Numerical Hydrodynamics in Special Relativity
 3.2k Downloads
 113 Citations
Abstract
This review is concerned with a discussion of numerical methods for the solution of the equations of special relativistic hydrodynamics (SRHD). Particular emphasis is put on a comprehensive review of the application of highresolution shockcapturing methods in SRHD. Results of a set of demanding test bench simulations obtained with different numerical SRHD methods are compared. Three applications (astrophysical jets, gammaray bursts and heavy ion collisions) of relativistic flows are discussed. An evaluation of various SRHD methods is presented, and future developments in SRHD are analyzed involving extension to general relativistic hydrodynamics and relativistic magnetohydrodynamics. The review further provides FORTRAN programs to compute the exact solution of a 1D relativistic Riemann problem with zero and nonzero tangential velocities, and to simulate 1D relativistic flows in Cartesian Eulerian coordinates using the exact SRHD Riemann solver and PPM reconstruction.
1 Introduction
1.1 Current fields of research
Relativity is a necessary ingredient for describing astrophysical phenomena involving compact objects. Among these phenomena are core collapse supernovae, Xray binaries, pulsars, coalescing neutron stars, formation of black holes, microquasars, active galactic nuclei, superluminal jets and gammaray bursts. General relativistic effects must be considered when strong gravitational fields are encountered as, for example, in the case of coalescing neutron stars or near black holes. The significant gravitational wave signal produced by some of these phenomena can also only be understood in the framework of the theory of general relativity. There are, however, astrophysical phenomena which involve flows at relativistic speeds but no strong gravitational fields, and thus at least certain aspects of these phenomena can be described within the framework of special relativity.
Another field of research, where special relativistic “flows” are encountered, are heavyion collision experiments performed with large particle accelerators. The heavy ions are accelerated up to ultrarelativistic velocities to study various aspects of heavy ion collision physics (like, e.g., multiparticle production, the occurrence of nuclear shock waves, collective flow phenomena, or dissipative processes), to explore the equation of state for hot dense nuclear matter, and to find evidence for the existence of the quarkgluon plasma.
1.2 Overview of the numerical methods
The first attempt to solve the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics (RHD) was made by Wilson [296, 297] and collaborators [50, 123] using an Eulerian explicit finite difference code with monotonic transport. The code relies on artificial viscosity techniques [293, 243] to handle shock waves. It has been widely used to simulate flows encountered in cosmology, axisymmetric relativistic stellar collapse, accretion onto compact objects and, more recently, collisions of heavy ions. Almost all the codes for both special (SRHD) and general (GRHD) numerical relativistic hydrodynamics developed in the eighties [223, 267, 207, 206, 208, 85] were based on Wilson’s procedure. However, despite its popularity it turned out to be unable to accurately describe extremely relativistic flows (Lorentz factors larger than 2; see, e.g., [50]).
In the mideighties, Norman and Winkler [213] proposed a reformulation of the difference equations of SRHD with an artificial viscosity consistent with the relativistic dynamics of nonperfect fluids. The strong coupling introduced in the equations by the presence of the viscous terms in the definition of relativistic momentum and total energy densities required an implicit treatment of the difference equations. Accurate results across strong relativistic shocks with large Lorentz factors were obtained in combination with adaptive mesh techniques. However, no multidimensional version of this code was developed.
Attempts to integrate the RHD equations avoiding the use of artificial viscosity were performed in the early nineties. Dubal [77] developed a 2D code for relativistic magnetohydrodynamics based on an explicit secondorder LaxWendroff scheme incorporating a fluxcorrected transport (FCT) algorithm [33]. Following a completely different approach Mann [172] proposed a multidimensional code for GRHD based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) techniques [199], which he applied to relativistic spherical collapse [174]. When tested against 1D relativistic shock tubes all these codes performed similar to the code of Wilson. More recently, Dean et al. [69] have applied flux correcting algorithms for the SRHD equations in the context of heavy ion collisions. Recent developments in relativistic SPH methods [53, 261] are discussed in Section 4.2.
A major breakthrough in the simulation of ultrarelativistic flows was accomplished when highresolution shockcapturing (HRSC) methods, specially designed to solve hyperbolic systems of conservations laws, were applied to solve the SRHD equations [179, 176, 83, 84].
1.3 Plan of the review
This review is intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of different HRSC methods and of related methods used in SRHD. However, we are not going to consider finite difference and finite volume methods based on the usage of artificial viscosity techniques which are reviewed, e.g., in the book of Wilson and Mathews [299]. Numerical methods for special relativistic MHD flows are also not included as they are beyond the scope of this review. Furthermore, we do not include numerical methods for general relativistic hydrodynamics. A comprehensive and recent discussion of such methods can be found in another article in Living Reviews in Relativity written by Font [91].
The review is organized as follows. Section 2 contains a derivation of the equations of special relativistic (perfect) fluid dynamics, as well as a discussion of their main properties. In Section 3 the most recent developments in numerical methods for SRHD are reviewed paying particular attention to highresolution shockcapturing methods.
We have focussed on those aspects of the numerical methods more specific of SRHD, i.e., the discussion of relativistic Riemann solvers and the computation of numerical fluxes. Some comments about the extension to multidimensional flows are included in Section 9 (see below).
Other developments in special relativistic numerical hydrodynamics are discussed in Section 4. Numerical results obtained with different methods as well as analytical solutions for several test problems are presented in Section 6. Two astrophysical applications of SRHD are discussed in Section 7. An evaluation of the various numerical methods is given in Section 8 together with an outlook for future developments. Finally, some additional technical information including the incorporation of general equations of state is presented in Section 9.
The reader is assumed to have basic knowledge in classical [153, 62] and relativistic fluid dynamics [274, 8], as well as in finite difference/volume methods for partial differential equations [236, 214]. A discussion of modern finite volume methods for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws can be found, e.g., in [158, 161, 154]. The theory of spectral methods for fluid dynamics is developed in [42], and smoothed particle hydrodynamics is reviewed in [199].
2 Special Relativistic Hydrodynamics
2.1 Equations
In the nonrelativistic limit (i.e., v ≪ 1, h → 1) D, S^{i}, and τ approach their Newtonian counterparts ρ, ρv^{i}, and ρE = ρε + ρv^{2}/2, and Equations (5) reduce to the classical ones. In the relativistic case the equations of system (5) are strongly coupled via the Lorentz factor and the specific enthalpy, which gives rise to numerical complications (see Section 2.3).
In classical numerical hydrodynamics it is very easy to obtain v^{i} from the conserved quantities (i.e., ρ and ρv^{i}). In the relativistic case, however, the task to recover (ρ, v^{i}, p) from (D, S^{i}, τ) is much more complicated. Moreover, as stateoftheart SRHD codes are based on conservative schemes where the conserved quantities are advanced in time, it is necessary to compute the primitive variables from the conserved ones one (or even several) times per numerical cell and time step making this procedure a crucial ingredient of any algorithm (see Section 9.2).
2.2 SRHD as a hyperbolic system of conservation laws
An important property of system (5) is that it is hyperbolic for causal EOS [8]. For hyperbolic systems of conservation laws, the Jacobeans ∂F^{i}(u)/∂u have real eigenvalues and a complete set of eigenvectors (see Section 9.3). Information about the solution propagates at finite velocities given by the eigenvalues of the Jacobeans. Hence, if the solution is known (in some spatial domain) at some given time, this fact can be used to advance the solution to some later time (initial value problem). However, in general, it is not possible to derive the exact solution for this problem. Instead one has to rely on numerical methods which provide an approximation to the solution. Moreover, these numerical methods must be able to handle discontinuous solutions, which are inherent to nonlinear hyperbolic systems.
The simplest initial value problem with discontinuous data is called a Riemann problem, where the onedimensional initial state consists of two constant states separated by a discontinuity. The majority of modern numerical methods, the socalled Godunovtype methods, are based on exact or approximate solutions of Riemann problems. Because of its theoretical and numerical importance, we discuss the solution of the special relativistic Riemann problem in the next Section 2.3.
2.3 Exact solution of the Riemann problem in SRHD
Let us first consider the onedimensional special relativistic flow of a perfect fluid in the absence of a gravitational field. The Riemann problem then consists of computing the breakup of a discontinuity, which initially separates two arbitrary constant states L (left) and R (right) in the fluid (see Figure 1 with L ≡ 1 and R ≡ 5). For classical hydrodynamics the solution can be found, e.g., in [62]. In the case of SRHD, the Riemann problem was considered by Martí and Müller [180], who derived an exact solution for the case of pure normal flow generalizing previous results for zero initial velocities [276]. More recently, Pons, Martí and Müller [234] have obtained the general solution in the case of nonzero tangential speeds.
Across the contact discontinuity the density exhibits a jump, whereas pressure and normal velocity are continuous (see Figure 1). As in the classical case, the selfsimilar character of the flow through rarefaction waves and the RankineHugoniot conditions across shocks provide the relations to link the intermediate states v_{S*} (S = L, R) with the corresponding initial states v_{S}. They also allow one to express the normal fluid flow velocity in the intermediate states (v _{S*} ^{ x} for the case of an initial discontinuity normal to the x axis) as a function of the pressure p_{S*} in these states.
In the case of relativistic hydrodynamics, the major difference to classical hydrodynamics stems from the role of tangential velocities. While in the classical case the decay of the initial discontinuity does not depend on the tangential velocity (which is constant across shock waves and rarefactions), in relativistic calculations the components of the flow velocity are coupled by the presence of the Lorentz factor in the equations. In addition, the specific enthalpy also couples with the tangential velocities, which becomes important in the thermodynamically ultrarelativistic regime.
Figure 2 shows the solution of a particular mildly relativistic Riemann problem for different values of the tangential velocity. The crossing point of any two lines in the upper panel gives the pressure and the normal velocity in the intermediate states. The range of possible solutions in the (p, v^{x})plane is marked by the shaded region. While the pressure in the intermediate state can take any value between P_{L} and P_{R}, the normal flow velocity can be arbitrarily close to zero in the case of an extremely relativistic tangential flow. The values of the tangential velocity in the states L_{*} and R_{*} are obtained from the value of the corresponding functions at v^{x} in the lower panel of Figure 2. The influence of initial left and right tangential velocities on the solution of a Riemann problem is enhanced in highly relativistic problems. We have computed the solution of one such problem (see Section 6.2.2 below, Problem 2) for different combinations of v _{L} ^{ t} and v _{R} ^{ t} . The initial data are p_{L} = 10^{3}, ρ_{L} = 1, v _{L} ^{ x} = 0; p_{R} = 10^{−2}, ρ_{R} = 1, v _{R} ^{ x} = 0, and the 9 possible combinations of v _{L,R} ^{ t} = 0, 0.9, 0.99. The results are given in Figure 3 and Table 1, and a complete discussion can be found in [234].
Solution of the relativistic Riemann problem at t = 0.4 with initial data p_{L} = 10^{3}, ρ_{L} = 1.0, v _{L} ^{ x} = 0.0, p_{R} = 10^{−2}, ρ_{R} = 1.0, and v _{R} ^{ x} = 0.0 for 9 different combinations of tangential velocities in the left (v _{L} ^{ t} ) and right (v _{R} ^{ t} ) initial state. An ideal EOS with γ = 5/3 was assumed. The various quantities in the table are: the density in the intermediate state left (ρ_{L*}) and right (ρ_{R*}) of the contact discontinuity, the pressure in the intermediate state (p_{*}), the flow speed in the intermediate state (v _{*} ^{ x} ), the speed of the shock wave (V_{s}), and the velocities of the head (ξ_{h}) and tail (ξ_{t}) of the rarefaction wave.
v _{L} ^{ t}  v _{R} ^{ t}  ρ _{L*}  ρ _{R*}  p _{*}  v _{*} ^{ x}  V _{s}  ξ _{h}  ξ _{t} 

0.00  0.00  9.16 × 10^{−2}  1.04 × 10^{+1}  1.86 × 10^{+1}  0.960  0.987  −0.816  +0.668 
0.00  0.90  1.51 × 10^{−1}  1.46 × 10^{+1}  4.28 × 10^{+1}  0.913  0.973  0.816  +0.379 
0.00  0.99  2.89 × 10^{−1}  4.36 × 10^{+1}  1.27 × 10^{+2}  0.767  0.927  −0.816  0.132 
0.90  0.00  5.83 × 10^{−3}  3.44 × 10^{+0}  1.89 × 10^{−1}  0.328  0.452  −0.525  +0.308 
0.90  0.90  1.49 × 10^{−2}  4.46 × 10^{+0}  9.04 × 10^{−1}  0.319  0.445  −0.525  +0.282 
0.90  0.99  5.72 × 10^{−2}  7.83 × 10^{+0}  8.48 × 10^{+0}  0.292  0.484  −0.525  +0.197 
0.99  0.00  1.99 × 10^{−3}  1.91 × 10^{+0}  3.16 × 10^{−2}  0.099  0.208  −0.196  +0.096 
0.99  0.90  3.80 × 10^{−3}  2.90 × 10^{+0}  9.27 × 10^{−2}  0.098  0.153  −0.196  +0.094 
0.99  0.99  1.29 × 10^{−2}  4.29 × 10^{+0}  7.06 × 10^{−1}  0.095  0.140  0.196  +0.085 
3 HighResolution ShockCapturing Methods

high order of accuracy,

stable and sharp description of discontinuities, and

convergence to the physically correct solution.
Moreover, HRSC methods are conservative, and because of their shock capturing property discontinuous solutions are treated both consistently and automatically whenever and wherever they appear in the flow.
As HRSC methods are written in conservation form, the time evolution of zone averaged state vectors is governed by some functions (the numerical fluxes) evaluated at zone interfaces. Numerical fluxes are mostly obtained by means of an exact or approximate Riemann solver, although symmetric schemes can also be implemented. High resolution is usually achieved by using monotonic polynomials in order to interpolate the approximate solutions within numerical cells.
Solving Riemann problems exactly involves timeconsuming computations, which are particularly costly in the case of multidimensional SRHD due to the coupling of the equations through the Lorentz factor (see Section 2.3). Therefore, as an alternative, the usage of approximate Riemann solvers has been proposed.
In remainder of this section we summarize the computation of the numerical fluxes in a number of methods for numerical SRHD. Methods based on exact Riemann solvers are discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, while those based on approximate solvers are discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. Symmetric schemes are also presented in Section 3.9. Readers not familiar with HRSC methods are referred to Section 9.5, where the basic properties of these methods as well as an outline of the recent developments are described. Let us note that the focus of our review are onedimensional versions of the numerical methods and algorithms. Multidimensional flow problems can be handled by standard means which are briefly reviewed in Section 9.5.
3.1 Relativistic PPM
The PPM interpolation algorithm described in [60] gives monotonic conservative parabolic profiles of variables within a numerical zone. In the relativistic version of PPM, the original interpolation algorithm is applied to zone averaged values of the primitive variables v = (p, ρ, v), which are obtained from zone averaged values of the conserved quantities u. For each zone j, the quartic polynomial with zone averaged values a_{j2}, a_{j1}, a_{j}, a_{j+1}, and a_{j+2} (where a = ρ, p, v) is used to interpolate the structure inside the zone. In particular, the values of a at the left and right interface of the zone, a_{L,j} and a_{R,j}, are obtained this way. These reconstructed values are then modified such that the parabolic profile, which is uniquely determined by a_{L,j}, a_{R,j} and a_{j}, is monotonic inside the zone.
The timeaveraged fluxes at an interface j + 1/2 separating zones j and j + 1 are computed from two spatially averaged states \({v_{j + \tfrac{1}{2},\text{L}}}\) and \({v_{j + \tfrac{1}{2},\text{R}}}\) at the left and right side of the interface, respectively. These left and right states are constructed taking into account the characteristic information reaching the interface from both sides during the time step. In the relativistic version of PPM the same procedure as in [60] has been followed, using the characteristic speeds and Riemann invariants of the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics. The results presented in [181] were obtained with an Eulerian code (rPPM) based on this method. The corresponding FORTRAN program rPPM is provided in Section 9.4.3. A relativistic Lagrangian version of the original PPM method in spherical coordinates and spherical symmetry has been developed by Daigne and Mochkovich [66].
3.2 Relativistic Glimm’s method
Wen et al. [295] have extended Glimm’s random choice method [104] to 1D SRHD. They developed a firstorder accurate hydrodynamic code combining Glimm’s method (using an exact Riemann solver) with standard finite difference schemes.
Besides being conservative on average, the main advantages of Glimm’s method are that it produces both completely sharp shocks and contact discontinuities, and that it is free of diffusion and dispersion errors.
Chorin [52] applied Glimm’s method to the numerical solution of homogeneous hyperbolic conservation laws. Colella [57] proposed an accurate procedure of randomly sampling the solution of local Riemann problems, and investigated the extension of Glimm’s method to two dimensions using operator splitting methods.
3.3 Twoshock approximation for relativistic hydrodynamics
This approximate Riemann solver is obtained from a relativistic extension of Colella’s method [57] for classical fluid dynamics, where it has been shown to handle shocks of arbitrary strength [57, 300]. In order to construct Riemann solutions in the twoshock approximation one analytically continues shock waves towards the rarefaction side (if present) of the zone interface instead of using an actual rarefaction wave solution. Thereby one gets rid of the coupling of the normal and tangential components of the flow velocity (see Section 2.3), and the remaining minor algebraic complications are the RankineHugoniot conditions across oblique shocks. Balsara [13] has developed an approximate relativistic Riemann solver of this kind by solving the jump conditions in the shocks’ rest frames in the absence of transverse velocities, after appropriate Lorentz transformations. Dai and Woodward [64] have developed a similar Riemann solver based on the jump conditions across oblique shocks making the solver more efficient.
Method  p _{*}  v _{*}  ρ _{L*}  ρ _{R*}  

Problem 1  B  1.440 × 10^{+0}  7.131 × 10^{−1}  2.990 × 10^{+0}  5.069 × 10^{+0} 
DW  1.440 × 10^{+0}  7.131 × 10^{−1}  2.990 × 10^{+0}  5.066 × 10^{+0}  
Exact  1.445 × 10^{+0}  7.137 × 10^{−1}  2.640 × 10^{+0}  5.062 × 10^{+0}  
Problem 2  B  1.543 × 10^{+1}  9.600 × 10^{−1}  7.325 × 10^{−2}  1.709 × 10^{+1} 
DW  1.513 × 10^{+1}  9.608 × 10^{−1}  7.254 × 10^{−2}  1.742 × 10^{+1}  
Exact  1.293 × 10^{+1}  9.546 × 10^{−1}  3.835 × 10^{−2}  1.644 × 10^{+1} 
3.4 Roetype relativistic solvers
Linearized Riemann solvers are based on the exact solution of Riemann problems of a modified system of conservation equations obtained by a suitable linearization of the original system. This idea was put forward by Roe [247], who developed a linearized Riemann solver for the equations of ideal (classical) gas dynamics. Eulderink et al. [83, 84] have extended Roe’s Riemann solver to the general relativistic system of equations in arbitrary spacetimes. Eulderink uses a local linearization of the Jacobian matrices of the system fulfilling the properties demanded by Roe in his original paper.
 1.
It constitutes a linear mapping from the vector space u to the vector space F.
 2.
As \({u_L} \to {u_R} \to u,\;\tilde {\mathcal{B}}({u_L},{u_R}) \to \mathcal{B}(u)\).
 3.
For any \(\tilde {\mathcal{B}}({u_L},{u_R})({u_R}  {u_L}) = F({u_R})  F({u_L})\).
 4.
The eigenvectors of \(\tilde {\mathcal{B}}\) are linearly independent.
Conditions 1 and 2 are necessary if one is to recover smoothly the linearized algorithm from the nonlinear version. Condition 3 (supposing Condition 4 is fulfilled) ensures that if a single discontinuity is located at the interface, then the solution of the linearized problem is the exact solution of the nonlinear Riemann problem.
Relaxing Condition 3 above, Roe’s solver is no longer exact for shocks but still produces accurate solutions. Moreover, the remaining conditions are fulfilled by a large number of averages. The 1D general relativistic hydrodynamic code developed by Romero et al. [249] uses flux formula (36) with an arithmetic average of the primitive variables at both sides of the interface. It has successfully passed a long series of tests including the spherical version of the relativistic shock reflection (see Section 6.1).
Roe’s original idea has been exploited in the socalled local characteristic approach (see, e.g., [307]). This approach relies on a local linearization of the system of equations by defining at each point a set of characteristic variables, which obey a system of uncoupled scalar equations. This approach has proven to be very successful, because it allows for the extension to systems of scalar nonlinear methods. Based on the local characteristic approach are the methods developed by Marquina et al. [176] and Dolezal and Wong [74], which both use highorder reconstructions of the numerical characteristic fluxes, namely PHM [176] and ENO [74] (see Section 9.5).
3.5 Falle and Komissarov upwind scheme
3.6 Relativistic HLL method (RHLLE)
An essential ingredient of the HLL scheme are good estimates for the smallest and largest signal velocities. In the nonrelativistic case, Einfeldt [81] proposed calculating them based on the smallest and largest eigenvalues of Roe’s matrix. The HLL scheme with Einfeldt’s recipe (HLLE) is a very robust upwind scheme for the Euler equations and possesses the property of being positively conservative. The HLLE method is exact for single shocks, but it is very dissipative, especially at contact discontinuities.
3.7 Artificial wind method
The fact that classical hydrodynamic equations are Galilean invariant (Lorentz invariant in the relativistic case) is exploited in the artificial wind (AW) method [264]. One chooses a reference frame where the flow through zone interfaces is always supersonic. This reduces the problem of upwinding to a trivial task (avoiding the need of any spectral decomposition of the flux Jacobians). In case of the global AW method, the choice of the reference frame is global, whereas in case of the local AW method an appropriate choice is made at every numerical interface which reduces the numerical diffusion. Explicit expressions for the velocities of the reference frames (AW velocities) are given to ensure stability and to reduce diffusion. The resulting expressions for the numerical flux coincide formally with those of the HLL method. In the differential AW method, AW velocities are chosen as low as possible for each of the intermediate states between contiguous numerical zones obtained using weighted linear interpolations.
3.8 Marquina’s flux formula
Godunovtype schemes are indeed very robust in most situations although they fail spectacularly on occasions. Reports on approximate Riemann solver failures and their respective corrections (usually a judicious addition of artificial dissipation) are abundant in the literature [238]. Motivated by the search for a robust and accurate approximate Riemann solver that avoids these common failures, Donat and Marquina [76] have extended a numerical flux formula, which was first proposed by Shu and Osher [260] for scalar equations, to systems of equations. In the scalar case and for characteristic wave speeds which do not change sign at the given numerical interface, Marquina’s flux formula is identical to Roe’s flux. Otherwise, the scheme switches to the more viscous, entropy satisfying local LaxFriedrichs scheme [260]. In the case of systems, the combination of Roe and localLaxFriedrichs solvers is carried out in each characteristic field after the local linearization and decoupling of the system of equations [76]. However, contrary to Roe’s and other linearized methods, the extension of Marquina’s method to systems is not based on any averaged intermediate state.
Martí et al. have used a version of Marquina’s method that applies the LaxFriedrichs flux to all fields (modified Marquina’s flux formula) in their simulations of relativistic jets [182, 183]. The resulting numerical code has been successfully used to describe ultrarelativistic flows in both one and two spatial dimensions with great accuracy (a large set of test calculations using Marquina’s Riemann solver can be found in Appendix II of [183]). Numerical experimentation in two dimensions confirms that the dissipation of the scheme is sufficient to eliminate the carbuncle phenomenon [238], which appears in high Mach number relativistic jet simulations when using other standard solvers [75]. 2D Simulations of relativistic AGN jets using Marquina’s flux formula have also been performed by Mizuta et al. [196], the code being secondorder accurate in space (MUSCL reconstruction [282]) and firstorder accurate in time. Aloy et al. [6] have implemented the modified Marquina flux formula in their threedimensional relativistic hydrodynamic code GENESIS. Font et al. [93] have developed a 3D general relativistic hydro code where the matter equations are integrated in conservation form and fluxes are calculated with Marquina’s formula.
3.9 Symmetric TVD, ENO schemes with nonlinear numerical dissipation
The methods discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 are all based on exact or approximate solutions of Riemann problems at cell interfaces in order to stabilize the discretization scheme across strong shocks. Another successful approach relies on the addition of nonlinear dissipation terms to standard finite difference methods. The algorithm of Davis [68] is based on such an approach. It can be interpreted as a LaxWendroff scheme with a conservative TVD dissipation term. The numerical dissipation term is local, free of problem dependent parameters and does not require any characteristic information. This last fact makes the algorithm extremely simple when applied to any hyperbolic system of conservation laws.
A relativistic version of Davis’ method has been used by Koide et al. [138, 136, 210] in 2D and 3D simulations of relativistic magnetohydrodynamic jets with moderate Lorentz factors. Although the results obtained are encouraging, the coarse grid zoning used in these simulations and the relative smallness of the beam flow Lorentz factor (4.56, beam speed ≈ 0.98c) does not allow for a comparison with Riemannsolverbased HRSC methods in the ultrarelativistic limit.

the use of point values instead of cell averages,

time integration with TVD RungeKutta methods, and

thirdorder accurate ENO reconstruction algorithm.
To preserve the symmetric property of the method, monotonic highorder numerical fluxes are computed at zone interfaces by means of centraltype Riemann solvers avoiding spectral decomposition (e.g., LaxFriedrichs numerical flux). The authors also test the Riemann solver of Harten, Lax, and van Leer within the framework of nonbiased Riemann solvers.
Recently, Anninos and Fragile [10] have developed a second order, nonoscillatory, central difference (NOCD) scheme for the numerical integration of the GRHD equations. The code uses MUSCLtype piecewise linear spatial interpolation to achieve secondorder accuracy in space. Secondorder accuracy in time is guaranteed by means of a predictorcorrector procedure. Symmetric numerical fluxes are evaluated after the predictor step. The results obtained in a series of challenging test problems (see Section 6) are encouraging.
4 Other Developments
4.1 Van Putten’s approach
The new state vector u(t, x) is then obtained from u_{1}*(t, x) by numerical differentiation. This process can lead to oscillations in the case of strong shocks and a smoothing algorithm should be applied. Details of this smoothing algorithm and of the numerical method in one and two spatial dimensions can be found in [286] together with results on a large variety of tests.
Van Putten has applied his method to simulate relativistic hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic jets with moderate flow Lorentz factors (< 4.25) [288, 291].
4.2 Relativistic SPH
Besides finite volume schemes, another completely different method is widely used in astrophysics for integrating the hydrodynamic equations. This method is Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics, or SPH for short [168, 102, 199]. The fundamental idea of SPH is to represent a fluid by a Monte Carlo sampling of its mass elements. The motion and thermodynamics of these mass elements is then followed as they move under the influence of the hydrodynamic equations. Because of its Lagrangian nature there is no need within SPH for explicit integration of the continuity equation, but in some implementations of SPH for certain reasons this is nevertheless done. As both the equation of motion of the fluid and the energy equation involve continuous properties of the fluid and their derivatives, it is necessary to estimate these quantities from the positions, velocities and internal energies of the fluid elements, which can be thought of as particles moving with the flow. This is done by treating the particle positions as a finite set of interpolating points, where the continuous fluid variables and their gradients are estimated by an appropriately weighted average over neighboring particles. Hence, SPH is a freeLagrange method, i.e., spatial gradients are evaluated without the use of a computational grid.
A comprehensive discussion of SPH can be found in the reviews of Hernquist and Katz [124], Benz [20], and Monaghan [198, 199]. The nonrelativistic SPH equations are briefly discussed in Section 9.6. The capabilities and limits of SPH are explored, e.g., in [269, 16, 167, 275], and the stability of the SPH algorithm is investigated in [271].
Special relativistic flow problems have been simulated with SPH by [151, 134, 172, 174, 53, 261]. Extensions of SPH capable of treating general relativistic flows have been considered by [134, 150, 261, 202, 204]. Concerning relativistic SPH codes the artificial viscosity is the most critical issue. It is required to handle shock waves properly, and ideally it should be predicted by a relativistic kinetic theory for the fluid. However, unlike its Newtonian analogue, the relativistic theory has not yet been developed to the degree required to achieve this.
For Newtonian SPH, Lattanzio et al. [155] have shown that a viscosity quadratic in the velocity divergence is necessary in high Mach number flows. They proposed a form such that the viscous pressure could be simply added to the fluid pressure in the equation of motion and the energy equation. As this simple form of the artificial viscosity has known limitations, they also proposed a more sophisticated form of the artificial viscosity terms, which leads to a modified equation of motion. This artificial viscosity works much better, but it cannot be generalized to the relativistic case in a consistent way. Utilizing an equation for the specific internal energy, both Mann [172] and Laguna et al. [150] use such an inconsistent formulation. Their artificial viscosity term is not included in the expression of the specific relativistic enthalpy. In a second approach, Mann [172] allows for a timedependent smoothing length and SPH particle mass, and further proposes an SPH variant based on the total energy equation. Lahy [151] and Siegler and Riffert [261] use a consistent artificial viscosity pressure added to the fluid pressure. Siegler and Riffert [261] have also formulated the hydrodynamic equations in conservation form (see also [202]).
Monaghan [200] incorporates concepts from Riemann solvers into SPH (see also [129]). For this reason he also proposes to use a total energy equation in SPH simulation instead of the commonly used internal energy equation, which would involve time derivatives of the Lorentz factor in the relativistic case. Chow and Monaghan [53] have extended this concept and have proposed an SPH algorithm, which gives good results when simulating an ultrarelativistic gas. In both cases the intention was not to introduce Riemann solvers into the SPH algorithm, but to use them as a guide to improve the artificial viscosity required in SPH. Multidimensional simulations of general relativistic flows (in a given timeindependent metric) using the SPH formulation of Monaghan and Price [202] and the SPH algorithm of Chow and Monaghan [53] have been performed by Muir [204].
In Roe’s Riemann solver [247], as well as in its relativistic variant proposed by Eulerdink [83, 84] (see Section 3.4), the numerical flux is computed by solving a locally linear system, and depends on both the eigenvalues and (left and right) eigenvectors of the Jacobian matrix associated to the fluxes and on the jumps in the conserved physical variables (see Equations (36) and (37)). Monaghan [200] realized that an appropriate form of the dissipative terms Π_{ab} and Ω_{ab} for the interaction between particles a and b can be obtained by treating the particles as the equivalent of left and right states taken with reference to the line joining the particles. The quantity corresponding to the eigenvalues (wave propagation speeds) is an appropriate signal velocity v_{sig} (see below), and that equivalent to the jump across characteristics is a jump in the relevant physical variable. For the artificial viscosity tensor, Π_{ab}, Monaghan [200] assumes that the jump in velocity across characteristics can be replaced by the velocity difference between a and b along the line joining them.
To determine the signal velocity, Chow and Monaghan [53] (and Monaghan [200] in the nonrelativistic case) start from the (local) eigenvalues, and hence the wave velocities (v ± C_{s})/(1 ± vc_{s}) and v of onedimensional relativistic hydrodynamic flows. Again considering particles a and b as the left and right states of a Riemann problem with respect to motions along the line joining the particles, the appropriate signal velocity is the speed of approach (as seen in the computing frame) of the signal sent from a towards b and that from b to a. This is the natural speed for the sharing of physical quantities, because when information about the two states meets it is time to construct a new state. This speed of approach should be used when determining the size of the time step by the Courant condition (for further details see [53]).
Chow and Monaghan [53] have demonstrated the performance of their Riemann problem guided relativistic SPH algorithm by calculating several shock tube problems involving ultrarelativistic speeds up to v = 0.9999. The algorithm gives good results, but finite volume schemes based on Riemann solvers give more accurate results and can handle even larger speeds (see Section 6).
4.3 Relativistic beam scheme
Sanders and Prendergast [253] proposed an explicit scheme to solve the equilibrium limit of the nonrelativistic Boltzmann equation, i.e., the Euler equations of Newtonian fluid dynamics. In their socalled beam scheme the Maxwellian velocity distribution function is approximated by several Dirac delta functions or discrete beams of particles in each computational cell, which reproduce the appropriate moments of the distribution function. The beams transport mass, momentum, and energy into adjacent cells, and their motion is followed to firstorder accuracy. The new (i.e., time advanced) macroscopic moments of the distribution function are used to determine the new local nonrelativistic Maxwell distribution in each cell. The entire process is then repeated for the next time step. The CFL stability condition requires that no beam of gas travels farther than one cell in one time step. This beam scheme, although being a particle method derived from a microscopic kinetic description, has all the desirable properties of modern characteristicbased wave propagating methods based on a macroscopic continuum description.
The nonrelativistic scheme of Sanders and Prendergast [253] has been extended to relativistic flows by Yang et al. [303]. They replaced the Maxwellian distribution function by its relativistic analogue, i.e., by the more complex Juttner distribution function, which involves modified Bessel functions. For threedimensional flows the Juttner distribution function is approximated by seven delta functions or discrete beams of particles, which can viewed as dividing the particles in each cell into seven distinct groups. In the local rest frame of the cell these seven groups represent particles at rest and particles moving in ±x, ±y, and ±z directions, respectively.
Yang et al. [303] show that the integration scheme for the beams can be cast into the form of an upwind conservation scheme in terms of numerical fluxes. They further show that the beam scheme not only splits the state vector but also the flux vectors, and has some entropysatisfying mechanism embedded as compared with an approximate relativistic Riemann solver [74, 256] based on Roe’s method [247]. The simplest relativistic beam scheme is only firstorder accurate in space, but can be extended to higherorder accuracy in a straightforward manner. Yang et al. consider three highorder accurate variants (TVD2, ENO2, ENO3) generalizing their approach developed in [304, 305] for Newtonian gas dynamics, which is based on the essentially nonoscillatory (ENO) piecewise polynomial reconstruction scheme of Harten et al. [120].
Yang et al. [303] present several numerical experiments including relativistic onedimensional shock tube flows and the simulation of relativistic twodimensional KelvinHelmholtz instabilities. The shock tube experiments consist of a mildly relativistic shock tube, relativistic shock heating of a cold flow, the relativistic blast wave interaction of Woodward and Colella [300] (see Section 6.2.3), and the perturbed relativistic shock tube flow of Shu and Osher [260].
5 Summary of Methods
Highresolution shockcapturing methods using characteristic information. All the codes rely on a conservation form of the RHD equations with the exception of [295].
Code  Basic characteristics 

Riemann solver of Roe type with arithmetic averaging; monotonicity preserving, linear reconstruction of primitive variables; secondorder time stepping ([179, 249]: predictorcorrector; [93]: standard scheme).  
RoeEulderink [83]  Linearized Riemann solver based on Roe averaging; secondorder accuracy in space and time. 
LCAphm [176]  Local linearization and decoupling of the system; PHM reconstruction of characteristic fluxes; thirdorder TVD preserving RK method for time stepping. 
LCAeno [74]  Local linearization and decoupling of the system; highorder ENO reconstruction of characteristic split fluxes; highorder TVD preserving RK methods for time stepping. 
rPPM [181]  Exact (ideal gas) Riemann solver; PPM reconstruction of primitive variables; secondorder accuracy in time by averaging states in the domain of dependence of zone interfaces. 
FalleKomissarov [89]  Approximate Riemann solver based on local linearizations of the RHD equations in primitive form; monotonic linear reconstruction of p, ρ, and u^{i}; secondorder predictorcorrector time stepping. 
Marquina flux formula for numerical flux computation; PPM reconstruction of primitive variables; second and thirdorder TVD preserving RK methods for time stepping.  
MFFeno/phm [75]  Marquina flux formula for numerical flux computation; upwind biased ENO/PHM reconstruction of characteristic fluxes; second and thirdorder TVD preserving RK methods for time stepping. 
MFFl [93]  Marquina flux formula for numerical flux computation; monotonic linear reconstruction of primitive variables; standard secondorder finite difference algorithms for time stepping. 
Flux split [93]  RTVD fluxsplit secondorder method. 
rGlimm [295]  RGlimm’s method applied to RHD equations in primitive form; firstorder accuracy in space and time. 
rBS [303]  Relativistic beam scheme solving equilibrium limit of relativistic Boltzmann equation; distribution function approximated by discrete beams of particles reproducing appropriate moments; first and secondorder TVD, secondorder and thirdorder ENO schemes. 
Highresolution shockcapturing methods avoiding the use of characteristic information.
Code  Basic characteristics 

RHLLE [256]  HartenLaxvan Leer approximate Riemann solver; monotonic linear reconstruction of conserved/primitive variables; secondorder accuracy in space and time. 
sTVD [138]  Davis (1984) symmetric TVD scheme with nonlinear numerical dissipation; secondorder accuracy in space and time. 
rAW [264]  Global and local (firstorder) and differential (secondorder) artificial wind methods. 
sCENO [71]  Symmetric firstorder numerical flux (HLL, local LaxFriedrichs); highorder (convex) ENO interpolation; secondorder and thirdorder TVD preserving RK methods for time stepping. 
NOCD [10]  Nonoscillatory central difference scheme; secondorder accuracy in space (MUSCLtype piecewise linear reconstruction) and time (two step predictor corrector methods). 
Code characteristics
Code  Basic characteristics 

Artificial viscosity  
Nonconservative formulation of the RHD equations (transport differencing, internal energy equation); artificial viscosity extra term in the momentum flux; monotonic secondorder transport differencing; explicit time stepping.  
cAVimplicit [213]  Nonconservative formulation of the RHD equations; internal energy equation; consistent formulation of artificial viscosity; adaptive mesh and implicit time stepping. 
cAVmono [10]  Nonconservative formulation of the RHD equations (transport differencing, internal energy equation); consistent bulk scalar and tensorial artificial viscosity; monotonic secondorder transport differencing; explicit time stepping. 
Flux corrected transport  
FCTlw [77]  Nonconservative formulation of the RHD equations (transport differencing, equation for ρhW); explicit secondorder LaxWendroff scheme with FCT algorithm. 
FCT algorithm based on SHASTA [33]; advection of conserved variables.  
van Putten’s approach  
van Putten [287]  Ideal RMHD equations in constraintfree, divergence form; evolution of integrated variational parts of conserved quantities; smoothing algorithm in numerical differentiation step; leapfrog method for time stepping. 
Smooth particle hydrodynamics  
SPHAV0  Specific internal energy equation; 
artificial viscosity extra terms in momentum and energy equations; secondorder time stepping ([172]: predictorcorrector; [150]: RK method).  
SPHAV1 [172] (SPH1)  Time derivatives in SPH equations include variations in smoothing length and mass per particle; Lorentz factor terms treated more consistently; otherwise same as SPHAV0. 
SPHAVc [172] (SPH2)  Total energy equation; otherwise same as SPHAV1. 
SPHcAVc [261]  RHD equations in conservation form; consistent formulation of artificial viscosity. 
SPHRSc [53]  RHD equations in conservation form; dissipation terms constructed in analogy to terms in Riemannsolver based methods. 
SPHRSgr [204]  GRSPH conservation equations [202]; dissipation terms as in [53]. 
6 Test Bench
6.1 Relativistic shock heating in planar, cylindrical and spherical geometry
Shock heating of a cold fluid in planar, cylindrical, or spherical geometry has been used since the early developments of numerical relativistic hydrodynamics as a test case for hydrodynamic codes, because it has an analytical solution ([26] in planar symmetry, [183] in cylindrical and spherical symmetry), and because it involves the propagation of a strong relativistic shock wave.
In the Newtonian case the compression ratio σ of shocked and unshocked gas cannot exceed a value of σ_{max} = (γ+1)/(γ1) independently of the inflow velocity. This is different for relativistic flows, where σ grows linearly with the flow Lorentz factor and becomes infinite as the inflowing gas velocity approaches to speed of light.
The maximum flow Lorentz factor achievable for a hydrodynamic code with acceptable errors in the compression ratio o is a measure of the code’s quality. Table 6 contains a summary of the results obtained for the shock heating test by various authors.
Explicit finite difference techniques based on a nonconservative formulation of the hydrodynamic equations and on nonconsistent artificial viscosity [50, 123, 10] (or even consistent artificial viscosity [10]) are able to handle flow Lorentz factors up to ≈ 10 with moderately large errors (σ_{error} ≈ 1–3%) at best [298, 187]. Norman and Winkler [213] got very good results (σ_{error} ≈ 0.01%) for a flow Lorentz factor of 10 using consistent artificial viscosity terms and an implicit adaptive mesh method.
Schneider et al. [256] have compared the accuracy of a code based on the RHLLE Riemann solver with different versions of relativistic FCT codes for inflow Lorentz factors in the range 1.5 to 50. They find that the error in a is reduced by a factor of two when using HLL. Further tests of the (1D) RHLLE method were performed by Rischke et al. [244, 246, 245] who considered expansion into vacuum, semiinfinite colliding slabs, and spherically and cylindrically symmetric expansions for equations of state for both thermodynamically normal and anomalous matter (see Section 7.3). In the latter two test cases RHLLE transport is done in the radial direction while corrections due to geometry are implemented via Sod’s method. Rischke et al. [244, 246] also present a detailed comparison of the RHLLE method and relativistic extensions [113] of fluxcorrected transport (FCT) algorithms [33, 35, 34]. They find that not all versions of the numerical algorithms explored in their investigation can be straightforwardly applied. Moreover, numerical parameters like the grid spacing or the antidiffusion coefficients (for FCT SHASTA) must be chosen with care, in order to produce solutions which are free of numerical artifacts. Studying the “slabonslab” collision test problem (up to flow Lorentz factors of 2.3) they particularly find [246] that analytical solutions are reproduced remarkably well with RHLLE and also with FCT SHASTA, provided the numerical diffusion is sufficiently large (i.e., when the antidiffusion in SHASTA is chosen sufficiently small).
Within SPH methods, Chow and Monaghan [53] have obtained results comparable to those of HRSC methods (σ_{error} < 2 × 10^{−3}) for flow Lorentz factors up to 70, using a relativistic SPH code with Riemann solver guided dissipation. Sieglert and Riffert [261] have succeeded in reproducing the postshock state accurately for inflow Lorentz factors of 1000 with a code based on a consistent formulation of artificial viscosity. However, the dissipation introduced by SPH methods at the shock transition is very large (10–12 particles in the code of [261]; 20–24 in the code of [53]) compared with the typical dissipation of HRSC methods (see below).
The performance of a HRSC method based on a relativistic Riemann solver is illustrated by means of an MPEG movie (Figure 6) for the planar shock heating problem for an inflow velocity v_{1} = −0.99999c (W_{1} ≈ 223). These results are obtained with the relativistic code rPPM used in [181] and provided in Section 9.4.3.
The shock wave is resolved by three zones and there are no postshock numerical oscillations. The density increases by a factor ≈ 900 across the shock. Near x = 0 the density distribution slightly undershoots the analytical solution (by ≈ 8%) due to the numerical effect of wall heating. The profiles obtained for other inflow velocities are qualitatively similar. The mean relative error of the compression ratio Uerror is smaller than 103, and, in agreement with other codes based on a Riemann solver, the accuracy of the results does not exhibit any significant dependence on the Lorentz factor of the inflowing gas. The quality of the results obtained with highorder symmetric schemes [10, 71] is similar.
Some authors have considered the problem of shock heating in cylindrical or spherical geometry using adapted coordinates to test the numerical treatment of geometrical factors [249, 183, 295]. Aloy et al. [6] have considered the spherically symmetric shock heating problem in 3D Cartesian coordinates as a test case for both the directional splitting and the symmetry properties of their code GENESIS. The code is able to handle this test up to inflow Lorentz factors of the order of 700.
Summary of relativistic shock heating test calculations by various authors in planar (α = 0), cylindrical (α = 1), and spherical (α = 2) geometry. W_{max} and σ_{error} are the maximum inflow Lorentz factor and compression ratio error extracted from tables and figures of the corresponding reference. W_{max} should only be considered as indicative of the maximum Lorentz factor achievable by the respective method. Methods are described in Sections 3 and 4, and their basic properties are summarized in Section 5 (Tables 3, 4, and 5).
References  α  Method  W _{max}  σ_{error} [%] 

Centrella and Wilson (1984) [50]  0  AVmono  2.29  ≈ 10 
Hawley et al. (1984) [123]  0  AVmono  4.12  ≈ 10 
Norman and Winkler (1986) [213]  0  cAVimplicit  10.0  0.01 
McAbee et al. (1989) [187]  0  AVmono  10.0  2.6 
Martí et al. (1991) [179]  0  Roe typel  23  0.2 
Marquina et al. (1992) [176]  0  LCAphm  70  0.1 
Eulderink (1993) [83]  0  RoeEulderink  625  ≤ 0.1^{a} 
Schneider et al. (1993) [256]  0  RHLLE  10^{6}  0.2^{b} 
0  SHASTAc  10^{6}  0.5^{b}  
Dolezal and Wong (1995) [74]  0  LCAeno  7.0 × 10^{5}  ≤ 0.1^{a} 
Martí and Müller (1996) [181]  0  rPPM  224  0.03 
Falle and Komissarov (1996) [89]  0  FalleKomissarov  224  ≤ 0.1^{a} 
Romero et al. (1996) [249]  2  Roe typel  2236  2.2 
Martí et al. (1997) [183]  1  MFFppm  70  1.0 
Chow and Monaghan (1997) [53]  0  SPHRSc  70  0.2 
Wen et al. (1997) [295]  2  rGlimm  224  10^{−9} 
Donat et al. (1998) [75]  0  MFFeno  224  ≤ 0.1^{a} 
Aloy et al. (1999) [6]  0  MFFppm  2.4 × 10^{5}  3.5^{c} 
Sieglert and Riffert (1999) [261]  0  SPHcAVc  1000  ≤ 0.1^{a} 
Del Zanna and Bucciantini (2002) [71]  0  sCENO  224  2.3^{d} 
Anninos and Fragile (2002) [10]  0  cAVmono  4.12  13.3 
0  NOCD  2.4 × 10^{5}  0.1 
6.2 Propagation of relativistic blast waves
Initial data (pressure p, density ρ, velocity v) for two common relativistic blast wave test problems. The decay of the initial discontinuity leads to a shock wave (velocity v_{shock}, compression ratio σ_{shock}) and the formation of a dense shell (velocity v_{shell}, timedependent width w_{shell}) both propagating to the right. The gas is assumed to be ideal with an adiabatic index γ = 5/3.
Problem 1  Problem 2  

Left  Right  Left  Right  
p  13.33  0.00  1000.00  0.01 
ρ  10.00  1.00  1.00  1.00 
v  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 
v _{shell}  0.72  0.960  
w _{shell}  0.11 t  0.026 t  
v _{shock}  0.83  0.986  
σ _{shock}  5.07  10.75 
Problem 1 was a demanding problem for relativistic hydrodynamic codes in the mideighties [50, 123], while Problem 2 is a challenge even for today’s stateoftheart codes. The analytical solution of both problems can be obtained with program RIEMANN (see Section 9.4).
6.2.1 Problem 1
In Problem 1, the decay of the initial discontinuity gives rise to a dense shell of matter with velocity v_{shell} = 0.72 (W_{shell} = 1.38) propagating to the right. The shell trailing a shock wave of speed v_{shock} = 0.83 increases its width w_{shell} according to w_{shell} = 0.11t, i.e., at time t = 0.4 the shell covers about 4% of the grid (0 ≤ x ≤ 1). Tables 8 and 9 give a summary of the references where this test was considered for nonHRSC and HRSC methods, respectively.
Using artificial viscosity techniques, Centrella and Wilson [50] were able to reproduce the analytical solution with a 7% overshoot in vshell, whereas Hawley et al. [123] found a 16% error in the shell density. However, when implementing a consistent formulation of artificial viscosity, like in the method developed by Anninos and Fragile [10], it is possible to capture the constant states in a stable manner and without noticeable errors (e.g., the shell density is underestimated by less than 2%).
The results obtained with early relativistic SPH codes [172] were affected by systematic errors in the rarefaction wave and the constant states, large amplitude spikes at the contact discontinuity, and large smearing. Smaller systematic errors and spikes are obtained with Laguna et al.’s (1993) code [150]. This code also leads to a large density overshoot in the shell. Much cleaner states are obtained with the methods of Chow and Monaghan (1997) [53] and Siegler and Riffert (1999) [261], both based on conservative formulations of the SPH equations. For Chow and Monaghan’s (1997) method [53] the spikes at the contact discontinuity disappear but at the cost of an excessive smearing. This smearing can also be observed in Muir [204] (see Figures 8 and 9), who used the general relativistic, conservative SPH formulation of Monaghan and Price [202], and the dissipation method of Chow and Monaghan [53] to simulate Problem 1 assuming a Minkowski spacetime. Generally speaking, shock profiles obtained with relativistic SPH codes are smeared out more than those computed with HRSC methods, the shocks modelled by SPH typically being covered by more than 10 zones.
Summary of references where the blast wave problem 1 (defined in Table 7) has been considered in 1D, 2D and, 3D, respectively. Methods are described in Sections 3 and 4, and their basic properties are summarized in Section 5 (Tables 3, 4, and 5). Note that CD stands for contact discontinuity.
References  Dim.  Method  Comments 

Centrella and Wilson (1984) [50]  1D  AVmono  Stable profiles without oscillations; velocity overestimated by 7%. 
Hawley et al. (1984) [123]  1D  AVmono  Stable profiles without oscillations; ρ shell overestimated by 16%. 
Dubal (1991)^{a} [77]  1D  FCTlw  10–12 zones at the CD; velocity overestimated by 4.5%. 
Mann (1991) [172]  1D  SPHAV0,1,2  Systematic errors in the rarefaction wave and the constant states; large amplitude spikes at the CD; excessive smearing at the shell. 
Laguna et al. (1993) [150]  1D  SPHAV0  Large amplitude spikes at the CD; ρ_{shell} overestimated by 5%. 
van Putten (1993)^{b} [287]  1D  van Putten  Stable profiles; excessive smearing, especially of the CD (≈ 50 zones). 
Schneider et al. (1993) [256]  1D  SHASTAc  Nonmonotonic intermediate states; ρ_{shell} underestimated by 10% with 200 zones. 
Chow and Monaghan (1997) [53]  1D  SPHRSc  Monotonic profiles; excessive smearing of CD and shock. 
Siegler and Riffert (1999) [261]  1D  SPHcAVc  Correct constant states; large amplitude spikes at the CD; excessive smearing of shock. 
Muir (2002) [204]  1D, 3D  SPHRSgr  Monotonic profiles; excessive smearing of CD and shock. 
Anninos and Fragile (2002) [10]  1D, 3D  cAVmono  Stable profiles without oscillations; correct constant states. 
Summary of references where the blast wave Problem 1 (defined in Table 7) has been considered in 1D, 2D, and 3D, respectively. Methods are described in Sections 3 and 4, and their basic properties are summarized in Section 5 (Tables 3, 4, and 5). Note that CD stands for contact discontinuity.
References  Dim.  Method  Comments^{a} 

Eulderink (1993) [83]  1D  RoeEulderink  Correct ρ_{shell} with 500 zones; 4 zones in CD. 
Schneider et al. (1993) [256]  1D  RHLLE  ρ_{shell} underestimated by 10% with 200 zones. 
Martí and Müller (1996) [181]  1D  rPPM  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 6 zones in CD. 
Martí et al. (1997) [183]  1D, 2D  MFFppm  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 6 zones in CD. 
Wen et al. (1997) [295]  1D  rGlimm  No diffussion at discontinuities. 
Yang et al. (1997) [303]  1D  rBS  Stable profiles. 
Donat et al. (1998) [75]  1D  MFFeno  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 8 zones in CD. 
Aloy et al. (1999) [6]  3D  MFFppm  Correct ρ_{shell} with \(\sqrt 3 \) zones; 2 zones in CD. 
Font et al. (1999) [93]  1D, 3D  MFFl  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 12–14 zones in CD. 
1D, 3D  Roe typel  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 12–14 zones in CD.  
1D, 3D  Flux split  ρ_{shell} overestimated by 5%; 8 zones in CD.  
Del Zanna and Bucciantini (2002)  1D  sCENO  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 6 zones in CD. 
Anninos and Fragile (2002)  1D, 3D  NOCD  Correct ρ_{shell} with 400 zones; 14 zones in CD. 
6.2.2 Problem 2
Problem 2 was first considered by Norman and Winkler [213]. The flow pattern is similar to that of Problem 1, but more extreme. Relativistic effects reduce the postshock state to a thin dense shell with a width of only about 1% of the grid length at t = 0.4. The fluid in the shell moves with vshell = 0.960 (i.e., W_{shell} = 3.6), while the leading shock front propagates with a velocity v_{shock} = 0.986 (i.e., W_{shock} = 6.0). The jump in density in the shell reaches a value of 10.6. Norman and Winkler [213] obtained very good results with an adaptive grid of 400 zones using an implicit hydrodynamics code with artificial viscosity. Their adaptive grid algorithm placed 140 zones of the available 400 zones within the blast wave, thereby accurately capturing all features of the solution.
Summary of references where the blast wave problem 2 (defined in Table 7) has been considered. Shock compression ratios or are evaluated for runs with 400 numerical zones and at t ≈ 0.40, unless otherwise established. Methods are described in Sections 3 and 4, and their basic properties are summarized in Section 5 (Tables 3, 4, and 5).
References  Method  σ/σ_{exact} 

Norman and Winkler (1986) [213]  cAVimplicit  1.00 
Dubal (1991) [77]^{a}  FCTlw  0.80 
Martí et al. (1991) [179]  Roe type1  0.53 
Marquina et al. (1992) [176]  LCAphm  0.64 
Martí and Müller (1996) [181]  rPPM  0.68 
Falle and Komissarov (1996) [89]  FalleKomissarov  0.47 
Wen et al. (1997) [295]  rGlimm  1.00 
Chow and Monaghan (1997) [53]  SPHRSc  1.16^{b} 
Donat et al. (1998) [75]  MFFphm  0.60 
Del Zanna and Bucciantini (2002) [71]  sCENO  0.69 
Anninos and Fragile (2002) [10]  cAVmono  1.40 
NOCD  0.67^{c} 
Chow and Monaghan [53] have considered Problem 2 to test their relativistic SPH code. Besides a 15% overshoot in the shell’s density, the code produces a noncausal blast wave propagation speed (i.e., v_{shock} > 1).
Anninos and Fragile [10] have considered Problem 2 as a test case for their artificialviscosity based, explicit codes. They find a 40% overshoot in the shock density contrast. This demonstrates that the extra coupling introduced in the equations when using a consistent formulation of the artificial viscosity requires the usage of implicit algorithms.
6.2.3 Collision of two relativistic blast waves
The collision of two strong blast waves was used by Woodward and Colella [300] to compare the performance of several numerical methods in classical hydrodynamics. In the relativistic case, Yang et al. [303] considered this problem to test the highorder extensions of the relativistic beam scheme, whereas Martí and Müller [181] used it to evaluate the performance of their relativistic PPM code. In this last case, the original boundary conditions were changed (from reflecting to outflow) to avoid the reflection and subsequent interaction of rarefaction waves allowing for a comparison with an analytical solution. In the following we summarize the results on this test obtained by Martí and Müller in [181].
Initial data (pressure p, density ρ, velocity v) for the two relativistic blast wave collision test problem. The decay of the initial discontinuities (at x = 0.1 and x = 0.9) produces two shock waves (velocitis v_{shock}, compression ratios σ_{shock}) moving in opposite directions followed by two trailing dense shells (velocities v_{shell}, timedependent widths w_{shell}). The gas is assumed to be ideal with an adiabatic index γ = 1.4.
Left  Middle  Right  

p  1000.00  0.01  100.00  
ρ  1.00  1.0  1.00  
v  0.00  0.00  0.00  
v _{shell}  0.957  −0.882  
w _{shell}  0.021 t  0.045 t  
v _{shock}  0.978  −0.927  
σ _{shock}  14.39  9.72 
The collision gives rise to a narrow region of very high density (see lower panel of Figure 13) bounded by two shocks moving at speeds 0.088 (shock at the left) and 0.703 (shock at the right) and large compression ratios (7.26 and 12.06, respectively) well above the classical limit for strong shocks (6.0 for γ = 1.4). The solution just described applies until t = 0.430, when the next interaction takes place.
The complete analytical solution before and after the collision up to time t = 0.430 can be obtained following Appendix II in [181].
The presence of very narrow structures involving large density jumps requires very fine zoning to resolve the states properly. For the movie a grid of 4000 equidistant zones was used. The relative error in the density of the left (right) shell is always less than 2.0% (0.6%), and is about 1.0% (0.5%) at the moment of shock collision. Profiles obtained with the relativistic Godunov method (firstorder accurate, not shown) show relative errors in the density of the left (right) shell of about 50% (16%) at t = 0.20. The errors drop only slightly to about 40% (5%) at the time of collision (t = 0.420).
7 Applications
7.1 Astrophysical jets
The most compelling case for a special relativistic phenomenon are the ubiquitous jets in extragalactic radio sources associated with active galactic nuclei. In the commonly accepted standard model [17], flow velocities as large as 99% of the speed of light (and in some cases even beyond) are required to explain the apparent superluminal motion observed at parsec scales in many of these sources. Models which have been proposed to explain the formation of relativistic jets involve accretion onto a compact central object, such as a neutron star or stellar mass black hole in the galactic microquasars GRS 1915+105 [195] and GRO J165540 [277], or a rotating supermassive black hole in an active galactic nucleus, which is fed by interstellar gas and gas from tidally disrupted stars.
Inferred jet velocities close to the speed of light suggest that jets are formed within a few gravitational radii of the event horizon of the black hole. Moreover, verylongbaseline interferometric (VLBI) radio observations reveal that jets are already collimated at subparsec scales [133, 178]. Current theoretical models assume that accretion disks are the source of the bipolar outflows which are further collimated and accelerated via MHD processes [41, 48, 190]. There is a large number of parameters which are potentially important for jet powering: the black hole mass and spin, the accretion rate and the type of accretion disk, the properties of the magnetic field and of the environment [193, 189].
At parsec scales, the jets, observed via their synchrotron and inverse Compton emission at radio frequencies with VLBI imaging, appear to be highly collimated with a bright spot (the core) at one end of the jet and a series of components which separate from the core, sometimes at superluminal speeds [108]. In the standard model [25], these speeds are interpreted as a consequence of relativistic bulk motions in jets propagating at small angles to the line of sight with Lorentz factors up to 20 or more. Moving components in these jets, usually preceded by outbursts in emission at radio wavelengths, are interpreted in terms of traveling shock waves [177].
Finally, the morphology and dynamics of jets at kiloparsec scales are dominated by the interaction of the jet with the surrounding extragalactic medium, the jet power being responsible for dichotomic morphologies [38] (the so called FanaroffRiley I and II classes [90], FR I and FR II, respectively). While current models [22, 152] interpret FR I morphologies as the result of a smooth deceleration from relativistic to nonrelativistic, transonic speeds on kiloparsec scales due to a slower shear layer, flux asymmetries between jets and counterjets in the most powerful radio galaxies (FR II) and quasars indicate that relativistic motion extends up to kiloparsec scales in these sources, although with smaller values of the overall bulk speeds [37]. The detection of strong Xray emission from jets at large scales (0.1–1 Mpc; e.g., PKS0637752 [51]) by the Chandra satellite, interpreted as scattered CMB radiation [49], bears additional support to the hypothesis of relativistic bulk speeds on these scales.
Although MHD and general relativistic effects seem to be crucial for a successful launch of the jet, purely hydrodynamic, special relativistic simulations are adequate to study the morphology and dynamics of relativistic jets at distances sufficiently far from the central compact object (i.e., at parsec scales and beyond). The development of relativistic hydrodynamic codes based on HRSC techniques (see Sections 3 and 4) has triggered the numerical simulation of relativistic jets at parsec and kiloparsec scales.
The linear stability analysis of relativistic flows against KelvinHelmholtz perturbations goes back to the seventies (see [23] for a review). Nowadays, the combination of hydrodynamical simulations and linear stability analysis has provided another step towards the comprehension of relativistic jets in extragalactic sources and microquasars. It is widely accepted that most of the features (even the large amplitude ones) observed in real jets admit an interpretation in terms of the growth of KelvinHelmholtz normal modes. This linear stability analysis has been succesfully applied to probe the physical conditions in the jets of several sources (e.g., S5 0836+710 [165], 3C273 [166], 3C120 [294]; see also the introduction of [118]). In [119, 251], the internal structures found in a set of relativistic axisymmetric kiloparsec jet simulations were analyzed. In the context of steady, parsec scale jets, a combination of linear stability analysis and axisymmetric hydrodynamical simulations has been used to predict the existence of fine structure appearing in the wake of superluminal components [3], later discovered in 3C120 [107]. Finally, in [117, 118] the analysis is extended to the threedimensional structures generated in steady jets by precession and focussing on the distributions of internal energy density and flow velocity.
Magnetohydrodynamic simulations of relativistic jets have been performed in 2D [138, 136] and 3D [209, 210] to study the implications of ambient magnetic fields in the morphology and bending properties of relativistic jets. However, despite the impact of these results on specific problems like, e.g., the understanding of the misalignment of jets between parsec and kiloparsec scales, these 3D simulations have not addressed the effects on the jet structure and dynamics of the third spatial degree of freedom. This has been the aim of the work of Aloy et al. [5] and Hughes et al. [128]. The latter authors have also used their threedimensional code to study the deflection and precession of relativistic flows when impinging on an oblique density gradient.
Finally, Koide et al. [140, 141] have developed a general relativistic MHD code and applied it to the problem of jet formation from (Schwarzschild and Kerr) black hole accretion disks in the context of Blandford and Payne’s mechanism [27]. In the case of jets from Schwarzschild black holes [139], jets are formed with a twolayered shell structure consisting of a fast gas pressure driven jet (Lorentz factor ≈ 2) in the inner part and a slow magnetically driven outflow in the outer part, both of which are being collimated by the global poloidal magnetic field penetrating the disk. In the case of counterrotating disks around Kerr black holes [137], a new powerful magnetically driven jet is formed inside the gas pressure driven jet. This jet is accelerated by a strong magnetic field created by frame dragging in the black hole ergosphere. Through this process, the magnetic field extracts the energy from the black hole corroborating Blandford and Znajek’s mechanism [28]. The same authors [142] have further explored this second mechanism for jet formation in the case of a Kerr black hole at maximal rotation immersed in a uniform, magnetically dominated corona with no disk. The magnetic field lines across the ergosphere are twisted by frame dragging. The line twist propagates outwards as a torsional Alfven wave train carrying electromagnetic energy and leading to the generation of a Poynting flux jet. Using a 3D GRMHD code, Nishikawa et al. [211] have investigated the dynamics of a freely falling corona and of a Keplerian accretion disk around a Schwarzschild black hole. The disk and the corona are threaded by a uniform poloidal magnetic field. The magnetic field is tightly twisted by the rotation of the disk, and plasma in the corona is accelerated by the Lorentz force to form bipolar relativistic jets as in previous simulations assuming axisymmetry.
Finally, let us note that direct numerical simulations of the Blandford and Znajek mechanism have been undertaken by Komissarov [145], solving the time dependent equations of (forcefree, de generate) electrodynamics in a Kerr black hole magnetosphere. The equations are hyperbolic [146] and are solved by means of a Godunov type method.
7.2 Gammaray bursts (GRBs)
A second phenomenon which involves flows with velocities very close to the speed of light are gammaray bursts (GRBs). Although known observationally since over 30 years, their nature is still a matter of controversial debate. GRBs do not repeat except for a few soft gammaray repeaters. They are detected with a rate of about one event per day, and their duration varies from milliseconds to minutes. The duration of the shorter bursts and the temporal substructure of the longer bursts imply a geometrically small source (less than ∼ c · 1 msec ∼ 100 km), which in turn points towards compact objects like neutron stars or black holes. The emitted gammarays have energies in the range 30 keV to 2 MeV, the spectra being nonthermal (for recent reviews see, e.g., [45, 73, 192, 224, 225, 226].
Concerning the distance of GRB sources, major progress has first occurred through the observations by the BATSE detector on board the Compton GammaRay Observatory (GRO), which have proven that GRBs are distributed isotropically over the sky [188]. However, until 1997 no counterparts (quiescent as well as transient) could be found, and observations did not provide a direct measurement of their distance. Then, in 1997, the detection and the rapid availability of accurate coordinates (∼ arcminutes) of the fading Xray counterparts of GRBs by the ItalianDutch BeppoSAX spacecraft [61, 228] has allowed for subsequent successful ground based observations of faint GRB afterglows at optical [283], millimeter [36], and radio [94] wavelengths (for a review see, e.g., [284]). In case of GRB 990123, the optical, Xray, and gammaray emission was detected for the first time almost simultaneously (optical observations began 22 seconds after the onset of the GRB) [39, 4]. Updated information on GRBs which have been localized within a few hours to days to less than 1 degree by various instruments and procedures can be obtained from a web site maintained by Greiner [116].
As of June 2002, the distances of about two dozen gammaray bursts have been determined from optical spectra of the GRB afterglows and/or of the GRB host galaxies (for an overview see [116]). The observed redshifts confirm that (probably most) GRBs occur at cosmological distances.
Assuming isotropic emission, the inferred total energy of cosmological GRBs emitted in form of gammarays ranges from 5 × 10^{51} erg to about 10^{54} erg, the record presently being held by GRB 990123 with 1.44 × 10^{54} erg [29, 95]. The median bolometric isotropic equivalent prompt energy release is 2.2 × 10^{53} erg, with an rms scatter of 0.80 dex [29].
In April 1998, the pure cosmological origin of GRBs was challenged by the detection of the Type Ib/c supernova SN 1998bw [98, 99] within the 8 arcminute error box of GRB 980425 [263, 222]. Its explosion time is consistent with that of the GRB, and relativistic expansion velocities are derived from radio observations of SN 1998bw [149]. BeppoSAX detected two fading Xray sources within the error box, one being positionally consistent with the supernova and a fainter one not consistent with the position of SN 1998bw [222]. As the host galaxy ESO 18482 of SN 1998bw is only at a redshift of z = 0.0085 [278], it was not difficult to study and analyze this particular GRB/supernova.
Assuming isotropic emission the total energy radiated by GRB 980425 in form of gammarays is only 7 × 10^{47} erg [44], i.e., more than four orders of magnitude smaller than that of a typical cosmological GRB. The optical spectra and light curve of the associated supernova SN 1998bw can be modelled very well by an unusually energetic explosion (kinetic energy of the ejectg (2–5) × 10^{52} erg) of a massive star composed mainly of carbon and oxygen, i.e., by a very energetic SNe Ib/c [99, 131, 302]. Thus, Iwamoto et al. [131] called SN 1998bw a hypernova, a name which was originally proposed by Paczyński [217] for very luminous GRB/afterglow events.
As of June 2002, besides SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 two other SNGRB associations have been discovered: SN 1997cy/GRB 970514 [101, 281] and SN 2001ke/GRB 011121 [100, 31, 237]. In addition, several other hypernovae have been observed (see, e.g., [186, 185]) where no associated GRB has been detected, while several other GRBs show indirect evidence for an association with a supernova like, e.g., a deviation from a powerlaw decline of the afterglow light curve (see e.g., [30]) or the presence of metalenriched circumburst matter at high velocity (∼ 0.1c) [239]. Hence, observational data show evidence for an association (of at least a subclass) of GRBs with type Ib/Ic core collapse supernovae resulting from the death of a massive star with a rich circumburst medium fed by the massloss wind of the progenitor.
The redshift measurements of GRBs imply isotropic gammaray energy releases approaching ∼ 10^{54} erg. To find an astrophysical site producing such a huge amount of gammaray energy within a few tenth of seconds or in an even shorter time poses a severe problem for any theoretical GRB model. However, this problem could be eased considerably, if the radiation from GRBs is strongly beamed. And indeed, there exists observational evidence that the gammaray and afterglow radiation of (some) GRBs is not emitted isotropically, but may be beamed (for a review see, e.g., [73]). In particular, the rapid temporal decay of several GRB afterglows is inconsistent with spherical (isotropic) blast wave models, and instead is more consistent with the evolution of a relativistic conical flow or jet after it slows down and spreads laterally [254].
Using all GRB afterglows with known distances (as of January 2001), Frail et al. [95] derived their conical opening angles. These show a wide variation (2° to 20°) reflecting the observed broad distribution in fluence and luminosity for GRBs. Taking the corrected emission geometry into ac count, Frail et al. find that the gammaray energy release is narrowly clustered around 5 × 10^{50} erg, i.e., the central engines of GRBs release energies that are comparable to ordinary supernovae. A similar conclusion can be derived by estimating the fireball energy based on Xray afterglow observations [96], and by modeling the broadband emission of wellobserved afterglows [218].
The compact nature of the GRB source, the observed fluxes and the cosmological distance taken together imply a very large photon density in the gammaray emitting fireball, and hence a large optical depth for pair production. This is, however, inconsistent with the optically thin source indicated by the nonthermal gammaray spectrum, which extends well beyond the pair production threshold at 500 keV. This problem can be resolved by assuming an ultrarelativistic expansion of the emitting region, which eliminates the compactness constraint. The bulk Lorentz factors required are then W > 100 (for reviews see, e.g., [224, 226, 192]).
In order to explain the existence of highly relativistic outflow and the energies released in a GRB, various catastrophic collapse events have been proposed including neutronstar/neutronstar mergers [216, 111, 80], neutronstar/blackhole mergers [197], and collapsars and hypernovae [217, 301, 169, 170]. These models all rely on a common engine, namely a stellar mass black hole which accretes several solar masses of matter from a disk (formed during a merger or by a nonspherical core collapse) at a rate of ∼ 1 M_{⊙} s^{−1} [235]. A fraction of the gravitational binding energy released by accretion is converted into neutrino and antineutrino pairs, which in turn annihilate into electronpositron pairs. This creates a pair fireball, which will also include baryons present in the environment surrounding the black hole. Provided the baryon load of the fireball is not too large, the baryons are accelerated together with the e^{}/e^{+} pairs to ultrarelativistic speeds with Lorentz factors > 10^{2} [46, 227, 224] .

A compact source, which is opaque to gammarays and which cannot be observed directly, produces a relativistic energy flow.

The energy is transfered by means of a highly irregular flow of relativistic particles (or less likely by Poynting flux) from the compact source to distances larger than ∼ 10^{13} cm where the flow becomes optically thin.

The relativistic flow is slowed down and its bulk kinetic energy is converted into internal energy of accelerated nonthermal particles, which in turn emit the observed gammarays via cyclotron radiation and/or inverse Compton processes. The dissipation of kinetic energy either occurs through external shocks arising due to the interaction of the flow with circumburst matter, or through internal shocks arising when faster shells overtake slower ones inside the irregular outflow (internalexternal shock scenario).
Onedimensional numerical simulations of spherically symmetric relativistic fireballs from GRB sources have been performed by several authors [227, 219, 135, 66, 273]. Panaitescu et al. [219] modelled the interaction between an expanding adiabatic fireball and a stationary external medium whose density is either homogeneous or varies with distance according to a power law. They used a hybrid code based on standard Eulerian finite difference techniques in most of the computational domain and a Glimm algorithm including an exact Riemann solver in regions where discontinuities are present [295]. They simulated the evolution until most of the fireball’s kinetic energy was converted into internal energy. Kobayashi et al. [135] studied the evolution of an adiabatic relativistic fireball expanding into a cold uniform medium using a relativistic Lagrangian code based on a secondorder Godunov method with an exact Riemann solver. They simulated the initial free expansion and acceleration of the fireball, its coasting, and deceleration to nonrelativistic velocities. Daigne and Mochkovitch [66] used a Lagrangian hydrodynamics code based on relativistic PPM [60, 181] (extended by them to spherical symmetry) to simulate the evolution of internal shocks in a relativistic wind with a very inhomogeneous initial distribution of the Lorentz factor. Tan et al. [273] investigated the acceleration of shock waves to relativistic velocities in the outer layers of exploding stars. By concentrating the energy of the explosion in the outermost ejecta, such transrelativistic blast waves can serve as the progenitors of GRBs. For their study they developed a relativistic 1D Lagrangian hydrodynamics code based on an exact Riemann solver [181].
Zhang, Woosley, and MacFadyen [308] performed a parameter study of the propagation of 2D relativistic jets through the stellar progenitor of a collapsar by varying the initial Lorentz factor, opening angle, power, and internal energy of the jet as well as the radius where it is introduced. They find, in agreement with Aloy et al. [7], that relativistic jets are collimated by their passage through the stellar mantle, and that the jet has a moderate Lorentz factor and very large internal energy when it emerges from the star. Zhang et al. [308] also simulated the evolution after the escape of the jet. During this phase, conversion of the internal energy leads to a further acceleration of the jet, thereby boosting its Lorentz factor to a terminal value of approximately 150 for the initial conditions chosen.
Granot et al. [114, 115] performed 2D and 3D relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of the deceleration and lateral expansion of an adiabatic relativistic jet with an initial Lorentz factor of 23.7 as it expands into an ambient medium. The hydrodynamic calculations used an adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) code. They found that the sideways propagation is different than predicted by simple analytic models. The physical conditions at the sides of the jet are significantly different from those at the front of the jet, and most of the emission occurs within the initial opening angle of the jet assumed to be 0.2 radians.
7.3 Relativistic heavy ion collisions (RHIC)
Special relativistic “flows” are also encountered in heavy ion collision experiments where heavy ions (of mass number A) are accelerated up to ultrarelativistic velocities and collided with one another. Heavy ion collisions are the only means to compress and heat up nuclear matter in the laboratory, and to prove the existence of the quarkgluon plasma predicted by quantum chromodynamics [56, 63]. They also provide a terrestrial possibility to test the solutions of relativistic fluid dynamics, and to gain important information relevant for different areas of astrophysics like, e.g., the early universe, neutron stars, and supernova explosions. A discussion of the experimental and theoretical methods and results of RHIC is far beyond the scope of this review. Thus, we will address here only some issues related to numerical simulations of RHIC by means of relativistic hydrodynamics.
The compressibility and other basic properties of the nuclear equation of state, phase transitions in nuclear matter, and nuclear interactions can be studied in relativistic heavy ion reactions at beam energies in the range of 100A MeV to 10A GeV. In order to search for the existence of the quarkgluon plasma, ultrarelativistic heavy ion collision experiments with beam energies exceeding l0AGeV must be performed [56]. Up to low ultrarelativistic energies baryons stemming from the projectile and the target are fully or partly stopped by each other forming a baryon rich matter in the center of the reaction zone. This regime is called the stopping energy region. At even larger energies the theorectical expectation is that the (initial) baryon charge of the target and projectile is so far apart in phase space that it cannot be slowed down completely during the heavy ion collision. In this socalled transparent energy regime the quanta carrying the baryon charge will essentially keep their initial velocities, i.e., the center of the reaction zone will be almost baryon free. However, much energy will be deposited in this baryon free region, and the resulting large energy density matter may form a quarkgluon plasma.

many degrees of freedom in the system,

a short mean free path,

short mean stopping length,

sufficient reaction time for thermal equilibrium, and

a short de Broglie wavelength.
The first condition is satisfied reasonably well when there are many nucleons involved in the collision and when pion production or resonance excitations become important, i.e., for almost central collisions of sufficiently heavy and energetic ions. The mean free path of a nucleon in nuclear matter scales inversely with the nucleonnucleon cross section, and is about ∼ 0.3 fm at a bombarding energy of 200 MeV, which is short compared to the radii of heavy nuclei. However, the mean free path increases with energy. The average distance it takes for a nucleon in nuclear matter to dissipate its kinetic energy is called the mean stopping length. At 200 MeV a nucleon will penetrate about 2 fm into a nucleus. But at larger energies the mean stopping length may exceed the nuclear radius (there exist effects both increasing and decreasing the mean stopping length [56]), i.e., the colliding nuclei will appear partially or nearly transparent to one another. Modifications to the hydrodynamic equations are then necessary. The establishment of local thermal equilibrium seems to be reasonably well satisfied in heavy ion collisions. Finally, at bombarding energies of interest the de Broglie wavelength is about 2 fm or smaller, which is small compared to the nuclear radius.
Hydrodynamic simulations of heavy ion collisions are complicated by additional physical and numerical issues [56, 63]. We will mention only a few of these issues here.
Since ideal hydrodynamics assumes that matter is in local thermal equilibrium at every instant, colliding fluid elements are forced by momentum conservation to instantaneously stop and by energy conservation to convert all their kinetic energy into thermal energy. Thus, when immediate complete stopping is not achieved at large beam energies, nonideal hydrodynamics must be considered (see, e.g., Elze et al. [82]). However, the viability of nonideal hydrodynamics as a causal theory is still a matter of debate, and there are still open questions concerning the proper relativistic generalization [56, 125]. In the ultrarelativistic regime, where the stopping power becomes very low, matter in the high energy density, baryonfree central region is supposed to establish local thermal equilibrium within a (proper) time of order 1 fm/c, i.e., the subsequent evolution can be described by ideal hydrodynamics.
Numerical algorithms for RHIC must scope with the presence of (almost) vacuum in the baryonfree central region. This can cause problems due to erroneous (i.e., numerical) acausal transport of matter [244]. Another challenge is posed by the phase transition to the quarkgluon plasma, which is usually assumed to be of first order. Matter undergoing a firstorder phase transition may exhibit thermodynamically anomalous behaviour (changes in the convexity of isentropes) which can cause important consequences for the wave structure of the hydrodynamic equations leading to nonuniqueness of solutions of Riemann problems (see Section 9.1).
The performance of numerical algorithms for RHIC (RHLLE and FCT SHASTA) in the presence of vacuum and for thermodynamically anomalous matter were systematically explored by Rischke et al. [244, 246].
8 Conclusion
8.1 Evaluation of the methods

the accuracy and robustness in describing high Lorentz factor flows with strong shocks,

the effort required to extend to multidimensions, and

the effort required to extend to RMHD and GRHD.
Evaluation of numerical methods for SRHD. Methods have been categorized for clarity.
Method  Ultrarelativistic  Handling of  Extension to several  Extension to  

regime  discontinuities^{a}  spatial dimensions^{b}  GRHD  RMHD  
(c)AVmono  ×^{c}  O, SE  ✓  ✓  ✓ 
cAVimplicit  ✓  ✓  ×  ×  × 
RSHRSC^{d}  ✓  ✓  ✓^{e}  ✓^{f}  ×^{g} 
rGlimm  ✓  ✓  ×  ×  × 
SymHRSC  ✓  ✓  ✓  ✓^{h}  ✓ 
van Putten  ✓^{i}  D  ✓  ×  ✓ 
FCT  ✓  O  ✓  ×  × 
SPH  ✓  D, O  ✓  ✓^{j}  ×^{k} 
Since their introduction in numerical RHD in the early 1990s, Riemannsolverbased HRSC methods have demonstrated their ability to describe accurately (i.e., in a stable way and without excessive smearing) relativistic flows of arbitrarily large Lorentz factors and strong discontinuities reaching the same quality as in classical hydrodynamics. In addition (as it is the case for classical flows, too), HRSC methods show the best performance compared to any other method (e.g., artificial viscosity, FCT or SPH). This last assertion applies also to the symmetric HRSC relativistic algorithms developed recently.
Nevertheless, a lot of effort has been put into improving nonHRSC methods. Using a consistent formulation of artificial viscosity has significantly enhanced the capability of SPH (e.g., [261]) and of finite difference schemes. A good example of the latter case is the algorithm recently proposed in [10], but the 40% overshoot in the postshock density in Problem 2 confirms the need for an implicit treatment of the equations as originally proposed by [213]. Concerning relativistic SPH, recent investigations using a conservative formulation of the hydrodynamic equations [53, 261, 204] have reached an unprecedented accuracy compared to previous SPH simulations, although some issues still remain. Besides the strong smearing of shocks, the description of contact discontinuities and of thin structures moving at ultrarelativistic speeds needs to be improved (see Section 6.2).
Concerning FCT, codes based on a conservative formulation of the RHD equations have been able to handle special relativistic flows with discontinuities at all flow speeds, although the quality of the results is lower than that of HRSC methods in all cases [256, 244, 246].
The extension to multidimensions is straightforward for most relativistic codes. Finite difference techniques are easily extended using directional splitting. HRSC methods based on exact solutions of the Riemann problem [181, 295] benefit from the development of a multidimensional relativistic Riemann solver [234]. The adaptive grid, artificial viscosity, implicit code of Norman and Winkler [213], and the relativistic Glimm method of Wen et al. [295] are restricted to onedimensional flows. The latter method produces the best results in all the tests analyzed in Section 6.
The symmetric TVD scheme proposed by Davis [68] and extended to GRMHD (see below) by Koide et al. [138] combines several characteristics making it very attractive. It is written in conservation form and is TVD, i.e., it is converging to the physical solution. In addition, it does not require spectral information, and hence allows for a simple extension to RMHD. Quite similar statements can be made about the approach proposed by van Putten [287]. In contrast to FCT schemes (which are also easily extended to general systems of equations), both Koide et al.’s and van Putten’s methods are very stable when simulating mildly relativistic flows (maximum Lorentz factors ≈ 4) with discontinuities. Their only drawback is an excessive smearing of the latter. Expectations concerning the correct description of ultrarelativistic MHD flows by means of symmetric TVD schemes may be met in the near future by global thirdorder symmetric schemes [72].
Concerning the extension of Riemannsolverbased HRSC schemes to RMHD, we mention the efforts by Balsara [14] and Komissarov [143] in 1D and 2D RMHD (see Section 8.2.4).
8.2 Present and future developments
The directions of present and future developments in RHD are quite obvious, and can be divided into four main categories:
8.2.1 Incorporation of realistic microphysics
Up to now most astrophysical SRHD simulations have assumed matter whose thermodynamic properties can be described by an inviscid ideal equation of state with a constant adiabatic index. This simplification may have been appropriate in the first generation of SRHD simulations, but it clearly must be given up when aiming at a more realistic modeling of astrophysical jets, gammaray burst sources, or accretion flows onto compact objects. For these phenomena a realistic equation of state should include contributions from radiation (γ = 4/3 “fluid”), allow for the formation of electronpositron pairs at high temperatures, and allow the ideal gas contributions to be arbitrarily degenerate and/or relativistic.
Depending on the problem to be simulated, effects due to heat conduction, diffusion, radiation transport, cooling, nuclear reactions, and viscosity may have to be considered, too. Including any of these effects is often a nontrivial task even in Newtonian hydrodynamics, as the differential operators describing advection and convection are of hyperbolic nature, while diffusion and conduction processes give rise to parabolic differential operators, and the treatment of constraints or selfgravity involves differential operators of elliptic type (see, e.g., the contributions in the book edited by Steiner and Gautschy [268]). There has been considerable development in the coupling of Newtonian HRSC methods to the nonhyperbolic terms arising in the equations from these physical processes using semiimplicit approaches, e.g., the predictorcorrector method [18]. Another example in this context provides the recent work of Howell and Grenough [127], who have coupled an explicit Newtonian Godunovtype integrator for the hyperbolic hydrodynamic equations to an implicit multigrid solver to describe effects of radiative diffusion on the flow and vice versa. We particularly mention this work here, as it also uses a blockstructured adaptive mesh refinement algorithm (see Section 8.2.2). Although such sophisticated methods have not been applied in SRHD yet, they represent an important set of ideas that could provide a starting point for more elaborate SRHD simulations.
In the context of relativistic jets, Komissarov and Falle [148], and Scheck et al. [255] have considered a mixture of ideal, relativistic Boltzmann gases [272] hence allowing for jets with general (i.e., e, e^{+}, p) composition. The usage of such a more general ideal EOS causes no special problem for the Riemann solvers although a higher nonlinearity is introduced in the process of the recovery of the primitive variables. In order to avoid this extra complexity, approximate expressions for the relativistic ideal gas EOS have been proposed [79, 265]. In case of the approximation proposed by Sokolov et al. [265], the recovery of the primitive variables is explicit. Moreover, the authors have developed an exact Riemann solver consistent with the approximate EOS.
An EOS describing matter consisting of a set of ideal, nonrelativistic Boltzmann gases (nuclei in nuclear statistical equilibrium), a Fermi gas of electrons and photons was used in the simulations of relativistic jets from collapsars by Aloy et al. [7].
HRSC flow simulations involving elaborate microphysics may require the extension of the presently available relativistic Riemann solvers to handle general equations of state (see Section 9.1). This is the case for the RoeEulderink method, which can be extended following the procedure developed in the classical case by Glaister [103]. Methods based on exact solutions of the Riemann problem, like rPPM and rGlimm, can take advantage of the solution presented in Section 2.3 to cope with a general EOS. FCT based difference schemes used in simulations of relativistic heavy ion collisions (see Section 7.3) pose no specific numerical problem in handling a general EOS.
Another interesting area that deserves further research is the application of relativistic HRSC methods in simulations of reactive multispecies flows, especially as such flows still cause problems for the Newtonian CFD community (see, e.g., [232]). The structure of the solution to the Riemann problem becomes significantly more complex with the introduction of reactions between multiple species. Riemann solvers that incorporate source terms [160], and in particular source terms due to reactions, have been proposed for classical flows [19, 132]. However, most HRSC codes still rely on operator splitting.
Peitz and Appl [221] have addressed the difficult issue of nonideal GRHD, which is of particular importance, e.g., for the simulation of accretion discs around compact objects, rotating relativistic fluid configurations, and the evolution of density fluctuations in the early universe. They have accounted for dissipative effects by applying the theory of extended causal thermodynamics, which eliminates the causality violating infinite signal speeds arising from the conventional NavierStokes equation. However, Peitz, and Appl have not yet implemented their model numerically.
A description of nonideal hydrodynamics in general relativity is also the aim of Richardson and Chung’s work [242], although from a less formal basis. The authors introduce an approach (the socalled flowfielddependent variation theory [54, 55] resting on the conservative NavierStokes system of equations for classical fluid dynamics) where local properties of the flow (advection, turbulence, or gravity dominated) are captured in terms of relevant parameters (measuring changes of the Lorentz factor, relativistic Reynolds and Fronde numbers between adjacent numerical zones, respectively). These parameters are then used to produce a suitable numerical model (hyperbolic, parabolic, elliptic) which is subsequently discretized using finite difference or finite element methods. The latter approach has been applied by Richardson and Chung [242] for several test cases (mildly relativistic Riemann problem and general relativistic spherical dust infall).
8.2.2 Coupling of SRHD schemes with AMR
Modeling astrophysical phenomena often involves an enormous range of length and time scales to be covered in the simulations (see, e.g., [205]). In two and definitely in three spatial dimensions many such simulations cannot be performed with sufficient spatial resolution on a static equidistant or nonequidistant computational grid, but they rather require dynamic, adaptive grids. In addition, when the flow problem involves stiff source terms (e.g., energy generation by nuclear reactions), very restrictive time step limitations may result. A promising approach to overcome these complications is the coupling of SRHD solvers with the adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) technique [21]. AMR automatically increases the grid resolution near flow discontinuities or in regions of large gradients (of the flow variables) by introducing a dynamic hierarchy of grids until a prescribed accuracy of the difference approximation is achieved. Because each level of grids is evolved in AMR on its own time step, time step restrictions due to stiff source terms constrain the computational costs less than without AMR.
For an overview of online information about AMR visit, e.g., the AMRA home page of Plewa [229], and for public domain AMR software, e.g., the AMRCLAW home page of LeVeque and Berger [162], the web page of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab dedicated to AMR [1], and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center web page on PARAMESH [171]. Astrophysical applications based on PARAMESH can be found at the web site of the ASCI / Alliances Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University of Chicago [2]. Although, as demonstrated by these web sites, there has been a considerable effort over the last few years in developing frameworks for blockstructured adaptive mesh refinement, we will see that the application to SRHD is still in its infancy.
An SRHD simulation of a relativistic jet based on a combined HLLAMR scheme was performed by Duncan and Hughes [78]. Plewa et al. [231, 230] have modeled the deflection of highly supersonic slab jets propagating through nonhomogeneous environments using the HRSC scheme of Martí et al. [183] combined with the AMR implementation AMRA of Plewa [229]. A similar study, but in 3D, was performed by Hughes et al. [128] who studied the deflection and precession of cylindrical relativistic jets when impinging on an oblique density gradient using the SRHD code of Duncan and Hughes [78] extended to 3D and their own implementation of the AMR technique of Berger and Colella [21]. Komissarov and Falle [147] have combined their numerical scheme with the adaptive grid code Cobra, which has been developed by Mantis Numerics Ltd. for industrial applications [88], and which uses a hierarchy of grids with a constant refinement factor of two between subsequent grid levels.
8.2.3 General relativistic hydrodynamics (GRHD)
Up to now only very few attempts have been made to extend HRSC methods to GRHD (for a comprehensive review see Font [91]). All these attempts are based on the usage of linearized Riemann solvers [179, 84, 249, 15, 93] . In the most recent of these approaches, Font et al. [93] have developed a 3D general relativistic HRSC hydrodynamic code where the matter equations are integrated in conservation form and fluxes are calculated with Marquina’s formula.
A very interesting and powerful procedure was proposed by Balsara [13] and has been implemented by Pons et al. [233]. This procedure allows one to exploit all the developments in the field of special relativistic Riemann solvers in general relativistic hydrodynamics. The procedure relies on a local change of coordinates at each zone interface such that the spacetime metric is locally flat. In that locally flat spacetime any special relativistic Riemann solver can be used to calculate the numerical fluxes, which are then transformed back. The transformation to an orthonormal basis is valid only at a single point in spacetime. Since the use of Riemann solvers requires the knowledge of the behavior of the characteristics over a finite volume, the use of the local Lorentz basis is only an approximation. The effects of this approximation will only become known through the study of the performance of these methods in situations where the structure of the spacetime varies rapidly in space and perhaps time as well. In such a situation finer grids and improved time advancing methods will definitely be required. The implementation is simple and computationally inexpensive.
Characteristic formulations of the Einstein field equations are able to handle the long term numerical description of single black hole spacetimes in vacuum [24]. In order to include matter in such an scenario, Papadopoulos and Font [220] have generalized the HRSC approach to cope with the hydrodynamic equations in such a null foliation of spacetime. Actually, they have presented a complete (covariant) reformulation of the equations in GR, which is also valid for spacelike foliations in SR. They have extensively tested their method, calculating, among other tests, shock tube problem 1 (see Section 6.2.1), but posed on a light cone and using the appropriate transformations of the exact solution [180] to account for advanced and retarded times.
Other developments in GRHD in the past included finite element methods for simulating spherically symmetric collapse in general relativity [173], general relativistic pseudospectral codes based on the (3+1) ADM formalism [11] for computing radial perturbations [112] and 3D gravitational collapse of neutron stars [32], general relativistic [172, 204] and postNewtonian [12] SPH. The potential of these methods for the future is unclear, as none of them is specifically appropriate for ultrarelativistic speeds and strong shock waves which are characteristic of most astrophysical applications.
Let us remark that, in the case of dynamic spacetimes, the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics are solved on the local (in space and time) background solution provided by the Einstein equations at every time step [91]. The solution of the Einstein gravitational field equations and its coupling with the hydrodynamic equations is the realm of Numerical Relativity, which is beyond the scope of this article (see, e.g., Lehner [157] for a recent review).
8.2.4 Relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD)
The inclusion of magnetic effects is of great importance for many astrophysical phenomena. The formation and collimation process of (relativistic) jets (powering powerful extragalactic radio sources, galactic microquasars, and GRBs) most likely involves dynamically important magnetic fields and occurs in strong gravitational fields. The same is likely to be true for accretion discs around black holes. Magnetorelativistic effects even play a nonnegligible role in the formation of protostellar jets in regions close to the light cylinder [41]. Thus, relativistic MHD codes are a very desirable tool in astrophysics. The nontrivial task of developing such a kind of code is considerably simplified by the fact that because of the high conductivity of astrophysical plasmas one must only consider ideal RMHD in most applications.
The aim of any (Newtonian or relativistic) MHD code is to evolve the induction equation to obtain the magnetic fields from which to calculate the Lorentz force. Magnetic fields are divergence free, i.e., \(\nabla \cdot \vec B = 0\). Hence, numerical schemes are required to maintain this constraint (if fulfilled for the initial data) during the evolution. A first step towards the development of a relativistic (in fact, general relativistic) MHD code was made by Evans and Hawley [86] who incorporated a numerical scheme for the induction equation (constrained transport), which maintained zero divergence of the magnetic field up to machine roundoff error, into the axisymmetric, twodimensional finite difference code of Hawley et al. [123]. In Evans and Hawley’s method the magnetic flux through cell interfaces is the fundamental "magnetic" variable. Their method is also based on the use of a staggered mesh (some quantities including the magnetic field components are defined at grid interfaces). Thus, even in classical MHD, the extension of the constrained transport method to Riemannsolverbased schemes (that rely on fluxes at cell interfaces derived from cell averaged quantities) is nontrivial [65, 252]. Tóth [280] reviews and compares strategies (namely the eightwave formulation, several versions of the constrained transport, and the projection scheme) used in HRSC schemes in classical MHD to maintain the constraint \(\nabla \cdot \vec B = 0\) numerically. His conclusions also apply to RMHD.
Special relativistic 2D MHD test problems with Lorentz factors up to ∼ 3 have been investigated by Dubal [77] with a code based on FCT techniques (see Section 4).
Van Putten [286, 287, 290] has proposed a method for accurate and stable numerical simulations of RMHD in the presence of dynamically significant magnetic fields in two dimensions and up to moderate Lorentz factors. The method is based on MHD in divergence form using a 2D shockcapturing method in terms of a pseudospectral smoothing operator (see Section 4). He applied the method to 2D blast waves [289] and astrophysical jets [288, 291].
In a series of papers, Koide and coworkers [138, 136, 209, 210, 139] have investigated relativistic magnetized jets using a symmetric TVD scheme (see Section 3). Koide, Nishikawa, and Mutel [138] simulated a 2D RMHD slab jet, whereas Koide [136] investigated the effect of an oblique magnetic field on the propagation of a relativistic slab jet. Nishikawa et al. [209, 210] extended these simulations to 3D and considered the propagation of a relativistic jet with a Lorentz factor W = 4.56 along an aligned and an oblique external magnetic field. The 2D and 3D simulations published up to now only cover the very early propagation of the jet (up to 20 jet radii) and are performed with moderate spatial resolution on an equidistant Cartesian grid (up to 101 zones per dimension, i.e., 5 zones per beam radius). Concerning higher order symmetric nonoscillatory schemes, the very recent work by Del Zanna et al. [72] has to be mentioned. Their third order scheme produces results which are competitive with those obtained by Riemannsolver based methods (see next paragraph) but avoiding all the complexity associated with the spectral decomposition into characteristic fields (particularly the degeneracies). Its high order and its simplicity make this approach very appealing.
Steps towards the extension of linearized Riemann solvers to ideal RMHD have already been taken. All theoretical aspects (RMHD as a quasilinear hyperbolic system, spectral decomposition of the Jacobian of the flux vector in covariant form, study of simple waves and shock waves) are compiled in the book by Anile [8], augmenting previous work of Lichnerowicz [163]. Romero [250] derived an analytic expression for the spectral decomposition of the Jacobian matrix of the flux vector in the case of a planar relativistic flow field permeated by a transversal magnetic field (nonzero field component only orthogonal to flow direction). Anile and Pennisi [9] and Van Putten [292] studied the characteristic structure of the RMHD equations in (constraint free) covariant form. Finally, Balsara [14] and Komissarov [143] have developed robust, secondorder accurate (in space and time), Godunovtype schemes for 1D and 2D RMHD, respectively. Both start from the spectral decomposition of the RMHD system of (ten) equations in covariant form, extract the relevant information (wave speeds, jumps in the characteristic variables) for the (seven) physical waves, and analyze the cases of degeneracy (i.e., cases where several wave speeds corresponding to different waves become degenerate). Komissarov’s RMHD scheme is an extension of the scheme developed for RHD [89] described in Section 3.5, which avoids the use of the left eigenvectors (in [14] they are computed numerically). In its multidimensional version, Komissarov’s code enforces \(\nabla \cdot \vec B = 0\) by employing the integral form of the induction equation. This code has been used to study the propagation of light, highly relativistic jets carrying toroidal magnetic fields [144].
Koide, Shibata, and Kudoh [139] performed simulations of magnetically driven axisymmetric jets from black hole accretion disks. Their GRMHD code [140] is an extension of the special relativistic MHD code developed by Koide et al. [138, 136, 209]. The necessary modifications of the code were quite simple, because in the (nonrotating) black hole’s Schwarzschild spacetime the GRMHD equations are identical to the GRMHD equations in general coordinates, except for the gravitational force terms and the geometric factors of the lapse function. The authors have recently extended their code to Kerr spacetimes [141] and performed simulations of axisymmetric jets formed by extracting rotational energy from a black hole [137, 142]. Finally, using a 3D GRMHD code, Nishikawa et al. [211] have investigated the dynamics of a freely falling corona and of a Keplerian accretion disk around a Schwarzschild black hole to form bipolar relativistic jets assuming axisymmetry as in previous simulations.
With the pioneering work of Koide and collaborators, numerical simulations have entered into the realm of GRMHD. However, despite their success, present simulations only cover a tiny fraction of dynamical time scales (about 2 rotational periods of the accretion disk) and jets are formed with very small terminal speeds (Lorentz factors less than 2). Hence, the quest for robust codes able to follow the formation of steady relativistic jets is still open. Given their success in SRHD, the extension of Riemannsolver based HRSC methods is an obvious option to bear in mind. Again, the thirdorder symmetric HRSC algorithms developed recently [72] represent a very interesting alternative.
9 Additional Information
9.1 Incorporation of complex equations of state
Concerning the usage of complex equations of state, a limitation must be pointed out which hampers all numerical methods (HRSC, AV, symmetric schemes, etc.), and which is particularly troublesome for the Riemann solvers used in HRSC methods, even in the Newtonian limit. These problems are pronounced particularly in situations where phase transitions are encountered. Then the EOS may have a discontinuous adiabatic exponent and may even be nonconvex. The Riemann solver of Colella and Glaz [59] often fails in these situations, because it is derived under the assumption of convexity of the EOS.
For a perfect (ideal) gas, a jump discontinuity in the initial conditions of the hydrodynamic equations gives rise to at most one (compressional) shock, one contact, and one simple centered expansion fan, i.e., one wave per conservation equation. For a real gas, however, the EOS can be nonconvex. If that is the case, the character of the solution to the Riemann problem changes, resulting in anomalous wave structures. In particular, the solution may be no longer unique, i.e., a jump discontinuity in the initial conditions may give rise to multiple shocks, multiple contacts, and multiple simple centered expansion fans (see, e.g., [154]).
Situations where phase transitions cause a discontinous adiabatic index or nonconvexity of the EOS are encountered, e.g., in simulations of neutron star formation, simulations of the early Universe, and simulations of relativistic heavy ion collisions (see Section 7.3).
9.2 Algorithms to recover primitive quantities
The expressions relating the primitive variables (ρ, v^{i}, p) to the conserved quantities (D, S^{i}, τ) depend explicitly on the equation of state p(ρ, ε), and simple expressions are only obtained for simple equations of state (i.e., ideal gas).
Eulderink [83, 84] has also developed several procedures to calculate the primitive variables for an ideal EOS with a constant adiabatic index. One procedure is based on finding the physically admissible root of a fourthorder polynomial of a function of the specific enthalpy. This quartic equation can be solved analytically by the exact algebraic quartic root formula, although this computation is rather expensive. The root of the quartic can be found much more efficiently using a onedimensional NewtonRaphson iteration. Another procedure is based on the use of a sixdimensional NewtonKantorovich method to solve the entire nonlinear set of equations.
Also for ideal gases with constant γ, Schneider et al. [256] transform system (8, 9, 10, 12, 13) algebraically into a fourthorder polynomial in the modulus of the flow speed, which can be solved analytically or by means of iterative procedures.
For a general EOS, Dean et al. [70] and Dolezal and Wong [74] proposed the use of iterative algorithms for v^{2} and ρ, respectively.
In the covariant formulation of the GRHD equations presented by Papadopoulos and Font [220], which also holds in the Minkowski limit, there exists a closed form relationship between conserved and primitive variables in the particular case of a null foliation and an ideal EOS. However, in the spacelike case their formulation also requires some type of rootfinding procedure.
9.3 Spectral decomposition of the 3D SRHD equations
9.4 Programs
A tar ball containing the source code for the following programs plus parameter and include files is available for download at http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20037.
9.4.1 Program RIEMANN
9.4.2 Program RIEMANNVT
9.4.3 Program rPPM
9.5 Basics of HRSC methods
In this section we introduce the basic notation of finite differencing, and summarize the foundations of HRSC methods for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. The content of this section is not specific to SRHD, but applies to hydrodynamics in general.
High order of accuracy is usually achieved by using conservative monotonic polynomial functions to interpolate the approximate solution within zones. The idea is to produce more accurate left and right states for the Riemann problem by substituting the mean values u _{ j} ^{ n} (that give only firstorder accuracy) by better representations of the true flow near the interfaces, let’s say u _{ j+l/2} ^{L} , u _{ j+1/2} ^{R} . The FCT algorithm [33] constitutes an alternative procedure where higher accuracy is obtained by adding an antidiffusive flux term to the firstorder numerical flux. The interpolation algorithms have to preserve the TVstability of the scheme. This is usually achieved by using monotonic functions which lead to the decrease of the total variation (totalvariationdiminishing schemes, TVD [121]). Highorder TVD schemes were first constructed by van Leer [282], who obtained secondorder accuracy by using monotonic piecewise linear slopes for cell reconstruction. The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) [60] provides even higher accuracy. The TVD property implies TVstability, but can be too restrictive. In fact, TVD methods degenerate to firstorder accuracy at extreme points [215]. Hence, other reconstruction alternatives have been developed where some growth of the total variation is allowed. This is the case for the totalvariationbounded (TVB) schemes [258], the essentially nonoscillatory (ENO) schemes [120] and the piecewisehyperbolic method (PHM) [175].
There are several strategies to extend HRSC methods to more than one spatial dimension. A brief summary of these strategies can be found in LeVeque’s book [158] (see also [161]). The simplest strategy is dimensional splitting, where the differential operators along the spatial directions are applied in successive steps (fractional step methods). Second order in time is achieved when one permutes cyclically the order in which the directional (i.e., 1D) operators are applied (Strang splitting [270]). In semidiscrete methods (method of lines), the process of discretization proceeds in two stages. First only operators involving spatial derivatives are discretized, leaving the problem continuous in time. This gives rise to a system of ordinary differential equations (in time) which can be integrated by any ODE solver. In the method of lines approach, the numerical fluxes across cell interfaces are computed in all two or three spatial directions, before they are simultaneously applied to advance the equations. Particularly of interest are TVD RungeKutta time discretization algorithms [259, 260], which preserve the TVD properties of the algorithm at every substep. A third approach relies on unsplit methods, where the different spatial directions are also advanced simultaneously as in the semidiscrete methods. However, the extension of unsplit methods to secondorder accuracy requires incorporating not only slopes in the normal direction (as in onedimensional or split algorithms), but also crossderivatives arising from the multidimensional Taylor series expansion. Good examples of genuinely multidimensional upwind methods for hyperbolic conservation laws (using slightly different strategies) are those described in [58, 159]. In [58] the algorithm proceeds in two steps. First, interface values are interpolated, using information from all orthogonal directions. Secondly, the Riemann problems defined by these interface values are solved. The algorithm proposed in [159] first solves the Riemann problem, and then distributes the information to the appropriate directions.
9.6 Newtonian SPH equations
Various types of spherically symmetric kernels have been suggested over the years [198, 20]. Among those the spline kernel of Monaghan and Lattanzio [201], mostly used in current SPH codes, yields the best results. It reproduces constant densities exactly in 1D, if the particles are placed on a regular grid of spacing h_{SPH}, and it has compact support.
The capabilities and limits of SPH have been explored, e.g., in [269, 16, 167, 275]. Steinmetz and Müller [269] conclude that it is possible to handle even difficult hydrodynamic test problems involving interacting strong shocks with SPH, provided a sufficiently large number of particles is used in the simulations. SPH and finite volume methods are complementary methods to solve the hydrodynamic equations each having its own merits and defects.
Supplementary material
References
 [1]Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Berkeley Lab AMR”, [Online HTML Document]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://seesar.lbl.gov/. 8.2.2
 [2]University of Chicago, “ASCI / Alliances Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes”, (2001), [Online HTML Document]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://flash.uchicago.edu/public/handlePublic.py?submit=home. 8.2.2
 [3]Agudo, I., Gomez, J.L., Martí, J.M., Ibáñez, J.M., Marscher, A.P., Alberdi, A., Aloy, M.A., and Hardee, P.E., “Jet stability and the generation of superluminal and stationary components”, Astrophys. J., 549, L183–L186, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [4]Akerlof, C., Balsano, R., Barthelmy, S., Bloch, J., Butterworth, P., Casperson, D., Cline, T., Fletcher, S., Frontera, F., Gisler, F., Heise, J., Hills, J., Kehoe, R., Lee, B., Marshall, S., McKay, T., Miller, R., Piro, L., Priedhorsky, W., Szymanski, J., and Wren, J., “Observation of contemporaneous optical radiation from a gammaray burst”, Nature, 398, 400–402, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [5]Aloy, M.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, Gómez, J.L., and Müller, E., “Highresolution threedimensional simulations of relativistic jets”, Astrophys. J., 523, L125–L128}, (1999). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [6]Aloy, M.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Müller, E., “GENESIS: A highresolution code for threedimensional relativistic hydrodynamics”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 122, 151–166, (1999). 3.8, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 7.2, 9.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [7]Aloy, M.A., Müller, E., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and MacFadyen, A., “Relativistic jets from collapsars”, Astrophys. J., 531, L119–L123, (2000). 7.2, 7.2, 8.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [8]Anile, A.M., Relativistic Fluids and Magnetofluids, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1989). 1.3, 2.2, 8.2.4Google Scholar
 [9]Anile, A.M., and Pennisi, S., “On the mathematical structure of test relativistic magneto fluid dynamics”, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, 46, 27–44, (1987). 8.2.4MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [10]Anninos, P., and Fragile, P.C., “Nonoscillatory Central Difference and Artificial Viscosity Schemes for Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 144, 243–257, (2003). For a related online version see: P. Anninos, et al., “NonOscillatory Central Difference and Artificial Viscosity Schemes for Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, (June, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0206265. 3.9, 5, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 8.1, c, hADSGoogle Scholar
 [11]Arnowitt, R., Deser, S., and Misner, C.W., “The dynamics of general relativity”, in Witten, L., ed., Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, 227–265, (Wiley, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1962). 8.2.3Google Scholar
 [12]Ayal, S., Piran, T., Oechslin, R., Davies, M.B., and Rosswog, S., “PostNewtonian Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics”, Astrophys. J., 550, 846–859, (2001). 8.2.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [13]Balsara, D.S., “Riemann Solver for Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 114, 284–297, (1994). 3.3, 2, 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [14]Balsara, D.S., “Total Variation Diminishing Scheme for Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 132, 83–101, (2001). 8.1, g, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [15]Banyuls, F., Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Miralles, J.A., “Numerical 3 + 1 General Relativistic Hydrodynamics: A Local Characteristic Approach”, Astrophys. J., 476, 221–231, (1997). 8.2.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [16]Bate, M.R., and Burkert, A., “Resolution requirements for smoothed particle hydrodynamics calculations with selfgravity”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 288, 1060–1072, (1997). 4.2, 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [17]Begelman, M.C., Blandford, R.D., and Rees, M.J., “Theory of Extragalactic Radio Sources”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 255–351, (1984). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [18]Bell, J.B., Colella, P., and Glaz, H.M., “A secondorder projection method for the incompressible NavierStokes equations”, J. Comput. Phys., 85, 257–283, (1989). 8.2.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [19]BenArtzi, M., “The generalized Riemann problem for reactive flows”, J. Comput. Phys., 81, 70–101, (1989). 8.2.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [20]Benz, W., “Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics: A Review”, in Buehler, J.R., ed., The Numerical Modelling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations, Problems and Prospects, 269–293, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990). 4.2, 9.6Google Scholar
 [21]Berger, M.J., and Colella, P., “Local Adaptive Mesh Refinement for Shock Hydrodynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 82, 64–84, (1989). 8.2.2ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [22]Bicknell, G.V., “Decelerating Relativistic Jets and the FanaroffRiley Classification”, in Hardee, P.E., Bridle, A.H., and Zensus, J.A., eds., Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, volume 100 of ASP Conference Series, 253–260, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 1996). 7.1Google Scholar
 [23]Birkinshaw, M., “The stability of jets”, in Hughes, P.A., ed., Beams and Jets in Astrophysics, 278–341, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1991). 7.1Google Scholar
 [24]Bishop, N., Gomez, R., Lehner, L., Maharaj, M., and Winicour, J., “HighPowered Gravitational News”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 6298–6309, (1997). 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [25]Blandford, R.D., and Konigl, A., “Relativistic Jets as Compact Radio Sources”, Astrophys. J., 232, 34–48, (1979). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [26]Blandford, R.D., and McKee, C.F., “Fluid Dynamics of Relativistic Blast Waves”, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130–1138, (1976). 6.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [27]Blandford, R.D., and Payne, D.G., “Hydromagnetic flows from accretion discs and the production of radio jets”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 199, 883–903, (1982). 7.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [28]Blandford, R.G., and Znajek, R.L., “Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 179, 433–456, (1977). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [29]Bloom, J.S., Frail, D.A., and Sari, R., “The Prompt Energy Release of GammaRay Bursts using a Cosmological kCorrection”, Astron. J., 121, 2879–2888, (2001). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [30]Bloom, J.S., Kulkarni, S.R., Djorgovski, S.G., Eichelberger, A.C., Côte, P., Blakeslee, J.P., Odewahn, S.C., F. A. Harrison, F.A., Frail, D.A., Filippenko, A.V., Leonard, D.C., Riess, A.G., Spinrad, H., Stern, D., Bunker, A., Dey, A., Grossan, B., Perlmutter, S., Knop, R.A., Hook, I.N., and Feroci, M., “The unusual afterglow of the gammaray burst of 26 March 1998 as evidence for a supernova connection”, Nature, 401, 453–456, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [31]Bloom, J.S., Kulkarni, S.R., Price, P.A., Reichart, D., Galama, T.J., Schmidt, B.P. Frail, D.A., Berger, E., McCarthy, P.J., Chevalier, R.A., Wheeler, J.C., Halpern, J.P., Fox, D.W., Djorgovski, S.G., Harrison, F.A., Sari, R., Axelrod, T.S., Kimble, R.A., Holtzman, J., Hurley, K., Frontera, F., Piro, L., and Costa, E., “Detection of a Supernova Signature Associated with GRB 011121”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 572, L45–L49, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [32]Bonazzola, S., Frieben, J., Gourgoulhon, E., and Marck, J.A., “Spectral Methods in General Relativity — Toward the Simulation of 3DGravitational Collapse of Neutron Stars”, in Ilin, A.V., and Scott, L.R., eds., Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spectral and High Order Methods (ICOSAHOM’95), Houston Journal of Mathematics, (University of Houston, Houston, TX, U.S.A., 1996). 8.2.3Google Scholar
 [33]Boris, J.P., and Book, D.L., “FluxCorrected Transport. I. SHASTA, A Fluid Transport Algorithm that Works”, J. Comput. Phys., 23, 38–69, (1973). 1.2, 5, 6.1, 9.5ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [34]Boris, J.P., and Book, D.L., “Fluxcorrected transport III: Minimalerror FCT algorithms”, J. Comput. Phys., 20, 397–431, (1976). 6.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [35]Boris, J.P., Book, D.L., and Hain, K., “Fluxcorrected transport II: Generalizations of the method”, J. Comput. Phys., 18, 248–283, (1975) 6.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [36]Bremer, M., Krichbaum, T.P., Galama, T.J., CastroTirado, A. and Frontera, F., van Paradijs, J., Mirabel, I.F., Costa, E., Hanlon, L., and Parmar, A., “Millimetre detection of GRB 970508”, Astron. Astrophys., 332, 1,13–1,16, (1997). 7.2Google Scholar
 [37]Bridle, A.H., Hough, D.H., Lonsdale, C.J., Burns, J.O., and Laing, R.A., “Deep VLA Imaging of Twelve Extended 3CR Sample”, Astron. J., 108, 766–820, (1994). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [38]Bridle, Alan, “Alan Bridle’s Image Gallery”, (2000), [Online HTML Document]: cited on 31 January 2000, http://www.cv.nrao.edu/abridle/images.htm. 7.1Google Scholar
 [39]Briggs, M.S., Band, D.L., Kippen, R.M., Preece, R.D., Kouveliotou, C., van Paradijs, J., Share, G.H., Murphy, R.J., Matz, S.M., Connors, A., Winkler, C., McConnell, M.L., Ryan, J.M., Williams, O.R., Young, C.A., Dingus, B., Catelli, J.R., and Wijers, R.A.M.J., “Ob servations of GRB 990123 by the Compton GammaRay Observatory”, Astrophys. J., 524, 82–91, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [40]Bugaev, K.A., Gorenstein, M.I., Kampfer, B., and Zhdanov, V.I., “Generalized shock adiabatics and relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 2903–2913, (1989). 9.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [41]Camenzind, M., “Magnetohydrodynamics of Rotating Black Holes”, in Riffert, H., Ruder, H., Nollert, H.P., and Hehl, F.W., eds., Relativistic Astrophysics, 82–119, (ViewegVerlag, Braunschweig, Germany, 1998). 7.1, 8.2.4Google Scholar
 [42]Canuto, C., Hussaini, M.Y., Quarteroni, A., and Zang, T.A., Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1988). 1.3zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [43]Carilli, C.L., Perley, R.A., Bartel, N., and Dreher, J.W., “The Jets in Cyg A form pc to kpc Scales”, in Carilli, C.L., and Harris, D.E., eds., CygnusA, Study of a Radio Galaxy, 76–85, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996). 7.1Google Scholar
 [44]CastroTirado, A.J., “Cosmic GammaRay Bursts: The most energetic phenomenon in the Universe”, Astrophys. Space Sci., 263, 15–26, (1999). For a related online version see: A.J. CastroTirado, “Cosmic gammaray bursts: the most energetic phenomenon in the Universe”, (March, 1999), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 11 March 1999, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9903187. 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [45]CastroTirado, A.J., “Observations and theoretical models of gammaray bursts”, in Gimenez, A., Reglero, V., and Winkler, C., eds., Exploring the gammaray universe: Proceedings of the Fourth INTEGRAL Workshop, 48 September 2000, Alicante, Spain, volume SP459 of ESA Special Publications, 367–374, (ESA Publications Division, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 2001). 7.2Google Scholar
 [46]Cavallo, G., and Rees, M.J., “A Qualitative Study of Cosmic Fireballs and γRay Bursts”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 183, 359–365, (1978). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [47]Celotti, A., “The Matter Content of Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei”, in Massaglia, S., and Bodo, G., eds., Astrophysical Jets: Open Problems. Symposium on Open Problems about Astrophysical Jets: Origin, Energy Transport and Radiation held in Torino, Italy, December 11–13, 1996, 79–86, (Overseas Publishers Association, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1998). 7.1Google Scholar
 [48]Celotti, A., and Blandford, R.D., “On the formation of jets”, in Kaper, L., van den Heuvel, E.P.J., and Woudt, P.A., eds., Black Holes in Binaries and Galactic Nuclei, 206–215, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001). 7.1, 7.1Google Scholar
 [49]Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., and Chiaberge, M., “Largescale jets in active galactic nuclei: mult1wavelength mapping”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 321, L1–L5, (2001) 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [50]Centrella, J., and Wilson, J.R., “Planar Numerical Cosmology 11: The Difference Equations and Numerical Tests”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 54, 229–249, (1984). 1.2, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [51]Chartas, G. et al., “The Chandra XRay Observatory Resolves the XRay Morphology and Spectra of a Jet in PKS 0637752”, Astrophys. J., 542, 655–666, (2000). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [52]Chorin, A.J., “Random Choice Solution of Hyperbolic Systems”, J. Comput. Phys., 22, 517–533, (1976). 3.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [53]Chow, E., and Monaghan, J.J., “Ultrarelativistic SPH”, J. Comput. Phys., 134, 296–305, (1997). 1.2, 4.2, 4.2, 4.2, 4.2, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 8.1, 9.6Google Scholar
 [54]Chung, T.J., “Transitions and interactions of inviscid/viscous, compressible/incompressible and laminar/turbulent flows”, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 31, 223–246, (1999). 8.2.1zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [55]Chung, T.J., Computational Fluid Dynamics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2002). 8.2.1zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [56]Clare, R.B., and Strottman, D., “Relativistic hydrodynamics and heavy ion reactions”, Phys. Rep., 141, 177–280, (1986). 7.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [57]Colella, P., “Glimm’s Method for Gas Dynamics”, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 3, 76–110, (1982). 3.2, 3.3MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [58]Colella, P., “Multidimensional Upwind Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws”, J. Comput. Phys., 87, 171–200, (1990). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [59]Colella, P., and Glaz, H.M., “Efficient Solution Algorithms for the Riemann Problem for Real Gases”, J. Comput. Phys., 59, 264–289, (1985). 9.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [60]Colella, P., and Woodward, P.R., “The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for GasDynamical Simulations”, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174–201, (1984). 3.1, 3.1, 7.2, 9.5ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [61]Costa, E., Frontera, F., Heise, J., Feroci, M., in ’t Zand, J., Fiore, F., Cinti, M.N., Dal Flume, D., Nicastro, L., Orlandini, M., Palazzi, E., Rapisarda, M., Zavattini, G., Jager, R., Parmar, A., Owens, A., Molendi, S., Cusamano, G., Maccarone, M.C., Giarrusso, S., Coletta, A., Antonelli, L.A., Giommi, P., Muller, J.M., Piro, L., and Butler, R.C., “Discovery of an XRay Afterglow Associated with the γRay Burst of 28 February 1997”, Nature, 387, 783–785, (1997). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [62]Courant, R., and Friedrichs, K.O., Supersonic Flows and Shock Waves, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1976). 1.3, 2.3zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [63]Csernai, L.P., Introduction to Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions, (Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 1994). 7.3Google Scholar
 [64]Dai, W., and Woodward, P.R., “An Iterative Riemann Solver for Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 18, 982–995, (1997). 3.3, 2MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [65]Dai, W., and Woodward, P.R., “On the divergencefree condition and conservation laws in numerical simulations for supersonic magnetohydrodynamic flows”, Astrophys. J., 494, 317–335, (1998). 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [66]Daigne, F., and Mochkovitch, R., “Gammaray bursts from internal shocks in a relativistic wind: A hydrodynamical study”, Astron. Astrophys., 358, 1157–1166, (2000) 3.1, 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [67]Davis, R.J., Muxlow, T.W.B., and Conway, R.G., “Radio Emission from the Jet and Lobe of 3C273”, Nature, 318, 343–345, (1985). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [68]Davis, S.F., A Simplified TVD Finite Difference Scheme via Artificial Viscosity, (ICASE, Virginia, U.S.A., 1984), Report no. 8420. 3.9, 8.1, 9.5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [69]Dean, D.J., Bottcher, C., and Strayer, MR., “Spline Techniques for Solving Relativistic Conservation Equationstitle”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C, 4, 723–747, (1993). 1.2, 5ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [70]Dean, D.J., Bottcher, C., Strayer, M.R., Wells, J.C., von Keitz, A., Pürsün, Y., Rischke, D.H., and Maruhn, J.A., “Comparison of FluxCorrecting and Spline Algorithms for Solving (3+1)Dimensional Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. E, 49, 1726–1733, (1994). 5, 9.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [71]Del Zanna, L., and Bucciantini, N., “An efficient shockcapturing centraltype scheme for multidimensional relativistic flows I. Hydrodynamics”, Astron. Astrophys., 390, 1177–1186, (2002). 3.9, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [72]Del Zanna, L., Bucciantini, N., and Londrillo, P., “An efficient shockcapturing centraltype scheme for multidimensional relativistic flows II. Magnetohydrodynamics”, Astron. Astrophys., 400, 397–413, (2003). For a related online version see: L. Del Zanna, et al., “An efficient shockcapturing centraltype scheme for multidimensional relativistic flows. II. Magnetohydrodynamics”, (October, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0210618. 8.1, 8.2.4ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [73]Djorgovski, S.G., Frail, D.A., Kulkarni, S.R., Sari, R., Bloom, J.S., Galama, T.J., Harrison, F.A., Price, P.A., Fox, D., Reichart, D.E., Yost, S., Berger, E., Diercks, A., Goodrich, R., and Chaffee, F., “The Cosmic GammaRay Bursts”, in Gurzadyan, V.G., Jantzen, R.T., and Rufini, R., eds., Proceedings of the Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, 315–346, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002). 7.2Google Scholar
 [74]Dolezal, A., and Wong, S.S.M., “Relativistic Hydrodynamics and Essentially NonOscillatory Shock Capturing Schemes”, J. Comput. Phys., 120, 266–277, (1995). 3.4, 4.3, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 9.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [75]Donat, R., Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, A., and Marquina, “A FluxSplit Algorithm Applied to Relativistic Flows”, J. Comput. Phys., 146, 58–81, (1998). 3.8, 5, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 9.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [76]Donat, R., and Marquina, A., “Capturing Shock Reflections: An Improved Flux Formula”, J. Comput. Phys., 125, 42–58, (1996). 3.8, 6.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [77]Dubal, M.R., “Numerical Simulations of Special Relativistic, Magnetic Gas Flows”, Comput. Phys. Commun., 64, 221–234, (1991). 1.2, 5, 5, 6.2.2, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [78]Duncan, G.C., and Hughes, P.A., “Simulations of Relativistic Extragalactic Jets”, Astrophys. J., 436, L119 L122, (1994). 3.6, 7.1, 8.2.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [79]Duncan, G.C., Hughes, P.A., and Opperman, J., “Simulations of relativistic extragalactic jets: A variable equation of state”, in Hardee, P.E., Bridle, A.H., and Zensus, J.A., eds., Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars: Proceedings of a Workshop, held in Tuscaloose, Alabama, 19–23 September 1995, volume 100 of ASP Conference Series, 143–148, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 1996). 8.2.1Google Scholar
 [80]Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., and Schramm, D.N., “Nucleosynthesis, Neutrino Bursts and γRays from Coalescing Neutron Stars”, Nature, 340, 126–128, (1989). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [81]Einfeldt, B., “On GodunovType Methods for Gas Dynamics”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 25, 294–318, (1988). 3.6, 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [82]Elze, H.T., Rafelski, J., and Turko, L., “Entropy production in relativistic hydrodynamics”, Phys. Lett., B506, 123–130, (2001). 7.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [83]Eulderink, F., Numerical Relativistic Hydrodynamics, PhD Thesis, (Rijksuniverteit to Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands, 1993). 1.2, 3.4, 3.4, 4.2, 5, 6.1, 6.2.1, 9.2, 9.3Google Scholar
 [84]Eulderink, F., and Mellema, G., “General Relativistic Hydrodynamics with a Roe Solver”, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 110, 587–623, (1995). 1.2, 3.4, 3.4, 3.4, 4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1, 8.2.3, 9.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [85]Evans, C.R., “An Approach for Calculating Axisymmetric Gravitational Collapse”, in Centrella, J., ed., Dynamical SpaceTimes and Numerical Relativity, 3–39, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1986). 1.2Google Scholar
 [86]Evans, C.R., and Hawley, J.F., “Simulations of magnetohydrodynamic flows: A constrained transport method”, Astrophys. J., 332, 659–677, (1988). 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [87]Falle, S.A.E.G., “Self Similar Jets”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 250, 581–596, (1991). 3.5ADSGoogle Scholar
 [88]Falle, S.A.E.G., and Giddings, J.R., “Body Capturing Using Adaptive Cartesian Grids”, in Morton, K.W., and Baines, M.J., eds., Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 335–342, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K., 1993). 8.2.2Google Scholar
 [89]Falle, S.A.E.G., and Komissarov, S.S., “An Upwind Numerical Scheme for Relativistic Hydrodynamics with a General Equation of State”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 278, 586–602, (1996). 3.5, 3.5, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [90]Fanaroff, B.L., and Riley, J.M., “The Morphology of Extragalactic Radio Sources of High and Low Luminosity”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 167, 31–35, (1974). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [91]Font, J.A., “Numerical hydrodynamics in general relativity”, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, lrr–2003–4, (2003), [Online Journal Article]: cited on 6 May 2003, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20034. 1.3, 8.2.3MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [92]Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Marquina, A. “Multidimensional Relativistic Hydrodynamics: Characteristic Fields and Modern HighResolution ShockCapturing Schemes”, Astron. Astrophys., 282, 304–314, (1994). 9.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [93]Font, J.A., Miller, M., Suen, W.M., and Tobias, M., “Threedimensional numerical general relativistic hydrodynamics: Formulations, methods and code tests”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 044011–1–044011–26, (2000). For a related online version see: J.A. Font, et al., “Three Dimensional Numerical General Relativistic Hydrodynamics I: Formulations, Methods and Code Tests”, (November, 1998), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 4 November 1998, http://arxiv.org/abs/grgc/9811015. 3.8, 5, 6.2.1, 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [94]Frail, D.A., Kulkarni, S.R., Nicastro, L., Feroci, M., and Taylor, G.B., “The radio afterglow from the gammaray burst of 8 May 1997”, Nature, 389, 261–263, (1997). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [95]Frail, D.A., Kulkarni, S.R., Sari, R., Djorgovski, S.G., Bloom, J.S., Galama, T.J., Reichart, D.E., Berger, E., Harrison, F.A., Price, P.A., Yost, S., Diercks, A., Goodrich, R., and Chaffee, F., “Beaming in GammaRay Bursts: Evidence for a Standard Energy Reservoir”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 562, L55–L58, (2001). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [96]Freedman, D.L., and Waxman, E., “On the Energy of GammaRay Bursts”, Astrophys. J., 547, 922–928, (2001). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [97]Gabuzda, D.C., Mullan, C.M., Cawthorne, T.V., Wardle, J.F.C., and Roberts, D.H., “Evolution of the Milliarcsecond Total Intensity and Polarization Structure of BL Lacertae Objects”, Astrophys. J., 435, 140–161, (1994). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [98]Galama, T.J., Vreeswijk, P.M., Plan, E., Frontera, F., Doublier, V., Gonzalez, J.F., Lidman, C., Augusteijn, T., Hainaut, O.R., Boehnhardt, H., Patat, F., and Leibundgut, B., “GRB 980425”, 1AU Circ., 6895, (1998). 7.2Google Scholar
 [99]Galama, T.J., Vreeswijk, P.M., van Paradijs, J., Kouveliotou, C., Augusteijn, T., Ohnhardt, H., Brewer, J.P., Doublier, V., Gonzalez, J.F., Leibundgut, B., Lidman, C., Hainaut, OR., Patat, F., Heise, J., In’t Zand, J., Hurley, K., Groot, P.J., Strom, R.G., Mazzali, P.A., Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., Nakamura, T., Young, T.R., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., Koshut, T., Kippen, M., Robinson, C., de Wildt, P., Wijers, R.A.M.J., Tanvir, N., Greiner, J., Plan, E., Palazzi, E., Frontera, F., Masetti, N., Nicastro, L., Feroci, M., Costa, E., Piro, L., Peterson, B.A., Tinney, C., Boyle, B., Cannon, R., Stathakis, R., Sadler, E., Begam, M.C., and Ianna, P., “An Unusual Supernova in the Error Box of the γRay Burst of 25 April 1998”, Nature, 395, 670–672, (1998). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [100]Garnavich, P.M., Stanek, K.Z., Wyrzykowski, L., Infante, L., Bendek, E., Bersier, D., Holland, ST., Jha, S., Matheson, T., Kirshner, R.P., Krisciunas, K., Phillips, M.M., and Carlberg, R.G., “Discovery of the LowRedshift Optical Afterglow of GRB 011121 and Its Progen itor Supernova SN 2001ke”, Astrophys. J., 582, 924–932, (2003). For a related online version see: P.M. Garnavich, et al., “Discovery of the LowRedshift Optical Afterglow of GRB 011121 and Its Progenitor Supernova 2001ke”, (April, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0204234. 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [101]Germany, L.M., Reiss, D.J., Sadler, E.M., Schmidt, B.P., and Stubbs, C.W., “SN 1997cy/GRB 970514: A New Piece in the GammaRay Burst Puzzle?”, Astrophys. J., 533, 320–328, (2000). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [102]Gingold, R.A., and Monaghan, J.J., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: Theory and Application to Nonspherical Stars”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 181, 375–389, (1977). 4.2ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [103]Glaister, P., “An Approximate Linearized Riemann Solver for the Enter Equations of Gas Dynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 74, 382–408, (1988). 8.2.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [104]Glimm, J., “Solution in the Large for Nonlinear Hyperbolic Systems of Equations”, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 18, 697–715, (1965). 3.2MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [105]Godunov, S.K., “Difference Methods for the Numerical Calculations of Discontinuous Solutions of the Equations of Fluid Dynamics”, Mat. Sb., 47, 271–306, (1959). In Russian, translation in: US Joint Publ. Res. Service, JPRS, 7226 (1969). 9.5MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [106]Gómez, J.L., “Homepage of José L. Gómez”, (2003), [Online HTML document]: cited on 15 December 2003, http://www.iaa.es/~jlgomez/. 7.1
 [107]Gómez, J.L., Marscher, A., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S.G., and Agudo, I., “Monthly 43 GHz VLBA Polarimetric Monitoring of 3C 120 over 16 Epochs: Evidence for Trailing Shocks in a Relativistic Jet”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 561, 1,161–1,164, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [108]Gómez, J.L., Marscher, A., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S.G., and GarcíaMiró, C., “Flashing superluminal components in the jet of the radio galaxy 3C120”, Science, 289, 2317–2320, (2000). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [109]Gómez, J.L., Marscher, A.P., Alberdi, A., Martí, J.Mª, and Ibáñez, J.Mª, “Subparsec Polarimetric Radio Observations of 3C 120: A Closeup Look at Superluminal Motion”, Astrophys. J., 499, 221–226, (1998). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [110]Gómez, J.L., Martí, J.Mª, Marscher, A.P., Ibáñez, J.Mª, and Alberdi, A., “Hydrodynammical Models of Superluminal Sources”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 482, 1,33–1,36, (1997). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [111]Goodman, J., “Are GammaRay Bursts Optically Thick?”, Astrophys. J., 308, L47–L50, (1986). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [112]Gourgoulhon, E., “1D Numerical Relativity Applied to Neutron Star Collapse”, Class. Quantum Grav. Suppl., 9, 117–125, (1992) 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [113]Graebner, G., Relativistisches hydrodynamisches Modell hochenergetischer KernKernStöße, PhD Thesis, (Univ. Frankfurt, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 1985). 6.1Google Scholar
 [114]Granot, J., Miller, M., Piran, T., and Suen, W.M., “Hydrodynamics and radiation from a relativistic expanding jet with applications to GRB afterglow”, in Kippen, R.M., Mallozzi, R.S., and Fishman, G.J., eds., GammaRay Bursts: 5th Huntsville Symposium, 1822 October 1999, volume 526 of AIP Conference Proceedings, 540–544, (Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, U.S.A., 2000). 7.2Google Scholar
 [115]Granot, J., Miller, M., Piran, T., Suen, W.M., and Hughes, P.A., “Light curves from an expanding relativistic jet”, in Costa, E., Frontera, F., and Hjorth, J., eds., GammaRay Bursts in the Afterglow Era: Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Rome, Italy, 1720 October 2000, 312–314, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001). 7.2Google Scholar
 [116]Greiner, J., “Gammaray Bursts”, (2003), [Online HTML Document]: cited on 4 December 2003, http://www.mpe.mpg.de/jcg/grbgen.html. 7.2
 [117]Hardee, P.E., “On ThreeDimensional Structures in Relativistic Hydrodynamics Jets”, Astrophys. J., 533, 176–193, (2000). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [118]Hardee, P.E., Hughes, P.A., Rosen, A., and Gomez, E.A., “Relativistic jet response to precession and wavewave interaction”, Astrophys. J., 555, 744–757, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [119]Hardee, P.E., Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., and Duncan, C.G., “TimeDependent Structure of Perturbed Relativistic Jets”, Astrophys. J., 500, 599–609, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [120]Harten, A., Engquist, B., Osher, S., and Chakravarthy, S., “Uniformly High Order Accurate Essentially NonOscillatory Schemes, III”, J. Comput. Phys., 71, 231–303, (1987). 4.3, 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [121]Harten, A., and Lax, P.D., “On a class of high resolution TotalVariationStable finitedifference schemes”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 21, 1–23, (1984). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [122]Harten, A., Lax, P.D., and van Leer, B., “On Upstream Differencing and GodunovType Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws”, SIAM Rev., 25, 35–61, (1983). 3.6, 9.5MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [123]Hawley, J.F., Smarr, L.L., and Wilson, J.R., “A Numerical Study of Nonspherical Black Hole Accretion. II. Finite Differencing and Code Calibration”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 55, 211–246, (1984). 1.2, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [124]Hernquist, L., and Katz, N., “TREESPH: A Unification of SPH with the Hierarchical Tree Method”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 70, 419–446, (1989). 4.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [125]Hiscock, W.A., and Lindblom, L., “Linear plane waves in dissipative relativistic fluids”, Phys. Rev. D, 35, 3723–3732, (1987). 7.3ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [126]Homan, D.C., and Wardle, J.F.C., “Detection and measurement of parsecscale circular polarization in four AGNs”, Astron. J., 118, 1942–1962, (1999).7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [127]Howell, L.H., and Greenough, J.A., “Radiation diffusion for multifluid Eulerian hydrodynamics with adaptive mesh refinement”, J. Comput. Phys., 184, 53–78, (2003). 8.2.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [128]Hughes, P.A., Miller, M.A., and Duncan, C.G., “Threedimensional hydrodynamic simulations of relativistic extragalactic jets”, Astrophys. J., 572, 713–728, (2002). 7.1, 8.2.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [129]Inutsuka, S., “Reformulation of smoothed particle hydrodynamics with Riemann Solver”, J. Comput. Phys., 179, 238–267, (2002). 4.2ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [130]Israel, W., “Covarinat fluid mechanics and thermodynamics: An introduction”, in Anile, A., and ChoquetBruhat, Y., eds., Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Lectures Given at the 1st 1987 Session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo, 152–210, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1989). 9.6Google Scholar
 [131]Iwamoto, T.J., Mazzali, P.A., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., Nakamura, T., Patat, F., Danziger, I.J., Young, T.R., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., Augustejn, T., Doublier, V., Gonzalez, J.F., Boehnhardt, H., Brewer, J., Hainaut, O.R., Lidman, C., Leibundgut, B., Cappellaro, E., Turatto, M., Galama, T.J., Vreeswijk, P.M., Kouveliotou, C., van Parad1js, J., Plan, E., Palazzi, E., and Frontera, F., “A Hypernova Model for the Supernova Associated with the γRay Burst of 25 April 1998”, Nature, 395, 672–674, (1998). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [132]Jenny, P., and Müller, B., “RankineHugoniotRiemann Solver Considering Source Terms and Multidumensional Effects”, J. Comput. Phys., 145, 575–610, (1998). 8.2.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [133]Junor, W., Biretta., J.A., and Livio, M., “Formation of the radio jet in M87 at 100 Scharzschild radii from the central black hole”, Nature, 401, 891–892, (1999) 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [134]Kheyfets, A., Miller, W.A., and Zurek, W.H., “Covariant Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics on a Curved Background”, Phys. Rev. D, 41, 451–454, (1990). 4.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [135]Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., and Sari, R., “Hydrodynamics of a Relativistic Fireball: The Complete Evolution”, Astrophys. J., 513, 669–678, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [136]Koide, S., “A Twodimensional Simulation of a Relativistic Jet bent by an Oblique Magnetic Field”, Astrophys. J., 487, 66–69, (1997). 3.9, 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [137]Koide, S., Meier, D.L., Shibata, K., and Kudoh, T., “General Relativistic Simulations of Early Jet Formation in a Rapidly Rotating Black Hole Magnetosphere”, Astrophys. J., 536, 668–674,(2000). 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [138]Koide, S., Nishikawa, K.I., and Muttel, R.L., “A TwoDimensional Simulation of a Relativistic Magnetized Jet”, Astrophys. J., 463, L71–L74, (1996). 3.9, 5, 7.1, 8.1, h, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [139]Koide, S., Shibata, K., and Kudoh, T., “General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Jets from Black Hole Accretion Disks: TwoComponent Jets Driven by Nonsteady Accretion of Magnetized Disks”, Astrophys. J., 495, L63–L66, (1998 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [140]Koide, S., Shibata, K., and Kudoh, T., “Relativistic Jet Formation from Black Hole Magnetized Accretion Disks: Method, Tests, and Applications of a General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamical Numerical Code”, Astrophys. J., 522, 727–752, (1999). 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [141]Koide, S., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T., and Meier, D., “Numerical method for General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics in KerrSpaceTime”, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 34, S215–S224, (2001). 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [142]Koide, S., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T., and Meier, D., “Extraction of black hole rotational energy by a magnetic field and the formation of relativistic jets”, Science, 295, 1688–1691, (2002). 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [143]Komissarov, S.S., “A GodunovType Scheme for Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 303, 343–366, (1999). 8.1, g, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [144]Komissarov, S.S., “Numerical simulations of relativistic magnetized jets”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 308, 1069–1076, (1999). 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [145]Komissarov, S.S., “Direct simulations of the BlandfordZnajek effect”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 326, L41 L44, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [146]Komissarov, S.S., “Timedependent, forcefree, degenerate electrodynamics”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 336, 759–766, (2002). For a related online version see: S.S. Komissarov, “On the properties of timedependent, forcefree degenerate electrodynagmics”, (2002, February), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0202447. 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [147]Komissarov, S.S., and Falle, S.A.E.G., “Simulations of Superluminal Sources”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 288, 833–848, (1997). 7.1, 8.2.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [148]Komissarov, S.S., and Falle, S.A.E.G., “The Large Scale Structure of FR11 Radio Sources”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 297, 1087–1108, (1998). 7.1, 8.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [149]Kulkarni, S.R., Frail, D.A., Wieringa, M.H., Ekers, R.D., Sadler, E.M., Wark, R.M., Higdon, J.L., Phinney, E.S., and Bloom, J.S., “Radio Emission from the Supernova 1998bw and its Association with the 7Ray Burst of 25 April 1998”, Nature, 395, 663–669, (1998). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [150]Laguna, P., Miller, W.A., and Zurek, W.H., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Near a Black Hole”, Astrophys. J., 404, 678–685, (1993). 4.2, 5, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, jADSGoogle Scholar
 [151]Lahy, N.K., A Particle Method for Relativistic Fluid Dynamics, Masters Thesis, (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1989). 4.2Google Scholar
 [152]Laing, R.A., “Brightness and Polarization Structure of Decelerating Relativistic Jets”, in Hardee, P.E., Bridle, A.H., and Zensus, J.A., eds., Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, volume 100 of ASP Conference Series, 241–252, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 1996). 7.1Google Scholar
 [153]Landau, L.D., and Lifshitz, E.M., Fluid Mechanics, (Pergamon, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1987). 1.3Google Scholar
 [154]Laney, C.B., Computational Gasdynamics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998). 1.3, 9.1zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [155]Lattanzio, J.C., Monaghan, J.J., Pongracic, H., and Schwarz, H.P., “Controlling Penetration”, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 7, 591–598, (1986). 4.2zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [156]Lax, P.D., and Wendroff, B., “Systems of Conservation Laws”, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 13, 217–237, (1960). 9.5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [157]Lehner, L., “Numerical relativity: a review”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 25–86, (2001). 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [158]LeVeque, R.J., Numerical Methods for Conservation Law, (Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland, 1992), 2nd edition. 1.3, 9.5, 9.5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [159]LeVeque, R.J., “Wave propagation algorithms for multidimensional hyperbolic systems”, J. Comput. Phys., 131, 327–353, (1997). 9.5ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [160]LeVeque, R.J., “Balancing Source Terms and Flux Gradients in High Resolution Godunov Methods”, J. Comput. Phys., 146, 346–365, (1998). 8.2.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [161]LeVeque, R.J., “Nonlinear Conservation Laws and Finite Volume Methods”, in Steiner, O., and Gautschy, A., eds., SaasFee Advanced Course 27: Computational Methods for Astrophysical Fluid Flow, 1–159, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998). 1.3, 9.5Google Scholar
 [162]LeVeque, R.J., and Berger, M., “AMRCLAW”, (2002), [Online HTML Document]: cited on 13 December 2002, http://www.amath.washington.edu/claw/claw/amrclaw. AMRCLAW AMR web site maintained by R.J. LeVeque and M. Berger. 8.2.2
 [163]Lichnerowicz, A., Relativistic hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics, (Benjamin, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1967). 8.2.4zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [164]Liu, X.D., and Osher, S., “Convex ENO high order multidimensional schemes without field by field decomposition or staggered grids”, J. Comput. Phys., 142, 304–330, (1998). 3.9, 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [165]Lobanov, A.P., Krichbaum, T.P., Witzel, A., Kraus, A., Zensus, J.A., Britzen, S., Otterbein, K., Hummel, C.A., and Johnston, K., “VSOP imaging of S5 0836+710: a closeup on plasma instabilities in the jet”, Astron. Astrophys., 340, L60–L64, (1998). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [166]Lobanov, A.P., and Zensus, J.A., “A Cosmic double helix in the archetypical Quasar 3C273”, Science, 294, 128–131, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [167]Lombardi, Jr., J.C., Sills, A., Rasio, F.A., and Shapiro, S.L., “Tests of spurious transport in smoothed particle hydrodynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 152, 687–735, (1999). 4.2, 9.6ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [168]Lucy, L.B., “A Numerical Approach to the Testing of the Fission Hypothesis”, Astron. J., 82, 1013–1024, (1977). 4.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [169]MacFadyen, A., and Woosley, S.E., “Collapsars: GammaRay Bursts and Explosions in Failed Supernovae”, Astrophys. J., 524, 262–289, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [170]MacFadyen, A., Woosley, S.E., and Heger, A., “Supernovae, Jets, and Collapsars”, Astrophys. J., 550, 410–425, (2001). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [171]MacNeice, P., “PARAMESH V3.1 — Parallel Adaptive Mesh Refinement”, (2003), [Online HTML Document]: cited on November 2003, http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/paramesh/Usersmanual/amr.html. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center web page on PARAMESH. 8.2.2
 [172]Mann, P.J., “A Relativistic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Method Tested with the Shock Tube”, Computer Phys. Commun., 67, 245–260, (1991). 1.2, 4.2, 5, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, k, 8.2.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [173]Mann, P.J., “A Finite Element Method in Space and Time for Relativistic Spherical Collapse”, Computer Phys. Commun., 75, 10–30, (1993). 8.2.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [174]Mann, P.J., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Applied to Relativistic Spherical Collapse”, Computer Phys. Commun., 107, 188–198, (1993). 1.2, 4.2ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [175]Marquina, A., “Local Piecewise Hyperbolic Reconstruction of Numerical Fluxes for Nonlinear Scalar Conservation Laws”, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 15, 892–915, (1994). 9.5MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [176]Marquina, A., Martí, J.Mª, Ibáñez, J.Mª, Miralles, J.A., and Donat, R., “Ultrarelativistic Hydrodynamics: HighResolution ShockCapturing Methods”, Astron. Astrophys., 258, 566–571, (1992). 1.2, 3.4, 5, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [177]Marscher, A.P., and Gear, W.K., “Models for highfrequency radio outbursts in extragalactic sources, with application to the early 1983 millimetertoinfrared flare of 3C 273”, Astrophys. J., 298, 114–127, (1985). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [178]Marscher, A.P., Jorstad, S.G., Gómez, J.L., Aller, M.F., Teräsranta, H., Lister, M.L., and Stirling, A.M., “Observational evidence for the accretiondisk origin for a radio jet in an active galaxy”, Nature, 417, 625–627, (2002). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [179]Martí, J.Mª, Ibáñez, J.Mª, and Miralles, J.A., “Numerical Relativistic Hydrodynamics: Local Characteristic Approach”, Phys. Rev. D, 43, 3794–3801, (1991). 1.2, 5, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 8.2.3, 9.2, 9.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [180]Martí, J.Mª, and Müller, E., “The Analytical Solution of the Riemann Problem in Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, J. Fluid Mech., 258, 317–333, (1994). 2.3, 2.3, 2.3, 8.2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [181]Martí, J.Mª, and Müller, E., “Extension of the Piecewise Parabolic Method to OneDimensional Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 123, 1–14, (1996). 3.1, 3.1, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.3, 6.2.3, 7.2, 8.1, 9.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [182]Martí, J.Mª, Müller, E., Font, J.A., and Ibáñez, J.Mª, “Morphology and Dynamics oh Highly Supersonic Relativistic Jets”, Astrophys. J., 448, L105–L108, (1995). 3.8, 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [183]Martí, J.Mª, Müller, E., Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, and Marquina, A., “Morphology and Dynamics of Relativistic Jets”, Astrophys. J., 479, 151–163, (1997). 3.8, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 7.1, 8.2.2, 9.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [184]Martí, J.Mª, Müller, E., and Ibáñez, J.Mª, “Hydrodynamical Simulations of Relativistic Jets”, Astron. Astrophys., 281, L9–L12, (1994). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [185]Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., Hatano, K., Iwamoto, K., Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Minezaki, T., Doi, M., Enya, K., Tomita, H., Smartt, S.J., Kinugasa, K., Kawakita, H., Ayani, K., Kawabata, T., Yamaoka, H., Qiu, Y.L., Motohara, K., Gerardy, C.L., Fesen, R., Kawabata, K.S., Iye, M., Kashikawa, N., Kosugi, G., Ohyama, Y., TakadaHidai, M., Zhao, G., Chornock, R., Filippenko, A.V., Benetti, S., and Turatto, M., “The Type Ic Hypernova SN2002ap”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 572, L61–L65, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [186]Mazzali, P.A., Iwamoto, K., and Nomoto, K., “A Spectroscopic Analysis of the Energetic Type Ic Hypernova SN 1997ef”, Astrophys. J., 545, 407–419, (2000). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [187]McAbee, T.L., Wilson, J.R., Zingman, J.A., and Alonso, C.T., “Hydrodynamic Simulations of ^{16}O + ^{208}Pb Collisions at 200 GeV/N”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 4, 983–993, (1989). 5, 6.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [188]Meegan, C.A., Fishman, G.J., Wilson, R.B., Horack, J.M., Brock, M.N., Paciesas, W.S., Pendleton, G.N., and Kouveliotou, C., “Spatial Distribution of γRay Bursts Observed by BATSE”, Nature, 355, 143–145, (1992). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [189]Meier, D.L., “The association of jet production with geometrically thick accretion flows and black hole rotation”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 548, L9–L12, (2000). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [190]Meier, D.L., Koide, S., and Uchida, Y., “Magnetohydrodynamic production of relativistic jets”, Science, 291, 84–92, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [191]Menikoff, R., and Plohr, B.J., “The Riemann problem for fluid flow of real materials”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 75–130, (1989). 9.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [192]Mèszáros, P., “Theories of gammaray bursts”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 40, 137–169, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [193]Metzger, M.R., Djorgovski, S.G., Kulkarni, S.R., Steidel, C.C., Adelberger, K.L., Frail, D.A., Costa, E., and Frontera, F., “Spectral Constraints on the Redshift of the Optical Counterpart to the γRay Burst of the 8 May 1997”, Nature, 387, 878–880, (1997). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [194]Mioduszewski, A.J., Hughes, P.A., and Duncan, G.C., “Simulated VLBI Images from Relativistic Hydrodynamic Jet Models”, Astrophys. J., 476, 649–665, (1997). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [195]Mirabel, I.F., and Rodriguez, L.F., “A Superluminal Source in the Galaxy”, Nature, 371, 46–48, (1994). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [196]Mizuta, A., Yamada, S., and Takabe, H., “Numerical study of AGN jet propagation with two dimensional relativistic hydrodynamic code”, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 34, 329–331, (2001). 3.8ADSGoogle Scholar
 [197]Mochkovitch, R., Hernanz, M., Isern, J., and Martin, X., “GammaRay Bursts as Collimated Jets from Neutron Star/Black Hole Mergers”, Nature, 361, 236–238, (1993). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [198]Monaghan, J.J., “Particle Methods for Hydrodynamics”, Comput. Phys. Rep., 3, 71–124, (1985). 4.2, 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [199]Monaghan, J.J., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 543–574, (1992). 1.2, 1.3, 4.2, 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [200]Monaghan, J.J., “SPH and Riemann Solvers”, J. Comput. Phys., 136, 298–307, (1997). 4.2, 4.2, 4.2, 9.6, 9.6, 9.6, 9.6ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [201]Monaghan, J.J., and Lattanzio, J.C., “A Refined Particle Method for Astrophysical Problems”, Astron. Astrophys., 149, 135–143, (1985). 9.6ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [202]Monaghan, J.J., and Price, D.J., “Variational principles for relativistic smoothed particle hydrodynamics”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 328, 381–392, (2001). 4.2, 4.2, 5, 6.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [203]Morris, J.P., and Monaghan, J.J., “A switch to reduce SPH viscosity”, J. Comput. Phys., 136, 41–50, (1997). 9.6ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [204]Muir, S., GR SPH, PhD Thesis, (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2002). 4.2, 5, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 8, 9, 8.1, j, 8.2.3Google Scholar
 [205]Müller, E., “Simulations of Astrophysical Fluid Flow”, in Steiner, O., and Gautschy, A., eds., SaasFee Advanced Course 27: Computational Methods for Astrophysical Fluid Flow, 343–479, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998). 8.2.2Google Scholar
 [206]Nakamura, T., “General Relativistic Collapse of Axially Symmetric Stars Leading to the Formation of Rotating Black Holes”, Prog. Theor. Phys., 65, 1876–1890, (1981). 1.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [207]Nakamura, T., Maeda, K., Miyama, S., and Sasaki, M., “General Relativistic Collapse of an Axially Symmetric Star. I”, Prog. Theor. Phys., 63, 1229–1244, (1980). 1.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [208]Nakamura, T., and Sato, H., “General Relativistic Collapse of NonRotating Axisymmetric Stars”, Prog. Theor. Phys., 67, 1396–1405, (1982). 1.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [209]Nishikawa, K.I., Koide, S., Sakai, J.I., Christodoulou, D.M., Sol, H., and Mutel, R.L., “ThreeDimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Relativistic Jets Injected along a Magnetic Field”, Astrophys. J., 483, L45–L48, (1997). 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [210]Nishikawa, K.I., Koide, S., Sakai, J.I., Christodoulou, D.M., Sol, H., and Mutel, R.L., “ThreeDimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Relativistic Jets Injected into an Oblique Magnetic Field”, Astrophys. J., 498, 166–169, (1998). 3.9, 7.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [211]Nishikawa, K.I., Koide, S., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T., and Sol, H., “3D General Relativistic MHD Simulations of Generating Jets”, in Laing, R.A., and Blundell, K.M., eds., Particles and Fields in Radio Galaxies Conference, volume CS250 of ASP Conference Series, 22, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Franciso, CA, U.S.A., 2001). For a related online version see: K.I. Nishikawa, et al., “3D General Relativistic MHD Simulations of Generating Jets”, (February, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0202396. 7.1, 8.2.4Google Scholar
 [212]Noh, W.F., “Errors for Calculations of Strong Shocks Using an Artificial Viscosity and an Artificial Heat Flux”, J. Comput. Phys., 72, 78–120, (1987). 6.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [213]Norman, M.L., and Winkler, K.H.A., “Why Ultrarelativistic Hydrodynamics is Difficult”, in Norman, M.L., and Winkler, K.H.A., eds., Astrophysical Radiation Hydrodynamics: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Workshop held in Garching, August 2–13, 1982, volume 188 of NATO ASI Series C, 449–476, (Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1986). 1.2, 5, 6.1, 6.2.2, 8.1Google Scholar
 [214]Oran, E.S., and Boris, J.P., Numerical Simulations of Reactive Flow, (Elsevier, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1987). 1.3zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [215]Osher, S., and Chakravarthy, S., “High Resolution Schemes and the Entropy Condition”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 21, 955–984, (1984). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [216]Paczynski, B., “GammaRay Bursters at Cosmological Distances”, Astrophys. J., 308, L43–L46, (1986). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [217]Paczyński, B., “Are GammaRay Bursts in Star Forming Regions?”, Astrophys. J., .494, L45–L48, (1998). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [218]Panaitescu, A., and Kumar, P., “Properties of Relativistic Jets in GammaRay Burst Afterglows”, Astrophys. J., 571, 779–789, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [219]Panaitescu, A., Wen, L., Laguna, P., and Mészáros, P., “Impact of Relativistic Fireballs on External Matter: Numerical Models of Cosmological GammaRay Bursts”, Astrophys. J., 482, 942–950, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [220]Papadopoulos, P., and Font, J.A., “Relativistic hydrodynamics on spacelike and null surfaces: Formalism and computations of spherically symmetric spacetimes”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 024015–1–024015–15, (2000). 8.2.3, 9.2ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 [221]Peitz, J., and Appl, S., “3+1 formulation of nonideal hydrodynamics”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 296, 231–244, (1998). 8.2.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [222]Plan, E., Amati, L., Antonelli, L.A., Butler, R.C., Costa, E., Cusumano, G., Danziger, J., Feroci, M., Fiore, F., Frontera, F., Giommi, P., Masetti, N., Muller, J.M., Oosterbroek, T., Owens, A., Palazzi, E., Piro, L., CastroTirado, A., Coletta, A., Dal Flume, D., Del Sordo, S., Heise, J., Nicastro, L., Orlandini, M., Parmar, A., Soffitta, P., Torroni, V., and in ’t Zand, J.J.M., “BeppoSAX detection and followup of GRB 980425”, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 138, 463–464, (1999). For a related online version see: E. Plan, et al., “BeppoSAX Detection and Followup of GRB980425”, (March, 1999), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 8 March 1999, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9903113. 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [223]Piran, T., “Numerical Codes for Cylindrical General Relativistic Systems”, J. Comput. Phys., 35, 254–283, (1980). 1.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [224]Piran, T., “GammaRay Bursts and the Fireball Model”, Phys. Rep., 314, 575–667, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [225]Piran, T., “Gammaray bursts — A puzzle being resolved”, Phys. Rep., 333334, 529–553, (2000). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [226]Piran, T., “GammaRay Bursts — When theory meets observations”, in Wheeler, J.C., and Martel, H., eds., Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, volume 586 of AIP Conference Proceedings, 575–586, (American Institut of Physics, Melville, NY, U.S.A., 2001). 7.2Google Scholar
 [227]Piran, T., Shemi, A., and Narayan, R., “Hydrodynamics of Relativistic Fireballs”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 263, 861–867, (1993). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [228]Piro, L., Heise, J., Jager, R., Costa, E., Frontera, F., Feroci, M., Muller, J.M., Amati, L., Cinti, M.N., dal Flume, D., Nicastro, L., Orlandini, M., and Pizzichini, G., “The First XRay Localization of a γRay Burst by BeppoSAX and its Fast Spectral Evolution”, Astron. Astrophys., 329, 906–910, (1998). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [229]Plewa, T., “Adaptive Mesh Refinement for structured grids”, (2003), [Online HTML document]: cited on 15 December 2003, http://flashuchicago.edu/~tomek/AMR/index.html. AMRA AMR web site maintained by T. Plewa. 8.2.2
 [230]Plewa, T., and Martí, J.Mª, “RJET — Evolution of Relativistic Jets”, (2003), [Online HTML document]: cited on 15 December 2003, http://www.camk.edu.pl/~tomek/RJET/index.html. 8.2.2
 [231]Plewa, T., Martí, J.Mª, Muller, E., Rozycka, M., and Sikora, M., “Bending Relativistic Jets in AGNs”, in Ostrowski, M., Sikora, M., Madejski, G., and Begelman, M., eds., Relativistic Jets in AGNs, 104–109, (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland, 1997). 7.1, 8.2.2Google Scholar
 [232]Plewa, T., and Müller, E., “The Consistent MultiFluid Advection Method”, Astron. Astrophys., 342, 179–191, (1999). 8.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [233]Pons, J.A., Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Miralles, J.A., “General Relativistic Hydrodynamics with Special Relativistic Riemann Solvers”, Astron. Astrophys., 339, 638–642, (1998). f, 8.2.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [234]Pons, J.A., Martí, J.Mª, and Müller, E., “The exact solution of the Riemann problem with nonzero tangential velocities in relativistic hydrodynamics”, J. Fluid Mech., 422, 125–139, (2000). 2.3, 2.3, 2.3, 8.1, eADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [235]Popham, R., Woosley, S.E., and Fryer, C., “HyperAccreting Black Holes and GammaRay Bursts”, Astrophys. J., 518, 356–374, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [236]Potter, D., Computational Physics, (Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 1977). 1.3.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [237]Price, P.A., Berger, E., Reichart, D.E., Kulkarni, S.R., Yost, S.A., Subrahmanyan, R., Wark, R.M., Wieringa, M.H., Frail, D.A., Bailey, J., Boyle, B., Corbett, E., Gunn, K., Ryder, S.D., Seymour, N., Koviak, K., McCarthy, P., Phillips, M., Axelrod, T.S., Bloom, J.S., Djorgovski, S.G., Fox, D.W., Galama, T.J., Harrison, F.A., Hurley, K., Sari, R., Schmidt, B.P., Brown, M.J.I., Cline, J., Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C., and Montanari, E., “GRB 011121: A Massive Star Progenitor”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 572, L51 L55, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [238]Quirk, J., “A Contribution to the Great Riemann Solver Debate”, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 18, 555–574, (1994). 3.8MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [239]Reeves, J.N., Watson, D., Osborne, J.P., Pounds, K.A., O’Brien, P.T., Short, A.D.T., Turner, M.J.L., Watson, M.G., Mason, K.O., Ehle, M., and Schartel, N., “The signature of supernova ejecta in the Xray afterglow of the gammaray burst 011211”, Nature, 416, 512–515, (2002). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [240]Rezzolla, L., and Zanotti, O., “An improved exact Riemann solver for relativistic hydrodynamics”, J. Fluid Mech., 449, 395–411, (2001). 2.3, 4ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [241]Rezzolla, L., Zanotti, O., and Pons, J., “An improved exact Riemann solver for multidimensional relativistic flows”, J. Fluid Mech., 479, 199–219, (2003). For a related online version see: L. Rezzolla, et al., “An Improved Exact Riemann Solver for Multidimensional Relativis tic Flows”, (May, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/grgc/0205034. 2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [242]Richardson, G.A., and Chung, T.J., “Computational relativistic astrophysics using the flow fielddependent variation theory”, Astrophys. J., 139, 539–563, (2002). 8.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [243]Richtmyer, R.D., and Morton, K.W., Difference Methods for Initialvalue Problems, (WileyInterscience, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1967). 1.2, 9.5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [244]Rischke, D.H., Bernhard, S., zand Maruhn, J.A., “Relativistic hydrodynamics for heavyion collisions: I. General aspects and expansion into vacuum”, Nucl. Phys. A, 595, 346–382, (1995). 5, 6.1, 7.3, 8.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [245]Rischke, D.H., and Gyulassy, M., “The timedelay signature of quarkgluon plasma formation in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Nucl. Phys. A, 608, 479–512, (1996). 6.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [246]Rischke, D.H., Pürsün, Y., and Maruhn, J.A., “Relativistic hydrodynamics for heavyion collisions: II. Compression of nuclear matter and the phase transition to the quarkgluon plasma”, Nucl. Phys. A, 595, 383–408, (1995). 5, 6.1, 7.3, 8.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [247]Roe, P.L., “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors and Difference Schemes”, J. Comput. Phys., 43, 357–372, (1981). 3.4, 4.2, 4.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [248]Roe, P.L., Generalized Formulation of TVD LaxWendroff Schemes, (ICASE, Virginia, U.S.A., 1984), Report no. 8453. 9.5Google Scholar
 [249]Romero, J.V., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Miralles, J.A., “A New Spherically Symmetric General Relativistic Hydrodynamical Code”, Astrophys. J., 462, 839–854, (1996). 3.4, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 8.2.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [250]Romero, R., Ibáñez, J.Mª, Martí, J.Mª, and Miralles, J.A., “Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics: Analytical and Numerical Aspects”, in Miralles, J.A., Morales, J.A., and Saez, D., eds., Some Topics on General Relativity and Gravitational Radiation, 145–148, (Editions Frontieres, Paris, France, 1996). 8.2.4Google Scholar
 [251]Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., Duncan, G.C., and Hardee, P. E., “A comparison of the morphology and stability of relativistic and nonrelativistic jets”, Astrophys. J., 516, 729–743, (1999). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [252]Ryu, D., Miniati, F., Jones, T.W., and Frank, A., “A divergencefree upwind code for multidimensional magnetohydrodynamics flows”, Astrophys. J., 509, 244–255, (1998). 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [253]Sanders, R.H., and Prendergast, K.H., “The Possible Relation of the 3Kiloparsec Arm to Explosions in the Galactic Nucleus”, Astrophys. J., 188, 489–500, (1974). 4.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [254]Sari, R., Piran, T., and Halpern, J.P., “Jets in GRBs”, Astrophys. J., 519, L17 L20, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [255]Scheck, L., Aloy, M.A., Martí, J.M., Gómez, J.L, and Müller, E., “Does the plasma composition affect the longterm evolution of relativistic jets”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 331, 615–634, (2002). 7.1, 18, 19, 8.2.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [256]Schneider, V., Katscher, U., Rischke, D.H., Waldhauser, B., Maruhn, J.A., and Munz, C.D., “New Algorithms for Ultrarelativistic Numerical Hydrodynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 105, 92–107, (1993). 3.6, 3.6, 4.3, 5, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 8.1, 9.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [257]Selhammar, M., “Modified artificial viscosity in smoothed particle hydrodynamics”, Astron. Astrophys., 325, 857–865, (1997). 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [258]Shu, C.W., “TVB Uniformly HighOrder Schemes for Conservation Laws”, Math. Comput., 49, 105–121, (1987). 9.5MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [259]Shu, C.W., and Osher, S.J., “Efficient implementation of essentially nonoscillatory shockcapturing schemes”, J. Comput. Phys., 77, 439–471, (1988). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [260]Shu, C.W., and Osher, S.J., “Efficient Implementation of Essentially NonOscillatory ShockCapturing Schemes, II”, J. Comput. Phys., 83, 32–78, (1989). 3.8, 4.3, 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [261]Siegler, S., and Riffert, H., “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations of ultrarelativistic shocks with artificial viscosity”, Astrophys. J., 531, 1053–1066, (1999). For a related online version see: S. Siegler, et al., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulations of Ultra relativistic Shocks with Artificial Viscosity”, (April, 1999), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 6 April 1999, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9904070. 1.2, 4.2, 5, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.1, 8.1, jADSGoogle Scholar
 [262]Sikora, M., and Madejski, G., “On Pair Content and Variability of Subparsec Jets in Quasars”, Astrophys. J., 534, 109–113, (2000). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [263]Sofitta, P., Feroci, M., Pior, L., in ’t Zand, J., Heise, J., DiCiolo, L., Muller, J.M., Palazzi, E., and Frontera, F., “GRB 980425”, IAU Circ., 6884, (1998). 7.2Google Scholar
 [264]Sokolov, I., Timofeev, E., Sakai, J.I., and Takayama, K., “Development and applications of artificial wind schemes for hydrodynamics, MHD and relativistic hydrodynamics”, in Proceedings of the 12th Japanese CFD Conference, (1999). CD version. 3.7, 5Google Scholar
 [265]Sokolov, I., Zhang, H.M., and Sakai, J.I., “Simple and efficient Godunov Scheme for Computational Relativistic Gas Dynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 172, 209–234, (2001). 8.2.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [266]Sol, H., Pelletier, G., and Asseo, E., “Twoflow model for extragalactic radio jets”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 237, 411–429, (1989). 7.1ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [267]Stark, R.F., and Piran, T., “A General Relativistic Code for Rotating Axisymmetric Configurations and Gravitational Radiation: Numerical Methods and Tests”, Comput. Phys. Rep., 5, 221–264, (1987). 1.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [268]Steiner, O., and Gautschy, A., eds., SaasFee Advanced Course 27: Computational Methods for Astrophysical Fluid Flow, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998). 8.2.1zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [269]Steinmetz, M., and Müller, E., “On the Capabilities and Limits of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics”, Astron. Astrophys., 268, 391–410, (1993). 4.2, 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [270]Strang, G., “On the construction and comparison of difference schemes”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 5, 506–517, (1968). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [271]Swegle, J.W., Hicks, D.L., and Attaway, S.W., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Stability Analysis”, J. Comput. Phys., 116, 123–134, (1995). 4.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [272]Synge, J.L., The relativistic gas, (NorthHolland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1957). 8.2.1zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [273]Tan, J.C., Matzner, C.D., and McKee, C.F., “Transrelativistic blast waves in supernovae as gammaray burst progenitors”, Astrophys. J., 551, 946–972, (2001). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [274]Taub, A.H., “Relativistic Fluid Mechnaics”, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 10, 301–332, (1978). 1.3ADSGoogle Scholar
 [275]Thacker, R.J., Tittley, E.R., Pearce, F.R., Couchman, H.M.P., and Thomas, P.A., “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics in cosmology: A comparative study of implementations”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 319, 619–648, (2000). 4.2, 9.6ADSGoogle Scholar
 [276]Thompson, K.W., “The Special Relativistic Shock Tube”, J. Fluid Mech., 171, 365–375, (1986). 2.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [277]Tingay, S.J., Jauncey, D.L., Preston, R.A., Reynolds, J.E., Meier, D.L., Murphy, D.W., Tzioumis, A.K., Mckay, D.J., Kesteven, M.J., Lovell, J.E.J., CampbellWilson, D., Ellingsen, S.P., Gough, R., Hunstead, R.W., Jones, D.L., McCulloch, P.M., Migenes, V., Quick, J., Sinclair, M.W., and Smits, D., “Relativistic Motion in a Nearby Bright XRay Source”, Nature, 374, 141–143, (1995). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [278]Tinney, C., Stathakis, R., Cannon, R., Galama, T., Wieringa, M., Frail, D.A., Kulkarni, S.R., Higdon, J.L., Wark, R., and Bloom, J.S., “GRB 980425”, IAU Circ., 6896, (1998). 7.2Google Scholar
 [279]Toro, E.F., Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1997). 9.5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [280]Toth, G., “The \(\nabla \cdot \vec B = 0\) Constraint in ShockCapturing Magnetohydrodynamics Codes”, J. Comput. Phys., 161, 605–652, (2000). 8.2.4ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [281]Turatto, M., Suzuki, T., Mazzali, P.A., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, I.J., Nomoto, K., Nakamura, T., Young, T.R., and Patat, F., “The Properties of Supernova 1997cy Associated with GRB 970514”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 534, L57–L61, (2000). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [282]van Leer, B., “Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A secondorder sequel to Godunov’s method”, J. Comput. Phys., 32, 101–136, (1979). 3.8, 9.5ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [283]van Paradijs, J., Groot, P.J., Galama, T., Kouveliotou, C., Strom, R.G., Telting, J., Rutten, R.G.M., Fishman, G.J., Meegan, C.A., Pettini, M., Tanvir, N., Bloom, J., Pedersen, H., NørdgaardNielsen, H.U., LindenVørnle, M., Melnick, J., van der Steene, G., Bremer, M., Naber, R., Heise, J., in’t Zand, J., Costa, E., Feroci, M., Piro, L., Frontera, F., Zavattini, G., Nicastro, L., Palazzi, E., Bennet, L., Hanlon, L., and Parmar, A., “Transient optical emission from the error box of the gammaray burst of 28 February 1997”, Nature, 386, 686–689, (1997). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [284]van Paradijs, J., Kouveliotou, C., and Wijers, R., “GammaRay Burst Afterglows”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 38, 379–425, (2000). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [285]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “Maxwell’s Equations in Divergence Form for General Media with Applications to MHD”, Commun. Math. Phys., 141, 63–77, (1991). 4.1ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [286]van Putten, M.H.P.M., MHD in Divergence Form: A Computational Method for Astrophysical Flow, PhD Thesis, (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, U.S.A., 1992). 4.1, 8.2.4Google Scholar
 [287]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “A Numerical Implementation of MHD in Divergence Form”, J. Comput. Phys., 105, 339–353, (1993). 4.1, 5, 6, 8.1, 8.2.4ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [288]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “A TwoDimensional Relativistic (db = 3.25) Jet Simulation”, Astrophys. J., 408, L21–L24, (1993). 4.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [289]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “A 2Dimensional Blast Wave in Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics”, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, 4, 57–69, (1994). 8.2.4zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [290]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “A twodimensional numerical implementation of magnetohydrodynamics in divergence form”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 32, 1504–1518, (1995). 8.2.4MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [291]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “Knots in Simulations of Magnetized Relativistic Jets”, Astrophys. J., 467, L57–L60, (1996). 4.1, 8.2.4ADSGoogle Scholar
 [292]van Putten, M.H.P.M., “Uniqueness in MHD in divergence form: Right nullvectors and wellposedness”, J. Math. Phys., 43, 6195–6208, (2002). For a related online version see: M.H.P.M. van Putten, “Uniqueness in MHD in divergence form: right nullvectors and well posedness”, (April, 1998), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 14 April 1998, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9804139. 8.2.4ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [293]von Neumann, J., and Richtmyer, R.D., “A Method for the Numerical Calculation of Hydrodynamical Shocks”, J. Appl. Phys., 21, 232–247, (1950). 1.2ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [294]Walker, R.C., Benson, J.M., Unwin, S.C., Lystrup, M.B., Hunter, T.R., Pilbratt, G., and Hardee, P.E., “The Structure and Motions of the 3C 120 Radio Jet on Scales of 0.6 to 300 parsecs”, Astrophys. J., 556, 756–772, (2001). 7.1ADSGoogle Scholar
 [295]Wen, L., Panaitescu, A., and Laguna, P., “A ShockPatching Code for Ultrarelativistic Fluid Flows”, Astrophys. J., 486, 919–927, (1997). 3.2, 5, 3, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.2, 12, 7.2, 8.1, dADSGoogle Scholar
 [296]Wilson, JR., “Numerical Study of Fluid Flow in a Kerr Space”, Astrophys. J., 173, 431–438, (1972). 1.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [297]Wilson, J.R., “A Numerical Method for Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, in Smarr, L.L., ed., Sources of Gravitational Radiation, 423–446, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1979). 1.2Google Scholar
 [298]Wilson, JR., and Mathews, G.J., “Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, in Evans, C.R., Finn, S., and Hobill, D., eds., Numerical Relativity, 306–314, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988). 6.1Google Scholar
 [299]Wilson, J.R., and Mathews, G.J., Relativistic Numerical Hydrodynamics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2003). 1.3zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [300]Woodward, P.R., and Colella, P., “The Numerical Simulation of TwoDimensional Fluid Flow with Strong Shocks”, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 115–173, (1984). 3.3, 4.3, 6.2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [301]Woosley, S.E., “GammaRay Bursts from Stellar Mass Accretion Disks around Black Holes”, Astrophys. J., 405, 273–277, (1993). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [302]Woosley, S.E., Eastman, R.G., and Schmidt, B.P., “GammaRay Bursts and Type Ic Supernova SN 1998bw”, Astrophys. J., 516, 788–796, (1999). 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
 [303]Yang, J.Y., Chen, M.H., Tsai, I.N., and Chang, J.W., “A Kinetic Beam Scheme for Relativistic Gas Dynamics”, J. Comput. Phys., 136, 19–40, (1997). 4.3, 5, 6.2.1, 6.2.3ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [304]Yang, J.Y., and Hsu, C.A., “Highresolution, Nonoscillatory Schemes for Unsteady Compressible Flows”, AIAA J., 30, 1570–1575, (1992). 4.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [305]Yang, J.Y., Huang, J.C., and Tsuei, L., “Numerical Solutions of the Nonlinear Model Boltzmann Equations”, Proc. R. Soc. London, A 448, 55–80, (1995). 4.3ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [306]Yee, H.C., “Construction of Explicit and Implicit Symmetric TVD Schemes and Their Applications”, J. Comput. Phys., 68, 151–179, (1987). 9.5ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [307]Yee, H.C., in VKI Lecture Notes in Computational Fluid Dynamics, (von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Sint Genesius Rode, Belgium, 1989). 3.4Google Scholar
 [308]Zhang, W., Woosley, S.E., and MacFadyen, A., “Relativistic jets in collapsars”, Astrophys. J., 586, 356–371, (2003). For a related online version see: W. Zhang, et al., “Relativistic Jets in Collapsars”, (July, 2002), [Online Los Alamos Archive Preprint]: cited on 5 September 2003, http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0207436. 7.2ADSGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.