Sequential spectral line analysis for accurate density and temperature diagnosis of laboratory opacity measurements.

IF 1.3 4区 工程技术 Q3 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION
T Nagayama, J E Bailey, G P Loisel, D C Mayes, G S Dunham, T A Gomez
{"title":"Sequential spectral line analysis for accurate density and temperature diagnosis of laboratory opacity measurements.","authors":"T Nagayama, J E Bailey, G P Loisel, D C Mayes, G S Dunham, T A Gomez","doi":"10.1063/5.0237960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The accuracy of iron opacity calculated in stellar interiors has been questioned since the discovery of the \"solar problem\" and the discrepancies between the measured and modeled iron opacity reported in 2015. Experimental opacity benchmarks require accurate temperature and density measurements, which were inferred by analyzing tracer magnesium spectra in those experiments. Could the observed discrepancy be explained by insufficient accuracy in the inferred temperature, density, and their uncertainties? Previous analyses may have yielded biased results due to three limitations: (1) simultaneous multi-line fitting, (2) approximations in line-shape models, and (3) exclusion of certain spectral lines due to insufficient background characterization. Notably, the first issue is a common concern for many inversion methods, including Bayesian inferences. We present a refined analysis method that overcomes these limitations, applied to three categories of iron opacity experiments (Anchor 1, 2, and 3). In particular, the sequential fitting method yields unbiased results with more realistic uncertainties by accounting for line inconsistencies in the parameter uncertainties. The average electron temperature and density values are 162 ± 6 eV and (7.0 ± 1.9) × 1021 cm-3 for six Anchor 1 experiments, 189 ± 7 eV and (3.4 ± 0.3) × 1022 cm-3 for 21 Anchor 2 experiments, and 201 ± 6 eV and (4.8 ± 1.1) × 1022 cm-3 for nine Anchor 3 experiments. These results show ∼4% temperature and ∼20% density reproducibility over a decade, which also aligns with the inferred parameter uncertainties. The resulting temperature and density uncertainties lead to a quasi-continuum iron opacity variation of ±4%-7% for wavelengths below 9.5 Å, which is insufficient to explain the significant model-data discrepancies reported in 2015.</p>","PeriodicalId":21111,"journal":{"name":"Review of Scientific Instruments","volume":"96 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Scientific Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0237960","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The accuracy of iron opacity calculated in stellar interiors has been questioned since the discovery of the "solar problem" and the discrepancies between the measured and modeled iron opacity reported in 2015. Experimental opacity benchmarks require accurate temperature and density measurements, which were inferred by analyzing tracer magnesium spectra in those experiments. Could the observed discrepancy be explained by insufficient accuracy in the inferred temperature, density, and their uncertainties? Previous analyses may have yielded biased results due to three limitations: (1) simultaneous multi-line fitting, (2) approximations in line-shape models, and (3) exclusion of certain spectral lines due to insufficient background characterization. Notably, the first issue is a common concern for many inversion methods, including Bayesian inferences. We present a refined analysis method that overcomes these limitations, applied to three categories of iron opacity experiments (Anchor 1, 2, and 3). In particular, the sequential fitting method yields unbiased results with more realistic uncertainties by accounting for line inconsistencies in the parameter uncertainties. The average electron temperature and density values are 162 ± 6 eV and (7.0 ± 1.9) × 1021 cm-3 for six Anchor 1 experiments, 189 ± 7 eV and (3.4 ± 0.3) × 1022 cm-3 for 21 Anchor 2 experiments, and 201 ± 6 eV and (4.8 ± 1.1) × 1022 cm-3 for nine Anchor 3 experiments. These results show ∼4% temperature and ∼20% density reproducibility over a decade, which also aligns with the inferred parameter uncertainties. The resulting temperature and density uncertainties lead to a quasi-continuum iron opacity variation of ±4%-7% for wavelengths below 9.5 Å, which is insufficient to explain the significant model-data discrepancies reported in 2015.

自从发现 "太阳问题 "以及 2015 年报告的测量和建模铁不透明度之间的差异以来,恒星内部计算的铁不透明度的准确性一直受到质疑。实验不透明度基准需要精确的温度和密度测量值,而这些测量值是通过分析这些实验中的示踪镁光谱推断出来的。观测到的差异是否可以解释为推断的温度、密度及其不确定性不够准确?以前的分析可能由于以下三个局限性而产生了有偏差的结果:(1)多线同时拟合;(2)线形模型的近似;(3)由于背景特征描述不足而排除了某些光谱线。值得注意的是,第一个问题是许多反演方法(包括贝叶斯推断法)共同关注的问题。我们提出了一种可克服这些局限性的改进分析方法,并将其应用于三类铁不透明度实验(锚 1、锚 2 和锚 3)。特别是,顺序拟合方法通过考虑参数不确定性中的线性不一致性,得到了无偏的结果,具有更真实的不确定性。6 个锚 1 实验的平均电子温度和密度值分别为 162 ± 6 eV 和 (7.0 ± 1.9) × 1021 cm-3,21 个锚 2 实验的平均电子温度和密度值分别为 189 ± 7 eV 和 (3.4 ± 0.3) × 1022 cm-3,9 个锚 3 实验的平均电子温度和密度值分别为 201 ± 6 eV 和 (4.8 ± 1.1) × 1022 cm-3。这些结果表明,十年间温度的重现性为 4%,密度的重现性为 20%,这也与推断的参数不确定性相一致。由此产生的温度和密度不确定性导致波长低于 9.5 Å 的准连续铁不透明度变化为 ±4%-7%,这不足以解释 2015 年报告的模型与数据之间的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Scientific Instruments
Review of Scientific Instruments 工程技术-物理:应用
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
758
审稿时长
2.6 months
期刊介绍: Review of Scientific Instruments, is committed to the publication of advances in scientific instruments, apparatuses, and techniques. RSI seeks to meet the needs of engineers and scientists in physics, chemistry, and the life sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信