The circumstellar matter of supernova 2014J and the core-degenerate scenario

0.13 MB·English

by  Noam Soker

Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.000,000–000(0000) Printed15April2015 (MNLATEXstylefilev2.2)
The circumstellar matter of supernova 2014J and the
core-degenerate scenario
5 Noam Soker
1
DepartmentofPhysics,Technion–IsraelInstituteofTechnology,Haifa32000,Israel;
0
[email protected]
2

r
p
15April2015
A

4
1 ABSTRACT
Ishowthatthecircumstellarmatter(CSM)ofthetypeIasupernova2014Jistoomassiveand

] its momentum too large to be accounted for by any but the core-degenerate(CD) scenario
R
fortypeIa supernovae.Assumingthe absorbinggasisof CSM origin,the severalshellsre-
S sponsibleoftheabsorptionpotassiumlinesareaccountedforbyamasslossepisodefroma
. massive asymptotic giant branch star during a common envelopephase with a white dwarf
h
p companion.The time-varyingpotassium linescan be accountedfor byionizationof neutral
- potassium and the Na-from-dust absorption (NaDA) model. Before explosion some of the
o potassium resides in the gas phase and some in dust. Weakening in absorption strength is
r
t causedbypotassium-ionizingradiationofthesupernova,whilereleaseofatomicpotassium
s from dust increasesthe absorption.I concludethat if the absorbinggas originatedfrom the
a
progenitorofSN2014J,thena commonenvelopephasetookplaceabout15,000yearsago,
[
leadingtothemergingofthecorewiththewhitedwarfcompanion,i.e.,thecore-degenerate

2 scenario.Else,theabsorbingmaterialisofinterstellarmediumorigin.
v
9 Keywords: binaries:general supernovae:individual:SN2014J,supernovae:general,
2
7
7
0
. 1 INTRODUCTION crucial to refer to all five scenarios (or categories of scenarios)
1
whenconfrontingobservationswithSNIascenarios.Inthepresent
0
TypeIasupernovae(SNIa)arethermonuclearexplosionsofwhite study I examine some properties of the type Ia SN 2014J, con-
5
dwarfs (WDs) accompanied by a complete destruction of the centratingon themedium around it.I takeintoaccount limitson
1
: WD, or at least one of the two interacting WDs(e.g. Maozetal. thepre-explosionprogenitor(Kellyetal.2014;Nielsenetal.2014;
v 2014).Thereisasofyetnoconsensusonthescenariothatbrings Lundqvistetal.2015)anditsmassloss(Pe´rez-Torresetal.2014),
i
X a WD or two to explode. In recent years there have been several andthepropertiesoftheabsorptionpotassiumlines(Ritcheyetal.
different scenarios, that were classified into five categories by 2014),andtheirtime-variability(Grahametal.2015).
r
a Tsebrenko&Soker(2015a).Welistthembelowbytheiralphabet-
¿Fromradioobservations Pe´rez-Torresetal.(2014)limitthe
icalorder,andciteonlyalimitedfractionoftheliteratureoneach
mass loss rate from the progenitor of SN 2014J to < 7.0 ×
scenario. 10−10M⊙yr−1 for a wind speed of 100kms−1. This con-
(a)The core-degenerate (CD) scenario (e.g., Sparks&Stecher
tradicts many cases of the SD scenario, but not those with a
1974; Livio&Riess 2003; Kashi&Soker 2011; Soker 2011;
long delay to explosion (DiStefanoetal. 2011; Justham 2011).
Ilkov&Soker2012,2013;Sokeretal.2013).
Pe´rez-Torresetal. (2014) consider the DD scenario to be the al-
(b)The double degenerate (DD) scenario (e.g., Webbink
ternative to the SD scenario; without explanation they ignore the
1984; Iben&Tutukov 1984; vanKerkwijketal. 2010;
other three scenarios listed above, and the presence of dense
Lore´n-Aguilaretal.2010;Pakmoretal.2013;Aznar-Sigua´netal.
circum-stellar matter (CSM) in some cases of the DD scenario
2013).
(Molletal.2014;Raskinetal.2014;Levanonetal.2015).Asim-
(c)The double-detonation (DDet) mechanism (e.g.,
ilarbutweaker constraintisobtainedfromX-rayobservations by
Woosley&Weaver 1994; Livne&Arnett 1995; Shenetal.
Marguttietal.(2014),whoalsoconduct athoroughdiscussionof
2013.
possible scenarios, leaving some room for the SD scenario with
(d)The single degenerate (SD) scenario (e.g., Whelan&Iben
timedelaytoexplosion(DiStefanoetal.2011;Justham2011)and
1973;Nomoto1982;Han&Podsiadlowski2004).
fortheCDscenario.OneshouldnotethattheWWCscenarioalso
(e) The WD-WD collision (WWC) scenario (e.g., Raskinetal.
complieswiththeselimitsonthecloseCSM.Grahametal.(2015),
2009; Rosswogetal. 2009; Thompson 2011; Katz&Dong 2012;
ontheotherhand,attributethetime-varyingpotassiumlinesfrom
Kushniretal.2013).
SN2014JtoaCSM,andarguethattheirresultstentativelysupport
As there is no consensus on the SN Ia progenitor(s), it is aSDscenarioforSN2014J.
(cid:13)c 0000RAS
2 Noam Soker
In this study I reexamine the claims for a CSM around SN (CE)phaseoftheprogenitorbinarysytem.Theshellsareactually
2014J,andtrytoreconcilesuchaCSMwiththeCDscenario.Ido clumpynebulaexpandinginalinearrelationbetweendistanceand
notgetintothedisputewhethertheabsorbingmaterialisofCSM velocity.Namely,the−81kms−1 gasisatadistanceof81/144
(e.g.,Foleyetal.2014)orofinterstellarmedium(ISM)origin(e.g., times the distance of the −144kms−1 gas from the explosion.
Johanssonetal.2014),butratherdiscusstheconsequences ofthe Suchexpandingclumpynebulaewithalineardistance-velocityre-
case that the absorbing gas, or some of it, is of CSM origin. In lationand expansion velocitiesof uptofewhundreds kms−1 is
section2Iexaminethepotassiumlines,andinsection3Iestimate observedinsomeplanetary nebulae(PNe),e.g.,NGC6302 (e.g.,
themassoftheabsorbinggasbasedontheresultsofGrahametal. Meaburnetal. 2008; Szyszkaetal. 2011) and the pre-PN M1-92
(2015).Under theassumptionthattheabsorbingmaterial,orpart (IRAS19343+2926;Bujarrabaletal.1998).
of it, originated from the progenitor of SN 2014J I confront the Mysuggestionthattheabsorbinggasofthemostblue-shifted
differentscenarioswiththeCSMpropertiesinsection4. linesliesatthelargestdistancesfromtheexplosionisoppositeto
theclaimofGrahametal.(2015),butgivesalowerCSMmassthat
can be compatible with a CSM, as is shown in the next section.
TheproposedscenarioimpliesthatSN2014JisaSN-InsideaPN
2 POTASSIUMABSORPTIONLINES
(SNIP;Dickel&Jones1985;Tsebrenko&Soker2013,2015a,b).
The absorption potassium lines were studied by Ritcheyetal.
(2014) and Grahametal. (2015). In examining the higher-
resolutionspectrumpresentedbyGrahametal.(2015)intheirfig- 3 THEMASSOFTHEABSORBINGGAS
ure 3, one can notice time variations of absorption lines at three
I first consider the three potassium absorption lines where time-
velocities. At velocities of v = −144, −127kms−1, the most
variabilityisobserved(Grahametal.2015).Thecolumndensities
blueshiftedlinesinKI,theabsorptionlineswereweakeningwith
time,whileatthevelocityof−81kms−1 theabsorptionlinebe- oftheneutralpotassiumofthegasabsorbinginthe−144kms−1,
−127kms−1, and −81kms−1 lines are 0.50 × 1011cm−2,
camestrongerwithtime.Notimevariationwasfoundinanyofthe
4.0×1011cm−2,and1.1×1011cm−2,respectively(Ritcheyetal.
sodiumlines.
2014).Grahametal.(2015)findasomewhathighercolumndensity
The weakening of the potassium absorption lines can be at-
of0.80×1011 cm−2forthe−144kms−1shell.Usinghighercol-
tributed to the ionization of neutral atoms by the SN radiation.
umndensitieswillstrengthentheconclusionsreachedhere.
Grahametal. (2015) find that while K I shows time-variation,
no such variation is observed in any of the Na I line. For some Themassofashell,orapartialshell,ataradiusrs witham
atomicpotassiumcolumndensityofN(KI)andasolarcomposi-
NaIlinesthisinvariabilityisduetotheirsaturation.Grahametal.
tion(Asplundetal.2009)isgivenby
(2015)arguethatiftheabsorbingmaterialresidesat≈0.6−1.6×
1cr0e1a9secsmsufrbosmtantthiaellSyNw,itthhentimthee, pwohtailsesituhme sioodniiuzamtiosnufffrearcstioonnlyina- Ms =0.53(cid:18)10N11(cKmI)−2(cid:19)(cid:18)2rpsc(cid:19)2 βξM⊙, (1)
moderateincreaseinionizationfraction.Thiscanaccount forthe
weakening of the v = −144 and −127kms−1 K I absorption where4πβ isthesolidanglecovered bytheshell andξ−1 isthe
fractionofthepotassiumintheatomicphase. Bothβ < 1andξ
lines.
arelikelytobelessthanunity.
Theobservationthatonlythetwomostblue-shiftedlinesshow
thisbehaviorwasattributedbyGrahametal.(2015)totheseshells The scaling of rs = 2pc is the minimum radius allows by
Grahametal.(2015)intheirexplanationforthetimevariationof
being theclosest shellstohe SN.Theother shellsintheir expla-
nationhavebeensloweddownbytheISM.AsIshowinthenext thetwomost blue-shifted K I lines.For thevalues of rs = 2pc
and β/ξ = 1, the masses of the two shells are M(−144) =
section,thisexplanation isproblematic, astheimpliedtotalmass
intheshellsinsuchamassdistributionislargerthan8M⊙.Thisis 0.26M⊙ and M(−127) = 2.1M⊙. If the mass is spread over
a radial distance of ≈ 1pc, the duration of the mass loss pro-
morethanaprogenitorofSNIacansupply.
cess is ≈ 1pc/140kms−1 ≈ 7000yr. The mass loss rate is
Grahametal. (2015) do not study the strengthening of the
−81kms−1 KIabsorptionline.Thestrengtheningofabsorption ≈2M⊙/7000yr=3×10−4M⊙yr−1.Thisisaveryhighmass
lossrate,morethanisexpectedfromanymodelfortheSDscenario
linescanbeattributedtoeithertheoppositeprocessofrecombina-
wherealowmasstransferrateisrequiredfromagianttotheWD
tion,ortothereleaseofmoreneutralatomsfromdust.Theprocess
companion.Theexistenceofshellssuggeststhatthemasslossrate
bywhichtheSNIaradiationreleasessodiumfromdustresidingat
≈ 1pcfromtheSN,theNa-from-dustabsorption(NaDA)model wasoverashortertimescalethan7000yr,andmasslossratewas
highereven.
(Soker2014),issimilartotheprocessesbywhichsolarradiation
As mentioned in section 2, the existence of clumps with a
releasessodiumfromcometarydustwhencometsapproachadis-
velocity spread is observed in some PNe and pre-PNe, and in
tanceof. 1AUfromtheSun.TheNaDAmodel wassuggested
somecaseswithalinearvelocity-distancerelation.Inthesecases
toaccountfortime-varyingsodiumlinesinSNIa(forobservations
the mass ejection was a short event, most probably a CE phase,
ofNaIlinesinSNIasee,e.g.,Patatetal.2007;Simonetal.2009;
andpossiblyanintermediate-luminosityopticaltransients(ILOT)
Sternbergetal. 2011, 2014; Maguireetal. 2013). Dust in the so-
event(Kashi&Soker2011;Akashi&Soker2013).AbipolarPN
lar system is known to release potassium in addition to sodium,
isformedwithasolidanglecoverageofβ<1.
e.g., Fulleetal. (2013). I here suggest that the deepening of the
−81kms−1 absorptionlineinthespectrumofSN2014Jisare- To examine this CD scenario, I do the following exercise. I
taketheblue-shiftedshellslistedbyRitcheyetal.(2014)toorigi-
sultofpotassiumreleasefromdust,asintheNaDAmodel.
natefromtheprogenitorofSN2014J,andobey
ThevelocityofthelineisexplainedwithintheCDscenario,if
wthaeya.bSsoomrbeinogrgaallsoifstihnedeaebdsoarCbiSnMgcalonuddnso/sthaenllIsSwMe,rienetjheectfeodllobwyitnhge rs(i)=tejcvs(i)=1.53(cid:18)1.5×te1jc04yr(cid:19)(cid:18)100vksm(i)s−1(cid:19) pc,
progenitor withinaveryshorttimeperiod,thecommon envelope (2)
(cid:13)c 0000RAS,MNRAS000,000–000
Thecircumstellarmatterofsupernova2014Jand thecore-degeneratescenario 3
wherers(i)andvs(i)aretheradiusandthevelocityofshelli,and 4 DISCUSSIONANDSUMMARY
tejcisthetimesincetheshellswereejectedinashorteventbythe InthepresentstudyIdonotgetintothequestionwhetherthegas
progenitorofSN2014J.Equation(2)takesSN2014Jtobeinthe
responsible for thepotassium absorption linesisof CSMor ISM
restframeofM82.However,SN2014Jisintheapproachingsideof
origin.Thisquestionisnotsettledyet.Iconsidertheimplications
M82,anditislikelythattherelativeshellsvelocitiestoSN2014J
of the CSM case. Namely, where some, or all, of the absorbing
aresomewhatlower.Inthatcasetheabsorbinggaslikelihoodtobe
clouds/shellswereoriginatedfromtheprogenitorofSN2014J,as
ofISMoriginishigher.InthepresentstudyIexaminetheimplica-
arguedmostrecentlybyGrahametal.(2015).Butonemustkeepin
tionsoftheabsorbinggasbeingofCSMorigin,andtaketheshells
mindthatitisquitepossiblethatalltheabsorbinggasclouds/shells
distancesfromtheexplosionaccordingtoequation(2).
areISM.Inanycase,thediscussioninthissectionisrelevantfor
The outer shell has v = −144kms−1 with rs(−144) = futureobservationsofCSMaroundSNIa,asIconfronteachofthe
2.2(tejc/1.5×104yr)pc.AftersummingoveralltheshellsIfind fivescenarioslistedinsection1withthepropertiesoftheabsorbing
theCSMmassintheCDscenario(assumingallblue-shiftedshells
gasofSN2014JifitisofCSMorigin.
belongtotheCSM)tobe
4.1 Thecore-degenerate(CD)scenario
MCSM−Cd =5.4(cid:18)1.5×te1jc04yr(cid:19)βξ¯¯M⊙, (3) ISnNt2h0e1C4JDlasstceednaforiroatrheelatpivree-leyxsphloorstiotinmem,aastsmeojsetcfteiownheupnidsroeddesoinf
years,whichistheCEevolutiontime.Thedistancesoftheshells
fromtheexplosionismoreorlesstheirvelocitytimesthetimefrom
massejectiontoexplosion,asgiveninequation(2).
where β¯and ξ¯are average values for the solid angle covered by The merger of the core with the WD could have energize
theshellsandthefractionofpotassiumintheatomicstate;bothare the shells to the high velocities, up to 140kms−1, more than
expectedtobelessthatunity.Thetotalmassofthethreeshellsthat thetypicalvelocitiesofpost-CEnebulae,few×10kms−1.Taking
showtime-variabilitywiththesamescalingis2.2M⊙.Overall,the theshells radii used inprevious sections (based on Grahametal.
progenitorhadtoexpel≈2−6M⊙overarelativelyshorttimeof 2015),theageofthenebulais≈ 1.5×104yr.Theevolutionof
.104yr.Themasslossrateduringtheformationoftheshells,if coresofAGBstarswithmassesof& 0.6M⊙ israpidenoughthat
theyareindeedCSM,was≫ 10−4M⊙yr.Asinglestarofmass theirluminosityandtemperatureafter≈1.5×104yrofpost-AGB
< 8M⊙ isnotexpectedtohavesuchahighmasslossrate.ACE evolution are Lc ≈ 200 − 250L⊙ and Teff ≈ 105K, respec-
interactionseemsthemostnaturalexplanationforsuchamassloss tively, e.g., Bloecker (1995). This luminosity is below the upper
rate. limitontheluminosityoftheprogenitorofSN2014Jof≈103L⊙
Otherrelevantpointstotheproposedmassdistributionareas (Kellyetal.2014).
follows. Theejectionoftheentireenvelopeexplainsthelargemassof
(1)Ifallshellsresideoutside2pc,assuggestedbyGrahametal. theshells,≈2−6M⊙,foundinsection3.
(2015), then the mass with the above scaling is > 8M⊙. Larger By the post-CE time of 1.5 × 104yr the wind mass loss
thanwhataprogenitorofaSNIcansupply. rate from the central star is ≈ 10−10M⊙yr−1 and its velocity
(2)Johanssonetal.(2014)limitthedustmasswithin≈ 1017cm is thousands of kms−1 (Scho¨nberneretal. 2014). This gives a
from SN 2014J to be . 10−5M⊙. The inner shell in the very low density gas close to the explosion, r . 1018cm, that
structure discussed above is taken to be the one with a veloc- issafelycompatiblewiththelimitsetbyPe´rez-Torresetal.(2014)
ity of −19kms−1. Its distance from the center is rs(−19) = andMarguttietal.(2014)onthemasslossratefromtheprogenitor
9 × 1017(tejc/1.5 × 104yr)cm, and its mass is Ms(−19) = hundredsofyearbeforeexplosion.
0.004β/ξM⊙ under the assumptions employed here. The loca- Despitethehot-luminouscentralstar,mostofthematerialcan
tion and mass of the shell is compatible with the limit set by bestayneutral,asrequiredbytheobservedabsorption.Thehydro-
Johanssonetal. (2014).If themassdistributionemployed here is genionizingphotonrateperunitsolidanglefromapost-AGBstar
correct,thenwithinabouttwoyearsfromtheexplosion,sometime withaneffectivetemperatureofT =105Kis
eff
in2016,theinfraredradiationfromwarmingCSMdustmightstart
toincrease. n˙γ(105K)=1.7×1045 Lc s−1sr−1. (4)
(3)Nielsenetal.(2014)arguethatSN2014Jcomesfromayoung (cid:18)300L⊙(cid:19)
population. A mass transfer from the initially more massive pri-
Thehydrogenrecombinationrateofapartialshellcoveringasolid
marystar,M10 ≈5−8M⊙,tothesecondarycouldleaveamassive angle of 4πβ, for a gas temperature of 104K, and almost fully
secondaryonthemainsequence, M2 ≈ 7−8M⊙,thatexpelled ionizedis
suchalargemassduringtheCEphase(Ilkov&Soker2013),asin
tthheeCcaSsMeowfaPsTmFu1c1hkcxlo(sSeorkteortehteael.xp2l0o1d3in).g(Nstaort.e)thatinPTF11kx n˙rec−i =1.9×1045β−1(cid:18)0.3mMi⊙(cid:19)2
(5)
(s4h)owInttihmise-svtuadriyabIidliotyn,obtudtenaoltwthiethotthheerqsu.eIsttimonigohftbwehryetlhatreedestohetlhles × ri −3 ∆ri −1 s−1sr−1.
density of the shells, or some other properties. This might actu- (cid:16)1018cm(cid:17) (cid:18)0.1ri(cid:19)
ally be an argument for that the shells are ISM shells, and not whereri istheradius,∆i isthethickness,andmi isthemassof
CSMshells.However,thenonewillhavetoexplainwhymostof theionizedshell(orpartialshell).
theshellsshowblue-shiftedabsorption.Idonotethatevenifonly Comparingequations(4)and(5)showsthataninnershellof
thethreetime-variableshellsbelongtotheCSM,thediscussionto about 10% ofthetotalshellmass,i.e.,mi ≈ 0.2−0.6M⊙,can
comestillholds. shield the outer shells from the pre-explosion ionizing radiation.
(cid:13)c 0000RAS,MNRAS000,000–000
4 Noam Soker
Thiscanaccountfortheneutralpotassiumandsodiumphasethat percent of all SN Ia (e.g., Sokeretal. 2014; see section 2 in the
isrequiredfortheobservedabsorption. firstastro-phversionofthatpaper,arXiv:1309.0368v1).
ManganeseproductionisnotaccountedforintheWWCsce-
nario. Tamagawaetal. (2009) identified X-ray lines from man-
4.2 Thedouble-degenerate(DD)scenario ganese in the Tycho SNR. Seitenzahletal. (2013) further claim
ThemassiveshellsrequireaCEevolution.Theshellswereejected that at least 50% of all SN Ia come from near Chandrasekhar
< 2×104yrago,whichisthepost-CEperiod.Thisimpliesthat mass(MCh)WDs,asthedensityrequiredtosynthesizemanganese
(a) the core is still very hot during the WD-core merger, and (b) is ρ & 2 × 108gcm−1 (Seitenzahletal. 2013 and references
therein). The WWC scenario does not reach these densities, and
that for about athousand yearsthecoreisstilllarger thanacold
cannot account fortheproduction ofmanganese. Thesameprob-
WD,aradiusof&0.1R⊙ (Bloecker1995).Forgravitationalradi-
ationtobringthecore-WDsystemtomergewithin< 2×104yr lemholdsfortheDDetscenario.
Another problem seems to be the iron distribution in the
theorbitalseparationshouldbe. 0.1R⊙.Atthisseparationtidal
SN remnant (SNR). Dongetal. (2014) consider the presence of
interactionwiththelargercorewouldcausethemergerratherthan
doubly-peakedlineprofilesofcobaltandironasapossiblesmoking
gravitationalradiation.ForthesetworeasonstheCDscenarioisa
gun for theWWCscenario. Although Dongetal. (2014) account
moreappropriatedescriptionoftheevolutionthanaDDscenario.
forthedoubly-peaked lines,itseemsthattheirpredictedirondis-
tributionisincontradictionwithirondistributionoftworesolved
4.3 Thedouble-detonation(DDet)scenario SNRs.Yamaguchietal.(2012)presentthe2Dirondistributionin
theSNRofthepossibleSNIaG344.7-0.1,andFesenetal.(2015)
There are two issues here. (1) The time from the formation of a
present the iron and calcium 2D distributions in the SNR 1885
donor He-WDtothemasstransferphaseformtheHe-WDtothe
in the Andromeda galaxy. In both SNRs the iron distribution is
CO-WDintheDDetscenarioisverylong(Shenetal.2013),much
clumpy,anddoesnotshowtwoprominentdistributionsasexpected
longerthanthepost-CEevolutionofSN2014J. (2)Theexpected
fromtheWWCscenario.
CSMmassintheDDetscenarioisverylow,≪ 1M⊙ (Shenetal.
2013).ForthesetworeasontheDDetscenariocannotaccountfor
the potassium absorbing gas of SN 2014J if it is of CSM origin. 4.6 Summary
Lundqvistetal.(2015)putfurtherconstraintonanyheliumdonor
Undertheassumptionthatthegasresponsibleofthepotassiumab-
companiontoSN2014Jtobeatarelativelylargeseparation.
sorption lines in SN 2014J, either only time-variable lines or all
lines,isCSMformedbytheprogenitorofSN2014J,Ifoundinthis
4.4 Thesingle-degenerate(SD)scenario studythattheCDscenarioistheonlyscenariothatcanaccountfor
themassandmomentumoftheabsorbinggas.
IntheSDscenariothereisnostronginteractionbetweenthedonor
Thisdoesnotmeanthattheissueiscompletelysettled.There
starandtheWD.Themasslossrateisnotexpectedtobeashighas
areseveralopenquestionsintheCDscenariothatstillneedtobe
inferredinsection3,&3×10−4M⊙yr−1.Theradialmomentum workedout.SpecificallyforSN2014Jthetime-variabilityofthree
discharge of the shells is defined as the radial momentum of the
absorption linesand invariability of theother lines should be ex-
shellsdividedbytheejectiontime.Ifindthisvaluefortheshells,
plained.Moregenerally,theprocessesofthecore-WDmerger,the
ifofCSMorigin,tobep˙&1029gcms−2.Theradiationmomen-
evolutiontillignition,andtheignitionmustbeworkedout inthe
tum discharge is L∗/c = 1.3×1028(L∗/105L⊙)gcms−2. A CDscenario.
windfromasinglegiantstarofmass< 8M⊙ cannotexplainthe IftheabsorbingmaterialinSN2014JisindeedCSM,itadds
momentumintheabsorbingshells.
toPTF11kxinsupportingtheCDscenario.InPTF11kxtheCD
Anotherproblemisthetimespanbetweenmassejectionand
scenarioistheonlyoneamongthescenariosstudiedherethatcan
explosion.Sincethepresentluminosityofthecompanionislimited
accountforthemassandpropertiesoftheCSM(Sokeretal.2013).
to. 103L⊙ (Kellyetal.2014),anycompanionwithsuchamas- IncludingotherobservationalpropertiesofSNIathatwerelistedby
siveCSMmustbebrighterontheasymptoticgiantbranch(AGB).
Tsebrenko&Soker(2015a)intheirtable1,IfindtheCDscenario
ToexplainthemassiveCSM,thegiantdonorshouldhavelostmost
tobe thefavorableone for SNIa, possibly together withtheDD
ofitsenvelopewithin< 2×104yrpriortoexplosion.IntheSD
scenario. The automatic attribution of any CSM material around
scenariothereisnoexplanationwhyexplosionshouldoccurwithin
SNIatotheSDscenarioshouldbeabandon.TheCDscenariodoes
thistimescale.ThisisunliketheCDscenario,wherethetimescale
muchbetter.
isexplainedasapost-CEevolution.
ThisresearchwassupportedbytheAsherFundforSpaceRe-
searchattheTechnion.
4.5 TheWD-WDcollision(WWC)scenario
IntheWWCscenariothetwoprogenitorsofthetwoWDsshould
REFERENCES
have no interaction at all before the final collision. As explained
for the SD scenario above, a single AGB star cannot account for Akashi,M.,&Soker,N.2013,MNRAS,436,1961
themomentumandmasslossratethatformedtheshells,ifofCSM Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009,
origin. ARA&A,47,481
This adds to the several problems the WWC scenario en- Aznar-Sigua´n,G.,Garc´ıa-Berro,E.,Lore´n-Aguilar,P.,Jose´,J.,&
counters when compared with observations (Tsebrenko&Soker Isern,J.2013,MNRAS,434,2539
2015a), despite the one strong character that the ignition is easy Bloecker,T.1995,A&A,299,755
toachieveinthecollisionprocess.Themostseverproblemofthe Bujarrabal, V., Alcolea, J., Sahai, R., Zamorano, J., & Zijlstra,
WWCscenario isthat it cannot account for more than about one A.A.1998,A&A,331,361
(cid:13)c 0000RAS,MNRAS000,000–000
Thecircumstellarmatterofsupernova2014Jand thecore-degeneratescenario 5
Dickel,J.R.,&Jones,E.M.1985,ApJ,288,707 Seitenzahl,I.R.,Cescutti,G.,Ro¨pke,F.K.,Ruiter,A.J.,&Pak-
DiStefano,R.,Voss,R.,&Claeys,J.S.W.2011,ApJLett.,738, mor,R.2013,A&A,559,L5
LL1 Shen, K.J.,Guillochon, J.,&Foley,R.J.2013, ApJLett.,770,
Dong, S., Katz, B., Kushnir, D., & Prieto, J. L. 2014, L35
arXiv:1401.3347 Simon,J.D.,Gal-Yam,A.,Gnat,O.,etal.2009,ApJ,702,1157
Fesen, R. A., Hoeflich, P., & Hamilton, A. J. S. 2015, Soker,N.2011,arXiv:1109.4652
arXiv:1412.3815 Soker,N.2014,MNRAS,444,L73
Foley,R.J.,Fox,O.D.,McCully,C.,etal.2014,MNRAS,443, Soker,N.,Garc´ıa-Berro,E.,&Althaus,L.G.2014,MNRAS,437,
2887 L66
Fulle,M.,Molaro,P.,Buzzi,L.,&Valisa,P.2013,ApJLett.,771, Soker,N.,Kashi,A.,Garc´ıa-BerroE.,Torres,S.,&Camacho,J.
LL21 2013,MNRAS,431,1541
Graham, M. L., Valenti, S., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2015, Sparks,W.M.,&Stecher,T.P.1974,ApJ,188,149
arXiv:1412.0653 Sternberg, A., Gal-Yam, A., Simon, J. D., et al. 2011, Science,
Han,Z.,&Podsiadlowski,P.2004,MNRAS,350,1301 333,856
Iben,I.,Jr.,&Tutukov,A.V.1984,ApJSuppl.Ser.,54,335 Sternberg,A.,GalYam,A.,Simon, J.D.,et al.2014, MNRAS,
Ilkov,M.,&Soker,N.2012,MNRAS,419,1695 443,1849
Ilkov,M.,&Soker,N.2013,MNRAS,428,579 Szyszka,C.,Zijlstra,A.A.,&Walsh,J.R.2011,MNRAS,416,
Johansson, J., Goobar, A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2014, 715
arXiv:1411.3332 Tamagawa,T.,Hayato, A.,Nakamura,S.,etal.2009, PASJ,61,
Justham,S.2011,ApJLett.,730,LL34 167
Kashi,A.,&Soker,N.2011,MNRAS,417,1466 Thompson,T.A.2011,ApJ,741,82
Katz,B.,&Dong,S.2012,arXiv:1211.4584 Tsebrenko,D.,&Soker,N.2013,MNRAS,435,320
Kelly,P.L.,Fox,O.D.,Filippenko,A.V.,etal.2014,ApJ,790,3 Tsebrenko,D.,&Soker,N.2015a,MNRAS,447,2568
Kushnir,D.,Katz,B.,Dong,S.,Livne,E.,&Ferna´ndez,R.2013, Tsebrenko,D.,&Soker,N.2015b,arXiv:1407.6231
ApJLett.,778,L37 vanKerkwijk,M.H.,Chang, P.,&Justham,S.2010,ApJLett.,
Lundqvist, P., Nyholm, A., Taddia, F., et al. 2015, 722,L157
arXiv:1502.00589 Webbink,R.F.1984,ApJ,277,355
Levanon,N.,Soker,N.,&Garc´ıa-Berro,E.2015,MNRAS,447, Whelan,J.,&Iben,I.,Jr.1973,ApJ,186,1007
2803 Woosley,S.E.,&Weaver,T.A.1994,ApJ,423,371
Livio,M.,&Riess,A.G.2003,ApJLett.,594,L93 Yamaguchi,H.,Tanaka, M.,Maeda, K.,Slane,P.O.,Foster,A.,
Livne,E.,&Arnett,D.1995,ApJ,452,62 Smith,R.K.,Katsuda,S.,&Yoshii,R.2012,ApJ,749,137
Lore´n-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & Garc´ıa-Berro, E. 2010, MNRAS,
406,2749
Maguire, K., Sullivan, M., Patat, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436,
222
Maoz,D.,Mannucci,F.,&Nelemans,G.2014,arXiv:1312.0628
Margutti,R.,Parrent,J.,Kamble,A.,Soderberg,A.M.,Foley,R.
J., Milisavljevic, D., Drout, M. R., & Kirshner, R. 2014, ApJ,
790,52
Meaburn, J.,Lloyd, M.,Vaytet,N.M.H.,&Lo´pez, J.A.2008,
MNRAS,385,269
Moll,R.,Raskin,C.,Kasen,D.,&Woosley,S.E.2014,ApJ,785,
105
Nielsen, M. T. B., Gilfanov, M., Bogda´n, A´., Woods, T. E., &
Nelemans,G.2014,MNRAS,442,3400
Nomoto,K.1982,ApJ,253,798
Pakmor,R.,Kromer,M.,Taubenberger,S.,&Springel,V.2013,
ApJLett.,770,L8
Patat,F.,Chandra,P.,Chevalier,R.,etal.2007,Science,317,924
Pe´rez-Torres, M. A., Lundqvist, P., Beswick, R. J., et al. 2014,
ApJ,792,38
Raskin,C.,Kasen,D.,Moll,R.,Schwab,J.,&Woosley,S.2014,
ApJ,788,75
Raskin,C.,Timmes,F.X.,Scannapieco,E.,Diehl,S.,&Fryer,C.
2009,MNRAS,399,L156
Ritchey, A. M., Welty, D. E., Dahlstrom, J. A., & York, D. G.
2014,arXiv:1407.5723
Rosswog,S.,Kasen,D.,Guillochon,J.,&Ramirez-Ruiz,E.2009,
ApJLett.,705,L128
Scho¨nberner, D.,Jacob, R.,Lehmann,H.,Hildebrandt,G.,Stef-
fen, M., Zwanzig, A., Sandin, C., & Corradi, R. L. M. 2014,
AstronomischeNachrichten,335,378
(cid:13)c 0000RAS,MNRAS000,000–000