- 1Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
- 2School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
- 3Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs), which carry time features and plasma characteristics of flare emissions, are frequently observed in light curves of solar/stellar flares. In this study, we investigated non-stationary QPPs associated with recurrent jets during an M1.2 flare on 2022 July 14. A quasi-period of
1 Introduction
Quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) observed in solar/stellar flares usually appear as temporal intensity oscillations of electromagnetic radiation (see, Kupriyanova et al., 2020; Zimovets et al., 2021b, and references therein). They are frequently identified as a series of repetitive but irregular pulsations with anharmonic and symmetric triangular shapes, referring to non-stationary QPPs (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2019). The observation of QPPs has been reported in flare time series over a broad range of wavelengths, ranging from radio/microwave emissions through ultraviolet (UV) and white light wavelengths to soft and hard X-ray (SXR/HXR) channels and even in the γ-ray emission (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2010a; Tan et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017b; Milligan et al., 2017; Kashapova et al., 2021; Kolotkov et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Zhang Q. et al., 2022; Doyle et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). Generally, a typical QPP should be at least three successive and complete pulsations. There is no reason to talk about the QPP behavior if there are only one or two pulsations, which might be just a coincidence, for instance, the similar time interval between successive pulsations occurred by chance (Nakariakov et al., 2019). The characteristic time of all pulsations in one QPP event is expected to be the same, which can be regarded as the period. However, the characteristic time of these pulsations could be varied, indicating the irregular nature of flare QPPs. Thus, they often show the variation of quasi-periods (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2018). In observations, the quasi-periods of flare QPPs are found to vary from a fraction of seconds to a few dozens of minutes (Tan et al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2013; Ning, 2014; Mészárosová et al., 2016; Kolotkov et al., 2018; Hayes et al., 2020; Karlický et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2021; Bate et al., 2022).
It has been accepted that the quasi-periods of flare QPPs are often related to their generation mechanisms (Kupriyanova et al., 2020). The short-period (i.e.,
Solar jets, which often show columnar and beam-like structures, are usually associated with solar flares, type III radio bursts, and filament eruptions (Shibata et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2011; Paraschiv et al., 2015; Raouafi et al., 2016). They can be observed everywhere on the Sun, such as active regions, quiet-Sun regions, and coronal holes (Brueckner and Bartoe, 1983; Shen, 2021). The recurrent jets, which always reveal ejected plasmas repeatedly and have the same base source (Tian et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2019), become a topic of particular interest because they could be associated with flare QPPs (Ning et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022), fast-mode EUV waves, and quasi-periodic fast-propagating (QFP) magnetosonic waves (Shen et al., 2018d,a). The observed QFP waves often consist of multiple concentric and coherent wavefronts, termed as ‘QFP wave trains,’ and they are produced successively within periods of dozens of seconds or a few minutes near the epicenter of the accompanying flares (Shen et al., 2022b,a). Sometimes, the quasi-periods of QFP wave trains are quite similar to those of associated flare QPPs, implying that the two different phenomena might manifest the two different aspects of the same physical process, that is, the pulsed energy release via repeating magnetic reconnection (Liu et al., 2011; Shen and Liu, 2012; Shen et al., 2013, 2018b; Kolotkov et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2022). On the other hand, some quasi-periods of QFP wave trains are completely unassociated with those of flare QPPs, indicating that the periodicity of QFP wave trains is diverse and could not be associated with flare QPPs (Shen et al., 2018c, 2019). Therefore, the relationship between flare QPPs and QFP wave trains still needs in-depth investigation (Shen et al., 2022b).
The observed QPPs could provide the time feature and plasma characteristic of flare emissions, which are helpful for diagnosing plasma properties on the Sun or Sun-like stars, especially at the flare location (Pugh et al., 2019; Zimovets I. V. et al., 2021). When considering that flare QPPs are modulated by MHD waves, they might potentially lead to coronal heating through dissipation of those waves (Reale et al., 2019; Van Doorsselaere et al., 2020; White and Verwichte, 2021; Li et al., 2022). Moreover, they can allow us to map coronal magnetic fields and estimate plasma parameters in the corona, named as ‘coronal seismology’ (e.g., Yang et al., 2020; Anfinogentov et al., 2022). In this study, we report multi-wavelength observations of the flare QPP associated with recurrent jets, and the flare QPP is also found at two opposite footpoints connected by a hot flare loop seen in AIA 94 Å images. Our measurements suggest that the flare QPP could be interpreted as a kink-mode MHD wave of the flare loop.
2 Observations
On 2022 July 14, a solar flare occurred in the active region NOAA 13058 (N15E81), which was close to the solar limb and erupted after a group of recurrent jets. It was simultaneously observed by several space-based telescopes, such as the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite X-ray Sensor (GOES/XRS; Hanser and Sellers, 1996), the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM; Meegan et al., 2009), the Gravitational Wave High-Energy Electromagnetic Counterpart All-sky Monitor (GECAM; Xiao et al., 2022), the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) and the Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE; Woods et al., 2012) on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO; Pesnell et al., 2012), and the ground-based radio telescope, that is, the Nobeyama Radio Polarimeters (NoRP; Nakajima et al., 1985), as shown in Table 1; Figure 1. It should be pointed out that all light curves expected for GOES have been multiplied by a factor, so that they can be well displayed in a same window.
FIGURE 1. Overview of the solar flare on 2022 July 14. (A) Full-disk light curves from 04:05 UT to 04:55 UT recoded by GOES (black), EVE/ESP (red), Fermi/GBM (cyan), GECAM (blue), and NoRP (magenta). The local light curve in AIA 94 Å (green), which is integrated over the flare region in panel (C). (B,C) Snapshot with a FOV of 90”×90″ captured by SDO/AIA at wavelengths of 304 Å and 94 Å. Two cyan lines outline the slit (S1) that contains the solar jets, and the magenta lines mark two slits (S2 and S3) across double footpoints. The color symbols of ‘*’ indicate their beginning points, and the black curve represents the solar limb.
GOES/XRS (Hanser and Sellers, 1996; Loto’aniu et al., 2017) is used to monitor the full-disk solar irradiance at SXR channels with a time cadence of 1 s, particularly for monitoring the flare emission, as shown by the black line in Figure 1A. According to the GOES 1–8 Å flux, the solar flare was identified as an M1.2 class, it began at ∼04:22 UT, reached its maximum at about 04:31 UT, and stopped at ∼04:40 UT. The gold line shows the derivative flux at GOES 1–8 Å. The EUV SpectroPhotometer (ESP; Didkovsky et al., 2012) for SDO/EVE could also provide the SXR flux at 1–70 Å with a time cadence of 0.25 s, as indicated by the red line. The SXR light curves observed by GOES and ESP match well with each other, and they both show double peaks before the onset time of the M1.2 flare, that is, from 04:16 UT to 04:20 UT, as indicated by the black arrow. They might be a candidate for the flare precursor.
Fermi/GBM can provide the solar irradiance that is integrated over the whole Sun at both SXR and HXR channels. The temporal cadence is commonly 0.256 s, but it becomes 0.064 s automatically during solar flares (Meegan et al., 2009). Thus, we first interpolate them into a uniform temporal resolution of 0.256 s before analyzing and such a temporal resolution is sufficient to study the flare QPP with a quasi-period of tens of seconds (cf. Li et al., 2015; Ning, 2017). Figure 1A draws the Fermi/GBM light curve at 11.5–102.4 keV, as shown by the cyan curve, which is measured by the n5 detector. GECAM is designed to detect and localize high-energy transients, such as gamma-ray bursts and solar flares. It consists of 25 gamma-ray detectors (GRDs), which are used to detect the X-ray and γ-ray radiation (Xiao et al., 2022). Figure 1A shows the solar flux at 25–120 keV (blue) during the M1.2 flare with a uniform temporal cadence of 0.5 s, the GRD numbers and their averaged incident angles for each GRD used in this study are listed in Table 2. Both Fermi/GBM and GECAM/GRD light curves show double peaks between 04:16 UT and 04:20 UT, similar to what have been seen in SXR fluxes recorded by GOES/XRS and SDO/EVE/ESP.
The M1.2 flare was also observed by NoRP at the radio/microwave emission with a temporal cadence of 1 s, as shown by the magenta line in Figure 1A. It matches well with the GOES 1–8 Å derivative flux, indicating the Neupert effect during the M1.2 flare (cf. Neupert, 1968). The microwave flux also reveals several successive sub-peaks during the flare impulsive phase, similar to what was observed in the Fermi (cyan) and GECAM (blue) light curves, which could be regarded as QPPs. On the other hand, we do not see the small peak before the M1.2 flare in the NoRP light curve. So, it is impossible to determine a flare precursor here. Fortunately, SDO/AIA can provide full-disk spatial-resolved maps in seven EUV and two UV wavelength bands. The spatial scale for each AIA map is 0.6″ per pixel, and the temporal cadence is 12 s for EUV maps. Before analyzing, all the AIA maps have been preprocessed by ‘aia_prep.pro’ (Lemen et al., 2012). Figure 1 (B–C) presents AIA maps with a sub-field of about 90”×90” at 304 Å and 94 Å, respectively. A group of jets can be seen in the AIA 304 Å map (see also the animation. mp4), as outlined by two cyan lines. In order to cover the bulk of these jets as much as possible during their lifetime, we used a constant width of about 15″. The base of jets is close to one flare ribbon in AIA 304 Å maps. A post-flare loop can be seen in the AIA 94 Å map, and two pairs of magenta lines with a width of about 3″″ are used to outline double footpoints (or loop legs). Finally, the light curve at AIA 94 Å is integrated from the flare region, as indicated by the green line in Figure 1A. We cannot see the small peak during ∼04:16–04:20 UT before the flare onset. Thus, we can conclude that the small double peaks (indicated by the black arrow) in SXR/HXR channels are not identified as the flare precursor (e.g., Dudík et al., 2016; Benz et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018a, 2020b).
3 Results and discussions
3.1 Multi-wavelength observations of flare QPP
The small double peaks before the M1.2 flare seen in SXR/HXR fluxes cannot be regarded as the flare precursor, because they are not homologous with the flare source, as shown in Figure 1. Herein, only the successive sub-peaks seen in HXR and microwave emissions during the flare impulsive (i.e., ∼04:27–04:32 UT) are investigated in this study. Figure 2 presents HXR light curves at GECAM 25–120 keV (black), Fermi 11.5–26.6 keV (magenta), and 26.6–102.4 keV (cyan). They appear to be characterized by several small-amplitude sub-peaks superimposed on the large-amplitude pulse. These sub-peaks with small amplitudes are successive and could be regarded as QPPs, while the main pulse with the large amplitude can be regarded as a strong background trend. The vertical lines indicate seven sub-peaks from roughly 04:27:50 UT to about 04:32:20 UT, and the average duration is 45 s, corresponding to a quasi-period of 45 s. We also note that some sub-peaks might not be very clear in the raw light curve, largely due to their small amplitudes. Using a smooth window of 60 s (Nakariakov et al., 2010a; Yuan et al., 2011; Li et al., 2015; Li and Chen, 2022), the raw light curve is decomposed into two components: a rapidly varying component (QPP) and a slowly varying component (background). Thereby, the shorter-period oscillation (i.e, 45-s QPP) is enhanced, while the long-period background trend is suppressed (see Kupriyanova et al., 2010; Gruber et al., 2011; Auchère et al., 2016, for the discussion of this method). The overplotted blue dashed lines represent the slowly varying components, and the rapidly varying components are shown in panel (B). Obviously, the rapidly varying components are dominated by the QPP feature, that is, some repetitive but irregular pulsations, as marked by the vertical lines. They match well with the successive sub-peaks seen in the raw light curves, indicating that the smooth method only enhances the short-period oscillation, but does not change it. Therefore, these repetitive but irregular pulsations could be regarded as the signature of non-stationary QPPs (cf. Nakariakov et al., 2019), and they cannot be the artifact of smoothing (cf. Li et al., 2021). Here, the modulation depth of flare QPPs, which is regarded as the ratio between rapidly varying components and the maximum value of slowly varying components, is roughly equal to 10–25%. This result is consistent with previous findings for flare QPPs in HXR emissions (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2010a; Li and Chen, 2022).
FIGURE 2. X-ray light curves of the M1.2 flare. (A) Normalized HXR/SXR fluxes recorded by GECAM (black) and Fermi/GBM (magenta and cyan), the overlaid dashed lines are their slowly varying components. (B) Corresponding rapidly varying components that are normalized to their maximum slow-varying components. The vertical lines indicate HXR peaks during the solar flare.
Next, the Morlet wavelet analysis method is applied to the rapidly varying components at Fermi 11.5–26.6 keV and GECAM 25–120 keV, as shown in Figure 3. Based on the Parseval’s theorem for wavelet analysis (Torrence and Compo, 1998), the wavelet power has been normalized, which could provide the conservation of total energy signals under the wavelet transform, and then obtain a distribution of the spectral power across wavelet periods. Panels (A1) and (B1) show the wavelet power spectra, and they both exhibit an enhanced power over a wide range in almost the same time interval from about 04:27:50 UT to 04:32:20 UT, indicating a flare QPP within large uncertainties. The bulk of the power spectrum (at the confidence level of 99%) is dominated by a quasi-period centered at ∼45 s. The dominant period of ∼45 s is confirmed by the global wavelet power spectrum, as shown in panels (A2) and (B2). From which, a significant peak at about 45 s is seen in the global wavelet power spectrum. On the other hand, the period uncertainty of ±10 s could be determined by the full width at the half-maximum value of the peak global power above the 99% confidence level (as performed by Yuan et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020c).
FIGURE 3. Wavelet analysis results of the rapidly varying components in Figure 2. (A1,A2) The wavelet power spectrum and global wavelet power at Fermi 11.5 − 26.6 keV. (B1,B2) The wavelet power spectrum and global wavelet power at GECAM 25 − 120 keV. The magenta lines indicate the significance level of 99%, and the red curve outline a confidence interval.
The flare QPP with a quasi-period of about 45 ± 10 s is seen in the HXR radiation observed by Fermi and GECAM. However, the Fermi flux at 11.5–26.6 keV might consist of SXR and HXR components. In order to know if the flare QPP could be found in the SXR emission, we then performed the Morlet wavelet analysis on SXR light curves at GOES 1–8 Å and ESP 1–70 Å, as shown in Figure 4. Panels (A1) and (B1) present the raw SXR light curves (black) and their slowly varying components (dashed blue) after applying a smooth window of 60 s. It should be pointed out that the slowly varying components have been multiplied by 0.95 to avoid overlap with the raw light curves (cf. Ning et al., 2022). Panels (A2) and (B2) plot the corresponding rapidly varying components, which are characterized by a series of successive pulsations. The modulation depth of SXR radiation is only about 0.4–0.6%, which is much smaller than that of HXR emissions. This is consistent with previous observations, for instance, the flare SXR emission often reveals the small-amplitude oscillation, while the HXR QPP usually has a large amplitude (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2010a; Ning, 2017; Li et al., 2020d; Ning et al., 2022). Panels (A3) and (B3) show the Morlet wavelet power spectra of rapidly varying components. They both reveal an enhanced power at the period center of about 45 s over a time interval from roughly 04:27 UT to 04:31 UT, suggesting a dominant period of ∼45 s, similarly to what was observed in HXR QPPs.
FIGURE 4. Morlet wavelet analysis results in SXR wavelengths. (A1,B1) Normalized SXR fluxes observed by GOES 1 − 8 Å and ESP 1 − 70 Å, the overlaid dashed lines are their slowly varying components, after multiplication by 0.95. (A2,B2) The corresponding rapidly varying components, which are normalized to their maximum slow-varying components. (A3,B3) Morlet wavelet power spectra of the rapidly varying components. The magenta lines indicate the significance level of 99%.
Figure 5 presents the Morlet wavelet analysis on radio fluxes at frequencies of NoRP 2 GHz (A1–A3) and 3.75 GHz (B1–B3). Using the same smooth window of 60 s, the raw light curves (black) are decomposed into slowly (dashed blue) and rapidly varying components (A2–B2). The modulation depth of radio QPPs is estimated to be about 1–2%, which is larger than that of SXR QPPs but is still smaller than that of HXR QPPs. We also note that only three or four successive pulsations appear in radio fluxes, which are less than those in HXR fluxes. On the other hand, the same quasi-period centered at ∼45 s is seen in the wavelet power spectrum, which agrees with the 45-s QPP observed by Fermi, GECAM, GOES, and EVE/ESP. The same quasi-period of 45 s is simultaneously detected in SXR, HXR, and microwave emissions during the impulsive phase of the M1.2 flare, suggesting that the 45-s QPP seen at multiple wavelengths should originate from the same process of energy release, that is, the repetitive magnetic reconnection.
FIGURE 5. Similar to Figure 4, but the Morlet wavelet analysis is performed for radio fluxes at frequencies of NoRP 2 and 3.75 GHz.
The flare QPP could be observed at multiple wavelengths of HXR, SXR, and microwave emissions, suggesting that the 45-s QPP simultaneously appears in both the non-thermal and thermal emissions. In other words, the non-thermal and thermal processes could coexist during the M1.2 flare (e.g., Warmuth and Mann, 2016; Li et al., 2020c; Ning et al., 2022). The 45-s QPP observed in the thermal emission at SXR wavelengths may share the same origin as the QPP feature seen in the non-thermal emission at HXR and microwave channels. The M1.2 flare showed the Neupert effect (Figure 1), which is a plasma heating via energy releasing through electron beams (Neupert, 1968; Ning, 2008, 2009). The flare QPP observed at multiple wavelengths is most likely to be associated with the non-thermal process, that is, the periodically accelerated electron beams via the repetitive magnetic reconnection (e.g., Li et al., 2021; Karampelas et al., 2022). The idea is that the released energy via periodic reconnection could periodically accelerate electron beams, producing repetitive HXR and microwave pulsations in the solar corona. Meanwhile, the repeated SXR pulsations are periodically generated by plasma heating after magnetic reconnection (see Zimovets et al., 2021b, for a recent review).
3.2 Recurrent jets associated with flare QPP
Figure 1B and the animation. mp4 show a group of plasma ejections during the M1.2 flare. They manifest as collimated and beam-like structures in AIA 304 Å, which could be identified as “solar jets” (e.g., Shen, 2021). To look closely at the jet eruptions and periodicity, we draw the time–distance image along the slit of S1 that is made from the AIA 304 Å image series, as shown in Figure 6A. Here, the slit is selected to be a constant width of about 15″, and thus it can cover the bulk of jet bodies as much as possible. A series of solar jets can be seen in the time–distance image, and their apparent speed is estimated to be about 110–300 km s−1, as indicated by the blue arrows. A total of nine jets are found during the time interval of about 450 s, and the average intermittent cadence is roughly equal to 50 s. Such intermittent cadence is quite close to the quasi-period of the flare QPP, implying that those jets occur periodically. Then the intensity variation integrated over two short cyan lines is overplotted, as shown by the cyan line. The intensity curve seems to reveal several sub-peaks corresponding to solar jets. However, it is hard to show a one-to-one correspondence, mainly due to the small-amplitude sub-peaks superimposed on the strong background emission. Therefore, the slowly (dashed green) and rapidly varying components are distinguished with the smooth window of 60 s, and the Morlet wavelet analysis is applied to the rapidly varying component. Panels (B) and (C) show the Morlet wavelet power spectrum and its global wavelet power spectrum. They both reveal a period centered at about 45 s, confirming that the recurrent jets are associated with flare QPPs. Moreover, the recurrent jets appear to start at about 04:24:50 UT, which are ∼180 s earlier than the flare QPPs. Our observation suggests that the flare QPPs could be excited by these recurrent jets.
FIGURE 6. Solar jets observed by SDO/AIA 304 Å. (A) Time–distance diagram along S1 (Figure 1), the cyan symbol (*) marks the start point. The overlaid solid cyan curve is integrated from two short cyan lines on the left hand, and the green dashed curve represents its slowly varying component. The blue arrows mark the recurrent jets. The vertical gold line marks the stop time in panel (B). (B,C) Morlet wavelet power spectrum and global wavelet power. The magenta lines indicate the significance level of 99%.
Previous findings (e.g., Reid et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2012; Lu et al., 2019) found that solar jets were always accompanied by solar flares, coronal bright points, or filament eruptions. Recent observations also showed that solar jets triggered by a solar flare had repetitive and regular occurrences with a period of about 72 s, but they did not find the similar quasi-period between flare QPPs and recurrent jets (Ning et al., 2022). The same quasi-period of about 60 s was also discovered both in flare QPPs and recurrent jets, and they took place almost simultaneously (Shi et al., 2022). However, it is impossible to conclude that whether these recurrent jets have affected the flare QPPs or they are just the result of the flare QPPs (cf. Ning et al., 2022). In our study, a same quasi-period of 45 s is observed in both the flare QPPs and recurrent jets, and the onset time of these recurrent jets is ∼180 s earlier than the beginning of flare QPPs. Based on these observational facts, we may infer that the flare QPPs seen in the SXR/HXR and microwave emissions are probably excited by recurrent jets. The associated video (animation.mp4) shows that the eruption of the first jet is similar to a mini-filament-driven jet very much, indicating that the recurrent jets could be driven by the eruption of mini-filaments that is associated with magnetic reconnection (Sterling et al., 2020; Shen, 2021). Thus, both the recurrent jets and the accompanying flare QPPs could be associated with the magnetic reconnection that is modulated by same periodic processes.
3.3 Geometric and differential emission measure analysis
The flare QPP observed in SXR, HXR, and microwave emissions could be excited by a group of recurrent jets with the same intermittent cadence, and they are most likely to be associated with a non-thermal process, that is, electron beams periodically accelerated by the repetitive magnetic reconnection (e.g., Yuan et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021; Karampelas et al., 2022). In order to further know whether the quasi-period of 45 s is modulated by an external MHD wave (e.g., Foullon et al., 2005; Li et al., 2015; Nakariakov et al., 2018), or it is only a self-oscillating process (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2010b; Takasao and Shibata, 2016), we perform the geometric and differential emission measure (DEM) analysis for the M1.2 flare, as shown in Figures 7, 8.
FIGURE 7. M1.2 flare observed by SDO/AIA 94 Å. (A1,B1) Time–distance diagrams along S1 and S2 (Figure 1), the magenta symbols (*) mark their start points. The overlaid solid magenta curves are integrated from two short magenta lines on the left hand, and the red dashed curves represent their slowly varying components. (A2,B2) Morlet wavelet power spectra of the corresponding rapidly varying components. The magenta lines indicate the significance level of 99%. (C) Correlation coefficients between two rapidly varying components as a function of the time lag, the vertical line mark the time lag at 0 s.
FIGURE 8. DEM analysis results of the M1.2 flare. (A) EM map integrated in the temperature range of 0.31 − 20 MK. Three cyan boxes outline the non-flare region (p1), loop-top region (p2), and footpoint (p3), respectively. (B–D) DEM profiles at the non-flare region, loop top, and footpoint. The EM and DEM-weighted average temperature (Te) are also labeled in each panel.
Figures 7A1,B1 present time–distance diagrams at AIA 94 Å along two slits (S2 and S3) in Figure 1C, and the magenta symbols (‘*’) mark their start points. Here, the slits are selected to cross two opposite footpoints of the flare loop, but they do not cross the loop top. Because there are much more saturated pixels at the loop top than those at footpoints (see also the animation. mp4). In the two time–distance diagrams, it does not see any signatures of displacement oscillations that are perpendicular to loop legs. However, they appear clearly as signatures of brightness variations at double footpoints, as outlined by two short magenta lines. Thus, the normalized light curves at AIA 94 Å, which are integrated intensities between two short magenta lines, are overplotted in corresponding time–distance diagrams, as shown by the solid magenta curves. Similar to the microwave flux, at least four sub-peaks are found to superimpose on the background emission, as indicated by the gold vertical lines, which are less than those in HXR fluxes. They appear as non-stationary QPPs, for instance, each pulsation is mainly characterized by an anharmonic and triangular shape (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 2019). Using the same smooth window of 60 s, the slowly (dashed red) and rapidly varying components are distinguished from the raw light curves. Panels (A2–B2) show Morlet wavelet power spectra of the rapidly varying components at AIA 94 Å. They both reveal an enhanced power at the period center of about 45 s from around 04:27:50 UT to 04:30:05 UT, suggesting a dominant period of ∼45 s, similar to what was observed in SXR/HXR and microwave emissions. Panel (C) presents the cross-correlation analysis (e.g., Tian et al., 2016) between two rapidly varying components in AIA 94 Å at double footpoints, and the maximum correlation coefficient of 0.74 is seen at the time lag of 0 s, as indicated by the vertical line. This observational result suggests that the flare QPP at double footpoints is in phase.
Figure 8 shows the DEM analysis result. It is calculated from six EUV-wavelength observations measured by SDO/AIA. The DEM(T) distribution for each pixel is estimated by an improved sparse-inversion code (Cheung et al., 2015; Su Y. et al., 2018), and the DEM(T) uncertainty can be estimated from 100 Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, for instance, the three times of standard deviations of 100 MC simulations (3δ). Panel (A) presents the EM map integrated in the temperature range of 0.31–20 MK. Similar to the AIA 94 Å map, a post-flare loop can be seen in the EM map. Then, three small regions (cyan boxes) with a FOV of about 1.8”×1.8” are selected to display DEM profiles, and they are located in the non-flare region (or coronal background, p1), loop-top region (p2), and one footpoint (p3), respectively. Panels (B–D) draw DEM profiles as the function of temperature, and the error bars represent their uncertainties, that is, 3δ. The EM and DEM-weighted mean temperatures (Te) are calculated in the temperature range between 0.31–20 MK, as labeled in each panel. It can be seen that both the EM and Te at the loop top are higher than that at the footpoint, and thus the loop-top region is more saturated. The Te is estimated to be ∼7.7 MK (C) at the loop top and ∼6.7 MK (D) at the footpoint, which is consistent with that the post-flare loop is most visible at AIA 94 Å (T ≈ 6.3 MK). At the non-flare region, the Te is ∼1.8 MK (B), which is roughly equal to quiet coronal temperature.
3.4 MHD explanation and coronal seismology
Based on the AIA 94 Å map and EM map in Figures 1C, 8A, the distance between two footpoints of the flare loop is estimated to be ∼20.3 Mm, which leads to a loop length (L) of ∼31.9 Mm when assuming a semi-circular shape for the flare loop (cf. Tian et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2022; Li and Chen, 2022). Then under the assumption that the oscillation is associated with a standing wave, the phase speed (vph) can be determined by Eq. 1, for instance, twice the ratio of the loop length to the quasi-period (P), which is about 1,420 km s−1.
The local sound speed in the flare loop can be estimated by using
The estimated phase speed is much slower than that requires for the global sausage-mode wave, that is, the speed in the range of
Here, ni and no are the number densities inside and outside of the flare loop (or non-flare region). w stands for the loop width and could be regarded as the full width at the half maximum of a Gaussian profile across the flare loop, which is about 2.5 Mm. Thus, the density contrast should be as high as 385 if the 45-s QPP is modulated by the global sausage-mode wave of the flare loop. The number density (ni) inside the flare loop can be estimated by
In our study, the phase speed is quite close to the average speed of about 1,328 km s−1 in a catalog of kink-mode oscillations (Nechaeva et al., 2019; Nakariakov et al., 2021), which are often identified as transverse oscillations of plasma loops (e.g., Nakariakov et al., 1999; Anfinogentov et al., 2015; Su W. et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020d; Tiwari et al., 2021). In the corona, kink oscillations are always compressive or weakly compressive in the long wavelength regime (Goossens et al., 2012; Nakariakov et al., 2021). On the other hand, they could be seen as the brightness variation or intensity disturbance if the loop displacement is not exactly perpendicular to the line-of-sight (Cooper et al., 2003; Tian et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012; Zimovets and Nakariakov, 2015; Antolin et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018b). In such a case, the local Alfvén speed (vA) could be determined by the phase speed (vph) and the density contrast (no/ni), and the magnetic field strength (B) can be estimated by using the local Alfvén speed and mass density at the loop top and footpoints, as shown in Eqs (3), (4) (e.g., Yang et al., 2020; Zimovets I. V. et al., 2021; Zhang Q. M. et al., 2022; Tan, 2022).
Here, μ0 and mp stand for the magnetic permittivity of free space and the proton mass, ni is the number density at the flare loop, and
4 Summary
Based on observations recorded by Fermi, GECAM, GOES, SDO/EVE, and NoRP, we investigated the non-stationary QPP at wavelengths of HXR, SXR, microwave, and EUV during the impulsive phase of an M1.2 flare on 2022 July 14. Combined with the imaging observation from SDO/AIA, the excitation and modulation of the flare QPP are discussed. Our conclusions are summarized as follows:
1) A quasi-period of
2) A group of recurrent jets with a periodicity of about
3) Because of the imaging observation from SDO/AIA at 94 Å, the quasi-period of
4) Based on the kink oscillation model, the Alfvén speed inside the flare loop is estimated to be ∼1,010 km s−1. The magnetic field strengths are measured in the range of 99–143 G from the footpoint to the loop top, similar to what have been estimated in solar flares at the magnitude order of 100 G (e.g., Qiu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2018b; Zimovets I. et al., 2021).
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/ http://jsoc.stanford.edu/ajax/lookdata.html https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/eve/data/ https://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norp/index.html.
Author contributions
DL selected the topic, performed the main data analysis, led to discussions, and prepared the manuscript. FS contributed the SDO/AIA data analysis and joined to modify the manuscript. HZ, SX, LS, WP, and XL provided the GECAM data analysis. WC contributed to analyze the Fermi data. ZN joined to discuss the explanation of the flare QPP and recurrent jets.
Funding
This work was funded by the NSFC under grants 11973092, U1931138, 12073081, U1938102, as well as CAS Strategic Pioneer Program on Space Science, Grant No. XDA15052200 and XDA15320301. DL is also supported by the Surface Project of Jiangsu Province (BK20211402).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for their inspiring and valuable comments. We thank the teams of Fermi, GECAM, GOES, SDO/AIA, SDO/EVE, and NoRP for their open data use policy. GECAM is a mission funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) under the Strategic Priority Research Program on Space Science. SDO is a mission of NASA’s Living With a Star Program (LWS). AIA and EVE data are courtesy of the NASA/SDO science teams. NoRP is operated by Solar Science Observatory, a branch of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and their observing data are verified scientifically by the consortium for NoRP scientific operations.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.1032099/full#supplementary-material
References
Anfinogentov, S. A., Antolin, P., Inglis, A. R., Kolotkov, D., Kupriyanova, E. G., McLaughlin, J. A., et al. (2022). Novel data analysis techniques in coronal seismology. Space Sci. Rev. 218, 9. doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00869-w
Anfinogentov, S. A., Nakariakov, V. M., and Nisticò, G. (2015). Decayless low-amplitude kink oscillations: A common phenomenon in the solar corona? Astron. Astrophys. 583, A136. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526195
Antolin, P., De Moortel, I., Van Doorsselaere, T., and Yokoyama, T. (2017). Observational signatures of transverse magnetohydrodynamic waves and associated dynamic instabilities in coronal flux tubes. Astrophys. J. 836, 219. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb2
Auchère, F., Froment, C., Bocchialini, K., Buchlin, E., and Solomon, J. (2016). On the fourier and wavelet analysis of coronal time series. Astrophys. J. 825, 110. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/110
Bate, W., Jess, D. B., Nakariakov, V. M., Grant, S. D. T., Jafarzadeh, S., Stangalini, M., et al. (2022). High-frequency waves in chromospheric spicules. Astrophys. J. 930, 129. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5c53
Benz, A. O., Battaglia, M., and Güdel, M. (2017). Observations of a radio-quiet solar preflare. Sol. Phys. 292, 151. doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1175-3
Brueckner, G. E., and Bartoe, J. D. F. (1983). Observations of high-energy jets in the corona above the quiet sun, the heating of the corona, and the acceleration of the solar wind. Astrophys. J. 272, 329–348. doi:10.1086/161297
Chen, S.-X., Li, B., Xia, L.-D., and Yu, H. (2015). Periods and damping rates of fast sausage oscillations in multishelled coronal loops. Sol. Phys. 290, 2231–2243. doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0751-7
Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., Testa, P., Chen, F., Peter, H., et al. (2015). Thermal diagnostics with the atmospheric imaging assembly on board the solar dynamics observatory: A validated method for differential emission measure inversions. Astrophys. J. 807, 143. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/143
Cho, I. H., Cho, K. S., Nakariakov, V. M., Kim, S., and Kumar, P. (2016). Comparison of damped oscillations in solar and stellar X-ray flares. Astrophys. J. 830, 110. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/110
Cooper, F. C., Nakariakov, V. M., and Tsiklauri, D. (2003). Line-of-sight effects on observability of kink and sausage modes in coronal structures with imaging telescopes. Astron. Astrophys. 397, 765–770. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021556
Didkovsky, L., Judge, D., Wieman, S., Woods, T., and Jones, A. (2012). EUV SpectroPhotometer (ESP) in Extreme ultraviolet variability experiment (EVE): Algorithms and calibrations. Sol. Phys. 275, 179–205. doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9485-8
Doyle, J. G., Irawati, P., Kolotkov, D. Y., Ramsay, G., Nhalil, N. V., Dhillon, V. S., et al. (2022). Doubling of minute-long quasi-periodic pulsations from super-flares on a low-mass star. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514, 5178–5182. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1695
Duckenfield, T. J., Goddard, C. R., Pascoe, D. J., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2019). Observational signatures of the third harmonic in a decaying kink oscillation of a coronal loop. Astron. Astrophys. 632, A64. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936822
Dudík, J., Polito, V., Janvier, M., Mulay, S. M., Karlický, M., Aulanier, G., et al. (2016). Slipping magnetic reconnection, chromospheric evaporation, implosion, and precursors in the 2014 september 10 X1.6-Class solar flare. Astrophys. J. 823, 41. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/41
Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., Nakariakov, V. M., and Fletcher, L. (2005). X-ray quasi-periodic pulsations in solar flares as magnetohydrodynamic oscillations. Astron. Astrophys. 440, L59–L62. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500169
Gao, Y., Li, F., Li, B., Cao, W., Song, Y., Tian, H., et al. (2021). Possible signature of sausage waves in photospheric bright points. Sol. Phys. 296, 184. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01928-9
Gao, Y., Tian, H., Van Doorsselaere, T., and Chen, Y. (2022). Decayless oscillations in solar coronal bright points. Astrophys. J. 930, 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac62cf
Goossens, M., Andries, J., Soler, R., Van Doorsselaere, T., Arregui, I., and Terradas, J. (2012). Surface Alfvén waves in solar flux tubes. Astrophys. J. 753, 111. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/111
Gruber, D., Lachowicz, P., Bissaldi, E., Briggs, M. S., Connaughton, V., Greiner, J., et al. (2011). Quasi-periodic pulsations in solar flares: New clues from theFermi Gamma-ray burst monitor. Astron. Astrophys. 533, A61. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117077
Guo, M., Li, B., and Shi, M. (2021). Fast sausage oscillations in coronal loops with fine structures. Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac30e3
Hanser, F. A., and Sellers, F. B. (1996). “Design and calibration of the GOES-8 solar x-ray sensor: The XRS,” in GOES-8 and beyond. Editor E. R. Washwell, 2812, 344–352. of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. doi:10.1117/12.254082
Hayes, L. A., Inglis, A. R., Christe, S., Dennis, B., and Gallagher, P. T. (2020). Statistical study of GOES X-ray quasi-periodic pulsations in solar flares. Astrophys. J. 895, 50. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d40
Hong, Z., Li, D., Zhang, M., Tan, C., Ma, S., and Ji, H. (2021). Multi-wavelength observations of quasi-periodic pulsations in a solar flare. Sol. Phys. 296, 171. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01922-1
Inglis, A. R., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2009). A multi-periodic oscillatory event in a solar flare. Astron. Astrophys. 493, 259–266. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810473
Karampelas, K., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., and Régnier, S. (2022). The independence of oscillatory reconnection periodicity from the initial pulse. Astrophys. J. 933, 142. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac746a
Karlický, M., Chen, B., Gary, D. E., Kašparová, J., and Rybák, J. (2020). Drifting pulsation structure at the very beginning of the 2017 september 10 limb flare. Astrophys. J. 889, 72. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63d0
Kashapova, L. K., Kolotkov, D. Y., Kupriyanova, E. G., Kudriavtseva, A. V., Tan, C., and Reid, H. A. S. (2021). Common origin of quasi-periodic pulsations in microwave and decimetric solar radio bursts. Sol. Phys. 296, 185. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01934-x
Kolotkov, D. Y., Nakariakov, V. M., Holt, R., and Kuznetsov, A. A. (2021). Multiwavelength quasi-periodic pulsations in a stellar superflare. Astrophys. J. Lett. 923, L33. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac432e
Kolotkov, D. Y., Pugh, C. E., Broomhall, A.-M., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2018). Quasi-periodic pulsations in the most powerful solar flare of cycle 24. Astrophys. J. 858, L3. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabde9
Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V. M., and Cho, K.-S. (2015). X-ray and EUV observations of simultaneous short and long period oscillations in hot coronal arcade loops. Astrophys. J. 804, 4. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/4
Kupriyanova, E. G., Melnikov, V. F., Nakariakov, V. M., and Shibasaki, K. (2010). Types of microwave quasi-periodic pulsations in single flaring loops. Sol. Phys. 267, 329–342. doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9642-0
Kupriyanova, E., Kolotkov, D., Nakariakov, V., and Kaufman, A. (2020). Quasi-periodic pulsations in solar and stellar flares. Review. Solar-Terrestrial Phys. 6, 3–23. doi:10.12737/stp-61202001
Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., Boerner, P. F., Chou, C., Drake, J. F., et al. (2012). The atmospheric imaging assembly (AIA) on the solar dynamics observatory (SDO). Sol. Phys. 275, 17–40. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8
Li, B., Antolin, P., Guo, M. Z., Kuznetsov, A. A., Pascoe, D. J., Van Doorsselaere, T., et al. (2020a). Magnetohydrodynamic fast sausage waves in the solar corona. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 136. doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00761-z
Li, D., and Chen, W. (2022). Quasi-periodic accelerations of energetic particles during a solar flare. Astrophys. J. Lett. 931, L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6fd2
Li, D., Feng, S., Su, W., and Huang, Y. (2020b). Preflare very long-periodic pulsations observed in Hα emission before the onset of a solar flare. Astron. Astrophys. 639, L5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038398
Li, D., Ge, M., Dominique, M., Zhao, H., Li, G., Li, X., et al. (2021). Detection of flare multiperiodic pulsations in mid-ultraviolet balmer continuum, lyα, hard X-ray, and radio emissions simultaneously. Astrophys. J. 921, 179. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c05
Li, D., Kolotkov, D. Y., Nakariakov, V. M., Lu, L., and Ning, Z. J. (2020c). Quasi-periodic pulsations of gamma-ray emissions from a solar flare on 2017 september 6. Astrophys. J. 888, 53. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e86
Li, D., Li, Y., Lu, L., Zhang, Q., Ning, Z., and Anfinogentov, S. (2020d). Observations of a quasi-periodic pulsation in the coronal loop and microwave flux during a solar preflare phase. Astrophys. J. Lett. 893, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab830c
Li, D., Li, Y., Su, W., Huang, Y., and Ning, Z. (2018a). Observations of electron-driven evaporation in a flare precursor. Astrophys. J. 854, 26. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9c0
Li, D., Ning, Z. J., Huang, Y., Chen, N. H., Zhang, Q. M., Su, Y. N., et al. (2017a). Doppler shift oscillations from a hot line observed by IRIS. Astrophys. J. 849, 113. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9073
Li, D., Ning, Z. J., and Zhang, Q. M. (2015). Imaging and spectral observations of quasi-periodic pulsations in a solar flare. Astrophys. J. 807, 72. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/72
Li, D., Xue, J., Yuan, D., and Ning, Z. (2022). Persistent fast kink magnetohydrodynamic waves detected in a quiescent prominence. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 239611. doi:10.1007/s11433-021-1836-y
Li, D., Yuan, D., Su, Y. N., Zhang, Q. M., Su, W., and Ning, Z. J. (2018b). Non-damping oscillations at flaring loops. Astron. Astrophys. 617, A86. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832991
Li, D., Zhang, Q. M., Huang, Y., Ning, Z. J., and Su, Y. N. (2017b). Quasi-periodic pulsations with periods that change depending on whether the pulsations have thermal or nonthermal components. Astron. Astrophys. 597, L4. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629867
Liu, W., Title, A. M., Zhao, J., Ofman, L., Schrijver, C. J., Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (2011). Direct imaging of quasi-periodic fast propagating waves of ˜2000 km s−1 in the low solar corona by the solar dynamics observatory atmospheric imaging assembly. Astrophys. J. 736, L13. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L13
Loto’aniu, P., Rodriguez, J., Redmon, R., Machol, J., Kress, B., Seaton, D., et al. (2017). “Space weather monitoring with GOES-16: Instruments and data products,” in EGU general assembly conference abstracts. (Vienna, Austria: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts), 9663.
Lu, L., Feng, L., Li, Y., Li, D., Ning, Z., and Gan, W. (2019). Spectroscopic and stereoscopic observations of the solar jets. Astrophys. J. 887, 154. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab530c
Lu, L., Li, D., Ning, Z., Feng, L., and Gan, W. (2021). Quasi-periodic pulsations detected in ly α and nonthermal emissions during solar flares. Sol. Phys. 296, 130. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01876-4
Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., Bissaldi, E., Briggs, M. S., Connaughton, V., et al. (2009). THEFERMIGAMMA-RAY burst monitor. Astrophys. J. 702, 791–804. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791
Melnikov, V. F., Reznikova, V. E., Shibasaki, K., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2005). Spatially resolved microwave pulsations of a flare loop. Astron. Astrophys. 439, 727–736. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052774
Mészárosová, H., Rybák, J., Kashapova, L., Gömöry, P., Tokhchukova, S., and Myshyakov, I. (2016). Broadband microwave sub-second pulsations in an expanding coronal loop of the 2011 August 10 flare. Astron. Astrophys. 593, A80. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528062
Milligan, R. O., Fleck, B., Ireland, J., Fletcher, L., and Dennis, B. R. (2017). Detection of three-minute oscillations in full-disk lyα emission during a solar flare. Astrophys. J. 848, L8. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f3a
Nakajima, H., Sekiguchi, H., Sawa, M., Kai, K., and Kawashima, S. (1985). The radiometer and polarimeters at 80, 35, and 17 GHz for solar observations at Nobeyama. Pub. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 37, 163–170.
Nakariakov, V. M., Anfinogentov, S. A., Antolin, P., Jain, R., Kolotkov, D. Y., Kupriyanova, E. G., et al. (2021). Kink oscillations of coronal loops. Space Sci. Rev. 217, 73. doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00847-2
Nakariakov, V. M., Anfinogentov, S., Storozhenko, A. A., Kurochkin, E. A., Bogod, V. M., Sharykin, I. N., et al. (2018). Quasi-periodic pulsations in a solar microflare. Astrophys. J. 859, 154. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfb9
Nakariakov, V. M., Foullon, C., Myagkova, I. N., and Inglis, A. R. (2010a). Quasi-periodic pulsations in the gamma-ray emission of a solar flare. Astrophys. J. 708, L47–L51. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L47
Nakariakov, V. M., Inglis, A. R., Zimovets, I. V., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., Sych, R., et al. (2010b). Oscillatory processes in solar flares. Plasma Phys. control. Fusion 52, 124009. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/52/12/124009
Nakariakov, V. M., Kolotkov, D. Y., Kupriyanova, E. G., Mehta, T., Pugh, C. E., Lee, D. H., et al. (2019). Non-stationary quasi-periodic pulsations in solar and stellar flares. Plasma Phys. control. Fusion 61–014024. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aad97c
Nakariakov, V. M., and Kolotkov, D. Y. (2020). Magnetohydrodynamic waves in the solar corona. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58, 441–481. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032320-042940
Nakariakov, V. M., Melnikov, V. F., and Reznikova, V. E. (2003). Global sausage modes of coronal loops. Astron. Astrophys. 412, L7–L10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031660
Nakariakov, V. M., Ofman, L., Deluca, E. E., Roberts, B., and Davila, J. M. (1999). TRACE observation of damped coronal loop oscillations: Implications for coronal heating. Science 285, 862–864. doi:10.1126/science.285.5429.862
Nakariakov, V. M., and Ofman, L. (2001). Determination of the coronal magnetic field by coronal loop oscillations. Astron. Astrophys. 372, L53–L56. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010607
Nechaeva, A., Zimovets, I. V., Nakariakov, V. M., and Goddard, C. R. (2019). Catalog of decaying kink oscillations of coronal loops in the 24th solar cycle. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 31. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab0e86
Neupert, W. M. (1968). Comparison of solar X-ray line emission with microwave emission during flares. Astrophys. J. 153, L59. doi:10.1086/180220
Ning, Z. (2014). Imaging observations of X-ray quasi-periodic oscillations at 3 - 6 keV in the 26 december 2002 solar flare. Sol. Phys. 289, 1239–1256. doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0405-6
Ning, Z. (2017). One-minute quasi-periodic pulsations seen in a solar flare. Sol. Phys. 292, 11. doi:10.1007/s11207-016-1037-4
Ning, Z. (2008). RHESSI observations of the Neupert effect in three solar flares. Sol. Phys. 248, 99–111. doi:10.1007/s11207-008-9124-9
Ning, Z. (2009). The investigation of the Neupert effect in two solar flares. Sci. China Ser. G-Phys. Mech. Astron. 52, 1686–1690. doi:10.1007/s11433-009-0219-6
Ning, Z., Wang, Y., Hong, Z., and Li, D. (2022). Detections of multi-periodic oscillations during a circular ribbon flare. Sol. Phys. 297, 2. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01935-w
Ofman, L., Wang, T. J., and Davila, J. M. (2012). Slow magnetosonic waves and fast flows in active region loops. Astrophys. J. 754, 111. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/111
Paraschiv, A. R., Bemporad, A., and Sterling, A. C. (2015). Physical properties of solar polar jets. A statistical study with Hinode XRT data. Astron. Astrophys. 579, A96. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525671
Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., and Chamberlin, P. C. (2012). The solar dynamics observatory (SDO). Sol. Phys. 275, 3–15. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3
Prasad, A., Srivastava, A. K., Wang, T., and Sangal, K. (2022). Role of non-ideal dissipation with heating-cooling misbalance on the phase shifts of standing slow magnetohydrodynamic waves. Sol. Phys. 297, 5. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01940-z
Pugh, C. E., Broomhall, A. M., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2019). Scaling laws of quasi-periodic pulsations in solar flares. Astron. Astrophys. 624, A65. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834455
Qiu, J., Gary, D. E., and Fleishman, G. D. (2009). Evaluating mean magnetic field in flare loops. Sol. Phys. 255, 107–118. doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9316-y
Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., Young, P. R., Sterling, A. C., Savcheva, A., et al. (2016). Solar coronal jets: Observations, theory, and modeling. Space Sci. Rev. 201, 1–53. doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0260-5
Reale, F., Testa, P., Petralia, A., and Kolotkov, D. Y. (2019). Large-amplitude quasiperiodic pulsations as evidence of impulsive heating in hot transient loop systems detected in the EUV with SDO/AIA. Astrophys. J. 884, 131. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4270
Reid, H. A. S., Vilmer, N., Aulanier, G., and Pariat, E. (2012). X-ray and ultraviolet investigation into the magnetic connectivity of a solar flare. Astron. Astrophys. 547, A52. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219562
Sadeghi, M., and Karami, K. (2019). The effect of weak magnetic twist on resonant absorption of slow sausage waves in magnetic flux tubes. Astrophys. J. 879, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab24c4
Shen, Y., Chen, P. F., Liu, Y. D., Shibata, K., Tang, Z., and Liu, Y. (2019). First unambiguous imaging of large-scale quasi-periodic extreme-ultraviolet wave or shock. Astrophys. J. 873, 22. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab01dd
Shen, Y. D., Liu, Y., Su, J. T., Li, H., Zhang, X. F., Tian, Z. J., et al. (2013). Observations of a quasi-periodic, fast-propagating magnetosonic wave in multiple wavelengths and its interaction with other magnetic structures. Sol. Phys. 288, 585–602. doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0395-4
Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., Su, J., Tang, Z., and Miao, Y. (2018a). Homologous large-amplitude nonlinear fast-mode magnetosonic waves driven by recurrent coronal jets. Astrophys. J. 861, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9be
Shen, Y., and Liu, Y. (2012). Observational study of the quasi-periodic fast-propagating magnetosonic waves and the associated flare on 2011 may 30. Astrophys. J. 753, 53. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/53
Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Song, T., and Tian, Z. (2018b). A quasi-periodic fast-propagating magnetosonic wave associated with the eruption of a magnetic flux rope. Astrophys. J. 853, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3ff
Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., and Deng, Y. (2012). On a coronal blowout jet: The first observation of a simultaneously produced bubble-like CME and a jet-like CME in a solar event. Astrophys. J. 745, 164. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/164
Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., and Ibrahim, A. (2011). Kinematics and fine structure of an unwinding polar jet observed by the solar dynamic observatory/atmospheric imaging assembly. Astrophys. J. 735, L43. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L43
Shen, Y. (2021). Observation and modelling of solar jets. Proc. R. Soc. A 477, 20200217. doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0217
Shen, Y., Song, T., and Liu, Y. (2018c). Dispersively formed quasi-periodic fast magnetosonic wavefronts due to the eruption of a nearby mini-filament. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477, L6–L10. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly044
Shen, Y., Tang, Z., Li, H., and Liu, Y. (2018d). Coronal EUV, QFP, and kink waves simultaneously launched during the course of jet-loop interaction. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 480, L63–L67. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly127
Shen, Y., Yao, S., Tang, Z., Zhou, X., Qu, Z., Duan, Y., et al. (2022a). White-light QFP wave train and the associated failed breakout eruption. Astron. Astrophys. 665, A51. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243924
Shen, Y., Zhou, X., Duan, Y., Tang, Z., Zhou, C., and Tan, S. (2022b). Coronal quasi-periodic fast-mode propagating wave trains. Sol. Phys. 297, 20. doi:10.1007/s11207-022-01953-2
Shi, F., Li, D., and Ning, Z. (2022). One-minute quasi-periodic pulsations during an M-class solar flare. Universe 8, 104. doi:10.3390/universe8020104
Shibata, K., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T., Otsuji, K., Okamoto, T. J., Nishizuka, N., et al. (2007). Chromospheric anemone jets as evidence of ubiquitous reconnection. Science 318, 1591–1594. doi:10.1126/science.1146708
Smith, C., Gordovskyy, M., and Browning, P. K. (2022). Pulsations of microwave emission from a solar flare in a twisted loop caused by intrinsic magnetohydrodynamic oscillations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 2880–2884. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac250
Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Samanta, T., and Yurchyshyn, V. (2020). Possible production of solar spicules by microfilament eruptions. Astrophys. J. 893, L45. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab86a5
Su, W., Guo, Y., Erdélyi, R., Ning, Z. J., Ding, M. D., Cheng, X., et al. (2018a). Period increase and amplitude distribution of kink oscillation of coronal loop. Sci. Rep. 8, 4471. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22796-7
Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Hannah, I. G., Cheung, M. C. M., Dennis, B. R., Holman, G. D., et al. (2018b). Determination of differential emission measure from solar Extreme ultraviolet images. Astrophys. J. 856, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab436
Takasao, S., and Shibata, K. (2016). Above-the-loop-top oscillation and quasi-periodic coronal wave generation in solar flares. Astrophys. J. 823, 150. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150
Tan, B. (2022). Diagnostic functions of solar coronal magnetic fields from radio observations. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22, 072001. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac6f4b
Tan, B., Yu, Z., Huang, J., Tan, C., and Zhang, Y. (2016). Very long-period pulsations before the onset of solar flares. Astrophys. J. 833, 206. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/206
Tan, B., Zhang, Y., Tan, C., and Liu, Y. (2010). Microwave quasi-periodic pulsations in multi-timescales associated with a solar flare/CME event. Astrophys. J. 723, 25–39. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/25
Thurgood, J. O., Pontin, D. I., and McLaughlin, J. A. (2019). On the periodicity of linear and nonlinear oscillatory reconnection. Astron. Astrophys. 621, A106. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834369
Tian, H., McIntosh, S. W., Wang, T., Ofman, L., De Pontieu, B., Innes, D. E., et al. (2012). Persistent Doppler shift oscillations observed with hinode/EIS in the solar corona: Spectroscopic signatures of alfvénic waves and recurring upflows. Astrophys. J. 759, 144. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/144
Tian, H., Young, P. R., Reeves, K. K., Wang, T., Antolin, P., Chen, B., et al. (2016). Global sausage oscillation of solar flare loops detected by the interface region imaging spectrograph. Astrophys. J. 823, L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L16
Tian, Z., Shen, Y., and Liu, Y. (2018). Formation and eruption of a double-decker filament triggered by micro-bursts and recurrent jets in the filament channel. New Astron. 65, 7–15. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2018.05.005
Tiwari, A. K., Morton, R. J., and McLaughlin, J. A. (2021). A statistical study of propagating MHD kink waves in the quiescent corona. Astrophys. J. 919, 74. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac10c4
Torrence, C., and Compo, G. P. (1998). A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 61–78. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079¡0061:APGTWA¿2.0.CO;2
Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A. K., Antolin, P., Magyar, N., Vasheghani Farahani, S., Tian, H., et al. (2020). Coronal heating by MHD waves. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 140. doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00770-y
Wang, T., Ofman, L., Davila, J. M., and Su, Y. (2012). Growing transverse oscillations of a multistranded loop observed by SDO/AIA. Astrophys. J. 751, L27. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L27
Wang, T., Ofman, L., Yuan, D., Reale, F., Kolotkov, D. Y., and Srivastava, A. K. (2021). Slow-mode magnetoacoustic waves in coronal loops. Space Sci. Rev. 217, 34. doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00811-0
Wang, T. (2011). Standing slow-mode waves in hot coronal loops: Observations, modeling, and coronal seismology. Space Sci. Rev. 158, 397–419. doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9716-1
Warmuth, A., and Mann, G. (2016). Constraints on energy release in solar flares from RHESSI and GOES X-ray observations. I. Physical parameters and scalings. Astron. Astrophys. 588, A115. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527474
Welsh, B. Y., Wheatley, J., Browne, S. E., Siegmund, O. H. W., Doyle, J. G., O’Shea, E., et al. (2006). GALEX high time-resolution ultraviolet observations of dMe flare events. Astron. Astrophys. 458, 921–930. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065304
White, S. J., and Verwichte, E. (2021). Acoustic response to transverse oscillations in a solar coronal loop. Astron. Astrophys. 654, A33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141515
Woods, T. N., Eparvier, F. G., Hock, R., Jones, A. R., Woodraska, D., Judge, D., et al. (2012). Extreme ultraviolet variability experiment (EVE) on the solar dynamics observatory (SDO): Overview of science objectives, instrument design, data products, and model developments. Sol. Phys. 275, 115–143. doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9487-6
Xiao, S., Liu, Y. Q., Peng, W. X., An, Z. H., Xiong, S. L., Tuo, Y. L., et al. (2022). On-ground and on-orbit time calibrations of GECAM. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 964–971. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac085
Yan, X. L., Jiang, C. W., Xue, Z. K., Wang, J. C., Priest, E. R., Yang, L. H., et al. (2017). The eruption of a small-scale emerging flux rope as the driver of an M-class flare and of a coronal mass ejection. Astrophys. J. 845, 18. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e29
Yang, Z., Tian, H., Tomczyk, S., Morton, R., Bai, X., Samanta, T., et al. (2020). Mapping the magnetic field in the solar corona through magnetoseismology. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 63, 2357–2368. doi:10.1007/s11431-020-1706-9
Yu, S., and Chen, B. (2019). Possible detection of subsecond-period propagating magnetohydrodynamics waves in post-reconnection magnetic loops during a two-ribbon solar flare. Astrophys. J. 872, 71. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6d
Yuan, D., Feng, S., Li, D., Ning, Z., and Tan, B. (2019). A compact source for quasi-periodic pulsation in an M-class solar flare. Astrophys. J. 886, L25. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5648
Yuan, D., Nakariakov, V. M., Chorley, N., and Foullon, C. (2011). Leakage of long-period oscillations from the chromosphere to the corona. Astron. Astrophys. 533, A116. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116933
Yuan, D., Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Nakariakov, V. M., Tan, B., and Huang, J. (2013). Distinct propagating fast wave trains associated with flaring energy releases. Astron. Astrophys. 554, A144. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321435
Yuan, D., Van Doorsselaere, T., Banerjee, D., and Antolin, P. (2015). Forward modeling of standing slow modes in flaring coronal loops. Astrophys. J. 807, 98. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/98
Yuan, D., and Van Doorsselaere, T. (2016). Forward modeling of standing kink modes in coronal loops. I. Synthetic views. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 223, 23. doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/23
Zhang, Q., Li, C., Li, D., Qiu, Y., Zhang, Y., and Ni, Y. (2022a). First detection of transverse vertical oscillation during the expansion of coronal loops. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2209.00194.
Zhang, Q. M., Chen, J. L., Li, S. T., Lu, L., and Li, D. (2022b). Transverse coronal-loop oscillations induced by the non-radial eruption of a magnetic flux rope. Sol. Phys. 297, 18. doi:10.1007/s11207-022-01952-3
Zhang, Q. M., Dai, J., Xu, Z., Li, D., Lu, L., Tam, K. V., et al. (2020). Transverse coronal loop oscillations excited by homologous circular-ribbon flares. Astron. Astrophys. 638, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038233
Zhou, X., Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Su, J., Tang, Z., et al. (2022). Observations of a flare-ignited broad quasiperiodic fast-propagating wave train. Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L5. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac651e
Zimovets, I., Sharykin, I., and Myshyakov, I. (2021a). Quasi-periodic energy release in a three-ribbon solar flare. Sol. Phys. 296, 188. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01936-9
Zimovets, I. V., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., Kolotkov, D. Y., Kuznetsov, A. A., Kupriyanova, E. G., et al. (2021b). Quasi-periodic pulsations in solar and stellar flares: A review of underpinning physical mechanisms and their predicted observational signatures. Space Sci. Rev. 217, 66. doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9
Zimovets, I. V., and Nakariakov, V. M. (2015). Excitation of kink oscillations of coronal loops: Statistical study. Astron. Astrophys. 577, A4. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424960
Keywords: Sun: flares, Sun: oscillations, Sun: UV emission, Sun: X-ray emission, Sun: radio emission, MHD waves
Citation: Li D, Shi F, Zhao H, Xiong S, Song L, Peng W, Li X, Chen W and Ning Z (2022) Flare quasi-periodic pulsation associated with recurrent jets. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9:1032099. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1032099
Received: 30 August 2022; Accepted: 14 September 2022;
Published: 03 October 2022.
Edited by:
Chaowei Jiang, Harbin Institute of Technology, ChinaReviewed by:
Valery M. Nakariakov, University of Warwick, United KingdomYuandeng Shen, National Astronomical Observatories (CAS), China
Copyright © 2022 Li, Shi, Zhao, Xiong, Song, Peng, Li, Chen and Ning. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dong Li, bGlkb25nQHBtby5hYy5jbg==