1: % manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
2: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
4: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
6: %\usepackage{natbib} \usepackage{subfigure}
7: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
8: \newcommand{\myemail}{kkorreck@cfa.harvard.edu} \shorttitle{Heavy Ion
9: Heating} \shortauthors{Korreck, Zurbuchen, Lepri, \& Raines}
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{Heating of Heavy Ions by Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection
12: (ICME) Driven Collisionless Shocks}
13:
14: \author{K. E. Korreck\altaffilmark{1,2},
15: T. H. Zurbuchen\altaffilmark{2}, S. T. Lepri\altaffilmark{2}, \&
16: J. M. Raines\altaffilmark{2} }
17:
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
19: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 01238}
20:
21: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Michigan, Atmospheric, Oceanic, and
22: Space Science Department, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Shock heating and particle acceleration processes are some of the most
26: fundamental physical phenomena of plasma physics with countless
27: applications in laboratory physics, space physics, and
28: astrophysics. This study is motivated by previous observations of
29: non-thermal heating of heavy ions in astrophysical shocks
30: \citep{kor04}. Here, we focus on shocks driven by Interplanetary
31: Coronal Mass Ejections (ICMEs) which heat the solar wind and
32: accelerate particles. This study focuses specifically on the heating
33: of heavy ions caused by these shocks. Previous studies have focused
34: only on the two dynamically dominant species, H$^+$ and
35: He$^{2+}$. This study utilizes thermal properties measured by the
36: Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer (SWICS) aboard the Advanced
37: Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft to examine heavy ion heating. This
38: instrument provides data for many heavy ions not previously available
39: for detailed study, such as Oxygen (O$^{6+}$, O$^{7+}$), Carbon
40: (C$^{5+}$, C$^{6+}$), and Iron (Fe$^{10+}$). The ion heating is found
41: to depend critically on the upstream plasma $\beta$, mass per charge
42: ratio of the ion, M/Q, and shock magnetic angle,
43: $\theta$$_{Bn}$. Similar to past studies \citep{sch88}, there is no
44: strong dependence of ion heating on Mach number. The heating mechanism
45: described in \citet{lee00} is examined to explain the observed heating
46: trends in the heavy ion thermal data.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{Sun: coronal mass ejections (CMEs) --- acceleration of particles}
51:
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54: Shocks constitute a non-linear transition between two dynamically
55: different plasma states. At this transition, a portion of the bulk
56: flow energy of the plasma is transferred into thermal energy of its components. A very small fraction (1-10\%) of the interacting plasma
57: becomes highly energized and is injected into particle acceleration
58: processes boosting the particles to very high energy (E$\ge$
59: GeV). There is, however, a lack of understanding of the dynamic
60: effects that lead to this heating. The heating of an ion species
61: appears to be dependent on the ion properties as well as on the bulk
62: properties of the shock and the initial state of the plasma
63: \citep{shi,lee00,kor04,ber97}. It is the purpose of this paper to
64: investigate the heating of solar wind ions using accessible thermal
65: data of heavy ions from shocks driven by the interplanetary
66: manifestations of Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) - Interplanetary CMEs
67: (ICMEs).
68:
69:
70: \citet{lee00} discuss three parameters key to understanding heating in
71: collisionless shocks: Alfvenic Mach number, M$_{A}$, magnetic shock
72: angle, $\theta$$_{Bn}$, and upstream plasma $\beta$, the ratio of
73: thermal to magnetic energy. The dependence of heating on these
74: parameters has been examined before in solar wind shocks both
75: observationally and theoretically \citep{ogi80, zer76, ber97, zha91}.
76: Work by \citet{ber97} examined the heating of ions in the
77: solar wind. The heating of heavy ions such as O$^{6+}$ was found to
78: be more than mass proportional when compared to the heating of
79: protons. This appears to contradict heating seen in other shocks such
80: as those around supernova remnants \citep{kor04}. The \citet{ber97}
81: paper also found the ion heating to be most efficient when the initial
82: ion and proton thermal velocity were similar, i.e. energy is distributed mass proportionally.
83:
84:
85: The effect of Alfvenic Mach number of the shock on heating has been
86: studied observationally in the heliosphere. The Alfvenic Mach number
87: is used instead of the acoustic Mach number due to the magnetic nature
88: of the solar wind. \citet{sch88} used data from crossings of the
89: Earth's bow shock to study the heating of ions and electrons. Only a
90: weak correlation between increasing Mach number and decreased heating
91: was found.
92:
93: The plasma $\beta$ is a defining characteristic of the plasma. For
94: example, \citet{lip99} found for plasmas with $\beta$ $\ge$ 0.1 ions were unable to ``surf'' waves as an acceleration process, making plasma $\beta$ a determining factor in particle acceleration
95: models. Note that in the heliosphere $\beta$ is normally $\le$ 1.0
96: \citep{gal97}.
97:
98: The magnetic angle from the shock normal, $\theta_{Bn}$, has also been
99: examined with respect to the acceleration of ions. Quasi-parallel
100: shocks have been shown to accelerate ions from thermal energies to
101: well above what would be expected from the bulk energy transfer
102: \citep{ell81, sch90, gia92, kuc95}. Quasi-perpendicular shocks have
103: been shown to be inefficient for accelerating ions from thermal ion
104: populations, however these shocks are the most efficient accelerators
105: if there is a seed population available. The acceleration efficiency,
106: once the seed population is available, is inversely proportional to
107: $\theta$$_{Bn}$ \citep{ell95}; the more perpendicular the shock, the
108: more efficient the acceleration. Hence, in order to understand cosmic
109: ray acceleration, the heating of a suprathermal seed particle population is
110: of great importance.
111:
112:
113:
114: In addition to the three parameters mentioned above, the
115: mass-to-charge ratio also plays a crucial role in heating of heavy
116: ions. As the mass-to-charge ratio increases the heating of ions
117: increases \citep{lee00}. The mass-to-charge ratio dictates which
118: types of MHD wave interactions are available to the particles at the
119: shock front.
120:
121: The novel data on ICMEs from the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)
122: spacecraft \citep{sto98} afford us the opportunity to study these
123: shocks and the heating processes for individual ion species in greater
124: detail. While the previous work included only protons, helium, and
125: oxygen (O$^{6+}$) in the analysis, this study is extended to include
126: O$^{7+}$, C$^{5+}$, C$^{6+}$, and Fe$^{10+}$ ions, extending the
127: mass-to-charge ratio range to 1 thru 5.6.
128:
129:
130: This paper examines the heating of heavy ions with respect to all
131: critical parameters mentioned above that dominate shock heating - the
132: magnetic shock geometry - $\theta$$_{Bn}$, Alfvenic Mach number -
133: M$_{A}$, plasma $\beta$, and $M/Q$, the mass per charge ratio. We
134: utilize thermal properties measured by the Solar Wind Ion Composition
135: Spectrometer (SWICS) \citep{glo98} on the ACE spacecraft. We
136: characterize a statistically significant sample of 20 shocks for which
137: heavy ion heating is observed with high statistical accuracy and with
138: well-defined shock properties. Magnetic field data from the
139: Magnetometer (MAG) instrument \citep{smi98} and proton data from the
140: Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) instrument
141: \citep{mcc98} were also used.
142:
143: The plasma data available from the ACE spacecraft and a brief
144: discussion of errors are described in Section 2. The selection of
145: ICME shocks is discussed in Section 3. In Section 4, the heating of
146: ions is examined with respect to each parameter. A method of heating
147: is described in Section 5 and conclusions are summarized in Section 6.
148:
149: \section{Observations}
150:
151: The ACE spacecraft, launched in 1997, orbits about the first
152: Lagrangian, L1 point, 235 Earth radii upstream along the Sun-Earth
153: line. Three of the nine instruments aboard were used for this study.
154: The SWICS, MAG, and SWEPAM instruments provide data on ion
155: composition, velocity, density, and the ambient magnetic field. For
156: this study, the following physical quantities were analyzed: proton
157: temperature, proton thermal velocity, proton number density, thermal
158: velocities of He$^{2+}$, O$^{6+}$, O$^{7+}$, C$^{5+}$, C$^{6+}$, and
159: Fe$^{10+}$, and magnetic field.
160:
161:
162: The heavy ion data (Z$>$1) was obtained from the SWICS instrument.
163: This instrument is composed of an electrostatic analyzer, which
164: measures an ion's energy per charge, and a time-of-flight-energy
165: telescope, which measures an ion's velocity and total energy. The
166: combination of these two sensors enables unique identification of a
167: particle's mass, charge, and energy \citep{glo98}. For this study, we
168: use SWICS data with 1-hour time resolution; this time resolution
169: provides sufficient statistics for the minor ions studied. For each
170: one hour time bin, five 12-minute accumulation cycles were
171: summed. Care has been taken to exclude the accumulation cycle that
172: contains the moment of the shock passage, because it mixes upstream
173: and downstream distributions. The proton thermal velocity, the proton
174: number density, and the magnetic field data were taken from the
175: combined SWEPAM/MAG data set available on the web
176: at:\\http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/. 64-second averages of data
177: were used. The data from each physical quantity were averaged for one
178: hour before or one hour after the shock. This allows for a relatively
179: local measurement of the shock, but statistically significant heavy
180: ion data. There are important statistical limits to these data, which
181: are discussed in section \ref{errors}.
182:
183: \subsection{Errors\label{errors}}
184:
185: For the proposed heating analysis, it is necessary to quantify the
186: thermal width, or thermal speed, of the heavy ion
187: distributions. However, the thermal speed is only defined if
188: distributions are Gaussian. We have therefore implemented a test of the fit of a Gaussian to the data using the following technique. For each heavy ion measurement,
189: the thermal speed was calculated using two techniques: by calculating
190: the second moment of the observed distribution, $v_{th}$, and by
191: determining the thermal speed by least-squares fit of a Gaussian to
192: the distribution, $ v_{th,fit}$. The deviations between these two
193: quantities are a measure of the deviations of the distributions from a
194: Gaussian shape.
195:
196:
197: The deviations were relatively small for most ions with an average
198: value of $<$10\%, but we do find a few examples for which energetic
199: tails on the distribution function dominate, and the error on $
200: v_{th}$ was then increased, to a more conservative error estimate of
201: 20\% in order to account for this.
202:
203: In order to combine plasma data with our composition-resolved dynamics
204: data, we averaged the necessary solar wind parameters for 1 hour ahead
205: of and behind the shock front using data taken at intervals of 64
206: seconds, to overlap with the SWICS data-interval. The statistical
207: error was then calculated as the standard deviation of each averaged quantity.
208:
209: \section{Shock Selection}
210:
211: Shocks were selected from the \citet{cra03} list of ICMEs and the ACE
212: Shock List maintained online
213: \footnote{\\\url{http://www.bartol.udel.edu/$\sim$chuck/ace/ACElists/obs\_list.html}}.
214: The ACE Shock List details the time of the shock passage, the angle
215: between upstream magnetic field vector and the shock normal,
216: $\theta_{Bn}$, and the upstream Mach number, M$_{A}$
217:
218:
219: The first criterion for selecting a shock for this study was to have
220: all crucial data-sets available for two hours before and two hours
221: after the shock passage. The next criterion for selection was the
222: characteristics of the kinetic temperature of the solar wind before
223: the shock passage. Since the kinetic temperature of the solar wind
224: provides a measure of the shock and the plasma characteristics
225: upstream and downstream of the shock, an increase in temperature
226: before the time of the shock indicates pre-heating, ion feedback or a
227: reverse shock \citep{pas81, glo99}. The presence of these features
228: would bias the study since ions are heated differently, hence these
229: instances need to be excluded. If the temperature increased in the
230: time period between 60 to 30 minutes prior to the shock passage by
231: more than 30\% of the mean value of the temperature calculated up to
232: 30 minutes before the shock, the shock was considered to exhibit
233: pre-heating and was excluded from the analysis.
234:
235:
236:
237:
238: Representative solar wind parameters for an ICME shock are plotted
239: versus time in Figure \ref{goodpar}. Panel A shows the solar wind
240: proton velocity, $v_{p}$, versus time as the solid line and the
241: velocity of each heavy ion is included as a different symbol, as
242: indicated in the plot legend. Panel B shows the proton number
243: density, n, in the solar wind. Panel C is a plot of the thermal
244: velocity, $v_{th}$, of protons with the over-plotted symbols
245: representing the thermal velocity of individual ions. Panel D plots
246: the solar wind proton temperature, $T_{p}$, versus time. Panel E
247: contains the magnitude of the magnetic field, B, versus time. Panel F
248: is a plot of the magnetic latitude, $\delta$, and longitude,
249: $\lambda$, versus time.
250:
251: In order to examine the dependence of heating on shock orientation
252: with respect to the background magnetic field, the shock list was
253: broken up into quasi-parallel and quasi-perpendicular
254: shocks. Quasi-parallel shocks were defined to have $\theta_{Bn}$
255: between 0 and 20 degrees and shocks with $\theta_{Bn}$ between 80 and
256: 90 degrees were considered quasi-perpendicular. There were 16
257: quasi-perpendicular shocks available for study and 4 quasi-parallel
258: shocks. In subsequent sections, each parameter will be explored for a
259: perpendicular and parallel shock separately.
260:
261: \section{Heavy Ion Heating}
262:
263: There are two methods of heating ions that are widely invoked in the
264: study of collisionless shocks. First, the transfer of the bulk fluid
265: kinetic energy to the thermal energy of the particles leading to mass
266: proportional heating or all ions having the same velocity. The second
267: method is wave particle interactions that would result in a M/Q
268: dependence in heating.
269:
270: Another point of interest is the distribution of heating among the
271: different ion species. In studies in the heliosphere \citep{ber97},
272: it was found that ions are heated more than mass proportionally than
273: ions. However, in studies of the collisionless shocks in supernova
274: remnants, the ions are heated less than mass proportionally to the
275: protons \citep{kor04}. \citet{lee00} found that the heavy ions are heated by direct transmission through the shock as reflection of heavy ions by the shock potential is prohibitive due to their large mass.
276:
277:
278: In order to determine which mechanism or mechanisms are responsible
279: for the heating, we first quantify the heating of each ion species,
280: including protons, and then examine the heating dependence on M/Q,
281: M$_{A}$, and $\beta$ to try to elucidate a candidate mechanism for
282: heating.
283:
284:
285: In this study the heating, H, of an ion at a shock is defined as the
286: ratio of the square of the upstream and downstream thermal velocities.
287: \begin{equation}\label{heatingeq}
288: H=\frac{v_{th_{d}}^{2}}{v_{th_{u}}^{2}}=\frac{3kT_{s,d}/m_{s}}{3kT_{s,u}/m_{s}}=\frac{T_{s,d}}{T_{s,u}}
289: \end{equation}
290:
291: where\\ T$_{s}$= Temperature of the species\\ m$_{s}$= Mass of the
292: species\\ v$_{th_{d}}$= Average thermal velocity of the species one
293: hour downstream\\ v$_{th_{u}}$= Average thermal velocity of the
294: species one hour upstream\\ k= Boltzmann constant \\
295:
296:
297: However, it has been recognized that the solar wind is not initially
298: in thermal equilibrium: heavy ions have a tendency to exhibit high
299: kinetic temperatures, \citep{hef98, zur00, von03}. In order to
300: accurately describe the ion heating, the preshock temperature ratio of
301: ion temperature to proton temperature needs to be considered. The
302: ratio of preshock ion to proton temperature shows only one of the 96
303: data points to be significantly less than 1. The data in general
304: supports an initial condition where ions have equal if not higher
305: thermal speeds than the protons. Therefore, relative heating ratios based
306: on initial thermal speeds will give the clearest quantification of
307: heating through the shock passage.
308:
309:
310: Examining the current data set with respect to the temperature ratio
311: of the downstream ions to protons, we have found that the heating is
312: on average less than mass proportional for the ions except Fe$^{+10}$,
313: although 27 out of the 96 data points for perpendicular shocks did
314: show greater than mass proportional heating. This contradicts earlier
315: studies by \citet{ber97} that found all of the ion heating to be
316: greater than mass proportional.
317:
318: The heating of the ions are plotted versus the initial temperature
319: ratio of the ion to the proton in Figures \ref{hratios}a and
320: \ref{hratios}b. The values of initial ratio are all greater than or
321: equal to one except for one data point. The heating, if greater than
322: one, indicates that the species was heated through the shock.
323: However, only 69\% of the ions were heated in the perpendicular shocks
324: and 70\% in the parallel shocks. The others actually showed a
325: decrease in temperature across the shock front. Protons all gained
326: heat or maintained their temperature across the shock front.
327:
328:
329:
330:
331:
332: In Figures \ref{myberd}a and \ref{myberd}b, the ratio of ion and
333: proton heating, $H_{i}/H_{p}$, is plotted versus the initial ratio of
334: thermal speeds of the ion and proton where $H_{p}$ is the heating
335: ratio for protons. Only 43\% of the ions in perpendicular shocks were
336: heated more than the protons and 50\% of those ions in parallel
337: shocks. The protons are therefore gaining more heat than the ions in
338: these shocks.
339:
340:
341:
342:
343:
344: To characterize the heating mechanism consistent with the current data
345: set, the dependence of the heating on Alfvenic Mach number, M$_{A}$,
346: plasma $\beta$, and mass to charge ratio, M/Q, for both quasi-parallel
347: and quasi-perpendicular shocks will now be examined.
348:
349: \subsection{Dependence of Heating on Alfvenic Mach Number}
350:
351: Shocks can heat ions by converting bulk kinetic energy into thermal
352: kinetic energy of the particles. The Mach number gauges the speed of
353: the propagation of bulk fluid flow relative to the surrounding medium.
354: The Mach number used in this study is the Alfvenic Mach number, which
355: takes into account interaction with the surrounding magnetized plasma.
356: Previous studies, \citep{sch88} showed the collisionless heating to be
357: weakly dependent on Mach number.
358:
359: The method of energy transfer can be determined by the Critical Mach
360: number. Below an Alfvenic Mach number of approximately 2
361: \citep{ken87}, also called a sub-critical shock, the effective
362: dissipation of energy by the shock is local, i.e. the heating is
363: spatially local to the shock front via conduction. Above this
364: critical Mach number the dissipation is based on multiple streams of
365: ions which have longer characteristic scales. A convenient measure of
366: a supercritical shock is the ratio of the Alfvenic to Magnetosonic
367: Mach numbers. If this ratio is $\ge$ 1 then the shock is
368: supercritical by this definition. We have calculated that all the
369: shocks in this study are supercritical. The data therefore implies a
370: heating method that involves wave particle interaction. Protons heating has been shown to result from both direct transmission and relflected protons in these supercritical shocks \citep{lee87}.
371:
372:
373:
374:
375: Figure \ref{machf}a, shows the Alfvenic Mach number versus the heating
376: for quasi-perpendicular shocks. The heating, H, is described by
377: Equation \ref{heatingeq}. The line shows a linear fit to the data
378: with an increasing trend. The parallel fit seems kinked due to the logrithmic scale for the data. The quasi-parallel shocks in Figure
379: \ref{machf}b also shows an increasing trend with increasing Mach
380: number however with a smaller data set and less statistics it seems to
381: be a weaker effect. This contradicts the findings of \citet{sch88}, however the fits are marginal ($\chi_{\nu}^{2}$ $\sim$ 5 for the parallel fit and 0.6 for the perpendicular fit).
382:
383:
384: \subsection{Plasma $\beta$ Effect on Heating}
385:
386: Plasma $\beta$ is plotted versus the heating for each ion species for
387: perpendicular shocks in Figure \ref{betaf}a. The plot shows that with
388: increasing $\beta$ the heating of the ions decreases. The heating is
389: therefore more effective in magnetically dominated regimes. The lines plotted are the fit to an exponential fit to the data.
390:
391:
392: For the parallel shocks, Figure \ref{betaf}b, there is an observed
393: decrease in heating with increasing $\beta$, however, only a few
394: shocks are available for study and hence the trend is more uncertain
395: but decreases more sharply than the perpendicular shocks.
396:
397:
398: \subsection{Heating and Mass to Charge Ratio}
399:
400: The mass to charge ratio of an ion determines the type of wave and
401: particle interaction that the ion can experience. In Figures
402: \ref{mqf}a and \ref{mqf}b, the average heating per ion is plotted
403: versus the mass to charge ratio for perpendicular and parallel shocks
404: respectively. The line is a least squared fit to the mean values
405: with the standard deviation of the mean values as error bars. For the
406: perpendicular shock the fit has a reduced chi-squared value of
407: $\chi_{\nu}^{2}$=0.25, for the expression H=1.15+01.6M/Q. The fit for
408: the parallel shocks, $\chi_{\nu}^{2}$ $\sim$0.48, the line is present
409: to emphasize the trend towards an increase in heating with increasing
410: M/Q ratio.
411:
412:
413: In the perpendicular shocks both the M/Q=2 ions are heated approximately the same, whereas in the parallel shocks they are heated differently, making the mass important in the parallel shock given that the larger value is the C$^{6+}$ ion, where the M/Q ratio is important for the perpendicular shock.
414:
415:
416: These shock exhibit an increase in heating based on a larger M/Q ratio
417: regardless of the exact $\theta_{Bn}$, however, the effect is more
418: pronounced in the perpendicular shock. \citet{lee00} found that due to transmission of ions across the shock, the gyro speed, v$_{g}$, is approximately equal to the thermal speed. The gyro speed increased as the M/Q ratio increased which agrees with this data set.
419:
420:
421:
422:
423: \section{Discussion of Heating Mechanisms}
424:
425: A shock heating mechanism is needed that addresses all observational
426: constraints found in this study. Any proposed mechanism must meet the
427: following criteria:
428:
429: \begin{enumerate}
430: \item Heating increases with decreasing $\beta$
431: \item Perpendicular shocks heat more effectively than parallel shocks
432: \item The ions that initially have thermal velocities nearly equal to
433: protons are preferentially heated
434: \item Heating increases with increasing mass-to-charge ratio.
435: \item Increasing Mach Number increases the heating
436: \end{enumerate}
437:
438:
439: \citet{lee00} modeled heating in the solar corona. This heating
440: mechanism and the predictions for the downstream thermal speed will be
441: used to evaluate this mechanism for the CME shock heating. The protons are the main species and will form the shock while the heavy ions will act as test particles through the shock front. The
442: simplifying assumption will be made that all changes in the ions
443: velocity will occur parallel to the shock normal. The proton speed is also assumed to be the speed of the solar wind or the upstream bulk speed. As protons pass
444: through the shock they are slowed according to the Rankine-Hugoniot
445: conditions in order to conserve energy. Their bulk kinetic energy is
446: changed into potential energy forming an effective electrostatic
447: potential. Therefore, the potential is proportional to the change in
448: energy of the proton.
449:
450: \begin{equation}
451: \label{potential}
452: q\phi \sim \frac{1}{2}m_{p}v_{p,u}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}m_{p}v_{p,d}^{2}
453: \end{equation}
454:
455: This potential jump is seen by the heavy ions as they approach the
456: shock front. But the heavy ions conserve energy, increasing their
457: velocity across the shock according to their M/Q ratio.
458:
459: \begin{equation}\label{ke}
460: \Delta
461: K.E._{i}=q_{i}\phi=\frac{1}{2}m_{i}(v_{i,u}^{2}-v_{i,d}^{2})\end{equation}
462:
463: where q$_{i}$ is the charge of the ion, m$_{i}$ is the mass of the ion
464: in units of proton mass, v$_{i,u}$ is the velocity of the ion upstream
465: and v$_{i,d}$ is the velocity of the ion downstream of the shock.
466: Plugging in the potential formed by the protons (\ref{potential}) to
467: the kinetic energy of the heavy ions (\ref{ke}), we can find an
468: expression for the downstream ion velocity in terms of the M/Q
469: ($\alpha$) and observed parameters.
470:
471: \begin{equation}
472: \label{ionheating}
473: v_{i,d}=v_{p}\sqrt{\frac{(\alpha-1)+c^{2}}{\alpha}}
474: \end{equation}
475:
476: where $\alpha$ is the mass to charge ratio, v$_{p}$ is the solar wind
477: proton velocity, and c is the ratio of downstream proton velocity to
478: upstream proton velocity in the shock frame.
479:
480: The velocity computed in Equation \ref{ionheating} is the kinetic
481: velocity of the particle at the shock front. However, we are trying
482: to examine the thermal speed of the heavy ions. As the distribution
483: of the ions moves away from Maxwellian, the thermal speed becomes a
484: measure of kinetic energy. \citet{lee00} derived that for a perpendicular shock the gyro velocity was approximately equal to the thermal velocity. Using the definition of gyro velocity from the \citet{lee00} paper,
485: \begin{equation}
486: \label{vgyro}
487: v_{i,d,th}=v_{gyro}=v_{p,u}|\sqrt{(1-\frac{\alpha Q}{M})}- \frac{B_{t,1}}{B_{t,2}} |
488: \end{equation}
489:
490:
491: where $\alpha$ is defined as $e \Delta$$\phi$/$\epsilon$$_{0}$ - the ratio of electric potential at the shock front to the kinetic energy of protons upstream , v$_{p,u}$ is the upstream solar wind
492: proton velocity, B$_{t,1}$ is the upstream magnitude of the tangential magnetic field, and B$_{t,2}$ is the downstream magnitude of the tangential magnetic field.
493:
494:
495: By inspection, the downstream thermal velocity does increase with
496: increasing M/Q ratio. Using the definition of a Mach number the
497: relationship between the upstream proton velocity and the Mach numer
498: is found to be v$_{p,u}$=M$_{A}$v$_{A}$. Inserting this relation into
499: the square of Equation \ref{vgyro} in order to compare with the ion heating
500: data, the heating of the ions is proportional to the square of the
501: Mach number. However, in the actual data sets, there is an increase
502: of heating with respect to increasing Mach number however not a
503: significant heating as suggested by this equation.
504:
505: The plasma $\beta$ is inversely correlated with the square of the
506: Alfven velocity. With respect to plasma $\beta$ the data match the
507: predicted trend of Equation \ref{vgyro} as the heating decreased with
508: increasing $\beta$.
509:
510:
511:
512: As the Mach number increases we expect to have greater shock
513: compression of the magnetic field which would lead to a larger B$_{t,2}$. The Mach number is not as strongly correlated as the magnetic characteristics, such as $\theta$$_{Bn}$ or $\beta$, with the heating of the heavy ions, however, the bulk motion provided by shocks at higher Mach numbers is necessary for the compression of downstream magnetic fields that influence the gyro velocity.
514:
515:
516:
517: \section{Conclusions}
518:
519: This study examined different ion species in the solar wind to
520: investigate the heating that occurs at a collisionless shock front
521: ahead of ICMEs. Based on the magnetic field angle to the shock normal,
522: $\theta$$_{Bn}$, each shock was analyzed for its dependence on Mach
523: number, M$_{A}$, plasma $\beta$, and the behavior of ions based on
524: their mass to charge ratio, M/Q. An increasing $\beta$ was found to
525: reduce the ion heating at the shock, highlighting the importance of
526: the magnetic field to the heating process. As the Mach number
527: increased the heating also increased. As the mass to charge ratio
528: increases, the heating of the ion increases. Quasi-perpendicular
529: shocks were shown to heat the ions more efficiently than the
530: quasi-parallel shocks.
531:
532:
533: A heating method based on a post-shock potential described by
534: \citet{lee00} was examined for the heating trends observed in this
535: study. The data and the predicted values of heating were not well
536: correlated for the parallel shock but did match trends found for the
537: M/Q, M$_{A}$ and plasma $\beta$ trends for the perpendicular shocks.
538: The mechanism reveals an increased heating with increasing Mach
539: number. However, the magnitude of the increase in heating with Mach number is not of the same order of magnitude that is found in the data and the trend however weak is inverse to that found by \citet{sch88}.
540:
541:
542: There is currently similar ion heating data available for
543: collisionless shocks in supernova remnants showing non-preferential
544: heating to ions. Using the data compiled here we can compare the
545: heating ratios of ions to protons downstream and use that ratio to find
546: a plasma $\beta$ for the supernova remnant (SNR). In \citet{kor04}, it was
547: found that the ratio of oxygen to proton temperature post-shock was
548: 8.3. Using the fit of heating versus plasma $\beta$ for the CME data, we obtain a $\beta$ for SN1006 of 1.7. Knowing the
549: temperature, T=1.5 $\times$10$^{9}$K, and the density given, 0.25
550: cm$^{-3}$, we can also find a magnetic field of 1$\mu$Gauss. This is
551: very close to the assumed galactic magnetic field of 3$\mu$Gauss. These
552: types of diagnostics could lead to a better understanding of the magnetic
553: field in SNRs and their role in ion heating and acceleration.
554:
555: This begs the question of the ubiquitous nature of the shock physics:
556: what is the dominant factor to determine effect heating at a
557: collisionless shock front? The supernova has a Mach number 10 times
558: that of the CME shocks however, as seen in this data set, the Mach
559: number is not the only factor in determining heating.
560: Density and magnetic energy seem to be of greater importance.
561:
562:
563: \acknowledgments
564: The ACE science center is found at \url{http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/}.
565: This work was performed with the support of ACE contract number. K. Korreck acknowledges the Rackham-NSF Fellowship for funding this
566: work. This work made use of NASA's Astrophysical Data System.
567:
568:
569: Facilities: \facility{ACE}.
570:
571: \begin{thebibliography}{}
572: \bibitem[Berdichevsky et al.(1997)]{ber97} Berdichevsky, D., Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., \& Mall, U. 1997, \jgr, 102, 263
573: \bibitem[Cane \& Richardson(2003)]{cra03}Cane, H. \& Richardson, I. 2003, \jgr, 108, 1156
574:
575: \bibitem[Ellison(1981)]{ell81} Ellison, D.C. 1981, \grl, 8, 991
576: \bibitem[Ellison et al.(1995)]{ell95} Ellison, D.C., Baring, M.G., \& Jones, F.C. 1995, \apj, 453, 873
577: \bibitem[Galvin (1997)]{gal97} Galvin, A.B. 1997, in {\it Coronal Mass Ejections}, ed. N. Crooker, J.A. Joselyn, \& J. Feynman, {\it Geophys. Monograph}, 99, 253
578:
579: \bibitem[Giacalone et al.(1992)]{gia92} Giacalone, J., Burgess,
580: D., Schwartz, S.J., \& Ellison, D.C. 1992, \grl, 19, 433
581:
582: \bibitem[Gloeckler(1999)]{glo99} Gloeckler, G.\ 1999, Space
583: Science Reviews, 89, 91
584:
585: \bibitem[Gloeckler et al.(1998)]{glo98}Gloeckler, G., Cain, J., Ipavich, F.M., Tums, E.O., Bedini, P., Fisk, L.A., Zurbuchen, T.H.,
586: Bochsler, P., Fischer, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R.F., Geiss, J., \&
587: Kallenbach, R. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 497
588:
589:
590: \bibitem[Hefti et al.(1998)]{hef98} Hefti, S., et al. 1998, \jgr,
591: 103, 29697
592:
593: \bibitem[Kennel(1987)]{ken87}Kennel, C.F. 1987, \jgr, 92, 13427
594: \bibitem[Korreck et al.(2004)]{kor04}Korreck, K.E., Raymond,
595: J.C., Zurbuchen, T.H., Ghavamian, P. 2004, \apj,615, 280
596:
597: \bibitem[Kucharek \& Scholer(1995)]{kuc95}Kucharek, H. \& Scholer, M. 1995, \jgr, 100, 1745
598: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1987)]{lee87} Lee, L.~C., Mandt, M.~E.,
599: \& Wu, C.~S.\ 1987, \jgr, 92, 13438
600:
601: \bibitem[Lee \& Wu(2000)]{lee00}Lee, L. \& Wu, B. 2000, \apj,
602: 535,1014
603: \bibitem[Lipatov \& Zank(1999)]{lip99} Lipatov, A.S. \& Zank, G.P. 1999, Physical Review Letters, 82, 3609
604:
605: \bibitem[McComas et al.(1998)]{mcc98} McComas, D.J., Bame, S.J., Barker, P., Feldman, W.C., Phillips, J.L., Riley, P., \& Griffee,
606: J.W. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 563
607:
608: \bibitem[Ogilvie et al.(1980)]{ogi80}Ogilvie, K.W., Bochsler, P., Geiss, J., \& Coplan, M.A. 1980, \jgr, 85(14), 6069
609:
610: \bibitem[Paschmann et al.(1981)]{pas81} Paschmann, G.,
611: Sckopke, N., Papamastorakis, I., Asbridge, J.~R., Bame, S.~J., \& Gosling,
612: J.~T.\ 1981, \jgr, 86, 4355
613:
614: \bibitem[Scholer(1990)]{sch90} Scholer, M. 1990, \grl, 17, 1821
615: \bibitem[Schwartz et al.(1988)]{sch88} Schwartz, S.J., Thomsen, M.F., Bame, S.J., Stansberry, J. 1988, \jgr, 93(A11), 12, 923
616:
617: \bibitem[Shimada \& Hoshino(2003)]{shi} Shimada, N. \&
618: Hoshino, M. 2003, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 4, 2421
619:
620:
621: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1998)]{smi98}Smith, C.W., L'Heureux, J.,
622: Ness, N.F., Acuna, M.H., Burlaga, L.F., Scheifele, J. 1998, Space
623: Science Reviews, 86, 613
624:
625: \bibitem[Stone et al.(1998)]{sto98}Stone, E.C., Frandsen, A.M., Mewaldt, R.A., Christian, E.R., Margolies, D., Ormes, J.F., \& Snow, F. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 1-22
626:
627: \bibitem[von Steiger \& Zurbuchen(2003)]{von03} von Steiger, R. \&
628: Zurbuchen, T.H. 2003, AIP Conf. Proc. 679: Solar Wind Ten, 679, 526
629:
630: \bibitem[Zertsalov et al.(1976)]{zer76}Zertsalov, A.A., Vaisberg,
631: O.L., Temnyi, V.V. 1976, Cosmological Research, 14, 257
632: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(1991)]{zha91}Zhao, X., Ogilvie, K.W., Whang, Y.C. 1991, \jgr, 96, 5437
633: \bibitem[Zurbuchen et al.(2000)]{zur00} Zurbuchen, T.H., Fisk, L.A., Schwadron, N.A., \& Gloeckler, G. 2000, AIP Conf. Proc. 528:
634: Acceleration and Transport of Energetic Particles Observed in the
635: Heliosphere, 215
636: \end{thebibliography}
637:
638: \clearpage
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \begin{center}
642: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=1]{f1.eps}
643: \caption{Plot of ACE magnetic and temperature data versus time, in
644: fraction of a day, for a parallel shock. Panel A plots the solar wind
645: proton velocity, v$_{p}$ as the solid line and the velocity of each
646: heavy ion is included as a different symbol. Panel B is plot of the
647: proton number density, n. Panel C is a plot of the thermal velocity,
648: v$_{th}$, of protons with the symbols representing the thermal
649: velocity of individual heavy ions. Panel D plots the proton
650: temperature, T, versus time. Panel E contains the magnitude of the
651: magnetic field, B. Panel F is a plot of the magnetic latitude,
652: $\delta$, and longitude, $\lambda$.\label{goodpar}}
653: \end{center}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656: \clearpage
657:
658:
659: \begin{figure}
660: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f2a.eps}
661: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f2b.eps}
662: \caption{\label{hratios}Shock ion heating versus upstream thermal
663: temperature ratio, (a) for perpendicular shocks and (b) for parallel
664: shocks. The upstream ratio of ion thermal velocity to proton thermal
665: velocity, T$_{i}$/T$_{p}$, is the x-axis. Ion heating, H$_{i}$, is
666: the y-axis. }
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: \clearpage
670: \begin{figure}
671: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f3a.eps}
672: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f3b.eps}
673: \caption{\label{myberd}Shock heating ratios versus upstream thermal
674: temperature ratio, (a) for perpendicular shocks and (b) for parallel
675: shocks. The upstream ratio of ion temperature to proton temperature,
676: T$_{i}$/T$_{p}$, is the x-axis. The ratio of temperature increase
677: between the ion, H$_{i}$ is the y-axis. }
678: \end{figure}
679: \clearpage
680:
681: \begin{figure}
682: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f4a.eps}
683: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f4b.eps}
684: \caption{\label{machf} Plot of Alfvenic Mach number versus heating, H,
685: for all the heavy ions. The line indicates a least squared fit to the data which appears kinked due to the logrithmic scale. }
686: \end{figure}
687:
688: \clearpage
689: \begin{figure}
690: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f5a.eps}
691: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f5b.eps}
692: \caption{\label{betaf} Plot of $\beta$ versus heating, H, for all the
693: heavy ions in a shock. The heating is the ratio of the square of the
694: downstream ion thermal velocity to the square of the upstream ion
695: thermal velocity. $\beta$ is the ratio of thermal to magnetic energy
696: densities. The line is the exponential fit to the data.}
697: \end{figure}
698: \clearpage
699: \begin{figure}
700: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f6a.eps}
701: \includegraphics[angle=90,clip=,scale=0.4]{f6b.eps}
702: \caption{\label{mqf}Plot of M/Q versus heating, H, for all the ions in
703: a shock. The heating is the ratio of the square of the downstream ion
704: thermal velocity to the square of the upstream ion thermal velocity.
705: The heating for each ion was averaged in order to determine a trend in
706: the data. The line is the least square fit to the data.}
707: \end{figure}
708:
709:
710: \end{document}
711:
712:
713:
714:
715:
716:
717:
718:
719: