2021
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab675
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gravitational-wave signals from 3D supernova simulations with different neutrino-transport methods

Abstract: We compare gravitational-wave (GW) signals from eight three-dimensional simulations of core-collapse supernovae, using two different progenitors with zero-age main sequence masses of 9 and 20 solar masses (M⊙). The collapse of each progenitor was simulated four times, at two different grid resolutions and with two different neutrino transport methods, using the Aenus-Alcar code. The main goal of this study is to assess the validity of recent concerns that the so-called “Ray-by-Ray+” (RbR+) approximation is pro… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our GW signals exhibit all of the well known features found in most other modern 2D and 3D CCSN simulations published over the past two decades (e.g., Müller et al 2004;Murphy et al 2009;Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Yakunin et al 2015;Kuroda et al 2016;Kuroda et al 2017;Morozova et al 2018;Radice et al 2019;Mezzacappa et al 2020;Shibagaki et al 2021;Pan et al 2018Pan et al , 2021Andresen et al 2017Andresen et al , 2019Andresen et al , 2021Powell & Müller 2019;Powell et al 2021;Jardine et al 2021). In the following we compare some 16)) is performed.…”
Section: Gravitational Wavessupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Our GW signals exhibit all of the well known features found in most other modern 2D and 3D CCSN simulations published over the past two decades (e.g., Müller et al 2004;Murphy et al 2009;Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Yakunin et al 2015;Kuroda et al 2016;Kuroda et al 2017;Morozova et al 2018;Radice et al 2019;Mezzacappa et al 2020;Shibagaki et al 2021;Pan et al 2018Pan et al , 2021Andresen et al 2017Andresen et al , 2019Andresen et al , 2021Powell & Müller 2019;Powell et al 2021;Jardine et al 2021). In the following we compare some 16)) is performed.…”
Section: Gravitational Wavessupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Over the last decade, various multidimensional CCSN simulations have revealed a multitude of information about different processes responsible for the emission of photons, neutrinos, and GWs (e.g., Dimmelmeier et al 2008;Scheidegger et al 2008Scheidegger et al , 2010Müller et al 2013;Cerdá-Durán et al 2013;Yakunin et al 2015;Andresen et al 2017;Morozova et al 2018;Radice et al 2019;Andresen et al 2019;Powell & Müller 2020;Warren et al 2020;Vartanyan & Burrows 2020;Andresen et al 2021). Unlike chirp signal from merging binaries, the GW signal emitted in CCSN is broadband in nature covering a frequency range of ∼(5Hz, 1500Hz).…”
Section: Ccsn-like Gw Signalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have begun to see convergences in the predictions of CCSNe GW signals [40,42,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60], but the details of GWs emitted by CCSNe are stochastic and exhibit a large degree of variation. To ensure that our results are robust and represent the variation inherent to supernova GWs, we include a large set of theoretical signal predictions from numerical simulations.…”
Section: Core-collapse Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From Andresen et al [59] we select the two models s9-FMD-H and s20-FMD-H. The 9 M model, s9-FMD-H, exhibits a low accretion rate onto the PNS and primarily emits at frequencies above 300 Hz with some lowfrequency GW emission.…”
Section: Core-collapse Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%