4.6 Article

The mysterious eruption of V838 Mon

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 389, 期 2, 页码 L51-L56

出版社

E D P SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020715

关键词

stars : supergiants; stars : novae; stars : individual : V838 Mon; stars : mass-loss; ISM : jets and outflows

向作者/读者索取更多资源

V838 Mon is marking one of the most mysterious stellar outbursts on record. The spectral energy distribution of the progenitor resembles an under-luminous F main sequence star (at V = 15.6 mag), that erupted into a cool supergiant following a complex and multi-maxima lightcurve (peaking at V = 6.7 mag). The outburst spectrum show BaII, LiI and lines of several s-elements, with wide P-Cyg profiles and a moderate and retracing emission in the Balmer lines. A light-echo discovered expanding around the object helped to constrain the distance (d = 790 +/- 30 pc), providing M-V = +4.45 in quiescence and M-V = -4.35 at optical maximum (somewhat dependent on the still uncertain EB-V = 0:5 reddening). The general outburst trend is toward lower temperatures and larger luminosities, and continuing so at the time of writing. The object properties conflict with a classification within already existing categories: the progenitor was not on a post-AGB track and thus the similarities with the born-again AGB stars FG Sge, V605 Aql and Sakurai's object are limited to the cool giant spectrum at maximum; the cool spectrum, the moderate wind velocity (500 km s(-1) and progressively reducing) and the monotonic decreasing of the low ionization condition argues against a classical nova scenario. The closest similarity is with a star that erupted into an M-type supergiant discovered in M 31 by Rich et al. (1989), that became however much brighter by peaking at M-V = 9:95, and with V4332 Sgr that too erupted into an M-type giant (Martini et al. 1999) and that attained a lower luminosity, closer to that of V838 Mon. M 31-RedVar, V4332 Sgr and V838 Mon could be all manifestations of a new class of astronomical objects.

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