1 / 30

Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov

Helicity on the Sun. If you worry about publicity Do not speak of Current Helicity Jan Stenflo. Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov. Helicity on the Sun:. What is it good for anyway?. Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov. Outline. Definition of helicity (incl. graphic repr.)

howe
Download Presentation

Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov

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. Helicity on the Sun. If you worry about publicity Do not speak of Current Helicity Jan Stenflo Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov

  2. Helicity on the Sun: What is it good for anyway? Dr. Alexei A. Pevtsov

  3. Outline • Definition of helicity (incl. graphic repr.) • Hemispheric helicity rule (observations, origin, cycle variation) • Helicity transport • Fitting pieces of puzzle together???

  4. Knots and Bolts H = 0

  5. Knots and Bolts H = 0 H= -1

  6. Writhe and Twist W = -1; T=0 H = W+T T = -1; W=0

  7. Magnetic Helicity Helicities  A – vector potential, B – magnetic induction. Current Helicity  For liner force-free field (a = constant) Kinetic Helicity where Y isarbitrary scalar function , where E is magnetic energy • topological invariant • conserves better than energy (Woltjer, 1958; Taylor 1974; Ji et al, 1995) • dynamo, reconnection, stability energy decay – 4-10.5% • helicity dissipation – 1.3-5.1%

  8. What We Observe Observations: Force-free field(1): Pevtsov et al, 1995, Longcope et al, 1998 Current helicity density(2): Abramenko et al, 1996 Bao and Zhang, 1998 WL, H-alpha, X-ray Morphology:

  9. What We Observe Relative helicity: (Berger, 1985) (e.g. Chae, 2001)

  10. Seehafer, 1990 Pevtsov et al, 1995, Abramenko et al, 1996 Longcope et al, 1998, Bao and Zhang, 1998, Pevtsov et al. 2001, Hagino and Sakurai, 2002 60-80%, hemispheric helicity rule 466 active regions observed 1988-2000 by Haleakala Stokes Polarimeter r= -0.23, Likelihood of no correlation is 2.5x10-7 N/(-) S/(+) 69% 75% (cycle 22, Pevtsov et al, 1995) 63% 70% (cycle 23, Pevtsov et al, 2001)

  11. Cycle variation? Bao et al, 1999, reverse sign for hc at the beginning Cycle 23 Hagino & Sakurai, 2002, some periods disobey the rule Nandi & Choudhuri 2004 – cycle variation of helicity rule abest g Lat g < 0 Pevtsov et al 2001

  12. Zhang, 2006

  13. Longcope et al, 1999 Holder et al, 2003; Tian et al., 2001 Chae 2001, Green et al 2003 Demoulin et al 2003 Seehafer et al, 2003 • direct action of Coriolis force and differential rotation produce insufficient • amount of helicity andcannot explain significant scatter in latitudinal dependency • dynamo does not produce enough helicity. • - S-effect can do it all?

  14. Nandy, 2006 • ~ F-0.69 Scatter is latitude-independent Trend, scatter agree with S-effect

  15. For liner force-free field (a = constant) where Y isarbitraryscalar function Helicity Transport Lepping et al (1990) fitted 18 MCs, a=10-10 m-1, B0=0.0002 G, F=1021 Mx. HMC=(La/2p) F2= 5 x 1042 Mx2 Larson et al (1995), HMC= 4 x 1042 Mx2 Demoulin et al, 2002, AR7978 52 x 1042 Mx2 (26 CMEs, 1 rotation) 5 rotations - ? Total helicity ejected by MCs often exceeds coronal helicity (diff. rotation cannot replenish).

  16. Helicity Transport via Reconnection Independent flux systems: Hm= H1+ H2+ H3; e.g. H1=0.5Hcrit; H2=0.4Hcrit; H3=0.2Hcrit Hm>Hcrit Pevtsov et al 1996 Canfield & Reardon, 1998

  17. Twist in Emerging Flux Tube • Longcope and Welsch, 2000: • vortical motions responsible for helicity injection • cannot be driven by pressure gradient and cannot • be produced by coupling motions of non-mag. plasma • magnetic torque at photosphere-corona transition • cannot be countered by pressure gradients.

  18. Evolution of ARs and their Helicity • - MDI full disk magnetograms • SoHO EIT 195A images • 6 emerging active regions Maleev et al, 2002

  19. Modeling Flux Emergence • no twist at emergence • emergence – linear increase in d • d increases in constant rate until t1

  20. Fitted Model Parameters

  21. Sunspot Rotation • Kempf, P., Astron. Nachrichten, 1910, Nr. 4429, • Bd. 195, 197 • -Brown, et al, Solar Phys., 2003, 216, 79 • Pevtsov, A. A. and Sattarov, I.S., Soln. Dannye, 1985, • No. 3, 65. Courtesy R. Nightingale

  22. Sunspot Rotation(R. Nightingale data) * Correct sign of twist; “hemispheric preference” is in agreement with the hemispheric helicity rule * No good correlation between sign of current helicity and direction of rotation

  23. Courtesy R. Nightingale

  24. Kinetic Helicity and flares See poster by F. Hill et al

  25. How These All Might Fit Together? • Solar magnetic fields exhibit hemispheric sign asymmetry. Helicity (ARs) is created in upper CZN (S-effect explains large scatter and helicity amplitude; solar cycle variations???). • Helicity is removed from AR as a result of eruption. • Subphotospheric portion of flux tube may serve as “reservoir” of helicity, supplying helicity between flares/CMEs. • Sunspot rotation and subphotospheric pattern of kinetic helicity may be indications of helicity transport via torsional waves.

  26. Open Questions • Evolution of kinetic helicity (before/after flare/flux emergence). • Timing of sunspot rotation vs. flare • Is helicity of active region determined at their emergence, or maybe, significant amount of helicity can be injected later during AR lifetime?

More Related