Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T12:26:22.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Fast Magnetic Field Reconnection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2015

E. R. Priest  and
A. M. Soward
E. R. Priest
Affiliation:
Dept. of Applied Mathematics, The University, St. Andrews, Scotland
A. M. Soward
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics. The University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England

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 first model for ‘fast’ magnetic field reconnection at speeds comparable with the Alfvén speed was put forward by Petschek (1964). It involves one shock wave in each quadrant radiating from a central diffusion region and leads to a maximum reconnection rate dependent on the electrical conductivity but typically of order 10-1 or 10-2 of the Alfvén speed. Sonnerup (1970) and Yeh and Axford (1970) then looked for similarity solutions of the magnetohydrodynamic equations, valid at large distances from the diffusion region; by contrast with Petschek's analysis, their models have two waves in each quadrant and produce no sub-Alfvénic limit on the reconnection rate.

Our approach has been, like Yeh and Axford, to look for solutions valid far from the diffusion region, but we allow only one wave in each quadrant, since the second is externally generated and so unphysical for astrophysical applications. The result is a model which qualitatively supports Petschek's picture; in fact it can be regarded as putting Petschek's model on a firm mathematical basis. The differences are that the shock waves are curved rather than straight and the maximum reconnection rate is typically a half of what Petschek gave. The paper is a summary of a much larger one (Soward and Priest, 1976).

Type
Part 3: Dynamo Theory and Magnetic Dissipation
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 71: Basic Mechanisms of Solar Activity , 1976 , pp. 353 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1976 

References

Coppi, B. and Friedland, A. B.: 1971, Astrophys. J. 169, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S. W. H.: 1974a, J. Plasma Phys. 12, 319.Google Scholar
Cowley, S. W. H.: 1974b, J. Plasma Phys. 12, 341.Google Scholar
Dungey, J. W.: 1953, Phil. Mag. 44, 725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. M. and Sweet, P. A.: 1966, Astrophys. J. 147, 1153.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1963, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 77, 8, 177.Google Scholar
Petschek, H. E.: 1964, AAS-NASA Symposium on the Physics of Solar Flares (ed. Hess, W. N.), NASA SP-50, p. 425.Google Scholar
Priest, E. R.: 1972, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 159, 389.Google Scholar
Priest, E. R. and Cowley, S. W. H.: 1975, J. Plasma Phys. 14, 271.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. and Priest, E. R.: 1975, J. Plasma Phys. 14, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnerup, B. U. O.: 1970, J. Plasma Phys. 4, 161.Google Scholar
Soward, A. M. and Priest, E. R.: 1976, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Sweet, P. A.: 1958, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. 8, Ser. X, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasyliunas, V. M.: 1975, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys: 13, 303.Google Scholar
Yeh, T. and Axford, W. I.: 1970, J. Plasma Phys. 4, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeh, T. and Dryer, M.: 1973, Astrophys. J. 182, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar