Energetic Ion Composition as a Means of Investigating the Physical Origins of Alpha Particle Heavy Magnetic Switchbacks

Abstract

Magnetic switchbacks are of continuing interest to the scientific community due to the fact that the phenomenon has not been completely understood. Although most of the research into them in the Parker Solar Probe era has largely focused on creating a theoretical framework for causing the field reversal through magnetic interchange reconnection, reconnecting streams of plasma in the solar wind, or shear driven turbulence, it remains unclear to what extent these models may or may not represent the underlying physical reality of magnetic switchbacks. In this paper, we present the results of our study on the energetic ion composition of magnetic switchback events using statistical methods with the aim of obtaining new insights into the underlying physics. In doing so, we find consistent differences in arrival times of the peak flux of different energetic ion species in magnetic switchbacks which are indicative of switchback formed remotely in the solar corona and propagated outwards in the solar wind. We also find that while the data does not directly contradict a linear interchange reconnection model nor the flux rope driven interchange reconnection model, the structure of the plasma within the switchbacks themselves is reminiscent of reconnection produced plasmoids.

,

1 Introduction

Magnetic Switchbacks are quick reversals of the solar magnetic field directions associated with sharp velocity spikes in the solar wind, first observed in the $Ulysses$ data (Balogh et al., 1999; Neugebauer & Goldstein, 2013) at distances beyond 1AU. They were subsequently observed in Helios 1 and 2data(Borovsky & Denton, 2016; Horbury et al., 2018) and during the first Encounter of Parker Solar Probe ($PSP$) in November 2018(Bale et al., 2019; Kasper et al., 2019). $PSP$ observation of switchbacks would continue numerous other times as well (Bowen et al., 2020; McComas et al., 2019; Schwadron & McComas, 2021; de Wit et al., 2020; Horbury et al., 2020; Mozer et al., 2020; Rouillard et al., 2020; Tenerani et al., 2020). While magnetic switchbacks (switchbacks, hereafter) do not have a characteristic scale or duration, they exhibit several characteristic features such as high Alfvénicity as indicated by the low variability of the total magnetic field, no notable temperature changes, about a 20% change in the solar wind speed and an change in the proton density relative to the surrounding plasma.

Several theories have been proposed by various groups to explain the origin of switchbacks. Some of the the major theories are based on interchange reconnection (e. g. Fisk & Kasper, 2020). Within that framework, there exist two subgroups of theories where one of the models proposes a simple magnetic ”kink” formed by interchange reconnection that propagates outward in the solar wind (Zank, 2020) while the other one emphasizes the flux-rope nature of the magnetic field configuration (Drake et al., 2021). There exists other models outside of this framework. For example, Squire et al. (2020) considers switchback as a natural consequence of the expanding solar wind.

While the mechanics of particle dynamics in magnetic switchbacks propagating outward along the solar wind have been explored in the context of particle directionality relative to the curvature of the magnetic field that makes up the switchback (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021), the composition of plasma species and their dynamics relative to each other remains largely unexplored. In particular a model proposed by Zank (2020) identified the need for a possible exploration into the idea of analyzing the composition of switchback plasma as a means of testing the idea of transported particle entrapment. That is, the initial structure likely contains loop plasma that is both hotter and more tenuous than the surrounding coronal plasma, and corresponds to a blob of plasma moving at approximately the Alfvén speed in a direction that may be radial but does not necessarily have to be.

If transported particle entrapment in the magnetic switchbacks occur, there will be significant differences in the plasma within the switchback compared to the surrounding solar wind plasma (Chen et al., 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to study the composition of the plasma within the switchbacks themselves. An important aspect within that framework that remains unexplored is how different ion species would propagate across interplanetary space in a switchback. If the model of interchange reconnection and transported particle entrapment is correct, one would anticipate a slight difference in the arrival time between lighter and heavier ion species within the switchback as the lighter ions would be accelerated to higher velocities, but the transported particle entrapment would prevent the energetic ions from accelerating and arriving at the probe before the switchback itself (Chen, 1984). In large particle flux switchback events the data might appear slightly stochastic on first glance as the ion species mirror back and forth within the switchback, but upon closer examination, we propose that it might reveal that at any particular point in time, different ion species of the same energy levels would arrive at a different time within the switchback itself, and potentially show a bulk difference across multiple energy levels between ion species. This behavior would further add credence against models such as interplanetary current sheet crossing, Alfvénic turbulence, or shear forces between the fast and slow solar wind, which would not predict such behavior (Squire et al., 2020; Schwadron & McComas, 2021).Theoretically, it is then possible to use a space probe based instrument to measure the energetic particle flux of various ion species in various magnetic switchback events and look for differences in the time that the bulk of the ion flux arrives at the probe, as a detection of this difference in arrival time would provide further evidence for such a prediction of the interchange reconnection paradigm.

In this article, we explored the prediction of differential ion species propagation as a means of inferring the physical origin of magnetic switchbacks. By looking at the particle composition of plasma accompanying magnetic switchbacks as it propagates through interstellar space, we aim to test the idea of transported particle entrapment by looking at the difference in ion species arrival times as well as the energetic ion flux in the switchbacks relative to the solar wind, and provide experimental evidence for the linear magnetic interchange reconnection model.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the data and methodology we adopted for the current work. Our results are presented in Section 3, followed by a detailed discussion of the results and their theoretical implications in Section 4. Section 5 presents our conclusions and potential future work.

2 Data and Methodology

2.1 Data

$PSP$ is a probe launched in 2018 operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The probe will be able to reach within 9.86 solar radii of the center of the Sun at its closest, and is the fastest man made object in history, reaching speeds of up to 191 km $\rm s^{-1}$(Fox et al., 2016). Named after noted heliophysicst Eugene Parker, the $PSP$ aims to make close in-situ observations of the solar corona and surrounding solar wind.

For the work presented in this article, we utilized data from various instruments on board $PSP$ since its launch in August 2018 through November 2022. For identifying the switchbacks, we used the Level 2 data in the RTN coordinate system (http://research.ssl.berkeley.edu/data/psp/data/sci/fields/l2/mag_RTN/) from the Search Coil Magnetometer (SCM) (Jannet et al., 2020) of the FIELDS instrument suite (Bale et al., 2016). For obtaining the behavior of energetic particle species over 70 keV in switchbacks, we used the Energetic Particle Instrument low energy (EPI-Lo) data from the Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun (IS☉IS McComas et al., 2016, 2019) instrument suite https://spp-isois.sr.unh.edu/data_public/EPILo/level2/. The Energetic Particle Instrument high energy (EPI-Hi) instrument operates at energy ranges not detectable in magnetic switchbacks and therefore, we did not use for the present study. Further, for determining the solar wind properties such as temperature, proton density, and solar wind velocity during the selected switchbacks, we used the Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Proton (SWEAP: Kasper et al., 2016) SPAN-A ion data on board $PSP$. We selected SPAN-A because out of the two electrostatic analyzers SPAN-A and SPAN-B, only SPAN-A is equipped to handle Ions (Kasper et al., 2016).

In addition, we also use Solar Probe Cup (SPC), or a Faraday cup instrument within the SWEAP instrument (Case et al., 2020) to identify changes in the density of the plasma in order to determine underlying plasma structures in tandem with the magnetic field.

2.2 Method Adopted

Despite the ubiquity of alpha particles in the solar wind in general, they are relatively rare within the energy ranges observed by EPI-Lo. In order to identify switchbacks with detectable alpha particles within EPI-Lo energy ranges, we used the entire publicly available EPI-Lo’s data where the alpha particle data is available in the sense that there exist significant enhancements from the baseline solar wind energy levels. These tend to occur in isolated ”spikes” where the alpha particle levels detected are substantially higher for short intervals of time. Once we have identified these spikes, we identified switchbacks in their vicinity.

Although the definition of switchbacks is not precisely agreed upon, for the purpose of identifying switchbacks in our study, we adopted the following criteria in order that we do not omit important physics by being overly broad. The R-component of the magnetic field in the RTN coordinate system changed polarity for a duration of at least 10 seconds, but not more than 3 hours. Further, all switchbacks identified must contain a change in polarity for at least two components of the magnetic field in the RTN coordinate system, including the R component for the duration of the switchback, and to return to the original orientation at the end of the switchback event. Examples of switchbacks we identified are shown in Figure 2, which displays the magnetic polarity changes alongside the proton and alpha particle flux over a set time scale. Different energy levels are depicted with different colors. All EPi-Lo particle flux data in Figure 2 is displayed on a symmetric log scale as to show deviations significant from the background radiation.

We identified spikes in alpha particle flux above 84.45 keV or roughly 20 keV/nucleon as this corresponds to the energy range of ions accelerated near the sun in impulsive flare events (Reames, 1997). Given that switchbacks typically possess a proton energy range of 500 eV/particle to 2 keV/particle (Mozer et al., 2020), particles in the range of EPI-Lo (above 20 keV/nucleon) represents a large increase from their typical energy range by at least an order of magnitude. These spikes were identified in the CDAWeb database of IS☉IS data https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eval2.cgi?dataset=PSP_ISOIS-EPILO_L2-IC&index=sp_phys. This is because while the lowest measurable proton flux by the IS☉IS is 70 keV, that of alpha particle is 84.45 keV. Then we cross referenced these events (spikes) in the NASA Goddard Database of Notifications, Knowledge, Information (DONKI) database https://kauai.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/DONKI/search/ to look for events occurring at the temporal and spatial vicinity of the spikes recorded at $PSP$. This was done so as to identify in these alpha spike events relationships to recorded physical processes occurring in the solar corona. We found that the alpha spikes are largely associated with Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), as confirmed by cross referencing the time detected at $PSP$ with known CMEs logged in the DONKI database. This can be illustrated in the case of the CME detected at the $PSP$ on May 20, 2022 in Figure 1.

Although most switchbacks display a noticeable spike in proton flux from background solar wind levels, many events that are not associated with CMEs do not possess a substantial increase in flux of other ion species at energies greater than 20 keV/nucleon sufficient for a statistical analysis. We examined switchbacks detected at $PSP$ from 2018 to August 2022 corresponding to which the alpha flux showed up in the IS☉IS data. After determining the alpha flux spikes, we checked if this was associated with a CME and obtained the nearest switchback before or after the spike with alpha flux above 84.5 keV. When a switchback was found with greater than -84.5 keV alpha flux near an alpha spike, we evaluated the delay between the detection of the peak flux of alpha particles and protons within the plasma of the switchback. th

Finally, in order to see the macroscopic properties of the plasma within the switchbacks we collected the solar wind data such as temperature, proton density, and solar wind velocity during these switchback events from the $PSP$/SWEAP data SPAN-A instrument (Kasper et al., 2016). The velocity components are also in the RTN format. This was done in order to help understand the underlying physics that could lead to higher energetic alpha and proton levels relative to the solar wind.

However, it should be noted that We noticed that the determination of the ion composition of switchbacks was limited due to large gaps at irregular intervals in the IS☉IS data. Moreover, even when the data was available, heavier ion flux was found to be relatively sparse to the extent of being difficult to distinguish any significant perturbations from the baseline levels, especially for ion species at higher mass. Therefore, we have found it necessary to limit our study to protons and alpha particles – the two most dominant species in the solar wind plasma.

3 Results

Figure 1  1 depicts the Alpha particle flux over 85.45 keV during May – June, 2022 from EPI-Lo sensor of the IS☉IS instrument. Here, the color coding indicates increasing flux from violet to red. During this month-long period of data, we noticed that only three alpha spikes of substantial intensity existed – May 15, May 20, and June 2. This implies that alpha spikes constitute less than 10% of the available data, demonstrating the sparsity of alpha particle spikes. The greater the height of the spike, the greater the energy, and the absence of data, depicted by the dark background, indicates the absence of particles in this energy range. This plot was made using the online tool at the NASA Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF) https://spdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

Figure 2 2 shows three switchbacks from 2021 and 2022 with the leftmost column displaying the FIELDS data indicating the switchbacks themselves. The middle and right columns display the flux of the energetic protons and alpha particles respectively over the same time period detectable by EPI-Lo. The energies of these ions are over 84.45 keV for Alpha particles and 70 keV for Protons. Because it is over the same time period, this displays the time distribution for each energy level. Each energy level is a separate color of peak.

Figure 33 depicts six switchbacks from 2022 using SWEAP SPAN-A. From top to bottom of each panel depicts in descending order the magnetic field in RTN coordinates, the solar wind velocity in RTN coordinates, the temperature, and density. Panels (a) and (b) depict switchbacks on June 4, panel (c) depicts a switchback on June 11, panel (d) depicts a switchback on July 17, panel (e) depicts a switchback on August 20, and panel (f) depicts a switchback on September 25. The plots were made using the PYSPEDAS software. (Angelopoulos et al., 2018).

Table 11 depicts the Alpha spikes and notes if CMEs or switchbacks are or are not associated with them. Table 22 depicts the switchbacks individually and the associated solar wind properties. Data that is not available is marked as N/A.

We noticed that the alpha spikes from 2018 through 2019 are very rare with only four events occurring prior to 2020, but increasing in frequency from 2020 onward. We noted that even when the geomagnetic activity was on the increase, events were relatively infrequent, with generally three or fewer events per month as demonstrated with Figure 1. This change in frequency corresponds roughly with the start of the solar cycle’s period of increasing solar activity, which indicates that the frequency of these alpha spike events may be dependent on solar magnetic activity.

Further, as presented in Table 1, 75% of the alpha spikes are associated with CMEs identified in the DONKI database. Some alpha spikes, including those identifiable with CMEs, displayed more than one switchback, and several others displayed multiple switchbacks in the immediate vicinity of each other. Switchbacks generally did not occur outside of a range of two days before and after the alpha spike, and in most cases occurred within one day or a few hours before or after the alpha spike. It is to be noted that not every switchback with an alpha particle flux above 84.5 keV (hereby designated an Alpha Heavy Switchback) was associated with an alpha particle spike and a CME. Similarly, not every alpha particle spike corresponding to a CME possessed an alpha heavy switchback. However, we would like to point out that in several occasions, the reason we were unable to find a suitable switchback was the existence of data gaps in the IS☉IS or FIELDS measurements. Therefore, it is possible that a switchback did exist but did not get recorded during these time frames as indicated by the data gaps. Examples of alpha heavy switchbacks can be found in Figure 2.

In each of our cases of switchback events found in the FIELDS data and the IS☉IS data, the switchback event presented an energetic proton flux far above the background solar wind levels, indicating the plasma contained within the switchback is significantly energized relative to the surrounding plasma. The flux is also consistently positive. This tracks with prior literature, which has noted that this is both indicative of magnetic reconnection in the local solar wind and originating with the solar corona (Phan et al., 2020) and that the proton gyroradius in switchback events are of similar size or larger compared to the radius of curvature of the magnetic field line, meaning that the protons typically do not reverse direction with the changing field line curvature (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021). This trend also seems to apply to alpha particles in the switchback event. This is consistent with prior literature on the interchange reconnection model (Fisk, 2005), (Fisk & Schwadron, 2001). Many of the switchbacks also display a primary localization of the bulk of the proton flux at the initialization of the event, with the bulk of the alpha flux towards the end of the event. The exact distribution has some variance, but the overall trend is consistent for upwards of 40 separate recorded switchback events in the vicinity of 28 alpha spikes over the course of the entire four years of $PSP$ data. Both of these trends in the IS☉IS data can be seen in Figure 2.

In our analysis of the SWEAP SPAN-A data, as shown in 3, we noted that the density of the switchback plasma increased or decreased but typically did not remain the same as that outside the switchbacks. The density and magnetic field jumps for some switchbacks are anticorrelated, and some are correlated. This same applies to the various velocity components,although the velocity components in the azimuthal and normal directions to the ecliptic plane (N and T) show a much larger percent change relative to the outside plasma to the radial velocity component change relative to the outside of the switchback, which is typically fairly small in comparison. The temperature is generally much higher than that of the surrounding plasma, with exceptions where it is significantly lower, where the switchback plasma often extends beyond the boundaries of the magnetic field jumps.

4 Discussion

A delay of the peak intensity of the alpha particles arrival at the detecting instrument on $PSP$ is more reminiscent of a singular accelerating event such as a solar flare, or the creation of a CME that allows the less massive protons to be accelerated to greater velocities within the magnetically trapped plasma. This plasma would propagate with the switchback than the alpha particles due to conservation of momentum rather than a shear driven process along a continuum. In such a scenario where the ions are accelerated initially in the corona,the ions would likely cascade back and forth in the trapped plasma of the switchback at different velocities with the heavier ions lagging behind the lighter ions of similar energy levels (Chen, 1984).

The presence of such a delay in the switchback along with the lack of a tendency for the particle flux to move along the curves of the magnetic field suggests a remote origin for the acceleration of these ions that simply propagates outward with the solar wind, rather than something which originates via the motion of the solar wind itself, such as shear driven turbulence (Schwadron & McComas, 2021). Such an interaction is inconsistent with an ion population whose gyroradius is of a much different size than that would be expected for following along the curvature of the perturbed magnetic field. An interaction with the solar wind such as shear-driven turbulence would be expected to have a similar gyroradius to the curvature of the magnetic field, seeing as the bent magnetic field comprising a switchback in this model is largely due to a difference in the velocity gradient (Schwadron & McComas, 2021).

The fact that the switchbacks seem to cluster around transient events such as CMEs should not be taken lightly, nor should the frequency of such events over the entire course of the lifetime of $PSP$. It is notable that CME associated switchbacks are relatively few in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and more frequent in 2021 and 2022, corresponding with the change from the descent into the minimum of the solar cycle, to the ascent towards the solar maximum.

The increase in solar activity during this period would cause more mixing of fast and slow solar wind streams, and so by itself wouldn’t seem to contradict theories of Alfvénic turbulence or shear forces between the fast and slow solar wind driving the switchback phenomenon (McComas et al., 2003). However, when coupled with the time variance in propagation of ion species and lack of particle flux motion along the magnetic field curvature, this would tend to point against the idea of a shear or turbulence driven phenomenon. Additionally, the fact that such switchbacks occur in the vicinity of CMEs further indicates that switchbacks may be an artifact of a magnetic reconnection event that occurs in the corona and propagates outward into the solar wind, seeing as the burst of energy that allows a CME to occur is largely a magnetic reconnection driven process (Aschwanden, 2019).

Another interesting aspect to be noted is that in both the November 2021 and January 2022 events, we see a clustering of switchbacks. This is consistent with de Wit et al. (2020) and is reminiscent of Zank (2020) where it is noted that the random walk of the magnetic field footpoints will sometimes bring the oppositely oriented open magnetic fields and loop magnetic fields sufficiently close to induce multiple successive temporally and spatially closely spaced interchange reconnection events. In addition, Zank (2020) notes that during such events hot but tenuous plasma will be released, in the form of a jet propagating at the Alfvén speed relative to the background solar wind flow. It will also possess a perturbed magnetic field in the transverse and radial directions with hot tenuous plasma that is much higher temperature from the surrounding ambient plasma.

From the solar wind data presented in 2, we noted that the temperature in many cases of the switchback is in fact significantly higher than the surrounding plasma, as we would expect from Zank’s (Zank, 2020)transported particle entrapment model. However, while the temperature of the switchback plasma relative to the surrounding solar wind plasma is significantly different, we do see some cases where the temperature of the switchback is significantly lower than the surrounding plasma. This does seem surprising initially, but closer inspection reveals that the events that show this tend to be the events that often have the switchback plasma extend out beyond the boundaries of the switchback itself, suggesting that in these particular events, the surface current barrier separating the magnetic flux tube of the switchback may possibly be breaking down in these incidents. This would allow for diffusion across the magnetic boundary. But the fact that the plasma is still noticeably different from the surrounding solar wind suggests that this breakdown occurred in transit as the switchback propagated, rather than at its formation, as in such a case we would expect more of a thermal equilibrium with the surrounding solar wind plasma.

Furthermore, the plasma does reaffirm the presence of anticorrelated or correlated density variations with the surrounding plasma as noted in (Larosa et al., 2021). This behavior is highly indicative of interchange reconnection, reminiscent of the proposed general azimuthal circulation of magnetic flux and plasma flow as a result of interchange reconnection in the low corona. This is further supported by the fact that the plasma velocity perturbations actually seem to be the strongest in the N and T directions rather than the radial. This does seem to be consistent with our observations of hot but low density gas that shows alpha and proton fluxes far above the ambient plasma that seems to propagate outward with the magnetic switchback field perturbations.

The problem with this however, is that that as noted previously in the literature, it is not clear that a linear magnetic reconnection event can propagate across the long distances required to be detectable by $PSP$. (Drake et al., 2021) proposes a model by which magnetic flux ropes created during interchange reconnection could provide for such long distance propagation. The fact that the plasma tends to perturb itself via both velocity and temperature directly when a switchback event hits would suggest that the plasma is flowing with the switchback itself in some kind of containment. Because previous work (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021) has indicated that particles from EPI-Lo generally have a gyroradius on similar or larger scale to that of the radius of curvature of the switchback, it can be inferred that this is not due to the ions gyrating around the switchback field line. Our findings are consistent with switchbacks being a smaller cross section of a greater magnetic structure of a flux rope similar to the model proposed by (Drake et al., 2021), but confirming this would require an additional study to notice these types of switchbacks in and around detected larger magnetic structures such as flux ropes.

It is also worth noting that we found the high frequency of switchbacks surrounding the CME events reported in this study could potentially be explained in a manner more consistent with the Drake et al. (2021) model (Lu et al., 2020). Particle In Cell (PIC) simulations have shown that high Lundquist number plasmas can in fact reach an instability due to a super-Alfvénic tearing instability, allowing for a nonlinear reconnection rate larger than the Sweet-Parker rate by nearly an order of magnitude, producing a rapid succession of plasmoids, reminiscent of the clustering behavior we see in our study (Bhatacharjee et al., 2009).

Further, literature suggests that CMEs and their interplanetary counterparts often show evidence of a twisted flux rope structure that is nearly identical, though of vastly different spatial scale, to plasmoids observed in the Earth’s magnetotail (Linton & Moldwin, 2009).

Such plasmoids have been shown in Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) and analytical models that in localized magnetic dips due to ion injections and the resulting diamagnetic motion of the injected ions causing dispersionless flux enhancements at multiple energies away from the injection source. Due to particles with lower pitch angles not being trapped, the magnetic dips can act as a kind of pitch angle filter (Gabrielse et al., 2023). This is consistent with the trapping behavior we see here in the switchbacks and the size of the ion gyroradius. However, a link between the (Bhatacharjee et al., 2009) plasmoid chains and the plasmoids of (Linton & Moldwin, 2009) are best left for a future study.

Additionally, while our study largely looks at magnetic switchbacks that contain sufficient alpha particle flux to conduct our analysis, the majority of which are centered around CMEs, there is the fact that because plenty of other switchback events exist outside this dataset but do not necessarily possess sufficient alpha particle flux to be usable on a symmetric log scale for our purposes means that it is possible that such switchbacks may exhibit alternate physical origins from the ones in our study, and as such we cannot eliminate the possibility of switchbacks in general being caused by multiple physical processes, or the existence of multiple classes of switchbacks originating with differing physical mechanisms.

Moreover, certain switchbacks were not identifiable with a CME event, but still possessed sufficient alpha particle flux. This would suggest that the physical processes that cause alpha particle heavy switchbacks are not exclusive to alpha spikes linked to CMEs either, meaning we cannot dismiss the physics of alpha particle heavy switchbacks as exclusively related to the formation of CMEs. It is also not currently known why only certain switchbacks possess a higher alpha particle flux, which is a question that remains open for a potential future study.

5 Concluding Remarks

Although many models exist for explaining the physics behind the odd s-shaped ”kinks” observed in the solar wind, we endeavored to find further links between switchbacks and the physics of interchange reconnection, In particular, we soughtto observe differences in ion propagation within the switchbacks indicative of the physics of magnetic trapping in order to rule out several models and to provide further evidence for magnetic interchange models of switchbacks that predict this behavior. In this effort, our work spanned all available $PSP$ data that has sufficient alpha flux in the plasma of the switchbacks that allow us to look at the time arrival difference at $PSP$ of the bulk of the peak flux of different ion species at different energy levels within the switchback. However, we do note that there are some things we can take away from this.

The behavior of the particle flux and magnetic field components in these magnetic switchbacks we observe in the IS☉IS and FIELDS data are consistent with a magnetic interchange reconnection model originating in the corona and propagating outward in the solar wind without further interaction with the magnetic field curvature. The behavior of the switchback plasma relative to the solar wind plasma shows a delay in between the bulk of the ion species, as well as between ions of similar energy levels. This is reminiscent of the model proposed by (Zank, 2020) involving propagation of a magnetically trapped propagating plasma. The data however, does not conflict significantly with the model proposed by (Drake et al., 2021). Additionally, the fact that these switchbacks primarily take place in the vicinity of a CME suggests that there is a possible connection between the magnetic reconnection that results in the CME and the type of magnetic interchange reconnection proposed by (Zank, 2020) and suggests that CMEs may possibly produce such reconnection during their formation (Crooker & Owens, 2010; Sitnov et al., 2021). This, however, is not without caveats.

Although the results do suggest that switchbacks may occur during the formation of a CME, a detailed physical mechanism for such an interaction as part of the CME formation process remains yet to be proposed, and remains an open question for future study. This is compounded by the fact that due to the limiting factor of looking at CME connected events when doing the study, we cannot confidently conclude that magnetic switchbacks not in the vicinity of CMEs display the same behavior. However, this could be due to the limited data on alpha particle flux substantially different from the background radiation (Section 2), and not necessarily indicative of different underlying physics. This suggests that further investigations involving other possible switchback events and the plasma within them with instrumentation that are better equipped for measuring small variations in the alpha particle flux.

However, the fact that high frequency of switchbacks surrounding the CME events noticed is a chain of plasmoids produced by a tearing instability is particularly relevant in light of literature that notes that coronal mass ejections often show evidence of a twisted flux rope structure that is very similar, to plasmoids observed via interchange reconnection in the Earth’s magnetotail, except on a much larger scale (Linton & Moldwin, 2009), suggesting a possible connection with the larger flux rope structure proposed by Drake et al. (2021), and the trapped ions that propagate with the switchbacks but do not travel with the curvature of the magnetic field would be consistent with the behavior of such plasmoids described in (Gabrielse et al., 2023).”

The fact that the data showed signs of an initial event that accelerates the ions like a solar flare or formation of a CME also seems to be in agreement with modeling done by Zank (2020) in which notes that switchbacks would be generated by the initial conditions at their time of formation by an interchange reconnection event, and subsequently the switchback’s physics would be governed by the fast mode magnetosonic relations. However, the Zank (2020) model fails to account for the instability of the magnetic kink propagating out to $PSP$ distances, which the flux rope model of Drake et al. (2021) does. Consequently, this implies that either the linear interchange reconnection model is incomplete, or else additional study is needed to confirm the flux rope model. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the microstreams described in the Neugebauer & Sterling (2021) model being produced by a flux rope model would also be consistent with the jets predicted by Zank (2020).

In conclusion, the overall picture painted by our study is one that suggests that the (Drake et al., 2021) model of a larger flux rope structure is more consistent with the physical reality behind switchbacks, but there is nothing in the data that directly contradicts the (Zank, 2020) model.

6 Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation grant 2026579 awarded to BP.

EM would like to give special thanks to James (Andy) Edmond for assistance with the software used in this paper.

We would like to acknowledge David McComas at Princeton University, CDAWeb, and the FIELDS and IS☉ISteams for providing the publicly available data for this study, as well as NASA for providing the available funding for these projects.

The FIELDS and IS☉ISexperiments on the Parker Solar Probe spacecraft was designed and developed under NASA contract NNN06AA01C.

Figure 1: Parker Solar Probe ISIS EPI-Lo L2 IC alpha flux from May 10 to June 10 2022. Image generation through CDAWeb on Mon Nov 26 22;24;16 2023, courtesy of PI David McComas at Princeton University.

Figure 2: Plots of three switchback events. Panel (a) FIELDS magnetic field data in RTN coordinates for a switchback on November 2, 2021. Panel (b) the EPI-LO energetic Proton flux data for the November 2, 2021 event. Panel (c) the EPI-Lo energetic alpha particle flux data for the November 2, 2021 event. Panel (d) FIELDS magnetic field data in RTN coordinates for a switchback on January 10, 2022. Panel (e) EPI-Lo energetic Proton flux data for the January 10, 2022 event. Panel (f) EPI-Lo energetic alpha particle flux data for the January 10, 2022 event. Panel (g) FIELDS magnetic field data in RTN coordinates for a switchback on July 1, 2021. Panel (h) EPI-Lo energetic Proton flux data for the July 1, 2021 event. Panel (i) the EPI-Lo energetic alpha particle flux data for the July 1, 2021 event.

Figure 3: Alpha particle rich Magnetic Switchbacks containing in descending order: magnetic field, velocity in RTN coordinates, temperature, and density information. Panel (a) first event on June 4, 2022, Panel (b) second event on June 4, 2022, Panel (c) event on July 11 2022, Panel (d) event on July 17, 2022, Panel (e) event on August 20, 2022, Panel (f) event on September 25, 2022.

Alpha spike	Associated with CME?	Associated switchback?	Delay Between Alpha & protons?
11-11-2018	Yes	No	N/A
02-15-2019	No	No	N/A
02-18-2019	No	No	N/A
05-30-2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
11-29-2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
05-30-2021	Yes	No	N/A
07-01-2021	No	Yes	Yes
08-30-2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
11-02-2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
01-10-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
02-18-2022	Yes	No	N/A
03-01-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
03-22-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
03-31-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
04-19-2022	Yes	No	N/A
05-12-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
05-20-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
06-02-2022	No	Yes	Yes
07-11-2022	No	Yes	Yes
07-13-2022	No	Yes	Yes
07-18-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
07-24-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
08-16-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
08-19-2022	Yes	Yes	Yes
08-26-2022	Yes	No	N/A
08-28-2022	Yes	No	N/A
09-25-2022	Yes	yes	Yes
10-18-2022	No	Yes	Yes

Table 1: Index of Alpha Spike Events and Associated CMEs, and Switchbacks. Non applicable entries are labelled N/A. Each Alpha spike may have several associated switchbacks.

Switchback	$\Delta$ Temperature	$\Delta$ Vr	$\Delta$ Vn	$\Delta$ Vt	$\Delta$ density	Switchback dur	Perturbed Plasma dur
	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(min)	(min)
05-29-2020	-44.4	-10	-33.3	-27.3	-37.5	90	120
11-28-2020	-42.9	+200	0	+50	-250	100	150
11-29-2020	-25	-87.5	+75	-42.9	+75	50	90
07-01-2021	+4.1	-5.9	-28.6	+11.1	+10.5	30	10
08-30-2021	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	30	N/A
11-02-2021	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	120	N/A
01-10-2022	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	210	N/A
03-01-2022	+42.8	+7.7	+181.8	-118.2	-66.7	50	50
03-22-2022	+10	+3.4	+12	-11.1	-50	6	6
03-31-2022	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	19	N/A
05-12-2022	-28	+7.1	+100	-50	-42.8	130	130
05-13-2022	+4.2	-6.4	-20	+25	-33.3	5	5
05-14-2022	-60	-6.3	+60	-25	+175	60	60
05-19-2022	-10	+6.3	+50	-60	-27.3	120	180
05-20-2022 (1)	+22.2	-2.9	-166.7	+120	+140	60	60
05-20-2022 (2)	-21.9	+5.9	-66.7	+16.7	-80	60	70
06-04-2022 (1)	+120	+40	-1100	+166.7	-93.3	30	30
06-04-2022 (2)	+140	+80	-1000	+120	-98.3	30	30
06-04-2022 (3)	-21	-19.2	-200	+100	+150	60	60
07-09-2022	+7.7	-5.3	-200	+28.6	+150	50	60
07-10-2022 (1)	+9.1	0	-60	+50	+166.7	7	7
07-10-2022 (2)	-16.7	-12.5	0	0	-20	15	15
07-10-2022 (3)	+66.7	+11.4	-66.7	0	-44.4	30	30
07-11-2022 (1)	+22.6	+18.8	+14.3	-200	-66.7	50	50
07-11-2022 (2)	-83.3	+9.4	+100	-166.7	+140	50	50
07-12-2022	+40	-3	-25	+28.6	+83.3	40	30
07-13-2022	+20	+11.4	+100	-28.6	+400	45	45
07-14-2022 (1)	+23.8	-4.9	0	-28.6	+40	25	25
07-14-2022 (2)	+35.3	+5.9	+60	-14.3	+120	30	90
07-14-2022 (3)	-23	+8.6	+33.3	-28.6	-25	50	50
07-17-2022	-70.8	-12.8	-66.6	+55.6	+87.5	60	60
07-23-2022 (1)	-12.5	-6.9	+66.7	-100	+40	60	60
07-23-2022 (2)	-30.8	-6.9	+33.3	0	+175	60	60
08-17-2022	+50	-4.3	+66.7	-200	-64.7	100	100
08-19-2022	+25	+3.6	-800	+35.7	-90.9	120	120
08-20-2022	+254.8	+4.7	-400	+50	-95	40	40
09-25-2022	–60	-13.3	-16.7	+14.3	+200	30	30
09-26-2022	+60	-6.5	+200	-50	-97.5	20	20
10-17-2022	+50.9	+6.3	+33.3	-7.7	-75	60	60
10-19-2022	-23.8	-5,8	+50	+9	+33.3	30	30

Table 2: Index of Alpha Heavy Switchback Events and the percent change of the associated plasma from the surrounding solar wind of the associated solar wind properties: temperature, density, and velocity in RTN coordinates plus the duration of the switchback contrasted with the perturbed plasma duration. non available data is marked N/A.”