Variability of the pitch angle distribution of radiation belt ultrarelativistic electrons during and following intense geomagnetic storms: Van Allen Probes observations
Open Access
- 1 June 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
- Vol. 120 (6) , 4863-4876
Abstract
Fifteen months of pitch angle resolved Van Allen Probes Relativistic Electron‐Proton Telescope (REPT) measurements of differential electron flux are analyzed to investigate the characteristic variability of the pitch angle distribution of radiation belt ultrarelativistic (>2 MeV) electrons during storm conditions and during the long‐term poststorm decay. By modeling the ultrarelativistic electron pitch angle distribution as sinnα, where α is the equatorial pitch angle, we examine the spatiotemporal variations of the n value. The results show that, in general, n values increase with the level of geomagnetic activity. In principle, ultrarelativistic electrons respond to geomagnetic storms by becoming more peaked at 90° pitch angle with n values of 2–3 as a supportive signature of chorus acceleration outside the plasmasphere. High n values also exist inside the plasmasphere, being localized adjacent to the plasmapause and exhibiting energy dependence, which suggests a significant contribution from electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) wave scattering. During quiet periods, n values generally evolve to become small, i.e., 0–1. The slow and long‐term decays of the ultrarelativistic electrons after geomagnetic storms, while prominent, produce energy and L‐shell‐dependent decay time scales in association with the solar and geomagnetic activity and wave‐particle interaction processes. At lower L shells inside the plasmasphere, the decay time scales τd for electrons at REPT energies are generally larger, varying from tens of days to hundreds of days, which can be mainly attributed to the combined effect of hiss‐induced pitch angle scattering and inward radial diffusion. As L shell increases to L~3.5, a narrow region exists (with a width of ~0.5 L), where the observed ultrarelativistic electrons decay fastest, possibly resulting from efficient EMIC wave scattering. As L shell continues to increase, τd generally becomes larger again, indicating an overall slower loss process by waves at high L shells. Our investigation based upon the sinnα function fitting and the estimate of decay time scale offers a convenient and useful means to evaluate the underlying physical processes that play a role in driving the acceleration and loss of ultrarelativistic electrons and to assess their relative contributions.Keywords
Funding Information
- NSFC (41204120, 41474141)
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2042014kf0251)
- JHU/APL
- NASA's (NAS5-01072)
- ECT
- NASA (NNX11AR64G)
This publication has 48 references indexed in Scilit:
- An impenetrable barrier to ultrarelativistic electrons in the Van Allen radiation beltsNature, 2014
- Gradual diffusion and punctuated phase space density enhancements of highly relativistic electrons: Van Allen Probes observationsGeophysical Research Letters, 2014
- A Long-Lived Relativistic Electron Storage Ring Embedded in Earth’s Outer Van Allen BeltScience, 2013
- An improved dispersion relation for parallel propagating electromagnetic waves in warm plasmas: Application to electron scatteringJournal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2013
- The Relativistic Electron-Proton Telescope (REPT) Instrument on Board the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) Spacecraft: Characterization of Earth’s Radiation Belt High-Energy Particle PopulationsSpace Science Reviews, 2012
- Pitch angle distributions of energetic electrons at SaturnJournal of Geophysical Research, 2011
- Simulation of EMIC wave excitation in a model magnetosphere including structured high‐density plumesJournal of Geophysical Research, 2009
- Pitch angle distribution analysis of radiation belt electrons based on Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite Medium Electrons A dataJournal of Geophysical Research, 2007
- Differences between CME‐driven storms and CIR‐driven stormsJournal of Geophysical Research, 2006
- Electron scattering loss in Earth's inner magnetosphere: 2. Sensitivity to model parametersJournal of Geophysical Research, 1998