Shock Cooling and Possible Precursor Emission in the Early Light Curve of the Type II SN 2023ixf
Shock Cooling and Possible Precursor Emission in the Early Light Curve of the Type II SN 2023ixf
复制标题
DOI：
10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4
复制
发表时间：
2023-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Hosseinzadeh;J. Farah;M. Shrestha;D. Sand;Y. Dong 董;P. Brown;K. Bostroem;S. Valenti;S. Jha;J. Andrews;I. Arcavi;J. Haislip;D. Hiramatsu;E. Hoang;D. Howell;D. Janzen;J. Jencson;V. Kouprianov;M. Lundquist;C. McCully;Nicolas E. Meza Retamal;M. Modjaz;M. Newsome;E. P. Gonzalez;J. Pearson;C. Pellegrino;A. Ravi;D. Reichart;N. Smith;G. Terreran;J. Vink'o
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Hosseinzadeh;J. Farah;M. Shrestha;D. Sand;Y. Dong 董;P. Brown;K. Bostroem;S. Valenti;S. Jha;J. Andrews;I. Arcavi;J. Haislip;D. Hiramatsu;E. Hoang;D. Howell;D. Janzen;J. Jencson;V. Kouprianov;M. Lundquist;C. McCully;Nicolas E. Meza Retamal;M. Modjaz;M. Newsome;E. P. Gonzalez;J. Pearson;C. Pellegrino;A. Ravi;D. Reichart;N. Smith;G. Terreran;J. Vink'o
我们展示了II型超新星（SN）2023 ixf的早期光变曲线，它是在附近的风车星系（Messier 101; 6.7 Mpc）爆炸后数小时内首次观测到的。将这些数据与最近更新的冲击冷却辐射模型进行比较，我们发现祖先的半径可能为410 ± 10 R。我们的估计依赖于模型，但与红超巨星一致。这些模型提供了一个很好的拟合数据开始约1天后爆炸，尽管事实上，分类光谱显示的签名周围SN 2023 ixf星周物质在这段时间。在爆炸后的第一天，测光，几乎完全由业余天文学家提供，不同意冲击冷却模型或一个简单的幂律上升适合1天后的数据。我们认为这种差异的可能原因，包括前体活动的祖星星，星周相互作用，并从冲击之前或之后，它打破了恒星表面的排放。非常低的亮度（−11等> M > −14等）和初始过剩的短暂持续时间使我们倾向于与SN激波通过祖系统的长期发射有关的方案。
We present the densely sampled early light curve of the Type II supernova (SN) 2023ixf, first observed within hours of explosion in the nearby Pinwheel Galaxy (Messier 101; 6.7 Mpc). Comparing these data to recently updated models of shock-cooling emission, we find that the progenitor likely had a radius of 410 ± 10 R ⊙. Our estimate is model dependent but consistent with a red supergiant. These models provide a good fit to the data starting about 1 day after the explosion, despite the fact that the classification spectrum shows signatures of circumstellar material around SN 2023ixf during that time. Photometry during the first day after the explosion, provided almost entirely by amateur astronomers, does not agree with the shock-cooling models or a simple power-law rise fit to data after 1 day. We consider the possible causes of this discrepancy, including precursor activity from the progenitor star, circumstellar interaction, and emission from the shock before or after it breaks out of the stellar surface. The very low luminosity (−11 mag > M > −14 mag) and short duration of the initial excess lead us to prefer a scenario related to prolonged emission from the SN shock traveling through the progenitor system.