4.6 Article

Evidence of a signature of planet formation processes from solar neutrino fluxes

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 667, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

关键词

neutrinos; Sun: interior; Sun: evolution; accretion, accretion disks; protoplanetary disks; planets and satellites: formation

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [20K14542]
  2. Programme National de Planetologie
  3. SNF AMBIZIONE [185805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solar evolutionary models have difficulty in consistently reproducing spectroscopic, helioseismic, and neutrino constraints, known as the solar modeling problem. However, including a realistic planet formation scenario in the solar evolutionary models can increase core metallicity and improve the accuracy of neutrino flux measurements during the initial stages of the Solar System formation.
Solar evolutionary models are thus far unable to reproduce spectroscopic, helioseismic, and neutrino constraints consistently, resulting in the so-called solar modeling problem. In parallel, planet formation models predict that the evolving composition of the protosolar disk and, thus, of the gas accreted by the proto-Sun must have been variable. We show that solar evolutionary models that include a realistic planet formation scenario lead to an increased core metallicity of up to 5%, implying that accurate neutrino flux measurements are sensitive to the initial stages of the formation of the Solar System. Models with homogeneous accretion match neutrino constraints to no better than 2.7 sigma. In contrast, accretion with a variable composition due to planet formation processes, leading to metal-poor accretion of the last similar to 4% of the young Sun's total mass, yields solar models within 1.3 sigma of all neutrino constraints. We thus demonstrate that in addition to increased opacities at the base of the convective envelope, the formation history of the Solar System constitutes a key element in resolving the current crisis of solar models.

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

4.6
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