Geospace Environment Modeling magnetic reconnection challenge: Simulations with a full particle electromagnetic code

The objective of the Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) magnetic reconnection challenge is to understand the collisionless physics that controls the rate of magnetic reconnection in a two-dimensional configuration. The challenge involves investigating a standard model problem based on a simple Harris sheet configuration by means of a variety of physical models in order to isolate the essential physics. In the present work the challenge problem is modeled using an electromagnetic particle-in-cell code in which full particle dynamics are retained for both electrons and ions and Maxwell's equations are solved without approximation. The timescale for reconnection is of the order of 10 Ωi-1 (where Ωi is the ion cyclotron frequency based on the asymptotic field B0), and the corresponding reconnection electric field is (c/vA)Ey/B0 ∼ 0.24. The diffusion region near the neutral line is observed to develop a multiscale structure based on the electron and ion inertial lengths c/ωpe and c/ωpi. The difference between the ion and electron dynamics in the diffusion region gives rise to in-plane (Hall) currents which produce an out-of-plane By field with a quadrupolar structure. In the diffusion region the magnetic field is no longer frozen-in to the electrons; the inductive Ey field is supported primarily by the off-diagonal electron pressure terms in the generalized Ohm's law. The reconnection rate is found to be insensitive to electron inertia effects and to the presence of a moderate out-of-plane initial field component B0y ≲ B0. The results are consistent with the theory that the reconnection rate is independent of the mechanism which breaks the frozen-in condition and is controlled by dynamics at length scales much greater than the electron dissipation region.

[1]  Drake,et al.  Structure of thin current layers: Implications for magnetic reconnection. , 1994, Physical review letters.

[2]  V. Vasyliūnas Theoretical models of magnetic field line merging , 1975 .

[3]  Tetsuya Sato,et al.  Particle simulation study of collisionless driven reconnection in a sheared magnetic field , 1996 .

[4]  Zhiwei Ma,et al.  Hall magnetohydrodynamic reconnection: The Geospace Environment Modeling challenge , 2001 .

[5]  K. Yee Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving maxwell's equations in isotropic media , 1966 .

[6]  Y. Lin,et al.  A two-dimensional hybrid simulation of the magnetotail reconnection layer , 1996 .

[7]  H. Karimabadi,et al.  Consequences of particle conservation along a flux surface for magnetotail tearing , 1996 .

[8]  Dan Winske,et al.  Hybrid Modeling of the Formation of Thin Current Sheets in Magnetotail Configurations. , 1996 .

[9]  Viktor K. Decyk,et al.  3D electromagnetic plasma particle simulations on a MIMD parallel computer , 1995 .

[10]  M. Scholer,et al.  Ion kinetic effects in magnetic reconnection: Hybrid simulations , 1998 .

[11]  M. Fujimoto,et al.  Ion dynamics and resultant velocity space distributions in the course of magnetotail reconnection , 1998 .

[12]  N. Omidi,et al.  Large‐scale hybrid simulations of the magnetotail during reconnection , 1995 .

[13]  T. Terasawa Hall current effect on tearing mode instability , 1983 .

[14]  Ritoku Horiuchi,et al.  Particle simulation study of driven magnetic reconnection in a collisionless plasma , 1994 .

[15]  The collisionless coalescence instability with two‐species and in‐plane‐current effects , 1995 .

[16]  K. Schindler,et al.  Particle simulations of collisionless reconnection in magnetotail configuration including electron dynamics , 1996 .

[17]  Michael Hesse,et al.  Collisionless magnetic reconnection: Electron processes and transport modeling , 2001 .

[18]  René Pellat,et al.  Stability of a thick two‐dimensional quasineutral sheet , 1982 .

[19]  Antonius Otto,et al.  Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) magnetic reconnection challenge: MHD and Hall MHD—constant and current dependent resistivity models , 2001 .

[20]  Hewett,et al.  New regimes of magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas. , 1988, Physical review letters.

[21]  Dan Winske,et al.  Collisionless reconnection supported by nongyrotropic pressure effects in hybrid and particle simulations , 2001 .

[22]  Harold P. Furth,et al.  Finite‐Resistivity Instabilities of a Sheet Pinch , 1963 .

[23]  M. Hesse,et al.  Hybrid modeling of collisionless reconnection in two‐dimensional current sheets: Simulations , 1995 .

[24]  N. Omidi,et al.  Two‐dimensional structure of the co‐planar and non‐coplanar magnetopause during reconnection , 1999 .

[25]  D. Swift Numerical simulations of tearing mode instabilities , 1986 .

[26]  T. Tajima,et al.  Dynamic magnetic x-points , 1981 .

[27]  E. G. Harris On a plasma sheath separating regions of oppositely directed magnetic field , 1962 .

[28]  W. Zwingmann,et al.  Particle simulation of magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail configuration , 1990 .

[29]  Mikhail I. Sitnov,et al.  Role of the temperature ratio in the linear stability of the quasi‐neutral sheet tearing mode , 1998 .

[30]  Ying Lin,et al.  Formation of reconnection layer at the dayside magnetopause , 1997 .

[31]  Dan Winske,et al.  Kinetic quasi-viscous and bulk flow inertia effects in collisionless magnetotail reconnection , 1998 .

[32]  Motohiko Tanaka Macro‐particle simulations of collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1995 .

[33]  James F. Drake,et al.  The role of electron dissipation on the rate of collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1998 .

[34]  James F. Drake,et al.  Transition to whistler mediated magnetic reconnection , 1994 .

[35]  Dan Winske,et al.  Electron dissipation in collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1998 .

[36]  P. Pritchett,et al.  does ion tearing exist , 1991 .

[37]  N. Omidi,et al.  Magnetic structure of the reconnection layer and core field generation in plasmoids , 1999 .

[38]  H. Karimabadi,et al.  On the energy principle and ion tearing in the magnetotail , 1994 .

[39]  P. Pritchett,et al.  Formation of thin current sheets during plasma sheet convection , 1995 .

[40]  M. Hoshino The electrostatic effect for the collisionless tearing mode , 1987 .

[41]  James F. Drake,et al.  Breakup of the electron current layer during 3‐D collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1997 .

[42]  Eugene N. Parker,et al.  Sweet's mechanism for merging magnetic fields in conducting fluids , 1957 .

[43]  Lou‐Chuang Lee,et al.  The generalized Ohm’s law in collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1997 .

[44]  Michael Hesse,et al.  Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) magnetic reconnection challenge: Resistive tearing, anisotropic pressure and Hall effects , 2001 .

[45]  Robert M. Winglee,et al.  Tearing instability, flux ropes, and the kinetic current sheet kink instability in the Earth`s magnetotail: A three-dimensional perspective from particle simulations , 1996 .

[46]  John D. Villasenor,et al.  Rigorous charge conservation for local electromagnetic field solvers , 1992 .

[47]  J. Birn,et al.  The diffusion region in collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1999 .

[48]  James Drake,et al.  Two-fluid theory of collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1997 .

[49]  T. Kamimura,et al.  Simulation studies of the collisionless tearing instabilities , 1980 .

[50]  James F. Drake,et al.  Alfvénic collisionless magnetic reconnection and the Hall term , 2001 .

[51]  P. Pritchett Effect of electron dynamics on collisionless reconnection in two-dimensional magnetotail equilibria , 1994 .

[52]  P. Pritchett,et al.  Three‐dimensional stability of thin quasi‐neutral current sheets , 1996 .

[53]  James Drake,et al.  Structure of the dissipation region during collisionless magnetic reconnection , 1998 .

[54]  P. Sweet 14. The neutral point theory of solar flares , 1958 .

[55]  T. Mukai,et al.  Ion dynamics in magnetic reconnection: Comparison between numerical simulation and Geotail observations , 1998 .