4.6 Article

The photospheric solar oxygen project II. Non-concordance of the oxygen abundance derived from two forbidden lines

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 554, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321446

关键词

Sun: abundances; Sun: photosphere; stars: abundances; line: formation; radiative transfer

资金

  1. Programme National de Physique Stellaire (PNPS)
  2. Programme National de Cosmologie et Galaxies (PNCG) of the Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers of CNRS
  3. The Milky Way System of the German Research Foundation (DFG) [SFB881]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. In the Sun, the two forbidden [OI] lines at 630 and 636 nm were previously found to provide discrepant oxygen abundances. Aims. We investigate whether this discrepancy is peculiar to the Sun or whether it is also observed in other stars. Methods. We make use of high-resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio spectra of four dwarf to turn-off stars, five giant stars, and one sub-giant star observed with THEMIS, HARPS, and UVES to investigate the coherence of the two lines. Results. The two lines provide oxygen abundances that are consistent, within observational errors, in all the giant stars examined by us. On the other hand, for the two dwarf stars for which a measurement was possible, for Procyon, and for the sub-giant star Capella, the 636 nm line provides systematically higher oxygen abundances, as already seen for the Sun. Conclusions. The only two possible reasons for the discrepancy are a serious error in the oscillator strength of the Ni I line blending the 630 nm line or the presence of an unknown blend in the 636 nm line, which makes the feature stronger. The CN lines blending the 636 nm line cannot be responsible for the discrepancy. The Ca I autoionisation line, on the red wing of which the 636 nm line is formed, is not well modelled by our synthetic spectra. However, a better reproduction of this line would result in even higher abundances from the 636 nm, thus increasing the discrepancy.

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