Mercury,
November/December 1999 Table of Contents
In
the next year, observations of a distant, newly discovered supernova
may provide us an opportunity to identify a black hole in the debris
of such a stellar explosion. For the first time, we mayh obtain
unmistakable evidence that supernova explosions can give birth to
black holes.
Shmuel
Balberg
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Monica
Colpi
Università degli Studi di Milano
Stuart
L. Shapiro
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Luca
Zampieri
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
and Università degli Studi di Padova
Identifying
black holes has been one of the greatest challenges in astronomy
over the last few decades. Black holes are a theoretical consequence
of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, where the entire
mass of an object has collapsed to a size approaching that of a
mathematical point. As a result, the gravitational field very close
to such an object is so great that nothing—not even light—can
escape; it appears as a "black hole" in space.
In
the absence of any direct emission of light, astronomers can only
hope to identify black holes indirectly, through the effect of their
gravitational pull on gas and stars in their vicinity. Over the
past decade significant progress in observational techniques and
theoretical modeling has led to the identification of over twenty
"black hole candidates." These can be divided into two distinct
groups: stellar-mass black holes, with masses several times that
of our Sun (commonly denoted M°, where 1 M° = 2 x 1033 grams); and
supermassive black holes, with masses of the order of millions of
M°. The latter are associated with the centers of galaxies, including
our own Milky Way, and quasars.
The
most compelling evidence for a supermassive black hole is a disk
of hydrogen observed to be rotating around the center of the galaxy
NGC 4258. Applying Kepler's laws to the orbital radius and velocity
requires a compact central object with a mass of about 36 million
M°. The stellar-mass black hole candidates are detected when they
accrete material, supplied by a binary companion star. The first
and best known candidate of this type is found in the constellation
Cygnus of our galaxy, and is denoted as Cyg X-1. In essence, a fraction
of the gravitational potential energy released in the accretion
is converted into internal energy as the material spiraling into
the black hole compresses and heats. Some of this heat escapes as
radiation, providing the observational signature of the accreting
object. In the case of the black holes, the temperature of the material
is so great that its typical emission is in the x-ray band of the
spectrum.
Classifying
these objects as black hole "candidates" relies mostly on a mass
estimate—since no other object is known to be both massive and compact
enough to account for the observations. It also has been suggested
that an identification could be made on the basis of the emitted
radiation. Gas accreting onto a black hole will produce a different
radiative luminosity and spectrum from those of gas accreting onto
other compact objects (such as neutron stars) which have hard surfaces.
A
closely related challenge has been the gathering of observational
evidence to identify astronomical scenarios where black holes are
created. Theorists have suggested several such scenarios, spanning
from creation of black holes during the birth of the Universe via
the Big Bang, to a secular merger of many stars in the centers of
galaxies, to a catastrophic collapse of a massive or supermassive
star, or even a relativistic cluster of stars. Here we focus on
the formation of a stellar-mass black hole in the explosion of an
evolved massive star, a supernova. After the explosion, some of
the debris will gradually fall back onto the black hole, giving
rise to a source of radiant energy. Can we detect this energy source
and thereby uncover a black hole formed in the midst of such an
explosion? It seems that nature may finally provide us with an opportunity
to do so.
When
Big Stars Go Boom
Supernovae
are one of nature's grandest spectacles: when a massive star explodes,
it emits about as much energy in a matter of seconds as it did throughout
its entire life of tens of millions of years. For a few weeks, the
exploding star out-shines its entire host galaxy (see Figure
1)!
This
fantastic display of power allows us to observe supernovae in very
distant galaxies; with present day satellites and telescopes astronomers
detect several dozens of supernovae a year. The best studied supernova
was observed to explode in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite
galaxy of the Milky Way Galaxy, in February 1987, giving its name-SN1987A
(previous page). The proximity of this supernova, only 160,000 lightyears
away, has made it the brightest supernova observed on Earth since
Kepler's time (1604), and has provided astronomers with ample opportunity
for study over the last twelve years.
Why
do stars explode and how might a black hole form? The theory of
stellar evolution suggests that stars with masses larger than 8
M° can go through all the stages of thermonuclear burning, or fusion.
Close to the end of its life, a massive star is expected to resemble
a cosmic onion, composed of an iron core, surrounded by concentric
shells of hot, fusing material: silicon and magnesium rich, oxygen
and carbon rich, helium rich, and an envelope of unburned hydrogen
(see Figure 2). Each inner layer forms when conditions in the star
allow the lighter element above it to initiate fusion. Iron is the
most tightly bound of all nuclei; it cannot produce energy by thermonuclear
fusion. Hence, the iron core cannot generate thermal energy to support
itself against the gravitational load of its own mass, and when
it is large enough—theoretical estimates give a critical mass somewhat
larger than 1 M°—it becomes unstable and collapses.
Within
a few seconds the inner part of the collapsing iron core contracts
from its original, roughly Earth size, to a radius of a few tens
of kilometers. The density reaches about 1014 grams per cubic centimeter—the
density of atomic nuclei. The collapsed core becomes a gigantic
nucleus: a mixture of neutrons, protons, and electrons, supported
against further collapse by nuclear forces. These forces resist
the compression of the matter, and are able to halt the collapse
of the inner part of the core (about 0.6 M°). A shock wave forms
and slows the rest of the core material that continues to rain inward.
At least temporarily, the dying star is saved.
The
gravitational potential energy made available by the collapse of
the core is fantastic—several times 1053 ergs—similar to the power
output of the entire observable Universe in the course of one day,
and several thousand times the energy required to detach the envelope
of the star from the collapsed core. Initially much of this energy
is stored in the very dense core as heat. The core can gradually
radiate this energy away in the form of neutrinos because only these
very weakly interacting particles can escape the extreme densities
of the core. Most of the neutrinos escape without any further effect,
but a small fraction scatter off particles in the outer part of
the collapsing core, heating the material and increasing its pressure,
like a hot plate boiling a column of water ascending onto it. Theoretical
simulations show that within about one second, the neutrinos deposit
about one percent of their total energy in the infalling material
and induce a pressure that is large enough to stop the inflow of
matter. The inflow motion is then reversed and material is pushed
outward, which subsequently leads to the explosion of the star.
Figure
1. An image of the galaxy NGC 1536 before (left) and after
the explosion of supernova 1997D. SN1997D was serendipitously
discovered on 14 January 1997 by De Mello and Benetti (IAU Circular
no. 6537). The parent galaxy NGC 1536 is located about 14 Mpc
from our Solar System. Images courtesy of the authors.
Neutrinos'
Surprising Role
This
amazing hypothesis, that the weakly interacting neutrinos are the
drivers of the Universe's grandest explosions, has been the subject
of intense investigation. Researchers use computer simulations to
study the complex competition of neutrinos and gravity. It is no
easy task: one must model the physics of neutrino interactions and
nuclear forces, both of which are not well known, and couple them
with the turbulent hydrodynamics of matter falling onto the core
in a strong gravitational field. Although the different research
groups performing such simulations are not without disagreements,
the physical underpinnings of the explosion mechanism are commonly
accepted. Our confidence in the fundamentals of supernova theory
was significantly strengthened when a pulse of neutrinos was detected
by terrestrial detectors in coincidence with the initial optical
burst from SN1987A, yielding a neutrino number and energy consistent
with theory.
And
what of the compact core left behind as a remnant of the explosion?
In most cases it remains a giant nucleus held together by the force
of gravity: a neutron star. To date several hundred neutron stars
have been detected, mostly as radio "pulsars"-rotating neutron stars
which produce beamed electromagnetic emission, due to an extremely
strong surface magnetic field. If the beam is not aligned with the
spin axis we see a pulse, like from a lighthouse, every time the
beam sweeps Earth. Neutron stars are the only known objects that
can provide such rapid, steady pulses, some with periods as low
as milliseconds.
Figure 2. Interior cut-away
of a massive progenitor star, showing its characteristic "onion"
structure close to the end of its life. A Hydrogen plus
Helium envelope surrounds internal concentric layers rich
in heavier elements (Oxygen and Silicon); at the
center, the iron core (Fe). Illustration courtesy of authors.
One
crucial feature of neutron stars is that they have a maximum mass
beyond which the gravitational load is too great even for the immense
power of the strong interactions. The exact value of this mass is
unknown, due to the uncertainties in our theory of the nuclear forces.
However, theoretical studies suggest that it is about 2 M°, and
most likely no more than 3 M°. Should a neutron star accrete enough
matter to push its mass beyond this maximum mass, it must collapse
into a black hole.
Since
there exists such a maximum mass, the nature of the compact remnant
of a supernova is uncertain. First, the explosion itself is not
guaranteed: The neutrinos must deposit enough energy in the incoming
matter to reverse its flow before the collapsed inner core accretes
enough mass to crush it into a black hole. If a black hole forms
too early, the neutrino stream is cut off, and no more pressure
can be built and the entire star will collapse onto the new black
hole. Such an event is often referred to as a "failed supernova."
The rate at which material falls onto the core is therefore critical
to the explosion. This rate tends to depend on the initial mass
of the iron core, which in turn is larger when the total mass of
the progenitor star is larger. According to current computer simulations,
the critical limit lies at a progenitor mass of about 40 M°. The
iron cores in stars with larger mass will lead to an infall rate
that will defeat the neutrinos, forming a black hole before an explosion
can be driven. Stars even more massive, which have reached this
evolutionary stage, end up entirely as black holes.
Watching
Out for Fallback
Neutrinos
are expected to triumph and drive a successful explosion in lower
mass stars, but the details depend strongly on the amount of kinetic
energy the envelope can obtain. If the rate of infalling material
is large, more energy is required to reverse its motion, and less
energy remains available to drive the explosion. Insufficient kinetic
energy means that some of the material originally close to the core
will not be able to fully escape its gravitational pull, but will
instead reach some maximum distance and then reverse and accrete
onto it. This process is generally referred to as "fallback."
Most
of this fallback occurs very early in the course of the explosion,
so that even as the supernova progresses, the core may find that
it has exceeded the maximum mass it can support and collapses to
a black hole. In this case, a successful supernova will leave behind
a black hole, not a neutron star.
Larger
mass stars tend to experience larger fallback rates as the neutrinos
build up the pressure, and so, they usually give rise to weaker
explosions. Furthermore, the explosion energy must overcome the
gravitational binding energy, which is naturally larger when the
star is more massive. This combination implies that more massive
stars experience a larger amount of fallback, even when a successful
explosion does take place.
Computer
simulations indicate that stars with masses between 8 M° and about
20-25 M° will undergo rather little fallback and are likely to produce
a neutron star. The exact upper limit depends on the maximum stable
mass of neutron stars and the details of neutrino-interaction physics.
In fact, several pulsars have been associated with sites of known
supernovae, like the Vela and Crab nebulae, confirming that they
were indeed born in supernovae.
The
rarer stars with masses in the range 25-40 M° are also expected
to explode successfully, but the rate of fallback will be sufficient
to induce collapse and the formation of a black hole. It is evidence
for this particular scenario that we are currently pursuing.
Clues
to Black Hole Formation
We
do indeed expect that fallback will be a continuous process: at
any given instant of time, there is always some material that has
just inverted its outward motion and has started to fall back onto
the black hole, even as the bulk of the envelope continues to stream
outward. This late fallback will continue for many years, at an
ever decreasing rate, generating energy in a similar fashion to
the x-ray sources we described earlier. However, in the case of
a supernova, this process is embedded in a multitude of other phenomena
caused by the explosion.
Can
we hope that at some stage the presence of the black hole in the
aftermath of the supernova explosion will be unveiled? Consider
the sources of energy for the radiation a supernova generates. Observers
of supernovae often refer to this radiation as the light curve,
the curve that describes the total observed luminosity, or power,
of the supernova as a function of time.
When
the exploding shock wave travels through the envelope of the star,
about one half of its energy transforms into kinetic energy that
accelerates the material, and the other half transforms into heat,
generating a temperature of about one million degrees. At such a
temperature the material in the expanding envelope is completely
ionized, and hence highly opaque to photons. Distant observers see
only the photons emitted at the very surface. While the supernova
is brighter than any main sequence star could ever be, only a small
fraction of the enormous energy stored in the envelope can leak
out at this stage.
As
the envelope expands it must cool. Typically after 50-80 days, the
temperature in the outer part of it, which consists mostly of ionized
hydrogen, decreases to about ten thousand degrees so that the protons
and electrons recombine to form hydrogen atoms. Neutral atoms are
transparent to photons, and a domino-like effect can then rapidly
propagate through the envelope. When a layer in the envelope recombines,
it becomes transparent to the photons trapped in the layer just
below it; these photons stream out, and this lower layer cools so
that its own material recombines, and now the photons trapped beneath
it can also escape. A recombination front thus "sweeps" through
the envelope, so that practically all the internal energy that was
trapped in it is rapidly radiated. As a result, an increase, or
peak, in the luminosity is clearly observed. In SN1987A, this peak
dominated the light curve from between 50 and 120 days after the
explosion.
After
the recombination front has swept through the envelope, all the
initial energy from the explosion has been radiated, and any further
luminosity is possible only if there exists some continuous source
of energy to power it. Here is where the black hole can reveal its
presence through late-time fallback, which continues as the hole
accretes matter at the base of the envelope. The energy generated
by fallback at this stage heats the envelope, and can power a late-time
"tail" in the light curve. Observation of such a tail will mark
the signature of the black hole.
Unfortunately
there is a competing and usually more powerful source of energy
in the form of radioactive decays, which complicates the detection
of the black hole. As the progenitor star explodes, the shock wave
is powerful enough to initiate a final flash of thermonuclear reactions
(in fact, we believe that nucleosynthesis in supernovae is the source
for all the heavier elements that exist in the Universe, including
our Earth and us). Some of these reactions produce radioactive nuclei,
which then decay, each with its own typical lifetime. Most notably,
56Ni, which has a half-life of 5.5 days, decays to 56Co,
also unstable, with a half-life of 77 days as it decays to the stable
56Fe. Also of importance is 44Ti, which decays
more slowly with a half-life of about 55 years. In their decays,
these nuclei release energy mostly in the form of high-energy gamma-ray
photons which are then degraded to lower energy through scattering
with electrons in the envelope, and are eventually absorbed by the
medium. The energy they deposit heats up the supernova ejecta and
continues to power the light curve.
Figure 3. Light curve of
SN1987A. The luminosity (L) is plotted as a function fo time (t).
The black pyramids show the observed total, or bolometric, luminosity
of SN1987A. The dashed lines represent the expected contribution
from the decay of radioactive elements (0.075 Ms° of 56Co,
2 x 10-3 M°
of 57Co, and 10-4 M°
of 44Ti). Note the immense power of supernovae: the
Sun radiates with a luminosity L approximately 4 x 1033
ergs/sec. The dotted line represents the calculated accretion
luminosity, and the arrow marks the estimated time of black hole
emergence. Plot courtesy of authors.
In
order to determine what is the dominant source of energy in an observed
light curve, we must resort to theory. In the case of radioactive
decays, theory is fairly simple. We know that the decay rate is
exponential in time: L(t) = L0-rad e-t, with
L0-rad denoting the luminosity at some arbitrary early
time.
A
light curve powered by radioactive decays must exhibit an exponential
decline in its power. The luminosity produced by fallback of matter
from the envelope depends primarily on the rate at which gas is
being swallowed by the black hole. In this case, theory is more
complex, and requires computer simulations. In such a simulation
one must include a hydrodynamic treatment of the flow, radiative
transfer of the photons, and the effects of general relativity:
the gravitational field is so strong that the gas accretes onto
the black hole with a velocity close to the speed of light.
Searching
for Profound Subtlety
We
have recently performed such simulations, and we find that within
a few days after the explosion the temperature in the envelope is
low enough so that pressure forces become negligible and the motion
of gas in the ejecta can be described simply in terms of ballistic
motion in the gravitational field of the hole. The luminosity which
arises from the fallback onto the hole then has a power-law
decay in time: L(t) = L0-acc t-a, with @ approximately
1.4. We note that such a decline is unique to a black hole, due
to the existence of its "event horizon," a one-way membrane through
which everything passes smoothly but cannot escape (in the case
of a neutron star, all the gravitational energy gained in the accretion
must be radiated away, due to the impact on a hard matter surface).
The
key here is that a power-law decline is decisively different than
an exponential one. For example, the power from accretion reduces
by a factor of ten for every fivefold increase in time: five years
after the explosion it is about one tenth of its value one year
after the explosion. The power from 56Co decay (which
is the dominant source of radioactive energy after recombination)
decreases by a factor of ten about every 250 days, which is much
more rapid. It is this fundamental difference on which we can hope
to discover the signature of a black hole. Just by examining the
temporal shape of the tail of a light curve, we can immediately
distinguish whether the power source is radioactive decays or accretion
onto a black hole.
The
competition between the black hole accretion and the radioactive
sources depends on the quantities of radioactive nuclei synthesized
in the explosion and the rate of fallback onto the black hole. Typical
supernovae produce several hundredths of a solar mass of 56Ni
and about 10-4 M° of 44Ti, which is more
than enough to overpower the maximum possible luminosity available
from accretion. Note that since power from accretion declines more
slowly than the power from radioactive decays, accretion must eventually
become the dominant source for the light curve tail. However, in
most cases, this is expected to happen at such late times that the
absolute luminosity will be too low for detection. For example,
even assuming that SN1987A did produce a black hole, it is expected
that the abundance of 44Ti will allow accretion to become the dominant
power source 900 years from now; by that time the luminosity will
be much lower even than that of a common star (see Figure
3).
So
Where Should We Look?
To
detect the fallback luminosity from the accretion onto a black hole,
we require a low-energy explosion of a massive star. A lower explosion
energy will lead to a larger fallback rate and a larger accretion
power output. It also has a complementing effect of reducing the
abundance of radioactive elements in the envelope: the relevant
radioactive elements are synthesized rather close to the collapsed
core in the supernova, and some are actually captured by the nascent
black hole during the early fallback. In a weak explosion the amount
of radioactive nuclei that remains available to power the late light
curve becomes significantly smaller than the standard quantities
cited above. We expect that more massive stars, which are less abundant,
are those more likely to fit this description.
Figure 4. Light curve of
SN1997D. The black dots show the observed total, or bolometric,
luminosity of SN1997D. The dashed lines represent the expected
contribution from the d4ecay of radioactive elements (0.002 M°
of 56Co, 5 x 10-5 M°
of 57Co, and s.5 x 10-6 M°
of 44Ti). The dotted line represents the calculated
accretion luminosity at late times. The coninuous line is the
total calculated bolometric light curve, and the arrow marks the
extimated time of the black hole emergence. Plot courtesy of authors.
In
early 1997 a candidate for such a supernova was detected in the
galaxy NGC 1536, at a distance of 14 Mpc from us. Recent observations
combined with theoretical modeling of the light curve indicate that
it was produced by an explosion of a star of mass 26 M°, with
an explosion energy of less than a third of its counterpart that
generated SN1987A.
The
observed light curve of SN1997D is shown in Figure
4. The supernova was detected by telescopes on Earth about at
the time of maximum brightness of the recombination peak, which
is believed to correspond to about 50 days after the explosion.
The recombination peak then declined rapidly for another month,
at which point it transformed into an exponentially declining tail.
The rate of exponential decline clearly indicates that the tail
is powered by the decay of 56Co, but its absolute magnitude
implies that the abundance of 56Co is exceptionally low—only
about two thousandths of a solar mass. This is about forty times
lower than the abundance of the same isotope observed in the "prototype"
supernova 1987A. Theoretical models of nucleosynthesis in supernovae
suggest that the amount of 44Ti will also be significantly lower
than its standard value.
The
low energy of the explosion has probably induced a rather high fallback
rate onto the black hole formed in this supernova, which is likely
to have a mass of about 3 M°. This fallback will produce an
accretion luminosity significantly higher than what it might be
in SN1987A. The accretion luminosity may therefore become dominant
over the low-abundant radioactive elements in powering the light
curve tail very early. Our theoretical simulation of the light curve
for supernova 1997D is shown in Figure
4, and the arrow marks the point of emergence of the black hole
accretion luminosity in the light curve. It is only about 1050 days
(less than three years) after the explosion. We predict that evidence
for the presence of a black hole in the aftermath of SN1997D may
be observable within a year!
Due
to the large distance to SN1997D its optical and infrared emission
at the time of black hole emergence will be very weak, but still
within the reach of powerful telescopes such as the Hubble Space
Telescope or the Very Large Telescope (VLT). We are now eagerly
anticipating the revelation in a few month's time of the unique
signature of a black hole in the light curve of SN1997D. If observed,
it will mark another milestone in our pursuit and detection of these
exotic and elusive objects.
SHMUEL
BALBERG is a Research Associate at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), where he performs research
in theoretical astrophysics. He can be reached by email at sbalberg@astro.physics.uiuc.edu.
MONICA
COLPI is a Research Associate Professor at the University
of Milano, where she studies neutron stars and black holes. Her
email address is colpi@astmiu.uni.mi.astro.it.
STUART
L. SHAPIRO is a Professor of Physics and Astronomy and
an NCSA Senior Research Scientist at UIUC. He has done research
on many topics in theoretical astrophysics and general relativity
and is a coauthor of the textbook Black Holes, White Dwarfs and
Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects (Wiley). His email
address is shapiro@astro.physics.uiuc.edu.
LUCA
ZAMPIERI is a Research Associate at UIUC and the University
of Padova, where his present research involves supernova fallback
and emission from gas accretion onto black holes and neutron stars.
His email address is zampieri@donald.physics.uiuc.edu. |