DISAPPEARANCE OF THE PROGENITOR OF SUPERNOVA iPTF13bvn

Abstract

Supernova (SN) iPTF13bvn in NGC 5806 was the first Type Ib SN to have been tentatively associated with a progenitor in pre-explosion images. We performed deep ultraviolet (UV) and optical Hubble Space Telescope observations of the SN site ∼740 days after explosion. We detect an object in the optical bands that is fainter than the pre-explosion object. This dimming is likely not produced by dust absorption in the ejecta; thus, our finding confirms the connection of the progenitor candidate with the SN. The object in our data is likely dominated by the fading SN, implying that the pre-SN flux is mostly due to the progenitor. We compare our revised pre-SN photometry with previously proposed models. Although binary progenitors are favored, models need to be refined. In particular, to comply with our deep UV detection limit, any companion star must be less luminous than a late-O star or substantially obscured by newly formed dust. A definitive progenitor characterization will require further observations to disentangle the contribution of a much fainter SN and its environment.

On the progenitor of the Type Ibc supernova 2012fh

“…We also show the magnitude range found by Folatelli et al (2016) for the potential progenitor of iPTF13bvn. Given the overall magnitude range, we do not distinguish between Johnson-Cousins, Bessel, and HST Vega magnitudes for similar wavelengths (e.g., U and F 336W ).…”

“…The progenitor's random variability is consistent Groh et al (2013b, G13) as orange squares (blue circles) for the non-rotating (rotating) models. The shaded gray regions mark the estimated range of the iPTF13bvn progenitor magnitudes by Folatelli et al (2016). The right panels show the comparison sample of LMC single WR stars from Massey (2002) used by Eldridge et al (2013).…”

Core-collapse supernova progenitor constraints using the spatial distributions of massive stars in local galaxies

“…The only detected type Ib progenitor, that of iPTF13bvn (Cao et al 2013), was suggested to be an initially 10 -20 M star in an interacting binary by Eldridge et al (2015). More recently Eldridge & Maund (2016) suggested an initially 10 -12 M star that evolved into a helium giant; Folatelli et al (2016) also favored a binary progenitor, although none of the models they examined proved entirely satisfactory. van Dyk, de Mink & Zapartas (2016) excluded a 10 M companion to the progenitor of the type Ic SN 1994I, which earlier had been considered the result of binary interaction (Nomoto et al 1994).…”

LOSS Revisited. I. Unraveling Correlations between Supernova Rates and Galaxy Properties, as Measured in a Reanalysis of the Lick Observatory Supernova Search

“…Groh et al (2013a) suggested a rapidly rotating star as an alternative explanation, but its final ejecta mass would have been higher than that inferred from the light curve. Eldridge & Maund (2016) and Folatelli et al (2016) have reported the disappearance of the progenitor in late-time images and concluded that the progenitor was part of a binary system. In summary, for single stars to reproduce the observational constraints described above, they typically require either rapid rotation or high mass-loss rates.…”

“…In the case of broad-lined SNe Ic connected to gamma-ray bursts, chemically homogeneous evolution (e.g., Yoon & Langer 2005;Woosley & Heger 2006) and explosive common-envelope ejection (Podsiadlowski et al 2010) have also been suggested. Pre-explosion imaging of the sites of these SNe has so far failed to reveal the nature of their progenitors conclusively (e.g., Eldridge et al 2013;Eldridge & Maund 2016;Folatelli et al 2016;Van Dyk et al 2016), though the case for yellow supergiants in binary systems as the progenitors of SNe IIb is gaining traction (e.g., Van Dyk et al 2013, 2014Bersten et al 2014;Fremling et al 2014;Eldridge et al 2015). New observational methods are required to address this question.…”