High power lasers can create extreme conditions in the laboratory relevant to astrophysical systems[
High Power Laser Science and Engineering, Volume. 6, Issue 3, 03000e45(2018)
Laboratory study of astrophysical collisionless shock at SG-II laser facility
Astrophysical collisionless shocks are amazing phenomena in space and astrophysical plasmas, where supersonic flows generate electromagnetic fields through instabilities and particles can be accelerated to high energy cosmic rays. Until now, understanding these micro-processes is still a challenge despite rich astrophysical observation data have been obtained. Laboratory astrophysics, a new route to study the astrophysics, allows us to investigate them at similar extreme physical conditions in laboratory. Here we will review the recent progress of the collisionless shock experiments performed at SG-II laser facility in China. The evolution of the electrostatic shocks and Weibel-type/filamentation instabilities are observed. Inspired by the configurations of the counter-streaming plasma flows, we also carry out a novel plasma collider to generate energetic neutrons relevant to the astrophysical nuclear reactions.
1 Introduction
High power lasers can create extreme conditions in the laboratory relevant to astrophysical systems[
One of the hottest research fields is astrophysical shocks, which are ubiquitous and observed in a wide range of astrophysical environments, such as solar-terrestrial space, supernova explosions and gamma-ray bursts. Figure ),
of the mean free path (MFP
13 pc)[
Figure
Sign up for High Power Laser Science and Engineering TOC Get the latest issue of High Power Laser Science and Engineering delivered right to you!Sign up now
No matter which scheme is applied, it must achieve the collisionless conditions between CPFs, i.e., the MFP larger than the interaction scale, (target separation or shock transition width, in our experiment
). The simplified expression of MFP can be written in Gaussian units as[
, where
is the ion mass,
is the relative velocity of each flow,
is the electric charge,
is the average charge state,
is the electron density and
is the Coulomb logarithm. We can see that the desirable collisionless conditions in the laboratory are higher flow velocity and lower-
target material. We can increase the driven laser energy,
, or optimize the laser absorption coefficient,
, to increase the flow velocity, which mainly depends on the absorbed driven laser energy (
, where
is the ion number density and
is the plasma volume)[
material of the solid target can be chosen as CH, CD, DLi, etc.
Here we will review the achievements of the collisionless shock at SG-II laser facility[ (351 nm). Eight SG-II laser beams are divided into two bunches, each bunch consisting of four beams. The overlapped focal spot is
, giving an intensity of
. The main diagnostics is using optical probe, including Nomarski interferometer and shadowgraphy. As shown in Figure
(527 nm) and duration of 30 ps transversely passes through the interaction region, measuring the density, flow velocity and so on. In this paper, the evolution of the electrostatic shock (ES) and filamentation instability is successfully observed by optimizing experimental conditions in CPFs. Inspired by the configuration of the CPFs, we also perform an exploratory experiment relevant to neutron astrophysics to distinguish between collisionless and collisional effects in CPFs.
2 Experimental results
2.1 The evolution of the symmetrical CPFs
The left panel in Figure ), we measure the free expansion of the plasma flow with electron density of
and flow velocity of
. During shock formation (
), both flows interact with each other and result in the sudden fringes shift at the midplane, indicating that a large-density jump (
) is generated. After that (
), the shifted fringes become smooth and filament structures parallel to the flow direction appear in the central region, indicating that the excited shock is perhaps dissipated by the growing filamentary structures (
). Since the MFP (
) scales as
, the
for hydrogen ions (
) will be higher than that for carbon ions (
). Here we just use
to calculate the lower limit of MFP, whose value is estimated as 180 mm, indicating that ions from inter-flows can freely interpenetrate each other. Consequently, these observed features in the CPFs should be induced by plasma collective behaviors, instead of the hydrodynamic stagnation.
Relevant works[,
,
). One is electrostatic instability [
2.2 Collisionless electrostatic shock formation and evolution in the CPFs
2.2.1 Unsymmetrical case
Figure and
. Some structures appear near to
at 5 ns, indicating that both flow velocities can be estimated as
and
. The corresponding MFPs are calculated as 25–35 mm, confirming that both flows interaction is collisionless. These observed structures at 5 ns in Figures
at 5 ns to
at 9 ns, i.e., it propagates with a velocity of
. The corresponding Mach number is about 9–11, suggesting a strong collisionless shock formation. The typical features of the shock at 9 ns are shown in Figures
with the whole transition region of about
.
To clarify the generation mechanism of the shock, a quasi-one-dimensional particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation is performed under the same experimental conditions. From Figure 4 in Ref. [ in the beginning, and then propagates toward
directions. The incoming ions will be slowed down or reflected back into upstream. Consequently, ions are accumulated into the interaction region until the density jump conditions are fulfilled[
2.2.2 Symmetrical case
Figure ,
). Two overlapped shocks are formed in the central region and then evolve into two separated shocks from the downstream to upstream. The MFP (16–500 mm) is also much larger than the shock width (
). According to the heuristic model proposed by Park
, in agreement with our measurement (
). However, the width of the Weibel-type shock should be estimated as
, much larger than our target separation. The theoretical analysis shows that the observed shocks should be electrostatic. The corresponding PIC simulations also confirm our understanding. As shown in Figure 5 in Ref. [
2.3 Weibel/filamentation instability in the symmetrical case
Weibel instability is a promising candidate for creating astrophysical shocks. It is a typical electromagnetic phenomenon, driven by the plasma anisotropy. Under the current laser-plasma conditions, i.e., the electron thermal velocity is larger than the flow velocity and the ion thermal velocity is smaller than the flow velocity, the ions freely interpenetrate each other in the presence of a single thermalized electron background. Therefore, it is called ion–ion driven Weibel-type instability. The signature of Weibel instability is that the filamentary structures form and extend in the axis of flow direction. The self-generated magnetic field grows from linear phase to nonlinear phase until saturation. Although many groups[
According to Equation () and similar velocity (
) plasma flows, in comparison with CH–CH case in Figure
,
). The typical features of the Weibel instability can be observed in the shadowgraph. At 3.5 ns, periodically distributing filaments parallel to flow direction localize at the midplane with a wavelength (
) of about
. The wavelength is almost consistent with the ion inertial scale,
(here the used flows density is
and
), indicating that the instability is driven by the ions. The linear growth rate of the filamentation instability is approximated to be
. The corresponding linear time of the filaments is about 2–3 ns (
), after both flows meeting at the midplane. At 4.5 ns, with the growth of instability, the filaments extend longer in the axial direction. The average space between adjacent filaments becomes
, indicating that the coalescence process between adjacent filaments occurs and the instability evolves from the linear mode into the nonlinear mode. At 6.5 ns, the larger wavelength of order
and disordered filaments at the midplane reveal that the instability has fully evolved into the nonlinear mode. The experimental evolution of the Weibel instability is consistent with the theoretical prediction.
2.4 Other applications of the CPFs
The neutron yield in CPFs is an important tool to distinguish between collisionless and collisional effects. Neutrons generation in CPFs can originate from three sources: (i) the laser-induced fireballs from the target foils, (ii) the counter-propagating ions interaction with each other, and (iii) the scattering ions interaction with the ions from intra-flows. Here we carry out two neutron generation experiments for comparison[). The typical signal of the 2.45 MeV neutrons is shown in Figure
). However, the density difference is very large. From the optical measurement, we can find that the flows are with density of
, while the jets are with density larger than
(roughly
). When we compare both cases, we can find that the neutron yields in collisional case (
)[
)[
Al[
Li[
3 Summary and outlook
The study of astrophysical shock formation is important for us to understand the particle acceleration and cosmic rays generation. The laboratory experiments provide us a new opportunity to investigate the physical mechanism behind these scenarios. Our experimental results show that both electrostatic instability and filamentation instability can grow up in CPFs, but compete with each other. The self-generated bipolar electrostatic field from the electrostatic instability can support the shock formation and evolution. However, the magnetic field is too weak to excite the shock generation.
Considering the characteristic of the cosmic ray spectrum with power law, Weibel-mediated shock is a promising candidate via diffusive shock acceleration. Such important issues of the acceleration mechanism are not fully understood and still a big challenge. A stronger magnetic field is necessary to excite the Weibel-type shock. This higher magnetic field could be achieved by optimizing filamentation instability[
[10] H. Takabe, T. N. Kato, Y. Sakawa, Y. Kuramitsu, T. Morita, T. Kadono, K. Shigemori, K. Otani, H. Nagatomo, T. Norimatsu, S. Dono, T. Endo, K. Miyanishi, T. Kimura, A. Shiroshita, N. Ozaki, R. Kodama, S. Fujioka, H. Nishimura, D. Salzman, B. Loupias, C. Gregory, M. Koenig, J. N. Waugh, N. C. Woolsey, D. Kato, Y.-T. Li, Q.-L. Dong, S.-J. Wang, Y. Zhang, J. Zhao, F.-L. Wang, H.-G. Wei, J.-R. Shi, G. Zhao, J.-Y. Zhang, T.-S. Wen, W.-H. Zhang, X. Hu, S.-Y. Liu, Y. K. Ding, L. Zhang, Y.-J. Tang, B.-H. Zhang, Z.-J. Zheng, Z.-M. Sheng, J. Zhang. Plamsa Phys. Control. Fusion, 50(2008).
[21] D. Yuan, Y. Li. Chin. Phys. B, 24(2015).
[23] X. Liu, Y. T. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Y. Zhong, W. D. Zheng, Q. L. Dong, M. Chen, G. Zhao, Y. Sakawa, T. Morita, Y. Kuramitsu, T. N. Kato, L. M. Chen, X. Lu, J. L. Ma, W. M. Wang, Z. M. Sheng, H. Takabe, Y.-J. Rhee, Y. K. Ding, S. E. Jiang, S. Y. Liu, J. Q. Zhu, J. Zhang. New J. Phys., 13(2011).
[31] Y. Sakawa, T. Morita, Y. Kuramitsu, H. Takabe. Adv. Phys., 3, 425(2016).
[34] H.-S. Park, C. M. Huntington, F. Fiuza, R. P. Drake, D. H. Froula, G. Gregori, M. Koenig, N. L. Kugland, C. C. Kuranz, D. Q. Lamb, M. C. Levy, C. K. Li, J. Meinecke, T. Morita, R. D. Petrasso, B. B. Pollock, B. A. Remington, H. G. Rinderknecht, M. Rosenberg, J. S. Ross, D. D. Ryutov, Y. Sakawa, A. Spitkovsky, H. Takabe, D. P. Turnbull, P. Tzeferacos, S. V. Weber, A. B. Zylstra. Phys. Plasmas, 22(2015).
[36] J. R. Zhao, L. M. Chen, Y. T. Li, C. B. Fu, Y. J. Rhee, F. Li, B. J. Zhu, Y. F. Li, G. Q. Liao, K. Zhang, B. Han, C. Liu, K. Huang, Y. Ma, Y. F. Li, J. Xiong, X. G. Huang, S. Z. Fu, J. Q. Zhu, G. Zhao, J. Zhang. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 86(2015).
[37] X. Zhang, J. Zhao, D. Yuan, C. Fu, J. Bao, L. Chen, J. He, L. Hou, L. Li, Y. Li, Y. Li, G. Liao, Y. Rhee, Y. Sun, S. Xu, G. Zhao, B. Zhu, J. Zhu, Z. Zhang, J. Zhang. Phys. Rev. C, 96(2017).
[40] J. R. Zhao, X. P. Zhang, D. W. Yuan, Y. T. Li, D. Z. Li, Y. J. Rhee, Z. Zhang, F. Li, B. J. Zhu, Y. F. Li, B. Han, C. Liu, Y. Ma, Y. F. Li, M. Z. Tao, M. H. Li, X. Guo, X. G. Huang, S. Z. Fu, J. Q. Zhu, G. Zhao, L. M. Chen, C. B. Fu, J. Zhang. Nat. Sci. Rep., 6(2016).
[43] B. J. Zhu, Y. T. Li, D. W. Yuan, Y. F. Li, F. Li, G. Q. Liao, J. R. Zhao, J. Y. Zhong, F. B. Xue, S. K. He, W. W. Wang, F. Lu, F. Q. Zhang, L. Yang, K. N. Zhou, N. Xie, W. Hong, H. G. Wei, K. Zhang, B. Han, X. X. Pei, C. Liu, Z. Zhang, W. M. Wang, J. Q. Zhu, Y. Q. Gu, Z. Q. Zhao, B. H. Zhang, G. Zhao, J. Zhang. Appl. Phys. Lett., 107(2015).
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Dawei Yuan, Huigang Wei, Guiyun Liang, Feilu Wang, Yutong Li, Zhe Zhang, Baojun Zhu, Jiarui Zhao, Weiman Jiang, Bo Han, Xiaoxia Yuan, Jiayong Zhong, Xiaohui Yuan, Changbo Fu, Xiaopeng Zhang, Chen Wang, Guo Jia, Jun Xiong, Zhiheng Fang, Shaoen Jiang, Kai Du, Yongkun Ding, Neng Hua, Zhanfeng Qiao, Shenlei Zhou, Baoqiang Zhu, Jianqiang Zhu, Gang Zhao, Jie Zhang. Laboratory study of astrophysical collisionless shock at SG-II laser facility[J]. High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 2018, 6(3): 03000e45
Special Issue: LABORATORY ASTROPHYSICS
Received: Nov. 26, 2017
Accepted: Jun. 21, 2018
Published Online: Sep. 5, 2018
The Author Email: