4.7 Article

THE RELATION BETWEEN POST-SHOCK TEMPERATURE, COSMIC-RAY PRESSURE, AND COSMIC-RAY ESCAPE FOR NON-RELATIVISTIC SHOCKS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 722, 期 2, 页码 1727-1734

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1727

关键词

acceleration of particles; cosmic rays; ISM: supernova remnants; shock waves

资金

  1. Netherlands Science Foundation (NWO)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan [19047004, 21740184, 21540259]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21540259, 21740184] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supernova remnants (SNRs) are thought to be the dominant source of Galactic cosmic rays. This requires that at least 5% of the available energy is transferred to cosmic rays, implying a high cosmic-ray pressure downstream of SNR shocks. Recently, it has been shown that the downstream temperature in some remnants is low compared to the measured shock velocities, implying that additional pressure supported by accelerated particles is present. Here we use a two-fluid thermodynamic approach to derive the relation between post-shock fractional cosmic-ray pressure and post-shock temperature, assuming no additional heating beyond adiabatic heating in the shock precursor and with all non-adiabatic heating occurring at the subshock. The derived relations show that a high fractional cosmic-ray pressure is only possible if a substantial fraction of the incoming energy flux escapes from the system. Recently, a shock velocity and a downstream proton temperature were measured for a shock in the SNR RCW 86. We apply the two-fluid solutions to these measurements and find that the downstream fractional cosmic-ray pressure is at least 50% with a cosmic-ray energy flux escape of at least 20%. In general, in order to have 5% of the supernova energy to go into accelerating cosmic rays, on average the post-shock cosmic-ray pressure needs to be 30% for an effective cosmic-ray adiabatic index of gamma(cr) = 4/3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据