high energy gamma-rays in magnetar powered supernovae ... · march 14 – 19, 2016. ... inner shock...
TRANSCRIPT
High Energy Gamma-Raysin Magnetar Powered Supernovae:
Heating Efficiency and Observational Signatures
Dmitry A. Badjin1,2
with Maxim V. Barkov and Sergei I. Blinnikov
1 N.L. Dukhov Research Institute of Automatics (VNIIA), Moscow, Russia2 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
18th Workshop on Nuclear AstrophysicsRingberg Castle
March 14 – 19, 2016
Magnetar Powered Supernova
Sources of additional power:• Rotation energy potentially available:
Erot = 12 IΩ
2 ∼ 1052 erg
• Spin-down losses: Lrot = L0(1 + t
τ
)−α ,L0 ∼ 1045 erg
s , τ ∼ 105 s, α ≈ 2
• Inner Shock heating
• HEGR heating
! Simple deposition of Lrot at the shell baseseems promising for fitting observed SLSNlight curvesD. Kasen, L. Bildsten, ApJ, 2010, 717, p.245
C. Inserra et al. ApJ, 2013, 770:128
M. Nicholl et al. Nature, 2013, 502, p.346
2
Magnetar Powered Supernova
Magnetar Driven Shock: 1D-simulations
D.Kasen, B.Metzger, L.Bildsten, arXiv:1507.03645, accepted to ApJ
3
Magnetar Powered Supernova
Questions:• Whether the magnetar powering is pronounced against the initial (strong) SLSN explosionand Ni-Co-Fe decays??∃t: LM(t) & Lburst(t), LNi(t)
It seems better:• the magnetar to be strong (but this means a short time-scale of losses)• or the explosion – weak (but how could it provide a strong M?)
• or t – long (but heating power is also weak)
• HEGRs may be locked inside the wind cavern by high opacity for pair-production on thethermal background of ejecta, until the latter cools enough.
Tests are required.
4
Tested ScenarioMRI-driven Hypernova with Magnetar Powering
Eburst = 1− 10 foe, LM = 3× 1045 ergs , Ni-free but with HEGRs
according to Barkov M.V. & Komissarov S.S., Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 2011, 415, pp.944-958
5
Magnetar Cavern
• Initial burst – a ‘Thermal Bomb’
• SN ejecta (IV) expands into ISM (V)⇒ Forward Shock (FS)
• Magnetar e±-wind (I) (γe = 103 − 109!) is terminated byIV⇒
• 3 discontinuities: Termination shock (TS), leptons-plasmaContact (CD), Inner shock (IS)
• 2 regions: shocked wind (II), shocked plasma (III).
• Plasma is hot (104 − 105 K)⇒ thermal emission (TE)inwards (∼ free escape) and outwards (diffusion→ freeescape)
• Relativistic e± + B and TE⇒ HEGRs: synchrotron (10 MeV– 10 GeV) and IC (up to 100 TeV)
• HEGRs + plasma (direct Compton) and TE (pair production)⇒ heating and pressure.
6
Methods of Testing
Radiative Hydrodynamics with STELLA (Blinnikov et al., 1998) for TE:• Spherical symmetric lagrangean hydrodynamics
• Coupled (unsplit) + multigroup time dependent radiation transport of energy and flux (0thand 1st moments of the Boltzmann equation, variable Eddington factor closure, O(v/c) inmoving media)
• High order accurate implicit solver(2-nd in space, up to 6-th in time)
• Scattering and expansion opacity
• Artificial mixing acceleration
Improvements for high-energy effects:• + Source of HEGR accounts for spin-down luminosity (e± injection), coupling of wind andplasma via pressure and energy balance.
• + Spectral transport of HEGRs. Energy deposition. Outcoming emission ectimation.
• + Optimization of moment equations closure
HEGRStella (Badjin)
7
Wind-Plasma Coupling Scheme
at TS:pe + pB = E
3V + B28π = Lw
4πcR2TSEe = Le + (η − 1)Lγ − peVEB = LB − pBVLγ = LSyn(B, TTE) + LIC(J(ν), B)
at CD: pe + pB ↔ nkT
everywhere above TS:γ + e− → γ′ + heatγ + hν → e± → heatheat = Ee or 32nkT
8
HEGR Source Calculation
• Input: B, Le(t),dN0e (t,γe)
dγe∼ Le(t)γ−2e , Trad or Jν(ν) from native
STELLA
• Quasi-stationary fast e-cooling:dNe(γe,t)
dt = N0(t)γαe− Ne(γe,t)
tcool(Trad,B,γe)+
γe,max∫γe
Ne(γ′e ,t)tcool(Trad,B,γ′e→γe)
dγ′e = 0
• dNe(γe,t)dγe
⇒ dNγ(ε,t)dε |Syn, dNγ(ε,t)
dε |IC ⇒ Lγ(t)
• HEGR spectral density over 100 MeV – 100 TeV logarithmic grid• special thanks to Dmitry V. Khangulyan
9
HEGRs & Compton Scattering
• HEGRs are emitted by ultrarelativistic leptons⇒ strong radialcollimation⇒ sharp angular dependence, low-order momentapproximations do not work.
• Direct CS (off cold e−): HEGRs either are weakly deflected, or(otherwise) lose most of energy
• Strongly downscattered photons do not contribute photon densityat final energy significantly⇒
• Simplification: HEGRs are discretized intoa set of expanding spherical shellsof photons collimated within θc < 1− 3:small-angle scattering – gradual softening,large-angle scattering – photon destruction,immediate energy thermalization.
10
HEGR Transport Equation
• Superposition of ‘direct’ and ‘scattered’ (only within θc) emission onevery elementary path r0 → r1 = r0 + c∆t.
• Transfer equation formal solution:
Nε(r1, ε) = Nε(r0, ε)e−∆τ(ε) +34σTSC(ε)
SC(ε) =
εmax∫ε1
Nε(r0, ε0)F(ε, ε0)
ε0
r1∫r0
ne(r′)e−
r′∫r0χ(ε0)dr′′−
r1∫r′χ(ε)dr′′
dr′d ln ε0
∆τ(ε) =
r1∫r0
χ(ε, r′, t′(r′))dr′
11
Kinetics and Opacity
• Downscattering rate ε0 → ε (if allowed by the angular selectionrule):
F(ε, ε0) = (1 + (1 +1ε0
− 1ε
)2 + εε0(1ε0
− 1ε
)2) ε0 6 εmax(ε, θ)
• opacity χ accounts for CS:
χKN(ε) = ne38σTε2
(4 + (ε− 2− 2
ε) ln(1 + 2ε) +
2ε2(1 + ε)
(1 + 2ε)2
),
• and pair production of photons of local effective temperature Teff :
χpp(ε, ν) =2r20Θ
3
πΛ3e
ν2 1∫∞
sσ(s) ln(1− e−νs) ds
,
ν(ε, Teff ) = m2c4/(εkTeff ), Θ = kTeff/mec2, Λe = ~/mec
(derived from Gould & Schreder, 1967)
12
Calculation Setup
• RSG Mass: 15− 25M→ 15
• Scale factor for CE: 1–10→ 10
• MRI-SN burst energy 1-10×1051 erg, duration – 30-100 s→ 3, 30
• Lw = 3 · 1045(1 + t
105s
)−2.1 ergs , B ∼ 1015
• Magnetization parameter σ = 0.1− 10→ 0.1:σLB + Le = (σ + 1)Lw
• Lepton spectrum: ∼ γ−2e , γe = 103 − 109
• Output: light curves and spectra of outcoming HEGRs andobservable TE during the first several years
13
Conditions in the Cavern
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 10310-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104R
, 1014
cm
B, k
Gs;
Tra
d, 1
05K
t, days
RsrcRcd
BTrad
14
HEGR Outcome
Source Outcome
36
38
40
42
44
46
0.1 1 10 100 1000
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
10 100 1000lo
g Lγ,
erg
s-1
Bol0.1-1 GeV1-10 GeV
10-100 GeV0.1-1 TeV
• Strong absorption in the shell⇒ the signal is rather weak and late
15
HEGR Blocking
Key effect:
• Plasma is hot⇒ a lot of thermalhν , to “kill” the most of HEGRsbefore they pass the CD
• HEGRs (almost) do not enter theplasma⇒ no re-heating of theshell
• Cold shell⇒ does not interceptHEGRs⇒ no re-heating, weak TE.
• Negative feedback hν − γ.Magnetar energy turns into work.
16
Magnetar Driven Shock
The MDS is radiative⇒ Dense Shell.
HEGRStellaOptically and geometrically thin dense shell⇒Extremely hard for numerical differential transfer
Long-characteristic integral scheme for TE
Blondin, Chevalier & Frierson, ApJ, 2001, 563, p.806
17
Magnetar Driven Shock
The MDS is radiative⇒ Dense Shell.
HEGRStellaOptically and geometrically thin dense shell⇒Extremely hard for numerical differential transfer
Long-characteristic integral scheme for TE
But! It is known to be RT-unstable(Bernstein & Book 1978)
Credit: S. Glazyrin⇒Time to smear
Artificial RT-viscosity boost 102 − 103
17
Thermal Emission: Bolometric
The work is actually in progress
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1 10 100
log
LT
E,b
ol, e
rg s
-1
t, days
NoHEGR NoNi3 foe + HEGR
1.2 foe + HEGRNoHEGR + 0.1 MNi
18
STELLA: 15M, 1-3 foe: Conclusions ...• Magnetars seem not so ‘almighty’. At least in extended envelopes.SLSN - ?
• Distinctive ‘magnetar tail’ – only at the latest stages(t > TNi→Co→Fe ∼ 102 d.)
• Unless the shell is too cold, its thermal background blocks theHEGRs within the cavern, otherwise – it is transparent.HEGRs heat not the ejecta but the shocked wind
... and new questions.
• Why the MDS does not shine brightly? Non-Eq emission into thecentral cavity or an artifact of mixing?
• If there are other ways of the shocked wind energy dissipation andheat conduction?
• The radiative thin dense shell around CD requires special TEtransfer methods or properly enhanced mixing (based on multi-Danalysis).
19
STELLA: 15M, 1-3 foe: Conclusions ...• Magnetars seem not so ‘almighty’. At least in extended envelopes.SLSN - ?
• Distinctive ‘magnetar tail’ – only at the latest stages(t > TNi→Co→Fe ∼ 102 d.)
• Unless the shell is too cold, its thermal background blocks theHEGRs within the cavern, otherwise – it is transparent.HEGRs heat not the ejecta but the shocked wind
... and new questions.
• Why the MDS does not shine brightly? Non-Eq emission into thecentral cavity or an artifact of mixing?
• If there are other ways of the shocked wind energy dissipation andheat conduction?
• The radiative thin dense shell around CD requires special TEtransfer methods or properly enhanced mixing (based on multi-Danalysis).
19
Thank you!
20