On the electron-ion temperature ratio established by collisionless shocks
Open accessAbstract
Astrophysical shocks are often collisionless shocks, in which the changes in plasma flow and temperatures across the shock are established not through Coulomb interactions, but through electric and magnetic fields. An open question about collisionless shocks is whether electrons and ions each establish their own post-shock temperature (non-equilibration of temperatures), or whether they quickly equilibrate in the shock region. Here we provide a simple, thermodynamic, relation for the minimum electron-ion temperature ratios that should be expected as a function of Mach number. 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 shock, in order for the plasma to remain charge neutral. The only form of additional electron heating that we allow for is adiabatic heating, caused by the compression of the electron gas. These assumptions result in an analytic treatment of expected electron-ion temperature ratio that agrees with observations of collisionless shocks: at low sonic Mach numbers, Ms ≲ 2, the electron-ion temperature ratio is close to unity, whereas for Mach numbers above Ms ≈ 60 the electron-ion temperature ratio asymptotically approaches a temperature ratio of Te/Ti = me/ ⟨ mi ⟩. In the intermediate Mach number range the electron-ion temperature ratio scales as Te/Ti ∝ Ms-2. In addition, we calculate the electron-ion temperature ratios under the assumption of adiabatic heating of the electrons only, which results in a higher electron-ion temperature ratio, but preserves the Te/Ti ∝ Ms-2 scaling. We also show that for magnetised shocks the electron-ion temperature ratio approaches the asymptotic value Te/Ti = me/ ⟨ mi ⟩ for lower magnetosonic Mach numbers (Mms), mainly because for a strongly magnetised shock the sonic Mach number is larger than the magnetosonic Mach number (Mms ≤ Ms). The predicted scaling of the electron-ion temperature ratio is in agreement with observational data for magnetosonic Mach numbers between 2 and 10, but for supernova remnants the relation requires that the inferred Mach numbers for the observations are overestimated, 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, which is the fraction of the enthalpy-flux difference between electrons and ions that is used for equilibrating the electron and ion temperatures. Comparing the model to existing observations in the solar system and supernova remnants suggests that the data are best described by ξ ≳ 5%, but also provides a hint that the Mach number of some supernova remnant shocks may have been overestimated; perhaps as a result of heating in the cosmic-ray precursor.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The required Mach number for a shock to produce the observed electron spectral index is M ≃ 2.
“Simple calculations of the RankineHugnoit conditions across a shock suggest a Mach number M≃ 2 for producing the required spectral index (Hoeft & Brüggen 2007; Vink et al. 2015).”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Vink et al. 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way
Sarkar, K. C. (2024) · The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review · doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00152-1 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“2 keV for the CGM; Miller & Bregman 2015) and heating due to shock compression (Vink et al. 2015).”
BackgroundMethodClues to the origin of Fermi bubbles from O viii/O vii line ratio
Sarkar, K. C., Nath, B. B., & Sharma, P. (2017) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx314 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vink, J., Broersen, S., Bykov, A., & Gabici, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Ioffe Institute (RU)
- ORCID
- Vink, Jacco
- Venue
- Astronomy & Astrophysics
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2015-06-19
- Volume
- 579
- Pages
- A13
- ISSN
- 0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0746
- OpenAlex
- W1621667695
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
- Keywords
- collisionless shocks, electron-ion temperature ratio, Mach number scaling, adiabatic heating, magnetosonic Mach number, charge neutrality, density jump, supernova remnants, plasma thermodynamics, electron heating, ion heating, cosmic ray acceleration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review