Grazie Mille!
Axions & the AGB-CCSNe mass transition Inma Domínguez Granada Univ., Spain Maurizio Giannotti, Barry Univ., FL USA Alessandro Mirizzi, Bari Univ. & INFN-Bari, Italy Oscar Straniero, INAF-OAA & INFN-LNGS, Italy Axions at the crossroads: QCD, dark matter, astrophysics ECT Trento, November 20-24, 2017
Initial Mass Stellar evolution Stellar Mass Mup 8 M M CCSNe 10 M Low & Intermediate Mass stars IFMR H-burning of WDs He-burning SNIa (AGB phase) rates CO core CO WD in binary systems SNIa +C-burning ECSNe rate semi-generate (Super-AGB) ONe core ONe WD ECSNe NS Massive stars + C-burning non-degenerate + Ne Minimum burning mass O-burning of CCSNe Si-burning progenitors Fe core CCSNe (SNIIP, IIL, Ib, Ic ) NS,BH
Stars could be excellent laboratories for particle physics Astrophysical observational evidences of extra-energy sink in stars Next generation of ALP experimental searches, ALPSII & IAXO, will look in the range of astrophysical constraints
ALPs are produced & escape Energy sink modify stellar evolution modify observational properties Identify good observational properties to constraint ALP models Precission Uncertainties
Our approach Assume that axions (DFSZ) exist with the current most restrictive limits for their coupling constants: g 10 0.66 GeV -1 ge 13 4.3 Ayala+ 14, Straniero+16 CAST collaboration 2017 Isern+ 2008, Miller Bertolami+2014, Viaux+2013 Include Primakoff, Compton & Bremsstrahlung axion production processes in stellar evolution FUNS stellar evolution code Straniero+ 06, Cristallo+09,11 Axion rates from Nakawaga+ 1987, 1988; Raffelt & Dearborn 1987, Raffelt & Weiss, 1995, Raffelt 1996 Updated by us Explore axion impact on Mup (the minimum mass that experiences carbon burning)
Axions processes & rates Compton Bremsstrahlung non degenerate (ND) Raffelt & Dearborn 1987 Raffelt & Weiss 1995 Raffelt 1996 Nakawaga et al.1987, 1988 (revised by us) Bremsstrahlung Degenerate (D) Weak coupling < 1 Primakoff ND & D axi = comp + brem + prim
H-burning shell He-burning shell Masses close to Mup @AGB phase Degenerate CO core that cools (neutrino emission) and contracts He shell burning (He C O) increases CO core mass Inward penetration of the convective envelope (2nd D-up) STOPS CO core growth He intershell H-rich convective envelope Schematic structure of an AGB star (not to scale) C-ignition? depends on & T which depend on CO core mass C-O core from John Lattanzio Flash-driven intershell convection Dredge-up M co 1.1M Becker & Iben 1979
Infuence on Mup, g 10 = 0.7 GeV -1 ge 13 =4.3 Mup from 7.5 to 9.2 M ( Mup= +1.7 M ) Mass of the CO core C-ignition Central conditions, & T 7.5 M no axions M CO 1.07 M C-Ignition 7.5 M axions M CO 0.94 M NO C-Ignition 9.0 M axions M CO 1.14 M No C-Ignition 9.2 M axions M CO 1.18 M C-Ignition
Why? Inward penetration of the convective envelope, that halts the growth of the CO core, is anticipated in models with axions due to energy losses (Comp. + Prim.) within the He-shell 7.5M see Domínguez, Straniero & Isern 1999 2nd-Dup Inward penetration Conv.Envelope T He-shell Comp + Prim He-shell No axions Axions M CO 1.07M 0.94M CO-core t-eagb 222300 yr 77600 yr
Axions: C-ignition & burning 9.0 M (1.14M CO core cools) & 9.2 M (1.18M C-burning) log (E) erg/g/s vs mass coordinate He-shell burning Axions Nuclear Neutrinos Axions Axions Nuclear Nuclear Neutrinos Neutrinos C-burning conv. shell He-shell burning He-shell burning C-burning C-burning
Axion processes 9.0 M (M CO 1.14M ) log (E) erg/g/s vs mass coordinate time 9.0 M Brem. Comp Prim
Observational constraints related to Mup? High mass end of the Initial-Final Mass Relation Minimum progenitor mass of CCSNe
High mass end of the semi-empirical Initial-Final Mass Relation (IFMR) IFMR CO WDs 1.2 M SNIa rate Axions No axions Prompt/Young SNIa Mup Mup only Prim. overshooting axions Courtesy of Jordi Isern (Catalán, Isern, García-Berro & Ribas, 2008)
Minimum mass of SNIIP progenitors Axion Mup Smartt, 2015 Observations (semi-empirical): Best fit for the Min. Mass: 9.5 ( 2/+0.5) M Smartt, 2015 7.5 (-0.2/+0.3) M Davies & Beasor, 2017 Standard Models (SNIIP): 10 M Doherty + 2015 9.25 M 8 M Conservative!! Poelarends + 2008 Not much room to increase Mup or M CCSNe Not much room for axions
Summary Axions increase Mup: 7.5 9.2 M for current constraints (DFSZ) on g ae & g a (CL) due to anticipation of 2nd-Dup by Primakoff & Compton @ He-shell smaller CO core masses increase also CO core mass needed for C-ignition M CO : 1.09 1.18 M due to cooling by Compton & Primakoff @Non Degenerate CO core & Bremss@Degenerate CO core So, influence: - High mass end of the IFMR SNIa rates (OK) prompt SNIa (OK) - Minimum progenitor mass of SNIIP Not leaving much room (if any) to increase Mup!! (but theoretical & observational uncertainties)
Influence of Axions on Blue Loops 11 M 9 M 8 M Blue Loops are not supressed Friedland et al. 2013 reported BLs dissapearence for 8-12 M ga 10 = 0.88 due to speed up of central He-burning ( no Cepheids in that pulsational range ) MESA code We obtain (8-11M ): Heb 3 6 Myr Axions Heb -10%
SNIa prompt (young) component: comparing SNIa rate with DTD models Rodney+ 2014 Models with axions : progenitors with age 30Myr produce CO WDs
Astrophysical constraints & hints WD pulsation period (extra-cooling) coupling to e- g ae 5 10-13 GeV -1 Isern et al. 1992, 2010, Corsico et al. 2013 WD Luminosity Function (extra-cooling) coupling to e- g ae 4.3 10-13 GeV -1 Isern et al. 2008, Miller-Bertolami et al. 2014 Globular clusters: tip-rgb Luminosity (He-core mass increases) coupling to e- g ae 4.3 10-13 GeV -1 (95% CL) Viaux et al. 2013 Oscar s talk!! Globular clusters: R parameter g a 0.66 10-10 (95% CL) CAST collaboration 2017 see Gianotti et al. 2016 (HB life time reduced) coupling to Ayala et al. 2014, Straniero et al. 2016
Axions processes & rates DFSZ (Dine Fischler Srednicki Zhitnitsk) axion model axions couple to photons & fermions Coupling constants: g a g ae a g a 2 26 10 26 g ae 2 /4 energy loss rates ae g ae 2 Electron Compton Photons Primakoff Bremsstrahlung
Our approach Assume that axions/alps exist with the current most restrictive limits for the coupling constants (&CL): g 10 0.7 & ge 13 4.3 GeV -1 Include Primakoff, Compton & Bremsstrahlung axion production processes in stellar evolution (FUNS code) Straniero+ 2006, Cristallo+ 2009 Explore axion impact on Mup (the minimum mass that experiences carbon burning)
Mup (the minimum stellar mass that experience carbon burning) is relevant because Transition mass between WD progenitors & CCSNe progenitors - Supernova rates & DTD: Ia, ECSNe, CCSNe - Chemical evolution of galaxies - CO & ONe WD masses, IFMR - WD cooling & WD luminosity function
Which axion process is more relevant for Mup? Primakoff & Compton @ He-shell & @ ND CO core Bremsstrahlung @ Degenerate CO core Log(L_axions/L ) vs Age (Myr) 7.5 M 9.0 M
Axions: C-ignition & burning 9.0 M (cools) & 9.2 M (C-burning) Temperature structure Density structure
Minimum mass of SNIIP progenitors Axion Mup Observations: 7-10 M Models: 9-10 M Smartt, 2015 Not much room to increase Mup Not much room for axions Davies & Beasor, 2017
The CO Core Mass Core Mass at He ignition Core Mass at AGB He-core 2 nd D-up C b CO-Core Domínguez+ 1999
Why? 2nd-Dup is anticipated due to axion energy losses within the He-shell 7.5M No axions Axions M CO 1.07M 0.94M t-eagb 222300 yr 77600 yr see Domínguez, Straniero & Isern 1999 2nd-Dup Inward penetration Conv.Envelope T He-shell He-shell CO-core
1.5 M Doherty+ 2015
Infuence on Mup, g 10 = 0.7 ge 13 =4.3 GeV -1 Central conditions, & T Mup increases!! Mup= +1.7 M 7.5 M no axions M CO 1.07 M C-Ignition 7.5 M axions M CO 0.94 M NO C-Ignition 9.0 M axions M CO 1.14 M No C-Ignition 9.2 M axions M CO 1.18 M C-Ignition
Open Cluster M35 (NGC 2168) 150 Myr 175 Myr 200 Myr Williams et al. ApJ 2009
Cummings et al. ApJ 2016
Axion energy losses during central He-burning 7.5 M 9.0 M
Which axion process is more relevant for Mup? log (E) erg/g/s vs mass coordinate 9.0 M All processes M CO 1.137 M No C-ignition Brem off M CO 1.14 M NO C-ignition Comp off M CO 1.160 M C-Ignition Prim off M CO 1.164 M C-Ignition
g a & g ae both x 0.5 Mup = 0.9 M Minimum mass for C-burning REF x0.5 Mig: 9.2 8.4 M M CO : 1.179 1.106 M No Axions Mig: 7.5 M M CO : 1.07 M
No Brem No Prim All processes Mup 9.0 M M He 1.137 M Prim off 9.0 M M He 1.164 M C-Ignition Brem off 9.0 M M He 1.14 M NO C-Ignition
Testing g a & g ae g a = g a REF /2 Mup: 9.0 8.8 M MHe: 1.137 1.125 M g ae = g aeref /2 Mup: 9.0 8.7 M MHe: 1.137 1.111 M