Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:36:30.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Particle acceleration in a reconnecting current sheet: PIC simulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

TARAS V. SIVERSKY  and
VALENTINA V. ZHARKOVA
TARAS V. SIVERSKY
Affiliation:
Computing Department, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK ([email protected])
VALENTINA V. ZHARKOVA
Affiliation:
Computing Department, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acceleration of protons and electrons in a reconnecting current sheet (RCS) is simulated with a particle-in-cell (PIC) 2D3V (two-dimensional in space and three-dimensional in velocity space) code for the proton-to-electron mass ratio of 100. The electromagnetic configuration forming the RCS incorporates all three components of the magnetic field (including the guiding field) and a drifted electric field. PIC simulations reveal that there is a polarization electric field that appears during acceleration owing to a separation of electrons from protons towards the midplane of the RCS. If the plasma density is low, the polarization field is weak and the particle trajectories in the PIC simulations are similar to those in the test particle (TP) approach. For the higher plasma density the polarization field is stronger and it affects the trajectories of protons by increasing their orbits during acceleration. This field also leads to a less asymmetrical abundance of ejected protons towards the midplane in comparison with the TP approach. For a given magnetic topology electrons in PIC simulations are ejected to the same semispace as protons, in contrast to the TP results. This happens because the polarization field extends far beyond the thickness of a current sheet. This field decelerates the electrons, which are initially ejected into the semispace opposite to the protons, returns them back to the RCS, and, eventually, leads to the electron ejection into the same semispace as protons. The energy distribution of the ejected electrons is rather wide and single-peaked, in contrast to the two-peak narrow-energy distribution obtained in the TP approach. In the case of a strong guiding field, the mean energy of the ejected electrons is found to be smaller than it is predicted analytically and by the TP simulations. The beam of accelerated electrons is also found to generate turbulent electric field in the form of Langmuir waves.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 75 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 619 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aschwanden, M. J. 2002 Space Sci. Rev. 101, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birn, J., Drake, J. F., Shay, M. A., Rogers, B. N., Denton, R. E., Hesse, M., Kuznetsova, M., Ma, Z. W., Bhattacharjee, A., Otto, A. and Pritchett, P. L. 2001 J. Geophys. Res. 106, 3715.Google Scholar
Cargill, P. J., Goodrich, C. C. and Vlahos, L. 1988 Astron. Astrophys. 189, 254.Google Scholar
Drake, J. F., Kleva, R. G. and Mandt, M. E. 1994 Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H. and Shay, M. A. 2006 Nature 443, 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efthymiopoulos, C., Gontikakis, C. and Anastasiadis, A. 2005 Astron. Astrophys. 443, 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlický, M. 2008 Astrophys. J. 674, 1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litvinenko, Y. E. 1996 Astrophys. J. 462, 997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litvinenko, Y. E. and Somov, B. V. 1993 Solar Phys. 146, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. A., Cargill, P. J., Emslie, A. G., Holman, G. D., Dennis, B. R., LaRosa, T. N., Winglee, R. M., Benka, S. G. and Tsuneta, S. 1997 J. Geophys. Res. 102, 14631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. A., Larosa, T. N. and Moore, R. L. 1996 Astrophys. J. 461, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. and Forbes, T. 2000 Magnetic Reconnection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. 1981 Solar Flare Magnetohydrodynamics. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Shay, M. A. and Drake, J. F. 1998 Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somov, B. V. and Oreshina, A. V. 2000 Astron. Astrophys. 354, 703.Google Scholar
Speiser, T. W. 1965 J. Geophys. Res. 70, 4219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsiklauri, D. and Haruki, T. 2007 Phys. Plasmas 14, 2905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verboncoeur, J. P., Langdon, A. B. and Gladd, N. T. 1995 Comput. Phys. Commun. 87, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. and Neukirch, T. 2005 Solar Phys. 226, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zharkova, V. V. and Agapitov, O. V. 2009 J. Plasma Physics 75, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zharkova, V. V. and Gordovskyy, M. 2004 Astrophys. J. 604, 884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zharkova, V. V. and Gordovskyy, M. 2005a Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 356, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zharkova, V. V. and Gordovskyy, M. 2005b Space Sci. Rev. 121, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar