Luminous Supernovae
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Luminous Supernovae Robert Quimby (Caltech) 1 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Super/Over/Extremely/Very Luminous Supernovae LSNe SNe with peak absolute (optical) magnitudes brighter than -21 are Luminous Supernovae (LSNe) Richardson et al. 2002 Robert Quimby 2 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2005ap Quimby et al. 2007 R = 23.5 mag host (not shown) Peak observed mag = 18.1 (unfiltered) Observed light curve rise = 7 days Estimated rise time >20 days? Robert Quimby 3 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2005ap Spectra z = 0.2832 Peak absolute mag = -22.7 (unfiltered) Temperature 17,000-20,000 Line velocities ~20,000 km/s Velocity drops by ~4,000 km/s in 9 days Quimby et al. 2007 Robert Quimby 4 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Redshift Distrubution of TSS Supernovae Quimby et al. 2006 Robert Quimby 5 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 The Mysterious SCP 06F6 Barbary et al. 2009 Robert Quimby 6 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2006gy Smith et al. 2008 Peak absolute magnitude nearly -22 Brighter than -21 mag for ~100 days Integrated light >1051 erg Robert Quimby 7 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Pair-Instability SNe First Proposed it the 1960’s (Rakavy et al. 1967; Barkat et al. 1967) Massive stars are supported by radiation pressure At high temperatures, photons are created with E > e+e- Losses to pair production soften the EOS, and lead to instability Expected fate of the first (low metal, high mass) stars Waldman 2008 Robert Quimby 8 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2006gy Late-Time Light CurveNo. 6, 2010 NEW OBSERVATIONS OF THE VERY LUMINOUS SUPERNOVA 2006gy 2223 1011 >400 days. The early-time measurements (< 250 days) come from Smith et al. (2010). The optical measurement near day ) 400 comes from photometric measurements by Kawabata et al. • O 10 (2009), while the optical luminosity on day 810 comes from a 10 Total Luminosity NIR Luminosity direct integration of our HST observations (see Section 3.3.1). Optical Luminosity The three late-time NIR luminosities represent lower limits based on the measured K#-band flux (see above, Section 3.2). 9 56 1 10 The decay rate of Co, 0.98 mag (100 day)− ,ismuchfaster than the observed decay of the K# flux from SN 2006gy, 1 0.2 mag (100 day)− . The late-time NIR excess declines at ∼ 56 108 aratethatistooslowtobeexplainedby Co heating alone. The PISN model of Nomoto et al. (2007), which provided Bolometric Luminosity (L 56 good agreement with the early-time light curve of SN 2006gy 2.5 MO • Ni 107 after an artificial reduction of the total ejecta mass from their evolutionary calculation, was able to reproduce the late-time 0 200 400 600 800 Days since explosion NIR luminosity observed by Smith et al. (2008b). This model required less than 100% efficiency in the conversion of gamma- Figure 5. Evolution of the bolometric luminosity of SN 2006gy during the first Miller et al. 2010 800 days after explosion. Optical data are shown as black circles, and NIR data rays (from radioactive decay) to optical/NIR emission, which are red squares. Early-time data (< 250 days) are from Smith et al. (2010). means that the light curve should decay faster than 0.98 mag Robert Quimby 1 9 The optical detection near day 400 is from Kawabata et al. (2009). All other (100 d)− . The possibility of a PISN was first invoked to explain Wednesday, November 10, 2010 data are from this work. NIR measurements are only lower limits to the total the large peak luminosity of SN 2006gy (Ofek et al. 2007;Smith IR luminosity, because our observations do not sample redward of 2.2 µm(see et al. 2007). This scenario would have required the production the text). The dashed line shows the expected decline if the luminosity were 56 powered by 2.5 M of 56Ni. The flat nature of the light curve indicates that of ! 10 M of Ni, which in turn would produce a large ! 56 radioactivity is not! the primary energy source for the late-time emission. late-time luminosity that decays at the rate of Co. The late- (A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.) time NIR luminosity is not accounted for in either the general PISN models or the artificial model of Nomoto et al. (2007); it therefore provides a serious challenge to the PISN hypothesis.12 dust with T 600 K11 could dominate the IR emission, in which case the≈ luminosity could be significantly higher than the 3.2.2. Collisional Heating of the Dust values quoted above. The location of this dust, and whether it is newly formed Another possibility is that the dust existed prior to the or pre-existing at the time of the SN explosion, remain to SN explosion, at large distances from the explosion site, and be determined. The dust-cooling time is short, meaning that was heated via collisions with the expanding material in the aprolongedheatsourceisneededtoexplaintheextended expanding blast wave. The intense UV/optical output from an excess. We consider four possibilities for heating the dust: (1) SN at its peak vaporizes any dust in the vicinity of the SN (Dwek radioactive heating from 56Co decay, (2) collisional excitation 1983). This radiation near peak creates a dust-free cavity into of pre-existing dust, (3) heating via radiation from circumstellar which the SN ejecta may expand at early times; however, the interaction, and (4) a late-time IR dust echo, where pre-existing ejecta blast wave will eventually reach the edge of the dust-free dust is heated by the radiation produced while the SN was near cavity, at which point collisional excitations of the dust may its optical peak. generate NIR emission. The large peak luminosity of SN 2006gy, 8 1010 L (Smith 3.2.1. Radioactive Heating from 56Co et al. 2010), provides significant challenges× to this collisional! heating scenario. Dwek (1983)showsthattheradiusofthedust- Smith et al. (2008b)notedthattheobservedK#-band de- free cavity can be determined from the peak luminosity and the cay between 2007 September and 2007 December could be dust vaporization temperature, assuming the grain emissivity explained with radioactive heating from a minimum of 2.5 M Q is proportional to (λ/λ ) 1: of 56Ni, if a sufficient amount of dust formed in order to move! v 0 − the luminosity into the NIR (though they favored another inter- 0.5 Qν L0(L ) pretation; see below). We show the bolometric evolution of R1(pc) 23 ¯ ! , (2) = λ (µm)T 5 SN 2006gy through the first 800 days post-explosion, in- ! 0 v " cluding both optical and NIR∼ detections, in Figure 5.From where R is the radius of the dust-free cavity, Q is the mean Equation 19 of Nadyozhin (1994), and the fact that the lumi- 1 ¯ ν 56 56 T nosity from Co decay dominates over Ni decay at times ! 2 grain emissivity, L0 is the peak luminosity, and v is the dust weeks after explosion, we arrive at the following expression for vaporization temperature. Following Dwek (1983), if we assume 18 Qν 1andthatλ0 0.2 µm, we find that R1 1.4 10 cm, the radioactivity-powered luminosity of an SN, assuming 100% ¯ = = ≈ × trapping of gamma-rays: for a vaporization temperature Tv 1000 K. If the absorption ≈ 2 coefficient is instead proportional to λ− ,thenthecavity 43 t/(111.3d) 1 L56Co 1.45 10 exp− MNi/M erg s− , (1) becomes even larger. Based on the observed width of the Hα = × ! line from SN 2006gy, Smith et al. (2007)estimatethespeedof 1 where t is the time since SN explosion in days and MNi is the the blast wave to be 4000 km s− , which would mean that this total mass of 56Ni produced. Using Equation (1)wealsoshowin material would take 112 yr to reach the edge of the dust-free Figure 5 the expected light curve from 2.5 M of 56Ni at times cavity. Even if there∼ are ejecta traveling at more typical SN ! 11 Smith et al. (2008b) show that the combination of the peak luminosity and 12 The pulsational pair-instability model of Woosley et al. (2007) has not, distance to the dust suggests an equilibrium temperature around 600 K. however, been excluded; see also Smith et al. (2010). SN 2006gy Spectra Smith et al. 2010 Robert Quimby 10 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2007bi: The PISN Case Gal-Yam et al. 2009 Optical light curve decay rate consistent with the production 56 of ~7 M of Ni Iron abundance in nebular spectra also consistent with the 56 decay of ~4-7 M of Ni Robert Quimby 11 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 SN 2008es Gezari et al. 2009; see also Miller et al. 2009 Robert Quimby 12 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2009: PTF Finds LSNe PTF09cwl PTF09cnd PTF09atu Before After Robert Quimby 13 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 LSNe (Candidates) from PTF Name Notes LSN-Ic LSN-IIn PTF09uy LSN-IIn Bright BL-Ic PTF09atu LSN-Ic PTF09cnd LSN-Ic PTF09cwl LSN-Ic PTF10bfz BL-Ic PTF10bjp LSN-Ic 10% PTF10cwr LSN-Ic PTF10fel LSN-IIn PTF10heh LSN-IIn PTF10hgi LSN-Ic PTF10jwd LSN-IIn 50% PTF10nmn LSN-Ic 40% PTF10ooe BL-Ic PTF10qaf LSN-IIn PTF10qwu LSN-IIn PTF10scc LSN-IIn PTF10tpz LSN-IIn? PTF10uhf LSN-Ic PTF10xee LSN-Ic? PTF10vqv LSN-Ic Observed numbers--not volumetric rates! Robert Quimby 14 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 LSN-Ic Spectra Quimby et al. 2010 Robert Quimby 15 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 PTF09cnd: Spectal Comparison (near r- band maximum) Robert Quimby 16 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 LSN-Ic Light Curves Quimby et al. 2010 Absolute V-band Magnitude V-band Absolute Robert Quimby 17 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 PTF09cnd: Late-Time Photometry Robert Quimby 18 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 PTF09cnd: Late-Time Spectra Robert Quimby 19 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Summary of the Observations There are observationally distinct (but perhaps still physically related) groups of LSNe Rise times are typically ~50 days, but not always well constrained and not always the same LSN-Ic lack metal lines through maximum light (temperature or composition effect?) LSN-Ic photospheres persist for ~6 months past maximum light Some LSN-Ic show slow photometric declines, consistent with a large production of 56Ni, others must produce far less Robert Quimby 20 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Power Sources 1 Radioactive Decay Energy released by the radioactive decay of elements synthesized in the explosion (e.g.