4.8 Article

A faint type of supernova from a white dwarf with a helium-rich companion

期刊

NATURE
卷 465, 期 7296, 页码 322-325

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature09056

关键词

-

资金

  1. ISF/FIRST Fellowship
  2. Ilan Ramon-Fulbright Fellowship
  3. Weizmann-Minerva grant
  4. Israeli Science Foundation
  5. EU
  6. Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics
  7. Peter and Patricia Gruber Awards
  8. US National Science Foundation
  9. US Department of Energy
  10. Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
  11. Sylvia & Jim Katzman Foundation
  12. TABASGO Foundation
  13. STFC [PP/E001149/1, ST/H002391/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  14. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/E001149/1, ST/H002391/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supernovae are thought to arise from two different physical processes. The cores of massive, short-lived stars undergo gravitational core collapse and typically eject a few solar masses during their explosion. These are thought to appear as type Ib/c and type II supernovae, and are associated with young stellar populations. In contrast, the thermonuclear detonation of a carbon-oxygen white dwarf, whose mass approaches the Chandrasekhar limit, is thought to produce type Ia supernovae(1,2). Such supernovae are observed in both young and old stellar environments. Here we report a faint type Ib supernova, SN 2005E, in the halo of the nearby isolated galaxy, NGC 1032. The 'old' environment near the supernova location, and the very low derived ejected mass (similar to 0.3 solar masses), argue strongly against a core-collapse origin. Spectroscopic observations and analysis reveal high ejecta velocities, dominated by helium-burning products, probably excluding this as a subluminous(3,4) or a regular(1) type Ia supernova. We conclude that it arises from a low-mass, old progenitor, likely to have been a helium-accreting white dwarf in a binary. The ejecta contain more calcium than observed in other types of supernovae and probably large amounts of radioactive (44)Ti.

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

4.8
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