VERY LOW ENERGY SUPERNOVAE FROM NEUTRINO MASS LOSS

By E. Lovegrove, Stan Woosley. 2013

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

It now seems likely that some percentage of more massive supernova progenitors do not explode by any of the currently discussed explosion mechanisms. This has led to speculation concerning the observable transients that might be produced if such a supernova fails. Even if a prompt outgoing shock fails to form in a collapsing presupernova star, one must still consider the hydrodynamic response of the star to the abrupt loss of mass via neutrinos as the core forms a protoneutron star. Following a suggestion by Nadezhin, we calculate the hydrodynamical responses of typical supernova progenitor stars to the rapid loss of approximately 0.2–0.5 M☉ of gravitational mass from their centers. In a red supergiant star, a very weak supernova with total kinetic energy ∼1047 erg results. The binding energy of a large fraction of the hydrogen envelope before the explosion is of the same order and, depending upon assumptions regarding the maximum mass of a neutron star, most of it is ejected. Ejection speeds are ∼100 km s−1 and luminosities ∼1039 erg s−1 are maintained for about a year. A significant part of the energy comes from the recombination of hydrogen. The color of the explosion is extremely red and the events bear some similarity to “luminous red novae,” but have much lower speeds.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9d5f058565c33987c4f79a5727c29598be0057fd

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

An Embedded X-Ray Source Shines through the Aspherical AT 2018cow: Revealing the Inner Workings of the Most Luminous Fast-evolving Optical Transients (2018, background): “…(2018) showed that the failed explosion of a blue supergiant star (Må≈ 25Me; Rå≈ 70–150 Re), originating from the neutrino-induced mass loss that follows the formation of the NS (Nadezhin 1980; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013; Piro 2013; Coughlin et al. 2018), results in the shock-driven ejection of M0.”
A simple approach to the supernova progenitor–explosion connection (2016, background): “…of the gravitational mass of the interior shells by neutrino losses could lead to the (partial) ejection of the hydrogen envelope (Nadezhin 1980; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013), so that the helium core mass may be the more appropriate estimator for the black hole mass (Sukhbold & Woosley 2014).”
Pre-supernova outbursts via wave heating in massive stars – I. Red supergiants (2017, methodology): “In this paper, we examine wave heating effects in otherwise ‘typical’ MZAMS = 15 M red supergiants (RSGs) that may give rise to Type II-P, II-L or IIn SNe depending on the impact of wave heating.”
CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE FROM 9 TO 120 SOLAR MASSES BASED ON NEUTRINO-POWERED EXPLOSIONS (2015, background): “If so, faint, red SNe may be a diagnostic of typical BH formation in massive stars (Lovegrove & Woosley 2013; Kochanek 2014, E. Lovegrove & S. E. Woosley 2015, in preparation).”
Most Black Holes Are Born Very Slowly Rotating (2019, background): “When core-collapse explosion fails and a BH is formed, the sudden loss of mass from radiated neutinos generates a weak shock that can still unbind the hydrodgen envelope of the star (Nadezhin 1980; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013).”
The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: confirmation of a disappearing star (2016, methodology): “The transient is broadly consistent with the failed SN models of Lovegrove & Woosley (2013), although the data on the optical transient are limited.”
THE LANDSCAPE OF THE NEUTRINO MECHANISM OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE: NEUTRON STAR AND BLACK HOLE MASS FUNCTIONS, EXPLOSION ENERGIES, AND NICKEL YIELDS (2014, methodology): “For such cases, a classical supernova explosion would not occurr and the possible observable transient would be much weaker and fainter (Nadezhin 1980; Kochanek et al. 2008; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013; Piro 2013).”
The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: first candidates (2014, background): “Our last set of criteria is designed to identify the failed SN signature identified by Lovegrove & Woosley (2013) for red supergiant progenitors.”
THE REMARKABLE DEATHS OF 9–11 SOLAR MASS STARS (2015, background): “Similar low energy Type II supernovae have been considered by Lovegrove & Woosley (2013), albeit with a different central energy source.”
Observational Constraints on the Progenitors of Core-Collapse Supernovae: The Case for Missing High-Mass Stars (2015, background): “As the dynamical timescale of a star of red supergiant dimensions is of the order of a year, these failed SNe may give rise to faint, long-lived red transients as proposed by Lovegrove & Woosley (2013).”
Constraints from Gravitational-wave Detections of Binary Black Hole Mergers on the 12C(α, γ)16O Rate (2020, background): “The envelope of the star may then respond to the change in the gravitational potential, generating a weak shock that unbinds material with binding energies less than10 erg47 (Nadezhin 1980; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013; Fernández et al. 2018).”
OBSERVING THE NEXT GALACTIC SUPERNOVA (2013, methodology): “The Lovegrove & Woosley (2013) simulations show a peak of order 106L but may not adequately resolve the thin surface layer.”
Measuring the Progenitor Masses and Dense Circumstellar Material of Type II Supernovae (2017, background): “They might eject their hydrogen envelope in a low-energy explosion (as described by Nadezhin 1980, Lovegrove & Woosley 2013, Piro 2013, and Lovegrove et al. 2017, and as potentially observed by Adams et al. 2017) rather than a typical SN.”
Rates of compact object coalescences (2021, background): “…tightly bound, and is unlikely to be ejected during the stellar collapse as would be the case for population I and II supergiants (Nadezhin, 1980; Lovegrove and Woosley, 2013; Fernández et al., 2018) allowing the star to retain most of its mass (Kinugawa et al., 2021), akin to chemically…”
A High-resolution Study of Presupernova Core Structure (2017, background): “The envelope might also be lost to a very weak explosion that did not unbind the helium core (Quataert & Shiode 2012; Fuller 2017; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013).”
Delay-time distribution of core-collapse supernovae with late events resulting from binary interaction (2017, background): “This possibly leads to fainter explosions (e.g., O’Connor & Ott 2011; Ugliano et al. 2012; Nadezhin 1980; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013; Piro 2013), or even the simple disappearance of a star without any electromagnetic signature (e.g., Kochanek et al. 2008).”
Pulsational Pair-instability Supernovae (2016, background): “Given how loosely bound the envelope is, getting it to collapse might prove difficult (Weinberg & Quataert 2008; Lovegrove & Woosley 2013), but this cannot be ruled out.”