Paper detail

Delay time distribution of type Ia supernovae: theory vs. observation

Two formation scenarios are investigated for type Ia supernovae in elliptical galaxies: the single degenerate scenario (a white dwarf reaching the Chandrasekhar limit through accretion of matter transferred from its companion star in a binary) and the double degenerate scenario (the inspiraling and merging of two white dwarfs in a binary as a result of the emission of gravitational wave radiation). A population number synthesis code is used, which includes the latest physical results in binary evolution and allows to differentiate between certain physical scenarios (such as the description of common envelope evolution) and evolutionary parameters (such as the mass transfer efficiency during Roche lobe overflow). The thus obtained theoretical distributions of type Ia supernova delay times are compared to those that are observed, both in morphological shape and absolute number of events. The critical influence of certain parameters on these distributions is used to constrain their values. The single degenerate scenario alone is found to be unable in reproducing the morphological shape of the observational delay time distribution, while use of the double degenerate one (or a combination of both) does result in fair agreement. Most double degenerate type Ia supernovae are formed through a normal, quasi-conservative Roche lobe overflow followed by a common envelope phase, not through two successive common envelope phases as is often assumed. This may cast doubt on the determination of delay times by using analytical formalisms, as is sometimes done in other studies. The theoretical absolute number of events in old elliptical galaxies lies a factor of at least three below the rates that are observed. While this may simply be the result of observational uncertainties, a better treatment of the effects of rotation on stellar structure could mitigate the discrepancy.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.