Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:41:07.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Influence of Nonlinearities on the Eigenfrequencies of Five-Minute Oscillations of the Sun*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Gaetano Belvedere ,
Douglas Gough  and
Lucio Paternò
Gaetano Belvedere
Affiliation:
Istituto di Astronomia, Università di Catania, Italy
Douglas Gough
Affiliation:
Istituto di Astronomia, Università di Catania, Italy
Lucio Paternò
Affiliation:
Istituto di Astronomia, Università di Catania, Italy

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.

Fitting the results of linear normal-mode analysis of the solar five-minute oscillations to the observed κ – ω diagram selects a class of models of the Sun’s envelope. It is a property of all the models in this class that their convection zones are too deep to permit substantial transmission of internal g modes of degree 20 or more. This is in apparent conflict with Hill and Caudell’s (1979) claim to have detected such modes in the photosphere.

A proposal to resolve the conflict was made by Rosenwald and Hill (1980). They pointed out that despite the impressive agreement between linearized theory and observation, nonlinear phenomena in the solar atmosphere might influence the eigenfrequencies considerably. In particular, they suggested that a correct nonlinear analysis could predict a shallow convection zone. This paper is an enquiry into whether their hypothesis is plausible.

We construct κ – ω diagrams assuming that the modes suffer local nonlinear distortions in the atmosphere that are insensitive to the amplitude of oscillation over the range of amplitudes that are observed. The effect of the nonlinearities on the eigenfrequencies is parameterized in a simple way. Taking a class of simple analytical models of the Sun's envelope, we compute the linear eigenfrequencies of one model and show that no other model can be found whose nonlinear eigenfrequencies agree with them. We show also that the nonlinear eigenfrequencies of a particular solar model with a shallow eonvective zone, computed with more realistic physics, cannot be made to agree with observation. We conclude, therefore, that the hypothesis of Rosenwald and Hill is unlikely to be correct.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 66: Problems of Solar and Stellar Oscillations , 1983 , pp. 343 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1983

Footnotes

*

Proceedings of the 66th IAU Colloquium: Problems in Solar and Stellar Oscillations, held at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, U.S.S.R., 1–5 September, 1981.

References

Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A.: 1964, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, US Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Belvedere, G., Paterno, L., and Roxburgh, I.W.: 1980, Astron. Astrophys. 91, 356.Google Scholar
Berthomieu, G., Cooper, A.J., Gough, D.O., Osaki, Y., Provost, J., and Rocca, R.: 1980, in Hill, H.A. and Dziembowski, W.A. (eds.), Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. and Gough, D.O.: 1981a, Nature 288, 544.Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. and Gough, D.O.: 1981b, Astron. Astrophys. 104, 173.Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Gough, D.O., and Morgan, J.G.: 1979, Astron. Astrophys. 73, 121; 79, 260.Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Dziembowski, W.A., and Gough, D.O.: 1980, in Hill, H.A. and Dziembowski, W.A. (eds.), Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 313.Google Scholar
Cox, J.P.: 1980, Theory of Stellar Pulsation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Deubner, F.-L., Ulrich, R.K., and Rhodes, E.J Jr,: 1979, Astron. Astrophys. 72, 177.Google Scholar
Dziembowski, W.A. and Pamjatnykh, A.A.: 1978, in Rösch, J. (ed.), Plein Feux sur la Physique Solaire, CNRS, Paris, p. 135.Google Scholar
Grec, G., Fossat, E., and Pomerantz, M.: 1980, Nature 288, 541.Google Scholar
Hill, H.A.: 1978, in Eddy, J.A. (ed.), The New Solar Physics, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, p. 135.Google Scholar
Hill, H.A. and Caudell, T.P.: 1979, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 186, 327.Google Scholar
Hill, H.A., Rosenwald, R.D., and Caudell, T.P.: 1978, Astrophys. J. 225, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, H.: 1932, Hydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lubow, S.H., Rhodes, E.J. Jr, and Ulrich, R.K.: 1980, in Hill, H.A. and Dziembowski, W.A. (ed.), Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 300.Google Scholar
Rosenwald, R.D. and Hill, H.A.: 1980, in Hill, H. A. and Dziembowski, W.A. (eds. ), Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 404.Google Scholar
Stebbins, R.T., Hill, H.A., Zanoni, R., and Davis, R.E.: 1980, in Hill, H.A. and Dziembowski, W.A.(eds.), Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 381.Google Scholar
Unno, W., Osaki, Y., Ando, A., and Shibahashi, H.:. 1979, Nonradial Oscillations of Stars, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar