The Magnetar Model of the Superluminous Supernova GAIA16apd and the Explosion Jet Feedback Mechanism

Res. Astron. Astrophys.

2017

Self Cite

I compare to each other what I consider to be the two most promising scenarios to explode core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe). Both are based on the negative jet feedback mechanism (JFM). In the jittering jets scenario a collapsing core of a single slowly-rotating star can launch jets. The accretion disk or belt (a sub-Keplerian accretion flow concentrated toward the equatorial plane) that launches the jets is intermittent with varying directions of the axis. Instabilities, such as the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), lead to stochastic angular momentum variations that allow the formation of the intermittent accretion disk/belt. According to this scenario no failed CCSNe exist. According to the fixed axis scenario, the core of the progenitor star must be spun up during its late evolutionary phases, and hence all CCSNe are descendants of strongly interacting binary systems, most likely through a common envelope evolution (whether the companion survives or not). Due to the strong binary interaction, the axis of the accretion disk that is formed around the newly born neutron star has a more or less fixed direction. According to the fixed axis scenario, accretion disk/belt are not formed around the newly born neutron star of single stars; they rather end in failed CCSNe. I also raise the possibility that the jittering jets scenario operates for progenitors with initial mass of 8M ⊙ M ZAMS 18M ⊙ , while the fixed axis scenario operates for M ZAMS 18M ⊙ . For the first time these two scenarios are compared to each other, as well as to some aspects of neutrino-driven explosion mechanism. These new comparisons further suggest that the JFM plays a major role in exploding massive stars.

Section: Energymentioning

confidence: 65%

The two promising scenarios to explode core collapse supernovae

Res. Astron. Astrophys.

2017

Self Cite

“…We end the present study by reiterating our call for a paradigm shift from neutrinodriven explosion to a jet-driven explosion (e.g., Papish et al 2015b;Soker 2017a). …”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

The imprints of the last jets in core collapse supernovae

Bear

Grichener²,

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

2017

Self Cite

We analyze the morphologies of three core collapse supernova remnants (CCSNRs) and the energy of jets in other CCSNRs and in Super Luminous Supernovae (SLSNe) of type Ib/Ic/IIb, and conclude that these properties are well explained by the last jets' episode as expected in the jet feedback explosion mechanism of core collapse supernovae (CCSNe). The presence of two opposite protrusions, termed ears, and our comparison of the CCSNR morphologies with morphologies of planetary nebulae strengthen the claim that jets play a major role in the explosion mechanism of CCSNe. We crudely estimate the energy that was required to inflate the ears in two CCSNRs, and assume that the ears were inflated by jets. We find that the energies of the jets that inflated ears in 11 CCSNRs span a range that is similar to that of jets in some energetic CCSNe (SLSNe), and that this energy, only of the last jets' episode, is much less than the explosion energy. This finding is compatible with the jet feedback explosion mechanism of CCSNe, where only the last jets, that carry a small fraction of the total energy carried by earlier jets, are expected to influence the outer parts of the ejecta. We reiterate our call for a paradigm shift from neutrino-driven to jet-driven explosion models of CCSNe.

“…In two previous papers one of us already argued that any CCSN that at late times is powered by a magnetar is expected to be exploded by jets (Soker 2016a(Soker , 2017a). In the present paper we approached the question of the explosion mechanism from a different direction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are left then with jet-driven explosions. In an earlier paper on the relation between the JFM and magnetars (Soker 2017a), the following approximate relation between the initial energy of the magnetar and the ex- The list of 21 SLSNe analyzed here. The first column lists the name of the SLSNe, followed by P , B ⊥ , and M NS that are the initial rotational period, the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the spin axis, and the mass of the neutron star.…”

Section: Implications To the Jet Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Magnetar-powered Superluminous Supernovae Must First Be Exploded by Jets

Gilkis

2017

ApJ

Self Cite

We analyze recent magnetar light-curve modeling of 38 hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), and find that the energies of the explosions themselves, that take place before the magnetar energy is released, are more than what the neutrino-driven explosion mechanism can supply for about half of the systems. These SLSNe must have been exploded by a different process than the delayed neutrino mechanism, most likely the jet feedback mechanism (JFM). The conclusion for magnetar modeling of SLSNe is that jets launched at magnetar birth cannot be ignored, not at the explosion itself and not later when mass fall-back might occur. More generally, the present analysis strengthens the call for a paradigm shift from neutrino-driven to jet-driven explosion models of all core collapse supernovae.