Gravitational-wave signals from 3D supernova simulations with different neutrino-transport methods

Abstract

We compare gravitational-wave (GW) signals from eight three-dimensional simulations of core-collapse supernovae, using two different progenitors with zero-age main sequence masses of 9 and 20 solar masses (M⊙). The collapse of each progenitor was simulated four times, at two different grid resolutions and with two different neutrino transport methods, using the Aenus-Alcar code. The main goal of this study is to assess the validity of recent concerns that the so-called “Ray-by-Ray+” (RbR+) approximation is problematic in core-collapse simulations and can adversely affect theoretical GW predictions. Therefore, signals from simulations using RbR+ are compared to signals from corresponding simulations using a fully multidimensional (FMD) transport scheme. The 9M⊙ progenitor successfully explodes, whereas the 20M⊙ model does not. Both the standing accretion shock instability and hot-bubble convection develop in the postshock layer of the non-exploding models. In the exploding models, neutrino-driven convection in the postshock flow is established around 100 ms after core bounce and lasts until the onset of shock revival. We can, therefore, judge the impact of the numerical resolution and neutrino transport under all conditions typically seen in non-rotating core-collapse simulations. We find excellent qualitative agreement in all GW features. We find minor quantitative differences between simulations, but find no systematic differences between simulations using different transport schemes. Resolution-dependent differences in the hydrodynamic behaviour of low-resolution and high-resolution models have a greater impact on the GW signals than consequences of the different transport methods. Furthermore, increasing the resolution decreases the discrepancies between models with different neutrino transport.

Pulsational pair-instability supernovae: gravitational collapse, black-hole formation, and beyond

“…Our GW signals exhibit all of the well known features found in most other modern 2D and 3D CCSN simulations published over the past two decades (e.g., Müller et al 2004;Murphy et al 2009;Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Yakunin et al 2015;Kuroda et al 2016;Kuroda et al 2017;Morozova et al 2018;Radice et al 2019;Mezzacappa et al 2020;Shibagaki et al 2021;Pan et al 2018Pan et al , 2021Andresen et al 2017Andresen et al , 2019Andresen et al , 2021Powell & Müller 2019;Powell et al 2021;Jardine et al 2021). In the following we compare some 16)) is performed.…”

Gravitational Lensing of Core Collapse Supernova Gravitational Wave Signals

“…Over the last decade, various multidimensional CCSN simulations have revealed a multitude of information about different processes responsible for the emission of photons, neutrinos, and GWs (e.g., Dimmelmeier et al 2008;Scheidegger et al 2008Scheidegger et al , 2010Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Yakunin et al 2015;Andresen et al 2017;Morozova et al 2018;Radice et al 2019;Andresen et al 2019;Powell & Müller 2020;Warren et al 2020;Vartanyan & Burrows 2020;Andresen et al 2021). Unlike chirp signal from merging binaries, the GW signal emitted in CCSN is broadband in nature covering a frequency range of ∼(5Hz, 1500Hz).…”

Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Stellar Core-Collapse Events

“…We have begun to see convergences in the predictions of CCSNe GW signals [40,42,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60], but the details of GWs emitted by CCSNe are stochastic and exhibit a large degree of variation. To ensure that our results are robust and represent the variation inherent to supernova GWs, we include a large set of theoretical signal predictions from numerical simulations.…”

“…From Andresen et al [59] we select the two models s9-FMD-H and s20-FMD-H. The 9 M model, s9-FMD-H, exhibits a low accretion rate onto the PNS and primarily emits at frequencies above 300 Hz with some lowfrequency GW emission.…”