Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T11:26:14.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solar Magnetic Fields and Convection: VII. A Review of the Primordial Field Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2015

J. H. Piddington
J. H. Piddington*
Affiliation:
National Measurement Laboratory, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia 2008

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.

We review the primordial field theory of solar magnetic fields (Papers I–VI) whose three main features are, first, a permanent dipole-like magnetic field, second a mainly toroidal field formed by shearing and rolling into individual, helically twisted ropes as suggested by Babcock, and third a mechanism for reversing the toroidal field. The theory explains numerous observational effects where the dynamo theory fails.

(i) An active region forms when a rope section emerges and expands layer by layer to form a rotating arch filament system and then spots. Only a rope model explains the radial inflow of magnetic elements to build up a spot, as well as the spiral structure and other features pointed out by Babcock. (ii) The model explains umbral and penumbral structures, the Wilson depression, Evershed flow, the sunspot energy deficit and the very slow loss of flux fragments by some sunspots. (iii) The model is then extended to background magnetic fields to show that surface magnetic fields are like the upppermost branches of a magnetic ‘tree’ whose trunk is a flux rope. This explains unipolar magnetic regions, ‘pepper and salt’, and ephemeral active regions. Tension in the submerged flux ropes accounts for the observed migrations of magnetic regions, active longitudes and magnetic longitudes. (iv) On a smaller scale spicules, mottles and other network elements are explained in terms of the tree structure. (v) The mechanism of reversal of the toroidal field system is explained and the manner of disposal of old toroidal fields. (vi) The basic error in the dynamo theory is discussed briefly. We point out that radical changes in dynamo theory have been suggested by Parker, but appear to have been ignored by others.

Type
Part 3: Dynamo Theory and Magnetic Dissipation
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 71: Basic Mechanisms of Solar Activity , 1976 , pp. 389 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1976 

References

Babcock, H. D.: 1959, Astrophys. J. 130, 364.Google Scholar
Babcock, H. D.: 1961, Astrophys. J. 133, 572.Google Scholar
Bray, R. J. and Loughhead, R. E.: 1974, The Solar Chromosphere , Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumba, V.: 1963, Bull. Astron. Inst. Czech. 14, 91.Google Scholar
Bumba, V. and Howard, R.: 1965, Astrophys. J. 141, 1502.Google Scholar
Bumba, V., Howard, R., Martres, M. J., and Soru-Iscovici, I.: 1968, in Howard, R., (ed.), ‘Structure and Development of Solar Active Regions’, IAU Symp. 35, 13.Google Scholar
Cowling, T. G.: 1853, in Kuiper, G. P., (ed.), The Sun , University Chicago Press, p. 532.Google Scholar
Danielson, R. E.: 1961, Astrophys. J. 134, 312.Google Scholar
Elsasser, W. M.: 1956, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 135.Google Scholar
Frazier, E. N.: 1970, Solar Phys. 14, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, E. N.: 1972, Solar Phys. 26, 130.Google Scholar
Giovanelli, R. G.: 1974, Solar Phys. 38, 117.Google Scholar
Harvey, J. and Hall, D.: 1974, Bull. American Astron. Soc. 6, 81.Google Scholar
Harvey, J. and Harvey, K.: 1973, Solar Phys. 23, 61.Google Scholar
Harvey, K. L., Harvey, J. W., and Martin, S. F.: 1975, Solar Phys. 40, 87.Google Scholar
Krause, F. and Rädler, K.-H.: 1971, in Howard, R., (ed.), ‘Solar Magnetic Fields’, IAU Symp. 43, 770.Google Scholar
Leighton, R. B.: 1964, Astrophys. J. 140, 1547.Google Scholar
Leighton, R. B.: 1969, Astrophys. J. 156, 1.Google Scholar
Livingston, W. and Harvey, J.: 1971, in Howard, R., (ed.), ‘Solar Magnetic Fields’, IAU Symp. 43, 51.Google Scholar
Livingston, W. and Harvey, J.: 1975, American Astron. Soc, Solar Phys. Div., Meeting Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Livingston, W. C. and Orrall, F. Q.: 1974, Solar Phys. 39, 301.Google Scholar
Meyer, F., Schmidt, H. U., Weiss, N. O., and Wilson, P. R.: 1974, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 169, 35.Google Scholar
Michard, R.: 1974, in Athay, R. G., (ed.), ‘Chromospheric Fine Structure’, IAU Symp. 56, 3.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Y. and Priest, E. R.: 1973, Astrophys. J. 179, 949.Google Scholar
Newkirk, G.: in Howard, R., (ed.), ‘Solar Magnetic Fields’, IAU Symp. 43, 547.Google Scholar
Newton, H. W.: 1955, Vistas Astron. 1, 666.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1955, Astrophys. J. 122, 293.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1970a, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 8, 1.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1970b, Astrophys. J. 162, 665.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1971, Astrophys. J. 163, 279 and 164, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1973a, Astrophys. Space Sci. 22, 279.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N.: 1973b, Astrophys. J. 180, 247.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1971a, Proc. Astron. Soc. Australia 2, 7.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1971b, Solar Phys. 21, 4.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1972a, Solar Phys. 22, 3.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1972b, Solar Phys. 27, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1973, Astrophys. Space Sci. 24, 259.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1974a, in Athay, R. G., (ed.), ‘Chromospheric Fine Structure’, IAU Symp. 56, 269.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1975a, Astrophys. Space Sci. 34, 347, Paper I.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1975b, Astrophys. Space Sci. Paper II 35, 269.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1975c, Astrophys. Space Sci. Paper III 38, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1975d, Astrophys. Space Sci. Paper IV.Google Scholar
Piddington, J. H.: 1975e, Astrophys. Space Sci. Paper V.Google Scholar
Rädler, K. H.: 1968, Z. Naturforsch 23a, 1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. S. and Schwarzschild, M.: 1953, Academia Lincei, Convegno 11, Rome 1952, p. 228.Google Scholar
Sheeley, N. R.: 1972, Solar Phys. 25, 98.Google Scholar
Simon, G. W. and Leighton, R. B.: 1964, Astrophys. J. 140, 1120.Google Scholar
Stenflo, J. O.: 1972, Solar Phys. 23, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenflo, J. O.: 1973, Solar Phys. 32, 41.Google Scholar
Stix, M.: 1974, Astron. Astrophys. 37, 121.Google Scholar
Svalgaard, L., Wilcox, J. M., and Duvall, T. L.: 1974, Solar Phys. 37, 157.Google Scholar
Vainshtein, S. I. and Zel'dovich, Ya. B.: 1972, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 106, 431; Soviet Phys. Usp. 15, 159.Google Scholar
Vrabec, D.: 1974, in Athay, R. G., (ed.), ‘Chromospheric Fine Structure’, IAU Symp. 56, 201.Google Scholar
Waldmeier, M.: 1955, Z. Astrophys. 36, 275.Google Scholar
Weiss, N. O.: 1971, in Howard, R., (ed.), ‘Solar Magnetic Fields’, IAU Symp. 43, 757.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J. M.: 1971, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific 83, 516.Google Scholar