text:
# Canonical abelianization of finite group actions

## Abstract

In these notes we present a corrected version of the algorithm for abelianization of stabilizers of finite group actions on smooth manifolds using equivariant blow ups (see  §5)

Let $`G`$ be a finite group, $`V`$ a smooth $`n`$-dimensional algebraic variety over $``$ having a regular effective action of $`G`$. If $`xV`$ is an arbitrary point, then by $`St_G(x)`$ we denote the stabilizer of $`x`$ in $`G`$. For any subset $`MG`$ we define $`V^M:=\{xV:gx=xgM\}`$.

###### Definition 1

Let $`D=_{i=1}^md_iD_i\mathrm{Div}(V)^G`$ an effective $`G`$-invariant $``$-divisor on a $`G`$-manifold $`V`$. A pair $`(V,D)`$ will be called $`G`$-normal if the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) $`SuppD`$ is a union of normal crossing divisors $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_m`$;

(ii) for any irredicible component $`D_i`$ of $`D`$ and for any point $`xD_i`$ the divisor $`D_i`$ is $`St_G(x)`$-invariant, i.e., $`g(D_i)=D_i`$, $`gSt_G(x)`$ (however, the $`St_G(x)`$-action on $`D_i`$ itself may be nontrivial).

###### Theorem 2

Let $`(V,D)`$ be a $`G`$-normal pair. Then there exists a canonically determined sequence of smooth $`G`$-manifolds $`V_0:=V,V_1,\mathrm{},V_k=V^{ab}`$ and birational $`G`$-euivariant morphisms $`\phi _i:V_iV_{i1}`$ such that each $`\phi _i`$ is a blow up of $`V_{i1}`$ at a $`G`$-invariant submanifold and the birational morphism $`\psi :=\phi _k\mathrm{}\phi _1:V^{ab}V`$ has the following properties:

(i) Let $`D^{ab}=(K_{V^{ab}}\psi ^{}K_V)+\psi ^1D`$, where $`\psi ^1D`$ is a proper pullback of $`D`$ with respect to the birational morphism $`\psi `$, then $`(V^{ab},D^{ab})`$ is a $`G`$-normal pair;

(ii) for any point $`xV^{ab}`$ the stabilizer $`St_G(x)`$ is an abelian subgroup in $`G`$.

Proof. First of all we remark that from the algorithm presented below it follows that for each $`G`$-equivariant blow up $`\phi _i:V_iV_{i1}`$ the divisor $`D_i:=(K_{V_i}\phi ^{}K_{V_i})+\phi _i^1D_{i1}`$ satisfies both conditions (i),(ii) in 1 if $`(V_{i1},D_{i1})`$ is a $`G`$-normal pair. Since in 1 only $`SuppD`$ is important, the property 2(i) will hold authomatically. Thus, our main goal will be to get 2(ii).

Let $`Z(V,G)V`$ be the set of all points $`xV`$ such that $`St_G(x)`$ is not abelian. If $`Z(V,G)`$ is empty, then we are done. Assume that $`Z(V,G)\mathrm{}`$. We set

$$s(V,G):=\underset{xZ(V,G)}{\mathrm{max}}|St_G(x)|.$$

Consider a Zariski closed subset

$$Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G):=\{xZ(V,G):|St_G(x)|=s(V,G)\}Z(V,G).$$

We claim that the set $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)V`$ is a smooth $`G`$-invariant subvariety of codimension at least $`2`$. By definition, $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$ is a union of smooth subvarieties

$$F(H):=\{xV:gx=xgH\},$$

where $`H`$ runs over all nonabelian subgroups of $`G`$ such that $`|H|=s(V,G)`$. This implies that $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$ is $`G`$-invariant. Since the $`G`$-action is effective and $`dimF(H)=n1`$ is possible only for cyclic subgroups $`HG`$. So we obtain $`dimZ_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)n2`$. It remains to observe that any two subvarieties $`F(H_1),F(H_2)V`$ must either coincide, or have empty intersection. Indeed, if $`xF(H_1)F(H_2)`$, then $`H_1,H_2St_G(x)`$. From maximality of $`|H_1|`$ and $`|H_2|`$ it follows that $`H_1=H_2=St_G(x)`$; i.e., $`F(H_1)=F(H_2)`$.

Denote by $`\{Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_k\}`$ the set of all distinct connected components of $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$. By definition, of $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$, we have $`St_G(x)=St_G(x^{})`$ for any two points $`x,x^{}Z_i`$. Thus we obtain a sequence of maximal nonabelian stabilizers $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_kG`$ : $`H_i=St_G(x)`$ $`(xZ_i)`$. We admit that $`H_i`$ may coincide with $`H_j`$ for $`ij`$. Let us consider the linear representation $`\rho _i:H_iGL(n,)=GL(TV_x)`$, where $`TV_x`$ the tangent space of $`V`$ at $`x`$. It follows from the connectedness of $`Z_i`$ that $`\rho _i`$ does not depend on the choice of $`xZ_i`$. We write $`\rho _i`$ as a direct sum of irreducible representations

$$\rho _i=\chi _1^{(i)}\mathrm{}\chi _{r_i}^{(i)}\tau _1^{(i)}\mathrm{}\tau _{s_i}^{(i)},$$

where $`\chi _1^{(i)},\mathrm{},\chi _{r_i}^{(i)}`$ are characters (representations of degree $`1`$) and each irreducible representation $`\tau _j^{(i)}`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{},s_i)`$ has degree $`2`$. Denote by $`\overline{H_i}H`$ the common kernel of the characters $`\chi _1^{(i)},\mathrm{},\chi _{r_i}^{(i)}`$ (we set $`\overline{H_i}=H_i`$ if $`r_i=0`$).

Now we define $`C(V,G)`$ to be the union of those connected components $`Z_iZ_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$ such that $`\overline{H_i}=H_i`$ (the latter holds if all characters $`\chi _1^{(i)},\mathrm{},\chi _{r_i}^{(i)}`$ are trivial or if $`r_i=0`$). It follows from the above properties of $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$ that $`C(V,G)`$ is $`G`$-invariant, smooth and has codimension at least $`2`$.

We distinguish the following cases:

Case 1: $`C(V,G)\mathrm{}`$. Then we set $`V_1`$ to be the $`G`$-equivariant blow-up of $`V_0`$ with center $`C(V,G)`$. Denote by $`\phi _1:V_1V_0`$ the corresponding projective birational $`G`$-morphism. It is obvious that the support of $`D_1:=K_{V_1}\phi _1^{}K_V+\phi _1^1D`$ is a normal crossing divisor. If $`E`$ is a connected component of the $`\phi _1`$-exceptional divisor and $`xE`$ is its arbitrary point, then $`St_G(x)St_G(\phi _1(x))`$. Since $`\phi (E)=Z_i`$ is a connected component of $`C(V,G)`$, the stabilizer of each point $`\phi _1(x)Z_i`$ is equal to $`H_i`$, and the divisor $`E`$ must be $`St_G(x)`$-invariant. Hence, we conclude that $`(V_1,D_1)`$ is a $`G`$-normal pair. In the our situation $`St_G(x)St_G(\phi _1(x))`$, because the $`H_i`$-action in the normal space to $`Z_i`$ at $`\phi _1(x)`$ has no $`1`$-dimensional $`H_i`$-invariant subspaces ($`r_i=\mathrm{dim}Z_i`$). So $`|St_G(x)|<|St_G(\phi (x))|`$. From our construction it follows that either $`s(V_1,G)<s(V_0,G)`$, or the number of connected components of $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V_1,G)`$ is less than the number of connected components of $`Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V_0,G)`$. Using induction, we eventually come to the second case:

Case 2: $`C(V,G)=\mathrm{}`$. This means that $`\overline{H_i}H_i`$ (in particular, $`r_i>0`$) for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$. We remark that all subgroups $`\overline{H_i}`$ are nontrivial, since all subgroups $`H_i`$ are nonabelian. For every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ we define $`W_i`$ to be the connected component of $`V^{\overline{H_i}}`$ containing $`Z_i`$.

###### Lemma 3

One has $`\mathrm{dim}W_i=r_i`$. In particular, the codimension of each $`W_i`$ is equal to $`_{l=1}^{s_i}\mathrm{deg}\tau _l2`$.

Proof of Lemma. Take an arbitrary point $`xZ_i`$ and write $`TV_x=TV_x^{}TV_x^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`\chi _1^{(i)}\mathrm{}\chi _{r_i}^{(i)}`$ is the $`H_i`$-action on $`TV_x^{}`$ and $`\tau _1^{(i)}\mathrm{}\tau _{s_i}^{(i)}`$ the $`H_i`$-action on $`TV_x^{\prime \prime }`$. By definition of $`\overline{H_i}`$, the group $`\overline{H_i}`$ acts trivially on $`TV_x^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{dim}TV_x^{}=r_i`$ it is enough to show that $`TV_x^{}=(TV_x)^{\overline{H_i}}`$. Assume that $`(TV_x)^{H_i^{}}`$ is larger than $`TV_x^{}`$. Since $`TV_x^{\prime \prime }`$ is a $`H_i`$-invariant complement of $`TV_x^{}`$ in $`TV_x`$, there exists a nonzero vector $`vTV_x^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`\overline{H_i}v=v`$. Since $`H_i/\overline{H_i}`$ is abelian, the linear span of $`Hv`$ must split into $`1`$-dimensional irreducible representations of $`H_i`$. But all $`\tau _1^{(i)},\mathrm{},\tau _{s_i}^{(i)}`$ have degree $`2`$. Contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`W(V,G)`$ be the union $`W_1\mathrm{}W_k`$. It is clear that $`W(V,G)`$ is $`G`$-invariant. We remark that $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_k`$ may not be necessary pairwise different.

Case 2a: $`W(V,G)`$ is smooth. Then we set $`V_1`$ to be the $`G`$-equivariant blow-up of $`V_0`$ with center $`W(V,G)`$. Using the same arguments as in Case 1, we conclude that $`s(V_1,G)<s(V_0,G)`$, because the $`H_i`$-action in the normal space to $`W_i`$ at $`xZ_i`$ has no $`1`$-dimensional $`H_i`$-invariant subspaces. This allows to use the induction on $`s(V,G)`$.

Case 2b: $`W(V,G)`$ is not smooth. Then we must first resolve singularities of $`W(V,G)`$. Denote by $`k(x)`$ the number of irreducible components of $`W(V,G)`$ containing $`xW(V,G)`$. Let $`m(V,G):=\mathrm{max}_{xW(V,G)}k(x)`$. We set

$$B(V,G):=\{xW(V,G):k(x)=m(V,G)\}W(V,G).$$

It is clear that $`B(V,G)`$ is $`G`$-invariant and smooth. Now we set $`V_1`$ to be the $`G`$-equivariant blow-up of $`V_0`$ with the center $`B(V,G)`$.

We claim that $`m(V_1,G)<m(V,G)`$. This would follow immediately from the fact that all irreducible components of $`W(V_1,G)`$ are exactly the proper birational transforms of the irreducible components of $`W(V,G)`$.

Assume that $`W(V_1,G)`$ contains an irreducible component $`W_j^{}`$ which is the connected component of $`V_1^{\overline{H_j^{}}}`$ containing a connected component $`Z_j^{}Z_{\mathrm{max}}(V_1,G)`$, where $`H_j^{}=St_G(x)`$, $`xZ_j^{}`$. We necessary have $`|H_j^{}|=s(V_1,G)=s(V,G)`$. Then $`\phi _1(Z_j^{})`$ must conside with a connected component $`Z_iZ_{\mathrm{max}}(V,G)`$ and $`H_j^{}=H_i`$. Let $`E_i`$ be the $`\phi _1`$-exceptional divisor over $`Z_i`$, $`W_i`$ the connected component of $`V^{\overline{H_i^{}}}`$ containing $`Z_i`$. Then $`B_i:=\phi _1(E_i)`$ a connected component of $`B(V,G)`$. We have $`Z_iB_iW_i`$ and $`B_iW_i`$. It remains to observe that $`Z_j^{}`$ is contained in the proper birational transform of $`W_i`$. The latter follows immediately from the decomposition of the linear representations of $`H_i`$ and $`\overline{H_i}`$ in the normal space to $`B_i`$ at any point $`xZ_i`$ (see the arguments in the proof of Lemma).

Using the induction on $`m(V,G)`$ we eventually come from Case 2b to Case2a.

$`\mathrm{}`$

I want to express my gratitude to Lev Borisov who explained me an error in the abelianization algorithm presented in  §5.


format: text

text:
# NON THERMAL EMISSION FROM GALAXY CLUSTERS: RADIO HALOS

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the radio emission from clusters of galaxies generally originates from individual radio emitting galaxies. In addition, synchrotron emission associated with the intergalactic medium, rather than to a particular galaxy, may be detected in some cases. Clusters of galaxies may exhibit diffuse extended radio sources, which have been classified as radio halos, relics and mini-halos (Feretti & Giovannini 1996). The radio halos are the most spectacular expression of cluster non-thermal emission. They permeate the cluster centers with size of the order of a Mpc or more. They are characterized by low surface brightness, steep radio spectrum, and no polarized emission detected.

The importance of these sources is that they represent large scale features, which are related to other cluster properties in the optical and X-ray domain, and are thus directly connected to the cluster history and evolution.

In this paper, the observational properties of radio halos are summarized, together with the properties of their parent clusters and a model of radio halo formation and evolution is described. Intrinsic parameters are calculated with H0 = 50 km s-1 Mpc-1 and q0 = 0.5.

## 2 Examples and properties of radio halos

The diffuse source Coma C in the Coma cluster, discovered 30 years ago (Willson 1970), is the prototypical example of a cluster radio halo. It is located at the cluster center, it has a steep radio spectrum ($`\alpha 1.3`$) and is extended $``$ 1 Mpc (Giovannini et al. 1993). Other well studied radio halos are detected in the clusters A 2255 (Feretti et al. 1997a) and A 2319 (Feretti et al. 1997b).

In Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, we show images of giant and powerful radio halos discovered in distant clusters. The radio images presented here have been obtained with the Very Large Array at 20 cm. The radio halo in A 665 is one of the largest known so far, with the size of 2.4 Mpc (Giovannini & Feretti 2000). The radio emission is slightly asymmetric with respect to the cluster center, being brighter and more extended toward NW. This cluster has a temperature of 8.3 keV, no cooling flow, and is suggested by X-ray data to be in a postmerger state (Markevitch 1996, Gomez et al. 2000). The halo in CL 0016+16 (Giovannini & Feretti 2000) is the most distant radio halo known so far. It is extended 1.1 Mpc and is co-located with the cluster X-ray emission. The cluster has a temperature of 8.2 keV, and shows strong evidence of substructure which is possibly due to merging of a galaxy group with the main cluster (Neumann & Böhringer 1997). The halo in A 520 is extended 1.4 Mpc, with the radio structure elongated in NE-SW direction (Govoni et al., in preparation). The two tailed radio sources on the eastern side are cluster radio galaxies. The cluster temperature is 8.6 keV. The halo in A 2744 shows a regular and symmetric structure, with a total size of about 2.2 Mpc (Govoni et al., in preparation). The elongated diffuse emission in the NE peripheral region is classified as a cluster relic. This cluster is very hot, with a temperature of 11 keV, and shows X-ray substructure, which is possible indication of a recent merger.

In general, the sizes of radio halos are typically larger than 1 Mpc. Their radio powers are of the order of 1024-1025 W Hz-1 at 1.4 GHz. Minimum energy densities are between $``$ 5 10-14 and 2 10-13 erg cm-3. This implies that the pressure of relativistic electrons is much lower than that of the thermal plasma. Equipartition magnetic fields are about $``$0.1-1$`\mu `$G. These values are lower than the cluster magnetic field strenghts obtained from Rotation Measure arguments, and are of the same order as the estimates derived from Inverse-Compton X-ray emission. It should be noticed that the Rotation Measure estimates could be sensitive to the presence of filamentary sructure in the cluster and/or to the existence of local turbulence around the radio galaxies, and could therefore be higher than the average cluster value.

## 3 Properties of clusters with radio halos

Unlike the thermal X-ray emission, the radio halos are not a common feature in clusters of galaxies. Until recently, the number of halos was small, thus these sources were considered to be a rare phenomenon. Nowadays, thanks to the better sensitivity of radio telescopes and to the existence of deep surveys, more than 25 clusters are known to host radio halos at their centers (Giovannini et al. 1999), therefore some statistical considerations can be drawn.

The percentage of clusters showing central radio halos in the complete X-ray flux limited sample extracted from Ebeling et al. (1996) is of $``$5%. The detection rate increases with the X-ray luminosity being $``$30-35% in clusters with X-ray luminosity larger than 1045 erg s-1. The clusters hosting a radio halo have a significantly higher X-ray luminosity than clusters without a diffuse source ($`>`$ 99.9% confidence level with a KS test) (Giovannini et al. 2000).

The high luminosity of clusters with radio halos implies that these clusters also have a high temperature and a large mass. This is consistent with the serendipitous detection of halos during the attempts to detect Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in massive high redshift clusters.

In previous studies (e.g. Feretti 1999, Feretti 2000) radio halos have been found to be associated with clusters showing indication of merger processes from X-ray and optical structure, and from X-ray temperature gradients.

Moreover, a correlation is found between the monochromatic radio power at 1.4 GHz of radio halos and the bolometric X-ray luminosity of the parent clusters. This implies a correlation between radio power and cluster temperature, as shown by Liang et al. (2000). Since the cluster X-ray luminosity and mass are correlated as well as the temperature and mass, it follows that the halo radio power also correlates with the cluster mass.

Radio structures of halos show in many cases close similarity to the X-ray structures, suggesting a causal connection between the hot and relativistic plasma. To quantify the similarity in the radio and X-ray structures, Govoni et al. (2000) performed an analysis of the radio and the X-ray emission in four clusters of galaxies containing radio halos (Coma, A 2255, A 2319, A 2744). This study leads to a correlation between the radio and the X-ray brightness in all the analyzed clusters: a higher X-ray brightness is associated with a higher radio brightness. The relation between the radio and the X-ray brightness is found to be linear in A 2255 and A 2744, whereas it is represented by a sublinear power-law in the other two clusters of galaxies.

## 4 The 2-phase model for radio halo formation and evolution

Radio halos directly demonstrate the existence of cluster–wide magnetic fields and of relativistic electrons within the cluster intergalactic medium. A number of models have been invoked to explain radio halo formation and their broad band radiative properties (see Enßlin 2000; Sarazin this meeting). Observations suggest that central radio halos are strictly related to the presence of recent merging processes, which can provide the energy for the electron reacceleration and magnetic field amplification. Furthermore, as discussed above, also the high X–ray luminosity, the large cluster mass and/or the high cluster temperature appear to be necessary conditions for their formation. One would conclude that the dynamical history of the clusters is crucial to trigger a radio halo. We have developed a two phase model consisting of a first phase during which relativistic electrons are injected in the cluster volume by strong shocks, sturburst and/or AGN activity and of a second phase during which the aged electrons are reaccelerated by recent merging processes (Brunetti et al. 2000a). In the framework of this model we find two general results:

$``$ The formation of luminous radio halos may not be a common phenomenon. Indeed the injected relativistic electrons suffer efficient radiation and Coulomb losses and rapidly cool. This prevents the formation of a radio halo if the time gap between the first and second phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is larger than $`23`$ Gyr. Furthermore, in order to allow the formation of a radio halo during the reacceleration phase, the number of relativistic electrons injected during the first phase should be large enough, increasing with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In this framework one could claim that the radio halo formation is favoured in the case of massive clusters which probably derive from a stronger merger activity in the past and where the injection of larger quantities of cosmic rays is more efficient.

$``$ Central radio halos triggered during the second phase by diffuse reacceleration processes are expected to show a steepening in the synchrotron spectrum with increasing distance from the center of the cluster. Indeed, the magnetic field strength is expected to be a decreasing function of the radius and so probably also the reacceleration efficiency.

The model has been applied in detail to the well studied radio halo Coma C (Brunetti et al. 2000a). The radial steepening of the radio spectrum observed in Coma C (Giovannini et al. 1993, Deiss et al. 1997) has been used to constrain the physical conditions in the cluster, obtaining reacceleration efficiencies of the order of $`10^8`$yr-1 and average magnetic field strengths ranging from 1–3 $`\mu G`$ in the central regions to 0.05–0.1 $`\mu G`$ in the external parts of the cluster ($``$ 2–3 Mpc). The model satisfactorily reproduces the total radio spectrum of Coma C and the size of the halo. The expected hard X–ray inverse Compton emission, mainly produced at relatively large distances from the cluster center ($`1.5`$ Mpc), is consistent with the flux detected by BeppoSAX (Fusco–Femiano et al. 1999).

As previously discussed, the relativistic electrons radiating within the halo were injected during the past history of the cluster. However, additional electron injection could also derive from recent activity in the cluster. Although it has been shown that the radio halo phenomenon does not appear to be correlated with the presence of AGNs in the cluster (in particular with head tail radio sources, Giovannini & Feretti 2000), even a modest injection of star forming galaxies and AGNs could affect the broad band properties of radio halos. In a recent paper, Brunetti et al. (2000b) have calculated, in the framework of the above described two phase model, the evolution of the spectrum of relativistic electrons recently injected (in the last 0.1–0.3 Gyr) by the head tail radio galaxy NGC 4869 in Coma. It was found that the fresh–injected population does not significantly contribute to the $`300`$ MHz spectrum of the radio halo but it could significantly contribute to the emission at lower frequencies. Accurate measurements at low frequencies, such as those obtainable with the VLA at 74 MHz, are of crucial importance to test the model. In this scenario, a large fraction (if not all) of the EUV excess detected in the Coma cluster (Bowyer et al. 1999) may be accounted for by the inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons by the recently injected population, whose contribution to the hard X–ray emission is however not relevant. The spectral distribution of the two electron populations in the Coma cluster are reported in Fig.3. Due to radiative losses and reacceleration gains, the energy distribution of the recently injected population is expected to become very similar to the main electron population with increasing time ( $`1`$ Gyr).

## Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by the Italian Space Agency (ASI).

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The primary purpose here is to observe the perturbative aspects of noncommutative quantum field theory. After viewing in Sec. 2 one motivation why noncommutative quantum field theory becomes interesting, we argue ultraviolet (UV) property derived from perturbative consideration  with an introduction to perturbative framework of noncommutative quantum field theory in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4, we examine the infrared (IR) aspects, and show how it is closely related to UV ones, especially in noncommutative Yang-Mills (NCYM) theory. Final section is devoted to the discussion and conclusion.

## 2 Motivation

Noncommutative field theory appears in the matrix models . The matrix model conjecture  is intended to provide a constructive definition of the superstring theory and to extract nonperturbative consequences of the interacting superstring dynamics, which will enable us to ask whether string theory is real or not. However, for instance, IIB matrix model  does not have any dimensionless coupling constant which can be decreased at will. Therefore, the direct perturbative analysis is not available in that model.

One way to see appearance of noncommutative Yang-Mills theory from matrix model is to expand IIB matrix model action around BPS solution

$$[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]=iC^{\mu \nu }1_N.$$
(1)
where the size of bosonic matrices $`X^M`$ ($`M=1,\mathrm{},10`$) is taken to be infinite. $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`C^{\nu \mu }`$ denotes the abelian part of the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\mu `$ is restricted to $`1,\mathrm{},4`$. Reminding that IIB matrix proposes that the eigenvalues of $`X^M`$ constitutes the points of the universe, at least semiclassically, the above relation (1) implies that the location of each point $`x^\mu `$ is uncertain in those four directions:

$$\left|x^\mu \right|\left|x^\nu \right|2\pi \left|C^{\mu \nu }\right|\mathrm{for}\mu \nu ,$$
(2)
and that $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ characterizes the minimal area of accuracy in each two-dimensional plane.

IIB matrix model action gives an action with respect to the fluctuation $`a_\mu `$ (and the other six bosonic coordinates and fermionic variables) around the previous BPS solution (1), where $`X^\mu =X_{(0)}^\mu +C^{\mu \nu }a_\nu `$ and $`X_{(0)}^\mu `$ is the classical part satisfying eq. (1). Indeed, through the map called as “Weyl correspondence”, the system can be described in terms of a four-dimensional field theory (See Ref.  on its detail.). The resulting theory is $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric noncommutative Yang-Mills (NCYM) theory, where the fields in the action are multiplied by the star-product (See, e.g, Ref.  for its original geometric construction, its appearance in the other physical systems and references.) defined by

$`(fg)(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}_\mu C^{\mu \nu }_\nu ^{}\right)f(x)g(x^{})|_{x^{}x},`$ (3)
where $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ is the parameter appearing before. For the coordinates, for instance, we obtain

$$x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\mu =iC^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
This algebraic relation is isomorphic to the original algebra (1) satisfied by the background represented by matrices.

Now the coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{NCYM}}`$ in the resulting Yang-Mills theory is given by

$$g_{\mathrm{NCYM}}^2=\frac{4\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{IIB}}^2}{C^2}.$$
(5)
Here $`g_{\mathrm{IIB}}`$ is the coupling constant of the original matrix model and also has dimension of the length squared. In the canonical basis of $`C^{\mu \nu }`$, it has been assumed that $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ = $`C`$ ( $`i\sigma _21`$ \+ $`1i\sigma _2`$ ) for simplicity. Thus, by taking $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ sufficiently large compared to $`g_{\mathrm{IIB}}`$, we get weak coupling NCYM theory. Hence, we can investigate the dynamics of matrix model by analyzing the quantum mechanical aspect of NCYM theory. The challenge is to show the existence of gravity and string in the quantized NCYM system. If this is shown, it will give a strong evidence that supports the entire matrix model as constructive definition of superstring. The structures of deformation of the open string algebra due to closed string background and the background independence  might also be further demonstrated.

However, since we do not know noncommutative quantum field theory itself so well, we are inclined to begin with examination of simpler systems, and capture the generic aspects possessed by noncommutative quantum field theory.

In the succeeding sections, we would like to see a few remarkable features of the perturbative noncommutative field theory.

## 3 Perturbative analysis of noncommutative field theory

In order to figure out the basic facets of the perturbative framework  of noncommutative quantum field theory, we pay our attention to the noncommutative extension of a real scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in Euclidean four-dimensional space (see Ref.  on its detail)

$`S_{\varphi _4^4}={\displaystyle d^4x\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi \varphi +\frac{\lambda }{4}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \right]}.`$ (6)
The procedure for perturbation theory is the same as that in the ordinary field theory. The first task is to derive Feynman rule from the action (6). Then we apply Feynman rule to write down the diagrams relevant to the process and to the order of the coupling constant, and evaluate the associated contributions.

To derive Feynman rule, it is convenient to work in momentum space:

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p).$$
(7)
Then the star product works on the basis elements $`e^{ipx}`$ in such a way that

$`e^{ipx}e^{iqx}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2i}^{}}e^{ipx}e^{iqx^{}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}pq}e^{i(p+q)x},`$
where $`pqp_\mu C^{\mu \nu }q_\nu =qp`$. This extra phase factor is reminiscent of noncommutativity of the star product.

First, we consider the propagator. Due to the total momentum conservation of the system, only one momentum is linearly independent. Thus, there is no room for phase factors to enter; the propagator is the same as in the ordinary field theory

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(q)=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p+q)\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}.$$
(9)
However, the interaction vertex picks up nontrivial phase factor

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+\mathrm{}+p_4)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}p_ip_j\right)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p_4),`$ (10)
from the star-product. Due to this phase factor, the interaction has only cyclic symmetry, in contrast to the point vertex in the ordinary real scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory which is invariant under the whole permutation group. Such a loss of symmetry of the vertex is better described if the vertex and legs get some width. The width does not permit us to exchange the two neighboring external legs, for instance. Alternatively, if multiple lines, rather than one, are assigned to each leg, they also retain only cyclic symmetry. The ordinary Yang-Mills theory is such an example . It gives natural description of the propagator based on the double line representation, each line carrying the color degrees of freedom. In fact, also to the noncommutative field theory, the double line representation will turn out to be suitable This aspect is most crucial to observe the important fact that noncommutative field theory gives the same UV structure as that of the corresponding ordinary large N field theory.

To pursue the best picture, we attempt to write each momentum $`p_j`$ as a combination of outgoing and incoming momenta

$$p_j=k_jk_{j1}.$$
(11)
($`k_0=k_4`$), and examine the consequences. By drawing the flow of each new momentum $`k_j`$, we get the double line representation for the vertex as shown in Fig. 1.

To see that this parametrization is natural, we rewrite the vertex (10) in terms of $`k_i`$

$`{\displaystyle 4^4\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^4k_j}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_4)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left[e^{\frac{i}{2}k_4k_1}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k_1k_4)\right]\times \mathrm{}\times \left[e^{\frac{i}{2}k_3k_4}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k_4k_3)\right].`$ (12)
($`4^4`$ is the Jacobian factor due to the change of the variables from $`p_i`$’s to $`k_j`$’s.) There, the expression of the phase factor has simplified: $`_{i<j}p_ip_j`$ $`=`$ $`_{i=1}^4k_ik_{i+1}`$, and each piece has been placed in front of the field which depends on the same pair of momenta in eq. (12). Regarding the quantity in each bracket as a matrix element

$$\varphi [k_1,k_2]=e^{\frac{i}{2}k_1k_2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k_2k_1)$$
(13)
labeled by two momenta, it is easy to see that it constitutes a “hermitian” matrix

$$\left(\varphi [k_1,k_2]\right)^{}=\varphi [k_2,k_1],$$
(14)
from reality condition $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p)^{}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p)`$ in momentum space.

What we learn here is that, such a hermitian quantity is a building block of the interaction vertex in the noncommutative real scalar theory, and expresses Feynman rule compactly by the “double-line” representation.

Taking into account of these facts, we are inclined to recall the ordinary hermitian matrix field theory with quartic interaction

$`S_{\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_4^4\right]_N}={\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{tr}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{\lambda _H}{4N}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right]},`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is an $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix-valued field. The factor $`1/N`$ in front of quartic interaction is prepared for the future purpose to take large N limit. In terms of the momentum space variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(p)`$, the interaction vertex of large N hermitian matrix field theory takes the form

$`{\displaystyle 4^4\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^4k_j}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_4)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _H}{4N}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i_4}^{i_1}(k_1k_4)\times \mathrm{}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i_3}^{i_4}(k_4k_3).`$ (16)
Comparison of eq. (12) and eq. (16) shows that Feynman diagrams drawn in noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$ theory and large N hermitian matrix field theory coincide with each other, including their combinatoric factors.

Explicit evaluation of the diagrams show that the phase factor in noncommutative field theory plays the role of the color indices carried by the matrix field in the large N field theory; the phase factor distinguishes planar and nonplanar diagrams. To illustrate this aspect in more detail, we consider one loop contribution to the two point function in both theories. There are two types of diagrams as shown in Fig. 2.

As noted before, in both theories, we can draw the same diagrams. Thus, also in the side of noncommutative field theory, we can use the same terminology to distinguish these two types of the diagrams as in the ordinary field theory . That is, Fig. 2(a) is called as planar while Fig. 2(b) as nonplanar.

First we recall the situation in the side of large N field theory

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{planar}}^{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{N}}(p,\lambda _H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _H}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^2+m^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{nonplanar}}^{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{N}}(p,\lambda _H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _H}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^2+m^2}}.`$ (17)
Both diagrams diverge quadratically, but the large N limit extracts planar one (planar limit).

We return to the side of noncommutative field theory. There, the direct computation shows that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{planar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^2+m^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{nonplanar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipq}\frac{1}{q^2+m^2}},`$ (18)
We see that the planar diagram in Fig. 2(a) gets no phase factors. Its contribution coincides with that of large N field theory

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{planar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda )=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{planar}}^{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{N}}(p,\lambda ),$$
(19)
and diverges quadratically. However, the nonplanar diagram in Fig. 2(b) gets nonzero phase factor. We would like to see what is the effect of such a phase factor.

The Schwinger parametrization of the propagator enables us to perform the momentum integration

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{nonplanar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha m^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\right),`$ (20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =C^{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$. Then the UV limit is translated to the vanishing limit of $`\alpha `$. Nonzero noncommutative parameter ensures that the integral converges since the exponentially suppression factor works when $`\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{}`$. The conclusion is that nonplanar diagram is UV-finite in noncommutative field theory.

Recalling that planar diagram contributions are the same in both theories, the UV limit of noncommutative field theory is equivalent to the UV and planar limit of the corresponding large N field theory . This is the aspects of UV limit of noncommutative field theory. It is determined by the planar diagrams.

## 4 IR aspect of noncommutative field theory

Next we would like to examine IR limit of noncommutative field theory. For that purpose, we return to the nonplanar contribution (20) to the two-point function. The simple rescaling $`\alpha =\stackrel{~}{p}^2t`$ shows that this diverges in the IR side quadratically

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{nonplanar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda )\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{for}p_\mu 0.$$
(21)
To pursue its origin, we set $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ to zero. Then, the integral is that of the planar diagram, which diverges quadratically. It can be regularized by introducing the ultraviolet cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{planar}}^{\mathrm{NC}}(p,\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\right).`$ (22)
The cutoff-dependence found above reflects the quadratic divergence of the planar diagram. Comparison of the planar contribution (22) to the nonplanar contribution (20) shows that nonzero $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`p_\mu `$ replace the cutoff dependence of the planar diagrams with $`1/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ in nonplanar diagrams. The IR-divergent behavior generated by the nonplanar diagrams reflects the UV-divergent behavior of the planar diagrams .

We examine more interesting system, i.e, U(1) noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, in detail. We consider the transverse part of the renormalized vacuum polarization for the photon 111 There arises another hard singular term proportional to the Lorentz structure, which is intrinsic to the nonvanishing noncommutativity $`C^{\mu \nu }`$. Its implication is discussed in Ref. . . Its ultraviolet behavior is dominated by the planar diagrams

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)|_{\mathrm{transverse}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\mathrm{ln}(q^2)\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }q^2q_\mu q_\nu \right)\mathrm{for}\left|q\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left|C\right|}}}.`$
The infrared limit, which is now dominated by nonplanar diagrams. can be computed

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)|_{\mathrm{transverse}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{q}^2)\right)\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }q^2q_\mu q_\nu \right)\mathrm{for}\left|q\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left|C\right|}}}.`$
Note that $`\left(\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{q}^2)\right)`$ is positive for $`\left|q\right|1/\sqrt{\left|C\right|}`$. From those results, we see that the logarithmic nature of singularities coincide with each other. Furthermore, both limiting behaviors coincide with each other, including a numerical coefficient 222 This relation has been argued from point of view of string world-sheet. See Ref.  and the references therein.

There is an example which does not give such a precise correspondence between the infrared and ultraviolet sides as found in NCYM theory. It is noncommutative QED, which is a noncommutative generalization of QED . Another aspect of that theory is that we cannot find its counterpart of large N field theory associated with noncommutative QED 333 $`\mathrm{U}(N_C)`$ NCYM theory with the number $`N_F`$ of quarks has its counterpart of large N field theory, i.e., $`\mathrm{SU}(N_C)`$ QCD with $`N_F`$ quarks . .

## 5 Conclusion and discussion

Here we have observed a few fundamental properties of noncommutative quantum field theory. Its UV limit is governed by planar diagrams, and usually also described by the corresponding large N field theory.

We have also seen that a new type of singularity in the infrared side is generated by the nonplanar diagrams, and it has a close relationship to the behavior at UV limit.

It is interesting to ask the practical issue whether noncommutative quantum field theory accommodates the quantum theory of gravity and string (See the recent attempts in Ref. ), especially whether the connection of IR and UV sides observed in NCYM theory is manifestation of some duality nature (e.g. closed-open channel duality) of string theory.

## Acknowledgements

The author thanks to financial support from theory group at KEK.


text:
# Entropic-Acoustic instability in shocked accretion flows

## 1 Introduction

Hydrodynamic instabilities in the process of accretion onto a compact star may help to understand the time variability of the emission from X-ray binaries. For example, the supersonic motion of a compact star in a uniform gas, first described by Hoyle & Lyttleton (1939), Bondi & Hoyle (1944), was later found to be unstable in numerical simulations (Matsuda et al. 1987, Fryxell & Taam 1988, Matsuda et al. 1992, Ruffert & Arnett 1994). In such flows, the gas captured by the accretor is first heated and decelerated to subsonic velocities through a shock, and then accelerated to supersonic velocities towards the accretor. Observationnal consequences of the instability were discussed by Taam et al. (1988), Livio (1992), De Kool & Anzer (1993). Nevertheless, this instability is still poorly understood even in its simplest formulation. A recent attempt by Foglizzo & Ruffert (1999) has led us to look in more detail at the interplay of acoustic and entropy waves in the subsonic flow between the bow shock and the accretor. We identify in the present paper an entropic-acoustic cycle: entropy perturbations advected with the flow trigger acoustic waves propagating back to the shock, where in turn they trigger new entropy perturbations. The linear stability of this cycle depends on the efficiencies of these two processes, measuring:

(i) the amplitude of the pressure perturbations $`\delta p^{}`$ propagating against the stream, triggered by the advection of an entropy wave of amplitude $`\delta S_1`$,

(ii) the amplitude of the entropy perturbation $`\delta S_2`$ triggered by the interaction of an acoustic wave $`\delta p^{}`$ with a stationary shock.
The entropic-acoustic cycle is a priori unstable if $`\delta S_2>\delta S_1`$. As will be seen throughout this paper, a complete description of the entropic-acoustic instability requires to take into account acoustic waves $`\delta p^+`$ propagating with the stream, triggered by the interaction of $`\delta p^{}`$ with the shock and refracted out by the flow gradients.
Since such entropic-acoustic cycles may be present in astrophysical flows other than the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion, the present paper is dedicated to a description of this generic mechanism in its most general formulation. Similar entropic-acoustic cycles have been studied extensively in the context of jet nozzles, where the gravitational potential plays no role. In particular, the first process (i) is well known among the combustion community since the works of Candel (1972) and Marble (1973). A clear overview of the subject can be found in Marble & Candel (1977). An example of entropic-acoustic instability in nozzles is the ramjet ’rumble’ instability studied by Abouseif, Keklak & Toong (1984), where the combustion zone plays the same role as the shock in the second process (ii).
The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we analyze the excitation of acoustic waves by the advection of entropy perturbations. The entropy perturbations produced by a sound wave reaching a shock are estimated in Sect. 3. These two processes are combined into a global mode in Sect. 4, where we characterize its spectrum of eigenfrequencies. Possible astrophysical applications are discussed in Sect. 5.

## 2 Acoustic energy released by the advection of entropy perturbations in an irrotational flow

### 2.1 Energy released by the advection of a localized perturbation of entropy

We wish to estimate the energy $`\delta E_{12}`$ released by the advection of a perturbation $`\delta S`$ of entropy into a gravitational potential, from a region I where the unperturbed velocity, sound speed and gravitational potential are $`v_1,c_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ to a region II closer to the accretor where their respective values are $`v_2,c_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. These quantities are related through the conservation of the Bernoulli constant $`B`$ in the unperturbed flow. Denoting by $`\gamma `$ the adiabatic index of the gas, and by $`h`$ its enthalpy,

$`B`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}+h+\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (1)
$`h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\gamma 1}}.`$ (2)
A direct calculation of $`\delta E_{12}`$ is possible when the unperturbed flow is uniform before and after the region of convergence, so that the entropy perturbation has enough time to reach a pressure equilibrium with the surrounding gas (see Fig. 1). Let $`m+\delta m`$ be the mass of the gas with a perturbed entropy $`S+\delta S`$. From the conservation of entropy,

$$\frac{\delta m}{m}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }\frac{\mu \delta S}{}\right)1.$$
(3)
For the sake of simplicity, the ratio of the molecular weight $`\mu `$ to the gas constant $``$ is set to $`\mu /=1`$ throughout this paper, with no loss of generality. The total energy $`\delta E_{12}`$ released during the advection through the nozzle is calculated in Appendix A:

$$\delta E_{12}=(h_2h_1)\delta m.$$
(4)
This calculation, which involves no linearization, indicates that the the release of energy during the advection of a localized entropy perturbation is a fundamental process associated to the variation of enthalpy in the flow. $`\delta E_{12}`$ corresponds to the sum of the energies of two localized pressure perturbations propagating with and against the stream. According to Eq. (4), the bigger the increase of entropy through the flow, the bigger the release of acoustic energy by the advection of entropy perturbations. In an accretion flow governed by a gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }GM/r`$, the lengthscale of the inhomogeneity of the flow scales like the distance $`r`$ to the accretor. Consequently there is no region II where the flow is uniform as in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the time needed by an entropy perturbation to reach a pressure equilibrium with the surrounding gas is of the order of the sound crossing time $`\delta l/c`$, where $`\delta l`$ is the length of the entropy perturbation along the flow. The distance it travels before the pressure equilibrium is reached is of the order of $`\delta l`$, where $`v/c`$ is the mach number of the flow. The above calculation of $`\delta E_{12}`$ is thus relevant for an accretion flow in the region where the length of the perturbation is short enough compared to the scale of the flow inhomogeneities:

$$\frac{\delta l}{r}1.$$
(5)
Note that Eq. (4) does not specify the relative amplitudes of the pressure perturbations propagating with and against the stream.

### 2.2 Acoustic flux released by the advection of an entropy wave

If the entropy perturbation were an extended entropy wave, we expect acoustic waves to be triggered by the enthalpy gradient, by the same process as described in Sect. 2.1. By definition, the acoustic energy of an acoustic wave is the part of the energy which depends (in a quadratic way) only on the linear approximation of this wave (e.g. Lighthill 1978, Chap. 1.3). The flux $`F^\pm `$ of this acoustic energy is defined by:

$$F^\pm \dot{M}_0c^2\frac{(1\pm )^2}{}\left(\frac{\delta p^\pm }{\gamma p}\right)^2,$$
(6)
where $`\dot{M}_0`$ is the mass flux and $`v/c`$ the Mach number. The index ($`+`$) is used to denote the wave propagating in the direction of the flow, ($``$) otherwise. Any perturbation can be decomposed in the linear approximation onto the acoustic and entropic modes as a sum of a pressure perturbation $`\delta p=\delta p^++\delta p^{}`$ and an entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$ (e.g. Landau & Lifshitz 1987, Chap. 82). The linear response of the flow to small perturbations is described by the two complex coefficients $`_1,𝒬_1`$ defined at a position $`r_1`$ in the flow as follows

$$\frac{\delta p_1^{}}{p_1}=_1\frac{\delta p_1^+}{p_1}+𝒬_1\delta S_1.$$
(7)
The coefficient $`_1`$ is directly related to the refraction of the acoustic flux of an incoming pressure perturbation $`\delta p_1^+`$ by the flow inhomogeneities. Using Eqs. (6) and (7) with $`\delta S=0`$, the fraction of refracted acoustic flux is:

$$\frac{F_1^+}{F_1^{}}=\left(\frac{1_1}{1+_1}\right)^2_1^2.$$
(8)
If there is no incident acoustic wave ($`\delta p_1^+=0`$), the acoustic flux $`F_1^{}`$ propagating against the stream is directly related to the amplitude of the incident entropy perturbation, and depend on the coefficient $`𝒬_1`$ as follows:

$$F_1^{}\dot{M}_0c_1^2\frac{(1_1)^2}{_1}𝒬_1^2\left(\frac{\delta S_1}{\gamma }\right)^2.$$
(9)
Both $`_1`$ and $`𝒬_1`$ depend on the frequency $`\omega `$ of the perturbation. An accurate calculation of $`_1,𝒬_1`$ in a realistic accretion flow is beyond the scope of the present paper, since it would require solving the full set of linearized Euler equations. This will be done in the particular case of a radial flow in a forthcoming paper (Foglizzo 2000). The frequency dependence of $`_1`$ can be anticipated by remarking that the refraction is negligible for acoustic wave with a wavelength much shorter than the scale of the inhomogeneities of the flow. In an adiabatic accretion flow, the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }GM/r`$ is responsible for both the acceleration and the heating of the flow. The lengthscale of the flow inhomogeneities decreases towards the accretor, so that we expect a strong refraction at low frequency and a negligible refraction at high frequency. If the accretion flow is accelerated up to supersonic velocities through a sonic surface, acoustic waves with a high enough frequency to penetrate in the supersonic region cannot be refracted out: a frequency cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ therefore corresponds to the highest frequency above which refraction becomes negligible.

### 2.3 Estimates of $`_1,𝒬_1`$ based on the compact nozzle approximation

We build in Appendix B a toy model to obtain rough estimates of the entropic-acoustic coupling in an accretion flow where the mach number increases from $`_11`$ to $`1`$. The refraction point $`r_a(\omega )`$ of acoustic waves of frequency $`\omega `$ separates the flow into two regions:

\- a region of propagation $`rr_a`$ where both the entropic-acoustic coupling and the acoustic refraction are negligible,

\- a region $`rr_a`$ where entropy perturbations are coupled to acoustic waves, and where acoustic waves are refracted.
The propagation of acoustic waves in the first region is easily described using the conservation of their acoustic flux. The region of coupling is described using the ”compact nozzle approximation”, used for jet nozzles by Marble & Candel (1977). This approximation is valid for perturbations with a long enough wavelength in order to treat the nozzle as a discontinuity in the flow. The formulae obtained by Marble & Candel (1977) are extended in Appendix B to the case of a flow in a potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In this academic case, the nozzle separates the upstream region characterized by a uniform velocity $`v_a`$, mach number $`_a<1`$ and potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$, and a downstream region characterized by $`v_b,_b,\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$. Here again, the wavelength of the perturbations is assumed to be longer than the size of the nozzle. The compact nozzle approximation enables us to compute the amplitude of the acoustic wave $`\delta p_a^{}/p_a`$ propagating upstream against the current, triggered by the refraction of an incoming acoustic wave $`\delta p_a^+/p_a`$ or by the advection of an entropy wave $`\delta S_a`$.
The following estimates of $`|_1|,|𝒬_1|`$ are deduced from Appendix B:

$`|_1|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_1}{1_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2v_ac_a}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}},`$ (10)
$`|𝒬_1|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_1^{\frac{1}{2}}_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_a}{c_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}.`$ (11)
Following the argument of Appendix B, the most efficient entropic-acoustic coupling is expected at frequencies close to the refraction cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The maximum value of $`|𝒬_1|`$ is then of the order of

$$|𝒬_1|0.3\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}}{c_1}\mathrm{if}c_{\mathrm{son}}c_1.$$
(12)
According to the Bernoulli Eq. (1) with a gravitational potential:

$$c_{\mathrm{son}}^2=2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}\left(\frac{GM}{r_{\mathrm{son}}}+B\right).$$
(13)
The coupling coefficient $`|𝒬_1|`$ deduced from Eqs. (12) and (13) can be very large if the sonic radius $`r_{\mathrm{son}}`$ is close to the accretor, as in the radial accretion of a gas with an adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ close to 5/3 (Bondi 1952, Foglizzo & Ruffert 1997). We wish to emphasize the fact that Eq. (12) comes out of a rather idealized toy model where both the refraction of acoustic waves and their coupling to entropy perturbations occur in a localized ”compact” region. Nevertheless, we assume it is realistic enough to expect $`|𝒬_1|1`$ if $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_1`$.

## 3 Entropy perturbation produced by a sound wave reaching a shock

The acoustic energy propagating against the flow, released by the processes studied above, would escape far from the accretor if no particular boundary is met. This energy however may feed a cycle if some physical process enables the conversion of acoustic energy into entropy perturbations. A similar cycle occurs in jet nozzles, where sound waves reaching the combustion region perturb the combustion and produce entropy perturbations. Here we focus on the case of a sationary shock satisfying the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. For the sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case of a shock in the plane $`y,z`$ with incident Mach number $`_0`$ in the $`x`$ direction. The mach number $`_{\mathrm{sh}}<1`$ immediately after the shock is related to $`_0>1`$ through the classical relation:

$$_{\mathrm{sh}}^2=\frac{2+(\gamma 1)_0^2}{2\gamma _0^2\gamma +1}>\frac{\gamma 1}{2\gamma }.$$
(14)
Let a sound wave $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ propagate against the stream along the $`x`$-axis in the subsonic region where the sound speed is $`c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. The more general case of any angle of incidence is treated in Foglizzo (2000). The incident sound wave perturbs the shock surface and generates both a reflected sound wave $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^+`$ and an entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$. We define the reflexion coefficient $`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and the efficiency of entropy production $`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ as follows:

$`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^+}{\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}}},`$ (15)
$`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{sh}}\delta S}{\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}}}.`$ (16)
A simple calculation in Appendix C, similar to Landau & Lifshitz (1987, chap. 90), shows that $`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ are real functions of $`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`\gamma `$. For a strong shock ($`_0^22/(\gamma 1)`$), the coefficients $`_{\mathrm{sh}},𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ depend only on the adiabatic index $`\gamma `$:

$`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}+2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}},`$ (17)
$`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{3}{2}}}{(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}+2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]}}.`$ (18)
## 4 Global instability

At a given frequency $`\omega `$, let us define $`\tau _+,\tau _E`$ as respectively the time of acoustic propagation and the advection time from the shock to the refraction point, and $`\tau _{}`$ the time of acoustic propagation from the refraction poin to the shock. $`\tau _{AA}\tau _{}+\tau _+`$ is the duration of the purely acoustic cycle, while $`\tau _{EA}\tau _{}+\tau _E`$ is the duration of the entropic-acoustic cycle.

### 4.1 Instability of the entropic-acoustic cycle

A first estimate of the entropic-acoustic instability is obtained by neglecting the effect of the purely acoustic cycle. The adiabatic advection of an entropy perturbation of amplitude $`\delta S`$ into regions of higher enthalpy produces acoustic waves $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}/p_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ estimated in Sect. 2. When these acoustic waves reach the shock, new entropy perturbations are created and were estimated in Sect. 3. This leads us to define the global efficiency $`𝒬`$ of the entropic-acoustic cycle as follows:

$$𝒬𝒬_1𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}},$$
(19)
As for classical problems of modes in e.g. acoustic cavities, the integral phase condition for the existence of an entropic-acoustic mode constrains the real part $`\omega _{r,n}`$ of its frequency:

$$\omega _{r,n}=\frac{n\pi }{\tau _{EA}},$$
(20)
where the integer $`n`$ must be even if $`𝒬>0`$ (e.g. in an accretion flow), and odd otherwise (e.g. in a jet nozzle). Note that the duration $`\tau _{EA}`$ of the entropic-acoustic cycle also depends on the frequency through the position of the refraction point. The condition of instability of the entropic-acoustic cycle is $`|𝒬|>1`$. This leads us to define the global growth (or damping) rate $`\omega _{i,n}`$ associated to the mode $`n`$:

$$\omega _{i,n}=\frac{1}{\tau _{EA}}\mathrm{log}|𝒬|.$$
(21)
### 4.2 Which accretion flows are unstable ?

On the one hand, we know from Sect. 2.3 that the coefficient $`|𝒬_1|1`$ if $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. On the other hand, we show in Appendix D that the coefficient $`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ may damp the instability if the shock is too weak. Thus the global efficiency $`|𝒬|`$ exceeds unity for flows such that $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ with a strong shock, as in the Bondi-Hoyle accretion with $`\gamma `$ close to $`5/3`$ at high Mach number. Following the compact approximation, the frequency of the most unstable mode is close to the refraction cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$, which corresponds to a very high order $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ if $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$:

$$n_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{cut}}\tau _{EA}}{\pi }1.$$
(22)
Eq. (21) indicates that the growth rate depends logarithmically on $`|𝒬|`$, so that the maximum growth rate is always of the order of the inverse of the duration $`\tau _{EA}`$ of a whole entropic-acoustic cycle if $`|𝒬|1`$. Using Eq. (12),

$$\omega _{i,\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{\tau _{EA}}\mathrm{log}\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}}{c_{\mathrm{sh}}}.$$
(23)
### 4.3 Contribution of the purely acoustic cycle

A refined estimate of the growth rate and frequency of the instability should take into account the sound waves $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^+`$ produced at the shock with the efficiency $`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, and their refraction near the sonic radius with the efficiency $`_1`$. The global efficiency $``$ of the purely acoustic cycle is:

$$_1_{\mathrm{sh}}.$$
(24)
The eigenfrequencies must satisfy the following equation, deduced from Eqs. (74) and (15-16):

$$𝒬\mathrm{e}^{i\omega \tau _{EA}}+\mathrm{e}^{i\omega \tau _{AA}}=1.$$
(25)
The phase relation between the purely acoustic and the entropic-acoustic cycles is rather complicated (see Eq. 100). The calculation of the eigenfrequencies requires to know the exact dependence of $`𝒬,,\tau _{EA},\tau _{AA}`$ on the frequency. We show in Appendix E that the growth rate $`\omega _i`$ is bounded to the interval $`[\omega _i^{},\omega _i^+]`$ satisfying the equation:

$$|𝒬|\mathrm{e}^{\omega _i^\pm \tau _{EA}}\pm ||\mathrm{e}^{\omega _i^\pm \tau _{AA}}=1.$$
(26)
The solutions $`\omega _i^\pm `$ of this equation are plotted as functions of $`𝒬`$ in Fig. 3. All the modes are unstable for $`|𝒬|>1+||`$, while all of them are stable for $`|𝒬|<1||`$. In the range $`1||<|𝒬|<1+||`$, both stable and unstable modes may be found, depending on the phase of the acoustic cycle. A first order calculation of the contribution of the acoustic cycle when $`||/|𝒬|^{\tau _{AA}/\tau _{EA}}1`$ leads to:

$`\omega _{r,n}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{EA}}}\left[n\pi {\displaystyle \frac{}{|𝒬|^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(n\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}\right)\right],`$ (27)
$`\omega _{i,n}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{EA}}}\left[\mathrm{log}|𝒬|+{\displaystyle \frac{}{|𝒬|^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(n\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}\right)\right],`$ (28)
where $`n`$ is even if $`𝒬>0`$, and odd otherwise. The acoustic cycle can be stabilizing or destabilizing depending on the phase $`n\pi \tau _{AA}/\tau _{EA}`$. This phase dependence results in a wiggling in the spectrum of the eigenmodes, bounded by $`\omega _i^\pm `$.

### 4.4 Comparison with the particular case of jet nozzles

The velocity and enthalpy profiles are quite different in a jet nozzle and in an accretion flow. The gas is accelerated in a nozzle at the expense of the enthalpy, whereas gas flowing into a gravitational well $`\mathrm{\Phi }GM/r`$ is both accelerated and heated. The limited variation of enthalpy in a nozzle, deduced from the Bernoulli equation with $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$,

$$\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2}{c_{\mathrm{sh}}^2}=\frac{2+(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}^2}{\gamma +1}<1,$$
(29)
results in a moderate efficiency of the extraction of acoustic energy from the advection of entropy perturbations ($`|𝒬|<1`$). Nevertheless, the combustion zone plays a much more active role than the shock described above, since the energy input due to the chemistry of the combustion enables the actual efficiency $`|𝒬|`$ to exceed unity. In this respect, the ”rumble” instability of ramjets (Abouseif, Keklak & Toong 1984) is different from the entropic-acoustic instability described here. Both are based, however, on the cycle of entropic and acoustic perturbations in the subsonic region of the converging flow. In an accretion flow, the efficiency $`|𝒬|`$ increases with the frequency up to the refraction cut-off, thus favouring a high frequency instability ($`n_{\mathrm{max}}1`$). By contrast, the most unstable modes in Abouseif, Keklak & Toong (1984) are the low frequency modes.

## 5 Discussion

We have described how the interplay of entropic and acoustic waves in a subsonic flow between a shock and a sonic point might lead to an entropic-acoustic linear instability. The ingredients for this type of instability are

(1) an accelerated subsonic flow with a significant increase of sound speed (i.e. of temperature),

(2) an outer boundary, such as a shock, capable of converting acoustic waves into entropy perturbations.
The stability criterion is directly related to the calculation of a global parameter $`𝒬`$ describing the coupling of entropy and acoustic waves in the flow. The effect of the purely acoustic cycle is negligible if $`|𝒬|1`$, but becomes important near marginal stability (Eq. 26). Although a detailed stability calculation is required for any particular flow topology, general arguments based on the compact nozzle approximation suggest that the entropic-acoustic cycle is potentially unstable if the sound speed at the sonic point significantly exceeds the sound speed immediately after the shock (Eq. 23). The two timescales involved in the entropic-acoustic instability are:

\- the period of the most unstable pertubations, of the order of the refraction cut-off,

\- the growth time, comparable to the time needed to advect an entropy perturbation from the shock to the sonic radius.

### 5.1 Astrophysical applications

The entropic-acoustic instability might be at work in several astrophysical situations: as already mentionned in the introduction, the supersonic motion of a compact star in a gas leads to the formation of a bow shock ahead of the accretor. The development of the entropic-acoustic instability in the subsonic region between the shock and the sonic surface is very likely, since $`c_{\mathrm{son}}/c_{\mathrm{sh}}1`$ in these flows (e.g. Ruffert 1996 and references therein). A detailed analysis will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
The acoustic-entropic instability might also be present in some accretion discs. Most stability calculations concerning ADAFs focussed on the local thermal stability of the disc (Narayan & Yi 1995, Abramowicz et al. 1995, Kato et al. 1996, 1997, Wu & Li 1996). By contrast, the entropic-acoustic instability is a global instability which depends on the outer boundary condition of the flow. The excitation of acoustic waves from an advected entropy perturbation in an ADAF has already been observed in numerical simulations by Manmoto et al. (1996), which include the additional effects of radiative cooling (bremmstrahlung) and viscous heating. Their work was concerned with the time delay problem of Cygnus X-1 and did not involve an outer boundary condition capable of closing the entropic-acoustic cycle. Some global disc solutions match a thin disc to an inner ADAF through a shock (Lu, Gu & Yuan 1999). The entropic-acoustic cycle could then occur between this shock and the inner sonic surface. On a larger scale, the gas falling from the Lagrangian point $`L_1`$ onto the external radius of an accretion disc might also produce a shock capable of closing the entropic-acoustic cycle. These possible applications deserve a careful analysis which is beyond the scope of the present paper.

### 5.2 Towards a 3-D description of the instability

Our one-dimensional description assumed that all the outgoing acoustic waves reach the shock, and that all the induced perturbations of entropy reach the sonic surface. Depending on the topology of the flow, possible losses from the entropic-acoustic cycle must be taken into account. In the case of Bondi-Hoyle accretion, outgoing acoustic waves reaching the shock out of the accretion cylinder produce entropy perturbations which will not be accreted, thus diminishing the effective efficiency $`𝒬`$ of the cycle. A 3-D description of the entropic-acoustic cycle should also take into account the effect of vorticity perturbations, which are naturally created when an acoustic wave perturbs a shock with a non vanishing angle of incidence. Like the entropy perturbations, the advection of a vorticity perturbation in a converging flow excites acoustic waves (e.g. Howe 1975). Their destabilizing effect will be studied in the particular case of radial accretion (Foglizzo 2000).

### 5.3 Observable consequences

Understanding the fundamental mechanism of linear instability is only the very first step towards a possible identification of this mechanism in the astrophysical observations. According to our linear description of the entropic-acoustic instability, we expect to observe significant variations of the mass accretion rate and displacements of the shock surface as the acoustic energy increases between the shock and the sonic surface. The determination of the spectrum of eigenfrequencies should give valuable informations about the timescale of the most unstable modes. Numerical simulations should be the most direct way to describe the ultimate non-linear development of this instability. We saw that a correct description of the instability requires an accurate propagation of acoustic and entropy waves between the shock and the sonic radius. This could be a serious numerical difficulty for flows where $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, since the frequency of the most unstable perturbations could exceed the growth rate by several orders of magnitude. The numerical simulations of Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion (e.g. Ruffert 1995) suggest that this instability might lead to some kind of turbulence. This could also be particularly promising if the same mechanism also applies to accretion discs.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to Dr. M. Ruffert for useful discussions, and to an anonymous referee for his constructive comments.

## Appendix A Energy release of a localized perturbation of entropy through a nozzle

We consider in the region I an entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$, corresponding to a perturbation of mass $`\delta m`$ initially in pressure equilibrium with the surrounding gas ($`\delta p_1=0`$, $`\delta v_1=0`$). The time scale $`\tau `$ associated to this perturbation of entropy is related to its length $`l`$:

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{v}},`$ (30)
$`\delta m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}\dot{M}_0\tau ,`$ (31)
where $`\dot{M}_0`$ is the unperturbed mass flux. The entropy perturbation is conserved when advected:

$$\delta S\frac{1}{\gamma 1}\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{\delta p}{p}\right)\left(1+\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }\right)^\gamma ,$$
(32)
The advected perturbations of density and sound speed ($`c^2\gamma p/\rho `$) follow from Eqs. (32):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _1}{\rho _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\delta S\right)1,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta c_1^2}{c_1^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\delta S\right)1.`$ (34)
The energy flux $`F_0+\delta F_1`$ in the perturbation of entropy is defined according to Landau & Lifshitz (1987, Chap. 6), and deduced from Eqs. (1), (33) and (34):

$`\delta F_1`$ $``$ $`(\dot{M}_0+\delta \dot{M})(B_0+\delta B)\dot{M}_0B_0,`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`\dot{M}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{2}}+\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right)\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\delta S\right)1\right].`$ (36)
Replacing the index $`1`$ by the index $`2`$ gives the energy flux $`F_0+\delta F_2`$ in the entropy perturbation once it has reached pressure equilibrium with the region II. The total energy $`\delta E_{12}`$ released during the advection through the nozzle is therefore:

$`\delta E_{12}`$ $``$ $`(\delta F_1\delta F_2)\tau ,`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\dot{M}_0\tau (h_2h_1)\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\delta S\right)1\right],`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`(h_2h_1)\delta m.`$ (39)
## Appendix B The compact nozzle in a potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$

### B.1 Conservation equations

The variations $`\delta \dot{M}^\pm `$ and $`\delta B^\pm `$ of the mass flux $`\dot{M}`$ and Bernoulli parameter $`B`$ within a pressure perturbation $`\delta p^\pm `$ ($`\pm 1`$ depending on the direction of propagation of the perturbation) is to first order:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \dot{M}^\pm }{\dot{M}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p^\pm }{\gamma p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pm 1}{}},`$ (40)
$`\delta B^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`c^2(1\pm ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta p^\pm }{\gamma p}}.`$ (41)
In an entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$ in pressure equilibrium with its surrounding, the corresponding variations $`\delta \dot{M}^e`$ and $`\delta B^e`$ are as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \dot{M}^e}{\dot{M}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\delta S,`$ (42)
$`\delta B^e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\gamma }}\delta S.`$ (43)
Writing the conservation of the perturbed entropy, mass flux and Bernoulli parameter across a subsonic nozzle leads to the equations for the subcritical nozzle:

$`\delta S_a`$ $`=`$ $`\delta S_b,`$ (44)
$`\delta \dot{M}_a^++\delta \dot{M}_a^{}+\delta \dot{M}_a^e`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \dot{M}_b^++\delta \dot{M}_b^{}+\delta \dot{M}_b^e,`$ (45)
$`\delta B_a^++\delta B_a^{}+\delta B_a^e`$ $`=`$ $`\delta B_b^++\delta B_b^{}+\delta B_b^e.`$ (46)
The case of a supercritical nozzle requires one more equation describing the effect of perturbations on the sonic surface. The Bernoulli equation can be written at the sonic point $`r_{\mathrm{son}}`$ in a flow tube of entropy $`S`$ with mass flux $`\dot{M}`$ and local cross section $`𝒜_s`$:

$$B\mathrm{\Phi }(r_{\mathrm{son}})=\frac{\gamma }{2}\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma 1}\left[\frac{\dot{M}\mathrm{e}^S}{\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}𝒜_s}\right]^{\frac{2(\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}.$$
(47)
Differentiating the Bernoulli equation and the mass conservation at the sonic point leads to

$$c_{\mathrm{son}}^2\frac{\delta 𝒜}{𝒜_s}=\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(r_{\mathrm{son}}).$$
(48)
Combining this equation with the differential of Eq. (47) provides us with the additional equation required to solve the case of a supercritical nozzle:

$$\frac{\delta \dot{M}}{\dot{M}}+\delta S\frac{\delta B}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2}=0.$$
(49)
### B.2 Incident acoustic wave propagating with the stream

Subcritical nozzle:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^{}}{\gamma p_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_bc_bv_ac_a}{v_bc_b+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{\gamma p_a}},`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^+}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1+_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{2_bc_a^2}{v_bc_b+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{\gamma p_a}}.`$ (51)
Supercritical nozzle:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^{}}{\gamma p_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2v_ac_a}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{\gamma p_a}},`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^+}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1+_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_a^2}{c_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_bc_b}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{\gamma p_a}},`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^{}}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_a^2}{c_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2v_bc_b}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{\gamma p_a}}.`$ (54)
### B.3 Incident entropy perturbation advected with the stream

Subcritical nozzle:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^{}}{\gamma p_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_a}{1_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_b^2c_a^2}{v_bc_b+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }},`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^+}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_b}{1+_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_b^2c_a^2}{v_bc_b+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }}.`$ (56)
Supercritical nozzle:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^{}}{\gamma p_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_a}{1_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }},`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^+}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{2(c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_a^2}{c_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1+_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_b^2c_{\mathrm{son}}^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_b^{}}{\gamma p_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{2(c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_a^2}{c_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+_a}{1_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_b^2c_{\mathrm{son}}^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }}.`$
### B.4 Acoustic flux $`F_a^{}`$ propagating upstream

Since our calculation is based on a linear approximation, we may define efficiencies $`_a,𝒬_a`$ of the compact nozzle as follows

$$\frac{\delta p_a^{}}{p_a}=_a\frac{\delta p_a^+}{p_a}+𝒬_a\delta S_a,$$
(60)
where $`_a,𝒬_a`$ are easily deduced from Eqs. (50) and (55) or Eqs. (52) and (57), depending on whether the nozzle is subcritical ($`_b<1`$), or supercritical ($`_b>1`$). The pressure perturbation $`\delta p_a^{}`$ generated upstream in the case of a supercritical nozzle (Eqs. 52-57) corresponds to the limit of Eqs. (50-55) when $`c_b=c_{\mathrm{son}}`$, the sound speed at the sonic point. This is consistent with the fact that no information about the fluid properties beyond the sonic point may reach the subsonic region upstream. Note from Eq. (57) that the sign of $`𝒬_a`$ depends on whether the sound speed of the accelerated gas increases or decreases. The Bernoulli equation implies that $`𝒬_a<0`$ in a classical nozzle ($`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$), while $`𝒬_a>0`$ in an accretion flow. The flux $`F_a^{}`$ of acoustic energy propagating against the stream when an acoustic wave carrying the acoustic flux $`F_a^+`$ (with $`\delta S=0`$) propagates into a supercritial nozzle is deduced from Eqs. (6) and (52):

$$\overline{}_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{F_a^{}}{F_a^+}=\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2v_ac_a}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}\right)^2,$$
(61)
where the refraction efficiency $`\overline{}_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ is defined in terms of the acoustic energy, while $`_a^2`$ was defined in Eq. (60) in terms of the amplitude of pressure perturbations. It is remarkable that the refraction $`F_a^{}/F_a^+`$ is independent of the frequency of the incoming acoustic wave. This is true only at low frequency, as long as the compact approximation is satisfied. Refraction is expected to become negligible ($`F_a^{}/F_a^+1`$) at high frequency, when the wavelength of an incoming acoustic wave is much shorter than the lengthscale $`\lambda `$ of the flow inhomogeneities (i.e. the nozzle size). The refraction cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is defined as the maximum frequency leading to a significant refraction (e.g. $`F_a^{}/F_a^+=1/2`$).
The flux $`F_a^{}`$ of acoustic energy propagating against the stream when an entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$ (with $`\delta p^+=0`$) is advected into a supercritical nozzle is deduced from Eqs. (6) and (57):

$$F_a^{}=\dot{M}_0v_ac_a\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}\right)^2\left(\frac{\delta S}{\gamma }\right)^2.$$
(62)
Here again, the acoustic flux $`F_a^{}`$ is independent of the frequency of the incoming entropy wave, as long as the compact approximation is satisfied. Numerical calculations by Marble & Candle (1977) show that the efficiency of sound emission from an entropy perturbation also decreases to zero if its wavelength is much shorter than $`\lambda `$. Eq. (62) is rewritten using the refraction coefficient $`\overline{}_a`$:

$`F_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{M}_0c_{\mathrm{son}}^2\overline{}_a^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{}_a}{1+\overline{}_a}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_av_a}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\gamma }}\right)^2.`$ (63)
The ratio $`(c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2)/(c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_av_a)`$ is bounded by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_av_a}}`$ $``$ $`1\mathrm{for}c_ac_{\mathrm{son}},`$ (64)
$``$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{}_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{son}}}{2\dot{c}_{\mathrm{son}}}}\right)^1\mathrm{for}c_ac_{\mathrm{son}},`$ (65)
where $`\dot{}_{\mathrm{son}},\dot{c}_{\mathrm{son}}`$ are the derivatives of the mach number and sound speed at the sonic point. Schematically, $`\overline{}_a`$ is constant for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and decreases to zero for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The maximal value of $`\overline{}_a^2(1\overline{}_a)/(1+\overline{}_a)0.09`$ is reached for $`\overline{}_a0.6`$, i.e. $`v_ac_ac_{\mathrm{son}}^2/4`$. We conclude that the acoustic flux propagating against the stream when $`F_a^+=0`$ is bounded by:

$$F_a^{}0.09\dot{M}_0c_{\mathrm{son}}^2\left(\frac{\delta S}{\gamma }\right)^2.$$
(66)
### B.5 Combination of a slowly accelerated flow and a compact nozzle

Let us build a toy model of a flow $`_11`$, especially designed to allow a simple calculation of the interplay of acoustic and entropic perturbations of frequency $`\omega `$. This flow is composed of:

\- a region of propagation $`_1_a`$ where both the entropic-acoustic coupling and the acoustic refraction at the frequency $`\omega `$ are negligible, and where the flow is slowly accelerated,

\- a compact region $`_a1`$ of coupling, approximated as a supercritical compact nozzle.
The index $`a`$ notes the entrance of the compact nozzle. These two approximations are compatible if the lengthscale of the flow inhomogeneities is small compared to the wavelength of the perturbations in the compact region, and large compared to this wavelength in the propagation region. The real coefficients $`𝒫_\pm ,𝒫_E`$ describe the amplitude variation of the pressure and entropy perturbations during their propagation between $`_1`$ and $`_a`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{p_a}}`$ $``$ $`𝒫_+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_1^+}{p_1}}e^{i\omega \tau _+},`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_1^{}}{p_1}}`$ $``$ $`𝒫_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_a^+}{p_a}}e^{i\omega \tau _{}},`$ (68)
$`\delta S_a`$ $``$ $`𝒫_E\delta S_1e^{i\omega \tau _E}.`$ (69)
The values of $`𝒫_\pm `$ are directly deduced from the conservation of the acoustic flux from $`_a`$ to $`_1`$ ($`F_1^\pm F_a^\pm `$), and $`𝒫_E`$ is deduced from the conservation of entropy:

$`𝒫_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+_1}{1+_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{_a^{\frac{1}{2}}c_1}{_1^{\frac{1}{2}}c_a}},`$ (70)
$`𝒫_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1_a}{1_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{_1^{\frac{1}{2}}c_a}{_a^{\frac{1}{2}}c_1}},`$ (71)
$`𝒫_E`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (72)
Combining Eqs. (60) and (70-72), we obtain the amplitude $`\delta p_1^{}`$ of the acoustic waves propagating against the stream at the position $`_1`$, as a function of the incident perturbations $`\delta p_1^+,\delta S_1`$:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{}𝒫_+_ae^{i\omega \tau _{AA}}`$ (73)
$`𝒬_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{}𝒫_E𝒬_ae^{i\omega \tau _{EA}}.`$ (74)
Eqs. (10-11) are deduced from Eqs. (52), (57) and Eqs. (70) to (72). From the discussion of Sect. B.4, the strongest acoustic flux $`F_1^{}`$ is obtained for $`\overline{}_a0.6`$

## Appendix C Reflexion of a sound wave at a shock

Consider an adiabatic shock with incident Mach number $`_0`$ in the $`x`$ direction. Let a sound wave propagate against the stream in the subsonic region where the sound speed is $`c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, with wavevector $`k_{}`$ in the frame moving with the fluid. Its frequency $`\omega `$ in the frame stationary with respect to the shock obeys the following dispersion relation (e.g. Landau & Lifschitz, 1986, chap. 68):

$$(\omega kv_{\mathrm{sh}})^2=c_{\mathrm{sh}}^2k^2.$$
(75)
The two roots $`k_{}`$ of this equation correspond to the incident and reflected acoustic waves. The incident acoustic wave perturbs the shock surface and generates both a reflected acoustic wave and an entropy perturbation. The pressure perturbation $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and the entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$ are obtained by writing the jump conditions for an adiabatic shock perturbed with the velocity $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ in the $`x`$ direction:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}}{p_{\mathrm{sh}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma _0^2}{2\gamma _0^2\gamma +1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v}{v_0}},`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}}{v_{\mathrm{sh}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+_0^2)}{2+(\gamma 1)_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v}{v_0}},`$ (77)
$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma (_0^21)^2}{(2+(\gamma 1)_0^2)(2\gamma _0^2\gamma +1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v}{v_0}}.`$ (78)
The perturbation is decomposed onto the ingoing and outgoing acoustic waves, and the advected entropy perturbation

$`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}+\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^+,`$ (79)
$`\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}+\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}^++\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}^e,`$ (80)
In addition to the dispersion equation (75) for acoustic waves, the acoustic and entropy perturbations are described by:

$`(\omega k_\pm )\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`k_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{sh}}^2}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_{\mathrm{sh}}^\pm }{p_{\mathrm{sh}}}},`$ (81)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`k_ev_{\mathrm{sh}},`$ (82)
$`k_e\delta v_{\mathrm{sh}}^e`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (83)
After some algebra with Eqs. (75) to (83), we obtain:

$`_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1_{\mathrm{sh}}}{1+_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}{3\gamma +2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}}<0,`$ (84)
$`𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1_{\mathrm{sh}})^2}{_{\mathrm{sh}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\gamma +2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}}>0.`$ (85)
$`\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1_{\mathrm{sh}}}{1+_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}{3\gamma +2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right],`$ (86)
where $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}^2`$ is the reflection coefficient of acoustic waves defined in terms of energy flux rather than amplitudes. For a strong shock, $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is an increasing function of $`\gamma `$ ($`\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}0.14`$ for $`\gamma =5/3`$):

$$\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}=\frac{2^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(87)
## Appendix D Estimates of the global efficiencies $`𝒬`$ and $``$ based on the compact nozzle approximation

$``$ $``$ $`𝒫_{}𝒫_+_a_{\mathrm{sh}},`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`\overline{}_a\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}.`$ (89)
$``$ depends on the frequency through $`\overline{}_a`$: $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$, and $`0`$ for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$.

$`𝒬`$ $``$ $`𝒫_{}𝒫_E𝒬_a𝒬_{\mathrm{sh}},`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_ac_a}{v_{\mathrm{sh}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2+v_ac_a}}f_{\mathrm{sh}},`$ (91)
$`f_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{_{\mathrm{sh}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1_{\mathrm{sh}}}{3\gamma +2(\gamma 1)_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right].`$ (92)
The efficiency $`𝒬`$ decreases to zero as $`(1_{\mathrm{sh}})`$ if the shock is weak. For a strong shock, $`f_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is a decreasing function of $`\gamma `$ ($`f_{\mathrm{sh}}1.7`$ for $`\gamma =5/3`$):

$$f_{\mathrm{sh}}=\left(\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma 1}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{2^{\frac{3}{2}}}{2^{\frac{1}{2}}+\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma 1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(93)
$`𝒬`$ is rewritten using the refraction coefficient $`\overline{}_a`$:

$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}}{c_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\overline{}_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{}_a}{1+\overline{}_a}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_a^2}{c_{\mathrm{son}}^2c_av_a}}\right)f_{\mathrm{sh}}.`$ (94)
Since $`𝒬_a`$ depends strongly on the frequency, the efficiency $`𝒬`$ is a function of $`\omega `$. Schematically, $`\overline{}_a1`$ for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$, and $`\overline{}_a0`$ for $`\omega \omega _{\mathrm{cut}}`$, so that $`𝒬`$ reaches its maximum value for a frequency close to the cut-off frequency. In particular $`𝒬_{\mathrm{max}}1`$ if $`c_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{sh}}`$:

$$f_{\mathrm{sh}}\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}}{c_{\mathrm{sh}}}>𝒬_{\mathrm{max}}>0.3f_{\mathrm{sh}}\left(1+\frac{\dot{}_{\mathrm{son}}c_{\mathrm{son}}}{2\dot{c}_{\mathrm{son}}}\right)^1\frac{c_{\mathrm{son}}}{c_{\mathrm{sh}}}.$$
(95)
## Appendix E Contribution of the acoustic cycle

The complex frequency $`\omega `$ is decomposed into its real part $`\omega _r`$ and imaginary part $`\omega _i`$. Let us introduce the parameter $`x>0`$ and transform the eigenmodes equation as follows:

$`\omega _i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{EA}}}\mathrm{log}|𝒬x|,`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬}{|𝒬|}}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _r\tau _{EA}}`$ $`+`$ $`x^{1\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{|𝒬|^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _r\tau _{AA}}=x.`$ (97)
The solutions of Eq. (97) are bounded by the interval $`x_{}<x<x_+`$, where $`x_{}<1<x_+`$ are solutions of the equation:

$$1\pm x_\pm ^{1\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}\frac{||}{|𝒬|^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}}=x_\pm ,$$
(98)
from which we obtain Eq. (26) satisfied by the corresponding growth rates $`\omega _i^\pm `$. We deduce from Eqs. (96) and (98) that

$$\omega _i^\pm (|𝒬|=1||)=0.$$
(99)
The real part $`\omega _r`$ must satisfy the following phase equation, deduced from Eq. (97):

$`\left[𝒬{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r(\tau _{AA}\tau _{EA})}{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r\tau _{AA}}}\right]^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r(\tau _{EA}\tau _{AA})}{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r\tau _{EA}}},`$ (100)
$`x={\displaystyle \frac{𝒬}{|𝒬|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r(\tau _{AA}\tau _{EA})}{\mathrm{sin}\omega _r\tau _{AA}}}.`$ (101)
If the parameter $`||/|𝒬|^{\tau _{AA}/\tau _{EA}}1`$, we can estimate the first order contribution of the purely acoustic cycle to the entropic-acoustic instability:

$$x1\frac{}{|𝒬|^{\frac{\tau _{AA}}{\tau _{EA}}}}\mathrm{cos}\omega _r\tau _{AA}.$$
(102)
Together with Eq. (96-97), we obtain Eqs. (27-28).