Robert Stein, Michigan State University
Åke Nordlund, Copenhagen University Observatory & Theoretical Astrophysics Center, Denmark
  Simulations are Parameter Free
- Physics Full
  Agree with Observations
  Integrate Conservation Laws
  Equation of State includes
ionization
  Radiative Transfer crucial
  Diffusion - hyperviscosity
  Boundary Conditions
  Convection Zone Depth
  P-Mode Frequencies
  P-Mode Excitation Rate
  Granulation
  Line Profiles
  Driving: radiative cooling
in thin surface thermal boundary layer.
  Topology:
controlled by mass conservation
  Topology:
turbulent Downdrafts, smooth upflows
  Horizontal scale increases
with increasing depth
The simulations are essentially parameter free:
Integrate the conservation laws: mass, momentum and energy, but not in
conservative form:


The convection zone depth is directly influenced
by
Changing Teff by +- 100 K alters CZ depth by +-7 Mm
The Equation of State
in the
CZ
The entropy jump near
the surface
Spectral line blocking
(would increase
Teff by 3% for T4 source function)
Standard, 1-D, Spherically Symmetric, Mixing Length Model




Contribute equally to elevating photosphere by 150 km.

High frequency modes' frequency is reduced.
 
Remaining discrepancies in mode frequencies can now be used to
investigate details of the mode physics.
Stochastic, non-adiabatic, gas pressure fluctuations excite the p-modes via PdV work,

Mode excitation rate is,


Driving decreases at low frequencies because the mode compression decreases and the mode mass increases.

Driving decreases at high frequency because the pressure fluctuations decrease.


Size Spectrum

But beware: any image with sharp edged features (such as
) produces such a distribution.
Emergent intensity distribution (visible continuum).

Line Formation: Fe I+II lines
Line widths, shifts, and shapes provide constraints
Excellent agreement exists between simulated and observed profiles of weak and intermediate strength FeI and FeII lines.
Without the convective and wave velocities, the line
profiles would differ drastically from the observed profiles:

Including velocities and sufficient resolution, produces close
agreement between simulated and observed profiles:
2D simulations do not give observed profiles

The average profile is a combination of profiles with very different
shifts, widths and shapes.  (Thick red
line is average profile)

Line shapes depend on the details of the convection overshooting and are revealed in the line bisectors.   Note: gravitational redshift is removed.

Sufficient resolution is necessary,
 
Small differences exist between synthetic and observed profiles for
strong FeI lines. These can be used to improve
the physics of the upper photosphere (and chromosphere).
How do we know the simulations converge to the real thing?
 
We are solving the right equations
 
The results satisfy a number of observational
constraints
 
Remaining differences are signature of missing
physics
Agreement with observations gives confidence in model of convection




entropy fluctuations in a downdraft (4.6 Mb movie)



vorticity in same downdraft (31 Mb movie)

Vorticity slices

Velocity slices