A Comparison of Explosion Energies for Simulated and Observed Core-Collapse Supernovae. (arXiv:1904.09444v1 [astro-ph.SR])
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Murphy_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jeremiah W. Murphy</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mabanta_Q/0/1/0/all/0/1">Quintin Mabanta</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Dolence_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Joshua C. Dolence</a>
There are now $sim$20 multi-dimensional core-collapse supernova (CCSN)
simulations that explode. However, these simulations have explosion energies
that are a few times $10^{50}$ erg, not $10^{51}$ erg. In this manuscript, we
compare the inferred explosion energies of these simulations and observations
of 38 SN~IIP. Assuming a log-normal distribution, the mean explosion energy for
the observations is $mu_{rm obs} = -0.13pm 0.05$ ($log_{10}(E/10^{51},
{rm erg})$) and the width is $sigma_{rm obs} = 0.21^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$. Only
three CCSN codes have sufficient simulations to compare with observations:
CHIMERA, CoCoNuT-FMT, and FORNAX. Currently, FORNAX has the largest sample of
simulations. The two-dimensional FORNAX simulations show a correlation between
explosion energy and progenitor mass, ranging from linear to quadratic, $E_{rm
sim} propto M^{1-2}$; this correlation is consistent with inferences from
observations. In addition, we infer the ratio of the observed-to-simulated
explosion energies, $Delta=log_{10}(E_{rm obs}/E_{rm sim})$. For the
CHIMERA set, $Delta=0.33pm0.06$; for CoCoNuT-FMT, $Delta=0.62pm0.05$; for
FORNAX2D, $Delta=0.73pm0.05$, and for FORNAX3D, $Delta=0.95pm0.06$. On
average, the simulations are less energetic than inferred energies from
observations ($Delta approx 0.7$), but we also note that the variation among
the simulations (max($Delta$)-min($Delta$) $approx 0.6$) is as large as this
average offset. This suggests that further improvements to the simulations
could resolve the discrepancy. Furthermore, both the simulations and the
observations are heavily biased. In this preliminary comparison, we model these
biases, but to more reliably compare the explosion energies, we recommend
strategies to un-bias both the simulations and observations.
There are now $sim$20 multi-dimensional core-collapse supernova (CCSN)
simulations that explode. However, these simulations have explosion energies
that are a few times $10^{50}$ erg, not $10^{51}$ erg. In this manuscript, we
compare the inferred explosion energies of these simulations and observations
of 38 SN~IIP. Assuming a log-normal distribution, the mean explosion energy for
the observations is $mu_{rm obs} = -0.13pm 0.05$ ($log_{10}(E/10^{51},
{rm erg})$) and the width is $sigma_{rm obs} = 0.21^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$. Only
three CCSN codes have sufficient simulations to compare with observations:
CHIMERA, CoCoNuT-FMT, and FORNAX. Currently, FORNAX has the largest sample of
simulations. The two-dimensional FORNAX simulations show a correlation between
explosion energy and progenitor mass, ranging from linear to quadratic, $E_{rm
sim} propto M^{1-2}$; this correlation is consistent with inferences from
observations. In addition, we infer the ratio of the observed-to-simulated
explosion energies, $Delta=log_{10}(E_{rm obs}/E_{rm sim})$. For the
CHIMERA set, $Delta=0.33pm0.06$; for CoCoNuT-FMT, $Delta=0.62pm0.05$; for
FORNAX2D, $Delta=0.73pm0.05$, and for FORNAX3D, $Delta=0.95pm0.06$. On
average, the simulations are less energetic than inferred energies from
observations ($Delta approx 0.7$), but we also note that the variation among
the simulations (max($Delta$)-min($Delta$) $approx 0.6$) is as large as this
average offset. This suggests that further improvements to the simulations
could resolve the discrepancy. Furthermore, both the simulations and the
observations are heavily biased. In this preliminary comparison, we model these
biases, but to more reliably compare the explosion energies, we recommend
strategies to un-bias both the simulations and observations.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
