THE COSMIC CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA RATE DOES NOT MATCH THE MASSIVE-STAR FORMATION RATE

By S. Horiuchi, J. Beacom, C. Kochanek, J. Prieto, Krzysztof Zbigniew Stanek, T. Thompson. 2011

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We identify a “supernova rate problem:” the measured cosmic core-collapse supernova rate is a factor of ∼2 smaller (with significance ∼2σ) than that predicted from the measured cosmic massive-star formation rate. The comparison is critical for topics from galaxy evolution and enrichment to the abundance of neutron stars and black holes. We systematically explore possible resolutions. The accuracy and precision of the star formation rate data and conversion to the supernova rate are well supported, and proposed changes would have far-reaching consequences. The dominant effect is likely that many supernovae are missed because they are either optically dim (low-luminosity) or dark, whether intrinsically or due to obscuration. We investigate supernovae too dim to have been discovered in cosmic surveys by a detailed study of all supernova discoveries in the local volume. If possible supernova impostors are included, then dim supernovae are common enough by fraction to solve the supernova rate problem. If they are not included, then the rate of dark core collapses is likely substantial. Other alternatives are that there are surprising changes in our understanding of star formation or supernova rates, including that supernovae form differently in small galaxies than in normal galaxies. These possibilities can be distinguished by upcoming supernova surveys, star formation measurements, searches for disappearing massive stars, and measurements of supernova neutrinos.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/52efdad37941a7d972d9bd3d21798a55c030d0c9

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 Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: confirmation of a disappearing star (2016, background): “Third, there is evidence that the massive star formation rate may exceed the SN rate (Horiuchi et al. 2011, but see Botticella et al. 2012 and Xiao & Eldridge 2015).”
THE LANDSCAPE OF THE NEUTRINO MECHANISM OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE: NEUTRON STAR AND BLACK HOLE MASS FUNCTIONS, EXPLOSION ENERGIES, AND NICKEL YIELDS (2014, background): “…& 0.5 based on direct supernova detection, estimates of supernova production in the Galaxy, star formation rate or diffuse neutrino background (e.g. Kochanek et al. 2008; Kochanek 2014b; Smartt 2009; Horiuchi et al. 2011; Adams et al. 2013; Nakazato 2013; Clausen et al. 2014; Mathews et al. 2014).”
A simple approach to the supernova progenitor–explosion connection (2016, background): “More indirect constraints on the fate of massive stars come from, for example, the comparison of the observed star formation and supernova rates (Horiuchi et al. 2011; Botticella et al. 2012) and the limit for the diffuse supernova neutrino background (Beacom 2010).”
On the origin of a highly dispersed coherent radio burst (2012, background): “Furthermore, for a volumetric supernova rate of 9×10−5 Mpc−3 y−1 (Horiuchi et al. 2011), the number of supernovae expected in the PMPS would be just ∼ 0.1 assuming it would be sensitive out to 500 Mpc in all directions, which itself is highly optimistic given the effects of dispersion and…”
The mass spectrum of compact remnants from the parsec stellar evolution tracks (2015, methodology): “…both BHs and NSs: observations of core-collapse supernovae (SNe) indicate a deﬁcit of massive ( (cid:2) 20 M (cid:4) ) progenitor stars (Smartt 2009; Horiuchi et al. 2011; Jennings et al. 2012, 2014; Gerke, Kochanek & Stanek 2015), which possibly suggests that the most massive stars undergo no or…”
The effect of pair-instability mass loss on black-hole mergers (2016, methodology): “…analysis used by Madau & Dickinson (2014) does not fully correct for the small galaxies not seen in UV surveys; the predicted high-redshift SFR cannot reionize the Universe with stars and it underpredicts the observed GRB rate (Kistler et al. 2009; Horiuchi et al. 2011; Mitchell-Wynne et al. 2015).”
OBSERVING THE NEXT GALACTIC SUPERNOVA (2013, methodology): “This limit on the fraction of core-collapse events that fail to explode is consistent with the upper limit of ∼ 50% found by Horiuchi et al. (2011) and the nominal estimate of∼ 10% given by Lien et al. (2010).”
What can be learned from a future supernova neutrino detection (2017, background): “However, it is intriguing that a failed explosion explanation is also able to explain the mass function of compact objects [173, 174], as well as the dearth of optically luminous supernova compared with the birth rate of massive stars [175, 176, 177].”
Observational Constraints on the Progenitors of Core-Collapse Supernovae: The Case for Missing High-Mass Stars (2015, result): “…in galaxies closer than ∼12 Mpc (Botticella et al. 2012) as the star formation rates of these galaxies are in quite good agreement with the measured SN rate for a a lower mass limit of 8 M for core-collapse (although Horiuchi et al. 2011, suggests that at higher redshift there is a discrepancy).”
Delay-time distribution of core-collapse supernovae with late events resulting from binary interaction (2017, methodology): “Core-collapse supernovae can be used as tracers of the cosmic star-formation rate (e.g., Horiuchi et al. 2011; Madau & Dickinson 2014).”
A TWO-PARAMETER CRITERION FOR CLASSIFYING THE EXPLODABILITY OF MASSIVE STARS BY THE NEUTRINO-DRIVEN MECHANISM (2015, result): “5 & 0.2 for failed explosions is compatible with a lack of red supergiant Type-IIP SN progenitors above ∼16 M (Smartt et al. 2009) and with a significant excess of the starformation rate compared to the observed SN rate (Horiuchi et al. 2011).”
The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: first candidates (2014, background): “Failed SNe in this mass range can also explain the black hole mass function (Kochanek 2014a,b) and the mismatch between star formation and SN rate estimates (Horiuchi et al. 2011, 2014).”
Rates of superluminous supernovae at z ∼ 0.2 (2013, background): “…(CCSN) rate (cf. Botticella et al. 2008)), we find that there is about one SLSN-I or SLSN-II event for every 400 to 1300 CCSNe, or one SLSN-I for every 1000 to 2×104 CCSNe (these fractions may be halved if the full population of faint or obscured CCSNe is included; Horiuchi et al. 2011).”