4.6 Article

Validation of the magnetic energy vs. helicity scaling in solar magnetic structures

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 570, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424864

关键词

Sun: chromosphere; Sun: magnetic fields; Sun: photosphere

资金

  1. STFC
  2. SRIF
  3. Royal Society
  4. EU [PIRG07-GA-2010-268245]
  5. European Union (European Social Fund - ESF)
  6. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We assess the validity of the free magnetic energy - relative magnetic helicity diagram for solar magnetic structures. Methods. We used two different methods of calculating the free magnetic energy and the relative magnetic helicity budgets: a classical, volume-calculation nonlinear force-free (NLFF) method applied to finite coronal magnetic structures and a surface-calculation NLFF derivation that relies on a single photospheric or chromospheric vector magnetogram. Both methods were applied to two different data sets, namely synthetic active-region cases obtained by three-dimensional magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations and observed active-region cases, which include both eruptive and noneruptive magnetic structures. Results. The derived energy-helicity diagram shows a consistent monotonic scaling between relative helicity and free energy with a scaling index 0.84 +/- 0.05 for both data sets and calculation methods. It also confirms the segregation between noneruptive and eruptive active regions and the existence of thresholds in both free energy and relative helicity for active regions to enter eruptive territory. Conclusions. We consider the previously reported energy-helicity diagram of solar magnetic structures as adequately validated and envision a significant role of the uncovered scaling in future studies of solar magnetism.

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

4.6
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