2021
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6471/ac2b0f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The status and future of direct nuclear reaction measurements for stellar burning

Abstract: The study of stellar burning began just over 100 years ago. Nonetheless, we do not yet have a detailed picture of the nucleosynthesis within stars and how nucleosynthesis impacts stellar structure and the remnants of stellar evolution. Achieving this understanding will require precise direct measurements of the nuclear reactions involved. This report summarizes the status of direct measurements for stellar burning, focusing on developments of the last couple of decades, and offering a prospectus of near-future… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 285 publications
(802 reference statements)
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We explored stronger 3α reaction rates by implementing a 37.8% larger rate as a multiplicative factor on the currently adopted NACRE rate. At A goal of forthcoming low-energy nuclear experiments is to further reduce the uncertainty in the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate probability distribution (deBoer et al 2017;Smith et al 2021;Aliotta et al 2022). Partnering with this laboratory astrophysics quest are other avenues for placing astrophysical constraints on the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate, from the period spectra of variable carbon-oxygen white dwarfs (Chidester et al 2022), the lifetimes of He core-burning stars (Imbriani et al 2001;Jones et al 2015), and the surface abundances of WO-type Wolf-Rayet stars (Aadland et al 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We explored stronger 3α reaction rates by implementing a 37.8% larger rate as a multiplicative factor on the currently adopted NACRE rate. At A goal of forthcoming low-energy nuclear experiments is to further reduce the uncertainty in the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate probability distribution (deBoer et al 2017;Smith et al 2021;Aliotta et al 2022). Partnering with this laboratory astrophysics quest are other avenues for placing astrophysical constraints on the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate, from the period spectra of variable carbon-oxygen white dwarfs (Chidester et al 2022), the lifetimes of He core-burning stars (Imbriani et al 2001;Jones et al 2015), and the surface abundances of WO-type Wolf-Rayet stars (Aadland et al 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A goal of forthcoming low-energy nuclear experiments is to further reduce the uncertainty in the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate probability distribution (deBoer et al 2017;Smith et al 2021;Aliotta et al 2022). Partnering with this laboratory astrophysics quest are other avenues for placing astrophysical constraints on the 12 C(α,γ) 16 O reaction rate from the period spectrum of variable carbon-oxygen white dwarfs (Chidester et al 2022), lifetimes of He core burning stars (Imbriani et al 2001;Jones et al 2015), and the surface abundances of WO-type Wolf-Rayet stars (Aadland et al 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nuclear energy generation at the ignition of a superburst is set by the 12 C+ 12 C fusion rate. At temperatures relevant for the accreted neutron star envelope, this nuclear reaction rate is based on nuclear theory calculations and is uncertain by several orders of magnitude (Beck et al 2020;Tang & Ru 2022;Aliotta et al 2022). Modern theoretical 12 C+ 12 C rates include results from barrier penetration calculations using the Sao Paulo potential (Yakovlev et al 2010), coupled-channel calculations performed using the M3Y+repulsion double-folding potential (Esbensen et al 2011), empirical extrapolations based on the hindrance model (Jiang et al 2018), experimentally derived results based on the trojan horse method (THM) (Tumino et al 2018), THM results adopting a Coulomb renormalization (Mukhamedzhanov et al 2019), and a microscopic model with molecular resonances (Taniguchi & Kimura 2021).…”
Section: Carbon Ignition Curvesmentioning
confidence: 99%