Paper detail

The Arduous Journey to Black-Hole Formation in Potential Gamma-Ray Burst Progenitors

We present a quantitative study on the properties at death of fast-rotating massive stars evolved at low-metallicity, objects that are proposed as likely progenitors of long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs). We perform 1D+rotation stellar-collapse simulations on the progenitor models of Woosley & Heger (2006) and critically assess their potential for the formation of a black hole and a Keplerian disk (namely a collapsar) or a proto-magnetar. We note that theoretical uncertainties in the treatment of magnetic fields and the approximate handling of rotation compromises the accuracy of stellar-evolution models. We find that only the fastest rotating progenitors achieve sufficient compactness for black-hole formation while the bulk of models possess a core density structure typical of garden-variety core-collapse supernova (SN) progenitors evolved without rotation and at solar metallicity. Of the models that do have sufficient compactness for black-hole formation, most of them also retain a large amount of angular momentum in the core, making them prone to a magneto-rotational explosion, therefore preferentially leaving behind a proto-magnetar. A large progenitor angular-momentum budget is often the sole criterion invoked in the community today to assess the suitability for producing a collapsar. This simplification ignores equally important considerations such as the core compactness, which conditions black-hole formation, the core angular momentum, which may foster a magneto-rotational explosion preventing black-hole formation, or the metallicity and the residual envelope mass which must be compatible with inferences from observed LGRB/SNe. Our study suggests that black-hole formation is non trivial, that there is room for accommodating both collapsars and proto-magnetars as LGRB progenitors, although proto-magnetars seem much more easily produced by current stellar-evolutionary models.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.