Parameter Dependencies of Early‐Stage Tangential Discontinuity‐Driven Foreshock Bubbles in Local Hybrid Simulations

Foreshock bubbles (FBs) are significant foreshock transients that can accelerate particles and disturb the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system. In the kinetic formation model, foreshock ions interact with the discontinuity by performing partial gyrations to generate currents that change the magnetic field topology around the discontinuity. However, how different foreshock ion properties affect the growth of the field variations is not well understood. Therefore, we use 2‐D local hybrid simulations to study the effects of different foreshock ion distributions and properties on the growth of tangential discontinuity (TD)‐driven FBs. We discover that for a gyrophase‐bunched distribution with an initial phase where the guiding center is on the other side of the TD, the foreshock ions gyrate together across the TD, causing more foreshock ions to cross the TD and leading to a faster expansion of the structure than for a Maxwellian distribution. A ring distribution also yields higher expansion speeds because of the higher projected velocity into the new perpendicular direction. For Maxwellian distributions, there are positive and linear correlations of the FB expansion speeds with the initial foreshock ion densities, thermal speeds, parallel speeds, and sine of the TD magnetic shear angles. These parameter dependencies grow in strength as the structures evolve with time. The foreshock ion distributions and properties that lead to stronger currents produce more significant magnetic field variations and higher expansion speeds. Our study helps quantify the formation and expansion of FBs to forecast their space weather effects and contribution to shock acceleration.

[1]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Modeling the Expansion Speed of Foreshock Bubbles , 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[2]  Desheng Han,et al.  Dayside Transient Phenomena and Their Impact on the Magnetosphere and Ionosphere , 2022, Space Science Reviews.

[3]  P. Delamere,et al.  Hybrid Simulations of a Tangential Discontinuity‐Driven Foreshock Bubble Formation in Comparison With a Hot Flow Anomaly Formation , 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[4]  D. Sibeck,et al.  Global Asymmetries of Hot Flow Anomalies , 2022, Geophysical Research Letters.

[5]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Statistical Study of Favorable Foreshock Ion Properties for the Formation of Hot Flow Anomalies and Foreshock Bubbles , 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[6]  T. Liu,et al.  Impact of Foreshock Transients on the Flank Magnetopause and Magnetosphere and the Ionosphere , 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences.

[7]  T. Liu,et al.  A Foreshock Bubble Driven by an IMF Tangential Discontinuity: 3D Global Hybrid Simulation , 2021, Geophysical Research Letters.

[8]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Energy Modulations of Magnetospheric Ions Induced by Foreshock Transient‐Driven Ultralow‐Frequency Waves , 2021, Geophysical Research Letters.

[9]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Statistical Study of Foreshock Transients in the Midtail Foreshock , 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[10]  D. Sibeck,et al.  Ion Acceleration by Foreshock Bubbles , 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[11]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Global Propagation of Magnetospheric Pc5 ULF Waves Driven by Foreshock Transients , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[12]  T. Liu,et al.  Evolution of a Foreshock Bubble in the Midtail Foreshock and Impact on the Magnetopause: 3‐D Global Hybrid Simulation , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[13]  H. Zhang,et al.  Magnetospheric Multiscale Observations of Foreshock Transients at Their Very Early Stage , 2020, The Astrophysical Journal.

[14]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Formation and Topology of Foreshock Bubbles , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[15]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Formation of Foreshock Transients and Associated Secondary Shocks , 2020, The Astrophysical Journal.

[16]  B. Mauk,et al.  Microscopic, Multipoint Characterization of Foreshock Bubbles With Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[17]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Observations of Magnetic Reconnection in Foreshock Transients , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.

[18]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Relativistic electrons generated at Earth’s quasi-parallel bow shock , 2019, Science Advances.

[19]  C. Russell,et al.  Ion Kinetics in a Hot Flow Anomaly: MMS Observations , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[20]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Ion Acceleration Inside Foreshock Transients , 2018 .

[21]  C. Chu Hot Flow Anomalies at Earth's Bow Shock and Their Magnetospheric-Ionospheric Signatures , 2017 .

[22]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Fermi acceleration of electrons inside foreshock transient cores , 2017, 1706.05047.

[23]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Statistical study of particle acceleration in the core of foreshock transients , 2017, 1706.04993.

[24]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  THEMIS satellite observations of hot flow anomalies at Earth's bow shock , 2017 .

[25]  H. Zhang,et al.  A statistical study on hot flow anomaly current sheets , 2017 .

[26]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Relativistic Electrons Produced by Foreshock Disturbances Observed Upstream of Earth's Bow Shock. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[27]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Multipoint observations of the structure and evolution of foreshock bubbles and their relation to hot flow anomalies , 2016 .

[28]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  Observations of a new foreshock region upstream of a foreshock bubble's shock , 2016 .

[29]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity‐driven foreshock bubbles , 2015 .

[30]  L. L. Zhao,et al.  Case and statistical studies on the evolution of hot flow anomalies , 2015 .

[31]  T. Horbury,et al.  Global impacts of a Foreshock Bubble: Magnetosheath, magnetopause and ground-based observations , 2014, 1409.0390.

[32]  T. Horbury,et al.  The role of pressure gradients in driving sunward magnetosheath flows and magnetopause motion , 2014, 1406.0301.

[33]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  First observations of foreshock bubbles upstream of Earth's bow shock: Characteristics and comparisons to HFAs , 2013 .

[34]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  The role of transient ion foreshock phenomena in driving Pc5 ULF wave activity , 2013 .

[35]  R. Mewaldt,et al.  Shock Acceleration of Ions in the Heliosphere , 2012 .

[36]  E. Möbius,et al.  Ion Acceleration at the Earth’s Bow Shock , 2012 .

[37]  J. Vink,et al.  Observational Signatures of Particle Acceleration in Supernova Remnants , 2012, 1206.1593.

[38]  Q. Zong,et al.  Cases and statistical study on Hot Flow Anomalies with Cluster spacecraft data , 2012 .

[39]  N. Omidi,et al.  Foreshock bubbles and their global magnetospheric impacts , 2010 .

[40]  V. Angelopoulos,et al.  THEMIS observations of extreme magnetopause motion caused by a hot flow anomaly , 2009 .

[41]  I. Dandouras,et al.  Observations and modeling of particle dispersion signatures at a hot flow anomaly , 2009 .

[42]  Z. Németh,et al.  A global study of hot flow anomalies using Cluster multi-spacecraft measurements , 2009, 1807.07368.

[43]  I. Dandouras,et al.  A statistical study of hot flow anomalies using Cluster data , 2018, 1807.07369.

[44]  I. Dandouras,et al.  Study of hot flow anomalies using Cluster multi-spacecraft measurements , 2010, 1807.07371.

[45]  Peter A. Delamere,et al.  Hybrid code simulations of the solar wind interaction with Pluto , 2008 .

[46]  P. Delamere Hybrid code simulations of the solar wind interaction with Comet 19P/Borrelly , 2006 .

[47]  I. Dandouras,et al.  Distributions of suprathermal ions near hot flow anomalies observed by RAPID aboard Cluster , 2006 .

[48]  T. Horbury,et al.  Cluster observations of hot flow anomalies , 2004 .

[49]  J. Sauvaud,et al.  Bow shock specularly reflected ions in the presence of low-frequency electromagnetic waves: a case study , 2002 .

[50]  M. Dunlop,et al.  Conditions for the formation of hot flow anomalies at Earth's bow shock , 2000 .

[51]  P. Delamere,et al.  A three‐dimensional hybrid code simulation of the December 1984 solar wind AMPTE release , 1999 .

[52]  David G. Sibeck,et al.  Comprehensive study of the magnetospheric response to a hot flow anomaly , 1999 .

[53]  Daniel W. Swift,et al.  Use of a Hybrid Code for Global-Scale Plasma Simulation , 1996 .

[54]  Daniel W. Swift,et al.  Use of a hybrid code to model the Earth's magnetosphere , 1995 .

[55]  S. Schwartz Hot flow anomalies near the Earth's bow shock , 1995 .

[56]  G. Haerendel,et al.  Three-dimensional plasma structures with anomalous flow directions near the Earth's bow shock , 1988 .

[57]  C. Russell,et al.  Hot, diamagnetic cavities upstream from the Earth's bow shock , 1986 .

[58]  S. Schwartz,et al.  An active current sheet in the solar wind , 1985, Nature.