![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 356, 873-887 (2000) 3. SN II yields and their uncertaintiesIn the present investigation we make use of the nucleosynthesis results by Thielemann et al. (1996) and Nomoto et al. (1997). Here we want to give a short summary of the key features together with an assessment of the uncertainties by comparing with available independent calculations. The synthesized elements form three different classes which are sensitive to different aspects of the stellar models and supernovae explosion mechanism: (1) stellar evolution, (2) stellar evolution plus the explosion energy, and (3) details of the explosion mechanism which includes aspects of stellar evolution determining the size of the collapsing Fe-core. Due to reaction equilibria obtained in explosive burning, the results do not show a strong sensitivity to the applied reaction rate library (Hoffman et al. 1999). 1: The abundances of C, O, Ne, and Mg originate from the unaltered
(essentially only hydrostatically processed) C-core and from explosive
Ne/C-burning. They are mainly dependent on the structure and zone
sizes of the pre-explosion models resulting from stellar evolution.
These zones and therefore the amount of ejected mass varies strongly
over the progenitor mass range. O, Ne, and Mg vary by a factor of
10-20 between a 2: The amount of mass for the elements Si, S, Ar and Ca,
originating from explosive O- and Si-burning, is almost the same for
all massive stars in the Thielemann et al. (1996) models. They do not
show the strong progenitor mass dependence of C, O, Ne, and Mg. Si has
some contribution from hydrostatic burning and varies by a factor of
2-3. Thus, the first set of elements (C, O, Ne, Mg) tests the stellar
progenitor models, while the second set (Si, S, Ar, Ca) tests the
progenitor models and the explosion energy, because the amount of
explosive burning depends on the structure of the model plus the
energy of the shock wave which passes through it. Present models make
use of an artificially induced shock wave via thermal energy
deposition (Thielemann et al. 1996) or a piston (Woosley & Weaver
1995) with shock energies which lead, after the reduction of the
gravitational binding of ejected matter, to a given kinetic energy. In
our models this is an average energy of
3: The amount of Fe-group nuclei ejected (which includes also one
of the so-called alpha elements, i.e. Ti) and their relative
composition depends directly on the explosion mechanism, connected
also to the size of the collapsing Fe-core. Observational checks of
individual supernovae are presently still required to test the
detailed working of a supernova. The present situation is still
uncertain and depends on Fe-cores from stellar evolution, the
supranuclear equation of state and maximum neutron star mass, related
to the total amount of gravitational binding energy release of the
collapsed protoneutron star, the resulting total amount of neutrinos,
and the time release (luminosity), dependent on neutrino transport via
numerical treatment, convective transport, and opacities (Burrows
1990; Herant et al. 1994; Janka & Müller 1995, 1996; Keil
& Janka 1995; Burrows et al. 1995; Burrows 1996; Reddy &
Prakash 1997; Burrows & Sawyer 1998; Mezzacappa et al. 1998;
Messer et al. 1998; Yamada et al. 1999; Pons et al. 1999). Three types
of uncertainties are inherent in the Fe-group ejecta, related to (i)
the total amount of Fe (-group) nuclei ejected and the mass cut
between neutron star and ejecta, mostly measured by 56Ni
decaying to 56Fe, (ii) the total explosion energy which
influences the entropy of the ejecta and with it the degree of
alpha-rich freeze-out from explosive Si-burning and the abundances of
radioactive 44Ti as well as 48Cr, the latter
decaying later to 48Ti and being responsible for elemental
Ti, and (iii) finally the neutron richness or
There is limited direct observational information from individual supernovae with known progenitors (SN 1987A, SN 1993J, 1997D?, 1996N?, 1994I) and possible hypernovae (SN1997ef, 1998bw), leading to direct O, Ti or Fe (Ni) observations (e.g. Shigeyama & Nomoto 1990; Iwamoto et al. 1994, 1998; Iwamoto 1999a, 1999b; Turatto et al. 1998; Sollerman et al. 1998; Kozma & Fransson 1998; Bouchet et al. 1991; Suntzeff et al. 1992). As explosive nucleosynthesis calculations cannot presently rely on self-consistent explosion models, the position of the mass cut is in all cases an assumption and has mostly been normalized to observations of SN 1987A. Whether there is a decline in Fe-ejecta as a function of progenitor mass (as assumed in Thielemann et al. 1996) or actually an increase (Woosley & Weaver 1995) or a more complex rise, maximum and decline (Nakamura et al. 1999) is not really understood. Thus, the results by Thielemann et al. (1996) utilized here are showing the correct IMF integrated behaviour of e.g. Si/Fe, but one has to keep in mind that e.g. O/Fe, Mg/Fe, Si/Fe, Ca/Fe yields of individual supernovae could be quite uncertain and even show an incorrect progenitor mass dependence or a larger scatter than (yet unknown) realistic models. Ratios within the Fe-group (like e.g. Ni/Fe) have been obtained by mass cut positions which reproduce the solar ratios. Thus, the theoretical yields might show already the average values and a much smaller scatter than some observations (see e.g. Henry 1984). Later work attempted to choose mass cuts in order to represent some specific element trends like e.g. in Cr/Fe, Co/Fe or Mn/Fe (Nakamura et al. 1999). In general we should keep in mind that as long as the explosion mechanism is not completely and quantitatively understood yet, one has to assume a position of the mass cut. Dependent on that position, which is a function of explosion energy and the delay time between collapse and final explosion, the total amount of Fe-group matter can vary strongly, Ti-yields can vary strongly due to the attained explosion energy and entropy, and the ejected mass zones will have a variation in neutron excess which automatically changes relative abundances within the Fe-group, especially the Ni/Fe element ratio. 4: r-Process Yields. SNe II have long been expected to be the source of r-process elements. Some recent calculations seemed to be able to reproduce the solar r-process abundances well in the high entropy neutrino wind, emitted from the hot protoneutron star after the SN II explosion (Takahashi et al. 1994; Woosley et al. 1994). If the r-process originates from supernovae, a specific progenitor mass dependence has to be assumed in order to reproduce the r-process abundances in low metallicity stars as a function of [Fe/H] (Mathews et al. 1992; Wheeler et al. 1998). Such a "hypothetical" r-process yield curve has been constructed by Tsujimoto & Shigeyama (1998), in agreement with ideas of Ishimaru & Wanajo (1999) and Travaglio et al. (1999), and is used in the present galactic evolution calculation. However, we should keep in mind that present-day supernova models have difficulties to reproduce the entropies required for such abundance calculations. In addition, they could exhibit the incorrect abundance features of lighter r-process nuclei (Freiburghaus et al. 1999a), we know by now that at least two r-process sources have to contribute to the solar r-process abundances (Wasserburg et al. 1996; Cowan et al. 1999), and that possible other sources exist (Freiburghaus et al. 1999b). A larger scatter in the r/Fe ratio in low metallicity stars than predicted by the constructed supernova yields would also indicate the need of such another r-process source. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000 Online publication: April 17, 2000 ![]() |