4.7 Article

SN 2001em: NOT SO FAST

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 691, Issue 2, Pages 1380-1386

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1380

Keywords

supernovae: general; supernovae: individual (SN 2001em)

Funding

  1. Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award
  2. DOE Program for Scientific Discovery [DE-FC02-01ER41176]
  3. STFC [PP/D000920/1, ST/G002630/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G002630/1, PP/D000920/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SN 2001em, originally classified as type Ib/c, is a peculiar supernova. It was observed in the radio about two years after its optical detection, showing a rising radio flux with an optically thin spectral slope; it also displayed a large X-ray luminosity (similar to 10(41) erg s(-1)). Thus, it was suspected to harbor a decelerating (by then, mildly) relativistic jet pointing away from us. About three years after its discovery, the optical spectrum of SN 2001em showed a broad Ha line, and it was therefore, reclassified as type IIn. Here, we constrain its proper motion and expansion velocity by analyzing four epochs of VLBI observations, extending to 5.4 years after the SN. The supernova is still unresolved 5.4 years after the explosion. For the proper motion, we obtain (23,000 +/- 30,000) km s(-1), while our 2s upper limit on the expansion velocity is 6000 km s(-1). These limits are somewhat tighter than those derived by Bietenholz & Bartel, and confirm their conclusion that late time emission from SN 2001em, a few years after the explosion, is not driven by a relativistic jet. VLA observations of the radio flux density, at 8.46 GHz, show a decay as t(-1.23 +/- 0.40) starting similar to 2.7 years after the SN. Collectively, the observations suggest interaction of the SN ejecta with a very dense circumstellar medium, though the implied opacity constraints still present a challenge.

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