Explosions from Rotating Very Massive Star Collapses to Black Holes: Effects of Nuclear Burning

We investigate the collapse of rotating very massive and supermassive stellar cores using numerical relativity simulations including an alpha-chain nuclear reaction network and neutrino cooling. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

The significance lies in astrophysics becomes persuasive only when an observed signal can be tied to a physically defensible explanation. Compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes are natural laboratories for extreme physics, but the distance and complexity of these systems make interpretation difficult without multi-wavelength coverage and careful modeling. A detection without a mechanism is only half a result. the other half comes from showing that the signal fits quantitatively inside a coherent physical picture rather than merely being consistent with a broad family of models. Our main survey focuses on newly constructed models with initial core masses of $2 \times {10}^{3}-5\times 10^4M_\odot$. The collapse is triggered either by pair instability in lower-mass cores or by general-relativistic instability in higher-mass cores.

We find that higher-mass cores undergo a nearly homologous collapse, whereas lower-mass cores show a more runaway-like collapse because neutrino cooling becomes more efficient at. Consequently, the black hole formed in lower-mass models initially contains a smaller fraction of the core mass, and disk formation occurs while a larger amount of matter remains.

The lower compactness of pair-unstable cores also allows larger dimensionless angular momentum, favoring the formation of rapidly rotating black holes and massive disks. The disk bounce drives mass ejection with ejecta masses of order $10-10^3M_\odot$ and kinetic energies of order $10^{53}-10^{55}\, \mathrm{erg}$.

Significant $^{56}$Ni production in the disk-bounce ejecta occurs only in the lowest-mass models. For selected models, we further follow the viscous evolution of the disk and find that viscosity enhances the ejecta mass and kinetic energy.

The broader interest lies in turning an observational clue into something that can be weighed against competing models of the underlying physics. Astrophysics does not have the luxury of controlled experiments; everything is inferred from radiation that traveled across cosmic distances under conditions that cannot be reproduced in a terrestrial laboratory. This makes the interpretation chain longer and more uncertain than in bench science, but it also means that a well-constrained measurement of an extreme object carries theoretical information that no earthbound experiment can provide.

In models with $\lesssim10^4M_\odot$, the viscosity-driven ejecta can originate from disk matter that has reached nuclear statistical equilibrium and can therefore become rich in. These results suggest that rotating very massive star collapses can produce massive, energetic ejecta and, for sufficiently low core masses, substantial iron-group elements.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether independent datasets and physical modeling converge on the same interpretation. Multi-wavelength follow-up, combining X-ray, radio and optical data where possible, is typically what separates a compelling detection from a robust physical characterization. In high-energy astrophysics, results that initially looked definitive have been revised when data from a second messenger arrived; the current result should be read with that history in mind. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source