1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2004 January 9

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

23: 

24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

25: 

26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

30: %% use the longabstract style option.

31: 

32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

33: 

34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

36: %% the \begin{document} command.

37: %%

38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

41: %% for information.

42: 

43: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

44: 

45: \slugcomment{WU-AP/258/06}

46: 

47: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

48: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

49: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

50: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

51: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

52: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

53: 

54: \shorttitle{Stellar Core Collapse and Neutrino Emission}

55: \shortauthors{Nakazato, Sumiyoshi, \& Yamada}

56: 

57: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

58: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

63: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

64: %% you desire.

65: 

66: \title{Numerical Study on Stellar Core Collapse and Neutrino Emission: \\

67:      Probe into the Spherically Symmetric Black Hole Progenitors with 3

68:      - 30$M_\odot$ Iron Cores}

69: 

70: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

71: %% author and affiliation information.

72: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

73: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

74: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

75: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

76: 

77: \author{Ken'ichiro Nakazato\altaffilmark{1}, Kohsuke

78: Sumiyoshi\altaffilmark{2,3} and Shoichi Yamada\altaffilmark{1,4}}

79: 

80: \email{nakazato@heap.phys.waseda.ac.jp}

81: 

82: %\affil{Department of Physics, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku,

83: %    Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

84: 

85: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics,

86: Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

87: \altaffiltext{2}{Numazu College of Technology, Ooka 3600, Numazu,

88: Shizuoka 410-8501, Japan}

89: \altaffiltext{3}{Division of Theoretical Astronomy, National

90: Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588,

91: Japan}

92: \altaffiltext{4}{Advanced Research Institute for Science \& Engineering, 

93: Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

94: 

95: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

96: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

97: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

98: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

99: %% editorial office after submission.

100: 

101: \begin{abstract}

102: 

103:  The existence of various anomalous stars, such as the first stars in

104:  the universe or stars produced by stellar mergers, has been recently

105:  proposed. Some of these stars will result in black hole formation. In

106:  this study, we investigate iron core collapse and black hole formation

107:  systematically for the iron-core mass range of 3 - 30$M_\odot$, which

108:  has not been studied well so far. Models used here are mostly

109:  isentropic iron cores that may be produced in merged stars in the

110:  present universe but we also employ a model that is meant for a

111:  Population III star and is obtained by evolutionary calculation. We

112:  solve numerically the general relativistic hydrodynamics and neutrino

113:  transfer equations simultaneously, treating neutrino reactions in

114:  detail under spherical symmetry. As a result, we find that massive iron

115:  cores with $\sim10M_\odot$ unexpectedly produce a bounce owing to the

116:  thermal pressure of nucleons before black hole formation. The features

117:  of neutrino signals emitted from such massive iron cores differ in time

118:  evolution and spectrum from those of ordinary supernovae. Firstly, the

119:  neutronization burst is less remarkable or disappears completely for

120:  more massive models because the density is lower at the

121:  bounce. Secondly, the spectra of neutrinos, except the electron type,

122:  are softer owing to the electron-positron pair creation before the

123:  bounce. We also study the effects of the initial density profile,

124:  finding that the larger the initial density gradient is, the more

125:  steeply the neutronization burst declines. Further more, we suggest a

126:  way to probe into the black hole progenitors from the neutrino emission

127:  and estimate the event number for the currently operating neutrino

128:  detectors.

129: 

130: \end{abstract}

131: 

132: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

133: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

134: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

135: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

136: 

137: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

138: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the

139: %% subject header.  Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"

140: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the

141: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each

142: %% individual object, not exceed six.  The \objectname{} macro, and its

143: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object.  The macro takes the object

144: %% name as its primary argument.  This name will appear in the paper

145: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name

146: %% is recognized by the data centers.  The macro also takes an optional

147: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification

148: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.

149: 

150: \keywords{black hole physics --- relativity --- hydrodynamics ---

151: neutrinos --- radiative transfer --- methods: numerical}

152: 

153: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

154: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

155: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

156: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

157: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

158: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

159: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

160: %% each reference.

161: 

162: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}

163: 

164: Various anomalous stars, such as the first stars in the universe

165: (so-called Population III stars) or stars produced by stellar mergers in

166: stellar clusters, are being studied recently. As for the Population III

167: stars, it is suggested theoretically that they are much more massive

168: ($M\gtrsim100M_{\odot}$) than stars of later generations (e.g., Nakamura

169: \& Umemura 2001). On the other hand, $N$-body simulations show that the

170: runaway mergers of massive stars occur and that very massive

171: ($M\gtrsim100M_{\odot}$) stars are formed in a young compact stellar

172: cluster (e.g., Portegies Zwart 1999). Especially notable is a newly

173: suggested formation scenario for supermassive black holes which requires

174: the formation of intermediate-mass black holes by the collapse of merged

175: stars in very compact stellar clusters (e.g., Ebisuzaki et al. 2001). If

176: these anomalous stars collapse to black holes without supernova

177: explosions, it is supposedly difficult to be hard to probe into their

178: progenitors. One possible means of such a probe is, we think, to examine

179: the neutrinos emitted during the black hole formation. For this purpose,

180: systematic studies on black hole formation, including effects of the

181: neutrinos, are needed.

182: 

183: So far, various numerical simulations of supernova explosions have been

184: done by many authors. Similarly, numerical studies on black hole

185: formation have also been recently produced (e.g., Fryer 1999; Linke et

186: al. 2001; Fryer et al. 2001, hereafter FWH01; Sekiguchi \& Shibata 2005,

187: hereafter SS05; Nakazato et al. 2006, hereafter NSY06; Sumiyoshi et

188: al. 2006, hereafter SYSC06). Fryer (1999) classified core collapse into

189: three types. a) Stars with $M\lesssim25M_{\odot}$ make explosions and

190: produce neutron stars. b) Stars ranging

191: $25M_{\odot}\lesssim~M\lesssim40M_{\odot}$ also result in explosions but

192: produce black holes via fallback. c) For $M\gtrsim40M_{\odot}$, the

193: shock produced at the bounce can neither propagate out of the core nor

194: make explosions. In any case, the core bounces once. SYSC06 computed

195: fully general relativistic hydrodynamics under spherical symmetry,

196: taking into account the reactions and transports of neutrinos in detail

197: and confirmed class c) for the collapse of a progenitor with

198: $40M_{\odot}$. On the other hand, much more massive stars result in

199: black hole formation without bounce. SS05 studied the criterion for the

200: collapse without bounce. Their computations are fully general

201: relativistic, and they investigated the dynamics systematically, varying

202: the initial mass and rotation. They concluded that non-rotating iron

203: cores with a mass of $M_\mathrm{iron}\gtrsim2.2M_{\odot}$ collapse to

204: black holes without bounce. However, they employed the phenomenological

205: equation of state and did not consider the effects of neutrinos.

206: 

207: There are studies also on a collapse of very massive stars in a context

208: of the evolution of Population III stars. As mentioned already,

209: Population III stars may be very massive, $M\gtrsim100M_{\odot}$. It is

210: supposed that the pair creation of electrons and positrons makes a star

211: unstable during the helium burning phase if they do not lose much of

212: their mass during the quasi-static evolutions because of zero 

213: metallicity. Stars with $\lesssim260M_\odot$ reverse the collapse by

214: rapid nuclear burnings and explode to pieces, which are called 

215: pair-instability supernovae, while more massive stars cannot halt the

216: collapse and form black holes (e.g., Heger et al. 2003). Note that,

217: however, these numbers are still uncertain at present (e.g., Ohkubo et

218: al. 2006). Assuming that Population III stars with

219: $M\gtrsim300M_{\odot}$ are formed and evolve without mass loss, FWH01

220: and NSY06 showed that they collapse without bounce for spherically 

221: symmetric models under fully general relativistic computations while

222: NSY06 treated the neutrino transport more in detail than FWH01. FWH01

223: also computed the collapse of a rotating star with $300M_{\odot}$ under

224: Newtonian gravity and showed that it has a weak bounce and then

225: recollapses to a black hole immediately. As for the collapse of

226: supermassive stars with $M\gtrsim5\times10^5M_{\odot}$, Linke et

227: al. (2001) found that they form black holes without bounce before

228: becoming opaque to neutrinos.

229: 

230: The black hole formation of stars in the mass range between

231: $\sim 100M_{\odot}$ and $\sim 260M_{\odot}$, which corresponds to the

232: iron-core mass range between $\sim 3M_{\odot}$ and $\sim 30M_{\odot}$,

233: has not been studied well so far. This is because they are supposed to

234: explode as pair-instability supernovae during the quasi-static

235: evolutions if they are single stars. Recently, on the other hand, stars

236: produced by stellar mergers in a young compact stellar cluster were

237: studied in detail and their evolutionary paths are beginning to be

238: revealed (Suzuki et al. 2007). While they do not calculate the

239: evolutions of these stars up to the black hole formation, we speculate,

240: as in \S~\ref{prog}, that they may avoid the explosions as

241: pair-instability supernovae and form a massive iron core of the

242: above-mentioned range. Therefore, we investigate, in this study, the

243: iron core collapses systematically for the iron core masses of

244: $3M_{\odot}$ and $30M_{\odot}$, although there is no evidence to show

245: their existence so far.

246: 

247: To be more specific, we assume that the mass of an iron core is mainly

248: determined by the entropy per baryon, and our investigation is done

249: systematically for entropy. We solve the general relativistic

250: hydrodynamics under spherical symmetry. We also solve the neutrino

251: transfer equations simultaneously, treating neutrino reactions in

252: detail. In addition to the isentropic iron core models, we employ the

253: realistic stellar model of $100M_{\odot}$ and zero metallicity,

254: supposedly a Population III star, by Nomoto et al. (2005). We address

255: the issues concerning the black hole formation of the merged stars in

256: connection with our study and estimate the neutrino event number for the

257: currently operating detectors. We also suggest a way to probe into the

258: progenitors from the detection. We hope that this study will be not only

259: a reference for future multi-dimensional computations but also provide a

260: basis for neutrino astrophysics in the black hole formation.

261: 

262: \section{Initial Models and Numerical Methods} \label{mdlmthds}

263: 

264: At first, we construct the iron core models, which will later be used as

265: initial models for the dynamical simulation of the collapse. The

266: progenitor with $40M_{\odot}$ in SYSC06 has an entropy per baryon,

267: $s\sim1.5k_B$ and an iron core mass, $M_\mathrm{iron}=1.98M_{\odot}$,

268: whereas the massive Population III star models in NSY06 have $s>16k_B$

269: and $M_\mathrm{iron}>50M_{\odot}$. In this study, we intend to bridge

270: the gap of the black hole progenitors and discuss the neutrino emission

271: systematically for this range. Unfortunately, realistic models of the

272: progenitors for this range are rare, and ``systematic'' models for them

273: are absent up to the present, since their astrophysical counterparts are

274: not well known, as mentioned already. Therefore, we construct the

275: initial models by ourselves.

276: 

277: We assume that the iron cores in equilibrium configurations collapse by

278: photodisintegration, as is the case for the onset of ordinary core

279: collapse supernovae. We obtain the initial models, solving the

280: Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation with the equation of state by Shen et

281: al. (1998a, 1998b) assuming isentropy and the electron fraction

282: $Y_e=0.5$ throughout the core. We define the mass of the iron core,

283: $M_\mathrm{iron}$, as the mass coordinate where the temperature is

284: $5\times 10^9$~K, whereas we set the outer boundary at a much larger

285: radius so as not to affect the dynamics. For the systematic analysis, we

286: set the initial central temperature as

287: $T_\mathrm{initial}=7.75\times10^9$~K, which is slightly higher than the

288: critical temperature for the photodisintegration (Figure~\ref{result}),

289: and generate models~1a-6a with the values of entropy per baryon,

290: $s=3k_B$-$13k_B$, which have not been studied well so far, as mentioned

291: above. In order to investigate the ambiguity in the onset of collapse,

292: we also adopt a model (model~2b) with the same initial entropy per

293: baryon as model~2a ($s=4k_B$) but having half the central density. The

294: key parameters of these models are summarized in

295: Table~\ref{bounce_result}. In addition, we also employ the realistic 

296: stellar model of $100M_{\odot}$ with a vanishing metallicity by Nomoto

297: et al. (2005) in order to validate the isentropic models. This model is

298: supposedly a Population III star and resides in the range

299: $s=3k_B$-$13k_B$. 

300: 

301: As a next step, we compute the dynamics of spherically symmetric

302: gravitational collapse with the neutrino transport. As for our numerical

303: methods, we follow NSY06 and use the general relativistic implicit

304: Lagrangian hydrodynamics code, which solves simultaneously the neutrino

305: Boltzmann equations (Yamada 1997 ; Yamada et al. 1999 ; Sumiyoshi et

306: al. 2005). We consider four species of neutrino, $\nu_e$, $\bar\nu_e$,

307: $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$, assuming that $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar\nu_\tau$

308: are the same as $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$, respectively, and take into

309: account 9 neutrino reactions listed in NSY06. We use 127 radial mesh

310: points, while 12 and 4 mesh points are used for energy- and angular

311: distribution of neutrino, respectively. In order to assess the

312: convergence of our results, we compute models with higher

313: resolutions. They have the same initial conditions as model~2a. For

314: model~2m, the number of radial mesh points is increased to 255. Model~2e

315: use 18 mesh points for the energy spectrum while model~2g has 6 mesh

316: points for the angular distribution.

317: 

318: It is noted that our method allows us to follow the dynamics with no

319: difficulty up to the apparent horizon formation.  The existence of the

320: apparent horizon is the sufficient condition for the formation of a

321: black hole (or, equivalently, of an event horizon). For the Misner-Sharp

322: metric (Misner \& Sharp 1964) adopted in our computations, the radius of

323: the apparent horizon is written as

324: \begin{equation}

325: r = \frac{2G\widetilde m}{c^2},

326: \label{ah}

327: \end{equation}

328: where $c$ and $G$ are the velocity of light and the gravitational

329: constant, respectively (van Riper 1979). $r$ is the circumference radius

330: and $\widetilde m$ is the gravitational mass inside $r$. Since our

331: models are spherically symmetric, there is no difficulty in finding the

332: horizon.

333: 

334: \section{Results and Discussions} 

335: 

336: In this section, we show the results of our computations and discuss

337: them. We study the dynamics of the collapse in \S~\ref{bm} and

338: investigate the features of the neutrinos emitted during the collapse in

339: \S~\ref{ns}. In \S~\ref{ivd}, we investigate the role of the initial

340: velocity or the deviation from equilibrium. We also make a comparison

341: with the realistic progenitor models in \S~\ref{rsm}. Finally, we

342: mention about the astronomical counterparts of our models and the

343: possibility of the probe into the progenitors of the events in

344: \S~\ref{ai}.

345: 

346: To overview the characteristics of the models which we surveyed, we show

347: in Figure~\ref{result}, the evolution of the central density and

348: temperature of our results together with those of other simulations of

349: black hole formation. The trajectories of the current models shown by

350: solid lines are between those of previous models reflecting the

351: different values of entropy. From this figure, we can recognize that our

352: investigation bridges the gap between two previous studies, SYSC06 and

353: NSY06.

354: 

355: \subsection{Dynamical Features}\label{bm}

356: 

357: It is known that ordinary supernovae with $s\sim1k_\mathrm{B}$ bounce

358: because their central density exceeds the nuclear density

359: ($\sim2.5\times10^{14}\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$) and pressure drastically

360: increases. From our computations, we find that models with

361: $3k_\mathrm{B}\leq s\leq7.5k_\mathrm{B}$ ($M\leq10.6M_\odot$) have a

362: bounce and that they recollapse to black holes. On the other hand,

363: models with $s>7.5k_\mathrm{B}$ ($M>10.6M_\odot$) collapse to black

364: holes directly without bounce. We show the evolution of core collapse in

365: Figure~\ref{maxmasf} for two representative cases.

366: 

367: In the case of $3k_\mathrm{B}\leq s\leq7.5k_\mathrm{B}$, it is noted

368: that the bounce mechanism of the core with $s\geq3k_\mathrm{B}$ is not

369: the same as that of ordinary supernovae. The high entropy cores bounce

370: because of the thermal pressure of nucleons at sub-nuclear density. We

371: can see this fact from the evolutions of central density and temperature

372: in the phase diagram of the nuclear matter at $Y_e=0.4$ and $0.2$

373: (Figure~\ref{phase}). We note that for all models at the center,

374: $Y_e\sim0.4$ and $Y_e\sim0.2$ when $T\sim1$~MeV and $T\sim10$~MeV,

375: respectively. These figures show that the models with higher entropies

376: go from the non-uniform mixed phase of nuclei and free nucleons to the

377: classical ideal gas phase of thermal nucleons and $\alpha$ particles,

378: whereas that of an ordinary supernova goes into the uniform nuclear

379: matter phase. In the ideal gas phase, the number of non-relativistic

380: nucleons and $\alpha$ particles is comparable to that of relativistic

381: electrons. Since the adiabatic index of non-relativistic gas is

382: $\gamma=\frac{5}{3}$ and that of relativistic gas is

383: $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$, the collapse is halted and bounce occurs.

384: 

385: Because this bounce is weak and the shock is stalled, the inner core (or

386: the protoneutron star) grows beyond the maximum mass of the neutron star

387: and recollapses to a black hole soon (left panel of

388: Figure~\ref{shell4}). In Figure~\ref{maxmasf}, we show the maximum mass

389: of the neutron star assuming isentropy and the constant electron

390: fraction ($Y_e=0.1$) under the equation of state by Shen et

391: al. (1998a, 1998b). It is noted that the maximum mass is larger than

392: $3M_\odot$ for the neutron star with high entropies,

393: $s\gtrsim4k_\mathrm{B}$. Since the maximum mass of the neutron star

394: depends on the equation of state, it should be remind that the time

395: interval from the bounce to the recollapse also depends on it

396: (SYSC06). We will refer to this point again later.

397: 

398: In Table~\ref{bounce_result}, we show the inner core mass, central

399: density, temperature and adiabatic index at the bounce together with the

400: interval time from the bounce to the apparent horizon formation. We can

401: recognize that the density and the adiabatic index at the bounce get

402: lower for the models with higher initial entropies. These features

403: indicate that the bounce is not due to the nuclear force but to the

404: thermal pressure of non-relativistic gas for high entropy

405: cores. Moreover, the interval time from the bounce to the apparent

406: horizon formation is shorter for the higher entropy cores. This is

407: because the initial mass of the iron core ($M_\mathrm{iron}$) is larger

408: than the maximum mass of the neutron star ($M_\mathrm{max}$) for the

409: models with high entropies and they can collapse to black holes quickly.

410: 

411: We also show the results for the models with higher resolutions in

412: Table~\ref{bounce_result}. The central density and the adiabatic index

413: at bounce, which are key parameters in our analysis, are not very

414: different for models~2a, 2g and 2m. The central density at bounce of

415: model~2e, which has 1.5 times finer energy mesh, is different by 14\%

416: from that of model~2a. This is because neutrinos affect the entropy

417: variations before the neutrino trapping. In fact, the central entropy at

418: bounce of model~2a is $3.50k_\mathrm{B}$ while that of model~2e is

419: $3.62k_\mathrm{B}$. However, qualitative features of their bounces are

420: not changed. On the other hand, the interval times from the bounce to

421: the apparent horizon formation are different by $\lesssim$ 15\% for

422: models~2a, 2e, 2g and 2m. This is because the start point of the

423: recollpase is roughly determined by the maximum mass of the neutron star

424: as mentioned already. Since the mass accretion rate is of the order of

425: $10M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ during this phase in our models, the

426: difference of $0.1M_{\odot}$ in the maximum mass means the difference of

427: 10ms in the interval time, which is close to the discrepancies found

428: here. Thus, the precise determination of the interval time is difficult

429: in general. However, its dependence on the initial entropy is well

430: established.

431: 

432: We compare our results with other studies. In SS05, the non-rotating

433: models with an iron core mass of $\gtrsim2.28M_{\odot}$ end up with

434: black holes without bounce. In our models, on the other hand, it is

435: shown that the iron core with $\lesssim10.6M_{\odot}$ (or the initial

436: entropy $s\lesssim7.5k_\mathrm{B}$) has bounce before black hole

437: formation. This discrepancy comes from the fact that their equation of

438: state is parametric and does not take into account properly the effects

439: of thermal nucleons in the collapsing phase. On the other hand, the

440: rotating Population III star with $\sim300M_{\odot}$ has a weak bounce

441: at $\rho_c\sim10^{12}\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$ in FWH01, and these authors

442: adopt a realistic equation of state (Herant et al. 1994). Since the

443: rotation tends to produce a bounce, we can predict that the bounce is

444: inevitable for an iron core with the mass $\lesssim10M_{\odot}$

445: irrespective of rotations, and the effects of thermal nucleons are

446: crucial.

447: 

448: In the high entropy case $s>7.5k_\mathrm{B}$, more massive cores do not

449: have a bounce but form an accretion shock before the apparent horizon

450: formation. This is because, the outer region keeps collapsing

451: supersonically while the central region becomes gravitationally stable

452: by the thermal pressure of non-relativistic gas. We can see this feature

453: in the right panel of Figure~\ref{shell4}. As the initial mass gets

454: larger, the transition occurs smoothly from the collapse with bounce to

455: the one without bounce. Incidentally, the features of direct collapse

456: are almost the same as those for the Population III models in NSY06,

457: where a detailed analysis can be found.

458: 

459: 

460: \subsection{Neutrino Signals}\label{ns}

461: 

462: In this section, we discuss neutrino emission during core collapse. As

463: mentioned already, we compute the collapse until the formation of the

464: apparent horizon. However, the location of the event horizon is not

465: known for our models although it is proved mathematically that the event

466: horizon is always located outside the apparent horizon. Moreover, the

467: numerical difficulty prevents us from computing the dynamics until the

468: apparent horizon swallows the shock surface entirely. Because of these

469: facts, the total energy and number of emitted neutrinos have some

470: ambiguities. In this study, we estimate the upper and lower limits for

471: the total energy and number of emitted neutrinos, following NSY06. The

472: upper limit is obtained with an assumption that all neutrinos in the

473: region between the shock surface and the neutrino sphere flow out

474: without being absorbed or scattered. For the lower limit, on the other

475: hand, we assume that all neutrinos in this region are trapped and do not

476: come out. Fortunately, for the models with bounce, these ambiguities are

477: minor, compared with the direct collapse models in NSY06, since the

478: duration from the shock formation to the apparent horizon formation is

479: longer and almost all neutrinos are emitted during this phase.

480: 

481: The calculated results of the neutrino emission are summarized in 

482: Table~\ref{nutr-eg}. It is noted that we assume that $\nu_\tau$

483: ($\bar\nu_\tau$) is the same as $\nu_\mu$ ($\bar\nu_\mu$), and that the

484: luminosities of $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$ are almost identical because

485: they have the same reactions and because the difference of coupling

486: constants is minor. In the following, ignoring this tiny difference, we 

487: denote these four species as $\nu_x$ collectively. In

488: Table~\ref{nutr-eg}, we can recognize that the total energy does not

489: change monotonically with the initial entropy of the core. This is

490: because the duration of the neutrino emission is longer for the lower

491: entropy models, while the duration is shorter and the neutrino

492: luminosity is larger for the higher entropy models.

493: 

494: In Figure~\ref{lumi}, we show the time evolutions of neutrino luminosity

495: for several models under the assumption that the neutrinos outside the

496: neutrino sphere flow freely after the apparent horizon formation. As

497: already mentioned, the time interval from the bounce to the apparent

498: horizon formation depends on the equation of state. In SYSC06, it is

499: shown that the features of the neutrino emission, such as a

500: neutronization burst, are not sensitive to the equation of state 

501: very much for the early phase. From Figure~\ref{lumi}, we can see

502: that the sign of neutronization burst becomes less remarkable and

503: disappears for the higher entropy models.

504: 

505: In order to analyze these features, we discuss the neutrino emission

506: from model~1a, as a reference model. In the upper left panel of

507: Figure~\ref{lumimu}, we show snapshots of the luminosity of an

508: electron-type neutrino as a function of the baryon mass coordinate. We

509: can recognize that neutrinos are emitted on the shock surface

510: mainly. The luminosity on the shock surface has a peak (e.g., at

511: $1.25M_{\odot}$ in the upper left panel of Figure~\ref{lumimu}), which

512: is similar to the situation for ordinary supernovae (e.g., Thompson et

513: al. 2003). In the following, we estimate the value of the luminosity

514: semi-analytically and compare it with the results of our numerical

515: simulations.

516: 

517: At first, the number density of neutrinos on the shock surface can be

518: evaluated roughly by the equilibrium value,

519: \begin{equation}

520: n_\mathrm{eq.}(\epsilon)d\epsilon\propto\frac{\epsilon^2}{\exp\left(\frac{\epsilon - \mu_\nu}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)+1}d\epsilon,

521: \label{neq}

522: \end{equation}

523: where $T$ and $\mu_\nu$ are the temperature and the chemical potential

524: of the electron-type neutrino in $\beta$-equilibrium at the shock

525: surface, respectively, and $k_\mathrm{B}$ is the Boltzmann

526: constant. Here the value $\mu_\nu$ is defined as

527: $\mu_\nu\equiv\mu_e-(\mu_n-\mu_p)$, where $\mu_e$, $\mu_n$ and $\mu_p$

528: are the chemical potentials of electron, neutron and proton, 

529: respectively, and they are given in the equation of state by Shen et

530: al. (1998a, 1998b). The number flux is estimated as

531: $cn_\mathrm{eq.}\langle\cos\theta\rangle$, where 

532: $\langle\cos\theta\rangle$ is a mean value of the angular cosine over

533: the neutrino angular distribution and $c$ is the light velocity. In

534: Figure~\ref{fluxcomp}, we compare the results of our numerical

535: computation with the number flux estimated above. We can see that the

536: equilibrium is not achieved completely, but the fraction is rather

537: constant, $\sim0.6$. Therefore, the luminosity is well estimated by

538: \begin{equation}

539: L(\epsilon)d\epsilon=C\frac{16\pi^2r^2\langle\cos\theta\rangle\epsilon^3}{h^3c^2\left(\exp\left(\frac{\epsilon - \mu_\nu}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)+1\right)}d\epsilon,

540: \label{lumies}

541: \end{equation}

542: where $h$ is the Planck constant, $r$ is the radius of the shock surface

543: and $C\sim0.6$.

544: 

545: From equation (\ref{lumies}), we can see that the luminosity is

546: determined by $r$, $\mu_\nu$, $T$ and

547: $\langle\cos\theta\rangle$. According to our numerical computation,

548: $T\sim1.5$~MeV and $\langle\cos\theta\rangle\sim0.5$ do not change very

549: much on the time scale of the neutronization burst. Thus, the luminosity

550: is dictated mainly by $r$ and $\mu_\nu$. Snapshots of the profiles of

551: $\mu_\nu$ are shown in the lower left panel of Figure~\ref{lumimu}, and

552: we can see that $\mu_\nu$ has a peak on the shock surface for the

553: following reason. When matter accretes onto the shock, the baryon mass

554: density and the electron number density rise, leading to the increase of

555: $\mu_e$ and, as a result, $\mu_\nu$. Immediately thereafter,

556: neutronization occurs and the value of $(\mu_n-\mu_p)$ rises, which

557: reduces $\mu_\nu$. We can recognize from Figure~\ref{lumimu} that the

558: peaks of $\mu_\nu$ and the luminosity are correlated. As for the time

559: evolution, the luminosity on the shock surface is lower at the early

560: phase because the shock radius is small. On the other hand, it is also

561: lower at the late phase because $\mu_\nu$ is lower. This is the reason

562: why the luminosity on the shock surface has a peak.

563: 

564: We now investigate model~4a, whose initial entropy is

565: $s=7.5k_\mathrm{B}$. In the lower right panel of Figure~\ref{lumimu},

566: snapshots of the profiles of $\mu_\nu$ for model~4a are shown. We can

567: see that the value of $\mu_\nu$ at the shock surface is lower than that

568: of model~1a at the early phase. This is because the baryon mass density

569: on the shock surface of model~4a at the bounce is lower than that of

570: model~1a, as has been mentioned. Accordingly, the electron number

571: density and $\mu_e$ are also lower for model~4a, and $\mu_\nu$ does not

572: rise so high. This is the main reason why the neutronization burst is

573: not remarkable. It is noted, moreover, that the electron fraction,

574: $Y_e$, on the shock surface of model~4a is lower than that of

575: model~1a. This is because nuclei do not exist and the nucleons are

576: already neutronized on the shock surface. The absence of nuclei is

577: consistent with the fact that the higher the initial entropy is, the

578: earlier nuclei dissolve into nucleons, as explained by

579: Figure~\ref{phase}. In addition, we can see that the luminosity of

580: $\nu_e$ rises monotonically. This is because the area of a shock surface

581: increases whereas $\mu_\nu$ is almost unchanging.

582: 

583: The results for the models with higher resolutions are shown in

584: Figure~\ref{far}. While the duration times of their neutrino emissions

585: differ slightly among the models as mentioned already, the profiles of

586: their neutronization bursts are not very different qualitatively. In

587: fact, the luminosity declines a little after the peak and increases

588: again for model~2a. This feature is well kept in other models with

589: higher resolutions.

590: 

591: We show the time-integrated neutrino spectra in Figure~\ref{spect}. We

592: can see that the spectra become softer for higher entropy models,

593: especially for $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$. In order to investigate this

594: tendency, we show the time-integrated spectra of the neutrino emitted

595: before and after the shock formation in Figure~\ref{spect2}. We can see

596: that, for higher entropy models, $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$ are also

597: emitted before the shock formation. They are created by the

598: electron-positron pair annihilation, and their energy is relatively

599: lower ($\lesssim$~several~MeV) because the temperature is low

600: ($T\lesssim1$~MeV). On the other hand, for lower entropy models,

601: $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$ can not be produced by the electron-positron

602: pair process because positrons are absent owing to Pauli blocking. As

603: for the $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$ emitted after the shock formation, they

604: are mainly created by bremsstrahlung. In this phase, the temperature

605: near the neutrino sphere rises to $T\sim$~several~MeV, which makes the

606: neutrino energies relatively high: $\sim10$~MeV. Since the low energy

607: ($\lesssim$~several~MeV) neutrinos are not emitted to any great extent

608: and the spectra become harder for lower entropy models, the emission of

609: low energy $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$ is characteristic for the collapse of

610: high entropy cores.

611: 

612: \subsection{Initial Velocity Dependence}\label{ivd}

613: 

614: We compare the results of models~2a and 2b, which are different in the

615: initial values of central density and temperature, but have the same

616: initial values of entropy per baryon ($s=4k_\mathrm{B}$). We can

617: consider that models~2a and 2b are the same model but with different

618: initial velocities, because the density profile of model~2b at the time

619: when the central density reaches that of the initial model of 2a almost

620: coincides with that of model~2a (Figure~\ref{inipro}). In reality, the

621: onset of a collapse is determined not only by the core structure but

622: also by the whole stellar structure. Thus, studying the initial velocity

623: dependence of the core is meaningful. 

624: 

625: As a result of this comparison, we find that the initial velocity does

626: not affect crucially the ensuing dynamics and the features of emitted

627: neutrinos such as total number spectra or the time evolutions of the

628: luminosity. This is because the velocity of model~2b at the time in

629: Figure~\ref{inipro} is several times lower than the sound speed at each

630: point. For instance, the fastest point of model~2b in

631: Figure~\ref{inipro} has the velocity

632: $\sim10^{8}\mathrm{cm\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ while the sound speed is 

633: $\sim7\times10^{8}\mathrm{cm\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, there. If the supersonic

634: region, where the infalling velocity exceeds the sound speed, existed in

635: the initial model, the initial velocity profile may be important for the

636: dynamics. However, since the temperature of our initial models is

637: slightly higher than the critical temperature for the

638: photodisintegration instability, they are unlikely to have supersonic

639: region.

640: 

641: \subsection{Collapse of Population III Star with $100M_{\odot}$}\label{rsm}

642: 

643: In this section, we consider yet another example of very massive

644: stars, that is, a Population III star with $100M_{\odot}$. We use a

645: model constructed by Nomoto et al. (2005) with evolutionary

646: calculations, and we refer to it as model~R. This model is very massive

647: and its entropy at the center is higher than that of ordinary supernova

648: progenitors when it starts to collapse because the star does not lose

649: its mass at all in its evolution owing to its zero metallicity. It

650: should be emphasized that the isentropic models are meant for the

651: massive stars that may be produced in the present universe, for example,

652: by stellar mergers in clusters whereas Model~R corresponds to a

653: first-generation star in the past universe. Here we are interested in

654: the differences that these models may make. In Figure~\ref{real}, we

655: show the comparison of the initial state of model~R and our isentropic

656: models at the time when their central densities become the same as that

657: of model~R. We can recognize that model~R has the entropy

658: $\sim3.5k_\mathrm{B}$ in the central region, which is between those of

659: model~1a and 2a, whereas the iron core of model~R is smaller than that

660: of our models. In fact, the iron core mass of model~R is

661: $\sim2.32M_{\odot}$, which is close to that of model~1a. We show some of

662: the initial values at the center of model~R in

663: Table~\ref{bounce_result}. Incidentally, the initial velocity profile is

664: taken into account for model~R although it is much lower than the sound

665: speed at each point.

666: 

667: As a result of collapse, model~R has a bounce and recollapses to a black

668: hole. As shown in Table~\ref{bounce_result}, the values of the central

669: density and the central adiabatic index of model R at the bounce are

670: between those of model~1a and 2a. This suggests that these values are

671: determined by the initial central entropy as mentioned in

672: \S~\ref{bm}. On the other hand, model~R has a much longer time interval

673: from the bounce to the recollapse, compared with our models. This is

674: because the inner core mass of model~R at the bounce

675: ($M_\mathrm{bounce}$) is smaller and the lower density of the outer core

676: (Figure~\ref{real}) gives lower accretion rates. For instance, at

677: $t=0.06$~s, model R has a mass accretion rate

678: $\sim4M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at the shock surface whereas model~1a

679: has $\sim11M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. Thus it takes much time until

680: the inner core mass exceeds the maximum mass of the neutron star.

681: 

682: We show the total energy of neutrinos emitted during the collapse of

683: model~R in Table~\ref{nutr-eg} and the time evolution of the emitted

684: neutrino luminosity in Figure~\ref{real-lu}. We can see that the total

685: energy of emitted neutrinos is larger than that of other isentropic

686: models, despite the fact that the neutrino luminosity of model~R is

687: lower than those of our models. This is because model~R neutrino

688: emission lasts much longer. Moreover, the mean energy of the emitted

689: neutrinos is larger for model~R. This is also due to the longer duration

690: time. The neutrino spectrum gets harder in the late phase because the

691: density of the accreting matter becomes lower and the temperature on the

692: neutrino sphere gets higher. Thus, the longer the duration time of

693: neutrino emission is, the larger the mean energy of the emitted

694: neutrinos becomes. It is noted that the duration time is sensitive to

695: the equation of state, which is already mentioned, and hence the total

696: and mean energy of emitted neutrinos is also sensitive to the equation

697: of state.

698: 

699: In the following, we discuss the features of the emitted neutrinos from

700: model~R for the early phase, which is not sensitive to the equation of

701: state as already mentioned. Comparing Figures~\ref{lumi} and

702: \ref{real-lu}, we can see that for model~R, the peak luminosity of the

703: electron-type neutrino by the neutronization burst is lower than those

704: of our models. The reason why it is lower than that of model 1a

705: ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$) is because the chemical potential of an

706: electron-type neutrino for model~R is lower than that for model~1a,

707: while the shock radii in both models are not so different from each

708: other (right panels of Figure~\ref{real-lu}). It is consistent with the

709: fact that the density at the bounce of model~R is lower than that of

710: model~1a (Table~\ref{bounce_result}). On the other hand, the shock radii

711: of models with $s\geq4k_\mathrm{B}$ (models~2a-4a) are larger than that

712: of model~R. This is the reason why the luminosity of the neutronization

713: burst for model~R is lower than those of models~2a-4a. Furthermore,

714: since the outer core density of model~R is much lower than those of

715: isentropic models (Figure~\ref{real}), $\mu_\nu$ drops quickly and the

716: shock radius does not get much larger after the neutronization. From

717: equation (\ref{lumies}), These features lead to the fact that the

718: luminosity of the electron-type neutrino after the neutronization burst

719: drops more steeply for model~R than for our models. It follows, then,

720: that the decline of the neutronization burst depends not only on the

721: initial entropy but also on the initial density profile. In particular,

722: the larger the initial density gradient is, the more steeply the

723: neutronization burst declines.

724: 

725: To sum up, the key parameters listed in Table~\ref{bounce_result} at

726: bounce (e.g. central density, temperature etc.) do not differ very much

727: between the isentropic models and model~R. This is not true for the time

728: profile of the neutronization burst because they depend not only on the

729: central density at bounce but also on the initial density

730: profile. However, since, in general, more massive iron cores have larger

731: entropies, the following trend is generally true: The neutronization

732: burst will become less remarkable as the progenitor gets more massive.

733: 

734: \subsection{Astrophysical Implications}\label{ai}

735: 

736: \subsubsection{Progenitor of IMBH}\label{prog}

737: 

738: For supermassive black holes (SMBH) located at the center of many

739: galaxies including ours, a new formation scenario via intermediate-mass

740: black holes (IMBH) has recently been suggested (e.g., Ebisuzaki et

741: al. 2001, Portegies Zwart et al. 2006). According to this scenario, very

742: dense stellar clusters are initially formed in the vicinity of the

743: galactic center ($\lesssim10$~pc), and the massive stars with

744: $\sim20M_\odot$ in them undergo runaway collisions to form IMBHs before

745: they lose most of their mass by supernova explosions and/or

746: pulsations. After that, these IMBHs merge together and finally form

747: SMBH. This scenario is supported by the discovery of the ultra luminous

748: X-ray compact sources in M82 galaxy, which indicate the existence of

749: IMBHs. It is conceivable that similar events occur in the Milky Way

750: Galaxy as mentioned later. This scenario assumes that the supermassive

751: stars formed by the runaway collisions would collapse to IMBHs when they

752: are $\sim1000M_\odot$.

753: 

754: Recently Suzuki et al. (2007) have studied the structures and evolutions

755: of these merged stars in the hydrogen burning. According to them, the

756: smaller star sits at the center of the larger star after the merger of

757: two stars with different masses. It is also demonstrated that the merged

758: stars become convectively unstable by the positive gradient of the mean

759: molecular weight and that their evolutions thereafter approach those of

760: the single homogeneous star with the same mass and abundance. The

761: central entropies of the merged stars will then be larger than those of

762: the inhomogeneous single stars with the same mass. This suggests the

763: possibility to form the IMBH progenitors by the merger without

764: experiencing the pair instability. Here we speculate the entropy of

765: these stars using previous studies on the single Population III

766: stars. Since the iron core of the Population III star with $100M_\odot$

767: has entropy of $\sim3.5k_\mathrm{B}$ (Nomoto et al. 2005), it is

768: expected that these IMBH progenitors have entropies

769: $\gtrsim3k_\mathrm{B}$.

770: 

771: Even if the pair instability occurs, the massive stars corresponding to

772: our models may still be formed. In fact, the positive entropy gradient

773: and/or rotation may suppress the convection in the merged star and the

774: entropy at the center may remain low after the merge. Then the merged

775: star has a massive envelope with a smaller core than the single stars

776: with the same total mass. If the pair instability occurs for these

777: objects, the nuclear burning may not produce total disruptions but lead

778: to the eventual collapse. Again inferring from single Population III

779: stars, we speculate that the central entropies of the merged stars will

780: be smaller than $s\sim16k_\mathrm{B}$, which corresponds to $300M_\odot$

781: in NSY06. It is incidentally mentioned that the relations between the

782: total mass and the iron core mass of merged IMBH progenitors is highly

783: uncertain at present.

784: 

785: In the preceding sections, we have shown that the neutrino signals from

786: the black hole formation are sensitive to the inner region of the

787: progenitor. In this section, assuming our models correspond to

788: above-mentioned merged stars which collapse to IMBHs at the center of

789: our Galaxy ($\sim8.5$~kpc from the sun), we estimate the neutrino event

790: number for the currently operating detectors.

791: 

792: As for the event rate of the IMBH formation, based on the

793: above-mentioned scenario and the fact that the SMBH residing in the

794: center of our Galaxy (SgrA$^\ast$) is $\sim3.5\times10^6M_\odot$ and the

795: age of our Galaxy is $\sim10$~Gyr, a very rough estimation for the

796: formation rate of IMBH with $\sim1000M_\odot$ is $\lesssim$~once per

797: 1~Myr. It is, however, mentioned that this event rate may be

798: underestimated because star formation may not be continuous but

799: triggered by some environmental effects (e.g., the merger of

800: galaxies). Recent observations by Paumard~et al. (2006) have revealed

801: the existence of about 80 young massive stars within a distance of a

802: parsec from SgrA$^\ast$ and some of them are identified as OB stars and

803: their ages are about $6\pm2$ Myr. These facts indicate that stars are

804: actively formed in this region at present. Moreover, the IMBH candidate

805: with $\sim1300M_\odot$, IRS~13, is found in the same region (Maillard et

806: al. 2004). Thus, SgrA$^\ast$ may be currently growing under this

807: scenario.

808: 

809: In the following estimations for the neutrino event number, we do not

810: take into account the neutrino mixing, although it should be. Since the

811: mixing occurs mainly in the resonance regions and they are located

812: outside the iron core of the progenitor, the neutrino oscillation does

813: not affect the dynamics of core. Unfortunately the structures of the

814: envelopes of merged stars, which are crucial for the neutrino mixing,

815: are quite uncertain. There remain uncertainties as well on the mixing

816: parameters, such as the mixing angle of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ or the mass

817: hierarchy. Thus, the precise evaluation of the neutrino flux including

818: the neutrino mixing is deferred to future study.

819: 

820: \subsubsection{Detection of low energy $\bar\nu_e$ by Super

821:    Kamiokande and KamLAND}

822: 

823: As already mentioned, a good deal of low energy $\bar\nu_e$ is emitted

824: from the collapse of the high entropy cores, which softens the

825: spectrum. We estimate the $\bar\nu_e$ event number for Super Kamiokande

826: III and KamLAND, currently operating neutrino detectors, under the

827: assumption that the black hole formations considered in former sections

828: occur at the center of our Galaxy. For both detectors, the dominant

829: reaction is the inverse beta decay,

830: \begin{equation}

831: \bar\nu_e + p  \longrightarrow  e^+ + n,

832: \label{ibd}

833: \end{equation}

834: which we take into account only. We adopt the cross section for this

835: reaction from Vogel \& Beacom (1999). For Super Kamiokande III, we

836: assume that the fiducial volume is 22.5 kton and the trigger efficiency

837: is 100\% at 4.5 MeV and 0\% at 2.9 MeV, which are the values at the end

838: of Super Kamiokande I (Hosaka et al. 2006). For KamLAND, we assume 1

839: kton fiducial mass, which means that $8.48\times10^{31}$ free protons

840: are contained (Eguchi et al. 2003). We also assume that the trigger

841: efficiency is 100\% for all $\bar\nu_e$ energy larger than the threshold

842: energy of the reaction.

843: 

844: The results are given in Table~\ref{antinue}. The total event number

845: does not change monotonically with the initial entropy of the core

846: because the total number of neutrinos depends on both the core mass and

847: the duration time of neutrino emission, as already mentioned. In order

848: to investigate the hardness of $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum, we calculate the

849: ratio of the event number by $\bar\nu_e$ with $<10$~MeV to that for all

850: events. The ambiguity about the distance of source is also canceled by

851: this normalization. This ratio gets larger as the entropy of the core

852: becomes higher. This suggests that we can probe the entropy of the black

853: hole progenitor especially in higher regimes ($s\geq7.5k_\mathrm{B}$)

854: because the event numbers of $\bar\nu_e$ with $<10$~MeV are over 100 by

855: Super Kamiokande III.

856: 

857: \subsubsection{Detection of neutronization burst by SNO}

858: 

859: The SNO detector consists of 1 kton of pure heavy water (D$_2$O) and can

860: distinguish $\nu_e$ flux by the charged-current reaction of the

861: deuterium disintegration. Since SNO can also detect the $\bar\nu_e$

862: flux, we can estimate the intensity of the neutronization burst by

863: comparing the event from the charged-current reaction of $\nu_e$,

864: \begin{equation}

865: \nu_e + d  \longrightarrow  p + p + e^-,

866: \label{cc1}

867: \end{equation}

868: and that of $\bar\nu_e$,

869: \begin{equation}

870: \bar\nu_e + d  \longrightarrow  n + n + e^+,

871: \label{cc2}

872: \end{equation}

873: using the SNO detector. SNO can also detect the neutral-current

874: reaction, 

875: \begin{equation}

876: \nu + d  \longrightarrow  n + p + \nu,

877: \label{nc}

878: \end{equation}

879: for all species. It is noted that the neutral-current reaction contains

880: $\nu_x$ ($=\nu_\mu$, $\bar\nu_\mu$, $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar\nu_\tau$) and

881: the neutrino sphere of $\nu_x$ differs more from that of $\nu_e$ than

882: that of $\bar\nu_e$ in general. Thus, for the comparison with reaction

883: (\ref{cc1}), reaction (\ref{cc2}) is more appropriate than reaction

884: (\ref{nc}). On the other hand, we also use (\ref{nc}) for the comparison

885: because the event number of (\ref{nc}) is larger than that of

886: (\ref{cc2}). In our calculation, we use the cross sections from Ying et

887: al. (1989) and assume that the trigger efficiency of these reactions is

888: 100\%. In fact, it is $\sim$ 92\% these days, which is the neutron (in

889: the right hand side of equation (\ref{nc})) capture efficiency on

890: $^{35}$Cl and deuterons (Oser 2005). 

891: 

892: In the following analysis, we regard the emission of neutrinos before

893: $t=0.06$~s as the neutronization burst, where the time $t$ is measured

894: from the bounce. The criterion $t=0.06$~s is chosen empirically from our

895: simulations as an expedient. The method for extracting the

896: neutronization burst from detection should be reconsidered for more

897: detailed studies. Here we calculate the event numbers for $t<0.06$~s as

898: well as those for the entire duration time of the neutrino emission, and

899: the results are summarized in Table~\ref{bstnu}. We can recognize that

900: the ratios of the $\nu_e$ event number ($N_{\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$)

901: to the total event number of the charged-current reactions

902: ($N_{\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}+N_{\bar\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$)

903: and that for the neutral-current reaction ($N_{NC,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$)

904: are larger for the models whose neutronization burst declines more

905: steeply. Despite the fact that these neutronization burst numbers are of

906: the order of 10, we can probe into the black hole progenitors in

907: principle.

908: 

909: It is finally noted that the estimations in the current study are based

910: on the spherically symmetric models. If progenitors are rotating

911: rapidly, the neutrino sphere will become non-spherical and the neutrino

912: emissions will be affected in general. This will be the subject of

913: future investigations.

914: 

915: \section{Conclusions}

916: 

917: In this paper, we have numerically studied gravitational collapse and

918: black hole formation of massive iron cores systematically, taking into

919: account the reactions and transports of neutrinos in detail. Massive

920: iron cores with $\sim10M_\odot$ have a bounce owing to thermal nucleons,

921: following which they collapse to black holes when the maximum mass is

922: reached. As for the emitted neutrinos, the spectra of $\bar\nu_e$ and

923: $\nu_x$ ($=\nu_\mu$, $\bar\nu_\mu$, $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar\nu_\tau$)

924: become softer for more massive models, or higher entropy models, because

925: a high entropy generates a large number of electron-positron pairs,

926: which create $\bar\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$. The neutronization burst from more

927: massive iron core becomes less remarkable or disappears completely. This

928: is because the density at the bounce is lower and even the $\nu_e$

929: number density in equilibrium becomes lower.

930: 

931: We have found that if the initial velocity is lower than the sound

932: speed, it does not affect the collapse very much. We have also compared

933: the collapse of our isentropic models with that of the realistic model,

934: which is obtained by the detailed modeling of the evolution of

935: Population III stars and we have found that the steep decline of the

936: neutronization burst depends not only on the initial entropy but also on

937: the initial density profile. Moreover, assuming our models as the

938: progenitors of IMBHs collapsing at the Galactic center, we have

939: estimated the neutrino event numbers. As a result, for Super Kamiokande

940: III, the ratio of the $\bar\nu_e$ event number for $<10$~MeV to that for

941: all events gets larger as the entropy of the core becomes higher,

942: especially for $s\geq7.5k_\mathrm{B}$. We have suggested that we can use

943: these features to probe into the progenitors. As for the lower entropy

944: cores, despite the fact that the event number for the early phase of the

945: emission is less than 100 by SNO, we have suggested that the steep

946: decline of the neutronization burst can be distinguished in principle.

947: 

948: Concerning the prediction of neutrino event number, there is a room

949: for further improvement. Firstly, the effects of the neutrino

950: oscillation should be taken into account. Secondly, multi-dimensional 

951: effects, such as rotation or magnetic field may be important, since they

952: will affect the dynamics of collapse itself. This study will be

953: hopefully prove a first step toward a neutrino astrophysics for black

954: holes.

955: 

956: %% In a manner similar to \objectname authors can provide links to dataset

957: %% hosted at participating data centers via the \dataset{} command.  The

958: %% second curly bracket argument is printed in the text while the first

959: %% parentheses argument serves as the valid data set identifier.  Large

960: %% lists of data set are best provided in a table (see Table 3 for an example).

961: %% Valid data set identifiers should be obtained from the data center that

962: %% is currently hosting the data.

963: 

964: %% In this section, we use  the \subsection command to set off

965: %% a subsection.  \footnote is used to insert a footnote to the text.

966: 

967: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label

968: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the

969: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.

970: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of

971: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.

972: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will

973: %% automatically renumber them.

974: 

975: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments

976: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.

977: 

978: \acknowledgments

979: 

980: We are grateful to Tadao Mitsui for valuable comments on the KamLAND

981: detector and Hideyuki Umeda for providing a realistic progenitor

982: model. We would like to thank Hideyuki Suzuki for fruitful

983: discussions. In this work, numerical computations were partially

984: performed on the Fujitsu VPP5000 at the Center for Computational

985: Astrophysics (CfCA) of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan

986: (VPP5000 System projects wkn10b, ikn18b, iks13a), and on the

987: supercomputers in JAERI, YITP and KEK (KEK Supercomputer project 

988: 108). This work was partially supported by Japan Society for Promotion

989: of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowship, Grants-in-Aid for the Scientific

990: Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan

991: through 14740166, 15540243, 15740160, 17540267, 18540291, 18540295 and

992: the 21st-Century COE Program ``Holistic Research and Education Center

993: for Physics of Self-organization Systems.''

994: 

995: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their

996: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope

997: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches

998: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be

999: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes

1000: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.

1001: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX

1002: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.

1003: 

1004: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the

1005: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research

1006: %% for the paper.  Each keyword will be checked against the master list during

1007: %% copy editing.  Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,

1008: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.

1009: 

1010: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.

1011: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix

1012: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.

1013: 

1014: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.

1015: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix

1016: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.

1017: 

1018: %\appendix

1019: 

1020: %\section{Appendix material}

1021: 

1022: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.

1023: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.

1024: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of

1025: %% curly braces.  If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error

1026: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".

1027: %%

1028: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite

1029: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a

1030: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds

1031: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).

1032: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the

1033: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain

1034: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in

1035: %% place of the \cite commands.

1036: 

1037: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.

1038: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.

1039: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.

1040: 

1041: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly

1042: %% different from previous examples.  The natbib system solves a host

1043: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly

1044: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.

1045: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.

1046: 

1047: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1048: \bibitem[]{}

1049:  Ebisuzaki, T., et al. 2001, \apj, 562, L19

1050: \bibitem[]{}

1051:  Eguchi, K., et al. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 021802

1052: \bibitem[]{}

1053:  Fryer, C. L. 1999, \apj, 522, 413

1054: \bibitem[]{}

1055:  Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., \& Heger, A. 2001, \apj, 550, 372  

1056: \bibitem[]{}

1057:  Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N \& Hartmann, D. H. 2003, \apj, 591, 288  

1058: \bibitem[]{}

1059:  Herant, M., Benz, W., Hix, W. R., Fryer, C. L., \& Colgate, C. A. 1994, \apj, 435, 339 

1060: \bibitem[]{}

1061:  Hosaka, J., et al. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 112001

1062: \bibitem[]{}

1063:  Linke, F., Font, J. A., Janka, H.-Th., M$\ddot{\mathrm{u}}$ller, E., \& Papadopoulos, P. 2001, A\&A, 376, 568

1064: \bibitem[]{}

1065:  Maillard, J. P., Paumard, T., Stolovy, S. R., \& Riguaut, F. 2004, A\&A, 423, 155

1066: \bibitem[]{}

1067:  Misner, C. W., \& Sharp, D. H. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, 571

1068: \bibitem[]{}

1069:  Nakamura, F., \& Umemura, M. 2001, \apj, 548, 19

1070: \bibitem[]{}

1071:  Nakazato, K., Sumiyoshi, K., \& Yamada, S. 2006, \apj, 645, 519

1072: \bibitem[]{}

1073:  Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., Ohkubo, T., Deng, J., \& Mazzali, P. A. 2005, ASP Conf. Ser., 332, 374

1074: \bibitem[]{}

1075:  Ohkubo, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., Tsuruta, S., \& Rees, M. J. 2006, \apj, 645, 1352

1076: \bibitem[]{}

1077:  Oser, S. M. 2005, Nucl. Phys., A758, 677c

1078: \bibitem[]{}

1079:  Paumard, T., et al. 2006, \apj, 643, 1011

1080: \bibitem[]{}

1081:  Portegies Zwart, S. F., Makino, J., McMillian, S. L. W., \& Hut, P., 1999, A\&A, 348, 117

1082: \bibitem[]{}

1083:  Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., McMillian, S. L. W., Makino, J., Hut, P., \& Ebisuzaki, T. 2006, \apj, 641, 319

1084: \bibitem[]{}

1085:  Sekiguchi, Y. I., \& Shibata, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 084013

1086: \bibitem[]{}

1087:  Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., \& Sumiyoshi, K. 1998a, Nucl. Phys., A637, 435

1088: \bibitem[]{}

1089:  Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., \& Sumiyoshi, K. 1998b, Prog. Theor. Phys., 100, 1013

1090: \bibitem[]{}

1091:  Sumiyoshi, K., Yamada, S., Suzuki, H., Shen, H., Chiba, S., \& Toki, H. 2005, \apj, 629, 922

1092: \bibitem[]{}

1093:  Sumiyoshi, K., Yamada, S., Suzuki, H., \& Chiba, S., 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 091101

1094: \bibitem[]{}

1095:  Suzuki, T. K., Nakasato, N., Baumgardt, H., Ibukiyama, A., Makino, J., \& Ebisuzaki, T. 2007, astro-ph/0703290, submitted to \apj

1096: \bibitem[]{}

1097:  Thompson, T. A., Burrows, A., \& Pinto, P. A. 2003, \apj, 592, 434 

1098: \bibitem[]{}

1099:  van Riper K. A. 1979, \apj, 232, 558

1100: \bibitem[]{}

1101:  Vogel, P., \& Beacom, J. F. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 053003

1102: \bibitem[]{}

1103:  Yamada, S. 1997, \apj, 475, 720

1104: \bibitem[]{}

1105:  Yamada, S., Janka, H.-Th., \& Suzuki, H. 1999, A\&A, 344, 533

1106: \bibitem[]{}

1107:  Ying, S., Haxton, W. C., \& Henley, E. M. 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 3211

1108: \end{thebibliography}

1109: 

1110: \clearpage

1111: 

1112: \begin{figure}

1113: \plotone{f1.eps}

1114: \caption{The evolution of the central density and temperature for

1115:  various models which result in black hole formation. The dot-dashed

1116:  line is for a realistic progenitor with the initial mass $40M_\odot$

1117:  in SYSC06 and the long-dashed line is for a Population III star with the

1118:  initial mass $10500M_\odot$ ($s=74.75k_\mathrm{B}$) in NSY06. Three

1119:  solid lines are for  our models in this paper, and each line corresponds

1120:  to model~1a ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$), 3a ($s=5k_\mathrm{B}$) and 5a

1121:  ($s=10k_\mathrm{B}$), from right to left. The shaded area represents

1122:  a gravitationally unstable region by labeled physical processes.}

1123: \label{result}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: 

1126: \begin{table}

1127: \caption{Key Parameters for all Models.} 

1128: \begin{center}

1129: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrr}

1130: \tableline\tableline

1131: \multicolumn{1}{c}{}  & $s_\mathrm{initial}$ & $M_\mathrm{iron}$

1132:  & $\rho_\mathrm{initial}$ &  $T_\mathrm{initial}$ & $M_\mathrm{bounce}$

1133:  & $\rho_\mathrm{bounce}$ & $T_\mathrm{bounce}$ & $\gamma_\mathrm{bounce}$

1134:  & $t_\mathrm{recollapse}$ \\

1135:   model & ($k_\mathrm{B}$) & ($M_\odot$) & ($\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$) & (K) & ($M_\odot$) & ($\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$) & (MeV) &  & (msec) \\ \hline 

1136:   1a & 3.0  &  2.44 &  2.71$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  0.75 &  1.95$\times10^{14}$ & 25.9 & 2.38 & 96.7 \\

1137:   2a & 4.0  &  3.49 &  1.40$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  1.10 &  9.58$\times10^{13}$ & 26.9 & 1.89 & 62.0 \\

1138:   2b & 4.0  &  2.93 &  7.00$\times10^{7}$ & 6.86$\times10^{9}$ &  1.05 &  9.90$\times10^{13}$ & 26.7 & 1.91 & 63.4 \\

1139:   3a & 5.0  &  4.97 &  8.82$\times10^{7}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &   1.5 &  2.97$\times10^{13}$ & 19.4 & 1.58 & 52.6 \\

1140:   4a & 7.5  &  10.6 &  4.20$\times10^{7}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &   2.7 &  3.00$\times10^{12}$ & 12.0 & 1.54 & 37.9 \\

1141:   5a & 10.0 &  19.3 &  2.67$\times10^{7}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  \\

1142:   6a & 13.0 &  34.0 &  1.84$\times10^{7}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  &  ---  \\

1143:   R  & 3.5  &  2.32 &  2.34$\times10^{10}$& 1.61$\times10^{10}$&  0.65 &  1.37$\times10^{14}$ & 22.7 & 2.19 &  402 \\ \hline

1144:   2a & 4.0  &  3.49 &  1.40$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  1.10 &  9.58$\times10^{13}$ & 26.9 & 1.89 & 62.0 \\

1145:   2m & 4.0  &  3.49 &  1.40$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  1.04 &  9.64$\times10^{13}$ & 27.5 & 1.88 & 69.5 \\

1146:   2g & 4.0  &  3.49 &  1.40$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  1.05 &  9.66$\times10^{13}$ & 27.2 & 1.88 & 65.7 \\

1147:   2e & 4.0  &  3.49 &  1.40$\times10^{8}$ & 7.75$\times10^{9}$ &  1.10 &  8.25$\times10^{13}$ & 25.9 & 1.80 & 73.2 \\ \hline

1148: \end{tabular}

1149: \end{center}

1150: \label{bounce_result}

1151: \tablecomments{$s_\mathrm{initial}$ is the initial value of the entropy

1152:  par baryon. $M_\mathrm{iron}$ and $M_\mathrm{bounce}$ are the mass

1153:  of initial iron core and inner core at the bounce ($t=0$),

1154:  respectively. $\rho_\mathrm{initial}$ and $\rho_\mathrm{bounce}$ are the

1155:  central density of the initial model and at the bounce,

1156:  respectively. $T_\mathrm{initial}$ and $T_\mathrm{bounce}$ are the

1157:  central temperature of the initial model and at the bounce,

1158:  respectively. $\gamma_\mathrm{bounce}$ is the central adiabatic index

1159:  at the bounce. $t_\mathrm{recollapse}$ is the interval time from the

1160:  bounce to the apparent horizon formation.} 

1161: \end{table}

1162: 

1163: \begin{figure}[h]

1164: \begin{center}

1165: \plotone{f2-1.eps}

1166: \caption{Radial trajectories of mass elements. The left panel is for

1167:  model~2a ($s=4k_B$); time is measured from the bounce. The right panel is

1168:  for model~5a ($s=10k_B$); time is measured from the point at which the

1169:  apparent horizon is formed.}

1170: \label{shell4} 

1171: \end{center}

1172: \end{figure} 

1173: 

1174: \begin{figure}

1175: \plotone{f3.eps} 

1176: \caption{Phase diagram in $\rho-T$ plane from Shen et al. (1998b) for

1177:  fixed electron fraction, $Y_e$ (thick lines). The nucleus exists in the

1178:  region below these thick lines. The phase boundaries depend on $Y_e$,

1179:  whereas the same trajectories are plotted for the upper panel and the

1180:  lower panel. The dashed line represents the evolution of the central

1181:  density and temperature for the ordinary supernova progenitor with the

1182:  initial mass $15M_\odot$ (Sumiyoshi et al. 2005), and the solid lines

1183:  do the same for the progenitors studied. Each line corresponds to

1184:  models~1a ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$), 3a ($s=5k_\mathrm{B}$) and 5a

1185:  ($s=10k_\mathrm{B}$), from right to left.}

1186: \label{phase}

1187: \end{figure} 

1188: 

1189: %\begin{table}

1190: %\caption{Maximum Mass of Neutron Star}

1191: %\begin{center}

1192: %\begin{tabular}{llrrrrrr}

1193: %\tableline\tableline

1194: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$s_\mathrm{NS}$} & ($k_\mathrm{B}$) & 0 & 0.5 & 1 & 1.5 & 2 & 2.5  \\ \hline

1195: %$M_\mathrm{max}$ & ($M_\odot$) & 2.756 & 2.757 & 2.759 & 2.764 & 2.776 & 2.796 \\

1196: %$\widetilde M_\mathrm{max}$ & ($M_\odot$) & 2.355 & 2.360 & 2.376 & 2.402 & 2.443 & 2.497 \\ \hline \hline

1197: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{$s_\mathrm{NS}$} & ($k_\mathrm{B}$) & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8  \\ \hline

1198: %$M_\mathrm{max}$ & ($M_\odot$) & 2.829 & 2.982 & 3.250 & 4.007 & 5.606 & 7.663 \\

1199: %$\widetilde M_\mathrm{max}$ & ($M_\odot$) & 2.569 & 2.788 & 3.127 & 3.951 & 5.545 & 7.600 \\ \hline \hline

1200: %\end{tabular}

1201: %\end{center}

1202: %\label{maxmas}

1203: %\tablecomments{The maximum mass of the neutron star which is isentropic

1204: % and the electron fraction is constantly $Y_e=0.1$ under the equation of

1205: % state by Shen et al. (1998). $s_\mathrm{NS}$ denotes the entropy par

1206: % baryon of the neutron star. $M_\mathrm{max}$ and

1207: % $\widetilde M_\mathrm{max}$ denote the maximum mass of the neutron star

1208: % in the sense of the baryon rest mass and the gravitational mass,

1209: % respectively.}

1210: %\end{table}

1211: 

1212: \begin{figure}

1213: \plotone{f4.eps} 

1214: \caption{The maximum mass of the neutron star assuming isentropy and a

1215:  constant electron fraction which is isentropic ($Y_e=0.1$) under the

1216:  equation of state by Shen et al. (1998a, 1998b). The solid and dashed

1217:  lines represent the maximum mass in the sense of the baryon rest mass

1218:  and the gravitational mass, respectively.}

1219: \label{maxmasf} 

1220: \end{figure}

1221: 

1222: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

1223: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1224: \tablewidth{0pt}

1225: \tablecaption{Estimates of Average and Total Energies of Emitted Neutrinos.}

1226: \tablehead{ & $\langle{E_{\nu_e}\rangle}$ &

1227:  $\langle{E_{\bar \nu_e}\rangle}$ & $\langle{E_{\nu_x}\rangle}$ & 

1228:  $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_e,52}$ & $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\bar \nu_e,52}$ &

1229:  $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_x,52}$ & $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\mathrm{all},52}$ \\

1230:  model & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) & ($10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}$) & ($10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}$) & ($10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}$)  & ($10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}$) }

1231: \startdata

1232:  1a & 11.01 - 11.01 & 15.03 - 15.03 & 19.60 - 19.60 & 3.29 - 3.29 & 1.94 - 1.94 &  1.43 - 1.43  & 10.96 - 10.96  \\

1233:  2a & 10.32 - 10.32 & 14.29 - 14.30 & 19.30 - 19.30 & 3.21 - 3.21 & 1.58 - 1.58 &  1.33 - 1.33 &  10.12 - 10.12 \\

1234:  2b & 10.17 - 10.17 & 14.27 - 14.27 & 19.35 - 19.35 & 3.24 - 3.24 & 1.63 - 1.63 &  1.36 - 1.36 &  10.29 - 10.29 \\

1235:  3a &  9.29 - 9.29 & 13.79 - 13.79 &  19.31 - 19.31 & 3.10 - 3.10 & 1.48 - 1.48 &  1.30 -  1.30 & 9.78 - 9.78 \\ 

1236:  4a &  7.30 - 7.30 & 11.95 - 11.95 &  19.55 - 19.55 & 3.19 - 3.19 & 1.56 - 1.56 &  1.35 -  1.36 & 10.18 - 10.21 \\

1237:  5a &  6.24 - 6.25 & 10.34 - 10.37 &  18.37 - 18.70 & 4.01 - 4.02 & 2.34 - 2.35 &  1.69 - 1.73  & 13.11 - 13.31 \\

1238:  6a &  5.24 - 5.25 & 8.14 - 8.19 &  14.33 - 14.33 & 6.15 - 6.17 & 4.71 - 4.75 &  1.70 - 1.73 & 17.66 - 17.84 \\ 

1239:  R  & 15.34 - 15.34 & 18.90 - 18.90 &  23.42 - 23.42 & 9.42 - 9.42 & 7.89 - 7.89 &  4.40 - 4.40 & 34.89 - 34.90 \\ 

1240: \enddata

1241: \label{nutr-eg}

1242: \tablecomments{The mean energy of emitted $\nu_i$ (with upper and lower

1243:  limits) is denoted as $\langle{E_{\nu_i}\rangle} \equiv

1244:  E^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_i}/N^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_i}$, where

1245:  $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_i}$ and $N^\mathrm{tot}_{\nu_i}$ are the total

1246:  energy and number of neutrinos. $E^\mathrm{tot}_{\mathrm{all}}$ is the

1247:  total energy summed over all species.}

1248: \end{deluxetable}

1249: 

1250: \begin{figure} 

1251: \plotone{f5.eps} 

1252: \caption{Luminosities of $\nu_e$ (short-dashed line), $\bar \nu_e$

1253:  (solid line) and $\nu_x$ (long-dashed line) as a function of $t$, where

1254:  $\nu_x$ stands for $\mu$- and $\tau$-neutrinos and their

1255:  anti-particles. Squares show the time when the apparent horizon is

1256:  formed. Upper left, upper right, lower left and lower right panels are

1257:  for models~1a ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$), 2a ($s=4k_\mathrm{B}$), 3a

1258:  ($s=5k_\mathrm{B}$) and 4a ($s=7.5k_\mathrm{B}$), respectively.} 

1259: \label{lumi} 

1260: \end{figure} 

1261: 

1262: \begin{figure} 

1263: \plotone{f6.eps} 

1264: \caption{Snapshots of the profiles for the luminosity and the chemical

1265:  potential of an electron-type neutrino. The left panel corresponds to

1266:  the model~1a ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$) and the right to the model~4a

1267:  ($s=7.5k_\mathrm{B}$).}

1268: \label{lumimu} 

1269: \end{figure} 

1270: 

1271: \begin{figure} 

1272: \plotone{f7.eps} 

1273: \caption{Time evolutions of the number flux for the electron-type

1274:  neutrino with the energy $10~\mathrm{MeV}<E<20~\mathrm{MeV}$ detected

1275:  by the comoving observer. Solid lines and dashed lines represent the

1276:  results of our computation and the values estimated by the number

1277:  density in equilibrium and $\langle\cos\theta\rangle$ of our

1278:  computation, respectively. The left panel corresponds to model~1a

1279:  ($s=3k_\mathrm{B}$) at $M=1.3M_\odot$ and the right to model~4a

1280:  ($s=7.5k_\mathrm{B}$) at $M=3.3M_\odot$.}

1281: \label{fluxcomp} 

1282: \end{figure} 

1283: 

1284: \begin{figure} 

1285: \plotone{f8.eps} 

1286: \caption{Luminosities of $\nu_e$ as a function of $t$ for

1287:  models~2a (solid line), 2m (short-dashed line), 2e (long-dashed line)

1288:  and 2g (dot-dashed line). The meaning of squares is the same as in

1289:  Figure~\ref{lumi}.}

1290: \label{far} 

1291: \end{figure} 

1292: 

1293: \begin{figure} 

1294: \plotone{f9.eps} 

1295: \caption{Spectra of time-integrated emissions of $\nu_e$ (short-dashed

1296:  line), $\bar\nu_e$ (solid line) and $\nu_x$ (long-dashed line). Upper

1297:  left, upper right, lower left and lower right panels are for models~2a

1298:  ($s=4k_\mathrm{B}$), 4a ($s=7.5k_\mathrm{B}$), 5a ($s=10k_\mathrm{B}$)

1299:  and 6a ($s=13k_\mathrm{B}$), respectively.}

1300: \label{spect} 

1301: \end{figure} 

1302: 

1303: \begin{figure} 

1304: \plotone{f10.eps} 

1305: \caption{Spectra of time-integrated emissions of $\nu_e$ (short-dashed

1306:  line), $\bar\nu_e$ (solid line) and $\nu_x$ (long-dashed line). The

1307:  upper left and upper right panels give the time integrations of the

1308:  emission before and after bounce, respectively, for model~2a

1309:  ($s=4k_\mathrm{B}$). The lower left and lower right panels present the

1310:  emission before and after shock formation, respectively, for model~6a

1311:  ($s=13k_\mathrm{B}$).}

1312: \label{spect2}

1313: \end{figure} 

1314: 

1315: \begin{figure} 

1316: \plotone{f11.eps} 

1317: \caption{Comparisons of the density profiles (left) and the velocity

1318:  profiles (right). Solid lines represent the initial profiles for

1319:  model~2a; dashed lines represent the profiles for model~2b at the time 

1320:  when the central density becomes the same as the initial central

1321:  density of model~2a.}

1322: \label{inipro} 

1323: \end{figure}

1324:  

1325: \begin{figure} 

1326: \plotone{f12.eps} 

1327: \caption{Comparisons of the density profiles (left) and the entropy

1328:  profiles (right). Solid lines represent the initial profiles for model

1329:  R and dashed and dot-dashed lines represent the profiles for models~1a

1330:  and 2a, respectively, at the time when the central density becomes the

1331:  same as the initial central density of model~R.}

1332: \label{real} 

1333: \end{figure}

1334:  

1335: \begin{figure} 

1336: \plotone{f13.eps} 

1337: \caption{Results of the collapse for model R. In the left and right

1338:  panel, the notations of lines are the same as in Figures~\ref{lumi}

1339:  and \ref{lumimu}, respectively, but the end points of the lines in the

1340:  left panel represent the time when the apparent horizon is formed.}

1341: \label{real-lu} 

1342: \end{figure}

1343:  

1344: \begin{table}

1345: \caption{Event Numbers of $\bar\nu_e$ from Super Kamiokande III and KamLAND.} 

1346: \begin{center}

1347: \begin{tabular}{lrrrr}

1348: \tableline\tableline

1349: \multicolumn{1}{c}{model}  

1350:  & $\frac{N_{\bar \nu_e<\mathrm{10\,MeV,SK}}}{N_{\bar \nu_e,\mathrm{SK}}}$

1351:  & $N_{\bar \nu_e,\mathrm{SK}}$

1352:  & $\frac{N_{\bar \nu_e<\mathrm{10\,MeV,Kam}}}{N_{\bar \nu_e,\mathrm{Kam}}}$

1353:  & $N_{\bar \nu_e,\mathrm{Kam}}$ \\ \hline 

1354:   1a & 3.3\%  &  6163 &  3.3\%  & 174 \\

1355:   2a & 4.0\%  &  4778 &  4.0\%  & 135 \\

1356:   2b & 4.0\%  &  4910 &  4.0\%  & 139 \\

1357:   3a & 4.6\%  &  4319 &  4.6\%  & 122 \\

1358:   4a & 7.3\%  &  4018 &  7.3\%  & 114 \\

1359:   5a & 11.8\% &  5326 &  12.0\% & 151 \\

1360:   6a & 20.1\% &  9139 &  20.5\% & 259 \\ \hline

1361: %  R  & 1.3\%  & 30124 &  1.3\%  & 852 \\ \hline

1362: \end{tabular}

1363: \end{center}

1364: \label{antinue}

1365: \tablecomments{The subscript``$<10$~MeV'' means the event of $\bar\nu_e$

1366:  with $<10$~MeV, and the subscript ``SK'' and ``Kam'' mean the

1367:  prediction for Super Kamiokande III and KamLAND, respectively.}

1368: \end{table}

1369: 

1370: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}

1371: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1372: \tablewidth{0pt}

1373: \tablecaption{Event Numbers by SNO.} 

1374: \tablehead{ model

1375:  & $N_{\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$

1376:  & $N_{\bar\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$

1377:  & $\frac{N_{\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}}{N_{\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}+N_{\bar\nu_e,<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}}$

1378:  & $N_{\mathrm{NC,}<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}$

1379:  & $\frac{N_{\mathrm{\nu_e,}<0.06\mathrm{s}}}{N_{\mathrm{NC,}<0.06\,\mathrm{s}}}$

1380:  & $N_\mathrm{\nu_e,all}$ & $N_\mathrm{\bar\nu_e,all}$

1381:  & $N_\mathrm{NC,all}$}

1382: \startdata

1383:   1a & 30.7 &  6.4 & 82.7\% & 45.4 & 67.5\% & 84.2 & 45.4 &  201 \\

1384:   2a & 40.8 & 10.7 & 79.2\% & 70.4 & 57.9\% & 69.8 & 30.1 &  162 \\

1385:   2b & 42.6 & 12.4 & 77.5\% & 77.1 & 55.3\% & 73.6 & 33.8 &  179 \\

1386:   3a & 38.4 & 12.6 & 75.3\% & 78.5 & 49.0\% & 56.7 & 24.7 &  142 \\

1387:   4a & 31.8 & 15.1 & 67.9\% & 91.2 & 34.9\% & 37.4 & 19.3 &  124 \\

1388:   5a & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & 44.9 & 32.7 & 220 \\

1389:   6a & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & 59.3 & 54.0 & 221 \\

1390: %  R  & 11.5 &  1.0 & 92.0\% & 11.6 & 99.1\% &  392 &  263 &  845 \\ \hline

1391: \enddata

1392: \label{bstnu}

1393: \tablecomments{These values are the event number for the charged-current

1394:  reaction except $N_{\mathrm{NC,}<0.06\mathrm{s}}$ and

1395:  $N_\mathrm{NC,all}$. The subscript``$<0.06$~s''  means the event at

1396:  $t<0.06$~s, where $t$ is the time measured from the bounce, and the

1397:  subscript ``all'' means the event for all duration times of neutrino

1398:  emission.}

1399: \end{deluxetable}

1400: 

1401: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

1402: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

1403: %% To embed the sample graphics in

1404: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

1405: %% \includegraphics commands

1406: %%

1407: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

1408: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

1409: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

1410: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

1411: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,

1412: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

1413: %%

1414: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

1415: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

1416: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

1417: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

1418: %% journal to journal.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

1422: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

1423: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

1424: %% available in the electronic journal.

1425: 

1426: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,

1427: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color

1428: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates

1429: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.

1430: %%

1431: 

1432: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame

1433: %% for an mpeg animation.

1434: 

1435: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may

1436: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the

1437: %% User Guide for details.

1438: %%

1439: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,

1440: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage

1441: %% after every seventh one.

1442: 

1443: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before

1444: %% each one.

1445: 

1446: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables:  the

1447: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX

1448: %% table environment.  Use of deluxetable is preferred.

1449: %%

1450: 

1451: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,

1452: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.

1453: 

1454: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}

1455: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.

1456: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to

1457: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the

1458: %% reduced font size.

1459: %%

1460: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed

1461: %% inside the \tablecaption.

1462: 

1463: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full

1464: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic

1465: %% edition.

1466: %%

1467: 

1468: \end{document}

1469: 

1470: %%

1471: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

1472: