BRIGHT SUPERNOVAE FROM MAGNETAR BIRTH

By Stan Woosley. 2009

339 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Following an initial explosion that might be launched either by magnetic interactions or neutrinos, a rotating magnetar radiating according to the classic dipole formula could power a very luminous supernova. While some 56Ni might be produced in the initial explosion, the peak of the light curve in a Type I supernova would not be directly related to its mass. In fact, the peak luminosity would be most sensitive to the dipole field strength of the magnetar. The tail of the light curve could resemble radioactive decay for some time but, assuming complete trapping of the pulsar emission, would eventually be brighter. Depending on the initial explosion energy, both high and moderate velocities could accompany a very luminous light curve.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33c7ffd87ddd226144685f0af24dde0ccd348a3e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

The Proto-Magnetar Model for Gamma-Ray Bursts (2010, background): “…pair-instability SNe (Barkat et al. 1967); interaction of the supernova shock with dense circumstellar material (e.g. Gal-Yam et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007, 2008; Metzger 2010); and the injection of late-time rotational energy from a rapidly-spinning magnetar (Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010).”
The Magnetar Model for Type I Superluminous Supernovae. I. Bayesian Analysis of the Full Multicolor Light-curve Sample with MOSFiT (2017, background): “Specifically, the best candidate for a central engine is the spin-down power from a millisecond pulsar with a magnetic field of ~ –10 1013 15 G (a magnetar) formed in the stellar core collapse (Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Metzger et al. 2015).”
ANALYTICAL LIGHT CURVE MODELS OF SUPERLUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE: χ2-MINIMIZATION OF PARAMETER FITS (2013, methodology): “Other proposed models for SN 2007bi are an energetic core-collapse explosion (Moriya et al. 2010) and a magnetar spin-down model developed by Kasen & Bildsten (2010) and Woosley (2010).”
Rates of superluminous supernovae at z ∼ 0.2 (2013, background): “Some SLSNe may draw their power from a compact object that forms in the collapse of the progenitor star (e.g. Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Ouyed et al. 2012).”
A bright year for tidal disruptions (2015, methodology): “Our model is similar to that which has been developed for optical emission from stellar explosions powered by a central engine, which is one of the most promising models for superluminous supernovae (SLSNe; Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Metzger et al. 2014).”
Mass Loss: Its Effect on the Evolution and Fate of High-Mass Stars (2014, background): “However, these SNe may also be explained by magnetar birth (Kasen & Bildsten 2010, Woosley 2010), so they are not necessarily the product of eruptive pre-SN mass loss.”
The diversity of transients from magnetar birth in core collapse supernovae (2015, methodology): “In engine-powered models for SLSNe-I, the central compact object is again either a millisecond proto-magnetar (Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010) or an accreting BH (Dexter & Kasen 2013).”
The Observer's Guide to the Gamma-Ray Burst-Supernova Connection (2016, background): “In 1D analytical magnetar models [228, 229], a mass shell forms due to the expanding magnetar bubble.”
Superluminous supernovae: 56Ni power versus magnetar radiation (2012, background): “Woosley (2010) studied this context in otherwise “standard” core-collapse SN explosions, althoug he focused exclusively on the resulting bolometric light curve.”
Millisecond Magnetar Birth Connects FRB 121102 to Superluminous Supernovae and Long-duration Gamma-Ray Bursts (2017, methodology): “The rotational energy of a magnetar has been suggested as a power source for both LGRB jets (e.g. Usov 1992; Wheeler et al. 2000; Thompson et al. 2004; Bucciantini et al. 2008; Metzger et al. 2011) and SLSNeI (e.g. Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Metzger et al. 2014, 2015).”
GENERALIZED SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODELS OF SUPERNOVA LIGHT CURVES (2011, methodology): “Recently, Kasen & Bildsten (2010) and Woosley (2010) considered models of SLSN LCs powered by the spin-down of a young magnetar (see also Ostriker & Gunn 1971; Arnett & Fu 1979; Maeda et al. 2007).”
A TWO-PARAMETER CRITERION FOR CLASSIFYING THE EXPLODABILITY OF MASSIVE STARS BY THE NEUTRINO-DRIVEN MECHANISM (2015, background): “The disentanglement of SNe and BH-formation events is clearly better achieved by the parameter set of M4µ4 and µ4, which, in addition, applies correctly not only for stars with MZAMS ≥ 15 M but also for progenitors with lower masses.”
HYDROGEN-POOR SUPERLUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE AND LONG-DURATION GAMMA-RAY BURSTS HAVE SIMILAR HOST GALAXIES (2013, background): “Another proposed mechanism is energy injection by a newborn, rapidly spinning magnetar (Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Dessart et al. 2012), which can explain a wide range of luminosities and timescales (Chomiuk et al. 2011; Lunnan et al. 2013; Inserra et al. 2013).”
On the diversity of superluminous supernovae: ejected mass as the dominant factor (2015, background): “One is a central engine, such as a magnetized neutron star spinning with a period of order milliseconds (often referred to as the magnetar model; Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010).”
A burst in a wind bubble and the impact on baryonic ejecta: high-energy gamma-ray flashes and afterglows from fast radio bursts and pulsar-driven supernova remnants (2016, background): “…& Pacini 2003), energetic SNe such as super-luminous SNe (SLSNe) (e.g., Thompson, Chang & Quataert 2004; Maeda et al. 2007; Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010; Murase et al. 2015; Kashiyama et al. 2016), and kilonovae/macronovae (e.g., Kisaka, Ioka & Takami 2015; Gao et al. 2015; Kisaka,…”
Pan-STARRS1 DISCOVERY OF TWO ULTRALUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE AT z ≈ 0.9 (2011, background): “Scenario 2: Magnetar Spin-Down Kasen & Bildsten (2010, henceforth KB10) and Woosley (2010) have shown that the spin-down of a magnetar can explain the ultra-luminous SNe with broader light curves and slower decays like SN 2005ap (Quimby et al. 2007) and SN 2008es (Gezari et al. 2009; Miller et al.…”