1 / 18

Acceleration of ACRs at a Blunt Termination Shock: 2-D Simulations

● V-1. SHINE Nova Scotia, August 2009. ● V-2. Acceleration of ACRs at a Blunt Termination Shock: 2-D Simulations. J. K ό ta University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721-0092, USA Thanks: J.R. Jokipii, J. Giacalone. kota@lpl.arizona.edu. Difference between 1 & 2 D Shocks.

leo-valdez
Télécharger la présentation

Acceleration of ACRs at a Blunt Termination Shock: 2-D Simulations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ● V-1 SHINE Nova Scotia, August 2009 ● V-2 Acceleration of ACRs at a Blunt Termination Shock: 2-D Simulations J.Kόta University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721-0092, USA Thanks: J.R. Jokipii, J. Giacalone kota@lpl.arizona.edu

  2. Difference between 1 & 2 D Shocks ● Are Anomalous Cosmic Rays (ACRs) indeed accelerated at the solar wind termination shock (TS) ? Likelyyes but ● Bluntness of TS counts ● Topology between shock & field Lines counts (cannot be modeled in 1 D) ● Model still qualitative Do not consider other important effects, like dynamical variations

  3. Voyager-1 fooled us with (1) “anti-sunward” precursor anisotropiesSolution: field line intersects the TS multiple times. Multiple intersection explains precursor anisotropies and …. V-2 V-1 Displacement of the ‘nose’ helps

  4. Voyagers fooled us with(2) spectra did not unfold at crossing the TSSolution: field lines .….? ACR fluxes continued to increase into the Heliosheath ● Temporal variaton (Florinski Zank,2006) ● Magnetic topology (McComas & Schwadron, Kόta & Jokipii) ● Combination of the two? Can be a direct result of 2D topology Could have been foreseen (Kόta & Jokipii, 2004)

  5. McComas and Schwadron (2006) Blunt Shock Injection & Acceleration at Flanks Short time for acceleration Kóta and Jokipii, 2004

  6. 2D simulation of Blunt TS (offset circle)- no latitudinal motion - This Simulation: Shock & Injection stronger at nose, weaker toward tail More TSP at nose (injection profile) Less ACRs at nose (global feature)

  7. 2 D simulation (offset circle) cont’d Simulated spectrum unfolds gradually Nose-tail asymmetry Controlled by κ┴ ACR flux continues to increase beyond TS

  8. Tracing back ACRs • Solve Parker’s equation “backward”, with the solar wind blowing inward. What we obtain is the “chance” function which is to be convolved with injection. • Inward wind advects trajectories back to the TS, where pseudo-particles cool-down to injection energy. • Ideally suited for GCRs (all trajectories leave sooner ot later the heliosphere. More cumbersome for ACRs

  9. ”Backward tracing” starting w5 MeV ACR 10 AU off the TS 5 MeV Cooled down to 100 keV Starting energy 5 MeV

  10. Chance to become 5 MeV ACR10AU off the shock Real numbers acceleration cooling Nose (V-1) Flank 60 West

  11. Age distibution ACRs are `older’ deeper in the HS Nose & 60E Reverse method w larger κ Forward method w smaller κ

  12. Implications: • ACRs are best accelerated if injected at front (more time for acceleration) • Birthplace at Nose: Likely most of all ACRs (even those in tail) were injected at front. • Nursery toward Flanks: TSP seen by Voyagers is the seed population of MeV ACRs. TSPs moving toward flanks during further acceleration.

  13. One word on Precursor Events:Possible scenarios for Voyager • Scenario (M* ) is more efficient to accelerate energetic particles • Voyager precursor events may have been associated with configuration M* M* Less efficient- More efficient > <

  14. Summary: ●V-1 ●V-2 ● Magnetic field lines cross the blunt TS multiple times. This explains upstream anisotropies and : ● Two-population spectrum: ACRs start as TSPs at the nose and move toward the flanks during acceleration. Appear still modulated at the TS, and continue to increase into the heliosheath. ● 2-D Shock differs from 1-D shock (topology) ● Dependence on parameters (κ) still need to be explored .

  15. Global features are insensitive injection profile • The distribution & spectrum of MeV ACRs turn out largely insensitive to the injection-profile along the shock. • Lower ACR intensity is obtained at the nose even if - injection rate and/or shock ratio is higher at nose Reason: unfavourable topology (natural cold spot) • To trace the history of ACRs we perform a “backward“ simulation. The solar wind is reversed and a pseudo ‘testparticle’ is released from the point of observation. What we obtain is the Green-function or chance of injected particle to become ACR

  16. Illustrative example of 2-D shock- field/shock angle alternates - cold hot Along shock front “nose” “tail” Distance from shock Global structure along shock front organized by magnetic field

  17. Motivation: where is the source?is history repeating itself ?Do we need a new paradigm ? Likely not ACR fluxes continued to increase beyond TS Source outside Shock V. Hess 1912 Voyager-1 December 2004 Similar result from V-2 (2007)

  18. Global structure of Heliosphere VLISM: partially ionized H,He 0.1/cc μG B ? ACR SEP GCR

More Related