astrophysical magnetism axel brandenburg (nordita, stockholm)
TRANSCRIPT
Astrophysical MagnetismAstrophysical Magnetism
Axel BrandenburgAxel Brandenburg
((Nordita, StockholmNordita, Stockholm))
2
Similar physics on different scalesSimilar physics on different scales
Galaxies: radius 10 kpc (=3x10Galaxies: radius 10 kpc (=3x102020 m), 2-20 m), 2-20 GGGalaxy cluster: radius 1 Mpc (=3x10Galaxy cluster: radius 1 Mpc (=3x102222 m), 0.1-1 m), 0.1-1 GG
Sun: radius 700 Mm (=7x10Sun: radius 700 Mm (=7x1088 m), 20-2000 G m), 20-2000 GEarth: radius 60 Mm (=6x10Earth: radius 60 Mm (=6x1088 m), 0.5 G m), 0.5 G
3
Importance of solar interiorImportance of solar interior
4
Large scale coherenceLarge scale coherence
Active regions, bi-polaritysystematic east-west orientationopposite in the south
5
Solar cycleSolar cycle• Longitudinally averaged radial field
• Spatio-temporal coherence– 22 yr cycle, equatorward migration
Poleward branch orpoleward drift?
butterfly diagram
6
7
Karlsruhe dynamo experiment (1999) Karlsruhe dynamo experiment (1999)
8
Cadarache experiment (2007)Cadarache experiment (2007)
9
Dynamos: kinetic Dynamos: kinetic magnetic energy magnetic energy
thermalenergy
kineticenergy
magneticenergy
Nuclearfusion
surfaceradiation
viscousheat
Ohmicheat
10
Faraday dynamoFaraday dynamo
But we want to make it self-exciting, without wires,But we want to make it self-exciting, without wires,and without producing a short circuit!and without producing a short circuit!
11
MHD equations (i)MHD equations (i)
BuEJ
002/ ,
1
0 ,
EJBE
BEB
tc
t
/ JBuB
t
12
MHD equations (ii)MHD equations (ii)
uQBJu
AJBuA
21
2
D
D ,
D
D
,
sct
hh
t
ctt
sThp 1
ut
chD
lnD ,ln2
s
Momentum and continuity eqns (usual form)
13
Vector potentialVector potential
• B=curlA, advantage: divB=0• J=curlB=curl(curlA) =curl2A• Not a disadvantage: consider Alfven waves
z
uB
t
b
z
bB
t
u
00 and ,
uBt
a
z
aB
t
u02
2
0 and ,
B-formulation
A-formulation 2nd der onceis better than1st der twice!
14
Comparison of A and B methodsComparison of A and B methods
2
2
02
2
2
2
0 and ,z
auB
t
a
z
u
z
aB
t
u
2
2
02
2
0 and ,z
b
z
uB
t
b
z
u
z
bB
t
u
15
Kolmogorov spectrumKolmogorov spectrumnonlinearitynonlinearity 2
1212 2coscos kxkx
kk 2
constant flux constant flux cmcm22/s/s33
kk
EE((kk)) 2
21 udkkE cmcm33/s/s22
baK kCkE
123 :cm a
a32 :s aa=2/3, =2/3, bb= = 5/35/3
16
Hyperviscous, Smagorinsky, normalHyperviscous, Smagorinsky, normal
Inertial range unaffected by artificial diffusionHau
gen
& B
rand
enbu
rg (
PR
E, a
stro
-ph/
0402
301)
height of bottleneck increased
onset of bottleneck at same position
17
Small-scale vs large-scale dynamosSmall-scale vs large-scale dynamos
B-scale larger than U-scale
B-scale smaller than U-scale
Wavenumber=1/scale
energy
injectionscale
18
Small scale and large scale dynamosSmall scale and large scale dynamosnon-helically forced turbulence helically forced turbulence
Scale separation :==There is room on scalesLarger than the eddy scale
19
Dynamo in kinematic stage –Dynamo in kinematic stage –no large-scale field?no large-scale field?
Fully helical turbulence, periodic box, resistive time scale!
20
-effect dynamos (large scale)-effect dynamos (large scale)
Differential rotation(prehelioseism: faster inside)
Cyclonic convection;Buoyant flux tubes
Equatorwardmigration
New loop
-effect?need meridional circulation
21
Revised theory for Revised theory for -effect-effect
1st aspect: replace triple correlation by quadradatic
2nd aspect: do not neglect triple correlation
3rd aspect: calculate
rather than
ub
buu
uubbuuu Similar in spirit to tau approx in EDQNM
bubuBubUb
neglected!not t
bubuε t/
'd)'( ttbuε
(Heisenberg 1948, Vainshtein & Kitchatinov 1983, Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 1990, Blackman & Field 2002, Rädler, Kleeorin, & Rogachevskii 2003)
22
Implications of tau approximationImplications of tau approximation
1. MTA does not a priori break down at large Rm.
(Strong fluctuations of b are possible!)
2. Extra time derivative of emf
hyperbolic eqn, oscillatory behavior possible!
4. is not correlation time, but relaxation time
εε
JB
~
~t
new
t
εε JB
231
31
31
~ ,
~
~ ,~
u
bjuω
with
23
Kinetic and magnetic contributionsKinetic and magnetic contributions
lKillkljijkii BuBu ~
, uBubu
lkjijkKil uu ,
~ uω ikjijkKii uu ,
~
Kij
Kij ~~
31
lMilklilijkii BbbB ~
, bbBbu
likijkMil bb ,
~ bj ijkijkMii bb ,
~
Mij
Mij ~~
31
uω
bj
24
22-effect calculation-effect calculation
BB
2
2
2
ii
ii
ii
kkk
kkk
kkk
Txy
xTz
yzT
BBkB
2i ki T
BBB 2 Tt te ii xkBB
kkT 2
Im
25
Connection with Connection with effect: effect: writhe with writhe with internalinternal twist as by-product twist as by-product
clockwise tilt(right handed)
left handedinternal twist
031 / bjuω both for thermal/magnetic
buoyancy
JBB
T dt
d2
T
BBJ
effect produces
helical field
26
Paradigm shiftsParadigm shiftsi) 1980: magnetic buoyancy (Spiegel & Weiss)
overshoot layer dynamos
ii) 1985: helioseismology: d/dr > 0 dynamo dilema, flux transport dynamos
iii) 1992: catastrophic -quenching Rm-1 (Vainshtein & Cattaneo) Parker’s interface dynamo Backcock-Leighton mechanism
April 20, 2023
(i) Is magnetic buoyancy a problem?(i) Is magnetic buoyancy a problem?
Stratified dynamo simulation in 1990Expected strong buoyancy losses,but no: downward pumping Tobias et al. (2001)
April 20, 2023
(ii) Before helioseismology(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 d/dr<0: equatorward migr
Yoshimura (1975) Thompson et al. (1975)Brandenburg et al. (1992)
29
Near-surface shear layer:Near-surface shear layer:spots rooted at spots rooted at r/Rr/R=0.95?=0.95?
Benevolenskaya, Hoeksema, Kosovichev, Scherrer (1999) Pulkkinen & Tuominen (1998)
nHz 473/360024360
/7.14
ds
do
o
=AZ=(180/) (1.5x107) (210-8)
=360 x 0.15 = 54 degrees!
30
(iii) Problems with mean-field theory?(iii) Problems with mean-field theory?
• Catastrophic quenching?– ~ Rm
-1, t ~ 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?
31
Revisit paradigm shiftsRevisit paradigm shiftsi) 1980: magnetic buoyancy
counteracted by pumping
ii) 1985: helioseismology: d/dr > 0 negative gradient in near-surface shear layer
iii) 1992: catastrophic -quenching overcome by helicity fluxes in the Sun: by coronal mass ejections
32
Upcoming dynamo effort in Upcoming dynamo effort in StockholmStockholm
Soon hiring:Soon hiring:• 4 students4 students• 4 post-docs4 post-docs• 1 assistant professor1 assistant professor• Long-term visitorsLong-term visitors
April 20, 2023
Pencil CodePencil Code
• Started in Sept. 2001 with Wolfgang Dobler
• High order (6th order in space, 3rd order in time)
• Cache & memory efficient
• MPI, can run PacxMPI (across countries!)
• Maintained/developed by ~20 people (SVN)
• Automatic validation (over night or any time)
• Max resolution so far 10243 , 256 procs
• Isotropic turbulence– MHD, passive scl, CR
• Stratified layers– Convection, radiation
• Shearing box– MRI, dust, interstellar– Self-gravity
• Sphere embedded in box– Fully convective stars– geodynamo
• Other applications– Homochirality– Spherical coordinates
34
Increase in # of auto testsIncrease in # of auto tests
35
Evolution of code sizeEvolution of code size
36
Simulations showing large-scale fieldsSimulations showing large-scale fieldsHelical turbulence (By) Helical shear flow turb.
Convection with shear Magneto-rotational Inst.
1t
21t
kc
k
Käp
yla
et a
l (20
08)
37
Convection with shear and Convection with shear and
Käpylä et al (2008)
with rotation without rotation
38
How do they work?How do they work?
Interlocked poloidal and toroidal fields
39
Magnetic helicityMagnetic helicity V
VH d BA
1
2
212 H
11
d d1
SL
H SBA
2 d2
S
SA
1S
1
AB
40
How do they work?How do they work?
effect
Produce interlockedfield at large scale(of positive helicity, say)
… by generating interlockedsmall-scale field of
opposite helicity
41
Effect of helicityEffect of helicityB
rand
enbu
rg (
2005
, ApJ
)
1046 Mx2/cycle
April 20, 2023 42
ConclusionConclusion• 11 yr cycle• Dyamo (SS vs LS)• Problems
– -quenching– slow saturation
• Solution– Modern -effect theory– j.b contribution– Magnetic helicity fluxes
• Location of dynamo– Distrubtion, shaped by– near-surface shear
1046 Mx2/cycle