decreases as $\mu$ decreases.[]{data-label="fig:rhoplotsmujet"}](Figure8.eps){width="3.5in"}

![The normalized number density of photons for the same set of $\mu$ chosen in Figure \[fig:fpplotsmujet\]. This figure demonstrates, as we saw in Figure \[fig:hplotsgamjet\], that the density of photons tracks that of the scatterers.[]{data-label="fig:hplotsmujet"}](Figure9.eps){width="3.5in"}

![The $y$-component of the three-velocity, normalized by $\sqrt{2/(9\rho'_0\kappa{z_0})} \sim \delta$, for the same set of $\mu$ chosen in Figure \[fig:fpplotsmujet\]. We see that the relative maximum increases for smaller $\mu$.[]{data-label="fig:vyplotsmujet"}](Figure10.eps){width="3.5in"}

Figures \[fig:fpplotsmujet\] – \[fig:vyplotsmujet\] illustrate how our solutions depend on $\mu$. As is apparent, changing the value of $\mu$ does not drastically alter the qualitative aspects of the functions. We do see, however, that [decreasing $\mu$ from 1 to 0.1 results in]{} a large increase in the boundary layer thickness; on the contrary, [changing $\mu$ from 1 to 10]{} results in only a slight narrowing of its thickness. It is also evident that a smaller $\mu$ [compared to 1]{} results in a lower average value of the density throughout the boundary layer and a larger peak in the transverse velocity ${v_y}$.

Discussion
==========

Figures \[fig:fpplotsgamjet\] – \[fig:vyplotsgamjet\] demonstrate that the width of the boundary layer is nearly independent of $\zeta$, which is the result of the scaling of our boundary layer 