On coronal influence for GCR distribution in the absence of its interaction with the interstellar medium
Heading:
| 1Kolesnyk, YL, 1Shakhov, BA 1Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine |
| Kinemat. fiz. nebesnyh tel (Online) 2015, 31(1):32-39 |
| Start Page: Space Physics |
| Language: Russian |
Abstract: Two problems of stationary galactic cosmic ray (GCR) modulation in closed heliospheric model are considered. In so doing the heliosphere is seen as a spherically-symmetrical medium restricted by heliopause and the GCR are considered as propagating from it to a region which is spheri-cally-symmetrical with respect to the Sun (corona). The GCR scattering beyond coronal region is characterized by the constant diffusion coefficient. The solar wind velocity does not change in this region also. In the first problem of the paper, the GCR are absorbed on the corona border due to the interaction with coronal substance. In the second problem, the GCR are elastically scattered by the corona magnetic fields. It is shown that coronal influence on the GCR modulation manifests itself only in some restricted region near the Sun. |
| Keywords: cosmic rays, magnetic corona fields |
References:
1. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, Ed. by M. Abramowitz, and I. A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1964; Nauka, Moscow, 1979).
2.V. A. Ditkin and A. P. Prudnikov, Integral Transforms and Operational Calculus, (Nauka, Moscow, 1974) [in Russian].
3.A. Z. Dolginov and I. N. Toptygin, “Multiple scattering of particles in a magnetic field with random inhomogeneities,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 51, 1771–1783 (1966).
4.L. I. Dorman, M. E. Kats, and B. A. Shakhov, “On a connection between different shapes of the diffusion equation of cosmic rays,” Geomagn. Aeron. 16, 919–920 (1976).
5.B. A. Shakhov and Yu. L. Kolesnik, “Heliospheric propagation of galactic cosmic rays depending on the scattering characteristics of the turbulent interplanetary magnetic field,” Kinematics Phys. Celestial Bodies 24, 280–292 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591308060032
6.R. Arlt and N. Weiss, “Solar activity in the past and the chaotic behavior of the dynamo,” arXiv:1406.7628 (2014).
7.P. Bobik, G. Boella, M. J. Goschini, et al., “Systematic investigation of solar modulation of galactic protons for solar cycle 23 using a Monte Carlo approach with particle drift effects and latitudinal dependence,” Astrophys. J. 745, 132 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/132
8.G. M. Boezio, P. Carlson, T. Francke, et al., “The cosmic ray proton and helium spectra between 0.4 GV and 200 GV,” Astrophys. Astrophys. J. 518, 457–472 (1999).
https://doi.org/10.1086/307251
9.Yu. L. Kolesnik and B.A. Shakhov, “Effect of the heliosheath and standing termination shock on galactic cosmic ray propagation in a stationary heliosphere model,” Kinematics Phys. Celestial Bodies 28, 261–269 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591312060049
10.V. V. Pipin, “The Gleissberg cycle by a nonlinear αΛ dynamo,” Astron. Astrophys. 346, 95–302 (1999).
11.R. Schlickeiser, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics, (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6
12.I.H. Urch and L. J. Gleeson, “Galactic cosmic ray modulation from 1965–1970,” Astrophys. Space Sci. 17, 426–446 (1972).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00642912