This article is also available as a section of a long paper by
G. Wallerstein et al., Reviews of Modern Physics 69,
October 1997, prepared to mark the 40th anniversary of the appearance
of the seminal work on nuclear astrophysics in that journal in 1957.
That publication [E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and
F. W. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys, 29, 547 (1957)] became widely
known as "B2FH," the "bible" of nuclear astrophysics.
|
As the hydrogen burns in a star, a hot, dense core of helium is
formed that fuels the nucleosynthesis of the heavier elements. The
first stage of this process is the so-called "triple-alpha"
capture to form 12C, followed by the subsequent capture of
alpha particles to form 16O. In essence, helium burning
terminates there, because further alpha captures (to form
20Ne, for example) occur too slowly at these temperatures and
densities to be significant.
The termination of helium burning at 16O was not realized at the
time of B2FH, because of uncertainty in the level structure of
20Ne near the
|
This reaction actually occurs in two stages: first, two alpha particles
resonate in the low-lying (but unbound) state that forms the ground state
of 8Be. This state is sufficiently long-lived
(![]() ![]()
![]()
Because of its quantum numbers, there is only a small probability that
this excited state will de-excite (rather than decay back into three
alpha particles), either by e+ - e- pair production,
or by a The rate per unit volume for the de-excitation process at temperature T is given by the resonance form [Rol88]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
with N
![]()
and |
This is probably the most important reaction in nuclear astrophysics
today. Its rate at stellar temperatures, relative to that of
"triple-alpha" capture, determines how much of the 12C
formed is converted to 16O, and thereby the carbon/oxygen
abundance ratio in red giant stars. The relative amounts of carbon
and oxygen at the end of the helium-burning phase set the initial
conditions for the next phase, which is heavy-ion burning.
Depending on the mass of the star, heavy ion-burning results in
a number of different possibilities, including white dwarfs, and
supernovae. In the process, many of the heavier elements up through
iron are synthesized. All of these processes have been found to be
quite sensitive to the
![]()
The rate per unit volume for
![]() ![]() The cross section is parameterized as
![]() ![]() ![]()
in terms of Sommerfeld's Coulomb parameter
The <
![]() |
Much effort has been devoted to extracting just the E1 part of the
capture cross section, which is dominated by a broad 1- resonance
at E=2.4 MeV (Ex=9.585 MeV;
all level energies and widths for
16O are taken from [Til93]). The importance of the
subthreshold 1- state at E=-45 keV
(Ex=7.11685 MeV) in
fitting and extrapolating the E1 cross section was first
demonstrated by [Dye74]. Most subsequent analyses have fit
S-factors extracted from the measurements along with
the P-wave phase shift obtained from
![]() ![]() ![]() Direct measurements Several direct measurements [Dye74, Red87, Kre88, Oue92] of the E1 capture cross section have been made in the c.m. energy range E=1.0 - 3.0 MeV. With the recently reported corrections in the data of Ouellet et al. [Oue96], these measurements are in relatively good agreement at energies between 1.3 and 3.0 MeV. They now all imply constructive interference of the subthreshold level with the positive-energy resonance (originally, [Oue92] had found destructive interference), leading to extrapolated S-factors at E=0.3 MeV that range from 10 to 200 keV-b. The extrapolated S-factors obtained from these measurements, along with their assigned uncertainties, are given in the table below. The table also notes briefly the methods used to make and analyze the measurements. Most of the analyses involved doing standard R-matrix or K-matrix fitting, or using the "hybrid" R-matrix method [Koo74], in which a potential is used to represent the resonances at 2.4 MeV and above, in order to reduce the uncertainty in the ``background" contribution to the R matrix.
At least three groups [Buc93, Zha93, Zha95] have measured the
delayed alpha spectrum from the The functional form of the spectrum can be obtained from the usual R-matrix relation of the scattering states to the level matrix, giving
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
in which f
The interference minimum between the two maxima in the spectrum
cannot fix the interference of the levels in the cross section, due
to the undetermined relative phases of the
B The spectra measured by the TRIUMF [Buc93] and Yale/Connecticut (UConn) [Zha93] groups are generally in good qualitative agreement. However, questions have been raised on both sides about important experimental details, such as the shape of the low-energy peak in the Yale/UConn measurement, the shape of the high-energy peak in the TRIUMF data compared to an earlier measurement [Neu74], and the effect of target-thickness corrections on comparisons of the two measurements.
Two new measurements of the spectrum have recently been done at the
University of Washington in Seattle [Zha95], and at Yale/UConn
[Fra96]. These new measurements are said to agree well with
each other, being as much as a factor of two higher than the TRIUMF
data in the minimum between the two peaks. This difference could
imply that a larger F-wave contribution to the spectrum is
required in order to fill in the minimum, thus decreasing the
P-wave contribution (and the extrapolated value of
SE1) correspondingly. However, [Hal96] has shown
that allowing the |
The extrapolated E2 capture cross section is also determined by
the interaction of positive-energy levels (and "direct capture"
contributions) with a subthreshold 2+ state at E=-245 keV
(Ex=6.9171 MeV). In this case, the only broad 2+
level in the region is quite far above the threshold, at E=4.36 MeV
(Ex=11.52 MeV). In addition, there is a narrow resonance
(![]() The direct measurements lead to extrapolated values of SE2(0.3 MeV) ranging from 14 to 96 keV-b, as are shown in table below. The extrapolated value of [Red87] includes also contributions from the cascade transitions to the ground state, which were found to be non-negligible. Most of the analyses used some form of microscopic or potential model (usually of Gaussian form) to do the extrapolation, since a pure R-matrix or K-matrix fit would have involved too many parameters for the number of available data points. In some cases, the potential-model amplitudes were combined with single-level parametrizations of the subthreshold level. However, the present E2-capture data are simply not good enough to allow an unambiguous separation of the resonant and direct effects, even when considered simultaneously with the elastic-scattering data.
It is not known with certainty, for example, whether the
interference between the subthreshold 2+ state at
E=-245 keV and the distant-level (or "direct") contribution is
constructive or destructive. The recent analysis of [Tra96] is one of the
few that has attempted to include the two positive-energy 2+
resonances at Ex |
A number of analyses not connected with any particular measurement
have been done in recent years [Bar87, Fil89, Bar91, Hum91] that
consider several data sets simultaneously, including the earlier
measurement [Neu74] of the
![]() ![]()
Two recent analyses considered only the available primary data in
order to avoid the correlations introduced by using derived
quantities (such as elastic-scattering phase shifts) in determining
the extrapolated E1 and E2 S-factor values. The analysis of
[Buc96] included the differential cross-section measurements
for 12C(
[Hal96] recently reported an R-matrix analysis of the E1
cross section alone that also used the elastic scattering
angular-distribution data of [Pla87] rather than the P-wave
scattering phase shift. This analysis indicated that a rather low
value of SE1(E0), 20 keV-b, was
consistent with all the measured data, including those of the
At this point, it appears that the best values to recommend for the
extrapolated S-factors for
![]()
![]()
The curves extrapolate at
E0=300 keV to the
values: SE1(E0)=(79 +/- 16) keV-b,
SE2(E0)=(36 +/- 6)
keV-b, giving in round numbers,
Scap(E0)=(120 +/- 40)
keV-b. These values are quite consistent with the best estimates
obtained by the TRIUMF group, with many of the earlier direct
measurements, and with the results of the sensitivity study
[Wea93]. However, it should be remembered that some of the
recent data and analyses continue to indicate lower values of the
E1 S-factor. While the uncertainties of these important
parameters are gradually decreasing with time, they remain well
outside of the 10-15% level that is desirable for astrophysical
applications. Clearly, more work remains to be done on
|
|
Unlimited Release - LA-UR-97-2660 | Copyright © UC 1997 |