Paper detail

Validity of the Taylor Hypothesis for Linear Kinetic Waves in the Weakly Collisional Solar Wind

The interpretation of single-point spacecraft measurements of solar wind turbulence is complicated by the fact that the measurements are made in a frame of reference in relative motion with respect to the turbulent plasma. The Taylor hypothesis---that temporal fluctuations measured by a stationary probe in a rapidly flowing fluid are dominated by the advection of spatial structures in the fluid rest frame---is often assumed to simplify the analysis. But measurements of turbulence in upcoming missions, such as Solar Probe Plus, threaten to violate the Taylor hypothesis, either due to slow flow of the plasma with respect to the spacecraft or to the dispersive nature of the plasma fluctuations at small scales. Assuming that the frequency of the turbulent fluctuations is characterized by the frequency of the linear waves supported by the plasma, we evaluate the validity of the Taylor hypothesis for the linear kinetic wave modes in the weakly collisional solar wind. The analysis predicts that a dissipation range of solar wind turbulence supported by whistler waves is likely to violate the Taylor hypothesis, while one supported by kinetic Alfven waves is not.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 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.