4.7 Article

THE SUPERNOVA PROGENITOR MASS DISTRIBUTIONS OF M31 AND M33: FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR AN UPPER MASS LIMIT

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 795, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/170

关键词

galaxies: individual (M31, M33); supernovae: general

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
  2. NASA through Space Telescope Science Institute
  3. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  4. NASA through Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-HF-51331.01]
  5. [AR-12834]
  6. [GO-12055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using Hubble Space Telescope photometry to measure star formation histories, we age-date the stellar populations surrounding supernova remnants (SNRs) in M31 and M33. We then apply stellar evolution models to the ages to infer the corresponding masses for their supernova progenitor stars. We analyze 33 M33 SNR progenitors and 29 M31 SNR progenitors in this work. We then combine these measurements with 53 previously published M31 SNR progenitor measurements to bring our total number of progenitor mass estimates to 115. To quantify the mass distributions, we fit power laws of the form dN/dM alpha M-alpha. Our new larger sample of M31 progenitors follows a distribution with alpha = 4.4(-0.4)(+0.4) , and the M33 sample follows a distribution with alpha = 3.8(-0.5)(+0.4). Thus both samples are consistent within the uncertainties, and the full sample across both galaxies gives alpha = 4.2(-0.3)(+0.3). Both the individual and full distributions display a paucity of massive stars when compared to a Salpeter initial mass function, which we would expect to observe if all massive stars exploded as SN that leave behind observable SNR. If we instead fix alpha = 2.35 and treat the maximum mass as a free parameter, we find M-max similar to 35-45 M-circle dot , indicative of a potential maximum cutoff mass for SN production. Our results suggest that either SNR surveys are biased against finding objects in the youngest (< 10 Myr old) regions, or the highest mass stars do not produce SNe.

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