text:
# Accretion powered spherical wind in general relativity

## 1 Introduction

Accretion onto massive celestial bodies is believed to be responsible for energy generation mechanism in many astrophysical objects including galactic binary systems and extra-galactic objects like Quasars and AGNs. Investigation of transonic, spherically symmetric accretion onto gravitating astrophysical objects was carried out from a purely Newtonian approach as well as using a pseudo-general relativistic and complete general relativistic framework (Hoyle & Littleton 1939, Bondi 1952, Michel 1972, Shapiro 1973a,b, Blumenthal & Mathews 1976, Begelman 1978, Brinkmann 1980, Malec 1999, Das 2001, Das & Sarkar 2001, Sarkar & Das 2001). However, in works mentioned above, spherical accretion was shown to exhibit essentially directed motion (radial inflow) which smoothly passes through a sonic point and no discontinuity in accretion onto a black hole was taken into account. Nevertheless, it was understood that accretion onto a black hole could be efficient in producing radiative energy if the directed in-fall motion could be randomized close to the hole by some suitable mechanism the best of which would be shock formation by some means. For radial accretion, a novel mechanism has been proposed (Protheros & Kazanas 1983, Kazanas & Ellision 1986, hereafter PK83 and KE86 respectively) in which the kinetic energy of spherically accreting material has been randomized by proposing a steady, collision-less, relativistic hadronic-pressure-supported spherically symmetric shock around a Schwarzschild black hole which produces a nonthermal spectrum of high energy (relativistic) protons. A thermal distribution of particles may also be produced at the shock which radiates by thermal bremstrahlung but only the radiation resulting from the non-thermal (which might actually contain most of the energy, see Axford 1981) was considered in their model. Since radial in-fall (freely falling situation) in a gravitational potential is unlikely to release amounts of energy sufficient to produce the observed high luminosity and high energy tail of the spectrum for most of the quasars, it has been suggested in PK83 and KE86 that the relativistic particles required to account for the observed radio, X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray emission may result from shock acceleration of a part of in-falling plasma via first order Fermi acceleration which transforms directed kinetic energy into relativistic particle energy and thus produces relativistic protons with high efficiency. A steady-state situation is assumed to have developed where a standing collision-less spherically symmetric shock is proposed to form.
The question of the existence of a steady shock for spherical accretion deserve some elaborate discussion and clarification. As the absence of considerable angular momentum in accreting material does not supports standard Rankine-Hugoniot type shock formation, assumption of a steady and standing spherically-symmetric shock for freely falling material, may apparently contradict the concept of shock formation in general fluid flow. The situation, however, is different if the relativistic protons of sufficient energy density are present around the black hole. It is worth studying what happens when freely falling supersonic (supersonic, because, as we will see later, spherical accretion with a reasonably realistic value of inflow energy and accretion rate crosses its sonic point far away, $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ hundreds of Schwarzschild radius or even more, from the black hole) plasma approaches close (some factor of tens of Schwarzschild radius or even less) to the black hole. Due to various possible instabilities in supersonic plasma flow, any small disruption mechanism may slow down the flow and create a ‘piston’ which produces a shock. Thus the initial formation of shocks may be attributed either to convection of ambient relativistic particles or to dissipation in magnetic field as suggested in the literature (see PK83, KE86, and references therein). Once the shock is produced, it accelerates a part of the in-falling matter to relativistic energies. Infalling thermal particles with free fall velocity are then assumed to be shock-accelerated via first order Fermi acceleration (Axfrod, Leer & Skardon 1977, Blandford & Ostriker 1978, Blandford & Eichler 1987, and references therein, Kirk & Duffy, 1999, and references therein) and relativistic protons will be produced. These shock accelerated relativistic protons were assumed to be trapped within a radius comparable to the radius of the shock surface by some mechanism (possibly by small amount of stochastic magnetic fields tied to the accreting matter, which is small enough to make the hydrodynamical approximation valid to describe the flow) because had it been the case that those protons would not be confined to the central region of the quasars, spallation of nuclei in the outer gas cloud responsible for the line emission in Quasars would result in an overabundance of boron (Baldwin et. al. 1977), contrary to the observation. In addition, the matter density in this region may be assumed to be sufficiently high so that the relativistic protons are depleted mainly by nuclear interactions which, possibly could set a lower limit (though not very restrictive) on the accretion rate for a given black hole mass (PK83). It was also suggested in PK83 that if the particles accelerated at the shock were neucleons rather than electrons, then, due to their negligible Compton losses, the Compton catastrophe could be avoided.
Because of the fact that the kinetic energy of these relativistic particles are much larger than their gravitational potential energy, and because their scattering mean free path could be larger than the black hole radius, 111Furthermore, the converging magnetic field, if present, is also expected to mirror the relativistic particles and help prevent them from being absorbed by the black hole, see KE86. these relativistic protons suffer practically no Compton losses and are not instantly swallowed by the black hole, rather they scatter several times and undergo multiple inelastic nuclear collisions and produce pions ($`\pi ^{\pm ,0}`$) before being captured by the black hole (PK83, KE86). Pions generated by this process decay into relativistic electrons, positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos and produce high energy $`\gamma `$-rays (see §2 of Das (1999) and references therein for various particle production and decay mechanism). As the relativistic protons are assumed to lose energy only through the above mentioned nuclear collisions and since the proton-proton collision time scale $`\tau _{pp}`$ would, in general, be much larger compared to the free-fall time scale, a sufficiently high density of relativistic protons could be maintained which provides radially outward pressure sufficient enough to support the sustenance of a steady and standing shock. The shock is, thus, self-supported.
In a previous work (Das 1999), we have explicitly calculated the exact location (radial distance measured from the central accretor in units of Schwarzschild radius $`r_g=\frac{2GM_{BH}}{c^2}`$, where $`M_{BH}`$ is the mass of the black hole, $`G`$ is the Universal gravitational constant and $`c`$ is the velocity of light in vacuum) of the above mentioned steady, standing, spherically-symmetric shock in terms of only three accretion parameters, namely, the specific energy of the flow, accretion rate (scaled in units of Eddington rate) and the adiabatic index of the flow for spherically-symmetric, transonic accretion of adiabatic fluid onto a Schwarzschild black hole. By solving the set of hydrodynamic equations describing the motion of accreting material under the influence of pseudo-Schwarzschild potential proposed by Paczyński & Wiita (1980), we have shown there that it is possible to construct a self-consistent inflow-outflow system where a part of the accreting material may be blown as spherical wind from the spherical shock surface and the mass outflow rate $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ (the measure of the fraction of accreting material being ‘kicked off’ as wind) was computed in terms of various accretion as well as shock parameters. However, calculation presented in our previous work was based on the valid assumption that spherically symmetric, transonic flow onto a Schwarzschild black hole can be well approximated using a suitable modified Newtonian potential and no general relativistic calculations were performed to study the flow profile.
In this paper, we would like to construct a self-consistent, spherically symmetric, polytropic, transonic, non-magnetized accretion-wind system using a full general relativistic description of flow structure around a Schwarzschild black hole. In doing so, we would like to perform the following steps:
(a) We will write down the set of general relativistic hydrodynamic equations of motions describing the accretion and wind in Schwarzschild metric.
(b) Incorporating a suitable equation of state, we will solve the equations to get a general flow profile for accreting material where any dynamical (flow velocity, Mach number of the flow etc.) as well as thermodynamic (flow temperature, density, pressure etc.) quantity can be explicitly calculated at any radial distance (measured from the accretor in units of $`r_g`$) in terms of only three accretion parameters, namely, the total specific energy and adiabatic index of the flow and accretion rate scaled in units of Eddington rate.
(c) We will use the formula for shock location obtained in Das (1999) with the assumption that direct use of that formula in this paper would not be quite unjustified because procedure to calculate the shock location in modified Newtonian description would roughly be unchanged also in the full general relativistic framework. This is because the shock location is obtained by equating the two alternative expressions for luminosities of the same object, hence any correction term arising from the red-shift (gravitational or cosmological) would cancel out. Using the values of dynamical (and thermodynamic) variables computed in general relativistic framework in terms of three accretion parameters mentioned in (b), we will calculate the shock standoff distance. As the condition necessary for the development and sustenance of such a shock is satisfied when at shock location, the Mach number of the inflow $`M_{sh}`$ is considerably high (high supersonic flow at the time it encounters the shock, Ellison & Eichler 1984), we concentrate on polytropic accretion with such a set of values of conserved specific energy $``$ and accretion rate (scaled in the unit of Eddington rate) $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ which produces a high shock Mach number solution.
(d) We will take this hadronic pressure-supported shock surface to be the generating surface of mass outflow. At the shock surface, density of the post-shock material as well as the post-shock flow temperature shoots up and dynamical flow velocity falls down abruptly. In other words, highly supersonic inflow becomes subsonic and accreting matter becomes shock-compressed at this surface. Matter starts getting hotter and denser and starts piling up on the shock surface. The post-shock relativistic hadronic pressure and thermal pressure (pressure generated by high temperature produced at the shock) then gives a kick to the piled-up matter, the result of which is the ejection of outflow from the shock surface. Thus a hot and dense spherical shock surface serves as the ‘effective’ physical atmosphere regarding the generation of mass outflow from matter accreting onto black holes. At the shock, entropy is generated and the outflow as well as post-shock inflow will have higher entropy density for the same specific energy. For this type of inflow, accretion is expected to proceed smoothly after a shock transition, since successful subsonic solutions have been constructed for accretion onto black holes embedded within normal stars with the boundary condition $`u=c`$ (Flammang 1982); where $`u`$ is the in-fall velocity of matter and $`c`$ is the velocity of light in vacuum.
It is to be mentioned here that one fundamental criterion for formation of hydrodynamic outflows is that the outflowing wind should have a positive Bernoulli constant which means that the matter in the post-shock region is able to escape to infinity. However, positiveness in Bernoulli’s constant may lead to another situation as well where shock may quasi-periodically originate at some certain radius and propagate outwards without formation of outflows. So formation of outflows is one of the possible scenarios when we focus on the positive energy solutions. In this paper we concentrate only on solutions producing outflows, thus we use only the positive Bernoulli constant throughout our model which is standard practice for studying hydrodynamic winds. Another assumption made in this paper is to treat the accreting as well as post-shock matter as a single temperature fluid, the temperature of which is basically characterized by proton temperature.
The plan of this paper is as follows. In next section we describe how to formulate and solve the governing equations. In §3, we present our results. In §4, the results will be reviewed and conclusions will be drawn.

## 2 Governing equations and solution procedure

### 2.1 Inflow model

We assume that a Schwarzschild type black hole spherically accretes fluid obeying a polytropic equation of state. The density of the fluid is $`\rho (r)`$, $`r`$ being the radial distance measured in the unit of Schwarzschild radius $`r_g`$. We also assume that the accretion rate (in the unit of Eddington rate $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$) is not a function of $`r`$ and we ignore the self-gravity of the flow. For simplicity of calculation, we choose the geometric unit where the unit of length is scaled in units of $`r_g`$, units of velocity in units of $`c`$ . All other physically relevant quantities can be expressed likewise. We also set $`G=c=1`$ in the system of units used here.
For a Schwarzschild metric of the form

$$ds^2=dt^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)dr^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)^1r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$

the energy momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ for a perfect fluid can be written as

$$T^{\mu \nu }=ϵu^\mu u^\nu +p\left(u^\mu u^\nu g^{\mu \nu }\right)$$

where $`ϵ`$ and $`p`$ are proper energy density and pressure of the fluid (evaluated in the local inertial rest frame of the fluid) respectively and $`u^\mu `$ is the four velocity commonly known as

$$u^\mu =\frac{dx^\mu }{ds}$$

Equations of motion which are to be solved for our purpose are,
1) Conservation of mass flux or baryon number conservation:

$$\left(\rho u_\mu \right)_{;\mu }=0$$
$`(3a)`$
and
2) Conservation of momentum or energy flux (general relativistic Euler equation obtained by taking the four divergence of $`T^{\mu \nu }`$):

$$\left(ϵ+p\right)u_{\mu ;\nu }u^\nu =p_{,\mu }u_\mu p_{,\nu }u_,^\nu $$
$`(3b)`$
where the semicolons denote the covariant derivatives.
Following Michel (1972), one can rewrite Eq. 3(a) and Eq. 3(b) for spherically symmetric flow as

$$4\pi \rho ur^2=\dot{M}_{in}$$
$`(4a)`$
and

$$\left(\frac{p+ϵ}{\rho }\right)^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}+u^2\right)=𝐂$$
$`(4b)`$
as two fundamental conservation equations for time-independent hydrodynamical flow of matter on to a Schwarzschild black hole without back-reaction of the flow on to the metric itself. $`\dot{M}_{in}`$ being the mass accretion rate and $`𝐂`$ is some constant (related to the total enthalpy influx) to be evaluated for a specific equation of state.
For polytropic equation of state i.e,

$$p=K\rho ^{\gamma _{in}}$$

(where $`\gamma _{in}`$ is the adiabatic index of the inflow) and defining $`\dot{}`$ (where $`\dot{}=\dot{M}_{in}\gamma _{in}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{\gamma _{in}1}}K^{\frac{1}{\gamma _{in}1}}`$ is a measure of the specific entropy of the flow) to be another conserved quantity of the flow except at the shock location (because shock generates entropy), one can rewrite conservation equations 4(a) and 4(b) as (Das & Sarkar 2001, and references therein):

$$=hu_t=\left(\frac{p+ϵ}{\rho }\right)\left(\frac{1\frac{1}{r}}{1u^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
$`(5a)`$
and

$$\dot{}=4\pi \left[\frac{\left(\gamma _{in}1\right)a^2}{\gamma _{in}\left(a^2+1\right)}\right]^{\left(\frac{1}{\gamma _{in}1}\right)}uu_tr^2$$
$`(5b)`$
where $`,h,u_t`$ and $`a`$ are the total conserved specific energy( which include the rest mass of matter), specific enthalpy $`\left(h=\left[\frac{\gamma _{in}1}{\gamma _{in}\left(a^2+1\right)}\right]\right)`$, specific binding energy and local adiabatic sound speed respectively. Eqn. 5(b) may be considered as the outcome of the conservation of mass and entropy along the flow line. The expression for the adiabatic sound speed $`a`$ can be written as (Weinberg 1972, Frank et. al. 1992):

$$a=\left(\frac{p}{ϵ}\right)_𝒮^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _{in}p}{\rho }}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _{in}\kappa T}{\mu m_H}}$$
$`(6)`$
where $`T`$ is the flow temperature, $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight and $`m_Hm_p`$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom and $`\kappa `$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The subscript $`𝒮`$ indicates that differentiation is performed at constant specific entropy.
One can now easily derive the expression for velocity gradient $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)`$ (by differentiating Eq. 5(a) and 5(b)) as

$$\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{u\left(1u^2\right)\left[a^2\left(4r3\right)1\right]}{2r\left(r1\right)\left(u^2a^2\right)}$$
$`(7a)`$
Since the flow is assumed to be smooth everywhere, if the denominator of Eq. 7(a) vanishes at any radial distance $`r`$, the numerator must also vanish there to maintain the continuity of the flow. One therefore arrives at the so called ‘sonic point (alternately, the ‘critical point’) conditions’ by simultaneously making numerator and denominator of Eq. 7(a) equal to zero and the sonic point conditions can be expressed as follows

$$u_c=a_c=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4r_c3}}$$
$`(7b)`$
For a specific value of $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$, location of sonic point $`r_c`$ can be obtained by solving the following equation algebraically

$$64r_c^3\left(^21\right)+16r_c^2\left(2^2\phi _{in}^29\right)+4r_c\left(^2\phi _{in}^227\right)+27=0$$
$`(7c)`$
where $`\phi _{in}=\left(\frac{3\gamma _{in}+2}{\gamma _{in}1}\right)`$.
To determine the behaviour of the solution near the sonic point, one needs to evaluate the value of $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)`$ at that point (we denote it by $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c`$) by applying L ’Hospitals’ rule on Eq. 7(a). It is easy to show that $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c`$ can be obtained by solving the following quadratic equations algebraically:

$$\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c^2+\frac{\left(\gamma _{in}1\right)\left(16r_c^216r_c8\gamma _{in}r_c+6\gamma _{in}+3\right)}{3r_c\left(4r_c3\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c$$

$$+\frac{\left(\gamma _{in}1\right)\left(2r_c1\right)\left(24r_c^228r_c8r_c^2\gamma _{in}+4r_c\gamma _{in}+3\gamma _{in}+6\right)}{2r_c\left(4r_c3\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(r_c1\right)}=0$$
$`(7d)`$
It is now quite straightforward to simultaneously solve Eq. 5(a) and Eq. 5(b) to get the integral curves of the flow (curves showing variation of Mach number of the flow with radial distance) for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$. Detail methodology for this purpose will be discussed in §2.3.
In this work we normally use the value of $`\gamma _{in}`$ to be $`\frac{4}{3}`$. Though far away from the black hole, optically thin accreting plasma may not be treated as ultra-relativistic fluid (by the term ‘ultra-relativistic’ and ‘purely non-relativistic’ we mean a flow with $`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$ and $`\gamma =\frac{5}{3}`$ respectively, according to the terminology used in Frank et. al. 1992) in general, close to the hole it always advects with enormously large radial velocity and could be well-approximated as ultra-relativistic flow. As because our main region of interest, the shock formation zone, always lies close to the black hole (a few tens of $`r_g`$ away from the hole or sometimes even less, see results and figures in §3), we believe that it is fairly justifiable to assign the value $`\frac{4}{3}`$ for $`\gamma _{in}`$ in our work. However, to rigorously model a real flow without any assumption, a variable polytropic index having proper functional dependence on radial distance (i.e., $`\gamma \gamma (r)`$) might be considered instead of using a constant $`\gamma _{in}`$, and equations of motion might be formulated accordingly, which we did not attempt here for the sake of simplicity. Nevertheless, we keep our option open for values of $`\gamma _{in}`$ other than $`\frac{4}{3}`$ as well and investigated the outflow for an range of values of $`\gamma _{in}`$ for a specific value of $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ (Fig. 5a, §3.3.3). The same kind of investigations could be performed for a variety of values of $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and a set of results may be obtained with a wide range of values of $`\gamma _{in}`$ which tells that our calculation is not restricted to the value $`\gamma _{in}=\frac{4}{3}`$ only; rather the model is general enough to deal with all possible value of $`\gamma _{in}`$ for polytropic accretion.

### 2.2 Shock parameters and the outflow model

As already mentioned, a steady, collision-less shock forms due to the instabilities in the plasma flow. We assume that for our model, the effective thickness of the shock $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sh}`$ is small enough compared to the shock standoff distance $`r_{sh}`$, and that the relativistic particles encounter a full shock compression ratio while crossing the shock. At the shock, density of matter will shoot up and inflow velocity will drop abruptly. If $`(\rho _{},u_{})`$ and $`(\rho _+,u_+)`$ are the pre- and post-shock densities and velocities respectively at the shock surface, then

$$\frac{\rho _+}{\rho _{}}=R_{comp}=\frac{u_{}}{u_+}$$
$`(8)`$
where $`R_{comp}`$ is the shock compression ratio. For high shock Mach number solution, the expression for $`R_{comp}`$ can be well approximated as

$$R_{comp}=1.44M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{3}{4}}$$
$`(9)`$
where $`M_{sh}`$ is the shock Mach number and Eq. (5) holds for $`M_{sh}\stackrel{>}{}4.0`$ (Ellison & Eichler 1985).
In terms of various accretion parameters, shock location can be computed as (Das 1999):

$$r_{sh}=\frac{3\sigma _{pp}\dot{M}_{Edd}}{4\pi u_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(\frac{12.4M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.68}}{13.2M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.62}}\right)$$
$`(10)`$
where $`\sigma _{pp}`$ is the collision cross section for relativistic protons, $`u_{sh}`$ and $`M_{sh}`$ are the dynamical flow velocity and the Mach number attained at the shock location, $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ is the mass accretion rate scaled in units of Eddington rate. One can understand that

$$(u_{sh},M_{sh})\zeta (,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in})$$
$`(10a)`$
where $`\zeta `$ has some complicated non-linear functional form which cannot be evaluated analytically, but the value of $`u_{sh}`$ and $`M_{sh}`$ can easily be obtained in terms of $`\{,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in}\}`$ by numerically solving Eq. 5(a-b) and Eq. 10 (with the help of Eq. 7(a-d)) simultaneously. Hence one can write

$$r_{sh}\xi (,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in})$$
$`(10b)`$
where $`\xi `$ has some functional form other than that of $`\zeta `$.
In ordinary stellar mass-loss computations (Tarafder 1988, and references therein), the outflow is assumed to be isothermal till the sonic point. This assumption is probably justified, since copious photons from the stellar atmosphere deposit momenta on the slowly outgoing and expanding outflow and possibly make the flow close to isothermal. This need not be the case for outflow from black hole candidates. Our effective boundary layer, being close to the black hole, are very hot and most of the photons emitted may be swallowed by the black hole itself instead of coming out of the region and depositing momentum onto the outflow. Thus, the outflow could be cooler than the isothermal flow in our case. We choose polytropic outflow with a different polytropic index $`\gamma _o<\gamma _{in}`$ due to momentum deposition. Nevertheless, it may be advisable to study the isothermal outflow to find the behaviour of the extreme case. Modelling the isothermal outflow is in progress and will be presented elsewhere.
In our calculation we assume that essentially the post-shock fluid pressure and the post-shock proton temperature controls the wind formation as well as the barionic matter content of the outflow. The presence of a collision-less steady standing spherical shock discussed in this work may randomize the directed in-fall motion and at the shock surface the individual components of the total energy of the flow (which is a combination of the kinetic, thermal and gravitational energy) gets rearranged in such a manner that the thermal energy of the post-shock matter dominates (due to enormous shock generated post-shock proton temperature) over the gravitational attraction of the accretor and a part of the in-falling material is driven by thermal pressure to escape to infinity as wind. In §3.3 we show that for any shock solution, whatever the initial boundary condition obeyed by the pre-shock flow, the mass-loss rate always co-relates with the post-shock proton temperature which essentially supports the validity of our assumption.
The adiabatic post-shock sound speed $`a_{sh}^+`$ and the post-shock temperature $`T_{sh}^+`$ (which is basically the temperature of the protons according to our one-temperature fluid approximation) can be calculated as:

$$a_{sh}^+=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _op_{sh}^+}{\rho _{sh}^+}}$$
$`(11a)`$
and

$$T_{sh}^+=\frac{\mu m_pp_{sh}^+}{\kappa \rho _{sh}^+}$$
$`(11b)`$
where $`p_{sh}^+`$ and $`\rho _{sh}^+`$ are the post-shock pressure and density of the flow at shock location $`r_{sh}`$ respectively. For low energy accretion (‘cold’ inflow, so to say) which is appropriate to produce a high shock Mach number solution, one can assume that the pre-shock thermal pressure ($`p_{sh}^{}`$) may be neglected compared to its post-shock value ($`p_{sh}^+`$) and to the pre-shock ram pressure $`\left(\rho _{sh}^{}\left(u_{sh}^{}\right)^2\right)`$. One can obtain the value of $`p_{sh}^+`$ using Eq. (8-9) and from the total pressure balance condition at shock as,

$$p_{sh}^+=\left(u_{sh}^+\right)^2r_{sh}\left(\frac{R_{comp}1}{R_{comp}}\right)$$
$`(12)`$
Combining Eq. (8-12), post-shock sound velocity and temperature obtained at the shock surface can be rewritten as:

$$a_{sh}^+=0.606\dot{M}_{Edd}\sigma _{pp}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.5}\gamma _{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5}\left(u_{sh}^+\right)^{1.5}\left(10.694M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.75}\right)^{0.5}\left(\frac{12.4M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.68}}{13.2M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.62}}\right)^{1.5}$$
$`(13a)`$
and,

$$T_{sh}^+=0.014\left(\frac{\mu m_p\dot{M}_{Edd}\sigma _{pp}^3\left(u_{sh}^+\right)^3}{\kappa }\right)\left(10.694M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.75}\right)\left(\frac{12.4M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.68}}{13.2M_{sh}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.62}}\right)^3$$
$`(13b)`$
The two conservation equations governing the outflow will exactly be the same as Eq. (5a) and (5b) with different polytropic index, i.e., with $`\gamma =\gamma _o`$ for outflow. So we can write,

$$^{^{}}=h^{^{}}u_t^{^{}}$$
$`(14a)`$
and

$$\dot{}^{^{}}=4\pi \left[\frac{\left(\gamma _o1\right)a_2^o}{\gamma _o\left(a_o^2+1\right)}\right]^{\left(\frac{1}{\gamma _o1}\right)}u_ou_tr^2$$
$`(14b)`$
where $`^{^{}}`$ is the specific energy (including rest mass) of the outflow which is also assumed to be constant throughout the flow and $`\dot{}^{^{}}=\dot{M}_{out}\gamma _{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{\gamma _o1}}K_{}^{o}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{\gamma _o1}}`$ is the entropy accretion rate of the outflow. $`\gamma _o<\gamma _{in}`$ as already mentioned.
Also Eq. (4a) can now be written as the mass conservation equation for the outflow as:

$$\dot{M}_{out}=4\pi \rho ^ou^o\left(r\right)^2$$
$`(15)`$
In Eq. (15), $`\rho ^o`$ and $`u^o`$ are the density and dynamical flow velocity of the outflowing material. We then define the mass outflow rate $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ as:

$$R_{\dot{m}}=\frac{\dot{M}_{out}}{\dot{M}_{in}}$$
$`(16)`$
Like Eq. (7a-7d), the value of $`\frac{du^o}{dr}`$, sonic point conditions and the value of $`\frac{du^o}{dr}`$ at the outflow sonic point can be written as:

$$\left(\frac{du^o}{dr}\right)=\frac{u^o\left[1\left(u^o\right)^2\right]\left[\left(a^o\right)^2\left(4r3\right)1\right]}{2r\left(r1\right)\left[\left(u^o\right)^2\left(a^o\right)^2\right]}$$
$`(17a)`$
$$u_c^o=a_c^o=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4r_c^o3}}$$
$`(17b)`$
$$\left(4r_c^o\right)^3\left[\left(^{^{}}\right)^21\right]+\left(4r_c^o\right)^2\left[2\left(^{^{}}\right)^2\phi _o^29\right]+4r_c^o\left[\left(^{^{}}\right)^2\phi _o^227\right]+27=0$$
$`(17c)`$
where $`\phi _o=\left(\frac{3\gamma _o+2}{\gamma _o1}\right)`$.

$$\left(\frac{du^o}{dr}\right)_c^2+\frac{\left(\gamma _o1\right)\left[16\left(r_c^o\right)^216r_c^o8\gamma _or_c^o+6\gamma _o+3\right]}{3r_c^o\left(4r_c^o3\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\frac{du^o}{dr}\right)_c$$

$$+\frac{\left(\gamma _o1\right)\left(2r_c^o1\right)\left[24\left(r_c^o\right)^228r_c^o8\left(r_c^o\right)^2\gamma _o+4r_c^o\gamma _o+3\gamma _o+6\right]}{2r_c^o\left(4r_c^o3\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(r_c^o1\right)}=0$$
$`(17d)`$
Where the superscript $`o`$ indicates that the quantities are measured for the outflows.

### 2.3 Simultaneous solution of inflow-outflow equations

In this work, we are interested in finding the ratio of $`\dot{M}_{out}`$ to $`\dot{M}_{in}`$ (Eq. (16)), and not the explicit value of $`\dot{M}_{out}`$. Also note that the primary goal of our present work was to compute the outflow rate and to investigate its dependence on various inflow parameters but not to study the collimation procedure of the outflow.
Before we proceed in detail, a general understanding of the transonic inflow outflow system in the present case is essential to understand the basic scheme of the solution procedure. Let us consider the transonic accretion first. Infalling matter becomes supersonic after crossing a saddle-type sonic point, the location of which is determined by $`\{,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in}\}`$. This supersonic flow then encounters a shock (if present), location of which ($`r_{sh}`$) is determined from Eq. (10). At the shock surface, part of the incoming matter, having a higher entropy density (because shock in a fluid flow generates entropy), is likely to return as wind through a sonic point other than the point through which it just entered. Thus a combination of transonic topologies, one for the inflow and other for the outflow (passing through a different sonic point and following topology completely different that of the ‘self-wind’ of the accretion), is required to obtain a full solution. So it turns out that finding a complete set of self-consistent inflow outflow solutions ultimately boils down to locate the sonic point of the polytropic outflow and the mass flux through it. Thus a supply of parameters $`,\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, $`\gamma _{in}`$ and $`\gamma _o`$ make a self-consistent computation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ possible. Here $`\gamma _o`$ is supplied as free parameter because the self-consistent computation of $`\gamma _o`$ directly using $`,\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$ has not been attempted in this work; instead we put a constrain that $`\gamma _o<\gamma _{in}`$ always and for any value of $`\gamma _{in}`$. In reality, $`\gamma _o`$ is directly related to the heating and cooling processes taking place in the outflow.
We obtain the inflow sonic point $`r_c`$ by solving Eq. (7c). Using the fourth order the Runge Kutta method, $`u(r)`$, $`a(r)`$ and the inflow Mach number $`\left[\frac{u(r)}{a(r)}\right]`$ are computed along the inflow from the inflow sonic point $`r_c`$ till the position where the shock forms. The shock location is calculated by solving Eq. (10). Various shock parameters (i.e., density, pressure etc at the shock surface) are then computed self-consistently.
For outflow, with the known value of $`^{}`$ and $`\gamma _o`$, it is easy to compute the location of the outflow sonic point $`r_c^o`$ from Eq. (17c). At the outflow sonic point, the outflow velocity $`u_c^o`$ and polytropic sound velocity $`a_c^o`$ is computed from Eq. (17b). Using Eq. (17a) and (17d), $`\left(\frac{du^o}{dr}\right)`$ and $`\left(\frac{du^o}{dr}\right)_c`$ is computed as was done for the inflow. Runge -Kutta method is then employed to integrate from the outflow sonic point $`r_c^o`$ towards the black hole to find out the outflow velocity $`u^o`$ and density $`\rho ^o`$ at the shock location. The mass outflow rate $`R_{\dot{M}}`$ is then computed using Eq.(16).
It is obvious from the above discussion that $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ should have some complicated non-linear functional dependence on the following accretion and shock parameters:

$$R_{\dot{m}}=𝚿(,\dot{M}_{Edd},r_{sh},M_{sh},R_{comp},\gamma _{in},\gamma _o)$$
$`(18a)`$
As $`r_{sh},M_{sh}`$ and $`R_{comp}`$ can be found in terms of $`,\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$ only, ultimately it turns out that:

$$R_{\dot{m}}=𝛀(,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in},\gamma _o)$$
$`(18b)`$
Where $`𝛀`$ has some complicated functional form which cannot be evaluated analytically.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Shock Location as a function of $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$

For a particular value of $``$, $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$, the shock location (measured from the black hole in units of $`r_g`$) can be calculated using Eq. (10). As $`u_{sh}`$ and $`M_{sh}`$ is a function of $``$, $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, and $`\gamma _{in}`$, $`r_{sh}`$ will also change with the change of any of these accretion parameters. In Fig.1, we show the variation of $`r_s`$ with $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ for a fixed $`\gamma _{in}=\frac{4}{3}`$. While $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ are plotted along X and Y axes respectively, $`r_{sh}`$ is plotted along Z axis in units of $`r_g`$. It is interesting to note that different curves start and terminate at different points, which indicates that shock formation is not a generic phenomena, i.e., shock does not form for any value of $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$; rather, a specific region of parameter space spanned by $`\{,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in}\}`$ allows shock formation. Also we find that depending on the value of $``$, both sub-Eddington as well as super-Eddington accretion allows shock formation for a fixed value of $`\gamma _{in}`$. It is evident from the figure that while shock location non-linearly anti-correlates with $``$ (for a given value of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$), it correlates with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ (for a fixed $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$). Also we see that the maximum value of energy $`_{Max}`$ for which the shock forms decreases with an increase of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and also the maximum as well as minimum value of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ for which the shock forms, decreases and increases respectively with an increase in $``$ for a fixed $`\gamma _{in}`$. Families of curves for other values of $`\gamma _{in}`$ can also be obtained in the same manner .

### 3.2 Combined integral curves of motion

Fig. 2 shows a typical solution which combines the accretion and the outflow. While Mach number is plotted along the Y axis, the distance (in units of $`r_g`$) from the event horizon of the accreting black hole is plotted along the X axis in logarithmic scale. The accretion parameters used are $``$ = 1.0008, $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ =0.5 and $`\gamma _{in}=\frac{4}{3}`$ corresponding to ultra-relativistic inflow. The solid curve AB represents the pre-shock region of the inflow and the solid vertical line BC with double arrow at $`r_{sh}`$ represents the shock transition. Shock location (3.8 $`r_g`$) is obtained using the Eq.(10) for a particular set of inflow parameters mentioned above. Four dotted curves show the four different outflow branches corresponding to the four different adiabatic indices $`\gamma _o`$ of the outflow. From left to right, the values of $`\gamma _o`$ are 1.3, 1.275, 1.25 and 1.225 respectively with respective mass-outflow rates as 0.0002, 0.00006, 0.000011 and 0.00000122 respectively which indicates that for a given value of $``$, $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$, $`R_{in}`$ correlates with $`\gamma _o`$, which is explicitly shown in Fig 6. It is evident from the figure that the outflow moves along the solution curves in a completely different way to that of the ‘self-wind’ solution of the inflow (solid line marked by CD). Also, the sonic points for all the outflowing branches are different to those of the accretion ‘self-wind’ system which is designated as $`P_s`$. While $`P_s=470.8r_g`$, the sonic points of the outflowing branches corresponding to $`\gamma _o=1.3,1.275,1.25`$ and $`1.225`$ are $`574.96,669.7,783.34`$ and $`922.3r_g`$ respectively, which indicates that the outflow sonic point increases with a decrease in the adiabatic index of the outflow and thus the wind starts with a very low bulk velocity which is why the mass-loss rate decreases. It is also observed that the sonic point of the accretion-‘self-wind’ system is, in general, located closer to the event horizon compared to the outflow sonic point for all values of $`,\dot{M}_{Edd},\gamma _{in}`$ and $`\gamma _o`$.

### 3.3 Dependence of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ on various flow parameters

#### 3.3.1 Variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with $``$

In Fig. 3, we have plotted the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with conserved inflow specific energy (which includes the rest mass energy of matter) $``$ (dotted line marked with $``$) for a fixed value of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}(=0.5)`$, $`\gamma _{in}\left(=\frac{4}{3}\right)`$ and $`\gamma _o(=1.3)`$. We observe that the mass-outflow rate non-linearly correlates with $``$. The explanation may be as follows:
As $``$ increases, $`r_{sh}`$ decreases (see Fig. 1, §3.1) and the post-shock bulk velocity of the flow $`u_{sh}^+`$ as well as the post-shock density $`\rho _{sh}^+`$ increases. The outflow rate, which is the product of three quantities $`r_{sh}`$, $`\rho _{sh}^+`$ and $`u_{sh}^+`$ (see Eq. (15)), increases in general due to the combined ‘tug of war’ of these three quantities. Moreover, the closer the shock is to the black hole, the greater the amount of gravitational potential will be available to be put onto the relativistic protons to provide stronger outward pressure and the closer the shock forms to the black hole, the higher is the post-shock temperature (the effective characteristic outflow temperature) and the higher is the amount of outflow (as the wind is observed to be strongly thermally driven, see discussion below). Thus the mass-outflow rate increases with $``$ because for a particular set of fixed values of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ is proportional to $`\dot{M}_{out}`$ which increases with $``$. Also in the same figure, we show the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with post-shock temperature $`T_{sh}^+`$ (solid line in the figure marked with $`T_{sh}^+`$). The value of $`T_{sh}^+`$ corresponds to the values of $``$ shown in the same figure and is scaled as $`T_{sh}^+\left[1+0.0004\times \left(\frac{T_{sh}^+}{T_{11}}\right)\right]`$ (where $`T_{11}=10^{11}{}_{}{}^{o}K`$) to fit in the same graph. We see that post-shock temperature correlates with the energy of the flow, and for a fixed accretion rate and adiabatic indices of the inflow and outflow, $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ also correlates with post-shock temperature, which indicates

that outflow is thermally driven as well. If we draw a family of curves for $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ vs. $``$ (alternatively, $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ vs. $`T_{sh}^+`$) for different values of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ (figure not presented in this paper) ranging from sub-Eddington to super-Eddington accretion rate, we observe that the maximum value of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ obtained for a fixed $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ (while $``$ is being varied) increases with a decrease of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and also the maximum value of $`T_{sh}^+`$ follows the same trend as mentioned above. So a ‘high energy-low luminosity’ combination for polytropic accretion maximizes the post-shock flow temperature and gives rise to the highest amount of outflow.

#### 3.3.2 Variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$

In Fig.4 we show the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ as a function of accretion rate (dotted curve marked with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$) scaled in units of Eddington rate for a fixed value of $``$ (=1.00045) $`\gamma _{in}(=\frac{4}{3})`$ and $`\gamma _o`$ (=1.3). It is observed that $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ anticorrelates with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ which indicates that low-luminosity flow produces more mass-loss. Here $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ correlates with post shock temperature $`T_{sh}^+`$ (solid curve marked with $`T_{sh}^+`$). $`T_{sh}^+`$ shown here is scaled as $`T_{sh}^+2.2\times \left(\frac{T_{sh}^+}{T_{11}}\right)`$ to fit in the same graph.The values of $`T_{sh}^+`$ correspond to the varying $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ shown in this graph. It is also obvious from this figure that outflow is thermally driven because $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ correlates with $`T_{sh}^+`$. It can be shown that while for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$, $`r_{sh}`$,$`\rho _{sh}^+`$ and $`u_{sh}^+`$ correlates with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, shock Mack number, compression ratio and post-shock flow temperature anti-correlates with the accretion rate. However, from the figure we see that unlike $``$, variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ is somewhat insensitive to the variation of $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ for fixed $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$.

#### 3.3.3 Variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with adiabatic indices

In previous cases, the polytropic index $`\gamma _{in}`$ of the accreting matter was always kept fixed at the value $`\frac{4}{3}`$. To have a better insight of the behaviour of the outflow, we plot $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ as a function of $`\gamma _{in}`$ (fig 5a) for a fixed value of $``$ (= 1.0002) and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ (= 0.2). The upper range of $`\gamma _{in}`$ shown here is the range for which shock forms for the specified value of $``$ and $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$. We have chosen the value of $`\gamma _o`$ in such a way so that the condition $`\gamma _o<\gamma _{in}`$ is always satisfied. Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma `$ to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma =\gamma _{in}\gamma _o`$, we study the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with $`\gamma _{in}`$ for five values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma =0.01,0.02,0.03,0.04`$ and 0.05 (from top to bottom respectively). We observe that $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ correlates with $`\gamma _{in}`$, which is expected because the specific enthalpy of the flow increases with $`\gamma _{in}`$ to produce a higher post-shock temperature for higher value of $`\gamma _{in}`$ (see also Fig. 5(b)). We observe from our calculation that $`\rho _{sh}^+`$ and $`u_{sh}`$ correlates while $`r_{sh}`$ anticorrelates with $`\gamma _{in}`$. So increment of $`\gamma _{in}`$ satisfies all possible conditions to have a high value of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$. In fig.5b, we show the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with $`T_{sh}^+`$ (corresponding to the values of $`\gamma _{in}`$ shown in fig.5a) scaled in units of $`T_{11}=10^{10}{}_{}{}^{o}K`$ to show that here also the flow is thermally driven. Also, we observe that $`M_{sh}`$ as well as the shock compression ratio $`R_{comp}`$ anti correlates with $`\gamma _{in}`$ so that ‘weak-shock’ solutions are preferred to obtain a high value of mass-loss for this case. So we conclude that as the accretion approaches from its ultra-relativistic nature to its non-relativistic regime, the mass-loss rate increases.
In Fig. 6, we show the variation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ with $`\gamma _o`$ for a fixed value of $`=1.0005,\dot{M}_{Edd}=0.2`$ and $`\gamma _{in}=\frac{4}{3}`$. The general conclusion is that $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ correlates with $`\gamma _o`$. This is because as $`\gamma _o`$ increases, shock location and post-shock density of matter does not change (as $`\gamma _o`$ does not have any role in shock formation or in determining the $`R_{comp}`$) but the sonic point of the outflow is pushed inward, hence the velocity with which outflow leaves the shock surface goes up, resulting the increment in $`R_{\dot{m}}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we could successfully construct a self-consistent spherically-symmetric, polytropic, transonic, non-magnetized inflow-outflow system by simultaneously solving the set of hydrodynamic equations governing the accretion and wind around a Schwarzschild black hole using full general relativistic framework. Introducing a steady, standing, hadronic-pressure supported spherical shock (formation of which was first proposed by KE86 and PK83) surface around the black hole as the effective physical atmosphere which may be responsible for generation of accretion-powered spherical wind, we calculate the mass-outflow rate $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ in terms of only three accretion parameters (conserved energy of the flow $``$, which includes the rest mass energy of matter, accretion rate $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ scaled in units of Eddington rate and polytropic index of the flow $`\gamma _{in}`$) and only one outflow parameter (the polytropic index of the outflow, $`\gamma _o`$). Not only do we provide a sufficiently plausible estimation of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$, we could also successfully study the dependence and variation of this rate on various physical parameters governing the flow.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the hot and dense shock surface around black holes, which is proposed here as the effective physical barrier around compact objects regarding the mass outflow, may be generated due to other physical effects as well for spherical accretion (Chang & Osttriker 1985, Mészáros & Ostriker 1983, Babul, Ostriker & Mészáros 1989, Park 1990, 1990a). Another very important approach launched recently was to construct such an ‘effective barrier’ for non-spherical disc accretion to introduce the concept of CENtrifugal pressure supported BOundary Layers (CENBOL). Treating the CENBOL as the effective atmosphere of the rotating flows around compact objects (which forms as a result of standing Rankine-Hugoniot shock or due to the maximization of polytropic pressure of accreting material in absence of shock), detailed computation of the mass-outflow rate from the advective accretion disks has been done, and dependence of this rate on various accretion and shock parameters has been quantitatively studied by constructing a self-consistent disk-outflow system (Das 1998, Das & Chakrabarti 1999).
The basic conclusions of this paper are the following:

1. Shock formation is not a generic phenomena, i.e., not all solutions contain shock, rather a specific region of parameter space spanned by $`,\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$ allows shock formation. Also we found that for given values of $`,\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$, while the value of shock location (in units of $`r_g`$) correlates with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, it anti-correlates with both $``$ and $`\gamma _{in}`$.
2. The shock surface can serve as the ‘effective’ physical barrier around the black hole regarding generation of mass loss via transonic spherical wind. The fraction of accreting material being blown as wind (which is denoted as $`R_{\dot{m}}`$) could be computed in terms of three accretion parameters and one outflow parameter.
3. While $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ correlates with $`,\gamma _{in}`$ and $`\gamma _o`$, it anti-correlates with $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, which indicates that low-luminosity objects produce more mass-loss, though outflow could be generated for both sub-Eddington as well as super-Eddington accretion.
4. If a shock forms, then whatever the initial flow conditions and whatever the nature of dependence of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ on any of the accretion/ shock/ outflow parameters, $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ always correlates with post-shock flow temperature, which indicates that outflow is strongly thermally driven; hotter flow always produces more winds.

Our calculations in this paper, being simply founded, do not explicitly include various radiation losses and cooling processes, combined effects of which may reduce the post-shock proton temperature (which means the reduction of outflow temperature), in reality could be lower than what we have obtained here and the amount of outflow would be less than what is obtained in our calculation. This deviation will be more important for systems with high accretion rates. Nevertheless, cases of low accretion rates discussed here would not be affected that much and our preliminary investigation shows that even if we incorporate various losses, the overall profile of the various curves showing the dependence of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ on different inflow parameters would be exactly the same, only the numerical value of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ in some cases (especially for high accretion) might decrease. However, as we have shown that $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ anti-correlate with accretion rate ( see §3.3.2, Fig. 4) and also it has been shown that the mass-loss rate does not have that strong a dependence on $`\dot{M}_{Edd}`$, we believe that such changes will not bring any significant change in our overall conclusions.
Our present work, as we believe, may have some important consequences regarding modelling of the astrophysical outflows emanating from galactic and extra-galactic sources powered by isolated accreting compact objects. Galactic and extra-galactic sources of jets and outflows are now widely believed to be fed by accreting black holes sitting at the dynamical centre of these sources. In the absence of any binary companion, spherically symmetric Bondi (Bondi 1952) type accretion may occur onto isolated central black hole if accreting matter has a negligible amount of intrinsic angular momentum. This may happen when the central super-massive black hole at the galactic centre is surrounded by a dense stellar cloud in such a way that the vector sum of the angular momentum of tidally disrupted matter (from a number of stars with trajectories approaching sufficiently close to the hole) almost vanishes. On the other hand, unlike the ordinary stellar bodies, black holes do not have their own ‘physical’ atmosphere and outflows in these cases have to be generated from the accreting matter only. Hence we believe that it is necessary to study the accretion and outflow (from various astrophysical sources powered by accreting compact objects) in the same framework instead of treating the outflow separately from accretion phenomenon. At the same time, as the fundamental criterion for constructing any self-consistent physical model demands the minimization of the number of inputs to the model, we may conclude that modelling the astrophysical outflow needs a concrete formulation where the outflow can be described in terms of minimum number of physical parameters governing the inflow. The success of our work presented in this paper, as we believe, is precisely this. We could rigorously compute the mass outflow rate $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ in terms of only three inflow parameters and only one outflow parameter. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such model present in the literature which rigorously studies the accretion-powered spherical outflow in a general relativistic framework using only the four parameters mentioned above.
Although in this work we have performed our calculation for a 10$`M_{}`$ Schwarzschild black hole, general flow characteristics will be unchanged for black hole of any mass except the fact that the region of parameter space responsible for shock formation will be shifted and the value of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ will explicitly depend on the mass of the black hole. In our next work, we will show the direct dependence of $`R_{\dot{m}}`$ on the mass of the black hole and will apply our model to some specific astrophysical sources of outflows to roughly estimate the amount of outflow in $`M_{}/yr^1`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to acknowledge the hospitality provided by the Astronomy Unit, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London, where a part of this research was carried out.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

February 23, 1987 saw the birth of a new era in astrophysics – extra–solar system neutrino astronomy. The supernova explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) at a distance of about 50 kpc was not only the closest visual supernova since Kepler but was also the source of neutrinos detected at the terrestrial detectors of Kamiokande (KII) and IMB giving rise to 11 and 8 events respectively. The next few years saw great excitement in this field. Astrophysics interacted with particle physics intimately. From the number and the energy distribution of the observed neutrinos one tried to extract information about the stellar core and check them with model predictions. On the other hand these neutrinos also gave particle physics constraints on neutrino properties. In the last few years interest in this area got rejuvenated by the finding that neutrinos do have non-zero mass and the flavors do mix when they travel. This conclusion was reached through the analysis of the atmospheric neutrinos detected at the Superkamioka (SK) along with their zenith angle dependence and the observation of the deficit of detected solar neutrinos by the Chlorine and Gallium radiochemical detectors and at SK and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) through electron scattering and charged/neutral current dissociation of heavy water respectively. The recent results announced by the KamLAND reactor experiment gives for the first time conclusive evidence for neutrino oscillation using a terrestrial neutrino source and confirms the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino problem. Thus the present day interest in supernova neutrinos lies around the question: if you have a galactic supernova event today what would be the number of events and their time and energy distributions in the large number of neutrino detectors in operation. The other related question is whether one can get a signature of neutrino oscillation mechanism from the observed data and also how other neutrino properties get constrained. Information about the mechanisms of the supernova explosion is also an area of huge interest. In this review we survey some of these issues. In section 2 we give a brief overview of the physics of type II supernovae and the emission of neutrinos from them. Section 3 introduces the subject of neutrino oscillation and the impact of vacuum and matter enhanced oscillation on the supernova neutrinos from the core. Section 4 describes the expected number of events in the terrestrial detectors for the different mass and mixing scenarios. Finally section 5 briefly states the other connected issues of suernova neutrino detection.

## 2 Type II Supernovae and Neutrino Emission

Stars of masses larger than $`8M_{}`$ after burning for millions of years collapse when the nuclear reactions in the core stop with matter consisting mostly of $`{}_{}{}^{56}Fe`$ like nulcei. This collapse proceeds very fast (timescale of the order of tens of milliseconds) and stops in the central region when its density goes beyond the nuclear matter density with a strong shock starting to travel outward . This shock wave, eventually hitting the outer mantle in a few seconds and supplying the explosion energy of a few times $`10^{51}`$ ergs, is believed to be the cause of type II supernova explosion. During this process, the binding energy released comes out almost completely as neutrinos and antineutrinos of three different flavors (e, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$) in the “cooling phase” with the total energy release of the order of $`10^{53}`$ ergs. Let us discuss the emission of the neutrinos in some more detail. Firstly during the early stage of the collapse (densities less than $`10^{12}`$ g/cc) neutrinos are produced through neutronisation

$`e^{}+(N,Z)(N+1,Z1)+\nu _e`$ (1)
$`e^{}+pn+\nu _e`$ (2)
where only $`\nu _e`$ (not $`\overline{\nu }_e`$) are produced. At lower densities these neutrinos have mean free path much larger than the core radius and hence escape. But the total energy of these neutronisation neutrinos is much smaller than that in the cooling phase. Even then it is possible to detect them for nearby galactic supernovae at distances within 1 kpc . These neutrinos can give information about the temperature and composition of the core.

The main neutrino emission is during the cooling phase where the thermal $`\nu `$/$`\overline{\nu }`$ are produced through pair production and other processes . Out of these $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$, called collectively as $`\nu _x`$, interact with matter only through neutral current whereas $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ have both charged current and neutral current interaction with matter. As the matter is neutron-rich the $`\nu _e`$’s interact more with matter than the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s. These neutrinos deep inside the core are in equilibrium with the ambient matter and their energy distributions are close to Fermi-Dirac as seen through simulations and through the analysis of 1987A neutrinos . As the stellar core has a strong density gradient, electron type neutrinos can stay in equilibrium upto larger radius and so the $`\nu _e`$ “neutrinosphere” has the largest radius and smallest temperature. In this article we shall assume that the three types of neutrino gas have Fermi-Dirac distributions with temeratures 11, 16 and 25 MeV for $`\nu _e`$, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _x`$ respectively.

An important role played by neutrinos in type II supenovae is in the process of “delayed neutrino heating” . In almost all simulations for large mass stars one sees that the shock wave moving outward fast loses energy in dissociating the nuclei in the overlying matter and soon becomes an accretion shock. This shock gets revitalised over the much longer timescale of seconds through the absorption of a small fraction of the thermal neutrinos that radiate out with each neutrino depositing energy of the order of 10 MeV. Large convection in the central regions also helps this process.

## 3 The neutrino oscillation probabilities

The flavor eigenstate $`|\nu _\alpha `$ created inside the supernova can be expressed as a linear superposition of the mass eigenstates such that $`|\nu _\alpha =_iU_{\alpha i}|\nu _i`$, where $`U`$ is the unitary mixing matrix and the sum is over $`N`$ neutrino states. After time t, the initial $`|\nu _\alpha `$ evolves to $`|\nu _\alpha (t)=_ie^{iE_it}U_{\alpha i}|\nu _i`$ where $`E_i`$ is the energy of the $`i^{th}`$ mass eigenstate. Then the probability of finding a flavor $`\nu _\beta `$ in the original $`\nu _\alpha `$ beam after traveling a distance L in vacuum is given by

$`P_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }4{\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}^{}U_{\alpha j}^{}U_{\beta j}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(1.27{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L}{E}}\right)`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2=m_i^2m_j^2`$ is the mass squared difference.

Over the last few years the idea that neutrinos are not massless but have small masses has become established as a result of Super-Kamiokande (SK) and SNO which have firm evidence for atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations . The SK atmospheric neutrino data demand $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and almost maximal mixing ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}1`$)  while the global solar neutrino data is best explained if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^26.1\times 10^5`$ eV2 with large mixing angles ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.41`$) . Very recently the KamLAND reactor antineutrino disappearance experiment  provided conclusive confirmation of the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem, with mass and mixing parameters absolutely consistent with the solar neutrino results. The global analysis of the solar and the KamLAND data gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.17\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.44`$ . The CHOOZ reactor experiment restricts $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}<0.1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>10^3`$ eV2 . The only other positive signal for neutrino oscillations come from the accelerator experiment LSND which requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ eV2 and mixing angle small ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^3`$). To include LSND in the framework of oscillation one needs to extend the number of neutrino generations to four, or in other words, include a sterile neutrino. However with the latest SNO data on solar neutrinos and the final data from SK on atmospheric neutrinos, both the “2+2” and “3+1” 4-generation scenarios fail to explain the global neutrino data. While “3+1” is inadequate in explaining the combined accelerator-reactor data including LSND, “2+2” cannot accomodate the solar and atmospheric neutrino data together .

Since galactic supernova neutrinos with energies $`10`$ MeV travel distances $`10`$ Kpc ($`3\times 10^{20}`$ m), the coherent term in eq.(3) becomes important only for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^210^{19}`$ eV2. Thus supernova neutrinos can be used as probes for mass squared differences not possible to detect with any known terrestrial source. However for the solar and atmospheric mass scales given above the oscillatory term would average out to 1/2.

The expression (3) would have been correct/exact if the neutrinos were traveling in vacuum. However for the supernova neutrinos things are a little complicated since they are created deep inside the core and traverse through extremely dense matter before they come out into the vacuum. As the neutrinos move in matter they undergo scattering with the ambient electrons. While all the active neutrino flavors scatter electrons by the neutral current process, only the $`\nu _e`$ (and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$) have charged current interactions as well. This significantly affects neutrino oscillations parameters as the $`\nu _e`$ picks up an additional matter induced mass term

$`A(r)=2\sqrt{2}G_FN_An_e(r)E`$ (4)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`N_A`$ the Avogadra’s number, $`n_e(r)`$ the ambient electron density in the supernova at radius $`r`$ and $`E`$ the energy of the neutrino beam. In appropriate units

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(r)}{\mathrm{eV}^2}}=15.14\times 10^8Y_e(r){\displaystyle \frac{\rho (r)}{\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{MeV}}}`$ (5)
where $`Y_e(r)`$ is the electron fraction and $`\rho (r)`$ is the matter density profile in the supernova which can be very well approximated by a power law $`\rho (r)=Cr^n`$ with $`n=3`$ in the core .

Neutrino oscillation probabilities may also be significantly affected inside Earth as the neutrinos traverse the Earth matter . Thus the neutrino oscillation probability is given by

$`P_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha i}^mP_{i\beta }^{}`$ (6)
where

$`P_{\alpha i}^m={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left|U_{\alpha j}^m\right|^2\left|\nu _i|\nu _j^m\right|^2`$ (7)
is the probability that a $`\nu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) produced inside the supernova core would emerge as a $`\nu _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) at the surface of the supernova, $`U_{\alpha j}^m`$ are the elements of the mixing matrix at the point of production and $`|\nu _i|\nu _j^m|^2`$ is the probability that a $`|\nu _j^m`$ state in matter appears as the state $`|\nu _i`$ at the supernova surface in vacuum. This is the so called “jump probability”. $`P_{i\beta }^{}`$ is the probability that the $`\nu _i`$ mass eigenstate arriving at the surface of the Earth is detected as a $`\nu _\beta `$ flavor state in the detector. Depending on whether the neutrinos cross the Earth or not, $`P_{i\beta }^{}`$ maybe different from $`|U_{\beta i}|^2`$, where $`U_{\beta i}`$ is the element of the mixing matrix in vacuum.

Since to a good approximation the average energy and the total fluxes of $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ are same, for mixing between only active neutrino flavors the only relevant oscillation probability that we need is the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ which is given by eq.(6) with $`\alpha =\beta =e`$.

### 3.1 Two flavor oscillations

To begin with let us for simplicity assume that there are just two neutrino flavors, $`\nu _e`$ and another active flavor $`\nu _a`$ which may be $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. The effective mixing angle in matter is given by

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _m(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta A(r)}}`$ (8)
Since the density inside the supernova core where the neutrinos are created is extremely high, $`A(r_s)\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\theta _m\pi /2`$. Hence the survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ given by eq.(6) and (7) reduces to

$`P_{ee}=P_JP_{1e}^{}+(1P_J)P_{2e}^{}`$ (9)
where $`P_J=|\nu _1|\nu _2^m|^2`$ is the jump or the crossing probability from one neutrino mass eigenstate to the other at resonance. If $`P_J0`$ the neutrino propagation in matter is called adiabatic, otherwise its non-adiabatic. When $`P_J1`$ then we encounter the extreme non-adiabatic situation. In  it is shown that the double-exponential parametrization of $`P_J`$ derived in  and used extensively for the solar neutrinos, works extremely well even for the supernova density profile. In this parametrization the jump probability is expressed as

$`P_J={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}}`$ (10)
where $`\gamma `$ is given by

$`\gamma =\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{E}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dlnn_e}{dr}}\right|_{r=r_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑣𝑎}}}^1`$ (11)
The density scale factor $`\left|\frac{dlnn_e}{dr}\right|^1`$ gives a measure of the deviation from adiabaticity and is calculated at the position where we have maximum violation of adiabaticity (mva) . That is where

$`A(r_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑣𝑎}})=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (12)
Note that the position of mva ($`r_{mva}`$) is different from the position of resonance ($`r_{res}`$) which is given by the condition

$`A(r_{res})=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ (13)
The form of the probability $`P_{ie}^{}`$ depends crucially on the trajectory of the neutrinos inside the earth and hence on the direction of the supernova. If the direction is such that the neutrinos cross only the mantle of the Earth then the amplitude

$`A_{2e}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}U_{ej}^ee^{i\varphi _j^e}\nu _j^e|\nu _i`$ (14)
where $`U_{ej}^e`$ is the mixing matrix elements in the Earth’s mantle and $`\varphi _j^e`$ is the phase. Therefore the expression for $`P_{2e}^{}(=1P_{1e}^{})`$ is given by

$`P_{2e}^{}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}2\theta _e\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _e2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\left(1.27{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_eL}{E}}\right)`$ (15)
where $`L`$ is the distance traversed inside Earth and $`\theta _e`$ (given by eq.(8) but with $`A`$ calculated in the mantle of the Earth) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_e^2`$ are the mixing angle and the mass squared difference inside the Earth’s mantle. If the neutrinos cross both the mantle as well as the core of the Earth then

$`A_{2e}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{i,j,k,}{\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma }}{}}U_{ek}^Me^{i\psi _k^M}U_{\alpha k}^MU_{\alpha i}^Ce^{i\psi _i^C}U_{\beta i}^CU_{\beta j}^Me^{i\psi _j^M}U_{\sigma j}^MU_{\sigma 2}`$ (16)
where ($`i,j,k`$) denotes mass eigenstates and ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma `$) denotes flavor eigenstates, $`U`$, $`U^M`$ and $`U^C`$ are the mixing matrices in vacuum, in the mantle and the core respectively and $`\psi ^M`$ and $`\psi ^C`$ are the corresponding phases picked up by the neutrinos as they travel through the mantle and the core of the Earth. Then the probability

$`P_{2e}^{}=|A_{2e}^{}|^2`$ (17)
The additional mass term picked up by the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ as it moves in matter is $`A(r)`$. Since the crucial combination which decides matter effects is the ratio $`A(r)/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, the antineutrino survival probability $`\overline{P}_{ee}`$ is identical to that for the neutrinos if we change the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, which is equivalent to swaping of the mass labels $`12`$ . Then the expression for $`\overline{P}_{ee}`$ is similar to that for $`P_{ee}`$ and is given by

$`\overline{P}_{ee}=\overline{P}_J\overline{P}_{1e}^{}+(1\overline{P}_J)\overline{P}_{2e}^{}`$ (18)
where

$`\overline{P}_J={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}}`$ (19)
where we replace $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (swaping $`12`$) and $`\gamma `$ is calculated at $`r_{mva}`$ given by the same eq.(12). The expressions for the oscillation probabilities $`\overline{P}_{2e}`$ are again similar to those for the neutrinos

$`\overline{P}_{2e}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\theta }_e\mathrm{sin}(2\overline{\theta }_e2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\left(1.27{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_e}L}{E}}\right)`$ (20)
where Eq.(20) is for transition probability in Earth for one slab approximation, with the mixing angle $`\overline{\theta }_e`$ given by

$`\mathrm{tan}2\overline{\theta }_e={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta +A(r)}}`$ (21)
The expression for $`\overline{P}_{2e}^{}`$ for two slabs can also be similarly derived from (17) with the corresponding changes for the antineutrinos.

### 3.2 Three flavor oscillations

We now consider a more realistic scenario with mixing between three active neutrinos, with one of the mass squared difference corresponding to the solar scale ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^210^5`$ eV2) and the other one corresponding to the atmospheric scale ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^210^3`$ eV2). In this case the neutrinos encounter two resonances, the first one corresponding to the higher scale at a higher density in the supernova and the next one corresponding to the lower mass scale further out in the mantle. Though from solar neutrino data we know that the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is positive  ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2=m_i^2m_j^2`$), there is still an ambiguity in the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$. It would be hard to determine the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ in any of the current and planned long baseline oscillation experiments and only a neutrino factory would be able to resolve this ambiguity. However for the supernova neutrinos the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is crucial and thus the supernova neutrinos can be used very effectively to give us the neutrino mass hierarchy.

#### 3.2.1 Direct mass hierarchy

Since the density at the neutrino source ($`r_s`$) is very high, $`A(r_s)\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and we can solve the eigenvalue problem perturbatively to get the mixing angles for neutrinos in matter222If we choose the standard parametrization of the mixing matrix, the mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$ does not affect the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability and thus we can either choose to rotate it away or even put it to zero without loss of generality.

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{12}^m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}A(r)}}`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{13}^m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}A(r)}}`$ (23)
At the point of production since $`A(r_s)\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ from eq.(22) and (23) we see that $`\theta _{12}^m\pi /2\theta _{13}^m`$ and neutrinos are created in almost pure $`\nu _3^m`$ states and the expression for the survival probability for this three-generation scenario is

$`P_{ee}=P_HP_LP_{1e}^{}+P_H(1P_L)P_{2e}^{}+(1P_H)P_{3e}^{}`$ (24)
where $`P_H`$ and $`P_L`$ are the jump probabilities for the high and low density transitions respectively. Just like in the two-generation case they can be calculated using the double exponential forms with

$`P_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L)}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L)}}`$ (25)
$`P_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _H\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _H)}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _H)}}`$ (26)
where $`\gamma _{L,H}`$ is calculated using eq.(11) at the position of maximum violation of adiabaticity corresponding to the lower ($`r_L`$) and the higher scales ($`r_H`$) respectively given by the relations

$`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}A(r_L)=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ (27)
$`A(r_H)=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ (28)
For the antineutrinos $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ the matter term is negative so as in the two-generation case the mixing angle for the antineutrinos in matter is given by

$`\mathrm{tan}2\overline{\theta }_{12}^m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}A(r)}}`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\overline{\theta }_{13}^m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}+A(r)}}`$ (30)
which implies that at the point of production $`\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\theta }_{12}^m+1\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\theta }_{13}^m`$ ($`\overline{\theta }_{12}^m0\overline{\theta }_{13}^m`$) and the antineutrinos are created in pure $`\overline{\nu }_1^m`$ state. Thus for the antineutrinos the survival probability is given by

$`\overline{P}_{ee}=(1\overline{P}_L)\overline{P}_{1e}^{}+\overline{P}_L\overline{P}_{2e}^{}`$ (31)
where the jump probability $`\overline{P}_L`$ for the antineutrinos is given by

$`\overline{P}_L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L)}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _L)}}`$ (32)
with $`\gamma _L`$ defined by eq.(27) and (11).

#### 3.2.2 Inverse mass hierarchy

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is negative, the mixing angles for the neutrinos are still given by the eq.(22) and (23) but with the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ reversed333Note that the we take the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ as positive in accordance with the currently favored LMA MSW solutions to the solar neutrino problem .. At the production point then $`\theta _{12}^m\pi /2`$ while $`\theta _{13}^m0`$ and $`\nu _e`$ are thus in almost pure $`\nu _2^m`$ states and the neutrino survival probability is

$`P_{ee}=P_LP_{1e}^{}+(1P_L)P_{2e}^{}`$ (33)
with the jump probability $`P_L`$ given by eq.(25), (27) and (11).

With inverse hierarchy the antineutrino mixing angles are given by eq.(29) and (30) with the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ reversed. Therefore $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are created in pure $`\overline{\nu }_3^m`$ states and their survival probability is

$`\overline{P}_{ee}=(1\overline{P}_L)P_H\overline{P}_{1e}^{}+\overline{P}_LP_H\overline{P}_{2e}^{}+(1P_H)\overline{P}_{3e}^{}`$ (34)
with $`\overline{P}_L`$ given by eq.(32) and $`P_H`$ by eq.(26).

## 4 Event rates in terrestrial detectors

Neutrinos are created deep inside the supernova core as $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ pairs. They stream out through the supernova core, mantle and envelope and reach the Earth after travelling distances $`10^{17}`$ km. In presence of neutrino oscillations there is a modification of the neutrino fluxes as they oscillate into one another and the resultant neutrino beam at Earth is given by

$`N_{\nu _e}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ee}(E)N_{\nu _e}^0(t)+P_{\mu e}(E)N_{\nu _\mu }^0(t)+P_{\tau e}(E)N_{\nu _\tau }^0(t)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`P_{ee}(E)N_{\nu _e}^0(t)+(1P_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _x}^0(t)`$
$`N_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{P}_{ee}(E)N_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0(t)+(1\overline{P}_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _x}^0(t)`$ (36)
$`N_{\nu _x}`$ $`=`$ $`(1P_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _e}^0(t)+(1+P_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _x}^0(t)`$ (37)
$`N_{\overline{\nu }_x}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\overline{P}_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _e}^0(t)+(1+\overline{P}_{ee}(E))N_{\nu _x}^0(t)`$ (38)
where $`P_{ee}`$ and $`\overline{P}_{ee}`$ are the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probabilities given in the previous section and $`N_{\nu _\alpha }^0(t)`$ is the neutrino flux produced inside the supernova core given by $`N_{\nu _\alpha }^0(t)=L_{\nu _\alpha }(t)/E_{\nu _\alpha }(t)`$, where $`L_{\nu _\alpha }(t)`$ is the neutrino luminosity and $`E_{\nu _\alpha }(t)`$ is the average energy. In the above expressions we have used the fact that the $`\nu _\mu /\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beam is indistinguishable from the $`\nu _\tau /\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ beam in flux and energy and call them $`\nu _x`$.

The current and planned terrestrial detectors are capable of observing the supernova neutrinos through various charged and neutral current processes. The differential number of neutrino events at the detector for a given reaction process is

$$\frac{d^2S}{dE_\nu dt}=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{n}{4\pi D^2}N_{\nu _\alpha }f_{\nu _\alpha }(E_\nu )\sigma (E_\nu )ϵ(E_\nu )$$
(39)
where $`\alpha `$ runs over the neutrino species concerned (e, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$), $`N_{\nu _\alpha }`$ is the neutrino flux at the detector given by eqs. (35)–(38) and $`\sigma (E_\nu )`$ is the reaction cross-section for the neutrino with the target particle, $`D`$ is the distance of the neutrino source from the detector (taken as 10kpc for galactic supernovea considered here), $`n`$ is the number of detector particles for the reaction considered and $`f_{\nu _\alpha }(E_\nu )`$ is the energy spectrum for the neutrino species involved, while $`ϵ(E_\nu )`$ is the detector efficiency as a function of the neutrino energy.

The main reaction process by which the water $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detectors like SK would observe the supernova neutrinos is

$`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$ (40)
However the other neutrino species are also observable in SK through the $`\nu e`$ elastic scattering processes

$`\nu _i+e^{}\nu _i+e^{}`$ (41)
In addition to the above two reactions, supernova neutrinos can also be traced in the water $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detectors through reactions involving $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$. The oxygen nuclei in water are doubly closed shell and have a very high threshold ($`E_{th}`$) for excitation. Thus solar neutrinos are unable to have charged or neutral current reactions on oxygen. But supernova neutrinos with much larger energy range can trigger charged current reactions

$`\nu _e+^{16}O`$ $``$ $`e^{}+^{16}F`$ (42)
$`\overline{\nu }_e+^{16}O`$ $``$ $`e^++^{16}N`$ (43)
and neutral current reaction

$`\nu _x+^{16}O\nu _x+^{16}O^{}`$ (44)
where $`{}_{}{}^{16}O_{}^{}`$ decays by $`n`$, $`p`$ or $`\gamma `$ emission. The reaction thresholds for the charged current reactions (42) and (43) are 15.4 MeV and 11.4 MeV respectively . The electrons from the charged current reactions on $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ can be distinguished in principle from the positrons from $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ capture on protons (cf. reaction (40))by their angular distribution. While the $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ events are backward peaked and electron scattering events are strongly forward peaked, the $`\overline{\nu }_ep`$ events are mostly isotropic. Thus even though all these processes are detected via the $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov tecnique, its possible to disentangle them.

In heavy water ($`D_2O`$) detectors like SNO, in addition to the reactions involving elastic scattering off electrons and reactions on $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$, neutrinos can be observed by the charged and neutral current breakup of deuteron

$`\nu _e+d`$ $``$ $`p+p+e^{}`$ (45)
$`\overline{\nu }_e+d`$ $``$ $`n+n+e^+`$ (46)
$`\nu _x+d`$ $``$ $`p+n+\nu _x`$ (47)
The charged current reactions are detected by the $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov radiation from the electron/positron. The neutral current reaction, which will give us information about the total neutrino flux from the supernova, irrespective of whether they oscillate or not, is detected by the capture of the released neutron, either on deuteron or on $`{}_{}{}^{35}Cl`$ (salt). In the last phase of SNO the neutral current process will be detected by directly observing the neutrons in helium proportional counters.

There have been various attempts before to estimate the effect of non-zero neutrino mass and mixing on the expected neutrino signal from a galactic supernova. With vacuum oscillations we can expect an increase in both the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ signal . Some special cases where the matter effects inside the supernova are negligible and one has almost pure vacuum oscillations have been considered in . However for the currently most prefered neutrino mass spectrum one expects to have substantial matter effects. Matter enhanced resonant flavor conversion has been observed to have a large effect on the $`\nu _e`$ signal .

Table 1 gives the calculated number of expected events for the main reactions in $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_2\mathrm{O}`$, for a typical galactic supernova with a total luminosity of about $`3\times 10^{53}`$ ergs. The numbers here correspond to a three-flavor oscillation scenario with complete flavor conversion. The $`\theta _{13}`$ considered here is large so that both $`P_L`$ and $`P_H`$ are almost zero, the propagation is almost adiabatic and hence $`P_{ee}0`$. The $`\theta _{12}`$ considered is very small and hence $`\overline{P}_{ee}1`$444The Table 1 is just for the purpose of illustration only. For the LMA solution the $`\nu _e`$ events would still remain the same, while the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events would be slightly enhanced.. For the cross-section of the $`(\nu _ed),(\overline{\nu }_ed),(\nu _xd)`$ and $`(\overline{\nu }_ep)`$ reactions we refer to . The cross-section of the $`(\nu _e(\overline{\nu }_e)e^{})`$ and $`(\nu _xe^{})`$ scattering has been taken from  while the neutral current $`(\nu _x^{16}O)`$ scattering cross-section is taken from . For the $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\nu _e,e^{})^{16}F`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\overline{\nu }_e,e^+)^{16}N`$ reactions we refer to  where we have used the cross-sections for the detector with perfect efficiency.

From a comparison of the predicted numbers in Table 1, it is evident that neutrino oscillations play a significant role in supernova neutrino detection. As the average energy of the $`\nu _\mu /\nu _\tau `$ is greater than the average energy of the $`\nu _e`$, neutrino flavor mixing modifies their energy spectrum. Hence the $`\nu _e`$ flux though depleted in number, gets enriched in high energy neutrinos and since the detection cross-sections are strongly energy dependent, this results in the enhancement of the charged current signal . Since the cross-section for the $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ reactions have the strongest dependence on energy, they are most affected by neutrino oscillations and can be used as an effective way to study neutrino properties from supernova neutrino detection. For the neutral current sector the number of events remain unchanged as the interaction is flavor blind.

Figure 1 taken from , shows the comparison between the total charged current events as a function of the electron/positron energy observed in $`H_2O`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_ep`$ events) and $`D_2O`$ (sum of $`\nu _ed`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ events) for small and large values of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ ($`\omega \theta _{12}`$). The value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}ϵ`$ is large ($`=0.08`$) which implies that the neutrino propagation is fully adiabatic. Figure 2 also taken from , shows the corresponding plots when $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}ϵ`$ is small ($`0`$), which implies that the neutrino propagation is non-adiabatic. In both the figures the solid lines give the no oscillation distribution and the dotted line the events for three-generation scenario, while the dashed lines correspond to the distribution for a four-generation scheme555We have not considered the four-generation scenario in this review. For a detailed discussion on the four-generation neutrino mass spectrum and its effects on supernova neutrino detection refer to .. The figures show that for the LMA solution (upper panels) there is a shift in the spectral peak in $`D_2O`$ for both three as well as four generations, the shift being more pronounced for the high $`ϵ`$ (adiabatic) case. The corresponding shifts in $`H_2O`$ are less. The SMA cases shown in the lower panels are of less interest now since SMA solution is now ruled out. The figures show that by comparing the signal in SK and SNO one can distinguish between the three and four-generation scenario. But again the four-generation schemes are largely disfavored by the global solar and atmospheric neutrino data .

The potential for detecting supernova neutrinos in scintillation detectors like Borexino  and MiniBOONE  have been recently considered. The $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ in these detectors can be excited through charged current and neutral current interations with the supernova neutrinos. The charged current reaction ($`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\nu _e,e^{})^{12}N`$) has a threshold of 17.34 MeV while that for ($`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\overline{\nu }_e,e^+)^{12}B`$) has a threshold of 14.4 MeV. But here again the cross-sections have a strong energy dependence and these events show a dramatic increase with large conversion with oscillations compared to the no oscillation case. The neutral current events through ($`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\nu _x,\nu _x)^{12}C^{}`$) can be used to put direct limits on the neutrino masses using the time delay techniques briefly discussed in the following section.

## 5 Other effects of neutrino mass and mixing

In this section we briefly touch upon a number of areas where the mass and mixing of supernova neutrinos can lead to interesting effects:

a). SN 1987A: The eleven SN 1987A events at KII were observed within a timespan of 5.6 secs and with an energy range of the positron/electron released in the water Cerenkov detector from 7.5 MeV to 35.4 MeV. Similarly IMB had the eight events within a time of 12.4 secs and with the electron energy range of 20 MeV to 40 MeV . The angle of the $`e^+/e^{}`$ path to the $`\nu /\overline{\nu }`$ direction for each event was also measured. There were also 5 events at Mt. Blanc and 3 in Baksan at the same time . A number of analysis were done in the next few years and the results more-or-less agreed with the typical values given in section 2 for the luminosities, average energies and spectra of the neutrinos, though the IMB events gave average energy and temperature consistently higher . Also with such small samples there were large errors in the extraction of the SN parameters. However even though the statistics were poor the SN1987A data was used extensively to study the neutrino mass and mixing patterns. In the context of two flavors such analysis was done by Smirnov et al  and Jegerlehner et al  and recently it was extended to three flavors in . The authors of  claim that the inverse mass hierarchy is disfavored by the data unless $`\theta _{13}`$ is very small, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}<10^4`$. However the authors of  dispute this observation and conclude that the SN1987A data cannot distinguish between the direct and inverted mass hierarchies. In  the SN1987A data is combined with the global solar neutrino data and it is found that while all the other large mixing angle solutions (LOW-QVO and VO) are disfavored, the LMA solution remains the only allowed solution which can explain the SN1987A and the solar neutrino observations simultaneously. Nowadays after the evidence of neutrino mass and mixing one has to work on the “inverse problem” using SN 1987A data to extract the original neutrino spectra using realistic (Large Mixing Angle solution) scenario of neutrino oscillation .

a). Detection of neutronisation neutrinos: The neutrinos emitted during the collapse phase due to the neutronisation give rise to a luminosity small compared to the thermal post-bounce neutrinos discussed above, but for close enough (1 kpc) galactic supernovae they can still be detected by SK and SNO . The measurement of the fluence of these neutrinos at SNO and the distortion of the spectrum detected at SK, in particular the ratio of the calorimetric detection of the neutrino flunce via the neutral current channel to the total energy integrated fluence observed via the charged current channel at SNO can yield valuable infirmation about the mass squared difference and mixing .

b). Delay of massive supernova neutrinos: For a neutrino of mass m (in eV) and energy E (in MeV) the delay (in sec) in traveling a distance (in 10 kpc) is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t(E)=0.515(m/E)^2D`$ (48)
neglecting small higher order terms. If we assume that the mass of the $`\nu _x`$ is much larger than those of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ then the neutral current events will have a delay compared to the charged current events. This difference due to time-of-flight for neutral current signal compared to the charged current signal in SNO can determine $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ mass down to 30 eV, an improvement by many orders of magnitude over current estimates . One also sees that one can construct useful diagnostic tools for neutrino mass and mixing using the charged and neutral current events as a function of time but only for mass squared differences of the order of tens of $`eV^2`$ .

c). Effect of neutrino mixing on delayed neutrino heating: To generate a stronger shock in the supernova models one thinks of mechanisms of extra heating in the region near the shock. As the heating rate due to neutrino capture depends on the square of the neutrino temperature, if the $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ emitted from the neutrino sphere can get converted to $`\nu _e`$ before reaching the shockfront, it heats up the shock more. Fuller et al  in their numerical calculations got 60% more heating but with the $`\nu /\tau `$ neutrino mass of 40 eV. However with realistic solar and atmospheric mass squared differences one does not get this conversion to $`\nu _e`$ inside the stalled shock. Recently it is proposed that the neutrino signal in present and future neutrino detectors can give valuable information about the mechanism of shock propagation and the delayed neutrino heating . When the shock front moves through the MSW conversion region the $`\mu ,\tau `$ to $`e`$ type neutrino conversion gets stopped during that time leading to a detectable dip in the neutrino energy/count rate.

d). r-process nucleosynthesis: The neutrino-driven-wind environment in the late time (about 3–15 secs after bounce) of core collapse supernova is considered to be a very promising site for the rapid neutron capture process (r - process) for producing neutron-rich heavy elements. The capture rate of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ on neutrons and protons respectively determine the electron fraction, $`Y_e`$ and for successful r-process $`Y_e`$ must be less than 0.5. This is favored by the higher average energy of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$; however if oscillations between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _x`$ takes place giving a stiffer $`\nu _e`$ spectrum, the r-process may get stopped. Thus to get r-process nucleosynthesis operative one excludes the parameter space $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>`$ a few $`eV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta <10^5`$ . Recently the effect of active-sterile neutrino transformation on the r-process was also considered in  and initial work showed that it is possible to get sufficiently neutron rich matter to activate rapid neutron capture.

Acknowledgement

We thank G.Dutta, D. Indumathi, M.V.N. Murthy and G. Rajasekaran for allowing us to reproduce two of their figures.