2. Outline Introducing thermonuclear supernovae
Scales: time, space & physics
Many sins of turbulent deflagrations
Foreplay counts: forgotten tale of the ICs
Detonating Failed Deflagrations
Confronting DFD with observations
Summary
November 12, 2018

3. What Are Supernovae?
November 12, 2018

4. Massive and Even More Massive
Type II
Massive
Single
H-rich
Type Ia
Medium mass
Binary
H/He-free
November 12, 2018

5. Type Ia SN Appearance
P. Nugent (LBNL)
November 12, 2018

6. Why Do We Care? SN Ia are crucial for galactic chemical evolution.
COBE
SN Ia are crucial for galactic chemical evolution.
SN Ia are also crucial for cosmology: probes allowing study of expansion and geometry (M, ) of the Universe, nature of dark energy
Provide astrophysical setting for basic combustion problems.
High-Z Supernova Search Team, HST
November 12, 2018

7. 40 Years of Theory
1960s
WD explosion proposed for Type Ia (Hoyle & Fowler)
1D detonation model (Arnett)
1970s
detonation models (several groups)
deflagration models (Nomoto)
1980s
improved 1-D deflagration models (Nomoto)
first 2-D deflagration model (Mueller & Arnett)
1990s
2-D and 3-D deflagration models, DDT (Khokhlov)
non-standard models 2-D He detonations (Livne & Arnett)
small scale flame turbulence (Niemeyer & Hillebrandt)
2000s
3-D deflagration models (NRL, MPA, Barcelona, Chicago)
3-D DDT models (NRL)
November 12, 2018

8. Problem Parameters Channels for progenitors Binary evolution
11/12/2018
Problem Parameters
Channels for progenitors
Binary evolution
Population synthesis
Initial conditions
State of the stellar core
Metallicity
Rotation profile
Magnetic fields
Basic physics
Flame on intermediate scales
Unsteadiness
DDT
Numerics
Multiphysics coupling
Nucleosynthesis postprocessing
R. Hynes
INCITE 2004
F. Timmes
Lightcurve image is a Hubble (Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2) image of SN 1997cj.
Zhang et al. (2006)
Khokhlov (2003)
November 12, 2018

9. Explosive Stage of SN Ia
102/4-7 cm
mild
ignition
1010 seconds
deeply subsonic,
Ma ~ 10-4
10-3/5-8 cm
few seconds
deflagration
subsonic: Ma ~ 0.3
101/5-8 cm
detonation
0.5 second
compressible: Ma ~ 2
November 12, 2018

10. Why Large Scale Simulations?
Khokhlov (2003)
November 12, 2018

11. RT-driven Turbulence
Zhang et al. (2006)
November 12, 2018

12. Major Sins of Classic Central Deflagrations
1. Uniformly mixed ejecta, unburned low-velocity carbon
2. Explosion energies too low, need ~50% more burning
3. Initial conditions either too idealized or defined ad hoc
4. Large Ni-rich structures visible at maximum light
5. Insufficient production of intermediate mass elements
November 12, 2018

13. Central Ignition Whole Star Model
INCITE 2004
Two models, 255,000 SUs and 5TB of data per model, 8 km resolution
November 12, 2018

14. Ejecta Composition: Pure DeflagrationsNi
C/O Si Mg
Gamezo et al. (2003)
Reinecke et al. (2002)
Roepke et al. (2005)
Garcia-Senz & Bravo (2004)
November 12, 2018

15. Stratification, Energy: Speculative DDT
3-D pure deflagration
3-D speculative DDT
Gamezo et al. (2003)
November 12, 2018

16. Initial Conditions November 12, 2018 Garcia-Senz & Woosley (1995)
Hoeflich & Stein (2002)
Kuhlen, Woosley, & Glatzmeier (2005)
November 12, 2018

17. Single Bubble, Three Different Methods…
Livne, Asida, & Hoeflich (2005)
3-D
Niemeyer, Hillebrandt, & Woosley (1996)
…and virtually the same result!
Calder et al. (2004)
November 12, 2018

18. Initial Conditions: Location, Velocity Field
r1y100v100a3030in (inflowing, 100 km/s)
INCITE 2004
November 12, 2018

19. the off-center deflagration.
Initial Conditions: Conclusion
Garcia-Senz & Woosley (1995)
Hoeflich & Stein (2002)
Woosley, Wunsch, & Kuhlen (2004)
Calder et al. (2004)
Livne, Asida, & Hoeflich (2005)
Kuehlen, Woosley, & Glatzmeier (2005)
Based on analytic, semi-analytic, and numerical models, the most likely outcome of a mild ignition is
the off-center deflagration.
November 12, 2018

20. Detonating Failed Deflagration
November 12, 2018

21. DFD Detonation Phase
November 12, 2018

22. Double-bubble DFD
November 12, 2018

23. Double-bubble DFD at 1 km resolution
November 12, 2018

24. Model Validation – Radiative Transfer
Kasen, Thomas, & Nugent (2006): Multi-dimensional time-dependent Monte Carlo radiative transfer
November 12, 2018

25. Model Validation – Radiative Transfer
Kasen, Thomas, & Nugent (2006): Multi-dimensional time-dependent Monte Carlo radiative transfer
November 12, 2018

26. Overall Spectrum Shape
DFD at 18 days vs. SN1981B at maximum light.
November 12, 2018

27. DFD/W7 At Maximum Light
November 12, 2018

28. Velocity Evolution Orientation effects controlled by the deflagration
phase in the DFD model
Benetti et al. (2005)
November 12, 2018

29. Distribution of IME in DFD
November 12, 2018

30. GCD Spectral Signatures
Kasen & Plewa (2005)
November 12, 2018

31. Tycho SNR Iron DistributionFS RS
???
Warren et al. (2005)
November 12, 2018

32. Summary To be continued! Detonating Failed Deflagration
displays several main characteristics of observed objects
energetics, light curves, spectra/spectral features
emphasized importance of the initial conditions
detonation in unconfined environment
natural chain of events, not by-hand, but from first principles
Extremely rare case in theoretical astrophysics!
To be continued!
November 12, 2018