Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
This is a small correction to the published article in relation to the particular regime of CR diffusion, namely, the diffusion in the superAlfvenic turbulence. This correction makes the discussion in the paper self-consistent.
In the published article, Equations (12) and (13) are wrong. In fact, at scales larger than the Alfvenic scale lA magnetic fields are entangled by turbulence and therefore the separation of magnetic field lines is a random walk process with the step lA. Therefore, the mean squared separation between the magnetic field lines is increasing with the distance tracked along the magnetic field line s as
Therefore, for the scales , magnetic field lines undergo diffusion and the transport of cosmic rays that stream along magnetic field is diffusive on scales larger than lA. As a result, Table 1 in the paper should be modified as we present below.
Table 1. Regimes of MHD Turbulence and Magnetic Diffusion
Type of MHD turbulence | Injection velocity | Range of scales | Spectrum E(k) | Motion type | Ways of study | Magnetic diffusion | Squared separation of lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weak | wave-like | analytical | diffusion | ||||
Strong | anisotropic | ||||||
subAlfvenic | eddy-like | numerical | Richardson | ||||
Strong | isotropic | ||||||
superAlfvenic | eddy-like | numerical | diffusion | ||||
Strong | anisotropic | ||||||
superAlfvenic | eddy-like | numerical | Richardson |
Note. L and lmin are the injection and perpendicular dissipation scales, respectively. , for and . for . For weak Alfvenic turbulence, does not change. s is measured along magnetic field lines.
Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
This mistake in the paper does not change any conclusions or results of the aforementioned work because cosmic ray propagation and acceleration in the limit of superAlfvenic turbulence considered in Section 7 used the correct diffusion coefficient given by Equation (39), which is consistent with our Equation (1) above. Equation (39) was obtained from physical considerations and not derived from Equations (12) and (13). In other words, the published article contained a contradiction and the present erratum removes this contradiction.