DELAYED NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS AIDED BY THE STANDING ACCRETION-SHOCK INSTABILITY

By Andreas Marek, Hans-Thomas Janka. 2007

336 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of stellar core collapse and develop the framework for a detailed analysis of the energetic aspects of neutrino-powered supernova explosions. Our results confirm that the neutrino-heating mechanism remains a viable explanation of the explosion of a wider mass range of supernova progenitors with iron cores, but the explosion sets in later and develops differently than thought so far. The calculations were performed with an energy-dependent treatment of the neutrino transport based on the “ray-by-ray plus” approximation, in which the neutrino number, energy, and momentum equations are closed with a variable Eddington factor obtained by iteratively solving a model Boltzmann equation. We focus here on the evolution of a 15 M☉ progenitor and provide evidence that shock revival and an explosion are initiated at about 600 ms after core bounce, powered by neutrino energy deposition. This is significantly later than previously found for an 11.2 M☉ star, for which we also present a continuation of the explosion model published by Buras et al. The onset of the blast is fostered in both cases by the standing accretion-shock instability. This instability exhibits highest growth rates for the dipole and quadrupole modes, which lead to large-amplitude bipolar shock oscillations and push the shock to larger radii, thus increasing the time accreted matter is exposed to neutrino heating in the gain layer. As a consequence, also convective overturn behind the shock is strengthened, which otherwise is suppressed or damped because of the small shock stagnation radius. When the explosion sets in, the shock reveals a pronounced global deformation with a dominant dipolar component. In both the 11.2 M☉ and 15 M☉ explosions long-lasting equatorial downflows supply the gain layer with fresh gas, of which a sizable fraction is heated by neutrinos and leads to the build-up of the explosion energy of the ejecta over possibly hundreds of milliseconds. A “soft” nuclear equation of state that causes a rapid contraction, and a smaller radius of the forming neutron star and thus a fast release of gravitational binding energy, seems to be more favorable for the development of an explosion. Rotation has the opposite effect because in the long run it leads to a more extended and cooler neutron star and thus lower neutrino luminosities and mean energies and overall less neutrino heating. Neutron star g-mode oscillations, although we see their presence, and the acoustic mechanism play no important role in our simulations. While numerical tests show that our code is also well able to follow large-amplitude core g-modes if they are instigated; the amplitude of such oscillations remains small in our supernova runs and the acoustic energy flux injected by the ringing neutron star and by the deceleration of supersonic downflows near the neutron star surface is small compared to the neutrino energy deposition.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/351dc1c291bdde51a0a1da65ab7c4ba70b6346e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

THREE-DIMENSIONAL HYDRODYNAMIC CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA SIMULATIONS FOR AN 11.2 M☉ STAR WITH SPECTRAL NEUTRINO TRANSPORT (2011, methodology): “The right panel of Figure 12 shows the comparison of the advection timescale, conventionally employed in literatures (e.g., Equation (4) in Marek & Janka (2009), that is (Rs − Rg)/|〈vr〉| with Rs, Rg, and〈vr〉 representing the angle average shock radius, gain radius, and postshock radial velocity,…”
Neutron Star Kicks by the Gravitational Tug-boat Mechanism in Asymmetric Supernova Explosions: Progenitor and Explosion Dependence (2016, background): “…energy released when free nucleons assemble to α-particles and heavy nuclei in the outflow provides a positive contribution of typically ∼ (5 ... 8) MeV/nucleon ≈ (5 ... 8)×1018 erg g−1 to the explosion energy of the SN (Janka 2001; Scheck et al. 2006; Marek & Janka 2009; Müller 2015).”
Formation of Double Neutron Star Systems (2017, background): “…non-radial hydrodynamic instabilities in the collapsing stellar core (i.e. neutrino-driven convection and the standing accretion-shock instability, Blondin & Mezzacappa 2006; Scheck et al. 2006; Foglizzo et al. 2007; Marek & Janka 2009; Janka 2012, 2013; Bruenn et al. 2014; Foglizzo et al. 2015).”
NEW TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELS OF SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS BY THE NEUTRINO-HEATING MECHANISM: EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT INSTABILITY REGIMES IN COLLAPSING STELLAR CORES (2012, methodology): “This could, for example, provide an explanation for the late explosions of a 15M⊙ star of Marek & Janka (2009) and Müller et al. (2012), which are associated with strong shock oscillations.”
A successful 3D core-collapse supernova explosion model (2018, background): “In fact, rapid rotation alone can affect the dynamics and facilitate explosion even when the expected magnetic field amplifications are ignored (Fryer & Warren 2002, 2004; Marek & Janka 2009; Summa et al. 2018).”
IS STRONG SASI ACTIVITY THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS? (2011, background): “Also the high-density equation of state and general relativity, influencing the contraction behavior of the nascent neutron star, can make a difference (Marek & Janka 2009; Müller et al. 2012).”
NEW EQUATIONS OF STATE IN SIMULATIONS OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2011, background): “…to increase the neutrino heating efficiency (see, e.g., Miller et al. (1993), Herant et al. (1994), Janka & Mueller (1996), Burrows et al. (2007)) and help to aid the understanding of aspherical explosions (see, for example, Bruenn et al. (2006); Marek & Janka (2009); and Müller et al. (2010)).”
GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC SIMULATIONS OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2012, background): “…to larger average shock radii, increase the dwell time of material in the gain region, may lead to secondary shocks, and are thus generally aiding the explosion mechanism (Ohnishi et al. 2006; Scheck et al. 2006; Murphy & Burrows 2008; Ott et al. 2008; Marek & Janka 2009; B. Müller et al. 2012b).”
The evolution of isotope ratios in the Milky Way Galaxy (2011, background): “Although a few groups have presented feasible calculations of exploding 10−25M⊙ stars (Marek & Janka 2009; Bruenn et al. 2009), the explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae (Type II, Ib, and Ic Supernovae) is still uncertain.”
Multiple physical elements to determine the gravitational-wave signatures of core-collapse supernovae (2011, background): “e 3 and 4). The left and middle panels in Figure 5 show the wave amplitude (blue line (total), red line (only from neutrinos)) for a non-rotatingexploding 15 M⊙ progenitor in Marek & Janka (2006) [82] in which a soft variant of the Lattimer-Swesty EOS (left) and a rather stiﬀ Hillebrant-Wolﬀ EOS”
PROGENITOR-EXPLOSION CONNECTION AND REMNANT BIRTH MASSES FOR NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVAE OF IRON-CORE PROGENITORS (2012, background): “…to note, however, that the relatively early explosions of the 11.2M⊙ and 27M⊙ progenitors of our model set and the later explosion of progenitors around 15M⊙ are fully compatible with recent results of 2D models with sophisticated neutrino transport (cf. Marek & Janka 2009; Müller et al. 2012a,b).”
OBSERVING THE NEXT GALACTIC SUPERNOVA (2013, background): “…and its dwarf companions, while rare, enable a broad range of new probes, in particular, neutrinos (e.g., Thompson et al. 2003; Ikeda et al. 2007; Marek & Janka 2009; Abbasi et al. 2011; Scholberg 2012), gravitational waves (Ott 2009; Leonor et al. 2010; Yakunin et al. 2010; Andersson et al.…”
Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory (2012, methodology): “Using detailed neutrino transport and 2D hydro, Marek & Janka (2009) observed an explosion of a 15-”
Supernova simulations from a 3D progenitor model - Impact of perturbations and evolution of explosion properties (2017, neutral): “In agreement with the argument of Marek & Janka (2009) and earlier long-time simulations of supernova explosions in 2D and 3D MNRAS 000, 1–22 (0000) (Müller 2015; Bruenn et al. 2016), the growth of the diagnostic energy at late times is essentially determined by the mass outflow rate Ṁout of…”
Non-Radial Instabilities and Progenitor Asphericities in Core-Collapse Supernovae (2014, background): “…be useful for understanding why the baseline model p0 as well as other general relativistic and pseudorelativistic models with ray-by-ray variable Eddington factor transport (Marek & Janka 2009; Müller, Janka & Marek 2012) show a secular increase of the time-scale ratio τadv/τheat at late times.”