The Energy Sources of Double-peaked Superluminous Supernova PS1-12cil and Luminous Supernova SN 2012aa

Li, Long; Wang, Shan-Qin; Liu, Liang-Duan; Wang, Xiang-Gao; Liang, En‐Wei; Dai, Z. G.

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one case, interaction between the SN ejecta and a shell of circumstellar material convert a fraction of the ejecta kinetic energy into luminosity over a short period of time. This is the interpretation advanced by Inserra et al (2017), Li et al (2020), and others. In the second case, the bump is intrinsic to the magnetar and the SN ejecta: a sudden increase in the input luminosity or a sudden decrease in opacity could allow a burst of magnetar luminosity to escape the ejecta quickly.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…Each of these proposals has strengths and weaknesses, but in general, the magnetar model has had the most success in explaining Type I SLSN light curves and spectra (e.g., Nicholl et al 2017b; see Gal-Yam 2019 for a review). Combinations of these models are also possible, e.g., accretion onto a central magnetar (Metzger et al 2018) or interaction between magnetar-powered ejecta and circumstellar material (Chatzopoulos et al 2016;Li et al 2020), but are difficult to constrain with the limited observational data available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Hosseinzadeh,

Berger,

Metzger

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has revealed that the light curves of hydrogen-poor (Type I) superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), thought to be powered by magnetar central engines, do not always follow the smooth decline predicted by a simple magnetar spin-down model. Here we present the first systematic study of the prevalence and properties of "bumps" in the post-peak light curves of 34 SLSNe. We find that the majority (44-76%) of events cannot be explained by a smooth magnetar model alone. We do not find any difference in the supernova properties between events with and without bumps. By fitting a simple Gaussian model to the light curve residuals, we characterize each bump with an amplitude, temperature, phase, and duration. We find that most bumps correspond with an increase in the photospheric temperature of the ejecta, although we do not see drastic changes in spectroscopic features during the bump. We also find a moderate correlation (ρ ≈ 0.5; p ≈ 0.01) between the phase of the bumps and the rise time, implying that such bumps tend to happen at a certain "evolutionary phase," (3.7 ± 1.4)t rise . Most bumps are consistent with having diffused from a central source of variable luminosity, although sources further out in the ejecta are not excluded. With this evidence, we explore whether the cause of these bumps is intrinsic to the supernova (e.g., a variable central engine) or extrinsic (e.g., circumstellar interaction). Both cases are plausible, requiring low-level variability in the magnetar input luminosity, small decreases in the ejecta opacity, or a thin circumstellar shell or disk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Hosseinzadeh,

Berger,

Metzger

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each of these proposals has strengths and weaknesses, but in general, the magnetar model has had the most success in explaining Type I SLSN light curves and spectra (e.g., Nicholl et al 2017b; see Gal-Yam 2019 for a review). Combinations of these models are also possible, e.g., accretion onto a central magnetar (Metzger et al 2018) or interaction between magnetar-powered ejecta and CSM (Chatzopoulos et al 2016;Li et al 2020), but are difficult to constrain with the limited observational data available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Hosseinzadeh

Berger

Metzger

et al. 2022

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has revealed that the light curves of hydrogen-poor (Type I) superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), thought to be powered by magnetar central engines, do not always follow the smooth decline predicted by a simple magnetar spin-down model. Here we present the first systematic study of the prevalence and properties of “bumps” in the post-peak light curves of 34 SLSNe. We find that the majority (44%–76%) of events cannot be explained by a smooth magnetar model alone. We do not find any difference in supernova properties between events with and without bumps. By fitting a simple Gaussian model to the light-curve residuals, we characterize each bump with an amplitude, temperature, phase, and duration. We find that most bumps correspond with an increase in the photospheric temperature of the ejecta, although we do not see drastic changes in spectroscopic features during the bump. We also find a moderate correlation (ρ ≈ 0.5; p ≈ 0.01) between the phase of the bumps and the rise time, implying that such bumps tend to happen at a certain “evolutionary phase,” (3.7 ± 1.4)t rise. Most bumps are consistent with having diffused from a central source of variable luminosity, although sources further out in the ejecta are not excluded. With this evidence, we explore whether the cause of these bumps is intrinsic to the supernova (e.g., a variable central engine) or extrinsic (e.g., circumstellar interaction). Both cases are plausible, requiring low-level variability in the magnetar input luminosity, small decreases in the ejecta opacity, or a thin circumstellar shell or disk.

show abstract

“…The origin of the multiple luminosity peaks is still unknown. It is often assumed that each bump is caused by a different heating source (e.g., Li et al 2020). For instance, a combination of the 56 Ni heating and the magnetar spindown heating is considered for the double peaked Type Ib SN 2005bf (Maeda et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, a combination of the 56 Ni heating and the magnetar spindown heating is considered for the double peaked Type Ib SN 2005bf (Maeda et al 2007). The combination of the CSM interaction and magnetar spin-down heating is also considered to explain multiple peaks in SLSN LCs (e.g., Chatzopoulos et al 2016;Li et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable thermal energy injection from magnetar spin down as a possible cause of stripped-envelope supernova light-curve bumps

Moriya,

Murase,

Kashiyama

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Luminosity evolution of some stripped-envelope supernovae such as superluminous supernovae is difficult to be explained by the canonical 56 Ni nuclear decay heating. A popular alternative heating source is rapid spin down of strongly-magnetized rapidly-rotating neutron stars (magnetars) and it has been shown that magnetar spin down can explain luminosity evolution of superluminous supernovae. Recent observations have indicated that superluminous supernovae often have bumpy light curves with multiple luminosity peaks. The cause of bumpy light curves is still unknown. In this study, we investigate the possibility that the light-curve bumps are caused by variabilities in the thermal energy injection from magnetar spin down. We find that a temporal increase in the thermal energy injection can lead to multiple luminosity peaks. The multiple luminosity peaks caused by the variable thermal energy injection is found to be accompanied by significant photospheric temperature increase, and photospheric radii are not significantly changed. We show that the bumpy light curves of SN 2015bn and SN 2019stc can be reproduced by temporarily increasing magnetar spin-down energy input by a factor of 2 − 3 for 5 − 20 days. However, not all the light-curve bumps are accompanied by the clear photospheric temperature increase as predicted by our synthetic models. In particular, the secondary light-curve bump of SN 2019stc is accompanied by a temporal increase in photospheric radii rather than temperature, which is not seen in our synthetic models. We, therefore, conclude that not all the light-curve bumps observed in luminous supernovae are caused by the variable thermal energy injection from magnetar spin down and some bumps are likely caused by a different mechanism. Our study demonstrates the importance of photosphere information to identify the cause of the bumpy light curves.

show abstract

The Energy Sources of Double-peaked Superluminous Supernova PS1-12cil and Luminous Supernova SN 2012aa

Cited by 16 publications

References 65 publications

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae

Variable thermal energy injection from magnetar spin down as a possible cause of stripped-envelope supernova light-curve bumps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About