Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:40:11.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Magnetic Energy Release in Relativistic Plasma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Hiroyuki R. Takahashi
Affiliation:
Center for Computational Astrophysics, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan email: [email protected]
Ken Ohsuga
Affiliation:
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The efficiency of the energy conversion rate in the relativistic magnetic reconnection is investigated by means of Relativistic Resistive Magnetohydrodynamic (R2MHD) simulations. We confirmed that the simple Sweet-Parker type magnetic reconnection is a slow process for the energy conversion as theoretically predicted by Lyubarsky (2005). After the Sweet-Parker regime, we found a growth of the secondary tearing instability in the elongated current sheet. Then the energy conversion rate and the outflow velocity of reconnection jet increase rapidly. Such a rapid energy conversion would explain the time variations observed in many astrophysical flaring events.

To construct a more realistic model of relativistic reconnection, we extend our R2MHD code to R3MHD code by including the radiation effects (Relativistic Resistive Radiation Magnetohydrodynamics R3MHD). The radiation field is described by the 0th and 1st moments of the radiation intensity (Farris et al. 2008, Shibata et al. 2011). The code has already passed some one-dimensional and multi-dimensional numerical problems. We demonstrate the first results of magnetic reconnection in the radiation dominated current sheet.

Type
Poster Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Drenkhahn, G. 2002, A&A, 387, 714Google Scholar
Farris, B. D., Li, T. K., Liu, Y. T., & Shapiro, S. L. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennel, C. F. & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyutikov, M. & Uzdensky, D. 2003, ApJ, 589, 893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masada, Y., Nagataki, S., Shibata, K., & Terasawa, T. 2010, PAJS, 62, 1093Google Scholar
McKinney, J. C. & Uzdensky, D. A. 2010, ArXiv e-printsGoogle Scholar
Shibata, M., Kiuchi, K., Sekiguchi, Y., & Suwa, Y. 2011, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 125, 1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, H. R., Kudoh, T., Masada, Y., & Matsumoto, J. 2011, ApJ, 739, L53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, N. & Yokoyama, T. 2006, ApJ, 647, L123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanotti, O. & Dumbser, M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenitani, S., Hesse, M., & Klimas, A. 2010, ApJ, 716, L214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, B. & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ 726, 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar