Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T19:58:29.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Semi-empirical modelling of stellar magnetic activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Adriana Valio*
Affiliation:
CRAAM, Mackenzie University, Sao Paulo, Brazil email: [email protected]
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.

Since Galileo, for four hundred years, dark spots have been observed systematically on the surface of the Sun. The monitoring of the sunspot number has shown that their number varies periodically every 11 years. This is the well-known solar activity cycle that is caused by the periodic changes of the magnetic field of the Sun. Not only do spots vary in number on a timescale of a decade, but the total luminosity and other signatures of activity such as flares and coronal mass ejections also increase and decrease with the 11-year cycle. Still unexplained to the present date are periods of decades with almost an absence of activity, where the best known example is the Maunder Minimum. Other stars also exhibit signs of cyclic activity, however the level of activity is usually thousand times higher than the solar one. Obviously, this is due to the difficulty of observing activity at the solar level on most stars. Presently, a method has been developed to detect and study individual solar like spots on the surface of planet-harbouring stars. As the planet eclipses dark patches on the surface of the star, a detectable signature can be observed in the light curve of the star during the transit. The study of a different variety of stars allows for a better understanding of magnetic cycles and the evolution of stars.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Aigrain, S., Collier Cameron, A., Ollivier, M. et al. , 2008, A&A, 488, 43Google Scholar
Alonso, R., Auvergne, M., Baglin, A. et al. , 2008, A&A, 482, 21Google Scholar
Borde, P., Bouchy, F., & Deleuil, M. 2010, A&A, 520, 66Google Scholar
Fridlund, M., Hbrard, G., & Alonso, R. 2010, A&A, 512, 14Google Scholar
Kron, G. E. 1947, PASP, 59, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanza, A. F., Rodono, M., Pagano, I., Barge, P., & Llebaria, A. 2003, A&A, 403, 1135Google Scholar
Lanza, A. F., Rodono, M., & Pagano, I. 2004, A&A, 425, 707Google Scholar
Lanza, A. F., Bonomo, A. S., & Rodono, M. 2007, A&A, 464, 741Google Scholar
Rauer, H., Queloz, D., Csizmadia, Sz. et al. , 2009, A&A, 506, 281Google Scholar
Rodono, M., Cutispoto, G., Pazzani, V. et al. , 1986, A&A, 165, 135Google Scholar
Silva, A. V. R. 2003, ApJL, 585, L147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Valio, A. 2008, ApJL, 683, L179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Valio, A., Lanza, A. F., Alonso, R., & Barge, P. 2010, A&A, 510, 25Google Scholar
Silva-Valio, A. & Lanza, A. F. 2011, A&A, 529, 36Google Scholar
Strassmeier, K. G. 2009, A&ARv, 17, 251Google Scholar
Valio, A. & Lanza, A. F. 2012, ApJ, submittedGoogle Scholar