Mixing Instabilities in CCSNe in 3D
Annop Wongwathanarat
Ewald Müller
Hans-Thomas Janka
Max-Planck-Institut
für Astrophysik

YIPQS workshop, Kyoto, 30 Oct 2013

Introduction- Evidences of mixing from observations of SN1987A;
See review of Hillebrandt&Höflich (1989)- Mixing of hydrogen to inner core and Ni to hydrogenenvelope- Early appearance of hard X-rays and γ-rays- Fe line profile suggests high velocities Ni (4000 km/s)- Also in other CCSNe- Complicated structures in SNRs; clumps, filaments, …
- Asphericity inferred from spectropolrimetricobservations- Connect explosion to remnant- Multi-D multi-fluid simulations neededChallenge

Explosion:few
100 kmStar:
few 100millions
kmRemnants:
few 10trillions
km

Time scale: ms >>> hours, day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100 years

Previous works- Rayleigh-Taylor Instability is the main suspect- layers in stars can become RT unstable due to shockpassage (e.g. Chevalier 1979, Ebisuzaki+ 1989)- works by many groups in 1990s; e.g., Arnett+ 1989, Fryxell+1991, Müller+ 1991, Hachisu+ 1990, Yamada&Sato 1990, Herant&Benz 1992,
Herant&Woosley 1994, Shigeyama+ 1996, Iwamoto+ 1997, Nagataki+ 1998

- mostly in 2D; grid-based and SPH- spherical symmetric explosion (thermal bomb) +random perturbation- difficult to obtain fast (>2000 km/s) Ni- more recent works in 2D & 3D (e.g., Hungerford+ 2003,2005,
Kifonidis+ 2000,2003,2006, Joggerst+ 2009,2010, Couch+ 2009, Hammer+
2010, Ellinger+ 2012,2013, Ono+ 2013)- Three important points learned

Progenitor

Herant&Benz 91
Different growth ofRTIs depending onprogenitor structure

Herant&Benz 92

Explosion physics
Kifonidis+ 2000,2003, 2006
were first toconsider
explosions inMulti-D

Dimensionality
2D Vs 3D
Note: Joggerst+ 10
don’t see difference;but different explosion
physics and progenitor

Scheck 2008

Hammer+ 2010

Different
physics ineach phase3D

pre-collapse model

1D
15 ms postbounce

Wongwathanarat+
2010,2013

1.3 s postbounce

3Dshock breakout

Numerics

1D postbounce at
15 ms

1.3 s later

3D Newtonian
self-gravity

monopole GR
correction
tabulated EOS
by Janka &Müller (1996)
4 nuclear species
in NSE (n, p, 4He,54Mn)
14 species (4He- 56Ni+X)
alpha-reactions network

ray-by-ray greytransport

Kageyama&Sato (2004)

Lν

contracting inner grid
PNS

1.1 M⊙
randomperturbationof 0.1%
amplitude

Numerics

1.3 s postbounce

shock breakout

3D Newtonian
self-gravity
tabulated EOS byTimmes&Swesty(2000)

Kageyama&Sato (2004)

Neutrinodriven windboundary
condition

14 species (4He- 56Ni+X)
alpha-reactions network

dynamic
inner gridboundaryHammer+ 2010
Spherical polar grid

Test caseComparisonwith Hammer+

Wongwathanarat+(to be submitted)

Axis-free Yin-Yang grid

Wongwathanarat+(to be submitted)
Axis-free Yin-Yang gridHammer+ 2010
Spherical polar grid

Wongwathanarat+ Studied NS kick by gravitational tug-boat
2010,2013mechanism4 different
progenitors

Shigeyama&Nomoto(1990) BSG

Woosley&Weaver(1995) RSG
Wongwathanarat+(to be submitted)

Limongi+ (2000)
RSG

Woosley+ (1988) BSG

Conclusions- long-time CCSN simulations linking explosions toobservations are challenging- Three important points to consider; explosion physics,
progenitor structure, dimensionality- Simulations considering shock revival all the way toyoung remnant phase in 3D required !!!
- Wongwathanarat+ (to be submitted)- comparison with Hammer+ gave excellent agreement- follow CCSN evolution from 15 ms postbounce toshock breakout- consider 4 different progenitors; both BSG and RSG- Please stay tune !!!