1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
23: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24:
25: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
26: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
27: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
28: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} %greater than or approx. symbol
29:
30: \usepackage{natbib}
31: \usepackage{graphicx}
32: \pdfoutput=1
33:
34:
35: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
36:
37:
38: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
39: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
40: %% use the longabstract style option.
41:
42: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
43:
44: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
45: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
46: %% the \begin{document} command.
47: %%
48: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
49: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
50: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
51: %% for information.
52:
53:
54: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
55:
56:
57: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
58: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
59: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
60: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
61: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
62: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
63:
64:
65: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
66: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
67:
68: \begin{document}
69:
70: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
71: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
72: %% you desire.
73:
74: \title{CN-Cycle Solar Neutrinos and Sun's Primordial Core Metalicity}
75:
76: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
77: %% author and affiliation information.
78: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
79: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
80: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
81: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
82:
83: \author{W. C. Haxton}
84: \affil{Institute for Nuclear Theory and Dept. Physics, University of
85: Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA}
86: \email{haxton@u.washington.edu}
87: \and
88: \author{A. M. Serenelli}
89: \affil{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}
90: \email{aldos@ias.edu}
91:
92: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
93: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
94: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
95: %% affiliation.
96:
97: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
98: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
99: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
100: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
101: %% editorial office after submission.
102:
103: \begin{abstract}
104: We argue that it may be possible to exploit neutrinos from the CN cycle and pp
105: chain to determine the primordial solar core abundances of C and N at an
106: interesting level of precision. Such a measurement would allow a comparison
107: of the Sun's deep interior composition with it surface, testing a key
108: assumption of the standard solar model (SSM), a homogeneous zero-age Sun. It
109: would also provide a cross-check on recent photospheric abundance
110: determinations that have altered the once excellent agreement between the SSM
111: and helioseismology. As further motivation, we discuss a speculative
112: possibility in which photospheric abundance/helioseismology puzzle is
113: connected with the solar-system metal differentiation that accompanied
114: formation of the gaseous giant planets.
115:
116: The theoretical relationship between core C and N and the $^{13}$N and
117: $^{15}$O solar neutrino fluxes can be made more precise (and more general) by
118: making use of the Super-Kamiokande and SNO $^8$B neutrino capture rates, which
119: calibrate the temperature of the solar core. The primordial C and N
120: abundances can then be obtained from these neutrino fluxes and from a product
121: of nuclear rates, with little residual solar model dependence. We describe
122: some of the recent experimental advances that could allow this comparison to
123: be made (theoretically) at the $\sim$ 9\% level, and note that this
124: uncertainty may be reduced further due to ongoing work on the S-factor for
125: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$). The envisioned measurement might be possible in deep,
126: large-volume detectors using organic scintillator, e.g., Borexino or SNO+.
127: \end{abstract}
128:
129:
130: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
131: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
132: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
133: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
134:
135: \keywords{}
136:
137: \section{Introduction}
138:
139: Over three decades one of the most intriguing problems in physics and
140: astrophysics has been that of the missing solar neutrinos, the discrepancy
141: between Ray Davis's chlorine-detector measurements
142: (\citealt{davis,davis_bahc}) and the
143: predictions of the standard solar model (SSM) developed by Bahcall and
144: collaborators \citep{bpb00,bp04,bsb_mc}, by Turck-Chieze and collaborators
145: \citep{brun1,brun2}, and others. Part of the problem's fascination has
146: been the tension between stellar theory and particle physics: arguments for new
147: neutrino physics required one to believe that {\it ab initio} models correctly
148: predicted the solar core temperature to an accuracy of about 1\%.
149:
150: Gradually the combination of quantitative tests of the solar model,
151: particularly determinations of the interior sound speed via helioseismology,
152: and new solar neutrino experiments, Kamioka \citep{kamioka}, SAGE \citep{sage}
153: and GALLEX/GNO \citep{gallex}, and Super-Kamiokande \citep{sk1,sk2}, made the
154: arguments for new physics compelling. The pattern of solar neutrino fluxes
155: proved difficult to attribute to any plausible variation in the SSM. With the
156: direct detection of both electron- and heavy-flavor solar neutrinos in the
157: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, solar neutrino experiments had not only
158: demonstrated that electron neutrinos oscillate on their way to the earth, but
159: also determined the parameters governing that oscillation
160: \citep{sno1,sno2,sno3}.
161: Progress has continued with the KamLAND \citep{kamland} reactor experiment and
162: the Borexino collaboration's efforts \citep{borexino} to measure low-energy
163: solar neutrinos in real time. Borexino's recent results for the $^7$Be solar
164: neutrino flux are consistent with Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution.
165:
166: Because the incorporation of neutrino mass and mixing into the standard model
167: requires new physics, the field's attention has naturally turned to the
168: unresolved particle physics questions, such as the mass hierarchy, mass scale,
169: third mixing angle, and CP-violating phases. \citet{APS} summarizes the open
170: questions and the envisioned future experimental program.
171:
172: Here we return to one of the initial motivations for solar neutrino physics,
173: using the neutrino flux as a probe of the SSM. We will argue that important
174: tests of the Sun and its initial conditions can be made by measuring the
175: CN-cycle neutrinos. Such a measurement would test a key assumption of the SSM
176: -- that convective mixing during the early pre-main-sequence Hayashi phase
177: produced a homogeneous Sun, and that subsequent evolution has not appreciably
178: altered the distribution of metals -- an assumption that may now be in some
179: degree of conflict with helioseismology. This assumption is the basis for
180: taking the SSM's primordial core metal abundances from today's surface metal
181: abundances. We argue that a series of recent advances -- SNO and
182: Super-Kamiokande measurements of the $^8$B neutrinos, new cross section
183: measurements for $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) and for certain pp-chain reactions, and
184: detector developments such as Borexino and SNO+, might allow one to determine
185: the primordial abundances of C and N, with little dependence on the solar
186: model: to good accuracy, these abundances can be derived from experimental
187: quantities, namely the CN-cycle neutrino fluxes, the $^8$B neutrino flux, and
188: nuclear cross sections and oscillation parameters measured in the laboratory.
189:
190: Such a check of the SSM is of added interest because recent 3D modeling of
191: photospheric absorption lines has led to a downward revision in the metal
192: content of the solar convective zone \citep{ags05}. This significantly
193: alters the
194: once spectacular agreement between the SSM and helioseismology in the
195: temperature region below the solar convective zone, $\sim$ 2-5 $\times$ 10$^6$
196: K \citep{bbps05,bsb05,antia,montalban}. In this
197: region C, N, O, Ne, and Ar are partially
198: ionized and particularly O and Ne have a significant influence on the
199: radiative opacity.
200: % Wick, I've removed the following paragraph because, as it turns out, C and N
201: % have very little influence on the radiative opacity below the convective
202: % zone.
203: % That is, the specific metals that can be probed via the CNO neutrino fluxes,
204: % principally C and N, are among those that govern the opacity in the region
205: % where helioseismology discrepancies are the largest.
206:
207: A quantitative comparison between the Sun's surface and core metalicities
208: could prove useful in understanding the chemical evolution of other gaseous
209: bodies in our solar system, whose interiors are not as easily probed. The
210: Galileo and Cassini missions found significant metal enrichments in the H/He
211: atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, e.g., abundances of C and N of $\sim$ four
212: times solar for Jupiter and $\sim$ 4-8 for Saturn \citep{guillot}. Planetary
213: models that take account of these data indicate that the gaseous giants are
214: very significant solar-system metal reservoirs. We discuss, because of the
215: size of these reservoirs and the time they were created, the possibility that
216: they might have some connection with the current conflict between solar
217: interior (helioseismology) and surface (photospheric absorption line)
218: abundance determinations.
219:
220: Finally, just as the solar neutrino program to date has provided our first
221: quantitative test of the nuclear astrophysics governing proton burning in
222: low-mass main-sequence stars, a solar CN-cycle neutrino program would give us
223: our first experimental constraints on the process by which massive
224: main-sequence stars burn hydrogen. The CN cycle is thought to have driven an
225: early convective stage in our Sun, and is also important to the evolution of
226: the first generation of massive metal-poor stars, where it turns on only after
227: carbon has been synthesized by the triple alpha process.
228:
229: \section{The CNO Bi-Cycle and its Neutrinos}
230:
231: The need for two mechanisms to burn hydrogen was recognized in the pioneering
232: work of Bethe and collaborators. The pp-chain, which dominates energy
233: production in our Sun and other low-mass main-sequence stars, can be
234: considered a primary process in which the chain's ``catalysts'' -- deuterium,
235: $^3$He, and $^7$Be/$^7$Li, the elements participating in intermediate steps
236: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:one} -- are synthesized as the chain burns to
237: equilibrium.
238:
239: But the sharper $T$-dependence of the CNO cycle is necessary to account for
240: the structure of massive main-sequence stars. Unlike the pp-chain, the CNO
241: bi-cycle (Fig.~\ref{fig:two}) is a secondary process: the catalysts for H
242: burning are the pre-existing metals. Thus the CNO contribution to energy
243: generation is directly proportional to the stellar-core number abundance of
244: the primordial metals. The CN-cycle, denoted by I in Fig.~\ref{fig:two}, is
245: an important SSM neutrino source. The cycle conserves the number abundance,
246: but alters the distribution of metals as it burns into equilibrium, eventually
247: achieving equilibrium abundances proportional to the inverse of the respective
248: rates.
249:
250: The reactions controlling early conversion of metals in the solar core and the
251: approach to equilibrium are $^{12}$C(p,$\gamma$) and $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$):
252: these are the next-to-slowest and slowest rates in the lower-temperature CN
253: cycle, respectively. The central temperature of the solar core at the onset
254: of nuclear burning, $T_7 \sim 1.34$, corresponds to a $^{12}$C lifetime of
255: about 2 $\cdot$ 10$^7$ y. Thus the initial out-of-equilibrium CN-cycle
256: conversion of $^{12}$C to $^{14}$N in the central region of the early Sun is
257: complete and rapid. The associated energy release is thought to render the
258: central portion of the solar core convectively unstable for a period of about
259: $10^8$ y. That is, the steep temperature dependence of $^{12}$C(p,$\gamma$)
260: produces composition, opacity, and thus thermal gradients sufficient to drive
261: convection. The temperature at which the $^{12}$C lifetime is comparable to
262: the Sun's 4.57 b.y. lifetime is $T_7 \sim 1.0$. In the SSM this includes
263: essentially the entire energy-producing core, $ R \lsim 0.18 R_\odot$ and $M
264: \lsim 0.29 M_\odot$, so that nearly all of the core's primordial $^{12}$C has
265: been converted to $^{14}$N. This change in the chemical composition alters
266: the opacity and, at the 3\% level, the heavy-element mass fraction $Z$, SSM
267: effects first explored by \citet{bu88}.
268:
269: The $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) reaction determines whether equilibrium has been
270: achieved. The $^{14}$N lifetime is shorter than the age of the Sun for $T_7
271: \gsim 1.33$. Therefore equilibrium for the CN cycle has been reached only for
272: $R \lsim 0.1 R_\odot$, corresponding to the central 7\% of the Sun by mass.
273: Consequently, over a significant portion of the outer core, $^{12}$C has been
274: converted to $^{14}$N, but further reactions are inhibited by the
275: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) bottleneck.
276:
277: The BSP08(GS) SSM \citep{bps08} -- which employs
278: values for $Z$ and the $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) S-factor given below -- predicts a
279: modest CN-cycle contribution to solar energy generation of 0.8\% but
280: substantial fluxes of neutrinos
281: %
282: \begin{displaymath}
283: ^{13}\mathrm{N} (\beta^+)^{13}\mathrm{C}~~E_\nu \lsim 1.199
284: \mathrm{~MeV}~~\phi = (2.93^{+0.91}_{-0.82}) \times 10^8/\mathrm{cm^2s}
285: \end{displaymath}
286: %
287: \begin{displaymath}
288: ^{15}\mathrm{O} (\beta^+)^{15}\mathrm{N} ~~E_\nu \lsim 1.732
289: \mathrm{~MeV}~~\phi = (2.20^{+0.73}_{-0.63}) \times
290: 10^8/\mathrm{cm^2s}.
291: \end{displaymath}
292: %
293: Here uncertainties reflect conservative abundance uncertainties as defined
294: empirically in \citet{bs05}.
295: The first reaction is part of the path from $^{12}$C to $^{14}$N, while the
296: latter follows $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$). Thus neutrinos from $^{15}$O $\beta$
297: decay are produced in the central core: 95\% of the flux comes from the
298: CN-equilibrium region, described above. About 30\% of the $^{13}$N neutrinos
299: come from outside this region, primarily because of the continued burning of
300: primordial $^{12}$C: this accounts for the somewhat higher flux of these
301: neutrinos. There is also a small but fascinating contribution from $^{17}$F
302: $\beta$ decay,
303: %
304: \begin{displaymath}
305: ^{17}\mathrm{F}(\beta^+)^{17}\mathrm{O}~~ E_\nu \lsim 1.740
306: \mathrm{~MeV}~~\phi=(5.82\pm 3.04) \times 10^6/\mathrm{cm^2s}
307: \end{displaymath}
308: %
309: a reaction fed by (p,$\gamma$) on primordial $^{16}$O: the cycling time for
310: the second branch of the CNO bi-cycle, for solar core conditions, is much
311: longer than the solar age. The flux of these neutrinos appears too small to
312: allow a test of the Sun's primordial oxygen content by this means
313: \citep{bahcallbook}.
314:
315: The SSM makes several reasonable assumptions, including local hydrostatic
316: equilibrium (the balancing of the gravitational force against the gas pressure
317: gradient), energy generation by proton burning, a homogeneous zero-age Sun,
318: and boundary conditions imposed by the known mass, radius, and luminosity of
319: the present Sun. It assumes no significant mass loss or accretion. The
320: homogeneity assumption allows the primordial core metalicity to be fixed to
321: today's surface abundances. Corrections for the effects of diffusion of He
322: and the heavy elements over 4.57 b.y. of solar evolution are included, and
323: generally been helpful in improving the agreement between SSM predictions and
324: parameters probed in helioseismology.
325:
326: The assumption of a homogeneous zero-age Sun is based on arguments that the
327: early pre-main-sequence Sun passed through a fully convective, highly luminous
328: Hayashi phase, homogenizing the Sun. Yet, as recently discussed in
329: \citet{winnick}, whether this homogeneity persists
330: until the main sequence depends on the Sun's metal accretion history. In the
331: subsequent late pre-main-sequence phase (the Henyey phase), the Sun approaches
332: the main sequence by establishing and growing a radiative core. Metals
333: accreted onto the Sun in or after this phase would not be mixed into the core.
334: Thus in principle, if the accreted material had a metal content that is not
335: uniform in time, differences between the surface and core could arise in the
336: Henyey phase. \citet{winnick} have discussed scenarios in which such
337: accretion might produce a convective zone enriched in metals relative to the
338: radiative zone. For many years one motivation for models with such ``low Z''
339: cores was to lower the $^8$B neutrino flux, reducing the discrepancy between
340: the SSM and the results of the Davis experiment.
341:
342: The SSM assumes no such differentiation occurs. While this assumption of a
343: homogeneous zero-age Sun may be correct, there are few observational checks on
344: proto-solar evolution. But one possibility might be the CN-cycle neutrinos.
345: The flux of these neutrino should depend nearly linearly on the initial core
346: abundance of C and N. If other uncertainties affecting predictions of these
347: fluxes could be brought under control, and if these fluxes were measured,
348: constraints on the core's primordial C and N might be obtained.
349:
350: Solar surface abundances are known, determined from analyses of photospheric
351: atomic and molecular spectral lines. Traditionally the associated solar
352: atmosphere modeling has been done in one dimension, in a time-independent
353: hydrostatic analysis that incorporates convection via mixing-length theory.
354: But much improved 3D models of the solar atmosphere have been developed
355: recently to treat the radiation-hydrodynamics and time dependence of this
356: problem. This approach is essentially parameter-free and has been shown to
357: accurately reproduce average line profiles, improve the consistency between
358: different line measurements (e.g., among the various sources of C and O
359: lines), and bring the solar abundances into better accord with other stars in
360: the solar neighborhood. The improved analysis, however, substantially lowers
361: the solar metalicity from the previous standard, Z=0.0169 \citep{gs98}, to
362: Z=0.0122 \citep{ags05}, and thus alters SSM predictions. Hereafter we
363: denote these as the GS and and AGS abundances, respectively.
364:
365: Solar models that use the GS solar composition, the most up to date of which
366: is the BPS08(GS) \citep{bps08} but including also the BP00 \citep{bpb00}, BP04
367: \citep{bp04} and BS05(OP) \citep{bsb05} models, are in excellent agreement
368: with those deduced from helioseismology. But those computed with the revised
369: abundance are in
370: much poorer agreement, with discrepancies exceeding 1\% in the region just
371: below the convective zone (R $\sim 0.65-0.70 {\rm R}_\odot$).
372: Associated properties of the SSM, such as
373: the depth of the convective zone and the surface He abundance, are also now in
374: conflict with helioseismology. As extensively discussed in \citet{bsb_mc}
375: discrepancies are significantly above measurement and solar model
376: uncertainties.
377:
378: The reduced core opacity also lowers the SSM prediction of the
379: temperature-dependent $^8$B neutrino flux by about 20\%: the predicted $^8$B
380: flux using the GS abundances and Opacity Project \citep{opacity} opacities,
381: model BPS08(GS) is 5.95 $\times$ 10$^6$/cm$^2$s,
382: which drops to 4.72 $\times$ 10$^6$/cm$^2$s when AGS abundances are used,
383: model BPS08(AGS). These results can be compared to the $^8$B neutrino flux
384: deduced from the 391-day salt-phase SNO data set of 4.94 $\pm$ 0.21 (stat)
385: $^{+0.38}_{-0.34}$ $\times$ 10$^6$/cm$^2$s \citep{sno_salt}. The
386: Super-Kamiokande
387: combined unbinned (binned) analysis using the salt-phase SNO data finds a
388: best-fit flux of 4.91 (4.86)$\times$ 10$^6$/cm$^2$ \citep{hosaka}. Thus the
389: BPS08(GS) and BPS08(AGS) predictions are 1.2 and 0.95 times the experimental
390: central values of the combined analysis. Both results are consistent with
391: experiment, given current experimental (9.5\%) and theoretical ($\sim$ 16\%)
392: uncertainties.
393:
394: Finally, we describe a speculative scenario to illustrate why a direct
395: measurement of solar core metalicity might be important to our understanding
396: of solar system formation. If one were to attempt to construct a solar model
397: that reproduces both a sound-speed profile consistent with helioseismology and
398: the \citet{ags05} photospheric abundances, that model would likely
399: have a convective zone that is {\it depleted} in metals relative to the
400: radiative core, not elevated as in the low-Z model familiar from the solar
401: neutrino puzzle. It is possible to envision a a scenario where this could
402: happen -- one that connects the chemistry of the Sun's convective zone with
403: that of the planets. First, there is clear evidence that solar-system metal
404: differentiation occurred, associated with the formation of the metal-rich
405: gaseous giants Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. The gaseous atmospheres
406: of Jupiter and Saturn are believed to have been formed by accretion onto
407: relatively small ($\sim$ 10 M$_\oplus$) rocky/icy cores, at a time when solar
408: formation is nearly complete and the bulk of the gas in the nebular disk has
409: dissipated. These atmospheres are established over $\sim$ 1-10 million years
410: \citep{bod}. It is thus plausible that the gaseous planets were formed after
411: the sun had developed a radiative core and an isolated convective zone.
412: Second, the amount of chemical differentiation in the gaseous giants is
413: suggestive: modelers estimate that Jupiter's total metal content is between 8
414: and 39 M$_\oplus$, or Z $\sim$ 2.5-12.3\%, while that of Saturn is between 13
415: and 28 M$_\oplus$, or Z $\sim$ 13.7-29.4\% \citep{saumon}. The excess metal
416: contained in all four gaseous giants, $\sim$ 40-90 M$_\oplus$ depending on
417: modeling uncertainties \citep{guillot}, is comparable to the apparent deficit
418: of metal in the convective zone ($\sim$ 50 M$_\oplus$), were one to associate
419: the GS abundances with the radiative zone (formed from primordial gas) and the
420: AGS abundances with the convective zone. The late-forming gaseous envelopes
421: of Jupiter and Saturn could account for up to 40 M$_\oplus$ of this excess.
422:
423:
424: Thus it is possible that some mechanism operating in a chemically altered disk
425: -- perhaps proto-planets scouring out metal-rich dust grains that have settled
426: to the disk midplane -- might result both in metal enrichment of the gaseous
427: giants and a reservoir of metal-depleted gas in the circum-planetary disk.
428: Could some portion of that gas later be deposited on the Sun, reducing the
429: effective Z of the convective zone? This question has been raised once
430: before, by \citet{castro}, who then explored helioseismology in
431: a two-zone model motivated by this possibility. While we are
432: not advocating for such a scenario, simple estimates, including those above,
433: do seem to support its plausibility. Numerical calculations indicate that the
434: time scale for the Sun to accrete gas, influenced gravitationally by a
435: Jupiter-mass body orbiting at a distance $\sim$ 5 AU, is relatively short, on
436: the order of $ \sim 5 \times 10^5$ yr \citep{strom}. It has also been noted,
437: based on the needed planetesimal deposition rate and the tidal radius ($\sim$
438: 0.36 AU) of a fully grown Jupiter, that the planet would have perturbed the
439: orbits of about 2500 M$_\oplus$ of gas, or 35\% of the mass of the Sun's
440: present convective envelope \citep{podolak}. Thus at least some of the
441: conditions necessary for convective-zone dilution appear to be satisfied.
442:
443: Though it is beyond the scope of the present paper, it might be worthwhile to
444: pursue this question further, assuming late-time accretion of metal-depleted
445: gas (motivated by the gaseous giant metal reservoirs and their assumed time of
446: formation). While the work by \citet{castro} is a first step in this
447: direction, if
448: one takes the accretion scenario seriously, then (depending on the timing of
449: accretion with respect to the development of the radiative/convective zone
450: boundary) there should be a memory of the accretion in the modern sun's upper
451: radiative zone -- a transition region between GS interior abundances and AGS
452: surface abundances which depends on the volume and composition of the accreted
453: material. Helioseismology would thus become a probe of the solar system's
454: late-stage accretion history. This history would be linked to solar
455: development: in the standard Hayashi-track description of the proto-Sun, the
456: scenario would only make sense if the planet atmospheres were formed in the
457: Henyey phase or later. However, recent numerical simulations of cloud
458: collapse and early solar evolution found that the convective envelope develops
459: earlier, spans the outer third of the proto-Sun by radius, and resembles
460: closely that of the modern Sun \citep{wuchterl}. This would extend the window
461: for dilution of the convective zone to earlier times. Finally, the scenario
462: would predict chemical correlations between the planets and convective zone in
463: our sun and, perhaps, in other solar-like planetary systems.
464:
465: The various threads summarized above, plus additional considerations we
466: discuss in this paper, provide strong motivation for experiments measuring
467: CN-cycle neutrinos:
468: %
469: \begin{itemize}
470:
471: \item A measurement of the CN neutrino flux would provide an independent test
472: of solar metalicity, complementing photospheric determinations.
473:
474: \item This measurement would test the SSM postulate of a homogeneous zero-age
475: Sun, one of the assumptions important to helioseismology, the $^8$B neutrino flux,
476: and other SSM predictions that depend on the metalicity of the Sun's interior
477: radiative zones.
478:
479: \item It would place constraints on metal accretion that might have occurred
480: subsequent to the Hayashi phase, as the pre-main-sequence convective solar
481: core is established.
482:
483: \item The current solar neutrino program has helped to demonstrate
484: experimentally that the nuclear astrophysics foundations of our standard
485: theory of low-mass main-sequence stellar evolution are valid. Solar CN-cycle
486: neutrinos provide our one opportunity to extend such tests to the nuclear
487: physics governing heavier main-sequence stars.
488:
489: \item It is conceivable the a quantitative comparison of the Sun's surface and
490: interior metalicities might be important to more general problems of chemical
491: differentiation during solar-system formation.
492:
493: \end{itemize}
494: %
495:
496:
497: \section{The Sun as a Calibrated Laboratory}
498:
499: Independent of questions about the Sun's pre-main-sequence evolution, one
500: recognizes that the Sun's inner core would have been mixed at the onset of the
501: main sequence due to the initial out-of-equilibrium burning of $^{12}$C. It
502: has been recognized for many years that a measurement of the CN-cycle solar
503: neutrino flux would, in principle, determine the metalicity of this core zone,
504: allowing a comparison with abundance determined from the solar atmosphere.
505: But in the past several years new developments have occurred that now seem to
506: suggest such a measurement could be practical. These include:
507: %
508: \begin{itemize}
509:
510: \item Accurate calibrations of the solar core temperature by SNO and
511: Super-Kamiokande;
512:
513: \item Tight constraints on the oscillation parameters and matter effects that
514: will determine the flavor content of the CN and $^8$B neutrino fluxes;
515:
516: \item Recent measurements of the controlling reaction of the CN cycle,
517: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$), that have significantly reduced the nuclear physics
518: uncertainties affecting SSM predictions of CN-cycle fluxes; and
519:
520: \item New ideas for high-counting rate experiments that would be sensitive to
521: CN-cycle neutrinos, and from which reliable terrestrial fluxes could be
522: extracted.
523:
524: \end{itemize}
525: %
526: Our analysis uses previous SSM work in which the logarithmic partial
527: derivatives $\alpha(i,j)$ for each neutrino flux $\phi_i$ are evaluated for
528: the SSM input parameters $\beta_j$,
529: \begin{equation}
530: \alpha(i,j) \equiv {\partial \ln{\left[ \phi_i/\phi_i(0) \right]} \over
531: \partial \ln{\left[ \beta_j / \beta_j(0)\right]}}
532: \end{equation}
533: where $\phi_i(0)$ and $\beta_j(0)$ denote the SSM best values. This
534: information, in combination with the assigned uncertainties in the $\beta_j$,
535: then provides an estimate of the uncertainty in the SSM prediction of
536: $\phi_i$. In particular, crucial to the current analysis is the work of
537: \citet{bs05}, who evaluated the dependence on
538: the mass fractions (measured relative to hydrogen) of different heavy
539: elements,
540: \begin{equation}
541: \beta_j = \mathrm{mass~fraction~of~element~j \over mass~fraction~of~hydrogen}
542: \equiv X_j
543: \end{equation}
544: Having this information not as a function of the overall metalicity $Z$, but
545: as a function of the individual abundances, allows us to separate the
546: ``environmental'' effects of the metals in the solar core from the special
547: role of primordial C and N as catalysts for the CN cycle. By environmental
548: effects we mean the influence of the metals on the opacity and thus the
549: ambient core temperature, which controls the rates of neutrino-producing
550: reactions of both the pp-chain and CN cycle. Simply put, our strategy here is
551: to use the temperature-dependent $^8$B neutrino flux to calibrate the
552: environmental effects of the metals and of other SSM parameters, thus
553: isolating the special CN-cycle dependence on primordial C+N. We find this
554: primordial abundance can be expressed, with very little residual solar model
555: uncertainty, in terms of the measured $^8$B neutrino flux and nuclear cross
556: sections that have been determined in the laboratory. In fact, we argue that
557: the resulting expression is likely more general than the SSM context from
558: which it is derived.
559:
560: The partial derivatives allow one to define the power-law dependencies of
561: neutrino fluxes, relative to the SSM best-value prediction $\phi_i(0)$
562: \begin{equation}
563: \phi_i = \phi_i(0) \prod_{j=1}^N \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)}
564: \right]^{\alpha(i,j)}
565: \label{eq:prod}
566: \end{equation}
567: where the product extends over $N$ SSM input parameters. This expression can
568: be used to evaluate how SSM flux predictions will vary, relative to
569: $\phi_i(0)$, as the $\beta_j$ are varied. Alternatively, the process can be
570: inverted: a flux measurement could in principle be used to constrain an
571: uncertain input parameter.
572:
573: The baseline SSM calculation for our calculations is BPS08(AGS) \citep{bps08},
574: which uses the recently determined AGS
575: abundances for the volatile elements C, N, O, Ne, and Ar, rather than the
576: previous GS standard composition. It should be noted that AGS includes a
577: downward revision by 0.05 dex of the Si photospheric abundance compared to GS
578: and, accordingly, a similar reduction in the meteoritic abundances. The
579: partial derivatives needed in the present calculation are summarized in
580: Tables \ref{table:one} (solar model parameters and nuclear cross sections) and
581: \ref{table:two} (abundances).
582:
583: The SSM estimate of uncertainties in the various solar
584: neutrino fluxes
585: $\phi_i$ can be obtained by folding the partial derivatives with the
586: uncertainties in the underlying $\beta_j$. In particular, it is convenient to
587: decompose Eq. \ref{eq:prod} into its dependence on solar parameters, non-CN
588: metals, nuclear S-factors, and the primordial C and N abundances,
589: %
590: \begin{eqnarray}
591: \phi_i = \phi_i^{SSM} \times~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber
592: \\ \left( \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Solar\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)}
593: \right]^{\alpha(i,j)} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Metals \neq C,N\}}} \left[
594: {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\alpha(i,j)} \right) \nonumber \\ \times
595: \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Nuclear\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)}
596: \right]^{\alpha(i,j)} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{C,N\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over
597: \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\alpha(i,j)} .~~~~~~~
598: \label{eq:prod2}
599: \end{eqnarray}
600:
601: The two terms within the brackets will be designated ``environmental''
602: uncertainties -- SSM solar and abundance parameters that primarily influence
603: neutrino flux predictions through changes they induce in the core temperature.
604: These are, respectively, the uncertainties in the photon luminosity $L_\odot$,
605: the mean radiative opacity, the solar age, and calculated He and metal
606: duffusion; and the fractional abundances of O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar, and Fe. The
607: estimated 1$\sigma$ fractional uncertainties for the solar parameters have
608: been previously evaluated and are listed in Table \ref{table:three}.
609:
610: The heavy elements abundances in
611: BPS08(AGS) are taken from the meteoritic abundances where available (Mg,
612: Si, S, and Fe) and otherwise from photospheric abundances (for the volatile
613: elements C, N, O, Ne, Ar). As mentioned before, the assigned
614: historical/conservative 1$\sigma$ fractional
615: uncertainties shown in Table \ref{table:four} were defined empirically in
616: \citet{bs05} by
617: %
618: \begin{equation}
619: {\Delta \beta_i \over \beta_i} = \left| {\mathrm{Abundance}_i^{\mathrm{GS}} -
620: \mathrm{Abundance}_i^{\mathrm{AGS}} \over (\mathrm{Abundance}_i^{\mathrm{GS}}
621: + \mathrm{Abundance}_i^{\mathrm{AGS}})/2)} \right|.
622: \end{equation}
623: This definition generates the uncertainties shown in Table \ref{table:four}.
624:
625: The next term contains the effects of nuclear cross section uncertainties on
626: flux predictions. The $\beta_j$ are the S-factors for p+p ($S_{11}$), $^3$He
627: + $^3$He ($S_{33}$), $^3$He+$^4$He ($S_{34}$), p + $^7$Be ($S_{17}$), e +
628: $^7$Be ($S_{e7}$), and p + $^{14}$N ($S_{114}$). Their estimated 1$\sigma$
629: fractional uncertainties, which we discuss below, are also shown in Table
630: \ref{table:three}.
631:
632: The last term is the contribution of the primordial C and N abundances. As
633: Table \ref{table:two} shows, pp-chain neutrino fluxes are relatively
634: insensitive to variations in these abundances, as the heavier nuclei like Fe
635: have a more important influence on the core opacity. But the expected, nearly
636: linear response of the $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O neutrino fluxes to these
637: abundances is apparent. These are the abundances we would like to constrain
638: by a future measurement of the $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O solar neutrino fluxes.
639: Such a measurement begins to be of interest if these abundances could be
640: determined with an accuracy significantly better than 30\%. Note that the C/N
641: abundance term in Eq. (\ref{eq:prod2}) for $\phi(^{13}\mathrm{N})$
642: \begin{eqnarray}
643: \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{C,N\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)}
644: \right]^{\alpha(i,j)}= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\ \left( {X(^{12}\mathrm{C})
645: \over X(^{12}\mathrm{C})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.874} \left( {X(^{14}\mathrm{N})
646: \over X(^{14}\mathrm{N})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.142}
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: is not quite linear in the overall C+N abundance. An overall scaling of
649: primordial C and N, $X/X_{SSM} \rightarrow$ 1+$\delta$ yields the dependence
650: $(1+\delta)^{1.016}$, so 2\% steeper than linear. In addition to the direct
651: dependence of the CN-cycle on C and N, increasing the C+N abundance also
652: increases the opacity and core temperature, to which the CN neutrino flux also
653: responds.
654:
655: Were one to vary the 11 SSM parameters designated as ``environmental''
656: according to their assigned uncertainties (taking them to be uncorrelated), an
657: 7.5\% SSM net uncertainty in $\phi(^{13}\mathrm{N})$ would be obtained. But
658: we can do better than this by exploiting SNO and Super-Kamiokande measurements
659: of the $^8$B neutrino flux, a ``thermometer'' that is even more sensitive to
660: the solar core environment than the CN neutrinos. Below we discuss the use of
661: SNO in this way -- the arguments are simpler for this detector, because it
662: provides a measurement of the $^8$B neutrino flux independent of flavor. In
663: the next section we use Super-Kamiokande, the case of most interest because it
664: exploits the same reaction, elastic scattering, as the proposed CN-neutrino
665: detectors, allowing some common errors to cancel: the SNO results then become
666: crucial input, helping to constrain the effects of neutrino oscillations.
667:
668:
669: One can express $\phi(^{13}\mathrm{N})$
670: uncertainties in terms of $\phi(^8\mathrm{B})$, while minimizing the residual
671: solar environmental error, i.e. by minimizing the contribution of the factor
672: in parenthesis in the expression
673: %
674: \begin{eqnarray}
675: &&{\phi (^{13}\mathrm{N}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{13}\mathrm{N})} =
676: \left[{\phi(^{8}\mathrm{B}) \over
677: \phi^{SSM}(^{8}\mathrm{B})}\right]^{K_{(13,8)}}
678: \nonumber \\ &\times& \left( \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Solar\}}} \left[ {\beta_j
679: \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Metals \neq
680: C,N\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \right)
681: \nonumber \\ &\times& \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Nuclear\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over
682: \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{C,N\}}} \left[
683: {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}}
684: \label{eq:prod3}
685: \end{eqnarray}
686: where
687: \begin{equation}
688: \gamma_{j} \equiv \alpha(^{13}\mathrm{N},j) - K_{(13,8)}
689: \alpha(^8\mathrm{B},j)
690: \end{equation}
691: by a suitable choice of the constant $K_{(13,8)}$.
692: Using the SSM logarithmic derivatives $\alpha(i,j)$ and parameter
693: uncertainties $\Delta \beta_j/\beta_j$ of Tables
694: \ref{table:one}-\ref{table:four}, we find $K_{(13,8)}= 0.608$. To check the
695: consistency of this procedure, we have performed a Monte Carlo simulation of
696: solar models where the 11 environmental input quantities have been
697: varied simultaneously. We find a tight correlation between the
698: $\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$
699: and $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})$ fluxes. In Figure~\ref{fig:correl} we show this
700: correlation on the top-left panel and the linear fit to the data, from which
701: we find $K_{(13,8)}= 0.599$, the
702: value we adopt for this paper, very close to that derived from the power-law
703: exponents. The top-right panel shows the residuals of the fit and its standard
704: deviation $\sigma=2.8\%$. We note here that the bulk of the dispersion in the
705: $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})-\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$ correlation is due to the uncertainty
706: in the
707: diffusion rate. This can be understood as follows. All environmental
708: quantities
709: affect these neutrino fluxes by modifying the temperature in the solar
710: core. Diffusion has, however, the additional effect of increasing the number
711: of CN nuclei in the core, leading to a directly proportional increase in
712: $\phi(^{13}{\rm
713: N})$ but not in $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})$. This can be seen in
714: Tables~\ref{table:one} and
715: \ref{table:two}, where all the power-law exponents for environmental
716: quantities are larger for $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})$ than for $\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$ (a
717: natural consequence of the larger temperature dependence of
718: $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})$). The only exception is diffusion, on which
719: $\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$
720: shows a stronger dependence than $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})$. Were we to exclude
721: diffusion as a source of
722: uncertainty, the dispersion in the $\phi(^{8}{\rm B})-\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$
723: correlation would only be $\sim 0.5\%$.
724:
725:
726: Expressing $\phi(^{13}{\rm N})$ in the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:prod3})
727: has two advantages. First, as we detail below, it
728: reduces the overall theoretical uncertainty in the relationship between the
729: primordial C and N abundances and the $^{13}$N neutrino flux. Second, this
730: relationship should be more general than the SSM context from which it is
731: derived: the correlation between the various neutrino fluxes $\phi_i$ and
732: $T_c$ has been demonstrated to hold even when SSM parameters have been varied
733: far outside their accepted SSM uncertainties.
734: % Figure \ref{fig:castellani},
735: % taken from \citet{castellani}, is one well-known
736: % illustration of this.
737:
738:
739: A simple way to fix the first term on the right-hand side of
740: Eq. (\ref{eq:prod3}) is by using the SNO measurement of the total $^8$B
741: neutrino flux, thereby eliminating many SSM and LMA oscillation parameter
742: uncertainties in terms of a measured quantity. As the SNO statistical and
743: systematic errors combined in quadrature give an uncertainty 9.4\%, the net
744: uncertainty in this term is then 5.6\%. The remaining environmental
745: uncertainty is encoded in the bracketed terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:prod3}), the
746: deviations in the dependence of the $^{13}$N and $^8$B neutrino fluxes from a
747: naive $T_c$ power law. From our Monte Carlo simulation we find this residual
748: uncertainty is 2.8\%, and thus
749: quite small in comparison to the SNO uncertainty: the total environmental
750: uncertainty is $\sim$ 6.3\%. The use of the SNO result to constrain the
751: environmental uncertainty thus reduces this uncertainty, relative to the
752: result obtain previously by direct variation of SSM input parameters within
753: their assigned SSM uncertainties.
754:
755: The remaining uncertainty arising in the evaluation of Eq. (\ref{eq:prod3}) is
756: the nuclear factor which, given that the expression involves both the $^{14}$N
757: and $^8$B fluxes, depends on a combination of pp-chain and CN-cycle S-factors.
758: One finds from Tables \ref{table:one}- \ref{table:four} that the uncertainties
759: are dominated by $S_{17}$, $S_{34}$, which controls the pp-chain branching to
760: the ppII and ppIII cycles, and $S_{114}$. One of the reasons that the CN
761: neutrino fluxes are potentially a quantitative probe of the Sun's primordial C
762: and N are recent improvements particularly in determinations of the
763: last two $S$-factors.
764:
765: The traditional SSM value for $S_{34}$ is based on the 1998 evaluation of
766: \citet{adelberger}, 0.53 $\pm$ 0.05 keV b. The relatively large error
767: bar on the recommended value reflected apparent systematic disagreements
768: between experiments detecting prompt $\gamma$ rays and counting the $^7$Be
769: activity. Since this evaluation new, high-statics measurements have been made
770: by a Weizmann Institute group (\citealt{singh}, an
771: activity measurement), by the LUNA collaboration (\citealt{confortola}, a
772: combination of prompt $\gamma$ and activity measurements,
773: as well as \citealt{gyurky}, an activity measurement), and
774: by the Seattle group (\citealt{brown}, an activity
775: measurement). If these data are extrapolated to threshold with the same
776: theoretical fitting function, one finds values of S(0) of 0.546 $\pm$ 0.020,
777: 0.560 $\pm$ 0.017, 0.545 $\pm$ 0.017, and 0.595 $\pm$ 0.018 keV b,
778: respectively. The spread of these results is somewhat larger
779: than is expected on the basis of the uncertainties. They have been combined
780: by Snover (private communication) in a way that takes into account this spread
781: by
782: inflating the errors according to the associated chi-squares, while also
783: accounting for possible correlations between the LUNA activity and total
784: results \citep{gyurky,confortola}. The result is 0.564 $\pm$ 0.020 keV b.
785: There is an additional theoretical uncertainty associated with the theoretical
786: fitting function that is used to extrapolate these data to threshold to obtain
787: S(0). As discussed in \citet{brown}, generally this variation is at the few
788: percent level, though it can reach higher values if fits are required to
789: reproduce higher-energy data. The procedure we followed is based on the LUNA
790: group's work on its activation data \citep{gyurky}, where three theoretical
791: models (\citealt{kajino,csoto} and \citealt{descouvemount}) were used to
792: derived an extrapolated zero-energy result. The resulting best values for
793: $S(0)$ have a range of $\pm$ .019 keV b, or $\pm$ 3.4\%. Thus we adopt 3.4\%
794: as a theoretical extrapolation uncertainty, which we combine in quadrature
795: with the Snover recommendation to obtain a final result of 0.564 $\pm$ 0.028.
796: This corresponds to a 4.9\% uncertainty, which can be compared to the 9.4\%
797: uncertainty recommended in the \citet{adelberger} evaluation.
798:
799: The most important nuclear physics uncertainty in the analysis is $S(0)$ for
800: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$), a reaction that has been the subject of recent intense
801: study. The $S_{114}$ value and the 8.4\% uncertainty adopted in
802: \citet{bsb_mc}, 1.69 $\pm$ 0.14 keV b, was
803: obtained from combining the LUNA results of \citet{formicola}, 1.7 $\pm$ 0.2
804: keV b (determined from data taken at or above
805: center-of-mass energies of 140 keV), with the TUNL results of \citet{runkle},
806: 1.68 $\pm$ 0.09 (stat) $\pm$ 0.16 (sys) keV b.
807: Subsequently a series of measurements have been done at LUNA in which the
808: cross section was measured to center-of-mass energies as low as 70 keV
809: \citep{imbriani,lemut,bemmerer,traut}. In particular, \citet{imbriani} give
810: $S(0)$ = 1.61 $\pm$ 0.08 keV b, corresponding to a
811: 5\% error, based on data obtained for center-of-mass energies between 119 and
812: 367 keV. We use the Imbriani value for $S(0)$ in this paper, a conservative
813: choice given that this fit was made prior to the extension of measurements to
814: 70 keV. Furthermore, work is underway on the energy range above the lowest
815: resonance, $\sim$ 300-400 keV, a region which limits the interference pattern
816: analysis, and on improved r-matrix analyses (Wiescher, private communication)
817: which take into account all reaction channels. Thus we expect a more definite
818: analysis of $S(0)$ and of its experimental and theoretical uncertainties will
819: be available soon.
820:
821: All of this can then be summarized in the theoretical relationship:
822: \begin{eqnarray}
823: &&{\phi (^{13}\mathrm{N}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{13}\mathrm{N})} =
824: \left[{\phi^{SNO}(^{8}\mathrm{B}) \over
825: \phi^{SSM}(^{8}\mathrm{B})}\right]^{0.599} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[ 1 \pm
826: 2.8\% (\mathrm{resid.~environ.}) \pm 5.0\%) (\mathrm{nuclear}) \right]
827: \nonumber \\ &\times& \left( {X(^{12}\mathrm{C}) \over
828: X(^{12}\mathrm{C})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.858} \left( {X(^{14}\mathrm{N}) \over
829: X(^{14}\mathrm{N})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.141}.
830: \label{eq:prod4}
831: \end{eqnarray}
832: The first term, given the SNO total flux combined error of $\sim$ 9.4\%, has
833: an uncertainty of 6.4\%. Thus one consequence of the recent work on pp-chain
834: and CN-cycle S-factors is the reduction of the nuclear physics uncertainties
835: to the level of the SNO measurements. The overall uncertainty, adding the
836: SNO, residual environmental, and nuclear uncertainties in quadrature, is
837: 8.6\%, small compared to the conservative uncertainty assigned to the AGS
838: abundances of $\sim$ 30\%.
839:
840: Under an overall scaling of primordial C and N, $X/X_{SSM} \rightarrow$
841: 1+$\delta$, the quantity being constrained responds as
842: \begin{equation}
843: (1+\delta)^{0.999} \sim 1 + \delta
844: \label{eq:delta2}
845: \end{equation}
846: Because we have removed the ``environmental'' effects of all metals in
847: Eq. (\ref{eq:prod4}), we find the expected, nearly exact linear
848: proportionality between the primordial metals C and N and the CN neutrino
849: flux.
850:
851: The arguments can be repeated for the $^{15}$O flux, the more interesting case
852: experimentally because of its higher endpoint energy. We find
853: \begin{eqnarray}
854: &&{\phi (^{15}\mathrm{O}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{15}\mathrm{O})} =
855: \left[{\phi(^{8}\mathrm{B}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{8}\mathrm{B})}\right]^{0.828}
856: \nonumber \\ &\times& \left( \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Solar\}}} \left[ {\beta_j
857: \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Metals \neq
858: C,N\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \right)
859: \nonumber \\ &\times& \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{Nuclear\}}} \left[ {\beta_j \over
860: \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}} \prod_{j \in \mathrm{\{C,N\}}} \left[
861: {\beta_j \over \beta_j(0)} \right]^{\gamma_{j}}
862: \label{eq:prod3a}
863: \end{eqnarray}
864: where
865: \begin{equation}
866: \gamma_{j} \equiv \alpha(^{15}\mathrm{O},j) - 0.828 \alpha(^8\mathrm{B},j).
867: \end{equation}
868: The lower two panels in Figure~\ref{fig:correl} show the tight correlation
869: between the $\phi (^{15}\mathrm{O})$ and $\phi (^{8}\mathrm{B})$ fluxes and
870: the residuals of the linear fit.
871:
872: Evaluating associated parameter uncertainties as before, one finds
873: \begin{eqnarray}
874: &&{\phi (^{15}\mathrm{O}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{15}\mathrm{O})} =
875: \left[{\phi^{SNO}(^{8}\mathrm{B}) \over
876: \phi^{SSM}(^{8}\mathrm{B})}\right]^{0.828} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[ 1 \pm
877: 2.6\% (\mathrm{resid.~environ.}) \pm 7.1\% (\mathrm{nuclear}) \right]
878: \nonumber \\ &\times& \left( {X(^{12}\mathrm{C}) \over
879: X(^{12}\mathrm{C})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.805} \left( {X(^{14}\mathrm{N}) \over
880: X(^{14}\mathrm{N})_{SSM}} \right)^{0.199}
881: \label{eq:prod4b}
882: \end{eqnarray}
883: The larger environmental parameter, 0.828, is expected because the $^{15}$O
884: neutrino flux has a somewhat steeper dependence on the average core
885: temperature than the $^{13}$N flux. This increases the errors associated with
886: SNO uncertainties (7.8\%) and nuclear cross sections (the uncertainty in
887: $S_{34}$ and other pp-chain cross sections determines the quality of our $^8$B
888: neutrino thermometer). Thus the overall uncertainty in this ``theoretical''
889: relation between the $^{15}$O neutrino flux and the core C/N abundance is
890: 10.8\%. As before, if one considers a scaling of primordial C and N,
891: $X/X_{SSM} \rightarrow$ 1+$\delta$, the last term becomes
892: \begin{equation}
893: (1+\delta)^{1.004} \sim 1 + \delta
894: \label{eq:delta3}
895: \end{equation}
896: showing the linear relationship between the $^{15}$O neutrino flux and the
897: primordial C+N abundance.
898:
899: Now we discuss a somewhat more detailed (and improved) analysis that exploits
900: similarities between Super-Kamiokande and future CN neutrino detectors, and
901: allows us to fold in what we have learned about neutrino oscillations from
902: terrestrial experiments like KamLAND.
903:
904:
905: \section{The Analysis for Elastic Scattering and Neutrino Oscillations}
906:
907: Equations (\ref{eq:prod3}) and (\ref{eq:prod3a}) give relationships among the
908: primordial core C and N abundances, other SSM uncertainities, and the
909: instantaneously produced CN-cycle and $^8$B neutrino fluxes. These equations,
910: attractive because of their simplicity, are somewhat idealized, because they
911: do not address how the left-hand sides of these equations will be determined
912: experimentally. For example, neutrino oscillations during the transit to the
913: earth will alter the flavors of these neutrino in an energy-dependent way,
914: influencing detector responses. Fluxes determined in most experiments will
915: have to be corrected for such effects, including the uncertainties in the
916: neutrino mass difference $\delta m_{12}^2$ and mixing angle $\sin^2{2
917: \theta_{12}}$. In the discussion of the previous section, we avoided this
918: issue in evaluating the right-hand sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:prod3}) and
919: (\ref{eq:prod3a}) by employing the SNO result for the total $^8$B neutrino
920: flux. But the first results on the CN-cycle fluxes, needed on the left-hand
921: sides of Eqs. (\ref{eq:prod3}) and (\ref{eq:prod3a}), are most likely to come
922: from $\nu$-e inelastic scattering experiments, where $\sigma(\nu_\mu)/
923: \sigma(\nu_e) \sim$ 0.15. Thus to derive the instantaneous (solar) values of
924: these fluxes, one would have to correct the detector response for the effects
925: of flavor mixing. Oscillations are one of several uncertainties that will
926: produce correlated responses in both $^8$B and CN neutrino detectors. Thus we
927: need an analysis that accounts for such correlations: it is advantageous to
928: develop this analysis, as one can then make use of another statistically
929: powerful experiment (Super-Kamiokande) while supplementing SNO data with other
930: constraints on flavor mixing (e.g., KamLAND).
931:
932: Below we compare Super-Kamiokande and Borexino/SNO+ rates, which exploit a
933: common detection mechanism, $\nu_x$-e elastic scattering, making correlated
934: errors easier to identify. Super-Kamiokande is potentially the best solar
935: thermometer because of its statistical precision.
936:
937: In this approach we express the total $^8$B flux (the instantaneous solar flux
938: needed in Eqs. (\ref{eq:prod3}) and (\ref{eq:prod3a})) as
939: \begin{eqnarray}
940: {\phi(^8\mathrm{B}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^8\mathrm{B})}&=& {\phi(^8\mathrm{B})
941: \langle \sigma^{SK}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle \over
942: \phi^{SSM}(^8\mathrm{B}) \langle \sigma^{SK}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta
943: m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle } \nonumber \\ &\equiv&
944: {R^{SK}_{exp}(^8\mathrm{B}) \over R^{SK}_{cal}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta
945: m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})}
946: \label{eq:fluxratio}
947: \end{eqnarray}
948: Here $\langle \sigma^{SK} \rangle$ is an effective cross section that takes
949: into account all of the neutrino flavor and detector response (trigger
950: efficiencies, resolution, cross section uncertainties, etc.) issues that
951: determine the relationship between a measured detector rate and the
952: instantaneous solar flux. The numerator of the ratio on the right is a
953: directly measured experimental quantity: the Super-Kamiokande elastic
954: scattering rate for producing recoil electrons with apparent energies between
955: 5.0 and 20 MeV, per target electron per second. The denominator is a
956: conversion factor that relates the instantaneous $\nu_e$ flux to the
957: experimental rate: the cross section for $\nu_x-e$ elastic scattering,
958: averaged over a normalized $^8$B spectrum, defined for the specific
959: experimental conditions of Super-Kamiokande, and including the effects of
960: flavor mixing. This conversion factor is essentially a laboratory quantity:
961: it can be calculated from laboratory measurements of detector properties, the
962: $\beta$ decay spectrum, the underlying neutrino-electron cross sections, and
963: most critically, the parameters governing oscillations. We describe these
964: factors below.
965:
966: The experimental rate comes from the 1496 days of measurements of
967: Super-Kamiokande I \citep{hosaka}. From the SK I rate/kiloton/year
968: \begin{equation}
969: 520.1 \pm 5.3 \mathrm{(stat)} ~{}^{+18.2}_{-16.6}
970: \mathrm{(sys)}~\mathrm{kton^{-1}~y^{-1}}.
971: \label{eq:rate1}
972: \end{equation}
973: we find $R^{SK}_{exp}(^8\mathrm{B})$,
974: \begin{equation}
975: 4.935 \pm 0.05 \mathrm{(stat)}~{}^{+0.17}_{-0.16}\mathrm{(sys)}~\times
976: 10^{-38}~\mathrm{{electron}^{-1} s^{-1}}
977: \end{equation}
978: (or $\sim$ 0.049 Solar Neutrino Units, or SNUs). The dominant systematic
979: error includes estimates for the energy scale and resolution, trigger
980: efficiency, reduction, spallation dead time, the gamma ray cut, vertex shift,
981: background shape for signal reduction, angular resolution, and lifetime
982: uncertainties. The combined statistical and systematic error is $\sim \pm$
983: 3.6\%.
984:
985: To evaluate the denominator in Eq. (\ref{eq:fluxratio}) we need the suitably
986: averaged cross section, defined for the window used by the SK I collaboration,
987: \begin{eqnarray}
988: \langle \sigma^{SK}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle= \int
989: d E_\nu \phi_{norm}^{^8\mathrm{B}}(E_\nu)~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber &&\\ \times
990: \left[ P_{\nu_e}(E_\nu,\delta m^2_{12},\sin^2{2 \theta_{12}})
991: \int_{T=0}^{T^{max}(E_\nu)} dT ~\sigma_{\nu_e}^{es}(T) \right. ~~~~&&
992: \nonumber \\ \left. + ~P_{\nu_\mu}(E_\nu,\delta m^2_{12},\sin^2{2
993: \theta_{12}}) \int_{T=0}^{T^{max}(E_\nu)} dT ~\sigma_{\nu_\mu}^{es}(T) \right]
994: ~~~&& \nonumber \\ \times \int_{5.0~\mathrm{MeV}}^{20.0~\mathrm{MeV}} d
995: \epsilon_a f_{\mathrm{trigger}}(\epsilon_a)
996: \rho(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_t=T+m_e)~~~~~~
997: \label{eq:theorypart}
998: \end{eqnarray}
999: where $\phi_{norm}^{^8\mathrm{B}}(E_\nu)$ is the normalized $^8$B neutrino
1000: spectrum. Equation (\ref{eq:theorypart}) involves an integral over the
1001: product of this spectrum and the energy-dependent oscillation
1002: probabilities. ($P_{\nu_e}+P_{\nu_\mu}$=1, assuming oscillations into active
1003: flavors. $P_{\nu_\mu}$ can be defined as the oscillation probability to heavy
1004: flavors, if the effects of three flavors are considered.) A given $E_\nu$
1005: fixes the range of kinetic energies $T$ of the scattered electron, over which
1006: an integration is done; in the laboratory frame $T^{max} = 2 E_\nu^2/(m_e+2
1007: E_\nu)$. The integrand includes the elastic scattering cross sections
1008: $\sigma^{es}(T)$ for electron and heavy-flavor neutrinos and the
1009: Super-Kamiokande resolution function $\rho(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_t)$, where
1010: $\epsilon_t=T+m_e$ is the true total electron energy while $\epsilon_a$ is
1011: apparent energy, as deduced from the number of phototube hits in the detector.
1012: Finally, an integral must be done over the window used by the
1013: experimentalists, apparent electron energies $\epsilon_a$ between 5.0 and 20.0
1014: MeV. The deduced counting rate includes the triggering probability that a
1015: event of apparent energy $\epsilon_a$ will be recorded in the detector.
1016:
1017: As the uncertainties associated with triggering efficiencies, energy scale,
1018: and resolution are already incorporated in the deduced Super-Kamiokande event
1019: rate (Eq.~\ref{eq:rate1}), we are free to use best-value functions in such
1020: an analysis. Here we employ simple fits to the measurements given in
1021: \citet{hosaka}, a Gaussian resolution function
1022: \begin{equation}
1023: \rho(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_t)={1 \over \sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma(\epsilon_t)} \exp
1024: \left[ -{(\epsilon_t-\epsilon_a)^2 \over 2 \sigma(\epsilon_t)^2} \right]
1025: \label{eq:resolution}
1026: \end{equation}
1027: where $\sigma(\epsilon_t) \sim 0.326 \epsilon_t^{0.642}$, or about 14\% at 10
1028: Mev; and a relatively sharp trigger efficiency
1029: \begin{equation}
1030: f_{\mathrm{trigger}}(\epsilon_a) = {1 \over 2} + {1 \over 2}
1031: \tanh^5{\left[{\epsilon_a-\bar{\epsilon}_a \over \sigma'}\right]}
1032: \end{equation}
1033: where $\bar{\epsilon}_a \sim$ 3.6 MeV and $\sigma' \sim$ 0.172 MeV.
1034:
1035: The expression for the CN-cycle neutrino response is similar to
1036: Eq. (\ref{eq:fluxratio})
1037: \begin{eqnarray}
1038: {\phi(^{15}\mathrm{O}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{15}\mathrm{O})} &=&
1039: {R_{exp}^{B/S}(^{15}\mathrm{O}) \over \phi^{SSM}(^{15}\mathrm{O}) \langle
1040: \sigma^{B/S}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle} \nonumber
1041: \\ &\equiv& { ~R^{B/S}_{exp}(\mathrm{^{15}\mathrm{O}}) \over
1042: R^{B/S}_{cal}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})} \nonumber \\ &=&
1043: {R_{exp}^{B/S}(\mathrm{CN})/(1 +\alpha(0.8,1.3)) \over
1044: R^{B/S}_{cal}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})) }
1045: \label{eq:fluxratio2}
1046: \end{eqnarray}
1047: Here the experimental rate for $^{15}$O neutrinos has been written in terms of
1048: the total CN-neutrino rate $R^{B/S}_{exp}(\mathrm{CN})$ by introducing a
1049: correction factor $\alpha$ discussed below. No measurement of
1050: $R^{B/S}_{exp}(\mathrm{CN})$ currently exists, of course. But such
1051: measurements could be made in Borexino or SNO+, existing or planned detectors
1052: that will use large volumes of organic scintillator, placed quite deep
1053: underground (we discuss these detectors in the concluding section). A
1054: window for the apparent kinetic energy $T$ of the scattered electron of
1055: 0.8-1.3 MeV has been discussed by the Borexino group. As the $^7$Be 0.866 MeV
1056: line corresponds to $T^{max} \sim$ 0.668 MeV, this window would limit
1057: contamination from $^7$Be neutrino recoil electrons. As Borexino has achieved
1058: a resolution of $\sim$ 8.7\% at $T$ = 751 MeV and $\sim$ 9.1\% at 0.825 MeV,
1059: we take (for simulation purposes) a Gaussian resolution function
1060: (Eq.~\ref{eq:resolution}) with
1061: \begin{equation}
1062: \sigma(T) \sim 0.08 \mathrm{MeV} \sqrt{T/\mathrm{MeV}}
1063: \end{equation}
1064: We also adopt a nominal step-function trigger, $f_{\mathrm{trigger}} =
1065: \theta(T-0.25 {\mathrm{MeV}})$, though the trigger does not influence rates in
1066: the high-energy window of interest for CN neutrinos.
1067:
1068: The factor $\alpha(0.8,1.3) \sim$ 0.120 is the ratio of the measured $^{13}$N
1069: to $^{15}$O neutrino rates in the observation window, a correction we
1070: introduce to convert the total rate to the rate for $^{15}$O neutrinos. In
1071: principle this is a measurable quantity: because of the lower endpoint, the
1072: relative importance of $^{13}$N neutrinos drops quickly with energy. For the
1073: $^{15}$O neutrinos, 60\% of the events would reside in bins between 0.8-1.0
1074: MeV, with the remaining 40\% between 1.0-1.3 MeV. If one looks at total
1075: events ($^{13}$N and $^{15}$O), $^{13}$N neutrinos are responsible for $\sim$
1076: 19\% of the events between 0.8-1.0 MeV, but only 1.0\% of those between
1077: 1.0-1.3 MeV, taking BPS08(AGS) SSM best-value fluxes.
1078: Such a bin analysis will have to contend with the contribution
1079: from the line-source pep neutrinos as well, however, so the accuracy with
1080: which $\alpha$ can be measured is certainly not clear.
1081:
1082: However, an experimental determination is probably not required. We can write
1083: $\alpha$ as
1084: \begin{equation}
1085: \alpha = {\phi(^{13}\mathrm{N}) \over \phi(^{15}\mathrm{O})} { \langle
1086: \sigma^{B/S}(^{13}\mathrm{N}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle \over
1087: \langle \sigma^{B/S}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12}) \rangle}
1088: \end{equation}
1089: The cross section ratio can be evaluated, yielding 0.086(1 $\pm$ 0.0036), when
1090: the LMA oscillation parameters are varied over the full range allowed by the
1091: KamLAND combined analysis. The reason for the very small error is that
1092: variations in these parameters tend to affect the two cross sections
1093: identically: the 0.8-1.3 MeV event window is narrow, and clearly differences
1094: must vanish in the limit of a zero-width window. The flux ratio at the
1095: parameter point defined by the BPS08(AGS) SSM
1096: best values is 1.40. The changes in
1097: this ratio obtained by varying SSM parameters can be evaluated by procedures
1098: similar to those leading to Eqs. (\ref{eq:prod4}) and (\ref{eq:prod4b}),
1099: \begin{eqnarray}
1100: \alpha &=& 0.120 (1 \pm .0036) \left[{\phi^{SNO}(^{8}\mathrm{B}) \over
1101: \phi^{SSM}(^{8}\mathrm{B})}\right]^{-0.229} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[ 1 \pm
1102: 0.24\% (\mathrm{resid.~envir.}) \pm 2.0\% (\mathrm{nuclear}) \right] \nonumber
1103: \\ &\times& \left( {X(^{12}\mathrm{C}) \over X(^{12}\mathrm{C})_{SSM}}
1104: \right)^{0.053} \left( {X(^{14}\mathrm{N}) \over X(^{14}\mathrm{N})_{SSM}}
1105: \right)^{-0.058} ~~
1106: \label{eq:prod4c}
1107: \end{eqnarray}
1108: One finds that $\alpha$ is stable under reasonable parameter variations:
1109: changes induced by the nuclear physics or core temperature tend to affect
1110: these fluxes in similar ways. This includes variations in core
1111: metals, the quantity we hope to constrain: adjustments in the C or N
1112: primordial abundance by 30\% produce changes at or below 1.5\%, that is, 0.120
1113: (1 $\pm$ 0.015). If the overall metalicity is changed, keeping the C/N ratio
1114: fixed, this becomes 0.1\%. One concludes from these exercises that the ratio
1115: of events in the 0.8-1.3 MeV window from $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O neutrino
1116: interactions to that from $^{15}$O neutrinos alone, is 1.120 $\pm$ 0.003, when
1117: all sources of uncertainty are considered.
1118:
1119: The final step is to plug Eqs.~\ref{eq:fluxratio}~and~\ref{eq:fluxratio2}
1120: into Eq.~\ref{eq:prod3a} to obtain
1121: \begin{eqnarray}
1122: {R_{exp}^{B/S}(\mathrm{CN}) \over R^{B/S}_{cal}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta
1123: m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})) } = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
1124: (1.120 \pm 0.003) \left[ {R^{SK}_{exp}(^8\mathrm{B}) \over
1125: R^{SK}_{cal}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})}
1126: \right]^{0.828}~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\ \times \left[ 1 \pm 2.6\%
1127: (\mathrm{resid.~envir.}) \pm 7.6\% (\mathrm{nuclear}) \right] \nonumber \\
1128: \times \left( {X(^{12}\mathrm{C}) \over X(^{12}\mathrm{C})_{SSM}}
1129: \right)^{0.805} \left( {X(^{14}\mathrm{N}) \over X(^{14}\mathrm{N})_{SSM}}
1130: \right)^{0.199}.~~~~~~~~~
1131: \label{eq:final}
1132: \end{eqnarray}
1133: The SK rate term is the experimental ``thermometer'' we use to remove most of
1134: the solar model ``environmental'' uncertainty, leaving in the next term SSM
1135: uncertainties that are dominated by the nuclear physics. But these
1136: uncertainties are, in some sense, under our control, and will be reduced as
1137: laboratory reaction measurements continue. The last terms are the primordial
1138: abundances we would like to constrain. The role of the SSM in this equation
1139: is to define a set of parameters and thus a set of reference rates, about
1140: which we then explore possible variations. Those variations generate the
1141: environmental and nuclear uncertainties given above, according to
1142: Eq.~\ref{eq:prod3a}.
1143:
1144: The $R_{cal}$ factors in Eq. (\ref{eq:final}) contain additional
1145: uncertainties, including one important one:
1146: \begin{itemize}
1147: \item The shape of the normalized neutrino spectra: The $^{15}$O shape spectrum
1148: is allowed, and thus accurately known. The $^8$B spectrum is less certain
1149: because the $\beta$ decay populates a broad final-state resonance. In the SK
1150: analysis this spectrum error is among those included in the systematic error
1151: budget, so it should not be counted a second time. It contributes
1152: \citep{hosaka} at the $\sim$ 1\% level. This is a laboratory astrophysics
1153: uncertainty that could be lowered by improved measurements of the $^8$Be
1154: resonance.
1155: \item Uncertainties in the elastic scattering cross section are also small
1156: ($\sim$ 0.5\% \citealt{hosaka}), and furthermore tend to cancel between the two
1157: normalizing cross sections in Eq.(\ref{eq:final}).
1158: \item The principal uncertainty in the cross section ratio is that associated
1159: with neutrino oscillations. Apart from the dependence on the solar density
1160: profile, one can consider this to be another type of laboratory uncertainty:
1161: oscillation parameters can and will be further constrained by a variety of
1162: accelerator and reactor experiments. For example, KamLAND currently provides
1163: our best constraint on $\delta m^2_{12}$.
1164: \end{itemize}
1165:
1166: The LMA parameter uncertainties in Super-Kamiokande and Borexino/SNO+ are
1167: anti-correlated. Most of the low-energy $^{15}$N neutrinos do not experience
1168: a level crossing, residing instead in a portion of the MSW plane where the
1169: oscillations are close to the vacuum oscillation limit:
1170: \begin{equation}
1171: P_{\nu_e}(E_\nu) \rightarrow 1 - {1 \over 2} \sin{2 \theta_{12}}
1172: \end{equation}
1173: Thus an increase in the vacuum mixing angle $\theta_{12}$ decreases the
1174: $\nu_e$ survival probability. The higher energy $^8$B neutrinos are largely
1175: within the MSW triangle, described by an adiabatic level crossing. The
1176: limiting behavior for an adiabatic crossing is
1177: \begin{equation}
1178: P_{\nu_e}(E_\nu) \rightarrow {1 \over 2} (1 -\cos{2 \theta_{12}})
1179: \end{equation}
1180: so that an increase in $\theta_{12}$ increases the survival probability. This
1181: anti-correlation thus leads to larger effects in the ratio.
1182:
1183: We have evaluated the impact of this uncertainty on Eq. (\ref{eq:final}), using
1184: the allowed regions for $\theta_{12}$ and $\delta m_{12}^2$ obtained in
1185: KamLAND's combined analysis \citep{kamland,kamland2}, $0.833 \lsim \sin^2{2
1186: \theta} \lsim 0.906$ and $ 7.38 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2 \lsim \delta m_{12}^2
1187: \lsim 7.80 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$. This yields
1188: \begin{eqnarray}
1189: {R^{B/S}_{cal}(^{15}\mathrm{O}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})) \over
1190: R^{SK}_{cal}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})^{0.825}} =
1191: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\ (1 \pm 0.049)\left[ {R^{B/S}_{cal}(^{15}\mathrm{O},
1192: \delta m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})) \over R^{SK}_{cal}(^8\mathrm{B}, \delta
1193: m_{12}^2,\theta_{12})^{0.825}} \right]^{BV}
1194: \end{eqnarray}
1195: where $BV$ denotes the best-value ratio.
1196:
1197: Thus the overall uncertainty budget in Eq. {\ref{eq:final}} appears quite
1198: favorable, with the SK ``thermometer'' contributing at 3\%, residual solar
1199: environmental uncertainties at 1\%, and LMA parameter uncertainties at 4.9\%.
1200: The largest of the errors is that from nuclear S-factor uncertainties,
1201: currently 7.6\%. The overall uncertainty in the ``theoretical'' relationship
1202: between a future SNO+ or Borexino CN-neutrino flux and core C/N metals is thus
1203: about 9.6\%. As the nuclear physics uncertainty dominates the analysis, one
1204: would expect this relationship to become more precise when ongoing analyses of
1205: the full data set for $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) are completed. An appropriate goal
1206: would be 3.5\% in this S-factor, a 30\% improvement. The uncertainty in
1207: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$) would no longer dominate the nuclear physics error
1208: budget, but instead would be comparable to the contributions from S$_{33}$ and
1209: S$_{34}$. However, the current 9.6\% uncertainty is not a bad starting point,
1210: as first-generation CN-cycle neutrino experiments are expected to measure this
1211: flux to an accuracy of about 10\%. That is, the theoretical uncertainty will
1212: not dominate the experimental uncertainty.
1213:
1214: \section{Future Experiments and Summary}
1215:
1216: One of the main motivations for this paper is the development of new detector
1217: ideas that might allow a high-statistics measurement of the CN-cycle
1218: neutrinos. In particular, detectors based on ultra-clean organic
1219: scintillation liquids have, at least in principle, the potential to make a
1220: high-sensitivity real-time measurement of the CN-cycle neutrinos.
1221:
1222: The Borexino collaboration has investigated this possibility \citep{franco}.
1223: Borexino, currently operating in Gran Sasso, has a 300-ton liquid scintillator
1224: target housed in a 8.5m spherical nylon membrane and shielded by a kiloton of
1225: buffer fluid. Events producing light within the detector are detected by an
1226: array of 2200 photomultiplier tubes. The inner 100 tons of the detector
1227: comprise the fiducial volume. The events come from elastic scattering off
1228: electrons, a reaction that is sensitive to both electron and (with reduced
1229: sensitivity) heavy-flavor neutrinos.
1230:
1231: Borexino is primarily focused on detecting neutrinos from the pp chain,
1232: specifically the 862 keV line neutrinos from electron capture on
1233: $^7$Be (the 90\% branch). However, as mentioned previously, the
1234: collaboration has proposed using the
1235: detection window of (0.8-1.3) MeV to pick up
1236: contributions from the pep line source (1.442 MeV) and the $^{13}$N and
1237: $^{15}$O $\beta$ decay sources.
1238:
1239: The primary obstacle to such a measurement by Borexino is the {\it in situ}
1240: cosmogenic production of $^{11}$C, a $\beta^+$ source. High-energy muons
1241: produced by primary cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere can penetrate to
1242: great depths, producing $^{11}$C by knocking a neutron out of $^{12}$C.
1243: Borexino is located in Gran Sasso, which has a depth of about 3.1 kilometers
1244: of water equivalent (kmwe), when converted to the equivalent depth below a flat
1245: surface \citep{meihime}. The $^{11}$C production is still significant at this
1246: depth: an initial estimate of the associated background of 7.5 c/d/100 tons in
1247: Borexino was recently confirmed by a direct measurement \citep{back}, yielding
1248: 13.0 $\pm$ 2.6 (stat) $\pm$ 1.4 (sys) c/d/100 tons. This exceeds the solar
1249: neutrino signal in the window of interest. Thus some means of vetoing this
1250: background must be introduced. This vetoing is nontrivial because of the long
1251: mean lifetime of $^{11}$C, 29.4 minutes: a simple cut based on the muon would
1252: thus not be feasible.
1253:
1254: The collaboration has proposed that a successful veto might be possible by
1255: exploiting a triple coincidence, the initiating muon, the prompt capture of a
1256: neutron on protons in the scintillator fluid, and the delayed $\beta^+$ event
1257: (\citealt{franco}; Deutsch, private communication). This would allow the
1258: experimenters to cut out a
1259: spherical volume defined by the neutron capture vertex, rejecting events
1260: within that volume for a time $\Delta$t large compared to the $^{11}$C
1261: lifetime. The simulations performed by Borexino suggest that a
1262: signal/background ratio of 1.2 could be achieved with 20\% deadtime. A
1263: CN-cycle neutrino (and pep neutrino) flux measurement could then be made by
1264: subtraction of this background.
1265:
1266: An alternative to this approach would be to place such a detector at very
1267: great depth. This possibility has been discussed by the SNO+ collaboration,
1268: which has proposed placing a one-kiloton scintillator experiment in SNOLab,
1269: using the cavity that was originally excavated for SNO \citep{chen}. Such a
1270: detector could be used for detecting $^7$Be, pep, and CN-cycle neutrinos,
1271: geoneutrinos, and double beta decay. The proposed volume is about a factor of
1272: three greater than that of Borexino. The great advantage of SNO+ would be its
1273: depth, 6.0 kmwe, and consequently its much lower cosmic ray muon background.
1274: The additional 3.0 kmwe, relative to Gran Sasso, provides about a factor of
1275: $\sim$ 70 additional attenuation in the muon flux, so that the expected
1276: $^{11}$C production would be reduced to $\sim$ 0.1 c/d/100 tons, a few percent
1277: of the expect CN neutrino signal.
1278:
1279: Figure \ref{fig:CNO_SNOPlus} shows a simulation of the expected SNO+ response,
1280: performed by the experimenters (Chen, private communication). Note that
1281: the simulation is based on the BS05(OP) SSM and the best-fit LMA solution
1282: to the solar neutrino problem, rather than the updated BPS08(AGS) used in this
1283: paper. The CN-neutrino event rate for an energy
1284: window above 0.8 MeV was found to be 2300 counts/year. The experimenters
1285: concluded that SNO+ could determine the CN-neutrino rate to an accuracy of
1286: approximately 10\%, after three years of running \citep{chen}. This accuracy
1287: is the appropriate goal for such a first-generation CN-cycle neutrino
1288: measurement, as it would approach the accuracy with which that flux could be
1289: related theoretically to the Sun's primordial core C and N abundances, as we
1290: have argued in this paper.
1291:
1292: In this paper we have suggested a possible strategy for using future
1293: Borexino/SNO+ CN-neutrino measurements as a test of the primordial C and N
1294: abundances in the solar core. The approach is based on using Super-Kamiokande
1295: as a solar thermometer, to largely eliminate other SSM uncertainties, so that
1296: a clean relationship between these abundances and CN neutrino rates can be
1297: made. SNO, KamLAND, and other neutrino oscillation experiments are used in
1298: the analysis to constrain LMA oscillation parameters. We derived a
1299: relationship where the dominant linear dependence on C and N remains, but
1300: other solar-model dependences are largely eliminated. This approach exploits
1301: the logarithmic derivatives that have been previously calculated for the SSM
1302: (especially those for the separate metal abundances) that define the impact of
1303: SSM parameter variations, supplemented by Monte Carlo calculations (which
1304: treat explicitly any correlations that may exist among the parameter variations).
1305: Although the relationship is derived in the
1306: context of the SSM, we suspect that it remains valid for a larger group of
1307: models, e.g., those where SSM parameters are varied well beyond their accepted
1308: SSM uncertainties: many investigators have shown that the $^8$B neutrino flux
1309: remains a reliable thermometer, even when such large SSM parameter variations
1310: are made.
1311:
1312: We have found that the factors that limit the accuracy of Eq. (\ref{eq:final})
1313: are first, uncertainties in nuclear cross sections ($\sim$ 7.6\%) and second,
1314: uncertainties in LMA oscillation parameters ($\sim$ 4.9\%). Both of these
1315: uncertainties can and will be reduced in future laboratory measurements. One
1316: goal should be the reduction, eventually, to the level of uncertainty of the
1317: SK thermometer, $\sim$ 3\%.
1318:
1319: In summary, it appears possible to use future experiments sensitive to
1320: CN-cycle neutrinos to constrain C and N content of the Sun's primordial core.
1321: This would test an important assumption made in the SSM, that the zero-age Sun
1322: was homogeneous, with a core metalicity identical to that of today's
1323: photosphere.
1324:
1325: Such a measurement would also address a significant controversy, that recent
1326: 3D models of photospheric absorption lines have led to lower estimates of the
1327: abundances of the volatile metals. These new analyses appear to be on a solid
1328: foundation, substantially improving absorption line systematics and the
1329: consistency between the Sun and other similar stars in the local group. Yet
1330: they also significantly alter SSM predictions of the sound speed in the upper
1331: part of the Sun's radiative zone, so that the SSM is no longer in good
1332: agreement with constraints imposed by helioseismology. For this reason, an
1333: independent measurement of the C and N abundances in the Sun's radiative core
1334: would be of great interest.
1335:
1336: This measurement would also place an important experimental constraint on the
1337: evolutionary history of the Sun. While the argument for a homogeneous Sun at
1338: the end of the pre-main-sequence Hayashi phase appears credible, once the Sun
1339: begins to form a radiative core, there are no subsequent SSM epochs that would
1340: allow mixing of the full Sun. Thus is principle any anomaly in the accretion
1341: of metals onto the Sun, either during the main sequence or in the Henyey
1342: phase, could produce chemical inhomogeneities. Such a scenario was the basis
1343: of the low-Z model, one of the proposed solar solutions to the puzzle posed by
1344: the chlorine experiment.
1345:
1346: Unlike the low-Z model, a naive attempt to accommodate both the sound speeds
1347: required by helioseismology and the new photospheric abundances requires a
1348: convective zone depleted in metals. We have noted that the solar system's
1349: primary reservoir for metals, the gaseous giant planets, are thought to have
1350: formed late relative to the evolution of the proto-Sun,
1351: incorporating an excess of metal estimated at 40-90 M$_\oplus$. This mass is
1352: similar to the deficit of metals in the convective zone, were one to interpret
1353: the helioseismology/photospheric abundance discrepancy in the most naive way.
1354: The raises an provocative question: is it possible that the process that
1355: concentrated metals in the gaseous giants also produced a large volume of
1356: metal-depleted gas that subsequently was accreted onto the Sun's surface?
1357: While the suggestion of a common chemical mechanism linking the convection
1358: zone and the gaseous giants is speculative, we think this is one more
1359: motivation for exploiting the CN neutrinos as a quantitative probe of solar
1360: core metalicity.
1361:
1362: \acknowledgments
1363:
1364: We thank M. Chen, P. Goldreich, K. Snover, Y. Suzuki, and M. Wiescher for
1365: discussions. This work was supported in part by the Office of Nuclear
1366: Physics, US Department of Energy, under grant DE-FG02-00ER-41132. AMS is
1367: supported by the IAS through a John Bahcall Fellowship and NSF grant
1368: PHY-0503584.
1369:
1370: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1371:
1372:
1373: \begin{thebibliography}{60}
1374: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1375:
1376: \bibitem[Abdurashitov et al.(2003)]{sage} Abdurashitov,
1377: J.~N., et al.\ 2003, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 118, 39
1378:
1379: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.(1998)]{adelberger} Adelberger, E.~G.,
1380: et al.\ 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1265
1381:
1382: \bibitem[Aharmim et al.(2005)]{sno_salt} Aharmim, B., et al.\
1383: 2005, \prc, 72, 055502
1384:
1385: \bibitem[Ahmad et al.(2001)]{sno1} Ahmad, Q.~R., et al.\
1386: 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 071301
1387:
1388: \bibitem[Ahmad et al.(2002a)]{sno2} Ahmad, Q.~R., et al.\
1389: 2002, Physical Review Letters, 89, 011301
1390:
1391: \bibitem[Ahmad et al.(2002b)]{sno3} Ahmad, Q.~R., et al.\
1392: 2002, Physical Review Letters, 89, 011302
1393:
1394: \bibitem[{{Antia} \& {Basu}(2005)}]{antia}
1395: {Antia}, H.~M. \& {Basu}, S. 2005, \apjl, 620, L129
1396:
1397: \bibitem[Araki et al.(2005)]{kamland} Araki, T., et al.\ 2005,
1398: Physical Review Letters, 94, 081801
1399:
1400: \bibitem[Arpesella et al.(2008)]{borexino} Arpesella, C., et al.\ 2008,
1401: Physics Letters B, 658, 101
1402:
1403: \bibitem[{{Asplund} {et~al.}(2005){Asplund}, {Grevesse}, \& {Sauval}}]{ags05}
1404: {Asplund}, M., {Grevesse}, N., \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 2005, in Astronomical Society
1405: of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 336, Cosmic Abundances as Records of
1406: Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ed. T.~G. {Barnes}, III \& F.~N.
1407: {Bash}, 25
1408:
1409: \bibitem[Back et al.(2006)]{back} Back, H., et al.\ 2006,
1410: \prc, 74, 045805
1411:
1412: \bibitem[{{Badnell} {et~al.}(2005){Badnell}, {Bautista}, {Butler}, {Delahaye},
1413: {Mendoza}, {Palmeri}, {Zeippen}, \& {Seaton}}]{opacity}
1414: {Badnell}, N.~R., {Bautista}, M.~A., {Butler}, K., {Delahaye}, F., {Mendoza},
1415: C., {Palmeri}, P., {Zeippen}, C.~J., \& {Seaton}, M.~J. 2005, \mnras, 360,
1416: 458
1417:
1418: \bibitem[{{Bahcall}(1989)}]{bahcallbook}
1419: {Bahcall}, J.~N. 1989, {Neutrino astrophysics} (Cambridge and New York,
1420: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 584 p.)
1421:
1422: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Bahcall}, {Basu},
1423: {Pinsonneault}, \& {Serenelli}}]{bbps05}
1424: {Bahcall}, J.~N., {Basu}, S., {Pinsonneault}, M., \& {Serenelli}, A.~M.
1425: 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 618, 1049
1426:
1427: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Davis}(1976)}]{davis_bahc}
1428: {Bahcall}, J.~N. \& {Davis}, R. 1976, Science, 191, 264
1429:
1430: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Pinsonneault}(2004)}]{bp04}
1431: {Bahcall}, J.~N. \& {Pinsonneault}, M.~H. 2004, Physical Review Letters, 92,
1432: 121301
1433:
1434: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2001){Bahcall}, {Pinsonneault}, \& {Basu}}]{bpb00}
1435: {Bahcall}, J.~N., {Pinsonneault}, M.~H., \& {Basu}, S. 2001, \apj, 555, 990
1436:
1437: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Serenelli}(2005)}]{bs05}
1438: {Bahcall}, J.~N. \& {Serenelli}, A.~M. 2005, \apj, 626, 530
1439:
1440: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Bahcall}, {Serenelli}, \&
1441: {Basu}}]{bsb05}
1442: {Bahcall}, J.~N., {Serenelli}, A.~M., \& {Basu}, S. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl,
1443: 621, L85
1444:
1445: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2006){Bahcall}, {Serenelli}, \& {Basu}}]{bsb_mc}
1446: {Bahcall}, J.~N., {Serenelli}, A.~M., \& {Basu}, S. 2006, \apjs, 165, 400
1447:
1448: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Ulrich}(1988)}]{bu88}
1449: {Bahcall}, J.~N. \& {Ulrich}, R.~K. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 297
1450:
1451: \bibitem[Bemmerer et al.(2006)]{bemmerer} Bemmerer, D., et al.\ 2006, Nuclear
1452: Physics A, 779, 297
1453:
1454: \bibitem[{{Bodenheimer} \& {Lin}(2002)}]{bod}
1455: {Bodenheimer}, P. \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2002, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
1456: Sciences, 30, 113
1457:
1458:
1459: \bibitem[{{Brown} {et~al.}(2007){Brown}, {Bordeanu}, {Snover}, {Storm},
1460: {Melconian}, {Sallaska}, {Sjue}, \& {Triambak}}]{brown}
1461: {Brown}, T.~A.~D., {Bordeanu}, C., {Snover}, K.~A., {Storm}, D.~W.,
1462: {Melconian}, D., {Sallaska}, A.~L., {Sjue}, S.~K.~L., \& {Triambak}, S. 2007,
1463: \prc, 76, 055801
1464:
1465: \bibitem[{{Brun} {et~al.}(1998){Brun}, {Turck-Chi{\`e}ze}, \& {Morel}}]{brun1}
1466: {Brun}, A.~S., {Turck-Chi{\`e}ze}, S., \& {Morel}, P. 1998, \apj, 506, 913
1467:
1468: \bibitem[{{Brun} {et~al.}(1999){Brun}, {Turck-Chi{\`e}ze}, \& {Zahn}}]{brun2}
1469: {Brun}, A.~S., {Turck-Chi{\`e}ze}, S., \& {Zahn}, J.~P. 1999, \apj, 525, 1032
1470:
1471: \bibitem[{{Castellani} {et~al.}(1994){Castellani}, {degl'innocenti},
1472: {Fiorentini}, {Lissia}, \& {Ricci}}]{castellani}
1473: {Castellani}, V., {degl'innocenti}, S., {Fiorentini}, G., {Lissia}, M., \&
1474: {Ricci}, B. 1994, \prd, 50, 4749
1475:
1476: \bibitem[{{Castro} {et~al.}(2007){Castro}, {Vauclair}, \& {Richard}}]{castro}
1477: {Castro}, M., {Vauclair}, S., \& {Richard}, O. 2007, \aap, 463, 755
1478:
1479: \bibitem[{{Chen}(2007)}]{chen}
1480: {Chen}, M.~C. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol.
1481: 944, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 25--30
1482:
1483: \bibitem[Confortola et al.(2007)]{confortola} Confortola, F., et
1484: al.\ 2007, \prc, 75, 065803
1485:
1486: \bibitem[{{Cs{\'o}t{\'o}} \& {Langanke}(2000)}]{csoto}
1487: {Cs{\'o}t{\'o}}, A. \& {Langanke}, K. 2000, Few-Body Systems, 29, 121
1488:
1489: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(1968){Davis}, {Harmer}, \& {Hoffman}}]{davis}
1490: {Davis}, R., {Harmer}, D.~S., \& {Hoffman}, K.~C. 1968, Physical Review
1491: Letters, 20, 1205
1492:
1493: \bibitem[{{Descouvemont} {et~al.}(2004){Descouvemont}, {Adahchour}, {Angulo},
1494: {Coc}, \& {Vangioni-Flam}}]{descouvemount}
1495: {Descouvemont}, P., {Adahchour}, A., {Angulo}, C., {Coc}, A., \&
1496: {Vangioni-Flam}, E. 2004, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 88, 203
1497:
1498: \bibitem[{{Fiorentini} \& {Ricci}(2003)}]{fr}
1499: {Fiorentini}, G. \& {Ricci}, B. 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1500:
1501: \bibitem[Formicola et al.(2004)]{formicola} Formicola, A., et
1502: al.\ 2004, Physics Letters B, 591, 61
1503:
1504: \bibitem[Fukuda et al.(2001)]{sk1} Fukuda, S., et al.\
1505: 2001, Physical Review Letters, 86, 5651
1506:
1507: \bibitem[Fukuda et al.(2002)]{sk2} Fukuda, S., et al.\
1508: 2002, Physics Letters B, 539, 179
1509:
1510: \bibitem[Fukuda et al.(1996)]{kamioka} Fukuda, Y., et al.\
1511: 1996, Physical Review Letters, 77, 1683
1512:
1513: \bibitem[{{Grevesse} \& {Sauval}(1998)}]{gs98}
1514: {Grevesse}, N. \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161
1515:
1516: \bibitem[{{Guillot}(2005)}]{guillot}
1517: {Guillot}, T. 2005, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 493
1518:
1519: \bibitem[Gy{\"u}rky et al.(2007)]{gyurky} Gy{\"u}rky, G., et
1520: al.\ 2007, \prc, 75, 035805
1521:
1522: \bibitem[Hosaka et al.(2006)]{hosaka} Hosaka, J., et al.\
1523: 2006, \prd, 73, 112001
1524:
1525: \bibitem[Imbriani et al.(2005)]{imbriani} Imbriani, G., et al.\
1526: 2005, European Physical Journal A, 25, 455
1527:
1528: \bibitem[{{Kajino} \& {Arima}(1984)}]{kajino}
1529: {Kajino}, T. \& {Arima}, A. 1984, Physical Review Letters, 52, 739
1530:
1531: \bibitem[{{Kirsten}(2003)}]{gallex}
1532: {Kirsten}, T.~A. 2003, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 118, 33
1533:
1534: \bibitem[Lemut et al.(2006)]{lemut} Lemut, A., et al.\ 2006,
1535: Physics Letters B, 634, 483
1536:
1537: \bibitem[{{Mei} \& {Hime}(2006)}]{meihime}
1538: {Mei}, D.-M. \& {Hime}, A. 2006, \prd, 73, 053004
1539:
1540: \bibitem[Mohapatra et al.(2004)]{APS} Mohapatra, R.~N., et
1541: al.\ 2004, ArXiv High Energy Physics - Phenomenology e-prints,
1542: arXiv:hep-ph/0412099
1543:
1544: \bibitem[{{Montalb{\'a}n} {et~al.}(2004){Montalb{\'a}n}, {Miglio}, {Noels},
1545: {Grevesse}, \& {di Mauro}}]{montalban}
1546: {Montalb{\'a}n}, J., {Miglio}, A., {Noels}, A., {Grevesse}, N., \& {di Mauro},
1547: M.~P. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 559, SOHO 14 Helio- and
1548: Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future, ed. D.~{Danesy}, 574--+
1549:
1550: \bibitem[{{Nara Singh} {et~al.}(2004){Nara Singh}, {Hass}, {Nir-El}, \&
1551: {Haquin}}]{singh}
1552: {Nara Singh}, B.~S., {Hass}, M., {Nir-El}, Y., \& {Haquin}, G. 2004, Physical
1553: Review Letters, 93, 262503
1554:
1555: \bibitem[{{Pe\~na-Garay} \& {Serenelli}(2008)}]{bps08}
1556: {Pe\~na-Garay}, C. \& {Serenelli}, A.~M. 2008, in preparation
1557:
1558: \bibitem[{{Podolak} {et~al.}(1993){Podolak}, {Hubbard}, \& {Pollack}}]{podolak}
1559: {Podolak}, M., {Hubbard}, W.~B., \& {Pollack}, J.~B. 1993, in Protostars and
1560: Planets III, ed. E.~H. {Levy} \& J.~I. {Lunine}, 1109--1147
1561:
1562: \bibitem[{{Runkle} {et~al.}(2005){Runkle}, {Champagne}, {Angulo}, {Fox},
1563: {Iliadis}, {Longland}, \& {Pollanen}}]{runkle}
1564: {Runkle}, R.~C., {Champagne}, A.~E., {Angulo}, C., {Fox}, C., {Iliadis}, C.,
1565: {Longland}, R., \& {Pollanen}, J. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 94, 082503
1566:
1567: \bibitem[{{Saumon} \& {Guillot}(2004)}]{saumon}
1568: {Saumon}, D. \& {Guillot}, T. 2004, \apj, 609, 1170
1569:
1570: \bibitem[{{Strom} {et~al.}(1993){Strom}, {Edwards}, \& {Skrutskie}}]{strom}
1571: {Strom}, S.~E., {Edwards}, S., \& {Skrutskie}, M.~F. 1993, in Protostars and
1572: Planets III, ed. E.~H. {Levy} \& J.~I. {Lunine}, 837--866
1573:
1574: \bibitem[{{The BOREXINO Collaboration}(2005)}]{franco}
1575: {The BOREXINO Collaboration}. 2005, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements,
1576: 145, 29
1577:
1578: \bibitem[{{The KamLAND Collaboration}(2008)}]{kamland2}
1579: {The KamLAND Collaboration}. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801
1580:
1581: \bibitem[Trautvetter et al.(2008)]{traut} Trautvetter, H.~P.,
1582: et al.\ 2008, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 35, 4019
1583:
1584: \bibitem[{{Winnick} {et~al.}(2002){Winnick}, {Demarque}, {Basu}, \&
1585: {Guenther}}]{winnick}
1586: {Winnick}, R.~A., {Demarque}, P., {Basu}, S., \& {Guenther}, D.~B. 2002, \apj,
1587: 576, 1075
1588:
1589: \bibitem[{{Wuchterl} \& {Klessen}(2001)}]{wuchterl}
1590: {Wuchterl}, G. \& {Klessen}, R.~S. 2001, \apjl, 560, L185
1591:
1592: \end{thebibliography}
1593:
1594:
1595: \clearpage
1596:
1597: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1598: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1599: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1600: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1601: %% \includegraphics commands
1602: %%
1603: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1604: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1605: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1606: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1607: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1608: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1609: %%
1610: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1611: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1612: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1613: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1614: %% journal to journal.
1615:
1616: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1617: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1618: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1619: %% available in the electronic journal.
1620:
1621: \begin{figure*}
1622: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f1.pdf}
1623: \caption{ The pp-chain for hydrogen burning. The relative termination rates
1624: of competing reactions correspond to the BPS08(AGS) SSM. \label{fig:one}}
1625: \end{figure*}
1626:
1627: \clearpage
1628:
1629: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1630: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1631: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1632: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1633: %%
1634:
1635: \begin{figure*}
1636: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f2.pdf}
1637: \caption{The lower panel shows the CNO bi-cycle for hydrogen burning.
1638: The upper panel compares the energy produced in the CN cycle with that
1639: produced
1640: in the pp-chain, as a function of temperature T$_7$, measured
1641: in units of 10$^7$ K. The results are normalized to the
1642: pp-chain energy production in the Sun's central core and to solar metalicity,
1643: and
1644: assume the burning is in equilibrium. The sharp CN-cycle dependence on
1645: temperature
1646: is apparent. If approximated as a power law T$^x$, $x$ ranges between $\sim$
1647: 19
1648: and $\sim$ 22 over the range of temperatures typical of the Sun's
1649: hydrogen-burning core.
1650: The dot marks the point corresponding to the Sun's center,
1651: T$_7 = 1.57$. \label{fig:two}}
1652: \end{figure*}
1653:
1654: % \clearpage
1655: % \begin{figure}
1656: % \includegraphics[width=8cm]{castellani.eps}
1657: % \caption{Neutrino fluxes are plotted at a function of the solar core
1658: % temperature $T_c$
1659: % for calculations based on the SSM, but in which input SSM parameters are
1660: % varied far outside their assigned uncertainties. In this class of
1661: % ``nonstandard'' solar models it
1662: % is seen that the flux predictions continue to follow, to good accuracy, the
1663: % $T_c$ power laws characterizing the SSM (and its more modest parameter
1664: % variations). From Castellani {\it et al.} \label{fig:castellani}.}
1665: % \end{figure}
1666:
1667: \clearpage
1668:
1669: \begin{figure*}
1670: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f3.pdf}
1671: \caption{Results from a Monte Carlo simulation of SSM where the 11
1672: environmental parameters (see text) have been varied. The two left panels
1673: show the correlations between the $^8{\rm B}$ flux and the two CN-cycle
1674: neutrino fluxes $^{13}{\rm N}$ and $^{15}{\rm O}$. The slopes of the
1675: correlations are given in the plots, together with the 68.3\% confidence
1676: level contours. On the right side panels we show the residuals from the
1677: fits, 2.8\% and 2.6\% for the $^{13}{\rm N}$ and $^{15}{\rm O}$ fluxes
1678: respectively, that determine the residual environmental uncertainty in
1679: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:prod4},\ref{eq:prod4b}) respectively. \label{fig:correl}}
1680: \end{figure*}
1681:
1682: \clearpage
1683:
1684: \begin{figure*}
1685: \includegraphics[]{f4.pdf}
1686: \caption{A simulation of events expected in SNO+, the proposed SNOLab
1687: experiment to measure low-energy solar and other neutrino sources.
1688: This figure is due to M. C. Chen \citep{chen}. \label{fig:CNO_SNOPlus}}
1689: \end{figure*}
1690:
1691: \clearpage
1692:
1693: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccc}
1694: \tabletypesize{\small}
1695: \tablewidth{0pt}
1696: \tablecaption{Partial derivatives $\alpha(i,j)$ of neutrino fluxes with
1697: respect to solar environmental and nuclear cross section parameters.
1698: \label{table:one}}
1699: \tablehead{ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Environmental $\beta_j$} &
1700: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Nuclear $\beta_j$}}
1701: \startdata
1702: Source & $L_\odot$ & Opacity & Age & Diffusion~& $S_{11}$ & $S_{33}$ &
1703: $S_{34}$ & $S_{17}$ & $S_{e7}$ & $S_{114}$ \\
1704: \hline
1705: $\phi$($^8$B) & 7.16 & 2.70 & 1.38 & 0.28 & -2.73 & -0.43 & 0.85 & 1.0 & -1.0 &
1706: -0.020 \\
1707: $\phi$($^{13}$N) & 4.40 & 1.43 & 0.86 & 0.34 & -2.09 & 0.025 & -0.053 & 0.0 &
1708: 0.0 & 0.71 \\
1709: $\phi$($^{13}$N)/$\phi$($^8$B)$^{0.599}$ & 0.11 & -0.19 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.45
1710: & 0.28 & -0.56 & -0.60 & 0.60 & 0.72 \\
1711: $\phi$($^{15}$O) & 6.00 & 2.06 & 1.34 & 0.39 & -2.95 & 0.018 & -0.041 & 0.0 &
1712: 0.0 & 1.00 \\
1713: $\phi$($^{15}$O)/$\phi$($^8$B)$^{0.828}$ & 0.07 & -0.18 & 0.20 & 0.16 & -0.69
1714: & 0.37 & -0.74 & -0.83 & 0.83 & 1.02 \\
1715: \enddata
1716: \tablecomments{Table entries are the logarithmic partial derivatives
1717: $\alpha(i,j)$ of the solar neutrino fluxes $\phi_i$ with respect to the
1718: indicated solar model parameter $\beta_j$, taken about the SSM best values.
1719: All fluxes are in units of their SSM best values, and thus are dimensionless.
1720: The derivatives, taken from \citet{bps08}, are for the SSM
1721: BPS08(AGS), which employs the AGS abundances. The two flux ratios were
1722: determined for a $\phi(^8$B) exponent that minimizes the residual
1723: environmental error in the prediction, including the environmental variables
1724: here and in Table \ref{table:two}. As explained in the text, that error is
1725: weighted according to the uncertainties in the environmental parameters
1726: $\beta_j$, given in Table~\ref{table:three}.
1727: }
1728: \end{deluxetable}
1729:
1730: \clearpage
1731:
1732: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
1733: \tabletypesize{\small}
1734: \tablewidth{0pt}
1735: \tablecaption{Partial derivatives $\alpha(i,j)$ of neutrino fluxes with
1736: respect to fractional abundances of the primordial heavy
1737: elements. \label{table:two}}
1738: \tablehead{ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{C, N $\beta_j$} &
1739: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Environment Abundance $\beta_j$}}
1740: \startdata
1741: Source & C& N & O & Ne & Mg & Si & S & Ar & Fe \\
1742: \hline
1743: $\phi$($^8$B) & 0.027 & 0.001 & 0.107 & 0.071 & 0.112 & 0.210 & 0.145 & 0.017
1744: & 0.520 \\
1745: $\phi$($^{13}$N) & 0.874 & 0.142 & 0.044 & 0.030 & 0.054 & 0.110 & 0.080 &
1746: 0.010 & 0.268 \\
1747: $\phi$($^{13}$N)/$\phi$($^8$B)$^{0.599}$ & 0.858 & 0.141 & -0.020 & -0.013 &
1748: -0.013 & -0.016 & -0.007 & 0.000 & -0.043 \\
1749: $\phi$($^{15}$O) & 0.827 & 0.200 & 0.071 & 0.047 & 0.080 & 0.158 & 0.113 &
1750: 0.013 & 0.393 \\
1751: $\phi$($^{15}$O)/$\phi$($^8$B)$^{0.828}$ & 0.805 & 0.199 & -0.018 & -0.012 &
1752: -0.013 & -0.016 & -0.007 & -0.001 & -0.038 \\
1753: \enddata
1754: \tablecomments{Heavy elements are divided into ``environmental'' metals --
1755: those which primarily influence the solar core through their effects on the
1756: opacity and thus the core temperature -- and C and N, which govern the
1757: production of $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O solar neutrinos and which can be
1758: determined, in principle, from measurements of these fluxes. Results
1759: correspond to the BPS08(AGS) model \citep{bps08}.}
1760: \end{deluxetable}
1761:
1762: \clearpage
1763:
1764:
1765: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
1766: \tabletypesize{\small}
1767: \tablewidth{0pt}
1768: \tablecaption{Estimated 1$\sigma$ uncertainties in solar and nuclear SSM
1769: parameters, taken from Bahcall, Serenelli, and Basu \cite{bsb_mc} and
1770: Fiorentini and Ricci \cite{fr}, and their influence on flux predictions,
1771: computed from the partial derivatives of Table \ref{table:one}. The
1772: experimental value for $S_{17}$ is taken from a series of recent measurements:
1773: this $S$-factor and $S_{114}$ are discussed in the text. \label{table:three}}
1774: \tablehead{$\beta_j$ & Value & $\Delta \beta_j/\beta_j$(\%) & $\Delta
1775: \phi(^8$B)/$\phi(^8$B)(\%) & $\Delta \phi(^{13}$N)/$\phi(^{13}$N)(\%) &
1776: $\Delta \phi(^{15}$O)/$\phi(^{15}$O) (\%)}
1777: \startdata
1778: L$_\odot$ & 3.842 $\times$ 10$^{33}$ ergs/s & 0.4 & 2.9 & 1.8 & 2.4 \\
1779: Opacity & 1.0 & 2.5 & 6.9 & 3.6 & 5.2 \\
1780: Age & 4.57 b.y. & 0.44 & 0.61 & 0.38 & 0.59 \\
1781: Diffusion & 1.0 & 15.0 & 4.0 & 4.9 & 5.7 \\
1782: p+p & 3.94 $\times$ 10$^{-25}$ MeV b & 0.4 & 1.1 & 0.84 & 1.2 \\
1783: $^3$He+$^3$He & 5.4 MeV b & 6.0 & 2.5 & 0.15 & 0.10 \\
1784: $^3$He+$^4$He & 0.564 MeV b & 4.9 & 4.1 & 0.25 & 0.20 \\
1785: p+$^7$Be & 20.6 eV b & 3.8 & 3.8 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
1786: e+$^7$Be & & 2.0 & 2.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
1787: p+$^{14}$N & 1.61 keV b & 5.0 & 0.1 & 3.5 & 5.0 \\
1788: \enddata
1789: \end{deluxetable}
1790:
1791: \clearpage
1792:
1793: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1794: \tabletypesize{\small}
1795: \tablewidth{0pt}
1796: \tablecaption{Estimated 1$\sigma$ historical (``conservative'') uncertainties
1797: in AGS abundances, as defined in \cite{bs05}. The
1798: corresponding uncertainties in the neutrino fluxes are computed from the
1799: partial derivatives of Table~\ref{table:two}.\label{table:four}
1800: }
1801: \tablehead{$\beta_j$ & $\Delta \beta_j/\beta_j$(\%) & $\Delta
1802: \phi(^8$B)/$\phi(^8$B)(\%) & $\Delta \phi(^{13}$N)/$\phi(^{13}$N)(\%) &
1803: $\Delta \phi(^{15}$O)/$\phi(^{15}$O)(\%)
1804: }
1805: \startdata
1806: C & 29.7 & 0.70 & 25.5 & 24.0 \\
1807: N & 32.0 & 0.03 & 4.0 & 5.7 \\
1808: O & 38.7 & 3.6 & 1.4 & 2.3 \\
1809: Ne & 53.9 & 3.1 & 1.3 & 2.0 \\
1810: Mg & 11.5 & 1.2 & 0.59 & 0.87 \\
1811: Si & 11.5 & 2.3 & 1.2 & 1.7 \\
1812: S & 9.2 & 1.3 & 0.71 & 1.0 \\
1813: Ar & 49.6 & 0.69 & 0.40 & 0.53 \\
1814: Fe & 11.5 & 5.8 & 3.0 & 4.4 \\
1815: \enddata
1816: \end{deluxetable}
1817:
1818:
1819:
1820:
1821:
1822:
1823:
1824:
1825:
1826: \end{document}
1827:
1828: %%
1829: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1830: