1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{;}{a}{,}{,}

3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}

4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

6: \begin{document}

7: \title{Magnetic Field Structure and

8: Stochastic Reconnection in a Partially Ionized Gas}

9: 

10: 

11: \author{ A. Lazarian}

12: 

13: \affil{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, 475 N Charter Street,

14: Madison WI 53706}

15: 

16: \email{lazarian@astro.wisc.edu}

17: 

18: \author{Ethan T. Vishniac}

19: 

20: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

21: Johns Hopkins University,

22: Baltimore MD 21218}

23: \email{ethan@pha.jhu.edu}

24: 

25: \and

26: 

27: \author{ Jungyeon Cho}

28: 

29: \affil{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, 475 N Charter Street,

30: Madison WI 53706}

31: 

32: 

33: \email{cho@astro.wisc.edu}

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36: We consider stochastic reconnection in a magnetized, partially ionized

37: medium.  Stochastic reconnection is a generic effect, due to field

38: line wandering, in which the speed of reconnection is determined by 

39: the ability of ejected plasma to diffuse away from the current sheet

40: along magnetic field lines, rather than by the details of current 

41: sheet structure.   As in earlier work, in which we dealt with a fully

42: ionized plasma, we consider the limit of weak stochasticity, so that

43: the mean magnetic field energy density is greater than either the 

44: turbulent kinetic energy density or the energy density associated with

45: the fluctuating component of the field.  For specificity, we consider

46: field line stochasticity generated through a turbulent cascade, which

47: leads us to consider the effect of neutral drag on the turbulent 

48: cascade of energy.  In a collisionless plasma, neutral particle 

49: viscosity and ion-neutral drag will damp mid-scale turbulent motions, 

50: but the power spectrum of the magnetic perturbations extends below 

51: the viscous cutoff scale. We give a simple physical picture of the 

52: magnetic field structure below this cutoff, consistent with numerical

53: experiments.  We provide arguments for the re\"emergence of the 

54: turbulent cascade well below the viscous cut-off scale and derive 

55: estimates for field line diffusion on all scales.  We note 

56: that this explains the persistence of a single power law form for the 

57: turbulent power spectrum of the interstellar medium, from scales of 

58: tens of parsecs down to thousands of kilometers.  We find that under 

59: typical conditions in the ISM stochastic reconnection speeds are 

60: reduced by the presence of neutrals, but by no more than an order of

61: magnitude.  However, neutral drag implies a steep dependence on the

62: Mach number of the turbulence.  In the dense cores of $H_2$ regions 

63: the reconnection speed is probably determined by 

64: tearing mode instabilities.

65: \end{abstract}

66: 

67: \keywords{Magnetic fields; Galaxies: magnetic fields,

68: ISM: molecular clouds, magnetic fields; Stars: formation }

69: 

70: 

71: \section{Introduction}

72: 

73: One of the fundamental properties of astrophysical magnetic fields

74: is their ability to change topology via reconnection

75: \citep[see][]{PF00}.  It is impossible to understand the

76: origin and evolution of large scale magnetic fields without

77: understanding the mobility of magnetic field lines. In a typical

78: astrophysical plasma, resistivity is very small

79: and flux freezing, which follows from assuming zero

80: resistivity, should be an excellent guide to the

81: motion of magnetic fields. In spite of this, fast

82: magnetic dynamo theory

83: \citep[see][]{P79,M78,KR80} invokes a

84: constantly changing magnetic field topology and motions during

85: which field lines cross each other\footnote{While standard mean-field

86: dynamo theory has been severely criticized on theoretical

87: and numerical grounds \citep{VC92,GD94,GD96,CH96,HCK96,B01},

88: an alternative version can be

89: formulated which evades these criticisms \citep[][]{VC01} and which

90: assumes fast reconnection only on two dimensional surfaces.}.

91: This assumption is supported

92: by observations of the solar magnetic field

93: \citep[see][and references contained therein]{D96,IIAW97}

94: which are difficult to explain unless flux

95: freezing is routinely violated on time

96: scales short compared to resistive time scales, at least within

97: thin current sheets.

98: 

99: The Sweet-Parker model of reconnection is the simplest and most robust

100: \citep{P57, S58}.  In this model, reconnection takes place within

101: a thin current sheet, which separates two large volumes containing

102: uniform, and very different, magnetic fields.  The resulting reconnection speed

103: is less than the Alfv\'en speed

104: by the square root of the Lundquist number

105: $\sim {\cal R}_L^{-1/2}=(\eta/V_A L)^{1/2}$, where

106: $\eta$ is the resistivity, $V_A$ is the Alfv\'en speed, and $L$

107: is the length of the current sheet, assumed to be determined

108: by the large scale geometry of the problem.  Under typical astrophysical

109: conditions this is very slow (e.g. for the Galaxy as a whole

110: ${\cal R}_L\sim 10^{20}$).  This reconnection

111: speed is set by a geometrical constraint. Indeed, 

112: plasma tied to the reconnecting magnetic field lines must be ejected

113: from the ends of the narrow current sheet. The disparity of scales, one

114: of which is macroscopic/astrophysical, while the other is microscopic, 

115: i.e. determined by ohmic diffusion, makes the reconnection slow.

116: 

117: This evident shortcoming of the Sweet-Parker reconnection

118: scheme has stimulated interest in

119: alternative models that allow fast reconnection. Although the

120: literature on magnetic reconnection is extensive

121: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{PF00} it does not

122: successfully address this question. Models

123: that invoke an X-point reconnection geometry \citep{P64} have

124: been

125: shown to be unstable for sufficiently high $R_L$ \citep[see][]{B96},

126: while anomalous resistivity fails to provide rapid reconnection

127: under most astrophysical conditions \citep[see][]{P79}.

128: A general review of astrophysical magnetic reconnection

129: theory can be found in \citet{BMW03}. 

130: 

131: A notable exception to this discouraging state of affairs is 

132: the recent work on fast collisionless

133: reconnection

134: \citep[see also the discussion by Bhattacharjee, Ma and Wang 2001]

135: {BSD97,SDD98,SD98}.

136: This

137: work indicates that under some circumstances a kind of standing

138: whistler mode can stabilize an X-point reconnection region.  However,

139: these studies have not demonstrated the possibility of fast reconnection

140: for generic field geometries. They assume that there are no

141: bulk forces acting to produce a large scale current

142: sheet, and that the magnetized regions are convex, which minimizes

143: the energy required to spread the field lines.  In addition, 

144: this mechanism requires a collisionless

145: environment, where the electron mean free path is less than the current sheet

146: thickness \citep{TYJKC03, JYHK98}.

147: Unfortunately, in the laboratory the current sheet thickness

148: is comparable to the ion Larmor radius and

149: it is unclear how to generalize this criterion

150: to the interstellar medium, where the Sweet-Parker current sheet thickness

151: is typically much greater than the Larmor radius.  {\it If} we require that

152: the ion skin depth, the characteristic scale of the standing Whistler mode,  

153: be greater than the current sheet thickness, then we

154: have a criterion which is rarely satisfied in the interstellar medium.

155: In this paper we will concentrate on a mechanism that acts in turbulent media

156: and when it works,

157: produces rapid reconnection under a broad range of field geometries,

158: without regard to the particle collision rate.  We will defer all discussion

159: of the relationship between stochastic reconnection and small scale

160: collisionless effects to a later paper.

161: 

162: %In general, astrophysical magnetic reconnection takes place

163: %in turbulent media.  \citet{PF00}

164: %have stressed that even if fast Petschek

165: %reconnection is possible it will still be necessary to

166: %demonstrate "that it will apply to the turbulent MHD regime''.

167: %If magnetic fields

168: %are turbulent then the boundary conditions for the current sheets

169: %change stochastically.

170: %On the other hand,  boundary conditions need to be fine tuned for the

171: %Petschek reconnection scheme \citep[see][]{PF00}.

172: 

173: In a previous paper \citep[henceforth LV99]{lv99}

174: we discussed `stochastic reconnection', a process which is

175: similar to Sweet-Parker reconnection, except that stochastic

176: wandering of the field lines produces a broad outflow region.

177: The properties of the outflow region are insensitive to the width of the

178: current sheet (and the value of ${\cal R}_L$), but depend on the

179: level of field line stochasticity.  In a sufficiently noisy environment

180: the reconnection speed becomes a large fraction of the Alfv\'en speed.

181: In an {\it extremely} quiet environment the field lines do not

182: enter or leave the current sheet over its entire length and we

183: recover the Sweet-Parker reconnection model.

184: In LV99 we dealt with an inviscid and totally ionized fluid.

185: \footnote{In this paper we shall show that

186: this approximation is valid for partially ionized collisionless plasma

187: up to a certain percentage of neutrals, and for collisional gases with

188: resistivity larger than viscosity.}

189: 

190: The notion that magnetic field stochasticity might affect 

191: current sheet structures is not unprecedented.  In earlier

192: work \citet{S70} showed that in collisionless plasmas the

193: electron collision time should be replaced with the time a

194: typical electron is retained in the current sheet.  Also

195: \citet{JM84} proposed that current diffusivity should be modified

196: to include diffusion of electrons across the mean field due

197: to small scale stochasticity.  These effects will usually be small

198: compared to effect of a broad outflow zone containing both

199: plasma and ejected shared magnetic flux.  Moreover,

200: while both of these effects

201: will affect reconnection rates, they are not sufficient to 

202: produce reconnection speeds comparable to the Alfv\'en speed

203: in most astrophysical environments.    

204: 

205: It is important to distinguish between stochastic reconnection,

206: as discussed in LV99, and the more conventional notion of

207: turbulent reconnection.  The latter usually involves substituting a

208: turbulent diffusivity for the resistivity, and involves

209: a degree of small-scale mixing which is forbidden

210: on energetic grounds \citep[see \S 2 in][and the references

211: contained therein]{P92}.  A common variation of this hypothesis

212: is that instabilities

213: in the current sheet will produce a hugely broadened current sheet

214: and a large effective resistivity within it \citep[for a review see][]

215: {B00}.  On the

216: contrary, the former is largely a topological effect, using conventional

217: estimates of resistivity, and the only strong mixing associated

218: with it has to do with the polarization of field lines crossing

219: the current sheet.  (That is, one expects sharp gradients, in the

220: current sheet, in the component of the magnetic lines perpendicular

221: to the current sheet.)

222: In this sense, stochastic reconnection belongs

223: to the class of models which try to explain fast reconnection by

224: appealing to a current sheet geometry which is `natural' in some

225: sense, but evades the limits set by the Sweet-Parker model.  (The

226: bulk of the discussion in \citet{PF00} is centered on laminar

227: three dimensional field configurations which can lead to similarly

228: rapid reconnection speeds.)

229: 

230: In a recent paper Kim \& Diamond (2001) addressed the problem of stochastic

231: reconnection by calculating the turbulent diffusion rate for magnetic flux

232: inside a current sheet.  They obtained similar turbulent 

233: diffusion rates for both two dimensional and reduced three 

234: dimensional MHD. In both cases the presence of turbulence had a

235: negligible effect on the flux transport.  The authors pointed out

236: that this would prevent the anomalous transport of magnetic flux within the current

237: sheet and concluded that both 2D and 3D stochastic reconnection proceed

238: at the Sweet-Parker rate even if individual small scale reconnection

239: events happen quickly. If true this would be not only rule out 

240: the LV99 reconnection scheme, but also any other fast reconnection scheme.

241: In general astrophysical plasmas are turbulent and if the 

242: enhancement of the local reconnection speed, e.g. due to collisionless 

243: effects (see Drake et al. 2001), is irrelevant then reconnection must always 

244: be slow.

245: 

246: However turbulent diffusion rates within the current sheet are irrelevant for the 

247: process of stochastic reconnection or, for broadly similar reasons, fast 

248: collisionless reconnection.

249: The basic claim in LV99 is that realistic magnetic field topologies allow multiple

250: connections between the current sheet and the exterior environment, which would

251: persist even if the stochastic magnetic field lines were stationary ("frozen in 

252: time") before reconnection.  This leads to global outflow constraints which

253: are weak and do not depend on the properties of the current sheet.  In particular,

254: the analysis in LV99 assumed that the current sheet thickness is

255: determined purely by ohmic dissipation and that turbulent diffusion of the magnetic

256: field is negligible inside, and outside, the current sheet.  The major uncertainty 

257: in this model is the behavior of the reconnected flux elements, which are nearly 

258: perpendicular to the current sheet and must undergo multiple reconnections before 

259: being ejected.  We note also that models of collisionless reconnection also evade

260: the objection posed by Kim and Diamond topologically, that is, by stabilizing 

261: an X-point reconnection topology, and opening up the rest of the current sheet.

262: 

263: "Hyper-resistivity" \citep{S85,BH86,HB87} is a more subtle attempt to derive fast reconnection

264: from turbulence within the context of mean-field resistive MHD.  The form of the parallel

265: electric field can be derived from magnetic helicity conservation.  Integrating

266: by parts one obtains a term which looks like an effective resistivity

267: proportional to the magnetic helicity current.  There are several assumptions

268: implicit in this derivation, but the most important problem is that by

269: adopting a mean-field approximation one is already assuming some sort of

270: small-scale smearing effect, equivalent to fast reconnection.  \citet{S88}

271: partially circumvented this problem by examining the effect of tearing

272: mode instabilities within current sheets.  However, the resulting reconnection

273: speed enhancement is roughly what one would expect based simply on the

274: broadening of the current sheets due to internal mixing.  This effect

275: does not allow us to evade the constraints on the global

276: plasma flow that lead to slow reconnection speeds, a point which

277: has been demonstrated numerically \citep{ML85}

278: and analytically (LV99).  Nevertheless, we show in \S 4 that this effect may be 

279: important in the densest and coldest parts of the ISM.

280: 

281: A partially ionized plasma fills a substantial volume within

282: our galaxy and the earlier stages of star formation take

283: place in a largely neutral medium. This motivates our study

284: of the effect of neutrals on reconnection.

285: The role of ion-neutral collisions is not trivial. On one hand, they

286: may truncate the turbulent cascade, reducing the small scale 

287: stochasticity and decreasing the reconnection

288: speed. On the other hand, the ability of neutrals to diffuse perpendicular

289: to magnetic field lines allows for a broader particle outflow 

290: and enhances reconnection rates.

291: 

292: Reconnection in partially ionized gases has been already studied by

293: various authors \citep{NMA92,ZB97}.  In a 

294: recent study \citep[henceforth VL99]{VL99}

295: we studied the diffusion of neutrals away from the reconnection zone

296: assuming anti-parallel magnetic field lines \citep[see also][]{HZ03a}

297: The ambipolar reconnection rates obtained in VL99, although large

298: compared with the Sweet-Parker model, are insufficient either

299: for fast dynamo models or for the ejection of magnetic flux prior

300: to star formation.  In fact, the increase in the reconnection speed

301: stemmed entirely from the

302: compression of ions in the current sheet, with the consequent enhancement of

303: both recombination and ohmic dissipation.  This effect is small

304: unless the reconnecting magnetic field lines are almost exactly

305: anti-parallel \citep{VL99, 

306: HZ03b}.  Any dynamically significant shared field component

307: will prevent noticeable plasma compression in the current

308: sheet, and lead to speeds practically indistinguishable from the standard

309: Sweet-Parker result.  Since generic reconnection regions will have

310: a shared field component of the same order as the reversing component,

311: the implication is that reconnection and ambipolar diffusion do not

312: change reconnection speed estimates significantly.

313: 

314: None of this work on reconnection in partially ionized

315: plasmas includes the effects of

316: stochasticity. We expect that in the presence of turbulence,

317: reconnection rates will be substantially enhanced, as they are in

318: completely ionized plasmas. To generalize the concept of stochastic

319: reconnection to partially ionized plasmas we need a model for the

320: small scale stochasticity of a turbulent magnetic field in a partially

321: ionized plasma. In this paper we will begin by considering this

322: problem, and then apply our results to the reconnection speed.

323: 

324: Following LV99, we consider reconnection in the presence of a weakly

325: stochastic

326: magnetic field.  Except for the presence of noise, we imagine a

327: reconnection event exactly like a generic Sweet-Parker reconnection

328: event.  Two volumes with average magnetic fields that are of comparable

329: strength, but differing directions are in contact over a surface of

330: length $L$.  Due to the stochastic nature of the fields, field lines come

331: into contact over many small patches (see Fig.~1).

332: For each individual patch the Sweet-Parker reconnection model

333: should be applicable (or at least constitute a minimal reconnection speed).

334: The enhancement of reconnection rates follows from two effects.

335: First, since individual field lines wander out of the narrow current

336: sheet relatively easily, the longitudinal patch size is much smaller

337: than the overall size of the system.

338: This reduces the effective value of ${\cal R}_L$ and raises

339: the local reconnection speed. Second, whereas in the Sweet-Parker

340: scheme magnetic field lines reconnect sequentially, in the

341: presence of field line wandering field

342: lines many independent patches are brought into direct contact

343: and can reconnect simultaneously.  

344: %EV

345: As a consequence, the rate of reconnection of the magnetic flux 

346: is increased by a large factor, whose exact value depends on the level of

347: noise in the system.

348: %AL

349: %As a result, the upper limit on the

350: %reconnection speed imposed by the requirement that plasma escape from

351: %the current sheet along field lines is unrealistically large, larger

352: %than the Alfv\'en speed.  The actual reconnection speed is determined

353: %by the width of the volume containing the field lines that cross the

354: %current sheet at some point, and approaches the Alfv\'en speed when the

355: %local turbulence is strong.

356: 

357: In LV99 the truncation of the turbulent cascade was assumed to be

358: due to resistivity.  Consequently, the smallest scale of field line

359: wandering decreases as resistivity decreases, and the number of

360: independent patches in contact within the reconnection zone increases.

361: {}From this we concluded that for an idealized inviscid

362: fluid the reconnection rate does not depend on

363: fluid resistivity. It does depend on the level

364: of magnetic field stochasticity.  In the specific case where

365: the field line stochasticity is caused by a turbulent cascade,

366: it depends on the amplitude of the turbulence.  However, there

367: is no necessary connection between turbulent motions and the

368: reconnection speed.  In particular, the rate of turbulent transport

369: of mean magnetic flux is assumed to be negligible in this model,

370: %EV

371: and even the complete absence of turbulent diffusion in the

372: current sheet would not reduce the stochastic reconnection rate

373: \citep[cf.][]{KD01}.

374: %%AL

375: %In other words, the rate of turbulent transport does not present

376: %a bottleneck for stochastic reconnection (cf. Kim \& Diamond 2001).

377: 

378: To quantify stochastic reconnection we have to use a particular

379: description of turbulence.

380: Motions in a magnetized medium can be expanded into incompressible (Alfv\'en)

381: and compressible (fast and slow) modes. There are theoretical arguments

382: \citep{gs95,LG01} \citep[see][for a review]{CLV03a} 

383: suggesting that the nonlinear cascade of power for these

384: modes proceeds separately, although not entirely independently.

385: Simulations in \citet{CL02} support this idea

386: and show that the  \citet[henceforth GS95]{gs95}

387: scaling is applicable to Alfvenic part of the MHD cascade.

388: For our purposes the scalings of slow and fast modes \citep{CL02}, \citep{CL03}

389: are less important since they are subjected to collisionless

390: damping\footnote{Whether or not those damped modes are important depends

391: on the process studied. For instance, \citet{YL02} show that

392: for scattering of cosmic rays the residual small amplitude

393: fast modes are much more efficient than the Alfv\'en modes. This,

394: however, is not true for the field wandering that we consider in this

395: paper.}

396: 

397: Here we assume that the

398: GS95 model describes incompressible turbulence above the ambipolar

399: damping scale\footnote{We note, however,

400: that our qualitative conclusions for reconnection rates should be

401: valid for other models of MHD turbulence (see LV99) as long as they are in

402: rough agreement with observational constraints and numerical simulations.}.

403: To describe MHD turbulence below the scale of

404: viscous damping we present a new model of magnetic field structure in this

405: regime.

406: This model is in rough agreement with numerical simulations by

407: \citet[henceforth CLV02b]{CLV02b}.

408: %

409: 

410: 

411: %To describe turbulence above the ambipolar damping scale

412: %we adopt the Goldreich-Sridhar (1995, henceforth GS95)

413: %picture of the

414: %AL

415: %incompressible

416: %

417: %turbulent

418: %MHD cascade (see also the discussion in LV99). This picture is

419: %consistent with recent numerical simulations by

420: %\citet{CV00}, \citet{MG01}, and \citet{CLV02a}

421: %\footnote{We note, however,

422: %that our qualitative conclusions for reconnection rates should be

423: %valid for other models of MHD turbulence (see LV99) as long as they are in

424: %rough agreement with observational constraints and numerical simulations.}.

425: %To describe the turbulence below the scale of

426: %viscous damping below we present a new model of magnetic field structure.

427: %This model is in rough agreement with numerical simulations by

428: %\citet[henceforth CLV02b]{CLV02b}.

429: 

430: In \S 2 of this paper we will consider the effect of a large

431: neutral fraction on a strongly turbulent cascade in a magnetized

432: plasma.  In \S 3 we apply this to the problem of reconnection

433: in partially ionized plasmas. In \S 4 we apply this work to various

434: phases in the ISM.  Finally, \S 5 contains our basic conclusions.

435: 

436: \section{Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence in a Partially Ionized Plasma}

437: 

438: In this section we will consider the effect of neutral particles on the turbulent cascade 

439: in the ISM.  We begin by briefly reviewing the nature of the strong turbulent

440: MHD cascade and the dynamical influence of neutral particles.  In \S 2.2 we 

441: describe the cascade when viscous damping, due to neutral particles, is

442: strong, but the one fluid approximation remains valid.  In \S 2.3 we consider

443: the uncoupled regime, covering scales where the neutral particles exert

444: a uniform drag on all motions.  We end, in \S 2.4,  with a brief discussion

445: of the implications of this picture for observations of turbulence in the ISM.

446: 

447: \subsection{Neutral-ion damping}

448: 

449: The role of neutral-ion damping in MHD turbulence has been discussed

450: previously in the context of the ISM \citep[in particular, see][]{S91,MS97}.

451: The basic conclusion was that neutral fluid heating is a plausible sink

452: for the turbulent energy revealed through measurements of interstellar

453: scintillation.  Here we are concerned instead with how a neutral

454: gas component will modify the turbulent power spectrum.  The most

455: relevant observational point is that the ISM turbulent power

456: spectrum has no strong features at wavelengths where neutral-ion

457: coupling would be expected to play a dominant role \citep{ARS95}.

458: Instead, the power spectrum extends to very small scales ($<10^8$ cm)

459: in an approximate power law.

460: Qualitatively, this suggests that stochastic reconnection can

461: take place even in partially neutral plasmas.  However, several

462: basic questions remain unanswered.

463: Previous work on turbulence in the ISM has not included

464: a discussion of the most plausible model for MHD turbulence (although

465: a simple hydrodynamic model was addressed, which is remarkably

466: close to the model we use here).  Also, we need to understand

467: why neutral damping fails to produce a strong signature in the

468: ISM, or at least in the diffuse ionized component of the ISM, before

469: we can construct a general model for its role in partially ionized

470: plasmas.

471: 

472: 

473: \subsubsection{The Goldreich-Sridhar model}

474: 

475: The GS95 model of strong MHD turbulence is based on the notion of a Kolmogorov-like

476: cascade with an anisotropy imposed by the large scale magnetic field.

477: The exact degree of anisotropy follows from an average balance between

478: hydrodynamic and magnetic forces.

479: Eddies on a given scale are characterized by a wavenumber perpendicular

480: to the mean magnetic field direction, $k_{\perp}$, and a parallel

481: wavenumber, $k_{\|}$, such that the rate of eddy turnover time is

482: equal to the rate wave propagation along magnetic field, i.e.

483: \be

484: k_{\perp}v_k\approx k_{\|}V_A~~~,

485: \label{balance}

486: \ee

487: where $v_k$ is the typical velocity at the scale characterized

488: by the wavenumber $(k_{\|},k_{\perp})$.  As $v_k$ goes down with the

489: increase of $k_{\bot}$ this condition implies

490: eddies that are elongated along the field direction, and become

491: more elongated as we go to smaller scales.  In order to simplify our

492: notation, we will refer to $k_{\perp}$ below as $k$.

493: 

494: If energy is injected isotropically on some scale $l$, with $v_l\le V_A$, then

495: the cascade will begin in a regime of weak turbulence, in which motions can

496: be characterized as weakly interacting waves, with a frequency $\omega=k_{\|}V_A\sim $constant and

497: a nonlinear decay rate (see discussion in a review by Cho, Lazarian \& 

498: Vishniac 2003)

499: \be

500: \tau_{nl}^{-1} \sim {k^2v_k^2l\over V_A},

501: \ee

502: so that conservation of energy implies

503: \be

504: v_k\sim v_l(kl)^{-1/2}.

505: \ee

506: For $\tau_{nl}^{-1}$ less than the wave frequency 

507: the corresponding scale-dependent diffusion coefficient will be (LV99) 

508: \be

509: D_k\sim {v_k^2\over\omega^2\tau_{nl}}\sim {v_l^4l\over V_A^3},

510: \ee

511: which is actually independent of scale.  The decrease in wave motions at 

512: larger $k$ is

513: balanced by the decrease in the coherence time of the waves. 

514: Here we will ignore the contribution of these scales to turbulent 

515: diffusivity in

516: favor of the contribution from smaller, strongly turbulent, scales.

517: 

518: The weak turbulent cascade ends at a scale $k_T$ where equation (\ref{balance})

519: is satisfied.  At this scale

520: \be

521: v_T\sim {v_l^2\over V_A}, \hbox{\ and\ } k_Tl\sim \left({V_A\over v_l}\right)^2.

522: \ee

523: At larger $k$ the strong turbulence model applies and (see GS95)

524: \be

525: k_{\|} \approx l^{-1} \left({k\over k_T}\right)^{2/3}.

526: \label{k_p2m}

527: \ee

528: The rate of turbulent energy transfer is $k_{\|}V_A$, which means

529: \be

530: \tau_{nl}^{-1}\approx {V_A\over l}\left({k\over k_T}\right)^{2/3},

531: \label{tau2m}

532: \ee

533: while the rms turbulent fluid velocity is given by

534: \be

535: v_k\approx v_T \left({k\over k_T}\right)^{-1/3}.

536: \label{velm}

537: \ee

538: The magnetic field perturbations, $b_k$, are

539: \be

540: b_k\approx v_k (4\pi\rho)^{1/2}.

541: \label{belm}

542: \ee

543: 

544: This model presupposes that the turbulent velocities are subalfvenic,

545: and we adopt this assumption in the rest of this paper.  This is

546: less restrictive than it might appear, since as long as there is

547: some scale $l'$ in the turbulent cascade where $v_{l'}\sim V_A$ we

548: can take $l=l'\approx k_T^{-1}$, $v_T=v_l=V_A$ and use this model of turbulence

549: for all smaller scales. 

550: %AL

551: Moreover, if the turbulent energy is larger than the magnetic

552: energy, we can expect rapid growth of the magnetic field through the

553: turbulent dynamo, that is, the generation of a disordered field in

554: rough equipartition with the turbulent kinetic energy (see, however,

555: Schekochihin et al. 2003). 

556: 

557: The Goldreich-Sridhar scalings can be easily understood. They reflect

558: the fact that on small scales it is difficult to bend magnetic field lines,

559: but it is still easy to mix them up.

560: 

561: In a fully ionized astrophysical plasma, shear viscosity

562: is generally less important than resistivity

563: in damping MHD turbulence.  In a partially neutral medium a combination

564: of neutral particle viscosity and ion-neutral collisional coupling

565: drives damping.  Following

566: GS95 we concentrate on the diffusion of momentum across field lines.

567: 

568: \subsubsection{Ion-neutral decoupling: theoretical considerations}

569: 

570: The preceding discussion assumes that the plasma is a single, tightly coupled,

571: fluid with negligible viscosity.  Many astrophysical fluids are partially ionized, the

572: neutrals are imperfectly coupled to the ions. An obvious consequence is a substantially

573: increased viscosity since the neutrals can cross magnetic field lines.

574: 

575: The coupling between ions and neutrals is determined by

576: the rate of ion-neutral collisions, which is

577: \be

578: t_{in}^{-1}={m_n\over m_n+m_i} n_n\langle v_r \sigma_{in}\rangle,

579: \ee

580: where $v_r$ is the ion-neutral relative velocity, $\sigma_{in}$ is

581: the ion-neutral collisional cross section, $m_i$ and $m_n$ are the

582: typical ion and neutral masses, $n_n$ is the neutral number density,

583: and angular brackets denote averaging.  From \citep{DRD83}

584: we adopt ${\langle v_r \sigma_{in}\rangle}\approx 1.9\times 10^{-9}$

585: cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$. The rate at which neutrals exchange momentum with

586: ions is $t_{ni}^{-1}= t_{in}^{-1}\rho_i/\rho_n$.

587: 

588: If the mean free path for a neutral particle, $l_n$,

589: in a partially ionized gas

590: with density $n_{tot}=n_n+n_i$ is much less than

591: the size of the eddies under

592: consideration, i.e. $l_n k\ll 1$, the damping time is

593: \be

594: t_{damp}\sim

595: \nu_n^{-1} k^{-2}\sim \left(\frac{n_{tot}}{n_n}\right)(l_n c_n)^{-1} k^{-2}~~~,

596: \label{tdamp}

597: \ee

598: where $\nu_n$ is the effective viscosity produced by neutrals and

599: $c_n$ is the sound speed in the neutrals

600: \footnote{The viscosity 

601: across magnetic field lines, due to ion-ion collisions,

602: is typically small

603: as ion motions are constrained by the magnetic field.  For

604: a collision rate much smaller than the ion cyclotron frequency

605: the ratio of ion perpendicular viscosity to resistivity is a few times

606: the ratio of the ion thermal pressure to the magnetic pressure.

607: In the collisional limit this is multiplied by a factor

608: of $(\Omega_i/\nu_i)^2\ll 1$, and resistivity efficiently

609: dissipates magnetic field perturbations on scales greater

610: than the viscous damping scale.

611: The drag coefficient for neutral-neutral collisions is

612: $\sim 1.5\times10^{-10} T^{1/3}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ 

613: with $T$ measured in Kelvins

614: \citep{S78},

615: so collisions with other neutrals will dominate

616: for $n_i/n_n$ less than $\sim 0.08 T^{1/3}$.}.

617: 

618: Consider first a mostly neutral gas (i.e. $n_i\gg n_n$). 

619: Turbulence can cascade to small scales if the

620: turbulent eddy rate $\tau^{-1}\sim k v_k$ is larger than 

621: the viscous damping rate $t_{damping}^{-1}$. In a partially ionized

622: gas the one fluid approximation is valid if neutrals experience multiple collisions

623: with ions in an eddy turnover time, i.e. $t_{ni}^{-1}>\tau^{-1}$.

624: Therefore, MHD turbulence will exhibit Goldreich-Sridhar scaling

625: up to the damping scale if  $t_{ni}^{-1}>t_{damping}^{-1}$. On

626: the other hand, if

627: $t_{ni}^{-1}<t_{damping}^{-1}$ neutrals will not follow the ions and

628: magnetic fields. Instead they will form a {\it hydrodynamic} cascade

629: as soon as the neutral-ion collisional rate

630: $t_{ni}^{-1}$ is of the order of the eddy turnover time

631: $\tau$. At this scale, and all smaller scales,  the ionic fluid motions 

632: will damp at

633: the rate of ion-neutral collisions $t_{in}^{-1}$, which

634: in mostly neutral gas is much larger than $t_{ni}^{-1}$.

635: 

636: What will happen to the magnetic fields when ionic motions are damped?

637: Collisions between the ions and the neutral particles will prevent magnetic

638: tension from straightening the field lines efficiently.

639: Instead they will be moved,

640: entangled and stretched by large undamped eddies. As the eddy turnover

641: rate increases with the decrease of the scale, the marginally damped

642: eddies at the damping scale will the most important.

643: This implies a picture very different from the

644: Goldreich-Sridhar cascade.

645: 

646: If neutrals constitute a tiny impurity in the ionized plasma,

647: it is clear that they cannot affect the MHD cascade. We shal

648: quantify this intuitive picture below.  

649:   

650: \subsubsection{Ion-neutral decoupling: a simple model}

651: 

652: Consider first a toy model of ion-neutral interaction.

653:  If we ignore viscous damping, the equations for the

654: ions and neutrals are:

655: \be

656: {v_i\over\tau} ={v_n-v_i\over t_{in}} -{\rho\over\rho_i}

657: \omega_A^2\tau v_i+F_i~~~,

658: \label{memovi}

659: \ee

660: and

661: \be

662: {v_n\over\tau} ={\rho_i\over\rho_n}{v_i-v_n\over t_{in}}+F_n~~~.

663: \label{memovn}

664: \ee

665: For simplicity we have used $F_i$ and $F_n$ to denote both pressure 

666: forces and the nonlinear turbulent accelerations for the ions and neutrals, 

667: respectively.  

668: 

669: To linear order equations, and ignoring sound waves, (\ref{memovi}) and (\ref{memovn}) give

670: the dispersion relation for Alfv\'en waves in a partially

671: ionized plasma \citep{M77}:

672: \be

673: {t_{in}\over\tau}\left(1+(\omega_A\tau)^2{\rho\over\rho_i}\right)

674: ={-1\over 1+\aleph}~~~,

675: \label{ldis}

676: \ee

677: where $\aleph$ is a dynamical coupling parameter, defined by

678: \be

679: \aleph\equiv {\rho_i\over\rho_n}{\tau\over t_{in}}~~~.

680: \ee

681: When the coupling is very tight, $\aleph\gg 1$, and we have the usual relation

682: for Alfv\'en and pseudo-Alfv\'en modes in a single fluid,

683: \be

684: \tau^{-2}=-\omega_A^2~~~,

685: \label{alf}

686: \ee

687: where $\tau$ is imaginary.

688: 

689: As the turbulence cascades to smaller scales, $\tau$, and

690: consequently, $\aleph$, decreases.

691: If we express the value of $\aleph$ at the viscous damping scale

692: as $\aleph_c$, then we have two obvious alternatives.

693: Either $\aleph_c>1$ and two-fluid effects are negligible right up to

694: the damping scale, or $\aleph_c<1$ and the ions and neutrals decouple

695: in the middle of the turbulent cascade.  In order to calculate

696: $\aleph_c$ we need to calculate viscous damping in the large $\aleph$

697: limit.  

698: 

699: 

700: Combining Eqs~(\ref{k_p2m})

701: and

702: (\ref{tdamp}) we get

703: \be

704: {t_{damp}\over\tau}\sim f_n^{-1} \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{1/3}

705: \left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/3} \left(\frac{v_l}{c_n}\right)

706: (l_n k)^{-4/3}~~~,

707: %\label{1damp}

708: \label{eq.4}

709: \ee

710: where $c_n$ is the sound speed and $f_n$ is the neutral fraction.

711: For most of our applications we will have $f_n\sim 1$.

712: The damping scale, $k_c^{-1}$, is defined by $t_{damp}\sim \tau_k$, so that

713: \be

714: k_c\sim l_n^{-1}\left(\frac{v_l}{c_n}\right)^{3/4}

715: \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/4}

716: f_n^{-3/4},

717: \label{4.2.1}

718: \ee

719: \be

720: \tau_c^{-1}\sim k_c^2f_nc_nl_n\sim

721: \left(\frac{c_n}{l_n}\right)\left(\frac{v_l}{c_n}\right)^{3/2}

722: \left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{1/2}

723: f_n^{-1/2},

724: \label{4.2.2}

725: \ee

726: \be

727: k_{\|,c}\sim \tau^{-1}_s V_A^{-1}\sim l_n^{-1}

728: \left(\frac{v_l}{c_n}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/2}

729: \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{3/2}f_n^{-1/2},

730: \label{4.2.3}

731: \ee

732: and

733: \be

734: v_c\sim v_l

735: \left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/4}

736: \left(\frac{c_n}{V_A}\right)^{1/4}f_n^{1/4},

737: \label{4.2.4}

738: \ee

739: 

740: {}From the definition of 

741: %$\aleph_c$ 

742: %AL

743: $\aleph_c\equiv \aleph (\tau_c)$

744: we see

745: that

746: \be

747: \aleph_c\sim f_n^{1/2}

748: \left({l\over l_n}\right)^{1/2} \left({\rho_i l_n\over \rho_n t_{in}c_n}\right)

749: \left({c_n\over v_l}\right)^{3/2}\left({V_A\over v_l}\right)^{1/2}.

750: \label{als}

751: \ee

752: 

753: Equation (\ref{als}) seems to imply that $\aleph_c$ must always be greater than

754: one, but a closer examination suggests that for $\rho_i\ll \rho_n$ the third

755: term on the right hand side can be small enough to offset the second

756: term.  In fact, the value of $\aleph_c$ has to be determined for each

757: situation.  When $\aleph_c\ll 1$  equations (\ref{4.2.1}) through (\ref{4.2.4})

758: have no physical meaning, since

759: the plasma stops behaving as a single fluid when $\aleph$ drops below

760: one.  Nevertheless, we can still use these expressions as useful parameterizations

761: of the turbulent cascade.  In particular, if $\aleph_c<1$ then the scale of

762: decoupling, when $\aleph=1$, is given by

763: \be

764: k'\sim k_c\aleph_c^{3/2},

765: \label{decoup1}

766: \ee

767: while at higher wavenumbers equation (\ref{ldis}) becomes

768: \be

769: {t_{in}\over\tau}\left(1+\omega_A^2\tau^2{\rho\over\rho_i}\right)=-1~~~.

770: \label{memo6}

771: \ee

772: This expression has two roots. When the collision rate is so

773: small that the ions

774: and neutrals are completely decoupled we have usual

775: dispersion relation for Alfv\'en waves

776: \be

777: \tau^{-2}\sim -\omega_A^2 \rho/\rho_i~~~.

778: \label{decouple1}

779: \ee

780: When the collision rate is large the two roots are

781: \be

782: \tau^{-1}\sim -\omega_A^2t_{in}{\rho\over\rho_i},~~~ -{1\over t_{in}}.

783: \label{memo7}

784: \ee

785: The latter root corresponds to the case where magnetic forces are

786: negligible and the former is the usual ambipolar diffusion rate, when the magnetic

787: field pushes the ions through a neutral background.  Neither limit

788: is appropriate for hydrodynamic turbulence in the neutral fluid,

789: in which case $v_n$, $\tau$, and ${\bf k}$ are imposed by

790: the turbulent cascade.  From equation (\ref{memovn}) we see that

791: if the ions are prevented from moving by the magnetic field then

792: we get a damping rate $\sim ({\rho_i/\rho_n})t_{in}^{-1}$, which

793: will be negligible once the hydrodynamic cascade has proceeded

794: to eddies with turn over rates larger than the decoupling rate.

795: Since the hydrodynamic eddies will be approximately isotropic, equation

796: (\ref{memovi}) guarantees that $v_i\ll v_n$ for all scales below

797: the decoupling scale.

798: 

799: The limit defined by equation (\ref{decouple1})

800: has been previously considered \citep[see, for example][]{KP69}.

801: We will finish this subsection by considering damping in this regime, and

802: the minimum neutral fraction required for neutral damping on any scale.

803: 

804: It is easy to see that equation (\ref{decouple1}) corresponds to the regime

805: $l_n k\gg 1$ and the waves are damped

806: at a rate of $t_{in}^{-1}$. Therefore,

807: \be

808: \tau_k^{-1}t_{damp}\sim

809: \left(\frac{v_l}{c_n}\right)

810: \left(\frac{l_n}{l}\right)^{1/3}

811: \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{1/3}

812: \left({c_nt_{in}\over l_n}\right)

813: (l_n k)^{2/3}.

814: \label{o1}

815: \ee

816: If we have a turbulent cascade in the ions, with $\tau_{nl}^{-1}t_{in}>1$, then

817: the cascade proceeds to very small scales, and neutral damping plays no role 

818: in its dynamics.

819: Although the ions are decoupled from the neutrals, we use the

820: usual value of $V_A$ in this expression since it appears only

821: in the combination $v_l^4/(lV_A)$, which is the energy cascade

822: per unit mass.

823: The ratio $c_nt_{in}/l_n$ is  roughly

824: \be

825: {c_nt_{in}\over l_n}={l_{in}\over l_{nn}}+

826: {c_it_{in}\over c_nt_{ni}}

827: \approx {l_{in}\over l_{nn}}+

828: {\rho_i\over\rho_n}\left(\frac{m_n}{m_i}\right)^{1/2}.

829: \ee

830: If the ions and neutral particles have the

831: same mass, this will be $\sim f_n^{-1}$ when the neutral

832: fraction is small, and a number of order unity otherwise.

833: 

834: Here we have assumed that the rms velocities of the ions and neutrals

835: are dominated by the thermal distribution.

836: Our treatment should still be

837: applicable when the turbulence is supersonic, but sub-Alfv\'enic 

838: (see

839: discussion of the point in Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac 2002a),

840: as long as we replace $c_i$ and $c_n$ with the appropriate

841: rms turbulent velocities. This

842: is most likely to happen on large scales, so that $l_n k\ll 1$.

843: In this case the viscosity contributed by neutrals stays

844: the same so that equation (\ref{eq.4}) does not

845: require any modifications. In the opposite limit, when  $kl_n\gg 1$,

846: for supersonic turbulence $\langle v_i^2\rangle^{1/2}\approx V_A^{\star}$,

847: where  $V_A^{\star}$

848: is the Alfv\'en velocity when ions and neutrals are decoupled, i.e.

849: $V_A^{\star}=(n_n m_n +n_i m_i)^{1/2}/(n_i m_i)^{1/2} V_A$.

850: However an increase in the ion velocity will result in a proportional

851: increase in the drag coefficient, and a consequent drop in $t_{in}$.

852: Thus the condition provided by equation (\ref{o1}) does not change.

853: 

854: Equations (\ref{eq.4}) and (\ref{o1}) can be used to find the

855: minimal neutral fraction required to damp the turbulent cascade

856: at scales close to $l_n$.  Together they imply a maximum damping

857: rate for $kl_n\sim 1$. We see $\tau_k^{-1}t_{damp}\sim 1$

858: at that scale requires a small neutral fraction, so that

859: $l_n\sim v_nt_{ni}$.  Assuming a single thermal velocity we get

860: \be

861: f_n>f_{crit}=7\times 10^{-2}\left (\frac{l}{pc}\right)^{-1/3}

862: \left({v_T\over c_n}\right)^{2/3}\left({V_A\over c_n}\right)^{1/3}

863: n_{tot}^{-1/3}T^{1/6},

864: \label{fcrit}

865: \ee

866: as the minimal condition for dissipating an MHD turbulent cascade

867: through neutral particle viscosity.

868: Typically, turbulent motions

869: in the ISM are of order $c_n$ or greater, so only a small neutral

870: fraction is necessary to affect the turbulent cascade.

871: If there is a source of noise on scales

872: $\ll l_n$, such that damping given in equation (\ref{o1}) is ineffective,

873: then neutral friction can be ignored on all smaller scales.

874: However, we will show in the following pages that small scale turbulence

875: can appear in a partially neutral plasma even

876: in the absence of any small scale driving.

877: 

878: 

879: \subsection{The coupled regime: viscosity-damped turbulence}

880: 

881: In this subsection we consider strong MHD turbulence with strong

882: neutral particle damping, but on scales where the one-fluid

883: approximation remains valid.

884: 

885: In hydrodynamic turbulence viscosity sets a minimal scale for

886: motion, with an exponential suppression of motion on smaller

887: scales.  Below the viscous cutoff the kinetic energy contained in a

888: wavenumber band is

889: dissipated at that scale, instead of being transferred to smaller scales.

890: This means the end of the hydrodynamic cascade, but in MHD turbulence

891: this is not the end of magnetic structure 

892: evolution.

893: %\footnote{Qualitatively this may be understood in the following

894: %way. Mixing motions perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field

895: %dominate the dynamics of the Alfvenic cascade and tangle magnetic field

896: %lines. The created structures cannot miraculously straighten up at the 

897: %viscous damping scale. Instead, they keep evolving due to the

898: %shear associated with the smallest undamped eddies.}.  

899: For viscosity much larger than resistivity,

900: $\nu\gg\eta$, there will be a broad range of

901: scales where viscosity is important but resistivity is not.  On these

902: scales magnetic field structures will be created through a

903: combination of large scale shear and the small scale motions generated

904: by magnetic tension.  As a result, we expect

905: a power-law tail in the energy distribution, rather than an exponential

906: cutoff.

907: 

908: Here we discuss a conservative model for the damped regime.

909: It is motivated by simulations by \citet[henceforth CLV02b]{CLV02b}

910: and is consistent with those simulations \citep[see also][]{CLV03b}.   

911: A complete

912: understanding of this regime will be deferred until

913: higher numerical resolution runs are available and a more detailed

914: theoretical treatment has been completed.  Our goal here is a model

915: which can serve as an approximate guide.  We will construct this

916: model using the notion of local interactions in phase space

917: \citep[cf.][]{Sp99}, a

918: constant cascade of energy to small scales, and a force balance

919: between magnetic

920: tension and viscous forces.  We add to this two ingredients

921: that are directly suggested by the simulations: a constant curvature

922: for the field lines and an intermittent magnetic field distribution.

923: 

924: To begin with we define a filling factor $\phi_k$, which is the

925: fraction of the volume containing strong magnetic field perturbations

926: with a scale $k^{-1}$.  We denote the velocity and perturbed

927: magnetic field inside these subvolumes with a ``$\hat{\ } $'' so

928: that

929: \be

930: v_k^2=\phi_k \hat v_k^2,

931: \ee

932: and

933: \be

934: b_k^2=\phi_k \hat b_k^2.

935: \ee

936: 

937: We note that at the critical damping scale, $k_c$ and

938: $k_{\|, c}$, the time-scale for inviscid turbulence is

939: \be

940: \tau^{-1}_s\approx k_c^2 \nu\approx k_{\|, c} V_A\approx k_c v_c

941: \approx k_c{b_c\over (4\pi\rho)^{1/2}}~~~.

942: \label{4.1}

943: \ee

944: Assuming we are in the coupled regime, we have $\aleph_c=\rho_i \tau_c/

945: (\rho_n t_{in})>1$.  Motions on this scale are marginally damped, so that

946: smaller scale structures will be continuously sheared at a rate $\tau_c^{-1}$.

947: These structures will reach a dynamic equilibrium if they generate a

948: comparable shear, that is

949: \be

950: k \hat v_k\sim \tau_c^{-1}.

951: \label{s1}

952: \ee

953: The magnetic energy will cascade to higher wavenumbers at this

954: same rate, so that

955: \be

956: b_k^2k\hat v_k\sim {b_c^2\over \tau_c}.

957: \label{s2}

958: \ee

959: Consequently, $b_k\sim b_c$ for $k>k_c$.

960: 

961: Next we assume that the curvature of the magnetic field lines

962: changes slowly, if at all, in the cascade.  This is consistent

963: with a picture in which the cascade is driven by repeated shearing

964: at the same scale.  It is also consistent with the numerical

965: work described in CLV02b, which yielded a constant $k_{\|}$

966: throughout the viscously damped nonlinear cascade.

967: 

968: Finally, we can balance viscous and magnetic tension forces

969: to find

970: \be

971: k^2\nu \hat v_k \sim k\nu\tau_c^{-1}\sim \max[\hat b_kk_c,B_0k_{\|,c}] \hat b_k

972: \sim k_c\hat b_k^2.

973: \label{s3}

974: \ee

975: This suggests a picture in which the cascade to larger wavenumbers consists

976: of an evolution to increasing gradients perpendicular to both the

977: mean field direction and the local perturbed field component.  This

978: implies rapidly increasing magnetic pressure gradients, but these

979: can compensated by plasma density fluctuations.

980: 

981: Combining our results we find

982: \be

983: \hat b_k \sim b_c \left({k\over k_c}\right)^{1/2}, b_k\sim b_c,

984: \label{4.5}

985: \ee

986: \be

987: \hat v_k\sim v_c \left({k_c\over k}\right), v_k\sim

988: v_c\left({k_c\over k}\right)^{3/2},

989: \label{4.6}

990: \ee

991: and

992: \be

993: \phi_k\sim {k_c\over k}.

994: \label{4.6a}

995: \ee

996: 

997: The associated velocities fall rapidly, although not exponentially.

998: In terms of one dimensional spectra we have

999: a magnetic energy spectrum $E^b(k)\sim k^{-1}$,

1000: and a kinetic energy spectrum $E^v(k)\sim k^{-4}$. These scaling

1001: laws should be compared

1002: with $E^v\sim E^k\sim k^{-5/3}$ for the Goldreich-Sridhar predictions

1003: for the inviscid regime.  The fact that the local magnetic perturbations 

1004: increase,

1005: albeit slowly, with increasing wavenumber implies that they will eventually

1006: exceed the strength of the background field.  Further

1007: research should clarify whether this is a problem.

1008: 

1009: %In our model the background field plays no essential 

1010: %role, and similar simulations with no imposed large scale field relax

1011: %to a very similar state \citep{SMCM02}.

1012: 

1013: If we compare this model to the simulations shown in CLV02b and the

1014: analysis in \citet{CLV03b} we see that the magnetic field Fourier power spectrum 

1015: in the simulations is slightly steeper than expected, i.e.

1016: \be

1017: E_B(k)\propto k^{-1.2\hbox{\ to\ }-1.3},

1018: \ee

1019: while the kinetic energy spectrum shows a stronger deviation

1020: \be

1021: E_v(k)\propto k^{\sim -4.5}.

1022: \ee

1023: The fact that the deviation in the exponent is twice as large for

1024: $E_v$ as for $E_B$ is consistent with equation (\ref{s3}).  It remains

1025: only to explain why the magnetic power spectrum is not actually flat.  The most

1026: likely explanation is that since the power spectrum amplitude at a given $k$ 

1027: is the Fourier transform of the correlation function, it represents an

1028: integration of the correlation function over all scales $r$ less than 

1029: $\sim k^{-1}$.

1030: Since the energy is distributed logarithmically on all scales between 

1031: the damping scale and the dissipation scale, this introduces a

1032: factor $\sim\ln (k_{min}/k)$ to $E_B(k)$.  

1033: The simulations have a range $\sim 20$ between the scale of viscous damping

1034: and the scale of resistive damping,  so this bends the slope

1035: of $E_B(k)$ downward by roughly the required amount. 

1036: 

1037: The functional form of $\phi_k$ is somewhat more difficult to

1038: test.  In CLV03b we constructed filtered maps of $b$ by separating the

1039: ${\bf b}({\bf k})$ into broad bins. Plotting the cumulative

1040: magnetic energy versus volume for each filtered map gives a

1041: measure of the volume filling fraction as a function of scale.

1042: We show the results in figure 2 (Fig.~4 in CLV03b).  Comparing

1043: the concentration of magnetic energy as a function of scale

1044: we see that, as expected, the concentration of magnetic power

1045: increases at smaller scales.  Our results may have a slightly shallower 

1046: dependence on wavenumber than predicted by equation (\ref{4.6a}),

1047: but this depends on the value of the cumulative fractional magnetic 

1048: energy we choose for comparison.

1049: 

1050: Finally, we note that the eddies in this regime are not described by

1051: the linear solutions to equations (\ref{memovi}) and (\ref{memovn}).

1052: The transfer of magnetic power from large to small scales

1053: makes these solutions largely irrelevant.

1054: 

1055: \subsection{The decoupled, damped regime}

1056: 

1057: As we have seen, ion-neutral decoupling may happen either before

1058: or after the turbulent

1059: cascade reaches the viscous damping scale.  In both cases the cascade

1060: will show similar behavior in the decoupled and damped regime, although the

1061: details of the onset of this stage will differ.  We begin by discussing the

1062: case where decoupling occurs below the viscous damping scale, that is, after

1063: the cascade has entered the stage described in the preceding subsection.

1064: We will discuss the case of early decoupling, $\aleph_c<1$, in the middle of

1065: this subsection.  We will conclude this subsection by describing the termination

1066: of the damped regime and the reappearance of a strong turbulent cascade involving

1067: only charged particles.

1068: 

1069: When $\aleph_c>1$, decoupling occurs as a two step process.

1070: First, the pressure support

1071: from the neutral particles becomes ineffective and the energy cascade

1072: is reduced by a factor of $(P_i/P_{tot})\sim (n_i/n_{tot})$.  At somewhat

1073: smaller scales the difference between the ion and neutral velocities

1074: becomes comparable to $v_k$ and the neutrals can be treated as

1075: a static background.  We will rely on the same physical arguments used

1076: successfully in the previous subsection to predict 

1077: this part of the spectrum.  Currently numerical

1078: simulations address only larger scales.

1079: 

1080: The first stage of decoupling occurs when the ambipolar diffusion rate

1081: becomes comparable to $\tau_c^{-1}$ and the neutral particles infiltrate

1082: the zones of intense magnetic field perturbations.

1083: This happens at a wavenumber $k_p$ given by

1084: \be

1085: f_nk_p \hat b_p^2\sim {\rho_i\over t_{in}}{1\over k_p\tau_c},

1086: \label{pdecoup}

1087: \ee

1088: where we use the subscript `p' to denote the pressure decoupling

1089: scale.  Combining this criterion with equations  (\ref{4.1}) and (\ref{4.5})

1090: we see that

1091: \be

1092: {k_p\over k_c} \sim \aleph_c^{1/3}.

1093: \ee

1094: When $f_n\sim 1$ the streaming of neutrals across the perturbed field lines

1095: will be accompanied by significant dissipation, so that the

1096: turbulent energy cascade is

1097: reduced in amplitude by the factor by which the pressure support is

1098: reduced, that is $\sim \rho_i/\rho$.   The volume filling factor

1099: must also drop by this same factor in order to maintain the

1100: condition expressed in equation (\ref{s3}).  

1101: % We will model this sharp drop in

1102: %$b_k$ and $\phi_k$ at $k_p$ as a discontinuity.  This may be

1103: %unrealistic.  

1104: %AL

1105: In our simplified model we will model the sharp drop in

1106: $b_k$ and $\phi_k$ at $k_p$ as a discontinuity, although in

1107: reality we expect a smooth transition.

1108: %

1109: It is important to note that there is no associated

1110: discontinuity in the rms electron density fluctuations.  The volume

1111: averaged strength of the magnetic pressure fluctuations drops by $\rho_i/\rho$

1112: as the ions go from providing only a fraction ($\rho_i/\rho$) of the

1113: compensating plasma pressure to supplying all of it.  The only

1114: observational signal may be a change in higher order moments of the

1115: scintillation statistics.

1116: 

1117: The neutrals and ions decouple entirely when the viscous drag coefficient

1118: becomes comparable to the neutral drag term in the ion force equation.  This

1119: sets in when

1120: \be

1121: \rho \nu k^2 \sim {\rho_i\over t_{in}},

1122: \ee

1123: or at

1124: \be

1125: k_d\approx k_c (f_n\aleph_c)^{1/2}.

1126: \label{kd}

1127: \ee

1128: For $k>k_d$ the conservation of energy condition and force balance

1129: equations become

1130: \be

1131: b_k^2 \sim b_c^2{\rho_i\over\rho},

1132: \label{c1}

1133: \ee

1134: and

1135: \be

1136: {\rho_i\over t_{in}} {1\over k\tau_c} \sim k_c \hat b_k^2.

1137: \label{c2}

1138: \ee

1139: This implies

1140: \be

1141: \hat b_k\sim (f_n\aleph_c)^{1/2}\left({k_c\over k}\right)^{1/2} b_c,

1142: \label{bsp3}

1143: \ee

1144: \be

1145: \phi_k\sim {k\over k_c} {\rho_i\over\rho}(f_n\aleph_c)^{-1}

1146: \sim{k\over k_c}{t_{in}\over\tau_c},

1147: \label{fsp3}

1148: \ee

1149: \be

1150: v_k\sim v_c \left({k_c\over k}\right)^{1/2}\left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right)^{1/2}.

1151: \label{vsp3}

1152: \ee

1153: Equations (\ref{4.5}), (\ref{kd}) and (\ref{bsp3})

1154: imply a maximum local perturbed field strength, at wavenumbers $\sim k_d$, of

1155: \be

1156: b_{max}\sim b_c(f_n\aleph_c)^{1/4}.

1157: \ee

1158: Under most conditions $b_{max}$ will be only moderately larger than $b_c$.

1159: We note that the volume filling fraction {\it increases} with wavenumber

1160: in this regime. This prediction should be tested using a two fluid code.

1161: 

1162: How is picture modified when we consider $\aleph_c<1$?  The decoupling condition,

1163: $\aleph\sim 1$, evaluated to obtain equation (\ref{decoup1}), is equivalent to

1164: the pressure decoupling criterion given in equation (\ref{pdecoup}) in this case.

1165: We see from equation (\ref{memo7}) that turbulent motions in the ions

1166: are strongly damped below this limit, so that we are immediately in the

1167: damped, pressure decoupled and dynamically decoupled limit.

1168: Consequently, we expect an immediate drop in $\phi_k$ and $b_k$ at the decoupling

1169: scale.  On smaller scales we can invoke force balance and energy conservation

1170: to write:

1171: \be

1172: b_k^2 \sim b'^2{\rho_i\over\rho},

1173: \label{d1}

1174: \ee

1175: and

1176: \be

1177: {\rho_i\over t_{in}} {1\over k\tau'} \sim k' \hat b_k^2,

1178: \label{d2}

1179: \ee

1180: where $\tau'$ is the eddy turn over time at the scale $k'$ defined in

1181: equation (\ref{decoup1}).

1182: Equations (\ref{d1}) and (\ref{d2}) imply

1183: \be

1184: \hat b_k\sim b' \left(f_n{k'\over k}\right)^{1/2}\sim b_c\aleph_c^{1/4}

1185: \left(f_n{k_c\over k}\right)^{1/2},

1186: \label{bsp4}

1187: \ee

1188: \be

1189: \phi_k\sim {\rho_i\over\rho_n}\left({k\over k'}\right)

1190: \sim {\rho_i\over\rho_n}\left({k\over k_c}\right)\aleph_c^{-3/2},

1191: \label{bsp4a}

1192: \ee

1193: and

1194: \be

1195: v_k\sim v' \left({k'\over k}\right)^{1/2}\left({\rho_i\over \rho_n}\right)^{1/2},

1196: \label{vsp4a}

1197: \ee

1198: where

1199: $v'$ and $b'$ are the rms velocities and magnetic field perturbation strengths

1200: at the scale $k'$.  The differences between equations (\ref{bsp3})-(\ref{vsp3})

1201: and equations (\ref{bsp4})-(\ref{vsp4a}) are due to the different stirring rates

1202: imposed by the marginally damped eddies in the two different cases.

1203: 

1204: The persistence of the energy cascade to very small scales implies that

1205: the magnetic field will revert to a strong turbulent

1206: cascade once collisions with the neutral background are slower than the

1207: magnetic dynamical evolution rate.  This sets in when

1208: \be

1209: {k \hat b_k\over (4\pi\rho_i)^{1/2}} \sim t_{in}^{-1}.

1210: \label{onset}

1211: \ee

1212: {}From equations (\ref{bsp3}) and (\ref{bsp4}) we find that the onset of small

1213: scale turbulence is at a wavenumber

1214: \be

1215: k_t\sim k_c \left({\rho_n\over\rho_i}\right)\aleph_c\min[1,\aleph_c^{1/2}].

1216: \label{ktdef}

1217: \ee

1218: In both cases $k_t$ coincides with a filling fraction of order unity, so that

1219: the distinction between $\hat b_k$ and $b_k$ disappears.

1220: At this wavenumber small scale instabilities will cause $k_{\|}$ and $v_k$ to

1221: jump sharply, while $b_k$ drops.  There will be a sharp mismatch between the

1222: correlation time of the damped turbulence on slightly larger scales and the

1223: eddy turnover time of the strong small scale turbulence, which will start at

1224: $t_{in}$.  This suggests that the turbulent cascade will be driven

1225: intermittently, with a buildup of small scale energy followed by

1226: its rapid release.  The duty cycle for this process will be approximately

1227: the ratio of $t_{in}$ to the eddy turn over time for the marginally damped

1228: large scale or

1229: \be

1230: \epsilon\sim {\rho_i\over\rho_n} \min[1,\aleph_c^{-1}].

1231: \label{inter}

1232: \ee

1233: During the active phase of the small scale turbulence the cascade rate will

1234: be

1235: \be

1236: b(k_t)^2/t_{in}\sim \rho_n {v_l^4\over V_A l}\max[1,\aleph_c].

1237: \ee

1238: The corresponding turbulent spectrum will be

1239: \be

1240: v_k\sim v_l \left({v_l\over V_A}\right)^{1/3}(kl)^{-1/3}

1241: \left({\rho_n\over\rho_i}\right)^{1/3}

1242: \max[1,\aleph_c^{1/3}],

1243: \label{vsp4}

1244: \ee

1245: and

1246: \be

1247: k_{\|}\sim {1\over l}(kl)^{2/3}\left({v_l\over V_A}\right)^{4/3}

1248: \left({\rho_i\over\rho_n}\right)^{1/6}f_n^{1/3}

1249: \max[1,\aleph_c^{1/3}],

1250: \label{pp}

1251: \ee

1252: with $b_k\sim (4\pi\rho_i)^{1/2}v_k$.

1253: 

1254: These bursts of turbulence will terminate at some small

1255: dissipative scale, due to either ohmic resistivity,

1256: ion viscosity along the magnetic field lines or to

1257: plasma effects in a collisionless medium.  The resistive

1258: perpendicular wavenumber is set by the condition

1259: $k_{res}\eta\sim v_k$, or

1260: using equation (\ref{vsp4})

1261: \be

1262: k_{res}\sim l^{-1} \left({v_ll\over\eta}\right)^{3/4}

1263: \left({v_l\rho_n\over V_A\rho_i}\right)^{1/4}

1264: \max[1,\aleph_c^{1/4}].

1265: \ee

1266: 

1267: For partially ionized gas in the interstellar medium

1268: \citep[see][for a discussion of idealized interstellar phases]{DL98} the

1269: collision rate

1270: is much less than the ion cyclotron frequency and the ion Larmor radius

1271: is greater than $k_{res}^{-1}$.  The condition for damping due to

1272: parallel ion viscosity is

1273: \be

1274: k_{\|}^2 c_n l_i\ge k_{\|}V_A^*,

1275: \ee

1276: where, as before, $V_A^*$ is the Alfv\'en velocity for the ions

1277: alone, and $k_{\|}l_i<1$.  In the limit where the plasma is

1278: strongly magnetized and $\rho_i\ll\rho_n$ we expect $V_A^*>c_n$, so

1279: that this criterion is never satisfied.  That is, damping due to

1280: parallel transport is instead given by free-streaming along the field lines,

1281: which has an associated damping rate which is always less than the

1282: cascade time scale.  We have already noted that the perpendicular

1283: ion viscosity

1284: is, at most, only slightly greater than the resistivity. It follows that

1285: the turbulent cascade is truncated at the Larmor radius, when

1286: $kr_L\sim 1$.  In dense plasmas, like stars and

1287: accretion disks, collisions dominate, ion viscosity is negligible,

1288: and the cascade ends at the resistive scale.

1289: 

1290: \subsection{Turbulence in the ISM}

1291: 

1292: Interstellar medium is turbulent with turbulence spreading over a

1293: range of scales from hundreds of parsec \citep[see][]{LP00,SL01}

1294: to astronomical units (see Spangler 1999)

1295: As \citet{ARS95} pointed out, the fact that interstellar scintillation

1296: suggests a power law spectrum consistent with Kolmogorov turbulence

1297: is already a strong indication that the observed scales are

1298: connected by a power cascade.  The lack of any feature clearly

1299: attributable to neutral particle damping can be seen as a counter-argument,

1300: but the model sketched above implies that it will be difficult to

1301: detect such a feature.  For example, although the average neutral fraction in

1302: the diffuse ionized medium is uncertain, it probably lies somewhere

1303: between a percent and a few times that.  From equation (\ref{fcrit})

1304: we see that the critical neutral fraction

1305: for this gas is on the order of several percent, depending on the

1306: local Mach number, so

1307: $f_n\aleph_c$ is at most of order unity.  For low Mach numbers

1308: one might expect this to translate

1309: into an exponential suppression by a factor of order unity,

1310: since the eddy turnover rate will drop with the amplitude

1311: of motions on a given scale, allowing for more effective damping.

1312: However, since the electron density fluctuations will trace the magnetic

1313: pressure

1314: fluctuations caused by pseudo-Alfv\'en modes within the turbulent

1315: cascade, the mean square variance of electron density on small

1316: scales, $k_{large}>k_t$, will look like an extrapolation of the same

1317: quantity from large scales, $k_{small}<\min[k',k_c]$,

1318: but reduced by a factor of

1319: \be

1320: \epsilon \left({\rho\over\rho_i}\right){b(k_{large})^2\over b(k_{small})^2}

1321: \left({k_{large}\over k_{small}}\right)^{2/3}

1322: \sim \left({\rho_i\over\rho_n}\right)^{1/3}\min[1,\aleph_c^{-1/3}].

1323: \ee

1324: This will be a very modest reduction.  The scintillation power

1325: spectrum will look like a fairly continuous power law from large

1326: to small scales, but with a range of intermediate scales where

1327: it goes flat (from $k_c$ or $k'$ to $k_t$) before dropping

1328: sharply to an extrapolation of its large scale behavior.

1329: The dynamic range of this flat region will be

1330: $\sim (\rho_n/\rho_i)\max[1,\aleph_c]$.  Again, in the diffuse

1331: ionized medium this will correspond to a factor of order unity

1332: (or less) in length scales, which will not produce an observational

1333: signature.  The warm neutral medium should show a more

1334: pronounced shoulder in the power spectrum, although given

1335: the heterogeneity of the local interstellar

1336: medium, detecting the signal of neutral damping using electron density fluctuations

1337: still represents a challenge. The coldest, and densest, phases of the ISM

1338: have a negligible impact on the scintillation measurements.

1339: 

1340: In Table~1 we show critical scales and parameters for some idealized phases 

1341: of the ISM, taken from \citet{DL98}.  The most obvious point is that the

1342: different regimes discussed in this section cover a very modest range

1343: of scales.  Ignoring the parallel scales, which may not leave a clear

1344: observational signal, the entire range of damped scales covers only two

1345: orders of magnitude in the cold and warm neutral phases of the ISM.

1346: For the bulk of the ISM, the turbulent cascade

1347: consists largely of a large scale cascade involving all the particles, and

1348: a smaller scale cascade involving only the ions.  (We have not considered the

1349: role of charged grains in this analysis.)  Current simulations of strongly

1350: damped MHD turbulence, which apply only to the range between $k_c$ and $k_p$,

1351: already have {\it more} dynamic range than in the ISM itself.  The small

1352: wavelength limit on ISM turbulence, set by the Larmor radius, is only

1353: weakly dependent on local conditions.

1354: 

1355: In magnetically dominated environments, e.g. in molecular clouds, compressibility 

1356: can be important. This will extend the range of scales over which the turbulence

1357: will lie in the viscosity damped regime. 

1358: 

1359: \section{Reconnection Rates}

1360: 

1361: We are now in a position to rederive the speed of reconnection

1362: in turbulent magnetized plasmas, including the effects of a neutral

1363: component.  Below we briefly consider highly ionized plasmas, extending

1364: our previous analysis and highlighting steps in our derivation that

1365: will be affected by neutral particles.  In \S 3.2 we consider stochastic

1366: reconnection in turbulent plasmas with a small ionized fraction.

1367: 

1368: \subsection{Highly ionized plasmas}

1369: 

1370: For $f_n<f_{crit}$, as defined in equation (\ref{fcrit}),

1371: the ion-neutral coupling is dynamically insignificant on all scales.

1372: At sufficiently small scales a modest fraction of the energy cascade will

1373: go into heating the neutral gas, but given the approximate nature of

1374: our discussion we will ignore the resulting corrections to

1375: $v_k$.  This limit is equivalent to the fully ionized case,

1376: described in LV99.  Here we will briefly review the major results

1377: from that paper, since we need to generalize them in order to

1378: calculate reconnection speeds for partially neutral plasmas.

1379: 

1380: The basic geometric constraint on reconnection speeds is

1381: \be

1382: V_{rec}={\Delta(L)\over L} V_{eject},

1383: \label{v1}

1384: \ee

1385: where $\Delta(L)$ is the width of the ejection surface for a current

1386: sheet of length $L$.  In the absence of viscosity or neutral friction

1387: the ejection speed is $\sim V_A$. The Sweet-Parker rate comes from

1388: taking $\Delta\sim \eta/V_{rec}$.  In a collisionless plasma

1389: $\Delta$ can be $\sim r_L$, the ion Larmor radius, when this is larger

1390: than the resistive layer.  Both of these

1391: estimates ignore the role that current sheet instabilities may play in

1392: increasing $\Delta(L)$.  Here we are principally concerned with another

1393: effect, which is that as the ejected plasma moves out of the reconnection

1394: region, along magnetic field lines, the size of $\Delta(L)$ will

1395: increase as the magnetic fields lines diffuse away from the current sheet.

1396: 

1397: In the presence of noise individual magnetic field lines will stay within

1398: the current sheet for some distance, $L_{min}\ll L$, whose value will

1399: depend on the current sheet thickness and the amplitude of the noise.

1400: These individual patches of flux will reconnect at some speed

1401: $V_{rec,local}$ obtained by substituting $L_{min}$ in place of

1402: $L$ in equation (\ref{v1}).  In the presence of noise, the current sheet

1403: contains many independent flux elements, all reconnecting simultaneously,

1404: so that we have an upper limit on the reconnection speed given by

1405: $\sim (L/L_{min}) V_{rec,local}$.  Since the geometric constraint

1406: on the reconnection speed can be applied on any scale between

1407: $L$ and $L_{min}$ this implies

1408: \be

1409: V_{rec}< {\Delta(L')L\over (L')^2} V_{eject}(L'),\hskip 1cm \hbox{for all\ }

1410: L'\in[L_{min},L],

1411: \label{v2}

1412: \ee

1413: where $\Delta(L')$ is the distance field lines wander perpendicular to the

1414: large scale magnetic field direction within a distance $L'$ along the

1415: field lines.  For a turbulent cascade the diffusion length $\Delta$ is

1416: the solution to

1417: \be

1418: {d \Delta^2\over dx} = D_B(\Delta)

1419: \label{v3}

1420: \ee

1421: where $D_B$ defines the stochastic diffusion of field lines separated

1422: by a distance $\Delta$.  Assuming that the field line stochasticity is

1423: caused by turbulence in the medium, the functional form of $D_B$ depends on the

1424: nature of the turbulence, and is likely to be a function of scale.  

1425: For randomly diffusing field lines this is

1426: \be

1427: D_B(\Delta)\sim \max[\left({b_k\over B_0}\right)^2k_{\|}^{-1}]

1428: \hskip 1cm \hbox{for all\ }k\Delta\ge 1.

1429: \label{diff1}

1430: \ee

1431: where $k_{\|}(k)$ is the parallel wavenumber as a function of the

1432: perpendicular wavenumber.  In the presence of strong turbulence this

1433: expression is $k^{-2}k_{\|}(k)\propto k^{-4/3}$.

1434: For long wavelength perturbations, $k\Delta\le1$,

1435: there can be a contribution which is reduced from its value at the scale

1436: $k^{-1}$ by factor $(k\Delta)^2$.  Assuming strong turbulence and taking

1437: $\Delta k\sim 1$ we see from equations (\ref{v3}) and (\ref{diff1}) that

1438: we expect $\Delta\propto k_{\|}^{-3/2}\sim L'^{3/2}$.  In other words, the

1439: rms separation of field lines should grow as the distance along the direction

1440: of the mean field to the $3/2$ power.  In figure 3 we plot rms separations

1441: for a variety of initial separations in a $256^3$ cubed hyperviscosity

1442: and hyperresistivity simulation.  The details of the simulation can be

1443: found in CLV02a.  We see that the separation grows as distance along

1444: the field lines to the $3/2$ power, as expected, subject

1445: only to a time offset caused by the finite initial separation.

1446: Also as expected, above the dominant eddy scales the curves roll over into the

1447: usual $L^{1/2}$ law.  Independent, but similar, simulations are 

1448: described in \citet{SMCM02} who found similar results.

1449: 

1450: In LV99, and here, we are concerned with the effect of magnetic field

1451: line diffusion on reconnection.  However, this same effect removes

1452: the suppression of thermal conduction perpendicular to large scale field 

1453: lines in diffuse magnetized plasmas \citep{MN01,CLHKKM03, MCB03, CM03}.

1454: This has had a dramatic effect on our understanding of the thermal

1455: structure and history of hot plasmas in galaxy clusters, which has not 

1456: yet reached a final resolution.

1457: 

1458: For an ionized plasma with negligible viscosity, $V_{eject}\sim V_A$ at

1459: all scales.  Combining equations (\ref{k_p2m}), (\ref{velm}), (\ref{belm}),

1460: (\ref{v2}) and (\ref{diff1})

1461: we find that the most restrictive limit on $V_{rec}$ comes from $L'\sim L$

1462: and gives

1463: \be

1464: V_{rec}< v_T\min\left[\left({L\over l}\right)^{1/2},

1465: \left({l\over L}\right)^{1/2}\right].

1466: \label{eq:lim2a}

1467: \ee

1468: In a real ionized plasma the viscosity is {\it not} necessarily negligible.

1469: When the particle collision rate is low the 

1470:  perpendicular viscosity

1471: %\footnote{Viscosity is a tensor in the presence

1472: %of magnetic field. According to Cowley (private communication) turbulent

1473: %dynamo is possible when the parallel viscosity is larger than resistivity.

1474: %In our model of viscosity-dominated turbulence parallel viscosity does not

1475: %play a role.}

1476:  will be larger than the resistivity

1477: by a factor of several times the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic

1478: field pressure.  Under relevant astrophysical circumstances this will

1479: be factor of order $10$, raising the possibility that viscosity may

1480: reduce magnetic field line diffusion at scales slightly larger than

1481: the scale of resistive dissipation

1482: %\footnote{For high beta plasma

1483: %this could induce viscosity-dominated turbulence even in fully ionized 

1484: %gas. However, in reality, the turbulence in most cases will be damped at

1485: %the Larmor radius.}.  

1486: However, since the strongest

1487: constraint comes from the largest scales, this will not affect 

1488: the constraint given in equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}).

1489: 

1490: The claim that this is an actual estimate of the reconnection speed,

1491: rather than an upper limit, follows from the absence of any other

1492: important constraints on reconnection.  In this case the most obvious

1493: alternative constraint is

1494: that individual flux elements must reconnect many times

1495: after their initial reconnection.  If subsequent reconnection events

1496: are slow, then the current sheet will quickly evolve into a tangled

1497: mass of reconnected magnetic field lines.  If the scale of the current

1498: sheet is set by the ion Larmor radius, then this will define the

1499: scale for all secondary reconnection events, and the small scale

1500: reconnection speed will be $\sim V_A$.  The case where resistivity

1501: defines the width of the current sheet is more complicated.  In LV99

1502: we showed that we can consider secondary reconnection events to be

1503: similar to the large scale reconnection, then used a self-similarity

1504: argument to show that secondary reconnection was fast.  In either

1505: case we find that equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}) is, as advertised, the

1506: actual reconnection speed for field lines in turbulent background.

1507: 

1508: \subsection{Partially ionized plasmas}

1509: 

1510: As we have shown in \S 2, a turbulent cascade in a partially ionized plasma

1511: is considerably more complicated than its counterpart in the fully ionized

1512: case.  In particular,

1513: the limit on the reconnection speed expressed in equation (\ref{v2}) no

1514: longer increases monotonically with wavenumber, and equation (\ref{eq:lim2a})

1515: may not be a fair estimate of the reconnection speed.  We need to consider

1516: the full range of dynamical regimes, and search for minima in the reconnection

1517: speed limit given by equation (\ref{v2}).  This requires estimates for

1518: $V_{eject}$ and $D_B(\Delta)$ over the full range of the turbulent cascade.

1519: We have already seen that for $k<k_c\min[1,\aleph_c^{3/2}]$ the most stringent

1520: limit comes from $L'\sim L$, which gives a fairly generous upper limit

1521: on the reconnection speed.

1522: 

1523: We begin by noting that when viscous drag is important, the ejection speed

1524: from a volume of thickness $\Delta$ and length $L'$ is

1525: \be

1526: V_{eject}\approx {V_A^2\tau_c\over L'}\max[(k_c\Delta)^2, (f_n\aleph_c)^{-1}].

1527: \label{eject}

1528: \ee

1529: At large scales, $k<k_c$, the plasma acts as a single fluid and we

1530: have $V_{eject}\approx V_A$.  At very small scales, when the ions are

1531: completely uncoupled from the neutrals, we get

1532: $V_{eject}\approx V_A(\rho/\rho_i)^{1/2}$.

1533: 

1534: For $k>k_t$ a rescaled turbulent cascade

1535: emerges.  As long as the current sheet thickness is smaller than $k^{-1}$,

1536: a rescaled version of our previous analysis emerges.  In particular,

1537: we expect the most important constraint on the reconnection speed to

1538: arise from the smallest wavenumbers in this regime, $k\sim k_t$.  Due

1539: to the intermittent nature of the turbulence we have a factor $\epsilon$

1540: multiplying the usual expression.  Using equations

1541: (\ref{ktdef}) and (\ref{inter}) we get

1542: \be

1543: D_B(k>k_t)\sim \epsilon k_t^{-2}k_{\|,t}\left({k_t\over k}\right)^{4/3}\approx

1544: \left({\rho_i\over\rho_n}\right)^{1/2}\left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right)^2

1545: {k_{\|,c}\over k_c^2}\left({k_t\over k}\right)^{4/3},

1546: \label{dbd1}

1547: \ee

1548: which is always much less than the diffusion coefficient associated with

1549: the viscous damping scale.  However, since it applies to much smaller

1550: scales it still has physical significance.

1551: 

1552: The diffusion coefficient for the damped scales is less obvious.

1553: The first complication is that since we are interested in the width

1554: of the ejection zone, the use of an rms value for $\Delta$ is not

1555: obviously correct.  The median value would be more appropriate.

1556: Since we are not concerned with constants of order unity here

1557: the distinction is unimportant if the distribution function for

1558: field line separations is a smooth function with a single peak.

1559: Although it is not obvious that this condition is satisfied in

1560: the highly intermittent viscously damped regime, we see from

1561: figure 4 that the median and rms values of field lines separation

1562: seem to track one another as a function of distance along

1563: the field lines.  The median is a factor of few lower.

1564: 

1565: The second complication is that our model of the viscously damped

1566: regime does not predict the value of $D_B(k)$.  Since the curvature

1567: wavenumber of the field lines is constant as a function of scale, we

1568: can estimate the diffusion coefficient as

1569: \be

1570: D_B(k)\sim \left({k_{\|,c}\over k_c}\right)^2l_c \phi_k

1571: \label{dbv}

1572: \ee

1573: where $l_c$ is the distance a field line remains within an intermittent

1574: structure and $\phi_k$ is, as before, the filling factor of such structures.

1575: The value of $l_c$ is uncertain, but goes to $k_{\|,c}^{-1}$ for $k=k_c$,

1576: and must fall much more steeply than $k^{-1/3}$ to be consistent with

1577: the sharply reduced value of $D_B(k)$, relative to the undamped case, seen

1578: in figure 3.  Based on a simple geometric picture, we will assume

1579: \be

1580: l_c\approx k_{\|,c}^{-1}{k_c\over k}.

1581: \label{lc}

1582: \ee

1583: This implies that

1584: \be

1585: D_B(k)\sim {k_{\|,c}\over k_c^2}\left({k_c\over k}\right)^2,

1586: \ee

1587: in the damped, viscously coupled regime with $\aleph_c>1$.

1588: However, this is also the level

1589: of diffusion we would expect from the shear imposed at $k=k_c$. Consequently,

1590: the sharp drop in $\phi_k$ at the scale of pressure decoupling does not

1591: affect field line diffusion.  In this regime the value of $\Delta$

1592: rises exponentially, with a constant $L'\sim k_{\|,c}^{-1}$.  We see in

1593: figure 4 that the simulations are consistent with comparable contributions

1594: to the diffusion coming from large and small scales, and with an

1595: exponential rise in $\Delta$.  The sharpest

1596: constraint on $V_{rec}$ will come from the minimum $\Delta$ in this regime.

1597: 

1598: Our claim that $l_ck_{\|,c}\ll 1$  is based on the fact that the growth

1599: in field line separations is not consistent with the idea that a small

1600: fraction of field lines diverge sharply from their neighbors for a

1601: distance $\sim k_{\|,c}^{-1}$.  We can get some idea of the true situation

1602: by considering the full distribution of field line separations, given in

1603: figure 5.  We see that while the separations certainly do not show a

1604: gaussian distribution, they do show that field lines join the growing tail of

1605: large separations at a distance which is typically shorter than $k_{\|,c}^{-1}$.

1606: 

1607: Equations (\ref{dbv}) and (\ref{lc}) imply that for $k>k_d$ the

1608: diffusion coefficient will go to a constant value, which persists

1609: until $k=k_t$ and $\phi_k=1$.  In this regime, $k_d<k<k_t$, we can

1610: use equation (\ref{ktdef}) and find

1611: \be

1612: D_B(k)\approx {k_{\|,c}\over \min[k_t,k']k_c}\approx

1613: {k_{\|,c}\over k_c^2}{t_{in}\over\tau_c}\max[1,\aleph_c^{-1}],

1614: \label{dbd}

1615: \ee

1616: However,

1617: this value is only relevant when, for some $k>k_d$,

1618: it is greater than the contribution from the

1619: large scale shear given by $\sim k_{\|,c}\Delta^2$ (for $\aleph_c>1$)

1620: or $\sim k_{\|}'\Delta^2$ (for $\aleph_c<1$).

1621: Once this value of $D_B$ applies we get $\Delta\propto L'^{1/2}$ and

1622: the limit on $V_{rec}$ will increase with $k$.  The minimum upper

1623: limit on $V_{rec}$ is at a scale

1624: \be

1625: \Delta \approx k_c^{-1} \left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right)^{1/2}

1626: \max[1,\aleph_c^{-1/2}],

1627: \label{dmin1}

1628: \ee

1629: with a corresponding $L'$ of

1630: \be

1631: L'\approx k_{\|,c}^{-1}\max[1,\aleph_c^{-1}].

1632: \label{dmin1a}

1633: \ee

1634: We see from equation (\ref{eject}) that the corresponding ejection

1635: velocity is

1636: \be

1637: V_{eject}\approx {V_A\over f_n}\min[1,\aleph_c^{-1}]

1638: \label{eject1}

1639: \ee

1640: 

1641: Comparing equations (\ref{dbd1}) and (\ref{dbd}) we that there is a

1642: drop in $D_B(k)$ at $k=k_t$, implying that on some smaller scale

1643: where the larger scale shearing is comparable to the turbulent

1644: diffusion we have another local minimum in the upper limit for $V_{rec}$.

1645: This happens at a field line separation of

1646: \be

1647: \Delta\approx k_t^{-1}\left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right)^{3/2}

1648: \left({\rho_i\over\rho}\right)^{3/4}\min[1,\aleph_c^{3/2}]

1649: \approx k_c^{-1}\left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right)^{5/2}

1650: \left({\rho_i\over\rho_n}\right)^{3/4}\min[1,\aleph_c],

1651: \label{dmin2}

1652: \ee

1653: with a corresponding $L'$ of

1654: \be

1655: L'\approx k_{\|,c}^{-1} \left({t_{in}\over\tau_c}\right).

1656: \label{dmin2a}

1657: \ee

1658: On such small scales the ejection speed will be $V_A(\rho/\rho_i)^{1/2}$.

1659: 

1660: We are now in a position to evaluate the upper limits on the reconnection

1661: speed.  We begin with the one set at very small scales.  Using equations

1662: (\ref{k_p2m}), (\ref{tau2m}), (\ref{v2}), (\ref{dmin2}),

1663: and (\ref{dmin2a}) we find that

1664: \be

1665: V_{rec}<v_l{L\over l}

1666: \left({\rho_i\over\rho}\right)^{1/4}f_n^{-3/4}

1667: \left({l\over v_lt_{in}}\right)^{1/2} \min[1,\aleph_c^{-1}].

1668: \label{llow}

1669: \ee

1670: This is generally less restrictive than the limit given in equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}).

1671: 

1672: The limit on the reconnection speed from intermediate scales can be

1673: found from equations (\ref{4.2.1}), (\ref{4.2.3}), (\ref{als}),

1674: (\ref{v2}), (\ref{dmin1}),

1675: (\ref{dmin1a}), and (\ref{eject1}).  In this case we find

1676: \be

1677: V_{rec}<v_T{L\over l}

1678: {\rho_i\over\rho}f_n^{-2}

1679: \left({l\over V_At_{in}}\right)^{1/2} \min[\aleph_c^{-2},\aleph_c^{1/2}].

1680: \label{lim2b}

1681: \ee

1682: This is potentially more restrictive than equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}), and

1683: certainly more restrictive than equation (\ref{llow}), and needs

1684: to be evaluated for specific circumstances.  This limit applies whenever

1685: the current sheet is narrower than the value of $\Delta$ given

1686: in equation (\ref{dmin1}).  For the specific examples we consider

1687: in the next section this is usually the case.

1688: 

1689: \section{Reconnection in Various Phases of ISM}

1690: 

1691: All common phases of the ISM are strongly collisionless, so that

1692: ambipolar damping has a reasonable chance of changing the turbulent

1693: power spectrum and consequently the stochastic reconnection speed.

1694: The ISM is extremely heterogeneous, but we can illustrate the 

1695: effects of turbulence using the same idealized

1696: phases from \citet{DL98}.  We have evaluated the reconnection speed

1697: using equations (\ref{als}) and (\ref{lim2b}) for each phase.

1698: Our results are given in the second to last line of Table~1, and we give a detailed

1699: discussion below.  (The last line includes the effects of tearing modes,

1700: which appear to dominate in the densest parts of molecular clouds). 

1701: The turbulence which creates

1702: field line stochasticity is assumed to be supplied at some large

1703: scale, specified below, so we are implicitly ignoring the possibility

1704: that as reconnection proceeds it will provide a local source of

1705: %AL

1706: %turbulence.  

1707: turbulence\footnote{The increase of stochasticity due to reconnection

1708: may be the source of the finite time instability associated with

1709: solar flares \citep{lv99,VL00}.}

1710: We have also ignored the possibility that reconnection can

1711: change the ionization balance near the current sheet.  

1712: %AL

1713: %Finally,

1714: %we have assumed that ions and neutral atoms have roughly the same

1715: %weight, even though this is certainly wrong in the densest

1716: %phases of the ISM, since our calculation is only good to within

1717: %factors of order unity anyhow.

1718: 

1719: 

1720: We see from an inspection of Table~1 that neutral drag produces

1721: a limit on the reconnection speed which is usually more restrictive than

1722: the limit given at $L'=L$, that is, the limit which applies

1723: to an ionized plasma. The only exception is the warm ionized

1724: medium, where the neutral content is $\sim 1$\% and the turbulent

1725: cascade continues down to $r_L$.  Assuming

1726: strong turbulence, with a Mach number of order unity, the reduction

1727: in the reconnection speed from the ionized limit is only a factor

1728: of $\sim10$ for neutral atomic gas.  This is moderately sensitive to the scale

1729: of turbulent energy injection, but since we expect that $L\sim l$

1730: this will not be large effect.

1731: On the other hand, strongly subsonic turbulence

1732: implies a much smaller limit on $V_{rec}$.  Quiescent regions

1733: in the ISM should have reconnection speeds much smaller than the

1734: local Alfv\'en speed.

1735: 

1736: Molecular gas occupies only a small fraction of the ISM's volume,

1737: but plays a special role as the site of star formation.  Table~1

1738: indicates that as we consider increasingly dense molecular gas,

1739: we move towards the case of decoupling above the viscous damping

1740: scale.  In this limit the reconnection speed becomes more sensitive to

1741: the energy injection scale.  We have assumed a single (large)

1742: scale here, but it may be that a much smaller value is appropriate

1743: in small dense regions.  In that case the limit on the reconnection

1744: speed would drop significantly.  However,

1745: if the density increases to the point where resistive instabilities

1746: produce current sheets substantially broader than the width

1747: given in equation (\ref{dmin1}) then the limit on the reconnection

1748: speed will once again increase.  This accounts for the double

1749: entry for molecular clouds.  Following the

1750: approach used in other phases we get that

1751: the reconnection speed is lower than

1752: the Alfv\'en speed, even for a Mach number of 1, by more than

1753: an order magnitude.

1754: Unlike the atomic phases, this result scales as the square root of the

1755: turbulent velocity, so that weaker turbulence has a less dramatic effect on the

1756: reconnection speed. 

1757: However, this result can be a substantial underestimate.  A large scale current

1758: sheet is unstable to tearing modes (\cite{FKR63}), and these provide a localized

1759: source of turbulence which will broaden the current sheet.  This sets a minimum

1760: value of the current sheet width.  The resulting limit on $V_{rec}$ takes

1761: precedence when it gives a larger $\Delta$, and a larger $V_{rec}$, than

1762: estimates based purely on the turbulent cascade.

1763: 

1764: We show the effect of tearing modes in the last line of Table~1.  

1765: For $\aleph_c<1$, for example, in the dense cores of molecular clouds, we can

1766: take the parallel correlation scale as

1767: \be

1768: k_{\|}'={1\over V_A}{\rho_i\over\rho t_{in}}.

1769: \ee

1770: The corresponding current sheet width, set by tearing mode instabilities is

1771: \be

1772: \Delta\sim {1\over k_{\|}'}\left({\eta\rho_i\over t_{in}\rho V_A^2}\right)^{3/10},

1773: \ee

1774: for the width of the broadened current sheet.  This result is based on the

1775: tearing mode dispersion relation for a current sheet embedded in an

1776: neutral substrate \citep{Z89}, and is equation (\ref{app})

1777: in the appendix.

1778: For motion over scales comparable to $k'^{-1}_{\|}$ we have  

1779: $V_{eject}\sim V_A$ so equation (\ref{v2})

1780: implies

1781: \be

1782: V_{rec}\le V_A k_{\|}'L

1783: \left({\eta\rho_i\over t_{in}\rho V_A^2}\right)^{3/10}

1784: \approx V_A\left({\eta\over LV_A}\right)^{3/10}

1785: \left({\rho_i\over\rho}{L\over V_At_{in}}\right)^{13/10}

1786: =V_A\left({V_AL\over\eta_{ambi}}\right)\left({\eta\over\eta_{ambi}}\right)^{3/10},

1787: \ee

1788: where $\eta_{ambi}$ is the ambipolar diffusion coefficient defined by

1789: \be

1790: \eta_{ambi}\equiv {\rho\over\rho_i} V_A^2 t_{in},

1791: \ee

1792: and $\eta<\eta_{ambi}<V_AL$.

1793: 

1794: In a dense neutral medium the electron collision

1795: rate is dominated by collisions with neutrals, for which \citet{DRD83}

1796: give

1797: \be

1798: t_{en}^{-1}\approx 2.62\times10^{-9} n_n\left({T_e\over 10 K}\right)^{1/2}.

1799: \ee

1800: Consequently the resistivity for DC phase of the ISM is approximately

1801: $9.3\times10^9$ cm$^2$ sec$^{-1}$.  Combining these results we obtain the

1802: last entry of Table~1.  The large coefficient implies that the usual large

1803: scale limit, given in equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}), will usually apply here. 

1804: In the densest and most neutral phases of the ISM we recover the fast reconnection

1805: speeds typical of an ionized plasma.

1806: 

1807: For $\aleph_c>1$ we need to consider tearing modes in a viscous medium, with a parallel

1808: wavenumber $\sim k_{\|,c}$.  In this case we find 

1809: \be

1810: \Delta\sim k_{\|,c}^{-1}\left({\eta k_{\|,c}\over V_A}\right)^{3/16}

1811: \left({\nu k_{\|,c}\over V_A}\right)^{3/16},

1812: \ee

1813: which is equation (\ref{app2}) in the appendix.  Using this expression, and remembering that

1814: $k_c^2\nu=k_{\|,c}V_A$, we obtain

1815: \be

1816: V_{rec}\le V_A (k_{\|,c}L)\left({k_c\over k_{\|,c}}\right)^{7/8}\left({\eta k_{\|,c}\over V_A}\right)^{1/8}.

1817: \ee

1818: The resistivity for our idealized molecular cloud phase is $\sim 1.3\times10^8$.  The

1819: resultant value of the reconnection speed in molecular clouds is competitive with the

1820: limit derived from turbulence, but is slightly smaller (meaning that the larger limit

1821: applies).  Evidently tearing modes become rapidly more important as we go to 

1822: the densest regions of molecular clouds, and are unimportant outside of such regions.

1823: 

1824: %For diffuse and dense

1825: % H$_2$ we assume that reconnection and the energy injection

1826: %happens at the scale of 1~pc. As $l_0\approx 10^{13}-10^{12}$~cm

1827: %and $l_{min}\sim l_0 (l/l_0)^{1/2}$ it is possible to show that

1828: %the shearing rate associated with the local outflow of material

1829: %is larger than the recombination rate. Therefore, the local reconnection

1830: %is to happen at corrected Sweet-Parker rate. The criterion given

1831: %by eq.~(\ref{cond1}) is fulfilled and therefore the actual reconnection

1832: %speed is given by (\ref{eq:lim2a}) and is comparable to the Alfv\'en

1833: %speed.

1834: 

1835: %Reconnection in mostly ionized media, e.g. warm ionized media is fast

1836: %as it was shown in LV99. For warm diffuse HI the reconnection is

1837: %slowest (of the order of a few cm per second) and this is the

1838: %consequence of the situation when the ambipolar diffusion is suppressed

1839: %while the damping of turbulence is still large.

1840: 

1841: Finally, we note that for collisional fluids the magnetic Prandtl number,

1842: $\nu/\eta$, is typically very small, so that the turbulent

1843: cascade extends down to resistive scales.  In this case

1844: equation (\ref{eq:lim2a}) is our best estimate of the reconnection

1845: speed, assuming, as before, that $v_l\le V_A$.  As an example we can

1846: consider the temperature minimum in the solar photosphere. Adopting

1847: $T\approx 4200$, $n_e\approx 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, and

1848: $n_n\approx 10^{15.2}$ cm$^{-3}$, we find that

1849: $\nu\sim c_n^2t_n\approx 2\times10^5$cm$^2$sec$^{-1}$, and

1850: $\eta\sim 3\times10^9$cm$^2$sec$^{-1}$.

1851: 

1852: \section{Conclusions}

1853: 

1854: Our results can be summarized as follows:

1855: 

1856: \begin{enumerate}

1857: \item

1858: In plasmas characterized by a moderate magnetic Prandtl number

1859: (resistivity less than, or of order, viscosity) magnetic reconnection follows

1860: the model described in LV99, so that reconnection

1861: is fast in the presence of noise.  Collisionless plasmas

1862: with small neutral fractions and collisionally dominated

1863: plasmas are typically in this class.   In either case

1864: the turbulent cascade proceeds to either the resistive scale or

1865: the ion Larmor radius.

1866: For typical interstellar conditions, it is the ion Larmor radius

1867: which is larger.

1868: 

1869: \item

1870: As the neutral content

1871: in plasma increases the turbulent cascade is interrupted at a scale greater than

1872: the neutral mean free path. However, the magnetic field perturbations

1873: are not suppressed below this scale.  On the contrary, we find that the

1874: magnetic field power spectrum flattens out, and exhibits more power on

1875: small scales than the Goldreich-Sridhar spectrum. Velocity fluctuations

1876: in this regime are driven by magnetic field perturbations, whose energy is much

1877: larger than the kinetic energy perturbations on the same scale.

1878: The importance of this

1879: new regime of magnetic stochasticity goes far beyond understanding the reconnection

1880: problem.

1881: 

1882: \item

1883: On somewhat smaller scales, once the ions and neutrals are

1884: decoupled, the turbulent cascade can reappear.  The warm atomic gas

1885: in the ISM shows only a slight interruption in the turbulent

1886: cascade and the small scale scintillations are close to a continuation

1887: of the large scale power.  However, this break will be more conspicuous

1888: in colder and denser phases of the ISM.  In this limit the small

1889: scale turbulence will be strongly intermittent.

1890: 

1891: \item

1892: Magnetic stochasticity on scales smaller than the ion-neutral damping

1893: cut-off of the Goldreich-Sridhar spectrum promotes fast reconnection.

1894: The diffusion of magnetic field lines initially decreases rapidly below this

1895: scale, but the decoupling of ions and neutrals leads to a minimum value

1896: of the diffusion coefficient on small scales.  The most stringent limit on

1897: reconnection speeds comes from considering the largest scales where this minimum value

1898: holds.   This is in the range of the turbulent cascade where ions and

1899: neutrals are decoupled, but neutral drag is still sufficient to stabilize

1900: magnetic perturbations. In most phases of the ISM this gives a reconnection speed

1901: which is just slightly smaller than the ionized plasma estimate

1902: given in LV99.

1903: 

1904: \item

1905: Our study shows that the reconnection speed in the ISM is

1906: always much faster than the predictions given by the Sweet-Parker rate.

1907: Even in very dense and cold regions it is only slightly below the

1908: Alfv\'en speed, and tearing mode instabilities in the current sheet tend

1909: to drive it back up to the Alfv\'en speed.

1910: This process needs to be considered

1911: in models for magnetic flux removal

1912: during star formation, and for studies of the dynamics of magnetized molecular

1913: clouds.

1914: \end{enumerate}

1915: 

1916: Finally, we note that our conclusions are moderately sensitive to the

1917: nature of field line diffusivity in the various damped regimes

1918: ($k_t<k<\min[k',k_c]$).  We have argued that the shearing due to

1919: motions at $k\sim k_c$ dominate until we are well into the decoupled

1920: damped regime.  Our estimate for a constant field line diffusivity

1921: on somewhat smaller scales has not been tested against simulations.

1922: If this turns out to be too high (or low) then our reconnection

1923: speed estimate will have to be lowered (or raised).

1924: 

1925: 

1926: 

1927: \acknowledgements

1928: 

1929: AL and JC acknowledge NSF grant AST-0125544 and ETV acknowledges

1930: the support of the NSF grant AST-0098615.  ETV would also like to

1931: thank the hospitality of the organizers of the Festival de Theorie

1932: in Aix-le-Provence, 2001, where some of this work was done.

1933: 

1934: \appendix

1935: \section{Tearing Modes and Current Sheet Width}

1936: 

1937: The current sheet implicit in the Sweet-Parker picture of magnetic

1938: reconnection is well known to be unstable to tearing modes

1939: \citep{FKR63}, which will create a turbulent zone between the

1940: volumes of unreconnected magnetic flux.

1941: In LV99 we suggested that the broadening of the current

1942: sheet implied by this effect should lead to an enhanced reconnection

1943: rate for laminar field lines, on the order of

1944: \be

1945: V_{rec}\approx V_A\left({\eta\over V_A L}\right)^{3/10}.

1946: \ee

1947: Broadly similar results were obtained by \citet{S88}, except that we

1948: have calculated the typical size of the magnetic field fluctuations 

1949: using tearing mode theory rather than leaving it as a free parameter.

1950: 

1951: \citet{Z89} derived

1952: the dispersion relation for tearing modes in

1953: a current sheet of thickness $\Delta$ embedded in a neutral substrate.

1954: It is

1955: \be

1956: {1\over (k_{\|}\Delta^2)^4}={\gamma^5\rho_i\over k_{\|}^2V_A^2\rho}

1957: {\Delta^2\over\eta^3}\left(1+{t_{in}^{-1}\over\gamma+(\rho_i/\rho)t_{in}^{-1}}\right),

1958: \label{a1}

1959: \ee

1960: where $\gamma$ is the tearing mode growth rate and 

1961: $k_{\|}\Delta<<1$.  This favors modes with minimal $k_{\|}$, i.e. transverse

1962: wavelengths comparable to the current sheet length.  The resulting

1963: turbulence will widen the current sheet until the tearing modes are marginally

1964: stabilized by the shear due to the ejection of plasma, i.e. 

1965: $\gamma\approx V_A/L\approx k_{\|}V_A$.

1966: 

1967: When the ions and neutrals are decoupled the ejection velocity from the current

1968: sheet is

1969: \be

1970: V_{eject}\approx k_{\|}V_A^2{\rho\over\rho_i}t_{in}.

1971: \ee

1972: The dispersion relation for $\gamma\ge (\rho_i/\rho)t_{in}^{-1}$ is

1973: \be

1974: \gamma^4={V_A^2\eta^3 t_{in}\over \Delta^{10} k_{\|}^2}.

1975: \ee

1976: So for the saturated modes

1977: \be

1978: \Delta k_{\|}\approx \left({\eta\rho_i\over V_A^2\rho t_{in}}\right)^{3/10}.

1979: \label{app}

1980: \ee

1981: 

1982: This determines the width of the outflow zone if we can assume that

1983: the tearing modes produce stochastic mixing of the field lines, that is, that 

1984: neighboring field lines are well-mixed within this volume.  In two dimensions

1985: this is obviously not the case.  In three dimensions it is probably valid.

1986: We are also assuming that the existence of turbulence in the current sheet

1987: does not lead to widespread mixing of field lines outside the current sheet.

1988: Although some mixing seems inevitable, the fact that the modes are driven

1989: only as long as they are narrow enough to fit within the current sheet,

1990: and grow only about as fast as plasma, and magnetic structures, are ejected

1991: from the current sheet, suggests that any induced field line mixing will

1992: only spread the the outflow zone by an additional factor of order unity. 

1993: 

1994: When the ions and neutrals are {\it not} decoupled, but viscous drag

1995: plays an important role we can rewrite equation (\ref{a1}) as

1996: \be

1997: \left({\Delta'\over I}\right)^4={\gamma^5\rho_i\over k_{\|}^2V_A^2\rho}

1998: {\Delta^2\over\eta^3}\left(1+{(\nu/\Delta^2)\over\gamma}\right),

1999: \ee

2000: where we have assumed a single fluid ($\gamma> (\rho_i/\rho)t_{in}^{-1}$)

2001: and replaced drag by a neutral substrate with viscous damping.

2002: The ejection velocity in this case is obtained by balancing viscous drag

2003: with magnetic forces,

2004: \be

2005: k_{\|}V_A^2\sim {\nu\over \Delta^2}V_{eject}.

2006: \ee

2007: We conclude that in this case

2008: \be

2009: \Delta\sim k_{\|,c}^{-1}\left({\eta k_{\|,c}\over V_A}\right)^{3/16}

2010: \left({\nu k_{\|,c}\over V_A}\right)^{3/16}.

2011: \label{app2}

2012: \ee

2013: 

2014: %\section{Reconnection Induced by Fast Modes}

2015: %

2016: %According to Cho \& Lazarian (2002, 2003) the fast modes exhibit the

2017: %isotropic spectrum similar to that of acoustic turbulence. Unlike

2018: %the Goldreich-Sridhar 

2019: %turbulence case when the amplitude of waves $v_k/\omega_A$

2020: %is proportional to $k^{-1}$, in acoustic turbulence it is proportional

2021: %to $k^{-1} v_k/V_A\ll k^{-1}$.

2022: %If this is

2023: %true, then the treatment of reconnection provided in the Appendix~D

2024: %of LV99 should be applicable. According

2025: %to it the local reconnection rates are  

2026: %\be

2027: %V_{rec, local}\sim V_A \left(\frac{v_l}{V_A}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{\eta}{V_A l}\right)^{1/6},

2028: %\ee

2029: %which are higher than those induced by Alfvenic turbulence.

2030: %

2031: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2032: \bibitem[Armstrong, Rickett \& Spangler(1997)]{ARS95}

2033: Armstrong, J.W., Rickett, B.J. \& Spangler, S.R. 1995,\apj, 443, 209

2034: \bibitem[Bhattacharjee \& Hameiri(1986)]{BH86}Bhattacharjee, A. \&

2035: Hameiri, E.\ 1986, \prl, 57, 206

2036: \bibitem[Bhattacharjee, Ma, \& Wang(2001)]

2037: {BMW01} Bhattacharjee, A., Ma, Z.W. \& Wang, X. 2001, Phys. Plasmas, 8(5), 1829

2038: \bibitem[Bhattacharjee, Ma, \& Wang(2003)]

2039: {BMW03} Bhattacharjee, A., Ma, Z.W. \& Wang, X. 2003,

2040: in {\it Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics}, 

2041:                 eds. T. Passot \& E.

2042:                 Falgarone (Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 614; 2003), 

2043: 	351

2044: \bibitem[Biskamp(1996)]{B96}Biskamp, D.\ 1996, Astrophys. \& Sp. Sci., 242,165

2045: \bibitem[Biskamp(2000)]{B00}Biskamp, D.\ 2000, Magnetic Reconnection

2046: in Plasmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

2047: %\bibitem[Biskamp, Drake \& Chen(1994)]{BDC94}

2048: %Biskamp, D., Drake, J.F. \& Chen, J. 1994, J. Geophys. Res.,

2049: %95, 18833

2050: \bibitem[Biskamp, Schwarz \& Drake(1997)]{BSD97}

2051: Biskamp, D., Schwarz, E. \& Drake, J.F. 1997, Phys. Plasmas,

2052: 4, 1002

2053: \bibitem[Brandenburg(2001)]{B01}Brandenburg, A.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 824

2054: \bibitem[Cattaneo \& Hughes(1996)]{CH96}Cattaneo, F., \& Hughes, D.W.\ 1996,

2055: \pre, 54, 4532

2056: \bibitem[Chandran \& Maron(2003)]{CM03}Chandran, B.D.G. \& Maron, J.L.

2057: \ 2003, astro-ph/0303214, submitted to \prl

2058: \bibitem[Cho \& Lazarian(2002)]{CL02} 

2059: Cho, J. \& Lazarian A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 245001

2060: \bibitem[Cho \& Lazarian(2003)]{CL03} 

2061: Cho, J. \& Lazarian A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 325

2062: \bibitem[Cho \& Vishniac(2000)]{CV00}

2063: Cho, J., \& Vishniac, E. T. 2000, \apj, 538, 217

2064: \bibitem[Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac(2002a)]{CLV02a}

2065: Cho, J., Lazarian, A. \& Vishniac, E. T. 2002a, \apj, 564, 291

2066: \bibitem[Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac(2002b)]{CLV02b}

2067: Cho, J., Lazarian, A. \& Vishniac, E. T. 2002b, \apj, 566, 49L

2068: \bibitem[Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac\ 2003a]{CLV03a}

2069: Cho, J., Lazarian, A. \& Vishniac, E. T. 2003a, 

2070: in {\it Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics}, 

2071:                 eds. T. Passot \& E.

2072:                 Falgarone (Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 614; 2003), 

2073: 	56

2074: \bibitem[Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac(2003b)]{CLV03b} Cho, J., Lazarian, A., \&

2075: Vishniac, E.T. \ 2003b, \apj, 595, 812

2076: \bibitem[Cho et al.(2003)]{CLHKKM03}Cho, J., Lazarian, A., Honein, A., 

2077: Knaepen, B., Kassinos, S. \& Moin, P.\ 2003, \apj, 589L, 77

2078: \bibitem[Dere(1996)]{D96} Dere, K.P. 1996, \apj, 472, 864

2079: \bibitem[Draine, Roberge \& Dalgarno(1983)]{DRD83}Draine, B.T., Roberge,

2080: W.G., \& Dalgarno, A. 1983, \apj, 264, 485

2081: \bibitem[Draine \& Lazarian(1998)]{DL98}

2082: Draine, B.T., \& Lazarian, A. 1998, \apj, 494, L19

2083: \bibitem[Furth, Killeen, \& Rosenbluth(1963)]{FKR63} Furth, H.P.,

2084: Killeen, J., \& Rosenbluth, M.N.\ 1963, Phys. Fluids, 6, 459

2085: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Sridhar(1995)]{gs95} Goldreich, P. \& Sridhar, S.\ 1995,

2086: \apj, 438, 763 (GS95)

2087: \bibitem[Gruzinov \& Diamond(1994)]{GD94}Gruzinov, A.V. \& Diamond, P.H.\ 1994,

2088: \prl, 72, 1651

2089: \bibitem[Gruzinov \& Diamond(1996)]{GD96}Gruzinov, A.V. \& Diamond, P.H.\ 1996,

2090: Phys. Plasmas, 3, 1853

2091: %\bibitem[Gruzinov(1998)]{G98} Gruzinov, A.V.\ 1998, \apj, 501, 787

2092: \bibitem[Hameiri \& Bhattacharjee(1987)]{HB87}Bhattacharjee, A. \&

2093: Hameiri, E.\ 1987, Phys. Fluids, 30, 1744

2094: \bibitem[Heitsch \& Zweibel(2003a)]{HZ03a}Heitsch, F. \& Zweibel, E.G.\ 2003a,

2095: \apj, 583, 229

2096: \bibitem[Heitsch \& Zweibel(2003b)]{HZ03b}Heitsch, F. \& Zweibel, E.G.\ 2003b,

2097: \apj, 590, 291

2098: \bibitem[Hughes et al.(1996)]{HCK96}

2099: Hughes, D.W., Cattaneo, F. \& Kim, E.J.\ 1996, Phys. Lett. A, 223, 167

2100: \bibitem[Innes, Inhester, Axford \& Wilhelm(1997)]{IIAW97}

2101: Innes, D.E., Inhester, B., Axford, W.I., \& Wilhelm, K. 1997, Nature, 386, 811

2102: \bibitem[Jacobson \& Moses(1984)]{JM84}Jacobson, A.R. \& Moses, R.W. 1984,

2103: Phys. Rev. A, 29(6), 3335

2104: \bibitem[Ji, Yamada, Hsu \& Kulsrud(1998)]{JYHK98}Ji, H., Yamada, M., Hsu,

2105: S. \& Kulsrud, R.\ 1998, \prl, 80, 3256 

2106: \bibitem[Kim \& Diamond(2001)]{KD01} Kim, E.-J., \& Diamond, P.H.\ 2001,

2107: \apj, 556, 1052

2108: \bibitem[Krause \& Radler(1980)]{KR80} Krause, F., \& Radler, K.H. 1980,

2109: Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

2110: \bibitem[Kulsrud \& Pearce(1969)]{KP69} Kulsrud, R., \& Pearce, W.P. 1969,

2111: \apj, 156,445

2112: \bibitem[Lazarian \& Pogosyan(2000)]{LP00} 

2113: Lazarian, A. \& Pogosyan, D.\ 2000, \apj, 537, 720

2114: %\bibitem[Lazarian \& Vishniac(1996)]{LV96}

2115: %Lazarian A., \& Vishniac, E.T.\ 1996, in Polarimetry of the

2116: %Interstellar Medium, eds. W.G.~Roberge and D.C.B.~Whittet, ASP 97, 537

2117: \bibitem[Lazarian \& Vishniac(1999)]{lv99}

2118: Lazarian, A. \& Vishniac, E.T. 1999, \apj, 517, 700 (LV99)

2119: \bibitem[Lazarian \& Vishniac(2000)]{lv00} Lazarian, A. \& Vishniac, E.T.

2120: \ 2000, Rev.Mex.~de~Astron.~y~Astrof., 9, 55

2121: \bibitem[Lithwick \& Goldreich(2001)]{LG01}Lithwick, Y. \& Goldreich, P.

2122: \ 2001, \apj, 562, 279

2123: \bibitem[Maron \& Goldreich(2001)]{MG01}

2124: Maron, J. \& Goldreich, P. 2001, \apj, 554, 1175

2125: \bibitem[Maron, Chandran \& Blackman(2003)]{MCB03}Maron, J.L., Chandran,

2126: B.D.G. \& Blackman, E.G.\ 2003, astro-ph/0303217

2127: \bibitem[Matthaeus \& Lamkin(1985)]{ML85} Matthaeus, W.H. \& Lamkin, S.L.

2128: \ 1985, Phys. Fluids, 28, 303

2129: \bibitem[McIvor(1977)]{M77}McIvor, I. 1977, \mnras, 178, 85

2130: \bibitem[Minter \& Spangler(1997)]{MS97}Minter, A.H., \& Spangler, S.R.\ 1997,

2131: \apj, 485, 182

2132: \bibitem[Moffatt(1978)]{M78} Moffatt, H.K. 1978, Magnetic Field Generation in E

2133: lectrically

2134: Conducting Fluids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

2135: \bibitem[Naidu, McKenzie \& Axford(1992)]{NMA92}

2136: Naidu, K., McKenzie, J.F., \& Axford, W.I. 1992, Ann.

2137: Geophys., 10, 827

2138: \bibitem[Narayan \& Medvedev (2001)]{MN01}

2139: Narayan, R. \& Medvedev, M.V.\ 2001, \apj, 562L, 129

2140: %\bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1995)]{NY95}

2141: %Narayan, R. \& Yi, I. 1995, \apj, 452, 710

2142: \bibitem[Parker(1957)]{P57}Parker, E.N.\ 1957, J. Geophys. Res., 62, 509

2143: \bibitem[Parker(1979)]{P79}\rule{1.2cm}{0.2mm}\ 1979, Cosmical

2144: Magnetic Fields (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

2145: \bibitem[Parker(1992)]{P92}Parker, E.N.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 137

2146: \bibitem[Petschek(1964)]{P64}Petschek, H.E.\ 1964,

2147: {\it The Physics of Solar Flares}, AAS-NASA

2148: Symposium, NASA SP-50 (ed. W.H. Hess), Greenbelt, Maryland, p.~425

2149: \bibitem[Priest \& Forbes(2000)]{PF00}Priest, E. \& Forbes, T.\ 2000,

2150: Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge

2151: University Press)

2152: \bibitem[Schekochihin, Maron, Cowley \& McWilliams(2002)]{SMCM02}

2153: Schekochihin, A., Maron, J., Cowley, S. \& McWilliams, J.\ 2002, \apj,

2154: 576, 806

2155: \bibitem[Schekochihin, Cowley, Maron \& McWilliams(2003)]{SCMM03}

2156: Schekochihin, A., Cowley, S., Maron, J. \& McWilliams, J.

2157: \ 2003, astro-ph/0308336 

2158: \bibitem[Shay \& Drake(1998)]{SD98}

2159: Shay, M.A., Drake, J.F. 1998, Geophys. Res. Let., 25(20), 3759

2160: \bibitem[Shay, Drake, Denton \& Biskamp(1998)]{SDD98}

2161: Shay, M.A., Drake, J.F., Denton, R.E., \& Biskamp, D.

2162: 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 9165

2163: \bibitem[Spangler(1991)]{S91} Spangler,S.R. \ 1991,\apj, 376, 540

2164: \bibitem[Spangler(1999)]{Sp99} Spangler,S.R. \ 1999,\apj, 522, 879

2165: \bibitem[Speiser(1970)]{S70}Speiser, T.W. 1970, Planet. Space Sci., 18,

2166: 613

2167: \bibitem[Spitzer(1978)]{S78} Spitzer, L.\ 1978, Physical Processes in the

2168: Interstellar Medium (New York: John Wiley \& Sons)

2169: \bibitem[Stanimirovic \& Lazarian(2001)]{SL01}Stanimirovic, S \& Lazarian, A.\ 2001, \apj, 441, 53

2170: \bibitem[Strauss(1985)]{S85} Strauss, H.R.\ 1985, Phys. Fluids, 28, 2786

2171: \bibitem[Strauss(1988)]{S88} Strauss, H.R.\ 1988, \apj, 326, 412 

2172: \bibitem[Sweet(1958)]{S58} Sweet, P.A.\ 1958, in IAU Symp. 6, Electromagnetic

2173: Phenomena in

2174: Cosmical Plasma, ed. B. Lehnert (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press), 123

2175: \bibitem[Trintchouk, Yamada, Ji, Kulsrud \& Carter(2003)]{TYJKC03}

2176: Trintchouk, F., Yamada, M., Ji, H., Kulsrud, R.M. \& Carter, T.A.\ 2003,

2177: Physics of Plasmas, 10(1), 319

2178: \bibitem[Vainshtein \& Cattaneo(1992)]{VC92}Vainshtein, S.I. and Cattaneo, F.

2179: \ 1992, \apj, 393, 165

2180: %\bibitem[Vishniac(1995a)]{V95a} Vishniac, E.T.\ 1995a, \apj, 446, 724

2181: %\bibitem[Vishniac(1995b)]{V95b}\rule{1.2cm}{0.2mm}\ 1995b, \apj, 451, 816

2182: \bibitem[Vishniac \& Lazarian(1999)]{VL99}

2183: Vishniac, E.T. \& Lazarian, A.\ 1999, \apj, 511, 193

2184: \bibitem[Vishniac \& Lazarian(2000)]{VL00} 

2185: Vishniac, E.T., \& Lazarian, A. 2000, in 

2186: {\it Plasma Turbulence and Energetic Particles},

2187:                 ed. by M. Ostrowski, R. Schlickeiser  

2188:                 (Cracow, 2000) p.182

2189: \bibitem[Vishniac \& Cho(2001)]{VC01}

2190: Vishniac, E.T. \& Cho, J.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 752

2191: \bibitem[Yan \& Lazarian(2002)]{YL02} 

2192: Yan, H. \& Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett, 89, 281102

2193: \bibitem[Zweibel(1989)]{Z89}Zweibel, E.G.\ 1989, \apj, 340, 550

2194: %\bibitem[Zweibel(1998)]{Z98} Zweibel, E.G. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, v. 5, 247

2195: \bibitem[Zweibel \& Brandenburg(1997)]{ZB97}

2196: Zweibel, E.G., \& Brandenburg, A., 1997, \apj, 478, 563

2197: \end{thebibliography}

2198: \clearpage

2199: 

2200: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

2201: \tablecolumns{6}

2202: \rotate

2203: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.02in}

2204: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2205: \tablecaption{Scales and Reconnection speeds for idealized phases of the ISM}

2206: \tablehead{

2207: \colhead{ISM:}      & \colhead{WIM} &

2208: \colhead{WNM}      & \colhead{CNM}       &

2209: \colhead{MC}      & \colhead{DC}}

2210: \startdata

2211: $n$&$0.1$&$0.4$&$30$&$300$&$10^4$\\[0.4cm]

2212: $x$&$0.99$&$0.1$&$10^{-3}$&$10^{-4}$&$10^{-6}$\\[0.4cm]

2213: $T$&$8000$&$6000$&$100$&$20$&$10$\\[0.4cm]

2214: $F_M$&$0.14$&$0.43$&$0.43$&\nodata&\nodata\\[0.4cm]

2215: $\aleph_c$&$9.1l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{1/4}$&$16l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{1/4}$

2216: &$7.8l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{1/4}$

2217: &$4.8l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{1/4}$&$0.37l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{1/4}$\\[0.4cm]

2218: $k_c^{-1}$&\nodata&$2.4\times10^{16}l_{30}^{1/4}{\cal M}^{-1/2}\beta^{-1/8}$

2219: &$3.4\times10^{15}l_{30}^{1/4}{\cal M}^{-1/2}\beta^{-1/8}$

2220: &$8.8\times10^{13}l_{30}^{1/4}{\cal M}^{-1/2}\beta^{-1/8}$

2221: &\nodata\\[0.4cm]

2222: \tableline

2223: $k_{\|,c}^{-1}$&\nodata&$3.8\times10^{17}l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{-1/4}$

2224: &$1.0\times10^{17}l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{-1/4}$

2225: &$9.0\times10^{15}l_{30}^{1/2}{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{-1/4}$

2226: &\nodata

2227: \\[0.4cm]

2228: $k'^{-1}$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&$2.6\times10^{13}l_{30}^{-1/2}{\cal M}\beta^{-1/2}$\\

2229: [0.4cm]

2230: $k_{\|}^{\prime -1}$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata

2231: &$4.0\times10^{15}\beta^{-1/2}$\\

2232: [0.4cm]

2233: $k_p^{-1}$&\nodata&$9.6\times10^{15}l_{30}^{1/12}{\cal M}^{-1/6}\beta^{-5/24}$

2234: &$1.7\times10^{15}l_{30}^{1/12}{\cal M}^{-1/6}\beta^{-5/24}$

2235: &$5.2\times10^{13}l_{30}^{1/12}{\cal M}^{-1/6}\beta^{-5/24}$

2236: &\nodata

2237: \\[0.4cm]

2238: $k_d^{-1}$&\nodata&$6.4\times10^{15}\beta^{-1/4}$&$1.2\times10^{15}\beta^{-1/4}$

2239: &$4.0\times10^{13}\beta^{-1/4}$&\nodata\\[0.4cm]

2240: \tableline

2241: $k_t^{-1}$&\nodata&$1.7\times10^{14}{\cal M}^{1/2}l_{30}^{-1/4}\beta^{-3/4}$&

2242: $1.3\times10^{13}{\cal M}^{1/2}l_{30}^{-1/4}\beta^{-3/4}$&

2243: $1.8\times10^9{\cal M}^{1/2}l_{30}^{-1/4}\beta^{-3/4}$&

2244: $2.6\times10^7{\cal M}l_{30}^{-1/2}\beta^{-1/2}$

2245: \\[0.4cm]

2246: $k_{\|,t}^{-1}$&\nodata&

2247: $8.5\times10^{15}\beta^{-1/2}$

2248: &$1.3\times10^{14}\beta^{-1/2}$&

2249: $1.9\times10^{13}\beta^{-1/2}$

2250: &$4.0\times10^{15}\beta^{-1/2}$\\[0.4cm]

2251: $r_L$&$7.3\times10^7\beta^{1/2}$&$1.2\times10^8\beta^{1/2}$&

2252: $1.3\times10^{8}\beta^{1/2}$&$1.3\times10^8\beta^{1/2}$&

2253: $2.3\times10^8\beta^{1/2}$\\[0.4cm]

2254: $V_{rec}$&$v_T{L_{30}^{1/2}\over l_{30}^{1/2}}\min[1,l_{30}/L_{30}]$&

2255: $0.092v_T{\cal M}^2\beta^{-1/2}{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$&

2256: $0.077v_T{\cal M}^2\beta^{-1/2}{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$&

2257: $0.095v_T{\cal M}^2\beta^{-1/2}{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$&

2258: $0.094v_T{\cal M}^{-1/2}\beta^{3/4}{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{1/4}}$\\[0.4cm]

2259: $V_{rec}(TM)$&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&$0.05v_T{\cal M}^{-17/8}l^{9/16}_{30}L_{30}\beta^{-61/64}$&

2260: $21v_T{\cal M}^{-1}\beta^{-0.3}L_{30}$

2261: \enddata

2262: \tablecomments{Here ${\cal M}$ is the turbulence Mach number,

2263: $\equiv v_T/c_n$, $\beta\equiv c_n^2/V_A^2$, $F_M$ is the (approximate) 

2264: mass fraction contained in each phase,

2265: and a subscript `$30$' indicates that distances are given in

2266: units of $30$ parsecs. The second row gives the

2267: ionization fraction for each phase.  The abbreviations in the first row

2268: denote `Warm Ionized Medium', `Warm Neutral Medium', `Cold Neutral Medium',

2269: `Molecular Cloud', and `Dense Core' (in a molecular

2270: cloud). Length scales are defined in the text and are given here in

2271: centimeters.}

2272: \end{deluxetable}

2273: \clearpage

2274: 

2275: %\begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

2276: %\tablewidth{40pc}

2277: %\tablecaption{Reconnection speeds for idealized phases of the ISM}

2278: %\tablehead{

2279: %\colhead{ISM phase}      & \colhead{$n$} &

2280: %\colhead{$x$}      & \colhead{$T$}       &

2281: %\colhead{$\aleph_c$}         & \colhead{$V_{rec}$}}

2282: %\startdata

2283: %WIM&$0.1$&$0.99$&$8000$&$9.1l_{30}^{1/2} {\cal M}^{-1}

2284: %\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1/2}$&

2285: %$1.1\times10^3 v_T{\cal M}^2\left({V_A\over c_n}\right)^{1/2}

2286: %{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$\\

2287: %\hline

2288: %WNM&$0.4$&$0.1$&$6000$&$1.6\times10l_{30}^{1/2} {\cal M}^{-1}

2289: %\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1/2}$&

2290: %$9.2\times10^{-2} v_T{\cal M}^2\left({V_A\over c_n}\right)^{1/2}

2291: %{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$\\

2292: %\hline

2293: %CNM&$30$&$10^{-3}$&$100$&$7.8l_{30}^{1/2} {\cal M}^{-1}

2294: %\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1/2}$&

2295: %$7.7\times 10^{-2}v_T {\cal M}^2\left({V_A\over c_n}\right)^{1/2}

2296: %{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$\\

2297: %\hline

2298: %MC&$300$&$10^{-4}$&$20$&$4.8l_{30}^{1/2} {\cal M}^{-1}

2299: %\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1/2}$&

2300: %$9.5\times10^{-2} v_T{\cal M}^2\left({V_A\over c_n}\right)^{1/2}

2301: %{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{3/2}}$\\

2302: %\hline

2303: %DC&$10^4$&$10^{-6}$&$10$&$0.37l_{30}^{1/2} {\cal M}^{-1}

2304: %\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1/2}$&

2305: %$9.4\times10^{-2} v_T{\cal M}^{-1/2}\left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{3/4}

2306: %{L_{30}\over l_{30}^{1/4}}$\\

2307: %TM&"&"&"&"&$21V_A \left({c_n\over V_A}\right)^{1.6}L_{30}$\\

2308: %\hline

2309: %\enddata

2310: %\tablecomments{Here ${\cal M}$ is the turbulence Mach number,

2311: %$\equiv v_T/c_n$,

2312: %and a subscript `$30$' indicates that distances are given in

2313: %units of $30$ parsecs. The second column gives the

2314: %ionization fraction for each phase.  The abbreviations in the first column

2315: %denote `Warm Ionized Medium', `Warm Neutral Medium', `Cold Neutral Medium',

2316: %`Molecular Cloud', `Dense Core', and `Tearing Modes' (in a dense molecular

2317: %cloud core).}

2318: %\end{deluxetable}

2319: %\clearpage

2320: 

2321: 

2322: \begin{figure}

2323: \plotone{f1.eps}

2324: \caption{Upper plot: Sweet-Parker scheme of reconnection. Middle plot:

2325: illustration of stochastic reconnection that accounts for field line

2326: noise.  Lower plot: a close-up of the contact region.

2327: Thick arrows depict outflows of plasma. From \cite{lv00}.}

2328: \end{figure}

2329: 

2330: \clearpage

2331: 

2332: \begin{figure}

2333: \plotone{f2.eps}

2334: \caption{Fractional volume (X-axis) vs.

2335:       fractional magnetic energy in the volume (Y-axis)

2336: for viscosity-damped MHD turbulence:

2337:         smaller scales show a higher concentration of magnetic energy.

2338: }

2339: \end{figure}

2340: 

2341: \clearpage

2342: 

2343: \begin{figure}

2344: \epsscale{.60}

2345: \plotone{f3.eps}

2346: \caption{Root mean square separation of field lines in a simulation of

2347: inviscid MHD turbulence, as a function of

2348: distance parallel to the mean magnetic field, for a range of initial

2349: separations.  Each curve represents 1600 line pairs.

2350: The simulation has been filtered to remove pseudo-Alfv\'en

2351: modes, which introduce noise into the diffusion calculation.}

2352: \end{figure}

2353: 

2354: \clearpage

2355: 

2356: \begin{figure}

2357: \epsscale{.40}

2358: \plotone{f4a.eps}

2359: \plotone{f4b.eps}

2360: \plotone{f4c.eps}

2361: \caption{Root mean square and median separation of field lines in simulation of

2362: viscously damped MHD turbulence, as a function of distance parallel to

2363: the mean magnetic field.  In (a) we see the total result.  In (b) we have

2364: removed long wavelength modes.  In (c) we retain only the long wavelength

2365: modes.  In all three cases the median tracks the mean, at a slightly

2366: smaller amplitude, and is consistent with exponential growth. The simulation

2367: used a $384^3$ grid.  The data are based on 1600 line pairs.}

2368: \end{figure}

2369: 

2370: \clearpage

2371: 

2372: \begin{figure}

2373: \plotone{f5.eps}

2374: \caption{A histogram of field line separations for viscously damped

2375: turbulence.  The distribution shown here is the same one used for the

2376: curve in figure 4a for an initial separation of 4 grid points.

2377: The tail of large separations grows smoothly and

2378: continuously, and involves a large fraction of all field lines despite

2379: the intermittency of the magnetic field perturbations.}

2380: \end{figure}

2381: \end{document}

2382: 

2383: 

2384: 

2385: 

2386: