1: %\documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[aaspp]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[apjpt]{article}
5: \documentstyle[12pt,aasms]{article}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \def\LSUN{\rm L_{\odot}}
10: \def\MSUN{\rm M_{\odot}}
11: \def\RSUN{\rm R_{\odot}}
12: \def\MSUNYR{\rm M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}
13: \def\MSUNS{\rm M_{\odot}\,s^{-1}}
14: \def\MDOT{\dot{M}}
15:
16: \newbox\grsign \setbox\grsign=\hbox{$>$} \newdimen\grdimen \grdimen=\ht\grsign
17: \newbox\simlessbox \newbox\simgreatbox
18: \setbox\simgreatbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\llap
19: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht1=\grdimen\dp1=0pt
20: \setbox\simlessbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}\llap
21: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht2=\grdimen\dp2=0pt
22: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\copy\simgreatbox}}
23: \def\simless{\mathrel{\copy\simlessbox}}
24: %
25:
26: \title{Axisymmetric MHD simulations of the collapsar model
27: for gamma-ray bursts}
28:
29: \vspace{1.cm}
30: \author{Daniel Proga$^{1}$, Andrew I. MacFadyen$^{2}$, Philip J. Armitage$^{1, 3}$,
31: and Mitchell C. Begelman$^{1, 3}$}
32: \vspace{.5cm}
33: \affil{$^1$JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0440, USA}
34: \affil{$^2$California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 130-33,
35: Pasadena, CA 91125}
36: \affil{$^3$also Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University
37: of Colorado, Boulder}
38:
39: \vspace{2cm}
40:
41: \centerline{submitted to ApJ Letters on Aug. 28 2003}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We present results from axisymmetric, time-dependent
45: magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the collapsar model for
46: gamma-ray bursts. We begin the simulations after the $1.7~\MSUN$ iron
47: core of a 25~$\MSUN$ presupernova star has collapsed and study the
48: ensuing accretion of the $7~\MSUN$ helium envelope onto the central
49: black hole formed by the collapsed iron core. We consider a
50: spherically symmetric progenitor model, but with spherical symmetry
51: broken by the introduction of a small, latitude-dependent angular
52: momentum and a weak radial magnetic field. Our MHD simulations include
53: a realistic equation of state, neutrino cooling, photodisintegration
54: of helium, and resistive heating. Our main conclusion is that, within
55: the collapsar model, MHD effects alone are able to launch, accelerate
56: and sustain a strong polar outflow. We also find that the outflow is
57: Poynting flux-dominated, and note that this provides favorable initial
58: conditions for the subsequent production of a baryon-poor fireball.
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks -- gamma rays: bursts -- methods:
63: numerical -- MHD -- stars: winds, outflows}
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66: The collapsar model is one of most promising scenarios to explain the
67: huge release of energy in a matter of seconds, associated with
68: gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; Woosley 1993; Paczy\'{n}ski, 1998; MacFadyen
69: \& Woosley 1999, hereafter MW; Popham, Woosley \& Fryer 1999;
70: MacFadyen, Woosley \& Heger 2001). In this model, the collapsed iron
71: core of a massive star accretes gas at a high rate ($\sim 1 \MSUNS$)
72: producing a large neutrino flux, a powerful outflow, and a GRB.
73: Despite many years of intensive theoretical studies of these events,
74: basic properties of the central engine are uncertain. In part, this is
75: because previous numerical studies of the collapsar model did not
76: explicitly include magnetic fields, although they are commonly
77: accepted as a key element of accretion flows and outflows.
78:
79:
80: In this letter we present a study of the time evolution of
81: magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) flows in the collapsar model. This study is
82: an extension of existing models of MHD accretion flows onto a black
83: hole (BH; Proga \& Begelman 2003, PB03 hereafter). In particular, we
84: include a realistic equation of state (EOS), photodisintegration of
85: bound nuclei and cooling due to neutrino emission. Our study is also
86: an extension of MW's collapsar simulations, as we consider very similar
87: neutrino physics and initial conditions but solve MHD instead of
88: hydrodynamical equations.
89:
90: \section{Method}
91:
92: To calculate the structure and evolution of an accreting flow, we solve
93: the equations of MHD:
94: \begin{equation}
95: \frac{D\rho}{Dt} + \rho \nabla \cdot {\bf v} = 0,
96: \end{equation}
97: \begin{equation}
98: \rho \frac{D{\bf v}}{Dt} = - \nabla P - \rho \nabla \Phi+ \frac{1}{4\pi} {\bf (\nabla \times B) \times B},
99: \end{equation}
100: \begin{equation}
101: \rho \frac{D}{Dt}\left(\frac{e}{ \rho}\right) = -P \nabla \cdot {\bf
102: v}+\eta_r\bf{J}^2 -\cal{L},
103: \end{equation}
104: \begin{equation}
105: {\partial{\bf B}\over\partial t} = {\bf\nabla\times}({\bf v\times B-
106: \eta_{\it r} J}),
107: \end{equation}
108: where $\rho$ is the mass density, $P$ is the total gas pressure plus radiation
109: pressure,
110: ${\bf v}$ is the fluid velocity, $e$ is the internal energy density,
111: $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, $\bf B$ is the magnetic field vector,
112: $\bf J$ is the current density, $\eta_r$ is an anomalous resistivity,
113: and $\cal{L}$ is the cooling rate due to neutrinos.
114:
115: To compute resistivity, we follow Stone \& Pringle (2001, see their
116: equations 5 and A1). We perform simulations using the
117: pseudo-Newtonian potential of the central mass $\Phi_{pw} =
118: GM/(r-R_S)$, where $R_S = 2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius,
119: introduced by Paczy\'{n}ski \& Wiita (1980). We increase the mass of
120: the BH during the calculation by the amount of
121: baryonic rest mass
122: accreted through the inner boundary.
123:
124: Our calculations are performed in spherical polar coordinates
125: $(r,\theta,\phi)$. We assume axial symmetry about the rotational axis
126: of the accretion flow ($\theta=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$). The
127: computational domain is defined to occupy the radial range
128: $r_i~=~1.5~R_S \leq r \leq \ r_o~=~ 1000~R_S$, and the angular range
129: $0^\circ \leq \theta \leq 180^\circ$. The $r-\theta$ domain is
130: discretized on a non-uniform grid as in PB03, which yields $\Delta
131: r/r=0.278$ at the inner edge of the simulations.
132:
133: We adopt a realistic EOS, which includes contributions from an ideal
134: gas of nuclei, radiation, and electrons and positrons with arbitrary
135: degrees of relativity and degeneracy (Blinnikov, Dunina-Barkovskaya \&
136: Nadyozhin 1996). To compute the cooling rate, we follow Itoh et
137: al. (1989, 1990), taking into account thermal neutrino emission
138: processes dominated by pair annihilation, as well as the capture of
139: pairs on free nucleons.
140:
141:
142: Our calculations use the ZEUS-2D code described by Stone \& Norman
143: (1992a,b). We have extended the code to include the realistic EOS,
144: artificial resistivity, photodisintegration and neutrino cooling. We
145: included the terms due to the resistivity and cooling in an operator
146: split fashion separately from the rest of the dynamical equations. For
147: stability, these terms must be integrated using the time step computed
148: based on the resistive and cooling time scales, respectively. We
149: subcycle whenever either of these two time steps is smaller than the
150: time step used in the MHD equations (see, e.g., Stone, Pringle, and
151: Begelman 1999). Inclusion of a non-adiabatic EOS requires iterating over
152: temperature, $T$ (see MW for details).
153:
154: By including the neutrino cooling and realistic EOS, we consider very
155: similar microphysics to that used in MW. Our simulations differ from
156: those in MW in that we use the ZEUS MHD code whereas MW used the
157: PROMETHEUS hydrodynamics code (Fryxell, M$\ddot{\rm u}$ller \& Arnett
158: 1989). This means that we can self-consistently calculate turbulent
159: stresses generated by the magnetorotational instability (MRI) and thus
160: include the outward transport of energy and angular momentum (e.g.,
161: Balbus \& Hawley 1991). MW implemented the
162: effects of viscosity in the disk using an alpha viscosity as
163: prescribed by Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973). We do not consider
164: self-gravity and nuclear burning; however, as in MW our simulations
165: track the photodisintegration of helium. Our simulations span the radial
166: direction from 1.5 to 1000 $R_S$ whereas MW's simulations span from
167: 9.5 to 9500 $R_S$. Thus we can capture the innermost part of the flow
168: near the BH but follow the evolution out to a smaller radius than MW's
169: simulations.
170:
171:
172: We adopt PB03's boundary conditions and initial conditions for the
173: magnetic field. In particular, the initial magnetic field is purely
174: radial and weak ($\beta \equiv 8\pi P/ B^2 \gg 1$ everywhere). For
175: the initial conditions of the fluid variables, we follow MW and adopt
176: the stellar model for the helium core of a 25~$\MSUN$ presupernova
177: star (model S251S7B@14233 in Woosley \& Weaver 1995). The masses of
178: the helium and iron core derived from this star are 7.23 and
179: 1.70~$\MSUN$, respectively. Similarly to MW's simulations, our
180: simulations start after the entire iron core is assumed to have
181: collapsed to form a BH (with $R_S=4.957\times 10^5$~cm), but before
182: the helium envelope has collapsed. The model predicts an inner radius
183: of the helium envelope, $R_{\rm He}$, of 2.11$\times 10^8$~cm. Outside
184: this radius, we adopt the radial velocity from the stellar model, set
185: $v_\theta=0$ and assume a non-zero $l$. The angular momentum
186: distribution is chosen such that the ratio between the centrifugal
187: force and the component of gravity perpendicular to the rotational
188: axis is 0.02 at all angles and radii, except where this prescription
189: results in $l > l_{max}=10^{17}~{\rm cm^2~s^{-1}}$; then we set $l=
190: l_{max}$. Inside $R_{\rm He}$, we set $v_\theta=v_\phi=0$ and assume
191: a free-fall radial velocity. We compute the initial density inside the
192: helium envelope using the mass continuity equation and the mass
193: accretion rate from the stellar model at $R_{\rm He}$, where
194: $\rho=1.16 \times 10^7~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$ and $v_r=-8.81\times10^7~{\rm
195: cm~s^{-1}}$.
196:
197: \section{Results}
198:
199: With these assumptions, there is only one free parameter which
200: defines the strength of the initial magnetic field. In this letter,
201: we present results from a single model for which $\beta=10^6$
202: at the outer boundary.
203:
204: We find that after a transient episode of infall, lasting 0.13 s, the
205: gas with $l\simgreat 2 R_S c$ piles up outside the black hole and
206: forms a thick torus bounded by a centrifugal barrier near the rotation
207: axis. Soon after the torus forms (i.e., a couple of orbits at
208: $r=r_i$), the magnetic field is amplified by both MRI and shear.
209: We have verified that most of the inner torus is unstable to MRI, and
210: that our simulations have enough resolution to resolve, albeit
211: marginally, the fastest growing MRI mode. The torus starts evolving
212: rapidly and accretes onto the black hole. Another important effect of
213: magnetic fields is that the torus produces a magnetized corona and an
214: outflow. The presence of the corona and outflow is essential to the
215: evolution of the inner flow at all times and the entire flow close to
216: the rotational axis during the latter phase of the evolution. We find
217: that the outflow very quickly becomes sufficiently strong to overcome
218: supersonically infalling gas (the radial Mach number in the polar
219: funnel near the inner radius is $\sim 5$) and makes its way outward,
220: reaching the outer boundary at $t=0.25$ s. Due to limited computing
221: time, our simulations were stopped at $t=0.28215$~s, which corresponds
222: to 6705 orbits of the flow near the inner boundary. We
223: expect the accretion to continue much longer, roughly the collapse
224: timescale of the Helium core ($\sim 10$~s), as in MW.
225:
226:
227: Figure~1 shows the time evolution of the mass accretion rate through
228: the inner boundary (left panel), total magnetic energy (second left
229: panel), neutrino luminosity (third left panel) and radial Poynting and
230: kinetic flux along the polar axis at $r=190~R_S$ (right panel).
231: Unless otherwise stated, all quantities in this paper are in cgs
232: units. Initially, during a precollapse phase, $\MDOT_a$ stays nearly
233: constant at the level of $\sim 5\times 10^{32}~{\rm g~s^{-1}}$. During
234: this phase the zero-$l$ gas inside the initial helium envelope is
235: accreted. Around $t=0.13$~s, $\MDOT_a$ rises sharply as the gas from
236: the initial helium envelope reaches the inner boundary. However, this
237: gas has non-zero $l$ and a rotational supported torus and its corona
238: and outflow form, causing a drop in $\MDOT_a$ after it reaches a
239: maximum of $2\times 10^{33}~{\rm g~s^{-1}}$ at $t=0.145$~s. The
240: accretion rate reaches a minimum of $6\times10^{31}~{\rm g~s^{-1}}$ at
241: $t\approx0.182$~s and then fluctuates with a clear long-term increase.
242: This increase is caused by the contribution from gas with $l< 2 R_S
243: c$, which is directly accreted (without need to transport $l$) from
244: outside the main body of the torus. The total mass and angular
245: momentum accreted onto the BH during our simulation (0.3 s) are
246: $0.1~\MSUN$ and $3\times10^{39}~{\rm g~cm^2~s^{-1}}$, respectively.
247:
248: The time evolution of the total magnetic energy (integrated over the
249: entire computational domain) is characteristic of weakly magnetized
250: rotating accretion flows. Most of the magnetic energy is due to the
251: toroidal component of the magnetic field. We note a huge increase of
252: the toroidal magnetic field coinciding with the formation and
253: development of the torus. Both $B_\phi$ and $B_\theta$ are practically
254: zero during the precollapse phase of the evolution. But at $t=0.14$~s
255: the total energy in $B_\phi$ equals that in $B_r$ and just 0.025~s
256: later the $B_\phi$ energy is higher than the $B_r$ energy by a factor
257: of 50. At the end of simulations the total kinetic energy from the
258: radial, latitudinal and rotational motion are $4\times 10^{50}$,
259: $6.5\times 10^{49}$, and $2.3\times10^{51}$~erg, respectively. These
260: gross properties indicate that the magnetic energy is large enough to
261: play an important role in the flow dynamics.
262:
263: The time evolution of the neutrino luminosity, $L_\nu$, shows that the
264: neutrino emission stays at a relatively constant level of
265: $3\times10^{52}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ after the torus forms. We compute
266: $L_\nu$ under the assumption that all the gas in the model is
267: optically thin to neutrinos, so that $L_\nu$ is volume integrated
268: $\cal{L}$ over the entire computational domain. We note that $L_\nu$
269: is dominated by the neutrino emission due to pair capture on free
270: nucleons (the so-called URCA cooling).
271:
272: The last panel in Fig.~1 shows the area-integrated radial
273: fluxes of magnetic and kinetic energy at $r=190~R_S$ inside
274: the polar outflow.
275: The outflow is Poynting flux-dominated, with the Poynting
276: flux exceeding the kinetic energy flux by up to an order of magnitude.
277:
278:
279: Our analysis of the inner flow shows that the outflow is magnetically
280: driven from the torus. Soon after the torus forms, the magnetic field
281: very quickly deviates from its initial radial configuration due to MRI
282: and shear. This leads to fast growth of the toroidal magnetic field
283: as field lines wind up due to the differential rotation. As a result
284: the toroidal field dominates over the poloidal field and the gradient
285: of the former drives an outflow. Figure~2 shows the flow pattern of
286: the inner part of the flow at $t=0.2735$~s. The left and right panel
287: show density and $|B_\phi|$ maps, respectively. The maps are overlaid
288: by the direction of the poloidal velocity. The polar regions of low
289: density and high $B_\phi$ coincide with the region of an outflow. We
290: note also that during the latter phase of the evolution not all of the
291: material in the outflow originated in the innermost part of the torus
292: -- a significant part of the outflow is ``peeled off'' the infalling
293: gas at large radii by the magnetic pressure. Figure~2
294: illustrates that the inner torus and its corona and outflow cannot
295: always prevent the low-$l$ gas from reaching the BH. Even the
296: magnetic field cannot do it if the density of the incoming gas is too
297: high. Therefore, we find that the outflow of the magnetic energy
298: (mostly toroidal) from the innermost part of the flow does not always
299: correspond to an outflow of gas (in other words, the Poynting flux
300: and kinetic energy flux can be in opposite directions).
301:
302:
303: Figure~3 shows the radial profiles
304: of several quantities in our run, angle-averaged over a small wedge near
305: the equator (between $\theta=86^\circ$ and $94^\circ$), and time-averaged
306: over 50 data files covering a period at the end of the simulations
307: (from 0.2629~s through 0.2818~s).
308: We indicate the location of the last
309: stable circular orbit by the vertical dotted line in each panel.
310:
311: The profiles of each variable are not simple power-laws but are rather
312: complex. In particular, the density has a prominent maximum of
313: $4\times10^{11}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$ at $r=5 R_S$. The gas plus radiation
314: pressure is higher than the magnetic pressure. The rotational velocity
315: is nearly Keplerian inside $r=6 R_S$ and sub-Keplerian outside this
316: radius.
317:
318: We measure the Reynolds stress,
319: $\alpha_{gas}\equiv<\rho v_r \delta v_\phi>/P$,
320: and the Maxwell stress normalized to the magnetic pressure,
321: $\alpha_{mag}\equiv <2B_rB_\phi/B^2>$.
322: Note that Figure~3 shows only the magnitude,
323: not the sign, of the normalized stresses.
324: We find that except for $r\simless 2.5 R_S$ and
325: $10 R_S\simless r \simless 12 R_S$,
326: the Maxwell stress dominates over the Reynolds
327: stress in the inner flow.
328: The last panel in Figure~3 shows that the toroidal component
329: of the magnetic field is dominant for $r< 50~R_S$.
330:
331: We have compared the cooling time scale and the advection
332: time scale in the flow and found that overall the flow
333: is advection-dominated expect for a small region inside
334: the torus where the density reaches its maximum.
335:
336:
337: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
338:
339: We have performed time-dependent two-dimensional MHD simulations of
340: the collapsar model. Our simulations show that: 1) soon after the
341: rotationally supported torus forms, the magnetic field very quickly
342: starts deviating from purely radial due to MRI and shear. This leads
343: to fast growth of the toroidal magnetic field as field lines wind up
344: due to the torus rotation; 2) The toroidal field dominates over the
345: poloidal field and the gradient of the former drives a polar outflow
346: against supersonically accreting gas through the polar funnel; 3) The
347: polar outflow is Poynting flux-dominated; 4) The polar outflow reaches
348: the outer boundary of the computational domain ($5\times10^8$~cm) with
349: an expansion velocity of 0.2 c; 6) The polar outflow is in a form of
350: a relatively narrow jet (when the jet breaks through the outer
351: boundary its half opening angle is $5^\circ$); 7) Most of the energy
352: released during the accretion is in neutrinos, $L_\nu=2\times
353: 10^{52}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. Therefore it is likely that neutrino
354: driving can increase the outflow energy (e.g., Fryer \&
355: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2003 and references therein).
356:
357: Our simulations explore a relatively conservative case where we allow
358: for neutrino emission but do not allow for the emitted neutrinos
359: to interact with the gas or annihilate. The only sources of
360: nonadiabatic heating in our simulations are the artificial viscosity
361: and resistivity.
362:
363:
364: Our main conclusion is that, within the collapsar model, MHD effects
365: are able to launch, accelerate and sustain a strong polar outflow. We
366: believe that this conclusion will turn out to be largely independent
367: of the initial magnetic field strength in the stellar core, because
368: MRI can rapidly amplify weak fields until they are strong enough to
369: drive a powerful outflow. Since our simulations are non-relativistic,
370: and cover only the innermost region of the collapsing star, we cannot
371: determine whether our outflows are sufficient to yield a
372: GRB. Additional driving could also be necessary. We also find that the
373: outflow is Poynting flux-dominated, and note that this provides
374: favorable initial conditions for the subsequent production of a
375: baryon-poor fireball [e.g., Fuller, Pruet \& Abazajian (2000);
376: Beloborodov (2003); Vlahakis \& K$\ddot{\rm o}$nigl (2003);
377: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros (2002)], or a magnetically dominated ``cold
378: fireball'' [Lyutikov \& Blandford (2002)].
379:
380: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
381: DP acknowledges support from NASA under LTSA grants NAG5-11736
382: and NAG5-12867.
383: MCB acknowledges support from NSF grants
384: AST-9876887 and AST-0307502.
385: \newpage
386: \section*{ REFERENCES}
387: \everypar=
388: {\hangafter=1 \hangindent=.5in}
389:
390: {
391:
392: Balbus, S. A., \& Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214
393:
394: Beloborodov, A.M. 2003, ApJ, 588, 931
395:
396: Blinnikov, S.I., Dunina-Barkovskaya, N.V., \& Nadyozhin, D. K.
397: 1996, ApJS, 106, 171
398:
399:
400:
401: Fuller, G. M., Pruet, J., \& Abazajian, K. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 2673
402:
403: Fryxell, B. A., M$\ddot{\rm u}$ller, E., \& Arnett, W. D. 1989, MPA Rep. 449 (Garching: MPA)
404:
405: Fryer, C. L., \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 2003, ApJ, 588, L25
406:
407: Itoh, N., Adachi, T., Nakagawa, M., Kohyama, Y., \&
408: Munakata, H. 1989, ApJ, 339, 354
409:
410: Itoh, N., Adachi, T., Nakagawa, M., Kohyama, Y., \&
411: Munakata, H. 1990, ApJ, 360, 741
412:
413: Lyutikov, M. \& Blandford, R. 2002, APS, APR, 6008
414:
415: MacFadyen, A., \& Woosley, S.E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262 (MW)
416:
417: MacFadyen, A., Woosley, S.E., \& Heger A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 410
418:
419: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 137
420:
421: Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 1998, ApJ, 494, L45
422:
423: Paczy\'{n}ski, B., \& Wiita, P. J. 1980, A\&A, 88, 23 (PW)
424:
425: Popham, R., Woosley, S.E., \& Fryer, C. 1999, ApJ, 518, 356
426:
427: Proga, D., \& Begelman, M.C. 2003 ApJ, 592, 767 (PB03)
428:
429: Shakura, N.I., \& Sunyaev, R.A. 1973 A\&A, 24, 337
430:
431: Stone, J.M., \& Norman, M.L. 1992a, ApJS, 80, 753
432:
433: Stone, J.M., \& Norman, M.L. 1992b, ApJS, 80, 791
434:
435: Stone, J. M., \& Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 461
436:
437: Stone, J.M., Pringle, J.E., \& Begelman, M.C. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1002
438:
439: Vlahakis, N., \& K$\ddot{\rm o}$nigl, A. 2003, ApJ, submitted
440:
441: Woosley, S.E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273
442:
443: Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
444:
445: }
446:
447: \eject
448:
449: \newpage
450: \centerline{\bf Figure Captions}
451:
452: \vskip 4ex
453: \noindent
454: Figure~1 -- The time evolution of the mass accretion rate (left panel),
455: total magnetic energy due to each of the three field components
456: (second left panel), neutrino luminosity
457: (third left panel)
458: and area-integrated radial Poynting and kinetic flux in the polar outflow at
459: $r=190~R_S$ (right panel). Formally, we define the polar
460: outflow as the region where $v_r>0$ and $\beta<1$.
461: Note the difference in the time range in the panel with the
462: radial fluxes.
463:
464: The last panel in Fig.~1 shows the area-integrated radial
465: fluxes of magnetic and kinetic energy at $r=190~R_S$ inside
466: the polar outflow.
467: Formally, we define the polar
468: outflow as the region where $v_r>0$ and $\beta<1$.
469: The outflow is Poynting flux-dominated, with the Poynting
470: flux exceeding the kinetic energy flux by up to an order of magnitude.
471:
472: \vskip 4ex
473: \noindent
474: Figure~2 --
475: Color maps of logarithmic density and toroidal magnetic field
476: overplotted with the direction
477: of the poloidal velocity at $t=0.2735$~s.
478: The length scale is in units of the BH radius (i.e., $r'=r/R_S$
479: and $z'=z/R_S$).
480:
481: \vskip 4ex
482: \noindent
483: Figure~3 --
484: Radial profiles of various quantities from our run,
485: time-averaged
486: from $0.2629$ through $0.2818$~s.
487: To construct each plot, we averaged the profiles
488: over angle between $\theta=86^\circ$ and $94^\circ$.
489: The top left panel plots the density (solid line) and temperature (dashed line).
490: The top middle panel plots the gas pressure (solid line) and magnetic
491: pressure. The top right panel plots the rotational, radial,
492: Keplerian, and Alfv${\acute{\rm e}}$n velocities
493: (solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted line, respectively), as well as
494: the sound speed (triple-dot dashed line).
495: The bottom left panel plots the angular velocity in units of $2c/R_s$.
496: The bottom middle panel plots the Maxwell stress,
497: $\alpha_{mag}$,
498: and the Reynolds stress, $\alpha_{gas}$
499: (solid and dashed line, respectively).
500: We calculate the Reynolds stress using eq. (15) in PB03
501: and show only its amplitude.
502: The bottom right panel plots
503: the radial, latitudinal and toroidal components of the magnetic field
504: (dot-dashed, dashed, and solid line, respectively).
505: The length scale is in units of the BH radius (i.e., $r'=r/R_S$).
506:
507:
508:
509:
510: \eject
511: \newpage
512:
513: \begin{figure}
514: \begin{picture}(180,590)
515:
516: \put(280,423){\special{psfile=f1.eps angle=90
517: hoffset=280 voffset=-250 hscale=80 vscale=80}}
518:
519: \end{picture}
520: \caption{ }
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: \eject
524: \newpage
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: \begin{picture}(180,590)
528:
529: \put(280,423){\special{psfile=f2.eps angle =90
530: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=60 vscale=60}}
531:
532: \end{picture}
533: \caption{}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536: \eject
537: \newpage
538:
539: \begin{figure}
540: \begin{picture}(180,590)
541:
542: \put(280,423){\special{psfile=f3.eps angle =90
543: hoffset=280 voffset=-250 hscale=80 vscale=80}}
544:
545: \end{picture}
546: \caption{}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: \end{document}
550: