290 likes | 455 Views
Supernova Interaction with Dense Mass Loss. Roger Chevalier University of Virginia. X-ray, Chandra. Type IIP supernovae. Shock breakout emission. Diffusive release of energy in H envelope. Radioactive tail ( 56 Co). Circumstellar interaction. X-ray and radio emission. IIn’s. Ia.
E N D
Supernova Interaction withDense Mass Loss Roger Chevalier University of Virginia X-ray, Chandra
Type IIP supernovae Shock breakout emission Diffusive release of energy in H envelope Radioactive tail (56Co)
Circumstellar interaction X-ray and radio emission
IIn’s Ia IIP Zhang+ 12
SN 2010jl Smith et al 2008 SN 2010jl Ha narrow P Cygni line 100 km/s el. scatt. wing NOT: Fransson…. Broad Ha formed by electron scattering in the wind (Chugai 2001 on SN 1998S) Requires Thomson optical depth of > 1 in the wind
SN 2010jl 6000 K 1900 K 6 Fransson+ 13
SN 2010jlX-Rays (Chandra) Dec 2010 (t=2 mnth), 7e41 ergs/s (unabs), NH~1e24 cm-2, T≥10 keV Oct 2011, 7e41 ergs/s, NH~3e23 cm-2, T≥10 keV Jun 2012, 5e41 ergs/s, NH~5e22 cm-2, T≥10 keV P. Chandra, RAC,…
SN 2010jl Oct 2012 XMM NuSTAR Zoglauer, Ofek+ HEAD
Optically thick (in optical) X-ray emission (radio absorbed) X-ray photoionized region At high densities, the hard, forward shock X-ray emission dominates
Supernova in dense wind (rw=D/r2 to Rw) Radiation mediated shock transition covers optical depth c/vsh • tw>c/vsh • Radiation dominated shock propagates into wind • Radiation breakout when Rsh=Rd=kDvsh/c, characteristic diffusion radius in the wind • Viscous shock at larger radii
SN 2010gx and related objects: Rw<RdType I (Quimby objects) Pastorello et al. 2010
Rw = 2.5×1015 cm, D = 1018 g cm−1, and E = 2 × 1051 erg (Ginzburg & Balberg 12) SN 2010gx
1.5 x 1039 erg/s SN2006gy X-rays 1.5 x 1039 erg/s soft (Smith et al. 2007) < 1 x 1040 erg/s (Ofek et al. 2007) L(optical) ~ 2 x 1044 erg/s
SN 2006gy SN 2010jl D*=1 0.1 M/yr at 100 km/s RAC + Irwin 2012
Breakout X-rays decreased by • Inverse Compton cooling by photospheric photons more important than bremsstrahlung • Comptonization in the cool wind reduces energy of the highest energy photons • down to ~me c2/τ2 = 511/τ2 keV • Photoelectric absorption in the cool wind • Photoionization can be a factor
Analogous to cooling accretion onto a white dwarf. Increasing optical depth to Thomson scattering until accretion reaches the Eddington rate, when t~c/vs WD Kylafis & Lamb 1982
Rise to maximum due to rising T Grassberg, Imshennik, & Nadyozhin 1971
SN 2006oz Days before max Leloudas et al. 12
A clearer case of shock breakout SN 2011ht (IIn) Roming et al. 12
SNe with dense surroundings What are they? Up to several M lost in yrs to 100s of years before the explosion Velocity of circumstellar matter typically 100s km/s
Proposals for dense surroundings Mass loss driven by gravity-waves from convection in late burning phases (Quataert & Shiode 12) Pulsational pair instability (Woosley+ 07) Binaries (RAC 12, Barkov & Komissarov 11, Thone et al 12, Soker 12)
Massive star binary Supernova Neutron star Common envelope Mass loss Inspiral stops outside core Inspiral continues NS/BH He star SN BH TZO SN Inspiral M loss + TZO SN BH
NS + massive star Outcome depends on the initial period (separation) of binary or SN? Terman et al. 95
SN IIn observations Binary scenario Outflow velocity related to escape velocity: 100’s of km/s Up to solar masses in <1000 yr before explosion Rate estimated from # of HMXBs >2e-4 yr-1 in Galaxy (Podsiadlowski…) Asymmetric mass loss • Narrow emission and absorption lines give 100 to 1000 km/s • Up to solar masses in 10’s to 100’s of yr before explosion • Rate is 4-7% of CCSN rate, so (8-13)e-4 yr-1 in Galaxy (W. Li,….) • Asymmetry
Rest+ 2011 SN 2003ma Radiated ~4e51 ergs over 4.7 yr Estimate >1052 ergs explosion energy
Conclusions • Most core collapse supernovae have low density surroundings, consistent with the progenitor star wind • Some supernovae have dense surroundings • An extended, optically thick medium gives IIn characteristics • They can be optically highly luminous, although X-ray faint • Superluminous supernovae without “n” characteristics may also be powered by dense interaction • Reason for the dense mass loss uncertain – common envelope evolution is a suggestion