4.6 Article Retracted Publication

被撤回的出版物: r-process nucleosynthesis in the MHD plus neutrino-heated collapsar jet (Retracted article. See vol. 664, 2022)

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 582, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526110

关键词

gamma-ray burst: general; stars: black holes; accretion, accretion disks; magnetohydrodynamics (MHD); stars: abundances; stars: massive

资金

  1. JSPS [20244035, 24244036]
  2. Scientific Research on Innovative Area of MEXT [26105517, 24340060]
  3. JSPS Core-to-Core Program EFES
  4. US National Science Foundation [PHY-0855082]
  5. US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-95-ER40934, 21.6817]
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26105517] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been proposed that the collapsar scenario for long-duration gamma ray bursts is a possible astrophysical site for r-process nucleosynthesis. Here we present r-process nucleosynthesis calculations based upon a model for a MHD+neutrino-heated collapsar jet. We utilize a relativistic magnetohydrodynamic model that includes ray-tracing neutrino transport to describe the development of the black hole accretion disk and the neutrino heating of the funnel region above the black hole. The late time evolution of the collapsar jet is then evolved using axisymmetric special relativistic hydrodynamics. We employ representative test particles to follow the trajectories in density, temperature, entropy, and electron fraction for material flowing from the accretion disk into the jet until they are several thousand km above the black hole. The evolution of nuclear abundances from nucleons to heavy nuclei for ejected test particle trajectories was solved in a large nuclear reaction network as temperatures fall from 9 x 10(9) to 3 x 10(8) K. We show that an r-process-like abundance distribution forms in material ejected in the collapsar jet. The possibility for a signature of collapsar r-process material to be found in metal-poor stars is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据