Paper detail

Determining the $^{56}$Ni distribution of type Ia supernovae from observations within days of explosion

Recent studies have shown how the distribution of $^{56}$Ni within the ejecta of type Ia supernovae can have profound consequences on the observed light curves. Observations at early times can therefore provide important details on the explosion physics in thermonuclear supernovae. We present a series of radiative transfer calculations that explore variations in the $^{56}$Ni distribution. Our models also show the importance of the density profile in shaping the light curve, which is often neglected in the literature. Using our model set, we investigate the observations that are necessary to determine the $^{56}$Ni distribution as robustly as possible within the current model set. We find that this includes observations beginning at least $\sim$14 days before $B$-band maximum, extending to approximately maximum light with a high ($\lesssim$3 day) cadence, and in at least one blue and one red band are required (such as $B$ and $R$, or $g$ and $r$). We compare a number of well-observed type Ia supernovae that meet these criteria to our models and find that the light curves of $\sim$70-80\% of objects in our sample are consistent with being produced solely by variations in the $^{56}$Ni distributions. The remaining supernovae show an excess of flux at early times, indicating missing physics that is not accounted for within our model set, such as an interaction or the presence of short-lived radioactive isotopes. Comparing our model light curves and spectra to observations and delayed detonation models demonstrates that while a somewhat extended $^{56}$Ni distribution is necessary to reproduce the observed light curve shape, this does not negatively affect the spectra at maximum light. Investigating current explosion models shows that observations typically require a shallower decrease in the $^{56}$Ni mass towards the outer ejecta than is produced for models of a given $^{56}$Ni mass.

preprint2019arXivOpen 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.