-
Status of the Standard Solar Model Prediction of Solar Neutrino Fluxes
Authors:
Moshe Gai
Abstract:
The Standard Solar Model (BP04) predicts a total 8B neutrino flux that is 17.2% larger than measured in the salt phase of the SNO detector (and if it were significant it will indicate oscillation to sterile neutrinos). Hence it is important to examine in details uncertainties (and values) of inputs to the SSM. Currently, the largest fractional uncertainty is due to the new evaluation of the surf…
▽ More
The Standard Solar Model (BP04) predicts a total 8B neutrino flux that is 17.2% larger than measured in the salt phase of the SNO detector (and if it were significant it will indicate oscillation to sterile neutrinos). Hence it is important to examine in details uncertainties (and values) of inputs to the SSM. Currently, the largest fractional uncertainty is due to the new evaluation of the surface composition of the sun. We examine the nuclear input on the formation of solar 8B [S17(0)] and demonstrate that it is still quite uncertain due to ill known slope of the measured astrophysical cross section factor and thus ill defined extrapolation to zero energy. This yields an additional reasonably estimated uncertainty due to extrapolation of +0.0 -3.0 eV-b (+0% -14%). Since a large discrepancy exists among measured as well as among predicted slopes, the value of S17(0) is dependent on the choice of data and theory used to extrapolate S17(0). This situation must be alleviated by new measurement(s). The "world average" is driven by the Seattle result due to the very small quoted uncertainty, which we however demonstrate it to be an over-estimated accuracy. We propose more realistic error bars for the Seattle results based on the published Seattle data.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2005;
originally announced October 2005.
-
Do We Accurately Know the Formation of Solar 8B?
Authors:
Moshe Gai
Abstract:
A detailed examination of current data on S_17 (as opposed to an examination of S_17(0) only) excludes quoting S_17(0) with sufficiently small uncertainty. In contrast to suggestions that S_17(0) is now known with the accuracy of \pm 3%, the exact value of S_17(0) is dependent on the choice of the data and the choice of theory used for extrapolation. In addition recent high precision results (in…
▽ More
A detailed examination of current data on S_17 (as opposed to an examination of S_17(0) only) excludes quoting S_17(0) with sufficiently small uncertainty. In contrast to suggestions that S_17(0) is now known with the accuracy of \pm 3%, the exact value of S_17(0) is dependent on the choice of the data and the choice of theory used for extrapolation. In addition recent high precision results (including the Seattle data) on S_17 which are in good agreement, still differ on the measured slopes, as do theoretical models that predict different d-wave contribution, precluding an accurate extrapolation to zero energy of the consistent data. Using a common extrapolation of only the consistent high precision data, suggests a value of S_17(0) = 21.2 \pm 0.5 eV-b, but a value equal to or smaller than 19.0 eV-b can not be excluded due to the uncertainty in the extrapolation, leading to an additional error of +0.0 -3.0 eV-b. This (unacceptable) situation must be cleared by future experiments.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2004;
originally announced October 2004.
-
(Two) Open Questions in Stellar Nuclear Physics
Authors:
Moshe Gai
Abstract:
No doubt, among the most exciting discoveries of the third millennium thus far are {\bf Oscillations of Massive Neutrinos} and {\bf Dark Energy} that leads to an accelerated expansion of the Universe. Accordingly, Nuclear Physics is presented with two extraordinary challenges: the need for precise (5% or better) prediction of solar neutrino fluxes within the Standard Solar Model, and the need fo…
▽ More
No doubt, among the most exciting discoveries of the third millennium thus far are {\bf Oscillations of Massive Neutrinos} and {\bf Dark Energy} that leads to an accelerated expansion of the Universe. Accordingly, Nuclear Physics is presented with two extraordinary challenges: the need for precise (5% or better) prediction of solar neutrino fluxes within the Standard Solar Model, and the need for an accurate (5% or better) understanding of stellar evolution and in particular of Type Ia super nova that are used as cosmological standard candle. In contrast, much confusion is found in the field with contradicting data and strong statements of accuracy that can not be supported by current data. We discuss an experimental program to address these challenges and disagreements.
△ Less
Submitted 6 May, 2004;
originally announced May 2004.
-
How Accurately Do We Know the Formation of Solar 8B?
Authors:
Moshe Gai
Abstract:
The large value of \S17 = 22.1 \xpm 0.6 eV-b, reported by the Seattle group, suggests a larger total \b8 solar neutrino flux. Together with the two high precision values quoted for \s34 it is either 20% or 9% larger than measured by SNO. While the accuracy of the Standard Solar Model has recently been revisited, precise nuclear inputs are still relevant, but a detailed examination of current dat…
▽ More
The large value of \S17 = 22.1 \xpm 0.6 eV-b, reported by the Seattle group, suggests a larger total \b8 solar neutrino flux. Together with the two high precision values quoted for \s34 it is either 20% or 9% larger than measured by SNO. While the accuracy of the Standard Solar Model has recently been revisited, precise nuclear inputs are still relevant, but a detailed examination of current data on \xs17 (as opposed to an examination of \S17 only) excludes quoting \S17 with sufficiently small uncertainty. In contrast to suggestions that \S17 is now known with the (impressive) accuracy of \xpm 3%, the exact value of \S17 is dependent on the choice of the data and the choice of theory used for extrapolation. In addition recent high precision results (including the Seattle data) on \xs17 which are in good agreement, still differ on the measured slopes, as does the theory, precluding an accurate extrapolation to zero energy of the consistent data. Using a common extrapolation of only the consistent high precision data, suggests a value of \S17 = 21.2 \xpm 0.5 eV-b, but a value equal to or smaller than 19.0 eV-b can not be excluded due to the uncertainty in the extrapolation, leading to an additional error of $^{+0.0}_{-3.0}$ eV-b. A proposal to remedy this situation is discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 9 February, 2004; v1 submitted 1 December, 2003;
originally announced December 2003.
-
Solar Fusion Cross Sections
Authors:
E. Adelberger,
S. Austin,
J. Bahcall,
A. Balantekin,
G. Bogaert,
L. Brown,
L. Buchmann,
F. Cecil,
A. Champagne,
L. de Braeckeleer,
C. Duba,
S. Elliott,
S. Freedman,
M. Gai,
G. Goldring,
C. Gould,
A. Gruzinov,
W. Haxton,
K. Heeger,
E. Henley,
C. Johnson,
M. Kamionkowski,
R. Kavanagh,
S. Koonin,
K. Kubodera
, et al. (14 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We review and analyze the available information for nuclear fusion cross sections that are most important for solar energy generation and solar neutrino production. We provide best values for the low-energy cross-section factors and, wherever possible, estimates of the uncertainties. We also describe the most important experiments and calculations that are required in order to improve our knowle…
▽ More
We review and analyze the available information for nuclear fusion cross sections that are most important for solar energy generation and solar neutrino production. We provide best values for the low-energy cross-section factors and, wherever possible, estimates of the uncertainties. We also describe the most important experiments and calculations that are required in order to improve our knowledge of solar fusion rates.
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 1998; v1 submitted 11 May, 1998;
originally announced May 1998.
