4.7 Article

Sn 2006tf: Precursor eruptions and the optically thick regime of extremely luminous Type IIn supernovae

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 686, 期 1, 页码 467-484

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/591021

关键词

circumstellar matter; stars : evolution; stars : mass loss; stars : winds, outflows; supernovae : individual (SN 2006tf)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SN 2006tf is the third most luminous supernova (SN) discovered so far, after SN 2005ap and SN 2006gy. SN 2006tf is valuable because it provides a link between two regimes: (1) luminous Type IIn supernovae powered by emission directly from interaction with circumstellar material (CSM), and (2) the most extremely luminous SNe where the CSM interaction is so optically thick that energy must diffuse out from an opaque shocked shell. As SN 2006tf evolves, it slowly transitions from the second to the first regime as the clumpy shell becomes more porous. This link suggests that the range in properties of the most luminous SNe is largely determined by the density and speed of hydrogen-rich material ejected shortly before they explode. The total energy radiated by SN 2006tf was at least 7 X 10(50) ergs. If the bulk of this luminosity came from the thermalization of shock kinetic energy, then the star needs to have ejected similar to 18 M-circle dot in the 4-8 yr before core collapse, and another 2-6 M-circle dot in the decades before that. A Type Ia explosion is therefore excluded. From the H alpha emission-line profile, we derive a blast wave speed of 2000 km s(-1) that does not decelerate, and from the narrow P Cygni absorption from preshock gas we deduce that the progenitor's wind speed was similar to 190 km s(-1). This is reminiscent of the wind speeds of luminous blue variables (LBVs), but not of red supergiants or Wolf-Rayet stars. We propose that like SN 2006gy, SN 2006tf marked the death of a very massive star that retained a hydrogen envelope until the end of its life and suffered extreme LBV-like mass loss in the decades before it exploded.

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