Which Bow Shock Theory, Gasdynamic or Magnetohydrodynamic, Better Explains CME Stand-off Distance Ratios from LASCO-C2 Observations ?
It is generally believed that fast coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can generate their associated shocks, which are characterized by faint structures ahead of CMEs in white-light coronagraph images. In this study, we examine whether the observational stand-off distance ratio, defined as the CME stand-o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Astrophysical journal 2017-03, Vol.838 (1), p.70 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | It is generally believed that fast coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can generate their associated shocks, which are characterized by faint structures ahead of CMEs in white-light coronagraph images. In this study, we examine whether the observational stand-off distance ratio, defined as the CME stand-off distance divided by its radius, can be explained by bow shock theories. Of 535 SOHO/LASCO CMEs (from 1996 to 2015) with speeds greater than 1000 km s−1 and angular widths wider than 60°, we select 18 limb CMEs with the following conditions: (1) their Alfvénic Mach numbers are greater than one under Mann's magnetic field and Saito's density distributions; and (2) the shock structures ahead of the CMEs are well identified. We determine observational CME stand-off distance ratios by using brightness profiles from LASCO-C2 observations. We compare our estimates with theoretical stand-off distance ratios from gasdynamic (GD) and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theories. The main results are as follows. Under the GD theory, 39% (7/18) of the CMEs are explained in the acceptable ranges of adiabatic gamma (γ) and CME geometry. Under the MHD theory, all the events are well explained when we consider quasi-parallel MHD shocks with γ = 5/3. When we use polarized brightness (pB) measurements for coronal density distributions, we also find similar results: 8% (1/12) under GD theory and 100% (12/12) under MHD theory. Our results demonstrate that the bow shock relationships based on MHD theory are more suitable than those based on GD theory for analyzing CME-driven shock signatures. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0004-637X 1538-4357 |
DOI: | 10.3847/1538-4357/aa656f |