1: %\\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4_fix]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
5: %\documentstyle[]{article}
6: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
7: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
8: %\documentclass[apjpt4]{aastex}
9: %\documentclass[letterpaper]{aastex}
10:
11: \newcommand{\SOHO}{{\it SOHO}}
12: \newcommand{\TRACE}{{\it TRACE}}
13: \newcommand{\STEREO}{{\it STEREO}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: %
17: \baselineskip=20pt
18: %
19: \title{Observational Test of Coronal Magnetic Field Models \\
20: I. Comparison with Potential Field Model}
21:
22: \author{Yu Liu \& Haosheng Lin}
23: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii \\
24: 34 Ohia Ku Street, Pukalani, HI 96768, USA}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: Recent advances have made it possible to obtain two-dimensional
28: line-of-sight magnetic field maps of the solar corona from
29: spectropolarimetric observations of the \ion{Fe}{13} 1075 nm forbidden
30: coronal emission line. Together with the linear polarization measurements
31: that map the azimuthal direction of the coronal magnetic field projected
32: in the plane of the sky containing Sun center, these coronal vector
33: magnetograms allow for direct and quantitative observational testing of
34: theoretical coronal magnetic field models. This paper presents
35: a study testing the validity of potential-field coronal magnetic field
36: models. We constructed a theoretical coronal magnetic field model of
37: active region AR 10582 observed by the SOLARC coronagraph in 2004 by using
38: a global potential field extrapolation of the synoptic map of Carrington
39: Rotation 2014. Synthesized linear and circular polarization maps from
40: thin layers of the coronal magnetic field model above the active
41: region along the line of sight are compared with the observed maps.
42: We found that the observed linear and circular polarization signals
43: are consistent with the synthesized ones from layers located just above
44: the sunspot of AR 10582 near the plane of the sky containing the Sun
45: center.
46:
47: %This result provides the first observational evidence
48: %that potential field extrapolation can yield a reasonable approximation
49: %of the magnetic field configuration of the solar corona for simple and
50: %stable active regions.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{Sun: corona --- Sun: magnetic fields}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56: \label{sec:intro}
57:
58: Understanding the static and dynamic properties of the solar corona
59: is one of the great challenges of modern solar physics. Magnetic fields
60: are believed to play a dominant role in shaping the solar corona.
61: Current theories also attribute reorganization of the coronal magnetic
62: field and the release of magnetic energy in the process as the primary
63: mechanism that drives energetic solar events. However, direct measurement
64: of the coronal magnetic field is a very difficult observational problem.
65: Early experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of the measurement
66: of the orientation of the coronal magnetic fields by observation of the
67: linear polarization of forbidden coronal emission lines (CELs) in the
68: visible and at IR wavelengths \citep{eddy1967,mickey1973,arnaud1982,
69: querfeld1982,tomczyk_et_al_2007}. Radio observations have also been
70: successful in measuring the strength of the coronal magnetic field near
71: the base of the solar corona \citep[e.g.,] [and references therein]
72: {brosius_2006}. Direct measurement of the coronal magnetic field strength
73: at a higher height by IR spectropolarimetry of the CELs was achieved
74: only recently \citep{lin_et_al_2000, lkc_2004}.
75: Without direct measurements, past studies involving coronal magnetic fields
76: have relied on indirect modeling techniques to infer the coronal
77: magnetic field configurations, including coronal intensity images observed in
78: the EUV and X-ray wavelength ranges and numerical methods that reconstruct
79: the three-dimensional coronal magnetic field structure by extrapolation
80: and MHD (magnetohydrodynamics) simulation based on photospheric magnetic
81: field measurements. Since experimental verification of theories and models
82: is one of the cornerstones of modern science, the lack of observational
83: verification of these indirect magnetic field inference methods that
84: are in widespread use is a very unsatisfactory deficiency in our field.
85:
86: Our 2004 observations were obtained above active region AR 10582 right
87: before its west limb transit. We have obtained the first measurement
88: of the height dependence of the strength of the line-of-sight (LOS)
89: component of the coronal magnetic field in this data, and it showed an
90: intriguing reversal in the direction of the LOS magnetic field at a
91: height of approximately $0.15\ R_{\odot}$ above the solar limb, as shown
92: in Figures 4 and 5 of \cite{lkc_2004}. This feature and the observed
93: linear polarization map have presented us with our first opportunity to
94: carry out a comprehensive observational test of our coronal magnetic
95: modeling methods in which the strength and direction of the magnetic
96: fields predicted by the models can be directly checked by the observations.
97:
98: Force-free extrapolation of photospheric magnetic fields is currently
99: the primary tool for the modeling of coronal magnetic fields. However,
100: it is not without limitations or uncertainties. For example,
101: the force-free assumption does not hold true in the photosphere and low
102: chromosphere, and possibly in the high corona above 2 $R_{\odot}$
103: \citep{gary_2001}. Moreover, a different assumption (current-free, linear and
104: nonlinear force free) about the state of the electric current in the corona
105: can lead to substantially different extrapolation results. Without direct
106: magnetic field measurements, many fundamental questions concerning the
107: basic assumptions and the validity of our tools cannot be addressed
108: directly. To date, questions like ``Is a potential field approximation
109: generally an acceptable approximation for coronal magnetic fields?" or
110: ``Do linear or nonlinear force-free extrapolations provide a more accurate
111: description of the coronal magnetic field?" can only be addressed by
112: visual comparison between the morphology of selected field lines of the
113: extrapolated magnetic field model and observational tracers of coronal
114: magnetic fields such as the loops seen in EUV images. However, these
115: visual tests are qualitative and subjective. Furthermore, they assume
116: the coalignment between the magnetic field lines and the loops in EUV
117: images, which has not been verified observationally.
118:
119: As our first test, we attempted to address the question ``Is the potential
120: field extrapolation generally an acceptable approximation for the coronal
121: magnetic field?" This test was conducted by comparing the observed polarization
122: maps of AR 10582 to those derived from a coronal magnetic field model
123: constructed from the potential field extrapolation of photospheric magnetic
124: field data. However, before we present our study, we should point out
125: that because of the nature of our modeling tools and observational data,
126: the results and conclusions of this research are subject to certain
127: limitations and uncertainties. One of the intrinsic limitations of the
128: observational data used in this study is that because of our single sight
129: line from Earth to the Sun, the photospheric and coronal magnetic field
130: observations cannot be obtained simultaneously. In the case of global
131: coronal magnetic field models, the whole-Sun photospheric magnetic field
132: data used as the boundary condition of the extrapolation can be
133: obtained only over an extended period of time. Although the large-scale
134: magnetic structure of nonflaring active regions may appear stable over
135: a long period of time, high-resolution EUV observations have shown that
136: the small-scale coronal structures are constantly changing. Thus,
137: studies such as ours that compare coronal magnetic field observations
138: and models constructed from photospheric magnetic fields inevitably
139: are subject to uncertainties due to the evolution of the small-scale
140: structures in the regions, and we should not expect a precise match
141: between the observed and synthesized polarization maps.
142:
143: Another deficiency due to the single sight line of our observations
144: is the lack of knowledge of the source regions of the coronal radiation.
145: This is perhaps the most limiting deficiency of the observations and
146: models of this research. The uncertainty of the location of the source
147: regions associated with coronal intensity observations due to the low
148: optical density of the coronal plasma and the resulting long integration
149: path length is familiar. In the case of the coronal magnetic
150: observations, the LOS integration problem prevents us from performing
151: an inversion of the polarization data to reconstruct the three-dimensional
152: magnetic field structure of the corona for direct comparison with those
153: derived from extrapolations or MHD simulations. On the other hand, since
154: extrapolation techniques do not include the thermodynamic properties of
155: the plasma in the construction of the coronal magnetic field models,
156: they do not include information about the location of the
157: CEL source regions either. Therefore, they cannot predict the
158: intensity and polarization distribution of the CEL projected on the
159: plane of the sky that are needed for direct comparison with the
160: polarimetric observations.
161:
162: Without the information about the location of the source regions
163: from the observational data and the extrapolated models, we adopted
164: a trial-and-error approach in which synthesized linear and circular
165: polarization maps were derived using empirical source functions
166: and the extrapolated potential magnetic field model, and were
167: compared directly with those obtained from observations. Obviously,
168: if acceptable agreement can be achieved with any of the models tested,
169: then we can argue with a certain degree of confidence that these models
170: are plausible models of the observed corona and that the potential
171: field approximation is a reasonable approximation of the coronal
172: magnetic fields. Nevertheless, we should emphasize that this
173: trial-and-error approach is not an exhaustive search of all the
174: possible source functions and therefore cannot provide a clear-cut
175: true-or-false answer. In other words, even if no acceptable
176: agreement can be found with all the model source functions we have
177: considered, the potential field approximation still cannot be
178: dismissed completely.
179:
180: \section{Data Analysis and Results}
181:
182: \subsection{Modeling the Coronal Magnetic Fields}
183:
184: \subsubsection{Evolutionary History of AR 10581 and AR 10582}
185:
186: Although the purpose of this study is to test the validity of potential
187: field approximation for AR 10582, examination of the photospheric magnetic
188: field configuration and evolution of the regions should be informative
189: and helpful for assessing the results of this study. Figure
190: \ref{fig:context_info} shows the \TRACE\ (Transition Region
191: and Coronal Explorer) white-light image and the \SOHO/MDI
192: (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Michelson Doppler Imager)
193: magnetogram of these regions on 2004 April 1. Their activity history
194: during their disk transit is shown in Figure \ref{fig:flare_counts}.
195: AR 10581 and 10582 first appeared on the east limb of the Sun on 2004
196: March 23. Images taken by \SOHO/EIT (Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope) and \TRACE\
197: data showed that AR 10582 was initially very active and produced several
198: C- and M-class flares between March 23 and April 1. AR 10581, on the
199: other hand, produced only two small flares in the first week. No flare
200: activities were observed from either region in the four days before the
201: SOLARC observation. Close examination of EIT and \TRACE\ data also showed
202: that the large-scale configuration of these active regions did not change
203: significantly during this period.
204:
205: \subsubsection{Extrapolated Potential Field Model of AR 10582}
206:
207: We employed a global potential field extrapolation program based on
208: the Green's Function method developed by \cite{schatten_et_al_1969}
209: and \cite{sakurai_1982} for the construction of the coronal magnetic
210: field \citep{liu_2002}. The magnetic synoptic map of Carrington Rotation
211: 2014 obtained by the \SOHO/MDI instrument was used as the boundary
212: condition of the extrapolation. The first two panels, (a) and (b), of
213: Figure \ref{fig:extrap_B} show selected field lines from the
214: extrapolated coronal magnetic field model of AR 10581 and AR 10582
215: plotted over a \TRACE\ \ion{Fe}{9} 171 \AA\ image as they are viewed on
216: the disk. Panels (c) and (d) show the same set of field lines overplotted on
217: the \SOHO/EIT \ion{Fe}{9} 171 \AA\ images and \SOHO/MDI magnetograms
218: when they transited the west limb. The field of view of the SOLARC LOS
219: magnetogram observation is marked by the rectangular box in the figure.
220: We found a general agreement between the orientation and distribution
221: of the discernible EIT intensity loops during the time of the SOLARC
222: observations, and the selected magnetic field lines from the extrapolated
223: model are evident. The extrapolated magnetic field lines in AR 10582 are
224: predominantly aligned along the east-west direction, while a set of field
225: lines running along the north-south direction connecting the two active
226: regions also coincide with a large north-south loop in the EIT images.
227: Figure \ref{fig:trace_loops} shows a \TRACE\ high-resolution
228: \ion{Fe}{9} 171 \AA\ image of AR 10582 taken about 3 hr after the
229: limb spectropolarimetric observations had ended. We found that a
230: subset of the extrapolated field lines appear to closely resemble
231: the TRACE loops. While the similarities in the morphology of the EUV
232: intensity images and the extrapolated magnetic field lines seem to
233: suggest that the extrapolated coronal magnetic field model is a fair
234: representation of the magnetic field configuration of AR 10581
235: and AR 10582, it is a subjective interpretation.
236:
237: \subsection{Observational Test of the Potential-Field
238: Coronal Magnetic Field Model}
239:
240: \subsubsection{Synthesis of the Coronal Polarization Maps}
241:
242: We have developed a program to calculate the LOS integrated linear
243: and circular polarization signals at any point in the plane of the sky
244: (POS) given the extrapolated coronal magnetic field model and the density
245: and temperature distribution of the solar corona based on the classical
246: theory of \cite{lin_casini_2000} for the forbidden CEL polarization.
247: The formulae for the emergent Stokes parameter of the CEL are identical
248: to those derived from a full-quantum mechanical formulation
249: \citep{casini_judge_1999}, up to a proportional constant. However,
250: as this classical formulation does not consider the effect of collisional
251: depolarization, it may overestimate the degree of linear polarization at
252: a lower height. The azimuth angle of the linear polarization predicted
253: by our program should also be affected slightly when we integrate over
254: a long path length, since the collisional depolarization effect may change
255: the relative contribution of the sources along the LOS.
256: \cite{judge_casini_2001} have also developed a CEL polarization synthesis
257: program that includes the effect of collisions. We have implemented both
258: programs to generate the linear and circular polarization signals from
259: the extrapolated potential field model.
260: We found that the synthesized polarization maps derived from these
261: two programs are very similar, and analysis based on these two programs
262: yielded the same results. The comparison of the synthesized polarization
263: maps from these two programs will be presented when we present the
264: study comparing the observed and synthesized polarization maps.
265:
266: \subsubsection{Linear Polarization Maps}
267:
268: The 2004 April 6 data include a linear polarization scan encompassing
269: both AR 10581 and AR 10582. However, due to the long
270: integration time required, only one circular polarization measurement
271: was obtained above AR 10582. Therefore, this study concentrates on
272: the $320 \arcsec \times 160 \arcsec$ field with both circular and linear
273: polarization measurements as marked by the rectangular area in Figures
274: \ref{fig:extrap_B} and \ref{fig:trace_loops}. As it was mentioned in
275: \S\ref{sec:intro}, the lack of knowledge of the coronal density and
276: temperature distribution is the greatest uncertainty in our study.
277: Nevertheless, based on decades of observations, we now know that strong
278: coronal emissions are always associated with active regions. Furthermore,
279: due to the small density scale height of the high-temperature emission
280: lines, the contribution function of the CELs along the LOS is heavily
281: weighted toward layers close to the POS containing Sun center.
282: Therefore, we can expect that for isolated active regions, the
283: forbidden coronal emission originates from a localized region near
284: the POS containing Sun center during the active region's limb transit.
285: According to the \SOHO/MDI white-light archive, there were no other
286: active regions present on the solar disk on 2004 April 1, when AR 10581
287: and AR 10582 were located approximately at disk center. Additionally,
288: there was no evidence of new active regions emerging in the vicinity
289: of these regions up to the day of the coronal polarization
290: measurement. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the polarized
291: radiations we measured originated in the corona above these active
292: regions near the POS containing Sun center. This expectation prompted
293: us to test if an empirical source function constructed from a simple
294: gravitationally stratified atmosphere and local magnetic field properties,
295: such as the strength or the magnetic energy, can reproduce (if only
296: qualitatively) the observed polarization maps.
297:
298: For our first test, we constructed a linear polarization map using a
299: source function ${W_{n_e}}(\bf{r})$ that is proportional to the square of the density of
300: a spherically symmetric, gravitationally stratified density distribution
301: with a density scale height of $h_0=83$ Mm
302: \citep[$0.11\ R_{\odot}$,][]{lang_1980}. That is,
303: %
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: \label{eq:source_function_1}
306: W_{n_e}({\bf r}) = e^{-2h({\bf r})/h_0},
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: %
309: where ${\bf r}$ is the three-dimensional position vector in the heliocentric
310: coordinate system and $h({\bf r})$ is the height at ${\bf r}$.
311: The temperature of the corona was assumed to be constant and did not affect
312: the source function. The magnetic properties of the corona are not included
313: in this model either. This is similar to the atmospheric model used in the
314: polarization synthesis performed by \cite{judge_et_al_2006}. The resulting
315: normalized source function along the LOS in the center of the SOLARC field
316: of view and the synthesized linear polarization map are shown in panel
317: (b) of Figure \ref{fig:empirical_models}. Note that because
318: AR 10582 was located between W70 to W80 longitude, this density-only source
319: function has its maximum located outside of the active region. Although
320: $W_{n_e}({\bf r})$ is obviously a gross simplification of the magnetic coronal
321: atmosphere, and we should not expect to see good agreement between the observed
322: and synthesized linear polarization maps based on $W_{n_e}({\bf r})$ alone
323: (as demonstrated in the top figure in panel (b) of Figure
324: \ref{fig:empirical_models}), this test is a necessary step in our systematic
325: trial-and-error study. Furthermore,
326: the importance of its inclusion in the estimate of the source function
327: can be seen when we compare the linear polarization maps constructed with
328: and without it (top figure in panel (a) of Figure \ref{fig:empirical_models}).
329:
330: In our next test, we examined if there is any simple relationship
331: between the CEL source function and the magnetic properties of the corona.
332: Because of the observed correlation between the strong CEL radiation and
333: active regions, it is only logical to test if a source function with its
334: amplitude proportional to the local magnetic field strength or magnetic
335: energy can reproduce the observed polarization signals. To test this idea,
336: we multiplied the source function that was constructed from the uniform
337: temperature, gravitationally stratified atmosphere model by the local
338: magnetic field strength $B$. Another model used the local magnetic field
339: energy density $B^2$ as the additional magnetic weighting function.
340: Accordingly, the two magnetic source functions are expressed by
341: %
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: W_{B}({\bf r}) = e^{-2h({\bf r})/h_0} B
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: and
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: W_{B^2}({\bf r}) = e^{-2h({\bf r})/h_0} B^2.
348: \end{eqnarray}
349: %
350: The additional magnetic constraints restrict the source function to a
351: more localized region around the active region, and with a spatial
352: scale comparable to that of the active region. However, the linear
353: polarization maps derived using these source functions still are not
354: in good agreement with the observed one. These are demonstrated in
355: panels (c) and (d) of Figure \ref{fig:empirical_models}.
356:
357: Although none of the linear polarization maps we have constructed
358: so far can be considered to be in good agreement with the observation,
359: it can be argued that the maps derived from the two source functions
360: with magnetic constraints appear to better match the observed one,
361: especially at the lower right-hand corner of the field, where the
362: degree of linear polarization is the highest. Therefore, we suspect
363: that the assumption about the magnetic dependence of the CEL source
364: function is in general valid. However, the correlation may be occurring
365: at a spatial scale smaller than that of the active regions. Because
366: space EUV observations have shown that radiation from the emission-line
367: corona originates from loop-like structures with a characteristic
368: size much smaller than the characteristic size of the active regions,
369: it should not be surprising that the linear polarization maps produced
370: by the broad source functions do not agree well with the observation.
371: This reasoning prompted us to experiment with source functions with
372: a spatial scale approximately equal to a few times the characteristic
373: width of the coronal loops to test if better agreement between the
374: observed and synthesized polarization maps can be achieved.
375:
376: Since we do not have information about the location of the source regions
377: of the observed \ion{Fe}{13} 10747 \AA\ line emission at this spatial
378: resolution, we constructed the linear polarization map of 205 layers
379: along the LOS within the SOLARC FOV for comparison with the observed
380: linear polarization map. The separation between the synthesized layers
381: is 4.5 Mm, the resolution of the potential field extrapolation calculation.
382: The first and last layers are located 720 Mm (or about 1000$\arcsec$) in
383: front and 250 Mm (or about 340$\arcsec$) behind the POS
384: containing Sun center, respectively. The locations of these layers with
385: respect to the solar sphere, the observed active region, and the LOS
386: of the observer are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:obs_geometry}.
387: %
388: We used a one-dimensional Gaussian function with a full width at
389: half-maximum (FWHM) in the LOS direction equal to a few times that
390: of the characteristic coronal loop size to model the source function.
391: For this test, we adopted the 8 Mm characteristic loop width of the
392: EUV \ion{Fe}{14} 28.4 nm line derived by \cite{aschwanden_et_al_2000}.
393: This line is chosen because its ionization temperature of $2.2\times10^6$
394: K is closer to that of the IR \ion{Fe}{13} 10747 \AA\ line
395: ($T_{\rm ion} = 1.7 \times 10^{6}$ K) than the other \SOHO/EIT EUV
396: lines. We calculated and compared the polarization maps with the FWHM
397: of the source function set from 1 to 14 times the characteristic loop
398: width of the \ion{Fe}{14} 28.4 nm lines and found no significant
399: difference between the polarization maps. This is expected, since the
400: coronal magnetic field should vary slowly in space as it expands to
401: fill the entire coronal volume. Finally, because of this lack of
402: sensitivity in the synthesized polarization signals to the variations
403: of the FWHM of the source function, we used a nominal 56 km FWHM
404: source function (or 7 times the FWHM of the \ion{Fe}{13} 28.4 nm loops)
405: for the calculation of the synthesized polarization maps in the rest
406: of the paper.
407:
408: We evaluated the quality of the fit between the synthesized and observed
409: polarization maps from the rms difference between the degree of polarization
410: $p$ and the azimuthal angles $\chi$ of the linear polarization direction
411: projected in the POS, $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_\chi$, respectively.
412: Figure \ref{fig:fit_errors} shows $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_\chi$ as functions
413: of $z$ along the LOS. Results derived from our own collisionless classical
414: formulation are shown by the black lines, and those derived with Judge \&
415: Casini's code (2001; hereafter referred to as the JC synthesis code) are shown
416: in red. Figure \ref{fig:fit_errors} shows that the minimum of
417: $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_\chi$ both
418: occur near the layer right above the sunspot of the active region. Figure
419: \ref{fig:linear_polarization_maps} shows 15 synthesized linear polarization
420: maps calculated with our classical synthesis code from layer 70 to layer 140,
421: with an interval of 5 layers, plotted over the observed map. The best fit,
422: determined from the total rms error $\sigma^2_{lp} = \sigma^2_p +
423: (\sigma_{\chi}/\pi)^2$ of the linear polarization maps, occurs around layer
424: 120, right above the sunspot.
425:
426:
427: \subsubsection{Comparison with Judge \& Casini's Coronal Polarization
428: Synthesis Code}
429:
430: Figure \ref{fig:judge_lp} shows the linear polarization map of layer
431: 120 derived with the JC synthesis code compared with that derived from
432: our collisionless code, and with observations. Apparently, the JC synthesis
433: code consistently predicts a smaller linear polarization amplitude
434: compared with our classical theory, as expected, and produced better
435: agreement with the observed linear polarization map at the lower part
436: of the field. However, there are still significant disagreements in the
437: upper part of the field, where both the JC synthesis code and our own program
438: overestimated the degree of linear polarization. This may be due to the
439: larger measurement errors associated with the small amplitudes of the
440: observed linear polarization, and their significance should not be
441: overstated. Close examination of the data shows that the larger rms
442: error shown in Figure \ref{fig:fit_errors} in the JC results is due to
443: larger errors in this region. Therefore, we do not consider that our
444: collisionless synthesis actually provides better agreement with the
445: observations.
446:
447: In view of the inherent uncertainties in the modeling process discussed
448: in \S\ref{sec:intro}, we do not feel that a meaningful quantitative
449: comparison between these two methods can be justified at this point.
450: Nevertheless, Judge \& Casini's program with collisional depolarization
451: is definitely a more complete description of the physical processes in
452: the atmosphere of the solar corona and should be preferred. Future
453: observations at a lower height, where the collisional depolarization effect is
454: expected to be more important, should allow us to clearly distinguish
455: between the effect of collisional depolarization and uncertainties in
456: the modeling process.
457:
458: \subsubsection{Strength and Reversal of Line-of-Sight Magnetic Fields}
459:
460: Our analysis so far has demonstrated that the potential field
461: model can reproduce the observed linear polarization maps.
462: Is this a coincidence? To answer this question, it is interesting
463: to first note that the layers of best fit for both the degree and
464: azimuthal angle of the linear polarization occur at approximately
465: the same location near the region of the strongest photospheric
466: magnetic fields. Since $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_{\chi}$ were determined
467: independently, the probability that these two parameters reach minimum
468: at approximately the same location and at the region with the strongest
469: photospheric magnetic flux purely by chance should be very low.
470: Therefore, we believe that our analysis of the linear polarization
471: maps support the idea that the potential field model is a good
472: approximation of the real coronal magnetic field of AR 10582.
473: Furthermore, if an agreement between the modeled and observed height
474: dependence of the LOS component of the coronal magnetic field can be
475: found, then the validity of the potential field model, at least
476: as a first order approximation for stable active regions, can be
477: strongly argued.
478:
479: To check if the observed Stokes $V$ reversal can be reproduced, we
480: derived the height of Stokes $V$ reversal $H_0$ for each of the 205
481: 56-Mm-FWHM layers along the sight line. The LOS components of the
482: magnetic field $B_z$ in the central $320 \arcsec \times 80 \arcsec$
483: region of each layer were averaged in the north-south direction (or
484: the tangential direction with respect to the local solar limb) to
485: simulate the spatial averaging performed on the observation data.
486: The result is shown in Figure \ref{fig:StokesV_Reversal}.
487: Since the dominant magnetic structure around the active region in our
488: FOV consists of magnetic loops oriented along the east-west direction,
489: there were two locations with $H_0 = 0.15\ R_{\odot}$, one due to the
490: front (closer to the observer) portion of the loops near layer 80, and
491: one located in the back of the loops, at layer 130. Note that layer 130
492: is much closer to the sunspot of AR 10582 and the maximum of the empirical
493: source functions $W_B$ and $W_{B^2}$ shown in Figure
494: \ref{fig:empirical_models}. In comparison, the amplitudes of
495: $W_{n_e}$, $W_B$, and $W_{B^2}$ at layer 80 are only about 0.15, 0.1,
496: and 0.05, respectively (Figure \ref{fig:empirical_models}).
497: We calculated the net Stokes $V$ signals as a function of height above
498: the limb for layer 130 and found that they agree well with the observed
499: signals as shown in Figure \ref{fig:Synthesized_StokesV}.
500: On the other hand, this is not the case for layer 80.
501: We conducted the same analysis using the JC synthesis code and
502: produced virtually identical results.
503: Therefore, it is more likely that the dominant source of the Stokes
504: $V$ signals originates from around layer 130.
505:
506: The blue and red Gaussian curves in Figure \ref{fig:StokesV_Reversal}
507: mark the locations where the best fits to the
508: linear and circular polarization observation occur, respectively.
509: As is clearly shown in this figure, layer 130 is only about 50 Mm
510: away from the location with the best fit of the linear polarization
511: maps. Given the proximity of the locations of the best fit of the three
512: parameters ($p$, $\chi$, and $H_0$) and the strongest magnetic feature
513: of the active region, we concluded that this comparative study demonstrates
514: the validity of potential field extrapolation as a tool for the modeling
515: of the coronal magnetic field.
516:
517: \section{Summary, Discussions, and Conclusions}
518:
519: This research examines observationally the validity of current-free,
520: force-free potential-field approximation for coronal magnetic fields.
521: We conducted a study comparing observed and synthesized spatial
522: variations of the linear and circular polarization maps in the corona
523: above active region AR 10582, which after a week of extensive flaring
524: activities should have settled into a minimum energy configuration that
525: could be adequately modeled by a potential field model. The coronal
526: magnetic field model used for this study was constructed from a global
527: potential field extrapolation of the synoptic photospheric magnetogram
528: of Carrington cycle 2014 obtained by the \SOHO/MDI instrument.
529: Because the most important source of error of this type of study is the
530: uncertainty of the location of the source function of the coronal
531: radiation, we first tested three analytical, but empirically determined,
532: source functions. These simple source functions are based on a
533: gravitationally stratified atmospheric density model with a uniform
534: temperature in the entire modeled volume, supplemented by magnetic
535: weighting functions based on the observational impression that, at
536: least at the length scale of the typical active region size, CEL
537: radiation seems to be correlated with the strength of the photospheric
538: magnetic fields. We found that none of these empirical source functions
539: can adequately reproduce the observed linear polarization maps, although
540: it seems that the source functions that include both density and magnetic
541: fields produced slightly better results. Based again on the observational
542: impression that the coronal intensity structures have a spatial scale much
543: smaller than that of the active regions, we then compared the observed
544: polarization maps with those constructed from thin (56 Mm FWHM) layers along
545: the LOS. In this analysis, we found that polarization maps originating
546: from layers located near the sunspot of the region are in reasonable
547: agreement with the observed ones. However, the best fit for linear and
548: circular polarization did not occur at the same layer. They are separated
549: by a distance of about 50 Mm.
550:
551: Does the small discrepancy between the best-fit locations of the linear
552: and circular polarization weaken the support for the potential field
553: extrapolation? As we have discussed in \S\ref{sec:intro}, many
554: uncertainties conspire to limit the precision of this study. For example,
555: the difference may be due to the evolution of the small-scale photospheric
556: magnetic field of the active region, and we do not have any observational
557: information that we can use to test this possibility. The assumption of
558: uniform temperature distribution in our source function is certainly not
559: a physically realistic assumption. Therefore, it is not possible to assess
560: the significance of the small difference in the location of the source
561: regions of the linear and circular polarization. Furthermore, in addition
562: to density and temperature, the source functions of CEL linear and circular
563: polarization depend on different components of the coronal magnetic field.
564: So it is in fact physically reasonable that we would find the linear and
565: circular polarization signals originate from slightly different locations.
566: Finally, because the three parameters ($\sigma_p$, $\sigma_\chi$, and $H_0$)
567: we used to evaluate the quality of the fit were obtained independently,
568: the statistical significance that all three parameters reached minimum
569: at approximately the same location near the strongest photospheric magnetic
570: feature of the active region cannot be dismissed as pure coincidence. These
571: considerations lead us to conclude that potential field extrapolation can
572: be used to provide a zero-order approximation of the real solar corona
573: if the active region is in a relatively simple and stable configuration.
574: Additionally, this study suggests that, at least for isolated active
575: regions, CEL radiation may originate from a region close to the strongest
576: photospheric magnetic feature in the active region with a small spatial
577: scale comparable to the characteristic size of the coronal loops seen in
578: the intensity images. If this is confirmed, then a single-source inversion
579: to infer the magnetic field directly from the polarimetric observation such
580: as that proposed by \cite{judge_2007} may be justified.
581:
582: Our conclusion about the viability of potential field extrapolation
583: as a coronal magnetic field modeling tool for stable active regions
584: is supported by a study by \cite{riley_et_al_2006}, in which the
585: coronal magnetic field configuration derived from a potential field
586: model was found to closely match that derived from a MHD simulation
587: in the case of untwisted fields. Nevertheless, we should emphasize
588: that our conclusion is derived from a single observation of a simple and
589: stable active region. Clearly, more observations and model comparison are
590: needed for a more comprehensive test of this result.
591:
592: Can the potential field approximation be used to model more complicated
593: active regions? Using radio observations, \cite{lee_et_al_1999} found
594: that a force-free-field model yields better agreement between the
595: temperatures of two isogauss surfaces connected by the modeled field
596: lines of an active region with strong magnetic shear. This study thus
597: provides observational evidence against the use of potential field
598: approximations for the modeling of complex active regions. Therefore,
599: linear and nonlinear force-free extrapolations should be employed in
600: future testing of theoretical coronal magnetic field models using the
601: IR spectropolarimetric observations to study if these models can offer
602: a better description of the observed coronal fields.
603:
604: Can we distinguish the potential coronal magnetic field configurations
605: from the non-potential ones with the spectropolarimetric observations
606: of the coronal emission lines? In a numerical study, \cite{judge_2007}
607: has demonstrated the sensitivity of LOS-integrated
608: coronal polarization measurements to the electric current in the corona
609: using theoretical coronal magnetic field models as input. Therefore, we
610: should expect to find better agreement between observed and synthesized
611: polarization maps for more complex active regions with linear or nonlinear
612: force-free magnetic field models. Work to model AR10582 using the force-free
613: extrapolation method is already underway, and we should be able to address
614: this question in the near future. Since all extrapolation methods are
615: subject to the ambiguities problem of the source regions, we will also
616: employ MHD simulations that include both the magnetic and thermodynamic
617: properties of the corona in the calculation to help resolve this problem.
618: These are research activities that we will be pursuing in the near future
619: as the solar cycle evolves toward the next solar maximum and more coronal
620: magnetic field data become available.
621:
622: The greatest difficulty of this study is the uncertainty of the location
623: of the source function due to the long integration path along the LOS.
624: However, this is not a difficulty affecting only the interpretation of
625: coronal magnetic field measurements. It affects the intensity observation
626: as well, and is the primary reason that years into the operation of
627: \SOHO/EIT and \TRACE, we still cannot deduce 3-D intensity and temperature
628: structure of the corona using data from these instruments. Fortunately,
629: this deficiency in our observing capability may finally be removed with
630: the recent launch of the \STEREO\ mission (Solar TErrestrial RElations
631: Observatory). For the resolution of the LOS
632: integration problem in polarimetric observations, \cite{kramar_et_al_2006}
633: have demonstrated the promising potential of vector tomography techniques.
634: While stereoscopic coronal magnetic field observations will not be
635: realized any time soon, this method can be applied to observations
636: obtained over periods of several days during the limb transit of active
637: regions, provided that the active regions are in a stable condition.
638: This is perhaps the best observational tool available for the resolution
639: of the LOS integration problem in the near future.
640:
641: \acknowledgements
642: The authors would like to thank Phil Judge for generously providing
643: the polarization synthesis codes and for helping to implement them.
644: Y. L. thanks Tongjiang Wang for many discussions on this work.
645: The authors also gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from the
646: anonymous referee that greatly improved the presentation of the paper.
647: EIT data is courtesy of the \SOHO/EIT consortium. \SOHO\ is a
648: project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. This
649: research is funded by NSF ATM-0421582 and NASA NNG06GE13G.
650:
651:
652: %\clearpage
653:
654: \begin{thebibliography}
655:
656: \bibitem[Arnaud, J.(1982)]{arnaud1982}
657: Arnaud, J. 1982,
658: \aap, 112, 350
659: \bibitem[Aschwanden et al.(2000)]{aschwanden_et_al_2000}
660: Aschwanden, M. J., Alexander, D., Hurlburt, N.,
661: Newmark, J. S., Neupert, W. M., Klimchuk, J. A., \& Garry, G. A.
662: 2000, \apj, 531, 1129
663: \bibitem[Brosius \& White(2006)]{brosius_2006}
664: Brosius, J. W., \& White, S. M. 2006,
665: \apj, 641, L69
666: \bibitem[Casini \& Judge(1999)]{casini_judge_1999}
667: Casini, R., \& Judge, P. G. 1999, \apj, 522, 524
668: \bibitem[Eddy \& Malville(1967)]{eddy1967}
669: Eddy, J.A., \& Malville, M. J. 1967,
670: \apj, 150, 289
671: \bibitem[Gary(2001)]{gary_2001}
672: Gary, G. A. 2001, \solphys, 203, 71
673: \bibitem[Judge(2007)]{judge_2007}
674: Judge, P. 2007, \apj, 662, 677
675: \bibitem[Judge \& Casini(2001)]{judge_casini_2001}
676: Judge, P. G., \& Casini, R. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 236,
677: Advanced Solar Polarimetry: Theory, Observation, and
678: Instrumentation, ed. M. Sigwarth (San Francisco: ASP), 503 (JC)
679: \bibitem[Judge et al.(2006)]{judge_et_al_2006}
680: Judge, P., Low, B. C., \& Casini, R. 2006, \apj, 651, 1229
681: \bibitem[Kramar et al.(2006)]{kramar_et_al_2006}
682: Kramar, M. B., Inhester, B., \& Solanki, S. K. 2006,
683: \aap, 456, 665
684: \bibitem[Lang(1984)]{lang_1980}
685: Lang, K. 1980, Astrophysical Formulae (Berlin: Springer)
686: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999)]{lee_et_al_1999}
687: Lee, J., White, S. M., Kundu, M. R., McClymont, A. N.,
688: \& Miki\'c, Z. 1999,
689: \apj, 510, 413
690: \bibitem[Lin \& Casini(2000)]{lin_casini_2000}
691: Lin, H., \& Casini, R. 2000, \apj, 542, 528
692: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2004)]{lkc_2004}
693: Lin, H., Kuhn, J. R., \& Coulter, R. 2004, \apj, 613, L177
694: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2000)]{lin_et_al_2000}
695: Lin, H., Penn, M. J., \& Tomczyk, S. 2000, \apj, 541, L83
696: \bibitem[Liu \& Zhang(2002)]{liu_2002}
697: Liu, Y., \& Zhang, H. 2002, Publ. Yunnan Obs., 92, 1
698: \bibitem[Mickey(1973)]{mickey1973}
699: Mickey, D. L. 1973,
700: \apj, 171, L19
701: %\bibitem[Mickey et al.(1996)]{mickey_et_al_1996}
702: % Mickey, D. L., Canfield, R. C., LaBonte, B. J., Leka, K. D.,
703: % Waterson, M. F., \& Weber, H. M. 1996, \solphys, 168, 229
704: \bibitem[Querfeld(1982)]{querfeld1982}
705: Querfeld, C.W. 1982,
706: ApJ, 255, 764
707: \bibitem[Riley et al.(2006)]{riley_et_al_2006}
708: Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Miki\'c, Z., \& Lionello, R. 2006,
709: \apj, 653, 1510
710: \bibitem[Sakurai(1982)]{sakurai_1982}
711: Sakurai, T. 1982, \solphys, 76, 301
712: \bibitem[Schatten et al.(1969)]{schatten_et_al_1969} Schatten, K. H.,
713: Wilcox, J. M., \& Ness, N. F. 1969, \solphys, 6, 442
714: \bibitem[Tomczyk et al.(2007)]{tomczyk_et_al_2007}
715: Tomczyk, S., McIntosh, S. W., Keil, S. L., Judge, P. G.,
716: Schad, T., Seeley, D. H., \& Edmondson, J. 2007,
717: Science, 317, 1192
718:
719: \end{thebibliography}{}
720:
721: \clearpage
722:
723: %\begin{center}
724: %FIGURE LEGENDS
725: %\end{center}
726:
727: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 1
728: \epsscale{1.0}
729: \plotone{f1.eps}
730: \figcaption{\TRACE\ white-light image (left) and \SOHO/MDI
731: magnetogram (right) of AR 10581 and AR 10582 observed on the solar
732: disk show the regions' photospheric intensity and magnetic field
733: configuration.
734: \label{fig:context_info}
735: }
736: \end{figure}
737:
738: \clearpage
739:
740:
741:
742: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 2
743: \epsscale{0.75}
744: \plotone{f2.eps}
745: \figcaption{Flare counts of AR 10581 and AR 10582 from 2004 March 25 to
746: 2004 April 07.
747: \label{fig:flare_counts}
748: }
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: \clearpage
752:
753:
754: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 3
755: \epsscale{1.0}
756: \plotone{f3.eps}
757: \figcaption{Selected extrapolated magnetic field lines plotted over
758: \ion{Fe}{9} 171 \AA\ images and \SOHO/MDI magnetograms of AR 10581
759: and AR 10582 when these regions are observed on the solar disk (a and b)
760: and at the west limb (c and d).
761: \label{fig:extrap_B}
762: }
763: \end{figure}
764:
765: \clearpage
766:
767:
768: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 4
769: \epsscale{0.75}
770: \plotone{f4.eps}
771: \figcaption{top: \TRACE\ \ion{Fe}{9} 171 \AA\ image of AR 10582 about 3
772: hr after the SOLARC magnetic field measurements were taken. The rectangle
773: marks the FOV of the SOLARC observations. The horizontal line within
774: the SOLARC FOV indicates the location where a reversal in the direction
775: of the longitudinal coronal magnetic field as a function of height above
776: the solar limb was observed. bottom: Same as the top panel, with a subset
777: of the magnetic field lines shown in Figure \ref{fig:extrap_B} plotted
778: over the \TRACE\ image.
779: \label{fig:trace_loops}
780: }
781: \end{figure}
782:
783: \clearpage
784:
785:
786: \begin{figure*}[c] % Fig 5
787: \epsscale{1.0}
788: \plotone{f5.eps}
789: \figcaption{Comparison between observed and synthesized linear polarization
790: maps with four empirical source functions: (a) reference source function with
791: uniform density and temperature distribution, (b) source function based on
792: a gravitationally stratified density distribution and uniform temperature,
793: (c) gravitationally stratified density source function in (b) weighted by
794: the local magnetic field strength, and (d) gravitationally stratified density
795: source function weighted by the local magnetic field energy density, $B^2$.
796: The observed (black lines) and synthesized (red lines) linear polarization
797: maps are shown in the top figure in each panel, and the source functions
798: (thick grey lines) from the center of the observed field along the LOS are
799: shown in the bottom figure in each panel. The thin black lines in the bottom
800: figures show the strength of the observed photospheric magnetic flux. The
801: source function in (a) has an equal contribution from every point in
802: space. It is not a physically realistic model and is shown to demonstrate
803: how a simple gravitationally stratified density distribution can affect
804: the outcome of the simulation.
805: \label{fig:empirical_models}
806: }
807: \end{figure*}
808:
809: \clearpage
810:
811:
812: \begin{figure*}[c] %Fig 6
813: \epsscale{1.0}
814: \plotone{f6.eps}
815: \caption{
816: Three-dimensional plot to illustrate the locations of the thin layers along
817: the LOS, and their relationship to the solar sphere and the sunspot
818: of AR 10582. The Sun is represented by the shaded quarter
819: sphere. The observing LOS is along the $Z$ axis. Layer 155 is located
820: in the POS containing the Sun center.
821: \label{fig:obs_geometry}
822: }
823: \end{figure*}
824:
825: \clearpage
826:
827:
828: \begin{figure}[c] % Fig 7
829: \epsscale{1.0}
830: \plotone{f7.eps}
831: \figcaption{
832: top: The rms errors between the synthesized and observed linear
833: polarization amplitude, $\sigma_p$ (dotted lines), azimuthal angle,
834: $\sigma_\chi$ (dashed lines), and the combination of the two,
835: $\sigma_{LP}$ (thick solid lines). Results derived with the coronal
836: polarization synthesis program developed by the authors and
837: \cite{judge_casini_2001} are shown in black and red, respectively.
838: Best-fit position for linear polarization occurs at approximately
839: layer 120, right above the sunspot.
840: bottom: The thin solid line shows the magnitude of the LOS magnetic
841: field of the photosphere. The thick blue line shows the source
842: function along the LOS for layer 120.
843: \label{fig:fit_errors}
844: }
845: \end{figure}
846:
847: \clearpage
848:
849:
850: \begin{figure*}[c] %Fig 8
851: \epsscale{1.0}
852: \plotone{f8.eps}
853: \figcaption{
854: The observed (black lines) and synthesized (red lines) linear polarization
855: maps derived with our classical synthesis program from 15 layers along the
856: LOS near the active region. Layer 120 is the layer with the smallest rms
857: error.
858: \label{fig:linear_polarization_maps}
859: }
860: \end{figure*}
861:
862: \clearpage
863:
864:
865: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 9
866: \epsscale{0.75}
867: \plotone{f9.eps}
868: \figcaption{
869: top: The linear polarization maps derived from Judge \& Casini's
870: synthesis program (red lines), and from Liu and Lin's classical
871: synthesis program (black lines). bottom: Comparison of the linear
872: polarization map derived from Judge \& Casini's program and that
873: observed by SOLARC.
874: \label{fig:judge_lp}
875: }
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: \clearpage
879:
880:
881: \begin{figure*}[c] %Fig 10
882: \epsscale{1.0}
883: \plotone{f10.eps}
884: \caption{
885: top: The calculated height of Stokes $V$ reversal as a function of height
886: from the limb derived from the potential field model.
887: bottom: Similar to Figure \ref{fig:fit_errors}, the thin solid line shows
888: the magnitude of the LOS magnetic field of the photosphere, and the thick
889: blue line shows the source function of layer 120 where the best fit for the
890: linear polarization map occurs. The thick red
891: line shows the source function along the LOS for layer 130.
892: \label{fig:StokesV_Reversal}
893: }
894: \end{figure*}
895:
896: \clearpage
897:
898:
899: \begin{figure}[c] %Fig 11
900: \epsscale{1.0}
901: \plotone{f11.eps}
902: \figcaption{
903: The observed (solid line with star and error bars) and synthesized
904: net circular polarization signals from the source layer 130 (dotted line)
905: and layer 80 (dashed line) are plotted as a function of distance from
906: the solar limb.
907: \label{fig:Synthesized_StokesV}
908: }
909: \end{figure}
910:
911: \clearpage
912:
913:
914: \end{document}
915: