## Whistler waves in the young solar wind: statistics of amplitude and propagation direction from Parker Solar Probe Encounters 1-11

Kyung-Eun Choi 1 , Oleksiy Agapitov 1 , Lucas Colomban 1 , John W. Bonnell 1 , Forrest Mozer 1 , Richard D. Sydora 2 , Nour Raouafi 3 , Thierry Dudok de Wit 2

## ABSTRACT

In  the  interplanetary  space  solar  wind  plasma,  whistler  waves  are observed  in  a  wide  range  of  heliocentric  distance  (from  ~20  solar radii (RS) to Jupiter's orbit). They are known to interact with solar wind  suprathermal  electrons  (strahl  and  halo)  and  to  regulate  the solar  wind  heat  flux  through  scattering  the  strahl  electrons.  We present  the  results  of  applying  the  technique  to  determine  the whistler wave propagation direction to the spectral data continuously collected by the FIELDS instruments aboard Parker Solar Probe (PSP). The technique was validated based on the results obtained from burst mode  magnetic  and  electric  field  waveform  data  collected  during Encounter 1. We estimated the effective length of the PSP electric field antennas (EFI) for a variety of solar wind conditions in the whistler  wave  frequency  range  and  utilized  these  estimates  for determining the whistler wave properties during PSP Encounters 1-11. Our  findings  show  that  (1)  the  enhancement  of  the  whistler  wave occurrence  rate  and  wave  amplitudes  observed  between  25-35  RS  is predominantly due to the sunward propagating whistler waves population associated with the switchback-related magnetic dips; (2) the antisunward or counter-propagating cases are observed at 30-40 RS; (3) between 40-50 RS, sunward and anti-sunward whistlers are observed with comparable occurrence rates; and (4) almost no sunward or counterpropagating whistlers were observed at heliocentric distances above 50 RS.

1 Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

2 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

3 Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, MD, USA

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Parker Solar Probe (PSP, Fox et al. 2016; Raouafi et al. 2023) is the first  spacecraft  to  get  close  enough  to  the  Sun  to  sample  the in situ characteristics of the young solar wind during its formation. PSP aims at tracing the flow of energy that heats and accelerates the solar  corona  and  solar  wind  in  order  to  address  two  fundamental problems in the physics of the heliosphere: coronal plasma heating and acceleration of solar wind plasmas. In November 2018 PSP became the  first  satellite  mission  to  penetrate  deep  into  the  inner heliosphere, getting as close as 35.7 solar radii (RS) to the Sun during Encounter 1, and down to 12 RS after January 2022 (Fox 2016; Raouafi et al. 2023).

Solar wind electrons carry heat flux from the Sun to interplanetary space. Their distribution consists of three components: Core, Halo, and Strahl (Feldman et al. 1975; Štverák et al. 2008, 2009; Halekas et al. 2020; Salem et al. 2023). Core electrons are the thermal component, and their energy range is from 3 eV up to ~60 eV. Halo  electrons  are  the  hot  component,  'suprathermal'  with  energy ranging from ~60 eV to hundreds of eV. Strahl electrons are observed at energies across and above the halo energy region. The core and halo components are almost isotropic and close to bi-Maxwellian and bikappa distribution functions, respectively (Wilson et al. 2019). The strahl component has an extreme anisotropy relative to the background magnetic  field  direction  and  is  characterized  as  a  field-aligned electron beam with a narrow pitch angle 𝛼𝛼 ( 𝛼𝛼 = 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ( 𝑣𝑣 ⊥ / 𝑣𝑣 || ) ) distribution (Rosenbauer et al. 1977; Feldman et al. 1975). In the expanding solar wind, the solar wind magnetic field strength becomes weaker, and because of the constraint of kinetic electron energy and the conservation of the first adiabatic invariant, 𝑣𝑣 ⊥ should decrease. However, the beam angular width of strahl observed at 1 a.u. is often not  as  narrow  as  expected  (e.g.,  Feldman  et  al.  1978;  Lemons  and Feldman  1983;  Pilipp  et  al.  1987;  Berčič  et  al.  2019),  wh ich  is presumably due to scattering processes caused by Coulomb collisions (however, Lemons and Feldman (1983) have shown that collisions are not always sufficient to describe the observed strahl width, especially at lower energies) and/or interaction with waves (e.g.,

Vocks  et  al.  2005;  Pagel  et  al.  2007;  Colomban  et  al.  2024).  The evolution  of  the  electron  distribution  function  with  heliocentric distance was reported in several previous studies (e.g., Maksimovic et al. 2005; Štverák et al. 2009; Graham et al. 2017). Graham et al. (2017) found that beyond 1 a.u. the strahl population is likely to be completely scattered and presumably contributes to the halo during propagation from 1 a.u. to approximately 8 a.u.

The first very large amplitude whistler in the radiation belt was reported  measured  with  STEREO  by  Cattell  et  al.  (2008).  However, because STEREO only measured electric fields, it was limited in its ability  to  estimate  the  magnetic  fields  of  waves  and  wave  normal angles (WNAs). Later, studies using Wind (e.g., Wilson et al. 2011), in  which  magnetic  field  measurements  are  available  to  investigate whistler  waves,  showed  that  most  (30/46)  of  the  whistler  waves propagate within 20° relative to the background magnetic field. The recent  studies  of  whistler  waves  in  the  solar  wind  based  on  PSP measurements by Jagalarmudi et al. (2020), Kretzschmar et al. (2021), Cattell et al. (2022), Froment et al. (2023), and Colomban et al. (2023) have shown the occurrence rate and amplitude of whistler waves observed in the solar wind depend on the heliocentric distance and this  raises  the  question  about  the  mechanism(s)  of  their  local generation. Quasi-parallel whistler waves are dominant in observations reported by (Stansby et al. 2016; Tong et al. 2019; Kretzschmar et al. 2021; Froment et al. 2023; Colomban et al. 2023, 2024) in the solar wind. Whistler heat-flux instability, induced by an electron thermal beam can produce quasi-parallel whistler waves (Gary et al. 1975;  Vasko  et  al.  2020).  Quasi-parallel  whistlers  can  also  be generated  by  electron  cyclotron  resonance  instability  guided  by anisotropic electron distributions (Agapitov et al. 2020; Artemyev et al. 2013; Feldman et al. 1976; Gary et al. 1975, 1994; Lee et al. 2018, 2019; López et al. 2019; Karbashewski et al. 2023; Roberg-Clark et al. 2018, 2019; Shaaban et al. 2019; Tong et al. 2019; Vasko et al. 2020; Zenteno-Quinteros &amp; Moya 2022), or driven by the relaxation of the sunward electron deficit (Berčič et al. 2021). Kretzschmar et al. (2021) reported that at 0.5 - 1.0 a.u., all whistler waves observed by Solar Orbiter propagate anti-sunward. Karbashewski et al. (2023)

discovered the counter-propagating whistlers at ~41 RS co-located with magnetic dips and/or sharp rotations of the solar wind magnetic field direction associated with the magnetic switchbacks - the solar wind structures  with  rapid  deflections  of  the  magnetic  field  direction inside (Mozer et al. 2020; Krasnoslelskikh et al. 2020; Larosa et al. 2021;  Agapitov  et  al.  2023).  The  boundaries  of  these  structures usually have dips in the magnetic magnitude (Farrell et al., 2020, 2021;  Froment  et  al.  2021)  that  naturally  evolved  during  the generation (Drake et al. 2021) and evolution (Agapitov et al. 2022). Karbashewski et al. (2023) performed a numerical estimation of the growth  rate  and  showed  that  the  cyclotron  instability  can  be  a generation mechanism(s) for the observed counter-propagating whistler waves.

The effects of interaction between electrons and whistler waves were reported based on the Wind (e.g., Moullard et al. 2001; Vocks et al. 2005; Vocks &amp; Mann 2003, Willson et al. 2013), Cluster (e.g., Kajdič et al. 2016), and STEREO (e.g., Cattel et al. 2020) observations. Numerical models have been implemented to examine the effects of wave-particle interactions in the solar wind, demonstrating the scattering of strahl and the formation of halos (Pierrard et al. 2011; Roberg-Clark et al. 2019; Saito &amp; Gary 2007; Seough et al. 2015; Tang et al. 2020; Vo et al. 2022; Vocks 2012; Vocks et al. 2005).

Halekas et al. (2020, 2022) and Abraham et al. (2022) reported the electron distribution function features in the young solar wind from the PSP observations. Halekas et al. (2020, 2022) reported that the strahl  electrons  observed  by  PSP  were  narrower  than  expected  and dominant in suprathermal populations, while the halo nearly disappeared near perihelion, much smaller even than those at 0.3 a.u. Their  results  showed  that  the  strahl  and  halo  electrons  were  not consistent  with  the  radial  scaling  expectation  based  only  on  the divergence  of  the  interplanetary  magnetic  field  producing  strahl populations. In contrast, the observed core population of electrons near perihelion tends to follow the radial scaling expectation. As a result, these observations of suprathermal populations in the solar wind may show the exchange of halo and strahl electrons by pitch-angle scattering caused by wave-particle interactions (Agapitov et al. 2020;

Cattell et al. 2021b; Froment et al. 2023; Jagarlamudi et al. 2021; Karbashewski et al. 2023; Malaspina et al. 2020; Mozer et al. 2020). For quasi-parallel whistler waves, the propagation direction relative to  the  strahl  speed  determines  the  efficiency  of  wave-particle interaction.  The  derivation  of  the  wave  propagation  direction  and statistical  mapping  of  amplitudes  and  occurrence  rates  of  sunward propagating whistlers (SWPW) and anti-sunward propagating whistlers (A-SWPW)  waves  is  needed  for  developing  realistic  models  of  waveparticle interactions and elucidating the potential generation mechanisms  of  these  waves.  In  this  paper,  we  apply  an  analysis technique  and  the  statistics  of  whistler  waves,  based  on  the  PSP measurement of the wave electric to magnetic field ratio to reveal the direction of propagation of whistler waves from the spectral power of magnetic ( 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ) and electric ( 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 ) field continuously collected by PSP (one component of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 perturbations and three components of 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 (two components of 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 after February 2019)). We have obtained the whistler waves' amplitude and propagation direction (sunward or anti-sunward), statistically, applying this technique to the data collected by PSP during Encounters 1-11. The data description and the details of the processing technique along with examples of the application are shown in Section 2. The effective antenna length 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 , which we have used in this  work  was  determined  based  on  the  whistler  wave  dispersion relation by making use the technique proposed by Karbashewski et al. (2023). Section 3 presents the statistics of whistler wave properties from  the  first  eleven  PSP  encounters.  Section  4  contains  a  short summary of the main results.

## 2. DATA DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY

## 2.1. Parker Solar Probe data description

In this paper, we use the magnetic and electric field spectrogram data from the PSP Search Coil Magnetometer (SCM, Dudok de Wit et al. 2022) and the PSP Electric Field Instrument (EFI, Mozer et al. 2020), which are part of the FIELDS suite (Bale et al. 2016) on board the Parker Solar Probe. Data are preprocessed on board PSP by the Digital Filter Board (DFB, Malaspina et al. 2016) which provides the spectrograms of

magnetic and electric field perturbations in 54 frequency channels. The background solar wind plasma parameters were estimated based on the measurements of DC magnetic field by the fluxgate magnetometer (MAG); the moments of proton distribution function - from the Solar Probe Cup (SPC, Case et al. 2020) and Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons (SWEAP, Kasper et al. 2016). The EFI and SCM spectrogram data have time resolution of ~28 seconds (i.e., averaging ~28 seconds of onboard fast Fourier transform data) and a frequency range from 22 Hz to 4.5 kHz which covers the whistler wave frequency range in the solar wind (typically ranging from 100 Hz to 300 Hz (Cattell et al. 2021b; Froment et al. 2023; Karbashewski et al. 2023)). Dudok de Wit et al. (2022) and Froment et al. (2023) demonstrated the consistency of the parameters of whistler waves (wave spectral power and polarization parameters)  derived  from  the  spectrogram  data  and  from  the  highsampling burst mode waveform data (150 kS/s).

We apply the whistler dispersion to the spectral data to derive the SWPW or A-SWPW waves by making use of the Ew/Bw ratio and the bulk solar  wind  speed  (Karbashewski  et  al.  2023).  To  illustrate  the application of the methodology and validate using of the PSP spectral data, we focus on a 1-hour interval from 10:00 to 11:00 UT on November 3, 2018 (previously discussed by Cattell et al. (2021b) and Karbashewski et al. (2023)). This interval contains multiple bursts of  whistler  waves  including  sunward,  anti-sunward,  and  counterpropagating  waves  (Karbashewski  et  al.  2023).  Figure  1  shows  an overview  of  the  interval:  the  background  interplanetary  magnetic field, solar wind bulk velocity and proton density, and spectral power in  the  whistler  frequency  range  with  multiple  bursts  of  whistler waves.  The  radial  component  (denoted  by  red)  of  the  background magnetic field 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 was sunward with significant tangential (denoted by  blue)  and  normal  (denoted  by  green)  components  (in  the  RTN coordinate  system, Figure  1a),  while  the  bulk  velocity 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 was predominantly radial (Figure 1b). Figure 1d and Figure 1e present the spectral power of magnetic field 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 and electric field 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 perturbations. While 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 is the sum of all three components, the power spectrum of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 is derived from antennas 1 &amp; 2.

Figure 1. One-hour interval with multiple whistler wave events from 10 to 11 UT on November 3, 2018 collected by Parker Solar Probe. (a)(c) interplanetary magnetic field (MAG data), solar wind proton bulk velocity and proton density (SWEAP data). The magnitude of quantities and  each  component  in  the  RTN  coordinate  system  are  presented  in different colors, black, red, blue, and green, respectively. (d)&amp;(e) Power  spectral  density  (PSD)  of  the  magnetic  and  electric  field perturbations in the spacecraft frame frequency ( 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 ). The white curves indicate local 𝟎𝟎 . 𝟏𝟏 𝒇𝒇 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-f6e85db7-6bb1-4388-903c-ac7190ea0a62.jpg)

In the case of a plasma frame moving with velocity  , where 𝑣𝑣 ⃗ | 𝑣𝑣 ⃗ | &lt; &lt; 𝑎𝑎 , the electromagnetic field 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 and 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 measured by the non-moving observer (indicated by unprimed) is related to the plasma frame field 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 ′ and 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 ′ via the Lorentz transform:

$$\vec { B } _ { w } = \vec { B } _ { w } ^ { \prime } & & ( 1 ) \\ \vec { E } _ { w } = \vec { E } _ { w } ^ { \prime } - \vec { v } \times \vec { B } _ { w } & & ( 2 )$$

In the solar wind the 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ratio derived from spectral power measured by PSP depends on the wave propagation direction and the solar wind bulk velocity ( 𝑉𝑉 𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑤 ): 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 = | 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 ′ |/| 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 ′ | ± 𝑉𝑉 𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑤 . This allows one to determine the direction of propagation of the observed whistler waves taking into account that 𝑉𝑉 𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑤 is about 0.2-0.8 of 𝑉𝑉 𝑝𝑝ℎ at heliocentric distances of 25-50 RS (as shown in Figure 2a).

The dynamics of the 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ratio for the interval from figure 1 is presented in Figure 2 (the saturated electric field data, shown in Figure 1e, is removed in all frequency ranges). The 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ratio depends on wave frequencies and represents a proxy for the phase velocity (in the  outward  solar  wind  flow  at  the  corresponding  frequency  in  the spacecraft  frame).  Following  the  results  of  (Froment  at  al.  2023; Karbashewski  et  al.  2023),  we  assume  waves  propagating  along  the background  magnetic  field 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 inward  (sunward  propagating  whistler wave, SWPW) or outward (anti-sunward propagating whistler wave, ASWPW). The results presented in Figure 2 show that the 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 changes about twice corresponding to wave propagation direction (blue and red colored dots in Figure 2b indicate A-SWPW and SWPW, respectively). The feature of this particular interval is that lower values of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 correspond to higher wave spectral power (the black curve in Figure 2b), reflecting sunward propagation of high amplitude whistler waves, which is consistent with the results of Karbashewski et al. (2023).

Figure 2c shows 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝ℎ in the plasma frame from the cold plasma dispersion (the black curve) for parallel propagation. The effects of the moving plasma media are shown with the red dashed curve (SWPW) and the blue dashed curve (A-SWPW), which are calculated in the SCframe using the averaged parameters derived from the interval shown in  Figure  1.  As  an  example  of  the  significant  Doppler  shift,  the measurements at 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 123.6 Hz correspond to 184 Hz (SWPW, +48%) and 84 Hz (A-SWPW, -32%) respectively in the plasma frame (more details of Doppler  shift  described  in  Section  2.3).  Then,  to  compare  with observed 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ratio values, these theoretical phase speeds must be considered by their effective length (in detail in following Section 2.2) indicated by two solid lines.

Figure 2. (a) The ratio of the electric field to the magnetic field 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 obtained from spectral data. (b) The measured 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 values (the red dots indicate sunward whistlers and enhanced 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 values) and PSD of  magnetic  field 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 data  (black  line)  at 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 123.6 Hz.  Colors  of circles denote WNA values as shown in the color bar. (c) Theoretical phase speed and Doppler shifted cases of A-SWPWs and SWPWs. The black curve represents the phase speed of the whistler wave calculated from the dispersion relation. Blue and red dashed curves show those in the SC-frame  for  A-SWPWs  and  SWPWs,  respectively.  Blue  and  red  solid curves represent the effective lengths applied corresponding to the frequency of 123.6 Hz.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-68a76a01-a356-48c2-b7b1-eeb7f9b1ec5d.jpg)

## 2.2. Effective length of the PSP EFI antennas ( 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 )

The  calibration  of  the  PSP  EFI  electric  field  measurements,  i.e., evaluation of the antenna's effective length ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ) has been done in the whistler frequency range (~50 Hz to 500 Hz) based on the whistler dispersion and sunward/anti-sunward relative difference in 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 . 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 can exceed the physical size and separation of the antennas, leading to overestimation of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 (Agapitov et al. 2020; Karbashewski et al. 2023). Thus, continuous calibration of electric field measurements is critically needed for correct wave processing.

Figure 3a shows a scatter plot of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 and 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 collected at 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 123.6 Hz, revealing two distinct populations at different slopes of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 representing 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝ℎ ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) of A-SWPW (blue) and SWPW (red). Figure 3b represents the electric field antennas effective length, 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 , published  by  Karbashewski  et  al.  (2023)  for  1-hour  interval.  The application  of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 results  in  adjustments  to  the  measured 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝ℎ ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) values  due  to  a  significantly  overestimated  electric  field.  The theoretical values are shown with the dashed blue line (A-SWPW) and the dashed red line (SWPW) at the bottom right in Figure 3a. Two solid lines represent these theoretical lines following the application of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 123.6 Hz) , relative to physical antenna length (3.5 m), indicated by multiplying the value by a factor of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 , relative to the electric field.

In Figure 3(b), the effective lengths at 123.6 Hz are 29.2, 31.6, and 27.2 m, measured under different conditions: high wave amplitude using burst mode data (by 2-d histogram of the number of data points in the background), the entire 1-hour spectral data using best fit (a star), and low wave amplitude using spectral data (by error bars), respectively. During this 1-hour period, the plasma conditions with 𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 / 𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒 ≈ 100 ensure that only whistler waves can exist, even at low wave amplitudes comparable to noise levels. The effective length for the low amplitude interval, shown by the error bars, exhibits a consistent shape and comparable values to those observed during high amplitude whistler events (burst mode data), particularly when those noises are assumed to be quite oblique WNAs (&gt;50 ) and are then reflected as a ° parallel  WNA  by  theoretical  estimation  (denoted  by  boxes  of  error bars). These WNAs of noises are obtained by cross-spectra data for 1hour interval. The weight coefficient between the high wave amplitude data from burst mode and the low amplitude from spectral data is 1.32, within the frequency range of 50 to 300 Hz (in the spacecraft frame) over this 1-hour period (not shown in here).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-f2b27226-7960-49e1-a016-0066c5c8c1e4.jpg)

Figure 3. Measured E/B ratio and the utilization of effective length for  1-hour  period.  (a)  Comparison  of  the  measured  (circles)  and expected (lines) 𝑬𝑬 𝒘𝒘 / 𝑩𝑩 𝒘𝒘 ratio for 1-hour at 123.6Hz in the SC-frame. Colors of circles indicate measured WNAs and colored thin lines are theoretical 𝑬𝑬 𝒘𝒘 / 𝑩𝑩 𝒘𝒘 values for oblique WNAs. (b) The effective length, 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 , as published by Karbashewski et al. (2023). Color bar show the number of data points. The error bars represent the median values and standard deviations of 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 obtained from spectral data including the cases  of  parallel  WNA  (WNA=0 )  calculated  from  different  WNAs  by ° applying theoretical electric fields.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-c8905b60-6376-40a5-947e-c0b2ad9b6141.jpg)

In this work, we used our technique for estimation of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) in the whistler frequency band and for a wide range of plasma densities. 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) for a given frequency in the SC-frame can be estimated from whistler waves measured by PSP comparing the apparent phase velocity 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 and expected phase velocity 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 :

$$L _ { e f f } \left ( f _ { S C }, N _ { p } \right ) = \, L _ { a n t e n n a } \, \frac { | E _ { w } ( f _ { S C } ) | / | B _ { w } ( f _ { S C } ) | } { v _ { e x } \left ( f _ { S C }, N _ { P } \right ) } = \, L _ { a n t e n n a } \, \frac { | E _ { w } ( f _ { S C } ) | / | B _ { w } ( f _ { S C } ) | } { v _ { p h } ( f _ { p l }, N _ { P } ) + \vec { v } _ { S W } \hat { k } ( f _ { p l } ) }, \quad ( 3 )$$

applying the apparent velocity from the ratio of the measured 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 and 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 spectra, the solar wind flow speed 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 , the unit wavevector 𝑘𝑘 � ⃗ /| 𝑘𝑘 | , and the theoretical 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝ℎ ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝 ) . Here WNA of whistler waves have been assumed as quasi-parallel to the background magnetic field.

Since Encounter 8, PSP has provided solar wind parameters below 20 RS for the first time and allowed us to investigate 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 in a dense plasma. In the measurement of effective length at high densities (over ~700 cm -3 ), more than half the cases are below 35 RS, and the frequency range above 100 Hz could not be investigated due to the lower hybrid waves with frequency shown in Figure A1. As a result, the standard error is higher than 1 m (denoted by white curves in Figure 4b).

Although not shown here, we tested the effect of other solar wind parameters which are speculated to affect the electric field antenna response  well,  such  as  the  local  plasma  density,  temperature,  and electron  cyclotron  frequency.  The  density  was  the  most  relevant parameter  to  the  effective  length  at  a  given  frequency.  As  we mentioned  above,  the  wide  range  of  densities  measured  from  PSP observations provides the opportunity to estimate the effective length covering  a  variety  of  solar  wind  conditions.  The  effective  length along the 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 , where 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 3.5 m is the physical length of antenna and 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 = � 𝑎𝑎𝑞𝑞 2 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘 𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇 (using 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 = 30 𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 ), is shown in Figure 4.

In Figure 4, we present a comprehensive map of the effective length 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 , 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝 ) of the PSP electric field antenna. To validate our results, we compare 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 specific density regions, given in Figure 4a, to those in the case study by Karbashewski et al. (2023). Figure 4a shows that 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 is in the same frequency range as in Figure 10 of (Karbashewski et al. 2023), where the density was ~290 cm -3  and has the same frequency dependence varying from ~14 m to ∼ 22 m. It is comparable and slightly longer than those presented in (Karbashewski et al. 2023). Above 150 Hz, 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 decreases to about 12 m at 190 Hz before  appearing  at  the  plateau  around  9  m  below  300  Hz.  Further higher  frequency  ranges  have  similar 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 of  approximately  7.5  m. Overall, 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 , 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝 ) for the density of 290 cm -3  ranges from ∼ 6 m to ∼ 22 m for the frequency range 50-600 Hz with the longest 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 , 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝 ) between 100-150Hz, in this study.

Figure 4b displays the median quantity of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 versus frequency at the same density bin. The frequency bin size follows that of the DFB spectral data products. In density, a bigger bin size has been

applied at high density to accommodate the smaller number of data points. Additionally, if the angle difference between solar wind bulk flow and the magnetic field is large (more details in Section 2.3.), the topology of the antenna sensor in response to wave perturbations may lead to uncertainties in the electric field measurements as we describe in Section 2.2. To reduce the impact of this effect on our analysis, we provide the effective length map where the 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 is less than  or  equal  to  30  degrees.  As  a  result,  we  have  obtained  a comprehensive  effective  length  map 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( 𝜔𝜔 , 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝 ) for  PSP  observations over the whistler wave mode frequency range. 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 values cover 2.1 to 36 m within the confidence interval (indicated by the white curve on the  map),  about  ten  times  larger  than 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 and  tend  to  be proportional  to  the  density  and  inversely  proportional  to  the frequency.  It  implies  that  the  electric  field  measurements  are sensitive to the local solar wind conditions.

𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 decreases with frequency except for a particular density range. This feature occurs at densities of ~250 to ~350 cm -3  ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 ~1.5 where 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 = 30 𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 ) and frequencies below 150 Hz. Figure 4c shows how much the 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 values  differ  according  to  density  at  the  same  frequency channel. One of the highest 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 values in Figure 4a is at 123.6 Hz. For this specific frequency, 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 varies from ~3.7 to ~22.7 m depending on the density conditions. Near the density value 300 cm -3 ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 ~1.5 where 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 = 30 𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 ) it shows the largest effective length and  over  250  cm -3 ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 &gt; 1.35 where 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 = 30 𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 ) 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 values  are similar,  between  15  to  23  m  (with  large  error  bars  over  500  cm -3 ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 &gt; 2 )). One can see that this density range corresponds to the case where the physical length of the antenna is greater than the Debye length ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 &gt; 1 ). Two vertical dotted lines denote different cases for 𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 / 𝜆𝜆 𝐷𝐷 = 1 , when 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 is 20 eV (orange color) or 40 eV (magenta color), respectively. It implies that stable measurements  occur  where  the  antenna  length  is  over  several  Debye lengths. Through this result, we find that different plasma contributions from various solar wind regimes make 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 differ even in the same frequency range. Consequently, by applying our technique to this result of a comprehensive effective length map (Figure 4b), the

propagation directions of whistler waves from Encounter 1-11 of PSP measurements have been determined in this work and we present those statistics in Section 3.

Figure 4. Effective electric antenna length ( 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 ) on the 𝑳𝑳 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 / 𝝀𝝀 𝑫𝑫 ( 𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒄𝒄𝒘𝒘𝒄𝒄 𝑻𝑻 𝒄𝒄 = 𝟑𝟑𝟎𝟎𝒄𝒄𝟑𝟑 ) and wave frequency ( 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 ) in the SC-frame for the  PSP  Encounters  1-11.  (a) 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 for 𝑵𝑵 𝒑𝒑 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟎 cm -3 (indicated  by  a dashed vertical line in panel (b)). (b) 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 . (c) 𝑳𝑳 𝒄𝒄𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 on 𝑳𝑳 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 / 𝝀𝝀 𝑫𝑫 for 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟑𝟑 . 𝟔𝟔 Hz (indicated by a dashed horizontal line in panel (b)).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-7d828d4e-2ead-43ce-96ea-b1431b9874b4.jpg)

The 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 map in Figure 4 facilitates the accurate estimation of the electric  fields  measured  by  EFI  antennas  in  the  whistler  wave frequency  range.  Steinvall  et  al.  (2021)  presented  the  effective length of the Solar Orbiter's electric field measurement, in which a constant  electron  temperature  is  used.  We  note  that  the  effective lengths show a unique pattern in a particular density range (250-350 cm -3 ) which seems to have originated from other effects but appear to be unrelated to the electron temperatures (Romeo et al. 2023).

## 2.3.  Analysis  technique  to  determine  propagation  directions  of whistler waves

In the SC-frame, 𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 produces a significant Doppler shift: a SWPW (ASWPW) wave is observed at a down-shifted (up-shifted) frequency, 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 . Schematically the geometry of field measurements onboard PSP in the solar wind flow ( 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) is shown in Figure 5a. 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 , the angle between 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 and 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (denoted by cyan color in Figure 5a and measured data in Figure 5b), can be used as an approximation of the angle between 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 and whistler wave normal because WNA is predominantly quasi-parallel with respect to the background magnetic field (Froment et al. 2023).

The wave parameters in the plasma frame can be evaluated from Eqns.1 and 2 by making use of the whistler dispersion relation:

$$& \nu _ { p h } ( f _ { S C } ) \, = \, \nu _ { p h } ( f _ { p l } ) \, + \, \vec { V } _ { s W } \, \cdot \, \hat { k } ( f _ { p l } ) \, = \, \nu _ { p h } ( f _ { p l } ) \, + V _ { s w } \, | \hat { k } ( f _ { p l } ) | \, c o s ( \alpha _ { B V } ) \\ & \quad ( 4 )$$

Here, 𝑣𝑣 𝑝𝑝ℎ ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ) is calculated from the cold plasma dispersion relation in the plasma frame. The additional phase velocity from the outflow speed  is  applied  by 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ∙ 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 � 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � ,  and 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 � 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � is  assumed  to  be  fieldaligned.

However, the spectral data only include a single component of the electric field measured from antennas 1 and 2. This impacts the estimate of phase velocity in two ways: first, if the local magnetic field lies in or near the plane of the antennas, only one of the two transverse 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 directions is measured, leading to statistical underestimates of and uncertainties in the | 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 | magnitude; second, even if 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 is radial, i.e. normal to the antenna plane, only one of the two transverse components of 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 is measured, again leading to underestimation of the magnitude of | 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 | , and 𝑉𝑉 𝑝𝑝ℎ . The first effect can be minimized by considering intervals where local 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 is small, which for  our  study  we  limit  to  30  degrees  ( 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 &lt; 30° or 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 &gt; 150° )  for evaluating the antenna effective length. For the processing of the propagation direction this leads to spread of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 in the distribution between the theoretical value of 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 and ( 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 2 /2 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 2 + 𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 2 ) 1 2 / , which however, allows us to distinguish between SWPW and A-SWPW in a wide range of 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 . The second effect can be taken into account by applying a factor of √ 2 . This effect is also influenced by the WNA of the wave, but the fractional deviation is only around 0.02

for WNAs below 20 degrees, which typical WNAs of whistler waves are in the 0.1 𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 to 0.5 𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 frequency range (Froment et al. 2023).

Figure 5c shows 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 in the 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 domain. The two black solid lines represent the theoretical phase velocity from 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 = 0  to 90 ° ° for A-SWPW (upper line) and SWPW (lower line), respectively. On the other hand, there are geometrical limitations of measuring 𝐸𝐸 � ⃗ 𝑤𝑤 with only  one  component.  Therefore,  the  two  dashed  lines  indicate  the bottom limit of the distribution phase velocity value, which decrease at 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 = 90° with solar wind bulk speed (taking into account the factor of 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ). These lines are based on an average of 1-hour intervals to represent all data points, but the processing of each data point is based  on  the  local  solar  wind  conditions  (marked  colors  of  filled circles  in  the  same  legend  in  Figure  3a).  The  circle  size  is proportional  to 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 .  We  excluded  A-SWPWs  detected  below  the  lower hybrid  frequencies  (in  the  plasma  frame).  While  high-amplitude whistler waves focus on the parallel WNAs (black lines), low-amplitude points are distributed broadly to oblique WNAs. Note that here we do not determine WNAs with the techniques in this paper.

Figure 5. Ultimate Whistler wave's direction determination for 1-hour interval incorporating the topology of the background magnetic field (a) PSP position relative to the radial direction to the Sun (adapted from Malaspina et al. (2016)) and schematic of 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (or 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ 0 ) and 𝑉𝑉 � ⃗ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 and its implications on the electric field measurements inferred from the

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-f8c6db0c-5e3e-440c-aa96-13d64d5beb0b.jpg)

direction of wave propagation. (b) Dynamics of the angle between the background magnetic field and flow velocity in the solar wind. (c) Distribution of measured 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ratio ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 123.6 Hz). The two black solid lines represent the theoretical 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 values, for A-SWPWs and SWPWs, respectively, based on the average of local solar wind parameters over a 1-hour period. The two dashed lines mark where the electric field magnitude is poorly estimated due to the magnetic field lying in the plane of the antennas. Colored lines are theoretical 𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤 / 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 values for oblique WNAs (corresponding angles in degrees on the color bar).

## 2.4. Validation

Figure 6 is the result of determining the propagation direction of whistler  waves  on  the  interval  form  Figure  1.  Four  whistler  waves events  (Figures  6a-6d)  were  recorded  in  burst  mode  and  previously presented by Karbashewski et al. (2023); they are indicated by black arrows in Figure 6e. Figures 6a-6d represent the individual Poynting fluxes obtained from the burst waveform data using wavelet transform and singular value decomposition. These Poynting vectors, were used for validation of the analysis technique described above. Consequently, the results obtained by making use of the waveform data are perfectly matched with those of our results shown in Figure 6e. Figure 6e presents a map of the whistler wave propagation direction for 1 hour obtained by making use of our technique. Magnetic dips (implied by the 0.1 𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 line) at around ~10:10UT, ~10:20UT, and ~10:30UT are associated with the enhanced level of SWPW activity.

## Direction results from burst mode waveform data

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-37711bed-a7ce-49c7-a283-8832bc80b438.jpg)

Figure  6. (a)-(d)  Each  panel  presents  Poynting  flux  for  different whistler waves corresponding to four arrows in panel(e). (a) The burst waveform starting at 10:19:15.56 UTC on November 3, 2018. (b) starting at 10:30:30.15 UTC. (c) starting at 10:34:18.22 UTC. (d) starting at 10:43:47.29  UTC.  Two  black  curves  indicate 𝟎𝟎 . 𝟏𝟏 𝒇𝒇 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 and 𝒇𝒇 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 .  (e)  the results of determining the propagation direction in time and frequency. The black curve represents 𝟎𝟎 . 𝟏𝟏 𝒇𝒇 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 . Arrows indicate whistler waves validated by burst waveform data. (f)&amp;(g) show the distribution of  whistler  waves  amplitude  on  variation  of  the  magnetic  field relative to background fields. (f) the dip of magnetic field magnitude and (g) the rotation of magnetic field components.

Figure  6f  presents  the 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | (meaning  the  decrease  in  local magnetic field magnitude relative to the background magnetic field) and the 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 wave amplitude for 1 hour (with solar wind outflows denoted

by gray color). In this 1-hour interval, most A-SWPWs (except only for a few events shown in blue in Figures 6f and 6g) are accompanied by  sunward  whistler  waves,  as  counter  propagating  whistler  (CPW) waves, while the predominant population is SWPWs. These SWPWs mostly occur at locations satisfying 0.1 &lt; 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | ≤ 0.44 (i.e., the vertical dashed line in Figure 6f) and an inhomogeneous magnetic field. For roughly 54 percent of SWPWs, 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | ≥ 0.2. On the other hand, 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | of CPW waves are mostly below 0.2. In a CPW, the sunward wave part (pink) has a higher wave amplitude than the anti-sunward (sky blue) in the same time bin, which is clearly represented in the case related to magnetic dips. In Figure 11a in (Karbashewski et al. 2023), they show  that  depending  on  the  direction  of  propagation  obtained  from Poynting vectors, five events of whistler waves are co-located with magnetic dips (as wave sources) or not (star symbols in Figures 6f and 6g). Whistler waves in this work reveal wave amplitudes peaked up to 0.06 𝑎𝑎𝑇𝑇 / 𝐻𝐻𝑧𝑧 1 2 / of SWPW and CPW waves, which corresponds to some black points  in  Figure  11a  in  (Karbashewski  et  al.  2023).  The  highest amplitude is shown for SWPWs in agreement with their result. However, we emphasize that this identification process specifically analyzes all whistler propagation directions in all time bins, including those in the absence of burst mode waveform data.

## 3. PROPAGATION DIRECTION OF WHISTLER WAVES

## 3.1. Results from PSP Encounter 1

Whistler waves measured by PSP during Encounter 1 have been reported with analysis of wave parameters (Cattell et al. 2021a, 2021b; Froment et al. 2023). Before we apply the technique to all available encounters extensively, we examined 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 for Encounter 1 and compared the results with  the  whistler  waves  collected  in  the  burst  mode  and  with  the published results. Figure 7a shows the radial distribution of 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 , mostly near 180 degrees due to toward IMF sector structure (without crossing sector boundary) for the whole interval. However, the 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 of a significant population (~28 percent) is between 60 and 120 degrees, meaning that the solar wind magnetic field is somewhat orthogonal to the  bulk  velocity  (radial).  As  we  mentioned  above,  electric  field

measurements  in  the  case  of  only  one  component  available  can  be underestimated for those of waves due to the topology of the solar wind magnetic field. In particular, our technique considered 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 in order  to  determine  propagation  direction  which  provides  a  crucial threshold depending on magnetic topology (as described in Figure 5). One of the results of (Froment et al. 2023) is that 97 percent of whistler waves during Encounter 1 have a quasi-parallel WNA ( 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 45° ) relative to the background magnetic field. They presented the WNA of whistler waves with heliocentric distances and with magnetic descent levels. For later encounters, Colomban et al. (in prep.) reconstruct the lost component and confirm that the WNAs of whistler waves are predominantly quasi-parallel. Therefore, our technique can be applied reliably, at least with small angular tolerances between the solar wind magnetic field and the solar wind speed. In Figures 7b-7g, the whistler  waves  are  also  displayed  according  to  the  direction  of propagation in the order of SWPWs, A-SWPWs, and CPW from the second row to the fourth row. The most important result here is that SWPWs dominate compared to A-SWPWs and CPWs, and represent 85 percent of total whistler waves during Encounter 1. ASWPWs are mostly focused between 36-44 RS, but overall, the heliocentric positions are spread between  35  and  55  RS,  and  the  local  magnetic  field  strength  with respect to the background field is also wide. As a result, 54 percent of SWPWs occur in 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | greater than 0.1, while ASWPWs are 39%. This result implies that inhomogeneous solar wind magnetic fields are more favorable for the generation of SWPWs than A-SWPWs. In the case of counter-propagating whistler waves, as shown in Figure 7g, events of 62%  (93%)  are  observed  in 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | less  than  0.1  (less  than  0.2). Furthermore, higher wave amplitude ( 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 ) usually occurs for sunward or counter-propagating whistler waves, rare for A-SWPWs.

## 3.2. Results from Encounter 1 - 11

The  data  from  Encounter  1  in  Section  3.1  were  used  to  verify  the applicability of the technique to determine wave propagation direction on the continuously available PSP SCM and EFI spectral data using one electric field (EFI) and three magnetic field components (SCM). In the previous section, the effective length of the electric antenna

has been determined for the whistler wave frequency range that allows the use of the electric field data for wave parameters processing. For later encounters, one electric field component and two magnetic field components (except the spurious component) of spectral data are available. Using all encounters of PSP with the available spectral data, we have investigated the whistler waves amplitudes and propagation direction distributions in the young solar wind. In this paper, we found and processed 12,466 whistler wave events recorded by PSP. The distributions of SWPW, A-SWPW, and counter-propagating on heliocentric  distance  are  presented  in  Figure  8.  The  whistler occurrence rates are consistent with the previous study by Cattell et al.  (2022)  showing  that  whistler  wave  occurrence  declines  sharply below 25 RS, where only 39 whistler events (0.3%) were detected (Figure 8e). We show the strong radial dependence of the propagation direction distributions for SWPW and A-SWPW. First, we found that out of the 38 whistler  waves  measured  closer  than  25  RS,  35  (89.7%)  events  were SWPWs (Figures 8a and 8f). Secondly, the main populations (74%) of all the whistler waves recorded by PSP in the range of 25-50 RS had sunward propagation direction (Figure 8f). A-SWPWs and CPW waves are 19 % and 6 %, respectively. The SWPWs continue to dominate up to 40 RS (more than 80% of the recorded cases) (Figure 8d), and disappeared above  50  RS.  Third,  A-SWPWs  occurrence  rate  increases  with  the heliocentric distance and at 40-50 RS and A-SWPWs cases were observed more frequently than SWPWs. The increase in the relative proportion of anti-sunward waves with distance is in agreement with the results of (Colomban et al. 2024) between 0.2 and 1 a.u. In the case of the CPW, it is mainly between 25 to 50 RS. Fourth, the radial distances, where  the  peaks  of  occurrence  rate  of  SWPW,  A-SWPW,  and  CPW  were observed are shifted: 35-40 RS for SWPW, 40-45 RS for A-SWPW, and 3540 RS for CPWs, as can be seen in Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c. The shift in occurrence rates of SWPW and A-SWPW can be caused by the waves' source localization.

Figure 7. The statistical results of Encounter 1. (a) Statistics of 𝛼𝛼 𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉 along the radial distances. (b)-(d) Radial distribution of SWPWs (b), A-SWPWs (c), and CPWs (d) with frequency ranging from 50 to 300 Hz in the SC-frame. The gray lines are 0.1 𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 and 𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 . The color code denotes the local magnetic field relative to the background magnetic field.  The  size  of  the  circles  is  proportional  to log 𝐵𝐵 𝑤𝑤 .  Open  and filled  circles  correspond  to  anti-sunward  and  sunward  propagating directions, respectively. (e)-(g) Distribution of the local magnetic field  variances  and  the  wave  amplitude,  corresponding  to  the  same events  in  (b)-(d).  The  red  (blue)  dots  represent  sunward  (antisunward) whistler waves.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-ed6317e5-428f-4106-b80a-819343dd777c.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-db0a8cc1-3c67-49a0-acf2-020ccde39f20.jpg)

Figure 8. Radial distribution of whistler waves events and their propagation  directions  (SWPW  or  A-SWPW)  from  PSP  Encounter  1-11. Panels  (a)-(c)  present  the  total  number  of  whistler  wave  events (diamond symbol and black thick histogram) and each direction of wave propagation  (dot  symbols  and  colored  histogram)  on  a  logarithmic scale. Error bars show the relative variability of the number of data points  within  a  bin.  Subclass  (patterns  of  histogram)  about  a population of background magnetic field inhomogeneity. The fractions of subclasses are represented on a linear scale as shown right-side axis. (a) SWPW (red dot), (b) A-SWPW (blue dot), and (c) CPW (black dot) whistler waves, respectively. (d) the BPF measurement counts, (e)  the  occurrence  rate  of  all  whistler  waves  (f)  -  the  relative occurrence rate of three classes for wave propagating directions along the radial distance. Error bars indicate the standard errors of each bin.

Meanwhile, the notable reduction of the solar wind magnetic field and/or the large changes in the solar wind magnetic field direction have  been  considered  as  a  key  description  of  the  local  generation mechanism (Karbashewski et al. 2023; Froment et al. 2023). We have analyzed the perturbation of the solar wind magnetic field magnitude ( 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | ) and the perturbation of the solar wind magnetic field vector ( �Δ𝐵𝐵� � ⃗ / 𝐵𝐵 0 ) associated with whistler waves, following those definitions from (Karbashewski et al. 2023) to determine how propagation directions are related to such inhomogeneities. We have used 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | and �Δ𝐵𝐵� � ⃗ / 𝐵𝐵 0 to  set  the  threshold  for  each  subclass:  if 𝛥𝛥 | 𝐵𝐵 � ⃗ |/| 𝐵𝐵 0 | is greater than or equal to 0.2, it is a magnetic dip (' 𝐵𝐵 -dips' in Figure 8),  otherwise  if �Δ𝐵𝐵� � ⃗ / 𝐵𝐵 0 is  greater  than  or  equal  to  0.4  it  is  a magnetic rotation ('B rots' in Figure 8), and otherwise it is constant ('B const' in Figure 8). In this part, two major differences were found for the SWPWs. First, the remarkable fraction of inhomogeneous conditions, where the occurrence of whistler B dips or B rots or both, reach 94 % for SWPWs. Most of all whistler waves (80%) were found to be associated with inhomogeneous magnetic fields, and for the A-SWPWs and CPWs only 54 % and 52 % are related to inhomogeneity. It may imply that  inhomogeneous  magnetic  fields  in  the  young  solar  wind  can  be favorable for generating sunward whistler waves. In comparison, for A-SWPW, the correlation with B dips is the weakest among the three types of propagating directions. For CPWs, the solar wind magnetic field condition changes with a pattern along radial distance, such that the B rots condition appearing after 30 RS increases gradually along  the  heliocentric  distance,  and  the  B  constant  condition decreases  before  disappearing  from  ~50  RS  onwards  (Figure  8c).  We found  that  at  all  distances,  SWPWs  are  highly  correlated  with inhomogeneous magnetic fields, which is consistent with the results of Karbashewski et al. (2023) and Froment et al. (2023). Also, we have found A-SWPWs association with the source region is dependent on the distance. In particular, below 35 RS, 72% of A-SWPWs are unrelated to the inhomogeneous fields.

## 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We present a technique to determine the direction of wave propagation

by making use of the continuous spectral Parker Solar Probe BPF EFI and SCM data and perform the statistics of whistler wave propagation direction based on the continuous spectral data from PSP Encounters 1-11. New findings in our work are:

- 1.  PSP  observations  reveal  whistler  waves  between  25  and  40  RS propagating predominantly toward the Sun. The abundant existence of the  SWPWs supports  the  scenario  that  the  source  regions  prevail locally in the young solar wind.
- 2. SWPWs are observed closer to the Sun than A-SWPWs. Below 45 RS, almost all the whistlers were found to propagate toward the Sun.
- 3. The direction of wave propagation is one of the key parameters of whistler waves, which determine the efficiency of interaction with electrons. Thus, the statistics of whistler wave propagation direction can be applied in order to build realistic models of wave-particle interactions efficiency.
- 4. Calibration of electric field measurements with the whistler waves dispersion  properties  showed  that  the  effective  length  of  the  PSP electric field antennas ( 𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ) critically depends on the wave frequency in the SC-frame and on the Debye length relative to the electric field antennas length.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work of KEC, OVA, and LC were partially supported by NASA contracts 80NSSC22K0522, 80NSSC22K0433, 80NNSC19K0848, 80NSSC21K1770, and NASA's Living with a Star (LWS) program (contract 80NSSC20K0218). We thank the NASA Parker Solar Probe Mission and SWEAP team led by Justin Kasper for the use of the data. The FIELDS experiment on the Parker Solar Probe spacecraft was designed and developed under NASA contract NNN06AA01C.

## APPENDIX A:

Figure A1 shows solar wind parameters ( 𝑁𝑁 𝑃𝑃 and 𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 from magnetic field intensity) during PSP Encounters 1-11. 𝑁𝑁 𝑃𝑃 varies from 10 to 5000 cm -3 with radial distance and in different solar wind regimes as shown in Figures  A1  and  A2.  Figure  A1b  shows  plasma  density  profiles  with heliocentric distance. At the same time using the proton density data, we consider the local lower hybrid frequency range seen in Figure A1c. Although we use the typical whistler wave mode frequency range from 50 Hz to 300 Hz for Encounter 1, lower hybrid frequency variation according to the local magnetic field strength and these frequencies at the perihelion of Encounter 11 reached up to 400Hz as Figure A1c shows.

Figure A1 Solar wind density and lower hybrid frequency profiles from Encounter 1-11. (a) Density distribution at the heliocentric distance for all encounters. Colors indicate data counts. (b) Density profiles for each encounter. (c) Variation of the lower hybrid frequency ( 𝒇𝒇 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 )

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00736v2-figure-3296522b-d462-4e6b-9540-17ef1ab529b8.jpg)

according to the heliocentric distance. Each encounter in panels (b) and (c) is shown in a different color according to the legend on the right.

## REFERENCES

Abraham, J. B., Owen, C. J., Verscharen, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 118, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6605

Agapitov, O. V., Wit, T. D. de, Mozer, F. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891(1), L20, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab799c

Agapitov, O. V., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925 (The American Astronomical Society), 213

Agapitov, O. V., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Choi, K.-E., &amp; Raouafi, N. 2023, ApJL, 959 (The American Astronomical Society), L21

Artemyev, A. V., Agapitov, O. V., &amp; Krasnoselskikh, V. V. 2013, PhPl, 20(12), 124502, doi:10.1063/1.4853615

Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSR, 204 (1-4), 49-82, doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

Berčič, L., Maksimović, M., Landi, S., &amp; Matteini, L. 2019, MNRAS, 486(3), 3404-3414, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1007

Berčič L., Verscharen, D., Owen, C. J., et al. 2021, A&amp;A, 656, A31, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140970

Case, A. W., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 43, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a7b

Cattell, C., Wygant, J. R., Goetz, K., et al. 2008, GeoRL, 35, L01105, doi:10.1029/2007GL032009

Cattell, C., Short, B., Breneman, A., et al. 2021a, A&amp;A, 650, A8, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039550

Cattell, C., Breneman, A., Dombeck, J., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 911(2), L29,  doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abefdd

Cattell, C., Breneman, A., Dombeck, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924(2), L33, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4015

Colomban, L., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2023, JGRA, 128, e2023JA03142, doi:10.1029/2023JA031427

Colomban, L., Kretzschmar, M., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2024, A&amp;A, Forthcoming article, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., Agapitov, O., et al. 2022, JGRA, 127(4), e2021JA030018, doi:10.1029/2021JA030018

Farrell, W. M., MacDowall, R. J., Gruesbeck, J. R., Bale, S. D., &amp; Kasper, J. C. 2020, ApJS, 249 (American Astronomical Society), 28

Farrell, W. M., Rasca, A. P., MacDowall, R. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915 (American Astronomical Society), 68

Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., Montgomery, M. D., &amp; Gary, S. P. 1975, JGR, 80, 4181, doi:10.1029/JA080i031p04181

Feldman,  W.  C.,  Asbridge,  J.  R.,  Bame,  S.  J.,  Gary,  S.  P.,  &amp; Montgomery, M. D. 1976, JGR, 81, 2377, doi:10.1029/JA081i013p02377

Feldman, W. C., J. R. Asbridge, S. J. Bame, J. T. Gosling, &amp; D. S. Lemons 1978, JGR, 83, A11, 5297, doi:10.1029/JA083iA11p05285

Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSR, 204, 7, doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

Froment, C., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2023, A&amp;A, 672, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245140

Froment, C., Krasnoselskikh, V., Wit, T. D. de, et al. 2021, A&amp;A (EDP Sciences), https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/forth/aa3980620/aa39806-20.html

Gary, S. P., Feldman, W. C., Forslund, D. W., &amp; Montgomery, M. D. 1975, JGR, 80, 4197

Gary, S. P., Scime, E. E., Phillips, J. L., &amp; Feldman, W. C. 1994, JGRA, 99, 23391

Graham,  G.,  Rae,  I.,  Owen,  C.,  et  al.  2017,  JGRA,  122,  3858, doi:10.1002/2016JA023656

Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D. E., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246(2), 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4cec

Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 53, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b8

Jagarlamudi, V. K., Alexandrova, O., Berčič, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 118, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab94a1

Jagarlamudi, V. K., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al. 2021, A&amp;A, 650, A9, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039808

Kajdič, P., Alexandrova, O., Maksim ovic, M., Lacombe, C., &amp; Fazakerley, A. N. 2016, ApJ., 833, 172, doi:10.3847/15384357/833/2/172

Karbashewski,  S.,  Agapitov,  O.  V.,  Kim,  H.  Y.,  et  al.  2023,  ApJ, 947(2), 73. Doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc527

Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 131, doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

Krasnoselskikh, V., Larosa, A., Agapitov, O., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893 (American Astronomical Society), 93

Kretzschmar, M., Chust, T., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2021, A&amp;A, 656, A24, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140945

Larosa, A., Krasnoselskikh, V., Wit, T. D. de, et al. 2021, A&amp;A, 650 (EDP Sciences), A3

Lee, S.-Y., Lee, E., Seough, J., et al. 2018, JGRA, 123, 3277-3290, doi:10.1029/2017JA024960

Lee, S.-Y., Lee, E., &amp; Yoon, P. 2019, ApJ, 876, 117, doi:10.3847/15384357/ab12db

Lemons, D. S., &amp; Feldman, W. C. 1983, JGR, 88, 6881, doi:10.1029/JA088iA09p06881

López, R. A., Lazar M., Shaaban S. M., et al. 2019, ApJL 873 L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c95

Maksimovic, M., Zouganelis, I., Chaufray, J. Y., et al. 2005, JGRA, 110, A09104, doi:10.1029/2005JA011119

Malaspina, D. M., Ergun, R. E., Bolton, M., et al. 2016, JGRA, 121, 5088, doi: 10.1002/2016JA022344

Malaspina, D. M., Halekas, J., Berčič, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246(2), 21, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4c3b

Mozer, F. S., Agapitov, O. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246(2), 68, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7196

Moullard, O., Burgess, D., Salem, C., Mangeney, A., Larson, D. E., &amp; Bale, S. D. 2001, JGR, 106, A5, doi:10.1029/2000JA900144

Pagel, C., Gary, S. P., de Koning, C. A., Skoug, R. M., &amp; Steinberg, J. T. 2007, JGRA, 112, A04103

Pierrard, V., Lazar, M., &amp; Schlickeiser, R. 2011, SoPh, 269(2), 421438, doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9700-7

Pilipp, W. G., Miggenrieder H., Montgomery M. D. et al. 1987, JGR, 92 1075, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA02p01075

Raouafi, N. E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al. 2023, SSR, 219, 8, doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00952-4

Roberg-Clark, G. T., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., &amp; Reynolds, C. S. 2018, ApJ, 867, 154, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae393

Roberg-Clark, G. T., Agapitov, O., Drake, J. F., Pagel &amp; Swisdak, M. 2019, ApJ, 887(2), 190, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5114

Romeo, O. M., Braga, C. R., Badman, S. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 2, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace62e

Rosenbauer, H., Schwenn R., Marsch E., et al. 1977, JGZG, 42 561 Saito, S., &amp; Gary, S. P. 2007, JGRA, 112, doi:10.1029/2006JA012216

Saito, S., &amp; Gary, S. P. 2007, JGRA, 112, doi:10.1029/2006JA012216

Salem, C. S., Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., &amp; Verscharen, D. 2023, A&amp;A, 675, A162, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141816

Seough, J., Nariyuki, Y., Yoon, P. H., &amp; Saito, S. 2015, ApJ, 811(1), 5, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L7

Shaaban, S. M., Lazar, M., Yoon, P. H., Poedts, S., &amp; López, R. A. 2019, MNRAS, 486(4), 4498-4507, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz830

Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., Chen, C. H. K., &amp; Matteini, L. 2016, ApJ, 829, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L16

Steinvall, K., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Cozzani, G., et al. 2021, A&amp;A, 656, A9, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/20214085

Štverák, Š., Travnicek, P., Maksimovic, M., Marsch, E., Fazakerley, A. N., &amp; Scime, E. E. 2008, JGRA, 113, A3, doi:10.1029/2007JA012733

Štverák, Š., Maksimovic, M., Travnicek, P. M., et al. 2009, JGR, 114, A05104, doi:10.1029/2008JA013883

Tang, B., Zank, G. P., &amp; Kolobov, V. I. 2020, ApJ, 892(2), 95. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a93

Tong, Y., Vasko, I. Y., Artemyev, A. V., Bale, S. D., &amp; Mozer, F. S. 2019, ApJ, 878, 41, doi: /10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f05

Vasko, I. Y., Kuzichev, I. V., Artemyev, A. V., et al. 2020, PhPl, 27(8), 082902, doi:10.1063/5.0003401

Vo,  T.,  Lysak,  R.,  &amp;  Cattell,  C.  2022,  PhPl,  29(1),  012904, doi:10.1063/5.0074474

Vocks, C. 2012, SSRv, 172, 303, 314, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9749-0

Vocks, C., &amp; Mann, G. 2003, ApJ, 593 (2), 1134-1145, doi:10.1086/376682

Vocks, C., Salem, C., Lin, R. P., &amp; Mann, G. 2005, ApJ, 627, 540, doi:746 10.1086/430119

Wilson III, L. B., Cattell, C. A., Kellogg, P. J., Wygant, J. R., Goetz,  K.,  Breneman,  A.,  Kersten,  K.  2011,  GRL,  38,  17,  doi:

## 10.1029/2011GL048671

Wilson III, L. B., Chen, L.-J., Wang, S., Schwartz, S. J., Turner, D. L., Stevens, M. L., Kasper, J. C., Osmane, A., Caprioli, D., Bale, S. D., Pulupa, M. P., Salem, C. S., &amp; Goodrich, K. A. 2019, ApJS, 243, 8, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab22bd

Wilson, III, L. B., Koval, A., Szabo, A., Breneman, A., Cattell, C. A., Goetz, K., et al. 2013, JGRA, 118(1), 5-16, doi:10.1029/2012JA018167

Zenteno-Quinteros B. &amp; Moya P. S. 2022, FrPhy, 10, 910193, doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.910193
Kyung-Eun Choi Oleksiy Agapitov Lucas Colomban John W. Bonnell Forrest Mozer Richard D. Sydora Nour Raouafi Thierry Dudok de Wit
Whistler waves in the young solar wind: statistics of amplitude and propagation direction from Parker Solar Probe Encounters 1-11
In the interplanetary space solar wind plasma, whistler waves are observed in
a wide range of heliocentric distance (from ~20 solar radii (RS) to Jupiter's
orbit). They are known to interact with solar wind suprathermal electrons
(strahl and halo) and to regulate the solar wind heat flux through scattering
the strahl electrons. We present the results of applying the technique to
determine the whistler wave propagation direction to the spectral data
continuously collected by the FIELDS instruments aboard Parker Solar Probe
(PSP). The technique was validated based on the results obtained from burst
mode magnetic and electric field waveform data collected during Encounter 1. We
estimated the effective length of the PSP electric field antennas (EFI) for a
variety of solar wind conditions in the whistler wave frequency range and
utilized these estimates for determining the whistler wave properties during
PSP Encounters 1-11. Our findings show that (1) the enhancement of the whistler
wave occurrence rate and wave amplitudes observed between 25-35 RS is
predominantly due to the sunward propagating whistler waves population
associated with the switchback-related magnetic dips; (2) the anti-sunward or
counter-propagating cases are observed at 30-40 RS; (3) between 40-50 RS,
sunward and anti-sunward whistlers are observed with comparable occurrence
rates; and (4) almost no sunward or counter-propagating whistlers were observed
at heliocentric distances above 50 RS.