Overtaking interaction of electron-acoustic solitons in Saturn’s magnetosphere

Abstract

The progression of nonlinear electron-acoustic waves (EAWs) in a magnetized and collision-free plasma made up of cold inertial electrons, inertialess superthermal electrons, and stationary background ions with special reference to Saturn’s magnetosphere (SMS) is explored. The method of reductive perturbation (MRP) is employed to obtain the evolution equation (i.e., Zakharov– Kuznetsov equation (ZKE)) that governs the propagation of electron acoustic solitons (EASs). Using the elegant and efficient Hirota bilinear method (HBM), multi-soliton solutions (MSSs) of the ZKE are determined. The impact of the effects of hot-to-cold electron density ratio, magnetic field (MF) strength, and superthermality on single as well as the interaction of EASs is examined. Estimates of the values of the electric field at several radii of SMS (i.e., 12R_s − 17.8R_s, where R_s is the radius of Saturn) are presented, which are found in μV/m to mV/m range and are in perfect agreement with the data from Cassini radio and plasma wave science wideband receiver. Moreover, the influence of the relevant plasma parameters on the interaction time and spatial extent of the interacting EASs is also explored.

Keywords

Superthermal magnetoplasmas multi-dimensional ZK equation Hirota bilinear method multi-solitons solution Saturn magnetosphere

Introduction

In connection with double layers, electrostatic solitary waves (SWs) were observed in different plasma regions, first in the terrestrial auroral zone on S3-3 mission in 1970,^1,2 and since then they have been observed in the terrestrial magnetotail,³ magnetopause,⁴ magnetosheath,⁵ and bow shock.⁶ Apart from the terrestrial environment, SWs have been observed in the proximity of Jupiter’s moon Europa⁷ and Saturn.⁸ The SWs are the pulses in the electric field waveform data and are formed when the dipole antenna is aligned with the background magnetic field.⁸ Electron-acoustic solitons (EASs) are associated with the high-frequency (HF) component (HFC) of broadband electrostatic noise (BEN) and have been observed in the dayside auroral ionosphere by Viking spacecraft.⁹ Gurnett et al.¹⁰ initially identified the BEN that was observed in several missions predominantly at the boundary layer along auroral field lines and in turbulent sweep but was not linked with the electrostatic SWs. Fast Fourier transform was used by Matsumoto et al.³ to transform the magnetotail findings of the electrostatic SWs and BEN (being observed in the time and frequency domains, respectively) to make a connection between them.¹¹

HF electrostatic waves have caught the attention of numerous researchers on account of their observations in the laboratory^12,13 and space plasmas.^14,15 The electron-acoustic waves (EAWs) may exist in plasmas comprising two non-isothermal populations (cold and hot) of electrons with cold background ions.¹⁶ The inertia can be provided by cold electrons, whereas the hot-electron thermal pressure is the source of the restoring force, and the massive ions play the role of a neutralizing background.¹⁶ The two-temperature electrons (TTEs) population plasmas have been reported in magnetospheres of Earth, Saturn, laser-plasma corona, and other planetary magnetospheres.^17,18 The existence of EAWs was initially proposed by Fried and Gould in 1961¹⁹ and later confirmed experimentally by Henry and Trguier in 1972.²⁰ These HF electrostatic waves have frequency ω between ion plasma frequency ω_pi and electron plasma frequency ω_pe and the phase velocity (PhV) λ obeying the inequality $u_{t h}^{(c)} < λ < u_{t h}^{(h)}$ , where $u_{t h}^{(c)}$ and $u_{t h}^{(h)}$ , are, respectively, the cold and hot electron’s thermal velocities.²¹

The nonlinear studies of EA solitary waves (EASWs) have been reported by various researchers both in unmagnetized^22,23 and magnetized plasmas.^24,25 Plasmas consisting of TTEs with stationary ions were studied in the context of EASWs using the method of reductive perturbation (MRP) and Sagdeev potential approach.²⁶ They inferred that MRP is not appropriate to study the medium-strength Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) solitons. Devanandhan et al.²⁷ explored the EAWs in an unmagnetized multicomponent plasma with non-isothermal electrons and background ions. The authors concluded that the amplitude of the EAS is affected by the cold electron temperature and the density of the superthermal electrons. EASs have been studied in a multicomponent plasma comprising cold electrons, hot electrons, beam electrons, and ions.²² It was reported that the electron beam component in the plasma causes generation of the compressive EASs, however, Verheest et al.²⁸ added that the positive polarity potential EASs are also possible without an electron beam, provided the hot-electron inertia is taken into account. Dayside measurements of the Viking spacecraft from the auroral zone have been examined by considering the findings of a plasma model for EASs by Singh et al.¹⁵

Magnetized plasmas have also been extensively studied by many authors over the years. For instance, Mohan and Buti²⁹ explored the two-component current carrying magnetoplasma by obtaining a modified KdV (mKdV) equation with hot ions and cold electrons. The authors deduced that the electron to ion temperature ratio (T_e/T_i) affects the soliton amplitude and hence its velocity. The propagation of EASs in a high beta multicomponent plasma with two non-isothermal ions having mass disparity was also examined.³⁰ Supersonic holes were shown along with solitons that were reported to be caused by large amplitude perturbations. Dubouloz et al.³¹ investigated the generation of turbulence in the dayside auroral zone by a gas of EASs in magnetoplasmas. The results were compared with the Viking findings in the dayside auroral zone to explain the high-frequency component of BEN. Small amplitude compressive solitons can be classified as three-dimensional EA beam solitons in an auroral return current region. Berthomier et al.³² showed that at altitudes less than 4000 km (FAST altitude range), spherical SWs were observed, while at high altitudes over the POLAR altitude range, the SWs were seen to be stretched out transverse to the magnetic field. They surmised that the formation of fast solitons observed by FAST and POLAR missions could be generated by the slow EASs.

Classical plasmas are high-temperature tenuous plasmas naturally occurring in near-earth space plasmas, the magnetosphere of Mercury, solar wind, and Saturn.³³ The electrons have been considered Maxwellian distribution (MD) in most of the research studies on EASs. However, data from satellites reveal the distribution of electrons to deviate from MD in space plasmas where collisions of the particles are infrequent.^34,35 Such distribution of electrons is described as kappa distribution, which is identical to MD at low energies, but, exhibits a departure from it at high energies.³⁶ Vasyliunas³⁷ led the way by proposing kappa distribution to fit the findings of OGO I and OGO III from the terrestrial magnetosphere.³⁵ Since then, it has been shown by numerous observations that kappa distribution with 2 ≤ κ ≤ 6 fits the terrestrial magnetosheath, plasma sheet, radiation belts, solar wind, terrestrial magnetosphere, magnetospheres of Saturn, Mercury, and Uranus as well as other observational data.^33,38 Many researchers used kappa distribution to investigate the effect of non-Maxwellian electrons on the propagation features of (non)linear EASs in various plasma models.^39,40 We are interested in a laboratory rich in populations of TTEs like Saturn’s magnetosphere (SMS) to study the EASs.

Plasmas in the SMS have diverse characteristics owing to their varying composition observed at different radial distances. The first ever mission on Saturn was Pioneer XI to sample the plasma.⁴¹ Depending upon the electron density profile at increasing radial distances, two boundaries can be allocated in the magnetosphere of Saturn. Therefore, it can be categorized in three altitudes (i) below 9R_s (R_s = 60,268km is the radius of Saturn) the inner magnetosphere, (ii) between 9 and 13R_s, the middle magnetosphere, and (iii) above 13R_s, the outer magnetosphere.⁴² Plasmas in the SMS can come both from its rings and moons such as Enceladus,⁴³ Rhea and Dione,⁴⁴ Tethys,⁴⁵ and Titan.⁴⁶ Electrons having energies from 2eV to 10MeV have been reported in the SMS by combining measurement data on Saturn from three experiments, namely, the plasma science (PLS), low energy charged particle (LECP) instrument, and cosmic ray system (CRS) experiment.⁴⁷ Cassini mission with two instruments on board CAPS/ELS⁴⁸ and MIMI/LEMMS,⁴⁹ being in orbit from 2004 to 2017 around Saturn, produced new data for electron observations and it was shown that the energy spectrum ranges from a few eV to few tens of MeV.⁴² Different ion species including N⁺, O⁺, H⁺, OH⁺, and H₂O⁺ have also been observed in several missions with varying temperatures and densities as one moves away from Saturn.¹⁸

A Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation (ZKE) can be characterized by the balance between the dispersion arising from charge separation, gyroradius effects, and nonlinearity.³³ This equation can typically be used for investigating the propagation of finite but small amplitude acoustic waves in a plasma and many other mediums. Note that the ZKE can only be studied in the context of magnetized plasmas. EASs have been studied by numerous researchers in magnetoplasmas by deriving ZKE.^50,51 When it comes to the transfer of energy and momentum, solitons become significant because of the property of holding its identity after interaction. The wave propagation in naturally occurring physical systems calls for the consideration of multi-soliton solutions (MSSs). MSSs are crucial for comprehending nonlinear wave interaction in these systems because the majority of the natural occurrences are inherently nonlinear. A variety of techniques can be utilized including Hirota bilinear method (HBM),^52,53 Bäcklund transformation,⁵⁴ inverse scattering transform,⁵⁵ and Darboux transformation⁵⁶ to obtain the MSSs. To obtain the MSSs, the HBM⁵³ is applied to truncate the perturbation expansions at higher orders. In recent years, numerous papers have employed HBM to study interaction of solitons in unmagnetized plasmas,^57–59 however, the soliton interaction in magnetized plasmas has received relatively far less attention. In this paper, we have investigated the single soliton and MSSs in a multicomponent magnetized plasma formed from cold inertial electrons, superthermal hot electrons, and stationary ions in the vicinity of the SMS. The paper is structured as follows: The set of model equations for EAWs in a multicomponent magnetoplasma are given in Sec. II. In Sec. III, the MRP is employed by reducing the basic fluid equations of the current plasma model to the two-dimensional (2D)-ZKE. In Sec. IV, HBM is carried out for determining the MSSs, that is, one- and two-soliton solutions of the ZKE. Parametric analysis of the 2D-ZK solitary wave (SW) solutions is presented in Sec. V. The summary of the major findings is given in Sec. VI.

Theoretical model

A homogeneous collision-free magnetoplasma made up of stationary background ions, cold inertial electrons, and hot inertialess superthermal electrons bearing kappa $(κ)$ type distribution is considered. An ambient magnetic field (MF) $\vec{B}$ is assumed to be in the x-direction, that is, $\vec{B} = B_{o} \hat{x}$ , where $\hat{x}$ indicates a unit vector in x direction. For simplicity, it is assumed that the temperature of cold electrons T_c → 0, which is relevant under the condition T_cn_h ≪ T_hn_c,²⁶ even though some studies have taken into account the cold electron temperature,⁵⁸ the following equilibrium condition is fulfilled n_io = n_ho + n_co, where n_io, n_co, and n_ho denote the unperturbed number densities of stationary positive ions, cold inertial electrons, and hot inertialess superthermal electron, respectively. The dynamics of inertial cold electrons are governed by the following model equations.⁵⁸

The number density and momentum conservation equations are given as follows

\partial_{t} n_{c} + \nabla \cdot (n_{c} u_{c}) = 0,

(1)

\partial_{t} u_{c} + (u_{c} \cdot \nabla) u_{c} = \nabla ϕ - (u_{c} \times \hat{x}),

(2)

and the model is closed with the following Poisson’s equation

\nabla^{2} ϕ = α β (n_{h} + \frac{n_{c}}{α} - (1 + \frac{1}{α})) .

(3)

Here,

n_{h} (n_{c})

is the hot (cold) electron density scaled by

n_{h o} (n_{c o})

, u_c denotes the electron fluid velocity scaled by the EA speed

C_{s e} = \sqrt{\frac{K_{B} T_{h}}{m}}

, (K_B → Boltzmann constant, T_h → temperature of hot electrons, and m → mass of electron) and ϕ is the electrostatic potential scaled by K_BT_h/e, (e → charge on electron). Also, α = n_ho/n_co,

β = ω_{p e}^{2} / Ω_{c e}^{2}

, where

ω_{p e} = \sqrt{4 π e^{2} n_{c o} / m}

is the cold electron plasma frequency, and Ω_ce = eB_o/mc is the electron cyclotron frequency, where c is the light velocity. The time t is scaled by

Ω_{c e}^{- 1}

, space variable

\nabla = (\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \hat{x} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \hat{y} + 0)

{(\frac{C_{s e}}{Ω_{c e}})}^{- 1}

, and

\nabla^{2} = \partial_{x}^{2} + \partial_{y}^{2}

In space plasmas, most particle distributions have been observed to have high energy tail for superthermal electrons.⁶⁰ The function distribution (FD) to the inertialess superthermal/kappa distributed electrons reads as⁵⁸

f_{κ} (ν) = \frac{n_{h o}}{π κ^{3 / 2} ϑ_{t h}^{3}} \frac{Γ (κ + 1)}{Γ (κ - 1 / 2)} {(1 + \frac{ν^{2}}{κ ϑ_{t h}^{2}} - \frac{2 e ϕ}{m ϑ_{t h}^{2}})}^{- (κ + 1)} .

(4)

Here, the spectral index κ depicts the degree of superthermality of energetic electrons forming the tail of the distribution which fulfills the condition κ > 3/2, $ν = \sqrt{k_{B} T_{h} / m}$ is the hot-electron thermal speed, $ϑ_{t h} = \sqrt{k_{B} T_{h} (2 κ - 3) / m κ}$ is the effective thermal speed, and Γ(κ) is the Gamma function. Small values of kappa are associated with high superthermality which essentially means more particles in the superthermal domain. Values of the spectral index κ have a physical significance for 1.5 < κ < ∞. In the κ → ∞ limit, Maxwellian distribution is retrieved and ϑ_th → ν. Integrating the aforementioned function in equation (4) over the velocity space, the following expression for superthermal electron density is obtained³⁶

n_{h} = n_{h o} {(1 - \frac{ϕ}{κ - 3 / 2})}^{- κ + 1 / 2} .

(5)

The expression in equation (5) can be expanded in Taylor series form for smaller values of the potential to get the form n_h = 1 + C₁ϕ + C₂ϕ² + ⋯, where C₁ and C₂ are expansion constants given as

C_{1} = \frac{κ - (\frac{1}{2})}{κ - (\frac{3}{2})}, C_{2} = \frac{(κ - (\frac{1}{2})) (κ + (\frac{1}{2}))}{2 {(κ - (\frac{3}{2}))}^{2}} .

(6)

The velocity of the wave driven by inertial cold electrons can be written as

u_{c} = (u_{c x}, u_{c y}, u_{c z})

, where the subscripts x, y, and z with u_c represent the components of the wave velocity along x, y, and z directions. The normalized form of the mentioned model from equations (1)–(5) can be written as follows

\partial_{t} n_{c} + \partial_{x} (n_{c} u_{c x}) + \partial_{y} (n_{c} u_{c y}) = 0,

(7)

\partial_{t} u_{c x} + \nabla_{x y} u_{c x} = \partial_{x} ϕ,

(8)

\partial_{t} u_{c y} + \nabla_{x y} u_{c y} = \partial_{y} ϕ + u_{c z},

(9)

\partial_{t} u_{c z} + \nabla_{x y} u_{c z} = - u_{c y},

(10)

and

\nabla^{2} ϕ = α β [(1 + C_{1} ϕ + C_{2} ϕ^{2} + \dots) + \frac{n_{c}}{α} - (1 + \frac{1}{α})],

(11)

where α is the density ratio of hot-to-cold electrons and ∇_xy = u_cx∂_x + u_cy∂_y .

Derivation of the 2D-ZKE

Here, the MRP is applied for reducing equations (7)–(11) to the 2D-ZKE for describing the small amplitude acoustic SWs on the electron time scale in the current plasma model. According to the mentioned method, both time and space coordinates are stretched as⁶¹

ξ = ϵ^{1 / 2} (x - Λ t), η = ϵ^{1 / 2} y, a n d τ = ϵ^{3 / 2} t,

(12)

where Λ determines the normalized PhV of the EAW, and ϵ indicates a small perturbation parameter

(0 < ϵ \leq 1)

that describes the amplitude of nonlinearity. The expansion of the physical dependent quantities in terms of ϵ is expressed as follows

\begin{array}{l} n_{c} = 1 + ϵ n_{c 1} + ϵ^{2} n_{c 2} + ϵ^{3} n_{c 3} + \dots, \\ u_{c x} = ϵ u_{c 1} + ϵ^{2} u_{c 2} + ϵ^{3} u_{c 3} + \dots, \\ u_{c y} = ϵ^{2} v_{c 1} + ϵ^{3} v_{c 2} + ϵ^{4} v_{c 3} + \dots, \\ u_{c z} = ϵ^{3 / 2} w_{c 1} + ϵ^{5 / 2} w_{c 2} + ϵ^{7 / 2} w_{c 3} + \dots, \\ ϕ = ϵ ϕ_{1} + ϵ^{2} ϕ_{2} + ϵ^{3} ϕ_{3} + \dots \end{array}

(13)

To get the linear dispersion relation (LDR), multiscale expansion of the variables given in equation (13) is incorporated in equations (7)–(11) and the collection of the lowest order terms of ϵ, that is, O(ϵ) → ϵ^3/2 yields

n_{c 1} = \frac{u_{c 1}}{Λ}, u_{c 1} = - \frac{ϕ_{1}}{Λ},

(14)

And from Poisson’s equation, we get

n_{c 1} = - α C_{1} ϕ_{1} .

(15)

Solving equations (14) and (15) yields the following linear PhV Λ of the EAW

Λ = \sqrt{\frac{1}{α C_{1}}} .

(16)

The squared order terms in ϵ for equation (10) give

v_{c 1} = Λ \partial_{ξ} w_{c 1} .

Collecting the next order terms of ϵ, that is, O(ϵ) → ϵ^5/2 from equations (7)–(11), we obtain the following set of equations for second-order perturbed quantities

\partial_{τ} n_{c 1} + \partial_{ξ} n_{c 1} u_{c 1} + \partial_{η} v_{c 1} = Λ \partial_{ξ} n_{c 2} - \partial_{ξ} u_{c 2},

(17)

\partial_{τ} u_{c 1} + u_{c 1} \partial_{ξ} u_{c 1} = Λ \partial_{ξ} u_{c 2} + \partial_{ξ} ϕ_{2},

(18)

- Λ \partial_{ξ} v_{c 1} = \partial_{η} ϕ_{2} + w_{c 2},

(19)

and

(\partial_{ξ ξ ξ} + \partial_{ξ η η}) ϕ_{1} - 2 α β C_{2} (ϕ_{1} \partial_{ξ} ϕ_{1}) = α β \partial_{ξ} (C_{1} ϕ_{2} + \frac{n_{c 2}}{α}) .

(20)

By algebraic manipulation of equations (17)–(20) and utilizing n_c1 and u_c1 from equation (14), the following 2D-ZKE is obtained

\partial_{τ} ϕ_{1} + A ϕ_{1} \partial_{ξ} ϕ_{1} + B \partial_{ξ ξ ξ} ϕ_{1} + C \partial_{ξ η η} ϕ_{1} = 0,

(21)

with

A = - [\frac{2 α C_{2} Λ^{4} + 3}{2 Λ}],

(22)

and

B = \frac{Λ^{3}}{2 β}, C = B (1 + β) .

(23)

It has been noticed that linear phase velocity Λ appears in the coefficient of nonlinear term A and dispersion coefficients terms B and C and, therefore, their dependence on densities of the electrons and superthermality is evident, whereas dispersion can vary with magnetic field variation as β appears in both of the dispersion coefficients.

Multi-soliton solution to the 2D-ZKE

Here, the HBM,⁵² which is a renowned technique to obtain the multi-soliton solution (MSS) of many integrable equations including the 2D-ZKE, is employed. It uses the following transformation equation^62,63 to obtain the SW solution of 2D-ZKE

ϕ_{1} (ξ, η, τ) = \frac{36 B}{A} {(\log (g))}_{ξ ξ} - \frac{12 \sqrt{B C}}{A} {(\log (g))}_{ξ η} .

(24)

Hirota bilinear forms of 2D-ZKE (21) read⁶²

(D_{ξ}^{2} + \frac{1}{6} \sqrt{\frac{C}{B}} D_{ξ} D_{η} - \frac{1}{6} \frac{C}{B} D_{η}^{2}) g . g = 0,

(25)

and

(3 B D_{ξ}^{4} - \sqrt{B C} D_{ξ}^{3} D_{η} + 3 C D_{ξ}^{2} D_{η}^{2} - C \sqrt{\frac{C}{B}} D_{ξ} D_{η}^{3} + 3 D_{ξ} D_{τ} - \sqrt{\frac{C}{B}} D_{η} D_{τ}) g . g = 0 .

(26)

Here,

D_{i} (i = ξ, η, τ)

represents the Hirota operators with regard to ξ, η, and τ, respectively. The Hirota derivatives operate in a unique fashion on the product of functions, defined mathematically as⁵³

D_{ξ}^{a} D_{η}^{b} D_{τ}^{c} (g . g) = {(\partial_{ξ} - \partial_{ξ^{'}})}^{a} {(\partial_{η} - \partial_{η^{'}})}^{b} {(\partial_{τ} - \partial_{τ^{'}})}^{c} g (ξ, η, τ) g (ξ^{'}, η^{'}, τ') ∣_{(ξ = ξ^{'}) (η = η^{'}) (τ = τ^{'})},

(27)

and expansion of the function g (ξ, η, τ) in terms of ɛ reads

g = 1 + ε g_{1} + ε^{2} g_{2} + \dots .

(28)

One-soliton solution

According to HBM,⁵² for exactly one-soliton solution, we employ the exponential function, the series in equation (28) truncates at first order of ɛ and, therefore, we have

g = 1 + ε g_{1} .

(29)

Here, ɛ can be visualized as a global phase factor and the infinite series truncates at g₁ only if

\begin{array}{l} g_{1} = \exp [ζ], w i t h ζ = k ξ + p η + ω τ, \\ p = - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k, a n d ω = - 5 B k^{3} . \end{array}

(30)

Incorporating g in equation (24) gives the following one-soliton solution of the ZKE

ϕ_{1} (ξ, η, τ) = ϕ_{o} {sech}^{2} (\frac{k}{2} ξ - \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k η - \frac{5}{2} B k^{3} τ) .

(31)

where ϕ_o = 15Bk²/A is the soliton’s amplitude and k is the propagation vector in predominant direction of propagation.

Two-soliton solution

The two-soliton solution is procured by assuming the function g₁ as the superposition of exponential functions and g₂ as the interaction of two exponential functions. The expansion of g in equation (28) truncates at squared order of ɛ for considered values of the perturbed terms of g in the required two-soliton solution

{\begin{cases} g_{1} = \exp [ζ_{1}] + \exp [ζ_{2}], \\ g_{2} = a_{12} \exp [ζ_{1} + ζ_{2}], \end{cases}

(32)

where ζ_i = k_iξ + p_iη + ω_iτ, and i = 1, 2 and a₁₂ is the phase shift or indicates the interaction parameter. Using g in equations (25) and (26) and after geometrical manipulation, we obtain

\begin{array}{l} p_{1} = - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{1}, p_{2} = - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{2}, \end{array}

(33)

\begin{array}{c} ω_{1} = - 5 B k_{1}^{3}, ω_{2} = - 5 B k_{2}^{3} \end{array},

(34)

and

a_{12} = {(\frac{k_{1} - k_{2}}{k_{1} + k_{2}})}^{2} .

(35)

Therefore, the value of g is given by

\begin{array}{l} g = 1 + \exp [k_{1} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{1} η - 5 B k_{1}^{3} τ] + \exp [k_{2} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{2} η - 5 B k_{2}^{3} τ] \\ + {(\frac{k_{1} - k_{2}}{k_{1} + k_{2}})}^{2} \exp [(k_{1} + k_{2}) ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} (k_{1} + k_{2}) η - 5 B (k_{1}^{3} + k_{2}^{3}) τ], \end{array}

and the above equation is used in the transformation of equation (24) to arrive at the following two-soliton solution

ϕ_{1} (ξ, η, τ) = \frac{36 B}{A} {(\begin{array}{c} \log [1 + \exp [k_{1} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{1} η - 5 B k_{1}^{3} τ] + \exp [k_{2} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{2} η - 5 B k_{2}^{3} τ]] \\ + {(\frac{k_{1} - k_{2}}{k_{1} + k_{2}})}^{2} \exp [(k_{1} + k_{2}) ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} (k_{1} + k_{2}) η - 5 B (k_{1}^{3} + k_{2}^{3}) τ] \end{array})}_{ξ ξ}

- \frac{12 \sqrt{B C}}{A} {(\log [\begin{array}{c} 1 + \exp [k_{1} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{1} η - 5 B k_{1}^{3} τ] + \exp [k_{2} ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} k_{2} η - 5 B k_{2}^{3} τ] \\ + {(\frac{k_{1} - k_{2}}{k_{1} + k_{2}})}^{2} \exp [(k_{1} + k_{2}) ξ - 2 \sqrt{\frac{B}{C}} (k_{1} + k_{2}) η - 5 B (k_{1}^{3} + k_{2}^{3}) τ] \end{array}])}_{ξ η} .

(36)

Results and discussion

We shall use the parameters of Cassini’s data⁴² within 20R_s (R_s is the radius of Saturn $\sim 60268 k m$ ) in SMS because most plasma sources in the system are reported to orbit within this radius.⁴² The hot and cold electron densities and the magnetic field values within 5.4R_s − 17.8R_s of Saturn are reported to range from 0.01cm⁻³ (5.4R_s) − 0.18cm⁻³ (13.1R_s) and 10.5cm⁻³ (5.4R_s) − 0.15cm⁻³ (17.8R_s)¹⁸ and 0.1nT − 8000 nT,⁸ respectively, which have been used to study the characteristics of EASs and their overtaking interaction at different radii from Saturn. It is worth mentioning here that all the electron-acoustic solitons formed in the considered model are rarefactive due to the negative nonlinearity coefficient A given in equation (22) which defines the amplitude of the SW solution.

In Figure 1

Figure 1.

Plot of the electrostatic (ES) potential of 2D-ZK soliton against variation in density ratio α = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 2 with other parameters as, k = 0.6, κ = 3.5, B_o = 0.0001G, n_co = 0.25cm⁻³, n_ho = 0.1, 0.125, 0.15, and 0.5.

, the EAS profile is plotted against the variation of density ratio α. We can see that amplitude of the EAS shrinks with increasing α. The soliton’s amplitude varies in the same manner as in an unmagnetized plasma for increasing density ratio (see the paper by Jahangir et al.⁵⁸). It is, however, noted that the usual existence condition of EAS in an unmagnetized plasma, that is, 0.2 ≤ n_co/n_eo ≤ 0.8⁶⁴ with n_e0 = n_c0 + n_h0, is found to change for the magnetized plasma model. It is evident that the soliton’s amplitude mitigates drastically when the hot electrons’ density becomes greater than the cold electrons’ density, that is, for α > 1. The impact of the MF strength B₀ on the EAS profile is demonstrated in Figure 2

Figure 2.

Plot of the ES potential of 2D-ZK soliton against variation in ambient magnetic field B_o = 0.0001G, 0.00015G, and 0.0002G with k = 0.6, κ = 3.5, n_co = 0.25cm⁻³, and n_ho = 0.1cm⁻³.

. It is seen that the single ZK soliton’s amplitude enhances as the MF gets stronger. This happens because the dispersion coefficient B appears in the amplitude of the single ZK EAS as given in equation (31). As mentioned earlier, the MF strengthens the dispersion and, therefore, the velocity and the amplitude of the EAS increase with increasing B_o.

Figure 3

Figure 3.

Plot of the ES potential of 2D-ZK soliton against variation in superthermality κ = 3, 3.5, 4, and 10 (Maxwellian) with k = 0.6, B_o = 0.0001G, n_co = 0.25cm⁻³, and n_ho = 0.1cm⁻³.

manifests the effect of the superthermality on the profile of the 2D-ZK EAS. Decreasing the superthermality (i.e., increasing the spectral index κ) would enhance the soliton’s amplitude and width. Reducing the superthermal particles leads us to the Maxwellian distribution. This means that the soliton has maximum amplitude for Maxwellian distribution as shown in Figure 3. This also leads us to the conclusion that the mitigating superthermality causes an increase in the soliton’s speed. We have also explored the profile of the 2D-ZK EAS by using the parameters at different radii in the SMS as delineated in Figure 4

Figure 4.

Variation of the ES potential of 2D-ZK soliton with increasing distance from Saturn R = 12R_s, 14R_s, and 17.8R_s. Parameters being used k = 0.95 (fixed) (i) α = 0.12, κ = 3.5, and B_o = 0.00012G at 12R_s (dotted line), (ii) α = 0.67, κ = 6, and B_o = 0.00011G at 14R_s (dashed), and (iii) k = 0.95, α = 0.47, κ = 3.8, and B_o = 0.00008G at 17.8R_s (dot-dashed).

. All the plasma parameters at different radii of the SMS have different values as shown in the table given in Ref. [18]. It is shown that the soliton’s amplitude and width diminish as the radii increase. The electric field vector corresponding to the potential of the soliton solution may be evaluated as

E (ξ, η, τ) = - \partial_{ξ} ϕ_{1} (ξ, η, τ) \hat{ξ} - \partial_{η} ϕ_{1} (ξ, η, τ) \hat{η} = E_{ξ} \hat{ξ} + E_{η} \hat{η},

for which the magnitude becomes

E = \sqrt{E_{ξ}^{2} + E_{η}^{2}}

. The values of the electric field have been calculated at different radii from Saturn and are in the range from 308 μV/m at 17.8R_s to 7.34 mV/m at 12R_s. These values match excellently with the data from Cassini radio and PWS wideband receiver.^8,10,11 Since all the parametric variations have been included for the single soliton, therefore, we now move to the numerical analysis of the overtaking interaction of solitons. Figures 5–7

Figure 5.

Contour plot of the interaction of the 2D-ZK solitons versus the varying electron density ratio α = 0.4 and 0.6 with k₁ = 0.6, k₂ = 0.4, B_o = 0.0001G, and κ = 3.5. (a) α = 0.4, n_co = 0.25cm⁻³, and n_ho = 0.1cm⁻³, (b) α = 0.6, n_co = 0.25cm⁻³, and n_ho = 0.15cm⁻³.

Figure 6.

Contour plot of the interaction of the 2D-ZK solitons versus the varying magnetic field (a) B_o = 0.0001G and (b) B_o = 0.00015G. Other fixed parameters being used are k₁ = 0.6, k₂ = 0.4, α = 0.4, and κ = 3.5.

Figure 7.

Contour plot of the interaction of the 2D-ZK solitons versus the varying superthermality (a) κ = 3.5 and (b) κ = 6. Other fixed parameters being used are k₁ = 0.6, k₂ = 0.4, α = 0.4, and B_o = 0.0001G.

show the parametric analysis by incorporating variation in density ratio, MF, and superthermality of the 2D-ZK soliton interaction given by equation (36). The effect of the variation of electron density ratio on the interaction of EASs in a magnetized plasma is shown by contour plots in Figure 5(a) and 5(b). First of all, note that the interaction point of the two solitons is the same for both the figures (i.e., in both the figures, interaction of the solitons occurs at time t = 0). In Figure 5(a), the two interacting solitons are initially farther apart (for electron density ratio, α = 0.4) by comparison with their counterparts in Figure 5(b) (for α = 0.6) and since the interaction point is the same, this means that increasing the electron density ratio slows down the interaction time. Note that the converse happens in Figure 6(a) and 6(b) when we increase the MF because increasing the MF enhances the magnitude of the soliton which results in the greater distance between the interacting solitons to begin with or the faster interaction time. A comparison of Figure 6(a) and 6(b) shows an expansion of about 144km between the interacting solitons, that is, from 251km to 395km. Figure 7(a) and 7(b) depict the effect of superthermality on soliton interaction. It is noticed that the spatial interaction regime for lower superthermality (i.e., higher spectral index κ) increases from 251km to 287km. This suggests that pumping out the superthermal electrons from the low-phase space density regions of the electron DF energizes the EAS and consequently speeds up the interaction time. Figure 8(a)-8(c)

Figure 8.

Contour plot of the interaction of 2D-ZK solitons at disparate radii from Saturn R = 12R_s, 14R_s and 17.8R_s. Parameters being used k₁ = 0.6 and k₂ = 0.4 as fixed and others are (a) n_co = 1cm⁻³, n_ho = 0.11cm⁻³, κ = 3.5, and B_o = 0.00013G at 12R_s, (b) n_co = 0.15cm⁻³, n_ho = 0.10cm⁻³, κ = 6, and B_o = 0.00011G at 14R_s, and (c) n_co = 0.15cm⁻³, n_ho = 0.07cm⁻³, κ = 3.8, and B_o = 0.00008G at 17.8R_s.

show the interaction of EASs corresponding to the plasma parameters found at different Saturn radii. It is found that as we increase the Saturn radii, the spatial extent between the interacting solitons decreases and the interaction time slows down which essentially illustrates that both the amplitude and width of the interacting solitons decrease as we move away from Saturn.

Conclusion

The formation and interaction of electron-acoustic solitons (EASs) have been examined in a plasma comprising two temperature electrons (inertial cold and superthermal kappa distributed hot) and stationary ions. Two-dimensional Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation (2D-ZKE) has been derived under the small amplitude limit. One- and two-soliton solutions of 2D-ZKE have been obtained using Hirota’s direct method. Response of the single soliton and interaction mechanism for EASs have been studied by varying parameters like electron density ratio, magnetic field (MF) strength, and spectral index, κ, at different radial distances from Saturn. The study of single soliton has revealed that, for increasing hot-to-cold electron density ratio and superthermality, the amplitude and speed of the soliton decrease, whereas enhancing the MF augments the amplitude of the 2D-ZK EAS. The amplitude of the solitons has been found to decrease significantly at longer distances from Saturn. The theoretically obtained electric field values in Saturn’s magnetosphere (SMS) have been found to range from a few hundreds of μV/m to a few tens of mV/m at different Saturn’s radii which concur very well with the data from Cassini radio and plasma wave science wideband receiver. As regards the interaction, EASs have been found to retain their shape after the interaction. It has been found that the increasing values of hot-to-cold electron density ratio and the spectral index, κ, slow down the interaction time and shorten the separation distance between the interacting solitons, whereas the enhancement in the magnetic field speeds up the interaction time and enhances the separation distance between the interacting solitons. We have given the estimates of the separation distance between the interacting solitons for the variation in the plasma parameters for SMS. We have examined the interaction of solitons at different radii from Saturn and it has been deduced that the interaction time and spatial interaction regions vary as one moves away from Saturn. The present study will help to comprehend the formation and interaction of EASs in SMS, however, it may be pointed out that the theoretical framework presented here is general and can be applied to laboratory plasmas.

The future work could include physical effects like collisional force between the particles inside the plasma or nonplanar geometrical effects which make the resulting nonlinear evolution equations nonintegrable.^65–67 For solving and analyzing these evolution equations, some approximate techniques such as the family of the homotopy perturbation method (HPM),^68,69 the family of Adomian decomposition method (ADM),⁷⁰ and many other numerical methods⁷¹ could be gainfully employed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2023R378), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. One of the authors (W. Masood) acknowledges the support from the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (AS-ICTP) for his visit under the Regular Associateship Scheme.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

S A El-Tantawy

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

References

Temerin

Cerny

Lotko

, et al. Observations of double layers and solitary waves in the auroral plasma. Phys Rev Lett 1982; 48(17): 1175–1179.

Ergun

Carlson

McFadden

, et al. Debye-scale plasma structures associated with magnetic-field-aligned electric fields. Phys Rev Lett 1998; 81(4): 826–829.

Matsumoto

Kojima

Miyatake

, et al. Electrostatic solitary waves (ESW) in the magnetotail: BEN wave forms observed by GEOTAIL. Geophys Res Lett 1994; 21(25): 2915–2918.

Cattell

Crumley

Dombeck

, et al. Polar observations of solitary waves at the Earth's magnetopause. Geophys Res Lett 2002; 29(5): 1–9.

Pickett

Chen

Kahler

, et al. Isolated electrostatic structures observed throughout the cluster orbit: relationship to magnetic field strength. Ann Geophys 2004; 22pp. 2515–2523.

Bale

Kellogg

Larsen

, et al. Bipolar electrostatic structures in the shock transition region: evidence of electron phase space holes. Geophys Res Lett 1998; 25(15): 2929–2932.

Kurth

Gurnett

Persoon

, et al. The plasma wave environment of Europa. Planet Space Sci 2001; 49(3-4): 63–345.

Williams

Chen

Kurth

, et al. Electrostatic solitary structures observed at Saturn. Geophys Res Lett 2006: 33(6).

Dubouloz

Pottelette

Malingre

, et al. Generation of broadband electrostatic noise by electron acoustic solitons. Geophys Res Lett 1991; 18(2): 155–158.

10.

Gurnett

Frank

Lepping

. Plasma waves in the distant magnetotail. J Geophys Res 1976; 81(34): 6059–6071.

11.

Pickett

Kurth

Gurnett

, et al. Electrostatic solitary waves observed at Saturn by Cassini inside 10 R s and near Enceladus. J Geophys Res: Space Phys 2015; 120(8): 6569–6580.

12.

Anderegg

Driscoll

Dubin

, et al. Electron acoustic waves in pure ion plasmas. Phys Plasmas 2009; 16(5): 055705.

13.

Chowdhury

Biswas

Chakrabarti

, et al. Experimental observation of electron-acoustic wave propagation in laboratory plasma. Phys Plasmas 2017; 24(6): 062111.

14.

Tokar

Gary

. Electrostatic hiss and the beam driven electron acoustic instability in the dayside polar cusp. Geophys Res Lett 1984; 11(12): 1180–1183.

15.

Singh

Lakhina

. Generation of electron-acoustic waves in the magnetosphere. Planet Space Sci 2001; 49(1): 107–114.

16.

Watanabe

Taniuti

. Electron-acoustic mode in a plasma of two-temperature electrons. J Phys Soc Jpn 1977; 43(5): 1819–1820.

17.

Bezzerides

Forslund

Lindman

. Existence of rarefaction shocks in a laser-plasma corona. Phys Fluids 1978; 21(12): 85–2179.

18.

Singh

Saini

Kourakis

. Kinetic Alfvén solitary waves in a plasma with two-temperature superthermal electron populations: the case of Saturn's magnetosphere. Mon Not Roy Astron Soc 2019; 486(4): 5504–5518.

19.

Fried

Gould

. Longitudinal ion oscillations in a hot plasma. Phys Fluid 1961; 4(1): 139–147.

20.

Henry

Trguier

. Propagation of electronic longitudinal modes in a non-Maxwellian plasma. J Plasma Phys 1972; 8(3): 311–319.

21.

Stix

. Waves in plasmas. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media, 1992.

22.

Berthomier

Pottelette

Malingre

, et al. Electron-acoustic solitons in an electron-beam plasma system. Phys Plasmas 2000; 7(7): 2987–2994.

23.

Shukla

Mamun

. Lower hybrid drift wave turbulence and associated electron transport coefficients and coherent structures at the magnetopause boundary layer. J Geophys Res: Space Phys 2002; 107(A11).

24.

Mace

Hellberg

. The Korteweg-de Vries-Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation for electron-acoustic waves. Phys Plasmas 2001; 8(6): 2649–2656.

25.

Shukla

Mamun

Eliasson

. 3D electron-acoustic solitary waves introduced by phase space electron vortices in magnetized space plasmas. Geophys Res Lett 2004; 7: 31.

26.

Mace

Baboolal

Bharuthram

, et al. Arbitrary-amplitude electron-acoustic solitons in a two-electron-component plasma. J Plasma Phys 1991; 45(3): 323–338.

27.

Devanandhan

Singh

Lakhina

. Electron acoustic solitary waves with kappa-distributed electrons. Phys Scripta 2011; 84(2): 025507.

28.

Verheest

Cattaert

Hellberg

. Compressive and rarefactive electron-acoustic solitons and double layers in space plasmas. Space Sci Rev 2005; 121(1): 299–311.

29.

Mohan

Buti

. Electron-acoustic solitons in current-carrying magnetized plasmas. Plasma Phys 1980; 22(9): 873–878.

30.

Buti

. Nonlinear electron-acoustic waves in a multi-species plasma. J Plasma Phys 1980; 24(1): 169–180. DOI: 10.1017/S0022377800022716

31.

Dubouloz

Treumann

Pottelette

, et al. Turbulence generated by a gas of electron acoustic solitons. J Geophys Res 1993; 98(A10): 17–22.

32.

Berthomier

Pottelette

Muschietti

, et al. Scaling of 3D solitary waves observed by FAST and POLAR. Geophys Res Lett 2003; 30(22): 2148.

33.

Khattak

Masood

Jahangir

, et al. Interaction of ion-acoustic solitons for multi-dimensional Zakharov Kuznetsov equation in Van Allen radiation belts. Chaos, Solit Fractals 2022; 161: 112265.

34.

Montgomery

Bame

Hundhausen

. Solar wind electrons: vela 4 measurements. J Geophys Res 1968; 73(15): 4999–5003.

35.

Zouganelis

. Measuring suprathermal electron parameters in space plasmas: implementation of the quasi-thermal noise spectroscopy with kappa distributions using in situ Ulysses/URAP radio measurements in the solar wind. J Geophys Res: Space Phys 2008; 113(A8).

36.

El-Tantawy

Alshehri

Duraihem

, et al. Dark soliton collisions and method of lines approach for modeling freak waves in a positron beam plasma having superthermal electrons. Results Phys 2020; 19: 103452.

37.

Vasyliunas

. Low-energy electrons on the day side of the magnetosphere. J Geophys Res 1968; 73(23): 7519–7523.

38.

Shah

Qureshi

Masood

, et al. Electron acoustic nonlinear structures in planetary magnetospheres. Phys Plasmas 2018; 25(4): 042303.

39.

El-Hanbaly

El-Shewy

Elgarayhi

, et al. Propagation of electron acoustic soliton, periodic and shock waves in dissipative plasma with a q -nonextensive electron velocity distribution. Commun Theor Phys 2015; 64(5): 529–536.

40.

Hassan

Sultana

TIS

Sultana

. Electron-acoustic solitons in magnetized collisional nonthermal plasmas. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2021; 49(12): 3749–3758. DOI: 10.1109/TPS.2021.3129920

41.

Frank

Burek

Ackerson

, et al. Plasmas in saturn’s magnetosphere. J Geophys Res 1980; 85(A11): 708–5695.

42.

Schippers

Blanc

André

, et al. Multi-instrument analysis of electron populations in Saturn’s magnetosphere. J Geophys Res: Space Phys 2008; 113(A7).

43.

Esposito

Krimigis

. Saturn from Cassini-huygens: Berlin, Germany: Springer.

44.

Anderson

Schubert

. Saturn’s satellite Rhea is a homogeneous mix of rock and ice. Geophys Res Lett 2007; 34(2): L02202.

45.

Burch

Goldstein

Lewis

, et al. Tethys and Dione as sources of outward-flowing plasma in Saturn’s magnetosphere. Nature 2007; 447(7146): 833–835.

46.

Bugaev

Nikolaev

Oks

, et al. The ‘TITAN' ion source. Rev Sci Instrum 1994; 65(10): 3119–3125.

47.

Maurice

Sittler

Cooper

, et al. Comprehensive analysis of electron observations at Saturn: voyager 1 and 2. J Geophys Res: Space Phys 1996; 101(A7): 15211–15232.

48.

Young

Berthelier

Blanc

, et al. Cassini plasma spectrometer investigation. The Cassini-Huygens Mission 2004: 114: 1–112.

49.

Krimigis

Mitchell

Hamilton

, et al. Magnetosphere imaging instrument (MIMI) on the Cassini mission to Saturn/Titan. The Cassini-Huygens Mission, 2004; 2: 233–329.

50.

Elwakil

El-Shewy

Abdelwahed

. Solution of the perturbed Zakharov-Kuznetsov (ZK) equation describing electron-acoustic solitary waves in a magnetized plasma. Chin J Phys 2011; 49(3): 44–732.

51.

Devanandhan

Singh

Lakhina

, et al. Small amplitude electron acoustic solitary waves in a magnetized superthermal plasma. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2015; 22(1-3): 22–30.

52.

Hirota

. Exact Solution of the Korteweg-de Vries Equation for Multiple Collisions of Solitons. Phys Rev Lett 1971; 27: 1192–1194.

53.

Hirota

. The direct method in soliton theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

54.

Wadati

. Wave propagation in nonlinear lattice. I. J Phys Soc Jpn 1975; 38(3): 673–680.

55.

Ablowitz

Clarkson

, et al. Solitons, nonlinear evolution equations and inverse scattering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

56.

Matveev

Salle

. Darboux transformations and solitons. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1991.

57.

Batool

Masood

Siddiq

, et al. Exact solution of CKP equation and formation and interaction of two solitons in pair ion-electron plasma, Phys Plasmas, 2016; 23: 082306.

58.

Jahangir

Masood

. Interaction of electron acoustic waves in the presence of superthermal electrons in terrestrial magnetosphere. Phys Plasmas 2020; 27(4): 042105.

59.

Shohaib

Masood

Jahangir

, et al. Interaction of dust ion acoustic solitons with cubic nonlinearity in a magnetized dusty plasma with(r,q) distributed electrons, Contributions to Plasma Physics 2022; 62(3): e202100134.

60.

Chuang

Hau

. The characteristics of ion acoustic solitons in non-Maxwellian plasmas. Phys Plasmas 2009; 16(2): 022901.

61.

Washimi

Taniuti

. Propagation of ion-acoustic solitary waves of small amplitude. Phys Rev Lett 1966; 17(19): 996–998.

62.

Tian

Liu

, et al. Soliton solutions and interactions of the Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation in the electron-positron-ion plasmas. The European Physical Journal D 2011; 61(3): 709–715.

63.

Yousaf Khattak

Masood

Jahangir

, et al. Interaction of ion acoustic solitons for Zakharov Kuznetsov equation in relativistically degenerate quantum magnetoplasmas. Waves Random Complex Media 2021, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/17455030.2021.1968536

64.

Gary

Tokar

. The electron-acoustic mode. Phys Fluids 1985; 28(8): 39–41.

65.

El-Tantawy

BSSA

El-Tantawy

. Homotopy perturbation method for modeling electrostatic structures in collisional plasmas. The European Physical Journal Plus 2021; 136: 121.

66.

Hong

. Abundant explicit solutions for the M-fractional generalized coupled nonlinear Schrödinger KdV equations. J Low Freq Noise Vib Act Control 2023; 0(0): 1–20.

67.

Hong

Wang

. Exact solutions for the generalized Atangana-Baleanu-Riemann fractional (3 + 1)-dimensional Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation. Symmetry Plus 2023; 15(3): 1–17.

68.

. Application of homotopy perturbation method to nonlinear wave equations. Chaos, Solit Fractals 2005; 26: 695–700.

69.

. Recent development of the homotopy perturbation method. Topol Methods Nonlinear Anal 2008; 31: 205–209.

70.

El-Tantawy

NHSA

El-Tantawy

. Simulation study on nonlinear structures in nonlinear dispersive media. Chaos 2020; 30: 053117.

71.

El-Tantawy

Salas

Alharthi

. On the analytical and numerical solutions of the linear damped nlse for modeling dissipative freak waves and breathers in nonlinear and dispersive mediums: an application to a pair-ion plasma. Frontiers in Physics 2021; 9: 580224.