Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:53:45.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formation and evolution of black hole and accretion disk in collapse of massive stellar cores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Yuichiro Sekiguchi
Yuichiro Sekiguchi*
Affiliation:
Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We describe the results of our numerical simulations of the collapse of a massive stellar core to a BH, performed in the framework of full general relativity incorporating finite-temperature equation of state and neutrino cooling. We adopt a 100 M⊙ presupernova model calculated by Umeda & Nomoto (2008), which has a massive core with a high value of entropy per baryon. Changing the degree of rotation for the initial condition, we clarify the dependence of the outcome on this. When the rotation is rapid enough, the shock wave formed at the core bounce is deformed to be a torus-like shape. Then, the infalling matter is accumulated in the central region due to the oblique shock at the torus surface, hitting the hypermassive neutron star (HMNS) and dissipating the kinetic energy there. As a result, outflows can be launched. The HMNS eventually collapses to a BH and an accretion torus is formed around it. We also found that the evolution of the BH and torus depends strongly on the rotation initially given.

Keywords

Stellar core collapseblack holeaccretion diskgamma-ray burst
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S279: Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts , April 2011 , pp. 305 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Beloborodov, A. M. 2008, AIP Conf. Proc. 1054, 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryer, C. L., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekiguchi, Y. & Shibata, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 084013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekiguchi, Y. & Shibata, M. 2011, ApJ, 737, 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibata, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 024033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibata, M. & Sekiguchi, Y. 2012, Prog. Theor. Phys., 127, 535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibata, M., et al. 2011, Prog. Theor. Phys., 125, 1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, H. & Nomoto, K. 2008, ApJ, 673, 1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARAA, 44, 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. & Woosley, S. E. 2004, ApJ, 608, 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar