Issue 
A&A
Volume 535, November 2011



Article Number  A35  
Number of page(s)  8  
Section  Stellar atmospheres  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201117550  
Published online  27 October 2011 
Radiative transfer with Jstate interference in a twoterm atom
Partial frequency redistribution in the nonmagnetic case
^{1}
Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Koramangala, Bangalore, India
email: smithahn@iiap.res.in; knn@iiap.res.in; sampoorna@iiap.res.in
^{2}
Institute of Astronomy, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
email: stenflo@astro.phys.ethz.ch
^{3}
Istituto Ricerche Solari Locarno, Via Patocchi, 6605 LocarnoMonti, Switzerland
Received: 23 June 2011
Accepted: 29 August 2011
Context. Quantum interference phenomena play a fundamental role in the formation of linear polarization that arises from scattering processes in multiplets of the solar spectrum. In particular, the Jstate interference between different line components of a multiplet (arising from transitions in a twoterm atom) produces significant effects in the linearly polarized spectra.
Aims. We aim to solve the polarized radiative transfer equation for a twoterm atom with the unpolarized lower term in isothermal slabs, including the effect of the interference between the upper Jstates and partial frequency redistribution (PRD). We consider only the case of nonmagnetic scattering.
Methods. The PRD matrix for the Jstate interference derived in previous works is incorporated into the polarized transfer equation. The standard form of the twolevel atom transfer equation is extended to a twoterm atom. The transfer problem is then solved using a traditional polarized approximate lambda iteration method.
Results. We show how the PRD and the Jstate interference together affect the shapes of the (I,Q/I) profiles. We present the benchmark solutions for isothermal, constantproperty slabs of a given optical thickness. We consider a hypothetical doublet produced by an L = 0 → 1 → 0 scattering transition with spin S = 1/2. We present the results in the form of Stokes (I,Q/I) profiles for different values of (i) the line separation, (ii) optical thickness, (iii) thermalization parameter, and (iv) the continuum opacity.
Key words: line: formation / methods: numerical / polarization / radiative transfer / scattering / Sun: atmosphere
© ESO, 2011
1. Introduction
The linearly polarized spectrum of the Sun, known as the “second solar spectrum”, contains a wealth of information about the physics of light scattering on atoms. The interpretation of the shapes of the spectral lines in the second solar spectrum deepens our understanding of the physical processes taking place in the solar atmosphere, and also gives us a diagnostic tool for the determination of the solar magnetic fields. The solution of the polarized line transfer equation is necessary to interpret the shapes of the observed Stokes line profiles.
A quantum theory of upper Jstate interference for frequency coherent scattering in the laboratory frame was formulated by Stenflo (1980, 1994, 1997). He introduced a wavelengthdependent polarizability factor W_{2}(λ) to describe the phenomenon of quantum interference. Stenflo (1980) used this approach to model the observed scattering polarization signals in solar Ca ii H and K lines. He applied the concept of the last scattering approximation for this purpose. The quantum interference theory of Stenflo (1980) was later included in the radiative transfer computations along with partial frequency redistribution (PRD) in Fluri et al. (2003, see also Holzreuter et al. 2006. A PRD matrix for the Jstate interference in a twoterm atom with unpolarized lower term and in the collisionless regime was derived in the atomic frame by Landi Degl’Innocenti et al. (1997) using a metalevel approach. Recently Smitha et al. (2011, hereafter P1) have derived the same PRD matrix starting from the KramersHeisenberg scattering formula. In P1 the expression for the laboratory frame PRD matrix is given. In the present paper we incorporate the PRD matrix derived in P1 into the polarized line transfer equation. For this purpose we generalize the vector version of the standard twolevel atom NLTE line transfer equation (Mihalas 1978; Stenflo 1994) to the case of a twoterm atom. We restrict our attention to the nonmagnetic case.
It is necessary to distinguish between linear and nonlinear NLTE radiative transfer problems for polarized radiation (e.g., Trujillo Bueno 2003). An example of a linear radiative transfer problem is the standard problem of scattering polarization and the Hanle effect in a gas of twolevel atoms assuming that the lower level is unpolarized (e.g., FaurobertScholl 1991; Nagendra et al. 2002; Sampoorna et al. 2011, and the references cited therein). Examples of nonlinear problems are the problems of scattering polarization and the Hanle effect in twolevel or multilevel systems with atomic polarization in all levels (Trujiilo Bueno & Landi Deg’Innocenti 1997; Manso Sainz & Trujillo Bueno 2003, 2010). It is important to note that the twoterm atom problem with an unpolarized lower term considered in this paper is essentially similar to the twolevel atom problem without lowerlevel polarization. In other words, it is a linear problem that does not involve the simultaneous solution of the statistical equilibrium and the Stokesvector transfer equations. All couplings between different components of the multiplet enter the transfer problem only through the PRD matrix.
Novel iterative schemes have been developed by Trujillo Bueno and coworkers (see Trujillo Bueno 2003, and references therein to their previous works) to solve the complete frequency redistribution (CRD) polarized NLTE transfer equation in multilevel atoms with the polarization of all levels taken into account. A recent review by Trujillo Bueno (2011) describes the modeling of scattering polarization and the Hanle effect in some spectral lines. Reviews by Nagendra (2003a,b); Nagendra & Sampoorna (2009), and Nagendra et al. (2009) list several exact and approximate numerical methods of solving the polarized transfer equation for a twolevel atom without lower level polarization. The polarized approximate lambda iteration (PALI) methods based on the Jacobi iterative scheme of Olson et al. (1986) have been developed to solve the twolevel atom polarized transfer equation (see e.g. Nagendra 2003a). In the present paper we use one of the methods described in Nagendra & Sampoorna (2009) generalized appropriately to the case of a twoterm atom to solve the Jstate interference problem.
In Sect. 2 we discuss the transfer equation for a twoterm atom model. In Sect. 2.1 we describe the decomposition of the Stokes vector I and source vector S into the two cylindrically symmetric components to cast the Stokes vector transfer equation in a reduced form. The numerical method of the solution is presented in Sect. 3. The computed results are discussed in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 we present the conclusions.
2. The transfer equation
The radiation field in a nonmagnetic plane parallel atmosphere with axisymmetric boundary conditions is axisymmetric. This axially symmetric polarized radiation field can be described by the two Stokes parameters I and Q (see Chandrasekhar 1950). The relevant line transfer equation for the problem of resonance scattering polarization may be written as (1)Equation (1) is a special case of the general polarized transfer equation given by Eq. (8.2) of Landi Degl’Innocenti & Landolfi (2004, hereafter LL04), when the axial symmetry of the polarized radiation field is imposed. In Eq. (1) ∂s denotes the incremental distance along the ray; ϵ_{I,Q} are the emission coefficients in the Stokes vector (I,Q)^{T} basis; and η_{I,Q} are the corresponding absorption coefficients. Under the assumption that the lower level of the transition is unpolarized, η_{Q} = 0. In this case the (2 × 2) absorption matrix becomes diagonal. For a line formed in the presence of a continuum (2)where η_{0} is the line absorption coefficient, and k_{c} the continuum absorption coefficient. In the case of a standard twolevel atom model, η_{0} = k_{L}φ(x) where k_{L} is the frequency integrated line absorption coefficient, and φ(x) is the Voigt profile function for the reduced frequency x. The expression for η_{0} in the particular case of a twoterm atom can be derived starting from the general expressions for multiterm atom, given in LL04 (see Eq. (7.47a)). Alternatively, η_{0} can also be derived by generalizing to the case of a twoterm atom, the standard expression for intensity absorption coefficient of a twolevel atom given in Mihalas (1978). Neglecting the induced emission term, it can be written as (3)where J_{a} and J_{b} are the total angular momentum quantum numbers of the lower and upper level respectively. B(J_{a} → J_{b}) is the Einstein’s coefficient. N(J_{a}) is the number density of atoms in the lower (J_{a}) level. ν_{JbJa} is the line center frequency for the transition J_{b} → J_{a}. φ(ν_{JbJa} − ν) is the normalized Voigt profile function with line center frequency at ν_{JbJa}. Equation (3) can be generalized to the case of twoterm atom by summing over various components of the multiplet, namely (4)A twoterm atom is characterized by the orbital angular momentum L_{a} and L_{b} of the lower and upper terms respectively with spin S. Owing to L − S coupling, a given (L,S) state splits into several Jstates, with L − S ≤ J ≤ L + S. The coefficient B(J_{a} → J_{b}) is then related to B(L_{a} → L_{b}) through the expression (5)(see Eqs. (8.43) and (9.74) of Stenflo 1994). The populations of the lower Jlevels are related to the populations of the lower Lterm through the relation (6)where the assumption of unpolarized lower term is made. Using Eqs. (3), (5), and (6) in Eq. (4), we obtain (7)where (8)is the frequencyintegrated absorption coefficient of the entire multiplet. In the case of an L = 0 → 1 → 0 scattering transition with S = 1/2 (9)An expression analogous to that of the twolevel atom can be recovered by introducing a combined profile function that for ^{2}S → ^{2}P → ^{2}S doublet is given by (10)Notice that the combined profile function φ(x) is a weighted sum of Voigt profiles of the two lines of the doublet. For the more general case of a L_{a} → L_{b} → L_{a} scattering transition with spin S, Eq. (7) has to be used to obtain explicit expressions for the corresponding combined profile function. The combined profile function φ(x) can also be derived using the theoretical framework of Stenflo (1997, see his Sect. 3.1). It is also implicitly contained in the general definition for the intensity absorption coefficient for a multiterm atom given in LL04.
Defining the optical depth scale as dτ = −k_{M}dz, we can rewrite Eq. (1) as (11)where μ = cos θ with θ being the colatitude with respect to the atmospheric normal. I = (I,Q)^{T} is the Stokes vector. S = (S_{I},S_{Q})^{T} is the total source vector given by (12)x is the scattered frequency in Doppler width units. r is the ratio of continuum to the frequencyintegrated line absorption coefficient. The positive Stokes Q represents electric vector vibrations perpendicular to the solar limb.
The total source vector S is given by (13)where the unpolarized continuum source vector S_{c} = BU, with B being the Planck function and U = (1,0)^{T}. The line source vector for a twoterm atom has the form (14)where x′ is the incoming frequency in Doppler width units and ϵ = Γ_{I}/(Γ_{I} + Γ_{R}) is the photon destruction probability per scattering with Γ_{I} and Γ_{R} being the inelastic and radiative deexcitation rates of the upper term L_{b}. We assume that Γ_{I} and Γ_{R} are the same for all fine structure levels of the upper term. The nonmagnetic twoterm atom redistribution matrix is given by Eq. (26) of P1.
Note that the redistribution matrix derived in P1 depends on incoming and outgoing ray directions n′(θ′,ϕ′) and n(θ,ϕ) which are defined with respect to the atmospheric normal. The angular dependence appears not only in the phase matrix part of the redistribution matrix, but also in the redistribution functions. To simplify the problem, following Rees & Saliba (1982), we here replace the angledependent redistribution functions by their angleaveraged analogues. The angleaveraged functions can be computed from the angledependent functions by integrating over the scattering angle between the incident and scattered ray (cf. Bommier 1997).
Owing to the azimuthal symmetry of the problem, one can then integrate the phase matrix part of the redistribution matrix over the azimuths ϕ′ of the incoming radiation to obtain R(x,μ,x′,μ′), which is given by (15)where i,j = 0,1 and are given by Eq. (28) of Frisch (2007) with K = 0,2. are related to the irreducible spherical tensors for polarimetry introduced by Landi Degl’Innocenti (1984), through (16)with Q taking values − K ≤ Q ≤ + K.
The redistribution function components ℛ^{K}(x,x′) are given by (17)In Eq. (17), L_{a,b} are the orbital angular momentum quantum numbers of the lower and upper terms respectively and S is the spin. J_{a,f} are the total angular momentum quantum numbers of the fine structure levels of the lower term and J_{b,b′} are the total angular momentum quantum numbers of the fine structure levels of the upper term. The auxiliary functions and are defined in Eqs. (14) and (15) of P1 but are used here for the nonmagnetic case and with angleaveraged redistribution functions of typeII. The angle β_{Jb′Jb} is defined in Eq. (10) of P1.
2.1. Decomposition of the Stokes vectors
In general the source vector S and the Stokes vector I depend on the colatitude θ of the radiation field. Computationally it is advantageous to work in a reduced basis, where the source vector components do not depend on θ (see for e.g. FaurobertScholl et al. 1997). Transformation of the Stokes vectors to such a reduced basis is referred to as the “decomposition” of the Stokes vectors. Using , Frisch (2007) has presented an elegant decomposition technique for the case of the Hanle effect. It is straightforward to apply this decomposition technique to the problem at hand. Here we briefly present a few important equations of this decomposition.
Let us denote I_{i} = (I,Q) with i = 0,1 as the components of the Stokes vector. For the cylindrically symmetric case, the components I_{i} of the Stokes vector can be decomposed in terms of two irreducible components as follows (18)Similarly, the source vector S can be decomposed in terms of two cylindrically symmetric components , which become independent of even μ. are real for K = 0,2 and i = 0,1, and thus and are also real.
For the nonmagnetic case, we define the twocomponent vectors and . The transfer equation for ℐ can now be written as (19)The irreducible total source vector takes the form (20)where is the primary source vector. The irreducible line source vector is given by (21)Here is a (2 × 2) diagonal matrix with elements diag (ℛ^{0},ℛ^{2}), where ℛ^{K} are defined in Eq. (17).
The mean intensity for the nonmagnetic case is a twocomponent vector defined by (22)The elements of the (2 × 2) matrix Ψ(μ) are given in LL04 (see also Appendix A of Frisch 2007). In the following sections, for notational brevity we specify the functional dependence of physical quantities as subscripts.
3. Numerical method of solution
We solve the polarized line radiative transfer equation for nonmagnetic (Rayleigh) scattering on a twoterm atom including the effects of Jstate interference given in Eq. (19). We use the PALI method developed in Nagendra & Sampoorna (2009) appropriately extended to handle the present problem. In the following subsections we briefly describe this iterative technique.
3.1. The iteration scheme
The formal solution of the transfer equation may be stated in terms of the full lambda operator as (23)where Λ_{x} operates on the quantity within [ ]. By defining a local monochromatic approximate Lambda operator as (24)we can set up an iterative scheme to compute the source vectors, namely (25)(26)where the superscript (n) refers to the nth iteration step. From Eqs. (24) and (25) it follows, by keeping only terms up to the first order, that (27)Inserting Eqs. (21) and (27) into Eq. (26), we obtain a set of linear equations for the corrections to the line source vector : (28)In deriving the above equation we have used the relation (29)where p_{x} = φ_{x}/(φ_{x} + r) is a scalar quantity defining the fractional line absorption and is a linear operator. The frequency dependent residual vector is given by (30)The formal line source vector is obtained from (31)where the mean intensity is computed using a short characteristic formal solver.
3.2. Calculation of the source vector corrections
The important step of the iterative method is the calculation of the source vector corrections . Here we use the frequency by frequency (FBF) method of Paletou & Auer (1995) to compute these corrections, suitably generalized to the vector case (see also Sampoorna et al. 2008). The system of linear equations (Eq. (28)) can be organized in the matrix form as (32)where the vector r is the righthand side of Eq. (28). At each depth point, for the nonmagnetic case, A is a 2N_{x} × 2N_{x} matrix with N_{x} the number of frequency points, and r has a length 2N_{x}. Each element of A corresponding to a given value of x and x′ is a 2 × 2 block denoted by A^{2}, which is given by (33)Here E is the 2 × 2 identity matrix. δ_{i,j} is the Kronecker’s delta. The indices (i,j) refer to discretized values of (x,x′), respectively. The matrix A is computed only once because it does not change during the iteration.
We note that the polarized radiative transfer equation and its method of solution presented in Sects. 2 and 3 are valid for any scattering transition of the type L_{a} → L_{b} → L_{a} in a twoterm atom. In Sect. 4 we present the results only for an L = 0 → 1 → 0 scattering transition with S = 1/2, which corresponds to a doublet. The absorption profile function φ(x) for this doublet is given in Eq. (10).
4. Results and discussions
In this section we present the emergent Stokes profiles obtained by solving the polarized line radiative transfer equation for a hypothetical doublet at 5000 Å and 5001 Å. They arise from an L = 0 → 1 → 0 scattering transition with spin S = 1/2 and include the effects of Jstate interference. We consider isothermal constant property slabs with a given optical thickness T to perform the tests. T is varied from optically thin (T ≪ 1) to optically thick (T ≫ 1) slabs. The slabs are assumed to be selfemitting unless stated otherwise. The slabs are illuminated at the lower boundary when they are assumed as pure scattering media (ϵ = 0). The atmospheric model parameters used for the computations are represented by (T,a,ϵ,r), where a is the damping parameter. The Planck function B is taken as unity. The Doppler width for both lines are assumed to be the same and equal to 0.025 Å. The grid resolution in the physical variables is given by the values of (N_{d},N_{x},N_{μ}). The quantity N_{d} represents the number of depth points per decade in a logarithmically spaced τgrid. Unless stated otherwise, the first depth point τ_{min} = 10^{2} and N_{d} = 5. The frequency grid points are very closely and equally spaced near the cores of the two lines as well as in between the two lines, and sparsely but equally spaced in the wings of the two lines. The total number of frequency points N_{x} = 308. We use a GaussLegendre quadrature for colatitude θ (μ) with N_{μ} = 5 points.
4.1. Scattering in optically thin slabs
To mimic a single scattering event from a radiative line transfer problem with PRD, we consider an optically thin slab illuminated at the lower boundary by an unidirectional unpolarized beam of radiation, namely, ℐ(τ = T,x′,μ′ = 0.995) = U. The other parameters used are (T = 2 × 10^{2},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 0,r = 0). The first depth point is τ_{min} = 10^{4} and N_{μ} = 17. The optical thickness is chosen to be very small so that the emergent diffuse radiation field is dominated by single scattered photons. The choice of parameters ϵ = 0 and r = 0 represents a purely scattering medium without any continuum absorption. In Fig. 1 we compare emergent profiles computed from the line transfer problem that mimics a nearly 84° single scattering event (dotted line) with the profiles computed for the exact 84° single scattering case (dashed line). The intensity computed from the transfer code has been scaled up by a factor of 102 (dotted line), to match with intensity obtained from the single scattering case. From Fig. 1 we see that the shape of the profiles computed with the transfer code are very similar to the profiles for the single scattering case. They are similar to the single scattered Q/I profiles of Stenflo (1980; see also Fig. 10.17 of LL04). This verifies that the R matrix has been correctly incorporated into the line transfer code. We plot − Q/I only in Fig. 1 to facilitate a quick comparison with the corresponding single scattered profiles presented in Stenflo (1980; see also P1).
Fig. 1 Emergent Stokes profiles formed in an optically thin medium shown as a function of wavelength for nearly tangential emergence μ = 0.47 × 10^{2} (dotted line). The model parameters are T = 2 × 10^{2},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 0, and r = 0. A nearly vertical beam of radiation incident at μ′ = 0.995 is used as the lower boundary condition. In this case, the intensity is scaled up by a factor of 102 for comparison with the single scattered solution. The dashed line shows the emergent Stokes profiles computed for the single scattering case with the same value of scattering angle. 

Open with DEXTER 
Fig. 2 Emergent Stokes profiles computed without Jstate interference (dotted line) and with Jstate interference (dashed line) at μ = 0.047 for an optical thickness T = 2 × 10^{4}. The other model parameters are (a,ϵ,r) = (10^{3},10^{4},0). 

Open with DEXTER 
4.2. Comparison between Stokes profiles with and without Jstate interference
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the Stokes profiles computed with and without the effects of Jstate interference. The effects of Jstate interference in a doublet (or even a multiplet) system can be neglected by simply setting J_{b} = J_{b′} in the RHS of Eq. (17), so that there is only one summation over J_{b}. These profiles are plotted for an atmosphere with T = 2 × 10^{4}, a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4}, and r = 0. It is well known from the single line twolevel atom transfer computations that owing to the effects of PRD, two symmetric wing peaks appear in the Q/I profiles on either side of the line center. These peaks are referred to as the PRD peaks. For a doublet without the effect of Jstate interference, or in other words, two noninteracting lines, these symmetric PRD peaks are visible around the lines at 5000 Å and 5001 Å (see dotted line in Fig. 2). Q/I at the 5001 Å line (arising from the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 scattering transition) is zero because the polarizability factor W_{2} is zero for this line. If one includes Jstate interference effects between the two lines, the near wing PRD peaks around the 5000 Å line become asymmetric (see the dashed line). The amplitude of the PRD peak at 4999.8 Å is increased, whereas the amplitude of the PRD peak at 5000.2 Å is decreased. Moreover, the symmetric PRD peaks around 5001 Å are converted into antisymmetric peaks by the Jstate interference effects. The amplitudes of these peaks are also enhanced. Comparing the dotted line with the dashed line, it is evident that these effects are caused by Jstate interference.
The prominent signature of the Jstate interference is the sign reversal in Q/I in the region of interference between the two lines. This is clearly visible in the dashed line, which includes this effect, but not in the dotted line which represents the case of the noninteracting lines.
Though there are striking differences between the Q/I for the two cases – with and without Jstate interference, the intensity I is unaffected by this phenomenon.
Fig. 3 Emergent Stokes profiles at μ = 0.047 computed for optical thickness T = 2 × 10^{2} (thick solid line), T = 2 × 10^{4} (dotted line), T = 2 × 10^{6} (dashed line) and T = 2 × 10^{8} (dotdashed line). The thin solid line represents a profile without Jstate interference for T = 2 × 10^{8}. The other model parameters are the same as in Fig. 2. The insets are plotted as functions of the nondimensional frequency (x), measured from the line at 5000 Å to compare with the single line results (see Fig. 10 of Sampoorna et al. 2011). 

Open with DEXTER 
4.3. Effects of optical thickness T of the medium on the Jstate interference
In Fig. 3 we present the Stokes profiles for slabs with different values of optical thickness T. For all examples, T ≥ 2 × 10^{2} with the thermalization parameter ϵ = 10^{4}. The chosen values of T represent a wide variety of the scattering media ranging from those that are effectively thin (ϵT = 2 × 10^{2}, for T = 2 × 10^{2}) to those that are effectively thick (ϵT = 2 × 10^{4}, for T = 2 × 10^{8}). The other model parameters are (a = 10^{3},r = 0).
The variation of I and Q/I with T in the case of a doublet is similar to that of a singleline case. This can be seen from the inset panels in I and Q/I in Fig. 3 and in turn comparing them with the left panel in Fig. 10 (dashed lines) of Sampoorna et al. (2011). In the inset panels I and Q/I are plotted as a function of the nondimensional frequency (x), which is measured from the center of the line at 5000 Å. As the optical thickness increases, the magnitudes of Q/I at the PRD peaks initially increase and then decrease. This decrease is caused by the influence of multiple scattering. The thicker the atmosphere, the more isotropic is the radiation field because of multiple scattering. Accordingly, the polarization is reduced (see Rees 1978).
Fig. 4 Same as Fig. 3 but for various values of the thermalization parameter ϵ = 0 (solid line), ϵ = 10^{6} (dotted line), ϵ = 10^{4} (dashed line) and ϵ = 10^{2} (dotdashed line). The remaining parameters are (T,a,r) = (2 × 10^{4},10^{3},0). 

Open with DEXTER 
Furthermore, as T increases, the PRD peaks shift away from the line centers of the two lines. For T = 2 × 10^{6} and T = 2 × 10^{8}, the PRD peaks occur far away from the centers of the two lines. For instance, at the wing frequencies between the two lines, the interference effects dominate over PRDeffects, resulting in suppression of the PRD peaks. Hence, there are no PRD peaks visible in between the two lines for these two values of T. However, their counterpart PRD peaks are visible on the outer sides of the two lines that are away from the region of interference between the two lines. For T = 2 × 10^{8} the PRD peaks occur so far out in the wings that they cannot be shown in the scale adopted for Fig. 3.
For T = 2 × 10^{8}, an interesting feature is visible in the region of interference between the two lines. The Q/I profile displays a bump in the interference region between them (see the dotdashed line). This behavior can be understood by comparing it with the thin solid curve that represents the result for the same model atmosphere, but without the effects of Jstate interference, namely for the case of two noninteracting lines (shown only in the Q/I panel). The bump arises because of the sign reversal in Q/I that is in turn caused by the Jstate interference effects. For two noninteracting lines, as seen from the thin solid curve, the Q/I between the two lines is negative. The Jstate interference effects flip the sign of Q/I in this region which causes this bump, as seen in the dotdashed curve. A smaller bump visible at 5000.8 Å for T = 2 × 10^{6} can also be understood in a similar way (the corresponding curve for two noninteracting lines is not shown in the figure).
4.4. Effects of the thermalization parameter ϵ on the Jstate interference
In Fig. 4 we present the Stokes profiles for different values of the thermalization parameter ϵ. The optical thickness of the medium is fixed at T = 2 × 10^{4}. The value of ϵ is varied from 10^{2} to 0, which covers effectively thick to effectively thin slabs. The other model parameters are a = 10^{3} and r = 0.
For ϵ = 0, there are no internal sources of photons. This is an example of a pure scattering medium. We give as the boundary condition at the lower boundary. In this case, the emergent intensity is an absorption profile.
The variation of I and Q/I with ϵ in the case of a doublet is similar to that of the single line case. This can be seen from the inset panels in I and Q/I in Fig. 4. As ϵ increases from 10^{6} to 10^{2}, the intensity increases and the degree of linear polarization Q/I decreases in the line core and near wings of both the lines. For ϵ ≠ 0, the emergent intensity profiles become selfreversed emission lines. This behavior is similar to that of the single line case as can be seen from the right panel in Fig. 10 (dashed lines) of Sampoorna et al. (2011).
Fig. 5 Same as Fig. 3 but for different values of the continuum parameter r = 10^{10} (solid line), r = 10^{8} (dotted line), r = 10^{6} (dashed line) and r = 10^{4} (dotdashed line). The other model parameters are (T,a,ϵ) = (2 × 10^{4},10^{3},10^{4}). The insets are plotted as functions of the nondimensional frequency (x), measured from the line at 5000 Å to compare with the single line results (see Fig. 11 of Sampoorna et al. 2011). 

Open with DEXTER 
It is worth noting that the wavelength region between 5000.3 Å to 5000.7 Å is insensitive to the variation in ϵ, except when ϵ = 0 (in which case Q/I approaches zero). The Jstate interference effects show up most prominently in this wavelength region in between the two lines. For ϵ = 0, the emergent radiation in the wings approach the incident radiation which is unpolarized (see Sampoorna et al. 2008). The curve for two noninteracting lines (not shown in the figure) for this case nearly coincides with the curve including the effects of Jstate interference (solid line) except for the two small PRD peaks on either side of the line at 5001 Å, which are slightly enhanced because of this effect, as discussed above.
4.5. Effect of the unpolarized background continuum on the Jstate interference
The results shown in the previous sections were obtained without a background continuum (r = 0). In Fig. 5 we show the Stokes profiles for different values of the continuum strength r. The other model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4}). r is varied from 10^{10} to 10^{4} in steps of 10^{2}. When r increases, we observe a significant decrease in the amplitude of the near wing PRD peaks in Q/I. Also the Jstate interference effects vanish for r = 10^{4} away from the line cores (see the dotdashed line in Fig. 5). The insets in Fig. 5 show a behavior similar to the single line case seen in Fig. 11 (dashed lines) of Sampoorna et al. (2011). As r increases, the intensity profile evolves from a “selfreversed emission line” to an absorption line.
Fig. 6 Effect of line separation between the doublets. Three different line separations are chosen, namely 1 Å (solid line), 3 Å (dotted line), and 6 Å (dashed line). The model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4},r = 0). 

Open with DEXTER 
4.6. Effect of line separation between the doublets coupled through the Jstate interference
In Fig. 6 we present the scattered Stokes profiles for three different values of the separation between the lines. The model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4},r = 0). The line separations used are 1 Å, 3 Å and 6 Å (measured from the 5000 Å line). Evidently, the Q/I amplitudes of the near wing PRD peaks about the lines at 5001 Å, 5003 Å and 5006 Å decrease with the increase in line separation.
This behavior is expected, because the polarizability factor W_{2} = 0 for the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 transition, producing no polarization at the line center. Jstate interference together with PRD in scattering is responsible for polarization signals near the resonance frequency of this line component. As the separation of the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 component increases, the Jstate interference effects naturally decrease, resulting in successively weaker signals. It is useful to note that although characteristic signals are generated near the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 resonance frequency, Q/I = 0 at the actual line center. As the figure shows, PRD along with the effects of Jstate interference can indeed generate Q/I signals near the centers of multiplet components with W_{2} = 0, but these signatures have an antisymmetric shape with a zero crossing at the exact line center. These antisymmetric polarization signals can also be produced at the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 transition using CRD (see Trujillo Bueno et al. 2002; Casini & Manso Sainz 2005, where also the role of hyperfine structure and lower term polarization are investigated).
Fig. 7 Same as Fig. 3 but with the solid line computed using the redistribution matrix approach and the dotted line computed with the quantum interference theory that uses a wavelengthdependent W_{2}(λ) factor. The model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4},r = 0). 

Open with DEXTER 
4.7. Comparison of the redistribution matrix approach with the quantum interference theory of Stenflo
In this section we compare our redistribution matrix approach and the quantum interference theory of Stenflo (1980; see also Stenflo 1997). The comparison is shown in Fig. 7. The solid line shows the profile computed with the exact Jstate interference theory presented in Sect. 2. We refer to this as the redistribution matrix approach. The dotted line shows the profiles computed from an independent line transfer code. In this code, in place of ℛ^{K}(x,x′) we use where R^{II − A}(J_{b} → J_{a}) are the angleaveraged frequency redistribution functions of Hummer (1962) for the line with center frequency at ν_{JbJa} corresponding to the J_{b} → J_{a} transition. The polarizability factor W_{0}(ν) = 1, and W_{2}(ν) is the frequencydependent W_{2} factor derived by Stenflo (1980). The frequencydependent W_{2}(ν) contains the quantum interference effects and is given by the formula (see Eq. (19) of Stenflo 1997) (34)Thus we use W_{2}(ν) instead of a constant W_{2}. Also φ(x) is taken as the sum of the absorption profiles of the individual lines. From Eq. (34) one can see a double resonance at ν_{1} and ν_{2} and an interference in between these two resonances, which shows up in the emergent Q/I profiles shown in Fig. 7. Clearly, both these independent approaches give nearly the same results. The Jstate interference effects along with PRD effects have been included in realistic modeling of the observed Q/I profiles of the Na i D_{1} and D_{2} lines by Fluri et al. (2003) based on the quantum interference theory of Stenflo (1980, 1997). Our results computed using the isothermal slab atmospheres show a similar behavior.
5. Conclusions
We presented the nonmagnetic line transfer equation for a twoterm atom including the effects of Jstate interference for an arbitrary L_{a} → L_{b} → L_{a} scattering transition. We showed that the decomposition technique of Frisch (2007) that was devised for a twolevel atom case can be applied to the more difficult case of a twoterm atom. This technique allows us to write a polarized approximate lambda iteration method to solve the concerned transfer problem. Numerical results were presented for a doublet taking the example of an L = 0 → 1 → 0 scattering transition with S = 1/2.
Jstate interference produces asymmetric near wing PRD peaks around the center of the 1/2 → 3/2 → 1/2 scattering transition. Also, antisymmetric peaks are produced near the center of the 1/2 → 1/2 → 1/2 transition. We showed that the Jstate interference effects sensitively depend on the optical thickness of the medium. At the line core and near wings the variation of (I,Q/I) with respect to various atmospheric parameters is similar to the behavior of a single line. The wavelength region in between the two lines is somewhat insensitive to the variation in ϵ for T = 2 × 10^{4}. In the presence of a strong background continuum the PRD as well as Jstate interference effects become suppressed. Finally, as the line separation (fine structure splitting) increases, the Jstate interference effects decrease strongly as one moves away from the 1/2 → 3/2 → 1/2 transition at 5000 Å.
The present extension of polarized radiative transfer theory to include twoterm atoms with Jstate interference is a significant step in our program to develop the theoretical tools that are needed to interpret the wealth of polarized structures that are observed in the second solar spectrum, so that they can be used to diagnose the magnetized solar atmosphere in ways not accessible by other means.
Acknowledgments
We thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions that helped to improve the paper. We would like to thank Ms. L. S. Anusha for useful discussions.
References
 Bommier, V. 1997, A&A, 328, 726 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Casini, R., & Manso Sainz, R. 2005 ApJ, 624, 1025 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Chandrasekhar, S. 1950, Radiative Transfer (Oxford: Clarendon) [Google Scholar]
 FaurobertScholl, M. 1991, A&A, 246, 469 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 FaurobertScholl, M., Frisch, H., & Nagendra, K. N. 1997, A&A, 322, 896 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Fluri, D. M., Holzreuter, R., Klement, J., & Stenflo, J. O. 2003, in Solar Polarization 3, ed. J. TrujilloBueno, & J. Sanchez Almeida (San Francisco: ASP), ASP Conf. Ser., 307, 263 [Google Scholar]
 Frisch, H. 2007, A&A, 476, 665 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Holzreuter, R., Fluri, D. M., & Stenflo, J. O. 2006, A&A, 449, L41 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Hummer, D. G. 1962, MNRAS, 125, 21 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E. 1984, Sol. Phys., 91, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & Landolfi, M. 2004, Polarization in Spectral Lines (Dordrecht: Kluwer) (LL04) [Google Scholar]
 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., Landi Degl’Innocenti, M., & Landolfi, M. 1997, in Proc. Forum THÉMIS, Science with THÉMIS, ed. N. Mein, & S. SahalBréchot (Paris: Obs. ParisMeudon), 59 [Google Scholar]
 Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar Atmospheres (San Francisco: Freeman) [Google Scholar]
 Manso Sainz, R., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2003, in Solar Polarization 3, ed. J. TrujilloBueno, & Jorge Sanchez Almeida (San Francisco: ASP), ASP Conf. Ser., 301, 251 [Google Scholar]
 Manso Sainz, R., & TrujilloBueno, J. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1416 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Nagendra, K. N. 2003a, in Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny, D. Mihalas, & K. Werner (San Francisco: ASP) ASP Conf. Ser., 288, 583 [Google Scholar]
 Nagendra, K. N. 2003b, in Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny, D. Mihalas, & K. Werner (San Francisco: ASP) ASP Conf. Ser., 288, 611 [Google Scholar]
 Nagendra, K. N., & Sampoorna, M. 2009, in Solar Polarization 5, ed. S. V. Berdyugina, K. N. Nagendra, & R. Ramelli (San Francisco: ASP), ASP Conf. Ser., 405, 261 [Google Scholar]
 Nagendra, K. N., Frisch, H., & Faurobert, M. 2002, A&A, 395, 305 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Nagendra, K. N., Anusha, L. S., & Sampoorna, M. 2009, Mem. S. A. It., 80, 678 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Olson, G. L., Auer, L. H., & Buchler, J. R. 1986, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 35, 431 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Paletou, F., & Auer, L. H. 1995, A&A, 297, 771 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Rees, D. E. 1978, PASJ, 30, 455 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Rees, D. E., & Saliba, G. J. 1982, A&A, 115, 1 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Sampoorna, M., Nagendra, K. N., & Frisch, H. 2008, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 109, 2349 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Sampoorna, M., Nagendra, K. N., & Frisch, H. 2011, A&A, 587, A89 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Smitha, H. N., Sampoorna, M., Nagendra, K. N., & Stenflo, J. O. 2011, ApJ, 733, 4 (P1) [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Stenflo, J. O. 1980, A&A, 84, 68 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Stenflo, J. O. 1994, Solar Magnetic Fields: Polarized Radiation Diagnostics (Dordrecht: Kluwer) [Google Scholar]
 Stenflo, J. O. 1997, A&A, 324, 344 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Trujillo Bueno, J. 2003, in Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny, D. Mihalas, & K. Werner (San Francisco: ASP), ASP Conf. Ser., 288, 551 [Google Scholar]
 Trujillo Bueno, J. 2011, in Solar Polarization 6, ed. J. R. Kuhn, S. V. Berdyugina, D. M. Harrington, S. L. Keil, H. Lin, T. Rimmele, & J. TrujilloBueno (San Francisco: ASP), 437, 83 [Google Scholar]
 Trujillo Bueno, J. , & Landi Degl’ Innocenti, E. 1997, ApJ, 482, L183 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Trujillo Bueno, J., Casini, R., Landolfi, M., & Landi Degl’Innocenti, E. 2002, ApJ, 566, L53 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
All Figures
Fig. 1 Emergent Stokes profiles formed in an optically thin medium shown as a function of wavelength for nearly tangential emergence μ = 0.47 × 10^{2} (dotted line). The model parameters are T = 2 × 10^{2},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 0, and r = 0. A nearly vertical beam of radiation incident at μ′ = 0.995 is used as the lower boundary condition. In this case, the intensity is scaled up by a factor of 102 for comparison with the single scattered solution. The dashed line shows the emergent Stokes profiles computed for the single scattering case with the same value of scattering angle. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 2 Emergent Stokes profiles computed without Jstate interference (dotted line) and with Jstate interference (dashed line) at μ = 0.047 for an optical thickness T = 2 × 10^{4}. The other model parameters are (a,ϵ,r) = (10^{3},10^{4},0). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 3 Emergent Stokes profiles at μ = 0.047 computed for optical thickness T = 2 × 10^{2} (thick solid line), T = 2 × 10^{4} (dotted line), T = 2 × 10^{6} (dashed line) and T = 2 × 10^{8} (dotdashed line). The thin solid line represents a profile without Jstate interference for T = 2 × 10^{8}. The other model parameters are the same as in Fig. 2. The insets are plotted as functions of the nondimensional frequency (x), measured from the line at 5000 Å to compare with the single line results (see Fig. 10 of Sampoorna et al. 2011). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 4 Same as Fig. 3 but for various values of the thermalization parameter ϵ = 0 (solid line), ϵ = 10^{6} (dotted line), ϵ = 10^{4} (dashed line) and ϵ = 10^{2} (dotdashed line). The remaining parameters are (T,a,r) = (2 × 10^{4},10^{3},0). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 5 Same as Fig. 3 but for different values of the continuum parameter r = 10^{10} (solid line), r = 10^{8} (dotted line), r = 10^{6} (dashed line) and r = 10^{4} (dotdashed line). The other model parameters are (T,a,ϵ) = (2 × 10^{4},10^{3},10^{4}). The insets are plotted as functions of the nondimensional frequency (x), measured from the line at 5000 Å to compare with the single line results (see Fig. 11 of Sampoorna et al. 2011). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 6 Effect of line separation between the doublets. Three different line separations are chosen, namely 1 Å (solid line), 3 Å (dotted line), and 6 Å (dashed line). The model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4},r = 0). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 7 Same as Fig. 3 but with the solid line computed using the redistribution matrix approach and the dotted line computed with the quantum interference theory that uses a wavelengthdependent W_{2}(λ) factor. The model parameters are (T = 2 × 10^{4},a = 10^{3},ϵ = 10^{4},r = 0). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.