SHOCK BREAKOUT IN DENSE MASS LOSS: LUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE

By R. Chevalier, Christopher M. Irwin. 2011

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We examine the case where a circumstellar medium around a supernova is sufficiently opaque that a radiation-dominated shock propagates in the circumstellar region. The initial propagation of the shock front into the circumstellar region can be approximated by a self-similar solution that determines the radiative energy in a shocked shell; the eventual escape of this energy gives the maximum luminosity of the supernova. If the circumstellar density is described by ρ = Dr−2 out to a radius Rw, where D is a constant, the properties of the shock breakout radiation depend on Rw and Rd ≡ κDvsh/c, where κ is the opacity and vsh is the shock velocity. If Rw>Rd, the rise to maximum light begins at ∼Rd/vsh; the duration of the rise is also ∼Rd/vsh; the outer parts of the opaque medium are extended and at low velocity at the time of peak luminosity; and a dense shell forms whose continued interaction with the dense mass loss gives a characteristic flatter portion of the declining light curve. If Rw < Rd, the rise to maximum light begins at Rw/vsh; the duration of the rise is R2w/vshRd; the outer parts of the opaque medium are not extended and are accelerated to high velocity by radiation pressure at the time of maximum luminosity; and a dense shell forms but does not affect the light curve near maximum. We argue that SN 2006gy is an example of the first kind of event, while SN 2010gx and related supernovae are examples of the second.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65f67df8220f8d24d3a40d2412ae829aee3e409c

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

1. E. Berger
2. B. Metzger
3. S. Smartt
4. N. Smith
5. A. Filippenko
6. Bing Zhang
7. Ryan Chornock
8. Stan Woosley

Citations in the corpus

• SUPER-LUMINOUS TYPE Ic SUPERNOVAE: CATCHING A MAGNETAR BY THE TAIL (2013, methodology): “Although most SL-SNe have similar rise times which are feasible in the diffusion model of Chevalier & Irwin (2011), the light curves of SN 2010gx (Pastorello et al. 2010), PTF11rks and SN 2012il are not symmetric, which one would expect in this dense wind scenario.”
• A PANCHROMATIC VIEW OF THE RESTLESS SN 2009ip REVEALS THE EXPLOSIVE EJECTION OF A MASSIVE STAR ENVELOPE (2013, methodology): “This work is based on Chevalier & Irwin (2011) .”
• On the diversity of superluminous supernovae: ejected mass as the dominant factor (2015, methodology): “Another model is a collision with (or shock breakout from) a highly opaque CSM, releasing shock energy at a large radius (Woosley, Blinnikov & Heger 2007; Ofek et al. 2010; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Ginzburg & Balberg 2012).”
• The Magnetar Model for Type I Superluminous Supernovae. I. Bayesian Analysis of the Full Multicolor Light-curve Sample with MOSFiT (2017, background): “Generally, the hydrogen rich SLSNe II are thought to be powered by the interaction of fast SN ejecta with a dense shell or wind surrounding the progenitor (Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Benetti et al. 2014).”
• The diversity of Type II supernova versus the similarity in their progenitors (2016, methodology): “The early photospheric temperature evolution of a SN is perhaps the most revealing about the nature of its progenitor (Waxman, Meszaros, & Campana 2007; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Nakar & Sari 2010).”
• ANALYTICAL LIGHT CURVE MODELS OF SUPERLUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE: χ2-MINIMIZATION OF PARAMETER FITS (2013, methodology): “Simplified models based on this mechanism have recently been considered as a power source for some SN IIn (Wood-Vasey et al. 2004; Ofek et al. 2010; Chevalier & Irwin 2011).”
• RAPIDLY EVOLVING AND LUMINOUS TRANSIENTS FROM PAN-STARRS1 (2014, methodology): “If this physical scenario is an accurate representation of our transients, then they (along with PTF09uj) add to the interesting picture painted by type IIn, type Ibn, SLSN-II and other transients about the (possibly eruptive) mass-loss that some massive stars undergo in the year(s) immediately prio”
• Mass Loss: Its Effect on the Evolution and Fate of High-Mass Stars (2014, background): “Diverse SLSN light curve shapes are possible, depending on the distribution of the mass and explosion properties (Chatzopoulos & Wheeler 2013, Chevalier & Irwin 2011, Moriya et al. 2013, van Marle et al. 2010).”
• Light-curve modelling of superluminous supernova 2006gy: collision between supernova ejecta and a dense circumstellar medium (2012, methodology): “Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/428/2/1020/999151 by guest on 27 July 2018 In this paper we adopt δ = 1 and n = 7, as used by Chevalier & Irwin (2011).”
• Rates of superluminous supernovae at z ∼ 0.2 (2013, background): “Interaction with circum-stellar media clearly plays an important role in these events and may be responsible for their extreme luminosities (e.g. Smith & McCray 2007; Smith et al. 2008b; Chevalier & Irwin 2011).”
• Spectroscopy of superluminous supernova host galaxies. A preference of hydrogen-poor events for extreme emission line galaxies (2014, background): “Alternatively, SLSNe-II can represent a variety of events, as CSM interaction can in principle mask any kind of explosion below it MNRAS 449, 917–932 (2015) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/449/1/917/1323570 by guest on 28 July 2018 (e.g. Leloudas et al. 2015).”
• SUPERNOVA LIGHT CURVES POWERED BY FALLBACK ACCRETION (2012, background): “…IIn SNe with narrow hydrogen absorption lines are thought to be powered, at least in part, by the interaction of the supernova ejecta with circumstellar material, effectively re-thermalizing the supernova shock energy (Smith & McCray 2007; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Moriya et al. 2012; Gal-Yam 2012).”
• An Embedded X-Ray Source Shines through the Aspherical AT 2018cow: Revealing the Inner Workings of the Most Luminous Fast-evolving Optical Transients (2018, background): “The non-radioactive sources of energy needed to explain FBOTs fall into two broad categories: (i) interaction of the explosion’s shock wave with a dense circumstellar environment or extended progenitor atmosphere (Balberg & Loeb 2011; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Ginzburg & Balberg 2014).”
• The first month of evolution of the slow-rising Type IIP SN 2013ej in M74 (2013, methodology): “Simple analytic functions have been developed (Waxman, Meszaros & Campana 2007; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Rabinak & Waxman 2011) to give a rough estimate of the radius of the progenitor of CC SNe using the temperature evolution at early phases.”
• HYDROGEN-POOR SUPERLUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE AND LONG-DURATION GAMMA-RAY BURSTS HAVE SIMILAR HOST GALAXIES (2013, methodology): “However, the mass loss required to explain the observed light curves of SLSNe is too large to be explained by line-driven stellar winds (Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Chomiuk et al. 2011; Lunnan et al. 2013).”
• Unifying Type II Supernova Light Curves with Dense Circumstellar Material (2016, background): “The impact of the dense wind has been investigated in a large number of works (Smith & McCray 2007; Chugai et al. 2007; Ofek et al. 2010; Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Moriya et al. 2011).”
• Pan-STARRS1 DISCOVERY OF TWO ULTRALUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE AT z ≈ 0.9 (2011, background): “Two potential explanations for these SCP 06F6-like sources have surfaced: the interaction of the SN shock with a dense circumstellar shell of H-poor material (e.g., Chevalier & Irwin 2011) or the spin-down of a new-born magnetar embedded in the SN ejecta (Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Woosley 2010).”
• THE ULTRAVIOLET-BRIGHT, SLOWLY DECLINING TRANSIENT PS1-11af AS A PARTIAL TIDAL DISRUPTION EVENT (2013, background): “If the wind continues outside the initial shell, as is necessary for a slow decline rate, SN IIn-like emission lines would be expected (Chevalier & Irwin 2011; Ginzburg & Balberg 2012).”