4.7 Article

The redshift distribution of type Ia supernovae: constraints on progenitors and cosmic star formation history

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07237.x

关键词

stars : formation; supernovae : general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use the redshift distribution of type Ia supernovae (SNe) discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project to constrain the star formation history (SFH) of the Universe and SN Ia progenitor models. Given some of the recent determinations of the SFH, the observed SN Ia redshift distribution indicates a long (greater than or similar to1 h(-1) Gyr) mean delay time between the formation of a stellar population and the explosion of some of its members as SNe Ia. For example, if the SFH of Madau et al. is assumed, the delay time tau is constrained to be taugreater than or equal to 1.7(taugreater than or equal to 0.7) h(-1) Gyr at the 95 per cent (99 per cent) confidence level (CL). SFHs that rise at high redshift, similar to those advocated by Lanzetta et al., are inconsistent with the data at the 95 per cent CL unless tau > 2.5 h(-1) Gyr. Long time-delays disfavour progenitor models such as edge-lit detonation of a white dwarf accreting from a giant donor, and the carbon core ignition of a white dwarf passing the Chandrasekhar mass due to accretion from a subgiant. The SN Ia delay may be shorter, thereby relaxing some of these constraints, if the field star formation rate falls, between z= 1 and the present, less sharply than implied, e.g. by the original Madau plot. We show that the discovery of larger samples of high-z SNe Ia by forthcoming observational projects should yield strong constraints on the progenitor models and the SFH. In a companion paper, we demonstrate that if SNe Ia produce most of the iron in galaxy clusters, and the stars in clusters formed at zsimilar to 2, the SN Ia delay time must be lower than 2 Gyr. If so, then the SFH of Lanzetta et al. will be ruled out by the data presented here.

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