Pre-Flare Changes in Current Helicity and Turbulent Regime of the Photospheric Magnetic Field V.I. Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory,NJIT Crimean Astrophysical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evolution of Magnetic Setting in Flare Productive Active Regions Yixuan Li Space Weather Research Lab New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Advertisements

Back Reaction on the Photospheric Magnetic field in Solar Eruptions Dandan Ye.
Laura F. Morales Canadian Space Agency / Agence Spatiale Canadienne Paul Charbonneau Département de Physique, Université de Montréal Markus Aschwanden.
Estimating the magnetic energy in solar magnetic configurations Stéphane Régnier Reconnection seminar on Thursday 15 December 2005.
Nonlinearity of the force-free parameter over active regions. M.Hagino and T.Sakurai National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Solar Observatory.
H.N. Wang 1 , H. He 1, X. Huang 1, Z. L. Du 1 L. Y. Zhang 1 and Y. M. Cui 2 L. Y. Zhang 1 and Y. M. Cui 2 1 National Astronomical Observatories 2 National.
Study of Magnetic Helicity Injection in the Active Region NOAA Associated with the X-class Flare of 2011 February 15 Sung-Hong Park 1, K. Cho 1,
Possible anomalous magnetic moment and spin- flavor neutrino precession Lev I. Dorman a,b (a) Israel Cosmic Ray and Space Weather Center and Emilio Segre’
Evolution of Barb-Angle and Partial Filament Eruption J.T. Su [1,2], Y. Liu [2], H.Q. Zhang [1], H. Kurokawa [2] V. Yurchyshyn [3] (1)National Astronomical.
Paul Evenson, Waraporn Nuntiyakul,
Magnetic Helicity and Energetics in Solar Active Regions: Can we calculate them – why do we need them? Manolis K. Georgoulis JHU/APL Whistler, CA, 08/01/07.
Nanoflares and MHD turbulence in Coronal Loop: a Hybrid Shell Model Giuseppina Nigro, F.Malara, V.Carbone, P.Veltri Dipartimento di Fisica Università della.
A Diachronic Topological Analysis of the 13th May 2005 Solar Flare William M.R. Simpson, Angela Des Jardins U NIVERSITY OF S T. A NDREWS, M ONTANA S TATE.
The Halo CMEs’ Speeds and Energy of Their Related Active Regions Yang Liu¹, and CDAW Source Identification Team² ¹Stanford University ² Including: E. Cliver,
Magnetic fields in the photosphere and heliosphere: structure, statistical parameters, turbulent state Valentyna I. Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory.
New Mechanism of Generation of Large-Scale Magnetic Field in Turbulence with Large-Scale Velocity Shear I. ROGACHEVSKII, N. KLEEORIN, E. LIVERTS Ben-Gurion.
Valentina Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory of NJIT Multi-fractality of Solar Magnetic Fields: New Progress with HMI Abstract. The SDO/HMI instrument.
Intermittency in the Photosphere and Corona as Derived from Hinode Data Valentina Abramenko Vasyl Yurchyshyn Big Bear Solar Observatory of NJIT Haimin.
Rapid Changes in the Longitudinal Magnetic Field Associated with the July gamma -ray Flare Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Haimin Wang, Valentyna Abramenko,
Multi-fractality of Solar Magnetic Fields: New Progress with HMI Valentina I. Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory of NJIT Poster #40.
Distribution of the magnetic flux in elements of the magnetic field in an active region Valentyna Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory, NJIT.
Study of magnetic helicity in solar active regions: For a better understanding of solar flares Sung-Hong Park Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research New.
Kinetic and Magnetic Helicities of Solar Active Regions Ram Ajor Maurya, Ashok Ambastha And Vema Reddy Udaipur Solar Observatory Physical Research Laboratory,
Detection of Emerging Sunspot Regions in the Solar Interior Stathis Ilonidis, Junwei Zhao, and Alexander Kosovichev Stanford University LoHCo Workshop.
Magnetic Reconnection Rate and Energy Release Rate Jeongwoo Lee 2008 April 1 NJIT/CSTR Seminar Day.
Active Region Flux Transport Observational Techniques, Results, & Implications B. T. Welsch G. H. Fisher
V.I. Abramenko, V.B. Yurchyshyn, H. Wang, T.R. Spirock, P.R. Goode Big Bear Solar Observatory, NJIT Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, Ukraine
Calculation of Intermittency in the Photosphere and Corona from Hinode Data Valentina I. Abramenko And Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn Big Bear Solar Observatory of.
Sung-Hong Park Space Weather Research Laboratory New Jersey Institute of Technology Study of Magnetic Helicity and Its Relationship with Solar Activities:
Photospheric Sources of Very Fast (>1100km/s) Coronal Mass Ejections Recent studies show that only very fast CMEs (> 1100 km/s) are capable of producing.
Magnetic Field and Heating of the Corona Valentyna Abramenko and Vasyl Yurchyshyn Big Bear Solar Observatory.
Summary of UCB MURI workshop on vector magnetograms Have picked 2 observed events for targeted study and modeling: AR8210 (May 1, 1998), and AR8038 (May.
Magnetic Structures of Active Regions and their Link to Coronal Mass Ejections Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Big Bear Solar Observatory, Big Bear City, CA 92314,
Statistical properties of current helicity and twist distribution in the solar cycle by high resolution data from SOT/SP on board Hinode K. Otsuji 1),
Structure functions and cancellation exponent in MHD: DNS and Lagrangian averaged modeling Pablo D. Mininni 1,* Jonathan Pietarila Graham 1, Annick Pouquet.
ABSTRACT This work concerns with the analysis and modelling of possible magnetohydrodynamic response of plasma of the solar low atmosphere (upper chromosphere,
Comparison on Calculated Helicity Parameters at Different Observing Sites Haiqing Xu (NAOC) Collaborators: Hongqi, Zhang, NAOC Kirill Kuzanyan, IZMIRAN,
Observational Criteria for Small-Scale Turbulent Dynamo in the Solar Photosphere Valentina Abramenko, Philip Goode, Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Kwangsu Ahn Big Bear.
Quick changes of photospheric magnetic field during flare-associated surges Leping Li, Huadong Chen, Suli Ma, Yunchun Jiang National Astronomical Observatory/Yunnan.
Effect of Magnetic Helicity on Non-Helical Turbulent Dynamos N. KLEEORIN and I. ROGACHEVSKII Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, ISRAEL.
Helicity as a Constraint on the Solar Dynamo Alexei A. Pevtsov If you worry about publicity Do not speak of Current Helicity Jan Stenflo.
Signatures of Intermittent Turbulence in Hinode Quiet Sun Photosphere Valentina Abramenko, Big Bear Solar Observatory, USA, Plasma.
SHINE SEP Campaign Events: Long-term development of solar corona in build-up to the SEP events of 21 April 2002 and 24 August 2002 A. J. Coyner, D. Alexander,
Helicity Observations by Huairou Vector Magnetograph Mei Zhang National Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences Plan of the Talk: 1.Huairou.
Ground level enhancement of the solar cosmic rays on January 20, A.V. Belov (a), E.A. Eroshenko (a), H. Mavromichalaki (b), C. Plainaki(b), V.G.
Nonlinear force-free coronal magnetic field extrapolation scheme for solar active regions Han He, Huaning Wang, Yihua Yan National Astronomical Observatories,
Turbulence in the magnetosphere studied with CLUSTER data : evidence of intermittency Lamy H. 1, Echim M. 1,2, Darrouzet F. 1, Lemaire J. 3, Décréau P.
1. Twist propagation in Hα surges Patricia Jibben and Richard C. Canfield 2004, ApJ, 610, Observation of the Molecular Zeeman Effect in the G Band.
Flux Emergence Rate in Coronal Holes and in Adjacent Quiet-sun Regions Valentyna Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory Lennard Fisk Lennard Fisk University.
Solar seminor: 4 Oct (1)Eruption of a multiple-turn helical magnetic flux tube in a large flare : Evidence for external and i ternal reconnection.
Valentina Abramenko 1, Vasyl Yurchyshyn 1, Philip R. Goode 1, Vincenzo Carbone 2, Robert Stein Big Bear Solar Observatory of NJIT, USA; 2 – Univ.
Observation on Current Helicity and Subsurface Kinetic Helicity in Solar Active Regions Gao Yu Helicity Thinkshop Main Collaborators: Zhang, H.
Негауссовские распределения спиральности солнечных магнитных полей в цикле активности Kuzanyan Kirill Kuzanyan Kirill; Sokoloff Dmitry (IZMIRAN, RAS &
SHINE Formation and Eruption of Filament Flux Ropes A. A. van Ballegooijen 1 & D. H. Mackay 2 1 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge,
Evolutionary Characteristics of Magnetic Helicity Injection in Active Regions Hyewon Jeong and Jongchul Chae Seoul National University, Korea 2. Data and.
1 Yongliang Song & Mei Zhang (National Astronomical Observatory of China) The effect of non-radial magnetic field on measuring helicity transfer rate.
Helicity-driven sigmoid evolution and its role in CME initiation David Alexander, Rice University SOHO/MDI Magnetograms showing the evolution of a long-lived.
Moving Magnetic Features (MMFs) Jun Zhang National Astronomical Observatories Chinese Academy of Sciences Collaborators: Sami Solanki and Jingxiu Wang.
Small-scale Dynamo Action in the Quiet Sun : Observational Aspects
Recent observations of rotating sunspots in TRACE white light images and their apparent association with soft X-ray sigmoids have led to the intriguing.
Spectrum and small-scale structures in MHD turbulence Joanne Mason, CMSO/University of Chicago Stanislav Boldyrev, CMSO/University of Madison at Wisconsin.
二维电磁模型 基本方程与无量纲化 基本方程. 无量纲化 方程化为 二维时的方程 时间上利用蛙跳格式 网格划分.
Helicity Thinkshop 2009, Beijing Asymmetry of helicity injection in emerging active regions L. Tian, D. Alexander Rice University, USA Y. Liu Yunnan Astronomical.
CHARACTERISTICS OF TURBULENT PROCESS IN THE SOLAR PHOTOSPHERE
Series of high-frequency slowly drifting structure mapping the magnetic field reconnection M. Karlicky, A&A, 2004, 417,325.
Preflare State Rust et al. (1994) 太陽雑誌会.
Observations of emerging and submerging regions with ASP and Solar-B
Emerging Active Regions: turbulent state in the photosphere
Big Bear Solar Observatory of NJIT
Valentina Abramenko and Kwangsu Ahn
Presentation transcript:

Pre-Flare Changes in Current Helicity and Turbulent Regime of the Photospheric Magnetic Field V.I. Abramenko Big Bear Solar Observatory,NJIT Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, Ukraine

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Current helicity H c =B (  B) is of particular importance for the problem of DC magnetic energy build- up in the solar atmosphere (Seehafer, 1994): in order to generate a non- zero electromotive force, caused by magnetic field fluctuations (alpha- effect), current helicities of the mean and the fluctuating magnetic field should have opposite signs and the absolute value of current helicity of fluctuations should exceed that of the mean field. Therefore, the necessary condition for alpha-effect to operate is a non-zero imbalance of current helicity. Having vector magnetic field measurements one can estimate a z-related part of the current helicity (Abramenko et al., 1996): h c =B z (  B) z

The goal of the present paper In the current study we compare structures of an active region magnetic field observed hours before and 2 minutes after the maximum of a solar flare. For this purpose, we used routines to analyze current helicity and structure functions described in Abramenko et al., 1996; Yurchyshyn et al., 2000; Abramenko, Are parameters of current helicity different before and after a solar flare? What aspects of flaring process are reflected in their variations?

OBSERVATIONAL DATA OBSERVATIONAL DATA Our data set consists of four high-quality vector magnetograms of an NOAA active region 6757, which had been obtained on August 2, 1991 with the videomagnetograph at HSOS (China, see Wang et al., 1996) 00:36 UT 1st magnetogram 02:00 UT 2nd magnetogram 02:39 UT 3rd magnetogram 03:07 UT start of a 2B/X1.5 flare 03:15 UT peak of a 2B/X1.5 flare 03:17 UT 4th magnetogram 04:07 UT end of 2B/X1.5 flare

Fig. 1. B z magnetograms and current helicity maps for NOAA AR 6757 obtained on August 2, 1991.

IMBALANCE OF CURRENT HELICITY We calculated the imbalance,  h, of current helicity (Fig.2) as the percentage ratio of the net flux of h c to the net flux of moduli of h c (Abramenko et al., 1996). Before the flare, the imbalance  h was negative (of about –5 % ) with slowly decreasing absolute value. Predominance of current helicity of certain sign (negative) exists. After the flare maximum the imbalance became a small positive value (of about +1 % ); total positive (negative) helicity decreased by 20 % (27 %). No predominant helicity after the flare maximum. Thus, before the flare the necessary conditions for the alpha-effect were met, whereas after the flare maximum the generation of electromotive force due to fluctuations (alpha-effect) is exhausted.

Fig. 2. Helicity imbalance ( blue line ), the cancellation exponent (red line) and GOES X-ray flux (in arbitrary units, green line). The X- ray flux peaks at X1.5.

CANCELLATION EXPONENT CANCELLATION EXPONENT To analyze scaling behavior of current helicity we calculated a signed measure:  (r ) =  L (r)   i (r )   r –k  i (r ) =  L (r) h c /   L(R) h c, where L i (r )  L(R) is a hierarchy of disjoint squares of size r, covering the whole square L(R), which enclose the active region. Then, we investigated behavior of the alternate in sign, scale by scale, of the measure by defining a cancellation exponent k (Ott et al., 1992):

Parameter k is an indication of how rapidly cancellations between negative and positive contributions happen as the spatial scale becomes smaller. The stronger the oscillations of the helicity sing (and, therefore, the strength of tangential discontinuities in the magnetic field), the higher the value of k. Fig.3. Partition functions log  (r ) versus log (r/R). The slope of partition function is the cancellation exponent, k, of current helicity

After the flare maximum, at 03:17 UT, the slope of the partition function became smaller than it was before the flare. So, the cancellation exponent, k, had decreased from 0.75 to The decrease of k occurred during a 40 minute time interval during which the flare started and reached its maximum. This means that the strength of tangential discontinuities of the magnetic field was significantly reduced by a flare, which supports Parker’s idea about the principal cause of a solar flare as an avalanche of many small reconnection events (Parker, 1987).

STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS OF B z STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS OF B z Signature of an avalanche can also be recognized in other way, by analyzing the turbulent state of the magnetic field. For turbulence within the inertial range at large magnetic Reynolds numbers, the B z component of the magnetic field diffuses in exactly the same way as a scalar field (Parker, 1979). Therefore, certain elements of the analysis of turbulent systems can be applied for B z. In particular, according to a routine proposed recently by Abramenko (2002), we calculated structure functions: The scaling exponents  (q) are shown in Figure 4. S(q) =  B z (x + r ) - B z ( x)  q   r  (q).

Fig. 4. Scaling exponents,  (q), of structure functions of the order of q versus q, calculated for four magnetograms.

Figure 4 shows that  (q) is a concave outward function, whose curvature gradually increases as the active region evolves toward the flare. Such behavior of  (q) implies that the multifractality (intermittency) of the B z component of the magnetic field becomes more complicated. Immediately after the flare maximum the function  (q) nearly coincides with the classical Kolmogorov’s straight line, which indicates a monofractal (non-intermittent) structure of the B z component in the active region. The transition from multifractality to monofractality is a manifestation of an avalanche accompanied by the reduction of small scale tangential discontinuities in the magnetic field (Parker, 2002).

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Comparison of current helicity and turbulent state of the magnetic field in an AR before ( hours) the flare and 2 minutes after the flare maximum allowed us to conclude the following. Structure functions of the B z component of the magnetic field indicated the transition from intermittent turbulence (multifractality) before the flare to non-intermittent turbulence (monofractality) after the flare maximum. The value of the cancellation exponent, k, of current helicity decreased from 0.75 to 0.66 within a 38 minute time interval during which a flare started and reached its maximum. Negative imbalance of current helicity of about -5% observed before the flare became low positive imbalance of about 1 % immediately after the flare maximum. In the meantime, total positive (negative) helicity decreased by 20 % (27 %).

Observed changes in current helicity are a manifestation of intrinsic processes in the magnetic field, which drive an active region to a flare. The character of changes supports the following ideas. Second, the build up of DC magnetic energy in the solar atmosphere due to small scale fluctuations of the magnetic field (alpha-effect, Seehafer, 1994) can take place at least for several hours before a flare. First, flares are a result of an avalanche of small-scale magnetic reconnection events cascading in a highly stressed magnetic configuration, driven to a critical state by random photospheric motions (Parker, 1987, Charbonneau et al., 2002).

REFERENCES REFERENCES Abramenko, V.I., Astron. Reports, 46(2), , Abramenko, V.I., T.J. Wang, and V.B. Yurchyshyn, Solar Phys., 168, 75-89, Abramenko, V.I., V.B. Yurchyshyn, and V. Carbone, Solar Phys., 178, , Charbonneau, P., S.W. McIntosh, H.L. Liu, and T.J. Bogdan, Solar Phys., 203, , Ott, E., Y. Du, K.R. Sreenivasan, A. Juneja, and A.K. Suri, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, , Parker, E.N., Cosmical Magnetic Fields, Clarendon Press., Oxford, Parker, E.N., Solar Phys., 111, , Parker, E.N., private communication, Seehafer, N., Astron. And Astrophys., 284, , Wang, J., Z. Shi, H. Wang, and Y. Lu, Astrophys. J., 456, , Yurchyshyn, V.B., V.I. Abramenko, and V. Carbone, Astrophys. J., 538, , 2000.