Criteria for Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions by the Neutrino Mechanism

By J. Murphy, Adam Burrows. 2008

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We investigate the criteria for successful core-collapse supernova explosions by the neutrino mechanism. We find that a critical-luminosity/mass accretion rate condition distinguishes nonexploding from exploding models in hydrodynamic one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) simulations. We present 95 such simulations that parametrically explore the dependence on neutrino luminosity, mass accretion rate, resolution, and dimensionality. While radial oscillations mediate the transition between 1D accretion (nonexploding) and exploding simulations, the nonradial standing accretion shock instability characterizes 2D simulations. We find that it is useful to compare the average dwell time of matter in the gain region with the corresponding heating timescale, but that tracking the residence time distribution function of tracer particles better describes the complex flows in multidimensional simulations. Integral quantities such as the net heating rate, heating efficiency, and mass in the gain region decrease with time in nonexploding models but, for 2D exploding models, increase before, during, and after explosion. At the onset of explosion in 2D, the heating efficiency is ~2%-~5% and the mass in the gain region is ~0.005 to ~0.01 M☉. Importantly, we find that the critical luminosity for explosions in 2D is ~70% of the critical luminosity required in 1D. This result is not sensitive to resolution or whether the 2D computational domain is a quadrant or the full 180°. We suggest that the relaxation of the explosion condition in going from 1D to 2D (and to, perhaps, 3D) is of a general character and is not limited by the parametric nature of this study.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8deac6184031af7156100297252fcc0d5a9236be

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

Non-Radial Instabilities and Progenitor Asphericities in Core-Collapse Supernovae (2014, methodology): “…(Fryer, Rockefeller & Warren 2006; Scheck et al. 2006) or the light bulb and leakage schemes (Ruffert, Janka & Schaefer 1996; Rosswog & Liebendörfer 2003; Murphy & Burrows 2008; O’Connor & Ott 2011) used in many recent studies of multi-dimensional instabilities in core-collapse supernovae.”
REVIVAL OF THE STALLED CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA SHOCK TRIGGERED BY PRECOLLAPSE ASPHERICITY IN THE PROGENITOR STAR (2013, methodology): “Thus, our models with perturbations absorb neutrino energy more efficiently, which favors explosion (c.f. Thompson et al. 2005; Murphy & Burrows 2008).”
A MODEL FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE EMISSION FROM NEUTRINO-DRIVEN CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2009, methodology): “This is consistent with the results of Murphy & Burrows (2008b), in which they note that lower luminosity runs take longer to reach saturated shock oscillations, but that the saturated amplitudes are similar for the different neutrino luminosities.”
THE LANDSCAPE OF THE NEUTRINO MECHANISM OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE: NEUTRON STAR AND BLACK HOLE MASS FUNCTIONS, EXPLOSION ENERGIES, AND NICKEL YIELDS (2014, unknown): “It has been established that 2D simulations robustly require Lcrit lower by about 20% compared to 1D (Ohnishi et al. 2006; Murphy & Burrows 2008), but it has not been unambigously determined that the hierarchy continues and Lcrit is lower in 3D than in 2D.”
GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC SIMULATIONS OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2012, methodology): “…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).”
NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA OF A LOW-MASS IRON-CORE PROGENITOR BOOSTED BY THREE-DIMENSIONAL TURBULENT CONVECTION (2015, background): “…neutrino-heating conditions and buoyancy or turbulent pressure behind the shock (e.g., Herant et al. 1994; Burrows et al. 1995; Janka & Müller 1996; Murphy & Burrows 2008; Murphy et al. 2013; Marek & Janka 2009; Müller et al. 2012a,b, 2013; Müller & Janka 2014a,b; Suwa et al. 2013; Bruenn et…”
The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models (2016, background): “…not feasible, heuristic criteria have been developed (Janka & Keil 1998; Janka et al. 2001; Thompson 2000; Thompson et al. 2005; Buras et al. 2006b; Murphy & Burrows 2008; Pejcha & Thompson 2012; Fernández 2012; Gabay et al. 2015; Murphy & Dolence 2015) to gauge the proximity of numerical…”
DIMENSION AS A KEY TO THE NEUTRINO MECHANISM OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS (2010, methodology): “…(2008) have shown that this critical luminosity decreases and the neutrino-matter coupling efficiency increases by ∼30% in going from 1D to 2D. Murphy & Burrows (2008) have diagnosed the increase in heating efficiency in 2D (vis à vis 1D) as the increase in the average dwell time (Thompson,…”
A NEW MULTI-DIMENSIONAL GENERAL RELATIVISTIC NEUTRINO HYDRODYNAMICS CODE FOR CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE. II. RELATIVISTIC EXPLOSION MODELS OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2012, background): “…a runaway situation occurs, in which neutrino heating leads to shock expansion, which in turn lengthens the residence time, thus again increasing the neutrino heating efficiency (Janka & Keil 1998; Thompson 2000; Janka et al. 2001; Buras et al. 2006a; Thompson et al. 2005; Murphy & Burrows 2008).”
A simple approach to the supernova progenitor–explosion connection (2016, background): “…condition τ adv /τ heat > 1 is met, we assume that runaway shock expansion takes place (Thompson 2000; Janka 2001; Thompson, Quataert & Burrows 2005; Murphy & Burrows 2008 ; Fern´andez 2012) and then estimate the explosion energy and the residual accretion on to the proto-neutron star in detail…”
BLACK HOLE FORMATION IN FAILING CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE (2010, methodology): “…precise nature of the responsible CCSN mechanism has been a topic of intense research for decades (e.g., Arnett 1966; Colgate & White 1966; Bethe & Wilson 1985; Janka et al. 2007; Burrows et al. 2006, 2007b; Murphy & Burrows 2008; Marek & Janka 2009; Nordhaus et al. 2010, and references therein).”
A successful 3D core-collapse supernova explosion model (2018, background): “A third could be the longer dwell times in the gain region occasioned by the non-radial motions (Murphy & Burrows 2008).”
What can be learned from a future supernova neutrino detection (2017, background): “Criticality studies by a number of authors [157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 38, 164, 165] have examined the minimum neutrino luminosity needed to overcome the ram pressure from a given mass accretion rate.”
NEW TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELS OF SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS BY THE NEUTRINO-HEATING MECHANISM: EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT INSTABILITY REGIMES IN COLLAPSING STELLAR CORES (2012, methodology): “The evidence for the SASI as “main” instability from recent 2D explosion models using elaborate multi-group transport (Buras et al. 2006a; Marek & Janka 2009; Bruenn et al. 2009; Suwa et al. 2010; Müller et al. 2012) as well as from the first tentative explorations in 3D (Takiwaki et al. 2012) is t”