Paper detail

The progenitors of core-collapse supernovae suggest thermonuclear origin for the explosions

Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are the explosions of massive stars following the collapse of the stars' iron cores. Poznanski (2013) has recently suggested an observational correlation between the ejecta velocities and the inferred masses of the red supergiant progenitors of type II-P explosions, which implies that the kinetic energy of the ejecta ($E_{\textrm{kin}}$) increases with the mass of the progenitor. I point out that the same conclusion can be reached from the model-free observed correlation between the ejected $^{56}$Ni masses ($M_{\textrm{Ni}}$) and the luminosities of the progenitors for type II supernovae, which was reported by Fraser et al. (2011). This correlation is in an agreement with the predictions of the collapse-induced thermonuclear explosions (CITE) for CCSNe and in a possible contradiction with the predictions of the neutrino mechanism. I show that a correlation between $M_{\textrm{Ni}}$ and $E_{\textrm{kin}}$ holds for all types of CCSNe (including type Ibc). This correlation suggests a common mechanism for all CCSNe, which is predicted for CITE, but is not produced by current simulations of the neutrino mechanism. Furthermore, the typical values of $E_{\textrm{kin}}$ and $M_{\textrm{Ni}}$ for type Ibc explosions are larger by an order of a magnitude than the typical values for II-P explosions, a fact which disfavors progenitors with the same initial mass range for these explosions. Instead, the progenitors of type Ibc explosions could be massive Wolf-Rayet stars, which are predicted to yield strong explosions with low ejecta masses (as observed) according to CITE. In this case, there is no deficit of high mass progenitors for CCSNe, which was suggested under the assumption of a similar mass range for the progenitors of types II-P and Ibc supernovae.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.