Mirror mode junctions as sources of radiation
aa r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . p l a s m - ph ] J a n Mirror mode junctions as sources of radiation
R. A. Treumann ∗ and Wolfgang Baumjohann International Space Science Institute, Bern, Switzerland Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria ∗ On leave from Department of Geophysics and Environmental Sciences, Munich University, Munich, Germany
Correspondence to : W. Baumjohann ([email protected])
Abstract . – Mirror modes in collisionless high-temperature plasmas represent macroscopic high-temperature quasi-super-conductors with bouncing electrons in discrete-particle resonance with thermal ion-sound noise contributing to the ion-modegrowth beyond quasilinear stability. In the semi-classical GL approximation the conditions for phase transition are given. Thequasi-superconducting state is of second kind causing a magnetically perforated plasma texture. Focussing on the interac-tion of mirror bubbles we apply semi-classical Josephson conditions and show that a mirror perforated plasma emits weakelectromagnetic radiation which in the magnetosheath is in the sub-millimeter respectively infrared range.
Keywords : Mirror modes, Josephson junction, Radiation
The mirror mode (Chandrasekhar, 1961; Vedenov et al., 1961; Hasegawa, 1969, 1975; Davidson, 1972; Kivelson & Southwood,1996; Gary, 1993; Southwood & Kivelson, 1993; Pokhotelov et al., 2001, 2000, 2002, 2004; Constantinescu, 2002; Constantinescu et al.,2003; Sulem, 2011; Rincon et al., 2015; Noreen et al., 2017) which, in high temperature plasma, evolves under anisotropic A i = P i ⊥ /P i k − > pressure conditions, can be interpreted as kind of a phase transition from (unstable) normal to (sta-tionary) second-kind quasi-superconducting state (Treumann & Baumjohann, 2019, 2020). It causes the plasma to becomemagnetically perforated. This raises the question, investigated in this letter, in what way closely spaced mirror bubbles mayinteract possibly producing identifiable effects other than diamagnetic field depletions.This second-kind superconducting phase transition (Ginzburg & Landau, 1950) is known from low temperature solid statephysics (Bardeen et al., 1957; Callaway, 1990), evolving Meissner diamagnetism based on electron pairing and condensationthat pushes the magnetic field locally out. In mirror modes the possibility of similar condensations has recently been demon-strated (Treumann & Baumjohann, 2019). The transition is initiated by the mirror instability, which starts under the necessarycondition of positive ion pressure anisotropy A i = 0 . In addition, the sufficient condition for instability requires the magneticfield strength B to drop below a threshold B c B < B c ≈ p µ N T i ⊥ A i | sin θ m | (1) hich follows from the linear ion-mirror growth rate γω ci ≈ k k λ i A i r β p k π h A i + r T e ⊥ T i ⊥ A e − k k ⊥ β p ⊥ i (2)The electron anisotropy A e ≈ is assumed negligible initially, k k ≪ k ⊥ , λ i = c/ω i ion inertial length, plasma- β p = 2 µ N ( T i + T e ) /B . Sometimes this is inverted into a condition on the (arbitrary) angle of wave propagation (Southwood & Kivelson,1993) θ m = tan − k ⊥ /k k but the relevant physics is contained in the field threshold. The two conditions together yield that thecritical (ion) temperature is T ci ⊥ = T i k which means that T i k − T i ⊥ ≥ , “normal” state (3) T i k − T i ⊥ < , “quasi − superconducting” which indeed reminds at the solid state superconducting phase transition. The mirror instability readily saturates quasilin-early on the expense of the ion anisotropy (cf., e.g., Davidson, 1972; Treumann & Baumjohann, 1997) forming elongated k k ≪ k ⊥ magnetic bottles. Landau diamagnetic theory (cf., e.g., Huang, 1973) suggests that any finite temperature diamag-netism is macroscopically very small, which is confirmed by simulations (Noreen et al., 2017) which show the saturationamplitude to remain minuscule. The observation of large-amplitude localized quasi-stationary magnetic depletions of . (see Treumann & Baumjohann, 2018, for examples in high resolution) must be enforced by conditions which are not includedin linear or quasilinear theory (Treumann et al., 2004). We do not go into discussing this problem here as it has been the subjectof previous publications (cf., Treumann & Baumjohann, 2018, 2019). We just note that a number of simulations (Rincon et al.,2015; Yao et al., 2019) and theory (Sulem, 2011) claim that nonlinear interactions between ions and waves provide large mag-netic amplitudes (see the discussion in Treumann & Baumjohann, 2019). In simple words, nonlinear scattering off waves,as sometimes assumed, increases diffusivity and entropy which primarily inhibits structure formation. The argument of in-creased internal pressure also fails because pressure is compensated by the large and elastic environment volume. It dilutes themagnetic field only infinitesimally. Bubbles can deepen only on the expense of their neighbours along the same flux tube bysucking in plasma, which contradicts the observation of long mirror chains while supporting observation of isolated bubbles(Luehr & Kloecker N, 1987; Treumann et al., 1990). One way out of the above mentioned basic physical dilemma between observation and theory may be related to the resonanceof bouncing particles in the mirror bubble and the persistent thermal ion-acoustic background noise which is independent ofthe presence of mirror modes (Treumann & Baumjohann, 2018, 2019). These resonant bouncing particles (we here restrict toelectrons, but ions if bouncing could contribute in a similar way as well) form the required condensate for phase transition.
The resonance is a discrete particle effect. It applies to all electrons in the Debye sphere and is in contrast to the small number ofLandau-resonant electrons (like in the radiation belts, Kennel & Petschek, 1966) which generate the banded whistler lion roars(cf., e.g., Smith and Tsurutani, 1976; Tsurutani et al., 1982; Zhang et al., 1998; Baumjohann et al., 1999; Maksimovic et al.,2001; Ahmadi et al., 2018; Breuillard et al., 2018; Giagkiozis et al., 2018) in mirror bubbles. In contrast, trapped electronsperforming their bounce motion in the quasilinearly stable mirror bubble resonate with the permanently present thermal ion-acoustic background noise of frequency ω s through v k ≈ ω s /k near their mirror points where their parallel velocity v k ≈ c s becomes comparable to the ion-sound speed c s = p T e /m i . This applies to a large number N p of electrons. In resonancethey become locked to the wave and drop out of their bounce motion while maintaining their large energy anisotropy. Manysuch locked electrons form the condensate. Their anisotropy further increases when they move with the ion-acoustic wave intothe strong magnetic field beyond their mirror points. This mechanism also causes a weak attractive potential field at distance ξ ≈ . λ D in the wake of each resonant electron which by trapping another electron acts as Pippard’s correlation length. Thefractional number density of condensate electrons N = N p /N < may in this case not be small. Under the assumption thatinitially A e ≈ , the condensate anisotropy becomes A e = 2 T e m e c s − m i m e − ≈ m i m e (4)which enters the above ion-mode growth rate at quasilinear stability with quasilinearly compensated ion contribution, causingthe instability to grow beyond the quasilinear limit. This effect corresponds to the noted condensate formation by pairing inmetals though is basically different as here it is a high temperature classical effect. Further evolution implies pressure balanceand the cause of surface gradient currents which has the effect of generating a partial London-Meissner diamagnetic effect.This phase transition can be treated in analogy to Ginzburg -Landau theory (Treumann & Baumjohann, 2020). It is, here,instructive to note that the above noted similar discrete-particle ion-resonance with ion-sound waves, though possible, as canbe easily shown in the same way as for electrons, yields that the condensate-ion anisotropy becomes A i ≈ T i /T e − . This ion-condensate anisotropy is positive only in high ion temperature plasma T i > T e where ions have become heated, for instanceby the presence of a shock and behind it, as would be the case in the magnetosheath. However, in order to compete with theelectron anisotropy T i ≫ T e is required which is probably unrealistic. The semi-classical first Ginzburg-Landau equation is obtained by putting ~ → . With A magnetic vector potential it reads e m e A ψ + αψ + β | ψ | ψ = 0 (5)where ψ is the condensate wave function, α, β constants. Clearly β > . It has the symmetric normal state solution ψ = 0 for α > , and in condensate formation α = − a < after symmetry breaking the solution β | ψ | = a − e m e A > (6) hich means that the density N p of resonant electrons is finite. Here, | ψ | ∼ N p /N ≡ N as we will also use it below whendiscussing radiation. Hence phase transition occurs if only a > ( e / m e ) A . In the magnetosheath we have | A | ∼ B ∆ L ≈ − Vs/m. Hence the requirement is that a & − VAs or ∼ eV. (One may note that for ion condensate formation thisvalue reduces by more than three orders of magnitude and might thus favour ions even though their anisotropy cannot competewith that of electrons, a case which we do not investigate further here.) Since we require that N < the condition on thecoefficients in GL-theory is simply that < a/β < β/ eV) − (7)The absolute values of these coefficients are unimportant. Approximate relations between these coefficients and the mirrorconditions have also been obtained (Treumann & Baumjohann, 2020) but will not be repeated here. Hence there is some rangewhere phase transition becomes probable which, for the purpose of this Letter, should suffice. The physical meaning is thatthe discrete resonant-electron condensate causes macroscopic diamagnetism which substantially diminishes the magnetic fieldlocally. In mirror chains the magnetic field penetrates the quasi-superconducting region just up to a length λ m ≈ κ G λ L & λ L withLondon skin depth λ L ≈ N − / λ i . Here λ i = ( m i /m e ) / λ e is the ion skin depth, λ e = c/ω e and ω e the electron plasmafrequency, and κ G the Ginzburg ratio, defined below. In real mirror bubbles it does, however, deplete the magnetic field onlypartially, not completely, a point which is fundamental to the above mechanism of phase transition and the generation of chainsof mirror bubbles. Maintenance of a magnetic field fraction is crucial because it must maintain and enable the required bouncemotion of electrons. The discrete-particle resonance is only temporary and resolves after a while but the large number anddistribution of bouncing electrons over the whole volume guarantees for the permanent presence of a locked electron populationand the condensate distributed over the volume of the mirror bubble. The property of a second-kind quasi-superconductor isprovided by the Ginzburg-Landau ratio κ G = λ L ξ > (8)The plasma perforates into a large number of bubbles (mirror chains) with local diamagnetism caused by the condensate ineach bubble. It does not embrace the whole plasma volume. (Clearly, complete Meissner effects in space, for instance themagnetosheath, are unrealistic as they would deplete the entire plasma volume of magnetic fields on the large scale, whichis not observed and thus does not take place.) Since ξ is the scale where the electrons feel their mutual attracting potentialsclose to all the continuously distributed mirror points of the trapped bouncing electrons, it is a natural correlation length of theelectrons in the mirror mode plasma. Clearly, the correlation length ξ ≈ . λ D < λ m . In the magnetosheath one then has about < κ G < which suggests strong magnetic perforation as is clearly observed and, in addition large skin depth, reflectingthat the bubbles are only partially depleted of the magnetic field.In this view mirror mode chains can be considered classical representations of a second-kind superconducting Ginzburg-Landau phase transition from normal to perforated plasma state in high temperature plasma. Their observation in the turbulent agnetosheath behind the bow shock, which is a strong shock, is due to the capacity of the shock to generate conditions inthe transition region between the shock and magnetopause which satisfy both the necessary and sufficient conditions for theevolution of the mirror mode.Once mirror chains have evolved and the plasma has become perforated by the quasi-superconducting phase transitiondescribed above, the question arises whether the closely spaced mirror bubbles may interact. In the following we focus on thisinteraction between mirror bubbles and its possible observational signature. The problem of interaction of two superconductors (in our case two quasi-superconducting partially magnetic field depletedmirror bubbles separated by a non-superconducting magnetized sheet) is the celebrated Josephson problem (Josephson, 1962,1964). It makes use of the Landau-Ginzburg mesoscopic theory of superconductivity (Ginzburg & Landau, 1950) which isapplicable in this case. The order parameter is the expectation value of the wave function ψ given by h ψψ ∗ i = N , which inour case is the above introduced fractional density N of the bouncing electrons in resonance with the ion-acoustic thermalbackground fluctuations which form the condensate. The interaction includes of course the boundaries of the two bubbles andhence takes into account the current while the interior is of little interest in the interaction. It just responses by the exponentialpartial Meissner screening of the magnetic field B = B exp( − x/λ m ) with λ m the penetration depth which for N < is largerthan the inertial length λ i = c/ω i ≈ λ e and the London length in a proton plasma. Since mirror bubbles are ion modes eventhough driven unstable by electrons one here must use the ion inertial length, with ω i the ion plasma frequency. Observationssuggest that the mirror penetration length is roughly λ m ≈ (10 − λ L which on its own suggests that N . − .The wave function of superconduction which in the above spirit we apply to the case of mirror modes obeys the aboveused first Ginzburg-Landau equation (as was proposed in Treumann & Baumjohann, 2018, 2019). The current, being purelyelectronic, is given by the well known quantum mechanical expression (Ginzburg & Landau, 1950; Bardeen et al., 1957), thesecond Ginzburg-Landau equation j ( x , t ) = − ie ~ N m e (cid:0) ψ ∗ ∇ ψ − ψ ∇ ψ ∗ (cid:1) − | ψ | N κ G A µ λ e (9) = e ~ N m e | ψ | (cid:16) ∇ φ − e ~ κ G A (cid:17) (10)with A the magnetic vector potential, φ the phase of the complex wave function, and boundary condition that the normalcurrent must be continuous n · h(cid:0) ~ ∇ − ie A κ G (cid:1) ψ i − = 0 (11)where the brackets mean the difference between the quantities to both sides of the boundary, as indicated by the subscript − , and n is the normal to the boundary. Clearly, in a purely classical treatment only the last term in the current expressionsurvives when putting ~ = 0 . In our semiclassical approach we retain the quantum part of the current, which is the Josephson pproximation. Classically the quantum part is neglected, and one has j ( x ) = −| ψ | N κ G A µ λ e (12)and from Mawell’s equations trivially (cid:3) A = −| ψ | N κ G A µ λ e (13)whose solution in one dimension only is clearly B = B exp( − x/λ m ) , the explicit partial Meissner skin effect caused bythe condensate | ψ | . (Note again that the current does not explicitly depend on mass, which implies that a hypothetical ioncondensate would as well contribute to the phase transition.) Thus the important physics is contained in the generation ofthe condensate as described in the previous section. If assuming B/B ≈ . as is typical in the magnetosheath, one has that λ m ≈ . x , where x is the measured penetration length. This, in the magnetosheath, is about x ≈ km. Hence, with λ i ∼ km one confirms the order of magnitude of λ m as given above.Now, when in contrast to the above semi-classical use of the first Ginzburg-Landau equation considering the interaction of themirror bubbles, the quantum property of the phase has to be retained because it is just the phase which contains the microscopicinformation. Moreover, space plasmas are ideal conductors and no resistors. Hence the normal current will naturally be differentfrom zero and will reflect the microscopic effect of the interaction. For this reason the quantum part of the current must beretained. We will see that this is important in the case under consideration.There is, however, a difference in the region between the two bubbles. It is void of any condensate and thus that narrowdomain is void of the Meissner effect. The magnetic field and density it contains are spatially constant. Hence the differencebetween the two regions is just in the quantum mechanical term in the boundary condition and thus cannot be neglected whilethe conditions in the two adjacent bubbles may be different. Moreover, the tangential currents (which we do not consider hereas they contribute to the partial Meissner effect but are not involved into the normal current which must by itself be continuous)flowing in the adjacent bubble boundaries are in opposite directions. This implies that the two bubbles do not merge. They donot attract each other because of the repulsive Lorentz forces such that they remain separated. Nevertheless one may assumethat the separation is narrow with non-compensating currents. Since all regions are conducting a normal current will flow. Inreal superconductors separated by insulators electron tunnelling takes care of normal currents. Here these currents are real.Nevertheless because of the retained quantum mechanical part of the current, Josephson conditions apply to both its sides.These are given as ∂ n ψ − ie ~ κ G A n ψ = bψ (14) ∂ n ψ − ie ~ κ G A n ψ = − bψ (15)with b = const some real constant whose value is only of secondary importance here. This means that seen from each bubble’sside the effect of the other on the transition is constant and opposite. It is thus assumed that the transition layer between thebubbles is thin enough to consider a constant current when crossing it, thereby for simplicity neglecting any spatial fluctuationor divergence of the current. This may hold as long as the transition distance is short compared with the bubble diameter, a ondition satisfied in the magnetosheath, for instance. Moreover, the layer is neither an ideal conductor nor an ideal insulatorsuch that current flow across it is permitted. In the case when it is an ideal conductor it should be narrower than the skin depthoutside the mirror bubbles, but even if this does not apply current flow is permitted anyway.Inserting these boundary conditions into the current Eq. (9) and cancelling some terms yields for the perpendicular currentcrossing the thin layer that j n = − ieb ~ N m e (cid:0) ψ ∗ ψ − ψ ψ ∗ (cid:1) = j J sin( φ − φ ) (16)where j J = ( eb ~ /m e ) N | ψ | is the Josephson current, and we for simplicity assumed symmetry | ψ | = | ψ | up to the phases.(One may note that this current is a pure electron current; any ion-condensate contribution can be neglected because of theinverse proportionality to the mass. Clearly this is an effect of the large electron mobility.) This is most easily seen whenreplacing the functions ψ , by the sum of their real and imaginary parts ψ = ψ r + iψ i . The difference in the round bracketsis the phase difference between the two wave functions ψ = | ψ | e iφ in the two bubbles which distinguishes them. This is aretained quantum effect even in the macroscopic case. Its importance comes into account when remembering that the gaugepotentials are defined only up to additional functions. The vector potential A → A + ∇ U is defined only up to the gradient ofa potential U , and consequently the electric field E = −∇ V − ∂ t A up to its time derivative ∂ t U . This implies from Eq. (9) thatthe phase changes as φ → φ + eU/ ~ κ G and the electric potential as V → V − ∂ t U or after comparison and elimination of U∂ t φ = eV / ~ κ G (17)showing that the phase is affected by the gauge potential.Before continuing, it is most interesting to reflect about what has happened. In principle the electrodynamic equations aregauge invariant which means that the vector and scalar potentials can be changed by adding particular gauge functions whileleaving the fields unchanged. This it true also here. However, by applying an external potential to the two mirror bubblesone fixes one particular gauge. This still does not change anything on the fields, it however breaks the gauge symmetry. Byproviding the mirror modes with a particular electric potential field they shift to a special gauge, and no other gauge can bechosen anymore. In the following we will see which consequences this produces.The gauge is in fact a (Weyl) gauge like in field theory. Time integration, with applied constant external potential V , yieldsthe well known form of the Josephson phase φ − φ = ( φ − φ ) − ω J t, ω J = e ~ κ G ( V − V ) (18)which enters into the exponent of the wave function ψ . In the presence of a potential difference V − V the current (16) inthe junction consisting of the two mirror bubbles with their common boundary of finite thickness will thus oscillate at theJosephson circular frequency ω J . Correspondingly the normal current becomes j n = j J sin(∆ φ − ω J t ) , ∆ φ = ( φ − φ ) (19) his current is a real oscillating classical normal current flowing in the boundary region of the adjacent mirror bubbles. It is acurrent which varies with time oscillating between the bubbles. (For instance, for ∆ φ = 0 one has j n = − j J sin ω J t showing that the normal current in the boundary oscillates spatially back and forth between the two bubbles.) Denoting the po-tential difference as V − V = ∆ V and introducing the magnetic flux quantum Φ = π ~ /e , the observable Josephson frequencybecomes ν J = ∆ V Φ κ G , Φ = 2 × − Vs (20)This frequency corresponds to an energy κ G ~ ω J ≈ eV multiplied by the applied potential difference ∆ V . For ∆ V ≈ V theoscillation frequency is κ G ν J ≈ × Hz, which is in the near-optical infrared. The applied potential is measured in units ofthe elementary magnetic flux. It thus reflects the oscillations or transport of elementary flux tubes at high frequency, perfectlysuited to measure very small potential differences as used in Josephson SQUIDs.
This result discovered by Josephson (Josephson, 1962) is remarkable as, according to the above discussion, it also occurs undersemi-classical conditions if only an electric potential V ( t ) is applied to the two adjacent mirror bubbles. This is the case ina streaming plasma with plasma flow across the magnetically depleted region or where an externally applied cross potentialexists. Examples are the magnetosheath (Lucek et al., 2005) or other regions like, for instance, mirror mode chains in thesolar wind (Winterhalter et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 2008). Other examples are collisionless shocks (Balogh & Treumann, 2013)which have comparably narrow transition scales, develop current sheet overshoots between magnetic depletions resembling asimilar kind of junctions. Ion-inertial scale plasma turbulence or flow-driven reconnection are further examples.The Josephson frequency of oscillation is comparably high. Its large value is due to retaining the quantum effect whichimplies normalization of the potential difference ∆ V to the small flux quantum Φ . Thus the Josephson current oscillatesat high frequency. For any classical macroscopic process it averages out as neither the flow nor the density can follow thefluctuation. It is just the current whose real phase oscillates between the two adjacent mirror bubbles. The quantum effect onthe macroscopic plasma behaviour of the fields thus disappears. This is, of course, what is expected if considering the flow orevolution of the magnetic field.However, there is one effect which is retained even in classical physics. This is radiation which can, in principle, be observedeven though its cause is to be found in quantum physics. In this sense the Josephson effect and the frequency resemble thegeneration of electromagnetic radiation by atomic processes, which are pure quantum effects with macroscopically measurableconsequences. In close similarity the Josephson radiation can, in principle, be observed from remote by monitoring its radiation.Oscillating currents represent sources of electromagnetic radiation, as prescribed by the wave equation (cid:3) A rad ( x , t ) = − µ j ( x , t ) (21) here A rad is the radiated vector potential, and j = j n n , the sinusoidal real current Eq. (19), where it should once more benoted that this is a real classical current. Any natural system which acts, even semi-classically, like a Josephson junction shouldtherefore emit electromagnetic radiation at frequency around ν J = ω J / π . The spectral width of the radiation depends on thespectral width ∆ ω of the applied time dependent external potential V ( t ) , whose Fourier transform is V ( ω ) = Z dt V ( t ) e iωt (22)whose width can be quite large, compared with the theoretical sharpness of the Josephson frequency, in particular when theflow is highly turbulent. It leads to a time dependent Josephson phase φ J ( t ) = ∆ φ − e ~ κ G t Z dt ′ V ( t ′ ) (23)and, consequently, to a radiation spectrum of some typical width ∆ ν in frequency. An electric oscillation spectrum V ( ω ) yieldsfor the fluctuating part of the phase φ J ( t ) − ∆ φ = − e πi ~ κ G Z dωω V ( ω ) (cid:0) e − iωt − (cid:1) (24)which, for the realistic case of comparably low frequency oscillations ωt ≪ yields that the Josephson frequency becomes ν J ≈ πκ G Φ Z dω V ( ω ) ≈ V ( ω max )4 πκ G Φ ∆ ω (25)The emission spectrum is only as broad as ∆ ω . Since the electric potential arises from external motions in plasma its spectrumis limited from above by the plasma frequency ∆ ω . ω e ≪ ω J . As the plasma frequency is low, any radiation of Josephsonfrequency ν J will therefore remain to be of very narrow bandwidth ∆ ν ≪ ν J and thus, when observed, will form a narrowemission line. Any spectral broadening would then have other reasons having to be retraced to the angle or the tininess of theapplied potential. One does of course not expect that this kind of radiation would be intense. Its intensity per unit volume andfrequency is well known (Jackson, 1975) to be proportional to the average spectral square of the radiated vector potential, dId Ω dω ∝ | A rad ( ω ) | ∝ µ | j J ( ω ) | = µ ( eb ~ /m ) N N (26)Because of the weakness of the maximum Josephson current j J , any susceptibly high enough radiation intensity requires alarge number of emitters closely distributed in the volume, i.e. a large number of interacting mirror bubbles and hence largevolumes, a condition that is probably not realistic in near-Earth space but may sometimes be realized under astrophysicalconditions. Hence there should be little doubt about the presence of such a radiation effect, its detectability might however bequestionable. The case of a streaming plasma is of particular interest. Let the plasma, like that in the magnetosheath, flow at a convectionspeed v such that in a frame stationary with respect to the plasma the measured electric field is E = − v × B , where B is the ocal magnetic field. Then we have dimensionally ∆ V ≈ v Φ∆ L sin θ (27)where ∆ L is the typical length scale, Φ = N Φ Φ the magnetic flux in the magnetic field, N Φ the usually large total number offlux elements, and θ the angle between the velocity v and the magnetic field B . The Josephson frequency then becomes ν J = v Φ∆ L Φ κ G sin θ ≈ vN Φ ∆ Lκ G sin θ Hz (28)As for an example, in the magnetosheath we have v & ms − , B & nT, and ∆ L ∼ m, which gives κ G ν J & × sin θ Hz just the above estimated frequency. This may become substantially reduced when the angle of plasma flow isclose to parallel.A texture of mirror bubbles closely spaced to each other in the magnetosheath should thus glow in the infrared, a frequencywhich can, without any problem leave the region of its excitation. Mirror mode chains in the solar wind on the other hand areroughly perpendicular to the flow and of generally larger extension. Hence their frequency will be higher closer to the opticalrange in the very near infrared where they occasionally could be observed. However they seem to occur rather rarely which isin contrast to the region behind shocks like the bow shock. Here they seem to be present almost at any time.Similarly one expects that the heliosheath region behind the heliospheric termination shock evolves into magnetic turbulencewhere the mirror mode will constitute its lowest frequency contribution. The flow speed of the solar wind will become reducedto values similar to the magnetosheath, while the magnetic field drops to B ≈ . nT, as expected roughly by two orders ofmagnitude (Burlaga et al., 2016; Fichtner et al., 2020). The unknown length scale will partially compensate for this drop. Onemay thus expect that the heliosheath in the region where the mirror mode will become excited behind the termination shockwill also glow in the infrared, possibly however at slightly longer wavelengths. In general, any infrared glow around stellarwinds might indicate the position of their external boundaries by this kind of Josephson effect which evolves solely in mirrormode turbulences. For very weak magnetic fields or otherwise reduced magnetic fields or slower speeds the frequency of thisglow may drop into the microwave domain. In this context it is of particular interest to refer to reconnection as these results are independent of the direction of the magneticfield. Reconnection and mirror modes may be closely related (Phan et al., 2005; Volwerk et al., 2003) as one can easily imaginethat mirror modes when encountering an antiparallel magnetic field could ignite reconnection. Moreover, they may also evolvein the reconnection process as recent MMS observations (Hau et al., 2020) of reconnection at the magnetopause and Grad-Shafranov reconstructions suggest.Consider the case of reconnection when two plasmas of oppositely directed magnetic fields approach each other. Let thembe separated by a non-magnetic plasma which by definition is ideally conducting. Then the magnetic fields penetrate it onlyup to their skin depth λ e . When the two plasmas approach each other the nonmagnetic sheet between them will becomecompressed and ultimately some plasma will be squeezed out into jets escaping from the compressed region in all directions ut ultimately preferably parallel/antiparallel to the two external magnetic fields. When the two plasmas are roughly ∼ λ e apart, the separating sheet is a field-free superconductor in whose center two antiparallel exponentially weak fields get intocontact and merge. However, the current normal to the boundaries of the sheet will be a Josephson current and oscillate atfrequency ν J in the potential ∆ V of the approaching plasmas. Hence the reconnection region should radiate at high frequency.If many such regions contact in a large volume the volume may glow in the emitted frequency. Since the plasma is highlydiluted, there is no problem for the radiation to escape and become visible from remote if only being composed of many suchradiators such that the volume emissivity becomes susceptibly large. A single reconnection region will of course emit veryweak radiation only.This is probably the case in completely evolved low frequency plasma turbulence. Recently (Treumann & Baumjohann,2015) we suggested that that the main energy dissipation in fully developed plasma turbulence may be provided at the shortest(electron) scales λ ∼ λ e by reconnection in the turbulently generated small-scale current vortices into which the streamingturbulent plasmas will necessarily decay on these scales. In general this reconnection in each single small-scale (microscopic)current sheet is weak. However since there are very many such current vortices distributed over the large-scale turbulentvolume the integrated dissipation will become substantial such that it under stationary conditions will balance the mechanicalenergy input at large scales by the large scale flow of the plasma. Since such plasmas are filled by a multitude of small-scale reconnection regions each of them representing a magnetic field-free small region, adjacent reconnection sites representJosephson junctions and thus should radiate at the local Josephson frequency which when measured provides direct informationabout the reconnection potential ∆ V rec , a quantity which is highly desired to know.We note finally that observation radiation from reconnection and/or measuring the Josephson frequency when crossing areconnection site provides a direct measurement of the reconnection potential which otherwise is nearly impossible to deter-mine for the enormous complexity of the reconnection process and reconnection site. Since the reconnection potential is a mostinteresting quantity, it would be worth the effort to measure it. The Josephson effect could provide such a possibility by puttinga SQUID onto a spacecraft or otherwise trying to measure radiation in the infrared from reconnection sites. In the magnetosheath like in any other high temperature plasma mirror modes are embedded into a relatively intense ther-mal background of ion-sound fluctuations (Rodriguez & Gurnett, 1975; Lund et al., 1996). The mean thermal level of thesefluctuations (Treumann & Baumjohann, 1997), assuming an isotropic Maxwellian background (Krall & Trivelpiece, 1973;Baumjohann & Treumann, 1996), is W s ≡ (cid:10) ǫ | δE | (cid:11) ≈ T e λ D (29)where λ D is the Debye length. At temperature T e ≈ eV, density N ≈ m − this gives an average electric fluctuationamplitude level of h δE i ≈ × − Vm − . Since h δE i ≈ h ∆ V i ∆ L − this yields a Josephson frequency κ G ν J & ∆ L Hz (30) f ∆ L ≈ λ D ∼ m is a typical wavelength of the ion sound noise, then the Josephson frequency is in the range ∼ GHz,and the radiation produced is of wavelength λ ∼ − m, in the far infrared or millimeter radio wavelength range. For larger ∆ L it again shifts closer to the infrared. Considerations of this kind may be of interest in astrophysical objects, in particular inregions of high streaming velocities across collisionless shock waves. Observations in the infrared and short wavelength radiowave spectrum could provide information about its origins.On the other hand radiation in some frequency domain may provide information about the potential difference ∆ V ofnatural systems where either mirror modes evolve or the semi-classical superconducting Meissner effect is generated. Forinstance radiation at ~ ω J = 100 eV in the X-ray domain caused by the Josephson effect indicates the presence of potentialdifferences of the order of V. These may not necessarily belong to very strong electric fields, as their strength depends onthe scale of the potential differences.
In collisionless shocks this may indeed be of particular interest. They separate regions of vastly different magnetic fieldstrengths while on the scales of the shock remain collisionless. Moreover, shock fronts exhibit various regions of differentproperties with spatially highly variable magnetic fields evolving into overshoots and, relative to the shock also “holes” in bothquasi-perpendicular and quasi-parallel shocks (Balogh & Treumann, 2013). Some of these regions may well be considered ofsimilar properties as natural Josephson junctions. Since there the cross shock flow naturally applies a substantial electric poten-tial difference ∆ V = 0 , shock transitions of such properties, in particular when relativistic (Bykov & Treumann, 2011) shouldbecome visible as sources of soft X-rays becoming emitters, as is frequently observed in astrophysics. Such X-ray radiation isconventionally attributed to shock acceleration of electrons when interacting with the shock front. However, part of the radia-tion may also be caused by the Josephson junction effect inside the shock as well as in any texture of mirror modes downstreamof the shock. The distinction between the two regions is given by a difference in the emitted spectrum. The much higher veloc-ity difference prevalent to the shock transition than downstream places the former into the X-ray domain, while downstreamradiation would be substantially softer reaching into the optical to infrared spectral ranges. Of course, in any case the intensityof the radiation will be low, depending on the number of mirror bubbles, the velocity of the cross flow, and magnetic field. Onwould expect the highest intensity from strong relativistic shocks or otherwise from a large volume of turbulence.In the magnetosheath, the region where near Earth one observes mirror modes, the conditions are that the plasma is diluteof the order of N ∼ m − . The responsible applied electric field is that of the streaming plasma which in mirror modes isquite slow, of the order of v ≈ ms − in a magnetic field of some B ≈ nT. This yields an electric field of the order of E ≈ Bv sin θ ∼ − sin θ Vm − . This gives an oscillation frequency ν J ∼ ∆ L Hz, where ∆ L is the width of the sheetcrossed by the magnetosheath flow in meters. It probably compensates for the reduction of the frequency, but if the flow ismostly parallel to the magnetic field, then the oscillation frequency may be reduced substantially. A nearly parallel flow maynevertheless bring it down into the microwave domain of GHz. In any case, the mirror mode should become a high frequencyradiator. Thus, if a comparably large volume is filled with an ensemble of mirror modes it may manifest itself as a source ofincoherent radiation at high frequency if the plasma experiences a cross flow.
12 Summary
Following earlier work on condensate formation in magnetic mirror modes we have provided the conditions for a quasi-superconducting phase transition in high temperature plasma, following the linear mirror instability. In this process bouncingcharged particles in discrete particle resonance with the thermal ion acoustic background noise lock to the ion sound wave andtemporarily escape from bounce motion while generating a large anisotropy. Through production of a weak attracting electricpotential in their wakes they give rise to a correlation length ξ . The phase transition is governed by the semi-classical GL theoryand results in a second kind quasi-superconducting state exhibiting a partial Meissner effect. Since the Ginzburg ratio κ G > is large, the phase transition perforates the plasma causing a magnetic texture which consists of chains of mirror bubbles.We then investigated the interaction of two closely spaced bubbles finding that it can be described as Josephson junctionsproducing a classical signature in weak high frequency electromagnetic radiation at frequency depending on the equivalentelectric field and direction of the plasma flow. Its frequency is far above the plasma frequency cut-off such that it would beobservable from remote. Though weak and if observable it maps the mirror mode region into frequency space. Similar effectsare expected in reconnection and shocks and could be of interest in application to astrophysical objects. Acknowledgement.
This work was part of a Visiting Scientist Programme at the International Space Science Institute Bern. We acknowledgethe hospitality of the ISSI directorate and staff. We acknowledge helpful discussions with a number of colleagues, A. Balogh, C.H.K. Chen,R. Nakamura, Y. Narita, Z. Vörös, and others, some of them being rather critical of any detectable mesoscale or macroscale quantum effectsin high temperature plasmas.
Ahmadi N, Wilder FD, Ergun RE, Argall M, Usanova ME, Breuillard H, Malaspina D, Paulson K, Germaschewski K, Eriksson S, GoodrichK, Torbert R, Le Contel O, Strangeway RJ, Russell CT, Burch J, and Giles B (2018) Generation of electron whistler waves at the mirrormode magnetic holes: MMS observations and pic simulations, accessible at arXiv:1803.06399v1 [physics.space-ph], Journal GeophysicalResearch 123, 6383-6393, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025452.Balogh A and Treumann RA (2013) Physics of Collisionless Shocks (Springer: New York) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6099-2.Bardeen J, Cooper LN, and Schrieffer JR (1957) Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175-1204,https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1175.Baumjohann W and Treumann RA (2012) Basic space plasma physics, Imperial College Press, London, 1996. Revised and extended edition,Imperial College Press, London, https://doi.org/10.1142/P850.Baumjohann W, Treumann RA, Georgescu E, Haerendel G, Fornaçon KH, and Auster U (1999) Waveform and packet structure of lion roars,Ann. Geophys. 17, 1528-1534, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1528-9.Breuillard H, Le Contel O, Chust T, Berthomier M, Retino A, Turner DL, Nakamura R, Baumjohannn W, Cozzani G, Catapano F, Alexan-drova A, Mirioni L, Graham DB, Argall MR, Fischer D, Wilder FD, Gershman DJ, Varsani A, Lindqvist P-A, Khotyaintsev YuV,Marklund G, Ergun RE, Goodrich KA, Ahmadi N, Burch JL, Torbert RB, Needell G, Chutter M, Rau D, Dors I, Russell CT, MagnesW, Strangeway RJ, Bromund KR, Wei H, Plaschke F, Anderson BJ, Le G, Moore TE, Giles BL, Paterson WR, Pollock CJ, DorelliJC, Avanov LA, Saito A, Lavraud B, Fuselier SA, Mauk BH, Cohen IJ, and Fennell JF (2018) The properties of Lion roars and elec-tron dynamics in mirror mode waves observed by the Magnetospheric MultiScale Mission, Journal Geophysical Research 123, 93-103,https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024551.Burlaga LF, Ness NF, Richardson JD, Decker RB, Krimigis SM (2016) Heliosheath maggnetic field and plasma observed by Voyager 2during 2012 in the rising phase of the solar cycle 24, Astrophysical Journal 818, 147, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/147.Bykov AM, Treumann RA (2011) Fundamentals of collisionless shocks for astrophysical application, 2. Relativistic shocks, Astronomy andAstrophysics Reviews 19, 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-011-0042-8.Callaway DJE (1990) On the remarkable structure of the superconducting intermediate state, Nuclear Physics B 344, 627-645, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(90)90672-Z.Chandrasekhar S (1961) Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability (Clarendon Press: Oxford UK).Constantinescu OD (2002) Self-consistent model of mirror structures, Journal Atmospheric Solar-terrestrial Physics 64, 645-649,https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00024-X.Constantinescu OD, Glassmeier K-H, Treumann RA, and Fornaçon K-H (2003) Magnetic mirror structures observed by Cluster in themagnetosheath, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, ID 1802, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017313.Czaykowska A, Bauer TM, Treumann RA, and Baumjohann W (1998) Mirror waves downstream of the quasi-perpendicular bow shock, J.Geophys. Res. 103, 4747-4752, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03245.Davidson RC (1972) Methods in nonlinear plasma theory (Academic Press, New York, 1972).Fichtner H, Kleimann J, Yoon PH, Scherer K, Oughton S, Engelbrecht NE (2020) On the Generation of Compressible Mirror-mode Fluctu-ations in the Inner Heliosheath, Astrophysical Journal 901, 76, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abaf52.Gary SP (1993) Theory of space plasma microinstabilities (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge UK).Ginzburg VL and Landau LD (1950) On the theory of superconductivity, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 20, 1064-1067. iagkiozis S, Wilson LB, Burch JL, Le Contel O, Ergun R, Gershman DJ, Lindqvist P-A, Mirioni L, Moore TE, and Strangeway RJ (2018)Statistical study of the properties of magnetosheath lion roars, J. Geophys. Res. 123, 5435-5451, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025343.Hasegawa A (1969) Drift mirror instability in the magnetosphere, Physics of Fluids 12, 2642-2650, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1692407.Hasegawa A (1975) Plasma instabilities and nonlinear effects (Springer-Verlag: Berlin-New York).Hau LN, Chen GW, and Chang CK (2020) Mirror mode waves immersed in magnetic reconnection, Astrophysical Journal Letters 903, L12,https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abbf4a.Huang K (1973) Statistical Mechanics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).Jackson JD (1975) Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).Josephson BD (1962) Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters 1, 251-253, https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0.Josephson BD (1964) Coupled superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics 36, 216-220, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.36.216.Kennel CF and Petschek HE (1966) Limit on stably trapped particle fluxes, Journal Geophysical Research 71, 1-28,https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ071i001p0001.Kivelson MG and Southwood DJ (1996) Mirror instability: II. The mechanism of nonlinear saturation, Journal Geophysical Research 101,17365-17372, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JA01407.Krall NA and Trivelpiece AW (1973) Principles of Plasma Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York).Lucek EA, Dunlop MW, Horbury TS, Balogh A, Brown P, Cargill P, Carr C, Fornaçon KH, Georgescu E, and Oddy T (2001) Clustermagnetic field observations in the magnetosheath: four-point measurements of mirror structures, Annales Geophysicae 19, 1421-1428,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1421-2001.Lucek EA, Constantinescu D, Goldstein ML, Pickett J, Pinccon JL, Sahraoui F, Treumann RA, Walker SN (2005) The magnetosheath, SpaceScience Reviews 118, 95-112, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-005-3825-2.Lucek EA, Dunlop MW, Balogh A, Cargill P, Baumjohann W, Georgescu E, Haerendel G, and Fornacon K-H (1999a) Mir-ror mode structures observed in the dawn-side magnetosheath by Equator-S, Geophysical Research Letters 26, 2159-2162,https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900490, 1999a.Lucek EA, Dunlop MW, Balogh A, Cargill P, Baumjohann W, Georgescu E, Haerendel G, and Fornacon K-H (1999b) Identification of mag-netosheath mirror mode structures in Equator-S magnetic field data, Annales Geophysicae 17, 1560-1573, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1560-9.Luehr H and Kloecker N (1987) AMPTE-IRM observations of magnetic cavities near the magnetopause, Geophysical Research Letters 14,186-189, https://doi.org/10.1029/GL014i003p00186.Lund EJ, Treumann RA, LaBelle J (1996) Quasi-thermal fluctuations in a beam-plasma system, Physics of Plasmas 3, 1234-1240,https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871747.Maksimovic M, Harvey CC, Santolík O, Lacombe C, de Conchy Y, Hubert D, Pantellini F, Cornilleau-Werhlin N, Dandouras I, Lucek EA,and Balogh A (2001) Polarisation and propagation of lion roars in the dusk side magnetosheath, Annales Geophysicae 19, 1429-1438,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1429-2001.Noreen N, Yoon PH, López RA, and Zaheer S (2017) Electron contribution in mirror instability in quasi-linear regime, Journal of GeophysicalResearch 122, 6978-6990, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024248.Phan TD, Escoubet CP, Rezeau L, Treumann RA, Vaivads A. Paschmann G, Fuselier SA, Attié D, Rogers B, and Sonnerup BUÖ (2005)Space Science Reviews 118, 367-424, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11214-005-3836-z. okhotelov OA, Balikhin MA, Treumann RA, Pavlenko VP (2001) Drift mirror instability revisited: 1. Cold electron temperature limit,Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 8455-8464, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000069.Pokhotelov OA, Balikhin MA, Alleyne HS-CK, and Onishchenko OG (2000) Mirror instability with finite electron temperature effects,Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 2393-2402, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900351.Pokhotelov OA, Treumann RA, Sagdeev RZ, Balikhin MA, Onishchenko OG, Pavlenko VP, and Sandberg I (2002) Linear theory of the mirrorinstability in non-Maxwellian space plasmas, Journal of Geophysical Research 107, ID 1312, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA009125.Pokhotelov OA, Sagdeev RZ, Balikhin MA, and Treumann RA (2004) Mirror instability at finite ion-Larmor radius wavelengths, Journal ofGeophysical Research 109, ID A09213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010568.Rincon F, Schekochihin AA, Cowley SC (2015) Non-linear mirror instability, Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society London 447,L45-L49, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slu179.Rodriguez P and Gurnett DA (1975) Electrostatic and electromagnetic turbulence associated with the earth’s bow shock, Journal of Geo-physical Research 80, 19-31-386, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA080i001p00019.Russell CT, Riedler W, Schwingenschuh K, Yeroshenko Y (1987) Mirror instability in the magnetosphere of comet Halley, GeophysicalResearch Letters 14, 644-647, https://doi.org/10.1029/ 10.1029/GL014i006p00644.Sagdeev RZ and Galeev AA (1969) Nonlinear plasma theory (W. A. Benjamin, New York).Smith EJ and Tsurutani BT (1976) Magnetosheath lion roars, J. Geophys. Res. 81, 2261-2266, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA081i013p02261.Southwood DJ and Kivelson MG (1993) Mirror instability: I. Physical mechanism of linear instability, Journal of Geophysical Research 98,9181-9187, https://doi.org/10.1029/92JA02837.Sulem P-L (2011) Nonlinear mirror modes in space plasmas, in: 3rd School and Workshop on Space Plasma Physics, AIP ConferenceProceedings 356, 159-176, doi:10.1063/1.3298103.Treumann RA and Baumjohann W (1997) Advanced Space Plasma Physics, Imperial College Press, London, 1997.Treumann RA and Baumjohann W (2015) Spontaneous magnetic reconnection, Astronomy & Astrophysics Reviews 23, 4,https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-015-0087-1.Treumann RA and Baumjohann W (2018) The mirror mode: A “superconducting” space plasma analogue, Annales Geophysicae 36, 1015-1026, arXiv:1804.10900 [physics.space-ph], https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1015-2018.Treumann RA, Baumjohann W (2019) Electron pairing in mirror modes: surpassing the quasi-linear limit, Annales Geophysicae 37, 971-988,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-971-2019.Treumann RA, Baumjohann W (2020) Possible phase transition in plasma mirror modes, arXiv [physics.space-ph],http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08209.Treumann RA, Brostrom L, LaBelle J, and Sckopke N (1990) The plasma wave signature of a ‘magnetic hole’ in the vicinity of the magne-topause, Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 19099-19114, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA095iA11919099.Treumann RA, Jaroschek CH, Constantinescu OD, Nakamura R, Pokhotelov OA, and Georgescu E (2004) The strange physics of lowfrequency mirror mode turbulence in the high temperature plasma of the magnetosheath, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 11, 647-657,https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-11-647-2004.Tsurutani BT, Smith EJ, Anderson RR, Ogilvie KW, Scudder JD, Baker DN, and Bame SJ (1982) Lion roars and nonoscillatory drift mirrorwaves in the magnetosheath, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 6060-6072, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA087iA08p06060. surutani BT, Lakhina GS, Verkhoglyadova OP, Echer E, Guarnieri FL, Narita Y, and Constantinescu OD (2011) Magnetosheath and he-liosheath mirror mode structures, interplanetary magnetic decreases, and linear magnetic decreases: Differences and distinguishing fea-tures, Journal of Geophysical Research 116, ID A02103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015913.Volwerk M, Nakamura R, Baumjohann W, Treumann RA, Runov A, Vörös Z, Zhang TL, Asano Y, Klecker B, Richter I, Balogh A,and Rème H (2003) A statistical study of compressional waves in the tail current sheet, Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 1429,https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010155.Vedenov AA, Velikhov EP, and Sagdeev RZ (1961) Stability of plasma, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 4, 332-369,https://doi.org/10.1070/PU1961c004n02ABEH003341.Winterhalter D, Neugebauer M, Goldstein BE, Smith EJ, Bame SJ, Balogh A (1994), Ulysses field and plasma observations of magnetic holesin the solar wind and their relation to mirror-mode structures, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 23371-23381, https://doi.org/10.1029/10.1029/94JA01977.Yao ST, Shi QQ, Yao ZH, Li JX, Yue C, Tao X, Degeling AW, Zong QG, Wang XG, Tian AM, Russell CT, Zhou XZ, Guo RL, Rae IJ, Fu,HS,Zhang H, Li L, Le Contel,O, Torbert RB, Ergun RE, Lindqvist PA, Pollock CJ, and Giles BL (2019) Waves in Kinetic-Scale MagneticDips: MMS Observations in the Magnetosheath, Geophysical Research Letters 46, 523?533, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080696.Zhang TL, Russell CT, Baumjohann W, Jian LK, Balikin MA, Cao JB, Wang C, Blanco-Cano X, Glassmeier K-H, Zambelli W, Volwerk M,Delva M, Vörös Z (2008) Characteristic size and shape of the mirror mode structures in the solar wind at 0.72 AU, Geophysical ResearchLetters 35, L10106, doi: 10.1029/2008GL033793.Zhang Y, Matsumoto H, and Kojima H (1998) Lion roars in the magnetosheath: The Geotail observations, Journal of Geophysical Research103, 4615-4626, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA02519.surutani BT, Lakhina GS, Verkhoglyadova OP, Echer E, Guarnieri FL, Narita Y, and Constantinescu OD (2011) Magnetosheath and he-liosheath mirror mode structures, interplanetary magnetic decreases, and linear magnetic decreases: Differences and distinguishing fea-tures, Journal of Geophysical Research 116, ID A02103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015913.Volwerk M, Nakamura R, Baumjohann W, Treumann RA, Runov A, Vörös Z, Zhang TL, Asano Y, Klecker B, Richter I, Balogh A,and Rème H (2003) A statistical study of compressional waves in the tail current sheet, Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 1429,https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010155.Vedenov AA, Velikhov EP, and Sagdeev RZ (1961) Stability of plasma, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 4, 332-369,https://doi.org/10.1070/PU1961c004n02ABEH003341.Winterhalter D, Neugebauer M, Goldstein BE, Smith EJ, Bame SJ, Balogh A (1994), Ulysses field and plasma observations of magnetic holesin the solar wind and their relation to mirror-mode structures, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 23371-23381, https://doi.org/10.1029/10.1029/94JA01977.Yao ST, Shi QQ, Yao ZH, Li JX, Yue C, Tao X, Degeling AW, Zong QG, Wang XG, Tian AM, Russell CT, Zhou XZ, Guo RL, Rae IJ, Fu,HS,Zhang H, Li L, Le Contel,O, Torbert RB, Ergun RE, Lindqvist PA, Pollock CJ, and Giles BL (2019) Waves in Kinetic-Scale MagneticDips: MMS Observations in the Magnetosheath, Geophysical Research Letters 46, 523?533, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080696.Zhang TL, Russell CT, Baumjohann W, Jian LK, Balikin MA, Cao JB, Wang C, Blanco-Cano X, Glassmeier K-H, Zambelli W, Volwerk M,Delva M, Vörös Z (2008) Characteristic size and shape of the mirror mode structures in the solar wind at 0.72 AU, Geophysical ResearchLetters 35, L10106, doi: 10.1029/2008GL033793.Zhang Y, Matsumoto H, and Kojima H (1998) Lion roars in the magnetosheath: The Geotail observations, Journal of Geophysical Research103, 4615-4626, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA02519.