4.6 Article

On the nature and detectability of Type Ib/c supernova progenitors

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 544, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219790

关键词

stars: evolution; stars: Wolf-Rayet; binaries: general; supernovae: general

资金

  1. STFC [ST/H001921/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001921/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The progenitors of many Type II supernovae have been observationally identified but the search for Type Ibc supernova (SN Ibc) progenitors has thus far been unsuccessful, despite the expectation that they are luminous Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars. Aims. We investigate how the evolution of massive helium stars affects their visual appearances, and discuss the implications for the detectability of SN Ibc progenitors. Methods. Evolutionary models of massive helium stars are analysed and their properties compared to Galactic WR stars. Results. Massive WR stars that rapidly lose their helium envelopes through stellar-wind mass-loss end their lives when their effective temperatures - related to their hydrostatic surfaces - exceed about 150 kK. At their pre-supernova stage, their surface properties resemble those of hot Galactic WR stars of WO sub-type. These are visually faint with narrow-band visual magnitudes M-v = -1.5 ... -2.5, despite their high bolometric luminosities (log L/L-circle dot = 5.6 ... 5.7), compared to the bulk of Galactic WR stars (M-v < -4). In contrast, relatively low-mass helium stars that retain a thick helium envelope appear fairly bright in optical bands, depending on the final masses and the history of the envelope expansion during the late evolutionary stages. Conclusions. We conclude that SNe Ibc observations have so far not provided strong constraints on progenitor bolometric luminosities and masses, even with the deepest searches. We also argue that Ic progenitors are more challenging to identify than Ib progenitors in any optical images.

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