1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0375-9474(97)00404-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The proton-proton reaction, solar neutrinos, and a relativistic field theoretic model of the deuteron

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They obtained then a result which was significantly different from the standard result based upon potential models. Subsequently it was pointed out by Bahcall and Kamionowski [8] that their effective nuclear interaction was not consistent with what is known about protonproton scattering at low energies where Coulomb effects are important.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They obtained then a result which was significantly different from the standard result based upon potential models. Subsequently it was pointed out by Bahcall and Kamionowski [8] that their effective nuclear interaction was not consistent with what is known about protonproton scattering at low energies where Coulomb effects are important.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…as follows from the expressions in (6) and (8). This form of the transition matrix element was written down first by Bethe and Chritchfield [2] and used subsequently by everyone considering the process in potential models.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their relativistic model they obtained a result which was significantly different from the standard result based upon conventional nuclear physics models. Subsequently it was pointed out by Bahcall and Kamionowski that their effective nuclear interaction was not consistent with what is known about proton-proton scattering at low energies where Coulomb effects are important [8]. In a more recent contribution this defect of their calculation was removed and better agreement with standard results have been obtained [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This number is considered as a canonical value and, indeed, a series of recalculations within various approaches (cf [6][7][8] and further references therein) recover values of S pp centred around the canonical one. A considerably larger value would be inconsistent with helioseismic data [9,10]. However, there are some other indications [11] that S pp may be 4.2 × 10 −25 MeV b or even slightly larger.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%