A meta-analysis of core-collapse supernova56Ni masses
A meta-analysis of core-collapse supernova56Ni masses
复制标题
DOI：
10.1051/0004-6361/201935027
复制
发表时间：
2019-05
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Joseph P. Anderson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joseph P. Anderson
决定核心坍缩超新星（CC SNe）瞬态行为的一个基本性质是爆炸中合成的放射性56 Ni的量。使用已建立的方法，这是一个相对容易的参数，以提取observations.Aims.I提供了一个荟萃分析的所有disched 56 Ni群众CC SNe.Methods.Collating共258 literature 56 Ni群众，我比较了分布的主要CC SN类型：SNe II、SNe IIb、SNe Ib、SNe Ic和SNe IcBL。结果：使用这些公布的值，我计算出SNe II（N = 115）的平均56 Ni质量为0.032 M，SNe IIb（N = 27）为0.102M，SNe Ib（N = 33）为0.163M，SNe Ic（N = 48）为0.155M，SNe IcBL（N = 32）为0.369M。平均而言，剥离enevelope SNe（SE-SNe：IIb、Ib、Ic和Ic-BL）的值比SNe II高得多。这些观察到的分布相比，从中微子驱动的爆炸模型预测。虽然SN II的分布如下模型预测，SE-SNe有一个显着的事件与56 Ni质量远高于predicted.Conclusions的分数。如果大多数的56 Ni质量被认为是，这些结果意味着显着差异的祖先结构和/或SNe II和SE-SNe之间的爆炸性能。然而，这种独特的祖和爆炸性能目前在文献中并不受欢迎。另外，用于估计SE-SNe的56 Ni质量的流行方法可能不准确。这些方法可能存在的问题进行了讨论，因为是不同的CC SNe祖属性上的True 56 Ni质量差异的影响。
Context.A fundamental property determining the transient behaviour of core-collapse supernovae (CC SNe) is the amount of radioactive56Ni synthesised in the explosion. Using established methods, this is a relatively easy parameter to extract from observations.Aims.I provide a meta-analysis of all published56Ni masses for CC SNe.Methods.Collating a total of 258 literature56Ni masses, I compared distributions of the main CC SN types: SNe II, SNe IIb, SNe Ib, SNe Ic, and SNe IcBL.Results.Using these published values, I calculated a median56Ni mass of 0.032M⊙for SNe II (N = 115), 0.102M⊙for SNe IIb (N = 27), 0.163M⊙for SNe Ib (N = 33), 0.155M⊙for SNe Ic (N = 48), and 0.369M⊙for SNe IcBL (N = 32). On average, stripped-enevelope SNe (SE-SNe: IIb, Ib, Ic, and Ic-BL) have much higher values than SNe II. These observed distributions are compared to those predicted from neutrino-driven explosion models. While the SN II distribution follows model predictions, the SE-SNe have a significant fraction of events with56Ni masses much higher than predicted.Conclusions.If the majority of published56Ni masses are to be believed, these results imply significant differences in the progenitor structures and/or explosion properties between SNe II and SE-SNe. However, such distinct progenitor and explosion properties are not currently favoured in the literature. Alternatively, the popular methods used to estimate56Ni masses for SE-SNe may not be accurate. Possible issues with these methods are discussed, as are the implications of true56Ni mass differences on progenitor properties of different CC SNe.