Cited by 9Astrophysics and Star Formation StudiesAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaGamma-ray bursts and supernovae

DYNAMICS OF ASTROPHYSICAL BUBBLES AND BUBBLE-DRIVEN SHOCKS: BASIC THEORY, ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS, AND OBSERVATIONAL SIGNATURES

Open access
Medvedev, Mikhail V., Loeb, Abraham·2013·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Bubbles in the interstellar medium are produced by astrophysical sources, which continuously or explosively deposit large amounts of energy into the ambient medium. These expanding bubbles can drive shocks in front of them, the dynamics of which is markedly different from the widely used Sedov–von Neumann–Taylor blast wave solution. Here, we present the theory of a bubble-driven shock and show how its properties and evolution are determined by the temporal history of the source energy output, generally referred to as the source luminosity law , L ( t ). In particular, we find the analytical solutions for a driven shock in two cases: the self-similar scaling law, L ∝( t / t s ) p (with p and t s being constants) and the finite activity time case, L ∝(1 − t / t s ) − p . The latter with p > 0 describes a finite-time-singular behavior, which is relevant to a wide variety of systems with explosive-type energy release. For both luminosity laws, we derived the conditions needed for the driven shock to exist and predict the shock observational signatures. Our results can be relevant to stellar systems with strong winds, merging neutron star/magnetar/black hole systems, and massive stars evolving to supernovae explosions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/113

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As the wall advances into ambient radiation with energy density ρ_m, a shock wave forms; the shocked fluid is initially at rest in the wall frame and its proper density is of order ρ_s ~ γ^2 ρ_m, where γ is the Lorentz factor of the shocked fluid relative to the ambient.

    “As the wall advances into ambient radiation with energy density ρ m , a shock wave forms.The shocked fluid is initially at rest in the frame of the wall, and its proper density is of order ρ s ∼ γ 2 ρ m , where γ is the Lorentz factor of the shocked fluid relative to the ambient [11].”

    From Black holes and the multiverse (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177 · DOI
  2. Etienne, Z. B., Liu, Y. L., Paschalidis, V., & Shapiro, S. L. 2012, PhRvD, 85, 064029 · DOI
  3. Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17 · DOI
  4. Koo, B.-C., & McKee, C. F. 1992a, ApJ, 388, 93 · DOI
  5. Koo, B.-C., & McKee, C. F. 1992b, ApJ, 388, 103 · DOI
  6. Lyutikov, M., & Blandford, R. 2003, arXiv:astro-ph/0312347 · arXiv
  7. McWilliams, S. T., & Levin, J. 2011, ApJ, 142, 90 · DOI
  8. Medvedev, M. V., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:1212.0333) · DOI
  9. Narayan, R., & Medvedev, M. V. 2001, ApJL, 562, L129 · DOI
  10. Raymond, J. C., Li, J., Blair, W. P., & Cornett, R. H. 2001, ApJ, 560, 763 · DOI
  11. Rybicki, G., & Lightman, A. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)
  12. Slavin, J. D., Nichols, J. S., & Blair, W. P. 2004, ApJ, 606, 900 · DOI
  13. Waxman, E., & Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 515, 721 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Medvedev, M. V., & Loeb, A.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2013-04-19
Volume
768
Issue
2
Pages
113
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2037522306
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #13
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Keywords
interstellar medium, self-similar scaling, blow-up, stellar winds, black hole mergers, supernovae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review