Comparison of Electron Capture Rates in the N = 50 Region using 1D Simulations of Core-collapse Supernovae

Abstract Recent studies have highlighted the sensitivity of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) models to electron-capture (EC) rates on neutron-rich nuclei near theN= 50 closed-shell region. In this work, we perform a large suite of one-dimensional CCSN simulations for 200 stellar progenitors using re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Astrophysical journal Vol. 939; no. 1
Main Authors Johnston, Zac, Wasik, Sheldon, Titus, Rachel, Warren, MacKenzie L., O’Connor, Evan P., Zegers, Remco, Couch, Sean M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States IOP Publishing 27.10.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Recent studies have highlighted the sensitivity of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) models to electron-capture (EC) rates on neutron-rich nuclei near theN= 50 closed-shell region. In this work, we perform a large suite of one-dimensional CCSN simulations for 200 stellar progenitors using recently updated EC rates in this region. For comparison, we repeat the simulations using two previous implementations of EC rates: a microphysical library with parametrizedN= 50 rates (LMP), and an older independent-particle approximation (IPA). We follow the simulations through shock revival up to several seconds post-bounce, and show that the EC rates produce a consistent imprint on CCSN properties, often surpassing the role of the progenitor itself. Notable impacts include the timescale of core collapse, the electron fraction and mass of the inner core at bounce, the accretion rate through the shock, the success or failure of revival, and the properties of the central compact remnant. We also compare the observable neutrino signal of the neutronization burst in a DUNE-like detector, and find consistent impacts on the counts and mean energies. Overall, the updated rates result in properties that are intermediate between LMP and IPA, and yet slightly more favorable to explosion than both.
Bibliography:SC0015904; SC0017955
USDOE Office of Science (SC)
ISSN:0004-637X