text:
# Multicomponent radiatively driven stellar winds

## 1 Introduction

Since the foundation of the basic theory of the radiatively driven stellar wind the wind stability was one of the most fundamental questions to be solved. At the very beginning Lucy & Solomon (LS70 (1970)) concluded that radiatively driven stellar winds are essentially unstable. Contrary to this assertion, Castor, Abbott & Klein (cak (1975)) described radiatively driven stellar wind as smooth and stable steady-state outflow. This contradiction survived when Abbott (abb (1980)) showed that the stellar wind described by CAK is stable. On the other hand, MacGregor et al. (nesmac (1979)) and Carlberg (nesta (1980)) concluded that radiatively driven stellar winds are unstable. This paradox was solved by Owocki & Rybicki (ornest (1984)). These authors found a general relation which is valid for perturbation both smaller and larger than the Sobolev length, the so called “bridging relation”. The main result of the latter paper is that the flow of the line driven wind is stable for perturbations larger than the Sobolev length (the so-called large scale perturbations), yielding stable radiative-acoustic waves, which were found by Abbott (abb (1980)) and unstable for perturbations smaller than the Sobolev length, as found by MacGregor et al. (nesmac (1979)) and Carlberg (nesta (1980)). The theory of instabilities of radiatively driven stellar wind was further developed by Lucy (L84 (1984)), Owocki & Rybicki (or2 (1985), or3 (1986), or5 (1991)), and extended to three-dimensional perturbations by Rybicki et al. (or4 (1990)). For an introduction to the problem of a stability of a line driven wind see Rybicki (rybinst (1987)) and Owocki (aetso (1992)). The existence of instabilities in the wind is important for an X-ray phenomenon because it is usually assumed that X-rays are generated by wind clumping or shocks (e.g. Lucy & White luw (1980), Lucy L82 (1982), Owocki & Cohen owco (1999)).

On the other hand, it is known that radiatively driven stellar winds have multicomponent nature (e.g., Springmann & Pauldrach treni (1992), Babel babela (1995), Porter & Drew iontdisk (1995)). The stellar radiation is predominantly absorbed by species (typically C, N, O, Fe, etc.) which have much lower density than the rest of the stellar wind, which is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. However, multicomponent effects are important only for low-density stellar winds. Recently, Krtička & Kubát (kk (2000), 2001a , 2001b , hereafter KK0, KKI, KKII, respectively) computed models of isothermal two-component and non-isothermal three-component radiatively driven stellar winds.

Springmann & Pauldrach (treni (1992)) proposed that for low density stellar winds the absorbing component is not able to accelerate the non-absorbing component and that both components decouple. On the other hand, using a model of an isothermal two-component stellar wind KK0 obtained a surprising result that the components do not decouple and an unexpected decrease of the velocity gradient was found. This effect can be explained by the dependence of the radiative force on the velocity gradient. A question which naturally arises is the stability of such multicomponent flow.

It is natural to expect that the conclusions about the stability of the one-component wind will be in principal also valid for the two component flows. Recently, Owocki & Puls (op (2002), hereafter OP) extended the general one-component stability analysis of Owocki & Rybicki (ornest (1984)) for the case of a two-component isothermal wind and found that the two-component solution is unstable when the flow is not well coupled. Here we extend Abbott’s (abb (1980)) calculations to the case of the multicomponent flow and study how the overall picture of stable Abbott waves changes in the two-component isothermal stellar wind. The analysis presented in this paper is based on a part of a thesis of Krtička (disertacka (2001)).

## 2 Time-dependent hydrodynamic equations for isothermal wind

We assume an isothermal spherically symmetric wind consisting of two components, namely of passive (non-absorbing) hydrogen ions with mass equal to proton mass $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ and charge equal to proton charge $`q_\mathrm{p}`$ and of absorbing ions with mass $`A_\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{p}`$ and charge $`q_\mathrm{i}`$. Time-dependent radiatively driven stellar wind is then described by the set of hydrodynamic equations, namely with the continuity equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{p}}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^2\rho _\mathrm{p}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{i}}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^2\rho _\mathrm{i}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1b)
and with the equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}}{t}}+v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`g+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{p}}}R_{\mathrm{pi}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mathrm{p}}{r}},`$ (2a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}}{t}}+v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{rad}}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{i}}}R_{\mathrm{pi}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mathrm{i}}{r}}.`$ (2b)
In these equations $`v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{p}`$, $`v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{i}`$ are velocities and densities of passive plasma and accelerated ions, respectively, $`p_\mathrm{p}`$, $`p_\mathrm{i}`$ are partial gas pressures of each component ($`p_\mathrm{p}=a_\mathrm{p}^2\rho _\mathrm{p}`$, $`p_\mathrm{i}=a_\mathrm{i}^2\rho _\mathrm{i}`$), isothermal sound velocities are $`a_\mathrm{p}^2=kT/m_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{i}^2=kT/m_\mathrm{i}`$, $`g=G\text{M}(1\mathrm{\Gamma })/r^2`$ is the gravitational acceleration (corrected for absorption by free electrons) acting on each component ($`G`$ and M are gravitational constant and stellar mass, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Eddington factor accounting for the absorption on free electrons) and $`g_\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the radiative acceleration acting on absorbing ions. We take the radiative acceleration in the form

$$g_\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{1}{\text{Y}_\mathrm{i}}\frac{\sigma _eL}{4\pi r^2c}f\left(\frac{n_e/W}{10^{11}\text{cm}^3}\right)^\delta k\left(\frac{\text{Y}_\mathrm{i}}{\sigma _ev_{\mathrm{th}}\rho _\mathrm{i}}\frac{dv_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}}{dr}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(3)
with force multipliers $`k`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$ after Abbott (abpar (1982)). Here $`f`$ is the finite disk correction factor (Pauldrach et al. ppk (1986), Friend & Abbott fa (1986)), $`n_e`$ is the electron density (we set $`n_e=n_\mathrm{p}`$), and $`W`$ is stellar dilution factor. Here we have introduced the factor $`\text{Y}_\mathrm{i}`$ (which is the ratio of the absorbing ions density to the passive plasma density in a stellar atmosphere) to account for radiative acceleration acting directly on ions (see KK0).

Frictional force (per unit volume) $`R_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ acting between both components has following form (Springmann & Pauldrach treni (1992)):

$$R_{\mathrm{pi}}=n_\mathrm{p}n_\mathrm{i}k_{\mathrm{pi}}G(x_{\mathrm{pi}}),$$
(4)
where $`n_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`n_\mathrm{i}`$ are number densities of passive plasma and absorbing ions. The friction coefficient $`k_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ is given by

$$k_{\mathrm{pi}}=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }q_\mathrm{p}^2q_\mathrm{i}^2}{kT}\frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}}{|v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}|},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm, $`G(x)`$ is the so-called Chandrasekhar function (see Springmann & Pauldrach treni (1992), KK0 and Fig. 1 for the run of this function). The argument $`x_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ of the Chandrasekhar function in Eq. (4) is proportional to the ratio of the drift velocity $`\left|v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}\right|`$ to the thermal velocity $`v_{\mathrm{th}}`$, namely

$$x_{\mathrm{pi}}=\sqrt{A_{\mathrm{pi}}}\frac{\left|v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}\right|}{v_{\mathrm{th}}},$$
(6)
where $`A_{\mathrm{pi}}=A_\mathrm{p}A_\mathrm{i}/\left(A_\mathrm{p}+A_\mathrm{i}\right)`$ is a reduced atomic mass.

## 3 Radiative-acoustic waves

Similarly to Abbott (abb (1980)) we keep the equations locally linear and we study waves in comoving fluid frames of individual components. Since the velocities of the components are different, we start with using two different fluid frames (one for each component). Thus, we use comoving fluid frames of non-absorbing and absorbing components

$`r_\mathrm{p}`$ $`=r^{}v_\mathrm{p}(r^{})t,`$ (7a)
$`r_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=r^{}v_\mathrm{i}(r^{})t,`$ (7b)
instead of the frame of the static observer $`r^{}`$ (note that both comoving fluid-frames are chosen to be local inertial fluid frames). Here both $`r_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ are radial coordinates. We assume that the wind is perturbed from its original steady-state and that the perturbed quantities do not change the density scale height. The perturbed quantities are denoted by $`\delta \rho _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\delta v_\mathrm{p}`$, $`\delta \rho _\mathrm{i}`$, and $`\delta v_\mathrm{i}`$.

The time-dependent continuity equations to the first order are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{p}}}+\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{r_\mathrm{p}}}`$ $`=0,`$ (8a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\mathrm{i}}{t_\mathrm{i}}}+\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{i}}}`$ $`=0,`$ (8b)
and two-component time-dependent linearized momentum equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{p}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{p}^2}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\mathrm{p}}{r_\mathrm{p}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}}\left(\delta v_\mathrm{i}\delta v_\mathrm{p}\right),`$ (9a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{t_\mathrm{i}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{i}^2}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{i}}}+_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{i}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}}\left(\delta v_\mathrm{i}\delta v_\mathrm{p}\right),`$ (9b)
where the subscript $`0`$ denotes unperturbed quantity in the observer’s frame, the velocity difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0=v_{0,\mathrm{i}}v_{0,\mathrm{p}}`$, $`G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)=G(x_{\mathrm{ip}})`$, $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)=G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)/\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ and $`_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}=g_i^{\mathrm{rad}}/\left(v_{0,\mathrm{i}}/r_\mathrm{i}\right)`$. We neglected gravity and density stratification in the momentum equation and assumed that the radiative force depends only on velocity gradient. In these equations we simply suppose Galilean transformation of coordinates for which $`t_\mathrm{p}=t_\mathrm{i}=t`$. We distinguish between $`t_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ to emphasize difference in partial derivatives with respect to time. During calculation of $`/t_\mathrm{p}`$ one should keep $`r_\mathrm{p}`$ constant and, similarly, for $`/t_\mathrm{i}`$ one should keep $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ constant. The Galilean transformation also implies that the velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ and perturbations of velocities and densities $`\delta \rho _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\delta \rho _\mathrm{i}`$, $`\delta v_\mathrm{p}`$ a $`\delta v_\mathrm{i}`$ are the same in both inertial frames. We neglected density perturbations of the radiative and frictional forces. This is consistent with the calculations of Abbott (abb (1980)) where density perturbations of the radiative force have been also neglected. Justification of this neglect can be found, e.g., in the Appendix of OP.

Taking a partial derivative of the equation (8a) with respect to $`r_\mathrm{p}`$ and substituting it to the partial derivative of the equation (9a) with respect to $`t_\mathrm{p}`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{p}^2}}`$ $`=a_\mathrm{p}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{r_\mathrm{p}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{t_\mathrm{p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{p}}}\right].`$ (10a)
Similarly, partial derivative of the equation (8b) with respect to $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ and subsequent substitution to the derivated equation (9b) with respect to $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ gives
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{t_\mathrm{i}^2}}`$ $`=a_\mathrm{i}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{i}^2}}+_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{i}t_\mathrm{i}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{i}}{t_\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{i}}}\right].`$ (10b)
We obtained two differential equations for velocity perturbations of both components. Unfortunately, these equations are written in different fluid frames. To proceed further, we have to rewrite these equations in one common frame. We selected the fluid frame of accelerated ions. From the relations

$`r_\mathrm{i}=`$ $`r_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Delta }v_0t_\mathrm{p},`$ (11a)
$`t_\mathrm{i}=`$ $`t_\mathrm{p},`$ (11b)
it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_\mathrm{p}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{r_\mathrm{i}}},`$ (12a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_\mathrm{p}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{t_\mathrm{i}}}\mathrm{\Delta }v_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_\mathrm{i}}},`$ (12b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_\mathrm{p}^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_\mathrm{i}^2}},`$ (12c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_\mathrm{p}^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_\mathrm{i}^2}}2\mathrm{\Delta }v_0{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_\mathrm{i}^2}}.`$ (12d)
Thus, we rewrite the Eq. (10a) as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{i}^2}2\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{t_\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0^2\frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{r_\mathrm{i}^2}=a_\mathrm{p}^2\frac{^2\delta v_\mathrm{p}}{r_\mathrm{i}^2}+\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\left(\frac{}{t_\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\frac{}{r_\mathrm{i}}\right)\left(\delta v_\mathrm{i}\delta v_\mathrm{p}\right).\end{array}$$
(13)
We assume a solution in the form of propagating waves, which in the reference frame of ions are

$`\delta v_\mathrm{p}`$ $`=V_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}t_\mathrm{i}\kappa _\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{i}\right)\right],`$ (14a)
$`\delta v_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=V_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}t_\mathrm{i}\kappa _\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}\right)\right].`$ (14b)
The amplitudes $`V_\mathrm{p}`$, $`V_\mathrm{i}`$ are generally complex to account for phase shifts, and, since we are doing linear analysis, they do depend neither on $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ nor on $`t_\mathrm{i}`$. Similarly, $`\omega _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{i}`$, $`\kappa _\mathrm{p}`$, and $`\kappa _\mathrm{i}`$ are independent of $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{i}`$. Substituting from (14) into the wave equations (13, 10b) we obtain a system of equations

$$\begin{array}{c}[(\omega _\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa _\mathrm{p})^2V_\mathrm{p}a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa _\mathrm{p}^2V_\mathrm{p}\hfill \\ \hfill i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}(\omega _\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa _\mathrm{p})V_\mathrm{p}]\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}t\kappa _\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{i}\right)}=\\ \hfill =i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa _\mathrm{i}\right)V_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}t\kappa _\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}\right)},\end{array}$$
(15a)
$$\begin{array}{c}[\omega _\mathrm{i}^2V_\mathrm{i}a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa _\mathrm{i}^2V_\mathrm{i}+\kappa _\mathrm{i}_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\omega _\mathrm{i}V_\mathrm{i}\hfill \\ \hfill i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\omega _\mathrm{i}V_\mathrm{i}]\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}t\kappa _\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}\right)}=\\ \hfill =i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\omega _\mathrm{p}V_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}t\kappa _\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{i}\right)}.\end{array}$$
(15b)
We are looking for a non-trivial solution of Eqs. (15), i.e. a solution with $`V_\mathrm{i}0`$, $`V_\mathrm{p}0`$ for arbitrary $`t`$, $`r_\mathrm{i}`$. Eq. (15a) can be rewritten as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pp}}V_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}t\kappa _\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{i}\right)}=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pi}}V_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}t\kappa _\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}\right)}$$

or

$$V_\mathrm{p}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pp}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\omega _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{p}\right)ti\left(\kappa _\mathrm{i}\kappa _\mathrm{p}\right)r_\mathrm{i}\right]V_\mathrm{i}.$$

Because $`V_\mathrm{p}`$, $`V_\mathrm{i}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pp}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ do not depend on $`t`$ and $`r_\mathrm{i}`$, the last equation can be fulfilled only if

$$\omega _\mathrm{p}t\kappa _\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{i}=\omega _\mathrm{i}t\kappa _\mathrm{i}r_\mathrm{i}.$$
(16)
holds for any $`t`$, $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ (the same conclusion can be obtained from Eq. (15b)). Thus, wavenumbers and frequencies of both components are the same,

$`\kappa _\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _\mathrm{p},`$ (17a)
$`\omega _\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _\mathrm{p}.`$ (17b)
Dividing Eqs. (15) by the exponential factor and denoting $`\kappa \kappa _\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}`$ we can rewrite the remaining system of equations as

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa \right)^2V_\mathrm{p}=a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa ^2V_\mathrm{p}\hfill \\ \hfill i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa \right)\left(V_\mathrm{i}V_\mathrm{p}\right),\end{array}$$
(18a)
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega ^2V_\mathrm{i}=a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa ^2V_\mathrm{i}\kappa _v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\omega V_\mathrm{i}+\hfill \\ \hfill +i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\omega \left(V_\mathrm{i}V_\mathrm{p}\right).\end{array}$$
(18b)
This system of equations can be rewritten in the matrix form as

$$𝖠𝐕=0,$$
(19)
where the vector $`𝐕=(V_\mathrm{p},V_\mathrm{i})^\mathrm{T}`$ and individual elements of the matrix $`𝖠`$ are

$`A_{\mathrm{pp}}`$ $`=\omega ^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa \omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0^2\kappa ^2a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa ^2`$
$`iP_\mathrm{p}\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa \right),`$ (20a)
$`A_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ $`=iP_\mathrm{p}\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa \right),`$ (20b)
$`A_{\mathrm{ip}}`$ $`=iP_\mathrm{i}\omega ,`$ (20c)
$`A_{\mathrm{ii}}`$ $`=\omega ^2a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa ^2+\kappa _v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\omega iP_\mathrm{i}\omega ,`$ (20d)
where

$`P_\mathrm{p}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}},`$ (21a)
$`P_\mathrm{i}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}}.`$ (21b)
Equation (19) has a non-zero solution only if

$$𝖠=0,$$
(22)
which is the dispersion relation. Generally, it has a complicated form and we will solve it numerically. However, in order to better understand the general dispersion relation we shall first find an analytical solution for some simpler specific cases.

### 3.1 Abbott waves

Let us assume that the velocity amplitudes of the components $`\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{i}`$ are nearly equal ($`V_\mathrm{i}V_\mathrm{p}`$) and that the phase velocity of the wave is much larger than the drift velocity ($`\omega /k\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$), i.e. the flow is well coupled. Then the terms containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ in the Eq. (18a) can be neglected. These conditions mimic the one-component case, for which Abbott (abb (1980)) obtained stable radiative-acoustic waves, the so called Abbott waves. We may expect that for well coupled high density winds the two-component waves are similar to the Abbott waves. Indeed, summing dispersion relations (18) the imaginary frictional term vanishes, and we obtain the dispersion equation in the form of two-component Abbott waves

$$\begin{array}{c}(\omega ^2a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa ^2)\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}+\left(\omega ^2+\omega \kappa _v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa ^2\right)\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
This equation corresponds to the one-component dispersion relation and thus justifies the condition used by KK0 to fix the mass-loss rate. Then solving the Eq. (23) for $`\omega `$, the dispersion relation takes the form of

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega =\kappa \left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\right)^2+a_\mathrm{p}^2}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
where we neglected density of absorbing ions compared to the passive plasma density. Note that the Eq. (24) is the same as the Eq. (47) of Abbott (abb (1980)), since we used a modified definition of the driving force Eq. (3) to account for the fact that only the ionic gas is line driven. Apparently, $`\omega `$ is real and thus this mode is neither unstable nor damped. There are two branches of $`\omega `$ corresponding to forward and backward waves, both depending on a wavenumber linearly. Note, however, that the general dispersion relation derived by Owocki & Rybicki (ornest (1984)) for the one-component flow allows for instabilities for short-wavelength perturbations.

The point where the velocity of backward waves is equal to the wind velocity is called the critical point. The flow above the critical point cannot communicate with the wind base. Thus, early type stars are surrounded by the critical surface which separates two different domains of the stellar wind. Feldmeier & Shlosman (feslo00 (2000)) aptly compare this situation to the cosmic censorship hypothesis. The result that the multicomponent nature of the wind does not alter the Abbott waves is important because these waves determine the mass-loss of the CAK wind (Feldmeier & Shlosman feslo01 (2001)).

Finally, in the case when the gas-pressure term $`a_\mathrm{p}^2`$ can be neglected, the dispersion relation (24) corresponds to the $`\omega _+`$ mode of OP, namely

$$\omega _+\kappa \frac{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{p}}}_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}.$$
(25)
We denoted this mode in accordance with OP as $`\omega _+`$ although this mode is upstream. Note that Eq.(24) has another solution for $`a_\mathrm{p}=0`$, namely $`\omega =0`$.

### 3.2 Purely ionic Abbott waves

In the case when $`|V_\mathrm{i}||V_\mathrm{p}|`$ we can obtain from the Eq. (18b) the dispersion relation in the form of Abbott waves in absorbing ions

$$\omega ^2=a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa ^2\omega \kappa _v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}+i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}\omega .$$
(26)
We will study such waves in the case when the pressure term $`a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa ^2`$ in the dispersion equation (26) can be neglected. In this case, the dispersion relation has a form, which corresponds to the $`\omega _{}`$ mode of OP,

$$\omega _{}=\kappa _v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}+i\frac{R_{\mathrm{pi}}}{\rho _{0,\mathrm{i}}}\frac{G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)}{G(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)},$$
(27)
The real part of $`\omega _{}`$ depends on $`\kappa `$ linearly, whereas the imaginary part does not depend on $`\kappa `$. Due to the presence of the imaginary term in Eq. (27) such waves are damped in the case when $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)>0`$. For clearness we plotted the run of the Chandrasekhar function in Fig. 1 Thus, if the wind is coupled \[when the drift velocity is lower than the thermal velocity or, more precisely, when the Chandrasekhar function is a rising function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ ($`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)>0`$)\], the wind is stable for this type of waves. On the other hand, when the Chandrasekhar function $`G(x)`$ is decreasing ($`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)<0`$), the wind is not stable for the above mentioned perturbations, and this mode leads to an ion runaway.

Physical reasons for such instability are straightforward. If the Chandrasekhar function is before its maximum (as function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$), then the increase of the velocity difference between velocities of ions and passive plasma enhances the frictional force, which finally tends to lower the velocity difference yielding a stable flow. In the opposite case (if the velocity difference is larger than that corresponding to the maximum of Chandrasekhar function) the increase of the velocity difference lowers the frictional force which allows for additional increase of the velocity difference. Such two-component flow is clearly unstable. This is the effect of the ion runaway (see also Springmann & Pauldrach treni (1992), OP).

At a first glance there might exist similar acoustic waves in the non-absorbing component. However, this is not the case, because the imaginary term in the Eq. (18b) is larger than in Eq. (18a) and thus Eq. (18b) does not allow $`|V_\mathrm{p}||V_\mathrm{i}|`$. Therefore there are no acoustic counterparts of such waves in a non-absorbing component, i.e. there are no passive plasma waves for which the condition $`|V_\mathrm{p}||V_\mathrm{i}|`$ is valid.

### 3.3 Zero frictional force

To complete the list of simplified cases, we have also to mention the hypothetical case when interaction between the components vanishes. If both flow components do not influence each other, i.e. if the frictional force is zero, then the system of equations (15) does not implicate that the frequencies and wavenumbers of both components are equal. Instead of the system of dispersion relations (18) we obtain two independent relations for each wind component

$`\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa _\mathrm{p}\right)^2a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa _\mathrm{p}^2`$ $`=0,`$ (28a)
$`\omega _\mathrm{i}^2a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa _\mathrm{i}^2+\kappa _\mathrm{i}_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\omega _\mathrm{i}`$ $`=0.`$ (28b)
The dispersion relation of the nonabsorbing component (28a) describes ordinary isothermal sound waves and the dispersion relation of the ionic component (28b) describes stable Abbott waves of absorbing ions.

Note that a similar result of independent waves can be obtained for the maximum of Chandrasekhar function, for which $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)=0`$ and the interaction terms in Eqs. (18) vanish as for the case of zero frictional force.

## 4 Numerical results

The simplified calculations presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 can help us to better understand the behavior of individual branches of the general dispersion relation (22). These calculations have been done numerically. To study the individual branches of the dispersion relation we solved numerically the Eq. (22) using the procedure CPOLY of Jenkins & Traub (jetra (1970)).

Moreover, solving Eq. (18a) or Eq. (18b) for given $`\omega `$ and $`\kappa `$ we obtain the relation between wind amplitudes

$$V_\mathrm{i}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{pp}}}{A_{\mathrm{pi}}}V_\mathrm{p}$$
(29a)
or, equivalently,
$$V_\mathrm{i}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{ip}}}{A_{\mathrm{ii}}}V_\mathrm{p}.$$
(29b)
### 4.1 Stable wind for ionic Abbott waves

First, we shall study the case of the star $`ϵ`$ Ori described in KK0. This star has a relatively dense wind, so the drift velocity between both components is low compared to the thermal speed of hydrogen and thus this wind should be stable for ionic Abbott waves because $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)>0`$ in this case (cf. Section 3.2). To be specific, we shall study the dispersion relation in the point where $`v_r0.3v_{\mathrm{}}`$. This choice does not influence the overall picture of our results, however.

Resulting dispersion relations are displayed in the Fig. 2. Real parts of branches show linear dispersion relations as was predicted in Eqs. (24) and (27). The real branches of Abbott waves (two middle straight lines in both panels of Fig. 2 denoted by (2) and (3)) in the two-component case are essentially the same as in the one-component case (cf. Abbott abb (1980)). From the corresponding imaginary parts of these two-component Abbott waves follows that these waves are damped only marginally. If we extend the calculations to $`\kappa >10^7\mathrm{cm}^1`$ we could in principle obtain larger damping, but these values are beyond the region of validity of the assumption of perturbations larger than the Sobolev length. We also calculated the relation between wave amplitudes $`V_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{p}`$ of absorbing and nonabsorbing components using Eq. (29a). This calculation confirmed the assumption used in Sect. 3.1 for calculation of two-component Abbott waves that wave amplitudes for this waves are nearly the same.

Largest imaginary branch corresponding to the ionic Abbott waves (upper straight line in both panels of Fig. 2) does not depend on $`\kappa `$ (see Eq. (27)). Clearly, according to previous results, such waves are heavily damped. Moreover, the calculation of the relation between $`V_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{p}`$ confirmed that $`|V_\mathrm{i}||V_\mathrm{p}|`$ for these waves (cf. Sect. 3.2).

However, a new type of slow waves appeared. They are described by the lower curves in both panels of Fig. 2 (denoted as (4)). The real part of the dispersion relations shows almost linear dependence with the exception of the region where it passes through the value of $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$. Consequently, this solution corresponds to both forward and backward waves, which are stable and only marginally damped. The case of $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$ deserves special attention. It corresponds to a static wavy structure in the comoving frame, so in the observer frame this structure resembles almost stable outflowing ”frozen-in” wavy patterns of the characteristic size of $`\kappa _0^110^7\mathrm{cm}`$ for this specific case (note that $`\kappa _0`$ is wavenumber for which $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$).

In addition, calculations showed that the value of wavenumber $`\kappa _0`$ (for which $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$) depends on the distance from the star. At the base of the wind the value of $`\kappa _0`$ is lower, $`\kappa _010^6\mathrm{cm}^1`$ implying the possible characteristic pattern size of the order $`10^6\mathrm{cm}`$ whereas in the outer parts of the wind $`\kappa _010^{10}\mathrm{cm}^1`$ yielding the characteristic pattern size of the order $`10^{10}\mathrm{cm}`$.

For this new type of waves we can obtain approximate analytical dispersion relation. Calculations showed that due to the low value of $`\omega `$ for these waves all terms in the dispersion relation (22) can be neglected except constant terms and terms linear in $`\omega `$. Further neglect of all terms which do not significantly influence this type of waves leads to the dispersion relation in the form of

$$\omega \left(a_\mathrm{p}^2_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\kappa +ia_\mathrm{p}^2P_\mathrm{i}\right)+\kappa ^2a_\mathrm{p}^2a_\mathrm{i}^2+i\mathrm{\Delta }v_0P_\mathrm{p}a_\mathrm{i}^2\kappa 0.$$
(30)
The condition $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$ can be now written as

$$\kappa ^2a_\mathrm{p}^2_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}\mathrm{\Delta }v_0P_\mathrm{p}P_\mathrm{i}0$$
(31)
from which we can obtain the equation for $`\kappa _0`$ in the form of

$$\kappa _0\frac{1}{a_\mathrm{p}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_0P_\mathrm{p}P_\mathrm{i}}{_v^{}g^{\mathrm{rad}}}}.$$
(32)
However, we must keep in mind that our analysis was only linear, taking into account the nonlinear effects may change this promising picture, similarly to the case of one-component Abbott waves which become unstable if the second order effects are taken into account (Feldmeier feld98 (1998)).

### 4.2 Unstable wind for ionic Abbott waves

Second we study a model of a B5 star with artificially enhanced effect of friction ($`q_\mathrm{i}=4.8q_\mathrm{p}`$, see KK0) where the multicomponent nature of the flow plays an important role and leads to lower outflow velocity than in a one-component case. Here we study the dispersion relation at the point $`r=2.4R_{}`$ where the drift velocity between both components exceeds the value corresponding to the maximum of Chandrasekhar function and, therefore, $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)<0`$ (see Fig. 1).

The dispersion relations displayed in the Fig. 3 substantially differs from the previous case. Consistently with simplified considerations in the Sect.3.2, the imaginary parts of all roots are negative and therefore the flow is unstable. The branch with the largest absolute value of both real and imaginary parts corresponds to the ionic Abbott waves. According to the Eq. (27), the real part of this branch depends on $`\kappa `$ linearly whereas the imaginary part does not depend on $`\kappa `$.

A natural question arises: Where have the two-component Abbott waves disappeared? However, the simplified calculations yielding the two-component Abbott waves (see Sect.3.1) are not valid in this case, because the velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ cannot be simply neglected. On the other hand, the dispersion relation (22) can be approximately fulfilled if the term $`\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa `$ vanishes. This conclusion can be simply justified because the dispersion relation (22) can be rewritten as

$$A_{\mathrm{pp}}A_{\mathrm{ii}}A_{\mathrm{pi}}A_{\mathrm{ip}}=0$$

and when $`\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa =0`$ then the $`A_{\mathrm{pi}}`$ term vanishes identically and $`A_{\mathrm{pp}}`$ vanishes if the pressure term $`a_\mathrm{p}^2\kappa ^2`$ is negligible (see Eqs. (20,20b)). The linear dispersion relation

$$\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }v_0\kappa $$
(33)
is visible in the Fig. 3 (note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_010^6\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1`$).

### 4.3 On the stability of the B5 star wind model

Nevertheless, the analysis presented in the Section 4.2 does not mean that the whole wind is unstable for the above mentioned two-component instability. Since stability depends on the sign of $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)`$ which varies throughout the flow, there are regions where the wind is stable and regions where the wind is unstable. This situation is depicted in the Figure 4.

Near the stellar surface the wind is well coupled ($`\omega /k\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$), the Chandrasekhar function is below its maximum (as a function of the velocity difference), $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)>0`$ and the wind is stable (see Eq. (27)). This conclusion was justified by numerical calculations at the point where $`v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{p}}{}^{}4a_\mathrm{p}`$ (obtained dispersion relation resembles that in Fig. 2).

Downstream is the wind accelerated, its density decreases and the velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_0`$ between both components increases. However, such low density wind reaches the point where the maximum of the Chandrasekhar function is reached and the absorbing component is not able to accelerate the passive component sufficiently. Due to the functional dependence of the radiative force the velocity gradient of both components decreases (see KK0 and the discussion in OP), and, in addition, $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)<0`$. As has already been shown in the Section 4.2 (see Fig. 3), the flow is unstable in this region.

In the outermost parts of the wind the relation $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)>0`$ holds again and clearly, the wind is stable there. However, because the wind is unstable upstream where $`G^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v_0)<0`$, the instabilities from that unstable region may disseminate and influence the stability of the outermost parts of the wind. Such effects would be studied using hydrodynamical simulations.

Summarizing, there are three regions in the wind of this B5 star, namely the innermost and outermost parts of the wind are stable against perturbations larger than the Sobolev length, whilst the “middle” part of the wind is unstable (see Fig. 4).

The new slow waves that appeared in the stable solution for a dense wind of an O star (cf. Section 4.1) are also present in the stable parts of the wind of a B5 star. For the inner region of stability these waves may be both forward and backward with a special case of ”frozen-in” waves for $`\kappa =\kappa _0`$ where $`\mathrm{}(\omega )=0`$. Similarly to the case of an O star, the value of $`\kappa _0`$ decreases for increasing radii. These waves are also present in the outer stability region, but in this case these waves are purely forward.

### 4.4 The stability of a B5 star model with normal friction

Finally, we studied the stability of a wind model of B5 star with $`q_\mathrm{i}=2q_\mathrm{p}`$, which is a bit closer to real winds of B5 stars, at the point where $`v_{r}^{}{}_{\mathrm{i}}{}^{}290\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. At this specific point is $`x_{\mathrm{ip}}1.4`$ and thus, the flow is unstable there. The results of this calculation are similar to those displayed in the Fig. 3. All imaginary roots are negative, the flow is unstable at this selected point. The analysis presented in the preceding section is valid also for this case.

## 5 Conclusions

We showed that two-component isothermal radiatively driven stellar wind is unstable in the case when friction affects the overall structure of the wind, i.e. when the drift velocity between both components is sufficiently large. Strictly speaking, the wind is unstable if the argument of Chandrasekhar function is larger than the value for which the maximum of Chandrasekhar function is reached. For this case the so-called ion runaway instability occurs. In the opposite case, when the wind is well coupled, the Abbott waves (for large scale perturbations) in the wind are stable. Putting these two cases together, stationary wind solutions obtained by KK0 for the case when the drift velocity increases to such values that the Chandrasekhar function passes through the point with its maximum value (i.e. it is decreasing and its derivative is negative) are not stable. Note that the region of instability falls within the region of the abrupt decrease of the velocity gradient in the solution found by KK0.

In the real case the obtained large growth rate of the instability will be probably reduced by the energy dissipation via frictional heating. Nevertheless, the inclusion of frictional heating will probably not alter the presence and the overall picture of instability for high drift speeds. However, it is not clear whether the ionic component escapes the star separately (as proposed Springmann & Pauldrach treni (1992)), because the ionic Abbott waves have only modest spatial growth rate (see OP). Hydrodynamical simulations are necessary to resolve this problem. However, it is questionable whether the Sobolev approximation may be used for such calculations. The Sobolev approximation was at the edge of its validity during the calculations of KK0. If the ionic component leaves the star separately, then the Sobolev approximation can be used thanks to a large velocity gradient of absorbing ions after the decoupling (see KKI). On the other hand, if the decoupling process is more complex with modest velocity gradients, we may come beyond the region of validity of the Sobolev approximation.

More complete dispersion relations for two-component flow should be derived with the inclusion of the short-wavelength perturbations. In the one-component case these perturbations lead to the well-known radiatively driven wind instability (MacGregor et al. nesmac (1979), Carlberg nesta (1980), Owocki & Rybicki ornest (1984)). When such perturbations on a scale below the Sobolev length are included, then the onset of a two-component instability occurs even below the maximum of Chandrasekhar function (see OP).

The existence of the two-component instability could also lead to frictional heating of the wind up to the temperatures of the order of $`10^6\mathrm{K}`$ (cf. KKII). Such heating could explain enhanced X-ray activity of many B-stars. Similar mechanism of X-ray generation was also proposed by Porter & Drew (iontdisk (1995)) and OP. Unfortunately, in the latest numerical models of a three-component nonisothermal wind of B stars the velocity difference is too low to allow for such ion runaway instability (except for extremely low density winds). On the other hand these results are based on a bit artificial dependence of the radiative force on the temperature and a more advanced calculations can alter this result.

In a case of a wind where two component effects are not important (an O star wind), the two-component stability analysis enabled us to find more types of waves than the classical one-component analysis of Abbott (abb (1980)). In addition to the original stable Abbott waves, there exist heavily damped ionic waves and very slow waves with very weak damping. The latter waves may move in both directions with respect of the wind or they may be static in the comoving fluid frame. Such slow waves resemble ”frozen-in” wavy pattern of the dimension of approximately $`10^7\mathrm{cm}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank to Dr. Achim Feldmeier for his valuable comments on the manuscript. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service (Kurtz et al. (2000), Eichhorn et al. (2000), Accomazzi et al. (2000), Grant et al. (2000)). This work was supported by a grant GA ČR 205/01/0656, by a grant GA AV ČR A3003805, and by projects K2043105 and Z1003909.


format: text

text:
# Spin waves in the magnetized plasma of a supernova and its excitation by neutrino fluxes

## Abstract

The spin effects on electromagnetic waves in a strongly magnetized plasma with rare collisions is considered with the help of relativistic kinetic equations, which takes into account the electron spin dynamics in the selfconsistent electric and magnetic fields. It is shown that for electromagnetic waves propagating almost perpendicular to ambient magnetic field the spin effects become essential in the vicinity of electron gyrofrequency and the corresponding wave dispersion and growth rate of the electromagnetic spin waves in the presence of intense quasi monoenergetic fluxes of neutrino is determined.

We consider the spin wave propagation in a dense plasma with the strong magnetic field $`𝐁_0=(0,0,B_0)`$ and find in the case of the quasi-perpendicular wave propagation in the cold magnetized electron gas, $`k_zk_{}`$, a new eigen mode with the spectrum given by the paramagnetic spin resonance of electrons, $`\omega `$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$. The excitation of spin waves in solids (ferromagnets) by the electron beam is well-known in literature . It should be kept in mind that we consider here the Fermi gas of free electrons in contrast to the quasi-particle approach in a condensed matter and neglect also the exchange interaction of electrons since the long-range forces are dominant in a plasma. The suitable object for the appearance of spin waves in plasma would be a polarized electron gas of a magnetized supernova (SN). The powerful neutrino flux can excite spin waves there analogously to the possible excitation of plasma waves in an isotropic SN plasma .

Let us derive the spectrum of spin waves in a magnetized plasma. The system of the self-consistent Relativistic Kinetic Equations (RKE) for the electron number density distribution $`f^{\left(e\right)}=f^{\left(e\right)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)`$ and the electron spin density distribution $`𝐒^{(e)}=𝐒^{\left(e\right)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)`$, has the form

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\left(𝐯\right)\right)f^{\left(e\right)}=e\left(𝐄+\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝐜}[𝐯,𝐁]\right)\frac{f^{\left(e\right)}}{𝐩}+St\left(f^{\left(e\right)}\right),$$
(1)
$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\left(𝐯\right)\right)𝐒^{(𝐞)}=\left[𝐞\left(𝐄+\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝐜}[𝐯,𝐁]\right)\frac{}{𝐩}\right]𝐒^{(𝐞)}+$$

$$+\frac{2\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{[𝐒^{(𝐞)},𝐁]}{\gamma }+\frac{𝐄\left(\mathrm{𝐯𝐒}^{(𝐞)}\right)𝐯\left(\mathrm{𝐄𝐒}^{(𝐞)}\right)}{\left(1+\gamma \right)c}\right]+St\left(𝐒^{(𝐞)}\right),$$
(2)
For our purpose the exact forms of collisional terms are not essential, or considering small perturbations of distribution functions with respect to equilibrium ones, it is possible to present them as

$$St\left(f\right)=\nu _e\left(ff_0\right),St\left(𝐒^{(𝐞)}\right)=\nu _s\left(𝐒^{(𝐞)}𝐒_\mathrm{𝟎}^{(𝐞)}\right)$$
(3)
with some effective collisional frequencies $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _s`$.

Equations (1) and (2) are completed by the Maxwell equations

$$\frac{𝐁}{ct}=[,𝐄],c[,𝐁]+\frac{𝐄}{t}=4\pi 𝐣,$$
(4)
where the total electron current $`𝐣(𝐱,t)=𝐣^{conv}(𝐱,t)+𝐣^{mag}(𝐱,t)`$ consists of the convection current of electrons $`𝐣^{conv}(𝐱,t)=ed^3p𝐯f^{\left(e\right)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)`$, and the magnetization current

$$𝐣^{mag}(𝐱,t)=\mu _B\frac{d^3p_e}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\left(\frac{[,𝐒^{\left(e\right)}]}{\gamma }\frac{\left(𝐯\right)[𝐯,𝐒^{\left(e\right)}]/c^2}{1+\gamma }\right).$$
(5)
Here $`e=e`$ is the electric (proton) charge; $`\gamma =\epsilon _p/m_ec^2`$is the electron gamma-factor; $`\mu _B=e\mathrm{}/2m_ec=5.79\times 10^5eVT^1`$ is the Bohr magneton; $`𝐁`$ $`𝐁_0+𝐁`$ is the total magnetic field.

Note that only in the non-relativistic (NR) limit $`v/c0`$, $`\gamma =1`$, the magnetization current takes the usual form $`𝐣^{mag}(𝐱,t)=c[,𝐌(𝐱,t)]`$, where the magnetization $`𝐌(𝐱,t)`$ is given by

$$𝐌(𝐱,t)=\mu _B\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}𝐒^{\left(e\right)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)$$
(6)
For the thermodynamical equilibrium in the external magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$ there appears the mean spin polarization

$$𝐒^{\left(e\right)}(\epsilon _p)=𝐒_0^{\left(e\right)}(\epsilon _p)=\frac{\mu _B}{\gamma }\frac{df_0^{(e)}(\epsilon _p)}{d\epsilon _p}𝐁_0$$
(7)
and the corresponding mean magnetization $`𝐌=𝐌_0=\chi _0𝐁_0,`$ where the Fermi distribution $`f_0\left(\epsilon _p\right)`$and the electron density $`n_e`$ are given by

$$f_0^{(e)}\left(\epsilon _p\right)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\epsilon _e\left(p_e\right)\epsilon _F\right)/T_e\right]+1},n_{e0}=\frac{d^2p_e}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}f_0^{(e)}\left(\epsilon _p\right),$$

correspondingly, and the static susceptibility of the polarized non-relativistic (NR) degenerate electron gas

$$\chi _0=\mu _B^2\frac{d^3p_e}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{df_0\left(\epsilon _p\right)}{d\epsilon _p}$$
(8)
is small, $`\chi _0=\alpha v_{F_e}/4\pi ^2c1`$. This is the reason why the static magnetic induction $`B_0=\left(1+4\pi \chi _0\right)H_0`$ and the magnetic field strength $`H_0`$ practically coincide there.

Taking into account a small value of the static susceptibility for NR plasma (8) one can expect that the electron spin influence the electromagnetic waves should be important near the electron gyrofrequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ only, where such influence takes the resonance character. On the other hand, the electromagnetic field itself influences the electron trajectory in the resonant way near the gyrofrequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$, and, in general, this influence is more stronger than the electron spin-magnetic resonance.

However, there is an exception. The ordinary electromagnetic wave which propagates strictly across the magnetic field, $`𝐤=(k_x,0,0)`$, $`k_x=k_{}`$, has the linear polarization $`E=(0,0,E_z)`$, $`B=(0,B_y,0)`$ due to which the perturbation of the Larmour rotation of an electron is minimized and one can expect an appearance of the spin effects. Really, let us consider the case of the transversal wave propagation in NR magnetized plasma separating the mean polarization (7) and perturbations of electromagnetic fields $`𝐄`$, $`𝐁`$,

$$𝐒^{\left(e\right)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)=𝐒_0^{\left(e\right)}(\epsilon _p)+\delta 𝐒^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t),𝐁𝐁_0+𝐁.$$

In the Fourier representation, $`\frac{}{t}i\omega `$, $`i𝐤,`$ from the Maxwell equation (4) rewritten as

$$\left(\frac{k_{}^2c^2}{\omega ^2}\epsilon _{zz}\right)E_z=4\pi \frac{ck_{}}{\omega }\delta M_y,$$
(9)
after the substitution the magnetization component $`\delta M_y`$ given as it follows from (2) by

$$\delta M_y=\mu _B\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{\left(\delta S_+^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐤,\omega )\delta S_{}^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐤,\omega )\right)}{2i}=$$

$$=\mu _B^2\frac{ck_{}}{\omega }E_z\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega +i\nu _s\mathrm{\Omega }_e}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega +i\nu _s+\mathrm{\Omega }_e}\right)\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{df_0^{(e)}(\epsilon _p)}{d\epsilon _p},$$

we obtain the dispersion equation for the cold magnetized plasma

$$\frac{k_{}^2c^2}{\omega ^2}1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega \left(\omega +i\nu _e\right)}=2\pi \mu _B^2\frac{c^2k_{}^2n_{e0}}{\omega ^2\epsilon _F}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e},$$
(10)
where the r.h.s. represents the electron spin-magnetic resonance at the gyrofrequency $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e`$; $`\omega _p=\sqrt{4\pi e^2n_{e0}/m_e}`$ is the plasma frequency. Obviously, the l.h.s. of this dispersion equation gives the standard ordinary wave spectrum accounting for the electron collisions in plasma if one neglects the electron spin in the r.h.s. in (10). However, if the ordinary wave frequency is far from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$, $`\omega _p^2+k_{}^2c^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2`$, there appears the new branch : the electron spin wave with the frequency

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e\left(1+\frac{2\pi \mu _B^2n_0}{\epsilon _F}\frac{k_{}^2c^2}{k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2\left(1\frac{i\nu _e}{\omega }\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\right)i\nu _s,$$
(11)
where: (i) for a strong magnetic field one can neglect the electron collisions, $`\nu _e,\nu _s\mathrm{\Omega }_e,`$ and (ii) even for a slightly relativistic dense electron gas, $`n_0=(p_F/\mathrm{})^3/3\pi ^2\lambda _e^3=(m_ec/\mathrm{})^3,`$ $`\epsilon _Fm_ec^2,`$ the correction in parentheses is small, $`\alpha `$.

Note, that at $`\mu _B^2B_0^2/\epsilon _Fmc^21`$ the main dissipation of the spin mode,

$$Im\omega =\nu _s+\mathrm{\Omega }_e\frac{2\pi \mu _B^2n_0}{\epsilon _F}\frac{\frac{\nu _e}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}\omega _p^2k_{}^2c^2}{\left(k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2\right)^2+\left(\frac{\nu _e}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}\omega _p^2\right)^2}$$

$$\nu _s+\nu _e\frac{\omega _p^4k_{}^2c^2\frac{\mu _B^2B_0^2}{\epsilon _Fmc^2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{e}{}^{2}(k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{e}{}^{2})_{}^{2}}$$
(12)
is due to the collisional relaxation of electron spins $`\nu _s`$. Special case $`k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2`$, which corresponds to the coupling of spin and electromagnetic (with $`\omega ^2=k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2`$) modes, is not considered here. It is reasonable to suppose, that $`\nu _s`$ and $`\nu _e`$ are of the same order and in a plasma of SN shells are determined by Coulomb collisions. Thus, we can estimate the collision frequency $`\nu _s`$ according to

$$\nu _s\nu _en_ev_e\pi \left(\frac{e^2}{\epsilon _e}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(13)
where $`v_e`$ is the typical velocity and $`\epsilon _e`$ is the typical energy of colliding electrons, $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }1020`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. For the electron density $`n_e10^{31}`$ cm-3 plasma is degenerated ($`\epsilon _Fm_ec^2T_e`$) and an estimation of $`\nu _s`$ in (13) must be multiplied by the factor $`\left(T_e/\epsilon _F\right)^2`$. In such case putting $`v_ec`$ and $`\epsilon _e\epsilon _F`$ one gets

$$\nu _e7.5\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{n_e}{10^{31}}\right)\left(\frac{m_ec^2}{\epsilon _F}\right)^2\left(\frac{T_e}{\epsilon _F}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{10}sec^1$$

and $`\omega _p=1.7835\times 10^{20}`$ sec-1, $`\nu _s/\omega _p4.2\times 10^4`$. At lower electron density $`n_e=10^{29}`$ cm-3 in plasma with $`T_em_ec^2\epsilon _F`$ in the similar way we find the next estimation

$$\nu _s\mathrm{7.\hspace{0.17em}5}\times 10^{15}\left(\frac{n_e}{10^{29}}\right)\mathrm{min}[1,\left(\frac{T_e}{m_ec^2}\right)^{1/2}]\left(\frac{e^2}{T_e}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{10}10^{16}sec^1$$

and $`\nu _s/\omega _p\mathrm{5.\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}6}\times 10^4`$. In the more general case of the quasi-perpendicular wave propagation $`k_z0,`$ $`k_zk_{},`$ one can find the bounds on the spin wave existence in a polarized electron gas. Substituting the electric field component $`E_x0`$ expressed through $`E_z0`$ one obtains from the Maxwell equation (4) the dispersion equation

$$\frac{k_{}^2c^2}{\omega ^2}\epsilon _{zz}\frac{(\frac{c^2k_zk_{}}{\omega ^2}+\epsilon _{zx})}{(\frac{k_{}^2c^2}{\omega ^2}\epsilon _{xx})}\frac{k_{}k_zc^2}{\omega ^2}=4\pi \frac{ck_{}}{\omega }\frac{M_y}{E_z},$$
(14)
where in the l.h.s. the permittivity tensor components in the third term (both $`\epsilon _{zx}`$ and $`\epsilon _{xx})`$ contain the resonance terms $`(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e)^1`$. However, in the vicinity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ this term is the correction of the order $`(k_z/k_{})^21`$ comparing with the spin resonance term in the r.h.s. since $`\epsilon _{zx}\epsilon _{xx}.`$ There appears also the resonance term $`(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e)^1`$ in the diagonal component $`\epsilon _{zz}`$ connected, in particular, with the cyclotron damping at the Doppler resonance $`k_zv_z=\omega n\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$, $`n=\pm 1,\mathrm{}.`$ Combining all these corrections one finds the new dispersion equation

$$k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2\omega ^2+\frac{\omega _p^2\omega }{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_e\omega \right)}A_1\frac{k_{}k_z\epsilon _FA_1k_{}k_zc^2}{2\left(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e\right)m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_eA_2}=2\pi \mu _B^2\frac{c^2k_{}^2n_0}{\epsilon _F}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e},$$
(15)
where additional resonance terms in the l.h.s. while competing with the spin resonance contribution in the r.h.s. are given by the integrals

$$A_1=\frac{1}{n_0}J_1^2\left(k_{}\rho _L\right)m_ev_z^2𝑑p_z𝑑\pi p_{}^2\frac{df}{d\epsilon },$$

$$A_2=\frac{\epsilon _F}{n_0}J_1^2(k_{}\rho _L)𝑑p_z𝑑\pi p_{}^2\frac{df_0^{(e)}(\epsilon _p)}{d\epsilon _p}.$$

If the ordinary wave frequency is far from the electron gyrofrequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ , $`\omega _p^2+k_{}^2c^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2,`$ we find finally from eq. (15) the spin wave spectrum

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_e=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_ec^2k_{}^2}{k_{}^2c^2+\omega _p^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\left[2\pi \mu _B^2\frac{n_0}{\epsilon _F}+\frac{k_z^2\epsilon _FA_1}{2m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2A_2}\omega _p^2\frac{A_1}{c^2k_{}^2}\right].$$
(16)
While the second term within brackets is small for the quasi-perpendicular wave propagation $`k_zk_{},`$ the third one coming from the tensor component $`\epsilon _{zz}`$ would be small too for the strong magnetic fields obeying the inequality

$$\frac{p_F}{m_ec}\frac{\mu _BB_0}{2\left(m_ec^2\right)}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{B_0}{B_c}\right).$$
(17)
One can easily see from the last inequality that for a slightly relativistic electron gas $`p_Fm_ec`$ spin waves exist if the magnetic field $`B_0`$ is stronger than the Schwinger field $`B_c=4.41\times 10^{13}`$ Gauss, $`B_0B_c,`$ otherwise, for a moderate field $`B_0`$ $`B_c`$ the electron density should be deluted in the NR plasma, $`p_Fm_ec`$. In the Standard Model of electroweak interactions(SM) the system of the corresponding RKE’s including the neutrino one is derived by the Bogolyubov method analogously to the case of an isotropic lepton plasma . For the case of NR plasma the linearized electron spin RKE (2) is completed in SM by the main weak interaction term coming from the $`\nu e`$scattering amplitude

$$\frac{G_F\sqrt{2}c_Af_0^{(e)}(\epsilon _p)}{m_e}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\delta f^{(\nu )}(𝐪,𝐱,t),$$
(18)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant; $`c_A=0.5`$ is the axial weak coupling with upper (lower) sign for electron (muon or tau) neutrinos correspondingly. Let us consider the monoenergetic neutrino beam $`f_0^{(\nu )}(𝐪)=(2\pi )^3n_{\nu 0}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐪𝐪_0)`$, which propagates in a polarized electron gas across the magnetic field $`𝐁_0=(0,0,B_0)`$ , namely along $`𝐧_0=𝐪_0/q_0=(1,0,0)`$. Hence we should find the solution of the linearized neutrino RKE for the total (Lorentz-invariant) number density distribution $`f^{(\nu )}(𝐪,𝐱,t)=f_0^{(\nu )}(𝐪)+\delta f^{(\nu )}(𝐪,𝐱,t)`$,

$$\frac{\delta f^{(\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{x},t)}{t}+\stackrel{}{n}\frac{\delta f^{(\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{x},t)}{\stackrel{}{x}}+F_{j\mu }^{(V)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\frac{q^\mu }{\epsilon _q}\frac{f_0^{(\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q})}{q_j}+F_{j\mu }^{(A)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\frac{q^\mu }{\epsilon _q}\frac{f_0^{(\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q})}{q_j}=0,$$
(19)
which obeys the neutrino current conservation $`j_\mu ^{(\nu )}(𝐱,t)/x_\mu =0`$ automatically since the weak interaction terms have the Lorentz structure and are given by the antisymmetric tensors $`F_{j\mu }^{(V,A)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$,

$`F_{j0}^{(V)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)/G_F\sqrt{2}c_V`$ $`=_j\delta n^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t){\displaystyle \frac{\delta j_j^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)}{t}},`$
$`F_{jk}^{(V)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)/G_F\sqrt{2}c_V`$ $`=e_{jkl}(\times \delta \stackrel{}{j}^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t))_l,`$
$`\sqrt{2}F_{j0}^{(A)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)/G_Fc_A`$ $`=_j\delta A_0^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t){\displaystyle \frac{\delta A_j^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)}{t}},`$
$`\sqrt{2}F_{jk}^{(A)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)/G_Fc_A`$ $`=e_{jkl}(\times \delta \stackrel{}{A}^{(e)}(\stackrel{}{x},t))_l.`$ (20)
Here $`j_\mu ^{(\nu )}(𝐱,t)=(q_\mu /\epsilon _q)f^{(\nu )}(𝐪,𝐱,t)d^3q/(2\pi )^3`$ and
$`\delta j_\mu ^{(e)}(𝐱,t)=(p_\mu /\epsilon _p)\delta f^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)d^3p/(2\pi )^3`$ are four-vectors of the neutrino current density and the electron current density perturbation correspondingly; $`\delta A_\mu ^{(e)}(𝐱,t)=m_e(d^3p/(2\pi )^3)\delta a_\mu ^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)`$ is the axial four-vector of the spin density perturbation where the axial four-vector $`\delta a_\mu ^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)`$ has the components

$$\delta a_\mu ^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)=[\frac{𝐩\delta 𝐒^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)}{m_e};\delta 𝐒^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t)+\frac{𝐩(𝐩\delta 𝐒^{(e)}(𝐩,𝐱,t))}{m_e(\epsilon _e+m_e)}].$$
(21)
The latter is the statistical generalization of the Pauli-Lubański four-vector $`a_\mu `$,

$$a_\mu (𝐩)=[\frac{𝐩\varsigma }{m_e};\varsigma +\frac{𝐩(𝐩\varsigma )}{m_e(\epsilon _e+m_e)}].$$

Note that the neutrino RKE (19) differs from the result of  by the last term which is stipulated by the parity violation through the axial vector currents contribution to weak interactions. Substituting the solution of the neutrino RKE (19) into eq. (18) and properly solving the modified spin RKE (2) one finds the dispersion equation for spin waves enhanced in NR plasma by the neutrino beam,

$`((\omega +i\nu _s)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2)\left)\right(\omega +i\nu _s{\displaystyle \frac{c_A^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )}}{2}}A_z^{(\nu )}k_z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega +i\nu _s)^2c_A^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )}}{4}}(A_{}^{(\nu )}k_++A_+^{(\nu )}k_{})=0,`$ (22)
where the spin collision frequency $`\nu _s`$ is estimated in (13); the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )}=2G_F^2n_{e0}n_{\nu 0}/m_eq_0`$ is given by the mean densities of the electrons and neutrinos $`n_{e0}`$, $`n_{\nu 0}`$, and the vector $`A_i^{(\nu )}`$ is given by

$$A_l^{(\nu )}=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\widehat{f}_0^{(\nu )}(𝐪)}{q}\left(\frac{[(\mathrm{𝐤𝐧})^2k^2]n_l(q)}{(\omega \mathrm{𝐤𝐧})^2}+\frac{(\mathrm{𝐤𝐧})n_lk_l}{\omega \mathrm{𝐤𝐧}}\right).$$
(23)
From the dispersion equation (Spin waves in the magnetized plasma of a supernova and its excitation by neutrino fluxes) we find the increment of the neutrino driven streaming instability for the spin waves which arises due to the Čerenkov resonance $`\omega =\mathrm{𝐤𝐧}_0c+i\delta =\mathrm{\Omega }_e+i\delta `$ and has the form

$$\delta =\delta _{\nu _s=0}\left(\frac{\delta _{\nu _s=0}}{\nu _s}\right)^{1/2},$$
(24)
where the increment in the absence of collisions $`\delta _{\nu _s=0}`$ is given by

$$\delta _{\nu _s=0}=\mathrm{\Omega }_e\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )})^{1/3}(\sqrt{2}c_A\mathrm{sin}\theta _{q_0})^{2/3}.$$
(25)
Here $`\theta _{q_0}`$ is the angle between the neutrino beam direction $`𝐧_0`$ and the wave vector $`𝐤`$. We neglected here the vector current terms ($``$ $`c_V`$ ) entering the neutrino RKE (19) which give a negligible contribution ($`c_Ac_V`$) in the spin RKE for long wave lengths exceeding the Compton one, $`2\pi /k\mathrm{}/m_ec,`$ that is the reasonable approximation in NR plasma.

For the mean neutrino energy in a magnetized supernova (SN) $`q_010`$MeV and for the NR plasma outside the neutrinosphere and behind the shock with the densities $`n_{e0}10^{29}`$cm$`^3,`$$`n_{\nu 0}10^{32}`$cm-3the parameter is very small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )}10^{25},`$while the increment (25) would be big enough, e.g. for the strong magnetic field $`B_0=10^{12}`$Gauss and the corresponding gyrofrequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e=1.7\times 10^7B_0=1.7\times 10^{19}`$ sec-1 it reaches the value $`\delta _{\nu _s=0}10^{10}`$ sec-1. One can see that the spin wave amplitude increases faster than a neutrino passes throw SN envelope ($`10^3`$sec). However, the value $`\delta _{\nu _s=0}`$ is less than the spin wave damping due to collisions $`\nu _s10^{16}`$sec-1 resulting in a decrease of the neutrino driven instability growth rate, $`\delta _{\nu _s=0}(\delta _{\nu _s=0}/\nu _s)^{1/2}10^7`$sec-1.

Nevertheless, the energy exchange between plasma and neutrino fluxes by their interaction with spin waves probably could lead to the shock revival during the neutrino burst ($`1020`$ sec) through the heating of the surrounding plasma. Really these spin waves are generally coupled to the magnetosonic ones analogously to the spin waves in ferromagnets , or their energy can be transferred to the electromagnetic and plasma waves at the cross of spectra.

Note that in a strong magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$$`\omega _{pe},`$the increment (25) is less suppressed for the small angles $`\theta _{q_0}\mathrm{arccos}\left(<v>/c\right)`$ than the corresponding one for plasma waves in the isotropic plasma ,

$$\delta _{\nu _s=0}=\omega _p\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\nu )})^{1/3}\left(\sqrt{2}c_V\frac{\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _{q_0}}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{q_0}}\right)^{2/3},$$

that allows to decrease the inevitable Landau damping of collective modes excited by the neutrino beam when spin waves propagate through a relativistic plasma with the mean electron velocity $`<v>c`$.

There is the second advantage of spin waves enhanced via the weak axial vector currents ($`c_A=0.5`$) instead of the case of plasma waves excited via the weak vector currents with the small vector coupling in the case of muon and tau neutrinos (choosing the lower sign in $`c_V=2\xi \pm 0.5`$where $`\xi 0.23`$is the Weinberg parameter ). This is the reason why authors  considered the case of electron neutrinos only and put for them $`c_V1`$. Note that during the main neutrino burst in SN all neutrino species are produced in the hot SN core via the pair annihilation $`e^+e^{}\nu _a\stackrel{~}{\nu }_a,`$$`a=e,\mu ,\tau `$.

Thus, we conclude that spin waves (16) exist in a magnetized plasma with the strong magnetic field obeying the condition (17) and can be efficiently excited, e.g. in a magnetized SN by a powerful neutrino flux that could be an effective collective mechanism to revive the shock with the following blust of the SN envelope.

This work was partially supported for A.V. and V.S. by the RFBR grant 00-02-16271.