Science-advisor
REGISTER info/FAQ
Login
username
password
     
forgot password?
register here
 
Research articles
  search articles
  reviews guidelines
  reviews
  articles index
My Pages
my alerts
  my messages
  my reviews
  my favorites
 
 
Stat
Members: 3645
Articles: 2'501'711
Articles rated: 2609

20 April 2024
 
  » arxiv » astro-ph/0501530

 Article overview


Can Recently Derived Solar Photospheric Abundances Be Consistent with Helioseismology?
J. Guzik ; L. S. Watson ;
Date 25 Dec 2004
Journal 2004soho...14..456G
Subject astro-ph
AbstractRecent solar abundance analyses (Asplund et al. 2004; Lodders 2003) revise downward the abundances of C, N, O, Ne, and Ar, which reduces the solar photospheric Z/X to 0.017, and Z to ~0.013. Solar models evolved with standard opacities and diffusion treatment using these new abundances give poor agreement with helioseismic inferences for sound speed profile, convection zone helium abundance, and convection zone depth. Here we present helioseismic results for evolved solar models with these reduced photospheric abundances, trying varying diffusion treatments. We compare results for models with no diffusion, enhanced thermal diffusion, and enhanced diffusion of C, N, O, Ne, and Mg only. We find that while each of these models provides some improvements compared to a solar model evolved with the new abundances and standard physics, none restores the good agreement with helioseismology attained using the earlier abundances of, e.g., Grevesse & Sauval (1998). We suggest that opacity increases of about 20% for conditions below the convection zone, or the possibility of accretion of lower-Z material at the surface as the sun arrived at the main sequence, should be investigated to restore agreement. In addition, the new abundance determinations should be re-considered, as, if they are correct, it will be difficult to reconcile solar models with helioseismic results.
Source arXiv, astro-ph/0501530
Services Forum | Review | PDF | Favorites   
 
Visitor rating: did you like this article? no 1   2   3   4   5   yes

No review found.
 Did you like this article?

This article or document is ...
important:
of broad interest:
readable:
new:
correct:
Global appreciation:

  Note: answers to reviews or questions about the article must be posted in the forum section.
Authors are not allowed to review their own article. They can use the forum section.

browser Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)






ScienXe.org
» my Online CV
» Free


News, job offers and information for researchers and scientists:
home  |  contact  |  terms of use  |  sitemap
Copyright © 2005-2024 - Scimetrica