1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4: \shorttitle{The Nature of RP Waves Revealed}
5: \shortauthors{D. S. Bloomfield et~al.}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10:
11: \title{The Nature of Running Penumbral Waves Revealed}
12:
13:
14: \author{D. Shaun Bloomfield, Andreas Lagg, and Sami K. Solanki}
15: \email{bloomfield@mps.mpg.de}
16: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Sonnensystemforschung,
17: Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany}
18:
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We seek to clarify the nature of running penumbral (RP) waves: are they
22: chromospheric trans-sunspot waves or a visual pattern of upward-propagating
23: waves? Full Stokes spectropolarimetric time series of the photospheric
24: Si\,{\sc{i}}\,10827~\AA\ line and the chromospheric He\,{\sc{i}}\,10830~\AA\
25: multiplet were inverted using a Milne-Eddington atmosphere. Spatial pixels
26: were paired between the outer umbral/inner penumbral photosphere and the
27: penumbral chromosphere using inclinations retrieved by the inversion and the
28: dual-height pairings of line-of-sight velocity time series were studied for
29: signatures of wave propagation using a Fourier phase difference analysis. The
30: dispersion relation for radiatively cooling acoustic waves, modified to
31: incorporate an inclined propagation direction, fits well the observed phase
32: differences between the pairs of photospheric and chromospheric pixels. We
33: have thus demonstrated that RP waves are in effect low-$\beta$ slow-mode waves
34: propagating along the magnetic field.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37:
38: \keywords{Sun: infrared --
39: Sun: magnetic fields --
40: Sun: sunspots --
41: Techniques: polarimetric --
42: Waves}
43:
44:
45: \section{INTRODUCTION}
46: \label{sec:int}
47: The term running penumbral (RP) wave was created by
48: \citet{1972ApJ...178L..85Z} to describe chromospheric H$\alpha$ velocity and
49: intensity fronts that were observed moving out through sunspot
50: penumbrae. Since then, a host of work has been carried out on reporting their
51: properties (see, e.g., the series of papers by \citealp{2000A&A...354..305C,
52: 2001A&A...375..617C} and \citealp{2000A&A...363..306G}), while their exact
53: nature has remained unidentified. Currently, the two most likely possibilities
54: for the form of these oscillatory disturbances are:
55: \begin{enumerate}
56: \item trans-sunspot waves generated in the umbra (e.g., by umbral flashes) and
57: limited to the chromospheric layer,
58: \item a ``visual pattern'' resulting from field-aligned waves propagating up
59: from the photosphere.
60: \end{enumerate}
61: To date, many findings point toward RP waves being due to the ``visual
62: pattern'' scenario \citep[for an extensive discussion of this topic see the
63: recent review by][]{2006RSPTA.364..313B}. This seems especially likely now
64: that \citet{2006ApJ...640.1153C} have successfully identified chromospheric
65: 3-min umbral oscillations as propagating, field-aligned, acoustic waves.
66: However, recent work by \citet{2006A&A...456..689T, 2007A&A...463.1153T} has
67: not been able to decide between either of the two possible RP wave scenarios.
68: Thus, the sum of the evidence is still not conclusive.
69:
70: In this paper we use velocity time series observations that possess a two-fold
71: advantage over those of previous studies. The first is the simultaneous
72: recording of photospheric and chromospheric lines, allowing the connection
73: between velocities in the lower and upper atmosphere to be accurately
74: investigated. The second is the retrieval of the magnetic vector at both
75: heights in the atmosphere through the use of full-Stokes spectropolarimetry,
76: thus circumventing the need for any assumptions about the possible orientation
77: of the magnetic field.
78:
79:
80: \section{OBSERVATIONAL DATA}
81: \label{sec:data}
82: The dataset used here was obtained from the main spot of active region NOAA
83: 9451 on 2001 May 9 with the Tenerife Infrared Polarimeter
84: \citep[{\sc{tip}};][]{1999ASPC..183..264M} attached to the German Vacuum Tower
85: Telescope in Tenerife, Canary Islands. The 0.5\arcsec$\times$40\arcsec\
86: spectrograph slit was positioned across NOAA 9451 for approximately 70~min
87: with no spatial scanning of the slit, while the solar image was kept
88: stationary beneath the slit via a correlation tracking device
89: \citep{1996A&AS..115..353B}. The main umbra from this dataset was previously
90: analyzed and presented as dataset 2 in the work of
91: \citet{2006ApJ...640.1153C}, so only a brief description of the observational
92: setup and format of the data is supplied here. Note the correct heliographic
93: coordinates of the observed sunspot are S22\degr E20\degr.
94:
95: The spectral region obtained in these observations was recorded with a
96: wavelength sampling of 31~m\AA~pixel$^{-1}$ and includes the photospheric
97: Si\,{\sc{i}}\,10827.09~\AA\ line, the upper-chromospheric
98: He\,{\sc{i}}\,10830~\AA\ multiplet (with triplet components at 10829.09~\AA,
99: 10830.25~\AA, and 10830.34~\AA), and the telluric H$_2$O line at 10832.11~\AA.
100: The {\sc{tip}} instrument was used to record simultaneous spectral images of
101: the four Stokes parameters ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$) for each of the 0.4\arcsec\
102: spatial pixels along the slit. Multiple images were coadded online to increase
103: the signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in a final cadence of 2.1~s.
104:
105:
106: After dark current subtraction, flat-field correction, polarization
107: calibration, and removal of polarization cross talk
108: \citep{2003SPIE.4843...55C}, Stokes ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$) profiles were
109: inverted separately for each line using the Milne-Eddington inversion code of
110: \citet{2004A&A...414.1109L}. For the He\,{\sc{i}} inversions an atmospheric
111: model with one magnetic component was used, while a non-magnetic component was
112: included in the Si\,{\sc{i}} inversions to account for stray light. A
113: continuum intensity space-time plot of the time series is given in
114: Fig.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}, alongside absolute magnetic field strengths,
115: line-of-sight (LOS) velocities, and magnetic field inclinations in solar
116: coordinates (see \S~\ref{subsubsec:atm_cou} for more details) retrieved by
117: the Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} inversions.
118:
119: The Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocities retrieved from the inversions
120: both show systematically decreasing velocity (i.e., blueshift) with time. This
121: trend arises from the relative motion along the observer's LOS caused by the
122: Earth's rotation, as these observations were obtained during local morning.
123: Simple linear fits proved a suitable approximation to the trends and LOS
124: velocity time series from each spatial pixel had these linear background
125: trends removed prior to any form of temporal analysis.
126:
127:
128: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
129: \label{sec:ana_met}
130: Fourier phase difference analysis is a useful tool through which the
131: propagation characteristics of waves may be determined. The form of analysis
132: used here is based on the standard Fourier equations that are discussed in
133: depth by \citet{2001A&A...379.1052K}. This technique has been used extensively
134: in the past for various solar studies (e.g., \citealp{1963ApJ...138..252J},
135: \citealp{1973SoPh...33..333S}, \citealp{1984ApJ...277..874L},
136: \citealp{2000ApJ...531.1150W}) and it remains one of the most robust
137: methodologies in use.
138:
139: The phase difference spectrum, $\Delta \phi (\nu)$, between two temporal
140: signals measures the phase lag at discrete frequencies. For signals separated
141: by some spatial distance, this lag is the cycle-time that it takes different
142: frequency components to travel from the first location to that of the second.
143: When waves propagate between two locations in a normally dispersive medium,
144: phase difference spectra will show zero phase difference at low frequencies
145: (where waves are evanescent and not propagating) followed by phase differences
146: which increase in magnitude at higher frequencies (as high-frequency
147: components travel more slowly than low-frequency components).
148:
149: The Fourier phase coherence spectrum, $C^2 (\nu)$, between two signals is a
150: measure of the quality of phase difference variation. However, unless
151: averaging in frequency is performed, the coherence between two Fourier
152: components will be unity irrespective of the phase differences. The Fourier
153: squared coherence of randomly distributed phase differences then approaches
154: 1/$n$ for averaging over $n$ points in frequency. In this work coherence
155: values are calculated using an average over 5 frequency intervals, providing a
156: ``noise'' level of 0.2 for randomly distributed (i.e., uncorrelated) phase
157: differences. In the following phase difference diagrams, Fourier squared
158: coherence is represented by the degree of symbol shading (white for 0; black
159: for 1) while the symbol size represents the cross-spectral power -- a measure
160: of the co-variance between the Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity
161: signals.
162:
163:
164: \subsection{Trans-sunspot Wave}
165: \label{subsec:tra_sun_wav}
166: If RP waves are due to waves propagating across the sunspot chromosphere,
167: spectra calculated between the chromospheric LOS velocities from the umbra and
168: those from pixels at sequentially greater distances into the penumbra should
169: show phase difference values increasing linearly with frequency, becoming
170: steeper with greater spatial separation of the signals. In this analysis,
171: Fourier phase differences and coherences were calculated between the
172: He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity from pixel 55 (located in the umbra) and the
173: He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocities from pixels at increasing distances into the
174: penumbra.
175:
176: Figure~\ref{fig:fft_tra_sun} shows the output from such an analysis, where
177: phase difference spectra between the He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity from pixel 55
178: and those pixel numbers listed in each panel are overplotted. For example,
179: panel {\emph{a}} contains $\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{He}(t,
180: 55)\rightarrow\mathrm{He}(t, 55)}$ and $\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{He}(t,
181: 55)\rightarrow\mathrm{He}(t, 54)}$, while panel {\emph{b}} contains $\Delta
182: \phi_{\mathrm{He}(t, 55)\rightarrow\mathrm{He}(t, 53)}$ and
183: $\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{He}(t, 55)\rightarrow\mathrm{He}(t, 52)}$, where
184: $\mathrm{He}(t, Y)$ denotes the temporal He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity signal from
185: spatial pixel $Y$. Although groups of phase difference spectra are overplotted
186: to increase the clarity of any relations, no clear form of propagating wave
187: behaviour is seen. Note that around 4~mHz (i.e., 4-min period) values of
188: increasing phase difference are observed when moving into the penumbra.
189: However, the finding is marginal since the values of Fourier squared coherence
190: in the spectra rapidly approach the ``noise'' level of 0.2 for randomized
191: phase differences.
192:
193:
194: \subsection{Upward-propagating Waves}
195: \label{subsec:upw_pro_wav}
196: Although a number of differing forms of propagating wave can exist in the
197: outer atmosphere of a sunspot (e.g., fast/slow magneto-acoustic and Alfv\'{e}n
198: waves) we shall restrict our analysis of upward-propagating waves to that of
199: field-aligned acoustic waves, as these were shown by
200: \citet{2006ApJ...640.1153C} to describe the phase behaviour of 3-min waves in
201: sunspot umbrae. The extension of these waves from travelling along
202: near-vertical field lines in the umbra to travelling along inclined field
203: lines which expand out over the penumbra is not unexpected since:
204: \begin{enumerate}
205: \item the magnetic field inclination increases smoothly from the umbral centre
206: out through the penumbra (Figs.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{d}} and
207: \ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{g}}),
208: \item the photospheric LOS velocity signals are fairly coherent across the
209: umbra/penumbra boundary (Fig.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{c}}).
210: \end{enumerate}
211:
212:
213: To study the possible propagation of field-aligned waves between two
214: atmospheric heights we must first accurately determine the photospheric pixels
215: that provide the lower atmospheric signal for the chromospheric pixels which
216: lie above the penumbra. This is necessary because the field is significantly
217: inclined here (Figs.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{d}} and
218: \ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{g}}) and velocity signals in the upper atmosphere
219: will be spatially removed from their originating photospheric pixels. The
220: expected picture for field-aligned, upward-propagating waves is indicated in
221: the schematic diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}, where increasingly inclined
222: field lines at the photosphere reach further into the chromospheric penumbra.
223:
224:
225: \subsubsection{Atmospheric Height Coupling}
226: \label{subsubsec:atm_cou}
227: In order to correctly pair spatial pixels between the photosphere and the
228: chromosphere we require reliable determination of the magnetic field vector
229: in solar coordinates. This is complicated by the 180\degr\ azimuthal
230: ambiguity, whereby two equally valid but opposite azimuth orientations exist
231: in the observer's coordinate frame. This uncertainty in the field
232: azimuth impacts on the whole magnetic vector; the two differing azimuthal
233: solutions yield different solar inclinations, $\gamma^{\prime}$.
234:
235: To overcome this ambiguity we have implemented a ``smoothest magnetic vector''
236: form of ambiguity solution. Namely, a pixel region with the most realistic
237: solution is selected as a trusted starting point (e.g., in the umbra where
238: the true solution should be closest to vertical). Moving away from this seed
239: region, either the 0\degr\ or 180\degr\ azimuth solution is chosen on a
240: pixel-by-pixel basis to minimise the spatial variation in the three
241: orthogonal components of the solar magnetic vector ($B_x$, $B_y$, $B_z$),
242: where the $z$-direction is normal to the solar surface. The field inclinations
243: achieved in solar coordinates are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{d}}
244: and \ref{fig:con_B_vel}{\emph{g}} for the inversion results from Si\,{\sc{i}}
245: and He\,{\sc{i}}, respectively.
246:
247: Spatial pixels were then paired between the photosphere and chromosphere using
248: the temporal averages of Si\,{\sc{i}} inclinations in the solar coordinate
249: frame\footnote{Inclinations determined by the Si\,{\sc{i}} inversion were
250: chosen for this task because the greater signal-to-noise achieved in this line
251: means that its magnetic vector, and hence solar inclination, is more reliably
252: determined in comparison to that from the He\,{\sc{i}} inversion.}, $\langle
253: \gamma^{\prime}_{\mathrm{Si}} \rangle$. Coupled with an expected height
254: separation, $\Delta H$, these inclinations provide pixel offsets between
255: photospheric and chromospheric pixel pairs in the direction along the slit by
256: $\Delta S = \vert \tan \langle \gamma^{\prime}_{\mathrm{Si}} \rangle \vert
257: \cos \alpha \Delta H / s_{\mathrm{pix}}$, where $\Delta H$ was taken as
258: 1000~km \citep[following the findings of][for this sunspot
259: umbra]{2006ApJ...640.1153C}, $s_{\mathrm{pix}}$ is the spatial sampling of the
260: slit ($\approx$$300$~km\,pixel$^{-1}$), and $\alpha$ is the angle between the
261: field azimuth and the slit direction. Regions of pixels paired together in
262: this work are outlined in panels {\emph{b}}-{\emph{g}} of
263: Fig.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel} by dotted lines, while details of the pixel pairs are
264: provided in Table~\ref{tab:pixel_pairs} with their corresponding field
265: inclinations. Although this approach uses the simplifying assumption that the
266: magnetic field remains essentially linear between the two formation heights
267: (i.e., there is no field curvature), it is somewhat justified by the resulting
268: pixel pairs in Table~\ref{tab:pixel_pairs} having inclinations that differ by
269: $\leqslant$7\degr\ -- i.e., $\langle \gamma^{\prime}_{\mathrm{Si}} \rangle
270: \approx \langle \gamma^{\prime}_{\mathrm{He}} \rangle$.
271:
272:
273: The Fourier phase difference spectra resulting from these dual-height pixel
274: pairs are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_upw_pro}, where spectra from groups
275: of adjacent pixel pairs are again overplotted to enhance any relations. In
276: contrast to the trans-sunspot case depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_tra_sun}, the
277: expected form of phase difference variation due to propagation (i.e.,
278: increasing values of phase difference with frequency) is clearly apparent in
279: most of the panels. In addition, throughout panels {\emph{a}}-{\emph{g}}
280: Fourier squared coherence values remain reasonably high.
281:
282:
283: \subsubsection{Dispersion Relation Comparison}
284: \label{subsubsec:dis_rel_fit}
285: We make use of the equations provided in \citet{2006ApJ...640.1153C} which
286: describe the dispersion relation for vertical acoustic waves propagating
287: in the presence of a vertical magnetic field within a stratified isothermal
288: atmosphere with radiative cooling. The equations were modified for this work
289: to simplistically mimic the first order effects that acoustic-like
290: (low-$\beta$ slow-mode) waves would experience when propagating along inclined
291: field lines instead of purely vertically in a vertical magnetic field -- i.e.,
292: $\cos \gamma^{\prime}$ reduced gravity and 1/$\cos \gamma^{\prime}$ increased
293: path length.
294:
295: The solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_upw_pro} were calculated using the
296: measured values of field inclination in solar coordinates along with the
297: temperature (4000~K), radiative cooling time (55~s), and vertical height
298: separation (1000~km) given by \citet{2006ApJ...640.1153C} for this sunspot
299: umbra. Although only a simple approximation to the expected dispersion
300: relation for such waves, these curves show an encouraging association with the
301: measured data points.
302:
303:
304: \section{DISCUSSION}
305: \label{sec:dis}
306: In this section we present our findings in the context of results from
307: previous studies in an attempt to provide answers to a few of the outstanding
308: issues surrounding the relationship that RP waves share with other forms of
309: sunspot waves.
310:
311:
312: It has been long known that sunspot chromospheres oscillate at differing
313: periods in different spatial regions \citep{1972SoPh...27...71G}.
314: Figure~\ref{fig:he_fft_pow} displays the variation of Fourier power from the
315: Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocities in the form of space-frequency
316: diagrams. Individual power spectra from each spatial pixel have been
317: normalized to the variance of the respective time series, resulting in white
318: noise having power of 1 and 18.4 being the 99.99\% significance level of
319: Poisson noise. Normalization was performed to aid in the comparison of
320: spectral profiles between spatial regions that exhibit vastly different LOS
321: velocity amplitudes. Rather than indicating some form of physical
322: discontinuity \citep[c.f.,][]{2006A&A...456..689T, 2007A&A...463.1153T}, the
323: change from dominant chromospheric 3-min power to longer periods near the
324: umbra/penumbra boundary in Fig.~\ref{fig:he_fft_pow}{\emph{b}} may just result
325: from the magnetic field inclination becoming large enough to allow
326: photospheric low-frequency (i.e., 5-min $p$-mode) power to tunnel through the
327: higher-frequency acoustic cutoff (5.2~mHz) at the temperature minimum
328: \citep{2004Natur.430..536D}. We note that the classical interpretation of an
329: acoustic cutoff is effectively negated by the inclusion of radiative cooling
330: in the modeled dispersion relation of \S~\ref{subsubsec:dis_rel_fit}, which
331: allows wave reflection and transmission at all frequencies. However, the
332: dominant chromospheric frequency in Fig.~\ref{fig:he_fft_pow}{\emph{b}} is
333: modified by the magnetic field inclination, closely following the strong-field
334: limit $\cos \gamma^{\prime}$ relation of \citet{1977A&A....55..239B}. Power
335: existing below the cutoff may be explained by the gradual transition from
336: mainly reflected to transmitted waves around the cutoff (i.e., the slow
337: turn-up in the curves of Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_upw_pro}). Another possibility is
338: the presence of unresolved structure in the chromospheric penumbra
339: \citep{1995A&A...293..252R}, consisting of either two spatially-separated
340: distributions of field inclination along the LOS or an uncombed magnetic field
341: configuration \citep{2007A&A...462.1147L}. If the more vertical distribution
342: has the measured field inclinations and the other has values $\sim$20\degr\
343: larger, the acoustic cutoff curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:he_fft_pow}{\emph{b}} could
344: be pulled to even lower frequencies. At larger field inclinations (i.e.,
345: further into the penumbra) little evidence is found of 3-min waves because
346: power at 5-min period vastly exceeds that at 3-min in the underlying
347: photosphere (Fig.~\ref{fig:he_fft_pow}{\emph{a}}).
348:
349: The termination of 3-min wave patterns at the umbra/penumbra boundary noted by
350: \citet{2004A&A...424..671K} and \citet{2006SoPh..238..231K} and the fact that
351: not all 3-min wavefronts can be traced out from the umbra into the penumbra
352: has been used to suggest that RP waves are not associated with similar waves
353: in the umbra. A simple check for the linkage of either 3-min or 5-min waves
354: between the chromospheric umbra and penumbra can be made by bandpass filtering
355: the He\,{\sc{i}} velocity time series. The spatial variation of He\,{\sc{i}}
356: LOS velocities through the umbra and penumbra is presented in
357: Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min} before and after filtering in the period ranges $2.5
358: - 3.5$~min and $4.5 - 5.5$~min. It is clear that each of the 3-min umbral
359: wavefronts has a rapidly diminishing counterpart in the penumbra
360: (Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min}{\emph{b}}), while each of the 5-min (i.e., RP)
361: wavefronts has an only somewhat weaker counterpart within the umbra
362: (Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min}{\emph{c}}). These findings once again support the
363: picture of a continuous variation of RP wave behaviour through the entirety of
364: the sunspot atmosphere.
365:
366:
367: If RP waves are indeed the ``visual pattern'' of upward-propagating waves we
368: expect that the wave velocity amplitude along the field would be essentially
369: constant through the penumbra, because each wavefront will have experienced
370: the same degree of wave growth caused by the decrease of density with
371: altitude. Examination of the unfiltered He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity signal in
372: Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min}{\emph{a}} shows that the RMS LOS velocity decreases
373: throughout the penumbra. However, the correct quantity to consider is the
374: RMS velocity along the magnetic field vector. This was obtained from the RMS
375: LOS velocity (solid curve in the right-hand panel of
376: Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min}{\emph{a}}) using the measured field inclinations from
377: the observer's LOS -- resulting field-aligned RMS velocities are depicted in
378: Fig.~\ref{fig:filt_5min}{\emph{a}} by a dotted curve. The field-aligned RMS
379: velocities still show a decrease close to the umbra/penumbra boundary (from
380: a greatly diminished contribution of transmitted power at 3-min period) but
381: also a nearly constant value of $\sim$1~km~s$^{-1}$ over pixels 45 to 25 of
382: the penumbra, lending more credence to the ``visual pattern'' scenario.
383:
384: Our results support the conclusion of \citet{2006SoPh..238..231K} that 3-min
385: umbral waves are not the source of 5-min RP waves. However, we have
386: additionally shown that they are in fact different manifestations of the same
387: form of wave generated by a common source at the photosphere, their
388: differences arising from the transmitted wave power available for propagation
389: along differently inclined field lines. As such, the observed behaviour of
390: waves in both umbrae and penumbrae can be explained without the need for
391: abrupt changes in either density or field orientation at the umbra/penumbra
392: boundary as postulated by, e.g., \citet{2006A&A...456..689T,
393: 2007A&A...463.1153T}.
394:
395:
396: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
397: \label{sec:con}
398: We have provided evidence that velocity signatures of RP waves observed in the
399: He\,{\sc{i}}\,10830~\AA\ multiplet are more compatible with upward-propagating
400: waves than with trans-sunspot waves through careful consideration of the
401: magnetic vector. Comparing the Fourier phase differences measured between
402: paired pixels in the photosphere and chromosphere to the dispersion relation
403: for field-aligned acoustic waves, modified for inclined fields, points toward
404: such waves (i.e., essentially low-$\beta$ slow modes) being responsible for
405: the visual pattern.
406:
407: Initially excited by a common source at the photosphere, waves experience
408: increasing path length to the sampling height in the chromosphere with
409: distance into the penumbra from travelling along increasingly inclined field
410: lines -- a scenario previously suggested by, e.g., \citet{2003A&A...403..277R}
411: and \citet{2006RSPTA.364..313B}. For essentially constant (or weakly
412: increasing) propagation velocities, delays of increasing magnitude will be
413: observed in the arrival times of wavefronts at increasing radial distance
414: through sunspot penumbrae. It is the pattern of delayed wavefronts that gives
415: rise to the apparent outward motion of RP waves which may also explain the
416: large range of observed wave speeds -- the horizontal ``speed'' of the delayed
417: wavefronts at the chromosphere depends on the rate at which the magnetic field
418: inclines out through penumbrae, permitting either sub-sonic or super-sonic
419: horizontal ``speeds'' for different magnetic geometries. This scenario also
420: indicates that RP waves may occur at the edges of large pores since the
421: existence of a penumbra is not necessary to support them; only sufficiently
422: inclined field lines are required to direct the waves laterally.
423:
424:
425: \acknowledgments
426: The German Vacuum Tower Telescope is operated on Tenerife by the Kiepenheuer
427: Insitute in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de
428: Astrof\'{i}sica de Canarias. The authors wish to extend their sincere thanks
429: to R. Centeno, M. Collados, and J. Trujillo Bueno for providing this excellent
430: data set for our analysis.
431:
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}{}
434: \bibitem[Ballesteros et~al.(1996)]{1996A&AS..115..353B}
435: Ballesteros, E., Collados, M., Bonet, J.~A., et~al. 1996, \aaps, 115, 353
436: \bibitem[Bel \& Leroy(1977)]{1977A&A....55..239B}
437: Bel, N., \& Leroy, B. 1977, \aap, 55, 239
438: \bibitem[Bogdan \& Judge(2006)]{2006RSPTA.364..313B}
439: Bogdan, T.~J., \& Judge, P.~G. 2006, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 364, 313
440: \bibitem[Centeno et~al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...640.1153C}
441: Centeno, R., Collados, M., \& Trujillo Bueno, J. 2006, \apj, 640, 1153
442: \bibitem[Christopoulou et~al.(2000)]{2000A&A...354..305C}
443: Christopoulou, E.~B., Georgakilas, A.~A., \& Koutchmy, S. 2000, \aap, 354, 305
444: \bibitem[Christopoulou et~al.(2001)]{2001A&A...375..617C}
445: ---. 2001, \aap, 375, 617
446: \bibitem[Collados(2003)]{2003SPIE.4843...55C}
447: Collados, M.~V. 2003, Proc. SPIE, Volume 4843, 55
448: \bibitem[De Pontieu et~al.(2004)]{2004Natur.430..536D}
449: De Pontieu, B., Erd{\'{e}}lyi, R., \& James, S.~P. 2004, \nat, 430, 536
450: \bibitem[Georgakilas et~al.(2000)]{2000A&A...363..306G}
451: Georgakilas, A.~A., Christopoulou, E.~B., \& Koutchmy, S. 2000, \aap, 363, 306
452: \bibitem[Giovanelli(1972)]{1972SoPh...27...71G}
453: Giovanelli, R.~G. 1972, \solphys, 27, 71
454: \bibitem[Jensen \& Orrall(1963)]{1963ApJ...138..252J}
455: Jensen, E., \& Orrall, F.~Q. 1963, \apj, 138, 252
456: \bibitem[Kobanov et~al.(2006)]{2006SoPh..238..231K}
457: Kobanov, N.~I., Kolobov, D.~Y., \& Makarchik, D.~V. 2006, \solphys, 238, 231
458: \bibitem[Kobanov \& Makarchik(2004)]{2004A&A...424..671K}
459: Kobanov, N.~I., \& Makarchik, D.~V. 2004, \aap, 424, 671
460: \bibitem[Krijger et~al.(2001)]{2001A&A...379.1052K}
461: Krijger, J.~M., Rutten, R.~J., Lites, B.~W., et~al. 2001, \aap, 379, 1052
462: \bibitem[Lagg et~al.(2004)]{2004A&A...414.1109L}
463: Lagg, A., Woch, J., Krupp, N., \& Solanki, S.~K. 2004, \aap, 414, 1109
464: \bibitem[Lagg et~al.(2007)]{2007A&A...462.1147L}
465: Lagg, A., Woch, J., Solanki, S.~K., \& Krupp, N. 2007, \aap, 462, 1147
466: \bibitem[Lites(1984)]{1984ApJ...277..874L}
467: Lites, B.~W. 1984, \apj, 277, 874
468: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet et~al.(1999)]{1999ASPC..183..264M}
469: Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet, V., Collados, M., S{\'{a}}nchez Almeida, J.,
470: et~al. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 183: High Resolution Solar Physics: Theory,
471: Observations, and Techniques, ed. T.~R. Rimmele, K.~S. Balasubramaniam,
472: \& R.~R. Radick, 264
473: \bibitem[Rouppe van der Voort et~al.(2003)]{2003A&A...403..277R}
474: Rouppe van der Voort, L.~H.~M., Rutten, R.~J., S{\"{u}}tterlin, P.,
475: Sloover, P.~J., \& Krijger, J.~M. 2003, \aap, 403, 277
476: \bibitem[R\"{u}edi et~al.(1995)]{1995A&A...293..252R}
477: R\"{u}edi, I., Solanki, S.~K., \& Livingston, W.~C. 1995, \aap, 293, 252
478: \bibitem[Sivaraman(1973)]{1973SoPh...33..333S}
479: Sivaraman K.~R. 1973, \solphys, 33, 333
480: \bibitem[Tziotziou et~al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456..689T}
481: Tziotziou, K., Tsiropoula, G., Mein, N., \& Mein, P. 2006, \aap, 456, 689
482: \bibitem[Tziotziou et~al.(2007)]{2007A&A...463.1153T}
483: ---. 2007, \aap, 463, 1153
484: \bibitem[Wikst{\o}l et~al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...531.1150W}
485: Wikst{\o}l, {\O}., Hansteen, V.~H., Carlsson, M., \& Judge, P.~G. 2000,
486: \apj, 531, 1150
487: \bibitem[Zirin \& Stein(1972)]{1972ApJ...178L..85Z}
488: Zirin, H., \& Stein, A. 1972, \apjl, 178, L85
489: \end{thebibliography}
490:
491:
492: \begin{figure*}
493: \centering
494: \includegraphics[width=15.6cm]{small-f1_color.eps}
495: \caption{Space-time plots of: continuum intensity at 10825.7$\pm$0.3~\AA\
496: ({\emph{a}}), absolute magnetic field strengths in Si\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{b}})
497: and He\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{e}}), LOS velocities in Si\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{c}}) and
498: He\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{f}}), and magnetic inclinations in solar coordinates from
499: Si\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{d}}) and He\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{g}}). Si\,{\sc{i}} and
500: He\,{\sc{i}} velocities both have linear background trends removed;
501: Si\,{\sc{i}} velocities are scaled up by a factor of 8 to the dynamic range of
502: the He\,{\sc{i}} velocities. Upper solid white lines enclose a lightbridge in
503: the umbra, while the lower white (black) line marks the umbral/penumbral
504: (penumbral/quiet Sun) boundary. Temporal averages of the parameters (RMS
505: values for LOS velocities) are shown in the right-most panels for both
506: Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} (solid and dotted curves, respectively). Regions
507: of spatial pixels paired between Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} (see
508: \S~\ref{subsubsec:atm_cou}) are marked by horizontal dotted lines in panels
509: {\emph{b}}-{\emph{g}}. Note oscillations in He\,{\sc{i}} field strength and
510: inclination are not real, but result from misfitting of the Stokes profiles
511: associated with wave shocking. Observed shock profiles require two components;
512: the single component inversion used here retrieves weakened, more inclined
513: fields. However, the He\,{\sc{i}} velocities retrieved still represent the
514: general plasma motion.}
515: \label{fig:con_B_vel}
516: \end{figure*}
517:
518:
519: \begin{figure}
520: \centering
521: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{small-f2_color.eps}
522: \caption{Phase difference spectra between He\,{\sc{i}} LOS velocity in the
523: umbra and those at increasing distance into the penumbra. Symbol size and
524: shading denote cross-spectral power and squared coherence, respectively.
525: Panels show groups of phase difference spectra calculated between umbral pixel
526: 55 and the pixel numbers listed in the lower-left corners, moving from cases
527: concerning pixels closest to the umbra/penumbra boundary ({\emph{a}}) toward
528: those in the middle penumbra ({\emph{h}}). The Fourier squared coherence
529: ``noise'' level has a value of 0.2 for randomly distributed phase differences
530: in these data.}
531: \label{fig:fft_tra_sun}
532: \end{figure}
533:
534:
535: \begin{figure}
536: \centering
537: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{small-f3.eps}
538: \caption{Cartoon schematic space-time diagram illustrating the form of pixel
539: coupling between the photosphere and chromosphere for the case of
540: field-aligned, upward-propagating waves presented in
541: \S~\ref{subsec:upw_pro_wav}. Dark (light) grids denote umbral (penumbral)
542: pixels, while dark (light) arrows indicate magnetic lines of force (i.e., wave
543: paths) linking back to the photospheric umbra (penumbra). Note increasing
544: delays in wavefront arrival time at the chromospheric sampling height because
545: of increased propagation lengths along more inclined field lines. The
546: horizontal and vertical axes are not to scale, resulting in magnetic field
547: inclinations that appear different to the values actually retrieved from the
548: Stokes inversions.}
549: \label{fig:cartoon}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552:
553: \begin{figure}
554: \centering
555: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{small-f4_color.eps}
556: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_tra_sun}, but for spatially-offset
557: dual-height pairs of photospheric and chromospheric pixels. Curves show
558: modified acoustic dispersion curves using the measured Si\,{\sc{i}} field
559: inclinations.}
560: \label{fig:fft_upw_pro}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563:
564: \begin{figure}
565: \centering
566: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{small-f5_color.eps}
567: \caption{Space-frequency plots of Si\,{\sc{i}} ({\emph{a}}) and He\,{\sc{i}}
568: ({\emph{b}}) velocity power. Spectra from each spatial pixel have been
569: normalized to the variance of the corresponding time series; white noise has
570: power of unity and 18.4 is the 99.99\% significance level. Overlaid solid
571: (dotted) curves are the acoustic cutoff modified by the Si\,{\sc{i}}
572: (He\,{\sc{i}}) inclinations, while horizontal lines mark the same boundaries
573: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:con_B_vel}.}
574: \label{fig:he_fft_pow}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577:
578: \begin{figure}
579: \centering
580: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{small-f6_color.eps}
581: \caption{Space-time plots covering the sunspot umbra and penumbra. {\emph{a}})
582: He\,{\sc{i}} velocities retrieved by the inversion. {\emph{b}}) He\,{\sc{i}}
583: velocities after bandpass filtering in the range $2.5-3.5$~min. {\emph{c}})
584: He\,{\sc{i}} velocities after bandpass filtering in the range $4.5-5.5$~min.
585: Values in panels {\emph{a}} and {\emph{b}} are clipped to enhance wavefront
586: visibility within the penumbra. White lines mark the umbra/penumbra boundary,
587: while right-hand panels show unclipped RMS LOS velocity. The dotted curve
588: included in the upper RMS velocity panel shows the RMS velocity parallel to
589: the field, after cosine correction for the inclination of the field from the
590: observer's LOS.}
591: \label{fig:filt_5min}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594:
595: \newpage
596: \clearpage
597:
598: \begin{table}
599: \begin{center}
600: \caption{Spatial pairings between Si\,{\sc{i}} and He\,{\sc{i}} pixels
601: and their corresponding magnetic field inclinations in solar
602: coordinates\label{tab:pixel_pairs}}
603: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
604: \tableline
605: \tableline
606: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Si\,{\sc{i}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{He\,{\sc{i}}} & Notes$^{\dagger}$\\
607: Spatial & Inclination & Spatial & Inclination & \\
608: Pixel & (\degr) & Pixel & (\degr) & \\
609: \hline
610: 56 & 172 & 55 & 165 & a\\
611: 55 & 170 & 54 & 165 & a\\
612: 54 & 169 & 53 & 164 & b\\
613: 53 & 167 & 52 & 164 & b\\
614: 52 & 165 & 51 & 163 & c\\
615: 51 & 163 & 50 & 163 & c\\
616: 50 & 161 & 49 & 163 & c\\
617: 49 & 160 & 48 & 163 & d\\
618: 48 & 158 & 47 & 163 & d\\
619: 47 & 157 & 46 & 162 & d\\
620: 47 & 157 & 45 & 161 & e\\
621: 46 & 155 & 44 & 160 & e\\
622: 45 & 153 & 43 & 158 & e\\
623: 44 & 151 & 42 & 156 & f\\
624: 43 & 150 & 41 & 153 & f\\
625: 42 & 148 & 40 & 150 & f\\
626: 41 & 146 & 39 & 147 & g\\
627: 40 & 145 & 38 & 145 & g\\
628: 39 & 143 & 37 & 143 & g\\
629: 39 & 143 & 36 & 142 & h\\
630: 38 & 141 & 35 & 139 & h\\
631: 37 & 139 & 34 & 138 & h\\
632: 36 & 136 & 33 & 136 & h\\
633: 35 & 134 & 32 & 135 & h\\
634: \tableline
635: \end{tabular}
636: \tablerefs{$^{\dagger}$ Panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fft_upw_pro} in which the
637: resulting Fourier phase difference spectra are overplotted}
638: \end{center}
639: \end{table}
640:
641:
642:
643: \end{document}
644: