Excavating the Explosion and Progenitor Properties of Type IIP Supernovae via Modeling of their Optical Light Curves

Ricks, Wilson; Dwarkadas, Vikram V.

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab287c

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 67 publications

(147 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher56 Ni masses for SNe II were recently published byRicks & Dwarkadas (2019). However, it is not clear why those authors (for the same SNe) obtain such higher values than elsewhere.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses

Retamal

Anderson

2020

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. The mass of synthesised radioactive material is an important power source for all supernova (SN) types. In addition, the difference of 56Ni yields statistics are relevant to constrain progenitor paths and explosion mechanisms. Aims. Here, we re-estimate the nucleosynthetic yields of 56Ni for a well-observed and well-defined sample of stripped-envelope SNe (SE-SNe) in a uniform manner. This allows us to investigate whether the observed hydrogen-rich–stripped-envelope (SN II–SE SN) 56Ni separation is due to real differences between these SN types or because of systematic errors in the estimation methods. Methods. We compiled a sample of well-observed SE-SNe and measured 56Ni masses through three different methods proposed in the literature: first, the classic “Arnett rule”; second the more recent prescription of Khatami & Kasen (2019, ApJ, 878, 56) and third using the tail luminostiy to provide lower limit 56Ni masses. These SE-SN distributions were then compared to those compiled in this article. Results. Arnett’s rule, as previously shown, gives 56Ni masses for SE-SNe that are considerably higher than SNe II. While for the distributions calculated using both the Khatami & Kasen (2019, ApJ, 878, 56) prescription and Tail 56Ni masses are offset to lower values than “Arnett values”, their 56Ni distributions are still statistically higher than that of SNe II. Our results are strongly driven by a lack of SE-SN with low 56Ni masses, that are, in addition, strictly lower limits. The lowest SE-SN 56Ni mass in our sample is of 0.015 M⊙, below which are more than 25% of SNe II. Conclusions. We conclude that there exist real, intrinsic differences in the mass of synthesised radioactive material between SNe II and SE-SNe (types IIb, Ib, and Ic). Any proposed current or future CC SN progenitor scenario and explosion mechanism must be able to explain why and how such differences arise or outline a bias in current SN samples yet to be fully explored.

show abstract

“…Higher56 Ni masses for SNe II were recently published byRicks & Dwarkadas (2019). However, it is not clear why those authors (for the same SNe) obtain such higher values than elsewhere.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses

Retamal

Anderson

2020

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clearly, fits to the LC alone are not a good method to estimate the physical properties of explosions. At least in some cases the photospheric velocity evolution is essential in breaking the degeneracy (see also Ricks & Dwarkadas 2019). However, this is the methodology used recently by Morozova et al (2018) and .…”

Section: Light-curve Degeneraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progenitor properties of type II supernovae: fitting to hydrodynamical models using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods

Martínez

Bersten

Anderson

et al. 2020

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. The progenitor and explosion properties of type II supernovae (SNe II) are fundamental to understanding the evolution of massive stars. Particular attention has been paid to the initial masses of their progenitors, but despite the efforts made, the range of initial masses is still uncertain. Direct imaging of progenitors in pre-explosion archival images suggests an upper initial mass cutoff of ∼18 M⊙. However, this is in tension with previous studies in which progenitor masses inferred by light-curve modelling tend to favour high-mass solutions. Moreover, it has been argued that light-curve modelling alone cannot provide a unique solution for the progenitor and explosion properties of SNe II. Aims. We develop a robust method which helps us to constrain the physical parameters of SNe II by simultaneously fitting their bolometric light curve and the evolution of the photospheric velocity to hydrodynamical models using statistical inference techniques. Methods. We created pre-supernova red supergiant models using the stellar evolution code MESA, varying the initial progenitor mass. We then processed the explosion of these progenitors through hydrodynamical simulations, where we changed the explosion energy and the synthesised nickel mass together with its spatial distribution within the ejecta. We compared the results to observations using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Results. We apply this method to a well-studied set of SNe with an observed progenitor in pre-explosion images and compare with results in the literature. Progenitor mass constraints are found to be consistent between our results and those derived by pre-SN imaging and the analysis of late-time spectral modelling. Conclusions. We have developed a robust method to infer progenitor and explosion properties of SN II progenitors which is consistent with other methods in the literature. Our results show that hydrodynamical modelling can be used to accurately constrain the physical properties of SNe II. This study is the starting point for a further analysis of a large sample of hydrogen-rich SNe.

show abstract

“…The discrepancies in progenitor masses (see Table 5) may be due to the lack of velocity fits. Recently, Ricks & Dwarkadas (2019) modelled SN 2004et using the hydrodynamic code STELLA to simulate LCs, and photospheric and Fe ii velocities. They found a similar progenitor mass to that of Morozova et al (2018) but a higher explosion energy.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Work Using Hydrodynamical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae

Martínez

Bersten

2019

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detailed study of supernovae (SNe) and their progenitors allows a better understanding of the evolution of massive stars and how these end their lives. Despite its importance, the range of physical parameters for the most common type of explosion, the type II supernovae (SNe II), is still unknown. In particular, previous studies of type II-Plateau supernovae (SNe II-P) showed a discrepancy between the progenitor masses inferred from hydrodynamic models and those determined from the analysis of direct detections in archival images. Our goal is to derive physical parameters (progenitor mass, radius, explosion energy and total mass of nickel) through hydrodynamical modelling of light curves and expansion velocity evolution for a select group of six SNe II-P (SN 2004A, SN 2004et, SN 2005cs, SN 2008bk, SN 2012aw, and SN 2012ec) that fulfilled the following three criteria: 1) enough photometric and spectroscopic monitoring is available to allow for a reliable hydrodynamical modelling; 2) a direct progenitor detection has been achieved; and 3) there exists confirmation of the progenitor identification via its disappearance in post-explosion images. We then compare the masses obtained by our hydrodynamic models with those obtained by direct detections of the progenitors to test the existence of such a discrepancy. As opposed to some previous works, we find good agreement between both methods. We obtain a wide range in the physical parameters for our SN sample. We infer presupernova masses between 10 and 23 M , progenitor radii between 400 and 1250 R , explosion energies between 0.2 and 1.4 foe, and 56 Ni masses between 0.0015 and 0.085 M . An analysis of possible correlations between different explosion parameters is presented. The clearest relation found is that between the mass and the explosion energy, in the sense that more-massive objects produce higher-energy explosions, in agreement with previous studies. Finally, we also compare our results with previous physical-observed parameter relations widely used in the literature. We find significant differences between both methods, which indicates that caution should be exercised when using these relations.

show abstract

Excavating the Explosion and Progenitor Properties of Type IIP Supernovae via Modeling of their Optical Light Curves

Cited by 23 publications

References 67 publications

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses

Progenitor properties of type II supernovae: fitting to hydrodynamical models using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods

Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Excavating the Explosion and Progenitor Properties of Type IIP Supernovae via Modeling of their Optical Light Curves

Cited by 23 publications

References 67 publications

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova 56Ni masses

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova 56Ni masses

Progenitor properties of type II supernovae: fitting to hydrodynamical models using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods

Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses

Stripped-envelope core-collapse supernova ⁵⁶Ni masses