Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T15:11:43.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Core-Degenerate Scenario for Type Ia Supernovae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2013

Noam Soker*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel email: soker@physics.technion.ac.il
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.

In the core-degenerate (CD) scenario for the formation of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) the Chandrasekhar or super-Chandrasekhar mass white dwarf (WD) is formed at the termination of the common envelope phase or during the planetary nebula phase, from a merger of a WD companion with the hot core of a massive asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star. The WD is destroyed and accreted onto the more massive core. In the CD scenario the rapidly rotating WD is formed shortly after the stellar formation episode, and the delay from stellar formation to explosion is basically determined by the spin-down time of the rapidly rotating merger remnant. The spin-down is due to the magneto-dipole radiation torque. Several properties of the CD scenario make it attractive compared with the double-degenerate (DD) scenario. (1) Off-center ignition of carbon during the merger process is not likely to occur. (2) No large envelope is formed. Hence avoiding too much mass loss that might bring the merger remnant below the critical mass. (3) This model explains the finding that more luminous SNe Ia occur preferentially in star forming galaxies.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 299, 755Google Scholar
Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 737, 89Google Scholar
Howell, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 554, L193Google Scholar
Howell, D. A. 2011, Nature Communications, accepted, arXiv:1011.0441Google Scholar
Ilkov, M. & Soker, N. 2011, arXiv:1106.2027Google Scholar
Kashi, A. & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 1344Google Scholar
Livio, M. 2001, Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts: the Greatest Explosions since the Big Bang, eds. Livio, Mario, Panagia, Nino, Sahu, Kailash. Space Telescope Science Institute symposium series, Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge, UK) 334Google Scholar
Livio, M. & Riess, A. G. 2003, ApJ, 594, L93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, D. 2010, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1314, 223Google Scholar
Saio, H. & Nomoto, K. 2004, ApJ, 615, 444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, K. J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2011, arXiv:1108.4036Google Scholar
Smith, M., Nichol, R. C, Dilday, B., et al. 2011, arXiv:1108.4923Google Scholar
Sparks, W. M. & Stecher, T. P. 1974, ApJ, 188, 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tout, C. A., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Liebert, J., Ferrario, L., & Pringle, J. E. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willson, L. A. 2007, Why Galaxies Care About AGB Stars: Their Importance as Actors and Probes, 378, 211Google Scholar
Yoon, S.-C. & Langer, N. 2004, A&A, 419, 623Google Scholar
Yoon, S.-C. & Langer, N. 2005, A&A, 435, 967Google Scholar
Yoon, S.-C., Podsiadlowski, P., & Rosswog, S. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 933CrossRefGoogle Scholar