Nicolas GREVESSE*

Nicolas GREVESSE*Centre Spatial de Liège and Institut d´Astrophysique et

de Géophysique, Université de Liège, Belgium

The Chemical Composition The Chemical Composition of the SUNof the SUN

*Corresponding Astronomer of the Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels

New Solar Chemical CompositionNew Solar Chemical Composition

Martin ASPLUND – Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik – Garching-Germany

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:END RESULT: a COMPREHENSIVECOMPREHENSIVE and HOMOGENEOUSHOMOGENEOUS re-determination 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 ?HOW ?

Iline (W) depends • Ni

* x Aji (or gfij-values)• Physical processes (LTE-NLTE)• Physical conditions :T,P=f(z)…Model

i

j

Absorption depends on ratio κline/κcont i.e. ÷(Nel/NH)

* Number of atoms or ions that are in the level i

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!!!

Physical Conditions: LTE versus NLTEPhysical Conditions: LTE versus NLTE

1D solar atmosphere models1D 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-3DBalance 1D-3DVarious ways to test modelsQ : Does the model reproduce … ?

Test 1D 3D

• Ic=F() Yes Yes• C/L variation No Yes• H line profiles No Yes• Granulation No Yes• Widths of lines Yes* Yes• Shifts of lines No Yes• Asymmetries No Yes• ≠ indicators No Yes• Dependence I,EEx No Yes• High freq oscillations No 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 profilesare perfectly reproduced

For the first time, line profilesare perfectly reproduced

• But computing time !

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

SHAPES of the LINES

1-Averaged line profiles1-Averaged line profiles

1D vs Sun

3D vs Sun

No micro- and macroturbulence needed in 3D!

Shift!

2- Line asymmetries2- Line asymmetriesThe asymmetries and shifts of spectral

lines are very well reproduced

Observations3D model

FeI

FeII1D: A(Fe) from FeI lines depends on Eexc and is quite different from A(Fe) from FeII lines

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

3D: perfect agreement FeI - FeII and no dependence on Eexc

3D: perfect agreement FeI - FeII and no dependence on Eexc

Dependence on Eexc or ionization

1- ATOMS-IONS

2- OH vib-rot lines in IR2- OH vib-rot lines in IRRevised 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

Holweger-Müller(1D)

3D

Balance 1D-3DBalance 1D-3DVarious ways to test modelsQ : Does the model reproduce … ?NO DOUBT about the REALISM of 3D MODELS

Test 1D 3D

• Ic=F() Yes Yes• C/L variation Yes Yes• Granulation No Yes• Widths of lines Yes* Yes• Shifts of lines No Yes• Asymmetries No Yes• ≠ indicators No Yes• Dependence I,Eexc No Yes• High freq oscillations No Yes

* Thanks to fake parameters: micro- and macroturbulence


HHT TT TPICS PICS

Solar O( recent papers …)

Solar Neon?C, N, Mg, Fe, Ar,…


Oxygen diagnosticsOxygen 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

LinesHolweger-Müller-1D

3D Difference

[O I] 8.73+/-0.05 8.70+/-0.05 -0.03

O I 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

*OH lines have the same sensitivity to T as the high Exc O I linesbut they are formed higher in the photosphere


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

OH – pure rotation

v=1N=20

v=1N=20

v=0N=19

v=0N=19

v=1N=20

ATMOS solar spectrum from space


ATMOS solar spectrum Farmer & Norton 1989


O I Lines O I Lines

[O I][O I] ExcExc WW 3D-1D3D-1D NLTE-LTENLTE-LTE

6300.3 0.00 4.65* -0.03 0.00

6363.7 0.02 1.6* -0.03 0.00

O IO I

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

3D and NLTE effects

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


O I linesO I lines

* Level population at 9 eV (permitted lines) is 10-9 of level population in the ground state level (forbidden lines).


Forbidden [O I] linesForbidden [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


Permitted O I linesPermitted 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


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

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

Calibration of the cross-sections for collisions with H


Oxygen ResultsOxygen 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

LinesHolweger-Müller(1D)

3D 3D-1D

[O I] 8.73+/-0.05 8.70+/-0.05 -0.03

O I 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

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


O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(1)O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(1)Caffau, Ludwig, Steffen, Ayres, Bonifacio, Cayrel, Freytag, Plez 2008

O I lines with CO5BOLD: log O = 8.76 ± 0.05- Choice of H collisions: log O ≈ -0.03 dex- Equivalent widths: log O ≈ -0.02dex- Weights: log O ≈ -0.02 dex

Caf

fau

777.1nm

777.4nm

777.5nm

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

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

NIC IX, June 2006 Padova - November 21, 2007 Caf

fau

777.1nm

777.4nm

777.5nm

New equivalent widths+…

New

New

New

New abundances

8.69 (Caffau) 8.69 (us)

O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(2)O I+[O I]: another 3D analysis(2)


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!


Carbon ResultsCarbon 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

LinesHolweger-

Müller3D 3D-1D

[C I] 8.41 8.41 0.00

C I 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


E. Caffau, H. Ludwig, M. Steffen et al.Large number of C I lines. Many strongIR 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 !!)

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


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

LinesHolweger-

Müller3D 3D-1D

N I 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 !!!


Solar CNO abundancesSolar 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)

ElementAnders &

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


Solar CNO abundancesSolar 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)

ElementGrevesse &

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


SummarySummary

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

C,N,O

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

NIC IX, June 2006 Padova - November 21, 2007Synergies between solar and stellar modeling, Rome, 22-26 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)


ImplicationsImplications


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


New solar metallicityNew solar metallicityElement 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

C+N+O ~ 2/3 Z

X=0.7381 Y=0.2485 Z=0.0134 Z/X=0.0181 Anders, Grevesse 1989 Z=0.019 Z/X=0.027Grevesse, Noels 1993 Z=0.017 Z/X=0.024Grevesse, Sauval 1998

By number H 91.3%, He 8.5%, other elements 0.15%

By MassX+Y+Z=1


Metallicity Z


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 ?




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



FIP:FIP: First Ionization PotentialFirst Ionization Potential

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

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.

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.




FIP

Solar NEON ! High or Low? LOW



Solar Ne abundance … Solar Ne abundance … Ne/ONe/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


Solar Ne abundanceNew studies of solar neighborhood suggested that solar Ne is underestimated (Ne/O=0.3 to 0.4)

Ne

/O

X-ray luminosity

Drake&Testa(2005)*

*The <solar model problem> solved by the abundance of Neon in nearby stars (Nature)

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


Ne

/O

X-ray luminosity

Drake & Testa (2005):

(see also Liefke and Schmitt (2006))

Solar Ne abundanceVery recent studies of solar neighborhood show

that solar Ne is NOT underestimated !

Robrade, Schmitt & Favata (2008)


ARGON SW1 6.19±(0.10?) SW2 6.30±0.10 SW3(Genesis) 6.35±0.10 Flares(Ar/O) 6.36±0.16 Flares(Ar/H) 6.45±0.03 Flares(2010) 6.45±0.06 SEP 6.22±0.03 Jupiter 6.55±0.08 Nuclear 6.52±0.08 B stars 6.52±0.06 (6.66-0.10-0.04) H II 6.48±0.05 (6.62-0.10-0.04) PNs 6.43±0.34 (6.47-0.04) MEAN 6.40+/-0.12



Makes Sun normal compared with surrounding

FIP

Solar NEON ! High or Low?

Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], … WARNING !!






FIP

Alters cosmic yardstick [X/H], [X/Fe], …

Agreement with meteorites !


NIC IX, June 2006 Padova - November 21, 2007Synergies between solar and stellar modeling, Rome, 22-26 June 2009

Mean difference Sun - Meteorites 0.00 0.05


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.





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



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



13C, 18O, (17O) from IR CO

Sun Earth

13C, 18O, (17O) from IR CO

Sun Earth

1

C12O16

3-2R113

C12O18

1-0R65

C12O17

2-1R66

C12O16


Significantly lower solar metallicity Z=0.0122Makes Sun normal compared with surroundingsSolar NEON ! High or Low?

FIPAlters 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, …)



But …But …

a grain of sand

in the honeymoon betweenSSM-Helioseismology+…

See next TALKS…..


… … FUTURE …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,…)


Oxygen AbundanceOxygen Abundance

A little bit of History

Lines

Holweger-Müller-1D

Today

1D-model

15 years ago

GN94-GS98

3D

Today

[O I] 8.73+/-0.05 ~8.90 8.70

O I 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

Mean ? ~8.85 8.69


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


The terrible tragedy of Science is the murder of

*The most interesting topics are the ones where Theory and Observations disagree.

*Thanks to these challenges Progress is made in both fields

beautiful theories (SSM+…) by ugly facts (new solar abundances) W. Fowler (?)


• 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


Comparison Caffau, Ludwig, Steffen et al. versus Asplund, Grevesse, Sauval, Scott

Caf et al. Asp et al Difference

Li 1.03+/-0.03 1.05+/-0.10 -0.02

C 8.50+/-0.06 8.43+/-0.05 +0.07

N 7.86+/-0.12 7.83+/-0.05 +0.03

O 8.76+/-0.07 8.69+/-0.05 +0.07

P 5.46+/-0.04 5.41+/-0.03 +0.05

S 7.16+/-0.05 7.12+/-0.03 +0.04

K 5.11+/-0.09 5.03+/-0.09 +0.08

Fe 7.52+/-0.06 7.50+/-0.04 +0.02

Eu 0.52+/-0.03 0.51+/-0.04 +0.01

Hf 0.87+/-0.04 0.84+/-0.04 +0.03

Os 1.36+/-0.19 1.40+/-0.08 -0.04

Th 0.08+/-0.03 0.02+/-0.09 +0.06

NIC IX, June 2006 Padova - November 21, 2007Padova - November 21, 2007

ProtosolarX, Y, Z


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)


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



Planck, Centre Spatial de Liège




Rcz/R =0.713±0.001

Y = 0.248±0.005

Sound speed – Precision 10-4

Helioseismology

(He depends on EOS)

YCZ(0.248) 10 % < Y0(0.27)

Diffusion


Trouble in Paradise ...

YYss=0.243=0.243RRczcz/R=0.727/R=0.727

Rcz/R = 0.713 ± 0.001

Ys = 0.248 ± 0.005

with new abundances… with the old abundances …

YYss=0.246=0.246RRczcz/R=0.714/R=0.714

The Paradise ...

Solar abundances … in short … Solar abundances … in short … 80 Years …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

• 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.

SolaSolarr abundances … in short …80 years… abundances … in short …80 years…


Element 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

P I 5.42 5.41 -0.01

S I 7.14 7.12 -0.02

K I 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

3D vs. 1D(HM): Na – Ca and Fe


… … FUTURE …FUTURE … 3D model

Atomic (and Molecular Data) (see next slide)

* gf-values* partition functions ! (check values in computer codes)

* data for NLTE (gf-values, cross-sections…collisions with e- but especially with H atoms,…)

SSM - Helioseismology !• Abundances of CNONe from Helioseismology?• Abundances of C and N from CN cycle neutrinos(Super-

Kamiokande, SNO+, Borexino)?• From solar twin analyzes, with and without planets, the solar CZ

might be somewhat deficient in Z?

3D solar atmosphere models3D solar atmosphere modelsIngredients:

• Radiative-hydrodynamical• Time-dependent• 3-dimensional• Realistic opacities and equation-of-state• Radiative transfer• LTE

Essentially parameter free

Documents

Nicolas GREVESSE*