The Collapse and Three-Dimensional Explosion of Three-Dimensional, vis à vis One-Dimensional, Massive-star Supernova Progenitor Models

Abstract

The explosion outcome and diagnostics of core-collapse supernovae depend sensitively on the nature of the stellar progenitor, but most studies to date have focused exclusively on one-dimensional, spherically-symmetric massive star progenitors. We present some of the first core-collapse supernovae simulations of three-dimensional massive star supernovae progenitors, a 12.5-and a 15-M model, evolved in three-dimensions from collapse to bounce through explosion with the radiation-hydrodynamic code Fornax. We compare the results using those starting from three-dimensional progenitors to three-dimensional simulations of spherically-symmetric, one-dimensional progenitors of the same mass. We find that the models evolved in three dimensions during the final stages of massive star evolution are more prone to explosion. The turbulence arising in these multi-dimensional initial models serve as seed turbulence that promotes shock revival. Detection of gravitational waves and neutrinos signals could reveal signatures of pre-bounce turbulence.

Efficient estimation method for time evolution of proto-neutron star mass and radius from supernova neutrino signal

“…We also note that our CCSN models employ progenitor models computed by spherically symmetric stellar evolution code (Sukhbold et al 2018). However, multi-D stellar evolution model, which is more realistic than the spherical one, is necessary, since progenitor asymmetries seem to affect both shock revival and neutrino signal (see, e.g., Couch & Ott 2013;Müller & Janka 2015;Müller et al 2017;Nagakura et al 2019b;Abdikamalov & Foglizzo 2020;Abdikamalov et al 2021;Yoshida et al 2021;Vartanyan et al 2021a). We also note that binary stellar evolution models also yield different CCSN dynamics (Suwa et al 2015;Vartanyan et al 2021b).…”

Kicks and Induced Spins of Neutron Stars at Birth

“…In Radice et al (2019) and Burrows et al (2019), we published 3D explosion models for low-mass progenitors, in Burrows et al (2020) we explored 3D supernova models for progenitors from 9.0 to 25 M , in Radice et al (2019) we presented the corresponding gravitational-wave signatures, and in Nagakura et al (2020a) we published the corresponding neutrino signatures. Furthermore, in Vartanyan et al (2019b) we explored the temporal and angular variations in those neutrino emissions, in we calculated the gravitational-wave signatures due to these time-changing and asymmetrical neutrino fluxes, in Nagakura et al (2019a) we investigated the resolution-dependence of the outcomes of 3D simulations, in Nagakura et al (2020b) we studied the character of inner PNS convection for many of these progenitor models, and in Vartanyan et al (2021) we investigated the 3D collapse of 3D initial models (Fields & Couch 2020, 2021Müller et al 2016Müller et al , 2017.…”

A Force Explosion Condition for Spherically Symmetric Core-collapse Supernovae

“…Before the iron (Fe) core collapses, it is mostly supported by electron degeneracy pressure, and once the Fe core reaches the Chandrasekhar Mass, the Fe core collapses on a dynamical timescale (∼0.1 s). This collapse is aided by electron capture and Skinner et al 2019;Steiner et al 2013;Vartanyan et al 2018b;Vartanyan et al 2021). Multi-dimensional simulations have and will always likely be important tools in understanding how and which stars explode.…”