1 / 25

CME Eruption at the Sun and Ejecta Magnetic Field at 1 AU

CME Eruption at the Sun and Ejecta Magnetic Field at 1 AU . Valbona Kunkel Solar Physics Division, Naval Research Laboratory Collaborator: J. Chen vkunkel @ gmu.edu. April 15 2013 12th Annual International Astrophysics C onference.

delu
Download Presentation

CME Eruption at the Sun and Ejecta Magnetic Field at 1 AU

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CME Eruption at the Sun and Ejecta Magnetic Field at 1 AU Valbona Kunkel Solar Physics Division, Naval Research Laboratory Collaborator: J. Chen vkunkel@gmu.edu April 15 2013 12th Annual International Astrophysics Conference

  2. “MAGNETIC FORCES”: MAGNETIC GEOMETRY OF CMEs • Dominant consensus from the 1980s and1990s (SMM era): CMEs are dome-like structures with rotational symmetry, not a thin flux rope Neither of the above 3D Geometry of CMEs–3 Part Morphology SMM Hundhausen (1999) Chen et al (1997) Illing and Hundhausen(1986) SOHO

  3. INTRODUCTION: CME-FLARE PHYSICS • Key Questions in Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) Physics and New Answers: • What forces drive CMEs?—evolution of a CME and its B field from the Sun (to 1 AU) • What is the physical connection between CMEs and associated flares? • What is the energy source? Open physics issues—quantified • A Physical Model of CMEs: • The Erupting Flux Rope (EFR) model of CMEs: a quantitative theoretical model that correctly replicates observed CME dynamics—direct comparison with data: • CME position-time data from the Sun to 1 AU (STEREO) • in situB(t) and plasma measurements of CME ejectaat 1 AU (STEREO, ACE) • CME data and associated flare (GOES) X-ray (SXR) data (near-Sun processes) • Theme of This Talk: • What extractable physical information do data contain? Theory-data comparison at both ends of the Sun-Earth region and the intervening CME trajectory.

  4. THEORY-DATA RELATIONSHIP • Physics Models: Characteristic Physical Scales • MHD is scale invariant—models are distinguished by characteristic scales • The EFR model---defined by MHD equations for macroscopic flux-rope dynamics • What determines the flux-rope motion?---3D flux-rope geometry and physical scales • Lorentz hoop force: • A 3D plasma structure: and evolve • Stationary footpoints: Sf = const and • Initial equilibrium conditions: • B0, MT0Acceleration time scale (Alfvenic) • How are these scales manifested in the data? a R Sf

  5. Sf -SCALING OF FLUX-ROPE ACCELERATION Sf– Scaling A geometrical effect – a flux rope at t = 0 and accelerated by the Lorentz hoop force Directly manifested in data—3D geometrical effect Dynamical Scales Chen, Marque, Vourlidas, Krall, and Schuck (2006)

  6. PHYSICAL INFORMATION IN DATA: Best-Fit Solutions • Extract physical information from observations—constrain the model by only the observed height-time data, Zdata(ti), and calculate the best-fit solution, Zth(ti) • Minimize the average deviation from the data (maximize the goodness of fit) • data, model solution, and uncertainty at the i-th observing time • Adjust Sf and to minimize D • A “shooting” method • Sf and calculated by the best-fit solution are the physical predictions of the EFR model constrained by the height-time data • The best-fit solutions can produce other physical predictions that can be tested • Hypothesis:

  7. INITIAL-VALUE SOLUTIONS Input Parameters • Model corona—specified and unchanged • pc(Z), nc(Z), Bc(Z), Vsw(Z), Cd, • Observational constraints • Sf,Zdata(ti), ISXR(t) Model Outputs • Initial field and mass—calculated, intrinsic • Initial equilibrium conditions B0, Mt0, p0 • Initial-value solution • Sf,“shooting parameter” • Minimize D Sf, are physical predictions Z Sf

  8. EMF: CME-FLARE CONNECTION X D = 1.3% Z0 = 2.5 x 105 km Sf = 4.25 x 105 km <E>max = 3.7 V/cm

  9. 12 September 2000 EMF: CME-FLARE CONNECTION • Best-fit and good-fit solutions yield in close agreement with X-ray light curve. • Predicted Sf is consistent with observation. Chen and Kunkel (2010) D = 1.3% Z0 = 2.5 x 105 km Sf = 4.25 x 105 km <E>max = 3.7 V/cm

  10. SENSITIVITY OF FLUX INJECTION TO HEIGHT DATA Initial-value solution from Z0to 1 AU Chen and Kunkel (2010) The main acceleration phase manifests Alfven timescale B0 and MT0 Must be internally generated by a model The long-time trajectory is a stringent constraint on D = 1.4% Z0 = 8 x 104 km Sf = 2.0 x 105 km <E>max ~ 15 V/cm

  11. CME-FLARE CONNECTION • Demonstrated for several CME-flare events: • The best-fit solutions constrained by height-time data alone yield —a physical prediction—in close agreement with ISXR(t) (temporal form) • The height-time data contain no information about X-rays—agreement is significant • Hypothesis and an interpretation • is a potential drop (super Dreicer) particle acceleration and radiation physical connection between CME and flare particle acceleration • Physical implications • The time scale of ISXR(t) is in the height-time data—via the ideal MHD EFR equations • The EFR equations capture the correct physical relationship between “M” and “HD” • Test with another observable quantity • Magnetic field at 1 AU as constrained by the observed CME trajectory data

  12. 6.1 New Start Plasma Physics Division PROPAGATION OF CME and EVOLUTION OF CME B FIELD STEREO Configuration 2007 Dec 24 A B Earth Observed B1AU and 3D Geometry [Kunkel and Chen 2010] • Best-fit solution is within 1% of the trajectory data throughout the field of view • If Zdata(t) is used to constrain the EFR equations, the model predicts B1AU(t) correctly • Arrival time earlier than observed; in this case, a 3D geometrical effect (Kunkel 2012)

  13. SENSITIVITY OF B(1AU) TO SOLAR QUANTITIES Dependence of B(1 AU) on injected poloidal energy • Total poloidal energy injected: • Vary the flux injection profile while keeping Up|inj unchanged Best fit • |BCME| and arrival time at 1AU are not sensitive to the flux injection profile • BCMEfield and arrival time are most sensitive to injected poloidal magnetic energy Kunkel (PhD thesis, 2012)

  14. MAGNETIC FIELD AND TIME OF ARRIVAL OF CME AT 1AU • Increase the total injected poloidal energy Up|inj by 10% • Calculate the best-fit solution • Calculate B(1 AU) and time of arrival of CME at 1 AU • Determine the goodness of fit for each solution Constant Injected Poloidal Energy Best fit

  15. B(1 AU) AND ARRIVAL TIME AT 1 AU: INFLUENCE OF Bc • The overlying field Bc determines the initial Bp, initial energy, and Alfven time • Expect the 1 AU arrival time and B(1 AU) to be sensitive to Bc a R Sf

  16. SUMMARY The EFR model equations • A self-contained description of the unified CME-flare-EP dynamics • Correctly replicates observed CME dynamics to 1 AU—a challenge for any CME model • It can be driven entirely by CME data to compute physical quantities: • — coincides with temporal profile of GOES SXR data (Chen and Kunkel 2010) • B field and plasma parameters at 1 AU — in agreement with data (Kunkel and Chen 2010) • B(1 AU) is not sensitive to the temporal form of ; it is sensitive to the total poloidal energy injected (Kunkel, PhD thesis, 2012; Kunkel et al. 2012) Physical interpretations of • is the electromotive force—physical connection to flares Implications –Space Weather • Given observed CME trajectory (position-time) data, it is possible to predict the magnetic field at 1 AU—there is sufficient information (Kunkel, PhD, 2012) • Accurate 1-2 day forecasting is possible if an L5 or L4 monitor exists

  17. OPEN ISSUES Energy Sources • admits two distinct physical interpretations (Chen 1990; Chen and Krall 2003; Chen and Kunkel 2010) • Coronal source: injection of flux from coronal field via reconnection (conventional) • Subphotospheric source: injection of flux from the solar dynamo (Chen 1989, 1996) • Neither interpretation has been theoretically or observationally proven • Reconnection: physical dissipation mechanisms and large scale disparity • Subphotospheric mechanism: none has been calculated • Both are “external physics” in all current CME/flare models

  18. OTHER MODELS • The EFR model should be applicable to flux ropes with fixed footpoints • models starting with flux ropes (Chen 1989; Wu et al. 1997; Gibson and Low 1998; Roussev et al. 2003; Manchester et al. 2006) • arcade models producing flux ropes (e.g. Antiochos et al. 1999; Amari et al. 2001; Linker et al. 2001; Lynch et al. 2009) • Does not apply to axisymmetric flux rope models—e.g., Titov and Demoulin(1999), Lin, Forbeset al. (1998), Kliem and Torok (2006) • They do not correspond to simulations (e.g., Roussev et al. 2003; Torok and Kliem 2008) • Mathematically, occurs in arcade models (e.g., Lynch et al. 2009) Titov and Demoulin (1999) Lynch et al. (1999)

  19. PHOTOSPHERIC SIGNATURES? • Assumptions: • Coherent B field (space and time) • No dynamics • Schuck (2010) • Smaller A and longer • Same calculation (no dynamics) AGU Fall (2001) Lin et al. (2003)

  20. OBSERVATIONAL SIGNATURES OF FLUX INJECTION • Schuck (2010) • Falsified the “flux injection hypothesis” • Consistent with the “reconnection hypothesis” • Starting point • Specified coherent field and time scale • No subsurface source of poloidal flux • No dynamical equations of motion for “injection” • No gravity (e.g., no Parker instability) • No convection zone medium through which “injection” occurs • No photosphere (i.e., no photospheric signature) • No reconnection physics or dynamics • No physical or mathematical basis to support either claim • A “Strawman” argument • The calculation is the same as Forbes (2001)

  21. POLOIDAL FLUX INJECTION • Poloidal magnetic field is mostly in region—incoherent in dynamics Chen (2012, ApJ)

  22. DYNAMICS OF POLOIDAL FLUX INJECTION Initial Simulation: Chen and Huba (2006) • 3D MHD code (Huba 2003) • A uniform vertical flux rope • Increase B field at the bottom • Introduce a horizontal flow (“convection” flow) • No gravity yet

  23. PHOTOSPHERIC SIGNATURES • Pietarila Graham et al. (2009) –current magnetogram resolution insufficient to resolve small-scale magnetic structures • Cheung et al. (2010) –Simulation of an emerging flux rope; synthetic magnetograms • Photospheric data show small bipoles; scales are much smaller than the underlying emerging flux rope Cheung et al. (2010)

  24. END

  25. POST-ERUPTION ARCADES • Test the hypothesis that reformation of an arcade results from • Establishes the physical connection between CME acceleration and flare energy release Formation of Post-Eruption Arcades Quantities for comparison: temporal profiles v. Jc(t) Roussev et al. (2003) EUV+H Jc(t)

More Related