Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:14:26.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supernova progenitor mass constraints through spatial correlations with host galaxy star formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

Joseph P Anderson
Joseph P Anderson*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We present progenitor mass constraints on supernovae (SNe), from correlations with star-forming regions within host galaxies. Through a pixel statistics method used together with H-alpha imaging of host galaxies, we present a progenitor mass sequence running from supernovae type Ia (SNIa) arising from the lowest, through SNII, SNIb, and finally SNIc arising from the highest mass progenitors, implied from an increasing association of their explosion sites with star formation (SF). We also present constraints on the various core-collapse (CC) sub-types, finding the perhaps surprising result that SNIIn show the lowest degree of association with SF of any CC type, implying relatively low-mass progenitors. Finally, we compare the SNIIn environment distribution to that of SNIa, posing the provocative question that additional SNIIn may be linked to the SNIa phenomenon where the latter's spectra are hidden beneath that of circumstellar material (CSM) interaction.

Keywords

(stars:) supernovae: general(ISM:) HII regions
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 9 , Symposium S296: Supernova Environmental Impacts , January 2013 , pp. 121 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Anderson, J. P. & James, P. A., 2008 MNRAS, 390, 1527Google Scholar
Anderson, J. P., et al. 2010 MNRAS, 407, 2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. P., et al. 2012 MNRAS, 424 1372Google Scholar
Dilday, B., et al. 2012 Science, 337, 942Google Scholar
Hamuy, M., et al. 2003 Nature, 424, 651Google Scholar
James, P. A. & Anderson, J. P., 2006 A&A, 453, 57Google Scholar
Kelly, P. L. & Kirshner, R. P., 2011 ApJ, 759, 107Google Scholar
Leloudas, G., et al. 2010 A&A, 518, 29Google Scholar
Leloudas, G., et al. 2011 A&A, 530, 95Google Scholar
Modjaz, M., et al. 2008 AJ, 136, 1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modjaz, M., et al. 2011 ApJ, 731, 4Google Scholar
Sanders, N. E., et al. 2012 ApJ, 758, 132Google Scholar
Smith, N. 2008 IAUS 250, 193Google Scholar
Stoll, R., et al. 2012 arXiv 1205.2338Google Scholar