Solar fusion and the coulomb dissociation of 8B — What have we learned and where do we go from here?

  • Moshe GaiEmail author


The much needed nuclear input to the Standard Solar Model, S 17(0), has now been measured with high precision (±5% or better) by different groups and good agreement is found, even when very different methods are employed. We review the decade long research program to measure the cross section of the 7Be(p,γ)8B reaction using the Coulomb dissociation method, including the pioneering RIKEN1 experiment carried out during March 1992, followed by RIKEN2, GSI1, GSI2 and an MSU experiment. Our RIKEN and GSI data allow us to rule out the much tooted large E2 contribution to the Coulomb dissociation of 8B. Specifically recent results of the MSU experiment are not confirmed. The GSI1 and GSI2 high precision measurements are in good (to perfect) agreement with the newly published high precision measurements of direct capture with 7Be targets. From these GSI-Seattle-Weizmann high precision data we conclude that the astrophysical cross section factor, S 17(0), is most likely in the range of 20–22 eV-b. We point out to an additional large uncertainty (−10% +3%) that still exists due to uncertainty in the measured slope of the S-factor and the theoretical extrapolation procedure which may still lower S 17(0) down to approximately 18.5 eV-b. For quoting S 17(0) with an uncertainty of ±5% or better, yet another measurement needs to be performed at very low energies, as recently discussed by the UConn-Weizmann-LLN collaboration for the CERN/ISOLDE facility.


solar neutrinos solar fusion nuclear astrophysics astrophysical cross section factor Coulomb dissociation virtual photons 


25.20.Dc 25.70.De 95.30−K 26.30.+K 26.65.+t 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Q.R. Ahmad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301; ibid. 89 (2002) 011301 and 011302.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.G. Adelberger et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998) 1265.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Baur, C.A. Bertulani and H. Rebel, Nucl. Phys. A458 (1986) 188.ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Motobayashi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2680.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Kikuchi et al., Phys. Lett. B391 (1997) 261; ibid. Eur. Phys. J. A3 (1998) 213.ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Iwasa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 2910.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Davids et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2750.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Schumann et al., to be published, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Gai and C.A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 1706.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Hammache et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 3985.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Strieder et al., Nucl. Phys. A696 (2001) 219.ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.R. Junghans et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 041101.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.T. Baby et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 022501.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Descouvemont and D. Baye, Nucl. Phys. A567 (1994) 341.ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Gai, M. Hass and Th. Delbar (UConn-Weizmann-LLN-ISOLDE Collaboration), Letter of Intent to INTC, 137 INTC 2001-007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Nuclear Sciences, Department of Physics, U3046University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations