4.7 Article

The death of massive stars - II. Observational constraints on the progenitors of Type Ibc supernovae

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1612

关键词

binaries: general; stars: evolution; supergiants; supernovae: general; stars: Wolf-Rayet

资金

  1. European Research Council under European Union [291222]
  2. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  3. ESO Large Programme [184.D-1140]
  4. STFC [ST/I001123/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001123/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The progenitors of many Type II core-collapse supernovae (SNe) have now been identified directly on pre-discovery imaging. Here, we present an extensive search for the progenitors of Type Ibc SNe in all available pre-discovery imaging since 1998. There are 12 Type Ibc SNe with no detections of progenitors in either deep ground-based or Hubble Space Telescope archival imaging. The deepest absolute BVR magnitude limits are between -4 and -5 mag. We compare these limits with the observed Wolf-Rayet population in the Large Magellanic Cloud and estimate a 16 per cent probability that we have failed to detect such a progenitor by chance. Alternatively, the progenitors evolve significantly before core-collapse or we have underestimated the extinction towards the progenitors. Reviewing the relative rates and ejecta mass estimates from light-curve modelling of Ibc SNe, we find both incompatible with Wolf-Rayet stars with initial masses >25M(circle dot) being the only progenitors. We present binary evolution models that fit these observational constraints. Stars in binaries with initial masses less than or similar to 20M(circle dot) lose their hydrogen envelopes in binary interactions to become low-mass helium stars. They retain a low-mass hydrogen envelope until approximate to 10(4) yr before core-collapse; hence, it is not surprising that Galactic analogues have been difficult to identify.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据