Paper detail

Spectral modelling of the "Super-Chandra" Type Ia SN 2009dc - testing a 2 M_sun white dwarf explosion model and alternatives

Extremely luminous, super-Chandrasekhar (SC) Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) are as yet an unexplained phenomenon. We analyse a well-observed SN of this class, SN 2009dc, by modelling its photospheric spectra with a spectral synthesis code, using the technique of 'Abundance Tomography'. We present spectral models based on different density profiles, corresponding to different explosion scenarios, and discuss their consistency. First, we use a density structure of a simulated explosion of a 2 M_sun rotating C-O white dwarf (WD), which is often proposed as a possibility to explain SC SNe Ia. Then, we test a density profile empirically inferred from the evolution of line velocities (blueshifts). This model may be interpreted as a core-collapse SN with an ejecta mass ~ 3 M_sun. Finally, we calculate spectra assuming an interaction scenario. In such a scenario, SN 2009dc would be a standard WD explosion with a normal intrinsic luminosity, and this luminosity would be augmented by interaction of the ejecta with a H-/He-poor circumstellar medium. We find that no model tested easily explains SN 2009dc. With the 2 M_sun WD model, our abundance analysis predicts small amounts of burning products in the intermediate-/high-velocity ejecta (v > 9000 km/s). However, in the original explosion simulations, where the nuclear energy release per unit mass is large, burned material is present at high v. This contradiction can only be resolved if asymmetries strongly affect the radiative transfer or if C-O WDs with masses significantly above 2 M_sun exist. In a core-collapse scenario, low velocities of Fe-group elements are expected, but the abundance stratification in SN 2009dc seems 'SN Ia-like'. The interaction-based model looks promising, and we have some speculations on possible progenitor configurations. However, radiation-hydro simulations will be needed to judge whether this scenario is realistic at all.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.