1: %

2: % Le & Becker

3: %

4: 

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

6: 

7: % \documentclass{aastex}

8: 

9: % preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:

10: 

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

12: 

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

14: 

15: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

16: 

17: % emulateapj emulates a double-column, single-spaced ApJ paper:

18: 

19: % \documentclass{emulateapj}

20: 

21:  \usepackage{epsfig}

22: 

23: % \eqsecnum

24: 

25: % \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}

26: 

27: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

28: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\kinenergy}{\varepsilon}

31: \newcommand{\rs}{r_{_{\rm S}}}

32: \newcommand{\rg}{r_{_{\rm g}}}

33: \newcommand{\enrate}{\dot E}

34: \newcommand{\momrate}{\dot J}

35: \newcommand{\rc}{r_c}

36: \newcommand{\vff}{v_{\rm ff}}

37: \newcommand{\asym}{\doteq}

38: \newcommand{\ellK}{\ell_{\rm K}}

39: \newcommand{\OmegaK}{\Omega_{\rm K}}

40: \newcommand{\vc}{v_c}

41: \newcommand{\gapprox}{\lower.4ex\hbox{$\;\buildrel >\over{\scriptstyle\sim}\;$}}

42: \newcommand{\lapprox}{\lower.4ex\hbox{$\;\buildrel <\over{\scriptstyle\sim}\;$}}

43: \newcommand{\begeq}{\begin{equation}}

44: \newcommand{\fineq}{\end{equation}}

45: \newcommand{\begeqarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}

46: \newcommand{\fineqarray}{\end{eqnarray}}

47: \newcommand{\green}{f_{_{\rm G}}}

48: \newcommand{\Qjet}{L_{\rm jet}}

49: \newcommand{\rjet}{r_{\rm jet}}

50: \newcommand{\Qtheory}{L}

51: \newcommand{\SgrA}{Sgr~A$^*$}

52: 

53: \def\vr{v}

54: \def\ellprime0{\ell'_0}

55: 

56: %\voffset=0.5truein

57: 

58: %\slugcomment{accepted by ApJ Letters}

59: 

60: \shorttitle{Shocks in ADAF Disks}

61: 

62: \shortauthors{Le \& Becker}

63: 

64: \begin{document}

65: 

66: \title{A Self-Consistent Model for the Formation of

67: Relativistic Outflows in Advection-Dominated Accretion

68: Disks with Shocks}

69: 

70: \author{Truong Le\altaffilmark{1} and

71: Peter A. Becker\altaffilmark{2}$^,$\altaffilmark{3}}

72: 

73: \affil{Center for Earth Observing and Space Research, George Mason

74: University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA}

75: 

76: \altaffiltext{1}{tler@gmu.edu}

77: \altaffiltext{2}{pbecker@gmu.edu}

78: \altaffiltext{3}{also Department of Physics and Astronomy,

79: George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA}

80: 

81: \begin{abstract}

82: In this Letter, we suggest that the relativistic protons powering the

83: outflows emanating from radio-loud systems containing black holes are

84: accelerated at standing, centrifugally-supported shocks in hot,

85: advection-dominated accretion disks. Such disks are ideal sites for

86: first-order Fermi acceleration at shocks because the gas is tenuous, and

87: consequently the mean free path for particle-particle collisions

88: generally exceeds the thickness of the disk. The accelerated particles

89: are therefore able to avoid thermalization, and as a result a small

90: fraction of them achieve very high energies and escape from the disk. In

91: our approach the hydrodynamics and the particle acceleration are coupled

92: and the solutions are obtained self-consistently based on a rigorous

93: mathematical treatment. The theoretical analysis of the particle

94: transport parallels the early studies of cosmic-ray acceleration in

95: supernova shock waves. We find that particle acceleration in the

96: vicinity of the shock can extract enough energy to power a relativistic

97: jet. Using physical parameters appropriate for M87 and \SgrA, we confirm

98: that the jet kinetic luminosities predicted by the theory agree with the

99: observational estimates.

100: 

101: \end{abstract}

102: 

103: % The different journals have different requirements for keywords.  The

104: % keywords.apj file, found on aas.org in the pubs/aastex-misc directory,

105: % contains a list of keywords used with the ApJ and Letters.  These are

106: % usually assigned by the editor, but authors may include them in their

107: % manuscripts if they wish.

108: 

109: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- hydrodynamics --- black hole

110: physics --- galaxies: jets}

111: 

112: \section{INTRODUCTION}

113: 

114: Radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are thought to contain supermassive

115: central black holes surrounded by hot, two-temperature,

116: advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAFs) with significantly

117: sub-Eddington accretion rates. In these disks, the ion temperature $T_i

118: \sim 10^{12}\,$K greatly exceeds the electron temperature $T_e \sim

119: 10^{10}\,$K (e.g., Narayan, Kato, \& Honma 1997; Becker \& Le 2003). The

120: observed correlation between high radio luminosities and the presence of

121: outflows suggests that the hot ADAF disks are efficient sites for the

122: acceleration of the relativistic particles powering the jets. This

123: motivated Blandford \& Begelman (1999) to consider the possibility of

124: strong outflows of matter and energy from such systems, under the

125: assumption of self-similarity and Newtonian gravity. The same scenario

126: was extended to the general relativistic case by Becker, Subramanian, \&

127: Kazanas (2001). However, a single, global, self-consistent model for the

128: structure of the disk/jet that includes a specific microphysical

129: acceleration mechanism has not yet appeared in the literature. In

130: this Letter, we explore the consequences of the presence of a

131: shock in an ADAF disk for the acceleration of the observed nonthermal jet

132: particles.

133: 

134: It is well known that for certain sets of outer boundary conditions

135: describing the specific angular momentum and the specific energy of the

136: gas supplied to the accretion flow, both shocked and shock-free

137: solutions for the global disk structure are possible, although there is

138: an upper limit on the amount of viscosity beyond which no shocks can

139: form. However, it is clear that shocks can exist in both dissipative and

140: inviscid flows (e.g., Chakrabarti \& Das 2004). When both shocked and

141: shock-free solutions are possible for the same set of upstream

142: conditions, one must incorporate additional physical principles in order

143: to determine which flow solution actually occurs. Since in general the

144: shock solution possesses a higher entropy content than the shock-free

145: solution, we argue based on the second law of thermodynamics that shocks

146: are preferred (see Becker \& Kazanas 2001). Particle acceleration has

147: not been studied in shocked disks in either the viscid or the inviscid

148: cases, and therefore we concentrate here on the simpler situation of

149: inviscid (adiabatic) flow. In this Letter we focus on disks containing

150: isothermal shocks because the jump in the energy flux at such a shock

151: can be identified with the energy carried away from the disk by the

152: relativistic particles in the outflow.

153: 

154: \section{DYNAMICAL MODEL}

155: 

156: The dynamical structure of the accretion flows considered here follows

157: the model studied by Chakrabarti (1989a) and Abramowicz \& Chakrabarti

158: (1990), which comprises an inviscid disk that either contains an

159: isothermal shock, or else is shock-free. The model is based on the

160: standard one-dimensional conservation equations for advection-dominated

161: accretion flows, including utilization of the pseudo-Newtonian

162: gravitational potential to simulate the effects of general relativity

163: (Paczy\'nski \& Wiita 1980). In general, the flow is assumed to be

164: adiabatic and in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, although the entropy

165: can jump at the shock. Under the inviscid flow assumption, the

166: disk/shock model depends on two parameters, namely the energy transport

167: rate per unit mass, $\epsilon$, and the specific angular momentum,

168: $\ell$. The value of $\epsilon$ is constant in ADAF type flows since

169: there are no radiative losses, although it will jump at the location of

170: the isothermal shock if there is one in the disk. On the other hand, the

171: value of $\ell$ remains constant since the disk is inviscid. The energy

172: transport rate per unit mass can be written as

173: %

174: \begeq

175: \epsilon = {1 \over 2} \, {\ell^2 \over r^2} + {1 \over 2} \, v^2

176: + {1 \over \gamma-1} \, a^2 - {GM \over r-\rs} \ ,

177: \label{eq1}

178: \fineq

179: %

180: where $v$ denotes the radial velocity (defined to be positive for

181: inflow), $\rs=2GM/c^2$, and the adiabatic sound speed is given by $a =

182: (\gamma P/\rho) ^{1/2}$ for a gas with pressure $P$, mass density

183: $\rho$, and specific heat ratio $\gamma$. Note that $\epsilon$ is

184: defined to be positive for an inward flow of energy into the black hole.

185: Furthermore, in this semi-classical approach, $\epsilon$ does not

186: include the rest-mass contribution to the energy.

187: 

188: Dissipation and radiative losses are unimportant in inviscid,

189: advection-dominated disks, and therefore the flow is in general

190: adiabatic and isentropic, except at the shock location. In this

191: situation, the ``entropy parameter,''

192: %

193: \begeq

194: K \equiv v \, a^{(\gamma+1)(\gamma-1)} \, r^{3/2} \, (r-\rs) \ ,

195: \label{eq2}

196: \fineq

197: %

198: is conserved throughout the flow except at the location of a shock

199: (Becker \& Le 2003). When a shock is present, we shall use the

200: subscripts ``-'' and ``+'' to refer to quantities measured just upstream

201: and just downstream from the shock, respectively. In the isothermal

202: shock model, $K$ and $\epsilon$ have smaller values in the post-shock

203: region ($K_{+}$, $\epsilon_{+}$) compared with the pre-shock region

204: ($K_{-}$, $\epsilon_{-}$). The entropy and energy lost from the disk are

205: carried off by the outflowing high-energy particles, and the total

206: entropy of the combined (disk/outflow) system is higher when a shock is

207: present, as expected according to the second law of thermodynamics. By

208: combining equations~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) and differentiating with

209: respect to radius, we can obtain a ``wind equation'' of the form $(1/v)

210: \, (dv/dr) = N / D$, where

211: %

212: \begeq

213: N \equiv - \, {\ell^2 \over r^3} + {GM \over (r-\rs)^2}

214: + {a^2 \, (3 \rs - 5 r) \over (\gamma+1) \, r \, (r-\rs)} \ , \ \ \ \ \

215: D \equiv {2 \, a^2 \over \gamma+1} - v^2

216: \ .

217: \label{eq2b}

218: \fineq

219: %

220: Critical points occur where the numerator $N$ and the denominator $D$

221: vanish simultaneously (see Figure~1{\it b} for a specific example). The

222: associated critical conditions can be combined with the energy

223: equation~(\ref{eq1}) to express the critical velocity $v_c$, the

224: critical sound speed $a_c$, and the critical radius $r_c$ as functions

225: of $\epsilon$ and $\ell$. The value of $K$ is then obtained by

226: substituting $r_c$, $v_c$, and $a_c$ into equation~(\ref{eq2}). In

227: general, one obtains four solutions for the critical radius, denoted by

228: $r_{c1}$, $r_{c2}$, $r_{c3}$, and $r_{c4}$. Only $r_{c1}$ and $r_{c3}$

229: are physically acceptable sonic points, although the types of accretion

230: flows that can pass through them are different. Specifically, $r_{c3}$

231: is an X-type critical point, and therefore a smooth, global, shock-free

232: solution always exists in which the flow is transonic at $r_{c3}$ and

233: then remains supersonic all the way to the event horizon. On the other

234: hand, $r_{c1}$ is an $\alpha$-type critical point, and therefore any

235: accretion flow originating at a large distance that passes through this

236: point must display a shock transition below $r_{c1}$ in order to cross

237: the event horizon (Abramowicz \& Chakrabarti 1990).

238: 

239: The radius of the isothermal shock, denoted by $r_*$, is determined

240: self-consistently along with the structure of the disk by satisfying the

241: velocity and energy jump conditions (Chakrabarti 1989a)

242: %

243: \begeq

244: R_*^{-1} \equiv {v_+ \over v_-} = {1 \over \gamma \, {\cal M}_-^2}

245: \ , \ \ \ \ \

246: \Delta\epsilon \equiv \epsilon_+-\epsilon_- = {v_+^2 - v_-^2 \over 2}

247: \ ,

248: \label{eq2d}

249: \fineq

250: %

251: where ${\cal M}_- \equiv v_-/a_-$ is the upstream Mach number at the

252: shock location and $R_*$ is the shock compression ratio. Due to the

253: escape of energy at the isothermal shock, the energy transport rate

254: $\epsilon$ drops from the upstream value $\epsilon_-$ to the downstream

255: value $\epsilon_+$, and consequently $\Delta \epsilon < 0$. The flow

256: must therefore pass through a new inner critical point located at $\hat

257: r_{c3} < r_*$, which is computed using the downstream value

258: $\epsilon_+$. This structure represents the transonic solution of

259: interest here. The kinetic power lost from the disk at the isothermal

260: shock location is related to observable parameters by writing

261: %

262: \begeq

263: \Qjet \equiv \dot M c^2 \triangle \epsilon \ ,

264: \label{eq3}

265: \fineq

266: %

267: where $\Qjet$ and $\dot M$ are the observed kinetic power and the

268: accretion rate for a specific source, respectively. Hence we conclude

269: that $\triangle \epsilon = \Qjet/(\dot M c^2)$. For given observational

270: values of $M$, $\dot M$, and $\Qjet$, only certain combinations of the

271: specific angular momentum $\ell$ and the upstream specific energy

272: transport rate $\epsilon_{-}$ will yield the correct value for

273: $\triangle \epsilon$. Hence we can view $\epsilon_{-}$ as the

274: fundamental free parameter and determine $\ell$ using the energy

275: constraint $\triangle \epsilon=\Qjet/(\dot M c^2)$ once $M$, $\dot M$,

276: and $\Qjet$ are specified for a particular source. The two sources of

277: interest here are M87 and \SgrA, which correspond to models~A and B,

278: respectively.

279: 

280: \begin{figure}

281: \begin{center}

282: \epsfig{file=f1.eps,height=8.0cm}

283: \end{center}

284: \caption{Results obtained using the M87 values for $M$, $\dot M$, and

285: $\Qjet$. In panel ({\it a}) we plot $\kappa_0$ ({\it dashed line}) and

286: $\Gamma_\infty$ ({\it solid line}) as functions of the upstream energy

287: transport rate $\epsilon_-$ such that the energy conservation condition

288: $\dot N_{\rm esc} E_{\rm esc} = \Qjet$ is satisfied. In panel ({\it b})

289: the flow velocity $v(r)$ ({\it solids lines}) and sound speed $a(r)

290: [2/(\gamma+1)]^{1/2}$ ({\it dashed lines}) are plotted as functions of

291: the radius for the model~A parameters, which are indicated by the

292: letter ``A'' in panel ({\it a}). In panel ({\it b}), the thin lines

293: represent the shocked solutions and the heavy lines denote the

294: shock-free solutions. See the discussion in the text.}

295: \end{figure}

296: 

297: \section{PARTICLE TRANSPORT EQUATION}

298: 

299: The model for the diffusive particle transport employed here is similar

300: to the scenario for the acceleration of cosmic rays first suggested by

301: Blandford \& Ostriker (1978), although in our situation the shock

302: maintains a fixed location in the disk and the seed particles for the

303: acceleration process are provided by the accretion flow itself. The

304: energy of the injected seed particles is given by $E_0 = 0.002\,$erg,

305: which corresponds to an injected Lorentz factor $\Gamma_0 \equiv

306: E_0/(m_p \, c^2) \sim 1.3$, where $m_p$ is the proton mass. Starting

307: with values for $\epsilon_-$ and $\ell$ associated with a particular

308: source, we can compute the injection rate for the seed particles, $\dot

309: N_0$, by setting $\dot N_0 E_0 = \dot M c^2 \triangle \epsilon = \Qjet$

310: (see eq.~[\ref{eq3}]), which ensures that the energy injection rate for

311: the relativistic seed particles is equal to the energy loss rate for the

312: background gas at the isothermal shock location. The particle injection

313: rate is therefore given by $\dot N_0 = \Qjet / E_0$, which represents

314: one of the fundamental self-consistency requirements for the model.

315: 

316: The particle Green's function $\green(\epsilon,r)$ describes the energy

317: and spatial distribution of the relativistic particles injected with energy

318: $E_0$ at the shock location $r_*$. The associated number and energy densities

319: of the relativistic particles are given by $n_r=\int_0^\infty 4 \pi E^2 \,

320: \green \, dE$ and $U_r=\int_0^\infty 4 \pi E^3 \, \green \, dE$, respectively.

321: Including the escape of the relativistic particles at the shock location,

322: the energy moments $I_n \equiv \int_0^\infty 4 \pi E^n \, \green \, dE$

323: of the Green's function satisfy the one-dimensional steady-state transport

324: equation (Le \& Becker 2004)

325: %

326: \begeq

327: {d \over dr}\left(4 \pi r H F_n \right)

328: = 4 \pi r H \left[{(2-n)v\over 3} \, {dI_n \over dr}

329: + {\dot N_0 E_0^{n-2} \over 4 \pi r_* H_*} \, \delta(r-r_*)

330: -c A_0 I_n \, \delta(r-r_*)\right]

331: \ ,

332: \label{eq4}

333: \fineq

334: %

335: where $c$ is the speed of light, $H_*$ is the disk half-thickness

336: at the shock location, and the flux $F_n$ is defined by

337: %

338: \begeq

339: F_N \equiv - \, {(n+1)v \over 3} \, I_n - \kappa \, {dI_n \over dr}

340: \ ,

341: \label{eq4b}

342: \fineq

343: %

344: which is obtained by integrating over the vertical structure of the

345: disk. The terms on the right-hand side of equation~(\ref{eq4}) represent

346: first-order Fermi acceleration, the particle source, and the escape of

347: particles from the disk at the shock location, respectively. The terms

348: on the right-hand side of equation~(\ref{eq4b}) describe the diffusion

349: and advection of particles, respectively, and $\kappa$ denotes the

350: spatial diffusion coefficient. The dimensionless parameter $A_0$ is a

351: constant that represents the microphysical processes controlling the

352: vertical escape of energetic particles from the disk in the vicinity of

353: the shock, as discussed below.

354: 

355: To close the system, we must also specify the radial variation of the

356: spatial diffusion coefficient $\kappa$ in equation~(\ref{eq4b}). Since

357: the radial dependence of $\kappa$ is not known precisely in this

358: physical situation, we shall adopt the general form

359: %

360: \begeq

361: \kappa(r) = \kappa_0 \, v(r) \, \rs \left({r \over \rs} - 1\right)^\alpha

362: \ ,

363: \label{eq5}

364: \fineq

365: %

366: where $\kappa_0$ is a dimensionless positive constant. Close to the

367: event horizon, inward advection at the speed of light must dominate over

368: outward diffusion. Conversely, in the outer region, we expect that

369: diffusion will dominate over advection as $r \to \infty$. A careful

370: analysis of the differential equation for the relativistic particle

371: number density $n_r$ obtained by setting $n=2$ in equation~(\ref{eq4})

372: reveals that these conditions are both satisfied if $\alpha > 1$, and in

373: our work we shall set $\alpha=2$.

374: 

375: The spatial diffusion coefficient $\kappa$ is related to the magnetic

376: mean free path via the usual expression $\kappa = c \, \lambda_{\rm mag}

377: / 3$. Analysis of the three-dimensional random walk of the escaping

378: particles then yields

379: %

380: \begeq

381: A_0 = \left(3 \, \kappa_* \over c \, H_*\right)^2 \ ,

382: \label{eq6}

383: \fineq

384: %

385: where $\kappa_* \equiv (\kappa_- + \kappa_+)/2$. We need to specify the

386: value of $\kappa_0$ in order to compute $\kappa_-$ and $\kappa_+$ using

387: equation~(\ref{eq5}). Since $A_0$ is independent of the particle energy,

388: it follows that all of the relativistic particles have the same escape

389: probability per unit time in the vicinity of the shock, and therefore

390: the mean energy of the escaping particles is given by $E_{\rm esc} =

391: U_*/n_*$, where $n_* \equiv n_r(r_*)$ and $U_* \equiv U_r(r_*)$ denote

392: the relativistic particle number and energy densities at the shock

393: location. Note that $E_{\rm esc}$ is proportional to $E_0$ and

394: independent of $\dot N_0$. To obtain a self-consistent result, the

395: product of the calculated escape energy $E_{\rm esc}$ and the particle

396: escape rate $\dot N_{\rm esc}$ at the shock location must be equal to

397: the total energy lost from the background in the dynamical model, and

398: therefore we set $\dot N_{\rm esc} E_{\rm esc} = \dot M c^2 \triangle

399: \epsilon = \Qjet$. This condition is not automatically satisfied in

400: general and therefore it constrains the free parameters $\epsilon_-$ and

401: $\kappa_0$ as explained below.

402: 

403: \section{APPLICATIONS TO M87 AND \SgrA}

404: 

405: In our numerical examples, the disk structures for M87 and \SgrA are

406: determined based on observational estimates for the black hole mass $M$,

407: the mass accretion rate $\dot M$, and the jet kinetic power $\Qjet$.

408: From observations of M87, we obtain $M \sim 3 \times 10^9 {\rm \

409: M_{\odot}}$ (e.g., Ford et al. 1994), $\dot M \sim 1.3 \times 10^{-1}

410: {\rm \ M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$ (Reynolds et al. 1996), and $\Qjet \sim

411: 10^{43-44}\,{\rm erg \ s^{-1}}$ (Reynolds et al. 1996; Bicknell \&

412: Begelman 1996; Owen, Eilek, \& Kassim 2000). We shall adopt the average

413: value $\Qjet$ = $5.5 \times 10^{43}\,{\rm erg \ s^{-1}}$. For \SgrA,

414: observations indicate that $M \sim 2.6 \times 10^6 {\rm \ M_{\odot}}$

415: (e.g., Schodel et al. 2002) and $\dot M \sim 8.8 \times 10^{-7} {\rm \

416: M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$ (e.g., Yuan, Markoff, \& Falcke 2002; Quataert

417: 2003). The kinetic luminosity of the jet in \SgrA is rather uncertain

418: (see, e.g., Yuan 2000; Yuan et al. 2002). In our work, we will adopt the

419: value quoted by Falcke \& Biermann (1999), $\Qjet \sim 5 \times 10^{38}

420: {\rm erg \ s^{-1}}$.

421: 

422: Our goal here is to compute self-consistently the mean energy of the

423: escaping particles, $E_{\rm esc}$, while matching the observational

424: values of $M$, $\dot M$, and $\Qjet$ for a specific source. We shall

425: utilize natural gravitational units, with $GM=c=1$ and $\rs=2$, except

426: as noted. Following Narayan, Kato, \& Honma (1997), we assume

427: approximate equipartition between the gas and magnetic pressures, and

428: therefore we set $\gamma=1.5$. Once the values of $M$, $\dot M$, and

429: $\Qjet$ have been specified for the source, we select a value for the

430: fundamental free parameter $\epsilon_{-}$ and then compute $\ell$ based

431: on the energy conservation condition $\triangle \epsilon=\Qjet/(\dot M

432: c^2)$ (see \S~2). The velocity profile $v(r)$ is determined by

433: integrating numerically the wind equation $(1/v) \, (dv/dr) = N / D$,

434: where $N$ and $D$ are given by equation~(\ref{eq2b}). The associated

435: solution for the isothermal sound speed $a(r)$ can then be computed

436: using equation~(\ref{eq2}) based on the fact that $K$ is constant in the

437: adiabatic flow (except at the shock if there is one).

438: 

439: Once the velocity profile $v(r)$ has been obtained, the transport

440: equation~(\ref{eq4}) can be solved numerically to determine the number

441: and energy density distributions for the relativistic particles in the

442: disk, $n_r(r) = I_2(r)$ and $U_r(r) = I_3(r)$. The energy conservation

443: requirement $\dot N_{\rm esc} E_{\rm esc} = \Qjet$ then allows us to

444: solve for the corresponding value of the diffusion coefficient constant

445: $\kappa_0$. Based on the observational values for $M$, $\dot M$, and

446: $\Qjet$ associated with M87, in Figure~1{\it a} we plot the results

447: obtained for $\kappa_0$ as a function of $\epsilon_-$. In general, one

448: obtains two roots for $\kappa_0$ if $\epsilon_- < \epsilon_{\rm max}$,

449: where $\epsilon_{\rm max} = 0.001527$ for the M87 parameters and

450: $\epsilon_{\rm max} = 0.001229$ for the \SgrA parameters. No

451: self-consistent solutions exist if $\epsilon_- > \epsilon_{\rm max}$,

452: and a single root for $\kappa_0$ is obtained if $\epsilon_- =

453: \epsilon_{\rm max}$ (see Fig.~1{\it a}). For illustrative purposes, we

454: shall develop two detailed models by setting $\epsilon_- = \epsilon_{\rm

455: max}$ for M87 and \SgrA.

456: 

457: The parameter values for the two models are $\epsilon_- = 0.001527$,

458: $\ell=3.1340$, $\kappa_0=0.02044$, $\dot N_0 = 2.75 \times 10^{46} \,

459: {\rm s}^{-1}$, $\kappa_* = 0.427877$, $A_0 = 0.0124$, $n_* = 1.19 \times

460: 10^{44}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$, $U_* = 1.42 \times 10^{42} \, {\rm erg \

461: cm}^{-3}$, $\dot N_{\rm esc} = 4.61 \times 10^{45} \, {\rm

462: s}^{-1}$,$E_{\rm esc} = 0.0119\,$erg, $r_* = 21.654$, $\epsilon_{+} =

463: -0.005746$, $r_{c1} = 98.524$, $r_{c3} = 5.379$, $\hat r_{c3} = 5.659$,

464: ${\cal M}_- = 1.125$, $R_* = 1.897$, and $H_* = 11.544$ for model~A

465: (M87). For model~B (\SgrA), we have $\epsilon_- = 0.001229$,

466: $\ell=3.1524$, $\kappa_0=0.02819$, $\dot N_0 = 2.51 \times 10^{41}\,{\rm

467: s}^{-1}$, $\kappa_* = 0.321414$, $A_0 = 0.0158$, $n_* = 1.93 \times

468: 10^{39}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$, $U_* = 2.10 \times 10^{37}\,{\rm erg \

469: cm}^{-3}$, $\dot N_{\rm esc} = 4.56 \times 10^{40}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$,

470: $E_{\rm esc} = 0.0109\,$erg, $r_* = 15.583$, $\epsilon_{+} = -0.008749$,

471: $r_{c1} = 131.874$, $r_{c3} = 5.329$, $\hat r_{c3} = 5.723$, ${\cal M}_-

472: = 1.146$, $R_* = 1.970$, and $H_* = 7.672$. The corresponding dynamical

473: solutions for $v(r)$ and $a(r)$ (with and without a shock) are plotted

474: in Figure~1{\it b} for model~A.

475: 

476: The terminal (asymptotic) Lorentz factor of the jet can be computed

477: using $\Gamma_\infty = E_{\rm esc}/(m_p c^2)$. In Figure~1{\it a} we

478: plot $\Gamma_\infty$ as a function of $\epsilon_-$ for the M87

479: parameters. Since in general we obtain two roots for $\kappa_0$ for each

480: value of $\epsilon_-$, we also obtain two $\Gamma_\infty$ values, with

481: the larger one corresponding to the smaller $\kappa_0$ root. For

482: models~A (M87) and B (\SgrA), we obtain $\Gamma_\infty=7.92$ and

483: $\Gamma_\infty=7.26$, respectively. The associated values for the mean

484: energy boost ratio, $E_{\rm esc}/E_0$, are given by $E_{\rm esc}/E_0 =

485: 5.95$ and $E_{\rm esc}/E_0 = 5.45$, respectively. Conversely, we find

486: that in the shock-free models with the same values for $\epsilon_-$,

487: $\ell$, and $\kappa_0$, the energy is boosted by only a factor of $\sim

488: 1.4 - 1.5$. This clearly establishes the essential role of the shock in

489: efficiently accelerating particles up to very high energies, well above

490: the energy required to escape from the disk. The self-consistency

491: conditions $\dot{N}_0 E_0 = \Qjet$ and $\dot N_{\rm esc} E_{\rm esc} =

492: \Qjet$ can be combined to conclude that $\dot N_{\rm esc} = \dot N_0 E_0

493: / E_{\rm esc}$, which implies that $\lapprox 20\%$ of the injected

494: particles escape (vertically) through the surface of the disk. The

495: remainder of the particles are either advected into the black hole or

496: else diffuse outward (horizontally) through the disk. Our predictions

497: for the shock/jet location and the asymptotic Lorentz factor agree

498: rather well with the observations of M87 reported by Biretta, Junor, \&

499: Livio (2002) and Biretta, Sparks, \& Macchetto (1999). The shock

500: location predicted by the model in the case of \SgrA is fairly close to

501: the value suggested by Yuan (2000). However, no reliable observational

502: estimate for the jet Lorentz factor in \SgrA is currently available.

503: 

504: \section{CONCLUSIONS}

505: 

506: In this Letter, we have demonstrated for the first time the physical

507: consequences of a standing shock in an inviscid ADAF accretion disk for

508: the acceleration of relativistic particles and the production of

509: outflows. The global model presented here provides a single, coherent

510: explanation for the disk/outflow structure based on the well-understood

511: concept of first-order Fermi acceleration in shock waves. The theory is

512: based on an exact mathematical approach to the solution of the combined

513: hydrodynamical and particle transport equations. Our work may help to

514: explain the observational fact that the brightest X-ray AGNs do not possess

515: strong outflows, whereas the sources with low X-ray luminosities but

516: high levels of radio emission do. We suggest that the gas in the

517: luminous X-ray sources is too dense to allow efficient Fermi

518: acceleration of a relativistic particle population, and therefore in

519: these systems, the gas simply heats as it crosses the shock. Conversely,

520: in the tenuous ADAF accretion flows studied here, the relativistic

521: particles are able to avoid thermalization due to the long collisional

522: mean free path, resulting in the development of a significant nonthermal

523: component in the particle distribution which powers the jets and

524: produces the strong radio emission.

525: 

526: We have presented detailed results that confirm that the general

527: properties of the jets observed in M87 and \SgrA can be understood

528: within the context of our disk/shock/outflow model. Although the

529: specific numerical results discussed here are limited to the case of an

530: inviscid disk, we believe that the inclusion of viscosity will not

531: change the basic features of the inflow/outflow solutions obtained here

532: because efficient first-order Fermi acceleration will also occur in

533: viscous disks, provided they contain shocks. In addition to viscosity,

534: future work must also address several other important considerations

535: such as the effects of general relativity and radiative transport on the

536: disk/shock structure.

537: 

538: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for several

539: useful suggestions that improved the manuscript.

540: 

541: \begin{thebibliography}{}

542: 

543: \bibitem{1} Abramowicz, M. A. \& Chakrabarti, S. K. 1990, \apj, 350, 281

544: 

545: \bibitem{2} Becker, P. A., Kazanas, D. 2001, \apj, 546, 429

546: 

547: \bibitem{3} Becker, P. A., Le, T. 2003, \apj, 588, 408

548: 

549: \bibitem{4} Becker, P. A., Subramanian, P., \& Kazanas, D. 2001, \apj,

550: 552, 209

551: 

552: \bibitem{5} Bicknell, G. V., \& Begelman, M. C. 1996, \apj, 467, 597

553: 

554: \bibitem{6} Biretta, J. A., Junor, W., \& Livio, M. 2002, NewAR, 46, 239

555: 

556: \bibitem{7} Biretta, J. A., Sparks, W. B., \& Macchetto, F. 1999, \apj,

557: 520, 621

558: 

559: \bibitem{8} Blandford, R.~D., \& Begelman, M.~C. 1999, \mnras, 303, L1

560: 

561: \bibitem{9} Blandford, R. D., Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJ, 221, L29

562: 

563: \bibitem{10} Chakrabarti, S. K. 1989, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 41, 1145

564: 

565: \bibitem{11} Chakrabarti, S. K., \& Das, S. 2004, \mnras, 349, 649

566: 

567: \bibitem{12} Falcke, H., \& Biermann, P. L. 1999, A\&A, 342, 49

568: 

569: \bibitem{13} Ford, H. C. et al. 1994, \apj, 435, L27

570: 

571: \bibitem{14} Le, T., \& Becker, P. A. 2004, in preparation

572: 

573: \bibitem{15} Narayan, R., Kato, S., \& Honma, F. 1997, \apj, 476, 49

574: 

575: \bibitem{16} Owen, F. N., Eilek, J. A., \& Kassim, N. E. 2000, \apj,

576: 543, 611

577: 

578: \bibitem{17} Paczy\'nski, B., \& Wiita, P. J. 1980, A\&A, 88, 23

579: 

580: \bibitem{18} Quataert, E. 2003, astro-ph/0304099

581: 

582: \bibitem{19} Reynolds, C. S. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L111

583: 

584: \bibitem{20} Schodel, R. et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694

585: 

586: \bibitem{21} Yuan, F. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 1178

587: 

588: \bibitem{22} Yuan, F., Markoff, S., \& Falcke, H. 2002, A\&A, 383, 854

589: 

590: \end{thebibliography}

591: 

592: \end{document}

593: 

594: 

595: