Published in

Astronomy & Astrophysics, (628), p. A7, 2019

DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935027

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

A meta-analysis of core-collapse supernova 56Ni masses

Journal article published in 2019 by J. P. Anderson ORCID
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Context. A fundamental property determining the transient behaviour of core-collapse supernovae (CC SNe) is the amount of radioactive 56Ni synthesised in the explosion. Using established methods, this is a relatively easy parameter to extract from observations. Aims. I provide a meta-analysis of all published 56Ni masses for CC SNe. Methods. Collating a total of 258 literature 56Ni masses, I compared distributions of the main CC SN types: SNe II, SNe IIb, SNe Ib, SNe Ic, and SNe IcBL. Results. Using these published values, I calculated a median 56Ni mass of 0.032 M for SNe II (N = 115), 0.102 M for SNe IIb (N = 27), 0.163 M for SNe Ib (N = 33), 0.155 M for SNe Ic (N = 48), and 0.369 M for SNe IcBL (N = 32). On average, stripped-enevelope SNe (SE-SNe: IIb, Ib, Ic, and Ic-BL) have much higher values than SNe II. These observed distributions are compared to those predicted from neutrino-driven explosion models. While the SN II distribution follows model predictions, the SE-SNe have a significant fraction of events with 56Ni masses much higher than predicted. Conclusions. If the majority of published 56Ni masses are to be believed, these results imply significant differences in the progenitor structures and/or explosion properties between SNe II and SE-SNe. However, such distinct progenitor and explosion properties are not currently favoured in the literature. Alternatively, the popular methods used to estimate 56Ni masses for SE-SNe may not be accurate. Possible issues with these methods are discussed, as are the implications of true 56Ni mass differences on progenitor properties of different CC SNe.

Beta version