User:FT2/scc
Stellar core collapse occurs when
Four main mechanisms are known to cause core collapse in stars: - failure of fusion, when the fuel cycle is unable to provide sufficient energy to counter the star's own gravity, accretion of material-typically by a white dwarf-from other objects, leading to sufficient mass for collapse, degeneracy of the core followed by electron capture,[3] and quantum fluctuations due to pair production in very massive stars causing the star to briefly lose supporting photon pressure. Two further possible modes of collapse are hypothesized, one based upon collapse halted by degeneracy pressure of quarks or smaller particles, and one in which external tidal forces in some binary star systems could cause compression and collapse. Both have been studied but the result is as yet unclear. The exact mode of collapse and the resulting products depends upon factors such as mass, rotation, presence of stable or unstable companion stars, and metallicity (the degree to which the star contains elements heavier than helium).
Scientific models of core collapse are still being refined, but ignoring rotational effects it is broadly believed that the key modes of collapse for a single star are as follows: Under about 8 solar masses a star does not have sufficient mass for core collapse. Around 8-10 solar masses the core does not initially collapse but forms a strongly
In nickel-iron core collapse (the best known and first recognized type), a star possesses the mass needed to fuse elements that have an atomic mass greater than hydrogen and helium, albeit at increasingly high temperatures and pressure, and for increasingly shorter periods of time. The star fuses increasingly higher mass elements, starting with hydrogen and then helium, until finally a core of iron and nickel is produced. Fusion of iron or nickel produces no net energy, so further fusion is unable to take place. When the mass of the inert core exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit of about 1.44 solar masses, and with insufficient fusion pressure, electron degeneracy alone is no longer sufficient to counter gravity. A cataclysmic implosion takes place within seconds, in which the outer core reaches an inward velocity of up to 23% of the speed of light and the inner core reaches temperatures of up to 100 billion kelvin. The result of this collapse depends upon the type of star involved; in some cases the explosion (known as a "supernova") briefly outshines a galaxy, creates elements beyond iron that cannot ordinarily be created by stellar processes, and releases more energy than our sun will over its entire life. Because of the underlying mechanism, the resulting variable star for these is also described as a core-collapse supernova. Core collapse of a less massive inert neon-oxygen-magnesium core (recognized in 1979) occurs in a similar way but is triggered by loss of support via electron capture.
Two other types of core collapse mechanism are known to exist. Some white dwarfs that are insufficiently massive for core collapse may subsequently gain enough extra mass from external sources to trigger core collapse, leading to collapse, sudden heating, and a type Ia supernova. Also some very massive but low metallicity stars become unstable due to pair production and may blow themselves apart upon core collapse[citation needed] in a pair-instability supernova, leaving no remnant.
Overview of the stellar fuel cycle and structure of the core in large stars
- CHECK BURNING PROCESS PRODUCTS AND DATA CAREFULLY AGAINST SOURCES - INCONSISTENCIES NOTED BETWEEN THIS TABLE AND OTHER PAGES (EG Al)
A star of less than about 8 solar masses does not ordinarily undergo core collapse, other than in the event of
A star of more than about 8 solar masses is massive enough that as fusion reduces, gravity creates even higher temperatures and pressures, sufficient for the carbon in the core to begin to fuse once the star contracts at the end of the helium-burning stage. The cores of these massive stars become layered like onions as progressively heavier atomic nuclei build up at the center, with an outermost layer of hydrogen gas, surrounding a layer of hydrogen fusing into helium, surrounding a layer of helium fusing into carbon, with inner layers fusing to progressively heavier elements. As a star this massive evolves, it undergoes repeated stages where fusion in the core comes to an end, and the core begins to collapse until pressures and temperatures are created capable of igniting the next stage of fusion, which temporarily halts collapse.[4][5]
As the star's burning cycles progress and temperature and pressure increase, other mechanisms also change. By the carbon burning stage, neutrino emission replaces electromagnetic radiation as the primary energy loss mechanism. Neutrinos can easily escape which is a factor in the rapidity of subsequent stages, and the subsequent phases may blend into each other rather than being distinct. During silicon burning photodisintegration becomes the primary mechanism for nucleosynthesis. In very massive but low-metal stars of 140 solar masses or more, conditions can arise where pair production is a significant mechanism, giving rise to fluctuations in the outward photon pressure which make the hydrostatic balance of the star increasingly unstable.
Fusion stages for a massive star (8 or more solar masses) Process Main fuel Main products Typical data for a 25 M star[6] Temperature
(Kelvin)Density
(g/cm3)Duration Hydrogen burning via CNO cycle hydrogen helium (catalyzed by small amounts of heavier nuclei) 7×107 10 107 years Helium burning via triple-alpha process helium primarily carbon, some oxygen 2×108 2×103 106 years carbon burning processcarbon primarily neon, sodium and magnesium, some aluminium, silicon and oxygen 8×108 106 103 years neon burning processneon oxygen, magnesium 1.6×109 107 3 years oxygen burning process
(stars of 10 or more solar masses only)oxygen silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium 1.8×109 107 0.3 years silicon burning process
(stars of 10 or more solar masses only)silicon iron, nickel 2.5×109 108 1 - 5 days
The repeated fusion processes stop following the
Massive single stars capable of core collapse have short lifespans of between 70 million years down to a few hundred thousand years (by the calculation M - 2.5 × 1.2×1010 where M = mass in sols and 1.2×1010 is the sun's lifetime).[7] They are mainly observed in young galactic structures such as open clusters, the arms of spiral galaxies, and in irregular galaxies.
Core collapse processes
Of the four verified collapse pathways, the first recognized and best studied is cessation of fusion, causing nickel-iron core collapse in stars of more than about 10 solar masses. Electron capture core collapse was proposed in 1979
Refinements of this basic core collapse model take into account whether the star has a significant amount of elements beyond hydrogen and helium (its "
Cessation of fusion: nickel-iron core (10+ masses)
A star of more than about 10 solar masses undergoes all of the burning processes up to the final stage of silicon burning, the core becoming increasingly hotter and more dense. The factor limiting this escalation of fusion processes is that the amount of energy released through fusion is dependent on the
This inert core is under huge gravitational pressure. It is supported by two outward forces - photon pressure from fusion reactions, and
For stars of around 10 - 40 solar masses,
The result of nickel-iron core collapse depends on the star's mass and metallicity. Although calculation of exact limits is uncertain:
- The collapse of a progenitor star under about 25 solar masses or having more than solar metallicity is eventually halted by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions, mediated by the neutron matter that has been created, producing a shock wave that propagates outward and causing material from the outer layers of the star to be launched into interstellar space at high speeds - a type II supernova. The remnant at the heart of the explosion eventually stabilizes as a newly born neutron star.
- Progenitor stars of around 25-40 solar masses and having solar or lower metallicity follow the same path, but the resulting neutron star is massive enough to cause the debris to fall back onto the stars surface. The resulting supernova is therefore weak, and after some time the mass of the remnant reaches the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit triggering further collapse into a black hole.
- If the progenitor star was above about 40 solar masses and having solar or lower metallicity, then collapse is directly to a black hole, neutron degeneracy being insufficient to prevent this. There is no supernova.[22]
In the two latter cases, the only known force that might potentially prevent collapse to a black hole for some stars would be degeneracy pressure of quarks or their subcomponents (see below) - however at present this is an area we lack knowledge.
Electron capture: O-Ne-Mg core (8-10 masses)
In stars of about 8 - 10 solar masses, fusion processes come to a halt after the
As with other massive stars, temperatures and pressures greatly increase during the core collapse. Since the star contains material capable of fusion at these higher temperatures and pressures, fusion restarts and the star reignites during collapse. The
Accretion (under 8 masses)
- FACT CHECK - compare to process described in this diagram
The majority of stars are less than 8 solar masses. On their own, they dim and settle as
The process believed to take place involves a binary star system of which one star has evolved to a white dwarf. Eventually its companion star reaches a point in its evolution where it expands by hundreds of times to form a giant star (such as a red giant)—this is quite common, our own sun will do this in around 5 - 7 billion years. Expansion causes its material to be close enough to be seized by the white dwarf which eventually surpasses the size limit for core collapse and implodes. The exact conditions are delicately balanced - some types of matter accretion can instead lead to a nova rather than core collapse, where instability causes excess material to be blasted into space; model refinements are required to confirm the conditions under which a net accretion of infalling matter and increase of mass will take place.[25][26]
White dwarfs are very stable stars of well defined structure. Their core collapse by accretion takes place at a well defined point (subject to rotation effects and other refinements). As a result, the resulting type 1a supernovae tend to occur under very similar conditions and at the same or similar mass across many star systems. They therefore also have very similar
Although the mechanics of core collapse by accretion are long established, a persistent mystery has existed–examples of type 1a supernovae progenitor stars have not yet been positively identified and proven. Scientists would expect to see evidence of binary white dwarfs actively accreting material and related
Pair instability (some stars over 140 masses having low metallicity)
(to draft)
Unproven core collapse processes
|
These processes, unlike the four above, are not yet considered by astrophysicists to be established, although they have been studied.
External gravitational gradient
It was suggested in a 1996 paper that tidal forces could cause the centers of binary neutron stars to become denser as a result of each others' gravitational field, due to tidal forces. Tidal forces are known to have extreme effects; when an object approaches a black hole sufficiently closely the gravitational field can be so extreme that the object is potentially ripped apart ("spaghettification"). The same effect is also responsible for the ocean tides and the tidal locking of our moon.
Spaghettification also involves lateral
Quark novae and exotic matter core collapse
In the same way that massive stars can overcome electron degeneracy and collapse until prevented by neutron degeneracy, it has been widely speculated that under suitable conditions within a neutron star (or the collapsing core of a massive star) neutron core collapse could occur but further collapse to a black hole would not occur - it would ultimately be prevented by degeneracy pressure of quarks, the component parts of neutrons, ie, in a manner analogous to a type II supernova.
A
Factors affecting collapse
(New section or include above?)
Remnants and byproducts
The end result of core collapse is either the complete destruction of the star without any remnant, or a remnant of
When a remnant is formed, its mass can be substantially less than the original star. Some stars of over 20 solar masses may leave a remnant that is only a quarter of their original mass (around 5 solar masses).
While many neutron stars and other remnants actively emit electromagnetic radiation (visible light, X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves), a minority are radio-quiet or emit limited frequencies. A new class of pulsars that emit only gamma rays was discovered by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope in 2008.[43] A second feature discovered by the same telescope was that the shock wave and dispersed material from supernovae may be the source for various high energy cosmic rays detected on earth, since they may have an accelerating effect on protons and other subatomic particles in interstellar space.[44]
If the remnant's mass exceeds about 3–4 solar masses (the
Examples of core collapse remnants and byproducts | ||||||||||||
|
Research into core collapse
History of research
- IN PROGRESS
Date Title Authors Notes 1930s On Super-Novae (1934)[46]
Cosmic Rays from Super-novae (1934)[47]
On Collapsed Neutron Stars (1938)[48]Fritz Zwicky and Walter Baade Zwicky and Baade were visionaries and astronomers who pioneered research into supernovae, In a series of papers in the 1930s they proposed that supernovae represented a new category of stellar object, that supernovae arose from the stellar collapse and conversion of a significant part of a star's mass to energy, introduced the concept of neutron stars, suggested that a critical mass would exist for stellar collapse, and outlined the supposition that supernovae represented stellar collapse into a neutron star. Other proposals validated decades later included that supernovae were a source of cosmic rays, the idea of supernovae as standard candles, gravitational lensing, and dark matter. One precursor (prompt? stimulus?) for the concept of the neutron star was the experimental demonstration of the existence of the neutron a year earlier.
- Pioneered research into supernovae, identifying them as a new category of astronomical objects [49] summarized the "meager knowledge" about them, and coined the term "super nova", in their 1933/34? paper TITLE. Stated that supernova progenitors were probably "ordinary stars". Provided basic calculations showing that the energy output of a supernova was probably equivalent to annihilation of a significant proportion of its rest mass, and concluded that "it therefore becomes evident that the phenomenon of a super-nova represents the transition of an ordinary star into a body of considerably smaller mass."
- Prompted by the then-recent 1932 demonstration of neutrons, speculated that neutron stars might exist and that basic calculations showed the collapse of a star into neutron matter would release 10% of its rest mass as energy - a possible explanation for supernovae. Although largely supposition at the time, this was the dawn of understanding of core collapse, and was presented to the American Physical Society in 1933. Current calculations agree with their estimate - during type II core collapse, around 10% of the rest mass is expelled as a neutrino burst.
- A subsequent paper TITLE (1934) asserts that "Supernovae represent the transitions from ordinary stars into neutron stars" and that they were also the origins of cosmic rays.
- Other proposals (1937-39) include supernovae used as standard candles, gravitational lensing, and dark matter.
1959 Neutron Star models Cameron - Author summarizes the state of research in 1959 as follows:
- "About 20 years ago [ie, ~1939] there was considerable interest in neutron stars [as] attractive theoretical possibilities". Zwicky and Baade (1938-39) had suggested that the immense release of energy in a supernova might be related to the creation of a neutron star, however it was more widely believed that the end point for most or all stars was as a white dwarf, with mass loss taking place ensuring that the final resulting star had a mass within the Chandrasekhar limit. As a result, the study of neutron stars is described as "generally neglected", with "only Zwicky (1958)" continuing to advance the idea that neutron stars are formed by supernova events. Other studies up to 1958 considered neutron stars as "hypothetical and interesting objects". Neutron star models exist for diameters of ~ 9 km and based on a Fermi gas.
- States it is "evident" that any massive star which has not shed sufficient mass to form a white dwarf with a larger central density "must" suffer collapse when critical density is reached, releasing immense energy, expelling the outer envelope, and creating an "enormously hot" neutron core. A combination of high thermal conductivity, evaporative, and radiative losses will then cause rapid energy loss and cooling to a "cold degenerate neutron gas". The question is whether massive stars lose or eject enough mass as they evolve, to preclude such an event.
- Describes "new work" on neutron stars including a range of calculations and equations of state.
- Notes that the calculated upper limit to neutron star mass is "sufficiently large" to be consistent with supernova origins and concludes that neutron stars are "probable byproducts" or "inevitable products" of supernovae.
1960 ? Hoyle and Fowler - Distinguished the collapse mechanisms of nuclear flash (carbon detonation) and photodissociation of iron (cessation of fusion) in supernovae etiology. Sugimoto and Namoto (1979) note that the "basic ideas" for these core collapse mechanisms remained unchanged although the difference in types and spectra was subsequently ascribed to their progenitor star's envelope rather than the triggering mechanism.[50]
- 1967/68 - discovery of Pulsars demonstrates that Zwicky/Baade "were correct in their theory".
Noted: Useful papers for this article:
- http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1984ApJ...277..791N&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES (K. Nomoto)
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ApJ...322..206N (part 2 of above)
- http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/591/1/288/ (full paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/591/1/288/pdf/0004-637X_591_1_288.pdf)
Theoretical modeling
- (Section notes:)
- This paper - 2D shows chaotic effects ; 3D simulations needed for full understanding.
- (Section notes:)
The
The major unsolved problem with Type II supernovae is that it is not understood how the burst of neutrinos transfers its energy to the rest of the star producing the shock wave which causes the star to explode. From the above discussion, only one percent of the energy needs to be transferred to produce an explosion, but explaining how that one percent of transfer occurs has proven very difficult, even though the particle interactions involved are believed to be well understood. In the 1990s, one model for doing this involved convective overturn, which suggests that convection, either from neutrinos from below, or infalling matter from above, completes the process of destroying the progenitor star. Heavier elements than iron are formed during this explosion by neutron capture, and from the pressure of the neutrinos pressing into the boundary of the "neutrinosphere", seeding the surrounding space with a cloud of gas and dust which is richer in heavy elements than the material from which the star originally formed.[55]
Neutrino physics, which is modeled by the Standard Model, is crucial to the understanding of this process.
Outstanding questions
A considerable body of knowledge concerning core collapse is considered widely accepted by researchers. Because the physical conditions associated with core collapse are so extreme, and at times verge on the edge of scientific knowledge of fundamental physics, there are several areas of ongoing active research and many open questions in the field.
- Observations: X-ray, gamma ray, and neutrino observatories are all newly available within the last 1 - 2 decades. Scientists are still gathering data that may support existing evidence and models, suggest variations, inform new proposals or modifications, and provide the basis for more refined measurements and theoretical models. Some events only take place rarely, and even when they do, pre-collapse observations and observations from the early stages of the event may be hard to obtain.
- Fundamental models of physics: Models used to predict behavior at extremes of size, energy, gravity and density are still being developed. Experiments such as the fundamental forcesof nature, are all still areas of ongoing research.
- Stellar dynamics: Massive stars can undergo a very wide range of complex processes. Models of stellar annihilationare capable of refinement and new insight, and questions may be posed or answered by these.
- Collapse processes: In general, models of supernovae are broadly very successful in their predictions. But the means by which part of the energy from the emitted neutrinos of some kinds of core collapse is re-absorbed to cause a supernova is not fully understood. Also while type 1a supernovae mechanisms are believed to be broadly understood, progenitor stars undergoing accretion have not been directly evidenced yet and possible conversion from a deflagration mode (subsonic) to a detonation mode (supersonic + shock wave) is not fully understood. Objects likely to be related to collapse, such as super soft X-ray sources and gamma burst sources, also present questions [clarification needed].
- Complex scenarios: Full modeling of more complex scenarios such as rotation effects, multiple star systems, and stars with unusual physical structures, may reveal more about the physics and modes of core collapse than is presently known.
Notable core collapse objects
References
- ^ FACT CHECK - THAT THIS IS IN FACT CORE COLLAPSE, AND ANY OTHER INFO.
- ^ FACT CHECK - ACCURACY - DOES THE REST OF IT?
- ^ Evolution of 8-10 solar mass stars toward electron capture supernovae. I - formation of electron-degenerate O-Ne-Mg cores - K. Nomoto, 1984
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
late stages
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
hinshaw
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - doi:10.1038/nphys172.)
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|year=
/|date=
mismatch (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help - ^ Richmond, Michael. "Stellar evolution on the main sequence". Retrieved 2006-08-24.
- Bibcode:1979ICRC....2...13M. Retrieved 2011-05-08.)
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) (Direct link to full article - )
- ISBN 9780226109534.
- ^
Fewell, M. P. (1995). "The atomic nuclide with the highest mean binding energy". doi:10.1119/1.17828.
- ^ Fleurot, Fabrice. "Evolution of Massive Stars". Laurentian University. Retrieved 2007-08-13.
- ^
Lieb, Elliott H.; Yau, Horng-Tzer (1987). "A rigorous examination of the Chandrasekhar theory of stellar collapse". doi:10.1086/165813.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - ^
Fryer, C. L. (2006-01-24). "Gravitational Waves from Gravitational Collapse". Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=lb5owLGIQGsC&pg=PA275&dq=%22core+collapse%22+%22white+dwarf%22&hl=en&ei=Tzy_TceyC4iXOuDdqLgF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22core%20collapse%22%20%22white%20dwarf%22&f=false page 223 section 8.3.1
- ^
Hayakawa, Takehito; Iwamoto, Nobuyuki; Kajino, Toshitaka; Shizuma, Toshiyuki; Umeda, Hideyuki; Nomoto, Ken'Ichi (2006). "Principle of Universality of Gamma-Process Nucleosynthesis in Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions". The Astrophysical Journal. 648 (1): L47–L50. doi:10.1086/507703.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - ^ CHECK - IS THIS CLAUSE REDUNDANT OR IS IT DIFFERENT FOR 8-10 MASSES?
- ^ ISBN 0716730979.
- ISBN 9780300090970.
- ^
Barwick, S. (2004-10-29). "APS Neutrino Study: Report of the Neutrino Astrophysics and Cosmology Working Group" (PDF). American Physical Society. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
collapse scenario
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ FACT CHECK
- ^ FACT CHECK needed - these are from a 25 M star, what are the actual increases required for Oxygen burning?
- ^ Nomoto, 1984
- ^ http://www.sciencecodex.com/ticking_stellar_time_bomb_identified
- ^ http://www.universetoday.com/45272/astronomers-find-type-ia-supernova-just-waiting-to-happen/
- ^ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/02/type-ia-supernova-one-of-the-great-unsolved-mysteries-in-astronomy-.html
- ^ http://www.universetoday.com/85167/what-triggers-a-type-ia-supernova-chandra-finds-new-evidence/
- ^ "International News on the Quark-Nova". Retrieved 30 July 2008.
- ^ "Theories of Quark-novae". Retrieved 29 June 2008.
- .
- ^ New Scientist: Was the brightest supernova the birth of a quark star?, accessed August 21, 2007
- ^ .
We find an encouraging match between the resulting light curve and that observed in the case of SN2006gy suggesting that we might have at hand the first ever signature of a Quark Nova. Successful application of our model to SN2005gj and SN2005ap is also presented.
- ^ a b c K. S. Chadhar (2009-06-04). "Second supernovae point to quark stars". Retrieved 2009-04-26.
- ^ Drake; et al. (2002-06-20). "Is RX J1856.5–3754 a Quark Star?". The Astrophysical Journal. Retrieved 2011-05-03.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|last=
(help) - arXiv:astro-ph/0702671.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.04.094. Retrieved 2011-05-03.)
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|last=
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link - doi:10.1086/185712. Retrieved 2011-05-03.
- .
- ISBN 978-0387335438.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ a b Carroll 2004, Section 5.8
- ^ http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2260/new-kind-pulsar-discovered
- ^ http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2260/new-kind-pulsar-discovered
- ^ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/cosmic_rays.html
- ^ FACT CHECK - companion is not blown ("kicked") away?
- )
- )
- doi:10.1086/144003)
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - ^ W. Baade, F. Zwicky, 1934, "On Super-Novae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 254-259.
- ^ Presupernova models and supernovae
- ^
Izzard, Robert G.; Ramirez-Ruiz, Enrico; Tout, Christopher A. (2004). "Formation rates of core-collapse supernovae and gamma-ray bursts". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 348 (4): 1215–1228. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07436.x.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - ^ a b
Rampp, M. (February 11–16, 2002). "Core-collapse supernova simulations: Variations of the input physics". Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on "Nuclear Astrophysics". Ringberg Castle, Tegernsee, Germany. pp. 119–125. Bibcode:2002nuas.conf..119R.)
{{cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help - ^
The OPAL Collaboration; Ackerstaff, K.; et al. (1998). "Tests of the Standard Model and Constraints on New Physics from Measurements of Fermion-pair Production at 189 GeV at LEP". [Submitted to] The European Physical Journal C. 2 (3): 441–472. doi:10.1007/s100529800851. Retrieved 2007-03-18.)
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ Staff (2004-10-05). "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
- ^ Stover, Dawn (2006). "Life In A Bubble". Popular Science. 269 (6): 16.
- ^
Janka, H. -Th.; Langanke, K.; Marek, A.; Martinez-Pinedo, G.; Mueller, B. (2006). "Theory of Core-Collapse Supernovae". Bethe Centennial Volume of Physics Reports [submitted]. 142 (1–4): 229. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(93)90012-X.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054594.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link - ^
Young, Timothy R. (2004). "A Parameter Study of Type II Supernova Light Curves Using 6 M He Cores". doi:10.1086/425675.
- ^
Rauscher, T.; Heger, A.; Hoffman, R. D.; Woosley, S. E. (2002). "Nucleosynthesis in Massive Stars With Improved Nuclear and Stellar Physics". doi:10.1086/341728.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link
See also
- (See navbox - which links to copy?)
External links
- TBA
Category:Astronomical events • Category:Stellar phenomena • Category:Stellar core collapse • Category:Gamma-ray bursts • Category:Neutrino astronomy • Category:Physical cosmology • Category:Astrophysics • Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics • Category:Stellar astronomy • Category:Condensed matter physics • Category:Degenerate stars • Category:Exotic matter • Category:Quantum mechanics • Category:Gravitation • Category:Celestial mechanics • Category:Stellar evolution • Category:Black holes • Category:Cataclysmic variables • Category:Quark matter • Category:Strangeness production • Category:Phases of matter • Category:Pauli exclusion principle • Category:Stellar evolution • Category:White dwarfs • Category:Quantum chromodynamics • Category:Degenerate stars • Category:Compact stars • Category:Nuclear fusion • Category:Supernovae • Category:Light sources • Category:Neutron stars • Category:Nucleosynthesis