Goldreich et al. (1994
) used a mixing length model of solar convection to compute the energy
input rates for modes with angular degree less than 60. The model energy input rates were very
similar to the observed rates. In the Goldreich et al. (1994) model the main source of wave
excitation was entropy fluctuations. Numerical simulations of near-surface turbulent convection
have also been able to explain the observed frequency dependence of the energy input and
damping rates (see, e.g., Stein and Nordlund, 2001
). In the Stein and Nordlund (2001) model, the
main source of wave excitation is Reynold’s stresses (turbulent pressure) near the boundaries of
granules. Samadi et al. (2003a
) compared wave excitation in a 3d numerical simulation and 1d
mixing length based models. The numerical simulation gave about five times more energy input
into the p-modes than did the mixing length model. In the numerical simulations of Samadi
et al. (2003a), excitation by entropy fluctuations dominates over excitation by Reynold’s stresses.
Samadi et al. (2003b) used a 3d numerical simulation to study the covariance function of the
near-surface turbulent velocity and found that the temporal covariance was not Gaussian. As we will
discuss in Section 3.4, this covariance is important for computing the power spectrum of solar
oscillations.
As both the numerical convection simulations and the analytical convection models become more developed, it seems likely that they will converge and produce a definitive answer as to the source of solar oscillations.
In order to model the driving of solar oscillations by turbulent convection we add a source term
to
the right hand side of Equation (4
), to obtain
| http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2005-6 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |