4.6 Article

Localized Fast Radio Bursts Are Consistent with Magnetar Progenitors Formed in Core-collapse Supernovae

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 907, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

关键词

Radio transient sources; Radio bursts; Magnetars; Neutron stars

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1836018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research indicates that the origin of FRBs is likely magnetar-related, with evidence suggesting connections to core-collapse supernovae. Comparison with other types of supernova and gamma-ray burst hosts further supports this magnetar hypothesis.
With the localization of fast radio bursts (FRBs) to galaxies similar to the Milky Way and the detection of a bright radio burst from SGR J1935+2154 with energy comparable to extragalactic radio bursts, a magnetar origin for FRBs is evident. By studying the environments of FRBs, evidence for magnetar formation mechanisms not observed in the Milky Way may become apparent. In this Letter, we use a sample of FRB host galaxies and a complete sample of core-collapse supernova (CCSN) hosts to determine whether FRB progenitors are consistent with a population of magnetars born in CCSNe. We also compare the FRB hosts to the hosts of hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I) and long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) to determine whether the population of FRB hosts is compatible with a population of transients that may be connected to millisecond magnetars. After using a novel approach to scale the stellar masses and star formation rates of each host galaxy to be statistically representative of z = 0 galaxies, we find that the CCSN hosts and FRBs are consistent with arising from the same distribution. Furthermore, the FRB host distribution is inconsistent with the distribution of SLSNe-I and LGRB hosts. With the current sample of FRB host galaxies, our analysis shows that FRBs are consistent with a population of magnetars born through the collapse of giant, highly magnetic stars.

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

4.6
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