2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2111.03094
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

"Super-Kilonovae" from Massive Collapsars as Signatures of Black-Hole Birth in the Pair-instability Mass Gap

Abstract: The core collapse of rapidly rotating massive ∼ 10M stars ("collapsars"), and resulting formation of hyper-accreting black holes, are a leading model for the central engines of long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRB) and promising sources of r-process nucleosynthesis. Here, we explore the signatures of collapsars from progenitors with extremely massive helium cores 130M above the pair-instability mass gap. While rapid collapse to a black hole likely precludes a prompt explosion in these systems, we demonstrate th… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 165 publications
(271 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The upper mass gap (UMG) It is difficult to populate the BH mass range of roughly ∼ 45M to ∼ 135M with stellar collapse because of pulsational pair instability and pair instability supernova [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. An inferred BH mass in this range could indicate a hierarchical merger scenario [27,33,48,49,75,76,79,[114][115][116] (though this can be reasonably excluded if the BH has low spin [117,118]), or stars with spin and metallicity conditions tuned to allow gravitational collapse to a BH larger than 45 M [89,119,120] (this can push the bottom of the UMG up to 85 M in the most fine-tuned stellar environments [121]), or possibly even sustained and highly efficient accretion [122,123].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The upper mass gap (UMG) It is difficult to populate the BH mass range of roughly ∼ 45M to ∼ 135M with stellar collapse because of pulsational pair instability and pair instability supernova [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. An inferred BH mass in this range could indicate a hierarchical merger scenario [27,33,48,49,75,76,79,[114][115][116] (though this can be reasonably excluded if the BH has low spin [117,118]), or stars with spin and metallicity conditions tuned to allow gravitational collapse to a BH larger than 45 M [89,119,120] (this can push the bottom of the UMG up to 85 M in the most fine-tuned stellar environments [121]), or possibly even sustained and highly efficient accretion [122,123].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The core collapse of stars which undergo PPI may not give rise to successful energetic SN explosions due to their massive Fe cores and the large gravitational binding energy of their envelopes (e.g., Powell et al 2021;Rahman et al 2021). An alternative, potentially more promising PPISN scenario for LFBOTs would therefore invoke an initially failed neutrino-driven explosion giving rise to prompt BH formation, followed by a delayed wind-driven explosion once the outer stellar layers form an accretion disk around the BH (similar to the scenario explored in Siegel et al 2021 in the context of even more massive stars above the pair-instability mass gap). This could better explain the low ejecta mass and extreme asymmetry of the ejecta (similar to the failed SNe models described above) as well as the presence of a central engine.…”
Section: Progenitor Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The core collapse of stars that undergo PPI may not give rise to successful energetic SN explosions due to their massive Fe cores and the large gravitational binding energy of their envelopes (e.g., Powell et al 2021;Rahman et al 2022). An alternative, potentially more promising PPISN scenario for LFBOTs would therefore invoke an initially failed neutrinodriven explosion giving rise to prompt BH formation, followed by a delayed wind-driven explosion once the outer stellar layers form an accretion disk around the BH (similar to the scenario explored in Siegel et al (2021) in the context of even more massive stars above the pair-instability mass gap). This could better explain the low ejecta mass and extreme asymmetry of the ejecta (similar to the failed SNe models described above) as well as the presence of a central engine.…”
Section: Progenitor Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%