REVIEW 1 cited by
On measuring divergence for magnetic field modeling
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
A physical magnetic field has a divergence of zero. Numerical error in constructing a model field and computing the divergence, however, introduces a finite divergence into these calculations. A popular metric for measuring divergence is the average fractional flux $\langle |f_{i}| \rangle$. We show that $\langle |f_{i}| \rangle$ scales with the size of the computational mesh, and may be a poor measure of divergence because it becomes arbitrarily small for increasing mesh resolution, without the divergence actually decreasing. We define a modified version of this metric that does not scale with mesh size. We apply the new metric to the results of DeRosa et al. (2015), who measured $\langle |f_{i}| \rangle$ for a series of Nonlinear Force-Free Field (NLFFF) models of the coronal magnetic field based on solar boundary data binned at different spatial resolutions. We compute a number of divergence metrics for the DeRosa et al. (2015) data and analyze the effect of spatial resolution on these metrics using a non-parametric method. We find that some of the trends reported by DeRosa et al. (2015) are due to the intrinsic scaling of $\langle |f_{i}| \rangle$. We also find that different metrics give different results for the same data set and therefore there is value in measuring divergence via several metrics.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Nonlinear Nonlocal: Comparing A. O. Barut's Theory to Mine with special emphasis on That Dot on the Screen
Barut's nonlinear self-energy term and the author's wavefunction energy term are shown to differ in distance behavior, and the author argues Barut's theory cannot explain single events.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.