A very luminous magnetar-powered supernova associated with an ultra-long γ-ray burst

Greiner, J.; Mazzali, P. A.; Канн, Д. А.; Krühler, T.; Pian, E.; Prentice, S.; E., Felipe Olivares; Rossi, A.; Klose, S.; Taubenberger, S.; Knust, F.; Afonso, P.; Ashall, C.; Bolmer, J.; Delvaux, C.; Diehl, R.; Elliott, J.; Filgas, R.; Fynbo, J. P. U.; Graham, John F.; Guelbenzu, A. Nicuesa; Kobayashi, S.; Leloudas, G.; Savaglio, S.; Schady, P.; Schmidl, S.; Schweyer, T.; Sudilovsky, V.; Tanga, M.; Updike, A. C.; Eerten, Hendrik van; Varela, K.

doi:10.1038/nature14579

Cited by 295 publications

(362 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

341

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Magnetars have also been suggested to explain lGRBs (see previous subsection). However, present simulations lead rather to a strong r-process and negligibe amounts of Ni-ejecta (supported by light curve observations being powered by pulsar emission rather than 56 Ni decay [19]). …”

Section: Long Duration Gamma-ray Bursts and Hypernovaesupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Recent observations [19] underline that there exist core-collapse supernova explosions whose light curves are not determined by (large) amounts of 56 Ni ejecta, but rather by the energy release of a fast rotating neutron star (pulsar) with extremely strong magnetic fields of the order 10 15 Gauss (magnetars). The question is how can neutron stars of such extremely high magnetic fields (in comparison to the typical 10 12 Gauss) emerge from supernova explosions.…”

Section: The Effect Of Strong Magnetic Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no doubt that compact binary mergers are a highly important or the dominant r-process site. However, other rare events like magnetars [19] could help avoiding problems to explain r-process observations at low metallicities. In fact, the combination of neutron star mergers and MHD-jet supernovae can reproduce the observations nicely in (stochastic) inhomogeneous galactic chemical evolution models [79] (see Fig.3b).…”

Section: Chemical Evolution Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae, Hypernovae/Gamma-ray Bursts and Compact Binary Mergers

Thielemann¹

2017

Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the status and open problems of the astrophysical sites responsible for the nucleosynthesis of Fe-group and heavier elements (with the exception of the s-process). This involves type Ia supernovae with the requirement to have a low Y e -component (for the explanation of 55 Mn), the role of the core collapse supenova explosion mechanism in the composition of the Fe-group (and heavier?) ejecta, the transition between neutron star and black hole remnants as the result of the collapse of massive stars, and the relation of the latter with supernova and/or gamma-ray bursts / hypernovae. In addition, the role of compact binary mergers is discussed, especially with respect to forming the heaviest r-process elements in galactic eveolution.

show abstract

Section: Long Duration Gamma-ray Bursts and Hypernovaesupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: The Effect Of Strong Magnetic Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chemical Evolution Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae, Hypernovae/Gamma-ray Bursts and Compact Binary Mergers

Thielemann¹

2017

Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also examine SNLS-06D4eu (Howell et al 2013), the most distant spectroscopically confirmed published SLSN to date (Section 5). We then compare the results with a line-poor, luminous SN 2011kl/GRB111209A (Greiner et al 2015) in Section 6. We conclude with a discussion of the general properties of SLSN spectra, and the inferences that can be made about these events from their spectral properties (Section 7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectrum formation in superluminous supernovae (Type I)

Mazzali

Sullivan

Pian

et al. 2016

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

144

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The near-maximum spectra of most superluminous supernovae that are not dominated by interaction with a H-rich CSM (SLSN-I) are characterised by a blue spectral peak and a series of absorption lines which have been identified as O II. SN 2011kl, associated with the ultra-long gamma-ray burst GRB111209A, also had a blue peak but a featureless optical/UV spectrum. Radiation transport methods are used to show that the spectra (not including SN 2007bi, which has a redder spectrum at peak, like ordinary SNe Ic) can be explained by a rather steep density distribution of the ejecta, whose composition appears to be typical of carbon-oxygen cores of massive stars which can have low metal content. If the photospheric velocity is ∼ 10000 − 15000 km s −1 several lines form in the UV. O II lines, however, arise from very highly excited lower levels, which require significant departures from Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium to be populated. These SLSNe are not thought to be powered primarily by 56 Ni decay. An appealing scenario is that they are energised by X-rays from the shock driven by a magnetar wind into the SN ejecta. The apparent lack of evolution of line velocity with time that characterises SLSNe up to about maximum is another argument in favour of the magnetar scenario. The smooth UV continuum of SN 2011kl requires higher ejecta velocities (∼ 20000 km s −1 ): line blanketing leads to an almost featureless spectrum. Helium is observed in some SLSNe after maximum. The high ionization near maximum implies that both He and H may be present but not observed at early times. The spectroscopic classification of SLSNe should probably reflect that of SNe Ib/c. Extensive time coverage is required for an accurate classification.

show abstract

“…SN 2011kl represents the first SLSN associated with an ultra long GRB [11]. This gamma-ray burst lasted several hours whereas the typical long-duration GRBs (LGRBs) fade in a matter of minutes.…”

Section: Magnetar Driven Supernovaementioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation Hydrodynamical Models for Type I Superluminous Supernovae

Nomoto¹,

Sorokina²,

Блинников³

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The physical origin of Type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I), whose luminosities are 10 to 100 times brighter than normal core-collapse supernovae, remains still unknown. Radioactive-decays, magnetars, and circumstellar interactions have been proposed for the power source the light curves, although no definitive conclusions have been reached yet. Since most of light curve studies have been based on simplified semi-analytic models, we have constructed detailed light curve models for various mass of stars including very massive ones and large amount of mass loss with radiation hydrodynamical calculations. Here we focus on the magnetar and circumstellar interaction models and compare their rising time, peak luminosity, width, decline rate of the light curves with observations which show quite a large diversities. We then discuss how to discriminate these models, relevant models parameters, their evolutionary origins, possible roles of chemical enrichment of the early universe, and implications for the identifications of first stars.KEYWORDS: magnetar, stellar mass loss, supernovae, superluminous supernovae Superluminous SupernovaeSuperluminous supernovae (SLSNe) are brighter than −21 magnitude in any optical band at the maximum brightness, which is ≈ 30 times brighter than the average of normal supernovae [8,15]. They are divided into Type I (SLSN-I) and Type II (SLSN-II) according to the absence and presence of hydrogen feature in the spectra. It is evident that there is significant dispersion in both rise and decay time scales. These differences could indicate some diversity in the progenitors of SLSNe.SLSNe-II, like SN 2006gy, may be powered by interactions of the SN ejecta with CSM in the form of steady wind or a shell [12]. The origin of SLSNe-I is still a matter of debate [8]. Currently three possibilities are under consideration (a) pair instability supernovae, (b) supernovae powered by ejecta/wind interaction, and (c) supernovae powered by a spin down of a rapidly rotating young magnetar. In the present paper, we focus on the magnetar and circumstellar interaction models for SLSNe-I and discuss possible engines powering the observed super-luminosities.The existence of SLSNe opens the possibility of studying extremely luminous supernovae in the very early Universe. Understanding their nature will open new paths to better comprehend the origin and evolution of stars in the Universe.

show abstract

A very luminous magnetar-powered supernova associated with an ultra-long γ-ray burst

Cited by 295 publications

References 38 publications

Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae, Hypernovae/Gamma-ray Bursts and Compact Binary Mergers

Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae, Hypernovae/Gamma-ray Bursts and Compact Binary Mergers

Spectrum formation in superluminous supernovae (Type I)

Radiation Hydrodynamical Models for Type I Superluminous Supernovae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About