtr$,

1166:   $\fcr$ is the fraction of injected thermal particles, $\pmax$ is the

1167:   maximum particle momentum (i.e., the momentum at which $f(p)$ starts falling

1168:   off exponentially with $p$), $\left<\gamma(x<0)\right>$ is the value of

1169:   the polytropic index of  particle gas, calculated from particle pressure

1170:   and internal energy density as described in Appendix~\ref{compressionratio},

1171:   and averaged over volume from $x=\xFEB$ to $x=0$, $\gamma_2$ is the

1172:   same quantity averaged over $x>0$, $\xtr$ is the point at which the

1173:   subshock starts, as defined by Eq.~(\ref{subshocklocation}),

1174:   and $\xFP$ is the point defined by Eq.~(\ref{xfastpush}), at which

1175:   thermal particles were introduced by the APA procedure as described

1176:   in Appendix~\ref{fastpush}.

1177: }

1178: \end{deluxetable}

1179: 

1180: %\clearpage

1181: 

1182: \begin{deluxetable}{ lrrrrrrrr }

1183: \tabletypesize{\small}

1184: \tablecaption{Summary of Non-linear Simulation in a Hot ISM \label{sumnl_hot}}

1185: \tablewidth{0pt}

1186: \tablehead{

1187: $\heatpar$         & 0.00  & 0.10  & 0.25  & 0.50  & 0.75  & 0.95  & 1.00  & No MFA

1188: }

1189: \startdata

1190: $\rtot$            & 8.1   & 8.2   & 8.3   & 8.0   & 7.8   & 7.4   & 7.3   & 13     \\

1191: $\rsub$            & 2.92  & 2.75  & 2.55  & 2.44  & 2.22  & 2.15  & 2.12  & 2.75   \\

1192: $\Befftwo$, \muG   & 62    & 60    & 55    & 44    & 32    & 17    & 14    & 21     \\

1193: $\Btrend$, \muG    & 62    & 59    & 54    & 45    & 33    & 19    & 13    & -      \\

1194: $\left<T(x<0)\right>$, $10^6$ K

1195:                    & 1.04  & 1.3   & 1.7   & 2.3   & 3.1   & 3.9   & 4.2   & 1.1    \\

1196: $T_1$, $10^6$ K    & 2.0   & 6.0   & 13    & 23    & 34    & 42    & 43    & 2.7    \\

1197: $T_2$, $10^6$ K    & 53    & 49    & 47    & 55    & 62    & 72    & 75    & 22     \\

1198: $\Msone$           & 10.9  & 5.8   & 3.7   & 2.6   & 2.1   & 1.9   & 1.9   & 4.7    \\

1199: $\fcr$, \%         & 1.2   & 1.6   & 2.5   & 4.0   & 6.4   & 6.9   & 6.4   & 2.4    \\

1200: $\pmax / m_pc$     & 150   & 120   & 110   & 100   & 90    & 70    & 60    & 80     \\

1201: $\left<\gamma(x<0)\right>$

1202:                    & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.34  & 1.35  & 1.34   \\

1203: $\gamma_2$         & 1.43  & 1.43  & 1.43  & 1.44  & 1.45  & 1.45  & 1.45  & 1.41   \\

1204: $\xtr  / \rgzero$  & -0.04 &-0.02  & -0.02 & -0.02 &-0.03  & -0.07 & -0.05 & -0.02  \\

1205: $\xFP  / \rgzero$  & -0.1  &-0.1   & -0.2  & -0.2  & -0.4  & -0.9  & -1.4  & -0.1   \\

1206: \enddata

1207: \footnotesize\tablecomments{See the note for Table~\ref{sumnl_cold} for

1208: the explanation of listed quantities.}

1209: \end{deluxetable}

1210: \clearpage

1211: 

1212: Referring to Tables~\ref{sumnl_cold} and \ref{sumnl_hot}, we summarize

1213: some of the results of these models.

1214: %

1215: The effect of the turbulence dissipation into the thermal plasma is

1216: evident in the values of the pre-subshock temperature $T_1$, the

1217: downstream temperature $T_2$, and the volume-averaged precursor

1218: temperature $\left< T(x<0) \right>$ (the averaging takes place between

1219: $x=\xFEB$ and $x=0$).

1220: The temperatures were calculated from the thermal particle pressure

1221: $\Pth(x)$ using the ideal gas law equation~(\ref{idealgaslaw}).

1222: The value of $T_1$ depends drastically on the

1223: level of the turbulence dissipation $\heatpar$, increasing from

1224: $\heatpar=0$ to $\heatpar=0.5$ by a factor of 100 in the

1225: \coldismNoT case, and by a factor of 11 in the

1226: \hotismNoT case (less in the latter case, because

1227: the efficiency of the CR streaming instability in generating the

1228: magnetic turbulence is less for the smaller $M_s$ and $M_A$ for

1229: $T=10^6$~K).

1230: %

1231: The values of the temperature as high as $T_1$ are achieved upstream

1232: only near the subshock; the volume-averaged upstream temperature,

1233: $\left< T(x<0) \right>$, is significantly lower. The factors by which

1234: $\left< T(x<0) \right>$ increases in the above

1235: cases are 17 and 2.3, respectively.

1236: %

1237: The value of $\Mszero^2 / \Mazero$ is large in our models,

1238: and the estimate~(\ref{upsilonequation}) predicts that

1239: even a small amount of dissipation is enough

1240: to raise the precursor temperature significantly. This is confirmed

1241: by our results: even $\heatpar=0.1$ is enough to raise

1242: the pre-subshock temperature $T_1$ approximately 20 times in the

1243: \coldism\ case.

1244: 

1245: The downstream temperature, $T_2$, varies less with changing $\heatpar$,

1246: because it is largely determined by the compression at the subshock,

1247: which is controlled by many factors as we discuss below.

1248: It is worth mentioning the case without

1249: MFA reported in Table~\ref{sumnl_hot}.  Besides having a much larger

1250: compression factor than the shocks with MFA ($\rtot=13$ as opposed to

1251: $\rtot\lesssim 8$), it has a much smaller downstream temperature

1252: ($T_2=2.2\cdot 10^7$~K as opposed to $T_2 \gtrsim 5.3\cdot 10^7$~K)

1253: These effects of dissipation on the precursor temperature may be

1254: observable.

1255: 

1256: %\clearpage

1257: \begin{figure}

1258: \epsscale{1.0}

1259: \plotone{f2.eps}

1260: \caption{Dependence of particle injection and magnetic field

1261:   amplification on the rate of magnetic turbulence dissipation in the

1262:   non-linearly modified shock with $u=5000$ \kmps\ in the \coldismNoT\

1263:   and the \hotismNoT\ cases (the fully self-consistent models).  The

1264:   $x$-axis variable is the turbulence dissipation rate $\heatpar$

1265:   (constant throughout a shock), and the plotted quantities are the

1266:   amplified downstream effective magnetic field $\Befftwo$, the subshock

1267:   sonic Mach number $\Msone$, the fraction of

1268:   simulation particles injected into the acceleration process

1269:   $\fcr$, and the ratio of amplified field to $\Btrend$ downstream

1270:   from the shock.

1271:   \label{fignlsum}}

1272: \end{figure}

1273: %\clearpage

1274: 

1275: In Figure~\ref{fignlsum} we show results for $\fcr$, $\Msone$,

1276: $\Befftwo$, and $\Btrend$ which can be compared to the results for

1277: unmodified shocks shown in Figure~\ref{fig_unmod_inj}. For the modified

1278: shocks, the fraction of the thermal particles crossing the shock

1279: backwards for the first time, $\fcr$, clearly increases by a large

1280: factor with $\heatpar$, which can be explained by the value of $\Msone$

1281: dropping quickly below 10. One could expect that the amplified

1282: effective magnetic field $\Befftwo$ would behave similarly to the

1283: $\rtot=3.5$ case in Section~\ref{injectionvsdissipation}, i.e. that

1284: $\Befftwo$ would not decrease or even would increase for larger

1285: $\heatpar$.  Instead, $\Befftwo$ behaves approximately according to the

1286: trend~(\ref{btwotrend}), as the values of $\Btrend$ from

1287: Tables~\ref{sumnl_cold} and \ref{sumnl_hot} show and the bottom panel of

1288: Fig.~\ref{fignlsum} illustrates. The important point is that, even

1289: though precursor heating causes the {\it injection efficiency} to

1290: increase substantially, the {\it efficiency of particle acceleration}

1291: and magnetic turbulence generation is hardly changed.

1292: %

1293: We base this assertion on the fact that $\Befftwo$ remains

1294: close to $\Btrend$, which was derived under the assumption that changing

1295: $\heatpar$ preserves the total energy generated by the instability, but

1296: re-distributes it between the turbulence and the thermal particles. The

1297: fact that the particle acceleration efficiency is insensitive to

1298: $\heatpar$ is directly seen in the results displayed in

1299: Figure~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6} below.

1300: 

1301: Considering how much the injection rate $\fcr$ increases with

1302: $\heatpar$, and how much the upstream temperature

1303: of the thermal plasma, $T_1$, is affected by the heating,

1304: it is somewhat surprising that the

1305: trend of the amplified effective field $\Befftwo$ is unaffected. The

1306: mechanism by which the shock adjusts to the changing heating and

1307: injection in order to preserve the MFA efficiency can be understood by

1308: looking at the trend of the total compression ratio $\rtot$ and the

1309: subshock compression ratio $\rsub$ in Tables~\ref{sumnl_cold} and

1310: \ref{sumnl_hot}: they both decrease significantly for higher

1311: $\heatpar$.

1312: The decrease in $\rsub$ is easy to understand:

1313: with the turbulence dissipation operating in the precursor

1314: $\Msone$ goes down, which lowers $\rsub$. Additionally,

1315: decreasing $\Pwone$ helps to reduce $\rsub$, and

1316: with a boost

1317: of the particle injection rate, the particles returning for the first

1318: time increase in number and build up some extra pressure just upstream

1319: of the shock, which causes

1320: the flow to slow down in that region, thus reducing the ratio

1321: $\rsub$.

1322: %

1323: The decrease in $\rtot$ results from more complex processes. Here,

1324: the histories of `adolescent' particles, i.e., those particles

1325: returning upstream for the first time or for the first few times, are

1326: critical. Adolescent particles, while superthermal, are still highly

1327: anisotropic in the shock frame and how they get accelerated in the

1328: smoothed precursor just upstream of the subshock determines the number

1329: and energies of the `mature' superthermal particles, i.e., those

1330: particles with enough energy to be nearly isotropic in the shock

1331: frame. The mature particles determine the CR pressure and precursor

1332: smoothing on larger scales.

1333: %

1334: 

1335: Further understanding of the shock adjustment to the changing

1336: dissipation can be gained by studying Figures \ref{fig_ubt_1e4_1e6} -

1337: \ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6}, in which we plot the spatial

1338: structure and the momentum-dependent quantities of the shocks in the

1339: \coldismNoT\ and the \hotismNoT\ cases for $\heatpar \in \{0; 0.5; 1\}$.

1340: 

1341: %\clearpage

1342: \begin{figure}

1343: \epsscale{1.00} \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

1344: \caption{ Results of non-linear simulations in the \coldismNoT\

1345: (left) and \hotismNoT\ (right) with different values of

1346: $\heatpar$.  The solid, dashed and dotted lines correspond,

1347: respectively, to $\heatpar = 0$, $0.5$ and $1.0$.  The plotted

1348: quantities are the bulk flow speed $u(x)$, the effective amplified

1349: magnetic field $\Beff(x)$ and the thermal gas temperature $T(x)$. The

1350: shock is located at $x=0$, and note the change from the logarithmic to

1351: the linear scale at $x=-0.05\:\rgzero$.

1352:   \label{fig_ubt_1e4_1e6}}

1353: \end{figure}

1354: 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \begin{figure}

1358: \epsscale{1.00} \plotone{f4.eps}

1359: \caption{Enlarged subshock region in the \hotismNoT\ case.  The top

1360:   panel shows the flow speed normalized to $u_0$ for the

1361:   $\heatpar=0.0$ and $\heatpar=0.5$ models. The middle panel shows

1362:   various constituents of pressure for the $\heatpar=0.0$ run: the

1363:   thermal pressure $\Pth$, the pressures of `adolescent' particles that

1364:   crossed the shock 1, 2, 3 and 4 times ($P_1$, $P_2$, $P_3$ and $P_4$,

1365:   respectively), the pressure of particles that have crossed 5 and more

1366:   times $P_\mathrm{>5}$ and the magnetic turbulence pressure $P_w$, all

1367:   of the above are normalized to the far upstream momentum flux

1368:   $\Phi_\mathrm{P0}$. The bottom panel shows the same quantities for

1369:   $\heatpar=0.5$.

1370: \label{fig_partpress}}

1371: \end{figure}

1372: %\clearpage

1373: 

1374: Figure~\ref{fig_ubt_1e4_1e6} shows an overlap in the curves for the flow

1375: speed $u(x)$ in the $\heatpar=0$ and $\heatpar=0.5$ models, and only

1376: close to the subshock $u(x)$ falls off more rapidly towards the subshock

1377: in the $\heatpar=0.5$ case, resulting eventually in a lower

1378: $\rsub$. This means that for the high energy particles, which diffuse

1379: far upstream, the acceleration process will go on in about the same

1380: way with and without moderate turbulence dissipation

1381: (and the acceleration efficiency will be preserved with changing

1382: $\heatpar$).

1383: For lower energy particles, however, there will be observable differences in the

1384: energy spectrum.  The $\heatpar=1.0$ case has a significantly smoother

1385: precursor, which is not unusual, given the lower maximal energy of the

1386: accelerated particles in this case (because of the magnetic field

1387: remaining low).  The thermal gas temperatures $T(x)$ plotted in the

1388: bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig_ubt_1e4_1e6} were calculated from the

1389: thermal pressure $\Pth(x)$ using~(\ref{idealgaslaw}) and show that the

1390: temperature becomes high well in front of the subshock.

1391: 

1392: In Figure~\ref{fig_partpress} the subshock region for the \hotismNoT\

1393: case is shown enlarged, and we can compare details of the models with

1394: ($\heatpar=0.5$) and without dissipation ($\heatpar=0.0$).  In the

1395: absence of turbulence dissipation, the thermal pressure $\Pth$ remains

1396: low upstream (see the middle panel), and the subshock transition is

1397: dominated by the magnetic pressure $P_w$.

1398: For $\heatpar=0.5$

1399: (the bottom panel) the thermal pressure $\Pth$ just before the shock

1400: increases enough to become comparable with the magnetic pressure, but

1401: also the heating-boosted particle injection brings up the pressures of

1402: the `adolescent' particles. As the plot shows, for $\heatpar=0.5$ the

1403: pressures produced by the first and second time returning particles

1404: ($P_1$ and $P_2$) are not small compared to $\Pth$ and $P_w$ just

1405: upstream of the shock, which contributes to the reduction of $\rsub$

1406: described above. However, the pressure of the `mature' particles,

1407: $P_\mathrm{>5}$, doesn't change much, which is a result of the

1408: non-linear response of the shock structure to the increased injection.

1409: 

1410: %\clearpage

1411: \begin{figure}

1412: \epsscale{1.00}

1413: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}

1414: \caption{Results of non-linear simulations in the \coldismNoT

1415:   (left) and \hotismNoT\ (right) with different values

1416:   of $\heatpar$.  Line styles as in Fig.~\ref{fig_ubt_1e4_1e6}. The

1417:   plotted quantities are: the particle distribution function in the

1418:   shock frame $f(p)$ multiplied by $p^4$ (the normalization is

1419:   such that $\int{4\pi p'^2 f(p') dp'}=n$, $n$ being the number density

1420:   in \pcc, and $p'=p/(m_p c)$), the number of particles $n(>p)$ with

1421:   momentum greater than $p$ (in \pcc) and the particle pressure (in

1422:   dynes per cm$^2$) per decade of normalized momentum

1423:   $dP_p/d\log_\mathrm{10}{p/(m_p c)}$. All quantities are calculated

1424:   downstream at $x=+6 \rgzero$.

1425:      \label{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6}}

1426: \end{figure}

1427: %\clearpage

1428: 

1429: 

1430: The low energy parts of the particle distribution functions shown in

1431: Figure~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6} are significantly different for models with

1432: and without dissipation in both the \coldismNoT\ and the \hotismNoT\

1433: cases. The apparent widening of the thermal peak reflects the increase

1434: in the downstream gas temperature $T_2$. The differences extend from the

1435: thermal peak to mildly superthermal momenta $0.2\: m_p c$, which shows

1436: an increased population of the `adolescent' particles with speeds up to

1437: $v\approx 0.2 c \approx 12 u_0$ when the turbulence dissipation

1438: operates. The high energy ($p>0.2 \: m_p c$) parts of the spectra for

1439: $\heatpar=0$ and $\heatpar=0.5$ are similar (except

1440: for a lower $\pmax$ due to a lower value of the amplified field in the

1441: $\heatpar=0.5$ case), confirming our

1442: assertion about the preservation of the particle acceleration

1443: efficiency. The increased population of the low-energy particles just

1444: above the thermal peak should influence the shock's X-ray emission.

1445: 

1446: The characteristic concave curvature of the particle spectra above

1447: the thermal peak is clearly seen in the top panels of

1448: Figure~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6}. These shocks are strongly \NL\ and, as

1449: the bottom panels in Figure~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6} show, most of the

1450: pressure is in the highest energy particles. For these examples, 60 to

1451: 80 percent of the downstream momentum flux is in CR particles. The

1452: number of particles producing this pressure is small, however, and as

1453: the plots in the middle panels show, the fraction of particles above

1454: the thermal peak is on the order of $10^{-3}$, and the fraction of

1455: particles above 1~GeV is around $10^{-6}$ in all cases. In addition to

1456: the pressure (and energy) in the distributions shown, a sizable

1457: fraction of shock ram kinetic energy flux escapes at the FEB.

1458: 

1459: To summarize,

1460: for both the unmodified (Fig.~\ref{fig_unmod_inj}) and modified

1461: (Fig.~\ref{fignlsum}) cases, $\Msone$ drops and

1462: $\fcr$ grows as $\heatpar$ increases. The surprising result is that

1463: $\Befftwo$ can increase in the unmodified shock as $\heatpar$ goes up if

1464: $\rtot$ is large enough. This indicates that the boosted injection

1465: efficiency (i.e., larger $\fcr$) outweighs the effects of field

1466: damping. This doesn't happen in the modified case (top panel of

1467: Fig.~\ref{fignlsum}) because of the \NL\ effects from the increased

1468: injection. From Fig.~\ref{fig_partpress} we see that the boosted

1469: injection results in a smoother subshock and this makes it harder for

1470: low energy adolescent particles to gain energy. Once particles reach a

1471: high enough momentum ($p\gtrsim 0.2 m_pc$; see the top panel of

1472: Fig.~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6}) they are able to diffuse far enough upstream

1473: where the boost in injection has a lesser effect.

1474: %

1475: 

1476: We must emphasise again that these results are very sensitive to

1477: the physics of particle injection at the subshock. It is difficult to

1478: predict how the \NL\ results would change if a different model of

1479: injection was used, but we can refer the reader to the work of

1480: \citet{AB2006}, who performed a similar calculation using the

1481: threshold injection model with a different diffusion coefficient.

1482: 

1483: The free escape boundary in our simulation was relatively close to the

1484: shock ($\xFEB = -10^5 \rgzero \approx - 3 \times 10^{-4}$ pc), and the

1485: maximum accelerated particle energy was on the order of hundreds of

1486: GeV. These quantities, chosen to save computation time, are

1487: several orders of magnitude short of typical SNR values.

1488: Nevertheless, we don't believe our results will be changed

1489: qualitatively if $\pmax$ is increased. The reason is that even with our

1490: relatively low $\pmax$, the fraction of internal energy in \rel\ particles is

1491: still large and the volume-averaged value of the

1492: polytropic index of the precursor plasma, $\left<\gamma(x<0)\right>$,

1493: as shown in Tables~\ref{sumnl_cold} and \ref{sumnl_hot}, is much closer to

1494: the $4/3$ of a fully relativistic gas than to $5/3$ for a

1495: nonrelativistic one. Increasing $\pmax$ will not lower the

1496: polytropic index of the gas any further and, consequently, the plasma

1497: compression and the subsequent acceleration efficiency will not

1498: change significantly \citep[see][]{BE99}.

1499: 

1500: 

1501: 

1502: \section{Conclusions}

1503: 

1504: \label{conclusions}

1505: 

1506: We have parameterized magnetic turbulence dissipation as a fraction of

1507: turbulence energy generation and included this effect in our \MC\ model

1508: of strongly \NL\ shocks undergoing efficient DSA. The energy removed

1509: from the turbulence goes directly into the thermal particle population

1510: in the shock precursor. The \mc\ simulation \SCly\ reacts to the changes

1511: in precursor heating and adjusts the injection of thermal particles into

1512: the DSA mechanism, as well as other \NL\ effects of DSA, accordingly.

1513: 

1514: Our two most important results are, first, that even a small rate

1515: ($\sim 10$\%) of turbulence dissipation can drastically increase the

1516: precursor temperature, and second, that the precursor heating boosts

1517: particle injection into DSA by a large factor. The increase in particle

1518: injection modifies the low-energy part of the particle spectrum but, due

1519: to \NL\ feedback effects, does not significantly change the overall

1520: efficiency or the high energy part of the spectrum. Both the precursor

1521: heating and modified spectral shape that occur with dissipation may have

1522: observable consequences.

1523: 

1524: The fact that the shock back-reaction to the increased injection

1525: prevents the acceleration efficiency from

1526: changing significantly is a clear consequence of the non-linear

1527: structure of the system. The boosted particle injection additionally

1528: smoothes the flow speed close to the subshock, which makes it harder for

1529: particles returning upstream to gain energy. As a result, the population

1530: of the high energy particles is not much changed

1531: %

1532: (except for the decrease in the maximum particle momentum due to the

1533: reduction in the effective amplified magnetic field from dissipation)

1534: %

1535: and, because those particles carry the bulk of the CR

1536: pressure $\Pcr$ which drives the streaming

1537: instability, the amplification of the magnetic field is not

1538: strongly affected by the heating-boosted particle injection.

1539: 

1540: The parameterization we use here is a simple one and a more advanced

1541: description of the turbulence damping may change our results. In our

1542: model the energy drained from the magnetic turbulence, at all

1543: wavelengths, is directly `pumped' into the thermal

1544: particles. Superthermal particles only gain extra

1545: energy due to heating because the thermal particles were more likely to

1546: return upstream and get accelerated.  In a more advanced model of

1547: dissipation, where energy cascades from large-scale turbulence harmonics

1548: to the short-scale ones, the low energy CRs might gain energy directly

1549: from the dissipation. It is conceivable that cascading effects might

1550: increase the overall acceleration efficiency, the magnetic field

1551: amplification, and increase the maximum particle energy a shock can

1552: produce.

1553: 

1554: It is also possible that non-resonant

1555: turbulence instabilities play an important role in magnetic

1556: field amplification \citep[e.g.,][]{PLM2006}.  This opens another

1557: possibility for the turbulence dissipation to produce an increase in the

1558: magnetic field amplification.  For instance, \citet{BT2005} proposed a

1559: mechanism for generating long-wavelength

1560: perturbations of magnetic fields by low energy particles. If such a

1561: mechanism is responsible for generation of a significant fraction of the

1562: turbulence that confines the highest energy particles, then the

1563: increased particle injection due to the precursor heating may raise the

1564: maximum particle energy and, possibly, the value of the amplified

1565: magnetic field.

1566: 

1567: While our model is for the most part phenomenological as far

1568: as particle transport, injection and acceleration, magnetic field

1569: generation, and dissipation are concerned, it allows us to investigate

1570: the coupled nonlinear effects in a shock undergoing efficient DSA and

1571: MFA. The more efficient DSA is, the more basic considerations of

1572: momentum and energy conservation determine the shock structure and our

1573: model describes these effects fully.

1574: 

1575: \acknowledgments

1576: 

1577: We thank the anonymous referee for a number of very valuable comments and suggestions.

1578: %

1579: D.~C.~E. and A.~V. wish to acknowledge support from NASA grants NNH04Zss001N-LTSA

1580: and 06-ATP06-21. A.~M.~B. acknowledges support from RBRF grant 06-02-16884. 

1581: 

1582: % NASA ATP ( NNX07AG79G )

1583: 

1584: 

1585: 

1586: \appendix

1587: 

1588: \section{A. Comments on PIC simulations of MFA}

1589: 

1590: \label{estimatesforpic}

1591: 

1592: There are two basic reasons why the problem of MFA in nonlinear

1593: diffusive shock acceleration (NL-DSA) is particularly difficult for

1594: particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations. The

1595: first is that PIC simulations must be done fully in three dimensions to

1596: properly account for cross-field diffusion. As \citet{JJB98} proved from

1597: first principles, PIC simulations with one or more ignorable dimensions

1598: unphysically prevent particles from crossing magnetic field lines.  In

1599: all but strictly parallel shock geometry,\footnote{Parallel geometry is

1600: where the upstream magnetic field is parallel to the shock normal.} a

1601: condition which never occurs in strong turbulence, cross-field

1602: scattering is expected to contribute importantly to particle injection

1603: and must be fully accounted for if injection from the thermal background

1604: is to be modeled accurately.

1605: 

1606: The second reason is that, in \nonrel\ shocks, NL-DSA spans large

1607: spatial, temporal, and momentum scales. The range of scales is more

1608: important than might be expected because DSA is intrinsically efficient

1609: and \NL\ effects tend to place a large fraction of the particle pressure

1610: in the highest energy particles (see

1611: Fig.~\ref{fig_fnp_1e4_1e6}). The highest energy particles, with the

1612: largest diffusion lengths and longest acceleration times, feedback on

1613: the injection of the lowest energy particles with the shortest scales.

1614: The accelerated particles exchange their momentum and energy with the

1615: incoming thermal plasma through the magnetic fluctuations coupled to the

1616: flow. This results in the flow being decelerated and the plasma being

1617: heated. The structure of the shock, including the subshock where fresh

1618: particles are injected, depends critically on the highest energy

1619: particles in the system.

1620: 

1621: A plasma simulation must resolve the electron skin depth,

1622: $c/\ElPlasmafreq$, i.e., $\Lcell < c/\ElPlasmafreq$, where

1623: $\ElPlasmafreq=[4 \pi n_e e^2/m_e]^{1/2}$ is the electron plasma

1624: frequency and $\Lcell$ is the simulation cell size. Here, $n_e$ is

1625: the electron number density, $m_e$ is the electron mass and $c$ and

1626: $e$ have their usual meanings. The simulation must

1627: also have a time step small compared to $\ElPlasmafreq^{-1}$, i.e.,

1628: $\tstep < \ElPlasmafreq^{-1}$.

1629: %

1630: If we wish to follow the acceleration of protons in DSA to the TeV

1631: energies present in SNRs we must have a simulation box that is as large

1632: as the upstream diffusion length of the highest energy protons, i.e.,

1633: $\kappa(\mathrm{\Emax})/u_0 \sim r_g(\Emax) c / (3 u_0)$, where $\kappa$

1634: is the diffusion coefficient, $r_g(\Emax)$ is the gyroradius of a \rel\

1635: proton with the energy $\Emax$, $u_0$ is the shock speed, and we have

1636: assumed Bohm diffusion.

1637: %

1638: The simulation must also be able to run for as long as the acceleration

1639: time of the highest energy protons, $\tacc(\Emax) \sim \Emax c /(eBu_0^2)$.

1640: %

1641: Here, $B$ is some average magnetic field.

1642: %

1643: The spatial condition gives

1644: %

1645: %

1646: \begin{equation}

1647: \frac{\kappa(E_\mathrm{max})/u_0}{(c/\ElPlasmafreq)} \sim 6\xx{11}

1648: \left ( \frac{\Emax}{\mathrm{TeV}} \right )

1649: \left ( \frac{u_0}{1000 \, \mathrm{km \, s}^{-1}} \right )^{-1}

1650: \left ( \frac{B}{\mu \mathrm{G}} \right )^{-1}

1651: \left ( \frac{n_e}{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right )^{1/2}

1652: \left ( \frac{f}{1836}\right )^{1/2}

1653: \ ,

1654: \end{equation}

1655: %

1656: for the number of cells {\it in one dimension}. The factor $f=m_p/m_e$

1657: is the proton to electron  mass ratio. From the acceleration

1658: time condition, the required number of time steps is,

1659: %

1660: \begin{equation}

1661: \frac{\tacc(E_\mathrm{max})}{\ElPlasmafreq^{-1}} \sim 6\xx{14}

1662: \left ( \frac{\Emax}{\mathrm{TeV}} \right )

1663: \left ( \frac{u_0}{1000\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1}}\right )^{-2}

1664: \left ( \frac{B}{\mu \mathrm{G}} \right )^{-1}

1665: \left ( \frac{n_e}{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right )^{1/2}

1666: \left ( \frac{f}{1836}\right )^{1/2}

1667: \ .

1668: \end{equation}

1669: %

1670: Even with $f=1$ these numbers are obviously far beyond any conceivable

1671: computing capabilities and they show that approximate methods are

1672: essential for studying NL-DSA.

1673: 

1674: One approximation that is often used is a hybrid PIC simulation where

1675: the electrons are treated as a background fluid. To get the 

1676: estimate of the requirements in this case we can take the

1677: minimum cell size as the thermal proton gyroradius, 

1678: $\rgzero = c \sqrt{2 m_p \Eth}/(e B)$.

1679: Now, the number of cells, {\it again in one dimension,} is: 

1680: \begin{equation}

1681: \label{eq:cell}

1682: \frac{\kappa(\Emax)/u_0}{\rgzero} \sim 7\xx{7}

1683: \left ( \frac{\Emax}{\mathrm{TeV}} \right )

1684: \left ( \frac{u_0}{1000 \, \mathrm{km \, s}^{-1}} \right)^{-1}

1685: \left ( \frac{\Eth}{\mathrm{keV}} \right )^{-1/2}

1686: \ .

1687: \end{equation}

1688: %

1689: The time step size must be $\tstep < \protongyrofreq^{-1}$, 

1690: where $\protongyrofreq=eB/m_{p}c$ is the thermal proton gyrofrequency.

1691: This gives the number of time steps to reach 1 TeV,

1692: %

1693: \begin{equation}

1694: \label{eq:step}

1695: \frac{\tacc(\Emax)}{\protongyrofreq^{-1}} \sim 1\xx{8}

1696: \left ( \frac{\Emax}{\mathrm{TeV}} \right )

1697: \left ( \frac{u_0}{1000\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1}}\right )^{-2}

1698: \ .

1699: \end{equation}

1700: %

1701: These combined spatial and temporal requirements, even for the most

1702: optimistic case of a hybrid simulation with an unrealistically large

1703: $\tstep$, are well beyond existing computing capabilities unless

1704: %exceptionally clever shortcuts are devised or 

1705: a maximum energy well below 1 TeV is used.

1706: 

1707: Since the three-dimensional requirement is fundamental and relaxing it

1708: eliminates cross-field diffusion, restricting the energy range is the

1709: best way to make the problem assessable to hybrid PIC

1710: simulations. However, since producing \rel\ particles from \nonrel\ ones

1711: is an essential part of the NL problem, the energy range must

1712: comfortably span $m_p c^2$ to be realistic.  If $\Emax=10$\,GeV is used,

1713: with $u_0=5000$\,\kmps, and $\Eth= 10$\,MeV, equation~(\ref{eq:cell})

1714: gives $\sim 1400$ and equation~(\ref{eq:step}) gives $\sim 4\xx{4}$.

1715: Now, the computation may be possible, even with the 3-D requirement, but

1716: the hybrid simulation can't fully investigate MFA since electron return

1717: currents are not modeled.  The exact microscopic description of the

1718: system is not currently feasible.

1719: 

1720: It's hard to make a comparison in run-time between PIC simulations

1721: and the \MC\ technique used here since we are not aware of any published

1722: results of 3-D PIC simulations of \nonrel\ shocks that follow particles

1723: from fully \nonrel\ to fully \rel\ energies. A direct comparison of 1-D

1724: hybrid and \MC\ codes was given in \citet{EGBS93} for energies

1725: consistent with the acceleration of diffuse ions at the quasi-parallel

1726: Earth bow shock. Three-dimensional hybrid PIC results for \nonrel\

1727: shocks were presented in \citet{GE2000} and these were barely able to

1728: show injection and acceleration given the computational limits at that

1729: time. As for the \MC\ technique, all of the 16 nonlinear simulations

1730: presented in this paper were completed in approximately 4 days on a

1731: parallel computing cluster, employing around 30 processors; enough

1732: statistical information was accumulated to restrict the uncertainty in

1733: the self-consistent value of $\rtot$ to about 5 percent. 

1734: %

1735: Increasing the

1736: dynamic range of the simulations to SNR-like energies ($\Emax

1737: \approx 1$\,PeV) would require 2-4 times more computation time.

1738: %

1739: Thus, realistic \mc\ SNR models are possible with modest

1740: computing resouces. 

1741: 

1742: 

1743: Despite these limitations, PIC simulations are the only way of \SCly\

1744: modeling the plasma physics of collisionless shocks.

1745: %

1746: In particular, the injection of thermal particles in the large amplitude

1747: waves and time varying structure of the subshock can only only be

1748: determined with PIC simulations

1749: \citep[e.g.,][]{NPS2008,Spitkovsky2008}. Injection is one of the most

1750: important aspects of DSA and one 

1751: where analytic and \mc\ techniques have large uncertainties.

1752: 

1753: 

1754: \section{B. Analytic Precursor Approximation procedure}

1755: 

1756: \label{fastpush}

1757: 

1758: Here we describe our \FP\ (APA) where we introduce

1759: thermal particles into the MC simulation,

1760: not far upstream, but at some position $\xFP<0$ close

1761: to the subshock. This

1762: procedure has two purposes. First, it saves computational

1763: time because we don't have to trace these particles

1764: along the extended shock precursor. Second, we use the APA

1765: to simulate the turbulence dissipation in the shock precursor:

1766: with this procedure we incorporate the analytic description

1767: of the heating of the thermal gas due to the turbulence dissipation

1768: into the Monte Carlo model of particle transport.

1769: 

1770: In the next two subsections we

1771: describe how the momentum and energy fluxes in shock precursor are

1772: calculated in the absence of turbulence dissipation (part~\ref{noapa}),

1773: and then explain how this scheme is changed when the \FP\ procedure is

1774: invoked to model the thermal plasma heating by turbulence dissipation

1775: (part~\ref{yesapa}).

1776: 

1777: 

1778: \subsection{B.1. Precursor without Analytic Approximation}

1779: 

1780: \label{noapa}

1781: 

1782: \subsubsection{B.1.1. Inherent Quasi-Adiabatic Heating

1783:  and Subshock Definition in Monte Carlo Simulation}

1784: 

1785: \label{mcadiabatic}

1786: 

1787: It is worth pointing out that even if the turbulence dissipation

1788: is not included in our simulation, particles in the precursor

1789: will still be weakly heated.

1790: %

1791: Just like an ideal collisionless gas put in a slowly shrinking volume

1792: will heat up adiabatically due to elastic collisions of particles with

1793: in-moving walls, the particles in our MC simulation traveling in a

1794: compressing shock precursor will heat up according to the adiabatic

1795: law $\Pth \propto \rho^{\gamma} \propto u^{-\gamma}$ due to

1796: elastic scattering in the decelerating local plasma frame.

1797: This will be true as long as the particles have enough time to adjust

1798: to the changing flow speed. Quantitatively, the criterion

1799: for adiabatic heating is

1800: \begin{equation}

1801:   \label{adiabaticcondition}

1802:   \taucoll \ll \taucomp,

1803: \end{equation}

1804: where the collision time, $\taucoll$, is the ratio of the mean

1805: free path to the particle speed, (for nonrelativistic particles

1806: $\taucoll=m_p c/(e \Beff)$),

1807: %

1808: and the compression time $\taucomp$ is the temporal scale on which the

1809: speed of plasma that the particle is traveling in changes significantly,

1810: that is, by a value comparable to the particle speed $v$. Assuming $v

1811: \ll u$, $\taucomp$ is approximately the ratio of the length on which the

1812: flow speed changes by $v$ to the advection speed $u$:

1813: $\taucomp=(v/|(du/dx)|) / u$. It also follows from the definition of

1814: $\taucoll$ that the angular distribution of the particles remains

1815: isotropic if (\ref{adiabaticcondition}) is true. The

1816: condition~(\ref{adiabaticcondition}) is therefore

1817: %

1818: \begin{equation}

1819: \left| \frac{du}{dx} \right| \ll \frac{v e \Beff}{u m_p c},

1820: \end{equation}

1821: %

1822: restricting the flow speed gradient to small enough values, where

1823: adiabatic compression operates.

1824: 

1825: If the magnitude of the flow speed gradient $|du/dx|$ is too large

1826: and (\ref{adiabaticcondition}) doesn't hold, the increase

1827: of particle energies will be faster than adiabatic, and the angular

1828: distribution function will become non-isotropic, with more particles

1829: moving against the gradient than along it in the plasma frame. One

1830: obvious place where this occurs is the subshock.

1831: %

1832: In our simulation, the subshock in the non-linear,

1833: self consistent solution gains a finite width, but the flow speed jump

1834: at the subshock remains strong and rapid enough to efficiently

1835: accelerate particles.  We define the point at which the

1836: transition from the adiabatic to the non-adiabatic regime occurs,

1837: $\xtr$, by the following condition:

1838: %

1839: \begin{equation}

1840:   \taucoll(\xtr) = \frac13 \taucomp(\xtr),

1841: \end{equation}

1842: %

1843: or, in terms of quantities available in the simulation,

1844: %

1845: \begin{equation}

1846: \label{subshocklocation}

1847: \left. \frac{du}{dx} \right|_{\xtr} =

1848: - \frac13 \frac{v e \Beff(\xtr)}{u(\xtr) m_p c}

1849: ,

1850: \end{equation}

1851: %

1852: where $v=\sqrt{2 k_B T(\xtr)/m_p}$,

1853: in which case $|\xtr|$ is comparable to the local

1854: convective mean free path of

1855: a thermal particle.  The factor $1/3$ is chosen arbitrarily but our

1856: results are insensitive to it.  Close to the shock, at $\xtr < x < 0$,

1857: the flow speed drops so rapidly that the particles are heated in a

1858: non-adiabatic fashion. We can think of the non-adiabatic region as

1859: a subshock with a finite thickness $|\xtr|$, and it is then

1860: reasonable to define the pre-subshock quantities (denoted with index

1861: `1') as the values at $x=\xtr$: $u_1 = u(\xtr)$, $\rsub =

1862: u(\xtr)/u(x>0)$, etc.

1863: %

1864: We note that Equation~\ref{subshocklocation} is only used to define

1865: the position of the subshock an is not used in any calculations.

1866: 

1867: \subsubsection{B.1.2. Direct Calculation of Momentum and Energy Fluxes}

1868: 

1869: \label{calculatingfluxes}

1870: 

1871: The flux of momentum $\momentumflux(x)$ defined in~(\ref{mfasmoment}) is

1872: used in our simulation to calculate the smoothing of the precursor

1873: plasma flow $u(x)$, and the flux of energy $\energyflux(x)$ defined

1874: in~(\ref{efasmoment}) is used to calculate the compression ratio $\rtot$

1875: consistent with the particle acceleration. The moments of the particle

1876: distribution function in~(\ref{mfasmoment}) and (\ref{efasmoment}) are

1877: the components of the stress tensor. If the plasma heating by turbulence

1878: dissipation is not modeled, and the \FP\ procedure is not

1879: performed, then these moments are calculated in our simulation as

1880: described below.  At select positions on the numerical grid spanning

1881: from far upstream to some position downstream from the subshock

1882: we sum the contributions of the particles that cross these positions to

1883: calculate the following:

1884: \begin{eqnarray}

1885: \label{mfcalc}

1886: \int p_x v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

1887:          \sum\limits_{i} p_\mathrm{i,\,x} v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i,\\

1888: \label{efcalc}

1889: \int K v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

1890:          \sum\limits_{i} K_i v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i.

1891: \end{eqnarray}

1892: Here the summation is taken over all particles crossing the position $x$

1893: at which the moments are calculated. The index $i$ represents the

1894: considered particle, $p_x$ ($v_x$) is the $x$-component of a

1895: particle's of momentum (velocity),

1896: $K$ is the kinetic energy, all measured in the shock frame, and $w$ is

1897: the weight of the particle defined as

1898: \begin{equation}

1899:   w_i = \left| \frac{u_0}{v_\mathrm{i,\,x}} \right| \frac{n_0}{N_p}.

1900: \end{equation}

1901: In this definition the ratio $|u_0/{v_\mathrm{i,\,x}}|$ is the weighting

1902: factor accounting for the fact that in our simulation particles crossing

1903: the position $x$ at some angle to the flow do it less frequently than

1904: particles crossing parallel to the flow, $n_0$ is the upstream number

1905: density of the plasma and $N_p$ is the number of simulation particles.

1906: 

1907: If the particle distribution is isotropic in the local plasma

1908: frame moving at speed $u(x)$ relative to the shock, then the quantities

1909: calculated in (\ref{mfcalc}) and (\ref{efcalc}) can be expressed in the

1910: following way:

1911: \begin{eqnarray}

1912: \label{momentumviapressures}

1913: \int p_x v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

1914: \rho(x) u^2(x) + P_p(x), \\

1915: \label{energyviapressures}

1916: \int K v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

1917: \frac{1}{2} \rho(x) u^3(x) + w_p(x)u(x) \ ,

1918: \end{eqnarray}

1919: where $P_p(x)$ is the pressure and $w_p(x)$ is the enthalpy

1920: of the particles.  In the

1921: vicinity of the subshock, however, the isotropy

1922: assumption breaks down (see the discussion in Appendix~\ref{mcadiabatic}

1923: and the note on anisotropy in Appendix~\ref{special_th_vs_cr}), and the

1924: concept of isotropic pressure is not applicable. The fact that we

1925: directly calculate the moment of the distribution function

1926: in~(\ref{mfasmoment}) by evaluating the sum~(\ref{mfcalc}), instead of

1927: approximating the momentum flux with~(\ref{momentumviapressures}),

1928: ensures that we properly account for the effects of the anisotropy of

1929: particle distribution. This turns out to be important for

1930: self-consistently determining the flow speed $u(x)$ near the subshock,

1931: which controls the subshock compression and the subsequent particle

1932: injection and acceleration efficiency.

1933: 

1934: When plasma heating by turbulence dissipation is modeled, we replace the

1935: calculation~(\ref{mfasmoment}) with an analytic approximation assuming

1936: isotropic particle pressure, but we take special care to be certain that

1937: this approximation is only done far enough from the shock, where the

1938: isotropy approximation is applicable. This procedure is described below.

1939: 

1940: 

1941: 

1942: \subsection{B.2. Modeling Precursor Heating with the \FPshort}

1943: 

1944: \label{yesapa}

1945: 

1946: \subsubsection{B.2.1. Particle Introduction Position}

1947: 

1948: The position at which the thermal particles are introduced must be close

1949: enough to the shock so that the analytic description

1950: of heating applies to most of the precursor extent, but far enough away

1951: from the non-adiabatic region $\xtr < x < 0$, so that the analytic

1952: approximation remains valid where applied.  In our simulation we chose

1953: the particle introduction position, $\xFP$, so that the

1954: condition~(\ref{adiabaticcondition}) is only marginally valid at this

1955: position. We formalize it as

1956: \begin{equation}

1957: \taucoll(\xFP) = M \taucomp(\xFP),

1958: \end{equation}

1959: which is equivalent to

1960: \begin{equation}

1961: \label{xfastpush}

1962: \left. \frac{du}{dx} \right|_{\xFP} = - M \frac{v e \Beff(\xFP)}{u(\xFP) m_p c}.

1963: \end{equation}

1964: where we chose $M = 0.1$ and $v = \sqrt{2 k_B T_0/m_p}$.  At $x<\xFP$ we

1965: describe the thermal particle distribution function as a

1966: Maxwellian with the temperature defined by (\ref{pressuregrowth}) and

1967: (\ref{idealgaslaw}), and at $x>\xFP$ we use the Monte Carlo

1968: simulation to describe the more complex particle dynamics.

1969: 

1970: 

1971: \subsubsection{B.2.2. Momentum Space Distribution of Introduced Particles}

1972: 

1973: In order to include the effects of heating in the model, we must

1974: introduce thermal particles at $\xFP$ as if they were heated in the

1975: precursor, i.e., their temperature $T(\xFP)$ must be determined

1976: by~(\ref{pressuregrowth}) and (\ref{idealgaslaw}). We therefore choose

1977: the magnitude of every particle's momentum $p$ in the local plasma frame

1978: distributed according to Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with probability

1979: density

1980: \begin{equation}

1981:   f(p) = \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac{1}{2 m k_B T(\xFP)} \right)^{3/2}

1982:   p^2 \exp{\left({-\frac{p^2}{2 m k_B T(\xFP)}}\right)}.

1983: \end{equation}

1984: 

1985: The angular distribution of momenta of the

1986: introduced particles is a major issue of concern in doing simulation

1987: like ours because it determines the particle

1988: injection rate. We are replacing the dynamics of particles at $x<\xFP$

1989: with an analytical description, consequently we must distribute

1990: particles in $p$-space at $\xFP$ the way they would be distributed

1991: having traveled from far upstream and reaching $\xFP$ {\it for the first

1992: time}. This is equivalent to calculating a $p$-space distribution of

1993: particles incident on a {\it fully absorbing boundary} at $\xFP$ after

1994: scattering in a non-uniform flow $u(x)$. This is easy to do analytically

1995: if all particles have a plasma frame speed $v$ less than the flow speed

1996: $u(\xFP)$ (because then all particles crossing position $\xFP$ do it for

1997: the first and the last time), and fairly complicated otherwise. We

1998: assume $v<u(\xFP)$ in further reasoning, which is justified by the fact

1999: that we find $M_s(\xFP) \gtrsim 3$ in most cases.

2000: 

2001: As was stated earlier, we assume that the angular distribution of

2002: momenta of the introduced thermal particles is isotropic in the plasma

2003: frame.  When these particles cross a position fixed in the shock

2004: frame, their flux must be `weighted' to account for the fact that the

2005: number of particles arriving at $\xFP$ in a unit time is proportional to

2006: the cosine of the angle that their shock frame velocity

2007: $\vvector_\mathrm{sf}$ makes with the $x$-axis.

2008: This can be done by assuming a probability density of

2009: $\mu = v_x/v$ ($v$ is the magnitude of the particle plasma frame

2010: velocity and $v_x$ its $x$-component) as

2011: \begin{equation}

2012: \label{fluxweighting}

2013: f(\mu)=\frac12 \left(1 + \mu \frac{v}{u}\right),

2014: \end{equation}

2015: where $u=u(\xFP)$. It is normalized so that the probability

2016: $Pr(\mu_0 < \mu < \mu_0 + d\mu_0) = f(\mu_0) d\mu_0$, and the functional

2017: form of (\ref{fluxweighting}) comes from the assumption that $f(\mu)

2018: \propto v_\mathrm{sf,\:x}=u + \mu v$.

2019: 

2020: 

2021: 

2022: \subsubsection{B.2.3. Heating of the Upstream Plasma}

2023: 

2024: After the thermal particles are introduced at $\xFP$ and start to

2025:   propagate in the shocked flow, we have to

2026:   calculate the momentum and energy fluxes throughout the shock, for use

2027:   in our iterative procedure. Because we didn't propagate the thermal

2028:   particles at $x<\xFP$, and because we must model the momentum flux

2029:   redistribution between the turbulence and the thermal particles due to

2030:   heating, we calculate the corresponding moments of particle

2031:   distribution function the following way:

2032: \begin{eqnarray}

2033: \label{apamomentum}

2034: \int p_x v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

2035: \left\{

2036:   \begin{array}{ll}

2037:     \sum\limits_{all\:i} p_\mathrm{i,\,x} v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i, & \mathrm{if} \; x > \xFP, \\

2038:     \rho(x) u^2(x) + \Pth(x) +

2039:     \sum\limits_{i \in CR} p_\mathrm{i,\,x} v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i, & \mathrm{if} \; x < \xFP,

2040:   \end{array}

2041: \right. \\

2042: \label{apaenergy}

2043: \int K v_x f(x,\pvector)d^3p &=&

2044: \left\{

2045:   \begin{array}{ll}

2046:     \sum\limits_{all\:i} K_i v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i, & \mathrm{if} \; x > \xFP, \\

2047:     \displaystyle\frac12 \rho(x) u^3(x) + \displaystyle\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}\Pth(x)u(x) +

2048:     \quad & \\ \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

2049:       + \sum\limits_{i \in CR} K_i v_\mathrm{i,\,x} w_i, & \mathrm{if} \; x < \xFP.

2050:   \end{array}

2051: \right.

2052: \end{eqnarray}

2053: The summation for $x>\xFP$ is taken over all the particles crossing position

2054: $x$, and for $x<\xFP$ the summation index $i\in CR$ only includes the CR (i.e., injected)

2055: particles, while the contribution of the thermal particles is replaced by the

2056: analytic approximation of this contribution. The thermal pressure in this approximation

2057: is taken from the solution of~(\ref{pressuregrowth}).

2058: For $\heatpar=0$ the equations~(\ref{apamomentum})

2059: and (\ref{apaenergy}) produce the same results

2060: (within intrinsic random deviations of the Monte Carlo code)

2061: as the calculation~(\ref{mfcalc}) and (\ref{efcalc}).

2062: 

2063: In the region $\xFP < x < 0$ the heating due to $\Lbar$ is ignored.

2064: This may, in principle,

2065: underestimate the heating of the upstream gas, but we find that this

2066: is a negligible effect. We prove it by running a simulation with

2067: another $\xFP$, even farther away from the subshock, and making sure

2068: that the results are not affected significantly.

2069: 

2070: 

2071: 

2072: 

2073: \section{C. Note on Differentiation between Thermal and CR particles}

2074: 

2075: \label{special_th_vs_cr}

2076: 

2077: As was mentioned earlier, we call a particle a thermal particle or a CR

2078: one based on its history: a CR particle is one that has gotten injected

2079: into the acceleration process by having crossed the shock from the

2080: downstream to the upstream region at least once\footnote{Although

2081: the shock gains a finite width in the Monte Carlo simulation, we

2082: define the backward shock crossing as moving from $x>0$ to $x<0$.}.

2083: This criterion is used

2084: at two places in the model.  First, it is used to calculate the spectrum

2085: of pressure driving the CR streaming instability $\Pcrhat(x,p)$: only

2086: the contribution of injected particles is included in

2087: $\Pcrhat(x,p)$.  Second, when we calculate the thermal particle

2088: pressure $\Pth(x)$ at $x<\xFP$ using (\ref{dampingparameterization})

2089: and (\ref{pressuregrowth}), and then introduce thermally distributed

2090: particles at $x=\xFP$ and continue the calculation

2091: of pressure for $x>\xFP$ from their trajectories as they elastically

2092: scatter in the flow, we implicitly

2093: assume that the dissipated energy of the turbulence goes directly

2094: into the thermal energy of the particles that have not been injected,

2095: i.e., thermal particles in our definition.

2096: 

2097: 

2098: If a description of particle-wave interactions in strong turbulence

2099: existed that explicitly described how particles of different energies

2100: participated differently in the instability generation and the

2101: turbulence dissipation, a criterion like ours would not be

2102: needed. However, such a description is not available and we believe that our way

2103: of separating thermal and superthermal (CR) particles for purposes of

2104: describing the instability growth and the turbulence dissipation grasps

2105: the essential non-linear effects in the shock structure.

2106: PIC simulations are, in principle, able to tackle this problem

2107: exactly but, as we mentioned earlier, they are extremely computationally

2108: expensive.

2109: 

2110: We would like to point out an important consequence of our using the

2111: `thermal leakage' model of particle injection into

2112: the acceleration process.  Our simulation follows histories of charged

2113: particles from their `childhood', when their speeds in the plasma frame

2114: are small compared to the bulk flow speed, to `maturity', when they

2115: become relativistic. Unlike most semi-analytic descriptions of DSA, our

2116: model doesn't skip the `adolescence' stage of particles, when after one

2117: or a few shock crossings the particles have speeds comparable to or

2118: slightly greater than the bulk flow speed. In the absence of these

2119: `adolescent' particles, it is typically assumed that the jump in only

2120: the thermal particle pressure across the subshock determines the

2121: strength of the latter, and the superthermal part of the particle

2122: spectrum is continuous at the subshock and does not influence it.  But

2123: the `adolescent' particles that the Monte Carlo model does describe are

2124: not energetic enough to be insensitive to the subshock, and at the same

2125: time they have a strong anisotropy in the plasma frame, and therefore do

2126: not obey the Rankine-Hugoniot relations. This modifies the conservation

2127: laws across the subshock, because in the total kinetic pressure

2128: $P_p(x)=\Pth(x) + \Pcr(x)$ the term $\Pcr(x)$ is not continuous at the

2129: subshock due to the contribution of the intermediate energy particles

2130: that it contains.

2131: 

2132: 

2133: 

2134: 

2135: 

2136: 

2137: 

2138: \section{D. Compression ratio, Turbulence and Escaping Particles}

2139: 

2140: \label{compressionratio}

2141: 

2142: Equation (10) in \citet{EMP90} relates the fraction of energy flux

2143: carried away by escaping particles $\qesc$ to the total shock

2144: compression ratio, $\rtot$. It assumes no

2145: magnetic field amplification and a polytropic index of downstream gas

2146: equal to $5/3$ (in other words, neglects the effect of relativistic

2147: particles on the overall compressibility of the gas). In order to search

2148: for a $\rtot$ consistent with the shock structure and with

2149: particle escape, we derive a similar relationship that

2150: would account for the presence of magnetic turbulence and for the

2151: contribution of the relativistic particles. The problem is complicated

2152: by having particles of intermediate (mildly relativistic) energies and

2153: by the value of the magnetic field dependent on the particle

2154: acceleration.

2155: 

2156: Writing equations (\ref{fluxmass}), (\ref{fluxmomentum}) and

2157: (\ref{fluxenergy}) for a point downstream of the shock, sufficiently

2158: far from it, so that the distribution of particle momenta is isotropic,

2159: and the approximations~(\ref{momentumviapressures}) and

2160: (\ref{energyviapressures}) are valid, and

2161: denoting the corresponding quantities by index `2', we get:

2162: \begin{eqnarray}

2163: %

2164: \label{cons1}

2165: \rho_2 u_2 &=& \rho_0 u_0, \\

2166: %

2167: \label{cons2}

2168: \rho_2 u_2^2 + \Pptwo + \Pwtwo &=& \rho_0 u_0^2 + \Ppzero + \Pwzero\equiv\upstreammomentumflux, \\

2169: %

2170: \label{cons3}

2171: \frac12 \rho_2 u_2^3 + \wptwo u_2 + \Fwtwo + \Qesc&=&

2172:      \frac12 \rho_0 u_0^3 + \wpzero u_0 + \Fwzero\equiv\upstreamenergyflux.

2173: \end{eqnarray}

2174: %

2175: The particle gas enthalpy $w_p$ is $w_p=\epsilon_p + P_p$, and the

2176: internal energy $\epsilon_p$ of gas is proportional to

2177: the pressure $P_p$. Introducing the quantity $\gammabar$ so that

2178: $\epsilon_p = P_p/(\gammabar-1)$, one can write

2179: \begin{equation}

2180: \label{fppp}

2181: w_p u=\frac{\gammabar}{\gammabar-1}P_p u

2182: \end{equation}

2183: %

2184: The value of $\gammabar$ is averaged over the whole particle

2185: spectrum, and it ranges between $5/3$ for a nonrelativistic

2186: and $4/3$ for an ultra-relativistic gas.

2187: The local value of $\gammabar$ can be easily calculated in our

2188: code from the particle distribution, along with

2189: $P_p$ and $\epsilon_p$, as $\gammabar=1 + P_p / \epsilon_p$.

2190: %

2191: Similarly, one can define $\deltabar=F_w/(u P_w)$ and calculate a local

2192: value of $\deltabar$ anywhere in the code in order to express

2193: \begin{equation}

2194: \label{fwpw}

2195: F_w=\deltabar \cdot P_w u \ .

2196: \end{equation}

2197: %

2198: For $V_G \ll u$ and \Alf ic turbulence, one expects $\deltabar

2199: \approx 3$, [see eq.~(\ref{fwdef})].

2200: 

2201: Substituting (\ref{fppp}) and (\ref{fwpw}) into the above equations

2202: and introducing $\rtot=u_0 / u_2$, we can eliminate $\rho_2$ using

2203: (\ref{cons1}) and $\Pptwo$ using (\ref{cons2}), which allows us to

2204: express from (\ref{cons3}) the quantity $\qesc \equiv \Qesc /

2205: \upstreamenergyflux$ as

2206: \begin{equation}

2207: \label{qescrtot}

2208: \qesc = 1 + \frac{A/\rtot^2 - B/\rtot}{C},

2209: \end{equation}

2210: where

2211: \begin{eqnarray}

2212: A&=& \frac{\gammabar_2 + 1}{\gammabar_2 - 1} ,\\

2213: B&=& \frac{2 \gammabar_2}{\gammabar_2 - 1}

2214:      \left( 1 + \frac{\Ppzero + \Pwzero - \Pwtwo}{\rho_0 u_0^2}\right) +

2215:             \frac{2 \deltabar_2 \Pwtwo}{ \rho_0 u_0^2 },\\

2216: C&=& 1 + \frac{2 \gammabar_0}{\gammabar_0 - 1}\frac{\Ppzero}{\rho_0 u_0^2} +

2217:             \frac{2 \deltabar_0 \Pwzero}{\rho_0 u_0^2}.

2218: \end{eqnarray}

2219: Note that $\rho_0 u_0^2 / \Ppzero = \gammabar_0 M_s^2$, where

2220: $\gammabar_0=\gamma=5/3$ due to the absence of CRs far upstream,

2221: and, because we assume a seed turbulence far upstream, that

2222: provides a Bohm regime of scattering to all particles,

2223: one can write that far upstream $\Delta B \approx B_0$, making

2224: $\rho_0 u_0^2 / \Pwzero=2 M_A^2$.

2225: 

2226: The quantity $\qesc$ is readily available in the simulation after

2227: the end of any iteration.

2228: Comparing it to the value predicted by (\ref{qescrtot}), we

2229: evaluate the self-consistency of the solution and make the correction to

2230: $\rtot$, if necessary, for further iterations. For making these

2231: corrections it is helpful to use in the simulation the inverse of

2232: (\ref{qescrtot}), the physically relevant branch of which is

2233: \begin{equation}

2234: \label{rtotqesc}

2235: \rtot = \frac{2 A}{B - \sqrt{B^2 - 4 A C (1-\qesc)}}.

2236: \end{equation}

2237: 

2238: It is important to emphasise here that an iterative procedure

2239: similar to~(\ref{iteration}) is still

2240: required to find the compression ratio $\rtot$ of a non-linearly

2241: modified shock, because quantities $\qesc$, $\Pwtwo$ and $\gammabar_2$

2242: depend on $\rtot$, so (\ref{rtotqesc}) only provides a practical

2243: way to perform the iterations.

2244: 

2245: 

2246: 

2247: 

2248: 

2249: 

2250: \section{E. Note on Subshock Properties in the Presence of MFA}

2251: 

2252: \citet{KJG2002} showed, using a thermal leakage injection model

2253: similar to what is used here, that in a non-linearly modified shock with

2254: Bohm diffusion and a sonic Mach number $\Mszero$, the subshock sonic

2255: Mach number scales as $\Msone \sim 2.9 \Mszero^{0.13}$ with the

2256: corresponding subshock compression ratio $\rsub =

2257: 4/(1+3/\Msone^2)$. Numerically, for $\Mszero=400$ it gives $\Msone

2258: \approx 6.3$ and $\rsub \approx 3.7$.

2259: 

2260: The model of \citet{KJG2002} does not include magnetic field

2261: amplification and, as we have shown, in

2262: our case the values of the subshock sonic Mach number and compression

2263: ratio are quite different.  For instance, for our model with MFA, but

2264: without magnetic turbulence damping ($\heatpar=0$) we have found that

2265: $\Mszero = 426$ results in $\Msone \approx 44$

2266: and $\rsub \approx 3$. The

2267: value of $\Msone$ in the absence of precursor plasma heating is

2268: determined by the high CR pressure $\Pcr(x)$, and the value of $\rsub$

2269: in the high Mach number shock with MFA is largely controlled by the

2270: pressure of the amplified magnetic turbulence $P_w(x)$ rather than by

2271: the thermal pressure $\Pth(x)$. The situation is changed when the

2272: turbulence dissipation operates, because it dampens $P_w(x)$ and

2273: increases $\Pth(x)$, which reduces $\Msone$.

2274: 

2275: Our getting such a high value of $\Msone$ is important because,

2276: just like \citet{KJG2002}, we have found in

2277: Section~\ref{injectionvsdissipation} that $\Msone \approx 10$ is a

2278: `breaking point' in the thermal leakage model of particle injection: the

2279: injection rate depends weakly on $\Msone$ when $\Msone \gtrsim 10$, but

2280: increases rapidly with decreasing $\Msone$ if $\Msone < 10$.

2281: 

2282: %\clearpage

2283: \begin{figure}

2284: \epsscale{.50} \plotone{f6.eps}

2285: \caption{Illustration of momentum flux balance in the non-linear

2286:   simulation with $\heatpar=0$ in the \coldismNoT\ case.  The thin

2287:   dashed line is the thermal pressure $\Pth(x)$, the thick dashed line -

2288:   the CR pressure $\Pcr(x)$, the dotted line is the magnetic turbulence

2289:   pressure $P_w(x)$, the dash-dotted line is the dynamic pressure

2290:   $\rho(x) u^2(x)$, and the thick solid line is the sum of the four, the

2291:   total momentum flux. All quantities are normalized to the far upstream

2292:   value of the total momentum flux.

2293:   \label{fig_momflx}}

2294: \end{figure}

2295: %\clearpage

2296: 

2297: As an illustration for the above discussion, we

2298: show in Figure \ref{fig_momflx} the various constituents of the momentum

2299: flux across the shock with $\heatpar=0$ in the \coldism\ case.

2300: It's clear that upstream of the shock the dominant contributor to the

2301: momentum flux is the CR pressure $\Pcr(x)$ and, therefore, the precursor

2302: compression is mainly determined by $\Pcr(x)$. For this particular set

2303: of parameters, $\Pcr(x)$ results in a decrease in the flow speed $u(x)$

2304: by a factor of $\sim 5.4$ from its upstream value $u_0$ to the

2305: pre-subshock value $u_1$.

2306: The temperature in the precursor only increases adiabatically for

2307: $\heatpar=0$ and this results in an increase over the far upstream

2308: temperature $T_1/T_0 \approx 3.3$, thus reducing the local sonic Mach

2309: number to $\Msone \approx 44$.

2310: %The thermal pressure and the magnetic pressure remain low

2311: %for $x<0$ and don't come into play in determining the value of $\Msone$.

2312: 

2313: The subshock compression ratio $\rsub$ is determined by the change in

2314: the different constituents of the momentum flux across the subshock.

2315: $\Pcr(x)$, although large, changes little across the

2316: subshock\footnote{

2317: %

2318: $\Pcr(x)$ is discontinuous at $x=0$ in our simulation

2319: due to the contribution to it of the particles that have crossed the

2320: shock only a few times. The jump in $\Pcr(x)$ in this case is small

2321: compared to the jump in thermal and magnetic pressures across the

2322: subshock, but can be significant for $\heatpar>0$, as seen in

2323: Figure~\ref{fig_partpress}.},

2324: %

2325: and what determines $\rsub$ is the change in $\Pth(x)$ and $P_w(x)$. The

2326: latter, as the plots in Figure \ref{fig_momflx} show, contributes

2327: significantly to the momentum flux.  This is an important point because

2328: the values of $\Befftwo$ and $P_w(x)$ depend on $\rsub$ and $\rtot$ in a

2329: non-linear way making the traditional Rankine-Hugoniot relations

2330: inapplicable for determining $\rsub$.

2331: %

2332: Relation (\ref{rtotqesc}) can be used to

2333: iteratively calculate the resulting compression ratio $\rtot$, and it

2334: results in $\rtot=16$ and $\rsub=2.95$, as Table \ref{sumnl_cold}

2335: shows. As we can see, the effect of magnetic turbulence pressure tends to decrease

2336: $\rsub$ compared to the case $P_w(x) \ll \Pth(x)$ (as in the latter case

2337: one would expect $\rsub\approx 4$ for $\Msone \approx 44$).

2338: 

2339: \clearpage

2340: 

2341: \bibliographystyle{apj}

2342: %%\bibliography{c:/a_a_TOP/bibTeX/bib_DCE}

2343: \bibliography{bib_DCE}

2344: 

2345: 

2346: \end{document}

2347: