GENERALIZED SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODELS OF SUPERNOVA LIGHT CURVES

By E. Chatzopoulos, J. C. Wheeler, J. Vinkó. 2011

159 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present generalized supernova (SN) light curve (LC) models for a variety of power inputs including the previously proposed ideas of radioactive decay of 56Ni and 56Co and magnetar spin-down. We extend those solutions to include finite progenitor radius and stationary photospheres as might be the case for SN that are powered by interaction of the ejecta with circumstellar matter (CSM). We provide an expression for the power input that is produced by self-similar forward and reverse shocks that efficiently convert their kinetic energy into radiation. We find that this ejecta–CSM interaction luminosity that we derive is in agreement with results from multi-dimensional radiation hydrodynamics simulations in the case of an optically thin CSM. We develop a semi-analytical model for the case of an optically thick CSM by invoking an approximation for the effects of radiative diffusion similar to that adopted by Arnett for SN II and compare this model to the results of numerical radiation hydrodynamics models. This model can give complex LCs, but for monotonically declining shock input, the LCs have a smooth rise, peak, and decline. In the context of this model, we provide predictions of the shock breakout of the forward shock from the optically thick part of the CSM envelope. We also introduce a hybrid LC model that incorporates ejecta–CSM interaction plus 56Ni and 56Co radioactive decay input. We fit this hybrid model to the LC of the super-luminous supernova (SLSN) 2006gy. We find that shock heating produced by ejecta–CSM interaction plus some contribution from radioactive decay provides a better fit to the LC of this event than previously presented models. We also address the relation between SN IIL and SN IIn with ejecta–CSM interaction models. The faster decline of SN IIL can be reproduced by the diffusion of previously deposited shock power if the shock power input to the diffusive component vanishes when the reverse shock sweeps up the whole ejecta and/or the forward shock propagates through the optically thick CSM. A CSM interaction with forward and reverse shock power input can produce the LCs of SN IIn in terms of duration, shape, and decline rate, depending on the properties of the CSM envelope and the progenitor star. This model can also produce LCs that are symmetric in shape around peak luminosity, which is the case for the observed LCs of some recently discovered peculiar transient events. We conclude that the observed LC variety of SN IIn and of some SLSNe is likely to be a byproduct of the large range of conditions relevant to significant ejecta–CSM interaction as a power source.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6f7eece20fa786f746b942916437f2d89e362f3c

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. S. Smartt
3. B. Metzger
4. Bing Zhang
5. N. Smith
6. Ryan Chornock
7. Stan Woosley
8. W. Fong

Citations in the corpus

• The Combined Ultraviolet, Optical, and Near-infrared Light Curves of the Kilonova Associated with the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817: Unified Data Set, Analytic Models, and Physical Implications (2017, methodology): “…and the expansion is homologous, we can use the formalism originally outlined in Arnett (1982) to compute the observed bolometric luminosity (Chatzopoulos et al. 2012): ò= - ´ ⎛ ⎝⎜ ⎞ ⎠⎟( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )L t t t L t t t t t t dtexp exp , 3 d t d d bol 2 2 0 in th 2 2 where k bºt M vc2d rp ,…”
• Light-curve modelling of superluminous supernova 2006gy: collision between supernova ejecta and a dense circumstellar medium (2012, methodology): “Following the result of Chatzopoulos et al. (2012), we put 2 M of 56Ni at the centre of the ejecta but the value is too small to affect the main part of the LC (Section 5.2.5).”
• A PANCHROMATIC VIEW OF THE RESTLESS SN 2009ip REVEALS THE EXPLOSIVE EJECTION OF A MASSIVE STAR ENVELOPE (2013, background): “Rotation further leads to enhanced chemical mixing (e.g. Chatzopoulos et al. 2012; Yoon et al. 2012).”
• SUPER-LUMINOUS TYPE Ic SUPERNOVAE: CATCHING A MAGNETAR BY THE TAIL (2013, background): “As shown previously by Chatzopoulos et al. (2009); Pastorello et al. (2010); Quimby et al. (2011a); Chomiuk et al. (2011); Chatzopoulos et al. (2012); Leloudas et al. (2012), the lightcurve peaks cannot be fit with a physically plausible 56Ni diffusion model like normal SNe Ic, and our similarly…”
• On the diversity of superluminous supernovae: ejected mass as the dominant factor (2015, background): “One very important weakness in this analysis is that the interaction models of Chatzopoulos et al. (2012) and Nicholl et al. (2014) treat the shocks following Chevalier & Fransson (1994), whose derivation was for MCSM Mej, and it is unclear how the picture changes for massive CSM. Finally, some…”
• The Magnetar Model for Type I Superluminous Supernovae. I. Bayesian Analysis of the Full Multicolor Light-curve Sample with MOSFiT (2017, methodology): “The basic form of the magnetar engine model has been described numerous times in the literature (Ostriker & Gunn 1971; Kasen & Bildsten 2010; Chatzopoulos et al. 2012; Inserra et al. 2013).7 We implement this in MOSFiT through the module engines.magnetar.”
• Early-time light curves of Type Ib/c supernovae from the SDSS-II Supernova Survey (2014, background): “…have not explored the late and very late-time epochs (up to 300−400 days after maximum), which would be useful to compare the late-time light curve slopes (Clocchiatti et al. 1996) and thus to obtain information on SN properties such as the gammaray deposition fraction (Chatzopoulos et al. 2012).”
• ANALYTICAL LIGHT CURVE MODELS OF SUPERLUMINOUS SUPERNOVAE: χ2-MINIMIZATION OF PARAMETER FITS (2013, background): “…the LCs of some SLSNe provided estimates for the mass of radioactive nickel, MNi, needed to power the peak luminosity that were close to or far exceeded corresponding estimates for the total mass of the SN ejecta (Smith et al. 2007; Chatzopoulos et al. 2011, 2012a; see Gal-Yam 2012 for a review).”