Advertisement

Solar Physics

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 51–64 | Cite as

Asymmetric flux loops in active regions, II

  • K. Petrovay
  • J. C. Brown
  • L. van Driel-Gesztelyi
  • L. Fletcher
  • M. Marik
  • G. Stewart
Article

Abstract

We propose that magnetic flux loops in the subphotospheric layers of the Sun are seriously asymmetrical as a consequence of the drag force exerted on them because of the different rotational rate of the surrounding plasma. In numerical models of stationary slender flux loops in the plane parallel approximation we show that a serious tilt is both possible and probable. Observational facts (see van Driel-Gesztelyi and Petrovay, 1989; Paper I) strongly support the case for high asymmetry. The different stability of p and f spots may also be related to such an asymmetry.

The tilts are very sensitive to the rotational profile and to the magnetic field structure. Nevertheless the characteristic maximal tilts can be tentatively estimated to be 20° for thin flux tubes and 5° for thick tubes.

For two of the five observational consequences of such a tilt (described in detail in Paper I) order-of-magnitude estimates of the effects are given. The estimates are in reasonable accord with observations.

We also explore the possibilities of an inverse treatment of the problem whereby subphotospheric rotation and/or flux tube shapes can be inferred from observations of velocities of photospheric spot motions. In particular we demonstrate how analytic inverse solutions can be obtained in special cases.

Keywords

Drag Force Flux Tube Parallel Approximation Inverse Solution Observational Fact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Fisher, G. H., Chou, D.-Y., and McClymont, A.: 1988, ‘Emergence of Anchored Flux Tubes through the Convection Zone’, Univ. Hawaii preprint, to be published in an American Geophysical Union Monograph.Google Scholar
  2. Fletcher, L., Brown, J. C., and van Driel-Gesztelyi, L.: 1990, in preparation (Paper III).Google Scholar
  3. Foukal, P.: 1977, Astrophys. J. 218, 539.Google Scholar
  4. Howard, R.: 1974, Solar Phys. 39, 275.Google Scholar
  5. Meyer, F., Schmidt, H. U., Weiss, N. O.: 1977, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 179, 741.Google Scholar
  6. Meyer, F., Schmidt, H. U., Simon, G. V., and Weiss, N. O.: 1979, Astron. Astrophys. 76, 35.Google Scholar
  7. Moreno-Insertis, F.: 1986, Astron. Astrophys. 166, 291.Google Scholar
  8. Parker, E. N.: 1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. van Ballegooijen, A. A.: 1982, Astron. Astrophys. 106, 43.Google Scholar
  10. van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. and Petrovay, K.: 1990, Solar Phys. 126, 285 (Paper I).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Petrovay
    • 1
  • J. C. Brown
    • 2
  • L. van Driel-Gesztelyi
    • 3
    • 4
  • L. Fletcher
    • 2
  • M. Marik
    • 1
  • G. Stewart
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AstronomyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland
  3. 3.Heliophysical Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesDebrecenHungary
  4. 4.Sterrenkundig InstituutUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations