Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:43:04.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Magnetic fractures or reconnection of type II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2011

Gerhard Haerendel*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for extraterrestrial Physics, 85748 Garching, Germany email: hae@mpe.mpg.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The importance of reconnection in astrophysics has been widely recognized. It is instrumental in storing and releasing magnetic energy, the latter often in a dramatic fashion. A closely related process, playing in very low beta plasmas, is much less known. It is behind the acceleration of auroral particles in the low-density environment several 1000 km above the Earth. It involves the appearance of field-parallel voltages in presence of intense field-aligned currents. The underlying physical process is the release of magnetic shear stresses and conversion of the liberated magnetic energy into kinetic energy of the particles creating auroral arcs. In this process, field lines disconnect from the field anchored in the ionosphere and reconnect to other field lines. Because of the stiffness of the magnetic field, the process resembles mechanical fractures. It is typically active in the low-density magnetosphere of planets. However, it can also lead to significant energy conversion with high-energy particle production and subsequent gamma ray emissions in stellar magnetic fields, in particular of compact objects.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Boström, R. 1964, J. Geophys. Res., 69, 4893, doi:10.1029/JZ69i023p04983Google Scholar
Davis, T. N. 1978, Space Sci. Revs, 22, 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridman, M. & Lemaire, J. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, C. K. & Boswell, R. W. 1979, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 7239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haerendel, G. 1980, ESA Journal, 4, 197Google Scholar
Haerendel, G. 1988, ESA-SP 285, Vol. 1, 37, Proc. ESA Symp. Varenna/ItalyGoogle Scholar
Haerendel, G. 1994, ApJS, 90, 765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haerendel, G. et al. . 1996, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 58, 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haerendel, G. 2007, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A09214, doi:10.1029/2007JA012378Google Scholar
Haerendel, G. 2009, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A06214, doi:10.1029/2009JA014139Google Scholar
Kindel, J. M. & Kennel, C. F. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, S. 1973, Planet. Space Sci., 21, 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mozer, F. et al. . 1977, Phys. Rev. Lett., 38, 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos, K. 1977, Rev. Geophys. Spce Sci., 15, 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paschmann, G., Haaland, S., & Treumann, R. (eds.) 2002, Space Sci. Revs, 103, Nos. 1–4Google Scholar
Treumann, R. & Baumjohann, W. 1997, Advanced Plasma Physics, Imperial College PressGoogle Scholar