4.8 Article

Interacting supernovae from photoionization-confined shells around red supergiant stars

期刊

NATURE
卷 512, 期 7514, 页码 282-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature13522

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [1573]
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
  4. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26.51]
  5. NSF [AST-0807664]
  6. STFC [ST/L000709/1]
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/L000709/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  9. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [807664] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. STFC [ST/L000709/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Betelgeuse, a nearby red supergiant, is a fast-moving star with a powerful stellar wind that drives a bowshock into its surroundings1-4. This picture has been challenged by the discovery of a dense and almost static shell(5) that is three times closer to the star than the bow shock and has been decelerated by some external force. The two physically distinct structures cannot both be formed by the hydrodynamic interaction of the wind with the interstellar medium. Here we report that a model in which Betelgeuse's wind is photoionized by radiation from external sources can explain the static shell without requiring a new understanding of the bow shock. Pressure from the photoionized wind generates a standing shock in the neutral part of the wind6 and forms an almost static, photoionization-confined shell. Other red supergiants should have much more massive shells than Betelgeuse, because the photoionization-confined shell traps up to 35 per cent of all mass lost during the red supergiant phase, confining this gas close to the star until it explodes. After the supernova explosion, massive shells dramatically affect the supernova light curve, providing a natural explanation for the many supernovae that have signatures of circumstellar interaction.

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