4.4 Article

Progenitors of type Ia supernovae

期刊

NEW ASTRONOMY REVIEWS
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 122-141

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11033008, 11103072]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB824800]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJCX2-YW-T24]
  4. Western Light Youth Project
  5. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) play an important role in astrophysics and are crucial for the studies of stellar evolution, galaxy evolution and cosmology. They are generally thought to be thermonuclear explosions of accreting carbon-oxygen white dwarfs (CO WDs) in close binaries, however, the nature of the mass donor star is still unclear. In this article, we review various progenitor models proposed in the past years and summarize many observational results that can be used to put constraints on the nature of their progenitors. We also discuss the origin of SN Ia diversity and the impacts of SN Ia progenitors on some fields. The currently favourable progenitor model is the single-degenerate (SD) model, in which the WD accretes material from a non-degenerate companion star. This model may explain the similarities of most SNe Ia. It has long been argued that the double-degenerate (DD) model, which involves the merger of two CO WDs, may lead to an accretion-induced collapse rather than a thermonuclear explosion. However, recent observations of a few SNe Ia seem to support the DD model, and this model can produce normal SN la explosion under certain conditions. Additionally, the sub-luminous SNe la may be explained by the sub-Chandrasekhar mass model. At present, it seems likely that more than one progenitor model, including some variants of the SD and DD models, may be required to explain the observed diversity of SNe Ia. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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