Arxiv:1303.4298V1

arXiv:1303.4298v1 [astro-ph.HE] 15 Mar 2013 udmna eerh ubi400,Ida [email protected] India; 400005, Mumbai Research, Fundamental aglr 602 ni;[email protected] India; 560012, [email protected] Bangalore ikne l 07 aaaae l 2009; al. et Yamanaka 2006; al. et Howell 2010; 2007; al. al. et et (Scalzo Hicken progenitors nmle emt ersle fisedo the of instead super-Chandrasekhar- 2 these if masses invokes as with resolved however, dwarfs, one categorized white be Interestingly, mass theory to being standard seem from 2001) anomalies candles. them al. et luminosity- Goldhaber standard prohibits the violate 1993; (Phillips also which They relation stretch counterparts 2006). standard al. their et low (Howell to very a have compared and velocity by nickel, ejecta of powered production These usual overluminous, SN than 2010). higher 2006gz, distinctly al. SN et are (Scalzo — supernovae 2003fg SN supernovae 2009dc, Ia SN 2007if, type peculiar several the 2007). of nature al. the et about (Parthasarathy known super- star is Ia companion extremely less type and far a However, violent as observe nova. a instability we in which thermonuclear resulting explosion, a energetic dwarf, white triggers the further in This Sun. rdal prahsteCadaehrms ii of limit mass and Chandrasekhar star 1 companion the a bi- approaches from a gradually matter the in accretes dwarf to system white According of nary carbon-oxygen history 1999). a expansion consensus, al. the general et (Perlmutter studying universe for be the and issue probes measurements to are distance research considered hence cosmic are for ongoing supernovae candles standard These and important 2011). (Howell extremely an OSBEEOUINR CNROO IHYMGEIE SUPE MAGNETIZED HIGHLY OF SCENARIO EVOLUTIONARY POSSIBLE A . 44 2 1 digt h uzefrhri h eetdsoeyof discovery recent the is further puzzle the to Adding rpittpstuigL using 2018 typeset 23, Preprint November version Draft dniyn h rgntr ftp asproa is supernovae Ia type of progenitors the Identifying eateto srnm srpyis aaIsiueof Institute Tata Astrophysics, & Astronomy of Department eateto hsc,Ida nttt fScience, of Institute Indian Physics, of Department M ⊙ ag ubro antzdwiedaf ySDSS. by dwarfs observational white headings: has magnetized proposal Subject of our t number that large opens out c dwa a This point white a We super-Chandrasekhar freezing. to above. of flux stated on explosions of supernova accretion phenomenon in by ending the formed evo invoking be possible dwarf, could a white sketch dwarfs we degenerate white Here electron Chandrasekhar underlying range. the mass of inferred progenitors observationally quantization the Landau for the candidates potential to su be having to dwarfs established white ready magnetized Strongly progenitors. probable uenve h otsrkn seto h bevtoa analy them observational masses between the having dissimilarities dwarfs of white aspect puzzling Chandrasekhar striking the most explain The help supernovae. might that theory Cadaehr1935), (Chandrasekhar eea eetydsoee euirtp asproa emto seem supernovae Ia type peculiar discovered recently Several 1. A INTRODUCTION T W RS RGNTR FPCLA YEI SUPERNOVAE IA TYPE PECULIAR OF PROGENITORS DWARFS: E tl mltajv 03/07/07 v. emulateapj style X crto,aceindss—euto fsae—nve cataclysm novae, — state of equation — disks accretion accretion, tr:mgei ed—sproa:gnrl—wiedwarfs white — general supernovae: — field magnetic stars: psn Das Upasana M . ⊙ 1 − en h asof mass the being 2 . 8 M 1 airt Mukhopadhyay Banibrata , rf eso oebr2,2018 23, November version Draft ⊙ stheir as , es.in ABSTRACT ∼ 2 , . 1 − 2 hnaciia field critical a than Ds&Mkoaha 02,21b eefe DM1, ( fields hereafter magnetic for 2012b, that, is 2012a, respectively) DM2 Mukhopadhyay & (Das antzdwiedaf,hvn eta fields central 10 having dwarfs, strongly white that magnetized shown have 2012b) (2012a, Mukhopadhyay lacking core be a to and However, them. seems in understanding 2010), 2011). Soker theoretical al. scenario & et detailed (Kashi Scalzo degenerate two addition, scenario double of degenerate In 1984; Tutukov the mergers & involving namely (Iben explain above. proposed dwarfs, to stated been white try range have other that mass models and 2012), required white rotation al. the binary There et differential (Hachisu accreting stability include of 2011).parameters and simulations which al. dwarfs. et few origin Taubenberger dwarfs, white a the been super-Chandrasekhar is have these now question of leading 2011; The al. et Silverman assi h ag 2 range the in masses ns fflxfezn n aduqatzto possi- a magnetized massive quantization strongly between Landau link and evolutionary observed ble freezing mech- normally flux the by a of that of anism demonstrate we field dwarf, magnetic white the magnetic about and assumptions mass reasonable sce- the some progenitor with degenerate Starting formed. single nario. be the could on dwarfs concentrate We white white magnetized form highly which to fields. is magnetic question strong such additional white with these the dwarfs of Now relation mass-radius state dwarfs. the of hence 1991). equation Shapiro and density corresponding & (EoS) the the modifies (Lai turn result changes in electrons a This the as for states and degenerate of significant electron becomes underlying the matter on quantization dau . 8 M nafnaetlydffrn rud a & Das ground, different fundamentally a On nthis In 17 ⊙ , ,aecpbeo aigsuper-Chandrasekhar having of capable are G, M ht wrsadteosre euirtp Ia type peculiar observed the and dwarfs white ⊙ Letter fpcla yeI uenve Owing supernovae. Ia type peculiar of i stencsiyo noigsuper- invoking of necessity the is sis 1 upr,lk,tercn icvr of discovery recent the like, support, en h aso u,a hi most their as Sun, of mass the being eada loehrnwformation new altogether an demand .R Rao R. A. , e-hnrska asswr al- were masses per-Chandrasekhar f aigmse ihnterange the within masses having rfs uinr cnrob hc super- which by scenario lutionary a,tertclrslsyeddthe yielded results theoretical gas, esec neouinr cnroby scenario evolutionary an sketch we , mol bevdmagnetized observed ommonly emlil osbeevolutions possible multiple he B c − n h tnadtp Ia type standard the and 4 = -HNRSKA WHITE R-CHANDRASEKHAR 2 2 . 6 . 414 M ⊙ × h ai daemployed idea basic The . 10 cvrals— variables ic 13 ,teeeto Lan- of effect the G, B ∼ greater ) 10 super- 15 − 2 Das, Mukhopadhyay & Rao supernovae could be established. This scenario is com- dwarf) would be significantly different, developing a core- patible with the discovery of several (isolated) magne- envelope boundary. Hence, we start with an internal 5 12 tized white dwarfs by SDSS having surface fields 10 − magnetic field Bint ∼ 5 × 10 G along with a surface 9 10 G (Schmidt et al. 2003; Vanlandingham et al. 2005) field Bs at least three orders of magnitude lower than and the fact that 25% of the observed cataclysmic vari- Bint. Such a white dwarf still has B

R in units of 1000 km face and central magnetic fluxes of the initial and final −1 10 white dwarfs are individually conserved as the evolution progresses. For example, for the white dwarf with 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 17 Bint = 8.8 × 10 G and R = 69.5 km (which is the M in units of solar mass maximum possible radius for the corresponding mass- radius relation), if we consider Bint to be confined upto Fig. 1.— Mass-Radius relations — solid line represents Chan- Rint = R/10 (corresponding to a profile with parameters drasekhar’s non-magnetic result; dotted, dashed and dot-dashed β = 0.01,γ = 3.6 (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1997)), then lines represent the evolutionary tracks of accreting magnetized the above assumption holds true with surface and central white dwarfs, ending in super-Chandrasekhar type Ia supernovae 27 2 29 . M . M . M fluxes respectively 1.46 × 10 G cm and 4.25 × 10 G with progenitor masses 2 01 ⊙, 2 33 ⊙ and 2 58 ⊙ respectively. 2 The solid lines marked with squares represent from top to bot- cm . Note, however, that the extent of Bint adjusts ac- tom the intermediate mass-radius relations corresponding to 50124- cordingly as the white dwarf evolves and hence Rint need level, 200-level and 1-level systems of Landau quantization respec- not be the same for the initial and final white dwarfs. tively. Figure 1 shows how the an initial mass of the white dwarf could possibly evolve to 3 different final limiting We consider a white dwarf having a central field sev- masses, namely 2.01M⊙, 2.33M⊙ and 2.58M⊙. Once eral orders of magnitude higher than that of the sur- the corresponding final mass is reached, further accretion face, with a typical mass and radius to be M0 ∼ 0.2M⊙ induces a runaway thermonuclear reaction, causing the and R ∼ 15000 km respectively. Note, as justified in white dwarf to explode at that mass, leading to a super- §IV.C of DM1, that the magnetic field might be approx- Chandrasekhar supernova. We note that, although we imately constant in a range of radii around the center show only three tracks in Figure 1, any number of tracks of the white dwarf, which we define as internal mag- are possible resulting in different final limiting masses netic field. This is quite a plausible assumption, since . 2.58M⊙. In the following subsection we explain in the original star collapsing to form a white dwarf might detail how we obtain these multiple tracks. have a very large interior magnetic field compared to 2.1. that observed on its surface, as has been the case for Multiple evolutionary tracks the Sun (Gough & McIntyre 1998). Thus, it is quite When the electrons occupy the ground Landau level, likely that the values of the central and surface mag- pressure increases monotonically as a function of den- netic fluxes (in the initial star and hence in the white sity. This corresponds to a mass-radius relation where Evolutionary model for super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs 3 initially the mass increases with increasing radius (let us the central density. This indicates that the same mag- call it the first branch of the mass-radius relation). If netic field leads to a white dwarf having different possible the magnetic field is sufficiently high, then the radius masses with the same radius. Hence once the above poly- becomes nearly independent of mass at higher central tropic relation starts holding true, the flux freezing con- densities in this branch. From DM1, we note that when- dition opens the multiple possible evolutionary tracks. ever there is a transition from a lower Landau level to the 3. next higher level, a kink appears in EoS, followed by a TIMESCALE OF MASS EVOLUTION plateau — which is a small region where the pressure be- Here we explore the typical timescale of evolution of comes nearly independent of the density (see Figure 1 of the accreting magnetic white dwarf systems with as- DM1). For a given magnetic field, the central density of sumed parameters quite close to the class of magnetic the white dwarf corresponding to the kink in EoS arising CVs called the Intermediate Polars (IPs). at the transition from the ground to first Landau levels corresponds to a white dwarf having the maximum possi- 3.1. Constant mass accretion rate ble radius. Note that the systems having more than one occupied Landau level exhibit multiple branches in their mass-radius relations including the ‘first branch’ (for de- tails see DM1). For example, the mass-radius relation 3 of white dwarfs having central densities corresponding to the plateau of EoS shows a turning point and subse- 2.5 quent decrease of mass with decreasing radius (see Figure 2 of DM1). 2 Now, let us consider a white dwarf lying on an intermediate mass-radius relation in its early stage of evolution 1.5 (e.g. the top most solid curve marked with squares in

Figure 1), such that it has the maximum possible ra- 1 dius. As it evolves via accretion, its magnetic field and mass increases with decreasing radius, such that when M in units of solar mass 0.5 the white dwarf transits to the next mass-radius relation, it still has the corresponding maximum radius satisfying 0 the flux-freezing condition. For a sufficiently high field, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 the white dwarf with maximum radius also corresponds Time in units of 108 years to the maximum possible mass. Thus, in Figure 1, we show that the evolution of such a white dwarf gives rise to Fig. 2.— Mass evolution of accreting magnetized white dwarfs the track corresponding to the limiting mass of 2.58M⊙, — dot-dashed, dashed and dotted lines represent constant accre- −9 −1 −9 −1 which corresponds to the new mass limit for white dwarfs tion rates of respectively 2.38×10 M⊙yr , 2.15×10 M⊙yr −9 −1 proposed by Das & Mukhopadhyay (2013). Hence, this and 1.83 × 10 M⊙yr for supernova explosions occurring at the track demarcates a zone in the mass-radius plane, beyond same time, for progenitor masses 2.58M⊙, 2.33M⊙ and 2.01M⊙ the right-hand side of which no further track is possible. respectively. From the bottom two mass-radius relations (represent- ing further intermediate masses and radii of the evolving Figure 2 shows the evolution of an initial white dwarf white dwarf) in Figure 1, we notice that the evolving of mass 0.2M⊙ and radius 15000 km into the 3 super- white dwarf passing through them may lie anywhere in a Chandrasekhar white dwarfs with M ≥ 2M⊙ corre- zone where the radius is independent of mass satisfying sponding to Figure 1. Here we assume a constant mass the flux freezing condition. This zone is a part of the ‘first accretion rate (M˙ ), represented by the constant slopes branch’ of the corresponding mass-radius relation. This of the 3 lines in Figure 2, for each case, such that they 14 happens at a sufficiently high field & 1.7×10 G (which explode at the same time. The values of M˙ (typical of −9 −1 −9 −1 corresponds to a 5000-Landau-level system), when a part IPs) are 2.38 × 10 M⊙yr , 2.15 × 10 M⊙yr and −9 −1 of EoS can be described by a polytropic relation of the 1.83 × 10 M⊙yr for the exploding masses of 2.58M⊙, form 2.33M⊙ and 2.01M⊙ respectively. We see that the sys- Γ P = Kρ , when Γ=2, (1) tem with a higher M˙ accumulating more mass in the where P and ρ are respectively the pressure and density same time (roughly a billion year) gives rise to a more of the electron gas, Γ is the polytropic index and K is massive supernova explosion. a constant depending on the magnetic field. Now on Figure 3(a) shows that how the exploding mass of −9 −1 solving the magnetostatic equilibrium condition by Lane- 2.33M⊙ is attained by 3 different M˙ s—3×10 M⊙yr , −9 −1 −9 −1 Emden formalism, one obtains the following scaling laws 2.5 × 10 M⊙yr and 2 × 10 M⊙yr — resulting in (DM1) for radius (R) and mass (M): the explosions occurring at different times. (Γ−2)/2 R ∝ ρc (2) 3.2. Varying mass accretion rate and (3Γ−4)/2 The most favored models for type Ia supernova M ∝ ρ , (3) −7 −1 c progenitors invoke a very high M˙ & 10 M⊙yr , where ρc is the central density of the white dwarf. Thus such that the accreted hydrogen and helium can burn when Γ = 2, the radius becomes independent of the steadily (Cumming 2002). These values of M˙ are ob- central density, while the mass becomes proportional to served in supersoft X-ray sources and symbiotic binaries 4 Das, Mukhopadhyay & Rao

higher. The properties that we have assumed in our com- putation are similar to those seen in IPs. They have 2.5 surface magnetic fields ranging 105 − 107 G and they −9 −1 are high accretors with M˙ ≈ (0.2 − 4) × 10 M⊙yr α 2 = 2 α = 1 (Warner 1995). Cumming (2002) studied the evolution of magnetic fields in accreting white dwarfs and found that surface magnetic fields are reduced significantly for 1.5 −10 −1 M˙ > M˙ c ≈ (1 − 5) × 10 M⊙yr , due to the advection of the field into the interior of the white dwarf by 1 the accretion flow. This presumably increases the central magnetic field (Cumming 2002). Further, certain

M in units of solar mass 0.5 dwarf novae (a subclass of CVs) like RU Peg, are expected to show short and long term variations in M˙ s, −9 −1 (a) (b) ranging from as low as (1 − 2) × 10 M⊙yr to as high 0 −7 −1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 as 10 M⊙yr (Parthasarathy et al. 2007). Hence, it Time in units of 108 years is quite conceivable that IPs with high internal field and low surface field with an increasing M˙ can lead to super- Chandrasekhar white dwarfs causing the peculiar super- Fig. 3.— Mass evolution of accreting magnetized white dwarf nova Ia explosions. Moreover, for α = 2 according to our with (a) constant accretion rate — solid, dashed and dotted −9 −1 −9 −1 ˙ lines represent 3 × 10 M⊙yr , 2.5 × 10 M⊙yr and 2 × chosen model, the desired M for a type Ia supernova ex- −9 −1 10 M⊙yr respectively, (b) varying accretion rate — solid and plosion to occur is attained starting from an initial, lower dashed lines correspond to α = 2 and α = 1 respectively. rate, typically observed in IPs. Note that peculiar type Ia (Cumming 2002; Parthasarathy et al. 2007). At lower supernovae arise, according to our argument, from highly M˙ s, hydrogen burning is unstable and occurs in flashes, magnetized CVs, which are presumably 10% of all mag- while at higher rates an extended envelope is formed netized CVs. Hence about 2.5% of all CVs should lead (van den Heuvel et al. 1992). to super-Chandrasekhar objects, which is consistent with We now plan to invoke a range of M˙ s, low to high, in the observed rate (1 – 2%) of peculiar type Ia supernovae a single model evolution of the white dwarf and hence (Scalzo et al. 2012). consider Apart from the advection of the magnetic field into the α interior caused by accretion, there are other ways of gen- M −9 −1 M˙ = × 10 yr , (4) erating such strong fields.3 Interestingly, recent observa- M 0 tions of magnetic Ap and Bp stars indicate that they have where α is a parameter that determines the functional a magnetic flux in the range 1026 − 1027 G cm2, which is dependence of M˙ on the instantaneous mass (M ≥ M0) very similar to that observed in magnetized white dwarfs of the white dwarf. (Ferrario & Wickramasinghe 2005). This strongly points In Figure 3(b) we show two cases corresponding to towards the fact that the magnetic fields of highly mag- α = 1 and α = 2, having the same final exploding mass, netized white dwarfs are fossil remnants from their main- namely 2.33M⊙. In the case with α = 1, M˙ varies from sequence progenitor stars (Tout et al. 2004). Simula- −9 −1 −8 −1 10 M⊙yr to 1.3 × 10 M⊙yr . The evolution is tions of magnetic field evolution in Ap stars strongly sup- slow in this case and the supernova explosion occurs in port the idea of this field itself being a fossil remnant from ∼ 5 × 108 years. In the case with α = 2, M˙ varies from the interstellar medium, generated during the process of −9 −1 −7 −1 star formation (Braithwaite & Spruit 2004). Results of 10 M⊙yr to 1.7 × 10 M⊙yr . The evolution here is more than twice as fast as the previous case and the su- these simulations to hold true, the new born star is re- pernova explosion occurs in ∼ 2×108 years. Hence, α ≥ 2 quired to have an initial field mainly confined to the core, is supposed to validate the underlying white dwarfs as which can be justified from the flux freezing theory dur- progenitors of the observed peculiar type Ia supernovae. ing its formation (Braithwaite & Nordlund 2006). More- over, the contraction of a typical interstellar cloud of ra- 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS dius ∼ 0.1 pc, mass ∼ M⊙ and having a frozen-in mag- −6 8 Based on the theoretical work on strongly magnetized netic field ∼ 3 × 10 G could give rise to a field ∼ 10 white dwarfs having super-Chandrasekhar masses (DM1, G in the resulting star (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983) with DM2), we have discussed possible evolutionary paths solar radius. Thus, a star with such a high centrally con- that lead from magnetized accreting white dwarf bina- centrated field is a plausible progenitor of the strongly ries to the peculiar type Ia supernova explosions. Mul- magnetized super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs discussed tiple evolutionary tracks are possible in the mass-radius in this Letter. These stars also have convective cores and in some special cases a dynamo mechanism might occur plane, which covers a mass range ∼ 2 − 2.6M⊙, that lies within the observational limits. We have considered both to generate a high magnetic field therein, leading to a (central) magnetic flux as high as ∼ 1030 G cm2, sim- constant as well as varying M⊙, in order to estimate the timescale of occurrence of the supernova events. ilar to that of the magnetized white dwarfs mentioned Highly magnetized white dwarfs have been discov- in §2. The incidence of such main-sequence magnetic ered by SDSS having surface fields in the range 105 − stars might be rare, but so are the super-Chandrasekhar 9 10 G (Schmidt et al. 2003; Vanlandingham et al. 2005; 3 However, see the Appendix of DM1, which discusses that even Wickramasinghe & Ferrario 2000). Note that their cen- a relatively weaker field than that considered here can give rise to tral fields are expected to be a few orders of magnitude the super-Chandrasekhar masses. Evolutionary model for super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs 5 supernova events. further justified by astronomical indications, which im- If the single-degenerate accreting scenario is the correct ply higher accretion rates at later times of the evolution progenitor model for the overluminous (peculiar) type of magnetized massive white dwarfs (Wang & Han 2012; Ia supernovae, then observationally such high magnetic, Toonen et al. 2013; Nomoto et al. 2007). We specu- high mass white dwarfs with small radius (also with high late that these white dwarfs will have X-ray luminosity M˙ ) could be one of the plausible progenitors of these su- in between commonly observed accreting white dwarfs pernovae. However, a detailed investigation needs to be and accreting neutron stars (in the range of 1035 – − carried out in order to understand the physics of explo- 1038 ergs s 1). Bright X-ray selected CVs (and other sions of these white dwarfs and if they indeed produce objects) might harbor some of these peculiar super- the light curves similar to that of the peculiar type Ia Chandrasekhar objects. supernovae. Now the white dwarfs would be seen as peculiar, super- Chandrasekhar objects only during a small fraction of This work is partly supported by ISRO project Grant their life time, which is ∼ 0.05 for α = 2. Hence, No. ISRO/RES/2/367/10-11. U.D. thanks CSIR, India about ∼ 0.12% of the CVs with varying M˙ would be for financial support. The authors would like to thank likely candidates for peculiar objects. The varying M˙ is Arnab Rai Choudhuri of IISc for discussion.

REFERENCES Bandyopadhyay, D., Chakrabarty, S., & Pal, S. 1997, Phys. Rev. Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565. Lett., 79, 2176. Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105. Braithwaite, J., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819. Scalzo, R. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1073. Braithwaite, J., & Nordlund, A.˚ 2006, A&A, 450, 1077. Scalzo, R. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 12. Chandrasekhar, S. 1935, MNRAS, 95, 207. Schmidt, G. D., et al. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1101. Chanmugam, G., Ray, A., & Singh, K. P. 1991, ApJ, 375, 600. Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs Cumming, A. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 589. and Neutron Stars: The physics of compact objects (John Willey Das, U., & Mukhopadhyay, B. 2012a, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 042001; & Sons, New York). DM1. Silverman, J. M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 585. ———. 2012b, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 21, 1242001; DM2. Taubenberger, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2735. Das, U., & Mukhopadhyay, B. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 071102. Toonen, S., Nelemans, G., Bours, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. Ferrario, L., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 615. arXiv:1302.0837. Goldhaber, G., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 359. Tout, C. A., Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Ferrario, L. 2004, MNRAS, Gough, D. O., & McIntyre, M. E. 1998, Nature, 394, 755. 355, L13. Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 2012, ApJ, 744, 69. van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Bhattacharya, D., Nomoto, K., & Hicken, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, L17. Rappaport, S. A. 1992, A&A, 262, 97. Howell, D. A. 2011, Nature Comm., 2, 350. Vanlandingham, K. M., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 734. Howell, D. A., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 308. Wang, B., & Han, Z. 2012, New Ast. Rev., 56, 122. Iben, I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335. Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge: Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466. Cambridge Univ. Press) Lai, D., & Shapiro, S. L. 1991, ApJ, 383, 745. Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Ferrario, L. 2000, Pub. Ast. Soc. Pac., Nomoto, K., Saio, H., Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2007, ApJ, 663, 112, 873. 1269. Yamanaka, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, L118. Parthasarathy, M., Branch, D., Jeﬀery, D. J., & Baron, E. 2007, New Ast. Rev., 51, 524.