4.6 Article

THE VERY YOUNG TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA 2013dy: DISCOVERY, AND STRONG CARBON ABSORPTION IN EARLY-TIME SPECTRA

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 778, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L15

关键词

supernovae: general; supernovae: individual (SN 2013dy)

资金

  1. TABASGO Foundation
  2. Sylvia and Jim Katzman Foundation
  3. Christopher R. Redlich Fund
  4. NSF [AST-1211916, AST-1302771, AST-1109801]
  5. NNSFC [11073013, 11178003]
  6. Foundation of Tsinghua University [2011Z02170]
  7. Major State Basic Research Development Program [2013CB834903]
  8. Hungarian OTKA [NN 107637]
  9. DoE [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  10. W. M. Keck Foundation
  11. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  12. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1302771, 1211916] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) 2013dy in NGC 7250 (d approximate to 13.7 Mpc) was discovered by the Lick Observatory Supernova Search. Combined with a prediscovery detection by the Italian Supernova Search Project, we are able to constrain the first-light time of SN 2013dy to be only 0.10 +/- 0.05 days (2.4 +/- 1.2 hr) before the first detection. This makes SN 2013dy the earliest known detection of an SN Ia. We infer an upper limit on the radius of the progenitor star of R-0 less than or similar to 0.25 R-circle dot, consistent with that of a white dwarf. The light curve exhibits a broken power law with exponents of 0.88 and then 1.80. A spectrum taken 1.63 days after first light reveals a C II absorption line comparable in strength to Si II. This is the strongest C II feature ever detected in a normal SN Ia, suggesting that the progenitor star had significant unburned material. The C II line in SN 2013dy weakens rapidly and is undetected in a spectrum 7 days later, indicating that C II is detectable for only a very short time in some SNe Ia. SN 2013dy reached a B-band maximum of M-B = -18.72 +/- 0.03 mag similar to 17.7 days after first light.

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