1: %###############################################################################
2: %
3: % HEADER
4: %
5: %##############################################################################
6: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
7:
8: %% definitions
9:
10: \newcommand{\FeI}{\ion{Fe}{1}}
11: \newcommand{\CI}{\ion{C}{1}}
12: \newcommand{\OI}{\ion{O}{1}}
13: \newcommand{\kms}{km$\,$s$^{-1}$}
14: \newcommand{\CaII}{\ion{Ca}{2}}
15: %% packages
16: \usepackage{mathptmx}
17: \usepackage{courier}
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19: \usepackage{colordvi}
20: \usepackage{natbib}
21:
22: %%\newcommand{\figdir}[1]{#1} %%% Use when submitted
23: \newcommand{\figdir}[1]{./#1}
24: \newcommand{\figdird}[1]{./#1}
25: \newcommand{\figdirt}[1]{./#1}
26:
27: %% For now allow less text on a float page
28:
29: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7}
30: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.9}
31: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.9}
32: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}
33:
34: \shortauthors{Bellot Rubio, Tritschler, Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet}
35: \shorttitle{Spectropolarimetry of a decaying sunspot penumbra}
36:
37: %%% Paper begins here
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: %###################################################################
42: %
43: % OPENING
44: %
45: %###################################################################
46:
47: \title{Spectropolarimetry of a decaying sunspot penumbra}
48: %
49: \author{L.R.~Bellot Rubio}
50: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Andaluc\'{\i}a (CSIC), Apartado 3004,
51: 18080 Granada, Spain; lbellot@iaa.es}
52: \and
53: \author{A.~Tritschler}
54: \affil{National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak\footnote{Operated by the %
55: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA), %
56: for the National Science Foundation},
57: P.O.~Box 62, Sunspot, NM 88349, U.S.A.; ali@nso.edu}
58: \and
59: \author{V.\ Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet}
60: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias, C/Via L\'actea s/n, 38200 La
61: Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; vmp@iac.es}
62:
63: %###############################################################################
64: %
65: % ABSTRACT
66: %
67: %###############################################################################
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: We report on high angular resolution, high precision spectropolarimetric
71: measurements of a decaying sunspot. The spot gradually lost its penumbra
72: during the course of three days. In the late stages of evolution where the
73: only remnant of the spot is a naked umbra, we find small-scale inhomogeneities
74: in the magnetic canopy surrounding it. The inhomogeneities are observed as
75: finger-like structures of weak and nearly horizontal magnetic fields extending
76: 1-2\arcsec\/ from the outer border of the umbra. These fields are not
77: associated with filamentary structures in continuum intensity, nor with
78: conspicuous Evershed flows. The Stokes profiles emerging from the fingers
79: exhibit blueshifts which we interpret as upward motions. This previously
80: unknown fine structure may be related to penumbral field lines that no longer
81: carry strong Evershed flows and rise to the chromosphere, producing the
82: disappearance of the penumbra at photospheric levels.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: \keywords{Sun: photosphere -- magnetic fields -- sunspots}
86:
87:
88: %#####################################################################
89: %
90: % SECTION 1, Introduction
91: %
92: %#####################################################################
93:
94: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
95:
96: The formation of sunspot penumbrae is a relatively well known process,
97: both from an observational and theoretical point of view. Pores
98: develop penumbrae suddenly, with no obvious gradual increase of the
99: magnetic field inclination and little (if any) delay between the
100: appearance of Evershed flows and inclined fields
101: \citep{leka+skumanich1998}. From the theoretical side, it has been
102: suggested that penumbra formation occurs when the magnetic field at
103: the outer edges of pores reaches inclinations of about $45^\circ$
104: \citep{rucklidge+etal1995, tildesley+weiss2004}.
105:
106: The disappearance of the penumbra, in contrast, still needs to be
107: understood. Observations indicate that penumbral decay is a slow
108: (several day) process, but to our knowledge no spectropolarimetric
109: measurements of it have been presented so far. Studies of decaying
110: active regions often concentrate on other aspects such as moving
111: magnetic features \citep[e.g.,][]{zhangetal92} or the moat flow
112: \citep[e.g.,][]{dengetal08}. The disappearance of sunspot penumbrae is
113: an important phenomenon which may partly explain the removal of flux
114: from mature spots \citep[cf.][and references therein]{vmp2002}. If
115: so, it would play a crucial role in the activity cycle of the Sun.
116: Penumbral decay may also be a source of localized chromospheric and
117: coronal heating. Indeed, energetic flares in active regions have been
118: related to the disappearance of sunspot penumbrae
119: \citep{wang+etal2004, deng+etal2005, alberto+vmp2007}.
120:
121:
122:
123: In this paper we analyze high angular resolution spectropolarimetric
124: measurements of a decaying sunspot. We concentrate on the phase in
125: which the sunspot lost all visible evidence of its penumbra. A Stokes
126: inversion technique is used to determine magnetic field inclinations,
127: field strengths, and line-of-sight (LOS) velocities. We find evidence
128: for small-scale inhomogeneities in the magnetic canopy of the spot
129: when it consists only of a naked umbra. The inhomogeneities are
130: observed as horizontal field lines cospatial with blueshifted Doppler
131: signals. The blueshifts could indicate the occasional establishment of
132: an inward oriented Evershed flow. Alternatively, these structures may
133: be related to penumbral field lines that no longer carry an Evershed
134: flow. In the absence of strong material flows, the field lines could
135: rise to the chromosphere by buoyancy, which would be observed in the
136: photosphere as the disappearance of the penumbra.
137:
138: The paper is organized as follows: in \S~\ref{sec:obs} and
139: \ref{sec:analysis} we describe the observations and data analysis.
140: The results are presented in \S~\ref{sec:results}. In
141: \S~\ref{sec:discussion}, we speculate on scenarios that might explain
142: the observations. Finally, \S~\ref{sec:conclusions} summarizes our
143: main conclusions.
144:
145: %###############################################################################
146: %
147: % SECTION 3
148: %
149: %###############################################################################
150:
151: \section{Observations}\label{sec:obs}
152:
153:
154:
155: The spectropolarimetric observations analyzed here were obtained with
156: the Diffraction Limited Spectro-Polarimeter \citep[DLSP;
157: ][]{sankar+etal2004} at the NSO Dunn Solar Telescope (DST) of
158: Sacramento Peak, New Mexico. The DLSP was operated in high-resolution
159: mode together with the high-order adaptive optics system of the DST
160: \citep{rimmele2004}. The slit width of 12\,microns matched the
161: detector image scale along the spectrograph slit (0.090\arcsec \,
162: pixel$^{-1}$). The solar spectrum was sampled from 630.0\,nm to
163: 630.4\,nm with 2.1\,pm\,pixel$^{-1}$. This wavelength range contains
164: three \ion{Fe}{1} and one \ion{Ti}{1} magnetically sensitive lines
165: (cf.\ Table~\ref{tab:lines}).
166:
167:
168:
169: \begin{table}
170: \caption{Atomic parameters of the lines observed with the DLSP
171: \label{tab:lines}}
172: \tabcolsep 1.5em
173: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
174: \tableline
175: Line & $\lambda_{0}$ & $\chi$ & $\log{ gf}$ & Transition \\
176: & [nm] & [eV] & & \\
177: \tableline
178: \ion{Fe}{1} & $630.1501^a$ & $3.65$ & $-0.72$ & $^{5}P_{2}$--$^{5}D_{2}$ \\
179: \ion{Fe}{1} & $630.2494^a$ & $3.69$ & $-1.24$ & $^{5}P_{1}$--$^{5}D_{0}$ \\
180: \ion{Fe}{1} & $630.3460^b$ & 4.32 & $-2.55$ & $^{5}G_{6}$--$^{5}G_{5}$ \\
181: \ion{Ti}{1} & $630.3753^b$ & 1.45 & $-1.44$ & $^{3}F_{3}$--$^{3}G_{3}$ \\
182: \tableline
183: \end{tabular}
184: \tablerefs{{\em a:} \cite{1994ApJS...94..221N}; {\em b:} \cite{borrero+bellotrubio2002}}
185: \vspace*{1.5em}
186: \end{table}
187:
188: By moving the slit across the solar surface with steps of 0\farcs0893
189: for a total of 337 positions, two dimensional maps of AR NOAA 10880
190: were generated on four consecutive days, from May 8 to May 11,
191: 2006. The maps cover a field of view of $30.1\arcsec \times
192: 57.2\arcsec$. The slit was oriented along solar North-South and the
193: scan direction was solar West-East. At every slit position, 16 images
194: of 30\,ms exposure time were accumulated for each of the four
195: individual modulation states, leading to a total integration time of
196: 2\,s and completion of a full map within 28 minutes. The seeing
197: conditions were quite variable on May 8 and May 11 and more stable on
198: May 9 and May 10, as can be seen in the continuum maps of
199: Fig.~\ref{fig:obs}. Mostly the variable seeing and weather
200: conditions, but also the time consuming calibration measurements
201: needed to correct for instrumental polarization, were the prime
202: limitations during this campaign, leading to one map per day only.
203: Although the observations on May 8 and May 11 were most affected by
204: variable conditions, these scans also featured lasting moments of
205: excellent seeing during which an angular resolution of about 0\farcs4
206: was attained.
207:
208: We have applied standard reduction procedures to the data, including dark
209: subtraction, flatfielding, and removal of instrumental
210: polarization. After correction, the noise level in the Stokes profiles
211: is $10^{-3} \, I_c$ as measured in the continuum of $Q$, $U$, and $V$.
212: We perform an absolute velocity calibration by taking advantage of the
213: telluric O$_2$ lines present in the observed wavelength range
214: \citep[see e.g. ][]{martinezpillet+lites+skumanich1997}.
215:
216: The spectropolarimetric measurements were complemented with near
217: synchronous G-band and \CaII~K imaging. We used narrow-band
218: interference filters centered at 430.55\,nm (0.92\,nm FWHM) for the G
219: band and at 393.34\,nm (0.1\,nm FWHM) for \CaII~K, with exposure times
220: of 10\,ms and 100\,ms, respectively. Pixel sizes correspond to
221: 0\farcs03$\times$0\farcs03 in the G-band channel and to
222: 0\farcs12$\times$0\farcs12 in the \CaII~K channel. The G-band images
223: have been reconstructed using a speckle masking technique implemented
224: by \cite{woeger2007}. The spatial resolution of the reconstructed
225: filtergrams is estimated to be 0\farcs16, close to the diffraction
226: limit of the DST at this wavelength (0\farcs12). The \CaII~K images
227: reach a spatial resolution of some 0\farcs6. The alignment between
228: imaging data and spectropolarimetric observations was carried out with
229: respect to the DLSP continuum maps. We estimate that residual
230: rotation between the data sets is less than a fraction of a degree
231: ($<0.1^\circ$). Image scale differences after re-scaling of the
232: G-band and the \CaII~K pixels are smaller than 1\%, and residual
233: offsets between the images are less than a fraction of a
234: pixel ($<0.1$ pixel).
235:
236: %%%Observed AR NOAA 10880:
237: %2006 May 09 : S09W06, (98",-96"), $\alpha$/$\alpha$, one DLSP map.
238: %2006 May 10 : S09W18, (291",-100"), $\alpha$/$\alpha$, two DLSP maps (0001,0002)
239: %2006 May 11 : S09W31 (485",-106"), $\alpha$/$\alpha$, one DLSP map.
240: %2006 May 13 : S09W56 (779",-123"), $\beta$/$\alpha$, pore still visible.
241: %2006 May 14 : S08W71 (890",-117"), $\alpha$/$\beta$, pore not visible anymore.
242:
243: %###############################################################################
244: %
245: % Section 3
246: %
247: %###############################################################################
248:
249:
250:
251: %
252: %-----------------------------------------------------
253: % Figure 1
254: %-----------------------------------------------------
255: \begin{figure*}
256: \begin{center}
257: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1a.eps}}
258: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1b.eps}}
259: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1c.eps}}
260: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1d.eps}}\\
261: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1e.eps}}
262: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1f.eps}}
263: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1g.eps}}
264: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1h.eps}} \\
265: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1i_new.eps}}
266: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1j_new.eps}}
267: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1k_new.eps}}
268: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics[bb=1 1 226 226,clip]{f1l_new.eps}} \\
269: \caption{Evolution of the spot during four consecutive days. {\em Top:}
270: Continuum intensity at 630.2 nm. {\em Middle:} Stokes $V$ signal observed in
271: the blue wing of \ion{Fe}{1} 630.25 at $-9$~pm from line center. {\em
272: Bottom:} \CaII~K filtergrams. Tick marks are separated by 1\arcsec. The
273: heliocentric angle is indicated in the continuum intensity images. The arrows
274: mark the direction to disk center. Contours represent the visible border of
275: the spot. }
276: \label{fig:obs}
277: \epsscale{1.0}
278: \end{center}
279: \end{figure*}
280:
281:
282: %-----------------------------------------------------
283: % Figure 2
284: %-----------------------------------------------------
285: \begin{figure*}[t]
286: \epsscale{0.36}
287: \plotone{\figdir{f2a_new.ps}}
288: \plotone{\figdir{f2b_new.ps}} \\
289: \plotone{\figdir{f2c_new.ps}}
290: \plotone{\figdir{f2d_new.ps}}
291: \caption{Late evolutionary state of AR 10880 on May 11, 2006. {\em
292: Clockwise, starting from upper left:} G-band filtergram, magnetogram,
293: Dopplergram, and \CaII~K filtergram. Tickmarks are separated by
294: 0\farcs5. Bright and dark areas in the Dopplergram move toward the observer
295: and away from it, respectively. The disappearing spot no longer has a
296: penumbra. Cuts A and B in the magnetogram sample one finger and the
297: undisturbed magnetic canopy, respectively.}
298: \label{fig:physmaps}
299: \epsscale{1.0}
300: \vspace*{1em}
301: \end{figure*}
302: %-----------------------------------------------------
303:
304:
305: \begin{figure*}
306: \vspace*{-6em}
307: \epsscale{.236}
308: \plotone{\figdir{f3a.ps}}
309: \plotone{\figdir{f3b.ps}}
310: \plotone{\figdir{f3c.ps}}
311: \plotone{\figdir{f3d.ps}} \\
312: \plotone{\figdir{f3e.ps}}
313: \plotone{\figdir{f3f.ps}}
314: \plotone{\figdir{f3g.ps}}
315: \plotone{\figdir{f3h.ps}}
316: \caption{Magnetic structure of AR 10880 on May 10, 2006 ({\em top})
317: and May 11, 2006 ({\em bottom}). A different scale is used for each
318: day. From left to right: continuum intensity at 630.2~nm, field
319: inclination in the local reference frame, magnetic field strengh, and
320: LOS velocity maps. Black contours delimit the umbra. Negative
321: velocities correspond to blueshifts. The position of weaker and more
322: inclined fields in the magnetic canopy is indicated with arrows.}
323: \label{fig:invmap}
324: \epsscale{1.0}
325: \vspace*{1em}
326: \end{figure*}
327:
328:
329:
330: \section{Data analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
331: To get a qualitative idea of the dynamical and magnetic evolution of the
332: sunspot and its penumbra, we compute Dopplergrams and magnetograms from the
333: observed profiles as follows. LOS velocities are derived by applying a Fourier
334: phase method to the $I+V$ and $I-V$ signals of \FeI~630.25\,nm separately
335: \citep{schmidt+etal1999}. Magnetograms are created as the Stokes $V$ signal of
336: \FeI~630.25\,nm at $-9$~pm from line center. The magnetogram signal is roughly
337: proportional to $\cos \gamma$, with $\gamma$ the inclination of the vector
338: magnetic field to the LOS.
339:
340: For a quantitative analysis of the observations we perform an
341: inversion of the Stokes profiles of the May 10 and May 11 data sets
342: using the SIR code \citep{ruizcobo+deltoroiniesta1992}. In view of
343: the high angular resolution achieved by the instrument and
344: notwithstanding the variable conditions prevailing on May 11, we
345: regard a simple one-component atmosphere as sufficient to interpret
346: the spectra of the four lines observed with the polarimeter. The
347: inversion determines the three components of the vector magnetic field
348: (strength, inclination, and azimuth), the LOS velocity, and the macro-
349: and micro-turbulent velocities, all assumed to be height
350: independent. The initial temperature stratification is modified using
351: two free parameters. This allows to change the temperature at optical
352: depth unity and the slope of the stratification. The code also
353: determines the amount of stray-light contamination. In total, nine
354: free parameters are retrieved from the inversion. The vector magnetic
355: field returned by the code has been transformed to the local reference
356: frame (LRF), where inclinations are measured with respect to the local
357: vertical. The 180$^\circ$ ambiguity of the LOS field azimuth has been
358: solved by selecting the azimuth values that produce the more symmetric
359: magnetic field around the spot center in the LRF.
360:
361:
362: %###############################################################################
363: %
364: % SECTION 4
365: %
366: %###############################################################################
367:
368: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}
369:
370:
371: Figure \ref{fig:obs} shows the sunspot decay on four consecutive days
372: corresponding to heliocentric angles of 13, 6, 15, and 32$^\circ$,
373: respectively. The sequence starts on May 8 with the spot having a
374: fully developed penumbra (cf.\ the continuum intensity maps displayed
375: in the upper panels). On May 9, the umbra splits in two parts and the
376: penumbra begins to disappear. By May 10 the spot mainly consists of a
377: naked umbra, with some penumbral filaments NW of the main
378: umbra. Although the seeing conditions were very variable on May 11, no
379: trace of penumbral filaments can be detected in the continuum
380: intensity map. The only remnant of the spot on that day is a naked
381: umbra about 8\arcsec\/ wide. Therefore, the disappearance of the
382: penumbra took three days. Our May 13 observations show a small pore
383: at the position of the spot which is no longer visible on May 14.
384:
385:
386: The middle panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:obs} display magnetograms of the spot. The
387: filamentary organization of the penumbra is conspicuous on May 8 and 9. On May
388: 10, the penumbral structure has disappeared for the most part, and the
389: magnetic canopies of the naked umbrae are detected well beyond the edges of
390: the spot. On May 11, the magnetic canopy is very much reduced, showing three
391: distinct finger-like structures of positive polarity on the limb-side part of
392: the spot (the white features observed in the magnetogram to the SW and the
393: NW). The fingers extend from the visible border of the umbra into the quiet
394: Sun by some 1-2\arcsec and have widths of about 0\farcs5. To our knowledge,
395: such inhomogeneities have never been reported before, perhaps because of their
396: small sizes and/or short lifetimes.
397:
398: The \CaII~K filtergrams in the bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:obs}
399: show the sunspot penumbra as a dark structure at chromospheric
400: heights. The penumbra is rather homogeneous and do not exhibit
401: small-scale filaments. Its size gradually decreases with time.
402: Interestingly, however, on May 11 the spot still seems to have a
403: chromospheric penumbra which is better developed toward the S and NW.
404:
405:
406:
407: Figure~\ref{fig:physmaps} displays a reconstructed G-band image of the spot on
408: May 11, together with the magnetogram showing the fingers, a Dopplergram, and
409: a \CaII~K filtergram. As can be seen in the G-band image, the spot consists
410: only of a naked umbra without penumbral filaments. Very close to the umbral
411: border, on the west side of the spot, one can observe tiny G-band fibrils
412: cospatial with the fingers detected in the magnetogram. The fibrils show up as
413: bright elongated structures aligned radially, similar in shape and appearance
414: to the ones discovered by \citet{scharmer+etal2002}. The granulation around
415: the umbra is distorted and exhibits larger G-band intensities than the
416: surrounding quiet Sun. The Dopplergram reveals conspicuous blueshifts at the
417: position of the fingers, indicating plasma motions toward the observer.
418: We want to emphasize that these blueshifts cannot be produced by Evershed
419: flows, since on that part of the spot they would result in redshifted
420: Stokes profiles.
421:
422:
423:
424: The physical parameters retrieved from the inversion of the May 10 and
425: 11 data sets are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:invmap}. We display continuum
426: images of the spot along with field inclination, field strength, and
427: LOS velocity maps. The arrows mark regions in the canopy where the
428: field is weaker and more horizontal. These regions look like fingers
429: and can be detected not only on May 11, but also on May 10 at position
430: angles where no penumbral filaments exist. Interestingly, the
431: penumbral filaments observed on the NW side of the spot on May 10 show
432: a typical pattern of spines and intra-spines \citep{lites+etal1993} in
433: the inclination map. This pattern is different from that associated
434: with the fingers.
435:
436: Given the simplicity of our inversion, the atmospheric parameters
437: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:invmap} should be regarded as averages
438: along the line forming region. The mean inclination of the canopy
439: fields at the border of the umbra is about 140$^\circ$ (corresponding
440: to 40$^\circ$ for a positive polarity spot), which agrees very well
441: with the values observed in pores \citep{keppens+martinezpillet1996}.
442: The finger-like inhomogeneities exhibit fields that are more
443: horizontal than the average by up to 20-40$^\circ$ at the same radial
444: distance. Also, the field in the fingers is weaker by up to
445: $\sim$600-1000~G. These differences are well above the uncertainties
446: in the retrieved parameters (some $5^\circ$ for the inclination and
447: 100~G for the field strength). Figure~\ref{fig:invmap} demonstrates
448: that the fingers were observed on May 11 as opposite-polarity
449: structures only because of the large heliocentric angle of the
450: spot. Thus, the opposite polarities detected in the magnetograms do
451: not mean that the field is actually returning to the solar surface.
452:
453:
454: The kinematic configuration of the spot is displayed in the rightmost
455: panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:invmap}. On May 11, the LOS velocities in the
456: limb-side part of the canopy are nearly zero except for the fingers,
457: which show enhanced motions of 1-2~km~s$^{-1}$ toward the observer.
458: These motions coincide with the regions of weaker and more horizontal
459: fields. We do not find enhanced LOS velocities in the fingers of
460: May 10, which might be due to either a less evolved state of the
461: penumbra, or the smaller heliocentric angle of the spot.
462:
463:
464: Figure~\ref{fig:cuts} illustrates the variation of the atmospheric
465: parameters along the two radial cuts marked in
466: Fig.~\ref{fig:physmaps}. They sample one of the fingers (cut A) and
467: the nearby ``undisturbed'' magnetic canopy (cut B). As can be seen,
468: the field inclination decreases almost linearly from the center of the
469: umbra all the way to its visible border. From that point on, the
470: magnetic field becomes more inclined at a much faster pace in the
471: finger, while in the undisturbed canopy the inclination still
472: increases linearly. The finger reaches a maximum inclination of about
473: 105$^\circ$ at radial distances of $r=1.5$ and beyond, while the
474: magnetic canopy has a field which is more vertical by up to 20$^\circ$
475: at the same position. In the umbra, the field strength and the LOS
476: velocity show values of around 2~kG and 0~km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively,
477: and do not change significantly with radial distance. Once the border
478: of the umbra is reached, however, the field strength decreases and the
479: LOS velocity increases dramatically in the finger. As a result, at $r
480: \sim 1.6$ the field strength goes down to $\sim$1 kG and the LOS
481: velocity reaches negative values of 1.7~km\,s$^{-1}$ (toward the
482: observer). In the magnetic canopy, the variation of field strength and
483: LOS velocity is much smaller.
484:
485: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
486: The physical properties of the small-scale inhomogeneities detected in the
487: magnetic canopy of the decaying sunspot are reminiscent of those of the
488: photospheric flux tubes that form the penumbra \citep{solanki2003,
489: borrero+etal2004, bellot2007}. Both have weaker and significantly more
490: horizontal fields than their surroundings. Unlike penumbral flux tubes,
491: however, the inhomogeneities are not associated with filamentary structures in
492: continuum intensity and do not harbor outward directed Evershed flows.
493:
494:
495: We interpret the scenario drawn by Fig.~\ref{fig:physmaps} as one
496: of a magnetic canopy (i.e., horizontal fields) showing small-scale,
497: finger-like inhomogeneities of polarity opposite to that of the umbra.
498: The inhomogeneities are not associated with regular penumbral
499: filaments, suggesting that they are indeed located in a magnetic
500: canopy which is elevated above the continuum forming layers. Below
501: the canopy, the plasma must be field-free for the most part, otherwise
502: dark structures would be observed in continuum intensity. As mentioned
503: before, the \CaII~K filtergram reveals a partly developed penumbra at
504: chromospheric heights. The existence of a penumbra in the chromosphere
505: is consistent with the scenario of an elevated magnetic canopy. The
506: fingers have no clear \CaII~K counterparts.
507:
508: In principle, the blueshifts associated with the fingers could be
509: explained in a similar way as the classical Evershed effect. Already
510: \citet{meysch1968} proposed that the photospheric Evershed flow is the
511: result of a pressure difference between the two footpoints of
512: connected penumbral field lines: the inner penumbra displays field
513: strengths of around 1000~G, whereas typical photospheric magnetic
514: concentrations are found to harbor fields of around 1500~G. The
515: corresponding pressure difference between the two footpoints would
516: drive the flow \citep[cf.][and references therein]{thowei2004}. One
517: difficulty with this classical explanation of the Evershed effect
518: is that we know now that the flow-carrying field lines return to the
519: photosphere not in typical magnetic flux concentrations, but right at
520: the penumbra-photosphere boundary (or even inside the penumbra) where
521: the field strength is indeed less than 1000~G \citep{west1997}. Yet,
522: an argument along those lines can be constructed here to explain the
523: observed blueshifts. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:invmap}, the field
524: strength near the decaying spot is about 2000~G, whereas in the outer
525: footpoint is only slightly above 1000~G. In this case, the siphon-flow
526: hypothesis favors an inward directed flow, in agreement with the
527: observations. We caution, however, that the gas pressure at the
528: same heights in the two footpoints has not been infered in this work.
529:
530:
531: Another possibility is that the blueshifts represent upward motions of nearly
532: horizontal penumbral flux tubes. In the absence of strong Evershed flows, the
533: tubes might rise buoyantly to layers above the continuum forming region. This
534: would produce the disappearance of the penumbra in the photosphere, consistent
535: with the observation that the inhomogeneities occur in the last stages of the
536: spot evolution. The mechanism whereby the Evershed flow disappears in those
537: tubes remains unclear, but it might be related to the exhaustion of the mass
538: reservoir that feeds the flow.
539:
540: The exact reason why all sunspots display an Evershed flow is not yet
541: known. A gas pressure difference could be the origin of the flow
542: (either from a different field strengths at the two footpoints or from
543: an excess heat in the upflowing plasma, cf.~Schlichenmaier 2002), but
544: in any case considerable amounts of mass participate in this flow
545: during the typical lifetime of a sunspot. The existence of a mass
546: reservoir for the Eveshed flow must be understood in terms of the
547: exact connectivity of the sunspot field lines below the
548: photosphere. It has been suggested recently that sunspots are indeed
549: disconnected, at least in a dynamical sense, from their parent
550: toroidal flux tube \citep{schu2005}. Helioseismology also seems to
551: indicate that sunspots are a very shallow phenomenon \citep{zhao2001},
552: with flows in layers 10 Mm deep that cannot be related to an Evershed
553: flow source. Such a disconnection can also imply a disconnection of
554: the surface sunspot from the large mass reservoirs in the deep
555: interior, setting a maximum lifetime to the duration of the Evershed
556: flow for a given spot.
557:
558: \section{Summary}\label{sec:conclusions}
559: We have presented high angular resolution spectropolarimetric observations of
560: a decaying sunspot. The penumbra is seen to disappear from the photosphere
561: over the course of three days. When the spot looses its penumbra, magnetograms
562: in \FeI~630.25~nm show finger-like structures extending from the
563: visible border of the umbra into the quiet Sun. These inhomogeneities have
564: lengths of 1-2\arcsec and widths of about 0\farcs5. They are oriented radially
565: with respect to the spot center, but do not bear any relation with classical
566: penumbral filaments. The fingers exhibit conspicuous blueshifts, indicating
567: upward motions.
568:
569:
570: \begin{figure*}
571: \epsscale{.3}
572: \plotone{\figdir{f5a.ps}}
573: \plotone{\figdir{f5b.ps}}
574: \plotone{\figdir{f5c.ps}}
575: \caption{Radial variation of the field inclination in the LRF ({\em left}),
576: field strength ({\em center}), and LOS velocity ({\em right}) along the cuts
577: indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:physmaps}. The solid lines represent cut A, which
578: samples one of the fingers, whereas the dashed lines give the atmospheric
579: parameters of the ``undisturbed'' magnetic canopy (cut B). The $x$-axis
580: indicate the normalized radial distance, with 0 the sunspot center and 1 the
581: border of the umbra.}
582: \label{fig:cuts}
583: \epsscale{1.0}
584: \vspace*{1em}
585: \end{figure*}
586:
587: We have subject the observed Stokes spectra to simple one-component inversions
588: to infer the average physical properties of the fingers and their environs.
589: The umbra of the decaying spot is bigger in polarized light than in continuum
590: intensity, revealing the existence of a magnetic canopy. The fingers belong to
591: the canopy, but are found to possess weaker and more inclined fields. At the
592: same radial distance, the differences between the fingers and the undisturbed
593: magnetic canopy may amount to 600-1000 G and 40$^\circ$, respectively. In
594: addition, the inversions confirm that the fingers harbor
595: line-of-sight velocities of up to 1-2 km\,s$^{-1}$.
596:
597: The small sizes of these structures may explain why they have not been
598: described earlier. Their origin is unclear as yet, but they seem to be
599: associated with the disappearance of the penumbra. One possibility is that the
600: observed blueshifts are the signature of inward directed photospheric Evershed
601: flows, which would be driven by a classical siphon-flow mechanism. Another
602: possibility is that the inhomogeneities represent penumbral field lines which no
603: longer carry outward directed Evershed flows. In the absence of the mass
604: associated with the normal Evershed flow, the field lines might rise to the
605: chromosphere by buoyancy, producing the disappearance of the penumbra at
606: photospheric levels. The upward motion of the field lines would be observed as
607: blueshifts. This scenario finds some support in the recent idea that sunspots
608: are disconnected from their parent toroidal flux tubes residing at the base of
609: the convection zone. If sunspots are indeed disconnected, they will be able to
610: store only a finite amount of mass. After some time (weeks to months) feeding
611: the Evershed flow, the mass reservoir of any sunspot would eventually be
612: exhausted and the flow would come to a halt.
613:
614: To distinguish between scenarios, higher cadence observations and
615: longer coverage of decaying sunspots are required. This would make it
616: possible to characterize the time evolution of the vector field and to
617: determine the exact moment where the Evershed flow disappears.
618: Space-borne observations, virtually free from seeing effects,
619: represent the best option to solve this problem. In the future, we
620: plan to analyze spectropolarimetric measurements taken by Hinode
621: \citep{kosugi07} to shed more light on the nature of the fingers
622: described in this paper. The high resolution \CaII~H filtergrams of
623: Hinode will also allow us to investigate whether the disappearance of
624: the penumbra in the photosphere produces any effect at chromospheric
625: heights, as can be expected if the field lines rise buoyantly and
626: interact with the magnetic field of the chromosphere.
627:
628: \acknowledgements The Diffraction-Limited Spectro-Polarimeter was built by NSO
629: in collaboration with the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for
630: Atmospheric Research. Part of this work has been supported by the Spanish
631: Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia through projects ESP2006-13030-C06-02
632: and ESP2006-13030-C06-01. This research has made use of NASA's
633: Astrophysics Data System (ADS).
634:
635: %###############################################################################
636: %
637: % BIBLIOGRAPHY
638: %
639: %###############################################################################
640:
641: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
642: \bibitem[Bellot Rubio(2007)]{bellot2007} Bellot Rubio, L.~R.\
643: 2007, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics IV, eds.\ F.\
644: Figueras et al.\ (Springer: Dordrecht), 271
645:
646: \bibitem[Borrero \& Bellot Rubio(2002)]{borrero+bellotrubio2002} Borrero,
647: J.~M., \& Bellot Rubio, L.~R.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 1056
648:
649: \bibitem[Borrero et al.(2004)]{borrero+etal2004} Borrero, J.~M.,
650: Solanki, S.~K., Bellot Rubio, L.~R., Lagg, A., \& Mathew, S.~K.\ 2004,
651: \aap, 422, 1093
652:
653: \bibitem[Deng et al.(2005)]{deng+etal2005} Deng, N., Liu, C., Yang,
654: G., Wang, H., \& Denker, C.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 1195
655:
656: \bibitem[Deng et al.(2007)]{dengetal08} Deng, N., Prasad
657: Choudhary, D., Tritschler, A., Denker, C., Liu, C., \& Wang, H.\ 2008,
658: \apj, in press, [arXiv:0709.3340]
659:
660: \bibitem[Keppens \& Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet(1996)]{keppens+martinezpillet1996}
661: Keppens, R., \& Martinez Pillet, V.\ 1996, \aap, 316, 229
662:
663: \bibitem[Kosugi et al.(2007)]{kosugi07} Kosugi, T., et al.\
664: 2007, \solphys, 243, 3
665:
666: \bibitem[Leka \& Skumanich(1998)]{leka+skumanich1998} Leka, K.~D., \&
667: Skumanich, A.\ 1998, \apj, 507, 454
668:
669: \bibitem[Lites et al.(1993)]{lites+etal1993} Lites, B.~W., Elmore,
670: D.~F., Seagraves, P., \& Skumanich, A.~P.\ 1993, \apj, 418, 928
671:
672: \bibitem[Meyer \& Schmidt(1968)]{meysch1968} Meyer, F., Schmidt, H.U.\ 1968,
673: Zeits. Ang. Math. Mech. 48:T218-21
674:
675: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet(2002)]{vmp2002} Mart{\'{\i}}nez
676: Pillet, V.\ 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 342
677:
678:
679: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet et
680: al.(1997)]{martinezpillet+lites+skumanich1997} Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet, V.,
681: Lites, B.~W., \& Skumanich, A.\ 1997, \apj, 474, 810
682:
683: \bibitem[{{Nave} {et~al.}(1994){Nave}, {Johansson}, {Learner}, {Thorne}, \&
684: {Brault}}]{1994ApJS...94..221N}
685: {Nave}, G., {Johansson}, S., {Learner}, R.~C.~M., {Thorne}, A.~P., \& {Brault},
686: J.~W. 1994, \apjs, 94, 221
687:
688:
689: \bibitem[Rezaei et al.(2006)]{reza+etal2006} Rezaei, R.,
690: Schlichenmaier, R., Beck, C., \& Bellot Rubio, L.~R.\ 2006, \aap, 454, 975
691:
692: \bibitem[Rimmele(2004)]{rimmele2004} Rimmele, T.~R.\ 2004, \apj,
693: 604, 906
694:
695: \bibitem[Rucklidge et al.(1995)]{rucklidge+etal1995} Rucklidge, A.~M.,
696: Schmidt, H.~U., \& Weiss, N.~O.\ 1995, \mnras, 273, 491
697:
698: \bibitem[Ruiz Cobo \& del Toro Iniesta(1992)]{ruizcobo+deltoroiniesta1992} Ruiz
699: Cobo, B., \& del Toro Iniesta, J.~C.\ 1992, \apj, 398, 375
700:
701: \bibitem[Sainz Dalda \& Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet(2007)]{alberto+vmp2007} Sainz
702: Dalda, A., \& Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet, V.\ 2007, in: Subsurface and atmospheric
703: influences on solar activity, K.S.\ Balasubramaniam, R.\ Howe, R.\ Komm (eds),
704: ASP Conf.\ Series, in preparation
705:
706: \bibitem[Sankarasubramanian et al.(2004)]{sankar+etal2004}
707: Sankarasubramanian, K., et al.\ 2004, \procspie, 5171, 207
708:
709: \bibitem[Scharmer et al.(2002)]{scharmer+etal2002} Scharmer, G.~B.,
710: Gudiksen, B.~V., Kiselman, D., L{\"o}fdahl, M.~G., \& Rouppe van der Voort,
711: L.~H.~M.\ 2002, \nat, 420, 151
712:
713: \bibitem[Schlichenmaier(2002)]{schliche2002} Schlichenmaier, R.\
714: 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 303
715:
716: \bibitem[Schmidt et al.(1999)]{schmidt+etal1999} Schmidt, W., Stix, M.,
717: W\"ohl, H.\ 1999, \aap, 346, 633
718:
719: \bibitem[Sch\" ussler \& Rempel(2005)]{schu2005} Sch\" ussler, M. \& Rempel, M.\
720: 2005, \aap, 441, 337
721:
722: \bibitem[Solanki(2003)]{solanki2003} Solanki, S.~K.\ 2003, \aapr,
723: 11, 153
724:
725: \bibitem[Thomas \& Weiss(2004)]{thowei2004} Thomas, J.H.,
726: \& Weiss, N.~O.\ 2004, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 517
727:
728: \bibitem[Tildesley \& Weiss(2004)]{tildesley+weiss2004} Tildesley, M.~J.,
729: \& Weiss, N.~O.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 657
730:
731: %\bibitem[van Noort et al.(2005)]{vannoort+etal2005} van Noort, M., Rouppe
732: %van der Voort, L., L\"ofdahl, M.~G.\ 2005, \solphys, 228, 191
733:
734: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{wang+etal2004} Wang, H., Liu, C., Qiu,
735: J., Deng, N., Goode, P.~R., \& Denker, C.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L195
736:
737: \bibitem[Westendorp et al.(1997)]{west1997} Westendorp Plaza, C., del Toro
738: Iniesta, J.~C., Ruiz Cobo, B., Mart\'\i nez Pillet, V., Lites, B.W., \&
739: Skumanich, A.\ 1997, \nat, 389,47
740:
741: \bibitem[W\"oger(2007)]{woeger2007} W\"oger, F.\ 2007, High-resolution
742: observations of the solar photosphere and chromosphere, Ph.D. Thesis
743: Albert-Ludwig Universit\"at Freiburg, Germany,
744: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2933/
745:
746: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(1992)]{zhangetal92} Zhang, H., Ai, G., Wang,
747: H., Zirin, H., \& Patterson, A.\ 1992, \solphys, 140, 307
748:
749: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2001)]{zhao2001} Zhao, J., Kosovichev, A.G.,
750: \& Duvall, T.L.\ 2001, \apj, 557, 384
751:
752: \end{thebibliography}
753:
754:
755:
756:
757:
758:
759: %###############################################################################
760:
761: \end{document}
762:
763: