2014
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/67
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CHARACTERIZING THEV-BAND LIGHT-CURVES OF HYDROGEN-RICH TYPE II SUPERNOVAE

Abstract: We present an analysis of the diversity of V -band light-curves of hydrogen-rich type II supernovae. Analyzing a sample of 116 supernovae, several magnitude measurements are defined, together with decline rates at different epochs, and time durations of different phases. It is found that magnitudes measured at maximum light correlate more strongly with decline rates than those measured at other epochs: brighter supernovae at maximum generally have faster declining light-curves at all epochs. We find a relation… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

50
430
5
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 282 publications
(486 citation statements)
references
References 108 publications
50
430
5
1
Order By: Relevance
“…They are characterized by hydrogenrich spectra (e.g., Filippenko et al 1997), and their light curves exhibit a fast rise to peak (Rubin et al 2015, hereafter R15), followed by a long (∼90 d) plateau in the case of SNe IIP or by a linear decline (>1.4 mag/100 d) in the case of SNe IIL. Anderson et al (2014) show that these two subclasses may actually be the extremes of a continuum, with several objects showing intermediate light-curve slopes. The nature of the progenitors of SNe IIP is well established: pre-explosion images at their locations show extended (R 500 R ) red supergiants (RSGs) in the mass range between 8.5 and 17 M (Smartt 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They are characterized by hydrogenrich spectra (e.g., Filippenko et al 1997), and their light curves exhibit a fast rise to peak (Rubin et al 2015, hereafter R15), followed by a long (∼90 d) plateau in the case of SNe IIP or by a linear decline (>1.4 mag/100 d) in the case of SNe IIL. Anderson et al (2014) show that these two subclasses may actually be the extremes of a continuum, with several objects showing intermediate light-curve slopes. The nature of the progenitors of SNe IIP is well established: pre-explosion images at their locations show extended (R 500 R ) red supergiants (RSGs) in the mass range between 8.5 and 17 M (Smartt 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Based on the light curves and the spectra of each SN, we subclassified our SNe into SNe IIP or IIL. Objects with a decline rate (s 2 in Anderson et al 2014) >1.4 mag/100 d during the plateau phase and a low ratio between the EW of Hα in absorption and emission were classified as SNe IIL. In Table A.1 we label the SNe IIL with an asterisk "*".…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although type II-L SNe generally exhibit a weaker P Cygni absorption profile at the Hα line than type II-P SNe (Schlegel 1996), separating these types can be difficult without light curves which are not always available -not to mention that e.g. Anderson et al (2014) argue that there is no unambiguous borderline between types II-P and II-L at all. The A12 SN subsamples may therefore be affected by mixing between the subtypes (for example, one type Ib/IIb SN was included as half a type Ib and half a type IIb).…”
Section: Sn Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Barbon, Ciatti & Rosino 1979), types II-P and II-L are now more commonly thought to occupy a continuum of different levels of mass loss primarily influenced by the initial mass of the progenitor (e.g. Anderson et al 2014;Sanders et al 2015;González-Gaitán et al 2015). Type IIn ('narrow lines') SNe are characterized by the presence of a dense circumstellar medium (CSM) at the time of explosion, resulting in strong interaction between the SN ejecta and the CSM (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SNe II-P show a plateau of ∼100 days duration, while SNeII-L show a more linear (in magnitude) decay. The distinction between Types II-L and II-P is somewhat controversial Anderson et al 2014;Faran et al 2014;Sanders et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%