4.6 Article

DETONATIONS IN SUB-CHANDRASEKHAR-MASS C plus O WHITE DWARFS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 714, 期 1, 页码 L52-L57

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L52

关键词

radiative transfer; supernovae: general; white dwarfs

资金

  1. Emmy Noether Program [RO3676/1-1]
  2. [TRR33]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Explosions of sub-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarfs (WDs) are one alternative to the standard Chandrasekhar-mass model of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). They are interesting since binary systems with sub-Chandrasekhar-mass primary WDs should be common and this scenario would suggest a simple physical parameter which determines the explosion brightness, namely the mass of the exploding WD. Here we perform one-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, associated post-processing nucleosynthesis, and multi-wavelength radiation transport calculations for pure detonations of carbon-oxygen WDs. The light curves and spectra we obtain from these simulations are in good agreement with observed properties of SNe Ia. In particular, for WD masses from 0.97 to 1.15 M-circle dot we obtain Ni-56 masses between 0.3 and 0.8 M-circle dot, sufficient to capture almost the complete range of SN Ia brightnesses. Our optical light curve rise times, peak colors, and decline timescales display trends which are generally consistent with observed characteristics although the range of B-band decline timescales displayed by our current set of models is somewhat too narrow. In agreement with observations, the maximum light spectra of the models show clear features associated with intermediate-mass elements and reproduce the sense of the observed correlation between explosion luminosity and the ratio of the Si II lines at lambda 6355 and lambda 5972. We therefore suggest that sub-Chandrasekhar-mass explosions are a viable model for SNe Ia for any binary evolution scenario leading to explosions in which the optical display is dominated by the material produced in a detonation of the primary WD.

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