This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Fast radio bursts as precursor radio emission from monster shocks

A. Vanthieghem [email protected] Sorbonne Université, Observatoire de Paris, Université PSL, CNRS, LERMA, F-75005, Paris, France    A. Levinson School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Abstract

It has been proposed recently that the breaking of MHD waves in the inner magnetosphere of strongly magnetized neutron stars can power different types of high-energy transients. Motivated by these considerations, we study the steepening and dissipation of a strongly magnetized fast magnetosonic wave propagating in a declining background magnetic field, by means of particle-in-cell simulations that encompass MHD scales. Our analysis confirms the formation of a monster shock as B2E20B^{2}-E^{2}\to 0, that dissipates about half of the fast magnetosonic wave energy. It also reveals, for the first time, the generation of a high-frequency precursor wave by a synchrotron maser instability at the monster shock front, carrying a fraction of 103\sim 10^{-3} of the total energy dissipated at the shock. The spectrum of the precursor wave exhibits several sharp harmonic peaks, with frequencies in the GHz band under conditions anticipated in magnetars. Such signals may appear as fast radio bursts.

preprint: APS/123-QED

The propagation and dissipation of large amplitude waves in strongly magnetized plasma is an issue of considerable interest in high-energy astrophysics. Such waves have long been suspected to be responsible for immense cosmic eruptions, including magnetar flares [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], fast radio bursts (FRBs) [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12], delayed gamma-ray emission from a collapsing magnetar [13], X-ray precursors in BNS mergers [5], and conceivably gamma-ray flares from blazars and other sources.

Disturbance of a neutron star magnetosphere, e.g., by star quakes, collapse or collision with a compact companion, generates MHD waves that propagate in the magnetosphere. In general, both Alfvén and magnetosonic modes are expected to be produced during abrupt magnetospheric perturbations, with millisecond periods - a fraction of the stellar radius [5]. The amplitude of such a wave is usually small near the stellar surface, but gradually grows as the wave propagates down the decreasing background dipole field. As the wave enters the nonlinear regime, it is strongly distorted. A periodic fast magnetosonic (FMS) wave, in particular, steepens and eventually forms a shock (termed monster shock) when the wave fields reach a value at which B2E20B^{2}-E^{2}\approx 0 [3, 5]. Half of the energy carried by the wave is dissipated in the shock and radiated away, producing a bright X-ray burst. The other half can escape the inner magnetosphere without being significantly distorted. This is also true in the case of FMS pulses in which the electric field does not reverse sign. The escaping wave (or pulse) can generate a fast radio burst (FRB), either by compressing the magnetar current sheet [14, 6], or through a maser shock produced far out via collision of the FMS pulse with surrounding matter [7, 9, 15, 10, 16]. As will be shown below, GHz waves are also produced at the precursor of monster shocks and may provide another production mechanism for FRBs.

Steepening and breakdown of FMS waves may also be a viable production mechanism of rapid gamma-ray flares in blazars. In this picture, episodic magnetic reconnection in the inner magnetosphere, at the base of magnetically dominated jet [e.g., 17], can excite large amplitude MHD waves that will propagate along the jet, forming radiative shocks close to the source, that can, conceivably, give rise to large amplitude, short duration flares. Whether detailed calculations support this picture remains to be investigated. But if this mechanism operates effectively in black hole jets, it can alleviate the issue of dissipation of relativistic force-free jets. Striped jets can also produce rapid flares, but the mean power of such jets is likely to be considerably smaller than that of jets produced by ordered fields in MAD states [18, 19]. Dissipation of ordered fields must rely on instabilities, like the current driven kink instability, which are expected to be too slow to account for the rapid variability seen in many blazars, if generated at all.

In this Letter, we study the steepening and breaking of a FMS wave by means of first principles plasma simulations. By comparing simulation results with an analytic model, we are able to derive scaling relations of fundamental properties. As hinted above, we also identify, for the first time, the generation of a high-frequency precursor wave by a synchrotron maser instability at the monster shock. We propose that it might explain the enigmatic fast radio bursts and perhaps other radio transients.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Three snapshots from the evolution of the FMS wave, taken before wave breaking at t= 0.230/ct\,=\,0.23\,\mathcal{R}_{0}/c (left), during shock formation at t= 0.300/ct\,=\,0.30\,\mathcal{R}_{0}/c (middle), and well after shock formation at t= 0.570/ct\,=\,0.57\,\mathcal{R}_{0}/c (right). Panels (a) display BzB_{z} (blue line) and Ey-E_{y} (red line), panels (b) show the proper density, and the lower panels (c) show the plasma 4-velocity in the laboratory frame ux|Labu_{x|\rm Lab}. Shock formation is first observed at x= 0.2240x\,=\,0.224\,\mathcal{R}_{0} in panel (c.2). A second shock subsequently forms and is seen at x= 0.3770x\,=\,0.377\,\mathcal{R}_{0} in panel (c.3).

We begin by analyzing the general properties of nonlinear wave propagation and the onset of wave breaking. We consider a FMS wave propagating in a medium having a background magnetic field 𝔹bg=Bbgz^\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}=B_{\rm bg}\hat{z}, and proper density ρbg\rho_{\rm bg}, where BbgB_{\rm bg} and ρbg\rho_{\rm bg} may depend on xx. The magnetization of the background medium is defined as

σbg=Bbg24πρbg,\sigma_{\rm bg}=\frac{B^{2}_{\rm bg}}{4\pi\rho_{\rm bg}}, (1)

with σbg1\sigma_{\rm bg}\gg 1 for the force-free magnetospheres under consideration here. The wave is injected at time t=0t=0 from some source located at 𝕩0\pmb{x}_{0}, and propagates in the positive xx direction. The electric and magnetic field components are given, respectively, by 𝔼=E(x,t)y^\pmb{E}=E(x,t)\hat{y} and 𝔹w=𝔹𝔹bg=Bw(x,t)z^\pmb{B}_{\rm w}=\pmb{B}-\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}=B_{\rm w}(x,t)\hat{z}. In the limit of ideal MHD, FμνuνF_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu}=0, where FμνF_{\mu\nu} is the electromagnetic tensor and uμ=(γ,γv,0,0)u^{\mu}=(\gamma,\gamma v,0,0) the plasma 4-velocity, the plasma 3-velocity equals the drift velocity: 𝕧=𝔼×𝔹/B2=E/Bx^\pmb{v}=\pmb{E}\times\pmb{B}/B^{2}=E/B\,\hat{x}. The corresponding Lorentz factor is γ=B/B2E2\gamma=B/\sqrt{B^{2}-E^{2}}. The simple wave considered here moves along the characteristic C+C_{+}, defined by:

dx+dtv+=v+a1+av,\frac{dx_{+}}{dt}\equiv v_{+}=\frac{v+a}{1+av}, (2)

where aa is the fast magnetosonic speed measured in the fluid rest frame. In the appendix, it is shown that for a cold plasma a(λ)=tanh(λ/2+c)a(\lambda)=\tanh(\lambda/2+c) and v+(λ)=tanh(3λ/2+c)v_{+}(\lambda)=\tanh(3\lambda/2+c), where c=ln(σbg+σbg+1)c=\ln\left(\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm bg}}+\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm bg}+1}\right) and

λ12ln(1+v1v).\lambda\equiv\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+v}{1-v}\right). (3)

For a uniform background field, dBbg/dx=0{\rm d}B_{\rm bg}/{\rm d}x=0, λ\lambda is conserved along the characteristic C+C_{+} (a Riemann invariant). However, in general, λ\lambda varies along C+C_{+} with a dependence on the profile of BbgB_{\rm bg}.

For a cold plasma, the wave magnetization relates to aa through σ=a2/(1a2)=sinh2(λ/2+c)\sigma=a^{2}/(1-a^{2})=\sinh^{2}(\lambda/2+c). In the regime σbg1\sigma_{\rm bg}\gg 1 this approximates to:

σ(λ)σbg(λ)eλ=σbg(λ)1+v1v.\sigma(\lambda)\approx\sigma_{\rm bg}(\lambda)e^{\lambda}=\sigma_{\rm bg}(\lambda)\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1-v}}. (4)

Since for ideal MHD, the continuity equation implies that B/ρB^{\prime}/\rho is conserved, with B=B/γB^{\prime}=B/\gamma being the magnetic field measured in the fluid rest frame, one finds a compression factor of B/Bbg=ρ/ρbg=eλB^{\prime}/B_{\rm bg}=\rho/\rho_{\rm bg}=e^{\lambda}, and B/Bbg=γB/Bbg=(1v)1B/B_{\rm bg}=\gamma B^{\prime}/B_{\rm bg}=(1-v)^{-1}. The relations E/B=vE/B=v and Bw=BBbgB_{w}=B-B_{\rm bg} then yield:

E=Bw=v(λ)1v(λ)Bbg.E=B_{\rm w}=\frac{v(\lambda)}{1-v(\lambda)}B_{\rm bg}. (5)

Note that EE can vary between E=Bbg/2E=-B_{\rm bg}/2 at v=1v=-1 (λ\lambda\to-\infty) and EE\to\infty at v1v\to 1 (λ\lambda\to\infty). Note also that (B2E2)/Bbg2=e2λ(B^{2}-E^{2})/B_{\rm bg}^{2}=e^{2\lambda}. Thus, B2E20B^{2}-E^{2}\to 0 as λ\lambda\to-\infty or EBbg/2E\to-B_{\rm bg}/2.

In cases where the background field declines along the characteristic C+C_{+}, viz., dBbg/dx<0{\rm d}B_{\rm bg}/{\rm d}x<0, energy conservation implies that |E|/|Bbg||E|/|B_{\rm bg}| increases. For instance, for a wave propagating in the inner magnetosphere of a neutron star, which to a good approximation is a dipole, |E|/|Bbg|r2|E|/|B_{\rm bg}|\propto r^{2}. This means that λ\lambda and, hence, B2E2B^{2}-E^{2}, decrease along C+C_{+}, ultimately approaching B2E2=0B^{2}-E^{2}=0. From the expression for the wave velocity given below Eq. (2), it is seen that v+=0v_{+}=0 at λ=2c/3\lambda=-2c/3, or equivalently (B2E2)/Bbg2=(4σbg)2/3(B^{2}-E^{2})/B_{\rm bg}^{2}=(4\sigma_{\rm bg})^{-2/3}, γv=sinhλ(4σbg)1/3\gamma v=\sinh\lambda\approx-(4\sigma_{\rm bg})^{1/3}. At even smaller λ\lambda values v+v_{+} changes sign and the characteristic turns back towards the injection point. Consequently, wave breaking is anticipated around this location. The exact value of λ\lambda at the moment of shock birth, λs\lambda_{\rm s}, depends on the details. For example, in case of a periodic planar wave with electric field E(x0,t)=E0sin(ωt)E(x_{0},t)=E_{0}\sin(\omega t) at the boundary x0x_{0}, propagating in a background magnetic field Bbg=B0(x0/x)B_{\rm bg}=B_{0}(x_{0}/x), we find λs=ln(ω2x02/16aσbg2)1/4\lambda_{\rm s}=\ln(\omega^{2}x_{0}^{2}/16a\sigma_{\rm bg}^{2})^{1/4}, where a=E0/B0a=E_{0}/B_{0} - see appendix for details. As the wave propagates, the plasma upstream of the shock continues to accelerate backward (γv=sinhλ<0\gamma v=\sinh\lambda<0), the magnetization declines (Eq. 4), and the shock strengthens. Only wave phases that satisfy E>Bbg/2E>-B_{\rm bg}/2 survive. The other parts are erased through shock dissipation.

We illustrate the analytical model and study the kinetic evolution of the wave after shock formation with 1D PIC simulations performed with the relativistic electromagnetic code Tristan-MP V2 [20]. At ωpt= 0\omega_{\rm p}t\,=\,0, we launch a periodic FMS wave from x=0x=0, letting it propagate along +x^+\hat{x} in a cold pair plasma with a declining static and external background magnetic field, 𝔹bg(x)=B0(1+x/0)1z^\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}(x)=B_{0}\,(1+x/\mathcal{R}_{0})^{-1}\,\hat{z}, constant density and initial background magnetization σ0=1600\sigma_{0}=1600, so that σbg(x)=σ0(1+x/0)2\sigma_{\rm bg}(x)=\sigma_{0}\,(1+x/\mathcal{R}_{0})^{-2}. To capture MHD scales, the ratio of the wavelength, λw\lambda_{w}, to skin depth, c/ωp=mec2/4πnbge2c/\omega_{\rm p}=\sqrt{m_{\rm e}c^{2}/4\pi n_{\rm bg}e^{2}}, was taken to be λwωp/c= 2ωp/ω= 1.06×104\lambda_{w}\,\omega_{\rm p}/c\,=\,2\,\omega_{\rm p}/\omega\,=\,1.06\times 10^{4} with 60 cells per skin depth, cΔt=12Δxc\Delta t\,=\,\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta x, and 50 particles per cell. The amplitude of the wave is set to 0.4B00.4\,B_{0}. The gradient length scale of the background magnetic field, 0\mathcal{R}_{0}, is 0= 10λw 1.06×105c/ωp\mathcal{R}_{0}\,=\,10\lambda_{w}\,\simeq\,1.06\times 10^{5}\,c/\omega_{\rm p}. For further details on the derivation and numerics, see the appendix.

Figure 1 illustrates the propagation in the laminar (left), steepening (middle), and shock wave (right) regimes along the gradient. We observe the onset of strong steepening around x= 0.2110x\,=\,0.211\,\mathcal{R}_{0}. In the steepening region where BzEyB_{z}\gtrsim-E_{y} [panel (a.2)], the flow accelerates up to relativistic speeds [panel (c.2)]. The wave then breaks, forming a shock, at xs= 0.2250x_{\rm s}\,=\,0.225\,\mathcal{R}_{0}, corresponding to about 2.25 wavelengths from the injection point. A second shock subsequently forms [Fig. 1(a-b.3)]. The shock forms near the wave trough, as expected from the analytic derivation in the appendix. Panels 1(a-b.3) also reveal a soliton structure, further detailed below, characterized by a sharp peak in density and electromagnetic field at the shock and associated with significant bulk flow heating. A careful examination indicates that the value of the compression factor at wave breaking is λs=ln(0.1)\lambda_{\rm s}=\ln\,(0.1), corresponding to a plasma 4-velocity of ux=5u_{x}=-5. The corresponding value of the invariant at this location is (B2E2)/Bbg2=102(B^{2}-E^{2})/B_{\rm bg}^{2}=10^{-2}. These values are in good agreement with the analytic results derived in the appendix, but note that the density profile adopted there differs from the one employed in the simulations. Following shock formation, the wave develops a plateau at phases where E=Bbg/2E=-B_{\rm bg}/2. This is clearly seen in Fig. 1(a.3). This plateau extends in size over time until complete eradication of the lower part of the wave. The corresponding wave energy is dissipated at the shock. The plasma in the plateau accelerates towards the shock before crossing it, while the magnetization decreases [see Fig. 1(c.3)]. The Lorentz factor just upstream of the shock increases as the wave evolves, reaching a maximum towards the end of the simulations, and then starts declining.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Close up on the shock structure in the steepening zone. The shock is centered on the leading soliton-like structure. (a) Profile of BzB_{z} (blue line) and Ey-E_{y} (red line). The black dot-dashed line shows the background magnetic field. Vertical lines indicate the positions of the two leading solitons. (b) Distribution of the longitudinal 4-velocity along the shock profile. The vertical lines delineate the corresponding space over which the phase-space profiles of lower panels (c.1-3) are taken. (c) Phase-space profile of the electrons. The total uxuzu_{x}-u_{z} electron distributions corresponding to the three subsections are respectively displayed on insets (c.1), (c.2), and (c.3).

Figure 1 also reveals the generation of high-frequency precursor waves, likely formed by a synchrotron maser [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. It is seen only in the leading shock, at x= 0.4750x\,=\,0.475\,\mathcal{R}_{0} in Fig. 1(c.1-3). The reason why the trailing shock does not generate a precursor wave is the high temperature of the upstream plasma caused by the passage of the leading shock (see panel c.3 in Fig. 1); the synchrotron maser operates efficiently only when the thermal spread of emitting particles is sufficiently small [28]. We emphasize that under realistic conditions, fast cooling of the shocked plasma, which can change the conditions at the trailing shock, is anticipated [5] but ignored in the present analysis. To elucidate the basic features of the shock structure and the precursor wave, we present in Fig. 2 an enlarged view of the immediate shock vicinity. We identify a (double) soliton-like structure [29], where the particle distribution forms a semicoherent cold ring in momentum space (see c.3 in the bottom panel of Fig. 2). A similar structure has been reported earlier for infinite planar shocks [27]. The precursor wave is dominated by a linearly polarized X-mode that propagates superluminaly against the upstream plasma. We also identified a precursor O-mode (Fig. 3), which is considerably weaker than the X-mode and seems unimportant.

The spectrum of the precursor wave (Fig 3), as measured in the Lab frame, exhibits several sharp harmonic peaks around ω10ωp\omega\simeq 10\,\omega_{p}^{\prime}, where ωp\omega^{\prime}_{p} denotes the proper plasma frequency, measured in the local rest frame of the fluid in the immediate upstream of the double soliton structure. These peaks correspond to the lowest harmonics of the resonant cavity defined by the double soliton structure seen in Fig. 2. In good agreement with [27], the wavelength of the highest peak and the width of the cavity are proportional, λpeakLsh/3\lambda_{\rm peak}\sim L_{\rm sh}/3, with a weak dependence of LshL_{\rm sh} on the upstream magnetization, σu\sigma_{u}. This implies that the peak frequency, as measured in the Lab frame, should scale as the shock Lorentz factor with respect to the Lab frame, γsh|Labσu\gamma_{\rm sh|Lab}\sim\sqrt{\sigma_{u}} (see appendix). From our simulations we estimate ωpeak1.6σuωp\omega_{peak}\approx 1.6\sqrt{\sigma_{u}}\omega_{p}^{\prime} for the highest peak. Above the peak, the spectrum extends up to about 70ωp70\,\omega_{p}^{\prime}. Below the peak, it cuts off at a frequency below which the wave is trapped by the shock (that is, the group velocity is smaller than the shock velocity). The latter can be estimated most easily in the rest frame of the upstream plasma. In this frame, the dispersion relation can be written as [30],

k2ω2=1ωp2ω2ωc2,\frac{k^{{}^{\prime}2}}{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}}=1-\frac{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}_{\rm p}}{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}-\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}_{\rm c}}, (6)

where ωc=σuωp\omega^{\prime}_{c}=\sigma_{u}\omega^{\prime}_{p} is the cyclotron frequency. Upon transforming to the Lab frame, the dispersion relation reduces to k2=ω2ωp2k^{2}=\omega^{2}-\omega_{p}^{{}^{\prime}2} in the limit γsh|u2σu1\gamma^{2}_{\rm sh|u}\gg\sigma_{u}\gg 1 (see appendix). The cutoff frequency and k-vector are obtained by equating the group velocity, vg=dω/dkv_{g}=d\omega/dk, with the shock velocity with respect to the Lab frame, vsh|Labv_{\rm sh|Lab}:

ωcut=ωpγsh|Lab,kcut=ωpush|Lab.\displaystyle\omega_{\rm cut}=\omega_{p}^{\prime}\gamma_{\rm sh|Lab}\,,\qquad k_{cut}=\omega_{p}^{\prime}u_{\rm sh|Lab}. (7)

From the analysis of the data presented in Fig 2 we estimate σu=25\sigma_{u}=25 and σu/γsh|u2=6×103\sigma_{u}/\gamma^{2}_{\rm sh|u}=6\times 10^{-3}, from which we obtain ush|Lab=4.3u_{\rm sh|Lab}=4.3 upon transforming to the Lab frame. The cutoff frequency and k-vector given in Eq. (7) are in good agreement with those seen in Fig 3.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (a) k-spectra of the X-mode (colored solid lines) and O-mode (black dot-dashed line), and ω\omega-spectrum of the X-mode (red dot-dashed line), computed in the source frame just upstream of the shock. The kk-space spectra cover the domain (xxsh)=[10, 210]c/ωp\left(x-x_{\rm sh}\right)\,=\,\left[10,\,210\right]\,c/\omega_{\rm p} in the time interval c(ttsteep)/0=[0.04, 0.28]c(t-t_{\rm steep})/\mathcal{R}_{0}\,=\,[0.04,\,0.28]. The colors of the solid k-spectra lines correspond to the time of measurement, as indicated in panel (b). The thick, solid black line delineates the converged k-spectrum, and the red dot-dashed line is the space-averaged averaged ω\omega-spectrum. (b) Comparison between the highest peak frequency and the approximate distance between the two leading solitons, Lsh/3L_{\rm sh}/3, at different times. (c) Black: Total dissipation rate ϵ˙w\dot{\epsilon}_{\rm w} of the FMS wave energy at the shock averaged over one wavelength and normalized by ϵ0c/0\epsilon_{0}c/\mathcal{R}_{0}, where ϵ0\epsilon_{0} is the initial FMS wave energy stored over half a wavelength; Red: Energy pumping rate into precursor wave dominated by X-modes, averaging around ϵ˙X/ϵ0= 103c/0\dot{\epsilon}_{\rm X}/\epsilon_{0}\,=\,10^{-3}\,c/\mathcal{R}_{0}.

Regarding the efficiency of the precursor wave, we find that the X-mode carries a fraction of about ϵX=103\epsilon_{X}=10^{-3} of the total energy dissipated in the shock (the bottom half wave; see Fig. 3). As found in [27], the fraction of incoming kinetic energy converted into precursor waves in the post-shock frame is independent of the magnetization in the limit of σ1\sigma\gg 1. The increase in efficiency by a factor of unity (3\lesssim 3) is consistent with the increase in downstream frame incoming particle kinetic energy across the simulation. We thus anticipate ϵX\epsilon_{X} to be weakly sensitive to the conditions prevailing in the medium in which the FMS wave propagates.

We now consider a wave with luminosity L=cE2r2/2=1043L43L=cE^{2}r^{2}/2=10^{43}L_{43} erg/s, generated near the surface of a magnetar, and assume for simplicity that the wave propagates in the equatorial plane of the dipole background field, where Bbg(r)=1015B15(R/r)3B_{\rm bg}(r)=10^{15}B_{15}(R/r)^{3} G; R=106R=10^{6} cm being the stellar radius. The background density depends on the pair multiplicity \mathcal{M} in the magnetosphere, which is uncertain but expected to be large [31]; we henceforth adopt =1066{\cal M}=10^{6}{\cal M}_{6}. With this normalization, the background number density, nbg=ρbg/men_{\rm bg}=\rho_{\rm bg}/m_{\rm e}, can be expressed as nbg=nGJ10196B15Ω(R/r)3n_{\rm bg}=\mathcal{M}n_{\rm GJ}\approx 10^{19}\mathcal{M}_{6}B_{15}\Omega(R/r)^{3} cm-3, where Ω\Omega is the angular velocity of the star, measured in rad/s, and nGJ=ΩBbg/2πecn_{\rm GJ}=\Omega B_{\rm bg}/2\pi ec is the Goldreich–Julian density. The corresponding plasma frequency of the background pair plasma is ωp=101461/2B151/2(R/r)3/2\omega_{p}=10^{14}\mathcal{M}_{6}^{1/2}B_{15}^{1/2}(R/r)^{3/2} Hz.

The wave propagates nearly undisturbed in the magnetosphere until reaching a radius rsr_{\rm s} at which the wave breaks. This happens when |E|=Bbg/2|E|=B_{\rm bg}/2, or rs3×108B151/2L431/4r_{\rm s}\simeq 3\times 10^{8}B_{15}^{1/2}L_{43}^{-1/4} cm. As discussed above, a shock forms and continues evolving with the wave. It can be shown [5] that the Lorentz factor just upstream of the shock quickly reaches a maximum value, γu,maxcσbg/ωrs\gamma_{u,max}\sim c\sigma_{\rm bg}/\omega r_{\rm s} and then gradually declines, roughly as (r/rs)4(r/r_{\rm s})^{-4} up to 3rs\sim 3r_{\rm s}, where the lower half of the wave is completely erased. The majority of the dissipated energy will be released in the xx-ray and γ\gamma-ray bands, and a fraction of 103\sim 10^{-3} in the form of a precursor wave. For our choice of parameters, and wave frequency ν=ω/2π=104\nu=\omega/2\pi=10^{4} Hz, γu,max6×105(B15Ω6)1L43\gamma_{u,max}\sim 6\times 10^{5}(B_{15}\Omega\mathcal{M}_{6})^{-1}L_{43}. The upstream magnetization reaches a minimum, σu=σbg/2γu,maxωrs/2c300B151/2L431/4\sigma_{\rm u}=\sigma_{\rm bg}/2\gamma_{\rm u,max}\sim\omega r_{\rm s}/2c\sim 300B_{15}^{1/2}L_{43}^{-1/4}, and only slightly increases thereafter [5]. The proper plasma frequency in the shock upstream satisfies ωp=ωp/γu1/2108(r/rs)1/26B151/4L431/8Ω1/2\omega_{p}^{\prime}=\omega_{p}/\gamma_{u}^{1/2}\approx 10^{8}(r/r_{\rm s})^{1/2}\mathcal{M}_{6}B_{15}^{1/4}L_{43}^{-1/8}\Omega^{1/2} Hz, and barely changes in the wave dissipation zone, rs<r<3rsr_{\rm s}<r<3r_{\rm s}. Adopting the scaling we find from the simulations, ωpeakσuωp\omega_{\rm peak}\approx\sqrt{\sigma_{u}}\,\omega_{p}^{\prime}, we anticipate the observed spectrum of the precursor wave to appear in the GHz band, as seen in many fast radio bursts.

Whether the precursor wave can escape the inner magnetosphere is unclear at present. It has been argued that GHz waves will be strongly damped in the inner magnetosphere by nonlinear decay into Alfvén waves [32], steepening or kinetic effects [33] (but cf. [34]). We note, however, that in the dissipation zone, where the precursor wave is formed, the peak frequency of the precursor wave is smaller than the background frequency by a factor γu/σu\sqrt{\gamma_{u}/\sigma_{u}}\sim a few, so the wave transitions from the MHD to the kinetic regime. Thus, the damping mechanisms mentioned above need to be reassessed. Moreover, the precursor wave is trapped by the kHz FMS wave, and the effect this has on the damping of the precursor wave needs to be studied. Finally, it has been shown [5] that under magnetar conditions, the cooling rate of the upstream plasma entering the shock is comparable to or even shorter than the Larmor frequency. How this might affect the efficiency of the precursor wave has yet to be determined.

In summary, we have demonstrated the self-consistent steepening, monster shock formation, and precursor wave emission emerging from a fast magnetosonic wave propagating along a declining background magnetic field. The analytical properties of wave steepening are found to be in good agreement with ab initio fully kinetic simulations. The ensuing shock formation leads to efficient dissipation of the bottom part of the wave over the dynamical time of the wave crossing. A fraction of about 10310^{-3} of the total dissipated energy is imparted to X-modes. The associated spectrum propagating upstream shows pronounced peaks corresponding to harmonics of the cavity forming between two leading solitons at the shock front. Finally, our results open promising avenues to study the fate of electromagnetic pulses propagating in strongly magnetized environments to address self-consistently their dissipation and, if any, the escaping signal.

Acknowledgements.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (MPS-EECS-00001470-04) to AL. This work was facilitated by the Multimessenger Plasma Physics Center (MPPC, NSF grant PHY-2206607). The presented numerical simulations were conducted on the STELLAR cluster (Princeton Research Computing). This work was also granted access to the HPC resources of TGCC/CCRT under the allocation 2024-A0160415130 made by GENCI.

Appendix A Appendix

Appendix B Exact solution for a 1D fast magnetosonic wave

Consider a FMS wave propagating in the positive xx direction is a scalar potential background magnetic field of the form 𝔹bg(x,z)=Ψ=xΨx^zΨz^\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}(x,z)\,=\,-\nabla\Psi\,=\,-\partial_{x}\Psi\hat{x}-\partial_{z}\Psi\hat{z}, such that in the x,yx,y plane xΨ(x,0)= 0\partial_{x}\Psi(x,0)\,=\,0, so that 𝔹bg(x,0)=Bbg(x)z^\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}(x,0)\,=\,B_{\rm bg}(x)\hat{z}. Since ×𝔹bg= 0\nabla\times\pmb{B}_{\rm bg}\,=\,0, zBx(x,0)=zxΨ(x,0)=xBbg(x)\partial_{z}B_{x}(x,0)\,=\,-\partial_{z}\partial_{x}\Psi(x,0)\,=\,\partial_{x}B_{\rm bg}(x). The wave fields are denoted by 𝔹w=Bwz^\pmb{B}_{w}=B_{w}\hat{z}, 𝔼=Ey^\pmb{E}=E\hat{y}. The equations governing the dynamics of the wave are derived using the general form of the stress-energy tensor:

Tμν=(w+b2)uμuν+(p+b2/2)gμνbμbν,T^{\mu\nu}=(w+b^{2})u^{\mu}u^{\nu}+(p+b^{2}/2)g^{\mu\nu}-b^{\mu}b^{\nu}, (8)

where pp is the pressure, ww the specific enthalpy, and 4πbμ=Fνμuν\sqrt{4\pi}b_{\mu}=F^{\star}_{\nu\mu}u^{\nu}, here FF^{\star} denotes the dual electromagnetic tensor. In terms of bμb^{\mu} and uμu^{\mu} it can be expressed as:

Fμν=4π(bμuνbνuμ).F^{\star}_{\mu\nu}=\sqrt{4\pi}(b_{\mu}u_{\nu}-b_{\nu}u_{\mu}). (9)

The homogeneous Maxwell’s equations read in this notation:

μ(bμuνbνuμ)=0,\partial_{\mu}(b^{\mu}u^{\nu}-b^{\nu}u^{\mu})=0, (10)

subject to bμuμ=0b_{\mu}u^{\mu}=0. For the FMS wave under consideration uμ=(γ,u,0,0)u^{\mu}=(\gamma,u,0,0), and 4πbμ=(Bxu,Bxγ,0,B)\sqrt{4\pi}b^{\mu}=(B_{x}u,B_{x}\gamma,0,B^{\prime}), where BB^{\prime} is the zz component of the total magnetic field, as measured in the fluid rest frame. In the Lab frame B=γB=Bw+BbgB=\gamma B^{\prime}=B_{w}+B_{\rm bg}. From Eq. (9) we find

E=F31=Buv=u/γ=E/B,E=F_{31}^{\star}=B^{\prime}u\quad\Rightarrow\quad v=u/\gamma=E/B, (11)

here E=F31E=F_{31}^{\star} is the wave electric field.

Denote for short p~=p+B2/8π\tilde{p}=p+B^{\prime 2}/8\pi and h~=h+B2/(4πρ)\tilde{h}=h+B^{\prime 2}/(4\pi\rho), where h=w/ρh=w/\rho is the enthalpy per particle, the zz component of Equation (10) combined with the continuity equation, μ(ρuμ)=0\partial_{\mu}(\rho u^{\mu})=0 (assuming no particle creation), yields: uμμ(B/ρ)=0u^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}(B^{\prime}/\rho)=0. Thus, ξ=B2/8πρ2\xi=B^{{}^{\prime}2}/8\pi\rho^{2} is conserved along streamlines. We choose an equation of state of the form p=AρΓp=A\rho^{\Gamma} for adiabatic index Γ\Gamma. Then

p~=AρΓ+ξρ2,h~=1+ΓΓ1AρΓ1+2ξρ.\displaystyle\tilde{p}=A\rho^{\Gamma}+\xi\rho^{2},\qquad\tilde{h}=1+\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma-1}A\rho^{\Gamma-1}+2\xi\rho. (12)

Using the equation μTμx=0\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu x}=0, the relation zBx=xBbg\partial_{z}B_{x}=\partial_{x}B_{\rm bg}, and the continuity equation, one finds:

ργh~dudt+ργudh~dt+xp~=BxBbg4π,\displaystyle\rho\gamma\tilde{h}\frac{{\rm d}u}{{\rm d}t}+\rho\gamma u\frac{{\rm d}\tilde{h}}{{\rm d}t}+\partial_{x}\tilde{p}=\frac{B\partial_{x}B_{\rm bg}}{4\pi}, (13)
ddt(ργ)+ργxv=0,\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}(\rho\gamma)+\rho\gamma\partial_{x}v=0, (14)

here d/dt=t+vx{\rm d}/{\rm d}t=\partial_{t}+v\partial_{x} is the convective derivative, and v=u/γv=u/\gamma. The fast magnetosonic speed aa is defined by

a2=lnh~lnρ=Γp+(B2/4π)ρh~.a^{2}=\frac{\partial\ln\tilde{h}}{\partial\ln\rho}=\frac{\Gamma p+(B^{{}^{\prime}2}/4\pi)}{\rho\tilde{h}}. (15)

For a cold plasma, p=0p=0, it reduces to

a2=σ1+σ,a^{2}=\frac{\sigma}{1+\sigma}, (16)

where

σ=B24πρ=2ξρ,\sigma=\frac{B^{{}^{\prime}2}}{4\pi\rho}=2\xi\rho, (17)

is the magnetization of the fluid. In terms of the variable dχ=adlnρd\chi=ad\ln\rho, Eqs. (13) and (14) can be rewritten in the form

a(vtχ+xχ)+γ2(tv+vxv)\displaystyle a(v\partial_{t}\chi+\partial_{x}\chi)+\gamma^{2}(\partial_{t}v+v\partial_{x}v) =\displaystyle= 14πBxBbg,\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}B\partial_{x}B_{\rm bg}, (18)
(tχ+vxχ)+aγ2(vtv+xv)\displaystyle(\partial_{t}\chi+v\partial_{x}\chi)+a\gamma^{2}(v\partial_{t}v+\partial_{x}v) =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, (19)

where the relations dh~=ah~dχ{\rm d}\tilde{h}=a\tilde{h}{\rm d}\chi, dp~=ρdh~=aρh~dχ{\rm d}\tilde{p}=\rho{\rm d}\tilde{h}=a\rho\tilde{h}{\rm d}\chi, and du=γ3dv{\rm d}u=\gamma^{3}{\rm d}v have been employed. Further manipulation of the latter equations yields

tJ±+v±xJ±=±BxBbg4πργ2h~(1±av),\partial_{t}J_{\pm}+v_{\pm}\partial_{x}J_{\pm}=\frac{\pm B\partial_{x}B_{\rm bg}}{4\pi\rho\gamma^{2}\tilde{h}(1\pm av)}, (20)

here

J±=χ±λ,λ12ln(1+v1v),J_{\pm}=\chi\pm\lambda,\quad\lambda\equiv\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+v}{1-v}\right), (21)

are the Riemann invariants of the system, and

v±=dx±dt=v±a1±avv_{\pm}=\frac{dx_{\pm}}{dt}=\frac{v\pm a}{1\pm av} (22)

are the velocities of the characteristics C±C_{\pm} on which J±J_{\pm} propagate, as measured in the Lab frame.

Consider now a wave injected at time t=0t=0 from a source located at x=x0x=x_{0} and moving rightward. Since ahead of the wave v=0v=0, and the background field is independent of time, JJ_{-} satisfies

abgxJ=xlnBbg,-a_{\rm bg}\partial_{x}J_{-}=-\partial_{x}\ln B_{\rm bg}, (23)

where abg2=σbg/(σbg+1)a_{\rm bg}^{2}\,=\,\sigma_{\rm bg}/(\sigma_{\rm bg}+1). To order O(σbg1)O(\sigma_{\rm bg}^{-1}) the solution is J=ln(Bbg/B0)χbgJ_{-}=\ln(B_{\rm bg}/B_{0})\equiv\chi_{\rm bg}, here B0=Bbg(x0)B_{0}=B_{\rm bg}(x_{0}) is the background magnetic field at the source. Then, J+=2λ+χbgJ_{+}=2\lambda+\chi_{\rm bg}, and Eq. (20) for J+J_{+} reduces to

tλ+v+xλ=BBbg/(4πργ2h~)av2(1+av)xlnBbg.\partial_{t}\lambda+v_{+}\partial_{x}\lambda=\frac{BB_{\rm bg}/(4\pi\rho\gamma^{2}\tilde{h})-a-v}{2(1+av)}\partial_{x}\ln B_{\rm bg}. (24)

To find a(λ)a(\lambda), we use the relations a2=2ξρ/(1+2ξρ)a^{2}=2\xi\rho/(1+2\xi\rho) (Eq. 15), suitable for cold plasma, and dχ=adlnρ{\rm d}\chi=a\,{\rm d}\ln\rho. Integrating from χbg\chi_{\rm bg} to χ\chi, one obtains

a(λ)\displaystyle a(\lambda) =\displaystyle= tanh(λ/2+c),\displaystyle\tanh(\lambda/2+c), (25)
v+(λ)\displaystyle v_{+}(\lambda) =\displaystyle= tanh(3λ/2+c),\displaystyle\tanh(3\lambda/2+c), (26)

where the constant cc is determined from the condition a(λ=0)=abga(\lambda=0)=a_{\rm bg}: c=ln(σbg+σbg+1)c=\ln(\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm bg}}+\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm bg}+1}). Note that λ=0\lambda=0 implies v=0v=0 and E=0E=0, hence, the magnetic field equals the background field. The magnetization can be readily computed using Eq. (16): σ=a2/(1a2)=sinh2(λ/2+c)\sigma=a^{2}/(1-a^{2})=\sinh^{2}(\lambda/2+c). From this, one finds:

BBbg=ρρbg=σσbg=sinh2(λ/2+c)sinh2(c)λ+c11+v1v.\frac{B^{\prime}}{B_{\rm bg}}=\frac{\rho}{\rho_{\rm bg}}=\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\rm bg}}=\frac{\sinh^{2}(\lambda/2+c)}{\sinh^{2}(c)}\xrightarrow[\lambda+c\,\gg 1]{}\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1-v}}. (27)

With the above results, the right-hand side of Eq. (24) can be expressed as a function of λ\lambda. Let us denote for short A(λ)=12(BBbg/ργ2h~av)/(1+av)A(\lambda)=\tfrac{1}{2}(BB_{\rm bg}/\rho\gamma^{2}\tilde{h}-a-v)/(1+av). The evolution of λ\lambda along the characteristic C+C_{+} is governed by the coupled ODEs

dλdt|C+\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}\lambda}{{\rm d}t}\Big{|}_{C_{+}} =\displaystyle= A(λ)xlnBbg,\displaystyle A(\lambda)\partial_{x}\ln B_{\rm bg}, (28)
dxdt|C+\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}x}{{\rm d}t}\Big{|}_{C_{+}} =\displaystyle= v+(λ)=tanh(3λ/2+c),\displaystyle v_{+}(\lambda)=\tanh(3\lambda/2+c), (29)

subject to the boundary conditions x+(t=0)=x0x_{+}(t=0)=x_{0}, λ(ti,x0)=λi\lambda(t_{\rm i},x_{0})=\lambda_{\rm i}, here λ(t,x0)λ0(t)\lambda(t,x_{0})\equiv\lambda_{0}(t) is a specified injection function. In case of a uniform field, xlnBbg=0\partial_{x}\ln B_{\rm bg}=0, λ\lambda is conserved along C+C_{+} and the solution can be expressed as λ(x,t)=λ[ξ(x,t)]\lambda(x,t)=\lambda[\xi(x,t)], with ξ(x,t)\xi(x,t) given implicitely by

ξ=txtanh[3λ0(ξ)/2+c].\xi=t-\frac{x}{\tanh[3\lambda_{0}(\xi)/2+c]}. (30)

Realistic magnetospheres are nearly force-free, that is, σbg1\sigma_{\rm bg}\gg 1. In this limit, we can expand A(λ)A(\lambda) and v+(λ)v_{+}(\lambda) to obtain a more convenient set of equations. In terms of κ=eλ\kappa=e^{\lambda} we obtain:

A(κ)=2κ2(κ21)σbg4κ3σbg+1,v+(κ)=4κ3σbg14κ3σbg+1.A(\kappa)=\frac{2\kappa^{2}(\kappa^{2}-1)\sigma_{\rm bg}}{4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}+1},\quad v_{+}(\kappa)=\frac{4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}-1}{4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}+1}. (31)

We consider background magnetic field profiles of the form Bbg(x)=[1+(xx0)/0]pB_{\rm bg}(x)\,=\,[1+(x-x_{0})/\mathcal{R}_{0}]^{-p}, with p=1p=1 and x0=0x_{0}=0 chosen in the simulations presented in the main part. For convenience and without loss of generality, we choose the origin to be located at x0=0x_{0}\,=\,\mathcal{R}_{0}, and normalize time and length to x0x_{0}; xx/x0x\to x/x_{0}, tt/x0t\to t/x_{0}. Equations (28) and (29) then take the form:

dκdt|C+\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}\kappa}{{\rm d}t}\Big{|}_{C_{+}} =\displaystyle= px2κ2(κ21)σbg4κ3σbg+1,\displaystyle\frac{p}{x}\,\frac{2\kappa^{2}(\kappa^{2}-1)\sigma_{\rm bg}}{4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}+1}, (32)
dxdκ|C+\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}x}{{\rm d}\kappa}\Big{|}_{C_{+}} =\displaystyle= x(4κ3σbg1)2pσbgκ2(κ21).\displaystyle\frac{x(4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}-1)}{2p\sigma_{\rm bg}\kappa^{2}(\kappa^{2}-1)}. (33)

To find σbg\sigma_{\rm bg}, note that since Bbg/ρbg=B_{\rm bg}/\rho_{\rm bg}= const, dlnσbg/dx=dlnBbg/dx=p/x{\rm d}\ln\sigma_{\rm bg}/{\rm d}x\,=\,{\rm d}\ln B_{\rm bg}/{\rm d}x=-p/x, from which one obtains:

dσbgdκ=dσbgdxdxdκ=4κ3σbg12κ2(1κ2).\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_{\rm bg}}{{\rm d}\kappa}=\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_{\rm bg}}{{\rm d}x}\frac{{\rm d}x}{{\rm d}\kappa}=\frac{4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}-1}{2\kappa^{2}(1-\kappa^{2})}. (34)

The solution is

(1κ2)σbg=12κ+(1κi2)σ012κi12κ+αi,(1-\kappa^{2})\sigma_{\rm bg}=\frac{1}{2\kappa}+(1-\kappa_{\rm i}^{2})\sigma_{0}-\frac{1}{2\kappa_{\rm i}}\equiv\frac{1}{2\kappa}+\alpha_{\rm i}, (35)

where κi=κ(ti)\kappa_{\rm i}=\kappa(t_{\rm i}), and σ0=σbg(ki)\sigma_{0}=\sigma_{\rm bg}(k_{\rm i}). The magnetization of the plasma is given by σ(κ)=κσbg(κ)=(1/2+kαi)/(1κ2)\sigma(\kappa)=\kappa\sigma_{\rm bg}(\kappa)=(1/2+k\alpha_{\rm i})/(1-\kappa^{2}) (Eq. 27). It declines monotonically with κ\kappa as the wave propagates. The solution for xx is obtained now using σbg(x)=σ0xp\sigma_{\rm bg}(x)=\sigma_{0}x^{-p}:

xp=2κ(1κ2)σ01+2καi.x^{p}=\frac{2\kappa(1-\kappa^{2})\sigma_{0}}{1+2\kappa\alpha_{\rm i}}. (36)

Substituting σbg(κ)\sigma_{\rm bg}(\kappa) and x(κ)x(\kappa) into Eq. (32) yields

dtdκ=1p[2κ1κ2+1κ(1+2καi)][2κ(1κ2)σ01+2καi]1/p.\frac{{\rm d}t}{{\rm d}\kappa}=-\frac{1}{p}\left[\frac{2\kappa}{1-\kappa^{2}}+\frac{1}{\kappa(1+2\kappa\alpha_{\rm i})}\right]\left[\frac{2\kappa(1-\kappa^{2})\sigma_{0}}{1+2\kappa\alpha_{\rm i}}\right]^{1/p}. (37)

The solution can be expressed as

t(κ)ti=(2σ0)1/pp×kikdκ[2κ1κ2+1κ(1+2καi)][2κ(1κ2)1+2καi]1/p\begin{split}&t(\kappa)-t_{\rm i}=-\frac{(2\sigma_{0})^{1/p}}{p}\times\\ &\int^{k}_{k_{\rm i}}{\rm d}\kappa^{\prime}\left[\frac{2\kappa^{\prime}}{1-\kappa^{\prime 2}}+\frac{1}{\kappa^{\prime}(1+2\kappa^{\prime}\alpha_{\rm i})}\right]\left[\frac{2\kappa^{\prime}(1-\kappa^{\prime 2})}{1+2\kappa^{\prime}\alpha_{\rm i}}\right]^{1/p}\end{split} (38)

This solution can be inverted to yield κ(t)\kappa(t). Substituting into Eq.(36) yields the trajectory of the characteristic, x(t)x(t), that satisfies x(ti)=1x(t_{\rm i})=1. The family of all characteristics is labeled by the injection time tit_{\rm i}. It can be expressed as x(t,ti)x(t,t_{\rm i}), with x(ti,ti)=1x(t_{\rm i},t_{\rm i})=1. The injection function gives the corresponding values of κ\kappa at tit_{\rm i}. For injection of a periodic wave at the boundary (x=1x=1), with electric field E(1,ti)=aB0sin(ωti)E(1,t_{\rm i})=aB_{0}\sin(\omega t_{\rm i}), Eqs. (11) and (27) yield:

κi(ti)=1+2asin(ωti).\kappa_{\rm i}(t_{\rm i})=\sqrt{1+2a\sin(\omega t_{\rm i})}. (39)

Crossing of C+C_{+} characteristics is determined from the condition x(t,ti)/ti=0\partial x(t,t_{\rm i})/\partial t_{\rm i}=0, where the partial derivative is taken at a constant time tt. However, this equation admits multiple solutions. A shock will initially form at the first crossing, that is, at the earliest time, defined by t(κ,ti)/ti=0\partial t(\kappa,t_{\rm i})/\partial t_{\rm i}=0. The solution of the two equations above yields a unique value, κs\kappa_{\rm s}, from which the location and time of shock formation can be computed. The plasma 4-velocity at this location is given by u(κs)=(κs21)/2κs1/2κsu(\kappa_{\rm s})=(\kappa_{\rm s}^{2}-1)/2\kappa_{\rm s}\approx-1/2\kappa_{\rm s}.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: A sample of wave characteristics with initial values at the wave trough, 2ωti/π=2.6,2.8,3,3.2,3.42\omega t_{\rm i}/\pi=2.6,2.8,3,3.2,3.4, and σ0=1600\sigma_{0}=1600, a=0.4a=0.4, ω=10\omega=10, p=1p=1. The inset shows a zoom in around the time of shock birth (shown by the vertical dashed line) for more closely spaced characteristics in the interval 2.992ωti/π3.032.99\leq 2\omega t_{\rm i}/\pi\leq 3.03

For illustration, consider p=1p=1. For this choice Eq. (38) can be readily integrated, yielding

t(κ)ti=2σ0[G(κ)G(κi)],t(\kappa)-t_{\rm i}=2\sigma_{0}[G(\kappa)-G(\kappa_{\rm i})], (40)

where

G(κ)=12αi(1+2αiκ)+2+3αiκ2αi2κ24αi318αi3[4ln(1+2αiκ)+11+2αiκ].\begin{split}G(\kappa)&=\frac{1}{2\alpha_{\rm i}(1+2\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa)}+\frac{2+3\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa-2\alpha_{\rm i}^{2}\kappa^{2}}{4\alpha_{\rm i}^{3}}\\ &-\frac{1}{8\alpha_{\rm i}^{3}}\left[4\ln(1+2\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa)+\frac{1}{1+2\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa}\right].\end{split} (41)

To estimate the location of the caustic (if exists) for a characteristic with initial value κi\kappa_{\rm i} we use Eq. (36) to obtain x/ti=(x/κi)(κi/ti)=0\partial x/\partial t_{\rm i}=(\partial x/\partial\kappa_{\rm i})(\partial\kappa_{\rm i}/\partial t_{\rm i})=0. Assuming κi/ti0\partial\kappa_{\rm i}/\partial t_{\rm i}\neq 0, one finds:

κcκi=4αiκc2κi(4αiκc31),\frac{\partial\kappa_{\rm c}}{\partial\kappa_{\rm i}}=\frac{4\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa_{\rm c}^{2}\kappa_{\rm i}}{(4\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa_{\rm c}^{3}-1)}, (42)

here κc(κi)\kappa_{\rm c}(\kappa_{\rm i}) denotes the value of κ\kappa at the caustic for the characteristic κi\kappa_{\rm i}. Now, for a typical case we anticipate αi1\alpha_{\rm i}\gg 1 and κc1\kappa_{\rm c}\ll 1. In addition, since the caustic occurs near the turnaround point, v+=0v_{+}=0, at which 4κ3σbg=14κ3αi4\kappa^{3}\sigma_{\rm bg}=1\approx 4\kappa^{3}\alpha_{\rm i} (see Eqs. 31 and 35), we anticipate 4κc3αi14\kappa_{\rm c}^{3}\alpha_{\rm i}\approx 1. Expanding in powers of αi1\alpha_{\rm i}^{-1} and κ\kappa, we find

t(κc)ti11κi2[κi2κc2+12αiκc].t(\kappa_{\rm c})-t_{\rm i}\approx\frac{1}{1-\kappa_{\rm i}^{2}}\left[\kappa_{\rm i}^{2}-\kappa_{\rm c}^{2}+\frac{1}{2\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa_{\rm c}}\right]. (43)

The shock first appears at the earliest crossing, that is, at κc=κs\kappa_{c}=\kappa_{\rm s} for which t(κs)t(\kappa_{\rm s}) is a minimum. Differentiating Eq. (43) at a constant tt, and substituting κc/κi\partial\kappa_{\rm c}/\partial\kappa_{\rm i} from Eq. (42), gives

4αiκs3(ti)=(2κi2)κi2ti+(1κi2)2κi2κi2ti+(1κi2)212ωcot(ωti),\begin{split}4\alpha_{\rm i}\kappa^{3}_{\rm s}(t_{\rm i})&=\frac{(2-\kappa_{\rm i}^{2})\frac{\partial\kappa^{2}_{\rm i}}{\partial t_{\rm i}}+(1-\kappa_{\rm i}^{2})^{2}}{\kappa_{\rm i}^{2}\frac{\partial\kappa^{2}_{\rm i}}{\partial t_{\rm i}}+(1-\kappa_{\rm i}^{2})^{2}}\approx 1-2\omega\cot(\omega t_{\rm i}),\end{split} (44)

using κi2(ti)=1+2asin(ωti)\kappa^{2}_{\rm i}(t_{\rm i})=1+2a\sin(\omega t_{\rm i}), κi2/ti=2ωacos(ωti)\partial\kappa^{2}_{\rm i}/\partial t_{\rm i}=2\omega a\cos(\omega t_{\rm i}). Comparing Eq. (44) with Eq. (42), we obtain the compression factor,

κs=(ω248a3σ02)1/4,\kappa_{\rm s}=\left(\frac{\omega^{2}}{48a^{3}\sigma_{0}^{2}}\right)^{1/4}, (45)

and the time of shock birth:

tst(κs)=3π2ω+12a1+18aσ0κs.t_{\rm s}\equiv t(\kappa_{\rm s})=\frac{3\pi}{2\omega}+\frac{1}{2a}-1+\frac{1}{8a\sigma_{0}\kappa_{\rm s}}. (46)

The corresponding plasma 4-velocity is us=(κs21)/2κs1/2κs=(a/ω2)1/4σbgu_{\rm s}=(\kappa_{\rm s}^{2}-1)/2\kappa_{\rm s}\approx-1/2\kappa_{\rm s}=-(a/\omega^{2})^{1/4}\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm bg}}, here σbg(κs)2aσ0\sigma_{\rm bg}(\kappa_{\rm s})\approx 2a\sigma_{0} (see Eq. 35). The magnetization of the flow at this location is σs=κsσbg(κs)1\sigma_{\rm s}=\kappa_{\rm s}\sigma_{\rm bg}(\kappa_{\rm s})\gg 1.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: (top) Comparison between the wave profile before and after steepening. The final profile is taken at ttsteep= 0.250/ct-t_{\rm steep}\,=\,0.25\,\mathcal{R}_{0}/c. (Bottom) Evolution of the normalized wave energy (black) and energy in the X-modes (red). The X-mode profile is multiplied by 10310^{3} for readability.

Figure 4 exhibits sample characteristics computed from Eqs. (36) and (40) for p=1p=1, a=0.4a=0.4, ω=10\omega=10, and σ0=1600\sigma_{0}=1600, injected at the indicated times (around the wave trough). As seen, each characteristic turns around at κ=(4σbg)1/3\kappa=(4\sigma_{\rm bg})^{-1/3}, at which v+v_{+} changes sign (Eq. 31). The inset shows a zoom-in around the location of shock birth; it indicates κs=0.0590\kappa_{\rm s}=0.0590, ts=0.724t_{\rm s}=0.724, xs=1.238x_{\rm s}=1.238. These values are in excellent agreement with the above estimates (κs=0.0597\kappa_{\rm s}=0.0597 from Eqs. 45, ts=0.725t_{\rm s}=0.725 from Eq. 46 and xs=1.241x_{\rm s}=1.241). In units of the wavelength λ\lambda we have: xs/λ=xsω/2π2x_{\rm s}/\lambda=x_{\rm s}\omega/2\pi\approx 2. The corresponding plasma 4-velocity is us=1/2κs8u_{\rm s}=-1/2\kappa_{\rm s}\approx-8. These numbers are in rough agreement with the simulations, although we stress that the comparison is not perfect since, in the simulations, we adopt a constant density for numerical convenience rather than invoking Bbg/ρbg=B_{\rm bg}/\rho_{\rm bg}= const.

Once the shock forms, it gradually grows in strength as the plasma upstream of the shock continues accelerating towards the source (since κ\kappa declines). To compute the shock velocity, we use the jump conditions of a strongly magnetized shock. Since the magnetization of the upstream plasma is large, σuκuαi,u1\sigma_{\rm u}\approx\kappa_{\rm u}\alpha_{i,\rm u}\gg 1, here αi,u=(1κi,u2)σ0\alpha_{i,\rm u}=(1-\kappa_{i,\rm u}^{2})\sigma_{0} and κi,u\kappa_{i,\rm u} is the initial value of the characteristic that crosses the shock from the upstream. In this limit, the velocity of the downstream flow, as measured in the shock frame, is ud=σuu^{\prime}_{\rm d}=-\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm u}}, where, henceforth, prime denotes quantities measured in the shock frame. Mass conservation implies ρdud=ρuuu\rho_{\rm d}u_{\rm d}^{\prime}=\rho_{\rm u}u^{\prime}_{\rm u}. Using Eq. (27), one finds uu=κdσu/κuu^{\prime}_{\rm u}=-\kappa_{\rm d}\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm u}}/\kappa_{\rm u}. Transforming to the Lab frame we obtain: uu=γuγsh|Lab(vu+vsh|Lab)u_{\rm u}=\gamma^{\prime}_{\rm u}\gamma_{\rm sh|Lab}(v^{\prime}_{\rm u}+v_{\rm sh|Lab}), where uu=(κu21)/2κuu_{\rm u}=(\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}-1)/2\kappa_{\rm u}. Combining the above results yields the shock velocity in the Lab frame:

ush|Lab=(κu2+1)κdσu2κu2+(κu21)κd2σu+κu22κu2κdσu,\displaystyle\begin{split}u_{\rm sh|Lab}&=\frac{(\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}+1)\kappa_{\rm d}\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm u}}}{2\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}}+\frac{(\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}-1)\sqrt{\kappa^{2}_{\rm d}\sigma_{\rm u}+\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}}}{2\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}}\\ &\approx\kappa_{\rm d}\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm u}},\end{split} (47)

noting that κd2σu/κu2=κd2αi/κu1\kappa_{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm u}/\kappa_{\rm u}^{2}=\kappa_{\rm d}^{2}\alpha_{\rm i}/\kappa_{\rm u}\gg 1. Thus, it is seen that the shock propagates in the positive xx direction, that is, opposite to the direction of plasma motion. To find the evolution of the wave subsequent to shock formation, one needs to solve the characteristics equations, Eqs. (28)-(29), coupled to the equation of the shock trajectory, dxs/dt=ush|Lab/ush|Lab2+1{\rm d}x_{\rm s}/{\rm d}t=u_{\rm sh|Lab}/\sqrt{u_{\rm sh|Lab}^{2}+1}. We shall not present such analysis here. Instead, the shock structure and propagation are illustrated in Fig. 5 from the kinetic simulations. As the main text explains, we launch a periodic FMS wave from x=0x=0, letting it propagate along +x^+\hat{x} in a cold pair plasma with a declining background magnetic field, constant density, and large initial background magnetization. The weakly declining background magnetic field is set to be static and external for convenience. The top panel shows a comparison between the wave profile after and before saturation. A kinetic scale fluid discontinuity, a shock, is visible at xxsh=0x-x_{\rm sh}=0. The time evolution of the power of the ensuing wave propagating upstream of the shock, dominated by X-modes, is illustrated in the bottom panel.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Full (ω,k)(\omega,k)-Fourier spectrum of the X-modes at the end of the simulation in units of the upstream plasma frequency. The spectrum is measured in a fixed region in the immediate upstream of the shock and in the laboratory frame.

Appendix C Dispersion relations

In the rest frame of the fluid, the dispersion relations of the precursor wave read:

k2ω2=1ωp2ω2ωc2,\frac{k^{{}^{\prime}2}}{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}}=1-\frac{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}_{\rm p}}{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}-\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}_{\rm c}}, (48)

where ωp\omega_{\rm p}^{\prime} is the proper plasma frequency, and ωc=ωpσ\omega^{\prime}_{\rm c}=\omega^{\prime}_{\rm p}\sqrt{\sigma}. Transforming to the laboratory frame, one obtains,

k\displaystyle k =\displaystyle= γu(k+vuω),\displaystyle\gamma_{\rm u}(k^{\prime}+v_{\rm u}\omega^{\prime})\,, (49)
ω\displaystyle\omega =\displaystyle= γu(ω+vuk).\displaystyle\gamma_{\rm u}(\omega^{\prime}+v_{\rm u}k^{\prime}). (50)

Inverting the transformation and using Eq. (48), yields:

k2=ω2ωp2γu2(ωkvu)2γu2(ωkvu)2σωp2.k^{2}=\omega^{2}-\frac{\omega^{{}^{\prime}2}_{\rm p}\gamma_{\rm u}^{2}(\omega-kv_{\rm u})^{2}}{\gamma_{\rm u}^{2}(\omega-kv_{\rm u})^{2}-\sigma\omega_{\rm p}^{{}^{\prime}2}}. (51)

Noting that kvu<0kv_{\rm u}<0, we deduce that for σγu2\sigma\ll\gamma_{\rm u}^{2}, γu2(ωkvu)2σωp2\gamma_{\rm u}^{2}(\omega-kv_{\rm u})^{2}\gg\sigma\omega_{\rm p}^{{}^{\prime}2}, so that to a good approximation k2=ω2ωp2k^{2}=\omega^{2}-\omega_{\rm p}^{{}^{\prime}2}. The group velocity in the Lab frame can be readily computed now:

vg(ω)=dωdk=1ωp2ω2.v_{\rm g}(\omega)=\frac{{\rm d}\omega}{{\rm d}k}=\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^{{}^{\prime}2}}{\omega^{2}}}. (52)

The wave will be trapped by the shock if vgvsh|Labv_{\rm g}\leq v_{\rm sh|Lab}, or

ωωcut=γsh|Labωp;kkcut=ush|Labωp.\omega\leq\omega_{\rm cut}=\gamma_{\rm sh|Lab}\,\omega^{\prime}_{\rm p};\quad k\leq k_{\rm cut}=u_{\rm sh|Lab}\,\omega^{\prime}_{\rm p}\,. (53)

Figure 6 shows the dispersion relation of the X-modes in the immediate shock upstream, obtained from the simulations, in units of ωp\omega^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm p}. We notice that the branch closely corresponds to light modes, as expected from Eq. (52), and that the shock imposes a low frequency/wavelength cutoff, in agreement with Eq. (53). Note that the dispersion relation is computed in the laboratory frame and not in the upstream frame, as in Eq. (48).

References