4.6 Article

THE UNUSUAL SUPER-LUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE SN 2011KL AND ASASSN-15LH

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 817, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L8

关键词

gamma-ray burst: individual (GRB 111209A); stars: evolution; supernovae: general; supernovae: individual (SN 2011kl, ASASSN-15lh)

资金

  1. World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan
  2. JSPS, Japan [23224004, 26400222]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26400222] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two recently discovered very luminous supernovae (SNe) present stimulating cases to explore the extents of the available theoretical models. SN 2011kl represents the first detection of a supernova explosion associated with an ultra-long duration gamma-ray burst. ASASSN-15lh was even claimed as the most luminous SN ever discovered, challenging the scenarios so far proposed for stellar explosions. Here we use our radiation hydrodynamics code in order to simulate magnetar-powered SNe. To avoid explicitly assuming neutron star properties, we adopt the magnetar luminosity and spin-down timescale as free parameters of the model. We find that the light curve (LC) of SN. 2011kl is consistent with a magnetar power source, as previously proposed, but we note that some amount of Ni-56 (greater than or similar to 0.08M(circle dot).) is necessary to explain the low contrast between the LC peak and tail. For the case of ASASSN-15lh, we find physically plausible magnetar parameters that reproduce the overall shape of the LC provided the progenitor mass is relatively large (an ejecta mass of approximate to 6M(circle dot)). The ejecta hydrodynamics of this event is dominated by the magnetar input, while the effect is more moderate for SN. 2011kl. We conclude that a magnetar model may be used for the interpretation of these events and that the hydrodynamical modeling is necessary to derive the properties of powerful magnetars and their progenitors.

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