Addressing magnetic reconnection on multiple scales:

1. Addressing magnetic reconnection on multiple scales: What controls the reconnection rate in astrophysical plasmas? John C. Dorelli University of New Hampshire Space Science Center Is reconnection a local process? What is the role of boundary conditions? What is the role of the dissipation region? Axford Conjecture (1984): Reconnection proceeds at a rate which is completely determined by the externally imposed electric field.

2. The closed magnetosphere Solar wind Magnetopause surface Current is distributed on the magnetopause in such a way that the solar wind field doesn’t penetrate into the magnetosphere. (e.g., Stern, D., JGR, 99, 17,169-17,198, 1994.) Magnetosphere Boundary conditions chosen so that magnetic field is tangent to the magnetopause surface.

3. The perils of living in 2D…. Dungey, J. W., PRL, 6, 47-48, 1961. Dungey, J. W., in Geophysics: The Earth’s Environment, eds., C. Dewitt et al., 1963. Both of these topologies are unstable in 3D!

4. Observations of magnetospheric reconnection Evidence that the magnetopause locally looks like a rotational discontinuity Phan et al., GRL, 30, 1509, 2003.

5. Observations of magnetospheric reconnection Magnetopause Bow Shock Polar VIS UV image of auroral oval (from http://eiger.physics.uiowa.edu/~vis/examples) Magnetic Separatrix Auroral oval marks the boundary between open and closed field lines; the reconnection rate can be determined from radar observations of ionospheric convection (e.g., de la Beaujardiere et al., J. Geophys. Res., 96, 13,907-13,912, 1991.).

6. 3D separatrices (fan) (spine)  A B B separator Lau, Y.-T. and J. M. Finn, Three-dimensional kinematic reconnection in the presence of field nulls and closed field lines, Ap. J., 350, 672, 1990.

7. z x Can we apply two-dimensional steady state reconnection models to the subsolar magnetopause? Sonnerup, JGR, 79, 1546, 1974. Gonzalez and Mozer, JGR, 79, 4186, 1974. reconnection is geometrically impossible. Gonzalez, Planet. Space Sci., 38, 627, 1990. most solar wind-magnetosphere coupling functions can constructed on the foundation of the Sonnerup-Gonzalez function. Cowley, S. W. H., JGR, 81, 3455, 1976. the Sonnerup-Gonzalez function is not valid in 2D reconnection with a spatially varying guide field (e.g., asymmetric reconnection). Swisdak and Drake, GRL, 34, L1106, 2007. reconnection is possible for all non-vanishing IMF clock angles. Dorelli et al., JGR, 112, A02202, 2007. reconnection “X line” (separator) is determined by global considerations.

8. Determining the X line orientation Swisdak and Drake, GRL, 14, L11106, 2007. Reconnection occurs in the plane for which the outflow speed from the X line is maximized However…in 3D, local magnetic field geometry can differ significantly from global magnetic field topology! Dorelli et al., JGR, 112, A02202, 2007. Vacuum superposition (no dipole tilt and no magnetic field x component) predicts:

9. Sweet-Parker Analysis y  x  Momentum equation: Lundquist number:

10. Flux Pileup Reconnection Parker, E. N., Comments on the reconnexion rate of magnetic fields, J. Plasma Phys., 9, 49-63, 1973. 2D incompressible MHD equations. Bulk velocity has the following form: The upstream magnetic field increases to compensate for the reduction in resistivity (and consequent reduction of inflow speed).

11. Classical 2D Steady State Solutions Priest, E. R. and T. G. Forbes, New models for fast steady state magnetic reconnection, J. Geophys. Res., 5579-5588, 1986. Petschek Flux pileup  Incompressible MHD equations are solved in the “outer region” (outside the field reversal region).  is determined from a Sweet-Parker analysis of the diffusion rectangle:

12. Flux Pileup Saturation Sonnerup, B. U. Ö., and E. R. Priest, Resistive MHD stagnation-point flows at a current sheet, J. Plasma Phys., 14, 283-294, 1975. Biskamp, D. and H. Welter, Coalescence of magnetic islands, Phys. Rev. Lett., 44, 1069-1072, 1980. Litvinenko, Y. E., T. G. Forbes and E. R. Priest, A strong limitation on the rapidity of flux pileup reconnection, Solar Physics, 167, 445-448, 1996. Craig, I. J. D., S. M. Henton and G. J. Rickard, The saturation of fast dynamic reconnection, Astron. Astrophys., 267, L39-L41, 1993.

13. Is magnetopause reconnection “driven” by the solar wind? Dorelli et al., JGR, 109, A12216, 2004. steady magnetopause reconnection occurs via the flux pileup mechanism -- local conditions adjust to accommodate (but not necessarily match!) the solar wind electric field Sonnerup and Priest (1975) Borovsky et al., JGR, in press, 2008. we don’t expect the reconnection rate to match the solar wind electric field in 3D; instead, the local parameters adjust themselves so that magnetopause reconnection is controlled by local plasma parameters (local magnetic fields and densities upstream of the diffusion region). 1. reconnection rate doesn’t match the solar wind electric field. 2. pileup is not observed to depend on the IMF clock angle 3. a “plasmasphere effect” was observed, consistent with a local Cassak-Shay electric field. in 3D flux pileup reconnection, the degree of pileup is independent of the IMF clock angle; nevertheless, the degree of pileup increases with decreasing resistivity and increasing solar wind speed. Note: Cassak-Shay assumes E constant -- “driven” in the Borovsky et al. [2007] sense!

14. Calculating the parallel electric field at the subsolar X line Assumptions: Magnetosheath flow is nearly incompressible and symmetric about the Sun-Earth line. Field line curvature near Sun-Earth line is negligible. Resistive MHD is valid along the Sun-Earth line. Local conditions adjust themselves so that this equation is satisfied.

15. Asymptotic matching Sonnerup and Priest (1975) f Diffusion region Ideal MHD X

16. A global topological constraint (f, g) X Current density maximum occurs at the magnetic separator.

17. Subsolar magnetopause reconnection rate Half-wave rectifier Cassak-Shay predicts that the reconnection rate scales like the square root of the resistivity in the resistive MHD case.

18. Conclusions Magnetic reconnection is a global process: 1) The geometries of X lines are determined by global considerations (e.g., the locations of magnetic separators), 2) The reconnection rate is computed by evaluating line integrals (along magnetic separators) of the electric field (i.e., by computing the rates of change of magnetic flux within distinct flux domains). Ultimately, all reconnection is “driven” in the sense that large scale plasma flows impose constraints which dissipation regions must somehow accommodate. Nevertheless, if the system is either 3D or time-varying (i.e., “real”), the dissipation region will also have something to say (via “asymptotic matching”). The Axford Conjecture does not apply to magnetic reconnection at Earth’s dayside magnetopause; magnetic flux pileup renders the reconnection rate sensitive to the Lundquist number. Thus, resistive MHD simulations will never accurately model the magnetosphere in the high Lundquist number limit.

19. Can we apply the Cassak-Shay formula to Earth’s Dayside Magnetopause? Cassak and Shay, Phys. Plasmas, 14, 102114, 2007. It’s a 2D steady state argument, which means that the electric field is a constant in space. There’s no way to determine the orientation of the X line from local conditions. The resistive MHD version predicts the wrong scaling of the reconnection rate with resistivity (the 3D nature of the magnetopause flow is essential!)