4.7 Article

Height-dependent Velocity Structure of Photospheric Convection in Granules and Intergranular Lanes with Hinode/SOT

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 836, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/40

关键词

convection; Sun: atmosphere; Sun: granulation; Sun: photosphere

资金

  1. STFC [PP/D002907/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16J07106] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The solar photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun, where many bright granules, surrounded by narrow dark intergranular lanes, are observed everywhere. The granular pattern is a manifestation of convective motion at the photospheric level, but its velocity structure in the height direction is poorly understood observationally. Applying bisector analysis to a photospheric spectral line recorded by the Hinode Solar Optical Telescope, we derived the velocity structure of the convective motion in granular regions and intergranular lanes separately. The amplitude of motion of the convective material decreases from 0.65 to 0.40 km s(-1) as the material rises in granules, whereas the amplitude of motion increases from 0.30 to 0.50 km s(-1) as it descends in intergranular lanes. These values are significantly larger than those obtained in previous studies using bisector analysis. The acceleration of descending materials with depth is not predicted from the convectively stable condition in a stratified atmosphere. Such convective instability can be developed more efficiently by radiative cooling and/or a gas pressure gradient, which can control the dynamical behavior of convective material in intergranular lanes. Our analysis demonstrated that bisector analysis is a useful method for investigating the long-term dynamic behavior of convective material when a large number of pixels is available. In addition, one example is the temporal evolution of granular fragmentation, in which downflowing material develops gradually from a higher layer downward.

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