Paper detail

Type Ia supernovae and the ^{12}C+^{12}C reaction rate

The experimental determination of the cross-section of the ^{12}C+^{12}C reaction has never been made at astrophysically relevant energies (E<2 MeV). The profusion of resonances throughout the measured energy range has led to speculation that there is an unknown resonance at E\sim1.5 MeV possibly as strong as the one measured for the resonance at 2.14 MeV. We study the implications that such a resonance would have for the physics of SNIa, paying special attention to the phases that go from the crossing of the ignition curve to the dynamical event. We use one-dimensional hydrostatic and hydrodynamic codes to follow the evolution of accreting white dwarfs until they grow close to the Chandrasekhar mass and explode as SNIa. In our simulations, we account for a low-energy resonance by exploring the parameter space allowed by experimental data. A change in the ^{12}C+^{12}C rate similar to the one explored here would have profound consequences for the physical conditions in the SNIa explosion, namely the central density, neutronization, thermal profile, mass of the convective core, location of the runaway hot spot, or time elapsed since crossing the ignition curve. For instance, with the largest resonance strength we use, the time elapsed since crossing the ignition curve to the supernova event is shorter by a factor ten than for models using the standard rate of ^{12}C+^{12}C, and the runaway temperature is reduced from \sim8.14\times10^{8} K to \sim4.26\times10^{8} K. On the other hand, a resonance at 1.5 MeV, with a strength ten thousand times smaller than the one measured at 2.14 MeV, but with an α/p yield ratio substantially different from 1 would have a sizeable impact on the degree of neutronization of matter during carbon simmering. We conclude that a robust understanding of the links between SNIa properties and their progenitors will not be attained until the ^{12}C+^{12}C reaction rate is measured at energies \sim1.5 MeV.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

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.