No posts published in this language yet
Once posts are published, you’ll see them here.
top of page
Locked
Tphysicsletters/9878/10/1490/365787tpl/Nebular spectra from Type Ia supernova explosion models compared to JWST observations of SN 2021aefx
Monday, June 19, 2023 at 6:30:00 AM UTC
Request Open
Nebular spectra from Type Ia supernova explosion models compared to JWST observations of SN 2021aefx
S. Blondin1
L. Dessart2
D. J. Hillier3
C. A. Ramsbottom4
and P. J. Storey5
--------------------------
1 Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CNES, LAM, Marseille, France
2Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS-Sorbonne Université, 98 bis boulevard Arago, 75014, Paris, France
3 Department of Physics and Astronomy & Pittsburgh Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Center (PITT PACC),
University of Pittsburgh, 3941 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
4 Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK
5 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Acknowledgement
Not Applicable section.
Unlock Only
Changeover the Schrödinger Equation
This option will drive you towards only the selected publication. If you want to save money then choose the full access plan from the right side.
Unlock all
Get access to entire database
This option will unlock the entire database of us to you without any limitations for a specific time period.
This offer is limited to 100000 clients if you make delay further, the offer slots will be booked soon. Afterwards, the prices will be 50% hiked.
Newsletters
Abstract
Recent JWST observations of the Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) 2021aefx in the nebular phase have paved the way for late-time studies covering the full optical to mid-infrared (MIR) wavelength range, and with it the hope to better constrain SN Ia explosion mechanisms. Aims. We investigate whether public SN Ia models covering a broad range of progenitor scenarios and explosion mechanisms (Chandrasekhar-mass, or MCh, delayed detonations, pulsationally assisted gravitationally-confined detonations, sub-MCh double detonations, and violent mergers) can reproduce the full optical-MIR spectrum of SN 2021aefx at ∼ 270 days post explosion. Methods. We consider spherically-averaged 3D models available from the Heidelberg Supernova Model Archive with a 56Ni yield in the range 0.5–0.8 M⊙. We perform 1D steady-state non-local thermodynamic equilibrium simulations with the radiative-transfer code CMFGEN, and compare the predicted spectra to SN 2021aefx. Results. The models can explain the main features of SN 2021aefx over the full wavelength range. However, no single model, or mechanism, emerges as a preferred match, and the predicted spectra are similar to one another despite the very different explosion mechanisms. We discuss possible causes for the mismatch of the models, including ejecta asymmetries and ionisation effects. Our new calculations of the collisional strengths for Ni iii have a major impact on the two prominent lines at 7.35 µm and 11.00 µm, and highlight the need for more accurate collisional data for forbidden transitions. Using updated atomic data, we identify a strong feature due to [Ca iv] 3.21 µm, attributed to [Ni i] in previous studies. We also provide a tentative identification of a forbidden line due to [Ne ii] 12.81 µm, whose peaked profile suggests that neon is mixed inwards during the explosion, as predicted for instance in violent merger models. Contrary to previous claims, we show that the [Ariii] 8.99 µm line can be broader in sub-MCh models compared to near-MCh models. Last, the total flux in lines of Ni is found to correlate strongly with the stable nickel yield, although ionisation effects can bias the inferred abundance. Conclusions. Our models suggest that key physical ingredients are missing from either the explosion models, or the radiative-transfer post-processing, or both. Nonetheless, they also show the potential of the near- and mid-infrared to uncover new spectroscopic diagnostics of SN Ia explosion mechanisms.
Introduction
Current models for Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) invoke variations in the mass of the exploding carbon-oxygen white dwarf (WD) and in the conditions of the thermonuclear runaway. These models include delayed detonations in near-Chandrasekharmass (MCh) WDs (Khokhlov 1991), double detonations in subMCh WDs (e.g., Woosley & Weaver 1994), and violent mergers of two sub-MCh WDs (e.g., Pakmor et al. 2012). However, due to numerous degeneracies in SN Ia light curves and spectra, distinguishing between these various models has been a challenge (e.g., Maoz et al. 2014). The difficulty arises in part from the multi-dimensional nature of the explosion while most radiative-transfer simulations assume spherical symmetry (see, e.g., Gamezo et al. 2005, Seitenzahl et al. 2016, Raskin et al. 2009, and Pakmor et al. 2010 for examples of 3D explosion models). Another difficulty resides in the intrinsic complexity of radiative transfer in SN Ia ejecta, including non-local thermodynamic equilibrium simulations (non-LTE) and non-thermal effects, or limitations of the atomic data (see, e.g., Höflich et al. 1998, Pinto & Eastman 2000, Sim 2007, Dessart et al. 2014, Shen et al. 2021, and Blondin et al. 2022a). These issues are composition dependent and related to the complicated explosive nucleosynthesis in SN Ia explosions (see, e.g., Bravo & Martínez-Pinedo 2012, Bravo 2020; and Seitenzahl & Townsley 2017 for a review). While the early high-brightness phase of SNe Ia (≲ 50 d post explosion) yields constraints on the ejecta mass and kinetic energy, as well as the yields of intermediate-mass elements (IMEs) and 56Ni, the late nebular phase (> 100 d post explosion) can provide complementary information. At such times, the ejecta is powered by 56Co decay with an increasing fraction of the ..................
Buy to read the full article.
Conclusions
We have compared four classes of public state-of-the-art SN Ia explosion models to nebular observations of SN 2021aefx covering the full 0.35–14 µm range (Kwok et al. 2023). The input models include MCh delayed detonations, pulsationally assisted gravitationally-confined detonations, sub-MCh double detonations and a violent WD-WD merger. They were selected from the public HESMA archive to match the 56Ni yields expected for normal SNe Ia (∼ 0.5–0.8 M⊙). The spherically-averaged density and abundance profiles served as initial conditions to 1D nonLTE radiative-transfer simulations with CMFGEN at 270 d post explosion. Our main result is that no single model emerges as an obvious candidate for SN 2021aefx based on these data alone. All models predict the same set of spectroscopic features, all of which have an observed counterpart. Conversely, all models lack specific characteristics of the observed spectrum, such as the overall mismatch in lines of singly-ionised IGEs throughout the optical and infrared. We tentatively associate the feature at ∼ 12.8 µm with [Ne ii] 12.81 µm. If confirmed, this would constitute the first firm identification of this line in SN Ia ejecta, and would suggest that neon is mixed all the way to the inner ejecta during the explosion. We also predict a neon line at longer wavelengths due to [Ne iii] 15.55 µm, although it overlaps with stronger neighbouring [Co ii] and [Co iv] lines. Differences in the abundance structure amongst the different models (and for different directions in the 3D DDT model) affects the widths and morphology of some spectral lines, such as the prominent [Ariii] 8.99 µm line. The predicted blue tilt of its flat-top profile is due to a relativistic effect in our models. The observed profile is instead tilted towards the red, indicating a large-scale asymmetry in the argon distribution (DerKacy et al. 2023). We note that line overlap can significantly skew the line profiles (centred at zero Doppler shift in our 1D models), and mimic effects normally attributed to ejecta asymmetries. The largest variations in our model spectra result from differences in ionisation. A larger density, such as in the inner ejecta of the MERGER model, results in a lower ejecta temperature and ionisation state, further enhanced by the increased recombination rate. Variations in the 56Co distribution directly impact the decay energy deposition rate, of which a large fraction is deposited (locally in our models) by positrons. Our MERGER model suggest that a slightly lower ionisation would improve the agreement of the other (non-MERGER) models with the SN 2021aefx spectrum. However, none of our models display lines of neutral ions in the NIR/MIR range; they only emerge when a significant amount of clumping is introduced, but the match to the observations is then severely degraded. We further show that the large width of the [Ar iii] 8.99 µm line in SN 2021aefx does not invalidate sub-MCh models, contrary to claims made by DerKacy et al. (2023). The doubledetonation models from a 1 M⊙ progenitor we consider here display the largest [Ar iii] 8.99 µm lines, reflecting the larger extent of the Ar hole in these lower-mass ejecta. Moreover, while the total integrated flux in lines of stable Ni strongly correlates with the stable Ni mass, the MERGER model was found to be a clear outlier due its lower ionisation (see also Blondin et al. 2022a). Provided the ionisation balance is well constrained, the isolated [Ni iv] 8.40 µm line could be used to estimate the stable Ni yield in observed SNe Ia. Connecting this yield to the progenitor mass requires an accurate knowledge of the explosion model, as some MCh models (e.g. pulsationally-assisted gravitationally-confined detonations) synthesise similar amounts of stable Ni compared to sub-MCh models. As for all radiative-transfer simulations, our results are affected by uncertainties in the atomic data. We could find no published collisional strengths for low-lying forbidden transitions within the lowest 3F term of Ni iii, and present them here for the first time. Their values differ significantly from the commonly
References
Blondin, S., Blinnikov, S., Callan, F. P., et al. 2022a, A&A, 668, A163 Blondin, S., Bravo, E., Timmes, F. X., Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2022b, A&A, 660, A96 Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Khokhlov, A. M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 157 Bravo, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3037 Bravo, E. & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 055805 Brown, J. M. & Evenson, K. M. 1995, ApJ, 441, L97 Chen, N. M., Tucker, M. A., Hoyer, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L28 Deb, N. C. & Hibbert, A. 2011, A&A, 536, A74 DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, L2 Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2020, A&A, 643, L13 Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Blondin, S., & Khokhlov, A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3249 Dong, S., Katz, B., Kushnir, D., & Prieto, J. L. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L61 Fernández-Menchero, L., Smyth, R. T., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Ballance, C. P. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2154 Flörs, A., Spyromilio, J., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2902 Galavis, M. E., Mendoza, C., & Zeippen, C. J. 1995, A&AS, 111, 347 Gamezo, V. N., Khokhlov, A. M., & Oran, E. S. 2005, ApJ, 623, 337 Garstang, R. H. 1958, MNRAS, 118, 234 Gerardy, C. L., Meikle, W. P. S., Kotak, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 995 Gronow, S., Collins, C. E., Sim, S. A., & Röpke, F. K. 2021, A&A, 649, A155 Hansen, J. E., Raassen, A. J. J., & Uylings, P. H. M. 1984, ApJ, 277, 435 Hillier, D. J. 2011, Ap&SS, 336, 87 Hillier, D. J. & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252 Hillier, D. J. & Miller, D. L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407 Höflich, P. & Khokhlov, A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 500 Höflich, P., Khokhlov, A. M., & Wheeler, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 444, 831 Höflich, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Thielemann, F. K. 1998, ApJ, 495, 617 Hosseinzadeh, G., Sand, D. J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, L45 Huang, K.-N. 1985, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 32, 503 Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., Maguire, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A28 Khokhlov, A. M. 1991, A&A, 245, 114 Kramida, A. E., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team. 2015, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.2) Kramida, A. Ralchenko, Y. R. J. & NIST ASD Team. 2022, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.10) Kromer, M., Ohlmann, S., & Röpke, F. K. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 312 Kurucz, R. L. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1171, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. I. Hubeny, J. M. Stone, K. MacGregor, & K. Werner, 43–51 Kwok, L. A., Jha, S. W., Temim, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L3 Lach, F., Callan, F. P., Sim, S. A., & Röpke, F. K. 2022, A&A, 659, A27 Li, C., Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1671 Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107 Mazzali, P. A., Bikmaev, I., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2809 Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2631 Meléndez, M., Bautista, M. A., & Badnell, N. R. 2007, A&A, 469, 1203 Mendoza, C. 1983a, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 103, Planetary Nebulae, ed. D. R. Flower, 143–172 Mendoza, C. 1983b, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 103, Planetary Nebulae, ed. D. R. Flower, 143–172 Mendoza, C. & Zeippen, C. J. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 981 Nahar, S. N. & Pradhan, A. K. 1996, A&AS, 119, 509 Nahar, S. N. & Shafique, B. 2023, European Physical Journal D, 77, 45 Ni, Y. Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.00625 Omand, C. M. B. & Jerkstrand, A. 2023, A&A, 673, A107 Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Röpke, F. K., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 61 Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, L10 Pelan, J. & Berrington, K. A. 1995, A&AS, 110, 209 Pelan, J. & Berrington, K. A. 1997, A&AS, 122, 177 Penney, R. & Hoeflich, P. 2014, ApJ, 795, 84 Pinto, P. A. & Eastman, R. G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 757 Quinet, P. 1996, A&AS, 116, 573 Quinet, P. 1998, A&AS, 129, 603 Quinet, P. & Le Dourneuf, M. 1996, A&AS, 119, 99 Ramsbottom, C. A., Hudson, C. E., Norrington, P. H., & Scott, M. P. 2007, A&A, 475, 765 Raskin, C., Timmes, F. X., Scannapieco, E., Diehl, S., & Fryer, C. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L156 Sabbi, E., Calzetti, D., Ubeda, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 23 Seaton, M. J. 1987, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 20, 6363 Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., Röpke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156 Seitenzahl, I. R., Kromer, M., Ohlmann, S. T., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A57 Seitenzahl, I. R. & Townsley, D. M. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 1955 Shen, K. J., Blondin, S., Kasen, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, L18 Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 52 Shingles, L. J., Flörs, A., Sim, S. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6150 Shingles, L. J., Sim, S. A., Kromer, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2029 Sim, S. A. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 154 Storey, P. J. & Sochi, T. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2558 Storey, P. J., Zeippen, C. J., & Sochi, T. 2016a, MNRAS, 456, 1974 Storey, P. J., Zeippen, C. J., & Sochi, T. 2016b, MNRAS, 456, 1974 Tayal, S. S. 1997, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 67, 331 Tayal, S. S. 2000, ApJ, 530, 1091 Tayal, S. S. & Gupta, G. P. 1999, ApJ, 526, 544 Tayal, S. S. & Henry, R. J. W. 1996, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 29, 3443 Tayal, S. S. & Zatsarinny, O. 2010, ApJS, 188, 32 Telesco, C. M., Höflich, P., Li, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 93 Townsley, D. M., Miles, B. J., Shen, K. J., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 878, L38 van Regemorter, H. 1962, ApJ, 136, 906 Vogl, C., Kerzendorf, W. E., Sim, S. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A88 Wilk, K. D., Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2221 Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1994, ApJ, 423, 371 Zhang, H. 1996, A&AS, 119, 523 Zhang, H. L. & Pradhan, A. K. 1994, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 329, 30953 Zhang, H. L. & Pradhan, A. K. 1995, A&A, 293, 953
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Products
bottom of page