Supernovae Ia in 2017: a long time delay from merger/accretion to explosion

Soker, Noam

doi:10.1007/s11433-017-9144-4

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 167 publications

(205 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, I estimated (Soker 2018) that the MED time of the DD scenario should be in many cases t MED (DD) 10 5 yr, while in the SD scenario there are cases where t MED (SD) 10 7 yr. The DDet scenario with a WD companion and the WWC scenario allow for no MED time, and this is one of the problems of these scenarios (Soker 2018). In the CD scenario the MED time is builtin to the scenario, hence it is one of its advantages.…”

Section: Merger To Explosion Delay (Med) Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Common envelope to explosion delay time of Type Ia supernovae

Soker

2019

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I study the rate of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) within about a million years after the assumed common envelope evolution (CEE) that forms the progenitors of these SNe Ia, and find that the population of SNe Ia with short CEE to explosion delay (CEED) time is ≈ few × 0.1 of all SNe Ia. I also claim for an expression for the rate of these SNe Ia that occur at short times after the CEE, t CEED 10 6 yr, that is different from that of the delay time distribution (DTD) billions of years after star formation. This tentatively hints that the physical processes that determine the short CEED times are different (at least to some extend) from those that determine the DTD at billions of years. To reach these conclusions I examine SNe Ia that interact with a circumstellar matter (CSM) within months after explosion, so called SNe Ia-CSM, and the rate of SNe Ia that on a time scale of tens to hundreds of years interact with a CSM that might have been a planetary nebula, so called SNe Ia inside a planetary nebula (SNIPs). I assume that the CSM in these populations results from a CEE, and hence this study is relevant mainly to the core degenerate (CD) scenario, to the double degenerate (DD) scenario, to the double detonation (DDet) scenario with white dwarf companions, and to the CEE-wind channel of the single degenerate (SD) scenario.

show abstract

Section: Merger To Explosion Delay (Med) Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Common envelope to explosion delay time of Type Ia supernovae

Soker

2019

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Riess et al 1998;Perlmutter et al 1999;Astier & Pain 2012). However, there is not yet a consensus on the leading paths to SNIa (see Livio & Mazzali 2018;Soker 2018;Wang 2018, for recent reviews). This progenitor uncertainty may introduce some not yet known systematic errors in the determination of extragalactic distances, thus compromising the use of SNIa as standard candles (Linden et al 2009;Howell 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are the double-degenerate progenitors of Type Ia supernovae?

Rebassa‐Mansergas

Toonen

Korol

et al. 2018

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double white dwarf binaries with merger timescales smaller than the Hubble time and with a total mass near the Chandrasekhar limit (i.e. classical Chandrasekhar population) or with high-mass primaries (i.e. sub-Chandrasekhar population) are potential supernova type Ia (SNIa) progenitors. However, we have not yet unambiguously confirmed the existence of these objects observationally, a fact that has been often used to criticise the relevance of double white dwarfs for producing SNIa. We analyse whether this lack of detections is due to observational effects. To that end we simulate the double white dwarf binary population in the Galaxy and obtain synthetic spectra for the SNIa progenitors. We demonstrate that their identification, based on the detection of Hα double-lined profiles arising from the two white dwarfs in the synthetic spectra, is extremely challenging due to their intrinsic faintness. This translates into an observational probability of finding double white dwarf SNIa progenitors in the Galaxy of (2.1 ± 1.0) × 10 −5 and (0.8 ± 0.4) × 10 −5 for the classical Chandrasekhar and the sub-Chandrasekhar progenitor populations, respectively. Eclipsing double white dwarf SNIa progenitors are found to suffer from the same observational effect. The next generation of large-aperture telescopes are expected to help in increasing the probability for detection by ∼1 order of magnitude. However, it is only with forthcoming observations such as those provided by LISA that we expect to unambiguously confirm or disprove the existence of double white dwarf SNIa progenitors and to test their importance for producing SNIa.

show abstract

“…We list them by alphabetical order as follows. The core degenerate (CD) scenario, the double degenerate (DD) scenario, the doubledetonation (DDet) scenario, the single degenerate (SD) scenario, and the WD-WD collision (WWC) scenario (for recent reviews on these five scenarios that include many references to earlier papers and reviews see Livio & Mazzali 2018;Soker 2018;Wang 2018;Ruiz-Lapuente 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the Early Excess Emission of the Type Ia Supernova 2018oh by the Interaction of the Ejecta with Disk-originated Matter

Levanon

Soker

2019

ApJL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explain the early excess emission of the Type Ia supernova 2018oh by an interaction of the supernova ejecta with disk-originated matter (DOM). Such DOM can form in the merger process of two white dwarfs (WDs) in the double degenerate scenario of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). We find that an ejecta-DOM interaction can fit the early light curve of SN 2018oh better than an ejecta-companion interaction in the single degenerate scenario. By composing the DOM from two components that were ejected in the merger process with two different velocities, we show that the ejecta-DOM interaction can account for the linear rise in the light curve, while the ejecta-companion interaction predicts too steep a rise. In addition, the ejecta-DOM interaction does not predict the presence of hydrogen and helium lines in nebular spectra, and hence does not suffer from this major drawback of the ejectacompanion model. We consider the ejecta-DOM interaction to be the most likely explanation for the early excess emission in SN 2018oh. By that we show that the double degenerate scenario can account for early excess emission in SNe Ia. arXiv:1812.05054v3 [astro-ph.HE]

show abstract

Supernovae Ia in 2017: a long time delay from merger/accretion to explosion

Cited by 33 publications

References 167 publications

Common envelope to explosion delay time of Type Ia supernovae

Common envelope to explosion delay time of Type Ia supernovae

Where are the double-degenerate progenitors of Type Ia supernovae?

Explaining the Early Excess Emission of the Type Ia Supernova 2018oh by the Interaction of the Ejecta with Disk-originated Matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About