Investigates solar convection dynamics, revealing significant thermal mixing layers and plumes.
The solar convective conundrum — the order-of-magnitude discrepancy between helioseismically inferred deep convective velocities and those predicted by global simulations — has resisted resolution for over a decade. Three suspects have been proposed: missing physics, insufficient resolution, and the way simulations are configured. ReCon² addresses all three together in a single controlled programme, with the third element implemented through a novel staged column-relaxation strategy: solar convection is first developed in a narrow horizontal column, where large-scale unstable modes are geometrically excluded, then progressively expanded to production widths while carrying the equilibrated small-scale physics forward. This poster, presented at Cool Stars 23 (Tokyo, 15–19 June 2026), reports first-stage results from the cz_f25_d100 run: a 25 Mm wide column at Δx = 100 km finest resolution, with fully realistic physics (OPAL/FreeEOS equation of state with ionization, OP opacities and radiative diffusion in the interior, multi-bin short-characteristics radiative transfer at the surface, fully compressible MHD, entropy-based HLLS solver), initialized from rest. Horizontally-averaged entropy perturbation statistics over 300 hours of simulated time show a coherent thermal mixing layer descending ~140 Mm into the convection zone. The active layer is strongly negative-skewed (≤ −2) — the statistical signature of entropy rain (Käpylä 2025), indicating distributions dominated by narrow cold extremes. A compensating positive-skew layer at the leading edge marks warm material displaced by penetrating cold plumes, and discrete late-time arcs at z ≈ 480–540 Mm correspond to individual extreme plumes reaching ~200 Mm depth, exhibiting Käpylä's predicted "tree" morphology. A complementary photospheric kinetic-energy spectrum from an exploratory wider-box run shows that the surface convective physics matches established surface-tracking diagnostics within the box-resolved range.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Popovas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: