Paper detail

Can we trust MHD jump conditions for collisionless shocks?

When applied to compute the density jump of a shock, the standard magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) formalism assumes, 1) that all the upstream material passes downstream, together with the momentum and energy it carries, and 2) that pressures are isotropic. In a collisionless shock, shock accelerated particles going back and forth around the front can invalid the first assumption. In addition, an external magnetic field can sustain stable pressure anisotropies, invaliding the second assumption. It is therefore unclear whether the density jump of a collisionless shock fulfils the MHD jump or not. Here we try to clarify this issue. A literature review is conducted on 68 articles dealing with Particle-In-Cell simulations of collisionless shocks. We analyze the factors triggering departure from the MHD density jump and quantify their influence on $Δ_{RH}$, the relative departure from the Rankine-Hugoniot jump. For small departures we propose $Δ_{RH} = + \mathcal{O}(10^{-1-3.7κ})t^κ- σ\mathcal{O}(1)$ where $t$ is the timescale of the simulation, $σ$ the magnetization parameter and $κ$ a constant of order unity. The first term stems from the energy leakage into accelerated particle. The second term stems from the downstream anisotropy triggered by the field (assuming an isotropic upstream). This relation allows to assess to which extent a collisionless shock fulfils the RH density jump. In the strong field limit and for parallel shocks, the departure caused by the field saturates at a finite, negative, value. For perpendicular shocks, the departure goes to zero at small and high $σ$'s so that we find here a departure window. The results obtained have to be checked against full 3D simulations.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.