Quasi-separatrix layers and three-dimensional reconnection diagnostics for line-tied tearing modes

TL;DR

This paper investigates magnetic reconnection in three-dimensional line-tied plasma systems using diagnostics like the squashing factor and electrostatic potential difference, revealing insights into tearing modes and quasi-separatrix layers.

Contribution

It introduces a comparative analysis of two magnetic field line diagnostics for detecting tearing-like behavior in line-tied modes within resistive MHD.

Findings

Squashing factor effectively identifies quasi-separatrix layers.

Electrostatic potential difference correlates with tearing activity.

Diagnostics distinguish between geometric and tearing widths.

Abstract

In three-dimensional magnetic configurations for a plasma in which no closed field line or magnetic null exists, no magnetic reconnection can occur, by the strictest definition of reconnection. A finitely long pinch with line-tied boundary conditions, in which all the magnetic field lines start at one end of the system and proceed to the opposite end, is an example of such a system. Nevertheless, for a long system of this type, the physical behavior in resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) essentially involves reconnection. This has been explained in terms comparing the geometric and tearing widths [1, 2]. The concept of a quasi-separatrix layer[3, 4] was developed for such systems. In this paper we study a model for a line-tied system in which the corresponding periodic system has an unstable tearing mode. We analyze this system in terms of two magnetic field line diagnostics, the squashing factor[3-5] and the electrostatic potential difference used in kinematic reconnection studies[6, 7]. We discuss the physical and geometric significance of these two diagnostics and compare them in the context of discerning tearing-like behavior in line-tied modes. [1] G. L. Delzanno and J. M. Finn. Physics of Plasmas, 15(3):032904, 2008. [2] Y.-M. Huang and E. G. Zweibel. Physics of Plasmas, 16(4):042102, 2009. [3] E. R. Priest and P. D\'emoulin. J. Geophys. Res., 100(A12):23443-23463, 1995. [4] P. D\'emoulin, J. C. Henoux, E. R. Priest, and C. H. Mandrini. Astron. Astrophys., 308:643-655, Apr. 1996. [5] V. S. Titov and G. Hornig. Advances in Space Research, 29(7):1087-1092, 2002. [6] Y. Lau and J. M. Finn. The Astrophysical Journal, 350:672-691, Feb. 1990. [7] Y. Lau and J. M. Finn. The Astrophysical Journal, 366:577-591, 1991.