Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:57:51.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constraining massive star mass loss through supernova radio properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2024

Takashi Moriya*
Affiliation:
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan School of Physics and Astronomy, Faculty of Science, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Supernova properties in radio strongly depend on their circumstellar environment and they are an important probe to investigate the mass loss of supernova progenitors. Recently, core-collapse supernova observations in radio have been assembled and the rise time and peak luminosity distribution of core-collapse supernovae in radio has been obtained. In this talk, we will discuss the constraints on the mass-loss prescriptions of red supergiants obtained from the assembled radio properties of Type II supernovae. We take a couple of mass-loss prescriptions for red supergiants, calculate the rise time and peak luminosity distribution based on them, and compare the results with the observed distribution. We found that the widely spread radio rise time and peak luminosity distribution of Type II supernovae can only be explained by mass-loss prescriptions having strong dependence on the luminosity. Red supergiant mass-loss prescriptions should have steep luminosity dependence in the supernova progenitor range.

Type
Contributed Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Astronomical Union

References

Beasor, E.R., Davies, B., Smith, N., van Loon, J.Th., Gehrz, R.D., & Figer, D.F. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994 Google Scholar
Bietenholz, M.F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., Dua, R., Ryder, S., & Soderberg, A. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75 Google Scholar
Chevalier, R.A., Fransson, C. & Nymark, T.K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029 Google Scholar
Dwarkadas, V.V. 2005, ApJ, 630, 892 Google Scholar
de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K.A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259 Google Scholar
Förster, F., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriya, T.J. 2021, MNRAS (Letters), 503, L28 Google Scholar
Moriya, T.J. & Yoon, S.-C. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smartt, S.J. 2015, PASA, 32, 16 Google Scholar
van Loon, J.T., Cioni, M.R.L., Zijlstra, A.A., & Loup, C. 2005, A&A, 438, 273 Google Scholar
Weiler, K.W., Panagia, N., Montes, M.J., & Sramek, R.A. 2002, ARAA, 40, 387 Google Scholar
Yaron, O., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar