.,. .

THE THEORY OF
COSMIC RAY MODULATION

J. J. Quenby,
Blackett Laboratory,
Imperial College
London SW7 2BZ

xbs tract
The current state of the theory describing cosmic ray modulation
in the interplanetary mediumis reviewed. Emphasis is given to the
problems of determining the transport coefficient for diffusion in energy
and position space andin assessing the importance of particle drift
motion in three dimensional modulation models.
Chapter headings are as fallows:

1. Introduction
2. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Solar Wind
3. The Fokker-Planckor Modulation Transport Equation
4. Derivation of the Transport Coefficients
4.1 The Parallel Diffusion Coefficient
4.2 Perpendicular Diffusion
4.3 Drift ?lotion in Smooth and Turbulent Fields
4.4 Statistical Acceleration Coefficient
5 Approximate Solution to the Modulation Equation
5.1 The Force-Field Solution
5.2 Energy Loss by Drift Kota Process
6 Steady state, monoenergetic source solutions
7. Spherically Symmetric Modulation Solutions and their Problems
7.1 The Diurnal Variation
7.2 Numerical Solutions
8 Thaee Dimensional Modulation Perpendicular gradient and Anisatropy Evidence
9 The Anomalous Low Energy
and -
Components Experimental Evidence
10 The Low Energy Componentsin the Context of Spherically Symmetric
Modulation Theory.
11 Three-Dimensional Modulation Models
12 Effects at the Boundary of Modulation
13 Dynamic Modulation
14 Conclusions

I,*
1. Introduction

The purposeof t h i s review i s to provide a d e s c r i p t i o n o f

the current state of the theory for the main e f f e c t s o f t h e i n t e r p l a n e t a r y
medium on t h e g a l a c t i c cosmic rayspectrum.Recent work explaining I

the three dimensional nature of energetic particle motion i n t h e

heliosphere, together with a continued input of interesting experimental
r e s u l t s from Pioneer 10 and 11 andVoyagers 1 and 2 makes t h i s task
necessary. While we w i l l concentrate on t h e developmentof theformal
description of the topic of modulation, important experimental data
requiring explanation w i l l be mentioned.

Two basic reasons motivate the desire to understand cosmic

raymodulation.For some, t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f e n e r g e t i c p a r t i c l e s w i t h
the electromagnetic fields of the interplanetary medium i s anexample
of an astrophysical plasmaproblem which should be capable of solution,
giventhecomprehensive andcomplementary f i e l d and p a r t i c l e d a t a
a v a i l a b l e . For o t h e r s ,t h ee f f e c to ft h ei n t e r p l a n e t a r y medium i s
simply t o mask our knowledge o f t h e t r u e i n t e r s t e l l a r cosmic ray spectra
below % lO1o eV and modulation studies are expected to provide suitable
correction factors to near Earth measurements of the charge and energy
spectra of cosmic ray nuclei and e l e c t r o n s .

I t was o n l y i n 1954 t h a t Forbush established the 11-year

modulationofthecosmic ray intensity in anti-correlation with solar
a c t i v i t y which is now recognised as t h e c h i e f e f f e c t o f t h e i n t e r p l a n e t a r y
medium on t h eg a l a c t i c spectrum(Forbush,1954). However, pre-1939
searches for anisotropies associated with the galaxy revealed intensity
v a r i a t i o n s dependent upon solar time which i n f a c t c o r r e s p o n d t o f l o w
patternsassociatedwiththe11-yearmodulation. Pomerantzand Duggal
(1971) i n t h e i r r e v i e w o f t h e s o l a r d i u r n a l a n i s o t r o p y c i t e M i e h l n i c k e l
(1938) as anexample ofsuch an observation.Transient change i n t h e
l e v e l of modulation usually associated with geomagnetic a c t i v i t y and
known a s t h e ForbushDecrease was f i r s t n o t i c e d i n t h e 1 9 3 0 ’ ~ ~e.9.
Messerschmidt(1933)andSteinmaurer and Grazidei(1933).

Quantitative theoretical understanding of modulation can take

two approaches, both deriving from the work of Parker on t h e s o l a r wind
(Parker,1958a) which established the supersonic plasma outflow from
the sun and t h e Archimedean s p i r a lf i e l dp a t t e r n .P a r k e r (195813)
pointed out the effect of s c a t t e r i n g i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e s o l a r wind
magnetic f i e l d would be t o cause a tendency for low energycosmicrays
t o convectoutwardswiththeflow. The r e d u c t i o n i n i n t e n s i t y n e a r
the sun would r e s u l t i n a balancing, inward d i f f u s i v e f l u x a l o n g t h e
spiralfieldlines,driven by thedensitygradient. A furthercause
€or reduction in the differential number d e n s i t y o f p a r t i c l e s is’ t h e
deceleration brought about by expansion of the solar windmedium.
This was f i r s t mentioned by Singer e t a 1 (1962) i n connectionwith a
t h e o r y f o r Forbush decreases, but was subsequently applied to the 11-
yearcyclemodulation byQuenby (19658)and Dorman (1965). A complete
Fokker-Planck e q u a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g d i f f u s i o n p a r a l l e l and perpendicular
t o t h e mean field, convection and energy loss due t o a d i a b a t i c
deceleration was then quickly provided by Parker (1965131.The only
modification to this equation required bymore recent studies i s the
inclusion of an a c c e l e r a t i o n term due t o t h e r e l a t i v e motionof waves
 - 2 -

i nt h es o l a r wind reference frame ( F i s k 1976a).Simplicityin

understanding modulation, especially the associated anisotropy,
d e r i v e s from t h e work ofGleeson andAxford(1968) on the Compton-
G e t t i n g f a c t o r , C = 1/3U a/aT(aTU) f o r number density U a t k i n e t i c
energy T with a = T+2Eo/T+E0. CXIJ r e p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t o r d e r c o r r e c t i o n
t o any wind frame anisotropy on transformation to the stationary
reference frame with solar wind v e l o c i t y x. Hence with a d i f f u s i o n
gradient drivenflux purely along the field lines in the wind frame,
K,, aIJ/as f o r p a r a l l e l d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t K,, and arc length along
t h e f i e l d s t t h e t o t a l r e s t frame streaming is

In equilibrium the radial component of 5 i s observed t o be roughly

zero, so CVU = Krr21J/ar where K r r i s t h e r e s o l u t e of K,, i n t h e or 5
r a d i a ld i r e c t i o n . Also theazimuthalstreaming i s K + r au/ar and
i s from t h e E a s t s i n c e t h e r e is no V+ and the Archimedean s p i r a l f i e l d
l i n e sr u n h a s tt o w e s t as seen by inward moving p a r t i c l e s . Because
thespiralangle is Z- 45O a t t h e E a r t h , we seeimmediately t h a t t h e
azimuthal streaming giving rise to the solar diurnal variation is = CVN.
Also the depth of modulation is given by

where rmrepresents the boundary of the modulation region or solar cavity.

Experimentally it i s found t h a t a t highmagnetic rigidities

('3 1 GV) , w e can w r i t e

where P i s i n GV and independent studies of U ( r m ) based on s p e c t r a l

compositiondata and galacticradioemissionsuggest M 0.3 0.6 GV -
a t s o l a r minimum. N o i n t e g r a l o f ( 2 ) can be performed r e l i a b l y a s y e t .
Attention has been paid to perpendicular diffusion and d r i f t motionunder
f i e l d g r a d i e n t and curvature and t o o u t - o f - e c l i p t i c e f f e c t s whichcan
s u b s t a n t i a l l y modify theapproximation (1) ( e . g . ' L i e t t i and Quenby, 1968;
J o k i p i i Levy andHubbard,1977) .
An alternatiwviewpoint or approximation to modulation arises
from the hypothesis of Ehmert (1960) t h a t t h e p a r t i c l e s move under a
h e l i o c e n t r i ce l e c t r i cp o t e n t i a l .T h i s i s not due t o an e l e c t r o s t a t i c
charge, as originally postulated, but results from the smooth f i e l d
limit o r Archimedean s p i r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e IMF (Interplanetary
Magnetic F i e l d ) . Here, t h e r e s t frame e l e c t r i c f i e l d i s E x =-x
because of the relativistic transformation appropriate to infinite
e l e c t r i c a lc o n d u c t i v i t yi nt h e moving frame.For a steady and - V,
t h e e l e c t r i c f i e l d can be represented by a p o t e n t i a l

= - a2 ~2 :B sin A (4)

where a is the distance from thesun t o t h e e a r t h , Br i s t h e r a d i a l

component of the magnetic field
1
a t a and X and Q a r e r e s p e c t i v e l y s o l a r
 - 3 -

i a t i t u d e and angularspeed(e.g.Stern,1964).Thisrepresentation
fails to explain azimuthal streaming because there i s no s c a t t e r i n g
to break Liouville's theoremwhich s a y s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e i s access
from a l l d i r e c t i o n s t o a g i v e n p o i n t i n t h e e l e c t r o s t a t i c p o t e n t i a l ,
no anisotropy can r e s u l t . I t does however provide a rough d e s c r i p t i o n
of t h e l e v e l o f cosmic ray modulation and the possible dominating
importance of three dimensional particle drift motionunder gradient
and c u r v a t u r ef o r c e s( J o k i p i i and Kopriva,1979;Kota,1979). These
d r i f t s move p a r t i c l e s a g a i n s t E t o o r from t h e s o l a r p o l a r r e g i o n s .

From the viewpoint of modulation studies as a means of doing

c o l l i s i o n l e s s plasma physics, the detailed understanding of the
i n t e r a c t i o n ofcosmic rays with interplanetary waves and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s
i s important.Jokipii(1966) and Roeloff(1966)pioneeredtheattack
on t h i s problem using the concept of the resonant wave-particle
interaction to scattering in pitch angle andhence K,, and t o e s t i m a t e
a l s o t h e magnitudeofperpendiculardiffusion.Accelerationduring
wave-particle interactions was studied by Tverskoy(1967) who included
the effects of both resonant interaction and those of long wavelength
f l u c t u a t i o n s . An example of a r e l a t e d s t u d y on t h e a b i l i t y ofshock
f r o n t s t o a c c e l e r a t e a low energy solar particle population i s t h a t of
S a r r i s and Van Allen(1974).

Although l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h e amount of material we can

reasonably cover in this review precludes a detailed account of
ForbushDecreasetheory, w e shouldmention a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t such
investigations also relate to the plasma physics of the interplanetary
medium. In t h i s c a s e , it i s l i k e l y t o be themodificationsresultant
upon the emission of a high speed stream o r a b l a s t wave from t h e sun
which causestheevent.Theoriesofthedecreaseeitherderive from
t h e d i s o r d e r e d f i e l d model ofMorrison(1956) o r an o r d e r e d f i e l d geometry
(ALfven 1954). & & i f p r o g r e s s h a s been made based upon a geometry derived
from Parker's (1963a) b l a s t wavemodel which introduced the idea of a
moving, leakybarrier.
Whereas it i s p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t t o s a y t h a t a l m o s t a l l t h e main
e f f e c t s governing the overall cosmic ray modulation were known by 1965,
t h e r e l a t i v e importance of the various terms in the Fokker-Planck
transport equation describing the interplanetary propagation and the
evaluation of the transport parameters employed remain as t o p i c s t o be
decided.Recentexperimental r e s u l t s which profoundlyinfluencethe
course of the theoretical development of t h e s u b j e c t a r e t h e c o n t i n u i n g
small values of the density gradient seen out to 20 AU andbeyond by
Pioneer 1 0 , the increasing confirmation that the mean
IMF is entirely
outward o r inwardabove ? 1 5 O -+ 30' s o l a r l a t i t u d e , e v i d e n c e f o r
i n t e r p l a n e t a r y a c c e l e r a t i o n a t low energies and a v a r i e t y of low energy
s o l a r p a r t i c l e and galactic charge composition and flow data which seem
t o be incompatible with low v a l u e s o f t h e s c a t t e r i n g mean f r e e p a t h
derived from local magnetic field data.

Our review mustbe s e l e c t i v e i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a mentioned

and o u r t h e o r e t i c a l development w i l l aim to present simple and t h e r e f o r e
non-rigorous proofs for the benefit of those who a r e n o t w e l l t r a i n e d i n
AppliedMathematics.Forboth thesereasons we now l i s t previousreviews,
through which a more thorough knowledge of the subject canbe obtained.
Theory i s reviewed i n book o r j o u r n a l form by Parker(1963b), Dorman
(1963) , Quenby (1967) , Parker(1969) , J o k i p i i (1971) Volk (1975) ,
' F i s k (1979) andGleesonand Webb (1979)whilereviewsgiven at
 - 4 -

conferencesincludeParker(1965a) , Quenby11965b) , Gleeson(1971) ,

Quenby (1973,1977), Forman (1975) , J o k i p i i (19-79) and Lee (19813 .
Experimentalevidence is reviewed i n book o r j o u r n a l form byWebber
(1962), Lockwood (1971), Pomerantzand Duggal (1971,1974)and
Moraal (1976),whileconference reviews include Webber (1967) ,
Gleeson (1971), Quenby (1973), Moraal (1975), Pomerantz (1975) ,
Nagashima (1977) , Duggal (1977) , Webber (1979) , McKibben (1981)and
Somogyi (1981).Relatedreviewsofsolarparticlepropagationinclude
McCracken and Rao (1970),Lin(1974) , P a l m e r (1981)and Quenby (1982).
Early work canbefollowed i n E l l i o t (1952)and Singer(1958).

2. The I n t e r p l a n e t a r y Magnetic F i e l d and The Solar Wind

Modulation theory can only reasonably be developed within the

context of current modelsfor the solar wind, t h e i n t e r p l a n e t a r y
magnetic f i e l d and the termination of the heliosphere a t t h e boundary
withtheinterstellar medium. Usually it hasbeentheadvanceof
knowledge concerning the solar plasma configuration which has pre-
dated improvement i n modulationtheory.Since w e a r e l i m i t e d by
c u r r e n t s o l a r wind data, including the three-dimensional field and
plasma d i s t r i b u t i o n , it i s r e a s o n a b l e t o b r i e f l y summarise t h i s
knowledge b e f o r e c r i t i c a l l y r e v i e w i n g cosmic ray propagation theory.

S t a r t i n g from t h e i d e a o f a s p h e c i a l l y symmetric, supersonic

plasma outflow from t h e sun, Parker (1958a) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a t t h e
veryhighmagneticReynolds number a p p r o p r i a t e to c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e
i n t e r p l a n e t a r y medium, frozen-infield lines i n i t i a l l yr a d i a li n .
d i r e c t i o n a t some p o i n t , r = b , c l o s e t o t h e s o l a r s u r f a c e , would
follow the Archimedes s p i r a l

r = Vt+b

C$ = C$ c Q t s i n 0
0

i n a spherical coordinate system with 8 = 0 defining the rotational

a x i s of t h e sunand bo a s t h e l o n g i t u d e o f o r i g i n o f t h e s t r e a m l i n e
o r f i e l d l i n e a t r = b where t h e flow j u s t becomes supersonic.
Conservation of magnetic flux i n t h e d i v e r g i n g geometry r e q u i r e s Br,
t h e r a d i a l component of the magnetic induction (to be known as
I f i e l d ' from henceforth) to go a s Br = Bo (b/r) for 2 = a a t r = b.
The s t r e a m l i n e / f i e l d l i n e makes anangle I) = tan'l(Qr sin e/V) t o
% a t r andhence Bc$ = Bo ( b / r ) 2 Q r s i n e/V.
Modifying Parker's idea to take into account the suggestion
ofSchulz(1973) and o t h e r s t h a t t h e s o l a r f i e l d and i t s extension
i n t o t h e s o l a r wind can be represented by the dragging out of a dipole,
t i l t e d a t an angle a w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s o l a r r o t a t i o n a l a x i s ,

where S ( X ) i s theHeavisidestepfunction. The c u r r e n ts h e e tr e p r e s e n t i n g

t h e bounday between inward.and outward interplanetary field is given by
 - 5 -

e . 9 .J o k i p i i and Kopriva,1979) .
Pioneer 11 d a t a (Smith e t a l , 1978)
s u g g e s t t h a t c1 = 16' i n 1976 b e c a u s e t h e s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n t h e
f i e l d had almost completely disappeared when the spacecraft reached
a h e l i o l a t i t u d e of16'.

Figure 1 ( J o k i p i i andThomas, 1980), shows a computer

simulation of the warped c u r r e n t s h e e t s e p a r a t i n g t h e outward and
inward r e g i o n s o f f i e l d p o l a r i t y . It i s thewobblingofthesolar
dipole equator with respect to a fixed point in interplanetary space
together with the roughly radial motion of the solar wind convecting
t h ef i e l da t a f i n i t e speed and causing a delayintheappearance
of one p a r t i c u l a r s i g n of t h e p h o t o s p h e r i c f i e l d a t a point in space
t h a t produces the pattern.

The r e l a t i v e l y simple t i l e d d i p o l e model does not, however,

satisfy completely the totality of the sector structure data available,
i np a r t i c u l a r on t h e Rosenberg-Coleman (1969) e f f e c t .T h i s measures
the dependence of magnetic f i e l d p o l a r i t y on h e l i o l a t i t u d e and the
problem i s discussed by Moussas and T r i t a k i s (1980). Hakamada and
Akasofu (1981) f o r example find two p e a k s p e r s o l a r c y c l e i n t h e
maximum h e l i o l a t i t u d e o f t h e c u r r e n t s h e e t between1965and1978,
namely i n 1968and1974and a maximum tilt angleof 2 7 ' . They found
t h i s by f i t t i n g a l a t i t u d e dependence t o t h e s o l a r wind speed a s
revealed by i n t e r p l a n e t a r y s c i n t i l l a t i o n d a t a on the movement of
inhomogeneitiesacrossradiosources (DennisonandHewish,1967;
Sime and Rickett,1978). The angleofdipole tilt was then made t o
f i t the chief feature of the observed solar wind speed a t t h e e a r t h .
Polar coronal holes are supposed t o be centred on t h e d i p o l e a x i s and
hence theequatorwardsspreadingofthepolarstreams(e.9.Suess e t a1
1976)appear i n t h e n o r t h e r n and southernhemispheres a t longitudes
separated by 180'. Hakamada andAkasofu show t h e s o l a r wind speed t o
be a maximum twice per 27-day r o t a t i o n p e r i o d and in phase with their
predicted maximum ofsolarmagneticlatitude.Thisobservationtogether
withtheexpectedsignreversalofeachhalfrotationperiodfits
into the idea oftheequatorwardsspreading from coronal holes.
However t o o b t a i n a 4 - s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e a s sometimes observed,an
a d d i t i o n a l l o n g i t u d i n a l wave s t r u c t u r e is p o s t u l a t e d f o r t h e c u r r e n t
sheet, possibly due t o f o r example two northern coronal streamers in
1971-1973 (Howard and Koomen, 1974) .
An o v e r a l l surmnary of t h e t i m e v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r p l a n e t a r y
s c i n t i l l a t i o n measurements is given by Coles e t a1 1980, from whom
Figure 2 is reproduced. While t h ee q u a t o r i a l wind speedremains
relatively steady, the high latitude speed and p o s i t i v e l a t i t u d i n a l
g r a d i e n t i n speed a r e b o t h g r e a t e s t a t s o l a r minimum. Note a l s o t h e
contraction of the coronal hole area near solar maximum.

Simultaneous Helios I and Helios 2 magnetometer observations

between 0.28 and 1 AU confirm the average tilted current sheet configuration
giving a angle c1 = 10' ( V i l l a n t e e t a 1 1 9 7 9 ) . However observational
s c a t t e r a b o u t t h e mean r e s u l t canbe interpreted in terms of local
d i s t o r t i o n t o t h e warped current sheet boundaryand Figure 3 i s one
possible model s a t i s f y i n g t h e d a t a . Four s e c t o r s a r e o n l y found a t
n o r t h e r n l a t i t u d e s i n t h i s model.
 - 6 -

Concerning the overall and fluctuating behaviour of the

magnetic f i e l d , a recent study by Thomas andSmith(1980a)confirms
the average Parker spiral angle out to 8.5 AU but shows t h a t t h e
f i e l d d i r e c t i o n e x h i b i t s more v a r i a b i l i t y i n q u i e t t h a n i n i n t e r a c t i o n
regions of the solar wind. Pioneer 1 0 d a t a o u t t o 5 AU approximately
f i t the expected rm2r a d i a l magnetic f i e l d dependenceand the associated
r-1 a z i m u t h a l f i e l d v a r i a t i o n (Rosenberg e t a1 1978)though some
departure from t h e l a t t e r l a w due t o c o r r e l a t e d 8
can beaccommodated in the scatter of the results (Goldstein
<
6 B,$ f l u c t u a t i o n s
and
J o k i p i i1 9 7 7 ) . Thomas andSmith(1980b)have s t u d i e dt h er a d i a l power
spectrum.of fluctuations and Figures 4 and 5 respectively show t h e power
in the transverse I
and BI o r l o n g i t u d i n a l f l u c t u a t i o n components a t
d i f f e r e n tr a d i a ld i s t a n c e s . The s p e c t r a li n d i c e sa th i g hf r e q u e n c i e s
tendtoincyease from -1.7 t o -1.4 between 1 and 7 AU. Integrated
power s p e c t r a l data.show a r a d i a l v a r i a t i o n p r o p o r t i o n a l t o 1-3-03 f o r .
thetransverse componentand p r o p o r t i o n a lt o r - 2 - 0 4 f o r 6 B .
Thus
t h e s c a l i n g of the transverse power i s close tlj t h a t o f I B d , which
v a r i e s as r-2.74 (Rosenberg e t a1 1978)whilethelongitudinal
f l u c t u a t i o n s become r e l a t i v e l y more important further out.

Burlaga(1979)hasrecentlyreviewedthesubjectof wave motion

within the IMF from the viewpoint of identification of the propagation
m d e sf o rt h ed i s t u r b a n c e s . I t i s g e n e r a l l ya g r e e dt h a t most f l u c t u a t i o n s
are Alfv6nic, obeying 6 1 = A 6 g where A = V A / B ~ for Alfv6nic speed VA
and mean f i e l d g. However, it i s necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h between
e i t h e rp l a n e ,t r a n s v e r s e wave fluctuationswith 6 B ( t ) o s c i l l a t i n gi n
2 dimensions so that [El = constant and the perturbation vector moves
on a small c i r c l e of a s p h e r e o f t h i s r a d i u s b u t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e
plane p e r p e n d i c u l atro ar l t e r n a t i v e l y
themre general = constant
wave case where Bg(t) f l u c t u a t e s o v e r t h e s u r f a c e of t h i s sphere i n
d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s a t d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s (Whang 1973,Goldstein e t a 1
1974).Inthe second case,there is a 6BL : 6B,, a n t i c o r r e l a t i o n and
observations confirm this latter situation i s t h e most common (Sari
1977) . Both typesof waves a r e p r e d i c t e d t o f o l l o w I
a /6g(r) = r-3/2
r a d i a l dependence (Whang 1 9 7 3 ) , i n agreementwiththe Thomas andSmith
power s p e c t r ad a t a . By studyingthetime it takesthesefluctuations
t o convect i n t h e s o l a r wind p a s t two c l o s e s p a c e c r a f t , it i s possible
to study the alignment of the minimum v a r i a n c e d i r e c t i o n o r e q u i v a l e n t l y
the k (propagationvector)orientation (DenskatandBurlaga,1977).
T h i s s t u d y i n d i c a t e s a tendency f o r & t o a l i g n w i t h t h e a v e r a g e f i e l d
d i r e c t i o n ,r a t h e rt h a nt h er a d i a ld i r e c t i o n .T h e o r e t i c a lp r e d i c t i o n s
i n t h e absence of velocity gradients had suggested that Alfv6n waves
would have & v e c t o r s more n e a r l y r a d i a l i n o r i e n t a t i o n ( B a r n e s , 1969;
Vdlk and Alpers,1973) . Furthermore, the tendency of the .& d i r e c t i o n
t oa l i g nw i t hi n c l u d e st h el e a d i n g and t r a i l i n g edge p a r t s . ofstream
interaction regions contrary to the prediction of some that &would
point west of the earth-sun line at the front and e a s t of t h i s l i n e t o
the rear of the interaction.

Large s c a l ed i s c o n t i n u i t i e sa l s oe x i s ti nt h e IN?. Discontinuous

f i e l d changes i n d i r e c t i o n 5 30" occur a t a r a t e o f 0.5 t o one per hour
and there are roughly equal numberswhich a r e t a n g e n t i a l d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s
w i t hp a r a l l e lt ot h es u r f a c e and no mass flowacross and r o t a t i o n a l
d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s w i t h a f i e l d component normal t o t h e s u r f a c e and mass
flowacrossthisplane(e.9.Burlaga etal,1977). Whilemost r o t a t i o n a l
d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s resemble Alfvgnic fluctions in that they conserve IBI ,
-
changes i n t h e plasma anisotropy, (PA P,,) , across the surface allows
possible change i n Il3I (Hudson, 1970) .
Interplanetaryshocks,another
 - 7 -

discontinuity class, are distinguished by l a r g e v e l o c i t y changeand

plasmacompression. They a r e e i t h e r of t h e t r a n s i e n t t y p e where f l a r e
accelerated gas pushes i t s way through the ambient solar wind o r of
the corotating type associated with fast solar wind stream o r i n t e r a c t i o n
regions.Intheoutersolarsystem, two b a s i cc o r o t a t i n gr e g i o n sa r e
found,eachcomprisingof a f a s t and reversed shock p a i r and following
a spiral pattern, with compressedgas inside the regions and r a r e f i e d
gas and q u i e t magneticconditionsoutside(Smith andWolfe, 1979).
Other p o s s i b l e s p e c i a l f i e l d c o n f i g u r a t i o n s seem t o e x i s t o c c a s i o n a l l y ,
such as the closed magnetic loops or tightly wound helixes seen by
Burlaga and Klein(1980) and others.Interactionregionsoften seem
t o o v e r t a k e and absorb the neutral sheet, separating the inwardand
outward IMF (Thomas andSmith 1 9 8 0 ~ ) . Hakamada andAkasofu (1982)
model t h i s and o t h e r a s p e c t s of the kinematics of the 3-dimensional
s o l a r wind disturbance structure.

3. The Fokker-Planck o r Modulation

Transport
Equation

Although the basic equation describing cosmic ray modulation

has been known s i n c e 1965 (Parker 1965331, there has been a continuing
theoretical effort to understand the various terms and r e f i n e t h e
derivation.Evolving knowledge oftheinterplanetaryelectromagnetic
conditions has greatly influenced this process. Basically we may
comprehend modulation a s t h e r e s u l t o f a competition.Galactic
particles attempt to follow the Archimedean s p i r a l f i e l d l i n e s i n t o
t h es u n ,b u ts u f f e rs c a t t e r i n g due t o magnetic waves. Provided a
density gradient i s set up, t h e r e mustbe aninward d i f f u s i v e c u r r e n t ,
supplemeniedinprinciple by t r a n s v e r s e s c a t t e r i n g and l a r g e - s c a l e d r i f t
motion a c r o s s t h e f i e l d l i n e s t o o r from the polar Archimedean f i e l d
l i n e s where t h e i n t e n s i t y may be r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t . T h i s inward
current is balanced by anoutwardconvectivesweeping as the scattering
centresarecarried by t h e s o l a r wind.Since inthesolar wind
reference frame these scattering centres are receding from each other,
a p a r t i c l e energy loss is also expected to deplete the intensity in
a d i f f e r e n t i a l momentum range.

A tensor diffusion coefficient may be constructed, based on

the belief that the Archimedean p a t t e r n is dominantand t h a t f i e l d
f l u c t u a t i o n sa r er e l a t i v e l y small. Note t h a t t h e power l e v e l s f o r
t h e f l u c t u a t i o n s mentioned i n s e c t i o n 2 a c t u a l l y imply <6BL>/B 'L 0 . 3 -f

0.5, so t h i s approximationrequirescarefulinvestigation.Individual
p a r t i c l e motion i s considered under the guiding centre approximation
and f i e l d i r r e g u l a r i t i e s a r e t h o u g h t t o c a u s e a p p r e c i a b l e changefrom
theinitialhelicaltrajectoryonlyafter many gyrations. By working
initially in the solar wind framewhere t h e e l e c t r i c f i e l d E = -1x
is generally small, s i n c e VA/V 2 1/10, t h e e l a s t i c c o l l i s i o n approximation
i s u s e f u l . The p a r t i c l ek i n e t i ct h e o r y approach of Parker(1958a) and
the Boltzman equationapproachof Axford(1965)and Quenby (1966) t o
t h i s d i f f u s i o n t e n s o r can be i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner which
simply r e - i t e r a t e s a standard, plasma physical treatment employing a
relaxationlength ( A l l i s 1956).

Introduceastheguidingcentrevelocityforparticle motion
i n uniform magnetic induction B, e l e c t r i c f i e l d E with LL& = eB/mc as
thecyclotronangularfrequency.Letcompleterandomisationofindividual
p a r t i c l e motionoccurwithfrequency vc i n e l a s t i c , "hardsphere"
 - 8 -

collision. Hence Newton'ssecondlaw is

ir
9
= -
a+,,% - vc %
with a = eEJm t h e l i n e a r a c c e l e r a t i o n and we t a k e t h e s t e a d y s t a t e
s i t u a t i o n , ir
9
= 0. Taking thevectorproduct u+
x (8) we f i n d '

whichcanbe written in tensor notation as vgi = p i j E . where u i j

7
representsthevariousconductivities. However i f w e represent
the force per unit volume and p e r u n i t mmentum i n t e r v a l a t p, UeE
by -grad P-where U ( r , p , t ) i s t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l number density and
define a p a r t i c l e p r e s s u r e P = 1/3 Um v2 a t p a r t i c l e v e l o ci n
ity
u n i t momentum i n t e r v a l , w e f i n d

(10)

For r = i x +-
jy + kz and E in the & direction,
v' '

C
- 0)
b
0
2
v 2+u
+'b 'c c b

= 32v 0

1
-
~ 0 0 V
C

Hence % becomes a streaming velocity, driven by a p a r t i c l e d e n s i t y

gradient and a p a r a l l e l mean f r e e p a t h may be introduced, X,, = v v C f
a p p r o p r i a t e t o momentum 2. The p a r a l l e l d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i s K,, =
X,,v/3 and when vc << wb, the other diagonal terms of the tensor yield
d i f f u s i o nc o e f f i c i e n t s , K, = vX,,/3u = v p 2 / 3 where p is thecyclotron
radius and w e a r e i n v o l v e d i n s c a t t g r i n g fiy a length p every x,,
distancetravelledalong E. The offdiagonaltermsarethenanalogous
t o t h e Hall conductivity and correspond physically to streaming,due to
agradient
perpendicular
centre
guiding to E. ..

To transform this diffusion anisotropy from the moving o r wind

frame to the fixed reference frame in which.observations are made, the
anisotropy mustbe c o r r e c t e d f o r t h e Compton-Getting e f f e c t . T h i s
f a c t o r a r i s e s from t h e b u n c h i n g o f t h e p a r t i c l e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n i n
t h e 1 d i r e c t i o n andchange i n t h e e n e r g y o f i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c l e s due t o
theconvectivemotion. GleesonandAxford(1967) f i r s to b t a i n e dt h e
accepted expression for this correction by applying the Boltzmann
equationintherest frame t o "hard sphere" scattering in a spherically
symmetricwind w i t h r a d i a l E. Forman (1970) hasprovided a more e a s i l y
followed proof whichdepends on the Lorentz invariance of t h e p a r t i c l e
d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n on reference frame transformation :
 - 9 -

where primed q u a n t i t i e s r e f e r t o t h e moving frame.For relative

v e l o c i t y v << v

p - p' = -Pv
v -
and a Taylorexpansionof (12) yields

f o r a g r a d i e n t V i n momentum space. I f is t h eu n i tv e c t o ri nt h e
anisotropy direceion in the stationary frame,

v f' = n -a +t V
O(-$
P - aP
as the anisotropy in the primedframe is of order V/v and so

and t h e f i r s t term i n (16) i s t h e Compton-Getting c o r r e c t i o n t o t h e

anisotropy. Going from g r a d i e n t o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n t o
d i f f e r e n t i a l number d e n s i t y i n k i n e t i c e n e r g y , T, yieldsthestreaming
correction
I d
c v- u = ( 1 -3
-U --a
aT TU) V U

where a = T + 2E0/T + Eo and Eo i s rest energy.For a spectralindex

n = - a RnJ/a RnT f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t e n s i t y J ( r , T ) = v U / ~ ' K , C =
( 2 + an)/3. I t may be shown(Dorman e t a1 1977) t h a t t h e k i n e t i c
equationdeveloped by Dolginovand Toptygin(1968) by s t a r t i n g w i t h
the Liouville equation and a spectrum of plane wave turbulence leads
u l t i m a t e l y t o a similar r e s u l t t o ( 1 7 ) . Dorman e t a1 a l s o show t h e
equivalence of the DolginovandToptygin work t o t h e Fokker Planck of
Parker (1965b)in their work which was o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n a Russian
j o u r n a l i n 1966.

Our n e x t s t e p i n s e t t i n g up the complete transport equation is

t o c o n s i d e r d i f f u s i o n i n energyspace.Parker (1965b) and J o k i p i i and
Parker (1967, 1970)usedan adiabaticdecelerationrate

true either i n thefixedorthe wind frame. A n a l t e r n a t i v e and more

physically understandable approach i s to consider energy change i n t h e
fixedframe.There must be a c u r r e n t a / a T (dT/dt) U i n energyspace
where (dT/dt) is t h e mean rate o f i n c r e a s e o f t h e p a r t i c l e k i n e t i c
energywithrespect t o time. W e may suppose t h a t t h e s o l a r wind does
work a g a i n s t a pressuregradientofthe cosmic raygas.That i s , the
magnetic f i e l d l i n e s are f o r c i n g t h e i r way past an existing gas
d i s t r i b u t i o n . The gaspressure, assumed t o b e i s o t r o p i c , i s aTU/3 and
hence t h e cosmic r a y s a c t u a l l y gain heat (random) energy a t a r a t e

(
dT
zU)= x . grad P p e ru n i t volume, p e r second

(Fisk1974, Quenby 1973,Gleeson and Webb, 1974). Thus

I - 10 -

dT a C~TU
(dt' u = v -
ar

A t this stage it is a p p r o p r i a t e t o g a t h e r up the previous terms into

t h e Fokker Planck of Parker by s e t t i n g down t h e complete c o n t i n u i t y
equation for U ( r , T , t ) . N e t streaming i n r and T spacewith a l l
q u a n t i t i e s measured i n t h e s t a t i o n a r y frame i s

-au
a +t div -
S
3
+E dT
(z)U = 0

i s Compton Gettingplusdiffusivestreaming.Substituting(19) and

( 2 1 ) into(20)for a s p h e r i c a l l y symmetric s i t u a t i o n w i t h no s t a t i s t i c a l
acceleration yields

( c f . Parker196523,Axford and Gleeson1967, Skilling1975).

Webb andGleeson(1979)haveprovided furtherinsightintothe

d e r i v a t i o no ft h i se q u a t i o n( 2 2 ) employing t h e a d i a b a t i c loss (18) by
f i r s t showing t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways i n which (18) can be established.
Then a procedure given by J o k i p i i and Parker 1970 i s followed t o y i e l d
( 2 2 ) . The f i r s t o f Webb andGleeson'sapproaches is t o t a k e a continuity
equation similar to (20) but written in terms of U* which i s p a r t i c l e
d e n s i t y measured w i t h r e s p e c t t o moving frame momehxn, p ' , and fixed
frame p o s i t i o n , r . Likewise g* is defined and shown t o be E* = U' +
S' where U ' and a r e moving frame q u a n t i t i e s . The
momentum c h a d
Zrm <p' >*Panalogous t o dT/dt i n ( 2 0 ) was evaluated by n o t i n g t h a t
momentum canchangebecauseof the Lorentz force or as a consequenceof
t h e s p a t i a l and time dependence o f t h e s o l a r wind v e l o c i t y . Averaging
over a group of n e a r l y i s o t r o p i c p a r t i c l e s and using the Lorentz
transformation yielded

a l g e b r a i c a l l y i d e n t i e a l t o p a r k e r ' s form. I t was n o t e dt h a tt h e

d e r i v a t i o n d i d n o t r e l y on t h e d e t a i l e d form of the Lorentz force
provided wave motion i n t h e wind frame vas neglected.

The second derivationfollowedSkilling (1971) i n t a k i n g

moments o f t h e ensembleaveraged Liouvilleequation. Again it was
n o t i c e d t h a t t h e momentum change terms i n t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n t i n u i t y
equation depended only upon a / a r . ( F ) and n o t on t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e
Lorentzforce (F i s t h e f i x e d frame d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n ) .

Webb and Gleeson's third approach was t o re-do t h e o r i g i n a l

work on b e t a t r o n and inverse-Fermi deceleration f i r s t mentionedby
Singer e t a1 (1962)andusedby Quenby (,1965a,1967) .
Inthesolar wind
frame,cosmic rays lose energy as they bouncebackwardsand forwards
a l o n g t h e s p i r a l IMF l i n e s because of the net recession of the scattering
centres.Thisinverse of t h e Fermi accelerationprocess is shown to give
 I

- 11 -

where JI i s theangle between t h e f i e l d and t h e r a d i a l d i r e c t i o n . Also

i n t h e windframe t h e r e i s a betatron deceleration. From theviewpoint
of a reference point moving with the wind, t h e r e i s a f i n i t e c u r l E
becauseoftheexpansionofthesurroundingplasma. Hence eachgyro-
periodtheparticlelosesenergybecause aB'/at i s negative. I t i s
found t h a t

= - p3' [V.E- 5 -B : VV
B2
1

which is a l g e b r a i c a l l y t h e a d i a b a t i c r a t e t o g e t h e r w i t h a secondterm
dependent on f i e l dd i r e c t i o n . ( 2 4 ) plus(25)togetheryield(23)
. .
which i s t h e a d i a b a t i c r a t e p u r e l y measured i n t h e movingframe. Thus
it seems t h a t (18) represents average deceleration with momentum
measured i n t h e moving frameand p o s i t i o n i n e i t h e r t h e f i x e d o r moving
frame. The model used i n t h e above, t h i r d d e r i v a t i o n i s more s p e c i f i c
than employed in the previous two cases, but nevertheless greater physical
insight i s obtained into the real situation.

Adopting(23) and t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t method

yields fie transport equation

J o k i p i i and Parker(1970) and Webb and Gleeson(1979) show U = U* +

0 (V/V) so on r e l a b e l l i n g t h e momentum p ' by p , t h e f a m i l i a r Pmomehum
form of ( 2 2 ) i s obtained.

From the standpoint of this derivation, there i s energy loss onaverage

for all particles in the wind frameand t h e f i x e d frame e q u a t i o n a r i s e s
f i n a l l y a s a resultofthetransformationof number density.Inour
previousderivationleadingto ( 2 2 ) w e kept the number d e n s i t y i n t h e
fixed framewhere heatingoccurredfortheaverageparticle. However
an energy loss termappeared anddominated t h e f i n a l e q u a t i o n v i a t h e
Compton Gettingtransformation.Physicallythis may correspondtothe
a t t e m p t , b y t h e s o l a r wind t o remove p a r t i c l e s from the observer via the
outward convection process.

It i s now necessary for completeness and to correspond to current

knowledge t o add terms t o t h e FokkerPlanckwhich allow for the
a c c e l e r a t i o n i n t h e s o l a r windbymechanisms r e l a t e d t o t h e Fermi
s t a t i s t i c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n ofcosmic rays. The i n t e r a c t i o n under
discussion is t h e s t a t i s t i c a l energy increase when charged p a r t i c l e s
s c a t t e r o f f wavesmoving i n t h e wind frame. As i n t h e o r i g i n a l Fermi
s i t u a t i o n , a mean a c c e l e r a t i o n , <AT,, i s p o s s i b l e , a v e r a g e d o v e r a l l
head-on and t a i l - o n c o l l i s i o n s a n a a l s o a s t a t i s t i c a l , energy diffusion
term, <AT2>, due t o f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e e n e r g y g a i n p e r c o l l i s i o n
(Davis,1956). Hence it is possibletowritethecontinuityequation
i n energyspace as
 - 12 -

-au a
+ - ( D T U - - D
a U ) = 0
aTa t aT TT

However, p r o v i d e d L i o u v i l l e ' s t h e o r e m h o l d s f o r p a r t i c l e t r a j e c t o r i e s
i n t h e IMF i n a finegrainedsense, Dungey's (1965)proof f o r s p a t i a l
d i f f u s i o n t h a t t h e mean and root mean square diffusion coefficients
canbe r e l a t e d may be adopted t o t h e energy case and both terms can
be combined i n t h e formp-2 a/app2 Dpp af/at for the divergence of
t h ed i s t r i b u t i o nf u n c t i o nc u r r e n t (Moussas e t a1 1982a).Transformation
from f ( p ) t o U ( T ) y i e l d s DTT = ~ T D Tand

for the statistical acceleration term (Fisk1976a, Wibberenzand

Beuermann, 1972). Hence the FokkerPlanckwithspherical symmetry i s
now

+-a ( DTT U a au
aT
z ) - - D
aT TT ar
4. Derivation
the
of
Transport
Coefficients

The n e x t s t e p i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f modulationtheory i s t o
consider the magnitude of the various transport parameters or diffusion
coefficients i n ( 2 9 ) . I n p r i n c i p l e , t h e s e may bederived from a p r e c i s e
knowledge of the interplanetary magnetic and e l e c t r i c f i e l d v a l u e s and
t h e i rf l u c t u a t i o n .I np r a c t i c e ,t h e r ea r e problemsboth i nt h et h e o r y
relating the local field values to the transport parameters because
the fluctuations are so l a r g e and also because the spatial dependence
of these fluctuations is incompletely known f o r t h e whole s o l a r c a v i t y .

The lowest order approximation t o p a r t i c l e motion i n i n t e r p l a n e t a r y

space a t r i g i d i t i e s f o r which p << r (cyclotron radius small compared
with scale of medium) i s t h a t t h e g u i d i n g c e n t r e s f o l l o w t h e f i e l d l i n e s .
D i f f u s i o np a r a l l e lt o i s thencaused by sudden orprogressive change i n
theparticlepitchangle 8 r e s u l t i n g i n motion p a s t 8 = 90". A l l
analyticaltheoriesfortheparallel mean f r e e p a t h , A,,, s t a r t from the
ideaofDoppler-shiftedgyroresonance. Near r e l a t i v i s t i c p a r t i c l e s s e e
an e s s e n t i a l l y s t a t i o n a r y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f waves o f d i f f e r e n t f r e q u e n c i e s
but they interact preferentially with those whose wavelengths X, match
t h es p a t i a ld i s t a n c eo v e r which t h e p a r t i c l e s makeme gyroperiod. Thus
theresonancecondition is k = 2.rr/Aw = ub/vII. The d e r i v a t i o n ofthe
d i f f u s i o nc o e f f i c i e n tg i v e n by Jokipii(1966,1967),Roeloff(1966) and
HasselmannandWibberenz (1968) i s b e s t i l l u s t r a t e d i n a simple way by
followingthe Kenneland Petschek(1966)formulationgiveninthe
context of magnetospheric particle scattering.

Now tan 8 = vL/v,, f o r vl. and v, as the perpendicular and

p a r a l l e l components o f p a r t i c l e v e l o c i t y . Assume a smallperturbation
 - 13 -

A8 from t h e n e a r l y h e l i c a l t r a j e c t o r y around a f i e l d c o n s i s t i n g o f
p l u s p e r t u r b a t i o n b(2) due t o a transverse wave.Hence

Work i n t h e r e f e r e n c e frameof t h e wave so t h a t t h e r e i s no change i n

t o t a l e n e r g yo ft h ep a r t i c l e .I nf a c t w e assume the wave t o be
stationaryduringthewave-particleinteraction.Differentiating
v2 = v ~ 2 + vIl2 = const. allows us to find from ( 3 0 ) , A8 : - A v , , / v ~ .
NOW if Av,, i s due t o t h e wave and particle being in resonance for a
time A t

o r A8 = wb b/B A t . I n p r a c t i c e , no p a r t i c l e i s exactlyinphasewith
t h e wave and t h e r a c e o f change of r e l a t i v e phase is

-dlg= kv,, - w
dt b
f o r wavenumber k . Adopt t h e s i m p l e c r i t e r i o n t h a t i n t h e r e s o n a n c e
t i m ? A t t h e wave i s within t Ak/2 of resonance and t h e phase difference
Alp < 1 radian. Then

I f w e i n t e r p r e t A,, a s b e i n g t h e d i s t a n c e i n which N separate wave-

particle interactions bring about a t o t a l p i t c h a n g l e changeof one
radian, & <A8> : 1 and <v,,>N AT = A,, i n time A T . The s p a t i a l wave
number k i s r e l a t e d t o a stationary spacecraft observation of waves
convectedpast by a t frequency v by k = 2 ~ v / V . I f b2/Av = P ( v ) is
the power spectrumofthetransverse waves i n i n t e r v a l Ak, ( 3 1 )
f i n a l l y becomes
-3

. A,, =
VBk 1 (33)
411 P(V) 2
,

where A,, corresponds to a p a r t i c l e magnetic r i g i d i t y R = V B / ~ T V v/<v,,>.

Above we have assumed t h a t a Fokker-Planck equation correctly

,&scribedparalleldiffusion. A m r e r i g o r o u s approach i s t o d e r i v e
the Fokker-Planckfrom theLiouvilleequation.Thisdesirable aim
faces problems in the approximation involved, but nevertheless we
..- o u t l i n et h et r e a t m e n t ,f o l l o w i n gJ o k i p i i ' s 1 9 7 1 reviewversion.Start
* withthe wind frame Liouvilleequation,neglectingadditional,
f l u c t u a t i n g e l e c t r i c f i e l d s , so that the Lorentz force is

For a d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n f ( g , p , t ) ,

Let the fluctuations in f and B b e r e p r e s e n t e d by f = < f > + 6 t and

- - + 6B and taken an ensemble average,
B = <B>
 - 14 -

Subtract(35) from (34)

This may be integrated along a p a r t i c l e t r a j e c t o r y U ( t ' ) from t h e

i n i t i a lc o n d i t i o n s f (p r t ) to p, g, t.
Q ' Q ' 0

6f (p,r,t) = 6f (%,%,to) + e .aa-( 6gf )

A t this stage, the terms 6 B 6f a r e u s u a l l y i g n o r e d i n r e l a t i o n t o 6E < f > .

The quasi-linearapproximation i s theninvoked.This assumes t h a t t h e
particles follow helical trajectors along the mean f i e l d and that any
s e r i e s expansion involved in evaluating the integral can be r a p i d l y
terminated. Klimas and S a u d r i( 1 9 7 1 ) ,s t a t et h a tt h eb a s i cp o i n t
concerningthesecondassumption l i e si nt h a tt h ep a r t i c l eg y r o r a d i u s -
mustbe much greater than the typical length over which t h e f i e l d
f l u c t u a t i o n sa r ec o r r e l a t e d . Hall and Sturrock(1967) show t h a t ( 3 7 )
canbe reduced t o t h e Fokker Planck incorporating pitch angle and
perpendicular diffusion with coefficients reducible to Jokipii's
q u a s i - l i n e a rr e s u l t( J o k i p i i1 9 6 6 ) . These a u t h o r sa l s o compute
diffusion in energy space. The neglect of some terms i n 6E may be
u n j u s t i f i e d i f 6B Q ,
<B>/2 and as we s h a l l mention l a t e r , t h e approximation
of helical trajectories i s a r t i f i c i a l a t l a r g e 8 and again may f a i l
for 6B sufficiently large.

The Fokker Planck derivable from quasi-linear theory in Cosine

pitch angle space (cos 8 = u ) and i n t h e x andy s p a t i a l c o o r d i n a t e s
- p a r a l l e l t o t h e z axis i s
f o r <B>

2 2
<(Ax)>/At and <(Ay) > / A t express perpendicular diffusion, but a t the
moment we a r e concernedwith p a r a l l e ld i f f u s i o n .J o k i p i i (1966)
obtained
 - 15 -

f o r m = ym , wo = e<B>/mc and P, = 6/vn a s t h e power i n one

perpendicuyar component of t h e f i e l d f l u c t u a t i o n when v runs from
-0) t o +a.

From (34) K,, i s derived by considering the relaxation of a

n e a ri s o t r o p i cp i t c ha n g l ed i s t r i b u t i o na c c o r d i n gt o (38) ( J o k i p i i
1966, HasselmaMandWibberenz 1970, Earl 1 9 7 4 ) . I t is found t h a t

2 1 ll, (1-pZ)
K,, = -
V
/ [ I <(Au)'> du 1 u ' d u '
-1 0 A t

K,, may be estimated experimentally (see Palmer 1982 f o r a

recent review) from t h e t i m e o f a r r i v a l and shape of t h e a r r i v a l
profileofsolarprotons,releasedin a 'prompt'event and propagating
pasttheEarth and o t h e r s p a c e c r a f t p o s i t i o n s . These observations
a r e compared with FokkerPlanck s o l u t i o n s employing a range of transport
parameters. Many s t u d i e s (Wibberenz e t a 1 1970, Quenby and Sear 1971,
Zwickland Webber 1978, e t c . ) f i n d A,, 2 0.05 AU a t 2 1 GV whileuse
of ( 3 9 ) , (40) and experimentalvaluesof P, y i e l d X,, 2 0 . 0 1 AU a t
t h e s er i g i d i t i e s . Furthermore,solutionofthesteadystatemodulation
equation in conjunction with measured i n t e r p l a n e t a r y g r a d i e n t s i n t h e
cosmic r a y i n t e n s i t y a l s o s u g g e s t X ,, 9 0 . 1 AU (e. g. Lezniakand
Webber 1973). A p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n f o r t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y between quasi-
l i n e a r t h e o r y and experiment l i e s i n t h e a d d i t i o n of the focussing
term V 2 1/B aB/az (1-p2) a f / a u i n (38) due tothedivergenceofthe
i n t e r p l a n e t a r yf i e l dl i n e s( R o e l o f 1969). However, Earl 1 9 8 1 f i n d s
t h a t i f X,,/L 2 0 . 1 where L i s t h e s c a l e of t h e f i e l d v a r i a t i o h ( 1 AU
fornear earth observations) diffusion rather than adiabatic focussed
propagationdominates.Thisconclusion is confirmed by thecomputations
of Kota e t a1 (1982) who show t h a t Fokker Planckequationsolutions
without a focussing term remain valid for the expected range of X,,
values. Palmer (1982) and Quenby (1982) conclude t h a ts c a t t e r - f r e e
s o l a r p a r t i c l e e v e n t s a t low energies represent only a small sub-set of
t h e t o t a l i t y of events and hence t h e above experimental-theoretical
discrepancy mustbe taken seriously.

J o k i p i i (1968), E a r l (1974) and Earl and Bieber (1977) draw

attention to the lack of s c a t t e r i n g a t 0 +- 90' according to quasi-
linear theory because there are very few high frequency waves f o r t h e
p a r t i c l e st or e s o n a t ew i t ha tt h e s ep i t c ha n g l e s .T h i sa p p a r e n tc a u s e
for persistent anisotropies in the solar proton flux at low 0 does not
takeintoaccountthe breakdown of q u a s i - l i n e a r t h e o r y a t 0 = 90'. In
fact the propagator U ( t I ) i n (37) cannot represent a h e l i c a l t r a j e c t o r y .
I f it c o u l d , p a r t i c l e s would s p i r a l a longtime a t t h e same 1-1 value,
meeting nowaves i n gyroresonance.Inpractice,particles mustmeet
changes i n IgI which w i l l cause mirroring according to the preservation
of t h e f i r s t a d i a b a t i c i n v a r i a n t , a s p o i n t e d o u t by Quenby e t a 1 (1970).

J o k i p i i 11974) arguesthatquasi-lineartheory canbeused if

the value of u taken i s t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t o t a l magnetic f i e l d ,
averageplusdeviation. H i s formulation depends on t h e p a r t i c l e making
many gyrations before becoming s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s t u r b e d , which may not
be t r u e i n r e a l i t y . J o k i p i i and Jones (1975) i d e n t i f yt h e problem t h a t
t h e d i f f e r e n c e p - u ~ / p A where p i s actual cosine pitch angle and uA
refers to the angle with respect to the average field may become
a r b i t r a r i l y l a r g e a s u +- 0 , due t o t h e l a r g e f i n i t e r o t a t i o n s o f t h e
Alfvdnic fluctuations and discontinuities encountered in the IMF.
 - 16 -

A number o f a t t e m p t s t o r e p r e s e n t a c t u a l t r a j e c t o r i e s n e a r
90° have appeared i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . P h y s i c a l l y t h e y a l l seem t o
reduce t o t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t m i r r o r i n g i n change 6 /Ef ( 2 ) .
Hathematically they are a t t e m p t s t o improve our knowiedge o f t h e
operator U (t,-c)i n

which canbeobtained by s u b s t i t u t i o no f( 3 7 )i n t o( 3 5 ; . VBlk (1973)

uses a U ( t , T ) which propagates 6B(z) i n t h e a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e
f i e l d aloncJ a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s c a t t e r e d s e t o f o r b i t s . H e uses a s l a b
model, t h a t i s t o say .SB i s only a functionof z (along < B > ) . Vdlk
i s more c o n f i d e n t i n a gimp$e heuristic procedure which f i l l s i n t h e
region -p* S l~ ,< p * = < 6 B 2 > ? / Z <B> with the constant value
J D$t(u=u*Y
where D f t i s t h e q u a s i - l y n e a r d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . The ideahere i s
t h a t t h e r e g i o n around 11 = 0 i s r a t h e r u n i f o r m l y f i l l e d by t r a j e c t o r i e s
s u f f e r i n gl a r g es c a l es c a t t e r i n g s .F i g u r e 6 shows the form of D
adopted by Vdlk. uu
Jones e t a1(1973)take a partiallyaveragedfieldtrajectory.
That i s , t h e f i e l d i s t h a t which r e s u l t s from averagingover a l l
members o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l ensemble with the same value 6 B ( z ) a t t h e
f i e l d p o i n t z . I t is assumed t h a t Gaussian s t a t i s t i c s h o i d and

where C i s the normalised correlation tensor for the fluctuating magnetic

f i e l d . The o r b i t i s solved from theLorentzequation and a s t a t i s t i c a l
average i s made over a l l t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of 6 B ( z ) v a l u e s .I ft h e
turbulence i s 3-dimensional, numerical integration of the motion i s '
necessary. One r e s u l t o f t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i y a pronouncedpeak i n Du,,
a t l~ = 0 with a widthroughlyequal t o <6B2>Z/<B>. Fisk e t a1 (1974)
a l s o o b t a i n a &-function a t 90" i n t h e s c a t t e r i n g which they ascribe
t o a resonance with a magnetosonic mode connected with mirroring.

Goldstein (1976) i n anapproach similar t o t h a t o f Vdlk included

an extra term i n A p L i n t h e e x p r e s s i o n f o r DuP which i s againconnected
withmirroring. I t leads t o i m p o r t a n td i f f e r e n c e si np r e d i c t i o n s from
those of the slab model and i n t h e s c a l i n g f o r d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s o f
<6B>/<B> a n d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n 1 e n g t h : g y r o r a d i u s r a t i o f o r g a u s s i a n
correlationrealisationoffieldfluctuations.In a more r e c e n t work,
Goldstein (998.0') realises t h a t a l l of the above c o r r e c t i o n s t o q u a s i -
linear theory increase the pitch-angle scattering near 90° andhence
-
decrease the value of K,, , c o n t r a r y t o what seems t o be necessary from
observation. H i s s o l u t i o n t o t h e dilemma i s basedontheexperimental
evidence t h a t most IMF turbulence, i s Alfvenic, preserving field magnitude
For t h i s mode of t u r b u l e n c e , p a r t i c l e - p r o p a g a t i o n t e n d s e s s e n t i a l l y to
z e r oa t p = 0 according t o Kilnas e t a1 (1977). Goldseein t h e n u s e st h e
few percent (- 6%) p a r t of t h e f l u c t u a t i n g f i e l d due t o J B changes i n
conjunction with the workof K i l m a s and Sandri (1973) on d e Landau
resonance(compressive mode o r m i r r o r e f f e c t ) a t ,u = 0 to findh1tY0.3 Au,
independentof r i g i d i t y .

In the context of Goldstein's a.930 ) work it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o

n o t e t h a t Webb and Quenby (1974) have tackled the problem o f t h e
s c a t t e r i n g due t o A l f v e n i c d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s p r e s e r v i n g /El by a numerical
technique. Both they and Hudson a974 ) d e m o n s t r a t et h a tp a r t i c l e sa r e
r e f l e c t e d bysuch a r o t a t i o n a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y , t h e r e f l e c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
f o rp a r t i c l ef l u x .b e i n g Q 0.065 f o r anangular change i n of 4 5 O across
 - 17 -
t h ei n t e r f a c e .T h i sr e f l e c t i o nc o e f f i c i e n ta p p l i e st o a range of
p a r t i c l e c y c l o t r o n r a d i i l a r g e compared with the scale s i z e of t h e
d i s c o n t i n u i t y change but small compared Tiith t h e i n t e r - d i s c o n t i n u i t y
distance. Resonance s c a t t e r i n g by a t r a i n of d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i s a l s o
i n v e s t i g a t e d by Webb and Quenby whose f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n s are
q u a l t i t a t i v e l y i n agreement withthose of Goldstein (1979). The
former authors find that the mean f r e e p a t h when the cyclotron radius
i s equal t o t h e i n t e r - d i s c o n t i n u i t y d i s t r a n c e i s a t least one order
of magnitude l a r g e r t h a n t h a t g i v e n by an a p p l i c a t i o n of quasi-linear
theorytothis'wavelenth'scale.

A t t e n t i o n h a s r i g h t l y been g i v e n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
s c a t t e r i n g t h e o r y and the expected and a c t u a l form an6 r a d i a l dependence
ofthe IME' f l u c t u a t i o n s .M o r f i i l (1975) hasprovidedgeneralexpressions
based upon quasi-linear theory, which can take into account an arbitrary
distribution of k vectors of Alfven waves w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e mean
I
M F direction.Followingthis,Morfill e t a1 (1976)consider w to
extreme cases; one with k 11 wQich r e s u l t s from ;WKE wave propagation
theory and t h e o t h e r witg k_ 1 <B> , which tends to be supported by
observation(Section 2 ) . These-authors adoptthe Vdlk (1973) c o r r e c t i o n
to quasi-linear theory and also take into account medium s c a l e
f i u c t u a t i o n si nt h e IbP d i r e c t i o n .T h i s l a s t a r i s e s becausetheactual
pathalongthe wavy f i e l d l i n e s i s longer than that following the
i d e a l i s e ds p i r a l . For theradial. dependence o ft h e waves, the work
of Vdlk and Alpers (1973) was employed. K,, t u r n s o u t t o beroughly
independent of r a t l a r g e r although there i s a minimum a t r Q 0 . 2 AU.
However t o f i t w i t h s p h e r i c a l l y s y e t r i c modulation tkeory and p a r t i c l e
g r a d i e n t d a t a it i s found t h a t k_ 11 r ratherthan k 11 B i s required.
Skadron and Hollweg (1976 ) used wKBplus quasi-lizear theory to demonstrate
a small decrease in K r r from 0 . 1 t o 1 AU. However t o o b t a i n t h e n e a r r
independence of Kfr; a t r >> 1 AU as suggested by t h e s o l a r p a r t i c l e
a n a l y s i s o f Hamilton (1977) and Zwickland Webber (1977) theyrequire
t h e Alfven wave v e c t o r s t o be s c a t t e r e d by plasma d e n s i t y f l u c t u a t i o n s .
Otherwisethetendencyforthe waves t o p r o p a g a t e r a d i a l l y r e n d e r s them
i n e f f e c t i v e a t p a r t i c l e s c a t t e r i n g b e c a u s e waves a t a given frequency
resonate with higher energy particles due t o t h ? e f f e c t of projection
o f t h e d i s t u r b a n c e p r o f i l e on t o t h e i n c l i n e d <B> d i r e c t i o n ( M o r f i l l
1975).Differencesinthebasicdiffusion.$qefficients employed
may account for..the--differing conclusions of M o r f i l l e t a1 and Skadron
e t al.
Analysis of cosmic ray density gradient data by Hsiehand
Rickter (19a) and thenumerical Fokker-Planck integration of
Cecchini e t a1 (1980) i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h s o l a r p a r t i c l e d a t a b o t h
support a d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t dependence Kr, = r-2 near the sun but
nearlyindependentof r f o r r >> I. AU. WK.B theory which p r e d i c t s
<6BL2> OL r-3 seems consistent with the Thomas andSmith(1980b)
analysisbutdoesnotgivetheobservedlining up of 5 and E. I n t h i s
l a s t r e s p e c t , t h e work of Skattionand Hollweg o n wave s c a t t e r i n g may help.

W e see t h e r e are problems both with a s u i t a b l e a n a l y t i c a l

t h e o r y f o r K,,and i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e wave evolutionwithdistance. An
a l t e r n a t i v e approach l i e s i n b u i l d i n g upon the numerical work
pioneered by Jones e t a1 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . These workers found Dpp by numerically
i n t e g r a t i n g p a r t i c l e t r a j e c t o r i e s i n a f i e l d rrsdel i n which space i s
divided into layers perpendicular tc the mean f i e l d d i r e c t i o n w i t h t h e
field in each layer given by t h e mean p l u s a transverse perturbation
value. The series o f p e r t u r b a t i o n s were defined em;?loyingan exponential
correlationfunction.Results onan i s o t r o p i c p a r t i c l e i n j e c t i o n
distributionareplottedin p-space. A s t e a d y s t a t e is s e t up with
4 - 18 -

p a r t i c l e s i n j e c t e d a t one pitch angle and removedfrom the model a t

two o t h e r p i t c h a n g l e s , l o c a t e d one e i t h e r s i d e of the injection
point. Dpp i s i n v e r s e l yp r o p o r t i o n a lt ot h es l o p eo ft h es t e a d y
s t a t ed i s t r i b u t i o n . Kaiser (1975)and Gombosi and Owens (397.9)
extended t h i s work including a range of values for <(6B-)2>2/<E>

Moussas e t a1 (1975 and 1978)modifiedtheJones e t a1 method

by defining pitch angle with respect to the local rather than the
mean f i e l d t o be more i n accord with experimental data on p i t c h a n g l e
d i s t r i b u t i o n s of s o l a r p a r t i c l e s . F u r t h e m r e t h e s e a u t h o r s used
spacecraft magnetometer d a t a t o d e f i n e t h e f i e l d p e r t u r b a t i o n s i n
each layer and generalised the method to include longitudinal as well
as transverseperturbations. Although t h e model cannotnecessarily
reproduce the field variation a particle seen going down a magnetic
f l u x tube - a universal defect of all theories mentioned - nor the
v a r i a t i o n o f BE w i t h p o s i t i o n i n a d i r e c t i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o <E>,
it d o e s d e a l w i t h f i n i t e and discontinuousfieldchanges.Analytical
theory clearly has difficulty with.such field variations because of
i t s perturbation expansion approaeh ':...Any, s p e c i a l geometry i n t h e d i s -
bribution of k vectors o r mode of p o l a r i s a t i o n i n t h e IMF'waves i s
a u t o m a t i c a l l y t a k e n c a r e of i n t h e model, ..provided representative data
a td i f f e r e n tr a d i a l . d i s t a n c e s i s used. Thus t h eG o l d s t e i ne ta 1 (1981)
suggestionthatthefield and p a r t i c l e h e l i e i t y a r e i n a n t i - p h a s e to
that required by gyro-resonance i s incorporated by v i r t u e of the way
thefielddata i s employed.
A common conclusion of a l l the numerical investigations is
that when a f i e l d d e f i n e d by the exponential correlation function
with small t r a n s v e r s e f l u c t u a t i o n s a l o n e i s used, quasi-linear theory
holds as p -f 1 but breaks down as p -+ 0. The generalised resonance
broadeningtheoryofGoldstein(1976) is particularly successful in
s c a l i n gr e s u l t s a t = 0. A s t h er a t i o <6B>/<B> -+ 1, t h e r e i s some
c o n f l i c ti nt h ec o n c l u s i o n s . Moussas e t a i 19'75 ( s e e r e s u l t s c i t e d by
Forman 1975)find D,,,, exceeds the quasi-linear value a t l a r g e p by a
factor J 2. Kaiser e t a1(1978)appear t oi n d i c a t es i m i l a rl a r g e
discrepanciesalthoughsince D,,,, was only computed c l o s e t o 1-1 = 0 ,
it i s d i f f i c u l t t o be sure. Gombosi and Owen (1979)foundagreement
a t these large field deviations within 20% when K,, was deducedfrom
thenumerical and quasi-linear theoretical formulations.

Moussas e t a 1 1982b used d a t a a t 1 and 5 AU and did computations

a t different energies to find according to real field
Kt,. magnetometer
d a t a . They found t h a t between 1 and 100 MeV, X,, = 0.03, roughly
independentofenergy.Also Xrr 0.01 AU, roughlyindependentof
distance, provided perpendicular diffusion obtained by similar numerical
methods i s incorporated. The quasi-linear 1 AU p r e d i c t i o nf o r X,, i s
n e a r l y a f a c t o r 3 lowerthanthenumericalvalue.Theseauthorsconclude
t h a t a l t h o u g h employment of trajectory computations in a model derived
from r e a l f i e l d d a t a has gonesomeway t o removing the theory-experiment
discrepancies in'X,,, a reasonable f i t between t h e two s t i l l requires
a r-2 a t r < 1 AU as suggested by Cecchini e t a 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

F i n a l l y we remark t h a t o u r d i s c u s s i o n s so f a r have beenconfined

t o t h e regime R 2 1 GV. J o k i p i i (1967)hasprovided one ofthe few
theoretical treatments at higher rigidities where numerical work and
detailed experimental checks are both harder to perform.
 - 19 -

4.2 .......................
Perpendicular
Diffusion

P a r t i c l e s maymove p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e mean Archimedes I MF

l i n e s due t o r e s o n a n t s c a t t e r i n g , f i e l d l i n e wandering and small
scale f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e g r a d i e n t and curvature, apart from t h e
l a r g es c a l e and non-diffusive d r i f tp r o c e s s e s .J o k i p i i (1966)
employed t h e same q u a s i - l i n e a r t h e o r y a s t h a t used f o r p i t c h a n g l e
scattering to find

f o r <B> 1) z . The second term expresses a resonance s c a t t e r i n g

between l o n g i t u d i n a l wavesand t h ec i r c u l a t i n gp a r t i c l e motion. As
elaborated by J o k i p i i and Parker(1969)the f i r s t term i s s i m i l a r t o
that obtained for the rate of separation of flux tubes in the
expanding t u r b u l e n t s o l a r wind and i s t h e r e f o r e i d e n t i f i e d a s d i f f u s i o n
due t o t h e random walk o f t h e s e f l u x t u b e s . T h i s f i r s t termdepends
on t h e power i n t r a n s v e r s e waves a t zerofrequencyanddominates
overthesecond. A re-evaluationof i t s magnitude byForman e t a1
(1974) y i e l d s K, e 4 x 1020 B cm2 s-l. The second o r gyro-resonance
term corresponds to the K, values on the diagonal elements of the
d i f f u s i o n t e n s o r (11) i n r e l a t i o n t o K,,, b u t i f f i e l d l i n e wandering
i s included,thesediagonalelements have t o be amended.

Moussas e t a1 1982chave performednumericalexperiments on

K, i n a manner s i m i l a r t o t h a t d e s c r i b e d i n 4.1, but specifically
excludetheeffectsoffieldline wandering. They f i n d K, = 8.1020
- cm2 s-l a t 100 MeV and K, = 2 cm2 s-1 a t 0 . 1 MeV r a t h e rs i m i l a r
i n magnitude t o t h e Forman e t a 1 v a l u e . Because t h e c y c l o t r o n e f f e c t
1s smal9, t k e s e ' a u t h o r s deduce t h a t random f l u c t u a t i o n s i n s m a l l s c a l e
IM?gradients and curvaturecause random d r i f t s whichadd t o give a
K r contribution roughly equal to that of wandering f i e l d l i n e s . .

A review of t h e accumulated experimental evidence on perpendicular

d i f f u s i o n may befound i n Palmer (1982).Importantlines of evidence
are the longitudinal spreading of the electron stream originating from
J u p i t e r , t h e measured yisalignment between the streaming anisotropy
i n a protonevent andand thelong-termpreservationofthelongitudinal
profiles of' corotating particle events. Palmer finds K', = 1021 6 cm2 s-1 ,
inreasonableagreementwiththe above t h e o r e t i c a l e s t i m a t e s . As pointed
o u t byMoussas e t a1 (1982~1, such values of KLr mean t h a t p e r p e n d i c u l a r
diffusion dominates the total diffusion coefficient in the radial
d i r e c t i o n , Krr = K,, cos2 IJJ -k K, s i n 2 IJJ , a t l a r g e r a d i a l d i s t a n c e s (>" 5 A U ) .

Until recently, the antisymmetric part of the diffusion tensor

(11) has been neglected in the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation
( 2 0 ) o r ( 2 2 ) . This w a s because it was argued t h a tt h ea s s o c i a t e d
streaming depended upon thesignof and i nt h es o l a re q u a t o r i a l
regions it was c l e a r t h a t s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e r e v e r s a l s would tend to
c a n c e ll a r g es c a l ee f f e c t s due t o t h i s term. However therecognition
thatthesecotrstructure seems t o disappear above 15'-30' solar
l a t i t u d e means that streaming perpendicular to the equatorial plane can
be i m p o r t a n t .J o k i p i ie ta 1 (1977)following Levy (1975) and F i s k (1976)
consider an additional divergence added t o t h e l e f t hand s i d e of the
 - 20 -

Fokker-Planck(20)

where <v > i s t h e i t h component of d r i f t v e l o c i t y due t o t h e

iD
anisotropic p a r to f (11) with K? =-KA Taking the divergence
ji' lj
immediately shows

becausea/ax.<v > = 0. This l a s t s t a t e m e n ta r i s e s from L i o u v i l l e ' s

theorem whick i m b f i e s t h a t a magnetic f i e l d w i t h a uniform p a r t i c l e
d i s t r i b u t i o nc a n n o tc r e a t e ananisotropy.(43) i s equivalenttothe
standarddrif'tformulaobtained by a v e r q i n gs i n g l ep a r t i c l e motion
over pitch angle in the guiding centre approximation as given for
example by Rossi and Olbert(1970)

where t h e r i g h t hand sidetermsof ( 4 4 ) represent respectively the

f a m i l i a rf i e l dg r a d i e n t and c u r v a t u r ed r i f t s .( 4 5 ) dependson a
component o f c u r l B p a r a l l e l t o t h e f i e l d . S i n c e t h e r e A i s such a
component o f c u r l i n t h e I", d r i f t motion p a r a l l e l t o g i s a l s o
important.Illustrativecomputations by J o k i p i ie ta 1 (1977) show
I I
t h a t <vD> 1 1O8=m s-l a t a r i g i d i t y P GV i n t h e 0 -t 60' s o l a r
l a t i t u d e kangeandbetween 1 AU and 3 AU. These same authorsprovide
an e x p r e s s i o n f o r t h e d r i f t a l o n g a neutral sheet.

Because t h e d r i f t v e l o c i t y may exceed t h e s o l a r wind v e l o c i t y

and thus become a dominatingterm i n t h e Fokker-Planck, it i s important
t o know whether t h i s g u i d i n g c e n t r e approach i s v a l i d i n t h e r e a l , r a t h e r
turbuZent IMF. Isenberg and J o k i p i i (1979) present a quasi-lineartheory
based demonstration i n t h e weak s c a t t e r i n g limit t h a t t h e g u i d i n g
centreequations ( 4 4 ) and (45)apply,irrespectiveoftheratioof
gyro-radius rc t o magnetic f l u c t u a t i o ns c a l es i z e , L. They a r g u et h a t
t h i s is possible eventhough guiding centre theory demands rc < < L
because on the onehand, in guiding centre theory, each particle follows
a nearlyhelicalorbit. On t h e o t h e r hand, i n t h e f l u c t u a t i n g f i e l d ,
each p a r t i c l e f o l l o w s a s h o r t s e c t i o n of a h e l i x , b u t a f t e r a perturbation
another particle takes over and follows the next section'of the orbit.
I n t h i s way, t h e r e i s always some p a r t i c l e f o l l o w i n g a p a r t i c u l a r ,
n e a r l yh e l i c a lo r b i t . Lee and F i s k (1981) c r i t i c i s e t h i s q u a s i - l i n e a r
approach and put forward the example of a twisted I M F field configuration,
perhaps r e l a t e d t o s o l a r c o n v e c t i v e c e l l s , i n which ( 4 3 ) doesnothold.
Recentnumerical i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f d r i f t byMoussas e t a 1 ( 1 9 8 2 ~ ) u s i n g
a f i e l d model derived from I M F d a t a showed that guiding centre theory
c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t s d r i f t a t 100 MeV i f t h e a c t u a l , measured values of
 - 21 -

t h el o c a lg r a d i e n t and curvatureareused. The numericalexperiment

was done with data taken a t 5 AU and o n l y f i e l d f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e
plane containing the sun-spacecraft line and corotation vector were
retained. I t was t h el o c a lc u r v a t u r e ,r a t h e rt h a nt h e Archimedean
p a t t e r n whichdominated t h e d r i f t t e r m , b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e s e
r e s u l t s g i v e g r e a t encouragement to the use of the guiding centre
expression in the I
M F situation.

I n t h i s s e c t i o n we concentrate on t h e d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
i n energy space which applies generally, throughout interplanetary
space.Specialaccelerationprocesses which may be associatedwith
interplanetaryshocks(e.g. Van Allen and Ness,1967, Armstrong e t
a1 1977). a r e r e a l l y r e l e v a n t o n l y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s o l a r p r o t o n
propagation and the production of spikes in corotating stream events
and we shall neglect these processes from the viewpoint of modulation
theory.

Since the original workby Fermi (1949) on cosmic ray acceleration

i n t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r medium which was formulated i n terms of t h e
c o l l i s i o n of a charged p a r t i c l e w i t h an approaching magnetised cloud,
s t a t i s t i c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n h a s been widelyconsidered(Davis,1956;
Sturroclc,1966; J o k i p i i , 1971b; Wibberenzand Beuermann, 1971;
Tverskoi,1967;Kulsrua and F e r r a i , 1971; F i s k , 197633; Hall and
Sturrock,1967; Lee and F i s k , 1980; and Achterberg,1981).Tverskoi's
work i n 1967 concerned t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n p o s s i b l e i n t h e s o l a r wind
when Alfvdn turbulence i s excited. He distinguished between t h e a d i a b a t i c
s c a t t e r i n g o f p a r t i c l e s by long wavelength fluctuations in the magnetic
f i e l d which hetermed'Fermi Acceleration' and the cyclotron resonance
s c a t t e r i n g which occurs when t h e s i z e of t h e c y c l o t r o n r a d i u s i s of the order of
s c a l e s i z e of t h e f l u c t u a t i o n . H i s r e s u l t s f o r a s i t u a t i o n where the
spectrum of &- v e c t o r s f o r t h e waves varied as k'2 yielded a d i s t r i b u t i o n
of energetic particles which was an exponential function of energy in
theasymptotic form. J o k i p i i (1971) a l s o examined cyclotronresonance
s c a t t e r i n g and calculated what he termed as the 'Fermi' acceleration.
HasselmannandWibberenz (1968)provided a m r e r i g o r o u s , q u a s i - l i n e a r
theoreticaltreatmentofthecyclotronresonanceeffect. F i s k (1976a)
investigatedtherequirementsofthisprocess,based upon DTT VA2 T2/K,,
where V = Alfv6nspeed.
A
To explain the observed factor of 10 increase in the corotating
event proton intensity between 1 AU and 3 AU (Van Hollebeke e t a l l 1978)
it was found t h a t a valueof D - 1.4 x T3I2 MeV2 s-l was required,
implying K,, c: 1.8 x 1019 cm2 sTT or x,,
% 3 x AU. This small value
' of A,, is c l e a r l y an order of magnitude l e s s t h a n any other estimate,
based upon s o l a r p r o t o n p r o f i l e o r magnetic f i e l d t u r b u l e n c e d a t a .
Fisk (1976b)performed a d e t a i l e d , q u a s i - l i n e a r computationofthelong
wavelength, 6 e f f e c t on p a r t i c l ee n e r g i e s which he termed ' t r a n s i t
time damping'and obtained a more s a t i s f a c t o r y a c c e l e r a t i o n r a t e .

W e s h a l l d i s t i n g u i s h now more formally the two types of

acceleration discussed above and provide an approximate treatment of
both a c c e l e r a t i o nc o e f f i c i e n t s . The generalresonanceconditionfor a
wave-particle interaction when the wave is a weak p e r t u r b a t i o n t o a
uniform, s t a t i c f i e l d i s

k,, v,, - w + n wb = 0
 - 22 -

where t h e f i r s t term represents the spatial variation of the wave phase

as the particle runs along the field, the second term represents the
phase change with wave angular frequency w and t h e t h i r d term represents
thecyclotronrotationoftheparticlewith n a s an i n t e g e r . The main
cyclotron resonance occurs with n = 1 and w small compared with the
o t h e r terms. The change i n energy may be computedby considering a
p a r t i c l e moving a t an angle $ t o t h e wave motion with t o t a l energy E =
y % c2 , v e l o c i t y @ = v/cand wave v e l o c i t y B=VA/c. Interactions with
a s e r i e s o f waves takes place so t h a t r e s o n a n t p i t c h a n g l e s c a t t e r i n g
changes t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p a r t i c l e from cos a t o c o s a', measured
i n t h e moving wave referenceframe.Thistakesplaceover a length A,,.
From t h e r e l a t i v i s t i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f e n e r g y 3ndmmentum :

where * meanswave frameandremembering E* = constant andp* cos a

becomes p*cos a' i n t h e moving frame, we f i n d
1 cos a' 2 cos a'
AE = y2 E [l - 7 + B@ cos 0 (1 - )- - B - 1 (47)
Y cos a cos a

In the non-relativistic limit with k 11 &, 4 = 45O, a = 45O , a = 135' ,

AE = ~ E V
VA F and with AT = -
x ,
1,
v I,

(48)

similar t o t h e e q u a t i o n used by F i s k (1976a)and o t h e r s for the cyclotron

effect .
We now t u r n t o t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n due t o t h e lonq wavelength
magnetosonic mode, termed t r a n s i t l i n e damping ( F i s k 1976b) o r small
amplitude Fermi acceleration(Achterberg1981) and we useelements
from the presentation of these two authors in the following physical
approach. S t a r t from theresonanceconditionwith n = 0 (Cerenkov
resonance) i n ( 4 6 ) ,

Since for energetic particles v,, > u(which i s t h e phasespeed

of the wave) and a l s o w = If: uk i s a reasonableapproximation t o t h e
d i s p e r s i o n r e l a t i o n i n t h e IMF f o r t h e magnetosonic mode, we musthave
k,, << k o r k,, << k, and

Thus the-acceleration can only be due t o waves propagating a t

l a r g ea n g l e st o and thewavelength i s alsolong compared withthe
particle gyroradius .
I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o employ a pair of equations (51aand 5lb)
documented f o r example by Sivakhin(1965) which we derive as follows :
 - 23 -

Integrate the equation V.B- = 0 i n c y l i n d r i c a l c o o r d i n a t e s

l -a
- - = aBZ -
- - -1 r - aB
r ar (r Br) + az
0 or Br
2 az

f o r z p a r a l l e l t o i . Set r equal to the gyroradius of a particle

moving i n t h i s f i e l d which we t a k e t o be slowlyconverging f i e l d
l i n e s ,i . e . a compression wave.The p a r a l l e l component of theLorentz
force i s

dP I, -PI aB
or - = - v -
dt 2B L az

Varying p a r a l l e l e l e c t r i c f i e l d s a r e n e g l e c t e d on thegrounds
t h a t we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n hydromagnetic waves where ?-.E = 0. However
for dpL/dt, the contribution of ( c u r l E ) ,, i s important and E+ d i r e c t e d
around t h e p a r t i c l e s ' o r b i t a t r = rc, the gyroradius, i s given by
27r rc E/T rc2 = -l/c a B / a t , fromwhichone f i n d s an e l e c t r i c f i e l d
contribution to dpL/dt of

The main contribution of magnetic fluctuations to [7 v L a r i s e s from

( -v,, B ) in the cross product
r
1 x E, hence

For t h e n = 0 resonance,equation49, an immediate consequenceof(51b)

is t h a t p L = constant during the wave p a r t i c l e i n t e r a c t i o n . Hence only
p,,canchange i n t h e r e s t ' f r a m e and t h e f i r s t a d i a b a t i c i n v a r i a n t i s not
conserved i n t h e r e s t frame.

We r e l a t e wavenumber and gradient by k,, = l / A z , 1 / B (aB/az) eSOnance --

11 k11/2v where q 2 = P(k,,)dk,,, P(k,,)being the fractional power a t t g e
Cerenkov resonance and d k , , theresonancewidth.According to the
approximate dispersion relation (49), all long wavelength waves with
wave vectors a t the correct angle given by cos-1(k,,/k) = 8 contribute
to the scattering, so dk,, measures the angular spread of the waves which
canresonate. From ( S l a ) ,t h ea c c e l e r a t i o nt h e n becomes

The problem now a r i s e s a s t o what f r a c t i o n of the observed power i n 6

 - 24 -

f l u c t u a t i o n s o r f a s t mode HM waves is a c t u a l l y moving i n t h e c o r r e c t

d i r e c t i o n . One is tempted t o assume an i s o t r o p i c k v e c t o r d i s t r i b u t i o n
and writeP(k,,) dk,, = (P(k)/47r) 27r s i n 8 dB dk. Then r e l a t i n g t h e
fluctuation frequency v a s measured by s a t e l l i t e magnetometer t o k v i a
v = V k/2n, allowing a l l wave numbers up t o t h e resonance condition to take
p a r ti nt h ea c c e l e r a t i o n (kmm = 27r/rC) and using AT = X,,/v,, f o rt h e
i n t e r a c t i o n t i m e , we e v e n t u a l l y g e t

-n 2
where P ( v ) = Po v and DTT = v Dpp ( F i s k 1976a) . A t vI = v,,, we f i n d
DTT/T = 4 x MeV s-l , r a t h e r smallerthan the F i s k (197613) estimate.

Moussas e t a1 (1982a)haveadapted t h e i r numerical methods t o

i n c l u d et h ee f f e c to ft h ev a r y i n gi n t e r p l a n e t a r ye l e c t r i cf i e l d . They
follow particle trajectories in a f i e l d model derived both from
magnetometer data and from E = -V x B where 1 i s obtained from spacecraft
p l a s m flowmeasurements. The changeofenergycan be found a t t h e end
of each ' l a y e r ' ofmagnetic f i e l d . Followingthe methodemployed for
spatial diffusion, particles are injected into the model a t oneenergy
and removed a t boundarieslocated a t a higher and a lower energ!!.The
mean d r i f t i n energyspace and t h e s l o p e o f t h e s t e a d y s t a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n
function determined in the numerical experiment yield DT and Dm ( s e e
(28)) . Because of equations (28) , (29) , t h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e r e l a t e d
by DT = a / a ~D~~ + D ~ T / ~and T 'it is a useful check on the numerical
integrations that in fact the DT and hTvalues calculated do obey t h i s
equation, which i s a consequenceof L i o u v i l l e ' s theorem. The f i n a l
r e s u l t is t h a t DTT = 4 x lom6 TI- MeV2 s-l a t 5 AU and perhaps a
f a c t o r 3 t o 4 higher a t 1 AU.

Taking intoaccount K,, a: T112 a t low energies,equation(48)

for the theoretical cyclotron resonance Fermi a c c e l e r a t i o n s a t i s f i e s
DTT = TI. which i s a power law that f i t s t h e computationalresult.
However i n a b s o l u t e magnitude, the numerically computed DTT i s one o r two
ordersof magnitude l a r g e r t h a n any of the theoretical estimates. A
way around t h i s d i f f i c u l t y may be i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Fermi mechanism i s
most e f f e c t i v e when t h e s c a t t e r i n g i s a t l a r g e p i t c h a n g l e s . From (47)
onecan show t h a t i f $I 'L a % a' Q n/2 , AE J EBB 6a f o r a small Scatter,
Ba. However, a t 4 % a % a' % O o , a s i m i l a r small s c a t t e r i n g y i e l d s
AE EBB 6a2/2. I t may be t h a tr e p e a t e ds c a t t e r i n ga t a + n/2 i n one
relaxation time AT Q X,,/v,, g r e a t l y enhances the acceleration efficiencies
over that obtained by a simple averaging procedure such as led to (48).

Moussas e t a 1 (1982a) d i s c u s s a wide variety of experimental

data whichcanbe used i n f a v o u r o f s t a t i s t i c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n r a t h e r
than shock acceleration as the origin of co-rotating stream events, thus
supporting the idea that the acceleration coefficient is l a r g e .

5. Approximate Solution
to
the Modulation
Equation

Variousapproximate ways havebeen presented for the solution of

the modulation transport o r Fokker Planckequation ( 2 2 ) , understeady
s t a t ec o n d i t i o n s . The emphasis i s o f t e n t o g i v e p h y s i c a l k s i g h t into
t h e modulationprocess. We have alreadygiven one i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y
s e c t i o n 1, involving a constant Compton-Getting f a c t o r . Another i s the
 - 25 -

'Force-Field' solution of Axford and Gleeson(1968).

Based on t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t t h a t r a d i a l s t r e a m i n g is
small, a version of ( 2 1 ) w r i t t e n i n terms o f t h e i s o t r o p i c p a r t o f
t h ed i s t r i b u t i o nf u n c t i o n ,f o , can beused :

(53)

Note t h a t t h e t o t a l d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n f ( 5 , ~has
) an anisotropic part
f l 'L V/v f o( c f . Gleeson1969)and t h a t (53) comes from ( 2 1 ) w r i t t e n
i n terms of momentum with U t r a n s f o r e d t o f o andemploying ( 1 6 ) .

Mathematically,(53)statesthatfo i s constantalong lines

in E_,
- space defined
p by t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e q u a t i o n

(53) is a l s o e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e L i o u v i l l e e q u a t i o n i n a conservative
f i e l d w i t h a "force"pVr/3Gr. A groupof p a r t i c l e s e n t e r i n g t h e s o l a r
modulation cavity follow contours of constant fo in the r-p plane and a s
shownby F i s k , Forman andAxford (1973)theysufferadiabaticdeceleration
a l l t h e time and a f t e r r e a c h i n g a minimum value of r , t h e y t u r n around
and a r e f i n a l l y convected back t o t h e boundary a t a much reduced energy.
Thisprocess w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n s e c t i o n 6. W e note
however with Fisk e t a 1 t h a t a t t h e minimum r value, dfo/dp = 0 and
hence C = 0 , corresponding t o o b v e r a t i o n s i n t h e 30-200 MeV r e g i o n t h a t
c * 0.
A n i n t e r e s t i n g and r e l a t e d s o l u t i o n o c c u r s i f t h e d i f f u s i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t i s a separable function of r and p , i . e . Krr ( r , p ) = K l ( r )
K2(p) B . It i s notobvious from ( 3 3 ) t h a t t h i s i s n e c e s s a r i l y so, b u t
inpracticeatsolarprotonenergies, K 1 a constant and K2 2 constant.
L i t t l e is known about Kl a t neutronmonitorenergies.Integrationof
(54)yields

where p, i s t h e e n t r y momentum a t rm. Q(r) i s themodulationparameter

introduced byGLeeson and Axford(1968b) .
If w e considerthehigher
rigidity range R 3 0.1 GV where R = pc/zeand where K2 = R and i s
conventionally measured i n u n i t s o f magnetic r i g i d i t y , t h e l e f t hand
sideof(55) becomes

2
I f Em = E where E2 = P + M oqunits of eV2) , i .e. t h e modulation i s
smal1,
 - 26 -

Now i n terms ofenergy , conservationof f

0
andLiouvcille'stheoremimply

where j i s mean d i f f e r e n t i a li n t e n s i t yw i t hr e s p e c tt oe n e r g y . Under

E
theapproximationleadingto(56) and ( 5 7 ) , t h e i n t e n s i t y is t h e r e f o r e
given by

T h i s r e s u l t is e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t g i v e n by E h m e r t (1960) f o r p o s i t i v e l y
charged p a r t i c l e s moving under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a h e l i o c e n t r i c e l e c t r i c
f i e l d E ( F , t ) = v/3K1 (rl) w i t h o u t a n e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l 4 (r) .
Gleeson and Urch (1973) d i s c u s s t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s f o r c e -
f i e l d approach i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f u l l numerical solution of the
modulation equation and i t s breakdown, dependenton t h e nuclebar s p e c i e s
involved, i n t h e r e g i o n below about 200 MeV. Noticethatwith 4 in
u n i t s o f GV, an estimate of the adiabatic energy loss i s provided by
CP = Z p d i n GeV, subject t o r e s t r i c t i n g t h i s r e s u l t t o r e l a t i v e l y high
energies. Also n o t et h er e l a t i o n s h i po f 4 t o M i n ( 3 ) . For C 2, 0.8
a s observed a t 1 GV, M 2, 2.4 4 .

5.2
Energy Loss by D r i f t - Kota Process
...................................
a I t was i n 1965,following a suggestion by Dungey, t h a t Houghton
(1965) c a l c u l a t e d t h e d r i f t o f a solar proton under gradient and
c u r v a t u r e d r i f t i n t h e IMF and p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h i s d r i f t w a s always
i n a d i r e c t i o n s u c h t h a t p a r t i c l e s l o s t energy against the E = -v x
f i e l d ,i r r e s p e c t i v eo ft h es i g no f E. Kota ( 1 9 7 9 ) b a s i c a l l yu s e s
t h i s d r i f t - e n e r g y loss e f f e c t as anapproximation t o compute t h e amount
ofmodulation. Kota i s concerned toexplainthesolarmodulationcycle
by long term changes i n t h e l a t i t u d e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e -
an idea w e w i l l mention l a t e r i n connection with the work o f J o k i p i i and
Thomas (1981) - and it t a k e s i t s i n s p i r a t i o n from an e a r l i e r p a p e r ,
ErdUs andKota (1979). However t h e p h y s i c a l i d e a i s ofmost i n t e r e s t
a t thispoint. Barnden andBerkobitch (1975)had t h e same generalidea.

Kota (1979) starts by deriving the enerqy loss due t o d r i f t ,

dE
( z ) ~ = - 3
d i v (V s i n
2
$1 (59)

and t h a t due t o s c a t t e r i n g

dE 2
(-1 = - d i v ( V cos $)
dts 3
 - 27 -

These r e s u l t s seem r e l a t e d t o t h o s e o b t a i n e d by Webb and Gleeson (1979),

see equation ( 2 4 ) and ( 2 5 ) ) i f w e make the reasonable assumption that
transforming the betatron effect from t h e moving t o t h e f i x e d frame
yields the drift effect and transforming the Inverse Fermi e f f e c t from
t h e moving t o t h e s t a t i o n a r y frame y i e l d s t h e s c a t t e r i n g e f f e c t ( s e e
a l s o Webb e t a1(1981). Becausemostmodulationtakesplace in
regions where t a n $ > 1, $ being the angle between f and &,Kota
deduces t h a t t h e d r i f t loss termdominates i n t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
t o t a l a d i a b a t i c loss r a t e , dE/dt = -pv/3 d i v V. I f we neglect
s c a t t e r i n g and represent the E = -1x s o l a r wind e l e c t r i c f i e l d by a
p o t e n t i a l ,t h e n QN = -Q, where
S

@N
= 150sin X MV, pre-1969 f i e l dr e v e r s a l

QN = -150si.n X MV, post-1969 f i e l dr e v e r s a l

f o rs o l a rl a t i t u d e A and we haveused equation ( 4 ) . Equation ( 7 )

r e p r e s e n t st h en e u t r a ls h e e t boundary between and 9,. There i s a
mathematicaldiscontinuityin Q, a t t h e wavy n e u t r a ls h e e t boundary. I t
does however mean t h a t f J n d i n g t h e t o t a l e n e r g y loss reduces to adding
up t h e p o t e n t i a l jumps a t t h e n e u t r a l s h e e t c r o s s i n g s . T h i s i s because

AE = Ze r- -
E.ds = ze { $B-$G + Z $ -0, + 9,-02+$,-$ ,... 1
i l
(62)
where$G i s t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t h e d i s t a n t g a l a x y , $H t h e p o t e n t i a l a f t e r
crossing the heliosphere boundary, 91 and $2 t h e p o t e n t i a l s e i t h e r s i d e
of the first neutral sheet crossing, $ 3 and $4 t h e p o t e n t i a l s e i t h e r
sideofthenextneutralsheetcrossing,etc., and $B i s an a d d i t i o n a l
boundary p o t e n t i a l , depending on t h e d e t a i l s of c u r l E a t t h e boundary
(ErdUs andKota 1978) But 0, = -$1, $4 = -$,, e t c . so

BE 2 Ze (201 + 20,. . .)

formultiplecrossings. Thus t h e amount ofenergy loss, ordepthof

modulation,can be r e l a t e d t o t h e number of neutral sheet crossings for
p a r t i c l e s which move e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e s o l a r e q u a t o r i a l p l a n e , due t o
some s c a t t e r i n gd i f f u s i o n o r ( c u r l B ) , , d r i f t . Forexample, i nt h e
p o s t 1969 s o l a r c y c l e , p r o t o n s d r i f t i n from polar regions suffering a
large energy loss under (61) while the equatorial plane motionof
e l e c t r o n s where the tendency i s t o m i g r a t e t o h i g h e r s o l a r l a t i t u d e s
suggests much less modulation. However, i f e l e c t r o n s can experience
multiple crossings of the wavy n e u t r a l s h e e t , t h e i r d e p t h ofmodulation
i s enhancedand the difference in modulation between t h e two species
i s not so g r e a t (Kota19790. Clearlythewavinessoflatitudeextent
of the sector structure influences the depth of modulation and a s o l a r
cycle variation of this could be t h e unknown factor in causing the 11- year
wave.

6. Steady-stateMonoenergeticSourceSolutions

Early analytical solutions to the Fokker-Planck equation for

special cases including the spiral geometry but with no d r i f t o r K,
were given by Parker(1965,1966) and a number of other special
solutionsareavailableintheliterature ( F i s k and Axford,1969;
Cowsick andLee,1977; Lee 1976;Gross, Leeand Lerche1977;
 - 28 -

DolginovandToptygin1967,1968; Webb and Gleeson,1976,1977).

However use of Green’s Function methods by Webb andGleeson(1973)
and Toptygin(1973)enables more i n s i g h t t o beachievedconcerning
-
t h e flow l i n e s i n 2 p space and a l s o on the contribution of
p a r t i c l e s a t various energies on t h e boundary of the heliosphere to
t h e near e a r t h spectrum.

The Green’s Functions used are limited to spherically symmetric

models of modulationwith a c o n s t a n t s o l a r wind speed, V , and t h e
d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t K = K, (p) rb where I$, (p) i s an a r b i t r a r y
functionof momentum. ( 2 7 1 , t h e momentum form of t h e Fokker Planck, i s
then solved with K.aUP/ar
- = K r a U p / a r i n t h e form

l -a( r
- 2
V U - r
2 -)aup _2-v- a_ (P Up) = N
6 (r-ro) 6 (P-pol
.2ar P ‘r ar 3 r ap 2
4a r
0

Under the approximation ro + -, t h a t i s t h e p a r t i c l e i n j e c t i o n t a k e s

p l a c e a t a d i s t a n t boundary, a l i m i t i n g s o l u t i o n f o r b > 1 was obtained
2
by Webb andGleeson(1973) f o r t h e mean d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n f o = Up/4a po

where U (-,pO) =
P

x =

n =

T = -3
2v
ip” K0(z) z
(1-3b)/2 dz
P

x0 =

Figure 7 r e p r e s e n t s t h i s s o l u t i o n f o r b = 1.5 , KO = pand p l o t s

fo/Ng pO3 as a function of p/po for values of W/K(r,po) equal to 1.0,
0.1, 0 . 0 1 and 0.001. I f we take a valueof I$, which 1s a b l e t o
reproducethe 1965 level of modulation, the curves V r / K = 0.01, 0.1, 1 . 0
represent respectively the distribution at 1 AU of To = 2 0 MeV,
1200 MeV and 20 GeV. The greatspreading and appearanceofsecondary
peaks a t low e n e r g y , r e l a t i v e t o t h e monoenergetic i n j e c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n
function, i s seen i nF i g u r e 7 . Alternatively,Figure 7 canbe
interpretedasprovidingtheradialvariationat one energy. I f To =
1200 MeV and V d K r e p r e s e n t s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t r = 1 AU, t h e o t h e r
curves represent the results of t h i s r e l e a s e a t r = 100 AU and 0.01 AU
since . , ac ..-1/2

-.
 - 29 -

The monoenergetic solution can beused t o i n v e s t i g a t e

t h e i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r t i c l e flowandenergy transfer
between t h e cosmic rays and t h e s o l a r wind using the concept of flow
l i n e s a l r e a d y mentioned p r e v i o u s l y i n c o n n e c t i a n w i t h t h e f o r c e f i e l d
s o l u t i o n .F i s k , Forman andAxford(1973) were a b l e t o o b t a i n t h e i r
-
r-p- plane contours by v i r t u e o f t h e s p e c i a l c a s e t h a t g r a d i e n t d r i v e n
flowand t h e Compton-Getting correction,term balanced, but amore
general,although s t i l l s p h e r i c a l l y symmetric, case i s obtained
following Webb (1976). Take theconservationofflowinposition and
energy space

which is ( 2 0 ) i n terms of momentum andwhere

Thus w e can allow a f i n i t e S by balancing it with a source i n momentum

space. The flow l i n e so f Wegb (1976) a r e s o l u t i o n s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l
equations
S
dr = <e> = -
P
dt U
P

- = P
dt - ar
P

(64b)beingequivalentto(19)in terms of momentum. The flow l i n e s

which d e f i n e t h e a v e r a g e e f f e c t s of t h e i n t e r p l a n e t a r y medium on t h e
p a r t i c l e s are then given by

1.5
Examples of flow l i n e sf o rt h ec a s e K = K pr , V r /K(re,p ) = 0 . 1
a r e shown i n F i g u r e 8. They w e r e obtaine8 by using Ehe solu?ion(63)
inconjunctionwith(64a) and (64b). I t i s s e e nt h a tt h e r ea r e two
types of flowlines. Some
go inwardand thenturnoutward,always
droppingmonotonically i n energy.Others,starting above t h e c r i t i c a l
curve indicated by long and s h o r t d a s h e s , f i r s t f a l l i n energyon
entry but then gain energy as they turn around and eventually emerge.
The locus of <$> = 0 corresponds t o t h e peaks i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
function of Figure 7 (dot-dashcurve)whilethelocusof <?> = 0
separates regions of inwards andoutwardsflow(dashed line) .
It is reassuring to find in Figure 8 a region of 2-p space
where p a r t i c l e s are gainingenergy.Thisregionpresumablycorresponds
totheaverageenergygainimplied by (19) since au/ar i s p o s i t i v e f o r
g a l a c t i c cosmic r a y s . Remembering t h a t t h e s e p a t h s r e f e r t o g r o u p s o f
p a r t i c l e s on average, not single particles, it i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t
incomingcosmic rays seeing scattering centres approaching them can
gainenergy bya second order Fermi process. However, some groupsof
 - 30 -

p a r t i c l e s w i l l experience more t a i l on c o l l i s i o n andbe decelerated.

The term i n t h e Fokker Planck ( 2 2 ) associated with a / a T which was
given the name adiabatic deceleration and t r i e s t o make a U / a t negative
i s a c t u a l l y dominated by the contribution of the energy dependent part
ofthe Compton-Getting transformationinourderivation. Thus t h e
term r e a l l y r e p r e s e n t s an enhancement of the sweeping e f f e c t o f t h e
s o l a r wind with which the cosmic ray gas i s a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t i n t o
equilibrium. Thought of t h i s way we do not have the incompatibility
of a term l a b e l l e d ' d e c e l e r a t i o n ' i n t h e s t a t i o n a r y frame when t h e
effectofthe wind canbe a heating,asseen by (19). I t i s a l s o
h e l p f u lt ol o o k a t (53)with Sr 0. I t is theconvectionofparticles
with 1, coupled with what must be a negative value of afo/ap, bringing
more p a r t i c l e s i n t o a given momentum i n t e r v a l w i t h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o t h e
laboratory frame t h a t p r o v i d e s t h e c u r r e n t t o b a l a n c e t h e d i f f u s i o n
current.

The limiting exact solution (63) canbeused a s a Green's

Function for a monoenergeticspectrum a t i n f i n i t y and convoluted
with the galactic spectrum t o g e n e r a t e a f u l l s o l u t i o n f o r t h e i n t e n s i t y
anywhere w i t h i nt h es o l a rc a v i t y . Thus

where G(r,p;p ) i s obtained from (63).Indeed,theprevious work of

Fisk and Axfozd (1969) and subsequent work of Cowsick and Lee (1977)
seem t o b o t h stem from t h i s same b a s i c s o l u t i o n . Gleesonand Webb
(1979) compare theintegral(66)withthepredictionsofnumerical
solution of the spherically symmetricFokker-Planck as performed by
Urch and Gleeson(1972) and show t h a t very similar r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d ,
thus confirming the use of (66) as v a l i d i n o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .

Figure 9 represents the Urch andGleesonnumerical result,

r a t h e r t h a n (66) and shows the modulation for the three types of
galacticspectrum, (a) , (b) and (.cI a si l l u s t r a t e d .N e a r - e a r t hs p e c t r a
a r ec a l c u l a t e dw i t h Kr =. 6 x 1021 6 R B cm2 t h ef o r c ef i e l d
parameter $I (1 AU) = 0.14 GV and rp, = 10 AU as the heliosphere boundary.
It is important to note how insensitive the near-Earth spectrum is to
the exact formof t h e low energy galactic spectrum.

I t i s c l e a r from our previous discussion of (63) that the

Green's function can be used t o show the contribution of various
momentum r a n g e s o f g a l a c t i c p a r t i c l e s t o t h e n e a r - E a r t h i n t e n s i t y , a ,
pointtaken up byGleesonand Webb (1975).Numericalsolutions which
made a similar p o i n t were c a r r i e d o u t by Goldstein e t a1 (1970). These
workersusedthe same s p h e r i c a l l y symmetricFokker-Planck for protons
and heliumnucleiseparately(Figure 10). We see from t h i s f i g u r e
that a t h i g h e n e r g i e s , . t h e g a l a c t i c spectrum a t a particular energy makes
a large contribution to the modulatedspectrum i n t h e same energyrange.
At lower energies, the galactic spectrum has l i t t l e e f f e c t on the
modulatedspectrum a t t h e same energy andmost p a r t i c l e s a c t u a l l y s e e n
neartheearth havebeen s h i f t e d down i n energy from 5 100 MeV. These
conclusionsare model dependent.Inorderto match the measuredcosmic
r a y g r a d i e n t s Q, l % / A U , values of K,, much greater than those suggested by
quasi-linear theory.pr even the numerical calculations of Moussas e t
a1 (1982b) a r e employed.Gleesonand Webb (1975) f o r example use
Q, 1.5 x cm2 sec a t 1 GV. A s we s h a l ls e el a t e r , a 3-dimensional
 - 31 -

model i s requiredformodulation and some substantial modifications

to the conclusions a r i s i r q from Figures 9 and 10 may be necessary.

Webb andGleeson(1977)develop a Green's Formula f o r t h e

transport equation which is a generalisation of their previous Green's
Functionmethods. By means of t h i s formula,theycansolveproblems
i n which t h e i n t e n s i t y and streaming on t h e boundary of the modulation
c a v i t y canbe expressed in terms of t h e s o l u t i o n f o r a source which
i s a delta function in the independent variables t , 5, p. Kota ' s
(1977)timereversed method i s r e l a t e d t o t h i s work. The Webb and
Gleeson(1977)formula g i v e st h ei n t e n s i t y a t a pointintermsof
t h r e e i n t e g r a l s ; one over the volume enclosed by the boundaryand
determined by t h e number o f p a r t i c l e s which go backwards i n time t o
sources which a r e w i t h i n t h e volume, t h e second given by t h e number
o f p a r t i c l e s which rever.se to match with the current through the
boundaryand t h e t h i r d t o c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e e f f e c t s of an i n i t i a l
sourcedistribution.Lerche's(1974)variational method a l s o depends
upon the use of a d i f f e r e n t i a l G r e e n ' s theoremand s i m i l a r i n t e g r a l s .
Lerche solves the transport equation by using trial f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e
d i f f e r e n t i a l number density and then extremising the Lagrangian
operator representing the transport equation.

7. Spherically Symmetric Modulation

Solutions and t h e i r Problems

7.1 The Diurnal

Variation

Although not giving a complete s t o r y , some overall understanding

of modulation throughout the Heliosphere i s achieved byassuming no
latitude or longitudinal dependent gradients, as we haveseen i n t h e
previoussections 5 and 6.Alsothebasicobservation of a 0.4%
anisotropy, roughly perpendicular to the earth-sun line and coming
from t h e E a s t i n t h e 2-20 GeV proton energy range, can be explained
(Parker1964,1967; Axford (1965; PomerantzandDuggal,1971; urch
andGleeson 1972).This i s the dominant anisotropy, onaverage. We
may write the streaming equation ( 2 3 ) more e x p l i c i t l y a s

(67)

f o r w /vc >> 1 and K.,- including a l l causes of perpendicular diffusion.

Inspkerlcalpolars, (-67) becomes

3
- au
- Krr z
5, =
V
(0.7
)
5, =
3
- K sin $
au
-
V T ar

3 au
c4 = -
V
CK,, - KL) s i n JI cos $ -
ar

where 5. = -
3S/vU, = v2/3wb. For z e r or a d i a l flow ( 5 4 ) y i e l d s
 - 32 -

E$ = -
3C v/V (K,, Q ) s i n J, cos J,
K,, cosL $ + K, sin' J,

I f K,, >> K,; <$ = 3C v/V t a n J, = 3C R r s i n 0 /V corresponding to the

p e r f e c t c o r o t a t i o n of t h e cosmic ray flux with the Archimedes s p i r a l
f i e l d p a t t e r n a t rotational speed R which i s t h a t o f t h e sun. For T >
1 GeV, C = 1.5 and with V = 400 km s-l, 0 = IT/^ we f i n d 69 = 0.6%.
Subramaniam (1971)discusses small but cumulative errors which together
may reducethecalculatedvalueof t o t h a t observed.

Although the definitive workbyMcCracken and Rao (1965) on

the 1958-1964 neutron monitor data gave a phase angle for the diurnal
anisotropyof86.5 k 1.6O e a s t o f t h e Earth-Sun l i n e , many analysesof
e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s have drawn a t t e n t i o n t o d e p a r t u r e s from t h i s n e a r
p e r f e c tc o r o t a t i o n . Forexample,Thambyahpillai and E l l i o t (1953)
s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a 22-year wave i n t h e a n i s o t r o p y and more
r e c e n t l y , Forbushand Beach (1975)analyseddatainterms of a corotating
component p l u s a 20 year wave w i t h a maximum a t 128'E, perhaps corresponding
t o flow i n t o o r outwardfrom t h e sun along the Archimedes s p i r a l f i e l d
direction.

Swinson (1971)has drawn attention to the information on the

r a d i a l g r a d i e n t which may be obtained from a measurement of the north-
southanisotropy, <e. The s i g n o f t h e e f f e c t i s c o r r e l a t e dw i t ht h a t
bf the sector structure, as canbeseen v i a t h e l a s t term of (67).
Both d i u r n a l v a r i a t i o n d a t a and north-south anisotropy in the absolute
cosmic ray flux as seen by polar neutron monitors havebeen i n t e r p r e t e d
i n t h i s way (e.g. Pomerantz,Tolba, Duggal , Tsaoand Owens, 1981) .
Swinsonfound a r a d i a l g r a d i e n t a t h i g h r i g i d i t i e s which, when
e x t r a p o l a t e d t o 1 GV yielded about 14%/AU o r more.

7.2 -------------------
Numerical
Solutions

I n o r d e r t o accommodate a wide range of parameters describing

t h e p o s i t i o n and r i g i d i t y dependence of the primary spectrum numerical
methodshavebeen developed t o s o l v e t h e s p h e r i c a l l y symmetricFokker-
Plancktransportequation(Fisk,1969; Urch 1971). The Crank-Nicholson
technique i s oftenused. A g a l a c t i c spectrum i s s p e c i f i e d a t t h e
boundaryofmodulation x = r,, and t h e p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n ,
U = U ( r , T ) integrated inwards in r between a low energy cutoff where
UCT) i s zero and a high energy cutoff where t h e spectrumremains a t
thegalacticvalue. The r i g i d i t y dependenceof t h e d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
can be obtained empirically byassuming the electron modulation i s
completely specified by the near-earth measured spectrum and t h e
galactic spectrum as deducedfrom t h e non-thermal radio background
[Goldstein e t a l l 1970;Burger,1971).Thereareofcourse many models
for the galactic proton intensity which show l a r g e v a r i a t i o n w i t h
position in the galaxy and t h e r e f o r e t h e assumptionof the existence
of an average galactic electron spectrum which i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s
"demodulation"procedurecannot be too safa Nevertheless,valuesof
t h e t o t a l modulationparameter M % 2 . 4 I$ (equation 3 ) havebeendeduced,
f o r example 9 = 0.35 GV i n 1965 CUrch and Gleeson,1972) , $ = 0.59 GV
(Bedijn e t a l l 1973) , againin1965, and 9 = 0.44 GV f o r 1 9 7 3 (Garcia-
Munoz e t a l l 1 9 7 7 ) . Checks on themodulation model can then be made
by predicting the galactic proton and helium s p e c t r a a t a p a r t i c u l a r
epoch ofthesolarcycle.Next,thesegalacticspectraareusedto
p r e d i c t new, near earth spectra a t another epoch.
 - 33 -

Although some s a t i s f a c t o r y f i t s t o o b s e r v e d s p e c t r a have

been obtained by the numerical models, it i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o
disentangle the absolute magnitudeof K,,, t h e r a d i a l dependenceof
K,, and t h e p o s i t i o n rmwhich a l l appear i n M. Infact,earlyestimates
of K,, were l a t e r , r e v i s e d upwards t o f i t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
given by t h e low % few %/AU g r a d i e n t measurements madeon Pioneers 1 0
and 11 (Gleeson and Webb, 1979). A r e c e n t v a l u e f o r t h i s g r a d i e n t is
provided by Webber and Lockwcod 1981 for T > 60 MeV averaged out to
23 AU. .%eseworkersfind 2.85 f 0.5%/AU and i n c i d e n t a l l y deduce rc0>
6 5 AU from t h e dependenceof t h e g r a d i e n t on counting rate based on
s p h e r i c a l l y symmetricmodulationtheory. A value X, = 0.3 AU i s
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r work.

Three b a s i c problems a r i s e i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s p h e r i c a l l y
symmetric s o l u t i o n s . The f i r s t l i e s i n thevalueof K,, adopted which
we have already seen i s considerably higher than the values a t 1 and 5 AU
which aregiven by t h e l a t e s t numericalsimulations. Second, t h e r e i s
no simple explanation of t h e h y s t e r e s i s shownby t h e laig in the recovery
of the electron intensity relative to the protons, seen after the 1970
sunspot maximum (Rockstroh,1977).Thirdthere is no known variation
in the near Earth solar wind v e l o c i t y , o r power spectrum of f i e l d
irregularities to explain the required variation of M (Mathews e t a1
1971; Hedgecock e t a l l 1972) .
M o r f i l l e t a1 (1979)haveprovided a possible way out of the
third difficulty in the context of the spherically symmetricmodel.
I t depends on the observation (Hedgecock 1975) t h a t t h e power density
i n low frequency waves ( < Hz) doesvarywiththesolarcycle,
unliketheother I
M F parameters. If the k vectors of the Alfvenic
fluctuations align with the radial directzon, the fact that the mean
local field direction alters with the solar cycle due t o t h e change i n
t h e low frequency powermeans thatthescattering canchange. However
there remains the problem of demonstrating the radial alignment of &.

Three-dimensional
8. Modulation - Perpendiculargradient and
Anisotropy Evidence

In the previous section we have already mentioned t h e problems

i n s p h e r i c a l l y symmetric modulation theory that lie with predicting
t h e low r a d i a l g r a d i e n t , a c c o u n t i n g f o r p o s i t i v e - n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e
hysteresis effectsand finding the actual cause of the 11-year cycle.
In section (5.2) , the energy loss formulation of Kota w a s e s s e n t i a l l y
a 3-D model and t h e r e f o r e it is reasonable t o s e a r c h f o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e
to support the need f o r a f u l l 3-dimensional development of the
completetheory.

Perpendicular gradients and r e l a t e d a n i s o t r o p i e s a r e d i r e c t

manifestations of a n o n - s p h e r i c a l l y - s y t r i c cosmic r a y d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Before discussing the rather confusing evidence for these, it i s helpful
t o developequation(67) to take into account perpendicular and azimuthal
gradients in order to see the gradiant-anisotropy inter-relationship.
In component form, with Si = v/3 E ~ ,(67) becomes

au au
Sr = C u v - Krr + sin $ -
aP
+ (K,,-K~) sin $ COS JI -
aa (70a)
 - 34 -

S = -K sin$--K
au au
- - K cos $
au
-
P T ar ap T aa

Sa = (K,, - K,) s i n $ cos $

au +
- K cos $
au -
- (70c)
ar T ap %a G
2 2 2 2
where K = K,, cos JI + K, s i n ; Kaa = K,, s i n $ + KI cos $; % =
rr
v2/30b wlth a unitvectorinthe 8 o r n o r t h + southdirection and
a unit vector east to west o r i n t h e direction. +
Neglect au/aa as being due t o t r a n s i e n t , a z i m u t h a l e f f e c t s which
a r el i k e l yt oa v e r a g eo u ti nt h e long-term.(70b) and (70c)then combine
to yield
"

I f t h e r e i s no perpendicular gradient, aU/ap = 0 , <KT SB> = %2 s i n JI a U / a r

from (70b). It i s c l e a rt h a t Sp and switchsigntogetherwithsector
s t r u c t u r er e v e r s a l and (71) reduces t o (68c) .
I t is i n t e r e s t i n g a l s o t o
note that although the sum K,, - KL - KT2/KL i n ( 7 1 ) reducestozero if
K, = K,, vc2/Vc2+,b2 as i n (11) and in cyclotron resonance theory for K,
(McDonald and Forman 1981b),thenorth-southstreaming due t o (70b) coming
i nt h e term S >/K, r e s u l t si nt h e r e s t i l l being an azimuthaldiurnal
P
variation.

The first order equation (70) cannot deal with symmetric

perpendicular gradient effects, for example t h e s i t u a t i o n where t h e
helio-equatorrepresents a minimum o r maximum i n i n t e n s i t y . A p a r t from
f u l l numericalintegrationoftheFokker-Planck,approximateinsightinto
the magnitude of the streaming whichcan r e s u l t can be obtained following
t h e work o f J o k i p i i and Parker(1968) and Quenby and Hashim (1969).
These l a s t authors write the Fokker-Planck, retaining tle" componentnon-
symmetricterms i n K, as

l a ( r2 1 a r2 a s i n e au
z K, --
-- - - au 1
CW) =
z
+

r2 ar
r 2 ar K, r sin e r ae

I f U = U 1 + U2 f o r U2 << U1 where U1 i s an analytical solution of the

nodulation equation with K, :0 and K,, a simple power law i n r , as found
by Parker(1965),thetermin K, equal to K J ~a2u/ae2
~ i s thedominating
non-symmetric term. Then the radial streaming a t 8 = 90° may be shown t o
be

Sr = C U2 V - K,, ar
au2
sin
2
$ = - dr
r2 0

which i s an i n t e g r a l of ( 7 2 ) whentwo large terms on t h e l e f t hand s i d e

have cancelled and a f a c t o r C omitted in the original work has been included.
We see that the perpendicular streaming into the equatorial plane
integrated out to the point of observation is responsible for the radial flow
at that point. Note t h a t we have suppressedradialstreaming due t o energy
change i n U by keeping C constant.Jokipii and Parker(1968)dealwith
theequivalentapproximationforenergyspacegradient i'nduced streaming.
 - 35 -

However section6 has adequately dealt' with the physics involved.

Turning now to the experimental evidence, Sarabhai and

Subramanian (1966) suggested that the marked excess 5303A
in coronal
line activity at northern heliolatitudes might lead to a north to
south gradient in cosmic ray intensity. Following a suggestion of
Marsden (1967), Hashim and Bercovitch (1972) showed that the x VU
drift due to a north to south gradient showed up in neutron monitor
and meson telescope data as a sector structure correlated effect in
the diurnal variation. For example, for outwards, V,U yields a flow
45'E of the earth-sun line. Hashim and Bercovitch found G e . = 5.5 R-o-6%/AU,
Newkirk and Lockwood(1982) represent a recent work attemptlng a direct
measurement of-
the
.
latitudinal gradient by correlating cosmic ray
activity with solar activity. They find a decrease of intensity with
increasing latitude, measured in a heliomagnetic coordinate system that
they define and for periods before and tkl969-1970
after reversal
of solar field polarity.

A symmetric, rising gradient

is consistent with measurementsof
the second harmonic of the neutron monitor and meson telescope diurnal
variations since the time
of maximum observedis, on the average,
perpendicular to the interplanetary field direction in the ecliptic
plane (Quenby and Lietti,1968). These authors found rising gradients
consistent with a modulation factor2,4M GV which is about double
Q

that mentioned in section(7.2). However, Nagashima et a1(1971) claim

that the semi-diurnal data is best interpreted as a pitch angle
distribution with maximum intensity90'atpitch angles.

Direct measurementof a gradient rising between 0' and 16O

northern solar latitude is provided by McKibben (1979)et a1using
Pioneer 1 0 and 11 data on the anomalous helium component 11 between
and 20 MeV/nucleon. They found a 2-3% per degree latitude gradient
at 4.75 AU. Roelof et a1(1981) have analysed Voyager1 and 2 and
IMP-8 data relevant to distances between2 and 5 AUand find transient
gradients at9 30 MeV/nucleon which are directed north-south, south-
north or are U-shaped and with magnitude1 to 5% per degree. All these
experimental determinations of the latitudinal gradient are consistent
Q 100% modulation
with values which would produce between the solar poles
and the solar equatorial plane.

Inward or outward radial streaming anisotropy can also indicate

the three dimensional aspect of modulation. Rao et a1 (1967) found a
0.18 (t 0.051% outward streaming in the 7.5-45 MeV range which seems
* unlikely to fit any reasonable spherically symmetric model. For example
the computationsof Urch and Gleeson(1972) and of Dyer et a1(1974) show
inward streaming at low energies. Furthermore, integral measurement of
protons at> 360 MeV by HEOS-I (Dyer et 1974) a1 showed a0.3% lnward
streaming. These data cannot be reconciled with the spherically
symmetric model which gives an outward streaming GeV. Quenby
> 1 at
and Hashim (1969) suggest that a small outward streaming Q 0.02 of the

~ corotation effect is consistent with 1964the neutron monitor data while

for the long term ionisation chamber data, an outward streaming varying
between 0 and 0.3 of the corotation amplitude (i.e. up 0.12%)
to and
depending on the phase of the solar cycle can occur. Quenby and Hashim
interpret the relative variation Srofand E4 in termsof a variable
ratio K,/k,, with a rising, off-ecliptic gradlent driving particles into
the equatorial plane. Note that Forbush and Beach (1975) interpreted the
same datai n a different manner and the difference in phases in the
 - 36 -

asymptotic directions implied i s probably due t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of

an empirical diurnal wave temperature correction byQuenby and Hashim.

Use o f t h e e a r t h ' s e x c u r s i o n o f f. 7.25O i n h e l i o l a t i t u d e i n a

year which can give r i s e t o an annual and semiannual wave i n cosmic
r a y i n t e n s i t y e n a b l e d Antonucci e t a1 (1978) t o f i n d a symmetric
f a l l i n g g r a d i e n t pre-1969, a r i s i n g symmetric g r a d i e n t a f t e r 1969, a
southward directed perpendicular gradient in 1959-1969 and a f t e r p o l a r
fieldreversalin 1969-1971 a northpointing cosmic raygradient. The
symmetric g r a d i e n t s found by these l a s t authors do not f i t t h e Quenby
and Hashim predictions but are explained by the theory of Jokipii and
Kopriva(1979)which w e w i l l d i s c u s sl a t e r . Swinsonand Kananen (1982)
employ s e c t o r - s t r u c t u r e c o r r e l a t e d changes i n t h e e c l i p t i c p l a n e
component of the diurnal variation seen by cosmic r a y d e t e c t o r s t o
confirm the direction switch of the antisymmetric gradient seen be
Antonucci e t a1(1978). Swinsonand Kananen emphasise t h e dominknce of
t h i s one-way gradient over the symmetric gradient and p o i n t o u t t h a t
the Jokipii-Kopriva predictions are o n l y s a t i s f i e d i f t h e e a r t h is
located predominantly above t h e cosmic ray equator so t h a t it i s i n a
region where the gradient i s pointed southwards before the sun's field
r e v e r s a l and pointed northwards afterwards.

Spacemeasurementshavebeen made on t h e r e l a t i v i s t i c p a r t i c l e
anisotropy a t l a r g e r a d i a l d i s t a n c e s i n a planeatrightanglesto
t h ee a r t h - s u nl i n e . BetweenMarch and November 1974,Pioneer 1 0 a t
6 -f 6.8 AU (Axford e t a l l 1975)found an azimuthalanisotropy 6 4 = 0.59 k
0.18%and a north to south streaming anisotropy Eg = 0.25 f. 0.08% f o r
T > 480MeV/nucleon. Some p a r t o f &J couldnotbecorrelatedwiththe
s e c t osr t r u c t u r e VU x e f f e c t and t h irse s i d u avl a l u o
ef 0.11%
could be explained by anasymmetric l a t i t u d e dependenceof t h e modulation.
I t s sign agrees with that measured bySwinson and Kananen and Antonucci
e t a 1 a f t e r 1969. One problem withthedataof Axford e t a 1 (1975) is
thattheequivalentdetector onboardPioneer 11 at 1.1 + 2 . 7 AU found
60 2 0 a t a time i n 1973 when Swinson and Kananen (1982)found d e f i n i t e
evidence f o r a northward gradient.

Concerning the local control of t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e n e u t r a l

s h e e t i n t h e IM!? and i t s v a r i a b i l i t y andhence the consequent variations
i n the plane of symmetry of the cosmic r a y i n t e n s i t y , t h e a n a l y s i s of
Moussas and T r i t a k i s i s i n t e r e s t i n g C1982d). These authorspointout
t h a t an a n a l y s i s o f s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e d a t a i m p l i e s that i n 1974-1977,
t h e r e i s an influence of the north solar pole coronal hole at all
latitudes, agreeing with the southward displacement of the current
sheetpredicted by Rosenberg (.1970) (seealsosection 21. It must be
s a i d , however, t h a t r a t h e r l e s s t h a n 50% o f t h e p o l a r i t y d a t a o f
Moussas and T r i t a k i s a r e i n good s t a t i s t i c a l agreement with the Rosenberg
e f f e c t model f o rt h e dominant s e c t o r s t r u c t u r e p o l a r i t y Again t h i s
emphasisestheimportanceoflocaldisturbances and s u g g e s t s t h a t i n -
e c l i p t i c measurementshave l i t t l e hope i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e o v e r a l l 3-
dimensional modulation configuration or solar wind p a t t e r n .

Recently streaming measurementshavebeen madeby Pioneer 1 0 out

a t 11-15 AU (McDonald and Forman 1981; Forman and McDonald 1981) i n t h e
planeperpendicular t o t h e earth.-sun l i n e . For t h e 30-56 MeV proton
energyrange,theanisotropy i s Q 7% which, i f anything, i s above t h e
predicted corotation value and imples A,, = 16 f. 5 AU and K, 6 0.007 K,,
when i n t e r p r e t e d i n termsof(70) and the measured gradient. These
values are respectively much higher and much lower than the Moussas e t
a1 U982b)computationalvaluesfor 5 AU, butcould be i n t e r p r e t e d a s
 - 37 -

revealing a much smoother IMF a t t h e s e l a r g e r d i s t a n c e s . An a l t e r n a t i v e

explanation put forward byForman and McDonald i s t h a t t h e r e i s an
undetected 7% inwardstreamingwhich would allow K, 0.05 K,, andbe
q u a l i t a t i v e l yc o n s i s t e nw i t ht h e Dyer e t a1 1974 observation. However
such a streaming does not f i t with the approximate calculations of Quenby
and Hashim (1969) who f i n d t h a t a n i n c r e a s e i n Sr corresponds t o a
d e c r e a s e i n Sa. Anisotropy measurement ofthe anomalous 10-56 MeV/nuc
He component y i e l d s a streaming 1 0 % ofthecorotationvalue and allows
x,, J 5 AU and K, > 0.05 K,, f o r no Sr. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f K, < .007 K,,
t h e r e would have t o be an undetected outward radial streaming of 2%.
The a u t h o r s b e l i e v e t h e i r r e s u l t s t o be c o n s i s t e n t i f t h e r e i s
significant but different radial streaming of the proton and helium
component.

In contrast to these 12 AU measurements, t h e c l o s e r i n d a t a

from Pioneer 10 and 11 of Axford e t a1 (1975) yielded a r a t i o K,/K,, =
0.13 -t 0.26 based on the reduction of corotation amplitude in (7Oc) .
These r e s u l t s a r e more i n accord with the quasi-linear and numerical
simulation values of the diffusion coefficients.

9. The Anomalous and Low Energy Components - ExperimentalEvidence

Below 50 MeV/nucleon there are various puzzling features of the
near-earth spectrum that may o r may not require 3-D modulation models
f o rt h e i re x p l a n a t i o n .I np a r t i c u l a r ,t h e cosmic rayspectrum a t
these energies i s characterised by anomalously high fluxes of helium,
nitrogen, oxygen,neonand possibly iron (Garcia Munoz e t a l l 1973;
Hovestadt e t a1 1973; McDonald e t a l l 1974; Klecker e t a1 1977) which
havebeen observedsince 1972. There i s a l s o a steepturn-upinthe
spectrum a t the lowest cosmic ray energies (Figure 11 and Mason e t a l l
1977). The anomalous composition would correspondto an overabundance
of 5-20 times normalcosmic r a y o r s o l a r systemabundances,provided
carbon a t t h e same energy is t a k e n t o be e n t i r e l y of g a l a c t i c o r i g i n .

It has been pointed out by Fisk e t a 1 (1974) t h a t t h e enhanced

elementshave f i r s t i o n i s a t i o n p o t e n t i a l s h i g h e r t h a n hydrogenand t h a t
they may e x i s t i n i n t e r s t e l l a r s p a c e as n e u t r a l atoms. However
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 1977-78 Voyager observations byWebber e t a 1 (1979)
s u g g e s t t h a t some anomalous i n t e n s i t y i n c r e a s e i s found f o r C , Mg and S i ,
although a t d e f i n i t e l y lower l e v e l s t h a n f o r t h e p r e v i o u s l y mentioned
elements. These a d d i t i o n a l enhancedelementshavelower first
ionisationpotentials. Anomalous He and 0 e x h i b i t a 27-day resonance
tendency, seen i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h 3 0.5 MeV proton enhancementsand a l s o
a Forbushdecreasehasbeenobserved i n anomalous 0 (Webber e t a1 1979;
Garcia Munoz e t a1 1977b). A p o s i t i v e r a d i a l g r a d i e n t h a s been observed
i n He and 0 i n t h e 10-20 MeV/nucleon energy range of magnitude Q 15%/AU

(Webber 1979).

Indirect evidence for a singly charged state for anomalous

heliumhas been provided byMcKibben C1977). He consideredthephase
l a g of low energy cosmic r a y s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a r t i c l e s of a higher
energy,assuming it t o be only a function of velocity and r i g i d i t y .
There i s some evidence from 1974-75 IMP-8 data for 11-20 MeV/nucleon
helium i n t e n s i t y changes being in'advance of those of 51-95 MeV protons
which would be a t an equivalent magnetic rigidity if the He w a s f u l l y
ionised.Instead,the H e behaved more l i k e s i n g l y i o n i s e d p a r t i c l e s ,
 - 38 -

corresponding t o a h i g h e r r i g i d i t y . McDonald e t a1 (1979) studied

X,, as deducedfrom gradient and s p e c t r a l measurements,based upon
theapproximation C W 2
ordered i f He 2 50MeV/nucleon
aU/ar.I+= They found t h a t t h e i r d a t a w a s b e t t e r
i s singlyionised.Incidentally,the
values of X, obtained a t % 200 MV, i . e . X, % .04 AU, a r e i n r e a s o n a b l e
agreement with the numerical simulation discussed in section 4.
Anisotropies are unlikely to be so large that the approximation
exmployed is s e r i o u s l y wrong.

P a i i i s and von msenvinge (1981)extended t h e work of McKibben

(1977) with a p l o t of the time lag with respect to higher energy particles
of the various charge species for protons, ordinary andanomlous helium
a g a i n s t BR. They found t h a t 8-22 MeV/nucleon H e did not f i t t h e curve,
whatever t h e assumed charge state. I n f a c t t h e t i m e l a g f o r t h e s e
p a r t i c l e s was very short and the authors concluded that the model of
O'Gallagher(1975) which t a k e s i n t o a c c o u n t h y s t e r e s i s i n symmetric
modulationtheory and upon which t h e Rf3 p l o t i s based does not order
the data sufficiently for deductions to be made concerning the H e charge
state.

Garcia Munoz e t a 1 (1981) re-examined o l d d a t a t o show t h a t t h e .

anomalous H e component w a s not present before the 1969-71 s o l a r f i e l d
phasereversal i n s t r e n g t h comparable t o t h a t s e e n i n 1977. Hence
d r i f t motion involving a 3-dimensional model i s f a v a u r e d f o r t h e o r i g i n
of t h e anomalouscomponent.

Webber e t a1 (1981) made' a comparative study of the radial

gradients of anomalous helium andoxygen t o o b t a i n s i m i l a r g r a d i e n t s
% 15%/P;Uo u t t o 1 5 AU i n a time o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e temporalchange
i n t h e cosmic r a y i n t e n s i t y . Becuaseof t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n Compton-
Getting factor, larger for 0 than He, t h i s s i m i l a r i t y t u r n s o u t t o be
more consistent with the single ionisation of these two charge components.
Another point noticed by the authors i s that during temporal changes by
a f a c t o r 1 0 i n t h e modulation l e v e l , t h e r a d i a l g r a d i e n t remained t h e
same. The a u t h o r s d i s c u s s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Kr changes by t h i s same
f a c t o r LO, although such evidence a s w e haveon v a r i a t i o n i n t h e power
spectra of magnetic fluctuations does not support such a change.
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Webber e t a1 (1981)suggest on t h e b a s i s o f a simple,
s p h e r i c a l l y symmetric model with = c o n s t a n t ,t h a ta l t e r a t i o n s of
t h e e f f e c t i v e boundarydepth by s e v e r a l hundred AU could account for the
observation. Again anappeal t o o f f - e c l i p t i c e f f e c t s may be h e l p f u l .

von Rosenvingeand P a i z i s (1981) discuss the large amplitude

of the modulation exhibited by anomalous He r e l a t i v e t o p r o t o n s , a t a
similarrigidity. They demonstratethat it i s thedifferences between
the spectral slopes of these componentswhich may account f o r t h e
observation. Thus the protons show a p o s i t i v e s p e c t r a l shape a t t h e
r e l e v a n t r i g i d i t y which a l l o w s d e c e l e r a t e d p a r t i c l e s t o p a r t l y compensate
formodulated, lowerenergy p a r t i c l e s . The He atomshave a f l a t spectrum,
so l e s s compensation takes place.

The turn-up i n t h e low energyspectrumseen below + 5 MeV/nucl.

may be r e l a t e d t o c o r o t a t i n g p a r t i c l e s t r e a m s f i r s t s e e n i n 1965 (Fan
e t a1 1965;Bryant e t a l , 1965) , r a t h e r t h a n g a l a c t i c cosmic rays.
Proton streams exhibiting a 27-day recurrence tendency are found t o -
c o r r e l a t e i n time with the passage of high-speed solar wind streams.
Near-sun and deep space probe observations have established the likelihood
of an i n t e r p l a n e t a r y a c c e l e r a t i o n mechanism f o r t h e s e p a r t i c l e s . G r a d i e n t s
 - 39 -

havebeenseen; % 350%/AU between0.3 and 1 AU, % lOO%/AU between 1

and 3 t o 5 AU and negative gradients out from 4 t o 9 AU (Van
Hollebeke e t a l l 1978). Some compositionalchangeshave been noticed
within the tendency for these events to beenhanced i n t h e r e g i o n of
t h e forward andbackward shocksassociatedwithfaststreams. The
H/He r a t i o h a s beenseen t o i n c r e a s e by % 100 a t t h e forwardshock
(Barnes andSimpson, 1976).Nevertheless,Gloeckler(1979)finds
relatively little variation in the composition during these events
asseeninnear-earthdata. The most s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e fromprompt
solar flare event particle abundances l i e s i n t h e carbon:oxygen r a t i o .
I t i s c o n s i s t e n t l y less than 0.8 f o r f l a r e e v e n t s b u t l i e s between0.9
and 1 . 5 f o r c o r o t a t i n g p a r t i c l e s t r e a m s . Hence f l a r e s a r e u n l i k e l y t o
bethesourceof.thecorotatingparticles. However thecomposition
of these particles resembles that of the solar corona and presumably
that of the solar wind, e s p e c i a l l y t h e H e , C , Fe and 0 components
(Gloeckler1979).Studyofthespectraofthesespecies,together
with protons, in recurrent events show t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n t o be
well f i t t e d by anexponential i n v e l o c i t y . Moussas e t a1(1982a)review
current evidence on these streams to demonstrate a s t a t i s t i c a l , r a t h e r
than shock-associated acceleration to bemost l i k e l y .

10. The Low Energy Components i nt h e Context of Spherically

Symmetric Modulation Theory

Although the review of evidence in section 9 concerning the

anomalousand low energy spectral components suggested some appeal to
3-dimensional modulation modelslitisnecessary t o s e e which f a c t s can be
understood i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s p h e r i c a l l y symmetricmodels. Such
symmetric s o l u t i o n s o f t h e Fokker-Planck do not necessarily comprise
a unique s e t o f e x p l a n a t i o n s and some o f f - e c l i p t i c e f f e c t s may need t o
beadded t o t h e models.

Concerning t h e anomalouscomponent, F i s k ( 1 9 7 6 ~ ) has discussed

the requirements upon modulation theory including only the symmetric
terms i n t h e Fokker-Planck equation without acceleration which would
allow into the heliosphere sufficient galactic particles to provide
thehigh H e , 0 and N f l u x e s a t 10 MeV/nucleon. By assuming E -X vg(R,r)
i . e . a function of velocity and magnetic r i g i d i t y , and by m z i n g a
reasonable estimate of the amount of electfon modulation a t t h e same
r i g i d i t y , F i s k shows t h e n e c e s s a r y i n t e r s t e l l a r f l u x e s t o be impossibly
high. H e thenputsforward a possible modification t o t h e d i f f u s i o n
process whereby Krr i s c o n t r o l l e d by the lifetime of magnetic traps
i n which p a r t i c l e m i r r o r i n g t a k e s p l a c e and suggests this circumstance
canoccur beyond 1 AU. Such p a r t i c l e t r a p p i n g h a s n o t beenobvious i n
thecomputationsof Moussas e t a l (1982b),performed a t 5 AU.

A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,F i s ke ta 1 (1974) suggestthatthe anomalous

component o r i g i n a t e s i n t h e p a r t o f t h e n e u t r a l i n t e r s t e l l a r p a r t i c l e
population which has a h i g h f i r s t i o n i s a t i o n p o t e n t i a l . These p a r t i c l e s
can penetrate into the heliosphere before suffering ionisation by
charge exchange with the solar wind or because of the enhanced UV
r a d i a t i o nl e v e l s .A f t e r becoming singlyionised,they would be
accelerated by t h e s t a t i s t i c a l mechanism of section ( 4 . 4 ) and a l s o
s u f f e r outwardconvection i n t h e s o l a r wind. A s t h e p a r t i c l e s g a i n i n
energy, some d i f f u s e back becauseof t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y h i g h magnetic
r i g i d i t y . Klecker(1977) f i t s modulationdatatakenboth a t highenergies
 - 40 -

and for the anomalous component to Fisk's theory. He employs as

parameters in the model, Kr % exp [ (r-1)/30]BR cm2 and
Dpp/p2 % 3.10-'~-~ at 10 MeV/nucleon with a solar cavity radius of
50 AU. The spatial diffusion coefficient is higher than the numerical
estimate of section (4.1) while the energy diffusion coefficient is
lower than that of (4.4). Also the fraction of singly ionised atoms
from the injection process which take part in the acceleration, E =
2 ~ l O -is~ a parameter which is simply fitted to the observations.
Figure (12) shows the resultsof Klecker's model calculations. Thus
we may conclude that the Fisk et a1 (1974) hypothesis has some success
in explaining the anomalous component in the context of spherically
symmetric modulation theory when acceleration is added. Indeed it
is very difficult to believe that the process is not taking place in
the IMF, to some extent at least. However because all the parameters
employed in the model do not necessarily agree quantitatively with
other estimates, some other elements such as off-ecliptic effects may
be necessary to completely specify the physics involved.

At even lower energies, the statistical acceleration mechanism

emphasised by Fisk (1976a,b) is likely to explain the quiet-time turn
up of the spectra and the observed distribution functions H, He. for
C, 0 and Fe in corotating streams. In particular, the study by
on IMP D . data in the
Gloeckler et a1 (1979) based 0.15 MeV/nucleon to
8 MeV/nucleon range showed f
a exp(-v/vo) for these species. These
authors showed that a steady state solutionof the symmetric Fokker-
Planck plus acceleration ofis this form provided p 2/Dpy,; v. The
numerical resultsof Moussas eta1 (1982a) with DTTa T give just this
proportionality. Gloeckler et al (1979) also point out that since the
abundances are comparable to that of the solar corona, acceleration
from solar wind energies withoutan injection threshold, as occurs in
shock acceleration, is favoured.

We conclude that the evidence from section

(9) is for interplanetary
acceleration but is not necessarily as compelling for 3-dimensional
effects as other evidence, discussed previously.

11. Three-DimensionalModulationModels

It is clear that a comprehensive model for cosmic ray modulation

must take full accountof the latitude dependence of the spiral field
geometry and signof the IMF, together with the latitude dependence of
the solar wind velocity and magnetic turbulence. Sufficient experimental
evidence has been put forward to suggest the real existence
of
perpendicular to the equatorial plane gradients and flow patterns and
both experimental and numerical modelling evidence demonstrate that drift
motion perpendicular to<& can have noticeable effects upon the near-
earth cosmic ray intensity.

One of the initial problems investigated by numerical solution

of the 3-D Fokker-Planck equation was of that
reconciling thesmall,
of X,, that both
measured radial gradients with the small values
analytical theory and numerical modelling require. Fisk (1976d) employed
the Jokipii (1971) estimates for the spatial diffusion coefficients to
give :
 - 41 -

-3/2
assuming P ( k ) k = correlation length = 1.5 x 1011 cm and
with the factor
a
(h,,r-r;?g?2 putequaltounityif Fg > Xcor. Also

3/2
againwiththefactor (rg/A) = 1 i f rg > X,,. D r i f t motion due t o
was n e g l e c t e d i n t h e Fokker-Planck and an a l t e r n a t i n g g r a d i e n t
modificationofthe Crank-Nicholsonnumericaltechnique employed. K,
w a s kept constant with respect to r , but K,/K,, a r a t < 2 GV due t o
t h e r9 dependence. A t 2 GV, p a r t i c l e ss c a t t e r e di n t ot h ee q u a t o r i a lp l a n e
from the regions of easy access along near-straight polar field lines
p r e f e r e n t i a l l y a t small r . Figure13 shows t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d and
depicts the near-earth proton intensity, the radial gradient and r a d i a l
anisotropy. Note the few percentperAU'radialgradient,in good accord
with experiment, but also the outward streaming which i s a n a t u r a l
consequence of t h ee a s i e r ,o f f - e c l i p t i ca c c e s s .T h i s outwardanisotropy
i s not in accord with the Dyer e t a1 (1978) spacecraft data, but
qualitativelyagreeswiththe Quenby and Hashim (1969) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
ground l e v e ld i u r n a lv a r i a t i o nd a t a .F i g u r e ( 1 4 ) shows t h el a t i t u d e
dependence obtained by F i s k a t l AU f o r 25 MeV and 1 GeV p a r t i c l e s w i t h
eitherfiniteorzero K, (= K e ) . Note t h e r e d u c t i o n i n p o l a r g r a d i e n t
t h a t can be brought about by the introduction of perpendicular diffusion
and theconsequent enhancement ofthenear-earthintensity.Alaniya
and Dorman (1977)performed a similar c a l c u l a t i o n t o t h a t of F i s k
(1976d)anddemonstrated that acceptably small r a d i a l g r a d i e n t s can be
obtainedprovidedthediffusion i s anisotropic (K,/K,, < 1) o u t t o a
d i s t a n c e % 8 t o 16 AU.

Dorman andMilovidova (197.3) solvedthe FokkerPlanck (72)

allowing K,, a K, a Q-O * 6 r1i2 where Q i s t h e monthlysunspot number
evaluated as a f u n c t i o n o f s o l a r l a t i t u d e . For theyears 1958and1964
peak i n t e n s i t y was found a t t h e s o l a r p o l e s , b u t a north to south gradient
occurred across the equatorial plane.

Cecchini and Quenby (1975) were concerned t o e x p l a i n t h e inward

streaming a t 1 GV (Dyer e t a l 1974) in terms of a K,, and K, l a t i t u d i n a l
v a r i a t i o n such t h a t d i f f u s i o n was a t a minimum opposite the zones of
maximum s u n s p o ta c t i v i t y . Inward streaming i nt h ee q u a t o r i a lp l a n e and
a t h i g h s o l a r l a t i t u d e s i s b a l a n c e d i n t h e i r modelby outflow opposite
thesunspotzones. These authorsintegratedthe FokkerPlanck (72),
which s t i l l neglects $ and allowed K, = K,, a r g ( 8 ) f o r r > 1 AU where
g ( 8 ) = 1 + cos 8 (5cos2 8 - 3) and K,, a t 1 GV and 1 AU took the value
2.1022 cm2 s-l. Themodel successfullyexplainedthestreamingobservation
of Rao e t a1 (1967) andDyer e t a1 (.1974), but despite the over-large
K,, valueadopted, still gave r a t h e r l a r g e r a d i a l g r a d i e n t , e . 9 . 20%/AU
a t 100 MeV. This l a s t f a c t i s l i k e l y t o be physically due t o t h e n e c e s s i t y
i n the model f o r b r i n g i n g p a r t i c l e s i n t h r o u g h t h e e q u a t o r i a l p l a n e ,
u n l i k e i n t h e above Fisk model where input was predominantly a t high
latitudes.

A f a i r l y r e c e n t and clearly important advance i n modulation

theory has been the realisation that drift motion i n a mainly uni-
e directional i s important. The basic formula
for
the
inclusion
ofthis
e f f e c t i n t h e Fokker Planckhave been given i n s e c t i o n s ( 3 ) and ( 4 . 3 ) .
That i s w e add toequation ( 7 2 ) a termgiven by ( 4 2 ) . A t the Kyoto
CosmicRay Conference,threegroupsprovidednumericalsolutionsof
t h i s f u l l Fokker-Planck (.stillwithoutaccelerationhowever),including
the KT term ( k r a a l e t a l l 1979; J o k i p i i and Kopriva,1979;Alanyia and
 - 42 -

Dorman, 1979). The b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between t h e models of Moraal e t

a1 and J o k i p i i and Kopriva l i e s i n t h e importanceof d r i f t i n t h e
n e u t r a ls h e e t .

Moraal e t a 1 i n f a c t p u t = 0 and <yD' = 0 a t t h e n e u t r a l

sheet on t h e grounds t h a t we do not know i f s p e c i a l t r a j e c t o r i e s a r e
possible as i n t h e e a r t h ' s magnetic t a i l . W e have alreadynotedthe
limited information on the actual configuration of the neutral sheet
containedintheanalysisofVillanteeta1(1979). The numerical
s o l u t i o n s o f Moraal e t a1 always yield a rising perpendicular gradient
away from t h e e q u a t o r , a s i l l u s t r a t e d by Figure 15. Thisfigure shows
pre- andpost-1969/70 reversal conditions a t two energies, based upon
the diffusion coefficients

o r 2
K, = K, @(-) (1 + sec $1
re
-1 f o r weak
with K,' = 1 . 2 x lo2' cm2 s '
l, Kilo = 1 . 2 x cm2 s
modulation conditions and K,,' = 3.0 1021 an2 s-l f o r s t r o n g modulation
conditions.Apart from t h ep o s i t i v el a t i t u d i n a lg r a d i e n t , we n o t i c e
the opposite drift effect on protons and electrons, because of the sign
dependence of KT. Pre-1970, t h e p r o t o n s a r e d e p l e t e d r e l a t i v e t o t h e
electrons because the former come i n v i a t h e e q u a t o r i a l p l a n e and d r i f t
poleward w h i l e t h e l a t e r come i n v i a t h e p o l e s . Post-1970 t h e s i t u a t i o n
is reversed. This puts on a q u a n t i t a t i v e b a s i s t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e
difference in the electron and proton hysteresis loops noticed by K O r f f
andMendell(1977) and.Rockstroh(1977) and discussed by J o k i p i i , Mendell
and Quenby during the course of the Plovdiv CosmicRay Conference
(Quenby 1977). The very large modulation seen for the situation of
North F i e l d I N , case B , is because p a r t i c l e s a r e swept out both by t h e
s o l a r wind v e l o c i t y and t h e < v , , > d r i f t s i n c e < v , , > d r i f t i s i n t h e ( c u r l B)
d i r e c t i o n and the only mode of entry i s by d i f f u s i o n i n t h e e q u a t o r i a l
plane.Figure16for cosmic r a y p r o t o n s i l l u s t r a t e s a numericalstudy
of the fraction ofnear Earth particles that o r i g i n a t e a t d i f f e r e n t
l a t i t u d e s on t h e s o l a r c a v i t y boundary. We n o t i c e t h a t f o r n o r t h f i e l d
I N where t h e d r i f t i s out of the equatorial plane there is a t i g h t
groupingabout 0 = 90'. ThiscontrastsQiththewidespreadofentry
points for north field OUT.

J o k i p i i andKopriva(1979) include an additional term in the KT

p a r t of t h e d i f f u s i o n t e n s o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o r a p i d p a r t i c l e d r i f t
motionalongthetheoreticalinterplanetaryneutralsheet.This is

where I' = r R s i n 8/V. Motion alongtheneutralsheet is illustrated

inFigure 1 7 where themigration i s i n t h e V x d i r e c t i o nf o rp a r t i c l e s
whose gyroradiiinclude this plane.Otherwisetheparameters employed
a r en o td i s s i m i l a rt ot h o s e of Moraal e t a 1( 1 9 7 9 ) .I np a r t i c u l a r ,
 - 43 -

K,,= 5 . l o 21 p 2 6 cm2 s , K, = 0.1 K,,and integrations were carried

-1
out to a similar boundary position10atAU. Figures 18, 19 reproduce
their numerical results for q A positive, that is post-1969q Aandnegative
(pre-1969) where A specifies the field strength. In the figures U/UB
refers to intensity relative to that at the cavity boundary. An important
point to notice is that qfor A positive, the radial gradient in the
equatorial plane,6 = 90°, is very low for70 MeV protons. The authors
demonstrate that this result does not depend very on the
muchdiffusion
coefficient, K,, adopted,which can be very small. Hence there is no
problem with reconciling more recent radial gradient measurements and
numerical valuesof K,, with the model.

Concerning the pre-1969/70 results for q A negative, the falling

gradient away from the equatorial plane fits with several measurements
discussed in section(8). Also the Dyer et a1 (1974) inward streaming
which was at its largest early in the year fits qualitatively with
the flow pattern expected from a falling latitudinal gradient. Such an
inflow pre-1969 also satisfies the of work
Levy (1975), based on
neutral sheet motion which effectively fits into the Jokipii and
Kopriva formulation because of the latter's use of (73). Levy pointed
out that the Forbush and Beach (1975)
analysis,ofthe 22-year wave was
consistent withV x directed outflow post 1969/70 and inflow pre
1969/70. Also an approximate solution
of the 3-dimensional modulation
,equation yielded the result that meson detectors would see this effect
,enhanced over that seen at lower energies by neutron monitors, again in
qualitative agreement with experiment. The effectof the scale sizeof
neutral sheet distortion on the idealised trajectories has not yet been
discussed however

One point concerning the Jokipii and Kopriva predictionof

Figure 19 for q A negative which might cause concern lies in the large
magnitude of the radial gradient at6 = 90°. It is worth remembering,
however, that early measurementsof the gradient by direct means and
indirect means (O'Gallagher1967; O'Gallagher and Simpson, 1967, for
Mariner 4; Lezniak and Webber 1973 for Pioneers
8 and 9 and Bercovitch
(1971) using neutron monitors) all give gradients the 5 in
1O%/AU range
for pre-1970 data at relatively high energy. However Anderson (1968)
provides a counter exampleof a gradient measurement in 1965 yielding
< lO%/AU.

The steep rise near the boundary in all the plots of Figures
18 and 19 seem unphysical and could result from an inability to model
this region well. Jokipii and Kopriva (1979) 'compute the radial anisotropy
arising in the q A positive situation and % 0.2find
+- 0.3% at 1 +- 2 AU.
The authors emphasise the existence of a broad, interior plateau in the
low energy, equatorial region which is connected to the inner and outer
boundaries by thin boundary layersof rapidly changing intensity as
mentioned above. It seems possible that the outer layer at least is
an artefactof the model representing a sudden switch from entry along
the near equatorial plane or near polar field lines to transverse
diffusion underK, 0, U $s the boundary is approached and the easy
motion path parallel to get too long. Actually the one situation
where this qualitative explanation will not work qis for
A negative, 6 =
90° where inward motion along the neutral sheet is important. However
for this case, the outer boundary layer disappears (Fig.19). In the
model, K,,was maintained constant with distance, which is clearly not
the case, while rm was artificially close to the sun. A more distant
boundary and a more realistic variation of
K,,with r could probably
 - 44 -

reduce the boundary l a y e r g r a d i e n t s t o r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e s .

J o k i p i i and Thomas (1981)extendedtheabove model .of J o k i p i i

andKopriva t o i n c l u d e an approximate treatment of the wavy c u r r e n t
s h e e t e f f e c t on t h e flow and i n t e n s i t y ( e q u a t i o n 6 , s e c t i o n 2 ) .
They a r e concerned t o i n c o r p o r a t e a possible solar cycle dependent
change i n t h e c u r r e n t s h e e t tilt i n t h e model and therebyproduce
an explanation for the 11-year cycle independent of the constancy
of the magnetic fluctuations and s o l a r wind speedparameters which
usuallyspecifythemodulationlevel. They a r e able t o u s e a
reasonablevariationinthe tilt angle, between 10' and 30°, t o
give the observed solar minimum t o maximum cosmic r a y v a r i a t i o n .
Higher tilt meansmore path length in the neutral sheet and g r e a t e r
modulation. The observed much f l a t t e r .cycle v a r i a t i o n f o r q A
p o s i t i v e as compared with q A negative i s reproduced in the theory.
J o k i p i i and Thomas o b t a i n t h e i r r e s u l t s by neglecting K,,, basedon
theprevious,Jokipii andKopriva(1979) work which showed t h a t
approximately similar results could be obtained with or without the
i n c l u s i o no fp a r a l l e ld i f f u s i o n . I t i s i m p o r t a n tt or e a l i s et h a t
t h e n u e t r a l s h e e t motion i s c r u c i a l t o t h e e x a c t workingof these
3-1) modelsand i f s u b s e q u e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f p a r t i c l e t r a j e c t o r i e s
i n a r e a l i s t i c , jagged n e u t r a l s h e e t produce a much lower<vDneutral>
than used i n (73), d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l appear with the models,
e s p e c i a l l y f o r q A negative.

In conclusion, it i s worthsaying t h a t t h e d i f f u s i o n p l u s
d r i f t model for modulation, including neutral sheet motion, promises
t o s a t i s f y a variety of evidence, although some c o n f l i c t i n t h e
experimental data does not permit a certain conclusion on the model's
v a l i d i t y as y e t .I n i t s favour,the Jokipii-Kopriva-Thomas model :

(a) i s required
because
numerical
computation
supports
the
inclusion of guiding centre drift;

(b) i s requiredbecauseofthedisappearanceofthehigh
latitudesectorstructure:

(c) f i t s withtherequired low K,, values;

(dl f i t st h e observed
electron-proton
hysteresis;

[e) f i t s some inward

streaming
observations;

( f )f i t s some perpendicular
gradient
observations:

(-9) may explain

the
11-year
cycle;

(h) may throw new l i g h t on e a r l y and possiblelarge

r a d i a l g r a d i e n t measurements.

W e havementioned some perpendicular gradient observations

(.e.g. NewkirkandLockwood, 1982) and streamingobservations(e.g.
Quenby and Hashim, 1969) which do not seem t o f i t t h e d r i f t model.
Also t h e l o c a l s o l a r a c t i v i t y c o n t r o l o f IMF conditions a t 1 AU has
been emphasised, makingmany experimentalchecksdifficult. The ISPM
mission w i l l surely provide crucial evidence on t h e r o l e o f d r i f t s
by g e t t i n g away from t h e s e l o c a l f a c t o r s . However it wouldseem t h a t
ISPM w i l l belaunched i n a g A negative epochandhave l i t t l e hope of
seeing neargalactic cosmic ray conditions over the solar poles.
 - 45 -

12 E f f e c t sa t t h e Boundary of
Modulation

Forcompleteness we b r i e f l y d i s c u s s two other aspects of

modulation.Regardingthe f i r s t , which i s thehelio-cavity boundary
e f f e c t , , . t h e r e a d e r i s recommended to study the excellent review of
Axford (1971). The heliosphere is defined by theconfinement due t o
t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r medium. Fahr e t a1(1981) may be consulted as a
recent investigation of the combined e f f e c t s on stopping the solar
wind exerted by t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r r a m p r e s s u r e . T h i s p r e s s u r e i s made
up o f t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r m a g n e t i c f i e l d p r e s s u r e , t h e momentum of the
i n t e r s t e l l a r plasma i n motion r e l a t i v e t o t h e s o l a r s y s t e m , t h e
i n t e r s t e l l a r plasma thermal pressure and the momentum exchangedue t o
the ionisation of interstellar atoms a s t h e y p e n e t r a t e n e a r t o t h e
sun. A weak shock is expected a t Q, LOO AU, c o n s t i t u t i n g a h e l i o c a v i t y
boundary not inconsistent with positions suggested by cosmic r a y
gradient measurements. Babyan and Dorman (1979) p r e s e n t one of a
number o f c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , based upon s p h e r i c a l l y
symmetricmodulation, i n which the additional slowing down e f f e c t o f
cosmic r a y s on t h e s o l a r wind i s included. For l i k e l y , low values
of t h ei n t e r s t e l l a rn e u t r a l hydrogen d e n s i t yi, . e . NH Q, 0.1 -+
0.5 ~ r n - ~ t h, e cosmic r a y e f f e c t e x c e e d s i n magnitude t h a t due t o
chargeexchangewith t h e n e u t r a l g a s and t h e s o l a r wind is slowed by
a factor 2 in velocity in the 20-100 AU region, the exact scale size
of the deceleration being dependent on t h e formand energy density of
t h e g a l a c t i c cosmic rayspectrum.

The problemof the access of interstellar cosmic r a y s t o t h e

LMF l i n e s h a s been discussed by ..%hatten andWilcox(1964)and
Nagashima and Morishita(1979). These authorsbelievethataccess
is e a s i e r i f t h e s o l a r wind and i n t e r s t e l l a r magnetic f i e l d s a r e
nearly parallel, rather than anti-parallel, and t h a t 22-year cycle
effects in the diurnal, long term andanomalous component v a r i a t i o n s
can be explained by t h e e f f i c i e n c y of t h i s t r a n s f e r p r o c e s s . M o r f i l l
and Quenby (1971)have computed i n d e t a i l t h e a b i l i t y o f e n e r g e t i c
charged p a r t i c l e s t o t r a n s f e r a c r o s s a tTngential discontinuity
representing the field boundarybetween t h e geomagnetic t a i l and the
s o l a r wind flow i n t h e magnetosheath. The i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r
r e s u l t s is that the relative orientation of the w
t o sets of magnetic
f i e l d l i n e s h a s l i t t l e e f f e c t on t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f p a r t i c l e t r a n s f e r ,
provided the dimensions of the interface are on a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e
scale.Significantturbulence a t theheliosphere boundary would
i n v a l i d a t e a l l t h e s e models.

Speculation about acceleration of cosmic rays a t t h e c a v i t y

boundary i s a t o p i c which has been revived recently by E i c h l e r e t a 1
(1981).Attention was drawn t o shock a c c e l e r a t i o n a t t h e s u p e r s o n i c
t o sub-sonicflow t r a n s i t i o n a t t h i s boundary by J o k i p i i ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
E i c h l e r e t a1 however p o i n t o u t t h a t a favourable configuration for
accelerationwiththe shocknormal nearlyparalleltoprobablyoccurs
only within a few degrees of the solar poles because the angle between
t h e s e d i r e c t i o n s i s the same a s JI, the'gardenhose'angle we have
previouslyused. The a c c e l e r a t i o n i s favourablebecausetheinjection
speed is low. Thisoccursbecausethespeed needed by a p a r t i c l e t o
escapeupstream from a shock a f t e r r e f l e c t i o n , o r t o o v e r t a k e a
shockfrom a downstream p o s i t i o n , goes down a s JI decreases. Eichler
e t a 1 supposeionisedinterstellargastoconstitutetheinjection
material a t t h e s o l a r p o l e s f o r t h e anomalouscomponent. This
component t h e n d r i f t s down t o t h e s o l a r e q u a t o r p r o v i d e d t h e f i e l d is
 - 46 -

orientatedinthepost 1969/70manner. Before t h i s phase reversal,

d r i f t i s polewards and hence the observed presence of the anomalous '

component i n t h e 1970sonly and not pre-1969 i s explained. An

energy of roughly 240 MeV/charge i s r e q u i r e d t o e n a b l e t h e p a r t i c l e s
todriftthefulllatitude rangeagainstthe -x x electricfield.
Hence t h i s energy constitutes a minimum requirement on t h e boundary
a c c e l e r a t i o n mechanism. W e s e et h a tE i c h l e re ta 1 (1981)have
provided a v a r i a n t o f t h e F i s k e t a 1 (1974) mechanism f o r t h e anomalous
component which incorporates the 3-dimensional aspects of modulation.
However t h i s boundary a c c e l e r a t i o n may not be a unique explanation of
t h e 22-year wave aspectof anomalous spectralobservations. Poleward
d r i f t of t h e newly c r e a t e d i o n s , e i t h e r d u r i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n
or during subsequent modulation, in the F i s k e t a1 process under pre-
1969 conditions may be an equally good reason for the lack of an
observed anomalous f l u x a t t h a t epoch.

J o k i p i i and Levy (1979)havequestioned from anotherviewpoint

t h e s p h e r i c a l l y symmetricboundary conditions commonly taken a t t h e
heliosphere boundary f o r t h e g a l a c t i c spectrum. They n o t e t h a t t h e
-1x g e l e c t r i c f i e l d produces an equator to pole potential difference
of 218 MeV usingequation (6). Thiscouldhave a marked e f f e c t on
cosmic rays entering with a comparableenergy, a s i s evident from
o u rd i s c u s s i o ni ns e c t i o n (5.2) on t h e Kota process.Jokipii and
Levy appear to neglect any a d d i t i o n a l boundary p o t e n t i a l @B as
discussed byErdUs andKota (1978) which could bedue t o a c u r l E
connectedwith a reconnectionprocess a t t h e boundary. They instead
suppose a vacuum o u t s i d e so t h a t . c o s m i c r a y s from i n f i n i t y a r e
modulated a t t h e boundary by an amount given by L i o u v i l l e ' s theorem
for propagation in the electrostatic potential defined by -1x B with
B given by ( 6 ) . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , J o k i p i i and Levy consider a s i t u a t i o n
where some IMF l i n e s c o n n e c t t o t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r medium v i a e x i t
p o i n t s where t h e s o l a r wind flows out beyond t h e shock t r a n s i t i o n
downwind w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r mediumwind flow. I t i s
expected t h a t EB .- = 0 alongeachfieldline. Hencesome p a r t s of
the heliosphere are at the same e l e c t r o s t a t i c p o t e n t i a l a s t h e
i n t e r s t e l l a r cosmic ray component a t g r e a t d i s t a n c e s , w h i l e o t h e r
p a r t s a r e n o t d i r e c t l y connected t o i n t e r s t e l l a r s p a c e and may be a t
thepotentialdefined by -1x E. On e i t h e r model, i n t e n s i t y
v a r i a t i o n s a t t h e boundary comparable t o t h e t o t a l d e p t h ofmodulation
may occur.

13. Dynamic Modulation

W e have neglected to discuss explicitly the cause of the

Forbush d e c r e a s e i n this review, p a r t l y because i t i s l i k e l y t o be
t h e r e s u l t of transient changes i n t h e s o l a r wind connected with
passage o f s p e c i a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and p a r t l y t o keep
t h e amount ofmaterialunderreasonablecontrol. Lockwood (1971)
provided a review of Forbush Decrease observation and theory which
canbe consulted. It i s necessary, however, t o mention t h ea t t e n t i o n
which has again been drawn t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e long-term modulation
i s a c t u a l l y madeup of a s e r i e s of ForbushDecreases. McDonald, .
Trainor and Webber (1981),observe from t h e i r P i o n e e r 1 0 and Voyager
d a t a t h a t betweenJuneandSeptember 1980, t h e l e v e l of thelongterm
v a r i a t i o n showed a decrease of 18% in the > 200 MeV proton flux a t
both 9 AU and 23 AU and t h a t t h i s r e d u c t i o n was achieved i n a s e r i e s
 - 47 -

offour ForbushDecreases. Each ofthesedecreases had a sharp

onset, thus requiring a b a r r i e r mechanism such a s P a r k e r ' s (1961)
shock f r o n t o r Quenby's(1971) t a n g e n t i a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y a s p a r t
oftheexplanation. However t h e minimum i n t e n s i t y i n t h e e v e n t
was seen when t h e s o l a r wind had moved on 2-3 AU. I t i s suggested
byMcDonald e t a 1 t h a t some additional cause is r e q u i r e d t o e x p l a i n
t h i s minimum and t h a t Forbush decreases are an important component
i n t h e l o n g term modulation.

Preliminary theoretical investigations by Fisk Lee and Peko

(1981) and Alaniya,Guschina and Dorman (1981)dealwith time
dependent solutions of the Fokker-Planck transport equation with
i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c l e s c a t t e r i n g downstream of regions behind flare
producedshock f r o n t s . The f o r m e r a u t h o r s n e g l e c t d r i f t and take
each decrease as being due t o a f a c t o r 1 0 d e c r e a s e i n Kr f o r 8 days.
The l a t t e r a u t h o r s a l l o w Kr t o be a functionof r , t , 8 depending upon
t h e mean monthly sunspot area and green coronal l i n e i n t e n s i t y a t the
a p p r o p r i a t e l a t i t u d e and a l s o i n c l u d e d r i f t motion. F i s k e t a1 (1981)
produce a predicted time dependenceofthe cosmic r a y i n t e n s i t y
which i s more jagged nearer sunspot minimum and l e s s jagged a t s o l a r
maximumwhen several shocks are present in the heliosphere a t t h e same
time.Hysteresiseffectsoccur between thehigh and low energy
protonintensities.Alaniyaet a1 (1981)claim, on the basis of a few
preliminary computations, that a d r i f t p a r t i c l e f l u x i s a necessary
feature of the model i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e s o l a r c y c l e .

14. Conclusions

As a brief conclusion to this review, we f i r s t r e - i t e r a t e t h e

point that the basic process of modulation has been understood for
some t i m e . What i s needed fordetailedunderstanding is a better
appreciation of the magnitudeof t h e v a r i o u s e f f e c t s summing t o g i v e
t h e t o t a l mechanism.

Advances i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e magnitudeof t h e t r a n s p o r t
c o e f f i c i e n t s and t h e i r h e l i o s p h e r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n havebeen made,
but further progress depends t o a g r e a t e x t e n t on information potentially
a v a i l a b l e from an out-of-ecliptic survey and a n a l y s i s o f d a t a a t
3 20 AU. The data required w i l l come mainly from t h e magnetometer
andplasmaprobes on the spacecraft going to these places.

The n e c e s s i t y t o i n c l u d e d r i f t motion, s t a t i s t i c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n
and timedependent e f f e c t s i n the solution of the transport equation
seems established.Computationalproblemsinvolved becomemore
formidable but must be faced i f a f u l l understanding of modulation
i s t o be achieved.

Specification of the boundary c o n d i t i o n s i n t e r m s o f p a r t i c l e

f l u x e s remain a d i f f i c u l t y which the experimentalist must help to
solve. I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e s o u r c e o f t h e anomalous component and low
energy turn up should be known i n terms of position and d i s t r i b u t i o n
function in the inner solar system as an i n p u t t o t h e Fokker-Planck
equationsolution. Also evidence on t h ec a v i t y boundary f l u x ,p o s s i b l e
p o s i t i o n dependent modulation and a c c e l e r a t i o n a t t h i s i n t e r f a c e i s
required, together with more t h e o r e t i c a l s t u d y of the physical
mechanisms.
 - 48 -

In terms of the impact of modulation studies on astrophysics

in general or other branches of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, the
detailed investigation of the plasma physics of p a r t i c l e t r a n s p o r t
i s important. Studies carried out in the IMF on t h e a b i l i t y of
theory to describe particle transport in position space and energy
space a r e p r o b a b l y u n r i v a l l e d i n t h e i r d e t a i l i n t h e f i e l d o f
naturalplasmas.Applicationofthelessons we are l e a r n i n g i n
the IMFto magnetospheric and astrophysical problemsshould bemost
profitable.

Unfortunately we a r e L i t t l e nearer the complete demodulation

s o l u t i o n . That i s t o s a y we cannot t e l l t h e a s t r o p h y s i c i s t y e t e x a c t l y
what t h e i n t e r s t e l l a r cosmic r a y f l u x i s a t a l l e n e r g i e s and f o r a l l
charge species. More penetratingdeepspaceprobes may be the only
answer !
 - 49 -

References

Achterberg,G.A..: 1981, Astron.Astrophys.97, 259.

Alanyia, M.V., and Dorman, L.I. : 1977, 1 5 t h Y n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Plovdiv, 3, 40.
Alanyia, M.V., and Dorman, L . I . : 1979,16thInt. Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Eyoto I 3,57.
Alanyia, M.V., Gushchina, R.T. and Dorman, L . I . : 1981,17thInt. Conf.
Cosmic Rays, Paris 3, 349.
Alfvsn, H.: 1954, T e l l u s , 6, 232.
A l l i s , W.R. : 1956, Handb. Phys 2, 393. .
Anderson, H.R.: 1968, J. Geophys. R e s . , 2, 2897.
Antonucci, E., Marocchi, D., andPerona, G.E., 1978,Astrophys. J.: 220, 712.
Armstrong,T.P., Chen, G . , S a r r i s , E.T., andKrimigis , S .M. : 1977 in-
"Study of T r a v e l l i n g I n t e r p l a n e t a r y Phenomena" ed. M.A. Shea e t a 1
Reidel 367.
Axford, W . I . : 1965,Planet. Space S c i . , 2, 115.
Axford, W . I . : 1971,"Solar;wind"Conf.,Asilomar, Nasa Sp. 308 '(ed.Sonett, C.P.,
Coleman, P.J.,and Wilcox, J . M . ) .
Axford, W . I . , F i l l i u s , W., Gleeson, L.J., I p , W.H., and Mogro-Campero, A.:
1975, 1 4 t hI n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, 4 , 1519.
Babyan, V.K.R., and Dorman, L . I . , 1979,16th - I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Kyoto , - 3,123.
Barnden, C.R., andBercovitch, M.: 1975,Proc 1 4 t h I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Munich, 3, 875.
Barnes, A , : 1969,Astrophys. J . , 155, 311.
Barnes, C.W., and Simpon, J.A.: 1976,Astrophys. J:Lett., 2 1 0 , L.91.
Bedijn, P . J . , Burger, J.J., and Swanenburg, B.N.: 1973, 1 3 t h I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays,Denver, 5, 3106.
Berkovitch, M. : 1971,12th-Int e Conf. Cosmic Rays,Hobart, 2, 2658.
B r y a n t , D.A., C l i n e , T.L., Desai, U.D. and McDonald,F.B.: 1965,Phys. Rev.
L e t t . , . 14, 481.
Burger, J.J.: 1971,Astrophys. J. 166, 651.
Burlaga,L.F.,Lemaire,J.F., and Turner, J . M . : 1977, J . Geophys. R e s . 8 2 , 319..
Burlaga, L.F.: 1979,Space Sci. Rev. 23, 201.
Burlaga, L.F.,and Klein, L.: 1982, J. Geophys. R e s . 87,613.
Cecchini , S., and Quenby, J. J. : 1975, Proc. 14th Int:-Conf. , Cosmic Rays,
Munich, 3, 911.
Cecchini, G., Moussas, X., and Quenby, J.J.: 1980,Astrophys. Sp. S c i . , 69, 425.
Coles, W.A., R i c k e t t , B.J., Rumsey, V.H., Kaufman, J.J., Turley, D . G . ,
Ananthankrishnan, S . , Armstrong, J . W . , Harmons, J . K . , S c o t t , S.L.,
andSime, D.G.: 1980 Nature, 286, 239.-
Cowsick, R., and Lee, M.A.: 1977,Astrophys. J . , 216, 635. '

Davis, L.R.: 1956, Phys. Rev. 9, 351.

Denskat, K.U., andBurlaga, L.F.: 1977, J. Geophys. R e s . 82, 2693.
Dennison, P.A. and Hewish, A.: 1967, Nature 213, 343.
Dolginov, A.Z. , andToptygin, I . N . :
Dolginov, A.Z., andToptycjin, I.N.
1967, G e o G . andAeron.
1968, I c a r u s , 8, 54.
z, 785.

Dorman, L . I . , 1963,"Progress i n Elementary P a r t i c l e and CosmicRay Physics" ,

ed. Wilsonand Wouthuysen, North-Holland,7.
Dorman, L . I . , andMilovidova, N.P. : 1973,13th.-Int.Conf. Cosmic Ravs,
Denver, 2, 713.
Dorman, L . I . , Katz, M.E., andShakhov, B.A., 1977, 1 5 t h .I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Plovdiv, - 3, 63.
Duggal, S.P.:1977,15th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays, Plovdiv, 10, 430.
-
Dungey, J . W . : 1965, Sp. S c i . Rev. 4. 199.
 - 50 -
Dyer, C.S., Engel, A.R., Quenby, J.J., and Webb, S.: 1974, S o l a r Phys. 34, 243.
E a r l , J.A.: 1974,Astrophys. J., 188, 480.
Earl, J.A., and B i e b e r , J.W.: 1977, 15th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Plovdiv, 5, 172.
E a r l , J.A.: 1981,17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, P a r i s , 2, 385.
Ehmert, A.: 1960,Proc, MOSCOW, I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, 4, 142.
E i c h l e r , D. , Pesses, M.E., and J o k i p i i , J . R . : 1981, 17th: I n t . COnf.Cosmic
Rays, Paris , 2, 463.
E l l i o t , H.: 1952,"Progress i n CosmicRay Physics, I, (Amsterdam: NorthHolland).
Erdijs, G., andKota, T.: 1978,Proc 6th. European CosmicRay,Symp., Kid, 1978.
Erdss, G., and Kota, J.: 1979,Proc.16th I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Kyoto, 4, 45.
P
F r , H . J . , P e t e l s k i , E.F., and Ripken, H.W.:
Proc.BurghausenConf.,
a s r e p o r t No.
MPAE-W-100-
1981, "Solar Wind F a r " ,
1978. Pub. MPI Katlenburg-LindauandGarching
81-3.,page535.
Fan, C.V., Gloeckler, G. andSimpson, J . A . : 1965,Proc. 9 t h .I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays , London, I, 109.
Fermi, E.: 1949,Phys, Rev. 75, 1169.
Fisk, L.A.: 1969, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. o fC a l i f o r n i a , San Diego.
Fisk, L.A. and Axford, W . I . : 1969, J. Geophys. Res. 7 4 , 4973.
F i s k , L.A., Forman, M.A., andAxford, W . I . , 1973, J . Geophys. R e s . 7 8 , 995.
Fisk, L.A.: 1974, i n "High Energy P a r t i c l e s and Quanta in Astrophysics,
ed. McDonald and F i c h t e l Mit P r e s s , (Cam. Mas.) , p.170.
Fisk, L.A., Kozlovsky, B., and Ramaty, R.: 1974,Astrophys. J. L e t t . 190, L35.
Fisk, L.A., Goldstein, M.L., K l i m a s A , .J., andSandri, G . : 1974.Astrophys. J.
-190, 417.
Fisk, L.A.: 1976a, J. Geophys. R e s . 8 1 , 4641.
F i s k , L.A.: 197633, J. Geophys. R e s . 81, 4633.
Fisk, L.A.: 1976c,Astrophys. J.,KT, 333.
Fisk, L.A.: 1976d, J. Geophys. Res., 8 1 , 4646.
Fisk, L.A.: 1979 i n " S o l a r SystemPlasma Physics",Reidel,Dordrecht.
Fisk, L.A., L e e , M.A., and Perko.:1981,Proc.17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
P a r i s , 2, 337.
Forbush, S.E. : 1954, J. Geophys. R e s . 59, 525.
Forbush, S.E., and Beach, L.: 1975,Proc.14th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays, 4, 1204.
Forman, M.A.: 1970,Planet. Space S c i . 18, 25.
Forman, M.A., J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Owens, A . J . : 1974,Astrophys. J., 192, 535.
Forman, M.A., 1975,Proc.14th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays, Munich, 2, 3820.
Garcia-Munoz, M., Mason, G.M., andSimpson, J . A . : 1973,Astrophys. J. -1 8 2 , L81.
Garcia-Mlunoz, M., Mason, G.M., and Simpson, J.A.: 1977a,Proc.15th.Int.
Conf. CosmicRays , Plovdiv, L, 301.
Garcia-Munoz, M., Mason, G.M. andSimpson, J.A., 197713, PrOX. 15th. I n t .
Conf. Cosmic Rays,Plovdiv, 2, 234.
Garcia-Munoz, M., Pyle, K.R., andSimpson, J.A.: 1981, PrOC. 1 7 t h .I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays , 3 , 270.
Gleeson, L . J . , and-Axford, W . I . :
Gleeson, L . J . , andAxford, W.I.:
1967,Astrophys.
1968a,Astrophys.,SpaceSci.,
-
J. L e t t . 149, L115.
2, 431.
Gleeson, L.J., andAxford, W.I.: 1968b,Astrophys. J . , 1 5 4 , 1011.
Gleeson, L.J.: Plan.1969, Spa.ce Sci. 1 7 , 31. *
Gleeson, L . J . : 1971,Proc.12th.,Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,Hobart,RapporteurPaper.
Gleeson, L . J . , and Urch, I.H.: 1973,Astrophys. andSpace S c i . 25, 387.
Gleeson, L . J . , and Webb, G.M.: 1974,Proc.,Astron. SOC. Aust. 2, N05, 297.
Gleeson, L . J . , and Webb, G.M.: 1975,Proc.14th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Munich, 2, 893.
Gleeson, L . J . , and Webb, G.M.: 1979 i n "Fundamentalsof Cosmic Physics".
Gloekler, G.: 1979 i n "Proc. Workshop on Particle Acceleration Mechanisms i n
Astrophys: American I n s t . ofPhys.
Gloekler, G. , Hovestadt, D. , and F i s k , L.A.: 1979AstoPhY J- Lett- - 230, L191 '
Goldstein, M.L., Fisk, L.A., and Ramaty, R.: 1970,Phys. Rev. L e t t . - 25,832.
 \

Goldstein, M.L., Klimas, A . J . , and Barish, F.D.: 1974 i n C.T. Russel(ea.)

"Solar Wind Three" p. 385, Univ. C a l i f . Press, Los Angeles.
Goldstein, M.L.: 1976, Astrophys. J. - 204, 900.
Goldstein, B.E., and J o k i p i i , J . R . : 1977, J. Geophys. Res. 8 2 , 1095.
Goldstein, M.L.: 1980, J. Geophys. Res. 85, 3033.
Goldstein, M.L., andMatthaeus, W.J.: 1981, Proc. 17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic
Rays, Paris, 3, 294.
Gombosi, T . I . , and Owens, A . J . : 1980, Astrophys. J. 241, L129.
Gross, M.W., Lee, M.A. , andLerche, J. , 218,
I.: 1977, A s t r o p F . 552.
Hakamada, K., andAkosofu, S.I.: 1981, J. Geophys. R e s . 8 6 , 1290.
Hakamada, K., and Akosofu, S.I.:1982, Space Sci. Rev. 31, 3.
Hall, D.E., and Sturrock, P.A.: 1967, Phys. F l u i d s , &g72620.
Hamilton, D.C.: 1977, J. Geophys. R e s . 82, 2157.
Hashim, A . , and Bercovitch, M.: 1972, Plan.Space S c i . , 20, 791.
Hasselmann, K., and Wibberenz, G.: 1968, Zeits f u r Geophys. 34, 353.
Hasselmann, K., andWibberenz, G.: 1970, Astrophys. J . , 1 6 2 , 1049.
Hedgecock,P.C., Quenby, J.J., and Webb, S . : 1972, Nature Phys. S c i . - 240, 173.
Hedgecock, P.C.: 1975, S o l a r Phys. g, 497.
Hovestadt, D., Vollmer, O., Gloeckler, G., and Fac, C.Y.: 1973, Phys. Rev.
L e t t . 31, 650.
Howard, R.A., and Koomen, M . J . : ,E,
1974, S o l a r Phys. 469.
Hseih, K.C., and R i c h t e r , A.K.: 1981, J. Geophys. Res. 8 6 , 7771.
Hudson, P.D.: 1970, P l a n . Space.Sci. 18, 1611.
Hudson, P.D.: 1974, Privatecommunciatzn.
Isenherg. P.A., and J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1979, Astrophys.J. -
234, 746.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1966, Astrophys. J., 146, 480.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1967, Astrophys. J., E,403.
J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Parker, E.N.: 1967, Planet. Space S c i . , 15, 1375.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1968, Astrophys. J . , 152, 997.
J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Parker, E.N.: 1968, J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3367.
J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Parker, E.N.: 1969, Astrgphys. J. 155, 777.
J o k i p i i , J.R., andParker; ElN.: 1970, Astrophys. J. - 160, 735.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1971a, Rev. Geophys. and Space. Phys. 2, 27.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 197lb, Phys. Rev. L e t t . , 26, 666.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1974, Astrophys. J. - 194, 465.
J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Jones, F.C.: 1975, i n "Cosmic Ray D i f f u s i o n " , r e p o r t
ofGoddardSapce F l i g h t C e n t e r Workshop, May 1974, Nasa Tn D-7873,
Ed. Birmingham and Jones.
J o k i p i i , J.R., Levy, E.H., andHubbard, W.B.: 1976, Astrophys. J. - 213, 861.
J o k i p i i , J.R.: 1979, Prac. 16th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Kyoto. RapcarteurPaper.
J o k i p i i , J . R . andLevy, E.H.: 1979, Proc. 16th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Kyoto, 3, 52.
J o k i p i i , J.R., andKopriva, D.A.: 1979, Astrophys. J. 234, 384.
J o k i p i i , J . R . , and Thomas, B.: 1981, Astrophys. J. 2 - 43
,
1
5
.
Jones, F.C., Kaiser, T.B., andBirmingham, T.J.: 1973, 13th. I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays , Denver, 2, 669.
Kaiser, T.B.: 1975, Proc. 14th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays. Munich, 2, 861.
Kaiser, T.B., Birmingham, T . J . , and Jones, F.C.: 1978, Phys. F l u i d s , 2, 370.
Kennel, C.F., andPetscheck, H.E.: 1966, J. Geophys. Res. 2, 1.
Klecker, B.: 1977, J. Geophys. R e s . E, 5287.
Klecker, B., Hovestadt, D., Gloeckler, G., and Fan, C.Y.: 1977, Astrophys. J.,
-
212, 290.
Klimas, A . J . , and Sandfi, G.: 1971, Astrophys. J. 169, 41.
Klimas, A . J . , and Sandri, G.: 1973, Astrophys. J. 184. 955.
Klimas, A . J . , and Sandri, G . , Scudder, J . D . andHowell, D.R.: 1977,
Tech. Publs. X-692-76-207, X-692-76-252 and X-692-77-92, NASA-Goddard
Space F l i g h t C e n t e r .
 - 52 -

Korff, S.A., and Mendell, R.B.: 1977, 15th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, Plovdiv,
11, 208.
Kota, J.: 1977, 15th. I n t Conf. Cosmic Rays, Plovdiv, 2, 186.
Kota, J.: 1979, 16th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays.Kyoto, 2, 13.
Kota, J . , Merensgi, E., J o k i p i i , J . R . , Kopriva, D.A., Gombosi, J.I., and
Owens, J.R. 1982, Astrophys. J. 254, 398.
Kulsrud, R., and Ferrani.: 1971, A s t r o z s . Space S c i . 1 2 , 302.
Lee, M.A.: 1981,Proc.17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, 13. L83
Lee, M.A., and F i s k , L.A.: 1981,Astrophys. 248,
J. 836.
Lerche, I.: 1974,Astophys. J., 193, 711.
Levy, E.H.: 1975,Proc. 1 4 t h . I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, 4, 1315.
Lezniak, J.A., and Webber, W.R.: 1973, 13th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, Denver,
2, 738.
Liettz, B., and Quenby, J.J.: 1968, Canad. J. Phys. 4 6 , 942.
Lin, R.P.: 1974,Space -
S c i . Rev. 16, 189.
Lockwood, J.A.: 1971,SpaceSci. Rev. 12, 658.
Marsden, P .L. : 1967, Written c o n t r i b u t G n t o 4 t h IQSY Assembly, London a
Mason, G.M., Gloeckler, G., Hovestadt, D., andFan, C.Y.: 1977, T r a n s . Am.
Geophys. Union, EOS, - 58, 1 2 , 1204.
Mathews, T., Quenby, J.J., and Sear, S.F.:1971, Nature , 229, 246.
McCracken, K.G., and Rao, U.R.: 1965, London I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, L, 213.
McCracken, K.G., and Rao, U.R.: 1970,SpaceSci. Rev. 2, 155.
McDonald,F.B., Teegarden, B . J . Trainor, J . H . , and Webber, W.R.: 1974,
Astrophys. J. L e t t . - 187, Ll05.
McDonald, F.B., V a n Hollebeke, M.A.I., Trainor, J . H . , L a l , N . , and Webber, W.R.:
1979,Proc. 16th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Kyoto, 2, 352.
McDonald, F.B., Trainor, J.H., and Webber, W.R.: 1981,17th. I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays, 10, 147.
McDonald, F.B., and Forman, M.A.: 1981a,17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, P a r i s ,
10 81.
McDonald,F.B., and Forman, M.A.: 1981b, 17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, P a r i s ,
10, 85.
McKibben, R.B. : 1977,Astrophys.
McKibben, R.B., Pyle, K.R.,
-
J. L e t t . 217, L113.
and Simpson, J . A . : 1979,Astrophys. J. L e t t .
-222, L147.
McKibben, R.B.: 1981,Proc.17th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, P a r i s , 2, 163.
Messerschmidt, W.: 1933. Zeits. Phys. 85, 332.
Miehlnickel, W. : 19 38 " H o h e n s t r a h 1 u n g " ~ e r l a gvon Theodor Steinkopf f .
Moraal, H. : 1975,Proc.14th. I n t Conf. Cosmic Rays, Munich 11;- 3846.
Moraal, H., Gleeson, L. J., and Webb, G.M. : 1979,Proc. '16th I=. Conf.
Cosmic Rays, Kyoto, 2, 1.
M o r f i l l , G.E., and Quenby, J.J.: 1971,Planet.
M o r f i l l , G.: 1975, J. Geophys. R e s . 8 0 , 1783.
x,
Space S c i . 1541.

Morfill, G., V o l k , H.J., and Lee, M.A.: 1976, J. Geophys. R e s . 8 1 , 584.

Morrison, P.: 1956, Phys. Rev. 9, 1397.
Moussas, X., Quenby, J.J., and Webb, S.: 1975, ProC. 1 4 t h . I n t . COnf.
Cosmic Rays, Munich, 3, 866.
Moussas, X., and Quenby, J.J.: 1978,.,.Astrophys. Space. Sci.56, 483.
Moussas, X., and Quenby, J. J., and Valdes Galicia, J.F. : 1982 a Astrophys.
Space S c i . 85, 99. '
Moussas, X., Quenby, J.J. andValdes Galicia, J.F.: 1982 b
Astrophys.spaceSci. 86, 185.
Moussas, X., Quenby, J.J., andValdesGalicia,J.F.: 1982 c
Astrophys. Space Sci.86, 197.
Moussas, X. , axd T r i t a k i s , B. : 1 9 8 2 d , S o l a r Phvs. 7 5 , 361.
Nagashima, K., Fujimoto, K., F i j u i , Z., Ueno, H., and Kondu, I.: 1971,
Proc.12th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,Hobart, 2 , 661:
Nagashima, K.: 1977,Proc.15th. I n t . Conf.CosmicRays, 1 0 , 380.
Nagashima, K. and Morishita, I.: 1979,Proc.16th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Kyoto, 3, 325.
t
Newkirk, G., and Lockwood, J.A.: 1982, University of New Hampshire p r e - p r i n t .
O'Gallagher, J.J.: 1967,Astrophys. J. - 150, 675.
O ' G a l l a g h e r , ' J . J . ,a n d
O'Gallagher, J.J.: 1975,Astrophys.
Simpson, J.A.:
J. -
1967,Phys.
197, 495.
-
Rev. L e t t . 16, 1212.

P a i z i s D. and Von Rosenvinge, T.T.: 1981,17th.Int. Cos. Ray Conf. P a r i s ,

10, 73.
,
P a l m e r I .D. : 1982 P r e - p r i n t , " T r a n s p o r t C o e f f i c i e n t of Low Energy Cosmic
Rays in f n t e r p l a n e t a r yS p a c e " .O r a lR o b e r t s Univ. Oklahoma.
Parker, E.N.: 1958a,Astrophys. J., 126, 664.
Parker, E.N.: --
195833, Phys. Rev. 110, 1445.
Parker, E.N.:
P a r k e r , E.N.:
1961,Astrophys. -J. 133, 1014.
1963, " I n t e r p l a n e t a r y Dynamical P r o c e s s e s " ,I n t e r s c i e n c e ,
New York.
Parker, E.N.: 1964, P l a n e t . Space S c i . 1 2 , 735;
Parker, E.N.: 1965 a, Proc. London Conf. Cosmic Rays, Review.
Parker, E.N.: 1965 (b), Planet.SpaceSci. 13, 9.
Parker, E.N.: 1966, P l a n e t . Space S c i . 14, 371.
Parker, E.N.:
Parker, E.N.:
1967, P l a n e t . Space S c i .
1969,SpaceSci. 9,
Rev.
x, 325.
1723.

Pomerantz, M.A. , and Duggal, S.P.: 1971,'SpaceSci.

Pomerantz, M.A., andDuggal,S.P.:1974,
x,
Rev.
Rev. Geophys. SpacePhys.
75.
2, 343.
Pomerantz, M.A.: 1975,Proc.14th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays, Munich, 11, 3833.
Pomerantz, M.A., Tolba, M.F., Duggal,S.P.,Tsao, C.H., and Owens, A . J . : 1981,
Proc:17th. I n t . Conf.Cosmic Rays, P a r i s , 2, 302.
Quenby, J.J.: 1965aProc. 9 t h . I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, London, The P h y s i c a l ,

SOC.,London,Review.
Quenby, J.J.: 196533, P r o c .9 t h .I n t . Conf.Cosmic Rays, London, The Physical, SQC.,
London, Paper Mod 9.
Quenby, J.J.: 1967, Handbuch derPhysik, XLV1/2, S p r i n g e rV e r l a g ,B e r l i n ,
48, No. 2 , 310.
, ,
Qu&K J. J a and L i e t t i B. : 1968, Plan. Space. Sci. - 16 , 1209.
Quenby, J.J., and Hashim, A.: 1969,Plan.Space.Sci. 1 7 , 1121.
Quenby, J.J., Balogh, A . , Engel, A.R., E l l i o t , H., Hedgecock, P.C., Hynds, R . J . ,
and Sear,J.F.:1970, Acta. PhysicaHungaricae, 29, 445.
Quenby, J.J., and S e a r , J.F: 1971, P l a n e t Space S C i . 1 9 , 95
Quenby, J.J.: 1973,Proc.13th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,Denver, 5, 3731.
Quenby, J.J.: 1977,Proc.15th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,Plovdiv, 10, 364.
Quenby, J.J.: 1982, Review, 5 t h . Sm. Symp. Ottawa,to b_e publ.SpaceSci. Rev.
Rao, U.R., McCracken, K.G., and Bartlet, W.C.: 1967, J. Geophys. R e s . 272,4343.
Rockstroh, J.M.: 1977 PhD T h e s i s , Univ. New Hampshire, USA.
Roelof, E.C.: 1966, PhD. T h e s i s ,U n i v e r s i t y ofBerkely.
Roelof , -c.C.: 1969, in "Lectures in HighEnergy Astrophysics" Eds. H. Ggelman
and J.R. Wayland. (Washington, NASA Sp-199).
Roelof, E.C., Decker, R.B., and Krimigis, S.M.: 1981, JHu/APL P r e - p r i n t No.81-14.
Rosenberg, R.L., and Coleman, P.J. Jr.: 1969, J. Geophys. R e s . 2, 5611.
Rosenberg, R.L.: 1970,Solar Phys. 15, 72.
Rosenberg, R.L., Kivelson, M.G., and Coleman, P . J . Jr.: 1978, J. Geophys.
Res. 83, 4165.
Rossi, B., and Olbert, S.: 1970 " I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the PhysicsofSpace"
McGraw-Bill, I n t e r n a t i o n a l S e r i e s .
Sarabhai, V., andSubramanian, G.: 1965,Proc.9th I n t . Conf.CosmicRays,
London, P h y s i c a l SOC., London, P. 204.
Sari, J.W.: 1977, Goddard Space F l i g h t C e n t e r R e p o r t X-692-77-170 and EOS.
Trans. AGU 58,487.
Sarris, E.T., a n r V a nA l l e n , J.A.: 1974, J. Geophys. Res. 7 9 , 4157.
Schatten, K.H. , and Wilcox, J.M.: 1969, J. Geophys. R e s . 74, 4157.
Schulz, M. 1973,Astrophys.Space,Sci. 24, 371.
Sime, D.G., andRickett, B.: 1978, J. Geophys. R e s . 83, 5757.
Singer, S.F., 1958,"Progress in Elementary P a r t i c l e P h y s i c s asld Cosmic Ray
-
Physics" 4 (Amsterdam: N. Holland Publ. Co.) .
 - 54 -

Singer, S.F., Gaster, H., andLencheck, A.M.: 1962, J. Phys. SOC. Japan,
17,Suppl. A-11, 583.
S i m T n , D.V.: 1965,Revs. of PlasmaPhys. I, 1.
(M.A. Leontovich, Ed. Consultants Bureau, New York).
Skadron, G. and Hollweg, J.V.: 81,
1976, J. Geophys. R e s . 5887.
S k i l l i n g , J.: 1971,Astrophys. J., 1 7 0 , 265.
S k i l l i n g , J.: 1975, Mon. Not. Rot. Astron. SOC. 172, 557.
Smith, E . J . , Tsurutani, B.T., andRosenberg, R.L.: 1978, J. Geophys. R e s .
83, 717.
SmithTE. J. , and Wolfe, J . H . : 1979,Space S c i . Rev. 23, 217.
Somogyi, A.J.: 1981, 1 7 t h .I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays, P a r i s , 13. 219.
Steinmaurer, R., and Graziadei, H.: 1933, S i t z .B e r i c h t . Acad. Wiss., Wien,E, 672.
S t e r n , D.: 1964,Planet. Space Sci. 1 2 , 973.
Sturrock, P.A.: 1966,Phys. Rev., 141, 186.
Subramanian, G.: 1971, J. Geophys. R e s . , 5, 1093.
Swinson, D.B.: 1971, J. Geophys. R e s . 2, 4217.
Swinson, D.B., and Kananen, H.: 1982, J. Geophys. Res. 8 7 , 1685.
Thambyahpillai, T., and E l l i o t , H.: 1953,Nature, 171, 918.
Thomas, B.T., and Smith, E.J.: 1980a, J. Geophys. R e s . 85, 6861.
Thomas, B.T., andSmith, E . J . : 1980b, Twenty ThirdPlenaryMeeting,Cospar,
Symposium No. 2 . , Budapest, (Abstract).
Thomas, B.T., and S m i t h , E.J.: 1980c,submitted t o J . Geophys. R e s .
Toptygin, I . N . : 1973, Geomag. Aeron. 13, 181.
Urch, I.H.: 1971, Ph.D. Thesis,University of Adelaide.
Urch, I . H . , andGleeson, L.H.: 1972,Astrophys.SpaceSci. 3, 55.
V a n Allen, J . A . , and Ness, N.F.: 1967, J. Geophys. R e s . 2, 935.
Van Hollebeke, M.A.I., McDonald, F.B., Trainor, J . H . , and Von Rosenvinge, T.T.:
1978, J. Geophys. R e s . 83, 1723.
Villante, U., Bruno, R., Mariani,F.,Burlaga, L.F., and Ness, N.F.: 1979,
J. Geophys. Res. 84, 6641.
V&k, H . J . : 1973,Astrophys.SpaceSci. 25, 471.
Vb.lk, H., and Alpers, W.: 1973,Astrophys.SpaceSci. 2, 267.
Vb'lk, H. : 1975 , Revs. Geophys. Space Sci. 13. 547.
Von Rosenvinge, T.T., and P a z i z i s , C.: 1981,Proc.17th.Int. Conf. Cosmic Rays,
P a r i s , 10, 69.
Webb, G.M., andGleeson, L.I.: 1973,Proc.13th. I n t . Conf. Cosmic Rays,
Denver, 3, 3253.
Webb, G.M.: 1976, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania,Hobart.
Webb, G.M.: 1976, J. Aust. Math. SOC.,Series B, 1 9 , 432.
Webb, G.M., and Gleeson, L . J . : 1977, Proc.15th. 1nt:Conf.Cosmic Rays,
Plovdiv,3, 12.
Webb, G.M., andGleeson, L . J . : 1979,Astrophys.Space S c i . , 6 0 , 335.
Webb, G.M., Martinic, N . J . , andMoraal, H.: 1981, Proc.17th.Int. Conf.
Cosmic Rays, Paris, 1 0 , 109.
Webb, S I and Quenby, J.J.: 1974,Solar Phys. 2, 235.
Webber, W.R.: 1962,"Prog. i n Elementary P a r t i c l e and Cosmic Ray Physics",
ed.Wilsonand Wouthuysen, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 6 , 77.
Webber, W.R.: 1967, "Handbuch derPhysik", BD XLVI/2 Cosmic Rays, 2 , 181.
. .
Webber, W.R. : 1979 , Proc 1 6 t h . I n t . Conf CosmicRay, Kyoto, Rapporteur Paper
onSp-7.
Webber, W.R., Stone, E.C., andVogt, R.E.: 1979,Proc.16th. I n t . Conf.
Cosmic Rays, 2, 357.

P r o c .1 7 t h .I n t
-
Webbek, W.R., McDonald, F.B., Von Rosecvinge, T.T., and Mewaldt, R.A.: 1981,
Conf. Cosmic Rays,Paris, 1 0 , 92.
Webber, W.R., and Lockwood, J . A . : 1981, J. Geophys. Res. 5, 11458.
- 55 -
 - 56 -
I FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1 A r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the Heliosphere current sheet as seen by an

observer 30° above the equatorial plane and 50 AU from t h e
sun f o r V = 4 x lo7 cm s-l and a tilt angle CL = 15O. (After
J o k i p i i and Thomas, 1981). The f i g u r e is 25 AU across.

Figure 2 Solar wind speedsaveraged i n t o 15O l a t i t u d e i n t e r v a l s f o r six

month periods are p l o t t e d a g a i n s t time i n (b)and (c) Single .
r o t a t i o n estimates of polar coronal hole areas derived from
photcs$ericobservations are plotted for the north polar hole in
(a) and f o r t h e s o u t h i n (d) .
The slowingofthe wind above a f 30
l a t i t u d e i n 1978 is matchedby a narrowing of the polar holes.
( a f t e r Coles e t a l , 1980).

Figure 3 The shape of the current sheet as extrapolated from t h e l o c a t i o n of

t h e boundary crossings, the orientation of the local normals
of the current sheet and the longitudinal extension of the unipolar
regionsof t h e interpLanetarymagneticfield.Solid lines correspond
t o the region of d i r e c t knowlege of the c u r r e n t s h e e t by HELIOS
o b s e r v a t i o n s .( a f t e rV i l l a n t ee ta l .1 9 7 9 ) .

Figure 4 Transverse power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y i n i n t e r p l a n e t a r y magnetic f i e l d

turbulence a t d i f f e r e n t mean r a d i a l d i s t a n c e s from the sun
(R i n AU) .
(After Thomas andSmith1980 b) .
Figure 5 Power s p e c t r a ld e n s i t yo ff l u c t u a t i o n si n I F a t various
of t h e M
valuesof R (AU) . (After Thomas andSmith1980 b) .
Figure 6 A simpleapproximation t o t h e p i t c h a n g l e d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
D (q) suggested by Vijlk (1973) .
The dottedcurveindicatesthe
q u a s i l i n e a rr e s u l t Dql. The a c t u a l D (TI) i s takenequalto Dql (n)
I I I
f o r In > no and e q u a l t o D (01 f o r n Ino I I< I .
qis cosine pitch
angle in the notation of V81k.

Figure 7 The k i n e t i c e n e r g y s p e c t r u m o f t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t e n s i t y j T (r,T)

f o r a monoenergetic g a l a c t i c spectrum of protons at infinity
(Up 3 Ng 6 ( p - po) as r + <a). The k i n e t i c energy of injection
To i s e q u a l t o t h e r e s t e n e r g y Eo. The d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t K =
prl:’ and V r / K ( r , p o ) = O,C1, 0.1 and 1.0. ( a f t e r Gleesonand
Webb. 1979) . .

Figure 8 Flow l i n e si nt h e( r , p )p l a n ef o r a monoenergetic a l a c t i c spectrum

of p a r t i c l e s a t i n f i n i t x (Up -F Ng (p -
po) as r + a) .
The d i f f u s i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t K = Kc p r l . and V r e /K (re,po) = 0.1
The flow l i n e s a r e shown by t h e f u l l l i n e s whereas t h e l o c i i
>= 0 , <fi> = 0 and t h e c r i t i c a l curve a r e shown by broken l i n e s .
( a f t e r Gleeson and Webb) .
Figure 9 To d e m o n s t r a t e t h e i n s e n s i t i v i t y ofthenear-Earthprotonspectrum
t o t h e form of the low energy .galactic spectrum w i t h
K = 6 x 1021 & P cm2 s-’. The force-field parameter +Cr = l A U ) = 3.14GV
and t h e s o l a r c a v i t y boundary r b = 10 AU ( a f t e r Gleesonand Webb).
 - 57 -

Figure 10 (a) ,(b) A series ofessentiallymonoenergetic nuclei spectra

in interstellar space (solid) and their resultant modulated
spectra at the Earth (dashed). Figure 10a is for protons,
figure 10b is for helium nuclei (after Goldstein et at 1970).

Figure 11 Differential energy spectra of hydrogen, helium, carbon and axygen

observed in the interplanetary medium near 1AU during the solar
minimum in 1976-77 at times when solar flare particles were not
present. Particles in the rising portions of the energy spectra
are believed to be predominate17 interplanetar-y,$n origin, The
galactic cosmic rays 'are 6bserired H above
for 10 MeV, for Het;above
60,- 80 MeV/nuc and for C and0 above 30 IleV/nuc. In the
intermediate energy range( 1 to %30 HeV/nuc) appear the
anonialous 'cosmic-ray', component where hellum and oxygen are
highly overabundant and have 'humped" spectral shapes. At
still lower energies, a quiet time turn-up is seen. (after
Mason et al, 1977):

Figure 12 Comparison of model calculations with experimental results for the

quiet time spectra. 1973 quiet time He, N and0 data@; 1973-1975
low energy N, 0, Ne data@ ; high energy He and .
0 data (+) The
high energy N and Ne spectra are normalized to the oxygen spectum
using galactic cosmic ray abundances. Curves (1) and (2) are
the calculated spectra for the galactic component and for the
anomalous component, respectively. After Klecker (1977) where
references to the originalsources of the data are also given.

Figure 13 The near-Earth intensity spectrum (JT), gradient (Gr) and radial
anisotropy (cr) for the latitude-dependent model of Fisk (1976d) e

Figure 14 A plot of intensity versus polar angle I? at r= 1AU for T

= 25 MeV
and T= 1 GeV protons from Fisk (1976d) Note the difference
e

between i50 polar diffusionBe = 0 (dashed curves) and polar

diffusion included (KOSO, full curves).

Figure 15 Solutions of modulation equation for near-Earth intensities of

protons (a ) and electrons (c). Polar intensity distributions
for protons at 1AU are shown (b).
in (after Moraal et a1 1979).

Figure 16 Illustration of the fraction of near-Earth particles that crossed

the boundaryof the modulation cavity at a particular
heliolatitude
(after Moraal et a1 1979).

Figure 17 Energetic,positivelycharged particles whose guiding6entres

fall withina gyration radius of the magnetic reversing layer
undergoing rapid migrationin the direction V x (after Levy 1975).

Figure 18 Computed intensity (or density) of70 MeV protons as a function

of bliocentrio- radius r, at 10' intervals. q A is positive
(after Jokipii and Kopriva, 1979).

Figure 19 Computed intensity (or density) of 70 MeV protons as a function

r, at 10' intervals. q A is negative
of heliocentric radius
(after ,Jokipii and Kopriva, 1979).
 1 1 I I I
b I I
A
\o
2
u
a
8
O/O

4
++++
+-
+
+
+ +
e
0 0.0 .. 0 NORTH POLE

LLI
I
+ +
0
I
: 0
500

300
500

300
8 -D
O/O
1

+
I

+ +.
++
I

-ti.
0
0
I
e

0
I

0
I I I

POLE

4 0 0
0
0
0 I
+ I + I I I I
0

1971
75747372 76 7877 79
YEAR

Figure 2
 I
I
I

I A

I + I
I
I 1
' I
I
I
I
I
I I

+
I t
I
I
I
+ 1
I +
t
 F BT
1o6 +
____+_ +- +++
-
N
+t
+
R
I
: ++ 9

++

5 I

+++
.
>- 10
t-
v, ____+_ ++++ --c
++t,
I-=

z +.
++
+
W
n +++L t
t-c
-
a
QL
-+ I-++ + +
- .
t
++
+
++
I-
U

e. I
W o4 -t+.
+ +++.
+ #A-
+-
c
-+
+ -
4.1
v, 3t +++ *-+ ++
-+
cr:
W
10 -L
-L
5.5
+
2 +
0
CL
IO 5.9
1
10-
1oo
P
1oo8 Io -~ IO6 IO-
FREQUENCY ( H Z )
Figure 4
 IBI
1o6
E
+
Lo6 . ++
+
* .+
I

-++I- +T
w
I o5 1-6
t
10
+
- 2.9
I
-c
e
t1 -cc

I os -+++. +
+ e
4-

+ ++ +t+-++
4-1
.lo4 t
+ =

Q1
7
++++ + 4 -t

W L-
+ -
3 IO’
0
11
1o2

1o1 ..

IO0
log8 107 1o+ IO-*
FREQUENCY ( H Z )
Figure 5
>
\
F

>
\
0
 IO2
jTVS T
0.01
MONOENERGETIC INJECTION
IO0
K= K,p r1.5

7, lo4

-10
10
IO8 1 2 I ~ L 1d2 1
T/E,
Figure 7
 100

10

W
LL
L
Ei
13

1b2
10 100 1000 10
KINETIC ENERGY ( M - e V )
Figure 9
 1

-1
10

-3
!= 10

-4
10

I os 4
F i g u r e 10 a PROTON KINETIC ENERGY ( M e M
 L
\

\ ' I I
I
\ II / I I 1 I
I

\ / I I
/ i
I /
I /
/
I /
I /
I
I
I
I
*
I
1'1 I
\ I
\
\
\
I
I
I
-c I I

1o1 102 103

F i g u r e 10b KINETIC ENERGY (MeVAlUC)
 Quiet Time Energy Spectra
1976- I977
U. Maryland/ Univ.
a MPI . Chicago
*Cal
Tech
-+ '. \
\ \ Protons:

Helium:
0

0.
A

A
0

H.eliur

--
\
\a '1972- 73 Measurements

4-
-+-
A

4
- 16~1 I 1 I I l l 1 1 1 I I I I I l l 1

16' IO0 IO' IO2 lo3

Kinetic Energy .(MeV/nuc)
F i g u r e 11
KINETIC ENERGY (MeWNucleon)

F i g u r e 12
 I

LL
v,

.
a
0
a
t
t
Y

m
0 d

0 0 a,
k
7 7

AaW-tfS-13S W/SN010dd) hlISN31NI NOlOtfd

Z
 :

IO

U
v)
7
W
I-
z
cc

z
0
I-
O
QI
LL

1o 2
30 60 90 120 150 180
POLAR ANGLE ( e I
Figure 14
T
0 6
ri
0

0
 9
4

I6)
6) 6) 83 m 6) m m 6l
6) m u,
e
d m N
0 0
m
0 0

6)
 ' I
m
m m m c9 6)
N
m 03 LD u,
m