1: \ProvidesFile{cimsmple.tex}
2: [1999/12/01 v1.4c Il Nuovo Cimento]
3: \documentclass{cimento}
4: \usepackage{graphicx} % got figures? uncomment this
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \title{Solar Oblateness from Archimedes to Dicke}
7: \author{Costantino Sigismondi\from{ins:x} and Pietro Oliva\from{ins:y}}
8: \instlist{\inst{ins:y}University of Rome La Sapienza \inst{ins:x} ICRA,
9: International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, and University of
10: Rome La Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5 00185 Roma, Italy.}
11:
12: \PACSes{\PACSit{95.10.Gi} {Eclipses, transits, and occultations -}{95.30.Sf - Relativity and gravitation -}{95.55.Ev - Solar instruments}}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \maketitle
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19:
20: The non-spherical shape of the Sun has been invoked to explain the
21: anomalous precession of Mercury.
22: A brief history of some methods for measuring solar diameter is
23: presented.
24: Archimedes was the first to give upper and lower values for solar
25: diameter in third century before Christ; we also show the method of total eclipses,
26: used after Halley's observative campaign of 1715 eclipse; the variant of
27: partial eclipses useful to measure different chords of the solar disk;
28: the method of Dicke which correlates oblateness with luminous excess in
29: the equatorial zone.
30:
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \section{Archimedes}
34:
35: \begin{figure}
36: %\includegraphics{arch1.eps}
37: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.1in\epsfbox{arch1.eps}}
38: \caption{Geometry of angular solar diameter measurement in case of point-like eye.
39: Gray angle is the angular lower diameter, black angle is the upper limit. The ruler is the black horizontal line.}
40: \end{figure}
41:
42: \begin{figure}
43: %\includegraphics{arch2.eps}
44: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.1in\epsfbox{arch2.eps}}
45: \caption{Geometry of angular solar diameter measurement in case of real eye. A real eye in the same position of the point-like eye sees a major portion of solar surface. In order to see only the limb it is required to approach more
46: the eye to the cylinder.}
47: \end{figure}
48:
49: \begin{figure}
50: %\includegraphics{arch3.eps}
51: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.1in\epsfbox{arch3.eps}}
52: \caption{Real eye geometry: the true solar angular diameter is obtained leading tangents from the eye border to the cylinder and up to the solar limb. Evaluating the solar angular diameter from the center of the eye yields an overestimate of it, as Archimedes pointed out in the $Arenarius$ or $Sand ~Reckoner$.}
53: \end{figure}
54:
55: Archimedes of Syracuse \cite{ref:archimedes} gave out an evaluation of
56: the angle subtended by the Sun with the vertex on the observer's eye. He
57: knew that a perfect determination is not possible due to the
58: observer bias and systematic errors, so he proposed to find out the
59: upper and lower angles allowed by his method: in this way we have a
60: range within solar angular diameter lies.
61: To do this we must have a big ruler (a strip of wood more likely)
62: mounted on a basement in a place such that is possible to see the dawn
63: (Syracuse in Sicily has an eastern free sea horizon).
64: When the Sun rises up and it is still near the horizon, so that is
65: possible to aim at it, we point the ruler toward Sun; suddenly we put on the
66: ruler a rounded cylinder such that, if we look from one edge of the
67: ruler pointed at the Sun, the Sun is hidden behind that. Afterwards we
68: need to shift the cylinder on the ruler till we see a very little Sun limb
69: from the edges of the cylinder. Now we block the cylinder in this
70: position. Let's find now, the lower evaluation angle.
71: Archimedes argued: if the observer's eye was point-like (fig.1), then
72: the angle identified by the lines drawn from eye's site such to be
73: tangent to cylinder's edges (the gray angle in fig.1), would be smaller
74: than the angle made by the lines from the eye to the edges of the Sun
75: (the black angle in fig.1). This is because we set the cylinder such that
76: to see a portion of the Sun.
77: Indeed the observer's eye is not point-like but extended: we are
78: overestimating the lower limit angle (see captions in fig. 2 and 3).
79: This lead to the situation described in
80: fig. 2 where we put, instead of the eye, a rounded surface with similar
81: dimensions to those of the real eye. It is possible to find an appropriate
82: rounded surface by taking two thin cylinders coloured black and white.
83: Then, we need to put the black one close to the eye while the white one
84: is placed more far in the line of sight. The right size of the surface is
85: the one such that the black shape perfectly hides the white one and vice
86: versa. In this way we're sure to take a rounded surface not smaller
87: than the eye.
88: Now we need to find the upper limit angle: this is easier, we just need
89: to shift the cylinder on the ruler until the Sun completely disappears
90: and we block it. The angle identified by the line from the eye's border
91: tangent to the cylinder is surely bigger (or equal at least but not smaller)
92: than the true one because now we can't see the Sun no more (fig.3).
93: Quantitatively, Archimedes measured the lower limit 1/200 times the
94: squared angle and that the upper limit 1/164 times the squared angle, i.e.
95: $27'\le\Theta_{\odot}\le 32'55"$. With such accuracy no oblateness was
96: detectable; unless the apparent one due to atmospheric refraction,
97: quantitatively studied by Tycho Brahe in sixteenth century.
98:
99: \section{Measuring solar diameter with eclipses}
100:
101: The method of measuring the solar diameter with eclipses
102: exploits the same principle of that one of the transits of Mercury:
103: to recover the solar disk from more
104: than three points. Those points correspond to
105: the external (first and fourth) or internal (second and third,
106: not present in a partial eclipse)
107: contacts of the Moon or Mercury with
108: the solar disk, as seen by different observers
109: at different locations on the Earth (see figure 4).
110:
111: The observations of the instants of
112: totality (second and third contact) are not affected by atmospheric
113: seeing, because of the sudden change of the overall luminosity.
114: Conversely the determination of the instants of the external
115: contacts during a partial eclipse (and all contacts during a transit),
116: until the
117: possibility of using CCD cameras or adaptive-optics techniques, was
118: heavily affected by the seeing and the resolution of the telescope.
119:
120: \subsection{Historical data}
121:
122: The effect due to the telescope resolution matching with the seeing
123: conditions, is evident from the
124: data retrieved in the 1925 total eclipse at the
125: Chamberlin Observatory in Denver, Colorado [Table 1 from Howe
126: (1925)\cite{ref:Howe}].
127:
128:
129: %__________________________________________________ One column table
130: \begin{table}
131: \caption[]{Last Contact timings of Total Eclipse of January 24,
132: 1925}
133: $$
134: \begin{array}{p{0.5\linewidth}ll}
135: \hline
136: \noalign{\smallskip}
137: Aperture (inches) &Magnification ~~ power ~~~~~& Time
138: ^{\mathrm{a}} \\
139: \noalign{\smallskip}
140: \hline
141:
142: 2".75 & 33 & h:7~46^m~55.6^s \\
143: 3".4 & 80 & h:7~47^m~02.4^s \\
144: 5".0 & 55 & h:7~46^m~47.3^s \\
145: 6".0 & 60 & h:7~46^m~59.9^s \\
146: 20".0 & 175 & h:7~46^m~59.5^s \\
147:
148: \noalign{\smallskip}
149: \hline
150: \end{array}
151: $$
152: \begin{list}{}{}
153: \item[$^{\mathrm{a}}$] The first three of these times were noted by the
154: correspondent observers
155: with stop watches; the last two chronographically.
156: \end{list}
157: \end{table}
158:
159:
160:
161: From this dataset the eclipse has lasted more when observed with larger
162: instruments,
163: exception made for the second data.
164:
165: \subsection{New perspectives}
166:
167: We propose to monitor the external contacts of a partial eclipse
168: with CCD cameras whose frame rate
169: $\Delta t \sim ~0.01~$s is below the timescale of
170: atmospheric seeing. Many solar photons can be
171: gathered even with a semi-professional telescope
172: of diameter $d \ge 0.2 ~$m with a bandpass filter.
173: CCD frames can fix the instantaneous wavefront
174: path. The presence of the lunar limb helps to evaluate the
175: instantaneous point spread function for
176: reconstructing the unperturbed wavefront according
177: to current image-restoration techniques (Sanchez-Cuberes et al.,
178: 2000\cite{ref:sc}).
179:
180: The identification of the lunar limb features and the solar limb
181: near the contact event, in each image, and the absolute
182: timing of each frame with WWV radio stations, will allow to know
183: precisely the
184: lunar feature and the time of the contact's event.
185:
186: \begin{figure}
187: %\includegraphics{ecliprz.eps}
188: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.1in\epsfbox{eclipsy.eps}}
189: \caption{In a partial eclipse we have only external contacts between solar and lunar limbs: (A) first and (B) last. Total and annular eclipses have also internal contacts which delimitate the phases of totality or annularity of the eclipse.}
190: \end{figure}
191:
192: If our partial eclipse method can be made to succede in practice, it
193: will open up more possibilities for measuring the solar diameter,
194: especially because partial eclipses can be seen
195: from large observatories relatively often.
196:
197: \subsection{Image-restoration techniques}
198:
199:
200: The combination between finite resolution of the telescopes,
201: atmosphere's turbulence and stray lights from other regions of the
202: solar disk
203: (both due to scattering in the Earth atmosphere and by optical
204: surfaces)
205: can be quantitatively studied during a partial eclipse.
206: In fact the degradation effects made by the imaging system
207: (atmosphere+telescope)
208: are to be considered at the exact instant of the exposure, and when
209: the Moon's limb crosses the solar disk, it serves as a reference object
210: to estimate the amplitudes of the instantaneous optical transfer
211: function.
212:
213: Once known that function, there are several methods developed to
214: compensate
215: for the atmospheric effects (Sanchez-Cuberes et al., 2000).
216:
217: For example, with the 50 cm Swedish Vacuum Solar Telescope SVST at La
218: Palma
219: L$\ddot{o}$fdhal et al. (1997)\cite{ref:loef}
220: used phase-diversity speckle restoration technique to study the
221: evolution of
222: bright points (0.2 arcsec of apparent dimension).
223: The application of phase diversity restoration technique allows to
224: reach the
225: limits imposed by the diffraction to the instrument and can help
226: adaptive optics
227: to improve them (Criscuoli et al. 2001 \cite{ref:cri}).
228:
229:
230: Recently Sanchez-Cuberes et al. (2000)\cite{ref:sc} have studied at
231: high resolution
232: (0.53 arcsec at the solar limb, and better in other regions)
233: solar granulation features from CCD images of $13~ms$
234: of exposure taken with the SVST during the eclipse of May 10, 1994.
235: Their idea was to match the lunar limb present in each frame to the
236: numerical
237: simulation of the eclipse geometry, having included the lunar limb
238: topography as
239: given by the Watts' profiles (Watts, 1963\cite{ref:watts}).
240:
241: Although past efforts to determine the solar diameter using
242: observations of partial
243: solar eclipses have failed
244: due to atmospheric seeing, the possibility
245: to restore video CCD images can succeed in the goal of
246: determining with a great accuracy, for each observer whose position
247: is known within $10~m$ of accuracy:
248:
249: \begin{itemize}
250: \item{the features of the lunar limb which firstly `hits` the solar
251: limb,
252: and that one which is the last; with an accuracy of 0.2 arcseconds}.
253: \item{the instant of the external contacts of
254: the actual lunar limb with the solar limb, with an accuracy of
255: $0.01~s$}.
256: \end{itemize}
257:
258:
259: \section{Solar diameter measurements using total eclipses and transits}
260:
261: The method we present here is to be compared to the
262: determination of the North-South diameter of the Sun
263: (which is the polar one only when $P_0=0^o$, at apsides) from the
264: analysis of
265: total solar eclispes observed at the edges in order to recover secular
266: variations in the solar diameter (Dunham and Dunham,
267: 1973\cite{ref:dunham}; Fiala et al. 1994\cite{ref:fiala})
268: and to other determinations of the solar
269: diameter based upon the observations of meridian
270: transits of the Sun (see e. g. Winlock, 1853\cite{ref:winlock} and
271: Ribes et al., 1988\cite{ref:ribes}
272: accounting on the observations made by Picard in seventeenth century)
273: or of the transits of Mercury
274: across the photosphere (see Parkinson et al., 1980\cite{ref:parkinson}
275: and
276: Maunder and Moore, 2000\cite{ref:mm} for a complete historical review).
277:
278: \subsection{Total eclipses from centerline}
279:
280: Totality occurs when the solar limb disappears behind the last valley
281: of the eastern lunar limb and ends when the Sun reappears
282: from another depression of the western lunar limb.
283:
284:
285: A source of
286: error in the evaluation of solar diameter
287: arises from the knowledge of Moon's
288: limb features. There are about $0.2$ arcsec of uncertainty
289: in Watts' tables (1963)\cite{ref:watts}, as determined from pairs of
290: photoelectrically
291: timed occultations (Van Flandern, 1970\cite{ref:vanflandern}; Morrison
292: and Appleby, 1981\cite{ref:morrison}).
293:
294: Therefore if one relys on Watts' profile the best determinations with
295: total solar
296: eclipses can not reach an accuracy better than
297: $0.2$ arcsec.
298: But the accuracy on the evaluation of the solar diameter can be
299: considerably improved by measuring the times of dozens of Baily's
300: beads phenomena, involving a similar number of Watts' points, thereby
301: decreasing the error statistically.
302:
303: \subsection{Total eclipses from edges}
304:
305: Even better is to make measurements
306: relative to the same polar lunar valley bottoms at similar latitude
307: librations, possible since all solar eclipses occur on the ecliptic
308: with negligible latitude librations.
309: It means to observe the total eclipse near the edges (Dunham and
310: Dunham, 1973\cite{ref:dunham}).
311:
312: Moreover, it is possible to exploit also situations of same
313: longitudinal libration angle.
314:
315: The eclipses of 1925 and 1979 (after three complete Saros cycles,
316: an $\sl `Exeligmos'$ 54 years and 34 days) where also exactly at the
317: same
318: longitudinal libration angle: their comparison (Sofia et al.,
319: 1983\cite{ref:sofia1})
320: removes the uncertainty
321: on the measured variations of the solar diameter due to
322: the Watts' errors almost entirely.
323:
324: With current lunar profile knowledge, then total and annular
325: eclipses are better for determining the solar diameter, because they
326: can produce polar Baily's beads when observed at the edges of their
327: totaly
328: (annularity) path.
329:
330: An error of $10~m$ in the determination of the edges
331: of the band of totality gives about $0.006$ arcsec of
332: uncertainty in the evaluation of solar diameter.
333:
334: Regarding the timing of the beads events,
335: the solar intensity goes to almost zero very
336: quickly, then atmospheric seeing errors are more directly eliminated.
337:
338: \subsection{Transits}
339:
340:
341: The transits of Mercury of November 15, 1999, was a `grazing'
342: transit (Westfall, 1999\cite{ref:westfall}), not useful for an accurate
343: measure of
344: the solar diameter, because it did not allow to sample points of the
345: solar
346: disk enough spaced between them.
347: The previous transit occurred in 1985 well
348: before adaptive optics techniques and the large
349: diffusion of CCD cameras.
350: The transits of Mercury of May, 7 2003, and
351: Venus (June 8, 2004 and 2012) have to be considered also
352: for this pourpose.
353:
354:
355: \section{Expected accuracy with partial eclipses evaluations}
356:
357: \subsection{Positions of the observers}
358:
359: An error of $10~m$ in the determination of the edges
360: of the band of totality gives about $0.006$ arcsec of
361: uncertainty in the evaluation of solar diameter.
362:
363: An accuracy of $10~m$ in geographical position of the observer can be
364: achieved
365: with about $10$ minutes of averaging GPS.
366:
367: \subsection{Bandpass filter}
368:
369: The observations have to be done with a filter
370: with waveband of $6300 \pm800 \AA$, in order to have
371: data always comparable between them, and in the same
372: waveband of Solar Disk Sextant (SDS, see last paragraph).
373:
374: \subsection{Duration of the imaging of the external contacts}
375:
376: The eclipse magnitude $m$ is the fraction of the Sun's
377: diameter obscured by the Moon.
378:
379: The relative
380: velocity of the Moon's limb over the Sun's
381: photosphere is about $v=0.5$ arcsec per second, along the centerline
382: of a total eclipse.
383: For a partial eclipse the velocity of penetration of the dark figure of
384: the Moon
385: (perpendicularly to the solar radius) is $v\sim0.5\cdot(1-m)~arcsec/s$,
386: then
387: for having about 1 arcminute of Moon already in the solar disk it is
388: necessary to continue to take images for $\Delta~t=120/(1-m)~s$ after
389: the first contact and before the last contact.
390:
391: The instants $t_1$ and $t_4$ of the external contacts can be
392: determined with an accuracy better than the frame rate $\Delta t \le
393: 10^{-2}$s.
394: In fact $t_1$ and $t_4$ can be deduced by interpolating
395: the motion of the rigid Moon's profile, which
396: becomes better defined as the
397: eclipse progresses.
398:
399: In this way each observer (2 at least are needed) can fix two
400: points on the Moon's limbs
401: and two instants for the contacts.
402:
403: \subsection{Expected accuracy in the solar diameter measurements}
404:
405: The accuracy of the determination of the lunar features producing
406: the external contacts for a given observer
407: is therefore limited by the Watts' profiles errors (0.2 arcsec).
408:
409: Two observers enough distant (500 to 1000 Km in latitude for a
410: East-West path of the eclipse) allow to have 4 points and 4 times
411: for recovering the apparent
412: dimensions of the solar disk at the moment of the eclipse
413: within few hudredth of arcsecond of accuracy.
414:
415: The accuracy becomes worse as the points sample a smaller part of the
416: solar
417: circle. The following table shows how the error on the determination
418: of the solar diameter changes from having three
419: points within 60 degrees to 240 degrees.
420:
421: That accuracy can allow the detection of the oblateness of the Sun.
422: Therefore more than three
423: observers can allow improvement of the detection of the shape of the
424: Sun by minimizing the residuals of the best fitting ellipse.
425:
426:
427: \section{Perspectives on eclipse methods}
428:
429: We have proposed an accurate measurement of the solar diameter during
430: partial solar eclipses. This method is the natural extension of the
431: method of measuring the solar diameter during total eclipses. It exploits
432: modern techniques of image processing and fast CCD video records to
433: overcome the problems arising from atmospheric turbulence.
434: With this method professional and semi-professional observatories can
435: be involved in such a measurements, much more often than in total
436: eclipses.
437:
438: Moreover this method can be used for obtaining data useful for
439: the absolute calibration of measurements by
440: instruments that are
441: balloon-borne (Sofia et al., 1994;\cite{ref:sofia2}
442: 1996\cite{ref:sofia2}) or satellite-borne (Dam\'e et al., 1999\cite{ref:dame}) with a
443: precision of
444: $\Delta D \le 40$ $10^{-3}$arcsec.
445:
446: It is also to note that from the first to the fourth contact of
447: eclipses
448: there are about two hours.
449: The apparent solar diameter changes with a maximum hourly
450: rate up to $25$ $10^{-3}$arcsec/hr due to the orbital motion of
451: the Earth; this effect is strongly reduced around the
452: apsides on July $4^{th}$ and January $4^{th}$, $\le 2$
453: $10^{-3}$arcsec/hr and this is a favourable case for eclipses in December-January
454: or June-July.
455:
456:
457: In the future Watts'
458: tables can be substitued by the upcoming (2004)
459: data of the Selene Japanese spacecraft\cite{ref:selene}, and the
460: systematic
461: errors arising from them will be avoided.
462:
463: \section{Secular variations of solar diameter}
464:
465: It was the 3rd of May 1715 when solar eclipse was observed in England
466: from both edges of the paths of totality. Following Dunham and Dunham
467: method \cite{ref:dunham} it is possible to extract solar radius information
468: by determining the edges of the path of the totality.
469: Unluckily there are elements of uncertainty on the effective positions
470: of the observers on the edges \cite{ref:dunham2} and this causes a
471: remarkable error on the radius determination using 1715's eclipse data.
472: Another eclipse on January 24, 1925 was very accurately observed by more than
473: 100 employees of the Affiliated Electric Companies of NY City and many
474: other advanced amateurs in response to the campaign led by E.W. Brown
475: and a detailed study was made after the observation \cite{ref:brown1}.
476: Sofia, Fiala et al. \cite{ref:sofia1} used Brown's data and found a
477: correction of ($0.21 \pm 0.08$) arcsec. for the standard solar radius value
478: of 959.63 arc sec at a distance of 1UA, for 1925 eclipse.
479: Analyses of the eclipse in Australia in 1976 and of the eclipse in
480: North America in 1979, were made by Sofia, Fiala et al. \cite{ref:dunham2}
481: but no appreciable changes in the solar radius were found between those
482: two eclipses. However, the solar radius determined for 1715 was found
483: to be ($0.34 \pm 0.2$) arcsec larger than 1979 value.
484: On the other hand, Sofia, Fiala, Dunham and Dunham \cite{ref:sofia1} found that between
485: the 1925 and the 1979 eclipses, the solar radius decreased by 0.5 arcsec
486: but the solar size between 1925 and 1715 did not significantly
487: changed. Therefore they concluded that the solar radius changes are not
488: secular.
489: Eddy and Boornazian \cite{ref:eddy} in the same year reported results
490: over observations made between 1836 and 1953 at the Royal Greenwich
491: Observatory. They found a secular decrease trend in the horizontal solar
492: diameter amounting to more than 2 arc sec/century while the solar
493: vertical diameter seemed to change with about half of this rate.
494: With the same data Sofia et al. \cite{ref:sofia1} had found out that any
495: secular changes in the solar diameter in the past century, could not have
496: exceeded 0.25 arc sec. The disagreement between the results of different groups
497: depends on the different data selection criteria and on different solar and lunar
498: ephemerides adopted, as it is shown in \cite{ref:fiala} for the analyses of the annular eclipse of May 30, 1984.
499: Another measurement of the solar radius, independent on lunar ephemerides, was made by Shapiro
500: \cite{ref:shap} who analyzed data from 23 transits of Mercury between 1736
501: and 1973. His conclusion was that any secular solar radius decrease was
502: below 0.15 arc sec/century. This method has been criticized for the black drop effect which affects the
503: exact determination of the instans of internal contacts, first pointed out by Captain Cook during Venus' transit of 1769.
504:
505:
506: \section{The method of Dicke for measuring solar oblateness}
507:
508: Around 1961, R. H. Dicke and others\cite{ref:dicke} tried to point out
509: the possible effects due to existence of a scalar field in the
510: framework of Einstein's General Relativity. The presence of such a scalar field
511: would have important cosmological effects. The gravitational deflection
512: of light and the relativistic advancement of planetary perihelia are two
513: effects that could have been influenced by a scalar
514: field: with respect to classical General Relativity both effects were expected to be about $10\%$ less in the case
515: the scalar field would be present.
516: For this reason Dicke showed that the advancement of the line of apsides of Mercury
517: was not to be considered as a good test for General Relativity, which was
518: believed before, because of the entanglement of its causes (scalar field and classical General Relativity)
519: \cite{ref:dicke2}.
520: A small solar oblateness ($\Delta R/R \sim 5\cdot10^{-5}$)
521: caused by internal rotation in the Sun would cause the $10\%$ effect of
522: perihelion advancement without invoking any relativistic effect.
523: It was clear that until such oblateness could be excluded or confirmed
524: from observational data, the interpretation of the advancement of
525: Mercury's line of apsides would was ambiguous.
526: The Einstein relativistic motion of the longitude of the perihelion is
527:
528: (1) $\dot{\pi}=\frac{1}{Tac^2(1-e^2)}$
529:
530: where $a$ is the planetary semimajor axis, $e$ is the eccentricity and $T$ is
531: the period; on the other hand we have the rotation of the perihelion
532: due to an oblate Sun which is
533:
534: (2) $\dot{\pi}=\frac{\Delta}{Tac^2(1-e^2)^2}$
535:
536: where $\Delta$ is the ratio between (solar equatorial radius - polar
537: radius) and (mean radius). The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation could
538: have been brought in agreement with observational data, if the Sun
539: possessed a small oblateness and a mass quadrupole moment.
540:
541: \begin{figure}
542: %\includegraphics{dicke.eps}
543: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.1in\epsfbox{dicke.eps}}
544: \caption{Measurement of the flux $F$ within the chopper mask at the solar poles.
545: By changing the fraction $f_l$ of exposed limb it is possible to detect if there is any $\Delta F$ between
546: polar and equatorial diameters, and if it changes with $f_l$. Only if $\Delta F \not= 0$ and it is constant with $f_l$
547: it is a consequence of the solar oblateness, otherwise it would be a consequence of temperature gradients.}
548: \end{figure}
549:
550: In 1966, Dicke and Goldenberg \cite{ref:dicke3} measured the difference
551: in flux between the equator and polar limb of the Sun. The idea was
552: simple: using a chopper with apertures made to show only a small section
553: of the solar limb (see fig. 5), they measured the flux at the poles and
554: at the equator of the Sun. We must consider two ipothesis:
555:
556: \begin{itemize}
557: \item{If the temperature at the pole is equal to the one at the equator,
558: finding a flux difference can only mean that there is an oblateness such
559: that the radius at the pole $R_p$ and the radius at the equator $R_e$,
560: differs from a quantity $\Delta R$. Then the flux difference $\Delta F$
561: should be constant if we change the exposed limb by changing the
562: chopper's aperture.}
563:
564: \item{On the contrary, if there is no oblateness but we still have a flux
565: difference $\Delta F$, means that there is a temperature gradient. Then
566: $\Delta F$ should be proportional to the amount of exposed limb.}
567: \end{itemize}
568:
569: Dicke and Goldenberg found that $\Delta F$ remained about constant so
570: that the Sun should have a small oblateness.
571: The theory of the measurement is well explained in \cite{ref:dicke4}, §
572: II. The instrument used and the measurement procedure is also explained
573: in \cite{ref:dicke4}, § IV, V, VI and VII.
574: Mainly both the instrument and the measuring procedure were designed to
575: eliminate systematic errors. Dicke found for $\Delta R$ to be $\Delta R = 43.3 \pm 3.3$ $10^{-3}$arcsec.
576:
577: The oblateness of $\Delta R/R = (4.51 \pm 0.34)\cdot 10^{-5}$ implies
578: a quadrupole moment of $J = (2.47 \pm 0.23 )\cdot 10^{-5}$
579: \cite{ref:dicke5}.
580:
581: At the end of his analysis, Dicke found that new independent
582: measurements of the solar oblateness were needed, to make comparison between
583: data taken with different faculae activity on the Sun.
584: In 1975, new observations were made by Hill and Stebbins
585: \cite{ref:hill}. They considered a complication raised in Hill's work
586: \cite{ref:hill2} of a time varying excess of equatorial brightness due to sunspots and
587: faculae. It is clear that to measure the difference between the
588: polar radius and the equatorial radius, we must first be sure on which
589: point to take as equatorial solar edge.
590: The point is to give out a consistent definition of the solar limb.
591: This can be done by using a proper limb darkening function.
592: Hill et al. demonstrated that the excess brightness can be easily
593: monitored by using a proper analytic definition of the solar edge, using the
594: FFTD \cite{ref:hill3}.
595: It was pointed out that the main problem in this kind of measurements
596: is identifying some point on the limb darkening curve as the solar edge.
597: It is clear that if more points on the darkening curve can be taken as
598: solar edge, many different definition of solar radii can be gave and
599: many different measures of solar oblateness done. The differences between
600: these values will contain information about the shapes of the limb
601: profiles.
602: The value obtained from Hill for the intrinsic visual oblateness is
603: $(18.4 \pm 12.5)\cdot 10^{-3}$ arcsec which is obviously in conflict with
604: the value of Dicke-Goldenberg.
605: In this confused situation another group decided to construct an
606: instrument to measure long term changes: the Solar Diameter Monitor (SDM) at
607: The High Altitude Observatory \cite{ref:g15}. Their purpose was to
608: determine which kind of solar diameter variation was taking place, if any,
609: within a reasonable period of time (3-5 years). The
610: SDM began operation in Aug. 1981. An accurate discussion on the
611: measured duration of solar meridian transit during six years between 1981 and
612: 1987 is made in \cite{ref:brown} where Brown and Christensen-Dalsgaard
613: adopted adjustments to the modified IAU value for the astronomical unit
614: (value of $1.4959787066 \cdot 10^5$ Mm, US Naval Observatory, 1997) to
615: take into account for the mean displacements between the telescope's
616: noontime location and the Earth's centre. They also corrected for the
617: displacements of the Sun's centre relative to the barycentre of the
618: Earth-Sun system.
619: They found the solar radius to be $R_{\odot} = (695.508 \pm 0.026)$ Mm
620: which is about 0.5 Mm smaller than the Allen (1973) value of 695.99 Mm.
621: Moreover, Brown and Christensen-Dalsgaard found no significant
622: variations in the solar diameter during their observational period: their
623: annual averages for the years 1981-1987 all agree within $\pm 0.037$ Mm.
624: Toulmonde \cite{ref:toul} discussed
625: about 71000 measurements regarding almost 300 years of
626: data: he did not find
627: evidence of any secular variation in his data.
628:
629: \section{Solar Disk Sextant measurements}
630:
631: Further attempts to measure the solar oblateness have been made
632: with the Solar Disk Sextant (SDS) which is an instrument made to
633: monitor the size and shape of the Sun. The principle of the instrument
634: is well described in Sofia, Maier and Twigg work \cite{ref:sofiamaier}.
635: Basically a prism whit an opening angle very stable along the years is posed in front
636: of the objective of a telescope, and it produces tweo images of the Sun at focal plane.
637: The distance between the center of those images is depending on the focal lenght of the telescope, while
638: the gap between the two limbs depends on the angular diameter of the Sun.
639: The same idea is exploited in using two pinholes instead
640: of one and has been proposed for simpler prototypes of SDS\cite{ref:sigi2pin},
641: whose images are unaffected by optical distortions.
642: Considered that the solar radius changes until now reported are to be of
643: the order of 1 arc sec per century, the SDS instrumental accuracy was
644: asked to keep calibrated on 0.01 arc sec/year and a stability of 0.003
645: arc sec/year was reached.
646: The really good feature of the SDS consists in the fact that the
647: instrument accuracy requirements are for relative rather than absolute values
648: of the radius which led to a solar edge point detection
649: accurate to 1/10 pixel on the instrument. With statistical methods one can
650: have a further reduction of a 10 factor.
651: The SDS early version was developed to be carried into space
652: during Space Shuttle flights, but unlikely the Challenger accident took place.
653: This led to the needs to change strategy avoiding important delays. SDS was
654: mounted on a system for ground based observations but it was soon clear
655: that no valuable scientific data could be obtained from ground because
656: the atmosphere's influence. So the SDS was mounted on a stratospheric
657: balloon and it measured solar oblateness\cite{ref:sofia3}.
658: A complete analysis of his 4 flights data (1992, 1994, 1995 and 1996)
659: is still in progress.
660:
661: \acknowledgments
662: Costantino Sigismondi thanks Drs. Terry Girard, David Dunham and Elliot
663: Horch,
664: who encouraged him, during his scholarship at Yale University
665: (2000-2002), to pursue the idea of partial eclipse measurements of solar
666: diameter.
667:
668:
669:
670: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
671:
672: \bibitem{ref:archimedes} \BY{Archimedes} \TITLE{Psammites, The Sand
673: Reckoner}, Italian edition in {\sl{Classici della Scienza}} {\bf{19}} UTET Torino (1974) p. 443-470.
674:
675: \bibitem{ref:fiala} \BY{Fiala, A. D.; Dunham, D. W.; Sofia, S.}
676: \IN{Solar Physics}{152}{1994} {97}
677:
678: \bibitem{ref:winlock} \BY{Winlock, J.} \IN{Astronomical
679: Journal}{3}{1853}{97-103}
680:
681: \bibitem{ref:Howe} \BY{Howe, H. A.} \IN{Popular
682: Astronomy}{33}{1925}{280}
683:
684: \bibitem{ref:parkinson} \BY{Parkinson, J. H.; Morrison, L. V.;
685: Stephenson, F. R.}\IN{Nature}{288} {1988}{548-551}
686: \TITLE{The constancy of the Solar diameter over the past 250 years}
687:
688: \bibitem{ref:mm}\BY{Maunder, M. and P. Moore}\TITLE{Transit when a planet crosses the Sun}
689: {Springer-Verlag London}{2000}
690:
691: \bibitem{ref:watts} \BY{Watts,C. B.} \TITLE{The Marginal Zone of the
692: Moon} {1963}
693: Astronomical Papers prepared for the use of the
694: American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac XVII
695: (United States Government Printing Office, Washington)
696:
697: \bibitem{ref:westfall} \BY{Westfall, J. E.} {1999}
698: {\rm
699: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/\~rhill/alpo/transitstuff/merc11\_99.html}
700:
701: \bibitem{ref:selene}\BY{Hirata, N. et al.} \TITLE{General overview of
702: the lunar imager/spectrometer
703: in "New Views of the Moon, Europe, Future Lunar Exploration, Science
704: Objectives, and Integration of Datasets", David Heather editor, (Berlin,
705: Germany)} {2002}
706:
707: \bibitem{ref:sofia2} \BY{Sofia, S., W. Heaps, and L. Twigg}
708: \IN{Astrophys. J.}{427}{1994}{1048} \TITLE{The Solar Diameter and Oblateness
709: Measured by the Solar Disk Sextant on the 1992 September 30 Balloon Flight}
710:
711: \bibitem{ref:sofia3} \BY{Sofia, S. Lydon T. J.} \IN{Physical Review
712: Letters}{76}{1996}{177-179} \TITLE{A measurement of the shape
713: of the solar disk: The solar quadrupole moment, the solar octopole
714: moment,
715: and the advance of perihelion of the planet Mercury}
716:
717: \bibitem{ref:dame} \BY{Dam\'e, L. et al} \IN{Advances in Space
718: Research}{24}{1999}{205-214}
719: \TITLE{PICARD: simultaneous measurements of the solar diameter,
720: differential rotation, solar constant and their variations}
721:
722: \bibitem{ref:loef} \BY{L$\ddot{o}$ fdhal, M. G., et al.} \TITLE{
723: Phase-diversity Restoration of two Simultaneous 70-minute Photospheric
724: Sequences,
725: Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 29, Volume 29, Number 2
726: AAS 190th Meeting, Winston-Salem, NC, June 1997} {1997}
727:
728: \bibitem{ref:cri} \BY{Criscuoli, S., J.A. Bonet, F. Berrilli, D. Del
729: Moro
730: and A. Egidi}
731: \TITLE{Phase diversity procedure in F95 for future Themis application,
732: Meeting - THEMIS and the New Frontiers of Solar Atmosphere Dynamics
733: Roma 19-21 March, 2001} {2001}
734:
735: \bibitem{ref:sc} \BY{S\'anchez Cuberes, M., Bonet, J. A., V\'azquez,
736: M., Wittmann, A. D.}
737: \IN{Astrophys. J.}{538}{2000}{940-959} \TITLE{Center-to-Limb Variation
738: of Solar Granulation from Partial Eclipse Observations}
739:
740: \bibitem{ref:ribes} \BY{Ribes, E., et al.} \IN{Nature} {332}{1988}{689}
741: \TITLE{Size of the Sun in the Seventeenth Century}
742:
743: \bibitem{ref:vanflandern} \BY{Van Flandern, T.} \IN{Astronomical
744: Journal}{75}{1970}{744}
745: \TITLE{Some Notes on the Use of the Watts Limb-Correction Charts}
746:
747: \bibitem{ref:morrison}\BY{Morrison L. V. and G. M. Appleby}\IN{MNRAS}
748: {196}{1981}{1005}
749: \TITLE{Analysis of Lunar Occultations}
750:
751: \bibitem{ref:dunham}\BY{D.W. Dunham and J.B.
752: Dunham}\IN{Moon}{8}{546}{1973}
753:
754: \bibitem{ref:dunham2}\BY{D.W. Dunham, S. Sofia, A.D. Fiala et
755: al.}\IN{Science}{210}{1980}{1243-1245}
756:
757: \bibitem{ref:brown1}\BY{Brown, E. W.}\IN{Astron. J.}{37}{1926}{9-19}
758:
759: \bibitem{ref:sofia1}\BY{Sofia, Dunham \& Dunham and Fiala} \IN{Nature}
760: {304}{1983}{522-526}
761:
762: \bibitem{ref:eddy}\BY{J.A. Eddy and A.A. Boornazian}\IN{Bull. Am.
763: Astron. Soc.} {11} {1979} {437}
764:
765: \bibitem{ref:shap}\BY{Shapiro, I. I.}\IN{Bull. Am. Astron.
766: Soc.}{208}{1980}{51}
767:
768: \bibitem{ref:dicke}\BY{Brans, C. and Dicke, R.H.}\IN{Phys.
769: Rev.}{124}{1961}{925}
770:
771: \bibitem{ref:dicke2}\BY{Dicke, H.R.}\IN{Nature} {202}{anno?} {432}
772:
773: \bibitem{ref:dicke3}\BY{Dicke, H.R. and Golenberg, H.M.}\IN{Phys. Rev.
774: Letters}{18}{1967}{313}
775:
776: \bibitem{ref:dicke4}\BY{Dicke, H.R. and Golenberg, H.M.}\IN{Astrophys.
777: J. supplement series} {241}{1974} {27:131-182}
778:
779: \bibitem{ref:dicke5}\BY{Dicke, H.R.}\IN{Astrophys. J.}{159}{anno?} {1}
780:
781: \bibitem{ref:hill}\BY{Hill, H.A. and Stebbins, R.T.}\IN{Astrophys.
782: J.}{200}{1975}{471-483}
783:
784: \bibitem{ref:hill2}\BY{Hill, H.A.et al.}\IN{Phys. Rev.
785: Letters}{33}{1974}{1497}
786:
787: \bibitem{ref:hill3}\BY{Hill, H.A., Stebbins, R.T. and Oleson, J.R.}
788: \IN{Astrophys. J.}{200}{1975}{484-498}
789:
790: \bibitem{ref:g15}\BY{T.M. Brown, D.F. Elmore, L. Lacey and H. Hull}
791: \IN{Applied Optics}{21}{1982}{19}
792:
793: \bibitem{ref:brown}\BY{Brown, T.M. and Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.}
794: \IN{Astrophys. J.}{500}{1998}{L195-L198}
795:
796: \bibitem{ref:toul}\BY{Toulmonde, M.} \IN{Astron. \&
797: Astrophysics}{325}{1997}{1174-1178}
798:
799: \bibitem{ref:sofiamaier}\BY{Sofia, S., Maier, E. and Twigg, L.}
800: \IN{Adv. Space Res.}{11}{1991}{(4)123-(4)132}
801:
802: \bibitem{ref:sigi2pin} \BY{Sigismondi, C.}
803: \TITLE{Measuring the angular solar diameter using two pinholes,}
804: \IN{Am. J. of Physics}{70}{2002}{1157}
805:
806: \end{thebibliography}
807:
808: \end{document}
809: \endinput
810: %%
811:
812:
813:
814: