arX

iv:a

stro

-ph/

0402

392v

1 1

7 F

eb 2

004

DRAFT VERSIONAUGUST1, 2018Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 10/10/03

MAGNETIC FIELD EVOLUTION IN NEUTRON STAR CRUSTS DUE TO THE HALL EFFECT AND OHMIC DECAY

ANDREW CUMMINGHubble Fellow, UCO/Lick Observatory and Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

PHIL ARRASNSF AAPF Fellow, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kohn Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

ELLEN ZWEIBELDepartments of Astronomy and Physics and Center for Magnetic Self-Organization, University of Wisconsin, 475 North Charter Street, Madison, WI 53706

Draft version August 1, 2018

ABSTRACTWe present calculations of magnetic field evolution by the Hall effect and Ohmic decay in the crust of neutronstars (NSs). In accreting NSs, Ohmic decay is always the dominant effect due to the large resistivity. In isolatedNSs with relatively pure crusts, the Hall effect dominates Ohmic decay after a timetswitch≃ 104 yr B−3

12, whereB12 is the magnetic field strength in units of 1012 G. We compute the evolution of an initial field distribution byOhmic decay, and give approximate analytic formulas for both the surface and interior fields as a function oftime. Due to the strong dependence oftswitch onB12, early Ohmic decay can alter the currents down to the baseof the crust forB∼ 1011G, neutron drip forB∼ 1012 G, and near the top of the crust forB&1013 G, respectively.We then discuss magnetic field evolution by the Hall effect. Several examples are given to illustrate how aninitial field configuration evolves. Hall wave eigenfunctions are computed, including the effect of the largedensity change across the crust. We estimate the response ofthe crust to the magnetic stresses induced byHall waves, and give a detailed discussion of the boundary conditions at the solid-liquid interface. Finally, wediscuss the implications for the Hall cascade proposed by Goldreich & Reisenegger.Subject headings:stars:magnetic fields—stars:neutron

1. INTRODUCTION

Our picture of neutron star magnetic field evolution comesfrom studies of radio pulsars, accreting neutron stars, andmost recently, magnetars. The known radio pulsars fall intotwo general classes: young (. 107 yrs) pulsars with spin pe-riods∼ 1 s and∼ 1012 G magnetic fields, and the millisecondradio pulsars, which have inferred magnetic fields as low as108 G. Whereas most radio pulsars are isolated objects, themillisecond pulsars are predominantly in binaries and haveundergone a period of accretion. This has led to the sugges-tion that millisecond pulsars form by accretion, which bothspins up the neutron start to short rotation periods, and alsoacts to reduce the magnetic field (see Bhattacharya 1995 for areview).

This “recycling” scenario is consistent with observationsof accreting neutron stars. Young accreting neutron stars inhigh mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) are observed as X-raypulsars with inferred∼ 1012 G magnetic fields, confirmed bydetection of cyclotron lines in their X-ray spectra (Trümperet al. 1978). Old accreting neutron stars in low mass X-raybinaries (LMXBs) are generally not X-ray pulsars, implyingno magnetic disruption of the accretion disk in those systems,and magnetic fields. 109–1010 G (see Cumming, Zweibel,& Bildsten 2001 for a recent discussion). Recently, 5 mil-lisecond accreting X-ray pulsars have been discovered in tran-sient LMXBs, with spin periods between 180 and 410 Hz,and inferred magnetic fields 108—109 G, exactly in the rangeexpected for millisecond pulsar progenitors (Chakrabartyetal. 2003).

An additional possibility is that neutron star magnetic fieldsdecay with age. Field evolution in isolated radio pulsars hasbeen studied using their space and velocity distributions,as

well as the statistical distribution in theP-P diagram. Thisprobes field evolution on the timescale of the ages of radiopulsars (. 107 yrs). At first, it was argued that exponentialfield decay on a few million year timescale was required to un-derstand theP–P distribution (Ostriker & Gunn 1969; Gunn& Ostriker 1970; Narayan & Ostriker 1990), but the work ofBhattacharya et al. (1992) and others in the 90’s argued thatin fact no field decay occurs over the lifetime of a radio pul-sar. However, this issue remains somewhat open: recently,several authors have again raised the suggestion that neutronstar magnetic fields evolve on a timescale something like 10million years (Cordes & Chernoff 1998; Tauris & Manchester1998; Tauris & Konar 2001; Gonthier et al. 2002).

The discovery of magnetars has complicated this picture,but also provided a new opportunity to study magnetic fieldevolution on relatively short timescales. Observed as theyoung. 104 yr soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) and anoma-lous X-ray pulsars (AXPs), these sources are believed to bedirectly powered by decay of ultrastrong∼ 1014–1015 G mag-netic fields. Long term release of magnetic energy may act todelay the cooling of the neutron star (Thompson & Duncan1996; Heyl & Kulkarni 1998; Colpi, Geppert, & Page 2000;Arras, Cumming, and Thompson 2004), while rapid release ofmagnetic stresses that build in the neutron star crust (Duncan& Thompson 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1995, 1996) maypower the frequent gamma-ray bursts observed from SGRs,and now also AXP 1E 1048.1-5937 (Gavril, Kaspi, & Woods2002).

These ideas and observations have motivated a large rangeof theoretical work on neutron star magnetic field evolution(e.g. see Bhattacharya & Srinivasan 1995 for a review). Inthis paper, we discuss the evolution of currents in the neutron

2

star crust, which evolve due to Ohmic decay, and by the Halleffect. The importance of currents in the crust is that they de-cay much more quickly than currents in the core. They there-fore play an important role in models of accretion-inducedfield evolution: either the currents are assumed to flow onlywithin in the crust, for example produced after the birth ofthe neutron star by thermomagnetic effects (Blandford, Ap-plegate, & Hernquist 1983), or magnetic flux may be expelledfrom the core into the crust due to vortex-fluxoid interactions(e.g. Srinivasan et al. 1990; Ruderman, Zhu, & Chen 1998).At higher field strengths, Hall effects most likely are respon-sible for building up stresses in magnetar crusts which thenare released during SGR and AXP bursts.

Previous investigations into Ohmic decay have focusedmainly on the decay of the surface field, and involved cal-culating Ohmic decay eigenmodes for the crust (Sang &Chanmugam 1987), self-similar solutions near the surface ofthe star (Urpin, Chanmugam, & Sang 1994), or direct time-integrations of the Ohmic diffusion equation for an initialdis-tribution of currents (Urpin & Muslimov 1992; Urpin & Ko-nenkov 1997; Page, Geppert, & Zannias 2000). For accretingstars, the evolution due to Ohmic decay for fields supportedby crustal currents has been calculated in great detail (e.g.,Geppert & Urpin 1994; Urpin, Geppert, & Konenkov 1998;Konar & Bhattacharya 1997). We revisit Ohmic decay in thispaper, calculating both Ohmic decay modes and self-similarsolutions, and show that they are related in a simple way. Aswell as constraining the “initial condition” for the Hall effect,this allows a general way to understand the distribution of cur-rents in the crust at a given age, as well as the decline of thesurface field.

The evolution by the Hall effect is much less well-understood, being non-linear and therefore much more com-plex. Although the Hall effect itself is non-dissipative, Gol-dreich & Reisenegger (1992, hereafter GR) proposed that itleads to dissipation through a turbulent “Hall cascade”, mag-netic energy cascading from large to small scales where itdissipates by Ohmic decay in the Hall time associated withthe largest lengthscale. Recent studies by Biskamp and col-laborators (Biskamp et al. 1999) of Whistler turbulence in-deed show a clear cascade of energy over more than an or-der of magnitude in lengthscale. Other authors have alsodemonstrated transfer of magnetic energy between differentscales (Muslimov 1994; Naito & Kojima 1994; Shalybkov &Urpin 1997; Urpin & Shalybkov 1999; Hollerbach & Rüdiger2002). In a different approach, Vainshtein, Chitre, & Olinto(2000) included the effect of the density gradient in a simplemodel. Most recently, Rheinhardt & Geppert (2000), Geppert& Rheinhardt (2002), and Rheinhardt, Konenkov, & Geppert(2003) discuss a “Hall drift instability” which can lead to non-local transfer of energy to small scales.

In this paper, we study the implications of realistic crustmodels for evolution of crustal currents. In §2, we calculatethe timescales associated with Ohmic decay and the Hall ef-fect for realistic crust models. We discuss the relative impor-tance of Ohmic decay and the Hall effect at different stages ofa neutron star’s life. In §3, we consider Ohmic decay in detail.We show that previous studies of Ohmic decay can be under-stood in a simple way. In §4, we discuss the evolution due tothe Hall effect. We start with a simple discussion of the initialevolution of a dipole field which gives a simple physical pic-ture. We then calculate the properties of linear Hall waves ina realistic crust model. We clarify the physical nature of the“Hall drift instability” and comment on its relevance for the

overall field evolution. We summarize our main results in §5.In the Appendix, we discuss the behavior of Hall waves at theboundaries of the crust.

2. TIMESCALES FOR THE HALL EFFECT AND OHMIC DECAY

In this section, we estimate the timescales of evolution bythe Hall effect and Ohmic decay in both isolated and accretingneutron stars, and discuss the regimes where the Hall effectis important. Both the Hall and Ohmic timescales are mostsensitive to the lengthscaleL over which the magnetic fieldand crust properties vary. In this section we make a simpleestimate by settingL equal to the local pressure scale heightH. This allows a comparison between the two processes, andsets the scene for the more detailed discussion in §3 and 4.

2.1. Calculation of the Hall timescale

The evolution of the magnetic field is given by Faraday’slaw,

∂B

∂t= −c∇×E, (1)

together with Ohm’s law

E = −1cv×B +

J

σ+J×B

neec, (2)

whereσ is the electrical conductivity, and the current densityisJ = (c/4π)(∇×B) (see GR for a derivation). The first termin equation (2) describes advection of the field by the fluid, thesecond term describes Ohmic dissipation, and the third termisthe Hall electric field1. Neglecting the advection and Ohmicterms, the magnetic field evolution is given by

∂B

∂t= −∇×

(

J×B

nee

)

, (3)

with a timescale

tHall =neeL

J=

4πneeL2

cB, (4)

whereL is the typical lengthscale over whichB, J, andne vary.The basic physics of equation (3) is that the magnetic field

is frozen to the electrons. In ideal MHD, the electron and ionvelocities are the same - both follow theE×B drift. In HallMHD, the ions follow separate dynamics. In a plasma or liq-uid, this only happens on scales of order the ion skindepthδi ≡ vA/ωci (or, in a highβ plasma, scales of order the iongyroradiusvi/ωci). In solids, the ions are immobilized bylattice forces and Hall effects are important on much largerscales. This is the case in the neutron star crust, which elas-tically adjusts as the field evolves, balancing theJ×B forceswith shear stresses. We discuss the issue of force balance inmore detail in §4, where we consider the behavior of wave-like solutions at the boundary between the solid crust and fluidcore/ocean. This is illustrated by Figure 1 which shows a vari-ant of the usual laboratory demonstration of the Hall effect. Acurrent-carrying conductor is placed in an external magneticfield, with the current perpendicular to the field. The conduct-ing electrons, which move with velocityve = −J/nee, are de-flected sideways by the magnetic field, and a Hall electric fieldEH = ve ×B/c develops to balance the magnetic force. The

1 We do not discuss the battery or thermoelectric terms in thispaper(e.g. Blandford et al. 1983) since they are suppressed by a factor (kBT/EF,e)2

for a degenerate gas, and are important in the crust only for very young neu-tron stars.

3

FIG. 1.— Simple example of the Hall effect: (a) the usual laboratoryset up in which the Hall electric field balances the magnetic force on theconducting electrons; (b) if the conductivity varies with height, the elec-tron velocity depends on height, shearing the magnetic fieldon a timescaletHall = L/ve = neeL/J.

variation on the usual experiment is to allow the conductivityto depend on height. In this case,J and thereforeve andEH

depend on height, giving an emfE =∫

EH ·dl which causes amagnetic field component to grow along the current direction.The result is that the magnetic field lines are sheared by theelectron flow. In the star, this shear arises because of gradientsin B, J , andne. The Hall timescale given in equation (4) issimply the shearing time of the electrons,tHall = L/ve.

We now calculatetHall for densitiesρ from ≈ 109 g cm−3,through neutron drip atρ ≈ 4 × 1011 g cm−3, down tothe crust/core interface atρ ≈ 1014 g cm−3. For ρ .6× 1012 g cm−3, the relativistic, degenerate electrons dom-inate the pressure. The electron Fermi energy andpressure areEF,e = 51 MeV ρ

1/312 Y1/3

e , and Pe = 1.2 ×

1031 erg cm−3 ρ4/312 Y4/3

e , whereρ12 = ρ/1012 g cm−3, andYeis the number fraction of electrons. The top of the crust is setby Γ = Z2e2/akBT = 175 (Potekhin & Chabrier 2000), wherea = (3/4πni)1/3 is the interion spacing, giving a density

ρtop = 8×107 g cm−3 T38

(

Z26

)−6( A56

)

. (5)

The top of the crust varies strongly with temperature, fromρ∼ 109 g cm−3 in accreting stars, to∼ 105 g cm−3 in isolated,cooling neutron stars.

For ρ & 6× 1012 g cm−3, the degenerate, non-relativisticneutrons dominate the pressure. The neutron Fermi energyand pressure areEF,n = 15 MeV ρ

2/314 Y2/3

n ( f/0.5), andPn =

6.0×1032 erg cm−3 ρ5/314 Y5/3

n ( f/0.5). Here,f is a factor whichaccounts for the interactions between neutrons. We use the fitof Mackie & Baym (1977) forEF,n (following Brown 2000).

The electron and neutron fractions (Ye andYn) are givenby the composition at each depth. An accreting neutron starcan replace its crust with accreted material, in which case the

composition is quite different from an isolated object. Fig-ure 2 shows the pressure,Ye, Yn and nuclear chargeZ as afunction of depth in both cases. For an isolated crust, we usethe cold-catalysed matter results of Haensel & Pichon (1994)(ρ < 4× 1011 g cm−3), and Douchin & Haensel (2001) (ρ >4×1011 g cm−3). For the accreted case, we use the results ofHaensel & Zdunik (1990, hereafter HZ), who calculated thecomposition changes due to electron captures and pycnonu-clear reactions as fluid elements traverse the crust during ac-cretion. HZ stop their calculation atρ = 1.25×1013 g cm−3;at higher densities, we fix the composition at their final value,giving Ye = 0.05 for ρ > 1.25× 1013 g cm−3 in our accretedcrust. Our equation of state agrees well with Negele & Vau-therin (1973).

We show the Hall timescale as a function of density for anisolated and accreted crust in Figure 3. We choose the length-scaleL to be the local pressure scale height,H = P/ρg, whereg is the local gravity, assumed constant. For densities between1012 and 1013 g cm−3, the Hall time is approximately constantwith increasing density because as neutron drip occurs, theelectron fraction drops dramatically, cancelling the increasingdensity and scale height. At lower densities, the electronssetthe pressure, givingH = 77.6 m ρ

1/312 (Ye/0.25)4/3(2.45/g14),

and

tHall,outer =5.7×104 yrs

B12ρ

5/312

(

Ye

0.25

)11/3( g14

2.45

)−2. (6)

At densities greater than neutron drip, the neutrons dominatethe pressure, givingH = 245 mρ

2/314 ( f/0.5)Y5/3

n (2.45/g14), and

tHall,inner=1.2×107 yrs

B12ρ

7/314 Y10/3

n

(

Ye

0.05

)(

f0.5

)2( g14

2.45

)−2.

(7)We have inserted typical values forYe at each density. In §4,we argue that the timescale for overall evolution of the fieldis roughly the Hall time at the base of the crust, as given byequation (7). The choiceL = H introduces the 1/g2 depen-dence oftHall on the local gravity in the crust, and thereforesome sensitivity to the equation of state of the core.

2.2. Calculation of the Ohmic decay time

For comparison, we now calculate the Ohmic time acrossa scale heighttOhm = 4πσH2/c2. The conductivity isσ =nee2/m⋆ν, or

σ = 1.52×1025 s−1( ν

1017 s−1

)−1ρ

2/312 Y2/3

e , (8)

where ν is the electron scattering frequency, andm⋆ =EF/c2 ≫ me is the electron effective mass, givingtohm =4×105 yrsσ25H2

4 .The electrical conductivity is set by electron scattering from

phonons and impurities. The phonon scattering frequency isνep = (13αkBTΛep/h)[1 + (Θ/3.5T)2]−1/2 exp(−TU/T) (Baiko& Yakovlev 1995, 1996), whereΛep is the order unityCoulomb logarithm, andΘD is the Debye temperature,

ΘD =0.45h

kB

(

4πZ2e2ni

Acellmp

)1/2

= 3.5×109 K Yeρ1/212 , (9)

with Acell the number of baryons per unit cell. Except forvery young neutron stars,T ≪ ΘD. The exponential sup-pression of the scattering frequency forT < TU = 8.7 ×

4

FIG. 2.— Pressure, neutron fractionYn, nuclear chargeZ, and electron frac-tion Ye as a function of density for an isolated crust (solid line) and accretedcrust (dotted line).

107 Kρ1/214 (Ye/0.05)(Z/30)1/3 occurs because Umklapp pro-

cesses freeze out below this temperature. ForT > TU , we find

σp =

1.2×1024 s−1 (ρ7/612 /T2

8 )(Ye/0.25)5/3

1.8×1025 s−1 (ρ7/614 /T2

8 )(Ye/0.05)5/3. (10)

The impurity scattering frequency is (Itoh & Kohyama1993),νeQ = 1.75× 1016 s−1 xQΛeQ/Z, wherex = pF/mec =

100ρ1/312 Y1/3

e , ΛeQ is the order unity Coulomb logarithm, andQ is the impurity factor, giving

σQ =

1.6×1025 (ρ1/312 /Q)(Ye/0.25)1/3(Z/30)

4.4×1025 (ρ1/314 /Q)(Ye/0.05)1/3(Z/30)

. (11)

For clarity, we setΛep =ΛeQ = 1 in equations (10) and (11); inour numerical calculations, we calculate these factors accord-ing to Itoh & Kohyama (1993) and Baiko & Yakovlev (1996),and include the exponential suppression of phonon scatteringfor T < TU as in Gnedin, Yakovlev, & Potekhin (2001). Ourconductivities agree well with those of Potekhin et al. (1999).

Impurity scattering dominates either at low temperaturesT < TU (when phonon scattering is suppressed), or for highimpurity levelsQ& Qcrit, where

Qcrit =

2.4 (T28 /ρ

5/614 )(Z/30)(0.05/Ye)4/3

13 (T28 /ρ

5/612 )(Z/30)(0.25/Ye)4/3

(12)

is given by the ratio of equations (10) and (11). For an equi-librium crust in an isolated neutron star, Flowers & Ruderman(1977) estimatedQ≈ 10−3, in which case the conductivity isset by phonon scattering above 107−8 K, depending on posi-tion in the crust, and by impurity scattering at lower tempera-tures. However, recent calculations by Jones (2001) suggest amuch larger valueQ ∼ 10, in which case impurity scatteringmay set the conductivity even forT > 108 K.

In accreting neutron stars, the crust temperature is high(& 108 K) for rapid accretors (& 10−11 M⊙ yr−1), in whichcase phonons dominate forQ . O(1). However,Q is set bythe composition of the nuclear burning which occurs at lowdensities, and is likely to be& O(1) (for example, Schatz etal. 1999 foundQ≈ 100), in which case impurities dominate.

When impurities dominate, the Ohmic time is

tOhm = 5.7 Myrsρ

5/314

Q

(

Z30

)(

Ye

0.05

)1/3( Yn

0.8

)10/3

(

f0.5

)2( g14

2.45

)−2, (13)

and when phonons dominate, it is

tOhm = 2.2 Myrsρ

15/614

T28

(

Ye

0.05

)5/3( Yn

0.8

)10/3

(

f0.5

)2( g14

2.45

)−2. (14)

The ohmic timetOhm = 4πσL2/c2 is shown in Figure 3 forequilibrium crusts withQ = 10−3, andT = 106 K and 108 K,and for an accreted crust withT = 5×108 K andQ = 1.

2.3. When does the Hall Effect dominate Ohmic decay?

The ratio of Ohmic timetohm to the Hall timetH is equiva-lent to the product of electron cyclotron frequency and elec-tron collision time,Ωτ = eBτ/m⋆c. LargeΩτ means thattHall ≪ tOhm, and the Hall effect dominates. If the conductivityis set by impurities (Q> Qcrit or T < TU )

Ωτ =

7 (B12/Qρ2/312 )(Z/30)(Ye/0.25)−2/3

1 (B12/Qρ2/314 )(Z/30)(Ye/0.05)−2/3

, (15)

and if the conductivity is set by phonons (Q< Qcrit andT >TU )

Ωτ =

0.6 (B12ρ1/612 /T2

8 )(Ye/0.25)2/3exp(TU/T)

0.4 (B12ρ1/614 /T2

8 )(Ye/0.05)2/3exp(TU/T), (16)

These different regimes are summarized in Figure 4. Weshow theΩτ = 1 contour in theB–T plane for conditions nearthe base of the crust (ρ = 1014 g cm−3). Note, however, thatΩτ is reasonably insensitive toρ, so that all depths changefrom Ohmic decay-dominated to Hall-dominated at roughlythe same time.

Figure 4 shows very clearly the difference in evolution be-tween isolated and accreting neutron stars. An isolated neu-tron star cools toT < TU in ≈ 1 Myr, after which impurities

5

FIG. 3.— Hall timescaletHall (left panel) and ohmic timetohm (right panel) as a function of density for two examples of an equilibrium crust (solid lines)and accreted crust (dashed line). The equilibrium crusts have Q = 10−3 andT = 106 K and 108 K; the accreted crust hasT = 5× 108 K andQ = 1. We assumethe crust is isothermal, with a constant magnetic fieldB = 1012 G (tHall ∝ 1/B), and take the relevant lengthscale to be the scale height, with local gravityg = 2.45×1014 cm s−2.

FIG. 4.— Ohmic decay vs. Hall effect. The solid lines show theBfield above whichΩτ ≥ 1 as a function of temperature at a density ofρ = 1014 g cm−3, and for an isolated crust.

set the conductivity givingΩτ ≃ B12/Q at the base. The ex-tent to which Hall effects dominate then depends sensitivelyon the value ofQ for an isolated crust. The recent calcu-lation by Jones (2001) of the formation enthalpies of pointdefects in the crust givesQ& 1 at densities greater than neu-tron drip (see also de Blasio 2000 for densities lower thanneutron drip). In this case Ohmic decay dominates the evolu-tion even at late times. The original estimates of Flowers &Ruderman (1977) gaveQ ≪ 1, in which case the Hall effect

dominates forT < TU . An accreting neutron star hasT > TUbecause of heating by accretion (e.g. Brown 2000), and in ad-dition may have a large impurity parameterQ> 1 because ofthe complex mixture of nuclei produced by burning of the ac-creted hydrogen and helium (Schatz et al. 1999). This meansthat whether impurities or phonons dominate, the conductiv-ity is poor enough thatΩτ ≪ 1, implying that the Hall effectis not important for an accreting star (even after accretionter-minates, if the crust is impure).

For an isolated neutron star with a pure crust (Q≪ 1), Fig-ure 4 allows us to estimate when the Hall effect will dom-inate Ohmic decay. ForQ = 10−3 at the base of the crust,the critical temperature below which the Hall effect is domi-nant isT ≈ 6×107,2×108, and 6×108K for magnetic fieldsB = 1011,1012 and 1013 G, respectively. At these high temper-atures,T ≥ TU and the conductivity is set by electron-phononscattering. To estimate the core temperature as a function oftime, we adopt the cooling law for modified URCA neutrinoemission with specific heat given by normal (unpaired) neu-trons,t ≃ 106 yr T−6

8 (e.g. Shapiro and Teukolsky 1983). Us-ing equation (16), the age at which the Hall effect becomesdominant is

tswitch≃ 2×104 yr B−312. (17)

Ohmic decay is more important in lower field stars since theHall effect takes over at a later time. For typical pulsar mag-netic fields, the Hall effect starts to dominate while the star isstill quite young. Ohmic decay calculations ignoring the Halleffect are only valid fort < tswitch.

3. FIELD EVOLUTION WHENΩτ ≪ 1

In this section, we compute the Ohmic decay of currents inthe crust at early times whenΩτ ≪ 1, before the Hall effectdominates the field evolution. We first calculate Ohmic decay

6

modes, and then discuss the Green’s function solution, whichshows self-similar behavior at late times. We show that thesesolutions are simply related, giving a general way to under-stand the distribution of currents in the crust at a given age,as well as the decline of the surface field. This constrains the"initial condition" for the later evolution by the Hall effect.

3.1. Ohmic decay modes

We now calculate the Ohmic decay modes for currents con-fined to the crust. We write the poloidal magnetic field interms of the potentialf (r, t), B = ∇×∇× [ f (r, t)Ym

l (θ,φ)](Chandrasekhar 1961). The field components are

B =l (l + 1)

r2fYm

l er +1r

d fdr

(

∂Yml

∂θeθ +

∂Yml

∂φeφ

)

. (18)

Faraday’s law (eq. [1]) withE = J/σ gives

∂ f∂t

= η(r, t)

(

∂2 f∂r2

−l (l + 1)

r2f

)

, (19)

whereη = c2/4πσ is the magnetic diffusivity.When Ohmic decay determines the evolution of the field,

the conductivity is mainly set by phonons, in which casethe time-dependence ofη arises only through the temper-ature, η ∝ T2. Following Urpin et al. (1994), we absorbthis time-dependence into a new time variablet, given bydt ∝ T2 dt. For modified URCA coolingT ∝ t−1/6, we findt = (t/1.5 Myr)3/2 Myr when η is evaluated at the referencetemperatureT8 = 1. We then look for Ohmic decay modes,f ∝ exp(−t/τ ), giving

d2 fdr2

−l (l + 1)

r2f = −

fητ

. (20)

Note that exponential decay int represents a slower decayin real timet, because the conductivity of the cooling crustgrows with time, reducing the Ohmic dissipation rate.

Equation (20) is an eigenvalue problem forτ given bound-ary conditions forf . At the top of the crust, we match ontoa vacuum field, givingf ∝ r−l , and normalize the field suchthat Br = 1 there. At the base of the crust, we consider twodifferent boundary conditions, eitherBr = 0 at the base, im-plying the field is confined entirely to the crust, or we assumethe field connects to an interior vacuum field, an example of afield which threads the neutron star core2.

A WKB analysis clarifies the basic properties of the modes.Writing f ∝ exp(i

∫ rdrkr )exp(−t/τ ), we find the dispersion

relation

k2r =

1ητ

−l (l + 1)

r2≃ (ητ )−1 (21)

wherekr is the radial wavenumber andτ is the decay time.We ignore the horizontal wavenumber term, which is negli-gible unlessl ≥ R/Hb ≃ 20. The WKB solution, includingamplitude and phase, is

f ∝ η1/4 exp

(

±i∫ r dr

(ητ )1/2

)

. (22)

2 In fact, if the field penetrates the core, then there is no strict boundarycondition quantizing the phase in units of roughlynπ in the crust. The verticalwavelength in the core will be much smaller than in the crust,and then thevalue and slope at the crust core interface will reflect quantizing the phase inthe core. For eigenmodes with many nodes in the crust, this will not changethe waves significantly, but for long decay times≫ 106 yr, this boundarycondition is crucial.

TABLE 1. OHMIC DECAY MODES(DIPOLE)

n tOhm/τn tOhm/n2τn

T8 = 1, Q = 10−3, tOhm = 7.5×106 yrs1 3.60 3.602 18.2 4.563 44.0 4.894 82.0 5.125 133.0 5.33

T8 = 3, Q = 10−3, tOhm = 7.0×105 yrs1 2.32 2.322 12.1 3.033 29.8 3.314 55.8 3.495 90.4 3.61T8 = 0.01,Q = 10−3, tOhm = 4.7×109 yrs1 0.315 0.3152 2.17 0.5423 5.67 0.6304 10.8 0.6755 17.6 0.703

T8 = 1, Q = 10−3, tOhm = 7.5×106 yrsinner dipole boundary condition

1 0.0729 0.07292 8.76 2.193 28.8 3.204 60.5 3.785 105 4.20

For f , the amplitude and wavelength grow∝ η1/2 toward thetop of the crust. The magnetic field and current componentshave the same oscillatory phase, but their envelopes scale asBr ∝ η1/4, Bθ,φ ∝ η−1/4, andJθ,φ ∝ η−3/4. A WKB turningpoint is reached at the depthzt p(τ ) at which kzHσ ∼ 1, orequivalently, where the mode decay time equals the local dif-fusion time. Above this depth, the left and right sides of equa-tion (20) can no longer balance, leading to evanescent behav-ior.

We show two examples of Ohmic decay eigenmodes withl = 1 in Figures 5 (Br = 0 at the base) and 6 (vacuum field atthe base). The left panel in each case shows the lowest ordereigenmode. WhenBr = 0 at the base,Br varies rapidly withdepth, givingBθ ≈ (R/H)Br ≫ Br at the base; for a vacuumboundary condition at the base,Br varies only slightly acrossthe crust, givingBr ∼ Bθ at the base. For short wavelengthmodes (right panels), the eigenfunctions become insensitiveto the lower boundary condition; the effect of the boundarycondition is to introduce an overall phase shift. The WKBamplitude scalings and turning point can be seen clearly forthese modes.

Table 1 gives Ohmic decay times for numbers of nodesn = 1− 5, different temperatures, impurity fractions and in-ner boundary conditions. The results are scaled in terms ofthe Ohmic time at the base, which is listed in the table. ForT = 108 K, the decay times for the lowest order modes areτ1 = 2.1 ×106 yr andτ1 = 1.0 ×108 yr for theBr = 0 and vac-uum inner boundary conditions. As pointed out by Pethick &Sahrling (1995), the difference between these two cases is thatthe lowest order mode has a decay time≈ R/H times largerwhen the field penetrates into the core, because the length-scale on whichBr changes through the crust is the radius in-stead of the crust thickness.

3.2. Green’s function solution

7

FIG. 5.— Ohmic decay mode eigenfunctions for an equilibrium crust with T = 108 K andQ = 10−3. We show the lowest order mode (n = 1) in the left paneland then = 5 mode in the right panel.The inner boundary condition isBr = 0.

FIG. 6.— Same as Figure 5, but with an inner dipole boundary condition.

An alternative method of solving the diffusion equation is tofind the Green’s function. We now calculate the eigenmodesand Green’s function for a plane parallel crust with power-

law diffusivity η ∝ z−α (wherez is the depth).3. We start by

3 Although we choose a power law diffusivity mainly because itallows ananalytic solution, this is also a good approximation since the conductivity isa power law in both position and time over a large range of scales.

8

FIG. 7.— Green’s function for Ohmic decay of poloidal magnetic field.The conductivity profile isα = 7/2. Each line is labelled with the value ofξ.

defining the similarity variable

ξ(z, t) =∫ z

0

dz√

ηt. (23)

Useful quantities aretdiff (z) = ξ2t ∝ zα+2, the characteristicdiffusion time to depthz, andzdiff (t) ∝ t1/(α+2), the depth forwhich the diffusion time is the current age,t = tdiff , given byξ(zdiff , t) = 1.

Settingη ∝ z−α, we look for solutions∝ f (ξ)exp(−t/τ ),whereξ = ξ(z, τ ), giving

f (ξ) = ξνJ−ν(ξ) (24)

whereν = (α + 2)−1, andJ−ν is a Bessel function of the firstkind. The solution with order−ν becomes constant near thesurface, therefore matching onto a vacuum field at low den-sities. The decay timeτ for each mode is determined by en-forcing the boundary condition at the base. These eigenmodeshave similar properties to those determined in §3.1. The turn-ing point for each mode occurs atξ ∼ 1, or depthzdiff (τ ).Since the amplitude ofJν(ξ) is ∝ ξ−1/2 for ξ ≫ 1, we findf ∝ z−α/4 ∝ η1/4 at large depths, as expected from the WKBscalings (eq. [22]).

The Green’s function is obtained by writing an initial deltafunction as a sum over the eigenmodes given by equation(24), and using the Fourier-Bessel inversion formula (Jackson1975, pg. 100) and a standard integral over Bessel functions(Watson 1966, pg. 395). We find the Green’s function solution(see also Eichler & Cheng 1989)

f (ξ, t) =∫

d lnξ′ G(ξ,ξ′) f0(z′) (25)

where

G(ξ,ξ′) =12ξν(ξ′)2−ν I−ν

(

ξξ′

2

)

exp

(

−ξ2 + ξ′2

4

)

, (26)

ξ = ξ(z, t), ξ′ = ξ(z′, t), Iν is a modified Bessel function, andf0(z) is the initial field profile. Forξ ≪ 1, G becomes inde-pendent ofξ,

G∝(

ξ′)2(1−ν)

exp

(

−ξ′2

4

)

(27)

Figure 7 shows the Green’s function forα = 7/2 andν = 2/11,appropriate for electron-phonon conductivity above neutrondrip.

The evolution in time can be understood by taking variouslimits of equation (25). Consider the case where the currentsextend down to a finite depthzinit initially, f0(z> zinit) = 0.For early times (or sufficiently large depths), the field is un-changed:G≈ δ(ξ′ − ξ) for ξ ≫ 1, giving

f (z, t) ≃ f0(z) ξ ≫ 1, z> zdiff (t) (28)

For late times (ξ≪ 1), equation (27) applies, and the solutionis independent of depth, with a time-dependence determinedby the integral overξ′. Whenzdiff (t) < zinit , the peak of theGreen’s function atξ′ ≈ 1 gives

f (z, t) ≃ f0(zdiff (t)) ξ ≪ 1, zdiff (t) < zinit , (29)

so that the solution is determined by the initial value of thefield at the current diffusion depthzdiff (t). If f0 varies slowlywith depth, thenf will vary slowly with time during thisphase, particularly sincezdiff is a weak power oft. Whenzdiff (t) > zinit , however, the integrand drops to zero at a valueof ξ′ < 1, so that equation (27) givesG∝ (ξ′)2(1−ν). Writingthe solution as an integral overz′, the time-dependence factorsout as

f (z, t) ∝ tν−1 ∝ t−(α+1)/(α+2) ξ ≪ 1, zdiff (t) > zinit . (30)

Therefore at late times, the field decays as a power law in time,independent of the initial field profile (Sang & Chanmugam1987). Sincet ∝ t2/3, we find that the surface field decays as

B(t)B0

=

(

tdiff (zinit)t

)δ

, (31)

with δ = 0.55 (α = 7/2) for zinit above neutron drip, andδ = 0.49 (α = 7/4) for zinit below neutron drip. For complete-ness, we also note that when impurity scattering dominatesthe conductivity,t ∝ t andα≃ 4/3, givingδ = 0.7.

The connection between the eigenmode and Green’s func-tion solutions is now easily seen. The Green’s function solu-tion implies thatf is constant forz< zdiff (t), and unchangedfor z> zdiff (t). In terms of Ohmic modes, at a given timet, allmodes with decay timesτ ≪ t, which propagate closer to thesurface thanzdiff (t), have exponentially decayed away. There-fore forz< zdiff (t) the solution is dominated by the mode withτ = t which has turning point atzdiff (τ ). The power law decayof the surface field at late times arises because the decay timeof the mode which dominates the surface field increases withtime (Sang & Chanmugam 1987). Forz> zdiff (t), the fieldprofile is a superposition of all WKB modes with decay timesτ ≥ t.

3.3. Toroidal fields

Toroidal fields behave in a qualitatively similar way topoloidal fields, but with some important quantitative differ-ences. Defining the toroidal field asB = ∇× (g(r)Ym

l er )(Chandrasekhar 1961), we find the diffusion equation is

∂g∂t

=∂

∂r

(

η∂g∂r

)

− ηl (l + 1)

r2g, (32)

with WKB solution

g∝ η−1/4 exp

(

±i∫ z dz

(ητ )1/2

)

, (33)

9

FIG. 8.— Green’s function for Ohmic decay of toroidal magnetic field.The conductivity profile isα = 7/2.Each line is labelled with the value ofξ.

giving Bθ,φ ∝ η−1/4, Jθ,φ ∝ η−3/4, andJr ∝ η−1/4. These scal-ings are similar to the poloidal case. For diffusivityη ∝ z−α,the power-law solution has the same form as in equation(24), but with ν = (α + 1)/(α + 2), and the Bessel functionmust have order+ν rather than−ν to ensure zero field at theboundary. The toroidal Green’s function is plotted in Fig-ure 8. The major difference from the poloidal case is forlate times, for which the field decays∝ t−(2α+3)/(α+2) ∝ t−1.2

(for α = 7/2), much faster than the poloidal case (compareeq. [30]). In addition, the field decreases rapidly towards thesurface,g ∝ ξ2ν ∝ zα+1, implying the interior toroidal fieldsare much larger than those near the surface.

3.4. Summary of Ohmic decay

The results of this section give a very simple way to under-stand the distribution of currents and the decay of the surfacedipole field given the age of the star. For a general conductiv-ity profile η(z), the rescaled time corresponding to the upperturning point is

tdiff (z) =

(∫ z

0

dzη1/2(z)

)2

, (34)

wherez= 0 is at the top of the crust. We plot the physical timetdiff ∝ t3/2

diff for a detailed crust model with electron-phononscattering in Figure 9. This plot can be read as follows: sincewe have included the fact that the temperature is decreasingintime, set the ordinatetdiff equal to the aget, and then read offthe density at whichz= zdiff . At lower densities, the currentshave decayed according to equation (31), and we expectf ap-proximately constant, dominated by the Ohmic decay modewith τ ≈ t; at higher densities, the initial field has not yetevolved significantly, and is dominated by modes withτ > t.We emphasise again that we assume phonons dominate theconductivity in Figure 9. This is a good assumption even ifthe crust is impureQ& 1, except at the very base of the crust(see eq. [12]). After≈ 1 Myr, the crust conductivity becomesimpurity scattering dominated, and the field decay slows dra-matically if Q≪ 1.

Our results compare well with the time-dependent calcula-tions of Urpin and collaborators (Urpin & Muslimov 1992;

FIG. 9.— Ohmic time corresponding to the upper turning point as afunc-tion of distance from the top of the crust. We assume phonon conductivityand modified URCA cooling (T ∝ t−1/6) (for t & 1 Myr, impurity scatteringdominates the conductivity, in which case the Ohmic evolution slows consid-erably forQ≪ 1). (i) For a given aget, this plot shows the density at whichcurrents are just beginning to evolve due to Ohmic diffusion. At lower densi-ties, the field is roughly constant with depth, dominated by the Ohmic decaymode withτ ≈ t; at higher densities, the field has not yet evolved signifi-cantly, and is dominated by Ohmic decay modes withτ > t. (ii) For currentsinitially distributed up to a densityρinit , this plot gives the time at which thesurface field evolution changes from roughly constant with time to a powerlaw ∝ t−0.55.

Urpin & Konenkov 1997; Page et al. 2000). Their initialprofile f0(z) varies slowly with depth in the crust, givingvery little decay of the field fort < tdiff (zinit) (eq. [29]). Fort > tdiff (zinit), the decay of the observable dipole field agreeswell with equation (31). We do not reproduce the much longer(∼ 108 year) decay timescales found by Chamugam & Sang(1987); the reason for this discrepancy is not clear.

At t = tswitch (eq. [17]) when the Hall effect begins to dom-inate Ohmic decay, we find that the currents must reside ata density& 1010 g cm−3 (towards the top of the crust) forB = 1013 G,& 1012 g cm−3 (near neutron drip) forB = 1012 G,and& 1014 g cm−3 (near the base of the crust) forB = 1011 G.Therefore the distribution of currents when the Hall effectbe-gins to dominate the evolution depends sensitively on the fieldstrength.

4. FIELD EVOLUTION WHENΩτ ≫ 1

In this section, we first give a qualitative discussion of howthe Hall effect acts on the magnetic field. We discuss how aninitial large lengthscale poloidal dipole field generates higherwavenumbers, and discuss an interesting time-independentsolution of the Hall equation. Next, we present short length-scale Hall wave solutions for realistic crust models, includinga first calculation of the elastic response of the crust to thewave. We discuss the Hall drift instability found by Rhein-hardt & Geppert (2002), and finally discuss the implicationsof our results for GR’s non-linear Hall cascade.

4.1. Qualitative discussion of Hall evolution

In terms of the electron velocityve = −J/nee, the inductionequation (3) is

∂B

∂t= ∇× (ve×B) . (35)

10

Although this shows aformal relation to the usual MHD ad-vection equation, it differs because the electron velocityde-pends directly onB. Nonetheless, it is useful to think ofthe field moving with the electron fluid in the same way asthe field is tied to fluid elements in MHD. It is instructive torewrite equation (35) as

DB

Dt= B ·∇ve −B

ve,r

He(36)

whereD/Dt = ∂/∂t +ve ·∇ is an advective derivative follow-ing the electrons,ve,r is the radial component of the electronvelocity, andHe is the electron density scale height. Thefirst term on the right hand side of equation (36) representsshearing of the field by the electron flow; the second termarises because∇·ve is non-zero for a vertical current becauseof the background electron density gradient:∇·J = 0 gives∇·ve = −ve ·∇ne/ne. For example, as currents flow to deeperregions, the electron density increases, the electron velocitydecreases, and the field is amplified by compression.

As a first example, consider an axisymmetric poloidal fieldBP = Br(r,θ)er + Bθ(r,θ)eθ, supported by toroidal currentswhich we write in terms of the electron angular velocityΩeas ve = Ωe(r,θ)r sinθeφ. In this case, equation (35) gives∂BP /∂t = 0, and

∂Bφ

∂t= r sinθ (BP ·∇)Ωe, (37)

showing that any differential rotation of the electron flowalong the poloidal field lines shears the field, generating atoroidal component and a net twist. This is a direct ana-log of the winding up of field lines by differential rotation(e.g. Mestel 1999). Figure 10(a) shows an initial dipole fieldand associated toroidal current. In this case, shear in the elec-tron velocity at mid-latitudes generates a toroidal field shownin Figure 10(b). The net effect is to twist the original fieldin one direction in the northern hemisphere and the oppositedirection in the southern hemisphere. The subsequent evo-lution is determined by thepoloidal currents associated withBφ. They act back on the original poloidal field, “pinching” itat the equator, and generating a quadrupole component of thepoloidal field, as shown in Figure 10(c). In this way, the pro-cess continues, and the smaller and smaller scale componentsof the field develop.

As a second example, we consider an axisymmetric toroidalfield BT = Bφ(r,θ)eφ, supported by poloidal currentsve =vr (r,θ)er + vθ(r,θ)eθ. In this case, equation (35) gives

∂Bφ

∂t= −ve ·∇Bφ − Bφ

ve,r

He+ Bφ

(

ve,r

r+

ve,θ cotθr

)

, (38)

and ∂BP /∂t = 0, so that an initially toroidal field remainstoroidal. The terms on the right hand side of equation (38)describe advection by poloidal currents, divergence of theve-locity flow due to the electron density gradient, and spheri-cal geometry effects. Vainshtein et al. (2000) solved equation(38) for a plane-parallel geometry, in which case it reducesto Burger’s equation, since only the term involvingHe sur-vives. For a toroidal field with opposite signs in the northernand southern hemispheres, as in Figure 10(b), they showedthat the toroidal field strength grows at the equator, where theelectrons flow inwards to higher density, and is reduced instrength towards the pole, where the electrons flow outwardsto lower density (or vice versa depending on the overall fielddirection). They argued that if the field propagates towards

FIG. 10.— The first steps in the evolution of an initial dipole field bythe Hall effect. (a) The toroidal current supporting the dipole field shearsthe field at mid-latitudes. (b) The resulting toroidal field and associatedpoloidal currents. The net effect is to “twist” the originaldipole field. (c)The poloidal currents “pinch” the original poloidal dipolefield, generating apoloidal quadrupole.

the equator, a thin current sheet will form, rapidly dissipatingthe magnetic energy. It is not clear whether this effect persistsin spherical geometry and including a poloidal component ofthe field.

These examples show that the field geometry can give alarge correction to the Hall timescale estimate of §2.1. Forexample, in Figure 10, the initial evolution of the field is byshearingBr at mid-latitudes. If the magnetic field is con-fined to the crust, we expectBr ≈ Bθ(H/R) to vary acrossa lengthscaleH, andJφ ≈ (c/4π)(Bθ/H). This givestHall =4πneeH2/cBθ, so that the horizontal field is the appropriatefield to use in the Hall time estimates of §2.1. If the mag-netic field penetrates into the core, then we expectBr ≈ Bθ,andJφ ≈ (c/4π)(Bθ/R) giving a Hall timescale a factorR/Hlonger. This is directly analogous to the sensitivity of thelow-est order Ohmic decay mode to the boundary condition at thebase that we found in §3.

4.2. Time-Independent Solutions

Not all magnetic field configurations evolve under the Halleffect. The existence of time-independent solutions may beimportant for two reasons. First, it implies that dissipation bythe Hall effect is not necessarily able to cause the field to de-crease to arbitrarily small values (assuming that the role of theHall effect is to drive dissipative processes on small scales).Second, time-independent solutions may act as a backgroundon which Hall waves propagate. The most obvious time-independent solution is a force free field withJ×B = 0, orJ =κB, whereκ is constant along a given field line (e.g. Mes-tel 1999). The field profile in this case may or may not reflectlengthscales associated with the crust, depending on the initialrelaxation of the field when the neutron star is born.

An intriguing time-independent solution is suggested byequation (37). For an axisymmetric dipole field, thetoroidal current isJφ ∝ sinθ (e.g. Fig. 10a), implying thatΩe ∝ ve/sinθ is constant, or the electrons rotate rigidly onspherical shells. Equation (37) then becomes∂Bφ/∂t =r sinθBr (∂Ωe/∂r). A simple time-independent solution isthereforeΩe =constant, orrigid rotation of the electrons! Ifthe electrons rigidly rotate, no shearing of the poloidal fieldoccurs, and therefore no evolution due to the Hall effect. This

11

solution impliesJφ ∝ ne, and therefore large currents runningat the base compared to the top of the crust. If this currentis sufficiently large compared to currents in the core, thendeep in the crust the field isBθ ≃ −(4πJφ,bHe/c)(ne/ne,b),Br ≃ 2Bθ(He/r), whereJφ,b andne,b are the current and elec-tron density at the base. This solution is not force free, butimplies an increasing magnetic force with depth; the magneticstresses are poloidal however, and hence may be supported inthe fluid above and below the crust.

It is interesting to speculate whether further time-independent solutions exist. Equation (37) suggests, anal-ogous to Ferraro’s law of isorotation (Ferraro 1937; Mestel1999), further steady-states in which the electrons rigidly ro-tate along each poloidal field line. However, the differencebetween the Hall effect and the MHD case is that the electronvelocity depends directly on the magnetic field. The poloidaldipole field is special because the currents are such that no dif-ferential rotation of the electrons occurs on spherical shells.This is not true in general, and therefore the dipole case maybe the only steady-state solution of this kind. A toroidal fieldin plane-parallel geometryB =B(x,z)ey (where we assume thefield is "axisymmetric",∂/∂y= 0), and with constantne, doesnot evolve due to the Hall term, since∇× (J×B) = 0. How-ever, Vainshtein et al. (2000) noted that a gradient inne givesrise to compression of the field (second term on the right handside of eq. [38]), and concluded that the field is not steady-state in general. This is likely also true once the extra termsarising from spherical effects (eq. [38]) are included, unlessthe angular distribution of the extra terms can be arranged tomatch (and cancel) the compression term.

The time independent solution is stable to small perturba-tions. In order to see this, letB andJ be the magnetic fieldand current density of the time independent state, andδB andδJ be the corresponding perturbations of this state. Lineariz-ing eq. (3) with respect to the perturbations gives

∂δB

∂t= −∇×

(

J×δB + δJ×B

ene

)

. (39)

Taking the scalar product of eq. (39) withδB/4π and inte-grating over the volume of the crust gives an equation for themagnetic energy in the perturbation

∂

∂t

∫

δB2

8πdV =

∫

J

enec· (δJ×δB)dV. (40)

In deriving eq. (40), we have integrated the right hand sideonce by parts, used Ampere’s Law, and assumed the perturba-tions vanish on the boundary. Next, we rewriteδJ×δB/c asthe divergence of the Maxwell tensor

δJ×δB

c= ∇ ·T, (41)

where

T ≡δBδB

4π− I

δB2

8π. (42)

We need only theTiφ components of eq. (42) becauseJ hasonly aφ component;J/ene = −φΩer sinθ, with Ωe a constant.Writing out the integrand on the RHS of eq. (40), using eqs.(41) and (42), and applying Gauss’s Theorem, we find that theintegral vanishes identically. This shows that in the absence ofany dissipation, small perturbations to the steady state neithergrow nor decay. Although the realizability of this steady stateis open to question, the demonstration that it is stable certainlybolsters its case for relevance.

Lastly, we mention that this background solution will decaywith time at a rate given roughly by the Ohmic time at the baseof the crust (section 2.2).

4.3. Hall waves

To make further progress, we consider the evolution ofperturbations to a background magnetic field. GR showedthat such perturbations propagate as circularly-polarized Hallwaves. For constant electron density and a uniform magneticfield, the induction equation describing plane-wave perturba-tionsδB∝ exp(ik ·x) is

∂δB

∂t=

ck ·B4πnee

(k×δB) , (43)

which may be derived by perturbing equation (3) (see alsoThompson & Duncan 1996). The dispersion relation is

ω =ck|k ·B|

4πnee= νk|k · eB| , (44)

where we defineν ≡ cB/4πnee=ωciδ2i ∝ B/ne. GR discussed

the suggestion by Jones (1988) that Hall waves could trans-port energy to lower densities in the crust, where Ohmic dis-sipation is more efficient. They pointed out that as the wavemoves to lowerne, the vertical wavelength must increase (forfixed ω; see eq. [44]), implying a reflection or turning pointfor the wave whenkzH ∼ 1. In this section, we calculate theproperties of Hall waves in a realistic crust model. We deter-mine the location of the turning point as a function of wave-length. In addition, we calculate the strain induced by the Hallwave in the crust, and discuss unstable modes in the presenceof a background electron velocity gradient.

Force balance in the solid

The Hall wave in the crust relies on the fact that the solidcan adjust to accommodate theJ×B forces that arise as thewave propagates (see also Franco et.al. (2000) for the caseof magnetic stresses induced by spin down). To see this,consider perturbations∝ exp(−iωt + ik ·x) of a uniform back-ground field with constantne as before, but now include theshear stress (with constant shear modulusµ) and the ion iner-tia. Since we assume constantne, the orientation of the field isnot important. The induction equation (43) has an extra term∇× (δv×B), giving

− iωδB =ck ·B4πnee

(k×δB) +k× (ωξ×B) , (45)

where we write the velocity in terms of the fluid displacementasδv = iωξ. The momentum equation is

−ρω2ξ =δJ×B

c−µk2ξ, (46)

with the terms representing the ion inertia, magnetic force,and shear stress. Solving forω, we find the dispersion relation

ω2 =ω2

Hall

(

ω2 −ω2s

)

(

ω2 −ω2s −ω2

A

) , (47)

whereω2s = k2µ/ρ andω2

A = (k ·B)2/4πρ define the shear andAlfven wave frequencies, andωHall = ck(k ·B)/4πnee is theHall wave frequency.

In the solid crust, which has a finite shear modulusω2s > 0,

there is a low frequency (ω2 ≪ ω2A,ω

2s) solution to equation

(47),ω =

ωHall

1+ B2/4πµ. (48)

12

ForB2/4π≪µ, we recover the usual Hall wave: the inductionand momentum equations are uncoupled. ForB2/4π ≫ µ,the emf induced by the fluid displacements is large enough tocounteract the Hall emf, reducing the Hall wave frequency.For typical pulsar fields, this is an important effect only atthe very top of the crust; for magnetar-strength fields, it isan important effect throughout much of the crust. The shearmodulus isµ≈ 0.1ni(Ze)2/a (Strohmayer et al. 1991), wherea = (3/4πni)1/3 is the interion spacing4, giving B2/4πµ =5× 10−3B2

12(ρ9Ye)−4/3(Z/26)−2/3. In this paper, we assumeB2 ≪ 4πµ, so that the induction and momentum equationsare uncoupled in the crust.

In the fluid above or below the crust, the shear modulusis zero, so that theJ×B force must be balanced by theion inertia, giving a natural wave frequencyω ≈ ωA ≫ ωHall.One might expect that the Hall waves would be almost com-pletely reflected at the crust/fluid boundaries because of thisextremely large mismatch in wave frequency. However, deriv-ing the behavior of the strainθ = dξ/dznear the boundaries re-quires a careful treatment of the boundary conditions. In thispaper, we calculate the response of the crust for the simplestcase of a vertically propagating wave on a vertical backgroundfield. We discuss the behavior of the wave at the boundary inthe Appendix. The key point is that the Hall term enforcescontinuity of the magnetic perturbation across the boundary.Therefore, the magnetic stress cannot abruptly change to ac-commodate the loss of shear stress on moving into the fluid.This implies thatµθ≈BδB/4π≈ 0 at the fluid/solid interface,which gives complete reflection.

Vertically-propagating waves including the density gradient

We now include the electron density gradient, and studyvertically-propagating Hall waves in a uniform vertical back-ground field. In terms of helicity eigenstatesδB±(z) =δBx(z)± iδBy(z), the perturbed induction equation is

ddz

(

νdδB±

dz

)

±ωδB± = 0. (49)

Since∇·δB = 0, δBz = constant for these modes.We integrate equation (49) through the crust, using a shoot-

ing method to find the eigenvaluesω for whichδB = 0 at eachfluid/solid interface. Figures 11–13 show the eigenmodeswith n = 1,10, and 100 nodes, normalized so that the maxi-mum perturbation isδB = 1012 G.

The properties of the eigenmodes can be simply understoodwith a WKB analysis. A good fit to the electron density profilein the crust isne(z) ≃ ne,b(z/4Hb)4, with ne,b = 3 ×1036 cm−3

andHb ≃ 250 m the electron density and scale height at thebase of the crust. Using this to quantize the number of nodesn over the crust,

∫

kzdz= nπ gives the wave period

PHall ≃tHall,b

n2≃

107 yrsB12n2

. (50)

The WKB solution givesδB∝ k1/2 ∝ n1/4e ∝ z, in good agree-

ment with the numerical solutions. The wave reaches a turn-ing point when

∫

kzdz∼ 1, or at a depthzturn ≈ 3Hb/n1/3. Interms of density, the turning point is

ρturnYe ≈2×1012 g cm−3

n4/3, (51)

4 A convenient way to write this when relativistic degenerateelectronsprovide the pressure isµ/Pe ≈ 10−2 (Z/26)2/3.

FIG. 11.— Hall wave with no nodes in a constant vertical background fieldof B = 1012 G. This wave has a periodP1 = 4.4 ×106 yr B−1

12. We normalizethe wave so that it has a maximum amplitudeδB/B = 1. At the top of thecrust (not shown),θ drops rapidly to zero (see text).

FIG. 12.— As Figure 11, but for 10 nodes. This wave has a periodP10 =5.7 ×104 yr B−1

12.

which requiresn≈ 300 forρturn ≈ 109 g cm−3, or n≈ 3×105

for ρturn ≈ 105 g cm−3. Above the turning point,δB decreasesto match the boundary conditionδB = 0. Sinceν ∝ z−4, equa-tion (49) gives a steep dropoffδB∝ z5, in agreement with ournumerical results.

13

FIG. 13.— As Figure 11, but for 100 nodes. This wave has a periodP100 = 580 yrB−1

12.

The Ohmic dissipation rate for the mode is

γ =∫

dV|δJ |

2

σ

/

∫

dV|δB|

2

4π

≃

∫ zb

zt p

dzvg,z

c2k2z

4πσ

/

∫ zb

zt p

dzvg,z

, (52)

wherevg,z is the vertical group velocity, and in the second ex-pression we have used constant wave energy flux in the prop-agation cavity, and the integral extends between the upperturning pointzt p and the base of the crustzb. This expres-sion is simply interpreted as the local damping rate weightedby the time spent at that depth. Forkz ≫ k⊥, vg,z ∝ k−1

z

so the ratiozk3z/ρ

1/3 determines the depth which dominates

Ohmic decay (for impurity scattering). Ifkz ∝ n1/2e , the factor

n3/2e /ρ1/3 is dominated by the largest densities. We expect that

up to an order unity prefactor, the Ohmic decay time for themode is set byΩτ at the base of the crust,γ−1 ≈ PHall(Ωτ )b,where (Ωτ )b ≈ B12/Q when impurity scattering dominates(eq. [15]).

The elastic response of the crust to the wave

The strain in the crust may be calculated by balancing theelastic and magnetic stresses, since ion inertia plays no rolein the force balance for the low frequency Hall waves. Thisgives

θ =dξdz

= −Bz

4πµδB. (53)

We show the strain as a function of depth in the lower panelsof Figures 11–13. We write the shear modulus (Strohmayer etal. 1991) asµ ∝ n4/3

e ≈ 1030 erg cm−3 (z/zb)16/3, giving θ ∝z−13/3 below the turning point, andθ∝ z−1/3 above the turningpoint. The maximum strain occurs at or above the turning

point. Using the WKB scaling, we find that at the turningpoint,

θturn = 3×10−7 B212n

13/9δBb

B, (54)

whereδBb is the amplitude of the mode at the base.

More general cases of Hall waves

For a horizontal background field, or a non-vertically prop-agating wave on a vertical background field, the calculationof the elastic response of the crust is more complicated, andwe leave this for future work. Here, we give the WKB scal-ings for waves on a uniform horizontal fieldB = Bex, and setky = 0 for simplicity,δB = δB(z)exp(ikxx− iωt). The perturba-tion equation is

d2δBz

dz2+ k2

xδBz

[

ω2

ν2k4x

− 1

]

= 0, (55)

giving the WKB dispersion relationω = ±νkx(k2x + k2

z)1/2.For kz ≫ kx, this givesPHall ≈ tHall/(nkxHb). The locationof the turning point iszturn ≈ 3Hb/n1/5, or ρturnYe ≈ 2×1012 g cm−3/n4/5. The turning point for the modes is deeperin than the vertically-propagating case; we requiren≈ 104 forρturn ≈ 109 g cm−3.

Non-zero background current: waves and unstable modes

Before ending this section, we discuss the case of a hori-zontal field in more detail. In several recent papers, Rhein-hardt, Geppert, and collaborators have discussed a “Hall driftinstability” (HDI) driven by curvature in the background field(Rheinhardt & Geppert 2002, hereafter RG02; Geppert &Rheinhardt 2002; Rheinhardt, Konenkov, & Geppert 2003;Geppert, Rheinhardt, & Gil 2003). In this section, we firstdiscuss a simple example of the instability to elucidate thebasic physics. We then discuss the mode spectrum, and therelevance of the instability for small scale Hall waves.

Following RG02, we study the stability of a plane-parallelhorizontal field that depends only on heightz,B = B(z)ex, withcorresponding current densityJ = (c/4π)(dB/dz)ey. How-ever, for simplicity and to highlight the essential physics, weconsider the Hall terms only. The perturbations are of theform δB(z)exp(ikxx+σt) (we setky = 0 since RG02 find thatthese are the fastest growing modes). Since the backgroundfield does not evolve due to the Hall term, the perturbed in-duction equation isσδB = ∇× (δve×B) +∇× (ve×δB), or

(σ + ve·∇) δB = (B·∇)δve + (δB·∇)ve − (δve·∇)B, (56)

where ve = −J/nee is the electron velocity, andδJ =(c/4π)(∇×δB).

Writing an equation forδBz, we find the generalization ofequation (55) for this case is,

∂2δBz

∂z2= k2

xδBz

[

1+dve/dzνk2

x+

σ2

(νk2x)2

]

. (57)

The eigenvalueσ2 is purely real5: the solution is either a puregrowing/decaying mode, or oscillatory. Making a WKB ap-proximation,∂/∂z→ ikz, we find (writingk2 = k2

x + k2z),

σ2 = −(νkkx)2 − νk2xdve

dz. (58)

5 To show this, multiply equation (57) by the complex conjugate δB⋆z, and

subtract the complex conjugate of equation (57) multipliedby δBz. Integrat-ing over volume, and assuming the boundary conditions are such that theboundary term vanishes, gives (σ2 −σ2⋆)

∫

dV |δBz|2/ν2k2

x = 0.

14

The first term is the usual Hall waves,σ = ±iνkkx; the secondterm depends on the electron velocity gradient, and leads toinstability (σ2 > 0) if the electron velocity gradient is suffi-ciently negative, and for sufficiently long wavelengths,

k2 < −1ν

dve

dz. (59)

A more general integral criterion can be derived by multiply-ing equation (57) byδBz and integrating over the volume,

σ2∫

dV|δBz|

2

ν2k2x

= −∫

dV(

|δB′z|

2 + k2x |δBz|

2)

−∫

dV |δBz|2 dve/dz

ν, (60)

showing thatdve/dzmust be sufficiently negative somewherein the volume to lead to instability (σ2 > 0). We have numer-ically integrated equation (57) for the simple case of constantne and a quadratic dependence ofB on depth, confirming thescalings of equations (58) and (59).

The basic physics of the instability can be understood bystepping through the evolution of an initial vertical perturba-tion δBz, and recalling that the field is advected by the electronflow. First consider short wavelengths where thedve/dztermis unimportant. The current perturbationδJy = −ikxδBzc/4πcorresponds to a sheared electron flow, which gives rise to aperpendicular field componentσδBy = −ikxBδve,y through thefirst term on the right hand side of equation (56). Associ-ated withδBy is a currentδJz = ikxδByc/4π, which in turnacts back onδBz, σδBz = −ikxBδve,z, thereby driving the Hallwave. When thedve/dz term dominates, the first stage ofthis evolution is different. Shearing of the initial perturba-tion by the background electron flow generatesδBy in the firststep,σδBy = −δBz(dve/dz), transferring energy from the back-ground field into the perturbation. Equation (58) shows thecompetition between the internal and external shearing, mea-sured by the ratio of Hall wave frequency to the shear fre-quencydve/dz.

The criterion for instability we derive above generalizes thatof RG02 to include the density variation with depth (see alsoRheinhardt et al. 2003), and clarifies the nature of the in-stability: a background shear in the electron velocity drivesgrowth of long wavelength perturbations whose characteristicHall frequencies are less thandve/dz. Short wavelength Hallwaves, with frequencies greater thandve/dz, are unaffected.This differs from the conclusions of RG02, who argue thatHDI may be responsible for the growth of small-scale pertur-bations reported in some numerical simulations (e.g. Shaly-bkov & Urpin 1997; Hollerbach & Rüdiger 2002). Perhapsnumerical instabilities are rather responsible for the excesssmall scale power6.

Is the HDI relevant for the evolution of field in the crust? Ifthe picture of a turbulent Hall cascade is correct, the instabil-ity probably does not change the long-term evolution of the

6 We found such an instability in trying to develop a 3D code to simulatethe Hall effect. It is straightforward to see this in 1D in Cartesian coordinates.Using second-order centered differences in space and explicit time-stepping(first order, or, using Runga-Kutta, second order accurate), one can analyti-cally show thatall wavelengths are unstable! The growth rate of the instabil-ity for wavenumberk on a grid of spacing∆x scales as∝ (k∆x)8, implyinglarge lengthscale waves grow only after many box crossings,but grid-scalewaves have a growth rate of order the time step. Including Ohmic diffusiononly cures this instability if a prohibitively short time step is used. In 1D, theinstability is easily fixed by using implicit time-stepping, but this cannot besimply extended to 3D using operator splitting.

field, since intermediate scales will "fill in" as the cascadede-velops. If the background field varies on a lengthscaleH, themost unstable modes are those with the largestkx compatiblewith equation (59), implyingkx ∼ 1/H, or corresponding tospherical harmonicl of tens. Rheinhardt et al. (2003) then ar-gue that an initially dipolar field will develop small latitudinalscale structure; however, this conclusion is sensitive to the ini-tial distribution of currents in the crust. An additional point isthat changes in the crustal field may not propagate to the sur-face because of the very efficient reflection at the solid/fluidinterface (see discussion in the Appendix). Therefore predic-tions of complex surface fields produced by HDI (Geppert etal. 2003) may be premature.

4.4. Nonlinear Coupling of Oscillation Modes

We now discuss the implications of our results for the turbu-lent Hall cascade suggested by GR. They estimated the non-linear transfer time between different modes to be longer thanthe mode period, and proposed that the cascade would be aweak cascade. In this case, the expected scaling of magneticenergy isB2(k) ∝ k−2, with a cutoff due to Ohmic dissipationat a scaleλ∼ L/Ωτ , whereL is the scale on which the turbu-lence is being driven. However, the simulations of Biskampet al. (1999) show a different scaling,B2(k) ∝ k−7/3 appro-priate for a strong cascade (to derive this scaling, follow theargument of GR §4, but choosing their eq. [47] rather thaneq. [48]). In this case, the Ohmic cutoff is forλ∼ L/(Ωτ )3/2.The difference arises most likely because of GR’s assumptionof isotropy: a strong cascade implies mode periods longerthan the non-linear transfer time, which suggests a cascadeperpendicular to the magnetic field direction, for which theHall wave periods are long. Unfortunately, Biskamp andcoauthors did not present an analysis of anisotropy in theirnumerical results. Such a study would be extremely interest-ing.

How many modes are involved in the cascade? If the energytransfer is limited by Ohmic dissipation, then for a strong cas-cade we find

nmax≈ (Ωτ )3/2 ≈ 3×104

(

B12

Q−3

)3/2

(61)

where we use the result for impurity scattering forΩτ .The turning point for the mode withn = nmax (assum-ing vertical propagation and a vertical field) is atρmax ≈106 g cm−3 (Q−3/B12)2.

In §4.3, we calculated the maximum strainθmax for a Hallwave with givenn and amplitude at the baseδBb. As n in-creases,θmax increases, implying that the crust will yield forlarge enoughn. However, this increase withn is offset bythe decreasing amplitudeδBb with n if there is a turbulentcascade: for a strong (weak) cascade,δB ∝ n−7/6 (∝ n−1).The value of strain at which the crust will yieldθyield is un-certain (e.g. Ruderman 1976), but probably lies in the rangeθyield ∼ 10−5–10−2. For the weak cascade,θmax decreases moreslowly with n. Using equation (54) for vertically-propagatingwaves, we find for this case that the crust will yield for modeswith

n& 6×105

(

θyield

10−4

)β

B−2β12

(

δBb,0

B

)−β

, (62)

whereδBb,0 is the amplitude of the mode at the largest length-scale, andβ = 9/4. For a strong cascade, the prefactor is2×109 (corresponding toΩτ ≈ 106) andβ = 3.2. Given our

15

estimate fornmax (eq. [61]), we therefore do not expect thecascade to be limited by crust yielding, but rather Ohmic dis-sipation. However, we stress again that we have not yet cal-culated the crust response for arbitrary wave propagation andbackground field directions. Therefore, equation (62) shouldbe taken as an initial estimate only.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have addressed various aspects of mag-netic field evolution in neutron star crusts. Our aim has beento place previous studies of the physics of the Hall effect incontext: first, by addressing when and for which neutron starsthe Hall effect is important relative to Ohmic decay; second,by calculating the allowed "initial conditions" by followingthe Ohmic decay prior to dominance of the Hall effect; third,by discussing for the first time the properties of Hall wavesin a realistic crust model, and the implications for the Hallcascade.

We now summarise our main results and conclusions:(i) The relative importance of Ohmic decay and the Hall

effect is summarized in Figure 4 which shows theΩτ = 1contour in theB-T plane. In isolated neutron stars withB . 1013 G, the dominance of the Hall effect depends sen-sitively on the impurity parameterQ: recent calculations byJones (2001) indicateQ& 1 for densities greater than neutrondrip (see also de Blasio 2000 for densities lower than neutrondrip), in which case the Hall effect never dominates the evo-lution of crustal currents, considerably simplifying the evolu-tion. If Q∼ 10−3 however, as in the original Flowers & Ruder-man (1977) estimate, Ohmic decay dominates the Hall effectonly for a timetswitch≈ 2×104 years/B3

12, after which the con-ductivity is set by impurity scattering, givingΩτ ≈ B12/Q. Inaccreting neutron stars withB. 1013 G, Ohmic decay alwaysdominates, since the crust is heated (T & 108 K, e.g. Brown2000) and may also be impureQ& 1 (Schatz et al. 1999).

(ii) Figure 9 summarizes the evolution of currents in thecrust while Ohmic decay dominates (t < tswitch). The electri-cal conductivity at these early times is set by phonon scat-tering. This figure relates previous work on either Ohmicdecay eigenmodes, or on self-similar solutions, in a simpleway. For a particular timet, Figure 9 gives the densityρcdown to which the currents have significantly decayed. Forρ > ρc, no significant evolution of the currents has occurred.Forρ < ρc, the current distribution is self-similar, being dom-inated by the Ohmic decay mode with turning point atρ = ρc.Becausetswitch ∝ 1/B3, the allowed distribution of currentswhen the Hall effect begins to dominate is very sensitive toB. For B ≈ 1013 G, ρc lies at or above the top of the crust;for B≈ 1011 G, ρc lies at the base of the crust. At late times,whenρc is greater than the initial location of the currents, thecurrent distribution evolves in a self-similar manner and thesurface field decays as a power law (eq.[31]).

(iii) The basic physics of the Hall effect is that the field inthe crust is advected by the electron flow. This is summarizedin Figure 1, which considers a variant of the usual laboratorydemonstration of the Hall effect. Figure 10 shows the evolu-tion of an initial poloidal dipole field, in which the toroidalcurrents initially "twist" the field; the resulting poloidal cur-rents then generate a quadrupole poloidal field via a "pinch".These considerations led us to a simple time-independent so-lution: a poloidal dipole field, in which the electrons rotaterigidly, does not evolve due to the Hall effect.

(iv) We discussed the properties of Hall waves in the crust.The simplest example is a background magnetic field which isuniform and vertical (for example, emerging from the core).The vertical wavelength of the wave grows towards the topof the crust (as pointed out by GR), and we showed that theturning point location isρturn ≈ 1012 g cm−3/n4/3. Below theturning point, the wave is able to propagate and its proper-ties are well-described by WKB scalings. Above the turningpoint, the wave evanesces towards the top of the crust.

(v) A horizontal field (e.g. as may be produced if the cur-rents supporting the field are predominantly in the crust) hassimilar wave-like solutions at short wavelengths. However, ifthere is a background current (the backgroundB varies withheight), long wavelength perturbations become unstable. Thephysics of this instability is that the shear in the backgroundelectron velocity drives unstable growth, overcoming the in-ternal shear of the wave which would otherwise drive an os-cillation. Therefore we agree with the recent work of Geppertand collaborators that there is an instability, and we have clar-ified its basic physics. However, we argued that the relevanceof this instability for the field evolution in the crust, and par-ticularly for the observable surface field, is not clear.

(vi) We have made a first attempt to address the questionof whether Hall waves strain the crust beyond its yield point.We find that the maximum strain is at or above the turningpoint for the mode (eq. [54]). However, our calculation islimited to the special case of vertically-propagating waves ona vertical background field; we leave further calculations ofthe response of the crust to non-vertical background fieldsand wavevectors for future work. In particular, the force bal-ance is important to consider for magnetar strength fields, forwhichB2 > 4πµ, directly coupling the induction and momen-tum equations in the crust (see the recent discussion in Arraset al. 2004).

(vii) Finally, we briefly discussed the non-linear evolution.Recent numerical work on Whistler turbulence (Biskamp etal. 1999) has demonstrated GR’s conjecture that the Hall ef-fect would create a "cascade" of energy to small scales. How-ever, the scalings of the cascade imply strong, anisotropictur-bulence rather than weak, isotropic turbulence as assumed byGR. The Hall wave eigenfunctions calculated in §4 (again, forvertically propagating waves and a vertical field) show thatcrust breaking is probably not important for standard radiopulsar strength fields.

We thank Omer Blaes, Phil Chang, Lars Bildsten, RogerRomani, Chris Thompson, Steve Thorsett, and Dmitry Uzden-sky for useful discussions, and Peter Goldreich for stressingthe simple physics that the magnetic field moves with the elec-trons. AC acknowledges support from NASA through Hub-ble Fellowship grant HF-01138 awarded by the Space Tele-scope Science Institute, which is operated by the Associationof Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA,under contract NAS 5-26555. PA acknowledges support fromthe Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. PA isanNSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow. Thismaterial is based upon work supported by the National Sci-ence Foundation under Grant No. 0201636 to the Universityof California at Santa Barbara and Grants AST-0328821 andPHY-0215581 to the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

16

APPENDIX

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR HALL WAVES

In this Appendix we discuss the boundary conditions for Hallwaves in the crust. First we argue that the disparity in propagationspeeds between solid and liquid implies near total reflection of wave energy at the boundaries. We present the results of simpletoy models to quantify the transmission coefficient. We thenderive the boundary conditions. Lastly we specialize the boundaryconditions for vacuum solutions in the liquid.

For elastic response of the crust, i.e. neglecting irreversible processes such as plastic flow, we naively expect Hall wave energyto be almost perfectly trapped in the crust. For a wavelengthof order the size of the crust, the Hall wave propagation speed isvastly smaller than the Alfven speed, implying a large impedence mismatch between the solid crust, liquid core and liquid ocean.

To get an analytic handle on the size of the reflection and transmission coefficients, consider a region with uniform density,constant vertical background field, crust with constant shear modulus forz< 0 and ocean with zero shear modulus forz> 0(see Blaes et al. 1989 for the Alfven wave case). This toy problem is of limited validity, since the density is not constant, andalso since in reality the WKB assumption is violated (vertical wavelength in the ocean≫ scale height), but we can gain usefulintuition without much effort. We consider a vertically propagating Hall wave incident from below, and then include allpossiblereflected and transmitted waves. The two circular polarization states are decoupled in the boundary conditions, hence we needonly include reflected Hall and elastic-Alfven waves and a transmitted Alfven wave. We use the boundary conditions derivedbelow to determine the amplitudes of reflected and transmitted waves. We leave this straightforward calculation as an exercisefor the reader, and present the results. In the limitB2 ≪ 4πµ near the top of the crust, we find the amplitudes of the reflectedHall, reflected elastic-Alfven, and transmitted Alfven waves are

δB(ref Hall)≃−(

1+vHall

vAlfven

)

δB(inc Hall)

δB(ref Alfven)≃−vHallvAlfven

v2shear

δB(inc Hall)

δB(tran Alfven)≃−vHall

vAlfvenδB(inc Hall), (A1)

yielding an energy transmission coefficient

T = 2vHall/vAlfven ≃2.4×10−12[

Bz,12P(yr)]−1/2

. (A2)

Hence Hall waves experience negligible damping due to wave leakage in this simple case. Interestingly, we find that both thereflected and transmitted Alfven waves have a very small amplitude compared to the Hall wave. In this simple toy problem, the(observable) field in the liquid is composed of the constant background field (generated in the core) as well as the perturbation.Since the amplitude of the perturbation is infinitesimally small in the liquid as compared to the solid, the observable external fieldmay be somewhat different than the field in the crust. If this behavior persists for more realistic field distributions, the observableexternal field may not be the same as the field in the crust; the neutron star is in effect “hiding" its field. This effect is of courselarger when the currents are mainly in the crust rather than the core.

If we relax the restriction of vertical propagation (i.e. allow finite k⊥), there is a qualitative change in the nature of the waves.The low Hall wave frequency implies the reflected elastic-Alfven wave becomes evanescent with e-folding distance∼ k−1

⊥ , andthe transmitted Alfven wave has wavevector nearly perpendicular to the background magnetic field. Both polarization states mustnow be included for the reflected elastic-Alfven wave and transmitted Alfven wave. In addition, the two polarizations ofreflectedHall wave correspond to propagating and evanescent waves. With so many waves included, the analysis is complicated, andanontrivial check of both our numerical results and the boundary conditions derived below was that energy was conserved overa large range in frequency andk⊥. For incident Hall wave of amplitude unity, the numerical results can be summarized as : (i)the amplitude of the reflected propagating Hall wave is 1+O

(

k⊥/kz,Hall)

, (ii) the amplitude ofall other reflected waves scales asO(

k⊥/kz,Hall)

, (iii) the transmission coeffient is independent ofk⊥, and agrees in order of magnitude with eq.A2. Hence even inthis more general case the crust still acts as a nearly perfect resonant cavity, and the wave is essentially unobservablesince it’samplitude in the liquid is so small.

We now discuss the boundary conditions. We do not linearize the magnetic field, but for simplicity we use the linearized shearstress. We use the notation [f ] = ( f )solid− ( f )liquid, and the normal to the boundary is in thezdirection. By integrating over a smallregion near the solid-liquid boundary we find

[Bz] = 0 from∇·B = 0 (A3)[Jz] = 0 from∇·J = 0 (A4)[ξz] = 0 from finiteness of∇·ξ (A5)[

(K − 2µ/3)∇·ξδiz +µ(

ξi,z + ξz,i)

+ (4π)−1

(

BiBz−12

B2δiz

)]

+ gξz[ρ] δiz = 0 from momentum equation (A6)

[

−1c

(

ξ −J

nee

)

×B

⊥

+J⊥

σ

]

= 0 from induction equation. (A7)

The last term in equation (A6) arises from the buoyancy force−ergδρ = erg∇· (ρξz), and we have ignored the perturbed gravi-tational potential. Equation (A5) is required since∇·ξ would be infinite ifξz was discontinuous across an infinitesimally thinlayer.

17

The Hall effect, like Ohmic diffusion, involves a higher spatial derivative than the ion advection term in the inductionequation.Hence an additional boundary condition comes from the requirement that these terms remain finite in equation (A7). If themagnetic field was discontinuous across the effectively infinitely thin boundary, the Hall and Ohmic electric fields would diverge.Hence we must add the boundary condition

[B⊥] = 0 from finite Hall voltage. (A8)

This boundary condition is similar to the no-slip conditionfrom viscous hydrodynamics7.The horizontal stress boundary conditions can be greatly simplified to give a useful result for the strain. Taken together,

equations (A3) and (A8) imply [B] = 0, which has the interesting consequence that the magnetic stress drops out of the boundarycondition in eq.A6. Sinceµ = 0 in the liquid, the horizontal components of the (symmetrized) strain must vanish on the solid sideof the boundary,

(

ξi,z + ξz,i)

solid= 0 for i = x,y. (A9)

As the magnetic field in the crust evolves by the Hall effect, equation (A9) is not satisfied in general over the entire crust. Asthe wave approaches the boundary, it must adjust in order to satisfy this condition. On qualitative grounds, we expect this wouldreflect the magnetic energy even if the wave is not short lengthscale. This result suggests that even for the fully nonlinear case,ifthe currents are generated in the crust there may be a significant difference between crustal field and observable external field.

As discussed by Kingsep et al. (1990), the higher spatial derivatives give rise to a boundary layer effect in Hall-MHD (withoutthe elastic shear stress), with ion advection dominating onlarge scales and the Hall effect on small scales (shorter than the ionpenetration depth). As a test of the boundary conditions, wehave redone the transmission-reflection problem of Blaes etal. (1989)for Alfen waves to escape from the crust, now including the Hall term in the induction equation. We find that for typical Alfvenwave frequencies we recover the Blaes et al. (1989) Alfven-wave transmission coefficient, consistent with the idea thatthe Hallterm only affects Alfven waves quite close to the boundary, but cannot alter a global property such as transmission out ofthecrust.

Lastly, we note that if the currents are small in the liquid (say due to low conductivity), or equivalently if the field is near thevacuum solution, one finds an interesting boundary condition on the field in the solid. SinceJz = 0 in the liquid, and [Jz] = 0,Jz ∝ kxBy − kyBx = 0 in the solid also. We can always chooseky = 0 without loss of generality, again implyingBy = 0 in the solidat the boundary.

REFERENCES

Arras, P., Cumming, A., & Thompson, C. 2004, ApJL, submittedBaiko, D. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1995, Ast. Lett., 21, 702Baiko, D. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, Ast. Lett., 22, 708Bhattacharya D., 1995, in X-Ray Binaries, ed. W. H. G. Lewin,J. vanParadijs, & E. P. J. van den Heuvel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),233Bhattacharya D., & Srinivasan, G. 1995, in X-Ray Binaries, ed. W. H. G.Lewin, J. van Paradijs, & E. P. J. van den Heuvel (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press), 495Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Hartman, J. W., & Verbunt, F. 1992,ApJ, 254, 198Biskamp, D., Schwarz, E., Zeiler, A., Celani, A., & Drake, J.F. 1999, Phys.Plasmas, 6, 751Blaes, O., Blandford, R., Goldreich, P. & Madau, P. 1989, ApJ, 343, 839.Blandford, R. D., Applegate, J. H. & Hernquist, L. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 1025.Brown, E. F. 2000, ApJ, 531, 988Chakrabarty, D., Morgan, E. H., Muno, M. P., Galloway, D. K.,Wijnands, R.,van der Klis, M., & Markwardt, C. B. 2003, Nature, 424, 42Chandrasekhar, S., 1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability,(International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford: Clarendon)Colpi, M., Geppert, U., & Page, D. 2000, ApJ, 529, L29Cordes, J. M., & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315Cumming, A., Zweibel, E. G., & Bildsten, L. 2001, ApJ, 557, 958De Blasio, F. V. 2000, A&A, 353, 1129Douchin, F., & Haensel, P. 2001, A&A, 380, 151Duncan, R. C. & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9Eichler, D. & Cheng, A.F. 1989, ApJ, 336, 360.Ferraro, V. C. A. 1937, MNRAS, 97, 458Flowers, E., & Ruderman, M. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 302Franco, L.M., Link, B., & Epstein, R.I. 2000, ApJ, 543, 987Gavriil, F. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Woods, P. M. 2002, Nature, 419,142Geppert, U. & Rheinhardt, M. 2002, A&A, 392, 1015Geppert, U., Rheinhardt, M., & Gil, J. 2003, A&A, submitted(astro-ph/0311121)Geppert, U. & Urpin, V. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 490Gnedin, O. Y., Yakovlev, D. G., & Potekin, A. Y. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 725Goldreich, P., & Reisenegger, A. 1992, ApJ, 395, 250 (GR)Gonthier, P. L., Ouellette, M. S., Berrier, J., O’Brien, S.,& Harding, A. K.2002, ApJ, 565, 482Gunn, J. E., & Ostriker, J. P. 1970, ApJ, 160, 979

Haensel, P., & Pichon, B. 1994, A&A, 283, 313Haensel, P., & Zdunik, J. L. 1990, A&A, 229, 117Heyl, J. S., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1998, ApJ, 506, L61Hollerbach, R. & Rüdiger, G. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 216Itoh, N., & Kohyama, Y. 1993, ApJ, 404, 268Jackson, J.D. 1975, “Classical Electrodynamics”, New York: Wiley, 1975,2nd ed.Jones, P. B. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 875Jones, P. B. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 167Konar, S. & Bhattacharya, D. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 311Kingsep, A. S., Chukbar, K. V., & Yan’kov, V. V. 1990, Rev. Plasma Phys.,16, 243Mackie, F. D., & Baym, G. 1977, Nucl. Phys. A, 285, 332Mestel, L. 1999, "Stellar Magnetism" (Oxford University Press)Muslimov, A. G. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 523Naito, T., & Kojima, Y. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 597Narayan, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222Negele, J. W., & Vautherin, D. 1973, Nucl. Phys. A, 207, 298Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395Page, D., Geppert, U., & Zannias, T. 2000, A&A, 360, 1052Pethick, C. J., & Sahrling, M. 1995, ApJ, 453, L29Potekhin, A. Y., Baiko, D. A., Haensel, P., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1999, A&A,346, 345Potekhin, A. Y. & Chabrier, G. 2000, Phys. Rev. E, 62, 8554Rheinhardt, M., & Geppert, U. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 101103Rheinhardt, M., Konenkov, D., & Geppert, U. 2003, A&A, submitted(astro-ph/0310917)Ruderman, M. 1976, ApJ, 203, 213Ruderman, M., Zhu, T., & Chen, K. 1998, ApJ, 492, 267Sang, Y., & Chanmugam, G. 1987, ApJ, 323, L61Schatz, H., Bildsten, L., Cumming, A., & Wiescher, M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1014Shalybkov, D. A., & Urpin, V. A. 1997, A&A, 321, 685Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, "Black Holes, White Dwarfs, andNeutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects" (Wiley)Strohmayer, T., Van Horn, H.M., Ogata, S., Iyetomi, H. & Ichimaru, S. 1991,ApJ, 375, 679.Tauris, T. M., & Konar, S. 2001, A&A, 376, 543Tauris, T. M., & Manchester, R. N. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 625Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322

7 At present, we have no boundary condition onξ⊥. Including a viscous shear stress would require[

ξ⊥]

= 0.

18

Trümper, J., Pietsch, W., Reppin, C., Voges, W., Staubert, R., & Kendziorra,E. 1978, ApJ, 219, L105Urpin, V. A., Chanmugam, G., & Sang, Y. 1994, ApJ, 433, 780Urpin, V., Geppert, U., & Konenkov, D. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 907Urpin, V. & Konenkov, D. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 741

Urpin, V. A. & Muslimov, A. G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 261Urpin, V. A., & Shalybkov, D. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 451Vainshtein, S. I., Chitre, S. M., & Olinto, A. V. 2000, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 4422Watson, G.N. 1966, “Theory of Bessel Functions”, CambridgeUniversityPress