4.3 Article

Multi-spacecraft study of foreshock cavitons upstream of the quasi-parallel bow shock

Journal

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
Volume 59, Issue 8, Pages 705-714

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2011.02.005

Keywords

Magnetospheric physics; Planetary bow shocks; Foreshock cavitons

Funding

  1. CONACYT [81159]
  2. DGAPA
  3. NSF [ATM-0502992, ATM04-02213]
  4. NASA [NNX08AF38G]
  5. NASA [NNX08AF38G, 101828] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work we perform the first multi-spacecraft analysis of two foreshock cavitons observed by the Cluster spacecraft. We also study the characteristics of their surrounding regions. Foreshock cavitons are a relatively new type of phenomena in the Earth's foreshock. They appear in regions deep inside the foreshock and are therefore always immersed in a sea of ULF waves and suprathermal particles. In the observational data the cavitons appear as simultaneous depressions of interplanetary magnetic field and plasma density. The two cavitons presented here have highly structured interiors and exhibit surface irregularities. They propagate sunwards in the reference frame of the solar wind plasma. Since their velocities are smaller than the solar wind velocity, the cavitons are convected towards the Earth by the solar wind flow. Their sizes are comparable to the size of the Earth. We show that the cavitons are different from other foreshock phenomena, such as cavities. The latter are thought to form by thermal expansion due to the excess of thermal pressure caused by intense flux of suprathermal ions in their interiors. Thermal pressure inside the cavitons is the same as in their surroundings, so they cannot form in this way. The proposed mechanism for the caviton formation includes nonlinear interactions between different types of ULF waves deep inside the foreshock. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available