RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx : A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866
20
RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx: A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866 Shell ejected in 1866±5 V expansion for shell is 500-715 km/s M shell is 10 -4.5 M } Classic al Nova Eruptio n In 1866 1994 2007 M WD dominated by ejections of regular nova events, so is losing mass Short-P recurrent novae are not SN
description
1994 2007. RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx : A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866. Shell ejected in 1866±5 V expansion for shell is 500-715 km/s M shell is 10 -4.5 M . Classical Nova Eruption In 1866. }. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx : A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866
RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx:A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866
Shell ejected in 1866±5
Vexpansion for shell is 500-715 km/sMshell is 10-4.5 M
}ClassicalNova Eruption In 1866
1994
2007
MWD dominated by ejections of regular nova events, so is losing mass
Short-Porb recurrent novae are not SN progenitors
GET Mejecta FROM PERIOD CHANGE ACROSS ERUPTIONS
Mejecta = (MWD/A)*(P/P)
U SCO 2010 ERUPTION:LARGE PERIOD CHANGE
2452000-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020U SCO
Julian Date
O-C
(day
s) 2010
Eru
ptio
n
• P = (27.6 ± 1.4) x 10-6 days• Mejecta = (27.7 ± 1.4) x 10-6 M
• T = 10.9 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
T PYX 2011 ERUPTION:LARGE PERIOD CHANGE
• P = (4.0 ± 0.3) x 10-6 days• Mejecta = (58.8 ± 5.5) x 10-6 M
• T = 44.3 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
2454400 2454800 2455200 2455600 2456000 2456400-0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
T Pyx
Julian Date
O-C
(day
s)
Star
t of 2
011
Erup
tion
CI AQL 2000 ERUPTION:SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD CHANGE
• P = (1.5 ± 1.0) x 10-6 days• Mejecta = (2.9 ± 2.0) x 10-6 M
• T = 24 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x 10-6 M/yr
2448000 2449000 2450000 2451000 2452000 2453000 2454000 2455000 2456000-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
CI Aql
Julian Date
O-C
(day
s) 2000
Eru
ptio
n
RECURRENT NOVA WHITE DWARFS ARE EJECTING MORE MASS THAN THEY ARE ACCRETING
RNe Year Mejecta(10-
6M)MT(10-
6M)Mejecta/MT
U Sco 2010 27.7±1.4 1.1 25T Pyx 2011 58.8±5.5 4.4 13CI Aql 2000 2.9±2.0 2.4 1.2
RNe WDs losing massRNe will not become Type Ia
supernova
HALF OF THE RECURRENT NOVAE ARE NEON NOVAE
Half-or-more of RN will not become supernovae
A neon nova cannot have its WD gaining mass, because it is dredging up new material each eruption.
A neon nova must have an underlying ONeMg WD and cannot become a supernova, because it is not the required CO white dwarf.
NEON NOVAE
U Sco
RS Oph
YY Dor
Nova LMC 2009
FeII NOVAE
T CrB
V394 CrA
V3890 Sgr
IM Nor
Mason et al. 2012, A&A
RN SUMMARY SO FAR:T Pyx MS companion ✖WD is losing mass
IM Nor MS companion ✖CN eruption means WD is losing mass
V2487 Oph
Subgiant companion
U Sco Subgiant companion ✖ONeMg WD, WD losing mass
CI Aql Subgiant companion ✖WD is losing mass
V394 CrA Subgiant companion
T CrB Red Giant companion
RS Oph Red Giant companion ✖ONeMg WD
V745 Sco Red Giant companion
V3890 Sgr
Red Giant companion
THE COMPANION STAR CAN DISTINGUISH THE PROGENITOR
DoubleDegenerate
Recurrent Novae
Symbiotic Stars
HeliumStars
PersistentSupersoftSources
Pre-eruption companion to WD
WD Red Giant,Subgiant,MS
Red Giant Hi-Lum. star ‘core’
Subgiant,>1.2M MS
Post-eruption ex-companion
...none... Red Giant,Subgiant,MS
Red Giant Hi-Lum. star ‘core’
Subgiant,>1.2M MS
3-s error circle:Measurement Error
+Orbital Velocity
+Kicks
SNR 0509-67.5 FINAL 3-s ERROR CIRCLEIS EMPTY OF POINT SOURCES TO V=26.9
THE UTTER LACK OF ANY EX-COMPANION RULES OUT ALL MODELS
EXCEPT THE DOUBLE DEGENERATESchaefer & Pagnotta 2012, Nature
Limiting mag of V=26.9 MV=8.4 (K9 on main sequence)
✖ ✖✖ ✖DoubleDegenerate
Recurrent Novae
Symbiotic Stars
HeliumStars
PersistentSupersoftSources
Post-eruption ex-companion
...none... Red Giant,Subgiant,MS
Red Giant Hi-Lum. star ‘core’
Subgiant,>1.2M MS
TWO MORE LMC TYPE Ia SN REMNANTS HAVE NO RED GIANT or SUBGIANT EX-COMPANIONS
SNR 0505-67.9SNR 0519-69.0Edwards, Pagnotta, & Schaefer 2012,
ApJLett
SN1006 HAS NO RED GIANT EX-COMPANION
Gonzalez-Hernandez et al. 2012, Nature
Li et al. (2011) (arXiv)
SN 2011fe HAS NO RED GIANT COMPANIONLi et al. 2011, Nature
Lack of any counterpart on pre-eruption HST images proves the companion cannot be a luminous red giant or a luminous Helium star.
NO ‘KASEN EFFECT’ IN 235 SUPERNOVAE MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION
Kasen 2010, ApJ
Supernova Survey # supernova
# with Kasen effect
SDSSHayden et al. 2010,ApJ
108 0
SNLSBianco et al. 2011,ApJ
100 0
LOSSGaneshalingam et al. 2010,ApJ
61 0
NO EMISSION FROM EJECTA/WIND COLLISION MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION
Wavelength Instrument # supernova
# with emission
X-ray SwiftRussell & Immler 2012,ApJLett
53 0
Ultraviolet
SwiftBrown et al. 2012,ApJ
12 0
Radio VLAHancock et al. 2011,ApJ
46 0
Radio EVLAChomiuk et al. 2012,ApJ
1 (SN2011fe) 0
BUT:A few SNe (PTF11kx, SN2002ic, & SN2005gj) show variable narrow emission lines that are a clear hall mark of interaction with a circumstellar medium 0.1% - 1% of progenitors are Symbiotic Stars
SCORECARD FOR RED GIANT COMPANIONS:# Supernova Examined
# with Red Giants
SNR 0509-67.5 1 0
2 LMC SNRs 2 0
Tycho’s & SN1006 2 0
SN 2011fe 1 0
No Kasen Effect 269x10% 0
No Wind/Ejecta Collision
112 0
_____ ___145 0
RN SUMMARY:T Pyx MS companion ✖WD is losing mass
IM Nor MS companion ✖CN eruption means WD is losing mass
V2487 Oph
Subgiant companion ✖No subgiant companions
U Sco Subgiant companion ✖ONeMg WD, WD losing mass
CI Aql Subgiant companion ✖WD is losing mass
V394 CrA Subgiant companion ✖No subgiant companions
T CrB Red Giant companion ✖No red giant companions
RS Oph Red Giant companion ✖ONeMg WD
V745 Sco Red Giant companion ✖No red giant companions
V3890 Sgr
Red Giant companion ✖No red giant companions
GENERALIZING –IF ONE CLASS DOMINATEs:
DoubleDegenerate
Recurrent Novae
Symbiotic Stars
HeliumStars
PersistentSupersoftSources
First Progenitor Class ✓✖✖✖✖
No RedGiants
No RedGiants
SNR0509center is empty
Neon WDs,Mejecta too high
SNR0509center is empty
No Hi-Lstars
No Kasen effect
GENERALIZING –IF TWO CLASSES DOMINATE:
DoubleDegenerate
Recurrent Novae
Symbiotic Stars
HeliumStars
PersistentSupersoftSources
First Progenitor Class ✓✖✖✖✖SecondProgenitor Class ??? ✖✖✖✖ ?
No Kasen effect
Different from first class
No RedGiants
No RedGiants
SNR0509center is empty
No RedGiants
No RedGiants
Neon WDs,Mejecta too high
SNR0509center is empty
Neon WDs,Mejecta too high
No Hi-Lstars
No Hi-Lstars
No Kasen effect
CONCLUSIONS:
or
SUPERSOFT? DOUBLE DEGENERATESYMB
IOTIC
DOUBLE DEGENERATESYMB
IOTIC
Two RNe have Mejecta>>MT
Half of the RNe are neon nova
T Pyx had a classical nova eruption in 1866 and is fast exiting the RN phase
SNR0509-67.5 has an empty central region to MV= +8.4
Out of a sample of 145 SNe, 0 have red giant companions(with similar but weaker restrictions for subgiant companions)
