4.7 Article

TYPE II SUPERNOVAE: MODEL LIGHT CURVES AND STANDARD CANDLE RELATIONSHIPS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 703, 期 2, 页码 2205-2216

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205

关键词

distance scale; radiative transfer; supernovae: general

资金

  1. NASA through Hubble fellowship [HSTHF01208.01-A]
  2. NASA Theory Program [NNG05GG08G]
  3. DOE SciDAC Program [DE-FC02-06ER41438]
  4. ORNL through an INCITE award, NERSC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A survey of Type II supernovae explosion models has been carried out to determine how their light curves and spectra vary with their mass, metallicity, and explosion energy. The presupernova models are taken from a recent survey of massive stellar evolution at solar metallicity supplemented by new calculations at subsolar metallicity. Explosions are simulated by the motion of a piston near the edge of the iron core and the resulting light curves and spectra are calculated using full multi-wavelength radiation transport. Formulae are developed that describe approximately how the model observables (light curve luminosity and duration) scale with the progenitor mass, explosion energy, and radioactive nucleosynthesis. Comparison with observational data shows that the explosion energy of typical supernovae (as measured by kinetic energy at infinity) varies by nearly an order of magnitude-from 0.5 to 4.0 x 10(51) ergs, with a typical value of similar to 0.9 x 10(51) ergs. Despite the large variation, the models exhibit a tight relationship between luminosity and expansion velocity, similar to that previously employed empirically to make SNe IIP standardized candles. This relation is explained by the simple behavior of hydrogen recombination in the supernova envelope, but we find a sensitivity to progenitor metallicity and mass that could lead to systematic errors. Additional correlations between light curve luminosity, duration, and color might enable the use of SNe IIP to obtain distances accurate to similar to 20% using only photometric data.

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