Paper detail

Radio emission from a decade old Type I superluminous supernova, PTF10hgi: Comparison with FRB121102

We perform a comparative study between the only radio detected Type I superluminous supernova (SLSN) PTF10hgi, and the most active repeating fast radio burst FRB121102. This study has its root in the hypothesized FRB-SLSN connection that states that magnetars born in SLSN can power FRBs. The wideband spectrum (0.6--15 GHz) of PTF10hgi presented here, provides strong evidence for the magnetar wind nebular origin of the radio emission. The same spectrum also enables us to make robust estimates of the radius and the magnetic field of the radio emitting region and demonstrates that the nebula is powered by the rotational energy of the magnetar. This spectrum is then compared with that of FRB121102 which we extend down to 400 MHz using archival data. The newly added measurements put very tight constraint on the emission models of the compact persistent source associated with FRB121102. We find that while both sources can be powered by the rotational energy of the underlying magnetar, the average energy injection rate is much higher in FRB121102. Hence, we hypothesise that, if PTF10hgi is indeed emitting fast radio bursts, those will be much weaker energetically than those from FRB121102.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.