4.7 Article

The evolution of Lithium: implications of a universal Spite plateau

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab1234

关键词

stars: abundances; galaxies: abundances; primordial nucleosynthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper addresses the cosmological Li-7 problem, confirming that the Spite plateau in dwarf objects may be a universal feature through detailed chemical evolution models and comparisons with observations.
The cosmological Li-7 problem consists in explaining why the primordial Li abundance, as predicted by the standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory with constraints from WMAP and Planck, is a factor of 3 larger than the Li abundance measured in the stars of the Spite plateau defined by old, warm dwarf stars of the Milky Way halo. Several explanations have been proposed to explain this difference, including various Li depletion processes as well as non-standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the main question remains unanswered. In this paper, we present detailed chemical evolution models for dwarf spheroidal and ultra faint galaxies, compute the galactic evolution of Li-7 abundance in these objects, and compare it with observations of similar objects. In our models, Li is mainly produced by novae and cosmic rays, and to a minor extent, by low and intermediate mass stars. We adopt the yield combination that best fits the Li abundances in the Milky Way stars. It is evident that the observations of dwarf objects define a Spite plateau, identical to that observed in the Milky Way, thus suggesting that the Spite plateau could be a universal feature and its meaning should be discussed. The predictions of our models for dwarf galaxies are obtained by assuming as Li primordial abundance either the one detected in the atmospheres of the oldest halo stars (Spite plateau; A(Li) similar to 2.2 dex), or the one from cosmological observations (WMAP; A(Li) similar to 2.66 dex). Finally, we discuss the implications of the universality of the Spite plateau results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据