Paper detail

On the maximum luminosities of normal stripped-envelope supernovae -- brighter than explosion models allow

Stripped-envelope supernovae (SE SNe) of Type Ib and Type Ic are thought to result from explosions of massive stars having lost their outer envelopes. The favoured explosion mechanism is by core-collapse, with the shock later revived by neutrino heating. However, there is an upper limit to the amount of radioactive Nickel-56 that such models can accomplish. Recent literature point to a tension between the maximum luminosity from such simulations and observations. We use a well characterized sample of SE SNe from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) Bright Transient Survey (BTS) to collect a sample of spectroscopically classified normal Type Ibc SNe for which we use the ZTF light curves to determine the maximum luminosity. We cull the sample further based on data quality, light-curve shape, distance and colors. The methodology of the sample construction from this BTS sample can be used for many other future investigations. In total we use 129 Type Ib or Type Ic BTS SNe with an initial rough luminosity distribution peaked at Mr = -17.61 +- 0.72, and where 36% are apparently brighter than the theoretically predicted maximum brightness of Mr = -17.8. When we further cull this sample to ensure that the SNe are normal Type Ibc with good LC data within the Hubble flow, the sample of 94 objects has Mr = -17.64 +- 0.54. A main uncertainty in absolute magnitude determinations for SNe is the host galaxy extinction correction, but the reddened objects only get more luminous after corrections. If we simply exclude objects with red, unusual or uncertain colors, we are left with 14 objects at M = -17.90 +- 0.73, whereof a handful are most certainly brighter than the suggested theoretical limit. The main result of this study is thus that normal SNe Ibc do indeed reach luminosities above $10^{42.6}$ erg/s, apparently in conflict with existing explosion models.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.