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

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: 

4: %Used for picture environment.

5: \usepackage{color}

6: 

7: \shorttitle{}

8: \shortauthors{}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: 

12: \title{Criteria for Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions by the Neutrino Mechanism}

13: 

14: \author{Jeremiah W. Murphy\altaffilmark{1,2,3}}

15: \author{Adam Burrows\altaffilmark{4,1}}

16: 

17: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona,

18:   Tucson, AZ 85721; jmurphy@as.arizona.edu}

19: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Box

20:   351580, Seattle, WA 98195-1580; jmurphy@astro.washington.edu}

21: \altaffiltext{3}{NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow}

22: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University,

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

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We investigate the criteria for successful

27: core-collapse supernova explosions by the neutrino mechanism.

28: We find that a critical-luminosity/mass-accretion-rate

29: condition distinguishes non-exploding from exploding models in

30: hydrodynamic one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D)

31: simulations.  We present 95 such simulations that parametrically explore

32: the dependence on neutrino luminosity, mass accretion rate, resolution, and dimensionality.

33: While radial oscillations mediate the transition between 1D accretion

34: (non-exploding) and exploding simulations, the non-radial standing

35: accretion shock instability characterizes 2D simulations. We find 

36: that it is useful to compare the average dwell time of matter in the

37: gain region with the corresponding heating timescale, but that tracking the 

38: residence time distribution function of tracer particles better describes

39: the complex flows in multi-dimensional simulations.  Integral

40: quantities such as the net heating rate, heating efficiency, and mass

41: in the gain region decrease with time in non-exploding models, but for

42: 2D exploding models, increase before, during, and after explosion.

43: At the onset of explosion in 2D, the heating efficiency is $\sim$2\% to

44: $\sim$5\% and the mass in the gain region is $\sim$0.005

45: M$_{\sun}$ to $\sim$0.01 M$_{\sun}$.  Importantly, we find that

46: the critical luminosity for explosions in 2D is $\sim$70\%

47: of the critical luminosity required in 1D.

48: This result is not sensitive to resolution or whether the 2D

49: computational domain is a quadrant or the full 180$^{\circ}$.

50: We suggest that the relaxation of the explosion condition in going

51: from 1D to 2D (and to, perhaps, 3D) is of a general character and is 

52: not limited by the parametric nature of this study.

53: \end{abstract}

54: 

55: \keywords{hydrodynamics --- instabilities --- methods: numerical ---

56:   shock waves --- supernovae: general }

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: Four decades of core-collapse simulations have increased our

61: understanding of the core-collapse mechanism, yet a complete

62: theory of the mechanism has not emerged.  Detection of neutrinos during SN 1987A

63: \citep{bionta87,hirata87} confirmed only the fundamentals of

64: core-collapse supernovae.  Theory suggests that the Fe core collapses to form a protoneutron

65: star (PNS), which launches a shock wave.  Before the bounce

66: shock can explode the star, it is

67: sapped of energy by nuclear dissociation and neutrino losses and

68: stalls into an accretion shock \citep{mazurek82,bruenn85,bruenn89}.

69: Understanding the mechanism that revives the stalled shock into

70: explosion has been the goal of the community for many decades.

71: 

72: Since the pioneering work of

73: \citet{wilson85} and \citet{bethe85}, the favored shock revival

74: mechanism has been the delayed-neutrino mechanism (or simply neutrino mechanism), in which neutrinos

75: heat the post-shock region and restart the shock's outward progress

76: after hundreds of milliseconds of delay.  Detailed one-dimensional (1D) simulations using state-of-the-art equations of state

77: (EOSs), neutrino-matter cross sections, and neutrino transport have

78: shown that the neutrino mechanism fails to produce explosions in 1D

79: \citep{liebendorfer01a,liebendorfer01b,rampp02,buras03,thompson03,liebendorfer05b},

80: except the least massive of the massive stars \citep{kitaura06,burrows07d}. 

81: Recent 2-dimensional (2D) simulations, and the accompanying

82: aspherical instabilities, have suggested that the neutrino mechanism may

83: yet succeed, though it fails in 1D

84: \citep{herant94,janka95,burrows95,janka96,burrows07a,kitaura06,buras06a,buras06b,marek07,ott08}.

85: Thus, the fundamental question of core-collapse theory remains; how is

86: accretion reversed into explosion?

87: 

88: Exposing the core-collapse mechanism will

89: require detailed three-dimensional (3D) radiation-hydrodynamic

90: simulations.  However, the core-collapse problem is messy,

91: with many subtle nonlinear couplings and feedbacks 

92: on local and global scales, and extracting the essence of the mechanism from even 1D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations has

93: proven very difficult.  Hence, revealing the core ingredients and conditions of the mechanism will

94: likely require a

95: two-front attack.  On the one hand, multi-dimensional

96: radiation-hydrodynamic simulations will give fully consistent

97: explosions, producing observationally testable energies,

98: neutron star masses, nucleosynthetic yields, and more.

99: On the other hand, simplified models that nevertheless retain the important physics,

100: but allow adjustment of important parameters will help reveal what is important.  In this paper, we pursue the latter

101: philosophy.  We present a systematic parameterization of the conditions

102: and criteria for explosion by the neutrino mechanism, emphasizing the

103: effect that going to 2D from 1D has on the critical neutrino luminosity

104: required for explosions.

105: 

106: \citet{burrows93} suggested a simple framework for determining the

107: conditions for successful explosions by the neutrino mechanism.

108: They approximated the stalled shock and accretion phase as a steady-state problem, transforming the governing partial differential

109: equations into ordinary differential equations.  By

110: parameterizing the electron-neutrino luminosity, $L_{\nu_e}$, and the

111: mass accretion rate, $\dot{M}$, they identified a critical $L_{\nu_e}$-$\dot{M}$ curve that

112: distinguishes steady

113: state accretion solutions (lower luminosities) from explosions (high luminosities).  This implied

114: that global conditions, not local conditions, mediate the transition

115: from accretion to explosion, which in turn suggests that core-collapse

116: explosion is a global instability.

117: More than a decade later, \citet{yamasaki05,yamasaki06}

118: reproduced these results and performed a

119: linear stability analysis of the steady-state solutions that showed

120: unstable solutions near the critical luminosity.

121: In this paper, 

122: we extend this previous work by performing a suite of hydrodynamic

123: simulations in both 1D and 2D.

124: 

125: Assuming that the concept of a critical luminosity applies to 2D simulations, many have noted that critical luminosities for 2D

126: simulations are likely to be lower than in 1D simulations.  In their 1D steady-state

127: solutions, \citet{yamasaki05,yamasaki06} investigated the

128: effects of rotation and convection on the critical luminosity, but

129: these analyses lacked a self-consistent treatment of what is an inherently 2D/3D phenomenon.

130: Early 2D simulations using flux-limited diffusion noted a trend toward

131: explosions aided by neutrino-driven convection

132: \citep{burrows95,janka96}, while 1D simulations failed to

133: explode for the same neutrino luminosity.  More recently,

134: \citet{blondin03} identified a new instability that may prove crucial

135: for the viability of the neutrino mechanism.  It is the standing accretion

136: shock instability (SASI), which may be an advective-acoustic \citep{foglizzo00,foglizzo02,foglizzo07} or purely

137: acoustic cycle \citep{blondin06}.  Whichever explains the SASI, recent simulations have suggested

138: that it may facilitate the neutrino

139: mechanism \citep{marek07,buras06b}.  However, these simulations have yet

140: to demonstrate a reliable explosion mechanism for a wide range of progenitor

141: masses that yields explosion energies consistent with Nature.

142: Furthermore \citet{burrows06}, \citet{burrows07a},

143: \citet{burrows07b}, \citet{burrows07d}, and \citet{burrows07c}, using

144: VULCAN/2D \citep{livne93,livne04} and multi-group

145: flux-limited diffusion (MGFLD), obtain

146: successful explosions only for the 8.8-M$_{\sun}$ model by the

147: neutrino mechanism alone.

148: Recently, \citet{ott08} compared MGFLD and multi-angle transport in VULCAN/2D.  While they note some interesting

149: differences between the transport schemes, explosions remain elusive.

150: Moreover, it

151: has not been demonstrated that the concept of a critical

152: $L_{\nu_e}$-$\dot{M}$ condition pertains to 2D simulations, and if it

153: does, how do the critical luminosities of 1D and 2D simulations compare?

154: 

155: To address these questions, we conduct 1D and 2D simulations for

156: various values of $L_{\nu_e}$.  In the past, there have been a few

157: investigations on the systematic effects of neutrino luminosity on the

158: explosion mechanism \citep{janka96}, neutron star kicks

159: \citep{scheck06}, and the SASI \citep{ohnishi06}, but none has

160: thoroughly investigated both $L_{\nu_e}$ and $\dot{M}$ in 1D and 2D

161: simulations to address the viability of a critical luminosity condition

162: for explosion.

163: In addition to $L_{\nu_e}$ and $\dot{M}$, we compare simulations with

164: different spatial

165: resolutions.  Using the code, BETHE-hydro \citep{murphy08},

166: we simulate the core-collapse, bounce, and post-bounce phases in

167: time-dependent 1D and 2D simulations.  These simulations have no

168: inner boundary and include the PNS core.  A

169: finite-temperature EOS

170: that accounts for nucleons, nuclei,

171: photons, electrons, positrons, and all the appropriate phase

172: transitions is used \citep{shen98}.  Employing 11.2- and 15-M$_{\sun}$ progenitors \citep{woosley02,woosley95} as initial conditions, a wide range of $\dot{M}$ is

173: sampled (from $\sim$0.08 M$_{\sun}$/s to $\sim$0.3 M$_{\sun}$/s).

174: Finally, we use standard

175: approximations for neutrino heating and cooling that enable a

176: straightforward parameterization of $L_{\nu_e}$ \citep{bethe85,janka01}.

177: 

178: The basic equations and the numerical techniques are presented in \S

179: \ref{section:numerics}.

180: In \S \ref{section:progenitor}, we discuss the progenitor models

181: and describe the suite of simulations performed.  In \S

182: \ref{section:shock}, we analyze the evolution of the shock for 1D and 2D

183: simulations and discuss the role shock oscillations play in the explosion.  In \S \ref{section:grid}, we

184: investigate the effect that the grid, specifically spatial resolution and

185: the angular extent of the domain, has on explosions.  In \S

186: \ref{section:timescales}, we revisit the

187: condition for explosion as expressed by the heating and advection

188: timescales, and in \S \ref{section:conditions} describe other

189: conditions at explosion.  In \S \ref{section:critical}, we quantify

190: the differences in the critical luminosity 

191: condition between 1D and 2D simulations.

192: Finally, in \S \ref{section:conclusions}, we summarize our conclusions.

193: 

194: \section{Equations and Numerical Techniques}

195: \label{section:numerics}

196: 

197: The basic equations of hydrodynamics are

198: the conservation of mass,

199: momentum, and energy: 

200: \begin{equation}

201: \label{eq:mass_lag}

202: \frac{d \rho}{d t} = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} \, ,

203: \end{equation}

204: \begin{equation}

205: \label{eq:mom_lag}

206: \rho \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \Phi - \vec{\nabla} P

207: \, ,

208: \end{equation}

209: and

210: \begin{equation}

211: \label{eq:ene_lag}

212: \rho \frac{d \varepsilon}{d t} = - P \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} 

213: + \mathcal{H} - \mathcal{C} \, .

214: \end{equation}

215: $\rho$ is the mass density, $\vec{v}$ is the fluid velocity, $\Phi$ is

216: the gravitational potential, $P$ is the isotropic pressure,

217: $\varepsilon$ is the specific internal energy, and $d/dt = \partial

218: / \partial t + \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla}$ is the Lagrangian time

219: derivative.

220: In this work, the neutrino heating, $\mathcal{H}$, and cooling, $\mathcal{C}$, terms

221: in eq. (\ref{eq:ene_lag}) are assumed to be

222: \begin{equation}

223: \label{eq:heating}

224: \mathcal{H} = 1.544 \times 10^{20} L_{\nu_e} \left ( \frac{100 {\rm

225:       km}}{r} \right )^2 \left ( \frac{T_{\nu_e}}{4 {\rm Mev}} \right

226: )^2 \left [ \frac{\rm erg}{{\rm g} \, {\rm s}} \right ] \, ,

227: \end{equation}

228: and

229: \begin{equation}

230: \label{eq:cooling}

231: \mathcal{C} = 1.399 \times 10^{20} \left ( \frac{T}{2 {\rm MeV}}

232: \right )^6

233: \left [ \frac{\rm erg}{{\rm g} \, {\rm s}} \right ] \, .

234: \end{equation}

235: Note that these approximations for heating and cooling by

236: neutrinos \citep{bethe85,janka01} depend upon local quantities and

237: predefined parameters.  They are $\rho$, temperature ($T$),

238: the distance from the center ($r$), the electron-neutrino temperature ($T_{\nu_e}$), and the electron-neutrino luminosity ($L_{\nu_e}$), which

239: is in units of $10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$.  By using

240: eqs. (\ref{eq:heating}) and (\ref{eq:cooling}), we gain considerable

241: time savings by approximating the effects of detailed neutrino transport.  For

242: all simulations, we set $T_{\nu_e} = 4$ MeV.  In eq. (\ref{eq:heating}), it has

243: been assumed that $L_{\nu_e} = L_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ and that the mass

244: fractions of protons and neutrons sum to one.  Therefore, the sum of

245: the electron- and anti-electron-neutrino luminosities is $L_{\nu_e

246:   \bar{\nu}_e} = 2 L_{\nu_e}$.

247: Closure for eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_lag}-\ref{eq:ene_lag}) is obtained

248: with an EOS appropriate for matter in or near nuclear statistical

249: equilibrium (NSE) \citep{shen98}, and the effects of photons, electrons,

250: and positrons are included. As such, the

251: EOS has the following dependencies:

252: \begin{equation}

253: \label{eq:eos}

254: P = P(\rho,\varepsilon,Y_e) \, ,

255: \end{equation}

256: where $Y_e$ is the electron fraction.

257: Therefore, we also solve the equation:

258: \begin{equation}

259: \label{eq:advec}

260: \frac{d Y_e}{dt} = \Gamma_e \, ,

261: \end{equation}

262: where $\Gamma_e$ is the net rate of $Y_e$ change.

263: 

264: Using BETHE-hydro

265: \citep{murphy08}, we solve eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_lag}-\ref{eq:ene_lag}) in one and two

266: dimensions by the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) method. To

267: advance the discrete equations of hydrodynamics by one timestep, ALE

268: methods generally use two operations, a Lagrangian hydrodynamic step

269: followed by a remap.  The structure of BETHE-hydro's

270: hydrodynamic solver is designed for arbitrary-unstructured grids, and the

271: remapping component offers control of the time evolution of the grid.

272: Taken together, these features enable the use of

273: time-dependent arbitrary grids to avoid some unwanted features of

274: traditional grids.

275: 

276: For the calculations presented in this paper, we use this flexibility

277: to avoid the singularity of spherical grids in two dimensions.  While spherical

278: grids are generally useful for core-collapse simulations, the

279: convergence of grid lines near the center place extreme constraints on

280: the timestep via the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy condition.  A common remedy is to

281: simulate the inner $\sim$10 km in 1D or to use an inner boundary

282: condition.   Another approach, which has been used in VULCAN/2D simulations \citep{livne93,livne04}, is to avoid the singularity with a grid

283: that is pseudo-Cartesian near the center and smoothly transitions to a

284: spherical grid at larger radii.  We use a similar grid, the butterfly

285: mesh \citep{murphy08}, for the

286: simulations in this paper.

287: 

288: For 1D simulations, 700 radial zones are distributed from the center

289: to 4000 km.  The innermost 100

290: zones have a resolution of 0.34km, and the remaining 600 zones are

291: spaced logarithmically from 34 km to

292: 4000 km.  After each Lagrangian hydrodynamic solve, the flow is

293: remapped back to the original grid, which in effect produces an

294: Eulerian calculation.  For 2D simulations, we use a butterfly mesh interior to 34 km and a

295: spherical grid exterior to this radius.  For all 180$^{\circ}$

296: simulations, the innermost pseudo-rectangular region is 50 by 100

297: zones, and the region that transitions from Cartesian to spherical

298: geometry has 50 radial zones

299: and 200 angular zones.  The outermost spherical region has 200 angular

300: zones and 300 or 150 radial zones which are logarithmically spaced

301: between 34 km and either 4000 km or 1000 km.  The butterfly portion has an

302: effective radial resolution of 0.34 km with the shortest cell edge

303: being 0.28 km.  The grids for the 90$^{\circ}$ simulations are similar,

304: but with half the number of zones.  In 2D simulations, we do not remap every

305: timestep.  Since the timestep is limited by the large sound speeds in

306: the PNS core, we can afford to perform several Lagrangian hydrodynamic

307: solves before remapping back to the original grid.  By remapping

308: seldomly, we gain considerable savings in computational time.

309: 

310: We investigate the systematics of the neutrino mechanism by parameterizing

311: $L_{\nu_e}$, $\dot{M}$, resolution, and the dimensions of the simulation.

312: Since this requires a large set of simulations, we make

313:   several approximations to expedite the calculations. 

314: For one, gravity is calculated via $\vec{g} = -G M_{\rm int}/r^2$, where $M_{\rm int}$ is

315:     the mass interior to the radius $r$. 

316: During collapse, rather than solving the rate equations for $Y_e$ due to

317:     neutrino transport, we use a $Y_e$ vs. $\rho$ parameterization.  \citet{liebendorfer05a}

318: observed that 1D simulations including neutrino transport produce

319: $Y_e$ values during collapse which are essentially a function of

320: density alone.  This allows for a parameterization of

321: $Y_e$ as a function of $\rho$.  To change $Y_e$, we use results of 1D SESAME

322: \citep{burrows00,thompson03} simulations to define the function

323: $Y_e(\rho)$, and we employ the

324: prescription of \citet{liebendorfer05a} to calculate local values of $\Gamma_e$.  As a result, the most

325: important effects of electron capture during collapse

326: are included without the need for expensive, detailed neutrino transport.

327: 

328: \section{Progenitor and Simulation Models}

329: \label{section:progenitor}

330: 

331: To sample a range of $\dot{M}$, we initiate the simulations with

332: two core-collapse progenitor models that have different density profiles: a

333: 15 M$_{\sun}$ progenitor with a shallow density profile exterior to the Fe

334: core \citep{woosley95}, and a 11.2 M$_{\sun}$ progenitor with a steeper

335: exterior density profile \citep{woosley02}.

336: In Fig. \ref{mdotvstime}, the mass accretion rate, $\dot{M}$, vs. time at 250 km (just above the

337:   stalled shock) is shown for 1D non-exploding models. The solid and dashed lines show the

338:   time-dependent accretion rate for the 11.2 and 15.0 M$_{\sun}$ models.

339:   While the outer portions of the Fe core accrete through the shock, $\dot{M}$ is as high as 10

340:   M$_{\sun}$/s and decreases to 2 M$_{\sun}$/s within 50 ms of bounce for both

341:   masses.  After the Fe core is fully

342:   accreted, the accretion rates for the two models

343:   deviate.

344: It takes 50 ms to fully accrete the

345:   Si-burning shell using the 11.2-M$_{\sun}$ model and 100 ms using

346:   the 15-M$_{\sun}$ model.

347: Afterward,

348: $\dot{M}$ declines slowly to 0.2 M$_{\sun}$/s (0.08 M$_{\sun}$/s for the 15

349: M$_{\sun}$ model).

350: Together, these two models slowly sweep through a

351:   range of accretion rates from 0.3 M$_{\sun}$/s to 0.08 M$_{\sun}$/s,

352:   enabling a study of the $\dot{M}$ dependence.

353: 

354: The results presented in the following sections are derived from 95

355: simulations that as a group, represent a

356: parameterization of $L_{\nu_e}$, $\dot{M}$, resolution, and dimensionality.

357: Table \ref{table:sequences} lists these simulations into 14 sequences.  Each sequence of simulations is

358: distinguished by the progenitor model (column 2), dimensionality

359: (column 3), number of radial zones (column 4), radius of the outer

360: boundary (column 5), and a range of electron-neutrino luminosities

361: (column 6).  The sequence names encode the information contained in columns 2

362: through 5.  The first

363: four characters indicate the progenitor model.  Next are the

364: dimensionality labels:  ``1D'' for 1D simulations, ``2D'' for 2D

365: simulations that incorporate the full of $\theta$ (180$^{\circ}$),

366: and ``Q'' for 2D simulations that simulate the quadrant that lies

367: between the pole and equator (90$^{\circ}$).

368: For the 2D simulations, the final character represents the

369: resolution:  ``1'' for the lowest resolution of 250 effective radial

370: zones within 4000 km, ``2'' for a finer resolution of 400 effective

371: radial zones in 4000 km, and ``3'' for the highest resolution of 400

372: effective radial zones within 1000 km.  On the whole, 

373: Table \ref{table:sequences} represents a parameter study for the

374: conditions near explosion in $L_{\nu_e}$, $\dot{M}$, dimensionality, and

375: resolution.

376: 

377: \section{Radial Shock Oscillations in 1D and the SASI in 2D}

378: \label{section:shock}

379: 

380: When \citet{burrows93} reported a critical luminosity vs.

381: accretion rate condition for successful explosions, they did so based

382: upon steady-state solutions.

383: It was left to subsequent calculations to show that

384: the concept of a critical luminosity condition was

385: appropriate for time-dependent simulations.

386: With plots of the evolution of the shock radius, we show that a critical

387: luminosity condition distinguishes non-exploding and exploding models

388: in time-dependent 1D and 2D simulations, and that the

389:   critical luminosity for 2D simulations is lower than

390:   the critical luminosity for 1D simulations.

391: In addition, we report global oscillations near the

392:   critical luminosity in both 1D and 2D simulations, but we show that

393:   the oscillations are of a quite different character.

394: 

395: The time evolution for the shock radius, $R_{\rm shock}$, of 1D

396: simulations is presented in Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}.

397: In the top panel, we display the radii for many models of the 15.0-1D

398: sequence, and each is labeled by $L_{\nu_e}$.  The range of

399: luminosities shown, $L_{\nu_e} = 2.2$-2.9 (in units of $10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$), highlight values near the critical luminosity for

400: this model.  The fact that several luminosities lead to explosion at

401: different times is an early indication that the critical luminosity depends upon

402: the mass accretion rate. In \S \ref{section:critical}, we

403: elaborate on the accretion rate dependence.  Similarly, the bottom

404: panel shows $R_{\rm shock}$ for the range of luminosities surrounding

405: the critical luminosity, $L_{\nu_e}

406: = 1.1$-1.7, of the 11.2-1D sequence.

407: 

408: Prior to the accretion of

409: the Si/O interface, the shock stalls for both sequences at radii that are

410: slightly dependent upon $L_{\nu_e}$.

411: The accretion of this interface and the abrupt drop in $\dot{M}$

412: trigger an immediate explosion for the highest luminosity, $L_{\nu_e}

413: = 1.7$ (2.9) for the 11.2-1D (15.0-1D) sequence and

414: oscillations in $R_{\rm shock}$ for the other luminosities considered.

415: These radial oscillations either decay or maintain large amplitudes

416: until the model explodes.  As an example, the oscillation periods of

417: the 15.0-1D sequence range from $\sim$90 ms

418: ($L_{\nu_e}= 2.2$) to $\sim$170 ms ($L_{\nu_e} = 2.8$), and the

419: timescales for decay range from 450 ms ($L_{\nu_e} = 2.2$) to 1.0 s

420: ($L_{\nu_e} = 2.5$).  These radial oscillations and their large

421: amplitudes near explosion support, but do not prove, the hypothesis

422: that a global instability is responsible for the transition between

423: accretion and explosion.

424: 

425: Near the critical luminosity, others have reported large radial oscillations in 1D simulations.

426: \citet{ohnishi06} executed time-dependent 1D simulations of the

427:     steady state solutions in \citet{yamasaki05} and observed similar

428:     pulsations, with amplitudes of order 10\%.

429: For some luminosities, we report similar amplitudes (Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}), but just as

430: many models have large amplitudes of order unity.

431: Furthermore, we find, as do they, that the amplitudes, periods, and $L_{\nu_e}$ are correlated.

432: \citet{buras06a} simulated the collapse, bounce, and

433: postbounce phases for the 15 M$_{\sun}$ model using a Boltzmann

434: transport algorithm in 1D and a ``ray-by-ray'' derivative of the same

435: transport algorithm for 2D simulations.  Generically, they did not

436: obtain explosions.  However, for a few runs, they

437: omitted the velocity-dependent terms in their transport

438: formulation, and this resulted in explosions.  Explosions occurred

439: soon after the shock stalled in their 2D simulations, aborting any

440: obvious oscillations in shock

441: radius.  On the other hand, like our simulations, accretion of the Si/O interface initiates

442: pulsations with amplitudes $\sim$25\% in their 1D simulations

443: oscillations. 

444: .

445: 

446: In reporting the temporal morphology of shocks in 2D simulations, we decompose the shock position,

447: $R_{\rm shock}(\theta,t)$, into spherical harmonics:

448: \begin{equation}

449: R_{\rm shock}(\theta,t) = \sqrt{4 \pi} \sum_{\ell} a_{\ell}(t) Y_{\ell

450:   0} \, ,

451: \end{equation}

452: where

453: \begin{equation}

454: \label{eq:al}

455: a_{\ell}(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi}}\int R_{\rm shock}(\theta,t) Y_{\ell 0} d \Omega \, ,

456: \end{equation}

457: are the time-dependent coefficients, and the normalization for

458: $a_{\ell}$  in eq. (\ref{eq:al}) ensures that $a_0$ is the average

459: shock radius.

460: As is usual,

461: $Y_{\ell 0}$ are the spherical harmonics, azimuthal symmetry

462: dictates $m = 0$, and the spherical harmonics are normalized to satisfy

463: \begin{equation}

464: \int Y^*_{\ell 0} Y_{\ell 0} d \Omega = 1 \, .

465: \end{equation}

466: 

467: These temporal coefficients for the

468: 15.0-2D3 sequence are plotted in 

469: Fig. \ref{sphharm}. The average shock

470: radius, $a_0$ or $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$, is shown in the top

471: panel, and a dot indicates the time of explosion, $t_{\rm exp}$ for

472: the exploding models.  Accompanying are error bars

473: indicating an estimated uncertainty of $t_{\rm exp}$ (see \S

474: \ref{section:conditions} for the definition of $t_{\rm exp}$).  The $\ell = 1$ and

475: $\ell = 2$ components normalized by $a_0$ are shown in the middle and

476: bottom panels.  First of all, note that the range of luminosities bracketing the critical

477: luminosity for the 2D

478: simulations in Fig. \ref{sphharm} are lower than the range for 1D

479: simulations in Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}.  Further comparison indicates that, unlike 1D simulations, 2D simulations show very little oscillation

480: in $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$ prior to explosion. In fact, oscillations

481: in $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$ are miniscule for non-exploding

482: models and only reach $\sim$10\% around

483: $t_{\rm exp}$ for exploding simulations.

484: 

485: Instead,

486: SASI originated oscillations in $\ell=1$ and $\ell=2$ components dominate the non-exploding and exploding models.

487: The amplitudes of the dipole component, $a_1/a_0$, for $L_{\nu_e}=1.5$

488:   remain low at $\sim$2.5\%, from bounce until 500 ms.  Around 500 ms, the amplitude 

489:   grows to $\sim$10\%.

490: On the other hand, models with $L_{\nu_e} = 1.6$-1.9 show a steady rise to

491:   $\sim$10\% from bounce.

492: Exploding models, for which $L_{\nu_e} =1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0, show an abrupt

493: increase in amplitude to $\sim$20\%.

494: For non-exploding models, $a_1/a_0$ saturates at $\sim$10\%, and

495:   for $L_{\nu_e} = 1.5$ and 1.6 it decreases to $\sim$5\%.

496: At early times, simulations with $L_{\nu_e} = 1.5$ and $L_{\nu_e}

497: = 2.0$ show the lowest and highest SASI amplitudes, respectively, and are

498: easily distinguished from the other simulations.  While this would suggest a

499: correlation in SASI amplitude with $L_{\nu_e}$, the other models do

500: not show a similar monotonic trend.  Rather their amplitudes occupy

501: the region between $L_{\nu_e} = 1.5$ and $L_{\nu_e} = 2.0$ but show no

502: discernible trend with luminosity.

503: The quadrupole term, $a_2/a_0$, is generally below $\sim$5\% during non-exploding

504: phases.  For times just before explosion and afterward, $a_2/a_0$

505: can reach $\sim$10\%.

506: 

507: Two important results are apparent in Figs. \ref{rvst_1d} and

508: \ref{sphharm}.  A critical luminosity separates exploding and

509: non-exploding models in time-dependent 1D and 2D simulations, and

510: the critical luminosity for 2D simulations is $\sim$70\% of the critical luminosity

511: for 1D models. More evidence will be presented in \S

512: \ref{section:critical} that the critical luminosity depends upon $\dot{M}$.

513: For 1D simulations, we observe pulsations near the critical

514: luminosity, but in 2D simulations, radial oscillations are all but

515: absent.  Instead, non-radial SASI oscillations dominate.

516: 

517: \section{Effects of the Grid}

518: \label{section:grid}

519: 

520: The conclusions of the previous section might depend upon the

521: grid structure used in 2D simulations.

522: To address this concern, we investigate the dependence of these

523: results on resolution and the range of polar angle, $\theta$, included

524: in the simulations.

525: Encoded in the sequence names (Table \ref{table:sequences}) are the types of grids used for

526:   2D simulations.  For calculations that encompass the full

527:   range of $\theta$ from pole to pole (180$^{\circ}$) $\theta$ is divided into 200 zones,

528:   and for simulations that include only the region between a pole and

529:   the equator (90$^{\circ}$) $\theta$ is divided into 100 zones.

530: Sequences that use the 180$^{\circ}$ grid have `2D' in their name,

531:   and for sequences that use the 90$^{\circ}$ grid, `Q' is in its stead.

532: The numbers after `2D' or `Q' indicate the resolution.  The

533:   lowest resolution, denoted by `1', extends the spherical grid from

534:   the outer edge of the butterfly mesh, 34 km, to 4000 km with 150 radial

535:   zones.  The middle resolution, `2', divides

536:   this same space into 300 radial zones, and the highest resolution,

537:   `3', divides the radii between 34 km and 1000 km into 300 zones.  For all resolutions, the space between the butterfly mesh and

538:   the outer boundaries are positioned logarithmically.

539: These simulations do show nontrivial differences in the SASI and

540:   post-shock flow.

541: However, the conclusions of the previous section are insensitive to

542:   changes in resolution and the range of $\theta$ simulated.

543: 

544: For these three resolutions, Fig. \ref{morphres} shows $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$,

545: $a_1/a_0$, and $a_2/a_0$ vs. time

546: for a single luminosity, $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$, and the 15-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor

547: model.

548: Their general evolution is similar to what was discussed in \S

549: \ref{section:shock} and shown in Fig. \ref{sphharm}.

550: However, there are some nontrivial differences.

551: 

552: After the Si/O interface is accreted, $\langle R_{\rm

553:   shock} \rangle$ of the lowest resolution model (15.0-2D1) secularly

554: creeps out to $\sim$220 km over 100 ms.  Then, outward

555: progression stalls again, and the model doesn't explode until 581 ms

556: after bounce.  Both the 15.0-2D2 and 15.0-2D3 models momentarily stall at

557: $\sim$200 km, a smaller radius. 150 ms later, the average shock radius

558: of the 15.0-2D2 model reaches

559: $\sim$220 km on its way to explosion.  At an even later time, 550 ms,

560: the shock radius of the 15.0-2D3 model reaches $\sim$220 km.  By this

561: measure, the trend with resolution is monotonic.  However, this does

562: not translate to monotonicity in explosion time with resolution.

563: From the lowest resolution (15.0-2D1) to the highest resolution

564: (15.0-2D3), the explosion times are 581, 359, and 649 ms.

565: Yet, considering another luminosity, $L_{\nu_e} = 2.0$ (see Table \ref{table:explosions}) does present a monotonic trend toward later

566: explosion times with higher resolution: from the lowest to the

567: highest resolution, $t_{\rm exp} = 325$, 364, and

568: 395 ms.  From this, one might conclude that

569: higher-resolution grids forestall explosion, yet only the

570: highest resolution shows an explosion for $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$.

571: 

572: The $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = 2$ (the middle and bottom panels of Fig. \ref{morphres}) spherical

573: harmonic coefficients, like the monopole term, show some differences

574: with resolution, but present very few clear trends.  Any trends that do

575: appear are subtle.  

576: In the earliest phase, before accretion of the

577: Si/O interface, the highest resolution

578: simulations exhibit the greatest amplitude, though

579: all three resolutions have amplitudes in the $\ell =

580: 1$ coefficient that are less than 5\%.  

581: At the same time, the $\ell = 2$ component is comparable

582: for all three resolutions.  After accretion of the Si/O interface,

583: the nonradial components begin to rise for all three resolutions.

584: From $\sim$200 to $\sim$325 ms, the 15.0-2D1 model shows the

585: greatest increase in both nonradial components, while for 15.0-2D2 and

586: 15.0-2D3 they are comparable in growth.  At $\sim$325 ms, the 15.0-2D2

587: model shows a significant increase in the nonradial components that

588: coincides with explosion.  The nonradial components for the other two

589: simulations continue a secular increase in amplitude until their

590: explosions at later times.  All the while, the lowest resolution run

591: consistently maintains a slightly larger amplitude in the $\ell = 1$

592: component, but the $\ell = 2$ components are quite similar.

593: Generally, before accretion of the Si/O interface, oscillation

594: amplitudes for $a_1$ are mildly correlated with resolution, and

595: afterward it is mildly anti-correlated with resolution. 

596: 

597: Figure \ref{fullvs90} compares 180$^{\circ}$ (15.0-2D3, solid) and 90$^{\circ}$

598: (15.0-Q3, dashed) simulations.  $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$ and

599: $a_2/a_0$ vs. time are plotted for two electron-neutrino luminosities $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$ 

600: (purple curves) and $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ (green curves).  Once again dots

601: in the top panel mark $t_{\rm exp}$; interestingly, the 90$^{\circ}$

602: simulations consistently explode before the 180$^{\circ}$ simulations.

603: Other than for times near $\sim$300 to $\sim$400 ms, all models show similar evolution in the

604: amplitude of $a_2/a_0$.  The one exception appears around $\sim$300

605: to $\sim$400 ms, when the 90$^{\circ}$, $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ model starts

606: exploding and shows the largest amplitude.  Even though the 90$^{\circ}$

607: simulations explode earlier than the 180$^{\circ}$ simulations, the

608: critical luminosities for the 180$^{\circ}$ and 90$^{\circ}$ simulations

609: are very similar (see Table \ref{table:explosions} and \S \ref{section:critical}).

610: 

611: Using a ``ray-by-ray'' neutrino transport

612:     algorithm, \citet{buras06b} performed simulations of the 11.2-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor

613:     that teetered on the verge of explosion for a 90$^{\circ}$

614:     calculation, but exploded using 180$^{\circ}$.

615: They reported no

616: explosion with a 90$^{\circ}$ simulation but, with all else being equal,

617: obtained an explosion with a 180$^{\circ}$ simulation.  Differences between our simulations and theirs

618: include neutrino transport, EOS, and hydrodynamic solver.  While any

619: of these could account for the apparent discrepancy, we emphasize the

620: difference in the 90$^{\circ}$ grids.  The 90$^{\circ}$ simulations of

621: \citet{buras06b} included a wedge that extends plus and minus 45$^{\circ}$ of

622: the equator and suppressed $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = 2$ modes, the two

623: prominent modes of the SASI.  Our 90$^{\circ}$ simulations range from the pole to the equator

624: and inhibit only the $\ell = 1$ mode.  Regardless, \citet{buras06b} noted that

625: their 90$^{\circ}$ simulation was close to explosion and that extending

626: the grid to 180$^{\circ}$ simply tipped the scales toward explosion.

627: Using the same

628: hydrodynamics and neutrino transport as \citet{buras06b}, but a

629: 90$^{\circ}$ grid that goes from the pole to the equator,

630: \citet{marek07b} found that 90$^{\circ}$ simulations explode

631: insignificantly earlier than 180$^{\circ}$ simulations.

632: In either case, these results are consistent with our finding that the

633: critical luminosity for simulations using 90$^{\circ}$ and

634: 180$^{\circ}$ are very similar.

635: 

636: Resolution and the angular size of the grid non-trivially affect the shock

637: position and morphology in 2D simulations.

638: For one, the lowest resolution simulations

639: consistently maintain a slightly larger amplitude in the $\ell = 1$

640: component.  At early times, the lowest resolution simulations reach

641: $\sim$220 km before higher resolution simulations.  This does not lead to a

642: monotonic correlation in explosion times, though.

643: In changing the angular size of the grid, the 90$^{\circ}$ simulations

644: consistently explode at earlier times compared to the 180$^{\circ}$

645: simulations.

646: Despite differences that result from grid changes, the

647: conclusions of the previous section do not change.  Specifically, the

648: critical luminosity for the 90$^{\circ}$ and 180$^{\circ}$ simulations are

649: very similar.

650: 

651: \section{Heating and Advection Timescales}

652: \label{section:timescales}

653: 

654: Measures that are related to the critical $L_{\nu_e}$ and $\dot{M}$

655: condition \citep{burrows93} are the

656:   timescale for matter to traverse the gain region, the advection

657:   timescale, $\tau_{\rm adv}$, and the heating timescale of the matter

658:   in the gain region, $\tau_q$.

659: \citet{thompson00} argued that 1D core-collapse simulations do not

660: explode because $\tau_q$ is longer than $\tau_{\rm adv}$.  In other

661: words, core-collapse simulations fail because $\tau_{\rm adv} / \tau_{q}

662: < 1$.  He defined, $\tau_q \sim aT^4/\dot{Q}$, and

663:     the advection time as the flow time across a scale height.

664: \citet{janka01} explored similar integral concepts, and proposed

665: conditions for explosion that are akin to

666: \begin{equation}

667: \label{eq:taucondition}

668: \tau_{\rm adv} / \tau_q > 1 \, ,

669: \end{equation}

670: the opposite of the \citet{thompson00} failure condition.

671: \citet{thompson05} applied this

672:     condition to 1D core-collapse

673:     simulations and demonstrated that this ratio does indeed help to

674:     distinguish non-exploding models from exploding models.  They

675:     defined the advection timescale as $H/v_r$, where H is the

676:     pressure scale height, and the heating timescale as

677:     $(P/\rho)/\dot{q}$, where $\dot{q}$ is the local net

678:     heating rate.

679: Since, others have explored $\tau_{\rm adv}$ and $\tau_q$ as a condition

680: for explosion in 2D simulations \citep{buras06a,scheck08}.

681: While $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{q} >

682: 1$ is to some extent useful in identifying explosions, our results suggest

683: that it is only useful as a rough diagnostic.

684: 

685: We define the heating time as a characteristic time for

686:   neutrinos to change the thermal energy of the matter in the gain

687:   region, where heating dominates cooling,

688:   \begin{equation}

689:     \label{eq:tauq}

690:     \tau_q = \frac{\int_{\rm gain} (\varepsilon - \varepsilon_0) dm }

691:     {\dot{Q}} \, ,

692:   \end{equation}

693:   where $\varepsilon_0$ is the zero point energy for

694:   the EOS and 

695:   \begin{equation}

696:     \label{eq:qdot}

697:     \dot{Q} = \int_{\rm gain} (\mathcal{H} - \mathcal{C}) dm \,

698:   \end{equation}

699:   is the net heating rate and is integrated over the gain region.

700: While \citet{scheck08} and \citet{buras06b} include $1/2v^2 + \Phi$ in the

701:     integrand of eq. (\ref{eq:tauq}), we suggest,

702:     like \citet{thompson00} and \citet{thompson05}, that comparing the

703:     heating rate to the thermal energy eq. (\ref{eq:tauq}) is a more natural definition of a heating

704:     timescale. To be clear though, these differences in definition

705:     alter the absolute scale, but not the general trends.

706: 

707: For spherically symmetric flow, the advection timescale is 

708:   \begin{equation}

709:     \label{eq:tauadv}

710:     \tau_{\rm adv} = \int_{\rm gain} \frac{dr}{v_r} \,

711:   \end{equation}

712:   where the the integral is integrated from the shock position to the

713: gain radius.

714: For 2D simulations, many incarnations of eq. (\ref{eq:tauadv}) have

715: appeared in the literature.  \citet{scheck08} use a solid-angle

716: averaged version of eq. (\ref{eq:tauadv}) for $\tau_{\rm adv}$.

717: \citet{buras06b} use eq. (\ref{eq:tauadv}) for the advection

718:     timescale in 1D, but for 2D simulations they redefine this

719:     timescale as the time for a mass shell to traverse the gain region.

720: We've explored three measures of the advection timescale.

721: The first replaces the denominator in eq. (\ref{eq:tauadv})

722:     with the solid-angle averaged velocity, $\langle v_r \rangle =

723:     (\int{v_r d \Omega})/4 \pi$.

724: For the second, if one assumes steady-state flow, then

725:     $\tau_m = M_{\rm gain}/\dot{M}$ is a useful measure of the

726:     accretion timescale, where $M_{\rm gain}$ is the mass in the gain

727:     region and $\dot{M}$ is the mass flux in or out of the gain

728:     region.  For simplicity, we use $\dot{M}$ just exterior to the

729:     shock.  The advantage of this definition is that it is relatively

730:     straightforward to measure $M_{\rm gain}$ and $\dot{M}$ for 2D simulations.

731: Prior to explosion, these two definitions give similar results, but

732: as the model explodes, the assumption of steady-state accretion is violated

733: and $\tau_m$ begins to underestimate $\tau_{\rm adv}$.

734: Neither of these definitions, however, fully capture the complex

735:     multi-dimensional nature of the post-shock flow.

736: 

737: We define a new timescale that better captures the multi-dimensional

738:     nature of the post-shock flow.

739: Post-processing the simulation data, we integrate the paths of tracer

740: particles for 150 ms, record their

741:     trajectories, and define a residence time, $\tau_r$, which is the

742:     duration of each particle's time spent in the gain region.

743: 50,000 particles are initiated at either 400 km, a

744:     radius well outside the shock, or 150 km, the middle of the gain

745:     region.

746: At either radius, the particles are randomly distributed in $\mu = \cos \theta$.

747: For most situations,

748: the particles traverse the gain region within the integration time,

749: 150 ms, and have

750:     accreted onto the PNS.

751: Every 10 ms, a new generation of 50,000 particles is generated,

752: providing a time-dependent distribution of $\tau_r$.

753: 

754: The ratio $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q$ vs. time is shown in Fig. \ref{tscalesvst_1d} for the 15.0-1D sequence.  The top

755: panel shows the models that do not explode by 1.3 s after bounce, and

756: the bottom panel shows those that do explode.  Despite dramatic

757: oscillations, $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{\rm q}$ rarely reaches a value of

758: one for the non-exploding models (top panel).  In all non-exploding

759: cases, except $L_{\nu_e} = 2.5$, the

760: oscillations in this ratio decay with a timescale commensurate with the decay times

761: of the shock radius oscillations (Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}).  For exploding

762: models (bottom panel), $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{q}$ executes large

763: excursions from $\sim$0.1 to $\sim$100.  Note that $\tau_{\rm

764:   adv}/\tau_{\rm q}$ makes several excursions to values above order

765: unity and back again.  Smaller luminosities produce more excursions,

766: with one at $L_{\nu_e} = 2.9$ and four for

767: $L_{\nu_e} = 2.6$.

768: 

769: The ratio of these timescales for 2D simulations (15.0-2D3 sequence) are shown

770: in Fig. \ref{tscalesvst_2d}.  The models that don't explode, $L_{\nu_e} =

771: 1.5$, 1.6, and 1.7, show relatively constant

772: ratios for all time.  On the other hand, the exploding models,

773: $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0, start at a low ratio ($\sim$0.1)

774: and secularly increase to ratios of order $\sim$10.  Unlike the 1D

775: models, once this ratio reaches large values (in an average sense), it

776: remains there for the rest of the simulation.

777: 

778: Generally, the condition $\tau_{\rm

779:   adv}/\tau_{q} > 1$ is a useful diagnostic of explosion, but

780: given the ambiguities in defining

781:     $\tau_{\rm adv}$ and $\tau_q$, its accuracy is limited. 

782: For example, 1D simulations that explode make dramatic excursions above and

783:     below this line before explosion.

784: It

785: might be more sensible to state that this condition should be

786: satisfied for a finite time before explosion occurs.  

787: However, one shouldn't expect rigor when defining a heating timescale.

788: Note that this condition assumes a quasi-steady state, and the

789: large amplitude oscillations in 1D complicate this assumption.

790: Finally, $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q$, in 2D exploding simulations, increases

791: monotonically for $\sim$100 ms, while this ratio remains low for 2D

792: non-exploding simulations.  This distinction implies that

793: 2D exploding models are well on their way to explosion before

794: $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q > 1$ is satisfied.  Hence, $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q$

795: is a useful diagnostic for explosion, but may not be a rigorous

796: condition for explosion.

797: 

798: In Fig. \ref{taures_mean_frac}, we plot for all generations of tracer

799: particles the mean residence times, $\langle

800: \tau_r \rangle$ (top panel), and the fraction ($f_r$) of particles with

801: $\tau_r > 40$ ms (bottom panel) as a function of

802: time for the $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ model of the 15.0-2D3 sequence.  The

803: particles with $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km (150 km) are shown with solid

804: (dashed) lines.  Both $\langle \tau_r \rangle$ and $f_r$ show that the particles with

805: $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km and 150 km track two fundamentally

806: different flows.  Generally, the particles with

807: $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km have longer average residence times and more

808: particles with $\tau_r > 40$ ms than the generation of particles with

809: $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km, which suggests that most of the mass

810: that accretes through the shock quickly finds its way to the PNS through narrow, low entropy plumes.  Despite the quick

811: accretion of new matter, the long $\tau_r$ of particles with $R_{\rm

812:   start} = 150$ km indicate that a significant amount of mass in the

813: gain region does linger, resulting in more heating and higher

814: entropies.

815: 

816: To verify this, we compute the total

817: amount of mass with high entropies and compare

818: this to the total mass in the gain region.  To define high entropies,

819: we choose a minimum entropy of 14 k$_{\rm B}$/baryon, which corresponds

820: to the maximum entropy for the 1D simulation of the same neutrino

821: luminosity (see Fig. \ref{entropy}) and gives a rough boundary between

822: the regions with short (low entropy) and long (high entropy) residence

823: times.  The ratio of mass with high entropy to the total mass in the gain region

824: grows from 0\% to 70\% between 0.2 s and 0.5 s after bounce.  For the

825: rest of the simulation the ratio remains at this level.  Therefore, even though

826: most of the accreted mass advects quickly through the gain region via the

827: down-flowing plumes, a significant fraction of the mass in the gain

828: region is better characterized with long residence times and high entropies.

829: 

830: In addition, $\langle \tau_r \rangle$ and

831: $f_r$ show four distinct phases, with each successive phase

832: having longer $\langle \tau_r \rangle$ and higher $f_r$.

833: Distributions of $\tau_r$ that represent these four phases are shown in

834: Fig. \ref{taures}, and spatial colormaps of entropy are shown in

835: Figs. \ref{stills1}, \ref{stills2}, and \ref{stills3} that

836: correspond to the beginning (Fig. \ref{stills1}), middle

837: (Fig. \ref{stills2}), and end (Fig. \ref{stills3}) of each generation's

838: integration time of 150 ms.    The top panel of

839: Fig. \ref{taures} shows the

840: distribution for four generations with $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km and at $t = 0.130$, 0.370, 0.530, and 0.6 s after

841: bounce.  The bottom panel shows similar residence-time distributions

842: for generations with $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km.

843: 

844: The entropy maps in the top-left panels of Figs. \ref{stills1}, \ref{stills2}, and \ref{stills3} show that there

845: is very little convection or SASI for the first phase ($t = 0.130$ s),

846: and the distributions of $\tau_r$ (Fig. \ref{taures}) show that all particles traverse

847: the gain region quickly, within $\sim$9 ms.  At $\sim$150 ms, when the Si/O interface

848: is accreted, both $\langle \tau_r \rangle$

849: and $f_r$ show a dramatic

850: increase.  The mean residence time increases from $\sim$10 ms to

851: $\sim$40 ms for $R_{\rm start}=400$ and 150 km, and $f_r$ increases

852: from 0\% to 35\% for $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km and $\sim$50\% for $R_{\rm

853:   start} = 150$ km.  The second phase, from

854: $\sim$200 ms to $\sim$450 ms, corresponds

855: to the growth and nonlinear saturation of the SASI (top-right panels of Fig. \ref{stills1}-\ref{stills3}).  During this phase ($t = 0.370$ s in Fig. \ref{taures}), $\langle \tau_r

856: \rangle$ for $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km (150 km) is $\sim$22 ($\sim$32), and $f_r$ is $\sim$10\% ($\sim$30\%).  The third phase, from $\sim$0.45 to $\sim$0.6 s,

857: shows a rise in both $\langle \tau_r \rangle$ and

858: $f_r$.  The distributions in Fig. \ref{taures} that represent this phase, $t= 0.530$ s, have mean residence times of $\sim$50 ms ($\sim$30 ms) for $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km (400 km) and $f_r$ of 50\% (20\%).  The fourth and final phase is marked by a significant increase of

859: $\langle \tau_{\rm res} \rangle$ and $f_{\rm res}$ for $R_{\rm start}=

860: 150$ km particles and continued rise for $R_{\rm start}= 400$ km.  In

861: Fig. \ref{taures}, the example distribution is shown at $t =

862: 0.6$ s.  For $R_{\rm start}= 400$ km, $\langle \tau_{\rm res} \rangle \sim 40$ ms

863: and $f_{\rm res} \sim 25$\%, while $\langle \tau_{\rm res} \rangle \sim 90$ ms

864: and $f_{\rm res} \sim 70$\%.  This phase is also characterized by a

865: large bump of particles with very long residence times in

866: Fig. \ref{taures}, which is much larger for $R_{\rm start}=150$ km than

867: for $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km.  The appearance of the bump at large $\tau_r$ is one of the most pronounced indicators that the star has reached an explosive situation.

868: 

869: In Fig. \ref{entropy}, we compare 1D entropy profiles of the 15.0-1D,

870: $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ simulation (solid red lines) with the entropy

871: distributions shown in Fig. \ref{stills1}.  For each zone of the 2D

872: simulation, points mark the entropy and radius from the center.

873: Generally, both 1D and 2D profiles show the shock as an abrupt jump in

874: entropy of the accreting matter, the gain region as

875: indicated by the highest entropies, and the

876: cooling region where entropy is significantly reduced as matter continues to accrete onto the PNS.  Where 1D

877: profiles show a negative entropy

878: gradient, 2D simulations are convective.  The most striking

879: differences, though, are that when the SASI dominates the post-shock flow, $t=

880: 0.370$, 0.530, and 0.600 s, the shock is asymmetric, and the gain region has a large range of

881: entropies, in which high entropies correspond

882: to regions of long residence times, and low entropies

883: correspond to plumes that funnel matter toward the PNS.

884: 

885: Other than passage through shocks, the entropy is determined by

886: neutrino heating and cooling.  Therefore, entropy is a good

887: measure of the integrated history of net heating.  Considering mass- and volume-weighted averages, the entropy

888: for 2D simulations is a couple $k_B$/baryon (less than 10\%) higher than 1D

889: simulations.  However, Fig. \ref{entropy} shows that 2D simulations have

890: regions with $\sim$30\% higher entropies than 1D simulations for the

891: same $L_{\nu_e}$ and $\dot{M}$.  In other words, the long residence

892: times that accompany the SASI in 2D simulations result in regions

893: with higher integrated net heating and offer an explanation for the

894: lower critical luminosity of 2D simulations.

895: 

896: \section{Conditions at Explosion}

897: \label{section:conditions}

898: 

899: As relevant indicators of the core-collapse mechanism, we

900: investigate the net heating rate ($\dot{Q}$), heating efficiency

901: ($\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$), and the mass in the gain region ($M_{\rm gain}$).  In general, these quantities show distinctly

902: different evolutions for 1D and 2D simulations near their respective

903: critical luminosities.  Plots of the 1D simulations reflect the very

904:   large radial shock oscillations, while plots of the 2D simulations

905:   show relatively smooth evolution and bifurcations distinguishing

906:   explosive models from non-explosive models.  

907: \citet{scheck08} compared these quantities for 1D and 2D simulations

908:   with the same neutrino luminosity and found similar bifurcations in

909:   these integral measures.  We show that this bifurcation is generic

910:   when we include 1D and 2D non-exploding and 2D exploding models. 

911: In Table \ref{table:explosions}, we summarize the conditions at

912: explosion, but first we take care to define $t_{\rm exp}$, the time of

913: explosion.

914: 

915: The time of explosion for 1D

916: simulations is quite pronounced and occurs near the time when

917: the ratio $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q$ becomes of order unity

918: or larger for the last time.  However, for 2D

919: simulations, all measures show a gradual trend toward explosion

920: over 50 to 100 ms timescales.  Therefore, to define $t_{\rm exp}$

921: we identify the last time that $\tau_{\rm adv}$ is less than 50 ms (65

922: ms) for 15-M$_{\sun}$ (11.2-M$_{\sun}$) models.

923: This definition establishes the time of explosion after there is a

924: clear trend toward explosion, but before post-shock material is

925: launched outward.  Acknowledging the ambiguity of such a definition, we assign an uncertainty to $t_{\rm exp}$ of $\pm 50$

926: ms.

927: 

928: Having defined $t_{\rm exp}$, we now define the conditions at explosion.

929: For 1D simulations, $\dot{M}_{\rm exp}$ is defined at 250 km

930: and at $t_{\rm exp}$.  For 2D simulations, $\dot{M}_{\rm exp}$ is

931: defined just exterior to the shock (at roughly 300 to 250 km) at the

932: time of explosion.  Corresponding to the uncertainty in $t_{\rm

933:   exp}$, we determine the uncertainty in $\dot{M}_{\rm exp}$.

934: Figs. \ref{qdotvstime}, \ref{effvstime}, and \ref{mass_gain}, show a

935: general upward trend of $\dot{Q}$, $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu \bar{\nu}_e}$, and

936: $M_{\rm gain}$ around

937: the time of explosion.  The values in Table \ref{table:explosions}

938: are obtained by averaging $\dot{Q}$, $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu \bar{\nu}_e}$, and

939: $M_{\rm gain}$ for a 50 ms range centered on $t_{\rm exp}$.  We

940: also experimented with a range of 10 and 100 ms and obtained similar

941: results.  For 1D simulations, we note the conditions at the time of

942: explosion, but due to large nonlinear oscillations the specific values

943: are sensitive to the definition of $t_{\rm exp}$.

944: 

945: Figure \ref{qdotvstime}

946: compares the time evolutions of the net heating rates, $\dot{Q}$, for

947: the 15.0-1D and 15.0-2D3 sequences.  

948: While the top panel shows $\dot{Q}$ for the

949: sequence of 1D simulations near explosion, the bottom panel shows $\dot{Q}$ for the sequence of 2D simulations (solid) near

950: explosion.  For comparison, 1D models (dotted) for the

951: same range of $L_{\nu_e}$ as the 2D sequence are included.  The dots show $\dot{Q}$ at the time of

952: explosion for the 2D simulations.

953: As expected, $\dot{Q}$ correlates with $L_{\nu_e}$

954: (Fig. \ref{qdotvstime}).  Consequently, the range of $\dot{Q}$ for the

955: 1D exploding models ($\sim$1 to $\sim$11 B/s, where 1 Bethe (B) $=

956: 10^{51}$ erg) is higher than the

957: range of $\dot{Q}$ for the 2D exploding models ($\sim$0.5 to $\sim$6

958: B/s).  The 1D sequence in the top panel shows pronounced oscillations

959: in $\dot{Q}$ that correspond to the oscillations in shock radius in

960: Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}.  The maxima in $\dot{Q}$ coincide with the minima

961: in the shock radius, which has been observed before for 1D simulations

962: \citep{buras06a}.

963: 

964: The 2D sequence, on the other hand, shows no

965: such oscillations in $\dot{Q}$.  Rather, the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{qdotvstime}

966: shows a relatively smooth evolution with time.  After bounce,

967: $\dot{Q}$ evolves secularly downward for non-exploding 1D and

968: 2D simulations.  In contrast, 50 ms to 100 ms before $t_{\rm exp}$,

969: $\dot{Q}$ for exploding 2D simulations remains flat with time or even

970: begins to rise slightly.  In either case, there is a clear bifurcation

971: in the evolution for exploding 2D simulations and non-exploding 1D and

972: 2D simulations.

973: 

974: Similar to Fig. \ref{qdotvstime}, in Fig. \ref{effvstime} we plot the heating efficiency,

975: $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$.  Even after dividing by $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$

976: the efficiency has a positive correlation with $L_{\nu_e}$.  This

977: suggests that the correlation between $\dot{Q}$ and $L_{\nu_e}$ is

978: steeper than linear.  The

979: efficiencies at $t_{\rm exp}$ for the 1D sequence range from 3\% to

980: 10\%, while the efficiencies of the 2D simulations at $t_{\rm exp}$ are

981: 3.4\%, 3.5\%, and 4.4\% for $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0, respectively. 

982: Naturally, the trends in $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e

983:   \bar{\nu}_e}$ are similar to the those of $\dot{Q}$, including the

984: bifurcation of $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ for exploding and

985: non-exploding models.

986: 

987: Fig. \ref{mass_gain} shows the time evolution of $M_{\rm gain}$ for

988: the 15.0-1D and 15.0-2D3 sequences.  Once again, the oscillations in

989: $M_{\rm gain}$ correspond to the oscillations in shock radius, but

990: this time the minima in $M_{\rm gain }$ correspond to the minima

991: in shock radius.  In the exploding models of 15.0-2D3, there is a clear

992: secular increase in the amount of mass in the gain region leading up

993: to and past explosion.  This is consistent with the idea that the SASI

994: helps to increase the amount of mass in the gain region, tipping the

995: scales toward explosive solutions.  However, we note in

996: Fig. \ref{sphharm} that even the non-exploding models show some $\ell =

997: 1$ oscillations, and hence, the SASI is necessary but not

998: sufficient in increasing the mass in the gain region.  At

999: $t_{\rm exp}$, $M_{\rm gain} =$ 0.099, 0.0113, and 0.0152 M$_{\sun}$ for

1000: $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0, respectively.

1001: 

1002: We summarize the conditions at explosion in Table

1003: \ref{table:explosions}.  We list for each sequence in Table

1004: \ref{table:sequences}, the electron-neutrino

1005: luminosity, $L_{\nu_e}$ (column 1), time of explosion, $t_{\rm exp}$

1006: (column 2), accretion rate at the time of explosion near the

1007: shock, $\dot{M}_{\rm exp}$ (column 3), the net heating rate, $\dot{Q}$

1008: (column 4), the heating efficiency, $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e

1009:   \bar{\nu}_e}$ (column 5), and the mass in the gain region at the

1010: time of explosion, $M_{\rm gain}$ (column 6).  The mass accretion rate

1011: at $t_{\rm exp}$ is addressed in the next section.  The 11.2-1D sequence

1012: manifests a wide range of $\dot{Q}$, from 0.63 to 4.46 B/s, and the range

1013: of the corresponding heating efficiencies is similarly wide, from 2.4\% to 14\%.  In contrast,

1014: the 15.0-1D models have much larger $\dot{Q}$ at $t_{\rm exp}$, but

1015: with a smaller range.  Typically they are $\sim$3.5 B/s with one at

1016: 5.57 B/s.  The heating efficiencies are similarly high, $\sim$5.9 to

1017: $\sim$10\%.  On the other hand, 2D simulations have lower efficiencies

1018: at explosion.  All 2D

1019: models that use the 15-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor have $\dot{Q}$ that lies

1020: in the range $\sim$1 to $\sim$2 B/s, and have efficiencies that

1021: range from $\sim$3 to $\sim$4\%.  For most models, $M_{\rm gain}$ at $t_{\rm

1022:   exp}$ is $\sim$0.01 M$_{\sun}$, but can be as low as 0.0073 M$_{\sun}$ and

1023: as high as 0.0319 M$_{\sun}$. 

1024: 

1025: In Figs. \ref{qdotvstime}, \ref{effvstime}, and

1026: \ref{mass_gain}, the exploding 2D models show distinctly different

1027: values of these indicators

1028: compared to those of the non-exploding 1D and 2D simulations.  $\dot{Q}$,

1029: $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$, and $M_{\rm gain}$ trend downward for

1030: the non-exploding models.  Just before, during, and after explosion,

1031: the heating rate, heating efficiency, and gain mass increase with time

1032: for the 2D exploding models.

1033: \citet{scheck08} have shown a similar trend in comparing 1D and 2D

1034: models at the same neutrino luminosity, and we show that this

1035: bifurcation exists among the 2D exploding and non-exploding models as well.

1036: 

1037: \section{Critical Luminosity and Mass Accretion Rate}

1038: \label{section:critical}

1039: 

1040: Figure \ref{lumvsmdot} indicates that the concept of a

1041: critical luminosity versus accretion rate condition is relevant for time-dependent

1042: 1D and 2D simulations and quantifies the difference in critical

1043: luminosity between 1D and 2D simulations.

1044: It plots electron- plus anti-electron-neutrino luminosity, $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ ,

1045:   vs. accretion rate, $\dot{M}$.

1046: The trajectory of each model evolves from right to left

1047: as the accretion rate decreases with time and the luminosity is held

1048: constant.  For models that explode, we plot the luminosities and accretion rates

1049: at explosion. These points strongly suggest $L_{\nu_e

1050:   \bar{\nu}_e}$-$\dot{M}$ curves that separate exploding from

1051: non-exploding models.  Indeed, models that do not explode remain in

1052: the low luminosity and high-accretion-rate realm that is delineated by the

1053: critical curves.

1054: With error bars, we show the range of

1055:   accretion rates encompassed by $t_{\rm exp} \pm 50$ ms.  In general, 1D simulations are represented by

1056:   orange, 2D simulations by green hues, and 2D-90$^{\circ}$ runs by blue

1057:   hues.  The three resolutions are represented by stars (1),

1058:   upside-down triangles (2), and squares (3).  The fit for $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ as

1059:   a function of $\dot{M}$ from \citet{burrows93} is plotted (solid

1060:   line).  While their fit passes through the 15.0-1D

1061:   points, it overpredicts the critical luminosities for the

1062:   11.2-1D runs by $\sim$15\%.  The critical luminosity for all 2D

1063:   simulations is $\sim$70\% of the critical luminosity for 1D

1064:   calculations.

1065: 

1066: It is interesting that the points for the 15.0-1D sequence are

1067: consistent with the results of \citet{burrows93}.  However, we caution

1068: against interpreting this coincidence too literally.  While we do

1069: employ very similar heating and cooling terms, it is not a priori clear how

1070: the many differences between our more realistic time-dependent models

1071: should compare to the assumptions made in \citet{burrows93} to obtain

1072: steady-state solutions.

1073: 

1074: Furthermore, we note that the slope of our results differ

1075: from the slope of the \citet{burrows93} fit and the trend

1076: is discontinuous between the 11.2 and 15 M$_{\sun}$ results.

1077: The fit from \citet{burrows93} assumed a specific mass for the

1078: PNS, while our simulations have masses that naturally

1079: arise from the initial Fe-core mass and the subsequent accretion

1080: rates.  Just after the Si/O interface accretes onto the

1081: PNS, the mass of the PNS, $M_{\rm PNS}$, is $\sim$1.3 M$_{\sun}$ baryonic for

1082: the 11.2-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor and $\sim$1.45 M$_{\sun}$ baryonic for the

1083: 15-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor.  Afterwards, the progenitor-dependent

1084: accretion rates continue to increase the mass until

1085: explosion.  Of the models from the 15.0-2D3 suite that exploded, the PNS

1086: masses at $t_{\rm exp}$ are 1.63, 1.59, and 1.52 M$_{\sun}$ for

1087: $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0.  In contrast, the masses from the

1088: 11.2-2D3 suite are 1.4, 1.38, 1.35, 1.33, and 1.32 M$_{\sun}$ for

1089: $L_{\nu_e} = 0.8$, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, respectively.  Assuming

1090: that the explosion mechanism can be described by the transition from

1091: steady-state accretion to a neutrino-driven wind (see

1092: \citet{burrows87} and \citet{burrows93}, and work in 

1093: preparation), we expect the critical luminosity to have

1094: a mass dependence of $L_{\nu_e} \propto M_{\rm PNS}^{4/5}$.

1095: Interestingly, this scaling with PNS mass resolves the

1096: slope discrepancy and the discontinuity between the 15 and

1097: 11.2-M$_{\sun}$ models in Fig. \ref{lumvsmdot}.

1098: 

1099: Although the concept of a critical $L_{\nu_e}$ and $\dot{M}$ condition was derived

1100: using steady-state accretion models \citep{burrows93},

1101: Fig. \ref{lumvsmdot} shows that the condition is appropriate for

1102: time-dependent 1D and 2D models.

1103: We find that the critical luminosity for explosion is a

1104: function of $\dot{M}$, and that it roughly follows the

1105: trend suggested by \citet{burrows93}.

1106: The critical luminosity for explosions in 2D is $\sim$70\% of

1107: the luminosity required for explosions in 1D simulations.

1108: While there are differences

1109: between the 90$^{\circ}$ and 180$^{\circ}$ simulations and between simulations

1110: with different resolutions, they roughly show

1111: the same reduction in critical luminosity when we go to 2D.

1112: 

1113: 

1114: \section{Conclusions}

1115: \label{section:conclusions}

1116: Since \citet{burrows93} published the critical luminosity condition for explosions by the neutrino mechanism, the

1117: relevance of this condition for 1D and 2D time-dependent

1118: simulations has remained unresolved.  Furthermore, recent simulations

1119: have hinted that 2D simulations teeter on the verge of explosion, when

1120: 1D simulations completely fail.  One wonders if the concept of a

1121: critical condition in 2D simulations can quantitatively explain the

1122: trend toward successful explosions by the neutrino mechanism.

1123: 

1124: With 95 simulations that parameterize $L_{\nu_e}$, $\dot{M}$, resolution,

1125: and dimensionality, we investigate the criteria for neutrino-driven

1126: explosions. The results of which indicate that:

1127: \begin{itemize}

1128: \item {\bf A critical luminosity and accretion rate condition is observed

1129:   in time-dependent 1D simulations.}  \citet{burrows93} used the success and failure of obtaining

1130:   steady-state accretion solutions to suggest a critical luminosity and

1131:   mass accretion rate condition for explosions.  Others have found a critical neutrino

1132:   luminosity condition for explosion in time-dependent 1D simulations

1133:   \citep{ohnishi06,buras06a}.  We note that a critical luminosity is applicable

1134:   for time-dependent 1D

1135:   simulations

1136:   and that it is dependent upon $\dot{M}$, as suggested by \citet{burrows93}.

1137: \item {\bf Radial oscillations are characteristic of the transition

1138:     between 1D accretion (non-exploding) and exploding simulations.}

1139:   Our results add to a growing body of literature that obtain radial

1140:   oscillations near the critical luminosity

1141:   \citep{mayle85,ohnishi06,buras06a}.

1142: \item {\bf A critical $L_{\nu_e}$  and $\dot{M}$ condition distinguishes

1143:     accretion and exploding models of time-dependent 2D simulations.}

1144: \item {\bf Unlike 1D simulations, radial oscillations are not prominent

1145:   near the critical luminosity of 2D simulations.  Rather non-radial

1146:   SASI oscillations characterize 2D simulations, even for

1147:   non-exploding models.}

1148: \item {\bf We suggest that $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q$

1149: is a useful diagnostic for explosion, but may not be a rigorous

1150: condition for explosion.}  Specifically, we found that some 1D models

1151: strongly satisfied this condition several times before explosion, and

1152: 2D models that exploded exhibited trends toward explosion well before

1153: this condition was met.

1154: \item {\bf Several integral quantities such as heating rate, heating

1155:     efficiency, and mass in the gain region grow with time in 1D and 2D

1156:     exploding models, while they decline in 1D and 2D non-exploding

1157:     models.}

1158:   \citet{scheck08} compared these quantities for 1D and 2D simulations

1159:   with the same neutrino luminosity and found declining evolutions in

1160:   the 1D non-exploding model and increasing trends in the 2D

1161:   exploding model.  We find similar trends.

1162:   From these results, one might suggest that the SASI leads to

1163:   increases in gain region mass and net heating rate, which in turn

1164:   leads to explosion.  However, 2D simulations that do not explode

1165:   despite having pronounced SASI oscillations show declining

1166:   curves. Furthermore, 1D exploding models also show increases in

1167:   heating rate and gain region mass at

1168:   explosion.  Therefore, we conclude that the rise in these quantities

1169:   near explosion are not a unique result of the SASI.  Instead, the upward evolution is correlated with

1170:   explosion, whether it be in 1D or 2D simulations.  This, combined

1171:   with the fact that the integral measures change from declining to

1172:   increasing evolution near explosion, suggests that the upward trends

1173:   are a consequence of explosion rather than a cause of explosion.

1174: \item {\bf We suggest an improved measure of the residence time of matter in the gain region,

1175:   $\tau_r$, that better elucidates the conditions leading to explosions.} While $\tau_{\rm adv}$ is a convenient measure of the timescale

1176:   that a parcel of mass is exposed to net heating,

1177:   we find $\tau_r$ a more informative measure for diagnosing

1178:   the conditions and criteria leading to and during explosion in 2D simulations.  For

1179:   example, by following the trajectories of particles that

1180:   start outside and within the gain region, we note that much of the

1181:   mass that accretes through the shock receives very little heating as

1182:   it quickly advects onto the inner core.  On the other hand, there is

1183:   a significant amount of mass within the gain region that has long

1184:   residence times and receives a great deal of neutrino heating.  It

1185:   is this latter material that experiences longer and longer

1186:   residence times and prolonged heating that likely reverses accretion

1187:   into explosion.

1188: \item {\bf Resolution does affect the SASI and the post-shock flow in

1189:     2D simulations, but hardly

1190:   alters the critical luminosity and accretion rate condition.}  It

1191:   noticeably alters the explosion time, but the correspondence between

1192:   $t_{\rm exp}$ and resolution is not monotonic, nor is it easy to

1193:   disentangle the trends.  However, the 2D critical luminosity

1194:   vs. $\dot{M}$ curve is little affected by resolution.

1195: \item {\bf The 90$^{\circ}$ simulations explode earlier than

1196:   the 180$^{\circ}$ counterpart, but again the critical luminosity

1197:   condition is hardly affected.}  We contrast this

1198: with the results of \citet{buras06b} who found an explosion for

1199: a 180$^{\circ}$ simulation, while a 90$^{\circ}$ simulation did not explode.

1200: However, their 90$^{\circ}$ simulation is $\pm45^o$ of the

1201: equator and suppresses $\ell= 1$ and $\ell = 2$ nonradial flow, the

1202: dominant components of the SASI.  We simulated the region from the pole to the

1203: equator, which suppresses $\ell = 1$ but allows $\ell = 2$.

1204: In agreement with our results, \citet{marek07b} found earlier explosions for

1205: 90$^{\circ}$ compared to 180$^{\circ}$ simulations using the same

1206: hydrodynamics and neutrino transport as \citet{buras06b} but a

1207: 90$^{\circ}$ grid similar to ours.

1208: In any case, \citet{buras06b} speculated that

1209: their 90$^{\circ}$ simulation was close to explosion and not very

1210: different than the 180$^{\circ}$ simulation, and we show that the critical luminosity for

1211: simulations using 90$^{\circ}$ and 180$^{\circ}$ are very similar.

1212: \item {\bf The critical luminosity for explosions in 2D simulations is

1213:     $\sim$70\% of

1214:   the luminosity required for explosions in 1D simulations.}

1215:   Irrespective of resolution or the angular size of the simulation, this

1216:   conclusion holds.

1217: \end{itemize}

1218: 

1219: By employing local heating and cooling algorithms, we avoid expensive

1220: neutrino transport, but we also sacrifice accuracy.

1221: In our simulations, heating and cooling by neutrinos are

1222: decoupled from one another, which is not consistent with neutrino transport

1223: calculations.

1224: In addition, simulations using MGFLD \citep{dessart06} and

1225: ``ray-by-ray'' Boltzmann transport \citep{marek07} have neutrino

1226: luminosities that decrease by $\sim$50\% from 100 ms to 300 ms

1227: past bounce.

1228: Our constant $L_{\nu_e}$ certainly does not reflect

1229: this evolution in neutrino luminosities.

1230: Furthermore, a large fraction of $L_{\nu_e}$ is derived from accretion at

1231:   early times \citep{scheck06}.  In our simulations, $L_{\nu_e}$ is completely

1232:   decoupled from such effects, and, hence, we ignore any feedback

1233:   due to this coupling.  While our assumptions compromise the

1234:   accuracy of the results, they enable the parameter study that we

1235:   present, and we suspect that the general conclusions and trends regarding

1236:   the critical luminosity condition are still

1237:   relevant for simulations including detailed transport.

1238: 

1239: \citet{marek07} suggest that using a softer EOS in conjunction

1240: with general relativistic gravity leads to more compact PNSs and more

1241: favorable conditions for explosion; we include neither effect.

1242: The soft EOS that accompanies explosion has an incompressibility of

1243: nuclear matter, $K$, of 180 MeV, while the stiffer EOS, which does not

1244: explode, has $K = 263$ MeV.  While this suggests an

1245: interesting dependence of explosion on the EOS, we note that

1246: laboratory experiments indicate that $K = 240 \pm 20$ MeV

1247: \citep{shlomo06,lattimer07}, a value that is more consistent with the

1248: non-explosive model.

1249: Regardless, with a compact PNS, the post-shock flow is positioned deeper in the

1250: potential, making it harder to explode.  All else being equal, this

1251: should increase the critical luminosity.  However, \citet{marek07}

1252: argue that the more compact PNS is hotter, emitting more energetic

1253: neutrinos (though they are gravitationally redshifted) and at a higher

1254: luminosity, which might compensate for the higher critical luminosity.  

1255: Because we parameterize the luminosity and temperature in this study,

1256: these effects are not addressed here and must await a more consistent

1257: treatment.

1258: 

1259: Of the conclusions listed above, the most striking is that

1260: time-dependent 1D and 2D simulations show a critical neutrino luminosity and

1261: accretion rate condition for successful explosions.

1262: Equally significant is

1263: that the critical luminosity for 2D simulations is $\sim$70\% of the

1264: critical luminosity for 1D

1265: simulations.  This quantitatively supports

1266: suspicions that multi-dimensional effects increase the likelihood of

1267: successful explosions by the neutrino mechanism.  While none have explicitly explored these results,

1268: the simulations of the past decade are consistent with this

1269: conclusion, while also being intuitive and concise.  In this

1270: sense, these results are expected and reassuring.  Remarkably, this

1271: global condition for successful explosions, which was

1272: informed by 1D steady-state solutions, survives despite the

1273: complexities of time-dependent multi-dimensional simulations.

1274: 

1275: For all permutations of the core-collapse mechanism considered in this paper,

1276: oscillations are ubiquitous

1277: during the transition from accretion to explosion.

1278: Interestingly, the character of these oscillations for 1D and 2D

1279: simulations is quite different, and leads to distinctly different critical

1280: luminosities.  Specifically, we suggest that the extra degree of freedom in 2D

1281: simulations offers an easier route to

1282: explosion via the SASI.  This suggests that for other than the

1283: lightest progenitors, the core-collapse mechanism is inherently

1284: multi-dimensional, and an accurate theory for the core-collapse

1285: mechanism must be developed in the context of the multi-dimensional Universe.

1286: 

1287: Our results show that the critical luminosity for 2D

1288: simulations is lower than the critical luminosity in 1D simulations,

1289: but why is this the case?  The most obvious cause is

1290: that the residence time of matter in the gain region is different for

1291: 1D and 2D simulations, and the longer residence times in 2D

1292: simulations reduce the neutrino luminosity required for explosion.

1293: So, what accounts for the different residence times when the accretion

1294: rate is the same?  After all, we have shown that during the steady-state

1295: accretion phase, the advection timescales determined by the flow

1296: across the gain region ($\tau_{\rm adv}$, as calculated

1297: by eq. (\ref{eq:tauadv})) and by $\tau_m = M_{\rm gain}/ \dot{M}$ are

1298: similar.  Put another way, the solid-angle, average, radial velocity at radius $r$ is

1299: \begin{equation}

1300: v_r(r) = \frac{\dot{M}(r)}{4 \pi r^2 \rho(r)} \, ,

1301: \end{equation}

1302: and if $\rho(r)$ and $\dot{M}(r)$ are the same for 1D and 2D simulations,

1303: the flow across the gain region should be similar.  Yet, 2D

1304: simulations explode when 1D simulations do not.  This discrepancy can

1305: be resolved by noting that the flow in the gain region is by no means

1306: spherically symmetric in 2D simulations.  The plots, histograms,

1307: and entropy maps of Figs. \ref{taures_mean_frac}-\ref{stills3} show

1308: that much of the material that accretes through the shock is channeled

1309: to plumes and quickly accrete onto the PNS.  At the same time, there

1310: are large regions of high entropy material that have long residence

1311: times in the gain region.  When the residence times within

1312: these high entropy regions reach some threshold, it seems as though sufficient heating

1313: has occurred to launch an explosion, and because relevant regions behind the

1314: shock are in sonic contact, the shock radius expands globally.  Hence, the

1315: critical luminosities for 2D simulations are lower because some matter

1316: resides for longer times in the gain region for the same $\dot{M}$.

1317: 

1318: Since the concept of a critical luminosity condition applies for 1D and 2D

1319: simulations, we assume that it should also apply for 3D

1320: simulations.

1321: Increasing the dimensionality from 1D to 2D, has proven favorable for successful explosions by the

1322: neutrino mechanism.  Specifically, the

1323: extra degree of freedom in 2D simulations increases the dwell time

1324: of matter in the gain region.  Similarly, we suspect that differences between 2D

1325: and 3D simulations will continue the trend toward lower critical

1326: luminosities for higher dimensions.

1327: For example, convection in 2D simulations experiences a turbulent energy cascade from

1328: smaller to larger scales.

1329: In Nature and in 3D simulations, however, the turbulent energy cascade is described

1330: well by Kolmogorov theory, in which energy cascades from larger to

1331: smaller scales.  If we analyze the transport of matter through the

1332: convective gain region as a diffusive problem, then

1333: the time to diffuse through the gain region would roughly scale as

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: \label{eq:tdiff}

1336: t_{\rm diff} \sim d \left ( \frac{l^2}{\overline{v^2} \tau_{\rm coll} } \right ) \, ,

1337: \end{equation}

1338: where $d$ is the number of degrees of freedom, $l$ is the characteristic size, $\overline{v^2}$ is the mean-squared

1339: speed of the diffusing particle, and $\tau_{\rm coll}$ is the average time

1340: between collisions.

1341: The extra degree of freedom in 3D simulations alone

1342: could increase the dwell time by $\sim$50\% compared to 2D

1343: simulations.  In addition, we suspect that the smaller scales of 3D

1344: simulations would produce shorter $\tau_{\rm coll}$ compared to 2D

1345: simulations and, consequently, further increase the dwell times.

1346: Whether these scaling arguments bear out in realistic 3D simulations, in which

1347: advection and the SASI are key in the flow, will be

1348: determined by future 3D simulations.  If they are relevant, then the

1349: increased dwell time might result in a critical luminosity in 3D

1350: simulations that is even lower than the critical luminosity in 2D

1351: simulations.  In turn, this might lead to successful explosions in 3D

1352: radiation-hydrodynamic simulations.

1353: 

1354: 

1355: \acknowledgments

1356: We would like to thank Luc Dessart and Christian Ott for fruitful

1357: comments.

1358:  We acknowledge support for this work                                           

1359: from the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing                        

1360: (SciDAC) program of the DOE, under grant numbers DE-FC02-01ER41184              

1361: and DE-FC02-06ER41452, and from the NSF under grant number AST-0504947.         

1362: J.W.M. thanks the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA) for           

1363: support under NSF grant PHY0216783.  In addition, J.W.M. is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST-0802315.

1364: We thank Jeff Fookson and Neal Lauver of the Steward Computer Support

1365: Group for their invaluable help with the local Beowulf cluster, Grendel.

1366: 

1367: \bibliographystyle{apj}

1368: %\bibliography{jeremiah}

1369: \begin{thebibliography}{54}

1370: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[{{Bethe} \& {Wilson}(1985)}]{bethe85}

1373: {Bethe}, H.~A., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1985, \apj, 295, 14

1374: 

1375: \bibitem[{{Bionta} {et~al.}(1987){Bionta}, {Blewitt}, {Bratton}, {Caspere}, \&

1376:   {Ciocio}}]{bionta87}

1377: {Bionta}, R.~M., {Blewitt}, G., {Bratton}, C.~B., {Caspere}, D., \& {Ciocio},

1378:   A. 1987, Physical Review Letters, 58, 1494

1379: 

1380: \bibitem[{{Blondin} \& {Mezzacappa}(2006)}]{blondin06}

1381: {Blondin}, J.~M., \& {Mezzacappa}, A. 2006, \apj, 642, 401

1382: 

1383: \bibitem[{{Blondin} {et~al.}(2003){Blondin}, {Mezzacappa}, \&

1384:   {DeMarino}}]{blondin03}

1385: {Blondin}, J.~M., {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {DeMarino}, C. 2003, \apj, 584, 971

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[{{Bruenn}(1985)}]{bruenn85}

1388: {Bruenn}, S.~W. 1985, \apjs, 58, 771

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[{{Bruenn}(1989)}]{bruenn89}

1391: ---. 1989, \apj, 340, 955

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Buras}, {Janka}, {Rampp}, \&

1394:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras06b}

1395: {Buras}, R., {Janka}, H.-T., {Rampp}, M., \& {Kifonidis}, K.

1396:   2006{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 457, 281

1397: 

1398: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2003){Buras}, {Rampp}, {Janka}, \&

1399:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras03}

1400: {Buras}, R., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Kifonidis}, K. 2003, Physical

1401:   Review Letters, 90, 241101

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Buras}, {Rampp}, {Janka}, \&

1404:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras06a}

1405: ---. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 447, 1049

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[{{Burrows} (1987)}]{burrows87}

1408: {Burrows}, A. 1987, \apjl, 318, L57-L61

1409: 

1410: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, \&

1411:   {Livne}}]{burrows07d}

1412: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., \& {Livne}, E. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, in American

1413:   Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years

1414:   After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. S.~{Immler} \& R.~{McCray},

1415:   370--380

1416: 

1417: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, {Livne},

1418:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows07c}

1419: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., {Livne}, E., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J.

1420:   2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 664, 416

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{c}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, {Ott}, \&

1423:   {Livne}}]{burrows07b}

1424: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Livne}, E. 2007{\natexlab{c}},

1425:   \physrep, 442, 23

1426: 

1427: \bibitem[{{Burrows} \& {Goshy}(1993)}]{burrows93}

1428: {Burrows}, A., \& {Goshy}, J. 1993, \apjl, 416, L75+

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(1995){Burrows}, {Hayes}, \& {Fryxell}}]{burrows95}

1431: {Burrows}, A., {Hayes}, J., \& {Fryxell}, B.~A. 1995, \apj, 450, 830

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2006){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart}, {Ott}, \&

1434:   {Murphy}}]{burrows06}

1435: {Burrows}, A., {Livne}, E., {Dessart}, L., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J. 2006,

1436:   \apj, 640, 878

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{d}}){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart},

1439:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows07a}

1440: ---. 2007{\natexlab{d}}, \apj, 655, 416

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2000){Burrows}, {Young}, {Pinto}, {Eastman}, \&

1443:   {Thompson}}]{burrows00}

1444: {Burrows}, A., {Young}, T., {Pinto}, P., {Eastman}, R., \& {Thompson}, T.~A.

1445:   2000, \apj, 539, 865

1446: 

1447: \bibitem[{{Dessart} {et~al.}(2006){Dessart}, {Burrows}, {Livne}, \&

1448:   {Ott}}]{dessart06}

1449: {Dessart}, L., {Burrows}, A., {Livne}, E., \& {Ott}, C.~D. 2006, \apj, 645, 534

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[{{Foglizzo}(2002)}]{foglizzo02}

1452: {Foglizzo}, T. 2002, \aap, 392, 353

1453: 

1454: \bibitem[{{Foglizzo} {et~al.}(2007){Foglizzo}, {Galletti}, {Scheck}, \&

1455:   {Janka}}]{foglizzo07}

1456: {Foglizzo}, T., {Galletti}, P., {Scheck}, L., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2007, \apj,

1457:   654, 1006

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[{{Foglizzo} \& {Tagger}(2000)}]{foglizzo00}

1460: {Foglizzo}, T., \& {Tagger}, M. 2000, \aap, 363, 174

1461: 

1462: \bibitem[{{Herant} {et~al.}(1994){Herant}, {Benz}, {Hix}, {Fryer}, \&

1463:   {Colgate}}]{herant94}

1464: {Herant}, M., {Benz}, W., {Hix}, W.~R., {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Colgate}, S.~A.

1465:   1994, \apj, 435, 339

1466: 

1467: \bibitem[{{Hirata} {et~al.}(1987){Hirata}, {Kajita}, {Koshiba}, {Nakahata}, \&

1468:   {Oyama}}]{hirata87}

1469: {Hirata}, K., {Kajita}, T., {Koshiba}, M., {Nakahata}, M., \& {Oyama}, Y. 1987,

1470:   Physical Review Letters, 58, 1490

1471: 

1472: \bibitem[{{Janka}(2001)}]{janka01}

1473: {Janka}, H.-T. 2001, \aap, 368, 527

1474: 

1475: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {M\"{u}ller}(1995)}]{janka95}

1476: {Janka}, H.-T., \& {M\"{u}ller}, E. 1995, \apjl, 448, L109

1477: 

1478: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {M\"{u}ller}(1996)}]{janka96}

1479: ---. 1996, \aap, 306, 167

1480: 

1481: \bibitem[{{Kitaura} {et~al.}(2006){Kitaura}, {Janka}, \&

1482:   {Hillebrandt}}]{kitaura06}

1483: {Kitaura}, F.~S., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Hillebrandt}, W. 2006, \aap, 450, 345

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{{Lattimer} \& {Prakash}(2007)}]{lattimer07}

1486: {Lattimer}, J.~M., \& {Prakash}, M. 2007, \physrep, 442, 109-165

1487: 

1488: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer}(2005)}]{liebendorfer05a}

1489: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M. 2005, \apj, 633, 1042

1490: 

1491: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Liebend{\"o}rfer},

1492:   {Mezzacappa}, \& {Thielemann}}]{liebendorfer01b}

1493: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {Thielemann}, F.-K.

1494:   2001{\natexlab{a}}, \prd, 63, 104003

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Liebend{\"o}rfer},

1497:   {Mezzacappa}, {Thielemann}, {Messer}, {Hix}, \& {Bruenn}}]{liebendorfer01a}

1498: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Thielemann}, F.-K., {Messer}, O.~E.,

1499:   {Hix}, W.~R., \& {Bruenn}, S.~W. 2001{\natexlab{b}}, \prd, 63, 103004

1500: 

1501: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2005){Liebend{\"o}rfer}, {Rampp},

1502:   {Janka}, \& {Mezzacappa}}]{liebendorfer05b}

1503: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Mezzacappa}, A. 2005,

1504:   \apj, 620, 840

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{Livne}(1993)}]{livne93}

1507: {Livne}, E. 1993, \apj, 412, 634

1508: 

1509: \bibitem[{{Livne} {et~al.}(2004){Livne}, {Burrows}, {Walder}, {Lichtenstadt},

1510:   \& {Thompson}}]{livne04}

1511: {Livne}, E., {Burrows}, A., {Walder}, R., {Lichtenstadt}, I., \& {Thompson},

1512:   T.~A. 2004, \apj, 609, 277

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[{{Marek}(2007)}]{marek07b}

1515: {Marek}, A. 2007, PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics

1516: 

1517: \bibitem[{{Marek} \& {Janka}(2007)}]{marek07}

1518: {Marek}, A., \& {Janka}, H.~. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708

1519: 

1520: \bibitem[{{Mayle}(1985)}]{mayle85}

1521: {Mayle}, R.~W. 1985, PhD thesis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

1522:   University of California, Berkeley

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{{Mazurek}(1982)}]{mazurek82}

1525: {Mazurek}, T.~J. 1982, \apjl, 259, L13

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[{{Murphy} \& {Burrows}(2008)}]{murphy08}

1528: {Murphy}, J.~W., \& {Burrows}, A. 2008, submitted to \apj

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[{{Ohnishi} {et~al.}(2006){Ohnishi}, {Kotake}, \& {Yamada}}]{ohnishi06}

1531: {Ohnishi}, N., {Kotake}, K., \& {Yamada}, S. 2006, \apj, 641, 1018

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[{{Ott} {et~al.}(2008){Ott}, {Burrows}, {Dessart}, \& {Livne}}]{ott08}

1534: {Ott}, C.~D., {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., \& {Livne}, E. 2008, ArXiv

1535:   e-prints, 804

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[{{Rampp} \& {Janka}(2002)}]{rampp02}

1538: {Rampp}, M., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2002, \aap, 396, 361

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[{{Scheck} {et~al.}(2008){Scheck}, {Janka}, {Foglizzo}, \&

1541:   {Kifonidis}}]{scheck08}

1542: {Scheck}, L., {Janka}, H.-T., {Foglizzo}, T., \& {Kifonidis}, K. 2008, \aap,

1543:   477, 931

1544: 

1545: \bibitem[{{Scheck} {et~al.}(2006){Scheck}, {Kifonidis}, {Janka}, \&

1546:   {M{\"u}ller}}]{scheck06}

1547: {Scheck}, L., {Kifonidis}, K., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {M{\"u}ller}, E. 2006, \aap,

1548:   457, 963

1549: 

1550: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(1998){Shen}, {Toki}, {Oyamatsu}, \&

1551:   {Sumiyoshi}}]{shen98}

1552: {Shen}, H., {Toki}, H., {Oyamatsu}, K., \& {Sumiyoshi}, K. 1998, Nuclear

1553:   Physics A, 637, 435

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[{{Shlomo} {et~al.}(2006){Shlomo}, {Kolomietz}, \& {Col\`{o}}}]{shlomo06}

1556: {Shlomo}, S., {Kolomietz}, V.~M., \& {Col\`{o}}, G. 2006,

1557: {\it Eur. Phys. J.}, A30, 2

1558: 

1559: \bibitem[{{Thompson}(2000)}]{thompson00}

1560: {Thompson}, C. 2000, \apj, 534, 915

1561: 

1562: \bibitem[{{Thompson} {et~al.}(2003){Thompson}, {Burrows}, \&

1563:   {Pinto}}]{thompson03}

1564: {Thompson}, T.~A., {Burrows}, A., \& {Pinto}, P.~A. 2003, \apj, 592, 434

1565: 

1566: \bibitem[{{Thompson} {et~al.}(2005){Thompson}, {Quataert}, \&

1567:   {Burrows}}]{thompson05}

1568: {Thompson}, T.~A., {Quataert}, E., \& {Burrows}, A. 2005, \apj, 620, 861

1569: 

1570: \bibitem[{{Wilson}(1985)}]{wilson85}

1571: {Wilson}, J.~R. 1985 (Boston: Jones \& Bartlett), 422

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[{{Woosley} {et~al.}(2002){Woosley}, {Heger}, \& {Weaver}}]{woosley02}

1574: {Woosley}, S.~E., {Heger}, A., \& {Weaver}, T.~A. 2002, Reviews of Modern

1575:   Physics, 74, 1015

1576: 

1577: \bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Weaver}(1995)}]{woosley95}

1578: {Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Weaver}, T.~A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

1579: 

1580: \bibitem[{{Yamasaki} \& {Yamada}(2005)}]{yamasaki05}

1581: {Yamasaki}, T., \& {Yamada}, S. 2005, \apj, 623, 1000

1582: 

1583: \bibitem[{{Yamasaki} \& {Yamada}(2006)}]{yamasaki06}

1584: ---. 2006, \apj, 650, 291

1585: 

1586: \end{thebibliography}

1587: 

1588: 

1589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1590: %%%%  Tables  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1592: 

1593: \clearpage

1594: 

1595: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1596: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1597: \tablecaption{

1598: Model parameters.\tablenotemark{1}

1599: \label{table:sequences}

1600: }

1601: \tablewidth{0pt}

1602: \tablehead{

1603:   \colhead{Sequence Name} &

1604:   \colhead{Mass (M$_{\sun}$)\tablenotemark{2}} &

1605:   \colhead{Dimension\tablenotemark{3}} & 

1606:   \colhead{$N_{r}$\tablenotemark{4}} &

1607:   \colhead{$R_{\rm max}$ (km)\tablenotemark{5}}&

1608:   \colhead{$L_{\nu_e}$ ($10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{6}}}

1609: \startdata

1610: 15.0-1D  & 15.0 & 1D & 700 & 4000 & 1.6-2.9 \\

1611: 15.0-2D1 & 15.0 & 2D & 250 & 4000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1612: 15.0-2D2 & 15.0 & 2D & 400 & 4000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1613: 15.0-2D3 & 15.0 & 2D & 400 & 1000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1614: 15.0-Q1 & 15.0 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 250 & 4000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1615: 15.0-Q2 & 15.0 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 400 & 4000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1616: 15.0-Q3 & 15.0 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 400 & 1000 & 1.5-2.0 \\

1617: 11.2-1D  & 11.2 & 1D & 700 & 4000 & 1.0-1.8 \\

1618: 11.2-2D1 & 11.2 & 2D & 250 & 4000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1619: 11.2-2D2 & 11.2 & 2D & 400 & 4000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1620: 11.2-2D3 & 11.2 & 2D & 400 & 1000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1621: 11.2-Q1 & 11.2 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 250 & 4000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1622: 11.2-Q2 & 11.2 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 400 & 4000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1623: 11.2-Q3 & 11.2 & 2D-90$^{\circ}$ & 400 & 1000 & 0.7-1.2 \\

1624: \enddata

1625: \tablenotetext{1}{This table summarizes the 95 simulations presented

1626:   in this paper. These

1627: simulations represent a four-dimensional parameterization that

1628: investigates the dependence of the conditions for explosion on the

1629: accretion rate (column 2), dimensionality (column 3), resolution

1630: (columns 4 \& 5), and neutrino luminosity (column 6).}

1631: \tablenotetext{2}{Progenitor model.}

1632: \tablenotetext{3}{Dimensionality.}

1633: \tablenotetext{4}{Number of radial or effective radial zones.}

1634: \tablenotetext{5}{Radius of the outer boundary}

1635: \tablenotetext{6}{The range of neutrino luminosities investigated.}

1636: \end{deluxetable}

1637: 

1638: \clearpage

1639: 

1640: \LongTables

1641: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1642: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1643: \tablecaption{

1644: Conditions at the time of explosion.

1645: \label{table:explosions}

1646: }

1647: \tablewidth{0pt}

1648: \tablehead{ 

1649:   \colhead{$L_{\nu_e}$ ($10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{1}} &

1650:   \colhead{$t_{\rm exp}$ (ms)\tablenotemark{2}} &

1651:   \colhead{$\dot{M}_{\rm exp}$ (M$_{\sun}$/s)\tablenotemark{3}} &

1652:   \colhead{$\dot{Q}$ (B/s)\tablenotemark{4}} &

1653:   \colhead{$\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$\tablenotemark{5}} &

1654:   \colhead{$M_{\rm gain}$ (M$_{\sun}$)\tablenotemark{6}}}

1655: \startdata

1656: \cutinhead{11.2-1D\tablenotemark{7}}

1657: 1.3 & 932 & $0.084^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$ & 0.63 & 0.0244 & 0.0123 \\

1658: 1.4 & 496 & $0.112^{+0.012}_{-0.010}$ & 1.50 & 0.0535 & 0.0121 \\

1659: 1.5 & 312 & $0.136^{+0.025}_{-0.011}$ & 2.00 & 0.0668 & 0.0153 \\

1660: 1.6 & 409 & $0.124^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$ & 4.46 & 0.1393 & 0.0228 \\

1661: \cutinhead{15.0-1D}

1662: 2.6 & 718 & $0.227^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$ & 3.69 & 0.0710 & 0.0105 \\

1663: 2.7 & 459 & $0.263^{+0.027}_{-0.013}$ & 3.79 & 0.0701 & 0.0129 \\

1664: 2.8 & 335 & $0.312^{+0.001}_{-0.006}$ & 5.57 & 0.0995 & 0.0177 \\

1665: 2.9 & 216 & $0.341^{+0.027}_{-0.027}$ & 3.42 & 0.0589 & 0.0319 \\

1666: \cutinhead{15.0-2D1}

1667: 1.9 & 581 & $0.247^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & 1.49 & 0.0392 & 0.0123 \\

1668: 2.0 & 325 & $0.310^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$ & 1.97 & 0.0494 & 0.0167 \\

1669: \cutinhead{15.0-2D2}

1670: 1.9 & 359 & $0.313^{+0.001}_{-0.023}$ & 1.51 & 0.0399 & 0.0120 \\

1671: 2.0 & 364 & $0.313^{+0.001}_{-0.027}$ & 1.60 & 0.0401 & 0.0133 \\

1672: \cutinhead{15.0-2D3}

1673: 1.8 & 778 & $0.210^{+0.014}_{-0.007}$ & 1.21 & 0.0337 & 0.0099 \\

1674: 1.9 & 649 & $0.249^{+0.001}_{-0.015}$ & 1.33 & 0.0351 & 0.0113 \\

1675: 2.0 & 395 & $0.299^{+0.014}_{-0.031}$ & 1.76 & 0.0440 & 0.0152 \\

1676: \cutinhead{15.0-Q1}

1677: 1.7 & 837 & $0.202^{+0.007}_{-0.005}$ & 0.91 & 0.0268 & 0.0074 \\

1678: 1.8 & 419 & $0.283^{+0.029}_{-0.024}$ & 1.19 & 0.0330 & 0.0098 \\

1679: 1.9 & 418 & $0.284^{+0.028}_{-0.024}$ & 1.31 & 0.0344 & 0.0109 \\

1680: 2.0 & 361 & $0.313^{+0.001}_{-0.025}$ & 1.71 & 0.0428 & 0.0152 \\

1681: \cutinhead{15.0-Q2}

1682: 1.7 & 748 & $0.217^{+0.018}_{-0.009}$ & 0.91 & 0.0267 & 0.0073 \\

1683: 1.8 & 517 & $0.249^{+0.011}_{-0.002}$ & 1.30 & 0.0362 & 0.0119 \\

1684: 1.9 & 471 & $0.258^{+0.023}_{-0.010}$ & 1.19 & 0.0314 & 0.0100 \\

1685: 2.0 & 299 & $0.310^{+0.008}_{-0.001}$ & 1.54 & 0.0385 & 0.0126 \\

1686: \cutinhead{15.0-Q3}

1687: 1.7 & 695 & $0.235^{+0.014}_{-0.018}$ & 1.14 & 0.0335 & 0.0096 \\

1688: 1.8 & 602 & $0.249^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & 1.08 & 0.0301 & 0.0089 \\

1689: 1.9 & 420 & $0.282^{+0.029}_{-0.024}$ & 1.42 & 0.0373 & 0.0122 \\

1690: 2.0 & 383 & $0.307^{+0.004}_{-0.033}$ & 1.66 & 0.0415 & 0.0135 \\

1691: \cutinhead{11.2-2D1}

1692: 0.7 & 808 & $0.091^{+0.000}_{-0.001}$ & 0.23 & 0.0165 & 0.0050 \\

1693: 0.8 & 585 & $0.098^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$ & 0.30 & 0.0190 & 0.0055 \\

1694: 0.9 & 471 & $0.118^{+0.006}_{-0.013}$ & 0.43 & 0.0242 & 0.0068 \\

1695: 1.0 & 335 & $0.129^{+0.020}_{-0.005}$ & 0.55 & 0.0276 & 0.0086 \\

1696: 1.1 & 288 & $0.147^{+0.016}_{-0.019}$ & 0.89 & 0.0404 & 0.0131 \\

1697: 1.2 & 288 & $0.147^{+0.016}_{-0.019}$ & 0.89 & 0.0370 & 0.0131 \\

1698: \cutinhead{11.2-2D2}

1699: 0.7 & 828 & $0.092^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$ & 0.24 & 0.0170 & 0.0054 \\

1700: 0.8 & 595 & $0.097^{+0.005}_{-0.002}$ & 0.31 & 0.0193 & 0.0053 \\

1701: 0.9 & 529 & $0.104^{+0.012}_{-0.005}$ & 0.40 & 0.0220 & 0.0070 \\

1702: 1.0 & 339 & $0.128^{+0.019}_{-0.004}$ & 0.54 & 0.0268 & 0.0077 \\

1703: 1.1 & 235 & $0.163^{+0.001}_{-0.014}$ & 0.85 & 0.0386 & 0.0115 \\

1704: 1.2 & 235 & $0.163^{+0.001}_{-0.014}$ & 0.85 & 0.0354 & 0.0115 \\

1705: \cutinhead{11.2-2D3}

1706: 0.8 & 791 & $0.091^{+0.000}_{-0.001}$ & 0.32 & 0.0200 & 0.0057 \\

1707: 0.9 & 553 & $0.101^{+0.009}_{-0.004}$ & 0.40 & 0.0225 & 0.0059 \\

1708: 1.0 & 372 & $0.125^{+0.008}_{-0.001}$ & 0.60 & 0.0300 & 0.0087 \\

1709: 1.1 & 257 & $0.162^{+0.001}_{-0.025}$ & 0.91 & 0.0413 & 0.0122 \\

1710: 1.2 & 257 & $0.162^{+0.001}_{-0.025}$ & 0.91 & 0.0378 & 0.0122 \\

1711: \cutinhead{11.2-Q1}

1712: 0.7 & 777 & $0.091^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & 0.23 & 0.0165 & 0.0048 \\

1713: 0.8 & 500 & $0.111^{+0.012}_{-0.009}$ & 0.31 & 0.0191 & 0.0060 \\

1714: 0.9 & 784 & $0.091^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & 0.78 & 0.0434 & 0.0133 \\

1715: 1.0 & 294 & $0.144^{+0.019}_{-0.017}$ & 0.52 & 0.0260 & 0.0076 \\

1716: 1.1 & 177 & $0.166^{+0.034}_{-0.004}$ & 0.91 & 0.0414 & 0.0124 \\

1717: 1.2 & 177 & $0.166^{+0.034}_{-0.004}$ & 0.91 & 0.0379 & 0.0124 \\

1718: \cutinhead{11.2-Q2}

1719: 0.7 & 631 & $0.096^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ & 0.22 & 0.0158 & 0.0040 \\

1720: 0.8 & 525 & $0.105^{+0.013}_{-0.006}$ & 0.28 & 0.0174 & 0.0056 \\

1721: 0.9 & 413 & $0.124^{+0.001}_{-0.004}$ & 0.39 & 0.0218 & 0.0071 \\

1722: 1.0 & 293 & $0.145^{+0.018}_{-0.017}$ & 0.54 & 0.0269 & 0.0075 \\

1723: 1.1 & 270 & $0.158^{+0.004}_{-0.025}$ & 0.82 & 0.0371 & 0.0107 \\

1724: 1.2 & 270 & $0.158^{+0.004}_{-0.025}$ & 0.82 & 0.0340 & 0.0107 \\

1725: \cutinhead{11.2-Q3}

1726: 0.7 & 759 & $0.091^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & 0.22 & 0.0160 & 0.0047 \\

1727: 0.8 & 583 & $0.098^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$ & 0.30 & 0.0186 & 0.0056 \\

1728: 0.9 & 417 & $0.124^{+0.001}_{-0.005}$ & 0.39 & 0.0218 & 0.0065 \\

1729: 1.0 & 293 & $0.145^{+0.018}_{-0.017}$ & 0.56 & 0.0282 & 0.0083 \\

1730: 1.1 & 256 & $0.162^{+0.001}_{-0.024}$ & 0.84 & 0.0383 & 0.0125 \\

1731: 1.2 & 256 & $0.162^{+0.001}_{-0.024}$ & 0.84 & 0.0351 & 0.0125 \\

1732: \enddata

1733: \tablenotetext{1}{Electron-neutrino luminosity}

1734: \tablenotetext{2}{The time of explosion}

1735: \tablenotetext{3}{The mass accretion rate at explosion,}

1736: \tablenotetext{4}{The net heating rate}

1737: \tablenotetext{5}{The heating efficiency, where $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu_e}}$ is the combined electron- and anti-electron-neutrino luminosity.}

1738: \tablenotetext{6}{The mass in the gain region.}

1739: \tablenotetext{7}{The table is divided into sections corresponding to the conditions at

1740: explosion for each sequence presented in Table \ref{table:sequences}.}

1741: \end{deluxetable}

1742: 

1743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1744: %%%%  Figures  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1746: 

1747: \clearpage

1748: 

1749: \begin{figure}

1750: \plotone{f1.ps}

1751: \caption{Accretion rate, $\dot{M}$, vs. postbounce time above the

1752:   stalled shock (250 km). The solid and dashed lines show the

1753:   time-dependent accretion rate for the 11.2- and 15.0-M$_{\sun}$ models,

1754:   respectively \citep{woosley02,woosley95}.  While the outer portions

1755:   of the Fe core accrete ($t = 0$-50 ms), $\dot{M}$ is as high as 10

1756:   M$_{\sun}$/s and decreases to 2 M$_{\sun}$/s.  After the Fe core fully

1757:   accretes, the accretion rates for the two models

1758:   diverge.  For the 11.2-M$_{\sun}$ (15-M$_{\sun}$) model, it takes 50 ms (100 ms) to accrete the

1759:   Si-burning shell.

1760: As the Si/O interface accretes, $\dot{M}$ plummets to 0.3 M$_{\sun}$/s

1761: (0.2 M$_{\sun}$/s) for the 15 M$_{\sun}$ (11.2 M$_{\sun}$) model.  Afterward,

1762: $\dot{M}$ declines slowly to 0.2 M$_{\sun}$/s (0.08 M$_{\sun}$/s).

1763: Together, these two models slowly sweep through a

1764:   range of accretion rates from 0.3 M$_{\sun}$/s to 0.08 M$_{\sun}$/s,

1765:   which enables a parameterization in $\dot{M}$. \label{mdotvstime}}

1766: \end{figure}

1767: 

1768: \clearpage

1769: 

1770: \begin{figure}

1771: \epsscale{0.7}

1772: \plotone{f2.ps}

1773: \caption{Shock radius, $R_{\rm

1774:   shock}$, vs. postbounce time for the 1D

1775: sequences.  The top panel displays the radii for 15.0-1D, and the

1776: bottom panel shows the radii for 11.2-1D.  Each line is labeled by the

1777: electron-neutrino luminosity in units of $10^{52}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.

1778: Comparing models within a sequence, all models show similar behavior prior to the accretion of

1779: the Si/O interface.  The accretion of the Si/O interface either initiates an

1780: explosion or excites radial oscillations in the shock radius.  For the

1781: 15.0-1D sequence, the oscillation periods range from $\sim$90 ms

1782: for $L_{\nu_e}=2.2$ to $\sim$170 ms for $L_{\nu_e} = 2.8$.  Of the

1783: models that oscillate, the lower luminosity simulations decay in

1784: the oscillation amplitude, while higher luminosity models oscillate

1785: and explode.  The timescales for decay range from $\sim$450 ms for

1786: $L_{\nu_e} = 2.2$ to 1.0 s for $L_{\nu_e} = 2.5$.

1787: \label{rvst_1d}}

1788: \end{figure}

1789: 

1790: \clearpage

1791: 

1792: \begin{figure}

1793: \epsscale{0.75}

1794: \plotone{f3.ps}

1795: \caption{Shock morphology vs. postbounce time for the 15.0-2D3

1796:   sequence. The top panel shows $a_0$ or $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$, the average shock

1797: radius, and the middle and bottom panels plot the $\ell = 1$ and

1798: $\ell = 2$ components divided by to the average shock radius:

1799: $a_1/a_0$ and $a_2/a_0$, respectively.  The

1800: filled circles in the top panel indicate $t_{\rm exp}$, the time of explosion, and

1801: the error bars show our estimate of uncertainty ($\pm 50$ ms).

1802: Unlike the 1D models (Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}), the 2D simulations show

1803: very little radial oscillation near the critical luminosity, but

1804: significant nonradial oscillations.  In general, $a_1/a_0$ grows from

1805: 0\% to $\sim$10\% for all models, and $a_2/a_0$ grows to $\sim$5\%.  The $a_1/a_0$ amplitudes hint at a correlation with

1806: $L_{\nu_e}$ (see \S \ref{section:shock} for a discussion).  Near

1807: explosion the amplitude of $a_1/a_0$ can peak around $\sim$20\%. \label{sphharm}}

1808: \end{figure}

1809: 

1810: \clearpage

1811: 

1812: \begin{figure}

1813: \epsscale{0.8}

1814: \plotone{f4.ps}

1815: \caption{The shock morphology vs. time for three

1816: different resolutions of 2D simulations (15.0-2D1, 15.0-2D2, and

1817: 15.0-2D3).  The layout is similar to Fig. \ref{sphharm}.  The

1818: electron-neutrino luminosity for each is $1.9 \times 10^{52}$ ergs

1819: s$^{-1}$.  From lowest resolution (15.0-2D1) to the highest resolution

1820: (15.0-2D3), the explosion times are 581, 359, and 649 ms.

1821: Hence, $t_{\rm exp}$ is not monotonic with resolution.  See \S

1822: \ref{section:grid} for a discussion.

1823: \label{morphres}}

1824: \end{figure}

1825: 

1826: \clearpage

1827: 

1828: \begin{figure}

1829: \epsscale{0.75}

1830: \plotone{f5.ps}

1831: \caption{$\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$ and

1832: $a_2/a_0$ vs. time for two models of 15.0-Q3

1833: and 15.0-2D3.  This compares the differences among the 2D runs using

1834: 180$^{\circ}$ (solid) and 90$^{\circ}$ (dashed).  $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$ corresponds to the

1835: purple curves and $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ corresponds to the green curves.

1836: Inspection of $\langle R_{\rm shock} \rangle$ (top panel of

1837: Fig. \ref{fullvs90}) shows that the 90$^{\circ}$ simulations consistently explode

1838: before the 180$^{\circ}$ simulations.  Other than the time near $\sim$300 to $\sim$400 ms, all models show similar evolution in the

1839: amplitude of $a_2/a_0$.  The one exception appears around $\sim$300

1840: to $\sim$400 ms, when the 90$^{\circ}$, $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ model explodes and shows the largest amplitude.

1841: \label{fullvs90}}

1842: \end{figure}

1843: 

1844: \clearpage

1845: 

1846: \begin{figure}

1847: \epsscale{0.7}

1848: \plotone{f6.ps}

1849: \caption{The ratio of advection and heating timescales, $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{\rm

1850:   q}$, vs. postbounce time for the 15.0-1D sequence.  The top

1851: panel shows the models that do not explode by 1.3 s after bounce, and

1852: the bottom panel shows those that do explode.  Despite dramatic

1853: oscillations, $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{\rm q}$ rarely reaches a value of

1854: above $\sim$1 for the non-exploding models (top panel).  In all non-exploding

1855: cases, except $L_{\nu_e} = 2.5$ (in units of $10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$), the

1856: oscillations decay (see text and the caption of Fig. \ref{rvst_1d} for

1857: the timescales).  For exploding

1858: models (bottom panel), $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{q}$ makes large

1859: excursions from $\sim$0.1 to $\sim$100.  Larger luminosities produce more excursions,

1860: with one at $L_{\nu_e} = 2.9$ and four at

1861: $L_{\nu_e} = 2.9$.  We conclude that $\tau_{\rm

1862:   adv}/\tau_{q} > 1$ is a useful diagnostic, but not a rigorous condition for explosion.\label{tscalesvst_1d}}

1863: \end{figure}

1864: 

1865: \clearpage

1866: 

1867: \begin{figure}

1868: \epsscale{0.75}

1869: \plotone{f7.ps}

1870: \caption{Similar to Fig. \ref{tscalesvst_1d}, but we plot

1871: $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_{q}$ vs. postbounce time for the 15.0-2D3 sequence.  The models that don't explode, $L_{\nu_e} =

1872: 1.5$, 1.6, and 1.7 (in units of $10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$) show relatively constant

1873: ratios for all times.  On the other hand, the exploding models,

1874: $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0, start at low ratios ($\sim$0.1)

1875: and increase to ratios of order $\sim$10.  Unlike the 1D

1876: models, once this ratio reaches large values, it

1877: remains there for the rest of the simulation.  The times of explosion

1878: are 395, 648, and 778 ms for $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0,

1879: respectively.  Notice that the ratio of timescales begin to rise

1880: before $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q = 1$, suggesting that these models are

1881: on their way to explosion before the condition $\tau_{\rm adv}/\tau_q

1882: > 1$ is met.\label{tscalesvst_2d}}

1883: \end{figure}

1884: 

1885: \clearpage

1886: 

1887: \begin{figure}

1888: \epsscale{0.68}

1889: \plotone{f8.ps}

1890: \caption{The mean residence time ($\langle \tau_r \rangle$) (top

1891: panel) and the fraction ($f_r$) of particles with $\tau_r > 40$ ms (bottom

1892: panel) as a function of time for $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km (solid line)

1893: and $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km (dashed line).  These residence times

1894: were calculated for the 15.0-2D3, $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ model.  50,000 tracer particles are

1895: initiated randomly in solid angle at either $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km

1896: or $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km.  The trajectories for these particles are

1897: integrated for 150 ms, and a new generation is initiated every 10 ms.

1898: The time on the horizontal axis corresponds to the start time for a

1899: generation.  From $\sim$200 ms and

1900: beyond, particles that start in the gain region ($R_{\rm start} = 150$

1901: km) consistently show larger $\langle \tau_r \rangle$ and more

1902: particles with longer residence times.  There are four phases in this

1903: plot that correspond to very short residence times, steady growth in

1904: the SASI, an increase in the vigor of the SASI, and the initial

1905: stages of explosion. See \S \ref{section:timescales} for a discussion

1906: and Figs. \ref{stills1}, \ref{stills2}, and \ref{stills3} for entropy maps.

1907: \label{taures_mean_frac}}

1908: \end{figure}

1909: 

1910: \clearpage

1911: 

1912: \begin{figure}

1913: \epsscale{0.6}

1914: \plotone{f9.ps}

1915: \caption{The distribution of residence times,

1916: $\tau_r$, for four generations of tracer particles corresponding to

1917: the four phases in Fig. \ref{taures_mean_frac}.

1918:   The times

1919: shown in the legend correspond to the starting time for each

1920: generation, and $R_{\rm start}$ indicates the starting radius for all

1921: 50,000 particles of each generation.  $R_{\rm start} = 400$ km is

1922: situated well outside the shock radius, and $R_{\rm start} = 150$ km is approximately the middle

1923: of the gain region.  The top panel shows that most of the mass that

1924: accretes through the shock traverses the gain region on relatively

1925: short timescales, $\sim$40 ms, while the bottom panel shows that

1926: in addition to rapidly accreting plumes, there are regions in

1927: the gain region in which mass has a large residence time and is

1928: subjected to prolonged heating.  

1929: \label{taures}}

1930: \end{figure}

1931: 

1932: \clearpage

1933: 

1934: \begin{figure}

1935: \epsscale{0.6}

1936: \plotone{f10.ps}

1937: \caption{Colormaps of entropy ($k_{\rm B}$/baryon) for 15.0-2D3,

1938:   $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ and for the four phases

1939:   shown in Fig. \ref{taures}.  Each panel is 400 km $\times$ 800 km.

1940:   These snapshots of the flow correspond to the times in

1941:   Fig. \ref{taures}, which label each histogram by the start time of

1942:   the four generations of particles shown.  The four phases are:  1)

1943:   there is very little convection or SASI and the particles accrete quickly ($\sim$9 ms) onto the

1944:   PNS (top left), 2) the SASI undergoes a steady growth and

1945:   the particles initiated at 400 km (200 km) have a mean residence time

1946:   of 22 ms (32 ms) (top right), 3) the SASI is becoming quite vigorous and the

1947:   residence times for both sets of particles are steadily increasing

1948:   (bottom left), and 4) The SASI is very vigorous and 150 ms later

1949:   (see Fig. \ref{stills3})

1950:   the model undergoes explosion (bottom right). \label{stills1}}

1951: \end{figure}

1952: 

1953: \clearpage

1954: 

1955: \begin{figure}

1956: \epsscale{0.6}

1957: \plotone{f11.ps}

1958: \caption{The same as Fig. \ref{stills1}, except the flow is shown

1959:   75 ms after the start of each generation of particles, which is the

1960:   midpoint of particle tracking.  Low entropy plumes that quickly

1961:   transport newly-accreted material to the PNS are quite pronounced in

1962:   the bottom-right panel. \label{stills2}}

1963: \end{figure}

1964: 

1965: \clearpage

1966: 

1967: \begin{figure}

1968: \epsscale{0.6}

1969: \plotone{f12.ps}

1970: \caption{The same as Fig. \ref{stills1}, except the flow is shown

1971:   150 ms after the start of each generation of particles, which is the

1972:   end of particle tracking. Note that the simulation is exploding in

1973:   the bottom-right panel.\label{stills3}}

1974: \end{figure}

1975: 

1976: \clearpage

1977: 

1978: \begin{figure}

1979: \epsscale{0.775}

1980: \plotone{f13.ps}

1981: \caption{Entropy vs. radius for the times shown in

1982:   Fig. \ref{stills1}.  Solid red lines are entropy profiles for the

1983:   15.0-1D, $L_{\nu_e} = 1.9$ simulation, and points show the entropy

1984:   and radius for each zone of the 15.0-2D3, $L_{\nu_e} =

1985:   1.9$ model.  These entropy profiles are coeval with the residence

1986:   time distributions in Fig. \ref{taures} and the

1987:   entropy maps in Fig. \ref{stills1}.  Features of the entropy

1988:   profiles highlight the shock ($\sim$150 km for $t

1989:   = 0.130$ s and $\sim$200 km for all other times), the gain region,

1990:   ($\sim$100 km to $\sim$ 200 km), and the cooling

1991:   region ($\sim$50 km to $\sim$100 km).  1D profiles show a negative entropy

1992:   gradient in the gain region that results in convection in 2D

1993:   simulations.  When the SASI dominates the post-shock flow, $t=

1994:   0.370$, 0.530, and 0.600 s, the shock is distinctly aspherical, and a

1995:   large range of entropies characterize the gain region.  Low

1996:   entropies correspond to plumes that funnel matter onto the PNS,

1997:   while high entropies correspond to regions of

1998:   long residence times and more integrated net heating.  This is the

1999:   likely cause for 2D simulations having lower critical luminosities

2000:   than 1D simulations.

2001:   \label{entropy}}

2002: \end{figure}

2003: 

2004: \clearpage

2005: 

2006: \begin{figure}

2007: \epsscale{0.7}

2008: \plotone{f14.ps}

2009: \caption{Time evolution of the net heating rate, $\dot{Q}$, for

2010: the 15.0-1D and 15.0-2D3 sequences.

2011: The top panel plots $\dot{Q}$ for the 1D sequence only for the range of $L_{\nu_e}$

2012: near the 1D critical luminosity.  The bottom panel highlights the range

2013: of $L_{\nu_e}$ near the critical luminosity of the 2D sequence, and

2014: plots both 1D and 2D simulations.  The dots show the $\dot{Q}$ at the time of

2015: explosion for the 2D simulations.  $\dot{Q}$ shows pronounced

2016: oscillations for the 1D simulations near explosion (top panel), with the

2017: peaks corresponding to dips in shock radius in Fig. \ref{rvst_1d}.

2018: For non-exploding 1D and 2D simulations

2019: $\dot{Q}$ evolves downward.

2020: Exploding 2D simulations, however, have $\dot{Q}$ that tends toward

2021: flat or upward evolutions.

2022: \label{qdotvstime}}

2023: \end{figure}

2024: 

2025: \clearpage

2026: 

2027: \begin{figure}

2028: \epsscale{0.8}

2029: \plotone{f15.ps}

2030: \caption{Similar to Fig. \ref{qdotvstime}, but here we plot the heating

2031:   efficiency, $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$, vs. postbounce time.  The

2032: efficiencies at $t_{\rm exp}$ for the 1D sequence near the critical

2033: luminosity range from 3\% to

2034: 10\%, while the efficiencies of the 2D simulations at $t_{\rm exp}$ are

2035: 3.4\%, 3.5\%, and 4.4\% for $L_{\nu_e} = 1.8$, 1.9, and 2.0,

2036: respectively.  For non-exploding 1D and 2D simulations

2037: $\dot{Q}/L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ evolves downward.

2038: Exploding 2D simulations, however, have efficiencies that tend to stay

2039: flat or increase.  \label{effvstime}}

2040: \end{figure}

2041: 

2042: \clearpage

2043: 

2044: \begin{figure}

2045: \epsscale{0.8}

2046: \plotone{f16.ps}

2047: \caption{Similar to Fig. \ref{qdotvstime}, but here we plot the mass in

2048:   the gain region, $M_{gain}$, vs. postbounce time.  The oscillations

2049:   of $M_{\rm gain}$ in the 1D models (top panel) correspond to the

2050:   oscillations in shock radius.  The minima in $M_{\rm gain }$ correspond to the minima

2051: in shock radius.  In the exploding models of 15.0-2D3, there is a

2052: secular increase in the amount of mass in the gain region leading up

2053: to and past explosion that is distinct from the non-exploding 1D and

2054: 2D models. \label{mass_gain}}

2055: \end{figure}

2056: 

2057: \clearpage

2058: 

2059: \begin{figure}

2060: \plotone{f17.ps}

2061: \caption{The electron- and anti-electron-neutrino luminosity, $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ ,

2062:   vs. mass accretion rate, $\dot{M}$, of explosion.  The accretion rate is defined just

2063:   exterior to the shock at $t_{\rm exp}$.  Because the time of

2064:   explosion is difficult to define, we also show the range of

2065:   accretion rates 50 ms before and after $t_{\rm exp}$

2066:   as error bars.  In general, 1D simulations are represented by

2067:   orange, 2D simulations by green hues, and 2D-90$^{\circ}$ runs by blue

2068:   hues.  The points that lie in the $\dot{M}$ range from $\sim$0.8 to

2069:   $\sim$1.7 M$_{\sun}$/s correspond to simulations using the

2070:   11.2-M$_{\sun}$ progenitor, and the points in the range from $\sim$0.2 to

2071:   $\sim$3.5 M$_{\sun}$/s correspond to 15 M$_{\sun}$. The three resolutions are represented by stars (1),

2072:   upside-down triangles (2), and squares (3).  The fit for $L_{\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e}$ as

2073:   a function of $\dot{M}$ from \citet{burrows93} is plotted (solid

2074:   line).  While this analytic expression passes through the 15.0-1D

2075:   points it over predicts the critical luminosities for the

2076:   11.2-1D runs by $\sim$15\%.  These results show that time-dependent

2077:   1D and 2D simulations reproduce the critical $L_{\nu_e}$ and

2078:   $\dot{M}$ condition, the critical luminosity is indeed a function of

2079:   $\dot{M}$, and the critical luminosity for 2D

2080:   simulations is $\sim$70\% the critical luminosity for 1D calculations.  \label{lumvsmdot}}

2081: \end{figure}

2082: 

2083: \end{document}

2084: 

2085: