1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
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,longnamesfirst]{aastex}
19: \documentclass{emulateapj}
20: \usepackage{apjfonts}
21:
22: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
23:
24: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
25:
26: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
27:
28: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
29:
30: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
31: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
32: %% use the longabstract style option.
33:
34: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
35:
36: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
37: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
38: %% the \begin{document} command.
39: %%
40: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
41: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
42: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
43: %% for information.
44:
45: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
46: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
47: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
48:
49: \slugcomment{Accepted by The Astrophysical Journal; June 19, 2008}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
56: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{Neutrino Cross Sections for Supernovae}
59: \shortauthors{Yoshida et al.}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
67: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
68: %% you desire.
69:
70: \title{
71: Neutrino-Nucleus Reaction Cross Sections for Light \\
72: Element Synthesis in Supernova Explosions
73: %Neutrino Oscillation Effect on Supernova Light Element Synthesis, II
74: %New Reaction Rates of the $\nu$-Process on $^4$He and $^{12}$C
75: }
76:
77:
78: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
79: %% author and affiliation information.
80: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
81: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
82: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
83: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
84:
85: \author{Takashi Yoshida\altaffilmark{1}, Toshio Suzuki\altaffilmark{2,3},
86: Satoshi Chiba\altaffilmark{4}, Toshitaka Kajino\altaffilmark{5,6},
87: Hidekazu Yokomakura\altaffilmark{7}, Keiichi Kimura\altaffilmark{7},
88: Akira Takamura\altaffilmark{8}, Dieter H. Hartmann\altaffilmark{9}}
89:
90:
91:
92: \altaffiltext{1}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
93: 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan;
94: e-mail:takashi.yoshida@nao.ac.jp}
95: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, College of Humanities and Science,
96: Nihon University, Sakurajosui 3-25-40, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8550, Japan}
97: \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo,
98: Hirosawa, Wako-shi, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}
99: \altaffiltext{4}{Advanced Science Research Center, Japan Atomic
100: Energy Agency, 2-4 Shirakata-shirane, Tokai, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan}
101: \altaffiltext{5}{National Astronomical Observatory, and The Graduate
102: University for Advanced Studies, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
103: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science,
104: University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
105: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science,
106: Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
107: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Mathematics, Toyota National College of
108: Technology, Eisei-cho 2-1, Toyota, Aichi 471-8525, Japan}
109: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Clemson University,
110: Clemson, SC 29634, USA}
111:
112:
113: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
114: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
115: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
116: %% affiliation.
117:
118: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
119: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
120: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
121: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
122: %% editorial office after submission.
123:
124: \begin{abstract}
125: The neutrino-nucleus reaction cross sections of $^4$He and $^{12}$C are
126: evaluated using new shell model Hamiltonians.
127: Branching ratios of various decay channels are calculated to evaluate
128: the yields of Li, Be, and B produced through the $\nu$-process in supernova
129: explosions.
130: The new cross sections enhance the yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B produced
131: during the supernova explosion of a 16.2 $M_\odot$ star model compared to
132: the case using the conventional cross sections by about $10\%$.
133: On the other hand, the yield of $^{10}$B decreases by a factor of two.
134: The yields of $^6$Li, $^9$Be, and the radioactive nucleus $^{10}$Be are
135: found at a level of $\sim 10^{-11} M_\odot$.
136: The temperature of $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$- and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}$-neutrinos
137: inferred from the supernova contribution of $^{11}$B in Galactic chemical
138: evolution models is constrained to the $4.3-6.5$ MeV range.
139: The increase in the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields due to neutrino oscillations
140: is demonstrated with the new cross sections.
141: \end{abstract}
142:
143: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
144: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
145: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
146: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
147:
148: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
149: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
150: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
151: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
152: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
153: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
154: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
155: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
156: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
157: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
158: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
159: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
160:
161: \keywords{neutrinos --- nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances ---
162: supernovae: general}
163:
164: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
165: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
166: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
167: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
168: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
169: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
170: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
171: %% each reference.
172:
173: \section{Introduction}
174:
175: Supernova (SN) explosions constitute one of several production sites of the
176: relatively rare light elements Li, Be, and B. In SN environments these elements
177: are produced through neutrino-nucleus reactions
178: \citep[the $\nu$-process;][]{de78,wh90}.
179: Neutrinos of all flavors are emitted in large
180: numbers from a proto-neutron star, created during core-collapse of
181: massive stars and the subsequent supernova explosion.
182: Among the light elements, $^7$Li and $^{11}$B are abundantly produced
183: through the $\nu$-process \citep{wh90,yt04,yk05,hk05}.
184: Production of these light element isotopes in core-collapse supernovae
185: (ccSNe) can contribute significantly to the increase in their abundances
186: during Galactic chemical evolution \citep[GCE;][]{fo00,rl00,rs00}.
187:
188:
189: Cross sections for neutrino-nucleus interactions are some of the most
190: important data required to reliably estimate the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B
191: yields in supernovae.
192: The $\nu$-process cross sections have been evaluated for a wide range of
193: nuclear species in \citet{wh90}. The data are tabulated in Hoffman \& Woosley
194: (1992, hereafter referred to as HW92)
195: \footnote{See http://www-phys.llnl.gov/Research/RRSN/nu\_csbr/neu\_rate.html}.
196: Since the evaluation by HW92, further development of shell model calculations
197: now enable us to more accurately evaluate these essential cross sections.
198:
199:
200: The $\nu$-process cross sections are often presented as a function of
201: neutrino temperature, based on averaging energy dependent cross
202: sections over a Fermi-Dirac distribution of given temperature and chemical
203: potential (for simplicity often assumed to be zero). However, it is more
204: appropriate to consider the energy dependence as the primary information,
205: as studies of SN neutrino transport show that their spectra do not exactly
206: follow Fermi-Dirac distributions with zero-chemical potential \citep[e.g.,][]{kr03}.
207: Furthermore, when considering neutrino oscillations in SNe, the spectra
208: are non-thermal after the neutrino flavors change, even if the Fermi-Dirac
209: distribution approximates the spectra at the neutrino
210: sphere reasonably well \citep[e.g.,][]{ds00,tw01}.
211:
212:
213: %We have investigated detailed dependence of supernova neutrinos on the
214: %$^7$Li and $^{11}$B using the supernova explosion model corresponding to
215: %SN 1987A.
216: %The $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields strongly depend on the temperatures of
217: %neutrinos, of which energy spectra are assumed to be Fermi-Dirac
218: %distributions \citep{yt04,yk05}.
219: %Furthermore, we have shown that neutrino oscillations affect $^7$Li and
220: %$^{11}$B production in supernovae \citep{yk06a,yk06b}.
221: %The $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields depend on the neutrino oscillation parameters,
222: %i.e., mass hierarchies and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$.
223:
224:
225:
226: The main purpose of this study is the re-evaluation of neutrino-nucleus
227: reaction cross section for $^{12}$C and $^4$He using new shell-model
228: Hamiltonians. We evaluate the branching ratios of many decay channels
229: for light element species.
230: Then, we evaluate the yields of the light elements, $^6$Li, $^7$Li,
231: $^9$Be, $^{10}$Be, $^{10}$B, and $^{11}$B and discuss their production
232: processes. We re-estimate the allowed range of the neutrino temperatures
233: derived from constraints on the SN contribution of $^{11}$B in GCE models
234: \citep[following][]{yk05}.
235: We also investigate the dependence of the neutrino oscillation parameters,
236: i.e., mass hierarchy and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$,
237: on the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields using the new cross sections.
238:
239:
240: The paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 new cross sections for neutrino-
241: $^{12}$C reactions are derived using the SFO and PSDMK2 Hamiltonians.
242: New cross sections for neutrino-$^4$He reactions are evaluated using the
243: WBP and SPSDMK Hamiltonians, as also shown in this section.
244: The temperature dependence of the cross sections is discussed.
245: The supernova explosion model and the supernova neutrino models employed
246: are introduced and explained in detail in \S 3.
247: The nuclear reaction network used in this study is presented briefly.
248: Light-element production mechanisms are discussed in \S 4.
249: The yields obtained using the new cross sections and the differences
250: from those obtained with old cross sections are shown.
251: The dependence of the light element yields on neutrino chemical potential
252: is also discussed.
253: The dependence of the yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B on the neutrino
254: oscillation parameters, mass hierarchy and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$
255: is shown in \S 5.
256: The dependence of neutrino oscillation parameters on the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio,
257: the elemental abundance ratios of the light elements, is considered, and the
258: possibility of constraining mass hierarchies and the mixing angle
259: $\theta_{13}$ is evaluated.
260: Other effects on flavor-exchange of neutrinos in supernovae are
261: discussed in \S 6, and our conclusions are finally presented in \S 7.
262:
263:
264: \begin{figure*}[p]
265: \epsscale{1.05}
266: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
267: \plottwo{f1c.eps}{f1d.eps}
268: \caption{
269: Cross sections for $^4$He as a function of neutrino temperature $T_\nu$.
270: The neutrino energy spectrum is assumed to follow a Fermi-Dirac distribution
271: with zero chemical potential. ($a$): neutral-current reactions with the WBP
272: Hamiltonian, ($b$): charged-current reactions with the WBP Hamiltonians,
273: ($c$): neutral-current reactions with the SPSDMK Hamiltonian,
274: ($d$): charged-current reactions with the SPSDMK Hamiltonian.
275: }
276: \label{crosshe4}
277: \vspace{10cm}
278: \end{figure*}
279:
280:
281:
282: \begin{figure*}
283: \epsscale{1.0}
284: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
285: \plottwo{f2c.eps}{f2d.eps}
286: \plottwo{f2e.eps}{f2f.eps}
287: \caption{
288: Averaged cross sections of $^{12}$C as a function of neutrino temperature,
289: $T_\nu$, for the SFO Hamiltonian. The neutrino energy spectrum is assumed
290: to follow a Fermi-Dirac distribution with zero chemical potential.
291: Top, meddle, and bottom panels correspond to neutral-current reactions,
292: charged-current reactions for $\nu_e$, and charged-current reactions for
293: $\bar{\nu}_e$, respectively.
294: The line with labeled $^{12}$C corresponds to the total decomposition rate
295: of $^{12}$C, $\sigma_{^{12}{\rm C},\nu}$ (see eq. [1]).
296: }
297: \label{crosssc12sfo}
298: \end{figure*}
299:
300:
301: \begin{figure*}
302: \epsscale{1.0}
303: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
304: \plottwo{f3c.eps}{f3d.eps}
305: \plottwo{f3e.eps}{f3f.eps}
306: \caption{
307: As in Fig.~\ref{crosssc12sfo}, but for the PSDMK2 Hamiltonian.
308: }
309: \label{crosssc12mk}
310: \end{figure*}
311:
312:
313: %%Table 1.
314: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccc}
315: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
316: \tablecaption{
317: Neutrino-induced reaction cross sections of $^4$He in units of
318: $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ with the use of the WBP Hamiltonian.
319: }
320: %\tablewidth{0pt}
321: \tablehead{
322: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & \\
323: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'n)^3$He} &
324: \colhead{($\nu,\nu'd)^2$H} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'nnp)^1$H} &
325: \colhead{($\nu_e,e^-p)^3$He} & \colhead{($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+n)^3$H} &
326: \colhead{($\nu_e,e^-pp)^2$H} & \colhead{($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+nn)^2$H}
327: }
328: \startdata
329: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 &
330: 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
331: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 &
332: 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
333: 30.0 & 4.018E-02 & 3.829E-02 & 2.168E-11 & 3.538E-08 & 1.604E-01 &
334: 1.264E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
335: 40.0 & 4.609E-01 & 4.425E-01 & 3.169E-04 & 9.746E-03 & 2.094E+00 &
336: 1.556E+00 & 1.054E-04 & 1.587E-04 \\
337: 50.0 & 1.802E+00 & 1.738E+00 & 7.218E-02 & 1.730E-01 & 8.957E+00 &
338: 5.992E+00 & 3.140E-01 & 2.211E-01 \\
339: 60.0 & 4.777E+00 & 4.620E+00 & 3.381E-01 & 7.782E-01 & 2.564E+01 &
340: 1.529E+01 & 1.670E+00 & 1.053E+00 \\
341: 70.0 & 1.017E+01 & 9.856E+00 & 8.064E-01 & 1.991E+00 & 5.842E+01 &
342: 3.108E+01 & 4.243E+00 & 2.409E+00 \\
343: 80.0 & 1.874E+01 & 1.818E+01 & 1.485E+00 & 4.021E+00 & 1.145E+02 &
344: 5.453E+01 & 8.148E+00 & 4.167E+00
345: \enddata
346: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab4hewbp} is published in its entirety in the
347: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
348: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
349: \label{tab4hewbp}
350: \end{deluxetable*}
351:
352:
353: %%Table 2.
354: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccc}
355: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
356: \tablecaption{
357: Neutrino-induced reaction cross sections of $^4$He in units of
358: $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ with the use of the SPSDMK Hamiltonian.
359: }
360: %\tablewidth{0pt}
361: \tablehead{
362: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & \\
363: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'n)^3$He} &
364: \colhead{($\nu,\nu'd)^2$H} & \colhead{($\nu,\nu'nnp)^1$H} &
365: \colhead{($\nu_e,e^-p)^3$He} & \colhead{($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+n)^3$H} &
366: \colhead{($\nu_e,e^-pp)^2$H} & \colhead{($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+nn)^2$H}
367: }
368: \startdata
369: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 &
370: 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
371: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 &
372: 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
373: 30.0 & 6.992E-02 & 6.399E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 2.706E-04 & 2.045E-01 &
374: 1.694E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
375: 40.0 & 7.360E-01 & 6.805E-01 & 3.413E-07 & 5.913E-03 & 2.709E+00 &
376: 1.968E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
377: 50.0 & 2.879E+00 & 2.675E+00 & 6.340E-03 & 4.657E-02 & 1.211E+01 &
378: 7.761E+00 & 2.338E-02 & 1.717E-02 \\
379: 60.0 & 7.633E+00 & 7.112E+00 & 5.841E-02 & 2.429E-01 & 3.557E+01 &
380: 2.025E+01 & 2.516E-01 & 1.628E-01 \\
381: 70.0 & 1.616E+01 & 1.509E+01 & 1.800E-01 & 8.009E-01 & 8.209E+01 &
382: 4.173E+01 & 8.673E-01 & 4.997E-01 \\
383: 80.0 & 2.944E+01 & 2.753E+01 & 3.897E-01 & 2.037E+00 & 1.614E+02 &
384: 7.367E+01 & 2.062E+00 & 1.063E+00
385: \enddata
386: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab4hemk} is published in its entirety in the
387: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
388: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
389: \label{tab4hemk}
390: \end{deluxetable*}
391:
392:
393: %%Table 3.
394: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}
395: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
396: \tablecaption{
397: Neutrino-induced neutral-current reaction cross sections of $^{12}$C
398: in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ based on the SFO Hamiltonian.
399: }
400: %\tablewidth{0pt}
401: \tablehead{
402: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
403: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
404: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
405: }
406: \startdata
407: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
408: 20.0 & 1.484E-03 & 1.482E-05 & 1.330E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 4.201E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
409: 30.0 & 4.062E-01 & 8.046E-02 & 3.147E-01 & 1.329E-04 & 9.846E-05 & 1.462E-04 & 3.296E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 1.644E-13 & 5.526E-04 \\
410: 40.0 & 3.206E+00 & 7.104E-01 & 2.308E+00 & 1.259E-02 & 1.136E-02 & 1.458E-02 & 5.987E-01 & 2.569E-07 & 1.256E-04 & 5.501E-02 \\
411: 50.0 & 1.123E+01 & 2.576E+00 & 7.890E+00 & 6.209E-02 & 6.915E-02 & 8.576E-02 & 2.637E+00 & 9.178E-05 & 3.726E-03 & 2.645E-01 \\
412: 60.0 & 2.705E+01 & 6.346E+00 & 1.877E+01 & 1.765E-01 & 2.110E-01 & 2.574E-01 & 7.050E+00 & 7.484E-04 & 1.801E-02 & 7.078E-01 \\
413: 70.0 & 5.199E+01 & 1.240E+01 & 3.578E+01 & 3.657E-01 & 4.583E-01 & 5.560E-01 & 1.439E+01 & 2.094E-03 & 4.453E-02 & 1.442E+00 \\
414: 80.0 & 8.574E+01 & 2.068E+01 & 5.862E+01 & 6.252E-01 & 8.167E-01 & 9.890E-01 & 2.471E+01 & 3.979E-03 & 8.175E-02 & 2.486E+00 \\
415: \hline
416: \hline
417: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
418: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^9$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} &
419: \colhead{$^{10}$Be} & \colhead{$^8$B} & \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^{11}$B} & \colhead{$^{10}$C} & \colhead{$^{11}$C} \\
420: \hline
421: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
422: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.330E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 1.482E-05 \\
423: 30.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 4.367E-05 & 1.459E-04 & 7.516E-09 & 0.000E+00 & 1.331E-04 & 3.141E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 8.042E-02 \\
424: 40.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 9.063E-03 & 9.957E-03 & 5.222E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 1.386E-02 & 2.239E+00 & 5.356E-06 & 6.950E-01 \\
425: 50.0 & 1.277E-06 & 1.657E-12 & 5.537E-02 & 4.668E-02 & 5.365E-03 & 1.759E-08 & 7.018E-02 & 7.520E+00 & 1.747E-04 & 2.455E+00 \\
426: 60.0 & 6.709E-05 & 2.977E-08 & 1.657E-01 & 1.272E-01 & 1.904E-02 & 6.102E-06 & 1.920E-01 & 1.770E+01 & 9.144E-04 & 5.937E+00 \\
427: 70.0 & 2.643E-04 & 1.879E-07 & 3.596E-01 & 2.610E-01 & 4.343E-02 & 2.902E-05 & 3.891E-01 & 3.352E+01 & 2.295E-03 & 1.147E+01 \\
428: 80.0 & 5.593E-04 & 4.514E-07 & 6.455E-01 & 4.499E-01 & 7.859E-02 & 6.482E-05 & 6.616E-01 & 5.466E+01 & 4.216E-03 & 1.899E+01
429: \enddata
430: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ncsfo} is published in its entirety in the
431: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
432: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
433: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
434: \label{tab12c_ncsfo}
435: \end{deluxetable*}
436:
437:
438: %%Table 4.
439: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccc}
440: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
441: \tablecaption{
442: Neutrino-induced charged-current reaction cross sections for $\nu_e$ of
443: $^{12}$C in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ based on the SFO Hamiltonian.
444: }
445: %\tablewidth{0pt}
446: \tablehead{
447: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & \\
448: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
449: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
450: }
451: \startdata
452: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
453: 20.0 & 2.796E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 4.275E-05 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
454: 30.0 & 5.516E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 5.781E-01 & 4.584E-07 & 0.000E+00 & 1.691E-05 & 9.536E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
455: 40.0 & 2.150E+01 & 1.330E-03 & 6.374E+00 & 2.059E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 6.608E-02 & 3.252E-01 & 1.396E-04 & 0.000E+00 \\
456: 50.0 & 5.655E+01 & 2.281E-02 & 2.658E+01 & 1.258E-01 & 2.127E-05 & 4.985E-01 & 2.159E+00 & 5.933E-03 & 6.552E-08 \\
457: 60.0 & 1.204E+02 & 1.056E-01 & 7.247E+01 & 4.043E-01 & 5.022E-04 & 1.685E+00 & 7.021E+00 & 3.680E-02 & 1.010E-04 \\
458: 70.0 & 2.209E+02 & 2.807E-01 & 1.537E+02 & 9.218E-01 & 1.981E-03 & 3.980E+00 & 1.630E+01 & 1.044E-01 & 6.282E-04 \\
459: 80.0 & 3.611E+02 & 5.595E-01 & 2.751E+02 & 1.703E+00 & 4.387E-03 & 7.625E+00 & 3.092E+01 & 2.108E-01 & 1.567E-03 \\
460: \hline
461: \hline
462: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & \\
463: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} & \colhead{$^8$B} &
464: \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^9$C} & \colhead{$^{10}$C} & \colhead{$^{11}$C} & \colhead{$^{12}$N} \\
465: \hline
466: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
467: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 4.275E-05 & 2.795E-01 \\
468: 30.0 & 0.000E+00 & 1.767E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 7.430E-04 & 5.340E-07 & 0.000E+00 & 4.584E-07 & 5.779E-01 & 4.937E+00 \\
469: 40.0 & 0.000E+00 & 1.345E-01 & 6.658E-07 & 5.803E-02 & 1.235E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 2.174E-02 & 6.147E+00 & 1.506E+01 \\
470: 50.0 & 0.000E+00 & 7.781E-01 & 2.669E-04 & 3.465E-01 & 1.246E-01 & 2.064E-05 & 1.328E-01 & 2.499E+01 & 2.966E+01 \\
471: 60.0 & 2.761E-10 & 2.296E+00 & 2.518E-03 & 1.102E+00 & 4.533E-01 & 3.532E-04 & 3.996E-01 & 6.718E+01 & 4.714E+01 \\
472: 70.0 & 3.717E-09 & 5.054E+00 & 7.803E-03 & 2.556E+00 & 1.099E+00 & 1.161E-03 & 8.766E-01 & 1.413E+02 & 6.558E+01 \\
473: 80.0 & 1.062E-08 & 9.328E+00 & 1.606E-02 & 4.855E+00 & 2.136E+00 & 2.402E-03 & 1.597E+00 & 2.515E+02 & 8.314E+01
474: \enddata
475: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ccesfo} is published in its entirety in the
476: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
477: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
478: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
479: \label{tab12c_ccesfo}
480: \end{deluxetable*}
481:
482:
483: %%Table 5.
484: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}
485: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
486: \tablecaption{
487: Neutrino-induced charged-current reaction cross sections for $\bar{\nu}_e$ of
488: $^{12}$C in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$
489: based the SFO Hamiltonian.
490: }
491: %\tablewidth{0pt}
492: \tablehead{
493: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
494: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
495: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
496: }
497: \startdata
498: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
499: 20.0 & 7.004E-01 & 5.771E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
500: 30.0 & 5.252E+00 & 8.317E-01 & 1.149E-05 & 7.809E-04 & 1.223E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 3.422E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 8.886E-04 \\
501: 40.0 & 1.592E+01 & 5.370E+00 & 5.521E-03 & 2.646E-02 & 1.832E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 1.375E-01 & 6.683E-05 & 3.032E-06 & 5.223E-02 \\
502: 50.0 & 3.482E+01 & 1.664E+01 & 4.072E-02 & 1.090E-01 & 1.185E-01 & 5.077E-05 & 6.556E-01 & 2.976E-03 & 7.866E-04 & 2.640E-01 \\
503: 60.0 & 6.290E+01 & 3.647E+01 & 1.325E-01 & 2.743E-01 & 3.579E-01 & 4.628E-04 & 1.759E+00 & 1.404E-02 & 5.310E-03 & 7.095E-01 \\
504: 70.0 & 9.941E+01 & 6.470E+01 & 2.854E-01 & 5.194E-01 & 7.521E-01 & 1.296E-03 & 3.494E+00 & 3.240E-02 & 1.341E-02 & 1.419E+00 \\
505: 80.0 & 1.422E+02 & 9.948E+01 & 4.916E-01 & 8.266E-01 & 1.290E+00 & 2.367E-03 & 5.803E+00 & 5.553E-02 & 2.362E-02 & 2.379E+00 \\
506: \hline
507: \hline
508: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
509: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^9$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} &
510: \colhead{$^{10}$Be} & \colhead{$^{11}$Be} & \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^{11}$B} & \colhead{$^{12}$B} & \\
511: \hline
512: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
513: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 5.771E-03 & 6.946E-01 \\
514: 30.0 & 2.533E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.223E-04 & 7.809E-04 & 1.149E-05 & 1.220E-16 & 8.309E-01 & 4.417E+00 \\
515: 40.0 & 7.545E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.361E-02 & 2.765E-02 & 4.090E-03 & 8.826E-04 & 5.310E+00 & 1.044E+01 \\
516: 50.0 & 2.821E-01 & 5.011E-05 & 5.056E-12 & 7.359E-02 & 1.164E-01 & 2.238E-02 & 1.154E-02 & 1.627E+01 & 1.772E+01 \\
517: 60.0 & 6.551E-01 & 3.794E-04 & 3.581E-07 & 2.125E-01 & 2.872E-01 & 6.241E-02 & 4.018E-02 & 3.537E+01 & 2.536E+01 \\
518: 70.0 & 1.206E+00 & 9.657E-04 & 1.865E-06 & 4.418E-01 & 5.389E-01 & 1.282E-01 & 8.540E-02 & 6.241E+01 & 3.273E+01 \\
519: 80.0 & 1.922E+00 & 1.693E-03 & 4.074E-06 & 7.559E-01 & 8.586E-01 & 2.189E-01 & 1.438E-01 & 9.560E+01 & 3.950E+01
520: \enddata
521: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ccbsfo} is published in its entirety in the
522: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
523: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
524: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
525: \label{tab12c_ccbsfo}
526: \end{deluxetable*}
527:
528:
529: %%Table 6.
530: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}
531: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
532: \tablecaption{
533: Neutrino-induced neutral-current reaction cross sections of $^{12}$C
534: in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$
535: based on the PSDMK2 Hamiltonian.
536: }
537: %\tablewidth{0pt}
538: \tablehead{
539: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
540: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
541: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
542: }
543: \startdata
544: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
545: 20.0 & 3.289E-04 & 2.518E-07 & 2.648E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.914E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
546: 30.0 & 2.976E-01 & 4.222E-02 & 2.504E-01 & 4.759E-06 & 3.311E-05 & 1.551E-04 & 1.481E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 1.826E-24 & 3.170E-04 \\
547: 40.0 & 2.730E+00 & 5.182E-01 & 2.114E+00 & 7.058E-03 & 1.314E-02 & 1.741E-02 & 3.537E-01 & 1.316E-07 & 3.610E-05 & 4.747E-02 \\
548: 50.0 & 1.016E+01 & 2.077E+00 & 7.658E+00 & 5.211E-02 & 9.507E-02 & 1.138E-01 & 1.778E+00 & 9.817E-05 & 2.592E-03 & 2.633E-01 \\
549: 60.0 & 2.526E+01 & 5.382E+00 & 1.881E+01 & 1.827E-01 & 3.082E-01 & 3.575E-01 & 5.089E+00 & 1.037E-03 & 1.452E-02 & 7.470E-01 \\
550: 70.0 & 4.950E+01 & 1.081E+01 & 3.657E+01 & 4.194E-01 & 6.883E-01 & 7.909E-01 & 1.079E+01 & 3.135E-03 & 3.761E-02 & 1.571E+00 \\
551: 80.0 & 8.259E+01 & 1.833E+01 & 6.067E+01 & 7.514E-01 & 1.242E+00 & 1.423E+00 & 1.894E+01 & 6.070E-03 & 6.935E-02 & 2.765E+00 \\
552: \hline
553: \hline
554: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
555: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^9$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} &
556: \colhead{$^{10}$Be} & \colhead{$^8$B} & \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^{11}$B} & \colhead{$^{10}$C} & \colhead{$^{11}$C} \\
557: \hline
558: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
559: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 2.648E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 2.518E-07 \\
560: 30.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 3.331E-06 & 1.525E-04 & 3.542E-09 & 0.000E+00 & 4.759E-06 & 2.501E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 4.221E-02 \\
561: 40.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 8.400E-03 & 1.041E-02 & 4.961E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 6.689E-03 & 2.050E+00 & 4.332E-06 & 5.005E-01 \\
562: 50.0 & 1.008E-05 & 2.562E-13 & 5.944E-02 & 6.500E-02 & 6.162E-03 & 1.030E-08 & 4.242E-02 & 7.248E+00 & 2.332E-04 & 1.929E+00 \\
563: 60.0 & 3.630E-04 & 6.660E-08 & 1.857E-01 & 2.028E-01 & 2.324E-02 & 1.494E-05 & 1.278E-01 & 1.753E+01 & 1.294E-03 & 4.860E+00 \\
564: 70.0 & 1.361E-03 & 5.621E-07 & 4.095E-01 & 4.464E-01 & 5.411E-02 & 7.867E-05 & 2.698E-01 & 3.374E+01 & 3.327E-03 & 9.602E+00 \\
565: 80.0 & 2.812E-03 & 1.436E-06 & 7.399E-01 & 7.994E-01 & 9.837E-02 & 1.795E-04 & 4.658E-01 & 5.561E+01 & 6.111E-03 & 1.612E+01
566: \enddata
567: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ncmk2} is published in its entirety in the
568: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
569: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
570: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
571: \label{tab12c_ncmk2}
572: \end{deluxetable*}
573:
574:
575: %%Table 7.
576: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccc}
577: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
578: \tablecaption{
579: Neutrino-induced charged-current reaction cross sections for $\nu_e$ of
580: $^{12}$C in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$
581: based on the PSDMK2 Hamiltonian.
582: }
583: %\tablewidth{0pt}
584: \tablehead{
585: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & \\
586: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
587: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
588: }
589: \startdata
590: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
591: 20.0 & 2.363E-01 & 0.000E+00 & 2.663E-06 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
592: 30.0 & 4.557E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 3.901E-01 & 1.076E-06 & 0.000E+00 & 6.638E-05 & 1.909E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
593: 40.0 & 1.802E+01 & 1.183E-03 & 5.282E+00 & 1.233E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 5.975E-02 & 3.247E-01 & 3.825E-05 & 0.000E+00 \\
594: 50.0 & 4.884E+01 & 2.703E-02 & 2.365E+01 & 1.266E-01 & 3.300E-05 & 5.269E-01 & 2.478E+00 & 3.558E-03 & 1.215E-07 \\
595: 60.0 & 1.071E+02 & 1.370E-01 & 6.690E+01 & 5.133E-01 & 1.394E-03 & 1.897E+00 & 8.601E+00 & 2.519E-02 & 1.707E-04 \\
596: 70.0 & 2.011E+02 & 3.824E-01 & 1.450E+02 & 1.313E+00 & 6.217E-03 & 4.621E+00 & 2.065E+01 & 7.503E-02 & 1.126E-03 \\
597: 80.0 & 3.346E+02 & 7.755E-01 & 2.632E+02 & 2.567E+00 & 1.418E-02 & 8.990E+00 & 3.981E+01 & 1.523E-01 & 2.829E-03 \\
598: \hline
599: \hline
600: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & \\
601: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} & \colhead{$^8$B} &
602: \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^9$C} & \colhead{$^{10}$C} & \colhead{$^{11}$C} & \colhead{$^{12}$N} \\
603: \hline
604: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
605: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 2.663E-06 & 2.363E-01 \\
606: 30.0 & 0.000E+00 & 7.641E-04 & 0.000E+00 & 1.012E-03 & 6.827E-06 & 0.000E+00 & 1.076E-06 & 3.892E-01 & 4.166E+00 \\
607: 40.0 & 0.000E+00 & 1.398E-01 & 1.573E-05 & 6.329E-02 & 1.358E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 1.245E-02 & 5.052E+00 & 1.268E+01 \\
608: 50.0 & 0.000E+00 & 9.564E-01 & 1.355E-03 & 3.774E-01 & 1.405E-01 & 3.162E-05 & 1.102E-01 & 2.176E+01 & 2.493E+01 \\
609: 60.0 & 4.085E-09 & 3.061E+00 & 9.674E-03 & 1.201E+00 & 5.190E-01 & 8.437E-04 & 3.828E-01 & 6.016E+01 & 3.953E+01 \\
610: 70.0 & 9.469E-08 & 7.057E+00 & 2.881E-02 & 2.776E+00 & 1.262E+00 & 3.024E-03 & 9.070E-01 & 1.287E+02 & 5.488E+01 \\
611: 80.0 & 2.948E-07 & 1.339E+01 & 5.859E-02 & 5.242E+00 & 2.442E+00 & 6.394E-03 & 1.733E+00 & 2.315E+02 & 6.945E+01
612: \enddata
613: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ccemk2} is published in its entirety in the
614: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
615: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
616: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
617: \label{tab12c_ccemk2}
618: \end{deluxetable*}
619:
620:
621: %%Table 8.
622: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}
623: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
624: \tablecaption{
625: Neutrino-induced charged-current reaction cross sections for $\bar{\nu}_e$ of
626: $^{12}$C in units of $10^{-42}$ cm$^2$
627: based on the PSDMK2 Hamiltonian.
628: }
629: %\tablewidth{0pt}
630: \tablehead{
631: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
632: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^{12}$C\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$p$} & \colhead{$d$} &
633: \colhead{$t$} & \colhead{$^3$He} & \colhead{$^4$He} & \colhead{$^6$He} & \colhead{$^6$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Li}
634: }
635: \startdata
636: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
637: 20.0 & 5.917E-01 & 2.368E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
638: 30.0 & 4.382E+00 & 6.548E-01 & 2.563E-05 & 5.835E-05 & 6.821E-05 & 0.000E+00 & 1.867E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.566E-04 \\
639: 40.0 & 1.363E+01 & 4.810E+00 & 1.195E-02 & 1.714E-02 & 3.012E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 1.608E-01 & 1.324E-04 & 1.989E-06 & 6.479E-02 \\
640: 50.0 & 3.079E+01 & 1.571E+01 & 6.777E-02 & 1.026E-01 & 1.932E-01 & 1.069E-04 & 8.939E-01 & 5.357E-03 & 5.897E-04 & 3.480E-01 \\
641: 60.0 & 5.724E+01 & 3.543E+01 & 2.043E-01 & 3.160E-01 & 5.845E-01 & 1.392E-03 & 2.582E+00 & 2.564E-02 & 4.866E-03 & 9.508E-01 \\
642: 70.0 & 9.248E+01 & 6.393E+01 & 4.246E-01 & 6.618E-01 & 1.227E+00 & 4.247E-03 & 5.325E+00 & 6.002E-02 & 1.306E-02 & 1.914E+00 \\
643: 80.0 & 1.344E+02 & 9.928E+01 & 7.099E-01 & 1.109E+00 & 2.095E+00 & 7.954E-03 & 8.998E+00 & 1.028E-01 & 2.338E-02 & 3.218E+00 \\
644: \hline
645: \hline
646: \colhead{$E_\nu$} & & & & & & & & & & \\
647: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{$^8$Li} & \colhead{$^9$Li} & \colhead{$^7$Be} & \colhead{$^9$Be} &
648: \colhead{$^{10}$Be} & \colhead{$^{11}$Be} & \colhead{$^{10}$B} & \colhead{$^{11}$B} & \colhead{$^{12}$B} & \\
649: \hline
650: 10.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 \\
651: 20.0 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 2.368E-03 & 5.893E-01 \\
652: 30.0 & 1.687E-03 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 5.622E-05 & 5.844E-05 & 2.555E-05 & 1.521E-08 & 6.546E-01 & 3.726E+00 \\
653: 40.0 & 6.814E-02 & 0.000E+00 & 0.000E+00 & 1.674E-02 & 1.892E-02 & 9.553E-03 & 9.832E-04 & 4.727E+00 & 8.713E+00 \\
654: 50.0 & 2.989E-01 & 1.056E-04 & 5.199E-12 & 9.082E-02 & 1.084E-01 & 3.839E-02 & 1.462E-02 & 1.516E+01 & 1.461E+01 \\
655: 60.0 & 7.605E-01 & 1.117E-03 & 1.744E-06 & 2.612E-01 & 3.058E-01 & 8.812E-02 & 5.364E-02 & 3.373E+01 & 2.064E+01 \\
656: 70.0 & 1.478E+00 & 3.086E-03 & 1.104E-05 & 5.345E-01 & 6.164E-01 & 1.578E-01 & 1.161E-01 & 6.031E+01 & 2.635E+01 \\
657: 80.0 & 2.424E+00 & 5.555E-03 & 2.528E-05 & 8.968E-01 & 1.027E+00 & 2.440E-01 & 1.955E-01 & 9.311E+01 & 3.154E+01 \\
658: \enddata
659: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab12c_ccbmk2} is published in its entirety in the
660: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
661: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
662: \tablenotetext{a}{Decomposition rate. See \S 2 and Eq. \ref{csc12}.}
663: \label{tab12c_ccbmk2}
664: \end{deluxetable*}
665:
666:
667: \section{Neutrino-Nucleus Reaction Cross Sections of $^4$He and $^{12}$C}
668:
669: New neutrino-induced reaction cross sections on $^{12}$C have been obtained
670: by shell model calculations with the SFO Hamiltonian
671: \citep[hereafter abbreviated by SC06]{sc06}.
672: The SFO Hamiltonian describes spin properties of $p$-shell nuclei,
673: such as Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions, better than conventional
674: shell-model Hamiltonians, such as PSDMK2 \citep{mk75,oxb86}.
675: Systematic improvements in the agreement between calculated and observed
676: magnetic moments of $p$-shell nuclei supports the use of the SFO Hamiltonian
677: \citep{sfo03}, which takes into account the important roles of spin-isospin
678: interactions, in particular tensor interaction, and is found to lead to
679: proper shell evolution \citep{osfg05,sc06}.
680:
681: While a slight modification of the axial-vector coupling constant,
682: $g_{A}^{eff}/g_{A}$ =0.95, is enough to reproduce the GT transition in
683: $^{12}$C, a large quenching of the coupling constant,
684: $g_{A}^{eff}/g_{A}$ =0.7, was taken for other multipoles to
685: reproduce the inclusive charged-current reaction cross sections
686: induced by the DAR neutrinos \citep{sc06}. This is consistent with
687: the electron scattering data, where considerable quenching of the
688: spin $g$-factor, $g_{s}^{eff}/g_{s}$ =0.6$\sim$0.7, explains the M2
689: form factor in $^{12}$C (2$^{-}$, $T=1, 19.40$ MeV)
690: at low momentum transfer \citep{drake68,yama71,gard84}.
691: The final state interaction is included by multiplying the relativistic
692: Fermi function for the charged-current reactions.
693:
694:
695: Although large quenching of $g_{A}^{eff}/g_{A}$ =0.7 was adopted
696: for all multipoles other than the GT transitions in \citet{sc06},
697: electron scattering data indicate a smaller quenching of the spin
698: $g$-factor for 1$^{-}$ states, i.e., $g_{s}^{eff}/g_{s}$
699: $\approx$0.9 \citep{drake68,yama71}.
700: Photo-reaction cross section data indicate that the electric dipole
701: transition strength is quenched by about 30$\%$ below $E_{x}$ =30 MeV
702: and a large fraction of the strength is pushed up to higher energy
703: \citep{ahr75,pyw85,mcl91,suzs03}.
704: We therefore adopt separate quenching factors for $g_{A}$:
705: $g_{A}^{eff}/g_{A}$ =0.95, 0.7, and 0.9 for the GT (1$^{+}$), 2$^{-}$
706: spin-dipole, and other multipoles, respectively.
707: The Coulomb dipole form factor is also reduced by 30$\%$.
708: As the dominant contributions come from the GT and the 2$^{-}$
709: spin-dipole transitions, the inclusive charged-current reaction
710: cross section in $^{12}$C remains to be explained by the modified
711: quenching factors. Effects of the change of the contributions
712: from other multipoles are insignificant. The shell-model configuration
713: space assumed here is the same as in \citet{sc06}, but multiple polarities
714: up to $J=4$ are included, instead of just $J=3$.
715:
716: To enable comparisons, the cross sections for $^{12}$C are obtained
717: for the conventional PSDMK2 Hamiltonian in the same way, i.e., with
718: $g_{A}^{eff}/g_{A}$ =1.0, 0.75, and 0.9 for the GT,
719: 2$^{-}$ spin-dipole, and other multipoles, respectively, and
720: with the Coulomb dipole form factor reduced by 30$\%$.
721:
722: Neutrino-induced reaction cross sections on $^{4}$He are obtained
723: by shell-model calculations with the WBP \citep{wb92} and
724: SPSDMK \citep{mk75,oxb86} Hamiltonians, with the bare $g_{A}$ \citep{sc06}.
725: The $0s$-$0p$-$1s0d$-$1p0f$ and $0s$-$0p$-$1s0d$ configurations are taken for
726: the shell-model space for the WBP and SPSDMK cases, respectively, and
727: $^4$He is not treated as a closed core. The axial-vector coupling constant is
728: therefore taken to be the bare value, $g_A$.
729: The shell-model configuration space is extended up to 4 (5) $\hbar\omega$
730: excitations for positive (negative) parity transitions, instead of
731: just up to 2 (3) $\hbar\omega$ excitations.
732:
733: Branching ratios for $\gamma$ transitions and proton ($p$), neutron ($n$),
734: and $\alpha$ knock-out channels have been obtained from
735: Hauser-Feshbach theory for $^{12}$C \citep{sc06}.
736: However, we extend the Hauser-Feshbach calculations by including
737: knock-out of a deuteron ($d$), $^{3}$He, and $^{3}$H as well as
738: multi-particle knock-out channels. All possible particle knock-out
739: and $\gamma$ transitions are included until the transitions end up
740: with a residual nucleus with mass number $A = 6 \sim 12$. For $^{4}$He,
741: $p$, $n$, and $d$, knock-out channels are taken into account.
742: Here, Hauser-Feshbach calculations are carried out for each Hamiltonian,
743: consistently with the respective energy spectrum.
744: We allowed $\alpha$-decay (1) after $\gamma$ transition from isospin $T=1$
745: states in $^{12}$C to $T=0$ states, or (2) directly from $T=1$ states
746: in $^{12}$C to $T=1$ states in $^8$Be.
747: We also assumed 1\% isospin non-conservation in $\gamma$ transitions,
748: as the experimental data for $^{12}$C indicate such a possibility.
749:
750:
751: Calculated reaction cross sections for various channels
752: are shown in Figure 1 for $^{4}$He and in Figures 2 and 3 for $^{12}$C.
753: For neutral current reactions, the average of ($\nu$, $\nu$') and
754: ($\bar\nu$, $\bar\nu$') reactions are shown.
755: Nuclei produced, including those knocked out, which cannot decay
756: further by particle emissions are denoted in the figures.
757:
758: Neutral-current and charged-current reaction cross sections on $^{4}$He,
759: $^{4}$He($\nu, \nu'p$)$^{3}$H, $^{4}$He($\nu, \nu'n$)$^{3}$He,
760: $^4$He($\nu, \nu'd$)$^2$H, $^4$He($\nu,\nu' nnp$)$^1$H,
761: $^{4}$He($\nu_e, e^{-}p$)$^{3}$He, $^4$He($\nu_e, e^-pp$)$^2$H,
762: $^{4}$He($\bar{\nu}_e, e^{+}n$)$^{3}$H, and
763: $^4$He($\bar{\nu}_e, e^+nn$)$^2$H,
764: induced by supernova neutrinos with temperature $T_{\nu}$,
765: are shown in Figure 1. For these averaged cross sections, the neutrino
766: energy spectra are assumed to be Fermi-Dirac distributions with zero
767: chemical potential, to enable comparisons with our earlier studies.
768: Results for the two shell-model Hamiltonians, WBP and SPSDMK, are shown.
769: Results for $^{12}$C obtained with the SFO and the PSDMK2
770: Hamiltonians are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
771: We note that the decomposition cross section of $^{12}$C,
772: $\sigma_{^{12}{\rm C},\nu}$, has the following relation to the production
773: cross section, $\sigma_{^{12}{\rm C},\nu}(Z_i,A_i)$, of species $i$,
774: of which charge number and mass number are $Z_i$ and $A_i$, respectively:
775: \begin{equation}
776: \sigma_{^{12}{\rm C},\nu} =
777: \sum_i \frac{A_i}{12} \sigma_{^{12}{\rm C},\nu}(Z_i,A_i) .
778: \label{csc12}
779: \end{equation}
780:
781:
782: For use with non-thermal neutrino spectra, cross section values for $^4$He
783: as a function of the neutrino energy for the WBP and SPSDMK
784: Hamiltonians are provided in Tables \ref{tab4hewbp} and \ref{tab4hemk}.
785: The neutrino-induced reaction cross sections of $^{12}$C for neutral-current
786: reactions, charged-current reactions of $\nu_e$, and those of $\bar{\nu}_e$
787: with the SFO (PSDMK2) Hamiltonian are listed in Tables
788: \ref{tab12c_ncsfo} (\ref{tab12c_ncmk2}), \ref{tab12c_ccesfo}
789: (\ref{tab12c_ccemk2}), and \ref{tab12c_ccbsfo} (\ref{tab12c_ccbmk2}),
790: respectively.
791:
792:
793: For $^{4}$He, the neutral current reaction cross sections
794: obtained with the WBP Hamiltonian are rather close to those obtained with
795: a microscopic ab-initio calculation using AV8' interaction \citep{gazit04},
796: although the dependence on $T_{\nu}$ is more moderate for WBP.
797: We thus take the cross sections obtained by WBP and SFO as a ^^ ^^ standard
798: set'' for the evaluation of the production yields of light elements
799: during supernova explosions.
800:
801:
802: We now briefly explain important neutrino-nucleus reactions on
803: $^{12}$C, relevant for producing light elements. The qualitative
804: nature of the reactions does not depend much on the chosen
805: Hamiltonians, but there are some quantitative differences.
806: Light elements are mainly produced by neutral current reactions
807: induced by $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ and $\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau}$, which have
808: higher temperature than $\nu_{e}$ and $\bar\nu_{e}$. Note that
809: neutral current processes involve six kinds of neutrinos.
810:
811: We find that $^{11}$B has the largest yield among the light
812: elements. The branching ratio for $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'p$)$^{11}$B
813: is about 4 times larger than that for $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'n$)$^{11}$C.
814: The charged-current reaction cross section for
815: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^{+}n$)$^{11}$B at $T_{\bar\nu_e}$ =5 MeV
816: is nearly the same as that for $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'n$)$^{11}$C
817: at $T_{\nu}$ =6 MeV.
818:
819: $^{10}$B is produced mainly by neutral current reactions,
820: $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'pn$)$^{10}$B and $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'd$)$^{10}$B.
821: The amount of the production is about 6 (4) $\times$
822: 10$^{-3}$ times that of $^{11}$B for the SFO (PSDMK2) Hamiltonian.
823:
824: $^{9}$Be is produced by neutral current reactions,
825: $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'x$)$^{9}$Be ($x$ = $^3$He, $dp$, and $ppn$)
826: and charged-current reactions, $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^{+}x$)$^{9}$Be
827: ($x$ = $^{3}$H, $dn$ and $pnn$).
828: The contribution of the latter reaction at $T_{\bar\nu_e}$ =5 MeV is about
829: 10$\%$ of the former at $T_{\nu}$ =6 MeV.
830: The production of $^{9}$Be is
831: about 4 (7) $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ times that of $^{11}$B for
832: the SFO (PSDMK2) Hamiltonian.
833:
834: For $^{10}$Be, charged-current reaction cross sections for
835: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^{+}pn$)$^{10}$Be and
836: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^{+}d$)$^{10}$Be are larger than neutral current
837: reaction cross section for $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'pp$)$^{10}$Be at
838: ($T_{\bar\nu_e}$, $T_{\nu}$) = (5 MeV, 6 MeV), while at
839: $T_{\bar\nu_e}$ =4 MeV the former is as small as one-fourth
840: of the latter. Production yields of $^{10}$Be, thus, depend
841: on $T_{\bar\nu_e}$. The production of $^{10}$Be by neutral
842: current processes is about 5 (6) $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ times
843: that of $^{11}$B for the SFO (PSDMK2) case.
844:
845: $^{7}$Li is mainly produced by neutral current reactions,
846: $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'p\alpha$)$^{7}$Li, etc. The production
847: of $^{7}$Li through $^{7}$Be is about 20$\%$ of that from the
848: neutral current reactions. Contributions from charged-current
849: processes are less than 10$\%$ of those from the neutral
850: current reactions at $T_{\bar\nu_e}$ =5 MeV. $^{6}$Li is
851: produced by neutral current processes, but production through
852: $^{6}$He is negligible. Light-element synthesis during supernova
853: explosions based on the present reaction cross sections is
854: discussed in \S 4.
855:
856:
857:
858: \section{SN Nucleosynthesis Model}
859:
860: In this study, we adopt the same SN nucleosynthesis model employed
861: by \citet{yk06a,yk06b}, except for the new $\nu$-process reaction rates.
862: Here we briefly explain the SN explosion model, the SN neutrino model,
863: and the nuclear reaction network.
864:
865: \subsection{SN explosion model}
866:
867: We consider a 16.2 $M_\odot$ pre-supernova model, corresponding to a
868: possible progenitor model for SN 1987A \citep{sn90}.
869: The explosion is proceeded by a spherically symmetric hydrodynamic
870: calculation using a piecewise parabolic method code \citep{cw84,sn92}.
871: %When the explosion is ignited,
872: The explosion energy is set to be 1 B = 1 Bethe = $1 \times 10^{51}$ ergs.
873: The Lagrangian location of the mass cut is fixed at 1.61 $M_\odot$.
874:
875: For calculations of the effects of neutrino oscillations, we use the density
876: profile of the presupernova model. As discussed in \citet{yk06b},
877: shock propagation hardly affects the $\nu$-process
878: (with neutrino oscillations).
879: There is a resonance of the transition of 2-3 mass eigenstates in the O/C
880: layer.
881: When the shock wave arrives at this resonance region, the density gradient
882: becomes large and, therefore, the resonance becomes non-adiabatic.
883: If the adiabaticity is changed by the shock wave, the influence of neutrino
884: oscillations could change as well. However, most of the supernova neutrinos
885: have already passed this region before the shock arrives, so that
886: the affected fraction of neutrinos is very small.
887:
888:
889:
890: \subsection{SN Neutrino Model}
891:
892: Here, we briefly explain models for the flux and energy spectra of the
893: neutrinos emitted from the neutrino sphere. For simplicity, we assume
894: that the neutrino luminosity decreases exponentially with a decay time
895: of $\tau_\nu = 3$ s.
896: The total energy carried out by neutrinos is almost equal to the
897: binding energy released at the formation of a proto-neutron star.
898: A characteristic value of the energy is $3 \times 10^{53}$ ergs
899: \citep[e.g.][]{wh90}, corresponding to the gravitational
900: binding energy of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star \citep{ly89,lp01}.
901: The spectra at the neutrino sphere are assumed
902: to follow Fermi-Dirac distributions with zero-chemical potentials.
903: Note that the temperatures of neutrinos and the total neutrino energy
904: are somewhat uncertain, and that the $^{11}$B abundance in GCE can be
905: used to constrain them.
906:
907:
908: We consider several neutrino models, parametrized by the neutrino
909: temperatures, total energy released in neutrinos, and adopted cross sections.
910: Table~\ref{neutemp} lists seven models employed in this study.
911: We use model 1 as the ^^ ^^ standard model'' in this study, with
912: $T_{\nu_e}$ = 3.2 MeV, $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ = 5.0 MeV,
913: $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ = 6.0 MeV, and
914: $E_{\nu,total}$ = $3.0 \times 10^{53}$ ergs,
915: where $T_{\nu_e}$, $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$, $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$, and
916: $E_{\nu,total}$ are the temperatures of $e$-neutrinos, $e$-antineutrinos,
917: $\mu$- and $\tau$-neutrinos and their antiparticles, and the total neutrino
918: energy.
919: This set of the neutrino temperatures and total neutrino energy were used
920: in the standard model of \citet{yt04,yk05,yk06a,yk06b}.
921: This model adopts the cross sections of $^{12}$C and $^4$He from SFO and
922: WBP Hamiltonians, respectively.
923:
924:
925: Models 1mk, 1p, and 1hw have the same set of the neutrino temperatures
926: and total neutrino energy as in model 1, but adopt different sets of $^{12}$C
927: and $^4$He cross sections.
928: Model 1mk adopts the cross sections of $^{12}$C and $^4$He with PSDMK2 and
929: SPSDMK Hamiltonians (Tables 1$c$, 1$d$, $6-8$).
930: Model 1p contains the cross sections of $^4$He($\nu, \nu'p$)$^3$H,
931: $^4$He($\nu, \nu'n$)$^3$He, $^4$He($\nu_e, e^-p$)$^3$He, and
932: $^4$He($\bar{\nu}_e, e^+n$)$^3$H for $^4$He and
933: $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'p$)$^{11}$B, $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'n$)$^{11}$C,
934: $^{12}$C($\nu_e, e^-p$)$^{11}$C, and $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^+n$)$^{11}$B
935: for $^{12}$C evaluated in \citet{sc06}.
936: Since the reaction rates of $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'np$)$^{10}$B,
937: $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'^3$He)$^9$Be, $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'p\alpha$)$^7$Li,
938: and $^{12}$C ($\nu, \nu'n\alpha$) $^7$Be were not evaluated in \citet{sc06},
939: the rates of these reactions are adopted from HW92.
940: Model 1hw is equivalent to the standard model in \citet{yk06b}.
941: It adopts the cross sections of $^4$He and $^{12}$C from HW92.
942: Model 2 represents the same neutrino energy spectra as used in
943: \citet{rh02,hk05,yu05,yo07,yu08}.
944:
945:
946: %%Table 9.
947: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccc}
948: \tabletypesize{\small}
949: \tablecaption{
950: Model parameter: Neutrino temperatures $T_{\nu_e}$, $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$,
951: $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$, total released neutrino energy $E_{\nu,total}$, and
952: adopted neutrino-nucleus cross sections for $^{12}$C and $^4$He.}
953: \tablehead{
954: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$T_{\nu_e}$} &
955: \colhead{$T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$} & \colhead{$T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$} &
956: \colhead{$E_{\nu,total}$} &
957: \colhead{References for $^{12}$C and $^4$He $\nu$-process} \\
958: \colhead{} & \colhead{(MeV)} &
959: \colhead{(MeV)} & \colhead{(MeV)} &
960: \colhead{($\times 10^{53}$ ergs)} &
961: \colhead{}
962: }
963: \startdata
964: model 1 & 3.2 & 5.0 & 6.0 & 3.0 & SFO, WBP \\
965: model 1mk & 3.2 & 5.0 & 6.0 & 3.0 & PSDMK2, SPSDMK \\
966: model 1p & 3.2 & 5.0 & 6.0 & 3.0 &
967: SFO\tablenotemark{a}, WBP\tablenotemark{a}, HW92 \\
968: model 1hw & 3.2 & 5.0 & 6.0 & 3.0 & HW92 \\
969: model 2 & 4.0 & 4.0 & 6.0 & 3.0 & SFO, WBP \\
970: model LT & 3.2 & 5.0 & 6.5 & 2.35 & SFO, WBP \\
971: model ST & 3.2 & 4.2 & 5.0 & 3.53 & SFO, WBP \\
972: \enddata
973: \tablecomments{Neutrino temperatures $T_{\nu_e}$, $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$,
974: $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$, total released neutrino energy $E_{\nu,total}$,
975: and adopted neutrino-nucleus cross sections for $^{12}$C and $^4$He.}
976: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{sc06}.}
977: \label{neutemp}
978: \end{deluxetable*}
979:
980:
981: When we investigate the effects of neutrino oscillations on SN nucleosynthesis,
982: we consider two additional sets, to take into account uncertainties
983: in neutrino temperatures.
984: Model LT corresponds to the largest $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ value and indicates
985: the $^{11}$B yield close to the upper limit still satisfying GCE constraints
986: \citep{fo00,rl00,rs00,al02}.
987: Model ST corresponds to the smallest $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ value and indicates
988: the value close to the lower limit deduced from GCE models.
989: We note that the temperature of $\bar{\nu}_e$ in model ST
990: is changed to keep $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}/T_{\bar{\nu}_e} \sim 1.2$,
991: which is the same as model 1.
992:
993:
994:
995: When neutrino oscillations are taken into account, the neutrinos
996: emitted from the neutrino sphere change flavor in passing through the
997: stellar interior.
998: The flavor change depends strongly on neutrino oscillation parameters.
999: We use the following values for these parameters.
1000: The squared-mass differences of the mass eigenstates
1001: $\Delta m^2_{ij} = m^2_i - m^2_j$ are set to be
1002: \begin{eqnarray}
1003: \Delta m^2_{21} &=& 7.9 \times 10^{-5} \quad {\rm eV^2} \nonumber \\
1004: \quad |\Delta m^2_{31}| &=& 2.4 \times 10^{-3} \quad {\rm eV^2 .}
1005: \end{eqnarray}
1006: The values of the mixing angles $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ are
1007: fixed to be
1008: \begin{equation}
1009: \sin ^2 2\theta_{12} = 0.816 \quad {\rm and} \quad
1010: \sin ^2 2\theta_{23} = 1.
1011: \end{equation}
1012: These parameter values correspond to the family of the so-called large
1013: mixing angle (LMA) solutions, determined with Super-Kamiokande \citep{SK04},
1014: SNO
1015: \citep[Sudbury Neutrino Observatory;][]{SNO04}, and KamLAND \citep{KL05}.
1016: In the case of $\Delta m^2_{31}$, only the absolute value has been determined.
1017: The positive and negative values correspond to normal and inverted mass
1018: hierarchies, respectively.
1019: For the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$, the upper limit of $\sin ^22\theta_{13}$
1020: has been determined to be $\sin^22\theta_{13} \sim 0.1$ from the CHOOZ
1021: experiment \citep{ap03}.
1022: In this study, we use values of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
1023: between $1 \times 10^{-6}$ and 0.1.
1024:
1025:
1026: There are two resonances in the transitions between two mass eigenstates
1027: in the stellar interior of the pre-supernova. The resonance density is
1028: obtained from
1029: \begin{eqnarray}
1030: \rho_{res} Y_e &=&
1031: \frac{m_u \Delta m^2_{ji} c^4 \cos 2\theta_{ij}}
1032: {2 \sqrt{2} G_F (\hbar c)^3 \varepsilon_\nu} \\
1033: &=& 6.55 \times 10^6
1034: \left(\frac{\Delta m^2_{ji}}{1 {\rm eV^2}}\right)
1035: \left(\frac{1 {\rm MeV}}{\varepsilon_\nu}\right) \cos 2\theta_{ij}
1036: \quad {\rm g cm^{-3}}, \nonumber
1037: \end{eqnarray}
1038: where $\rho_{res}$ is the resonance density, $Y_e$ is the electron fraction,
1039: $m_u$ is the atomic mass unit, $c$ is the speed of light, $G_F$ is the Fermi
1040: constant, $\hbar$ is th Planck constant divided by $2 \pi$, and $\varepsilon_\nu$
1041: is the neutrino energy.
1042:
1043: One resonance is related to the transition between the 2-3 mass eigenstates.
1044: We refer to this resonance as the ^^ ^^ H resonance''.
1045: The density range of the H resonance is $\rho_{res} \sim 300-3000$ g cm$^{-3}$
1046: with the energy range of $\varepsilon_\nu \sim 10 - 100$ MeV.
1047: This density range corresponds to the C/O layer and the inner region of
1048: the He layer. Adiabaticity of the H resonance depends on the value of
1049: the oscillation parameter $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
1050:
1051: The other resonance is due to the transition between the 1-2 mass eigenstates.
1052: We refer to this resonance as the ^^ ^^ L resonance''.
1053: The density range of the L resonance is $\rho_{res} \sim 4-40$ g cm$^{-3}$.
1054: The location of the L resonance is in the He layer.
1055: The L resonance is an adiabatic resonance in the range of neutrino
1056: oscillation parameters considered in this study.
1057: Details of neutrino oscillations in this supernova model are provided
1058: in \citet{yk06b}.
1059:
1060: \subsection{Nucleosynthesis Model}
1061:
1062: We calculate the nucleosynthesis of the supernova explosion using a
1063: nuclear reaction network consisting of 291 nuclear species as used
1064: in \citet{yt04,yk05,yk06a,yk06b}, and tabulated in Table 1 in \citet{yt04}.
1065: The difference from previous studies \citep{yk06a,yk06b} is that here
1066: new cross sections for neutrino-$^{12}$C and neutrino-$^4$He reactions
1067: are used (see \S 2). Reaction rates are calculated using these new cross
1068: sections and the neutrino energy spectra discussed above.
1069: When we take neutrino oscillations into account, the formulation of
1070: the rates of the charged-current $\nu$-process reactions is given by
1071: equation (8) in \citet{yk06b}.
1072: The range of the neutrino energy for integration is capped at 160 MeV.
1073: The reaction rates of the other $\nu$-process reactions are adopted
1074: from HW92, and the effects of neutrino oscillations are not included
1075: for those reactions.
1076:
1077:
1078: \section{Light Element Yields}
1079:
1080: \subsection{Production of Light Elements in SNe}
1081:
1082: Below we discuss the production processes of light elements in
1083: the SN model with the new cross sections for $^4$He and $^{12}$C.
1084: The mass fraction distribution of the light elements at 1000 s
1085: after core bounce is shown in Figure~\ref{massfrac}.
1086: The mass fractions of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B are larger than those of
1087: other light elements. The third abundant species is $^{10}$B.
1088: The abundances of $^6$Li and $^9$Be are smaller than that of $^{10}$B
1089: by more than an order of magnitude.
1090: The radioactive isotope $^{10}$Be is produced at
1091: a level similar to those of $^6$Li and $^9$Be.
1092:
1093:
1094: \subsubsection{$^7$Li}
1095:
1096: Most of $^7$Li is produced in the He/C layer.
1097: The $^7$Li is originally produced as $^7$Li and its isobar $^7$Be.
1098: In an inner region of the He/C layer ($M_r \la 4.8 M_\odot$), the production
1099: of $^7$Be dominates.
1100: Most of $^7$Be is produced through $^4$He($\nu,\nu'n)^3$He and
1101: $^3$He($\alpha,\gamma)^7$Be. The charged-current reaction
1102: $^4$He($\nu_e,e^-p)^3$He contributes less to the $^7$Be production,
1103: but is important when neutrino oscillations are
1104: considered (see \S 5). In the O/Ne layer, the mass fraction of $^7$Be is small.
1105: Most of $^7$Be is produced through the $\nu$-process of $^{12}$C.
1106: When the shock wave arrives, almost all the $^7$Be is photo-disintegrated by
1107: $^7$Be($\gamma,\alpha)^3$He. During the expansion stage, $^7$Be is again produced
1108: from $^{12}$C.
1109:
1110:
1111: In the outer region of the He/C layer, most of $^7$Li is produced via the
1112: reaction sequence $^4$He($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H($\alpha,\gamma)^7$Li.
1113: Some of $^7$Li is contributed by the charged-current reaction
1114: $^4$He($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+n)^3$H.
1115: In this region, all $^3$H produced through the $\nu$-process is consumed
1116: by $\alpha$-capture to $^7$Li during the explosion.
1117: On the other hand, a much smaller amount of $^7$Be is produced, because the
1118: shock temperature is too low to effectively enable $^3$He($\alpha,\gamma)^7$Be
1119: during the explosion.
1120: In the inner region of the He/C layer, the produced $^7$Li experiences
1121: $\alpha$-capture to yield $^{11}$B during the explosion.
1122: In the O-rich layer, $^7$Li is produced through the $\nu$-process of $^{12}$C,
1123: and further $\alpha$-capture produces $^{11}$B.
1124:
1125:
1126: \subsubsection{$^{11}$B}
1127:
1128: About 60\% of $^{11}$B is produced in the He/C layer.
1129: Most of the $^{11}$B is produced through $^7$Li($\alpha,\gamma)^{11}$B
1130: in the mass coordinate range $4.2 M_\odot \la M_r \la 4.9 M_\odot$.
1131: In this region, the mass fraction of $^7$Li becomes very small owing to
1132: this reaction (see Figure~\ref{massfrac}). A very small amount of the
1133: isobar $^{11}$C is co-produced through $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'n)^{11}$C.
1134:
1135:
1136: In the O-rich layer (O/Ne and O/C layers), both $^{11}$B and $^{11}$C
1137: are produced through the $\nu$-process of $^{12}$C. The sum of their
1138: mass fractions is about $10^{-6}$ in the O/C layer, because the mass
1139: fraction of $^{12}$C is also large. The mass fractions of $^{11}$B and
1140: $^{11}$C are similar about 10 s after the explosion.
1141: Some $^{11}$B is destroyed by $^{11}$B($\alpha,p)^{14}$C.
1142: In the O/Ne layer, $^{11}$B is produced as $^{11}$C.
1143: The branching ratio of $^{11}$B is larger than that of $^{11}$C in the
1144: $\nu$-process of $^{12}$C.
1145: Therefore, the amount of $^{11}$B produced through the $\nu$-process is
1146: larger than the amount of $^{11}$C.
1147: However, more than 90\% of $^{11}$B is lost due to the reaction
1148: $^{11}$B($\alpha,p)^{14}$C at shock arrival.
1149: The $\nu$-process that continues after the explosion increases the $^{11}$B
1150: abundance again, but to a lesser extent than $^{11}$C.
1151: The main destruction reaction of $^{11}$C is $^{11}$C($\alpha,p)^{14}$N,
1152: but it is practically negligible.
1153: %This is a small contribution of $^{12}$C($\nu_e,e^-)^{12}$N($\gamma,p)^{11}$C
1154: %for $^{11}$C production.
1155: The produced $^{11}$C decays to $^{11}$B by $\beta^+$-decay and electron
1156: capture with a half-life of 20.39 minutes.
1157: Thus, the mass fraction of $^{11}$B in the O-rich layer is larger than
1158: that of $^{11}$C in Figure~\ref{massfrac}.
1159:
1160:
1161: \begin{figure}
1162: \epsscale{1.1}
1163: \plotone{f4.eps}
1164: \caption{
1165: Mass fraction distributions for model 1.
1166: Blue solid and dashed lines correspond to the mass fractions of $^7$Li and
1167: $^7$Be, respectively.
1168: Red solid and dashed lines are the mass fractions of $^{11}$B and $^{11}$C.
1169: }
1170: \label{massfrac}
1171: \end{figure}
1172:
1173:
1174: \subsubsection{$^6$Li and $^9$Be}
1175:
1176: The production processes of $^6$Li and $^9$Be are connected.
1177: About 65\% and 60\% of $^6$Li and $^9$Be, respectively, are produced
1178: in the He/C layer.
1179: Most of $^9$Be is produced through the $\nu$-process reaction
1180: $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^9$Be.
1181: However, it is decomposed after shock arrival at $M_r \la 5.0 M_\odot$.
1182: The main destructive reaction is $^9$Be($\alpha,n)^{12}$C.
1183: About a half of $^6$Li is produced through
1184: $^4$He($\nu, \nu'd)^2$H($\alpha, \gamma)^6$Li in the region
1185: $3.8 M_\odot \la M_r \la 4.6 M_\odot$ in the He/C layer.
1186: Additional $^6$Li is synthesized through $^{12}$C($\nu, \nu'x)^6$Li
1187: before shock arrival and through $^9$Be($p,\alpha)^6$Li after
1188: shock arrival.
1189: In the inner region of the He/C layer $^6$Li is destroyed through
1190: $^6$Li($p,\alpha)^3$He.
1191:
1192:
1193: In the O-rich layer, $^9$Be is mainly produced through
1194: $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^9$Be.
1195: Almost all of the $^9$Be produced before shock arrival is destroyed
1196: completely through $^9$Be($\alpha,n)^{12}$C by the shock.
1197: It is supplied again through $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^9$Be during
1198: the expansion stage. It is partly produced through
1199: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+)^{12}$B($p,\alpha)^9$Be. In this layer, the
1200: main production process for $^6$Li is $^9$Be($p,\alpha)^6$Li.
1201: This reaction is effective even before shock arrival.
1202: The temperature increase from the shock reduces the $^6$Li abundance
1203: through $^6$Li($p,\alpha)^3$He.
1204: However, $^6$Li is supplied again via $^9$Be($p,\alpha)^6$Li during
1205: post-shock expansion. The contribution from $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^6$Li is
1206: small.
1207:
1208:
1209: \subsubsection{$^{10}$Be}
1210:
1211: Radioactive $^{10}$Be is produced in both the O-rich and He/C layers.
1212: It is mainly produced through the charged-current reaction
1213: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e, e^+x)^{10}$Be and the neutral-current reaction
1214: $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^{10}$Be.
1215: The contribution from the charged-current reaction is larger than
1216: that from the neutral-current reaction in this model.
1217: The produced $^{10}$Be is destroyed by $^{10}$Be($\alpha,n)^{13}$C
1218: at shock arrival at $M_r \la 4.8 M_\odot$.
1219: In the O-rich layer, however, the $\nu$-process reaction still increases
1220: the $^{10}$Be amount during the expansion stage.
1221: We note that the $\nu$-process reactions producing $^{10}$Be directly
1222: are included in this study for the first time.
1223: When we do not include these reactions, $^{10}$Be is produced through
1224: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+p)^{11}$Be($\gamma,n)^{10}$Be.
1225:
1226:
1227: \subsubsection{$^{10}$B}
1228:
1229: About 80\% of the $^{10}$B amount is produced through the $\nu$-process of
1230: $^{12}$C, mainly via $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu' x)^{10}$B.
1231: About a half of $^{10}$B is produced in the O-rich (O/Ne and O/C) layer.
1232: In the O-rich layer, some $^{10}$B is produced by
1233: $^{13}$C($p,\alpha$)$^{10}$B after shock arrival.
1234: The amount of $^{10}$B increases again in the expansion due to the supply,
1235: through the $\nu$-process, of $^{12}$C.
1236: A small amount of $^{10}$B is also produced through
1237: $^6$Li($\alpha, \gamma)^{10}$B in the He/C layer.
1238: Destruction after shock passage is negligible in the He/C layer.
1239:
1240:
1241: %%Table 10.
1242: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccc}
1243: \tabletypesize{\small}
1244: \tablecaption{
1245: Yields of $^7$Li, $^{11}$B, $^6$Li, $^9$Be, $^{10}$Be, and $^{10}$B.}
1246: \tablehead{
1247: \colhead{Species} & \colhead{model 1} & \colhead{model 1mk} &
1248: \colhead{model 2} & \colhead{model 1p} & \colhead{model 1hw} \\
1249: \colhead{} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)} &
1250: \colhead{($M_\odot$)} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)}
1251: }
1252: \startdata
1253: $^7$Li & $2.67 \times 10^{-7}$ & $4.14 \times 10^{-7}$ &
1254: $2.54 \times 10^{-7}$ & $3.06 \times 10^{-7}$\tablenotemark{a} &
1255: $2.36 \times 10^{-7}$\tablenotemark{b} \\
1256: $^{11}$B & $7.14 \times 10^{-7}$ & $8.67 \times 10^{-7}$ &
1257: $6.72 \times 10^{-7}$ & $7.51 \times 10^{-7}$\tablenotemark{a} &
1258: $6.26 \times 10^{-7}$\tablenotemark{b} \\
1259: $^6$Li & $4.67 \times 10^{-11}$ & $3.60 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1260: $4.19 \times 10^{-11}$ & $4.61 \times 10^{-12}$ & $3.46 \times 10^{-12}$ \\
1261: $^9$Be & $6.56 \times 10^{-11}$ & $9.65 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1262: $5.57 \times 10^{-11}$ & $1.69 \times 10^{-11}$ & $1.36 \times 10^{-11}$ \\
1263: $^{10}$Be & $3.54 \times 10^{-11}$ & $3.55 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1264: $1.69 \times 10^{-11}$ & $4.18 \times 10^{-12}$ & $4.18 \times 10^{-12}$ \\
1265: $^{10}$B & $1.08 \times 10^{-9}$ & $6.10 \times 10^{-10}$ &
1266: $1.05 \times 10^{-9}$ & $2.45 \times 10^{-9}$ & $2.45 \times 10^{-9}$ \\
1267: \enddata
1268: \tablenotetext{a}{Data are adopted from Table IV of \citet{sc06}.}
1269: \tablenotetext{b}{Data are adopted from \citet{yk06b}.}
1270: \label{lyield}
1271: \end{deluxetable*}
1272:
1273:
1274: \subsection{Yields of Light Elements}
1275:
1276: We consider light element yields resulting from different sets of the relevant
1277: $\nu$-process cross sections.
1278: The yields of $^{7}$Li, $^{11}$B, $^{6}$Li, $^{9}$Be, $^{10}$Be, and $^{10}$B
1279: are listed in Table~\ref{lyield}.
1280: We first compare the yields of the light elements of model 1 with
1281: those of model 1p (see \S 3.2 and Table~\ref{neutemp}).
1282: %cccc
1283: In model 1 and model 2, new reaction rates obtained in \S 2 with the
1284: WBP+SFO Hamiltonians and new branching ratios are used.
1285: Model 1p uses the reaction rates of $^4$He and $^{12}$C evaluated in SC06.
1286: The branching ratios used to produce $^7$Li, $^7$Be, $^9$Be, and $^{10}$B
1287: from $^{12}$C were not evaluated in SC06.
1288: Therefore, we adopted the rates of these reactions from HW92 in model 1p
1289: (see also \S 3.2).
1290:
1291:
1292: The yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B in model 1 become slightly smaller than
1293: those in model 1p, but are not very different.
1294: $^7$Li and $^{11}$B are the main products of the $\nu$-process
1295: from $^4$He and $^{12}$C.
1296: The cross sections of $^4$He($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H and $^4$He($\nu,\nu'n)^3$He
1297: in this study are slightly smaller than those in SC06, owing to
1298: the consideration of the branches of $dd$ and $nnpp$.
1299: The cross sections of $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^{11}$B and
1300: $^{12}$C($\nu,\nu'x)^{11}$C in this study scarcely change from those of SC06.
1301:
1302:
1303: The $^{10}$B yield of model 1 is smaller than that of model 1p by a factor
1304: of 2.3. This reflects the difference of the $\nu$-process reaction rates
1305: to produce $^{10}$B from $^{12}$C.
1306: The total $\nu$-process reaction rate to produce $^{10}$B from $^{12}$C
1307: in this study is smaller than that of HW92 by a factor of 3.
1308: The $^{10}$B production through $^6$Li($\alpha, \gamma)^{10}$B in the
1309: He/C layer slightly suppresses the decrease.
1310:
1311:
1312: The $^9$Be yield in model 1 is larger than those in model 1p by a factor 4.
1313: The neutrino reaction rate responsible for production of $^9$Be in this study
1314: is larger than that used by HW92 by a factor of 6.
1315: Therefore, the enhancement of the $^9$Be yield is not as large as
1316: that of the $\nu$-process product $^9$Be.
1317: The destruction of $^9$Be during the explosion might suppress the
1318: yield enhancements.
1319:
1320:
1321: The $^6$Li yield in model 1 is larger than that in model 1p by about
1322: 1 order of magnitude.
1323: As explained in \S 4.1.3, the new branches $^4$He($\nu, \nu'd)^2$H,
1324: $^4$He($\nu_e,e^-pp)^2$H, and $^4$He($\bar{\nu}_e, e^+nn)^2$H strongly
1325: enhance deuteron production.
1326: The produced deuterons are captured to produce $^6$Li through
1327: $^2$H($\alpha, \gamma)^6$Li.
1328: This reaction sequence enhances the $^6$Li yield by a factor of 5.
1329: The newly evaluated branches to produce $^6$Li and the increasing
1330: reaction rate of $^9$Be production through the $\nu$-process from
1331: $^{12}$C also enhance the $^6$Li yield.
1332: Thus, it is important to evaluate the rates of the $\nu$-process
1333: branches from $^4$He and $^{12}$C when the $^6$Li yield is investigated.
1334:
1335:
1336: We calculated the reaction cross sections of the $\nu$-process branches
1337: to produce $^{10}$Be. These reactions should enhance the yield of $^{10}$Be.
1338: The yield of $^{10}$Be in model 1 is larger than that in model 1p by
1339: a factor of 8.5.
1340: This is due to the additional $\nu$-process reactions.
1341: We note that the yield of $^{10}$Be strongly depends on the $\bar{\nu}_e$
1342: temperature because the cross section of $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+x)^{10}$Be
1343: is large.
1344: In the case of model 2, which uses a $\bar{\nu}_e$ temperature smaller
1345: than that in model 1, the $^{10}$Be yield is smaller than in model 1
1346: by a factor of 2.
1347: This decrease is due to the decrease in the rate of
1348: $^{12}$C($\bar{\nu}_e,e^+x)^{10}$Be over that of model 1 by a factor of 5.
1349:
1350:
1351: We compare $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields of models 1 and 1hw
1352: (see Table~\ref{lyield}).
1353: The $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields of model 1 are larger by factors of 1.13
1354: and 1.14 than the corresponding yields in model 1hw.
1355: The larger yields reflect the fact that the cross sections of
1356: neutrino-$^4$He reactions for neutral- and charged-current used in this study
1357: are larger than those of the corresponding values in HW92.
1358: On the other hand, the production of $n$ and $p$ through the $\nu$-process
1359: might suppress the enhancement of the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B production.
1360: We note that the total cross section of neutral-current $\nu$-process
1361: reactions on $^{12}$C in this study is slightly smaller than that in HW92.
1362: However, the $^{11}$B yield is not smaller than the one obtained with the old
1363: cross sections. Most of $^{11}$B is produced through $^7$Li($\alpha,\gamma)^{11}$B
1364: and the $\nu$-process from $^{12}$C. The production through $^7$Li($\alpha,\gamma)^{11}$B
1365: increases the $^{11}$B yield when the new reaction rates are used.
1366:
1367:
1368: We also compare light element yields of models 1 and 1mk.
1369: model 1mk uses the same neutrino temperature set as model 1, and
1370: cross sections are evaluated using the PSDMK2 Hamiltonian for $^{12}$C and
1371: SPSDMK for $^4$He. The yield of $^7$Li in model 1mk is larger than
1372: that in model 1 by a factor of 1.6.
1373: This is because the cross sections of $^4$He with the SPSDMK Hamiltonian
1374: are larger than the corresponding ones with the WBP Hamiltonian
1375: for a given neutrino temperature.
1376: The yields of other light elements have dependencies similar to the
1377: cross sections of the $\nu$-process reactions to produce the corresponding
1378: nuclei.
1379: In the case of $^9$Be, the yield in model 1mk is larger than
1380: the corresponding yield in model 1.
1381: The $\nu$-process production cross section exhibits the same trend.
1382: On the other hand, the yields of $^6$Li and $^{10}$B in model 1mk are smaller
1383: than those in model 1.
1384: The SPSDMK cross section of $^4$He($\nu, \nu'd)^2$H is smaller than
1385: the WBP one by more than a factor of 2.
1386: The PSDMK2 cross section to produce $^{10}$B is also
1387: smaller than the one from the SFO Hamiltonian.
1388: The $^{10}$Be yield is almost same between the two models.
1389: We do not find large differences in the cross section to produce
1390: $^{10}$Be from $^{12}$C in the neutrino temperature range in this study.
1391:
1392:
1393: The case of $^{11}$B is an exception.
1394: The yield of $^{11}$B in model 1mk is larger than that in model 1
1395: by a factor of 1.21, although the $\nu$-process cross sections to produce
1396: $^{11}$B and $^{11}$C evaluated using PSDMK2 Hamiltonian are smaller than
1397: those using SFO.
1398: A large amount of $^{11}$B is produced via $^7$Li($\alpha,\gamma)^{11}$B
1399: through the reaction sequence from
1400: $^4$He($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H($\alpha,\gamma)^7$Li.
1401: The larger production of $^{11}$B reflects the larger cross sections
1402: of $^4$He($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H evaluated using the SPSDMK Hamiltonian.
1403:
1404:
1405: \begin{figure*}
1406: \epsscale{1.1}
1407: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
1408: \caption{
1409: Contours of the yields of $^{11}$B ({\it left}) and $^7$Li ({\it right})
1410: with SFO+WBP neutrino cross sections, as a function of total neutrino energy
1411: and the neutrino temperature $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$.
1412: The temperature of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ is assumed to be fixed at 4 MeV.
1413: The number attached to each line indicates the yield in units of
1414: $10^{-7} M_\odot$.
1415: The region between the two solid contour lines satisfies the SN contribution
1416: constraint from GCE modeling.
1417: The range between the two vertical dotted lines indicate the possible neutrino
1418: energy range evaluated for the gravitational energy of a neutron star.
1419: The shaded region satisfies both the $^{11}$B GCE constraint and the total
1420: neutrino energy.
1421: }
1422: \label{contSFO}
1423: \end{figure*}
1424:
1425:
1426: %%Table 11.
1427: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
1428: \tabletypesize{\small}
1429: \tablecaption{
1430: Yield ranges of light elements constrained by the SN contribution of $^{11}$B
1431: in GCE models.}
1432: \tablehead{
1433: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{WBP+SFO Model} &
1434: \multicolumn{2}{c}{SPSDMK+PSDMK2 Model} \\
1435: \cline{2-3} \cline{4-5}
1436: \colhead{Species} & \colhead{Minimum Yield} & \colhead{Maximum Yield} &
1437: \colhead{Minimum Yield} & \colhead{Maximum Yield} \\
1438: \colhead{} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)} &
1439: \colhead{($M_\odot$)} & \colhead{($M_\odot$)}
1440: }
1441: \startdata
1442: $^{11}$B & $3.30 \times 10^{-7}$ & $7.40 \times 10^{-7}$ &
1443: $3.30 \times 10^{-7}$ & $7.40 \times 10^{-7}$ \\
1444: $^6$Li & $2.21 \times 10^{-11}$ & $5.25 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1445: $1.39 \times 10^{-11}$ & $3.11 \times 10^{-11}$ \\
1446: $^7$Li & $1.17 \times 10^{-7}$ & $2.82 \times 10^{-7}$ &
1447: $1.40 \times 10^{-7}$ & $3.37 \times 10^{-7}$ \\
1448: $^9$Be & $2.94 \times 10^{-11}$ & $7.08 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1449: $3.23 \times 10^{-11}$ & $7.96 \times 10^{-11}$ \\
1450: $^{10}$Be & $2.86 \times 10^{-11}$ & $3.94 \times 10^{-11}$ &
1451: $2.81 \times 10^{-11}$ & $3.96 \times 10^{-11}$ \\
1452: $^{10}$B & $4.39 \times 10^{-10}$ & $1.20 \times 10^{-9}$ &
1453: $1.88 \times 10^{-10}$ & $5.30 \times 10^{-10}$ \\
1454: \enddata
1455: \label{GCEyield}
1456: \end{deluxetable*}
1457:
1458:
1459: \subsection{Constraints on the Neutrino Energy Spectrum}
1460:
1461: Light elements are continuously produced by Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs),
1462: nucleosynthesis in SNe, AGB stars, and so on. GCE models deduce the
1463: contributions of various production sites from the observed light-element
1464: abundances in stars as a function of their metallicity. The contribution
1465: of the $^{11}$B yield in SNe was evaluated in GCE models
1466: \citep{fo00,rl00,rs00,al02}. The yield of $^{11}$B in representative
1467: SNe of progenitor mass $\sim 20 M_\odot$ is
1468: \begin{equation}
1469: 3.3 \times 10^{-7} \, M_\odot \, \la M({\rm ^{11}B}) \, \la \,
1470: 7.4 \times 10^{-7} \, M_\odot.
1471: \end{equation}
1472: \citet{yk05} evaluated the range of the temperature of $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$
1473: and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}$ neutrinos, $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$, to be between
1474: 4.8 and 6.6 MeV. It was assumed that the energy spectra of SN neutrino
1475: follow Fermi-Dirac distributions with zero chemical potentials and
1476: ($T_{\nu_e}, T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$) = (3.2 MeV, 5 MeV). They also discussed the
1477: effects of the degeneracy of the neutrino energy spectra. However, the range
1478: of allowed neutrino temperatures also depends on the cross sections of the
1479: $\nu$-process reactions. We re-evaluate the range of neutrino temperatures
1480: from GCE model constraints with the new cross sections, and also discuss the
1481: yields of other light elements in the temperature range given by the $^{11}$B
1482: constraint.
1483:
1484:
1485: We calculated light-element nucleosynthesis in the $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ range
1486: between 4 and 9 MeV on grids with steps of
1487: 0.2 MeV and in the $E_\nu$ range between $1 \times 10^{53}$ and
1488: $6 \times 10^{53}$ ergs on grids with steps of $1 \times 10^{53}$ ergs.
1489: We fixed the temperatures of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ at 3.2 and 5 MeV,
1490: respectively, for simplicity as in \citet{yk05}.
1491: Based on the nucleosynthesis calculations, we derive contours of $^{11}$B
1492: yield in $E_\nu$ - $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ space.
1493: Figure~\ref{contSFO} shows the contours of the $^{11}$B yield for the $\nu$-process
1494: cross sections from the WBP+SFO model. The total neutrino energy deduced from the
1495: gravitational binding energy of a neutron star is in the range
1496: $2.4 \times 10^{53} {\rm ergs} \le E_\nu \le 3.5 \times 10^{53} {\rm ergs}$.
1497: From the GCE-range of the $^{11}$B yield (SN component) and the above range for
1498: the total neutrino energy, we constrain the neutrino temperature to be
1499: confined in
1500: \begin{equation}
1501: 4.3 {\rm MeV} \la T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \la 6.5 {\rm MeV}.
1502: \end{equation}
1503: This range is slightly smaller than the previously evaluated range;
1504: 4.8 MeV $\la$ $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ $\la$ 6.6 MeV \citep{yk05}.
1505: The contours of the $^7$Li yield are shown in Figure~\ref{contSFO}($b$).
1506: The yield expected from GCE considerations is indicated by the shaded region.
1507: We also evaluated the range of yields for other species, as allowed by
1508: the $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ and $E_{\nu,total}$ constraints
1509: (see Table~\ref{GCEyield}). Yields of model 1 are in the allowed range
1510: for each nuclear species considered.
1511:
1512:
1513: We note that the lower limit of $T_{\mu,\tau}$ is smaller than the assumed
1514: value of $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$.
1515: If we assume that $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}/T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ keeps a constant
1516: ratio, the lower limit of $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ should be larger.
1517: When we assume $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}/T_{\bar{\nu}_e} = 1.2$, which is equal
1518: to the ratio in model 1, the lower limit of $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ is
1519: 5.0 MeV. This corresponds to model ST (see Table~\ref{neutemp}).
1520:
1521:
1522: In order to exhibit the effects of different shell model Hamiltonians,
1523: we evaluated the range of the neutrino temperature using
1524: the $\nu$-process cross sections of the SPSDMK + PSDMK2 model.
1525: Figure~\ref{contMK}($a$) shows the corresponding contours of the
1526: $^{11}$B yield for the SPSDMK + PSDMK2 model.
1527: With this cross section set, we find a larger yield of $^{11}$B
1528: than for the WBP+SFO model, with the same neutrino radiation.
1529: The range of the neutrino temperature consistent with the $^{11}$B
1530: constraint in GCE models is now
1531: \begin{equation}
1532: 4.0 {\rm MeV} \la T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \la 6.0 {\rm MeV},
1533: \end{equation}
1534: slightly shifted to smaller values than obtained in the WBP+SFO model.
1535:
1536:
1537: \begin{figure*}
1538: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
1539: \caption{
1540: Same as Figure~\ref{contSFO}, but for the SN model with PSDMK2+SPDMK-based
1541: neutrino cross sections.
1542: }
1543: \label{contMK}
1544: \end{figure*}
1545:
1546:
1547: Yields of other elements, constrained by the allowed ranges of neutrino
1548: temperature and total neutrino energy, are given in Table~\ref{GCEyield}.
1549: The contours of the $^7$Li yield are shown in Figure~\ref{contMK}($b$).
1550: The upper and lower limits of the yields are different from those of the
1551: WBP+SFO model, but by less than 20\% for most cases.
1552: This change is much smaller than the basic yield range for each species.
1553: However, the yields of $^6$Li and $^{10}$B show relatively large differences
1554: due to the difference of the contribution from $^4$He($\nu, \nu'd)^2$H.
1555:
1556:
1557: \subsection{Effect of Neutrino Chemical Potential}
1558:
1559: Most of the calculations on the $\nu$-process in supernovae are performed
1560: with the neutrino energy spectra, assuming of Fermi-Dirac distributions
1561: and zero-chemical potentials.
1562: On the other hand, studies of detailed neutrino transport in core-collapse
1563: supernovae have shown that the neutrino energy spectra are closer to
1564: a slightly ^^ ^^ degenerate'' distribution than those with
1565: zero-chemical potential.
1566: In order to investigate the detailed dependence on neutrino degeneracy,
1567: the $\nu$-process cross sections as a function of the neutrino energy
1568: are required.
1569: Here we investigate the effects of the neutrino degeneracy
1570: on the light-element yields.
1571: We note that we take into account the neutrino degeneracy
1572: only for the $\nu$-process of $^4$He and $^{12}$C.
1573: We do not take account of the neutrino degeneracy for other $\nu$-process
1574: reactions adopted from HW92 because their reaction rates are shown with
1575: definite neutrino temperatures derived with the assumption of Fermi-Dirac
1576: distributions with zero-chemical potential.
1577:
1578:
1579: The yield ratios of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B relating to the neutrino degeneracy
1580: parameter $\eta_\nu = \mu_\nu/kT_\nu$ are shown in Figure~\ref{muYield}.
1581: Here we assumed that the degeneracy parameter $\eta_\nu$ does not depend
1582: on neutrino flavors.
1583: The yield ratios increase with the neutrino degeneracy.
1584: In the case of $\eta_\nu = 3$, the yield ratios of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B
1585: are 1.4 and 1.5, respectively.
1586: \citet{yk05} discussed the effect of the neutrino degeneracy on the
1587: light-element yields using an analytical approximation for the $\nu$-process
1588: cross sections of $^4$He and $^{12}$C.
1589: We find that the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields in the case of $\eta_\nu = 3$
1590: would be increased by about 50\% compared to the yields for $\eta_\nu = 0$.
1591: Therefore, our analytical evaluation approximates the numerical evaluation
1592: well. We obtained a similar dependence of the yield ratios on the neutrino
1593: degeneracy for the other light elements; the yield ratios are between
1594: 1.4 and 1.5 in the case of $\eta_\nu = 3$.
1595: The constraint of the neutrino temperature is smaller by about
1596: 0.1 MeV in the case of $\eta_\nu = 3$ \citep{yk05}.
1597:
1598:
1599: \begin{figure}[b]
1600: \epsscale{1.2}
1601: \plotone{f7.eps}
1602: \caption{
1603: Relation between the yield ratios of $^7$Li ({\it solid lines}) and $^{11}$B
1604: ({\it dotted lines}) to those in case of model 1 and the neutrino degeneracy
1605: parameter $\eta_\nu$.
1606: The neutrino temperatures and the total neutrino energy are fixed to the
1607: values of ($T_{\nu_e}$, $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$, $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$,
1608: $E_{\nu,total}$) = (3.2 MeV, 5 MeV, 6 MeV, $3 \times 10^{53}$ ergs).
1609: }
1610: \label{muYield}
1611: \end{figure}
1612:
1613:
1614: \begin{figure*}
1615: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
1616: \caption{
1617: Yield ratios of ($a$) $^7$Li and ($b$) $^{11}$B.
1618: Solid and dotted lines correspond to normal and inverted mass hierarchies,
1619: respectively, in model 1.
1620: Dashed and dot-dashed lines correspond to normal and inverted mass hierarchies
1621: in model 1hw.
1622: }
1623: \label{Yratio_SFO}
1624: \end{figure*}
1625:
1626:
1627: \section{Changed $^7$Li and $^{11}$B Yields due to Neutrino Oscillations}
1628:
1629: Neutrino oscillations change the flavors of the neutrinos emitted from
1630: the neutrino sphere during their passage through the stellar interior.
1631: The average neutrino energies of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ increase
1632: due to the neutrino oscillations, and their enhancement depends on
1633: neutrino oscillation parameters, i.e., mass hierarchy and the mixing
1634: angle $\theta_{13}$.
1635: In this study, we evaluate the flavor transition probabilities by the
1636: neutrino oscillations using the same procedure as in \citet{yk06a,yk06b}.
1637: We evaluate the rates of the charged-current $\nu$-process reactions of
1638: $^4$He and $^{12}$C using the flavor-transition probabilities and the
1639: cross sections derived in \S 2.
1640: Then we calculate detailed nucleosynthesis with the $\nu$-process reactions.
1641:
1642:
1643: \subsection{Differences Due to New Neutrino-Nucleus Cross Sections}
1644:
1645: The dependence of the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields on neutrino oscillation
1646: parameters is influenced by the cross sections of neutrino-nucleus
1647: reactions \citep{yk06a,yk06b}. We study the effects on the $^7$Li and
1648: $^{11}$B yields due to neutrino oscillations by comparing models 1 and 1hw.
1649: model 1hw is the standard model in \citet{yk06a,yk06b}.
1650:
1651: Figure~\ref{Yratio_SFO}$a$ shows the relation between the $^7$Li yield
1652: ratio, i.e., the ratio of the $^7$Li yield to the one without neutrino
1653: oscillations, and the mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
1654: We observe that the dependence on the oscillation parameters, i.e., mass
1655: hierarchies and mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ does not change qualitatively.
1656: The increase in the $^7$Li yield is larger in a normal mass hierarchy
1657: than in an inverted hierarchy, and the yield increases for the case of
1658: $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$, i.e., the H resonance is adiabatic.
1659: On the other hand, the maximum value of the yield ratio is somewhat reduced.
1660: The maximum yield ratio is 1.65, which is smaller than the value of 1.87
1661: found in the previous study.
1662: The maximum $^7$Li yield is $4.41 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ in
1663: a normal mass hierarchy and for $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 1 \times 10^{-2}$.
1664: The difference of the neutral-current cross section of $^4$He becomes larger
1665: for a smaller neutrino temperature. In this case, the contribution from the
1666: neutral-current reactions of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ is larger in the new
1667: rates than it is for the HW92 rates. The contribution from charged-current
1668: reactions in the new rates becomes smaller.
1669:
1670:
1671: In the case of an inverted mass hierarchy, the maximum increase in the
1672: $^7$Li yield is a factor of 1.24, which is slightly smaller than the value
1673: found in the previous study.
1674: The new reaction rates slightly decrease the effect of neutrino oscillations.
1675: The maximum yield of $^7$Li is $3.31 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ for
1676: $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$.
1677:
1678:
1679: Figure~\ref{Yratio_SFO}$b$ shows the dependence of the $^{11}$B yield ratio
1680: on the mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ using the new and old cross sections.
1681: The $^{11}$B yield increases most effectively in a normal mass hierarchy
1682: and for the case of the adiabatic H resonance.
1683: The $^{11}$B yield reaches $8.83 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ in the case of
1684: a normal mass hierarchy and $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$.
1685: The maximum yield ratio is 1.24.
1686: The maximum increase in the $^{11}$B yield is smaller with the new cross
1687: sections.
1688: %The influence of the new $\nu$-process cross sections on the $^{11}$B- and
1689: %$^7$Li yield is similar.
1690: In the case of an inverted mass hierarchy, the increase in the $^{11}$B
1691: yield is smaller than the corresponding value in a normal mass hierarchy.
1692: The maximum yield is $8.48 \times 10^{-7} M_{\odot}$ for
1693: $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 0.1$.
1694: The maximum yield ratio is 1.19.
1695:
1696:
1697: \begin{figure*}
1698: \plottwo{f9a.eps}{f9b.eps}
1699: \caption{
1700: Dependence of the yields of ($a$) $^7$Li and ($b$) $^{11}$B
1701: in units of $M_\odot$ on mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
1702: with different assumptions for
1703: the neutrino temperature $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$.
1704: Black, blue, and red lines indicate models, 1, ST, and LT, respectively.
1705: Solid and dotted lines correspond to the normal and inverted mass
1706: hierarchies, respectively.
1707: }
1708: \label{Yields_Tx}
1709: \end{figure*}
1710:
1711:
1712: \subsection{Dependence on $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$}
1713:
1714: We investigated the dependence of the $^{11}$B yield on the temperature
1715: of $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}$ neutrinos, and evaluated the
1716: temperature range satisfying the $^{11}$B abundance constraints in GCE models
1717: \citep{yk05}. This range also depends on the cross sections of the $\nu$-process.
1718: Therefore, we consider models LT and ST, which present $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$
1719: and $E_\nu$ values different from model 1 (see \S 3.2).
1720: The values of the neutrino
1721: temperatures and the total neutrino energy are given in Table~\ref{neutemp}.
1722:
1723:
1724: When neutrino oscillations are not considered, the $^7$Li yield varies between
1725: $1.39 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ and $2.88 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ due to
1726: the allowed range of the neutrino temperature $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$.
1727: The variation of the $^{11}$B yield is between $3.56 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$
1728: and $7.46 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$.
1729: Both yields thus change by about a factor of 2 over this temperature range.
1730: Therefore, we must consider variations due to neutrino oscillations as well as
1731: neutrino temperature.
1732:
1733:
1734: The dependence of the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields on mass hierarchies and
1735: the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ in these three models is shown in
1736: Figure~\ref{Yields_Tx}.
1737: We observe that the $^7$Li yield varies between $1.39 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$
1738: and $4.93 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$, widening with increasing temperature.
1739: However, it is
1740: difficult to distinguish the effect of neutrino oscillations and temperature.
1741: If the $^7$Li yield is smaller than $3.2 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$, the increase
1742: in the yield due to the neutrino oscillations cannot be distinguished from the
1743: $^7$Li yield range deduced from the uncertainty of the neutrino temperature.
1744: Even for larger $^7$Li yield, the constraints on the mass hierarchy
1745: and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ become ambiguous due to the uncertainty
1746: in the neutrino temperature.
1747:
1748:
1749: Figure~\ref{Yields_Tx}$b$ shows that the variation of the $^{11}$B yield
1750: is between $3.56 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ and $9.40 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$.
1751: However, as pointed out above, it is difficult to constrain oscillation
1752: parameters.
1753: If the $^{11}$B yield is smaller than $7.6 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$,
1754: the uncertainty due to the neutrino temperature and the increase
1755: in the yield due to neutrino oscillations are not distinguishable.
1756: Even for larger yields, there are no clear differences between the yields
1757: in a normal mass hierarchy and in an inverted mass hierarchy.
1758:
1759:
1760: %We note that both of the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields change with the
1761: %neutrino temperature by a factor of 2.
1762: %On the other hand, the dependence on mass hierarchy is different in the
1763: %yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B.
1764: %Thus, when the abundance ratio of $^7$Li/$^{11}$B is taken,
1765: %the uncertainty by the neutrino temperature will be canceled out.
1766: %The dependence on mass hierarchies and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$
1767: %should be revealed in the abundance ratio.
1768:
1769:
1770: \subsection{Constraints on Oscillation Parameters from the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B Ratio}
1771:
1772: In \citet{yk06a,yk06b} we proposed a constraint of neutrino oscillation
1773: parameters derived from the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B abundance ratio.
1774: We have shown above that both the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields change with
1775: the neutrino temperature by about a factor two.
1776: When the abundance ratio of $^7$Li/$^{11}$B is considered, the uncertainty
1777: due to the neutrino temperature cancels out.
1778: Then, the dependence on mass hierarchy and mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ is
1779: most clearly revealed.
1780: We found that the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is larger than 0.83 in a normal
1781: mass hierarchy and $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$.
1782: When we do not consider neutrino oscillations, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B
1783: ratio is 0.71, at most.
1784: However, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio does depend on the relevant
1785: $\nu$-process cross sections.
1786: We evaluate the range of the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio with the
1787: new cross sections discussed in \S 2.
1788:
1789:
1790: We evaluate the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B range using models 1, 2, LT, and ST.
1791: Figure~\ref{LiBratio} shows the abundance ratio of $^7$Li/$^{11}$B
1792: with the relation to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ evaluated using the WBP+SFO model.
1793: When we do not consider neutrino oscillations, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B
1794: ratio lies between 0.59 and 0.61. The $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio changes by
1795: about 12\% among these four neutrino temperature models.
1796: As shown in \citet{yk06a,yk06b}, the uncertainties of the $^7$Li and
1797: $^{11}$B yields by neutrino temperatures are canceled out when we adopt
1798: the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio.
1799:
1800:
1801: \begin{figure}[b]
1802: \plotone{f10.eps}
1803: \caption{
1804: $^7$Li/$^{11}$B abundance ratio as a function of the mixing angle
1805: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$. Dark and medium shaded regions correspond to
1806: normal and inverted mass hierarchies, respectively. The lightly shaded
1807: region indicates the ratio obtained without neutrino oscillations.
1808: Each range is drawn using the results of models 1, 2, LT, and ST.
1809: }
1810: \label{LiBratio}
1811: \end{figure}
1812:
1813:
1814: \begin{figure*}
1815: \epsscale{1.0}
1816: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
1817: \epsscale{.50}
1818: \plotone{f11c.eps}
1819: \caption{
1820: Elemental abundance ratios of ($a$) Li/B, ($b$) Be/Li, and ($c$) Be/B
1821: as a function of the mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
1822: Dark and medium shaded regions correspond to normal and inverted mass
1823: hierarchies, respectively. The lightly shaded region indicates the ratio
1824: obtained without neutrino oscillations.
1825: Each range is drawn using the results of models 1, 2, LT, and ST.
1826: }
1827: \label{Elemratio}
1828: \end{figure*}
1829:
1830:
1831: In a normal mass hierarchy, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio depends on
1832: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$. For the non-adiabatic H resonance, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B
1833: ratio lies between 0.64 and 0.66; the range is slightly larger than the case
1834: without neutrino oscillations. This slight increase is due to the fact that
1835: the $^7$Li yield is larger even in non-adiabatic H resonance.
1836: For an adiabatic H resonance, where $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ge 0.002$,
1837: the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is in the range of $0.78-0.83$.
1838: The increase is slightly smaller than the one found in \citet{yk06a}.
1839: The value of 0.78 corresponds to model 1.
1840: As discussed in \citet{yk06b}, the variation of the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio
1841: for a given value of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is mainly due to the uncertainties
1842: of $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$.
1843: If the uncertainty of $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ becomes small,
1844: the range of $^7$Li/$^{11}$B in adiabatic resonance becomes small.
1845:
1846:
1847: In an inverted mass hierarchy, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is not
1848: distinguishable from the one with normal mass hierarchy or without
1849: neutrino oscillations.
1850: If the H resonance is non-adiabatic, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is
1851: identical in normal and inverted mass hierarchies.
1852: The $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio for an adiabatic H resonance is smaller
1853: than the one for a non-adiabatic resonance.
1854: %It overlaps with the ratio without neutrino oscillations.
1855:
1856:
1857: For completeness, we also show the elemental abundance ratios of light
1858: elements in Figure~\ref{Elemratio}.
1859: The Li/B ratio is almost identical to the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio.
1860: This is because most of Li and B are produced as $^7$Li and $^{11}$B,
1861: respectively. The Be/Li and Be/B ratios are much smaller than the Li/B
1862: ratio because the Be yield is much smaller than those of Li and B.
1863: The Be/Li ratio shows a dependence on mass hierarchies in the case of
1864: $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$.
1865: The Be/Li ratio is smaller than $1.8 \times 10^{-4}$ in a normal mass
1866: hierarchy. On the other hand, it is larger than $2.1 \times 10^{-4}$ in
1867: an inverted mass hierarchy. While the $^7$Li abundance increases, the
1868: $^9$Be abundance becomes slightly smaller due to the destructive reaction
1869: $^9$Be($p,\alpha)^6$Li. The contribution of $^{12}$C($\nu_e,e^-x)^9$Be does
1870: not affect the $^9$Be yield because the cross section is very small, even with
1871: the enhancement of the average $\nu_e$ energy (see Figures~\ref{crosssc12sfo}
1872: and~\ref{crosssc12mk}).
1873:
1874:
1875: The Be/B ratio has a small dependence on mass hierarchies and mixing
1876: angle $\theta_{13}$. The variation of the ratio due to these parameters
1877: is roughly equal to the uncertainty resulting from the neutrino temperatures.
1878: From the viewpoint of elemental abundance ratios, the Li/B and Be/Li ratios
1879: depend on mass hierarchies and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$.
1880:
1881:
1882: We have shown above that the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio in a normal
1883: mass hierarchy and adiabatic H resonance
1884: ($\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$) is larger than the one obtained in
1885: the other cases.
1886: This increase is attributed to the effect of neutrino oscillations, and
1887: remains after taking into account uncertainties in neutrino energy spectra.
1888: Therefore, we confirm with the new $\nu$-process cross sections that the
1889: $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is a promising probe of oscillation parameters.
1890: If we find that the yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B produced in supernovae
1891: require a $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio larger than 0.78, the mass hierarchy should
1892: be normal, and $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ should be larger than $2 \times 10^{-3}$.
1893: We expect that $^7$Li and $^{11}$B will eventually be detected in stellar
1894: material, indicating traces of SN material. Supernova remnants are also
1895: promising candidates for this type of abundance constraint on neutrino physics.
1896: There have been attempts to find stars with excesses in $^{11}$B,
1897: which would provide evidence for direct pollution with supernova ejecta
1898: \citep[e.g.,][]{rd98,pd98,pd99}.
1899: The $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio of pre-solar grains from SNe might also provide
1900: useful information \citep[for presolar grains; e.g.,][]{la05}.
1901: On the other hand, there are still theoretical uncertainties regarding
1902: neutrino energy spectra and stellar evolution.
1903: The reduction of these uncertainties will bring about a stronger constraint
1904: on neutrino oscillation parameters.
1905:
1906:
1907: The observation of supernova neutrino signals just after a supernova
1908: explosion is one of the most promising methods to constrain unknown
1909: neutrino oscillation parameters.
1910: It is expected that SuperKamiokande will detect more than 1000 neutrinos
1911: if a supernova explodes at the Galactic center \citep[e.g.][]{fl05}.
1912: If detailed energy spectra of the neutrinos emitted from the supernova
1913: are theoretically predicted, the analysis of the observed neutrino spectra
1914: will constrain the oscillation parameters \citep[e.g.]{ds00,tw01}.
1915: The time evolution of the neutrino signal may reveal the change of the
1916: neutrino spectra due to the supernova shock propagation
1917: \citep{ts03,tk04,fl05,km08}.
1918: SuperKamiokande detects electron-type antineutrinos, so that the
1919: enhancement of the supernova $\bar{\nu}_e$ signal detected by SuperKamiokande
1920: will be evidence for an inverted mass hierarchy and relatively large
1921: value of $\theta_{13}$ ($\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 10^{-3}$).
1922: The enhancement of the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio will be evidence for
1923: a normal mass hierarchy and relatively large value of $\theta_{13}$.
1924: Therefore, these two constraints complement each other.
1925:
1926:
1927:
1928: \section{Discussion}
1929:
1930: \subsection{Temperatures of the $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ neutrinos}
1931:
1932: The temperatures of the $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ neutrinos are less
1933: sensitive to the yield constraints than those of the
1934: $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}$, $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ neutrinos.
1935: The temperatures $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ are smaller than
1936: $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$ if neutrino oscillations are not taken into
1937: account.
1938: On the other hand, the enhancement of the light element yields by
1939: neutrino oscillations do depend on $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$.
1940: The production through charged-current reactions is more enhanced
1941: when the temperature difference of $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ or
1942: $\bar{\nu}_e$ and $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ is larger.
1943: \citet{yk06b} showed that the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio exhibits significant
1944: variation from different values of $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ even
1945: for a fixed value of $T_\nu$.
1946:
1947:
1948: Yields of species mainly produced through charged-current
1949: $\nu$-process reactions can be used to constrain the temperatures
1950: $T_{\nu_e}$ and $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$. Isotopes of special importance
1951: are $^{138}$La and $^{180}$Ta \citep{ga01,rh02,hk05}.
1952: The main production process of $^{138}$La and $^{180}$Ta is
1953: $^{138}$Ba($\nu_e,e^-)^{138}$La and $^{180}$Hf($\nu_e,e^-)^{180}$Ta,
1954: respectively.
1955: For $^{180}$Ta, about half of the yield is produced through
1956: $^{181}$Ta($\gamma,n)^{180}$Ta and $^{181}$Ta($\nu,\nu'n)^{180}$Ta.
1957: The GT strength distributions in $^{138}$La and
1958: $^{180}$Ta were recently obtained experimentally \citep{ba07}.
1959: If the temperature of $\nu_e$ could be constrained from the yields of
1960: $^{138}$La and $^{180}$Ta and their observed abundances, the effect
1961: of neutrino oscillations on $\nu$-process nucleosynthesis could be
1962: evaluated more precisely.
1963:
1964:
1965: \subsection{Uncertainties in the Rates of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B Production
1966: Reactions}
1967:
1968: In the He/C layer, almost all $^7$Li are produced through
1969: $^3$H($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Li and $^3$He($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Be
1970: after the production of $^3$H and $^3$He through the $\nu$-process.
1971: About 60\% of $^{11}$B is also produced through
1972: $^7$Li ($\alpha, \gamma$) $^{11}$B in the inner region of the He/C layer.
1973: Therefore, the uncertainty of the rates of these reactions affects the yields
1974: of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B.
1975: We discuss this uncertainty briefly.
1976:
1977: We adopted the rates of the three reactions from NACRE compilation
1978: \citep{aa98}.
1979: The rates of $^3$H($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Li and
1980: $^3$He($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Be are in very good agreement with those
1981: in \citet{cf88}.
1982: For $^7$Li($\alpha, \gamma)^{11}$B, the NACRE compilation
1983: showed slightly larger rate ($\sim 20\%$ in the temperature range between
1984: $2 \times 10^8$ and $4 \times 10^9$ K) than in \citet{cf88}.
1985: The NACRE compilation also showed uncertainties of their reaction rates;
1986: these are 11\%, 17\%, and 16\% for $^3$H($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Li,
1987: $^3$He($\alpha, \gamma)^7$Be, and $^7$Li($\alpha, \gamma)^{11}$B,
1988: respectively.
1989: Therefore, the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields would have the uncertainty of
1990: about 17\% due to the uncertainty of the reaction rates.
1991: The uncertainty of the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio would be smaller, because more
1992: than half of the $^{11}$B is produced through the common production sequence
1993: of $^7$Li in the He/C layer.
1994:
1995:
1996: \subsection{Neutrino-Neutrino Interactions}
1997:
1998: It has been pointed out that neutrino-neutrino interactions in regions
1999: just above a proto-neutron star change neutrino flavors and thus affect
2000: the neutrino energy spectra.
2001: These interactions contribute diagonal and off-diagonal potential to the
2002: flavor-basis Hamiltonians.
2003: This potential plays a complicated role in flavor exchange due to
2004: the momentum transfer by the interactions.
2005: Analytical evaluation have been carried out in some special cases
2006: \citep[e.g.,][]{qf95,pr02,fq06}.
2007: The change of the neutrino energy spectra for two neutrino flavors
2008: by neutrino-neutrino interactions has been investigated in neutrino driven
2009: winds \citep[e.g.,][]{df06a,df06b} and in the density profile of an exploding
2010: supernova \citep[e.g.,][]{fl07}.
2011: The neutrino-neutrino interactions in three neutrino flavors have very
2012: recently been investigated \citep{df08a,df08b,ep08}.
2013: It has been proposed that these interactions affect the efficiency of
2014: r-process nucleosynthesis \citep{by05}.
2015: %However, detailed dependence of the change of neutrino energy spectra
2016: %on neutrino-neutrino interactions has not been clarified.
2017: Neutrino-neutrino interactions may also change the locations of resonance
2018: to deeper regions, which could affect the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields
2019: in supernovae.
2020:
2021:
2022: \section{Conclusions}
2023:
2024: We evaluated the neutrino-nucleus reaction cross sections for
2025: $^4$He and $^{12}$C using new shell-model Hamiltonians.
2026: These cross sections are important for the yields of the light
2027: elements Li, Be, and B produced through the $\nu$-process in SNe.
2028: We investigated the nucleosynthesis of the light elements in a SN
2029: model corresponding to SN 1987A using these new cross sections.
2030: We investigated the dependence of the light element yields on
2031: cross sections, neutrino energy spectra, and neutrino oscillations.
2032: We obtained the following results.
2033:
2034:
2035: 1. The neutrino-nucleus reaction cross sections are evaluated using
2036: WBP and SPSDMK Hamiltonians for $^4$He and SFO and PSDMK2 Hamiltonians
2037: for $^{12}$C. Main production channels of the $^{12}$C reaction are
2038: the nuclei $n$, $p$, $^4$He, $^{11}$B, and $^{11}$C. Production of
2039: $^6$Li, $^9$Be, $^{10}$Be, and $^{10}$B is also important.
2040:
2041: 2. For a given neutrino temperature set, the yields of $^7$Li and $^{11}$B
2042: with the cross sections of WBP+SFO model are larger than those of the
2043: cross sections in \citet{wh90}.
2044: This is mainly due to larger cross sections of $^4$He($\nu,\nu'p)^3$H
2045: and $^4$He($\nu,\nu'n)^3$He.
2046:
2047: 3. Larger yields of $^6$Li and $^9$Be result from the new cross sections, with
2048: the exception of the yield of $^{10}$B, which is reduced.
2049: These changes reflect the difference of the cross sections of
2050: the $\nu$-process for $^{12}$C and deuteron production branches of $^4$He.
2051: Radioactive $^{10}$Be is produced with abundance levels similar to $^6$Li.
2052: The channel for producing $^6$Li and $^{10}$Be have been evaluated in the
2053: $\nu$-process of $^{12}$C.
2054:
2055: 4. The larger cross sections slightly decrease the range of acceptable neutrino
2056: temperature, as constrained by the $^{11}$B abundance evolution during GCE.
2057: The range of the neutrino temperature is
2058: $4.3 {\rm MeV} \la T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \la 6.5 {\rm MeV}$ for WBP+SFO model and
2059: $4.0 {\rm MeV} \la T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \la 6.0 {\rm MeV}$
2060: for the SPSDMK+PSDMK2 model.
2061:
2062: 5. The dependence of the $^7$Li and $^{11}$B yields on neutrino oscillation
2063: parameters, such as mass hierarchy and the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$,
2064: is not changed by the new cross sections. Yield enhancements are smaller.
2065:
2066: 6. The $^7$Li/$^{11}$B abundance ratio depends on mass hierarchy and the
2067: mixing angle $\theta_{13}$, even when considering uncertainties of neutrino
2068: temperatures and the total neutrino energy.
2069: For a normal mass hierarchy and $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$,
2070: i.e., adiabatic H resonance, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is larger than 0.78.
2071: In the case of an inverted mass hierarchy or the case without neutrino
2072: oscillations, the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio is smaller than 0.61.
2073: Smaller uncertainty of neutrino temperatures extends the difference in
2074: the $^7$Li/$^{11}$B ratio.
2075:
2076: 7. The Be/Li abundance ratio is very small.
2077: A decrease in the Be/Li ratio is seen for a normal mass hierarchy and
2078: $\sin^22\theta_{13} \ga 2 \times 10^{-3}$.
2079:
2080:
2081: \acknowledgments
2082:
2083: We would like to thank Koichi Iwamoto, Ken'ichi Nomoto, and Toshikazu
2084: Shigeyama for providing the data for the internal structure of progenitor
2085: model 14E1 and for helpful discussions.
2086: Numerical computations were in part carried out on general common use computer
2087: system at Center for Computational Astrophysics, CfCA, of National
2088: Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
2089: This work has been supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
2090: Sports, Science and Technology, Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientist (B)
2091: (17740130) and Scientific Research (C) (17540275, 18540290, 18560805),
2092: Mitsubishi Foundation, and the JSPS Core-to-Core Program, International
2093: Research Network for Exotic Femto Systems (EFES).
2094:
2095:
2096: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
2097: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
2098: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
2099: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
2100: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
2101: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
2102: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
2103: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
2104:
2105: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
2106: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
2107: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
2108: %% copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,
2109: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
2110:
2111: %Facilities: \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST(STIS)}, \facility{CXO(ASIS)}.
2112:
2113:
2114:
2115: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
2116: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
2117: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
2118: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
2119: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
2120: %%
2121: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
2122: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
2123: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
2124: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
2125: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
2126: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
2127: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
2128: %% place of the \cite commands.
2129:
2130: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
2131: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
2132: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
2133:
2134: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
2135: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
2136: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
2137: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
2138: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
2139:
2140: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2141: %\bibitem[Aguilar et al.(2001)]{LSND01}
2142: %Aguilar, A., et al. (LSND Collaboration) 2001, \prd, 64, 112007
2143: \bibitem[Ahmed et al.(2004)]{SNO04}
2144: Ahmed, S. N., et al. 2004, \prl, 92, 181301
2145: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(1975)]{ahr75}
2146: Ahrens, J, et al. 1975, Nucl. Phys. A251, 479
2147: \bibitem[Alib\'es et al.(2002)]{al02}
2148: Alib\'es, A., Labay, J., \& Canal, R. 2002, \apj, 571, 326
2149: \bibitem[Angulo et al.(1998)]{aa98}
2150: Angulo, C et al. 1998, Nucl. Phys., A656, 3
2151: \bibitem[Apollonio et al.(2003)]{ap03}
2152: Apollonio, M., et al. 2003, Eur. Phys. J., C27, 331
2153: \bibitem[Araki et al.(2005)]{KL05}
2154: Araki, T., et al. 2005, \prl, 94, 081801
2155: \bibitem[Ashie et al.(2004)]{SK04}
2156: Ashie, Y., et al. 2004, \prl, 93, 101801
2157: %\bibitem[Balantekin \& Pehlivan(2006)]{bp06}
2158: %Balantekin, A. B., \& Pehlivan, Y. 2006, J. Phys. G, 34, 47
2159: \bibitem[Balantekin \& Y\"uksel(2005)]{by05}
2160: Balantekin, A. B., \& Y\"uksel, H. 2005, New J. Phys., 7, 51
2161: %\bibitem[Bionta et al.(1987)]{IMB87}
2162: %Bionta, R., et al. 1987, \prl, 58, 1494
2163: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1986)]{oxb86}
2164: Brown, B., Etchegoyen, A., \& Rae, W. D. M. 1986, OXBASH, the Oxford,
2165: Buenos-Aires, Michigan State Shell Model Program
2166: (MSU Cyclotron Laboratory Report, No. 524; East Lansing: MSU)
2167: %\bibitem[Buras et al.(2003)]{br03}
2168: %Buras, R., Rampp, M., Janka, H.-Th., \& Kifonidis, K. 2003, \prl, 90, 1101
2169: \bibitem[Byelikov et al.(2007)]{ba07}
2170: Byelikov, A., et al. 2007, \prl, 98, 082501
2171: \bibitem[Caughlan \& Fowler(1988)]{cf88}
2172: Caughlan, G. A. \& Fowler, W. A. 1988, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 40, 283
2173: %\bibitem[Colella \& Glaz(1985)]{cg85}
2174: %Colella, P. \& Glaz, H. M. 1985, J. Comput. Phys., 59, 264
2175: \bibitem[Colella \& Woodward(1984)]{cw84}
2176: Colella, P. \& Woodward, P. R. 1984, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174
2177: \bibitem[Dighe \& Smirnov(2000)]{ds00}
2178: Dighe, A. S. \& Smirnov, A. Y. 2000, \prd, 62, 033007
2179: \bibitem[Domogatsky et al.(1978)]{de78}
2180: Domogatsky, G. V., Eramzhyan, R. A. \& Nadyozhin, D. K. 1978,
2181: in Proc. Int. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Neutrino Astrophysics,
2182: ed. M. A. Markov, G. V. Domogatsky, A. A. Komar, \& A. N. Tavkhelidze
2183: (Moscow: Nauka), 115
2184: \bibitem[Drake et al.(1968)]{drake68}
2185: Drake, T. E., Tomusiak, E. L., \& Caplan, H. S. 1968, Nucl. Phys. A118, 138
2186: \bibitem[Duan et al.(2006a)]{df06a}
2187: Duan, H., Fuller, G. M., Carlson, J., \& Qian, Y.-Z. 2006a, \prl, 97, 241101
2188: \bibitem[Duan et al.(2006b)]{df06b}
2189: Duan, H., Fuller, G. M., Carlson, J., \& Qian, Y.-Z. 2006b, \prd, 74, 105014
2190: \bibitem[Duan et al.(2008a)]{df08a}
2191: Duan, H., Fuller, G. M., Carlson, J., \& Qian, Y.-Z. 2008, \prl, 100, 021101
2192: \bibitem[Duan et al.(2008b)]{df08b}
2193: Duan, H., Fuller, G. M., Carlson, J., \& Qian, Y.-Z. 2008, \prd, 77, 085016
2194: \bibitem[Esteban-Pretel et al.(2008)]{ep08}
2195: Esteban-Pretel, A., Pastor, S., Tom\'as, R., \& Raffelt, G. G. 2008,
2196: \prd, 77, 065024
2197: %\bibitem[Elgar{\o}y \& Lahav(2005)]{el05}
2198: %Elgar{\o}y, {\O} \& Lahav, O. 2005, New J. Phys., 7, 61
2199: %\bibitem[Fetter et al.(2003)]{fm03}
2200: %Fetter, J., McLaughlin, G. C., Balantekin, A. B., \& Fuller, G. M.
2201: %2003, Astroparticle Phys., 18, 433
2202: \bibitem[Fields et al.(2000)]{fo00}
2203: Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Vangioni-Flam, E., \& Cass\'e, M. 2000,
2204: \apj, 540, 930
2205: \bibitem[Fogli et al.(2005)]{fl05}
2206: Fogli, G. L., Lisi, E., Mirizzi, A., \& Montatino, D. 2005, J. Cosmology and
2207: Astropart. Phys., 04, 002
2208: \bibitem[Fogli et al.(2007)]{fl07}
2209: Fogli, G. L., Lisi, E., Marrone, A., \& Mirizzi, A. 2007, J. Cosmology and
2210: Astropart. Phys., 12, 010
2211: \bibitem[Fuller \& Qian(2006)]{fq06}
2212: Fuller, G. M. \& Qian, Y.-Z. 2006, \prd, 73, 023004
2213: \bibitem[Goriely et al.(2001)]{ga01}
2214: Goriely, S., Arnould, M., Borzov, I., \& Rayet, M. 2001, \aap, 375, L35
2215: \bibitem[Gaarde et al.(1984)]{gard84}
2216: Gaarde, C. et al. 1984, Nucl. Phys. A422, 189
2217: \bibitem[Gazit \& Barnea(2004)]{gazit04}
2218: Gazit, D. \& Bernea, N 2004, \prc, 70, 048801
2219: %\bibitem[Hashimoto(1995)]{ha95}
2220: %Hashimoto, M. 1995, Prog. Theor. Phys., 94, 663
2221: \bibitem[Heger et al.(2005)]{hk05}
2222: Heger, A., Kolbe, E., Haxton, W. C., Langanke, K., Mart\'inez-Pinedo, G.,
2223: \& Woosley, S. E. 2005, Phys. Lett. B, 606, 258
2224: %\bibitem[Hirata et al.(1987)]{hk87}
2225: %Hirata, K., Kajita, T., Koshiba, M., Nakahata, M., \& Oyama, Y. 1987,
2226: %\prl, 58, 1490
2227: %\bibitem[Honda et al.(2004)]{ha04}
2228: %Honda, S., Aoki, W., Kajino, T., Ando, H., Beers, T. C., Izumiura, H.,
2229: %Sadakane, K., \& Takada-Hidai, M. 2004, \apj, 607, 474
2230: \bibitem[Keil et al.(2003)]{kr03}
2231: Keil, M. Th., Raffelt, G. G., \& Janka, H.-Th. 2003, \apj, 590, 971
2232: %\bibitem[Kimura, Takamura, \& Yokomakura(2002a)]{kt02a}
2233: %Kimura, K., Takamura, A., \& Yokomakura, H. 2002a, Phys. Lett. B, 537, 86
2234: %\bibitem[Kimura, Takamura, \& Yokomakura(2002b)]{kt02b}
2235: %Kimura, K., Takamura, A., \& Yokomakura, H. 2002b, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 073005
2236: \bibitem[Kneller et al.(2008)]{km08}
2237: Kneller, J. P., McLaughlin, G. C., \& Brockman, J. 2008, \prd, 77, 045023
2238: %\bibitem[Kuo \& Pantaleone(1987)]{kp87}
2239: %Kuo, T. K. \& Pantaleone, J. 1987, Phys. Lett. B, 198, 406
2240: \bibitem[Lattimer \& Prakash(2001)]{lp01}
2241: Lattimer, J. M. \& Prakash, M. 2001, \apj, 550, 426
2242: \bibitem[Lattimer \& Yahil(1989)]{ly89}
2243: Lattimer, J. M. \& Yahil, A. 1989, \apj, 340, 426
2244: \bibitem[Lodders \& Amari(2005)]{la05}
2245: Lodders, K. \& Amari, S. 2005, Chem. Erde-Geochem., 65, 93
2246: \bibitem[McLean et al.(1991)]{mcl91}
2247: McLean, D. J., Thompsom, M. N., Zumanov, D., McNeill, K. G., Jury, J. W.,
2248: \& Berman, B. L. 1991, \prc, 44, 1137
2249: \bibitem[Millener \& Kurath(1975)]{mk75}
2250: Millener D. J. \& Kurath D. 1975, Nucl. Phys. A255, 315
2251: %\bibitem[McKeown \& Vogel(2004)]{mv04}
2252: %McKeown, R. D. \& Vogel, P. 2004, \physrep, 394, 315
2253: %\bibitem[Nomoto \& Hashimoto(1988)]{nh88}
2254: %Nomoto, K. \& Hashimoto, M. 1988, \physrep, 163, 13
2255: %\bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2003)]{nm03}
2256: %Nomoto, K., Maeda, K., Umeda, H., Ohkubo, T., Deng, J., \& Mazzali, P.
2257: %2003, in IAU Symp. 212, A Massive Star Odyssey, from Main Sequence to
2258: %Supernova, ed. K. A. van der Hucht, A. Herrero, \& C. Esteban
2259: %(San Francisco: ASP), 395
2260: %\bibitem[Nomoto, Shigeyama, \& Hashimoto(1987)]{ns87}
2261: %Nomoto, K., Shigeyama, T., \& Hashimoto, M. 1987, in SN 1987A,
2262: %ed. I. J. Danziger (Garching: ESO), p. 325
2263: \bibitem[Otsuka et al.(2005)]{osfg05}
2264: Otsuka, T., Suzuki, T., Fujimoto, R., Grawe, H., \& Akaishi, Y. 2005,
2265: \prl, 95, 232502
2266: %\bibitem[Otsuki et al.(2000)]{ot00}
2267: %Otsuki, K., Tagoshi, H., Kajino, T., \& Wanajo, S. 2000, \apj, 533, 424
2268: \bibitem[Pastor \& Raffelt(2002)]{pr02}
2269: Pastor, S. \& Raffelt, G. 2002, \prl, 89, 191101
2270: \bibitem[Pywell et al.(1985)]{pyw85}
2271: Pywell, R. E., Berman, B. L., Woodworth, J. G., Jury, J. W., McNeill, K. G.,
2272: \& Thompson, M. N. 1985, \prc, 32, 384
2273: \bibitem[Qian \& Fuller(1995)]{qf95}
2274: Qian, Y.-Z. \& Fuller, G. M. 1995, \prd, 51, 1479
2275: \bibitem[Ramaty et al.(2000a)]{rl00}
2276: Ramaty, R., Lingenfelter, R. E., \& Kozlovsky, B. 2000a, in IAU Symp. 198,
2277: The Light Elements and Their Evolution, ed. L. da Silva, M. Spite, \&
2278: J. R. de Medeiros (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 51
2279: \bibitem[Ramaty et al.(2000b)]{rs00}
2280: Ramaty, R. Scully, S. T., Lingenfelter, R. E., \& Kozlovsky, B. 2000b,
2281: \apj, 534, 747
2282: \bibitem[Rauscher et al.(2002)]{rh02}
2283: Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., \& Woosley, S. E. 2002,
2284: \apj, 576, 323
2285: \bibitem[Rebull et al.(1998)]{rd98}
2286: Rebull, L., Duncan, D., Johansson, S., Thorburn, J., \& Fields, B. 1998,
2287: \apj, 507, 387
2288: %\bibitem[Rebull et al.(2000)]{rp00}
2289: %Rebull, L., Primas, F., \& Duncan, D. 2000, in The First Stars, eds. A. Weiss,
2290: %T. G. Abel, \& V. Hill (ESO Astrophysics Symposia; Berlin: Springer), 176
2291: \bibitem[Primas et al.(1999)]{pd99}
2292: Primas, F., Duncan, D. K., Peterson, R. C., \& Thorburn, J. A. 1999, \aap,
2293: 343, 545
2294: \bibitem[Primas et al.(1998)]{pd98}
2295: Primas, F., Duncan, D. K., \& Thorburn, J. A. 1998, \apjl, 506, L51
2296: %\bibitem[Seljak et al.(2005)]{sm05}
2297: %Seljak, U., et al. 2005, \prd, 71, 103515
2298: \bibitem[Shigeyama \& Nomoto(1990)]{sn90}
2299: Shigeyama, T. \& Nomoto, K. 1990, \apj, 360, 242
2300: \bibitem[Shigeyama et al.(1992)]{sn92}
2301: Shigeyama, T., Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 1992,
2302: \apjl, 386, L13
2303: %\bibitem[Sumiyoshi et al.(2005)]{ss04}
2304: %Sumiyoshi, K., Suzuki, H., Yamada, S., \& Toki, H. 2004, \nphysa, 730, 227
2305: \bibitem[Suzuki et al.(2006)]{sc06}
2306: Suzuki, T., Chiba, S., Yoshida, T., Kajino, T., Otsuka, T. 2006, \prc, 74,
2307: 034307
2308: \bibitem[Suzuki et al.(2003a)]{sfo03}
2309: Suzuki, T., Fujimoto, R. \& Otsuka, T. 2003, \prc, 67, 044302
2310: \bibitem[Suzuki et al.(2003b)]{suzs03}
2311: Suzuki, T., Sagawa, H., \& Hagino, K. 2003, \prc, 68, 014317
2312: %\bibitem[Takahashi \& Sato(2003)]{ts03a}
2313: %Takahashi, K. \& Sato, K. 2003, Prog. Theor. Phys., 109, 919
2314: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(2003)]{ts03}
2315: Takahashi, K., Sato, K., Dalhed, H. E., \& Wilson, J. R. 2003,
2316: Astroparticle Phys., 20, 189
2317: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(2001)]{tw01}
2318: Takahashi, K., Watanabe, M., Sato, K., \& Totani, T. 2001, \prd, 64, 093004
2319: %\bibitem[Takahashi, Witti, \& Janka(1994)]{tw94}
2320: %Takahashi, K., Witti, J., \& Janka, H.-Th. 1994, \aap, 286, 857
2321: %\bibitem[Terasawa et al.(2004)]{tl04}
2322: %Terasawa, M., Langanke, K., Mathews, G. J., Kajino, T., \& Kolbe, E. 2004,
2323: %\apj, 608, 470
2324: \bibitem[Tom\`as et al.(2004)]{tk04}
2325: Tom\`as, R., Kachelrie\ss, M., Raffelt, G., Dighe, A., Janka, H.-T.,
2326: \& Scheck, L. 2004, J. Cosmology and Astroparticle Phys., 9, 15
2327: \bibitem[Warbutron \& Brown(1992)]{wb92}
2328: Warburton, E. K. \& Brown, B. A. 1992, \prc, 46, 923
2329: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(1990)]{wh90}
2330: Woosley, S. E., Hartmann, D. H., Hoffman, R. D., \& Haxton, W. C. 1990,
2331: \apj, 356, 272
2332: %\bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1988)]{ww88}
2333: %Woosley, S. E. \& Weaver, T. A. 1988, \physrep, 163, 79
2334: %\bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{ww95}
2335: %Woosley, S. E. \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181
2336: %\bibitem[Woosley et al.(1994)]{ww94}
2337: %Woosley, S. E., Wilson, J. R., Mathews, G. J., Hoffman, R. D., \& Meyer, B. S.
2338: %1994, \apj, 433, 229
2339: \bibitem[Yamaguchi et al.(1971)]{yama71}
2340: Yamaguchi, A, Terasawa, T, Nakahara, K., \& Torizuka, Y. 1971, \prc, 3, 1750
2341: %\bibitem[Y\"uksel, Ando, \& Beacom(2005)]{ya05}
2342: %Y\"uksel, H., Ando, S., \& Beacom, J. F. 2005, astro-ph/0509297
2343: %\bibitem[Yokomakura et al.(2002)]{yk02}
2344: %Yokomakura, H., Kimura, K., \& Takamura, A. 2002, Phys. Lett., B544, 286
2345: %\bibitem[Yoshida, Emori, \& Nakazawa(2000)]{ye00}
2346: %Yoshida, T. Emori, H. \& Nakazawa, K. 2000, Earth Planets Space, 52, 203
2347: \bibitem[Yoshida(2007)]{yo07}
2348: Yoshida, T. 2007, \apj, 666, 1048
2349: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2005)]{yk05}
2350: Yoshida, T., Kajino, T., \& Hartmann, D. H. 2005, \prl, 94, 231101
2351: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2006a)]{yk06a}
2352: Yoshida, T., Kajino, T., Yokomakura, H., Kimura, K, Takamura, A., \&
2353: Hartmann, D. H. 2006a, \prl, 96, 091101
2354: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2006b)]{yk06b}
2355: Yoshida, T., Kajino, T., Yokomakura, H., Kimura, K, Takamura, A., \&
2356: Hartmann, D. H. 2006b, \apj, 649, 319
2357: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2004)]{yt04}
2358: Yoshida, T., Terasawa, M., Kajino, T., \& Sumiyoshi, K. 2004, \apj, 600, 204
2359: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2005)]{yu05}
2360: Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2005, \apj, 631, 1039
2361: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2008)]{yu08}
2362: Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2008, \apj, 672, 1043
2363: \end{thebibliography}
2364:
2365: \clearpage
2366:
2367: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
2368: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
2369: %% To embed the sample graphics in
2370: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
2371: %% \includegraphics commands
2372: %%
2373: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
2374: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
2375: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
2376: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
2377: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
2378: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
2379: %%
2380: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
2381: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
2382: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
2383: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
2384: %% journal to journal.
2385:
2386:
2387: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
2388: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
2389: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
2390: %% available in the electronic journal.
2391:
2392:
2393: %\clearpage
2394:
2395: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
2396: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
2397: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
2398: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
2399: %%
2400:
2401:
2402:
2403:
2404: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
2405: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
2406: %% User Guide for details.
2407: %%
2408: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
2409: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
2410: %% after every seventh one.
2411:
2412: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
2413: %% each one.
2414:
2415: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
2416: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
2417: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
2418: %%
2419:
2420: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
2421: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
2422:
2423: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
2424: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
2425: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
2426: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
2427: %% reduced font size.
2428: %%
2429: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
2430: %% inside the \tablecaption.
2431:
2432: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
2433: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
2434: %% edition.
2435: %%
2436: %\clearpage
2437:
2438:
2439: \end{document}
2440:
2441:
2442: