Paper detail

An Upper Limit on the Expansion Velocity of GRB Candidate SN 2001em

We report on VLBI observations of the Type I b/c supernova 2001em, three years after the explosion. It had been suggested that SN 2001em might be a jet-driven gamma ray burst (GRB), with the jet oriented far from the line of sight so that the GRB would not be visible from earth. To test this conjecture, we determined the size of SN 2001em. It is only marginally resolved at our resolution of ~0.9 mas. The 3-sigma upper limit on the major axis angular size of the radio source was 0.59 mas (FWHM of an elliptical Gaussian), corresponding to a one-sided apparent expansion velocity of 70,000 km/s for a distance of 80 Mpc. No low-brightness jet was seen in our image to a level of 4% of the peak brightness. If we assume instead a spherical shell geometry typical of a supernova, we find the angular radius of SN 2001em was 0.17 (-0.10,+0.06) mas, implying an isotropic expansion velocity of 20,000 (-12,000, +7,000) km/s, which is comparable to the expansion velocities of supernova shells. Our observations, therefore, are not consistent with a relativistically expanding radio source in SN 2001em, but are instead consistent with a supernova shell origin of SN 2001's radio emission.

preprint2005arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.