{"title":"High-accuracy estimation of magnetic field strength in the interstellar medium from dust polarization","authors":"R. Skalidis, K. Tassis","doi":"10.1051/0004-6361/202039779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dust polarization is a powerful tool for studying the magnetic field properties in the interstellar medium (ISM). However, it does not provide a direct measurement of its strength. Different methods havebeen developed which employ both polarization and spectroscopic data in order to infer the field strength. The most widely applied methods have been developed by Davis (1951), Chandrasekhar & Fermi (1953) (DCF), Hildebrand et al. (2009) and Houde et al.(2009) (HH09). They rely on the assumption that isotropic turbulent motions initiate the propagation of Alvfen waves. Observations,however, indicate that turbulence in the ISM is anisotropic and non-Alfvenic (compressible) modes may be important. Our goal is to develop a new method for estimating the field strength in the ISM, which includes the compressible modes and does not contradict the anisotropic properties of turbulence. We use simple energetics arguments that take into account the compressible modes to estimate the strength of the magnetic field. We derive the following equation: $B_{0}=\\sqrt{2 \\pi\\rho} \\delta v /\\sqrt{\\delta \\theta}$, where $\\rho$ is the gas density, $\\delta v$ is the rms velocity as derived from the spread of emission lines, and $\\delta \\theta$ is the dispersion of polarization angles. We produce synthetic observations from 3D MHD simulationsand we assess the accuracy of our method by comparing the true field strength with the estimates derived from our equation. We find a mean relative deviation of $17 \\%$. The accuracy of our method does not depend on the turbulence properties of the simulated model. In contrast DCF and HH09 systematically overestimate the field strength. HH09 produces accurate results only for simulations with high sonic Mach numbers.","PeriodicalId":8452,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Astrophysics of Galaxies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Astrophysics of Galaxies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22
Abstract
Dust polarization is a powerful tool for studying the magnetic field properties in the interstellar medium (ISM). However, it does not provide a direct measurement of its strength. Different methods havebeen developed which employ both polarization and spectroscopic data in order to infer the field strength. The most widely applied methods have been developed by Davis (1951), Chandrasekhar & Fermi (1953) (DCF), Hildebrand et al. (2009) and Houde et al.(2009) (HH09). They rely on the assumption that isotropic turbulent motions initiate the propagation of Alvfen waves. Observations,however, indicate that turbulence in the ISM is anisotropic and non-Alfvenic (compressible) modes may be important. Our goal is to develop a new method for estimating the field strength in the ISM, which includes the compressible modes and does not contradict the anisotropic properties of turbulence. We use simple energetics arguments that take into account the compressible modes to estimate the strength of the magnetic field. We derive the following equation: $B_{0}=\sqrt{2 \pi\rho} \delta v /\sqrt{\delta \theta}$, where $\rho$ is the gas density, $\delta v$ is the rms velocity as derived from the spread of emission lines, and $\delta \theta$ is the dispersion of polarization angles. We produce synthetic observations from 3D MHD simulationsand we assess the accuracy of our method by comparing the true field strength with the estimates derived from our equation. We find a mean relative deviation of $17 \%$. The accuracy of our method does not depend on the turbulence properties of the simulated model. In contrast DCF and HH09 systematically overestimate the field strength. HH09 produces accurate results only for simulations with high sonic Mach numbers.