4.7 Article

Coronal Mass Ejection Deformation at 0.1 au Observed by WISPR

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 938, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bf

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA STEREO/SECCHI program [NNG17PP27I]
  2. NASA [80NSSC22K0970]
  3. WISPR Phase-E funding
  4. NASA's Living with a Star (LWS) program [NNN06AA01C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have found that a coronal mass ejection (CME) resembling a flux rope can become deformed during its expansion. The deformation is likely caused by differences in the background solar wind speeds. This finding may have implications for the accuracy of arrival time predictions.
Although coronal mass ejections (CMEs) resembling flux ropes generally expand self-similarly, deformations along their fronts have been reported in observations and simulations. We present evidence of one CME becoming deformed after a period of self-similar expansion in the corona. The event was observed by multiple white-light imagers on 2021 January 20-22. The change in shape is evident in observations from the heliospheric imagers from the Wide-Field Imager for Solar Probe Plus (WISPR), which observed this CME for similar to 44 hr. We reconstruct the CME using forward-fitting models. In the first hours, observations are consistent with a self-similar expansion, but later on the front flattens, forming a dimple. Our interpretation is that the CME becomes deformed at similar to 0.1 au owing to differences in the background solar wind speeds. The CME expands more at higher latitudes, where the background solar wind is faster. We consider other possible causes for deformations, such as loss of coherence and slow-mode shocks. The CME deformation seems to cause a time-of-arrival error of 16 hr at similar to 0.5 au. The deformation is clear only in the WISPR observations; thus, it would have been missed by 1 au coronagraphs. Such deformations may help explain the time-of-arrival errors in events where only coronagraph observations are available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据