TOWARD REALISTIC PROGENITORS OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE

By W. Arnett, C. Meakin. 2011

153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamical simulations of progenitor evolution of a 23 M☉ star, close to core collapse (in ∼1 hr in one dimension (1D)), with simultaneously active C, Ne, O, and Si burning shells, are presented and contrasted to existing 1D models (which are forced to be quasi-static). Pronounced asymmetries and strong dynamical interactions between shells are seen in 2D. Although instigated by turbulence, the dynamic behavior proceeds to sufficiently large amplitudes that it couples to the nuclear burning. Dramatic growth of low-order modes is seen as well as large deviations from spherical symmetry in the burning shells. The vigorous dynamics is more violent than that seen in earlier burning stages in the three-dimensional (3D) simulations of a single cell in the oxygen burning shell, or in 2D simulations not including an active Si shell. Linear perturbative analysis does not capture the chaotic behavior of turbulence (e.g., strange attractors such as that discovered by Lorenz), and therefore badly underestimates the vigor of the instability. The limitations of 1D and 2D models are discussed in detail. The 2D models, although flawed geometrically, represent a more realistic treatment of the relevant dynamics than existing 1D models, and present a dramatically different view of the stages of evolution prior to collapse. Implications for interpretation of SN1987A, abundances in young supernova remnants, pre-collapse outbursts, progenitor structure, neutron star kicks, and fallback are outlined. While 2D simulations provide new qualitative insight, fully 3D simulations are needed for a quantitative understanding of this stage of stellar evolution. The necessary properties of such simulations are delineated.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a818930c9032454a6451fcb89821458ec43adbe5

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

Citations in the corpus

THE ROLE OF TURBULENCE IN NEUTRINO-DRIVEN CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS (2014, background): “…expected from multidimensional simulations of precollapse nuclear shell burning in core-collapse supernova progenitors (e.g., Meakin & Arnett 2007; Arnett & Meakin 2011; Couch et al. 2014), can trigger explosion in a 3D model that otherwise fails to explode with spherically-symmetric initial…”
PREPARING FOR AN EXPLOSION: HYDRODYNAMIC INSTABILITIES AND TURBULENCE IN PRESUPERNOVAE (2013, methodology): “Arnett & Meakin (2011b) show that this dynamic behavior is similar to that generated in the Lorenz (1963) model of a convective roll, well known in meteorology and dynamic systems theory.”
Measuring the Progenitor Masses and Dense Circumstellar Material of Type II Supernovae (2017, background): “There have been a number of theoretical studies on how to generate pre-explosion outbursts: Yoon & Cantiello (2010), Arnett & Meakin (2011), Quataert & Shiode (2012), Shiode & Quataert (2014), Smith & Arnett (2014), Moriya & Langer (2015), Woosley & Heger (2015), and Quataert et al. (2016), and…”
The Unprecedented Third Outburst of SN 2009ip: A Luminous Blue Variable Becomes a Supernova (2012, background): “Alternatively, explosive nuclear flashes associated with oxygen or silicon burning can potentially occur near the time of core collapse (Woosley et al. 1973; Smith et al. 2011), perhaps driven by fluctuations in turbulent kinetic energy (Arnett & Meakin 2011).”
Neutron Star Kicks by the Gravitational Tug-boat Mechanism in Asymmetric Supernova Explosions: Progenitor and Explosion Dependence (2016, background): “…and density perturbations in the convective oxygen and silicon burning shells are likely to have an effect on the asymmetry of the SN explosion (e.g. Arnett & Meakin 2011; Couch & Ott 2013; Couch et al. 2015; Müller & Janka 2015; Chatzopoulos et al. 2016; Müller et al. 2016b; Müller 2016).”
REVIVAL OF THE STALLED CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA SHOCK TRIGGERED BY PRECOLLAPSE ASPHERICITY IN THE PROGENITOR STAR (2013, methodology): “The nonradial momentum-preserving velocity perturbations that we considered here have spatial frequency and Mach numbers comparable to what is expected from 2D Si/O burning simulations (Bazan & Arnett 1998; Arnett & Meakin 2011).”
THE LANDSCAPE OF THE NEUTRINO MECHANISM OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE: NEUTRON STAR AND BLACK HOLE MASS FUNCTIONS, EXPLOSION ENERGIES, AND NICKEL YIELDS (2014, background): “It is worth emphasizing that the density drops in supernova progenitors might be more pronounced both in spherical average and in individual directions as a result of unstable convective burning just before the collapse (Arnett & Meakin 2011).”
The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models (2016, background): “…suggestion that shock re- vival may be facilitated by strong seed perturbations from prior convective shell burning in the infalling O or Si shells (Arnett & Meakin 2011; Couch & Ott 2013; Müller & Janka 2015; Couch et al. 2015; Müller et al. 2016a); and we shall also discuss some other…”
Non-Radial Instabilities and Progenitor Asphericities in Core-Collapse Supernovae (2014, background): “…& Arnett 1994, 1998; Asida & Arnett 2000; Meakin & Arnett 2007b,a; Arnett & Meakin 2011), and those covering large 2D wedges (Meakin & Arnett 2006, 2007a; Arnett & Meakin 2011) or the full solid angle in 3D (Kuhlen, Woosley & Glatzmaier 2003) show that large-scale modes indeed dominate the flow.”
Wave‐driven mass loss in the last year of stellar evolution: setting the stage for the most luminous core‐collapse supernovae (2012, background): “For example, Arnett & Meakin (2011) find convective luminosities and Mach numbers comparable to those given in Table 1 for shell O fusion during the hour prior to core collapse.”
Pre-supernova outbursts via wave heating in massive stars – I. Red supergiants (2017, background): “In a series of papers (Meakin & Arnett 2006, 2007a,b; Arnett, Meakin & Young 2008; Arnett & Meakin 2011; Smith & Arnett 2014; Cristini et al. 2016), Meakin, Arnett and collaborators have investigated the properties of convection during late-phase (carbon shell burning and beyond) nuclear burning.”
IS STRONG SASI ACTIVITY THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL NEUTRINO-DRIVEN SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS? (2011, methodology): “Or is strong SASI activity in the supernova core triggered by large-scale inhomogeneities in the three-dimensional progenitor star (Arnett & Meakin 2011), which could provide a more efficient seed for SASI growth than the random cellto-cell small-amplitude perturbations employed in our simulations?”
Three-dimensional simulations of core-collapse supernovae: from shock revival to shock breakout (2014, background): “Hence, we ignored the possible existence of larger-scale and larger-amplitude inhomogeneities in the progenitor core before the onset of the collapse, which may arise due to vigorous convection during pre-collapse oxygen and/or silicon burning (Arnett & Meakin 2011).”