Paper detail

A reconnaissance of the possible donor stars to the Kepler supernova

The identity of Type Ia supernova progenitors remains a mystery, with various lines of evidence pointing towards either accretion from a non-degenerate companion, or the rapid merger of two degenerate stars leading to the thermonuclear destruction of a white dwarf. In this paper we spectroscopically scrutinize 24 of the brightest stars residing in the central 38" x 38" of the SN 1604 (Kepler) supernova remnant to search for a possible surviving companion star. We can rule out, with high certainty, a red giant companion star - a progenitor indicated by some models of the supernova remnant. Furthermore, we find no star that exhibits properties uniquely consistent with those expected of a donor star down to L>10Lsun. While the distribution of star properties towards the remnant are consistent with unrelated stars, we identify the most promising candidates for further astrometric and spectroscopic follow-up. Such a program would either discover the donor star, or place strong limits on progenitor systems to luminosities with L<<Lsun.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.