Paper detail

High mass of the type IIP supernova 2004et inferred from hydrodynamic modeling

Previous studies of type IIP supernovae have inferred that progenitor masses recovered from hydrodynamic models are higher than 15 Msun. To verify the progenitor mass of this supernova category, we attempt a parameter determination of the well-observed luminous type IIP supernova 2004et. We model the bolometric light curve and the photospheric velocities of SN 2004et by means of hydrodynamic simulations in an extended parameter space. From hydrodynamic simulations and observational data, we infer a presupernova radius of 1500 Rsun, an ejecta mass of 24.5 Msun, an explosion energy of 2.3x10^{51} erg, and a radioactive Ni-56 mass of 0.068 Msun. The estimated progenitor mass on the main sequence is in the range of 25-29 Msun. In addition, we find clear signatures of the explosion asymmetry in the nebular spectra of SN 2004et. The measured progenitor mass of SN 2004et is significantly higher than the progenitor mass suggested by the pre-explosion images. We speculate that the mass inferred from hydrodynamic modeling is overestimated and crucial missing factors are multi-dimensional effects.

preprint2009arXivOpen 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.