top of page
ORCID_iD.svg.png

PTL PREMIUM

Tphysicsletters/0689/1296/Magnetic reconnection as an erosion mechanism for magnetic switchbacks

Theoretical Physics Letters.png

Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:30:00 AM UTC

Request Open

Locked

Magnetic reconnection as an erosion mechanism for magnetic switchbacks

G.H.H. Suen
Theoretical Physics Letters

2023 ° 06(05) ° 0698-1296

https://www.wikipt.org/tphysicsletters

DOI: 10.1490/369888.0689tpl



Unlock Only

Changeover the Schrödinger Equation

This option will drive you towards only the selected publication. If you want to save money then choose the full access plan from the right side.

Unlock all

Get access to entire database

This option will unlock the entire database of us to you without any limitations for a specific time period.
This offer is limited to 100000 clients if you make delay further, the offer slots will be booked soon. Afterwards, the prices will be 50% hiked.

Newsletters
Abstract
Methods. We analyse magnetic field and plasma data from the Magnetometer and Solar Wind Analyser instruments aboard Solar Orbiter between 10 August and 30 August 2021. During this period, the spacecraft was 0.6 -– 0.7 au from the Sun. Using hodographs and Walén analysis methods, we test for rotational discontinuities (RDs) in the magnetic field and reconnection-associated outflows at the boundaries of the identified switchback structures. Results.
Read more at full length.

Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental energy conversion process occurring in many laboratory and astrophysical plasmas. Reconnection converts magnetic energy into kinetic and thermal energy through a change in magnetic field topology across current sheets (Pontin 2011; Gosling 2012; Cassak 2016; Hesse & Cassak 2020). In the context of heliospheric physics, reconnection is a key candidate process to explain coronal heating (Parker 1983, 1988) and solar wind acceleration (Zank et al. 2014; Khabarova et al. 2015; Adhikari et al. 2019). Statistical studies show that up to 20% of the magnetic energy is converted into particle heating, while the remainder is converted into particle acceleration, creating a pair of oppositely directed bulk outflow jets that stream into the background plasma (Enžl et al. 2014; Mistry et al. 2017). The proportion of magnetic energy converted into particle heating and acceleration depends on the magnetic shear angle (Drake et al. 2009). In the rest frame of the reconnection current sheet (RCS), the bulk velocity of the outflow jets is of the order of the local Alfvén speed, although reconnection events with sub-Alfvénic outflows are not unusual (Haggerty et al. 2018; Phan et al. 2020).

Using Solar Orbiter data from 10 August and 30 August 2021, we identify three magnetic switchbacks at heliocentric distances between 0.6 – 0.7 au. The trailing edge boundaries of all three events show signatures of jetting and current sheet bifurcation consistent with the Gosling reconnection model (Gosling et al. 2005a). We propose a possible configuration of the switchback observed on 10 August and reconnection geometry based on measurements of the switchback. In this scenario, reconnection at the trailing edge boundary of the switchback results in the formation of a magnetic flux rope on one side of the reconnection site and kinked field lines on the other. Magnetic tension causes the reconnected field lines to recoil away from the reconnection site, resulting in the unwinding of the switchback. In this paper, we only find cases in which magnetic reconnection occurs at the trailing edge boundary of switchbacks. However, in principle, this process may also occur at the leading edge boundary of switchbacks or at the leading and trailing edge boundaries simultaneously. Although magnetic tension acts naturally to straighten field line kinks in non-reconnecting switchbacks as well, our observation-driven scenario suggests that reconnection can increase the rate at which these structures unwind.

No posts published in this language yet
Once posts are published, you’ll see them here.
Adhikari, L., Khabarova, O., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L.-L. 2019, ApJ, 873, 72
Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237
Balogh, A., Forsyth, R. J., Lucek, E. A., Horbury, T. S., & Smith, E. J. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 631
Broeren, T., Klein, K. G., TenBarge, J. M., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 144
Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., & Giles, B. L. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 199, 5
Cassak, P. A. 2016, Space Weather, 14, 186 de Hoffmann, F. & Teller, E. 1950, Physical Review, 80, 692
De Marco, R., Bruno, R., Jagarlamudi, V. K., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A108
de Pablos, D., Samanta, T., Badman, S. T., et al. 2022, Sol. Phys., 297, 90
Dong, X.-C., Dunlop, M. W., Trattner, K. J., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5951
Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A2
Drake, J. F., Cassak, P. A., Shay, M. A., Swisdak, M., & Quataert, E. 2009, ApJ, 700, L16
Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 39
Enžl, J., Pˇrech, L., Šafránková, J., & Neme ˇ cek, Z. 2014, ApJ, 796, 21 ˇ
Escoubet, C. P., Schmidt, R., & Goldstein, M. L. 1997, Space Sci. Rev., 79, 11
Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 96
Fedorov, A., Louarn, P., Owen, C. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A40
Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., Montgomery, M. D., & Gary, S. P.
1975, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4181

Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References

All Products

bottom of page