Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
To be submitted to ApJ
A Formalism for Covariant Polarized Radiative Transport by Ray
Tracing
Charles F. Gammie1,2 and Po Kin Leung3
1 Astronomy Department, University of Illinois, 1002 West Green Street, Urbana, IL
61801, USA
2 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801,
USA
3 Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
ABSTRACT
We write down a covariant formalism for polarized radiative transfer appro-
priate for ray-tracing through a turbulent plasma. The polarized radiation field is
represented by the polarization tensor (coherency matrix) Nαβ ≡ 〈aαka∗βk 〉, whereak is a Fourier coefficient for the vector potential. Using Maxwell’s equations,
the Liouville-Vlasov equation, and the WKB approximation we show that the
transport equation in vacuo is kµ∇µNαβ = 0. We show that this is equivalent to
Broderick & Blandford (2004)’s formalism based on invariant Stokes parameters
and a rotation coefficient, and suggest a modification that may reduce truncation
error in some situations. Finally we write down several alternative approaches
to integrating the transfer equation.
Subject headings: Black hole physics — Plasmas — Polarization — Radiative
transfer — Relativistic processes
1. Introduction
Polarization data is now available at many wavelengths for Sgr A*, the radio, millimeter,
infrared, and X-ray source at the galactic center. Polarization characteristics have already
provided interesting constraints on models that site the source in a hot plasma surrounding
– 2 –
a 4 × 106M⊙ black hole (Aitken et al. 2000; Marrone et al. 2006, 2007), and may provide
more constraints with the aid of appropriate models. We set out to model the radio through
submillimeter polarization of Sgr A*, and in the process have developed the argument below
that describes a procedure for solving the polarized radiative transfer equation in a curved
spacetime. Other possible applications include calculation of X-ray polarization that may be
relevant to future X-ray polarimetry missions such as GEMS and IXO, and more generally
to polarized radiative transfer in neutron star atmospheres, pulsar magnetospheres, other
galactic nuclei, and even cosmological settings.
Work on covariant unpolarized radiative transport began with Lindquist (1966), al-
though there were earlier studies of the Boltzmann equation in covariant form. Later work
by Anderson & Spiegel (1972), and then by Thorne (1981), extended this to a formalism
in which the angular (momentum space) structure of the radiation field is described by a
moment formalism, again for unpolarized radiation.
Work by Connors, Piran & Stark (1980) transported polarized radiation from its origin
on the surface of a thin disk near a black hole through vacuum to an observer at large
radius by parallel transporting the polarization vector along a geodesic (more recent works
by, e.g., Schnittman & Krolik (2009), Dovciak et al. (2008) and Li et al. (2005), use a similar
procedure, although Schnittman & Krolik (2009) include Compton scattering).
The first clear description of fully relativistic polarized radiative transport that we are
aware of is by Bildhauer (1989a,b); this work built on earlier work by Dautcourt & Rose
(1978). Later polarized transport equations were written down in a cosmological context by
Kosowsky (1994, 1996), Challinor (2000), and Weinberg (2008). More recently, Broderick &
Blandford (2004, hereafter BB04) have developed an elegant formalism for treating transport
along a ray, which was discussed further by Shcherbakov & Huang (2010), and applied by,
e.g., Broderick, Loeb & Narayan (2009); Huang et al. (2009) and Shcherbakov et al. (2010)
to models of Sgr A*.
If a covariant polarized transport formalism exists, why are we revisiting the issue?
Most earlier work describes the polarized radiation field in terms of dependent variables,
like the invariant Stokes parameters I/ν3, Q/ν3, U/ν3, V/ν3, that depend on the frame in
which they are observed: they are only defined up to a rotation that interchages Q/ν3 and
U/ν3 and a coordinate inversion that determines the sign of V/ν3. The way the Stokes
parameters change along a geodesic therefore depends on how the observer frame changes
along the geodesic. In many applications this is unobjectionable because there is a natural
choice of frames (e.g., in cosmology) that varies slowly along the geodesic. In accretion flow
problems, however, the natural (plasma) frame fluctuates rapidly along the geodesic because
of turbulence in the underlying flow. The Stokes parameters can then fluctuate, even if there
– 3 –
is no interaction between the plasma and the radiation field. This seems unsatisfactory. The
procedure we describe below is manifestly frame independent.
A second motivation is that the widely used BB04 formalism is written down from
physical arguments but not derived. It was not clear (to us) that all relativistic effects were
properly included in BB04’s treatment. We derive BB04’s equations starting from Maxwell’s
equations and the Liouville-Vlasov equation.
A third motivation is that the use of preferred observers seems inelegant. It ought to
be possible to define a tensor quantity to represent the polarized radiation field and then
write the basic equations without reference to a special frame. One manifestly covariant
description of a polarized radiation field is
Qαβγδ = 〈FαβF∗γδ〉, (1)
where Fαβ is the electromagnetic field tensor and ∗ denotes complex conjugate. This unwieldy
rank 4 polarization tensor has 21 degrees of freedom, most of which are redundant due to
the radiative character of the electromagnetic field. Qαβγδ also does not satisfy a simple
transport equation. A simpler but still covariant description of the radiation field is
Nαβ = 〈AαA∗β〉, (2)
where Aµ is the four-vector potential, with Fαβ = ∂αAβ − ∂βAα. This is the description of
the radiation field used by Bildhauer (1989a,b). Some components of Nαβ have a natural
interpretation as a photon phase space density and obey a simple equation along photon
trajectories. Other components represent extra (gauge) degrees of freedom that can be
clearly identified and that are eliminated when a final physical measurement is made by
projecting Nαβ onto an appropriate tetrad basis, into the plane that is perpendicular to the
wavevector and the observer four-velocity.
A final motivation is pedagogical: we want to make the transition from familiar territory—
Maxwell’s equations—to a covariant polarized transfer equation with a minimum of technical
overhead.
We adopt the standard notation of Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (1973, hereafter MTW)
including a signature for the metric of −,+,+,+. We set c = 1 except where specifically
noted otherwise. It may help to recall that, if xµ is a set of coordinates and kµ is a wave four-
vector then the following are coordinate invariant: d3k/(√−gkt) (here g is the determinant of
gµν); d3x√−gkt; d3xd3k (phase space volume). Here d3k = dk1dk2dk3 and d3x = dx1dx2dx3,
where 1, 2, 3 are spacelike coordinates.
Our paper is organized as follows. In §2 we review the properties of WKB solutions
for electromagnetic waves in a vacuum spacetime. In §3 we make the transition from a
– 4 –
single wave (wave equation) to an ensemble of waves (transport equation). In §4 we define
the polarization tensor, or coherency matrix, Nµν , relate it to the Stokes parameters, and
write down a transport equation. In §5 we describe interaction of the radiation with the
plasma and relate emission and absorption coefficients in the plasma frame to those in the
coordinate frame. We also explicitly demonstrate that the Stokes parameters do not depend
on the gauge freedom aµkµ. In §6 we write the transport equation in several forms that may
be suitable for numerical integration, and we show that one of these forms is equivalent to
BB04’s. In §7 we give a brief summary.
2. WKB wave review
This review largely follows MTW, §22, but is included to fix notation and identify
approximations. Consider a single electromagnetic wave given by
Aµ(xν) = aµ(x
ν) exp(ikαxα) (3)
where aµ is an amplitude and kα = ∂αθ (θ is the phase) is, as usual in WKB, the wavevector.1
The Lorenz gauge condition ∇µAµ = 0 implies to leading order in WKB that
kµaµ = 0. (4)
The Lorenz gauge does not fix Aµ uniquely, since we can always send Aµ → Aµ + φkµ.
Maxwell’s equations in the Lorenz gauge imply
∇α∇αAµ +Rµ
αAα = 4πJµ. (5)
where Jµ is the current and Rµν is the Ricci tensor. Usually one is concerned with radiative
transport in a tenuous plasma surrounding a self-gravitating body (only a cosmological scale
self-gravitating plasma can be both relativistic and Thomson thin), so the stress-energy
tensor T µν ≈ 0 (“test plasma” approximation) and therefore Einstein’s equations imply
Rµν ≈ 0.
Suppose for now that the wave is propagating in vacuum and Jµ = 0. Then
∇α∇αAµ = 0. (6)
1The sign convention for kµ is opposite that in Melrose (2008, 2009); we use signature − + ++ for the
metric instead of Melrose’s +−−−.
– 5 –
In the WKB approximation this yields to zeroth order
kµkµ = 0 (7)
or, in nonrelativistic language, ω2 = c2k2. Rewriting Eq. (7) as ∇µθ∇µθ, taking the gradient,
and interchanging indices implies
kµ∇µkν = 0, (8)
which is the geodesic equation.
To first order in WKB one obtains an evolution equation for the vector Fourier ampli-
tudes 2:
kµ∇µaν +
1
2aν∇µk
µ = 0. (9)
The amplitude evolution equation can be decomposed into an equation for the scalar ampli-
tude a = (aµaµ)1/2 and for the polarization unit vector fµ = aµ/a:
kµ∇µa+1
2a∇µk
µ = 0. (10)
and
kµ∇µfν = 0. (11)
The scalar amplitude equation can be rewritten
∇µ(kµa2) = 0 (12)
i.e. as a conservation equation for a2.
How are physical measurements made from aµ? First, the electromagnetic field tensor
is
Fµν = ∂µAν − ∂νAµ (13)
which to zeroth order in WKB is
Fµν = i(kµaν − kνaµ). (14)
F can be separated into an E and B field given an observer four-velocity uµ. The electric
field four-vector is
Eµ ≡ uνFµν = i(kµ(aνu
ν)− aµ(kνuν)), (15)
2Second order and higher terms in the WKB expansion are smaller by the ratio of the wavelength to a
characteristic radius for the spacetime, and are usually negligible.
– 6 –
This definition is consistent with the Lorentz force uβ∇βuα = (q/m)uβF
αβ. The magnetic
field four-vector is
Bµ ≡ uν∗F νµ (16)
where∗F µν =
1
2ǫµνκλFκλ, (17)
is the dual of the field tensor, the Levi-Civita tensor
ǫµνκλ = − 1√−g[µνκλ], (18)
and [µνκλ] is the permutation symbol (1 for even permutations of 0123, −1 for odd permu-
tations, zero otherwise). Eµ and Bµ reduce to the usual E and B fields in an orthonormal
tetrad that is at rest in the uµ frame. For a radiative electromagnetic field they are both
orthogonal to
Kµ ≡ (gµν + uµuν)kν = kµ + uµ(uνk
ν) (19)
which is the spatial part of kµ.
The stress-energy tensor for a wave is
T µν =1
8πa2kµkν (20)
from which we see that in a particular coordinate frame the energy density
T tt =1√−g
dE
d3x=
1
8πktkta2 (21)
and, since photon number dE = ~ktdN the photon number density is
1√−g
dN
d3x=
1
8π~kta2, (22)
which implies that the invariant photon number density is
1√−gkt
dN
d3x=
a2
8π~, (23)
since√−gktd3x is invariant.
Now suppose the wave is propagating in a test plasma, so the wave equation is
∇µ∇µAα = 4πJα (24)
– 7 –
where Jα is the 4-current induced by the wave train. The linear response tensor Π is defined
by
Jα ≡ ΠαβA
β, (25)
and depends on the field strength, direction, etc. The response tensor is gauge independent;
Eµ = i(kµuν − (kβuβ)gµν)aν , and the induced current is uniquely related to the electric field.
The response tensor incorporates the effects of Faraday rotation and absorption.
Using the response tensor, the wave equation becomes
−2ikβ∇βaα − iaα∇βk
β = 4πΠαβa
β (26)
or
kβ∇βaα = −1
2aα∇βk
β + 2πiΠαβa
β. (27)
Now expand ∇µ(kµaαa∗β)
∇µ(kµaαa∗β) = a∗βkµ∇µa
α + aαkµ∇µa∗β + aαa∗β∇µk
µ (28)
and evaluate it using the wave equation:
∇µ(kµaαa∗β) = 2πi
(
a∗βΠαµa
µ − aαΠ∗βµ a∗µ
)
. (29)
Since this will become the polarized transport equation, we rewrite the right hand side
compactly as
∇µ(kµaαa∗β) = Hαβκλaκa
∗λ (30)
where
Hαβκλ ≡ 2πi(
gβλΠακ − gακΠ∗βλ)
(31)
is the tensor that describes Faraday rotation and absorption. Contracting,
∇µ(kµa2) = 2πi(Πλκ − Π∗κλ)aκa
∗λ. (32)
Since kµa2 is a “flux density” of photon number along the ray that is conserved in vacuo,
the anti-hermitian part of Παβ encodes the effects of absorption.
3. Ensemble of waves
We now want to make the transition from WKB wave packets, which are approximately
a δ function in momentum space, to a transport equation for an ensemble of photons in
momentum space.
– 8 –
Consider a small, invariant spatial volume ∆V = ∆3x√−gkt and a small, invariant mo-
mentum space volume ∆Vp = ~3∆Vk = ~
3∆3k/(√−gkt). Populate the phase space volume
∆V∆Vp with an ensemble of wave packets labeled by an index i with definite amplitude ai.
The photon distribution function
f ≡ dN
d3xd3p≈ 1
∆Vp
∑
i
1√−gkt
dNi
d3x. (33)
This is invariant since d3k/(√−gkt) is invariant (here d3k = dk1dk2dk3, i.e. indices are
down). The distribution function is recovered in the limit ∆Vp → 0.
The photon number density is quadratic in Aµ. Recall that
Aµ =∑
j
ajµeikjνx
ν
(34)
so
AµA∗ν =
∑
ij
aiµa∗jνe
i(kiν−kjν)xν
. (35)
If the phases of the wave packets are independent (radiation is incoherent) the cross terms
vanish and
〈AµA∗ν〉 =
∑
i
〈aiµa∗iν〉 (36)
where the 〈〉 is a suitable average (e.g. Bildhauer (1989a)) From now on we drop the explicit
〈〉.
The wave equation analysis implies that
1
∆Vk
∑
i
1√−gkt
dNi
d3x=
1
∆Vk
∑
i
a2i8π~
. (37)
This motivates the definition of power spectrum
a2k ≡1
∆Vk
∑
i
a2i , (38)
so
f =a2k
8π~4. (39)
Writing factors of c explicitly, the usual specific intensity Iν of radiative transfer theory is
Iν =h4ν3
c2dN
d3xd3p=
2π3ν3
c3a2k (40)
– 9 –
where ν is the frequency.
Now we invoke the Liouville-Vlasov equation, which for photons in vacuo implies
df
dλ= 0 ⇒ d(Iν/ν
3)
dλ= 0, (41)
where λ is the affine parameter along a ray, or
da2kdλ
= (kµ∇µ) a2k = 0 (42)
and demand consistency with Maxwell’s equations. Recasting in terms of the wave ampli-
tudes
kµ∇µ
(
1
∆Vk
∑
i
a2i
)
= 0, (43)
and expanding,∑
i
(
1
∆Vk
(kµ∇µ)a2i −
a2i∆V 2
k
(kµ∇µ)∆Vk
)
= 0. (44)
Applying the wave equation to this gives
−a2k (∇µkµ + kµ∇µ ln∆Vk) = 0. (45)
The first term in parentheses is the fractional rate of change of the invariant three-volume
∆V = ∆3x√−gkt occupied by a group of photons in the wave (exercise 22.1 of MTW), i.e.
it is d ln∆V/dλ = (kµ∇µ) ln∆V . Then
kµ∇µ ln∆V + kµ∇µ ln∆Vk ∝d
dλ(∆V∆Vk) = 0, (46)
that is, along a photon trajectory the phase space volume ∆V∆Vk occupied by a group of
photons is constant.
4. Polarization tensors
We now need a mathematical description of a polarized radiation field. The usual
approach is to use either Stokes parameters I,Q, U, V or the coherency matrix
P ij = 〈EiE∗j〉 (47)
where Ei is the electric field 3-vector. Pij is nonzero in the two-dimensional space (x, y)
perpendicular to the wave 3-vector. We will assume the wavevector is oriented along the +z
– 10 –
axis, and that x, y, z form a right-handed coordinate system. Then the Stokes parameters
and coherency matrix are related by
P ij = C
(
I +Q U + iV
U − iV I −Q
)
. (48)
where C is a constant. This relationship is consistent with the IEEE and IAU conventions
for the definition of Q, U , and V (see Hamaker & Bregman 1996, for a helpful discussion):
Q > 0 for a wave linearly polarized along the x axis; Q < 0 for a wave linearly polarized
along the y axis; U > 0 for a wave linearly polarized at 45deg to the x axis, and U < 0 for a
wave linearly polarized at 135deg to the x axis; V > 0 for a wave whose polarization vector
rotates in a right-handed sense with respect to the z axis in the plane z = const..
What is the covariant generalization of (47)? The most straightforward generalization
is
P µν = 〈EµE∗ν〉. (49)
where Eµ is the electric field four-vector. For a radiative electromagnetic field kµEµ = 0,
where kµ is the wave four-vector, and uµEµ = 0 by (15). The only nonzero components of
P µν are therefore in the two dimensional subspace perpendicular to kµ and uµ.
It is possible to recast the relationship between P µν and the Stokes parameters in terms
of tensor operations by requiring that components in the two-dimensional subspace of P µν
perpendicular to kµ and uµ reduce to (48). Thus
I = P µµ /(2C), (50)
I2 +Q2 + U2 = P (µν)P(µν)/(2C2), (51)
(P (µν) ≡ (1/2)(P µν + P νµ)) and
V 2 = −P [µν]P[µν]/(2C2) (52)
(P [µν] ≡ (1/2)(P µν − P νµ)). In Minkowski space with Cartesian coordinates t, x, y, z we can
also write Q = (P xx − P yy)/(2C), U = (P xy + P yx)/(2C) and V = −i(P xy − P yx)/(2C),
but these are not tensor operations: Q and U are interchanged under a 45deg rotation in
the x − y plane (Chandrasekhar 1960, §15.5) and V changes sign if the handedness of the
coordinate system is inverted.
The polarization tensor P is an appealing description of the polarized radiation field
because it is the covariant analog of the usual coherence matrix, but it does not satisfy a
simple transport equation (e.g., Portsmouth & Bertschinger 2004) because it contains an
explicit frame dependence on uµ.
– 11 –
A simple transport equation is obtained with a polarization tensor based on the vector
potential. Given the correspondence between photon phase space density and a2, it is natural
to define
Nµν ≡ 〈aµa∗ν〉. (53)
What is the physical interpretation of Nµν and what is its relation to P µν? From §2 it is
apparent that Nµµ is proportional to the photon phase space density. The definition of F µν ,
Eµ, and aµ imply
Eµ = −iωsµνaν . (54)
where sµν is a “screen projection” operator that projects into the plane perpendicular to uµ
and kµ:
sµν ≡ gµν + uµuν − eµ(K)eν(K) = gµν − kµkν
ω2+
uµkν
ω+
kµuν
ω(55)
where
eµ(K) =kµ
ω− uµ (56)
is a unit vector along the spatial part of kµ and ω ≡ −kµuµ. Thus
P µν = ω2sµαsνβN
αβ ≡ ω2Nαβ. (57)
where˜denotes a screen-projected version of a tensor (which depends on the frame uµ). A
little algebra shows that Nµµ = Nµ
µ , N(µν)N(µν) = N (µν)N(µν) and N [µν]N[µν] = N [µν]N[µν], and
therefore I = ω2N ii/(2C), I2+Q2+U2 = ω4N (µν)N(µν)/(2C
2) and V 2 = −ω4N [µν]N[µν]/(2C2).
That is, none of the invariants are affected by screen projection, as one would expect.
We are now in a position to write down the transport equation for Nµν . The Liouville
equation permitted us to show that the phase space volume ∆V∆Vk occupied by the group
of photons is constant along a photon trajector, d(∆V∆Vk)/dλ = 0. Maxwell’s equations
implied (30). Combining these and using the definition of Nµν yields
kα∇αNµν = Jµν +HµνκλNκλ, (58)
the polarized radiative transport equation, where H is the plasma response tensor (capturing
Faraday rotation and absorption), and we have also introduced the emissivity tensor Jµν . H
can be modified to incorporate the effects of scattering.
5. Interaction with Plasma
5.1. Tetrad basis
It is natural to introduce a tetrad basis to relate quantities such as the emission and
absorption coefficients that are most readily calculated in a Cartesian frame comoving with
– 12 –
the plasma to their values in a coordinate basis. The timelike basis vector is eα(t) = uα and
a second, spacelike basis vector is eα(K). The other two basis vectors are then fixed up to
a rotation. For radiative transfer in a magnetized plasma it is natural to use the magnetic
field four-vector bµ to uniquely specify the orientation of the remaining basis vectors (as in
BB04), but any trial spacelike four-vector tµ not degenerate with eα(K) will do.
Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization yields the following explicit expressions for the spatial
basis vectors:
eα(K) =kα
ω− uα (59)
eα(‖) =tα − kνtν
ωeα(K)
(t2 − ((kλtλ)/ω)2)1/2(60)
eα(⊥) = ǫαβγδe(t)β e(K)
γ e(‖)δ =
ǫαβγδuβkγtδ(t2ω2 − (kλtλ)2)1/2
. (61)
Notice that eα(t)aα = aβuβ and eα(K)aα = −aβu
β. It is straightforward to confirm that eα(a)e(b)α =
δ(b)(a). For t
µ = bµ this basis is identical to that given in BB04 (if their kµkµ = 0; they consider
the more general case where kµ is not necessarily null, i.e. where ω2 = c2k2+ a non-negligible
correction due to the plasma frequency).
To fix a handedness for the basis we must order the basis vectors. If we identify t, ‖,⊥, K
with t, x, y, z then x, y, z form a right-handed coordinate system and the relations between
the coherency matrix in the tetrad basis and the Stokes parameters will follow the IEEE/IAU
conventions.
5.2. Response tensor
The response tensor Παβ can be constructed from the response 3-tensor by identifying
the corresponding terms in the tensor and using the charge-continuity and gauge-invariance
conditions (Melrose 2008, §1.5.8). Another way to proceed is to decompose the response
tensor into the hermitian (h) and antihermitian (a) parts, such that
Παβ = Παβh +Παβ
a (62)
where
Παβh =
1
2(Παβ +Π∗βα) , Παβ
a =1
2(Παβ − Π∗βα). (63)
The hermitian part conserves total energy whereas the antihermitian part causes dissipation.
It is then natural to rewrite Eq. (31) as
Hαβκλ = Aαβκλ +Rαβκλ (64)
– 13 –
where the absorption part
Aαβκλ ≡ 2πi(gβλΠακa + gακΠλβ
a ) ≡ 1
2(gβλAακ + gακAλβ) (65)
contains the dissipative terms, and the generalized Faraday rotation part
Rαβκλ ≡ 2πi(gβλΠακh − gακΠλβ
h ) ≡ 1
2(gβλRακ − gακRλβ) (66)
contains the non-dissipative terms. Due to symmetries Aαβκλ has 4 degrees of freedom while
Rαβκλ has 3 degrees of freedom.
In flat space, one can write the radiative transfer equation as
d
dsIS = JS −MST IT , (67)
where IS = I,Q, U, V T contains the Stokes parameters, JS = jI , jQ, jU , jV T contains the
emission coefficients, which have units of dE/dtdV dνdΩ, and the Mueller Matrix MST is
MST ≡
αI αQ αU αV
αQ αI rV −rUαU −rV αI rQαV rU −rQ αI
. (68)
The parameters αi are the absorption coefficients and rQ, rU and rV are the Faraday mixing
coefficients. By comparing the terms in Eqs. (67) and (58) in a tetrad basis eµ(t), eµ(‖), e
µ(⊥)
and eµ(K), one can write
A(a)(b) ≡ ǫ
0 0 0 0
0 αI + αQ αU + iαV 0
0 αU − iαV αI − αQ 0
0 0 0 0
(69)
and
R(a)(b) ≡ −iǫ
0 0 0 0
0 rQ rU + irV 0
0 rU − irV −rQ 0
0 0 0 0
. (70)
whre ǫ ≡ hν is the photon energy. Expressions for magnetobremsstrahlung absorption
coefficients α can be found in Eq. (48) of Leung, Gammie & Noble (2011), and formulae for
the Faraday mixing coefficients in Eq. (33) 3 of Shcherbakov (2008), or Eq. (58) of Huang &
Shcherbakov (2011).
3Note the sign difference in Eq. (32) of Shcherbakov (2008) compared to our equations.
– 14 –
5.3. Emissivity tensor
The emissivity tensor can be written in Stokes basis as
J (i)(j) ≡ 2c3
ǫ2
0 0 0 0
0 jI + jQ jU + ijV 0
0 jU − ijV jI − jQ 0
0 0 0 0
. (71)
Expressions for the magnetobremsstrahlung emissivities j are given by Eq. (28) of Leung,
Gammie & Noble (2011).
5.4. Gauge Invariance
The interaction with the plasma is most easily calculated by setting the remaining gauge
freedom φ to zero in the plasma frame. Here we show that this procedure does not affect
the Stokes parameters.
First construct an explicit expression for the polarization tensor in a tetrad basis, N (a)(b).
Consider a Cartesian tetrad attached to an observer with velocity vµ. The tetrad components
e(K) and e(t) are defined just as for the plasma frame; the components e(x) and e(y) are only
defined up to a rotation.
Let a(a) = φ, ax, ay, φ and k(a) = K1, 0, 0, 1, consistent with the Lorenz gauge
condition kµaµ = 0. In this frame
N (a)(b) =
〈φφ∗〉 〈φa∗x〉 〈φa∗y〉 〈φφ∗〉〈axφ∗〉 〈axa∗x〉 〈axa∗y〉 〈axφ∗〉〈ayφ∗〉 〈aya∗x〉 〈aya∗y〉 〈ayφ∗〉〈φφ∗〉 〈φa∗x〉 〈φa∗y〉 〈φφ∗〉
, (72)
Since individual wave packets can have different φ, the correlations involving φ are nontrivial.
For example, 〈φφ∗〉〈axa∗y〉 need not equal 〈φa∗y〉〈axφ∗〉, just as 〈aya∗x〉〈axa∗y〉 need not equal
〈axa∗x〉〈aya∗y〉 and I2 need not equal Q2 + U2 + V 2.
Nµν is Hermitian and so has 16 real degrees of freedom. Four of these are the Stokes
parameters, contained in Nµν . There are four additional degrees of freedom in 〈φa∗x〉 and
〈φa∗y〉. The remaining eight degrees of freedom are eliminated by the four complex conditions
kµNµν = 0.
– 15 –
The effect of the projection tensor on N (a)(b) is to zero all components of the tensor
containing φ:
N (c)(d) =
0 0 0 0
0 〈axa∗x〉 〈axa∗y〉 0
0 〈aya∗x〉 〈aya∗y〉 0
0 0 0 0
. (73)
Recall that the projection projection tensor depends on the frame vµ.
How does Nµν transform to another tetrad? The most general possible transformation
consists of a boost followed by a rotation. At the outset we know that this cannot result in
anything but a rotation in the x-y plane (interchange of U and V ) because I, Q2 + U2, and
V are invariant (the latter only if the handedness of the coordinate system is fixed).
To be explicit, consider the transformation into a tetrad basis attached to an observer
with four-velocity uµ, with basis vectors eµ(t′) eµ(x′) e
µ(y′), and eµ(K′). Recall that e
µ(t′) = uµ and
eµ(K′) = −[kµ/(kαuα) + uµ]. Then
N(a′)(b′) = eµ(a′)eν(b′)e
(c)µ e(d)ν N(c)(d). (74)
Now N(c)(d) is constructed from a(a), and
eµ(x′)e(a)µ a(a) = eµ(x′)
(
e(t)µ a(t) + e(x)µ a(x) + e(y)µ a(y) + e(K)µ a(K)
)
. (75)
But a(t)eµ(t) + a(K)e
µ(K) = −φkµ/ω and therefore has no component along eµ(x′), which is by
construction perpendicular to the wave four-vector. Hence
eµ(x′)e(a)µ a(a) = eµ(x′)
(
e(x)µ a(x) + e(y)µ a(y))
(76)
therefore the transformation to the new frame simply mixes component in the (x), (y) plane
into the (x′), (y′) plane. None of the new screen-projected (measured) components depend
on φ. Therefore at a single event we can change frames at will, resetting φ to zero in the
fluid frame when calculating the emission coefficients.
For completeness, the transformation of the Stokes parameters can be written in terms
of eµ(a) and eµ(a′) as
Q = Q cos 2θ − U sin 2θ (77)
U = U cos 2θ +Q sin 2θ (78)
where cos θ ≡ eµ(x′)e(x)µ and sin θ ≡ eµ(x′)e
(y)µ . This is the usual transformation of Q and U by
rotation.
– 16 –
6. Polarized transport formalisms
Strategies for integrating the transport equation numerically can be classified accord-
ing to the choice of dependent variables. Almost every integration strategy will require
calculating the emissivity tensor J and the absorptivity tensor H in the plasma basis and
transforming it to whatever basis is being used for N ; this requires constructing the plasma
basis at each point along the ray.
6.1. Tetrad basis
What is the transport equation in a tetrad basis? Project the right hand side of Eq. (58)
onto the tetrad basis:
J (a)(b) +H(a)(b)(c)(d)N(c)(d). (79)
The left side is
e(a)µ e(b)ν kα∇α
(
N (c)(d)eµ(c)eν(d)
)
=dN (a)(b)
dλ+ e(a)µ e(b)ν N (c)(d)kα∇α
(
eµ(c)eν(d)
)
. (80)
If we define the rotation coefficients
c(a)(b) ≡ e(a)ν (kα∇α) e
ν(b) (81)
then the full transport equation in a tetrad basis is
dN (a)(b)
dλ+N (a)(d)c
(b)(d) +N (c)(b)c
(a)(c) = J (a)(b) +H(a)(b)(c)(d)N(c)(d). (82)
Differentiating e(a)µ eµ(b) = δ
(a)(b) , we conclude that e
(a)ν (kα∇α)e
ν(b) = −e
(b)ν (kα∇α)e
ν(a), so c
(a)(b) is
antisymmetric. For a tetrad basis that is parallel transported along the ray, kα∇αeν(a) = 0
and the rotation coefficients vanish.
6.2. Plasma tetrad; equivalence to BB04
In the plasma tetrad basis the basic equation is (82). Furthermore there are four degrees
of freedom because one integrates the four screen-projected components of the Hermitian
N (a)(b) rather than the sixteen complex components of the Hermitian N (a)(b).
BB04 write down the transport equation in an elegant way by defining the occupation
numbers NI , NQ, NU , NV where
NI ∝I
ω3= C(N (‖)(‖) +N (⊥)(⊥)) (83)
– 17 –
NQ ∝ Q
ω3= C(N (‖)(‖) −N (⊥)(⊥)) (84)
NU ∝ U
ω3= C(N (‖)(⊥) +N (⊥)(‖)) (85)
NV ∝ V
ω3= −iC(N (‖)(⊥) −N (⊥)(‖)) (86)
and C is a new constant that is independent of ω.
What are the transport equations for the Ni? The equations for NI and NV do not
involve any rotation coefficients, since NI and NV are invariant if the handedness of the
coordinate system is defined consistently. Thus, in vacuo,
dNI
dλ= 0 (87)
dNV
dλ= 0. (88)
On the other hand NQ, NU are only defined up to rotation so one must somehow connect
the orientation of the coordinate systems at points along the ray. Beginning with NQ,
dNQ
dλ= C
(
dN (‖)(‖)
dλ− dN (⊥)(⊥)
dλ
)
(89)
and, assuming J = H = 0 (vacuum),
dNQ
dλ= C
(
−N (‖)(a)c(‖)(a) −N (a)(‖)c
(‖)(a) +N (⊥)(a)c
(⊥)(a) +N (a)(⊥)c
(⊥)(a)
)
. (90)
Transport along the ray, like transformation to a new frame discussed in the last section,
only mixes NQ and NU . To be explicit, expand the first term in (90),
N (‖)(a)c(‖)(a) = N (‖)(t)c
(‖)(t) +N (‖)(‖)c
(‖)(‖) +N (‖)(⊥)c
(‖)(⊥) +N (‖)(K)c
(‖)(K). (91)
Antisymmetry implies c(‖)(‖) = 0. Then
N (‖)(t) = N (‖)(K) (92)
because k(t) = −K, k(K) = K, k(‖) = k(⊥) = 0 and k(a)N(a)(b) = 0, hence
N (‖)(a)c(‖)(a) = N (‖)(t)
(
c(‖)(t) + c
(‖)(K)
)
+N (‖)(⊥)c(‖)(⊥). (93)
The term in parentheses is
e(‖)µ (kα∇α)(
eµ(t) + eµ(K)
)
= e(‖)µ (kα∇α)
(
− kµ
kνuν
)
= e(‖)µ kµ(kα∇α)
(
− 1
kνuν
)
= 0 (94)
– 18 –
where the penultimate equality follows from (kα∇α)kµ = 0 and the final equality follows
from e(‖)µ kµ = 0. Then N (‖)(a)c
(‖)(a) = N (‖)(⊥)c
(‖)(⊥).
Similar considerations for the other terms in Eq. (90) yield
dNQ
dλ= C
(
−N (‖)(⊥)c(‖)(⊥) −N (⊥)(‖)c
(‖)(⊥) +N (⊥)(‖)c
(⊥)(‖) +N (‖)(⊥)c
(⊥)(‖)
)
= −2NUc(‖)(⊥) (95)
where the last equality follows from the antisymmetry of c(a)(b) and the definition of NU . Using
the definition of c(a)(b) ,
dNQ
dλ= −2NU
(
e(‖)ν (kα∇α)eν(⊥)
)
(96)
which differs by a sign from BB04’s eq. (17) and (18). A similar calculation gives
dNU
dλ= 2NQ
(
e(‖)ν (kα∇α)eν(⊥)
)
. (97)
The difference in sign between our equation and BB04’s is due to a different definition of
the relation between the Stokes parameters and the coherency matrix.
6.3. Alternative approaches
BB04’s formalism ties Stokes U and V to the plasma tetrad. If the magnetic field has
significant small scale structure– for example, in ray tracing through a numerical model of
a turbulent disk– the plasma tetrad may rotate rapidly along the ray. This implies rapid
interconversion of Q and U even when there is negligible interaction of radiation with the
plasma, and, possibly, accumulation of truncation error.
A first alternative to BB04 is to build a tetrad using a trial vector tµ that is not based on
bµ but rather on a coordinate direction (e.g. radius). The rotation coefficients will generally
be small and Stokes U and V will vary only gradually along the line of sight. This approach
will require that the emissivity tensor and response tensor be calculated in the plasma tetrad
and then projected onto the new tetrad.
A second alternative that is conceptually simple is to directly integrate Nµν (16 real
valued degrees of freedom) in a coordinate frame.
A third alternative is to integrate N (a)(b) in a parallel transported tetrad. Here we need
only integrate the screen-projected components and again there are just four dependent
variables for the radiation field. The orthonormal tetrad itself, however, must be parallel
transported along the ray. In practice only one basis vector is needed, so there are a total
– 19 –
of 8 dependent variables. This is equivalent to the approach taken by Connors et al. (1980)
and papers based on their approach such as Schnittman & Krolik (2010), which parallel
transport a polarization vector along the ray.
7. Summary
We have described a framework for covariant polarized radiative transport. The basic
object that describes the polarization is the polarization tensor Nµν , defined in Eq. (53).
Given absorption, Faraday rotation, and emission coefficients in the plasma frame, one can
then calculate absorption and emission tensors in the coordinate frame (see §7). The trans-
port equation (58) can then be integrated directly in the coordinate basis, in an orthonormal
tetrad, or using a Stokes-based approach. Along the way we explained the connection be-
tween the approach to relativistic polarized radiative transport given in BB04 and the earlier
approach based on parallel transport of the polarization vector pioneered by Connors, Piran
& Stark (1980).
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY 02-
05155 and AST 07-09246, and by a Richard and Margaret Romano Professorial scholarship
and a University Scholar appointment to CFG. Part of this work was completed during a
visit by CFG to Max-Planck-Institut fur Astrophysik, and he would like to thank the Henk
Spruit and Rashid Sunyaev for their hospitality. We thank Avery Broderick and Stu Shapiro
for comments.
REFERENCES
Aitken, D. K., Greaves, J., Chrysostomou, A., Jenness, T., Holland, W., Hough, J. H.,
Pierce-Price, D., Richer, J. 2000, ApJ, 534, 173
Anderson, J. L., & Spiegel, E. A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 127
Anile, A. M. 1989, Relativistic Fluids and Magneto-fluids (Cambridge: Cambridge)
Anile, A. M., & Breuer, R. A. 1974, ApJ, 189, 39
Bildhauer, S. 1989, Class. Quantum Grav., 6, 1171
Bildhauer, S. 1989, A&A, 219, 25
– 20 –
Breuer, R. A., & Ehlers, J. 1980, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 370, 389
Breuer, R. A., & Ehlers, J. 1981, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 374, 65
Broderick, A. E., & Blandford, R. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 994
Broderick, A. E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, L10
Broderick, A. E., Loeb, A., & Narayan, R. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1357
Challinor, A. 2000, General Relativity and Gravitation, 32, 1059
Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, New York: Dover, 1960
Connors, P. A., Piran, T., & Stark, R. F. 1980, ApJ, 235, 224
Dautcourt, G., & Rose, K. 1978, Astron. Nachr., 299, 13
Dovciak, M., Muleri, F., Goosmann, R. W., Karas, V., & Matt, G. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 32
Hamaker, J.P., & Bregman, J.D., 1996, A&As, 117, 161
Huang, L., Liu, S., Shen, Z.-Q., Yuan, Y.-F., Cai, M. J., Li, H., & Fryer, C. L. 2009, ApJ,
703, 557
Huang, L., Liu, & Shcherbakov, R. V. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2574
Jackson, J. D. 1975, Classical Electrodynamics (2nd ed.; New York: Wiley)
Kosowsky, A. 1994, Ph.D. thesis, Chicago Univ.
Kosowsky, A. 1996, Ann. Phys., 246, 49
Leung, P. K., Gammie, C. F., & Noble, S. C. 2011, ApJ, in press
Li, L.-X., Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2005, ApJS, 157, 335
Gedalin, M., & Melrose, D. B. 2001, Phys. Rev. E, 64, 027401
Lindquist, R. W. 1966, Annals of Physics, 37, 487
Marrone, D. P., Moran, J. M., Zhao, J.-H., & Rao, R. 2006, ApJ, 640, 308
Marrone, D. P., Moran, J. M., Zhao, J.-H., & Rao, R. 2007, ApJ, 654, 57
Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. 1973, Gravitation (New York: Freeman)
– 21 –
Melrose, D. B. 1980, Plasma Astrophysics (New York: Gordon and Breach)
Melrose, D. B., & McPhedran, R. C. 1991, Electromagnetic Processes in Dispersive Media
(Cambridge: Cambridge)
Melrose, D. B. 2008, Quantum Plasmdynamics: Unmagnetized Plasmas (New York:
Springer)
Melrose, D. B. 2009, Quantum Plasmdynamics II. Magnetized Plasmas (unpublished, ob-
tained from author’s website in July 09)
Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1175
Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908
Shcherbakov, R. V. 2008, ApJ, 688, 695
Shcherbakov, R. V., & Huang, L., 2010, MNRAS, 410, 1052
Shcherbakov, R. V., Penna, R. F., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, arXiv:1007.4832
Thorne, K. S. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 439
Weinberg, S. 2008, Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford)
This preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.0.