1: \documentclass[12 pt, preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[a4paper,preprint]{emulateapj}
4: %\usepackage{amstext}
5: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
6: %\usepackage{amsmath}
7: %\usepackage{psfig}
8: \begin{document}
9: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
10: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
11: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
12: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.5}
13: %\setlength{\textfloatsep}{16pt plus 2pt minus 4pt}
14:
15: \title{New solar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes }
16: \author{John N. Bahcall and Aldo M. Serenelli}
17: \affil{Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
18: Princeton, NJ
19: 08540}
20: \and
21: \author{Sarbani Basu}
22: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT
23: 06520-8101}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We construct solar models with the newly calculated radiative
27: opacities from the Opacity Project (OP) and recently determined
28: (lower) heavy element abundances. We compare results from the new
29: models with predictions of a series of models that use OPAL
30: radiative opacities, older determinations of the surface heavy
31: element abundances, and refinements of nuclear reaction rates. For
32: all the variations we consider, solar models that are constructed
33: with the newer and lower heavy element abundances advocated by
34: Asplund et al. (2005)\nocite{asplundgrevessesauval2005} disagree
35: by much more than the estimated measuring errors with
36: helioseismological determinations of the depth of the solar
37: convective zone, the surface helium composition, the internal
38: sound speeds, and the density profile. Using the new OP radiative
39: opacities, the ratio of the $^8$B neutrino flux calculated with
40: the older and larger heavy element abundances (or with the newer
41: and lower heavy element abundances) to the total neutrino flux
42: measured by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is 1.09 (0.87) with a
43: 9\% experimental uncertainty and a 16\% theoretical uncertainty,
44: $1\sigma$ errors.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{Sun: abundances, atomic processes, neutrinos, nuclear
48: reactions, Sun: interior}
49:
50: \maketitle
51:
52: Recent, refined determinations of the surface heavy element abundances
53: of the Sun have led to lower than previously believed heavy element
54: abundances~(see Asplund et al. 2005 and references
55: therein).\nocite{asplundgrevessesauval2005} A number of authors have
56: pointed out that these lower heavy element abundances lead to solar
57: models that conflict with different aspects of helioseismological
58: measurements (e.g., Bahcall \& Pinsonneault 2004\nocite{BP04}, Basu
59: \& Antia 2004\nocite{basu04}, Bahcall et al. 2005)\nocite{BBPS05}. If the radiative opacity in the
60: temperature range of $2\times 10^6$K to $4.5 \times 10^6$K were to be
61: increased by of order 10\% relative to the standard OPAL opacity
62: (Iglesias \& Rogers 1996 ),\nocite{opalopacity96} then the discrepancy
63: between new abundances and helioseismology could be resolved (Bahcall
64: et al. 2005,\nocite{BBPS05} see also Basu
65: \& Antia 2004)\nocite{basu04}.
66:
67: The Opacity Project (OP) has recently performed more precise and
68: more physically complete calculations of the radiative opacities
69: with the goal of determining if these new calculations could
70: eliminate the discrepancy between helioseismology and solar
71: modeling that uses the new (lower) heavy element abundances (see
72: Badnell et al. 2004\nocite{badnelletal2004}; Seaton \& Badnell
73: 2004\nocite{seaton}; Seaton 2004\nocite{seatononly}). The Opacity
74: Project refinements result in only a small increase (less than
75: 2.5\% everywhere of interest) relative to the OPAL opacity.
76:
77: In this paper, we present a series of precise solar models that were
78: calculated using the new OP opacities as well as with the familiar
79: OPAL opacities. We also present models that were constructed with the
80: recently-determined heavy element abundances (Asplund et
81: al. 2005)\nocite{asplundgrevessesauval2005} as well as with the
82: previously standard abundances (Grevesse \& Sauval
83: 1998).\nocite{oldcomp} In addition, we introduce refinements in the
84: nuclear physics used in the solar models. We compare the results of
85: each of our series of solar models with helioseismological and
86: neutrino observations of the Sun. As a side-product of this
87: investigation, we determine the remarkable precision with which two
88: very different stellar evolution codes reproduce the same solar model
89: parameters.
90:
91: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters} gives the
92: principal characteristics of seven precise solar models that we
93: use in this paper to investigate the helioseismological and
94: neutrino flux implications of the recent redeterminations of heavy
95: element abundances and of radiative opacities.
96: Table~\ref{tab:neutrinofluxes} presents the neutrino fluxes
97: calculated for each of the seven solar models represented in
98: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}. At the end of the paper, we
99: summarize in Figure~\ref{fig:velocitydiffs} and the related
100: discussion the comparison between the helioseismologically
101: determined sound speeds and densities and the predictions of the
102: various solar models. We begin by describing the differences
103: between the various solar models and by commenting on how these
104: differences affect the calculated properties of the models,
105: including helioseismological parameters and neutrino fluxes.
106:
107: The model BP04(Yale) was calculated by Bahcall \& Pinsonneault
108: (2004)\nocite{BP04} and is their preferred standard solar model.
109: BP04(Yale) uses the Grevesse \& Sauval (1998)\nocite{oldcomp}
110: solar abundances and the best other input data available when the
111: model was constructed. The model was constructed as described in
112: Bahcall \& Pinsonneault (1992)\nocite{BP92} and Bahcall \& Ulrich
113: (1988)\nocite{bahcallulrich1988} and uses the Yale-Ohio
114: State-Princeton stellar evolution code (Pinsonneault et al.
115: 1989;\nocite{pinsonneault89} Bahcall \& Pinsonneault
116: 1992\nocite{BP92}, 1995)\nocite{BP95} as modified by iterations of
117: the Bahcall-Ulrich nuclear energy generation subroutine. The model
118: BP04(Garching) was derived using the Garching Stellar Evolution
119: code (see, e.g., Schlattl, Weiss, \& Ludwig 1997\nocite{garching}
120: and Schlattl 2002\nocite{schlattl02} for details of the code)
121: using the same procedures and input data as the BP04(Yale) solar
122: model.
123:
124: The first two rows of Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters} and
125: Table~\ref{tab:neutrinofluxes} show that the principal
126: characteristics of solar models are independent, to practical
127: accuracy, of the evolutionary code used for their calculation. For
128: example, the initial helium abundance is the same in the BP04
129: (Yale) and BP04 (Garching) models to an accuracy of $\pm 0.04$\%
130: and the depth of the convective zone is the same to $\pm 0.01$\%.
131: In a more stringent test, the $^7$Be,$^8$B, $^{17}$F , and pep
132: neutrino fluxes in the two models agree to $\pm 0.4$\% or better
133: and the p-p, hep,$^{13}$N, and $^{15}$O neutrino fluxes to better
134: than $\pm 0.1$\%. This important result, which demonstrates that
135: two different stellar evolution codes yield the the same answers
136: to high precision, shows that we have to take seriously
137: discrepancies between solar model predictions and observations
138: even when the discrepancies are very small.
139:
140: The small differences between the BS04 and the
141: \hbox{BP04(Garching)} solar models can be summarized as
142: follows. First, in the BS04
143: model, individual metals diffuse at the different velocities
144: implied by the Thoul, Bahcall, \& Loeb (1994)\nocite{thoul4}
145: analysis, whereas in the BP04 calculation all the metals are
146: assumed to diffuse at the same velocity (usually taken to be that
147: of the iron). The changes in abundances induced by using
148: individual velocities are very small, parts per thousand. Second,
149: in the BS04 model, the increase in metallicity caused by the
150: burning of $^{12}$C that is out-of-CN-equilibrium into $^{14}$N is
151: accounted for in the evaluation of the radiative opacities. Two
152: protons are included together with $^{12}$C in the conversion to
153: $^{14}$N. In the Garching code, this increase in $Z$ is taken into
154: account whereas in the Yale code the change in composition is
155: added to the helium abundance. Third, because $^{17}$O burns
156: slowly at the solar center temperatures, the $^{17}$O abundance is
157: not assumed to be in equilibrium in the BS04 model and is
158: essentially unmodified after it is produced by
159: $^{16}$O(p,$\gamma$)$^{17}$F and the beta-decay of $^{17}$F. In
160: the Yale code, the reaction $^{17}$O(p,$\alpha$)$^{14}$N is
161: assumed to occur very fast due to a resonant reaction.
162:
163: The refinements in physics between the BS04 and the
164: \hbox{BP04(Garching)} models do not change significantly the
165: computed astronomical characteristics that are summarized in
166: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}. For example, the initial helium
167: abundances inferred from the BP04(Yale), BP04(Garching), and BS04
168: models all agree to about $\pm 0.1$\% and the other astronomical
169: characteristics are, in nearly all cases, the same in all three
170: models to comparable or better accuracy. The neutrino fluxes are
171: practically the same in all three models, with the most important
172: change, $\pm 1$\%, occurring for the $^8$B neutrino flux.
173:
174: In what follows, we will discuss solar models constructed with the
175: Garching code and will denote the different models by BS05 (plus
176: specifications). Each successive improvement will be incorporated
177: in all subsequent models except where noted otherwise.
178:
179:
180: The model BS05($^{14}$N) is the same as the model BS04 except that
181: in the newer model we use the recently measured value of $S_{1,14}
182: = 1.7 \pm 0.2$ keV b for the low energy cross section factor of
183: the $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$)$^{15}$O fusion reaction (Formicola et al.
184: 2004).\nocite{14N} Again, this improvement makes no practical
185: change in the traditional astronomical characteristics of the
186: model that are shown in Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}. However,
187: BS05($^{14}$N) has $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O solar neutrino fluxes
188: that are almost a factor of two lower than the corresponding
189: fluxes obtained from the BS04 solar model. The CNO contribution
190: to the solar luminosity is also reduced compared to BS04,
191: BP04(Garching), and BP04(Yale). The latter models have a CNO
192: contribution of 1.55\% to the solar luminosity while for
193: BS05($^{14}$N) the CNO contribution is only 0.8\%.
194:
195: The next two solar models are the first in the series to use OP
196: opacities. BS05(OP) and BS05(AGS, OP) differ in that BS05(AGS, OP)
197: uses the heavy element abundance taken from Asplund et al.
198: (2005).\nocite{asplundgrevessesauval2005} Like all the proceeding
199: models, BS05(OP) uses Grevesse \& Sauval (1998)\nocite{oldcomp}
200: abundances. Comparing BS05(OP) with BS05($^{14}$N), we see that
201: the new OP opacities do not change significantly the neutrino
202: fluxes nor other principal model characteristics.
203:
204: The lower heavy element abundances used in BS05(AGS,OP)cause the
205: computed depth of the convective zone to be too shallow and the
206: surface helium abundance to be unacceptably low, as compared with
207: the helioseismologically measured values. The depth of the solar
208: convective zone and the helium surface abundance have recently
209: been redetermined by Basu \& Antia (2004).\nocite{basu04} using
210: the best-available helioseismological data. Comparing the values
211: calculated using BS05(AGS,OP) with the measured values (given in
212: parentheses), we have
213:
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: \frac{R_{\rm CZ}}{R_\odot} & = &0.728 (0.713 \pm 0.001,\, {\rm
216: exp.}); \\ ~ Y_{\rm surf} & = & 0.229 (0.249 \pm 0.003,\, {\rm
217: exp.})\, . \label{eq:czhelium}
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: For BS05(AGS,OP), the disagreements between helioseismological
220: measurements and the computed values of $R_{\rm CZ}$ and $Y_{\rm
221: surf}$ are many times the quoted errors. By contrast, all of the
222: models in Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters} that use the Grevesse \&
223: Sauval (1998)\nocite{oldcomp} abundances [BP04(Yale),
224: BP04(Garching), and BS04, BS05($^{14}$N), BS05(OP)] have values
225: for these parameters, $R_{\rm CZ}\sim 0.715$ and $Y_{\rm surf}
226: \sim 0.244$, that are in much better agreement with
227: helioseismological measurements.
228:
229:
230: Similar results are obtained with models that use OPAL opacities
231: (see row labeled BS05(AGS, OPAL) in
232: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}). Solar models constructed with
233: the AGS05 composition disagree with the helioseismological
234: measurements of $R_{\rm CZ}$ and $Y_{\rm surf}$, independent of
235: whether on uses OPAL or OP radiative opacities.
236:
237:
238:
239: Figure~\ref{fig:velocitydiffs} shows that, for four representative
240: models, the sound speeds and densities inferred from solar models
241: that use the Grevesse \& Sauval (1998)\nocite{oldcomp} solar
242: abundances are in excellent agreement with the helioseismological
243: measurements (Schou et al. 1998)\nocite{sch98} of sound speeds and
244: densities. Solar models that use the new Asplund, Grevesse, \&
245: Sauval (2005)\nocite{asplundgrevessesauval2005} abundances are in
246: disagreement with the helioseismological measurements. For models
247: that use the Grevesse \& Sauval (1998)\nocite{oldcomp} abundances
248: and OPAL, the rms difference between the solar model predictions
249: for sound speeds and densities are, respectively, $0.0015 \pm
250: 0.0001$ and $0.015 \pm 0.002$, where we quote the range that spans
251: the values for the first four models that appear in
252: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}. The results with OP opacities are
253: even better: 0.00097 and 0.012, respectively. By contrast, the rms
254: differences for models that use the AGS05 abundances are larger by
255: more than a factor of three, $0.0053 \pm 0.0005$ and $0.047 \pm
256: 0.003$, respectively.
257:
258: How do the adopted element abundances and the radiative opacity
259: affect the predicted solar neutrino fluxes?
260: Figure~\ref{fig:energyspectrum} shows the solar neutrino energy
261: spectrum that is calculated using the BS05(OP) solar model, which
262: may be taken as the currently preferred solar model. The
263: fractional uncertainties for the neutrino fluxes are given in
264: Table~8 of Bahcall and Serenelli (2005).\nocite{bs05}
265:
266: Using OP opacity, the ratio of the $^8$B neutrino flux calculated
267: with the older (larger) heavy element abundances (or with the
268: newer (lower) heavy element abundances) to the total $^8$B
269: neutrino flux measured by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (Ahmed
270: et al. 2004)\nocite{snosalt} is (see
271: Table~\ref{tab:neutrinofluxes})
272: \begin{equation}
273: \frac{{\rm Solar \, Model}~^8{\rm B} ~\nu~ {\rm flux}}{{\rm
274: Measured}~^8{\rm B}~ \nu~ {\rm flux}} ~=~ 1.09 (0.87) \, ,
275: \label{eq:b8ratio}
276: \end{equation}
277: with a 9\% experimental error (Ahmed et al. 2004)\nocite{snosalt}
278: and a 16\% theoretical uncertainty (Bahcall and Serenelli 2005),
279: $1\sigma$ uncertainties. If we adopt OPAL opacities, the
280: coefficients on the right hand side of equation~(\ref{eq:b8ratio})
281: become 1.12 (0.88), very similar to the values for OP opacities.
282: Turck-Chieze et al. (2004) found a 9\% lower $^8$B neutrino flux
283: for a model similar to BS05(AGS, OPAL). Their lower flux is
284: accounted for by the fact that Turck-Chieze et al. did not use the
285: recent and more accurate pp cross section calculated by Park et
286: al. (2003) and Turck-Chieze et al. did use intermediate screening
287: for fusion reactions instead of the more accurate approximation of
288: weak screening (see Bahcall, Brown, Gruzinov, and Sawyer 2002).
289:
290: Comparing the calculated to the measured (Bahcall,
291: Gonzalez-Garcia, \& Pe\~na-Garay 2004)\nocite{BP-G04} p-p neutrino
292: flux, assuming OP opacities, we have
293: \begin{equation}
294: \frac{{\rm Solar \, Model}~{\rm p-p} ~\nu~ {\rm flux}}{{\rm
295: Measured}~{\rm p-p}~ \nu~ {\rm flux}} ~=~ 0.99 (1.00) \, ,
296: \label{eq:ppratio}
297: \end{equation}
298: with a 2\% experimental uncertainty (Bahcall, Gonzalez-Garcia, \&
299: Pena-Garay 2004)\nocite{BP-G04} and a 1\% theoretical uncertainty
300: (Bahcall and Serenelli 2005). The agreement is similarly good if
301: we adopt OPAL opacities. The CNO contribution to the solar
302: luminosity is only 0.5\% for the models BS05(AGS,OP) and
303: BS05(AGS,OPAL).
304:
305:
306:
307: We conclude that
308: the agreement between solar model predictions and solar neutrino
309: measurements is excellent and is not significantly affected by the
310: choice of heavy element abundances or the radiative opacity.
311:
312: \acknowledgments J. N. B. and A. M. S. are supported in part by NSF grant
313: PHY-0070928.
314:
315: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
316: \bibitem{snosalt}Ahmed, S. N., et al.
317: (SNO Collaboration) 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 181301
318: %
319: \bibitem{asplundgrevessesauval2005} Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., \&
320: Sauval, A. J. 2005, in Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar
321: Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ASP Conference Series, eds. F. N.
322: Bash, \& T. G. Barnes, astro-ph/0410214
323: %
324: \bibitem{badnelletal2004}Badnell, N. R. et al. 2004, astro-ph/0410744
325: %
326: \bibitem{BBPS05}Bahcall, J. N., Basu, S., Pinsonneault, M. H., \&
327: Serenelli, A. M., astro-ph/0407060
328: %
329: \bibitem{screening} Bahcall,J. N., Brown,L., Gruzinov,A., \& Sawyer, R. 2002, Astron and Astrophys
330: 383, 291
331: %
332: \bibitem{BP-G04}Bahcall, J. N., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., \& Pe\~na-Garay, C. 2004,
333: JHEP, 08, 016
334: \bibitem{BP92} Bahcall, J. N., \& Pinsonneault M. H. 1992, Rev.
335: Mod. Phys., 64, 885
336: \bibitem{BP95}Bahcall, J. N., \& Pinsonneault M. H. 1995, Rev.
337: Mod. Phys., 67, 781
338: \bibitem{BP04}Bahcall, J. N., \& Pinsonneault, M. H. 2004,
339: Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121301
340: \bibitem{bs05}Bahcall, N. N., \& Serenelli, A. M.,
341: astro-ph/0412096
342: \bibitem{bahcallulrich1988}Bahcall, J. N., \& Ulrich, R. K. 1988, Rev.
343: Mod. Phys., 60, 297
344: \bibitem{basu04}Basu, S., \& Antia, H. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, L85
345: \bibitem{14N}Formicola et al., 2004,
346: Physics Letters B, 591, 61
347: %
348: \bibitem{oldcomp} Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space
349: Sci. Rev., 85, 161
350: \bibitem{opalopacity96}Iglesias, C. A., \& Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ,
351: 464, 943
352: %
353: \bibitem{park}Park. T. S. et al. 2003, Phys Rev C, 67, 055206.
354: %
355: \bibitem{pinsonneault89}Pinsonneault, M. H., Kawaler, S. D., Sofia,
356: \& Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424
357: %
358: \bibitem{garching}Schlattl, H., Weiss, A., \& Ludwig, H.-G. 1997,
359: A\&A, 322, 646
360: %
361: \bibitem{schlattl02}Schlattl, H. 2002, A\&A, 395, 85
362: \bibitem[1998]{sch98} Schou, J. et al.~1998, in Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun
363: and Sun-like Stars, ed. S. G. Korzennik, \& A. Wilson (Noordwijk:
364: ESA), ESA SP-418, 2, 845
365: %
366: \bibitem{seatononly} Seaton, M. J., astro-ph/0411010
367: %
368: \bibitem{seaton} Seaton, M. J., \& Badnell, N. R. 2004, MNRAS, 354,
369: 457, astro-ph/0404437
370: %
371: \bibitem[1994]{thoul4}Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., \&
372: Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828
373: %
374: \bibitem{TC} Turck-Chieze, S. et al. 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett. 93, 211102
375: %
376: \end{thebibliography}
377:
378: \clearpage
379:
380: \begin{figure} [t!]
381: \begin{center}
382: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f1.eps}
383: \end{center}
384: \caption{Relative sound speed differences, $\delta c/c=(c_\odot
385: - c_{\rm
386: model})/c_{\rm model}$, and relative densities, $\delta
387: \rho/\rho$,
388: between solar models and helioseismological
389: results from MDI data.
390: \label{fig:velocitydiffs}}
391: \end{figure}
392:
393: \clearpage
394:
395: \begin{figure} [ht!]
396: \begin{center}
397: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm]{f2.eps}
398: \end{center}
399: \caption{Solar neutrino energy spectrum for the solar model
400: BS05(OP). The uncertainties are taken from Table~8 of Bahcall and
401: Serenelli (2005). \label{fig:energyspectrum}}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404: \clearpage
405:
406: \begin{table*}[!t]
407: \caption{Characteristics of seven solar models. The table lists the
408: principal model characteristics for a series of precise solar models
409: that are defined in the text. Here $\alpha_{\rm convec}$ is the usual
410: convective mixing length parameter, $Y_{\rm i}$ and $Z_i$ are the
411: initial helium and heavy element abundances by mass, $R_{\rm cz}$ is
412: the radius at the base of the convective zone, $Y_{\rm surf}$ and
413: $Z_{\rm surf}$ are the present-day surface abundances of helium and
414: heavy elements, and $Y_{\rm c}$ and $Z_{\rm c}$ are the present-day
415: abundances at the center of the Sun. The first five models use the
416: Grevesse \& Sauval (1998) abundances; the last two
417: models use the Asplund et al. (2005)
418: abundances. The first four models use OPAL
419: opacities. \label{tab:modelparameters} }
420: \begin{center}
421: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
422: \hline \hline
423: MODEL & $\alpha_{\rm convec}$ & $Y_i$ & $Z_i$ &
424: $R_{\rm cz}/{\rm R_\odot}$ & $Y_{\rm surf}$ & $Z_{\rm surf}$ & $Y_{\rm c}$ & $Z_{\rm c}$ \\
425: \hline
426: BP04(Yale) & 2.07 & 0.2734 & 0.0188 & 0.7147 & 0.243 & 0.0169 & 0.640 & 0.0198 \\
427: BP04(Garching) & 2.10 & 0.2736 & 0.0188 & 0.7146 & 0.243 & 0.0170 & 0.641 & 0.0196 \\
428: BS04 & 2.09 & 0.2742 & 0.0188 & 0.7148 & 0.244 & 0.0169 & 0.641 & 0.0202 \\
429: BS05($^{14}$N) & 2.09 & 0.2739 & 0.0188 & 0.7153 & 0.244 & 0.0170 & 0.635 & 0.0202 \\
430: BS05(OP) & 2.11 & 0.2725 & 0.0188 & 0.7138 & 0.243 & 0.0170 & 0.634 & 0.0202\\
431: BS05(AGS,OP) & 1.98 & 0.2599 & 0.0140 & 0.7280 & 0.229 & 0.0126 & 0.620 & 0.0151\\
432: BS05(AGS,OPAL) & 1.96 & 0.2614 & 0.0140 & 0.7289 & 0.230 & 0.0125 & 0.622 & 0.0151\\
433: \hline
434: \end{tabular}
435: \end{center}
436: \end{table*}
437:
438: \clearpage
439:
440: \begin{table}[!b]
441: \caption{Predicted solar neutrino fluxes from
442: seven solar models. The table presents the predicted fluxes, in
443: units of $10^{10}(pp)$, $10^{9}({\rm \, ^7Be})$, $10^{8}(pep, {\rm
444: ^{13}N, ^{15}O})$, $10^{6} ({\rm \, ^8B, ^{17}F})$, and
445: $10^{3}({\rm hep})$ ${\rm cm^{-2}s^{-1}}$ for the same solar
446: models whose characteristics are summarized in
447: Table~\ref{tab:modelparameters}. \label{tab:neutrinofluxes} }
448: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
449: \hline \hline
450: Model & pp & pep & hep & $^7$Be & $^8$B & $^{13}$N & $^{15}$O & $^{17}$F \\
451: % MODEL & $ \times 10^{10} $ & $ \times 10^{8} $ & $ \times 10^{3} $ &
452: %$ \times 10^{9} $ & $ \times 10^{6} $ & $ \times 10^{8} $ &
453: %$ \times 10^{8} $ & $ \times 10^{6} $ \\
454: \hline
455: BP04(Yale) & 5.94 & 1.40 & 7.88 & 4.86 & 5.79 & 5.71 & 5.03 & 5.91 \\
456: BP04(Garching) & 5.94 & 1.41 & 7.88 & 4.84 & 5.74 & 5.70 & 4.98 & 5.87 \\
457: BS04 & 5.94 & 1.40 & 7.86 & 4.88 & 5.87 & 5.62 & 4.90 & 6.01 \\
458: BS05($^{14}$N) & 5.99 & 1.42 & 7.91 & 4.89 & 5.83 & 3.11 & 2.38 & 5.97 \\
459: BS05(OP)& 5.99 & 1.42 & 7.93 & 4.84 & 5.69 & 3.07 & 2.33 & 5.84 \\
460: BS05(AGS,OP) & 6.06 & 1.45 & 8.25 & 4.34 & 4.51 & 2.01 & 1.45 & 3.25 \\
461: BS05(AGS,OPAL) & 6.05 & 1.45 & 8.23 & 4.38 & 4.59 & 2.03 & 1.47 & 3.31 \\
462: \hline
463: \end{tabular}
464: \end{table}
465:
466: \end{document}
467: