Arxiv:1707.05746V1 [Astro-Ph.HE] 18 Jul 2017 Kna Ta.21)T T1dm(Ihl Ta.2013), Al

Home , Superluminous supernova

arXiv:1707.05746v1 [astro-ph.HE] 18 Jul 2017 Kna ta.21)t T1dm(ihl ta.2013), al. et (Nicholl PTF12dam to 2017) al. et (Kangas ta.21a.Temtliiyo h otglx ses- is galaxy host the of metallicity The as timated 2017a). al. et n fsproa.Tefisi h ieaue(agse al. et (Kangas literature the 2013), in fits al. The pump- et radioactive supernovae. (Inserra for of model ing model analytical magnetar Arnett’s zone on based one a by ted surrounding (CSM). a matter with circumstellar dense ejecta and supernova extended the of and e.g. super- magnetar, interaction (see millisecond pair-instability spinning-down scenarios include a (PISN), popular review) nova accepted most for universally The 2014, no Quimby sce- is SLSNe. several there for in moment model explained the At be can narios. Gaia16apd bands) tical SLSNe. other to comparable oprsnwt LNPF2a Ncole l 2013), 2500 al. redshift et – total at (Nicholl 1000 its located PTF12dam of SLSN range % with wavelength 50 comparison the emitting in luminous, luminosity UV extremely is It t r 700Kad1,0 ms km 14,000 and K 17,000 maximum veloc- (In- At and are 2011ke bands. temperature ity Swift SN photospheric the estimated and and the g- 2010) light, in 2013) al. al. et et serra (Pastorello similar 2010gx spectroscopically is SN It similar having optical. bands, the UV in Swift brightness in brighter magnitudes r s erg aa6p a lsie sahdoe-orTp I Type hydrogen-poor luminosity a 2017a). bolometric al. as (peak et (SLSN-I) classified Yan SLSNe 2017; was al. et Gaia16apd (Kangas supernovae superlumi- among nous emission UV-bright extraordinarily its 1 ∗ h ooerclgtcreo aa6p sesl fit- easily is Gaia16apd of curve light bolometric The than (brighter SLSN a Being eetdtcino aa6p S 06a)revealed 2016eay) (SN Gaia16apd of detection Recent cetdfrpbiaini h srpyia ora Lette Journal L Astrophysical using the typeset Preprint in publication for Accepted al nttt o h hsc n ahmtc fteUnive the of Mathematics and Physics the for Institute Kavli -al [email protected] E-mail: lxyTolstov Alexey − 1 LRVOE IH UVSO AA6P NSPRUIOSSUP SUPERLUMINOUS IN GAIA16APD OF CURVES LIGHT ULTRAVIOLET nafitdafglx tredshift at galaxy dwarf faint a in ) Keywords: sdt lrf h aueo LN n oeatninsol epa be should attention more and SLSNe Observ of model. nature appropriate lumin betwee the observations. most found UV clarify the evolution extreme to to color event the used in SLSN explain and observed an to emission link UV promising late-time most circumst in the differences with is interaction model betw and interaction velocities magnetar we photospheric supernova, simulations and pair-instability temperatures hydrodynamics e color radiation ultraviolet curves, Using light luminous extremely (SLSNe). revealed supernovae Gaia16apd of Observations 4 Z h amn n eel ake colo hsc n Astron and Physics of School Sackler Beverly and Raymond The 0.18 = 3 trbr srnmclIsiue ..oooo ocwS Moscow M.V.Lomonosov Institute, Astronomical Sternberg 1. z tr:cruselrmte uenve eea supernova — general supernovae: — matter circumstellar stars: 5 A .0,Gi1adi bu 3 – 2 about is Gaia16apd 0.107, = 1 INTRODUCTION T Z nryZhiglo Andrey , nttt o hoeia n xeietlPyis(ITEP) Physics Experimental and Theoretical for Institute E ⊙ tl mltajv 12/16/11 v. emulateapj style X 6 Ncole l 07,wihis which 2017), al. et (Nicholl cetdfrpbiaini h srpyia ora Lett Journal Astrophysical the in publication for Accepted l-usaRsac nttt fAtmtc VIA,1270 (VNIIA), Automatics of Institute Research All-Russia 2 nvriyo oy,515Ksiaoa ahw,Cia277 Chiba Kashiwa, Kashiwanoha, 5-1-5 Tokyo, of University S hro nttt fPyisadTcnlg,618Khar 61108 Technology, and Physics of Institute Kharkov NSC − 1mgiuei l op- all in magnitude 21 − 1 epciey(Yan respectively 1,2 e’ciNomoto Ken’ichi , z ∼ 0.102. = 3 × .In A. ˚ 10 Blinnikov ABSTRACT 44 s WI,TeUiest fTkoIsiue o dacdS Advanced for Institutes Tokyo of University The (WPI), rse 1 ( rs au.Gi1adwsas rpsdt eajet-induced a be to proposed also was Gaia16apd value. ihSSeadde o eeleteeybih UV bright extremely reveal not does and SLSNe with 07 ihl ta.21)gv h jcamass ejecta the give 2017) al. et Nicholl 2017; 07 hw necs fU msini h oe of model the in emission UV of excess an shows 2017) 03 htoolse l 05 em ob inconsistent be to seems 2015) al. et Chatzopoulos 2013; M asv progentor massive ei nryo h ejecta the ki- of approach with energy (PPISN) This netic supernova pair-instability al. 2016). et pulsational (Tolstov al. PTF12dam et SLSN-I of Sorokina simulations 2013; in Chatzopou- used al. 2012; Wheeler et & los (Chatzopoulos SLSN-I UV for the mod- estimate magnetar not these do they all and But luminosity. oversimplified to are 2017). likely els (Soker are stars mech- formed neutron feedback be rotating jet rapidly negative where a anism, in supernova collapse core o xlnto fbih Veiso fGaia16apd. of promising emission most UV the main bright is of model The which explanation CSM. out for find with to interaction is models: purpose SLSN and popular PISN in multi- Gaia16apd magnetar, best-fit of of curves light comparison color the perform we simulations emission. al. et calculated (Dessart addition, models used In PISN be for to evolution Gaia16apd. 2013) al. spectroscopic of et Dessart explanation 2011; for al. et (Kasen broad be data. to observational promising Gaia16apd look with models compared interaction emission, UV of ln Sorokina Elena , E 5,6,1 h hc neato ehns a lob applied be also can mechanism interaction shock The o acltoso h ih uvs eue1 multi- 1D use we curves, light the of calculations For hydrodynamics radiation multicolor using paper this In too are models PISN of curves light the of peaks The ⊙ 51 n iei nryo h ejecta the of energy kinetic and = m,TlAi nvriy e vv698 Israel 69978, Aviv Tel University, Aviv Tel omy, E/ aeUiest,193 ocw Russia Moscow, 119234 University, tate 10 128Mso,Rsi and Russia Moscow, 117218 , e h otpplrSS models: SLSN popular most the een 51 r n1 u 2017 Jul 18 on ers la eim efidta the that find We medium. ellar tosa Vwvlntscnbe can wavelengths UV at ations 5Mso,Russia Moscow, 55 r) eedn nteaeaeopacity average the on depending erg), dt hmi uuefollow-up future in them to id iso mn superluminous among mission 3 88,Japan -8583, efr oprsno UV of comparison a perform M lxnr Kozyreva Alexandra , h oescnb sdto used be can models the n o,Ukraine kov, ZAMS 2. :idvda (Gaia16apd) individual e: st fGi1ad The Gaia16apd. of osity METHODS 100 = E ROAMODELS ERNOVA 51 , kin M ∼ ⊙ u oa excess an to Due . 0–2,hvn a having 20, – 10 E 51 , kin 4 Sergei , ∼ ∼ uy The tudy, 0–20 – 10 13 – 4 2 Tolstov et al. group radiation hydrodynamics numerical code STELLA (Blinnikov et al. 1998, 2000, 2006). The explosion is ini- tialized as a thermal bomb just above the mass cut, pro- ducing a shock wave that propagates outward. For PISN and interaction model the energy deposition rate Ldep is simply Ldep = Edep/tdep during relatively short time tdep ∼ 0.1s. The energy deposition rate Ldep in magnetar model is (Kasen & Bildsten 2010)

Em/tm Ldep = 2 , (1) (1 + t/tm) where the total spin energy Em and spin-down timescale tm is connected with pulsar spin period P and its mag- netic field B: ≈ × 52 −2 Em 2 10 Pms ergs, (2) ≈ −2 2 tm 5B14 Pmsdays, (3) 14 where Pms = P/1 ms and B14 = B/10 G. Thus, we assume that all spindown energy is thermalized in the ejecta. Figure 1. Multicolor light-curve simulation for Gaia16apd in the interaction model CSM40E20R165 and comparison with 3. SIMULATIONS observations (Kangas et al. 2017). Explosion time t0 = −82 days. UV light curves are plotted with thick lines, optical and NIR light curves are plotted with thin lines. 3.1. Multicolor light curves: interaction with CSM × 7 First of all, we compare the observed Gaia16apd amount of lines (2.6 10 ) reveals the increase of peak light curves with the best-fit interaction model of luminosity in all bands up to 0.5 magnitude. PPISN CSM40E20R16.5, which we used in modeling Among about 100 interaction models the model PTF12dam (Tolstov et al. 2017, model CSM47). The CSM40E20R16.5 has the best-fit (chi-squared minimization) of UV and optical light curves to Gaia16apd. progenitor has a main-sequence mass of 100 M⊙ and a The models with high explosion energy E = 30 and metallicity of Z = Z⊙/200. At the collapse, the mass 51,kin E = 60 also have a good fit in UV bands, but optical of the C+O core is 43 M⊙, surrounded by ∼ 40 M⊙ 51,kin He+C CSM (mass ratio He/C=6). In our simulations, peak of these models is brighter than in observations. solar metallicity is assumed in the CSM. Models with In our calculations, solar metallicity is assumed in the CSM. Low metallicity affects only the tail of light curves low metallicity of CSM Z = Z⊙/200 produce essentially the same UV light curves near the peak (Tolstov et al. mostly in blue and UV bands (Tolstov et al. 2017, see 2017). The explosion of this model with the energy of their Figure 14). Due to lower opacity, the CSM cools down faster and the light curve decline increases. An- hypernova E51,kin = 19 shows an excess of UV emission in comparison with observed light curves of PTF12dam. other effect of lower opacity is the decrease of the radius The mass cut between the ejecta and the compact rem- of the photospere, especially in UV wavelengths. The temperature of internal CSM layers is higher, which leads nant is set at 3 M⊙, so that the ejecta contains 6.1 M⊙ of 56Ni (Moriya et al. 2010). to higher luminosity at UV wavelengths. The comparison of UV light curves of Gaia16apd with 3.2. Multicolor light curves: magnetar the model CSM40E20R16.5 is presented in Figure 1. Surprisingly, UV light curves have a good fit in shape of For magnetar initial model we use the ejecta of SN the light curves and luminosity. The raising time of the 1998bw model (Mej=11 M⊙, Mcut=3 M⊙) (Iwamoto optical light curve in the model CSM40E20R16.5 seems et al. 1998) at homologous expansion phase (100 s) and to be smaller to fit the observations. For this reason change the kinetic energy of the ejecta to E51 = 1. We we consider one more interaction model with ∼ 20 M⊙ release the energy in the inner part of the ejecta (Eq. 1) 52 C+O CSM (mass ratio O/C=4) and higher explosion with magnetar parameters Em = 2 × 10 ergs, tm = 5 energy E51,kin = 27. In C+O CSM model the raising days. From Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 it corresponds to P = 1 ms, 14 time reduces to trise = 40 days, but the shape of the UV B = 10 G. In total we considered ∼ 30 models with light curve becomes different (Figure 2). Most probably various magnetar parameters around these values and the composition of CSM is not uniform mixture of C,O performed chi-squared minimization to find the best-fit and He. We plan to investigate this question later by of UV and optical bands to observations. analyzing observed spectra of Gaia16apd. The resulting light curves are presented in Figure 3. Optical light curves of interaction models have a good While the optical bands have a good fit, UV and NIR correspondence in luminosity with observational data luminosity is low to fit the observations. The increase of 52 and better shape for C+O CSM, while NIR requires magnetar energy (Em > 2×10 ergs) leads to wider peak more detailed investigation due to small number of NIR of UV light curves and it is not efficient in explaining of lines taken into account by standard STELLA calcula- the shape of Gaia16apd UV light curves. Lower values 52 tion. Our calculation of CSM40E20R16.5 model with large of magnetar energy (Em < 2 × 10 ergs) lead to fainter UV light curves in SLSN models 3

Figure 2. Multicolor light-curve simulation for Gaia16apd in Figure 4. Multicolor light-curve simulation for Gaia16apd in the interaction model CSM20E27R162 and comparison with the PISN model He130Ni55 and comparison with observations observations (Kangas et al. 2017). Explosion time t0 = −40 days. (Kangas et al. 2017). Explosion time t0 = −81 days. UV light UV light curves are plotted with thick lines, optical and NIR light curves are plotted with thick lines, optical and NIR light curves curves are plotted with thin lines. are plotted with thin lines.

Figure 3. Multicolor light-curve simulation for Gaia16apd in Figure 5. Observed color evolution of Gaia16apd (Nicholl the magnetar model MagnM10E20T5 and comparison with et al. 2017) compared to color evolution in interaction model observations (Kangas et al. 2017). Explosion time t0 = −54 days. CSM40E20R16.5 (solid line), interaction model CSM20E27R16.2 UV light curves are plotted with thick lines, optical and NIR light (dotted line), pair-instability model He130Ni55 (short dashes), curves are plotted with thin lines. and magnetar model MagnM10E20T5 (long dashes).

UV and optical emission. Thus, magnetar parameters of the best ﬁt of bolometric light curves (Nicholl et al. 2017; tar model shows diﬀerences in the evolution of the late- Kangas et al. 2017) P = 2 ms, B = 2×1014 G also lead time UV emission. The relatively low mass ejecta of the to fainter UV emission in comparison with observations. magnetar model becomes optically thin in the UV and 56 Adding a small amount of Ni (up to 0.4 M⊙) in the optical bands at ∼70 days after maximum light. For less model increases luminosity of the light curve tails, but we energetic and less luminous magnetar models the ejecta did not succeed in reproducing both bright UV emission becomes optically thin at later times and the shape of the and shape of UV light curves. light curves becomes close to one of the interaction model. In comparison with the interaction model, the magne- Late-time UV emission requires more detailed simula- 4 Tolstov et al. tions in optically thin regime of ejecta, where STELLA simulations are not so reliable.

3.3. Multicolor light curves: PISN For the PISN scenario we choose the compact (R = 4.2 R⊙) progenitor model He130Ni55 with the highest 56 56 amount of Ni: M( Ni)=55 M⊙ (evolutionary model of Heger & Woosley 2002). The total mass of the progenitor model is as small as M=57 M⊙, the deposited energy E51 = 44, the mass cut Mcut=0.02 M⊙. Among PISN models, the light curves of this model are character- ized by the high bolometric luminosity, the relatively relatively narrow peak, and the shortest raising time. Com- parison of multicolor light curves with Gaia16apd data shows that the PISN light curves are too broad to reproduce Gaia16apd and the luminosity of UV light curves are several magnitudes lower than in observations (Fig- ure 4). We also checked the PISN model that was used in modeling PTF12dam (Kozyreva et al. 2017, model P250), but it has even wider light curve and lower UV luminosity. We thus conclude that Gaia16apd can hardly be the PISN. Figure 6. Color temperature evolution of Gaia16apd (Kangas et al. 2017), compared with interaction model CSM40E20R16.5 3.4. Color evolution (solid line), interaction model CSM20E27R16.2 (dotted line), pair-instability model He130Ni55 (short dashes), and magnetar We compare the UV − r and g − r color evolution in model MagnM10E20T5 (long dashes). different models (Figure 5). The interaction model with the CO composition is in better agreement with observations in UV − r than other models. The magnetar interaction with CSM. The observed form of far-UV light model has a slower reddening than observations. PISN curve in Gaia16apd and evolution of color temperatures model is in good agreement with the observed reddening have the best fit in interaction model of hypernova ex- rate, but the model evolves about 50 days earlier than plosion. The magnetar model for the best bolometric the observed one. In contrast to UV − r, g − r color fits has broader and less luminous peak in comparison evolution is more consistent with the magnetar and the with observations. The PISN model has too broad peak PISN model than with the interaction model. and low UV luminosity to fit the observational data of Gaia16apd. 3.5. Color temperatures The differences in late-time UV emission and color evo- We compare the evolution of the observed color temper- lution found between the three different models can link atures Tcolor (temperature of the blackbody whose SED a particular event to the most appropriate model. The most closely fits the data) with the temperature of all late-time UV emission for the CSM model declines more described models (Figure 6). The temperature decline steeply as compared to that of the PISN and the mag- rate in the interaction interaction model is a better fit to netar spin-down model. For quantitative description of the observed values than in the magnetar and the PISN the late time emission more detailed parametric study is model. For more detailed comparison of spectral charac- required including optically thin regime of ejecta. teristics, the parametric study of the models is required, For the magnetar model we should note that it re- including variations of chemical composition. quires more detailed simulation of high-energy effects: pair-productions, spectral transport of gamma-rays, in- 3.6. Photospheric Velocities verse Compton, coupling of wind and plasma. The heat- ing of the ejecta by gamma-rays could not be as effi- The velocity of the photosphere (in B-band) near cient as it is assumed in magnetar models. The 100% the optical peak in the magnetar and the PISN model ∼ − −1 effective thermalization of magnetar energy in the ejecta vph 14, 000 16, 000 km s is close to the observed is a strong assumption. More realistic inefficient ther- − −1 12, 000 14, 000 km s (Kangas et al. 2017; Yan et al. malization leads to lower luminosity in magnetar model 2017a). In the best-fit interaction models the velocity is (Kasen et al. 2016). Thus, the question of how efficient −1 lower, vph ∼ 7, 000 − 8, 000 km s . The lower density of the conversion of spin-down energy into radiation in mag- CSM and higher hypernova energy can increase the pho- netar model is open. The preliminary more realistic sim- tospheric velocity (Tolstov et al. 2017). Also, probably, ulations coupling of magnetar e±-wind and plasma via the progenitor of Gaia16apd is more compact than the pressure and energy balance and accounting for spectral progenitor that we used in interaction models. transport of HEGRs show that the magnetar energy is 4. more efficiently converted into kinetic energy, but not CONCLUSIONS into radiation (Badjin 2017, in prep.). Using detailed radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, In our interaction model the rising time of the light we found a number of best-fit models in the most popu- curve fits to C+O composition better than to He com- lar SLSN scenarios for Gaia16apd: PISN, magnetar and position. The progenitor should have a massive C+O UV light curves in SLSN models 5 core, but the composition of the CSM can be determined JP16H02168, JP17K05382. The work of ES (light curve better in spectral synthesis modeling. The helium is not calculation with extended line list) was supported by the observed even in hydrogen-poor SLSN (Yan et al. 2017b), Russian Scientific Foundation grant 15–12–10519. Nu- but we do not exclude the presence of “dark helium”in merical calculations were in part carried out on the the interaction model, because He features can easily be CFCA cluster (XC30) of National Astronomical Obser- hidden in the spectra (Dessart et al. 2015). The helium vatory of Japan. ionization potential is high, but the temperature of the dense shell in the interaction model seems to be rather REFERENCES low to reveal helium features. Optical light curves re- main almost unchanged when we add He to CO mix- Blinnikov, S., Lundqvist, P., Bartunov, O., Nomoto, K., & ture in CSM while C and O are still the main absorbers Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132 Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., (Sorokina et al. 2016). & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454 The CSM interaction model for SLSN-I suffers in that Blinnikov, S. I., Röpke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, it does not reproduce intermediate-width emission lines, 453, 229 like those seen routinely for superluminous Type IIn Chatzopoulos, E., van Rossum, D. R., Craig, W. J., et al. 2015, (SLSN-II, hydrogen-rich) events. Another issue is the rel- ApJ, 799, 18 atively low velocity of the photosphere in our interaction Chatzopoulos, E., & Wheeler, J. C. 2012, ApJ, 760, 154 ∼ −1 Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & model at maximum light ( 7,000-8,000 km s ). It is Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76 hard to reproduce the observed photospheric velocity of Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Woosley, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, − 10,000 - 15,000 km s 1 with the CSM interaction model, 2189 but we continue to work on this topic. It seems that the Dessart, L., Waldman, R., Livne, E., Hillier, D. J., & Blondin, S. problem can be solved by a suggestion that CSM is a re- 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3227 Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532 sult of rather strong preexplosion with deposited energy Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, E51,dep = 4 (Woosley 2017) followed by hypernova ex- 128 plosion that lead to ejection of a high-velocity envelope Iwamoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., Nomoto, K., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, (Blinnikov et al., in prep.). 672 Bright UV emission of Gaia16apd can be an on-axis Kangas, T., Blagorodnova, N., Mattila, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1246 emission of asymmetric explosion. The assumption of Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245 spherical symmetry adopted in our 1D approach might Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 36 suffer from realistic CSM geometries (like that of Eta Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102 Carinae, or a clumpy CSM) and also from neglecting Kozyreva, A., Gilmer, M., Hirschi, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, the potentially anisotropic radiative flux expected from a 2854 Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 405 rapidly rotating magnetar. Hypernovae are intrinsically Moriya, T., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. asymmetric and can be produced by jet-driven, bipolar 2010, ApJ, 717, L83 explosions (Maeda et al. 2002). More realistic progenitor Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, L8 models and mutidimensional radiation transfer simula- Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, Nature, 502, 346 tions will be helpful to clarify this scenario. Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Botticella, M. T., et al. 2010, ApJ, To find out the nature of UV emissions of Gaia16apd 724, L16 and to understand how common this phenomenon is for Quimby, R. M. 2014, SLSNe, both more detailed numerical simulations and fu- in IAU Symposium, Vol. 296, Supernova Environmental ture follow-up observations at UV wavelengths of SLSNe Impacts, ed. A. Ray & R. A. McCray, 68 Soker, N. 2017, ApJ, 839, L6 are highly in demand. Sorokina, E., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., Quimby, R., & Tolstov, A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 17 Tolstov, A., Nomoto, K., Blinnikov, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 266 We thank the anonymous referee for an extensive re- Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244 view and useful comments. This research is supported Yan, L., Quimby, R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 840, 57 by the World Premier International Research Center Yan, L., Lunnan, R., Perley, D., et al. 2017b, ArXiv e-prints, Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and JSPS arXiv:1704.05061 [astro-ph.HE] KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP16K17658, JP26400222,