Paper detail

Updating the $^{56}$Ni Problem in Core-collapse Supernova Explosion

Details of the core-collapse supernova (CCSN) explosion mechanism still need to be fully understood. There is an increasing number of successful examples of reproducing explosions in multidimensional hydrodynamic simulations, but subsequent studies pointed out that the growth rates of the explosion energy $\dot{E}_\mathrm{expl}$ of these simulations are insufficient to produce enough $^{56}$Ni to match observations. This issue is known as the `$^{56}$Ni problem' in CCSNe. Recently, however, some studies have suggested that this $^{56}$Ni problem is derived from the simplicity of the explosion model. In response, we investigate the effect of the explosion energy growth rate $\dot{E}_\mathrm{expl}$ on the behavior of nucleosynthesis in CCSNe in a more realistic model. We employ the 1D Lagrangian hydrodynamic code, in which we take neutrino heating and cooling terms into account with the light-bulb approximation. We reiterate that, consistent with previous rebuttal studies, there is the $^{56}$Ni problem: Although $^{56}$Ni is synthesized to almost the same mass coordinate independent of $\dot{E}_\mathrm{expl}$, some of the innermost material in the low-$\dot{E}_\mathrm{expl}$ model failed to escape, leading to a shift in the innermost mass coordinate of the ejecta to the outer positions. Comparing our results with observations, we find that while modern slow explosions can, in principle, reproduce observations of standard Type II SNe, this is not possible with stripped-envelope SNe. Our finding places a strong constraint on the explosion mechanism. There are significant differences in the progenitor structures and the explosion mechanism between Type II and stripped-envelope SNe.

preprint2023arXivOpen 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.