4.7 Article

Modeling Solar Energetic Particle Transport near a Wavy Heliospheric Current Sheet

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 854, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fa

关键词

methods: numerical; Sun: activity; Sun: heliosphere; Sun: magnetic fields; Sun: particle emission

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2015-094]
  2. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) [ST/M00760X/1]
  3. NASA
  4. STFC [ST/M00760X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the transport of solar energetic particles (SEPs) from acceleration sites at the Sun into interplanetary space and to the Earth is an important question for forecasting space weather. The interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), with two distinct polarities and a complex structure, governs energetic particle transport and drifts. We analyze for the first time the effect of a wavy heliospheric current sheet (HCS) on the propagation of SEPs. We inject protons close to the Sun and propagate them by integrating fully 3D trajectories within the inner heliosphere in the presence of weak scattering. We model the HCS position using fits based on neutral lines of magnetic field source surface maps (SSMs). We map 1 au proton crossings, which show efficient transport in longitude via HCS, depending on the location of the injection region with respect to the HCS. For HCS tilt angles around 30 degrees-40 degrees, we find significant qualitative differences between A+ and A- configurations of the IMF, with stronger fluences along the HCS in the former case but with a distribution of particles across a wider range of longitudes and latitudes in the latter. We show how a wavy current sheet leads to longitudinally periodic enhancements in particle fluence. We show that for an A+ IMF configuration, a wavy HCS allows for more proton deceleration than a flat HCS. We find that A- IMF configurations result in larger average fluences than A+ IMF configurations, due to a radial drift component at the current sheet.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据