1: %\documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[aaspp]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[apjpt]{article}
5: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10:
11: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12: %\usepackage{natbib}
13: %\citestyle{aa}
14:
15: %\received{}
16: %\accepted{}
17: %\journalid{}{}
18: %\articleid{}{}
19:
20:
21:
22: \title{On MHD jet production in the collapsing and rotating envelope}
23:
24: \author{Daniel Proga,\altaffilmark{1}}
25:
26: \affil{$^1$ Princeton University Observatory, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544.e-mail: dproga@astro.princeton.edu}
27:
28:
29:
30: \def\LSUN{\rm L_{\odot}}
31: \def\MSUN{\rm M_{\odot}}
32: \def\RSUN{\rm R_{\odot}}
33: \def\MSUNYR{\rm M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}
34: \def\MSUNS{\rm M_{\odot}\,s^{-1}}
35: \def\MDOT{\dot{M}}
36:
37: \newbox\grsign \setbox\grsign=\hbox{$>$} \newdimen\grdimen \grdimen=\ht\grsign
38: \newbox\simlessbox \newbox\simgreatbox
39: \setbox\simgreatbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\llap
40: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht1=\grdimen\dp1=0pt
41: \setbox\simlessbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}\llap
42: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht2=\grdimen\dp2=0pt
43: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\copy\simgreatbox}}
44: \def\simless{\mathrel{\copy\simlessbox}}
45:
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: We present results from axisymmetric, time-dependent
49: hydrodynamical (HD) and magnetohydrodynamical
50: (MHD) simulations of a gaseous envelope collapsing onto a black hole (BH).
51: We consider gas with so small angular momentum that after
52: an initial transient, the flow in the HD case, accretes directly onto a BH
53: without forming a rotationally support torus.
54: However, in the MHD case even with a very weak initial magnetic field,
55: the flow settles into a configuration with four components:
56: (i) an equatorial inflow,
57: (ii) a bipolar outflow, (iii) polar funnel outflow, and
58: (iv) polar funnel inflow.
59: We focus our analysis on the second flow component of the MHD flow
60: which represents a simple yet robust example
61: of a well-organized inflow/outflow solution to the problem
62: of MHD jet formation.
63: The jet is heavy, highly magnetized, and
64: driven by magnetic and centrifugal forces.
65: A significant fraction of the total energy in the
66: jet is carried out by a large scale magnetic field.
67: We review previous simulations, where
68: specific angular momentum was higher than that assumed here,
69: and conclude that our bipolar outflow develops
70: for a wide range of the properties of the flow
71: near the equator
72: and near the poles. Future work
73: on such a simple inflow/outflow solution
74: will help to pinpoint the key elements
75: of real jets/outflows as well as help to
76: interpret much more complex simulations aimed at
77: studying jet formation and collapse of magnetized envelopes.
78: \end{abstract}
79:
80: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks -- methods:
81: numerical -- MHD -- stars: winds, outflows}
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84: The common occurrence and importance of astrophysical jets
85: have stimulated many theoretical studies.
86: Both analytic and numerical studies
87: provide strong support for the scenario where jets are
88: magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) in character and are associated
89: with an accretion disk, a rotating accretor, or both
90: (e.g., Blandford \& Payne 1982; Blandford 1990;
91: De Villier et al. 2003). In fact,
92: most MHD simulations of accretion flows show outflows
93: (e.g., Uchida \& Shibata 1985; Stone \& Norman 1994;
94: Hawley \& Balbus 2002; De Villier et al. 2004; Mizuno et al. 2004;
95: Kato et al. 2004; McKinney \& Gammie 2004).
96:
97: Here, we describe a study of the time evolution of
98: MHD flows in the vicinity of a stationary black hole (BH). This study
99: has been motivated by the results from our previous work
100: (Proga \& Begelman 2003b, hereafter PB03b; Proga et al 2003)
101: which showed that large-scale magnetic fields can produce
102: a jet from a rotationally supported accretion disk or torus
103: and also from extremely low angular momentum gas
104: that almost radially accretes onto a BH.
105: This falling gas and associated outflow can be well-organized and
106: a simple, self-consistent solution for the MHD jet problem.
107: However, in our previous simulations and likely in some other simulations,
108: this simple inflow/outflow is a component of a complex convolution
109: of a rotationally supported,
110: MHD turbulent torus, the torus corona and outflow.
111: To articulate the basic physics that occurs in jet
112: production, we focus on a flow with angular momentum so low
113: that, if not for the effects of MHD,
114: the flow would accrete directly onto a BH without forming a disk.
115:
116: \section{Method}
117:
118: To calculate the flow structure and evolution, we solve the equations of
119: ideal MHD:
120:
121: \begin{equation}
122: \frac{D\rho}{Dt} + \rho \nabla \cdot {\bf v} = 0,
123: \end{equation}
124:
125: \begin{equation}
126: \rho \frac{D{\bf v}}{Dt} = - \nabla P - \rho \nabla \Phi+ \frac{1}{4\pi} {\bf (\nabla \times B) \times B},
127: \end{equation}
128:
129: \begin{equation}
130: \rho \frac{D}{Dt}\left(\frac{e}{ \rho}\right) = -P \nabla \cdot {\bf v},
131: \end{equation}
132:
133: \begin{equation}
134: {\partial{\bf B}\over\partial t} = {\bf\nabla\times}({\bf v\times B}),
135: \end{equation}
136: where $\rho$ is the mass density, $P$ is the total gas pressure plus radiation
137: pressure,
138: ${\bf v}$ is the fluid velocity, $e$ is the internal energy density,
139: $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, and
140: $\bf B$ is the magnetic field vector. We adopt an adiabatic
141: equation of state $P=(\gamma-1) e$ and consider models with
142: $\gamma=5/3$.
143:
144: We perform simulations using the
145: pseudo-Newtonian potential of the central mass $\Phi_{PW} =
146: GM/(r-R_S)$, where $R_S = 2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius,
147: introduced by Paczy\'{n}ski \& Wiita (1980).
148: This potential approximates general relativistic effects
149: in the inner regions, for a nonrotating black hole.
150: In particular, the Paczy\'{n}ski--Wiita potential
151: reproduces the last stable circular orbit at $r=3 R_S$
152: as well as the marginally bound orbit at $r=2 R_S$.
153:
154: Our calculations are performed in spherical polar coordinates
155: $(r,\theta,\phi)$. We assume axial symmetry about the rotational axis
156: of the accretion flow ($\theta=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$). The
157: computational domain occupies the radial range
158: $r_i~=~1.5~R_S \leq r \leq \ r_o~=~ 1200~R_S$, and the angular range
159: $0^\circ \leq \theta \leq 180^\circ$. The $r-\theta$ domain is
160: discretized on a non-uniform grid as in PB03b.
161:
162: Our calculations use the ZEUS-2D code described by Stone \& Norman
163: (1992a,b). We adopt PB03b's boundary and initial conditions but
164: we make two modifications to the initial conditions (see below).
165: An important element of the initial conditions is that the
166: rotating gas has constant specific angular momentum, $l$,
167: and is confined in a wedge near the equator between
168: $\theta=90^\circ -\theta_0$ and $\theta=90^\circ +\theta_0$.
169: The wedge of the rotating gas is truncated at the radius, $r(v_r=c_\infty)$
170: defined as the radius where
171: the initial radial velocity (as predicted by modified
172: Bondi velocity law, see Proga \& Begelman 2003a, hereafter PB03a) equals the sound speed at infinity, $c_\infty$.
173:
174: The two modifications of the PB03b initial conditions are:
175: (i) we set the initial conditions exactly
176: as in PB03b and then reduce the density and internal energy
177: by a factor of 100
178: in the part of the computational domain where $v_\phi=0$ (outside
179: the rotating wedge) and (ii)
180: we consider two field geometries:
181: a purely radial magnetic field as in PB03b and
182: a vertical magnetic field defined by the potential
183: ${\bf A} = (A_r=0, A_\theta=0, A_\phi= A r \sin\theta)$.
184: For $r \sin{\theta} > r(v_r=c_\infty)$, we
185: scale the magnitude of the magnetic field
186: using a parameter, $\beta_o \equiv 8 \pi P_B(r_o)/B^2$
187: defined as the plasma parameter $\beta\equiv 8\pi P/ B^2$ at
188: $r_o$, so that
189: $A =(2 \pi P_B(r_o)/\beta_o)^{1/2}$
190: (where $P_B$ is the gas pressure associated with the Bondi solution
191: at $r_o$).
192: For $r \sin{\theta} < r(v_r=c_\infty)$, we set the constant A to
193: a very small value.
194:
195: We introduce these two modifications to
196: reduce the flow complexity. In particular,
197: we want the rotating flow to be dominant
198: and we want to follow the evolution of the rotating flow with
199: as little interference
200: as possible from other flow components.
201:
202: We choose the following units:
203: $r_0=R_S$,
204: $t_0=4\pi(R_S^3/2GM)^{1/2}$,
205: $v_0=c$,
206: $B_0=(4\pi\rho_\infty c^2)^{1/2}$,
207: $\rho_0=\rho_\infty$
208: (the density at infinity for a classic Bondi flow). The force
209: is in units of $f_0=c^4/4GM$ and the specific angular momentum
210: is in units of $l_0= 2 R_S c$.
211:
212:
213: \section{Results}
214:
215: To simulate a simple inflow/outflow solution we must appropriately
216: set the model parameters.
217: Our initial conditions help to promote
218: the dominance the rotating flow and reduce effects
219: of the non-rotating flow.
220: The importance of the non-rotating flow depends not
221: only on the initial conditions
222: but also on the minimum value of the density allowed in
223: the simulations, the so-called density floor, $\rho_f$.
224: We set $\rho_f=(1/r)^{1/2}$.
225: For comparison,
226: the maximum density at small radii achieved
227: during the simulation is about $10^4$.
228: To aid the rotating flow in reaching an organized solution
229: we set $l$ smaller
230: than the critical angular momentum, $2 R_S c$. [Otherwise the rotating gas will
231: form a rotationally supported torus which becomes turbulent
232: and generates a magnetized complex corona and outflow (e.g., PB03b).]
233: Here we describe results from the simulations with $l=0.8$.
234: We set $\theta_0=56^\circ$ (as in a fiducial model in PB03b).
235:
236: For our choice of $l$, the flow near the equator is sub-Keplerian at all radii
237: and will likely stay sub-Keplerian during the evolution with appreciable
238: radial velocity (i.e., the equatorial flow may continue to accrete
239: supersonically). This feature distinguishes our simulations from
240: many previous ones where the focus was on the outflows from rotationally
241: supported disks or torii. Our main focus is on formation of an outflow
242: from nearly radially falling gas away from the equator.
243:
244: We have performed numerous simulations varying the magnitude and geometry
245: of the magnetic field, the specific angular momentum, the numerical resolution
246: and the density floor.
247: Here we present results from two models: model A without a magnetic field
248: and model B for which $\beta_o=10^3$ and the initial magnetic field
249: is vertical.
250: Model A is a reference model which illustrates the flow pattern when
251: accretion proceeds directly whereas
252: model B illustrates the dynamics and properties of
253: simplest accretion flow which generates outflow
254: without formation of rotationally supported disk and without development
255: of magnetorotational instability.
256:
257: In the early phase of the evolution, when the flow
258: relaxes from the initial conditions, both models show the same behaviour.
259: First, the gas near the equator falls in nearly radially onto a BH. However,
260: the rotating gas closer to the poles diverges away from the equator
261: because of a lack of pressure equilibrium in the $\theta$ direction
262: due to the density and internal energy difference between
263: the equatorial wedge and the polar region.
264: The flow at small radii becomes gradually radial,
265: with the density decreasing between the
266: equator and the poles. After this early phase, the evolution of the
267: two models proceeds differently. In particular, the flow in model A
268: settles down into a steady state of direct accretion whereas
269: in model B an outflow as well as a direct accretion flow form.
270:
271:
272: Figure~1 presents the flow pattern for model A at small radii
273: at $t =3550$.
274: The figure shows the density map overplotted with
275: the direction of the poloidal velocity.
276: The flow has two components:
277: (i) an equatorial inflow and
278: (ii) a polar funnel inflow. The equatorial inflow has non-zero $l$
279: but its cicularization radius is inside the last stable orbit
280: therefore direct accretion occurs. The polar
281: funnel inflow has zero $l$. The density contrast between the two components
282: is due to the fact that at the outer boundary and for the initial conditions
283: the density of the non rotating gas is smaller than the density of the rotating
284: gas by a factor of 100.
285: At $t=500$, the mass accretion rate, $\MDOT_a=0.08$
286: in units of the Bondi rate ($\MDOT_B$) and then gradually increases.
287: At the end of the simulation, $t=3550$, $\MDOT_a=0.123$ and still continues
288: to grow but very slowly. We estimate that $\MDOT_a$ will saturate
289: at the level of $\approx 0.125$. We stress that there is no indication of
290: an outflow in model A. This contrasts with the MHD counterpart
291: of this model.
292:
293: In model B, the establishment of the equatorial inflow
294: is soon (at $t>715$) followed by a development of a bipolar outflow from
295: the 'shoulders' of the inflowing gas. At first, the outflow is
296: confined to a very narrow range of $\theta$ but with time
297: this range increases. In particular, at t=5700,
298: the outflow is at $26^\circ \lesssim \theta \lesssim 48^\circ$ and
299: $132^\circ \lesssim \theta \lesssim 154^\circ$ at $r=20$.
300: In other words, we observe that with time the boundary
301: between the equatorial inflow and the bipolar outflow moves toward
302: the equator. The mass loss rate associated with the outflow,
303: $\MDOT_W$ increases with time. For example,
304: at $t=1500$, $\MDOT_W=0.0008$ while at $t=5700$, $\MDOT_W=0.008$
305: ($\MDOT_w$ was measured at $r=175$). The late time evolution of $\MDOT_a$
306: for model B differs from that for model A. Namely,
307: for model B, $\MDOT_a= 0.08$ at $t=500$
308: and then gradually increases to 0.11 at $t=1500$. The mass accretion
309: rate stays at this level until $t=5000$ and then decreases
310: to 0.102 at $t=5700$.
311:
312: The magnetic field evolves from vertical to nearly radial.
313: This change in the field geometry is a natural consequence of
314: radially falling gas because the field lines are dragged in with
315: the gas. However, even at the end of the simulation,
316: the field did not evolve into a split monopole
317: configuration due to the initial nonradial evolution of the flow.
318:
319:
320: Of course, the evolution of the field configuration
321: is accompanied by the growth of the field strength.
322: In particular, shear generates the toroidal field in the rotating flow.
323: The toroidal field is fastest growing component of the field in the
324: rotating gas and eventually dominates
325: the poloidal field, $B_p=(B_r+B_\theta)^{1/2}$.
326: Additionally,
327: the continuously growing field becomes dynamically important
328: (we find that an outflow forms in the regions where
329: $\beta_\phi \equiv 8 \pi P/B_\phi^2<1$).
330: In the polar region, the poloidal field is dominant,
331: $\beta_p \equiv 8 \pi P/B_p^2<1$) whereas
332: $\beta_\phi >1$).
333:
334:
335:
336: Figure~2 shows the flow pattern at small radii at $t =5700$ for model B.
337: The left and right panels show density and $|B_\phi|$ maps, respectively.
338: The figure shows also the direction of the poloidal velocity and
339: poloidal magnetic field as well as an example of a streamline.
340: The flow has four components:
341: (i) a radial equatorial inflow,
342: (ii) a bipolar outflow
343: (the streamline shown in Fig. 2 is typical for this flow component),
344: (iii) a polar funnel outflow, and
345: (iv) a polar funnel inflow.
346: The third and fourth components (we call collectively
347: the funnel flow) are separated from the inflow/outflow solution
348: by the centrifugal barrier. We note that the funnel outflow
349: can be hardly distinguished from the bipolar outflow based
350: on the direction of the poloidal
351: velocity. Comparison of the panels of Fig. 2
352: reveals that across the boundary between the bipolar outflow
353: and the funnel flow, three significant changes occur:
354: (i) the density dramatically decreases; (ii)
355: $B_p$ changes suddenly direction, and (iii) $B_\phi$ increases.
356: We also note that the polar funnel inflow is confined to
357: a very narrow region along the rotational axis and its
358: properties/dynamics are difficult to capture by our numerical
359: approach because of the imposed density floor
360: and gas heating by artificial viscosity. These effects can
361: occasionally lead to production of a thermal outflow in the funnel
362: (e.g., see the lower half of the left panel for $r\lesssim - 11$
363: near the rotational axis).
364: In the remaining part of the paper, we focus on
365: the second component of the MHD flow -- the inflow/outflow solution.
366:
367:
368: The relative simplicity and slow time evolution of the inflow/
369: outflow solution helps us to identify the forces responsible
370: for production of the outflow from the infalling gas.
371: For example, we have analyzed and compared all the terms in the equation of
372: motion along various streamlines.
373: The important force components in the radial direction are:
374: gravity, $f_g$, gas pressure gradient, $f_p$, centrifugal force, $f_c$
375: and gradient of the toroidal field pressure, $f_m$ (the other
376: components of the Lorentz force are negligible).
377: In the latitudinal direction $f_p$, $f_c$ and $f_m$
378: determine the total force, $f_t$.
379:
380: Figure~3 presents various fluid and magnetic field
381: properties and the forces acting on the flow as a function
382: of the pathlength (the pathlength is measured from
383: $r=14$ and $\theta=53^\circ$)
384: along the typical streamline for the inflow/outflow solution.
385: To generate this plot, we assume that the solution
386: is steady. This assumption is justified
387: for our purposes here because the time changes in the flow
388: occur on the scales significantly longer than the time needed for the
389: flow element to follow the segment of the streamline we analyze.
390:
391: Fig.~3a shows that the motion in the radial direction is
392: determined in the following way:
393: (1) the infall slows down and eventually stops
394: due to the centrifugal force. Up to the stagnation point,
395: the fluid specific angular momentum stays nearly constant
396: (dash-dotted line in Fig. 3f).
397: The centrifugal force can balance gravity, despite
398: sub-Keplerian rotation on the equator, because $f_c$
399: increases from the equator toward the poles
400: [$f_c \propto 1/(r^3 \sin^2{\theta})$ for $l=const$].
401: Near the stagnation point, two significant changes occur in the force
402: balance: (i) $f_m$ becomes significant and is directed
403: outward and (ii) $f_c$ increases compared to gravity because
404: the magnetic torque increases somewhat specific angular momentum of the fluid.
405: The combined centrifugal and $B_\phi$ pressure
406: forces overcome the combined gravity and gas pressure
407: (the latter is directed inwards)
408: and accelerate the flow outward. Although
409: $f_c > f_m$ in the outflow, $f_c$ alone
410: is not strong enough to accelerate the flow.
411: Therefore, the flow is not 'flung out' by the centrifugal
412: force as in Blandford \& Payne's (1982) magnetocentrifugal wind
413: but is much more gradually pushed by the pressure of the toroidal field
414: (see Spruit 1996 and also below for a discussion of heavy loaded MHD winds).
415:
416:
417: Fig. 3b shows that as the infalling gas approaches
418: the stagnation point, $f_p$ pushes the gas away from the equator against
419: the centrifugal force. Near the stagnation point, two significant changes
420: occur in the force balance in the $\theta$ direction: (i) $f_m$ chances sign
421: and (ii) $f_p$ increases so that it
422: alone can 'collimate' the gas during the early phase of the outflow
423: (this is done against not only $f_c$ and also against $f_m$).
424:
425: Farther downstream from the stagnation point, $f_m$ again changes sign
426: and becomes stronger than $f_p$.
427: Thus, $f_m$ appears to play an important role in the outflow collimation
428: at large radii whereas $f_p$ pushes the outflow
429: away from the equator during the initial acceleration.
430: However, when the $\theta$ component of $f_m$ changes sign for
431: the second time, $B_r$ changes sign too
432: (the dashed vertical lines in all panels of Fig. 3 mark the location
433: where $B_r$ changes sign downstream from the stagnation point).
434: In ideal MHD, the magnetic field should be dragged in with the flow
435: and no changes in the field orientation should occur
436: within an organized outflow due to field freezing. However,
437: in our solution of MHD equations using the grid based code,
438: the change of $B_r$ sign is due to
439: annihilation (reconnection) of oppositely
440: oriented fluxes (i.e., the polar funnel flux vs. the bipolar
441: outflow flux) on the grid-spacing scale.
442: We note this numerical limitation
443: and focus on the properties of the bipolar outflow
444: upstream from the point where the polar funnel flux
445: annihilates the bipolar outflow flux.
446:
447: The bipolar outflow is unbound and it is heavy loaded.
448: To quantify the latter, we
449: compute the so-called mass loading parameter
450: $\mu\equiv (v_p v_\phi/v^2_{Ap})^{1/2}$
451: (where $v_{Ap}\equiv (B_p^2/4\pi\rho)^{1/2}$
452: is the poloidal Alfven spead) introduced by
453: Spruit (1996, see also eq. 2 in Anderson et al. 2004; note a difference
454: between the definiation of $\mu$ in the two references).
455: At the stagnation point, $\mu=30$.
456: Fig.~3d shows that
457: the toroidal field is higher than the poloidal field
458: (compare solid, dotted, and dashed lines)
459: while Fig.~3f shows that
460: the outflow does not corotate with its base and the outflow
461: does not gain much of specific angular momemtum
462: (see dashed and dash-dotted lines in Fig.~3f for
463: the angular velocity, $\Omega$ and specific angular momentum, respectively).
464: All these flow characteristics
465: are consistent with the high value of $\mu$ at the stagnation point
466: (e.g., Spruit 1996).
467:
468:
469: Fig. 3e shows that the flow is super Alfvenic (dotted line).
470: This figure also shows that
471: the ratio between the Poynting flux and kinetic energy flux, $F_P/F_K$
472: increases downstream from the stagnation point.
473: The energy flux ratio becomes of order of unity
474: near the location of the bipolar outflow 'merging' with the funnel flow
475: (i.e., the location mark by the vertical dashed line).
476:
477: \section{Summary and Concluding Remarks}
478:
479: We present results from asymmetric HD and MHD simulations of
480: a rotating gas collapsing onto a stationary BH. We consider
481: extreme cases where the gas rotation is so small that the circularization
482: radius is inside the last stable orbit. Therefore one expects direct accretion
483: of all gas without formation of a rotationally supported torus
484: no mention of formation of an outflow.
485: After an initial transient, the HD flow, as expected,
486: settles into a configuration where direct accretion
487: occurs and there is not outflow. This contrasts with the MHD flow,
488: which even for a very weak initial magnetic field,
489: settles into a configuration with four
490: components: (i) a radial equatorial inflow,
491: (ii) a bipolar outflow, (iii) polar funnel outflow, and
492: (iv) polar funnel inflow.
493: Our focus here is on the second, unexpected component of the MHD flow.
494:
495: The bipolar outflow is driven by
496: the magnetic and centrifugal forces. Following the streamlines
497: of the bipolar outflow, we identify
498: four stages of the flow motion:
499: (i) a gravitational collapse, (ii) a gradual slow down and eventual
500: termination of the collapse by the centrifugal force,
501: (iii) launching of the outflow by gas pressure which
502: redirects the flow away from the equator and by the centrifugal force
503: which redirects the flow away from a BH in the radial direction
504: (the latter force is enhanced owning to
505: a magnetic torque spinning up the gas), and (iv)
506: an acceleration by the centrifugal force and gradient
507: of the toroidal field pressure.
508: The outflow is highly magnetized ($\beta< 1$) and
509: the Poynting flux carries a significant fraction of the total
510: energy.
511:
512: Despite performing the simulation for thousands of orbits at the inner radius
513: the flow did not reach a steady state.
514: One indication of the time evolution is that
515: an increasingly larger fraction of the equatorial inflow
516: turns into the bipolar outflow. Additionally, the
517: inflow very close to the equator can start turning back,
518: the equatorial symmetry breaks, and
519: the flow near the equator starts to circulate.
520: However, not all flow properties evolve with time.
521: For example, the angular velocity profile along the equator
522: is time steady and closely follows the $1/r$ scaling
523: as expected for the constant $l$ flow.
524: Generally,
525: the flow evolves over a very long time scale
526: into a state where the bipolar outflow 'sandwiches'
527: a smooth radial inflow or a complex flow near the equator
528: (our test runs with $l=0.5$ show that
529: the equatorial flow can remain a smooth inflow for as long
530: as the simulations). We have observed a similar bipolar outflow in
531: almost all of our simulations
532: performed recently or performed in PB03b and Proga et al. (2003).
533: Our inflow/outflow solution resembles
534: inflow/outflow self-similar solutions studied in the context of
535: the core collapse leading to star formation
536: (e.g., see the circulation region in Fig. 1 of Lery el. al 2002;
537: see also Henriksen, R.N., \& Valls-Gabaud 1995,
538: and reference therein). We also note that our solution could be qualitatively
539: similar to inflow-outflow circulation found in the simulations
540: of the magnetized cloud contracting under self-gravity (Tomisaka 1998)
541: and to the funnel-wall jet found
542: in fully relativistic numerical simulations of accretion disks in
543: the Kerr metric (De Villiers t al. 2004).
544:
545: We finish with two remarks: (i) The inflow/outflow
546: solution is relevant to several astrophysical problems
547: where some of the magnetized collapsing gas may have very low
548: angular momentum (e.g., star forming regions, the Galactic center
549: and other supermassive BH environments where the BH is surrounded by
550: the diffused gas and mass losing stars, some GBRs and supernovae
551: where it is believed that the explosion is related to a collapse
552: of a massive rotating stellar envelope). (ii) Although
553: our physics, initial and boundary conditions are
554: simple compared to those in real systems,
555: our inflow/outflow solution is
556: simple and probable robust, and will help to pinpoint the key elements
557: of real jets/outflows from low $l$ accretion flows.
558:
559: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank Philp Armitage, Mitch Begelman, Roger Blandford,
560: Scott Kenyon, Tom Gardiner, Bohdan Paczy\'{n}ski,
561: Jim Stone, and Dimitri Uzdensky
562: for useful discussions. We also thank an anonymous referee for useful
563: comments that helped us clarify our presentation.
564: We acknowledge support from NASA under ATP grant NNG05GB68G
565: and support provided by NASA through grant HST-AR-10305.05-A
566: from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
567: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
568: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
569:
570:
571: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
572:
573: \bibitem[]{} Blandford, R.D., \& Payne D.G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883
574:
575: \bibitem[]{} Blandford, R.D., {\it Active Galactic Nuclei} (Eds
576: R. Blandford, H. Netzer \& L. Woltjer), Berlin: Springer 1990
577:
578: \bibitem[]{} Balbus, S. A., \& Hawley, J. F. 2002, ApJ, 573, 738
579:
580: \bibitem[]{} De Villiers, J.-P., Hawley J.F., Krolik J.H., Hirose S. 2004, ApJ,in press (astro-ph/0407092)
581:
582: \bibitem[]{} Henriksen, R.N., \& Valls-Gabaud, D. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 681
583:
584: \bibitem[]{} Lery, T., Henriksen, R.N., Fiege, J.D., Ray, T.P, Frank, A.,
585: \& Bacciotti, F. 2002, A\&A, 387, 187
586:
587: \bibitem[]{} Kato, Y., Mineshige, S., \& Shibata, K. 2004, ApJ, 605, 307
588:
589: \bibitem[]{} McKinney, J.C., \& Gammie, C.F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977
590:
591: \bibitem[]{} Mizuno, Y., Yamada, S., Koide, S., \& Shibata, K.
592: 2004, ApJ, 606, 395
593:
594: \bibitem[]{} Paczy\'{n}ski, B., \& Wiita, P. J. 1980, A\&A, 88, 23
595:
596: \bibitem[]{} Proga, D., \& Begelman, M.C. 2003 ApJ, 582, 69 (PB03a)
597:
598: \bibitem[]{} Proga, D., \& Begelman, M.C. 2003 ApJ, 592, 767 (PB03b)
599:
600: \bibitem[]{} Proga, D., MacFadyen, A.I., Armitage, P.J., \& Begelman, M.C.
601: 2003, ApJ, 599, L5
602:
603: \bibitem[]{} Spruit, H. C. 1996, in Evolutionary Processes in Binary Stars,
604: ed. R. A. M. J. Wijers, M. B. Davies, \& C. A. Tout (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 249
605:
606: \bibitem[]{} Stone, J.M., \& Norman, M.L. 1994, ApJ, 433, 746
607:
608: \bibitem[]{} Stone, J.M., \& Norman, M.L. 1992a, ApJS, 80, 753
609:
610: \bibitem[]{} Stone, J.M., \& Norman, M.L. 1992b, ApJS, 80, 791
611:
612: \bibitem[]{} Tomisaka K. 1998, ApJ, 502, L167
613:
614: \bibitem[]{} Uchida, Y, \& Schibata K. 1985, PASJ, 37, 515
615:
616:
617: \end{thebibliography}
618:
619: \clearpage
620:
621: \begin{figure}
622: \begin{picture}(180,200)
623: \put(380,-10){\special{psfile=f1.ps angle =90
624: hoffset=130 voffset=-15 hscale=70 vscale=70}}
625: \end{picture}
626: \caption{
627: A map of logarithmic density overplotted with
628: the direction of the poloidal velocity for model A
629: (a zero magnetic field case).}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: \clearpage
633:
634: \begin{figure}
635: \begin{picture}(180,200)
636: \put(380,-10){\special{psfile=f2a.ps angle =90
637: hoffset=130 voffset=-15 hscale=70 vscale=70}}
638: \put(630,-10){\special{psfile=f2b.ps angle =90
639: hoffset=130 voffset=-15 hscale=70 vscale=70}}
640: \end{picture}
641: \caption{
642: Maps of logarithmic density (left panel) and toroidal magnetic field
643: (right panel) overplotted with an example of a streamline
644: corresponding to an inflow/outflow for model~B
645: (a non-zero magnetic field case).
646: The maps are also overplotted with
647: the direction of the poloidal velocity and
648: the direction of the poloidal field
649: (the left and right panels, respectively).
650: }
651: \end{figure}
652:
653:
654: \begin{figure}
655: \begin{picture}(180,480)
656: \put(100,460){\special{psfile=f3a.ps angle =90
657: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
658: \put(100,340){\special{psfile=f3b.ps angle =90
659: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
660: \put(100,220){\special{psfile=f3c.ps angle =90
661: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
662:
663: \put(340,460){\special{psfile=f3d.ps angle =90
664: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
665: \put(340,340){\special{psfile=f3e.ps angle =90
666: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
667: \put(340,220){\special{psfile=f3f.ps angle =90
668: hoffset=200 voffset=-150 hscale=40 vscale=40}}
669:
670: \end{picture}
671: \caption{\small{
672: {\it From top to bottom:} The dominant forces
673: in the radial and latitudinal
674: directions (a and b panels, respectively)
675: along the streamline presented in Fig. 2.
676: The fluid and magnetic properties as a function of
677: the pathlength along the streamline (c-f panels).
678: For details see the labels and the main text.
679: Note that the specific angular momentum, $l$ is reduced
680: by a factor of 10 while the radius along the stream
681: line is reduced by a factor of 50
682: (dot-dashed line and solid line
683: in panel f, respectively).
684: The solid vertical lines in all panels correspond to the location where
685: the flow reaches the stagnation point
686: (the minimum radius along the streamline).
687: The dashed vertical lines in all panels correspond to the location where
688: the radial component of the magnetic field changes sign
689: and indicates the location where the magnetic field associated
690: with the bipolar outflow is advected into the grid cell
691: with a much stronger, oppositely oriented magnetic field associated
692: with the polar funnel.
693: }}
694: \end{figure}
695:
696:
697:
698: \end{document}
699:
700: