1: %% \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
5: \usepackage{apjfonts}
6:
7: \newcommand{\Teff}{\mbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}
8: \newcommand{\Dnu}{\mbox{$\Delta \nu$}}
9: \newcommand{\acena}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen~A}}
10: \newcommand{\acenb}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen~B}}
11: \newcommand{\acen}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen}}
12: \newcommand{\afor}{\mbox{$\alpha$~For}}
13: \newcommand{\bhyi}{\mbox{$\beta$~Hyi}}
14: \newcommand{\gser}{\mbox{$\gamma$~Ser}}
15: \newcommand{\baql}{\mbox{$\beta$~Aql}}
16: \newcommand{\dpav}{\mbox{$\delta$~Pav}}
17: \newcommand{\bvir}{\mbox{$\beta$~Vir}}
18: \newcommand{\nuind}{\mbox{$\nu$~Ind}}
19: \newcommand{\muara}{\mbox{$\mu$~Ara}}
20: \newcommand{\cms}{\mbox{cm\,s$^{-1}$}}
21: \newcommand{\eboo}{\mbox{$\eta$~Boo}}
22: \newcommand{\ms}{\mbox{m\,s$^{-1}$}}
23: \newcommand{\muHz}{\mbox{$\mu$Hz}}
24: \newcommand{\mynote}[1]{{\bf [#1]}}
25: \newcommand{\new}[1]{\relax #1}
26: %\newcommand{\newnew}[1]{{\bf #1}}
27: \newcommand{\newnew}[1]{\relax #1}
28: %\let\epsilon\varepsilon
29: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}
30: \newcommand{\sixth}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}}
31: \newcommand{\tenth}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{10}}}
32:
33: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ}
34:
35: \shorttitle{Amplitudes of solar oscillations}
36: \shortauthors{Kjeldsen et al.}
37:
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: \title{The amplitude of solar oscillations using stellar techniques}
42:
43: \author{
44: Hans~Kjeldsen,\altaffilmark{1}
45: Timothy R. Bedding,\altaffilmark{2}
46: Torben Arentoft,\altaffilmark{1}
47: R.~Paul~Butler,\altaffilmark{3}
48: Thomas~H.~Dall,\altaffilmark{4}
49: Christoffer~Karoff,\altaffilmark{1}
50: L\'aszl\'o L. Kiss,\altaffilmark{2}
51: C.~G.~Tinney\altaffilmark{5} and
52: William~J.~Chaplin\altaffilmark{6}
53: }
54:
55: \altaffiltext{1}{Danish AsteroSeismology Centre (DASC), Department of
56: Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
57: hans@phys.au.dk, toar@phys.au.dk, karoff@phys.au.dk}
58:
59: \altaffiltext{2}{School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006,
60: Australia; bedding@physics.usyd.edu.au, laszlo@physics.usyd.edu.au}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{3}{Carnegie Institution of Washington,
63: Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, 5241 Broad Branch Road NW, Washington,
64: DC 20015-1305; paul@dtm.ciw.edu}
65:
66: \altaffiltext{4}{Gemini Observatory, 670 N. Aohoku Pl., Hilo, HI 96720,
67: USA; tdall@gemini.edu}
68:
69: \altaffiltext{5}{School of Physics, University of NSW, 2052, Australia;
70: cgt@phys.unsw.edu.au}
71:
72: \altaffiltext{6}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham,
73: Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; wjc@bison.ph.bham.ac.uk}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: The amplitudes of solar-like oscillations depend on the excitation and
77: damping, both of which are controlled by convection. Comparing
78: observations with theory should therefore improve our understanding of the
79: underlying physics. However, theoretical models invariably compute
80: oscillation amplitudes relative to the Sun, and it is therefore vital to
81: have a good calibration of the solar amplitude using stellar techniques.
82: We have used daytime spectra of the Sun, obtained with HARPS and UCLES, to
83: measure the solar oscillations and made a detailed comparison with
84: observations using the BiSON helioseismology instrument. We find that the
85: mean solar amplitude measured using stellar techniques, averaged over one
86: full solar cycle, is $18.7 \pm 0.7$\,\cms{} for the strongest radial modes
87: ($l=0$) and $25.2\pm 0.9$\,\cms{} for~$l=1$. In addition, we use
88: simulations to establish an equation that estimates the uncertainty of
89: amplitude measurements that are made of other stars, given that the mode
90: lifetime is known. Finally, we also give amplitudes of solar-like
91: oscillations for three stars that we measured from a series of short
92: observations with HARPS (\gser, \baql{} and \afor), together with revised
93: amplitudes for five other stars for which we have previously published
94: results (\acena, \acenb, \bhyi, \nuind{} and \dpav).
95: \end{abstract}
96:
97: \keywords{Sun:~helioseismology --- stars:~oscillations --- stars:
98: individual (\gser, \baql, \afor, \acena, \acenb, \bhyi, \nuind, \dpav)}
99:
100: \section{Introduction}
101:
102: The list of stars in which solar-like oscillations have been observed is
103: growing rapidly, thanks to improvements in high-precision velocity
104: measurements (for a recent review see \citealt{B+K2007b}). While most
105: excitement centres on the frequencies of the oscillations, there is also
106: considerable interest in the amplitudes
107: \citep[e.g.,][]{ChD+F83,K+B95,HBChD99,H+G2002,Hou2006,SGA2005,SBG2007,SGT2007,SBG2008}.
108: This is because the excitation and damping are both controlled by
109: convection and so the study of oscillation amplitudes will hopefully lead
110: to an improvement in our understanding of the underlying physics.
111:
112: Theoretical calculations of oscillation amplitudes, such as those cited
113: above, are calibrated with reference to the Sun. It is therefore crucial
114: to establish the amplitudes of the solar oscillations. There is an
115: abundance of solar observations from helioseismology projects such as BiSON
116: (Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network) and GOLF (Global Oscillations at
117: Low Frequencies). However, these velocity measurements are made using a
118: single spectral line, such as sodium ($\lambda5896$\AA, used by GOLF) or
119: potassium ($\lambda7699$\AA, BiSON), and the measured oscillation amplitude
120: depends on the height in the solar atmosphere at which the spectral line is
121: formed (e.g., \citealt{IMP89,BSG2005,Hou2006}). Velocity measurements of
122: other stars, on the other hand, employ a wide wavelength range that
123: includes many spectral lines, mostly from neutral iron. The iron lines are
124: formed lower in the atmosphere than sodium and potassium and so we might
125: expect solar amplitudes measured using stellar techniques to be lower than
126: those from helioseismic measurements such as BiSON and GOLF\@. On the
127: other hand, BiSON and GOLF measure velocities using a resonance scattering
128: cell, whereas the stellar technique involves measuring line centroids.
129: These approaches have different sensitivities as a function of the mode
130: angular degree~$l$ \citep{ChD89}, which must be corrected for when
131: interpreting measured amplitudes.
132:
133: We have recently pointed out the importance of establishing the oscillation
134: amplitude of the Sun using stellar techniques \citep{KBB2005}. In that
135: paper, we reported a limited set of observations of the solar oscillations
136: obtained from spectra of the full moon. The results gave some support to
137: the conclusion that Fe~I measurements give lower amplitudes than both GOLF
138: and BiSON, but we emphasized the desirability of obtaining more
139: measurements of the Sun, in order to better calibrate the relationship
140: between stellar and solar amplitudes. That is the main purpose of this
141: paper.
142:
143: \section{Observations}
144:
145: We have obtained solar spectra by observing the daytime sky. Although
146: detailed line profiles of daytime spectra show differences from the actual
147: solar spectrum \citep{GTB2000}, and the bisector varies with solar angle
148: \citep{DSA2006}, there is no reason to suspect any systematic effects on
149: mean velocities on the timescale of the 5-minute oscillations.
150:
151: We made the observations in 2005 September during a dual-site
152: asteroseismology campaign on the star \bhyi{} \citep{BKA2007}.
153: Figure~\ref{fig.series} shows the full set of data.
154: At the European Southern Observatory on La Silla in Chile we used the HARPS
155: spectrograph (High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher) with the 3.6-m
156: telescope.\footnote{Based on observations collected at the European
157: Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile (ESO Programme 075.D-0760)}\@. A
158: thorium emission lamp was used to provide a stable wavelength reference.
159: We obtained 626 spectra over 9.7\,hr spread over four consecutive
160: afternoons, with typical exposure times of 25\,s and a median cadence of
161: one exposure every 56\,s (which corresponds to a Nyquist frequency of
162: 8.9\,mHz). The velocities were processed using the standard HARPS
163: pipeline.
164: % HARPS deadtime 31 sec?
165:
166: At Siding Spring Observatory in Australia we used UCLES (University College
167: London Echelle Spectrograph) with the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope
168: (AAT). An iodine absorption cell was used to provide a stable wavelength
169: reference, with the same setup that we have previously used with this
170: spectrograph \citep{BBK2004}. With UCLES we obtained 265 spectra of the
171: Sun over about 8.5\,hr, spread over three non-consecutive afternoons.
172: Typical exposure times were 45--60\,s, with a median cadence of one
173: exposure every 115\,s (which corresponds to a Nyquist frequency of
174: 4.35\,mHz).
175:
176: In addition, we have analysed velocities obtained by BiSON (Birmingham
177: Solar Oscillations Network) over the first 10 days of 2005 September, which
178: covers the period in which the UCLES and HARPS data were taken. We also
179: examined a 14-year time series (1992.6 to 2006.9) from the BiSON archive,
180: which allows us to follow variations in amplitude with the solar activity
181: cycle (see \S\ref{sec.bison14}). The BiSON data have 40-second sampling.
182: They had also been high-pass filtered by subtracting a moving mean
183: calculated in a boxcar of length 1000\,s. We have corrected for this by
184: dividing the power spectra by the transfer function of this filter.
185:
186: \subsection{Observations of \gser, \baql{} and \afor} \label{sec.stars.obs}
187:
188: As mentioned above, the night-time target for this asteroseismology
189: campaign was the star \bhyi. However, \bhyi{} was not accessible to HARPS
190: for the first part of each night due to hour-angle restrictions on the ESO
191: 3.6-m telescope. We used this time to observe two other stars, taken from
192: the list of targets presented by \citet{BKR96}. The first was \gser{}
193: (HR~5933, HD~142860, HIP~78072), which has spectral type F6\,IV-V and
194: magnitude $V=3.85$, and was observed for about 75 minutes at the start of
195: each of three consecutive nights. The second star was \baql{} (HR~7602,
196: HD~188512, HIP~98036), spectral type G8\,IV and magnitude $V=3.71$, which
197: was observed on four consecutive nights for periods of 65, 95, 10 and 70
198: minutes, respectively.
199:
200: This limited set of observations was not sufficient to allow us to measure
201: oscillation frequencies, but we were able to estimate the amplitudes, in
202: the same way as we have previously done for the star \dpav{}
203: \citep{KBB2005}. In addition, we also analysed observations of the star
204: \afor{} (HR~963, HD~20010, HIP~14879), which has spectral type F8\,IV and
205: magnitude $V=3.85$. Those observations were taken with HARPS in 2007
206: January for about 20-30 minutes at the start of each of seven consecutive
207: nights, during a multi-site campaign on Procyon (T. Arentoft et al., in
208: prep.). Note that the behaviour of the line bisectors for these
209: observations of \gser{} and \baql{} were already discussed by
210: \citet{DSA2006}.
211:
212:
213: \section{Analysis and results}
214:
215: \subsection{Time series and power spectra}
216:
217: The first step in the analysis of the solar velocities from HARPS and UCLES
218: was to remove slow trends from each data set by a high-pass filter that
219: only affected frequencies below 1\,mHz. Figure~\ref{fig.series.closeup}
220: shows a close-up comparison of HARPS and BiSON for one afternoon of data
221: (160\,min). There is excellent agreement and we see that the two data sets
222: are of comparable quality. The UCLES data have somewhat poorer precision
223: per data point.
224:
225: The next step was to calculate the power spectra of the velocities. For
226: HARPS and UCLES, we used the measurement uncertainties, $\sigma_i$, as
227: weights in calculating the power spectrum (according to $w_i =
228: 1/\sigma_i^2$). No uncertainty estimates were available for the BiSON
229: velocities and so all points were given equal weight. The power spectrum
230: of the HARPS time series is shown in the upper panel of
231: Fig.~\ref{fig.power.harps}, while the lower panel shows the spectrum of the
232: segment of BiSON data taken at the same times. We see that the HARPS and
233: BiSON power spectra are very similar. Figure~\ref{fig.power.ucles} shows a
234: similar analysis for the UCLES data and the corresponding BiSON segment.
235: The UCLES power spectrum has higher noise but, taking this into account, we
236: again see good agreement between the two. A comparison of
237: Figures~\ref{fig.power.harps} and~\ref{fig.power.ucles} show that the solar
238: power spectrum was quite different for the two time series, reflecting the
239: intrinsic variations in the solar oscillations. Given that the HARPS data
240: have lower noise than the UCLES data, we do not show results for UCLES in
241: the remainder of the analysis.
242:
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244:
245: \subsection{Calculating smoothed amplitude spectra} \label{sec.amp}
246:
247: The amplitudes of individual modes are affected by the stochastic nature of
248: the excitation and damping. To measure the oscillation amplitude in a way
249: that is independent of these effects, we have followed the method
250: introduced by \citet{KBB2005}. In brief, this involves the following
251: steps: (i)~heavily smoothing the power spectrum (by an amount defined in
252: the next paragraph), to produce a single hump of excess power that is
253: insensitive to the fact that the oscillation spectrum has discrete peaks;
254: (ii)~converting to power density by multiplying by the effective length of
255: the observing run (which we calculate as the reciprocal of the area under
256: the spectral window in power); (iii)~fitting and subtracting the background
257: noise; and (iv)~multiplying by $\Delta\nu/c$ and taking the square root, in
258: order to convert to amplitude per oscillation mode. Here, $\Delta\nu$ is
259: the large frequency separation, which has a value of 135\,\muHz{} in the
260: Sun, and~$c$ is a factor that measures the effective number of modes per
261: order.
262:
263: The amount of smoothing affects the exact height of the smoothed amplitude
264: spectrum. To establish a standard that allows comparisons, we propose that
265: smoothing be done by convolving (in power) with a Gaussian having a full
266: width at half maximum of $4\Delta\nu$. We have adopted this convention for
267: all the figures and measurements in this paper.
268:
269: \subsubsection{The value of $c$}
270:
271: In our previous work, we used a value of $c=3.0$
272: \citep{KBB2005,BBC2006,BKA2007}. However, $c$ depends on the sensitivity
273: of the observations to the various low-degree modes, which in turn depends
274: on the method used to observe the oscillations. We therefore reconsider
275: the calculation of~$c$, as follows. Let $S_l/S_0$ be the spatial response
276: of the observations to modes with degree $l$, relative to those with $l=0$.
277: Table~4 of \citet{ChD89} allows us to calculate $S_l/S_0$ for BiSON
278: velocity observations and these are shown in Table~\ref{tab.spatial}. We
279: have also calculated values for velocity observations using the stellar
280: technique, using the results in \citet{BKR96} for an adopted mean
281: wavelength of 550\,nm. These are also shown in Table~\ref{tab.spatial}.
282: The difference from the BiSON values arises from the way the BiSON
283: resonance scattering cell measures velocities, as discussed in detail by
284: \citet{ChD89}. Finally, Table~\ref{tab.spatial} also shows the response
285: factors for intensity measurements at the three wavelengths of the SoHO
286: VIRGO instrument, again derived from the
287: results in \citet{BKR96}.\footnote{The values in Table~\ref{tab.spatial}
288: are summed over all $m$ values. To calculate response functions for
289: individual $m$ values, as would be observed in rotationally split modes,
290: see \citet{G+S2003} and references within.}
291:
292: The last row of Table~\ref{tab.spatial} shows the value of $c$, calculated
293: as
294: \begin{equation}
295: c = \sum_{l=0}^4 \left(S_l/S_0\right)^2.
296: \end{equation}
297: These are the values that we will adopt in future. Note that the value of
298: $c=3.0$ that we used previously was based on normalizing to the mean of
299: $l=0$ and 1, rather than to $l=0$, as we now propose. The $l=0$ modes make
300: a sensible reference because they are not split by rotation, but it is
301: important to remember that the $l=1$ modes are actually stronger than the
302: radial modes.
303:
304: Note that comparing observed amplitudes with theoretical calculations
305: requires knowledge of the actual value of the spatial response function of
306: the observations. For intensity measurements, $S_0=1$ by definition. For
307: BiSON, \citet{ChD89} has calculated $S_0 = 0.724$, while for stellar
308: velocity measurements we have used the results in \citet{BKR96} to derive
309: $S_0 = 0.712$ (again, for an adopted mean wavelength of 550\,nm).
310:
311: \subsection{The solar amplitude} \label{sec.bison14}
312:
313: The smoothed amplitude spectrum for our solar observations with HARPS is
314: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.amp.bison.harps}, together with that from BiSON from
315: exactly the same observation times. Note that here we did not use the
316: weights when calculating the HARPS power spectrum, since these were not
317: available for BiSON and we wanted to make the window functions exactly the
318: same. The amplitude of solar oscillations measured using the stellar
319: technique is slightly lower than that measured by BiSON, by a factor of
320: $1.07\pm0.04$. The error bar comes from the uncertainty in fitting the
321: background to the HARPS spectrum. However, we must keep in mind that our
322: observations of the Sun were made over only a few hours, and at a single
323: epoch during the 11-year solar cycle. To correct for this and hence
324: determine the mean amplitude of the Sun, we have made use of the full set
325: of BiSON observations.
326:
327: We have analysed the 14-year time series from the BiSON archive, measuring
328: amplitudes in ten-day segments in the way described above. In practice we
329: chose all segments to have the same number of data points, which meant that
330: the lengths of most segments were in the range 8--12\,d, reflecting
331: variations in the filling factor of the network. The result is shown in
332: Fig.~\ref{fig.bison.amp.series}, where each point represents the peak
333: amplitude in one segment. We see clearly the variations in amplitude with
334: the solar activity cycle, as has been well studied from these BiSON data by
335: \citet{CEI2000,CEI2003}.
336:
337: Note that the scatter in the amplitudes in Fig.~\ref{fig.bison.amp.series}
338: is not measurement error, but rather reflects the intrinsic variability of
339: the modes. We see that both the amplitude and the scatter on the amplitude
340: are smallest at solar maximum (in 2001), which is explained by the shorter
341: mode lifetime during periods of high solar activity. Any changes in the
342: excitation rate during the solar cycle would also contribute to amplitude
343: variability, but no evidence for such changes has so far been reported.
344:
345: The mean BiSON amplitude over one 11-year solar cycle, measured from the
346: data in Fig.~\ref{fig.bison.amp.series}, is $20.0\pm0.1$\,\cms. Combining
347: this with the result in the previous section, we conclude that the mean
348: amplitude of the radial oscillations in the Sun, measured using stellar
349: techniques, is $18.7 \pm 0.7$\,\cms. This is the quantity that we were
350: seeking to measure. It is important to remember that this is based on the
351: process we used (including the $4\Dnu$-smoothing described in
352: \S\ref{sec.amp}) and is normalized to the modes with $l=0$. Values for
353: non-radial modes can be calculated from the ratios in column~3 of
354: Table~\ref{tab.spatial}. For example, the mean peak amplitude for $l=1$
355: modes is significantly higher than for $l=0$, and both are given in the
356: first line of Table~\ref{tab.amps}.
357:
358: Figure~\ref{fig.bison.amp.smoothed} shows smoothed amplitude spectra for
359: 10-day segments of BiSON data for one full year, starting at 2005.0\@.
360: This period covers the solar minimum and so the variations are dominated by
361: the stochastic nature of the excitation and damping, rather than by
362: variations due to the solar cycle. Note that the curves show less spread
363: at the higher frequencies than at the lower frequencies, reflecting the
364: fact that the mode lifetimes in the Sun increase with frequency.
365:
366: The mean of these curves is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.amp.stars} after scaling
367: so that the peak is $18.7$\,\cms, which is the solar mean as measured with
368: stellar techniques.
369:
370: \subsection{Amplitudes for other stars} \label{sec.stars}
371:
372: In Figure~\ref{fig.amp.stars} we show the amplitude curves for the three
373: stars described in \S\ref{sec.stars.obs} (\baql, \afor{} and \gser),
374: together with five other stars for which we have previously published
375: amplitudes: \acena, \acenb{} and \dpav{} \citep{KBB2005}, \nuind{}
376: \citep{BBC2006} and \bhyi{} \citep{BKA2007}. All the curves were
377: calculated using the revised method described in \S\ref{sec.amp}.
378:
379: Table~\ref{tab.amps} summarizes our results for the Sun and these eight
380: stars. Column~2 gives the large frequency separation that we used in the
381: calculation (there are no measurements of \Dnu{} for \gser, \afor, \baql{}
382: and \dpav{} and so we estimated a value from the stellar parameters).
383: Column~3 of Table~\ref{tab.amps} gives our measurement of $\nu_{\rm max}$,
384: the frequency of the envelope peak, and column~4 gives the peak height (the
385: amplitude per radial mode, as plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig.amp.stars}).
386: Column~5 gives the peak amplitude of the $l=1$ modes, using the calibration
387: factor of $S_1/S_0 = 1.35$ (see Table~\ref{tab.spatial}), which we include
388: to emphasise that the strongest peaks will generally be those with $l=1$.
389:
390: \subsection{The uncertainty in measuring oscillation amplitudes} \label{sec.scatter}
391:
392: Part of the uncertainty in each measured oscillation amplitude arises from
393: the precision with which we can fit and subtract the background. This is a
394: measurement error and is given in columns 4 and 5 of Table~\ref{tab.amps}.
395:
396: In addition, stars will presumably have variations with activity cycle,
397: analogous to the $\sim\pm5\%$ variation seen in the Sun, but for the moment
398: we do not have enough information to estimate those effects. However, we
399: can estimate the scatter on the measured amplitude that is caused by the
400: finite lifetime of the modes. This arises because a typical stellar
401: observing run does not last long enough to sample a large number of mode
402: lifetimes.
403:
404: For the BiSON data in Fig.~\ref{fig.bison.amp.series}, the relative scatter
405: of the measured amplitude about the smoothed curve has an average value of
406: $\sigma_A/A = 6.2\pm0.2\%$. This relative scatter $\sigma_A/A$ depends on
407: two parameters. One is $T/\tau$, where~$T$ is the duration of the
408: observations (10\,d in this case) and~$\tau$ is the mode lifetime. The
409: other parameter is~$N$, the number of
410: % independent
411: low-degree oscillation modes that are excited within the smoothed envelope,
412: which is about 30 in the Sun. We expect $\sigma_A/A$ to vary inversely
413: with both of these parameters:
414: \begin{equation} \label{eq.scatterN}
415: \frac{\sigma_A}{A} = k
416: \left[N\left(1+\frac{T}{\tau}\right)\right]^{-0.5}.
417: \end{equation}
418: We have verified that equation~(\ref{eq.scatterN}) holds, and that the
419: constant of proportionality is $k=0.75$, by using simulations with
420: different values of the parameters. We simulated the stochastic nature of
421: the oscillations using the method described by \citet{DeRAK2006}.
422:
423: Our decision to adopt a smoothing width of $4\Dnu$ (\S\ref{sec.amp}) means
424: that $N$ will be the same for all stars (provided there are not a large
425: number of additional mixed modes in the power spectrum). Since we know the
426: mode lifetime of the Sun, we can calibrate equation~(\ref{eq.scatterN})
427: using the solar value of $\sigma_A/A = 6.2\pm0.2\%$ for the 10-d segments
428: of BiSON data. The average mode lifetime in the Sun, measured over a solar
429: cycle from the linewidths in the range 2.8--3.4\,mHz, is $2.88\pm0.07$\,d
430: \citep{CEI97}. Using this, we get
431: \begin{equation} \label{eq.scatter}
432: \frac{\sigma_A}{A} = (0.131 \pm 0.004)
433: \left(1+\frac{T}{\tau}\right)^{-0.5}.
434: \end{equation}
435: Equation~\ref{eq.scatter} can be used to estimate the uncertainty of
436: amplitude measurements that are made on other stars, provided~$\tau$ is
437: known \citep[see also][]{T+A94}.
438:
439: The last column of Table~\ref{tab.amps} shows $\sigma_A/A$ for the
440: observations. We have used published measurements of mode lifetimes for
441: \acena{} and~B \citep{KBB2005}, \nuind{} \citep{CKB2007} and \bhyi{}
442: \citep{BKA2007}. There are no measurements available for the other stars
443: (\gser, \baql, \afor{} and \dpav) and so we adopted the solar value.
444:
445: To obtain the total uncertainties for the amplitudes in
446: Table~\ref{tab.amps}, the uncertainty from the background subtraction
447: should be added in quadrature to $\sigma_A/A$ (although in practice, the
448: latter dominates). Finally, we repeat that there is an additional source
449: of uncertainty in these amplitude measurements, namely any variations with
450: stellar activity cycle.
451:
452: \section{Conclusions}
453:
454: We have used daytime spectra of the blue sky, obtained with the stellar
455: spectrographs HARPS and UCLES, to measure oscillations in the Sun. We
456: measured amplitudes by smoothing in power density and subtracting the
457: background, as previously described by \citet{KBB2005}. In this paper we
458: propose two conventions in the use of this method. Firstly, we suggest the
459: smoothing be done by convolution with a Gaussian having a FWHM (in power)
460: of~$4\Delta\nu$. Secondly, we have chosen to report mean amplitudes for
461: the radial modes ($l=0$), but stress that the highest peaks in the
462: amplitude spectrum will generally correspond to $l=1$.
463:
464: In the daytime sky observations reported here, the solar oscillation
465: amplitude was slightly lower than that measured simultaneously by BiSON, by
466: a factor of $1.07\pm0.04$. This difference arises from two factors:
467: (i)~the stellar techniques measure a velocity that is dominated by neutral
468: iron lines, which are formed lower in the solar atmosphere than the
469: potassium line measured by BiSON; (ii)~the two methods have slightly
470: different spatial response functions.
471:
472: A single-epoch measurement of the solar amplitude has a significant
473: uncertainty due to the stochastic nature of the oscillations. We find the
474: mean solar amplitude measured by BiSON over one full solar cycle (for
475: radial modes) to be $20.0\pm0.1$\,\cms, implying a mean amplitude measured
476: using stellar techniques of $18.7 \pm 0.7$\,\cms. The mean peak amplitude
477: for $l=1$ modes is $25.2\pm 0.9$\,\cms.
478:
479: By using simulations, we have estimated the scatter in the amplitude
480: measured from solar-like oscillations that arises from the stochastic
481: nature of the excitation and damping. The result is given in
482: Equation~\ref{eq.scatter}, which matches the scatter that we find from
483: BiSON observations of the Sun. This equation can be used to estimate the
484: uncertainty of amplitude measurements that are made other stars, provided
485: the mode lifetime is known.
486:
487: Finally, Table~\ref{tab.amps} gives amplitudes for three stars (\gser,
488: \baql{} and \afor) that were measured from a series of short observations
489: with HARPS, together with revised amplitudes for five other stars for which
490: we have previously published results. Now that the solar amplitude is
491: established, these measurements should be valuable tests for theoretical
492: models of solar-like oscillation amplitudes.
493:
494: \acknowledgments
495:
496: We thank Graham Verner for providing the time series of BiSON velocity
497: measurements, and Yvonne Elsworth and Dennis Stello for comments on this
498: paper. We thank ESO and the AAO for supporting the daytime observations.
499: This work was supported financially by the Danish Natural Science Research
500: Council and the Australian Research Council. We further acknowledge
501: support by NSF grant AST-9988087 (RPB), and by SUN Microsystems. CK
502: acknowledges support from the Danish AsteroSeismology Centre and the
503: Instrument Center for Danish Astrophysics.
504:
505:
506: \begin{thebibliography}{25}
507: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
508: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
509: \def\url#1{{\tt #1}}\fi
510:
511: \bibitem[Baudin et~al.(2005)Baudin, {Samadi}, {Goupil}, {Appourchaux},
512: {Barban}, {Boumier}, {Chaplin}, \& {Gouttebroze}]{BSG2005}
513: Baudin, F., {Samadi}, R., {Goupil}, M.-J., {Appourchaux}, T., {Barban}, C.,
514: {Boumier}, P., {Chaplin}, W.~J., \& {Gouttebroze}, P., 2005, A\&A, 433, 349.
515:
516: \bibitem[{Bedding} et~al.(2006){Bedding}, {Butler}, {Carrier}, et~al.]{BBC2006}
517: {Bedding}, T.~R., {Butler}, R.~P., {Carrier}, F., et~al., 2006, ApJ, 647, 558.
518:
519: \bibitem[{Bedding} \& {Kjeldsen}(2007){Bedding}, \& {Kjeldsen}]{B+K2007b}
520: {Bedding}, T.~R., \& {Kjeldsen}, H., 2007, Commun. Asteroseismology, 150, 106.
521:
522: \bibitem[{Bedding} et~al.(2007){Bedding}, {Kjeldsen}, Arentoft,
523: et~al.]{BKA2007}
524: {Bedding}, T.~R., {Kjeldsen}, H., Arentoft, T., et~al., 2007, ApJ, 663, 1315.
525:
526: \bibitem[Bedding et~al.(1996)Bedding, Kjeldsen, Reetz, \& Barbuy]{BKR96}
527: Bedding, T.~R., Kjeldsen, H., Reetz, J., \& Barbuy, B., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1155.
528:
529: \bibitem[Butler et~al.(2004)Butler, Bedding, Kjeldsen, et~al.]{BBK2004}
530: Butler, R.~P., Bedding, T.~R., Kjeldsen, H., et~al., 2004, ApJ, 600, L75.
531:
532: \bibitem[{Carrier} et~al.(2007){Carrier}, {Kjeldsen}, {Bedding},
533: et~al.]{CKB2007}
534: {Carrier}, F., {Kjeldsen}, H., {Bedding}, T.~R., et~al., 2007, A\&A, 470, 1059.
535:
536: \bibitem[Chaplin et~al.(1997)Chaplin, {Elsworth}, {Isaak}, {McLeod}, {Miller},
537: \& {New}]{CEI97}
538: Chaplin, W.~J., {Elsworth}, Y., {Isaak}, G.~R., {McLeod}, C.~P., {Miller},
539: B.~A., \& {New}, R., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 623.
540:
541: \bibitem[{Chaplin} et~al.(2000){Chaplin}, {Elsworth}, {Isaak}, {Miller}, \&
542: {New}]{CEI2000}
543: {Chaplin}, W.~J., {Elsworth}, Y., {Isaak}, G.~R., {Miller}, B.~A., \& {New},
544: R., 2000, MNRAS, 313, 32.
545:
546: \bibitem[{Chaplin} et~al.(2003){Chaplin}, {Elsworth}, {Isaak}, {Miller}, {New},
547: \& {Toutain}]{CEI2003}
548: {Chaplin}, W.~J., {Elsworth}, Y., {Isaak}, G.~R., {Miller}, B.~A., {New}, R.,
549: \& {Toutain}, T., 2003, ApJ, 582, L115.
550:
551: \bibitem[{Christensen-Dalsgaard}(1989)]{ChD89}
552: {Christensen-Dalsgaard}, J., 1989, MNRAS, 239, 977.
553:
554: \bibitem[Christensen-Dalsgaard \& Frandsen(1983)Christensen-Dalsgaard, \&
555: Frandsen]{ChD+F83}
556: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., \& Frandsen, S., 1983, Sol. Phys., 82, 469.
557:
558: \bibitem[{Dall} et~al.(2006){Dall}, {Santos}, {Arentoft}, {Bedding}, \&
559: {Kjeldsen}]{DSA2006}
560: {Dall}, T.~H., {Santos}, N.~C., {Arentoft}, T., {Bedding}, T.~R., \&
561: {Kjeldsen}, H., 2006, A\&A, 454, 341.
562:
563: \bibitem[{De Ridder} et~al.(2006){De Ridder}, {Arentoft}, \&
564: {Kjeldsen}]{DeRAK2006}
565: {De Ridder}, J., {Arentoft}, T., \& {Kjeldsen}, H., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 595.
566:
567: \bibitem[Gizon \& Solanki(2003)Gizon, \& Solanki]{G+S2003}
568: Gizon, L., \& Solanki, S.~K., 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009.
569:
570: \bibitem[{Gray} et~al.(2000){Gray}, {Tycner}, \& {Brown}]{GTB2000}
571: {Gray}, D.~F., {Tycner}, C., \& {Brown}, K., 2000, PASP, 112, 328.
572:
573: \bibitem[{Houdek}(2006)]{Hou2006}
574: {Houdek}, G., 2006, In Fletcher, K., editor, {\em Beyond the Spherical Sun: a
575: new era in helio-and asteroseismology, Proc. SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HelAS I},
576: SP-624, page~28.
577: \newblock astro-ph/0612024.
578:
579: \bibitem[Houdek et~al.(1999)Houdek, {Balmforth}, {Christensen-Dalsgaard}, \&
580: {Gough}]{HBChD99}
581: Houdek, G., {Balmforth}, N.~J., {Christensen-Dalsgaard}, J., \& {Gough}, D.~O.,
582: 1999, A\&A, 351, 582.
583:
584: \bibitem[Houdek \& {Gough}(2002)Houdek, \& {Gough}]{H+G2002}
585: Houdek, G., \& {Gough}, D.~O., 2002, MNRAS, 336, L65.
586:
587: \bibitem[Isaak et~al.(1989)Isaak, McLeod, Pall{\'e}, van~der Raay, \&
588: Roca~Cort{\'e}s]{IMP89}
589: Isaak, G.~R., McLeod, C.~P., Pall{\'e}, P.~L., van~der Raay, H.~B., \&
590: Roca~Cort{\'e}s, T., 1989, A\&A, 208, 297.
591:
592: \bibitem[Kjeldsen \& Bedding(1995)Kjeldsen, \& Bedding]{K+B95}
593: Kjeldsen, H., \& Bedding, T.~R., 1995, A\&A, 293, 87.
594:
595: \bibitem[Kjeldsen et~al.(2005)Kjeldsen, Bedding, Butler, et~al.]{KBB2005}
596: Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T.~R., Butler, R.~P., et~al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1281.
597:
598: \bibitem[{Samadi} et~al.(2005){Samadi}, {Goupil}, {Alecian}, {Baudin},
599: {Georgobiani}, {Trampedach}, {Stein}, \& {Nordlund}]{SGA2005}
600: {Samadi}, R., {Goupil}, M.-J., {Alecian}, E., {Baudin}, F., {Georgobiani}, D.,
601: {Trampedach}, R., {Stein}, R., \& {Nordlund}, {\AA}., 2005, JA\&A, 26, 171.
602:
603: \bibitem[{Samadi} et~al.(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Samadi}, {Belkacem}, {Goupil},
604: {Kupka}, \& Dupret]{SBG2007}
605: {Samadi}, R., {Belkacem}, K.~B., {Goupil}, M.-J., {Kupka}, F.~G., \& Dupret,
606: M.-A., 2007{\natexlab{a}}, In Kupka, F., Roxburgh, I.~W., \& Chan, K.~L.,
607: editors, {\em IAU Symp. 239: Convection in Astrophysics}.
608: \newblock in press (astro-ph/0611760).
609:
610: \bibitem[{Samadi} et~al.(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Samadi}, {Georgobiani},
611: {Trampedach R.}, {Goupil}, {Stein}, \& {Nordlund}]{SGT2007}
612: {Samadi}, R., {Georgobiani}, D., {Trampedach R.}, R., {Goupil}, M.~J., {Stein},
613: R.~F., \& {Nordlund}, A., 2007{\natexlab{b}}, A\&A, 463, 297.
614:
615: \bibitem[{Samadi} et~al.(2008){Samadi}, {Belkacem}, {Goupil}, Dupret, \&
616: {Kupka}]{SBG2008}
617: {Samadi}, R., {Belkacem}, K.~B., {Goupil}, M.-J., Dupret, M.-A., \& {Kupka},
618: F.~G., 2008, A\&A.
619: \newblock submitted.
620:
621: \bibitem[{Toutain} \& {Appourchaux}(1994){Toutain}, \& {Appourchaux}]{T+A94}
622: {Toutain}, T., \& {Appourchaux}, T., 1994, A\&A, 289, 649.
623:
624: \end{thebibliography}
625:
626: \begin{table*}
627: \small
628: \begin{center}
629: \caption{\label{tab.spatial} Spatial response functions}
630: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
631: \tableline
632: \noalign{\smallskip}
633: \tableline
634: \noalign{\smallskip}
635: &
636: BiSON &
637: Stellar &
638: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Intensity} \\
639: &
640: velocities &
641: velocities &
642: 402\,nm &
643: 500\,nm &
644: 862\,nm \\
645: \noalign{
646: \smallskip}
647: \tableline
648: \noalign{
649: \smallskip}
650: $S_1/S_0$\ldots & 1.37 & 1.35 & 1.26 & 1.25 & 1.20 \\
651: $S_2/S_0$\ldots & 1.08 & 1.02 & 0.81 & 0.75 & 0.67 \\
652: $S_3/S_0$\ldots & 0.58 & 0.47 & 0.25 & 0.18 & 0.10 \\
653: $S_4/S_0$\ldots & 0.22 & 0.09 &$-0.03$ &$-0.06$ &$-0.10$ \\
654: \noalign{
655: \smallskip}
656: \tableline
657: \noalign{
658: \smallskip}
659: $c$\ldots & 4.43 & 4.09 & 3.31 & 3.16 & 2.91 \\
660: \noalign{
661: \smallskip}
662: \tableline
663: \end{tabular}
664: \end{center}
665: \end{table*}
666:
667: \begin{table*}
668: \small
669: \begin{center}
670: \caption{\label{tab.amps} Amplitudes of velocity oscillations }
671: \begin{tabular}{lrlrrr}
672: \tableline
673: \noalign{\smallskip}
674: \tableline
675: \noalign{\smallskip}
676: &
677: $\Dnu$ &
678: $\nu_{\rm max}$ &
679: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$v_{\rm osc}$ (cm\,s$^{-1}$)} &
680: \\
681: %
682: Star &
683: (\muHz) &
684: (mHz) &
685: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$l=0$} &
686: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$l=1$} &
687: $\sigma_A/A$ \\
688: \noalign{
689: \smallskip}
690: \tableline
691: \noalign{
692: \smallskip}
693: Sun\ldots & 134.8& 3.1 & $18.7\pm0.7$ & $25.2\pm0.9$ & 0.3\%\\
694: \gser\ldots & 90 & 1.6 & $34.2\pm1.3$ & $46.2\pm1.8$ & 10\% \\
695: \afor\ldots & 60 & 1.1 & $34.8\pm0.9$ & $47.0\pm1.2$ & 7\% \\
696: \baql\ldots & 30 & 0.41 & $48.8\pm1.1$ & $65.9\pm1.5$ & 9\% \\
697: \acena\ldots & 106.2& 2.4 & $22.5\pm0.2$ & $30.4\pm0.2$ & 8\% \\
698: \acenb\ldots & 161.4& 4.1 & $ 7.2\pm0.1$ & $ 9.7\pm0.2$ & 7\% \\
699: \bhyi\ldots & 57.5& 1.0 & $41.9\pm0.3$ & $56.6\pm0.5$ & 6\% \\
700: \nuind\ldots & 25.1& 0.32 & $64.7\pm0.9$ & $87.4\pm1.3$ & 10\% \\
701: \dpav\ldots & 93 & 2.3 & $19.5\pm0.4$ & $26.3\pm0.5$ & 8\% \\
702: \noalign{
703: \smallskip}
704: \tableline
705: \end{tabular}
706: \end{center}
707: \end{table*}
708:
709:
710: \begin{figure*}
711: \epsscale{0.5}
712: %\plotone{solar-harps-ucles-time-series.epsi}
713: \plotone{f1.eps}
714: \caption[]{\label{fig.series} Velocity time series of the Sun measured from
715: the blue sky by HARPS (red squares) and UCLES (black diamonds). }
716: \end{figure*}
717:
718: \begin{figure*}
719: \epsscale{0.8}
720: %\plotone{solar-harps-bison-time-series.epsi}
721: \plotone{f2.eps}
722: \caption[]{\label{fig.series.closeup} Close-up showing 160\,min of the
723: HARPS (red squares) together with contemporaneous measurements by BiSON
724: (black diamonds). }
725: \end{figure*}
726:
727: \begin{figure*}
728: \epsscale{0.5}
729: %\plotone{solar-harps-bison-power.epsi}
730: \plotone{f3.eps}
731: \caption[]{\label{fig.power.harps} Power spectrum of the HARPS velocities
732: of the Sun (upper), and of the BiSON series taken at the same times
733: (lower). }
734: \end{figure*}
735:
736: \begin{figure*}
737: \epsscale{0.5}
738: %\plotone{solar-ucles-bison-power.epsi}
739: \plotone{f4.eps}
740: \caption[]{\label{fig.power.ucles} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig.power.harps}, but
741: for UCLES and the corresponding BiSON data. }
742: \end{figure*}
743:
744: \begin{figure*}
745: \epsscale{0.5}
746: %\plotone{solar-harps-bison-smoothed4.epsi}
747: \plotone{f5.eps}
748: \caption[]{\label{fig.amp.bison.harps} Amplitude per mode of oscillations in
749: the Sun, as measured from the power spectra in
750: Fig.~\ref{fig.power.harps}. }
751: \end{figure*}
752:
753: \begin{figure*}
754: \epsscale{0.5}
755: %\plotone{bison-amp-year-4.epsi}
756: \plotone{f6.eps}
757: \caption[]{\label{fig.bison.amp.series} Amplitude of solar oscillations
758: measured from BiSON data. The points were measured from independent
759: 10-day segments of data and the thick line is after smoothing with a
760: boxcar running mean of 50 points (500 days). }
761: \end{figure*}
762:
763: \begin{figure*}
764: \epsscale{0.5}
765: %\plotone{solar-bison-smoothed-2005.epsi}
766: \plotone{f7.eps}
767: \caption[]{\label{fig.bison.amp.smoothed} Smoothed amplitude spectra of
768: solar oscillations measured from BiSON data in the year 2005. Each curve
769: was measured from an independent 10-day segment of data. }
770: \end{figure*}
771:
772: \begin{figure*}
773: \epsscale{0.5}
774: %\plotone{sun-gser-baql-afor-others-amp4-log.epsi}
775: \plotone{f8.eps}
776: %~/harps/notes/notes-harps-stars03
777: \caption[]{\label{fig.amp.stars} Smoothed amplitude curves for oscillations
778: in the Sun and other stars (see text for details). }
779: \end{figure*}
780:
781: \end{document}
782: