1 / 31

M up

M up. Oscar Straniero & Luciano Piersanti --------- INAF - Osservatorio di Teramo. where: Z o =0.02 Y o =0.28. Becker and Iben 1979. Status of the art. CLASSICAL MODELS (bare Schwarzschild criterion). In order of appearance: Siess 2007. versus

iorwen
Download Presentation

M up

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mup Oscar Straniero & Luciano Piersanti --------- INAF - Osservatorio di Teramo

  2. where: Zo=0.02 Yo=0.28 Becker and Iben 1979

  3. Status of the art

  4. CLASSICAL MODELS (bare Schwarzschild criterion) In order of appearance: Siess 2007 versus Becker Iben formula 1979 (same Z,Y than Siess)

  5. n-cooling H-rich He CO Conv. Env. H burning He burning Beyond the core He burning: the early-AGB

  6. The golden rule • It exists a critical-core mass for the C ignition. • It is MH~1.08 Mʘ (with the “current” physics). To evaluate Mup, we have to take under control: • The physics of the C ignition: neutrinos, 12C+12C, amount of C left (12C+a), thermodynamics of a dense plasma (EOS)… . • The initial-to-final mass relation for an intermediate mass stars (5 - 9 Mʘ), which depends on: • The extension of the H-exhausted core at the end of the MS phase. • The duration of the core-He burning phase (when H is burned in shell). • The efficiency of the 2nd dredge up.

  7. Classical Overshoot Semi Convection Varying the convective scheme

  8. ≈0.9 Mʘ≈ Classical versus Semiconvection (core-He burning) In order of appearance: Siess 2007 versus Straniero et al. 2003 , see also Dominguez et al. 1999

  9. ≈1.6 Mʘ Siess07 OV ≈1.7 Mʘ? Classical versus Overshoot In order of appearance: Siess 2007 (squares) versus Girardi 2000 (triangles) Both: OV (red) noOV (black)

  10. Semiconvection versus overshoot In order of appearance: Straniero et al. 2003 (semiconv.) versus Siess 2007 (overshoot) ≈0.7 Mʘ

  11. Varying the composition (Y) • Larger He larger m  larger TC  larger CC  larger final MH and, then: SMALLER MUP Z=0.04, Bono et al. 2000

  12. Varying the composition (Z) • Larger Z  larger (external) k and more expanded and cooler structures BUT • Larger Z  more CNO and more efficient H-burning Z> 10-3 Z MUP 10-5<Z< 10-3 Z MUP Z< 10-5 Z MUP

  13. Varying the composition (Z)

  14. Approaching the C ignition enuclear=|en|

  15. Varying the neutrino rate (en) In order of appearance: Esposito et al. 2003 (same for Haft et al 1995 or Itoh et al. 1996) versus Munakata et al. 1986

  16. Varying en or X(12C) enx5 en/5 Equivalent to a reduction/multiplication of X(12C) by sqrt(5) (0.1 to 0.6), the range of uncertainty implied by the 12C+a16O see Straniero et al. 2003)

  17. Varying the 12C+12C • Laboratory measurements available down to about 3 MeV (the Gamow peak for Mup is 1.5 MeV). • Several evidences of “molecular” structure producing narrow resonances at low energy (see Wiescher 2007, Spillane et al. 2007, Cooper et al. 2009). • A (possible) resonance near the Gamow peak would significantly increase the rate, thus reducing both the critical MH and, in turn, Mup

  18. SNe Ia Core burning What a resonance at 1.5 MeV would imply M=7M Z=Z  (dashed line)

  19. Mup Mup reduces of ~2 M 

  20. Astrophysical Consequences of a variation of Mup(numbers will be given for a dMup~2 Mʘ)

  21. Astrophysical consequences I • The number of super-AGB (ONeMg WD or electron-capture SNe) is larger. • By adopting a (Salpeter like) power-low IMF (b=2.35), SAGB would be 2/3 of the stars with M>M_up’ (the progenitors of “normal” core collapse SNe). 1.5 MeV resonance, semiconv., classical mod.

  22. Astrophysical Consequences II • Massive CO WDs cut off: MWD max reduced down to 0.95 Mʘ). BUT ROTATION MAY HELP see Dominguez et al 1996

  23. Massive CO WD: the lifting effect of rotation delays the II dredge up, allowing more massive MH(Dominguez et al. 1996) Convective envelope He-rich zone CO core 6.5 Mʘ Z= Zʘ

  24. Astrophysical Consequences III • Less Massive AGB  less space left for Hot Bottom Burning

  25. Astrophysical Consequences IV • SN Ia rates, both scenarios, Single Degenerate and Double Degenerate, 4 times less frequent!! • Prompt SNIa suppressed • First SNe Ia delayed (see Piersanti et al. 2010)

  26. Astrophysical consequences V • It is more easy to produce low mass core collapse SNe, down to ~6 Mʘ (electron capture), down to ~8 Mʘ (normal core collapse) • Somewhat in agreement with recent progenitor mass estimations: e.g. Smartt et al. 2008 found a minimum mass at 8.5 ± 1.5 Mʘ

  27. Astrophysical Consequences VI • Carbon Burning in massive stars and SAGB. More extended convective zones should be favoured by a larger 12C+12C rate. • Consequences for the final mass-radius relation, explosion energy release and related nucleosynthesis

  28. M=11.0 M Z=0.0149 Y=0.2645

  29. ‘ The value of Mup CF88 M=8.5 M Z=0.0149 Y=0.2645 NEW RATE

  30. Summary • Combining present uncertainties, Mup is known no better than dM=2 Mʘ (conservative error estimate). • The (many) astrophysical/observational consequences have been illustrated.

More Related