Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:17:04.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fate of most massive stars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Norhasliza Yusof ,
Raphael Hirschi  and
Hasan Abu Kassim
Norhasliza Yusof
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia email: [email protected]
Raphael Hirschi
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Group, EPSAM, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele UniversityST5 2BG Keele, Staffordshire, UK Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, 277-8568, Japan
Hasan Abu Kassim
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The first generations of stars are thought to have been more massive than Pop I stars and therefore some of these are thought to have produced pair creation supernovae (PCSNe) at the end of their life. However, the chemical signature of PCSNe is not observed in extremely metal poor stars (e.g. Umeda and Nomoto 2002) and it raises the following questions: Were stars born less (or more massive) than the mass range expected to lead to the PCSNe? Or was mass loss too strong during the evolution of these stars and prevented them from retaining enough mass to produce PCSNe? The discovery of very massive stars (VMS, M > 100 M⊙) in the Milky Way and LMC (Crowther et al. 2010) shows that VMS can form and exist. The observations of PCSN candidates (2006gy & 2007bi) also seems to indicate that such SNe may occur. Mass loss plays a crucial role in the life of VMS since the star will only die as a PCSN if the star retains a high mass throughout its life. In this paper, we shall describe the dependence of VMS evolution on metallicity and present stellar evolution models at various metallicities, including the effects of mass loss and rotation. Based on our models, we will give our predictions concerning the fate of these VMS, either a PCSN or SNIc (possibly GRBs in some cases) as a function of metallicity.

Keywords

stars: evolutionrotationsupernovae
Type
Poster Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S279: Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts , April 2011 , pp. 431 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, Physical Review Letters, 18, 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, P. A., et al. 2010, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 408, 731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heger, A. & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, H. & Nomoto, K. 2002, ApJ, 565, 385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, T. & Umeda, H. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 412, L78CrossRefGoogle Scholar