Astron. Astrophys. 327, 1-7 (1997)
4. Large scale flux tubes
In our basic Eq. (2) the last two terms have orders of magnitude of
and
, respectively. They can therefore be ignored
when
is very large. This fact is important for two
reasons. From the integration point of view, if the laplacian term is
negligible, the equation is no longer elliptic. It can be treated
analytically and what is most noticeable is that it can be integrated
as an initial-value problem, thus restoring the prediction ability of
the equation. We do not need to assume the shape and magnitude of the
inhomogeneity before the acoustic regime period. The other reason is
that
probably represents a more interesting case as
dissipative effects may wipe out small scale inhomogeneities after the
time epoch considered in this paper.
The analytical solution now becomes
![[EQUATION]](img111.gif)
where
and
are integration constants, which may be
determined with the boundary conditions. We have several possibilities
which should be discussed.
Suppose first that we are considering the time interval [0,1]. For
, we have
unless
. But then
. Then only isocurvature would be a valid
initial condition, and
. However, we must avoid
(Big-Bang) and begin with
, very small but non-vanishing. Also, in our
numerical outputs we have carried out the integration since
. We have four options to determine
and
:
1) Boundary value and homogeneity. We assume
and
. The solution is then
![[EQUATION]](img121.gif)
As
is low, this basically represents a linear
growth.
2) Boundary value and isocurvature. We assume
,
![[EQUATION]](img125.gif)
where the last term is negligible. We again obtain a quasi-linear
growth. As it was also numerically obtained, the conditions of
homogeneity and isocurvature provide the same results, except in the
beginning.
3) Initial value and homogeneity. We assume
and obtain
![[EQUATION]](img127.gif)
which also represents a nearly linear growth, but now the rate of
growth
is larger than the
in the two previous cases. In the end, we
obtain
, i.e. the inhomogeneity grows
-fold, where
could be considered the magnetogenesis time,
even if we adopted in the numerical integration in the previous
section
. This third possibility has the best
prediction ability.
4) Initial value and isocurvature. We assume
and
. In this case, we obtain
and therefore
![[EQUATION]](img134.gif)
is a constant. No evolution is to be expected.
With the exception of the fourth, these possibilities all,
basically, lead to the result already obtained for small scale flux
tubes: the growth is more or less linear. The growth is plotted in
Fig. 7 for the four possibilities mentioned above.
![[FIGURE]](img138.gif) |
Fig. 7. Time evolution of the value of
at the centre of the filament, for
calculated with
,
and
. Curve a: Boundary value and homogeneity; Curve b: Boundary value and isocurvature; Curve c: Initial value and homogeneity; Curve d: Initial value and isocurvature. Curves b and c coincide except for small values of t, where curve b gives slightly higher values
|
There is another analytical integration in another approach.
Suppose that
and that
, so that only the laplacian term is
negligible. The analytical solution becomes
![[EQUATION]](img141.gif)
but this solution does not represent a realistic case:
has a maximum at
, vanishes at
, and what is more important,
increases until it reaches values comparable to
a, in contradiction with the initial assumption.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1997
Online publication: April 8, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |