4.7 Article

STELLAR BINARY COMPANIONS TO SUPERNOVA PROGENITORS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 707, 期 2, 页码 1578-1587

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1578

关键词

stars: evolution; supergiants; supernovae: general

资金

  1. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
  2. NSF [AST-0908816]
  3. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0908816] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For typical models of binary statistics, 50%-80% of core-collapse supernova (ccSN) progenitors are members of a stellar binary at the time of the explosion. Independent of any consequences of mass transfer, this has observational consequences that can be used to study the binary properties of massive stars. In particular, the secondary companion to the progenitor of a Type Ib/c SN is frequently (similar to 50%) the more optically luminous star since the high effective temperatures of the stripped progenitors make it relatively easy for a lower luminosity, cooler secondary to emit more optical light. Secondaries to the lower mass progenitors of Type II SN will frequently produce excess blue emission relative to the spectral energy distribution of the red primary. Available data constrain the models weakly. Any detected secondaries also provide an independent lower bound on the progenitor mass and, for historical SN, show that it was not a Type Ia event. Bright ccSN secondaries have an unambiguous, post-explosion observational signature-strong, blueshifted, relatively broad absorption lines created by the developing SN remnant (SNR). These can be used to locate historical SN with bright secondaries, confirm that a source is a secondary, and, potentially, measure abundances of ccSN ejecta. Luminous, hot secondaries will re-ionize the SNR on timescales of 100-1000 yr that are faster than re-ionization by the reverse shock, creating peculiar H II regions due to the high metallicity and velocities of the ejecta.

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