What is a Gamma-Ray Burst

bull Short -ray flashes E gt 100 keV

bull 001 lt t90 lt 1000s

bull Diverse lightcurvesbull BATSE detected

1day = 1000 yearuniverse

bull Energy ~ 1052 f

-1 ferg

bull Near star forming regions

bull 2 SN Ibc associations

bull Supernova component in lightcurves

Superbowl Burst

ms variability + non-thermal spectrum Compactness

GRB Light Curve

M = E c2 ~ 10-6

Msun

GRB 990123

1 CGRO ~1o

2 BeppoSAX (X-ray)

6-33 hrs

34-54 hrs

~ 1rsquo

4 HST 17 days

3 Palomar lt 1 dayKeck

spectrum

z=160

Eiso =

3x1054 erg

~ Msunc2

9th mag flash

135 models (1993)

Note most are Galactic and are ruled out for long bursts

GRB photons are made far away from engine

Canrsquot observe engine directly in light (neutrinos gravitational waves)

Electromagnetic process or neutrino annihilation to tap power of central compact object

Hyper-accreting black hole or high field neutron star (rotating)

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Superbowl Burst

ms variability + non-thermal spectrum Compactness

GRB Light Curve

M = E c2 ~ 10-6

Msun

GRB 990123

1 CGRO ~1o

2 BeppoSAX (X-ray)

6-33 hrs

34-54 hrs

~ 1rsquo

4 HST 17 days

3 Palomar lt 1 dayKeck

spectrum

z=160

Eiso =

3x1054 erg

~ Msunc2

9th mag flash

135 models (1993)

Note most are Galactic and are ruled out for long bursts

GRB photons are made far away from engine

Canrsquot observe engine directly in light (neutrinos gravitational waves)

Electromagnetic process or neutrino annihilation to tap power of central compact object

Hyper-accreting black hole or high field neutron star (rotating)

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

GRB 990123

1 CGRO ~1o

2 BeppoSAX (X-ray)

6-33 hrs

34-54 hrs

~ 1rsquo

4 HST 17 days

3 Palomar lt 1 dayKeck

spectrum

z=160

Eiso =

3x1054 erg

~ Msunc2

9th mag flash

135 models (1993)

Note most are Galactic and are ruled out for long bursts

GRB photons are made far away from engine

Canrsquot observe engine directly in light (neutrinos gravitational waves)

Electromagnetic process or neutrino annihilation to tap power of central compact object

Hyper-accreting black hole or high field neutron star (rotating)

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

135 models (1993)

Note most are Galactic and are ruled out for long bursts

GRB photons are made far away from engine

Canrsquot observe engine directly in light (neutrinos gravitational waves)

Electromagnetic process or neutrino annihilation to tap power of central compact object

Hyper-accreting black hole or high field neutron star (rotating)

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

GRB photons are made far away from engine

Canrsquot observe engine directly in light (neutrinos gravitational waves)

Electromagnetic process or neutrino annihilation to tap power of central compact object

Hyper-accreting black hole or high field neutron star (rotating)

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Well-localized bursts are all ldquolong-softrdquo

ldquoshort-hardrdquo bursts

Duration (s)

hardness

Kulkarni et al

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

NTT image (May 1 1998) of SN 1998bw in the barred spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 [Galama et al AampAS 138 465 (1999)]

WFC error box (8) for GRB 980425 and two NFI x-ray sources The IPN error arc is also shown

1) Were the two events the same thing

2) Was GRB 980425 an ordinary GRB seen off-axis

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Bloom et al (ApJL2002)

GRB991121

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

see also Hjorth et al Fox et al Nature (2003)

extremely close = 800 Mpc

GRB030329SN2003DH

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

SN 1998bwGRB 980425

The supernova - a Type Ic - was very unusual

Large mass of 56Ni 03 - 09 solar masses (note jets acting alone do not make 56Ni) Sollerman et al ApJL 537 127 (2000) McKinzie amp Schaefer PASP 111 964 (1999)

Extreme energy and mass gt 1052 erg gt 10 Msun Iwamoto et al Nature 395 672 (1998) Woosley Eastman amp Schmidt ApJ 516 788 (1999) Mazzali et al ApJ 559 1047 (2001)

Exceptionally strong radio source Li amp Chevalier ApJ 526 716 (1999) Relativistic matter was ejected 1050 - 1051 erg Wieringa Kulkarni amp Frail AampAS 138 467 (1999) Frail et al ApJL (2001) astroph-0102282

Probability favors the GRB-SN association Pian et al ApJ 536 778 (2000)

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Merging neutron star - black hole pairs

Strengths

a) Known event b) Plenty of angular momentum c) Rapid time scale d) High energy e) Well developed numerical models

Weaknesses a) Outside star forming regions

b) Beaming and energy may be inadequate for long bursts

But this model may still be good for a class of bursts calledthe ldquoshort hardrdquo bursts for which we have no counterpart informationyet (SWIFT)

Ruffert amp Janka Rosswog et al Lee et al Aloy et al

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Requirements on the Central Engineand its Immediate Surroundings

(long-soft bursts)bull Provide adequate energy at high Lorentz factor

bull Collimate the emergent beam to approximately 01 radians

bull In the internal shock model provide a beam with rapidly variable Lorentz factor

bull Allow for the observed diverse GRB light curves

bull Last approximately 10 s but much longer in some cases

bull Explain diverse events like GRB 980425

bull Produce a (Type Ibc) supernova in some cases

bull Make bursts in star forming regions

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

GRB central engine

bull Relativity (SR amp GR)bull Magnetic Fieldsbull Rotation (progenitors)bull Nuclear Physicsbull Neutrinosbull EOSbull Turbulencebull 3Dbull Range of Lengthscales

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Muller (1999)

ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion

ac

Accretion vs Neutrino heating

Burrows (2001)

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Pre-Supernova Density Structure

Woosley amp Weaver (1995)

Bigger stars

Higher entropy

Shallower density gradients

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Fryer ApJ 522 413 (1999) Burrows (1999)

Bigger stars

1 Accrete faster amp longer

2 Larger binding energy amp smaller explosion energy

explosion

binding

Failure of delayed mechanism

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Fukuda (1982)

Heger (2000)

Stellar Rotation

no mass lossMass loss

No B fields

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Collapsars

Type Masssun BH Time Scale Distance Comment

I 15-40 He prompt 20 s all z neutrino-dominated disk

II 10-40 He delayed 20 s ndash 1 hr all z black hole by fall back

III gt130 He prompt ~20 s zgt10 time dilated redshifted (1+z) very energetic pair instability low Z

A rotating massive star whose core collapses to a black hole and produces an accretion disk

Type I is what we are usually talking aboutThe 40 solar mass limit comes from assuming that all stars above 100 solar masses on the main sequence are unstable (except Pop III)

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

IFTwo plausible conditions occur

1 Failure of neutrino powered SN explosion

a completeb partial (fallback)

2 Rotating stellar coresj gt 3 x 1016 cm2s

THEN

Rapidly accreting black hole (M~01 Ms)fed by collapsing star (tdyn ~ 446 s frac12 ~ 10 s)Disk formation

COLLAPSAR

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Collapsar Simulations

bull pre-SN 15 Msun Helium starbull Newtonian Hydrodynamics (PPM)bull alpha viscositybull rotationbull photodisintegration (NSE alpha n p)bull neutrino cooling thermal + URCA optically thinbull Ideal nucleons radiation relativistic degenerate

electrons positionsbull 2D axisymmetric spherical gridbull self gravity pseudo-Newtonian (PW)bull Rin = 9 Rs Rout = 9000 Rs

MacFadyen amp Woosley (1999)

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Collapsar Disk AnimationPPM hydrodynamics Paczynski-Witta potential EOS neutrino cooling nuclear reactions viscosity

Stellar collapse w rotation

Density structure No disk no wind

Note Accretion shock funnel clearing pole to equator density contrast fluctuating polar density

Initial model 15 Msun Helium (Wolf-Rayet) star evolved with mass loss

R= 8 x 108 cm

Show inner 1 in radius disk mass = 001 M_sun

Low viscosity =001

Disk Formation Movie

Disk Formation Movie

Accretion Shock

Disk formation

t = 75 s

PhotodisintegrationSiOC -gt free neutronsAnd protons Enhanced neutrino cooling

neutrino coolong allows

accretion

no cooling=gt

dynamically unstable

CDAF

Could emit GWs but

maybe no GRB

= 01 ltMgt = 007 Msun s = 13 x 1053 ergs

spin

mass

Use 1D neutrino cooled

ldquoslimrdquo disk models

from Popham et al (1999)

Collapsar results

bull Sustained accretion gt10sbull Sufficient energy bull Time scale set by He core collapsebull Disk-feeding time scale not disk-drainingbull Neutrino cooling allows accretionbull Neutrino annihilation energetically

possiblendash calculable in any case

Funnel geometry

channels any fireball

Density contrasts can

be huge

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

= 01 ltMgt = 007 Msun s = 13 x 1053 ergs

spin

mass

Use 1D neutrino cooled

ldquoslimrdquo disk models

from Popham et al (1999)

Collapsar results

bull Sustained accretion gt10sbull Sufficient energy bull Time scale set by He core collapsebull Disk-feeding time scale not disk-drainingbull Neutrino cooling allows accretionbull Neutrino annihilation energetically

possiblendash calculable in any case

Funnel geometry

channels any fireball

Density contrasts can

be huge

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

spin

mass

Use 1D neutrino cooled

ldquoslimrdquo disk models

from Popham et al (1999)

Collapsar results

bull Sustained accretion gt10sbull Sufficient energy bull Time scale set by He core collapsebull Disk-feeding time scale not disk-drainingbull Neutrino cooling allows accretionbull Neutrino annihilation energetically

possiblendash calculable in any case

Funnel geometry

channels any fireball

Density contrasts can

be huge

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Collapsar results

bull Sustained accretion gt10sbull Sufficient energy bull Time scale set by He core collapsebull Disk-feeding time scale not disk-drainingbull Neutrino cooling allows accretionbull Neutrino annihilation energetically

possiblendash calculable in any case

Funnel geometry

channels any fireball

Density contrasts can

be huge

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Funnel geometry

channels any fireball

Density contrasts can

be huge

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Ejet = f Maccc2

MHD

T = 57 ms

E = 5 x 1050 ergs

Edep = 28 x 1048 erg

Jet BirthThermal energy deposition focused by toroidal funnel structure

fmax ~ 06 - 4

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Relativistic Jet Movie

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Collapsar stages1 Iron core collapse disk formation

T~1010K ~108gcm-3 photodisintegration cooling pair capture disk is free nucleons (2 s)

2 Polar density declines to allow jet birthfrac12v3 Edep (2-5 s)

3 Jet tunnels out of star (5 s) Wolf-Rayet4 Jet powered for ~10 more seconds

Evacuates polar channel and reaches asymptotic speed (10 s)

T_GRB T_collapse

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Jupiter

Red Supergiant

R~1013 cm

Blue Supergiant

R~1012 cm

Wolf-Rayet Star

R~1011 cm

Type Ib or Ic

Supernova

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Supernovae

Ia

WD cosmology

Type II

Hydrogen

Type I

No Hydrogen

Ib Ic

exploding WR

thermonuclear old pop E galaxies

core collapse massive stars

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Nickel Wind Movie

ldquoNickel Windrdquo

T gt 5 x 109 K

Fallback in weak SN explosions

Shock reaches

surface of star but parts of star are

not ejected to infinity

Fallback accretion Mms ~ 25 Msun Same star

exploded with a range of explosion energies

Significant accretion for thousands of

seconds ndash days

If fallback fuels a jet with power

fmc2

May power ldquohypernovardquo or long duration

GRBWeak

supernova shock

Shock breakout X-Ray transient

2 ldquoBriefrdquo jet tengine tjet

Engine dies before jet breakout

Mildly relativistic shock breakout

MacFadyen (1999)

What made SN1998bw+GRB980425

1 Accretion powered hypernova w Nickel wind

MacFadyen (2002)

E~ 1052 erg M(Ni)~05 M

GRB from ~3 shock breakout (Tan et al 2001 Perna amp Vietri 2002)

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Fallback accretion Mms ~ 25 Msun Same star

exploded with a range of explosion energies

Significant accretion for thousands of

seconds ndash days

If fallback fuels a jet with power

fmc2

May power ldquohypernovardquo or long duration

GRBWeak

supernova shock

Shock breakout X-Ray transient

2 ldquoBriefrdquo jet tengine tjet

Engine dies before jet breakout

Mildly relativistic shock breakout

MacFadyen (1999)

What made SN1998bw+GRB980425

1 Accretion powered hypernova w Nickel wind

MacFadyen (2002)

E~ 1052 erg M(Ni)~05 M

GRB from ~3 shock breakout (Tan et al 2001 Perna amp Vietri 2002)

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

If fallback fuels a jet with power

fmc2

May power ldquohypernovardquo or long duration

GRBWeak

supernova shock

Shock breakout X-Ray transient

2 ldquoBriefrdquo jet tengine tjet

Engine dies before jet breakout

Mildly relativistic shock breakout

MacFadyen (1999)

What made SN1998bw+GRB980425

1 Accretion powered hypernova w Nickel wind

MacFadyen (2002)

E~ 1052 erg M(Ni)~05 M

GRB from ~3 shock breakout (Tan et al 2001 Perna amp Vietri 2002)

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Shock breakout X-Ray transient

2 ldquoBriefrdquo jet tengine tjet

Engine dies before jet breakout

Mildly relativistic shock breakout

MacFadyen (1999)

What made SN1998bw+GRB980425

1 Accretion powered hypernova w Nickel wind

MacFadyen (2002)

E~ 1052 erg M(Ni)~05 M

GRB from ~3 shock breakout (Tan et al 2001 Perna amp Vietri 2002)

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

2 ldquoBriefrdquo jet tengine tjet

Engine dies before jet breakout

Mildly relativistic shock breakout

MacFadyen (1999)

What made SN1998bw+GRB980425

1 Accretion powered hypernova w Nickel wind

MacFadyen (2002)

E~ 1052 erg M(Ni)~05 M

GRB from ~3 shock breakout (Tan et al 2001 Perna amp Vietri 2002)

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Collapsars

bull Can make ldquolongrdquo GRBs in H stripped (WR) stars tengine gt tescape

bull Short bursts may be compact binary mergersbull Need SN failure amp angular momentum

ndash Low metallicity binary can help

bull Star can explode -gt SN if nickel is made Predicts GRBSN association Type Ibc

bull SNGRB ratio may depend on angular momentumbull ldquoNickel windrdquo can explode star -gt hypernova

ndash H env Type II (no GRB) no H Type I + GRB

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

GRBGW bull Long GRBs

ndash not brighter than SN in GW

ndash very far Gpc

ndash very rare lt 1 SN

bull Short GBsndash merging ns-bh binaries

ndash maybe closer than long bursts

ndash short delay between event and GRB

ndash good for SWIFTLIGO

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Rates

bull SN 1s = 100000 day

bull GRB 1day (BATSE) = 1000day

bull GRB rate = 1 of SN rate

bull maybe more collapsars than GRBs

bull =gt more rapidly rotating SN

bull SN with collapsar engine

bull look for bright Type Ic (w broad lines)

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

SN GW

bull SN1998bwGRB980425

bull 40 Mpc

bull maybe dominant GRB

bull rapid rotaters

bull SNAPROTSE look for 1998bw 2003dh like SN

bull many light curves -gt better t_explode

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Implications

bull Probe engine directly

bull collapse duration vs GRB duration

bull collapseGRB delay (internal vs external)

bull disk properties ndash low viscosity big disks

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Issues

bull too much j =gt no GRB but bright GW

bull may need low metallicity for GRB

bull prefer high redshift

bull donrsquot know nearby rate

bull but 980425 may imply rate is high

bull look for weak GRBs like 980425

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

Principle Resultsbull Sustained accretion 1 Msuns forgt10sbull Jet formation and collimationbull Sufficient energy for cosmo GRBbull Neutrino cooling amp photodissociation

allows accretionbull Massive bi-conical outflows developbull Time-scale set by He core collapsebull Fallback -gt v long GRB in WR star or

asymmetric SN in SG

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

With decreasing metallicity the bindingenergy of the core and the size of the silicon core both increase making black hole formation more likely atlow metallicity Woosley Heger amp Weaver RMP (2002)

Black hole formation may be unavoidable for low metallicity

Solar metallicity

Low metallicity

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47

In the absence of mass lossand magnetic fields there wouldbe abundant progenitors

Unfortunately nature has both

15 solar mass helium core born rotating rigidly at f times break up

The more difficult problem is the angular momentum Thisis a problem shared by all current GRB models that invokemassive stars

• What is a Gamma-Ray Burst
• Superbowl Burst
• Slide 3
• 135 models (1993)
• Slide 5
• Slide 6
• Slide 7
• GRB991121
• GRB030329SN2003DH
• Slide 10
• Slide 11
• Slide 12
• GRB central engine
• ldquoDelayedrdquo SN Explosion
• Pre-Supernova Density Structure
• Failure of delayed mechanism
• Stellar Rotation
• Slide 18
• Slide 19
• Collapsar Simulations
• Collapsar Disk Animation
• Disk Formation Movie
• Slide 23
• Slide 24
• Slide 25
• Collapsar results
• Slide 27
• Jet Birth
• Relativistic Jet Movie
• Collapsar stages
• Slide 31
• Slide 32
• Nickel Wind Movie
• Slide 34
• Slide 35
• Slide 36
• Slide 37
• Slide 38
• Collapsars
• GRBGW
• Rates
• SN GW
• Implications
• Issues
• Principle Results
• Slide 46
• Slide 47