4.7 Article

A parameter study of Type II supernova light curves using 6 M⊙ He cores

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 617, 期 2, 页码 1233-1250

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/425675

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results of numerical calculations of Type II supernova light curves are presented. The model progenitor stars have 6 M-circle dot cores and various envelopes, originating from a numerically evolved 20 M-circle dot star. Five parameters that affect the light curves are examined: the ejected mass, the progenitor radius, the explosion energy, the Ni-56 mass, and the extent of Ni-56 mixing. The following effects have been found: (1) the larger the progenitor radius, the brighter the early-time light curve, with little effect on the late-time light curve; (2) the larger the envelope mass, the fainter the early light curve and the flatter the slope of the late light curve; (3) the larger the explosion energy, the brighter the early light curve and the steeper the slope of the late light curve; (4) the larger the Ni-56 mass, the brighter the overall light curve after 20-50 days, with no effect on the early light curve; and (5) the more extensive the Ni-56 mixing, the brighter the early light curve and the steeper the late light curve. The primary parameters affecting the light-curve shape are the progenitor radius and the ejected mass. The secondary parameters are the explosion energy, Ni-56 mass, and Ni-56 mixing. I find that while in principle the general shape and absolute magnitude of a light curve indicate a unique set of parameters, in practice it is difficult to avoid some ambiguity in the parameters. I find that the nickel-powered diffusion wave and the recombination of helium produce a prominent secondary peak in all our calculations. The feature is less prominent when compositional mixing, both Ni-56 mixing and mixing between the hydrogen and helium layers, occurs. The model photospheric temperatures and velocities are presented, for comparison to observation.

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