The two promising scenarios to explode core collapse supernovae

Abstract

I compare to each other what I consider to be the two most promising scenarios to explode core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe). Both are based on the negative jet feedback mechanism (JFM). In the jittering jets scenario a collapsing core of a single slowly-rotating star can launch jets. The accretion disk or belt (a sub-Keplerian accretion flow concentrated toward the equatorial plane) that launches the jets is intermittent with varying directions of the axis. Instabilities, such as the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), lead to stochastic angular momentum variations that allow the formation of the intermittent accretion disk/belt. According to this scenario no failed CCSNe exist. According to the fixed axis scenario, the core of the progenitor star must be spun up during its late evolutionary phases, and hence all CCSNe are descendants of strongly interacting binary systems, most likely through a common envelope evolution (whether the companion survives or not). Due to the strong binary interaction, the axis of the accretion disk that is formed around the newly born neutron star has a more or less fixed direction. According to the fixed axis scenario, accretion disk/belt are not formed around the newly born neutron star of single stars; they rather end in failed CCSNe. I also raise the possibility that the jittering jets scenario operates for progenitors with initial mass of 8M ⊙ M ZAMS 18M ⊙ , while the fixed axis scenario operates for M ZAMS 18M ⊙ . For the first time these two scenarios are compared to each other, as well as to some aspects of neutrino-driven explosion mechanism. These new comparisons further suggest that the JFM plays a major role in exploding massive stars.

Explaining the morphology of supernova remnant (SNR) 1987A with the jittering jets explosion mechanism

“…We end this study by reiterating our earlier call (e.g. Papish et al 2015b;Soker 2017;Bear et al 2017), but this time more loudly, for a paradigm shift from neutrinodriven explosion to a jet-driven explosion of CCSNe.…”

“…2). As shown by Soker (2017) instabilities alone in the frame of the neutrino-driven explosion cannot account for this structure. Jets are required.…”

“…However, instabilities alone are not sufficient and a large scale asymmetrical outflow must take place, as Orlando et al (2016) argued for Cassiopeia A. By performing a detailed examination of the numerical simulations and the observations, Soker (2017) further concluded that the delayed neutrino mechanism cannot account for the asymmetrical elements distributions in 1 Department of Physics, Technion -Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel; ealealbh@gmail.com; soker@physics.technion.ac.il 2 Guangdong Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Shantou, Guangdong Province, China SN 1987A and in Cassiopeia A, and that jets can better explain the observations.…”

The strongly interacting binary scenarios of the enigmatic supernova iPTF14hls

“…Some call it a 'failed supernova'. But if it eventually explodes it cannot be a 'failed CCSN' (Soker 2017a). We accept the scenario that suggest where such a CCSN occurs when the pre-collapse core is rapidly rotating.…”

Reviving the stalled shock by jittering jets in core collapse supernovae: jets from the standing accretion shock instability

“…It seems that neutrino heating does play a role in the jittering jets explosion mechanism by keeping the outflowing gas hot, and by that supplying more energy to the bipolar outflow (Soker 2019). We then extended the model to include super-energetic (or super luminous) CCSNe that are exploded by the more general jet feedback mechanism (Gilkis et al 2016;Soker 2017; for a review see Soker 2016). There is mounting observational evidence from the morphological features of some supernova remnants and from polarizations of some CCSNe that jets play a role in many, and possibly in most, CCSNe (e.g., Wang et al 2001;Maund et al 2007;Lopez et al 2011;Milisavljevic et al 2013;González-Casanova et al 2014; 1 Department of Physics, Technion -Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel; soker@physics.technion.ac.il 2 Guangdong Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Shantou 515069, Guangdong Province, China Margutti et al 2014;Inserra et al 2016;Mauerhan et al 2017;Bear et al 2017;García et al 2017;Lopez & Fesen 2018).…”