Arxiv:Nucl-Th/0203071V2 16 Sep 2002

arXiv:nucl-th/0203071v2 16 Sep 2002 ‡ † ∗ Contents stars in processes weak-interaction Nuclear c eu,Ga ai` ,E004Breoa Spain Barcelona, E-08034 Capità 2, Gran Nexus, fici II iaySystems Binary VIII. rsn drs:Isiu ’sui sail eCataluny de Espacials d’Estudis Institut address: Present [email protected] address: Electronic I.TeNurn Process Neutrino The VII. lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic I.Hdoe unn n oa neutrinos solar and burning Hydrogen III. V aesaeselrevolution stellar Late-stage IV. I uloytei eodiron beyond Nucleosynthesis VI. X ocuin n uueperspectives future and Conclusions IX. I hoeia description Theoretical II. .Clas n otbuc stage post-bounce and Collapse V. .Introduction I. .Wa neatosi uli2 nuclei in interactions Weak A. .Gnrlremarks General A. .Eeto atr nnce 17 nuclei on capture Electron A. .S-process A. .Novae A. References Acknowledgments .Cneune fteselmdlrtsi stellar in rates model shell the of Consequences C. .Dlydsproamcaim20 mechanism supernova Delayed C. .Tp aSproa 35 Supernovae Ia Type C. .Ncermodels Nuclear B. .Selmdleeto atr and capture electron Shell-model B. .Nurn rates Neutrino B. .R-process B. .XryBursts X-ray B. et r xetdt oefo uuerdocieion-beam radioactive future from come improvements to expected important are as progress, ments processes significant weak-interaction the some to Despite st given is and emphasis nucleosynthesis, solar cial neutrino hydrostatic to to processes, applications neutron-capture their weak-interactio and structure important advances nuclear astrophysically in of progress scriptions and data experimental Recent 2018) 22, October (Dated: Universität Basel Astronomie, und für Physik Department Mart´ınez-PinedoG. Astronomi, og Fysik for Institut Langanke K. models .Tepsil oeo etio nterpoes29 r-process the in neutrinos of role possible The 2. Half-Lives 1. ∗ † ru nvrie,DK-8000 Universitet, Arhus ˚ β ea ae 10 rates decay ,Edi- a, 10 10 16 13 19 26 25 24 23 34 33 33 32 39 38 36 2 1 6 4 rcse.Terve icse these discusses review The processes. n n oepoiehdoe unn.Spe- burning. hydrogen explosive to and oitdwt oeclas supernovae. core-collapse with sociated la unn,t h lwadrapid and slow the to burning, ellar H45 ae,Switzerland Basel, CH-4056 , oeighv edt mrvdde- improved to lead have modeling r tl arne.Sc improve- Such warranted. still are nmn ae tl os-itoue usata uncer- substantial a and introduced – - has does still which cases problem, many in many-body adequately nuclear to the inability structure the treat been nuclear has a it However, to problem. basically theory, calculation perturbation the in reducing processes al- these parameter of coupling treatment for interaction lows weak the different Clearly, the is of nuclei. situation smallness involving the processes However, interaction nature weak composite nucleons. the the describe of are which formfactors account proper into if quarks), protons taken and neutrinos, neutron for among electrons, also but processes (i.e. weak for particles sections elementary cross accurate of tion supernova. al. II et type a in star massive during a of trapping collapse neu- neutrino core between to the section leading nucleons, cross and scattering trinos elastic result sizable would interaction a this in that and recognized (1975), (1975) Mazurek Sato neu- (1974), of Freedman discovery current mecha- the weak after loss tral Just energy elec- stellar 1959). effective (Pontecorvo, by very nism pairs a be neutrino would of trons that radiation realize bremsstrahlung to Pontecorvo the led 1958) Gell-Mann, and man .INTRODUCTION I. tra nipratsuc o tla nrylosses 1941). energy universal 1940, stellar the Schoenberg, of for and development source The the Gamow in important 1941; in production an (Gamow, neutrinos their as of proposed star role and possible evolution Schoen- the stellar and about Gamow exis- speculated 1934), the berg (Fermi, theory postulated interaction first the weak Pauli developed Fermi of and after astrophys- neutrino the some Shortly by of tence in followed importance context. closely their ical of were of nature usually recognition the the into interaction illustrated insights weak nicely elec- new the be that strong, observation can – many the This in by three keyrole a other processes. plays the it astrophysical – Like gravitation and tromagnetic nature. in forces facilities. ru,Denmark Arhus, ˚ h nfidmdlo lcrwa neato (Glashow interaction electroweak of model unified The h ekitrcini n h orfundamental four the one is interaction weak The 90 aa,16;Wibr,16)alw deriva- allows 1967) Weinberg, 1968; Salam, 1970; , ‡ V − A hoy(Feyn- theory 2 tainty into some of the key weak interaction rates used in II. THEORETICAL DESCRIPTION astrophysical simulations. However, the recent few years have witnessed a tremendous progress in nuclear many- A. Weak interactions in nuclei body theory, made possible by new approaches and novel computer realizations of established models, but also by the availability of large computational capabilities. This kλ kλ νλ νλ progress allowed calculation of the rates for many of the νλ − + stellar weak-interaction processes involving nuclei with e − e νe νe νe significantly improved accuracy or for the first time. To − actually know that the calculations are more reliable, im- e − − kλ e e plies the availability of experimental data which test, con- − + strain and guide the theoretical models. Thus, the ad- orbital e − capture β decay β decay = ν − = ν + = ν + vances in modelling nuclear weak-interaction processes qλ λ kλ qλ λ kλ qλ λ kλ in stars also reflects the progress made by experimen- νλ ν ν talists in recent years which have succeeded to measure − λ λ ν kλ ν − e − l ν data which are relevant for the astrophysical applications l e − + discussed in this review either directly, e.g. half-lives for l l some short-lived nuclei on the r-process path (Pfeiffer kλ kλ − et al., 2001), or indirectly like the Gamow-Teller distri- bound state β decay continuum charged (anti)lepton capture butions for nuclei in the iron mass range (Osterfeld, 1992) qλ= ν λ + kλ qλ= ν λ − kλ which decisively constrain the nuclear models. Another kλ ν′ recent experimental first has been the measurement of λ − ν′ l l charged- and neutral-current neutrino-nucleus cross sec- ν tions. l νl ν λ νλ

This review will report about progress in modelling ν′ nuclear weak-interaction processes and their possible im- kλ λ + −ν′ l l plications for stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis. We − −ν ν will restrict ourselves to advances achieved by improved l l nuclear models, treating the weak interaction within the νλ νλ standard model. Of course, it has long been recognized (anti)neutrino capture (anti)neutrino scattering (e.g. Sato and Sato, 1975) that stars can be used as lab- qλ= k λ − νλ qλ= ν′ λ − νλ oratories for fundamental physics (Raffelt, 1996) search- ing for new weakly interacting particles or constraining FIG. 1 Semileptonic weak processes that occur during the exotic components of the weak interaction outside the evolution of stars. For each process the hadronic current is standard model. This field is rapidly growing (see for ex- on the left and the leptonic current to the right. The dashed ample Corsico et al., 2001; Dom´ınguez et al., 1999; Raf- circle indicates a bound electron in the initial or final state. felt, 1996, 1999, 2000). The four-momentum transfer qλ = (−ω, q) for each process is given in terms of the charged lepton four-momentum kλ = (ǫ, k) and the neutrino four-momentum νλ = (ν, ν). Our review is structured as follows. Following a very ω, ǫ, and ν represent the energy transfer, lepton energy and brief discussion of the required ingredients of the weak neutrino energy, respectively. In the case of antiparticles the interaction we introduce the nuclear many-body mod- directions of the momenta are show as an arrow close to the els which have been used in the studies of the weak- four-momentum label. The first row shows the usual decay interaction processes (section II). The remaining sections modes in the laboratory. The second and third rows show are devoted to the results of these calculations and their processes that can occur under stellar conditions. applications to astrophysics which include the solar nuclear reaction network and neutrino problem, the core Processes mediated by the weak interaction in stars collapse of massive stars, s- and r-process nucleosynthe- can be classified as leptonic (all interacting particles sis, neutrino nucleosynthesis, explosive hydrogen burning are leptons) and semileptonic (leptons interact with and type Ia supernovae. hadrons via the weak interaction). Leptonic processes can be straightforwardly computed using the standard Although generally quite important, weak-interaction electroweak model (Grotz and Klapdor, 1990). The cal- processes constitute only a part of the many nuclear re- culation of semileptonic processes (i.e. neutrino-nucleus actions occuring in stars. For recent reviews about other reactions, charged-lepton capture, and β-decay) is more stellar nuclear reactions networks and nucleosynthesis complicated due to the description of the nuclear states the reader is referred to the comprehensive and compe- involved. Fortunately the momenta of the particles turn tent work by (Arnould and Takahashi, 1999; Boyd, 2000; out to be small compared with the masses of the Z, W Smith and Rehm, 2001; Wallerstein et al., 1997). bosons. Thus it is sufficient to consider the semileptonic 3 processes of interest in the lowest-order approximation quence of this hypothesis the weak charge-changing vec- in the weak interaction. Then the interaction can be de- tor current is a conserved quantity. For the weak neutral scribed by a current-current Hamiltonian density: current one has MT = 0 and, in general, both T = 0 and T = 1 pieces can occur. The general form of this current is G (x)= µ(x)jµ(x), (1) H −√2J (0) 00 (0) 00 (1) 10 (1) 10 where G = G V for charge-current processes and µ = β V + β A + β V + β A . (3) F ud J V µ A µ V µ A µ G = GF for neutral current processes, with GF the Fermi coupling constant and Vud the up-down entry of Assuming that the coupling constants are given by the the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix (Groom et al., (0) 2 (0) Standard Model we have: β = 2 sin θW , β = 0, 2000). j (x) and (x) are the weak leptonic and V − A µ µ β(1) =1 2 sin2 θ , β(1) = 1 (Donnelly and Peccei, 1979, hadronic density operatorsJ (Donnelly and Peccei, 1979; V W A p. 25). θ− is the weak mixing angle. The neutral current Walecka, 1975, 1995). The structure of the leptonic cur- W describes weak interactions such as neutrino (ν,ν ) and rent j (x) for a particular process is given by the stan- ′ µ anti-neutrino (¯ν, ν¯ ) scattering. dard electroweak model (Glashow et al., 1970; Salam, ′ 1968; Weinberg, 1967), and contains both, vector and The nuclear transitions that are induced by such weak axial-vector components. The standard model describes currents (operators) involve initial and final states that the hadronic current in terms of quark degrees of free- are usually assumed to be eigenstates of angular momen- dom. Since we are only interested in the matrix el- tum, parity, as well as isospin. It is then convenient to do a multipole expansion of the current operators. In ements of µ(x) in nuclei we need only to retain the pieces whichJ involve u and d quarks. (The contribution that way one obtains the Coulomb, longitudinal, trans- from strange quarks is normally neglected, but see the verse electric and transverse magnetic multipoles defined discussion in section V.C.) As in nuclear physics the in (Walecka, 1975, p. 136). The expressions necessary nucleons are treated as elementary spin-1/2 fermions, for the calculation of the processes shown in figure 1 can the Standard Model current is not immediately appli- be obtained from references (Donnelly and Peccei, 1979; cable. Moreover, nucleons in nuclei interact also via the Walecka, 1975) in terms of the multipole operators. In strong interaction. It is then convenient to define an ef- general the multipole operators are A-body nuclear op- fective hadronic current using arguments of Lorentz co- erators (with A the nucleon number). In practice, at the variance and isospin invariance of the strong interaction. energy scales we are interested in, weak interactions per- The effective hadronic current can be decomposed into turb the nucleus only slightly, so that to a good approxi- strong isoscalar (T = 0) and isovector (T = 1) compo- mation one-body components dominate most of the tran- nents and contains both vector (V ) and axial-vector (A) sitions. Two-body meson exchange currents and other pieces. The weak charge-changing current is isovector many body effects are neglected (see Marcucci et al., 2001; Schiavilla and Wiringa, 2002, for a description of with MT = 1 and can be written in a general form as: ± the nuclear current including two-body operators). It is further assumed that a nucleon in a nucleus undergoing a 1MT 1MT µ = Vµ + Aµ . (2) weak interaction can be treated as a free nucleon, which J for the purpose of constructing interaction operators sat- This current governs processes (see figure 1) such as isfies the Dirac equation. This latter approximation is β±-decay, e-capture, neutrino (νl,l−) and anti-neutrino known as the impulse approximation. For a single free + (¯νl,l ) reactions (l = e,µ or τ). Under the conserved vec- nucleon, we have, using Lorentz covariance, conservation tor current (CVC) hypothesis (Feynman and Gell-Mann, of parity, time-reversal invariance, and isospin invariance, 1MT 1958) the current Vµ has a structure identical to the the following general form for the vector and axial vector isovector part of the electromagnetic current. As a conse- currents

T MT (T ) (T ) MT k′λ′;1/2m ′ V kλ;1/2m = iu¯(k′λ′) F γ + F σ q u(kλ) 1/2m ′ I 1/2m , (4a) h t | µ | ti 1 µ 2 µν ν h t | T | ti

T MT h (T ) (T ) i MT k′λ′;1/2m ′ A kλ;1/2m = iu¯(k′λ′) F γ γ iF γ q u(kλ) 1/2m ′ I 1/2m . (4b) h t | µ | ti A 5 µ − P 5 µ h t | T | ti h i

Here, the plane-wave single nucleon states are labelled transfer, q2 = q2 ω2, with q = q , is deﬁned in ﬁg- µ − | | with the three-momenta k (k′), helicities λ (λ′), isospin ure 1. Bold letters denote the three-momentum. The (T ) (T ) ′ 2 1/2 and isospin projections mt (mt ). The momentum single-nucleon form factors FX = FX (qµ), T = 0, 1, 4

X = 1, 2, A, P (vector Dirac, vector Pauli, axial, and To evaluate weak-interaction processes in nuclei, one 2 pseudoscalar) are all functions of qµ (Beise and McKe- needs matrix elements of the multipole operators be- own, 1991; Donnelly and Peccei, 1979; Kuramoto et al., tween nuclear many-body states, labeled JiMJi ; TiMTi 1990; Musolf and Donnelly, 1992). Second class currents which are complicated nuclear conﬁgurations| of protonsi are not included in equation (4). The isospin dependence and neutrons. Using the Wigner-Eckart theorem we can in equations (4) is contained in write the matrix element of an arbitrary multipole oper- ˆ ator TJMJ ;T MT as (Edmonds, 1960) 1 T =0,M =0 1 T MT τ T =1,M =0 IT 0 T ≡ 2 ×  1 τ 1 = (τ1 iτ2) T =1,MT = 1  ± ∓ √2 ± ± (5) 

J J J ˆ J1 MJ1 1 2 J1MJ1 ; T1MT1 TJMJ ;T MT (q) J2MJ2 ; T2MT2 = ( 1) − h | | i − MJ1 MJ MJ2 −

T1 MT1 T1 TT2 ( 1) − J1; T1 TˆJ;T (q) J2; T2 (6) × − MT1 MT MT2 h ||| ||| i − where the symbol denotes that the matrix element is assume that the multipole operators are one-body oper- reduced in both angular||| momentum and isospin. If we ators, we can write (Heyde, 1994)

J1; T1 [aα† ′ a˜α]J;T J2; T2 J1; T1 TˆJ;T (q) J2; T2 = h ||| ⊗ ||| i α′ TJ;T (q) α (7) h ||| ||| i ′ (2J + 1)(2T + 1) h ||| ||| i Xαα p

1 with the sums extending over complete sets of with the typical nuclear momentum Q R− , with single-particle wavefunctions α = n,l,j. The R the nuclear radius. In that case, the≈ above formu- tensor product involves the single-particle cre- las can be expanded in powers of (qR) (long-wavelength ation operator a† a† anda ˜α limit) and one obtains the standard approximations to α ≡ α;mjα mtα ≡ jα mα 1/2 mtα allowed (Gamow-Teller and Fermi) and forbidden transi- ( 1) − ( 1) − aα; mjα mtα , with a the destruction− − operator. The− phase− factor is introduced tions (Bambynek et al., 1977; Behrens and Bühring, 1971, so that the operatora ˜ transforms as a spherical tensor 1982). In these limits the effect of the electromagnetic (Edmonds, 1960). interaction on the initial or final charged lepton, that has In practice the infinite sums in equation (7) are approx- been neglected in the above expressions, can be included imated to include a finite number of (hopefully) domi- (Schopper, 1966). nant terms. The number of terms to include depends both of the computed observable and the model used (Shell-Model, Random phase approximation, . . . ). Typ- B. Nuclear models ical nuclear models are non-relativistic, requiring a non- relativistic reduction of the single-particle operators; the As discussed in the previous section one of the basic respective expressions are given for example by Walecka ingredients for the evaluation of weak-interaction pro- (1975) and Donnelly and Peccei (1979). Donnelly and cesses involving nuclei is the description of the nuclear Haxton (1979) give the expressions for the single-particle many-body states. Moreover, the calculation of weak matrix elements of these operators with harmonic oscilla- processes in stars have to account for the peculiarities of tor wave functions. Donnelly and Haxton (1980) provide the medium (high temperatures and densities) and the expressions for general wave functions. presence of an electron plasma. When the temperatures The above discussion presents the general theory of and densities are small (for example during the r- and semileptonic processes. However, in many applications s-processes) weak transitions could be determined us- the momentum transfers involved are small compared ing the experimentally measured half-lives (in some cases 5 one has to account for the presence of low lying isomeric SMMC method available for basically unrestricted model states). However, as many of the very neutron-rich nu- spaces. While the strength of the SMMC method is the clei that participate in the r-process, are not currently study of nuclear properties at finite temperature, it does accessible experimentally (see Pfeiffer et al., 2001, for not allow for detailed nuclear spectroscopy. recent experimental advances in the study of r-process The evaluation of nuclear matrix elements for the nuclei), the necessary nuclear properties have to be ex- Fermi operator is straightforward. The Gamow-Teller tracted from theoretical models. operator connects Slater determinants within a model ~ As the degrees of freedom increase drastically with space spanned by a single harmonic oscillator shell (0 ω the number of nucleons, models of different sophistica- space). The shell model is then the method of choice to tion have to be chosen for the various regions in the nu- calculate the nuclear states involved in weak-interaction clear charts. Exact calculations using realistic nucleon- processes dominated by allowed transitions as complete nucleon interactions, e.g. by Green’s Function Monte or sufficiently converged truncated calculations are nowa- ~ Carlo techniques, are restricted to light nuclei with mass days possible for such 0 ω model spaces. The practical A 10 (Carlson and Schiavilla, 1998; Pieper, 2002; calculation of the Gamow-Teller distribution is achieved Wiringa≤ et al., 2000). As an alternative, methods based by adopting the Lanczos method (Wilkinson, 1965) as on effective field theory (Beane et al., 2001; van Kolck, proposed by Whitehead (1980); (see also Langanke and 1999) have recently been developed for very light nu- Poves, 2000; Poves and Nowacki, 2001). clei (A 3) (Marcucci et al., 2000, 2001; Park et al., The calculation of forbidden transitions, however, in- 2001a,b).≤ For heavier nuclei different approximations are volves nuclear transitions between different harmonic os- required. In particular, restricted model spaces are used cillator shells and thus requires multi-~ω model spaces. so that effective interactions and operators are necessary These are currently only feasible for light nuclei where (Hjorth-Jensen et al., 1995). For medium-mass nuclei ab initio shell model calculations are possible (Caurier (A 70) the shell model is the method of choice (Talmi, et al., 2001; Navrátil et al., 2000). Such multi-~ω calcula- 1993).≤ This model explicitly treats all two-body corre- tions have been used for the calculation of neutrino scat- lations among a set of valance particles by a residual tering from 12C (Hayes and Towner, 2000; Volpe et al., interaction. By diagonalizing the respective Hamilto- 2000). However, for heavier nuclei one has to rely on nian matrix in the model space spanned by the inde- more strongly truncated nuclear models. As the kine- pendent particle states of the valence particles a quite matics of stellar weak-interaction processes are often such satisfactory description of the ground state, the spec- that forbidden transitions are dominated by the collec- trum at moderate excitation energies and the electro- tive response of the nucleus the Random Phase Appox- magnetic and weak transitions among these states are imation (Rowe, 1968) is usually the method of choice obtained (Caurier et al., 1994; Mart´ınez-Pinedo et al., (figure 2). Another advantage of this method is that, 1997). In recent times due to progress both in computer in contrast to the shell model, it allows for global cal- technology and programming techniques shell-model calculations of these processes for the many nuclei often culations are now possible in model spaces which seemed involved in nuclear networks. An illustrative example is impossible only a few years ago; i.e. the diagonalization the evaluation of nuclear half-lives based on the calcu- codes antoine or nathan developed by Etienne Cau- lation of the GT strength function within the Quasipar- rier allow for complete calculations in the pf-shell where ticle RPA model (Krumlinde and Möller, 1984; Möller the maximum dimension currently attained is 2.3 109 and Randrup, 1990). The RPA method considers the M = 0 slater determinants for a complete diagonaliza-× residual correlations among nucleons via one particle one tion of 60Zn (Caurier, 2002; Mazzocchi et al., 2001). hole (1p-1h) excitations in large multi-~ω model spaces. To treat even larger model spaces in the diagonaliza- Compared to the shell model, the neglect of higher-order tion shell model, different schemes are required. One correlations renders the RPA method inferior for ma- method is to expand the nuclear many-body wave func- trix elements between individual, non-collective states. tions in terms of a few symmetry-projected Hartree- A prominent example is the GT transition from the 12C Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) type quasiparticle determinants ground state to the T = 1 triad in the A = 12 nuclei (Schmid, 2001; Schmid et al., 1987, 1989). A novel ap- (e.g. Engel et al., 1996). While the shell model is able to proach, introduced by Honma et al. (1995) (see also Ot- reproduce the GT matrix element between these states suka et al., 2001), employs stochastical methods to de- (Cohen and Kurath, 1965; Warburton and Brown, 1992), termine the most important Slater determinants in the RPA calculations miss an important part of the nucleon chosen model space. As an alternative to the diagonal- correlations and overestimate these matrix elements by ization method, the Shell Model Monte Carlo (SMMC) about a factor of 2 (Engel et al., 1996; Kolbe et al., 1994). (Johnson et al., 1992b; Koonin et al., 1997) allows calcu- Recent developments have extended the RPA method to lation of nuclear properties as thermal averages, employ- include the complete set of 2p-2h excitations in a given ing the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation to rewrite model space (Dro˙zd˙z et al., 1990). Such 2p-2h RPA mod- the two-body parts of the residual interaction by inte- els have, however, not yet been applied to semileptonic grals over fluctuating auxiliary fields. The integrations weak processes in stars. Moreover, the RPA allows for are performed by Monte Carlo techniques, making the the proper treatment of the momentum-dependence in 6

+ + ... CORE

RPA SM FIG. 2 The most commonly used nuclear models for the calculation of weak processes in stars are the Random Phase Aproxi- mation (RPA) and the Shell-Model (SM). In the RPA the basis states are characterized by particle-hole excitations around a given configuration (typically a closed-shell nucleus). In the SM, all the possible two-body correlations in a given valence space are considered. Excitations from the core or outside the model space are neglected, but his effect can be included perturbatively using effective interactions and operators. the different multipole operators, as it can be important later, the 7Be(p,γ)8B cross section at low energies had in certain stellar neutrino-nucleus processes (see below), been measured (Kavanagh, 1960), it became clear that and for the inclusion of the continuum (Buballa et al., the Sun should also operate by what are now known as 1991). Detailed studies indicate that standard and con- the ppII and ppIII chains and in that way generate neu- tinuum RPA calculations yield nearly the same results trinos with energies high enough to be detectable by a for total semileptonic cross sections (Kolbe et al., 2000). chlorine detector (Cameron, 1958; Fowler, 1958). This This is related to the fact that both RPA versions obey idea was then seriously pursued by Davis, in close col- the same sumrules. The RPA has also been extended to laboration with Bahcall. The observed solar neutrino deal with partial occupation of the orbits so that configu- flux turned out to be lower than predicted by the so- ration mixing in the same shell is included schematically lar models (the original solar neutrino problem) (Bahcall (Kolbe et al., 1999b; Rowe, 1968). et al., 1968; Davis et al., 1968), triggering the development of further solar neutrino detectors, initiating the field of neutrino oscillation experiments and, after preci- III. HYDROGEN BURNING AND SOLAR NEUTRINOS sion helioseismology data (Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2002) boosted the confidence in the solar models, finally cul- The tale of the solar neutrinos and their ‘famous’ prob- minating in the conclusive evidence for neutrino oscilla- lem took an exciting twist from its original goal of mea- tions in the solar flux. A detailed recent review of the suring the central temperature of the Sun to providing solar hydrogen burning and neutrino problem is given in convincing evidence for neutrino oscillations, thus open- (Kirsten, 1999). ing the door to physics beyond the standard model of the weak interaction. In 1946, Pontecorvo suggested (Pon- The Sun generates its energy from nuclear fusion re- tecorvo, 1946, 1991) (later independently proposed by actions in the pp chain (see table I), with a small con- Alvarez,´ 1949) that chlorine would be a good detector tribution by the CNO cycle. Several of these reactions material for neutrinos and subsequently in the 1950’s are mediated by the weak interaction, and hence create Davis built a radiochemical neutrino detector which ob- (electron) neutrinos which in the standard solar model 37 37 served reactor neutrinos via the Cl(νe,e−) Ar reaction can leave the Sun unhindered. The predicted flux of solar (Davis, 1955). After the 3He(α, γ)7Be cross section at low neutrinos on the surface of the earth is shown in figure 3. energies had been found to be significantly larger than These predictions depend on the knowledge of the rele- expected (Holmgren and Johnston, 1958) and, slightly vant nuclear cross sections at solar energies (a few keV) 7

Reaction Term ν Energy (%) (MeV) 2 + p + p → H+ e + νe 99.96 ≤ 0.423 or − 2 p + e + p → H+ νe 0.44 1.445

2H+ p → 3H+ γ 100 3He + 3He → α + 2p 85 or 3He + 4He → 7Be + γ 15

7 − 7 0.863 90% Be + e → Li + νe 15 ( 0.385 10% 7Li + p → 2α or 7 8 FIG. 3 The energy spectrum of neutrinos predicted by the Be + p → B+ γ 0.02 8 8 ∗ + standard solar model (Bahcall et al., 2001). The neutrino B → Be + e + νe < 15 8 fluxes from continuum sources (like pp and B) are given in 8Be∗ → 2α the units of number per cm2 per second per MeV, while the 7 2 or line fluxes (e.g. Be) are given in number per cm per sec- 3 4 + ond. The ranges of neutrino energies observable in the various He + p → He + e + νe 0.00003 < 18.8 detectors are indicated by arrows. The uncertainties in the various fluxes are given in percent (courtesy of J. N. Bahcall). TABLE I The solar pp chains. The neutrino terminations are from the BP2000 solar model (Bahcall et al., 2001). The neutrino energies include the solar corrections (Bahcall, 1997). which, with the notable exception of the 3He(3He,2p)4He reaction (Bonetti et al., 1999) which has been measured directly in the underground laboratory in the Gran Sasso, recent direct measurement with special emphasis on the relies on the extrapolation of data taken at higher ener- control and determination of the potential errors yielded gies. As these reactions are all non-resonant, the extrap- a slightly larger value (Junghans and Snover, 2002; Jung- olations are quite mild and appear to be under control hans et al., 2001). The neutrino energy distribution aris- (Adelberger et al., 1998). The cross section for the ini- ing from the subsequent 8B decay has been measured tial p + p fusion reaction is so low that no data exist precisely by Ortiz et al. (2000). In principle, high-energy and the respective solar reaction rate relies completely neutrinos are also produced in the 3He+p fusion reaction on theoretical modelling. Nevertheless the underlying which, however, occurs only in a weak branch in the solar theory is thought to be under control and the uncer- pp cycles. Although the calculation of this cross section tainty in this important rate is estimated to be about represents a severe theoretical challenge, it appears to be 1% (Kamionkowski and Bahcall, 1994), based on poten- determined now with the required accuracy using state- tial model calculations, and it is probably even smaller if of-the-art few-body methods (Kong and Ravndal, 2001; effective field theory is applied (Kong and Ravndal, 2001; Marcucci et al., 2000, 2001; Park et al., 2001a,b). Park et al., 1998, 2001a). In the solar plasma the reac- The solar nuclear cross sections have been reviewed by tion rates are slightly enhanced due to screening effects Adelberger et al. (1998), including also the reactions oc- (Dzitko et al., 1995; Gruzinov and Bahcall, 1998). The curing in the CNO cycle. Except for some discrepancies most significant plasma modification is found for the life- in the 14N(p,γ)15O cross section at low energies (Adel- time of 7Be with respect to electron capture where cap- berger et al., 1998; Angulo and Descouvemont, 2001), all ture of continuum and bound electrons with the relevant relevant solar rates are sufficiently well known. screening corrections have to be accounted for (Gruzinov There are currently 5 solar neutrino detectors oper- and Bahcall, 1998; Johnson et al., 1992a). It is generating. Three of them, the homestake chlorine detec- 7 8 ally believed that the Be(p,γ) B reaction is the least tor (Bahcall, 1989, p. 487), GALLEX1 (Anselmann known nuclear input in nuclear models. Although this et al., 1992), and SAGE (Abdurashitov et al., 1994)) 8 reaction occurs in the weak ppIII chain, the decay of B can only observe charge-current (electron) neutrino re- is the source of the high-energy neutrinos observed by actions, while the two water Cerenkov detectors (Super- the solar neutrino detectors. Recent direct and indirect experimental methods have improved the knowledge of the 7Be(p,γ)8B rate considerably (Davids et al. (2001) and references therein). While these data point to an 1 The Gallex detector has been recently upgraded and has changed astrophysical S-factor in the range of 18–20 eV b, a very its name to GNO (Altmann et al., 2000) 8

Kamiokande (Fukuda et al., 1998b), SNO (Boger et al., the weak Hamiltonian, but rather are given by a unitary 2000)) also observe neutral-current events, which can be transformation of these states defined by a set of mix- triggered by all neutrino flavors. All neutrino detectors ing angles. Importantly, oscillations between two flavor have characteristic energy thresholds for neutrino detec- states can only occur if at least one of these states does tion, dictated by the various observation schemes; i.e. not propagate with the speed of light implying that this the detectors are blind for neutrinos with energies less neutrino has a mass different from zero; more precisely 2 2 2 than the threshold energy Eth. The pioneering chlorine ∆m = m1 m2 = 0, where m1,2 are the masses of the 37 37 − 6 experiment of Davis uses the Cl(νe,e−) Ar reaction oscillating neutrinos. As all neutrino masses are assumed as detector, with Eth = 814 keV. Gallex and Sage de- to be zero in the Weinberg-Salam model, the observation 71 71 tect neutrinos via Ga(νe,e−) Ge with the threshold of neutrino oscillations opens the door to new physics be- energy Eth=233.2 keV. In Super-Kamiokande (SK) solar yond the standard model of weak interaction. Neutrino neutrinos are identified by the observation of relativistic oscillations can occur for free-propagating neutrinos (vac- electrons produced from inelastic ν + e− scattering. Due uum oscillations). However, their occurence can also be to high background at low energies, the observational influenced by the environment. In particular, it has been threshold is set to 7 MeV. SNO has an inner vessel pointed out that the high-energy (νe) solar neutrinos can, of heavy water, surrounded∼ by normal water. Like SK, for a certain range of mixing angles and mass differences, this detector can also observe neutrinos via inelastic scat- transform resonantly into other flavors, mediated by the tering off electrons. Additionally, and more importantly, interaction of the νe neutrinos with the electrons in the SNO can also detect neutrinos by the dissociation of the solar plasma, resulting in matter-enhanced oscillations deuteron in heavy water, with the threshold energy of (the so-called MSW effect Mikheyev and Smirnov, 1986; order 6 MeV. Wolfenstein, 1978). The threshold energies and the predicted solar neutrino First clear evidence for neutrino oscillations was re- fluxes are shown in figure 3. One notes that SK and ported by the SK collaboration which observed a deficit SNO are only sensitive to 8B neutrinos (neglecting the of νµ-induced events from atmospheric neutrinos and weak hep flux), the chlorine experiment detects mainly could link this deficit to ν ⇄ ν oscillations (Fukuda 8B (76% of the predicted flux by Bahcall et al. (2001)) µ τ 7 et al., 1998a; Fukuda et al., 1999). [Further evidence for and Be neutrinos, while Gallex and Sage can also ob- neutrino oscillations has been given by the LSND collabo- serve neutrinos generated in the main solar energy source, ration (Athanassopoulos et al., 1998, 1996). This result, the p+p fusion reaction (54% of the predicted flux). It is however, was, for most of the allowed parameter space important to note that the solar neutrino detectors have not confirmed by the Karmen experiment (Armbruster been calibrated, using known neutrino sources. et al., 1998a,b). The complete LSND result will be tested The original solar neutrino problem constitutes the by the MiniBoone2 experiment which is currently under fact that the earthbound detectors observe less neutri- construction.] A clear link between neutrino oscillations nos than predicted by the solar model. The current com- and the solar neutrino problem has been presented re- parison is depicted in figure 4. Importantly, Sage and cently by a combined analysis (Ahmad et al., 2001) of Gallex, in close agreement to each other, observe at least the first SNO data with the precise SK data (Fukuda a neutrino flux which is consistent with the fact that et al., 2001). SNO measured the integrated event rate the current solar luminosity is powered by the p + p fu- above the kinetic energy threshold Teff =6.75 MeV (the et al. et al. sion reaction (Abdurashitov , 1999; Hampel , electron energy threshold then is Eth = Teff + 0.511 1999). With improved input (nuclear reaction rates, MeV) for charged-current (CC) reactions on the deuteron opacities, etc.) the solar models evolved and, as a mile- and inelastic electron scattering (ES). As no evidence stone, passed the stringent test of detailed comparison for a deviation of the spectral shape from the predicted to the soundspeed distribution derived from helioseismol- shape under the no-oscillation hypothesis has been ob- ogy (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al., 1996). It became clear served, the integrated rate could be converted into the that the solution to the solar neutrino problem pointed 8 CC measured B neutrino flux, resulting in ΦSNO(νe) = 6 2 1 to weak-interaction physics beyond the standard model. 1.75 0.07(stat) 0.12(syst) 0.05(theor) 10 cm− s− , This line of reasoning was supported by the observation ES ± ± ± × 6 2 1 ΦSNO(ν)=2.39 0.34(stat) 0.15(syst) 10 cm− s− . (Heeger and Robertson, 1996) that any solar model as- The SNO electron± scattering± flux result× agrees with suming standard weak-interaction physics leads to con- the more precise measurement from SK which yields tradictions between the observed fluxes in the various ES 6 2 1 ΦSK(ν)=2.32 0.03(stat) 0.08(syst) 10 cm− s− . detectors. We note that the± charged-current± reaction× can only be It has been speculated already for a long time (Pon- triggered by νe neutrinos at the energies of the solar tecorvo, 1968) that the solution to the deficient observed neutrinos. Thus, from the measurement of the νe + D neutrino flux lies in the possibility that neutrinos change event rate, SNO has determined the solar νe-flux arriv- their flavor on their way from the center of the Sun to the earthbound detectors. Neutrino oscillations can occur if the flavor eigenstates (the physical νe,νµ,ντ neutrinos) 2 are not identical with the mass eigenstates (ν1,ν2,ν3) of http://www-boone.fnal.gov/ 9

FIG. 4 Comparison of the predicted solar neutrino fluxes (Bahcall et al., 2001) for the various neutrino detectors with the observed fluxes. The unit for the chlorine detector (Cl) and the Gallium detectors (Ga) are Solar Neutrino Units (SNU) (see Bahcall, 1989), while for SNO and SK the comparison is in percentage of the predicted flux (courtesy of John N. Bahcall). ing on earth stemming from the decay of 8B. On the other the same conclusions as the earlier SNO results (Ahmad hand, neutrino-electron scattering can occur for all neu- et al., 2001) showing a clear excess of neutral-current trino types, whereby the νe + e− cross section is about over charged-current events, as expected if neutrino os- seven times larger than the νµ,τ + e− cross section. If no cillations are the origin of the solar neutrino problem. oscillations involving solar νe neutrinos occur, the SNO Furthermore, the observed neutral-current event rate is CC charged-current flux ΦSNO and the SK inelastic electron again consistent with the prediction of the solar model ES scattering flux ΦSK should be the same; that is excluded (Bahcall et al., 2001). by 3.3 σ. [The exclusion is even slightly more severe if the recent revision of the νe + D cross section includ- A global analysis of the latest solar neutrino data ing radiative corrections is considered (Kurylov et al., including the SNO charged-current rate favors matter- ES 2002).] If νe ⇄ νµ,τ oscillations occur, ΦSK should be enhanced neutrino oscillations with large mixing angles CC larger than ΦSNO as it then contains additional neutral- (Krastev and Smirnov, 2002). Considering the recent 7 8 current contributions from νµ,τ neutrinos. From a best constraints on the Be(p,γ) B cross section and the re- fit to the SNO and SK data (see figure 5), this con- spectively predicted 8B solar neutrino flux, vacuum os- tribution has been determined as (with 1σ uncertainty) cillations are essentially excluded. A similar result is 6 2 1 Φµ,τ =3.69 1.13 10 cm− s− (Ahmad et al., 2001), obtained by Bahcall et al. (2002) including the recent ± × CC implying that the total solar flux is ΦSNO(νe)+Φ(νµ,τ )= day-night asymmetry measured at SNO (Ahmad et al., 6 2 1 5.44 0.99 10 cm− s− . This result agrees very nicely 2002b) with± the 8B× neutrino flux predicted by the solar model 6 2 1 (Bahcall et al., 2001) (5.05 10 cm− s− ). For more than 30 years the solar neutrino problem has For years the measurement× of the neutral-current ν+D been a demanding challenge for experimentalists and the- reaction at SNO has been anticipated as the ‘smoking orists, for nuclear, particle and astrophysicists alike. The gun’ for solar neutrino oscillations. After finishing this challenge appears to be mastered, leading to new physics review, the first results of this milestone experiment have and without the need of the many desperate solution at- been published (Ahmad et al., 2002a). They lead to tempts put forward over the years. 10

8 The importance of convection has, of course, al- ΦSK ΦSNO ES CC ready been noticed before and is accounted for in one- dimensional models within the so-called mixing-length 6 theory (Clayton, 1968). It has been found that this con- ) -1

s vective transport is far more eﬃcient at carrying energy -2 SK+SNO and mixing the matter composition than radiation trans- cm 6 4 Φ x port. For example, convection dominates the envelope (10 SSM µτ Φ region in massive stars during helium shell burning, as

Φ x 2 can be seen in figure 6 which shows the energy history of a 22 M star (Heger and Woosley, 2001). The figure also identifies⊙ the various subsequent energy reservoirs of 0 the star: hydrogen, helium, carbon, neon, oxygen, and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 silicon core and shell burning. However, the figure also Φ 6 -2 -1 demonstrates the importance of neutrino losses which, e (10 cm s ) following oxygen core burning, can overcome the nuclear FIG. 5 Flux of νµ,τ neutrinos vs. electron neutrinos as de- energy generation, except at the high temperatures in the duced from the SNO and SK 8B neutrino data. The diagonal very inner core. Obviously weak-interaction processes are 8 bands show the total B flux as predicted by the standard so- crucial in this late epoch of massive stars. This is not only lar model (SSM, dashed lines) (Bahcall et al., 2001) and that true for the star’s energy budget, but these processes can derived from the SNO and SK measurements (solid lines). also alter the matter composition and entropy which, in The intercepts with the axis represent 1σ errors (from Ah- turn, can affect the location and extension of convective mad et al., 2001). shells, e.g. during oxygen and silicon burning, with subsequent changes in the stellar structure. Such effects have recently been observed after the improved shell-model IV. LATE-STAGE STELLAR EVOLUTION weak-interaction rates (subsection III.2) have been incorporated into stellar models. (figure 6 is already based A. General remarks on these rates.) Weak interactions play an essential role already during hydrostatic burning. Its importance lies in the fact that the neutrinos generated by these processes can leave the B. Shell-model electron capture and β decay rates star unhindered, thus carrying away energy and hence cooling the star. While the consideration of energy losses The late evolution stages of massive stars are strongly by neutrinos is already required during hydrogen burn- influenced by weak interactions which act to determine ing (see above), the heat flux in the early stages of stel- the core entropy and electron to baryon ratio, Ye, of the lar burning is predominantly by radiation. This changes, presupernova star, hence its Chandrasekhar mass which 2 following helium burning, when the stellar temperatures is proportional to Ye . Electron capture reduces the num- reach 5 108 K and neutrino-antineutrino pair produc- ber of electrons available for pressure support, while beta- tion and∼ emission× becomes the leading energy loss mech- decay acts in the opposite direction. Both processes gen- 11 3 anism. The respective cooling rate is a local property of erate neutrinos which, for densities ρ . 10 g cm− , the star depending on density ρ and, very sensitively, on escape the star carrying away energy and entropy from temperature T ; i.e. the energy loss rate for νν¯ emission the core. scales approximately like T 11, implying that the hot in- Electron capture and beta decay during the final evo- ner regions of the star cool most effectively. However, lution of a massive star are dominated by Fermi and the dominant nuclear reactions, occuring after helium Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions. While the treatment burning, have even stronger temperature dependences. of Fermi transitions (important only in beta decays) is For example, the heat production ǫ in the 12C+12C or straightforward, a correct description of the GT tran- 16O+16O fusion reactions, which dominate hydrostatic sitions is a difficult problem in nuclear structure. In carbon and oxygen burning, scales like ǫ T 22 and T 35 the astrophysical environment nuclei are fully ionized so around T = 109 K. As a consequence≈ of the tempera-≈ one has continuum electron capture from the degener- ture gradient in the stellar interior and the vast difference ate electron plasma. The energies of the electrons are in the temperature sensitivity, nuclear reaction heating high enough to induce transitions to the Gamow-Teller overcomes the neutrino energy loss in the center. How- resonance. Shortly after the discovery of this collective ever, in the cooler mantle region surrounding the core excitation Bethe et al. (1979) recognized its importance neutrino cooling dominates. The resulting entropy differ- for stellar electron capture. The presence of the degener- ence leads to convective instabilities (see Arnett, 1996). ate electron gas blocks the phase space for the produced First attempts of modelling late-stage stellar burning and electron in beta decay. Then the decay rate of a given nu- nucleosynthesis including a two-dimensional treatment of clear state is greatly reduced or even completely blocked convection is reported in (Baleisis and Arnett, 2001). at high densities. However, due to the finite temperature 11

FIG. 6 Energy history of a 22 M⊙ star as a function of time until core collapse. The y-axis defines the included mass from the center. Hydrogen and helium core and shell burning are major energy sources. In the later burning stages, following oxygen core burning, neutrino losses related to weak processes in the stellar interior become increasingly important and can dominate over the nuclear energy production. Convection plays an important role in the envelope outside the helium burning shell, but also in shells during oxygen and silicon burning (from Heger and Woosley, 2001). excited states in the decaying nucleus can be thermally mation in the mid 1980s for individual transitions be- populated. Some of these states are connected by strong tween ground states and low-lying excited states in the GT transitions to low-lying states in the daughter nu- nuclei of interest. Recognizing that this only saturated a cleus that with increased phase space can significantly small part of the Gamow-Teller distribution, they added contribute to the stellar beta decay rates. The impor- the collective strength via a single-state representation. tance of these states in the parent nucleus for beta-decay Both, energy position and strength collected in this sin- was first recognized by Fuller, Fowler and Newman (com- gle state were determined using an independent particle monly abbreviated as FFN) who coined the term “back- model (IPM). resonances” (see figure 7). Recent experimental data on GT distributions in iron Over the years, many calculations of weak interaction group nuclei (Alford et al., 1993, 1990; Anderson et al., rates for astrophysical applications have become available 1985, 1990; El-Kateb et al., 1994; Rapaport et al., 1983; (Aufderheide et al., 1994c; Hansen, 1966, 1968; Mazurek, Rönnqvist et al., 1993; Vetterli et al., 1990; Williams 1973; Mazurek et al., 1974; Takahashi et al., 1973). For et al., 1995) measured in charge exchange reactions approximately 15 years though, the standard in the field (Goodman et al., 1980; Osterfeld, 1992), show that the has been the tabulations of Fuller, Fowler, and Newman GT strength is strongly quenched, compared with the (1980, 1982a,b, 1985). These authors calculated rates independent particle model value, and fragmented over for electron capture, positron capture, beta-decay, and many states in the daughter nucleus. Both effects are positron emission plus the associated neutrino losses for caused by the residual interaction among the valence nu- all the astrophysically relevant nuclei ranging in mass cleons and an accurate description of these correlations number from 21 to 60. Their calculations were based is essential for a reliable evaluation of the stellar weak- upon an examination of all available experimental infor- interaction rates due to the strong phase space energy 12

Electron capture 1.0 0.5 54Fe FFN 51V 0.8 Exp 0.4 SM Beta decay 20 0.6 0.3 15 0.4 0.2

15 0.2 0.1

10 0.0 0.0 56Fe 55Mn 10 0.6 E (MeV) 0.4 E (MeV) 5 GT− 0.4 5 0.2 Finite T 0.2 F GT Strength 0 (Z,A) GT+ 0.0 0.0 0 58Ni 59Co (Z+1,A) 0.6 1.0 FIG. 7 The figure shows schematically the electron capture 0.4 and beta decay processes in the stellar environment. Elec- 0.5 tron capture proceeds by Gamow-Teller transitions to the 0.2 GT+ resonance. In the case of beta decay both the Fermi and Gamow-Teller resonances are typically outside of the Q β 0.0 0.0 window, and hence are not populated in laboratory decays. -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Due to the finite temperature in stars excited states in the decaying nucleus can be thermally populated. Some of these E (MeV) E (MeV) states have strong GT transitions to low-lying states in the daughter nucleus. These states in the decaying nucleus are FIG. 8 Comparison of shell model GT+ distributions with called “backresonances”. experimental data (Alford et al., 1993; El-Kateb et al., 1994; Rönnqvist et al., 1993) for selected nuclei. The shell model results (discrete lines) have been folded with the experimen- dependence, particularly of the stellar electron-capture tal resolution (histograms). The arrows indicate the positions where Fuller et al. (1982b) placed the GT resonance in their rates. The shell model is the only known tool to reliably calculations of the stellar weak-interaction rates (adapted describe GT distributions in nuclei (Brown and Wilden- from Caurier et al., 1999). thal, 1988). Indeed, Caurier et al. (1999) demonstrated that the shell model reproduces all measured GT+ distributions (in this direction a proton is changed into a neutron, like in electron capture) for nuclei in the iron calculated shell-model rates for all the relevant weak pro- mass range very well and gives a very reasonable account cesses for sd-shell nuclei (A = 17–39). This work was of the experimentally known GT distributions (in this then extended to heavier nuclei (A = 45–65) by Lan- direction, a neutron is changed into− a proton, like in β ganke and Mart´ınez-Pinedo (2001) based on shell-model decay). Further, the lifetimes of the pf-shell nuclei and calculations in the complete pf shell. Following the spirit their spectroscopy at low energies are simultaneously also of FFN, the shell model results have been replaced by experimental data (energy positions, transition strengths) described well. Figure 8 compares the shell model GT+ distributions to the pioneering measurement performed wherever available. at TRIUMF. These measurements had a typical energy Weak interaction rates have also been computed using resolution of 1 MeV. Recently developed techniques, the proton-neutron quasiparticle RPA model (Nabi and involving for∼ example (3He,t) (Fujita et al., 1996) and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, 1999a,b) and the spectral distri- (d, 2He) (Wörtche, 2001) charge-exchange reactions at bution theory (Kar et al., 1994; Sutaria and Ray, 1995) intermediate energies, demonstrated in pilot experiments After oxygen burning, the important weak processes an improvement in the energy resolution by an order of are electron captures and beta decays on nuclei in the magnitude or more. Again, the shell model calculations iron mass range (A 45–65). Conventional stellar mod- agree quite favorably with the improved data. els described these∼ weak processes using the rates esti- Several years ago, Aufderheide (1991) and Aufderheide mated by Fuller, Fowler, and Newman (1982b). These et al. (1996, 1993a,b, 1994c) pointed out that the inter- rates are compared to the shell model electron capture acting shell model is the method of choice for the cal- rates in figure 9 at relevant temperatures and densities. culation of stellar weak-interaction rates. Following the Importantly the shell model rates are nearly always lower work by Brown and Wildenthal (1988), Oda et al. (1994) than the FFN rates. Thus this difference represents a sys- 13

0 -1 -3 0 10 10 10 10 56 56 54 56 60 -3 Cr Fe Fe 10 Fe Ni -3 -6 -2 10 10 10 -6 -1 -5 -9 -4 10 10 10 10 10

-9 -7 -12 -6 10 LMP 10 LMP 10 10 FFN -2 FFN -12 10 -9 -15 -8 10 10 10 10 ρ ρ =3.26 ρ =33 ρ =10.7 ρ =4.32 7=10.7 7 7 -15 7 7 -11 -18 -10 10 10 10 10 -3 1 10 10 59 57 59 55 59 Mn Fe -1 Fe -3 10 -1 10 0 Co Co 0 10 ) 10 -2 10 1 10 − -5 ) -2 -1 10 1

-1 10 (s 10 -3 − 10 β 10 -7 -3 λ -2 10 (s 10 -4 -2 10 10 ec 10 -4 -9 λ 10 -3 -5 10 ρ 10 ρ 10 ρ -3 =220 =5.86 =10.7 -5 7 7 7 10 ρ ρ -4 -11 -6 7=4.32 10 7=33 10 10 10 -2 54 56 58 -4 -6 10 -1 -3 10 10 Mn 10 Mn 10 Co 54 60 -3 -4 Mn Co 10 10 -1 0 -4 -5 10 10 10 10 -6 -5 10 10 -2 10 -7 -2 -2 -6 10 10 10 10 -8 10 -7 10 ρ ρ -9 ρ -3 -4 7=5.86 7=10.7 10 7=5.86 10 10 -8 -3 -10 ρ ρ 10 10 10 7=10.7 7=33 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -6 10 10 1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10 T9 T9 T9 T T 9 9 FIG. 10 Shell model beta-decay rates as a function of temper- 9 ature (T9 measures the temperature in 10 K) and for selected FIG. 9 Shell model electron-capture rates as a function of 7 −3 9 densities (ρ7 defines the density in 10 g cm ) and nuclei. temperature (T9 measures the temperature in 10 K) and for 7 −3 For comparison, the FFN rates are given by the full points selected densities (ρ7 defines the density in 10 g cm ) and (from Mart´ınez-Pinedo et al., 2000). nuclei. For comparison, the FFN rates are given by the full points. and Woosley (WW) used the FFN rates for electron tematic trend, which is not expected to be washed out if capture and an older set of beta decay rates (Mazurek, the many nuclei in the stellar composition are considered. 1973; Mazurek et al., 1974). As a side-remark we note The difference is caused, for example, by the reduction of that late-stage evolution of massive stars is quite sensi- 12 16 the Gamow-Teller strength (quenching) compared to the tive to the still not sufficiently well known C(α, γ) O IPM value and a systematic misplacement of the Gamow- rate. The value adopted in the standard WW and in Teller centroid in nuclei with certain pairing structure the Heger et al. models [S(E = 300 keV) = 170 keV b] (Langanke and Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 2000). In some cases, agrees, however, rather nicely with the recent data analysis [S(300) = 165 50 keV b (Kunz et al., 2001)] and the experimental data, which were not available to FFN, but ± could be used by Langanke and Mart´ınez-Pinedo (2001), value derived from nucleosynthesis arguments by Weaver and Woosley (1993), [S(300) = 170 20 keV b]. led to significant changes. The FFN and shell-model beta ± decay rates are compared in figure 10, Mart´ınez-Pinedo Figure 11 illustrates the consequences of the shell et al. (2000) discuss the differences between the two rate model weak interaction rates for presupernova models sets. in terms of the three decisive quantities: the central electron-to-baryon ratio Ye, the entropy, and the iron core mass. The central values of Ye at the onset of core col- C. Consequences of the shell model rates in stellar models lapse increased by 0.01-0.015 for the new rates. This is a significant effect. For example, a change from Ye =0.43 Heger et al. (2001a,b) have investigated the influence in the WW model for a 20 M star to Ye =0.445 in the of the shell model rates on the late-stage evolution of new models increases the respective⊙ Chandrasekhar mass massive stars by repeating the calculations of Woosley by about 0.075 M . We note that the new models also and Weaver (1995) keeping the stellar physics, except for result in lower core⊙ entropies for stars with M 20 M , the weak rates, as close to the original studies as possible. while for M 20 M , the new models actually≤ have⊙ a The new calculations have incorporated the shell-model slightly larger≥ entropy.⊙ The iron core masses are gener- weak interaction rates for nuclei with mass numbers ally smaller in the new models where the effect is larger A = 45–65, supplemented by rates from Oda et al. (1994) for more massive stars (M 20 M ), while for the most for lighter nuclei. The earlier calculations of Weaver common supernovae (M ≥20 M ⊙) the reduction is by ≤ ⊙ 14

0.450 1.2 2.0

0.445 ) 1.1 B k

0.440 1.0 1.8 )

0.435 ⊙ 0.9 e (M Y

0.430 Fe 1.6 0.8 M

0.425 0.7

1.4

WW central entropy / baryon ( WW 0.420 WW 0.6 LMP LMP LMP

0.020 0.1 0.1 ) ⊙ )

0.015 0.0 B 0.0 e k (M Y ∆ Fe S (

0.010 -0.1 ∆ -0.1 M ∆

0.005 -0.2 -0.2 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Star Mass (M⊙) Star Mass (M⊙) Star Mass (M⊙)

FIG. 11 Comparison of the center values of Ye (left), the iron core sizes (middle) and the central entropy (right) for 11–40 M⊙ stars between the WW models and the ones using the shell model weak interaction rates (LMP) (from Heger et al., 2001a). The lower parts define the changes in the 3 quantities between the LMP and WW models. about 0.05 M . [We define the iron core as the mass inte- with the improved weak rates, the core contains more rior to the point⊙ where the composition becomes at least electrons whose pressure acts against the collapse. It is 50% of iron group elements (A 48)]. This reduction of also expected that the size of the homologous core, which ≥ 2 the iron core mass appears to be counterintuitive at first scales like Ye with the Ye value at neutrino trapping, glance with respect to the slower electron capture rates should be larger.∼ This, combined with the smaller iron in the new models. It is, however, related to changes in cores, yields less material which the shock has to traverse. the entropy profile during silicon shell burning which re- Furthermore, the change in entropy will affect the mass duces the growth of the iron core just prior to collapse fraction of free protons, which in the later stage of the (Heger et al., 2001a). collapse contribute significantly to the electron capture. For presupernova models with masses M < 20 M , how- It is intriguing to speculate what effects these changes ⊙ 6 might have for the subsequent core collapse and super- ever, the number fraction of protons is very low (. 10− , nova explosion. At first we note that in the current su- Heger et al., 2001a) so that for these stars electron capture should still be dominated by nuclei, even at densities pernova picture (Bethe, 1990; Burrows, 2000; Langanke 10 3 and Wiescher, 2001; Woosley et al., 2002) gravitation in access of 10 g cm− . We will return to this problem overcomes the resisting electron degeneracy pressure in below. the core, leading to increasing densities and tempera- To understand the origin of these differences it is il- tures. Shortly after neutrino trapping at densities of a lustrative to investigate the role of the weak-interaction 11 3 few 10 g cm− , an homologous core, which stays in rates in greater details. The evolution of Ye during the sonic communication, forms in the center. Once the core collapse phase is plotted in figure 12. Weak processes reaches densities somewhat in excess of nuclear matter become particularly important in reducing Ye below 0.5 14 3 7 6 density (a few 10 g cm− ) the nuclear equation of state after oxygen depletion ( 10 s and 10 s before core col- stiffens and a spring-like bounce is created triggering the lapse for the 15 M and∼ 25 M stars, respectively) and ⊙ ⊙ formation of a shock wave at the surface of the homolo- Ye begins a decline which becomes precipitous during sili- gous core (Bethe, 1990). This shock wave tries to traverse con burning. Initially electron capture occurs much more the rest of the infalling matter in the iron core. However, rapidly than beta decay. As the shell model rates are gen- the shock loses its energy by dissociation of the infalling erally smaller than the FFN electron capture rates, the matter and by neutrino emission, and it is generally be- initial reduction of Ye is smaller in the new models; the lieved now that supernovae do not explode promptly due temperature in these models is correspondingly larger as to the bounce shock. Probably, this happens in the ‘de- less energy is radiated away by neutrino emission. layed mechanism’ (Wilson, 1985) where the shock is re- An important feature of the new models is demon- vived by energy deposition from the neutrinos generated strated in figure 13. Beta decay becomes temporarily by the cooling of the proto-neutron star, the remnant in competitive with electron capture after silicon depletion the center of the explosion. in the core and during silicon shell burning (this had With the larger Ye values, obtained in the calculations been foreseen in Aufderheide et al., 1994b). The pres- 15

0.50 ence of an important beta decay contribution has two eﬀects. Obviously it counteracts the reduction of Ye in 55 EC Fe the core, but equally important, beta decays are an ad- 0.48 56 β − Mn ditional neutrino source and thus they add to the cooling 57Fe of the core and a reduction in entropy. This cooling can 56 e Mn be quite eﬃcient as often the average neutrino energy in

Y 0.46 57Fe the involved beta decays is larger than for the competing 58Mn 57Fe electron captures. As a consequence the new models have 0.44 64Co significantly lower core temperatures than the WW models after silicon burning. At later stages of the collapse, 15 M⊙ beta decay becomes unimportant again as an increased 0.42 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 electron chemical potential drastically reduces the phase space. 0.50 We note that the shell model weak interaction rates 54Fe predict the presupernova evolution to proceed along a 54Mn temperature-density-Ye trajectory where the weak pro- 0.48 cesses are dominated by nuclei rather close to stability. 56Fe Thus it will be possible, after next generation radioactive e 56 Y Mn ion-beam facilities become operational, to further constrain the shell model calculations by measuring relevant 0.46 57 GT distributions for unstable nuclei by charge-exchange Fe 1 56 H reaction, where we like to point out again that the GT Mn 58 + 25 M⊙ Mn distribution is also crucial for stellar β-decays. Figure 12 0.44 identifies those nuclei which dominate (defined by the 105 104 103 102 101 100 product of abundance times rate) the electron capture Time till core collapse (s) and beta decay during various stages of the final evolution of 15 M and 25 M stars. Heger et al. (2001b) give ⊙ ⊙ FIG. 12 Evolution of the Ye value in the center of a 15 M⊙ an exhaustive list of the most important nuclei for both (upper part) and 25 M⊙ (lower part) as a function of time electron capture and beta decay during the final stages until bounce. The most important Ye-changing nuclei for the of stellar evolution for stars of different masses. calculations adopting the shell model rates are indicated at In total, the weak interaction processes shift the mat- different times, where the upper nucleus refers to electron capture and the lower to β-decay. ter composition to smaller Ye values (see Fig. 12) and hence more neutron-rich nuclei, subsequently affecting the nucleosynthesis. Its importance for the elemental abundance distribution, however, strongly depends on the location of the mass cut in the supernova explosion. It is currently assumed that the remnant will have a bary- 10-2 onic mass between the iron core and oxygen shell masses EC (Woosley et al., 2002). As the reduction of Y occurs -3 − e 10 β mainly during silicon burning, it is essential to determine

-4 how much of this material will be ejected. Another im- ) 10 1 − portant issue is the possible long-term mixing of material (s

  -5 et al. e 10 during the explosion (e.g. Kifonidis , 2000). Changes dY dt

 of the elemental abundances due to the improved weak-   10-6 interaction rates are rather small as the differences, compared to FFN, occur in regions of the star which are 10-7 15 M⊙ probably not ejected (however, for type Ia supernovae, see below). The weak interaction also determines the de- 10-8 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 cay of the newly synthesized nuclei in supernova explo- Ye sions. Some of them are proton-rich nuclei that decay by orbital electron capture, leaving atomic K-shell electron FIG. 13 Comparison of the change of the Ye value with time, vacancies. The X-rays emitted can escape the supernova |dYe/dt| due to electron capture and beta decay in a 15 M⊙ star. In general, the Ye value decreases with time during the ejecta for sufficiently long-lived isotopes and can possibly collapse, caused by electron captures. The loops indicate that be detected by the current generation of X-ray telescopes during this period beta-decay, which increases Ye, dominates (Leising, 2001). over electron capture. In dense stellar environment the electron capture rates have to be corrected for screening effects caused by the relativistically degenerate electron liquid. Such studies 16 have been recently performed within the linear response cient nuclear physics input? Although first steps have theory (Itoh et al., 2002) who find typical screening cor- been taken in modelling the multi-dimensional effects (for rections of order a few percent. reviews and references see Janka et al., 2001; Woosley et al., 2002), these require extremely demanding and computationally challenging simulations. In the follow- V. COLLAPSE AND POST-BOUNCE STAGE ing we will briefly discuss some nuclear physics ingredients in the collapse models and their possible improvements. The models, as we have described them above, con- The crucial weak processes during the collapse are stitute the so-called presupernova models. They follow (Bruenn, 1985; Burrows, 2001; Rampp and Janka, 2002): the late-stage stellar evolution until core densities just 10 3 below 10 g cm− and temperatures between 5 and 10 GK. (More precisely, Woosley and Weaver (1995) define p + e− ⇄ n + νe (8a) the final presupernova models as the time when the col- + n + e ⇄ p +¯νe (8b) lapse velocity near the edge of the iron core first reached 1 (A, Z)+ e− ⇄ (A, Z 1)+ νe (8c) 1000 km s− .) As we have stressed above, stellar evo- + − lution until this time requires the consideration of an (A, Z)+ e ⇄ (A, Z +1)+¯νe (8d) extensive nuclear network, but is simplified by the fact ν + N ⇄ ν + N (8e) that neutrinos need only be treated as a source for en- N + N ⇄ N + N + ν +¯ν (8f) ergy losses. This is no longer valid at later stages of the ⇄ collapse. As neutrinos will eventually be trapped in the ν + (A, Z) ν + (A, Z) (8g) collapsing core and their interaction with the surround- ν + e± ⇄ ν + e± (8h) ing matter is believed to be crucial for the supernova ν + (A, Z) ⇄ ν + (A, Z)∗ (8i) explosion, computer simulations of the collapse, bounce + e + e− ⇄ ν +¯ν (8j) and explosion necessitate a detailed time- and space- (A, Z)∗ ⇄ (A, Z)+ ν +¯ν (8k) dependent bookkeeping of the various neutrino (νe,νµ,ντ neutrinos and their antiparticles) distributions in the Here, a nucleus is symbolized by its mass number A core. Built on the pioneering work by Bruenn (1985), and charge Z, N denotes either a neutron or a proton this is done by multi-group (neutrinos of different flavor and ν represents any neutrino or antineutrino. In the and energy) Boltzmann neutrino transport (Liebendörfer early collapse stage, before trapping, these reactions pro- et al., 2001; Mezzacappa et al., 2001; Rampp and Janka, ceed dominantly to the right. We note that, due to the 2000). Advantageously, the temperature during the col- generally accepted collapse picture (e.g. Bethe, 1990), lapse and explosion are high enough that the matter elastic scattering of neutrinos on nuclei (8g) is mainly composition is given by nuclear statistical equilibrium responsible for the trapping, as it determines the dif- without the need of reaction networks for the strong and fusion time scale of the outwards streaming neutrinos. electromagnetic interaction. The transition from a rather Shortly after trapping, the neutrinos are thermalized by complex global nuclear network, involving many neutron, the energy downscattering, experienced mainly in inelas- proton and α fusion reactions and their inverse, to a tic scattering off electrons (8h). The relevant cross sec- quasi-statistical equilibrium, in which reactions within tions for these processes are readily derived (Bruenn, mini-cycles are fast enough to bring constrained regions 1985). For elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering one usu- of the nuclear chart into equilibrium, to finally global ally makes the simplifying assumption that the nucleus nuclear statistical equilibrium is extensively discussed by has a J =0+ spin/parity assignment, as appropriate for (Woosley, 1986). the ground state of even-even nuclei. The scattering pro- Presupernova models are the input for collapse and cess is then restricted to the Fermi part of the neutral explosion simulations. Currently, one-dimensional mod- current (pure vector coupling) (Freedman, 1974; Tubbs els with sophisticated neutrino transport do not ex- and Schramm, 1975) and gives rise to coherent scattering; plode (Liebendörfer et al., 2001; Mezzacappa et al., i.e. the cross section scales with A2, except from a correc- 2001; Rampp and Janka, 2000), including first attempts tion (N Z)/A arising from the neutron excess. This with the presupernova models derived with the improved assumption∼ − is, in principle, not correct for the ground weak-interaction rates discussed above (Messer et al., states of odd-A and odd-odd nuclei and for all nuclei at 2002). Explosions can, however, be achieved if the finite temperature, as then J 0 and the cross section shock revival in the delayed mechanism is modelled by will also have an axial-vector Gamow-Teller≥ contribution. two-dimensional hydrodynamics allowing for more ef- However, the relevant GT0 strength is not concentrated ficient neutrino energy transfer (Burrows et al., 1995; in one state, but rather fragmented over many nuclear Herant et al., 1994; Janka and Müller, 1996). Thus levels. Thus, one can expect that the GT contributions the intriguing question arises: Are supernova explosions to the elastic neutrino-nucleus cross sections are in gen- three-dimensional phenomena requiring convective mo- eral small enough to be neglected. tion and perhaps rotation and magnetic fields? Or do Reactions (8a) and (8c) are equally important, as they one-dimensional models fail due to incorrect or insuffi- control the neutronization of the matter and, in a large 17 portion, also the star’s energy losses. Due to their strong and (Z = 36,N = 52), respectively. It has been pointed 5 phase space sensitivity ( Ee ), the electron capture cross out (Cooperstein and Wambach, 1984) that this picture sections increase rapidly∼ during the collapse as the den- is too simple and that the blocking of the GT transi- sity (the electron chemical potential scales like ρ1/3) tions will be overcome by thermal excitation which ei- ∼ and the temperature increase. We already observed ther moves protons into g9/2 orbitals or removes neutrons above that beta-decay is rather unimportant during the from the pf shell, in both ways reallowing GT transitions. collapse due to Pauli-blocking of the electron phase space In fact, due to this ‘thermal unblocking’, GT transitions in the final state. We also noted how sensitively the elec- again dominate the electron capture on nuclei for tem- tron capture rate on nuclei depends on a proper descrip- peratures of order 1.5 MeV (Cooperstein and Wambach, tion of nuclear structure. As we will discuss now, this is 1984). An even more important unblocking effect, which also expected for this stage of the collapse, although the is already relevant at lower temperatures is, however, ex- relevant nuclear structure issues are somewhat different. pected by the residual interaction which will mix the g9/2 (and higher) orbitals with those in the pf shell. A consistent calculation of the electron capture rates A. Electron capture on nuclei for nuclei with neutron numbers N > 40 and proton numbers 20

100 value is smaller for free protons (Q =1.29 MeV) than for neutronrich nuclei (Q few MeV), the capture rate on -1 ∼ 10 Yn free protons is larger than for the heavy nuclei. However, this difference diminishes with increasing density. This is Yh 10-2 expected because the electron energies involved (for example, the electron chemical potential is µ 18 MeV Y Yα e 11 3 ∼ 10-3 at ρ = 10 g cm− ) are then significantly higher than the Q-values for the capture reactions on the abundant Yp 93 -4 nuclei, (i.e. Kr has a Q-value of about 11 MeV). As also 10 nuclear structure effects at the relatively high temperatures involved are rather unimportant, the capture rates 10-5 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 on the abundant nuclei at the later stage of the collapse Time till bounce (s) are rather similar. However, the capture rate is quite

5 sensitive to the reaction Q-value for the lower electron 10 chemical potentials. To quantify this argument we take 4 10 the point of the stellar trajectory from ﬁgure 14 with the 3 10 lowest electron chemical potential (µe 8 MeV) as an ex- 2 ∼ 70 10 ample. Under these conditions the capture rates on Cu 76 ) 1 and Ga (both nuclei have Q-values around 4 MeV) are 1

− 10 noticeably larger than for 78Ge and 72Zn with Q-values

(s 0 λ 10 around 8 MeV. However, in nuclear statistical equilib- -1 72 2 10 rium the relative mass fraction of Zn (about 1.2 10− ) -2 70 3 76 × 3 10 IPM is larger than for Cu (4.0 10− ) or Ga (1.8 10− ). ×66 × -3 SMMC/RPA The most abundant nucleus, Ni, has a mass fraction of 10 2 72 93 -4 4.3 10− and a capture rate comparable to Zn. Kr is 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 too× neutron-rich to have a signiﬁcant abundance at this µ e (MeV) stage of the collapse. This discussion indicates that the most abundant nuclei are not necessarily the nuclei which

5 dominate the electron capture in the infall phase. Thus, 10 a single-nucleus approximation can be quite inaccurate 4 10 and should be replaced by an ensemble average.

3 10 What matters for the competition of capture on nu- ) 1

− clei compared to that on free protons is the product 2 (s 10 1 of number abundance times capture rate. Figure 14 λ H 1 70 shows the time evolution of the number abundances for 10 Cu 72 Zn free neutrons, protons, α-particles and heavy nuclei, cal- 0 76 10 Ga culated for the same stellar trajectory (obtained from 93 -1 Kr Liebendörfer, 2002) for which the capture rates have 10 been evaluated under the assumption of nuclear statis- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 µ (MeV) tical equilibrium (NSE). (We note that the commonly e adopted equations of states (Lattimer and Swesty, 1991; FIG. 14 Electron capture rates on free proton and sev- Shen et al., 1998a) yield somewhat larger Yp fractions eral representative nuclei as a function of electron chemi- than obtained in NSE.) Importantly the number abun- cal potential µe (lower panel). The rates have been deter- dance of heavy nuclei is significantly larger than that of mined for conditions during the infall phase (Liebendörfer, free protons (by more than two orders of magnitude at 2002): (T,Ye,ρ11)=(0.846,0.429,0.102), (1.133,0.410,0.601), the example point discussed above) to compensate for (1.259,0.400,1.186), (1.617,0.372,4.287), (2.000,0.349,10.063), the smaller capture rates on heavy nuclei. It appears where the temperature T is given in MeV and ρ11 measures thus that electron capture on nuclei cannot be neglected the density in 1011 g cm−3. The electron chemical poten- 1/3 during the collapse. We note that the average energies of tial increases during the infall, µe ∼ ρ . The middle panel 78 the neutrinos produced by capture on nuclei are signifi- compares the capture rates on Ge in the independent particle model (IPM), in which Gamow-Teller transitions are cantly smaller than for capture on free protons making Pauli-blocked, with the results obtained in the hybrid model this process a potentially important source for low-energy (SMMC/RPA) which unblocks these transitions due to cor- neutrinos. relations and finite temperature effects. The rates have been The neutron number N = 40 is not magic in nuclear calculated without neutrino final-state Pauli blocking which structure, nor for stellar electron capture rates. Thus the will become important at trapping densities. The upper panel anticipated strong reduction of the capture rate on nu- shows the time evolution of the number abundances for neu- clei will not occur and we expect capture on nuclei to be trons Yn, protons Yp, α-particles Yα and heavy nuclei Yh calculated along the same stellar trajectory for which the rates an important neutronization process probably until neu- have been calculated at selected points. These points are marked by asterisks (from Sampaio et al., 2002a). 19 trino trapping. The magic neutron number N = 50 is 120 also no barrier as for nuclei like 93Kr (N = 57), the neu- 20 100 1− − tron pf-shell is nearly completely occupied, but due to 15 2 ) 2 correlations protons occupy, for example, the g9/2 orbital, ) 80 cm 2 and thus unblock GT transitions by allowing transforma- -42 10 cm (10 tions into g9/2,g7/2 neutrons. The description of electron σ -42 60 5 capture on nuclei in the collapse simulations needs to be (10 improved. σ 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 In the current simulations the inverse reaction rates of Energy (MeV) the weak processes listed above are derived by detailed 20 balance. Thus an improved description of electron cap- 0 ture will then also affect the neutrino absorption on nu- 0 5 10 15 20 clei, although this process is strongly suppressed by Pauli Energy (MeV) blocking in the final state. 56 − 56 FIG. 16 Differential Fe(νe,e ) Co cross section for the KARMEN neutrino spectrum, coming from the decay at rest 56 B. Neutrino rates of the muon, as a function of the excitation energy in Co. The figure shows the allowed contributions, while the inset gives the contribution of the 1− and 2− multipolarities. 0.4 1H 52V 62Co 0.3

0.2 a situation is shown in figure 16 which shows the dif- 56 56 ) 0.1 ferential cross section for the process Fe(νe,e−) Co -1 computed using the Shell-Model for the Gamow-Teller 0 63Ni 59Fe 65Ni contribution and the CRPA for the forbidden contribu- n (MeV 0.3 tions (Kolbe et al., 1999a). The calculation adopts a 0.2 neutrino spectrum corresponding to a muon decaying ¯ 0.1 at rest. The average energy, Eν 30 MeV, and momentum transfer, q 50 MeV, represent≈ the maximum 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ≈ values for νe neutrinos expected during the supernova Eν (MeV) collapse phase, i.e., the maximum contribution expected from forbidden transitions to the total neutrino-nucleus FIG. 15 Normalized neutrino spectra for stellar electron cap- + ture on the six most important ‘electron-capturing nuclei’ in cross sections. In this particular case the 1 multipole the presupernova model of a 15 M⊙ star, as identified in (Gamow-Teller at the q = 0 limit) represents 50% of 56 56 (Heger et al., 2001a). The stellar parameters are T = 7.2×109 the cross section. The Fe(νe,e−) Co cross section for 9 −3 K, ρ = 9.1 × 10 g cm and Ye = 0.43. The solid lines rep- neutrinos from muon-decay at rest has been measured resent the spectra derived from the shell model electron cap- by the Karmen collaboration. The measured cross sec- 40 2 ture rates. The dashed and dashed-dotted lines correspond tion (2.56 1.08(stat) 0.43(syst) 10− cm ) (Zeitnitz, to parametrizations recommended by Langanke et al. (2001b) 1994) agrees± with the± result calculated× in the shell model and Bruenn (1985), respectively. (allowed transitions) plus CRPA (forbidden transitions) 40 2 approach (2.38 10− cm ) (Kolbe et al., 1999a). × In the capture process on nuclei, the electron has to Although the most important neutrino reactions dur- overcome the Q-values of the nuclei and the internal ex- ing collapse are coherent elastic scattering on nuclei citation energy of the GT states in the daughter, so the and inelastic scattering off electrons, it has been noted final neutrino energies are noticeably smaller than for (Bruenn and Haxton, 1991; Haxton, 1988) that neutrino- capture on free protons. Typical neutrino spectra for induced reactions on nuclei can happen as well. Us- a presupernova model are shown in figure 15. In this ing 56Fe as a representative nucleus, Bruenn and Hax- stage of the collapse the neutrino energies are sufficiently ton concluded that charged-current (νe,e−) reactions do small that they only excite allowed transitions. Conse- not have an appreciable effect on the evolution of the quently neutrino-nucleus cross sections for pf-shell nuclei core during infall, due to the high-threshold for neutrino can be determined on the basis of GT distributions de- absorption. Based on shell model calculations of the termined in the shell model. In the later stage of the GT strength distributions, Sampaio et al. (2001) con- collapse, the increased density results also in higher en- firmed this finding for other, more relevant nuclei in ergy electrons (E ρ1/3) which in turn, if captured by the core composition. The same authors showed that e ∼ protons or nuclei, produce neutrinos with energies larger finite-temperature effects can increase the (νe,e−) cross than 15–20 MeV. For such neutrinos forbidden (mainly sections for low neutrino energies drastically (Sampaio λ = 1 dipole and spin-dipole) transitions can significantly et al., 2001). But this increase is found to be significantly contribute to the neutrino-nucleus cross section. Such smaller than the reduction of the cross section caused by 20

Pauli blocking of the final phase space, i.e. due to the estimated rates are probably too small for these processes increasing electron chemical potential. This environmen- to be important during the collapse. tal effect ensures that neutrino absorption on nuclei is Finally we remark that coherent elastic scattering on 2 unimportant during the collapse compared with inelastic nuclei scales like Eν so that neutrinos with low energies neutrino-electron scattering. are the last to be∼ trapped. In order to fill this important sink for entropy and energy, processes which affect the

)] 2 2 production of neutrinos with low energies can be quite cm 0 relevant for the collapse. Inelastic neutrino scattering on -42 nuclei, including ﬁnite temperature eﬀects, is one such (10 T=0.86 ν

σ -2 T=1.29 [ T=1.72 process (Bruenn and Haxton, 1991). The signiﬁcantly 10 ground-state lower energies of the neutrinos generated by electron cap- Log -4 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 Eν (MeV) ture on nuclei than the ones generated by capture on free 0.6 protons is another reason to implement these processes

) with appropriate care in collapse simulations. -1 0.3 n (MeV C. Delayed supernova mechanism 0 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 Eν' (MeV)

56 . . FIG. 17 Inelastic neutrino cross sections for Fe (left) and M M 59 overturn Co (right) as function of initial neutrino energy and for p e+ selected temperatures (upper part). Only allowed Gamow- heating advention Teller transitions have been considered. Temperatures are in n −ν MeV. For T = 0, the cross section is calculated for the ground e state only. At T > 0, the cross sections have been evaluated p − cooling advention for a thermal ensemble of initial states. The corresponding e neutrino energy distribution in the final state is shown in the n overturn νe lower part, assuming an initial neutrino energy of Eν = 7.5 MeV. Due to threshold effects a significant portion of the shock gain Rns Rν Rg Rs neutrinos are upscattered in energy for even-even nuclei. radius PNS (convective) Bruenn and Haxton (1991) observed that inelastic neutrino scattering off nuclei plays the same important role FIG. 18 Sketch of the stellar core during the shock revival of equilibrating electron neutrinos with matter during in- phase. Rν is the neutrinosphere radius, from which neutrinos fall as neutrino-electron scattering. The influence of fi- are expected to stream out freely, Rns is the radius of the protoneutron star, Rg the gain radius (see text) and Rs the radius nite temperature on inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering at which the shock is stalled. The shock expansion is impeded was studied in (Fuller and Meyer, 1991), using an inde- by mass infall at a rate M˙ , but supported by convective en- pendent particle model. While the study in (Bruenn and ergy transport from the region of strongest neutrino heating 56 Haxton, 1991) was restricted to Fe, additional cross sec- to the stalled shock. Convection inside the protoneutron star tions have been calculated for inelastic scattering of neu- (PNS) as well as correlations in the dense nuclear medium trinos on other nuclei based on modern shell-model GT increase the neutrino luminosity (adapted from Janka et al., strength distributions (Sampaio et al., 2002b). Again, 2001). for low neutrino energies the cross sections are enhanced at finite temperatures (figure 17). This is caused by the In the delayed supernova mechanism the fate of the possibility that, at finite temperatures, the initial nucleus explosion is determined by several distinct neutrino pro- can reside in excited states which can be connected with cesses. When the shock reaches the νe neutrinosphere, the ground state by sizable GT matrix elements. These from which νe are expected to stream out freely, elec- states can then be deexcited in inelastic neutrino scat- tron capture on the shock-heated and shock-dissociated tering. Note that in this case the final neutrino energy is matter increases the νe production rate significantly. Ad- larger than the initial (see figure 17) so that the deexci- ditionally neutrinos are produced by the transforma- tation occurs additionally with larger phase space. Un- tion of electron-positron pairs into νν¯ pairs (equation til neutrino trapping there is little phase space blocking 8j). This process is strongly temperature dependent (e.g. in inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering. Toivanen et al. Soyeur and Brown, 1979) and occurs most effectively (2001) presented the charged- and neutral-current cross in the shock-heated regions of the proto-neutron star. sections for neutrino-induced reactions on the iron iso- Electron-positron pair annihilation and nucleon-nucleon 52 60 topes − Fe, using a combination of shell model and bremsstrahlung (equation 8f) generate pairs of all three RPA approach. Other possible neutrino processes, e.g. neutrino flavors with the same probability and thus are nuclear deexcitation by neutrino pair production (8k), the main mechanisms for the production of νµ, ντ neutri- have been discussed in (Fuller and Meyer, 1991), but the nos and antineutrinos (Hanhart et al., 2001; Hannestad, 21

2001; Hannestad and Raffelt, 1998; Raffelt, 2001; Sto- 300 NH20, standard interaction ica and Horvath, 2002; Thompson and Burrows, 2001; NH20, strangeness gs=0.19 Thompson et al., 2000). The emitted νe andν ¯e neutri- 250 nos, however, can be absorbed again by the free nucleons behind the shock. Due to the temperature and density 200 dependences of the neutrino processes involved, neutrino emission wins over neutrino absorption in a region inside 150 a certain radius (the gain radius), while outside the gain radius matter is heated by neutrino interactions that are Radius [km] 100 dominated by absorption of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos on free nucleons which have been previously 50 liberated by dissociation due to the shock (see figure 18). As a net effect, neutrinos transport energy across the gain 0 radius to the layers behind the shock. Due to the smaller 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 abundances, neutrino-induced reactions on finite nuclei Time After Bounce [s] are expected to contribute only modestly to the shock FIG. 19 Shock trajectories of a 20 M star, calculated with revival. It has been also suggested that the shock revival ⊙ (dashed) and without (solid) an isoscalar strange axialform is supported by ‘preheating’ (Haxton, 1988). In this sce- factor in the neutrino-nucleon elastic cross sections (courtesy nario the electron neutrinos, which have been trapped of M. Liebendörfer). during the final collapse phase and are liberated in a very 53 1 short burst (with luminosities of a few 10 erg s− lasting for about 10 ms), can partly dissociate the matter (e.g. and assuming axial-vector dominance, i.e. the cross sec- iron and silicon isotopes) prior to the shock arrival. As re- s 2 tion scales like σ gAτ gA , a non-vanishing strange liable neutrino-induced cross sections on nuclei have not axial-vector form∼ factor | would− | reduce the elastic scatter- been available until recently, the neutrino-nucleus reac- ing cross section on neutrons and increase the νp elastic tions have not been included in collapse and post-bounce cross section (Garvey et al., 1993a, 1992; Horowitz, 2002). simulations. As the matter behind the shock is neutron-rich, the net To describe the important neutrino-nucleon processes, effect will be a reduction of the neutrino-nucleon elas- most core collapse simulations use the same lowest or- tic cross section. This increases the energy transfer to der cross section for both neutrinos and antineutrinos the stalled shock, however, a simulation has shown that (Bruenn, 1985; Horowitz, 2002), i.e., they neglect terms this increase is not strong enough for a successful shock of order Eν /M, where Eν is the neutrino energy and revival (Liebendörfer et al., 2002, see figure 19). M the nucleon mass. The most important corrections The physics involved in the attempt to revive the shock to the cross section at this order are the nucleon recoil by neutrino heating is exhaustively reviewed by Janka and the weak magnetism related to the form factor F2 et al. (2001) (see also Burrows and Goshy, 1993). These in Eq. (4a) (Horowitz, 2002). The recoil correction is authors show that the fate of the stalled shock does not the same for neutrinos and antineutrinos and decreases only depend on the neutrino heating above the gain ra- the cross sections. However, the weak magnetism cor- dius, but is also influenced by the energy loss in the cool- rects the cross sections via its parity-violating interfer- ing region below the gain radius (see also Bethe and Wil- ence with the dominant axial-vector component. As the son, 1985). Janka (2001) also demonstrates the existence interference is constructive for neutrinos and destructive of a critical value for the neutrino luminosity from the for antineutrinos, inclusion of the weak magnetism cor- neutron star needed to revive the shock. This critical rection increases the neutrino cross section, while it de- luminosity depends on the neutron star mass and radius creases theν ¯-nucleon cross sections. It is then expected and on the mass infall to the shock. One expects that the that corrections up to order Eν /M decrease the antineu- shock expansion is eased for high mass infall rates, which trino cross section noticeably (by about 25% for 40 MeV increase the matter pile-up on the neutron star and push antineutrinos), while the ν-nucleon cross sections are only the shock outwards, and for high νe andν ¯e luminosities affected by a few percents for E 100 MeV (Horowitz, ν ≤ from the neutron star, which lead to an enhancement of 2002). neutrino absorption relative to neutrino emission in the Neutral-current processes are sensitive to possible gain region. strange quark contributions in the nucleon which would The explosion depends crucially on the effectiveness s give rise to an isoscalar piece gA in the axial-vector form by which energy is transported by neutrinos to the re- factor besides the standard isovector form factor gAτ gion where the shock has stalled. As stressed before, (Beise and McKeown, 1991; Jaffe and Manohar, 1990). one-dimensional models including sophisticated neutrino s The current knowledge on gA comes from a νp elastic transport (e.g. Liebendörfer et al., 2001; Rampp and scattering experiment performed at Brookhaven yielding Janka, 2000) fail to explode. However, the neutrino en- gs = 0.15 0.08 (Ahrens et al., 1987), but is considered ergy transport is very sensitive to: i) the effect of nucleon- A − ± rather uncertain (Garvey et al., 1993b). With gA =1.26 nucleon correlations on the neutrino opacities in dense 22 matter and ii) convection both in the neutrino-heated neutron star is neutron-rich, electron neutrinos, which region and in the proto-neutron star (Janka et al., 2001). are absorbed by neutrons, decouple at a larger radius In his pioneering work, Sawyer (1989) calculated the than their antiparticles, which interact with protons by neutrino mean free path, or equivalently the neutrino charged-current reactions. As a consequence decoupled opacity, in uniform nuclear matter and showed that ef- electron neutrinos have, on average, smaller energies than fects due to strong interaction between nucleons are im- electron antineutrinos. Calculated supernova neutrino portant. The same conclusion has been reached by Raf- spectra can be found in (Janka and Hillebrandt, 1989; felt et al. (1996) who demonstrated that the average Yamada et al., 1999), which yield the average energies neutrino-nucleon cross section in the medium is reduced of the various supernova neutrinos approximately as: E = 11 MeV, E = 16 MeV, and E = 25 due to spin fluctuations induced by the spin-dependent h νe i h ν¯e i h νx i interaction among nucleons. (For earlier calculations of MeV. Burrows et al. (2000) find the same hierarchy, but the neutrino mean free path in uniform nuclear matter, somewhat smaller average neutrino energies. see Friman and Maxwell, 1979; Iwamoto and Pethick, For a much deeper and detailed description of the neu- 1982; Sawyer, 1975). Sawyer (1989) exploited the rela- trino mean free paths in dense matter the reader is refered tion between the equation of state (EOS) of the matter to (Prakash et al., 2001; Reddy et al., 1999) and the ear- and the long-wavelength excitations of the system to cal- lier work (Burrows and Sawyer, 1998, 1999; Reddy et al., culate the weak interaction rates. However, consistency 1998). We will here only briefly summarize the essence between the EOS and the neutrino opacities are more dif- of the work presented in these references. ficult to achieve for large energy (q0) and momentum (q) Eν = 3T transfer of the neutrinos. Here, particle-hole and particle- 2 particle interactions are examples of effects which might influence the EOS and the neutrino opacities. For the following discussion it is quite illuminating to realize the 1.5 similarity of the neutrino-induced excitations of nuclear matter with the physics of multipole giant resonances in H−F n

λ 1 T=10 MeV ﬁnite nuclei. / T=30 MeV For muon and tau neutrinos, neutral current reactions T=50 MeV

are the only source of opacities. Here, the energy and RPA−Landau n 0.5 momentum transfer is limited by the matter tempera- λ ture alone. For electron neutrinos the mean free path is dominated by charged-current reactions, for which the 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 energy transfer is typically of the order of the difference ρ/ρ between neutron and proton chemical potentials. During 0 the early deleptonization epoch of the proto-neutron star FIG. 20 Ratio of neutrino mean free paths in neutron matter the typical neutron momenta are large ( 100–200 MeV) ∼ calculated in RPA and Hartree-Fock approaches at various and the mismatch of proton, neutron and electron Fermi temperatures (Margueron et al., 2002). The interaction is the momenta can be overcome by the neutrino momenta. Gogny force D1P. The neutrino energy is taken as Eν = 3T . This is not longer possible in later stages when the neutrino energies are of order kbT ; then momentum conser- Collapse simulations describe neutrino opacities typi- vation restricts the available phase space for the absorp- cally on the mean-field level or even by a nucleon gas. tion reaction. Pauli blocking of the lepton in the final Then an analytical expression can be derived for the vec- state increases the mean free path for charged-current tor and axial-vector response of the medium which in and neutral-current reactions. turn determines the charged- and neutral-current cross We note an important and quite general consequence sections. Effects due to the strong interaction between of the fact that muon and tau neutrinos react with the nucleons are considered by a medium-dependent effec- proto-neutron star matter only by neutral-current reac- tive mass in the dispersion relation. Like in finite nu- tions: The four neutrino types have similar spectra. Due clei, collective excitations in nuclear matter arise due to to universality, νµ, ντ andν ¯µ,ν ¯τ have identical spec- nucleon-nucleon correlations beyond the mean-field ap- tra. It is usually even assumed that neutrinos and an- proximation. As it is believed that single-pair excitations tineutrinos have the same spectra (one therefore refers dominate over multi-pair excitations for the kinematics to the 4 neutrino types unifyingly as νx neutrinos) ex- of interest to neutrino scattering and absorption, it ap- ploiting axial-vector dominance in the neutrino cross sec- pears to be sufficient to determine the vector and axial- tions. However, the interference of the axial-vector and vector response, in a first step, within the Random Phase the weak magnetism components makes theν ¯x spectra Approximation (RPA). Assuming that the interaction is slightly hotter than the νx spectra. The νx neutrinos short-ranged compared to the wavelength of the excita- decouple deepest in the star, i.e., at a higher temper- tions, it is justified to retain only s-wave components in ature, than electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, and the interaction which in turn can be related to Fermi- hence have higher energies. As the matter in the proto- liquid parameters. It is found that the repulsive nature of 23 the parameter G0′ , which is related to the isovector spin- 1998). Such a damping is possible in regions where neu- flip or giant Gamow-Teller resonances in nuclei, induces trinos are still strongly coupled to matter, but neutrino a collective state in the region ω/q vF (vF is the Fermi opacities are not too high to make neutrino transport velocity), while the cross section is reduced∼ at smaller en- insufficient. In the model of Keil et al. (1996) the con- ergies. However, these smaller energies are important for vective mixing occurs very deep inside the core where the the neutrino mean free path at nuclear matter densities neutrino opacities are high; no damping of the convection (ρ0) or smaller densities. Assuming a typical neutrino by neutrinos is then found. energy Eν 3T (corresponding to a Fermi-Dirac distri- Wilson and Mayle attempted to simulate convection in ≈ bution with temperature T and zero chemical potential) their spherical model by introducing neutron-fingers and RPA correlations increase the neutral-current neutrino found successful explosions (Wilson and Mayle, 1993). mean-free path (see figure 20) at low temperatures and This idea is based on the assumption that energy trans- for ρ = ρ0, compared with the mean-field result. An en- port (by three neutrino flavors) is more efficient than hancement due to RPA correlations is also found for neu- lepton number transport (only by electron neutrinos). trino absorption mean-free paths for neutrino-trapped However, this assumption is under debate (Bruenn and matter. Like in the case of neutrino-induced reactions on Dineva, 1996). finite nuclei (see above), finite-temperature effects allow that nuclear excitation energy is transferred to the neutrino in inelastic scattering processes. This contributes VI. NUCLEOSYNTHESIS BEYOND IRON to the cooling of the nuclear matter and increases the neutrino energy in the final state. While the elements lighter than mass number A 60 Neutrino heating is maximal in the layer just above the are made by charged-particle fusion reactions, the heav-∼ gain radius. The energy transport from this region to the ier nuclei are made by neutron captures, which have to shock, which is stalled further out, can be supported by compete with β decays. Already (Burbidge et al., 1957; convective overturn and might lead to successful explo- Cameron, 1957) realized that two distinct processes are sions, as has been demonstrated in several simulations required to make the heavier elements. This is the slow with two-dimensional hydrodynamics treatment of the neutron-capture process (s-process), for which the β life- region between the gain radius and the shock (Burrows times τβ are shorter than the competing neutron capture et al., 1995; Herant et al., 1994; Janka and Müller, 1996). times τn. This requirement ensures that the s-process The effect of convection is twofold (Janka et al., 2001): runs through nuclei in the valley of stability. The rapid At first, heated matter is transported outwards to cooler neutron-capture process (r-process) requires τn τβ. regions where the energy loss due to neutrino emission This is achieved in extremely neutron-rich environment,≪ is reduced (the neutrino production rate for electron and as τn is inversely proportional to the neutron density positron captures on nucleons depends strongly on tem- of the environment. The r-process runs through very perature). Second, cooler matter is brought down closer neutron-rich, unstable nuclei, which are far-off stability to the gain radius where the neutrino fluxes are larger and and whose physical properties are often experimentally hence the heating is more effective. While this picture is unknown. certainly appealing, it is not yet clear whether multi- Weak-interaction processes play interesting, but dif- dimensional simulations will indeed lead to explosions as ferent roles in these processes. The half-lives of the the two-dimensional studies did not include state-of-the- β-unstable nuclei along the s-process path are usually art Boltzmann neutrino transport, but treated neutrino known with good precision. However, the nuclear half-life transport in an approximate manner. In fact, in a sim- in the stellar environment can change due to the thermal ulation with an improved treatment of neutrino trans- population of excited states in the parent nucleus. This port the convective overturn was found not to be strong is particularly interesting if the effective lifetime is then enough to revive the stalled shock (Mezzacappa et al., comparable to τn, leading to branchings in the s-process 1998). path, from which the temperature and neutron density The shock revival can also be supported by convection of the environment can be determined. Several recent occuring inside the protoneutron star where it is mainly examples are discussed in the next subsection. For the r- driven by the negative lepton gradient which is estab- process, β-decays are probably even more crucial. They lished by the rapid loss of leptons in the region around regulate the flow to larger charge numbers and determine the neutrinosphere (Burrows, 1987; Keil et al., 1996). By the resulting abundance pattern and duration of the pro- this mode, lepton-rich matter will be transported from cess. Except for a few key nuclei, β-decays of r-process inside the protoneutron star to the neutrinosphere which nuclei have to be modelled theoretically; we will briefly increases the neutrino luminosity and thus is expected to summarize the recent progress below. Although the r- help the explosion. The simulation of protoneutron star process site is not yet fully determined, it is conceivable convection is complicated by the fact that neutrinos and that it occurs in the presence of extreme neutrino fluxes. matter are strongly coupled. In fact, two-dimensional As we will discuss, neutrino-nucleus reactions can have simulations found that neutrino transport can equilibrate interesting effects during and after the r-process, perhaps otherwise convective fluid elements (Mezzacappa et al., allowing for clues to ultimately identify the r-process site. 24

8 3 A. S-process neutron densities of order (0.5–1.3) 10 cm− (Wal- ter et al., 1986a,b). We stress that× a 10% determina- The analysis of the solar abundances have indicated tion of the neutron density requires the knowledge of that two components of the s-process have contributed the involved neutron capture cross sections with about to the synthesis of elements heavier than A 60. The 1% accuracy (Käppeler et al., 1998), which has yet not weak component produces the elements with A∼. 90. Its been achieved for unstable nuclei. Improvements are ex- site is related with helium core burning of CNO mate- pected from new time-of-flight facilities like LANSCE at rial in more massive stars (Couch et al., 1974; Käppeler Los Alamos or NTOF at CERN. et al., 1994). The main component, which is responsible for the heavier s-process nuclides up to Pb and Bi, is asso- s−process 176Hf 177Hf 178Hf ciated with helium flashes occurring during shell burning in low-mass (asymptotic giant branch) stars (Busso et al., 1999). The 22Ne(α, n)25Mg and 13C(α, n)16O reactions are believed to be the supplier of neutrons for the weak and main components, respectively. The s-process abun- 176Lum dances Ns are found to be inversely proportional to the 3.7 h respective (temperature averaged) neutron capture cross 175Lu sections σ , as expected for a steady-flow picture (Bur- bidge eth al.i, 1957), which, however, breaks down for the 176Lu extemely small cross sections at the magic neutron num- 10 bers. As a consequence, the product Ns σ exhibits 4.0 10 y almost constant plateaus between the magic· h i neutron numbers, separated by pronounced steps, (e.g. Käppeler, 1999). 174Yb 176Yb

147Sm 148Sm 149Sm 150Sm

r−process 147Pm 148Pm 149Pm 150Pm

s−process 146Nd 147Nd 148Nd 149Nd 150Nd FIG. 22 The s-process neutron capture path in the Yb-Lu-Hf region (solid lines). For 176Lu the ground state and isomer 176 176 r−process are shown separately. Note that Lu and Hf are shielded against r-process β-decays (adapted from Doll et al., 1999). FIG. 21 The s-process reaction path in the Nd-Pm-Sm region with the branchings at A = 147, 148, and 149. Note that 148Sm and 150Sm are shielded against r-process β-decays (adapted from K¨appeler, 1999).

500 −1000 keV ? The neutron density of the stellar environment during γ γ the main s-process component can be determined from Nγ − branching points occuring, for example, in the A = 147– 9 75.3 ≥ 1015 y T=3×108 K 149 mass region (see figure 21). Here the relative abun- 1+ 0.0 8.15 h 148 dances of the two s-process-only isotopes Sm and E 180Ta 150Sm (Z = 62), which are shielded against r-process 25% 3.5% contributions by the two stable Nd (Z = 60) isotopes − EC β 148 150 2+ 103.6 Nd and Nd, is strongly affected by branchings oc- + 147 148 2 93.3 curing at Nd and, more importantly, at Pm and 61% 10.5% 147 0+ 0.0 at Pm. As the neutron captures on these branching 0+ 0.0 nuclei will bypass 148Sm in the flow pattern, the 150Sm 180W 180Hf N σ value will be larger for this nucleus than for 148Sm. sh i Furthermore, the neutron capture rate λn is proportional FIG. 23 The figure shows an schematic energy-level diagram 180 to the neutron density Nn. Thus, Nn can be determined of Ta and its daughters illustrating the possibility for ther- 180 m from the relative 150Sm/148Sm abundances, resulting in mally enhanced decay of Ta in the stellar environment of 8 3 the s-process. The inset shows the photon density at s-process Nn = (4.1 0.6) 10 cm− (Toukan et al., 1995). A similar analysis± for× the weak s-process component yields temperature (adapted from Belic et al., 1999). 25

The temperature of the s-process environment can be process component is subtracted from the 187Os abun- ‘measured’, if the β half-life of a branching point nu- dance (Clayton, 1964). To determine the latter precise cleus is very sensitive to the thermal population of ex- measurements of the neutron capture cross sections on cited nuclear levels. A prominent example is 176Lu (Beer 186Os and 187Os are required, which are in progress at et al., 1981). For mass number A = 176, the β-decays CERN’s NTOF facility. A potential complication arises from the r-process terminate at 176Yb (Z = 70), mak- from the fact that 187Os has a low-lying state at 9.8 ing 176Hf (Z = 72) and 176Lu (Z = 71) s-only nu- keV which is populated equally with the ground state clides (see figure 22). Besides the long-lived ground state at s-process temperatures. The respective neutron cap- (t = 4.00(22) 1010 y), 176Lu has an isomeric state ture cross sections on the excited state can be indi- 1/2 × at an excitation energy of 123 keV (t1/2 =3.664(19) h). rectly determined from (n,n’) measurements. Further- Both states can be populated by 175Lu(n,γ) with known more one has to consider that the half-life of 187Rh is partial cross sections. At 176Lu, the s-process matter strongly temperature-dependent: If stripped of its elec- flow is determined by the competition of neutron cap- trons, the half-life is reduced by 9 orders of magnitude ture on the ground state and β-decay of the isomer. to t1/2 = 32.9 2 y as measured at the GSI storage ± But importantly, the ground and isomeric states cou- ring (Bosch et al., 1996). However, the GSI data can ple in the stellar photon bath via the excitation of an be translated into a log ft value from which the 187Rh intermediate state at 838 keV (figure 23 shows a simi- half-life can be deduced for every ionization state. lar process taking place in 180Ta), leading to a matter The decay of totally ionized 187Rh is an example for flow from the isomer to the ground state, which is very a bound state β-decay, i.e., the decay of bare 187Rh75+ temperature-dependent. A recent analysis of the 176Lu to continuum states of 187Os76+ is energetically forbid- s-process branching yields an environment temperature den, but it is possible if the decay electron is captured in 8 of T = (2.5–3.5) 10 K (Doll et al., 1999). the K-shell (Qβ=73 keV) or in the L-shell (Qβ=9.1 keV) × Similar finite-temperature effects play also an impor- (Johnson and Soff, 1985). We note that the decay of neu- 187 tant role in the s-process production of 180Ta. This is tral Rh is energetically allowed for a first-forbidden 187 the rarest isotope (0.012%) of nature’s rarest element. transition to the Os ground state; the long half-life re- π It only exists in a long-lived isomer (J = 9−) at an sults from the small matrix element and Qβ value related excitation energy of 75.3 keV and with a half-life of to this transition. Another example of a bound state β- 15 + decay with importance for the s-process occurs for 163Dy. t1/2 1.2 10 y. The 1 ground state decays with a half-life≥ of× 8.152(6) h, mainly by electron capture to This nucleus is stable as a neutral atom, but, if fully ion- 163 +5 180Hf. While potential s-process production paths of ized, can decay to Ho with a half-life of 47 4 d; the − the 180Ta isomer have been pointed out, the survival of measurement of this half-life at the GSI storage ring was this state in a finite-temperature environment has long the first observation of bound state β-decay (Jung et al., 163 been questionable. While a direct electromagnetic de- 1992). The consideration of the Dy decay at s-process cay to the ground state is strongly suppressed due to conditions has been found to be essential to explain the 164 angular momentum mismatch, the isomer can decay via abundance of the s-process only nuclide Er, which is 163 thermal population of intermediate states with branch- produced by neutron capture on Ho, the daughter of 163 ings to the ground state (see figure 23). By measur- the bound state β-decay of Dy, and the subsequent 164 164 ing the relevant electromagnetic coupling strength, the β-decay of Ho to Er. temperature-dependent half-life, and thus the 180Ta survival rate, has been determined by Belic et al. (1999) under s-process conditions as t1/2 . 1 y, i.e. more than B. R-process 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the half-life of the isomer! Accompanied by progress in stellar modeling of Phenomenological parameter studies indicate that the the convective modes during the main s-process com- r-process occurs at temperatures around T 100 keV 180 ponent (which brings freshly produced Ta to cooler and at extreme neutron fluxes (neutron number∼ densi- 20 3 zones, where it can survive more easily, on timescales of ties n > 10 cm− ) (e.g. Cowan et al., 1991). It has 180 days) it appears now likely that Ta is partly made also been demonstrated that not all r-process nuclides within s-process nucleosynthesis (Wisshak et al., 2001). can be made simultaneously at the same astrophysical The p-process (Rayet et al., 1995) and neutrino nucle- conditions (constant temperature, neutron density), i.e. osynthesis (Woosley et al., 1990) have been proposed as the r-process is a dynamical process with changing (dif- 180 alternative sites for the Ta production. ferent) conditions and paths (Kratz et al., 1993). In a The two neighboring isotopes 186Os and 187Os are s- good approximation, the neutron captures proceed in process only nuclides, shielded against the r-process by (n,γ) ⇄ (γ,n) equilibrium, fixing the reaction paths 186 187 187 W and Rh. The nucleus Rh has a half-life of 42 at rather low neutron separation energies of Sn 2–3 Gy which is comparable with the age of the universe. As MeV (Cowan et al., 1991), implying paths through∼ very the 187Rh decay has contributed to the observed 187Os neutron-rich nuclei in the nuclear chart as is shown in abundance, the Os/Rh abundance ratio can serve as a figure 24. While the general picture of the r-process ap- sensitive clock for the age of the universe, once the s- pears to be well accepted, its astrophysical site is still 26 open. The extreme neutron fluxes point to explosive sce- As relevant nuclear input, r-process simulations require narios and, in fact, the neutrino-driven wind above the neutron separation energies (i.e. masses), half-lives and nascent neutron star in a core-collapse supernova is the neutron capture cross sections of the very neutron-rich currently favored model (Witti et al., 1994a,b; Woosley nuclei on the various dynamical r-process paths. As cur- et al., 1994). But also shock-processed helium shells in rently only few experimental data are known for r-process type II supernovae (Truran et al., 2001) and neutron star nuclei, these quantities have to be modelled. Tradition- mergers (Freiburghaus et al., 1999b; Rosswog et al., 2000) ally this has been done by global models which, by fit- are investigated as possible r-process sites. Recent me- ting a certain set of parameters to known experimental teoritic clues (Qian et al., 1998; Wasserburg et al., 1996) data, are then being used to predict the properties of all as well as observations of r-process abundances in low- nuclei in the nuclear landscape. Arguably the most im- metallicity stars (Sneden et al., 2000) point to more than portant input to r-process simulations are neutron sepa- one distinct site for the solar r-process nuclides. ration energies as they determine, for given temperature In an important astronomical observation Cayrel et al. and neutron density of the astrophysical environment, (2001) have recently detected the r-process nuclides tho- the r-process paths. The most commonly used mass tab- rium and uranium in an old galactical halo star. As these ulations are based on the microscopic-macroscopic finite- two nuclei have halflives, which are comparable to the ex- range droplet model (FRDM) approach (Möller et al., pected age of the universe, their measured abundance 1997) or the Extended Thomas-Fermi model with Struti- ratio serves as a sensitive clock to determine a lower nski Integral (ETFSI) approach (Aboussir et al., 1995). limit to this age, provided their initial r-process produc- In more recent developments mass tabulations have been tion abundance ratio can be calculated with sufficient developed adopting parametrizations inspired by shell accuracy. Cayrel et al. (2001) have used their observed model results (Duflo and Zuker, 1995) or calculated on 238U/232Th abundance ratio from the star CS31082-001 the basis of nuclear many-body theories like the Hartree- and the r-process model predictions from (Cowan et al., Fock model with a BCS treatment of pairing (Goriely 1999; Goriely and Clerbaux, 1999) to deduce a value of et al., 2001). Special attention has been paid recently 12.5 3.3 Gyr for the age of the star. Recently, a refined also to the ‘shell quenching’, i.e. the observations made analysis± of the CS31082-001 spectra has led to a signifi- in HFB calculations that the shell gap at magic neu- cant improvement in the derived abundances which pro- tron numbers is less pronounced in very neutron-rich nu- vides now an age estimate of 14.0 2.4 Gyr (Hill et al., clei than in nuclei close to stability (Dobaczewski et al., 2002). The effect of different nuclear± physics input on the 1994). Such a vanishing of the shell gap has been exper- r-process production of U and Th have been studied by imentally verified for the magic neutron number N = 20 Goriely and Arnould (2001) and by Schatz et al. (2002) (Guillemaud-Mueller et al., 1984; Motobayashi et al., 1995). The confirmation of the predicted quenching at the N = 82 shell closure is the aim of considerable current experimental activities (Kratz et al., 2000). Recent theoretical studies on this topic are reported in (Sharma and Farhan, 2001, 2002). The potential importance of shell quenching for the r-process rests on the observation (Chen et al., 1995; Pfeiffer et al., 1997) that it can correct the strong trough just below the r-process peaks in the calculated r-process abundances encountered with conventional mass models. Neutron capture cross sections become important, if the r-process flow drops out of (n,γ) ⇄ (γ,n) equilibrium, which happens close to freeze-out when the neutron source ceases. They can also be relevant for nuclides with small abundances for which no flow equilibrium is built up (Surman and Engel, 2001; Surman et al., 1997). In the following we will summarize FIG. 24 The r-process occurs under dynamically changing recent progress in calculating half-lives for nuclei on the astrophysically conditions which affect the reaction pathway. r-process paths. The figure shows the range of r-process paths, defined by their waiting point nuclei. After decay to stability the abundance of the r-process progenitors produce the observed solar r-process abundance distribution. The r-process paths run 1. Half-Lives generally through neutronrich nuclei with experimentally unknown masses and halflives. In this calculation a mass formula The nuclear half-lives determine the relative r-process based on the Extended Thomas Fermi model with Strutinski abundances. In a simple β-flow equilibrium picture the Integral (ETFSI) and special treatment of shell quenching elemental abundance is proportional to the half-life, with (see text) has been adopted. (courtesy of Karl-Ludwig Kratz some corrections for β-delayed neutron emission (Kratz and Hendrik Schatz). et al., 1988). As r-process half-lives are longest for the 27 magic nuclei, these waiting point nuclei determine the ciencies. For example, the FRDM/QRPA half-lives show minimal r-process duration time; i.e. the time needed to a significant odd-even staggering which is not present build up the r-process peak around A 200 via matter- in the data, while the ETFSI/QRPA half-lives appear flow from the seed nucleus. We note, however,∼ that this globally too long. The HFB/QRPA and SM approaches time depends also crucially on the r-process path. obtain half-lives in reasonable agreement with the data Pioneering experiments to measure half-lives of and predict shorter half-lives for the unmeasured waiting neutron-rich isotopes near the r-process path succeeded point nuclei with N = 82 than the global FRDM/QRPA in determining the half-lives of two N =50 (80Zn, 79Cu) and ETFSI/QRPA approaches. For N = 126 there is no and two N = 82 (129Ag, 130Cd) waiting point nuclei experimental information so the different models remain (Gill et al., 1986; Kratz et al., 1986; Pfeiffer et al., 2001). untested. While HFB calculations for the half-lives of all Pfeiffer et al. (2001) reviewed the experimental informa- the r-process nuclei are conceivable, similar calculations tion on r-process nuclei. These data play crucial roles within the shell-model approach are still not feasible due in constraining and testing nuclear models, which are to computer memory limitations. still necessary to predict the bulk of half-lives required While the Qβ value for the decay of neutron-rich r- in r-process simulations. It is generally assumed that the process nuclei is large, the neutron separation energies half-lives are determined by allowed Gamow-Teller (GT) are small. Hence β decay can lead to final states above transitions. The calculations of β-decays require usu- neutron threshold and is accompanied by neutron emis- ally two ingredients: the GT strength distribution in the sion. If the r-process proceeds by an (n,γ) ⇄ (γ,n) daughter nucleus and the relative energy scale between equilibrium the β-delayed neutron emission probabilities, parent and daughter, i.e. their mass difference. However, Pβ,n, only play a role at the end of the r-process when the the β decays only probe the weak low-energy tail of the neutron source has ceased and the produced nuclei decay GT distributions. Only a few percent of the 3(N Z) to stability. The calculated Pβ,n values are very sensitive − Ikeda sum rule (Ikeda et al., 1963) lie within the Qβ win- to both the low-energy GT distribution and the neutron dow (i.e. at energies accessible in β-decay), the rest being threshold energies. No model describes currently both located in the region of the Gamow-Teller resonance at quantities simultaneously with sufficient accuracy. Fig- 5 higher excitation energies. Due to the strong E energy ure 25 compares the Pβ,n computed in the FRDM/QRPA dependence of the phase space β-decay rates are very and SM approaches for N = 82 and 126. The predictions sensitive to the correct description of the detailed low- between different models can be quite different in ex- energy GT distribution and its relative energy scale to perimentally non-determined mass regions. For the SM the parent nucleus. This explains why different calcu- approach the error bars indicate the sensitivity of the lations of the β-decay half-lives present large deviations computed Pβ,n values to a change of 0.5 MeV in the ± among them. neutron separation energies of the daughter nucleus; the Because of the huge number of nuclei relevant for the effect can be large. r-process, the estimates of the half-lives are so far based It has been pointed out that first-forbidden transitions on a combination of global mass models and the quasi- might have important contributions in some nuclei close particle random phase approximation (QRPA), the lat- to magic numbers (Blomqvist et al., 1983; Homma et al., ter to calculate the GT matrix elements. Examples of 1996; Korgul et al., 2001). A systematic inclusion of first- these models are the FRDM/QRPA (Möller et al., 1997) forbidden transitions in the calculation of r-process beta- and the ETFSI/QRPA (Borzov and Goriely, 2000). Re- decay half-lives in any of the many-body methods used to cently, calculations based on the self-consistent Hartree- describe the GT contributions has not been done. How- Fock-Bogoliubov plus QRPA model became available for ever, a first attempt towards this goal (Möller et al., 2002) r-process waiting point nuclei with magic neutron num- has combined first-forbidden transitions estimated in the bers N = 50, 82 and 126 (Engel et al., 1999). The Gross Theory (Takahashi et al., 1973) with GT results presence of a closed neutron shell has allowed also for taken from QRPA calculations. No significant changes the study of these nuclei by shell-model calculations compared to r-process studies, which consider only the (Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 2001; Mart´ınez-Pinedo and Langanke, GT contributions to the halflives, have been observed 1999), which is the method of choice to determine the (Kratz, 2002). β-decay matrix elements. However an adequate calcu- The presence of low-lying isomeric states in r-process lation of the nuclear masses for heavy nuclei is yet pro- nuclei might change the effective half-lives in the stellar hibitive in the shell model. In Mart´ınez-Pinedo and Lan- environment. Currently no estimates of these effect exists ganke (1999), and Mart´ınez-Pinedo (2001) the masses except for odd-A nuclei with N = 82. Here shell-model were adopted from the global model of Duflo and Zuker calculations predict half-lives for the isomeric states very (1995). Figure 25 compares the half-lives predicted by similar to the ground state half-lives (Mart´ınez-Pinedo the different approaches. For N = 82, the half-lives of and Langanke, 1999). The halflives of the isomeric state 131In, 130Cd and 129Ag are known experimentally (Kratz in 129Ag has also been estimated within the QRPA ap- et al., 1986; Pfeiffer et al., 2001). The comparison of the proach and by a second shell model calculation finding predictions of the different models with the few experi- values about a factor of 2 larger than the 129Ag ground mental r-process benchmarks reveals some of their insuffi- state half-life (Kratz, 2001). This reference also reports 28

100 100 ETFSI N=82 FRDM FRDM SM HFB 80 SM Expt. 10-1 60 (s) (%) ,n 1/2 β T P 40 10-2 20 N=82 10-3 0 40 42 44 46 48 50 40 42 44 46 48 50 Charge Number Z Charge Number Z

101 100 ETFSI FRDM FRDM SM HFB 80 100 SM 60 (s) (%) ,n 1/2 β T 10-1 P 40

20 N=126 10-2 N=126 0 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Charge Number Z Charge Number Z

FIG. 25 The left panels show the half-lives of the r-process waiting point nuclei with neutron numbers N = 82 and 126, obtained within different theoretical models. In the case of N = 82 the half-lives of 131In, 130Cd and 129Ag are experimentally known (Pfeiffer et al., 2001). The right panels compare the beta-delayed neutron emission probabilities for the N = 82 (upper) and N = 126 (lower) waiting-point nuclei as calculated in two different models. For the shell-model (SM) probabilities the error bars indicate the sensitivity of the calculations to a change of ±0.5 MeV in the neutron separation energies.

about the first attempt to measure the half-life of the 0 Solar isomeric state. 10 ETFSI+GT2 For heavy nuclei (Z 84) some final states populated ETFSI+cQRPA by β-decay in the daughter≥ nucleus can also decay by 10-1 FRDM+QRPA fission (Cowan et al., 1991). The relevant beta-delayed

fission probabilities depend sensitively on the modelling -2 of the fission barriers (Howard and Möller, 1980; Mam- 10 douh et al., 2001). Borzov and Goriely have studied the influence of the β 10-3 Relative abundances half-lives on the r-process abundances within two distinct scenarios: the canonical r-process picture with a exposure -4 of the seed nucleus 56Fe by a constant neutron density 10 80 90 100 110 120 130 and temperature for a fixed duration time (2.4 s) and A the neutrino-driven wind model. In the canonical model the location of the r-process abundance peaks depends on FIG. 26 Abundances of r-process nuclides calculated in a dy- the masses, but not on the β half-lives, which act only namical r-process model and for different global sets of β- as bottlenecks for the matter-flow to more massive nu- decay half-lives. In the dynamical r-process the matter flow clei. In the dynamical neutrino-driven wind model the timescale competes with the nuclear timescale, set by the β- half-lives affect the abundance distribution. This comes decay half-lives. As a consequence the magic neutron num- about as at later times in this model the environmen- bers (here N = 82) are reached at different astrophysical conditions and hence at different proton numbers, which is tal conditions shift the r-process to more neutron-rich reflected in the shifts of the abundance peaks (from Borzov nuclei. Long half-lives then imply that the matter-flow and Goriely, 2000). reaches the magic neutron numbers later, i.e. for more 29 neutron-rich nuclei. Consequently the abundance peaks matter by charge-current reactions, setting the proton- are shifted to smaller A-values (see figure 26, Borzov and to-neutron ratio n/p or equivalently the Ye value of the Goriely, 2000). Similar studies have been presented by r-process matter. As shown by Fuller and Qian one has Kratz et al. (1998). the simple relation (Qian, 1997; Qian and Fuller, 1995)

n Lν¯e Eν¯e 2. The possible role of neutrinos in the r-process h i (9) p ≈ L E νe h νe i Among the various possible astrophysical sites for the As the neutrino energy luminosities are about equal 52 1 r-process, the neutrino-driven wind model (Witti et al., for all species (Lν 10 erg s− ) the n/p-ratio is set 1994a,b; Woosley et al., 1994) has attracted most at- by the ratio of average∼ energies for the antineutrino and tention in recent years. Here it is assumed that the r- neutrino. As discussed above, their different opacities process occurs in the layers heated by neutrino emission in the protoneutron star ensure that Eν¯e > Eνe and and evaporating from the hot protoneutron star after the matter is neutron-rich, as is requiredh i forh a success-i core collapse in a type II supernova (Thompson et al., ful r-process. When the matter reaches cooler temper- 2001). Adopting the parameters of a supernova simula- atures, nucleosynthesis starts and the free protons are, tion by Wilson (Wilson, 1985) Woosley and collaborators in the first step, assemblied into α-particles, with some obtained quite satisfying agreement between an r-process extra neutrons remaining. If these neutrons are still ex- simulation and observation (Woosley et al., 1994). In posed to a large neutrino flux, it will change some of the classical picture the r-process nuclides are made by the neutrons into protons, which will then, together with successive capture of neutrons, starting from a seed nu- additional neutrons, also be bound very quickly into α- cleus with mass number Aseed. Thus, to make the third particles. Thus, this so-called α effect (Meyer et al., 1998) r-process peak around A 200 requires a large neutron- would severely reduce the final neutron-to-seed ratio and ∼ to-seed ratio of n/s 200 Aseed. In the Wilson super- is therefore very counter-productive to a successful r- ∼ − nova models (Wilson, 1985, 2001) this is achieved due to process. As mentioned above, the neutrino-nucleon cross a high entropy found in the neutrino wind at late times sections are only considered to lowest order in super- (a few seconds after the bounce). However, other models nova simulations. The correction, introduced by the weak with a different equation of state and treatment of dif- magnetism, acts to reduce the neutron-to-proton ratio in fusion do not obtain such high entropies; in these mod- the neutrino-driven wind (Horowitz and Li, 1999). els the r-process fails to make the A = 200 peak. To There are possible ways out of this dilemma: One so- explain the strong sensitivity of the r-process nucleosyn- lution is to remove the matter very quickly from the neu- thesis on the entropy of the environment Qian (1997) tron star in order to reduce the neutrino fluxes for the noted that the slowest reaction in the nuclear network, α effect. Such a short dynamical timescale of the mate- which transforms protons, neutrons and α particles into rial in the wind is found in neutrino-driven wind models r-process seed nuclei, is the 3-body α + α + n 9Be studied by Kajino and collaborators. These authors also → reaction. Due to its low binding energy (Eb = 1.57 observe that relativistic effects as well as nuclear reaction MeV), 9Be can be easily destroyed in a hot thermal en- paths through neutron-rich light elements might be help- vironment and thus the matter flow to nuclei heavier ful for a successful r-process (Otsuki et al., 2000; Tera- than 9Be depends strongly on the entropy of the sur- sawa et al., 2001a,b; Wanajo et al., 2001). Another in- rounding. The larger the entropy, the smaller the abun- triguing cure is discussed by McLaughlin et al. (1999) and dance of surviving 9Be nuclei, which are then transformed Caldwell et al. (2000) invoking matter-enhanced active- into seed nuclei, and the larger the neutron-to-seed ra- sterile neutrino oscillations to remove the νe from the tio. Meyer (1995) pointed out that in a very strong neu- r-process site. trino flux the slow 3-body α + α + n 9Be reaction can A simple estimate for the duration of the r-process can → be potentially bypassed by a sequence of two-body re- be had by adding up the half-lives of the waiting point actions started by the neutrino-induced spallation of an nuclei, which results in about 1–2 seconds. However, 4 3 4 7 4 11 α particle; e.g. He(ν,ν′p) H( He,γ) Li( He,γ) B and in the neutrino-driven wind model it appears that the 4 3 4 7 4 11 He(ν,ν′n) He( He,γ) Be( He,γ) C. This would speed ejected matter passes through the region with the condi- up the mass flow to the seed nuclei and thus reduce the tions suited for an r-process in shorter times ( 0.5 s), neutron-to-seed ratio. implying that there might not be enough time∼ for suffi- Systematic studies by Hoffman et al. (1997) and cient matter-flow from the seed to nuclides in the A 200 Freiburghaus et al. (1999a) have shown that a successful mass region. Such a ‘time problem’ is avoided if, as∼ indi- r-process requires either large entropies at the Ye values cated above, the half-lives of the waiting point nuclei are currently obtained in supernova models, or smaller values shorter than conventionally assumed, or if, in a dynam- for Ye. ically changing environment, the matter, which freezes In the neutrino-driven wind model the extreme flux out making the A 200 r-process peak, breaks through ∼ of νe andν ¯e neutrinos from the protoneutron star inter- the N = 50 and 82 waiting points closer to the neutron acts with the free protons and neutrons in the shocked dripline, i.e. through nuclei with shorter half-lives, than 30 the matter which freezes out at these lower magic neutron N = 50, 82, and 126 waiting point nuclei, thus speed- numbers. ing up the breakthrough of the matter at the waiting points, if the r-process occurs rather close to the surface of the neutron star. This is even further enforced 100 N=50 if νe ⇄ νµ,τ oscillations occur due to the higher energy spectrum of the supernova νµ,τ neutrinos. How- 10-1 ever, the presence of charged-current reactions on nuclei in the neutrino-driven wind model implies also neutrino 10-2 reactions on nucleons strengthening the α effect (Meyer et al., 1998). 10-3 72 74 76 78 80 82

N=82 10-1

E (s)

1/2 10-2 ν T

-3 GT−

10 Excitation Energy 120 122 124 126 128 130 IAS Nν (Z,A)

100 N=126 T=4 MeV T=8 MeV (Z+1,A) β− half-lives − 10-1 FIG. 28 Schematic view of the (νe,e ) reaction on r-process nuclei. Due to the high neutrino energies the cross sections are dominated by transitions to the Fermi (IAS) and Gamow- Teller resonances. 10-2 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200 A Under a strong neutrino flux the weak flow is determined by an effective weak rate given by the addition of FIG. 27 Half-Lives of r-process waiting point nuclei with the charged-current (νe,e−) and the nuclear beta-decay N = 50 (top panel), 82 (middle panel) and 126 (bottom panel) − rates (McLaughlin and Fuller, 1997). It has been ar- against charged-current (νe,e ) reactions. For the neutrinos gued that the solar system r-process abundances pro- a Fermi-Dirac distribution with T = 4 MeV and zero chemi- 52 −1 vide evidence for the weak steady-flow approximation, cal potential (circles) and a luminosity of (Lν ∼ 10 erg s ) has been adopted. It is assumed that the reactions occur at which implies that the observed abundances should be a radius of 100 km, measured from the center of the neutron proportional to the half-lives of their progenitor nuclei star. The half-lives can be significantly shorter if νe ⇄ νµ,τ on the r-process path (Kratz et al., 1993, 1988). If this oscillations occur. The squares show the half-lives for neutri- is so, the r-process freeze-out must occur at conditions nos with a Fermi-Dirac distribution with T = 8 MeV and zero (i.e. radii) at which β-decay dominates over (νe,e−) re- ⇄ chemical potential, which corresponds to complete νe νµ,τ actions, at least for late times. The reason is that neu- oscillations. trino capture on magic nuclei with N = 50, 82, 126 is not reduced if compared to the neighboring nuclides, as the In an environment with large neutrino fluxes the capture occurs from a reservoir of neutrinos with suffi- matter-flow to heavier nuclei can also be sped up ciently high energies to allow for transitions to the IAS by charged-current (νe,e−) reactions (Nadyozhin and and GT resonant states (see figure 28). Consequently Panov, 1993; Qian et al., 1997) which can compete with (νe,e−) cross sections scale approximately like the neu- β-decays. This is particularly important at the waiting tron excess (N Z), reflecting the Fermi and Ikeda sum- point nuclei associated with N = 50, 82, and 126. Fig- rules (see figure− 27). However, the observed solar abun- ure 27 shows the (νe,e−) half-lives (Hektor et al., 2000; dances around the A = 130 (N = 82) and 195 (N = 126) Langanke and Kolbe, 2001) for these waiting point nuclei, peaks do not show such a smooth dependence with A considering reasonable supernova neutrino parametriza- as will be the case if the effective weak rate is domi- tions and assuming that the ejected matter has reached nated by neutrino reactions. If we require that the β de- a radius of 100 km. Due to the dependence on Lν the cay half-lives dominate over the (νe,e−) reactions we can 2 (νe,e−) half-lives scale with r . Indeed, a comparison put constraints on the neutrino fluence in the neutrino- with the β half-lives (figure 27) shows that (νe,e−) re- driven wind scenario, which is particularly strict if neu- actions can be faster than the longest β-decays of the trino oscillations occur. If, as an illustrative example, we 31 apply the constraint to the heavy waiting point nuclei (figure 29). This shift depends on the neutrino exposures with N = 126 (e.g. the nuclei with A 199) and adopt and allows constraints to be put on the total neutrino flu- the neutrino and beta half-lives from figure∼ 27, β-decay ence in the neutrino-driven wind model (Haxton et al., is only faster if the neutrino-nucleus reactions occur at 1997; Qian et al., 1997). The limits obtained this way distances larger than 500 km. are compatible with the values predicted by supernova ∼ models. Whether β-delayed neutron emission, which has been neglected in (Haxton et al., 1997) might affect the post-processing is an open question (Kratz, 2001, 2002). Attempts to include neutrino-induced reactions in the r-process network within the neutrino-driven wind model have been reported in (Fuller and Meyer, 1995; McLaugh- lin and Fuller, 1995; Terasawa et al., 2001a,b). In particular Meyer et al. (1998) studied the competition of the α-effect with the possible speed-up of the matter-flow by charged-current reactions on nuclei. These authors estimated the respective charged-current cross sections for allowed transitions on the basis of the independent particle model. Improving on this treatment, Borzov and Goriely calculated (νe,e−) cross sections for supernova neutrinos (Fermi-Dirac distribution with T = 4 MeV) within the ETFSI method, consistently with their most recent estimates for the β half-lives (Borzov and Goriely, 2000). RPA-based neutrino-nucleus cross sections for selected nuclei have been reported in (Hektor et al., 2000; Surman and Engel, 1998). Very recently a tabulation with charged- and neutral-current total and partial neu- FIG. 29 Effect of post-processing by neutrino-induced reac- tron spallation cross sections have become available for tions on the r-process abundance. The unprocessed distribu- the neutron-rich r-process nuclei (Langanke and Kolbe, tion (solid line) is compared with the distribution after post- 2001, 2002). This tabulation is based on the RPA and processing (dashed line). A constant fluence of F = 0.015 has been assumed, which provides a best fit to the observed considers allowed and forbidden transitions. Further- abundances for A = 183 − 87 (see inset). The observed abun- more, the cross sections are tabulated for various super- dances are plotted as filled circles with error bars (from Qian nova neutrino distributions, thus also allowing study of et al., 1997)). the influence of complete neutrino oscillations on the r- process.

As the Qβ values in the very neutron-rich r-process Terasawa et al. (2001a,b) have performed studies simi- nuclei are large, the IAS and GT resonant states reside lar to the pioneering work of Meyer et al. (1998), however, at rather high excitation energies ( 20–30 MeV), in the using their neutrino-driven wind model and the complete ∼ daughter nuclei for (νe,e−) reactions. This fact, com- set of RPA neutrino-nucleus reaction rates (Langanke bined with the small neutron separation energies in these and Kolbe, 2001, 2002). A typical result is shown in nuclei, ensures that (νe,e−) reactions, and also neutral- figure 30, where, however, the simplifying, but reason- current (ν,ν′) reactions, spall neutrons out of the target able assumption of an exponential time-dependence of nuclei (Haxton et al., 1997; Qian et al., 1997) ( 5–7 the matter-flow, governed by the parameter τdyn, away neutrons for nuclei in the A = 195 mass region (Haxton∼ from the neutron star has been assumed. The quan- et al., 1997; Hektor et al., 2000)). During the r-process, tity A defines the average mass of the heavy seed nu- i.e. as long as the neutron source is strong enough to es- clei presenth i at the beginning of the r-process, defined at tablish (n,γ) ⇄ (γ,n) equilibrium, the neutrons will im- T = 2.5 109 K. The neutron-to-seed ratio n/s is very mediately be recaptured leading to no effect on the abun- sensitive× to the dynamical evolution time. This comes dance distribution. However, once the neutron source has about as the shorter τdyn, the less time is available to ceased, e.g. after freeze-out, and if the r-process matter in assemble the seed nuclei from α-particles and neutrons. the neutrino-driven wind model is still subject to strong Consequently the abundance of seed nuclei decreases for neutrino fluxes, neutrons liberated during this phase by shorter τdyn, increasing the n/s ratio. If the neutrino neutrino-induced reactions, will not be recaptured and flux is artificially switched off, matter-flow to the 3rd r- this post-processing (Haxton et al., 1997; Qian et al., process peak at A 200 (2nd r-process peak at A 130) ∼ ∼ 1997) leads to changes in the r-process abundance dis- is achieved if τdyn 0.01 s (τdyn 1 s). The consistent tribution. It is argued (Haxton et al., 1997) that due to inclusion of neutrino≤ reactions is counter-productive≤ to a the smooth dependence of the neutrino cross sections on successful r-process. This effect becomes more dramatic the mass number, the post-processing, in general, shifts if the matter-flow is slow as then the α-effect strongly abundances from the peaks to the wings at lower A-values suppresses the availability of free neutrons at the begin- 32

1200 1200 Th (T=4 MeV) U (T=4 MeV) fission 3rd peak 800 neutron 800

REE hill 400 400 ) ) 2 2 2nd peak cm 60000 cm 60000 -42 -42 Th (T=8 MeV) U (T=8 MeV) (10 (10 σ 4000 σ 4000

2000 2000

0 0 232 240 248 256 264 238 246 254 262 270 Mass number A Mass number A

− − FIG. 31 Total (νe,e ) (circles) and partial (νe,e n) (triangles) and neutrino-induced fission cross sections (squares) for selected thorium and uranium isotopes. The calculations have been performed for Fermi-Dirac νe distributions with temperature T = 4 MeV and 8 MeV. The first reflects a typical supernova νe spectrum, while the latter assumes complete νµ,τ → νe neutrino oscillations.

the progenitor nuclei are neutronrich, which increases the Fermi and Gamow-Teller contributions to the total FIG. 30 The lower panel shows the average mass number of cross sections and places their strengths at energies above heavy seed nuclei hAi and the neutron-to-seed ratio (n/Seed) the fission barrier in the daughter nucleus. The calcula- in a neutrino-driven wind simulation with an exponential time tions shown in figure 31 use the fission barriers derived by dependence of the matter flow, determined by the parameter Howard and Möller (1980). Modern evaluations predict τdyn. The open squares show the results for a simulation including neutrino-nucleus reactions, while the full triangles larger fission barriers (e.g. Mamdouh et al., 2001) which refer to a study in which the neutrino-reactions on nuclei have would reduce the fission cross section. The cross sections been switched off. The upper panel shows the sum of the mass can be significantly enlarged if νµ,τ νe neutrino oscil- number of the seed nucleus plus the neutron-to-seed ratio. lations occur during the neutrino-driven→ wind r-process This quantity shows up to which mass number the r-process scenario. can produce nuclides. The horizontal lines indicate the second (A ∼ 130) and third (A ∼ 200) r-process peaks as well as the position of the smaller r-process peak related to the deformed VII. THE NEUTRINO PROCESS nuclei in the rare-earth region (REE peak), (courtesy of M. Terasawa). When the flux of neutrinos generated by the cooling of the neutron star passes through the overlying shells of heavy elements interesting nuclear transmutations are in- ning of the r-process (see also Meyer et al., 1998). No duced, despite the small neutrino-nucleus cross sections. r-process, i.e. no production of nuclides in the second r- Of particular interest here are neutral-current reactions process peak at A 130, is observed if τdyn & 0.05 s. as they can be induced by ν ,ν neutrinos and their an- ∼ µ τ Recently Qian (2002) has suggested that, within the tiparticles with the higher energy spectra ( Eν 25 neutrino-driven wind r-process scenario, charged-current MeV). These neutrinos are energetic enough toh excitei ∼ the neutrino reactions can induce fission reactions on r- GT resonant state, and more importantly, also the giant process progenitor nuclei heavier than lead and that the dipole resonant states. These states usually reside above fission products account for the observed r-process abun- particle thresholds and hence decay mainly by proton or dance in metal-poor stars (Sneden et al., 2000). These neutron emission, generating new nuclides. The neutrino observed abundances show a peak around mass number reaction rates are too small to affect the abundances of A 195, which follows the solar r-process distribution, the parent nuclei, but they can noticeably contribute to and∼ enhanced structures at around A 90 and 132 the production of the (sometimes much less abundant) which, due to the suggestion of Qian (2002),∼ are∼ fission daughter nuclei. As a rule-of-thumb, the neutrino pro- products, which do not follow a solar r-process pattern. cess, i.e. the synthesis of nuclides by neutrino-induced First calculations of neutrino-induced fission cross sec- spallation in a supernova, can become a significant pro- tions have been performed by (Kolbe et al., 2002) using duction process for the daughter nuclide if one wants to a combination of RPA model, to calculate the (νe,e−) explain abundance ratios of parent-to-daughter which ex- excitation function, and statistical model to determine ceed about 103 (Woosley, 2001). the final branching probabilities. The neutrino-induced The most interesting neutrino nucleosynthesis occurs fission cross sections (see figure 31) are quite large as in the outer burning shells of the massive star which have 33 not been affected by the fatal core collapse in the cen- VIII. BINARY SYSTEMS ter when the neutrinos pass through. However, a little later the shock reaches these shells and the matter will be Weak processes can also play interesting roles in the subjected to rather high temperatures initiating fast nu- evolution and nucleosynthesis processes in close binary clear reactions involving also the nuclides just produced systems where one component is a compact object (white by the neutrino-induced reactions. Hence studies of the dwarf or neutron star) and the other a massive star. If neutrino process depend on various neutrino-nucleus re- the latter expands during helium core burning, mass flow action rates and on the neutrino spectra and fluxes, es- from the hydrogen envelopment of the star onto the sur- pecially of the νµ,ντ neutrinos, and they require a rather face of the compact object sets in. If the respective mass 8 10 1 moderate nuclear network to simulate the effects of the accretion rate is rather low (10− –10− M y− ), the re-processing by the shock. The first investigation of the hydrogen, accreted on the surface of the compact⊙ object, neutrino process has been reported in (Woosley et al., burns explosively under degenerate conditions leading to 1990). A more recent study (Woosley and Weaver, 1995) a nova (if the compact object is a white dwarf) or an confirmed the main result that a few specific nuclei (7Li, x-ray burst (neutron star). This means that the energy 11B, 19F) are being made by the neutrino process in sig- released by the nuclear reactions is used to heat the mat- nificant fractions. For example, 11B and 19F are being ter rather than for expansion. The rise in temperature made by (ν,ν′p) and (ν,ν′n) (followed by a β-decay) re- increases the nuclear reaction rates, triggering a ther- actions on the abundant 12C and 20Ne, respectively. As monuclear runaway until the degeneracy is finally lifted noted by Woosley et al. (1990) neutrino nucleosynthe- and an outer layer of matter is ejected. In a type Ia sis can also contribute to the production of 180Ta (see supernova the faster mass accretion rate on to the sur- above) and 138La. First calculations of the relevant to- face of a white dwarf (likely a carbon-oxygen white dwarf tal and partial neutrino-induced cross sections have been with sub-Chandrasekhar mass 0.7 M ) leads to steady reported in (Heger et al., 2002), (see also Belic et al., hydrogen and subsequently helium∼ burning.⊙ If the grow- 2002). The nucleus 138La is special as it is mainly made ing mass of the white dwarf exceeds the Chandrasekhar 138 138 by the charged-current reaction Ba(νe,e−) La, while mass, contraction sets in and the carbon in the center the lighter nuclei (7Li, 11B, 19F) and dominantly also ignites by fusion reactions with screening enhancement. 180Ta, are being produced by neutral-current reactions As the environment is highly degenerate, a thermonu- induced by νµ,ντ neutrinos. The neutrino process is clear runaway is triggered which eventually will explode therefore sensitive to νe and (νµ,ντ ) neutrinos, which are the entire star. expected to have different spectra in Type II supernovae (see section V.C), and hence it can test this prediction. Moreover, the 138La nucleosynthesis is sensitive to neu- A. Novae trino oscillations, as this nuclide would be significantly overproduced if supernova νµ,ντ neutrinos have a noticeably larger average energy and if they oscillate into The main energy source of a nova is the CNO cycle, 138 with additional burning from proton reactions on nuclei νe neutrinos before reaching the La production site (helium shell) in massive stars. between neon and sulfur, if the white dwarf also contained some 20Ne (Truran, 1982). A nova expels matter Neutrino-induced nucleon spallation on 12C can also which is enriched in β-unstable 14,15O for carbon-oxygen knock-out a deuteron or a proton-neutron pair, in this white dwarfs (leading to the production of stable 14,15N way producing 10B. The expected 10B/11B abundance nuclides) or can contain nuclides up to the sulfur mass ratio in neutrino-nucleosynthesis is 0.05, which is sig- region for neon-oxygen novae (Joséand Hernanz, 1998; nificantly smaller than the observed∼ abundance ratio, Starrfield et al., 2000, 1998). The most important role of 0.25 (Haxton, 2000). Thus there must be a second pro- weak-interaction processes in novae is their limitation of cess which contributes to the production of 10,11B. These the energy generation during the thermonuclear runaway. are reactions of energetic protons on 12C in cosmic rays, An interesting branching occurs at T 8 107 K. For which yield a ratio of 10B/11B of about 0.5, larger than lower temperatures the β-decay of 13N∼ with× a half-life of the observed value. A solution might be that the two nu- 10 m dominates over the 13N(p,γ) reaction and sets the clides are being produced by both mechanisms, neutrino- ∼timescale for the nuclear burning. As charged-particle nucleosynthesis and cosmic ray spallation. It is interest- fusion reactions are sensitively dependent on tempera- ing to note that the first process, being associated with ture, their reaction rates strongly increase with rising supernovae, is a primary process, while the latter is a temperature and for T 8 107 K and densities of or- 4 3 ≥ × 13 secondary process, as it requires the existence of protons der 10 g cm− the proton capture on N is faster than and 12C in the interstellar medium. As a consequence the the β-decay. The CNO cycle turns into the hot CNO 10B/11B abundance ratio should have changed during the cycle and now the positron decay of 15O with a half- history of the galaxy. This can be tested once observers life of 122 s is the slowest reaction occuring in the CNO are able to distinguish between the abundances of the nova network. It turns out that, once the degeneracy is two different boron nuclides in stellar spectra (Haxton, lifted, the dynamical expansion timescale is faster than 2000). the one for nuclear energy generation, set by the 15O half- 34 life. As a consequence the runaway is quenched (Truran, come always by proton captures as for some of the α- 1982). We mention that the determination of the domi- like nuclei the resulting odd-A nucleus is proton-unbound nant resonant contribution to the 13N(p,γ)14O rate has and exists only as a resonance. Such situations occur, been the first successful application of the Coulomb dis- for example, for the 68Se(p,γ)69Br and 72Kr(p,γ)73Rb sociation technique in nuclear astrophysics (Motobayashi reactions. It has been suggested (Görres et al., 1995) et al., 1991). that the gap in the reaction path can be bridged by two- Weak-interaction rates relevant for nova studies can proton captures, with the resonance serving as interme- be derived from either experimental data or shell-model diate state (like in the triple-α reaction). The reaction calculations. rate for such a two-step process depends crucially on the resonance energy, with some appropriate screening corrections. B. X-ray Bursts Most half-lives along the rp-process path up to the 80Zr region are known experimentally. This region of the An x-ray burst is explained as a thermonuclear run- nuclear mass chart is known for strong ground state de- away in the hydrogen-rich envelope of an accreting neu- formations, caused by coupling of the pf-shell orbitals to tron star (Lewin et al., 1993; Taam et al., 1993). Due the g9/2 and d5/2 levels. The strong deformation makes to the higher gravitational potential of a neutron star, theoretical half-life predictions quite inaccurate, mainly the accreted matter on the surface reaches larger densi- due to uncertainties in the Q-values stemming from in- 6 3 ties than in a nova (up to a few 10 g cm− ) and the sufficiently wellknown mass differences. We note that temperature during the runaway can rise up to 2 109 K the effective half-life of a nucleus along the rp-process (Schatz et al., 1998). Under these conditions hydrogen× path could be affected by the feeding of isomeric states burning is explosively fast. The trigger reactions of the in the proton captures or by thermal population of ex- runaway are the triple-alpha reactions and the break- cited states in general. Again, deformation plays a ma- out from the hot CNO cycle, mainly by α-capture on jor role as then even in α-like nuclei excited states are 15O and 18Ne. We note that these two reaction rates at rather low energies (e.g. the first 2+ state in 80Zr is are yet insufficiently known due to uncertain resonant at 290 keV). Apparently a measurement of the half-lives contribution at low energies (Görres et al., 1995; Mao is indispensable for rp-process studies beyond A = 80. et al., 1996). The thermonuclear runaway is driven first An important step has recently been taken by measuring by the αp process, a sequence of (α, p) and (p,γ) reac- the half-life of 80Zr at the Holifield Facility in Oak Ridge +0.8 tions which shifts the ashes of the hot CNO cycle to the (Ressler et al., 2000). The experimental value of 4.1 0.6 s Ar and Ca mass region, and then by the rp-process (short reduces the previous (theoretical) uncertainty consider-− for rapid proton capture process). The rp-process repre- ably and, in fact, it is shorter than the value adopted presents proton-capture reactions along the proton dripline viously in x-ray bursts simulations. Fast proton captures and subsequent β-decays of dripline nuclei processing the on the daughter products 80Y and 80Sr allow matter-flow material from the Ar-Ca region up to 56Ni (Schatz et al., to heavier nuclei, with the α-nucleus 84Mo (N = Z = 42) 1998). The β half-lives on the rp-process path up to 56Ni being the next bottleneck. Experiments to measure this are known sufficiently well. important half-life are in progress. The runaway freezes out in thermal equilibrium at The nucleosynthesis during the cooling phase in an peak temperatures of (2–3) 109 K with an abundance x-ray burst alters considerably the abundance distribu- 56 × distribution rich in Ni, forming Ni oceans on the sur- tion in the atmosphere, ocean and crust of the neutron face of the neutron star. Further matter flow at these star. For example, the rp-process may be a possible con- temperatures is suppressed due to the low proton sep- tributor to the presently unexplained relatively high ob- aration energy of 57Cu and the long half-life of 56Ni. served abundance of light p-nuclei like 92Mo and 96Ru Re-ignition of the rp-process then takes place during the (Schatz et al., 1998). This assumes that the matter pro- cooling phase, starting with proton capture on 56Ni and duced in the x-ray burst gets expelled out of the large potentially shifting matter up to the 100Sn region where gravitational potential of the neutron star, which is still the rp-process ends in a cycle in the Sn-Te-I range (Schatz questionable. Due to continuing accretion the rp-process et al., 2001). A matter flow to even heavier nuclei is possi- ashes are pressed into the ocean and crust of the neu- ble, if the rp-process operates in a repetitive mannor; i.e. tron star, replacing there the neutron star’s original ma- a new rp-process is ignited after the ashes of the previous terial. When the ashes sink into the crust, they reach process have decayed to stability and before these nuclei regions of higher densities, and relatedly, larger electron have sunk too deep into the crust of the neutron star (see chemical potentials. Thus, consecutive electron captures below). Such repetitive rp-process models, shortly called will become energetically favorable and make the ashes (rp)2-process, have been studied by (Boyd et al., 2002). more neutron-rich. At densities beyond neutron drip 56 11 3 The reaction path beyond Ni runs through the even- (ρ (4–6) 10 g cm− ) neutron emissions become even N = Z nuclei which due to their known long half- possible∼ and× at even higher densities pycnonuclear re- lives (64Ge has a half-life of 63.7(25) s) represent a strong actions can set in (Bisnovatyi-Kogan and Chechetkin, impedance to the matter-flow. This can also not be over- 1979; Haensel and Zdunik, 1990; Sato, 1979). Impor- 35 tantly, these processes (electron capture, pycnonuclear reactions) generate energies which can be locally stored in the neutron star’s ocean and crust and will affect their thermal properties (Brown and Bildsten, 1998). Previous studies of these processes in accreting neutron stars have assumed that iron is the endproduct of nuclear burning and the sole nucleus reaching the crust of the neutron star (e.g. Haensel and Zdunik, 1990). But clearly the rp-process produces a wide mixture of heavy elements (Schatz et al., 1999), where the abundance distribution depends on the accretion rate. The ashes consist mainly of even-even N = Z nuclei, for which electron capture at neutron star conditions occur always in steps of two. At first, the capture on the even-even nucleus sets in once sufficiently high-energy FIG. 32 Ye profile as a function of radial mass for the stan- electrons are available to effectively overcome the QEC- dard type Ia supernova model WS15 (Nomoto et al., 1984) value to the odd-odd daughter nucleus. Due to nuclear using the FFN and the shell-model weak-interaction rates pairing, which favors even-even nuclei, the QEC-value for (LMP), (courtesy of F. Brachwitz). the produced daughter nucleus is noticeably lower so that electron capture on the daughter readily follows at the same conditions. The energy gain of the double-electron tor of two compared with the relative solar abundances. capture is of order the difference of the two Q -values; EC This requirement puts stringent constraints on models, this gain is split between the emitted neutrino and a lo- in particular on the central density of the progenitor cal heating. Considering a blob of accreted matter ini- white dwarf and the flame speed (Iwamoto et al., 1999). tially consisting solely of 56Ni and assuming temperature When the flame travels outwards, it heats the matter T = 0, the evolution of this blob was followed on the neu- to temperatures of a few 109 K and brings its compo- tron star surface until neutron-drip densities and beyond sition close to nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE). As (Haensel and Zdunik, 1990). The rp-process simulations, the original matter (16O, 12C) had an electron-to-baryon however, indicate a finite temperature of the ashes of a ratio of Y =0.5, the NSE composition is dominated by few 108 K, allowing electron capture already from the e 56Ni, which after being expelled decays to 56Fe. However, high-energy tail of the electron distribution and signifi- behind the flame front, which travels with a few per- cantly reducing the required densities. cent of the local sound speed (Niemeyer and Hillebrandt, 1995), electron captures occur, which lower Ye and drive the matter composition more neutron-rich. This effect C. Type Ia Supernovae is larger the greater the central density of the white dwarf (which increases the electron capture rates) and Type Ia supernovae at high redshifts serve currently the slower the flame speed (which allows more time for as the standard candles for the largest distances in the electron captures). Figure 32 shows the Ye profile ob- universe. Importantly recent surveys of such distant su- tained in a standard type Ia model WS15 (Nomoto et al., pernovae provide evidence for an accelerating expansion 1984), with slow deflagration flame speed (1.5% of sound 9 9 3 of the universe over the last several 10 years (Perlmutter velocity), central ignition density ρ = 2.1 10 g cm− et al., 1999; Riess et al., 1998). and a transition from deflagration to detonation× at den- 7 3 Type Ia supernovae have been identified as thermonu- sity ρ =2.1 10 g cm− . The calculations have been per- clear explosions of accreting white dwarfs with high ac- formed by Brachwitz× (2001) with the FFN (Fuller et al., cretion rates in a close binary system. While the general 1982b) and shell model (Langanke and Mart´ınez-Pinedo, explosion mechanism is probably understood, several is- 2001) weak interaction rate sets. The differences are sues are still open like the masses of the stars in the bi- quite significant, even if one considers that about 60% of nary or the carbon/oxygen ratio and distribution in the the captures occur on free protons, which are unaffected white dwarf. The probably most important problem yet by the differences in these rate sets. Under otherwise is the modelling of the matter transport during the explo- identical conditions the slower shell model rates yield a sion and the velocity of the burning front, both requir- central Ye value of 0.45, which is about 0.01 larger than ing multidimensional simulations (e.g. Hillebrandt and for the FFN rates. Consequently very neutron-rich nu- Niemeyer, 2000; Reinecke et al., 1999; Woosley, 2001). clei with Ye 0.45 are significantly suppressed (see fig- Type Ia supernovae contribute about half to the abun- ure 33). In fact,≤ no nuclide is significantly overproduced dance of Fe-group nuclides in galactic evolution. Thus in this model compared to the solar abundance. The net one can expect that type Ia supernovae should not over- effect of the new rates is that, for an otherwise unchanged produce abundances of nuclides in the iron group, such model, it increases the central density by about a fac- as 54Cr or 50Ti, relative to 56Fe by more than a factor of 1.3 (Brachwitz et al., 2000; Woosley, 2001). This 36

FIG. 33 Ratio of calculated to solar abundances predicted by the WS15 model (Nomoto et al., 1984) using the FFN and the shell-model rates (LMP). The ordinate is normalized to 56Fe. Intermediate-mass elements exist but are underproduced by a factor of 2–3 for SNe Ia models in comparison to Fe group elements. Using the FFN rates the Fe group does not show a composition close to solar. Especially 50Ti and 54Cr are strongly overproduced by more than a factor of 3. The change from FFN rates (left) to LMP (right) reduces the overproduction over solar close to the acceptable limit of a factor 2 (courtesy of F. Brachwitz). can have quite interesting consequences if one wants to with the desired accuracy has been quite demanding. use the nucleosynthesis constraint to distinguish between However, most astrophysical applications require the two quite distinct type Ia models. On the basis of recent knowledge of weak-interaction rates for a huge body of models it has been concluded that the majority of type nuclei. If, like for s-process nucleosynthesis, the nuclei in- Ia progenitors grow towards the Chandrasekhar mass volved are close to the valley of stability and hence quite through steady hydrogen and helium burning (Hachisu long-lived, the needed rates (usually half-lives) have been et al., 1999). Such systems would lead to rather low cen- determined experimentally in decade-long efforts. For 9 3 tral densities ρ 2 10 g cm− . In these models, only ≤ × the s-process the challenge now focuses on the branching a small fraction of progenitors would deviate from steady point nuclei where the reaction flow branches into two hydrogen burning at the end of the accretion history ex- (or more) paths and where, in some cases, the observed periencing weak hydrogen flashes; such cases correspond relative abundances of nuclides along the different paths to the W-model discussed above yielding higher central depend on the stellar conditions (temperature, neutron densities. We stress, however, that changes in the nucle- density) and hence allow determination of these quanti- osynthesis caused by differences in the central densities ties inside the star. Again, the approach is to measure the in the models can be counterbalanced by changes of the necessary data, e.g. half-lives of excited nuclear states. flame speed. Other astrophysical scenarios involve nuclei far-off stability, often under extreme conditions (high density, neutron flux, temperature). These astrophysical sites in- IX. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES clude core-collapse (type II) and thermonuclear (type Ia) supernovae, r-process nucleosynthesis and explosive It has long been recognized that nuclear weak- hydrogen burning; and the interest in all of these has interaction processes play essential roles in many astro- been boosted recently by novel observations and data physical scenarios. In a few cases these are specific re- (supernova 1987A, high-redshift supernova survey, Hub- actions, which are particularly important, and these re- ble Space Telescope, ...). A direct experimental deter- actions have then been studied with increasingly refined mination of the respective stellar weak-interaction rates models. Examples are the various weak-interaction pro- has been possible in a few cases, like the half-lives of r- cesses in the solar hydrogen burning chains including the process and rp-process waiting point nuclei. However, in initial p + p fusion reaction (Kamionkowski and Bah- nearly all cases the weak-interaction processes had to be call, 1994; Kong and Ravndal, 2001; Park et al., 1998, theoretically modeled so far – a very demanding job if one 2001a) or the very challenging 3He+p reaction (Marcucci considers that often results for many hundreds of nuclei et al., 2000, 2001; Park et al., 2001b), which generates the for a large range of stellar conditions are needed. These highest-energy neutrinos in the sun. Another typical ex- data were then derived globally based on parametrized ample is the solar electron capture rate on 7Be, where nuclear structure arguments, as an appropriate treatment the nuclear matrix element can be determined from the of the involved nuclear structure problem was prohibited experimental lifetime of atomic 7Be, while the proper de- by both the available computational capabilities and the scription of the solar plasma effects on the capture rate lack of experimental guidance. Although evaluation of 37 rate sets for astrophysical purposes often appears to be tance to the source and the measured intensity of the a theoretical problem, the second point – experimental γ-line allows determination of how much 44Ti has been guidance – is crucial and often overlooked. It is Willy ejected into the interstellar medium by the supernova Fowler’s strategy and legacy that nuclear models used to event. Furthermore, as γ-rays can, in contrast to optical derive nuclear ingredients in astrophysical applications, wave lengths, escape from the galactic bulk, γ-ray obser- should be consistent, but more importantly they should vation allows to detect historical supernovae which have be accurate and, as a consequence, experimental data not been observed optically (Iyudin et al., 1998), (also are to be used whenever available. Therefore the role observed in x-rays by Aschenbach, 1998). Such searches of experimental data in nuclear astrophysics is twofold: for historical supernovae and an improved determination If possible, they supply the needed information directly, of the supernova frequency in our galaxy will be one of or equally important, they constitute constraints and the main missions of future γ-ray observatories in space, guidance for the nuclear models from which the needed like INTEGRAL3. A longer-lived radioactive nuclide pro- information is obtained. Thus, the renaissance of nu- duced in supernovae is 60Fe. Investigations of rock sam- clear structure, which we have witnessed in recent years, ples taken from the ocean floor, by precision accelerator has two consequences in nuclear astrophysics. The re- mass spectroscopy, found a significant increase of 60Fe cent development of new facilities, techniques and de- abundance compared to other iron isotopes pointing to a vices brought a large flood of new experimental informa- close-by supernova about 5 million years ago (Knie et al., tion, in particular for the proton- and neutron-rich nuclei 1999). away from stability. These data indicate that the nuclear Weak-processes on nuclei and electrons are the means structure models adopted to derive the global data and to observe solar and supernova neutrinos (Balantekin and rate sets were usually too simple and improvements were Haxton, 1999). Solar neutrinos have rather low energies warranted. The experimental renaissance went hand-in- (Eν 14 MeV) and hence induce specific low-lying tran- hand with decisive progress in nuclear structure theory, sitions≤ which are theoretically modelled best by shell- made possible by the development of new models and model calculations. Applications have been performed, better computer hardware and software. Due to both for example, for 37Cl (Aufderheide et al., 1994a), 40Ar experimental and theoretical advances, it becomes now (Ormand et al., 1995) and 71Ga (Haxton, 1998), the possible to calculate nuclear data sets for astrophysical detector material in the Homestake (Cleveland et al., applications on the basis of realistic models rather than 1998), ICARUS4, and GALLEX/SAGE/GNO detectors on crude and often oversimplified parametrizations. This (Abdurashitov et al., 1999; Altmann et al., 2000; Ham- review presents a summary of recent theoretical calcula- pel et al., 1999), respectively. Supernova neutrinos have tions. higher energies; in particular, the energies of µ, τ neutri- The advances in nuclear structure modelling have also nos and antineutrinos are expected to be high enough to lead to progress in astrophysically important nuclear in- excite the giant dipole resonances in nuclei. Studies for put other than weak-interaction processes. Typical ex- detector materials like Na, Fe, Pb have been performed amples are the equation of state, derived on the ba- in hybrid approaches combining shell model calculations sis of the relativistic mean-field model guided by the for allowed transitions with the RPA model for forbid- relativistic Brückner-Hartree-Fock theory (Shen et al., den transitions or treating the forbidden transitions on 1998a,b), which serves as an alternative to the standard the basis of the Goldhaber-Teller model (Fuller et al., Lattimer-Swesty EOS (Lattimer and Swesty, 1991), or 1999; Kolbe and Langanke, 2001). the nuclear mass table and level density parametriza- Despite the experimental and theoretical progress, lack tions determined within the framework of the Hartree- of knowledge of relevant or accurate weak-interaction Fock model with BCS pairing (Demetriou and Goriely, data still constitutes a major obstacle in the simulation 2001; Goriely et al., 2001). Such mass tables, or equiva- of some astrophysical scenarios today. This refers mainly lently neutron separation energies, play an essential role to type II supernovae and r-process nucleosynthesis. in r-process nucleosynthesis and are conventionally de- Core-collapse supernovae, as the breeding places of rived by parametrizations constrained to known masses. carbon and oxygen, and hence life, in the universe, at- Other astrophysical areas, loosely or indirectly related tract currently significant attention and the quest to to the topic of this review, have also benefitted from the definitely identify the explosion mechanism is on the progress in modelling nuclear weak-interaction processes. agenda of several international and interdisciplinary col- A field with rapidly growing importance is Gamma-ray laborations. While most of the efforts concentrate on Astronomy with beta-unstable nuclei. Due to γ-ray ob- computational developments towards a multidimensional servatories in space it has been possible in recent years treatment of the hydrodynamics and the neutrino trans- to search the sky for sources of known γ-rays which can port, some relevant and potentially important nuclear then be associated with recent nucleosynthesis activities. A highlight has been the observation of the 1.157 MeV γ- line, produced in the β-decay scheme of 44Ti, in the Cas- siopeia supernova remnant (Iyudin et al., 1994). Know- 3 http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Integral/integral.html ing the date of the supernova, the 44Ti half-life, the dis- 4 http://www.aquila.infn.it/icarus 38 problems remain. The improved description of weak- a dynamical r-process, the astrophysical timescale will interaction rates in the iron mass range has lead to sig- compete with the nuclear timescale, i.e. with the time nificant changes in the presupernova models. Evaluation needed for the matter flow from the seed nuclei to the of electron capture rates for heavier nuclei will be avail- heavier r-process nuclides. This nuclear timescale is set able in the near future. First results imply that capture by the half-lives of the nuclei along the paths, in par- on heavy nuclei, usually ignored in collapse simulations, ticular by those of the longer-lived waiting point nuclei can compete with the capture on free protons. Whether associated with the magic neutron numbers. The half- the inclusion of this process then leads to changes in lives of waiting point nuclei are a very illustrative exam- the collapse trajectory has yet to be seen. Further, fi- ple for the need of reliable experimental data: Modern nite temperature neutrino-nucleus rates will also soon be global theoretical models predict half-lives at the waiting available. This will then test whether inelastic neutrino points with a spread of nearly one order of magnitude scattering on nuclei, yet not modelled in the simulations, and only data can decide. For the N = 50 and N = 82 influences the collapse dynamics or supports the revival waiting points such data exist for a few key nuclides (e.g. of the shock wave by preheating of the infalling matter Pfeiffer et al., 2001), but not for the N = 126 nuclei. after the bounce. The largest nuclear uncertainty in col- R-process nucleosynthesis as well as other astrophys- lapse simulations are likely associated with the descrip- ical processes will tremendously benefit from future ex- tion of nuclear matter at high density, extreme isospin perimental developments in nuclear physics. Worldwide and finite temperature. In particular a reliable descrip- radioactive ion-beam facilities, with important and dedi- tion of the neutrino opacity in nuclear matter might very cated programs in nuclear astrophysics, have just started well be what is needed for successful explosion simula- operation or are under construction or in the proposal tions. Nucleon-nucleon correlations have been identified stage. These new facilities will boost our knowledge to strongly influence the neutrino opacities and nuclear about nuclei far-off stability, they will determine astro- models like the RPA are quite useful to guide the way. physically relevant nuclear input directly (e.g. masses and Ultimately one would like to see the many-body Monte half-lives for the r-process, half-lives and cross sections Carlo techniques, which have been so successfully ap- for the rp-process, etc). But equally important, the ra- plied to few-body systems or the nuclear shell model, ex- dioactive ion-beam facilities will guide and constrain the tended to the nuclear matter problem. First steps along nuclear models, in this way indirectly contributing to these lines have been reported by Schmidt and Fantoni the reduction of the nuclear inaccuracies in astrophysical (1999) and Fantoni et al. (2001), who proposed a novel models. Ultimatively nuclear physics can and will then constrained-path Diffusion Monte Carlo model to study become a stringent test and guidance for astrophysical nuclear matter at temperature T = 0. The Shell Model theories and ideas. Monte Carlo model, formulated in momentum space and naturally at finite temperature, constitutes an alternative approach. First attempts in this direction have been Acknowledgments taken by the Caltech group (Zheng, 1996) and by Rom- bouts (1998). Whether the notorious sign-problem in the SMMC approach can also be circumvented for nuclear We like to thank many colleagues and friends for helpful collaborations and discussions: D. Arnett, S. M. matter has still to be demonstrated. Müller et al. (2000) have investigated whether nuclear matter can be formu- Austin, J. N. Bahcall, R. N. Boyd, F. Brachwitz, R. Canal, E. Caurier, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. J. lated on a spatial lattice with nearest neighbor interac- Cowan, D. J. Dean, R. Diehl, J. Dobaczewski, J. L. tions, similar to the Hubbard model for high-Tc super- conductors. Besides these theoretical efforts it is equally Fisker, G. M. Fuller, E. Garc´ıa-Berro, S. Goriely, J. Görres, W. C. Haxton, A. Heger, M. Hernanz, W. Hille- important to improve our understanding of the nuclear interaction in extremely neutron-rich nuclei (matter). brandt, R. Hix, J. Isern, H.-Th. Janka, J. José, T. Ka- jino, E. Kolbe, S. E. Koonin, K.-L. Kratz, F. Käppeler, Despite four decades of intense research, the astro- M. Liebendörfer, A. Mart´ınez-Andreu, G. J. Mathews, A. physical site of the r-process nucleosynthesis has yet not Mezzacappa, Y. Mochizuki, E. Müller, W. Nazarewicz, F. been identified. Recent astronomical and meteoric ev- Nowacki, I. Panov, B. Pfeiffer, A. Poves, Y.-Z. Qian, G. idence points now to more than one source for the so- Raffelt, R. Reiferth, A. Richter, C. E. Rolfs, J. M. Sam- lar r-process nuclides, and it is clearly a major goal in paio, H. Schatz, M. Terasawa, F.-K. Thielemann, J. W. the astrophysics community to solve this cosmic riddle. Truran, P. Vogel, M. Wiescher, S. E. Woosley, and A. P. However, the puzzle will not be definitely solved if the Zuker. Special thanks are due to our two referees, R.N. nuclear uncertainties involved are not removed. This is Boyd and anonymous, for very constructive and helpful even more necessary as recent research shows that the comments on the manuscript. Our work has been sup- r-process is a dynamical process under changing astro- ported by the Danish Research Council and the Schweiz- physical conditions. This implies dynamically changing erische Nationalfonds. Computational resources for our r-process paths. To determine the paths one needs to work were provided by the Center for Advanced Compu- know the masses of nuclei far-off stability accurately, be- tational Research at Caltech, by the Danish Center for sides the condition of the astrophysical environment. In Scientific Computing and by the Center for Computa- 39 tional Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. K. Eitel, E. Finckh, H. Gemmeke, J. Hößl, et al., 1998a, Phys. Rev. C 57, 3414. Armbruster, B., I. M. Blair, B. A. Bodmann, N. E. Booth, G. Drexlin, V. Eberhard, J. A. Edgington, C. Eichner, References K. Eitel, E. Finckh, H. Gemmeke, J. Hößl, et al., 1998b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 520. Abdurashitov, J. N., E. L. Faizov, V. N. Gavrin, A. O. Gusev, Arnett, D., 1996, Supernova and Nucleosynthesis (Princeton A. V. Kalikhov, T. V. Knodel, I. I. Knyushenko, V. N. University Press, Princeton, New Jersey). Kornoukhov, I. N. Mirmov, A. M. Pshukov, A. M. Shalagin, Arnould, M., and K. Takahashi, 1999, Reports on Progress in A. A. Shikhin, et al. (SAGE), 1994, Phys. Lett. B 328, 234. Physics 62, 395. Abdurashitov, J. N., V. N. Gavrin, S. V. Girin, V. V. Gor- Aschenbach, B., 1998, Nature 396, 141. bachev, T. V. Ibragimova, A. V. Kalikhov, N. G. Khair- Athanassopoulos, C., L. B. Auerbach, R. L. Burman, D. O. nasov, T. V. Knodel, I. N. Mirmov, A. A. Shikhin, E. P. Caldwell, E. D. Church, I. Cohen, J. B. Donahue, A. Fazely, Veretenkin, V. M. Vermul, et al. (SAGE), 1999, Phys. Rev. F. J. Federspiel, G. T. Garvey, R. M. Gunasingha, R. Imlay, C 60, 055801. et al. (LSND), 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1774. Aboussir, Y., J. M. Pearson, A. K. Dutta, and F. Tondeur, Athanassopoulos, C., L. B. Auerbach, R. L. Burman, I. Co- 1995, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 61, 1. hen, D. O. Caldwell, B. D. Dieterle, J. B. Donahue, A. M. Adelberger, E. G., S. M. Austin, J. N. Bahcall, A. B. Bal- Eisner, A. Fazely, F. J. Federspiel, G. T. Garvey, M. Gray, antekin, G. Bogaert, L. S. Brown, L. Buchmann, F. E. et al. (LSND), 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3082. Cecil, A. E. Champagne, L. de Braeckeleer, C. A. Duba, Aufderheide, M. B., 1991, Nucl. Phys. A 526, 161. S. R. Elliott, et al., 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1265. Aufderheide, M. B., S. D. Bloom, G. J. Mathews, and D. A. Ahmad, Q. R., R. C. Allen, T. C. Andersen, J. D. Anglin, Resler, 1996, Phys. Rev. C 53, 3139. J. C. Barton, E. W. Beier, M. Bercovitch, J. Bigu, S. Biller, Aufderheide, M. B., S. D. Bloom, D. A. Resler, and C. D. R. A. Black, I. Blevis, R. J. Boardman, et al. (SNO), 2002a, Goodman, 1994a, Phys. Rev. C 49, 678. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301. Aufderheide, M. B., S. D. Bloom, D. A. Ressler, and G. J. Ahmad, Q. R., R. C. Allen, T. C. Andersen, J. D. Anglin, Mathews, 1993a, Phys. Rev. C 47, 2961. J. C. Barton, E. W. Beier, M. Bercovitch, J. Bigu, S. Biller, Aufderheide, M. B., S. D. Bloom, D. A. Ressler, and G. J. R. A. Black, I. Blevis, R. J. Boardman, et al. (SNO), 2002b, Mathews, 1993b, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1677. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011302. Aufderheide, M. B., I. Fushiki, G. M. Fuller, and T. A. Ahmad, Q. R., R. C. Allen, T. C. Andersen, J. D. Anglin, Weaver, 1994b, Astrophys. J. 424, 257. G. Bühler, J. C. Barton, E. W. Beier, M. Bercovitch, Aufderheide, M. B., I. Fushiki, S. E. Woosley, and D. H. Hart- J. Bigu, S. Biller, R. A. Black, I. Blevis, et al. (SNO), mann, 1994c, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 91, 389. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301. Bahcall, J. N., 1989, Neutrino Astrophysics (Cambridge Uni- Ahrens, L. H., S. H. Aronson, P. L. Connolly, B. G. Gibbard, versity Press, Cambridge). M. J. Murtagh, S. J. Murtagh, S. Terada, D. H. White, Bahcall, J. N., 1997, Phys. Rev. C 56, 3391. J. L. Callas, D. Cutts, J. S. Hoftun, M. Diwan, et al., 1987, Bahcall, J. N., N. A. Bahcall, and G. Shaviv, 1968, Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. D 35, 785. Lett. 20, 1209. Alford, W. P., B. A. Brown, S. Burzynski, A. Celler, D. Frek- Bahcall, J. N., C. M. González-Garc´ıa, and C. Peña-Garay, ers, R. Helmer, R. Henderson, K. P. Jackson, K. Lee, A. Ra- 2002, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 054. hav, A. Trudel, and M. C. Vetterli, 1993, Phys. Rev. C 48, Bahcall, J. N., M. H. Pinsonneault, and S. Basu, 2001, As- 2818. trophys. J. 555, 990. Alford, W. P., R. L. Helmer, R. Abegg, A. Celler, D. Frekers, Balantekin, A. B., and W. C. Haxton, 1999, eprint nucl- P. Green, O. Haeusser, K. Henderson, K. Hicks, K. P. Jack- th/9903038. son, R. Jeppesen, C. A. Miller, et al., 1990, Nucl. Phys. A Baleisis, A., and D. Arnett, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 185c. 514, 49. Bambynek, W., H. Behrens, M. H. Chen, B. Crasemann, Altmann, M., M. Balata, P. Belli, E. Bellotti, R. Bern- M. L. Fitzpatrick, K. W. D. Ledingham, H. Genz, M. Mut- abei, E. Burkert, C. Cattadori, G. Cerichelli, M. Chiarini, terer, and R. L. Intermann, 1977, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 77; M. Cribier, S. d’Angelo, G. Del Re, et al. (GNO), 2000, 49, 961(E). Phys. Lett. B 490, 16. Beane, S. R., P. F. Bedaque, W. C. Haxton, D. R. Phillips, Alvarez,´ L. W., 1949, Report UCRL-328, University of Cali- and M. J. Savage, 2001, in At the Frontier of Particel fornia Radiation Laboratory. Physics: Handbook of QCD, edited by M. Shifman (World Anderson, B. D., T. Chittrakarn, A. R. Baldwin, C. Lebo, Scientific, Singapore), eprint nucl-th/0008064. R. Madey, P. C. Tandy, J. W. Watson, B. A. Brown, and Beer, H., F. Käppeler, K. Wisshak, and R. A. Ward, 1981, C. C. Foster, 1985, Phys. Rev. C 31, 1161. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 46, 295. Anderson, B. D., C. Lebo, A. R. Baldwin, T. Chittrakarn, Behrens, H., and W. Bühring, 1971, Nucl. Phys. A 162, 111. R. Madey, and J. W. Watson, 1990, Phys. Rev. C 41, 1474. Behrens, H., and W. Bühring, 1982, Electron Radial Wave Angulo, C., and P. Descouvemont, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 690, Functions and Nuclear Beta-decay (Clarendon, Oxford). 755. Beise, E. J., and R. D. McKeown, 1991, Comm. Nucl. Part. Anselmann, P., W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, T. Kirsten, Phys. 20, 105. E. Pernicka, R. Plaga, U. Ronn, M. Sann, C. Schlosser, Belic, D., C. Arlandini, J. Besserer, J. de Boer, J. J. Car- R. Wink, M. Wojcik, et al. (GALLEX), 1992, Phys. Lett. roll, J. Enders, T. Hartmann, F. Käppeler, H. Kaiser, B 285, 376. U. Kneissl, E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. Armbruster, B., I. Blair, B. A. Bodmann, N. E. Booth, C 65, 035801. G. Drexlin, V. Eberhard, J. A. Edgington, C. Eichner, Belic, D., C. Arlandini, J. Besserer, J. de Boer, J. J. Car- 40

roll, J. Enders, T. Hartmann, F. Käppeler, H. Kaiser, Caurier, E., K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and U. Kneissl, M. Loewe, H. J. Maier, et al., 1999, Phys. Rev. F. Nowacki, 1999, Nucl. Phys. A 653, 439. Lett. 83, 5242. Caurier, E., P. Navrátil, W. E. Ormand, and J. P. Vary, 2001, Bethe, H. A., 1990, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 801. Phys. Rev. C 64, 051301(R). Bethe, H. A., G. E. Brown, J. Applegate, and J. M. Lattimer, Caurier, E., A. P. Zuker, A. Poves, and G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 1979, Nucl. Phys. A 324, 487. 1994, Phys. Rev. C 50, 225. Bethe, H. A., and J. R. Wilson, 1985, Astrophys. J. 295, 14. Cayrel, R., V. Hill, T. C. Beers, B. Barbuy, M. Spite, F. Spite, Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., and V. M. Chechetkin, 1979, Soviet B. Plez, J. Andersen, P. Bonifacio, P. Fran¸cois, P. Molaro, Phys. Uspekhi 22, 89. B. Nordström, et al., 2001, Nature 409, 691. Blomqvist, J., A. Kerek, and B. Fogelberg, 1983, Z. Phys. A Chen, B., J. Dobaczewski, K.-L. Kratz, K. Langanke, B. Pfeif- 314, 199. fer, F.-K. Thielemann, and P. Vogel, 1995, Phys. Lett. B Boger, J., R. L. Hahn, J. K. Rowley, A. L. Carter, B. Holle- 355, 37. bone, D. Kessler, I. Blevis, F. Dalnoki-Veress, A. DeKok, Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2002, Rev Mod Phys In print. J. Farine, D. R. Grant, C. K. Hargrove, et al. (SNO), 2000, Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., W. Dappen, S. V. Ajukov, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 449, 172. E. R. Anderson, H. M. Antia, S. Basu, V. A. Baturin, Bonetti, R., C. Broggini, L. Campajola, P. Corvisiero, G. Berthomieu, B. Chaboyer, S. M. Chitre, A. N. Cox, A. D’Alessandro, M. Dessalvi, A. D’Onofrio, A. Fubini, P. Demarque, et al., 1996, Science 272, 1286. G. Gervino, L. Gialanella, U. Greife, A. Guglielmetti, et al. Clayton, D. D., 1964, Astrophys. J. 139, 637. (LUNA), 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5205. Clayton, D. D., 1968, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nu- Borzov, I., and S. Goriely, 2000, Phys. Rev. C 62, 035501, cleosynthesis (McGraw-Hill, New York). URL http://www-astro.ulb.ac.be/Html/bd.html. Cleveland, B. T., T. Daily, R. Davis, J. R. Distel, K. Lande, Bosch, F., T. Faestermann, J. Friese, F. Heine, P. Kienle, C. K. Lee, P. S. Wildenhain, and J. Ullman, 1998, Astro- E. Wefers, K. Zeitelhack, K. Beckert, B. Franzke, O. Klep- phys. J. 496, 505. per, C. Kozhuharov, G. Menzel, et al., 1996, Phys. Rev. Cohen, S., and D. Kurath, 1965, Nucl. Phys. 73, 1. Lett. 77, 5190. Cooperstein, J., and J. Wambach, 1984, Nucl. Phys. A 420, Boyd, R., M. Hencheck, and B. Meyer, 2002, in preparation. 591. Boyd, R. N., 2000, 2, 893. Corsico, A. H., O. G. Benvenuto, L. G. Althaus, J. Isern, and Brachwitz, F., 2001, Neutron-rich nucleosyntheis in Chan- E. Garcia-Berro, 2001, New Astron. 6, 197. drasekhar mass models of type Ia supernovae, Ph.D. thesis, Couch, R. G., A. B. Schmiedekamp, and W. D. Arnett, 1974, Universität Basel. Astrophys. J. 190, 95. Brachwitz, F., D. J. Dean, W. R. Hix, K. Iwamoto, K. Lan- Cowan, J. J., B. Pfeiffer, K.-L. Kratz, F.-K. Thielemann, ganke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, K. Nomoto, M. R. Strayer, C. Sneden, S. Burles, D. Tytler, and T. C. Beers, 1999, F. Thielemann, and H. Umeda, 2000, Astrophys. J. 536, Astrophys. J. 521, 194. 934. Cowan, J. J., F.-K. Thielemann, and J. W. Truran, 1991, Brown, B. A., and B. H. Wildenthal, 1988, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Phys. Repts. 208, 267. Part. Sci. 38, 29. Davids, B., D. W. Anthony, T. Aumann, S. M. Austin, Brown, E. F., and L. Bildsten, 1998, Astrophys. J. 496, 915. T. Baumann, D. Bazin, R. R. C. Clement, C. N. Davids, Bruenn, S. W., 1985, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 58, 771. H. Esbensen, P. A. Lofy, T. Nakamura, B. M. Sherrill, et al., Bruenn, S. W., and T. Dineva, 1996, Astrophys. J. 458, L71. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2750. Bruenn, S. W., and W. C. Haxton, 1991, Astrophys. J. 376, Davis, R., Jr., 1955, Phys. Rev. 97, 766. 678. Davis, R., Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, 1968, Phys. Buballa, M., S. Dro˙zd˙z, S. Krewald, and J. Speth, 1991, Ann. Rev. Lett. 20, 1205. Phys. (N. Y.) 208, 346. Demetriou, P., and S. Goriely, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 695, 95. Burbidge, E. M., G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Dobaczewski, J., I. Hamamoto, W. Nazarewicz, and J. A. 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 547. Sheikh, 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 981. Burrows, A., 1987, Astrophys. J. 318, L57. Doll, C., H. G. Börner, S. Jaag, F. Käppeler, and W. An- Burrows, A., 2000, Nature 403, 727. drejtscheff, 1999, Phys. Rev. C 59, 492. Burrows, A., 2001, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 46, 59. Dom´ınguez, I., O. Straniero, and J. Isern, 1999, Mon. Not. R. Burrows, A., and J. Goshy, 1993, Astrophys. J. 416, L75. Astron. Soc. 306, L1. Burrows, A., J. Hayes, and B. A. Fryxell, 1995, Astrophys. J. Donnelly, T. W., and W. C. Haxton, 1979, At. Data. Nucl. 450, 830. Data Tables 23, 103. Burrows, A., and R. F. Sawyer, 1998, Phys. Rev. C 58, 554. Donnelly, T. W., and W. C. Haxton, 1980, At. Data. Nucl. Burrows, A., and R. F. Sawyer, 1999, Phys. Rev. C 59, 510. Data Tables 25, 1. Burrows, A., T. Young, P. Pinto, R. Eastman, and T. Thomp- Donnelly, T. W., and R. P. Peccei, 1979, Phys. Repts. 50, 1. son, 2000, Astrophys. J. 539, 865. Dro˙zd˙z, S., S. Nishizaki, J. Speth, and J. Wambach, 1990, Busso, M., R. Gallino, and G. J. Wasserburg, 1999, Annu. Phys. Repts. 197, 1. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 37, 239. Duflo, J., and A. P. Zuker, 1995, Phys. Rev. C 52, R23. Caldwell, D. O., G. M. Fuller, and Y. Qian, 2000, Phys. Rev. Dzitko, H., S. Turck-Chieze, P. Delbourgo-Salvador, and D 61, 123005. C. Lagrange, 1995, Astrophys. J. 447, 428. Cameron, A. G. W., 1957, Stellar Evolution, Nuclear Astro- Edmonds, A. R., 1960, Angular Momentum in Quantum Me- physics, and Nucleogenesis, Report CRL-41, Chalk River. chanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jer- Cameron, A. G. W., 1958, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 8, 299. sey). Carlson, J., and R. Schiavilla, 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 743. El-Kateb, S., K. P. Jackson, W. P. Alford, R. Abegg, R. E. Caurier, E., 2002, private communication. Azuma, B. A. Brown, A. Celler, D. Frekers, O. Haeusser, 41

R. Helmer, R. S. Henderson, K. H. Hicks, et al., 1994, Phys. Glashow, S. L., J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, 1970, Phys. Rev. Rev. C 49, 3128. D 2, 1285. Engel, J., M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and Goodman, C. D., C. A. Goulding, M. B. Greenfield, J. Rapa- R. Surman, 1999, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014302. port, D. E. Bainum, C. C. Foster, W. G. Love, and F. Petro- Engel, J., E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, 1996, Phys. vich, 1980, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1755. Rev. C 54, 2740. Goriely, S., and M. Arnould, 2001, Astron. Astrophys. 379, Fantoni, S., A. Sarsa, and K. E. Schmidt, 2001, Phys. Rev. 1113. Lett. 87, 181101. Goriely, S., and B. Clerbaux, 1999, Astron. Astrophys 346, Fermi, E., 1934, Z. Phys. 88, 161. 804. Feynman, R. P., and M. Gell-Mann, 1958, Phys. Rev. 109, Goriely, S., F. Tondeur, and J. M. Pearson, 2001, At. Data. 193. Nucl. Data Tables 77, 311. Fowler, W. A., 1958, Astrophys. J. 127, 551. Görres, J., M. Wiescher, and F.-K. Thielemann, 1995, Phys. Freedman, D. Z., 1974, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389. Rev. C 51, 392. Freiburghaus, C., J.-F. Rembges, T. Rauscher, E. Kolbe, F.- Groom, D. E., M. Aguilar-Benitez, C. Amsler, R. M. Bar- K. Thielemann, K.-L. Kratz, B. Pfeiffer, and J. J. Cowan, nett, P. R. Burchat, C. D. Carone, C. Caso, G. Conforto, 1999a, Astrophys. J. 516, 381. O. Dahl, M. Doser, S. Eidelman, J. L. Feng, et al. (Par- Freiburghaus, C., S. Rosswog, and F.-K. Thielemann, 1999b, ticle Data Group), 2000, Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1, URL Astrophys. J. 525, L121. http://pdg.lbl.gov. Friman, B., and O. Maxwell, 1979, Ap.J. 232, 541. Grotz, K., and H. V. Klapdor, 1990, The Weak Interaction in Fujita, Y., H. Akimune, I. Daito, M. Fujiwara, M. N. Nuclear, Particle and Astrophysics (Adam Hilger, Bristol). Harakeh, T. Inomata, J. Jänecke, K. Katori, H. Nakada, Gruzinov, A. V., and J. N. Bahcall, 1998, Astrophys. J. 504, S. Nakayama, A. Tamii, M. Tanaka, et al., 1996, Phys. 996. Lett. B 365, 29. Guillemaud-Mueller, D., C. Detraz, M. Langevin, F. Naulin, Fukuda, S., Y. Fukuda, M. Ishitsuka, Y. Itow, T. Ka- M. Desaintsimon, C. Thibault, F. Touchard, and jita, J. Kameda, K. Kaneyuki, K. Kobayashi, Y. Koshio, M. Epherre, 1984, Nucl. Phys. A 426, 37. M. Miura, S. Moriyama, M. Nakahata, et al. (Super- Hachisu, I., M. Kato, and K. Nomoto, 1999, Astrophys. J. Kamiokande), 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5656. 522, 487. Fukuda, Y., T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, K. Inoue, K. Ishi- Haensel, P., and J. L. Zdunik, 1990, Astron. Astrophys. 227, hara, H. Ishino, Y. Itow, T. Kajita, J. Kameda, S. Kasuga, 431. K. Kobayashi, Y. Kobayashi, et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Hampel, W., J. Handt, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, T. Kirsten, 1998a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562. M. Laubenstein, E. Pernicka, W. Rau, M. Wojcik, Y. Za- Fukuda, Y., T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, K. Inoue, K. Ishi- kharov, R. V. Ammon, K. H. Ebert, et al. (GALLEX), hara, H. Ishino, Y. Itow, T. Kajita, J. Kameda, S. Kasuga, 1999, Phys. Lett. B 447, 127. K. Kobayashi, Y. Kobayashi, et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Hanhart, C., D. R. Phillips, and S. Reddy, 2001, Phys. Lett. 1998b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1158. B 499, 9. Fukuda, Y., T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, K. Inoue, K. Ishi- Hannestad, S., 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 373c. hara, H. Ishino, Y. Itow, T. Kajita, J. Kameda, S. Kasuga, Hannestad, S., and G. Raffelt, 1998, Astrophys. J. 507, 339. K. Kobayashi, Y. Kobayashi, et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Hansen, C. J., 1966, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2644. Hansen, C. J., 1968, Astrophys. Space Sci. 1, 499. Fuller, G. M., 1982, Astrophys. J. 252, 741. Haxton, W. C., 1988, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1999. Fuller, G. M., W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, 1980, As- Haxton, W. C., 1998, Phys. Lett. B 431, 110. trophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 42, 447. Haxton, W. C., 2000, eprint nucl-th/0012063. Fuller, G. M., W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, 1982a, As- Haxton, W. C., K. Langanke, Y. Z. Qian, and P. Vogel, 1997, trophys. J. 252, 715. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2694. Fuller, G. M., W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, 1982b, As- Hayes, A. C., and I. S. Towner, 2000, Phys. Rev. C 61, trophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 48, 279. 044603. Fuller, G. M., W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, 1985, As- Heeger, K. M., and R. G. H. Robertson, 1996, Phys. Rev. trophys. J. 293, 1. Lett. 77, 3720. Fuller, G. M., W. C. Haxton, and G. C. McLaughlin, 1999, Heger, A., E. Kolbe, W. Haxton, K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez- Phys. Rev. D 59, 085005. Pinedo, and S. E. Woosley, 2002, in preparation. Fuller, G. M., and B. S. Meyer, 1991, Astrophys. J. 376, 701. Heger, A., K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and S. E. Fuller, G. M., and B. S. Meyer, 1995, Astrophys. J. 453, 792. Woosley, 2001a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1678. Gamow, G., 1941, Phys. Rev. 59, 617. Heger, A., and S. E. Woosley, 2001, private communication. Gamow, G., and M. Schoenberg, 1940, Phys. Rev. 58, 1117. Heger, A., S. E. Woosley, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and K. Lan- Gamow, G., and M. Schoenberg, 1941, Phys. Rev. 59, 539. ganke, 2001b, Astrophys. J. 560, 307. Garvey, G. T., E. Kolbe, S. Krewald, and K. Langanke, 1993a, Hektor, A., E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and J. Toivanen, 2000, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1919. Phys. Rev. C 61, 055803. Garvey, G. T., S. Krewald, E. Kolbe, and K. Langanke, 1992, Herant, M., W. Benz, W. R. Hix, C. L. Fryer, and S. A. Phys. Lett. B 289, 249. Colgate, 1994, Astrophys. J. 435, 339. Garvey, G. T., W. C. Louis, and D. H. White, 1993b, Phys. Heyde, K. L. G., 1994, The Nuclear Shell Model (Springer- Rev. C 48, 761. Verlag, Berlin). Gill, R. L., R. F. Casten, D. D. Warner, A. Piotrowski, Hill, V., B. Plez, R. Cayrel, T. C. Beers, B. Nordström, J. An- H. Mach, J. C. Hill, F. K. Wohn, J. A. Winger, and dersen, M. Spite, F. Spite, B. Barbuy, P. Bonifacio, E. De- R. Moreh, 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1874. pagne, P. Fran¸cois, et al., 2002, Astron. Astrophys. 387, 42

560. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 48, 175. Hillebrandt, W., and J. C. Niemeyer, 2000, Annu. Rev. As- Käppeler, F., M. Wiescher, U. Giesen, J. Görres, I. Baraffe, tron. Astrophys. 38, 191. M. El Eid, C. M. Raiteri, M. Busso, R. Gallino, M. Limongi, Hjorth-Jensen, M., T. T. S. Kuo, and E. Osnes, 1995, Phys. and A. Chieffi, 1994, Astrophys. J. 437, 396. Repts. 261, 126. Kar, K., A. Ray, and S. Sarkar, 1994, Astrophys. J. 434, 662. Hoffman, R. D., S. E. Woosley, and Y.-Z. Qian, 1997, Astro- Kavanagh, R. W., 1960, Nucl. Phys. 15, 411. phys.J. 482, 951. Keil, W., H.-T. Janka, and E. Müller, 1996, Astrophys. J. Holmgren, H. P., and R. Johnston, 1958, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 473, L111. 3, 26. Kifonidis, K., T. Plewa, H.-T. Janka, and E. Müller, 2000, Homma, H., E. Bender, M. Hirsch, K. Muto, H. V. Klapdor- Astrophys. J. 531, L123. Kleingrothaus, and T. Oda, 1996, Phys. Rev. C 54, 2972. Kirsten, T. A., 1999, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1213. Honma, M., T. Mizusaki, and T. Otsuka, 1995, Phys. Rev. Knie, K., G. Korschinek, T. Faestermann, C. Wallner, Lett. 75, 1284. J. Scholten, , and W. Hillebrandt, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. Horowitz, C. J., 2002, Phys. Rev. D 65, 043001. 82, 18. Horowitz, C. J., and G. Li, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett 82, 5198. Kolbe, E., G. M. Fuller, and K. Langanke, 2002, in prepara- Howard, W. M., and P. Möller, 1980, At. Data Nucl. Data tion. Tables 25, 219. Kolbe, E., and K. Langanke, 2001, Phys. Rev. C 63, 025802. Ikeda, K. I., S. Fujii, and J. I. Fujita, 1963, Phys. Lett. 3, Kolbe, E., K. Langanke, and G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 1999a, 271. Phys. Rev. C 60, 052801. Itoh, N., N. Tomizawa, M. Tamamura, S. Wanajo, and Kolbe, E., K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, 1994, Phys. Rev. C S. Nozawa, 2002, Astrophys. J. In print, eprint astro- 50, 2576. ph/0207132. Kolbe, E., K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, 1999b, Nucl. Phys. A Iwamoto, K., F. Brachwitz, K. Nomoto, N. Kishimoto, 652, 91. H. Umeda, W. R. Hix, and F. Thielemann, 1999, Astro- Kolbe, E., K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, 2000, Phys. Rev. C phys. J. Suppl. 125, 439. 62, 055502. Iwamoto, N., and C. Pethick, 1982, Phys. Rev. D 25, 313. Kong, X., and F. Ravndal, 2001, Phys. Rev. C 64, 044002. Iyudin, A. F., R. Diehl, H. Bloemen, W. Hermsen, G. G. Koonin, S. E., D. J. Dean, and K. Langanke, 1997, Phys. Lichti, D. Morris, J. Ryan, V. Schönfelder, H. Steinle, Repts. 278, 2. M. Varendorff, C. de Vries, and C. Winkler, 1994, Astron. Korgul, A., H. Mach, B. Fogelberg, W. Urban, W. Kurcewicz, Astrophys. 284, L1. and V. I. Isakov, 2001, Phys. Rev. C 64, 021302(R). Iyudin, A. F., V. Schönfelder, K. Bennett, H. Bloemen, Krastev, P. I., and A. Y. Smirnov, 2002, Phys. Rev. D 65, R. Diehl, W. Hermsen, G. G. Lichti, R. D. van der Meulen, 073022. J. Ryan, and C. Winkler, 1998, Nature 396, 142. Kratz, K., J. Bitouzet, F. Thielemann, P. Moeller, and Jaffe, R. L., and A. Manohar, 1990, Nucl. Phys. B 337, 509. B. Pfeiffer, 1993, Astrophys. J. 403, 216. Janka, H.-T., 2001, Astron. Astrophys. 368, 527. Kratz, K. L., 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 308c. Janka, H.-T., and W. Hillebrandt, 1989, Astron. Astrophys Kratz, K.-L., 2002, private communication. 224, 49. Kratz, K.-L., H. Gabelmann, W. Hillebrandt, B. Pfeiffer, Janka, H.-T., K. Kifonidis, and M. Rampp, 2001, in Physics K. Schlosser, and F.-K. Thielemann, 1986, Z. Phys. A 325, of Neutron Star Interiors, edited by D. Blaschke, N. K. 489. Glendenning, and A. Sedrakian (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), Kratz, K.-L., P. Möller, B. Pfeiffer, and W. B. Walters, 2000, volume 578 of Lecture Notes in Physics, pp. 333–363, eprint in Capture Gamma-Rays and Related Studies, edited by astro-ph/0103015. S. Wender (AIP Conf. Proc.), volume 529, p. 295. Janka, H.-T., and E. Müller, 1996, Astron. Astrophys. 306, Kratz, K.-L., B. Pfeiffer, and F.-K. Thielemann, 1998, Nucl. 167. Phys. A 630, 352. Johnson, C. W., E. Kolbe, S. E. Koonin, and K. Langanke, Kratz, K.-L., F.-K. Thielemann, W. Hillebrandt, P. Möller, 1992a, Astrophys. J. 392, 320. V. Harms, A. Wohr, and J. W. Truran, 1988, J. Phys. G Johnson, C. W., S. E. Koonin, G. H. Lang, and W. E. Or- 14, S331. mand, 1992b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3157. Krumlinde, J., and P. Möller, 1984, Nucl. Phys. A 417, 419. Johnson, W. R., and G. Soff, 1985, At. Data Nucl. Data Ta- Kunz, R., M. Jaeger, A. Mayer, J. W. Hammer, G. Staudt, bles 33, 405. S. Harissopoulos, and T. Paradellis, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. José, J., and M. Hernanz, 1998, Astrophys. J. 494, 680. 86, 3244. Jung, M., F. Bosch, K. Beckert, H. Eickhoff, H. Folger, Kuramoto, T., M. Fukugita, Y. Kohyama, and K. Kubodera, B. Franzke, A. Gruber, P. Kienle, O. Klepper, W. Koenig, 1990, Nucl. Phys. A 512, 711. C. Kozhuharov, R. Mann, et al., 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, Kurylov, A., M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and P. Vogel, 2002, Phys. 2164. Rev. C 65, 055501. Junghans, A., and K. Snover, 2002, private communication. Langanke, K., and E. Kolbe, 2001, At. Data. Nucl. Data Ta- Junghans, A. R., E. C. Mohrmann, K. A. Snover, T. D. bles 79, 293. Steiger, E. G. Adelberger, J. M. Casandjian, H. E. Swan- Langanke, K., and E. Kolbe, 2002, At. Data. Nucl. Data Ta- son, L. Buchmann, S. H. Park, and A. Zyuzin, 2001, Phys. bles , in press. Rev. Lett. 88, 041101. Langanke, K., E. Kolbe, and D. J. Dean, 2001a, Phys. Rev. Kamionkowski, M., and J. N. Bahcall, 1994, Astrophys. J. C 63, 032801. 420, 884. Langanke, K., and G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 2000, Nucl. Phys. A Käppeler, F., 1999, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43, 419. 673, 481. Käppeler, F., F.-K. Thielemann, and M. Wiescher, 1998, Langanke, K., and G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 2001, At. Data. Nucl. 43

Data Tables 79, 1. Mezzacappa, A., A. C. Calder, S. W. Bruenn, J. M. Blondin, Langanke, K., G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and J. M. Sampaio, M. W. Guidry, M. R. Strayer, and A. S. Umar, 1998, As- 2001b, Phys. Rev. C 64, 055801. trophys. J. 495, 911. Langanke, K., and A. Poves, 2000, Nucl. Phys. News 10(3), Mezzacappa, A., M. Liebendörfer, O. E. Bronson Messer, 16. W. Raphael Hix, F.-K. Thielemann, and S. W. Bruenn, Langanke, K., and M. Wiescher, 2001, Rep. Prog. Phys. 64, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1935. 1657. Mikheyev, S. P., and A. Y. Smirnov, 1986, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. Lattimer, J. M., and F. D. Swesty, 1991, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 42, 913. 331. Möller, P., J. R. Nix, and K.-L. Kratz, 1997, At. Data. Nucl. Leising, M. D., 2001, Astrophys. J. 563, 185. Data Tables 66, 131. Lewin, W. H. G., J. van Paradijs, and R. Taam, 1993, Space Möller, P., B. Pfeiffer, and K. L. Kratz, 2002, New calcula- Sci. Rev. 62, 233. tions of gross beta-decay properties for astrophysical appli- Liebendörfer, M., 2002, private communication. cations: Speeding-up the classical r-process, report LA-UR- Liebendörfer, M., O. E. B. Messer, A. Mezzacappa, R. W. 02-2919, LANL, URL http://t16web.lanl.gov/Moller/ Hix, F.-K. Thielemann, and K. Langanke, 2002, in Pro- publications/rspeed2002.html. ceedings of the 11th Workshop on “Nuclear Astrophysics”, Möller, P., and J. Randrup, 1990, Nucl. Phys. A 514, 1. edited by W. Hillebrandt and E. Müller (Ringberg Castle, Motobayashi, T., Y. Ikeda, Y. Ando, K. Ieki, M. Inoue, Tegernsee, Germany). N. Iwasa, T. Kikuchi, M. Kurokawa, S. Moriya, S. Ogawa, Liebendörfer, M., A. Mezzacappa, F.-K. Thielemann, O. E. H. Murakami, S. Shimoura, et al., 1995, Phys. Lett. B 346, Bronson Messer, W. Raphael Hix, and S. W. Bruenn, 2001, 9. Phys. Rev. D 63, 103004. Motobayashi, T., T. Takei, S. Kox, C. Perrin, F. Merchez, Mamdouh, A., J. Pearson, M. Rayet, and F. Tondeur, 2001, D. Rebreyend, K. Ieki, H. Murakami, Y. Ando, N. Iwasa, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 337. M. Kurokawa, S. Shirato, et al., 1991, Phys. Lett. B 264, Mao, Z. Q., H. T. Fortune, and A. G. Lacaze, 1996, Phys. 259. Rev. C C53, 1197. Müller, H.-M., S. Koonin, R. Seki, and U. van Kolck, 2000, Marcucci, L. E., R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, and Phys. Rev. C 61, 044320. S. Rosati, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5959. Musolf, M. J., and T. W. Donnelly, 1992, Nucl. Phys. A 546, Marcucci, L. E., R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, 509. S. Rosati, and J. F. Beacom, 2001, Phys. Rev. C 63, Nabi, J.-U., and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, 1999a, Eur. 015801. Phys. J. A 5, 337. Margueron, J., J. Navarro, N. van Giai, and W. Jiang, 2002, in Nabi, J.-U., and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, 1999b, At. The Nuclear Many-Body Problem 2001, edited by D. Vrete- Data. Nucl. Data Tables 71, 149. nar and W. Nazarewicz (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor- Nadyozhin, D. K., and I. V. Panov, 1993, in Proceedings of the drecht), NATO Science Series II, eprint nucl-th/0110026. third International Symposium on Weak and Electromag- Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 357c. netic Interaction in Nuclei (WEIN-92), edited by Tc. Vylov Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., and K. Langanke, 1999, Phys. Rev. (World Scientific, Singapore), pp. 479–486. Lett. 83, 4502. Navrátil, P., J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, 2000, Phys. Rev. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., K. Langanke, and D. J. Dean, 2000, C 62, 054311. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 126, 493. Niemeyer, J. C., and W. Hillebrandt, 1995, Astrophys. J. 452, Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., A. Poves, E. Caurier, and A. P. Zuker, 769. 1997, Phys. Rev. C 55, 187. Nomoto, K., F.-K. Thielemann, and K. Yokoi, 1984, Astro- Mazurek, T., 1973, Ph.D. thesis, Yeshiva University. phys. J. 286, 644. Mazurek, T., J. W. Truran, and A. G. W. Cameron, 1974, Oda, T., M. Hino, K. Muto, M. Takahara, and K. Sato, 1994, Astrophys. Space Sci. 27, 161. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 56, 231. Mazurek, T. J., 1975, Astrophys. Space Sci. 35, 117. Ormand, W. E., P. M. Pizzochero, P. F. Bortignon, and R. A. Mazzocchi, C., Z. Janas, J. Döring, M. Axiotis, L. Batist, Broglia, 1995, Phys. Lett. B 345, 343. R. Borcea, D. Cano-Ott, E. Caurier, G. de Angelis, Ortiz, C. E., A. Garc´ıa, R. A. Waltz, M. Bhattacharya, and E. Farnea, A. Faßbender, A. Gadea, et al., 2001, Eur. Phys. A. K. Komives, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2909. J. A 12, 269. Osterfeld, F., 1992, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 491. McLaughlin, G. C., J. M. Fetter, A. B. Balantekin, and G. M. Otsuka, T., M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, N. Shimizu, and Y. Ut- Fuller, 1999, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2873. suno, 2001, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 319. McLaughlin, G. C., and G. M. Fuller, 1995, Astrophys. J. Otsuki, K., H. Tagoshi, T. Kajino, and S. Wanajo, 2000, As- 455, 202. trophys. J. 533, 424. McLaughlin, G. C., and G. M. Fuller, 1997, Astrophys. J. Park, T.-S., K. Kubodera, D.-P. Min, and M. Rho, 1998, 489, 766. Astrophys. J. 507, 443. Messer, O. E. B., et al., 2002, in preparation. Park, T.-S., L. E. Marcucci, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, Meyer, B. S., 1995, Astrophys. J. 449, L55. A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, K. Kubodera, D.-P. Min, and Meyer, B. S., G. C. McLaughlin, and G. M. Fuller, 1998, M. Rho, 2001a, eprint nucl-th/0106025. Phys. Rev. C 58, 3696. Park, T.-S., L. E. Marcucci, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, Mezzacappa, A., 2001, private communication. A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, K. Kubodera, D.-P. Min, and Mezzacappa, A., and S. W. Bruenn, 1993a, Astrophys. J. 405, M. Rho, 2001b, eprint nucl-th/0107012. 637. Perlmutter, S., G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, Mezzacappa, A., and S. W. Bruenn, 1993b, Astrophys. J. 410, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, 740. D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, et al. (The Supernova 44

Cosmology Project), 1999, Astrophys. J. 517, 565. Salam, A., 1968, in Elementary Particle Physics, edited by Pfeiffer, B., K. L. Kratz, and F. K. Thielemann, 1997, Z. N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm), p. 367. Phys. A 357, 235. Sampaio, J., K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, D. J. Dean, Pfeiffer, B., K.-L. Kratz, F.-K. Thielemann, and W. B. Wal- and E. Kolbe, 2002a, in preparation. ters, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 693, 282. Sampaio, J. M., K. Langanke, and G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, 2001, Pieper, S.-C., 2002, in The Nuclear Many-Body Problem 2001, Phys. Lett. B 511, 11. edited by W. Nazarewicz and D. Vretenar (NATO Science Sampaio, J. M., K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and D. J. series), volume 53, p. 11. Dean, 2002b, Phys. Lett. B 529, 19. Pontecorvo, B., 1946, Inverse Beta Process, Report PD-205, Sato, K., 1975, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 1325. Chalk River. Sato, K., 1979, Prog. Theor. Phys. 62, 957. Pontecorvo, B., 1959, Sov. Phys. JETP 9, 1148. Sato, K., and H. Sato, 1975, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 1564. Pontecorvo, B., 1968, Sov. Phys. JETP 26, 984. Sawyer, R. F., 1975, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2740. Pontecorvo, B., 1991, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Sawyer, R. F., 1989, Phys. Rev. C 40, 865. Phys. Cosmol. 1, 25. Schatz, H., A. Aprahamian, V. Barnard, L. Bildsten, A. Cum- Poves, A., and F. Nowacki, 2001, in An Advanced Course ming, M. Ouellette, T. Rauscher, F.-K. Thielemann, and in Modern Nuclear Physics, edited by J. M. Arias and M. Wiescher, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3471. M. Lozano (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), volume 581 of Lec- Schatz, H., A. Aprahamian, J. Görres, M. Wiescher, ture Notes in Physics, pp. 70–101. T. Rauscher, J. F. Rembges, F.-K. Thielemann, B. Pfeif- Prakash, M., J. M. Lattimer, R. F. Sawyer, and R. R. Volkas, fer, P. Möller, K.-L. Kratz, H. Herndl, B. A. Brown, et al., 2001, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 295. 1998, Phys. Repts. 294, 167. Qian, Y.-Z., 1997, Nucl. Phys. A 621, 363c. Schatz, H., L. Bildsten, A. Cumming, and M. Wiescher, 1999, Qian, Y.-Z., 2002, Astrophys. J. 569, L103. Astrophys. J. 524, 1014. Qian, Y.-Z., and G. M. Fuller, 1995, Phys. Rev. D 52, 656. Schatz, H., R. Toenjes, B. Pfeiffer, T. C. Beers, J. J. Qian, Y. Z., W. C. Haxton, K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, 1997, Cowan, V. Hill, and K.-L. Kratz, 2002, Astrophys. J. Phys. Rev. C 55, 1532. In print, URL http://groups.nscl.msu.edu/nero/Web/ Qian, Y.-Z., P. Vogel, and G. J. Wasserburg, 1998, Astrophys. materials.html. J. 494, 285. Schiavilla, R., and R. B. Wiringa, 2002, Phys. Rev. C 65, Raffelt, G., D. Seckel, and G. Sigl, 1996, Phys. Rev. D 54, 054302. 2784. Schmid, K. W., 2001, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 46, 145. Raffelt, G. G., 1996, Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Schmid, K. W., F. Grummer, and A. Faessler, 1987, Ann. Physics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago). Phys. (N.Y.) 180, 1. Raffelt, G. G., 1999, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 163. Schmid, K. W., R. R. Zheng, F. Grümmer, and A. Faessler, Raffelt, G. G., 2000, Phys. Repts. 333, 593. 1989, Nucl. Phys. A 499, 63. Raffelt, G. G., 2001, Astrophys. J. 561, 890. Schmidt, K. E., and S. Fantoni, 1999, Phys. Lett. B 446, 99. Rampp, M., and H.-T. Janka, 2000, Astrophys. J. 539, L33. Schopper, H. W., 1966, Weak Interactions and Nuclear Beta Rampp, M., and H.-T. Janka, 2002, eprint astro-ph/0203101. Decay (North-Holland Publishing Company). Rapaport, J., T. Taddeucci, T. P. Welch, C. Gaarde, Sharma, M. M., and A. R. Farhan, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, J. Larsen, D. J. Horen, E. Sugarbaker, P. Koncz, C. C. 353c. Foster, C. D. Goodman, C. A. Goulding, and T. Master- Sharma, M. M., and A. R. Farhan, 2002, Phys. Rev. C 65, son, 1983, Nucl. Phys. A 410, 371. 044301. Rayet, M., M. Arnould, M. Hashimoto, N. Prantzos, and Shen, H., H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, 1998a, K. Nomoto, 1995, Astron. Astrophys. 298, 517. Nucl. Phys. A 637, 435. Reddy, S., M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, 1998, Phys. Rev. Shen, H., H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, 1998b, D 58, 013009. Prog. Theor. Phys. 100, 1013. Reddy, S., M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and J. A. Pons, 1999, Smith, M., and R. Rehm, 2001, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. 51, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2888. 91. Reinecke, M., W. Hillebrandt, and J. C. Niemeyer, 1999, As- Sneden, C., J. J. Cowan, I. I. Ivans, G. M. Fuller, S. Burles, tron. Astrophys. 347, 724. T. C. Beers, and J. E. Lawler, 2000, Astrophys. J. 533, Ressler, J. J., A. Piechaczek, W. B. Walters, A. Aprahamian, L139. M. Wiescher, J. C. Batchelder, C. R. Bingham, D. S. Bren- Soyeur, M., and G. E. Brown, 1979, Nucl. Phys. A 324, 464. ner, T. N. Ginter, C. J. Gross, R. Grzywacz, D. Kulp, et al., Starrfield, S., W. Sparks, J. Truran, and M. Wiescher, 2000, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2104. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 127, 485. Riess, A. G., A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, Starrfield, S., J. Truran, M. Wiescher, and W. M. Sparks, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, 1998, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 296, 502. S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, Stoica, S., and J. E. Horvath, 2002, Phys. Rev. C 65, 028801. et al., 1998, Astron. J. 116, 1009. Surman, R., and J. Engel, 1998, Phys. Rev. C 58, 2526. Rombouts, S., 1998, unpublished. Surman, R., and J. Engel, 2001, Phys. Rev. C 64, 035801. Rönnqvist, T., H. Condé, N. Olsson, E. Ramström, R. Zorro, Surman, R., J. Engel, J. R. Bennett, and B. S. Meyer, 1997, J. Blomgren, A. H˚akansson, A. Ringbom, G. Tibell, O. Jon- Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1809. sson, L. Nilsson, P. U. Renberg, et al., 1993, Nucl. Phys. A Sutaria, F. K., and A. Ray, 1995, Phys. Rev. C 52, 3460. 563, 225. Taam, R., S. E. Woosley, T. Weaver, and D. Lamb, 1993, Rosswog, S., M. B. Davies, F.-K. Thielemann, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. 413, 324. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. 360, 171. Takahashi, K., M. Yamada, and T. Kondoh, 1973, At. Data. Rowe, D., 1968, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 153. Nucl. Data Tables 12, 101. 45

Talmi, I., 1993, Simple models of complex nuclei (Harwood 65. Academic Publishers, Switzerland). Weinberg, S., 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264. Terasawa, M., K. Sumiyoshi, T. Kajino, G. J. Mathews, and Whitehead, R. R., 1980, in Moment Methods in Many I. Tanihata, 2001a, Astrophys. J. 562, 470. Fermion Systems, edited by B. J. Dalton, S. M. Grimes, Terasawa, M., K. Sumiyoshi, T. Kajino, I. Tanihata, G. J. J. D. Vary, and S. A. Williams (Plenum, New York), p. Mathews, and K. Langanke, 2001b, Nucl. Phys. A 688, 235. 581c. Wilkinson, J. H., 1965, The algebraic eigenvalue problem Thompson, T. A., and A. Burrows, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 688, (Clarendon Press, Oxford). 377c. Williams, A. L., W. P. Alford, E. Brash, B. A. Brown, Thompson, T. A., A. Burrows, and J. E. Horvath, 2000, Phys. S. Burzynski, H. T. Fortune, O. Haeusser, R. Helmer, Rev. C 62, 035802. R. Henderson, P. P. Hui, K. P. Jackson, B. Larson, et al., Thompson, T. A., A. Burrows, and B. S. Meyer, 2001, Astro- 1995, Phys. Rev. C 51, 1144. phys. J. 562, 887. Wilson, J. R., 1985, in Relativistic Astrophysics, edited Toivanen, J., E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, by J. Centrella, J. LeBlanc, and R. Bowers (Jones and and P. Vogel, 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 694, 395. Bartlett), p. 422. Toukan, K. A., K. Debus, F. Käppeler, and G. Reffo, 1995, Wilson, J. R., 2001, invited talk at Fermi and Astrophysics, Phys. Rev. C 51, 1540. Pescara, Italy. Truran, J. W., 1982, in Essays in Nuclear Astrophysics, edited Wilson, J. R., and R. W. Mayle, 1993, Phys. Repts. 227, 97. by C. A. Barnes, D. D. Clayton, and D. N. Schramm (Cam- Wiringa, R. B., S. C. Pieper, J. Carlson, and V. R. Pandhari- bridge University Press, Cambridge), p. 467. pande, 2000, Phys. Rev. C 62, 014001. Truran, J. W., J. J. Cowan, and B. D. Fields, 2001, Nucl. Wisshak, K., F. Voss, C. Arlandini, F. Beˇcváˇr, O. Straniero, Phys. A 688, 330c. R. Gallino, M. Heil, F. Käppeler, M. Krtiˇcka, S. Masera, Tubbs, D. L., and D. N. Schramm, 1975, Astrophys. J. 201, R. Reifarth, and C. Travaglio, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 467. 251102. van Kolck, U., 1999, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43, 337. Witti, J., H.-T. Janka, and K. Takahashi, 1994a, Astron. As- Vetterli, M. C., O. Haeusser, R. Abegg, W. P. Alford, trophys. 286, 841. A. Celler, D. Frekers, R. Helmer, R. Henderson, K. H. Witti, J., H.-T. Janka, and K. Takahashi, 1994b, Astron. As- Hicks, K. P. Jackson, R. G. Jeppesen, C. A. Miller, et al., trophys. 286, 857. 1990, Phys. Rev. C 40, 559. Wolfenstein, L., 1978, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369. Volpe, C., N. Auerbach, G. Colò, T. Suzuki, and N. van Giai, Woosley, S. E., 1986, in Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evo- 2000, Phys. Rev. C 62, 015501. lution, edited by B. Hauck, A. Maeder, and G. Meynet Walecka, J. D., 1975, in Muon Physics, edited by V. W. (Geneva Observatory), volume 16 of Saas-Fee Advanced Hughes and C. S. Wu (Academic Press, New York), vol- Courses, pp. 1–195. ume II, section V,4, pp. 113–218. Woosley, S. E., 2001, private communication. Walecka, J. D., 1995, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Woosley, S. E., D. H. Hartmann, R. D. Hoffman, and W. C. Physics (Oxford University Press, New York). Haxton, 1990, Astrophys. J. 356, 272. Wallerstein, G., I. Iben, P. Parker, A. M. Boesgaard, G. M. Woosley, S. E., A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, 2002, Rev. Mod. Hale, A. E. Champagne, C. A. Barnes, F. Käppeler, V. V. Phys., submitted. Smith, R. D. Hoffman, F. X. Timmes, C. Sneden, et al., Woosley, S. E., and T. A. Weaver, 1995, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 995. Ser. 101, 181. Walter, G., H. Beer, F. Käppeler, and R.-D. Penzhorn, 1986a, Woosley, S. E., J. R. Wilson, G. J. Mathews, R. D. Hoffman, Astron. Astrophys. 155, 247. and B. S. Meyer, 1994, Astrophys. J. 433, 229. Walter, G., H. Beer, F. Käppeler, G. Reffo, and F. Fabbri, Wörtche, H. J. (EUROSUPERNOVA), 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 1986b, Astron. Astrophys. 167, 186. 687, 321c. Wanajo, S., T. Kajino, G. J. Mathews, and K. Otsuki, 2001, Yamada, S., H.-T. Janka, and H. Suzuki, 1999, Astron. As- Astrophys. J. 554, 578. trophys. 344, 533. Warburton, E., and B. Brown, 1992, Phys. Rev. C 46, 923. Zeitnitz, B., 1994, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 32, 351. Wasserburg, G. J., M. Busso, and R. Gallino, 1996, Astro- Zheng, D., 1996, unpublished. phys. J. 466, L109. Weaver, T. A., and S. E. Woosley, 1993, Phys. Repts. 227,