Paper detail

Dimensional Dependence of the Hydrodynamics of Core-Collapse Supernovae

The multidimensional character of the hydrodynamics in core-collapse supernova (CCSN) cores is a key facilitator of explosions. Unfortunately, much of this work has necessarily been performed assuming axisymmetry and it remains unclear whether or not this compromises those results. In this work, we present analyses of simplified two- and three-dimensional CCSN models with the goal of comparing the multidimensional hydrodynamics in setups that differ only in dimension. Not surprisingly, we find many differences between 2D and 3D models. While some differences are subtle and perhaps not crucial to understanding the explosion mechanism, others are quite dramatic and make interpreting 2D CCSN models problematic. In particular, we find that imposing axisymmetry artificially produces excess power at the largest spatial scales, power that has been deemed critical in the success of previous explosion models and has been attributed solely to the standing accretion shock instability. Nevertheless, our 3D models, which have an order of magnitude less power on large scales compared to 2D models, explode earlier. Since we see explosions earlier in 3D than in 2D, the vigorous sloshing associated with the large scale power in 2D models is either not critical in any dimension or the explosion mechanism operates differently in 2D and 3D. Possibly related to the earlier explosions in 3D, we find that about 25% of the accreted material spends more time in the gain region in 3D than in 2D, being exposed to more integrated heating and reaching higher peak entropies, an effect we associate with the differing characters of turbulence in 2D and 3D. Finally, we discuss a simple model for the runaway growth of buoyant bubbles that is able to quantitatively account for the growth of the shock radius and predicts a critical luminosity relation.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 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.