Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:47:30.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Super-equipartition fields in simulations of photospheric magnetoconvection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2006

Paul J. Bushby*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK email: P.J.Bushby@damtp.cam.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Observations of magnetic fields in the quiet Sun indicate that kilogauss-strength fields can be found in the intergranular lanes. Since the magnetic energy of these localised features greatly exceeds estimates of the kinetic energy of the surrounding granular convection, it is difficult to see how these features could be formed simply by convective flux concentration. Idealised, high-resolution simulations of three-dimensional compressible magnetoconvection are used to investigate the formation of these features numerically. Initially we take a fully developed non-magnetic convective state into which we insert a weak, uniform, vertical magnetic field. Magnetic flux is rapidly swept into the convective downflows, where it is concentrated into localised regions. As the field strength within these regions becomes dynamically significant, the high magnetic pressure leads to partial evacuation (via the convective downflows). Provided that the magnetic Reynolds number is large enough, the strength of the resulting magnetic fields significantly exceeds the (so called) “equipartition” value, with the dynamical effects of the surrounding convection playing an important role in confining these magnetic features to localised regions. These results can be related to the well-known convective collapse instability, although there are some important differences between the two models.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2007

References

Bushby, P.J. & Houghton, S.M. 2005, MNRAS 362, 313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann-Doerth, U., Schüssler, M., & Steiner, O. 1998, A&A 337, 928Google Scholar
Lin, H. & Rimmele, T. 1999, ApJ 514, 448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, H.C. & Zweibel, E.G. 1979, Solar Phys. 62, 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, R.F. & Nordlund, Å. 2006, ApJ 642, 1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, N.O., Proctor, M.R.E., & Brownjohn, D.P. 2002, MNRAS 337, 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vögler, A., Shelyag, S., Schüssler, M., Cattaneo, F., Emonet, T., & Linde, T. 2005, A&A 429, 335Google Scholar