4.7 Article

Strong Evidence against a Non-degenerate Companion in SN 2012cg

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 855, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1e9

关键词

supernovae: individual (SN 2012cg)

资金

  1. NASA - Space Telescope Science Institute [HF-51348]
  2. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  3. NSF [AST-1515876, AST-1515927, AST-9987045]
  4. James Arthur Fellowship at NYU
  5. Research Corporation for Science Advancement
  6. NSF Telescope System Instrumentation Program
  7. Ohio Board of Regents
  8. Ohio State University Office of Research
  9. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  10. National Science Foundation
  11. U.S. Department of Energy
  12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  13. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  14. Max Planck Society
  15. Higher Education Funding Council for England

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even though SN 2012cg is one of the best-studied Type Ia supernovae to date, the nature of its progenitor system has been debated in numerous studies. Specifically, it is difficult to reconcile recent claims of the detection of a similar to 6 M-circle dot MS companion with recent deep, late-time H alpha flux limits. In this study we add three new constraints. (1) We analyze a new high-signal-to-noise, nebular-phase, Large Binocular Telescope/MODS spectrum of SN 2012cg and place an upper limit on the amount of low-velocity, solar-abundance material removed from a possible companion of <7.8 x 10(-3) M-circle dot. (2) We use Swift X-ray observations to constrain the pre-explosion mass-loss rate to be M (over dot) < 10(-6) M-circle dot yr(-1) for nu(w) = 100 km s(-1). (3) We carefully reanalyze a prediscovery MASTER image, and with published light curves of SN 2012cg we estimate the time of first light and conservatively constrain the radius of a Roche-lobe overflowing companion to be <0.24 R-circle dot. These observations disagree with a large nearby companion, and when considered with other studies of SN 2012cg's progenitor system, essentially rule out a non-degenerate companion.

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