Explosion energies and nickel yields from 3D neutrino-radiation-hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovae
The mechanism is broadly established, but converged explosion energies and nickel masses across progenitors need seconds-long 3D runs with consistent microphysics, so difficulty is above the old combined entry (41). Application value 12 and leverage 44 (above the old 40) reflect that nucleosynthesis yields, remnant mass distributions and Galactic-supernova neutrino and GW templates all use these outputs.
The problem
Simulate a dying star's collapse in 3D well enough to predict how powerful its explosion is.
- 1Core collapses, shock stalls
- 2Neutrinos reheat gas behind shock
- 33D turbulence helps revive explosion
- 4Run long enough for energy to settle
- 5Compare with real supernova energies
The target. For progenitor stars of 9 to 30 solar masses, predict the distributions of explosion energy (0.1 to 2×10⁵¹ erg, or 0.1 to 2 "bethe"), the mass of radioactive ⁵⁶Ni, the neutron-star mass, and the neutron-star kick, in 3D simulations that include energy-dependent neutrino transport (M1 or Boltzmann), general-relativistic gravity and a nuclear equation of state, run for seconds after bounce until the explosion energy saturates.
Built from
earlier problems → this oneThe problems this one is built from: progress or tools it needs (builds on), special cases that come first (generalizes), and weaker results on the way (implies). On the right, what builds on it.
- Start with
- Step 2
- Explosion energies and nickel yields from 3D neutrino-radiation-hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovaeThis problem
- Then
Path to understanding
foundations → problemThe research entries this problem rests on, in the order to read them. Each links to its explainer.
- Start with
- Step 2
- Step 3
- Radiation hydrodynamics simulationAlgorithm · host
- Then
- Explosion energies and nickel yields from 3D neutrino-radiation-hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovaeThe problem
State of the art
Reviews: Müller (arXiv:2006.05083) and Burrows & Vartanyan (arXiv:2009.14157). Bollig et al. (arXiv:2010.10506) produced a 3D explosion of a 19 M☉ progenitor evolved to 7 s with an explosion energy reaching about 1 bethe (10⁵¹ erg). Fornax simulations by the Burrows group and the Garching/Monash codes show explosions across many progenitors, often with energies of 0.1–1 bethe and with a trend for compact progenitors to explode less energetically. Differences between codes in neutrino treatment, equation of state and resolution lead to different outcomes for the same progenitor, and few models reach the highest observed energies. Strong dependence on neutrino-opacity corrections and progenitor structure (including 3D pre-collapse convection) means the explosion-energy prediction is not accepted as solved. Burrows et al. (arXiv:2401.06840; ApJL 964, L16, 2024) analysed 20 3D Fornax models of 9–60 M☉ progenitors and found correlations of explosion energy and ⁵⁶Ni mass with the binding energy of the mantle, and Vartanyan et al. (arXiv:2411.03434) carried a 17 M☉ model from bounce past shock breakout, reaching about 10⁵¹ erg and about 0.1 M☉ of ⁵⁶Ni. These are single-code suites; no 2025–2026 result establishes converged energy and nickel distributions across codes.
Realistic applications
Predictions feed galactic chemical evolution (nickel and iron-group yields), the neutron-star and black-hole mass distribution, supernova neutrino and gravitational-wave signal templates for a Galactic event, and r-process modelling. No direct application.
What counts as solved
Resolved when 3D simulations of at least dozens of progenitors with two independent codes evolve to explosion-energy saturation and reproduce observed SN energies, nickel masses and remnant masses within about 30%, with a documented sensitivity to neutrino physics and progenitor perturbations.
How it gets verified
ReproductionA training run, experiment or computation rerun by someone else.
At least dozens of progenitors must be evolved in 3D to explosion-energy saturation with two independent codes, reproducing observed supernova energies, nickel masses and remnant masses within about 30%. The spec should fix the progenitor set, the neutrino transport and microphysics, the resolution convergence tests and a sensitivity study to neutrino physics and progenitor perturbations.
Claims under verification
+ add a claimNo claimed results on the Verification board for this problem yet.
Where the work is
Dominated by large 3D simulations on leadership-class computers, with theory input for neutrino physics.
Bottlenecks
ranked by votes- #1ComputeSeconds-long 3D simulations with full transport
Each model takes millions of core-hours, and long runs for large progenitor suites are rare.
Community grades
Sign in to add your own grade.
Connected problems
Progress
- Jan 12, 2024Twenty-model 3D suitesource
Burrows et al. relate explosion energy and ⁵⁶Ni to progenitor mantle binding energy across 20 3D models.
- Oct 20, 20201-bethe 3D explosion to 7 ssource
Bollig et al. evolve a 19 M☉ explosion to 7 s with energy near 1 bethe.
- May 19, 20153D CHIMERA explosion of a 15 M☉ progenitorsource
Lentz et al. obtain a 3D neutrino-driven explosion of a 15 M☉ progenitor, with shock revival delayed by about 100 ms relative to 2D and slower energy growth (ApJL 2015).