Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Collapsars: Gamma‐Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Supernovae”

Open access
MacFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E.·1999·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Using a two-dimensional hydrodynamics code (PROMETHEUS), we explore the continued evolution of rotating helium stars, M α ≳ 10 M ☉ , in which iron-core collapse does not produce a successful outgoing shock but instead forms a black hole of 2-3 M ☉ . The model explored in greatest detail is the 14 M ☉ helium core of a 35 M ☉ main-sequence star. The outcome is sensitive to the angular momentum. For j 16 ≡ j /(10 16 cm 2 s -1 ) ≲ 3, material falls into the black hole almost uninhibited. No outflows are expected. For j 16 ≳ 20, the infalling matter is halted by centrifugal force outside 1000 km where neutrino losses are negligible. The equatorial accretion rate is very low, and explosive oxygen burning may power a weak equatorial explosion. For 3 ≲ j 16 ≲ 20, however, a reasonable value for such stars, a compact disk forms at a radius at which the gravitational binding energy can be efficiently radiated as neutrinos or converted to beamed outflow by magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) processes. These are the best candidates for producing gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Here we study the formation of such a disk, the associated flow patterns, and the accretion rate for disk viscosity parameter α ≈ 0.001 and 0.1. Infall along the rotational axis is initially uninhibited, and an evacuated channel opens during the first few seconds. Meanwhile the black hole is spun up by the accretion (to a ≈ 0.9), and energy is dissipated in the disk by MHD processes and radiated by neutrinos. For the α = 0.1 model, appreciable energetic outflows develop between polar angles of 30° and 45°. These outflows, powered by viscous dissipation in the disk, have an energy of up to a few times 10 51 ergs and a mass ~1 M ☉ and are rich in 56 Ni. They constitute a supernova-like explosion by themselves. Meanwhile accretion through the disk is maintained for approximately 10-20 s but is time variable (±30%) because of hydrodynamical instabilities at the outer edge in a region where nuclei are experiencing photodisintegration. Because the efficiency of neutrino energy deposition is sensitive to the accretion rate, this instability leads to highly variable energy deposition in the polar regions. Some of this variability, which has significant power at 50 ms and overtones, may persist in the time structure of the burst. During the time followed, the average accretion rate for the standard α = 0.1 and j 16 = 10 model is 0.07 M ☉ s -1 . The total energy deposited along the rotational axes by neutrino annihilation is (1-14) × 10 51 ergs, depending upon the evolution of the Kerr parameter and uncertain neutrino efficiencies. Simulated deposition of energy in the polar regions, at a constant rate of 5 × 10 50 ergs s -1 per pole, results in strong relativistic outflow jets beamed to about 1% of the sky. These jets may be additionally modulated by instabilities in the sides of the "nozzle" through which they flow. The jets blow aside the accreting material, remain highly focused, and are capable of penetrating the star in ~10 s. After the jet breaks through the surface of the star, highly relativistic flow can emerge. Because of the sensitivity of the mass ejection and jets to accretion rate, angular momentum, and disk viscosity, and the variation of observational consequences with viewing angle, a large range of outcomes is possible, ranging from bright GRBs like GRB 971214 to faint GRB-supernovae like SN 1998bw. X-ray precursors are also possible as the jet first breaks out of the star. While only a small fraction of supernovae make GRBs, we predict that collapsars will always make supernovae similar to SN 1998bw. However, hard, energetic GRBs shorter than a few seconds will be difficult to produce in this model and may require merging neutron stars and black holes for their explanation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/307790

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 2,328

Metadata

Authors
MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
1999-10-10
Volume
524
Issue
1
Pages
262-289
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2086199187
Cited by
2,328
References
1
FWCI
66.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collapsars: Gamma‐Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Supernovae”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/307790
The paper
MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. (1999). Collapsars: Gamma‐Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Supernovae”. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/307790

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.