210 likes | 349 Views
1994 2007. RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx : A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866. Shell ejected in 1866±5 V expansion for shell is 500-715 km/s M shell is 10 -4.5 M . Classical Nova Eruption In 1866. }.
E N D
19942007 RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx:A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866 Shell ejected in 1866±5Vexpansion for shell is 500-715 km/sMshell is 10-4.5 M ClassicalNova Eruption In 1866 } MWDdominated by ejections of regular nova events, so is losing mass Short-Porb recurrent novae are not SN progenitors
GET Mejecta FROM PERIOD CHANGE ACROSS ERUPTIONS Mejecta = (MWD/A)*(P/P)
U SCO 2010 ERUPTION:LARGE PERIOD CHANGE • P = (27.6 ± 1.4) x 10-6 days • Mejecta= (27.7 ± 1.4) x 10-6M • T = 10.9 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
T PYX 2011 ERUPTION:LARGE PERIOD CHANGE • P = (4.0 ± 0.3) x 10-6 days • Mejecta= (58.8 ± 5.5) x 10-6M • T = 44.3 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
CI AQL 2000 ERUPTION:SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD CHANGE • P = (1.5 ± 1.0) x 10-6 days • Mejecta= (2.9 ± 2.0) x 10-6M • T = 24 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
RECURRENT NOVA WHITE DWARFS ARE EJECTING MORE MASS THAN THEY ARE ACCRETING • RNe WDs losing mass • RNe will not become Type Ia supernova
HALF OF THE RECURRENT NOVAE ARE NEON NOVAE Mason et al. 2012, A&A A neon nova cannot have its WD gaining mass, because it is dredging up new material each eruption. A neon nova must have an underlying ONeMg WD and cannot become a supernova, because it is not the required CO white dwarf. Half-or-more of RN will not become supernovae
SNR 0509-67.5 FINAL 3-s ERROR CIRCLE IS EMPTY OF POINT SOURCES TO V=26.9 3-s error circle: Measurement Error + Orbital Velocity + Kicks
THE UTTER LACK OF ANY EX-COMPANION RULES OUT ALL MODELS EXCEPT THE DOUBLE DEGENERATE Schaefer & Pagnotta 2012, Nature Limiting mag of V=26.9 MV=8.4 (K9 on main sequence) ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
TWO MORE LMC TYPE Ia SN REMNANTS HAVE NO RED GIANT or SUBGIANT EX-COMPANIONS Edwards, Pagnotta, & Schaefer 2012, ApJLett SNR 0519-69.0 SNR 0505-67.9 SN1006 HAS NO RED GIANT EX-COMPANION Gonzalez-Hernandez et al. 2012, Nature
SN 2011fe HAS NO RED GIANT COMPANION Li et al. 2011, Nature Lack of any counterpart on pre-eruption HST images proves the companion cannot be a luminous red giant or a luminous Helium star. Li et al. (2011) (arXiv)
NO ‘KASEN EFFECT’ IN 235 SUPERNOVAE MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION Kasen 2010, ApJ
NO EMISSION FROM EJECTA/WIND COLLISION MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION BUT: A few SNe(PTF11kx, SN2002ic, & SN2005gj) show variable narrow emission lines that are a clear hall mark of interaction with a circumstellar medium 0.1% - 1% of progenitors are Symbiotic Stars
SCORECARD FOR RED GIANT COMPANIONS: _____ ___ 145 0
GENERALIZING – IF ONE CLASS DOMINATEs: SNR0509 center is empty No Red Giants No Red Giants SNR0509 center is empty No Hi-L stars Neon WDs, Mejecta too high No Kasen effect
GENERALIZING – IF TWO CLASSES DOMINATE: SNR0509 center is empty No Red Giants No Red Giants SNR0509 center is empty No Hi-L stars Neon WDs, Mejecta too high No Kasen effect No Red Giants No Red Giants No Hi-L stars Different from first class No Kasen effect Neon WDs, Mejecta too high
CONCLUSIONS: Two RNe have Mejecta>>MDT Half of the RNe are neon nova T Pyx had a classical nova eruption in 1866 and is fast exiting the RN phase SNR0509-67.5 has an empty central region to MV= +8.4 Out of a sample of 145 SNe, 0 have red giant companions (with similar but weaker restrictions for subgiant companions) SYMBIOTIC DOUBLE DEGENERATE or SYMBIOTIC SUPERSOFT? DOUBLE DEGENERATE