* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Evolution of interplanetary coronal mass ejections for different solar
Timeline of astronomy wikipedia , lookup
History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses wikipedia , lookup
Tropical year wikipedia , lookup
Formation and evolution of the Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Expansion of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Lambda-CDM model wikipedia , lookup
Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Energetic neutral atom wikipedia , lookup
Star formation wikipedia , lookup
Geomagnetic storm wikipedia , lookup
Evolution of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections for Different Solar Wind Conditions Dasso S.1,2, Gulisano A.M.1, Demoulin P.3, Ruiz M.E.1 & Marsch E.4 1 Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio (IAFE), Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina 2 Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, UBA, Argentina 3 Observatoire de Paris, LESIA, Meudon, France 4 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Lindau, Germany Departamento de Física Juan José Giambiagi International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil An ICME is an expanding flux rope in the SW How much can be affected its expansion by local environment conditions? Outline Expansion from analysis of different ICMEs at different solar distances D Expansion from analysis of a MC at fixed D (non-dimensional rate along S/C path) Comparison of expansion for different SW conditions: -MC in a clean SW / Overtaken MC by fast SW Anisotropy of expansion (axial and radial expansion) International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil Evolution of ICMEs: key parameters from different events observed at different solar distances D (good for global expansion) [From Liu et al., Plan. & Space Sci. 2005] S~D0.9, Np~D-2.3, T~D-0.3, B~D-1.4 Considering other studies (more events): S~D0.8±0.1 [e.g., Bothmer & Schwenn ‘98; Leitner et al. JGR‘07] Is the large dispersion due to the evolution in different ambients? International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil NOT PERTURBED Vx Example of MC not perturbed, (~ linear velocity profile for full MC) Vc t Example of MC perturbed at the rear (perturbed profile of the velocity) PERTURBED Dimensionless local expansion coefficient [Demoulin et al., SolPhys, 2008; Demoulin & Dasso, A&A, 2009; Gulisano et al., A&A, in press 2009] Globally: S=S0(D/D0)m use dS/dt can't use dS/dt S=S0(D/D0) Helios 1&2 MCs For Not Perturbed Vx ~ dS/dt = mVc S/D, = D Vx /(t Vc2) and S ~ t Vc => N ~ m NoPerturbed ~ 0.9 For Perturbed = D Vx /(tVc2) ~ D Vx/(SVc) Not Perturbed MCs present no correlation, while Perturbed ones are correlated => O ~ D0 m D1-m /(S0Vc) Vx Black solid line corresponds to the expected global expansion S ~ Dm Green line to an example of Not Perturbed MC Blue dashed line to one possible example of Perturbed MC International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil Radial and axial expansion: different expansion rates? Adapted from [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] Radial expansion due to solar wind pressure decay Back !! Axial expansion due to connectivity to the Sun (self-similar: m=1) International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil Modelling the magnetic flux rope From in situ observed B possible to ‘orient’ the flux rope & compare with models e.g., MV International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil We preliminary found a nearly isotropic expansion cos()=zcloud•xGSE Helios 1 & 2 MCs International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil Summary and Conclusions •Magnetic Clouds are expanding structures as consequence of the decrease of the solar wind pressure (ambient) and connectivity to the Sun •A non-dimensional local expansion rate (=VD/(tVc2)) can be defined and determined from single point (1 S/C) in situ observations •For no-overtaken MCs, the observed local expansion () was in a full agreement with the global expansion (m~0.8±0.1) •Local expansion can be significantly affected by flows that overtake MCs: SW-cloud or cloud-cloud interactions [e.g. Dasso et al., JGR’09] •Anisotropy in MC expansion rates is expected (axial and radial expansion are due to very different physical mechanisms) •However, we preliminary (work in progress) found that is nearly isotropic (statistically supporting connectivity to the Sun of MC legs for our sample) Thank you very much for your attention !!! International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil Additional Slides Different MCs observed at different solar distances D (good for global expansion) np~D-2.8 S~D0.97 [From Kumar & Rust, JGR 1996] Modeling evolution of MCs from assuming: (i) conservation of magnetic fluxes and H (ii) isotropic self-similar expansion S~D, np~D-3, B~D-2 Large uncertainties (only a few observed events) B~D-1.8 Improvements Better determination of exponents (more events): S~D0.8±0.1 [e.g., Bothmer & Schwenn ‘98; Leitner et al. JGR‘07] Moving boundary model [Demoulin & Dasso A&A‘09]: For SW pressure decay as Psw(D)~D-np, global expansion S ~ Dnp/4 ~ D0.7 [Demoulin talk SW12] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Learning from 1 S/C observations (fixed D) of one event (model and ) From Nakwacki et al. [COLAGE’07, Mexico] V t Expansion from fitting model to Vx t tc Vx Vc Vc t T [e.g., Farrugia et al., JGR’95; Nakwacki et al., JASTP’08] T≈ 3-3.3 days <Vx,cloud>=-794km/s tc: center V(tc) V D 2 t Vc [Demoulin talk SW12] Radial expansion rate: dR/dt (0.03-0.045) AU/day Non-dimensional expansion rate for local expansion (no model is assumed) [Demoulin et al., Sol Phys’08; Gulisano et al., poster SW12] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Based on observations: S(D)~S0 (D/D0)m, If dS/dt~V then ~m Same event observed at 1AU and 5.4AU ACE [see more in Nakwacki et al., poster SW12] SACE(D=1AU)=0.22AU ACE=0.70 Ulysses SUlysses(D=5.4AU)=0.63AU Ulysses=0.65 Observations according with the expected increment of size: Sexpected,Ulysses ~ SACE 5.4 ~ [0.62-0.72]AU Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Pealing flux ropes via magnetic reconnection y x Cumulative flux Fy/L Fy ,cloud ( x) L . dx' By ,cloud ( x' ) By,cloud Oct 20, 01:36UT X in From B=0 and invariance of B along the main axis of the cloud (valid to a general 2D-shape!): dx B Xin x y ,cloud Start: Oct 18, 1995 at 18:58UT Different end boundaries chosen by previous authors [Lepping et al., JGR’97; Larson et al., GRL’97; Janoo et al., JGR’98] ( x) 0 flux rope Oct 19, 07:26UT Oct 19, 17:37UT Cancelation of Fy,cloud at a magnetic discontinuity [from Dasso et al., A&A 2006] Expansion of a partially pealed flux rope that is overtaken by SW Back The flux rope was partially pealed from its front. However, the ‘back’ still ~ as before reconnection, showing ~ properties of a flux rope and not of SW OVERTAKEN MC Back! =0.44±0.1 < 0.7 Adapted from [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Example with reconnection in the MC front, but non-overtaken ~18hs MC Reconnected flux: ~ 20%-30% of total [Dasso et al., Sol Phys, ‘07] MC size~0.26AU This event: =0.7±0.1 Same as typical value for no overtaken MCs without reconnection [See Gulisano et al., poster SW12; Demoulin talk SW12] Thus, typical value of for no overtaken events, even for reconnection conditions! Cloud-cloud interaction Two filament eruptions MC1: MC ~ -15°, MC ~ 125° ~ 0.08 AU H MC2: MC ~ 55° & MC ~ 120° ~ 0.4 AU [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] MC1: Typical coherent rotation of B (flux rope) but ... Compressed no typical expansion (it is significantly pushed by MC2) no typical linear profile of V and no typical low Tp and low MC2: huge MC, large impact parameter Typical expansion factor (=0.7±0.1) MC2 is almost not affected by MC1 (relative size) Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Transients are ejected from the Sun toward the SW •A subset of ICMEs can be observed as ‘Magnetic Clouds’ (MCs) in the SW •Observed properties: From [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] - Low Tp - Smooth and larger rotation of enhanced B - Low proton plasma p •Fast MCs driven a shock wave (and a turbulent sheath of large n) •Cold structures (low Tp) Snow thrower effect •e-s flows along B (>100eVs): proxy of magnetic connectivity •Smooth and large coherent rotation of B (helical structures), increased respect to the SW •Low plasma beta (p) Fmag Parker spiral B Evolution of MCs in the heliosphere (more cases) from Leitner et al. [JGR’07], in agreement with previous studies [Bothmer & Schwenn, AnnGeophys 1998] Inner heliosphere Tp~r- 1.2.±0.7 Inner heliosphere np~r- 2.4±0.5 np~r- 2.6±0.1 Tp~r- 1.6±0.2 Inner heliosphere D~r1.1.±0.4 D~r0.6±0.1 Inner heliosphere B0~r- 1.6±0.4 B0~r-1.3±0.1 4th El Leoncito Solar Physics School, El Leoncito San Juan & La Punta San Luis, Argentina, Nov 24-29, 2008 Spacecraft Observations (MFI/Wind): MC observed on Oct 18-19, 1995 •Coherent Rotation of B •Velocity profile flat (old cloud without significant expansion) •Shock wave in front (A) •Magnetic hole (B): a signature of reconnected field? •Strong Alfvén waves activity after the MC From Lepping et al. [JGR, 1997] Modelling the magnetic flux rope From in situ observed B possible to ‘orient’ the flux rope & compare with models IAU Symposium 257 Universal Heliophysical Processes, Ioannina, Greece, Sep 15-19, 2008 [see more in Gulisano et al., poster SW12] NOT OVERTAKEN Expanding MC in a ‘clean’ SW Observed by Helios 1 on Jan 7, 1975 OVERTAKEN Expanding MC while fast SW is overtaken it Observed by Helios 1 on Jun 23, 1980 Magnetic Reconnection: More ingredients than MHD are needed to evolution of B Hall Effect: B [( U B) B] 2 B, t Ue ~ n 1 enlarged in IP •From MHD eqs: U B U e , then B is frozen-in to the electron fluid •Electrons travel faster in helical motion, thus B is accelerated respect to MHD •Current sheet is tinnier and reconnection is more efficient From numerical simulations of 2.5D incompressible HMHD [Morales et al., JGR’05] 2nd studied case: Nov 2004 From Harra et al. [Sol Phys 2007] •We study this MC, which is in very strong expansion •Decreasing V •Decreasing B •There are different end boundaries, according with different proxies (criteria) Now, we consider expansion effects on flux cancellation observed z B y ,cloud (t ) L(t )Vx ,cloud (t ) dt 0, flux rope dx x modelled No axial expansion L(t ) D(t ) , with D(t ) Din (t tin )Vc Lin Din V L(t ) 1 (t tin ) c Lin Din with axial expansion [Dasso et al, SolPhys 2007, in press] Cloud axis: =-10° =275° Two interacting ICMEs [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France MC overtaken by another MC Two filament eruptions ICME MC1 MC2 H Texp MC2 MC1 [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] axial B spacecraft path across MCs Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France axial B [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Grad-Shafranov (Moestl) •Two clouds, •The first one: the satellite is crossing •near the axis of the MC •For the second it crosses far away, • the impact parameters are large, •The MVariance method is not adapted •First event • Ospan observations for the flare at 13:30 UT (12:48-14:00UT) Hebe •C1.5 Xray flare (OSPAN) •TRACE 195 •Second event •M8.0 X ray flare (BBSO) The events at the Sun EIT 195 Å image on 13 May at 11:42 UT. Magnetic linear force free model of AR 10759 before the M 8.0 flare = -1.6 10-2 Mm-1 Negative magnetic helicity in the AR field and surroundings TRACE 195 Å image on 14 May at 12:45 UT. Two post-flare arcades are visible. •Negative helicity on the Sun and in the MCs Open and closed fields in magnetic clouds Suprathermal (320 eV) electron pitch angle distributions for 8 Nov 04 open closed Shodhan et al. [2000] magnetic cloud • Counterstreaming suprathermal electrons indicate field lines connected to the Sun at both ends (closed) • On average, clouds are nearly half open Opening ICMEs by Interchange Reconnection Gosling, Birn, and Hesse [1995] • At CME liftoff – a. Partial disconnection (closed-closed) creates flux rope coil Crooker, Gosling, and Kahler [2002] – b. Interchange reconnection (closed-open) opens coil • As ICME moves out into heliosphere – Interchange reconnection at Sun may continue to open field lines