scholarly journals Core-Collapse Supernova Explosion Mechanism Studies on NIF

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Plewa ◽  
T Handy
2019 ◽  
Vol 491 (4) ◽  
pp. 5376-5391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E Gossan ◽  
Jim Fuller ◽  
Luke F Roberts

ABSTRACT Our understanding of the core-collapse supernova explosion mechanism is incomplete. While the favoured scenario is delayed revival of the stalled shock by neutrino heating, it is difficult to reliably compute explosion outcomes and energies, which depend sensitively on the complex radiation hydrodynamics of the post-shock region. The dynamics of the (non-)explosion depend sensitively on how energy is transported from inside and near the proto-neutron star (PNS) to material just behind the supernova shock. Although most of the PNS energy is lost in the form of neutrinos, hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic waves can also carry energy from the PNS to the shock. We show that gravity waves excited by core PNS convection can couple with outgoing acoustic waves that present an appreciable source of energy and pressure in the post-shock region. Using one-dimensional simulations, we estimate the gravity wave energy flux excited by PNS convection and the fraction of this energy transmitted upwards to the post-shock region as acoustic waves. We find wave energy fluxes near $10^{51}\, \mathrm{erg}\, \mathrm{s}^{-1}\,$ are likely to persist for $\sim \! 1\, \mathrm{s}$ post-bounce. The wave pressure on the shock may exceed $10{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the thermal pressure, potentially contributing to shock revival and, subsequently, a successful and energetic explosion. We also discuss how future simulations can better capture the effects of waves, and more accurately quantify wave heating rates.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (S279) ◽  
pp. 397-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yudai Suwa

AbstractWe present two-dimensional numerical simulations of core-collapse supernova including multi-energy neutrino radiative transfer. We aim to examine the influence of the equation of state (EOS) for the dense nuclear matter. We employ four sets of EOSs, namely, those by Lattimer and Swesty (LS) and Shen et al., which became standard EOSs in the core-collapse supernova community. We reconfirm that not every EOS produces an explosion in spherical symmetry, which is consistent with previous works. In two-dimensional simulations, we find that the structure of the accretion flow is significantly different between LS EOS and Shen EOS, inducing an even qualitatively different evolution of the shock wave, namely, the LS EOS leads to shock propagation beyond 2000 km from the center, while the Shen EOS shows only oscillations within 500 km. The possible origins of the difference are discussed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (S329) ◽  
pp. 17-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Müller

AbstractThe explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae is a long-standing problem in stellar astrophysics. We briefly outline the main contenders for a solution and review recent efforts to model core-collapse supernova explosions by means of multi-dimensional simulations. Focusing on the neutrino-driven mechanism, we summarize currents efforts to predict supernova explosion and remnant properties.


2020 ◽  
Vol 641 ◽  
pp. A177 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Meza ◽  
J. P. Anderson

Context. The mass of synthesised radioactive material is an important power source for all supernova (SN) types. In addition, the difference of 56Ni yields statistics are relevant to constrain progenitor paths and explosion mechanisms. Aims. Here, we re-estimate the nucleosynthetic yields of 56Ni for a well-observed and well-defined sample of stripped-envelope SNe (SE-SNe) in a uniform manner. This allows us to investigate whether the observed hydrogen-rich–stripped-envelope (SN II–SE SN) 56Ni separation is due to real differences between these SN types or because of systematic errors in the estimation methods. Methods. We compiled a sample of well-observed SE-SNe and measured 56Ni masses through three different methods proposed in the literature: first, the classic “Arnett rule”; second the more recent prescription of Khatami & Kasen (2019, ApJ, 878, 56) and third using the tail luminostiy to provide lower limit 56Ni masses. These SE-SN distributions were then compared to those compiled in this article. Results. Arnett’s rule, as previously shown, gives 56Ni masses for SE-SNe that are considerably higher than SNe II. While for the distributions calculated using both the Khatami & Kasen (2019, ApJ, 878, 56) prescription and Tail 56Ni masses are offset to lower values than “Arnett values”, their 56Ni distributions are still statistically higher than that of SNe II. Our results are strongly driven by a lack of SE-SN with low 56Ni masses, that are, in addition, strictly lower limits. The lowest SE-SN 56Ni mass in our sample is of 0.015 M⊙, below which are more than 25% of SNe II. Conclusions. We conclude that there exist real, intrinsic differences in the mass of synthesised radioactive material between SNe II and SE-SNe (types IIb, Ib, and Ic). Any proposed current or future CC SN progenitor scenario and explosion mechanism must be able to explain why and how such differences arise or outline a bias in current SN samples yet to be fully explored.


2018 ◽  
Vol 482 (1) ◽  
pp. 351-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Vartanyan ◽  
Adam Burrows ◽  
David Radice ◽  
M Aaron Skinner ◽  
Joshua Dolence

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (08n10) ◽  
pp. 1483-1490 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. STROTHER ◽  
W. BAUER

Motivated by the success of kinetic theory in the description of observables in intermediate and high energy heavy-ion collisions, we use kinetic theory to model the dynamics of core collapse supernovae. The specific way that we employ kinetic theory to solve the relevant transport equations allows us to explicitly model the propagation of neutrinos and a full ensemble of nuclei and treat neutrino–matter interactions in a very general way. With these abilities, our simulations have observed dynamics that may prove to be an entirely new neutrino capture induced supernova explosion mechanism.


2009 ◽  
Vol 703 (1) ◽  
pp. L81-L85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dae-Sik Moon ◽  
Bon-Chul Koo ◽  
Ho-Gyu Lee ◽  
Keith Matthews ◽  
Jae-Joon Lee ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document