4.7 Article

RELATIVISTIC SUPERNOVAE HAVE SHORTER-LIVED CENTRAL ENGINES OR MORE EXTENDED PROGENITORS: THE CASE OF SN 2012ap

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 797, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/107

Keywords

gamma-ray burst: general; supernovae: individual (SN 2012ap)

Funding

  1. NSF grant [1066293]
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engineering
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1102796] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Deep, late-time X-ray observations of the relativistic, engine-driven, type Ic SN 2012ap allow us to probe the nearby environment of the explosion and reveal the unique properties of relativistic supernova explosions (SNe). We find that on a local scale of similar to 0.01 pc the environment was shaped directly by the evolution of the progenitor star with a pre-explosion mass-loss rate of M < 5 x 10(-6) M-circle dot yr(-1), in line with gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and the other relativistic SN 2009bb. Like sub-energetic GRBs, SN 2012ap is characterized by a bright radio emission and evidence for mildly relativistic ejecta. However, its late-time (delta t approximate to 20 days) X-ray emission is similar to 100 times fainter than the faintest sub-energetic GRB at the same epoch, with no evidence for late-time central engine activity. These results support theoretical proposals that link relativistic SNe like 2009bb and 2012ap with the weakest observed engine-driven explosions, where the jet barely fails to break out. Furthermore, our observations demonstrate that the difference between relativistic SNe and sub-energetic GRBs is intrinsic and not due to line-of-sight effects. This phenomenology can either be due to an intrinsically shorter-lived engine or to a more extended progenitor in relativistic SNe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available