[1] In the paper “Properties of lower hybrid solitary structures: A comparison between space observations, a laboratory experiment, and the cold homogeneous plasma dispersion relation” by P. W. Schuck, J. W. Bonnell, and J. L. Pinçon, (Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A01310, doi:10.1029/2002JA009673, 2004), there are several typographical errors. In four places, the symbol ψ should be replaced with ϕ. The paragraphs with the corrected sentences are reproduced below. [2] [41] The term “electrostatic” seems to be a point of general confusion and contention in space physics. The electrostatic approximation “lies simply in the replacement of the vector electric field by the potential gradient E = −∇ϕ” [Stix 1992, p. 54]. The electrostatic field associated with a wave is longitudinal or along the direction of k, e.g., EL = −∇ϕ. The electromagnetic field associated with a wave is transverse or perpendicular to the direction of k, e.g., ET = −∂tA where A is the vector potential in the Coulomb gauge (∇ · A = 0). Throughout this discussion the terms longitudinal and transverse will be used to describe the orientation of E respect to k, and the terms perpendicular and parallel will be used to describe the orientation of E with respect to the background applied magnetic field B0 = B0. [3] [43] The electrostatic approximation is analogous to the familiar quasineutral approximation in plasma physics. The quasineutral approximation assumes that the densities of the ions and electrons are equal everywhere to lowest order (ni = ne). This does not mean that the electric field is zero. However, this assumption does mean that the Poisson equation cannot be used to determine the electric field. Once the electric field is determined by · J = 0, the charge separation can be estimated from Poisson's equation. Similarly, the electrostatic approximation assumes that E = −∇ϕ + (ET/EL). This approximation presumes that the electric field is predominantly longitudinal and curl free to lowest order. This does not imply that the magnetic fluctuation associated with the electrostatic wave is zero. However, this does imply that Faraday's law ∂tB = −∇ × E cannot be used to determine the magnetic fluctuation B. Once the current of the electrostatic wave is determined, the associated magnetic fluctuation may be estimated from Ampere's law ∇ × B ≈ μ0(J + ε0 ∂tEL) where J = JL + JT is an implicit function of EL with ∇ · JT = 0 and ∇ × JL = 0. (Note that the constraint ∇ · (J + ε0 ∂tEL) = 0 does not imply that J + ε0 ∂tEL = 0 i.e., JT ≠ 0 with the JL + ε0 ∂tEL = 0 (longitudinal components canceling).) Subsequently, ∇ × E may then be estimated from Faraday's law ∇ × E = −∂tB. The magnetic field associated with an “electrostatic” wave may be generally estimated from Ampere's law [Stix, 1992, p. 78]. However, experimentally the noise levels and sensitivity of the detector determine whether the magnetic fields associated with “electrostatic” waves are observable.
Read full abstract