DOCSLIB.ORG

Modeling Hyperenergetic and Superluminous Supernovae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modeling Hyperenergetic and Superluminous Supernovae Modeling hyperenergetic and superluminous supernovae Philipp Mösta Einstein fellow @ UC Berkeley [email protected] Roland Haas, Goni Halevi, Christian Ott, Sherwood Richers, Luke Roberts, Erik Schnetter BlueWaters symposium 2017 May 17, 2017 Astrophysics of core-collapse supernovae M82/Chandra/NASA ~ Galaxy evolution/feedback Heavy element nucleosynthesis Birth sites of black holes / neutron stars 2 Neutrinos New era of transient science • Current (PTF, DeCAM, ASAS-SN) and upcoming wide-field time domain astronomy (ZTF, LSST, …) -> wealth of data • adv LIGO / gravitational waves detected • Computational tools at dawn of new exascale era Image: PTF/ZTF/COO Image: LSST 3 New era of transient science • Current (PTF, DeCAM, ASAS-SN) and upcoming wide-field time domain astronomy (ZTF, LSST, …) -> wealth of data • adv LIGO / gravitational waves detected • Computational tools at dawn of new exascale era Transformative years ahead for our understanding of these events Image: PTF/ZTF/COO Image: LSST 4 Hypernovae & GRBs • 11 long GRB – core-collapse supernova associations. • All GRB-SNe are stripped envelope, show outflows v~0.1c • But not all stripped-envelope supernovae come with GRBs • Trace low metallicity and low redshift Neutrino mechanism is inefficient; can’t deliver a hypernova 5 Superluminous supernovae Some events: stripped envelope no interaction 45 Elum ~ 10 erg 52 Erad up to 10 erg Gal-Yam+12 6 Superluminous / hyperenergetic supernovae SLSN Ic lGRBs SN Ic-bl Common engine? 7 Core collapse basics Iron core Protoneutron star r~30km Nuclear equation of state 2000km stiffens at nuclear density Inner core (~0.5 M ) -> protoneutron star + shockwave 8 Core collapse basics Iron core Protoneutron star r~30km Nuclear equation of state 2000km stiffens at nuclear density Inner core (~0.5 M ) -> protoneutron star + shockwave Reviews: Bethe’90 Janka+‘12 L⌫ Outer core accretes onto shock & protoneutron accretion star with O(1) M /s shock Shock stalls at ~ 100 km 9 Core collapse basics Iron core Protoneutron star r~30km Nuclear equation of state 2000km stiffens at nuclear density Inner core (~0.5 M ) -> protoneutron star + shockwave Reviews: Bethe’90 Janka+‘12 L⌫ Core-collapse accretion supernova problem: shock How to revive the shockwave? 10 Magnetorotational mechanism [LeBlanc & Wilson ‘70, Bisnovatyi-Kogan ’70, Obergaulinger+’06, Burrows+ ‘07, Takiwaki & Kotake ‘11, Winteler+ 12] Rapid Rotation + B-field amplification (need magnetorotational instability [MRI]; difficult to resolve, but see, e.g, Obergaulinger+’09, PM+15) 2D: Energetic bipolar explosions Energy in rotation up to 1052 erg Results in ms-period proto-magnetar 11 Burrows+’07 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics 12 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics General Relativity Gravity 13 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics General Relativity Gravity Nuclear EOS, nuclear Nuclear and Neutrino Physics reactions & ν interactions 14 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics General Relativity Gravity Nuclear EOS, nuclear Nuclear and Neutrino Physics reactions & ν interactions Boltzmann Transport Theory Neutrino transport 15 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics General Relativity Gravity Nuclear EOS, nuclear Nuclear and Neutrino Physics reactions & ν interactions Fully coupled! Boltzmann Transport Theory Neutrino transport All four forces! 16 A multiphysics challenge Magneto-Hydrodynamics Gas/plasma dynamics General Relativity Gravity Nuclear EOS, nuclear Nuclear and Neutrino Physics reactions & ν interactions Fully coupled! Boltzmann Transport Theory Neutrino transport All four forces! Additional Complication: Core-Collapse Supernovae are 3D • rotation • fluid and MHD instabilities, multi-D structure, spatial scales Need 21st century tools: • cutting edge numerical algorithms • sophisticated open-source software infrastructure • peta/exa scale computers 17 http://einsteintoolkit.org 18 3D Volume Visualization of Entropy PM, Richers+ 14 19 How do we form magnetars? Magnetorotational Mechanism Big uncertainty so far: How do we get the magnetic field amplification? 21 Burrows+’07 First global 3D MHD turbulence simulations • 10 billion grid points (Millenium simulation used 10 billion particles) • 130 thousand cores on Blue Waters • 2 weeks wall time • 60 million compute hours • 10000 more expensive than any previous simulations Does the MRI efficiently build up PM+ 15 Nature dynamically relevant global field? 22 3D magnetic field structure dx=500m dx=200m dx=100m dx=50m 23 PM+ 15 Nature 24 PM+ 15 Nature Growth at Large Scales 7 ( 2.05 + 0.75 ms 1 (t t )) 1033 − − · − map · 32 (t t )/t 6 5 10 e − map , t = 3.5 ms k ·= 4 ] 5 k = 6 erg k = 8 33 4 k = 10 10 )[ k = 20 t ( 3 k = 50 k = 100 ,mag k 2 E 1 0 5 10 t t [ms] − map saturation within 60ms 25 PM+ 15 Nature Global Field Structure PM+ 15 Nature dx=500m dx=50m t=0ms t=10ms t=10ms 26 PM+ 15 Nature Global Field Structure PM+ 15 Nature dx=500m dx=50m Magnetar formation? t=0ms t=10ms t=10ms 27 PM+ 15 Nature R-process nucleosynthesis in magnetar-driven explosions Neutron-rich nucleosynthesis in supernovae Creating the heaviest elements Jet-driven explosions proposed as site for r- process • Low electron fraction • Medium entropy • Low density • High temperature 29 Sneden+ 08 R-process - Basics PM, Roberts, Halevi+ 17 (in prep) Halevi, PM+ 17 (in prep) 30 R-process in jet-driven supernovae Winteler+12 31 Nishimura+15 R-process in jet-driven supernovae B = 1013 G / octant 32 Halevi, PM 17 (in prep) R-process in jet-driven supernovae 100 12 2 B = 10 G / octant 10− 4 10− ] 6 10− M [ 8 10− ejecta 10 10− = M L 0 51 12 L = 10 erg/s 10− L = 1052 erg/s 10 14 − L = 1053 erg/s 16 10− 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 mass number A B = 1012 G full 3D 100 2 10− 4 10− ] 6 10− M [ 8 10− ejecta 10 10− = M L 0 51 12 L = 10 erg/s 33 10− L = 1052 erg/s 10 14 − L = 1053 erg/s 16 10− 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 PM, Roberts, Halevi+ 17 (in prep) mass number A 3) From simulations to observations From simulations to observations Full star State of the art now: Detailed simulations full physics Full 3D, full physics 0.1-1s inner core ~10000km Current frontier: 1) Engine model from full-physics simulations 2) Simplified simulations with engine model to shock breakout 35 PM, Tchekhovskoy 17 (in prep) From simulations to observations State of the art now: Future: Detailed simulations Full-star simulations full physics 0.1-1s full physics inner core ~10000km shock breakout Current frontier: 1) Engine model from detailed light curves full-physics simulations detailed spectra 2) Simplified simulations with engine model to connect observations and shock breakout engines map progenitor params 36 Summary New (hyperenergetic/superluminous) transients challenge our engine models Need detailed massively parallel 3D GRMHD simulations to interpret observational data Magnetoturbulence and large-scale dynamo action create conditions for magnetar engine Robust r-process elements only from iron cores that were magnetized strongly precollapse High-performance computing and BlueWaters key to solving these puzzles 37 Thank you! 38 Core-collapse supernovae neutrinos turbulence (Binary) black holes accretion disks EM counterparts Magnetic~ fields in high-energy astro Binary neutron stars Extreme core-collapse hyperenergetic gravitational waves superluminous EM counterparts lGRBs 39 sGRBs Core-collapse supernovae neutrinos turbulence (Binary) black holes accretion disks EM counterparts Magnetic~ fields in high-energy astro Binary neutron stars Extreme core-collapse hyperenergetic gravitational waves superluminous EM counterparts lGRBs 40 sGRBs MRI 41 MRI Basics MC Mi Mo 42 MRI Basics • Weak field instability • Requires negative angular velocity gradient • Can build up magnetic field exponentially fast • Extensively researched in accretion disks: ability to modulate angular momentum transport and grow large scale field 43 What’s the situation in core-collapse? Stability criterion: d⌦2 8⌦2 < !2 + r < 0 − BV dr [Balbus&Hawley 91,98, Akiyama+03, Obergaulinger+09] 44 Magnetorotational Mechanism M. Obergaulinger et al.: MRI in core collapse supernovae 259 • MRI works locally Akiyama+03, Shibata+06 • shearing box simulations z 13 3 Fig. 22. Volume rendered magnetic field strength of a model with b0 = 4 10 Gcomputedinaboxof1 2 1km with a resolution of 20 m at t = 21.5ms(left)andt = 37.2ms(right), respectively. The coordinate directions× are indicated as in Fig. 19×. × Obergaulinger+09max term avge term log Mϖφ / Mϖφ log Mϖφ / Mϖφ the weakest initial field, because the theoretical growth rate for 1 the fastest growing MRI mode is σMRI = 1.14 ms− for these models (see Sect. 4.2.1). 0 0.75 1.50 2.25 3 −0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 To investigate the stability properties of large-scale channel modes as a function of the box geometry, we simulated mod- els with an initially uniform magnetic field using boxes of dif- ferent size and shape. The models were rotating according to 1 Ω0 = But1900 s− and whatαΩ = 1.25, and about their initial magnetic global field? z 13 − field was b = 4 10 Gwhenapplyingvelocitydamping z 0 × z 13 / L boundaries, and b = 2 10 Gotherwise.Wevariedboth φ 0 × 1 the ratio between the radial and vertical, Lϖ/Lz,andtheradial 45 log L and toroidal size, Lφ/Lϖ,sizeofthebox.Thegridresolution Burrows+’07 max term was 20 m (see Table B.3). Plotting the stress ratios Mϖφ /Mϖφ (Fig. 23;dampingboundaries)and M /Mterm (Fig. 24;non- ⟨ ϖφ⟩ ϖφ damping boundaries) as a function of the aspect ratio of the com- putational box, provides some indication of the range of Mϖφ values prevailing during the post-growth phase. The ratios al- low one to distinguish models with a strong variability due to 1 1 the dominant re-appearance of channel modes from those mod- log Lϖ / Lz log Lϖ / Lz els exhibiting a smooth evolutionwithoutdominantlarge-scale Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • R-Process Elements from Magnetorotational Hypernovae
    r-Process elements from magnetorotational hypernovae D. Yong1,2*, C. Kobayashi3,2, G. S. Da Costa1,2, M. S. Bessell1, A. Chiti4, A. Frebel4, K. Lind5, A. D. Mackey1,2, T. Nordlander1,2, M. Asplund6, A. R. Casey7,2, A. F. Marino8, S. J. Murphy9,1 & B. P. Schmidt1 1Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia 2ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia 3Centre for Astrophysics Research, Department of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK 4Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 5Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, AlbaNova University Center, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 6Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85741 Garching, Germany 7School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia 8Istituto NaZionale di Astrofisica - Osservatorio Astronomico di Arcetri, Largo Enrico Fermi, 5, 50125, Firenze, Italy 9School of Science, The University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia Neutron-star mergers were recently confirmed as sites of rapid-neutron-capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis1–3. However, in Galactic chemical evolution models, neutron-star mergers alone cannot reproduce the observed element abundance patterns of extremely metal-poor stars, which indicates the existence of other sites of r-process nucleosynthesis4–6. These sites may be investigated by studying the element abundance patterns of chemically primitive stars in the halo of the Milky Way, because these objects retain the nucleosynthetic signatures of the earliest generation of stars7–13.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 22 Neutron Stars and Black Holes Units of Chapter 22 22.1 Neutron Stars 22.2 Pulsars 22.3 Xxneutron-Star Binaries: X-Ray Bursters
    Chapter 22 Neutron Stars and Black Holes Units of Chapter 22 22.1 Neutron Stars 22.2 Pulsars 22.3 XXNeutron-Star Binaries: X-ray bursters [Look at the slides and the pictures in your book, but I won’t test you on this in detail, and we may skip altogether in class.] 22.4 Gamma-Ray Bursts 22.5 Black Holes 22.6 XXEinstein’s Theories of Relativity Special Relativity 22.7 Space Travel Near Black Holes 22.8 Observational Evidence for Black Holes Tests of General Relativity Gravity Waves: A New Window on the Universe Neutron Stars and Pulsars (sec. 22.1, 2 in textbook) 22.1 Neutron Stars According to models for stellar explosions: After a carbon detonation supernova (white dwarf in binary), little or nothing remains of the original star. After a core collapse supernova, part of the core may survive. It is very dense—as dense as an atomic nucleus—and is called a neutron star. [Recall that during core collapse the iron core (ashes of previous fusion reactions) is disintegrated into protons and neutrons, the protons combine with the surrounding electrons to make more neutrons, so the core becomes pure neutron matter. Because of this, core collapse can be halted if the core’s mass is between 1.4 (the Chandrasekhar limit) and about 3-4 solar masses, by neutron degeneracy.] What do you get if the core mass is less than 1.4 solar masses? Greater than 3-4 solar masses? 22.1 Neutron Stars Neutron stars, although they have 1–3 solar masses, are so dense that they are very small.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Gravitational Waves
    Astronomy group seminar, University of Southampton, Jan 2015 LIGO-DCC G1500072 1. Gravitational wave (GW) background What are gravitational waves? • Gravitational waves are a direct prediction of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity • Solutions to (weak field) Einstein equations in vacuum are wave equations 휕2 − + 훻2 ℎ휇휈 = −16휋푇휇휈 휕푡 2 Vacuum so stress- energy tensor 2 휕 푇휇휈 = 0 − + 훻2 ℎ휇휈 = 0 휕푡 2 휇휈 휇휈 휇 ℎ = 퐴 exp 푘휇 푥 • “Ripples in space-time” What are GWs? • Einstein first predicted GWs in 1916 paper • This had a major error – the waves carried no energy! Einstein, “Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation“, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1916 What are GWs? • Corrected in 1918 paper which introduced the now famous “quadrupole formula” Einstein, “Über Gravitationswellen“, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918 What are GWs Source: Bulk Motion Oscillating Tidal Field Observer Detects Produces Changing Tidal Field Propagates (Unobstructed) Distortion Strain to Observer 푙 + Δ푙 푙 Δ푙 Strain: ℎ = 푙 2 퐺 mass quadruple Quadrupole ℎ(푡) = 퐼( 푡) formula: 푟 푐4 -45 source distance (1/r - ~ 8x10 small number! amplitude not power!) What are GWs? For two 1.4 M⊙ neutron stars 2 퐺 mass near coalescence at a distance of ℎ(푡) = 퐼( 푡) quadruple 10 Mpc ℎ~1.4 × 10−22 푟 푐4 -45 Displacement measured by 4km long ~ 8x10 detector ~5.6 × 10−19m - about 1/10000th source distance (1/r - amplitude not power!) diameter of a proton, or measuring change in distance to α Centauri to ~1/10th diameter of a human hair! • Detectable gravitational waves (GWs) will only come from the most massive and energetic systems in the universe e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Engines and Environment of Superluminous Supernovae
    Central Engines and Environment of Superluminous Supernovae Blinnikov S.I.1;2;3 1 NIC Kurchatov Inst. ITEP, Moscow 2 SAI, MSU, Moscow 3 Kavli IPMU, Kashiwa with E.Sorokina, K.Nomoto, P. Baklanov, A.Tolstov, E.Kozyreva, M.Potashov, et al. Schloss Ringberg, 26 July 2017 First Superluminous Supernova (SLSN) is discovered in 2006 -21 1994I 1997ef 1998bw -21 -20 56 2002ap Co to 2003jd 56 2007bg -19 Fe 2007bi -20 -18 -19 -17 -16 -18 Absolute magnitude -15 -17 -14 -13 -16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -20 0 20 40 60 Epoch (days) Superluminous SN of type II Superluminous SN of type I SN2006gy used to be the most luminous SN in 2006, but not now. Now many SNe are discovered even more luminous. The number of Superluminous Supernovae (SLSNe) discovered is growing. The models explaining those events with the minimum energy budget involve multiple ejections of mass in presupernova stars. Mass loss and build-up of envelopes around massive stars are generic features of stellar evolution. Normally, those envelopes are rather diluted, and they do not change significantly the light produced in the majority of supernovae. 2 SLSNe are not equal to Hypernovae Hypernovae are not extremely luminous, but they have high kinetic energy of explosion. Afterglow of GRB130702A with bumps interpreted as a hypernova. Alina Volnova, et al. 2017. Multicolour modelling of SN 2013dx associated with GRB130702A. MNRAS 467, 3500. 3 Our models of LC with STELLA E ≈ 35 foe. First year light ∼ 0:03 foe while for SLSNe it is an order of magnitude larger.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Nucleosynthesis in GRB Jets Accompanied by Hypernovae
    SLAC-PUB-12126 astro-ph/0601111 September 2006 Explosive Nucleosynthesis in GRB Jets Accompanied by Hypernovae Shigehiro Nagataki1,2, Akira Mizuta3, Katsuhiko Sato4,5 ABSTRACT Two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations are performed to investigate ex- plosive nucleosynthesis in a collapsar using the model of MacFadyen and Woosley (1999). It is shown that 56Ni is not produced in the jet of the collapsar suffi- ciently to explain the observed amount of a hypernova when the duration of the explosion is ∼10 sec, which is considered to be the typical timescale of explosion in the collapsar model. Even though a considerable amount of 56Ni is synthesized if all explosion energy is deposited initially, the opening angles of the jets become too wide to realize highly relativistic outflows and gamma-ray bursts in such a case. From these results, it is concluded that the origin of 56Ni in hypernovae associated with GRBs is not the explosive nucleosynthesis in the jet. We consider that the idea that the origin is the explosive nucleosynthesis in the accretion disk is more promising. We also show that the explosion becomes bi-polar naturally due to the effect of the deformed progenitor. This fact suggests that the 56Ni synthesized in the accretion disk and conveyed as outflows are blown along to the rotation axis, which will explain the line features of SN 1998bw and double peaked line features of SN 2003jd. Some fraction of the gamma-ray lines from 56Ni decays in the jet will appear without losing their energies because the jet becomes optically thin before a considerable amount of 56Ni decays as long as the jet is a relativistic flow, which may be observed as relativistically Lorentz boosted line profiles in future.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations of Crab Nebula and Pulsar with VERITAS
    University of California Los Angeles Observations of Crab Nebula and Pulsar with VERITAS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Physics by Ozlem¨ C¸elik 2008 c Copyright by Ozlem¨ C¸elik 2008 The dissertation of Ozlem¨ C¸elik is approved. Katsushi Arisaka Ferdinand Coroniti Kevin McKeegan Ren´eOng, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2008 ii To my parents . for their endless love and support at all times. iii Table of Contents 1 Gamma-Ray Astronomy ........................ 1 1.1 Introduction.............................. 1 1.2 GammaRays ............................. 2 1.3 MotivationsforGamma-RayAstronomy . 4 1.4 Gamma-RayDetectors ........................ 6 1.4.1 Space-BasedDetectors . 6 1.4.2 Ground-basedDetectors . 12 1.4.3 AlternativeDetectors. 16 1.5 Gamma-RaySources ......................... 16 1.5.1 GalacticSources ....................... 17 1.5.2 ExtragalacticSources. 21 1.6 GuidetoThesis............................ 24 2 Pulsars and Their Nebulae ...................... 25 2.1 Birth of the PWNe Complex: Supernovae . 26 2.2 ThePulsarStar............................ 29 2.2.1 ConnectiontoNeutronStars. 29 2.2.2 CharacteristicsofPulsars . 30 2.2.3 Non-Thermal Radiation Mechanisms at Work in PWNe . 33 2.2.4 PulsedEmission. .. .. 38 2.2.5 HE Pulsed Emission Models . 40 iv 2.2.6 Predictions of HE Emission Models . 44 2.2.7 VHE gamma-ray Observations of Pulsed Emission . 50 2.3 PulsarWindNebulae......................... 52 2.3.1 RegionsinaPWN ...................... 52 2.3.2 The Central Pulsar: The Energy Source . 53 2.3.3 Pulsar Winds: Energy Transport between Pulsar and Nebula 55 2.3.4 The Wind Termination Shock . 57 2.3.5 The Nebular Emission .
    [Show full text]
  • PHYS 231 Lecture Notes – Week 7
    PHYS 231 Lecture Notes { Week 7 Reading from Maoz (2nd edition): • Sections 4.1{4.5 Again, a lot of the material presented in class this week is well covered in Maoz, and we simply reference the book, with additional comments and derivations as needed. References to slides on the web page are in the format \slidesx.y/nn," where x is week, y is lecture, and nn is slide number. 7.1 High-Mass Stars See Maoz x4.3.1 High-mass stars don't have degeneracy problems that limit their ability to burn heavier elements. As described in the text, they carbon and oxygen into neon, magnesium, silicon, and all the way up to iron. Fusion occurs principally by alpha capture (because of the lower coulomb barrier), bur C-C and other relatively low-mass reactions also occur. The process accelerates greatly as heavier and heavier elements are produced. The core of the star develops a layered structure, with shells of lighter elements surrounding a non-burning and growing nickel-iron core (see slides7.2/15,16). The star now has a new problem. Up to now, this scenario would have led to a new round of fusion in the core and a temporary restoration of stability, but not in this case. Elements in the so-called iron group (with A ≈ 56) have the largest binding energy per nucleon of all elements (see slides7.2/19). Simply put, fusing lighter elements (H, He, C, etc.) will increase the total binding energy, creating more tightly bound elements and releasing energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Burst GRB 060614
    ARTICLE Received 8 Oct 2014 | Accepted 27 Apr 2015 | Published 11 Jun 2015 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8323 OPEN A possible macronova in the late afterglow of the long–short burst GRB 060614 Bin Yang1,2, Zhi-Ping Jin1, Xiang Li1,2, Stefano Covino3, Xian-Zhong Zheng1, Kenta Hotokezaka4, Yi-Zhong Fan1,5, Tsvi Piran4 & Da-Ming Wei1 Long-duration (42s) g-ray bursts that are believed to originate from the death of massive stars are expected to be accompanied by supernovae. GRB 060614, that lasted 102 s, lacks a supernova-like emission down to very stringent limits and its physical origin is still debated. Here we report the discovery of near-infrared bump that is significantly above the regular decaying afterglow. This red bump is inconsistent with even the weakest known supernova. However, it can arise from a Li-Paczyn´ski macronova—the radioactive decay of debris following a compact binary merger. If this interpretation is correct, GRB 060614 arose from a compact binary merger rather than from the death of a massive star and it was a site of a significant production of heavy r-process elements. The significant ejected mass favours a black hole–neutron star merger but a double neutron star merger cannot be ruled out. 1 Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China. 2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yuquan Road 19, Beijing 100049, China. 3 INAF/Brera Astronomical Observatory, via Bianchi 46, I-23807 Merate, Italy. 4 Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetar Formation Through a Convective Dynamo in Protoneutron Stars Raphaël Raynaud, Jérôme Guilet, Hans-Thomas Janka, Thomas Gastine
    Magnetar formation through a convective dynamo in protoneutron stars Raphaël Raynaud, Jérôme Guilet, Hans-Thomas Janka, Thomas Gastine To cite this version: Raphaël Raynaud, Jérôme Guilet, Hans-Thomas Janka, Thomas Gastine. Magnetar formation through a convective dynamo in protoneutron stars. Science Advances , American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2020, 6 (eaay2732), 10.1126/sciadv.aay2732. hal-02428428 HAL Id: hal-02428428 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02428428 Submitted on 14 Mar 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE ASTRONOMY Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; Magnetar formation through a convective dynamo exclusive licensee American Association in protoneutron stars for the Advancement Raphaël Raynaud1*, Jérôme Guilet1, Hans-Thomas Janka2, Thomas Gastine3 of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed The release of spin-down energy by a magnetar is a promising scenario to power several classes of extreme explosive under a Creative transients. However, it lacks a firm basis because magnetar formation still represents a theoretical challenge. Using Commons Attribution the first three-dimensional simulations of a convective dynamo based on a protoneutron star interior model, we NonCommercial demonstrate that the required dipolar magnetic field can be consistently generated for sufficiently fast rotation License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).
    [Show full text]
  • The Magburst Project: Magnetar Birth As Engine of Extreme Stellar Explosions
    The MagBURST project: Magnetar birth as engine of extreme stellar explosions Jérôme Guilet (CEA Saclay) ERC MagBURST team: Alexis Reboul-Salze (2nd year PhD) Raphaël Raynaud (postdoc) Matteo Bugli (postdoc) Collaborators Thierry Foglizzo, Bruno Pagani, Anne-Cécile Buellet (CEA Saclay), Thomas Gastine (IPGP) Ewald Müller, Thomas Janka, Rémi Kazeroni (MPA Garching) Oliver Just (Riken, Tokyo), Andreas Bauswein (Heidelberg) Tomasz Rembiasz, Martin Obergaulinger, Pablo Cerda-Duran, Miguel-Angel Aloy (Valencia) My journey to magnetars Different objects but similar physical ingredients: (magneto)hydrodynamical instabilities Thèse de B. Pagani Accretion disks Normal supernovae Magnetars, hypernovae & GRBs & jets 2007 PhD 2010 postdoc 2013 postdoc 2017 ERC CEA Saclay University of Cambridge MPA Garching CEA Saclay Directeur: Thierry Foglizzo (UK) (Germany) Jérôme Guilet (DAp, CEA Saclay) – Magnetar formation & extreme explosions 2/42 Plan of the talk 1 Introduction : why and how to form magnetars ? 2 Magnetorotational instability Alexis Reboul-Salze 3 Convective dynamo Raphaël Raynaud 4 Magnetorotational explosions Matteo Bugli Jérôme Guilet (DAp, CEA Saclay) – Magnetar formation & extreme explosions 3/42 Core collapse: formation of a neutron star Massive star Hydrogen NS Helium Explosion 600 millions km Oxygen Iron ? Iron n-sphere Stalled accretion Iron 40 km 3000 km NS shock 1.4 Msol Collapse of the iron core Neutrino emission Jérôme Guilet (DAp, CEA Saclay) – Magnetar formation & extreme explosions 4/42 Core collapse supernovae: a multi-physics
    [Show full text]
  • Pos(ICRC2021)672
    ICRC 2021 THE ASTROPARTICLE PHYSICS CONFERENCE ONLINE ICRC 2021Berlin | Germany THE ASTROPARTICLE PHYSICS CONFERENCE th Berlin37 International| Germany Cosmic Ray Conference 12–23 July 2021 High-energy and very high-energy gamma-ray emission from the magnetar SGR 1900+14 outskirts PoS(ICRC2021)672 Bohdan Hnatyk,0 Roman Hnatyk,0 Valery Zhdanov0 and Vadym Voitsekhovskyi0,∗ 0Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Astronomical Observatory Observatorna st. 3, Kyiv, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] One of the unsolved problems in cosmic ray (CR) physics is the determination of sources and acceleration mechanism(s) of Galactic ( . 1018) eV and extragalactic ( & 1017 eV) CR. Ultra high energy CR (UHECR, ¡ 1018 eV) are believed to be of extragalactic origin, but some contribution from transient Galactic sources is possible. So, magnetar wind nebulae (MWNe), created by newborn millisecond magnetars, and magnetar giant flares are PeVatron candidates and even potential sources of UHECR. Promising signature of effective acceleration processes in magnetars’ neighbourhoods should be nonthermal high-energy and very high-energy W-ray emission due to pp collisions with a subsequent pion decay (hadronic scenario) and inverse Compton scattering of low energy background photons by ultrarelativistic electrons and positrons (leptonic scenario). In this work we explain the HE and VHE W-ray emission from the vicinity of the magnetar SGR 1900+14 – potential Galactic source of ¡ 1020 eV triplet – by the hadronic and leptonic emission of cosmic rays accelerated in a magnetar-related Supernova remnant (SNR) and/or MWN. To this end we have carried out a simulation of the observed HE and VHE W-ray emission, spatially coincident with the magnetar SGR 1900+14.
    [Show full text]
  • Massive Stars in Transition 3 and Carbon-Rich (WC) Stars Is Based Upon That Introduced by Smith (1968A)
    Title : will be set by the publisher Editors : will be set by the publisher EAS Publications Series, Vol. ?, 2018 MASSIVE STARS IN TRANSITION Paul A. Crowther1 Abstract. We discuss the various post-main sequence phases of massive stars, focusing on Wolf-Rayet stars, Luminous Blue Variables, plus con- nections with other early-type and late-type supergiants. End states for massive stars are also investigated, emphasising connections between Supernovae originating from core-collapse massive stars and Gamma Ray Bursts. 1 Introduction Material introduced in my article dealing with OB stars is built upon here for post-main sequence phases of massive stars, namely Wolf-Rayet stars, slash stars, Luminous Blue Variables (LBVs), B[e] supergiants and cool supergiants. What are the properties and interrelations between these extreme objects? What happens to these stars at the end of their short lives? The most dramatic explosions in the Universe, Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs), convert a sizable fraction of a Solar Mass into energy within seconds. The currently favoured scenario for most GRBs is via the collapse of a massive star to form a blank hole, with a corresponding Supernova explosion. Closer to home, η Car, the archetypal LBV is one of the most extreme Milky Way stars and briefly was the arXiv:astro-ph/0305141v1 8 May 2003 second brightest star in the night sky in the middle of the 19th century, despite lying 8000 light years from the Sun. During this eruption it ejected material at an average rate of one Earth mass every 15 minutes for two decades. Wolf-Rayet (W-R) stars, the evolved descendants of massive OB stars throw off several solar masses over lifetimes of 105 yr.
    [Show full text]