Transport of MHD Fluctuations in the Solar Wind: 2 ...seano/queenstown15/...Karem Osman Minping Wan...
Transcript of Transport of MHD Fluctuations in the Solar Wind: 2 ...seano/queenstown15/...Karem Osman Minping Wan...
Queenstown, 09 Feb 2015
Transport of MHD Fluctuations in the
Solar Wind:
2-component models
Sean Oughton
Department of Mathematics
University of Waikato
Hamilton
New Zealand Bill Matthaeus
Ben Breech
Chuck Smith
Phil Isenberg
Karem Osman
Minping Wan
Sergio Servidio
Outline
1. Solar Wind fluctuations (MHD scales)
2. Evidence for
a) turbulence
b) Alfven waves
3. 2-component models
4. Transport model
1. Nature of SW fluctuations?
• MHD scales:
velocity v,
magnetic field b
• Turbulence and waves?
Probably
• Evidence for each (examples) • although
some quantities can be interpreted as
support for both
This talk:
incompressible MHD
Typical Observations
• Solar wind measurements
– mean mag field: <B>
– rms fluctuation: b
• Often b / <B> ~ ½
so <B> significant, but not dominant.
• Induces: – Spectral Anisotropy [observations, models]
– waves
5
Turbulence vs Waves
• No spectral transfer (linear case)
• Propagation (move energy)
• Dispersion relation w(k) – each length-scale couples to
a specific time-scale
• Inherently nonlinear => spectral transfer
• Advection [self-distortion]
• No dispersion relation – each length-scale coupled to
many time-scales (and v.v.)
• Wide range of dynamically active length/time scales
k
w(k)
Log k
Lo
g E
(k)
ASIDE:
2a. Evidence for turbulence in SW
2a. Evidence for turbulence in SW
• Compare
- SW observations: v, b,…
- MHD turbulence simulations
• Examples:
– v-b alignment: v.b ~ cos
– kurtosis ~ <bx4>
-5/3
-2
Example 1. Power-law Spectra
• Power spectra of v, b
• have inertial range
power laws
~ Kolmogorov
-5/3
-2
GoldsteinEA95
Ex 2. v-b alignment
• Prob density function
of
OsmanEA11
512^3
B0=1
sigc:
sw=0.29
sim=0.30
ACE
simulation
sig_c ~ 0.3
Ex 3. Kurtosis (simulation)
• .
• Filtered kurtosis
kurt( kc) – same, but with
Fourier cpts k < kc
zeroed
Emagnetic(k)
kc / k_diss
kurt(Gaussian) = 3
Kurtosis: SW data vs MHD simulation
Filtered kurtosis
Eb(k)
WanEA12, ApJ
1st summary: lots of evidence for turbulence
• Comparing observ / MHD turb sims
– kurtosis WanEA 12
– discontinuities (PVI) GrecoEA 08…, ZhdankinEA 12
– v-b alignment OsmanEA 11
– reconnection GoslingEA 05…, ServidioEA 09
– spectra
– 3rd order moment Sorriso-ValvoEA07,MarinoEA12
MacBrideEA08, OsmanEA11,..
• Non-Gaussian statistics
• Higher-order correlations
GrecoEA09-apj
2b. Evidence for Alfven waves in SW
(away from planetary bow shocks)
2b. Evidence for Alfven waves in SW
• Some observ of large-ampl Alfven waves
– A-waves have v = b
– BelcherDavis71, WangEA12
• strong v-b correlation for ~15min
• arc polarization
– isolated instances?
• Other evidence? – high cross helicity intervals (?)
– transport: ~WKB agreement
(BUT lots of problems)
– …
Cross helicity spectrum
• A-waves have v=b => 1. sc=1
2. Ev / Eb = 1
WangEA12 ApJ
NOTE: Some observations support BOTH
waves and turbulence
eg. variance anisotropy …
Variance Anisotropy
• <B>-aligned coords
• perp power dominates:
bx2 : by
2 : bz2 = 5 : 4 : 1
– BelcherDavis71, KleinEA91, HorburyEA95,…
• Interpretations?
A: `slab’ Alfven waves
ampl ⊥ <B>
k || <B>
– No conclusion from min variance dirn
B: quasi-2D turb
ampl AND k
⊥ <B>
<B>
Vsw
y
x
2nd summary
• Solar wind fluctuations – lots of evidence for turbulence, and Alfven waves
• But (typically) neither
isotropic turb nor Alfven waves on their own
fit data well.
So …
3. Two-component Models
a) Slab waves + 2D turb
b) Weak turb + Strong turb
[cf. critical balance]
3a. Slab + 2D
• Model energy spectrum as a sum
2D turb: E(k) ~ k-5/3
plus
||-propagating Alfven waves: E(k||) ~ k||-q
• Fit to observations …
– ecliptic: 1AU 80% 2D (BieberEA96)
– high lat: 40-60% 2D (Smith 2003)
• cos ~ U.<B>
Slab + 2D…
• Observational support: BieberEA94,96,…
Bieber et al., J. Geophys. Res., 1996
Slab-only model Fit: 5% slab
95% 2D
Magnetic power spectra
• Fit composite freq spectrum, Pslab(f) + P2D(f)
to Ulysses data
FormanEA11 (2D: 5/3, slab: 2)
• So,
slab + 2D “stick figure” model
has limitations
• How can we develop a better model?
• Use results from weak AND strong
turbulence theory …
Recall: Weak Turb explanation for spectral anisotropy
• MHD with ~strong mean field
develops anisotropy
– sharper gradients across B0
– strong k┴ transfer
• Why?
– B0 causes suppression of || transfer
– perturbation theory for Alfven waves
Improving on slab + 2D
• Fourier space: slab + 2D is – k|| axis and k|| = 0 plane
– neglects most of Fourier space
• Generalise:
2D -> quasi-2D
slab -> wave-like
~ strong turb
~ weak turb
3b. Weak and Strong turb (Fourier space)
• Two timescales (incomp MHD):
– Alfven tA (k)
– nonlinear tNL (k)
• Which t is faster at a given k ?
– controls k-space dynamics
B0
k
weak
turb
strong
turb
k||
k
• ~ 2 coupled components:
– wave-like weak turb. flucts: W
– quasi-2D (low-freq) turbulence: Z
Distinguished by which timescale
is shorter
at each k: tNL(k) < tA(k)
• W-region: strong perp transfer
and weak ||-transfer
• Z-region: local “isotropic” transfer
(OughtonEA04,06,11)
Z W
B0
CONCEPTS:
Reduced MHD
KadomtsevPogutse76,
Strauss78,
MontgomeryTurner81,
Montgomery82
Critical Balance
Higdon86
GoldreichSridhar95
k||
k
• Point: for any
1. Have a k-space region
where nonlinear couplings
dominate over ~wave ones:
* strong turb
* spectrum ~ Kolmogorov
2. For other k, get
~weak turb
with ~perp transfer
• Compressible case?
– simulations (low Mach #) show similar || suppression to incomp case
[Oughton Matthaeus ‘05]
• x-space interpretation:
wide/narrow wave
packets
• 3 classes of interactions
• Related to
- reduced MHD
- critical balance
x-space
k-space
non-resonant
wave-wave: ~Kraichnan resonant: ~ShebalinEA83
perp transfer ‘trivially’ resonant:
~hydro-like
~ unaware of <B>
B0
x-space
k-space
4. Transport of 2-cpt Models
How do flucts evolve with distance ?
1. Observational B/gnd
• Spacecraft data: fluctuations v, b, r
Voyager, ACE, Ulysses, …
Voyager data
WKB R-4/3
QSN: How do flucts evolve with distance ?
2. Objective
• Model radial evoln of SW flucts
• Treat flucts as 2 coupled components:
- wave-like (high-freq) flucts: W
- quasi-2D (low-freq) turbulence: Z
Z W
k||
E(k_par, k_perp)
B0
k
3. Why 2 components?
• Earlier transport models assumed 1 type of fluctuation
• But, physics is • shear drives at low-freq (non-WKB)
• pickup ions drive high-freq flucts (Alfven waves)
So 2 types of flucts improvement
• Equations for
– energy, cross helicity, corrn length
of each component
4. Processes: What causes the evolution?
• Z,W:
– expansion, advection
– stream-shear [shocks, large-scale inhomog]
• W driven by pickup ions (outer heliosphere)
• Energy exchange between cpts: Z W
• Nonlinear cascades of W, Z heating
5. Equations: linear terms (steady)
2D energy:
wave energy:
2D corrn length:
wave corrn length:
|| scale of W:
pickup ion
driving
relax to res
Nonlinear terms: Modeling
• ~von Karman-Howarth phenomenology
2D:
waves:
• Cascades proton heating
• Also eqns for lengths:
• Include cross helicity effects
cascades
~Kraichnan
Oughton et al 06, Phys. Plasma
6. Sample Solutions
Sample solutions …
Cshear = 1
= 2 = 0.25
sD = -1/3
WKB
Fixed BCs
Model vs Voyager data
• ‘mapped’ solutions: different BCs for each Voyager interval
•Voyager data: Chuck Smith, John Richardson
distance
Parameters
• Model has various parameters, controlling – strength of stream-shear
[forces energies & lengthscales]
– pickup ion driving [reasonably constrained/understood. IsenbergEA03, 05]
– local conserv laws for Z or W nonlinear dynamics
• Solns are typically stable to small changes in these params.
• Similarly for small changes in
boundary conditions for Z2, W2, etc.
Observ/Model agreement is encouraging
SUMMARY (OughtonEA 2011, JGR)
Extension of models for radial evoln of SW fluctuations---
2 types of flucts: waves + turbulence
• Allows driving physics to be included more consistently.
• Like 1-cpt models, turbulence cascade terms give
heating/energy levels in ~agreement with observations
• Corrn length:
2-cpt model ~better fit than 1-cpt. Z W
k_par
B0
k_
perp
Main Points
• MHD turbulence simulations produce many features
similar to SW observations
• Many observations can’t be explained using just
linear waves
• MHD with a B0 = combination of strong and weak
turb
• 2-cpt transport model fits observ data reasonably well