2011
DOI: 10.1063/1.3631795
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulations reveal fast mode shocks in magnetic reconnection outflows

Abstract: Magnetic reconnection is commonly perceived to drive flow and particle acceleration in flares of solar, stellar, and astrophysical disk coronae but the relative roles of different acceleration mechanisms in a given reconnection environment are not well understood. While outflow fast mode shocks have been predicted analytically, we show for the first time via direct numerical simulations that such shocks do indeed occur in the outflows of fast reconnection when an obstacle is present. These shocks are are disti… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
6
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to produce a low Mach number shock, as predicted by other numerical simulations, the inflow Alfven Mach number is taken to be M A0 = 1.0. After reflection at the right boundary, this produces a shock with an average Mach number of about 2.0 in the shock frame, consistent with the flare termination shock predicted by previous MHD simulations (Forbes 1986;Workman et al 2011). The grid sizes are ∆x = ∆z = 0.5c/ω pi and the time step is taken to be ∆t = 0.01Ω −1 ci , where c/ω pi is the ion inertial length and Ω −1 ci is the ion cyclotron period.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…In order to produce a low Mach number shock, as predicted by other numerical simulations, the inflow Alfven Mach number is taken to be M A0 = 1.0. After reflection at the right boundary, this produces a shock with an average Mach number of about 2.0 in the shock frame, consistent with the flare termination shock predicted by previous MHD simulations (Forbes 1986;Workman et al 2011). The grid sizes are ∆x = ∆z = 0.5c/ω pi and the time step is taken to be ∆t = 0.01Ω −1 ci , where c/ω pi is the ion inertial length and Ω −1 ci is the ion cyclotron period.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…2 and 3, the average value of the inferred Mach number is around 1.6, and the maximum can reach 2.0. Our measured density compression ratio and inferred Mach number of this termination shock case is similar to those predicted in the numerical modeling results of termination shocks (Forbes 1986;Workman et al 2011;Shen et al 2018). They are also comparable to those estimated from split-band features in coronal-shock-driven type II radio bursts (see, e.g., statistical studies in Vršnak et al 2002;Du et al 2015 and case studies in Liu et al 2009;Zimovets et al 2012;Zucca et al 2014Zucca et al , 2018Kishore et al 2016).…”
Section: Spatially and Temporally Resolved Shock Compression Ratiosupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In a steady-state picture, the shock is perceived to be a standing shock above the looptop and is usually referred to as a flare "termination shock." Flare termination shocks were long predicted in numeri-cal simulations of flares (Forbes 1986(Forbes , 1988Forbes & Malherbe 1986;Workman et al 2011;Takasao et al 2015;Takasao & Shibata 2016;Takahashi et al 2017;Shen et al 2018) and were frequently invoked in some of the most well-known schematics of the standard flare model (e.g., Masuda et al 1994;Shibata et al 1995;Magara et al 1996;Lin & Forbes 2000). They have also been suggested as an outstanding candidate for driving particle acceleration (Forbes 1986;Shibata et al 1995;Somov & Kosugi 1997;Tsuneta & Naito 1998;Mann et al 2009;Warmuth et al 2009;Guo & Giacalone 2012;Li et al 2013;Nishizuka & Shibata 2013;Park et al 2013) and plasma heating (Masuda et al 1994;Guidoni et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3A). The location and morphology of this surface closely resemble those of a TS as predicted in numerical simulations when viewed edge on (6,(9)(10)(11); see also Fig. 3B).…”
supporting
confidence: 74%