4.7 Article

Interplanetary Protons versus Interacting Protons in the 2017 September 10 Solar Eruptive Event

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 890, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab684e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Finland at University of Oulu [304435/CRIPA-X, 267186]
  2. University of Turku [312357]
  3. STFC [ST/R000425/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [267186, 267186] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze the relativistic proton emission from the Sun during the eruptive event on 2017 September 10, which caused a ground-level enhancement (GLE 72) registered by the worldwide network of neutron monitors. Using the neutron monitor data and interplanetary transport modeling both along and across interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) lines, we deduce parameters of the proton injection into the interplanetary medium. The inferred injection profile of the interplanetary protons is compared with the profile of the >100 MeV gamma-ray emission observed by the Fermi Large Area Telescope, attributed to pion production from the interaction of >300 MeV protons at the Sun. GLE 72 started with a prompt component that arrived along the IMF lines. This was followed by a more prolonged enhancement caused by protons arriving at the Earth across the IMF lines from the southwest. The interplanetary proton event is modeled using two sources-one source at the root of the Earth-connected IMF line and another source situated near the solar western limb. The maximum phase of the second injection of interplanetary protons coincides with the maximum phase of the prolonged >100 MeV gamma-ray emission that originated from a small area at the solar western limb, below the current sheet trailing the associated coronal mass ejection (CME). A possible common source of interacting protons and interplanetary protons is discussed in terms of proton acceleration at the CME bow shock versus coronal (re-)acceleration in the wake of the CME.

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