Transcription
Two comments before I move on to the second part, based on chorus comments. The two maps I showed about the solar magnetic field for solar maximum; these were not magnetograms, which is the measurement of the magnetic field. This is a—this was a potential field extrapolation to several solar radii above the surface. So that's one comment. The other comment is that even though we reduce the galactic cosmic rays intensity for the accretion disk, we—we can have another component of energetic particles that come from the star. What we know is the solar energetic particles in the solar system, and these particles can actually—I know is more so it's a—it's a balancing thing.
So the second part is even more speculative than the first part, because the first—we know we can measure rotations of stars; we can measure activity level; we can have some observations of the magnetic fields. The second part will deal—will deal with stellar CMEs, and this is something that we shouldn't—essentially cannot measure at this point. So we're going to try to think together, maybe the—how coronal mass ejection change in time and in stellar evolution, or change in time. We can start with the 1960s, where CMEs were free and happy, and they had this—this was back in Batman. Then in the 1980s, they got this puffy haircut, and they—they changed both again. And of course, today they work on Wall Street and they have Alexes. So that's the same—in time.
Now, seriously speaking again, we're talking about CMEs and stellar evolution. So here are the questions we would like to ask: How do CMEs change with stellar evolution and the change in stellar activity? And we can divide these into two aspects: one is how the changes in the star affect the initiation of CMEs, and then how the change in the star changes the background at which the CMEs are propagating through. So how it affects the propagation of—of CMEs with the changes in the—or the astrospheres themselves. Now, observations: we have stellar flares, and we have solar flares that we can associate with CMEs, but that's all we have. So the goal of everything we're going to do is to essentially make assumptions, think about what may happen, and extrapolate relations that we know from the Sun to other stars. And this was mentioned already in previous talks.
The impact on CME initiation: the first thing that we can consider is that if we, as I mentioned in the last part, the concentration of magnetic activity is—is located at higher latitudes for young active stars. We know from the Sun that CMEs essentially come from the region of active regions where livid activity is concentrated. In the case of the Sun, is about 30 degrees from the equator or lower. But if we have this highly latitude activity, the same—and we assume that the same—are launched from that part—the same—we essentially—going polar trajectory, and they won't really exist in the—near the equator where, for example, planets are. So this is one thing we can think about it—or the—the CMEs launching in these young active stars. The other thing with respect to the initiation is the scaling of the magnetic fields with time. We know that younger—young stars are more active, probably because they have much faster rotation, so they have this excess of energy to boost the magnetic field overall. So we can think about these red lines as the overall stellar field, and you can think that the CMEs themselves—there are two options—or the one option is that they are not—they're not really scaled with this overall increase, and they're still coming from small-scale active regions like you see here, or they can be scaled accordingly, and they—they can be larger; they can be more energetic; and they carry—they can carry more magnetic flux. There's the consequences for these two scenarios is—it may be very different. For example, if the CMEs remain small, the overall field is boosted up, then the CMEs become less important in the context of the—conservator—the—the building up of the—if the astrospheric magnetic flux. Because in the case of the Sun during solar maximum, daily—is very—the holistic magnetic field magnitude goes up, and we think it happens because CMEs essentially adding more flux to the hemisphere, and then as we're approaching solar minimums, the number of CMEs is reduced, so the flux gets back to its—kind of what we call the floor value. And during the recent extended solar minimum, with an opportunity to really estimate this floor value, because there are essentially no CMEs at some point. CMEs can play a role in adding magnetic flux into the astrospheres, and if they're very small and weak, then they matter less. But if they're scaled just like the overall increase, then they still—we can still assume this relation between the overall flux and CME flux and investigate the evolution of the overall magnitude of the magnetic field in the—in the heliosphere or the astrosphere. The question is how, but what about CME speeds? We don't know. So if—if—if you assume that the same—are scaled with—with—with overall size and activity level, then they'll have more magnetic flux that probably will be more energetic. Now, the speed is a function of the initiation mechanism of the CME, not necessarily the kind of initial energy or—heavily available in the magnetic field, and I will show this in the next couple of slides. So it's more about how much energy you're actually storing the same way before you erupt it, then this—the size, for example, of the CME or the initial flux—work. Yes, what they deflect the flare, because that's because the—the CME speed is the kinetic energy of the CME, and the flare is the radiation energy, and they're tied to each other, and I will talk about it later. But so you can definitely relate the flare and the speed for the Sun—for solar CMEs, but to relate the size of the original CME to the speed is not necessarily linear, because the function of how much energy you actually store via the initiation mechanism. And wait, there's two more slides, and I'll discuss it. So that—this—the scaling of CMEs with overall increasing magnetic field is an open question. There it is.
How do we think CMEs are initiated? You can imagine a flux rope; it's a flux tube of magnetic field that is attached to the surface of the Sun. These are—this is a simulation of Young, Funk, and—sorry—Gibson from 2007. They're actually here at HAO, and we start big because we have motions on the surface that—these two field lines are—these two edges of the field—and attached to each other. You start to build up a twist in the magnetic field. You can imagine this slinky that you start to twist in two opposite directions with the two—it—two edges. So you build tension—the same with a rubber band; you build the tension in the magnetic field, and then probably the magic—the magical world of magnetic reconnection essentially cut this—this—this—this flux rope and release—help. We have a sudden release of this energy. Yeah, we need something to trigger the sudden eruption, but that—the point is that we had a slow storage of energy before we trigger this CME, and the higher the energy we store, that the larger or the stronger will be the CME we will be. Now, for fast rotating stars, again, we have this—as the—mutual tangling of the field in the corona. So we can imagine that CMEs—or flares—and now—a CME will generate a flare by a mechanism that we showed yesterday. Since you have particle acceleration at the top that falling back to the star—to the surface, and they hit it and emit x-rays in UV—image emissions. You can imagine different type of CME or eruption that is generated due to the—as strong as a mutual tangling of the magnetic field. So instead of storing the tension in the magnetic field by—via the—the tangling or the twisting, we actually have this stretching of the magnetic field in the mutual direction, and this is a map—idea from a simulation of—I did—of FK Commae. It's an F giant star—don't get me guaranteed for that; I'm not an astronomer. It's—it has also a fast rotation—about two days—and you can see this tangling of the magnetic field. This map shows the equatorial plane, and these are the regions where the tension—the magnetic tension is high. You can see it's clearly along this—this highly stretched loops in the mutual direction, and then we can store energy this way, and then again have some kind of trigger mechanism like reconnection or instabilities that will release another flare—CME and a flare. But this is a different mechanism than the traditional CME that we have on the Sun, and also these flares may be—I mean that the scale of these loops is the scale of the helmet streamers. These are the largest loops we have in a star, so we can store a lot of energy, and we can probably explain the very large flares with—with such a mechanism, because just because of the scale of the loop. Yeah. Yes, this is the magnetic tension here is defined by the B dot grad B term in the Lorentz force. This is the—in principle—this is the question was about the inclination of the CME. We cannot really—I mean if—when we see a stellar flare, we don't know where it comes from—what its inclination—we have no idea. Yeah, it's probably going to be centered near the equator, but again, you can have asymmetry in the magnetic field that will move it up or down, and of course, you have an overlying field on top of that, so the eruption is to go through an existent field, which is not necessarily symmetric.
Now let's talk about the propagation of CMEs and an evolution of CMEs and its dependence on the structure of the existing field, and again, as we talked about the stellar—the sturdiest referred field that is affected by the rotation and the magnetic field strengths, etc. So if we look at this young active stars—this is again a—bead—or this is a three-dimensional map of the magnetic field structure in the corona. This is the ZDI map of a bead—or that I obtained from Goethe, and this is the three-dimensional structure, and again, we have this highly tangled magnetic field in the corona. So what will that—that do to the magnetic—to—dare—to the—to the CMEs? Keep in mind that this—this tangled loops—first, they have more mass, so the CME has to go through more mass. There's a mutual field component—drops lower than the radial component, so the magnetic field of—along these field lines is stronger than a particular magnetic field strength if we would consider a radial field line. So the CME has to go through a stronger magnetic field and just more mass on the way, and I did a toy modeling of CME on a bead—or this is the equatorial plane for a solar radial field. If you just go zoom out, but here you can see it's kind of making its way—not sure where it's going—eventually it goes out, but—but it takes a longer time, and you can see there's a slowdown of the CME. It goes up instead of the opposite—same as usually—CMEs are accelerated in the low corona, but here it's actually slowed down. So the possible consequences are: slowdown CMEs will—this—we ever generate more shocks or less shocks in the heliosphere or the astrosphere? We don't know. And will that—this kind of CMEs will have consecutive or negative consequences of that on the transporter of galactic cosmic rays? What will this kind of CMEs will do to the overall structure of the—the astrosphere, and what will be the impact on the transport of particles in the atmosphere? We don't know.
Now let's talk about the role of CMEs instead of spin down in stellar evolution, and this was again discussed—both mentioned by Brian and Rachel. Here, I'll discuss it in a little bit more detailed—details. Again, this is the relation between age and rotation, which clearly shows the—skuenaged laws—it really clearly shows a spin down of solar analogues with time. There—when they—order their form—they're very fast—very—the rotation is very fast, and then it slows down to solar rotation or even less than that. Now we need to explain why it happens, and the most common explanation is again the concept of magnetic breaking—is the spin down of the star—break—magnetized wind. It was introduced by Weber and Davis in 1967. I think they were working in Boulder as well. Does that mean you don't—let's see—you should know. Okay, here's a story. This is the star; this is the Alfvén point; this is the collection of points where the wind speed exceeds the—they often—the local Alfvén speed. So all the field lines above this—this red circle—or open up to the hemisphere or the astrosphere. Now, within this—this region between the surface and there's this Alfvén—surface—surface—excuse me—we have a conservation of angular momentum. What—once the—the mass or the plasma reaches this open field lines, they're carried out by the stellar wind to the edge of the star system, and again, because they're following the field lines—the field line is so long that it applies torque on the star and spins it down. This mechanism works only if we're talking about long—long time—so we're talking about billions of years—that the lifetime of the star—it's not a short-term effect; it's a very long-term effect. And what Weber and Davis came up with this formula to estimate the—the spin down rate of a star, and you can see it depends on the rotation rate. This is the average distance of this Alfvén point—or A—and this is the mass loss rate of the star, and it is—Brian already mentioned—this is one of the reasons we care about M dots from other stars, because it's important for—oops—it's very important to define M dots in order to define the spin down rate of stars. It's very important ingredient for any stellar evolution model we have. So we need to know M dot, but we cannot measure M dot. We can indirectly measure it again using this hydrogen line measurements, but there are no direct measurements of M dot of cool stars or—it's all—or envelopes in that context. It's nice to mention the faint young paradox. How many of you have heard about this? Okay, whew, that's good. Here it is. The young Sun luminosity was about 30% less than the current days. So if you just calculate the luminosity of the Sun all the way to the Earth's, and you calculate the incoming solar flux, you get—and you calculate based on that the surface temperature in the Earth, it was below freezing. But with geological evidence is that for liquid water on the surface of the Earth. So we have a paradox; we need to explain what was the—the additional heating mechanism that occurred in the Earth to have liquid water on the surface where the surface temperature was above freezing. Yes, think—we're talking about a billion year—at 1 billion years old—maybe 700 million—yeah, it's the 3.8 billion years ago is roughly—yeah. And here is this—this is the famous Sagan and Mullen paper from 1972 where they introduced this—this paradox in the context of the atmosphere of Venus, and this—these products essentially started greenhouse gases heating in the atmosphere, and essentially what we call global warming nowadays, because the global greenhouse gas—I'll just move to the next slide. The solutions are greenhouse gases. So we can have gases in the atmosphere that lock the heat and increase the temperature. This is one way to solve this. As I mentioned before, there's some people who suggested that the reduction of galactic cosmic rays for the young Sun led to an overall increase in the temperature on the Earth, and that's the—explain that in our context or in the context of theory. So a mass loss rate—if the Sun was more massive by about 10% at the time, we do have no problem, because the luminosity is high enough—the temperature—the temperature is high enough. So one way to solve this problem is to show—or to demonstrate how can we have a more massive young Sun. So mass loss rates of cool stars, as shown before, ranges between 10 to the minus 15 to 10 to the minus 12 solar mass per year, and this is a pretty good—I think—range to—that—that we can know that it's—it's—this is the range we—we have. The solar mass loss rate—if we just take a Picasso in parameters at 1 AU—density of about five cubic centimeters—110 solar wind speed—450 to 600—and we just—into a—multiplied by 4 pi r 1 AU squared, we get the value of 2 to 3—so a 10 to the minus 14 solar mass per year. My brain showed a paper of mine from 1980—2012—11. I actually looked at many—many solar wind points data measurements over the—the heliosphere, and—and this is what we get. So this is a very good estimation overall. Now the question is what can we have from CMEs, because CMEs—is—they take mass from the star, right? So what's the rate of CME mass loss rate of the Sun? So we can get a rough estimation for that. Typical CMEs carried between 10 to the 13 to 10 to the 17 grams over the solar cycle. We have about half a CME per area during solar minimum—2 to 4—5 CMEs per day during a—during solar maximum. So we can assume an average of 2 to 3, and if we just multiply the CME rate by the CME mass and we divide by the number of seconds per day, we get a number of about 10 to the—to the 10 grams per second, and this translates to about 5—10 to the minus 16 solar mass per year, which is almost 2 orders of magnitude less than the ambient solar wind mass loss rate. So understand—CME mass loss rate—CMEs are very—it's not really important. But so that's—that's what we have. But what if the CME rate increases significantly for very young active sources? Can we have—can we get to the point that CME mass loss rate becomes significant? So we can do this estimation in a rather simple way, and the other data question that we need to ask—and I mentioned before—I'll do—to scale CMEs to other stars, and for that we can use again these relations that were developed for—between solar flares and solar CMEs. Gopalswamy—Gopalswamy, Shear, and also Alyssa Renault in recent years, they looked at GOES data for the x-ray flares—this 0 to 8 angstrom instrument that looks at the x-ray—and they took the CME mass from the LASCO instrument onboard SOHO, which measures the white light Thomson scattering from a white light in the corona. This is a—this is a measurement of the mass essentially. So they compare the masses—the mass of CMEs and their flare energy of CMEs, and they got this relation between the mass of a CME and the flare energy. Because the flare is what we can actually measure on other stars—that's—that's the relation we would like to get. Jeremy Drake—Gerald Drake et al.—this simple thing—it—they essentially based—were based on the same relations that I showed before, and they assume that the mass again is some part of the flare energy, and again this is the GOES flare image. It's important to mention it's not the total flare energy—or you can define their flare energy in different ways. This is the GOES flare energy, and again they got this relation with these coefficients, and here we just show the—the different—or you can also do the same with the kinetic energy of the CME and describe it also as a power law of the—the flare energy, and these plots show the distribution—or the scattering of these two—where the lines are—these two lines are the power laws that I show here. These—these power laws—what they show is very important—they show that the bulk energy of the CME is in the kinetic energy—the—the fraction of the—the flare energy in the CME is not more than 10%—or even much less than that. Yes, rich—yes, I mentioned again—yeah, it's the GOES flare—in it—but still the fraction of the flare energy is significantly lower than the actual kinetic energy of the CME—that's where most of the energy is—just like a car—and that's why we can't really see it in other stars because we cannot really see the CME itself. Okay, okay, fair enough, but it doesn't matter for—because here we have both—so we can have a scaling—a power law of the mass of the CME as a function of the flare. You can treat this is the stuff we can actually measure, so we can—
Get some expression for the mass, the kinetic energy, and from that we can, we can also scale, get a scaling law again based on solar series to relate the semi-rate to the flare energy, E. The way of that, and we can, from that we can get the total power in the CM E, which is just the integral of the particular flare energy overall flares. So now we can replace this D end with the ND E times the E and just plug in the scaling laws we had, and we get this expression here. Now we need to find a coefficient K. If you assume that, and this is a questionable assumption, but if we assume that the total power should equals to the total power in x-ray of the star, then we can define K as the total power or total x-ray luminosity LX times all the rest of it. And this is an assumption that is, it's tricky because it again, it depends on what bin you're looking at, whether you resolve all the x-ray emission or not.
Now, in addition, Kuppuswami Oshiro, they also defined the association fraction of the flare energy, and they call it F. This is a function that states what is the probability of a flare that we see to actually have a CME associated with it. And overall, yeah, so they also define this as the scaling law, but overall it says that if the energy of the flare is more than ten to the twenty-nine ergs, there is a guaranteed CME with that, so that's that the value of F is one. And then they have a scaling of the lower energies with this power law. So as we go to lower energies, we see only flares, but it's less likely to have a CME associated. So we need to take into account this probability in there overestimation of the mass loss rates that CME carried out because not all flares that we see actually have CME that goes away in X mass.
So with that function, we can state MDOT due to CM is, and it's the mass of the CME, which we know with, with the scaling law, times the probability that there is actually a CME there times the rate of the series, and we integrate it over all the energies we have in the x-ray or in the flare, in the flare energies, and we get this expression. It's long, but we, we know all this cough, what all these coefficients are, so we can essentially now estimate I am dot to CME oops, and the values are really high for younger, very active stars. You can see that this, the result is 10 to the minus 11 to 10 to the minus 10 a solar mass per year, and this is already one, one to ten percent of the total volumetric luminosity, so that's a lot. Iranian et al. we got even higher values of 10 to the -9, so these are very high mass loss rates, and it's worth to mention that most likely this scaling law breaks down at some point and they don't hold because of that, the fact that they which energy that is comparable with the dibala Matata bulla met with luminosity of the star. Here we're not talking about single CMEs that can be really energetic, but this is kind of a long-term integral over the CMEs, so we cannot get such a high level of energy only from CMEs. We don't have word - we don't have a place to bring this energy form, but so Drake et al. mentioned that most likely the upper limit is around this number, slightly higher than the, the large values of the, the ambient stellar winds that we think these stars have.
Rainy et al. also estimated the torque on the, on the star based on CMIs. So in the original form, this, this m dot would be the m dot of the stellar wind, they simply replace it with CMIs and, and, and got some estimates on that. My personal opinion about this work is that is probably not realistic again for, because the values are so high. Now, with respect to their strengths young paradox, this is an interesting result because you can think about CMEs in current days, they come from lower latitudes and they interact with that with, they can't, if they go in near the equator, this is where the maximum torque is applied on the star. So this way you can take mass loss, take mass from the star vs CMIs and also apply some torque, but if in octave, if we assume that inactive stars CMIs appear at high latitudes where the activity appears to, so oops, alright, went backwards. Okay, if the CMIs are launched at higher latitude, they can take all this mass away, but they don't take a lot of angular momentum because as, as we get closer to higher latitudes there, they torque in a decreases and goes to zero at the pole because there's a latitudinal dependence on, on the torque. So if we can take a lot of mass at high latitudes, this is a way to take a lot of mass from the Sun or from the star without losing angular momentum and maintain its activity level which is high for a long time. So with this we can explain how come this, the young Sun may was more massive and may, may, may was more massive and lost a lot of anger, a lot of mass without losing angular momentum for a long time, and it can explain the paradox in principle. I was in a meeting a few years ago about the think tanks on that your met geologic geologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and astrophysicist, and there was a lot of discussion about whether there is a paradox at all. There's a lot of debate about the actual evidence that raised this paradox, so it's still an ongoing work.
Okay, so the last part, the last thing I would like to mention is the effect of CMIs on closing planets, and this is a work I've been doing for some time now, and it's, it's exoplanet, of course, everybody excited about this, and, and you know there's a lot of interest in that as you all know, we found many, many exoplanets. The first, the first exoplanets around Souls main sequence star was discovered in 1995. It was a hot Jupiter, which are gas giants that are located very close to the planet to the star. Since then we, we found many of them, especially after the launch of the Kepler mission. Now we found hundreds of them, and indeed we still see many, many planets that reside extremely close to their host star, less than 0.1 AU from, from, from this star, and some of them reside essentially in the inside the corona. So the question is what is the space environment of around these, these planets, and what, what, what are the consequences of the close distance and CMIs as well? It's important because we need these stars need the magnetic field or some other mechanism to protect their atmosphere because the, the intensity of the stellar wind that distances is very high, mostly because the density is much higher, about three orders of magnitude higher than one AU, and this, this can apply a stripping force, and the atmospheres of these planets can be lost, and this we think that part of what happened to Mars in the past, part of the atmospheric atmospheric loss occurred because of this, the solar wind.
Now, with respect to CMIs, there was, there was a very little work done on this subject. So one of the only papers that were done by CUDA Chenko, I think in 2007, they scaled the, the CME mass to close this to the close distances of the planets they took, so CMIs and they took it there, they must the typical mass of a typical CME at Earth, and they just scaled the density down or up to get the density at closer distances of these DS, and this, these are the values of their, they look at range of mass of densities between N min and Max, and they simply took the, the famous expression to calculate the pressure balance between the magnetic field of a planet to the stellar wind. So the stellar wind dynamic pressure is the density times the mass times the stellar winds square, in this case it's their CMIs speed, and the same is speed they took it was a 500 km/s, it's typical for the Sun, even though this, this strong CMIs or over a thousand, so it's this a factor of two, and this is the expression for the distance of the magnetopause. This is the place where the magnetic field of the planet balances the dynamic pressure of the stellar wind, and it, it this M is the magnetic moment of the planet, and this is the dynamic pressure of the wind or the same in this case, and they calculate this, this, this distance for a different range of parameters for the, the CMIs and the planets, and this is the distance from this I of the planet from the star, and this is the, the mass of the, of the star of the planet. No, this is now this is the stellar mass, you're right, and this is that there's the habitable zone. If we only consider that the luminosity of the star in the distance, so you have the luminosity coming all the way to the, to the top of the atmosphere for the star, we can calculate what is the right temperature, and we can define a range of distances where we can have a not too hot and not too cold temperature, we call it the habitable zone. So this is there, this shade here is the habitable zone. However, they show that essentially all this region, the magnetic poles of the planet, assuming a particular given magnetic field is very compressed and it reaches almost all the way to the top of the atmosphere, so there's a poor protection of these, the atmospheres of these planets, even though they're residing there in the habitable zone according only to the radiation. So this is one way to demonstrate why the space environment matters for habitability.
I did a simulation of a CME heating and a closing planet. You can see here, this is the star, the same is represented by this white shade, and the magnetosphere of the planet is represented by this blue shade. These are magnetic fields of the star and the planet, and you can see that the same essentially blows off most of the magnetosphere. This planet resides at about 10 stellar radii, so imagine a planet that sits 10 solar radii from the Sun and is hit by a CME, and here I show there, and on the right, this is a prediction of the aurora on this planet, and you can see it's all over the place, it's not confined to high latitudes like in the Earth case, so the stripping of the magnetosphere is very significant here. And another thing I looked at is there, oops, that was ferric protection, so I calculated the mass flux in on spheres around the planet in three different distances, to one and a half planetary radii above the surface, and essentially a negative value representing an influx of the CME to this, to the planet. Well, if we don't have negative values, it means that there is a good protection, the CME doesn't penetrate all the way to this sphere, and you can see for that, for a half a Gauss field, which is roughly the Earth's field, airspeed is 0.3 Gauss, there is a strong current penetration at two plan two radii, but there's almost no penetration at one planetary radii above the surface, so this is about 6,000, 6,500 kilometers above the surface. If we, the planetary field is stronger, one Gauss, which is roughly Jupiter's Phill Jupitus 4, you can see that even at 2, the penetration is very weak. You can see here it goes all the way to 60, but here it's 2, so it's significantly reduced by the magnet increase of the magnetic field. So magnetic fields and of planets are very important for the discussion of the beat ability because without magnetic fields, most likely these planets don't want sustain their atmosphere, and they must have a magnetic field to sustain the atmosphere, and it's important to determine what are the magnetic fields of planets.
You know another difference that I would like to stress in this kind of clothing planet and CMEs, there are two things: these planets, their orbital motion is very fast, their orbital period is sometime 2 or 3 days, something of the order of 150 kilometers per second orbital speed, and you can see that before the CME hits the planet, the magnetosphere structure is, is, is azimuthal, almost as the motor as if it's like a comet trail, and that's the result of the, the fast orbital motion, but as the CME hits the planet, you can see that there is a transition of the whole structure of the magnetic of the magnetosphere by almost 90 degrees, and the transition between here and here occurred in the simulation within about half an hour, it's very fast, and what happens to a magnetic field when you move, you, you change it, what's the BDT make electric field and current, so this only this change can drive a lot of energy and currency into the ionosphere of these planets, so it's something to continue to study. The other thing I would like to stress is that look at the size of this CME in the planet, they're comparable in size, right? This is the same year, the Earth, the Earth's magneto, magnetosphere, not the Earth, the Earth's magnetosphere is this dark point, so the CME doesn't care about it, it's just, just move, but here because that the two bodies do, the two bodies are similar in size, the CME is highly affected by this interaction unlike the Earth's case. So this is another thing to, to keep in mind that for closing planets, the CME isn't, they evolved enough and grow in size that it can be highly affected by the planets, and this may have consequences for the whole structure of the lizard because as I mentioned before, CMIs it flux in today to the, to the Astros fears over time, and if we break them apart during to the very early stages of the CMIs, it can have consequences, and with that respect, and here I just showed the equatorial plane and the same, the simulation of the same, it is after 20 minutes, 1 hour, 1, 1 hour and 20 minutes and 3 hours. You can see this is the initial CME is it approaching the planet, you can see again this coma to commit like tail of the planet, and you can see that the CME breaks by this interaction, so this is another thing that I would like to highlight in this. So there's a lot of work to do on exoplanets and space physics essentially in the context, in the context of what is the space environment of exoplanets and what their role in planet Abbott ability, which is the main driver for this whole field of excellence, and I think yeah, okay, so I'll just wrap up, thanks. This is essentially things that we can get improvements with in the near future.
So we have to keep in mind again, astrophysics is very limited in data comparing to illu physics. We know much less than what we know in space physics. As I mentioned before, we've a growing amount of zimmerit Doppler imaging maps that give us information at least on the large scale distribution of magnetic fields of other stars, and we can use these maps to drive our models and, and, and study these systems in detail. Stellar winds from cool stars, we need more observations so we can have better constraints, what's taller winds of solar analogues actually are, and Stellos CMIs, this is an ongoing research subject. We need more flare data, and there are very recent attempts to again, as Jeff mentioned, to observe radio signals from, from CMIs in other stars and type 2 radio bursts etc., and we need to determine what are the magnetic fields of exoplanets, what they're likely are based on where they are and where they're formed because that's an important ingredient, ingredient in habitability. And the last thing I would like to you to keep in mind is that the only proxy for stars we have, real proxy is the Sun. The Sun is a star, and we need to treat the Sun as a star for some things, but it's even more important to look at other stars as if they're the Sun, because wherever a lot of, I'm not talking about data, there were a lot of information about the Sun that is not applied to other stars. People don't view other stars as the Sun, including all this information we already have from this notice the Sun, the heels for the solar wind, it's all important components of, of stellar physics, and we need to keep in mind that the sign, we know a lot about the Sun, so just take that and implement that in astrophysics, and I think that's it [Applause]. The space environment, or planetary environment if you like, yeah, this is the medium work, so people consider planet formation based on the disk environment when from then once the planets formed, they don't take into account the environment anymore usually, but it's still there and it has an impact, so I think people should account for that more in, in astrophysics research. Yep, yeah, of course. So the question was the with respect to the open versus closed magnetic flux in stars in the context of the mass loss rate, the seller activity indicators that we have come from the close flux, the closed loops that get hot and emit x-rays and UV etc., the mass loss rate or the mass loss occurs or along open fuel lines. Now, in the Sun, what we know is that over the cycle the open flux almost doesn't change much, well the close flux changes by order of magnitude or even more, and that's very consistent with the continuous or the, the, the pretty continuous value we see of the mass loss in the solar wind measurements. So the point is that first, you may be, it's you know, the, the indicators that we have for activity are not very good indicators for the mass loss because they're maybe they're not related to each other. The other point is that based on their, again based on the solar observation that the mass loss and they're open flux are rather constant over the solar cycle, maybe that suggests that these two parameters may be a fundamental parameters of a star, and then the question is to what other parameters that you can measure you can relate them, like stellar potential, well gravitational well, the ambient magnetic weak magnetic field that you see all over the, the quiet Sun like the salt and pepper kind of small-scale field, you can probably relate these two parameters to these observed or measured parameters and treat them as if there are like fundamental properties of the star. So the CME, CME as it propagates into the hemisphere, it, it goes through what we believe and we call the interchange reconnection. So at some point it will get to a kind of a balance between the open flux, it will be open there as well, but it will add magnetic flux in today, today a leaf spirit flux, so that, that's how you increase the lyric flux your during solar maximum, you push more CMEs with new flux that is emerging today from, from the surface into daily sphere, you open them up and you increase the overall flux. So eventually this mass is kind of assimilated in the, in the hilly sphere. Does anyone have an idea? I can rephrase the question. I can refer, rephrase the questions. We said that giant stars are not solar analogue, they have different wings, different corona, why we care about this giant, that's