Solving the Discrepancy between the Seismic and Photospheric Solar Radius

Two methods are used to observationally determine the solar radius: One is the observation of the intensity profile at the limb; the other one uses f-mode frequencies to derive a "seismic" solar radius which is then corrected to optical depth unity. The two methods are inconsistent and lea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Astrophysical journal Vol. 675; no. 1; pp. L53 - L56
Main Authors Haberreiter, M, Schmutz, W, Kosovichev, A. G
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago, IL IOP Publishing 01.03.2008
University of Chicago Press
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Two methods are used to observationally determine the solar radius: One is the observation of the intensity profile at the limb; the other one uses f-mode frequencies to derive a "seismic" solar radius which is then corrected to optical depth unity. The two methods are inconsistent and lead to a difference in the solar radius of similar to 0.3 Mm. Because of the geometrical extension of the solar photosphere and the increased path lengths of tangential rays the Sun appears to be larger to an observer who measures the extent of the solar disk. Based on radiative transfer calculations we show that this discrepancy can be explained by the difference between the height at disk center where [unk] = 1 ( tau [unk] = 2/3) and the inflection point of the intensity profile on the limb. We calculate the intensity profile of the limb for the MDI continuum and the continuum at 5000 AA for two atmosphere structures and compare the position of the inflection points with the radius at tau [unk] = 1 ( tau [unk] = 2/3). The calculated difference between the seismic radius and the inflection point is 0.347 plus or minus 0.006 Mm with respect to tau [unk] = 1, and 0.333 plus or minus 0.008 Mm with respect to tau [unk] = 2/3. We conclude that the standard solar radius in evolutionary models has to be lowered by 0.333 plus or minus 0.008 Mm and is 695.66 Mm. Furthermore, this correction reconciles inflection point measurements and the seismic radii within the uncertainties.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1538-4357
0004-637X
1538-4357
DOI:10.1086/529492