Quasi-elastodynamic Processes Involved in the Interaction between Solar Wind and Magnetosphere

Abstract

The interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere is one of the most important research subjects in the fields of astrophysics and space physics. For more than half a century, based on the pressure balance assumption between the solar wind and the magnetosphere and considering other important factors, such as the interplanetary magnetic field and magnetic reconnection process, the dynamic processes at the magnetopause have been extensively analyzed. However, the responses of magnetopause to the solar wind dynamic pressure variations are still complicated to understand. Here, we show that the interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere can be regarded as a quasi-elastodynamic process. The driving frequency of the solar wind is determined as a crucial reason for the phase difference between solar wind dynamic pressure variations and magnetopause standoff distance. The low-pass filter effect and oscillation properties of the magnetopause can also be well explained by the forced damped vibrations. Moreover, the quasi-elastodynamic processes predict deformations at the magnetopause, which resemble the magnetopause surface wave. Finally, a three-dimensional time-dependent magnetopause model is constructed and verified by observation. Based on 12,242 magnetopause crossing events, it is found that the new model reveals ∼9.7% better prediction accuracy than the widely used time-independent model. These results can also shed light on our understanding of the solar-wind–magnetopause interaction for other planets.

Extremely Distant Magnetopause Locations Caused by Magnetosheath Jets

“…(1997) scaled with the sum of magnetic and dynamic pressures as $${P}_{d}^{-1/5.15}$$ and applies corrections for the MP indentation in the cusp region (Boardsen et al., 2000; Šafránková et al., 2005; Suvorova et al., 2005). In course of time, different authors used various approaches and methods for development of new MP models that include other scaling parameters (e.g., Liu et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2022 and more) or studied an influence of different parameters on the MP location (Dušík et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2023; Machková et al., 2019; Samsonov et al., 2019; Staples et al., 2020). The performance of several older MP models was tested by Šafránková et al.…”