Paper detail

Constraints on Core Collapse from the Black Hole Mass Function

We model the observed black hole mass function under the assumption that black hole formation is controlled by the compactness of the stellar core at the time of collapse. Low compactness stars are more likely to explode as supernovae and produce neutron stars, while high compactness stars are more likely to be failed supernovae that produce black holes with the mass of the helium core of the star. Using three sequences of stellar models and marginalizing over a model for the completeness of the black hole mass function, we find that the compactness xi(2.5) above which 50% of core collapses produce black holes is xi(2.5)=0.24 (0.15 < xi(2.5) < 0.37) at 90% confidence). While models with a sharp transition between successful and failed explosions are always the most likely, the width of the transition between the minimum compactness for black hole formation and the compactness above which all core collapses produce black holes is not well constrained. The models also predict that f=0.18 (0.09 < f < 0.39) of core collapses fail assuming a minimum mass for core collapse of 8Msun. We tested four other criteria for black hole formation based on xi(2.0) and xi(3.0), the compactnesses at enclosed masses of 2.0 or 3.0 rather than 2.5Msun, the mass of the iron core, and the mass inside the oxygen burning shell. We found that xi(2.0) works as well as xi(2.5), while the compactness xi(3.0) works significantly worse, as does using the iron core mass or the mass enclosed by the oxygen burning shell. As expected from the high compactness of 20-25Msun stars, black hole formation in this mass range provides a natural explanation of the red supergiant problem.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.