4.7 Article

DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION IN MAGNETIZED AND NON-MAGNETIZED STARS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 806, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/10

关键词

convection; magnetohydrodynamics (MHD); stars: rotation; Sun: interior

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI grant [24740125, 20260052]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23340128, 24740125, 15K17611] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of magnetic field on stellar differential rotation (DR) are studied by comparing magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models and their hydrodynamic (HD) counterparts in the broad range of rotation rates and across varying initial rotation profiles. Fully compressible MHD simulations of rotating penetrative convection are performed in a full-spherical shell geometry. Critical conditions for the transition of the DR between a faster equator (solar type) and a slower equator (anti-solar type) are explored by focusing on the Rossby number (Ro) and the convective Rossby number (Ro(conv)). It is confirmed that the transition is more gradual and the critical value for it is higher in the MHD model than in the HD model in view of the Roconv dependence. As observed in earlier studies, the rotation profile shows a bistability near the transition in the HD model, whereas it disappears when allowing the growth of magnetic fields except in the model taking the anti-solar-type solution as the initial condition. We find that the transition occurs at Ro similar or equal to 1 both in the MHD and HD models independently of the hysteresis. Not only the critical value but also the sharpness of the transition is similar between the two models in view of the Ro dependence. The influences of the dynamo-generated magnetic field and/or the hysteresis on convective motion are reflected by Ro. This is why the transition is unified in view of the Ro dependence. We also discuss the Ro dependence of magnetic dynamo activities with emphasis on their possible relation to the kinetic helicity profile.

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