Paper detail

On the electron-ion temperature ratio established by collisionless shocks

Astrophysical shocks are often collisionless shocks. An open question about collisionless shocks is whether electrons and ions each establish their own post-shock temperature, or whether they quickly equilibrate in the shock region. Here we provide simple relations for the minimal amount of equilibration to expect. The basic assumption is that the enthalpy-flux of the electrons is conserved separately, but that all particle species should undergo the same density jump across the the shock. This assumption results in an analytic treatment of electron-ion equilibration that agrees with observations of collisionless shocks: at low Mach numbers ($<2$) the electrons and ions are close to equilibration, whereas for Mach numbers above $M \sim 60$ the electron-ion temperature ratio scales with the particle masses $T_e/T_i = m_e/m_i$. In between these two extremes the electron-ion temperature ratio scales as $T_e/T_i \propto 1/M_s^2$. This relation also hold if adiabatic compression of the electrons is taken into account. For magnetised plasmas the compression is governed by the magnetosonic Mach number, whereas the electron-ion temperatures are governed by the sonic Mach number. The derived equations are in agreement with observational data at low Mach numbers, but for supernova remnants the relation requires that the inferred Mach numbers for the observations are over- estimated, perhaps as a result of upstream heating in the cosmic-ray precursor. In addition to predicting a minimal electron/ion temperature ratio, we also heuristically incorporate ion-electron heat exchange at the shock, quantified with a dimensionless parameter $ξ$. Comparing the model to existing observations in the solar system and supernova remnants suggests that the data are best described by $ξ \sim 5$ percent. (Abridged abstract.)

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

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 map preview

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.