Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:01:14.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reconnection in Pulsar Winds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

J. G. Kirk
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Postfach 10 39 80, 69029 Heidelberg, Germany; [email protected]
Y. Lyubarsky
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, PO Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel; [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The spin-down power of a pulsar is thought to be carried away in an MHD wind in which, at least close to the star, the energy transport is dominated by Poynting flux. The pulsar drives a low frequency wave in this wind, consisting of stripes of toroidal magnetic field of alternating polarity, propagating in a region around the equatorial plane. The current implied by this configuration falls off more slowly with radius than the number of charged particles available to carry it, so that the MHD picture must, at some point, fail. Recently, magnetic reconnection in such a structure has been shown to accelerate the wind significantly. This reduces the magnetic field in the comoving frame and, consequently, the required current, enabling the solution to extend to much larger radius. This scenario is discussed and, for the Crab Nebula, the range of validity of the MHD solution is compared with the radius at which the flow appears to terminate. For sufficiently high particle densities, it is shown that a low frequency entropy wave can propagate out to the termination point. In this case, the ‘termination shock’ itself must be responsible for dissipating the wave.

This paper is dedicated to Don Melrose on his 60th birthday.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2001

References

Asseo, E., Kennel, C. F., & Pellat, R. 1978, A&A, 65, 401 Google Scholar
Beskin, V. S., Kuznetsova, I. V., & Rafikov, R. R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogovalov, S. V. 1997, A&A, 327, 662 Google Scholar
Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017 Google Scholar
Bogovalov, S. V., & Tsinganos, K. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiueh, T., Li, Z. Y., & Begelman, M. C. 1998, ApJ, 505, 835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coroniti, F. V. 1990, ApJ, 349, 538 Google Scholar
Emmering, R. T., & Chevalier, R. A. 1987, ApJ, 321, 334 Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D. 1975, Classical Electrodynamics, second edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons)Google Scholar
Kardashev, N. S. 1964, AZh, 41, 807 (translated in Kardashev, N. S. 1965, Sov. Astron. AJ, 8, 643)Google Scholar
Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leboeuf, J. N., Ashour-Abdalla, M., Tajima, T., Kennel, C. F., Coroniti, F. V., & Dawson, J. M. 1982, Phys. Rev., A25, 1023 Google Scholar
Lyubarsky, Y. E., & Kirk, J. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437 (LK)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melatos, A., & Melrose, D. B. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1168 Google Scholar
Michel, F. C. 1973, ApJ, 180, L133 Google Scholar
Michel, F. C. 1982, Rev. Mod. Phys., 54, 1 Google Scholar
Michel, F. C. 1994, ApJ, 431, 397 Google Scholar
Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacini, F. 1967, Nature, 216, 567 Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H. 1957, Aust. J. Phys., 10, 530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. J., & Gunn, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usov, V. V. 1975, Ap&SS, 32, 375 Google Scholar