Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-23T14:48:58.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory of Pulsar Winds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2016

A. Melatos
A. Melatos*
Affiliation:
School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia

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.

Recent progress in the theory of pulsar wind electrodynamics is reviewed, with emphasis on the following open questions, (i) Is the bipolar, jet-torus geometry imprinted by collimation or injection? (ii) what is the magnetic field geometry as a function of latitude, and is it stable? (iii) How rapidly does the postshock flow fluctuate, e.g. in the near infrared? (iv) The σ paradox: is Poynting flux converted gradually to kinetic energy flux as the wind expands, as in a linear accelerator, or is the conversion lossy, due to reconnection or parametric instabilities in a wave-like outflow?

Type
Part 4: Pulsar Wind Nebulae and Their Environments
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 218: Young Neutrons Stars and their Environments , 2004 , pp. 143 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2004 

References

Arons, J. 2003, ApJ, 589, 871.Google Scholar
Begelman, M. C. 1998, ApJ, 493, 291.Google Scholar
Begelman, M. C., Li, Z.-Y. 1994, ApJ, 426, 269.Google Scholar
Biskamp, D. 1993, Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, (Cambridge: CUP)Google Scholar
Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017.Google Scholar
Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 336.Google Scholar
Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Fendt, C. 1999, ApJ, 511, 351.Google Scholar
Coroniti, F. V. 1990, ApJ, 349, 538.Google Scholar
Gaensler, B. M. et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallant, Y. A., & Arons, J. 1994, ApJ, 435, 230.Google Scholar
Hester, J. J. et al. 1995, ApJ, 448, 240.Google Scholar
Hester, J. J. et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, L49.Google Scholar
Ji, H., Yamada, M., Hsu, S., & Kulsrud, R. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 3256.Google Scholar
Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 694.Google Scholar
Komissarov, S. S., & Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L93.Google Scholar
Lyubarsky, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyubarsky, Y., & Eichler, D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 494.Google Scholar
Lyubarsky, Y., & Kirk, J. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437.Google Scholar
Mastrano, A., Melatos, A., & Finn, C. R. 2004, MNRAS, in preparation.Google Scholar
Melatos, A. 1998, Mem. Soc. Ast. It., 69, 1009.Google Scholar
Melatos, A. 2004, ApJ, submitted.Google Scholar
Melatos, A., & Melrose, D. B. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1168.Google Scholar
Melatos, A. et al. 2004, ApJ, submitted.Google Scholar
Okamoto, I. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 250.Google Scholar
Pavlov, G. G. et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1157.Google Scholar
Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2004, ApJ, 603, 669.Google Scholar