arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2002.11774astro-ph.SR
收藏

从塞曼多普勒成像低估的磁场强度影响自旋下降扭矩估计多少?

How much do underestimated field strengths from Zeeman-Doppler imaging affect spin-down torque estimates?

Victor See, Lisa Lehmann, Sean P. Matt, Adam J. Finley

摘要:

在文献中,有许多试图估计低质量恒星在其一生中失去角动量的速率。一种方法是使用来自塞曼多普勒成像(ZDI)的磁图与所谓的“制动定律”。与其他方法相比,使用ZDI图具有优势,因为它允许将有关磁场几何形状的信息纳入估计中。然而,ZDI被认为低估了光球场强度,由于通量抵消效应。最近,Lehmann等人(2018)对一组通量输运模拟进行了合成ZDI重建,以帮助量化ZDI低估相对缓慢旋转和弱活动类太阳恒星的场强的数量。在本文中,我们评估如何低估角动量损失率估计的基础上ZDI地图可能。我们发现,他们是相对准确的强磁场的恒星,但可能被低估的一个因素高达$\sim$ 10弱磁场的恒星。此外,我们重新评估我们以前的工作,使用ZDI地图来研究不同的磁场模式的角动量损失的相对贡献。我们以前发现,偶极分量占主导地位的自旋大多数低质量的恒星。即使根据Lehmann et al.(2018)的工作,这一结论仍然成立。

英文摘要:

Numerous attempts to estimate the rate at which low-mass stars lose angular momentum over their lifetimes exist in the literature. One approach is to use magnetic maps derived from Zeeman-Doppler imaging (ZDI) in conjunction with so-called "braking laws". The use of ZDI maps has advantages over other methods because it allows information about the magnetic field geometry to be incorporated into the estimate. However, ZDI is known to underestimate photospheric field strengths due to flux cancellation effects. Recently, Lehmann et al. (2018) conducted synthetic ZDI reconstructions on a set of flux transport simulations to help quantify the amount by which ZDI underestimates the field strengths of relatively slowly rotating and weak activity solar-like stars. In this paper, we evaluate how underestimated angular momentum-loss rate estimates based on ZDI maps may be. We find that they are relatively accurate for stars with strong magnetic fields but may be underestimated by a factor of up to $\sim$10 for stars with weak magnetic fields. Additionally, we re-evaluate our previous work that used ZDI maps to study the relative contributions of different magnetic field modes to angular momentum-loss. We previously found that the dipole component dominates spin-down for most low-mass stars. This conclusion still holds true even in light of the work of Lehmann et al. (2018).

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑