1: \documentclass{emulateapj} % ApJ format
2: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
3: %\usepackage{epsf}
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint,longnamesfirst]{aastex}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{THE X$^-$ SOLUTION TO THE $^6$Li AND $^7$Li BIG BANG
9: NUCLEOSYNTHESIS PROBLEMS}
10:
11: \author{
12: MOTOHIKO KUSAKABE\altaffilmark{1,2},
13: TOSHITAKA KAJINO\altaffilmark{1,3},
14: RICHARD N. BOYD\altaffilmark{4},
15: TAKASHI YOSHIDA}
16:
17: \affil{Division of Theoretical Astronomy, National Astronomical
18: Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan\\
19: {\tt kusakabe@th.nao.ac.jp}}
20:
21: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science,
22: University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
23: \altaffiltext{2}{Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion
24: of Science}
25: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomical Science, The Graduate
26: University for Advanced Studies, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
27: \altaffiltext{4}{Present Address: Lawrence Livermore National
28: Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, USA}
29:
30: \and
31: \author{GRANT J. MATHEWS}
32:
33: \affil{Department of Physics and Center for Astrophysics, University of
34: Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: The $^6$Li abundance observed in metal poor halo stars appears to exhibit a
38: plateau as a function of metallicity similar to that for $^7$Li, suggesting a big bang origin.
39: However, the inferred primordial abundance of $^6$Li is $\sim$1000 times larger
40: than that predicted by standard big bang nucleosynthesis for the baryon-to-photon ratio inferred
41: from the WMAP data. Also, the inferred $^7$Li primordial abundance is 3 times smaller than the big bang prediction. We here describe in detail a possible simultaneous solution to both the problems of
42: underproduction of $^6$Li and overproduction of $^7$Li in big bang
43: nucleosynthesis. This solution involves a hypothetical massive,
44: negatively-charged leptonic particle that would bind to the light
45: nuclei produced in big bang nucleosynthesis, but would decay long
46: before it could be detected. We consider only the $X$-nuclear reactions and assume that the effect of decay products is negligible, as would be the case if lifetime were large or the mass difference between the charged particle and its daughter were small. An interesting feature of this paradigm is that,
47: because the particle remains bound to the existing nuclei after the cessation of the usual big bang nuclear reactions, a second longer epoch
48: of nucleosynthesis can occur among $X$-nuclei which have reduced Coulomb
49: barriers. The
50: existence of the $X^-$ particles thus extends big bang nucleosynthesis
51: from the first few minutes to roughly five hours.
52: We confirm that reactions in which the hypothetical particle is
53: transferred can occur that greatly enhance the production of $^6$Li while depleting $^7$Li.
54: We also identify a new reaction that destroys large amounts of $^7$Be, and hence reduces the
55: ultimate $^7$Li abundance. Thus,
56: big-bang nucleosynthesis in the presence of
57: these hypothetical particles, together with or without an
58: event of stellar processing, can simultaneously solve the two
59: Li abundance problems.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{cosmological parameters
63: --- dark matter
64: --- early universe
65: --- elementary particles
66: --- nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances
67: --- stars: Population II
68: }
69:
70: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{sec1}
71:
72: A long-standing effort in astrophysics has involved searches for
73: signatures of unstable particles that might have existed in the early
74: Universe, but have long since become extinct. The precision that exists
75: in the abundances of the nuclides produced in big bang
76: nucleosynthesis (BBN) suggests that primordial nucleosynthesis is a good place to look for
77: such signatures. In that context, it is of considerable interest that
78: recent observations~\citep[e.g.][]{asp06} of
79: metal poor halo stars (MPHSs) indicate that the primordial abundances of
80: both $^6$Li and $^7$Li may not be in agreement with the predictions of standard BBN.
81: Specifically, the $^6$Li
82: appears to have an abundance plateau similar to that for $^7$Li in very low metallicity
83: stars. This suggests a primordial abundance. However the abundance value is
84: roughly a factor of 1000 larger than predicted in standard BBN. A similar, though
85: much less severe, problem exists for $^7$Li~\citep{rya00,mel04,asp06}; the BBN value that would be
86: consistent with the baryon-to-photon ratio inferred from analysis of the
87: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
88: (WMAP)-power spectrum suggests an abundance that
89: is roughly a factor of three higher than the
90: observed value.
91:
92: In response to this intriguing $^6$Li result, a
93: number of solutions have been suggested. Some relate
94: the Li anomalies to the possible existence of unstable heavy
95: particles in the early
96: Universe~\citep{dim88a,dim88b,dim89,jed00,cyb03,jed04,kaw05,kus06} which lead to $^6$Li production via non-thermal reactions induced
97: by the particle decay. Some have suggested a possible epoch of enhanced cosmic ray nucleosynthesis
98: via the $\alpha + \alpha$ reactions~\citep{rol06,pra06,kus07a}.
99:
100: Of interest to the present work, however, is the suggestion in several
101: recent works~\citep{cyb06,kap06,pos07,koh07,ham07,kus07b,jedamzik08a,jedamzik08b} that heavy negatively charged
102: unstable particles could modify BBN and lead to $^6$Li production. However, this mechanism
103: would operate in a rather different way from the previous suggestions. In
104: this paradigm, the heavy particles (here denoted as $X^-$) would bind to
105: the nuclei synthesized during BBN to produce exotic nuclei (hereafter denoted
106: as $X$-nuclei). These massive $X^-$ particles would be bound in orbits that
107: would have radii comparable to those of the nuclei to which they were
108: attached. Their presence, however, would reduce the Coulomb barrier seen by incident charged
109: particles, thereby enhancing the thermonuclear reaction rates and allowing a longer duration of
110: BBN in an extended epoch of nucleosynthesis. In the present work we
111: expand upon our previous study~\citep{kus07b} and describe details of a revised
112: analysis of $X^-$ particle effects on BBN. The focus of the present work is to better quantify the effects of $X^-$ particles on BBN. It is possible, however, that both $X^-$ effects and the $X$-particle decay contribute to the abundances. In a future work we will consider this, but for now we only address the effects of $X^-$ particles and show that this alone can explain the observed lithium abundances.
113:
114: In standard BBN, $^6$Li production is suppressed. It is synthesized
115: primarily via the $^4$He($d$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li reaction, which has a very small cross section. However,~\citet{pos07} suggested that a large enhancement of the $^6$Li abundance
116: could result from an $X^-$ bound to $^4$He (denoted $^4$He$_X$). This
117: allows for the $X^-$ transfer reaction of $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li, which can enhance the production of $^6$Li by as much as seven orders of
118: magnitude. Subsequently,~\citet{ham07} carried out a theoretical
119: calculation of the cross section for this $X^-$ transfer reaction in a
120: quantum three-body model. Their value was about an order of magnitude
121: smaller than that of~\citet{pos07}. This difference can be traced to their exact treatment of the
122: quantum tunneling in the fusion process and the use of a better nuclear
123: potential.
124:
125: In other work,~\citet{cyb06} identified the $X^-$ as the
126: supersymmetric counterpart of a tau, i.e., a stau., thereby providing some plausibility for
127: the existence of such particles. They also considered the
128: $X^-$ transfer reactions for $^6$Li, $^7$Li, and $^7$Be production as
129: Pospelov suggested. \citet{kap06} observed that the decay of an
130: $X^-$ when bound to $^4$He occasionally knocks out a
131: proton or neutron to produce $^3$He or $^3$H, thereby enhancing their abundances
132: in BBN. Those nuclides could then interact with other primordial
133: $^4$He nuclei at higher energies than those normally associated with the BBN
134: production of $^6$Li. \citet{koh07} and~\citet{kus07b} studied the recombination of
135: nuclei with $X^-$ particles, and suggested the possibility that BBN with charged
136: massive particles also destroys $^7$Li and so solves the $^7$Li problem
137: as well. In addition, a resonant reaction
138: $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ has recently been proposed (Bird et
139: al. 2007) that further destroys $^7$Be$_X$ through an atomic excited state of
140: $^8$B$_X$.
141:
142: In the present work we have estimated new reaction rates for the $X^-$
143: transfer reactions suggested by~\citet{pos07} as well as others that could occur. We have reanalyzed the $X^-$
144: transfer reaction rates estimated in~\citet{cyb06} and found them to be negligible
145: based upon the reaction dynamics discussed below.
146:
147: We
148: have adopted a simple model to estimate the binding energy due to the
149: bound $X^-$ particles for each nucleus involved in BBN. The reaction
150: rates are corrected for the modified nuclear charges and the effective
151: mass resulting from the binding of the $X^-$ particle. The reaction rates, however, are not
152: particularly sensitive to the mass of the $X^-$ particle. Therefore, we have
153: simply assumed that they are much heavier than the nucleon mass.
154:
155: In this paper we study the potential consequences of $X^-$ particles on BBN,
156: including recombination of the $X^-$ particles by the existing normal
157: nuclei. Several new reaction processes have been included that can produce
158: or destroy $^6$Li and $^7$Li in the early universe. We utilize
159: a fully dynamical description which is solved numerically, and which includes all relevant details of kinetic and chemical equilibrium. The purpose of this present work is to
160: better quantify whether there are observable consequences of the resulting
161: reaction network. The ultimate goal is to better
162: explain the observed overproduction (1000 times) and underproduction (3 times)
163: of the abundances of $^6$Li and $^7$Li.
164:
165: In Section~\ref{sec2} we outline some of the details of the
166: calculations we have performed to estimate the thermonuclear
167: reaction rates, and to describe the evolution and abundance of
168: the different nuclei, $X^-$ particles, and $X$-nuclei during the BBN.
169:
170: In Section~\ref{sec3}, we show the results of BBN with the
171: reactions involving the nuclides that could be formed with the embedded
172: $X^-$ particles. As was done in~\citet{jedamzik08a}, we identify the parameter space for solving both the the $^6$Li
173: and $^7$Li BBN abundance problems. The present work, however, differs from that of
174: \citet{jedamzik08a} in several important ways. Besides differences in some of the relevant reaction rates, there are two major differences. One is the inclusion of $X$-transfer reactions. \citet{jedamzik08a} found that $X$-transfer reactions involving the charge $Z = 1$ $X$-nuclei could possibly change the light-element abundances. That result, however, relied on reaction rates which were calculated within the framework of the Born approximation. Recently, however, a detailed study of one of the relevant $X$-transfer reactions by~\citet{ham07} shows that a more realistic calculation gives a much smaller (factor of 10) $X$-transfer reaction rate. Based upon that study, we conclude that $X$-transfer reactions can be neglected in this work. Another difference is the assumption that hadronic and electromagnetic (EM) decays are unimportant. That is, we only consider the $X$-nuclear reactions and assume that the effect the of decay products is negligible. This is possible if the decay lifetimes are long and/or the mass difference between the $X^-$ and daughter particle is small. In supesymmetric scenarios for example~\citep[e.g.][]{feng03a,feng03b}, nearly equal masses would also imply a larger lifetime. Very large lifetimes are ruled out but lifetimes of order a year are very interesting for structure formation \citep{Sigurdson04}.
175:
176: In Section~\ref{sec4}, the effects $X^-$ decay are discussed. Our conclusions are summarized in Section~\ref{sec5}.
177:
178: \section{MODEL}\label{sec2}
179:
180: In order to perform the nucleosynthesis calculations, we have added the
181: relevant $X$-nuclei and their reactions to the BBN network code~\citep{kawano}. The $X$-nucleus $^4$He$_X$ is particularly important for
182: the present work, although the other
183: $X$-nuclei are included and can significantly affect the results. Both proton and neutron
184: captures involving the $X^-$ particles were included when energetically allowed, as were
185: ''transfer reactions.'' We modified
186: most of the thermonuclear reaction rates on the $X$-nuclei from the original
187: rates (without $X$-nuclei). The two dominant effects were the lowered Coulomb
188: barriers resulting from the $X^-$ in the nucleus, and the modified reduced
189: mass. However, as noted below, there are a number of reactions for which
190: careful additional consideration is required in order to estimate reliable reaction rates.
191:
192: \subsection{Properties of the $X^-$ Particle}
193:
194: The $X^-$ particle is assumed to be leptonic, since there is motivation
195: from particle physics for the existence of such a particle~\citep{cyb06}.
196: Identifying these particles as
197: the supersymmetric partners of normal leptons implies that they would also be leptonic but of
198: spin 0. Such sleptonic $X^-$ particles will be initially produced in pairs with
199: $X^+$ particles. Ultimately, their annihilations in the early universe will freezeout.
200: The final required BBN abundance of the residual $X^+$-$X^-$ pairs will then constrain their annihilation cross section. We show below that this cross section is consistent with a weakly interacting
201: sleptonic particle.
202: We note, that the $X^+$ particles, though also present during BBN will have negligible interactions with
203: ambient nuclei (compared to $X^-$ particles) due to their Coulomb
204: repulsion and low associated reaction rate. Hence, they can be
205: neglected in the present analysis. It is possible, however, that they could affect the final results to the production of electromagnetic and/or hadronic showers when they decay. That complication will be addressed in a future paper. The focus of the present work, however, is only the effects of $X^-$ particles on BBN.
206:
207: Ultimately, the product of
208: the $X^-$ abundance and mass must be consistent with the WMAP CMB power spectrum.
209: The lifetime of the $X^-$ also has a lower limit because it must live
210: long enough to allow at least some fraction of the $X^-$ produced
211: initially in the big bang to exist through the epoch of BBN. If the
212: $X^-$ particles decay into leptons and photons at some later stage,
213: they are expected to destroy some fraction of the nuclei to which they
214: had become bound during BBN. However, that fraction is not expected to
215: be large~\citep{kap06,ros75} and can be neglected.
216:
217: \subsection{Nuclear Binding Energies}
218:
219: The reaction rates of the $X$-nuclei are strongly affected by their binding energies.
220: In our calculations both the binding energies
221: and the eigenstate wave functions of $X^-$ particles were computed by taking into account the modified Coulomb interaction with the nucleus. For this purpose, we assumed that
222: the charge distribution of nuclides is Gaussian. We then solved the
223: two-body Shr\"{o}dinger equation by a variational calculation~\citep[Gaussian
224: expansion method, i.e.][]{hiy03}, and obtained binding energies. The
225: obtained values are listed in Table \ref{tab1}. The adopted root
226: mean square charge radii are listed in the second column. When
227: experimental data exist, we used charge radii determined from experiment. Note that since the $X^-$ particles can bound only
228: electromagnetically to nuclei, their binding energies are typically
229: small ($\sim 0.1-1$~MeV), and are largest for heavy nuclei. Hence, they
230: are not appreciably bound to nuclei until the temperature becomes low enough.
231:
232: \subsection{Reaction Rates}
233:
234: The leading term in the expression for the thermonuclear reaction rates (TRR) $\langle
235: \sigma v \rangle$ for nonresonant reactions involving nuclei with
236: embedded $X^-$ particles can be written~\citep[e.g.][]{boy07} as
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: \langle \sigma v \rangle_{\rm NR} &=& \left(\frac{2}{\mu}\right)^{1/2} \left(k_B T\right) \left(\frac{4}{9}\right)3^{-1/2} \nonumber \\
239: &&\times E_0^{-3/2} S(E_0) \tau^2 \exp(-\tau),
240: \label{eq1}
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: where $E_0 = 1.22 (z_1^2 Z_2^2 \mu T_6^2)^{1/3}$ keV is the energy at the
243: peak of the Gamow window, $S(E_0)$ is the ''astrophysical
244: $S$-factor'' at $E_0$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T_6$ is the
245: temperature in units of $10^6$~K, and
246: \begin{equation}
247: \tau = \frac{3E_0}{k_B T}= 42.46 \left(\frac{z_1^2 Z_2^2 \mu}{T_6}\right)^{1/3}.
248: \label{eq2}
249: \end{equation}
250: The astrophysical $S$ factor contains the nuclear matrix element for the reaction.
251: For some of the rates we take the nuclear matrix element within $S(E_0)$ to be the same as for the reactions of the
252: corresponding normal nuclei~\citep[NACRE;][]{cau88,smi93}. For others we can adopt a scaling relation as described below. Hence, the dominant corrections for the TRR
253: in the above equation arises from the terms involving the reduced mass $\mu$ (in atomic mass units),
254: and $z_1$ and $Z_2$ (the proton numbers for the projectile
255: normal nucleus and the target $X$-nucleus). We have assumed $Z_2$ to be
256: the net charge of the bare nucleus and any embedded $X^-$ particles,
257: i.e. $Z_2=z_2-n$ for single ($n=1$) $X^-$-bound
258: nuclei, where $z_2$ is the atomic number of the bare nucleus. As noted above, we take the spin
259: of the $X^-$ particles to be zero.
260:
261: At the epoch during BBN at which the $X^-$-nuclei undergo nucleosynthesis
262: the neutron abundance is extremely small. Nevertheless, for completeness we have
263: included neutron radiative
264: capture reactions in the reaction network. We adopted the known values
265: for the normal nuclei whenever possible, but those values are not always
266: available for the unstable nuclei of interest $3 \leq z_2 \leq 5$.
267: For the Be$_X$, B$_X$($n$,$\gamma$) reactions we assumed a mean value obtained from the
268: $^6$Li($n$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li and $^7$Li($n$,$\gamma$)$^8$Li
269: reactions~\citep[see, e.g.][and references therein]{hei98,bar80} of 40~$\mu$b at 25 keV.
270:
271: \subsubsection{$X^-$ Transfer Reactions to Produce $^6$Li, $^7$Li and
272: $^7$Be}
273:
274: Reactions in which an $X^-$ particle can be
275: transferred can be very important in circumventing some of the reactions
276: that would normally be inhibited~\citep{pos07}. This is especially true of the
277: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li reaction. The rate for this reaction could be
278: orders of magnitude larger than that of the $^4$He($d$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li
279: reaction. This latter reaction is the main process by which $^6$Li is made in BBN
280: in the absence of $X^-$
281: particle. Normally, however, this reaction is suppressed because it is
282: dominated by an electric quadrupole
283: transition.
284:
285: \citet{ham07} have recently carried out a new
286: theoretical calculation of the cross section for the $X^-$ transfer reaction
287: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li in the context of a quantum three-body model. Their value
288: was about an order of magnitude smaller than that of~\citet{pos07}.
289: This difference can be traced to
290: an exact treatment of the quantum tunneling in the fusion
291: process and the use of a better nuclear potential. We have therefore adopted
292: the rate of \citet{ham07}
293: as the most reliable estimate for this rate and assume a factor
294: of 3 uncertainty.
295:
296: \citet{cyb06} estimated astrophysical $S$-factors for various transfer reactions including the
297: $^4$He$_X$($t$,$X^-$)$^7$Li, $^4$He$_X$($^3$He,$X^-$)$^7$Be,
298: $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$X^-$)$^7$Be reactions by applying a scaling
299: relation~\citep{pos07},
300: \begin{equation}
301: S_X/S_\gamma \propto p_fa_0/(\omega_\gamma
302: a_0)^{2\lambda+1}~~,
303: \end{equation}
304: where $S_X$ and $S_\gamma$ are the $S$-factors for
305: the $X^-$ transfer and normal radiative processes, respectively.
306: The quantity $a_0$ is the
307: $X^-$ Bohr radius of $^4$He$_X$ or $^6$Li$_X$, while $p_f$ is the linear momentum
308: of the outgoing $^7$Li or $^7$Be. The quantity
309: $\omega_\gamma$ is the energy of the emitted photon of multipole order
310: $\lambda$ ($\lambda=1$ for
311: electric dipole) in the radiative-capture reactions.
312:
313: In the present work, however, we consider more details of the reaction dynamics
314: in order to
315: better clarify the differences in these reactions.
316: First, we note that $^4$He, $^{6,7}$Li, and $^7$Be occupy an s-wave orbit around the $X^-$
317: particle (assuming the $X^-$ particle to be much heavier than these
318: nuclei). At the same time, the $^6$Li nucleus is an $\alpha+d$ cluster system in a
319: relative s-wave orbit, while the $A=7$ nuclei are $\alpha+t$ and
320: $\alpha+^3$He cluster systems in relative p-wave orbits. This difference
321: in the orbital angular momentum will produce a critical difference in
322: the reaction dynamics between the $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li reaction and the
323: $^4$He$_X$($t$,$X^-$)$^7$Li, $^4$He$_X$($^3$He,$X^-$)$^7$Be, and
324: $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$X^-$)$^7$Be reactions. In particular, the latter three
325: $X^-$ transfer reactions to produce $^7$Li and $^7$Be must involve a $\Delta
326: l=1$ angular momentum transfer. This leads to a large hindrance of the
327: overlap matrix element of the nuclear potential for the $X^-$ transfer
328: processes. In the latter three reactions the outgoing $^7$Li and
329: $^7$Be in the final state must occupy a scattering p-wave orbit from the
330: $X^-$ particle in order to conserve total angular momentum. Thus, a
331: realistic quantum mechanical calculation would deduce much smaller
332: $S_X$-factors than those estimated by~\citet{cyb06}. In this
333: article, therefore, we have assumed that the above three reaction processes
334: are negligible.
335:
336: \subsubsection{ $^7$Be$_X$+$p$ Resonant Reaction}
337:
338: \citet{bir07} have recently suggested that the
339: $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ resonant reaction could occur
340: through an atomic excited state of
341: $^8$B$_X$ with a threshold energy of 167 keV. This channel does destroy a significant amount of
342: $^7$Be$_X$ and is included in our present study.
343:
344: In the previous study~\citep{kus07b}, we have suggested that a
345: reaction channel through the $1^+$, $E^*=0.770\pm 0.010$ MeV nuclear excited state
346: of $^8$B via $^7$Be$_X$+$p$ $\rightarrow ^8$B$^*$($1^+$, 0.770
347: MeV)$_X$ $\rightarrow ^8$B$_X$+$\gamma$ could also destroy
348: $^7$Be$_X$. However, we found that this channel is unimportant
349: from the estimate of binding energies in this study. In~\citet{kus07b}, the binding energies and the eigenstate wave
350: functions of the $X$-nuclei were calculated assuming uniform
351: finite-size charge distributions of radii $r_0=1.2A^{1/3}$~fm for
352: nuclear mass number $A$~\citep{cah81}. Since the assumed
353: charge radii were smaller than the measured charge radii, the
354: estimated binding energies were higher than those of this study.
355: Although the nuclear resonance channel is not important, we show
356: the effect of this channel on $^7$Be$_X$ destruction.
357:
358: The TRR for resonant radiative capture reactions is given approximately
359: by
360: \begin{equation}
361: \langle \sigma v \rangle_{\rm R} = \hbar^2\left(\frac{2\pi}{\mu k_BT}\right)^{3/2} \omega_\gamma \exp(-E/k_BT),
362: \label{eq3}
363: \end{equation}
364: \begin{equation}
365: \omega_\gamma=\frac{2I+1}{\left(2I_1+1\right)\left(2I_2+1\right)} \frac{\Gamma_l \Gamma_\gamma}{\Gamma_{\rm tot}},
366: \label{eq4}
367: \end{equation}
368: where $\hbar$ is Planck's constant, $E$ is the resonance
369: energy, and $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I$ are the spins of the projectile, the
370: target, and the resonance. The quantity $\Gamma_l$ is the
371: particle width for decay into two charged particles of relative
372: angular momentum $l$, while $\Gamma_\gamma$ is the gamma decay width,
373: and $\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ is the total width of the
374: resonant state.
375:
376: $\Gamma_l$ is approximately written~\citep{boy07} as
377: \begin{eqnarray}
378: \Gamma_l &\approx& \frac{3\hbar}{R} \left(\frac{2}{AM_{\rm u}} \right)^{1/2} \theta_l^2 E_c^{1/2} \nonumber \\
379: &&\times \exp [bE^{-1/2}+1.05\left(ARz_1Z_2\right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
380: &&-7.62\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 (ARz_1Z_2)^{-1/2}],
381: \label{eq5}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: where $R=1.4(A_1^{1/3}+A_2^{1/3}) \times 10^{-13}$~cm is the interaction
384: radius with $A_1$ and $A_2$ the atomic weights of the interacting
385: particles. The symbol $A$ denotes the reduced atomic weight $A=A_1A_2/(A_1+A_2)$,
386: and $M_{\rm u}$
387: is the atomic mass unit, while $\theta_l^2$ is the dimensionless reduced width. The height of the
388: Coulomb barrier is
389: \begin{equation}
390: E_c=1.44({\rm MeV~fm}) \frac{z_1 Z_2}{R},
391: \label{eq6}
392: \end{equation}
393: while the usual Sommerfeld parameter $b$ is given by $b=31.28 z_1 Z_2
394: A^{1/2}($keV$^{1/2}$). Correcting the charge, reduced mass, and energy
395: for the nuclides with an embedded $X^-$ particle, we obtain the partial
396: width of the $^8$B$^\ast$(0.77 MeV)$_X \rightarrow ^7$Be$_X$+$p$ reaction,
397: \begin{equation}
398: \Gamma_{1,X} \approx 1.7 \times 10^6~{\rm eV} \exp\left(-\frac{93.9}{(E_{\rm th}/{\rm keV})^{1/2}}\right),
399: \label{eq7}
400: \end{equation}
401: where $E_{\rm th}$ is the energy level of the nuclear resonant state with
402: respect to the $^7$Be$_X$ plus $p$ exit channel.
403:
404: From the conjugate analog
405: state of $^8$Li ($1^+$, 0.9809 MeV) we deduce that the $^8$B (0.770 MeV) first
406: excited state has spin and parity $I^\pi=1^+$ and that the resonant
407: reaction proceeds through a p-wave ($l=1$). In Eq.~(\ref{eq7}) we also
408: adopted $\theta_1^2=0.82$ from the TRR of this resonance used
409: in standard BBN. Applying this proton width [Eq.~(\ref{eq7})] and
410: $\Gamma_\gamma=25 \pm 4$~meV~\citep{ajz88} to Eqs.~(\ref{eq3})
411: and~(\ref{eq4}), we can estimate the resonant TRR for $^7$Be$_X$+$p
412: \rightarrow ^8$B$^\ast$($1^+$, 0.770 MeV)$_X \rightarrow
413: ^8$B$_X$+$\gamma$ as a function of $E$. When $E \approx 0$,
414: $\Gamma_{1,X}$ vanishes, thus $\omega_\gamma \rightarrow 0$ and the TRR
415: also vanishes. As the resonance energy $E$ increases, $\Gamma_{1,X}$
416: also gradually increases and eventually becomes larger than
417: $\Gamma_\gamma$. Thus, $\omega_\gamma$ converges to a constant value
418: $\omega_\gamma=(2I+1)/((2I_1+1)(2I_2+1))\Gamma_\gamma$ in
419: Eq.~(\ref{eq4}). However, the exponential factor exp($-E/k_BT$) in
420: Eq.~(\ref{eq3}) strongly regulates the TRR for larger $E$. In this
421: manner there is a most effective resonance energy $E_{\rm eff}$ which
422: maximizes the TRR. We found $E_{\rm eff} \approx 30$~keV
423: numerically. Hence, this resonant reaction could be an important, possibly dominant, new means to destroy
424: $^7$Be$_X$. The present study, however, indicates that is not the case.
425:
426: In the previous study~\citep{kus07b} the calculated binding energies of the $X^-$ particle in
427: $^7$Be$_X$ and $^8$B$_X$ were respectively 1.488 MeV and 2.121 MeV.
428: If we adopt these values for the energy levels of the
429: nuclear excited states of $^8$B$_X$, this $1^+$ state of $^8$B$_X$
430: becomes located near the particle threshold for the $^7$Be$_X$+$p$
431: channel. In this case the $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ reaction can
432: proceed through a zero-energy resonance of $^8$B$^\ast_X$ at $E\approx 0$~MeV, where $E$ is the center-of-mass energy between the $^7$Be$_X$ and the
433: proton in
434: the entrance channel. We note, however, that the estimated binding energies of $X$-nuclei,
435: depend upon several assumptions such as the
436: adopted charge distribution of the $X^-$ embedded nucleus~\citep{pos07,bir07}. The $A$=6, 7, and 8 nuclear systems are
437: typical clustering nuclei for which even a small change of the relative wave
438: function between the composite nuclei can affect significantly the
439: radiative capture cross sections at astrophysical energies as well as their static
440: electromagnetic properties~\citep{kaj86,kaj88}. We therefore adopt a large uncertainty in
441: the $1^+$ resonance energy, $E$, from the $^7$Be$_X$+$p$ separation
442: threshold in~\citet{kus07b}.
443:
444: To check the nuclear flow to the higher mass region we added the $^8$Be$_X$+$p$ $\rightarrow ^9$B$_X^{\ast{\rm a}}
445: \rightarrow ^9$B$_X$+$\gamma$ reaction, where $^9$B$_X^{\ast{\rm a}}$
446: indicates that the reaction occurs through an atomic excited state
447: of $^9$B. However this reaction was now found to be unimportant because its threshold energy is
448: relatively large (see Table \ref{tab2}).
449:
450: \subsection{Reaction Network}
451:
452: We show in Fig.~\ref{fig1} the reaction network involving the
453: nuclides with an embedded $X^-$ particle relevant to the present paper.
454: Nuclear reactions denoted by the thick solid arrows were found to be
455: especially important for the production or destruction of the $A$=6 and
456: 7 nuclides both in the literature and in our present study. \citet{pos07}
457: originally proposed the main production process for $^6$Li to be the
458: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li reaction. Similar $X^-$ transfer reactions
459: $^4$He$_X$($t$,$X^-$)$^7$Li, $^4$He$_X$($^3$He,$X^-$)$^7$Be,
460: $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$X^-$)$^7$Be were discussed by~\citet{cyb06} as
461: possible additional production processes of $A$=7 nuclides. Here we additionally considered the
462: destruction processes $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$^3$He)$^4$He$_X$,
463: $^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$, and $^7$Be$_X$($d$,$p
464: \alpha$)$^4$He$_X$. We find, however, that these latter three reactions
465: produce small effect on the BBN results and, as noted above, the latter
466: three $X^-$ transfer reactions would have little effect on BBN results when
467: $\Delta l=1$ hindrance is taken into account.
468:
469: \citet{bir07}
470: have proposed the likely important destruction process $^7$Be$_X$+$p$ $
471: \rightarrow ^8$B$_X^{\ast{\rm a}} \rightarrow ^8$B$_X$+$\gamma$, where
472: $^8$B$_X^{\ast{\rm a}}$ is an atomic excited state through which
473: the radiative capture occurs. They also proposed a charged weak-boson
474: exchange reaction $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li+$X^0$ followed by
475: $^7$Li($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He and $^7$Li($X^-$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$ to eventually destroy the $A$=7 nuclides. Other reactions can also contribute
476: to synthesize or destroy $^6$Li$_{nX}$ and $^7$Li$_{nX}$, $^7$Be$_{nX}$
477: ($n$=0 or 1) and the heavier nuclei. Our network code includes
478: many reactions with nuclei up to Carbon isotopes. Table \ref{tab2}
479: summarizes our adopted nuclear reaction rates.
480:
481: \subsection{Kinetic Rate Equations}\label{sec25}
482:
483: When dealing with the kinetic and chemical equilibrium associated with
484: $X^-$ particles, it is necessary to consider the thermodynamics
485: associated with the binding of $X^-$ particles. This is because it will be
486: important to know precisely when during BBN they become bound to nuclei,
487: and what their distribution over the BBN nuclei is expected to
488: be~\citep{koh07}. We have put both recombination and ionization
489: processes of $X^-$ particles into our BBN network code and have dynamically
490: solved the associated set of rate equations [as in~\citet{koh07}] to find when the $X$-nuclei decoupled from the cosmic
491: expansion. Denoting a specific isotope of an element by $(N,Z)$, its
492: abundance as $n(N,Z)$, and the corresponding quantities for the isotopes
493: with an embedded $X^-$ as $(N,Z)_X$ and $n(N,Z)_X$, the
494: capture-reionization expressions for $(N,Z)$ and $(N,Z)_X$ in an expanding
495: universe are
496: \begin{eqnarray}
497: &&\frac{\partial n(N,Z)}{\partial t} + 3Hn(N,Z) \nonumber \\
498: &&~~~ =\left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm creation} - \left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm destruction} \nonumber \\
499: &&~~~~~~~- \left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm capture},
500: \label{eq8}
501: \end{eqnarray}
502: and
503: \begin{eqnarray}
504: &&\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t} + 3Hn(N,Z)_X \nonumber \\
505: &&~~~ =\left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm creation} - \left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm destruction} \nonumber \\
506: &&~~~~~~~+ \left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm capture}.
507: \label{eq9}
508: \end{eqnarray}
509: Here, the subscript ^^ ^^ creation'' refers to nuclear reactions that
510: make $(N,Z)$ and ^^ ^^ destruction'' to nuclear reactions that destroy
511: it, including $\beta$-decay for unstable nuclides. The quantity $H$ is the Hubble
512: expansion rate. Detailed balance of the $X$-capture reaction $(N,Z) +
513: X^- \rightarrow (N,Z)_X + \gamma$ and its inverse permits~\citep{koh07} writing the capture process as
514: \begin{equation}
515: \left[\frac{\partial n(N,Z)_X}{\partial t}\right]_{\rm capture} \approx \langle \sigma_{\rm r} v \rangle \left(n_X n(N,Z) - n(N,Z)_X \tilde{n}_\gamma\right),
516: \label{eq10}
517: \end{equation}
518: where $\sigma_{\rm r}$ is the recombination cross section, $n_X$ is the
519: abundance of $X^-$ particles, and $\tilde{n}_\gamma$ is the number of
520: photons in excess of $E_{\rm
521: bind}$, the $X^-$ binding energy to $(N,Z)$, i.e.,
522: \begin{equation}
523: \tilde{n}_\gamma = n_\gamma \left(\frac{\pi^2}{2 \zeta(3)}\right)\left(\frac{m_{(N,Z)}}{2 \pi T}\right)^{3/2} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\rm bind}}{k_B T}\right),
524: \label{eq11}
525: \end{equation}
526: and
527: \begin{equation}
528: n_\gamma = \left(\frac{2\zeta(3)}{\pi^2}\right)T^3.
529: \label{eq12}
530: \end{equation}
531: Note that since $E_{\rm bind}$ is small, the equilibrium will favor
532: unbound $X^-$ particles until low $T$. Since the mass of the $X^-$ particle is assumed to be $\gtrsim 50$~GeV, the
533: reduced mass for the $X^-+A(N,Z)$ system can be approximated as $\mu_X
534: \equiv m_A m_X/(m_A+m_X) \approx m_A$,. This leads to the following TRR for the first
535: recombination process $A$($X^-$,$\gamma$)$A_X$~\citep{koh07}
536: \begin{eqnarray}
537: \langle \sigma_{\rm r} v \rangle_X & \approx & \frac{2^9 \pi \alpha Z^2 \left(2\pi \right)^{1/2}}{3\exp(4.0)} \frac{E_{\rm bind}}{\mu_X^2 \left(\mu_X T\right)^{1/2}}\nonumber \\
538: & \propto & Z^2 E_{\rm bind} m_A^{-2.5} \sim Z^3 m_A^{-2.5}.
539: \label{eq13}
540: \end{eqnarray}
541: where $\alpha$ is the fine
542: structure constant. This expression is almost independent of $m_X$ but
543: increases with $Z$. We do, however, obtain
544: a different mass-dependence in the
545: TRR for the second recombination process $A_X$($X^-$,$\gamma$)$A_{XX}$:
546: \begin{eqnarray}
547: \langle \sigma_{\rm r} v \rangle_{XX} & \approx & \frac{2^9 \pi \alpha \left(Z-1\right)^2 \left(2\pi \right)^{1/2}}{3\exp(4.0)} \frac{E_{\rm bind}}{\mu_{XX}^2 \left(\mu_{XX} T\right)^{1/2}}\nonumber \\
548: & \propto & (Z-1)^2E_{\rm bind}m_X^{-2.5} \sim (Z-1)^3 m_X^{-2.5}. \nonumber \\
549: \label{eq14}
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: Here we obtain a mass dependence because $\mu_{XX} \equiv m_{AX} m_X/(m_{AX}+m_X) \approx m_X/2$. Since $m_X$
552: is typically much larger than the mass of the light nuclei $m_X \gg
553: m_A$, the rate for the second or higher-order recombination process is
554: hindered.
555:
556: \section{RESULTS}\label{sec3}
557:
558: \subsection{BBN Calculation Result}
559:
560: Figures \ref{fig2}a and \ref{fig2}b illustrate the results of a BBN calculation
561: in which the $X^-$ abundance is
562: taken to be 10\% of the total baryon number, i.e. $Y_X=n_X/n_b=0.1$, where $n_X$ is the number density of the $X^-$ particles and
563: $n_b$ is the averaged universal baryon-number density.
564: Results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a are for normal nuclei while Fig.~\ref{fig2}b
565: shows those for the
566: $X$-nuclei, Note that we
567: adopt the rate of~\citet{ham07} for $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$), and the reactions $^4$He$_X$($t$,$X^-$),
568: $^4$He$_X$($^3$He,$X^-$), and $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$X^-$) are taken to be negligible.
569:
570: The
571: abundances for the normal nuclei $^6$Li, $^7$Li and $^7$Be in the interval $T_9 \sim
572: 0.5-0.2$ are seen to be close to their usual BBN values. This is
573: because at higher temperatures the nuclear statistical equilibrium does
574: not particularly favor the production of the weakly bound $X$-nuclei.
575: Thus, their effect on the abundance is minimal. There are some changes, however,
576: once the $X$-nuclei appear. Because of the larger binding energies, the $X^-$
577: particles bind first to the heaviest nuclides, such as $^7$Li and $^7$Be
578: produced in normal BBN (first recombination of the $X^-$ particles).
579: These recombinations occur at around $T_9=0.3$ (for $^7$Li) and $T_9=0.5$
580: (for $^7$Be), respectively. An increase in the $^7$Be$_X$ abundance by the
581: recombination can clearly be seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}b. Somewhat later, at
582: around $T_9=0.1$, the $X^-$ particles are captured onto $^4$He, as can
583: be seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}b. Then a new round of nucleosynthesis of
584: the $X$-nuclei, involving the reaction $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$), produces
585: normal nuclei $^6$Li (in Fig.\ \ref{fig2}a) as well as $^6$Li$_X$ (in
586: Fig.\ \ref{fig2}b). However, the most notable feature of these results is that the
587: $^6$Li is not easily destroyed by the $^6$Li($p$,$\alpha$)$^3$He
588: reaction, which destroys nearly all of the $^6$Li produced in standard BBN. This is because the $X^-$ transfer reaction restores the charge of the
589: normal nucleus $^6$Li, which has a Coulomb barrier which is too
590: high at these temperatures for
591: its destruction. Thus, the large abundance ratio of mass 6 to mass 7 is
592: preserved~\citep{pos07}. In addition, however,
593: $^7$Be is destroyed by the nuclear reactions that occur after the recombination
594: ($T_9 \sim 0.3$), mainly
595: $^7$Be($X^-$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$. This is
596: explained in detail below.
597:
598: The calculated BBN abundances of the mass 6 and 7
599: nuclides and other light nuclei depend strongly on the $X^-$ abundance. The
600: above discussion applies only to the case of relatively abundant $X^-$
601: particles. In order to study the sensitivity of the $^6$Li and $^7$Li
602: ($\equiv ^7$Li+$^7$Be) abundances to the $X^-$ abundance, $n_X$, we carried out
603: a series of BBN calculations in which $n_X$ was varied over a wide range.
604:
605: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the calculated abundances of the mass 6 and 7 nuclides.
606: These are plotted as $^6$Li/H (solid curves of positive slope) and $^7$Li/H
607: (horizontal solid
608: curve), as a function of the initial $X^-$ number fraction $f_X$ relative to the cold dark matter (CDM) abundance, which we define as
609: \begin{equation}
610: f_X \equiv \frac{Y_X}{0.09} = \frac{n_X}{n_{\rm CDM}} \biggl(\frac{50~{\rm GeV}}{m_{\rm CDM}}\biggr)~~.
611: \label{eq15}
612: \end{equation}
613: This definition follows if we take number density of CDM particles as that inferred
614: from the CDM closure content ($\Omega_{\rm CDM} = 0.2$) deduced from
615: the WMAP data. For this closure parameter, the CDM number density, for any value of
616: mass $m_{\rm CDM}$ of the CDM particle, can be written $n_{\rm
617: CDM} = 0.09~n_b \times (50~{\rm GeV}/m_{\rm CDM})$. So, our definition of $f_X$ is for a fiducial CDM mass of 50 GeV and is easily scalable to other CDM masses.
618:
619:
620: In the calculations shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig3} we have assumed that
621: the $X^-$ particle has a mean lifetime much longer than the
622: typical time scale for BBN in the presence of $X^-$ particles,
623: i.e $\tau_X \gg 5$~hours. Below we also consider the case of a mean lifetime which is shorter than 5 hours.
624: In this figure we have taken into account the theoretical uncertainty in the $X^-$
625: transfer reaction cross sections. For $^6$Li the upper curves
626: correspond to the yields with our assumed rate for the
627: $^4$He$_X(d,X^-)^6$Li reaction \citep{ham07}
628: multiplied by a factor of 3, and the lower curves correspond to that
629: same rate divided by a factor of 3. The middle curve for $^6$Li
630: corresponds to our best guess for that crucial rate, i.e., the rate of \citet{ham07}. As noted
631: above,~\citet{bir07} suggested that the recombination of $^7$Be and
632: $X^-$ together with the $^7$Be$_X(p,\gamma)^8$B$_X$ reaction taking
633: account of the resonant contribution from both reactions would destroy a considerable amount of $^7$Be; this process was included in all of our calculations.
634:
635: It is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig3} that the $^6$Li abundance increases
636: monotonically with increasing $f_X$. This is a consequence of the
637: fact that $^6$Li is mainly produced by the $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li reaction as
638: proposed in~\citet{pos07} for almost entire range of $f_X$-values. For $f_X
639: \lesssim 10^{-9}$, however, the standard BBN processes
640: $^4$He($d$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li and $^3$He($t$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li are the main
641: reactions to make $^6$Li~\citep{fuk90,smi93}. In the region of $f_X
642: \gtrsim 0.1$, however, a departure from
643: the linear increase due to
644: $^6$Li($X^-$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li$_X$($p$,$^3$He)$^4$He$_X$ is observed.
645:
646: During normal BBN, at the
647: baryon to photon ratio deduced from CMB measurement by WMAP,
648: $^7$Li is produced mainly as $^7$Be. We find that the
649: $^7$Be (and $^7$Li) produced during the standard BBN epoch
650: captures $X^-$ particles to form $^7$Be$_X$ (and $^7$Li$_X$) during the
651: first recombination. The $^7$Be is then destroyed by the
652: $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ reaction. In the parameter region of lower $X^-$
653: abundance $f_X \lesssim 0.1$, $^7$Be and $^7$Li are produced in
654: the standard BBN by the $^4$He($t$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li and
655: $^4$He($^3$He,$\gamma$)$^7$Be reactions. They are not, however,
656: destroyed and remain almost unchanged.
657:
658:
659: \subsection{Constraints on the Primordial $^6$Li Abundance}\label{sec32}
660: Constraints on the primordial $^6$Li abundance must be inferred
661: from the observed plateau as a function of metallicity on MPHSs.
662: The actual primordial abundance of $^6$Li could be higher than the recently detected high
663: plateau-abundance~\citep{asp06} of $^6$Li (lower horizontal dashed curve
664: in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}). This is because stellar processing could have depleted an initial surface
665: abundance.
666: It is expected in models~\citep{pin02} of
667: stellar structure and evolution that both $^6$Li and $^7$Li abundances
668: decrease because materials on the stellar surface might be
669: convected to regions of sufficiently high temperature that
670: the fragile $^6$Li and $^7$Li are partially
671: destroyed~\citep[e.g.][]{lam04,ric05}. Therefore, the plateau level
672: for the observed abundances of $^6$Li/H and $^7$Li/H in MPHSs should be
673: considered a lower limit to the primordial abundance. For this lower limit we take the 3~$\sigma$ lower limit to the mean
674: plateau value times a factor of $1/3$ for systematic uncertainties giving
675: $^6$Li/H $\ge 1.7 \times 10^{-12}$. We include this additional factor
676: because there may be additional systematic
677: uncertainties due to the sensitivity of the inferred $^6$Li abundance to
678: the model atmosphere employed~\citep{cay07}.
679:
680: The upper limit is more difficult to estimate. Because $^6$Li could be more easily destroyed in stars than $^7$Li, its upper limit should be higher than the upper limit to the $^7$Li abundance.
681: Even so, there are constraints on the degree of stellar processing for both $^7$Li and $^6$Li
682: from the limits on the dispersion of the plateau. A large degree of
683: stellar destruction would be sensitive to the varying degrees of meridional circulation in the stars~\citep{pin02}
684: and hence should produce a large dispersion in observed abundances.
685: However, the fact that the observed dispersion in $^7$Li is greater than that observed for $^6$Li
686: (albeit on a limited data set) suggests that the destruction may not be
687: very significant~\citep{pin02}.
688: For this reason we adopt a conservative upper limit of a factor of 10
689: above the mean plateau value giving
690: $^6$Li/H $\le 7.1\times 10^{-11}$.
691:
692: \subsection{Observational Constraints on the $X^-$ Abundance}
693:
694: \subsubsection{Case of Longer Mean Life of $X^-$ Decay}
695:
696: We consider several constraints on the $X^-$ abundance from the
697: observed Li isotopic abundances. We first discuss the case of
698: a longer mean life for the $X^-$ particle ($\tau_X \gtrsim~5$ hours).
699: In this case, the yields of BBN are not strongly affected by the value
700: of $\tau_X$. Our adopted lower limit to the $^6$Li/H ratio is then satisfied by the
701: calculated abundance of $^6$Li/H (thick solid curve in Figs.~\ref{fig3}
702: and \ref{fig4}) for $ f_X \gtrsim 2 \times
703: 10^{-6}$.
704:
705: In order to include the uncertain depletion effect of fragile lithium in stellar
706: atmospheres, we display in Fig.\ \ref{fig4} the calculated primordial
707: $^6$Li and $^7$Li abundances relative to the mean plateau levels in MPHSs, i.e. ($^A$Li/H)/ ($^A$Li/H)$_{\rm MPHS}$. The
708: gray regions enclose our adopted uncertainty due to the $X^-$ transfer reaction
709: cross sections as in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. Here and below, we take, as our
710: recommended network, the reaction rate of $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li
711: from~\citet{ham07}.
712:
713: The parameter
714: regions of initial $X^-$ abundance, $2 \times 10^{-6} \lesssim f_X
715: \lesssim 1 \times 10^{-4}$ for $^6$Li and $f_X \lesssim 1$ for $^7$Li,
716: respectively, are plausible regions in this context. In addition, since
717: $^6$Li is more easily destroyed in proton burning than $^7$Li, the
718: primordial abundances should satisfy the inequality
719: ($^7$Li/H)/($^7$Li/H)$_{\rm MPHS} \lesssim$ ($^6$Li/H)/($^6$Li/H)$_{\rm
720: MPHS}$. From Fig.\ \ref{fig4} we thus find the concordant parameter
721: region of
722: \begin{eqnarray}
723: 4 \times 10^{-5} \lesssim f_X \lesssim 9 \times 10^{-5}, \nonumber \\
724: ({\rm i.e.}~4 \times 10^{-6} \lesssim Y_X \lesssim 8 \times 10^{-6}),
725: \label{eq17}
726: \end{eqnarray}
727: which is bounded by the vertical solid line on Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
728:
729: Here, we used Eq.~(\ref{eq15}) to convert the inferred limits on $f_X$
730: into the limits for $Y_X$. We then deduce from Eq.~(\ref{eq17}) and Fig.\
731: \ref{fig4} a possible depletion factor, $d$($^A$Li), of the primordial
732: abundances of $^6$Li and $^7$Li in Population II metal-poor halo stars of,
733: \begin{equation}
734: d(^6{\rm Li}) \lesssim 10,
735: \label{eq18}
736: \end{equation}
737: \begin{equation}
738: d(^7{\rm Li}) \lesssim 4,
739: \label{eq19}
740: \end{equation}
741: where the upper limit to $^6$Li depletion comes from our adopted upper limit to the
742: primordial $^6$Li abundance. We note that these depletion factors are
743: consistent with the known thermonuclear reaction rates for $p+^6$Li and $p+^7$Li, assuming partial depletion of lithium in the solar atmosphere; the former is about a factor of 80 larger than the latter.
744: We also point out that in our present scenario for BBN
745: including the $X^-$ particles, their abundance parameter region,
746: Eq.~(\ref{eq17}) can be a solution to the $^6$Li abundance discrepancy between the standard BBN prediction and the
747: observations of MPHSs, while still satisfying the independent abundance
748: constraint on the primordial $^7$Li abundance. It is to be noted, however, that
749: there still remains a possible controversy that the depletion factor
750: of $d$($^7$Li)$=3-4$ may be too large to accommodate the observed small dispersion in
751: the plateau abundance level detected in MPHSs~\citep{pin02}.
752:
753: \subsubsection{Case of Shorter Mean Life of $X^-$ Decay}
754:
755: To study the effects of $X^-$ decay we introduce the
756: lifetime $\tau_X$ of the $X^-$ particle. Then there are two parameters
757: $Y_X$ and $\tau_X$. Even in the case when the mean life of the $X^-$ particle is nearly
758: equal to or slightly shorter than five hours ($\tau_X \lesssim 2
759: \times 10^4$~s) the recombination of $^7$Be and $X^-$ particles
760: still enriches the $^7$Be$_X$ abundance (Fig.\ \ref{fig2}b).
761: This is because the recombination of $^7$Be and $X^-$ particles
762: occurs at earlier times when the cosmic temperature is $T_9 \sim 0.5$.
763: However, in this case the recombination of $^4$He cannot
764: produce abundant $^4$He$_X$. This is because the recombination of $^4$He occurs at
765: at a lower temperature $T_9 \sim 0.1$ when the
766: cosmic time is of the same order of $\tau_X \sim 10^4$~s and is sensitive to the decay.
767: Thus, the $^6$Li production is reduced because the
768: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li reaction is strongly hindered.
769:
770: In this case, however, the resonant reaction
771: process $^7$Be$_X$+$p \rightarrow ^8$B$_X^{\ast {\rm a}} \rightarrow
772: ^8$B$_X$+$\gamma$~\citep{bir07} can more effectively destroy
773: $^7$Be$_X$. We assumed that $^8$B$_X$ inter-converts to $^8$Be$_X$ by $\beta$-decay with a rate of $^8$B $\beta$-decay
774: multiplied by the correction term $(Q_X/Q)^5$, where $Q$ and $Q_X$ are
775: the $Q$-values of standard $\beta$-decay and that of $\beta$-decay for
776: $X$-nuclei. We adopt here the~\citet{ham07} rate for
777: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li.
778:
779: In Fig.\ \ref{fig5}, the contours of $d$($^6$Li) [solid curves] and
780: $d$($^7$Li) [dashed curves] are shown. The upper and lower solid curves
781: correspond to the abundance level which satisfies our adopted constraint
782: ($1.7\times 10^{-12} \le ^6$Li/H $\le 7.1\times 10^{-11}$) as discussed
783: in subsec.~\ref{sec32} from the
784: abundance of MPHSs, ($^6$Li/H)$_{\rm MPHS}=(7.1\pm0.7)\times
785: 10^{-12}$~\citep{asp06}. Thus the upper right region of the figure is excluded for $^6$Li overproduction.
786: The right-upper side from the lower solid curve indicates the region for which the $^6$Li
787: abundance is higher than that observed in MPHSs.
788:
789: The three dashed curves correspond to $d$($^7$Li)=1.55, 2, 3, from right to
790: left, respectively. In Fig.\ \ref{fig5} there is no $^7$Li over-destruction region where
791: $^7$Li abundance is below the observed mean value. $d$($^7$Li)=1.55 corresponds to the 1 sigma upper
792: limit for MPHSs value~\citep{rya00}. In the right-upper side
793: from the
794: dashed curve for $d$($^7$Li)=2, the resulting $^7$Li abundance is lower than $^7$Li/H$\approx 2.5 \times 10^{-10}$. Therefore, we conclude that
795: BBN with negatively charged particles provides a simultaneous solution to the $^7$Li
796: overproduction problem and the $^6$Li underproduction problem, [as also
797: deduced by~\citet{bir07}] in the parameter region
798: \begin{equation}
799: Y_X \gtrsim 0.9,~~~~~\tau_X\approx (1.0-1.8)\times 10^3~{\rm s}.
800: \label{eq20}
801: \end{equation}
802:
803: For $\tau_X \gtrsim 10^5$~s and $Y_X \gtrsim 3$, the calculated abundance of $^7$Li increases slightly. In this region the $^6$Li$_X(p,\gamma)^7$Be$_X$ reaction produces some amount of $^7$Be$_X$.
804: However, this parameter region is uninteresting due to an extreme overproduction of $^6$Li compared with observed abundances.
805:
806: In Fig.\ \ref{fig5}, there is a solid line corresponding to
807: $d$($^6$Li)=4. The condition \\($^7$Li/H)/($^7$Li/H)$_{\rm MPHS} \lesssim$
808: ($^6$Li/H)/($^6$Li/H)$_{\rm MPHS}$ or equivalently $d$($^7$Li)$\lesssim
809: d$($^6$Li) is satisfied in the gray region. The gray colored region in
810: Fig.\ \ref{fig5} [cf.~Eq.\ (\ref{eq18})] is the most interesting and
811: relevant parameter region in order to solve both the $^6$Li and $^7$Li
812: problems. The wider vertical band of $4 \times 10^{-6} \lesssim Y_X
813: \lesssim 8 \times 10^{-6}$ and $ \tau_X \gtrsim 10^4~{\rm s} $
814: corresponds to the solid box bounded by the vertical solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig4} and Eq.\ (\ref{eq17}).
815: This region of the parameter space solves only the $^6$Li problem,
816: but leaves the $^7$Li problem unresolved.
817:
818: Finally, we consider another case where $^7$Be$_X$ converts to $^7$Li by a weak
819: charged current transition from $X^-$ to $X^0$, i.e. $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li+$X^0$.
820: This decay quickly transforms $^7$Be$_X$ to
821: $^7$Li~\citep[type II model in][]{bir07}. In this model, the rate of
822: recombination effectively determines the $^7$Be$\rightarrow ^7$Li
823: conversion rate induced by $X^-$. The results of this case are shown in
824: Fig.\ \ref{fig6}. The general features of Fig.\ \ref{fig6} are very
825: similar to Fig.\ \ref{fig5}. However, due to a slightly stronger destruction
826: rate due to the $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li+$X^0$ decay followed by the
827: $^7$Li($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He and
828: $^7$Li($X^-$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$ reactions, the contours of the $^7$Li abundance are
829: systematically shifted toward smaller values of $Y_X$. The parameter region which solves both the
830: $^6$Li and $^7$Li problems also slightly shifts to
831: \begin{equation}
832: Y_X \approx 0.04-0.2,~~~~~\tau_X \approx (1.4-2.6) \times 10^3~{\rm s}.
833: \label{eq21}
834: \end{equation}
835:
836: \section{DISCUSSION}\label{sec4}
837:
838: \subsection{Constraint on Dark Matter Particles}
839:
840: If the dark matter particles, which we denote $Y^0$ in this article, are
841: the decay products of $X^-$ particles, the cosmological parameter
842: $\Omega_{\rm CDM}$ inferred from the WMAP-CMB data can be used to constrain
843: the mass of $Y^0$ when combined with our abundance constraints on the $X^-$
844: particles from Eqs.\ (\ref{eq20}) and\ (\ref{eq21}). We
845: suppose that $X^-$ decays to a dark-matter $Y^0$ particle and any residues, and
846: $Y_Y =Y_X$. The WMAP-CMB constraint on $\Omega_{\rm CDM}=0.2$
847: corresponds to $Y_Y m_Y \lesssim 4.5$~GeV, i.e.
848: \begin{equation}
849: Y_X\approxeq Y_Y \lesssim \frac{4.5~{\rm GeV}}{m_Y},
850: \label{eq22}
851: \end{equation}
852: The calculated abundance constraints on $Y_X$ (Eqs. \ref{eq20} and \ref{eq22} can therefore be used to constrain the mass $m_Y$. Note, that the calculated result in the present study does not particularly depend on the
853: assumed mass of the $X^-$. In fact, only the second recombination rates and
854: the nuclear reaction rates between $X$-nuclei depend on the mass of
855: the $X^-$ (see discussion in subsec.~\ref{sec25}). However, the main production and
856: destruction processes of $^6$Li, $^7$Li, and $^7$Be are completely free
857: from these processes. We can thus consider the general constraint on
858: the number fraction of $X^-$ particles, $Y_X$.
859:
860: The most interesting solution to both the $^6$Li
861: underproduction and $^7$Li overproduction involves the parameter space defined in
862: Eqs.~(\ref{eq20}) and~(\ref{eq21}). Using [Eq.~(\ref{eq20})] in which one includes
863: the destruction reaction process $^7$Be$_X$+$p \rightarrow ^8$B$_X^{\ast {\rm a}}
864: \rightarrow ^8$B$_X$+$\gamma$~\citep{bir07}, the mass of the dark matter particle
865: $Y^0$ would be constrained to be
866: \begin{equation}
867: m_Y \lesssim 5~{\rm GeV}~~.
868: \label{eq23}
869: \end{equation}
870: However, using [Eq.~(\ref{eq21})] in which one includes
871: the $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li+$X^0$ process~\citep{bir07} the allowed
872: mass range increases to
873: \begin{equation}
874: m_Y \lesssim 20-110~{\rm GeV},
875: \label{eq24}
876: \end{equation}
877:
878: The long lifetime for $X^-$ decay is consistent with the mass of the decaying particle $X^-$ being close to the mass of the daughter
879: particle $Y^0$. In this case one can deduce a constraint on the $X^-$ mass of
880: \begin{equation}
881: m_X \lesssim O(100~{\rm GeV}).
882: \label{eq25}
883: \end{equation}
884:
885: \subsection{Initial $X^-$ Abundance at BBN Epoch}
886:
887: Here, we consider a simple estimation of the initial $X^-$ abundance after the
888: BBN epoch taking $X^+$ and $X^-$ pair annihilation into account. When
889: $X^+$ and $X^-$ particles are abundant at high temperature, both pair
890: creation and annihilation equilibrate. However, as the universe expands and
891: cools, the annihilation process proceeds until these particles freezeout at some relic $X^-$
892: ($X^+$) abundance. A calculation of this is analogous to the well known weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) calculation of~\citet{kol90}.
893:
894: Following their derivation, the time evolution the $X$-to-photon ratio, $\eta_X
895: \equiv n_X/n_\gamma=\eta Y_X$, can be written,
896: \begin{equation}
897: \frac{d\eta_X}{dt}=-n_\gamma \langle \sigma v \rangle \eta_X^2.
898: \label{eq27}
899: \end{equation}
900: However, unlike the~\citet{kol90} calculation, the $X^-$ annihilation cross section is given
901: by the electromaganetic formation of a positronium-like bound state $(X^-,X^+)$
902: system, not by the weak interaction associated WIMPs. Therefore, the annihilation cross section does not scale the same as the WIMP annihilation rate, $\langle \sigma v \rangle_{WIMP} \propto (G_F^2 m_X^2)$, where $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant. Rather,
903: the much larger annihilation cross section~\citep{bir07} of interest here is given by,
904: \begin{equation}
905: \langle \sigma v \rangle = \frac{2^{10} \pi^{3/2} \alpha^3}{3 \exp(4) m_X^{3/2} T^{1/2}}~~.
906: \label{eq28}
907: \end{equation}
908:
909:
910: The solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq27}) is then
911: \begin{equation}
912: \eta_X(T)=\left(\frac{1}{\eta_{X {\rm i}}} + 2H_{\rm i}^{-1} n_{\gamma {\rm i}} \langle \sigma v \rangle_{\rm i} \left(1-\left(\frac{T}{T_{\rm i}}\right)^{1/2}\right)\right)^{-1}.
913: \label{eq29}
914: \end{equation}
915: where the subscript i refers to values at some initial temperature $T_{\rm i}$.
916:
917: Assuming that $\eta_{X{\rm i}} \sim O(1)$ and that the baryon-to-photon
918: ratio is $\eta=6.0 \times 10^{-10}$~\citep{spe07}, the freeze-out abundance of
919: $X^-$ can be written;
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: Y_X &\approx & \frac{1}{\eta} \frac{1}{2H_{\rm i}^{-1} n_{\gamma {\rm i}} \langle \sigma v \rangle_{\rm i}} \nonumber \\
922: &=& 0.0057 \left(\frac{g_\ast}{10.75}\right)\left(\frac{\eta}{6.0 \times 10^{-10}}\right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
923: &&\times \left(\frac{m_X}{50~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{T_{\rm i}}{50~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1/2},
924: \label{eq30}
925: \end{eqnarray}
926: where $g_\ast$ is the total number of degrees of freedom of the relativistic
927: particles. This approximation indicates that the charged massive
928: particles that existed in the early universe might remain as relics in
929: abundance of order $Y_X \sim 0.01$. This is not very different from the
930: $Y_X$-value of the most interesting solution to the $^6$Li and $^7$Li
931: problems in Eq.\ (\ref{eq20}) or Eq.\ (\ref{eq21}) which we found, i.e.~the solution which leads to
932: the simultaneous destruction of $^7$Be and production of $^6$Li at levels that would produce concordance with observations.
933:
934: \subsection{Direct Destruction of Nuclei by $X^-$ Decay}
935:
936: Having shown how primordial $X^-$ particles could result in modified Li
937: isotope production, we need to consider what would happen to those
938: nuclei which retained an embedded $X^-$ particle when the $X^-$ particle
939: decays. This decay was assumed by~\citet{kap06} to
940: interact sufficiently strongly with the host nucleus that it would induce nucleon emission.
941: For example, the decay could knock out a proton or neutron from $^4$He$_X$, producing
942: either $^3$He or $^3$H. These nuclides could then interact with other
943: $^4$He nuclei to produce $^6$Li.
944:
945: However, this interaction was
946: found by those authors to occur too infrequently, which is consistent
947: with earlier studies~\citep[e.g.][]{ros75}. It was therefore concluded that the resulting decay products would have little
948: effect if they were comprised only of leptons and photons. Even so, they might
949: destroy some fraction of the nuclei in which the decays occurred if one of the decay products was a
950: pion~\citep{ros75,koh07}. However, for the $X^-$ decays, the decay products might be expected to be
951: electroweakly interacting particles, and the $X^-$ decays might not be expected
952: to significantly affect
953: the host nuclei. We therefore neglect decay-induced destruction in the present study.
954:
955: \subsection{$^6$Li Production by Electromagnetic Energy Injection from
956: $X^-$ Decay}
957:
958: If the $X^-$ particles decay to charged leptons and any other residues, the
959: high-energy leptons thus produced could interact with background photons to lose
960: their energy and induce additional nonthermal nucleosynthesis. In this section we argue that
961: such nucleosynthesis (if it does occur) does not significantly alter the parameter constraints deduced above.
962:
963: There is also
964: a viable possibility that the decaying product is an electron. Such a high
965: energy electron quickly interacts with background photons ($e^\pm+\gamma
966: \rightarrow e^\pm+\gamma$ i.e. inverse Compton scattering). The newly
967: produced energetic photons will also interact with background photons
968: ($\gamma+\gamma \rightarrow e^- + e^+$ i.e. pair production). In this
969: way high energy electrons can lose energy by making an electromagnetic cascade
970: shower. Such a shower could trigger non-thermal nucleosynthesis~\citep{dim88a,dim88b,dim89,jed00,cyb03,jed04,kaw05,kus06}.
971:
972: In~\citet{kus06} the conditions on the
973: parameters of $X^-$ particles which lead to a resolution of the $^6$Li underproduction problem
974: were delineated. These are $Y_X m_X \geq Y_X E_{\rm EM} \sim
975: 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$~GeV and $\tau_X \sim 10^8-10^{12}$~s, where $E_{\rm
976: EM}$ is the generated energy in the electromagnetic decay process. The
977: constraint on $Y_X$ for a given $X^-$ mass $m_X$ is then
978: \begin{equation}
979: \frac{\left(10^{-4}-10^{-3}~{\rm GeV}\right)}{m_X} \lesssim Y_X.
980: \label{eq31}
981: \end{equation}
982:
983: In the present paper we have considered several destruction processes of
984: $^7$Be$_X$. Here we note that both Fig.\
985: \ref{fig5} and Fig.\ \ref{fig6} indicate the same constraint $Y_X
986: \lesssim 10^{-5}$ from $X^-$
987: BBN for $\tau_X \sim 10^8-10^{12}$~s which is the interesting lifetime
988: range in the
989: previous work based upon electromagnetic $X^-$ decay~\citep{kus06}. The electromagnetic decay of
990: $X^-$ particles triggers late time $^6$Li production in amounts of $1
991: \lesssim d$($^6$Li)$\lesssim 10$ for these parameter regions. Therefore, the compatible condition which avoids
992: an overproduction at the earlier epoch and still allows for non-thermal
993: production of $^6$Li at the later time is only $d$($^6$Li)$\lesssim 10$.
994: From this we deduce,
995: \begin{equation}
996: \frac{\left(10^{-4}-10^{-3}~{\rm GeV}\right)}{m_X} \lesssim 1 \times 10^{-5},
997: \label{eq32}
998: \end{equation}
999: which places a lower limit on the mass of the $X^-$ particle of
1000: \begin{equation}
1001: m_X \gtrsim 10-100~{\rm GeV}.
1002: \label{eq33}
1003: \end{equation}
1004: When $m_X$ satisfies this lower limit, the electromagnetic decay of
1005: $X^-$ particles can also operate at times long after the BBN epoch.
1006: Clearly, electromagnetic and/or hadronic decays may also contribute to
1007: the final computed abundances. And, in a subsequent work we propose to
1008: investigate this. However, for now our goal has been to clarify the
1009: role of $X^-$ reactions and confirm that this effect alone can explain
1010: the observed lithium abundances. Note that in the case where the stable
1011: daughter dark matter particle has nearly the same mass as the $X^-$
1012: particle, there is not enough $Q$-value to produce a hadronic or
1013: electromagnetic shower.
1014:
1015: \section{CONCLUSIONS}\label{sec5}
1016:
1017: We have investigated light-element nucleosynthesis during the big bang
1018: in the presence of massive, negatively-charged $X^-$
1019: particles. Such particles would bind to light nuclei in the early universe.
1020: As suggested by many authors, they would facilitate BBN by
1021: enhancing the nuclear reaction rates both by
1022: reducing the charge of the bound $X$-nuclei, and by enabling
1023: transfer reactions involving the $X^-$ particles. We considered the
1024: recombination processes of $X^-$ particles and normal nuclei.
1025: Our conclusions are as follows:
1026:
1027: First, as suggested in previous studies, the $X^-$ particles greatly enhance
1028: the production of $^6$Li. The main production process of $^6$Li is the
1029: sequence of $^4$He$_X$ production through $X^-$ capture on $^4$He followed by the $X^-$
1030: transfer reaction $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li. The resultant $^7$Li
1031: abundance, however is almost the same as normal BBN value unless there
1032: is a large $X^-$ abundance $Y_X \gtrsim 0.1$.
1033:
1034: Secondly, when the lifetime of the $X^-$ particle is much longer than the
1035: period of normal BBN, the $^6$Li abundance monotonically increases with
1036: the $X^-$ particle abundance, except for very small $X^-$
1037: abundance ($Y_X \lesssim 10^{-10}$). On the other hand, the $^7$Li
1038: abundance is nearly independent of the $X^-$ particle abundance unless
1039: the $X^-$ particle abundance is larger than $\sim 0.1$ times the total
1040: abundance of baryons. In this case the $^7$Li abundance decreases with the $X^-$
1041: particle abundance due to the resonance reaction of
1042: $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ which reduces the $^7$Li abundance.
1043:
1044: Thirdly, the $^6$Li/H and $^7$Li/H observed in MPHSs can
1045: constrain the lifetime and abundance of an $X^-$ particle. These
1046: observational constraints require the lifetime and abundance to be in the
1047: ranges of $\tau_X \approx (1.0-1.8) \times 10^3$~s and $Y_X \gtrsim 0.9$. When the reaction $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li+$X^0$ is also taken
1048: into account, these ranges change to $\tau_X \approx (1.4-2.6)
1049: \times 10^3$~s and $Y_X \approx 0.04-0.2$. Therefore, introducing $X^-$
1050: particles with an adequate lifetime and abundance can be a solution for
1051: both of the factor of $\sim 1000$ underproduction of $^6$Li and the
1052: factor of 3-4 overproduction of $^7$Li in standard BBN.
1053:
1054: Fourthly, a constraint on the $X^-$ particle mass can be made from
1055: the dark-matter content deduced from the WMAP analysis of the CMB.
1056: If the abundance of $X^-$ particles is $Y_X\gtrsim 0.1-1$ as summarized
1057: above, the mass of dark matter particles
1058: $Y^0$, which are produced from the decay of $X^-$ particles, turns out to
1059: be $m_Y\lesssim
1060: 10-100$~GeV, thus leading to the constraint $m_X\lesssim O(100~{\rm GeV})$
1061: when $m_X \sim m_Y$.
1062:
1063: In summary, although
1064: several possible solutions have been proposed to solve the underproduction
1065: problem of $^6$Li, they do not necessarily resolve the overproduction
1066: problem of $^7$Li simultaneously. \citet{pos07} and~\citet{cyb06} proposed the $X^-$ transfer reactions to produce $^6$Li and
1067: $^7$Li. Regarding $^6$Li production, however,~\citet{ham07}
1068: have shown that the assumed reaction cross section
1069: is not as large as the value deduced by Pospelov. \citet{bir07} proposed
1070: new destruction processes of $^7$Be$_X$ through atomic excitations, and
1071: we here investigated yet another destruction process through a
1072: $^8$B$^\ast_X$ nuclear excited
1073: resonance in order to resolve the $^7$Li overproduction
1074: problem. The destruction efficiency of these newly proposed processes
1075: depends on the excitation energies above the $p$+$^7$Be$_X$ separation
1076: threshold. We then found that a better estimation of the binding
1077: energies leads to negligible effect from the nuclear excited resonance.
1078: It would be useful, however, in future work to predict more precisely the
1079: binding energies and excited states of exotic $X$-nuclei and their
1080: reaction cross sections utilizing a more realistic quantum mechanical
1081: treatment.
1082:
1083: \acknowledgments
1084: We are very grateful to Professor Masayasu Kamimura for enlightening
1085: suggestions on the nuclear reaction rates for transfer and radiative
1086: capture reactions. This work has been supported in part by the
1087: Mitsubishi Foundation, the
1088: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17540275) of the Ministry of
1089: Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, and the JSPS
1090: Core-to-Core Program, International Research Network for Exotic Femto
1091: Systems (EFES). MK acknowledges the
1092: support by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Work at the
1093: University of Notre Dame was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
1094: under Nuclear Theory Grant DE-FG02-95-ER40934. RNB gratefully
1095: acknowledges the support of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
1096: during his stay there.
1097:
1098: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1099: \bibitem[Ajzenberg-Selove(1988)]{ajz88} Ajzenberg-Selove, F.\
1100: 1988, Nuclear Physics A, 490, 1
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Asplund et al.(2006)]{asp06} Asplund, M., Lambert,
1103: D.~L., Nissen, P.~E., Primas, F., \& Smith, V.~V.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 229
1104:
1105: \bibitem[Barker(1980)]{bar80} Barker, F.~C.\ 1980, Australian
1106: Journal of Physics, 33, 159
1107:
1108: \bibitem[Bird et al.(2007)]{bir07} Bird, C., Koopmans, K., \&
1109: Pospelov, M.\ 2007, ArXiv High Energy Physics - Phenomenology e-prints,
1110: arXiv:hep-ph/0703096
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Boyd(2007)]{boy07} Boyd, R.~N.\ 2007, Introduction to Nuclear
1113: Astrophysics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
1114:
1115: \bibitem[Cahn \& Glashow(1981)]{cah81} Cahn, R.~N., \&
1116: Glashow, S.~L.\ 1981, Science, 213, 607
1117:
1118: \bibitem[Caughlan \& Fowler(1988)]{cau88} Caughlan, G.~R., \&
1119: Fowler, W.~A.\ 1988, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 40, 283
1120:
1121: \bibitem[Cayrel et al.(2007)]{cay07} Cayrel, R., et al.\
1122: 2007, \aap, 473, L37
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Cyburt et al.(2003)]{cyb03} Cyburt, R.~H., Ellis,
1125: J., Fields, B.~D., \& Olive, K.~A.\ 2003, \prd, 67, 103521
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Cyburt et al.(2006)]{cyb06} Cyburt, R.~H., Ellis,
1128: J., Fields, B.~D., Olive, K.~A., \& Spanos, V.~C.\ 2006, Journal of
1129: Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 11, 14
1130:
1131: \bibitem[Dimopoulos et al.(1988a)]{dim88a} Dimopoulos, S.,
1132: Esmailzadeh, R., Starkman, G.~D., \& Hall, L.~J.\ 1988, Physical Review
1133: Letters, 60, 7
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Dimopoulos et al.(1988b)]{dim88b} Dimopoulos, S.,
1136: Esmailzadeh, R., Starkman, G.~D., \& Hall, L.~J.\ 1988, \apj, 330, 545
1137:
1138: \bibitem[Dimopoulos et al.(1989)]{dim89} Dimopoulos, S.,
1139: Esmailzadeh, R., Hall, L.~J., \& Starkman, G.~D.\ 1989, Nuclear Physics B,
1140: 311, 699
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Feng et al.(2003a)]{feng03a} Feng, J. L. et al. (2003a) PRL, 92, 011302
1143:
1144: \bibitem[Feng et al.(2003b)]{feng03b} Feng, J. L. et al. (2003b) PRD, 68, 063504
1145:
1146: \bibitem[Fowler et al.(1967)]{fow67} Fowler, W.~A., Caughlan,
1147: G.~R., \& Zimmerman, B.~A.\ 1967, \araa, 5, 525
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Fukuda et al.(1999)]{fuk99} Fukuda, M., et al.\
1150: 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 209
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Fukugita \& Kajino(1990)]{fuk90} Fukugita, M., \&
1153: Kajino, T.\ 1990, \prd, 42, 4251
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Hamaguchi et al.(2007)]{ham07} Hamaguchi, K.,
1156: Hatsuda, T., Kamimura, M., Kino, Y., \& Yanagida, T.~T.\ 2007, Physics
1157: Letters B, 650, 268
1158:
1159: \bibitem[Hiyama et al.(2003)]{hiy03} Hiyama, E., Kino, Y., \&
1160: Kamimura, M.\ 2003, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 51, 223
1161:
1162: \bibitem[Jedamzik(2000)]{jed00} Jedamzik, K.\ 2000, Physical
1163: Review Letters, 84, 3248
1164:
1165: \bibitem[Jedamzik(2004)]{jed04} Jedamzik, K.\ 2004, \prd, 70,
1166: 063524
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Jedamzik(2008a)]{jedamzik08a} Jedamzik, K.\ 2008a, \prd, 77, 063524
1169:
1170: \bibitem[Jedamzik(2008b)]{jedamzik08b} Jedamzik, K.\ 2008b, Journal of
1171: Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 0803, 008
1172:
1173: \bibitem[Heil et al.(1998)]{hei98} Heil, M., K{\"a}ppeler,
1174: F., Wiescher, M., \& Mengoni, A.\ 1998, \apj, 507, 997
1175:
1176: \bibitem[Kajino(1986)]{kaj86} Kajino, T.\ 1986, Nuclear
1177: Physics A, 460, 559
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Kajino et al.(1988)]{kaj88} Kajino, T., Toki, H.,
1180: Kubo, K.-I., \& Tanihata, I.\ 1988, Physics Letters B, 202, 475
1181:
1182: \bibitem[Kaplinghat \& Rajaraman(2006)]{kap06} Kaplinghat,
1183: M., \& Rajaraman, A.\ 2006, \prd, 74, 103004
1184:
1185: \bibitem[Kawano(1992)]{kawano} Kawano, L.\ 1992, NASA
1186: STI/Recon Technical Report N, 92, 25163
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Kawasaki et al.(2005)]{kaw05} Kawasaki, M., Kohri,
1189: K., \& Moroi, T.\ 2005, \prd, 71, 083502
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Kohri \& Takayama(2007)]{koh07} Kohri, K., \&
1192: Takayama, F.\ 2007, \prd, 76, 063507
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Kolb \& Turner(1990)]{kol90} Kolb, E.~W., \& Turner,
1195: M.~S.\ 1990, The Early Universe, Frontiers in Physics, 69 (California: Addison-Wesley)
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Kusakabe et al.(2006)]{kus06} Kusakabe, M., Kajino,
1198: T., \& Mathews, G.~J.\ 2006, \prd, 74, 023526
1199:
1200: \bibitem[Kusakabe(2007)]{kus07a} Kusakabe, M.\ 2007, \apj, submitted
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Kusakabe et al.(2007)]{kus07b} Kusakabe, M., Kajino,
1203: T., Boyd, R.~N., Yoshida, T., \& Mathews, G.~J.\ 2007, \prd, in press
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Lambert(2004)]{lam04} Lambert, D.~L.\ 2004, The New
1206: Cosmology: Conference on Strings and Cosmology, 743, 206
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Mel{\'e}ndez \& Ram{\'{\i}}rez(2004)]{mel04}
1209: Mel{\'e}ndez, J., \& Ram{\'{\i}}rez, I.\ 2004, \apjl, 615, L33
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(2002)]{pin02} Pinsonneault,
1212: M.~H., Steigman, G., Walker, T.~P., \& Narayanan, V.~K.\ 2002, \apj, 574,
1213: 398
1214:
1215: \bibitem[Pospelov(2007)]{pos07} Pospelov, M.\ 2007, Physical
1216: Review Letters, 98, 231301
1217:
1218: \bibitem[Prantzos(2006)]{pra06} Prantzos, N.\ 2006, \aap,
1219: 448, 665
1220:
1221: \bibitem[Richard et al.(2005)]{ric05} Richard, O., Michaud,
1222: G., \& Richer, J.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 538
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Rollinde et al.(2006)]{rol06} Rollinde, E.,
1225: Vangioni, E., \& Olive, K.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 658
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Rosen(1975)]{ros75} Rosen, S.~P.\ 1975, Physical
1228: Review Letters, 34, 774
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Ryan et al.(2000)]{rya00} Ryan, S.~G., Beers, T.~C.,
1231: Olive, K.~A., Fields, B.~D., \& Norris, J.~E.\ 2000, \apjl, 530, L57
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Sigurdson \& Kamionkowski(2003)]{Sigurdson04} Sigurdson, K. \& Kamionkowski, M. (2004) Phys.~Rev.~Lett., 92, 171302
1234:
1235: \bibitem[Simon et al.(1981)]{sim81} Simon, G.~G., Schmitt,
1236: C., \& Walther, V.~H.\ 1981, Nuclear Physics A, 364, 285
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1993)]{smi93} Smith, M.~S., Kawano,
1239: L.~H., \& Malaney, R.~A.\ 1993, \apjs, 85, 219
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{spe07} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\
1242: 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
1243:
1244: \bibitem[Tanihata et al.(1988)]{tan88} Tanihata, I., Kobayashi, T.,
1245: Yamakawa, O., Shimoura, S., Ekuni, K., Sugimoto, K., Takahashi, N.,
1246: Shimoda, T., \& Sato, H.\ 1988, Physics Letters B, 106, 592
1247:
1248: \bibitem[Yao \& et al.(2006)]{yao06} Yao, W.-M., \& et al.\
1249: 2006, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 33, 1
1250:
1251: \end{thebibliography}
1252:
1253:
1254: \begin{figure}
1255: \plotone{f1.eps}
1256: \caption{Reaction pathways (solid arrows along the directions of positive
1257: $Q$-values) that ultimately occur for the nuclides with an embedded
1258: $X^-$ particle. The integer ^^ ^^ $n$'' can be 0 or 1. Thick solid
1259: arrows indicate the most important reactions which contribute in
1260: synthesizing or destroying $^6$Li$_X$, $^7$Li$_X$, and
1261: $^7$Be$_X$. A thick dashed arrow indicates the $X^-$ transfer reaction
1262: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li. Numbers attached indicate: 1.
1263: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li; 2. $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$^3$He)$^4$He$_X$; 3. $^4$He$_X$($t$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li$_X$ \& $^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$;
1264: 4. $^7$Be$_X$(,$X^0$)$^7$Li; 5. $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$;
1265: 6. $^8$B$_X$(,$e^+ \nu_e$)$^8$Be$_X$\label{fig1}}
1266: \end{figure}
1267:
1268: \begin{figure}
1269: \epsscale{0.80}
1270: \plotone{f2a.eps}
1271: \plotone{f2b.eps}
1272: \caption{Calculated abundances of normal nuclei (a) and $X$-nuclei (b)
1273: as a function of $T_9$. For this figure we have taken the abundance of negatively charged
1274: particles $X^-$ to be $Y_X=n_X/n_b=0.1$, and its lifetime is taken to
1275: be long $\tau_X=\infty$. We
1276: utilize the $X^-$ reaction rates as described in the text.\label{fig2}}
1277: \end{figure}
1278:
1279: \begin{figure}
1280: \epsscale{1.}
1281: \plotone{f3.eps}
1282: \caption{Calculated abundances of $^6$Li/H and $^7$Li/H as a function of the initial $X^-$
1283: abundance parameter $f_X$ defined in the text. The gray band bounded
1284: by curves of $^6$Li show the uncertainty from the rate for
1285: $X^-$ transfer reaction. The dashed lines indicate the mean values
1286: observed in MPHSs. The dashed and solid boxes indicate the range of
1287: $f_X$ consistent with our adopted limits on the abundance of $^6$Li/H
1288: observed in MPHSs.\label{fig3}}
1289: \end{figure}
1290:
1291: \begin{figure}
1292: \plotone{f4.eps}
1293: \caption{Calculated abundances of $^6$Li/H and $^7$Li/H normalized
1294: to the mean value observed in MPHSs as a
1295: function of $f_X$. The solid (dashed) boxes are similar to
1296: those of Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. The vertical solid line
1297: corresponds to the lowest abundance of $X^-$ ($f_X$) which leads to a
1298: larger enhancement of $^6$Li than $^7$Li.\label{fig4}}
1299: \end{figure}
1300:
1301: \begin{figure}
1302: \plotone{f5.eps}
1303: \caption{Contours of constant lithium abundance relative to the value
1304: observed in MPHSs, i.e., $d$($^6$Li) = $^6$Li$^{\rm Calc}$/$^6$Li$^{\rm Obs}$ (solid curves) and $d$($^7$Li) = $^7$Li$^{\rm Calc}$/$^7$Li$^{\rm Obs}$ (dashed curves). The adopted abundances are $^7$Li/H$= (1.23^{+0.68}_{-0.32})\times 10^{-10}$~\citep{rya00} and $^6$Li/H$=(7.1\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-12}$~\citep{asp06}. Thin solid lines around the lines of $d$($^6$Li) = 1 curve enclose the 1~$\sigma$ uncertainty in the adopted observational constraint based upon the dispersion of the observed plateau. In the gray region, the condition $d$($^6$Li)$ > d$($^7$Li) is satisfied.\label{fig5}}
1305: \end{figure}
1306:
1307: \begin{figure}
1308: \plotone{f6.eps}
1309: \caption{Same as in Fig.\ \ref{fig5} when the charged-current decay of
1310: $^7$Be$_X \rightarrow ^7$Li$+X^0$ is included. Thin dashed lines around the lines of $d$($^7$Li) = 1 curve enclose the 1~$\sigma$ uncertainty in the adopted observational constraint based upon the dispersion of the observed plateau.\label{fig6}}
1311: \end{figure}
1312:
1313: \clearpage
1314:
1315: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1316: \tablecaption{Binding Energies of $X^-$ Particles to Nuclei\label{tab1}}
1317: \tablewidth{0pt}
1318: \tablehead{
1319: \colhead{nuclide} & \colhead{$r_{\rm c}^{\rm RMS}$~(fm)\tablenotemark{a}} &
1320: \colhead{References} & \colhead{$E_{\rm Bind}$~(MeV)}}
1321: \startdata
1322: $^1$H$_X$ & 0.875 $\pm$ 0.007 & 1 & 0.025\\
1323: $^2$H$_X$ & 2.116 $\pm$ 0.006 & 2 & 0.049\\
1324: $^3$H$_X$ & 1.755 $\pm$ 0.086 & 3 & 0.072\\
1325: $^3$He$_X$ & 1.959 $\pm$ 0.030 & 3 & 0.268\\
1326: $^4$He$_X$ & 1.80 $\pm$ 0.04 & 4 & 0.343\\
1327: $^6$Li$_X$ & 2.48 $\pm$ 0.03 & 4 & 0.806\\
1328: $^7$Li$_X$ & 2.43 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4 & 0.882\\
1329: $^8$Li$_X$ & 2.42 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4 & 0.945\\
1330: $^6$Be$_X$ & 2.52 $\pm$ 0.02\tablenotemark{b} & 4 & 1.234\\
1331: $^7$Be$_X$ & 2.52 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4 & 1.324\\
1332: $^8$Be$_X$ & 2.52 $\pm$ 0.02\tablenotemark{b} & 4 & 1.401\\
1333: $^9$Be$_X$ & 2.50 $\pm$ 0.01 & 4 & 1.477\\
1334: $^7$B$_X$ & 2.68 $\pm$ 0.12\tablenotemark{c} & 5 & 1.752\\
1335: $^8$B$_X$ & 2.68 $\pm$ 0.12 & 5 & 1.840\\
1336: $^9$B$_X$ & 2.68 $\pm$ 0.12\tablenotemark{c} & 5 & 1.917\\
1337: \enddata
1338: \tablenotetext{a}{Root mean square charge radius}
1339: \tablenotetext{b}{Taken from $^7$Be radius}
1340: \tablenotetext{c}{Taken from $^8$B radius}
1341: \tablecomments{References: 1= \citet{yao06}; 2= \citet{sim81};
1342: 3=TUNL Nuclear Data, http://www.tunl.duke.edu/NuclData;
1343: 4= \citet{tan88}; 5= \citet{fuk99}.}
1344:
1345: \end{deluxetable}
1346:
1347: \clearpage
1348:
1349: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1350: \tablecaption{Nuclear Reaction Rates of $X$-Nuclides\label{tab2}}
1351: \tablewidth{0pt}
1352: \tablehead{
1353: \colhead{Reaction} & \colhead{Reaction Rate (cm$^3$~s$^{-1}$~mole$^{-1}$)} &
1354: \colhead{Reverse Coefficient\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Q~(MeV)}}
1355: \startdata
1356: $^3$He$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^4$He$_X$ & $7.2$ & 3.95 & 20.653\\
1357: $^3$He$_X$($d$,$p$)$^4$He$_X$ & $3.9 \times 10^{10}T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-5.36/T_9^{1/3})$ & 8.49 & 18.428\\
1358: $^6$Li$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 1.48 & 7.327\\
1359: $^6$Li$_X$($n$,$t$)$^4$He$_X$ & $1.7 \times 10^{8}$ & 0.577 & 4.321\\
1360: $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be$_X$ & $5.5 \times 10^{5}T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-6.74/T_9^{1/3})$ & 1.48 & 6.124\\
1361: $^6$Li$_X$($p$,$^3$He)$^4$He$_X$ & $2.7 \times 10^{10}T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-6.74/T_9^{1/3})$ & 0.577 & 3.557\\
1362: $^7$Li$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^8$Li$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 1.58 & 2.096\\
1363: $^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$Be$_X$ & $1.3 \times 10^5T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-6.74/T_9^{1/3})$ & 7.89 & 17.774\\
1364: $^7$Li$_X$($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$ & $9.0 \times 10^8T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-6.74/T_9^{1/3})$ & 1.00 & 16.808\\
1365: $^8$Li$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^9$Be$_X$ & $1.0 \times 10^5T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-4.25/T_9^{1/3})$ & 2.47 & 17.420\\
1366: $^6$Be$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 0.493 & 10.766\\
1367: $^6$Be$_X$($n$,$p$)$^6$Li$_X$ & $2.7 \times 10^{9}$ & 0.333 & 4.642\\
1368: $^7$Be$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^8$Be$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 7.89 & 18.977\\
1369: $^7$Be$_X$($n$,$p$)$^7$Li$_X$ & $2.7 \times 10^{9}$ & 1.00 & 1.202\\
1370: $^7$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B$_X$ & $1.6 \times 10^8 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-8.86/T_9^{1/3})$ & 1.58 & 0.654\\
1371: &$+1.6 \times 10^6 T_9^{-3/2}\exp(-1.92/T_9)$ &&\\
1372: $^7$Be$_X$($d$,$p$)$^8$Be$_X$ & $8.9 \times 10^{11} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-11.13/T_9^{1/3})$ & 16.97 & 16.752\\
1373: $^7$Be$_X$($d$,$p$$\alpha$)$^4$He$_X$ & $8.9 \times 10^{11}T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-11.13/T_9^{1/3})$ & 2.15 & 15.786\\
1374: $^8$Be$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^9$Be$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 2.47 & 1.741\\
1375: $^8$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^9$B$_X$ & $1.4 \times 10^6 T_9^{-3/2}\exp(-5.60/T_9)$ & 2.47 & 0.331\\
1376: $^9$Be$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^{10}$Be$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 7.89 & 6.913\\
1377: $^9$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^{10}$B$_X$ & $1.2 \times 10^7T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-8.83/T_9^{1/3})$ & 1.13 & 7.145\\
1378: $^{10}$Be$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$B$_X$ & $1.2 \times 10^7T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-8.83/T_9^{1/3})$ & 0.493 & 11.750\\
1379: $^9$B$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^{10}$B$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 1.13 & 8.556\\
1380: $^9$B$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^{10}$C$_X$ & $1.9 \times 10^5T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-10.70/T_9^{1/3})$ & 7.89 & 4.727\\
1381: $^{10}$B$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$B$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 3.45 & 11.517\\
1382: $^{10}$B$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$C$_X$ & $1.9 \times 10^5T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-10.70/T_9^{1/3})$ & 3.45 & 9.366\\
1383: $^{11}$B$_X$($p$,$\gamma$)$^{12}$C$_X$ & $1.9 \times 10^7 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-10.70/T_9^{1/3})$ & 7.89 & 16.638\\
1384: $^{10}$C$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$C$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 0.493 & 13.195\\
1385: $^{11}$C$_X$($n$,$\gamma$)$^{12}$C$_X$ & $5.2 \times 10^{3}$ & 7.89 & 18.789\\
1386: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li$_X$ & $2.2 \times 10^1 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-5.35/T_9^{1/3})$ & 2.79 & 1.936\\
1387: $^3$He$_X$($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be$_X$ & $2.9 \times 10^6 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-10.70/T_9^{1/3})$ & 3.95 & 2.642\\
1388: $^4$He$_X$($t$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li$_X$ & $2.0 \times 10^5 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-6.12/T_9^{1/3})$ & 2.56 & 3.006\\
1389: $^4$He$_X$($^3$He,$\gamma$)$^7$Be$_X$ & $3.2 \times 10^6 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-9.72/T_9^{1/3})$ & 2.56 & 2.567\\
1390: $^4$He$_X$($^6$Li,$\gamma$)$^{10}$B$_X$ & $2.4 \times 10^{6} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-16.05/T_9^{1/3})$ & 6.22 & 6.154\\
1391: $^9$Be$_X$($p$,$^6$Li)$^4$He$_X$ & $1.9 \times 10^{11} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-8.83/T_9^{1/3})$ & 0.181 & 0.991\\
1392: $^4$He$_X$($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^8$Be$_X$ & $2.9 \times 10^6 T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-10.70/T_9^{1/3})$\tablenotemark{b} & 7.89 & 0.966\\
1393: $^6$Li$_X$($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^{10}$B$_X$ & $3.0 \times 10^{6} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-16.98/T_9^{1/3})$ & 3.38 & 5.692\\
1394: $^7$Li$_X$($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$B$_X$ & $2.7 \times 10^{7} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-16.98/T_9^{1/3})$ & 7.89 & 9.882\\
1395: $^7$Be$_X$($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^{11}$C$_X$ & $6.6 \times 10^{7} T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-22.26/T_9^{1/3})$ & 7.89 & 8.934\\
1396: $^4$He$_X$($d$,$X^-$)$^6$Li & $2.37 \times 10^8 (1 -0.34 T_9)T_9^{-2/3}\exp(-5.33/T_9^{1/3})$ & 0.192 & 1.131\\
1397: $^6$Be$_X$(,$e^+$$\nu_e$)$^6$Li$_X$ & $T_{1/2}=2.3$~s & & 3.349\\
1398: $^8$B$_X$(,$e^+$$\nu_e$)$^8$Be$_X$ & $T_{1/2}=1.2$~s & & 17.030\\
1399:
1400: \enddata
1401: \tablenotetext{a}{For nuclides $a=i, j, k, ... $ with mass numbers $A_a$
1402: and spins $g_a$, the reverse coefficients are defined as
1403: follows~\citep{fow67} on the assumption that $X^-$ particle is much
1404: heavier than nuclides: $0.9867(g_i g_j/g_k)A_j^{3/2}$ for a process
1405: $i_X$($j$,$\gamma$)$k_X$, $(g_i g_j/(g_k g_l))(A_j/A_k)^{3/2}$ for a
1406: process $i_X$($j$,$k$)$l_X$, and $1.0134 (g_i g_j/(g_k g_l g_m))(A_j/(A_k A_l))^{3/2}$ for a process $i_X$($j$,$k$$l$)$m_X$.}
1407: \tablenotetext{b}{The $S$-factor for the reaction $^3$He($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be was used}
1408:
1409: \end{deluxetable}
1410:
1411: \end{document}
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415:
1416: