Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:14:14.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Progress in Solar or Stellar Interior Modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2016

S. Turck-Chièze
S. Turck-Chièze*
Affiliation:
Service d'Astrophysique, CEA/DSM/DAPNIA, CE Saclay, Gif sur Yvette, 91191, FRANCE, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Acoustic modes are well-suited probes to check the internal stellar structure and bring interesting constraints on turbulence regions, mixing in stellar interiors and magnetic fields. The SOHO satellite, through the helioseismic instruments GOLF, MDI and VIRGO, has significantly improved the knowledge of these modes owing to an excellent duty cycle (greater than 90%) and the capability to detect very low amplitude modes, down to 3 mm/s. Five years of the SOHO misson guarantee an accurate view of the solar interior, weakly dependent on the turbulent surface, from the energy-generating core to the surface.

The recent results allow us to verify some of the theoretical assumptions of stellar modelling. The tachocline layers, located in a narrow region at the base of the convection zone, support an hydro (or magnetohydro) dynamical instability which induces mixing and results in 7Li depletion in accordance with photospheric observations. On the contrary, central mixing is not favoured by the present observations. Nuclear reaction rates of the pp chain are now constrained by the behaviour of the sound speed and density. Döppler velocity measurements appear as an excellent technique to follow in real time the temporal evolution of the luminosity produced in the core. Some puzzling questions about dynamical effects in stellar plasmas can now start to be addressed for the first time. The theoretical neutrino emissions can be now directly deduced from our helioseismic vision of the energy-generating core.

Nowadays, helioseismology provides a dynamical vision of the external half of the Sun (20% in mass), as a result of the extraction of the sound speed, density, rotation profiles and of the time evolution of velocity measurements. Below, the classical static vision of the nuclear region persists because of the poor spatial resolution offered by acoustic modes (±6% in radius, 10% in mass) and the long integration time (several years). Gravity modes will be extremely useful to improve the spatial resolution in the radiative region. The extended observations with the SOHO satellite may be extremely useful to detect some of these modes.

Type
Session I: Global Structure and Evolution of the Solar Interior
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 203: Recent Insights into the Physics of the Sun and Heliosphere: Highlights from Soho and Other Space Missions , 2001 , pp. 29 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2001 

References

Adelberger, E. et al. 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys, 70, 1265.Google Scholar
Alexander, D. R. & Ferguson, J. W. 1994, ApJ, 437, 849.Google Scholar
Appourchaux, T., Frölich, C., Andersen, B. et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, 401.Google Scholar
Basu, S., Turck-Chièze, S., Berthomieu, G. et al. 2000, ApJ, 535, 1078.Google Scholar
Bertello, L., Henney, C.J., Ulrich, R.K., et al. 2000a, Ap. J., 535, 1066.Google Scholar
Bertello, L., Varadi, F., Ulrich, R.K., et al. 2000b, ApJ. lett., 537, L143.Google Scholar
Gabriel, A. H., Grec, G., Charra, , et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 61.Google Scholar
Brun, A. S., Turck-Chièze, S., & Morel, P. 1998, ApJ, 506, 913.Google Scholar
Brun, A. S., Turck-Chize, S., & Zahn, J. P. 1999, ApJ., 525, 1032.Google Scholar
Dzitko, H., Turck-Chièze, S., Delbourgo, P., & Lagrange, G. 1995, ApJ, 447, 428.Google Scholar
Favata, F., Roxburgh, I., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2000, ESA-SCI 8.Google Scholar
Frölich, C. Romero, J., Roth, C., et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 101.Google Scholar
Frölich, C., Andersen, B. N., Appourchaux, T. et al. 1997, Sol. Phys., 170, 1.Google Scholar
Gabriel, A. H., Charra, J., Grec, , et al. 1997, Sol. Phys., 175, 207.Google Scholar
García, R. A., Régulo, C., Turck-Chièze, S., et al. 2000, Sol. Phys. submitted.Google Scholar
Gilman, P. A. 2000, ApJ, 544, L79.Google Scholar
Gough, 1999, in Helioseismic diagnostics of solar convection and activity, Stanford.Google Scholar
Gruzinov, A. V. 1998, ApJ, 469, 503.Google Scholar
Hammache, F. et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 928.Google Scholar
Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J., 1996, ApJ, 464, 943.Google Scholar
Junker, M., et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2700.Google Scholar
Kosovichev, A. G., Schou, J. Scherrer, P. H. 1997, Sol. Phys. 1997, 170, 43.Google Scholar
Kumar, P., Quataert, E. J., & Bahcall, J. N. 1996, ApJ, 458, L83.Google Scholar
Kurucz, R. L., Stellar Atmospheres, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991, 441.Google Scholar
Michaud, G., & Proffit, C.R., Inside the stars IAU 137, p 246.Google Scholar
Motobayashi, T. et al. 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 73, 2680.Google Scholar
Rogers, F. J. and Iglesias, C. A. 1998, Space Sc. rev. 85, 61.Google Scholar
Rogers, F. J., Swenson, J. & Iglesias, C. 1996, ApJ, 456, 902.Google Scholar
Scherrer, P. H., Bogart, R. S., Bush, R. I., et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 129.Google Scholar
Seaton, M. J. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 700.Google Scholar
Shaviv, G. & Shaviv, N., 1999, Phys. Rep., 311, 99; 2000, Astroph. J., 529, 1054.Google Scholar
Spiegel, E. A. & Zahn, J. P. 1992, A&A, 265, 106.Google Scholar
Springer, P.T. et al. 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 3735.Google Scholar
Sturrock, , et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 978; ApJ lett., 523, L177; 2000, submitted.Google Scholar
Thiery, S., Boumier, P., Gabriel, A.H., et al. 2000, Astron. Astrophys., 355, 743.Google Scholar
Thoul, A., Bahcall, J. N., Loeb, A 1994, ApJ, 421, 828.Google Scholar
Toutain, T., Appourchaux, T., Baudin, , et al. 1997 Solar Phys., 175, 311.Google Scholar
Tsytovich, V. N. & Bornatici, M. 2000, Plasma Phys. Rep., 89.Google Scholar
Tsytovich, V., Bingham, R., De Angelis, U., & Forlani, A. 1996, Phys. Script. 54, 313.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S. 2000, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 80, 183.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., et al. 1993 Physics Rep., 230 (2–4), 57–235.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., Basu, S., Berthomieu, , et al. 1998, ESA SP-418, 555.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., Nghiem, P., Couvidat, S., Turcotte, S. 2000a, Sol. Phys., accepted.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., Kosovichev, A. G., Couvidat, S., et al. 2000b, ESA SP-464, in press.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., Garcia, R. A., Couvidat, S. et al. 2000c, ApJ, submitted.Google Scholar
Turck-Chièze, S., Robillot, JM., Dzitko, H. et al., 2000d, ESA SP-464, in press.Google Scholar
Turcotte, S. et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 539.Google Scholar