The Chemical Composition of the SUN Nicolas GREVESSE* Centre Spatial de Liège and Institut d Astrophysique et de Géophysique, Université de Liège, Belgium *Corresponding Astronomer of the Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels

New Solar Chemical Composition Martin ASPLUND – Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik – GarchingGermany A. Jacques SAUVAL – Observatoire Royal de Belgique - Brussels Pat SCOTT - Dept. of Physics – Stockholm University - Sweden

M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A.J. Sauval, P. Scott, Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 47, 481, 2009

Re-determination of the abundances of nearly all available elements BASIC INGREDIENTS

• New 3D model instead of the classical 1D model of the lower solar atmosphere • Careful and very demanding selection of the spectral lines… AVOID blends!!! NOT TRIVIAL!!! • Careful choice of the atomic and molecular data NOT TRIVIAL!!!! • NLTE instead of the classical LTE hypothesis… WHEN POSSIBLE !!! • Use of ALL indicators (atoms as well as molecules,CNO)

END RESULT: a COMPREHENSIVE and HOMOGENEOUS redetermination of the abundances of nearly all the elements in the sun. We also compare our new photospheric results with other photospheric data, with data from other solar sources …, meteorites and the Solar Neighborhood

HOW ?

j

i

Absorption depends on ratio κline/κcont i.e. (Nel/NH) • Ni* x Aji (or gfij-values) Iline (W) depends • Physical processes (LTE-NLTE) • Physical conditions :T,P=f(z)…Model * Number of atoms or ions that are in the level i

Physical Conditions: LTE versus NLTE 

NLTE – both radiative and collisional processes contribute to the excitation and ionization. We have therefore to know the data (transition probabilities, ….) for all the radiative processes that populate and depopulate the level i as well as the cross-sections for all the collisional processes (collisions with electrons, rather well known in a few cases, but also with the neutral hydrogen atoms, very uncertain, from an old formula by Drawin)



Data available for very few elements!!!

1D solar atmosphere models Theoretical models: • Hydrostatic • Time-independent • 1-dimensional • Convection a la mixing length theory • LTE • Detailed radiative transfer • MARCS, Kurucz etc Semi-empirical models: • Temperature structure from observations • Holweger-Müller (1974)

Models have to take the effect of convection into account: the GRANULES (dimensions : 1000-3000 km, lifetime : 10 min)

Hydrodynamics …

… are coupled with transfer of radiation along various directions

 (6000*6000*3600km; ~10 granules; Stein & Nordlund 1998)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Balance 1D-3D Various ways to test models Q : Does the model reproduce … ?

Test • Ic=F() • C/L variation • H line profiles • Granulation • Widths of lines • Shifts of lines • Asymmetries • ≠ indicators • Dependence I,EEx • High freq oscillations

1D

3D

Yes No No No Yes* No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Thanks to fake parameters: micro- and macroturbulence

Center to limb variations of Ic versus 

3D successes ! (continued) • Topology and convective motions

For the first time, line profiles are perfectly reproduced

• But

computing time !

SHAPES of the LINES Observations : All line profiles* show …

• Widths much larger than thermal widths (with 1D models…microturbulence!!!) • center blueshifted (2 mA ~ 100 m/s at 600 nm) • Asymmetries (C shapes : ~ 300 m/s i.e. 6 mA)

* NON BLENDED LINES, of course

1-Averaged line profiles 1D vs Sun

3D vs Sun

Shift!

No micro- and macroturbulence needed in 3D!

2- Line asymmetries The asymmetries and shifts of spectral lines are very well reproduced Observations 3D model

Dependence on Eexc or ionization 1- ATOMS-IONS 3D: perfect agreement FeI - FeII and no dependence on Eexc

 FeI  FeII 1D: A(Fe) from FeI lines depends on Eexc and is quite different from A(Fe) from FeII lines

2- OH vib-rot lines in IR Revised solar O abundance: log O=8.69+/-0.03 Asplund et al. (2009) 1D : dependence on Eexc 3D : No trends with line strength or Eexc

3D

Holweger-Müller(1D)

Balance 1D-3D Various ways to test models Q : Does the model reproduce … ? NO DOUBT about the REALISM of 3D MODELS Test • Ic=F() • C/L variation • Granulation • Widths of lines • Shifts of lines • Asymmetries • ≠ indicators • Dependence I,Eexc • High freq oscillations

1D

3D

Yes Yes No Yes* No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Thanks to fake parameters: micro- and macroturbulence

HT TPICS 

Solar O ( recent papers …)

Solar Neon? C, N, Mg, Fe, Ar,… NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Oxygen diagnostics Discordant results in 1D: log O~8.6-8.9 Excellent agreement in 3D: log O=8.69+/-0.05 O isotopic abundances: 16O/18O=480+/-30

Lines

HolwegerMüller-1D

3D

[O I]

8.73+/-0.05

8.70+/-0.05

-0.03

OI

8.69+/-0.05

8.69+/-0.05

0.00

OH, dv=0

8.83+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.03

-0.14

OH, dv=1

8.86+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.03

-0.17

Difference

*OH lines have the same sensitivity to T as the high Exc O I lines but they are formed higher the 21, photosphere NIC IX, June 2006 Padova -in November 2007

Beautiful lines - no blends at all - not more sensitive to T than the high excitation (>9eV) O I lines

v=1 N=20

v=1 N=20

v=1 N=20 v=0 N=19

v=0 N=19

OH – pure rotation ATMOS solar spectrum from space

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

OH P.R. v = 0

N = 25

cm-1

ATMOS solar spectrum Farmer & Norton 1989 NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

O I Lines 3D and NLTE effects [O I]

Exc

W

3D-1D

NLTE-LTE

6300.3

0.00

4.65*

-0.03

0.00

6363.7

0.02

1.6*

-0.03

0.00

6158.1

10.74

5.6

-0.07

-0.01

7771.9

9.15

85.0

0.02

-0.16

7774.1

9.15

73.5

0.02

-0.16

7775.3

9.15

60.0

0.00

-0.13

8446.7

9.52

43.7

-0.03

-0.11

9266.0

10.74

36.0

-0.06

-0.08

OI

* Total equivalent widths (center of the disc) including blends but 2.92 and 1.1 mA when blends are removed NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

O I lines

* Level population at 9 eV (permitted lines) is 10-9 of level population in the ground state level (forbiddenPadova lines). NIC IX, June 2006 - November 21, 2007

Forbidden [O I] lines 

LTE… BUT…



6300 blend with Ni I line 6363 blend with two CN lines 5577 blend with C2 and CN lines

 



We estimated the contributions of the blends independently of any model, in a purely empirical way, from observations of other lines of Ni I, C2 and CN

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Permitted O I lines    

High excitation lines LARGE NLTE effects [Δ~-0.25(F) to -0.15(I) dex] Strongly dependent on collisions with H atoms Cross sections not well known* * We estimated them from C/L observations and predictions made with different values of these cross sections

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Calibration of the cross-sections for collisions with H

T.Pereira, M. Asplund, D. Kiselman (2009)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Oxygen Results Discordant results in 1D: log O~8.69-8.86 Excellent agreement in 3D: log O=8.69+/-0.05 O isotopic abundances: 16O/18O=480+/-30

Lines

HolwegerMüller(1D)

3D

[O I]

8.73+/-0.05

8.70+/-0.05

-0.03

OI

8.69+/-0.05

8.69+/-0.05

0.00

OH, dv=0

8.83+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.03

-0.14

OH, dv=1

8.86+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.03

-0.17

NIC IX, June 2006

3D-1D

If LTE (O I): log O=8.82+/-0.10 [Δ(NLTE)=-0.13 dex] !!! Δ(NLTE) dependsPadova strongly on collisions with H atoms - November 21, 2007

O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(1) Caffau, Ludwig, Steffen, Ayres, Bonifacio, Cayrel, Freytag, Plez 2008 O I lines with CO5BOLD: - Choice of H collisions: - Equivalent widths: - Weights:

log O = 8.76 0.05 log O ≈ -0.03 dex log O ≈ -0.02dex log O ≈ -0.02 dex

777.1nm 777.4nm

777.5nm

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

The two 3D models are in very good agreement; abundance results differ by less than 5%

O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(2) New equivalent widths+…

8.69 (Caffau)

NIC IX, June 2006

New abundances

8.69 (us)

777.1nm

New

777.4nm

New

777.5nm

New

Padova - November 21, 2007

O: 8.76(Caf et al)-8.69(Asp et al)?   



Caf et al -0.02 dex for weighting Caf et al -0.03 dex for NLTE Caf et al -0.03 dex for equivalent widths and blends for forbidden lines Total Caf et al -0.08 dex = 8.68 in perfect agreement with us and the low O abundance!

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Carbon Results Discordant results in 1D: log C~8.41-8.69 Excellent agreement in 3D: log O=8.43+/-0.05 C isotopic abundances: 12C/13C=87+/-4 HolwegerMüller

3D

3D-1D

8.41

8.41

0.00

CI

8.45+/-0.04

8.42+/-0.05

-0.03

CH, dv=1

8.53+/-0.04

8.44+/-0.04

-0.09

CH, A-X

8.51+/-0.03

8.43+/-0.03

-0.08

C2, Swan

8.51+/-0.03

8.46+/-0.03

-0.05

CO,dv=1

8.60+/-0.01

8.40+/-0.01

-0.20

CO,dv=2

8.69+/-0.02

8.37+/-0.01

-0.32

Lines [C I]

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

E. Caffau, H. Ludwig, M. Steffen et al. Large number of C I lines. Many strong IR lines. Shapes indicate blends. Large NLTE, not well known for these lines. Very large dispersion, A(C)=8.50+-0.11, with Min 8.24, Max 8.80 (factor 3.5 !!)

NIC IX, June 2006

Asplund, Grevesse, Sauval & Scott(ARAA) Limited number of fainter lines less sensitive to NLTE. Smaller A(C)=8.43+-0.05 and much smaller dispersion !

Padova - November 21, 2007

Nitrogen Results 1D: log N=7.97+/-0.08 3D: log N=7.83+/-0.05 3D-1D= -0.14 dex

Lines

HolwegerMüller

3D

3D-1D

NI

7.88+/-0.04

7.78+/-0.04

-0.10

NH, dv=0

8.02+/-0.02

7.83+/-0.03

-0.19

NH, dv=1

8.01+/-0.03

7.88+/-0.03

-0.13

Caffau et al (2009) 7.86+/-0.12 – N I lines BLENDS !!!

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar CNO abundances 3D solar model atmosphere Non-LTE line formation when possible Atomic and molecular lines with improved data Asplund et al. (2000a,b, 2004, 2005a,b, 2009) Element

Anders & Grevesse (1989)

3D

Difference

Carbon

8.56+/-0.06

8.43+/-0.05

-0.13 dex

Nitrogen

8.05+/-0.04

7.83+/-0.05

-0.22 dex

Oxygen

8.93+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.05

-0.24 dex

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar CNO abundances 3D solar model atmosphere Non-LTE line formation when possible Atomic and molecular lines with improved data Asplund et al. (2000a,b, 2004, 2005a,b, 2009) Element

Grevesse & Sauval (1998)

3D

Difference

Carbon

8.52+/-0.06

8.43+/-0.05

-0.09 dex

Nitrogen

7.92+/-0.04

7.83+/-0.05

-0.09 dex

Oxygen

8.83+/-0.03

8.69+/-0.05

-0.14 dex

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Summary • 3D : Granulation and line profiles • NLTE when possible • All indicators agree • No dependence on I or Eexc

C,N,O Other elements

NIC IX, June 2006

…but some increase! (see next slide a comparison New-Old with AG(Grevesse and Anders,1989) ans GS(Grevesse and Sauval,1998) Padova - November 21, 2007

NIC IX, June 2006

Synergies between solar and stellar Padova Rome, - November 2007 modeling, 22-2621, June 2009

These modifications in the abundances are due to the combined effects of…. • New 3D model instead of the classical 1D model of the lower solar atmosphere • Careful and very demanding selection of the spectral lines… AVOID blends!!! NOT TRIVIAL!!! • Careful choice of the atomic and molecular data NOT TRIVIAL!!!! • NLTE instead of the classical LTE hypothesis… WHEN POSSIBLE !!!

• Use of ALL indicators (atoms as well as molecules : CNO)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z – Z=0.0194 (Anders & Grevesse 1989) – Z=0.0122 (Asplund et al. 2005)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

New solar metallicity Element

Abundance Contribution to Z (%)

O

8.69

42.9

C

8.43

17.7

Fe

7.50

9.7

Ne

7.93

9.4

Mg

7.60

5.3

N

7.83

5.2

Si

7.51

5.0

S

7.12

2.3

By Mass X+Y+Z=1

C+N+O ~ 2/3 Z

X=0.7381 Y=0.2485 Z=0.0134 Z/X=0.0181 Anders, Grevesse 1989 Grevesse, Noels 1993 Grevesse, Sauval 1998

Z=0.019 Z/X=0.027 Z=0.017 Z/X=0.024

By number H  91.3%, He  8.5%,  other elements  0.15% Padova - November 21, 2007

NIC IX, June 2006

Metallicity Z

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings – Young O,B stars in solar neighborhood – Local interstellar medium/Orion nebula – Little Galactic Chemical Evolution since 4.5 Gyr ?

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings FIP(First Ionization Potential) effect: elements with ionization potentials smaller than 10 eV are more abundant in the corona

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

FIP: First Ionization Potential Low FIP elements are about a factor 4 more abundant in the Corona than in the photosphere. This factor varies from place to place and with time.

Ar

Ne

SWslow

SWrapid

SEP

Quiet Cor.

Old abund.

2.7

1.8

3.25

1.26 - 1.66

New abund.

2.0

1.4

2.4

0.8 - 1.1

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings FIP Solar NEON ! High or Low?

NIC IX, June 2006

LOW

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar Ne abundance … Ne/O We used Ne/O=0.175  0.031 (Young, 2005; Quiet SUN) ANe = 7.93 0.17 dex (1.5x) smaller than older values Such ‘low’ Ne/O solar values have been confirmed by • Young (2005) Quiet Sun (EUV, CDS, Soho) • Schmelz et al. (2005) Active regions (X rays) • SEP, SW, Corona at ≠ T NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar Ne abundance New studies of solar neighborhood suggested that solar Ne is underestimated (Ne/O=0.3 to 0.4) Drake&Testa(2005)*

Ne/O

We (Asplund, Grevesse, Guedel and Sauval) suggested the GREEN inclined line rather than the RED horizontal line……

X-ray luminosity *The solved by the abundance of Neon in nearby stars (Nature) NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar Ne abundance Very recent studies of solar neighborhood show that solar Ne is NOT underestimated !

Ne/O

Drake & Testa (2005):

Robrade, Schmitt & Favata (2008)

X-ray luminosity (see also Liefke and Schmitt (2006)) NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

ARGON           

 

SW1 SW2 SW3(Genesis) Flares(Ar/O) Flares(Ar/H) Flares(2010) SEP Jupiter Nuclear B stars H II PNs MEAN

NIC IX, June 2006

6.19±(0.10?) 6.30±0.10 6.35±0.10 6.36±0.16 6.45±0.03 6.45±0.06 6.22±0.03 6.55±0.08 6.52±0.08 6.52±0.06 (6.66-0.10-0.04) 6.48±0.05 (6.62-0.10-0.04) 6.43±0.34 (6.47-0.04) 6.40+/-0.12 Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surrounding FIP Solar NEON ! High or Low? Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … WARNING !!

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings Solar NEON ! High or Low? FIP Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … Agreement with meteorites !

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Mean difference Sun - Meteorites 0.00  0.05 NIC IX, June 2006

Synergies between solar and stellar Padova Rome, - November 2007 modeling, 22-2621, June 2009

Mg, Ca, Fe(Phot.>Met.) ? 





Mg II in principle better than Mg I (Mg II>>Mg I) but NLTE are small. However theoretical gf values uncertain (Mg II agrees with meteorites) Ca II better than Ca I. But good gf’s for Ca I, strong lines and uncertain gf’s for Ca II good lines Fe II better than Fe I(II>I). Good gf values for both . Small NLTE for Fe I. Value based on Fe II.

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings Solar NEON ! High or Low? FIP Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … Agreement with meteorites ! Diffusion  Protosolar abundances  (Proto-Now) = 0.04 dex ZProto= 0.013 (Z/X)Proto= 0.0185 NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings Solar NEON ! High or Low? FIP Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … Agreement with meteorites ! Protosolar abundances  Diffusion ! Isotopes = Earth

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

13C, 18O, (17O)

from IR CO

Sun  Earth

1

C12O18 1-0 R65

C12O17 2-1 R66

C12O16 3-2 R113 C12O16

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Implications Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122 Makes Sun normal compared with surroundings Solar NEON ! High or Low? FIP Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … Agreement with meteorites ! Protosolar abundances  Diffusion ! Isotopes Changes stellar structure and evolution … (Giant planets, TTauri, Herbig Ae/Be, Gas/Dust ratio in dense clouds, …)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

But …

a grain of sand in the honeymoon between SSM-Helioseismology+… See next TALKS….. NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

… FUTURE …



3D model

*

Atomic (and Molecular Data) gf-values

*

partition functions ! (check values in computer codes)

*

data for NLTE (gf-values, cross-sections for collisions with e- but



especially with H atoms,…)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Oxygen Abundance A little bit of History

Lines

HolwegerMüller-1D Today

1D-model 15 years ago GN94-GS98

3D Today

[O I]

8.73+/-0.05

~8.90

8.70

OI

8.69+/-0.05

~8.83

8.69

OH, dv=0

8.83+/-0.03

~8.83

8.69

OH, dv=1

8.86+/-0.03

~8.85

8.69

?

~8.85

8.69

Mean

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Belgian Satellite- SWAP instrument built at the CENTRE SPATIAL DE LIEGE

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

The terrible tragedy of Science is the murder of beautiful theories (SSM+…) by ugly facts (new W. Fowler (?) solar abundances)

*The most interesting topics are the ones where Theory and Observations disagree. *Thanks to these challenges Progress is made in both fields

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

• Landi et al. 2007 High Ne from solar flares … but possible IFIP (Ne: 21.6, O: 13.6eV)

• Bochsler 2007 Ne and O from solar wind by comparing to He He very variable in SW. Depending on the adopted He, Ne and O can be high or low

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Comparison Caffau, Ludwig, Steffen et al. versus Asplund, Grevesse, Sauval, Scott Li C N O P S K Fe Eu Hf Os Th NIC IX, June 2006

Caf et al. 1.03+/-0.03 8.50+/-0.06 7.86+/-0.12 8.76+/-0.07 5.46+/-0.04 7.16+/-0.05 5.11+/-0.09 7.52+/-0.06 0.52+/-0.03 0.87+/-0.04 1.36+/-0.19 0.08+/-0.03

Asp et al 1.05+/-0.10 8.43+/-0.05 7.83+/-0.05 8.69+/-0.05 5.41+/-0.03 7.12+/-0.03 5.03+/-0.09 7.50+/-0.04 0.51+/-0.04 0.84+/-0.04 1.40+/-0.08 0.02+/-0.09 Padova - November 21, 2007

Difference -0.02 +0.07 +0.03 +0.07 +0.05 +0.04 +0.08 +0.02 +0.01 +0.03 -0.04 +0.06

Protosolar X, Y, Z

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar Ne abundance We used Ne/O=0.15 (SEP, SW, Corona at  T) ANe = 7.84

0.24 dex (1.74x) smaller than older values Such ‘low’ Ne/O solar values have been confirmed by • Young (2005) Quiet Sun (EUV, CDS, Soho) • Schmelz et al. (2005) Active regions (X rays)

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

SHOPPING LIST : ATOMIC DATA …Transition Probabilities…. • [C I] 8727, blend with Fe I Eexc=4.186 eV, accurate gf-value needed • Na I No experimental gf-values for solar lines • Mg I Theoretical gf-values from Opacity Project(OP) • Al I Theoretical gf-values from OP • S I Disagreement between available theoretical gf values • Ca II Theoretical gf-values from OP • Sc II Problems for three lines(6245,6300, 6320) with Branching Fractions (BF) • V II HFS needed • Mn I Problems with gf-values for 3 eV lines • Ni II No very accurate gf-values • Cu I More atomic data for NLTE calculations • Rb I More atomic data for NLTE • Rh I Old gf-values with BF from Corliss and Bozman • Cd I The line, 5085, is blended by Fe I, Eexc=3.88 eV, accurate gf-value needed • W I More data for NLTE • Au I 3122.784, blend with Fe line? (Glenn Wahlgren) • Pb I More data for NLTE • Th II Blend V I (1.8 eV), more accurate gf-value needed

• And, of course, cross sections for collisions with neutral Hydrogen atoms

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Planck, Centre Spatial de Liège

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Helioseismology

Rcz/R =0.713 0.001 Y = 0.248 0.005 (He depends on EOS)

Sound speed – Precision 10-4

YCZ(0.248)  10 % < Y0(0.27)

Diffusion NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Trouble in Paradise ... The Paradise ... new … with with the oldabundances abundances …

Rcz/R = 0.713 0.001 Ys = 0.248 0.005

Ys=0.243 Rcz/R=0.727 Ys=0.246 Rcz/R=0.714

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar abundances … in short … 80 Years … • RUSSELL (1929) – 56 elements – H most abundant element! Progress : - curve of growth (Minnaert, 1931) - continuous opacity H- (Wildt, 1939) - photospheric models (Strömgren, 1940) • Unsöld (1948) - ~ Russell • Goldberg, Müller, Aller (1960) GMA Progress : - better quality photospheric spectra - synthetic spectra - better atomic data ( transition probabilities) • L.H. Aller, D.L. Lambert, H. Holweger, E. Biémont, N. Grevesse, A. Noels, A.J. Sauval, … Tables : - Anders, Grevesse 1989 (more than 5752 citations!) - Grevesse, Noels 1993 - Grevesse, Sauval 1998 • After 2000 M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A.J. Sauval et al. – 3D models+….Also E. Caffau, H. Ludwig, M. Steffen et al.

Padova - November 21, 2007

Solar abundances … in short …80 years… • RUSSELL (1929) – 56 elements – H most abundant element! Progress : - curve of growth (Minnaert, 1931) - continuous opacity H- (Wildt, 1939) - photospheric models (Strömgren, 1940) • Unsöld (1948) - ~ Russell • Goldberg, Müller, Aller (1960) GMA Progress : - better quality photospheric spectra - synthetic spectra - better atomic data ( transition probabilities) L.H. Aller, D.L. Lambert, H. Holweger, E. Biémont, N. Grevesse, A. Noels, A.J. Sauval, …

Tables : - Anders, Grevesse 1989 (more than 5752 citations!) - Grevesse, Noels 1993 - Grevesse, Sauval 1998 • After 2000 M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A.J. Sauval et al. – 3D models+….Also E. Caffau, H. Ludwig, M. Steffen et al.

3D vs. 1D(HM): Na – Ca and Fe Element

NIC IX, June 2006

1D

3D

3D-1D

Na I

6.29

6.24

-0.05

Mg I

7.68

7.63

-0.05

Mg II

7.55

7.53

-0.02

Al I

6.49

6.45

-0.04

Si I

7.54

7.52

-0.02

Si II

7.46

7.45

-0.01

PI

5.42

5.41

-0.01

SI

7.14

7.12

-0.02

KI

5.09

5.03

-0.06

Ca I

6.40

6.36

-0.04

Ca II

6.30

6.28

-0.02

Fe I

7.59

7.51

-0.08

Fe II

7.46

7.50

+0.04

Padova - November 21, 2007

… FUTURE … 

3D model

*

Atomic (and Molecular Data) gf-values

*

partition functions ! (check values in computer codes)

*

data for NLTE (gf-values, cross-sections…collisions with e- but



(see next slide)

especially with H atoms,…)

 • •

•

SSM - Helioseismology ! Abundances of CNONe from Helioseismology? Abundances of C and N from CN cycle neutrinos(SuperKamiokande, SNO+, Borexino)? From solar twin analyzes, with and without planets, the solar CZ might be somewhat deficient in Z?

NIC IX, June 2006

Padova - November 21, 2007

3D solar atmosphere models Ingredients: • Radiative-hydrodynamical • Time-dependent • 3-dimensional • Realistic opacities and equation-of-state • Radiative transfer • LTE Essentially parameter

free