Paper detail

How realistic are solar model atmospheres?

Recently, new solar model atmospheres have been developed to replace classical 1D LTE hydrostatic models and used to for example derive the solar chemical composition. We aim to test various models against key observational constraints. In particular, a 3D model used to derive the solar abundances, a 3D MHD model (with an imposed 10 mT vertical magnetic field), 1D models from the PHOENIX project, the 1D MARCS model, and the 1D semi-empirical model of Holweger & Müller. We confront the models with observational diagnostics of the temperature profile: continuum centre-to-limb variations (CLV), absolute continuum fluxes, and the wings of hydrogen lines. We also test the 3D models for the intensity distribution of the granulation and spectral line shapes. The predictions from the 3D model are in excellent agreement with the continuum CLV observations, performing even better than the Holweger & Müller model (constructed largely to fulfil such observations). The predictions of the 1D theoretical models are worse, given their steeper temperature gradients. For the continuum fluxes, predictions for most models agree well with the observations. No model fits all hydrogen lines perfectly, but again the 3D model comes ahead. The 3D model also reproduces the observed continuum intensity fluctuations and spectral line shapes very well. The excellent agreement of the 3D model with the observables reinforces the view that its temperature structure is realistic. It outperforms the MHD simulation in all diagnostics, implying that recent claims for revised abundances based on MHD modelling are premature. Several weaknesses in the 1D models are exposed. The differences between the PHOENIX LTE and NLTE models are small. We conclude that the 3D hydrodynamical model is superior to any of the tested 1D models, which gives further confidence in the solar abundance analyses based on it.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.