1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{rotate}
6: %\usepackage{amsmath}
7: %\usepackage{cancel}
8: %\usepackage{amssymb}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Are there field-free gaps near {\Large $\tau$}$=1$ in sunspot penumbrae ?}
13:
14: \author{J.M.~Borrero}
15: \affil{High Altitude Observatory (NCAR), 3080 Center Green Dr. CG-1, Boulder, CO 80301, USA}
16: \email{borrero@ucar.edu}
17: \and
18: \vspace{-0.5cm}
19: \author{S.K.~Solanki}
20: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Strasse 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany}
21: \email{solanki@mps.mpg.de}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: {The vertical stratification of the magnetic field strength in sunspot penumbrae is investigated by means
25: of spectropolarimetric observations at high spatial resolution from the Hinode spacecraft. Assuming that
26: the magnetic field changes linearly with optical depth we find that, in
27: those regions where the magnetic field is more inclined and the Evershed flow is strongest (penumbral intraspines),
28: the magnetic field can either increase or decrease with depth. Allowing more degrees of freedom to
29: the magnetic field stratification reveals that the magnetic field initially decreases
30: from $\log\tau_5 = -3$ until $\log\tau_5 \simeq -1.0$, but increases again below that. The
31: presence of strong magnetic fields near the continuum is at odds with the existence of regions void of magnetic
32: fields at, or right below, the $\tau_5=1$ level in the penumbra. However, they are compatible with the presence of
33: a horizontal flux-tube-like field embedded in a magnetic atmosphere.}
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: \keywords{Sun: sunspots -- Sun: magnetic fields -- Sun: polarimetry}
37:
38: \shorttitle{Field-free gaps near {\Large $\tau$}$=1$ in sunspot penumbrae ?}
39: \shortauthors{BORRERO \& SOLANKI}
40: \maketitle
41:
42: %%% mathematical definitions
43: \def\nn{{\bf \nabla}}
44: \def\cro{\times}
45: \def\er{{\bf{\rm e_{\rm r}}}}
46: \def\et{{\bf{\rm e_{\rm \theta}}}}
47: \def\ex{{\bf{\rm e_{\rm x}}}}
48: \def\ey{{\bf{\rm e_{\rm y}}}}
49: \def\ez{{\bf{\rm e_{\rm z}}}}
50: \def\l{{\bf{\rm l}}}
51: \def\nx{\mathcal{N}}
52: \def\sx{\mathcal{S}}
53: \def\rx{\mathcal{R}}
54:
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \section{Introduction}
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58:
59: It is now widely accepted that the horizontal structure of the sunspot penumbra is composed of two
60: magnetic components (Solanki 2003; Bellot Rubio 2003). One of them possesses a somewhat inclined ($\simeq 40-50^{\circ}$
61: with respect to the vertical direction to the solar surface) and strong ($\sim 2000$ G) magnetic field,
62: whereas the other is characterized by a weaker and more horizontal one (Lites et al. 1993; R\"uedi et al. 1998;
63: Bellot Rubio et al. 2004; Borrero et al. 2004, 2005). Traditionally, these two magnetic
64: components have been identified with a horizontal flux tube, that carries the Evershed flow, and is embedded in a more vertical
65: background magnetic field: {\it uncombed} model (Solanki \& Montavon 1993; Schlichenmaier et al. 1998; Borrero 2007).
66: Recently, this view has been challenged by Spruit \& Scharmer (2006) and Scharmer \& Spruit (2006),
67: who propose instead that the penumbra is formed by magnetic field-free plumes (connected to the underlying convection
68: zone) that pierce the penumbral magnetic field from beneath. This is the so-called {\it gappy} penumbral model.
69:
70: So long as these two different magnetic structures (weak/horizontal and strong/vertical) have remained
71: spatially (horizontally) unresolved, distinguishing between the uncombed and gappy penumbral scenarios
72: has not been possible. However, with the new spectropolarimeter on board of the Japanese spacecraft
73: Hinode (Kosugi et al. 2007; Shimizu et al. 2007) it is now possible to obtain high spatial resolution
74: ($\simeq 0.32$") observations of the sunspot penumbra. This could be sufficient to distinguish
75: between the uncombed and gappy models, since they both postulate the existence of flux tubes or
76: field-free gaps that are about 200-300 km in diameter (Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet 2000; Spruit \& Scharmer
77: 2006). This feature is particularly interesting, because the {\it uncombed} and {\it gappy} models predict
78: very different vertical stratifications in the magnetic field strength across the weak/horizontal magnetic
79: field component: which is identified with an embedded flux tube in the uncombed model, but with a
80: field-free gap in the gappy model. In the latter, the magnetic field decreases monotonically with depth,
81: whereas the former possesses a magnetic field that decreases with depth only initially, since
82: once the boundary of the flux tube is reached, the magnetic field can either decrease or increase
83: depending upon the strength of the magnetic field inside the tube.
84:
85: In this paper we will focus on obtaining the vertical stratification of the magnetic field for penumbral filaments
86: (where the magnetic field is more horizontal and weaker) using high spatial resolution spectropolarimetric observations
87: from Hinode, in order to establish which penumbral model is more realistic. The observations are described in Section 2.
88: Section 3 describes our data analysis and results from our inversion technique. Section 4 compares our findings
89: with the predictions made by the uncombed and gappy penumbral models. In Section 5 we make a thourough investigation
90: of the effects of the scattered light. Finally, Section 6 summarizes our findings.
91:
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93: \section{Observations}
94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
95:
96: On May 3rd 2007, between 10:15 and 11:40 am UT, the active region AR 10953 was mapped using the spectropolarimeter of
97: the Solar Optical Telescope on-board of the Hinode spacecraft (Lites et al. 2001). The active region
98: was located at a heliocentric angle of $\theta=19.2^{\circ}$.
99: It was scanned in a thousand steps, with a step width of 0.148" and a
100: slit width of 0.158". The spectropolarimeter recorded the full Stokes vector ($I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$)
101: of the pair of neutral iron lines at 630 nm with a spectral sampling of 21.53 m\AA.
102: The integration time was 4.8 seconds, resulting in an approximate noise level of $1.2 \times 10^{-3}$ (in units
103: of the normalized continuum intensity). In the absence of the telluric oxygen lines we proceeded with two different wavelength calibration
104: methods that were cross-checked for consistency. The first method was obtained by matching the average
105: quiet Sun profile with the FTS spectrum, whereas the second calibration assumes that the average umbral
106: profile exhibits no velocities.
107:
108: A map of the continuum intensity at 630 nm of the scanned region is shown in Figure 1. The white
109: arrow indicates the direction of the center of the solar disk. The penumbra on the center
110: side is heavily distorted and therefore left out from our analysis.
111: On the limb side the penumbra is more uniform, with radially aligned filaments. The
112: region enclosed by the white rectangle has been chosen for our study. This sunspot has negative polarity
113: (magnetic field in the umbra points towards the solar interior), however the results presented hereafter are shown,
114: in order to facilitate the interpretation, as if the sunspot had positive polarity.
115:
116: \begin{center}
117: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.ps}
118: \figcaption{Continuum intensity map at 630 nm of AR 10953. This sunspot
119: was observed using Hinode's spectropolarimeter on the 3rd of May, 2007 at an
120: heliocentric angle of $\theta = 19^{\circ}$. The white arrow points towards the center
121: of the solar disk. The white rectangle limits the region chosen for our study. It lies
122: on the limb-side around the line-of-symmetry.}
123: \end{center}
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126: \section{Data analysis and Results}%
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128:
129: We have applied the SIR inversion code (Ruiz Cobo \& Del Toro Iniesta 1992) to
130: our spectropolarimetric observations to retrieve the physical properties of the solar atmosphere.
131: This code allows all relevant physical parameters to be a generic function
132: of the optical depth: $B(\tau)$, $\gamma(\tau)$, $\phi(\tau)$, $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$, etc.
133: In addition, a depth-dependent temperature stratification $T(\tau)$ models the
134: atmospheric thermodynamics under local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) conditions. SIR retrieves the values of the parameters at a number of optical depth
135: points called {\it nodes}. The final stratification is obtained by interpolating splines across those nodes.
136: Note however, that SIR employs equivalent response functions (Del Toro Iniesta 2003), which ensures sensitivity
137: to the atmospheric layers located between nodes. Each node represents a free parameter in the inversion.
138: In our investigation we will employ increasingly complex models (i.e.: more free parameters) according to the amount of information we hope
139: to extract from the profiles.
140:
141: Given the high spatial resolution of Hinode's observations, we will consider only one magnetic
142: component. A non-magnetic component is also considered to account for the scattered light.
143: In this section, the scattered light profile is obtained by averaging the intensity profiles of those pixels
144: with polarization signals below the noise level (quiet Sun granulation around the sunspot).
145: The same scattered light profile is used in the inversion of all pixels. In Sect.~5 we make a thourough
146: analysis of the effects that different treatments for the scattered light have on our results.
147: Note that using one single magnetic component is equivalent to assuming that the penumbral
148: structure is horizontally resolved. This is clearly not the case if we look into continuum images
149: at even higher spatial resolution (Scharmer et al. 2002). However, our assumption would still be valid if the
150: (unresolved) variations of the magnetic field inside the weak/horizontal magnetic component are much smaller
151: than the differences between the weak/horizontal and strong/vertical components. Since the former remain unresolved,
152: we cannot assess the validity of this assumption. This question should be addressed as better spectropolarimetric
153: observations become available.
154:
155: %
156: \subsection{1-node inversion and intraspine selection}
157: %
158:
159: In order to locate the intraspinal pixels we have carried out a first inversion where all physical parameters,
160: with the exception of the temperature, are constant with optical depth. We therefore have one single node for $B(\tau)$, $\gamma(\tau)$, $\phi(\tau)$,
161: $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$. To account for unresolved velocity fields, we also consider depth-independent
162: micro and macroturbulent velocities: $V_{\rm mic}$ and $V_{\rm mac}$. Another
163: free parameter, $\alpha_{\rm qs}$, represents the fraction of the observed intensity, Stokes $I$, that
164: corresponds to scattered light. Finally, three nodes are given to the temperature $T(\tau)$.
165: In total, this first inversion has 10 free parameters. Since $B$, $\gamma$, $\phi$ and $V_{\rm los}$ are constant
166: with optical depth, the retrieved values indicate some kind of average over the region where the spectral lines
167: are formed. Westendorp Plaza et al. (1998,2001) studied this issue in detail and found that the largest contribution
168: for this pair of Fe I lines (Sect.~2) comes from $\log\tau_5 \simeq -1.5$.
169:
170: Figure 2 displays the resulting values for the line-of-sight velocity and magnetic field vector in the selected
171: box in Fig.~1. Regions of weak, $B < 1300$ G, and highly inclined, $\gamma > 80^{\circ}$,
172: magnetic field can be clearly distinguished in this figure. They are also characterized by
173: the presence of large red-shifted velocities (Evershed flow). These are the so-called penumbral intraspines, and therefore the
174: most likely locations where field-free gaps or horizontal flux-tubes can be found. Also visible are structures characterized by a stronger
175: and more vertical magnetic field, as well as by a strongly reduced Evershed flow. These are usually referred to as spines.
176: Spines and intraspines are also seen at moderate ($\sim$ 1") spatial resolution (Lites et al. 1993; Stanchfield et al. 1997;
177: Mathew et al. 2003) but the associated changes in their properties (field strength, inclination, etc) are
178: larger if observed at high spatial resolution (Bello Gonz\'alez et al. 2005; Langhans et al. 2005).
179: Bellot Rubio et al. (2004) interprets this result as a consequence of these structures not being spatially
180: resolved at 1" resolution. As demonstrated by Borrero et al. (2008) they are indeed horizontally resolved
181: in Hinode observations (0.32").
182:
183: \begin{figure*}
184: \begin{center}
185: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f2low.ps} \\
186: \figcaption{Results from the inversion of the region limited by the square box in Fig.~1. The inversion was
187: performed assuming that $B$, $\gamma$, $\phi$ and $V_{\rm los}$ are constant with optical depth. The
188: magnetic field strength is displayed in the lower-left panel, inclination (upper-right),and
189: line-of-sight velocity (upper-left). The white and black dots correspond to those pixels where
190: the location of horizontal flux tubes or field-free gaps are suspected (see text for details). There are
191: 7520 of them: 39 \% of all penumbral pixels in this figure.}
192: \end{center}
193: \end{figure*}
194:
195: \begin{figure*}
196: \begin{center}
197: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f3low.ps} \\
198: \figcaption{Temperature (upper-left), line-of-sight velocity (upper-right), magnetic field strength (lower-left),
199: and magnetic field zenith angle (lower-right) as a function of the optical depth $\log\tau_5$, obtained from the
200: 2-node inversion of the intraspinal pixels selected in Fig.~2. Approximate height scale, Z, computed assuming vertical hydrostatic
201: equilibrium, is also indicated.}
202: \end{center}
203: \end{figure*}
204:
205: In Figure 2 we also indicate with black and white dots a large number (total of 7520) of intraspinal pixels.
206: They have been found as those satisfying the following conditions: $B > 700$ G, and $V_{\rm los} \in [1.0,3.0]$ km s$^{-1}$.
207: Since the main difference between spines and intraspines is the presence of a strong Evershed flow, we use $V_{\rm los}$ to distinguish among them.
208: However, we do not consider the few pixels where $V_{\rm los} > 3$ km s$^{-1}$, since they usually present extremely
209: abnormal Stokes V profiles, usually a sign of the existence of horizontally unresolved structure. We do not constrain the values of the magnetic
210: field inclination and strength (here we use only a lower limit to avoid taking pixels outside the visible boundary of the sunspot) because the
211: magnetic properties of the spines in the outer penumbra are very similar to those of the intraspines in the inner penumbra.
212: The final selected pixels represent about 39 \% of all penumbral pixels in Figure 2. Note that they are mostly located in the middle and outer penumbra:
213: $r/R_s > 0.5$ ($R_s$ being the sunspot radius; umbral-penumbral boundary is located at $r/R_s > 0.25$). Note also that, even though
214: we have not constrained the values of the magnetic field strength an inclination, all intraspinal pixels are located in
215: regions where the magnetic field is highly inclined and weak.
216:
217: %
218: \subsection{2-node inversion of individual profiles}
219: %
220:
221: In order to investigate the depth variation of the physical parameters in intraspines, we performed a renewed inversion of the pixels selected
222: in Fig.~2, where we now allow for two nodes in $B(\tau)$, $\gamma(\tau)$, $\phi(\tau)$, $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$ (linear variations with
223: optical depth). The total number of free parameters is now 14. Results from this new inversion are presented in Figure 3: $T(\tau)$ (upper-left),
224: $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$ (upper-right), $B(\tau)$ (lower-left), and $\gamma(\tau)$\ (lower-right). All inverted pixels display similar
225: stratifications of $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$ and $\gamma(\tau)$: both increase monotonically with optical depth: $\partial V_{\rm los}/\partial \tau$,
226: $\partial \gamma/\partial \tau>0$. The magnetic field strength $B(\tau)$, however, can either increase (in 66 \% of inverted pixels: 4971)
227: or decrease (34 \%; 2249 pixels) with optical depth. In either case, the retrieved gradient is relatively small: $|dB/dz| \le 1.5$ Gauss km$^{-1}$.
228: An important feature to note is that pixels displaying a decreasing magnetic field towards deeper layers, $dB/ d \tau < 0$,
229: are mostly located in the inner penumbra, whereas pixels showing $dB/ d \tau > 0$ are mostly found in the outer penumbra (see Figure 4).
230:
231: \begin{center}
232: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4.ps}
233: \figcaption{Percentage of the total selected pixels that, at each radial distance from sunspot center, show
234: a magnetic field that increases ($dB/ d \tau > 0$; solid line) or decreases ($dB/ d \tau > 0$; dashed line)
235: towards the solar interior.}
236: \end{center}
237:
238: %
239: \subsection{4-node inversion of individual profiles}
240: %
241:
242: We now perform a more complex inversion of the same pixels as in Sect.~3.2. In this case
243: we allow for 4 nodes in $B(\tau)$, $\gamma(\tau)$, $\phi(\tau)$, and $V_{\rm los}(\tau)$.
244: These nodes are located at optical depth positions: $\log\tau_5=[-3.2,-1.8,-0.4,1]$.
245: In total, this new inversion has 22 free parameters. Figure 5 shows the results from the 4-node
246: inversion of the 7250 intraspinal pixels selected in Sect.~3.1. The stratifications are
247: very similar to those already obtained through the 2-node inversion (see Fig.~3).
248: The larger scatter (pixel-to-pixel variations) in the 4-node inversion is due to the larger amount of
249: free parameters, which are more weakly constrained by the observations.
250:
251: Since now we allow for 4 nodes to the stratification of the magnetic field strength it is not
252: easy to classify our results between those where the magnetic field increases or
253: decreases with optical depth. To showcase the differences between the possible stratifications
254: we have taken separately those pixels where, in the 2-node inversion, showed $dB/ d \tau < 0$
255: (family 1) or $dB/ d \tau > 0$ (family 2) and obtained the averaged stratification for the 2 and
256: 4-node inversion. Results for family 1 and 2 are presented in Figures 6 and 7 respectively.
257:
258: \begin{figure*}
259: \begin{center}
260: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f5low.ps} \\
261: \figcaption{Same as Figure 3 but for the 4-node inversion.}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{figure*}
264:
265: Interestingly, the magnetic field strength, that in the 2-node inversion showed different gradients, now
266: shows an initial decrease up to $\log\tau_5 \simeq -1$ (approximately 100 km above the continuum level), where it starts to
267: increase again towards deep layers. This happens for both families of magnetic structures, and thus could indicate that they
268: are indeed closely related. A closer look reveals that both families possess a similar magnetic field strength in deep layers:
269: $B(\tau=1) \simeq 1250$ G, but slightly different higher up: $B(\tau=10^{-3}) \simeq 1200$ G (family 1; Fig.~6) and
270: $B(\tau=10^{-3}) \simeq 900$ G (family 2; Fig.~7). This effect explains why the 2-node inversion (Sect.~3.2) retrieves different
271: overall gradients for the magnetic field strength: it is due to a large variation in the magnetic field at around
272: $\tau_5 \simeq 10^{-3}$ since the magnetic field deeper down is basically the same in both cases.
273:
274: To further confirm these results we have repeated our 4-node inversion with the nodes located at slightly different positions.
275: SIR always places 2 nodes at the uppermost and deepest $\tau$-locations of the discretized atmosphere, while spreading the rest
276: equidistantly in between. Therefore, to keep the same number of nodes and, at the same time, change their $\tau$-positions
277: we must change the initial and last $\tau$-points of the atmosphere. In our first set of inversions the atmosphere is discretized
278: between $\log\tau_5=[-3.2,1]$. Changing this to $\log\tau_5=[-3.0,1.2]$ and $\log\tau_5=[-3.7,0.5]$ would position the 4 nodes
279: at $[-3.0,-1.6,-0.2,1.2]$ and $[-3.7,-2.3,-0.9,0.5]$, respectively. We have inverted all pixels again in these two cases and confirmed
280: that our results (Fig.~5,6 and 7) do not change. This is due to the use that SIR makes of equivalent response functions (see Section~3).
281:
282: \begin{figure*}
283: \begin{center}
284: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f6.ps}
285: \figcaption{Temperature (top left), line-of-sight velocity (top right), magnetic field strength (lower left)
286: , and magnetic field inclination (lower right) as a function of the optical depth. Red indicates the average stratification
287: obtained from the individual 2-node inversion of the 2549 profiles belonging to family 1: $dB/ d\tau < 0$ (taken from Fig.~3). Green
288: shows the average stratification obtained from the individual 4-node inversion of the Stokes vector of the same pixels.}
289: \end{center}
290: \end{figure*}
291:
292:
293: \begin{figure*}
294: \begin{center}
295: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f7.ps}
296: \figcaption{Same as Figure 6 but for the 4971 pixels belonging to family 2: $dB/ d\tau > 0$.}
297: \end{center}
298: \end{figure*}
299:
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: \section{Discussion}%
302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
303:
304: If we consider a ray passing through the center of an intraspine, the {\it gappy} and {\it uncombed} penumbral models
305: predict a very similar stratification of the magnetic field strength above the field-free gap or flux tube, but very different
306: ones inside them. Figure 8 illustrates some possible stratifications predicted by these two models, where the
307: upper boundary of the field-free gap and flux tube is located at $z=0$. Above $z=0$ they both share the same stratification for
308: the surrounding magnetic atmosphere. Here we present two examples, one where the surrounding magnetic field is weak: $B_{\rm surr}=1000$ (dashed
309: line; meant to represent the outer penumbra, $r/R_s=0.8$), and another case where the surrounding field is stronger (solid
310: line): $B_{\rm surr}=1500$ (meant to represent to inner penumbra, $r/R_s=0.4$). Note that the magnetic field strength in the surrounding
311: atmosphere decreases towards deeper layers. This is due to the fact that the vertical component of the surrounding field must vanish
312: (or nearly vanish in the case of a cusp-shaped boundary) at the flux tube's or gap's boundary. These two examples are
313: actual solutions of analytical models (Fig.~5 in Spruit \& Scharmer 2006; Fig.~3 in Scharmer \& Spruit 2006; see also
314: Eqs.~33-34 in Borrero 2007). Below the boundary of the flux tube or field-free gap, $z=0$, both models predict a very different situation. In
315: the case of the {\it gappy} penumbra this region is void of magnetic fields: $B_{\rm gap} \simeq 0$ (hollow circles). In contrast, the {\it uncombed}
316: model assumes the existence of a flux tube where the magnetic field is strong $B_{\rm tube}=1250$ G (filled circles).
317:
318: If we compare Fig.~8 with our 2-node inversion (Fig.~3) of intraspinal pixels we find that, on the one hand, the {\it gappy} penumbral model
319: can only explain the slowly decreasing magnetic field, observed for 34 \% of intraspinal pixels (family 1), if the $\tau_5=1$ level is
320: formed above the gap's boundary, otherwise a much more sudden drop would be observed (hollow circles in Fig.~8).
321: On the other hand, this model does not offer any explanation for the 66 \% of the intraspinal pixels that present an
322: increasing magnetic field strength towards deeper layers (family 2). However, the {\it uncombed} penumbral model can explain both observed
323: situations. It all depends on the strength of the flux tube's magnetic field
324: as compared to the magnetic field high above it: $B_{\rm surr}$ versus $B_{\rm tube}$. A magnetic field that
325: decreases smoothly towards the interior of the photosphere can be explained by a flux tube (of any field strength)
326: whose upper boundary layer lies below $\tau_5=1$. If the upper boundary is above $\tau_5=1$, it can also be explained with a
327: magnetic field inside the flux tube that is weaker than the magnetic field a
328: few hundred kilometers above (solid lines plus filled circles in Fig.~8). In addition, a magnetic field that increases towards
329: the interior of the photosphere is compatible with a flux tube with an upper boundary layer
330: above $\tau_5=1$, and with a stronger magnetic field than the one above (dashed line and filled circles in Fig.~8).
331:
332: \begin{center}
333: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f8.ps}
334: \figcaption{Vertical variation of the magnetic field strength across the center of a field-free gap (hollow circles) according to
335: the gappy penumbral model. Same for a flux tube with a magnetic field strength of 1250 G (filled circles). Note that both models
336: share the same stratification above the tube's or gap's boundary ($z > 0$). The solid line represents a situation where the
337: external field is rather strong (inner penumbra), while the dashed line corresponds to the outer penumbra (weak external field).
338: Also, note that the $\tau_5=1$ level can be shifted horizontally such that the continuum level can be formed above the
339: gap/flux-tube or inside them.}
340: \end{center}
341:
342: A more complex (4-nodes) inversion of intraspinal profiles indicates that, what appeared as two different families of structures
343: using a 2-node inversion, are likely to correspond to one single kind of magnetic structure, where the magnetic field exhibits
344: an initial decrease between $\log\tau_5 \in [-3,-1.0]$, but increases between $\log\tau_5 \in [-1.0,0]$ (see Figs.~6-7).
345: While the {\it gappy} model offers no explanation for this effect,
346: it can indeed be explained by the {\it uncombed} penumbral model, by means of a magnetic field whose strength decreases initially but
347: increases once the line-of-sight crosses the flux tube's boundary (see Fig.~8). Furthermore, although intraspinal families 1 and 2 appear
348: to be the equivalent in the 4-node inversion, they still present a subtle yet important difference: family 1
349: (more commonly found in the inner penumbra; see Fig.~4) displays a much stronger initial decrease as compared to family 2,
350: which is usually found in the outer penumbra (compare lower-left panels in Figs.~6 and 7).
351:
352: This can be explained, in terms
353: of the {\it uncombed} model if, at small-intermediate radial distances, the horizontal flux tube possesses a weaker magnetic field than the field in the
354: atmosphere in which it is embedded: $B_{\rm tube} < B_{\rm surr}$ at $r/R_s$ small (compare solid line plus filled circles in Fig.~8 with
355: green solid in Fig.~6). As we move towards larger radial distances, and assuming that the magnetic field
356: inside the flux tube remains constant, the surrounding magnetic field weakens and falls below the flux tube's field strength:
357: $B_{\rm tube} > B_{\rm surr}$ at $r/R_s$ large (compare dashed line plus filled circles in Fig.~8 with solid green in Fig.~7). Note that
358: the assumption that the magnetic field in the flux tube remains constant is in agreement with a surrounding magnetic field whose strength decays
359: much more rapidly towards the outer penumbra than inside the flux tube (see Fig.~4 in Borrero et al. 2004; Fig.~6 in Borrero et al. 2005 and Fig.~4 in
360: Borrero et al. 2006). Here we find that this known feature of the penumbral intraspines helps to explain, within the frame of the uncombed model,
361: differences in the stratification in the magnetic field strength across instrapines at different radial distances, as deduced from high resolution
362: spectropolarimetric observations.
363:
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365: \section{Scattered light considerations}%
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367:
368: One of the most critical issues in the inversion of spectropolarimetric data is the treatment of the scattered
369: light. In order to properly model its contribution, detailed measurements of the telescope's PSF are needed.
370: Since these are not usually available, the scattered light is often
371: treated as a non-polarized contribution to the total observed light (see Sect.~3). In our study this is particularly important
372: because one of the models under study ({\it gappy} model) postulates the existence of field-free regions around the $\tau_5=1$ level
373: in the penumbra. These regions will naturally produce a non-polarized contribution to the total observed Stokes vector.
374: Therefore, there is a potential risk of not detecting the field-free gaps due to an incorrect treatment of the scattered light.
375:
376: \begin{center}
377: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f9.ps} \\
378: \figcaption{Azimuthal variation of the magnetic field strength (top), line-of-sight velocity (middle), and
379: inclination of the magnetic field (bottom) at $\tau_5=1$, for a cut at a radial distance $r/R_s=0.75$ in Fig.~2.
380: The origin of the azimuth angle (abscissa) corresponds to the line of symmetry of the sunspot, indicated by the arrow in Fig.~1. The
381: scattered light filling factor, $\alpha_{\rm qs}$, is also plotted in all three panels (dashed lines).}
382: \end{center}
383:
384: If our inversions are affected by this degeneracy between scattered light and field-free gaps, it is expected
385: that those pixels where the intraspines are located show larger values for the amount of scattered light retrieved by
386: the inversion ($\alpha_{\rm qs}$). To study this possibility we have plotted in Figure~9 the variations of
387: the magnetic field strength (top panel), line-of-sight velocity (middle panel) and inclination angle (bottom)
388: along an azimuthal cut at $r/R_s=0.75$. Other azimuthal cuts at different radial distances
389: show very similar behaviors. The values are taken at an optical depth of $\tau_5=1$
390: from the 2-node inversion in Sect.~3.2. This plot includes, not only those pixels selected in Fig.~2 as intraspines,
391: but all of them. Therefore regions where the magnitude of Evershed flow is reduced and the magnetic field is more
392: vertical and strong (penumbral spines) are also visible. All three panels also show the amount of
393: scattered light $\alpha_{\rm qs}$ (dashed lines). There is no particular correlation between
394: the location of penumbral intraspines (high velocities, weak and very inclined fields) and the regions where $\alpha_{\rm qs}$
395: is largest. Similar variations are observed if we plot the values of the magnetic field strength and inclination, and line-of-sight velocity,
396: at an optical depth of $\tau_5=10^{-2}$. This rules out the possibility that our inversions do not show field-free regions, in the deep photospheric
397: layers, where intraspines are located at the expense of an enhanced scattered light contribution.
398:
399: Recently, Orozco Su\'arez et al. (2007a; 2007b) have presented inversions of Stokes spectra measured
400: using Hinode's spectropolarimeter in the quiet Sun. These authors claim that for this instrument it is more appropriate to consider
401: a local (unpolarized )scattered light profile. This is obtained by averaging the observed Stokes $I$ profiles over a small
402: region (about 1 arcsec) around the pixel that is being studied. In this case, a different scattered light profile
403: is used in the inversion of each pixel. This approach can be justified by the fact that the focus of the
404: Narrow-band filter (NBI) on Hinode is favored when simultaneous observations are carried out with both instruments.
405: In our inversions, we have however used a global scattered light profile, where we average the Stokes $I$ signal emerging from the quiet Sun region far away from
406: the sunspot. In order to test whether our results depend on the use of a different scattered light profile,
407: we have repeated our 2-node inversion using the same approach as Orozco Su\'arez et al. The results are presented
408: in Fig.~10 (cf. Fig.~3). The percentage of intraspinal pixels with $dB/d\tau >0$ is even larger than before (90 \%).
409:
410:
411: Alternatively, Orozco Su\'arez et al. (2007a; 2007b) point out that the most realistic way to account for the scattered light would be to consider a
412: local {\bf and} polarized scattered light profile, where not only Stokes $I$ is averaged, but also Stokes $Q$, $U$
413: and $V$. We have also tested this possibility. Unfortunately, this yields unrealistically high values
414: for $\alpha_{\rm qs}$ during the inversion: $\alpha_{\rm qs} > 0.9$. This indicates that the inversion code tries to dominantly reproduce the
415: observed Stokes profiles using the scattered light contribution. This is not surprising since the neighboring Stokes profiles often look
416: very similar to those in the pixel under study. Therefore we conclude that this is not
417: a reasonable approach when inverting sunspot data. We cannot rule out however, that this treatment will work
418: in quiet Sun regions.
419:
420: \begin{figure*}
421: \begin{center}
422: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f10low.ps}
423: \figcaption{Same as Fig.~3 but using a {\it local} scattered light profile. About 90 \% of the inverted pixels
424: show $dB/d\tau >0$.}
425: \end{center}
426: \end{figure*}
427:
428: \begin{figure*}
429: \begin{center}
430: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f11low.ps}
431: \figcaption{Same as Fig.~3 but {\it without} the scattered light. About 68 \% of the inverted pixels
432: show $dB/d\tau >0$.}
433: \end{center}
434: \end{figure*}
435:
436: As a final test, we have repeated our 2-node inversion but neglecting any scattered light: $\alpha_{\rm qs}=0$.
437: This test is very appropriate because, according to Spruit \& Scharmer (2006), inversions of spectropolarimetric data
438: fail to detect field-free regions in the penumbra as a consequence of these being already included in the scattered light profile.
439: If their hypothesis is correct, not accounting for the scattered light contribution should uncover these regions
440: with $B \simeq 0$ near $\tau_5=1$. Results ignoring the effects of the scattered light (Figure~11)
441: are essentially unchanged if compared to those where we used a global (Fig.~3) or local (Fig.~10) scattered light profile,
442: with 68 \% of the pixels showing $dB/d\tau >0$. The only difference is the increased temperatures obtained when we impose $\alpha_{\rm qs}=0$.
443: In particular we do not see any pixel where the magnetic field reaches very small values in the deepest photospheric layers.
444:
445: Taking into account all tests carried out in this section, it seems unlikely that the scattered light can significantly bias our
446: magnetic field stratifications, consequently making highly unlikely that we are missing the detection of field-free regions near $\tau_5=1$.
447:
448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
449: \section{Conclusions}%
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451:
452: The {\it uncombed} model postulates that penumbral intraspines are characterized by the presence of horizontal flux tubes embedded
453: in a surrounding atmosphere that possesses an inclined magnetic field. According to this model, looking along these regions
454: should reveal a magnetic field that smoothly decreases at first, but once the flux tube contribution starts, the field strength
455: could either increase or decrease. Alternatively, the {\it gappy} penumbral model postulates that instraspines correspond
456: instead to regions where convective field-free gaps penetrate the penumbral field. In this case the magnetic field strength should
457: also decrease with optical depth at first, but suffer a much larger drop once the line-of-sight
458: crosses the field-free gap.
459:
460: In order to differentiate between these two models, we have used polarimetric data at very high
461: spatial resolution, recorded with the spectropolarimeter on-board of the Japanese spacecraft Hinode, to investigate the
462: depth variation of the magnetic field strength in the penumbra. We have selected a large number ($\sim$7500) of pixels
463: that are representative of weak and horizontal magnetic fields (i.e.: penumbral intraspines) carrying strong
464: Evershed flows. From the inversion of the Stokes profiles at these locations we find that the magnetic field strength can
465: either increase or decrease with optical depth. A more detailed inversion
466: of the average Stokes vector over the selected pixels, shows that the magnetic field initially decreases,
467: between $\log\tau_5 \in [-3,-0.7]$, but increases thereafter until $\log\tau_5 = 0$.
468:
469: The {\it gappy} penumbral model can explain a smoothly decreasing magnetic field strength
470: only if the $\tau_5=1$ level is formed above the field free gap, otherwise a much more sudden decrease would
471: be observed as the line-of-sight penetrates the field-free plasma. A partial solution to this problem can be found
472: if we assume that the gap is not fully evacuated of magnetic field. However, it offers no explanation for about
473: 66 \% of the selected pixels, where an increasing magnetic field strength with optical depth is observed. The
474: absence of field-free gaps, as indicated by the inversion, does not in itself imply that there is
475: no form of convection present in the penumbra, but rather suggests that the convective energy transport takes places
476: in the presence of a magnetic field (see Zakharov et al. 2008; Rempel \& Sch\"ussler 2008). An example is the roll convection
477: proposed by Danielson (1961).
478:
479: All inferred stratifications are compatible with the scenario proposed by the
480: {\it uncombed} model. A magnetic field that decreases smoothly towards the interior
481: of the Photosphere can be explained by either a flux tube (of any field strength)
482: whose upper boundary layer lies below $\tau_5=1$ or, if the upper boundary is above $\tau_5=1$,
483: with a magnetic field inside the flux tube that is weaker than the magnetic field a
484: few hundred kilometers above. In addition, a magnetic field that increases towards
485: the interior of the Photosphere is compatible with a flux tube with an upper boundary layer
486: above $\tau_5=1$, but with a stronger magnetic field than the one above. This very same configuration can explain a magnetic field that first
487: decreases and then increases with optical depth, as inferred from the inversion of averaged intraspinal profiles.
488:
489: We have also studied the effects of the scattered light in our inversions. We have seen that any inaccuracies in its treatment are unlikely
490: to be a source of error in the stratification of the magnetic field strength. It would be very desirable to make a robust confirmation
491: of our findings, namely $dB/d\tau > 0$ in the outer penumbra, for a larger number of sunspots at different heliocentric angles
492: and including also the disk-ward side of the penumbra. A natural extension of this work would be to use the Fe I lines
493: at 1.56 $\mu$m (which are formed deeper in the Photosphere) to confirm the absence of field-free regions
494: around $\tau_5=1$. Unfortunately, no such observations exist at the spatial resolution needed to resolve penumbral intraspines ($\simeq$ 0.4").
495: Indeed, some studies at slightly lower resolution (0.6-0.7") have been presented by Cabrera Solana et al. (2008), who used simultaneous observations
496: of Fe I 630 nm and 1.56 $\mu$m recorded with the TIP (Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet et al. 1999) and POLIS (Schmidt et al. 2003) instruments. They found that
497: in the outer penumbra, the horizontal magnetic field component (carrying the Evershed flow) was no longer weaker than the more vertical one.
498: This can be used as an independent confirmation of our work, where we routinely find $dB/d\tau > 0$ at
499: large radial distances from the center of the sunspot. In addition, flux tubes with stronger magnetic field than the one of the environment
500: in which they are embedded are also necessary to explain certain aspects of the net circular polarization observed in the outer penumbra of
501: sunspots (Tritschler et al. 2007; Ichimoto et al. 2008).
502:
503: \acknowledgements{}
504:
505: \begin{thebibliography}{}
506: \bibitem[2005]{naza1}
507: Bello Gonz\'alez, N., Okunev, O.V., Dom{\'\i}guez Cerde\~na, I., Kneer, F., Puschmann, K.G. 2005,
508: A\&A, 434, 317
509: \bibitem[2005]{luis1}
510: Bellot Rubio, L.R., Baltasar, H. \& Collados, M. 2004,
511: A\&A, 427, 319
512: \bibitem[2003]{luis2}
513: Bellot Rubio, L.R. 2003, in proceedings of the Solar Polarization conference. Eds: Javier Trujillo and
514: Jorge S\'anchez Almeida. ASP Conf. Series, vol. 307, p 301.
515: \bibitem[2004]{borrero2}
516: Borrero, J.M., Solanki, S.K., Bellot Rubio, L.R., Lagg, A. \& Mathew, S.K. 2004,
517: A\&A, 422, 1093
518: \bibitem[2005]{borrero3}
519: Borrero, J.M., Lagg, A., Solanki, S.K. \& Collados, M. 2005,
520: A\&A, 436, 333
521: \bibitem[2006]{borrero6}
522: Borrero, J.M., Solanki, S.K., Lagg, A., Socas-Navarro, H. \& Lites, B.W. 2006,
523: A\&A, 450, 383
524: \bibitem[2007]{borrero1}
525: Borrero, J.M. 2007, A\&A, 471, 967
526: \bibitem[2008]{borrero5}
527: Borrero, J.M., Lites, B.W. \& Solanki, S.K. 2008,
528: A\&A, 481, L13
529: \bibitem[2008]{dani1}
530: Cabrera Solana, D., Bellot Rubio, L.R., Borrero, J.M. \& Del Toro Iniesta, J.C. 2008,
531: A\&A, 477, 273
532: \bibitem[1961]{danielson}
533: Danielson, R.E. 1961
534: ApJ, 134, 289
535: \bibitem[2003]{josecarlos1}
536: Del Toro Iniesta, J.C. 2003.
537: Introduction to spectropolarimetry. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK)
538: \bibitem[2008]{kiyoshi1}
539: Ichimoto, K., Tsuneta, S., Suematsu, Y., Katsukawa, Y., Shimizu, T., Lites, B.W., Kubo, M.,
540: Tarbell, T.D., Shine, R.A., Title, A.M., Nagata, S., A\&A, 481, L9
541: \bibitem[2007]{kosugi1}
542: Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T. et al. 2007,
543: \solphys, 243, 3
544: \bibitem[2005]{kai1}
545: Langhans, K., Scharmer, G., Kiselman, D., L\"ofdahl, M.G. \& Berger, T.E. 2005,
546: A\&A, 436, 1087
547: \bibitem[1993]{bruce1}
548: Lites, B.W., Elmore, D.F., Seagraves, P. \& Skumanich, A.P 1993,
549: ApJ, 418, 928
550: \bibitem[2001]{bruce2}
551: Lites, Q.W., Elmore, D.F. \& Streander, K.V. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 236,
552: Advanced Solar Polarimetry, ed. M. Sigwarth (San Francisco: ASP), 33
553: \bibitem[1999]{valentin1}
554: Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet et al. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 183, High Resolution Solar Physics: Theory, Observations
555: and Techniques, ed. T.R. Rimmele, K.S. Balasubramanian \& R.R. Radick (San Francisco: ASP), 264
556: \bibitem[2000]{valentin2}
557: Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet, V. 2000, A\&A, 361, 734
558: \bibitem[2003]{shibu}
559: Mathew, S.K., Lagg, A., Solanki, S.K. et al. 2003,
560: A\&A, 410, 695
561: \bibitem[2007]{david1}
562: Orozco Su\'arez, D., Bellot Rubio, L.R. \& Del Toro Iniesta, J.C. 2007a,
563: ApJ, 662, L31
564: \bibitem[2007]{david2}
565: Orozco Su\'arez, D., Bellot Rubio, L.R., Del Toro Iniesta, J.C. et al. 2007b,
566: ApJ, 670, L61
567: \bibitem[2008]{matthias}
568: Rempel, M. \& Sch\"ussler, M. 2008, {\it in preparation}
569: \bibitem[1998]{ruedi}
570: R\"uedi, I., Solanki, S.K., Keller, C.U. \& Frutiger, C. 1998,
571: A\&A, 338, 1089
572: \bibitem[1992]{basi1}
573: Ruiz Cobo, B. \& del Toro Iniesta 1992,
574: ApJ, 398, 375
575: \bibitem[2002]{goran}
576: Scharmer, G.B., Gudiksen, B.V., Kiselman, D., Löfdahl, M. G.; Rouppe van der Voort, L.H. M.
577: 2002, Nature, 420, 151
578: \bibitem[2006]{spruit2}
579: Scharmer, G. \& Spruit, H.C. 2006,
580: A\&A, 460, 605
581: \bibitem[1998]{rolf2}
582: Schlichenmaier, R., Jahn, K. \& Schmidt, H.U. 1998,
583: A\&A, 337, 897
584: \bibitem[2003]{wolfgang1}
585: Schmidt, W., Beck, C., Kentischer, T., Elmore, D. \& Lites, B.W. 2003,
586: Astron. Nach., 324, 300
587: \bibitem[2007]{shimizu1}
588: Shimizu, T., Nagata, S., Tsuneta, S. et al. 2007,
589: \solphys, {\it in press}
590: \bibitem[1993]{sami3}
591: Solanki, S.K., \& Montavon, C.A.P. 1993,
592: A\&A, 275, 283
593: \bibitem[2003]{sami4}
594: Solanki, S.K. 2003,
595: A\&ARv, 11, 153
596: \bibitem[2006]{spruit1}
597: Spruit, H.C. \& Scharmer, G.B. 2006,
598: A\&A, 447, 343
599: \bibitem[1997]{stanchfield}
600: Stanchfield, D.C.H., Thomas, J.H. \& Lites, B.W. 1997,
601: ApJ, 447, 485
602: \bibitem[2007]{ali1}
603: Tritschler, A., M\"uller, D.A.N, Schlichenmaier, R. \& Hagenaar, H.J. 2007,
604: ApJ, 671, L85
605: \bibitem[1998]{carlosw1}
606: Westendorp Plaza, C., Del Toro Iniesta, J.C., Ruiz Cobo, B., Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet, V., Lites, B.W \& Skumanich, A. 1998,
607: ApJ, 494, 453
608: \bibitem[2001]{carlosw2}
609: Westendorp Plaza, C., Del Toro Iniesta, J.C., Ruiz Cobo, B., Mart{\'\i}nez Pillet, V., Lites, B.W \& Skumanich, A. 2001,
610: ApJ, 547, 1130
611: \bibitem[2008]{vasily}
612: Zakharov, V., Hirzberger, J., Riethmueller, T., Solanki, S.K. \& Kobel, P. 2008, A\&A, {\it submitted}
613: \end{thebibliography}
614:
615: \end{document}
616: