4.7 Article

Optical and IR observations of SN 2013L, a Type IIn Supernova surrounded by asymmetric CSM

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx1844

关键词

circumstellar matter; supernovae: general; stars: winds; outflows

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [AST-1210599, AST-1312221]
  2. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1313484, 1515559] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present optical and near-IR photometry and spectroscopy of SN 2013L for the first 4 yr post-explosion. SN 2013L was a moderately luminous (M-r = -19.0) Type IIn supernova (SN) that showed signs of strong shock interaction with the circumstellar medium (CSM). The CSM interaction was equal to or stronger to SN 1988Z for the first 200 d and is observed at all epochs after explosion. Optical spectra revealed multicomponent hydrogen lines appearing by day 33 and persisting and slowly evolving over the next few years. By day 1509, the Ha emission was still strong and exhibiting multiple peaks, hinting that the CSM was in a disc or torus around the SN. SN 2013L is part of a growing subset of SNe IIn that shows both strong CSM interaction signatures and the underlying broad lines from the SN ejecta photosphere. The presence of a blue Ha emission bump and a lack of a red peak does not appear to be due to dust obscuration since an identical profile is seen in Pa beta. Instead this suggests a high concentration of material on the near-side of the SN or a disc inclination of roughly edge-on and hints that SN 2013L was part of a massive interactive binary system. Narrow Ha P-Cygni lines that persist through the entirety of the observations measure a progenitor outflow speed of 80-130 km s(-1), speeds normally associated with extreme red supergiants, yellow hypergiants, or luminous blue variable winds. This progenitor scenario is also consistent with an inferred progenitor mass-loss rate of 0.3-8.0 x 10(-3) M-circle dot yr(-1).

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