4.7 Article

SEPARATION OF THE INTERSTELLAR BOUNDARY EXPLORER RIBBON FROM GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED ENERGETIC NEUTRAL ATOM FLUX

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 731, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/56

关键词

ISM: general; magnetohydrodynamics (MHD); plasmas; shock waves; solar wind; Sun: heliosphere

资金

  1. NASA
  2. Polish Ministry for Science and Higher Education [NS-1260-11-09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) observes a remarkable feature, the IBEX ribbon, which has energetic neutral atom (ENA) flux over a narrow region similar to 20 degrees. wide, a factor of 2-3 higher than the more globally distributed ENA flux. Here, we separate ENA emissions in the ribbon from the distributed flux by applying a transparency mask over the ribbon and regions of high emissions, and then solve for the distributed flux using an interpolation scheme. Our analysis shows that the energy spectrum and spatial distribution of the ribbon are distinct from the surrounding globally distributed flux. The ribbon energy spectrum shows a knee between similar to 1 and 4 keV, and the angular distribution is approximately independent of energy. In contrast, the distributed flux does not show a clear knee and more closely conforms to a power law over much of the sky. Consistent with previous analyses, the slope of the power law steepens from the nose to tail, suggesting a weaker termination shock toward the tail as compared to the nose. The knee in the energy spectrum of the ribbon suggests that its source plasma population is generated via a distinct physical process. Both the slope in the energy distribution of the distributed flux and the knee in the energy distribution of the ribbon are ordered by latitude. The heliotail may be identified in maps of globally distributed flux as a broad region of low flux centered similar to 44 degrees W of the interstellar downwind direction, suggesting heliotail deflection by the interstellar magnetic field.

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