PoS(NIC X)119 , ad , Marco ab http://pos.sissa.it/ , Michael Bennett ac ac ce. nt the results of the first three- n to a , including the nergy source the failure of a nor- significantly from the axisymmetric , Aimee Hungerford s important consequences for the nu- onal Laboratory, Los Alamos, ds to those of hypernovae. Calculating ategies in post-process nucleosynthesis; adg sity, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA atory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA , Patrick Young tre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA ab , and Francis X. Timmes ahc ive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licen , Raphael Hirschi ad f , Christopher L. Fryer ab ∗ , Falk Herwig aeb , Georgios Magkotsios adh [email protected] Speaker. subsequent accretion and explosion. The explosion differs dimensional simulation of the collapse of a massivescenario obtained dow in two-dimensional simulations;cleosynthetic this yields. ha We compare the nucleosynthetic yiel mal and the formation of a black hole. Here we prese yields from three-dimensional explosions requires new str we discuss NuGrid’s plan for three-dimensional yields. The “collapsar” engine for gamma-ray bursts invokes as its e ∗ Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creat c Gabriel Rockefeller Nucleosynthetic Yields from “Collapsars”

Pignatari Steven Diehl Astrophysics Group, Keele University, ST5 5BG,Theoretical UK Astrophysics (T-6), Los Alamos National Labor Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Victoria,IPMU, BC, University V8W of 3P6, Tokyo, Canada Kashiwa, ChibaJoint 277-8582, Institute Japan for Nuclear Astrophysics, University of No E-mail: 10th Symposium on Nuclei in theJuly Cosmos 27 - August 1 2008 Mackinac Island, Michigan, USA NM 87545, USA School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State Univer The NuGrid Collaboration Computational Physics and Methods (CCS-2), Los Alamos Nati f e c g h a b d PoS(NIC X)119 he pos- Gabriel Rockefeller 5 s after collapse) through gh two-dimensional simu- . xplosion after it collapsed down apsar calculation. Convection along st-rotating silicon layer. Viscous 4 s and 0 on energies and yields. In the limit o the axis of rotation of the star) [6]. wer a relativistic jet and an energetic . metallicities as high as 1/100th solar. uration gamma-ray bursts; it invokes for the formation of gamma-ray burst he first three-dimensional simulations ntly rapidly. This model, known as the ties in the disk lead to matter ejection and gnificantly from the jet-driven explosions rgy, it does not have the bipolar asymmetry that r momentum transport, ultimately drives a strong 2 star evolved at zero metallicity, so it experienced low ⊙ are believed to collapse directly to black holes [7]. T ⊙ Two slices through the x-z plane of a three-dimensional coll But what happens if the magnetic dynamo does not work? Althou Woosley [1] argued that a failed supernova could produce an e Without mass loss, 60 M the plane of rotation, driven by viscousexplosion. heating Although from angula the explosion is -like in ene to a black hole, if“collapsar” the model, collapsing has star become were the rotating standarda sufficie model magnetic dynamo for in long-d the black holestellar accretion explosion, disk referred [2, to 3] as to a po hypernova. we have assumed for collapsars. 1. Explosions from the Collapse of Massive Stars hypernova-like explosions [6]. These explosions differthat si Woosley first envisioned. Figure 1 shows two slices (at 0 lations showed that clean disks developed,jets which [4, were 5], ideal theory predicted aof much the more evolution chaotic of system. a collapsar, In we t have found that instabili Figure 1: the x-z plane from one suchThe simulation progenitor (where of the z this axis explosion is is als a 60 M Collapsars mass loss; the final fate of suchThe a star star would collapses be to similar even aheating at black drives convection hole, and and ultimately an a explosion. disk forms from the fa 2. Yields from Collapsars sible outcomes of this scenario cover a wide range of explosi PoS(NIC X)119 Gabriel Rockefeller stars differentiate between stable ⊙ - and 35M ⊙ 6.29E-06 7.66E-06 2.12E-15 1.94E-04 8.86E-06 1.89E-13 6.60E-12 1.06E-05 1.35E-05 3.43E-03 2.00E-04 2.15E-10 5.89E-04 1.59E-03 1.00E-01 1.07E-03 1.34E-10 1.31E-21 7.58E-06 2.86E-16 1.00E-01 1.02E-03 3.24E-04 3.06E-04 CL35 [9] 1.70E-02 2.07E-06 1.54E-06 1.56E-09 1.03E-05 7.22E-14 3.96E-15 2.13E-19 1.05E-07 1.03E-05 1.02E-06 4.13E-08 ) whereas our explosion is the yield at the time of 3 - - - star compared to other low-metallicity calculations in the ) ⊙ ⊙ 1.42E-04 9.31E-05 1.67E-12 5.09E-04 2.55E-06 5.46E-13 2.83E-13 4.63E-05 6.06E-06 2.03E-03 3.15E-05 1.72E-12 1.86E-05 1.63E-05 2.34E-01 4.77E-03 4.52E-12 3.86E-13 8.70E-04 2.34E-01 4.77E-03 1.79E-03 8.49E-03 1.20E-02 4.78E-07 7.46E-08 4.75E-07 3.95E-04 6.72E-14 6.72E-14 3.69E-08 3.95E-04 9.07E-06 3.80E-05 star [9]. The 50M Tom50B [8] ⊙ Yields (M - - - 3.61E-01 7.35E-03 2.76E-03 1.31E-02 2.18E-04 1.43E-04 6.72E-12 3.13E-03 4.87E-05 6.61E-12 2.87E-05 2.51E-05 3.61E-01 7.35E-03 1.53E-11 1.11E-12 1.34E-03 1.56E-13 6.31E-08 6.08E-04 1.40E-05 5.85E-05 7.84E-04 3.93E-06 1.45E-12 1.14E-12 7.13E-05 9.36E-06 1.87E-02 1.72E-06 2.29E-07 7.31E-07 6.08E-04 2.66E-13 Tom50A [8] stars [8] and a 35M ⊙ 4.64E-08 4.74E-02 4.55E-04 2.32E-02 2.42E-03 4.43E-06 9.44E-04 4.93E-04 1.78E-05 1.21E-06 6.28E-05 1.42E-06 4.35E-04 7.15E-05 3.47E-06 1.68E-04 1.04E-04 6.58E-07 1.35E-04 5.04E-08 9.23E-05 8.86E-06 4.89E-08 9.09E-08 9.86E-08 2.93E-05 6.42E-08 5.06E-07 3.12E-05 4.07E-02 3.80E-07 2.85E-06 3.88E-09 5.86E-08 4.20E-09 4.21E-08 1.56E-09 Rock1 [6] Yields from our explosion of a 60M Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Fe Co Co Ni Ni Cr Mn Fe Fe Fe Fe V V Cr Cr Cr Ti Ti Ti Ti Ti Ca Ca Ca Sc Ti Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca 58 60 61 62 64 60 59 60 56 57 54 55 54 56 57 58 50 51 50 52 53 46 47 48 49 50 46 47 48 45 44 41 42 43 44 45 Species 40 Table 1: Collapsars literature: two 50 M isotopes (that include the decay products into that isotope the explosion. PoS(NIC X)119 es), Ni than either 56 Gabriel Rockefeller ons are driving explo- effects: different explosion derably less NSPH code [10] to model the Ni as the standard nucleosyn- n only a few other features. The pcoming telescopes. The lower 56 s is to determine the effect such explosions drop dramatically; this ibute noticeably to the abundances ng code to each of these particles to ity and temperature evolution of each hree-dimensional simulation to those plosion. At high neutron number, the han has been previously thought. in those calculations. At the edges of from the hypernova results is not too the yields from standard nuclear yield raction of stars formed that have such s (SPH) points covering the entire star. rrors and to present a set of results in- ould produce no explosion whatsoever. oduce a hypernova [8]. The nucleosyn- r in low-metallicity stars (i.e., stars with rk produces more of these isotopes. yield” simulations, imply that massive s high redshift limit, coupled to our low rk [11]. t of 2.8, very few stars have sufficiently sions [9]. Our explosion is slightly less networks (interestingly, network uncer- s with these older yield results. Models y neglecting fallback [12], which leads to s point in time). Our NuGrid collaboration 4 ) that can only be expected in rapidly-rotating models 000 particles that burned into iron-peak elements. The ⊙ , Ti than our explosion; this is likely due to the larger mass 250 44 ∼ Ni abundance is very helpful in producing bright light-curv 56 Ni. In addition, standard nucleosynthetic yield calculati 56 Ni abundance (a large 56 To carry out our three-dimensional simulation, we used the S The results in table 1 show that our explosion produced consi The differences in the yields can be attributed to a number of There is a wealth of information in table 1, but here we mentio Will such explosions be observable? Will their yields contr At the other extreme, the collapsethetic of a yields rotating of star these could hypernovae pr arestudies not [9]. too In different this from section,of we hypernovae compare and the “standard-yield” yields explosions from (table 1). our t evolution of over 2.5 million smoothFor particle this hydrodynamic paper, we consider only the Collapsars where the progenitor star is non-rotating, such a collapse w Lagrangian nature of SPH allows usparticle to easily as extract a the function dens ofobtain time. its nucleosynthetic We yield apply using a a post-process 524-element burni netwo means that this typeyields of from explosion this will explosion, not comparedstars be have to even detected earlier less by “standard- impact on any the u global abundance pattern t mechanisms, different progenitors, andtainties different are nuclear probably bigger than rateis uncertainties studying at thi each of these effects systematically to reduce e assumptions have on the integrated yields. hypernova calculations produce more of high-entropy material produced in theamounts more of focused elements jet in ex theis hypernova probably and an standard artifact supernova ofnetworks, the the smaller yields nuclear are networks not used very reliable. Our larger netwo 3. Implications such as our collapsars or in hypernovae. One of NuGrid’s goal of isotopes in the universe? These explosionsmetallicities will only less occu than 1/100th solar).low metallicities Figure as 2 a function shows of thelow metallicities redshift. f to Below produce a the redshif explosions wesimulated observe. Thi the hypernova calculations [8] or the standard-yield explo energetic than the hypernova explosions, so the difference surprising. However, the fact that we do not produce as much using piston-driven explosions artificially ejectoverproduction matter of b thetic yield calculations highlights one of the major issue sions in massive stars (i.e., stars above 20 M PoS(NIC X)119 ⊙ , solar , ApJ, , L5 , 405 , ApJ, losions 599 608 , ApJ, , ApJ, lack holes Gabriel Rockefeller ⊙ , 891 640 , astro-ph/0608028 , 516 660 , ApJ, Axisymmetric , 413 also revised how we manage data, 522 r Gamma-Ray Bursts 003, , ApJ, kefeller, F. X. Timmes, B. Voit, C. Meakin, , ApJ, redshifts. (a requirement for the direct collapse of 60M drops off precipitously at a redshift of 2.8, so we ⊙ , 292 SNSPH: A Parallel Three-dimensional Smoothed 5 643 Supernova Nucleosynthesis in Population III 13-15 M 1 million particle simulations. Hyperaccreting Black Holes and Gamma-Ray Bursts Gamma-ray bursts as the death throes of massive binary , ApJ, > Collapsars in Three Dimensions Collapsars: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Uncertainties in Supernova Yields. I. One-Dimensional Exp Explosive Yields of Massive Stars from Z=0 to Z=Z , 262 Gamma-ray bursts from stellar mass accretion disks around b Constraints on the Progenitor of 524 Mass Limits for Black Hole Formation , L83 , ApJ, 395 , 1033 664 Fraction of stars with metallicities below 0.01Z , ApJ, , 356 , 273 K. A. Eriksen 2006, ApJ, Particle Radiation Hydrodynamics Code Stars and Abundance Patterns of Extremely Metal-poor Stars Supernovae” Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of the Collapsar Model fo stars 518 405 [8] N. Tominaga, H. Umeda, K. Nomoto 2007, [7] C. L. Fryer 1999, [9] A. Chieffi, M. Limongi 2004, [5] D. Proga, A. I. MacFadyen, P. J. Armitage, M. C. Begelman 2 [6] G. Rockefeller, C. L. Fryer, H. Li 2008, [3] R. Popham, S. E. Woosley, C. Fryer 1999, [1] S. E. Woosley 1993, [4] A. I. MacFadyen, S. E. Woosley 1999, [2] R. Narayan, B. Paczynski, T. Piran 1992, [12] P. A. Young, C. L. Fryer 2007, [11] P. A. Young, C. L. Fryer, A. Hungerford, D. Arnett, G. Roc [10] C. L. Fryer, G. Rockefeller, M. S. Warren 2006, stars to black holes) as ado function not of expect redshift. the explosions The simulated fraction here to occur at lower cluding error bars causedintroducing by new current data formats uncertainties. to deal We will have References Figure 2: Collapsars