1: \documentclass[10pt]{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{apjfonts}

3: \usepackage{natbib}

4: \usepackage{amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage[usenames]{color}

7: \citestyle{apj}

8: \bibliographystyle{apj}

9: 

10: 

11: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}    

12: \newcommand{\pr}{^\prime} 

13: 

14: \newcommand{\pav}{$\bar{\mathrm{P}}_{\rho\mathrm{12}}$\ }

15: \newcommand{\pavm}{$\bar{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{M}}$\ }

16: \newcommand{\rtwelve}{10$^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$}

17: 

18: \def\fnu{{\cal F}_\nu}

19: \def\etal{{et~al. \,}}

20: \def\sun{_\odot}

21: \def\mo{M$_\odot$}

22: \def\msun{M$_\odot$}

23: \def\mmsun{\mathrm{M}_\odot}

24: \def\mmsunm{$\mathrm{M}_\odot$}

25: \def\lo{L$_\odot\,$}

26: \def\teff{T$_{\rm eff}\,$}

27: \def\teffs{T$_{\rm eff}$s$\ $}

28: \def\Dwa{$\,$\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral5}$\,$}

29: \def\mic{$\mu$m$\,$}

30: \def\undertext#1{$\underline{\smash{\hbox{#1}}}$}

31: \def\sless{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <}

32:    \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}

33: \def\under{\undertext}

34: \def\sgreat{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >}

35:    \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}

36: \def\sharpnull#1{}

37: \def\aa{Astron. Astrophys.\ }

38: 

39: %\null\voffset=-4.0pc  %  +0.0pc

40: %\null\voffset=-1.0pc  %  +0.0pc

41: 

42: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}    

43: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\color{blue}$\blacksquare$~\textsf{[TODO: #1]}}}

44: \newcommand{\todored}[1]{{\color{red}$\blacksquare$~\textsf{[TODO: #1]}}}

45: \newcommand{\sn}{$\mathrm{S}_n$}

46: 

47: %%% some hacks

48: %   Parameters for FLOAT pages (not text pages):

49: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7}	% require fuller float pages

50: % N.B.: floatpagefraction MUST be less than topfraction !!

51: \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.7}	% require fuller float pages

52: \setcounter{topnumber}{2}

53: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}

54: \setcounter{totalnumber}{4}     % 2 may work better

55: \setcounter{dbltopnumber}{2}    % for 2-column pages

56: \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.9}	% fit big float above 2-col. text

57: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.07}	% allow minimal text w. figs

58: 

59: % make the argument stand out visually

60: %\newcommand{\todo}[1]{$\bullet\bullet\bullet$\textbf{[#1]}}

61: %\voffset=.0cm

62: 

63: \begin{document}

64: %-----------------------------------------------------

65: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ. March 31, 2008, accepted June 24, 2008.}

66: 

67: \title{2D Multi-Angle, Multi-Group Neutrino Radiation-Hydrodynamic 

68: Simulations of Postbounce Supernova Cores}

69: 

70: \author{Christian D. Ott\altaffilmark{1},

71: Adam Burrows\altaffilmark{2,1}, Luc Dessart\altaffilmark{2,1},

72: and Eli Livne\altaffilmark{3}}

73: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory, 

74: The University of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry Ave., 

75: Tucson, AZ 85721; cott@as.arizona.edu, 

76: luc@as.arizona.edu}

77: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences,

78: Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Ivy Lane,

79: Princeton, NJ 08544, burrows@astro.princeton.edu} 

80: \altaffiltext{3}{Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University,

81: Jerusalem, Israel; eli@phys.huji.ac.il}

82: 

83: \begin{abstract}

84: We perform axisymmetric (2D) multi-angle, multi-group neutrino

85: radiation-hydrodynamic calculations of the postbounce phase of

86: core-collapse supernovae using a genuinely 2D discrete-ordinate (\sn)

87: method. We follow the long-term postbounce evolution of the cores of

88: one nonrotating and one rapidly-rotating 20-M$_\odot$ stellar model

89: for $\sim$400 milliseconds from 160~ms to $\sim$550~ms after bounce.

90: We present a multi-D analysis of the multi-angle neutrino radiation

91: fields and compare in detail with counterpart simulations carried out

92: in the 2D multi-group flux-limited diffusion (MGFLD) approximation to

93: neutrino transport. We find that 2D multi-angle transport is superior

94: in capturing the global and local radiation-field variations

95: associated with rotation-induced and SASI-induced aspherical

96: hydrodynamic configurations. In the rotating model, multi-angle

97: transport predicts much larger asymptotic neutrino flux asymmetries

98: with pole to equator ratios of up to $\sim$2.5, while MGFLD tends to

99: sphericize the radiation fields already in the optically

100: semi-transparent postshock regions. Along the poles, the multi-angle

101: calculation predicts a dramatic enhancement of the neutrino heating by

102: up to a factor of 3, which alters the postbounce evolution and results

103: in greater polar shock radii and an earlier onset of the initially

104: rotationally weakened SASI. In the nonrotating model, differences

105: between multi-angle and MGFLD calculations remain small at early times

106: when the postshock region does not depart significantly from spherical

107: symmetry. At later times, however, the growing SASI leads to

108: large-scale asymmetries and the multi-angle calculation predicts up to

109: 30\% higher average integral neutrino energy deposition rates than

110: MGFLD.

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: \keywords{Hydrodynamics, Neutrinos, Radiative Transfer,

114: Stars: Evolution, Stars: Neutron, Stars: 

115: Supernovae: General}

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: \label{section:intro}

119: 

120: Four decades after the first pioneering neutrino

121: radiation-hydrodynamic calculations of stellar collapse

122: (\citealt{colgate:66,arnett:66, leblanc:70,wilson:71}), the details of

123: the core-collapse supernova explosion mechanism remain

124: obscure. However, certain essentials are clear. The collapse of the

125: evolved stellar core to a protoneutron star (PNS) and its evolution to

126: a compact cold neutron star provides a gigantic reservoir of

127: gravitational energy, $\sim$3$\times$10$^{53}$~erg, a mass-energy

128: equivalent of $\sim$0.17~$\mmsun$. Any core-collapse supernova

129: mechanism must tap this energy and convert the fraction needed to

130: match Type-II supernova observations ($\sim$10$^{51}$~erg $\equiv$ 1

131: Bethe [B]) into kinetic and internal energy of the exploding stellar

132: envelope.

133: 

134: There is general agreement that the prompt hydrodynamic explosion

135: mechanism does not work and that the bounce shock always stalls,

136: falling short of blowing up the star (e.g.,

137: \citealt{bethe:90,janka:07}), and must be re-energized to lead to a

138: supernova. However, there is no agreement on the detailed mechanism

139: that revives and endows the shock with sufficient energy to make a

140: canonical $\sim$1-Bethe supernova. For decades, the

141: ``neutrino-driven'' mechanism, first proposed in its direct form by

142: \cite{colgate:66}, and in its delayed form by \cite{wilson:85} and

143: \cite{bethewilson:85}, seemed compelling.  It relies on a subtle

144: imbalance of neutrino heating and cooling that leads to a net energy

145: deposition behind the stalled shock, sufficient to revive it and drive

146: the explosion on a timescale of hundreds of milliseconds. While

147: appealing, it has been shown to fail for regular massive stars in

148: spherical symmetry (1D) when the best neutrino physics and transport

149: are used \citep{ramppjanka:00,liebendoerfer:01a,

150: liebendoerfer:05,thompson:03}. Yet, weak explosions may be obtained in

151: 1D for the lowest mass progenitors, O-Ne-Mg cores

152: (\citealt{kitaura:06,burrows:07c}).

153: 

154: It is now almost certain that the canonical explosion mechanism must

155: be multi-dimensional (2D/3D) in nature.  The multi-D dynamics

156: associated with convective overturn in the postshock region (e.g.,

157: \citealt{herant:94, bhf:95,jankamueller:96,buras:06b}) and the

158: recently identified standing accretion shock instability (SASI,

159: e.g., \citealt{foglizzo:00,foglizzo:07,

160: scheck:08,blondin:03,burrows:07a,iwakami:08}) lead to a

161: dwell time of accreting outer core material in the postshock region

162: that is larger on average than in the 1D case. This results in a

163: greater neutrino energy deposition efficiency behind the shock and,

164: thus, creates more favorable conditions for explosion

165: \citep{burrows:93, janka:01,thompson:05,marek:07}.

166: 

167: 

168: The first generation of multi-dimensional supernova calculations,

169: still employing gray flux-limited diffusion (or yet simpler schemes)

170: for neutrino transport, indeed found that neutrino-driven convective

171: overturn in the region between the stalled shock and the PNS

172: sufficiently increased the neutrino energy deposition rate to lead to

173: a delayed explosion (\citealt{herant:94,bhf:95, jankamueller:96,fh:00,

174: fryerwarren:02, fryerwarren:04}). The more sophisticated studies that

175: followed changed this picture. Recent long-term axisymmetric (2D)

176: supernova calculations with multi-group, multi-species neutrino

177: physics and transport find it difficult to explode garden-variety

178: massive stars via the neutrino mechanism. \cite{buras:06b} report

179: explosion only for the low-mass (11.2~$\mmsun$) progenitor of

180: \cite{wwh:02}, while \cite{marek:07} report the onset of explosion in

181: a 15-$\mmsun$ model of \cite{ww:95}, given moderately fast rotation

182: and the use of the Lattimer-Swesty equation of state (EOS;

183: \citealt{lseos:91}) with a nuclear compressibility modulus $K_0$ of

184: 180~MeV, which is significantly softer than the current best

185: experimental values ($K_0 = 240 \pm 20$~MeV; \citealt{shlomo:06}).  On

186: the other hand, \cite{bruenn:06} obtain explosions for 11-$\mmsun$ and

187: 15-$\mmsun$ progenitors from \cite{ww:95} only when they take silicon

188: and oxygen burning into account and due to a synergy between nuclear

189: burning, the SASI, and neutrino heating.

190: 

191: \cite{burrows:06,burrows:07a} do not obtain neutrino-driven explosions

192: (except in the case of O-Ne-Mg cores and accretion-induced collapse;

193: \citealt{dessart:06b}), but observe the excitation of PNS core

194: $g$-modes. In their calculations, the PNS core oscillations reach

195: non-linear amplitudes and damp via the emission of strong sound waves

196: that propagate through the postshock region and efficiently deposit

197: energy into the shock, eventually leading to late explosions at

198: $\sim$1~second after bounce. This \emph{acoustic} mechanism appears to

199: be robust enough to blow up even the most massive and extended

200: progenitors \citep{burrows:07a,ott:06b}, but remains controversial and

201: needs to be confirmed by other groups (see, e.g., 

202: \citealt{yoshida:07,weinberg:08}).

203: 

204: 

205: In the context of rapid progenitor rotation, \cite{burrows:07b},

206: \cite{dessart:08a}, and \cite{dessart:07} (the latter for the

207: accretion-induced collapse scenario) have shown that energetic

208: MHD-driven explosions may be obtained if field-amplification by the

209: magneto-rotational instability \citep{bh:91} is as efficient in the

210: core-collapse context as suggested \citep{akiyama:03}. Whether 

211: rotation alone and without strong magnetic fields favors or disfavors

212: a neutrino-driven explosion remains to be seen \citep{walder:05,

213: dessart:06b,ott:06spin}, but rapid rotation has been shown to damp

214: convection \citep{fh:00} and weaken the SASI \citep{burrows:07b}.

215: 

216: 

217: \subsection{Core-Collapse Supernova Theory and Neutrino

218: Radiation Transport}

219: 

220: Neutrinos, their creation, propagation, and interactions with

221: supernova matter, are of paramount importance to the core-collapse

222: supernova problem. They carry away $\sim$99\% of the final neutron

223: star's gravitational binding energy and $\sim$1\% of this energy would

224: be sufficient to blow up the star. Depending on progenitor

225: characteristics that set the postbounce rate of mass accretion onto

226: the PNS, a successful supernova explosion should occur within

227: $\sim$1--1.5~s after bounce to match observational and theoretical

228: neutron star upper mass limits around $\sim$2--2.5~$\mmsun$

229: (\citealt{lattimer:07}, and references therein).  Consequently, the

230: explosion mechanism must deliver canonical 1-B explosions on this

231: timescale and, if the explosion is neutrino-driven, the neutrino

232: heating efficiency\footnote{We define the heating efficiency as the

233: ratio of the energy deposition rate and the summed electron-neutrino

234: and anti-electron neutrino luminosities.

235: The $\mu$ and $\tau$ neutrinos and their

236: anti-particles do not contribute much to the heating.} must be on the

237: order of 10\% to yield an explosion that achieves an energy of 1~B

238: within $\sim$1~s.

239: 

240: 

241: The neutrinos travelling through the postshock region in a postbounce

242: supernova core are not in thermal equilibrium with the baryonic

243: matter. They should ideally be treated with full kinetic theory,

244: describing the neutrino distributions and their temporal distribution

245: with the Boltzmann equation (\citealt{mihalas:99}). Boltzmann

246: transport is in its most general form a 7-dimensional problem. The 6D

247: neutrino phase space (usually split up into 3D spatial coordinates,

248: neutrino energy, and 2 angular degrees of freedom) 

249: and time. In addition, there are up to 6 neutrino

250: types (3 particle species, and their anti-particles) to deal

251: with. Spherically-symmetric Boltzmann transport schemes have been

252: devised and implemented in the core-collapse context

253: \citep{mezzacappa:93b,messer:98,burrows:00,

254: yamada:99,mezzacappa:99,ramppjanka:02,liebendoerfer:04,hb:07}, but

255: general Boltzmann transport in multiple spatial dimensions is

256: computationally challenging and will remain so in the intermediate

257: term.  Hence, approximations must be made in devising computationally

258: tractable neutrino transport schemes for multi-D simulations.

259: 

260: A highly sophisticated approximation that arguably comes close to full

261: Boltzmann transport in the case of quasi-spherical configurations in

262: 2D is that presented in \cite{buras:06a}, and based on earlier work by

263: \cite{ramppjanka:02}. These authors solve equations for the zeroth and

264: first angular moments of spherically-symmetric radiation fields along

265: multiple radial rays (ray-by-ray approach; \citealt{bhf:95}) and

266: perform a variable Eddington factor closure \citep{mihalas:99} via a

267: single spherically symmetric Boltzmann solution on an averaged 1D

268: profile of the 2D hydrodynamics data.  Neighboring rays are coupled to

269: provide for limited treatment of latitudinal transport. Their

270: multi-group (multi-energy and multi-neutrino species) scheme includes

271: inelastic neutrino-electron scattering, aberration, gravitational

272: redshift, and frame effects to ${O}(\mathrm{v}/c)$.

273: 

274: \cite{livne:04} implemented a genuinely 2D direct solution of a

275: reduced Boltzmann equation via the method of discrete ordinates

276: (S$_n$: see, e.g.,

277: \citealt{yueh:77,mezzacappa:93b,adamslarsen:02,castor:04}, and

278: references therein) in the code VULCAN/2D, neglecting energy

279: redistribution and fluid-velocity dependence.

280: 

281: 

282: A common, more approximate way to handle neutrino transport that has a

283: long pedigree in 1D core-collapse studies is multi-group

284: (energy/neutrino species) non-equilibrium flux-limited diffusion

285: (MGFLD; \citealt{mihalas:99}, \citealt{arnett:66},

286: \citealt{bowerswilson:82}, \citealt{bruenn:85},

287: \citealt{myra:87,myra:90,baron:89,cooperstein:92}). FLD schemes solve a

288: diffusion equation for the mean radiation intensity, the zeroth

289: angular moment of the specific radiation intensity. Hence, they drop

290: all local angular dependence of the radiation field, while, in the

291: MGFLD case, retaining the spectral neutrino distribution. MGFLD

292: accurately describes the radiation field at high optical depth where

293: the diffusion approximation is exact. In the free-streaming limit, the

294: flux must be limited to maintain causality and an interpolation must

295: be performed between diffusion and free-streaming regimes by an

296: ad-hoc prescription (using a flux limiter).

297: 

298: 2D FLD schemes were pioneered in the core-collapse context by

299: \cite{leblanc:70} and modern MGFLD implementations can be found in

300: \cite{swesty:06} and in \cite{burrows:07a}.  It is not a priori clear

301: whether MGFLD is an accurate enough prescription to yield postbounce

302: supernova dynamics in qualitative and quantitative agreement with a

303: more accurate multi-angle treatment.

304: Since net energy deposition by neutrinos is favored only in the

305: semi-transparent gain layer, the quality of a MGFLD scheme may

306: sensitively depend on the flux limiter chosen \citep{burrows:00}.

307: The fact that 2D gray FLD schemes have in the past led to

308: neutrino-driven explosions

309: \citep{herant:94,bhf:95,fh:00,fryerwarren:02,fryerwarren:04}, while

310: MGFLD schemes appear not to \citep{walder:05,burrows:06,burrows:07a},

311: emphasizes the importance of a spectral treatment of neutrino

312: transport.

313: 

314: In 1D, MGFLD and Boltzmann neutrino transport were compared on static

315: hydrodynamic postbounce backgrounds by \cite{janka:92},

316: \cite{yamada:99}, \cite{messer:98}, and \cite{burrows:00}.  Also in

317: 1D, \cite{mezzacappa:93a} compared Boltzmann transport and MGFLD

318: evolutions in the collapse phase, while \cite{liebendoerfer:04}

319: performed the only comparison to date of 1D long-term Boltzmann and MGFLD

320: supernova evolutions.  The static studies all agree that

321: Boltzmann transport yields larger instantaneous neutrino heating rates

322: in the gain region, mostly because of a more slowly decreasing inverse

323: flux factor ($c$ over the ratio of flux to neutrino energy density),

324: a quantity that can be related to the rate of energy absorption. On the other

325: hand, \cite{liebendoerfer:04} find no significant dynamical

326: differences between MGFLD and Boltzmann transport evolutions in their

327: long-term comparison study with the 13-$\mmsun$ progenitor

328: model of~\cite{nomoto:88}.

329: 

330: 

331: In this paper, we present 2D \emph{multi-angle}, multi-group neutrino

332: transport supernova calculations using the Newtonian axisymmetric

333: VULCAN/2D code \citep{livne:93,livne:04,burrows:07a}.  Comparing

334: multi-D Boltzmann and MGFLD treatments, we perform postbounce

335: simulations with VULCAN/2D and compare 2D steady-state snapshots, as

336: well as fully-coupled dynamical 2D radiation-hydrodynamics evolutions,

337: for non- and rapidly-rotating 20-$\mmsun$ models whose precollapse

338: profiles are taken from \cite{wwh:02}.  We analyze our angle-dependent

339: neutrino radiation fields and provide for the first time local 2D map

340: projections of the specific intensity $I_\nu$.

341: 

342: In \S\ref{section:methods}, we describe our hydrodynamic and

343: radiation-transport schemes and the microphysics that we use in this

344: postbounce core-collapse supernova study. In \S

345: \ref{section:initialmodels}, we introduce the presupernova models and

346: the postbounce configurations, the setup, and the methodology of our

347: Boltzmann-transport--MGFLD comparisons. In \S\ref{section:snapshots},

348: we present results of snapshot Boltzmann transport calculations and

349: compare them with their MGFLD counterparts. In

350: \S\ref{section:evolution}, we then discuss time-dependent calculations,

351: the dynamical differences between Boltzmann transport and MGFLD

352: runs, and the consequences for postbounce supernova model

353: evolution. We wrap up in

354: \S\ref{section:summary} with a summary and critical discussion of the

355: work presented in this paper.

356: 

357: \section{Methods}

358: \label{section:methods}

359: 

360: \subsection{Hydrodynamics}

361: 

362: 

363: We employ the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE, with second-order

364: total-variation-diminishing [TVD] remap) radiation-hydrodynamics code

365: VULCAN/2D. The hydrodynamics module was first described by

366: \citet{livne:93}\footnote{For details and an extension to

367: magneto-hydrodynamics not employed here, see \cite{livne:07}.}.

368: The 2D time-explicit hydrodynamics scheme is second-order accurate (in

369: smooth parts of the flow), unsplit, and implements a finite-difference

370: representation of the Newtonian Euler equations with artificial

371: viscosity on arbitrarily structured grids and in cylindrical

372: coordinates.  The computational grid employed here is set up to

373: resemble a spherical-polar grid at radii greater than 20~km and

374: gradually transitions to a Cartesian structure at smaller radii

375: \citep{ott:04}.  This (a) avoids hydrodynamic timestep restrictions

376: due to focussing of angular grid lines and (b) liberates the PNS core,

377: thus allowing mass motion along the axis of symmetry.

378: 

379: Self-gravity is implemented via direct grid-based solution

380: of the Newtonian Poisson equation, as described in

381: \citet{burrows:07a}, and we employ the finite-temperature

382: nuclear equation of state of \citet{shen:98a,shen:98b}.

383: The calculations are run with 230 logarithmically-spaced 

384: radial and 120 angular zones (including the

385: inner, quasi-Cartesian region). The grid encompasses

386: a radial extent of 4000~km and the full 180$^\circ$

387: of the axisymmetric domain.

388: 

389: 

390: \subsection{Neutrino Transport and Microphysics}

391: 

392: VULCAN/2D contains two multi-group, multi-species neutrino

393: radiation-transport options.  As we discuss below

394: (\S\ref{section:initialmodels}), both modules are used in this study.

395: The module implementing 2D transport in the MGFLD approximation, 

396: evolving the zeroth moment of the radiation

397: field, is discussed in \cite{burrows:07a}.  The angle-dependent

398: transport module that evolves the specific neutrino radiation

399: intensity,

400: $I(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{\Omega},\varepsilon_\nu,\mathrm{species},t)$, via

401: the method of discrete ordinates (S$_n$), was first discussed by

402: \citet{livne:04} (see also \citealt{morel:96,adamslarsen:02,castor:04}).

403: 

404: 

405: For convenience and future reference,

406: we define the zeroth, first, and second moments of the

407: radiation field,

408: \begin{eqnarray}

409: J_{\nu} &\equiv& \frac{1}{4\pi}

410: \oint_{4\pi} d\Omega\,\, I_{\nu}\,,\label{eq:J}\\ \vec{H}_{\nu}

411: &\equiv& \frac{1}{4\pi} \oint_{4\pi} d\Omega\,\, \vec{n}\,

412: I_{\nu}\,,\label{eq:H}\\ {\textsf

413: K}_{\nu} &\equiv& \frac{1}{4\pi} 

414: \oint_{4\pi} d\Omega\,\, \vec{n}\,\vec{n}\,I_{\nu}\,\label{eq:eddy}.

415: \end{eqnarray}

416: Note the vector and tensor natures of $\vec{H}_\nu$ and

417: ${\textsf K}_\nu$, respectively. $\vec{n}$ is the

418: radiation field unit vector whose coordinate-dependent

419: components are given in \cite{hb:07} for various common

420: coordinate systems. Here we employ cylindrical coordinates

421: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:coord}). The radiation-pressure tensor

422: ${\textsf K_\nu}$ obeys the trace condition $J_\nu =

423: \mathrm{Tr}[K_\nu]$~\citep{mihalas:99}. The spectral

424: neutrino flux is defined as $\vec{F}_\nu = 4\pi \vec{H}_\nu$.

425: 

426: 

427: As explained in \citet{livne:04}, the

428: time-implicit S$_n$ solver in VULCAN/2D updates the

429: specific intensity in the laboratory

430: frame via the Boltzmann transport equation

431: (\citealt{castor:72}) without

432: fluid-velocity dependence,

433: \begin{equation}

434: \label{eq:trans_master}

435: \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial I}{\partial t} + \vec{n}\cdot \vec{\nabla} I

436: + \sigma I = S\,\,, 

437: \end{equation}

438: where we have dropped the neutrino group index $\nu$.

439:  $\sigma = \sigma^a + \sigma^s$, where

440: $\sigma^a(\mathbf{r},\varepsilon_\nu, \mathrm{species})$ 

441: is the inverse absorption mean-free path and 

442: $\sigma^s(\mathbf{r},\varepsilon_\nu,\mathrm{species})$

443: is the inverse scattering mean-free path (both equivalent to the

444: corresponding cross section multiplied by the number density).

445:  We assume scattering to be isotropic and

446: employ the transport cross section $\sigma^s = (1 - \langle \cos

447: \vartheta\rangle)\sigma^s_T$ instead of the total scattering cross

448: section $\sigma^s_T$. This approach has been shown to work well in

449: spherically-symmetric core-collapse supernova calculations

450: \citep{burrows:00,thompson:03}.  The right-hand side source term $S$

451: equals $S_\mathrm{em}(\mathbf{r},\varepsilon_\nu,\mathrm{species}) +

452: \sigma^s J$, where $S_\mathrm{em}$ is the emissivity. The transport

453: grid is identical to the hydrodynamics grid.  The specific intensity

454: and its moments are defined at cell centers, facilitating

455: spatially-consistent coupling with the scalar hydrodynamics variables,

456: as discussed in \citet{livne:04}.  Radiation stress at cell corners is

457: computed via linear interpolation employing cell-centered values of

458: the radiation flux.

459: 

460: As a consequence of the neglect of $O(\mathrm{v}/c)$ terms in our transport

461: formulation, neutrino advection, Doppler shifts and aberration effects

462: are not considered. This greatly limits the computational complexity

463: of the problem, but its impact on the transport solution depends on

464: the particular choice of reference frame and was examined in

465: \cite{hb:07}. It is clear that around core bounce and neutrino

466: breakout, during the non-linear phase of the SASI hundreds of

467: milliseconds after bounce, and in the case of rapid rotation,

468: including $O(\mathrm{v}/c)$ terms is advisable. We leave them out here in order

469: to make long-term multi-angle radiation-hydrodynamics simulations

470: feasible and allow direct comparison with the MGFLD variant of

471: VULCAN/2D. Full $O(\mathrm{v}/c)$ Boltzmann transport with energy

472: redistribution will be addressed using the code BETHE currently under

473: development by a subset of our group (\citealt{hb:07,murphy:08}).

474: 

475: \begin{figure}

476: \centering

477: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f1.eps}

478: \caption{Coordinates used in the axisymmetric

479: \sn\ transport scheme implemented in VULCAN/2D.  The radiation

480: direction vector $\vec{n}$ is defined in terms of $\vartheta$ and

481: $\varphi$. $\vartheta$ is the angle with respect to the

482: coordinate-grid $z$-axis at all spatial positions ($z$,$\varpi$).  At each

483: ($z$,$\varpi$), the local momentum-space unit sphere is covered by $n$

484: zones in $\vartheta$ and at each $\vartheta$ location by a number

485: $m(\vartheta)$ of $\varphi$-zones, so that each zone in

486: $(\vartheta,\varphi)$ covers roughly the same solid angle.

487: \label{fig:coord}} 

488: \end{figure}

489: 

490: 

491: We discretize the angular radiation distribution

492: evenly in $\cos{\vartheta}$ from -1 to 1 and in

493: $\varphi$ evenly from 0 to $\pi$ (treating only

494: one hemisphere because of axial symmetry).

495: We make the number of $\varphi$-bins a function of

496: $\cos{\vartheta}$ to tile the hemisphere more

497: or less uniformly in solid angle. 

498: In our time-dependent runs we employ

499: 8 $\cos \vartheta$ bins, resulting in a total

500: of 40 angular zones. Steady-state radiation fields

501: are computed with 8 $\cos \vartheta$ bins, 

502: 12 $\cos \vartheta$ bins (92 total angular zones) 

503: and 16 $\cos \vartheta$ bins (162 total angular zones)

504: at each spatial grid point.

505: 

506: 

507: The standard set of neutrino-matter interactions

508: listed in \cite{thompson:03} is included and all

509: computations are performed with 16 discrete neutrino 

510: energy bins, approximately 

511: logarithmically spaced from 2.5~MeV to 220~MeV.

512: Electron neutrinos ($\nu_e$) and electron-antineutrinos

513: ($\bar{\nu}_e$) are treated independently while

514: we lump together the heavy-lepton $\mu$, $\bar{\mu}$, $\tau$, and 

515: $\bar{\tau}$ neutrinos into one 

516: group (``$\nu_{\mu}$'').

517: The code is very efficiently parallelized via MPI 

518: in energy groups and species.

519: As an additional simplification, we do not include 

520: energy redistribution by inelastic neutrino-electron

521: scattering. Such energy redistribution and

522: scattering are of modest ($\sim 10\%$) relevance

523: for the trapped electron fraction ($Y_e$) and

524: entropy of the inner core at core bounce, but otherwise

525: arguably quite subdominant \citep{thompson:03}.

526: 

527: 

528: \subsection{A Hybrid Approach -- Combining

529: {\rm S}$_n$ and MGFLD Neutrino Transport}

530: 

531: The time-implicit S$_n$ scheme in VULCAN/2D

532: is iterative and suffers convergence problems in

533: regions where the transport problem is 

534: scattering-dominated and the optical depth

535: is high $(\tau \sgreat 5)$. As a consequence, 

536: \citet{livne:04} limited the timestep

537: at postbounce times to $\sim$0.1--0.3~$\mu$s 

538: to ensure accuracy and stability. In the present

539: study, we take a different approach and

540: introduce a hybrid S$_n$--MGFLD transport scheme

541: that treats the quasi-isotropic transport problem 

542: in the optically-thick PNS interior 

543: in the diffusion approximation and transitions to full

544: multi-angle S$_n$ transport in a region

545: of moderate optical depth ($\tau\,\, \sgreat\, 2$), but

546: that is still significantly interior to the neutrinospheres

547: ($\tau \sim 2/3$) where the neutrinos decouple from

548: matter and begin to stream. 

549: 

550: \begin{figure*}[t]

551: \centering

552: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{f2a.ps}

553: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{f2b.ps}

554: \caption{Entropy colormaps of the nonrotating model s20.nr (left) and the

555: rotating model s20.$\pi$ (right) at 160~ms into their postbounce evolution

556: computed with MGFLD. Velocity vectors are superposed with vector

557: lengths saturated at 1.0$\times$$10^{9}$~cm~s$^{-1}$. Model s20.nr has

558: a practically spherical PNS and shows features of violent overturn in

559: the convectively unstable postshock region. The shock radius in this

560: model is $\sim$175~km at this point and the onset of the SASI is

561: apparent from the slightly deformed shock. Model s20.$\pi$, on the

562: other hand, has a strongly rotationally-flattened PNS and convective

563: overturn is confined to polar regions. These regions exhibit

564: the globally highest entropies and greatest entropy gradients, since

565: the polar velocity divergence at the shock is the highest. The shock

566: radius at this time in model s20.$\pi$ is $\sim$230~km and no SASI

567: features are visible.

568: \label{fig:intro2D}}

569: \end{figure*}

570: 

571: 

572: We chose a radius of 20~km in our calculations for the transition from

573: MGFLD to S$_n$. This is a sensible choice, (1) because the

574: neutrinosphere radii of all groups (energies/species) remain larger

575: than 20~km throughout the postbounce period our simulations cover and,

576: (2) because 20~km also marks the radius at which the transition from

577: the inner irregular quasi-Cartesian grid to the outer regular grid is

578: complete. This boundary is smooth and the S$_n$--MGFLD transition does

579: not suffer from Cartesian cornerstone effects.

580: 

581: The transition is implemented by setting up for each energy group and

582: species an approximate specific intensity $I_\nu$ at the centers of the

583: zones below the S$_n$--MGFLD interface using the information available

584: from MGFLD. This approximate $I_\nu$ is obtained via its angular expansion

585: to first order in $\vec{n}$ (the Eddington approximation): 

586: \begin{equation}

587: I_\nu = I_0 + 3 (\vec{n}\cdot\vec{H})\,\,.

588: \label{eq:approxI}

589: \end{equation}

590: Here, $I_0 = J_\mathrm{MGFLD}$ and 

591: $\vec{H} = \vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD}/4\pi$,

592: where $\vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD}$ is the flux, 

593: and $\vec{H}$ is the first moment of

594: $I_\nu$. In MGFLD, $\vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD}$ is computed via

595: \begin{equation}

596: \vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD} = - \mathrm{FL}[D] \vec{\nabla} J\,\,,

597: \end{equation} where \begin{equation} D = \frac{1}{3\sigma}\,\,, \end{equation}

598: with Bruenn's flux limiter\footnote{We use Bruenn's flux limiter in

599: VULCAN/2D, because \cite{burrows:00} found it to perform best in their

600: comparison of flux limiters with angle-dependent transport.}

601: \citep{bruenn:85}, 

602: \begin{equation} \mathrm{FL}\big[D\big] =

603: \frac{D}{1+D|\vec{\nabla} J|/J}\,\,.  

604: \end{equation} 

605: The first angular moment of eq.~(\ref{eq:approxI}), $\vec{F}_\mathrm{S_n} = \int

606: \vec{n}\, I d\Omega$, is then equal\footnote{Given the limited number

607: of angular zones of $I$ and the fact that we are not using

608: Gaussian-quadrature-type angular zoning, the integrals of $I$ are only

609: accurate to $\sim$5\% when 8 $\vartheta$-zones are used and accurate

610: to $\sim$1\% when 12 and more $\vartheta$-zones are employed. To

611: ensure conservation of energy in the S$_n$--MGFLD matching, we employ

612: purely geometrical and temporally constant correction factors to

613: enforce $\vec{F}_\mathrm{S_n} = \vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD}$ at the

614: interface.} to $\vec{F}_\mathrm{MGFLD}$ and the S$_n$--MGFLD matching

615: is consistent and provides a representation of the specific intensity

616: $I$ that is accurate to first order in $\vec{n}$.  Given the

617: essentially isotropic neutrino radiation field deep inside the PNS,

618: this approximation yields excellent results. We note that the scheme

619: makes the implicit assumption that the radial gradient of the mean

620: intensity at the transition radius is always negative or zero. This

621: condition is generally fulfilled in PNSs.

622: 

623: 

624: \section{Initial Models and Setup}

625: \label{section:initialmodels}

626: 

627: We employ the spherically-symmetric solar-metallicity

628: $\mathrm{20-}\mmsun$ (at ZAMS) model s20.0 from the stellar

629: evolutionary study of \cite{wwh:02}, who evolved it to the onset of

630: core collapse. At that moment, its iron core mass\footnote{Determined

631: by the discontinuity in the electron fraction, $Y_e$, at the outer

632: edge of the iron core where $Y_e$$\sim$0.5.} is $\sim$1.46~$\mmsun$

633: and its central density has reached

634: $\sim$8.4$\times$10$^{9}$~g~cm$^{-3}$. A graph of the progenitor's

635: precollapse density stratification as a function of enclosed mass can

636: be found in Fig.~1 of \cite{burrows:07a}. Note that in the study of

637: \cite{wwh:02}, iron core mass and extent vary non-monotonically in the

638: 10--20~$\mmsun$ ZAMS mass range and that their solar-metallicity

639: 20-$\mmsun$ model has, in fact, a more compact central configuration

640: than the corresponding 15-$\mmsun$ model.  Stellar evolution theory of

641: massive stars has yet to converge and studies by different groups do

642: not presently yield the same presupernova structures.

643: 

644: We set up two initial models in VULCAN/2D: s20.nr and s20.$\pi$. Both

645: models are mapped from 1D onto our 2D hydrodynamic grid under

646: the assumption of spherical symmetry. Model s20.nr is kept

647: nonrotating, while we impose an initial angular velocity profile

648: in model s20.$\pi$ according to the rotation law,

649: \begin{equation}

650: \Omega(\varpi) = \Omega_0 \frac{1}{1+(\varpi/A)^2}\,\,,

651: \label{eq:rotlaw}

652: \end{equation} where $\varpi$ is the distance from the rotation axis and $A$ is a

653: parameter governing precollapse differential rotation.  This rotation

654: law enforces constant angular velocity on cylindrical shells and, for

655: sensible choices of $A$, reproduces qualitatively

656: (\citealt{ott:06spin}) predictions from presupernova models that

657: include rotation in a 1D fashion~\citep{heger:00,heger:05}. Since the

658: computational complexity of this study inhibits us from performing a

659: sweep of the $\Omega_0$--$A$ parameter space, we chose $A = 1000$~km

660: and $\Omega_0=\pi$~rad~s$^{-1}$. Hence, the initial central period is

661: 2~s -- this is an identical rotational setup to the fiducial model in

662: \cite{burrows:07b}.  As discussed in \cite{ott:06spin}, 2~s is rather

663: short, leads to a rapidly rotating postbounce configuration with a

664: millisecond-period PNS, and, unless significant postbounce spin-down

665: (e.g. via MHD torques) occurs, is inconsistent with average pulsar

666: birth spin estimates. We chose such rapid rotation simply because we

667: wish to study a postbounce supernova core with significant

668: rotationally-induced asymmetry. Key model parameters and

669: characteristics are summarized in Table~\ref{table:models}.

670: 

671: 

672: We collapse both models with the MGFLD variant of VULCAN/2D and evolve

673: them to $\sim$160~ms after core bounce.

674: Then, we transition to \sn\ Boltzmann transport and solve for

675: the stationary neutrino radiation field based on the artificially

676: frozen hydrodynamics data at this postbounce time. Once we have

677: obtained a converged angle-dependent radiation field, we activate

678: neutrino-matter coupling and hydrodynamics and evolve in time the coupled

679: radiation-hydrodynamics equations. For direct comparison, we also

680: continue the MGFLD simulations to later times. 

681: All steady-state snapshots are computed in three momentum-space 

682: angular resolutions, S$_{16}$, S$_{12}$, and S$_8$, while the

683: long-term evolution calculations could only be performed with

684: S$_8$, due to computational constraints.

685: 

686: In Fig.~\ref{fig:intro2D}, we show entropy colormaps of both models at

687: 160~ms after bounce. Fluid velocity vectors are superposed, providing

688: a snapshot of the flow. By 160~ms after bounce, in the nonrotating

689: model s20.nr convection in the high-entropy ($O$(10)

690: $\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}$/baryon) gain layer has developed fully. The

691: shock sits at $\sim$175~km and is slightly deformed by the onset of

692: the SASI. Not visible on the scale of this figure is the

693: lepton-gradient-driven convective region deep inside the PNS,

694: which was extensively  discussed in \cite{dessart:06a}.

695: 

696: The PNS in the rapidly rotating model s20.$\pi$ is rotationally

697: flattened, with unshocked low-entropy inner-core

698: pole/equator asymmetry ratios below $\sim$0.5. The shock

699: is slightly prolate and has attained an average radius of 

700: $\sim$230~km.  The moment-of-inertia-weighted 

701: mean period of the unshocked (specific entropy

702: $s \le$~3~k$_\mathrm{B}$) inner core is $\sim$2.0~ms. Differential

703: rotation between $\sim$20 and 200~km is very large, with the

704: angular velocity  $\Omega$ dropping from $\sim$1600~rad~s$^{-1}$

705: to a mere $\sim$15~rad~s$^{-1}$ over this radial equatorial interval.

706: Yet, the specific angular momentum $j$ is still monotonically and rapidly 

707: increasing. It flattens, but does not decrease, only at radii greater

708: than $\sim$100~km.  This positive gradient in $j$ stabilizes the postbounce

709: core against convective instability at low latitudes \citep{fh:00}, 

710: confining overturn to the polar regions and large equatorial radii where

711: the $j$ gradient is less steep.

712: 

713: 

714: 

715: \begin{deluxetable}{llcllll}

716: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

717: \tablecaption{Model Summary\label{table:models}}

718: \tablehead{

719: \colhead{Model Name}&

720: \colhead{Progenitor}&

721: \colhead{$\Omega_0$}&

722: \colhead{$A$}&

723: \colhead{$t_b$}&

724: \colhead{$t_\mathrm{snap}$}&

725: \colhead{$t_f - t_b$}\\

726: \colhead{}&

727: \colhead{}&

728: \colhead{(rad s$^{-1}$)}&

729: \colhead{(km)}&

730: \colhead{(ms)}&

731: \colhead{(ms)}&

732: \colhead{(ms)}

733: }

734: \startdata

735: s20.nr&s20.0&0.0&---&179.2&160.0&500.0\\

736: s20.$\pi$&s20.0&$\pi$&1000&193.7&160.0&550.0

737: \enddata

738: \tablecomments{Summary of model parameters. The progenitors

739: are taken from \cite{wwh:02}. $\Omega_0$ is the initial

740: central angular velocity, $A$ is the differential rotation

741: parameter of the rotation law (eq. \ref{eq:rotlaw}). $t_b$ is

742: the time of core bounce, $t_\mathrm{snap}$ is the time after

743: $t_b$ at which the postbounce snapshots are taken, and $t_f - t_b$

744: is the point at which we stop our simulations.}

745: \end{deluxetable}

746: 

747: 

748: \begin{figure}[t]

749: \centering

750: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f3.ps}

751: \caption{Polar plot of the normalized specific intensity

752: $I_\nu(r,\vartheta,\varphi)/\mathrm{max}[I_\nu(r,\vartheta,\varphi)]$

753: in model s20.nr at 160~ms after core bounce, at selected equatorial

754: radii, and for $\nu_e$ neutrinos at $\varepsilon_\nu = 12.6$~MeV.

755: At each radius, we normalize the specific intensity by its local

756: maximum. Shown is the variation with $\varphi$ at fixed $\vartheta =

757: \pi/2$. The graphs are based on a S$_{16}$ calculation.  At $r

758: =$~30~km, the radiation field is practically isotropic, but is already

759: appreciably forward-peaked at the neutrinosphere ($r_\nu = 55$~km;

760: optical depth $\tau = 2/3$) and thereafter smoothly transitions over

761: $\sim$200--300~km to the free-streaming limit.

762:  \label{fig:s20nr_psi1}}

763: \end{figure}

764: 

765: \vspace*{.8cm}

766: 

767: 

768: \section{Results: Snapshots}

769: \label{section:snapshots}

770: 

771: In this section, we present our \sn\ multi-angle transport results for

772: steady-state model snapshots at 160~ms after core bounce.  We diagnose

773: the angle-dependent neutrino radiation fields and carry out a 

774: comparison between multi-angle and MGFLD transport results based on

775: local and global radiation-field variables.

776: 

777: \begin{figure*}[t!]

778: \centering

779: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{f4.ps}

780: \caption{ Hammer-type interpolated (smoothed) map projections of the

781: normalized specific intensity $I_\nu(\vartheta,\varphi) / J_\nu$ in

782: model s20.nr at 160 ms after bounce. The colormap is logarithmic and in

783: each individual projection is setup to range from

784: $\mathrm{max}(I_\nu(\vartheta,\varphi) / J_\nu)$ (red) to

785: 10$^{-4}\mathrm{max}(I_\nu(\vartheta,\varphi) / J_\nu)$ (black).

786: Shown is the specific intensity of $\nu_e$, $\bar{\nu}_e$, and

787: ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos at $\varepsilon_\nu = 12.6$~MeV (rows) on the

788: equator ($\theta$=90$^\circ$, measured from the pole) and at radii of

789: 60, 120, and 240 km (columns). The Hammer projection is set up in such

790: a way that $\vartheta$ varies in the vertical from $0^\circ$ (top) to

791: $180^\circ$ (bottom) and $\varphi$ varies horizontally from

792: $-180^\circ$ (left) to $+180^\circ$ (right). Grid lines are drawn in

793: $\vartheta$- and $\varphi$-intervals of 30$^\circ$. Note (a) the

794: increasing forward-peaking of $I_\nu$ with increasing radius (and

795: decreasing optical depth) and (b) that at any given radius $I_\nu$ of

796: ``$\nu_\mu$'' is more forward-peaked than that of the $\bar{\nu}_e$

797: component, which, in turn, is always more forward-peaked than the

798: $\nu_e$ component. This fact is a consequence of a transport mean-free

799: path that varies with species (and energy; not shown here) and is

800: smallest for the electron neutrinos.

801: \label{fig:hammer1}}

802: \end{figure*}

803: 

804: 

805: \subsection{Angular Distributions}

806: 

807: The quintessential problem in treating neutrino radiation transport in

808: core-collapse supernova cores is the fact that the neutrino transport

809: mean-free path, the average distance a neutrino can travel without

810: experiencing scattering or absorption, changes by orders of magnitude

811: from inside to outside.  Moreover, the neutrino transport

812: mean-free-path $\lambda_\nu$ varies locally strongly with neutrino

813: energy ($\propto \varepsilon_\nu^2$) and matter

814: density.  As a consequence, gray transport schemes are problematic,

815: since neutrino-energy averages can be defined only locally and the

816: mean neutrino energy varies significantly throughout the supernova

817: core.

818: 

819: From a more geometric point of view, the radiation field in momentum

820: space goes from being completely isotropic (net flux $\sim$zero) to

821: being focussed into the radial direction (``forward-peaked'') in the

822: free-streaming regime. In the MGFLD approximation, the mean intensity

823: $J_\nu$ is evolved in time and the angular information, in particular

824: the information on the degree of forward-peaking, is captured only

825: by computing spatial gradients in $J_\nu$ and employing a flux

826: limiter to interpolate between diffusion and free streaming.

827: 

828: 

829: \begin{figure*}[t!]

830: \centering

831: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{f5.ps}

832: \caption{ Hammer map projections of the interpolated (smoothed)

833: normalized specific intensity $I_\nu(\vartheta,\varphi) / J_\nu$ at

834: 160~ms postbounce in model s20.nr. The projections are set up in

835: identical fashion to Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1}. Shown here is the

836: variation of the angular distribution with energy group (columns) and

837: angular position (rows) for electron neutrinos. The radius is fixed to

838: 150~km.  As expected in the coordinates used for the S$_n$ transport

839: in VULCAN/2D (see Fig.~\ref{fig:coord}), $I_\nu$ becomes

840: forward-peaked into $\vartheta=0^\circ$ and degenerate in $\varphi$

841: along the pole ($\theta=0^\circ$), forward-peaked into

842: $\vartheta=45^\circ,\varphi=0^\circ$ on the diagonal

843: ($\theta=45^\circ$), and forward-peaked

844: $\vartheta=90^\circ,\varphi=0^\circ$ on the equator

845: ($\theta=90^\circ$). The degree of the radiation anisotropy and its

846: variation from forward-peaked at $\varepsilon_\nu = 12.6$~MeV to less

847: forward-peaked at $\varepsilon_\nu = 37.5$~MeV is apparent.

848: \label{fig:hammer2}} 

849: \end{figure*}

850: 

851: 

852: The \sn\ Boltzmann solver in VULCAN/2D is able to 

853: self-consistently handle the transition from isotropic to

854: forward-peaked radiation.  Figure~\ref{fig:s20nr_psi1} depicts the

855: angular distribution in the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ (see

856: Fig.~\ref{fig:coord}) of the normalized specific spectral neutrino

857: intensity $I_\nu$ for electron neutrinos at 12.6~MeV. In

858: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_psi1}, the polar angle $\vartheta$ is set equal to

859: $\pi/2$ and the $\varphi$-distribution is given at various radii in

860: the equatorial plane of model s20.nr.  At 30~km from the center, the

861: radiation field of $\nu_e$'s at $\varepsilon_\nu$~=~12.6~MeV is nearly

862: isotropic,which corresponds to a circle in

863: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_psi1}. With increasing radius (and, of course,

864: decreasing matter density) the transport mean-free path at fixed

865: $\varepsilon_\nu$ increases and the radiation field gradually departs

866: from isotropy and becomes more and more forward-peaked. We define the

867: neutrinosphere as the surface at which the optical depth $\tau_\nu$,

868: given by \begin{equation} \tau_\nu = \int_\infty^R \frac{dr}{\lambda_\nu}\,\,, \end{equation}

869: is equal to 2/3. At around this $\tau_\nu$, the neutrinos decouple

870: from matter and begin to stream freely. At 160~ms after bounce in

871: model s20.nr, the 12.6~MeV $\nu_e$ neutrinosphere is located at

872: $r\sim$55~km. As is obvious from Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_psi1}, the

873: radiation field at the neutrinosphere is not yet dramatically

874: forward-peaked, but becomes so with increasing radius. However,

875: complete forward-peaking only obtains at radii $\sgreat$~250--300~km,

876: beyond which the angular resolution of our \sn\ scheme becomes

877: suboptimal, even with $n=16$. However, calculations with varying

878: number of $\vartheta$ (and, hence, $\varphi$) angles reveal that the

879: transition from isotropy to moderate and large anisotropy is

880: adequately reproduced at small and intermediate radii (out to

881: $\sim$200~km) even in the case of S$_8$.

882: 

883: For the purpose of displaying and studying the local neutrino

884: radiation field, we provide equal-area Hammer-type map projections

885: \citep{hammer:1892}.  Such map projections are new to the field of

886: neutrino radiation transport and beautifully reveal the multi-D

887: angular-dependence of the radiation field.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1},

888: we present such Hammer projections on the equator (spatial $\theta =

889: 90^\circ$) of model s20.nr at radii of 60, 120, and 240~km for the

890: three neutrino species included in our simulations at $\varepsilon_\nu

891: = 12.6$~MeV . In each plot, we normalize the specific intensity to the

892: mean intensity to set a common scale. The colormap is logarithmic and

893: chosen to have regions on the sphere with high intensity appear red

894: and regions of low intensity appear black.

895: 

896: 

897: For neutrinos on the equator, the momentum-space forward direction is

898: $(\vartheta = 90^\circ, \varphi = 0)$. Electron neutrinos generally

899: have the shortest transport mean-free path of all species in the

900: core-collapse context and decouple from matter at the lowest

901: densities. The Hammer projection in the top-left corner of

902: Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1} of the $\varepsilon_\nu$ = 12.6~MeV equatorial

903: radiation field at 60~km corresponds roughly to the blue line graph in

904: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_psi1}, which portrays only its variation with

905: $\varphi$.  At fixed neutrino energy group $\varepsilon_\nu$, electron

906: anti-neutrinos and ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos decouple at smaller

907: radii. Hence, as Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1} shows, at 60~km, they already

908: manifest greater local anisotropy than the $\nu_e$s. This trend

909: continues at all considered radii in Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1}.

910: 

911: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer2}, we again present Hammer projections of the

912: normalized specific intensity, but this time consider only $\nu_e$s,

913: keep the radius fixed at 150~km, and vary the neutrino energy and the

914: angular position on the grid. The bottom row of Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer2}

915: shows the normalized $I_\nu$ at the equator ($\theta=90^\circ$) and

916: for the 12.6-MeV and 35.7-MeV $\nu_e$ energy groups. The center and

917: top rows show the same groups at $\theta=45^\circ$ and at

918: $\theta=0^\circ$, respectively.  From the discussion of

919: Fig.~\ref{fig:hammer1}, we are already familiar with the overall

920: radiation field geometry.  The transport mean-free path scales roughly

921: inversely with $\varepsilon_\nu^2$. Hence, at any given position in

922: the postbounce supernova core, more energetic neutrinos should be

923: locally more isotropically distributed in momentum space than less

924: energetic ones. The less forward-peaked angular $I_\nu$ distribution

925: of the higher-energy neutrinos reflects this.

926: 

927: The degree of forward-peaking in $\vartheta$ and $\varphi$ of the

928: radiation field in the quasi-spherically symmetric nonrotating model

929: s20.nr is essentially independent of the angular position on the grid

930: and the radiation fields at any given radius can be transformed into

931: one another by simple rotation. Because of the aspherical and oblate

932: distribution of matter in the rotating model s20.$\pi$, the

933: forward-peaking is also a function of polar angle. Due to its PNS's

934: oblateness (see Fig.~\ref{fig:intro2D}), the neutrinos generally

935: decouple at significantly smaller radii near the pole than near the

936: equator, in turn leading to more strongly forward-peaked radiation

937: fields in the polar than in the equatorial regions

938: \citep{janka:89a,janka:89b,walder:05,dessart:06b,dessart:07}.

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: \begin{figure*}[t]

943: \centering

944: \includegraphics[width=5.95cm]{f6a.ps}

945: \includegraphics[width=5.95cm]{f6b.ps}

946: \includegraphics[width=5.95cm]{f6c.ps}

947: \caption{Normalized Eddington tensor ${\textsf k}$ components in

948: spherical coordinates as a function of neutrino energy $\varepsilon_\nu$

949: and spherical radius $r$. {\bf Left}: Angular-averaged $k_{rr}$ and

950: $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ for electron neutrinos in model

951: s20.nr. $k_{\varphi\varphi}$ is not shown, but has essentially

952: identical behavior to $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$.  The diagonal

953: components start out with $1/3$ at small radii, as expected for the

954: prevailing isotropic radiation fields. With increasing radius

955: (and decreasing density), the local radiation field becomes more

956: anisotropic and forward-peaked. This occurs at progressively larger

957: radii with increasing $\varepsilon_\nu$ and is reflected by the

958: increasing $k_{rr}$ and the decreasing $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ in the

959: plot. The off-diagonal component $k_{r\vartheta}$ is not shown, does

960: not exhibit clear systematics, and is generally a factor of 10--100

961: smaller than the diagonal components.  {\bf Center}: Same as left,

962: but showing profiles extracted from regions near the pole in the

963: rapidly-rotating model s20.$\pi$. Interior to $\sim$100~km, $k_{rr}$,

964: and $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ show the same systematics with

965: $\varepsilon_\nu$ as in the nonrotating model. However, at larger radii

966: they are reversed, $k_{rr}$ and $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ exhibiting

967: greater isotropy for lower $\varepsilon_\nu$. See text for discussion.

968: {\bf Right}: Equatorial profiles of $k_{rr}$, $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$

969: and $k_{\varphi\varphi}$ for electron neutrinos in model s20.nr. Due to

970: rotational flattening of the PNS, the transition to free streaming

971: occurs over a much larger range of radii near the equator.

972: $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ shows a significantly 

973: larger variation as a function of energy than $k_{\varphi\varphi}$.

974: \label{fig:eddy}} 

975: \end{figure*}

976: 

977: 

978: \subsection{Eddington Factors}

979: \label{section:Eddy}

980: 

981: The radiation-pressure tensor ${\textsf K}_\nu$, also known as

982: the Eddington tensor, represents the second angular moment of the

983: specific intensity and is defined by eq.~(\ref{eq:eddy}).

984: In the following, we use its normalized variant 

985: ${\textsf k}_\nu = {\textsf K}_\nu / J_\nu$.

986: 

987: In spherical symmetry, ${\textsf k}_\nu$ is diagonal and has a single

988: independent component, the Eddington factor $k_\nu$.  For isotropic

989: radiation, $k_\nu = 1/3$ and ${\textsf k}_\nu =

990: \mathrm{diag}(1/3,1/3,1/3)$, while in the streaming regime, $k_\nu =

991: 1$ and ${\textsf k}_\nu = \mathrm{diag}(1,0,0)$.  In the transition

992: from isotropy to free streaming, $k_\nu$ generally varies from $1/3$

993: to $1$, but in special cases, e.g., enhanced radiation perpendicular

994: to the radial direction, may assume values below $1/3$.  Note that one

995: of the common assumptions of MGFLD is the Eddington closure, setting

996: $k_\nu = \frac{1}{3}$ everywhere.

997: 

998: In axisymmetry and ignoring velocity-dependent terms, the Eddington tensor

999: has four independent components whose individual meaning depends on

1000: the coordinates chosen\footnote{Off-diagonal components of the

1001: Eddington tensor can be related to radiation shear viscosity

1002: \citep{mihalas:99}, which we do not consider here.}.  We assume and

1003: transform to spherical coordinates for our discussion, since they make

1004: the interpretation of the components most straightforward.

1005: 

1006: In Fig.~\ref{fig:eddy}, we present radial profiles of normalized

1007: Eddington tensor components at selected electron-neutrino energies

1008: $\varepsilon_\nu$ in models s20.nr and s20.$\pi$.  The nonrotating model

1009: can be considered nearly spherically symmetric, and, hence, should and

1010: does exhibit the expected Eddington-factor systematics. At small

1011: radii and high densities, where neutrinos and matter are in

1012: equilibrium, $k_{rr} = k_{\vartheta\vartheta} = k_{\varphi\varphi} =

1013: \frac{1}{3}$ and with increasing radius, $k_{rr} \rightarrow 1$ and

1014: $\{k_{\vartheta\vartheta},k_{\varphi\varphi}\} \rightarrow 0$.  As

1015: expected from the basic decoupling hierarchy, the value of the

1016: Eddington tensor components is a strong function of $\varepsilon_\nu$.

1017: Lower-$\varepsilon_\nu$ neutrinos decouple at higher densities, and, hence,

1018: have Eddington tensor components which depart from $\frac{1}{3}$ at

1019: smaller radii than $\nu_e$s of higher energy.

1020: This systematics applies, of course, to $\bar{\nu}_e$s 

1021: and ``$\nu_\mu$''s as well.

1022: The off-diagonal component

1023: $k_{r\vartheta}$ is zero in the isotropic region, does not exhibit clear

1024: systematics, and stays an order-of-magnitude smaller than the diagonal

1025: components for all $\varepsilon_\nu$ and species.

1026: 

1027: The rotating model s20.$\pi$ has a postshock configuration that is far

1028: from spherically symmetric (Fig.~\ref{fig:intro2D}).  We present in

1029: Fig.~\ref{fig:eddy} separate plots for its Eddington tensor components

1030: in regions near the pole and near the equator.  In the polar regions

1031: and at small radii ($r\,\sless\,$100~km), the Eddington tensor

1032: components show the same qualitative behavior as in model s20.nr. At

1033: larger radii, however, the systematics are reversed and

1034: lower-$\varepsilon_\nu$ electron neutrinos have more isotropic radiation

1035: fields (smaller $k_{rr}$) than their higher-$\varepsilon_\nu$

1036: counterparts. Analyzing their radiation fields and matter coupling in

1037: detail, we find that this surprising feature is a consequence of

1038: electron capture and the polar compactness (large density gradient due

1039: to rotation) of the supernova core.  Electron capture near the shock

1040: leads to isotropic neutrino emission that can locally isotropize the

1041: radiation field in semi-transparent regions.  With decreasing density

1042: and temperature, the mean energy of neutrinos emitted by capture

1043: processes shifts to lower $\varepsilon_\nu$.  This leads to greater local

1044: isotropization of lower-$\varepsilon_\nu$ neutrinos, which in turn is

1045: reflected in the more slowly increasing $k_{rr}$ of these

1046: neutrinos. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that we do not

1047: find any such feature in the Eddington tensor components of the

1048: ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos that are not produced in 

1049: capture processes. We also do not observe significant isotropization

1050: in the $\bar{\nu}_e$ radiation fields, since the emission of

1051: $\bar{\nu}_e$s by positron capture on neutrons is weaker due to

1052: the lower positron abundance.

1053: 

1054: 

1055: In regions of model s20.$\pi$ near the equator where the PNS is most

1056: extended, the neutrino radiation fields stay isotropic to large radii

1057: and decouple from matter only slowly with radius. Since the matter

1058: densities in the equatorial plane stay roughly a factor of four larger

1059: than in the polar regions, the cross-over feature in $\{k_{rr},

1060: k_{\vartheta\vartheta}, k_{\varphi\varphi}\}$ does not appear and

1061: these components follow the standard decoupling

1062: hierarchy. Interestingly, and different from in the nonrotating model,

1063: $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ and $k_{\varphi\varphi}$ show quantitatively

1064: distinct variation with $\varepsilon_\nu$, the latter exhibiting

1065: significantly less variation with $\varepsilon_\nu$ at any given radius.

1066: The interpretation of this observation is not straightforward, but we

1067: suggest that it can be attributed to the fact that in model s20.$\pi$ the

1068: radiation field at any given point on the equator of the

1069: rotationally-flattened core and for any $\varepsilon_\nu$ and neutrino

1070: species varies locally less in the $\vartheta$ direction than in the

1071: $\varphi$ direction. This, in combination with the fact that on the

1072: equator the radiation field asymptotically peaks into the 

1073: ($\vartheta=0$,$\varphi=0$) direction, results on average in smaller

1074: $k_{\varphi\varphi}$ with less spread in energy than exhibited by

1075: $k_{\vartheta\vartheta}$.

1076: The off-diagonal component $k_{r\vartheta}$ (not shown in

1077: Fig.~\ref{fig:eddy}) vanishes in $k_{rr} = k_{\vartheta\vartheta} =

1078: k_{\varphi\varphi} = \frac{1}{3}$ regions, but can become relatively

1079: large at greater radii (up to $\sim$0.2 in magnitude; increasing with

1080: $\varepsilon_\nu$ and radius) and flips sign at the equator. The

1081: interpretation of $k_{r\vartheta}$ is not straightforward, since its

1082: magnitude depends on the choice of coordinates. We do not

1083: attempt to study it, nor its implications for neutrino shear

1084: viscosity, in any detail.

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \begin{figure}[t]

1088: \centering

1089: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f7.ps}

1090: \caption{ S$_n$--MGFLD comparison for the nonrotating model s20.nr at

1091: 160~ms after bounce. All S$_n$ results where obtained with a 16

1092: $\vartheta$-angle calculation.  See text for details and discussion.

1093: Top panel: Neutrino luminosity as a function of radius and broken down

1094: into the three neutrino species considered. The ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos

1095: dominate in luminosity and their luminosity profiles are scaled by

1096: a factor of 1/4 to preserve the overall scale of the plot. 

1097: Center panel: Angle-averaged energy-mean inverse

1098: neutrino flux factor profiles.  Bottom panel: RMS neutrino energy

1099: profiles.

1100: \label{fig:s20nr_line}}

1101: \end{figure}

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \subsection{Global Radiation Field Diagnostics: Luminosities,

1105: Spectra, Flux Factors, and Neutrino Energy Deposition}

1106: \label{section:stills}

1107: 

1108: So far we have studied aspects of neutrino transport inaccessible to

1109: MGFLD. We now go on to discuss radiation field diagnostics that

1110: facilitate a \sn--MGFLD comparison. For further reference

1111: and comparison with previous studies \citep{janka:92,messer:98,

1112: burrows:00}, we define the neutrino luminosity per species 

1113: $L_{\nu_i}$ at spherical radius $r$, 

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: L_{\nu_i}(r) = \oint d\omega \int d\varepsilon_\nu\, F_r(r,\varepsilon_\nu,\nu_i) r^2\,, 

1116: \end{equation} 

1117: where $F_r$ is the spectral radial neutrino flux in species $\nu_i$ 

1118: at energy $\varepsilon_\nu$. $d\omega$ is the

1119: spatial solid-angle element, $d\omega = 2\pi \sin\theta d\theta$ in

1120: axisymmetry. Furthermore, we define the

1121: mean inverse flux factor $\langle 1 / {\textsf F}_{\nu_i}\rangle$,

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: \bigg\langle \frac{1}{{\textsf F}_{\nu_i}} \bigg\rangle = 

1124: \frac{c \int d\varepsilon_\nu E(\varepsilon_\nu,\nu_i)}

1125: {\int d\varepsilon_\nu F_r(\varepsilon_\nu, \nu_i)}\,,

1126: \end{equation}

1127: where $E(\varepsilon_\nu,\nu_i) = 4\pi c^{-1} J(\varepsilon_\nu,\nu_i)$

1128: is the spectral neutrino energy density,

1129: and the neutrino RMS energies are

1130: \begin{equation}

1131: E_{\mathrm{RMS},\nu_i} = \sqrt{{\frac{\int d\varepsilon_{\nu_i}

1132: \varepsilon_{\nu_i}^2 J(\varepsilon_{\nu_i})}

1133: {\int d\varepsilon_{\nu_i} J(\varepsilon_{\nu_i})}}}\,.

1134: \end{equation}

1135: 

1136: The above three quantities are particularly useful diagnostics, since the

1137: $\varepsilon_\nu$-averaged energy deposition rate by charged-current

1138: absorption of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ on neutrons and protons scales

1139: linearly with their product (\citealt{messer:98}).

1140: 

1141: \vspace*{.5cm}

1142: 

1143: \subsubsection{Model s20.nr}

1144: \label{section:s20nr}

1145: 

1146: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_line}, we plot neutrino luminosities

1147: $L_{\nu_i}$, angle-averaged mean inverse flux factors, and the

1148: angle-averaged $E_\mathrm{RMS}$ for the postbounce snapshot at 160~ms

1149: of the nonrotating model s20.nr. The asymptotic total luminosity at

1150: this time is $\sim$150~B~s$^{-1}$ and is already dominated by the

1151: thermally-produced ``$\nu_\mu$''s that cool the PNS, but contribute

1152: little to the heating in the gain region, since they cannot take part

1153: in charged-current absorption processes. In this quasi-spherically

1154: symmetric model, we define a spherical gain radius $r_\mathrm{gain}$

1155: as the radial position beyond which net neutrino energy deposition

1156: occurs. At 160~ms after bounce, $r_\mathrm{gain} \simeq $~90~km and

1157: the gain region extends almost out to the shock at $\sim$175~km.  The

1158: MGFLD luminosities in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_line} are systematically

1159: lower by $\sim$5\% for $\nu_e$s, $\sim$3.5\% for $\bar{\nu}_e$s, and

1160: $\sim$4\% for ``$\nu_\mu$''s, but qualitatively resemble the \sn\

1161: luminosity profiles in the gain region. At around the shock position,

1162: all MGFLD luminosities increase by $\sim$5\%. This is a due to the

1163: combination of the artificially spread-out shock (over $\sim$4--5

1164: zones), the rapid change of the inverse neutrino mean-free path in the

1165: spread-out shock and the implementation of the flux limiter in

1166: VULCAN/2D.  Since this MGFLD artefact occurs right at the shock, it

1167: can have only little influence on the heating in the gain region, but

1168: leads to somewhat overestimated asymptotic luminosities in the MGFLD

1169: case.

1170: 

1171: The center panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_line} shows the

1172: $\varepsilon_\nu$-averaged inverse flux factors for the three neutrino

1173: species in the MGFLD and \sn\ steady-state calculations of model

1174: s20.nr.  For isotropic radiation $\langle 1 / {\textsf

1175: F}_{\nu_i}\rangle$ tends to infinity, while it approaches one when the

1176: radiation field becomes forward-peaked at low optical depth.

1177: Focussing on the gain region between $r_\mathrm{gain}$ and the shock

1178: position, we find that MGFLD yields mean inverse flux factors that are

1179: up to $\sim$5\% larger for $\bar{\nu}_e$s (less for the other

1180: species) in the inner gain region. At radii $\sgreat\,$150~km, the

1181: MGFLD $\langle 1 / {\textsf F}_{\nu_i}\rangle$ quickly drops to 1

1182: (free streaming), becoming up to 8\% lower than the \sn\ values in the

1183: outer gain region. We note that ``$\nu_\mu$'' interact only via

1184: neutral-current weak interactions, hence, decouple from matter at

1185: higher densities and temperatures. Next in the decoupling hierarchy

1186: are electron anti-neutrinos followed by electron neutrinos.  Both \sn\

1187: and MGFLD realize this hierarchy at radii below $\sim$150~km, beyond

1188: which MGFLD rapidly transitions to free streaming irrespective of

1189: neutrino species.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: \begin{figure}[t]

1193: \centering

1194: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f8.ps}

1195: \caption{ Neutrino luminosity spectra extracted at a radius of 500~km for

1196: $\nu_e$, $\bar{\nu}_e$, and ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos at 160~ms after bounce in

1197: model s20.nr. Solid lines correspond to S$_n$ results, while dashed

1198: lines are obtained using MGFLD. The spectra have the canonical shape

1199: and the quantitative behavior found in nonrotating intermediate-time

1200: postbounce supernova calculations~(e.g., \citealt{thompson:03}) with

1201: the ``$\nu_\mu$''-neutrinos peaking at the highest energies, since they

1202: decouple from the fluid at the smallest radii. MGFLD and S$_n$ spectra

1203: agree closely in shape, but  MGFLD is overestimating slightly the

1204: total asymptotic luminosity (cf. Fig~\ref{fig:s20nr_line}).

1205: \label{fig:s20nr_spec160}}

1206: \end{figure}

1207: 

1208: \begin{figure}[t]

1209: \centering

1210: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f9.ps}

1211: \caption{Angle-averaged specific neutrino net gain profile in the 

1212: s20.nr model at 160~ms after core bounce. Shown are the MGFLD results, as

1213: well as results from steady-state \sn\ calculations with 8, 12, and 

1214: 16 $\vartheta$-angles, corresponding to a total number of angular zones of 40,

1215: 92, and 162. The gain region extends from $\sim$90~km to the shock position

1216: at $\sim$175~km. The three different \sn\ resolutions yield net gain profiles

1217: that agree very well (relative differences below 1\% even for S$_8$). The MGFLD

1218: calculation underestimates the total net gain in the outer gain region by 

1219: at most 10\% locally and $\sless\,$5\% on average.

1220: \label{fig:s20nr_gainprof}}

1221: \end{figure}

1222: 

1223: \begin{figure}[h!]

1224: \centering

1225: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{f10.ps}

1226: \caption{ 2D colormap of the specific (per gram) net gain

1227: distribution in model s20.nr at 160~ms after core bounce. The left half

1228: of the plot depicts the MGFLD result, \sn\ is shown on the right.

1229: The differences between S$_n$ and MGFLD are marginal at this time in this

1230: model and are practically indiscernible by eye. As a consequence of

1231: convection in the gain region and the onset of the SASI, even this

1232: nonrotating model exhibits significant angular and radial variations in the

1233: neutrino energy deposition not captured by the average profiles

1234: in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_gainprof}.

1235: \label{fig:s20nr_net_gain160}}

1236: \end{figure}

1237: 

1238: \begin{figure*}[t!]

1239: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{f11a.ps}

1240: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{f11b.ps}

1241: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{f11c.ps}

1242: \caption{Colormaps of the radial spectral flux at $\varepsilon_\nu

1243: =$~12.6~MeV of $\nu_e$ (left), $\bar{\nu}_e$ (center), and

1244: ``$\nu_\mu$'' (right) neutrinos in the rapidly-rotating model

1245: s20.$\pi$ at 160~ms after bounce.  Isoenergy density contours ($4\pi

1246: c^{-1} J_\nu$, vertical color legend) are superposed.  The left half

1247: of each panel displays the MGFLD result -- \sn\ is shown in the right

1248: half. The radiation fields are oblate in the PNS core and deform to a

1249: prolate shape further out. Note that \sn\ predicts a prolateness of

1250: the radiation field to much greater radii than MGFLD does. The latter

1251: leads to nearly spherically symmetric radiation fields at radii

1252: greater than $\sgreat\,$150--200~km independent of neutrino species.

1253: \label{fig:s20pi_fluxes}}

1254: \end{figure*}

1255: 

1256: 

1257: \begin{figure}[t]

1258: \centering

1259: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f12.ps}

1260: \caption{ Radial neutrino ``luminosity'' profiles ($4\pi r^2 F_r$) as

1261: seen by observers near the pole (solid lines) and near the equator (dashed

1262: lines) in model s20.$\pi$ at 160~ms after bounce. Red

1263: graphs correspond to \sn\ results, black graphs depict MGFLD results.

1264: Top, center, and bottom panels show $L_\nu$ for $\nu_e$, $\bar{\nu}_e$,

1265: and ``$\nu_\mu$,'' respectively. All \sn\ results were obtained with

1266: $n = 16$, but for comparison we also plot in the top panel polar

1267: profiles that were obtained with S$_{8}$ and S$_{12}$ and find that

1268: both S$_{16}$ and S$_{12}$ are very well converged, while S$_{8}$

1269: has troubles at radii greater than $\sim$200~km. However, it agrees very well

1270: at smaller radii with the higher-resolution \sn\ calculations.

1271: \label{fig:s20pi_lum160}}

1272: \end{figure}

1273: 

1274: 

1275: The behavior we observe with radius of the luminosity and mean-inverse

1276: flux factor agrees with the general findings of \cite{messer:98}.  In

1277: particular, we agree with their assessment that the artificially

1278: accelerated transition to free streaming in MGFLD occurs not at the

1279: neutrinospheres (which are generally below the gain region), but at

1280: relatively large radii within which most of the neutrino source is

1281: enclosed.

1282: 

1283: In the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_line} 

1284: we present profiles of the RMS neutrino energy  

1285: for all species in MGFLD and \sn\ snapshots of model s20.nr. The

1286: corresponding luminosity spectra (extracted at 500~km) are shown 

1287: in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_spec160}.

1288: Both MGFLD and \sn\ capture the energy systematics that 

1289: is set essentially by the matter temperature in the decoupling

1290: region. Neutrino species that decouple at smaller radii (higher

1291: densities and temperatures) have higher RMS energies and

1292: harder spectra than neutrinos decoupling at larger radii.

1293: Quantitative differences in RMS energies and in the spectra

1294: between MGFLD and \sn\ are small, the slightly higher MGFLD

1295: spectral luminosities being mostly a result 

1296: of the artificially enhanced MGFLD luminosities

1297: near and beyond the shock.

1298: 

1299: 

1300: We now conclude our discussion of the 160~ms-postbounce snapshot of

1301: model s20.nr by considering the instantaneous neutrino energy

1302: deposition rates.  Figure~\ref{fig:s20nr_gainprof} depicts

1303: angle-averaged radial profiles of the specific neutrino

1304: heating/cooling rates in units of erg~(g s)$^{-1}$. The region of net

1305: gain extends from $\sim$90~km to the shock radius and the chief

1306: contribution to the heating comes from charged-current

1307: $\bar{\nu}_e$-capture processes on protons, exceeding the

1308: corresponding $\nu_e$-capture on neutrons by a factor of two and more

1309: in the narrow radial interval from 145 to 175~km.  MGFLD

1310: underestimates the specific net gain in the angle-averaged

1311: radial profile by at most 10\% locally and by $\sim$5\% on average at

1312: radii greater than $\sim$110~km.  The integral total net gain

1313: predicted by S$_{16}$ is 2.13~B~s$^{-1}$. This is only 3\% larger than

1314: the MGFLD value of 2.07~B~s$^{-1}$. We note in passing that S$_8$

1315: overestimates the integrated gain rate by at most $\sim$1.6\% while S$_{12}$

1316: agrees with S$_{16}$ to better than $\sim$0.3\%.

1317: 

1318: Figure~\ref{fig:s20nr_net_gain160} depicts the 2D distribution of

1319: neutrino heating and cooling in the snapshot of model s20.nr

1320: considered here. Regions of net gain range from green to red, cooling

1321: regions are blue to black. The colormap demonstrates the somewhat

1322: misleading character of angle-averaged profiles. While we find that

1323: there is little spatial angular variation in the neutrino radiation

1324: field, the neutrino--matter coupling depends strongly on 

1325: angular position, and energy deposition is generally greatest in

1326: regions of high entropy (cf. Fig~\ref{fig:intro2D}).

1327: 

1328: 

1329: \subsubsection{Model s20.$\pi$}

1330: \label{section:s20pi}

1331: 

1332: As we discussed in the context of the Eddington tensor in

1333: \S\ref{section:Eddy} and as may be guessed from the significant

1334: rotational deformation of the core in model s20.$\pi$

1335: (Fig.~\ref{fig:intro2D}), the radiation field in this model exhibits a

1336: strong rotationally-induced asymmetry between pole and equator.  In

1337: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes}, we present 2D colormaps of the radial

1338: spectral flux component (in erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ MeV$^{-1}$) and

1339: isoenergy-density contours ($4\pi J_\nu / c$ in erg cm$^{-3}$

1340: MeV$^{-1}$) at a representative $\varepsilon_\nu$ of 12.6~MeV and for all

1341: species. Numbers for both \sn\ and MGFLD are compared side by side.

1342: The global radiation-field anisotropy systematics are qualitatively

1343: similar to what was found in the previous MGFLD rotating core-collapse

1344: study of \cite{walder:05}. At small radii, the radiation field (energy

1345: density) follows the density distribution and is oblate, but in the

1346: snapshot at 160~ms after bounce shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes}

1347: has a pole--equator ratio of only 1:2. This ratio increases as the PNS

1348: cools and contracts. The polar compactness of the PNS core leads to a

1349: decoupling of matter and neutrinos at smaller radii in regions near

1350: the pole, resulting there in greater spectral fluxes at higher

1351: neutrino energies and in a prolate distribution of neutrino fluxes

1352: and isoenergy-density contours.

1353: 

1354: 

1355: 

1356: \begin{figure}[t]

1357: \centering

1358: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f13.ps}

1359: \caption{{\bf Top}: Neutrino ``luminosity'' spectra ($4\pi r^2

1360: F_r(\varepsilon_\nu)$) in \sn\ (red) and MGFLD (black) variants of model

1361: s20.$\pi$ as seen by observers near the pole.

1362:  $\nu_e$ spectra have solid lines, $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectra are

1363: shown in dashed lines, and ``$\nu_\mu$''s have dashed-dotted

1364: spectra. The spectra are taken from a S$_{16}$ calculation at a

1365: radius of 300~km at 160~ms after core bounce.

1366: {\bf Bottom:}  ``Luminosity'' spectra seen by equatorial observers.

1367: \label{fig:s20pi_spec160}}

1368: \end{figure}

1369: 

1370: 

1371: The most striking difference between the \sn\ and MGFLD radiation

1372: fields presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes} is the former's much

1373: greater prolateness at large radii for all species (and all energies,

1374: though we show only $\varepsilon_\nu =$~12.6~MeV).  With the MGFLD

1375: prescription, the prolateness of the flux is muted and does not extend

1376: to large radii. Though the radiation fields are smoothed out at radii

1377: $\sgreat\,$150~km by MGFLD, the \sn\ fluxes and energy densities

1378: remain prolate through the entire postshock region and beyond. At

1379: radii outside $\sim$200~km, the typical striping pattern of

1380: \sn\ (\citealt{castor:04}) becomes visible, though not 

1381: yet dominant.

1382: 

1383: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_lum160}, we plot line profiles of the polar and

1384: equatorial ``luminosities'' ($4\pi r^2 F_r$) of each neutrino

1385: species. Profiles obtained with \sn\ and MGFLD are shown. The

1386: asymptotic ``luminosities'' obtained with S$_n$ have pole-to-equator

1387: ratios of 2.2 ($\nu_e$), 1.8 ($\bar{\nu_e}$), and 2.4 (``$\nu_\mu$'').

1388: MGFLD smoothes out these large asymmetries, yielding higher equatorial

1389: and significantly lower polar ``luminosities'' at radii greater than

1390: $\sim$100~km. This is consistent with the more qualitative findings

1391: based on Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes}.  We note that the MGFLD variant

1392: of VULCAN/2D still conserves total flux and energy. For the \sn\

1393: calculation, we find total asymptotic luminosities of

1394: 21.1~B~s$^{-1}$ for $\nu_e$ neutrinos (MGFLD:

1395: 20.4~B~s$^{-1}$),

1396: 22.7~B~s$^{-1}$ for $\bar{\nu}_e$ neutrinos (MGFLD:

1397: 22.6~B~s$^{-1}$), and

1398: 53.0~B~s$^{-1}$ for ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos (MGFLD:

1399: 52.3~B~s$^{-1}$). Hence, \sn\ and MGFLD total

1400: luminosities per species agree very well (and differ at most by

1401: $\sim$3.5\% in the $\nu_e$ case), while their flux distributions

1402: disagree significantly.

1403: 

1404: Figure~\ref{fig:s20pi_spec160}, depicting polar and equatorial

1405: ``luminosity'' spectra ($4\pi r^2 F_r(\varepsilon_\nu)$), reveals that in the

1406: \sn\ calculation (polar: black graphs, equatorial: red graphs) the

1407: neutrino radiation emerging from the PNS and postshock environments

1408: through the polar region not only has greater fluence, but also a

1409: significantly different and -- in the $\nu_e$ case -- a significantly

1410: harder spectrum.  $\nu_e$ neutrinos decouple at the largest

1411: radii. Their ``luminosity'' spectrum observed by a polar observer peaks at

1412: $\varepsilon_\nu \sim$9.5~MeV, while for an observer near the equator it

1413: peaks at $\sim$7.5~MeV. Both $\bar{\nu}_e$ and ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos

1414: (which decouple further in) exhibit a smaller variation in peak

1415: energy from pole to equator. The MGFLD calculation, on the other hand,

1416: shows much smaller variations in neutrino energy and flux between

1417: pole and equator (green and blue graphs, respectively).

1418:  We note in passing that the emerging

1419: neutrino spectra of model s20.$\pi$ are systematically softer by up to

1420: $\sim$10\% in each species than those of the nonrotating model s20.nr

1421: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_spec160}. This is a direct

1422: consequence of the rotationally-induced lower overall compactness of

1423: the PNS in model s20.$\pi$.

1424: 

1425: The RMS neutrino energies in model s20.$\pi$ show the same overall

1426: qualitative behavior and decoupling hierarchy discussed in the context

1427: of model s20.nr. Hence, we do not show them here, but rather state

1428: quantitative results. They do, of course, trace the strong

1429: pole--equator asymmetry that we observe in the radiation field.  The

1430: RMS energies in the 160~ms \sn\ snapshot are 11.5~MeV (pole) and

1431: 10.5~MeV (equator) for $\nu_e$, 16.7~MeV (pole) and 15.2~MeV (equator)

1432: for $\bar{\nu}_e$, and 25.8~MeV (pole) and 24.8~MeV (equator) for

1433: ``$\nu_\mu$'' neutrinos. The MGFLD values converge at pole and equator

1434: to 10.5~MeV ($\nu_e$), 15.2~MeV ($\bar{\nu}_e$), and 25.0~MeV

1435: (``$\nu_\mu$'').

1436: 

1437: \begin{figure}[t]

1438: \centering

1439: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f14.ps}

1440: \caption{ 

1441: Mean inverse flux factors in model s20.$\pi$

1442: at 160~ms after bounce in polar regions (solid lines) and equatorial

1443: regions (dashed lines). Shown are profiles for $\nu_e$ neutrinos

1444: obtained with \sn\ (red) and MGFLD (black), as well as profiles

1445: for $\bar{\nu}_e$ neutrinos (\sn\ blue, MGFLD green). \sn\ 

1446: and MGFLD graphs agree well inside $\sim$50~km at the pole

1447: and inside $\sim$80~km in equatorial regions. For $\nu_e$ neutrinos,

1448: \sn\ yields systematically larger mean inverse flux factors in

1449: polar and equatorial regions. For $\bar{\nu}_e$, however, \sn\ predicts

1450: larger mean inverse flux factors in polar regions, yet transitions

1451: slightly faster than MGFLD to free streaming in equatorial

1452: regions.\label{fig:s20pi_FF160}}

1453: \end{figure}

1454: 

1455: 

1456: \begin{figure}[t]

1457: \centering

1458: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f15.ps}

1459: \caption{ Colormaps of energy- and species-integrated specific

1460: neutrino energy deposition and loss rates in the rotating model

1461: s20.$\pi$ at 160~ms after core bounce (in units of

1462: erg~s$^{-1}$~g$^{-1}$).  The left section of the plot depicts the

1463: MGFLD result and the right shows the result of the \sn\

1464: calculation. Note the distinctively enlarged polar gain regions and

1465: greater specific gain of the S$_n$ result compared to the MGFLD

1466: calculation. This is in part a consequence of the larger polar

1467: neutrino fluxes and overall greater flux asymmetry in the S$_n$ model

1468: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes}).  A feature prevalent in both S$_n$

1469: and MGFLD versions of this rapidly rotating core is an extended loss

1470: region between the shock and the small gain region at low latitudes

1471: (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain2}). The material in the loss region

1472: is still proton rich ($Y_e $\sgreat0.4) and efficiently captures

1473: electrons as it advects in, radiating away a significant flux of

1474: neutrinos (see, e.g., the increase in the equatorial ``luminosity''

1475: between 120 and 150~km in the \sn\ variant of this model, visible in

1476: the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_lum160}). Note that both MGFLD

1477: and \sn\ exhibit a very small artefact (lower gain/loss) at the

1478: symmetry axis associated with imperfect numerics/regularization.

1479: \label{fig:s20pi_netgain}}

1480: \end{figure}

1481: 

1482: \begin{figure}[t]

1483: \centering

1484: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f16a.ps}

1485: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f16b.ps}

1486: \caption{{\bf Top}: Averaged specific radial neutrino gain and loss

1487: profiles in model s20.$\pi$ at 160~ms after core bounce. Shown are

1488: results from the S$_n$ (red) and MGFLD (black) calculations. Both

1489: polar and equatorial radial profiles are obtained by averaging over

1490: 20$^\circ$ wedges. As is already clear from

1491: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain}, S$_n$ yields significantly greater polar

1492: specific neutrino energy gain than MGFLD. The S$_n$ gain region

1493: extends further in by $\sim$10~km and the gain is more than a factor

1494: of two larger in the interval from $\sim$90 to 200~km.  Given the

1495: larger flux asymmetry in the S$_n$ calculation

1496: (Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_fluxes}), less neutrino flux is going through

1497: regions of low latitude, resulting in the \emph{lower} specific gain at low

1498: latitudes predicted by S$_n$.  {\bf Bottom}: Neutrino gain density

1499: (density-weighted specific gain). Due to rapid rotation higher

1500: densities obtain out to larger radii at low latitudes. This results in

1501: a partial reversal of the picture presented by the upper panel;

1502: weighted by density, the neutrino gain (now per unit volume) in the

1503: equatorial wedge becomes comparable to that near the poles.

1504: Furthermore, equatorial regions, since they subtend the largest solid

1505: angles, contribute most to the volume integral. The integral numbers

1506: for the net gain in the polar wedge (counting both poles) for S$_n$

1507: (MGFLD) are 0.17~B~s$^{-1}$

1508: (0.047~B~s$^{-1}$) and in the equatorial wedge

1509: are 0.35~B~s$^{-1}$

1510: (0.47~B~s$^{-1}$). The total integrated net gain is

1511: 1.603~B~s$^{-1}$ and

1512: 1.637~B~s$^{-1}$ for S$_n$ and MGFLD,

1513: respectively. These numbers are surprisingly close given the large

1514: qualitative and quantitative \emph{local} differences in the neutrino

1515: gain distribution.

1516: \label{fig:s20pi_netgain2}}

1517: \end{figure}

1518: 

1519: 

1520: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_FF160}, we plot polar and equatorial mean

1521: inverse flux factor profiles for $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ neutrinos

1522: in our steady-state snapshot for model s20.$\pi$. Results from MGFLD

1523: and S$_{16}$ runs are shown. A free-streaming radiation field has an

1524: inverse flux factor of one. Due to the steeper density gradient in

1525: polar regions, neutrinos decouple from matter at smaller radii than at

1526: the equator. While MGFLD must handle the decoupling and increased

1527: forward-peaking of the radiation field via the flux limiter, \sn\

1528: can track it self-consistently.  For $\nu_e$ neutrinos and along the

1529: poles, \sn\ predicts significantly greater mean inverse flux factors

1530: with shallower slopes than MGFLD, indicating a more gradual transition

1531: to free streaming than predicted by the flux limiter.  In the radial

1532: interval of $\sim$60--100~km, the relative difference is

1533: $\sim$12--19\%, decreasing to $\sim$6--12\% out to 200~km.  In

1534: equatorial regions, the $\nu_e$ radiation field is somewhat more

1535: forward-peaked in the \sn\ calculation at radii below $\sim$120~km,

1536: beyond which MGFLD transitions quickly to free streaming while \sn\

1537: approaches it more gradually, exhibiting $\sim$6--8\% larger mean

1538: inverse flux factors in the outer postshock region. For $\bar{\nu}_e$

1539: neutrinos, the behavior of the mean inverse flux factors in polar

1540: regions essentially mirrors that observed for the $\nu_e$s.  In

1541: equatorial regions, the \sn\ mean inverse flux factor of the

1542: $\bar{\nu}_e$s stays below that using MGFLD out to 165~km, beyond which

1543: the MGFLD $\bar{\nu}_e$ radiation field rapidly transitions

1544: to free streaming. At 180~km, the MGFLD $\bar{\nu_e}$ mean inverse 

1545: flux factor is $\sim$1\% smaller than that predicted by \sn. At 220~km,

1546: this difference has grown to $\sim$5\%.

1547: 

1548: 

1549: Having established the overall neutrino radiation-field

1550: characteristics in the 160-ms postbounce snapshot of model s20.$\pi$,

1551: we now turn our focus to the neutrino cooling and heating rates in

1552: this model. We have found little difference in the net neutrino

1553: heating between \sn\ and MGFLD variants in the 160-ms postbounce

1554: snapshot of the nonrotating model s20.nr. However, based on the

1555: differences between \sn\ and MGFLD in neutrino fluxes, RMS energies, and

1556: flux factors we have highlighted in this section, we may expect

1557: to find significant differences in the neutrino heating rates for

1558: model s20.$\pi$.

1559: 

1560: 

1561: Figure~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain} depicts 2D colormaps of the neutrino

1562: energy gain and loss rate per unit mass (accounting for all energies

1563: and species), computed for the 160-ms postbounce snapshot of model

1564: s20.$\pi$ using \sn\ (left panel) and MGFLD (right panel). At low

1565: latitudes near the equator, \sn\ and MGFLD agree very well to the eye.

1566: In regions near the pole, both MGFLD and \sn\ show a pronounced region

1567: of net loss at $z$-coordinates between $\sim$40 and $\sim$80~km,

1568: beyond which a region of net gain (colors light blue and green to red)

1569: prevails out to the shock position at $\sim$230~km. While the

1570: gain region has roughly the same physical extent in MGFLD and \sn, the

1571: latter yields significantly higher energy deposition rates.  This is

1572: particularly the case in the lower gain region at polar angles below

1573: $\sim$20$^\circ$ and at radii between $\sim$80 and 150~km, where the

1574: \sn\ gain rate is larger by a factor of two and more. The top panel in

1575: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain2} provides a more quantitative comparison

1576: of \sn\ and MGFLD gain/loss rates, since it contrasts average specific

1577: gain/loss profiles obtained from polar and equatorial 20$^\circ$

1578: wedges.  In the polar region, the \sn\ gain region begins at a radius

1579: of $\sim$80~km (MGFLD: $\sim$88~km) and the \sn\ specific gain rate

1580: magnitude exceeds the MGFLD numbers by a factor of 2.6 at 100~km,

1581: increasing to 3.2 at 200~km.  Near the equator, net energy deposition

1582: occurs only in a small radial interval of $\sim$90--120~km and the

1583: MGFLD specific gain rate is larger by 80\% at 95~km, 41\% at 100~km,

1584: and 26\% at 110~km. The net energy loss between $\sim$120--210~km

1585: (captured by both \sn\ and MGFLD) results from strong electron capture

1586: that dominates energy deposition by neutrino absorption.

1587: 

1588: \begin{figure*}[t]

1589: \centering

1590: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f17a.ps}

1591: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f17b.ps}

1592: \caption{{\bf Left:} Evolution of the total neutrino net gain rate as

1593: a function of postbounce time in the \sn\ and MGFLD variants of models

1594: s20.nr and s20.$\pi$. At postbounce times before $\sim$300~ms in model

1595: s20.nr, \sn\ yields a net gain rate that is larger by (on average)

1596: $\sim$10--15\% than that predicted by MGFLD. As the SASI becomes more

1597: pronounced at postbounce times $\sgreat$~300~ms, the \sn\ net gain

1598: begins to more significantly exceed that of MGFLD, averaging out at

1599: $\sim$20-30\% larger values than the MGFLD net gain rate.

1600: %%

1601: In model s20.$\pi$, \sn\ and MGFLD net gain rates stay very

1602: close in the first $\sim$30~ms of evolution, yet depart when

1603: the \sn\ variant approaches its new dynamical equilibrium

1604: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}) and provides for a larger gain region

1605: (mass and volume). This leads to a net gain rate that is larger

1606: by $\sim$20-25\% (on average in the postbounce interval

1607: from 200--350~ms). At later times, the MGFLD calculation, approaching

1608: the \sn\ variant's postshock extent (Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad})

1609: produces larger net gain rates due to its larger equatorial neutrino

1610: fluxes at similar hydrodynamic configuration.

1611: %%

1612: %%

1613: %%

1614: %%

1615: {\bf Right:} Heating efficiency evolution in the two models with their

1616: \sn\ and MGFLD variants. We define the heating efficiency as the 

1617: ratio of total neutrino net gain rate and the sum of electron and

1618: anti-electron neutrino luminosities. 

1619: \label{fig:s20_gain}}

1620: \end{figure*}

1621: 

1622: 

1623: 

1624: The observed local differences in neutrino energy deposition between

1625: \sn\ and MGFLD are due primarily to the vastly different degree to

1626: which the two schemes capture the global pole-equator asymmetry of the

1627: radiation field in the rapidly-rotating postbounce supernova core of

1628: model s20.$\pi$. \sn\ yields much larger fluxes in the polar direction

1629: than MGFLD, but predicts lower neutrino fluxes in equatorial

1630: regions~(cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_lum160}). Differences in the radial

1631: mean-inverse flux factors and RMS energies are much smaller, and,

1632: hence, are of only secondary importance.  The \sn\ steady-state

1633: snapshot yields an integrated gain rate of 1.603~B~s$^{-1}$ while

1634: MGFLD predicts 1.637~B~s$^{-1}$ for the s20.$\pi$ snapshot under

1635: consideration.  This corresponds to $\sim$2.1\% \emph{more} energy

1636: deposition per unit time in the MGFLD calculation.  Given the above

1637: discussion, the reader may be surprised by these numbers.  The

1638: explanation consists of two factors.  Owing to rotation, the amount of

1639: mass per unit volume (i.e., the rest-mass density) is higher at any

1640: given equatorial radius than at the same radius in the polar

1641: direction. Plotting the neutrino gain/loss rate per unit volume

1642: instead of per unit gram, the bottom panel of

1643: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain2} clearly shows the rotation-induced

1644: enhancement of the energy deposition (per unit volume) near the

1645: equator and the larger gain rate per unit volume predicted by MGFLD at

1646: small to intermediate radii.  The second factor is the simple fact

1647: that the volume of the equatorial gain regions is much larger than

1648: that of the polar gain regions.

1649: 

1650: 

1651: As we shall discuss in the following section, the large local

1652: differences in neutrino heating between the \sn\ and MGFLD snapshots

1653: have a dynamical consequence for the rapidly rotating model and lead

1654: to a significant polar expansion of the shock in the \sn\ postbounce

1655: evolution calculation.

1656: 

1657: 

1658: 

1659: \section{Results: Evolution Calculations}

1660: \label{section:evolution}

1661: 

1662: In order to study differences between \sn\ and MGFLD in a

1663: time-dependent postbounce setting, we follow our relaxed 160-ms

1664: \sn\ models in fully coupled radiation-hydrodynamics

1665: fashion for $\sim$340~ms (model s20.nr) and 390~ms

1666: (model s20.$\pi$) of postbounce time. In parallel with the \sn\ runs, we

1667: continue their MGFLD counterparts for the same time span.

1668: 

1669: %\vspace*{.5cm}

1670: \subsection{Model s20.nr}

1671: 

1672: \begin{figure*}[t]

1673: \centering

1674: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f18a.ps}

1675: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{f18b.ps}

1676: \caption{{\bf Left:} $\nu_e$ ``luminosities'' ($4\pi r^2 F_r$) as a

1677: function of postbounce time as seen by observers located at a

1678: spherical radius of 250~km along the north pole (black lines), south

1679: pole (green lines), and in the equatorial plane (red lines) in \sn\

1680: (solid lines) and MGFLD (dashed lines) variants of model s20.nr (thin

1681: lines) and s20.$\pi$ (thick lines). Note that the south pole, north

1682: pole, and equator MGFLD ``luminosities'' in model s20.nr (thin dashed

1683: lines) are very similar. Their lines are indistinguishable.  The same

1684: holds for the south and north pole MGFLD ``luminosities'' in model

1685: s20.$\pi$ (thick black and green dashed lines).

1686: %%

1687: %%

1688: %%

1689: %%

1690: {\bf Right:} Angle-averaged RMS energies of $\nu_e$ (solid lines) and

1691: $\bar{\nu}_e$ (dashed lines) neutrinos as a function of postbounce

1692: time in the \sn\ and MGFLD simulations the two 

1693: models. \sn\ predicts systematically higher RMS neutrino

1694: energies in both models.

1695: \label{fig:s20_lum_rms}}

1696: \end{figure*}

1697: 

1698: 

1699: \begin{figure*}

1700: \centering

1701: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f19a.ps}

1702: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f19b.ps}

1703: \caption{{\bf Left}: Average shock radii as a function of postbounce

1704: time in \sn\ (red) and MGFLD (black) variants of the nonrotating model

1705: s20.nr.  Also shown are the overall average shock radius, the average

1706: of south-pole and north-pole shock radii, and the equatorial shock

1707: radius for the rapidly spinning model s20.$\pi$, again for \sn\ (blue)

1708: and MGFLD (green). In model s20.nr, MGFLD and \sn\ show little

1709: quantitative deviation from each other. In the s20.$\pi$ evolution,

1710: however, a significant increase in the various shock radii is

1711: noticable right at the beginning of the time-dependent \sn\

1712: calculation. At later times MGFLD catches up and the average shock

1713: radii approach each other.  The \sn\ variant exhibits larger

1714: variations, indicating stronger SASI-like shock excursions. 

1715: %%

1716: %%

1717: %%

1718: {\bf Right}: Evolution of the north-pole (positive) and south-pole

1719: (negative) shock radii for the \sn\ and MGFLD variants of the two

1720: models. Since the lowest-order and dominant mode of the 2D SASI is the

1721: $\ell$=1 polar sloshing mode, the polar shock radii are good

1722: indicators of its strength and periodicity.  Note the initial

1723: suppression, but late-time development of SASI-like polar shock

1724: excursions in the rotating model. 

1725: \label{fig:shockrad}}

1726: \end{figure*}

1727: 

1728: 

1729: \begin{figure*}[t]

1730: \centering

1731: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20a.ps}

1732: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20b.ps}

1733: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20c.ps}

1734: 

1735: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20d.ps}

1736: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20e.ps}

1737: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f20f.ps}

1738: \caption{2D entropy colormaps portraying the postbounce evolution of

1739: model s20.nr between 160~ms (top-left panel) and 500~ms (bottom-right

1740: panel) after core bounce. Fluid-velocity vectors are superposed to

1741: provide an impression of the flow. Each panel's left-hand side

1742: corresponds to the MGFLD calculation and each panel's right-hand side

1743: shows the \sn\ result. The time of each panel is given relative to the

1744: time of core bounce. The sequence of panels portrays the canonical

1745: development of the SASI in the nonrotating axisymmetric context. \sn\

1746: and MGFLD evolution agree very well in the early SASI phases, but

1747: deviate in detail at later times, while still

1748: exhibiting the same overall SASI dynamics. \label{fig:s20nr_evol2D}}

1749: \end{figure*}

1750: 

1751: 

1752: Since we begin the MGFLD and \sn\ calculations from an identical

1753: hydrodynamic configuration at 160~ms after bounce, any qualitative

1754: or quantitative differences in their evolutions must ultimately be due

1755: to differences in the neutrino heating and cooling between \sn\ and

1756: MGFLD.

1757: 

1758: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_gain}, we display the time

1759: evolution of the integral neutrino energy deposition (net gain) in the

1760: gain region of model s20.nr. The net gain systematically declines at

1761: early postbounce times, due (a) to the declining neutrino luminosity

1762: and (b) to the rapid settling of accreting material into the net loss

1763: region near the PNS core (cf. Fig.\ 7 of \citealt{marek:07}).  

1764: At later times, SASI-modulated convection increases

1765: the dwell time of accreting outer core material in the gain layer and

1766: the slope of the net gain evolution flattens. Both \sn\ and MGFLD

1767: track these systematics without qualitative difference. The \sn\

1768: calculation predicts on average $\sim$5--10\% higher net gain in the

1769: postbounce interval from $\sim$160~ms to $\sim$220~ms.  Between

1770: $\sim$220~ms and $\sim$280~ms, MGFLD and \sn\ net gain rates agree to

1771: within a few percent. Towards the end of this interval, the net gain

1772: of the \sn\ calculation grows and settles at values that are on

1773: average 20--30\% higher than those of the MGFLD run. This trend is

1774: confirmed by the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_gain}, which portrays

1775: the heating efficiency, defined as the ratio of net gain to the

1776: sum of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ luminosities. 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms} depicts the temporal

1780: evolution of the $\nu_e$ ``luminosities'' ($4\pi r^2 F_r$) as seen by

1781: observers situated at 250~km along the north pole and south pole as

1782: well as in the equatorial plane of models s20.nr and s20.$\pi$. Here

1783: we focus on model s20.nr and note for the \sn\ variant that north pole

1784: (thin solid black lines) and south pole (thin solid green lines)

1785: ``luminosities'' agree (on average) in magnitude, but exhibit

1786: oscillations about their temporal average that are roughly out of

1787: phase by half a cycle. The MGFLD calculation (thin dashed lines), on

1788: the other hand, does exhibit some short-period ``luminosity''

1789: variations, yet shows no appreciable difference between poles and

1790: equator.

1791: 

1792: 

1793: The time at which \sn\ begins to yield systematically larger neutrino

1794: heating rates (Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_gain}) coincides with the growth of

1795: the SASI-related shock excursions to large amplitudes 

1796: (Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}). This suggests that the increased

1797: heating is related at least in part to the \sn variant's ability to

1798: better capture radiation field asymmetries (see also the discussion

1799: in \S\ref{section:s20pi}), induced at late times by the rapidly varying

1800: shock and postshock hydrodynamics in this model. Other factors that

1801: contribute to the increased heating in the \sn\ calculation are the

1802: higher RMS neutrino energies (by $\sim$5\%; shown in the right panel

1803: of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms}) and the more gradual transition of the

1804: \sn\ neutrino radiation field to free streaming in the postshock

1805: region (see \S\ref{section:s20nr}).

1806: 

1807: 

1808: Figure~\ref{fig:s20nr_evol2D} contrasts \sn\ and MGFLD simulations of

1809: model s20.nr by means of colormaps depicting the specific entropy

1810: distributions in the two variants. To visualize the hydrodynamic flow,

1811: we superpose fluid velocity vectors.  Each panel of this figure

1812: corresponds to a specific postbounce time and each panel's

1813: left-hand-side depicts the state of the MGFLD calculation, while the

1814: right-hand-side depicts the corresponding \sn\ calculation. The figure

1815: covers a postbounce interval from 160~ms (top left) to 500~ms (bottom

1816: right). At the beginning of the runs, the SASI-driven deviation from

1817: sphericity of the stalled shock is mild, but grows with time, showing

1818: $\ell=1$ excursions now generally recognized as characteristic of the

1819: SASI\footnote{At least in detailed 2D models. \cite{iwakami:08}

1820: carried out an exploratory 3D numerical study with nonrotating 

1821: progenitors that suggests that in

1822: the 3D case the $\ell$=1 dominance still obtains, yet reaches smaller

1823: relative amplitudes, since not only higher $\ell$ modes, but also $m$

1824: modes, may now contain power. However, \cite{yamasaki:08}, who

1825: performed a perturbative study without symmetry constraints, argued

1826: that in the 3D case with rotation, a dominant $m=1$ ($m=2$) mode is

1827: likely to emerge in the case of slow (rapid) rotation.}

1828: \citep{scheck:08, marek:07,bruenn:06,burrows:07a}.

1829: 

1830: As expected from the discussion of the s20.nr 160-ms postbounce

1831: steady-state snapshot in \S\ref{section:snapshots}, \sn\ and MGFLD

1832: variants of this model do not differ significantly in the early SASI

1833: phase. However, at later SASI stages, in particular at postbounce

1834: times $\sgreat$~300--350~ms, the simulations diverge, showing different

1835: local qualitative and quantitative behavior within the overall SASI

1836: theme. This is also reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}, which

1837: depicts the evolution of the average shock radius, as well as the

1838: shock radii along north pole and south pole.  The shock positions in

1839: the \sn\ and MGFLD simulations remain close and the SASI stays

1840: practically in phase (right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}) until

1841: $\sim$~350~ms after bounce. Only then do they begin to show

1842: significant departures from each other. The SASI in the \sn\

1843: calculation appears more pronounced at later times, exhibiting larger

1844: local (in time) shock excursions.  Yet, quite surprisingly, given the

1845: significant increase in neutrino energy deposition, the \sn\

1846: calculation does not exhibit any increase in the average shock radius,

1847: nor does it appear to be any closer to explosion than its

1848: MGFLD counterpart.

1849: 

1850: 

1851: 

1852: \subsection{Model s20.$\pi$}

1853: 

1854: 

1855: \begin{figure*}[t]

1856: \centering

1857: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21a.ps}

1858: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21b.ps}

1859: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21c.ps}

1860: 

1861: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21d.ps}

1862: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21e.ps}

1863: \includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{f21f.ps}

1864: \caption{2D entropy colormaps portraying the postbounce evolution of

1865: the rapidly-rotating model s20.$\pi$ between 160~ms (top-left panel)

1866: and 550~ms (bottom-right panel) after core bounce. Fluid-velocity

1867: vectors are superposed to relay an impression of the flow and convey

1868: the partial suppression of convective overturn in regions of

1869: positive specific angular momentum gradient. As in

1870: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20nr_evol2D}, we plot the MGFLD result on the left-hand

1871: side and the \sn\ result on the right-hand side of each panel. Easily

1872: discernible is the immediate increase in the polar shock radius

1873: in the \sn\ calculation.  This is a direct consequence of the

1874: increased polar neutrino heating in this variant

1875: (Figs.~\ref{fig:s20pi_netgain} and \ref{fig:s20pi_netgain2}). At

1876: intermediate times, \sn\ and MGFLD shock positions grow closer, but 

1877: later on in the postbounce evolution, the \sn\ variant begins to

1878: develop larger top-bottom SASI-like asymmetry and polar shock excursions at

1879: earlier time than its MGFLD counterpart.\label{fig:s20pi_evol2D}}

1880: \end{figure*}

1881: 

1882: The diagnosis of the radiation-hydrodynamic evolution of the rapidly

1883: spinning model s20.$\pi$ is less straightforward than for the

1884: nonrotating model s20.nr. As discussed in \S\ref{section:s20pi}, rotation

1885: creates a global pole-equator asymmetry in the hydrodynamics of this

1886: model. MGFLD and \sn\ track the effect of globally asymmetric

1887: matter distributions on the neutrino radiation field to different

1888: degrees. In the steady-state snapshot at 160~ms, \sn\ predicts

1889: stronger neutrino heating in polar regions, yet weaker heating 

1890: in the higher-density, larger-volume equatorial regions.

1891: 

1892: The polar, equatorial, and angle-averaged shock positions portrayed by

1893: Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad} show that the hydrodynamics responds

1894: immediately to the increased polar heating in the \sn\ calculation by

1895: a pronounced expansion of the shock along the poles. This

1896: expansion lasts for $\sim$40~ms, after which the shock has

1897: expanded by $\sim$20\% from $\sim$230~km to $\sim$275~km on both

1898: poles. It stagnates at this radius and subsequently contracts

1899: again when feedback of the hydrodynamics to the neutrino microphysics

1900: leads to increased cooling (cf.\ the increased polar neutrino emission

1901: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms}). The increased

1902: postshock volume also results in a larger gain region and increased

1903: (compared to MGFLD) total neutrino energy deposition and heating

1904: efficiency. However, this increased heating is not able to sustain the

1905: large postshock volume. The shock slowly recontracts in the

1906: postbounce interval from $\sim$250~ms to $\sim$380~ms and eventually

1907: settles at radii similar to those obtained by the MGFLD shock.

1908: 

1909: In Fig.~21, we present a sequence of 2D entropy colormaps with

1910: superposed velocity vectors, portraying the postbounce evolution of

1911: model s20.$\pi$ from 160~ms on. The rapid rotation in this model not

1912: only partially stabilizes convection, but also weakens and delays the

1913: growth of the characteristic $\ell=1$ SASI\footnote{But see the work

1914: of \cite{yamasaki:08}, who find via perturbative analysis that in 3D,

1915: rotation enhances the development of azimuthal $m=1$ and $m=2$

1916: SASI-related spiral structure.}. Since larger shock radii are

1917: associated with an increased growth rate of the SASI (e.g.,

1918: \citealt{foglizzo:07,scheck:08}), the \sn\ variant begins to develop

1919: periodic shock excursions along the symmetry axis at much earlier

1920: times than the MGFLD simulation (Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}).  However,

1921: at times later than $\sim$400~ms, the MGFLD model picks up the

1922: large-amplitude SASI as well and both calculations exhibit large-scale

1923: radial shock excursions beyond $\sim$400~km along the pole

1924: (Fig.~\ref{fig:shockrad}).  The average shock radius increases in both

1925: calculations in this late postbounce phase.  We observe neither such

1926: large shock excursions nor a systematic late-time increase of the

1927: average shock radius in the nonrotating model. The observed behavior

1928: is most likely due to the rapid rotation and the resulting rarefaction

1929: of the polar regions that reduces, in particular at late times, the

1930: ram pressure of accretion and allows for the more pronounced SASI.

1931: 

1932: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms}, we contrast the

1933: $\nu_e$ ``luminosities'' ($4\pi r^2 F_r$) seen by observers located at

1934: a radius of 250~km above the north pole, the south pole, and in the

1935: equatorial plane of model s20.$\pi$. The MGFLD variant predicts a

1936: pole-equator flux asymmetry of $\sless$10\% that is roughly

1937: constant with time. The \sn\ calculation yields a very different

1938: picture. Polar and equatorial ``luminosities'' at 250~km (i.e., near the

1939: shock) are vastly different (cf. \S\ref{section:s20pi}).  Over time,

1940: the equatorial ``luminosity'' decreases while the ``luminosity'' along the

1941: poles is enhanced.  At $\sim$200~ms, polar and equatorial ``luminosities''

1942: differ by a factor of $\sim$3. By $\sim$500~ms, this factor has grown

1943: to 4.  In addition, the \sn\ simulation shows SASI-induced variations

1944: in north and south-pole ``luminosities'' that grow to $\sim$3--5\% at late

1945: times and are not tracked in the MGFLD variant. These variations are

1946: akin those reported for the nonrotating model s20.nr, yet have longer

1947: periods, since the large shock excursions in model s20.$\pi$ occur on

1948: longer timescales.

1949: 

1950: As in the nonrotating model, we also find in model s20.$\pi$ that \sn\

1951: yields systematically higher RMS neutrino energies for all species

1952: and at all times. However, as shown in the right panel of

1953: Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms}, the angle-averaged RMS energies do not

1954: exhibit a significant increase in the time interval covered by our

1955: simulations. This, again, is due to rapid rotation which slows down the

1956: PNS's contraction. Not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:s20_lum_rms}, but

1957: present in the \sn\ variant throughout its postbounce evolution, are 

1958: $\sim$10--20\% (roughly constant in time and independent of

1959: species) higher RMS energies for neutrinos emitted from polar regions

1960: compared to those emitted from the PNS equator. This is consistent

1961: with our analysis of the neutrino spectra and RMS neutrino energies

1962: for the 160~ms postbounce steady-state snapshot presented in

1963: \S\ref{section:s20pi}.

1964: 

1965: We end our postbounce simulations of model s20.$\pi$ with \sn\ and

1966: MGFLD at 550~ms after bounce. Though within roughly the same

1967: qualitative picture, the two approaches to neutrino transport yield

1968: appreciable differences in the postbounce radiation-hydrodynamics

1969: evolutions.  Importantly, and in contrast to our findings for the

1970: nonrotating model, \sn\ in model s20.$\pi$ does not lead to

1971: systematically higher integral neutrino energy deposition, and at late

1972: postbounce times, shows a volume-integrated heating rate that is even

1973: $\sim$30\% lower (on average) than in its MGFLD counterpart.

1974: 

1975: 

1976: \section{Summary and Discussion}

1977: \label{section:summary}

1978: 

1979: Using the code VULCAN/2D \citep{livne:04,burrows:07a,livne:07}, we

1980: perform long-term full-2D multi-angle, multi-group neutrino

1981: radiation-hydrodynamic calculations in the core-collapse supernova

1982: context. Based on postbounce hydrodynamic configurations from MGFLD

1983: simulations, we first compute 2D angle-dependent (\sn) steady-state

1984: solutions for models without precollapse rotation and with rapid

1985: rotation ($\Omega_0 = \pi$~rad~s$^{-1}$). From these snapshots, we

1986: numerically follow the radiation-hydrodynamics evolution with \sn\

1987: neutrino transport, tracking the nonrotating model to 500~ms and the

1988: rotating model to 550~ms after bounce.

1989: 

1990: Done for the first time in 2D, we investigate in

1991: detail the angle-dependent specific intensities and neutrino radiation

1992: fields. We compute angular moments of the specific

1993: intensity, including the Eddington tensor, and introduce Hammer-type

1994: map projections to visualize the angle dependence of the specific

1995: intensity. These we employ to demonstrate the decoupling systematics

1996: of the neutrinos and the gradual transition to free-streaming of the

1997: radiation fields with decreasing optical depth.

1998: 

1999: We compare our \sn\ simulations with MGFLD counterparts.  We find for

2000: both models and at all times that the \sn\ specific intensity

2001: distributions transition less rapidly from isotropy to free-streaming

2002: in the semi-transparent outer postshock regions.  \sn\ yields mean

2003: inverse flux factors and RMS neutrino energies in these regions that

2004: are $\sim$10\% larger than those obtained with MGFLD.  In the context

2005: of the neutrino mechanism of core-collapse supernova explosions,

2006: differences in the net neutrino energy deposition rates between MGFLD

2007: and multi-angle \sn\ transport are of greatest interest.  In the

2008: quasi-spherical early postbounce phase of the nonrotating model, we

2009: find that \sn\ predicts a 5--10\% greater neutrino energy deposition

2010: rate than MGFLD.  At later times, when the SASI has reached large

2011: amplitudes and globally deforms the postshock region, we find that

2012: \sn\ yields consistently larger (up to 30\% on average) 

2013: energy depositions and leads to significantly larger temporary

2014: shock excursions around average shock radii that do not depart

2015: much from those in the MGFLD calculation.

2016: 

2017: Convection on small and intermediate scales and SASI on large

2018: scales, are the key agents of the breaking of spherical symmetry in

2019: nonrotating (or slowly rotating) core-collapse supernovae. While we

2020: observe no large qualitative differences in the growth and dynamical

2021: evolutions of convection and SASI between nonrotating \sn\ and MGFLD

2022: models, we find that the imprint of the asymmetric hydrodynamics on

2023: the neutrino radiation fields is captured with greater detail by the

2024: multi-angle transport scheme. For the late-time, heavily

2025: SASI-distorted postbounce core, \sn\ predicts asymptotic neutrino

2026: fluxes that have variations with time and angle of 5--10\% in

2027: magnitude. MGFLD is able to capture the temporal variations of the

2028: neutrino luminosity, but smoothes out the angular flux variations at

2029: large radii/low optical depths.

2030: 

2031: 

2032: Rapid rotation leads to large deviations from spherical symmetry and a

2033: rotationally-deformed PNS emits, by von Zeipel's law of gravity

2034: darkening, a greater neutrino flux along its rotational axis than

2035: through its equatorial regions

2036: \citep{janka:89a,janka:89b,kotake:03,walder:05,buras:06b,

2037: dessart:06b}.  We find that both 2D MGFLD and \sn\ yield similar

2038: radiation fields and pole-equator flux ratios at radii smaller than

2039: $\sim$100~km. At larger radii, the MGFLD radiation fields sphericize

2040: and show little pole-equator asymmetry in their asymptotic

2041: variables. \sn, on the other hand, captures large pole-equator flux

2042: ratios of up to 4:1 at late times and predicts polar neutrino spectra

2043: that are harder in peak energy (RMS energy) than on the equator by up

2044: to 30\% (10--15\%) for $\nu_e$ neutrinos, and somewhat less for the

2045: other species. All this results in a neutrino energy deposition rate

2046: per unit mass in polar regions that is locally up to $\sim$2.5--3

2047: times higher when multi-angle transport is used. This increased polar

2048: neutrino heating has a dynamical effect on the postbounce evolution,

2049: leading to rapid shock expansion in the polar regions and an earlier

2050: onset of the (initially) rotationally-weakened SASI. However, at late

2051: times, the SASI in the MGFLD calculation catches up and yields shock

2052: excursions of a similar magnitude.

2053: 

2054: 

2055: In summary, our results show that 2D multi-angle neutrino transport

2056: manifests interesting differences with 2D MGFLD when addressing local

2057: and global radiation field asymmetries associated with rapid rotation

2058: and the non-linear SASI at late postbounce times. In addition,

2059: multi-angle transport results in enhanced neutrino energy

2060: deposition. The latter is most significant in the polar regions of

2061: rapidly rotating postbounce configurations and affects dynamically the

2062: postbounce evolution, including the growth of the SASI. However, in

2063: the large postbounce interval covered by our simulations, the local

2064: and global differences between multi-angle transport and MGFLD

2065: calculations do not appear large enough to alter the overall

2066: simulation outcome. Importantly, the multi-angle models do not appear

2067: to be closer to explosion than their MGFLD counterparts.

2068: 

2069: Although we neglect velocity-dependent transport terms and coupling of

2070: neutrino energy bins, we do not expect our conclusions to be altered

2071: by their inclusion, since they are not likely to affect significantly

2072: the differences between multi-angle transport and MGFLD. Further

2073: significant limitations of our present study are the neglect of

2074: general relativistic and MHD effects, the restriction to only one

2075: finite-temperature nuclear EOS, the limited resolution in

2076: momentum-space imposed by the computational cost of multi-angle

2077: calculations, and the use of two spatial dimensions, plus

2078: rotation. In the future, we will investigate

2079: the dependence of our results (e.g., heating rates, radiation-field

2080: asymmetries etc.) on the choice of flux limiter and will consider

2081: different progenitor models.

2082: 

2083: The core-collapse supernova problem is one of many feedbacks.  Larger

2084: heating rates and heating efficiencies than found in our models appear

2085: to be necessary to break the feedback cycle between neutrino radiation

2086: fields and hydrodynamics, revive the stalled shock, and unbind the

2087: supernova envelope -- if the neutrino mechanism is to obtain in the

2088: way presently envisioned. Future work will have to go beyond the

2089: limitation of axisymmetry and must address in detail the entire

2090: ensemble of possible factors relevant in the supernova problem,

2091: including, but not limited to, 3D dynamics, multi-angle neutrino

2092: transport with velocity dependence and inelastic $\nu_e$-$e^-$

2093: scattering, progenitor structure, rotational configuration,

2094: magnetohydrodynamics, convection, the SASI, PNS g-modes, general

2095: relativity, the nuclear EOS, and neutrino-matter interactions.

2096: 

2097: 

2098: 

2099: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2100: 

2101: We acknowledge helpful discussions with and input from Jeremiah

2102: Murphy, Ivan Hubeny, Casey Meakin, Jim Lattimer, Alan Calder, Stan

2103: Woosley, Ed Seidel, Harry Dimmelmeier, H.-Thomas Janka, 

2104: Kei Kotake, Thierry Foglizzo, Ewald

2105: M\"uller, Bernhard M\"uller, Martin Obergaulinger,

2106: Benjamin~D.~Oppenheimer, Thomas Marquart, and Erik Schnetter.  This

2107: work was partially supported by the Scientific Discovery through

2108: Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program of the US Department of Energy

2109: under grant numbers DE-FC02-01ER41184 and DE-FC02-06ER41452.

2110: C.D.O. acknowledges support through a Joint Institute for Nuclear

2111: Astrophysics postdoctoral fellowship, sub-award no.~61-5292UA of NFS

2112: award no.~86-6004791. E.L. acknowledges support by the Israel Science

2113: Foundation (grant 805/04).  The computations were performed at the

2114: local Arizona Beowulf cluster, on the Columbia SGI Altix machine at

2115: the Ames center of the NASA High End Computing Program, at the

2116: National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) under Teragrid

2117: computer time grant TG-MCA02N014, at the Center for Computation and

2118: Technology at Louisiana State University, and at the National Energy

2119: Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), which is supported by

2120: the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy under contract

2121: DE-AC03-76SF00098.

2122: 

2123: \newpage

2124: 

2125: \begin{thebibliography}{89}

2126: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

2127: 

2128: \bibitem[{Adams \& Larsen(2002)}]{adamslarsen:02}

2129: Adams, M.~L., \& Larsen, E.~W. 2002, Prog. Nuc. En., 40, 3

2130: 

2131: \bibitem[{{Akiyama} {et~al.}(2003){Akiyama}, {Wheeler}, {Meier}, \&

2132:   {Lichtenstadt}}]{akiyama:03}

2133: {Akiyama}, S., {Wheeler}, J.~C., {Meier}, D.~L., \& {Lichtenstadt}, I. 2003,

2134:   \apj, 584, 954

2135: 

2136: \bibitem[{{Arnett}(1966)}]{arnett:66}

2137: {Arnett}, W.~D. 1966, Canadian Journal of Physics, 44, 2553

2138: 

2139: \bibitem[{{Balbus} \& {Hawley}(1991)}]{bh:91}

2140: {Balbus}, S.~A., \& {Hawley}, J.~F. 1991, \apj, 376, 214

2141: 

2142: \bibitem[{{Baron} {et~al.}(1989){Baron}, {Myra}, {Cooperstein}, \& {van den

2143:   Horn}}]{baron:89}

2144: {Baron}, E., {Myra}, E.~S., {Cooperstein}, J., \& {van den Horn}, L.~J. 1989,

2145:   \apj, 339, 978

2146: 

2147: \bibitem[{{Bethe}(1990)}]{bethe:90}

2148: {Bethe}, H.~A. 1990, Rev. Mod. Phys., 62, 801

2149: 

2150: \bibitem[{{Bethe} \& {Wilson}(1985)}]{bethewilson:85}

2151: {Bethe}, H.~A., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1985, \apj, 295, 14

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[{{Blondin} {et~al.}(2003){Blondin}, {Mezzacappa}, \&

2154:   {DeMarino}}]{blondin:03}

2155: {Blondin}, J.~M., {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {DeMarino}, C. 2003, \apj, 584, 971

2156: 

2157: \bibitem[{{Bowers} \& {Wilson}(1982)}]{bowerswilson:82}

2158: {Bowers}, R.~L., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1982, \apjs, 50, 115

2159: 

2160: \bibitem[{{Bruenn}(1985)}]{bruenn:85}

2161: {Bruenn}, S.~W. 1985, \apjs, 58, 771

2162: 

2163: \bibitem[{{Bruenn} {et~al.}(2006){Bruenn}, {Dirk}, {Mezzacappa}, {Hayes},

2164:   {Blondin}, {Hix}, \& {Messer}}]{bruenn:06}

2165: {Bruenn}, S.~W., {Dirk}, C.~J., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Hayes}, J.~C., {Blondin},

2166:   J.~M., {Hix}, W.~R., \& {Messer}, O.~E.~B. 2006, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 46, 393

2167: 

2168: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Buras}, {Janka}, {Rampp}, \&

2169:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras:06b}

2170: {Buras}, R., {Janka}, H.-T., {Rampp}, M., \& {Kifonidis}, K.

2171:   2006{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 457, 281

2172: 

2173: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Buras}, {Rampp}, {Janka}, \&

2174:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras:06a}

2175: {Buras}, R., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Kifonidis}, K.

2176:   2006{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 447, 1049

2177: 

2178: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, \&

2179:   {Livne}}]{burrows:07c}

2180: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., \& {Livne}, E. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, in {AIP

2181:   Conference Series}, ed. S.~{Immler} \& R.~{McCray}, Vol. 937, 370

2182: 

2183: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, {Livne},

2184:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows:07b}

2185: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., {Livne}, E., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J.

2186:   2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 664, 416

2187: 

2188: \bibitem[{{Burrows} \& {Goshy}(1993)}]{burrows:93}

2189: {Burrows}, A., \& {Goshy}, J. 1993, \apjl, 416, L75

2190: 

2191: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(1995){Burrows}, {Hayes}, \& {Fryxell}}]{bhf:95}

2192: {Burrows}, A., {Hayes}, J., \& {Fryxell}, B.~A. 1995, \apj, 450, 830

2193: 

2194: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2006){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart}, {Ott}, \&

2195:   {Murphy}}]{burrows:06}

2196: {Burrows}, A., {Livne}, E., {Dessart}, L., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J. 2006,

2197:   \apj, 640, 878

2198: 

2199: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{c}}){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart},

2200:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows:07a}

2201: ---. 2007{\natexlab{c}}, \apj, 655, 416

2202: 

2203: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2000){Burrows}, {Young}, {Pinto}, {Eastman}, \&

2204:   {Thompson}}]{burrows:00}

2205: {Burrows}, A., {Young}, T., {Pinto}, P., {Eastman}, R., \& {Thompson}, T.~A.

2206:   2000, \apj, 539, 865

2207: 

2208: \bibitem[{{Castor}(1972)}]{castor:72}

2209: {Castor}, J.~I. 1972, \apj, 178, 779

2210: 

2211: \bibitem[{{Castor}(2004)}]{castor:04}

2212: ---. 2004, {Radiation Hydrodynamics} (Radiation Hydrodynamics, by John

2213:   I.~Castor, pp.~368.~ISBN 0521833094.~Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

2214:   Press, November 2004.)

2215: 

2216: \bibitem[{{Colgate} \& {White}(1966)}]{colgate:66}

2217: {Colgate}, S.~A., \& {White}, R.~H. 1966, \apj, 143, 626

2218: 

2219: \bibitem[{{Cooperstein} \& {Baron}(1992)}]{cooperstein:92}

2220: {Cooperstein}, J., \& {Baron}, E. 1992, \apj, 398, 531

2221: 

2222: \bibitem[{{Dessart} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Dessart}, {Burrows}, {Livne},

2223:   \& {Ott}}]{dessart:06a}

2224: {Dessart}, L., {Burrows}, A., {Livne}, E., \& {Ott}, C.~D. 2006{\natexlab{a}},

2225:   \apj, 645, 534

2226: 

2227: \bibitem[{{Dessart} {et~al.}(2007){Dessart}, {Burrows}, {Livne}, \&

2228:   {Ott}}]{dessart:07}

2229: ---. 2007, \apj, 669, 585

2230: 

2231: \bibitem[{{Dessart} {et~al.}(2008){Dessart}, {Burrows}, {Livne}, \&

2232:   {Ott}}]{dessart:08a}

2233: ---. 2008, \apjl, 673, L43

2234: 

2235: \bibitem[{{Dessart} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Dessart}, {Burrows}, {Ott},

2236:   {Livne}, {Yoon}, \& {Langer}}]{dessart:06b}

2237: {Dessart}, L., {Burrows}, A., {Ott}, C.~D., {Livne}, E., {Yoon}, S.-Y., \&

2238:   {Langer}, N. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 644, 1063

2239: 

2240: \bibitem[{{Foglizzo} {et~al.}(2007){Foglizzo}, {Galletti}, {Scheck}, \&

2241:   {Janka}}]{foglizzo:07}

2242: {Foglizzo}, T., {Galletti}, P., {Scheck}, L., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2007, \apj,

2243:   654, 1006

2244: 

2245: \bibitem[{{Foglizzo} \& {Tagger}(2000)}]{foglizzo:00}

2246: {Foglizzo}, T., \& {Tagger}, M. 2000, \aap, 363, 174

2247: 

2248: \bibitem[{{Fryer} \& {Heger}(2000)}]{fh:00}

2249: {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Heger}, A. 2000, \apj, 541, 1033

2250: 

2251: \bibitem[{{Fryer} \& {Warren}(2002)}]{fryerwarren:02}

2252: {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Warren}, M.~S. 2002, \apjl, 574, L65

2253: 

2254: \bibitem[{{Fryer} \& {Warren}(2004)}]{fryerwarren:04}

2255: ---. 2004, \apj, 601, 391

2256: 

2257: \bibitem[{{Hammer}(1892)}]{hammer:1892}

2258: {Hammer}, E. 1892, Petermanns Mitt., 38, 85

2259: 

2260: \bibitem[{{Heger} {et~al.}(2000){Heger}, {Langer}, \& {Woosley}}]{heger:00}

2261: {Heger}, A., {Langer}, N., \& {Woosley}, S.~E. 2000, \apj, 528, 368

2262: 

2263: \bibitem[{{Heger} {et~al.}(2005){Heger}, {Woosley}, \& {Spruit}}]{heger:05}

2264: {Heger}, A., {Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Spruit}, H.~C. 2005, \apj, 626, 350

2265: 

2266: \bibitem[{{Herant} {et~al.}(1994){Herant}, {Benz}, {Hix}, {Fryer}, \&

2267:   {Colgate}}]{herant:94}

2268: {Herant}, M., {Benz}, W., {Hix}, W.~R., {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Colgate}, S.~A.

2269:   1994, \apj, 435, 339

2270: 

2271: \bibitem[{{Hubeny} \& {Burrows}(2007)}]{hb:07}

2272: {Hubeny}, I., \& {Burrows}, A. 2007, \apj, 659, 1458

2273: 

2274: \bibitem[{{Iwakami} {et~al.}(2008){Iwakami}, {Kotake}, {Ohnishi}, {Yamada}, \&

2275:   {Sawada}}]{iwakami:08}

2276: {Iwakami}, W., {Kotake}, K., {Ohnishi}, N., {Yamada}, S., \& {Sawada}, K. 2008,

2277:   \apj, 678, 1207

2278: 

2279: \bibitem[{{Janka}(1992)}]{janka:92}

2280: {Janka}, H.-T. 1992, \aap, 256, 452

2281: 

2282: \bibitem[{{Janka}(2001)}]{janka:01}

2283: ---. 2001, \aap, 368, 527

2284: 

2285: \bibitem[{{Janka} {et~al.}(2007){Janka}, {Langanke}, {Marek},

2286:   {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Pinedo}, \& {M{\"u}ller}}]{janka:07}

2287: {Janka}, H.-T., {Langanke}, K., {Marek}, A., {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Pinedo}, G., \&

2288:   {M{\"u}ller}, B. 2007, \physrep, 442, 38

2289: 

2290: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {Moenchmeyer}(1989{\natexlab{a}})}]{janka:89a}

2291: {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Moenchmeyer}, R. 1989{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 209, L5

2292: 

2293: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {Moenchmeyer}(1989{\natexlab{b}})}]{janka:89b}

2294: ---. 1989{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 226, 69

2295: 

2296: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {M\"uller}(1996)}]{jankamueller:96}

2297: {Janka}, H.-T., \& {M\"uller}, E. 1996, \aap, 306, 167

2298: 

2299: \bibitem[{{Kitaura} {et~al.}(2006){Kitaura}, {Janka}, \&

2300:   {Hillebrandt}}]{kitaura:06}

2301: {Kitaura}, F.~S., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Hillebrandt}, W. 2006, \aap, 450, 345

2302: 

2303: \bibitem[{{Kotake} {et~al.}(2003){Kotake}, {Yamada}, \& {Sato}}]{kotake:03}

2304: {Kotake}, K., {Yamada}, S., \& {Sato}, K. 2003, \apj, 595, 304

2305: 

2306: \bibitem[{{Lattimer} \& {Prakash}(2007)}]{lattimer:07}

2307: {Lattimer}, J.~M., \& {Prakash}, M. 2007, \physrep, 442, 109

2308: 

2309: \bibitem[{Lattimer \& Swesty(1991)}]{lseos:91}

2310: Lattimer, J.~M., \& Swesty, F.~D. 1991, {Nucl. Phys. A}, 535, 331

2311: 

2312: \bibitem[{{LeBlanc} \& {Wilson}(1970)}]{leblanc:70}

2313: {LeBlanc}, J.~M., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1970, \apj, 161, 541

2314: 

2315: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\" o}rfer} {et~al.}(2001){Liebend{\" o}rfer}, {Mezzacappa},

2316:   {Thielemann}, {Messer}, {Hix}, \& {Bruenn}}]{liebendoerfer:01a}

2317: {Liebend{\" o}rfer}, M., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Thielemann}, F., {Messer}, O.~E.,

2318:   {Hix}, W.~R., \& {Bruenn}, S.~W. 2001, \prd, 63, 103004

2319: 

2320: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2004){Liebend{\"o}rfer}, {Messer},

2321:   {Mezzacappa}, {Bruenn}, {Cardall}, \& {Thielemann}}]{liebendoerfer:04}

2322: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Messer}, O.~E.~B., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Bruenn}, S.~W.,

2323:   {Cardall}, C.~Y., \& {Thielemann}, F.-K. 2004, \apjs, 150, 263

2324: 

2325: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2005){Liebend{\"o}rfer}, {Rampp},

2326:   {Janka}, \& {Mezzacappa}}]{liebendoerfer:05}

2327: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Mezzacappa}, A. 2005,

2328:   \apj, 620, 840

2329: 

2330: \bibitem[{{Livne}(1993)}]{livne:93}

2331: {Livne}, E. 1993, \apj, 412, 634

2332: 

2333: \bibitem[{{Livne} {et~al.}(2004){Livne}, {Burrows}, {Walder}, {Lichtenstadt},

2334:   \& {Thompson}}]{livne:04}

2335: {Livne}, E., {Burrows}, A., {Walder}, R., {Lichtenstadt}, I., \& {Thompson},

2336:   T.~A. 2004, \apj, 609, 277

2337: 

2338: \bibitem[{{Livne} {et~al.}(2007){Livne}, {Dessart}, {Burrows}, \&

2339:   {Meakin}}]{livne:07}

2340: {Livne}, E., {Dessart}, L., {Burrows}, A., \& {Meakin}, C.~A. 2007, \apjs, 170,

2341:   187

2342: 

2343: \bibitem[{{Marek} \& {Janka}(2007)}]{marek:07}

2344: {Marek}, A., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2007, Submitted to \apj. ArXiv e-prints,

2345:   0708.3372 [astro-ph]

2346: 

2347: \bibitem[{{Messer} {et~al.}(1998){Messer}, {Mezzacappa}, {Bruenn}, \&

2348:   {Guidry}}]{messer:98}

2349: {Messer}, O.~E.~B., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Bruenn}, S.~W., \& {Guidry}, M.~W. 1998,

2350:   \apj, 507, 353

2351: 

2352: \bibitem[{{Mezzacappa} \& {Bruenn}(1993{\natexlab{a}})}]{mezzacappa:93b}

2353: {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {Bruenn}, S.~W. 1993{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 405, 669

2354: 

2355: \bibitem[{{Mezzacappa} \& {Bruenn}(1993{\natexlab{b}})}]{mezzacappa:93a}

2356: ---. 1993{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 405, 637

2357: 

2358: \bibitem[{{Mezzacappa} \& {Messer}(1999)}]{mezzacappa:99}

2359: {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {Messer}, B. 1999, {J. Comp. Appl. Math}, 109, 281

2360: 

2361: \bibitem[{Mihalas \& Mihalas(1984)}]{mihalas:99}

2362: Mihalas, D., \& Mihalas, B. 1984, {Foundations of Radiation Hydrodynamics}

2363:   (Mineola, NY, USA: Dover Publications)

2364: 

2365: \bibitem[{Morel {et~al.}(1996)Morel, Wareing, \& Smith}]{morel:96}

2366: Morel, J.~E., Wareing, T.~A., \& Smith, K. 1996, J. Comput. Phys., 128, 445

2367: 

2368: \bibitem[{{Murphy} \& {Burrows}(2008)}]{murphy:08}

2369: {Murphy}, J.~W., \& {Burrows}, A. 2008, \apj in press, xxx

2370: 

2371: \bibitem[{{Myra} {et~al.}(1987){Myra}, {Bludman}, {Hoffman}, {Lichenstadt},

2372:   {Sack}, \& {van Riper}}]{myra:87}

2373: {Myra}, E.~S., {Bludman}, S.~A., {Hoffman}, Y., {Lichenstadt}, I., {Sack}, N.,

2374:   \& {van Riper}, K.~A. 1987, \apj, 318, 744

2375: 

2376: \bibitem[{{Myra} \& {Burrows}(1990)}]{myra:90}

2377: {Myra}, E.~S., \& {Burrows}, A. 1990, \apj, 364, 222

2378: 

2379: \bibitem[{{Nomoto} \& {Hashimoto}(1988)}]{nomoto:88}

2380: {Nomoto}, K., \& {Hashimoto}, M. 1988, \physrep, 163, 13

2381: 

2382: \bibitem[{{Ott} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Ott}, {Burrows}, {Dessart}, \&

2383:   {Livne}}]{ott:06b}

2384: {Ott}, C.~D., {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., \& {Livne}, E. 2006{\natexlab{a}},

2385:   Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 201102

2386: 

2387: \bibitem[{Ott {et~al.}(2004)Ott, Burrows, Livne, \& Walder}]{ott:04}

2388: Ott, C.~D., Burrows, A., Livne, E., \& Walder, R. 2004, \apj, 600, 834

2389: 

2390: \bibitem[{{Ott} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Ott}, {Burrows}, {Thompson},

2391:   {Livne}, \& {Walder}}]{ott:06spin}

2392: {Ott}, C.~D., {Burrows}, A., {Thompson}, T.~A., {Livne}, E., \& {Walder}, R.

2393:   2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjs, 164, 130

2394: 

2395: \bibitem[{{Rampp} \& {Janka}(2000)}]{ramppjanka:00}

2396: {Rampp}, M., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2000, \apjl, 539, L33

2397: 

2398: \bibitem[{{Rampp} \& {Janka}(2002)}]{ramppjanka:02}

2399: ---. 2002, \aap, 396, 361

2400: 

2401: \bibitem[{{Scheck} {et~al.}(2008){Scheck}, {Janka}, {Foglizzo}, \&

2402:   {Kifonidis}}]{scheck:08}

2403: {Scheck}, L., {Janka}, H.-T., {Foglizzo}, T., \& {Kifonidis}, K. 2008, \aap,

2404:   477, 931

2405: 

2406: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{a}}){Shen}, {Toki}, {Oyamatsu}, \&

2407:   {Sumiyoshi}}]{shen:98a}

2408: {Shen}, H., {Toki}, H., {Oyamatsu}, K., \& {Sumiyoshi}, K. 1998{\natexlab{a}},

2409:   Nucl. Phys. A, 637, 435

2410: 

2411: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{b}}){Shen}, {Toki}, {Oyamatsu}, \&

2412:   {Sumiyoshi}}]{shen:98b}

2413: ---. 1998{\natexlab{b}}, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 100, 1013

2414: 

2415: \bibitem[{{Shlomo} {et~al.}(2006){Shlomo}, {Kolomietz}, \&

2416:   {Col{\`o}}}]{shlomo:06}

2417: {Shlomo}, S., {Kolomietz}, V.~M., \& {Col{\`o}}, G. 2006, European Physical

2418:   Journal A, 30, 23

2419: 

2420: \bibitem[{{Swesty} \& {Myra}(2006)}]{swesty:06}

2421: {Swesty}, F.~D., \& {Myra}, E.~S. 2006, submitted to the Astrophys. J.,

2422:   astro-ph/0607281

2423: 

2424: \bibitem[{{Thompson} {et~al.}(2003){Thompson}, {Burrows}, \&

2425:   {Pinto}}]{thompson:03}

2426: {Thompson}, T.~A., {Burrows}, A., \& {Pinto}, P.~A. 2003, \apj, 592, 434

2427: 

2428: \bibitem[{{Thompson} {et~al.}(2005){Thompson}, {Quataert}, \&

2429:   {Burrows}}]{thompson:05}

2430: {Thompson}, T.~A., {Quataert}, E., \& {Burrows}, A. 2005, \apj, 620, 861

2431: 

2432: \bibitem[{{Walder} {et~al.}(2005){Walder}, {Burrows}, {Ott}, {Livne},

2433:   {Lichtenstadt}, \& {Jarrah}}]{walder:05}

2434: {Walder}, R., {Burrows}, A., {Ott}, C.~D., {Livne}, E., {Lichtenstadt}, I., \&

2435:   {Jarrah}, M. 2005, \apj, 626, 317

2436: 

2437: \bibitem[{{Weinberg} \& {Quataert}(2008)}]{weinberg:08}

2438: {Weinberg}, N.~N., \& {Quataert}, E. 2008, ArXiv 0802.1522 (astro-ph)

2439: 

2440: \bibitem[{{Wilson}(1971)}]{wilson:71}

2441: {Wilson}, J.~R. 1971, \apj, 163, 209

2442: 

2443: \bibitem[{{Wilson}(1985)}]{wilson:85}

2444: {Wilson}, J.~R. 1985, in Numerical Astrophysics, ed. J.~M. {Centrella}, J.~M.

2445:   {Leblanc}, \& R.~L. {Bowers}, 422

2446: 

2447: \bibitem[{{Woosley} {et~al.}(2002){Woosley}, {Heger}, \& {Weaver}}]{wwh:02}

2448: {Woosley}, S.~E., {Heger}, A., \& {Weaver}, T.~A. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74,

2449:   1015

2450: 

2451: \bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Weaver}(1995)}]{ww:95}

2452: {Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Weaver}, T.~A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

2453: 

2454: \bibitem[{{Yamada} {et~al.}(1999){Yamada}, {Janka}, \& {Suzuki}}]{yamada:99}

2455: {Yamada}, S., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Suzuki}, H. 1999, \aap, 344, 533

2456: 

2457: \bibitem[{{Yamasaki} \& {Foglizzo}(2008)}]{yamasaki:08}

2458: {Yamasaki}, T., \& {Foglizzo}, T. 2008, \apj, 679, 607

2459: 

2460: \bibitem[{{Yoshida} {et~al.}(2007){Yoshida}, {Ohnishi}, \&

2461:   {Yamada}}]{yoshida:07}

2462: {Yoshida}, S., {Ohnishi}, N., \& {Yamada}, S. 2007, \apj submitted

2463: 

2464: \bibitem[{{Yueh} \& {Buchler}(1977)}]{yueh:77}

2465: {Yueh}, W.~R., \& {Buchler}, J.~R. 1977, \apj, 217, 565

2466: 

2467: \end{thebibliography}

2468: 

2469: \end{document}

2470: 

2471: 

2472: