CSIRO

PUBLISHING

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/pasa

Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

, 2008,

, 85–93

Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the JovianPlanets Govern the Solar Cycle?

I. R. G. Wilson

A,C

, B. D. Carter

, and I. A. Waite

Education Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350,Australia

Centre forAstronomy, Solar Radiation and Climate, University of Southern Queensland,Toowoomba, QLD 4350,Australia

Corresponding author. Email: irgeo@ozemail.com.au

Received 2007 June 13, accepted 2008 April 28

Abstract:

WepresentevidencetoshowthatchangesintheSun’sequatorialrotationratearesynchronizedwithchangesinitsorbitalmotionaboutthebarycentreoftheSolarSystem.Weproposethatthissynchronizationisindicativeofaspin–orbitcouplingmechanismoperatingbetweentheJovianplanetsandtheSun.However,weare unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposedthat it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the durationand strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the levelof disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim thatchanges in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion aboutthe barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonancebetween the flow period (

∼

22.3yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

Keywords:

sun: activity — sun: sunspots — sun: rotation — stars: planetary systems

1 Introduction

Attempts to link solar activity on the surface of the Sunto planetary influences have had a long and checkeredhistory. The published research has shown that there isconsiderable circumstantial evidence suggesting a link between:a) SunspotactivityandthemovementoftheSunaboutthecentre-of-mass (CM) of the Solar System (Jose 1965;Landscheidt 1981, 1999; Fairbridge & Shirley 1987;Chárvátova 1990, 2000; Zaqarashvili 1997). Specifi-cally, between the strength of the sunspot cycles andthe rate of change of the orbital angular momentum of theSunabouttheCMoftheSolarSystem(Jose1965).b) Deviations in the rotation rate of sunspots and the syn-chronicity of the orbital periods of the Jovian planets(Javaraiah & Gokhale 1995; Javaraiah 2003).c) North–South asymmetries between solar sunspotactivity and differential rotation produced by a spin–orbit coupling between the Sun and the Jovian planets(Juckett 2000).However,theseeffortstolinksolaractivitytoplanetaryinfluences have suffered from three major problems:a) The tides induced on the surface of the Sun by theplanetsaresosmallthatitisdifficulttoimagethattheycould have any significant influence on solar surfaceactivity. This means that if there is any connection, itmust be via a transfer of orbital angular momentumfrom the Jovian planets into spin angular momentumoftheSun.Asyet,noonehascomeupwithaplausiblephysical mechanism that would produce a spin–orbitcoupling between the Sun and the Jovian planets.b) While Jose (1965) has shown that there is a good tem-poral match between the variations seen in the orbitalangularmomentumoftheSunabouttheSolarSystem’sBarycentreandthevariationsseeninthesunspotcycle,the match is not always exact, e.g. Jose (1965) had tointroduce arbitrary changes to the phase of the solarcycles in order to force a match between the planetarydriving mechanism and variation in the level of solaractivity.c) The instantaneous rate of change in the Sun’s angularmomentum about the barycentre of the Solar Systemrepeatsitselfwithaperiodicityof178.8yr(Jose1965),sothatthereshouldbenopauseintheplanetarydrivingmechanism. How then do we explain the lull in solaractivity that occurred during the Maunder minimum?The purpose of this paper is to address the first twoproblems. The third problem concerning the MaunderminimumisaddressedbyFairbridge&Shirley(1987)andChárvátova (1990, 2000) and so it will not be discussed inthis paper.In Section 2 we show how the Sun’s orbital angularmomentumabouttheCMoftheSolarSystemperiodically

©Astronomical Society ofAustralia 2008 10.1071/AS06018 1323-3580/08/02085

86 I. R. G. Wilson et al.

decreases and then increases at successive quadratures of Jupiter and Saturn.In Section 3 we present evidence to show that thereis a direct link between the decreases and increases inthe Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of theSolar System, and the observed decreases and increasesin the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed.We believe that thislink provides strong circumstantial evidence that there isa spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between theJovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is thesechangesintheSun’srotationspeedthatareresponsibleforvariationsinthespeedofthemeridionalﬂow.Wepostulatethat it is the planetary induced changes in speed of themeridionalﬂowthatcontrolboththedurationandstrengthofsunspotactivityontheSun’ssurface.Finally,inSection4 we present our conclusions.

2 The Sun’s OrbitalAngular Momentum

Given the fact that the Sun is over 1000 times the mass of Jupiter,itisoftenassumedthattheCMoftheSolarSystemis located at the centre of the Sun. In fact, the centre of theSunmovesabouttheCMoftheSolarSysteminaseriesof complexspiralswiththedistancebetweenthetwovaryingfrom 0.01 to 2.19 solar radii (Jose 1965). This motion isthe result of the gravitational forces of the Jovian planetstugging on the Sun.Jose (1965) quantiﬁed the motion of the Sun about theCM of the Solar System and showed that the time rate of change of the Sun’s angular momentum about the instan-taneous centre of curvature d

, or torque, varies ina quasi-sinusoidal manner similar to the variation seenin the solar sunspot number. In fact, Jose (1965) foundthat the temporal agreement between variations in d

andthesolarsunspotnumberweresogoodthatitstronglyhinted that there was a connection between the planetaryinduced torques acting on the Sun and sunspot activ-ity. However, he did not fully explain how this connectionworked.Zaqarashvili (1997) proposed that the ellipticity of theorbit of the Sun about the CM of the Solar System wasresponsible for periodic differential rotations within thesolar interior and that these internal motions governed theproperties of the solar sunspot cycle. He made the simpli-fyingassumptionthatSun’spathabouttheCMoftheSolarSystem was solely determined by Jupiter. In this case, theSun moves about the CM of the Solar System in a slightlyelliptical orbit (

0.048) with a semi-major axis of 1.08solar radii and a period of 11.86yr, i.e. the Sun rotatesabout a point located just above the solar surface.Zaqarashvili’s model made the ﬁrst tentative stepsto identify a spin–orbit coupling mechanism that mightexplain how planetary induced torques could produceperiodic differential rotation within the solar interior(Zaqarashvili 1997). Unfortunately, his assumption, thatthe Sun’s motion about the CM of the Solar System isprimarily determined by Jupiter, is far too simplistic.Figure1showsatypicalorbitoftheSunabouttheCM.Itisnotthesimpleellipseyouwouldexpectifgravitational

Figure 1

A diagram showing a typical orbit for the Sun aboutthe CM of the Solar System, with the position of the Sun markedby an ‘X’ at the times when Jupiter and Saturn are in opposition(1), ﬁrst quadrature (2), conjunction (3), second quadrature (4), andopposition (5).

effects of Jupiter dominated the Sun’s motion. The Sun’sorbit about the CM deviates from an ellipse primarilybecause of the added inﬂuence of Saturn.Obviously, when Jupiter is at inferior conjunction asseen from Saturn, i.e. the planets are on the same side of the Sun

, the Sun will be at its greatest distance from theCM; when Jupiter is at superior conjunction, as seen fromSaturn, i.e. the planets are on opposite sides of the Sun

,the Sun will be closest to the CM. Similarly, when theplanets are in quadrature, the Sun’s distance from the CMwillberoughlythesameandsomewhereinbetweenthesetwo extremes.This point is highlighted in Figure 1 where we havemarked a set of sequential events concerning the orbitsof Jupiter and Saturn along the Sun’s orbit about the CM.JupiterandSaturnstartinoppositionat(1),firstquadratureat (2), conjunction at (3), second quadrature at (4) andfinally back to opposition at (5).The net effect of adding the gravitational influence of SaturntothatofJupiterupontheSun’sorbitabouttheCMis as follows:a) The times at which the Sun experiences maximumtorque (d

) as it moves around the CM of theSolar System, corresponds very closely with the timesof quadrature for Jupiter and Saturn (Jose 1965) i.e.points (2) and (4) in Figure 1.b) Similarly, the times at which the torque acting on theSuniszero(thisalsothetimeatwhichthetorqueactingon the Sun is most rapidly changing) correspond veryclosely with the times of opposition and conjunctionof Jupiter and Saturn, i.e. points (1), (3), and (5) inFigure 1.Every 9.9

1.0yr, the planet Saturn is in quadraturewith the planet Jupiter (i.e. the angle between Saturn andJupiter,asseenfromtheSun,is90deg).Figure2showstheorbital conﬁguration of a quadrature of Jupiter and Saturn

Inaninferiorconjunction,thesuperiorplanet(Saturn)is‘inopposition’to the Sun, as seen from the inferior planet (Jupiter), and so we will referto this as Jupiter and Saturn being in opposition.

When Jupiter is at superior conjunction as seen from Saturn, we willrefer to this as Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction.

Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Govern the Solar Cycle? 87

Figure 2

The Quadrature Effect when Saturn follows Jupiter: Thegravitational pull of the Sun on Jupiter increases Jupiter’s orbitalspeed. Conversely, the gravitational pull of Jupiter on the Sundecreases the Sun’s orbital speed about the CM of the Solar System.

Figure 3

A plot of the speed of the Sun along its orbit about theCM of the Solar System, between the oppositions of Jupiter andSaturnin1842.2and1861.9.OJS:OppositionofJupiterandSaturn,QJS: Quadrature, CJS: Conjunction. N.B. the solid curve in ﬁgure3 should be smooth; its jagged nature is simply an artifact that isproduced by the digitization of Jose’s original data by the author.

when Saturn follows Jupiter in its orbit. Referring to thisdiagram, we see that Saturn drags the CM of the SolarSystem off the line joining the planet Jupiter to the Sun.As a result, the gravitational force of the Sun acting uponJupiter speeds up its orbital motion about the CM. At thesame time, the gravitational force of Jupiter acting on theSunslowsdowntheorbitalspeedoftheSunabouttheCM.However, the reverse is true at the next quadrature,when Saturn precedes Jupiter in its orbit. In this planetaryconﬁguration, the mutual force of gravitation between theSunandJupiterslowsdownJupiter’sorbitalmotionaboutthe CM and speeds up the Sun’s orbital motion about theCM. Hence, the Sun’s orbital speed about the CM shouldperiodically decrease and then increase as you move fromone quadrature to next (Jose 1965).The curves published by Jose (1965) showing themotion of the Sun about the CM can be used to directlymeasurethespeedoftheSunalongits orbitalpath. Figure3 shows the speed of the Sun along its orbit, betweenthe oppositions of Jupiter and Saturn in 1842.2 and1861.9.Superimposed on Figure 3 are symbols showing thesyzygiesandquadraturesofJupiterandSaturn.Thisﬁgureclearly shows that our prediction about the Sun’s orbitalspeed is indeed correct. In this plot, we see that the speedof the Sun almost halves (from

∼

16 to 8ms

−

) over theperiod from 1842 to 1850, roughly centred on the timeof the ﬁrst quadrature in 1846.5. And then after reachinga minimum near conjunction in 1851.8, the speed almostdoubles (from

∼

8 to 15ms

−

) over the period from 1850to 1860, again roughly centred on the time of quadraturein 1856.9.It is important to note that it is not just the speed of theSun about the CM that changes between oppositions butalso the Sun’s orbital radius about the CM as well. Duringthe eight-year time period between 1842 and 1850, forexample, the Sun’s orbital radius about the CM changedfrom

∼

to almost zero. This means that there wasan overall decrease in the Sun’s angular momentum abouttheCMof

∼

4.5

Nms.Similarly,between1850and1860,theSun’sorbitalradiusabouttheCMincreasedfromzeroto1.5

,resultinginanincreaseoftheSun’sangularmomentum about the CM of

∼

3.2

Nms.Thus, the torque acting on the Sun about the CM startsout at zero at opposition, reaches a minimum value at thefirst quadrature (when Saturn follows Jupiter), returns tozero at the following conjunction, reaches a maximum atthesecondquadrature(whenSaturnprecedesJupiter),andthe finally returns to zero when the planets return to oppo-sition. Variations in the torque of this nature produces astrong breaking of the Sun’s orbital motion about the CMnear the time of first quadrature, accompanied by a sig-nificant decrease in the Sun’s angular momentum. Thisis followed by a strong acceleration of the Sun’s orbitalmotion about the CM near the time of the second quadra-ture, accompanied by a comparable increase in the Sun’sangular momentum.Published plots of the torque (d

) acting on theSun,wherethetorqueismeasuredabouttheinstantaneouscentre of curvature of the Sun’s orbit about the CM (Jose1965), show that this is in fact what happens to theSun. Jose’s (1965) plots show the torque varying in aquasi-sinusoidalmanner,startingoutatzeroatopposition,reaching a minimum at the ﬁrst quadrature, returning tozero at the following conjunction, reaching a maximum atthe second quadrature and ﬁnally returning to zero at thenext opposition. The average time taken for this cycle torepeat itself is simply set by the synodic period of Jupiterand Saturn, i.e. 19.86yr.Figure 4 shows a plot of d

, derived from data inthe paper by Jose (1965), for one cycle between 1901.6and 1920.9 (solid line). Superimpose on this plot (dashedline) is a sinusoidal function with a period equal to thetime between the consecutive oppositions at 1901.8 and1921.8 (i.e. 20.0yr) and an amplitude chosen to match of the ﬁrst minimum.