Gravitational wave emission from 3D explosion models of core-collapse supernovae with low and normal explosion energies

Abstract

Understanding gravitational wave emission from core-collapse supernovae will be essential for their detection with current and future gravitational wave detectors. This requires a sample of waveforms from modern 3D supernova simulations reaching well into the explosion phase, where gravitational wave emission is expected to peak. However, recent waveforms from 3D simulations with multi-group neutrino transport do not reach far into the explosion phase, and some are still obtained from non-exploding models. We therefore calculate waveforms up to 0.9 s after bounce using the neutrino hydrodynamics code CoCoNuT-FMT. We consider two models with low and normal explosion energy, namely explosions of an ultra-stripped progenitor with an initial helium star mass of 3.5 M , and of an 18 M single star. Both models show gravitational wave emission from the excitation of surface g-modes in the proto-neutron star with frequencies between ∼800 Hz and 1000 Hz at peak emission. The peak amplitudes are about 6 cm and 10 cm, respectively, which is somewhat higher than in most recent 3D models of the pre-explosion or early explosion phase. Using a Bayesian analysis, we determine the maximum detection distances for our models in simulated Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo, and Einstein Telescope design sensitivity noise. The more energetic 18M explosion will be detectable to about 17.5 kpc by the LIGO/Virgo network and to about 180 kpc with the Einstein Telescope.

Three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations of massive and rotating progenitors

“…ported for most non-rotating 3D models (Andresen et al 2017;Srivastava et al 2019;Powell & Müller 2019). Our non-rotating models are detectable to similar distances.…”

“…It employs the xCFC approximation for the space-time metric (Cordero-Carrión et al 2009). We use the fast multigroup neutrino transport method described in , including the updates listed in Powell & Müller (2019). We use a spatial resolution of 550x128x256 and 21 energy groups.…”

“…Intriguingly and in contrast to O'Connor & Ott (2011), a number of 3D neutrino-driven simulations (Chan et al 2018;Ott et al 2018;Kuroda et al 2018;Burrows et al 2020Burrows et al , 2019Walk et al 2019) observed shock expansion in some progenitors with rather massive and compact cores. From the point of view of gravitational-wave astronomy, high-mass progenitors are particularly interesting because they are expected to explode more energetically (Müller et al 2016a), which will result in stronger gravitational-wave emission (Müller 2017;Powell & Müller 2019;Radice et al 2019). Progenitor models with large compactness parameters are also expected to more closely reproduce the observed levels of 56 Ni (Suwa et al 2019).…”

A systematic study of proto-neutron star convection in three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations

“…For the 19−M model (black line), the results of high and low resolution models are displayed as thicker and thinner lines, respectively, than the line denoting the standard resolution model. vious studies addressed PNS convection in 3D (Glas et al 2019b;Walk et al 2019a;Powell & Müller 2019), but they were limited to a few models. Moreover, those studies generally focused on the relation between PNS convection and the lepton-emission self-sustained asymmetry (LESA) phenomenon (Tamborra et al 2014;O'Connor & Couch 2018;Vartanyan et al 2019b)) or gravitational radiation (Powell & Müller 2019).…”

A new gravitational-wave signature of low-T/|W| instability in rapidly rotating stellar core collapse

“…Extensive studies have revealed that the candidate ingredients of GW emission from stellar core collapse include rapid progenitor rotation, prompt convection, neutrino-driven convection, proto-neutron star (PNS) convection, g/ f -mode oscillation of the PNS, the standing accretion shock instability, and non-axisymmetric rotational instabilities (see, Dimmelmeier et al 2007;Ott et al 2007;Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Kuroda et al 2016a;Andresen et al 2017;Yakunin et al 2017;O'Connor & Couch 2018;Pan et al 2018;Powell & Müller 2019;Andresen et al 2019;Radice et al 2019;Vartanyan et al 2019, for collective references therein).…”