4.7 Article

A COMPARISON OF TWO- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL NEUTRINO-HYDRODYNAMICS SIMULATIONS OF CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 786, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/83

Keywords

hydrodynamics; neutrinos; supernovae: general

Funding

  1. HPCI Strategic Program of the Japanese MEXT [23540323, 23340069, 24244036, 25103511]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26707013, 25103511] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present numerical results on two-(2D) and three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic core-collapse simulations of an 11.2M circle dot star. By changing numerical resolutions and seed perturbations systematically, we study how the postbounce dynamics are different in 2D and 3D. The calculations were performed with an energy-dependent treatment of the neutrino transport based on the isotropic diffusion source approximation scheme, which we have updated to achieve a very high computational efficiency. All of the computed models in this work, including nine 3D models and fifteen 2D models, exhibit the revival of the stalled bounce shock, leading to the possibility of explosion. All of them are driven by the neutrino-heating mechanism, which is fostered by neutrino-driven convection and the standing-accretion-shock instability. Reflecting the stochastic nature of multi-dimensional (multi-D) neutrinodriven explosions, the blast morphology changes from model to model. However, we find that the final fate of the multi-D models, whether an explosion is obtained or not, is little affected by the explosion stochasticity. In agreement with some previous studies, higher numerical resolutions lead to slower onset of the shock revival in both 2D and 3D. Based on the self-consistent supernova models leading to the possibility of explosions, our results systematically show that the revived shock expands more energetically in 2D than in 3D.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available