Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 000–000 (0000) Printed 16 September 2018 (MN LATEX style file v2.

2)

Causality and stability of cosmic jets

Oliver Porth1,2? , Serguei S. Komissarov1,3 †

1 Department of Applied Mathematics, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
2 Centrefor mathematical Plasma Astrophysics, Department of Mathematics, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200B, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
arXiv:1408.3318v2 [astro-ph.HE] 27 May 2015

3 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, 47907-2036, USA

Received/Accepted

ABSTRACT
In stark contrast to their laboratory and terrestrial counterparts, cosmic jets appear
to be very stable. They are able to penetrate vast spaces, which exceed by up to a
billion times the size of their central engines. We propose that the reason behind this
remarkable property is the loss of causal connectivity across these jets, caused by their
rapid expansion in response to fast decline of external pressure with the distance from
the “jet engine”. In atmospheres with power-law pressure distribution, pext ∝ z −κ ,
the total loss of causal connectivity occurs, when κ > 2 – the steepness which is
expected to be quite common for many astrophysical environments. This conclusion
does not seem to depend on the physical nature of jets – it applies both to relativistic
and non-relativistic flows, both magnetically-dominated and unmagnetised jets. In
order to verify it, we have carried out numerical simulations of moderately magnetised
and moderately relativistic jets. The results give strong support to our hypothesis
and provide with valuable insights. In particular, we find that the z-pinched inner
cores of magnetic jets expand slower than their envelopes and become susceptible to
instabilities even when the whole jet is stable. This may result in local dissipation and
emission without global disintegration of the flow. Cosmic jets may become globally
unstable when they enter flat sections of external atmospheres. We propose that the
Fanaroff-Riley morphological division of extragalactic radio sources into two classes
is related to this issue. In particular, we argue that the low power FR-I jets become
re-confined, causally connected and globally unstable on the scale of galactic X-ray
coronas, whereas more powerful FR-II jets re-confine much further out, already on the
scale of radio lobes, and remain largely intact until they terminate at hot spots. Using
this idea, we derived the relationship between the critical jet power and the optical
luminosity of the host galaxy, which is in a very good agreement with the observations.
Key words: MHD – instabilities – relativity – stars: jets – galaxies: jets

1 INTRODUCTION keep structural integrity over huge distances. Consider for

example jets from young stars. They are traced up to dis-
Collimated outflows (jets) from stars and active galactic
tances of few parsecs and their initial radius, which should
nuclei (AGN) are intriguing cosmic phenomena which re-
be about the size of their central engine, is somewhere be-
main subject of intensive observational and theoretical study
tween the stellar radius of ' 2R and 0.1−10 AU, depending
since the day of their discovery. In spite of the tremendous
on the engine model (Ray 2012). Thus, stellar jets cover the
progress both in observations and theory, we are still some
distances of order 105 or 107 of initial radii. The data for
way from solid understanding of their physics. One of the
AGN jets are even more impressive. Assuming that they are
most remarkable properties of cosmic jets is their ability to
powered by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Blandford &
Znajek 1977), the initial jet radius is comparable to the grav-
? E-mail: [email protected] (OP) itational radius of the black hole. For the typical value of
† E-mail: [email protected] (SSK) the black hole mass, 109 M , this is ri ∼ 1014 cm. These jets

c 0000 RAS
2 Porth & Komissarov
can be traced up to the distances of hundreds kilo-parsecs, linear phase rather early and result only in mild deforma-
which is about one billion(!) initial radii. None of the jets tions. Numerical simulations are normally required to han-
produced in laboratories using most sophisticated jet en- dle the non-linear phase and give insight on the saturation
gines come even close to their cosmic counterparts in terms regime. In most numerical studies so far, the kink instability
of their “survival” abilities. They loose integrity and get de- shows to be highly disruptive. However, for force-free mag-
stroyed by dynamic instabilities on much smaller scales, no netic configurations the non-linear growth rate can be rela-
more than a hundred of initial jet radii. tively low (e.g. O’Neill, Beckwith & Begelman 2012). These
This remarkable apparent stability of cosmic jets has configurations require poloidal magnetic field comparable to
attracted a lot of attention from theorists, resulting in a the azimuthal one, which is not feasible at large distances
very long list of analytical and numerical studies. A com- from the jet source. Near the source the poloidal magnetic
prehensive review of these studies is beyond the scope of field may provide the required stability, as indicated by the
this introduction, for this we refer the interested reader to numerical simulations (McKinney & Blandford 2009; Porth
the recent reviews by Hardee (2011) and Perucho (2012). 2013).
Here we only outline some key concepts and results. Outflows from neutron stars and black holes can be
Most analytical and numerical studies of jet stability are highly magnetically dominated, with magnetic energy den-
focused on flows with cylindrical geometry, because they are sity significantly exceeding that of the rest-mass energy of
easier to analyze. The main instabilities in such flows are 1. plasma. In the limit of zero inertia of plasma, the equa-
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KH) where the source of en- tions of Relativistic MHD reduce to that of Magnetody-
ergy for unstable modes is the bulk motion of the flow (e.g. namics (MD), where plasma influences the dynamics of
Birkinshaw 1991) and 2. Magnetic instabilities which utilize electromagnetic field only via perfect conductivity (Komis-
the energy of the jet magnetic field. The latter are similar to sarov 2002). Analytical studies of MD cylindrical jets con-
those encountered in the experiments on magnetic confine- cluded that under some conditions they can be stable.
ment of plasma (Bateman 1978). The magnetic instabilities In particular, Istomin & Pariev (1994) demonstrated sta-
are important as most astrophysical jets are believed to be bility to internal kink mode in a jet with uniform axial
produced via a magnetic mechanism. magnetic field (Bz =const), and Lyubarskii (1999) showed
In a static column, ideal1 MHD instabilities are often that an unbounded flow is stable if Bz does not decrease
classified as either current driven (CD) where the quan- outwards. Narayan, Li & Tchekhovskoy (2009) considered
tity j · B0 determines the outcome, or pressure driven (PD) quasi-cylindrical equilibrium with an extra term accounting
where ∇po ≈ j × B0 is important (see e.g. Freidberg 1982). for finite curvature of magnetic surfaces and concluded that
In a magnetised flow, the separation between the KH and it is stable to the internal kink mode provided the flow speed
magnetic instabilities is not that rigid as they can mix and (the drift speed in MD) increases outwards. Bz is uniform
give rise to a new phenomenon (e.g. Baty & Keppens 2002). in their equilibrium. The applicability of the MD approxi-
Whatever the nature of the instability is, the most dis- mation is rather limited. The inertial effects become impor-
ruptive mode is the kink mode (|m| = 1), which leads to a tant when the flow becomes super-fast magnetosonic. This
1/3
displacement of the center of mass in the jet cross section. occurs when the flow Lorentz factor exceeds Γf ≈ Γmax ,
It is recognized that the kink mode can come in two forms – where Γmax is the terminal Lorentz factor corresponding to
the internal one, where the jet boundary is fixed (e.g. due to complete conversion of magnetic energy into the bulk mo-
a rigid wall) and the external one where it is perturbed as tion energy. Thus MD is justified only for the small initial
well. Only the latter one is a danger for the jet integrity. In section of the acceleration zone.
the astrophysical context, the internal mode can actually be The observations of jets from young stars, X-ray bi-
beneficial, leading to dissipation required by observations. naries, micro-quasars, gamma-ray bursts and active galac-
Linear stability analysis of cylindrical MHD jets show tic nuclei tell us that their physical parameters differ enor-
that they are generically unstable to the kink mode. Vari- mously. One could use this to argue that there exists no
ous factors have been shown to influence the growth rate: jet single cause for the stability of the various types of jets.
Mach number, density of external medium, velocity shear in However, it would be much more satisfying to have a uni-
the jet, magnetic structure, relativistic effects etc, but none versal mechanism. In this case, the explanation must be very
seem to lead to full stabilization under conditions appro- robust and simple and it must be build around one property
priate for astrophysical jets (Mizuno, Hardee & Nishikawa common to all these flows. One such common property is
2007; Hardee & Rosen 2002; Hardee & Hughes 2003; Hardee the rapid lateral expansion of cosmic jets. With the opening
& Rosen 2002). However, the mere fact that a jet is linearly angle of few degrees, the jets of young stellar objects must
unstable does not necessary mean that it will be completely expand laterally by a factor exceeding 104 . The radius of
destroyed by the instability. Its growth may saturate at non- the M87 jet near its tip is rj ∼ few × 1020 cm, indicating the
total increase of the jet radius by about 106 (!) times. Such
a dramatic expansion stems from the fact that cosmic jets
1 Due to the enormous Reynolds numbers of astrophysical jets, originate from compact objects, whose gravitational field in-
only ideal effects need be considered for the overall stability of duces rapid decline of pressure in their surrounding. This is
the flow. a natural reaction of collimated super-sonic flows to the drop

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 3
of external pressure in their attempt to establish transverse and the jets are globally stable. In astrophysical context,
force equilibrium. It has already been pointed out that ex- such steep atmospheres are expected to be quite common.
pansion has a stabilizing effect on jets dynamics (e.g. Rosen The generality of the argument makes this a very robust
& Hardee 2000; Moll, Spruit & Obergaulinger 2008). In our and hence attractive explanation, but details depend on the
paper, we argue that this is in fact the main reason behind actual internal jet structure. Numerical simulations are re-
the apparent enhanced stability of cosmic jets. quired to study the non-linear development of instabilities,
The issue of stability of cosmic jets in not limited to particularly in the sub-critical regime with κ < 2. Our efforts
the problem of their survival. It has been long recognized in this direction are described in Section 3, where we focus
that emissivity of adiabatically expanding flows drops much on a particular class of magnetised relativistic jets, whose
faster compared to what is observed in cosmic jets (Begel- initial internal structure is described by the core-envelope
man, Blandford & Rees 1984) and some “in-situ” dissipa- model of cylindrical jets due to Komissarov (1999). These
tion and particle acceleration is required to explain the ob- jets have a z-pinched inner core and a force-free envelope
servations (e.g. Ferrari, Trussoni & Zaninetti 1979; Sikora with purely azimuthal magnetic field. A simple method to
et al. 2005; Meisenheimer 2003; Brunetti et al. 2003). In- obtain initial near stationary solutions of relativistic expand-
ternal shocks caused by variability of the central engine ing jets was presented in (Komissarov, Porth & Lyutikov
and interaction with the environment have been often in- 2015, thereafter KPL). In Section 3, this approach is gener-
voked to introduce such dissipation. However, this may not alized in a way which allows us to study the time-dependent
be sufficient. This is particularly problematic for relativis- 3D dynamics of these flows using periodic box simulations.
tic shocks in magnetised plasma as the recent Particle-in- In both cases, the jet expansion is triggered by a gradual
Cell simulations revealed that they are not efficient non- lowering of the external gas pressure, which imitates the
thermal particle accelerators (Sironi & Spitkovsky 2009, conditions experienced by the jet material as it propagates
2011). A viable alternative to shocks is the magnetic dis- through power-law atmospheres. In Section 5, we discuss the
sipation associated with magnetic reconnection (e.g. Spruit, astrophysical implications of our findings. In particular, we
Daigne & Drenkhahn 2001; Sironi & Spitkovsky 2014; Sironi, propose that the division of extragalactic radio source into
Petropoulou & Giannios 2015). This however requires de- FR-I and FR-II classes is related to the stability issue. The
velopment of thin current sheets, which may occur natu- lower power FR-I jets are externally confined in the coronas
rally via instabilities. Instabilities may also lead to forma- of their host galaxies, which have rather flat pressure distri-
tion of shocks. Such instabilities must be strong and yet not bution, do not expand sufficiently rapidly, become unstable
threatening to the jet integrity. These seemingly conflicting and mix with the coronal plasma on the galactic scale. In
requirements can only be met by local internal instabilities, contrast, the more powerful FR-II jets remain free and sta-
developing on a small scale compared to the jet radius and ble until they reach the scales of radio lobes. The instability
arising from finer structures inside the jet. In this paper, we of jet cores may cause their disintegration and trigger inter-
give an example of such instability occurring in the magnet- nal dissipation and ultimately electromagnetic emission even
ically confined jet core. when the envelope is stable. This may explain the emission
The observations suggest that global instabilities may of FR-II jets on much smaller scales than radio lobes. Our
also play a role. For example, some cosmic jets appear quite conclusions are summarised in Section 6.
“wiggly” (e.g. Carilli & Barthel 1996), implying an exter-
nal kink mode at work. Moreover, the observed properties
of Fanaroff-Riley type I (FR-I) extragalactic radio sources
2 STABILITY AND CAUSALITY
indicated that their jets become completely destroyed by in-
stabilities, mix with the external gas and turn into buoyant During the development of instabilities that may threaten
turbulent plumes (e.g. Bicknell 1984). We argue that this the jet integrity, global perturbation modes are amplified.
loss of jet global stability can occur when it enters regions These modes involve coordinated motion of the whole jet
where the external pressure distribution flattens out. In the and hence imply communication between its different parts
case of AGN jets this can be the core of the X-ray corona of by means of waves. These waves trigger forces that push the
the parent galaxy or the extended radio lobe. flow away from its equilibrium state. In the case of unmag-
This paper is organized in the following way. In Sec- netised fluid, these are sound waves. In magnetised fluids,
tion 2, we put forward very simple and general arguments, these are mainly fast magnetosonic waves. If the whole sec-
which explain how lateral expansion increases global stabil- tion of the jet is to be displaced to one side of the original
ity of jets. In brief, such expansion slows down, and may even jet axis, as this occurs in the kink mode, any part of this
completely terminate, the flow of information across jets, section needs to “know” what the other parts do. In other
thus reducing the growth of coherent displacements. The words, the jet has to be causally-connected in the direction
rate of expansion depends on the properties of jet surround- transverse to its direction of motion. In the case of super-
ing, namely on how fast the external pressure decreases with sonic (or super-fast-magnetosonic) flow, all these waves are
distance from the jet origin. For power-law atmospheres, advected with the flow and the region of influence of any par-
pext ∝ z −κ , there is a critical value for the power index, ticular point has the geometry of a cone, aligned with the
κ = 2. For steeper gradients, causal connectivity is lost flow direction. In fluid dynamics, this cone of influence is

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
4 Porth & Komissarov
known as the Mach cone. For such flows, the causal commu- conclusion, we consider a flow characteristic that originates
nication in the transverse direction is obstructed – no wave at the jet boundary and moves towards its axis. Its equation
can originate at one edge of the cross section and reach the is
other. However, a synchronised motion may still be possible
dr
as long as an upstream location can be communicated with = θv − θM , (2)
the whole of the jet somewhere downstream. The higher the dz
Mach number, the longer the separation along the jet be- where θv = (r/rj )drj /dz is the local streamline angle. Given
tween its causally connected sections and slower the growth the lack of characteristic length scale, one may assume that
of unstable perturbation modes become. This is the reason all the jet parameters are powers of z. In particular, rj ∝ z α
why supersonic flows are less unstable. with 0 < α < 1 and θM ∝ z β . Given these, the solution of
For cylindrical jets, this necessary condition for the Eq. (2) is
global instability is always satisfied. This explains why lab-  
oratory and terrestrial jets are relatively quickly destroyed C
r = Az α 1 − z δ , (3)
by instabilities and why the theoretical studies of flows with δ
cylindrical geometry struggle to explain the stability of cos-
mic jets. For expanding flows, the situation is more com- where A, C > 0 are constant and δ = 1 + β − α. One can
plicated as now there is a competition between the jet ex- see that the characteristic eventually reaches the jet axis
pansion and the expansion of the cone of influence. Let us only when δ > 0 – this is a new form of the connectivity
analyse this competition in the simple case of a power-law condition. In order to turn this condition into the condition
atmosphere, with pressure pext ∝ z −κ . of the power index of the atmosphere, we note that
For a start, consider an unmagnetised non-relativistic
θM
highly supersonic adiabatic jet. Denote as θj = rj /z its half- ∝ zδ . (4)
opening angle and as θM its Mach angle. In the limit of θj
small angles, θM = a/v, where a and v are the sound and Comparing this with eq.(1), we identify δ = (2 − κ)/2 and
bulk motion speeds of the jet respectively. In such a flow, hence confirm that κ = 2 is indeed a critical value.
√
v =const, ρ ∝ rj−2 and p ∝ ργ , which leads to θM /θj ∝ z p. The case of relativistic Poynting-dominated flows is
Finally, using p = pext , one finds that more complicated as the flow is generally not self-similar.
θM In fact, a gradual redistribution of poloidal magnetic flux
∝ z (2−κ)/2 . (1)
θj across the jet is an essential component of the so-called
collimation-acceleration mechanism (e.g. Komissarov et al.
Magnetic field introduces an additional degree of com-
2009; Komissarov 2011). However, the analysis presented in
plexity as the magnetic hoop stress can result is strong ax-
Komissarov et al. (2009) shows that κ = 2 is still a critical
ial pinching of the jet and hence a mismatch between the
value.
internal jet pressure and the external one. This is particu-
When κ > 2, jets become free, with conical geometry
larly true for magnetically-dominated jets, where the mag-
of streamlines. Their pressure decreases rapidly – at least as
netic pressure dominates over the thermal one. For scale-
z −2γ in the gas pressure-dominated regime and z −4 in the
free external pressure, one would expect the jets to be self-
magnetic pressure-dominated one. When this is faster than
similar and hence B 2 ∝ pext . Away from the central en-
the external pressure, a reconfinement shock can be driven
gine the magnetic field is mainly azimuthal and evolves as
inside the jet (e.g. Sanders 1983; Komissarov & Falle 1997).
B ∝ rj−1 , whereas ρ ∝ rj−2 as before. Thus, the Alfvén speed
Since shock waves are faster compared to sound waves, one
c2a ∝ B 2 /ρ ∝ rj0 , the Mach angle based on the Alfvén speed may wonder if they can establish pressure balance with the
√
θM ∝ rj0 and the opening angle θj−1 ∝ z pext . The last two external gas via dissipative heating of jet plasma and sup-
results ensure that equation (1) still holds in this limit. port jet connectivity. The key question is whether the recon-
The relativistic case is a little bit more complicated finement shock can travel all the way from the jet boundary
as even in the hyper-sonic regime the thermal energy may to its axis. This problem has been analysed in Komissarov
dominate the rest mass energy of gas particles, p  ρc2 , & Falle (1997) for the case of unmagnetised uniform rela-
and the jet may continue to accelerate. Combining the en- tivistic jet and it was found that the shock reaches the axis
ergy conservation, pΓ2 rj2 = const, and the mass conservation at the distance
ρΓrj2 = const, where Γ is the jet Lorentz factor and ρ is its
co-moving density, with the equation of state p ∝ ργ , one
 1/2δ
L
finds Γ ∝ p(1−γ)/γ ,√ rj ∝ p(γ−2)/2γ , whereas the sound speed zr ' δ 1/δ , (5)
aπc
is constant, a = c γ − 1, and the relativistic Mach angle
θM ∝ 1/Γ. Taken together, these yield equation (1) again. where δ = (2 − κ)/2 and a is the coefficient of the law pext =
Thus, Eq.(1) is quite general, az −κ and L is the jet power. It is easy to see that zr → ∞
The form of Eq.(1) suggests that κ = 2 is a critical value as κ → 2, which allows us to conclude that for κ > 2 the jet
– for κ < 2 the jet can remain causally connected, whereas still remains causally disconnected. Although this analysis is
for κ > 2 the connectivity will be lost. In order to verify this restricted to a particular type of flow, the conclusion must

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 5
be generic2 . Indeed, the dynamic pressure of any free jet static equilibrium yields the pressure estimate p = GM ρ/H.
decreases as ∝ z −2 and always wins the competition with The gas density can be found from the mass conservation
the external pressure when κ > 2. as ρ = Ṁ /2πrHvr , where in the α-disk model the accre-
To confirm and illustrate this analysis, we constructed tion speed vr = αas H/r and a2s ' p/ρ. Combining these
a set of steady-state jet solutions for jet propagating in a equations, we find
power-law atmosphere using the method described in KPL.
Ṁ (GM )1/2
The jet structure at the nozzle (of radius r0 = 1) is de- p= . (7)
scribed in Sec.3.1 below. It represents an equilibrium cylin- 2παH 5/2
drical flow in pressure balance with the external medium. For a 109 M black hole, this gives us the gas pressure
Figure 1 shows the results for models with κ ranging be- pdisk ' (107 /α)dyn/cm2 at the scale of order rg ' 1.5 ×
tween 0.5 and 2.5. First, one can see how the overall jet 1014 cm. On the other extreme, inside the extended ra-
shape changes from an almost cylindrical for κ = 0.5 to a dio lobes of the size ' 100 kpc, the typical pressure in-
conical for κ = 2.5. Second, these plots nicely illustrate how ferred from the radio and X-ray observations is of the order
the jets are trying to maintain the transverse equilibrium by plobe ' 10−11 dyn/cm2 . Assuming these are the end points
means of magnetosonic waves bouncing across the jet. These of a single power-law, we find its index κ ' 2.
waves are launched due to the loss of dynamic equilibrium Thus, both the theoretical and observational arguments
downstream of the nozzle, where the jet interior becomes indicate that rapid decline of pressure with distance from
under-expanded because of the drop in the external pres- their source must be typical for cosmic jets and their corre-
sure, and cause the oscillations of the jet boundary about sponding lateral expansion should be fast enough to make
the mean position. As κ increases, the wavelength of the os- a strong positive impact on their global stability. Given the
cillations increases as well until they disappear for κ ≥ 2. At huge range of scales, it would be unrealistic to expect the
this point the causal connectivity across the jet is completely same slope everywhere. In fact, in hot coronas of elliptical
lost. galaxies κ = 1.25 ± .25 (Mathews & Brighenti 2003). More-
How does this critical value compare with those of typi- over, inside the extended radio lobes, which expand much
cal environments of cosmic jets? For a polytropic atmosphere slower compared to their sound speed, one would expect
of central mass, one has κ = γ/(γ − 1), which is higher than κ ' 0. Within such flat sections global instabilities may
2 when 1 < γ < 2. For a spherical adiabatic wind, κ = 2γ, develop, leading to the observed flaring and wiggling of cos-
which is also steeper than the critical one ( Only a self- mic jets, whereas through steeper sections they pass mainly
collimating magnetic wind can in principle deliver κ < 2.). undisturbed.
For the Bondi accretion κ = 3γ/2, which is still larger than 2
for γ > 4/3. Thus, steep gradients of external pressure, bor-
dering the critical value, are expected to be quite common
3 PERIODIC BOX SIMULATIONS OF
close to the central engine.
EXPANDING JETS
Observational measurement of gas and magnetic pres-
sure in the environment of cosmic jets is not yet always pos- To study the jet stability, one has to carry out fully three-
sible, particularly close to the source. Most of the time, only dimensional simulations, as the most threatening mode is
indirect model dependent estimates can be made. Taken to- a non-axisymmetric m = 1 current driven mode (Begel-
gether, all the estimates available for AGN show that κ ' 2 man 1998; Appl, Lery & Baty 2000). For supersonic jets,
is a typical mean value for their environment (Phinney 1983; such instabilities are waves travelling in the general direc-
Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984). To illustrate the argu- tion of the jet flow and experiencing growth in amplitude
ments, consider the conditions at the jet source. For quasars, downstream. The best way of studying their development
we are dealing with M ' 109 M black holes, which accrete is to use very long computational domain, exceeding in size
at the rate close to the Eddington’s one. The inner parts of the initial jet radius by several orders of magnitude. Since
their accretion discs are thus dominated by radiation pres- such simulations are computationally very expensive, much
sure and have constant thickness smaller computational domains which capture only a section
3 Ṁ c2
  of the jet have been used in many computational studies in-
H' rg , (6) stead (for some of the recent examples see Mizuno et al.
2 Ledd
2012; Anjiri et al. 2014). To allow travelling waves, such
where Ledd ' 1.3 × 1047 (M/109 M ) erg/s is the Eddington domains are combined with periodic boundary conditions
luminosity of mass M and rg = GM/c2 is its gravitational at the boundaries normal to the jet axis. In such a “peri-
radius (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973). Thus near the black hole, odic box”, all waves that leave the computational domain
the disk becomes geometrically thick and its vertical hydro- through one of the periodic boundaries, enter it through
the opposite one. Obviously, such simulations allow to study
only modes whose wavelength is below the box size. To be
2 The dependence of zr on L, a, and c can be recovered from more precise, a multiple of the wavelength must be equal to
the analysis of dimensions. For non-relativistic jets, c has to be the box length. The box frame does not have to be station-
replaced with the jet speed. ary relative to the jet source - it may well be moving relative

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
6 Porth & Komissarov

log10 ρ log10 ρ log10 ρ log10 ρ

1000 0.0 1000 0.0 1000 0.0 1000 0.0

−0.5
−0.2 −0.4 −0.8
800 800 800 800
−1.0
−0.4 −0.8 −1.6
−1.5
600 −0.6 600 −1.2 600 600 −2.4
−2.0

−0.8 −1.6 −3.2

−2.5
400 400 400 400
−1.0 −2.0 −3.0 −4.0

−3.5
200 −1.2 200 −2.4 200 200 −4.8

−4.0
−1.4 −2.8 −5.6
0 0 0 −4.5 0
0 2 4 6 0 10 20 0 20 40 60 0 100 200 300
r/rj r/rj r/rj r/rj

log10 ρ
1000 0
−1
800
−2
600 −3
−4
400
−5
200 −6
−7
0
0 250 500
r/rj

Figure 1. Structure of steady-state jets obtained via time-dependent 1D simulations. The plots show the density distribution for models
with κ = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5, increasing from left to right. The distance along the vertical axis is defined as z = ct/rj , where rj is
the initial jet radius. The white contour shows the jet boundary, located using the passive scalar.

to it. Clearly, the periodic box simulations are best suited dp bφ drbφ
+ = 0, (8)
for studying the instability of cylindrical flows (κ = 0). In dr r dr
order to study the role of the jet expansion in atmospheres where bφ = B φ /Γ is the azimuthal component of the mag-
with κ > 0, one may force the external pressure in the box to netic field as measured in the fluid frame using a normalized
decrease in a systematic fashion, thus triggering the jet ex- basis. One of the infinitely many solutions of (8) is the “core-
pansion in the radial direction. This is exactly the approach envelope” model of Komissarov (1999):
we apply in our simulations. 
 bm (r/rm ) ; r < rm
bφ (r) = bm (rm /r) ; rm < r < rj , (9)
3.1 Initial conditions 0 ; r > rj

 h i
As starting point of our investigation, we choose a cylin-  p0 α + β2m (1 − (r/rm )2 )
 ; r < rm
drical plasma column in equilibrium between Lorentz forces p(r) = αp0 ; rm < r < rj , (10)
and pressure gradient. The velocity is directed in vertical 
p0 ; r > rj

direction vr = vφ = 0 and the field is purely toroidal. Thus
we have the simple relation where

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 7
2p0
βm = , α = 1 − (1/βm )(rm /rj )2 , (11) 0.25
b2m
20 cells
rj is the jet radius and rm is the radius of its core. As one can 0.20 40 cells
see, the core is pinched and in the envelope the magnetic field 80 cells
is force-free. This may be combined with any distribution of 0.15
density and axial velocity. We imposed ρ = ρ0 and

σ̄z
Γ(r) = Γ0 (1 − (r/rj )ν ) + (r/rj )ν . (12) 0.10

The parameters for the initial equilibrium are rj = 1, rm = 0.05

0.37, bm = 1, ρ0 = 1, z0 = 1, βm = 0.34, Γ0 = 3 and ν = 2.
The jet is only moderately magnetised with σmax = 0.7. 0.00
We also investigate one force-free jet model where the 0 20 40 60 80 100
pressure is set to p = αp0 everywhere in the jet and an t
additional poloidal field
( h i Figure 3. Resolution study of the fiducial parameters with κ = 0.
z p0 β2m (1 − (r/rm )2 ) ; r < rm Resolution is indicated in terms of cells per jet radius rj = 1.
B = (13)
0 ; r > rm .
yields the pressure balance in the core. The equation of state
used throughout this work is w = ρ + γ/(γ − 1)p with con- Following Mizuno et al. (2012), we perturb the initial
stant adiabatic index γ = 4/3. configuration via adding the radial velocity component
N
∆v X
v r (r, φ, z) = exp(−r/rm ) cos φ sin(2πnz/Lz ) , (15)
3.2 Numerical treatment N n=1

So far periodic box simulations have been used only to study to the jet velocity field, Here Lz is the box length along the
flows with cylindrical geometry, thus excluding the effects jet axis and N is the number of introduced modes. This cor-
of jet expansion. At first glance, this seems to be the only responds to an equitable superposition of modes with pos-
option as the periodic boundary conditions do not allow sys- itive and negative azimuthal mode number m = ±1. In all
tematic variation of the external pressure in the jet direc- our simulations we used N = 4 and ∆v = 0.01 c.
tion. However, one can use a “trick” similar to that we have In order to select the reasonable relaxation rate con-
employed in our study of steady jets in KPL – one may stant α, we have carried out test simulations of cylindrical
trigger the lateral expansion of the jet by forcing the exter- jets (κ = 0) with and without the forcing term. Figure 2
nal pressure to decrease. At first, we tried exactly the same shows the snapshots of the solutions for the models which
approach as in the case of steady jets - direct resetting of differ only by the value of α, namely α = 0, 1/4, 1/2 and
the exterior solution to the prescribed state. However, the 1. One can see that higher value of α leads to more pro-
results of our test experiments with the κ = 0 model, where nounced perturbation of the jet structure. As a reasonable
we could obtain the solution without forcing and use it as a compromise, we adopted α = 1/2 for all our main runs.
reference, have shown that this is not quite satisfactory – in The simulations have been carried out with MPI-
the model with forcing the instability turned out to be sig- AMRVAC (Porth et al. 2014; Keppens et al. 2012)4 , which
nificantly more violent. The resetting amounts to complete utilizes a Godunov-type scheme with HLL approximate Rie-
erasing of the instability wave structure outside of the jet. A mann solver and second-order spatial TVD reconstruction
less drastic approach is to drive the exterior solution towards due to Koren (1993). For the time-advance, we used a three-
the desired state according to the relaxation equation step Runge-Kutta method. Only on one occasion, near the
end of the κ = 2 run, we had to resort to an even more
df c
= −α (f − fext (t)) , (14) diffusive Lax-Friedrich scheme to circumvent numerical is-
dt rjet
sues related to extremely low gas pressure in the jet. The
where fext (t) = p0 (ct/z0 )−κ is a target value of the undis- solenoidal condition ∇ · B = 0 was treated by means of the
turbed state of external gas, f is the actual current value Dedner et al. (2002) GLM approach.
of pressure and α(c/rjet ) is the relaxation rate. The relax- In order to determine the required numerical resolution,
ation rate determines how far the instabilities can penetrate several models were run with the reference case κ = 0. A
into the jet environment. The method applied in KPL is comparison of the results for the average jet magnetization
recovered in the limit α → ∞.3 are shown in Figure 3. Runs with 40 and 80 cells per jet
radius agree quite well in both the onset of strong dissipation
in the non-linear phase at t = 40 − 50 and in the saturated
3 This forcing approach can be applied in the 1D simulations
described in KPL. This leads to dampening of jet oscillations but
the overall expansion rate is well preserved 4 https://gitlab.com/mpi-amrvac/amrvac

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
8 Porth & Komissarov

p; α = 1; t = 70 p; α = 1/2; t = 70
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
−2 −2
−4 −4
−6 −6
−10 −5 0 5 10 −10 −5 0 5 10

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

p; α = 1/4; t = 70 p; α = 0; t = 70
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
−2 −2
−4 −4
−6 −6
−10 −5 0 5 10 −10 −5 0 5 10

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 2. Dependence on the dampening parameter α. The plots show the gas pressure distribution in the y = 0 plane for models with
κ = 0 and α = 1, 1/2, 1/4 and 0 at the same instance t = 70.

value obtained at t ' 80. At 20 cells per jet radius, the with ∆x = 1/40 × 2l0 −l , where l0 is the AMR level of the jet
solution is markedly more diffused. Based on this data, we at the start of the simulations. Hence after the first coars-
have concluded that 20 cells per jet radius is perhaps too low, ening √event, we have for Lz = 64: R ' 43, after the second
whereas 80 cells per radius is probably already an “overkill”. R ' 2 × 43 ' 61 and so on. Thus the resolution per jet
In the expanding simulations, the jet is thus initialized with radius effectively increases during the course of the simu-
the resolution of 40 cell per jet radius on the finest AMR lation. At the same time, each coarsening event speeds up
grid. The maximum AMR depth was nine levels in the κ = 2 the simulation by a factor of up to 16 due to the reduced
model while models with κ = 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 where run with number of cells and the larger CFL-limited time step.
seven levels. During the runs we refine all cells containing jet The simulations were carried out in a Cartesian domain
material to the current highest level using a passive tracer of the size (Lx , Ly , Lz ) = (192, 192, 64) rj for models with
τ as a jet indicator. κ = 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 and (1536, 1536, 64) rj for the model
As the jet expands, it becomes better resolved and more with κ = 2.0. The jet is centered on the z axis.
and more cells need to be updated. Thus to keep the com-
putational cost at bay, we coarsen the entire jet each time
the jet fills more than Nmax = 60 × 106 cells. Assuming the 3.3 Results
jet retains its approximate cylindrical shape, the number of
cells per jet radius just after coarsening the jet to level l is As expected, models with higher κ turned out to be more
stable. Here we first describe our naked eye observations and
then provide with quantitative analysis.
 1/2
rjet 1 Nmax 2∆x In the models with κ = 0.0 and 0.5, which are relevant
R= = (16)
∆x 2 πLz for jets surrounded by cocoons (radio lobes in AGN jets),

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 9

ρ; κ = 0.5; t = 100 ρ; κ = 0.5; t = 200

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−50 0 50 −50 0 50

0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30

ρ; κ = 0.5; t = 300 ρ; κ = 0.5; t = 500

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−50 0 50 −50 0 50

0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Figure 4. Time evolution of density for the model κ = 0.5. Shown are y = 0 slices for times t ∈ {100, 200, 300, 500}. The white contour
indicates the jet boundary. The non-linear development of the kink instability dramatically increases the effective jet cross-section and
seeds turbulence in the jet medium (t = 300). At t = 500 the jet is disrupted entirely and replaced by a slowly moving plume.

Γ; κ = 1; t = 1000 ρ; κ = 1; t = 1000
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−30 −15 0 15 30 −30 −15 0 15 30

2 4 6 0.006 0.012 0.018

Figure 5. Solution for the model with κ = 1.0 at t = 1000. The white contour indicates the jet boundary.

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
10 Porth & Komissarov

Γ; κ = 1.5; t = 1000 ρ; κ = 1.5; t = 1000

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−50 0 50 −50 0 50

2.5 5.0 7.5 0.0015 0.0030

Γ; κ = 1.5; t = 2000 ρ; κ = 1.5; t = 2000

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−50 0 50 −50 0 50

2.5 5.0 7.5 0.0008 0.0016 0.0024

Figure 6. Solution for the model with κ = 1.5 at t = 1000 (top) and at t = 2000 (bottom). The white contour indicates the jet boundary.

Γ; κ = 2; t = 3000 ρ; κ = 2; t = 3000
40 40
0 0
−40 −40

−200 −100 0 100 200 −200 −100 0 100 200

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 0.00000 0.00008 0.00016 0.00024

Figure 7. Solution for the model with κ = 2.0 at t = 3000. The jet radius exceeds 200 at this point and its featureless boundary is not
seen in these plots.

the instability leads to complete disintegration of jets by he non-linear phase. The lateral jet protrusions drive weak
the end of the simulation runs. Their evolution proceeds in compression waves into the ambient medium. The deforma-
a very similar way but takes 2-3 times longer for the κ = 0.5 tions of the jet column become comparable to the jet radius
model. The time-evolution of the κ = 0.5 run is illustrated in around t ' 200. At this stage, the compression waves have
figure 4. At t=100, where the corresponding non-expanding turned into strong shocks, which begin to transfer a signifi-
jet is already disrupted, the κ = 0.5 model has just entered cant amount of the jet power to the environment. By t = 300

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 11

100 0.24
0.22 Lz = 128
κ =0 Lz = 64
0.5 0.20
10−1
1D
1 0.18
0.16
r̄/rjet

10−2 1.5

σ̄z
0.14
0.12
10−3 2 0.10
0.08
10−4 0.06
101 102 103 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
t t

Figure 8. Barycenter displacement normalized to the instanta- Figure 9. Average jet magnetization in the κ = 2 models com-
neous jet radius for increasing values of κ. When r̄/rjet & 0.5, the paring different box sizes with the 1D case.
jet looses integrity and disrupts.
ter displacement in the computational box via integration
over the jet cross-section,
R 
 Qrds
the jet has lost its integrity and its fragments drive strong r̄ = R , (17)
Qds
bow-shocks. By t = 500, the effective jet radius has increased
to ≈ 50rj , while the size of the corresponding steady-state and subsequent averaging along the jet axis for the whole
solution is only ≈ 4rj at this time. Due to this dramatic in- box. As a weighting function we choose the relativistic iner-
crease in the jet cross section and mixing with the ambient tia multiplied by the jet tracer
medium, the flow velocity has dropped to a sub-relativistic
Q = Γ2 (ρc2 + 4p)τ . (18)
level. The jet has now been totally destroyed and turned
into a turbulent plume. Figure 8 shows the evolution of r̄ normalized to the
In the model with κ = 1.0, the value at the lower end current jet radius rjet for models with different κ. Only in
for galactic coronas, the jet shows significant fragmentation the runs with κ = 0 and 0.5 jets loose integrity and become
only by the end of the run, at t = 1000. As one can see fully turbulent by the end of simulations. Based on these
in figure 5, the jet core has fragmented into fast “bullets” models, we conclude that the disintegration occurs when r̄ =
that move through slower and less deformed envelope. The 0.5rjet . If the instability does not saturate prior to reaching
bullet’s Lorentz factor is higher compared to the initial one this amplitude, we expect the jet in the κ = 1 model to
of the core by a factor of two – the result of prior thermal disintegrate around t = few × 103 . In the κ = 1.5 model,
acceleration. we observe saturation of the core-instability at t ' 2000
In the model with κ = 1.5, the value on the higher and the jet does not loose global integrity due to the modes
end for galactic coronas, the separation of the core and the permitted by the simulation.
envelope becomes even more prominent (see figure 6). By the Interestingly, for κ = 2 the normalized barycenter dis-
end of the run (t = 2000), the jet radius is approximately the placement is actually decreasing after t ' 400, indicating
same as in the corresponding steady-state solution and its that this jet will never disintegrate, which is fully consis-
envelope does not show noticeable deformations. However, tent with our theory. In this run, the jet radius eventually
already at t = 1000 the jet core shows wiggles that have exceeds the length of the computational box, that prompts
grown out of the initial n = 4 mode of the perturbation. the question whether this can make a strong impact on the
These deformations, advected with the fast flow in the core, simulation outcome. In order to investigate this issue, we
drive compression waves reminiscent of bow shocks into the made another run with doubled Lz dimension. For a fair
jet envelope. One can trace each such wave to a particular comparison, both cases were perturbed with the same verti-
wiggle of the core. By t = 2000, the initial perturbation cal modes. As evidenced in figure 9, the resulting dynamics
starts to fragment the jet core. is nearly indistinguishable, showing that the effect of the
Continuing the general trend, at the critical value of κ = box size can be neglected.
2 the envelope shows no visible features. The core, however, Figure 10 compares the energetics of our steady-state
begins to show noticeable wiggles at t = 3000 (see figure 7). and 3D time-dependent solutions for the model with κ = 0.5.
The growth of initial perturbations is reflected in the One can see that initially, while the instability amplitude is
displacement of the jet center of mass, or barycenter. This still small, the jet evolution in both models is more or less
displacement is a useful quantitative measure of the ampli- the same. This is expected and only proves consistency be-
tude of global instability. We compute the average barycen- tween these two types of simulations. The dominant process

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
12 Porth & Komissarov

1.0 1.0
3D 3D
0.8 1D 0.8 1D
Lk

Normalised jet power

Normalised jet power

0.6 Lk 0.6
Lt
0.4 0.4

Lt
0.2 Lm 0.2 Lm

0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000
t t

110 100.1

100 100.0

90 99.9
L/L0 [%]
L/L0 [%]

80
99.8
70
99.7
60
99.6 3D
3D
50 1D
1D
99.5
40 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
t
t
0.24
0.25
0.22 3D
3D
1D
0.20 1D 0.20
0.18
0.15
0.16
σ̄z
σ̄z

0.14
0.10
0.12
0.05 0.10
0.08
0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 t
t

Figure 11. As figure 10, but for the model with κ = 1.

Figure 10. Energetics of jets in the model with κ = 0.5 – 1D
versus 3D. Left: The contributions of kinetic, thermal and mag-
netic energy to the instantaneous total jet power. Middle: Total
to be due to stronger magnetic dissipation5 . The non-linear
jet power Right: The volume averaged magnetization parameter
σ. Dashed lines show the results for steady-state jets (1D simu- effects become important at t ≈ 200, where the difference
lations) whereas solid line show the results of time-dependent 3D between the two solutions becomes quite pronounced. The
simulations. total of the 3D jet power decreases due to the energy trans-
fer to the external gas via the shock waves driven at first
by the jet wiggles and then by its fragments. The instability
also generates current sheets inside the jet where the mag-
netic energy is dissipated. This is further illustrated in figure
at this phase is the ideal MHD acceleration – as the jet ex-
pands, its thermal and magnetic energy is converted into the
kinetic energy of bulk motion. In fact, the mean magnetiza- 5 In the simulations we solve equations of ideal relativistic MHD
tion parameter σ decreases a bit faster in 3D, which is likely and hence this dissipation is of numerical origin.

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 13
12, which shows a volume rendering of the current density 1974), whereas the structure of FR-I radio sources suggests
for two runs with κ = 1, one with initial helical magnetic that their jets suffer destructive global instabilities, become
field and another with initial toroidal magnetic field. Both turbulent, entrain dense external gas, slow down to subsonic
solutions exhibit snaking morphology that brings magnetic speeds and turn into plumes (Bicknell 1984; Komissarov
field lines of different directions closer together. In the model 1990a). Observations indicate that on the pc-scale FR-I jets
with pure toroidal initial field the current density is notice- are similar to the FR-II jets – both could be described as well
ably higher. collimated relativistic outflows (Venturi et al. 1995). This
As a result, the jet’s Poynting flux rapidly decreases, indicates that the morphological difference between these
and so does its mean magnetization. The dissipated mag- types of jets on the kpc-scale is related to the different na-
netic energy is converted into heat. The process of mag- ture of their interaction with the environment on the length
netic dissipation develops rapidly and completes already at scales around 100 pc.
z ≈ 400. After this point the total jet power remains more Given the expected steep decline of the external gas
or less constant – the jet is already very slow and does not pressure in the galactic nuclei, it is reasonable to assume that
drive strong waves into the external medium. soon after leaving the immediate vicinity of the central black
The energetics of the κ = 1 model is consistent with hole these jets become free and the global instabilities are
the early phases of the κ = 0.5 model (see figure 11). In suppressed. However, on the scale of about 100 pc they enter
spite of displaying quite pronounced non-axisymmetric dis- the region where the black hole gravity becomes small com-
tortions and core fragmentation (see figure 6), the jet of the pared to that of the galaxy. From the X-ray observations,
κ = 1 model looses only less than 1% of its total power via we know that on this scale, the external gas pressure distri-
emission of MHD waves by the end time of the simulation, bution flattens out - here the jets enter the central core re-
at t = 1000. For κ = 1.5 and 2, the difference between the gion of the galactic X-ray coronas. Further out, on the scale
energetics of the steady-state and 3D models is even smaller. of about 1 kiloparsec, the pressure begins to decline again,
Cores of magnetically generated jets are likely to be though not as steeply as inside AGN. The pressure flatten-
dominated not by the gas pressure but by the pressure of ing in the coronal cores creates the necessary condition for
poloidal magnetic field. In order to explore the difference the jet reconfinement. This can be important for the jet dy-
this can make on the jet stability, we made another run namics, as reconfined jets would becomes causally connected
for the κ = 1.0 model, now with poloidal magnetic field in and hence susceptible to global instabilities. However, the re-
the jet core. In this model, the initial radial profiles of the confinement process can be too slow to be completed on the
azimuthal component of the magnetic field, density and ve- core scale. It involves a stationary “conical” shock wave (the
locity are the same as before, but the gas pressure in the reconfinement shock) gradually converging towards the jet
core is uniform and the magnetic field is initially force-free axis. The rate of convergence depends, among other factors,
(see KPL for full details). As one can see in Figures 12 and on the jet power. The higher the jet power, the slower this
13, this modification has little effect on the jet stability – in rates becomes. This suggest that more powerful jets may fly
the non-linear regime, the morphology is very similar. How- through the galactic coronas unimpeded.
ever, we note that in the model with initial poloidal field the The basic geometry of the reconfinement shock can be
current density is higher and the current is less fragmented. obtained in the Kompaneets approximation (Kompaneets
This can be attributed to the role of the magnetic tension 1960) which for an unmagnetised relativistic jet leads to
associated with the poloidal field.  1/2
dr r p(z)
− = −z , (19)
dz z K
4 JET STABILITY AND THE where r is the shock radius, K = µLj /πθ02 c, Lj and θ0 is
FANAROFF-RILEY DIVISION the power and opening angle of initially free jet respectively
and µ is a numerical constant of order unity (Komissarov &
The issue of jet stability can be connected to the Fanaroff-
Falle 1997). In terms of the shock opening angle θ = r/z,
Riley division of extragalactic radio sources into two ba-
dimensionless external pressure distribution f (z) = p(z)/p0
sic morphological types (Fanaroff & Riley 1974) – FR-I
and dimensionless distance ζ = z/z0 , this equation reads
sources with wide two-sided kpc-scale jets and plume-like
radio lobes (e.g. 3C 31) and FR-II sources with narrow one- r
dθ f (ζ)
sided jets and cocoon-like radio lobes with leading hot spots = −θ0 , (20)
dζ A
(e.g. Cygnus A). In addition to the difference in morphology,
these two classes also differ in radio luminosity. The FR-II where
sources are not just more powerful on average, but there is a µLj
sharp division between the two classes on the radio-optical A= (21)
πp0 z02 c
luminosity plane (Owen & Ledlow 1994).
The structure of FR-II radio sources suggests that their is a dimensionless parameter that combines the effects of the
jets survive all the way to the leading hot spots, where they jet power and ambient galactic pressure scale. Integrating
collide with the surrounding medium (Blandford & Rees Eq.(20), we find

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
14 Porth & Komissarov

Figure 12. The electric current density and magnetic field structure in models with (left panel) and without (right panel) initial poloidal
magnetic field (κ = 1.0 at t = 1000). The outer contour corresponds to the jet boundary.

Zζ r
 
f (x) 
θ(ζ) = θ0 1 − dx . (22)
A
0

which gives us the reconfinement scale ζr via

Zζr p √
f (x)dx = A. (23)
0

Interestingly, ζr does not depend on the jet opening angle.

The pressure of galactic coronas is well represented by
the model

−κ/2
p = p0 1 + (z/z0 )2 (24)
with p0 ' 10−9 dyn cm−2 , z0 ' 1 kpc and κ = 1.25 ± 0.25
(e.g. Mathews & Brighenti 2003). Using these values we es-
timate
1 −1 Figure 14. Reconfinement scale in galactic corona as a function
−2
A' p Lj,44 z0,kpc , (25) of the jet power for p0,−9 = 1 and z0,kpc = 1. The solutions are
9 0,−9
shown for κ = 1 (solid line) and 1.5 (dashed line).
where p0,−9 = p0 /10−9 dyn cm−2 , Lj,44 = Lj /1044 erg s−1
and z0,kpc = z0 /1 kpc. Among these parameters, the most
scattered one is the jet power and hence it is the jet power
which mainly determines how far from the galactic center jet energetics, Ghisellini, Tavecchio & Ghirlanda (2009) de-
the jet becomes reconfined. Based on the energetics of cav- rived similar top end jet powers via modelling the nonther-
ities made by the jets in the hot gas of clusters of galaxies, mal continuum of gamma-ray blazars. If, however, the jet
Cavagnolo et al. (2010) give 1042 < Lj < 1046 erg/s, with plasma contains equal numbers of protons and electrons, the
LF R = 1044 erg/s separating the FR-I and FR-II classes. upper end of the power-range extends to Lj = 1048 erg/s.
Under the assumption that protons can be ignored in the Figure 14 shows zr (Lj ) for fixed p0,−9 = z0,kpc = 1 and

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 15

ρ; κ = 1; t = 1000 ρ; κ = 1; t = 1000
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−20−10 0 10 20 −20−10 0 10 20

0.004 0.008 0.012 0.006 0.012 0.018

Figure 13. Solutions for models with (left panel) and without (right panel) poloidal magnetic field. The plots show the distribution of
rest mass density for models with κ = 1.0 at t = 1000.

κ = 1; 1.5, the lowest and the highest values of κ which still explained via varied parameters of the interstellar gas dis-
agree with the observations (Mathews & Brighenti 2003). tribution of parent galaxies (cf. Bicknell 1995). Equation 25
One can see that for Lj  LF R the reconfinement occurs shows that the critical jet power scales as LF R ∝ p0 z02 , so it
inside the coronal cores ( zr < z0 ) whereas for Lj  LF R is important to know how p0 and z0 vary with the optical
well outside of them, at the distances more typical for the luminosity of the parent galaxy.
extended radio lobes. This result provides strong support to
the idea that the Fanaroff-Riley division is rooted in the jet The stellar distribution of radio galaxies always shows
stability. Namely, the jets with power Lj < LF R (FR-I jets) the presence of a central core (de Ruiter et al. 2005). Ko-
are reconfined inside the galactic coronas, where they be- rmendy (1987) discovered that the core size increases with
1.1
come unstable and mix with the coronal plasma, whereas optical luminosity as z0,∗ ∝ Lo (see also Faber et al. 1997).
the jets with Lj > LF R (FR-II jets) remain unconfined The observations also reveal that the optical and X-ray sur-
and hence globally stable on the galactic scale. The FR-II face brightness profiles of elliptical galaxies are almost iden-
jets may get reconfined further out, inside their radio lobes, tical (Trinchieri, Fabbiano & Canizares 1986), which sug-
where we expect a more-or-less uniform pressure distribu- gests that the size of the X-ray core z0 ∝ L1.1 o as well. The
tion. The kink-mode instabilities in this region may be be- X-ray luminosity of the elliptical galaxies is approximately
hind the observed wiggling of the FR-II jets (e.g Carilli & Lx ∝ L2o (O’Sullivan, Forbes & Ponman 2001). Ignoring the
Barthel 1996) and multiple hot spots (Laing 1981; Scheuer weak dependence of the X-ray emissivity on the tempera-
−1/2
1982). The non-destructive nature of these instabilities may ture, we have Lx ∝ n20 z03 , which yields n0 ∝ Lo . Assum-
be down to the fact that the jet mass density is higher than ing that the temperature itself arises from collisions of gas
that of lobe density (e.g. Hardee & Rosen 2002). clouds ejected by stars, it depends on the stellar velocity dis-
persion as T ∝ σ 2 The same result follows when the X-ray
Another important aspect of the FR-division is the de- gas is modelled as an isothermal hydrostatic sphere (Bick-
pendence of the critical radio luminosity, PF R , on the optical nell 1995). Given the Faber-Jackson relationship σ ∝ L0.25 o
luminosity of parent galaxies: PF R ∝ L2o (Owen & Ledlow (Faber & Jackson 1976; Terlevich et al. 1981), which is a con-
1994). In our theory of the FR-division, this can only be venient projection of the less scattered fundamental plane

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
16 Porth & Komissarov
(Dressler et al. 1987; Djorgovski & Davis 1987), this reads particle acceleration, and ultimately non-thermal emission
1/2
as T ∝ Lo and hence p0 ∝ n0 T ∝ L0o is independent of the of cosmic jets. The solution to this conundrum could be
optical luminosity. Thus we find that the critical jet power found in local instabilities, which do not endanger the global
integrity of jets. In this regard, the core-envelope structure
LF R ∝ p0 z02 ∝ L2.2
0 , (26) of magnetised jets is a very attractive feature. Indeed, dis-
which agrees very well with the observational results by integration of the core via kink instability does not have to
Owen & Ledlow (1994). be fatal for the whole jet when the jet is much wider.
The Kompaneets approximation, which assumes con- A slowly expanding core seems to be a generic prop-
stant pressure across the shocked layer, may lead to a sub- erty of jets with dynamically important helical magnetic
stantial error for the reconfinement distance. For example, field. For magnetically accelerated jets from rotating bod-
the calculations of Nalewajko & Sikora (2009), which ac- ies this is well known (e.g. Bogovalov 1995; Beskin & Nokh-
count for the pressure variation in the shocked layer, show rina 2009). In our models, there is no rotation and the slow
a factor of two difference in the case of uniform external expansion of the jet core is of a somewhat different na-
medium. Moreover, Eq. 20 ignores the role of magnetic field. ture. It arises from properties of the z-pinch equilibrium,
Future studies will clarify these issues. where the hoop stress of the azimuthal component of mag-
netic field balances the pressure force. In order to elucidate
this point, consider the non-relativistic case, which is much
simpler. For magnetically-dominated envelope with predom-
5 DISCUSSION inantly azimuthal magnetic field, its force equilibrium re-
quires Bφ = Bm (r/rm )−1 , in which case the hoop stress is
The results of our numerical simulations confirm the strong
balanced by the pressure force of the azimuthal field itself.
dependence of instabilities on the jet expansion associated
However, this profile cannot be extended all the way to the
with decline of external pressure. Although we considered
jet axis, as this would lead to infinite magnetic energy. In-
only one particular case of transverse jet structure out of
stead it terminates at the core radius rm . In order to avoid
infinitely many possible configurations of various types, the
infinite current density, Bφ should actually vanish at r = 0.
underlying reason is very generic – full or partial loss of
The conservation of magnetic flux of the envelope then re-
causal connectivity – and should operate for all types of
quires
supersonic jets, relativistic or not.
In studies of cylindrical static columns, it has been Bm ∝ (rm log(rjet /rm ))−1 . (27)
found that our test configuration is disruptively unstable to
Inside the core, the hoop stress should be balanced either
kink mode instabilities, in contrast to configurations with
by the gas pressure or the pressure of the poloidal mag-
force-free magnetic field, which are found to be much more
netic field. If the total core pressure is dominated by the
stable and exhibit only mild coherent deformations at the −2γ
gas contribution then it evolves as pc ∝ rm . The trans-
non-linear phase (O’Neill, Beckwith & Begelman 2012)6 .
verse force balance of the jet core can be approximated as
Does this mean that such force-free configurations, where 2
pc /rm ∝ Bm /rm , which yields
the magnetic force associated with the azimuthal component
is finely balanced by the forces associated with the poloidal rm ∝ (log(rjet /rm ))1/(γ−1) . (28)
component, are vastly superior and can provide an alterna-
If it is the pressure of the poloidal magnetic field which dom-
tive explanation to the stability of cosmic jets? Likely not.
inates in the core then Eq. (28) still applies if we put γ = 2.
Indeed, as this has already been pointed out by O’Neill,
One can see that in both these cases the core radius grows
Beckwith & Begelman (2012), strong expansion of cosmic
much slower than the jet radius. To put this in a different
jets is bound to destroy such force-free equilibrium because
way, if the core radius expanded as fast as the jet radius
in expanding jets the poloidal field decays faster than the −3
than the hoop stress would decrease as rjet whereas the
azimuthal one. In magnetically dominated equilibrium jets
core pressure force would drop faster, in conflict with the
this should lead to bφ ∝ r−1 , which is exactly what we postu-
assumed force equilibrium.
lated for the envelope of our initial solutions. Our runs with
A fraction of the dissipated magnetic energy of the core
and without the poloidal component already support this
can be emitted and the rest converted into the kinetic en-
conclusion and future studies will clarify this issue further.
ergy (cf. Giannios & Spruit 2006). The result could be a fast
On the one hand, mild global deformations are prefer-
and luminous spine surrounded by slow and relatively dark
able because they preserve jet integrity. On the other hand,
sheath. In the sheath, the magnetic field would be mainly
they are also deficient, being unable to trigger dissipation,
azimuthal, whereas in the spine its structure would be deter-
mined by the competition between the turbulent randomiza-
6 In fact, they considered a somewhat different distribution of the tion, stretching by mean velocity field and shock compres-
azimuthal magnetic field in the envelope, with bφ decreasing more sion. Such “spine-sheath” structure can explain many ob-
like r−2 than r−1 . Nonetheless, we have seen that our cylindrical servations of AGN jets (e.g. Komissarov 1990b; Bridle 1996;
configuration was similarly unstable and hence this deviation is Gopal-Krishna et al. 2007; Giroletti et al. 2004; Stawarz
not significant. & Ostrowski 2002; Ghisellini, Tavecchio & Chiaberge 2005;

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 17
Laing & Bridle 2014). Fragmentation of the jet core can sults of numerical simulations of such flows confirm that the
also explain why the superluminal blobs of AGN jets oc- acceleration of AGN jets should be almost fully completed
cupy only a portion of the entire jet cross section (Lister inside the first parsec (Komissarov et al. 2007).
2013). The envelope, with its largely undisturbed azimuthal For a slowly rotating black hole rls ≈ (4/a)rs , where
field, can be behind the transverse gradients of the Fara- a is the rotation parameter, so Γj = 10 would be reached
day rotation measure found in many parsec-scale AGN jets when rj = (40/a)rs . This can be matched with the observed
(Gabuzda 2013). If the whole jet was affected by the kink in- jet radius at the end of the acceleration zone only for the in-
stability and developed turbulence, one would not expect to credibly low a =√0.002. If the jet originates from a Keplerian
find regular azimuthal field and hence the Faraday-rotation disk then rlc = 2rs (rf /rs )3/2 , where rf is the radius of the
gradients on the scale of jet radius. magnetic foot-point on the disk. To match the observations,
VLBI observations of AGN jets allow to measure the we would need rf ≈ 140rs , which is too far from the disk
Lorentz factor of their moving blobs Γb and the jet half- inner edge. In both these cases, it will be very difficult to
opening angle θj . These measurements lead to the result explain the high power of blazar jets.
Γb θj ≈ 0.2 (Jorstad et al. 2005; Clausen-Brown et al. 2013), It could be that the VLBI observations do not reveal the
which seems to indicate that these jets are causally con- entire structure of AGN jets, but only their bright magnet-
nected and therefore externally confined. This conclusion is ically confined inner cores. Their enhanced brightness is a
supported by the observed acceleration of the blobs in blazar combination of magnetic pinch and dissipation triggered by
jets up to the de-projected distance of ' 100 pc (Homan kink-mode instabilities. The magnetic dissipation may also
et al. 2015), which turns into a deceleration at larger dis- power the observed bulk acceleration. It has been known for
tances. Indeed, this can been interpreted as an evidence of some time that at the kpc scale even the minimal pressure
the magnetic collimation acceleration mechanism (Vlahakis of the M87 jet is about one order of magnitude above the
& Königl 2004; Komissarov et al. 2007, 2009; Lyubarsky external gas pressure, which can be interpreted as an ev-
2010), which requires external confinement. In fact, the ob- idence of magnetic confinement (Biretta, Owen & Hardee
servations of the M87 jet are not only in agreement with 1983; Owen, Hardee & Cornwell 1989). However, the polar-
the MOJAVE data on the continued acceleration up to the ization observations show that the magnetic field is predom-
distance of ' 100 pc, where the stationary HST-1 feature inantly aligned with the jet (Owen, Hardee & Bignell 1980;
is located, but also indicate the parabolic shape of the jet, Owen, Hardee & Cornwell 1989). This is qualitatively con-
z ∝ r1.7 , in this region (Asada & Nakamura 2012; Asada sistent with the M87 jet being only the jet core, where the
et al. 2014). Further out the jet becomes conical and its magnetic field structure is randomized by instabilities and
speed decreases. These data challenge the key point of our stretched by velocity shear. It is well known that the poloidal
theory that on the scales below 100pc the AGN jets are field in kpc-jets cannot be regular as this leads to enormous
unconfined. magnetic flux, which cannot be sustained by any reasonable
However, a closer look at the observational data shows central engine (Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984). Where
a number of problems with this interpretation. For p ∝ z −κ is the azimuthal magnetic field responsible for the magnetic
with κ < 2 the collimation acceleration theory predicts the confinement? Perhaps, it is in the free-expanding jet enve-
jet shape z ∝ ra , where the index a = 4/κ > 2 (Komissarov lope which is dim because it is stable and the dissipation is
et al. 2009; Lyubarsky 2009), in conflict with the observa- not triggered in it and because it is slow and its emission is
tions of M87 which give a < 2. Asada & Nakamura (2012) not Doppler-beamed. The Faraday rotation gradients across
applied the theoretical results for the degenerate case κ = 2, jets may have already revealed its presence (Gabuzda 2013;
which allows 1 < a < 2 depending on the initial jet struc- Algaba, Asada & Nakamura 2013).
ture. However, because these transitional cases require κ to Falle & Wilson (1985) explained the apparent over-
be exactly two, it is hard to see how they can be of more pressuring of the M87 jet by the compression at standing
than just mathematical interest. For κ > 2 the flows are conical shocks. However, the pressure jumps in their model
asymptotically conical. are smaller than the observed ones, even if the minimal pres-
Moreover, for κ < 2 the theory predicts Γj ' r/rlc , sure represents the total jet pressure, and the structure of
where rlc is the radius of the light cylinder. For a Blandford- M87 knots does not have sharp features easily associated
Znajek jet from a rapidly rotating black hole, rlc ≈ 2rs , with conical shock geometry (Biretta, Owen & Hardee 1983;
where rs = 2GM/c2 is the Schwarzschild radius. Thus, one Owen, Hardee & Cornwell 1989).
would expect the typical Lorentz factor of blazar jets Γ ≈ 10 In this paper, focused primarily on AGN jets, which is
to be reached when the jet radius just exceeds rj = 20rs . a reflection of the authors main research area. However, the
In contrast, for the typical half-opening angle of blazar jets, strong lateral expansion is a common property of all astro-
θj = 0.02, the jet radius at the distance of 100pc is much physical jets and in this regard our results must have much
larger: rj ≈ 6 × 1018 cm ≈ 2 × 104 rs for a 109 M black hole. broader application. Since these jets originate from central
Thus, the asymptotic value of the Lorentz factor Γmax ≈ 10 objects whose gravity dictates the properties of their envi-
would have been reached on much smaller scales than ob- ronment, strong stratification with steep pressure gradients,
served. These estimates may not be very accurate for flows promoting free expansion of jets, must be very common.
with only moderate asymptotic Lorentz factor, but the re- Jets from young stars, X-ray binaries, and collapsing stars

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
18 Porth & Komissarov
are likely to be surrounded by broad winds originating in 6 CONCLUSIONS
the same central objects. For a spherical adiabatic wind, the
wind gas pressure drops as p ∝ z −κ with κ = 2γ > 2. Adi- Typical environmental conditions of cosmic jets include
abatic spherical accretion on a point-like central mass gives rapid decline of pressure with distance from the jet source.
κ = 3γ/2 (Bondi 1952). In collapsing stellar envelopes, the Our analysis shows that for atmospheres with the power law
gas pressure follows a similar law, whereas for the ram pres- pext ∝ z −κ pressure distribution, the value κ = 2 is critical
sure κ = 5/2 (Bethe 1990). In all these cases the pressure in the sense that a steeper pressure decline leads to such a
gradient is sufficiently steep to promote free expansion of rapid lateral jet expansion that the causal communication
jets and suppress instabilities via the loss of causal connec- across the jet is completely lost and hence global instabili-
tivity. From the observations of “jet-breaks” in the emis- ties of any type become totally suppressed. We propose that
sion of GRB afterglows one can estimate the product of the this is the reason for the observed remarkable stability of jets
jet opening angle and its Lorentz factor, 10 < Γj θj < 50 from young stars and AGN, which are capable of propagat-
(Panaitescu & Kumar 2002). For kinetic energy dominated ing distances which exceed their initial radius up to a billion
flows this actually implies a total loss of causal connectiv- times.
ity (e.g. Zakamska, Begelman & Blandford 2008). However,
for Poynting-dominated flows the condition Γj θj > 1 is not Our numerical simulations are in full agreement with
sufficient to infer a causally disconnected flow as the fast- this conclusion. They convincingly demonstrate the reduc-
magnetosonic sound speed can be much closer to the speed tion of the growth rate of the kink instability with increase
of light (Komissarov et al. 2009). of the power index κ, and suggest global jet stability for
κ ≥ 2. In the simulations, we considered only one particu-
lar type of jets, but in combination with the very general
The periodic box approach has its obvious limitations - analytical arguments they make a strong case in favour of
it does not allow us to study wavelengths exceeding the box the proposed explanation of the apparent stability of cosmic
size and does not fully reproduce the conditions in expanding jets.
jets. In future, larger boxes may have to be utilised for sys- When cosmic jets enter flat sections of external atmo-
tematic studies of flows with strong poloidal magnetic field, spheres, they may re-confine and re-establish causal connec-
which may suppress the growth of short-wavelength pertur- tivity. This creates conditions for global instability. We have
bations. Another option is to resort to computationally ex- analysed the reconfinement process of extragalactic jets in
pensive simulations in large non-periodic boxes. In this case, the X-ray coronas of their parent galaxies, which have rela-
on can include the magnetorotational central engine as a tively flat pressure distribution, and found that, depending
part of the problem and ensure that the jet structure is con- on the jet power, the reconfinement may occur both deeply
sistent with its origin, which is an indisputable advantage inside the coronal core and well outside of it, on scales more
(see e.g. Moll, Spruit & Obergaulinger 2008; McKinney & characteristic of radio lobes. The separation between the two
Blandford 2009; Porth 2013). Interestingly, the stable jet cases roughly corresponds to the jet power at the border line
simulated in McKinney & Blandford (2009) has an almost between FR-I and FR-II radio sources. This suggests that
conical geometry, which is a characteristic of free expansion the FR-I jets get re-confined, become unstable, and form
in steep “atmosphere”. In these simulations the jet engine turbulent plumes on the scale of the coronal core, whereas
is initially surrounded by an almost empty space but later the FR-II jets burst through the corona largely unscathed.
the inner region if filled with the disk wind. Overall, the The critical jet power depends on the pressure and radius of
pressure decreases with distance faster than z −2 (McKinney, the X-ray core. Using the empirical properties of elliptical
private communication), consistent with the conclusions of galaxies, we derived the relationship between critical power
our work. and the optical luminosity of the host galaxy, which in a
very good agreement with the observations.
In this paper, we focused on relatively simple atmo- Jets with dynamically-important magnetic field tend to
spheres described by power-law and King-type distributions. be highly non-uniform, owing to the hoop stress of the az-
The reality is likely to be more complicated. For example, imuthal component of the magnetic field. When a jet devel-
AGN jets may cross quasi-standing shocks resulting from ops a z-pinched core, this core expands much slower than
the interaction between a wide disk wind and ISM. This the jet envelope and can preserve causal connectivity across
would put the jet strongly off the lateral force balance with itself. As the result, it becomes susceptible to instabilities.
ISM after the crossing and drive in a reconfinement shock. In In our simulations we observed non-linear development of
such strongly off-balance cases the reconfinement shock may such instabilities, which resulted in core fragmentation and
actually reach the jet center even when κ > 2 (Bromberg & its energy dissipation. Such local instabilities do not present
Levinson 2007; Kohler, Begelman & Beckwith 2012). A non- a threat to the integrity of the whole jet but they may be re-
relativistic magnetised disk wind may also play an important sponsible for its observed emission and morphology. The so-
role in collimating the jets (Gracia, Tsinganos & Bogovalov called “spine-sheath” structure of AGN, supported by vari-
2005). We plan to explore these avenues in future studies. ous observations, is one likely outcome.

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
 Stability of cosmic jets 19
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Falle S. A. E. G., Wilson M. J., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 79
Fanaroff B. L., Riley J. M., 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P
SSK and OP are supported by STFC under the standard
Ferrari A., Trussoni E., Zaninetti L., 1979, A&A, 79, 190
grant ST/I001816/1. The computations were carried out on
Freidberg J. P., 1982, Reviews of Modern Physics, 54, 801
the UK MHD cluster Arc-I in Leeds and Dirac-II in Durham.
Gabuzda D. C., 2013, in European Physical Journal Web
OP likes to thank Purdue University for kind hospitality.
of Conferences, Vol. 61, European Physical Journal Web
of Conferences, p. 7001
Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Chiaberge M., 2005, A&A, 432,
REFERENCES 401
Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Ghirlanda G., 2009, MNRAS,
Algaba J. C., Asada K., Nakamura M., 2013, in European 399, 2041
Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 61, European Giannios D., Spruit H. C., 2006, A&A, 450, 887
Physical Journal Web of Conferences, p. 7003 Giroletti M. et al., 2004, ApJ, 600, 127
Anjiri M., Mignone A., Bodo G., Rossi P., 2014, MNRAS, Gopal-Krishna, Dhurde S., Sircar P., Wiita P. J., 2007, MN-
442, 2228 RAS, 377, 446
Appl S., Lery T., Baty H., 2000, A&A, 355, 818 Gracia J., Tsinganos K., Bogovalov S. V., 2005, A&A, 442,
Asada K., Nakamura M., 2012, ApJ, 745, L28 L7
Asada K., Nakamura M., Doi A., Nagai H., Inoue M., 2014, Hardee P. E., 2011, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 275, IAU Sym-
ApJ, 781, L2 posium, Romero G. E., Sunyaev R. A., Belloni T., eds.,
Bateman G., 1978, MHD instabilities. MIT Press pp. 41–49
Baty H., Keppens R., 2002, ApJ, 580, 800 Hardee P. E., Hughes P. A., 2003, ApJ, 583, 116
Begelman M. C., 1998, ApJ, 493, 291 Hardee P. E., Rosen A., 2002, ApJ, 576, 204
Begelman M. C., Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1984, Re- Homan D. C., Lister M. L., Kovalev Y. Y., Pushkarev A. B.,
views of Modern Physics, 56, 255 Savolainen T., Kellermann K. I., Richards J. L., Ros E.,
Beskin V. S., Nokhrina E. E., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1486 2015, ApJ, 798, 134
Bethe H. A., 1990, Reviews of Modern Physics, 62, 801 Istomin Y. N., Pariev V. I., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 629
Bicknell G. V., 1984, ApJ, 286, 68 Jorstad S. G. et al., 2005, AJ, 130, 1418
Bicknell G. V., 1995, ApJS, 101, 29 Keppens R., Meliani Z., van Marle A., Delmont P., Vlasis
Biretta J. A., Owen F. N., Hardee P. E., 1983, ApJ, 274, A., van der Holst B., 2012, J. Comp. Phys., 231, 718
L27 Kohler S., Begelman M. C., Beckwith K., 2012, MNRAS,
Birkinshaw M., 1991, Beams and jets in astrophysics, 422, 2282
Hughes P. A., ed. Cambridge University Press Komissarov S. S., 1990a, Ap&SS, 171, 105
Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395 Komissarov S. S., 1990b, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 16, 284
Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433 Komissarov S. S., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 1069
Bogovalov S. V., 1995, Astronomy Letters, 21, 565 Komissarov S. S., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 759
Bondi H., 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195 Komissarov S. S., 2011, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 82, 95
Bridle A. H., 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Komissarov S. S., Barkov M. V., Vlahakis N., Königl A.,
Conference Series, Vol. 100, Energy Transport in Radio 2007, MNRAS, 380, 51
Galaxies and Quasars, Hardee P. E., Bridle A. H., Zensus Komissarov S. S., Falle S. A. E. G., 1997, MNRAS, 288,
J. A., eds., p. 383 833
Bromberg O., Levinson A., 2007, ApJ, 671, 678 Komissarov S. S., Porth O., Lyutikov M., 2015, Submitted
Brunetti G., Mack K.-H., Prieto M. A., Varano S., 2003, to Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology
MNRAS, 345, L40 Komissarov S. S., Vlahakis N., Königl A., Barkov M. V.,
Carilli C. L., Barthel P. D., 1996, A&A Rev., 7, 1 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1182
Cavagnolo K. W., McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Carilli Kompaneets A. S., 1960, Soviet Physics Doklady, 5, 46
C. L., Jones C., Bı̂rzan L., 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066 Koren B., 1993, Numerical methods for advection–diffusion
Clausen-Brown E., Savolainen T., Pushkarev A. B., Ko- problems, Vreugdenhil C. B., Koren. B., eds., Notes on
valev Y. Y., Zensus J. A., 2013, A&A, 558, A144 numerical fluid mechanics, v. 45. Vieweg, Braunschweig
de Ruiter H. R., Parma P., Capetti A., Fanti R., Morganti Kormendy J., 1987, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 127, Structure
R., Santantonio L., 2005, A&A, 439, 487 and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies, de Zeeuw P. T., ed.,
Dedner A., Kemm F., Kröner D., Munz C.-D., Schnitzer pp. 17–34
T., Wesenberg M., 2002, J. Comp. Phys., 175, 645 Laing R. A., 1981, MNRAS, 195, 261
Djorgovski S., Davis M., 1987, ApJ, 313, 59 Laing R. A., Bridle A. H., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3405
Dressler A., Lynden-Bell D., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Lister M. L., 2013, in European Physical Journal Web of
Faber S. M., Terlevich R., Wegner G., 1987, ApJ, 313, 42 Conferences, Vol. 61, European Physical Journal Web of
Faber S. M., Jackson R. E., 1976, ApJ, 204, 668 Conferences, p. 6002
Faber S. M. et al., 1997, AJ, 114, 1771 Lyubarskii Y. E., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 1006

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000
20 Porth & Komissarov
Lyubarsky Y., 2009, ApJ, 698, 1570 Zakamska N. L., Begelman M. C., Blandford R. D., 2008,
Lyubarsky Y. E., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 353 ApJ, 679, 990
Mathews W. G., Brighenti F., 2003, ARA&A, 41, 191
McKinney J. C., Blandford R. D., 2009, MNRAS, 394, L126
Meisenheimer K., 2003, New A Rev., 47, 495
Mizuno Y., Hardee P., Nishikawa K., 2007, ApJ, 662, 835
Mizuno Y., Lyubarsky Y., Nishikawa K.-I., Hardee P. E.,
2012, ApJ, 757, 16
Moll R., Spruit H. C., Obergaulinger M., 2008, A&A, 492,
621
Nalewajko K., Sikora M., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1205
Narayan R., Li J., Tchekhovskoy A., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1681
O’Neill S. M., Beckwith K., Begelman M. C., 2012, MN-
RAS, 422, 1436
O’Sullivan E., Forbes D. A., Ponman T. J., 2001, MNRAS,
328, 461
Owen F. N., Hardee P. E., Bignell R. C., 1980, ApJ, 239,
L11
Owen F. N., Hardee P. E., Cornwell T. J., 1989, ApJ, 340,
698
Owen F. N., Ledlow M. J., 1994, in Astronomical Society of
the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 54, The Physics of Ac-
tive Galaxies, Bicknell G. V., Dopita M. A., Quinn P. J.,
eds., p. 319
Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2002, ApJ, 571, 779
Perucho M., 2012, International Journal of Modern Physics
Conference Series, 8, 241
Phinney E. S., 1983, PhD thesis, , Univ. Cambridge, (1983)
Porth O., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2482
Porth O., Xia C., Hendrix T., Moschou S. P., Keppens R.,
2014, ApJS, 214, 4
Ray T., 2012, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 58, EAS
Publications Series, pp. 105–112
Rosen A., Hardee P. E., 2000, ApJ, 542, 750
Sanders R. H., 1983, ApJ, 266, 73
Scheuer P. A. G., 1982, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 97, Ex-
tragalactic Radio Sources, Heeschen D. S., Wade C. M.,
eds., pp. 163–165
Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, A&A, 24, 337
Sikora M., Begelman M. C., Madejski G. M., Lasota J.-P.,
2005, ApJ, 625, 72
Sironi L., Petropoulou M., Giannios D., 2015, MNRAS,
450, 183
Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2009, ApJ, 698, 1523
Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2011, ApJ, 726, 75
Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2014, ApJ, 783, L21
Spruit H. C., Daigne F., Drenkhahn G., 2001, A&A, 369,
694
Stawarz L., Ostrowski M., 2002, ApJ, 578, 763
Terlevich R., Davies R. L., Faber S. M., Burstein D., 1981,
MNRAS, 196, 381
Trinchieri G., Fabbiano G., Canizares C. R., 1986, ApJ,
310, 637
Venturi T., Castaldini C., Cotton W. D., Feretti L., Gio-
vannini G., Lara L., Marcaide J. M., Wehrle A. E., 1995,
ApJ, 454, 735
Vlahakis N., Königl A., 2004, ApJ, 605, 656

c 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000