Paper detail

CI Aql: a Type Ia supernova progenitor?

If recurrent novae are progenitors of Type Ia supernovae, their white dwarfs must have masses close to the Chandrasekhar limit. The most reliable means of determining white dwarf masses in recurrent novae is dynamically, via radial-velocity and rotational-broadening measurements of the companion star. Such measurements require the system to be both eclipsing and to show absorption features from the secondary star. Prior to the work reported here, the only dynamical mass estimate of a recurrent nova was for U Sco, which has a white dwarf mass of 1.55 +/- 0.24 Msolar (Thoroughgood et al. 2001). We present new time-resolved, intermediate-resolution spectroscopy of the eclipsing recurrent nova CI Aquilae (CI Aql) during quiescence. We find the mass of the white dwarf to be 1.00 +/- 0.14 Msolar and the mass of the secondary star to be 2.32 +/- 0.19 Msolar. We estimate the radius of the secondary to be 2.07 +/- 0.06 Rsolar, implying that it is a slightly-evolved early A-type star. The high mass ratio of q = 2.35 +/- 0.24 and the high secondary-star mass implies that the mass transfer occurs on a thermal timescale. We suggest that CI Aql is rapidly evolving into a supersoft X-ray source, and ultimately may explode as a Type Ia supernova within 10 Myr.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.