Issue 
A&A
Volume 589, May 2016



Article Number  A39  
Number of page(s)  5  
Section  The Sun  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201527593  
Published online  12 April 2016 
On the interpretation and applicability of κdistributions
^{1}
Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, 3 Avenue Circulaire, 1180
Brussels, Belgium
^{2}
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St.
Andrews, St
Andrews, Fife,
KY16 9SS,
UK
^{3}
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Lehrstuhl IV: Weltraum und
Astrophysik, RuhrUniversität Bochum, 44780
Bochum,
Germany
email:
mlazar@tp4.rub.de
^{4}
Research Department of Complex Plasmas, RuhrUniversität
Bochum, 44780
Bochum,
Germany
^{5}
Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of
Maryland, College
Park, USA
^{6}
School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University,
Korea
Received: 19 October 2015
Accepted: 6 March 2016
Context. The generally accepted representation of κdistributions in space plasma physics allows for two different alternatives, namely assuming either the temperature or the thermal velocity to be κindependent.
Aims. The present paper aims to clarify the issue concerning which of the two possible choices and the related physical interpretation is correct.
Methods. A quantitative comparison of the consequences of the use of both distributions for specific physical systems leads to their correct interpretation.
Results. It is found that both alternatives can be realized, but they are valid for principally different physical systems.
Conclusions. The investigation demonstrates that, before employing one of the two alternatives, one should be conscious about the nature of the physical system one intends to describe, otherwise one would possibly obtain unphysical results.
Key words: solar wind / plasmas / instabilities
© ESO, 2016
1. Introduction
The κdistributions are useful tools for quantitative treatment of nonthermal space and astrophysical plasmas (e.g., Pierrard & Lazar 2010; Livadiotis & McComas 2013; Fahr et al. 2014, and references therein). After their heuristic first definition almost 50 years ago they have not only been used in innumerable applications, but various authors have successfully derived κdistributions more rigorously for specific physical system. These studies include Hasegawa et al. (1985), who considered a plasma in a prescribed suprathermal radiation field, or Ma & Summers (1998), who assumed the presence of prescribed stationary whistler turbulence. More recent example is Yoon (2014), who selfconsistently solved the problem of an electron distribution that is in a dynamic equilibrium with electrostatic Langmuir turbulence. Other authors even attempted to motivate the physical significance of κdistributions from fundamental principles; these include Tsallis (1988), who considered the generalized version of the Renyi entropy, or Treumann & Jaroschek (2008), who constructed a statistical mechanical theory of such powerlaw distributions via generalizing Gibbsian theory. Despite these theoretical foundations, there exists as yet no generally accepted unique interpretation of κdistributions (see Livadiotis 2015, and references therein). As discussed recently in Lazar et al. (2015), one can instead distinguish two principally different alternatives.
The first choice dates back to the original idea for the definition of κdistributions, which first appeared in printed form in Vasyliunas (1968), but can be traced back to Stanislav Olbert, as acknowledged by the author himself. When Olbert introduced it in one of his own papers published a few months later in the same year, he motivated his definition of κdistributions in the context of magnetospheric electron spectral measurements as follows (Olbert 1968): “[...] the electron speed distribution [...] is of the form (1)where v is the actual speed, w_{0} is the most probable speed of electrons, and κ is a “free” parameter whose value is a measure of the departure of the distribution from its Maxwellian character (letting κ approach infinity leads to the Maxwellian distribution). We shall not go into the reasons for this choice except to mention that it seems to be justifiable on the basis of other independent observations”. Evidently, with this adhoc definition Olbert (1968) intended to describe an enhanced fraction of suprathermal particles heuristically, as compared to a Maxwellian distribution. Naturally, such suprathermal κdistribution is characterized by a higher κdependent temperature.
Contrary to this expectation Livadiotis (2015) recently offered a different view by stating, “The temperature acquires a physical meaning as soon as the Maxwell’s kinetic definition coincides with the Clausius’s thermodynamic definition [...]. This is the actual temperature of a system; it is unique and independent of the kappa index”.
In order to have a κindependent temperature, it is easy to see (Sect. 2) that one must consider the thermal velocity (called w_{0} in Olbert’s definition) to be κdependent. A slightly more subtle aspect is another consequence of this assumption; i.e., it not only implies an enhancement of the velocity distribution (VDF) relative to the associated Maxwellian at higher velocities, but also the enhancement of the core population at very low velocities.
The obvious question that arises is: which of the two interpretations is correct or can both be valid for different physical systems? The purpose of the present paper is to answer this question. To this end we define the κdistributions explicitly in Sect. 2, critically discuss their physical implications in Sects. 3 and 4, and summarize our findings in the concluding Sect. 5.
2. Definitions of the κdistributions
In most general form, one can define biκdistributions in a magnetized plasma as follows (Lazar et al. 2015): (2)where v_{∥} and v_{⊥} denote particle velocity parallel and perpendicular w.r.t. a largescale magnetic field, T_{∥ , ⊥} and θ_{∥ , ⊥} the corresponding temperatures and thermal velocities, which are related by In the above m is particle mass, k_{B} the Boltzmann constant, Γ is the Gamma function, and κ ∈ (3/2,∞ ].
As already pointed out in Lazar et al. (2015), despite this general formulation of the biκdistributions, the interpretation of the temperatures can be ambiguous, as they can be understood and interpreted in two alternative ways:

(A)
The temperatures of the biκdistributions and of the associated biMaxwellian are identical, i.e. . This implies that thermal velocities are κdependent via (5)This corresponds to the alternative interpretation advocated by Livadiotis (2015).

(B)
Thermal velocities of biκdistributions and of the associated biMaxwellian are identical, i.e., (6)This implies that the temperatures are κdependent via (7)This corresponds to the original definition by Olbert (1968).
Fig. 1 The two alternative biκdistributions for κ = 9/4 and 2θ_{⊥}/c = θ_{∥}/c = 0.02, and the associated Maxwellian model: panela) displays their parallel cuts and panelsb) and c) show the contours of the full VDFs at the levels (dotted lines) indicated in panela). Evidently both biκdistributions exhibit enhanced tails relative to the Maxwellian but KappaA has, in addition, also an enhanced core. 

Open with DEXTER 
In the following, we refer to these alternatives as “KappaA” and “KappaB”, respectively. These κdistributions differ in a crucial way, as illustrated in Fig. 1, where (a) the parallel part of the two κdistributions for κ = 9/4 is shown along with the associated Maxwellian; and where (b) contour plots of the VDFs at the level indicated in panel (a) are given. As is evident from panel (a), per construction, both κdistributions are enhanced at higher velocities relative to the Maxwellian. However, interestingly, KappaA additionally exhibits an increased core population. Consequently, unavoidably, a question arises, namely, Which of the two κdistributions is the correct one? The answer should be found on the basis of quantitative modeling and by considering the consequences of their use for specific physical scenarios. This is discussed in the following section.
3. Comparison of the two κdistributions
3.1. NonMaxwellian plasmas due to reduced interactions
One argument for the formation of enhanced suprathermal VDF tails, for example in the solar wind, is the lack of collisions or, more generally, because of insufficient interactions, which could maintain a Maxwellian equilibrium. In this case, it is expected that there should be comparatively more particles with higher velocities, and fewer particles with lower velocities (e.g., Fichtner & Sreenivasan 1993). With a glance at the original purpose, one would prefer KappaB for such a scenario: Olbert (1968) intended to describe a particle velocity distribution that has, compared to a Maxwellian, an enhanced fraction of suprathermal particles. Such an enhanced halo of the VDF must be expected to form at the expense of its core population, i.e., one must expect the modified distribution to be depleted at low velocities.
This expectation has been confirmed with the recent direct comparison of using KappaA or KappaB versus the associated Maxwellian in the studies of plasma waves, and the discussion of the consequences thereof by Lazar et al. (2015). These authors investigated the electromagnetic electroncyclotron waves driven by perpendicular temperature anisotropy, T_{⊥}/T_{∥}> 1, on the basis of solutions of the corresponding dispersion relation that can be cast into the form (8)with the temperature anisotropy , the complex wave frequency ω(k) = ℜ(ω)(k) + iℑ(ω)(k), the wave number k, the gyrofrequency Ω, the plasma frequency ω_{p}, and the speed of light c. The function (9)is the modified κplasma dispersion function (Lazar et al. 2008). For κ → ∞ one recovers the dispersion relation for a Maxwellian plasma with the standard plasma dispersion function (Fried & Conte 1961).
Lazar et al. (2015) demonstrates that, while all VDFs give very similar dispersion curves, there are significant differences in the growth rates for given anisotropic plasma conditions. One would expect an enhanced fraction of suprathermal particles to increase the growth rates systematically and monotonously, i.e., there should be no wavenumber interval with lower growth rates when compared to the Maxwellian. This behavior is exactly exhibited by KappaB. In contrast, the use of KappaA results in nonmonotonously higher or lower growth rates than the Maxwellian; an example is provided with Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 a) Dispersion curves ℜ(ω)(k) and b) growth rates ℑ(ω)(k) derived for a biMaxwellian (solid lines), a biKappaA (dotdashed lines), and a biKappaB (dashed lines) for A^{K,M} = 4, a plasma and κ = 9/4. 

Open with DEXTER 
Consequently, for a plasma scenario apparently envisaged by Olbert (1968), i.e., a VDF with an enhanced tail rather than an additionally enhanced core, the answer to the above question is that KappaB is the correct choice.
3.2. NonMaxwellian plasmas due to specific waveparticle interactions
It has also been suggested that the highvelocity powerlaw tails can form as a result of specific waveparticle interactions, e.g., electromagnetic waves (Hasegawa et al. 1985), Whistler waves (Ma & Summers 1998), fastmode waves (Roberts & Miller 1998), Alfvén waves (Leubner 2000), or stochastic acceleration by turbulence of arbitrary nature but characterized by a diffusion coefficient with an inverse dependence of velocity (Bian et al. 2014). In improvement of such testparticle approaches, Yoon (2014) selfconsistently solved the problem of an (isotropic) electron distribution that is in a dynamic equilibrium with electrostatic Langmuir turbulence.
To briefly overview Yoon’s theory, the steadystate isotropic electron VDF F(v) in the presence of Langmuir turbulence intensity is given by (10)with (11)This solution is derived from the particle kinetic equation that describes diffusion and friction (or drag) in velocity space arising from the spontaneously emitted electrostatic Langmuir fluctuations. With , where T_{M} is the isotropic Maxwellian temperature, one obtains the Maxwell distribution, F_{M}(v) = Cexp(−mv^{2}/2k_{B}T_{M}). However, Yoon (2014) assumed a generalized Kappa distribution, (12)where it should be noted that, unlike the customary κmodel, κ′ is generally allowed to be different from κ. The effective temperature is given by (13)Note that the above definition is essentially the same as Eqs. (3) and (4), except that Eq. (13) defines isotropic temperature and that on the righthand side of the last equality, the numerator is given by κ′ instead of κ.
Upon comparing the assumed solution (12) and the formal steadystate solution (10), it quickly becomes obvious that the reduced Langmuir fluctuation spectrum must be given by (14)It also follows from the definitions of ℋ and given by Eq. (11) that the full Langmuir intensity can be deduced as (15)We note that with ℋ = 0 (see the discussion in Yoon 2014) Eqs. (14) and (15) become identical.
Yoon (2014) subsequently demonstrated that the solution for the reduced Langmuir fluctuation spectrum is also, consistently, the steadystate solution of the wave kinetic equation, when exclusively linear waveparticle interactions are considered. Including the nonlinear terms in the wave kinetic equation, Yoon (2014) rederived the exact solution for the full Langmuir intensity as (16)which must be identical to Eq. (15). Consequently, it immediately follows that (17)which with ℋ = 0 (see the discussion in Yoon 2014) leads to κ = 9/4.
Consequently, the selfconsistent solution can be summarized by a coupled set of solutions, (18)where κ′ no longer appears. Clearly, the electron VDF is of the type KappaA. A noteworthy feature associated with the Langmuir intensity is that the longwavelength regime (k → 0) is enhanced over the Maxwellian limit, I_{L}(k) = k_{B}T_{e}/ (4π^{2}), while for short wavelengths, the Langmuir fluctuation spectrum decreases relative to the Maxwellian limit. It is the relation (17), particularly the specific identification of κ′ = (2κ−3)k_{B}T/mθ^{2}, which renders Eq. (13) into the θ^{2} vs. T relationship of the first type, which in turn, led to the KappaA model.
As evidenced from Fig. 1, the KappaA distribution selfconsistently constructed by Yoon (2014) exhibits not only an enhanced highvelocity tail but also an enhanced core population. The latter enhancement can only be understood if a process exists that keeps more particles (relative to the Maxwellian) at low velocities. In the final solution (18), this can be understood in the context of the waveparticle resonance condition, ω_{p} ≃ k·v between the lowvelocity electrons and reduced Langmuir fluctuation spectrum in the shortwavelength regime (k ≫ 1). The reduced Langmuir intensity spectrum (relative to the Maxwellian case) leads to an accumulation of lowvelocity electrons near v ~ 0, as the waveparticle resonance becomes ineffective, while for highvelocity particles the enhanced Langmuir intensity near k ~ 0 leads to acceleration and, thereby, to the formation of the powerlaw tail.
Consequently, one can state in general that, if a process exists that keeps more particles (relative to a Maxwellian) at low velocities, the answer to the above question is that KappaA is the correct choice: the lowvelocity enhancement balances the highvelocity enhancement, so that the temperature is indeed independent of parameter κ.
4. An alternative view: two Maxwellian limits for a given κdistribution
Fig. 3 Models of VDFs: biKappa from Eq. (2) with 2θ_{⊥}/c = θ_{∥}/c = 0.02 (dashed blue lines) and κ = 9/4, and biMaxwellian limits (κ → ∞) with the same temperature (MaxwellianH with dashdotted lines) or with a lower temperature (MaxwellianC with solid lines). Parallel cuts F(v_{∥}) are shown in panela), and isocontours at 4 × 10^{3} in panelb) and 10^{2} in panelc), corresponding to dotted lines in panela). Notice the difference between the Maxwellian limits. 

Open with DEXTER 
We have seen above that not only a κmodel, as in Eq. (2), can be introduced in two different manners with respect to a given Maxwellian limit by considering the temperature to be κdependent (KappaB) or not (KappaA), but also that both κVDFs can be realized. The difference in the κVDFs signifies a principal difference of the corresponding physical systems.
In practice, i.e., when interpreting measurements, this contrast becomes evident in a different way. Suppose that a set of measurements for a physical system, of which one does not know a priori all properties, can be wellfitted by a κdistribution Eq. (2). It is now, depending on its interpretation as a KappaA or a KappaB distribution, possible to consider two Maxwellian limits: namely, a cooler (C) Maxwellian with , reproducing the lowenergy core of the κVDF, or a Maxwellian limit with a central peak that is markedly lower but the same temperature as the κVDF, i.e., . For illustration, such a κVDF and its two Maxwellian limits are shown in Fig. 3.
In this situation the above question can be rephrased: Which of the two Maxwellian distributions is the correct limit? Again the answer depends on the properties of (or physical processes realized in) the considered physical system. Relative to the MaxwellianC the κdistribution shows enhanced highvelocity tails and a somewhat reduced core, and, therefore this distribution function of type KappaB. This may enable two distinct applications, namely, either to extract the effects of the suprathermal particles by comparison to the Maxwellian core (e.g., dissipation and instabilities, as discussed in Lazar et al. 2015) or to model the particle acceleration (Leubner 2000; Bian et al. 2014). Alternatively, relative to the Maxwellian of equal temperature the κdistribution exhibits both enhanced tails and an enhanced core, and is, thus, of type KappaA. This allows us to study processes that lead to an accumulation of particles at low velocities as the process discussed in Sect. 3 above. The relaxation of a Kappa distribution by keeping the temperature constant and reducing only the suprathermal tails (eventually leading to a Maxwellian equilibrium) is also suggested by the
simulations (Vocks & Mann 2003) to be a result of the Coulomb collisions (ν_{c} ~ v^{3}) in the absence of turbulence. This relaxation seems to ensure the escape of suprathermals from the corona if their existence is assumed there.
So, for a correct application, one needs to have an idea about the Maxwellian equilibrium state of the considered system.
5. Conclusions
Interestingly, we find that both alternatives for defining κdistributions can be correct, but they are valid for different physical systems. KappaA describes a system in which a process must exist that enhances the core part of a VDF relative to its Maxwellian counterpart. While this can be the cause of an increased effective collision rate provided by waveparticle interactions, one should expect only specific κvalues to be consistent with a given scenario. Instead, KappaB describes a system, where only a highvelocity enhancement occurs, possibly because of the lack of sufficient (effective) collisions between the particles. Thus, KappaB appears to be the less specific case and, thus, should be the more frequently realized alternative. With respect to the two alternative Maxwellian limits of a given κdistributed data set, it is of significance whether or not an external source of energy has to be taken into account. The latter case would correspond to a KappaA and the former to a KappaB system. In any case, before employing one of these two representations, one should be conscious about the nature of the physical system one intends to describe to avoid obtaining unphysical results.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Visiting International Professor (VIP) Programme of the Research School Plus at the RuhrUniversität Bochum, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) via grants FI 706/141 and SCHL 201/211. P.H.Y. acknowledges the support by the BK21 plus program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education of Korea. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement SHOCK 284515.
References
 Bian, N. H., Emslie, A. G., Stackhouse, D. J., & Kontar, E. P. 2014, ApJ, 796, 142 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fahr, H.J., Fichtner, H., & Scherer, K. 2014, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 7998 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fichtner, H., & Sreenivasan, S. R. 1993, J. Plasma Phys., 49, 101 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fried, B. D., & Conte, S. D. 1961, The plasma dispersion function (New York: Academic press) [Google Scholar]
 Hasegawa, A., Mima, K., & Duongvan, M., 1985, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 2608 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Lazar, M., Schlickeiser, R., Poedts, S., & Tautz, R. C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 168 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lazar, M., Poedts, S., & Fichtner, H. 2015, A&A, 582, A124 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Leubner, M. P. 2000, Planet. Space Sci., 48, 133 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Livadiotis, G. 2015, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 1607 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Livadiotis, G., & McComas, D. J. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 175, 183 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ma, C.y., & Summers, D. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 4099 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Olbert, S. 1968, in Physics of the Magnetosphere, eds. R. D. L. Carovillano, & J. F. McClay, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr., 10, 641 [Google Scholar]
 Pierrard, V., & Lazar, M. 2010, Sol. Phys., 267, 153 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Roberts, D. A., & Miller, J. A. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 607 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Treumann, R. A., & Jaroschek, C. H. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 155005 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Tsallis, C. 1988, J. Stat. Phys., 52, 479 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Vasyliunas, V. M. 1968, J. Geophys. Res., 73, 2839 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Vocks, C., & Mann, G. 2003, ApJ, 593, 1134 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Yoon, P. H. 2014, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 7074 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
All Figures
Fig. 1 The two alternative biκdistributions for κ = 9/4 and 2θ_{⊥}/c = θ_{∥}/c = 0.02, and the associated Maxwellian model: panela) displays their parallel cuts and panelsb) and c) show the contours of the full VDFs at the levels (dotted lines) indicated in panela). Evidently both biκdistributions exhibit enhanced tails relative to the Maxwellian but KappaA has, in addition, also an enhanced core. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 2 a) Dispersion curves ℜ(ω)(k) and b) growth rates ℑ(ω)(k) derived for a biMaxwellian (solid lines), a biKappaA (dotdashed lines), and a biKappaB (dashed lines) for A^{K,M} = 4, a plasma and κ = 9/4. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 3 Models of VDFs: biKappa from Eq. (2) with 2θ_{⊥}/c = θ_{∥}/c = 0.02 (dashed blue lines) and κ = 9/4, and biMaxwellian limits (κ → ∞) with the same temperature (MaxwellianH with dashdotted lines) or with a lower temperature (MaxwellianC with solid lines). Parallel cuts F(v_{∥}) are shown in panela), and isocontours at 4 × 10^{3} in panelb) and 10^{2} in panelc), corresponding to dotted lines in panela). Notice the difference between the Maxwellian limits. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.