1 / 22

Turbulence simulations showing mean-field dynamos

Turbulence simulations showing mean-field dynamos. Solar paradigm shifts Helicity fluxes Low magnetic Prandtl numbers Mean field coefficients from simulations Axel Brandenburg ( Nordita, Stockholm ). The 4 solar dynamo scenarios. Distributed dynamo (Roberts & Stix 1972)

annamariea
Télécharger la présentation

Turbulence simulations showing mean-field dynamos

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Turbulence simulations showing mean-field dynamos Solar paradigm shifts Helicity fluxes Low magnetic Prandtl numbers Mean field coefficients from simulations Axel Brandenburg (Nordita, Stockholm)

  2. The 4 solar dynamo scenarios • Distributed dynamo (Roberts & Stix 1972) • Positive alpha, negative shear • Overshoot dynamo (e.g. DeLuca & Gilman 1986) • Negative alpha, positive shear • Interface dynamo (Parker 1993) • Negative alpha in CZ, positive radial shear beneath • Low magnetic diffusivity beneath CZ • Flux transport dynamo (Dikpati & Charbonneau 1999) • Positive alpha, positive shear • Migration from meridional circulation

  3. Paradigm shifts • 1980: magnetic buoyancy (Spiegel & Weiss) overshoot layer dynamos • 1985: helioseismology: dW/dr > 0  dynamo dilema, flux transport dynamos • 1992: catastrophic a-quenching a~Rm-1(Vainshtein & Cattaneo) Parker’s interface dynamo  Backcock-Leighton mechanism

  4. (i) Is magnetic buoyancy a problem? Stratified dynamo simulation in 1990 Expected strong buoyancy losses, but no: downward pumping Tobias et al. (2001)

  5. (ii) Before helioseismology • Angular velocity (at 4o latitude): • very young spots: 473 nHz • oldest spots: 462 nHz • Surface plasma: 452 nHz • Conclusion back then: • Sun spins faster in deaper convection zone • Solar dynamo works with dW/dr<0: equatorward migr Brandenburg et al. (1992) Thompson et al. (1975) Yoshimura (1975)

  6. Near-surface shear layer:spots rooted at r/R=0.95? Benevolenskaya, Hoeksema, Kosovichev, Scherrer (1999) Pulkkinen & Tuominen (1998) • Df=tAZDW=(180/p) (1.5x107) (2p 10-8) • =360 x 0.15 = 54 degrees!

  7. (iii) Problems with mean-field theory? • Catastrophic quenching?? • a ~ Rm-1, ht ~ Rm-1 • Field strength vanishingly small!?! • Something wrong with simulations • so let’s ignore the problem • Possible reasons: • Suppression of lagrangian chaos? • Suffocation from small scale magnetic helicity?

  8. Simulations showing large-scale fields Helical turbulence (By) Helical shear flow turb. Convection with shear Magneto-rotational Inst. Käpyla et al (2008)

  9. Upcoming dynamo effort in Stockholm Soon hiring: • 4 students • 3 post-docs • 1 assistant professor • Long-term visitors

  10. Connection with a effect: writhe with internal twist as by-product a effect produces helical field W clockwise tilt (right handed)  left handed internal twist both for thermal/magnetic buoyancy

  11. Nonlinear stage: consistent with … Brandenburg (2005, ApJ)

  12. Forced large scale dynamo with fluxes geometry here relevant to the sun 1046 Mx2/cycle Negative current helicity: net production in northern hemisphere

  13. Best if W contours ^ to surface Example: convection with shear  need small-scale helical exhaust out of the domain, not back in on the other side Tobias et al. (2008, ApJ) Kapyla et al. (2008, A&A)

  14. Low PrM dynamos Sun PrM=n/h=10-5 Schekochihin et al (2005) Here: non-helically forced turbulence k Helical turbulence

  15. Calculate full aij and hij tensors Response to arbitrary mean fields Calculate Example:

  16. Kinematic a and ht independent of Rm (2…200) Sur et al. (2008, MNRAS)

  17. From linear to nonlinear Use vector potential Mean and fluctuating U enter separately

  18. Nonlinear aij and hij tensors Consistency check: consider steady state to avoid da/dt terms Expect: l=0 (within error bars)  consistency check!

  19. Rm dependence for B~Beq • l is small  consistency • a1 and a2 tend to cancel • making a small • h2 small

  20. Earlier results on ht quenching Yousef et al. (2003, A&A)

  21. Revisit paradigm shifts • 1980: magnetic buoyancy  counteracted by pumping • 1985: helioseismology: dW/dr > 0  negative gradient in near-surface shear layer • 1992: catastrophic a-quenching  overcome by helicity fluxes  in the Sun: by coronal mass ejections

  22. Conclusion • 11 yr cycle • Dyamo (SS vs LS) • Problems • a-quenching • slow saturation • Solution • Modern a-effect theory • j.b contribution • Magnetic helicity fluxes • Location of dynamo • Distrubtion, shaped by • near-surface shear 1046 Mx2/cycle

More Related