1 / 29

Shock geometry and particle acceleration timescales in gradual SEP events e.g., 1/20/05 event

Shock geometry and particle acceleration timescales in gradual SEP events e.g., 1/20/05 event. G.P. Zank, Gang Li, and Olga Verkhoglyadova Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP) University of California, Riverside Also V. Florinski, Q. Hu, D. Lario, and CW. Smith.

vicki
Télécharger la présentation

Shock geometry and particle acceleration timescales in gradual SEP events e.g., 1/20/05 event

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. Shock geometry and particle acceleration timescales in gradual SEP events e.g., 1/20/05 event G.P. Zank, Gang Li, and Olga Verkhoglyadova Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP) University of California, Riverside Also V. Florinski, Q. Hu, D. Lario, and CW. Smith Critical to understanding the particle acceleration timescale in diffusive shock acceleration is the nature of the turbulence upstream of the shock. This can take essentially two forms: the one is turbulence excited self-consistently by the particles experiencing energization themselves, and the second is pre-existing in situ turbulence.

  2. perp parallel

  3. Saiz et al. inferred an interplanetary scattering mean free path of 0.9 + 0.1 AU at the start of the event.  Cane et al. (Fall 2005 AGU Abstract #SH21A-05) have suggested that a low level of scattering might reflect an extremely quiet interplanetary medium within an interplanetary CME that originated less than 2 days earlier from the same active region. Mewaldt et al. 2005)

  4. TERMINATION SHOCK U_down INTERPLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELD U_up Quasi-parallel shocks: Quasi-perpendicular shocks: Understanding particle acceleration at perpendicular shocks has been complicated by the absence of a good understanding of field-line “wandering” or turbulence, which amounts to understanding the perpendicular spatial diffusion coefficient. The problems: 1) High injection threshold necessary 2) No self-excited waves

  5. Turbulence in the Solar Wind • Matthaeus et al, 1990: 2-point correlation matrix in co-ord system parallel to mean magnetic field (see also Carbone et al. 2000). • Parallel mean free path for cosmic rays in the inner heliosphere (e.g. Bieber et al., 1994) • Conclusion: turbulence in the SW comprised of admixture of 2D and SLAB

  6. Left: Plot of the parallel (solid curve) and perpendicular mfp (dashed curve) and the particle gyroradius (dotted) as a function of energy for 100 AU (the termination shock) and 1 AU (an interplanetary shock). Right: Different format - plots of the mean free paths at 1 AU as a function of particle gyroradius and now normalized to the correlation length. The graphs are equivalent to the ratio of the diffusive acceleration time to the Bohm acceleration time, and each is normalized to gyroradius. Solid line corresponds to normalized (to the Bohm acceleration time scale) perpendicular diffusive acceleration time scale, the dashed-dotted to parallel acceleration time scale, and the dashed to Bohm acceleration time scale (obviously 1).

  7. Maximum and injection energies Remarks: 1) Parallel shock calculation assumes wave excitation implies maximum energies comparable 3) Injection energy at Q-perp shock much higher than at Q-par therefore expect signature difference in composition

  8. Parallel and perpendicular diffusion coefficients K_perp = black K_par = red Remarks: 1) K_par includes waves 2) The diffusion coefficients as a function of kinetic energy at various heliocentric distances. The inclusion of wave self-excitation makes K_parallel significantly smaller than K_perp at low energies, and comparable at high energies. Can utilize interplanetary shock acceleration models of Zank et al., 2000 and Li et al., 2003, 2005 for perpendicular shock acceleration to derive spectra, intensity profiles, etc.

  9. Intensity profiles emphasize important role of time dependent maximum energy to which protons are accelerated at a shock and the subsequent efficiency of trapping these particles in the vicinity of the shock. Compared to parallel shock case, particle intensity reaches plateau phase faster for a quasi-perpendicular shock – because K_perp at a highly perpendicular shock is larger than the stimulated K_par at a parallel shock, so particles (especially at low energies) find it easier to escape from the quasi-perpendicular shock than the parallel shock.

  10. The time interval spectra for a perpendicular (solid line) and a parallel shock (dotted line). From left to right and top to bottom, the panels correspond to the time intervals t = (1 - {8/9})T, t = (1 - {7/9})T, … t = (1 -{1/9}) T, where T is the time taken for the shock to reach 1 AU. Note particularly the hardening of the spectrum with increasing time for the perpendicular shock example.

  11. perp parallel Observations and theory – 20 Jan ‘05

  12. Intensity profiles emphasize important role of time dependent maximum energy to which protons are accelerated at a shock and the subsequent efficiency of trapping these particles in the vicinity of the shock. Compared to parallel shock case, particle intensity reaches plateau phase faster for a quasi-perpendicular shock – because K_perp at a highly perpendicular shock is larger than the stimulated K_par at a parallel shock, so particles (especially at low energies) find it easier to escape from the quasi-perpendicular shock than the parallel shock.

  13. 24 hours 11 hours 31 hours 36 hours (at 1 AU)

  14. Observations:“Standard” quasi-parallel example From top to bottom (1 - 5), plot of the magnetic field (top, 1) upstream and downstream of a shock showing three intervals upstream for which the magnetic power spectral density was computed (2), (3) the energetic ion fluxes at various energy intervals using 1-minute spin-averaged intensities as measured by the LEMS120 telescope of the EPAM instrument on board ACE, (4) energy spectra measured at times indicated by the vertical lines in the intensity panel, and (5) the evolution of the spectral index gamma obtained by fitting a power-law E^{-\gamma} to the intensities measured in the four lowest energy channels (47-321 keV). The time of the shock passage is indicated by the gray vertical line. The shock parameters are given in the panel (4).

  15. Observations Perpendicular shock Quasi-perp shock Thanks to David Lario for particle data

  16. CONCLUDING REMARKS • The NLGC model shows that the perpendicular mfp is related simpy to the parallel mfp. • The perpendicular acceleration timescale at high energies is significantly smaller than the Bohm acceleration timescale, which implies rapid acceleration at perpendicular shocks. • The perpendicular mfp at 100 AU is not significantly different from that at 1 AU, especially at high energies. One implication is that the perpendicular acceleration timescale for perpendicular shocks is similar throughout the heliosphere. By contrast, three orders of magnitude separate the parallel mfp at 100 AU and 1 AU. • Highly perpendicular interplanetary shocks are more likely to accelerate a pre-existing energetic particle population (possibly flare accelerated particles) than in situ solar wind particles. • With the inclusion of wave excitation at parallel shocks, the acceleration timescale for parallel shocks can be faster than at a perpendicular shock -- a subtlety that has not been appreciated before. Consequently, we find that parallel interplanetary shocks can accelerate protons to higher energies than comparable perpendicular interplanetary shocks. The maximum energy to which a parallel shock can accelerate protons falls fairly rapidly with increasing heliocentric distance whereas it remains almost constant for highly perpendicular shocks.

  17. CONCLUDING REMARKS • Find that the evolving spectra and intensity profiles observed at 1 AU can be quite different for parallel and perp cases. Parallel shock spectra extend to higher energies but highly perpendicular shock accelerated spectra are more power law-like than the more exponential parallel shock spectra. Easier injection at the parallel shock ensures that corresponding spectra have a greater relative number density than those corresponding to highly perpendicular shocks. The absence of a self-excited wave field at highly perpendicular shocks implies more efficient particle trapping at the parallel shock. Consequently, rise times for intensity profiles are much more abrupt for particles accelerated at a highly perpendicular shock than for quasi-parallel shocks. Thus, a plateau is established much more rapidly for highly perpendicular shocks, and, for similar reasons, intensity profiles can decay more rapidly for high energy particles, in marked contrast to the parallel shock case. • Observations support notion of particle acceleration at shocks in absence of stimulated wave activity.

  18. TERMINATION SHOCK U_down INTERPLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELD U_up Some basics: For diffusion theory to be applicable at shocks, probability of escape downstream of shock must be small: Parallel shock Perpendicular shock Evidently, a critical dependence on the strength of scattering.

  19. ACCELERATION TIME SCALE Particle scattering strength Hard sphere scattering: Weak scattering: Strong scattering: Acceleration time at quasi-par shock much greater than at quasi-perp shock.

  20. TRANSVERSE COMPLEXITY Qin et al. [2002a,b] - perpendicular diffusion can occur only in the presence of a transverse complex magnetic field. Flux surfaces with high transverse complexity are characterized by the rapid separation of nearby magnetic field lines. Slab turbulence only – no development of transversely complex magnetic field. Superposition of 80% 2D and 20% slab turbulence, with the consequent development of a transversely complex magnetic field.

  21. Pressure Balanced Structures RevisitedEquilibrium solutions to ideal MHD Hence B and J lie along surfaces of constant pressure. Consider axisymmetric magnetic fluctuations b transverse to a uniform mean magnetic field: Consider simple 2-component model “slab” + “2D” Passive scalar equation for pressure

  22. INTEGRAL FORM OF THE NONLINEAR GUIDING CENTER THEORY Matthaeus, Qin, Bieber, Zank [2003] derived a nonlinear theory for the perpendicular diffusion coefficient, which corresponds to a solution of the integral equation Superposition model: 2D plus slab Solve the integral equation approximately (Zank, Li, Florinski, et al, 2004): modeled according to QLT.

  23. ANISOTROPY AND THE INJECTION THRESHOLD Diffusion tensor: Since , the anisotropy is defined by For a nearly perpendicular shock DIFFUSION APPROXIMATION VALID IF

  24. ANISOTROPY AND THE INJECTION THRESHOLD Injection threshold as a function of angle for Anisotropy as a function of energy (r = 3) Remarks: 1)Anisotropy very sensitive to 2) Injection more efficient for quasi-parallel and strictly perpendicular shocks

  25. PARTICLE ACCELERATION AT PERPENDICULAR SHOCKS • STEP 1: Evaluate K_perp at shock using NLGC theory instead of wave growth expression. Parallel mfp evaluated on basis of QLT (Zank et al. 1998.

  26. PARTICLE ACCELERATION AT PERPENDICULAR SHOCKS • STEP 2: Evaluate injection momentum p_min by requiring the particle anisotropy to be small.

  27. a f a f z a f a f b g R t q t p max » k ¢ ¢ a f p d ln p & 2 R t u p inj 1 PARTICLE ACCELERATION AT PERPENDICULAR SHOCKS • STEP 3: Determine maximum energy by equating dynamical timescale and acceleration timescale. Remarks: Like quasi-parallel case, p_max decreases with increasing heliocentric distance.

More Related