4.7 Article

NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMIC PROCESSES: SPACE PLASMAS AND THE INNER HELIOSHEATH

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 749, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/11

关键词

interplanetary medium; ISM: kinematics and dynamics; methods: analytical; methods: statistical; plasmas; solar wind; Sun: heliosphere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, empirical kappa distribution, commonly used to describe non-equilibrium systems like space plasmas, has been connected with non-extensive statistical mechanics. Here we show how a consistent definition of the temperature and pressure is developed for stationary states out of thermal equilibrium, so that the familiar ideal gas state equation still holds. In addition to the classical triplet of temperature, pressure, and density, this generalization requires the kappa index as a fourth independent thermodynamic variable that characterizes the non-equilibrium stationary states. All four of these thermodynamic variables have key roles in describing the governing thermodynamical processes and transitions in space plasmas. We introduce a novel characterization of isothermal and isobaric processes that describe a system's transition into different stationary states by varying the kappa index. In addition, we show how the variation of temperature or/and pressure can occur through an iso-q process, in which the system remains in a fixed stationary state (fixed kappa index). These processes have been detected in the proton plasma in the inner heliosheath via specialized data analysis of energetic neutral atom (ENA) observations from Interstellar Boundary Explorer. In particular, we find that the temperature is highly correlated with (1) kappa, asymptotically related to isothermal (similar to 1,000,000 K) and iso-q (kappa similar to 1.7) processes; and (2) density, related to an isobaric process, which separates the Ribbon, P approximate to 3.2 pdyn cm(-2), from the globally distributed ENA flux, P approximate to 2 pdyn cm(-2).

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