Paper detail

The red supergiant and supernova rate problems: implications for core-collapse supernova physics

Mapping supernovae to their progenitors is fundamental to understanding the collapse of massive stars. We investigate the red supergiant problem, which concerns why red supergiants with masses $\sim16$-$30 M_\odot$ have not been identified as progenitors of Type IIP supernovae, and the supernova rate problem, which concerns why the observed cosmic supernova rate is smaller than the observed cosmic star formation rate. We find key physics to solving these in the compactness parameter, which characterizes the density structure of the progenitor. If massive stars with compactness above $ξ_{2.5} \sim 0.2$ fail to produce canonical supernovae, (i) stars in the mass range $16$-$30 M_\odot$ populate an island of stars that have high $ξ_{2.5}$ and do not produce canonical supernovae, and (ii) the fraction of such stars is consistent with the missing fraction of supernovae relative to star formation. We support this scenario with a series of two- and three-dimensional radiation hydrodynamics core-collapse simulations. Using more than 300 progenitors covering initial masses $10.8$-$75 M_\odot$ and three initial metallicities, we show that high compactness is conducive to failed explosions. We then argue that a critical compactness of $\sim 0.2$ as the divide between successful and failed explosions is consistent with state-of-the-art three-dimensional core-collapse simulations. Our study implies that numerical simulations of core collapse need not produce robust explosions in a significant fraction of compact massive star initial conditions.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.