1 / 17

Are inputs to standard solar models correct? OR The problem with solar abundances

Are inputs to standard solar models correct? OR The problem with solar abundances. Sarbani Basu Yale Univesity. Why are we asking this question?. Standard solar models had shown a remarkable agreement with the Sun. BUT The new, lowered, solar abundances spoil the agreement.

said
Download Presentation

Are inputs to standard solar models correct? OR The problem with solar abundances

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Are inputs to standard solar models correct? OR The problem with solar abundances Sarbani Basu Yale Univesity

  2. Why are we asking this question? • Standard solar models had shown a remarkable agreement with the Sun. BUT • The new, lowered, solar abundances spoil the agreement. Older abundances : Grevesse & Sauval (1998), Z/X=0.0229 New abundances: Asplund et al. (2005), Z/X=0.0165

  3. Just how bad is the situation? Models from Bahcall, Basu & Serenelli (2005) Solar properties:YCZ= 0.2485±0.0034(Basu & Antia 1995,2004)RCZ=0.713±0.001R0(Basu & Antia 1997, 2004) GS model: YCZ= 0.243, RCZ=0.715 AGS model: YCZ= 0.230, RCZ=0.729

  4. Models from Bahcall, Basu, Pinsonneault & Serenelli (2005) BP04+ (Z/X=0.0176):YCZ= 0.238, RCZ=0.726 BP04+21% (Z/X=0.0176, opacity increased by 21% at 2.18x106K): YCZ= 0.239, RCZ=0.713 BP04+11% (Z/X=0.0176, opacity increased by 11% between 2 and 5 MK) : YCZ= 0.243, RCZ=0.716

  5. Two recalculations of opacities (OP, Badnell et al., 2005; LEDCOP, Neuforge-Verheecke et al. 2001) agree with OPAL to within 3% at the CZ base. Models from Bahcall, Serenelli & Basu (2005) AGS, OPAL:YCZ= 0.229, RCZ=0.728 AGS, OP: YCZ= 0.230, RCZ=0.729 GS, OPAL : YCZ= 0.243, RCZ=0.715 GS, OP : YCZ= 0.243, RCZ=0.714

  6. Diffusion rates?

  7. From Delahaye & Pinsonneault 2006

  8. Can we get acceptable solar models with the new abundances if all other inputs are changed within their errors? From Bahcall, Serenelli & Basu 2006

  9. What if one element’s abundance is underestimated?Candate: NeonWhy?(1) Adds to opacity at CZ base temperatures (2)No photospheric lines of Neon. Abundance determined by assuming a Ne/O ratio (solar value 0.15). Models from Bahcall, Basu & Serenelli (2005)

  10. Closer to the surface: The ionization zones Lin, Antia, Basu (2007, submitted)

  11. Revisit Neon Lin, Antia, Basu (2007, submitted)

  12. What about the solar core?Cannot invert very well, but can compare combinations of frequencies that are sensitive to the structure of the core? Data used:BiSON low degree frequencies obtained with a 4752-day time series.Frequency combinations: (Small separations) (large separations) (separation ratios)

  13. Small separations Separation ratios Models shown earlier From Basu et al. (2006)

  14. Can we determine Z from helioseismology? GS AGS Z= 0.0187 to 0.0239 Error 12% to 19% Chaplin et al. 2007, submitted

  15. We can get a better estimate of the average mean molecular weight in the core GS Average GS = 0.7203 Average AGS= 0.7088 AGS mc = 0.7209 to 0.7231 Error 0.5% Chaplin et al. 2007, submitted

  16. Z can be determined from the ionization zones too: ZSun=0.017± 0.002 Antia & Basu (2006)

  17. Conclusions • It is premature to declare the inputs to solar structure calculations incorrect • A lot more work needs to be done in determining the solar abundances.

More Related