A Comparison Between Physics-based and Polytropic MHD Models for Stellar Coronae and Stellar Winds of Solar Analogs
Ofer Cohen

TL;DR
This paper compares physics-based and polytropic MHD models for stellar coronae and winds, showing that physics-based models better reproduce solar observations, while uncalibrated polytropic models may produce unphysical results.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis demonstrating the limitations of polytropic models and advocates for calibration with physics-based models or solar observations.
Findings
AWSOM model reproduces solar observations accurately
Polytropic models often fail to match observations
Uncalibrated polytropic models can produce unphysical results
Abstract
The development of the Zeeman-Doppler Imagine (ZDI) technique has provided synoptic observations of surface magnetic fields of low-mass stars. This led the Stellar Astrophysics community to adopt modeling techniques that have been used in solar physics using solar magnetograms. However, many of these techniques have been neglected by the solar community due to their failure to reproduce solar observations. Nevertheless, some of these techniques are still used to simulate the coronae and winds of solar analogs. Here we present a comparative study between two MHD models for the solar corona and solar wind. The first type of model is a polytropic wind model, and the second is the physics-based AWSOM model. We show that while the AWSOM model consistently reproduces many solar observations, the polytropic model fails to reproduce many of these observations and in the cases it does, its…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
