IS STRONG SASI ACTIVITY THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS?

By Florian Hanke, Andreas Marek, B. Mueller, Hans-Thomas Janka. 2011

189 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Following a simulation approach of recent publications, we explore the viability of the neutrino-heating explosion mechanism's dependence on the spatial dimension. Our results disagree with previous findings. While we also observe that two-dimensional (2D) models explode for lower driving neutrino luminosity than spherically symmetric (1D) models, we do not find that explosions in 3D occur easier and earlier than in 2D. Moreover, we find that the average entropy of matter in the gain layer hardly depends on the dimension and thus is not a good diagnostic quantity for the readiness to explode. Instead, mass, integrated entropy, total neutrino-heating rate, and non-radial kinetic energy in the gain layer are higher when models are closer to explosion. Coherent, large-scale mass motions as typically associated with the standing accretion-shock instability (SASI) are observed to be supportive for explosions because they drive strong shock expansion and thus enlarge the gain layer. While 2D models with better angular resolution clearly explode more easily, the opposite trend is seen in 3D. We interpret this as a consequence of the turbulent energy cascade, which transports energy from small to large spatial scales in 2D, thus fostering SASI activity. In contrast, the energy flow in 3D is in the opposite direction, feeding fragmentation and vortex motions on smaller scales and thus making the 3D evolution with finer grid resolution more similar to 1D. More favorable conditions for explosions in 3D may therefore be tightly linked to efficient growth of low-order SASI modes including nonaxisymmetric ones.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5fc512747d66a574fb8a2619f57f20ce365eef43

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

The Gravitational Wave Signal from Core-collapse Supernovae (2018, background): “However, it is known that turbulence has different properties in 2D and 3D (Kraichnan 1967), and it has been shown that this difference artificially facilitates explosion (Hanke et al. 2012; Dolence et al. 2013; Takiwaki et al. 2014; Couch & O’Connor 2014; Couch & Ott 2015; Abdikamalov et al. 2015).”
Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Conceptual Design Report Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF (2015, background): “• The standing accretion shock instability (SASI) [156, 157], a “sloshing” mode predicted by three-dimensional neutrino-hydrodynamics simulations of supernova cores, would give an oscillatory flavor-dependent modulation of the flux.”
Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory (2012, background): “More importantly, preliminary calculations performed in 3D (e.g., Burrows, Dolence, & Murphy 2012; Dolence, Burrows, & Murphy 2012; Hanke et al. 2012) do not show the “sloshing” dipolar motion along an axis many have come to associate with the SASI and that some have suggested is crucial to the…”
A COMPARISON OF TWO- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL NEUTRINO-HYDRODYNAMICS SIMULATIONS OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2013, background): “To quantify the vigor of the shock expansion , t400 is a useful quantity that was defined in Hanke et al. (2012) as the moment of time when the shock reaches an average radius of 400 km.”
NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA OF A LOW-MASS IRON-CORE PROGENITOR BOOSTED BY THREE-DIMENSIONAL TURBULENT CONVECTION (2015, background): “2, 85748 Garching, Germany plosions in 3D, because it destroys the biggest convective plumes, which were recognized as helful for 2D explosions (Hanke et al. 2012; Couch 2013; Couch & O’Connor 2014; Dolence et al. 2013).”
SELF-SUSTAINED ASYMMETRY OF LEPTON-NUMBER EMISSION: A NEW PHENOMENON DURING THE SUPERNOVA SHOCK-ACCRETION PHASE IN THREE DIMENSIONS (2014, methodology): “…crucial support to the delayed neutrinoheating mechanism: multi-D simulations can yield explosions even when spherically symmetric models fail (e.g., Janka & Müller 1996; Murphy & Burrows 2008; Nordhaus et al. 2010b; Hanke et al. 2012; Dolence et al. 2013; Couch 2013; Couch & O’Connor 2014).”
The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models (2016, background): “Similar parameterised simulations have shown that the critical luminosity in 3D is roughly equal to 2D (Hanke et al. 2012; Couch 2013b; Burrows et al. 2012; Dolence et al. 2013) and about 20% lower than in 1D, though the results differ about the hierarchy between 2D and 3D. Subsequent supernova…”
CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE FROM 9 TO 120 SOLAR MASSES BASED ON NEUTRINO-POWERED EXPLOSIONS (2015, background): “According to current multidimensional calculations, the onset of the explosion differs between 2D and 3D, with the former favoring earlier explosions because of differences in the behavior of turbulence in the post-shock region (e.g., Hanke et al. 2012; Couch 2013).”
THREE-DIMENSIONAL CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA SIMULATED USING A 15 M⊙ PROGENITOR (2015, methodology): “Hanke et al. (2012) were unable to confirm that result and for their base 3◦ simulations found little difference between 2D and 3D.”
A simple approach to the supernova progenitor–explosion connection (2016, background): “…turbulent dissipation) and hence α turb are bound to be slightly different, although the difference in α turb between 2D and 3D cannot be excessive given that the critical luminosity is very similar in both cases (Hanke et al. 2012; Couch 2013; Dolence et al. 2013; Handy, Plewa & Odrzywołek 2014).”
Supernova simulations from a 3D progenitor model - Impact of perturbations and evolution of explosion properties (2017, methodology): “This behaviour is compatible with earlier models using a simple light-bulb approximation (Hanke et al. 2012; Couch 2013) and has been ascribed to the different turbulent energy cascade in 3D and 2D, which leads to smaller structures and stronger dissipation in the neutrino heating region in 3D…”