4.7 Article

Shock Breakout in Dense Circumstellar Material with Application to PS1-13arp

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 910, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe938

关键词

Radiative transfer; Supernovae

资金

  1. USC-Carnegie Fellowship
  2. Scialog award by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that the presence of dense circumstellar material during supernova explosions may lengthen the timescale of shock breakout and be more common than previously thought. Analytic and numerical modeling can help explain the width and luminosity of shock breakout. The study indicates that future observations of shock breakout in Type II supernovae may be more easily obtained than previously appreciated.
Shock breakout (SBO), the first expected electromagnetic signature of a supernova (SN), can be an important probe of the progenitors of these explosions. Unfortunately, SBO is difficult to capture with current surveys due to its brief timescale (less than or similar to 1 hr). However, SBO may be lengthened when dense circumstellar material (CSM) is present. Indeed, recent photometric modeling studies of SNe, as well as early spectroscopy, suggest that such dense CSM may be present more often than previously expected. If true, this should also affect the features of SBO. We present an exploration of the impact of such CSM interaction on the SBO width and luminosity using both analytic and numerical modeling, where we parameterize the CSM as a steady-state wind. We then compare this modeling to PS1-13arp, an SN that showed an early UV excess that has been argued to be SBO in dense CSM. We find PS1-13arp is well fit with a wind of mass similar to 0.08 M and radius similar to 1900 R, parameters which are similar to, if not slightly less massive than, what have been inferred for Type II SNe using photometric modeling. This similarity suggests that future SBO observations of SNe II may be easier to obtain than previously appreciated.

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