• Back to Jack

    • NAM2023 poster figure image captions:

    1. Synthetic views of my 3D solar prominence simulation. From left to right: 171, 304, and 6563 Angstrom representations for a filament and prominence projection, top and bottom respectively. The filament projection displays clear threaded appearances as we note in observations. The ‘falling finger’ characteristic is then captured in the prominence projection. This was the first simulation to demonstrate unify the two projections and their unique characteristics.
    2. A direct comparison between the lengthscales of the fine structures present within observations and the simulation. For the EUV passbands we find a 1-1 correspondance, unfortunately the low resolution of the Hydrogen Hα observations complicates the comparison. It’s clear we need higher resolution observations such as the ones we directly compare against in this European Solar Physics Nugget press release: https://est-east.eu/nuggets
    3. Isocontour and streamline representation of the lower resolution 3D simulation of solar prominence formation and evolution used for the 1.5D NLTE spectral synthesis study. The isocontours bound a density threshold and are coloured according to temperature (yellow->black:hot->cold). The streamlines trace a selection of magnetic field lines and highlight the flux rope nature of field topology.
    4. The 2D maps of absorption/emission according to the 1.5D NLTE spectral synthesis of Lightweaver. Here, Hydrogen, Calcium II, and Magnesium II were set as active atoms and hence their transitions considered in NLTE. The transitions shown here are commonly used in prominence observations, be them in ground- or space-based instrumentation. We find the Hydrogen Hα proxy method of Heinzel et al. 2015 to yield very similar results to the 1.5D NLTE synthesis of Lightweaver with some crucial differences. This approach also enables self-consistent synthesis of additional transitions that would likely never have an equivalent proxy method.
    5. Taking a horizontal cut though the simulation (shown here in temperature - compare to the left panel of figure 3) and calculating the formation depths of the transitions shown in the bottom row of Figure 3, we find the information encoded within the emergent intensity to be sourced from widely varying locations along the LOS as we move throughout the prominence. Although the source function is largely flat within the condensations regions for each of the displayed cuts, the contribution function is strongly peaked in a range of locations making it difficult to compare the appearance of the different lines.
    6. The 2.5D simulation of Brughmans et al. (2022) - reproduced with permission from the author - showing how the time-independent, exponential background heating prescription imposes a clear scale height on the density within the bottom end of the prominence (red region) that isn’t there within the reduced heating mask (green region). This demonstrates that the background heating profile is not only of extreme importance in structuring the corona, but also the condensatons that are numerically formed.
    7. Early stages of a 3D simulation that stabilises the coronal based on a turbulence + reconnection heating prescription that evolves spatially and temporally. This simulation also adopts a different magnetic field structure - fan-spine - to explore another region of the parameter space in terms of field configurations capable of suspending prominence condensations.

    NAM2023 reference list:

    • Antolin, P., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T., Shiota, D., & Brooks, D. 2008, ApJ, 688, 669\
    • Antolin, P., Shibata, K., & Vissers, G. 2010, ApJ, 716, 154\
    • Zhou, Y. H., Chen, P. F., Hong, J., & Fang, C. 2020, NatAs, 4, 994\
    • Heinzel, P., Gunár, S., & Anzer, U. 2015, A&A, 579, A16\
    • Wyper, P. F., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2018, ApJ, 852, 98\
    • Li, X., Keppens, R., & Zhou, Y. 2022, ApJ, 926, 216\
    • Jenkins, J. M., & Keppens, R. 2022, Nat. Astron., 6, 942\
    • Brughmans, N., Jenkins, J. M., & Keppens, R. 2022, A&A, 668, A47\
    • Jenkins, J. M., Osborne, C. M. J., & Keppens, R. 2023, A&A, 670, A179\