Paper detail

Radio evolution of a Type IIb supernova SN 2016gkg

We present extensive radio monitoring of a type IIb supernova (SN IIb), SN 2016gkg during $t \sim$ 8$-$1429 days post explosion at frequencies $ν\sim$ 0.33$-$25 GHz. The detailed radio light curves and spectra are broadly consistent with self-absorbed synchrotron emission due to the interaction of the SN shock with the circumstellar medium. The model underpredicts the flux densities at $t \sim$ 299 days post-explosion by a factor of 2, possibly indicating a density enhancement in the CSM due to a non-uniform mass-loss from the progenitor. Assuming a wind velocity $v_{\rm w} \sim$ 200 km s$^{-1}$, we estimate the mass-loss rate to be $\dot{M} \sim$ (2.2, 3.6, 3.8, 12.6, 3.7, and 5.0) $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ during $\sim$ 8, 15, 25, 48, 87, and 115 years, respectively before the explosion. The shock wave from SN 2016gkg is expanding from $R \sim$ 0.5 $\times$ 10$^{16}$ to 7 $\times$ 10$^{16}$ cm during $t \sim$ 24$-$492 days post-explosion indicating a shock deceleration index, $m$ $\sim$ 0.8 ($R \propto t^m$), and mean shock velocity $v \sim$ 0.1c. The radio data being inconsistent with free-free absorption model and higher shock velocities are in support of a relatively compact progenitor for SN 2016gkg.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.