Difference between revisions of "FG2. GGCM Modules and Methods"

From gem
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__
+
Leaders:  ''Brian Sullivan <bsullivan [at] artemis.sr.unh.edu> and Michael Shay <shay [at] udel.edu>''
  
'''Co-chairs:'''  John Dorelli (john<dot>dorelli<at>unh<dot>edu) and Michael Shay (shay<at>udel<dot>edu)
 
  
==Goals==
+
The CCCM Modules and Methods Focus Group has ended and published a final report in [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawiki/GEMstone/GEMstone_Vol20_No2.pdf GEMstone Volume 20 No.2 - December 2010].
 
 
The overarching goal of this focus group is to understand the physics of collisionless magnetic reconnection on magnetospheric length scales (hundreds of ion inertial lengths).  To this end, we have identified several broad questions to be addressed during the course :
 
 
 
* '''Q1''':  Can global resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) codes accurately model magnetospheric reconnection?
 
** Q1.1:  What is the effective Lundquist number of the magnetosphere? (What is the role of anomalous resistivity?  Can anomalous resistivity be accurately modeled in resistive MHD codes?  What is the role of the post-MHD terms in the Generalized Ohm's Law?)
 
** Q1.2:  How does the physics of reconnection depend on the ''ad hoc'' resistivity model used in global MHD codes? (How does reconnection scale with resistivity in the high Lundquist number limit?  What is the effect of numerical resistivity?  Can we reproduce Petschek reconnection by localizing the plasma resistivity?  What is the effect of current dependent resistivity?)
 
** Q1.3:  How does dayside magnetopause reconnection work in global MHD codes? (Is reconnection locally controlled or externally driven?  Does the Cassak-Shay formula apply to the dayside magnetopause?  What can resistive MHD tell us about the generation and topology of Flux Transfer Events (FTEs)?)
 
** Q1.4:  How does magnetotail reconnection work in global MHD codes?  (Can global resistive MHD codes accurately model magnetic storms and substorms?  How do simulated storms and substorms depend on the resistivity models used in resistive MHD codes?)
 
* '''Q2''':  How does the physics of collisionless reconnection observed in Particle-In-Cell (PIC) simulations scale up to reality?
 
**Q2.1: How does the reconnection rate scale with the electron inertial length? (Does the Hall effect render the collisionless reconnection rate independent of electron mass?  Is the collisionless reconnection rate universally Alfvenic?)
 
**Q2.2:  How does the reconnection rate scale with the ion inertial length? (Does the Hall effect render the collisionless reconnection rate independent of the ion inertial length?  What is the role of magnetic flux pileup in collisionless reconnection?)
 
**Q2.3:  What determines the aspect ratio of the electron diffusion region in open boundary condition PIC simultions?  (Are macroscopic current sheets possible in collisionless reconnection?  What determines the length of the electron diffusion region in collisionless reconnection?  What is the role of secondary island formation in the determination of the length of the electron diffusion region?  What impact does secondary island formation have on the reconnection rate?
 
**Q2.4:  Is the Hall effect necessary to have fast collisionless reconnection?  (How does fast reconnection work in electron-positron plasmas?  Is fast reconnection possible in so-called "Hall-less" hybrid codes?)
 
**Q2.5:  What is the role of dispersive waves in the physics of fast collisionless reconnection?
 
* '''Q3''':  Can we extend global resistive MHD models to include microscale physics which is needed to accurately model reconnection?
 
 
 
The three questions '''Q1-Q3''' are motivated by a currently popular approach to GGCM development known as the ''MHD spine'' approach. In the MHD spine approach, a global MHD model is used as the underlying computational "spine" of the GGCM, with non-MHD physics added (e.g., via coupling with another code) in regions of the simulation domain where the MHD approximation breaks down.
 

Latest revision as of 17:36, 3 June 2011

Leaders: Brian Sullivan <bsullivan [at] artemis.sr.unh.edu> and Michael Shay <shay [at] udel.edu>


The CCCM Modules and Methods Focus Group has ended and published a final report in GEMstone Volume 20 No.2 - December 2010.