Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Photon polarization wikipedia , lookup
Bremsstrahlung wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to gauge theory wikipedia , lookup
Wave packet wikipedia , lookup
Photoelectric effect wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Chapter 5.0 Internal Acceleration Mechanisms: Testing the Whistler/EMIC Wave Mechanism 5.1 Introduction The previous chapter demonstrated that during some storms, phase space density peaks at low L*, indicating local acceleration of electrons. This chapter examines whether the evolution of electron pitch angle distributions (PADs) is consistent with a particular local electron acceleration model, the whistler/EMIC wave acceleration model. We focus on the whistler/EMIC wave model because it is the most thoroughly developed of the local acceleration models and makes specific predictions concerning PADs. It is distinct from the other local acceleration models because the acceleration process benefits from a dawn dusk PAD asymmetry. We begin this chapter by describing the whistler/EMIC wave model in more detail. We explain how the mechanism affects PADs and compare observed PADs to the theoretical PADs. We identify characteristics of PADs unique to storms with electron acceleration by comparing superposed data from storms with and without electron flux enhancements. These observations are used to test the validity of the model. 5.2 The whistler EMIC wave model As the name suggests the whistler/EMIC wave model accelerates electrons through sequential interaction with two types of Very Low Frequency waves (VLF): whistler waves, and EMIC waves. Brice [1961] and Kennel and Petschek [1966] first described how these waves interact with electrons. They showed that, in the non- 1 relativistic limit, electrons interacting with whistler and EMIC waves change pitch angle with little change of energy suggesting these waves were not responsible for accelerating relativistic electrons. More recently, Summers et al. [1998] expanded the theory of wave particle interactions to include relativistic effects. They showed that, in the relativistic limit, electrons interacting with whistler waves diffuse in both energy and pitch angle. They also found that the effect of EMIC waves on electrons is unchanged by relativistic corrections. In both the relativistic and non-relativistic regimes, EMIC waves cause diffusion in pitch angle but not energy. Even though EMIC waves do not change electron energy they are a necessary part of the electron acceleration process invoked by the whistler/EMIC wave model. The model relies on EMIC waves to prime electrons by producing PADs necessary for subsequent electron acceleration by whistler waves. Following the framework of the authors above, we now describe how electrons interact with VLF waves in both the non-relativistic and relativistic limit and show how these waves accelerate electrons in the relativistic limit. The interaction of electrons with waves of any frequency is described by resonance theory. As discussed in chapter 3, the radial diffusion model invokes resonance theory to explain the acceleration of electrons by ULF waves. Now we show how resonance theory governs the interaction of electrons with VLF waves. Whistler and EMIC waves propagate at an angle from the direction of the magnetic field and have magnetic and electric field perturbations perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Resonance between the wave and an electron occurs when the gyrofrequency of the electron equals the Doppler shifted frequency of the wave such that the following equation is obeyed [Brice, 1964]: 2 k cosv|| g , (1) 1 v2 2 1 c2 g qB / m0 (2) The parameters are defined as follows: is the relativistic correction, v is the electron velocity, c is the speed of light, is the angle between the propagation direction of the wave and the magnetic field direction, v|| is the parallel velocity of the particle, uph is the phase velocity of the wave, is the frequency of the wave, g is the gyrofrequency of the electron, q is the charge, B is the magnetic field magnitude and m0 is the rest mass of the electron. The equation, called the resonance condition, shows that only electrons with a specific parallel velocity will be accelerated or decelerated by a wave of a given frequency. In the non-relativistic limit, =1; therefore the resonance condition specifies only the parallel velocity of electrons affected by the waves and particles of arbitrary perpendicular velocity are resonant. In the relativistic case, the resonance condition applies for parallel and perpendicular velocity with a known functional relationship. Figure 1 gives a schematic representation of the relativistic and non-relativistic resonance conditions. In the non-relativistic limit, the resonance condition is a straight line when plotted as a function of perpendicular and parallel velocity. In the relativistic limit, the resonance condition plots as an ellipse. To understand how wave particle resonance affects the energy and pitch angle of an electron, we require that in the reference frame of the wave, the energy of the particle does not change. This assumption is written in the wave reference frame as: Non-relativistic and Relativistic limits: 3 dv v|| dv|| 0 v (3) is the particle velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field and v|| is the velocity where v parallel to the magnetic field in the wave reference frame. To transform the equation from the reference frame of the wave to our inertial reference wave requires a Lorentz transformation. v|| ' v|| u ph v ' 2 [1 v|| u ph / c ] [1 u ph 1 2 2 /c ] v 2 [1 v|| u ph / c ] (4) where uph is the phase velocity of the wave .Transforming equation (3) to our inertial reference frame we find, Non relativistic: v dv (v|| u ph )dv|| 0 Relativistic: (1 u ph v|| c2 )v dv (v|| u ph 2 u ph v c2 )dv|| 0 (5) Integrating the equations over v and v|| one obtains a function that defines how v and v|| of the electron change in the interaction with a wave. As the electron velocity changes so does the pitch angle and energy. The equation plotted as a function of v and v|| is called a pitch angle diffusion curve. Summers et al. [1998] assume parallel propagating waves and use the cold plasma wave dispersion relation to obtain uph() . The diffusion curves are obtained as integrals of the above equations. The authors calculate diffusion curves for both EMIC and whistler waves using a range of plasma densities and magnetic field strengths. The diffusion curves calculated for EMIC waves show that electrons diffusing along the curves change pitch angle but not energy during the interaction. The whistler wave 4 diffusion curves show that electrons change both pitch angle and energy. Individual electrons interacting with the waves move in either direction along the diffusion curves to smaller and larger pitch angles. An electron moving along the whistler diffusion curve towards 0o pitch angle loses energy. An electron moving toward 90o pitch angle gains energy. The net energy change of a distribution of many electrons interacting with whistler waves depends on whether more electrons diffuse to larger pitch angle and higher energy or diffuse to smaller pitch angle and lower energy. The initial PAD establishes whether more electrons move to smaller or larger pitch angle and therefore determines net energy gain or loss. Gendrin [1968] developed an intuitive graphical method for determining net energy gain or loss. The method involves plotting PADs as contours of constant phase space density along with diffusion curves. PADs are not commonly plotted as contours of constant phase space density. More often electron flux is plotted as a function of pitch angle measured at fixed energies. To aid in understanding we show examples that map the more familiar flux plots to contours of constant phase space density. The examples show how the mapping varies for data with different pitch angle and energy dependencies. Figure 2 shows contours based on simulated data with soft energy spectra and fairly low pitch angle anisotropy. Figure 2 Panel A plots differential flux at fixed energies with an assumed pitch angle dependence given by j ( ) sin . Panel B plots the energy spectra at fixed pitch angles with an assumed energy dependence of j(E)=10-2E where E is kinetic energy. Panels C and D map the data to contours of constant phase space density in both momentum and velocity space. The contours plotted as a function 5 of velocity are the theoretically useful quantities but we include contours as a function of momentum for comparison with Summers et al. [1998] who show results in momentum space. The contours in this example are nearly circular except very near the loss cone. Figure 3 plots contours from simulated data with the same energy spectra but greater pitch angle anisotropy. In this figure the simulated data have the same energy dependence as before but now j()=sin2. Increasing the pitch angle anisotropy modestly changes the contours of Panel C and D causing them to be slightly peaked at 90o. The change is most noticeable near the loss cone. Figures 4 and 5 show similar plots for hard energy spectra. Figure 4 shows data with j ( ) sin and j(E)=10-0.2E. Hardening the spectra causes the contours in Panel C and D to become more peaked at 90o. Finally, Figure 5 shows contours based on data with hard energy spectra and high pitch angle anisotropy. In this figure j ( ) sin 2 and j(E)=10-0.2E. The contours in Panel C and D are noticeably peaked at 90o. We now discuss the Gendrin [1968] method for determining net energy gain that relies on the phase space density contours. The first illustration of how energy changes, Figure 6 Panel A, shows a contour of constant phase space density for an isotropic electron pitch angle distribution (gray trace) and a diffusion curve slightly peaked at 90o (black trace). Electrons that satisfy the resonance condition diffuse in both directions along the diffusion curve (black arrows). A diffusion imbalance occurs when there is a phase space density gradient (green arrow). In the example shown, the gradient causes more electrons to diffuse towards 90o along the negative gradient of phase space density and to higher energy (red arrow). Thus, the distribution of electrons gains net energy. Panel B shows the same diffusion curve with an electron distribution initially peaked at 6 90o. In this example, more electrons diffuse towards small pitch angle and lower energy. Panel C shows a diffusion curve that lies on a circle of constant energy with an initial electron distribution peaked at 90o. In this example, more electrons diffuse along the curve to smaller pitch angles but the energy remains constant. Diffusion occurs until the interaction reaches marginal stability and the contour of constant electron phase space density lies along the diffusion curve (Panel D). The Summers [1998] model predicts that electrons gain energy by a two step process involving both types of waves. First, EMIC waves, acting predominantly on the dusk side of the magnetosphere [Jordanova et. al, 2001; Braysy et al., 1998], scatter particles towards small pitch angles while conserving electron energy. This interaction is similar to the illustration of Figure 6 Panel C. Next, the more isotropic distribution drifts to the dawn side where whistler waves are commonly present [Meredith et al., 2001, Lorentzen et al., 2001; Burtis and Helliwell, 1976; Koons and Roeder, 1990]. The whistler waves scatter electrons to larger pitch angles and higher energies as in the illustration of Figure 6 Panel A. After multiple drift periods, electrons may gain significant energy. 5.3 PADs Predicted by the Whistler/EMIC wave model The PADs predicted by the whistler/EMIC wave electron acceleration model depend on local time and the relative power of the two types of waves. The PADs depend on local time because they are shaped by whistler waves on the dawnside of the magnetosphere and EMIC waves on the duskside. The power of the waves determines how quickly electron distributions are altered. Relativistic electrons drift about the earth 7 in less then ten minutes. The rapid drift limits the interaction time of electrons with each type of wave. If wave power is high, the interaction will bring the electron distribution to marginal stability even in this limited time. At marginal stability the electron distributions lie along the diffusion curves. Therefore, if both the EMIC and whistler wave power are high, the PADs will have a dawn-dusk asymmetry. At dusk the PADs will be isotropic and lie on curves of constant energy like the EMIC wave diffusion curve, while at dawn the PADs will be peaked at 90o like the whistler wave diffusion curves. Exactly how peaked the diffusion curves and PADs are depends on the local magnetic field strength and density. The diffusion curves calculated by Summers [1998] become increasingly peaked as density drops and magnetic field strength increases. To describe how peaked these curves are, we give the ratio of p/m0c at 90o and 45o. In the regime where (e/p)2=1 the ratio is ~1.3, while in the regime where (e/p)2=10 the ratio is ~1.75. There is some evidence that whistler wave power is not high enough to achieve marginal stability. Measurements of the two types of waves during storms suggest that whistler wave amplitudes are an order of magnitude lower than EMIC wave amplitudes. Meredith et al. [2001] determined whistler wave amplitudes from CRESS data over the 15 month mission and found amplitudes of ~.1-1mV/m during geomagnetically active periods with AE>300 nT. Braysy et al., [1998] using data from the Freja satellite, determined EMIC wave amplitudes of 1-50 mV/m during one storm. If the imbalance of wave power favors EMIC waves as the observations suggest, PADs will be defined by the EMIC waves and only slightly modified by the whistler waves. In this case, predominantly isotropic PADs are expected. The opposite imbalance of wave power with whistler waves dominating is currently not supported by wave observations. But if 8 whistler waves dominated, they would create electron distributions peaked at 90o and they would be only slightly modified by the EMIC waves. 5.4 Previous Investigation of Storm-time Pitch Angle Evolution Blake et al. [2001] investigated the evolution of pitch angle distributions during storms using the HIST instrument as well. The study investigated pitch angle distributions in a unique way. Pitch angle distributions were determined by comparing electron flux measured at high latitude to the electron flux measured along the same field line at low latitude. The high latitude measurements represent electrons with small pitch angles and the low latitude measurements represent electrons with larger pitch angles. The authors used this method to study the pitch angle distributions for 4 storms at the L value of peak flux. The study showed a similar evolution of pitch angle distributions in each storm. At energies >2.2 MeV the pitch angle distributions became more peaked at 90o after the storm main phase. The peaked distributions slowly became more isotropic after periods of 3-6 days. The authors concluded that the peaked distributions resulted from an initial increase in radial diffusion followed by a secondary acceleration due to processes that violated the first adiabatic invariant. We expand this study by investigating pitch angle distributions using a superposed epoch analysis including many storms and covering L values ranging from 2-6. We also compare PADs of electrons during storms with large flux enhancements to those without. In addition, we investigate local time asymmetries to specifically test the whistler/EMIC wave model. 5.5 Method: Identifying PADs Associated with Relativistic Electron Acceleration 9 We identify characteristics of PADs associated with relativistic electron acceleration using superposed epoch analysis of 82 storms. The storms occurred between January 1997 and July 2000 and were identified by minima in Dst <-50 nT. The criterion for identifying storms required that Dst increase above –15 nT before the next storm was counted. Our goal is to identify pitch angle changes unique to electron acceleration. However, chapter 3 established that some storms result in significant electron acceleration while others do not. Therefore, we divide the storms into two groups; those with relativistic electron flux enhancement and those without. We use the total flux of electrons per orbit measured by HIST with energy >2.0 MeV to identify electron flux enhancement events. The flux is measured at 4 L ranges; 2.75<L<3.25, 3.75<L<4.25, 4.75<L<5.25 and 5.75<L<6.25. We define relativistic electron flux enhancement events as storms where the average > 2.0 MeV HIST electron flux 1-3 days after minimum Dst is more than twice the average > 2.0 MeV flux 1-3 days prior to minimum Dst at more than 2 of the 4 L ranges. The criterion separates the storms into 40 relativistic electron flux enhancement events and 42 non-events. The storms are plotted for each year in Figures 7-10 with events marked by asterisks and non-events marked by circles. We compare the PADs of events and non-events at L values from 2-6 and energy from 0.67-7.2 MeV using an anisotropy indicator. An anisotropy indicator gives a quantitative description of the shape of a PAD. We are interested in comparing contours of constant phase space density to diffusion curves predicted by whistler and EMIC waves. Therefore, we wish to know how the flux near 90o pitch angle compares with flux 10 at smaller pitch angles. Thus we define our anisotropy indicator, A, based on contours of constant phase space density as An p (60 90 , n) p (30 60 , n) (6) where p is the average momentum corresponding to a particular phase space density contour level (n) over the specified range of where is pitch angle. The anisotropy in momentum can be compared to diffusion curves calculated by Summers [1998]. We calculate An for 14 contours of constant phase space density from the HIST data as shown in Figure 11. The contour levels are chosen so that the momentum at 90o corresponds to one of the 14 energies measured by HIST. For example, the magenta contour has p/m0c=7.3 at 90o and corresponds to an energy of 3.3 MeV which is the 10th energy channel of HIST. The anisotropy ratio of the magenta contour is 1.02 and nearly isotropic. An isotropic distribution has an anisotropy ratio, A=1.0. A distribution peaked at 90o has A>1.0 and a butterfly distribution has A<1.0. The pitch angle ranges used in our anisotropy indicator were chosen so as not to include electrons in the loss cone. Loss cone data are excluded because HIST measures electrons in 22o pitch angle bins and does not resolve the loss cone. In general, we do not expect electrons near the loss cone to be accelerated by the whistler/EMIC wave acceleration mechanism. The loss of electrons to the atmosphere forms a steep phase space density gradient near the loss cone. The gradient is such that electrons predominantly scatter to smaller pitch angles and lower energy. In analyzing the dependence of PADs on local time, we seek to avoid effects arising from magnetospheric geometry such as drift shell splitting. Drift shell splitting 11 modifies pitch angle distributions predominantly in the noon/midnight region [Selesnick et al., 2002]. It produces butterfly distributions on the nightside and pancake distributions on the dayside. For this reason we compare PADs only in the dawn/dusk sectors of the magnetosphere and calculate anisotropy ratios only for Polar orbits in local time sectors from 4-8 and 16-20 MLT. 5.6 Results: PADs Associated with Relativistic Electron Acceleration 5.6.1 Events Anisotropy indicators for electron event cross-sections in the Y-Z plane (geomagnetic coordinates) are sorted relative to the time of minimum Dst and plotted in Figure 12. The anisotropies are plotted as superposed epoch for several days including the day of the storm. This type of presentation is not possible with most other spacecraft data that do not have the extensive latitude, radial distance and local time coverage of Polar. The figure shows anisotropy of electron flux enhancement events for contours corresponding to E=3.3 MeV at 90o pitch angle. The figure shows that A increases after the storm between L=3-6 and at all latitudes. An increase of A signifies PADs more peaked at 90o during storms. Figure 13 plots the anisotropy of electron flux enhancement events measured along the equator for 12 energies measured by HIST. Thick red traces plot the mean value three days before the storm minimum Dst and thick black traces plot the mean value 3 days after minimum Dst. Thin black and red traces plot the standard error of the means. Only values prior to minimum Dst appear in panels A-I that plot anisotropies of 0.7-2.7 MeV electrons. For these lower energy channels, we exclude values measured 12 after minimum Dst because flux levels become high and the data are suspect as discussed in Appendix A. Shaded gray areas mark the approximate region of the inner electron belt. For this analysis we are concerned only with the outer belt. Figure 13 shows that anisotropies of contours corresponding to E=>4 MeV at 90o all respond similarly during storms with relativistic electron flux enhancements. The anisotropies increase with PADs becoming more peaked at 90o after storm minimum Dst. To lend support to this result we show pre- and post-storm raw pitch angle data and energy spectra for an example event that contributed to the statistical study. Figure 14 panels A-F plot differential flux versus pitch angle at fixed energy before and after the storm that occurred on Feb 18, 1999. In this figure we present only data taken when Polar is within 2o of the magnetic equator and between L=4-4.5. Figure 14 panel G plots the Dst index. Vertical lines mark the times of the equatorial crossings. The figure shows the flux peaking at 90o pitch angle in panels E and F taken 3-4 days after the storm minimum Dst. Figure 15 plots the energy spectra in the same format throughout the storm. Panels E and F show the spectra becoming harder in the 3 to 4 days after the storm. Both the changing pitch angles and energy spectra contribute to the increased post-storm anisotropy demonstrated by the statistical study. Figure 16 plots the contours of constant phase space density constructed from the data shown in the previous two figures. Panels E and F show the anisotropy increase 4-5 days after the storm. 5.6.2 Non-Events Figure 17 shows anisotropy during storms without electron flux enhancement 13 plotted in the same format as Figure 18. The figure shows that even in these non-events the anisotropy of contours corresponding to E>4.0 MeV at 90o increases. To confirm the result we show pre- and post-storm raw pitch angle data and energy spectra for an example event that contributed to the statistical study. Figure 18 panels A-F plot differential flux versus pitch angle at fixed energy before and after the storm non-event that occurred on August 8, 1998. We show only data taken when Polar is within 2o of the magnetic equator between L=4-5. Figure 18 panel G plots the Dst index with vertical lines marking the times of each equatorial crossing. (Figures 18-20 will be added shortly) Figure 19 plots the energy spectra for the same event. Both the changing pitch angles and energy spectra contribute to the post-storm anisotropy increase shown in the statistical study. Figure 20 plots the contours of constant phase space density constructed from the data shown in the previous two figures. 5.6.3 Event and Non-Event Comparison Figure 21 compares event and non-event anisotropy. The red traces plot the difference of event and non-event anisotropies pre-storm (Anon-event-Aevent). The green traces plot the difference of event and non-event anisotropies post-storm. There is no systematic difference between event and non-event anisotropy. 5.6.4 Dawn-Dusk Comparison Next we compare dawn and dusk anisotropy during the storms. Figure 22 compares dawn and dusk anisotropy for storms with electron flux enhancements. Red traces plot dusk anisotropies and blue traces plot dawn anisotropies. The figure shows no differences between dawn and dusk greater than the standard error. Figure 23 compares 14 dawn and dusk anisotropy for storms without electron flux enhancements. No dawn/dusk differences exist in either events or non-events. 5.7 Discussion: Comparison of data with the whistler/EMIC wave model We now evaluate the relevance of whistler/EMIC electron acceleration by comparing the measured anisotropies with the model predictions. The superposed epoch analysis of PADs revealed three features. 1) PADs associated with >3.3 MeV electrons become more peaked at 90 degrees during the recovery phase of storms whether or not the flux is enhanced. 2) No dawn/dusk PAD asymmetry is observed. 3) No systematic difference between event and non-event anisotropy is observed. The observations relate to the whistler/EMIC wave acceleration as follows. The mechanism predicts that dawnside whistler waves make PADs more peaked at 90o and duskside EMIC waves make more isotropic PADs. The first observation is consistent with PADs predicted by interaction with whistler waves. However, restoration of isotropy on the dusk side by EMIC waves is necessary for the mechanism to continue to be effective. Observation 2 shows no tendency towards greater dusk-side isotropy. Two possibilities explain the lack of observed dawn-dusk asymmetry. One possibility is that an asymmetry exists that is below the detection level of our method. The standard error of the plotted mean values gives an estimate of our detection threshold. The standard error is ~ 1 %. As discussed previously, the relativistic electrons have drift 15 periods of less than ten minutes and spend only a limited time interacting with each type of wave. The interaction time may be short enough that only small modification of the pitch angle distributions occurs. However, in this model the amount of acceleration is defined by the dawn-dusk pitch angle asymmetry. An asymmetry less than 1 % which would not be detectable, limits the rate of acceleration per electron drift orbit. The other possible explanation of the absence of dawn-dusk asymmetry is that such asymmetry does not exist and the whistler/EMIC wave mechanism is not responsible for accelerating electrons. Observation 3 states that there is no systematic difference between event and nonevent anisotropy. The result is surprising because one might expect anisotropy to be affected only in those storms accompanied by electron acceleration. One explanation of the result is that our method of separating storms does not correctly differentiate between storms with and without electron acceleration. Although separating storms into those with and without flux enhancements seems straightforward, the criterion is subjective. As described in section 5.5 our definition of acceleration events was based on a comparison of pre- and post-storm flux levels. But there are other ways to define acceleration events and non-events. For example, O’Brien et al. [2001] performed a superposed epoch analysis using relativistic electron flux measured at geosynchronous orbit that compared storms with electron flux enhancements to those without. The study did not consider prestorm flux levels when defining electron flux enhancement events and non-events. Instead, flux enhancement events were defined based solely on post-storm flux levels. An event was defined as a storm with post-storm flux levels exceeding a threshold value. It may seem counterintuitive to measure electron flux enhancements without considering 16 the pre-storm flux level. However, McAdams et al. [2001] examined electron flux at L values from 4-7 measured by GPS, LANL, SAMPEX and Polar and found a poor correlation between pre- and post-storm flux levels. One interpretation of the result is that most electrons in the radiation belts are lost during the main phase of the storm. The poststorm flux level is then independent of the pre-storm levels. To test whether the similarity of event and non-event anisotropy in our study results from poor selection criterion we repeated the study using 4 alternate definitions of storm events and non-events. One definition was similar to that used by O’Brien et al. [2001b] and relied only on post-storm flux levels. We defined events using LANL > 2MeV electron flux measured at geosynchronous. We used noon-reconstructed fluxes obtained from the PEER method [O’Brien et al., 2001a] to remove the local time asymmetry of the data. We defined relativistic electron flux enhancement events as storms with LANL >2MeV average electron flux greater than 0.5 /cm2-s-str-keV two to three days after minimum Dst. The events and non-events determined using this new definition are shown in Figure 22. We repeated the HIST anisotropy study using the new set of events and non-events. The final results were unchanged. PADs became more peaked at 90o poststorm in both events and non-events. We also repeated the study using events and nonevents defined by flux increases measured by Polar at L=3,4 and 5 separately. Events were defined by post-storm fluxes two times higher than pre-storm flux. None of the event selection criteria resulted in event and non-event anisotropy differences. The consistent lack of anisotropy difference between events and non-events suggests that the result is not due to a poor selection criterion. An alternative explanation for the similar response is that some acceleration process occurs in both events and non-events 17 that modifies anisotropy but is less effective at accelerating electrons in the non-events. In the case of the whistler/EMIC wave mechanism the amount of acceleration depends on the strength of the waves and the resulting dawn-dusk asymmetry. If the asymmetry is below our detection threshold we would observe no difference between event and nonevent anisotropy. 5.8 Summary Enhanced anisotropy is relevant to various mechanisms that rely on pitch angle scattering to accelerate electrons in the inner magnetosphere. In particular, the EMIC/whistler wave mechanism would yield A>1.0 if whistler wave scattering is more effective than EMIC wave scattering. In the extreme case of intense whistler and EMIC wave scattering the mechanism predicts a dawn-dusk asymmetry. Pitch angle distributions of electrons corresponding to energy > =4.0 MeV measured by Polar show distributions with A>1.0 but no dawn-dusk asymmetry greater than the standard error. The lack of an observed asymmetry does not exclude the whistler/EMIC wave mechanism. However, an asymmetry less than 2% limits the rate of acceleration provided by the whistler/EMIC wave mechanism. This limit may be useful to theorists modeling electron acceleration by this mechanism. The evolution of PADs during storms is consistent with but does not provide conclusive support for the whistler/EMIC wave method. 18 References Blake, J. B., R.S. Selesnick, D.N. Baker, S. Kanekal, Studies of relativistic electron injection events in 1997 and 1998, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 19157, 2001. Burtis, W. J., and R. A. Helliwell, Magnetospheric chorus: Occurrence patters and normalized frequency, Planet. Space Sci., 24, 1007, 1976. Braysy, T., K. Mursala, and G. Marklund, Ion cyclotron waves during a great magnetic storm observed by Freja double-probe electric field instrument, J. Geophys. Res, 103, 4145, 1998. Brice, N., Fundamentals of very low frequency emission generation mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res., 69, 4515-4522, 1964. Gendrin, R., General Relationships between wave amplification and particle diffusion in the magnetosphere, Rev. Geophys., 19, 171 1981. Jordanova, V. K., C. J. Farrugia, R. M. Thorne, G. V. Khazanov, G. D. Reeves, M. F. Thomsen, Modeling ring current proton precipition by electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves during the May 14-16, 1997, storm, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 7, 2001. Kennel, C. F. and H. E. Petschek, Limit on stably trapped particle fluxes, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 1, 1966. 19 Koons, H. C., and J. L. Roeder, A survey of equatorial magnetospheric wave activity between 5 and 8 RE, Planet. Space Sci., 3 ,1335, 1990. Lorentzen, K., J. B. Blake, U. S. Inan, J. Bortnik, Observations of relativistic electron microbursts in association with VLF chorus, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 6017, 2001. McAdams, K., G. D. Reeves, R. Friedel, O’Brien, T. P., Extreme geomagnetic storms and extreme relativistic electron events, EOS Trans. AGU, 82(47) Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract SM131B-0772, 2001. Meier, M. M., R. D. Belian, T. E. Cayton, R. A. Christensen, B. Garcia, K. M. Grace, J. C. Ingraham, J. G. Laros, and G. D. Reeves, The energy spectrometer fro particles (ESP): Instrument description and orbital performance, in Workshop on the Earth’s Trapped Particle Environment, AIP Conf. Proc., edited by G. D. Reeves, vol. 383, pp. 203-210, Am. Inst. Of Phys., Woodbury, N. Y., 1996. Meredith et al., R. B. Horne, R. R. Anderson, Substorm dependence of chorus amplitudes: Implications for acceleration of electrons to relativistic energies, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 13165, 2001. 20 O’Brien, T. P., R.L. McPherron, D. Sornette, Statistical asynchronous regression: Determining the relationship between two quantities that are not measured simultaneously, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 13247, 2001. O’Brien, T. P., R.L. McPherron, D. Sornette, G. D. Reeves, R. Friedel, and H. J. Singer, Which magnetic storms produce relativistic electrons at geosynchronous orbit?, J. Geophys. Res, 106, 15533, 2001. Selesnick, R. S. and J. B. Blake, Relativistic electron drift shell splitting, J. Geophys. Res, in press. Summers, D., R.M.Thorne, F. Xiao, Relativistic theory of wave-particle resonant diffusion with application to electron acceleration in the magnetosphere, J. Geophys. Res.,103, 20487,1998. 21 Figure Captions Figure 1. Schematic of resonance conditions in the non-relativistic (Panel A) and relativistic (Panel B) limit. In the non-relativistic limit particles with parallel velocity equal to the wave phase velocity are in resonance with the wave. Perpendicular velocity is not constrained. This resonance condition plotted as a function of perpendicular and parallel velocity is a straight line. In the relativistic limit particles must have specific parallel and perpendicular velocity to be in resonance. This condition plotted as a function of parallel and perpendicular velocity is a semi-ellipse. Figure 2. Illustration of mapping between electron flux and contours of constant phase space density. The plots are made using simulated data with low pitch angle anisotropy and a soft energy spectrum. Panel A shows differential electron flux at fixed energies versus pitch angle. Panel B shows differential electron flux at fixed pitch angle versus energy. Panel C plots the data as contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( v / c ) and parallel velocity ( v|| / c ). Panel D plots contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( p / m0 c ) and parallel momentum ( p|| / m0 c ). Figure 3. Illustration of mapping between electron flux and contours of constant phase space density. The plots are made using simulated data with high pitch angle anisotropy and a soft energy spectrum. Panel A shows differential electron flux at fixed energies versus pitch angle. Panel B shows differential electron flux at fixed pitch angle versus energy. Panel C plots the data as contours of constant phase space density as a function of 22 perpendicular ( v / c ) and parallel velocity ( v|| / c ). Panel D plots contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( p / me c ) and parallel momentum ( p|| / c ). Figure 4. Illustration of mapping between electron flux and contours of constant phase space density. The plots are made using simulated data with low pitch angle anisotropy and a hard energy spectrum. Panel A shows differential electron flux at fixed energies versus pitch angle. Panel B shows differential electron flux at fixed pitch angle versus energy. Panel C plots the data as contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( v / c ) and parallel velocity ( v|| / c ). Panel D plots contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( p / m0 c ) and parallel momentum ( p|| / m0 c ). Figure 5. Illustration of mapping between electron flux and contours of constant phase space density. The plots are made using simulated data with high pitch angle anisotropy and a hard energy spectrum. Panel A shows differential electron flux at fixed energies versus pitch angle. Panel B shows differential electron flux at fixed pitch angle versus energy. Panel C plots the data as contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( v / c ) and parallel velocity ( v|| / c ). Panel D plots contours of constant phase space density as a function of perpendicular ( p / me c ) and parallel momentum ( p|| / c ). 23 Figure 6. Schematics of diffusion curves and contours of constant phase space density illustrating electron distribution energy gain (Panel A), energy loss (Panel B), and no energy change (Panel C). Diffusion curves are plotted in black and contours of constant phase space density (PSD) are plotted in gray. Diffusion of electrons along the diffusion curves is represented by black arrows. Green arrows show the gradient in phase space density and red arrows show the dominant direction of diffusion. Figure 7. Plot showing identification of storms with (events) and without (non-events) electron flux enhancements. The top panel plots >2MeV electron flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) measured by the Polar HIST instrument during 1997 at L=3 (green), 4 ( blue), 5 (black) and 6 (red). The bottom panel plots the Dst (nT) index. Events are marked with red asteriks and non-events are marked with red circles. Figure 8. Plot showing identification of storms with (events) and without (non-events) electron flux enhancements. The top panel plots >2MeV electron flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) measured by the Polar HIST instrument during 1998 at L=3 (green), 4 ( blue), 5 (black) and 6 (red). The bottom panel plots the Dst (nT) index. Events are marked with red asteriks and non-events are marked with red circles. Figure 9. Plot showing identification of storms with (events) and without (non-events) electron flux enhancements. The top panel plots >2MeV electron flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) measured by the Polar HIST instrument during 1999 at L=3 (green), 4 ( blue), 5 (black) 24 and 6 (red). The bottom panel plots the Dst (nT) index. Events are marked with red asteriks and non-events are marked with red circles. Figure 10. Plot showing identification of storms with (events) and without (non-events) electron flux enhancements. The top panel plots >2MeV electron flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) measured by the Polar HIST instrument during 1997 at L=3 (green), 4 ( blue), 5 (black) and 6 (red). The bottom panel plots the Dst (nT) index. Events are marked with red asteriks and non-events are marked with red circles. Figure 11. Schematic illustrating the definition of the anisotropy indicator as explained in the text. The figure shows contours of constant phase space density plotted as a function of perpendicular ( p / m0 c ) and parallel momentum ( p|| / c ). Figure 12. Superposed epoch analysis of anisotropy using data from all electron flux enhancement events shown in Figure 8. Each panel shows anisotropy plotted in dipolar coordinates in the Y-Z plane. Anisotropy is indicated by the color scale. The anisotropies are plotted for electrons with energy equal to 4.0 MeV at 90o. The thin blue traces plot dipole magnetic field lines. Panels A-C show anisotropy 3 days prior to minimum Dst. Panels D-I show anisotropy 6 days after the storm. Figure 13. Equatorial anisotropy during storms with relativistic electron flux enhancements. Each panel plots equatorial anisotropy versus Y in dipole coordinates. Thick red traces plot mean anisotropy 3 days prior to minimum Dst. Thin red traces plot 25 the standard error of the mean. Black traces plot mean anisotropy 5 days after minimum Dst. Thin black traces plot the standard error of the mean. Figure 14. Panels A-F plot differential flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) versus pitch angle measured at fixed energy throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 15. Panels A-F plot energy spectra throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 16. Panels A-F plot contours of constant phase space density throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 17. Equatorial anisotropy during storms without relativistic electron flux enhancements. Each panel plots equatorial anisotropy versus Y in dipole coordinates. Thick red traces plot mean anisotropy 3 days prior to minimum Dst. Thin red traces plot the standard error of the mean. Thick black traces plot mean anisotropy 5 days after minimum Dst. Thin black lines plot the standard error. 26 Figure 18. Panels A-F plot differential flux (#/cm2-s-str MeV) versus pitch angle measured at fixed energy throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 19. Panels A-F plot energy spectra throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 20. Panels A-F plot contours of constant phase space density throughout the storm event that occurred on February 18, 1999. The data are measured at the equator between L=4-4.5. Panel G plots the Dst index (nT). Vertical lines mark the time of the equator crossings. Figure 21. Comparison of anisotropies during storms with (events) and without (nonevents) electron flux enhancements. Red traces plot the subtraction of event anisotropies from non-event anisotropies in the 3 days prior to minimum Dst. Green traces plot the subtraction of event anisotropies from non-event anisotropies in the 5 days after minimum Dst. Figure 22. Comparison of dawn and dusk anisotropies during events. Red traces plot dusk anisotropies and blue traces plot dawn anisotropies. 27 Figure 23. Comparison of dawn and dusk anisotropies during non-events. Red traces plot dusk anisotropies and blue traces plot dawn anisotropies. Figure 24. Plot showing identification of storms with (events) and without (non-events) electron flux enhancements. Panels 1A-4A plot LANL geosynchronous 1.8-3.5 MeV electron flux (#/cm2-s-str-keV). Panels 1-4B plot the Dst (nT) index. Events are marked with red asteriks and non-events are marked with gray asteriks. 28