Showing posts with label MHD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MHD. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2020

Why The MHD Regime Is Preferred In Doing Solar Physics



Most solar physicists work in what's called the "MHD" or magneto-hydrodynamic regime, which numerous plasma physicists have criticized as "taking a short cut". For example, treatments based on the analysis of the indigenous magnetic fields currently occupy a predominant role in analysis of energy stored in sunspot regions. The majority of these are based on MHD  theory wherein low frequency, long scale length and quasi-neutral (electric charge) assumptions are introduced into the plasma physics. Such assumptions lead to a basic set of what we call "MHD" equations, which include:

a)( r  / t)  +  Ñ (r v) = 0

b) r (  V / t)  +    r v Ñ ( v) =   -  Ñ p  + 1/c  J X B

c)  E + v X B = 0

More fundamentally, the MHD regime is really an approximation of the one-fluid and two-fluid cases, with many added simplifying assumptions – and these "take a toll"  in ignoring the kinetics and micro-physics.  In truth, MHD does represent the end product of successive information loss in the transition from Vlasov theory to two-fluid theory to one-fluid theory and thence MHD.   But the benefit of using it is self-evident in many flare models, for example, so that one is no longer hampered by being unable to "see the forest for the trees". 

One starts with the Vlasov-Boltzmann equation:

f/ t + v Ñ z f + (F/ m ) Ñ v f = ( f/ t)c

Whereby the lowest moment, for example, is obtained by integrating the preceding equation with F as the Lorentz force:

ò ( f/ t)  dv    + ò  v Ñ z f dv  + (q/ m ) ò (E + v X B) f/ v  =  ò ( f/ t)c   dv


The 2nd moment is obtained by multiplying the original eqn. (Boltzmann) by mv then integrating it over dv.

The progression from using this procedure is that one gets in succession:

Two -fluid theory (e.g. ions and electrons treated as separate fluids), i.e. in fluid eqns.:


1) ( r a  / t)  +  Ñ (r a v a) = 0

where the index  a = e, i.


for electrons, ions.   

2)  r a (  V o /  t)  +    r v a · Ñ ( v a) =   -  Ñ p a +  e a n a  (E + v a x B)

3)  p o  r a  g    =  const.

Plus the relevant form for Maxwell's equations.

More technically as Dwight R.Nicholson notes (Plasma Theory, p. 129) one takes "velocity moments of the Vlasov equation in seven dimensional (x, v, t) space."  From these (ibid.): "an infinite hierarchy of equations in 4-dimensional (x, t) space can be derived."   And: "when an appropriate truncation of this infinite hierarchy is carried out, the standard two fluid theory of plasma physics is obtained."    Thus we can proceed to treat:

 f (x, v, t)  +   v · Ñ x  f o  +   (q/ m) (E + v/ c  x B) Ñ v · f o   = 0

With the normalization: n o  (x, t) =  ò  dv f o  (x, v, t)   from which the 2 fluid velocity equations are obtained.  But given these we go direct to....
!
!
!
!
v
One fluid theory (introducing low frequency, long wave length and quasi -neutral approximations, e.g.   n e=    n i


  ( r  / t)  +  Ñ (r v) = 0

where no separate  index for  e, i, is needed.  Then, more quickly to...
!

!
v
MHD Theory

(This proceeds from 1-fluid theory with a few further assumptions, simplifications)

Apart from this, the most conspicuous agent of solar plasma containment and topological change is the coronal loop –


 Which is fully consistent with a low beta-plasma regime- since otherwise gas kinetic pressure would predominate and the configuration would be ‘open’.  Note: 

beta = (½  r  v 2)/   B 2/2 m 0 

where  r is the fluid density, v the fluid velocity, B the magnetic induction and m 0  the magnetic permeability of free space.) 

With this little exercise, we see that the solar physicist is more than amply justified in employing the MHD approach.   This is directly connected to the gas kinetic pressure (½  r  v 2)  being much less than the magnetic pressure  ( B 2/2 m 0 ), so the density of plasma particles  (n e. ,  n i ) is much less  - reducing the need to overemphasize the micro physics especially as the Vlasov collision term  ( f/  t)c  -> 0. Indeed, for most applications, i.e.  for assessing magnetic fields in  sunspot regions, two fluid theory would be far too complicated while achieving little additional insight.


Thursday, November 28, 2013

SO What Happened to Comet ISON? ANS. It's Still Too Close to the Sun

The Hubble Space Telescope captured this view of Comet ISON, C/2012 S1 (ISON), on May 8, 2013.


 In my Nov 1st blog post I noted that Comet ISON (an acronym for the International Scientific Optical Network in Russia, which discovered it in September 2012) was not yet visible. Earlier, I invoked temporary forecasts to say it ought to be brilliant by the dawn of Nov. 28, today. Well that didn't happen either. Why? The reason is that the comet is actually grazing the Sun's corona today - at a distance of about 730,000 miles (1.2 million kilometers). 


Nor is there any guarantee it will survive this close passage because at such proximity it will be subject to the Sun's heat and gravitational forces, the combination of which could see it disintegrate.  This is the fate forecast by Carey M. Lisse, a senior research scientist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory during a press conference on Tuesday.

 Readers may recall in my October 19 blog post I cited an ASTRONOMY magazine article ('Comet Ison Blazes Into Glory', November, p. 54):


"Optimists tout numbers that have  many amateur astronomers giddy with excitement. If they're right the comet could rival the full Moon when it passes closest to the Sun at perihelion November 28 and remain as bright as the planet Jupiter for several days around then."

In retrospect and as I will show below, "bright as the full Moon" at perihelion-  was not likely to be a reality after later observations. However, the comet did undergo some brightening as noted at the space.com website: 



"From Nov. 13 to 21, Comet ISON brightened by 3.5 magnitudes on the scale used to determine the brightness of objects in space. That's a 25-fold increase in brightness to the observer! Between Nov. 19 and 21 alone, ISON more than doubled in brightness"


For those who want to observe the comet, the new advice from many websites is to be watching just before sunrise or just after sunset for the 12-14 days after its solar perihelion passage today. I likely won't bother to dig out my binoculars until at least Tuesday or Wednesday. I suspect earlier than that will not likely allow a decent sighting since ISON is still too close to the Sun.


Why the scientific interest in ISON? Mainly because it's an Oort Cloud comet, formed a few million years ago, probably by the gravitational nudge of a passing star. That 'nudge' sent it hurtling toward the inner solar system for the first time and quite possibly the last.   Scientists have never before been able to watch an Oort Cloud comet dive past the Sun.


In all probability - from the data we now have- the early ASTRONOMY estimates of a 'full Moon' brightness at perihelion was overblown. 
As one report noted yesterday, scientists at first thought ISON was several miles in diameter and would become the “Comet of the Century,” "rivaling the brightness of a full moon."   But as the comet passed Mars, the NASA orbiter took pictures showing that it was three-quarters of a mile wide at most, smaller than most comets.   In this case, the comet wouldn't reach the brightness forecast, i.e. in ASTRONOMY.


Michelle Thaller, a NASA astrophysicist appearing this morning on MSNBC, gave an exuberant depiction of the comet from an "optimist's perspective". So she is hopeful it will survive it's close passage.  She compared it to Comet Lovejoy, which also made a close solar pass, and noted that it survived its passage. She said ISON is "quite a bit larger than Lovejoy" was - thereby implying a much better chance at survival. However, with a puckish look on her face he wryly noted "that if it breaks up it's in some ways better for NASA because we'll get to see what's inside".  She added we will have clues to what happened in our early solar system from 4 1/2 billion years ago.  Heady stuff indeed, but I suspect most ordinary folk will be hoping that break up doesn't happen!


As to the observing basics, and assuming it survives, Thaller noted it will be visible just before dawn and very near the Sun. As December progresses, she noted, it will be displaced farther and farther away from the Sun- until by Dec. 17 it will be in the East-southeast sky and also be visible at night. She said that "by the time you get to late December it should be roughly where the Big Dipper is in the sky. So assuming it survives you might be in for a very nice show in the sky".


One other remark of Thaller's is somewhat suspect, when she claimed a comet like ISON could be a "very nice probe of the Sun" adding that when such a comet gets very close it "interacts with the Sun's magnetic field, with the solar wind...so in some ways we're doing an experiment".

However, as a recent article in Physics Today ('Comets as Solar Probes', October, p. 27) has pointed out, ISON's perihelion distance of 1.2 million km puts it much farther out in the Sun's corona than Lovejoy's (135,000 km) passage. Since plasma density drops rapidly with altitude in the corona  ISON's solar interaction will be more dominated by waves and turbulence than by collisions and Lorentz forces, i.e. F = q(E + v X B). It is the latter which is truly useful in assessing key parameters for solar MHD or magneto-hydrodynamics.  However, as the the article notes, ISON will allow us to probe a region in the "nascent solar wind". Not as terrific as the denser corona, but not to be sneezed at.

We will wait to see what happens after today!