SN 2009md: another faint supernova from a low-mass progenitor

Fraser, M.; Ergon, M.; Eldridge, J. J.; Valenti, S.; Pastorello, A.; Sollerman, J.; Smartt, S. J.; Agnoletto, I.; Arcavi, I.; Benetti, S.; Botticella, M. T.; Bufano, F.; Campillay, A.; Crockett, R. M.; Gal‐Yam, A.; Kankare, E.; Leloudas, G.; Maguire, K.; Mattila, S.; Maund, Justyn R.; Salgado, Francisco; Stephens, Andrew W.; Taubenberger, S.; Turatto, M.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19370.x

Cited by 107 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(124 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The minimum mass is consistent with our estimate within the errors. This lower mass limit is consistent with other studies of type II progenitor stars Li et al 2006;Mattila et al 2008;Van Dyk et al 2010;Fraser et al 2011). However some estimates of the hydrodynamic mass of the ejected enevlopes of IIP SNe give systematically higher results, e.g., 9-12 M in Zampieri (2007) and 15-30 M in Utrobin & Chugai (2009).…”

Section: Comparison With Other Observational Estimatessupporting

confidence: 79%

A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc

Botticella

Smartt

Kennicutt

et al. 2012

A&A

Self Cite

119

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims. The core collapse supernova rate provides a strong lower limit for the star formation rate (SFR). Progress in using it as a cosmic SFR tracer requires some confidence that it is consistent with more conventional SFR diagnostics in the nearby Universe. This paper compares standard SFR measurements based on Hα, far ultraviolet (FUV) and total infrared (TIR) galaxy luminosities with the observed core collapse supernova rate in the same galaxy sample. The comparison can be viewed from two perspectives. Firstly, by adopting an estimate of the minimum stellar mass to produce a core collapse supernova one can determine a SFR from supernova numbers. Secondly, the radiative SFR can be assumed to be robust and then the supernova statistics provide a constrain on the minimum stellar mass for core collapse supernova progenitors. Methods. The novel aspect of this study is that Hα, FUV and TIR luminosities are now available for a complete galaxy sample within the local 11 Mpc volume and the number of discovered supernovae in this sample within the last 13 years is high enough to perform a meaningful statistical comparison. We exploit the multi-wavelength dataset from 11 HUGS, a volume-limited survey designed to provide a census of SFR in the Local Volume. There are 14 supernovae discovered in this sample of galaxies within the last 13 years. Although one could argue that this may not be complete, it is certainly a robust lower limit. Results. Assuming a lower limit for core collapse of 8 M (as proposed by direct detections of SN progenitor stars and white dwarf progenitors), the core-collapse supernova rate matches the SFR from the FUV luminosity. However, the SFR based on Hα luminosity is lower than these two estimates by a factor of nearly 2. If we assume that the FUV or Hα based luminosities are a true reflection of the SFR, we find that the minimum mass for core collapse supernova progenitors is 8 ± 1 M and 6 ± 1 M , respectively. Conclusions. The estimate of the minimum mass for core collapse supernova progenitors obtained exploiting FUV data is in good agreement with that from the direct detection of supernova progenitors. The concordant results by these independent methods point toward a constraint of 8 ± 1 M on the lower mass limit for progenitor stars of core collapse supernovae.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Observational Estimatessupporting

confidence: 79%

A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc

Botticella

Smartt

Kennicutt

et al. 2012

A&A

Self Cite

119

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of the nearest events, SN1987A and SN1993J, which have fairly massive and wellobserved progenitors, are both peculiar. Aside from these two outliers, the rest of the supernovae that have thus far had their progenitors observed on archival images of the host galaxy, or upper limits placed on their luminosity, are SN IIP whose progenitors are mostly RSGs with inferred masses clustering around the low end of the progenitor ZAMS mass range for which core collapse is a possible evolutionary outcome, M 8 1 ZAMS »  M  (Smartt 2009;Fraser et al 2011). However, there are several events with progenitors having inferred M 12 ZAMS » -25 M  within the range of progenitors used in our simulations.…”

Section: Observational Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Explosions in Axisymmetric Ab Initio Core-Collapse Supernova Simulations of 12–25 Stars

Bruenn

Lentz

Hix

et al. 2016

ApJ

202

297

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present four ab initio axisymmetric core-collapse supernova simulations initiated from 12, 15, 20, and 25 M  zero-age main sequence progenitors. All of the simulations yield explosions and havebeen evolved for at least 1.2 s after core bounce and 1 s after material first becomes unbound. These simulations were computed with our CHIMERA code employing RbR spectral neutrino transport, special and general relativistic transport effects, and state-of-the-art neutrino interactions. Continuing the evolution beyond 1 s after core bounce allows the explosions to develop more fully and the processes involved in powering the explosions to become more clearly evident. We compute explosion energy estimates, including the negative gravitational binding energy of the stellar envelope outside the expanding shock, of 0.34, 0.88, 0.38, and 0.70 Bethe (B≡10 51 erg) and increasing at 0.03, 0.15, 0.19, and 0.52 B s 1 -, respectively, for the 12, 15, 20, and 25 M  models at the endpoint of this report. We examine the growth of the explosion energy in our models through detailed analyses of the energy sources and flows. We discuss how the explosion energies may be subject to stochastic variations as exemplfied by the effect of the explosion geometry of the 20 M  model in reducing its explosion energy. We compute the proto-neutron star masses and kick velocities. We compare our results for the explosion energies and ejected Ni 56 masses against some observational standards despite the large error bars in both models and observations.

show abstract

“…Such grids of models have proved invaluable for those wishing to simulate, for example, core-collapse supernovae (e.g., Email: s.w.jones@keele.ac.uk O'Connor & Ott 2011;Müller, Janka & Marek 2012;Ugliano et al 2012;Couch & Ott 2013;Nakamura et al 2014), galactic chemical evolution (e.g., Chiappini, Matteucci & Gratton 1997;Kawata & Gibson 2003;Cescutti & Chiappini 2014), or population synthesis (e.g., Bruzual & Charlot 2003;Eldridge & Stanway 2009). They are also important resources with which observations of directly-imaged supernova progenitors can be compared (e.g., Smartt 2009;Maund et al 2011;Fraser et al 2011). It is difficult to quantify the un-certainties in predictive simulations or in determining the nature of an observation when the uncertainties in the underlying stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis models are themselves rather elusive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Code dependencies of pre-supernova evolution and nucleosynthesis in massive stars: evolution to the end of core helium burning

Jones¹,

Hirschi²,

Pignatari³

et al. 2015

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Massive stars are key sources of radiative, kinetic, and chemical feedback in the universe. Grids of massive star models computed by different groups each using their own codes, input physics choices and numerical approximations, however, lead to inconsistent results for the same stars. We use three of these 1D codes-GENEC, KEPLER and MESA-to compute non-rotating stellar models of 15 M , 20 M , and 25 M and compare their nucleosynthesis. We follow the evolution from the main sequence until the end of core helium burning. The GENEC and KEPLER models hold physics assumptions used in large grids of published models. The MESA code was set up to use convective core overshooting such that the CO core masses are consistent with those obtained by GENEC. For all models, full nucleosynthesis is computed using the NuGrid post-processing tool MPPNP.We find that the surface abundances predicted by the models are in reasonable agreement. In the helium core, the standard deviation of the elemental overproduction factors for Fe to Mo is less than 30 %-smaller than the impact of the present nuclear physics uncertainties. For our three initial masses, the three stellar evolution codes yield consistent results. Differences in key properties of the models, e.g., helium and CO core masses and the time spent as a red supergiant, are traced back to the treatment of convection and, to a lesser extent, mass loss. The mixing processes in stars remain the key uncertainty in stellar modelling. Better constrained prescriptions are thus necessary to improve the predictive power of stellar evolution models.

show abstract

SN 2009md: another faint supernova from a low-mass progenitor

Cited by 107 publications

References 70 publications

A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc

A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc

The Development of Explosions in Axisymmetric Ab Initio Core-Collapse Supernova Simulations of 12–25 Stars

Code dependencies of pre-supernova evolution and nucleosynthesis in massive stars: evolution to the end of core helium burning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About