Are supernovas more likely to produce neutron stars or black holes?

[Moon Shine]

TL;DR

Is it possible to predict what’s going to be a result of supernova explosion? A black hole or a neutron start?

I read that after explosions supernovas can ”transform” into a neutron start or into a black hole? And now I’m curious of therer any factors which can predict what thing we’re going to get after the supernova’s explosion.

 

[russ_watters]

I read that after explosions supernovas can ”transform” into a neutron start or into a black hole? And now I’m curious of therer any factors which can predict what thing we’re going to get after the supernova’s explosion.

Yes: it's determined by mass.

 

[Moon Shine]

Yes: it's determined by mass.

Thank you for your answer!
P.S. You have an amazing website! I spent there an hour or so :)

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you for your answer!
P.S. You have an amazing website! I spent there an hour or so :)

Thanks!

 

[lomidrevo]

The original post is referring to a core-collapse supernova, which indeed produces a stellar remnant like neutron star, or black hole, depending on the initial mass of the star. However, there is another mechanism of creating supernova, called type Ia. It involves a binary system containing a white dwarf, that accretes the material falling on it from its companion star. The resulting nuclear reactions ingnited in the white dwarf's core will cause its explosion just before the collapse can occur. There is no remnat after this kind of supernovae.

 

[Dragrath]

The original post is referring to a core-collapse supernova, which indeed produces a stellar remnant like neutron star, or black hole, depending on the initial mass of the star. However, there is another mechanism of creating supernova, called type Ia. It involves a binary system containing a white dwarf, that accretes the material falling on it from its companion star. The resulting nuclear reactions ignited in the white dwarf's core will cause its explosion just before the collapse can occur. There is no remnant after this kind of supernovae.

This is a bit oversimplified as we now have fairly conclusive evidence that there are at lest two distinct scenarios that can result in a type 1a supernovae. The example you mention is one which may have been more common early in the universe during periods of starburst formation but from what I have found it seems most type 1a supernovae in the nearby universe are white dwarf white dwarf collisions. Even this isn't absolute as a recent discovery provides a strong example of a super chandrasekhar white dwarf J005311 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1216-1. It seems to have managed to reach a state of hydrostatic equilibrium with its combined mass and the ignited carbon fusion in balance. In a few thousand years it will run out of carbon to fuse and likely collapse into a neutron star via a type 1c supernovae.For massive stars mass is the dominant factor but metalicity also appears to be critical in the evolution of massive stars. Extreamly low metalicity population III stars of over a 100 solar masses could undergo what is known as a pair instability supernovae and also don't produce remnants at least.

 

[lomidrevo]

The example you mention is one which may have been more common early in the universe during periods of starburst formation but from what I have found it seems most type 1a supernovae in the nearby universe are white dwarf white dwarf collisions.

Yes, I am aware of the two scenarios, but according to my knowledge, the single-degenerate model is preferred more, as the double-degenerate model might be inconsistent with observations. Let me share related paragraphs from Carroll&Ostlie:

That is why I mentioned only one of the scenarios in my previous post. But I am not arguing, the text might be obsolete by now, could you please share a reference supporting your claim?

Even this isn't absolute as a recent discovery provides a strong example of a super chandrasekhar white dwarf J005311 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1216-1. It seems to have managed to reach a state of hydrostatic equilibrium with its combined mass and the ignited carbon fusion in balance.

Interesting!

 

[Dragrath]

Actually from what I have been able to find observations favor double degenerate progenetors have put the upper limit of single degenerate progenetors at around 20% of all type 1a Supernovae within the local universe as the vast majority of systems show no evidence of a second star. Moreover there are too many type 1a supernovae coming from evolved galaxies that haven't made new stars in billions of years when there should be a drop off for the single degenerate model.
https://www.nature.com/articles/481149a
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01162
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11447
It is worth nothing that there are convincing examples for each type of type 1a supernovae so it both seem to occur. There is still contention on the exact rates but it seems most observed type 1a appear to be double degenerate.
There is some contention even for nearby ones so this is certainly still an open question https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/17/8/83/meta (i.e. single degenerate could work if the evolved star rapidly transitions to a white dwarf to be below the detection limit after several hundred years