Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T00:44:41.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of a modified mixing-length theory and of an adopted description of the atmosphere on the solar five-minute oscillations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2017

A. A. Pamyatnykh
A. A. Pamyatnykh*
Affiliation:
Astronomical Council of USSR Academy of Sciences, Pyatnitskaya Str. 48, 109017 Moscow, U S S R European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, D-8046 Garching bei München, F R G

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.

The influence of the modified treatment of subphotospheric convection, as recommended by Deupree (1979) and by Deupree and Varner (1980), on the frequencies of solar five-minute oscillations of degree 1 = 1–100 is studied. As compared with the results for a standard solar model, the convection theory modification has practically no effect on the frequencies near the low frequency edge of the observational interval (at ν ⋍ 2000 μHz), but causes a frequency decrease for high overtones; the effect is larger at larger frequencies. At ν ⋍ 4000 μHz the frequency decrease is about 4–6 μHz for all 1 ≤ 40 and about 8–10 μHz for 1 ⋍ 60–100. If, additionally, we use the dependence T(τ) according to Holweger and Müller (1974) instead of the HSRA model, the joint effect is 1.5–2 times larger. In this case the slope of the theoretical curves in “echelle diagrams” turns out to be in agreement with the observational one for 1 ≤ 20, but the frequencies themselves are approximately 10 μHz lower than those from observations.

Type
Chapter 2: Theory of Solar Oscillations
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 123: Advances In Hello- and Asteroseismology , 1988 , pp. 99 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1988 

References

Alexander, D.R., 1975, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 290, 363.Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 1982, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 199, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 1984, in Theoretical Problems of Stellar Stability and Oscillations, Proc. 25th Liege Int. Astrophys. Coll., eds. Noels, A. and Gabriel, M., Univ. Liege, p. 155.Google Scholar
Claverie, A., Isaak, G.R., McLeod, C.P., van der Raay, H.B., 1981, Nature, 293, 443.Google Scholar
Cox, A.N., Stewart, J.N., 1969, Nauchnye Informatsii, 15, 4.Google Scholar
Deupree, R.G., 1979, Astrophys. J., 234, 228.Google Scholar
Deupree, R.G., Varner, T.M., 1980, Astrophys. J., 237, 558.Google Scholar
Duvall, T.L. Jr., Harvey, J.V., 1983, Nature, 302, 24.Google Scholar
Dziembowski, V., 1977, Acta Astronomica, 27, 95.Google Scholar
Fowler, V.A., Caughlan, G.R., Zimmerman, B., 1975, Ann. Rev. Astron. Ap., 13, 69.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O., Noyes, R.V., Kalkofen, V., Cuny, Y., 1971, Solar Phys., 18, 347.Google Scholar
Grec, G., Fossat, E., Pomerantz, M., 1983, Solar Phys., 82, 55.Google Scholar
Harvey, J.V., Duvall, T.L. Jr., 1984, in Solar Seismology from Space, Proc. Conf. at Snowmass, Colorado, eds, Ulrich, R. K. et al., NASA-JPL Publ., p.165.Google Scholar
Hill, H.A., 1985, Astrophys. J., 290, 765.Google Scholar
Holweger, H., Müller, E.A., 1974, Solar Phys., 34, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, J.B., Lane, M.C., Kurucz, R.L., 1982, Astrophys. J., 260, 272.Google Scholar
Paczynski, B., 1970, Acta Astronomica, 20, 47.Google Scholar
Shibahashi, H., Osaki, Y., 1981, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 33, 713.Google Scholar
Voodard, M., Hudson, H.S., 1983, Nature, 305, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar