Citation: | Chen, C. X. (2021). Preservation and variation of ion-to-electron temperature ratio in the plasma sheet in geo-magnetotail. Earth Planet. Phys., 5(4), 337–347. DOI: 10.26464/epp2021035 |
The ion-to-electron temperature ratio is a good indicator of the processes involved in solar wind plasma entering and being transported inside Earth’s plasma sheet. In this study, we have demonstrated that patchy magnetic reconnection has the potential to preserve the ion-to-electron temperature ratio under certain conditions. If the charged particles are non-adiabatically accelerated no more than once in a single reconnection, the temperature ratio would be preserved; on the other hand, this ratio would not be preserved if they are accelerated multiple times. Consequently, under a northward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) condition, the reconnection in the nonlinear phase of the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability is the dominant process for solar-originated plasma entering the Earth’s magnetosphere, and the ion-to-electron temperature ratio is preserved inside the plasma sheet. When the direction of the IMF is southward, the reflection of electrons from the magnetic mirror point, and subsequent multiple non-adiabatic accelerations at the reconnection site, are the primary reasons for the observed low ion-to-electron temperature ratio close to the Earth at midnight. While reconnections that occur in the night-side far tail might preserve the ratio, turbulence on the boundaries of the bursty bulk flows (BBFs) could change the ratio in the far tail through the violation of the frozen-in condition of the ions. The plateau in the contour of the calculated ion-to-electron temperature ratio in the down tail distance between 40 and 60 Earth radii may explain the strong correlation between the ion and electron temperatures in the outer central plasma sheet, which has not been clearly understood till date.
The terrestrial magnetosphere acts as an impediment to the solar wind. Theoretically, the terrestrial magnetosphere should not contain solar plasma; however, it is actually the habitat of hot tenuous solar-originated plasma. Significant research has been conducted to determine how solar wind plasma enters the magnetosphere and how it is transported, once it is inside.
Among the parameters that are sensitive to the processes involved in the entry and transport of solar plasma, the ion-to-electron temperature ratio (
An analysis of the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorers/Ion Release Module (AMPTE/IRM) data by Baumjohann et al. (1989) indicated that the ion and electron temperatures were highly correlated (
On the other hand, Slavin et al. (1985) found that the Ti/Te ratio varied with the downtail distance. Their results indicated that
The purpose of the present study is to ascertain whether there is a mechanism that preserves the Ti/Te ratio during the process of solar wind plasma entering into, and being transported within the plasma sheet. Because adiabatic processes preserve the ratio, we concentrate only on non-adiabatic processes. We have identified a mechanism that influences the above phenomenon and also determined the factors that can alter this ratio. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a process, which largely influences the entry of solar-originated plasma into the magnetosphere, is proposed. In Section 3, we explore the factors that can change the aforementioned ratio in the plasma sheet. Finally, a discussion is provided in Section 4, followed by a summary in Section 5.
Before conducting a detailed examination of every possible entry process, we first consider the variation of the Ti/Te ratio from the upstream solar wind to the magnetosheath, and subsequently from the magnetosheath to the magnetosphere.
Firstly, the ultimate source of energy of a charged particle, regardless of whether it is in the magnetosheath or magnetosphere, is the solar wind and not the magnetosheath or magnetosphere.
If the mass of a proton is the same as that of an electron, the Ti/Te ratio would always be preserved as solar-originated particles pass the bow shock and later on enter the magnetosphere. However, the mass of a proton is two orders of magnitude larger than that of an electron; hence, protons are the predominant carriers of mass, momentum, and energy of the solar wind.
The deflection of solar wind by the magnetopause forces the protons to transfer fractional bulk flow energy to thermal energy, as well as to magnetic energy. More importantly, some bulk flow energy of the protons even gets transferred to thermal energy of the electrons via a complicated wave particle interaction. The last statement is supported by the fact that because protons carry significantly more kinetic energy in the bulk flow than do the electrons, the Ti/Te ratio after the bow shock should rise to a high value (dozens); however, observations have shown that this value remains at the order of 5−12 (Paschmann et al., 1993; Phan et al., 1994). The underlying physics behind this energy transfer from protons to electrons could be that the more thermally active electrons have a greater mobility to satisfy the electric neutrality.
For further entry of solar-originated particles into the magnetosphere, the Ti/Te ratio would face two tendencies. First, when the magnetosheath particles enter the magnetosphere, the Ti/Te ratio would increase because the energy in the bulk flow is further transferred to thermal energy (the magnetosphere is a rest reference frame relative to the solar wind). Second, the Ti/Te ratio would decrease if particles receive much more energy than their magnetosheath values because in the magnetospheric reference frame, the equilibrium state requires an energy balance between protons and electrons.
Under a southward IMF condition, it is commonly acknowledged that the magnetic reconnections on the dayside magnetopause and in the night-side magnetotail play dominant roles in loading the solar wind plasma into the plasma sheet.
Under a northward IMF condition, this situation is considerably subtle. The entry process is unclear and this issue is currently an active area of research.
The entry processes of the magnetosheath particles into the magnetosphere may be divided into three categories. Here, the magnetosphere refers to the part of the magnetosphere, where both ends of a magnetic field line are connected to the Earth (forming a closed magnetic flux tube), and the entry refers to the particles crossing the magnetopause. The first category is a direct embedding of a portion of a magnetosheath magnetic flux tube into the magnetosphere. The second category is the magnetosheath-charged particle crossing the magnetic field line from the magnetosheath to the magnetosphere. Finally, the third category is the conjugate (related to the equator) reconnections of the magnetosheath magnetic flux tube with the closed magnetic flux tube of the magnetosphere, thus replacing a portion of the closed magnetic flux tube of the magnetosphere with a portion of the magnetosheath magnetic flux tube.
The current prevailing mechanisms describing the entry of the solar plasma into the plasma sheet under a northward IMF are double-cusp or double-lobe reconnection (the third category), the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (the third category), kinetic Alfvén waves (the second category), and impulsive penetration (the first category) (Wing et al., 2014). Although these mechanisms can explain the observed plasma density in the plasma sheet, no theoretical studies on the observed Ti/Te ratio have been conducted.
In addition, the Ti/Te ratio, which is preserved (observationally) as the particles cross the magnetopause, we also use another parameter, namely the specific entropy, to narrow down the selection. The specific entropy is defined as follows.
s=p/ργ, | (1) |
where
S=pVγ, | (2) |
where
s=p/(M/V)γ=pVγ/Mγ=S/Mγ, | (3) |
where M is the mass contained in the volume of the unit magnetic flux tube. Thus, for an adiabatic process, the total entropy is preserved, which for ions is
Si=piVγ, | (4) |
where subscript i represents the ions. Substituting
Si=nkTiVγ. | (5) |
The total entropy of the electrons is
Se=peVγ, | (6) |
where subscript e represents the electrons. Substituting
Se=nkTeVγ. | (7) |
From Equations (5) and (7), it is clear that for an adiabatic process, the preservation of the total entropies of both ions and electrons leads to the preservation of the Ti/Te ratio. It should be noted that the reverse may not be true; that is, the preservation of the Ti/Te ratio does not imply an adiabatic process.
The preservation of the Ti/Te ratio and the increment of the specific entropy by two to three orders of magnitude accompanying the crossing of the magnetopause impose two very strong constraints on the candidate entry process. The qualified process should be a non-adiabatic process, which preserves the Ti/Te ratio. In addition, this process should accelerate the particles dramatically, which in turn, significantly heats the cool dense magnetosheath particles to hot tenuous magnetospheric particles.
Now, let us examine the entry processes of the plasma one by one. Firstly, we consider the impulsive penetration (Echim and Lemaire, 2000). An impulsive entry of magnetosheath plasma blobs can occur if the magnetosheath irregularities have sufficient momentum to cross the magnetopause. At this moment, both ends of the embedded flux tube are still connected with the IMF, and not with the Earth. The magnetic moment is conserved, which is defined as
μ=mv2⊥/2B, | (8) |
where
\mu =\frac{m{\left({{\boldsymbol{V}}}-{{\boldsymbol{u}}}\right)}_{\perp }^{2}/2}{\boldsymbol{B}} | (9) |
where V is the velocity of a particle and
{\mu _{{\rm{i}},{\rm{sheath}}}} = \frac{{{m_{\rm{i}}}v_{{\rm{i}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}^2/2}}{{{B_{{\rm{sheath}}}}}} = \frac{{k{T_{{\rm{i}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}}}}{{{B_{{\rm{sheath}}}}}} = {\mu _{{\rm{i}},{\rm{sphere}}}} = \frac{{k{T_{{\rm{i}}, \bot,{\rm{sphere}}}}}}{{{B_{{\rm{sphere}}}}}}, | (10) |
and for the electrons,
{\mu _{{\rm{e}},{\rm{sheath}}}} = \frac{{{m_{\rm{e}}}v_{{\rm{e}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}^2/2}}{{{B_{{\rm{sheath}}}}}} = \frac{{k{T_{{\rm{e}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}}}}{{{B_{{\rm{sheath}}}}}} = {\mu _{{\rm{e}},{\rm{sphere}}}} = \frac{{k{T_{{\rm{e}}, \bot,{\rm{sphere}}}}}}{{{B_{{\rm{sphere}}}}}}. | (11) |
Dividing Equation (10) by Equation (11), we obtain
\frac{{{T_{{\rm{i}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}}}}{{{T_{{\rm{e}}, \bot,{\rm{sheath}}}}}} = \frac{{{T_{{\rm{i}}, \bot,{\rm{sphere}}}}}}{{{T_{{\rm{e}}, \bot,{\rm{sphere}}}}}}. | (12) |
This mechanism has the advantage of preserving the ion-to-electron perpendicular temperature ratio as the ions and electrons pass through the magnetopause. Although the ion-to-electron perpendicular temperature ratio is preserved, the adiabatic characteristic of the impulsive penetration is not consistent with the increment of the specific entropy, which is a non-adiabatic requirement of the candidate process.
Secondly, we consider kinetic Alfvén waves (Hasegawa and Mima, 1978; Johnson and Cheng, 1997; Izutsu et al., 2012). Larger amplitude Alfvén waves can excite the ions to cross the magnetic field lines as diffusion. This process can heat the plasma to the magnetospheric temperature. The diffusion process is determined by the following equation:
\frac{\partial {n}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}{D}_{\mathrm{i},\perp }\frac{\partial {n}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\partial x}, | (13) |
where
{D}_{\mathrm{i},\perp }\propto {T}_{\mathrm{i}}{.} | (14) |
However, the diffusion coefficient is energy-dependent, but not mass dependent. Electric neutrality requires that electrons catch up with the protons. Equation (14) indicates that they will need to obtain an equal amount of energy (
Thirdly, we consider the double-cusp or double-lobe reconnection (Song P and Russell, 1992). This process replaces the portion of the closed magnetic flux tube of the magnetosphere beyond the northern and southern cusps with a portion of the magnetosheath magnetic flux tube. The distance between the conjugate northern and southern reconnection sites can be estimated to be of the order of 20
Finally, we turn to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (Otto and Fairfield, 2000; Nykyri et al., 2006; Li W et al., 2016). Contrary to the double-cusp reconnections, which take place at high latitudes, the conjugate reconnections in the nonlinear phase of the instability occur at low latitudes, and replace the portion of the magnetospheric flux tube near the equator with a portion of the magnetosheath flux tube. Only a minor volume of the original magnetospheric flux tube is replaced. Because of the convergence of the magnetic field lines toward both northern and southern cusps, a closed magnetospheric magnetic flux tube has significantly larger cross section near the equator than that at the cusp, and the conjugate reconnection sites near the equator have significantly longer “X” line extension than those at the cusps. Consequently, more particles are involved in the reconnection in the nonlinear phase of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability than those in the double-cusp or double-lobe reconnection. The conjugate reconnections in the nonlinear phase of the instability have the potential to increase the specific entropy of the plasma to the magnetospheric level. The distance between the conjugate northern and southern reconnection sites can be estimated to be of the order of 4
From the above analysis, we arrive at the following understanding: The impulsive penetration would satisfy the first constraint of the preservation of the Ti/Te ratio, but not the second constraint of the increment of the specific entropy. The kinetic Alfvén waves could not satisfy the first constraint of the preservation of the Ti/Te ratio; however, it has the potential to raise the specific entropy of the plasma to the magnetospheric value of the second constraint. The double-cusp or double-lobe reconnection has the potential to preserve the Ti/Te ratio of the first constraint; however, it does not have the ability to raise the specific entropy to the magnetospheric level of the second constraint. Only the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability has the potential to satisfy both the constraints of the preservation of the temperature ratio and the increment of the specific entropy.
Based on the above discussion, we chose the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability as the dominant entry mechanism of solar-originated plasma, followed by the double-cusp or double-lobe reconnection, kinetic Alfvén waves, and impulsive penetration.
The factors that may affect the Ti/Te ratio in the plasma sheet include the ionosphere, patchy tail reconnection, and bursty bulk flows (BBFs).
The ionosphere could serve as an energy sink for the magnetospheric particles. For the study of the Ti/Te ratio, which requires the exchange of fractional particles between the magnetosphere and ionosphere in a short time (in approximately 20 min), this effect is negligible because the number flux of the precipitation particles is too small to accomplish this task. For example, taking the precipitation number flux as
To investigate the effect of patchy tail reconnection on the Ti/Te ratio in the plasma sheet, we apply Equation (A32) for the magnetospheric model. The Tsyganenko (96) magnetospheric magnetic field model (Tsyganenko, 1995) and Tsyganenko tail plasma sheet model (Tsyganenko and Mukai, 2003) are used for the magnetic field and plasma, respectively, where the input parameters are: a solar wind density of 6
Figure 1 schematically illustrates the procedure followed in our calculation. From the magnetic field model, the equatorial point
Assume that a patchy magnetic reconnection occurs at the midpoint
Figure 2 shows a representative calculation. For the reconnection, the electric field
The domain of our calculation (x: 10−80
The magnetic field strength at the midpoint of each pre-reconnected field line is represented as
The calculated Ti/Te ratio in the equatorial plane earthward of 60
BBFs may affect the Ti/Te ratio through the turbulence on their boundaries. Following the treatment of Chen CX (2013), we consider the viscosity as
\mu =\frac{1}{3}\left(\rho \overline {{U}_{\rm i}}\,\overline {\lambda }\right), | (15) |
where
\overline {\lambda }=2{a}_{\rm i}{.} | (16) |
The gyroradius
In a collision-less environment, the mean free path is meaningful only when wave–particle interactions are involved. In the presence of a magnetic field, the farthest distance a charged particle can move in a cross-magnetic field direction is twice that of its gyroradius.
Assume that a newly cut flux tube moves from
{p_{{\rm{final}}}}V_{{\rm{final}}}^{5/3} = {p_{{\rm{half}}}}V_{{\rm{half}}}^{5/3}, | (17) |
where
Although there are two flanks of the fast flow exposed to the surrounding medium, only one half of the friction-producing heat flux enters the flux tube of the fast flow because the flanks are hotter than either the medium or the fast flow (scattering of ions by turbulent electric field). For simplicity, the heat flux is assumed to be split between the medium and the flux tube of the fast flow. Because the turbulent electric fields (induced by the cross magnetic field motion of flow) basically transfer the plasma bulk flow energy to thermal energy, and our expression for particle energy (from a microscopic point of view) does not distinguish between the bulk flow energy (a macroscopic quantity) and thermal energy, the electron energy does not change within the flux tube. Thus, the role of electrons in the turbulence is negligible. In contrast, because of their much larger gyroradii (easily crossing the boundaries of the BBFs), the ions receive and/or give energy to the surrounding medium through the turbulent electric fields. Thus, the heat flux is only distributed among the ions, as only the ions scattered by the turbulent electric field, are the carriers of the heat flux, and the energy exchange between ions and electrons is inefficient (otherwise, the Ti/Te ratio would approach one).
The friction-producing heat flux affects the newly reconnected flux tube in two ways. The first is the heat that this flux tube receives from the fast flows passing by (in this step of calculation, the flux tube we are concerned with is treated as a medium), which can be expressed as
{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}1}=\mu \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\left({x}_{\mathrm{e}}-{x}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}\right)D_zD_x, | (18) |
where
Substituting
{W_{{\rm{fri}}1}} = \frac{1}{3}{n_{{\rm{final}}}}{m_{\rm{i}}}\frac{{16K{T_{{\rm{i}},{\rm{final}}}}}}{{\pi e{B_{{\rm{final}}}}}}\frac{U}{{D_y}}\left({{x_{\rm{e}}} - {x_{{\rm{final}}}}} \right)D_zD_x, | (19) |
where
The second is the heat that a flux tube transfers to the background medium at a distance from
{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}2}=\frac{1}{3}{n}_{\rm{fh}}{m}_{\mathrm{i}}\frac{16K{T}_{\mathrm{i},\rm{fh}}}{\mathrm{\pi }e{B}_{\rm{fh}}}\frac{U}{D_y}\left({x}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}-{x}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}\right)D_zD_x, | (20) |
where subscript
Three points are critical here: (i) point
We assume that
The Ti/Te ratio at
\frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}=\frac{\dfrac{3}{2}{p}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}+{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}1}-{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}2}}{\dfrac{3}{2}{p}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}, | (21) |
Substituting Equation (17) into Equation (21), we obtain
\frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}=\frac{\dfrac{3}{2}{p}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}{V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}{\left({V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}/{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}\right)}^{2/3}+{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}1}-{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}2}}{\dfrac{3}{2}{p}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}{V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}{\left({V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}/{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}\right)}^{2/3}}{.} | (22) |
Substituting
\frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}}=\frac{\left({W}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\Delta W}_{\mathrm{i}}\right){D_yD_x{B}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}\left({V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}/{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}\right)}^{2/3}+{W}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}1}-{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}2}}{\left({W}_{\mathrm{e}}+{\Delta \mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{e}}\right)D_yD_x{B}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}{\left({V}_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}}/{V}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}\right)}^{2/3}}, | (23) |
where
Figure 3 shows the influence of turbulence alone. It can be seen that earthward of 60
Figure 4 demonstrates the distribution of the Ti/Te ratio with all the influencing factors included. The tendency of the increase of the ratio from far tail to midtail is consistent with the observation by Slavin et al. (1985).
It is interesting to notice that there is a plateau in the down tail distance over 40−60
When the IMF is northward, rare magnetic reconnections occur inside the plasma sheet. In this case, the Ti/Te ratio will be preserved. This conclusion is consistent with the observed cool plasma distribution in the third panel of Fig. 6(b, c) of Wang CP et al. (2012).
Prima facie, it appears that all the physical processes in the magnetosphere are involved in the variation or preservation of the Ti/Te ratio. However, the number of dominant processes that can affect the temperature ratio is very limited because the candidate processes should be “powerful enough”. The observation-based statistical Ti/Te ratio is a function of the geomagnetic activity level. The time scale of the variation of the observational temperature ratio is of the order of a few tens of min (for example, of the order of the duration of the BBFs). By the term “powerful enough”, we imply that a process should have power to change, on an average, a significant fraction of the energy of every particle inside a flux tube in a short time which is comparable to the time scale of the variation of the observational temperature ratio. Thus, many processes can be ignored based on this criterion, and only some powerful processes qualify on this basis. Consequently, an approximation can be made to keep only the lowest order as long as a characteristic of the preservation or variation of the temperature ratio can be demonstrated.
Our study demonstrated that patchy magnetic reconnection plays a role in the preservation or variation of the Ti/Te ratio during solar wind plasma entry into the plasma sheet under both southward and northward IMF conditions.
A significant difference between the present study and those of Onsager et al. (1991) and Schriver et al. (1998) is our consideration of the electric field, experienced by the charged particles in the plasma sheet. In our study, the electric field is not assumed to be constant and steady, but is enhanced in some local channels (with varying lengths from the Earth) and short-lived. (there exist some electric fields, which are imposed on both the magnetic reconnection site and resulting BBF (with a typical width of 2−3
The location of a reconnection site, or more precisely, the distance from a reconnection site to the magnetic mirror point, plays a crucial role in the preservation or variation of the Ti/Te ratio. The non-preservation of this ratio comes from terms higher than the second one on the right-hand side of Equations (A24) and (A28). In other words, this ratio is preserved, when the effective time duration of reconnection is less than the sum of the half-cyclotron period and round-trip travel time from the reconnection site to the magnetic mirror point for both the accelerated ions and electrons. Because the mass of an electron is significantly less than that of an ion, the cyclotron period is correspondingly less for the electrons than it is for the ions, as can be seen from Equations (A4) and (A8). For the observed Ti/Te ratio around the magnetosphere, the electrons have a much higher thermal speed than the ions. Consequently, the round-trip travel time from the reconnection site to the mirror point and back is significantly less for electrons than it is for the ions, as can be seen from Equations (A25) and (A29). In the region earthward of 60
In our calculation, note that the convection is accomplished mainly (60%−100%) by BBFs (Angelopoulos et al., 1994), and BBFs are produced by magnetic reconnections. In this simplified picture, for plasma to be transported from the far tail (approximately 100
Globally, the decrease in the Ti/Te ratio down the far tail is a demonstration of the violation of frozen-in condition of the ions. Typically, ions with a larger gyroradius than electrons are more significantly affected by a turbulent electric field than the electrons. They would not stay in the same earthward fast moving flux tube to experience the same magnetic compression as electrons, resulting in a decrease in the Ti/Te ratio.
The contours of the Ti/Te ratio on the equatorial plane in our calculation are closely related to the southward IMF condition. For the northward IMF, the situation is subtle because there are only a few reconnections and probably a few fast flows in the plasma sheet. In such a case, the path of charged particles from the flanks of the magnetosphere to the midnight remains uncertain. One possible mechanism proposed is eddy diffusion from the flank to the midnight (Wang CP et al., 2010). In this study, we have considered another mechanism, whereby the plasma would probably be dragged tailward along the flanks over some distance by the neighboring flow in the magnetosheath. In this tailward movement, the Ti/Te ratio is preserved, and specific entropy is increased. Panel 3 of Fig. 3e of Wang CP et al. (2012) may support this point of view because the decrease in the specific entropy of the ions indicates the energy lost from the flow just outside the magnetopause. After the magnetic tension is built, the flux tube turns into midnight and subsequently moves earthward (this scenario is similar to that proposed by Song P et al. (1999)). In the turning and earthward motion, both the Ti/Te ratio and specific entropy are preserved because they are basically adiabatic processes.
The fact that the Ti/Te ratio of our calculation is not higher than that of the magnetosheath appears to support the view that the evolution of the warm plasma agrees with the second tendency of the general consideration in Section 2, while the Ti/Te ratio of the cooler plasma is preserved after the crossing.
It is noteworthy that the Speiser orbit is a special type of non-adiabatic trajectory in the current sheet. There are other types of non-adiabatic trajectories, such as cucumber and ring types (Büchner and Zelenyi, 1989). During the period of a patchy reconnection, the geometry of the magnetic field at the reconnection site would change dramatically from the normal condition; consequently, the distribution of charged particles among different trajectory types would also change. We think that in this period, the Speiser orbit is the dominant one.
In this study, we have applied equations derived for the energy gain of both the ions and electrons in a magnetic reconnection site (and/or on the boundaries of the resulting BBF) to the processes involved in solar-originated particles entering and being transported in the plasma sheet in geo-magnetotail. The conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:
(1) Patchy magnetic reconnection may preserve the Ti/Te ratio if charged particles are non-adiabatically accelerated no more than once in a single reconnection; on the other hand, multiple occurrences of non-adiabatic accelerations vary this ratio. The observed lower Ti/Te ratio near the Earth under a southward IMF confirms that the electrons reflected back from the magnetic mirror point experience multiple non-adiabatic accelerations.
(2) The Kelvin–Helmholtz instability is identified as the dominant process for solar-originated plasma entering the magnetosphere under a northward IMF. Consequently, the Ti/Te ratio is preserved in the plasma sheet, which is consistent with the results of the statistical investigation.
(3) The turbulence on the boundaries of BBF affects the Ti/Te ratio in the far tail through the violation of frozen-in condition of the ions. The calculated Ti/Te ratio decreases with the down-tail distance, which is consistent with the observations.
(4) The plateau in the contour of the estimated Ti/Te ratio in the down tail distance between 40 and 60
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant NSFC41974204). Data were neither used nor created for this study.
We will investigate the role of magnetic reconnection in the Ti/Te ratio. More precisely, we will investigate patchy magnetic reconnection (i.e., short time duration and short X-line length) in this context.
Figure 5 shows the left side of the X-line. In the following explanation, we will concentrate on the upper half of this picture in more detail.
The electric field is represented by
{a}_{\mathrm{i}}=\frac{{m}_{\mathrm{i}}\overline {{U}_{\rm i}}}{{e}{\boldsymbol{B}}}, \tag{A1} |
where
{a}_{\mathrm{e}}=\frac{{m}_{{\rm e}}\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e}}}}{{e}{\boldsymbol{B}}}, \tag{A2} |
where
\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{i}}=n\Delta x\Delta y{a}_{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\Delta t}{{\tau }_{\mathrm{i}}}, \tag{A3} |
where
{\tau }_{\mathrm{i}}=\frac{\pi {r}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\overline {{U}_{\rm i}}} \tag{A4} |
is the time an ion will stay in the domain of the non-adiabatic motion of the ions, or the half-ion cyclotron (in the xy-plane) period, and
{r}_{\mathrm{i}}=\frac{{m}_{\mathrm{i}}\overline {{U}_{\rm i}}}{{e}{B}_{z}} \tag{A5} |
is the ion gyroradius in the finite z-directional magnetic field,
\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{i}}=n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta t\frac{\overline {{U}_{\rm i}}}{\mathrm{\pi }}\frac{{B}_{z}}{B}{.} \tag{A6} |
Likewise, the total number of electrons passing through the domain of the non-adiabatic motion of the electrons should be
\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{e}}=n\Delta x\Delta y{a}_{\mathrm{e}}\frac{\Delta t}{{\tau }_{\mathrm{e}}}, \tag{A7} |
where
{\tau }_{\mathrm{e}}=\frac{\pi {r}_{\mathrm{e}}}{\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e}}}} \tag{A8} |
is the time an electron will stay in the domain of the non-adiabatic motion of the electron or the half-electron cyclotron (in the xy-plane) period, and
{r}_{\mathrm{e}}=\frac{{m}_{\mathrm{e}}\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e}}}}{{e}{B}_{z}} \tag{A9} |
is the electron gyroradius in the finite z-directional magnetic field
\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{e}}=n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta t\frac{\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e}}}}{\mathrm{\pi }}\frac{{B}_{z}}{B}{.} \tag{A10} |
However, the particles have an equal chance of passing through the upper or lower portions of the flux tube. For simplicity, we assume that the particles move back to their original location (the same argument applies to the lower part of the X-line). Each ion will have an energy increment through the domain of the non-adiabatic motion of
\Delta {w}_{\mathrm{i}}=2{r}_{\mathrm{i}}Ee, \tag{A11} |
and each electron will have an energy increment through the domain of the non-adiabatic motion of
\Delta {w}_{\mathrm{e}}=2{r}_{\mathrm{e}}Ee{.} \tag{A12} |
The total energy increment of the ions through the domain of non-adiabatic motion will be
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}=\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{i}}\Delta {w}_{\mathrm{i}}{.} \tag{A13} |
Substituting Equations (A5), (A6), and (A11) into (A13), we obtain
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}=2n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\frac{{m}_{\mathrm{i}}{\overline {U}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{2}}{\mathrm{\pi }B}, \tag{A14} |
where
\overline {{U}_{\rm i}}=\sqrt{\frac{8k{T}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathrm{\pi }{m}_{\mathrm{i}}}} \tag{A15} |
and
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}=16n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\frac{k{T}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}{.} \tag{A16} |
The total energy increment of the electrons through the domain of non-adiabatic motion is
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}=\Delta {N}_{\mathrm{e}}\Delta {w}_{\mathrm{e}}{.} \tag{A17} |
Substituting Equations (A9), (A10), and (A12) into (A17), we obtain:
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}=2n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\frac{{m}_{\mathrm{e}}{\overline {U}}_{\mathrm{e}}^{2}}{\mathrm{\pi }B}, \tag{A18} |
where
\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e}}}=\sqrt{\frac{8k{T}_{\mathrm{e}}}{\mathrm{\pi }{m}_{\mathrm{e}}}}{.} \tag{A19} |
Substituting Equation (A19) into (A18), we obtain
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}=16n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\frac{k{T}_{\mathrm{e}}}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}{.} \tag{A20} |
Let the total number of ions or electrons be
{W}_{\mathrm{i}}=\frac{3}{2}Nk{T}_{\mathrm{i}}, \tag{A21} |
and the total energy of the electrons before reconnection is
{W}_{\mathrm{e}}=\frac{3}{2}Nk{T}_{\mathrm{e}}{.} \tag{A22} |
The Ti/Te ratio in the flux tube after reconnection will then be
\frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i,a}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e,a}}}=\frac{{W}_{\mathrm{i}}+\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{W}_{\mathrm{e}}+\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}}=\frac{\dfrac{3}{2}Nk{T}_{\mathrm{i}}+16n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\dfrac{k{T}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}}{\dfrac{3}{2}Nk{T}_{\mathrm{e}}+16n\Delta x\Delta y\Delta tE\dfrac{k{T}_{\mathrm{e}}}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}}=\dfrac{{T}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e}}}, \tag{A23} |
where subscript
An examination of Equation (A23) is necessary to understand the preservation or variation of the Ti/Te ratio. Equation (A23) indicates that the Ti/Te ratio is preserved after a patchy magnetic reconnection. However, this is only true when the temperatures of both the ions and electrons in Equations (A16) and (A20) are constant during the patchy reconnection. This condition does not hold once the accelerated particles return to the same domain of the non-adiabatic motion from the mirror point. In this case, Equation (A16) becomes:
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}=16n\Delta x\Delta yE\frac{k}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}\left({T}_{\mathrm{i}}{\tau }_{\mathrm{i}}+{T}_{\mathrm{i}}{t}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},1}+{T}_{\mathrm{i},1}{\tau }_{\mathrm{i}}+{T}_{\mathrm{i},1}{t}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},2}+\cdots \right), \tag{A24} |
where
{t}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},l}=2\frac{L}{\overline {{U}_{\rm{i},l}}} \tag{A25} |
is the round-trip traveling time of the ions at distance
\overline {{U}_{\rm{i},l}}=\sqrt{\frac{8k{T}_{\mathrm{i},l}}{\mathrm{\pi }{m}_{\mathrm{i}}}}, \tag{A26} |
where
{T}_{\mathrm{i},l}={T}_{\mathrm{i},\left(l-1\right)}+\frac{4{r}_{\mathrm{i},\left(l-1\right)}Ee}{3k}, \tag{A27} |
and subscript
Likewise, Equation (A20) becomes
\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}=16n\Delta x\Delta yE\frac{k}{{\mathrm{\pi }}^{2}B}\left({T}_{\mathrm{e}}{\tau }_{\mathrm{e}}+{T}_{\mathrm{e}}{t}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},1}+{T}_{\mathrm{e},1}{\tau }_{\mathrm{e}}+{T}_{\mathrm{e},1}{t}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},2}+\cdots \right) \tag{A28} |
where
{t}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{p},l}=2\frac{L}{\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e},l}}} \tag{A29} |
is the round-trip time of the electron and
\overline {{U}_{\mathrm{e},l}}=\sqrt{\frac{8k{T}_{\mathrm{e},l}}{\mathrm{\pi }{m}_{\mathrm{e}}}}, \tag{A30} |
where
{T}_{\mathrm{e},l}={T}_{\mathrm{e},\left(l-1\right)}+\frac{4{r}_{\mathrm{e},\left(l-1\right)}Ee}{3k}{.} \tag{A31} |
Then, the Ti/Te ratio will be
\frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i,a}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e,a}}}=\frac{{W}_{\mathrm{i}}+\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{W}_{\mathrm{e}}+\Delta {W}_{\mathrm{e}}}\ne \frac{{T}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{T}_{\mathrm{e}}}{.} \tag{A32} |
It should be noted that because the number density
Here, charged particles are the particles inside a closed magnetic flux tube that undergoes magnetic reconnection. Some particles may not have the opportunity to reach the reconnection site and be accelerated if the reconnection time is too short or the distance between the location of the particle and the reconnection site is too large.
Angelopoulos, V., Kennel, C. F., Coroniti, F. V., Pellat, R., Kivelson, M. G., Walker, R. J., Russell, C. T., Baumjohann, W., Feldman, W. C., and Gosling, J. T. (1994). Statistical characteristics of bursty bulk flow events. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 99(A11), 21257–21280. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JA01263
|
Baumjohann, W., Paschmann, G., and Cattell, C. A. (1989). Average plasma properties in the central plasma sheet. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 94(A6), 6597–6606. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA094iA06p06597
|
Borovsky, J. E., Thomsen, M. F., Elphic, R. C., Cayton, T. E., and McComas, D. J. (1998). The transport of plasma sheet material from the distant tail to geosynchronous orbit. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 103(A9), 20297–20331. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03144
|
Büchner, J., and Zelenyi, L. M. (1989). Regular and chaotic charged particle motion in magnetotaillike field reversals: 1. Basic theory of trapped motion. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 94(A9), 11821–11842. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA094iA09p11821
|
Chen, C. X., and Wolf, R. A. (1999). Theory of thin-filament motion in Earth’s magnetotail and its application to bursty bulk flows. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 104(A7), 14613–14626. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900005
|
Chen, C. X. (2013). Theoretical constraints on the cross-tail width of bursty bulk flows. Ann. Geophys., 31(12), 2179–2192. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-31-2179-2013
|
Chen, C. X., and Wang, C. P. (2019). Contribution of patchy reconnection to the ion-to-electron temperature ratio in the Earth's magnetotail. Earth Planet. Phys., 3(6), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.26464/epp2019049
|
Echim, M. M., and Lemaire, J. F. (2000). Laboratory and numerical simulations of the impulsive penetration mechanism. Space Sci. Rev., 92(3-4), 565–601. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005264212972
|
Faganello, M., Califano, F., Pegoraro, F., Andreussi, T., and Benkadda, S. (2012). Magnetic reconnection and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities at the Earth’s magnetopause. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 54(12), 124037. https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/54/12/124037
|
Hardy, D. A., Gussenhoven, M. S., and Brautigam, D. (1989). A statistical model of auroral ion precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 94(A1), 370–392. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA094iA01p00370
|
Hasegawa, A., and Mima, K. (1978). Anomalous transport produced by kinetic Alfvén wave turbulence. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 83(A3), 1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA03p01117
|
Hill, T. W. (1975). Magnetic merging in a collisionless plasma. J. Geophys. Res., 80(34), 4689–4699. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA080i034p04689
|
Izutsu, T., Hasegawa, H., Nakamura, T. K. M., and Fujimoto, M. (2012). Plasma transport induced by kinetic Alfvén wave turbulence. Phys. Plasmas, 19(10), 102305. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4759167
|
Johnson, J. R., and Cheng, C. Z. (1997). Kinetic Alfvén waves and plasma transport at the magnetopause. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(11), 1423–1426. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL01333
|
Johnson, J. R., and Wing, S. (2009). Northward interplanetary magnetic field plasma sheet entropies. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 114(A9), A00D08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA014017
|
Lavraud, B., Thomsen, M. F., Lefebvre, B., Schwartz, S. J., Seki, K., Phan, T. D., Wang, Y. L., Fazakerley, A., Rème, H., and Balogh, A. (2006). Evidence for newly closed magnetosheath field lines at the dayside magnetopause under northward IMF. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 111(A5), A05211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011266
|
Lavraud, B., Borovsky, J. E., Génot, V., Schwartz, S. J., Birn, J., Fazakerley, A. N., Dunlop, M. W., Taylor, M. G. G. T., Hasegawa, H., … Wild, J. A. (2009). Tracing solar wind plasma entry into the magnetosphere using ion-to-electron temperature ratio. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36(18), L18109. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039442
|
Li, W., André, M., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Vaivads, A., Graham, D. B., Toledo-Redondo, S., Norgren, C., Henri, P., Wang, C., … Strangeway, R. J. (2016). Kinetic evidence of magnetic reconnection due to Kelvin-Helmholtz waves. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43(11), 5635–5643. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069192
|
Nakamura, R., Baumjohann, W., Mouikis, C., Kistler, L. M., Runov, A., Volwerk, M., Asano, Y., Vörös, Z., Zhang, T. L., … Balogh, A. (2004). Spatial scale of high-speed flows in the plasma sheet observed by Cluster. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(9), L09804. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019558
|
Nykyri, K., Otto, A., Lavraud, B., Mouikis, C., Kistler, L. M., Balogh, A., and Rème, H. (2006). Cluster observations of reconnection due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the dawnside magnetospheric flank. Ann. Geophys., 24(10), 2619–2643. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-24-2619-2006
|
Onsager, T. G., Thomsen, M. F., Elphic, R. C., and Gosling, J. T. (1991). Model of electron and ion distributions in the plasma sheet boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 96(A12), 20999–21011. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA01983
|
Onsager, T. G., Scudder, J. D., Lockwood, M., and Russell, C. T. (2001). Reconnection at the high-latitude magnetopause during northward interplanetary magnetic field conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 106(A11), 25467–25488. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000444
|
Otto, A., and Fairfield, D. H. (2000). Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the magnetotail boundary: MHD simulation and comparison with Geotail observations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 105(A9), 21175–21190. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA000312
|
Paschmann, G., Baumjohann, W., Sckopke, N., Phan, T. D., and Lühr, H. (1993). Structure of the dayside magnetopause for low magnetic shear. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 98(A8), 13409–13422. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA00646
|
Phan, T. D., Paschmann, G., Baumjohann, W., Sckopke, N., and Lühr, H. (1994). The magnetosheath region adjacent to the dayside magnetopause: AMPTE/IRM observations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 99(A1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA02444
|
Schriver, D., Ashour-Abdalla, M., and Richard, R. L. (1998). On the origin of the ion-electron temperature difference in the plasma sheet. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 103(A7), 14879–14895. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JA00017
|
Slavin, J. A., Smith, E. J., Sibeck, D. G., Baker, D. N., Zwickl, R. D., and Akasofu, S. I. (1985). An ISEE 3 study of average and substorm conditions in the distant magnetotail. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 90(A11), 10875–10895. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA090iA11p10875
|
Song, P., and Russell, C. T. (1992). Model of the formation of the low-latitude boundary layer for strongly northward interplanetary magnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 97(A2), 1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA02377
|
Song, P., DeZeeuw, D. L., Gombosi, T. I., Groth, C. P. T., and Powell, K. G. (1999). A numerical study of solar wind—magnetosphere interaction for northward interplanetary magnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 104(A12), 28361–28378. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900378
|
Tsyganenko, N. A. (1995). Modeling the Earth’s magnetospheric magnetic field confined within a realistic magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 100(A4), 5599–5612. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JA03193
|
Tsyganenko, N. A., and Mukai, T. (2003). Tail plasma sheet models derived from Geotail particle data. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 108(A3), 1136. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009707
|
Wang, C. P., Lyons, L. R., Nagai, T., Weygand, J. M., and Lui, A. T. Y. (2010). Evolution of plasma sheet particle content under different interplanetary magnetic field conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 115(A6), A06210. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA015028
|
Wang, C. P., Gkioulidou, M., Lyons, L. R., and Angelopoulos, V. (2012). Spatial distributions of the ion to electron temperature ratio in the magnetosheath and plasma sheet. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 117(A8), A08215. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA017658
|
Wing, S., Johnson, J. R., Chaston, C. C., Echim, M., Escoubet, C. P., Lavraud, B., Lemon, C., Nykyri, K., Otto, A., … Wang, C. P. (2014). Review of solar wind entry into and transport within the plasma sheet. Space Sci. Rev., 184(1-4), 33–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0108-9
|
1. | Cao, J., Yang, J. Magnetospheric Physics in China: 2020–2021. 2022, 42(4): 628-652. DOI:10.11728/cjss2022.04.yg12 |
2. | Song, Y., Chen, C. Observation evidence for the entropy switch model of substorm onset. Earth and Planetary Physics, 2022, 6(2): 161-176. DOI:10.26464/epp2022020 |
3. | Zhang, Z., Yuan, Z., Huang, S. et al. Observations of kinetic Alfvén waves and associated electron acceleration in the plasma sheet boundary layer. Earth and Planetary Physics, 2022, 6(5): 465-473. DOI:10.26464/epp2022041 |