Recent 2D/3D Core-Collapse Supernovae Simulations Results Obtained with the CHIMERA Code Stephen W. Bruenn bruenn@fau.edu
Core Collapse Supernovae 101 1 2 neutrinos 3 4 5 shock 6 7
Core Collapse Supernovae 101 light ejecta Neutron star or black hole neutrinos
Core Collapse Supernova Energetics Photons ~ 10 49 ergs Ejecta Kinetic energy ~ 10 50-10 52 ergs Neutrinos ~ 3x10 53 ergs
The Spherically Symmetric Cul de Sac Matter Flow Neutrino flow Shock _ e + n p + e - e + p n + e + _ e + n p + e - e + p n + e + Protoneutron Star Gain Radius -Spheres Cooling Heating
Core Collapse Supernova γ Asymmetries Polarization Core collapse SN are polarized at ~1% level Degree of polarization increases with decreasing envelope mass Degree of polarization generally increases after optical maximum Outward mixing of Ni in SN1987 A & Cas A Axisymmetric ejecta of SN1987A Early Emission of x-rays and gamma-rays from SN1987A
The Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism: A Computational Challenge Inherently multi-dimensional Variety of complex physical processes that need to be accurately modeled Extremely nonlinear with many feedbacks Explosions are marginal
Core-Collapse Supernova Mechanisms Magnetic Field Mechanism Burrows, Dessart, Livne, Ott, & Murphy, ApJ, 644, 416, 2007 (2D RMHD) Shibata Liu, Shapiro, & Stephens, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104026 (2D MHD, High res) Dessart, Burrows, Livne, & Ott, ApJ, 669, 585, 2007 (2D RMHD) Sawai, Kotake, & Yamada, ApJ, 672, 465, 2008 (2D MHD, offset dipole) Mikami, Sato, Matsumoto, & Hanawa, ApJ, 683, 357, 2008 (3D MHD, rotated dipole) Acoustic Mechansim Burrows, Livne, Dessart, Ott, & Murphy, ApJ, 640, 878, 2007; ApJ, 655, 416, 2007 Neutrino Transport Mechanism Buras, Janka, Rampp, & Kifonidis, A&A, 447, 1049, 2006; A&A 457, 281, 2006 (2D ray-by-ray plus) Bruenn, Dirk, Mezzacappa, Hayes, Blondin, Hix, Messer, SciDAC 2006 (2D ray-by-ray plus) Ott, Burrows, Dessart, & Livne, Ap. J. 685, 1069, 2008 (MGFLD, SN, isoenergetic)
Magnetic Field Mechanism Taps free energy of differential rotation T rot =4 ( κi ) ( M 0.3 1.4M Predicted rotational rates of newly formed neutron stars 3-15 ms (Heger, Woosley & Spruit, 2005) Extrapolated periods of newly formed pulsars Crab: 21 ms PSR J0537-6910 10 ms PSR B0540-69 39 ms PSR B1509-58 20 ms )( R 10 km ) 2 ( Prot 2ms ) 2 B 1 B = 10 51 ergs Problem: Need rapid rotation (not observed or predicted)
Acoustic Mechanism Anisotropic accretion onto inner core over time excites core g-modes Core eigenmodes (mainly L = 1) grow to large amplitudes and radiate sound Sound pulses steepen into shocks and deposit energy and momentum in the shocked mantle powering an explosion Problem: Occurs late (many hundreds of milliseconds to seconds post bounce), and only one group has seen it
Neutrino Transport Mechanism Matter Flow Neutrino flow Shock _ e + n p + e - e + p n + e + _ e + n p + e - e + p n + e + Protoneutron Star Gain Radius -Spheres Cooling Heating
Onset of Neutrino Driven Convection shock matter gain radius convection -sphere neutrinos Cooling Heating
Onset of Neutrino Driven Convection (12 MO Progenitor) 40 ms 60 ms 80 ms 100 ms 120 ms t (advective)/t (convective) 4 3 2 1 Ratio of Advective to Convective Growth Timescales W-H 12 Solar Mass Progenitor 40 ms postbunce 60 ms postbounce 80 ms postbounce 100 ms postbounce 120 ms postbounce 0 3 2 Polar Angle 1 0
The Standing Accretion Shock Inatability (SASI) shock matter gain radius SASI convection -sphere neutrinos Cooling Heating
Nuclear Reactions Gravity Solver CHIMERA Code 1D, 2D, and 3D Neutrino Transport Hydrodynamics Equation of State
Multi-D Hydro with Radial Ray Transport
CHIMERA Collaboration Stephen W. Bruenn Florida Atlantic U. Code Architect, Neutrino Transport Anthony Mezzacappa Oak Ridge National Lab Project Leader & Science Advisor John M. Blondin North Carolina State 2D & 3D Hydro W. Raph Hix Oak Ridge National Lab Nuclear Physics & Nuclear Network O. E. Bronson Messer Oak Ridge National Lab Systems Advisor, Data Management Pedro Marronette Florida Atlantic U. Gravity, Elliptic Solvers, GR Waves Konstantin Yakunin Florida Atlantic U. Gravity, Elliptic Solvers, GR Waves Charlotte Dirk Florida Atlantic U. Visualization Ross Toedte Oak Ridge National Lab Visualization
Progenitor Series A suite of progenitor masses (12,15, 20, and 25 MO). ( Woosley and Heger, 2007 PhR) (ongoing) Progenitors of given mass evolved with different equations of state (planned) Progenitors of given mass evolved by different groups (planned) Progenitors of given mass with different rotational profiles (planned)
Progenitor Structure 1x10 11 1x10 10 1x10 9 1x10 8 1x10 7 Progenitor vs enclosed mass Woosley-Heger 12 Woosley-Heger 15 Woosley-Heger 20 Woosley-Heger 25 1x10 6 1x10 5 1x10 4 1x10 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Enclosed Mass [M O ].
20 MO 2D Simulation 256x256
15 MO 2D Simulation 512x256
Supernova Connections Nucleosynthesis Neutron Stars Supernovae Black Holes Neutrino Signatures Gravitational Waves
Explosion Energy vs Initial MS Mass Explosion Energy versus Progenitor Mass Wossley-Heger 12, 15, 20, 25 Solar Mass Nonrotating Progenitors; 256 x 256 Spatial Resolution 0.8 Explosion Energy [B] 0.6 0.4 0.2 W-H 12 solar mass progenitor W-H 15 solar mass progenitor W-H 20 solar mass progenitor W-H 25 solar mass progenitor 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Time from bounce [s]
Sources of the Explosion Energy Explosion Energy [B] 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Explosion Energy as a Function of Post-Bounce Time W-H 20 Solar Mass Progenitor Explosion energy pdv work on ejected mass Energy advection into ejected mass Nuclear recombination of ejected mass Neutrino energy deposition in ejected mass 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time from bounce [s]
Progenitor Fe Core, Neutron Star, and 56 Ni Masses Progenitor 1 Fe Core 1 N Star 1 N Star 2 56 Ni 1 12 MO 1.31 1.46 1.31 0.028 15 MO 1.42 1.57 1.42 < 0.01 20 MO 1.59 1.84 1.61 < 0.01 25 MO 1.71 1.87 1.63 0.077 1 Rest mass 2 Gravitational mass
Why Are We Getting Explosions? Dimensional Effects: Convection driven by neutrino heating SASI (Standing Accretion Shock Instability) Improved neutrino rates Energy deposition by nuclear reactions
Dimensional and Neutrino Rate Effects Shock Radii vs Time from Bounce W-H 15 Solar Mass Progenitor; Effect of Dimensionality and Neutrino Rates Shock Radius [km] 8000 6000 4000 2000 2D, complete nu-rates, mean radius 2D, complete nu-rates, mas radius 2D, complete nu-rates, min radius 2D, reduced nu-rates, mean radius 2D, reduced nu-rates, max radius 2D, reduced nu-rates, min radius 1D, complete nu-rates 1D, reduced nu_rates 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Time from Bounce [s]
Role of the SASI 1E+26 1E+25 1E+24 1E+23 1E+22 1E+21 1E+20 1E+19 1E+18 1E+17 1E+16 1E+15 1E+14 1E+13 1E+12 1E+11 1E+10 1E+9 1E+8 15 M O Woosley-Heger. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 Time from bounce [s] Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Neutrinospheres Neutrinospheres Heating Cooling Protoneutron Star e s _ e s _ μ s,_ μ s, s, s, e -sphere _ e -sphere μ & -sphere
Lagrangian Tracer Particles for Nucleosynthesis 4000-8000 Lagrangian tracer particles in each model (Lee & Hix) Records thermodynamic state and spectral neutrino history along its trajectory Each tracer particle can be post-processed by a full nuclear network
Core-Collapse Supernova Nucleosynthesis Radius Infall Shock -process Intermediate mass elements Shock ejection Iron-Peak elements Neutrinos p-process Heating Wind r-process Cooling Time
15 MO Lagrangian and Shock Trajectories Ni O Si n, p Ne, Mg He O
-p Process Inclusion of neutrino interactions during nucleosynthesis opens up a new chain of nuclear reactions Fröhlich, Martínez-Pinedo, Liebendörfer, Thielemann, Bravo, Hix, Langake, Zinner, PRL, 96, 142502, 2006 Pruet, Hoffman, Woosley, Janka, Buras, ApJ, 644, 1028, 2006 Neutrino absorption on proton rich material creates residual neutron abundance [ ν e +p n+e + ] Neutron captures on proton-rich seeds bypasses the 64 Ge bottleneck IPMU - Focus Week on Messengers of Supernova Explosions, November 17-21
Neutrinos and Nucleosynthesis Despite the perceived importance of neutrinos to the core collapse mechanism, models of the nucleosynthesis have largely ignored this important effect. Nucleosynthesis from parameterized neutrino-powered supernova models show several notable improvements. Elemental abundances of Sc, Cu & Zn closer to those observed in metalpoor stars. Fröhlich, (2006) Over production of neutron-rich iron and nickel (A~62) reduced. Potential source of light p-process nuclei ( 76 Se, 80 Kr, 84 Sr, 92,94 Mo, 96,98 Ru) by the p-process.
CHIMERA Nucleosynthesis With successful, selfconsistent supernova models, we can make better predictions of the nuclear composition and begin to use nucleosynthesis to constrain our models. Lee (PhD 2008) Our preliminary postprocessing results also show proton-rich ejecta and p-process (dotted lines), but more weakly than previous results. However, strength of the p-process depends on the expansion rate, which is extrapolated in these preliminary calculations.
Dimensional Effects on Neutrino Luminosities 70 60 15 M O Woosley-Heger. 50 40 30 _ e e _ x x 20 10 0 1D 2D 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Time from Bounce [s]
Dimensional Effects on Neutrino rms Energies 25 15 M O Woosley-Heger. 20 15 10 _ e e _ x x 5 0 1D 2D 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Time from Bounce [s]
Magnetic Gravitational Wave Emission Source Bounce Ω Fe core < 1 1.5 rad s 1 Bounce 1 2 rad s 1 < Ω Fe core < 6 13 rad s 1 Bounce 6 13 rad s 1 < Ω Fe core Amplitude at 10 kpc Core bounce dominated bynuclear pressure Small peak GW s h max < 5 10 22 Core bounce dominated bynuclear pressure Sizable peak GW s 5 10 22 < h max < 2 10 20 Slow core bounce dominated by centrifugal forces Longer duration 3.5 10 21 < h max < 7.5 10 21 Rot instability at Ω Fe core < (Ω sec, Ω dyn ) 1 10 21 < h max < 5 10 21 Prompt Convection 1 10 22 < h max < 6 10 22 Acoustic PNS Convection Neutrino Driven Convection Protoneutron Star g-mode Pulsations Ω Fe core 5 10 2 rad s 1 1 10 23 < h max < 5 10 23 1 10 23 < h max < 1 10 22 1 10 21 < h max < 5 10 20 Heger, Woosley, Spruit Progenitor (ApJ, 626, 350, 2005) Ott, C. D. arxiv:0809.0695v2; Dimmelmeier, J. A. et al. Phys. Rev. D., 78, 064056; Ott, C. D. Muller, E. et al. ApJ, 603, 221, 2004; Ott, C. D. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201102; Marek, A.,; Fryer C. L. ApJ 609, 288, 2004; Fryer, C. L. ApJ Lett. 601, L175, 2004.
Gravitaional Waves from the CHIMERA Models
Gravitaional Waves from the CHIMERA Models
3D 15 MO. Model Simulation 304 nonuniformly spaced radial zones out to 2000 km 78 evenly spaced angular zones from 0 to 180 degrees 156 evenly spaced azimuthal zones from 0 to 360 degrees 4 neutrino flavors, 20 energy zones from 4 to 400 MEV for each flavor Requires 11,552 processors
3D 15 MO. Model Simulation
3D 15 MO. Model Simulation
Status of the Neutrino Transport Model Arizona-Israeli Group Munich Group Oak-Ridge-FAU- NCState Group No explosions Explosions at late times for some models Explosions at earlier times for 12-25 MO 2D MGFLD Transport No energy exchanging neutrino interactions Newtonian Hydro Ray-by-ray plus VEF Transport Approximate GR hydro etc.... Ray-by-ray plus MGFLD Transport Approximate GR hydro etc....
Conclusions 2D simulations with spectral neutrino transport exhibit explosions for each of the Woosley-Heger 12, 15, 20, & 25 solar mass models. 3D simulation in progress. However, comparisons of the 2D simulations with other groups have yet to show a convergence of results. But what about neutrino-neutrino flavor changing interactions????
Work in Progress Investigate the observables of the exploding models---nucleosynthesis, neutrino and gravitational wave signatures, neutron star masses and kick velocities Use a singularity-free grid Incorporate magnetic fields Incorporate flavor changing reactions Deploy Genasis
The End bruenn@fau.edu physics.fau.edu/~bruenn