Prominences: The Key to Understanding Solar Activity

Prominences are spectacular manifestations of both quiescent and eruptive solar activity. The largest examples can be seen with the naked eye during eclipses, making prominences among the first solar features to be described and catalogued. Steady improvements in temporal and spatial resolution from both ground- and space-based instruments have led us to recognize how complex and dynamic these majestic structures really are. Their distinguishing characteristics - cool knots and threads suspended in the hot corona, alignment along inversion lines in the photospheric magnetic field within highly sheared filament channels, and a tendency to disappear through eruption - offer vital clues as to their origin and dynamic evolution. Interpreting these clues has proven to be contentious, however, leading to fundamentally different models that address the basic questions: What is the magnetic structure supporting prominences, and how does so much cool, dense plasma appear in the corona? Despite centuries of increasingly detailed observations, the magnetic and plasma structures in prominences are poorly known. Routine measurements of the vector magnetic field in and around prominences have become possible only recently, while long-term monitoring of the underlying filament-channel formation process also remains scarce. The process responsible for prominence mass is equally difficult to establish, although we have long known that the chromosphere is the only plausible source. As I will discuss, however, the motions and locations of prominence material can be used to trace the coronal field, thus defining the magnetic origins of solar eruptions. A combination of observations, theory, and numerical modeling must be used to determine whether any of the competing theories accurately represents the physics of prominences. I will discuss the criteria for a successful prominence model, compare the leading models, and present in detail one promising, comprehensive scenario for prominence formation and evolution that could answer the two questions posed above

CME Initiation and Reconnection

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are the most massive explosions in the heliosphere, and the primary drivers of geoeffective space weather. This talk will be focused on fast CMEs, which travel at Alfvenic speeds as high as 2500 km/s. These ejections are associated with solar flares, prominence eruptions, and energetic particles accelerated near the Sun and in interplanetary space. CMEs require sufficient energy storage, in the form of magnetic stress, and rapid release of this energy. Although it is generally agreed that magnetic reconnection is the key to fast CME initiation, different models incorporate reconnection in different ways. One promising model --- the breakout scenario --- involves reconnection in two distinct yet interconnected locations: breakout reconnection ahead of the CME, and flare reconnect ion behind it. This model has been validated through 2D and 3D MHD simulations and favorable comparison with the observed properties of many fast CMEs. I will discuss what we have learned about the onset and evolution of breakout and flare reconnect ion from recent high-resolution 2D simulations of CME initiation with adaptive mesh refinement and numerical resistivity

Prominence Mass Supply and the Cavity

A prevalent but untested paradigm is often used to describe the prominence-cavity system: the cavity is under-dense because it is evacuated by supplying mass to the condensed prominence. The thermal non-equilibrium (TNE) model of prominence formation offers a theoretical framework to predict the thermodynamic evolution of the prominence and the surrounding corona. We examine the evidence for a prominence-cavity connection by comparing the TNE model with diagnostics of dynamic extreme ultraviolet emission (EUV) surrounding the prominence, specifically prominence horns. Horns are correlated extensions of prominence plasma and coronal plasma which appear to connect the prominence and cavity. The TNE model predicts that large-scale brightenings will occur in the SDO/AIA 171\AA\ bandpass near the prominence that are associated with the cooling phase of condensation formation. In our simulations, variations in the magnitude of footpoint heating lead to variations in the duration, spatial scale, and temporal offset between emission enhancements in the other EUV bandpasses. While these predictions match well a subset of the horn observations, the range of variations in the observed structures is not captured by the model. We discuss the implications of our one-dimensional loop simulations for the three-dimensional time-averaged equilibrium in the prominence and the cavity. Evidence suggests that horns are likely caused by condensing prominence plasma, but the larger question of whether this process produces a density-depleted cavity requires a more tightly constrained model of heating and better knowledge of the associated magnetic structure

Explaining Warm Coronal Loops

One of the great mysteries of coronal physics that has come to light in the last few years is the discovery that warn (- 1 INK) coronal loops are much denser than expected for quasi-static equilibrium. Both the excess densities and relatively long lifetimes of the loops can be explained with bundles of unresolved strands that are heated impulsively to very high temperatures. Since neighboring strands are at different stages of cooling, the composite loop bundle is multi-thermal, with the distribution of temperatures depending on the details of the "nanoflare storm." Emission hotter than 2 MK is predicted, but it is not clear that such emission is always observed. We consider two possible explanations for the existence of over-dense warm loops without corresponding hot emission: (1) loops are bundles of nanoflare heated strands, but a significant fraction of the nanoflare energy takes the form of a nonthermal electron beam rather then direct plasma heating; (2) loops are bundles of strands that undergo thermal nonequilibrium that results when steady heating is sufficiently concentrated near the footpoints. We present numerical hydro simulations of both of these possibilities and explore the observational consequences, including the production of hard X-ray emission and absorption by cool material in the corona

On the need for International Solar Terrestrial Program Next (ISTPNext)

AGS-1845151 - National science foundation; national science foundationhttps://hal.science/hal-04289274/documentPublished versio

More is not always better: The impact of value co‐creation fit on B2B and B2C customer satisfaction

Organizations increasingly rely on customer involvement in the value creation process (i.e., co-creation) to enhance customer satisfaction and differentiate themselves from competitors. While past research has largely indicated that more co-creation is beneficial, some have suggested yet not empirically validated that excess co-creation may negatively impact customers. Applying the service-dominant logic, two studies (B2B and B2C customers) offer insight into the appropriate levels of the co-production and value-in-use dimensions of co-creation. For both B2B and B2C customers, polynomial regression and surface plot analyses indicate an inverted U-shaped relationship between value co-creation and satisfaction, establishing that more co-creation is beneficial only up to a point. As such, we inform managers of factors that can cause the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction to peak and then turn negative. Further, customer expertise and process enjoyment moderate this relationship for B2C (but not B2B) customers, thereby offering ways to mitigate the negative effects of excess co-creation for end-customers. The studies also highlight the importance of value co-creation “fit” between the customer\u27s expected and experienced levels of co-creation. Interestingly, positive misfit (i.e., excess co-creation) retains a stronger negative influence on customer satisfaction than negative misfit (i.e., insufficient co-creation) for both B2B and B2C customers