1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:
19:
20:
21: \usepackage{epsfig}
22: \usepackage{amsmath}
23: \usepackage{amssymb}
24: \usepackage{ifthen}
25: \usepackage{txfonts}
26: \usepackage{rotating}
27: \usepackage{url}
28: \usepackage{varioref}
29: \usepackage{verbatim}
30: \usepackage{latexsym}
31: \usepackage{graphicx}
32: \voffset-.8in
33:
34:
35: \usepackage{subfigure}
36:
37:
38:
39: \input{macros}
40:
41:
42:
43:
44:
45:
46:
47:
48:
49:
50: \title[3D Stability of Relativistic Jets from Black Holes]
51: {Stability of Relativistic Jets from Rotating, Accreting Black Holes via Fully Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations}
52:
53:
54:
55:
56:
57:
58:
59:
60:
61:
62:
63:
64: \author[J.~C. McKinney, \& R.~D. Blandford]
65: {Jonathan C. McKinney,$^1$$^2$\thanks{\hbox{E-mail: jmckinne@stanford.edu~(JCM);} \hbox{rdb3@stanford.edu~(RDB);} }
66: Roger D. Blandford$^1$\footnotemark[1] \\
67: $^1$Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, USA \\
68: $^2$Chandra Fellow }
69:
70:
71: \begin{document}
72: \date{Accepted 2009 January 14. Received 2009 January 14; in original form 2008 December 4}
73: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2009}
74: \maketitle
75:
76:
77:
78:
79: \label{firstpage}
80: \begin{abstract}
81:
82: Rotating magnetized compact objects and their accretion discs can
83: generate strong toroidal magnetic fields driving highly magnetized plasmas
84: into relativistic jets. Of significant concern,
85: however, has been that a strong toroidal field in the jet should be highly unstable
86: to the non-axisymmetric helical kink (screw) $m=1$ mode leading to rapid disruption.
87: In addition, a recent concern has been that the jet formation process itself
88: may be unstable due to the accretion of non-dipolar magnetic fields.
89: We describe large-scale fully three-dimensional
90: global general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of
91: rapidly rotating, accreting black holes producing jets.
92: We study both the stability of the jet as it propagates and the stability of the jet formation process
93: during accretion of dipolar and quadrupolar fields.
94: For our dipolar model, despite strong non-axisymmetric disc turbulence,
95: the jet reaches Lorentz factors of $\Gamma\sim 10$ with opening half-angle $\theta_j\sim 5^\circ$ at $10^3$ gravitational
96: radii without significant disruption or dissipation with only mild substructure dominated by the $m=1$ mode.
97: On the contrary, our quadrupolar model does not produce a steady relativistic ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) jet
98: due to mass-loading of the polar regions caused by unstable polar fields.
99: Thus, if produced, relativistic jets are roughly stable structures
100: and may reach up to an external shock with strong magnetic fields.
101: We discuss the astrophysical implications of the accreted magnetic geometry
102: playing such a significant role in relativistic jet formation, and we outline avenues
103: for future work.
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107:
108:
109:
110:
111:
112:
113:
114:
115: \begin{keywords}
116: accretion discs, black hole physics, galaxies: jets, gamma rays:
117: bursts, MHD, instabilities, relativity, methods: numerical
118: \end{keywords}
119:
120:
121:
122:
123: \section{Introduction}
124:
125:
126:
127:
128:
129:
130:
131:
132:
133:
134:
135:
136:
137:
138:
139: Astrophysical jets were discovered by Heber Curtis in 1917, who described M87's jet as
140: ``a curious straight ray ... connected with the nucleus'' \citep{curtis1918}.
141: The M87 jet is the most well-studied of all jets
142: associated with active galactic nuclei (AGN) (e.g. \citealt{bm54,bk79a,rm93}).
143: M87's jet structure has been observed down to tens of gravitational radii
144: of the putative black hole (BH) (e.g. \citealt{junor1999,kovalev2007,ly2007})
145: with impressive animations created \citep{walker2008}.
146: Jets have now also been observed in many other AGN/blazars \citep{bp84},
147: in neutron star and BH x-ray binaries \citep{mr99,fender04},
148: in Herbig-Haro objects (e.g. \citealt{konigl82}),
149: and are required for gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) (e.g. \citealt{piran2005}).
150: Challenges include explaining
151: the jet formation process,
152: the stability of jet formation and jet propagation,
153: how jets accelerate and collimate,
154: and how jets obtain their composition and substructure both near and far from the central object.
155: Jet studies are complicated by the system's environment,
156: such as how a jet must drill through a massive envelope in the collapsar model, while
157: FRII jets extend up to hot spots.
158: For quasar systems, jets play an important role
159: in limiting BH mass growth (e.g. \citealt{dsh05})
160: and driving hot bubbles that limit cooling flows (e.g. \citealt{mcn05}). However,
161: the efficiency of the energy-momentum transfer remains unknown and
162: probably depends on jet structure and stability.
163:
164:
165:
166:
167:
168:
169:
170:
171:
172:
173:
174:
175:
176: The most universally applicable jet paradigm involves some form
177: of magnetic-driving with strong toroidal fields that form, accelerate,
178: and (internally) collimate jets via magnetized accretion discs
179: \citep{lb69,br74,lovelace76,bp82} or accreting, rotating BHs (\citealt{bz77}, BZ).
180: This paradigm was bolstered by the realization that accretion can be driven
181: by magnetorotational turbulence generating a strong magnetic field
182: \citep{bh98}.
183: Especially if discs are thick near BHs,
184: then stronger jets and winds are driven by either
185: stronger turbulent magnetic fields for the otherwise same mass accretion rate
186: (e.g. \citealt{meier01,miller06}) or by
187: large-scale fields advected from large radii (see \S3 \& \S4 in \citealt{lop99}).
188: A magnetic field may preserve jet composition against entrainment \citep{rosen99}.
189: The variations in magnetic field strength and BH spin
190: may explain the diversity of jet systems like FRI/FRII's \citep{meier99},
191: although rotation measures imply unexpected field orientations \citep{zt05} and
192: simple models of decelerating jets fit FRIs (e.g. \citealt{laing06}).
193: Soltan efficiency (and other) arguments suggest quasars contain BHs that are
194: rapidly spinning (e.g. \citealt{gsm04}) and maybe
195: maximally spinning (e.g. \citealt{allen06}).
196: The intrinsic interest (and cosmological importance) of jets
197: motivates testing whether the magnetic paradigm can explain
198: their observed structure and stability.
199:
200:
201:
202:
203:
204:
205:
206:
207: Now roughly 90 years after Heber Curtis's discovery, the {\it straightness}
208: of many observed jets remains as their most inexplicable feature
209: given, e.g., fusion devices show strong toroidal fields
210: are violently unstable to helical kink (screw) modes (e.g. \citealt{bateman78}).
211: Astrophysical jet stability research has revealed
212: a large number of modes (e.g. \citealt{kad66})
213: that can be unstable including ``reflection'' resonant modes \citep{pc85},
214: Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) modes (e.g. \citealt{ferrari78} and references therein),
215: and current-driven modes \citep{benford81}.
216: With perturbations of the form $e^{i(m\phi + n z + l R - \omega t)}$,
217: a nearly universal result from these simplified models is that the $m=1$ kink
218: mode is the most dangerous mode that could result in complete disruption and dissipation.
219:
220:
221:
222: Even if simplified jet models are kink mode unstable,
223: they may be stabilized by introducing gradual shear (e.g. \citealt{mhn07} and references therein),
224: an external wind \citep{hh03}, sideways expansion \citep{rh00},
225: and relativistic bulk motion.
226: For some AGN jets, observations support a lack of significant
227: dissipation during propagation \citep{sambruna06}.
228: If unstable, however, jets can be a source of heating, radiation, and high-energy particles
229: due to shocks (e.g. \citealt{bk79a}),
230: reconnection (e.g. \citealt{ds02,lyutikov06,gs06}),
231: viscous shear,
232: turbulent cascade (e.g. \citealt{begelman98}),
233: and a break-down of the ideal single-component fluid approximation \citep{trussoni1988}.
234:
235: For magnetized jets, the current-driven screw ($n>0, m=1$) mode is potentially
236: most disruptive. For cylindrical force-free equilibria one obtains
237: the Kruskal-Shafranov (KS) instability criterion
238: \begin{equation}\label{kscrit}
239: -\frac{B^\phi}{B^p}>\frac{2\pi R}{r} ,
240: \end{equation}
241: where $B^\phi$ and $B^p$ are the toroidal and poloidal field strengths,
242: $R=r\sin\theta$ is cylindrical radius, and $r$ is poloidal extent.
243: This suggests jets are unstable beyond the Alfv\'en surface
244: where $B^\phi\gtrsim B^p$ and $r\gtrsim R$, located at
245: only $r\lesssim 10M$ (in this Letter, $G\equiv c\equiv 1$)
246: for rotating BHs or accretion discs.
247: The KS criterion implies jets go unstable before accelerating to relativistic
248: ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) speeds as likely only after $r\sim 100M$ \citep{M06a},
249: and the KS criterion probably cannot explain some FRIIs extending to $r\sim 10^7M$.
250:
251:
252:
253: Advanced linear stability analyses from normal mode and extremal energy
254: arguments for simplified cylindrical jets are often based upon restrictive assumptions,
255: which has lead researchers to suggest that jets are
256: violently unstable \citep{begelman98,lyub99,li00},
257: mildly unstable (e.g. \citealt{lery00}),
258: or even stable (e.g. \citealt{ip96}) to the screw mode.
259: \citet{tmt01} found that relativistic field rotation of freely
260: expanding solutions \citep{M06a,M06c,narayan2007} allows jets to be unstable
261: only if {\it both} the KS criterion and their criterion,
262: \begin{equation}\label{tmtcrit}
263: -\frac{B^\phi}{B^p}>\frac{R\Omega_F}{c} ,
264: \end{equation}
265: are satisfied, where $\Omega_F$ is the field line rotation frequency
266: and $c$ is the speed of light. This implies jets are marginally
267: stable until a strong external medium interaction.
268: Their analysis is suggestive, but it only strictly applies inside,
269: not through, the Alfv\'en surface. So far, no sufficiently general analytical screw stability
270: analysis has been performed for magnetically-dominated relativistic jets.
271:
272:
273:
274: Analytical approaches become intractable for more realistic jets.
275: It remains difficult to compare theory with observations (e.g. \citealt{worrall2007})
276: and laboratory experiments (e.g. \citealt{ciardi08}).
277: Primarily, numerical magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) simulations
278: have proven useful to study realistic jet models. Simulations
279: range from injecting an arbitrary jet from a surface inlet
280: (e.g. \citealt{nm04,zhang04,leismann05,kvkb08,mso08})
281: to injecting a jet from an unresolved Keplerian disc (e.g., \citealt{tmn08}),
282: and to evolving both the disc and jet (e.g.,
283: \citealt{hbs01,mg02,mg04,ks05,M05,hk06,M06a,mn07a,mn07b,km07}).
284: Advanced 3D MHD simulations that inject jets from an inlet
285: find that KH kink modes are stabilized by sheaths around the jets \citep{mhn07}
286: and that even non-relativistic screw modes saturate before causing magnetic dissipation \citep{mso08}.
287: More realistic simulations are crucial since
288: analytical experience suggests free parameters in jet-injection
289: simulations probably play a significant role.
290: In particular, only global simulations allow a stability
291: study of the actual jet formation process in the presence of
292: disc turbulence and different global field geometries.
293: Accretion of small quadrupolar field loops was already shown to
294: degrade the jet \citep{mg04,beckwith08}, but this could be due to their choice of
295: starting with small field loops in the disc with numerical dissipation not allowing the development
296: of a large-scale quadrupolar field.
297:
298:
299:
300:
301: \section{Numerical Model}
302:
303:
304: We perform fully 3D global general relativistic MHD (GRMHD)
305: simulations starting with an equilibrium matter torus,
306: whose angular momentum is aligned with the BH (Kerr metric) spin.
307: To facilitate comparisons, we follow \citet{M06a} and choose a
308: torus pressure maximum at $r=12M$, inner edge at $r=6M$, and adiabatic index $\gamma=4/3$
309: giving disc thickness $\delta\theta\sim \pm 0.3$. For BH spins of $a/M\gtrsim 0.4$,
310: simulations of such tori are qualitatively similar \citep{mg04}.
311: We choose all models to have $a/M=0.92$
312: (hole angular frequency, $\Omega_H=a/(2Mr_+)\approx 0.33 M^{-1}$, with horizon radius, $r_+$)
313: such that the BH is in spin equilibrium for our disc thickness \citep{gsm04}.
314: We use the conservative unsplit 3D GRMHD code HARM \citep{gmt03}, Kerr-Schild
315: coordinates, $4$th-order interpolation and $4$th-order Runge-Kutta \citep{M06a},
316: a robust inversion scheme \citep{mm07}, a staggered field scheme (McKinney et al., in prep.),
317: and other advances \citep{M06b,tmn07}.
318:
319: We consider both dipolar and quadrupolar field geometries.
320: The dipolar model starts with a single field loop within the torus as in \citet{M06a}.
321: Dipolar models correspond to the most-often simulated jet (or jet+disc) model
322: were the current sheet is assumed to be at (or develops near) the equator.
323: To give the quadrupole geometry the best chance of producing a jet,
324: we study a {\it large-scale} quadrupolar field with vector potential $\phi$ component
325: \begin{equation}
326: A_{\rm quadrupole} = A_{\rm dipole} \cos\theta ,
327: \end{equation}
328: using a paraboloidal-like potential
329: given by
330: \begin{equation}
331: A_{\rm dipole} = (1/2) [(r+r_0)^\nu f_- + 2Mf_+(1-\ln(f_+))] ,
332: \end{equation}
333: where $f_- = 1-\cos^\mu\theta$, $f_+=1+\cos^\mu\theta$, $\nu=3/4$,
334: $\mu=4$, $r_0=4$, and applies for $\theta<\pi/2$
335: and for $\theta>\pi/2$ when letting $\theta\rightarrow\pi-\theta$.
336: In this model, current sheets form above and below the equator.
337: From prior GRMHD simulations, we expect primarily the initial field's
338: multipole order to be important, and particular model parameter values
339: should be unimportant once a quasi-steady state is reached.
340: All models have initial gas pressure per unit magnetic pressure of $\approx 100$ at the equator in the disc.
341: We allow the comoving magnetic energy per rest-mass energy up to only $100$
342: during mass evacuation near the BH (see floor model in \citealt{M06a}).
343:
344:
345:
346:
347:
348: Spherical polar, not Cartesian, coordinates are used since preferred for rotating jets.
349: Our fiducial models have resolution
350: $256\times 128\times 32$ in $r\times\theta\times\phi$,
351: with non-uniform grid as in \citet{M06a}, except $R_0=0$ and $n_r=1$ in their equation (18).
352: Based upon code tests, our $2$nd-order monotonized central limiter
353: scheme would require roughly $4\times$ the per-dimension resolution to
354: obtain the accuracy our $4$th-order scheme by the end of the simulation.
355: Unlike prior 3D GRMHD simulations, the grid warps to resolve the disc at small radii
356: and follows the collimating jet at large radii giving roughly $3\times$ more angular
357: resolution at large radii. Hence, compared to any scheme similar to the original $2$nd-order HARM scheme,
358: our effective resolution is roughly $1024\times 1536\times 128$.
359: Unlike most 3D GRMHD simulations (e.g. \citealt{beckwith08}),
360: we include the full $\Delta\phi=2\pi$ extent as required to resolve
361: the $m=1$ mode and include the full $\Delta\theta=\pi$ extent (no cut-out at poles).
362: As \citet{fragile07}, we use transmissive (not reflecting) polar boundary conditions. As they state,
363: the singularity need not be treated specially for centered quantities in a finite-volume scheme.
364: Our field is staggered, and the polar value of $B^\theta$ is evolved by using the analytical limit of the
365: finite volume induction equation at the pole such that angular-dependent area factors cancel (McKinney et al., in prep.).
366: Coordinate directions twist at the pole leading to some dissipation,
367: but this is significantly reduced by our $4$th-order scheme that well-resolves up to $m=4$ with $32$ $\phi$ cells.
368: At the inner torus edge, cells have aspect ratio 1:5:10 and the fastest-growing
369: magnetorotational mode is resolved with $6$ cells, as sufficient \citep{shafee08}.
370: We also studied resolutions of $128\times128\times32$,
371: $128\times64\times32$, and $128\times64\times16$; the
372: jet's Fourier $m=1,2,3$ power is converged to $20\%$.
373: Using $128$ angular cells and staggered field scheme were required for MHD
374: jet invariants to be conserved to $\lesssim 10$\%, which is evidence
375: of an accurate solution \citep{tmn08}.
376:
377: Most disc+jet simulations do not evolve
378: to large enough radii to resolve a highly relativistic jet.
379: For magnetically-dominated paraboloidal jets, the maximum Lorentz factor at
380: large radii is
381: \begin{equation}
382: \Gamma\approx 0.3\left(\frac{r}{M}\right)^{0.5} ,
383: \end{equation}
384: \citep{tmn08}.
385: We choose an outer box radius of $10^3M$ as required to reach $\Gamma\sim 10$.
386: All simulations ran a duration of $5000M$, which is $192$
387: orbits at the inner-most stable circular orbit (ISCO)
388: ($r_{\rm ISCO}\approx 2.2M$) and $50$ orbits at the initial
389: inner torus edge. The accretion rate of mass ($\dot{M}$), energy,
390: and angular momentum are roughly constant with radius
391: out to $r\sim 10M$ by $t\sim 3000M$,
392: indicating the disc has reached a quasi-steady state.
393: The slow/contact modes for the jet move with $v/c\gtrsim 0.2$,
394: so the jet is beyond the box by $t=5000M$. We report
395: many results at $t\sim 4000M$ since this is before the jet
396: partially reflects off the outer box.
397:
398:
399:
400: \section{Results}
401:
402: The fiducial dipole model is overall similar to prior
403: 2D simulations \citep{mg04,M06a}. The BH-driven polar jet
404: survives in a non-dissipated state to large radii.
405: Each polar, magnetically-dominated jet at
406: $r_+,10,10^2,10^3M$ has constant electromagnetic luminosity of
407: $L_j\approx 0.01\dot{M}c^2$, with only a small secular drop as $\Gamma$ increases.
408: This value is similar to higher resolution 2D simulations \citep{mg04}.
409: The total (disc+jet+wind) electromagnetic output peaks at $r\approx 10M$,
410: but disc power is dissipated so does not survive at large radii \citep{mn07a}.
411: Figure~(\ref{disc}) shows the inner $\pm 100M$ cubical region and
412: Figure~(\ref{jet}) shows out to $z=10^3M$ by $t=4000M$.
413: The figures show the disc wind and relativistic jet generated by the rotating
414: BH and magnetized, turbulent accretion disc. The jet is
415: roughly stable out to $z=10^3M$ reaching $\Gamma\sim 5-10$.
416: Figure~(\ref{jet}) shows the kinked polar jet structure of the
417: poloidal current, $R B^\phi$, capable of driving screw instabilities.
418: We measure the Fourier power within the jet region defined by
419: magnetic energy per rest-mass energy, averaged for all $\phi$, greater than one.
420: At large distances the $m=1,2,3,4$ powers relative to $m=0$
421: are $7\%,1\%,0.7\%,0.6\%$ in magnetic energy, $6\%,4\%,0.5\%,0.2\%$ in Lorentz factor,
422: roughly $37\%,7\%,3\%,4\%$ in both rest-mass density ($\rho_0$) and $R B^\phi$,
423: and $20\%,13\%,7\%,6\%$ in internal energy density. Both $\rho_0$ and $R B^\phi$ reach
424: $m=1$ power of $100\%$ in the jet next to the outer disc edge at $r=20M$.
425: There is no indication of growth beyond perturbations induced by the disc turbulence,
426: which appears to be the primary origin of jet substructure.
427:
428: \begin{figure}
429:
430:
431: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{f1.eps}
432:
433:
434: \caption{For dipolar model, shows inner $\pm 100M$ cubical region
435: with BH, accretion disc (pressure, yellow isosurface),
436: outer disc and wind (log rest-mass density, low green, high orange, volume rendering),
437: relativistic jet (Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\lesssim 4$, low blue, high red, volume rendering),
438: and magnetic field lines (green) threading BH.
439: Despite non-axisymmetric turbulence, polar magnetically-dominated jets
440: are launched by the BZ effect.}
441: \label{disc} \end{figure}
442:
443: \begin{figure}
444:
445: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{f2.eps}
446:
447: \caption{For dipolar model, shows accreting BH
448: generating relativistic jet (only one side shown)
449: vertically out to $10^3M$ within $\theta\approx\pm 20^\circ$
450: ($350M\times 350 M$) at $t=4000M$.
451: Shown are outskirts of disc and wind (log internal energy density, cyan volume rendering),
452: outer/inner boundary of perturbed jet and fragments of disc wind ($R B^\phi$, blue isosurface),
453: and relativistic jet (Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\lesssim 10$, orange volume rendering)
454: collimated within half-angle $\theta_j\approx 5^\circ$.
455: Despite perturbations, the jet is a stable structure. }
456: \label{jet} \end{figure}
457:
458:
459:
460: Now we discuss our fiducial large-scale quadrupole model.
461: GRMHD simulations show that no strong jet emerges
462: due to the accretion of higher multipole moments put initially within the disc \citep{mg04,mn07a,mn07b,beckwith08}.
463: In our fully 3D simulations, even putting in an initial
464: large-scale quadrupolar field leads to no strong jet
465: once equatorial symmetry is broken by $t\sim 2500M$.
466: While the polar field strength is similar to that in the dipole model when the field threads the horizon,
467: the polar regions are mass-loaded when tearing coronal current sheets
468: eject polar field to slightly larger radii.
469: Then, magnetic pressure no longer balances against the
470: low angular momentum disc material that moves into the polar region.
471: The coronal-polar field is accreted and ejected throughout the simulation,
472: which leaves no time allowed for the funnel to drain.
473: This leads to order unity magnetic energy and internal energy per particle rest-mass energy,
474: which is insufficient to generate a highly relativistic ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) jet.
475: Similar results by \citet{beckwith08} using a non-energy-conserving code suggest
476: detailed thermodynamics do not control this process.
477: At late times, (total and polar) BH electromagnetic power are negative.
478: The polar regions have both inflows and outflows,
479: and there is only a disc-mass-loaded wind with an electromagnetic power output
480: per pole at large radii of $L_w\approx 0.002\dot{M}c^2$, which is significantly
481: less powerful than the dipole model.
482: Similar as the disc wind in the dipolar model, the outflow
483: has a weak disorganized poloidal field and a more organized toroidal field
484: stronger by factors of typically $10-40$ both near the BH and at large radii.
485: Corresponding 2D simulations show less drastic, but comparable, degradation of the jet.
486: A thinner disc may not allow as much mass-transfer to the poles, but
487: thinner discs have weaker turbulent fields and inward advection of strong ordered
488: field may not be possible for thin discs.
489: Also, higher resolutions may lead to less vigorous reconnection
490: or may show a more narrow, polar jet still emerges.
491:
492:
493: \section{Discussion}
494:
495: We have performed fully 3D global GRMHD simulations of accreting, rapidly rotating
496: BHs and found that dipolar fields near BHs can launch
497: magnetically-dominated, relativistic ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) jets that
498: survive to $10^3M$ without significant disruption or measurable dissipation.
499: Disc turbulence appears to be the primary cause of
500: jet substructure that is dominated by the $m=1$ mode,
501: which has no measurable growth within the jet.
502: Prior work applying a form of the Kruskal-Shafranov criterion
503: (solution for non-relativistic, cylindrical equilibria)
504: to highly magnetized relativistic flows (e.g. \citealt{lyutikov06,gs06}),
505: needs to be reevaluated to consider the stabilizing effects of
506: field rotation, gradual shear, a surrounding sheath, and sideways expansion as
507: present in the simulations.
508: Unlike dipolar fields, quadrupolar fields near BHs
509: lead to only weak, turbulent outflows and negligible magnetically-dominated polar
510: regions and no relativistic ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) jets.
511: Since our simulations with relativistic jets have no current sheets within the jet,
512: reconnection may not be an important source of
513: dissipation unlike assumed by some models (e.g. \citealt{ds02}.)
514:
515:
516: These and prior GRMHD simulation results suggest that a rotating ($a/M\gtrsim 0.4$) BH
517: is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to produce a
518: highly relativistic ($\Gamma\gtrsim 3$) jet. In addition, one requires
519: the accreted magnetic field to be mostly dipolar, rather than higher-order,
520: so a dipolar field threads the region near the BH (see also \citealt{nia03}).
521: This might explain various observations, such as the dichotomy of
522: FRI and FRII systems. FRI's are found in rich clusters, are two-sided so weakly relativistic,
523: and have dissipative emission near the core. FRII's are found in poor groups
524: or isolated, are one-sided so more relativistic, are more powerful, and dissipate
525: little till the radio lobe \citep{ol94}.
526: The FRI/FRII dichotomy may then be due to the complexity of the environment (e.g. through hierarchical merging)
527: controlling the field multipole structure.
528: Then, FRII systems are primarily BH-driven able to pierce through an ambient medium,
529: while FRI systems are those mostly driven by the
530: broader, dissipative, magnetically-disordered disc wind with $\Gamma\lesssim 3$
531: that one expects to be more easily entrained, slowed, and disrupted,
532: as consistent with observations \citep{laing06}.
533: Radial structure (e.g. arcs and knots) could be due to
534: accretion switching between dipolar and higher-order multipoles.
535: For M87, there could be a dark or boosted relativistic spine
536: with the slower, dissipative disc wind producing emission
537: on scales within several parsecs \citep{kovalev2007}.
538: For SrgA*, no jet may emerge because of accretion
539: from various stellar clusters generating a dominant non-dipolar field
540: \citep{ncs07}. For x-ray binaries,
541: jets in the low-hard states could be driven by dipolar fields
542: that could even accumulate to the point of lowering accretion rates \citep{ina03},
543: intermediate to soft states could involve higher-order multipole moments,
544: and transient jets from the hard-to-soft transitions could occur
545: due to dissipation of the dipolar component.
546: For GRBs, the BH-disc system may be required to be highly symmetric to maintain
547: a strong dipolar field to produce an ultrarelativistic jet.
548: That ordered poloidal field must be accreted
549: assumes no dynamo exists for generating a baryon-pure,
550: large-scale poloidal field from disorganized field \citep{beckwith08}.
551:
552: Future jet studies should consider the effects of much higher resolutions,
553: misaligned BH-disc accretion (since misaligned systems may more readily produce non-dipolar fields),
554: larger radii of $10^7M$ for AGN and $10^{12}M$ for GRBs
555: (to determine very large-scale stability and to obtain larger $\Gamma$),
556: resistivity and viscosity,
557: disc radial extent (that limits the terminal Lorentz factor since the
558: lack of the disc and supportive disc wind allows the jet
559: to become monopolar and so accelerate inefficiently),
560: disc thickness (that can control the strength of turbulent or advected field),
561: other magnetic field geometries (including with non-zero net helicity),
562: BH spin (especially very low and very high),
563: cooling (such as neutrino cooling in collapsar discs),
564: and the presence of an extended massive envelope as in the collapsar model
565: (freely expanding outflows simulated here
566: apply to a late phase after the jet drills through the envelope).
567: Future studies should also do a quantitative analysis of the modes
568: within the jet to identify which mode types are present.
569: The simulated jet can be used as a
570: well-motivated background state for future linear
571: perturbation analyses, parameter searches,
572: and synchrotron and inverse Compton maps for, e.g., VLBI, Chandra, and Fermi.
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579:
580:
581:
582:
583: \section*{Acknowledgments}
584:
585: We thank Ramesh Narayan and Alexander Tchekhovskoy for stimulating discussions.
586: Simulations were run on the TACC Lonestar and KIPAC Orange clusters.
587: Support was provided by NASA's Chandra Fellowship PF7-80048 (JCM),
588: NSF grant AST05-07732 (RDB), SciDAC grant DE-FC02-06ER41438 (JCM \& RDB),
589: and DOE contract DE-AC02-76SF00515 (JCM \& RDB).
590:
591:
592:
593:
594:
595:
596:
597:
598:
599:
600:
601:
602:
603:
604:
605:
606: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
607:
608:
609:
610:
611:
612:
613:
614:
615:
616:
617:
618:
619:
620:
621:
622:
623:
624:
625:
626:
627:
628:
629:
630:
631:
632:
633:
634:
635:
636:
637:
638:
639: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2006)]{allen06} Allen, S.~W. et al. 2006, \mnras, 372, 21
640:
641:
642:
643:
644:
645:
646:
647:
648:
649:
650:
651:
652:
653:
654:
655:
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661:
662:
663:
664:
665:
666:
667:
668:
669:
670:
671:
672:
673:
674:
675:
676:
677:
678:
679:
680:
681:
682:
683:
684:
685:
686:
687:
688:
689:
690:
691:
692:
693:
694:
695:
696:
697:
698: \bibitem[Baade \& Minkowski(1954)]{bm54} Baade, W., \& Minkowski, R.\ 1954, \apj, 119, 215
699:
700:
701:
702:
703: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1998)]{bh98} Balbus, S.~A., \& Hawley, J.~F.\ 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1
704:
705:
706:
707: \bibitem[Bateman(1978)]{bateman78} Bateman, G.\ 1978, MHD Instabilities, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
708:
709:
710:
711:
712:
713:
714:
715:
716:
717:
718:
719:
720:
721:
722:
723:
724:
725:
726:
727:
728:
729:
730:
731:
732:
733:
734:
735:
736:
737:
738: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2008)]{beckwith08} Beckwith, K., Hawley, J.~F., \& Krolik, J.~H.\ 2008, \apj, 678, 1180
739:
740:
741:
742:
743:
744:
745:
746:
747:
748:
749:
750:
751:
752:
753:
754:
755: \bibitem[Begelman(1998)]{begelman98} Begelman, M.~C.\ 1998, \apj, 493, 291
756:
757:
758:
759:
760:
761:
762:
763:
764:
765:
766: \bibitem[Benford(1981)]{benford81} Benford, G.\ 1981, \apj, 247, 792
767:
768:
769:
770:
771:
772:
773:
774:
775:
776:
777:
778:
779:
780:
781:
782:
783:
784:
785:
786:
787:
788:
789:
790:
791:
792:
793:
794:
795:
796:
797:
798:
799:
800:
801:
802:
803:
804:
805:
806:
807:
808:
809:
810:
811:
812:
813:
814:
815:
816:
817:
818: \bibitem[Blandford \& Rees(1974)]{br74} Blandford, R.~D., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1974, \mnras, 169, 395
819:
820:
821:
822:
823:
824:
825:
826:
827:
828:
829: \bibitem[Blandford \& Znajek(1977)]{bz77} Blandford, R.~D., \& Znajek, R.~L.\ 1977, \mnras, 179, 433
830:
831:
832:
833:
834: \bibitem[Blandford \& Konigl(1979a)]{bk79a} Blandford, R.~D., \& Konigl, A.\ 1979a, \aplett, 20, 15
835:
836:
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842:
843:
844: \bibitem[Blandford \& Payne(1982)]{bp82} Blandford, R.~D., \& Payne, D.~G.\ 1982, \mnras, 199, 883
845:
846:
847:
848:
849:
850:
851:
852:
853:
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864:
865:
866:
867:
868:
869:
870:
871:
872:
873:
874:
875:
876:
877:
878:
879:
880:
881:
882:
883:
884:
885:
886:
887:
888:
889:
890:
891:
892:
893:
894:
895:
896:
897:
898:
899:
900:
901:
902:
903:
904:
905:
906:
907:
908:
909:
910:
911:
912:
913:
914:
915:
916:
917:
918:
919:
920:
921: \bibitem[Bridle \& Perley(1984)]{bp84} Bridle, A.~H., \& Perley, R.~A.\ 1984, \araa, 22, 319
922:
923:
924:
925:
926:
927:
928:
929:
930:
931:
932:
933:
934:
935:
936:
937:
938:
939:
940:
941:
942:
943:
944:
945:
946:
947:
948:
949:
950:
951:
952:
953:
954:
955:
956:
957:
958:
959:
960:
961:
962:
963:
964:
965:
966:
967:
968:
969:
970:
971:
972:
973:
974:
975:
976:
977:
978:
979:
980:
981:
982:
983:
984:
985: \bibitem[Ciardi et al.(2008)]{ciardi08} Ciardi, A., et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0811.2736
986:
987:
988:
989:
990:
991:
992:
993:
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999:
1000:
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Curtis(1918)]{curtis1918} Curtis, H.~D.\ 1918, Pub. Lick Obs., 13, 31
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007:
1008:
1009:
1010:
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014:
1015:
1016:
1017:
1018:
1019:
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{dsh05} Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Drenkhahn \& Spruit(2002)]{ds02} Drenkhahn, G., \& Spruit, H.~C.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 1141
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2004)]{fender04} Fender, R.~P., Belloni, T.~M., \& Gallo, E.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 1105
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Ferrari et al.(1978)]{ferrari78} Ferrari, A., Trussoni, E., \& Zaninetti, L.\ 1978, \aap, 64, 43
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065:
1066:
1067:
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Fragile et al.(2007)]{fragile07} Fragile, P.~C., Blaes, O.~M., Anninos, P., \& Salmonson, J.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 668, 417
1079:
1080:
1081:
1082:
1083:
1084:
1085:
1086:
1087:
1088: \bibitem[Gammie et al.(2003)]{gmt03} Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., \& T\'oth,G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Gammie et al.(2004)]{gsm04} Gammie, C.~F., Shapiro, S.~L., \& McKinney, J.~C.\ 2004, \apj, 602, 312
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094:
1095: \bibitem[Giannios \& Spruit(2006)]{gs06} Giannios, D., \& Spruit, H.~C.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 887
1096:
1097:
1098:
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106:
1107:
1108:
1109:
1110:
1111:
1112:
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133:
1134:
1135:
1136:
1137:
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145:
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150:
1151:
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163:
1164:
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168:
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172:
1173:
1174:
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186:
1187:
1188:
1189:
1190:
1191:
1192:
1193:
1194:
1195:
1196:
1197:
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204:
1205:
1206:
1207:
1208:
1209:
1210:
1211:
1212:
1213:
1214:
1215:
1216:
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220:
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233:
1234:
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Hardee \& Hughes(2003)]{hh03} Hardee, P.~E., \& Hughes, P.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 116
1239:
1240:
1241:
1242:
1243:
1244:
1245:
1246:
1247:
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251:
1252:
1253:
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258:
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264:
1265:
1266:
1267: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(2001)]{hbs01} Hawley, J.~F., Balbus, S.~A., \& Stone, J.~M.\ 2001, \apjl, 554, L49
1268:
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272:
1273:
1274:
1275:
1276:
1277:
1278: \bibitem[Hawley \& Krolik(2006)]{hk06} Hawley, J.~F., \& Krolik, J.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 103
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284:
1285:
1286:
1287:
1288:
1289:
1290:
1291:
1292:
1293:
1294:
1295:
1296:
1297:
1298:
1299:
1300:
1301:
1302:
1303:
1304:
1305:
1306:
1307:
1308:
1309:
1310: \bibitem[Igumenshchev et al.(2003)]{ina03} Igumenshchev, I.~V., Narayan, R., \& Abramowicz, M.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 1042
1311:
1312:
1313:
1314:
1315:
1316:
1317:
1318:
1319:
1320:
1321: \bibitem[Istomin \& Pariev(1996)]{ip96} Istomin, Y.~N., \& Pariev, V.~I.\ 1996, \mnras, 281, 1
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325:
1326: \bibitem[Junor et al.(1999)]{junor1999} Junor, W., Biretta, J.~A., \& Livio, M.\ 1999, \nat, 401, 891
1327:
1328:
1329:
1330:
1331: \bibitem[Kadomtsev(1966)]{kad66} Kadomtsev, B.~B.\ 1966, Rev. Plasma Phys., 2, 153
1332:
1333:
1334:
1335:
1336:
1337:
1338:
1339:
1340:
1341:
1342:
1343:
1344:
1345:
1346:
1347:
1348:
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352:
1353:
1354:
1355:
1356:
1357:
1358:
1359:
1360:
1361:
1362:
1363:
1364:
1365:
1366:
1367:
1368:
1369:
1370:
1371:
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375: \bibitem[Kigure \& Shibata(2005)]{ks05} Kigure, H., \& Shibata, K.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 879
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379:
1380:
1381:
1382:
1383:
1384:
1385:
1386:
1387:
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394:
1395:
1396:
1397:
1398:
1399:
1400:
1401: \bibitem[Komissarov \& McKinney(2007)]{km07} Komissarov, S.~S., \& McKinney, J.~C.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, L49
1402:
1403:
1404:
1405:
1406: \bibitem[Komissarov et al.(2008)]{kvkb08} Komissarov, S., Vlahakis, N., Konigl, A., \& Barkov, M.\ 2008, arXiv:0811.1467
1407:
1408:
1409:
1410:
1411:
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415: \bibitem[Konigl(1982)]{konigl82} Konigl, A.\ 1982, \apj, 261, 115
1416:
1417:
1418:
1419:
1420:
1421:
1422:
1423:
1424:
1425:
1426:
1427:
1428:
1429:
1430:
1431: \bibitem[Kovalev et al.(2007)]{kovalev2007} Kovalev, Y.~Y., Lister, M.~L., Homan, D.~C., \& Kellermann, K.~I.\ 2007, \apjl, 668, L27
1432:
1433:
1434:
1435:
1436:
1437:
1438:
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443:
1444:
1445:
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457:
1458:
1459:
1460:
1461:
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465:
1466:
1467:
1468:
1469:
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473:
1474:
1475:
1476:
1477:
1478: \bibitem[Laing et al.(2006)]{laing06} Laing, R.~A., Canvin, J.~R., Bridle, A.~H., \& Hardcastle, M.~J.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 510
1479:
1480:
1481:
1482:
1483:
1484:
1485:
1486:
1487:
1488:
1489:
1490:
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495:
1496:
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500:
1501:
1502:
1503:
1504: \bibitem[Leismann et al.(2005)]{leismann05} Leismann, T. et al.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 503
1505:
1506:
1507:
1508: \bibitem[Li(2000)]{li00} Li, L.-X.\ 2000, \apjl, 531, L111
1509:
1510:
1511:
1512:
1513:
1514: \bibitem[Lery et al.(2000)]{lery00} Lery, T., Baty, H., \& Appl, S.\ 2000, \aap, 355, 1201
1515:
1516:
1517:
1518:
1519:
1520:
1521:
1522:
1523:
1524:
1525:
1526:
1527:
1528:
1529:
1530: \bibitem[Livio et al.(1999)]{lop99} Livio, M., Ogilvie, G.~I., \& Pringle, J.~E.\ 1999, \apj, 512, 100
1531:
1532:
1533:
1534:
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Lovelace(1976)]{lovelace76} Lovelace, R.~V.~E.\ 1976, \nat, 262, 649
1537:
1538:
1539:
1540:
1541:
1542:
1543:
1544:
1545:
1546:
1547:
1548:
1549:
1550:
1551:
1552: \bibitem[Ly et al.(2007)]{ly2007} Ly, C., Walker, R.~C., \& Junor, W.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 200
1553:
1554:
1555:
1556: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell(1969)]{lb69} Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1969, \nat, 223, 690
1557:
1558:
1559:
1560:
1561:
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565:
1566:
1567: \bibitem[Lyutikov(2006)]{lyutikov06} Lyutikov, M.\ 2006, New J. of Phys., 8, 119
1568:
1569:
1570:
1571:
1572:
1573:
1574: \bibitem[Lyubarskii(1999)]{lyub99} Lyubarskii, Y.~E.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 1006
1575:
1576:
1577:
1578:
1579:
1580:
1581:
1582:
1583:
1584:
1585:
1586:
1587:
1588:
1589:
1590: \bibitem[McNamara et al.(2005)]{mcn05} McNamara, B.~R. et al. 2005, \nat, 433, 45
1591:
1592:
1593:
1594:
1595:
1596:
1597:
1598:
1599:
1600:
1601:
1602:
1603:
1604:
1605:
1606:
1607:
1608:
1609:
1610:
1611:
1612:
1613:
1614:
1615:
1616:
1617:
1618:
1619:
1620:
1621:
1622:
1623:
1624:
1625:
1626:
1627:
1628:
1629:
1630:
1631:
1632:
1633:
1634: \bibitem[McKinney \& Gammie(2002)]{mg02} McKinney, J.~C., \& Gammie, C.~F.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 728
1635:
1636:
1637: \bibitem[McKinney \& Gammie(2004)]{mg04} McKinney, J.~C., \& Gammie, C.~F.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 977
1638:
1639:
1640:
1641: \bibitem[McKinney(2005)]{M05} McKinney, J.~C.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L5
1642:
1643:
1644:
1645: \bibitem[McKinney(2006a)]{M06a} McKinney, J.~C.\ 2006a, \mnras, 368, 1561
1646:
1647:
1648:
1649: \bibitem[McKinney(2006b)]{M06b} McKinney, J.~C. 2006b, \mnras, 367, 1797
1650:
1651:
1652:
1653:
1654: \bibitem[McKinney(2006c)]{M06c} McKinney, J.~C.\ 2006c, \mnras, 368, L30
1655:
1656:
1657:
1658:
1659: \bibitem[McKinney \& Narayan(2007a)]{mn07a} McKinney, J.~C., \& Narayan, R.\ 2007a, \mnras, 375, 513
1660:
1661: \bibitem[McKinney \& Narayan(2007b)]{mn07b} McKinney, J.~C., \& Narayan, R.\ 2007b, \mnras, 375, 531
1662:
1663:
1664:
1665:
1666:
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670:
1671:
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Meier(1999)]{meier99} Meier, D.~L.\ 1999, \apj, 522, 753
1674:
1675:
1676:
1677:
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Meier(2001)]{meier01} Meier, D.~L.\ 2001, \apjl, 548, L9
1680:
1681:
1682:
1683:
1684:
1685:
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694:
1695:
1696:
1697:
1698:
1699:
1700:
1701:
1702: \bibitem[Mignone \& McKinney(2007)]{mm07} Mignone, A., \& McKinney, J.~C.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 1118
1703:
1704:
1705:
1706:
1707:
1708:
1709: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2006)]{miller06} Miller, J.~M. et al. 2006, \apj, 653, 525
1710:
1711:
1712:
1713:
1714:
1715:
1716: \bibitem[Mirabel \& Rodr{\'{\i}}guez(1999)]{mr99} Mirabel, I.~F., \& Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F.\ 1999, \araa, 37, 409
1717:
1718:
1719:
1720:
1721:
1722:
1723: \bibitem[Mizuno et al.(2007)]{mhn07} Mizuno, Y., Hardee, P., \& Nishikawa, K.-I.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 835
1724:
1725:
1726:
1727:
1728: \bibitem[Moll et al.(2008)]{mso08} Moll, R., Spruit, H.~C., \& Obergaulinger, M.\ 2008, arXiv:0809.3165
1729:
1730:
1731:
1732:
1733:
1734:
1735:
1736: \bibitem[Nakamura \& Meier(2004)]{nm04} Nakamura, M., \& Meier, D.~L.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 123
1737:
1738:
1739:
1740:
1741:
1742:
1743:
1744:
1745:
1746:
1747:
1748:
1749:
1750:
1751:
1752:
1753:
1754:
1755:
1756:
1757: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(2003)]{nia03} Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I.~V., \& Abramowicz, M.~A.\ 2003, \pasj, 55, L69
1758:
1759:
1760:
1761:
1762:
1763: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(2007)]{narayan2007} Narayan, R., McKinney, J.~C., \& Farmer, A.~J.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 548
1764:
1765:
1766:
1767:
1768:
1769:
1770:
1771:
1772:
1773:
1774:
1775: \bibitem[Nayakshin et al.(2007)]{ncs07} Nayakshin, S., Cuadra, J., \& Springel, V.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 21
1776:
1777:
1778:
1779:
1780:
1781:
1782:
1783:
1784:
1785:
1786:
1787:
1788:
1789:
1790:
1791:
1792:
1793:
1794:
1795:
1796:
1797:
1798:
1799:
1800:
1801:
1802:
1803:
1804:
1805:
1806:
1807:
1808:
1809:
1810:
1811:
1812:
1813:
1814:
1815:
1816:
1817:
1818:
1819:
1820:
1821:
1822:
1823:
1824:
1825:
1826:
1827:
1828:
1829:
1830:
1831:
1832: \bibitem[Owen \& Ledlow(1994)]{ol94} Owen, F.~N., \& Ledlow, M.~J.\ 1994, The Physics of Active Galaxies, 54, 319
1833:
1834:
1835:
1836:
1837:
1838:
1839:
1840:
1841:
1842:
1843: \bibitem[Payne \& Cohn(1985)]{pc85} Payne, D.~G., \& Cohn, H.\ 1985, \apj, 291, 655
1844:
1845:
1846:
1847:
1848:
1849:
1850:
1851:
1852:
1853:
1854:
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858:
1859:
1860:
1861:
1862:
1863:
1864:
1865:
1866:
1867:
1868:
1869:
1870:
1871:
1872:
1873:
1874:
1875:
1876:
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883:
1884:
1885:
1886:
1887:
1888:
1889:
1890:
1891:
1892:
1893:
1894:
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898:
1899: \bibitem[Piran(2005)]{piran2005} Piran, T.\ 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143
1900:
1901:
1902:
1903:
1904:
1905:
1906:
1907:
1908:
1909:
1910:
1911:
1912:
1913:
1914:
1915:
1916:
1917:
1918:
1919:
1920:
1921:
1922:
1923:
1924:
1925:
1926:
1927:
1928:
1929:
1930:
1931:
1932:
1933:
1934:
1935:
1936:
1937:
1938:
1939:
1940:
1941:
1942:
1943:
1944:
1945:
1946:
1947:
1948:
1949:
1950:
1951: \bibitem[Rosen et al.(1999)]{rosen99} Rosen, A., Hardee, P.~E., Clarke, D.~A., \& Johnson, A.\ 1999, \apj, 510, 136
1952:
1953:
1954:
1955:
1956: \bibitem[Rosen \& Hardee(2000)]{rh00} Rosen, A., \& Hardee, P.~E.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 750
1957:
1958:
1959:
1960:
1961:
1962:
1963:
1964:
1965:
1966:
1967:
1968: \bibitem[R{\"o}ser \& Meisenheimer(1993)]{rm93} R{\"o}ser, H.-J., \& Meisenheimer, K.\ 1993, Jets in Extragalactic Radio Sources, 421,
1969:
1970:
1971:
1972:
1973:
1974:
1975:
1976:
1977:
1978:
1979:
1980:
1981:
1982:
1983:
1984:
1985:
1986:
1987:
1988:
1989:
1990:
1991:
1992:
1993: \bibitem[Shafee et al.(2008)]{shafee08} Shafee, R., McKinney, J.~C., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Gammie, C.~F., \& McClintock, J.~E.\ 2008, \apjl, 687, L25
1994:
1995:
1996:
1997:
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2003:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017:
2018:
2019:
2020:
2021:
2022:
2023:
2024:
2025:
2026:
2027:
2028:
2029:
2030:
2031:
2032:
2033:
2034:
2035:
2036:
2037:
2038:
2039:
2040:
2041:
2042:
2043:
2044:
2045:
2046:
2047:
2048:
2049:
2050:
2051:
2052:
2053:
2054:
2055:
2056:
2057:
2058:
2059:
2060:
2061:
2062:
2063:
2064:
2065:
2066:
2067:
2068:
2069:
2070:
2071:
2072:
2073:
2074:
2075:
2076:
2077:
2078:
2079:
2080:
2081:
2082:
2083:
2084:
2085:
2086:
2087: \bibitem[Sambruna et al.(2006)]{sambruna06} Sambruna, R.~M., Gliozzi, M., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., \& Foschini, L.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 146
2088:
2089:
2090:
2091: \bibitem[Tchekhovskoy et al.(2007)]{tmn07} Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J.~C., \& Narayan, R.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 469
2092:
2093:
2094:
2095: \bibitem[Tchekhovskoy et al.(2008)]{tmn08} Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J.~C., \& Narayan, R.\ 2008, \mnras, 388, 551
2096:
2097:
2098:
2099:
2100:
2101:
2102:
2103:
2104:
2105:
2106:
2107:
2108:
2109: \bibitem[Tomimatsu et al.(2001)]{tmt01} Tomimatsu, A., Matsuoka, T., \& Takahashi, M.\ 2001, \prd, 64, 123003
2110:
2111:
2112:
2113:
2114: \bibitem[Trussoni et al.(1988)]{trussoni1988} Trussoni, E., Massaglia, S., Bodo, G., \& Ferrari, A.\ 1988, \mnras, 234, 539
2115:
2116:
2117:
2118:
2119:
2120:
2121:
2122:
2123:
2124:
2125:
2126:
2127:
2128:
2129:
2130:
2131:
2132:
2133:
2134:
2135:
2136:
2137: \bibitem[Walker et al.(2008)]{walker2008} Walker, R.~C., Ly, C., Junor, W., \& Hardee, P.~J.\ 2008, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 131, 012053
2138:
2139:
2140:
2141:
2142: \bibitem[Worrall et al.(2007)]{worrall2007} Worrall, D.~M., et al. \ 2007, \mnras, 380, 2
2143:
2144:
2145:
2146:
2147:
2148:
2149:
2150:
2151: \bibitem[Zavala \& Taylor(2005)]{zt05} Zavala, R.~T., \& Taylor, G.~B.\ 2005, \apjl, 626, L73
2152:
2153:
2154:
2155:
2156:
2157:
2158: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2004)]{zhang04} Zhang, W., Woosley, S.~E., \& Heger, A.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 365
2159:
2160:
2161:
2162:
2163:
2164:
2165:
2166:
2167:
2168:
2169: \end{thebibliography}
2170:
2171:
2172:
2173:
2174: \label{lastpage}
2175:
2176:
2177: \end{document}
2178: