Ion leakage from quasiparallel collisionless shocks: Implications for injection and shock dissipation

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 4911-4928

  Malkov, M A ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR KERNPHYSIK   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHARGED PARTICLES; COMPOSITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS; PLASMA CONFINEMENT; PLASMA SHOCK WAVES; PLASMA TURBULENCE; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS; TRANSPORT PROPERTIES;

ALFVEN WAVE; FERMI ACCELERATION; ION LEAKAGE; PARTICLE TRANSPORT; QUASIPARALLEL COLLISIONLESS SHOCK; SHOCK DISSIPATION; THERMALIZATION;

PLASMA COLLISION PROCESSES;

EID: 0032185280     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4911     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. E. N. Parker, J. Nucl. Energy C 2, 146 (1961).JNECAE
2. R. Z. Sagdeev, Rev. Plasma Phys. 4, 23(1966).RPLPAK
3. C. F. Kennel and R. Z. Sagdeev, J. Geophys. Res. 72, 3303 (1967).JGREA2
4. F. V. Coroniti, J. Phys. (Paris) 4, 265 (1970).JOPQAG
5. M. A. Lee, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 5063 (1982).JGREA2
6. C. F. Kennel, J. P. Edmiston, and T. Hada, in A Tutorial Review, edited by R. G. Stone and B. T. Tsurutani, Geophysical Monograph Series No. 34 (AGU, Washington, DC, 1985), p. 1.
7. K. Papadopoulos, in A Tutorial Review (Ref. 6), p. 59.
8. M. Scholer, in Collisionless Shocks in the Heliosphere: Review of Current Research, edited by R. G. Stone and B. T. Tsurutani, Geophysical Monograph Series No. 35 (AGU, Washington, DC, 1985).
9. K. B. Quest, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9649 (1988).JGREA2
10. W. I. Axford, E. Leer, and G. Skadron, in 15th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 1977 (Bulgaria Academy of Sciences, Plovdiv, 1977), Vol. 11, p. 132.
11. L. O’C. Drury and H. J. Völk, Astrophys. J. 248, 344 (1981).ASJOAB
12. F. C. Jones and D. C. Ellison, Space Sci. Rev. 58, 259 (1991).SPSRA4
13. M. A. Malkov and H. J. Völk, Astron. Astrophys. 300, 605 (1995).AAEJAF
14. A. R. Bell, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 182, 147 (1978); MNRAA4
15. A. R. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Bell182, 443 (1978).
16. L. O’C. Drury, Rep. Prog. Phys. 46, 973 (1983).RPPHAG
17. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1987).
18. C. F. Kennel, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5436 (1984).JGREA2
19. C. T. Russel and M. H. Farris, Adv. Space Res. 15, 285 (1995).ASRSDW
20. J. Rowlands, V. D. Shapiro, and V. I. Shevchenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 50, 979 (1966) [Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 651 (1966)].SPHJAR
21. L. H. Lyu and J. R. Kan, Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1041 (1990).GPRLAJ
22. D. Kraus-Varban and N. Omidi, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 1007 (1993).GPRLAJ
23. M. Scholer, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 47 (1993).JGREA2
24. L. Bennett and D. C. Ellison, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 3439 (1995).JGREA2
25. M. Scholer, H. Kucharek, and V. Jayanti, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 9821 (1997).JGREA2
26. I. B. Bernstein, J. M. Green, and M. D. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. 108, 507 (1957).PHRVAO
27. M. A. Malkov (unpublished).
28. It should be noted that the magnetosonic (MS) component is also observed and may even prevail in 1D and 2D simulations 24. The latter, however, are computationally very expensive and therefore rather incomplete. We have chosen an Alfvén (A) type of polarization for a number of reasons. First, in a real 3D situation the MS waves experience a strong Cherenkov damping for even slightly oblique propagation, and thus they should occupy a significantly smaller volume in k space than that of the Alfvén waves for similar generation and spectral transformation processes. Second, the criterion of modulational stability is satisfied for A waves in the case CACS); see e.g., M. Longtin and B. U. Ö Sonnerup, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6816 (1986). We will concentrate exclusively on the case MA≫1, i.e., the plasma downstream is a high β plasma (CA≪CS), and the magnetosonic wave must be modulationally unstable. However, the above arguments and stability criteria may be applied to the complicated strongly turbulent shock environment only with care, since they have been obtained for homogeneous plasma and in the framework of an essentially perturbative approach. However, the main and in fact very simple reason for choosing the A-type polarization is that the calculation of the distribution of leaking particles is practically very similar for A and MS waves. Moreover, the A wave allows some additional group of particles to leak upstream (see Sec. V), and in this sense the MS case is a subset of the A case. We used this in Sec. IX while comparing our results with hybrid simulations.JGREA2
29. I. Prigogine, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1962).
30. R. Z. Sagdeev and A. A. Galeev, Nonlinear Plasma Theory (Benjamin, New York, 1969).
31. R. F. Lutomirski and R. N. Sudan, Phys. Rev. 147, 156 (1966).PHRVAO
32. T. O’ Neil, Phys. Fluids 8, 2255 (1965).PFLDAS
33. W. L. Kruer, J. M. Dawson, and R. N. Sudan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 838 (1969)
34. V. D. Shapiro and V. I. Shevchenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 57, 2066 (1969) [Sov. Phys. JETP 30, 1121 (1970)].SPHJAR
35. N. I. Budko, V. I. Karpman, and O. A. Pokhotelov, Cosmic Electrodyn. 3, 165 (1972).CELDBF
36. M. A. Malkov, Fiz. Plazmy 8, 872 (1982) [Sov. J. Plasma Phys. 8, 495 (1982)].SJPPDC
37. G. M. Zaslavsky and N. N. Filonenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 54 1590 (1968) [Sov. Phys. JETP 27, 851 (1968)].SPHJAR
38. A reflected component of the wave field that is also known to appear upon the shock crossing has a substantially lower amplitude than that of the transmitted wave; see J. F. McKenzie and K. O. Westphal, Planet. Space Sci. 17, 1029 (1969)
39. A. Achterberg and R. D. Blandford, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 218, 551 (1986). We do not take it into account in our analysis of the regular particle motion, but instead attribute it to the background turbulence.MNRAA4
40. M. Scholer, H. Kucharek, and K. J. Trattner, Adv. Space Res. 21, 533 (1998).ASRSDW
41. This is, in fact, the density of particles that cross the shock from the downstream side for the first time, the “first generation” of injected particles 13. Subsequently, they become subject to first-order Fermi acceleration to form a population with a higher density. This process results, generally speaking, in a further transformation of abundances at higher energies. We also note that an injection rate that can be attributed to the beam density [Eq. (68)] is not to be confused with the injection rate that is normally used in studies of the diffusion-convection equation, where only the particles with momentum p>pinj≫mα(u1-u2) are regarded as “injected.” Here pinj≫mα(u1-u2) is an injection momentum, a somewhat artificial boundary between the thermal and nonthermal plasma, and only the latter is assumed to obey the diffusion-convection equation (see Refs. 1346 for relevant discussions). There are also certain peculiarities in numerical schemes of injection; see, e.g., H. Kang and T. W. Jones, Astrophys. J. 447, 944 (1995).ASJOAB
42. J. P. Edmiston, C. F. Kennel, and D. Eichler, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 531 (1982).GPRLAJ
43. M. A. Malkov and H. J. Völk, Adv. Space Res. 21, 551 (1998).ASRSDW
44. In this case the injection rate is so high that the actual downstream temperature becomes substantially larger than it was assumed to be in the source term fM in Eqs. (81) and (A1), and the whole solution contradicts the RH conditions. To avoid this inconsistency the temperature in the source term fM was parametrized (lowered) in Ref. 13.
45. L. O’C. Drury, W. J. Markiewicz, and H. J. Völk, Astron. Astrophys. 225, 179 (1989).AAEJAF
46. D. C. Ellison, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 29 (1985).JGREA2
47. J. D. Scudder, Adv. Space Res. 15, 181 (1995).ASRSDW
48. M. M. Leroy, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 5081 (1982).JGREA2
49. M. A. Malkov, Astrophys. J. 485, 638 (1997).ASJOAB
50. C. F. Kennel, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 48, 75 (1988) [JETP Lett. 48, 79 (1988)]; JTPLA2
51. M. A. Malkov, Phys. Fluids B 3, 1407 (1991)
52. M. V. Medvedev and P. H. Diamond, Phys. Plasmas 3, 863 (1996).PHPAEN
53. M. A. Malkov, Astrophys. J. 491, 584 (1997).ASJOAB
54. R. D. Blandford and D. Eichler, Phys. Rep. 154, 1 (1987).PRPLCM
55. W. I. Axford, Astrophys. J., Suppl. 90, 937 (1994).APJSA2
56. L. O’C. Drury, Adv. Space Res. 15, 481 (1995).ASRSDW
57. H. J. Völk, in Towards a Major Atmospheric Cerenkov Detector—V, edited by O. C. de Jager, Proceedings of the Kruger National Park Workshop on TeV Gamma Ray Astrophysics, Kruger National Park, August 1997 (Potchefstroom University for CHE, 1997), p. 87.