Paper detail

Reconciling 56Ni Production in Type Ia Supernovae with Double Degenerate Scenarios

Binary white dwarf (WD) coalescences driven by gravitational waves or collisions in triple systems are potential progenitors of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). We combine the distribution of 56Ni inferred from observations of SNe Ia with the results of both sub-Chandrasekhar detonation models and direct collision calculations to estimate what mass WDs should be exploding in each scenario to reproduce the observations. These WD mass distributions are then compared with the observed Galactic WD mass distribution and Monte Carlo simulations of WD-WD binary populations. For collisions, we find that the average mass of the individual components of the WD-WD binary must be peaked at ~0.75Msun, significantly higher than the average WD mass in binaries or in the field of ~0.55-0.60Msun. Thus, if collisions produce a large fraction of SNe Ia, then a mechanism must exist that favors large mass WDs. On the other hand, in an old stellar population, collisions would naturally result in a class of low luminosity SNe Ia, and we suggest these may be related to 1991bg-like events. For sub-Chandrasekhar detonations, we find that the average mass of the exploding WDs must be peaked at ~1.1Msun. This is interestingly similar to the average sum of the masses in WD-WD binaries, but it is not clear (and should be further explored) whether double degenerate mergers would be sufficiently efficient at synthesizing 56Ni to match the observed yields. If not, then actual ~1.1Msun WDs would be needed for sub-Chandrasekhar detonations. Since such high mass WDs are produced relatively quickly in comparison to the age of the environments where SNe Ia are found, this would require either accretion onto lower mass WDs prior to ignition or a long timescale between formation of the ~1.1Msun WD and ignition (such as set by gravitational wave emission or binary interactions).

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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.