Source author record

Matthias J. Raives

Matthias J. Raives appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
6topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

The Antesonic Condition for the Explosion of Core-Collapse Supernovae II: Rotation and Turbulence

In the problem of steady free-fall onto a standing shockwave around acentral mass, the "antesonic" condition limits the regime of stable accretion to $c_T^2/v_\mathrm{esc}^2\leq3/16$, where $c_T$ is the isothermal sound speed in the subsonic post-shock flow, and $v_\mathrm{esc}$ is the escape velocity at the shock radius. Above this limit, it is impossible to satisfy both the Euler equation and theshock jump conditions, and the system transitions to a wind. This physics explains the existence of a critical neutrino luminosity in steady-state models ofaccretion in the context of core-collapse supernovae. Here, we extend the antesonic condition to flows with rotation and turbulence using a simple one-dimensional formalism. Both effects decrease the critical post-shock sound speed required for explosion. While quite rapid rotation is required for a significant change to the critical condition, we show that the level of turbulence typically achieved in supernova simulations can greatly impact the critical value of $c_T^2/v_\mathrm{esc}^2$. A core angular velocity corresponding to a millisecond rotation period after contraction of the proto-neutron star results in only a $\sim\!5$ per-cent reduction of the critical curve. In contrast, near-sonic turbulence with specific turbulent kinetic energy $K/c_T^2=0.5-1$, leads to a decrease in the critical value of $c_T^2/v_{\rm esc}^2$ by $\sim\!20-40$ per-cent. This analysis provides a framework for understanding the role of post-shock turbulence in instigating explosions in models that would otherwise fail and helps explain why multi-dimensional simulations explode more easily than their one-dimensional counterparts.

preprint2015arXiv

Accurate, Meshless Methods for Magneto-Hydrodynamics

Recently, we developed a pair of meshless finite-volume Lagrangian methods for hydrodynamics: the 'meshless finite mass' (MFM) and 'meshless finite volume' (MFV) methods. These capture advantages of both smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and adaptive mesh-refinement (AMR) schemes. Here, we extend these to include ideal magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD). The MHD equations are second-order consistent and conservative. We augment these with a divergence-cleaning scheme, which maintains div*B~0 to high accuracy. We implement these in the code GIZMO, together with a state-of-the-art implementation of SPH MHD. In every one of a large suite of test problems, the new methods are competitive with moving-mesh and AMR schemes using constrained transport (CT) to ensure div*B=0. They are able to correctly capture the growth and structure of the magneto-rotational instability (MRI), MHD turbulence, and the launching of magnetic jets, in some cases converging more rapidly than AMR codes. Compared to SPH, the MFM/MFV methods exhibit proper convergence at fixed neighbor number, sharper shock capturing, and dramatically reduced noise, div*B errors, and diffusion. Still, 'modern' SPH is able to handle most of our tests, at the cost of much larger kernels and 'by hand' adjustment of artificial diffusion parameters. Compared to AMR, the new meshless methods exhibit enhanced 'grid noise' but reduced advection errors and numerical diffusion, velocity-independent errors, and superior angular momentum conservation and coupling to N-body gravity solvers. As a result they converge more slowly on some problems (involving smooth, slowly-moving flows) but more rapidly on others (involving advection or rotation). In all cases, divergence-control beyond the popular Powell 8-wave approach is necessary, or else all methods we consider will systematically converge to unphysical solutions.