Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We present a comparison between several simulation codes designed to study the core-collapse supernova mechanism. We pay close attention to controlling the initial conditions and input physics in order to ensure a meaningful and informative comparison. Our goal is three-fold. First, we aim to demonstrate the current level of agreement between various groups studying the corecollapse supernova central engine. Second, we desire to form a strong basis for future simulation codes and methods to compare to. Lastly, we want this work to be a stepping stone for future work exploring more complex simulations of core-collapse supernovae, i.e., simulations in multiple dimensions and simulations with modern neutrino and nuclear physics. We compare the early (first 500 ms after core bounce) spherically-symmetric evolution of a 20 M e progenitor star from six different core-collapse supernovae codes: 3DnSNe-IDSA, AGILE-BOLTZTRAN, FLASH, FORNAX, GR1D, and PRO-METHEUS-VERTEX. Given the diversity of neutrino transport and hydrodynamic methods employed, we find excellent agreement in many critical quantities, including the shock radius evolution and the amount of neutrino heating. Our results provide an excellent starting point from which to extend this comparison to higher dimensions and compare the development of hydrodynamic instabilities that are crucial to the supernova explosion mechanism, such as turbulence and convection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Connor et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: