1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: %% \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
6: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
7: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
8: %% use the longabstract style option.
9: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
10: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
11: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
12: %% the \begin{document} command.
13: %%
14: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
15: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
16: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
17: %% for information.
18:
19: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
20: \newcommand{\myemail}{stripathy@nso.edu}
21: \newcommand{\todash}{\,--\,}
22: \newcommand{\ic}{I$_{\rm c}$ }
23: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
24: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
25: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
26: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}
27: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}
28: \usepackage{amsmath}
29:
30: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
31:
32: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
33:
34: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
35: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
36: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
37: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
38: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
39: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
40:
41: \shorttitle{Local Frequency Shifts Between $V$ and $I$}
42: \shortauthors{Tripathy et al.}
43:
44: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
45: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
50: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
51: %% you desire.
52:
53: \title{Comparison of High-degree Solar Acoustic Frequencies and Asymmetry between Velocity and
54: Intensity Data}
55:
56: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
57: %% author and affiliation information.
58: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
59: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
60: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
61: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
62: \author{S. C. Tripathy}
63: \affil{National Solar Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA}
64: \email{stripathy@nso.edu}
65:
66: \author{H. M. Antia}
67: \affil{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India}
68: %\and
69: \author{K. Jain and F. Hill}
70: \affil{National Solar Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA}
71:
72:
73: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
74: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
75: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
76: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
77: %% editorial office after submission.
78: %\date{\today}
79: \begin{abstract}
80:
81: Using the local helioseismic technique of ring diagram we analyze the frequencies of
82: high--degree {\it f}- and {\it p}-modes derived from both velocity and continuum intensity data
83: observed by MDI.
84: Fitting the spectra with asymmetric peak profiles, we find that the asymmetry associated with
85: velocity line profiles is negative for all frequency ranges agreeing with previous observations
86: while the asymmetry
87: of the intensity profiles shows a complex and frequency dependent behavior.
88: We also observe systematic frequency differences between intensity and velocity
89: spectra at the high end of the frequency range, mostly above 4~mHz.
90: We infer that this difference arises from the fitting of the
91: intensity rather than the velocity spectra.
92: We also show that the frequency differences between intensity and velocity do not vary significantly
93: from the disk center to the limb when the spectra are fitted with
94: the asymmetric profile and conclude that only a part of the background is correlated
95: with the intensity oscillations.
96: \end{abstract}
97:
98:
99: \keywords{Sun: helioseismology --Sun: oscillations -- Sun: interior}
100:
101:
102: \section{Introduction}
103:
104: Different helioseismic instruments, both from ground and space, observe the Sun in different observables.
105: Due to the different techniques used by these instruments, it is possible to measure the solar oscillations
106: simultaneously either as variations in the photospheric velocity or as intensity fluctuations.
107: It is therefore important to confirm that the oscillation mode parameters measured from both the intensity and
108: velocity agree with each other to a high
109: degree of precision. However, the initial measurement of low degree {\it p}-mode frequencies
110: from Doppler velocity ($V$) and continuum intensity (I$_{\rm c}$) observations from Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI)
111: instrument on board {\it Solar and Heliospheric Observatory} (SOHO) showed
112: systematic differences. A comparison of 108-day power spectra between $V$ and \ic
113: showed a weighted
114: mean difference of $-0.1~\mu$Hz for $\ell=0$, and $-0.16~\mu$Hz for $\ell=1$ modes \citep{toutain97}.
115: Since the apparent frequency shift between an oscillation observed in velocity and intensity
116: cannot be a property of the mode, it must arise from systematic errors
117: while calculating the frequencies from the observed power spectra. Hence it was argued
118: that the source of the systematic difference could be due to the opposite asymmetry effect
119: seen between the velocity and intensity power spectra \citep{duvall93}.
120: \cite{app98} also presented a similar evidence using VIRGO and SOI/MDI data.
121: Around the same time \cite{harvey98}
122: reported that the intermediate degree modes observed in $V$ and total spectral intensity also show
123: different central frequencies and observed that the apparent differences could be as large
124: as 50~$\mu$Hz close to the acoustic cut-off frequency. However, the analysis of \cite{nigam98b},
125: using an asymmetric line profile-fitting formula, illustrated that the
126: frequency difference between $V$ and \ic in the
127: intermediate degree range is much smaller compared to that obtained by fitting a symmetric Lorentzian
128: profile. Using the same asymmetric line profile-fitting formula,
129: \cite{toutain98} re-analyzed the data from MDI and showed that the frequency differences
130: between $V$ and \ic are considerably reduced.
131: \cite{gav99} have also analyzed data from different
132: instruments and have argued that the reported frequency shift
133: is merely an artifact of the reduction technique.
134:
135: Renewed interest in the topic began when local helioseismic techniques were developed to study the properties of
136: high-degree modes in localized regions. \cite{bab01} analyzed azimuthally averaged (2-d) power spectra
137: and inferred that
138: the eigenfrequencies obtained using the asymmetric peak profiles agree reasonably well with each other
139: while the use of
140: symmetric profiles gives significant differences between frequencies computed using
141: continuum intensity and velocity or continuum intensity and line-depth spectra.
142: In order to gain further information for high-degree and high-frequency modes, \cite{jain03} analyzed
143: the high-resolution GONG+ data. These authors also compared the azimuthally averaged power spectra
144: of a region centered on the equator and reported
145: that the frequency dependence of the frequency shift between $V$ and I is negligible below the acoustic cutoff
146: frequency around 5.3 mHz and substantial above the cutoff. These results supported the finding of \cite{harvey98}.
147: However, the conclusion is based on the visual comparison of the peak frequency
148: of the power spectra and may not necessarily be a true measure of the shift due to
149: the reversal of the asymmetry and different background power between $V$ and \ic spectra.
150:
151: It is now well established that line asymmetry of the solar power spectra alters the peak
152: frequencies that are obtained under the assumption that the lines are symmetric (e.g. \cite{ab99, ba00}.
153: However, the cause
154: of the opposite asymmetry between the velocity and intensity spectra
155: still remains inconclusive. The current understanding is that the reversal in
156: the sign of asymmetry between the $V$ and \ic spectra is due to the
157: influence of the solar background noise that is correlated with the source \citep{rv97, nigamall98, severino01} and
158: the level depends on the characteristic granulation. On the other hand,
159: the numerical simulation \citep{geo03} indicates that the reversal is produced by the radiative
160: transfer effects. Since the physics of the correlated noise is not yet fully understood and
161: the spatial leakage
162: signature for $V$ and I is different due to their center-to-limb variations, our objective is
163: to examine the frequency dependence of the observed asymmetry and
164: differences in eigenfrequencies between velocity and intensity observations
165: as a function of the radial distance from the disk center to the limb.
166: A preliminary investigation of a similar nature using azimuthally averaged power spectra
167: is reported in \cite{sct06}. However the present analysis differs from all earlier ones since here
168: we use the three-dimensional (3-d)
169: power spectrum, which is associated with flow fields, while the azimuthally averaged spectrum
170: has no flow fields associated with it.
171:
172: The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
173: We briefly describe the data and analysis technique in Section 2, while the results
174: are described in Section~3. Finally, we summarize the main conclusions in Section~4.
175:
176: \section{Data and the Technique}
177: We use the Dopplergrams and continuum intensity images obtained
178: by the MDI instrument during the period of 1997 May 19 \todash\ 21 when solar
179: activity was near minimum. We have chosen 4 regions centered at heliographic
180: longitudes of
181: $0\degr$, $15\degr$, $30\degr$, and $45\degr$; all centered at the equator.
182: The spatial extent of each of the localized region covers
183: $256\times256$ pixels in heliographic longitude and
184: latitude and gives a resolution of 0.01616 {Mm}$^{-1}$.
185: Each region is tracked for 4096 minutes, which gives a
186: frequency resolution of 4.07~$\mu$Hz. The standard ring diagram technique \citep{hill88} was used to
187: obtain the power as a function of ($k_x$, $k_y$, $\nu$).
188: %%\subsection{Fitting Methods}
189:
190: To extract the frequencies and other mode parameters, the three-dimensional power spectrum is fitted with
191: a model with asymmetric peak profiles of the form
192: %
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: &&P (k_x, k_y, \nu) = \frac{e^{B_1}}{k^3} + \frac{e^{B_2}}{k^4} \nonumber \\
195: &+& \frac{exp(A_0 + ( k - k_0)A_1 + A_2(\frac{k_x}{k})^2
196: + A_3 \frac{k_xk_y}{k^2})S_x}{x^2 +1}
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: where
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: x &=& \frac{\nu - ck^p - U_xk_x -U_yk_y}{w_0 + w_1(k - k_0)}, \\
201: S_x &=& S^2 + (1 + Sx)^2.
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: %
204: Here $P$ is the oscillation power for a mode with a temporal frequency $\nu$ and
205: the total wavenumber $k=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}$. The peak power in the mode is represented
206: as $\exp(A_0)$ while the coefficients $A_1$ to $A_3$ account for the
207: variation in power with $k$ and along the ring. The terms involving $B_1$ and $B_2$ define the
208: background power and $w_0$ is the mode width.
209: The term $ck^p$ gives the mean frequency, and this form is chosen as it gives satisfactory fits to the mean
210: frequency over the whole fitting interval. The parameters $S$ controls the asymmetry in the peaks,
211: and the form of asymmetry is the same as that used by \cite{nigam98b} i.e. the parameter
212: is positive for positive asymmetry and negative for negative asymmetry. By setting $S=0$ we can also fit
213: symmetric Lorentzian profiles.
214: A more detailed description of the parameters and fitting
215: procedure is described in \cite{bat99} and \cite{ba99}. The 13 parameters ($A_0$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $B_1$, $B_2$,
216: $c$, $p$, $S$, $U_x$, $U_y$, $w_0$, $w_1$)
217: are determined by fitting the
218: spectra using the maximum likelihood approach \citep{and90}. In this work we express $k$ in units of
219: $R_{\sun}^{-1}$ so that $k$ is identified with the degree $\ell$ of the spherical harmonic of the
220: corresponding global mode.
221:
222: \section{Results and Discussions}
223: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows a
224: characteristic $\ell - \nu$ diagram obtained from the fits
225: to the power spectra at the disk center
226: using asymmetric profile corresponding to Eq.~(1).
227: In general we obtain about 750 and 600 modes
228: from the velocity and intensity spectra respectively. Intensity spectra normally yields
229: less number of modes due to the inherently lower signal-to-noise ratio. The number of fitted modes
230: also decreases for regions that are away from the disk center. Comparing the number of modes
231: between symmetric and asymmetric fits we find that the symmetric fit yields more modes. This implies that
232: the inclusion of
233: the asymmetry in the fitting formula reduces the number of modes that are successfully fitted.
234: This could be due to some cross-correlation between $S$ and other parameters of the model, particularly,
235: the background. Although, we fit the spectra up to radial order of $n = 6$, we restrict the analysis up
236: to $n = 4$ modes since higher order radial modes have large estimated fitting errors.
237:
238: \subsection{Asymmetry of Peak Profiles}
239: Physically, asymmetry is a result
240: of an interaction between an outward-directed wave from the source and a corresponding
241: inward-directed wave that passes through the region of wave propagation \citep{duvall93}.
242: To illustrate the peaks in the power spectra and to visualize the asymmetry associated
243: with different observables, we show an example of the azimuthally averaged power
244: for $\ell=675$ corresponding to the disk center spectra for $V$ and \ic in Figure~\ref{fig2}.
245: It is apparent that the line profiles
246: are asymmetric. At low frequency, the asymmetry agrees with the known results; the velocity spectrum
247: has negative asymmetry i.e. more power on the lower frequency side of the peak while
248: the continuum intensity spectrum show positive asymmetry {i.e.} more power on the
249: higher frequency side of the peak. This reversal of asymmetry is believed to arise
250: from the addition of correlated noise to the amplitude spectra \citep{nigamall98}.
251: In addition, we notice that the asymmetry associated with velocity spectra
252: appears to be reduced or even reversed at higher frequencies.
253: Visual inspection of the azimuthally averaged power spectra show a comprehensible
254: frequency shift of the central frequency between $V$ and \ic above the cutoff frequency of 5.3~mHz.
255: We also observe
256: that the velocity power is higher near the disk center and decreases toward the
257: limb in agreement with the predominately radial nature of the oscillatory velocity field.
258:
259: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the asymmetry of the line profiles as a function of frequency
260: obtained from fitting the three dimensional power spectra at disk center and
261: 45\degr\ E longitude.
262: %It is clear that this parameter is significant at frequencies around 2--2.5 mHz for {\it f}-modes.
263: As expected, this parameter is predominantly negative for all modes in the velocity spectra (upper panels)
264: indicating that there is more power on the low frequency side of the peak. The asymmetry is
265: minimum around 3~mHz %where the correlation with noise (granulation) is largest
266: while at low end of the frequency range the asymmetry of {\it p}$_2$ and higher order radial modes
267: is more likely to be zero within the estimated errors. Thus, in this frequency range the mode
268: frequencies obtained from asymmetric and symmetric profiles should be nearly identical.
269: Surprisingly, we do not observe the asymmetry to be reversed at higher frequencies as noted above and
270: also in \cite{sct06}.
271:
272: The asymmetry for the intensity spectra (lower panels of Figure~\ref{fig3}) appears to be more complex
273: and in general these are larger than the velocity asymmetry. For
274: {\it f} and {\it p$_1$}-modes, this parameter is primarily positive (more power on the higher frequency
275: end of the peak) and increases with frequency. For higher order {\it p}-modes, asymmetry
276: is negative both at low- and high-end of the frequency range
277: and is likely to be insignificant or zero at other frequencies. Thus the asymmetry is different
278: than what is observed for low-degree modes \citep{toutain98}, intermediate degree modes
279: \citep{nigamall98}, and high-degree modes obtained from the azimuthally averaged spectra \citep{sct06}.
280: Although most of these differences may be due to frequency,
281: we do not rule out the possibility that the form of asymmetry used in the model are simplified
282: and may not represent the real profiles adequately at all frequencies.
283: The asymmetry may also weakly depend on $\ell$ \citep{ba99} and this dependence has been neglected
284: in the fitting formula. Finally, we note that the asymmetry of both velocity and intensity
285: spectra do not show any significant changes at different locations on the solar disk.
286:
287: \subsection{Comparison of asymmetry between 2-d and 3-d fitting}
288: It is interesting
289: to compare the asymmetries from 3-d spectra with those obtained from azimuthally averaged spectra.
290: Figure~\ref{fig4} illustrates the asymmetries obtained from both the fits.
291: While the asymmetry observed in intensity spectra
292: obtained from 2-d fits are entirely positive, the behavior is more complex in the 3-d spectra. On the
293: other hand, asymmetry associated with 3-d velocity spectra is entirely negative while for 2-d spectra,
294: it reverses sign at high end of the frequency range. Thus significant differences are
295: seen between the asymmetry obtained from fitting the three-dimensional and azimuthally
296: averaged power spectra.
297:
298: Although it is not easy to understand these differences due to the
299: different functional form of the model profiles to fit different spectra
300: (six parameters are fitted in azimuthal spectra as opposed to 13 in the
301: three-dimensional spectra), we have made a preliminary attempt by constructing synthetic 3D spectra
302: with $S = -0.05$. This spectra are then azimuthally averaged and fitted
303: to calculate the asymmetry in peak profiles. Because of non-zero values of
304: velocities ($U_x, U_y$) the process of azimuthal averaging also introduces
305: some asymmetry and hence the value of $S$ in azimuthally averaged spectra
306: is not the same as that used in preparing the 3D spectra.
307: The effect of varying the flow velocity ($U_x$ \& $U_y$) and background term,
308: $B_1$ is shown in Fig~\ref{fig5}.
309: The synthetic spectra were constructed with a uniform amplitude $A_0=50$,
310: width $w_0=40\;\mu$Hz and included only the f-mode ridge.
311: The background in synthetic spectra included only the first term with
312: different values of $B_1$. The effect of velocity increases with $k$ and
313: hence the shift in asymmetry from input value also increases with $k$.
314: Further, since $A_0$ and $B_1$ are constant, the peak to background
315: ratio increases with $k$.
316: It is clear that even when the flow velocities are increased beyond their
317: normal values, the maximum change in $S$ is about
318: than 0.02 at the highest value of $\ell$ and rather large velocity is required to make significant
319: differences. Similar results are obtained when spectra with different values
320: of $S$ were used. In all cases azimuthal averaging tends to increase the value
321: of $S$, though the effect may be small.
322:
323:
324: \subsection{Source of the asymmetry}
325: Peak asymmetry is believed to have a contribution from the acoustic source location and a contribution
326: from the effects of correlated background noise from the source.
327: \cite{rv97} have argued that the line asymmetries occur due to the modes correlated with velocity background
328: while to reach the same effect, \cite{nigamall98} have proposed a small amount of intensity-correlated
329: background. The amount of coherent correlated background,
330: as well as the need of this component to model both $V$ and \ic, has also been debated (e.g. \cite{straus01}).
331:
332: In order to understand the role of the background power in the reversal of the
333: asymmetry between $V$ and \ic, we plot the background power as a function of degree $\ell$ of the mode
334: in Figure~\ref{fig6}. In the same plot, we also show the background power obtained from the symmetric fits
335: (open symbols). It is clear that the background power obtained from symmetric and asymmetric
336: fitting of the velocity spectra
337: (upper panel) closely agree with each other. In contrast the intensity spectrum returns a
338: significantly higher background power when fitted with the asymmetric line profile
339: compared to the symmetric profile. This indicates that the line asymmetry is reversed in the intensity.
340: %and is due to the correlated background proposed by \cite{nigamall98}.
341: Since granulation contrast decreases from the disk center
342: to the limb, we also expect the background power to decrease near the limb. But no
343: significant variation in power is noticed from the disk center to the limb which supports
344: the idea that only a part of the background is correlated with the intensity oscillations \citep{nigam99, bh04}.
345:
346: \subsection{Frequency Differences}
347: The frequency differences from the symmetric fits to both $V$ and \ic spectra at four
348: different longitudes are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig7}. The frequencies obtained from the
349: intensity spectrum are systematically higher than the frequencies from the velocity spectrum,
350: as one would expect due to the reversal of the line asymmetry.
351: For the disk center spectra, the differences, in general,
352: are on the order of 10~$\mu$Hz or less up to $\nu \le 4$~mHz; the minimum
353: difference of about 2--3~$\mu$Hz is seen for $p_2$ and higher radial order modes in the 5--min band.
354: Since near the limb we primarily observe the horizontal velocity field which is dominated by granulation,
355: it is expected that the frequency difference between intensity and velocity should decrease near the limb
356: due to a decrease in correlation with oscillations.
357: But we find that the difference increases systematically from the disk center to the limb.
358: This again supports the idea that only a part of the background is
359: correlated with the intensity oscillations.
360:
361: The use of asymmetric profiles to fit the power spectra results in a better determination
362: of the mode frequencies and as a result the frequency differences
363: between velocity and intensity is significantly diminished (Figure~\ref{fig8}).
364: Similar to fits with symmetric profiles, the differences are mostly positive
365: as the frequencies obtained from intensity fluctuations
366: are higher than those from the velocity. However, the {\it f}-modes show some exception at the high end of
367: the frequency where the peak frequencies observed in velocity are marginally higher
368: (and clearly larger than the estimated errors) than those observed in intensity.
369: The differences between higher order radial modes, mainly $p_3$ and $p_4$, are slightly
370: bigger but these modes also have a large uncertainty in the fitted
371: frequencies as seen from the error estimates. Although subtle variations are evident between different longitudes,
372: the frequency differences do not reveal any systematic trend between
373: the disk center and 45\degr \ longitude.
374:
375: Although the asymmetric fitting formula reduces the frequency differences between the velocity
376: and intensity spectra, there still remains some systematic differences of the order of
377: 5\todash10~$\mu$Hz, which is much higher than the uncertainty in estimated errors.
378: \cite{bab01} have reported a similar result based on the analysis of
379: azimuthally averaged spectra and have argued that
380: the assumed profiles does not adequately describe the velocity spectra where the signal-to-noise
381: ratio is high. However, our result
382: indicates that the form of asymmetry used for intensity spectra
383: may not be a correct representation of the real profiles. To demonstrate
384: this, we show the difference in eigenfrequencies between identical modes obtained from the power
385: spectra at different longitudes with respect to the spectra at the disk center in Figure~\ref{fig9}.
386: The frequency difference in $V$ shows little variation in longitude for
387: frequencies less than 3.5~mHz. Variations between intensity spectra are higher than seen in
388: velocity. Moreover, the shapes of the curve in Figure~\ref{fig9} for velocity are similar
389: as are the shapes of the curves in intensity, leading to the frequency differences shown in
390: Figure~\ref{fig8}. Therefore it appears that the use of an asymmetric line profile provides
391: more accurate estimates of the eigenfrequencies of solar oscillation for velocity rather than for
392: intensity. In addition, fitting the intensity spectra is more challenging than fitting the
393: velocity spectra due to low amplitudes and low signal-to-noise ratio.
394: The number of modes fitted from the intensity spectra clearly supports this conjecture.
395:
396: \section{Conclusions}
397: Using the local helioseismic technique of ring diagram analysis we have studied the high-degree
398: {\it f}- and {\it p}-mode frequency differences between velocity and continuum
399: intensity data obtained from the MDI instrument during a quiet period.
400: Since the spectra are known to be asymmetric, we fitted
401: the three-dimensional spectra with an asymmetric model profile
402: based on the known form of the asymmetry observed in velocity and
403: intensity. The asymmetry obtained from fitting the velocity spectra agrees with the
404: previous results while that of intensity shows a frequency dependent behavior.
405: We further notice significant differences between the asymmetry obtained from fitting the
406: three-dimensional and azimuthally averaged power spectra.
407:
408: Fitting the three-dimensional disk center power spectra with a symmetric Lorentzian profiles leads to
409: frequency differences on the order of 10~$\mu$Hz or less up to $\nu \le$ 4~mHz between intensity
410: and velocity.
411: This difference is found to be increasing systematically from the disk center to the limb.
412: The use of asymmetric profiles leads to frequency differences that are smaller
413: than the differences resulting from the symmetric fits.
414: However, systematic differences still remain at the high end of the frequency range,
415: mostly above 4~mHz. We demonstrate that this difference arises from the fitting of the
416: intensity rather than the velocity spectra. We speculate that
417: the form of asymmetry used in the model for the intensity spectra is over-simplified and does not
418: adequately represent the real profile at all frequency ranges.
419:
420: We also conclude
421: that the frequency differences between velocity and intensity do not vary significantly
422: from the disk center to the limb. However, variations between
423: intensity spectra are higher than seen in velocity. This supports the idea that only a part of the background is
424: correlated with the intensity oscillations. In this context several authors (e.g. \cite{severino01, bhc04, toutain06})
425: have advocated the importance of fitting the intensity-velocity cross spectrum along with a
426: multicomponent model of the coherent background. This provides an impetus for future work using the
427: high-resolution observations from {\it Solar Dynamics Observatory}.
428:
429:
430: \acknowledgments
431: This study uses data from MDI/SOHO.
432: SOHO is a mission of international cooperation between
433: ESA and NASA. This work was supported by NASA grant NNG 5-11703 and NNG 05HAL41I.
434:
435: \begin{thebibliography}{}
436:
437: \bibitem[Anderson, Duvall, \& Jefferies (1990)]{and90}Anderson, E., Duvall, T. L., Jr., \& Jefferies, S. 1990,
438: \apj, 364, 699
439:
440: \bibitem[Appourchaux et al. (1998)]{app98} Appourchaux, T., Andersen, B., Chaplin, W. et al. 1998,
441: in Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like
442: Stars, eds. S. Korzennik \& A. Wilson, (ESA-SP 418; Noordwijk: ESA), 95
443:
444: \bibitem[Antia \& Basu (1999)]{ab99}
445: Antia, H. M. \& Basu, S. 1999, {\apj}, {519}, 400
446:
447: \bibitem[Barban \& Hill (2004)]{bh04}
448: Barban, C. \& Hill, F. 2004, {\solphys}, 220, 399
449:
450: \bibitem[Barban, Hill \& Kras (2004)]{bhc04}
451: Barban, C., Hill, F., \& Kras, S. 2004, \apj, 602, 516
452:
453: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia (1999)]{ba99}
454: Basu, S., \& Antia, H. M. 1999a, {\apj}, {525}, 517
455:
456: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia (2000)]{ba00}
457: Basu, S., \& Antia, H. M. 2000, {\apj}, {531}, 1088
458:
459: \bibitem[Basu, Antia, \& Bogart (2001)]{bab01} Basu, S., Antia, H. M., \& Bogart, R. S. 2001,
460: in Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millennium, ed. A. Wilson (ESA-SP 464; Noordwijk: ESA), 183
461:
462: \bibitem[Basu, Antia, \& Tripathy (1999)]{bat99} Basu, S., Antia, H. M., \& Tripathy, S. C. 1999, {\apj}, {512}, 458
463:
464: \bibitem[Duvall et al. (1993)]{duvall93} Duvall, T. L., Jr., Jefferies, S. M., Harvey, J. W., Osaki, Y., \&
465: Pomerantz, M. A. 1993, {\apj}, {410}, 829
466:
467: \bibitem[Gavryusev \& Gavryuseva (1999)]{gav99} Gavryusev, V. V., \& Gavryuseva, E. A. 1999, {\solphys}, 189, 261
468:
469: \bibitem[Georgobiani, Stein, \& Nordlund (2003)]{geo03} Georgobiani, D., Stein, R. F., \& Nordlund, A. 2003,
470: {\apj}, 596, 698
471:
472: \bibitem[Haber et al. (2002)]{haber02}
473: Haber, D., Hindman, B. W., Toomre, J., Bogart, R. S., Larsen, R. M., \&
474: Hill, F. 2002, {\apj}, { 570}, 885
475:
476: \bibitem[Hill (1988)]{hill88} Hill, F. 1988, {\apj}, {333}, 996
477:
478: \bibitem[Harvey et al. (1998)]{harvey98} Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Komm, R. W., Leibacher, J., Pohl, B., \&
479: the GONG 1998, in New Eyes to See Inside the Sun and Stars,
480: eds. F.-L. Deubner, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, \& D. Kurtz, (IAU publication, The Netherlands), 49
481:
482: \bibitem[Jain, Hill, \& Toner (2003)]{jain03} Jain, K., Hill, F., \& Toner, C. 2003, in Probing the
483: Sun with High Resolution, eds. S. C. Tripathy \& P. Venkatakrishnan, (Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi), 31
484:
485: \bibitem[Kumar \& Basu (1999)]{kb99} Kumar, P. \& Basu, S. 1999, \apj, 519, 396
486:
487: \bibitem[Nigam \& Kosovichev (1998)]{nigam98b} Nigam, R., \& Kosovichev, A. G. 1998, \apj, 505, L51
488:
489: \bibitem[Nigam et al. (1998)]{nigamall98} Nigam, R., Kosovichev, A. G., Scherrer, P. H., \& Schou, J. 1998,
490: {\apj}, { 495}, L115
491:
492: \bibitem[Nigam \& Kosovichev (1999)]{nigam99} Nigam, R., \& Kosovichev, A. G. 1999, \apj, 514, L53
493:
494: \bibitem[Roxburgh \& Vorontsov (1997)]{rv97} Roxburgh, I. W. \& Vorontsov, S. V., 1997, \mnras, 292, L33
495:
496: \bibitem[Severino et al. (2001)]{severino01}Severeno, G., Magri, M., Oliviero, M., Straus, Th ., \& Jefferies, S. M.
497: 2001, \apj, 561, 444
498:
499: \bibitem[Straus et al. (2001)]{straus01} Straus, Th., Severeno, G., Magri, M., \& Oliviero, M. 2001, in Helio- and
500: Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millennium, ed. A. Wilson (ESA-SP 464; Noordwijk: ESA), 607
501:
502: \bibitem[Tripathy et al. (2003)]{sct03}Tripathy, S. C., Jain, K., Hill, F., \& Toner, C. 2003, Bull. Astr. Soc. India,
503: {31}, 321
504:
505:
506: \bibitem[Tripathy et al. (2006)]{sct06} Tripathy, S.~C.,
507: Antia, H.~M., Hill, F., Jain, K., \& Gonz{\'a}lez Hern{\'a}ndez, I. 2006,
508: in Beyond the Spherical Sun, ed. K. Fletcher, (ESA-SP 624; Noordwijk: ESA), 104
509:
510: \bibitem[Toutain et al. (1997)]{toutain97} Toutain, T. et al. 1997, {\solphys}, {175}, 311
511:
512: \bibitem[Toutain et al. (1998)]{toutain98} Toutain, T., Appourchaux, T., Frohlich, C., Kosovichev, A. G., Niram, R., \&
513: Scherrer, P. H. 1998, \apj, {506}, L147
514:
515: \bibitem[Toutain et al. (2006)]{toutain06} Toutain, T., Elsworth, Y., \& Chaplin, W. J. 2006, \mnras, 371, 1731
516:
517: \end{thebibliography}
518:
519: \clearpage
520: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG 1
521: \centering
522: \plotone{f1_color.eps}
523: %\plottwo{f1.eps}{f1c.eps}
524: \caption{The $\ell\, -\, \nu$ diagram constructed
525: from the asymmetric fits to disk center spectra for velocity (circles) and continuum intensity (pluses).
526: \label{fig1}}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG 2
530: \centering
531: \plotone{f2.eps}
532: \caption{Normalized power for $\ell$ = 675 corresponding to the azimuthally averaged and normalized
533: velocity and continuum intensity disk center power spectra.
534: \label{fig2}}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG3
538: \centering
539: \plotone{f3_color.eps}
540: %\plottwo{f3.eps}{f3c.eps}
541: \caption{Asymmetry parameter $S$ obtained from fits to velocity (top panel) and continuum intensity
542: (bottom panel) spectra at two different locations.
543: The left and right panels refer to the regions at disk center
544: and at a longitude of 45$\degr$ E, respectively.
545: The symbols represent different radial orders and are explained in the right bottom panel.
546: \label{fig3}}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG4
550: \centering
551: \plotone{f4_color.eps}
552: %\plottwo{f4.eps}{f4c.eps}
553: \caption{Comparison of the asymmetry parameter obtained from fits to three-dimensional
554: (filled symbols) and azimuthally averaged spectra (open symbols) at disk center. The top panel
555: is for velocity and bottom panel is for continuum intensity. The errors are not shown for clarity.
556: \label{fig4}}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG5
560: \centering
561: \plotone{f5_color.eps}
562: %\plottwo{f5.eps}{f5c.eps}
563: \caption{The variation in the asymmetry parameter as a function of the flow velocity and background
564: and is obtained from the fitting of azimuthally averaged synthetic spectra.
565: The three values mentioned against each of the symbols represent $U_x$, $U_y$ and $B_1$ component, respectively.
566: A value of 0.01 for $U_x$ and $U_y$ corresponds to actual velocity of 43.72 m/s.
567: \label{fig5}}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG6
571: \centering
572: \plotone{f6_color.eps}
573: %\plottwo{f6.eps}{f6c.eps}
574: \caption{Comparison of the background power obtained from symmetric (filled symbols)
575: and asymmetric (open symbols) fits to the disk center spectra.
576: The upper panel
577: is for velocity and bottom panel is for continuum intensity.
578: \label{fig6}}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: \begin{figure} %%% FIG7
582: \plotone{f7_color.eps}
583: %\plottwo{f7.eps}{f7c.eps}
584: \caption{Frequency shifts between velocity and continuum intensity modes fitted using
585: symmetric profile at four different
586: longitudes. The locations are marked in each panel.
587: \label{fig7}}
588: \end{figure}
589:
590:
591: \begin{figure} %%% FIG8
592: \plotone{f8_color.eps}
593: %\plottwo{f8.eps}{f8c.eps}
594: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig7} but for modes obtained from the fit
595: using asymmetric profiles.
596: \label{fig8}}
597: \end{figure}
598:
599: \begin{figure} %%%%FIG9
600: \centering
601: \plotone{f9_color.eps}
602: %\plottwo{f9.eps}{f9c.eps}
603: \caption{Frequency shifts between velocity (top panel) and continuum intensity (bottom panel)
604: modes at three different longitudes with respect to disk center obtained from the fit
605: using asymmetric profiles. The locations
606: are marked in the top panel.
607: \label{fig9}}
608: \end{figure}
609:
610:
611:
612: \end{document}
613:
614: