Electron diffusion region and thermal demagnetization

[1] The demagnetized skin depth width electron diffusion region (EDR) distinguishes the innermost current layers of collisionless magnetic reconnection (CMR) from other current layers. Such narrow layers with virtually unknown properties are hard to identify in space observations. Soon, diagnosing it will be the central focus of NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission. Initial attempts have been made to frame necessary tests to ensure that the observer is in the EDR. Since none of the tests are sufficient to identify the EDR, it is important to vet as many necessary conditions as possible. In this way a winnowing process can lessen the likelihood of false positive detections of the EDR. Since the “necessary” criteria of the EDR are usually not amenable to direct experimental tests, a vetting process is desirable before accepting “necessary” proxy tests for the criteria of CMR. This paper proposes a further necessary test of an essential property of the EDR: the necessity that the thermal electrons be demagnetized in these regions. Without this attribute, the magnetic flux is essentially frozen to the electron fluid velocity and the topology breaking of CMR is thwarted. We have framed this test from kinetic theory, gathered the relevant observables, and used it with a published set of over 100 previously identified EDRs. Surprisingly, 99% of them are ≃100 times more magnetized than expected for the EDR of CMR theory. The outcome of this falsifiable test demonstrates the scientific dialogue is incomplete for framing adequate pragmatic tests for identifying EDRs.

[1]  F. Mozer,et al.  Evidence of diffusion regions at a subsolar magnetopause crossing. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[2]  F. Mozer,et al.  Criteria for and statistics of electron diffusion regions associated with subsolar magnetic field reconnection , 2005 .

[3]  K. Bowers,et al.  Three-dimensional dynamics of collisionless magnetic reconnection in large-scale pair plasmas. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[4]  D. Pierce,et al.  The GGS/POLAR magnetic fields investigation , 1995 .

[5]  William Daughton,et al.  Multi‐scale structure of the electron diffusion region , 2007 .

[6]  W. Daughton,et al.  Kinetic theory and simulation of collisionless tearing in bifurcated current sheets , 2007 .

[7]  Christopher T. Russell,et al.  Fingerprints of collisionless reconnection at the separator, I, Ambipolar‐Hall signatures , 2002 .

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

[9]  R. E. Marshak,et al.  The Adiabatic Motion of Charged Particles , 1964 .

[10]  F. Mozer,et al.  Photoemission current-spacecraft voltage relation: Key to routine, quantitative low-energy plasma measurements , 2000 .

[11]  C. Longmire,et al.  Elementary Plasma Physics , 1963 .

[12]  D. A. Dunnett Classical Electrodynamics , 2020, Nature.

[13]  R. Hazeltine,et al.  The Framework Of Plasma Physics , 1998 .

[14]  T. Zawistowski,et al.  Hydra — A 3-dimensional electron and ion hot plasma instrument for the POLAR spacecraft of the GGS mission , 1995 .

[15]  R. Torbert,et al.  New features of electron diffusion regions observed at subsolar magnetic field reconnection sites , 2005 .

[16]  William Daughton,et al.  ''Illuminating'' electron diffusion regions of collisionless magnetic reconnection using electron agyrotropy , 2008 .

[17]  B. Sonnerup,et al.  Minimum and Maximum Variance Analysis , 1998 .

[18]  F. Mozer,et al.  Electron demagnetization and collisionless magnetic reconnection in βe⪡1 plasmas , 2005 .

[19]  John R Wygant,et al.  The electric field instrument on the polar satellite , 1995 .

[20]  William Daughton,et al.  Fully kinetic simulations of undriven magnetic reconnection with open boundary conditions , 2006 .

[21]  P. Daly,et al.  Analysis methods for multi-spacecraft data , 1998 .