Paper detail

The delay time distribution of type Ia supernovae: a comparison between theory and observation

We investigate the contribution of different formation scenarios for type Ia supernovae in elliptical galaxies. The single degenerate scenario (a white dwarf accreting from a late main sequence or red giant companion) is tested against the double degenerate scenario (the spiral-in and merging of two white dwarfs through the emission of gravitational wave radiation). We use a population number synthesis code incorporating the latest physical results in binary evolution, and allowing to differentiate between certain physical scenarios (e.g. description of common envelope evolution) and evolutionary parameters (e.g. mass transfer efficiency during Roche lobe overflow). The obtained theoretical distributions of the delay times of type Ia supernovae are compared to those which are observed, both in morphological shape and absolute number of events. The critical dependency of these distributions on certain parameters is used to constrain the values of the latter. We find that the single degenerate scenario alone cannot explain the morphological shape of the observational delay time distribution, while the double degenerate scenario (or a combination of both) can. Most of these double degenerate type Ia supernovae are created through a normal quasi-conservative Roche lobe overflow followed by a common envelope phase, not through two successive common envelope phases. This may cast doubt on the use in other studies of analytical formalisms to determine delay times. In terms of absolute number, theoretical supernova Ia rates in old elliptical galaxies lie a factor of at least three below the observed ones. We propose a solution involving the effect of rotation on the evolution of intermediate mass binaries.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.