Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:47:37.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Local Environments of Core-Collapse SNe within Host Galaxies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Joseph P Anderson
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile
Stacey M Habergham
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD email: anderson@das.uchile.cl
Phil A James
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD email: anderson@das.uchile.cl
M Hamuy
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile
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.

We present constraints on core-collapse supernova progenitors through observations of their environments within host galaxies. This is achieved through 2 routes. Firstly, we investigate the spatial correlation of supernovae with host galaxy star formation using pixel statistics. We find that the main supernova types form a sequence of increasing association to star formation. The most logical interpretation is that this implies an increasing progenitor mass sequence going from the supernova type Ia arising from the lowest mass, through the type II, type Ib, and the supernova type Ic arising from the highest mass progenitors. We find the surprising result that the supernova type IIn show a lower association to star formation than type IIPs, implying lower mass progenitors. Secondly, we use host HII region spectroscopy to investigate differences in environment metallicity between different core-collapse types. We find that supernovae of types Ibc arise in slightly higher metallicity environments than type II events. However, this difference is not significant, implying that progenitor metallicity does not play a dominant role in deciding supernova type.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Anderson, J. P. & James, P. A., 2008 MNRAS, 390, 1527Google Scholar
Anderson, J. P. et al. , 2010 MNRAS, 407, 2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissier, S. & Prantzos, N., 2009, A&A, 503, 137Google Scholar
James, P. A. & Anderson, J. P., 2006 A&A, 453, 57Google Scholar
Kelly, P. L. & Kirshner, R. P., 2011 arXiv, 1110.1377Google Scholar
Leloudas, G., et al. , 2010 A&A, 518, 29Google Scholar
Leloudas, G., et al. , 2011 A&A, 530, 95Google Scholar
Modjaz, M., et al. 2011 ApJ, 731, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J., 2004 MNRAS, 348, 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z., & Beacom, J. F. 2008, ApJ, 673, 999Google Scholar
Smartt, S. J., 2009, ARAA, 47, 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar